1995.01.11 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Why do breaking waves glow?
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why do breaking waves glow?
Date: 11 Jan 1995 21:03:43 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <3f1dv5$q4b@deadmin.ucsd.edu>, barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry
Merriman) wrote:

> Now that I live on the beach in San Diego :-), I've been
> observing the ocean more carefully. Last night, I noticed that 
> the largest waves (but not smaller ones) appear to glow bright 
> blue when they break, even when the moon is covered by clouds, and
> the only significant ambient light is from low pressure sodium street
> lamps (so its yellow light, not white---i.e. no blue content).
> 
> Possible explanations would be
> 
> (1) sonoluminesence, from cavitation during the break
>     ---I favor this one
> 
> (2) luminescent bacteria/plankton that emit light when strained
>     ---these do exist
> 
> (3) scattering of ambient blue light
>     ---possible, but the moon was covered, the local street lights
>     are sodium yellow, and there are few houses in the local cove area.
>     Also, it was often too dark to see the break itself, but
>     the blue light was very visible.
> 
> (4) CF :-)
>     ---all I need to do is enclose the cove in a calorimeter....:-)
> 
> Anyway, this is a pretty obvious effet on a dark night, so the
> phenomena is probably known...if not, I guess I'll just don a wet
> suit an wade out 20 yards to where the action is.
> 

Hi Barry:

I am familiar with suggestion (2), although the effect was a dull green
glow on a moonless night, not a bright blue glow.  I might suggest that on
some dark night you go down to where the sand is damp (but not water
covered), and stroke the sand with the palm of your hand.  The
microbeasties should glow from this stimulus.  If this color is similar to
the breaking wave glow, I suspect you'd have your answer.  If not, I'd
favor (3) before jumping to (1) or (4).

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.11 /   /  Mc Kinney could be a COP
     
Originally-From: parky25@aol.com (Parky25)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mc Kinney could be a COP
Date: 11 Jan 1995 17:02:35 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Caution this guy has a rather funny way of asking for info. Cution he is
probably a FED.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenparky25 cudln cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.11 /   /  Re: World-Wide Acceptance of Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: parky25@aol.com (Parky25)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: World-Wide Acceptance of Cold Fusion
Date: 11 Jan 1995 17:13:36 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

>>Scott, did you know that you can _buy_ a commercially
>>available cold fusion research cell?
>>
>>They have been advertised for sale for more than nine
>>months in "Cold Fusion" magazine by
>>
>>E-quest Sciences
>>PO Box 60642
><snip>
>
>Interesting.  Would they happen to come with a "money back if not
>completely satisfied" guarantee?
>
>Dick Jackson

Even more interseting is to buy one and watch it work! And since it works
why do they need to give a money back guarantee.

disclaimer: I do not work for nor represent E quest. I doubt they would
set themselves up for fraud in the device that they advertise and sell.

CP
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenparky25 cudln cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.11 /   /  Test, Kill this one
     
Originally-From: parky25@aol.com (Parky25)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Test, Kill this one
Date: 11 Jan 1995 17:23:43 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Porky pig once had a girlfriend
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenparky25 cudln cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.11 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  New Quantum Theory
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: New Quantum Theory
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 16:53 -0500 (EST)

federico@onr.com (federico) writes:
 
-> Numbers quantifying the fundamental cosmic constant are quantized and
-> interrelated by quantum number-base 10.  These quantum numbers are exact
-> and may be extended to c-4 (10-42) digits.  For example, quantum h may be
-> exactly quantified in terms of quantum number c.  This is permitted by the f
-> that c2h2 = 10 and that c2 exactly equals 8.98755 17945 09739 00000 --- x
-> 10-20c m2/s2. The location of the decimal point must be hand inserted to fit
-> man-made dimensions.
 
Am I missing something here?  I assume by c2h2 we mean c^2*h^2, and I assume by
"h" we mean Planck's constant.  C is apparently the speed of light, as I would
assume since the 8.98755 checks out.  Now Planck's constant is approximately
6.625E-27 erg sec.  If we square that and multiply by c^2 we get a mantissa of
3.9446, which is nowhere near 10 no matter where you put the decimal point.
The units don't seem to make any sense either, (erg sec)^2 * (M/sec)^2 =
(g^2cm^4/sec^2) * (M^2/Sec^2) = g^2cm^6/sec^4 * 10000.
 
I must be doing something wrong to be so far off, but can't seem to find it.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.11 / Richard Schultz /  Re: BOMB REPORT
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: BOMB REPORT
Date: 11 Jan 1995 23:27:05 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <S1126161.2.2F1351A4@cedarville.edu>,
Robert Mc Kinney  <S1126161@cedarville.edu> wrote:
# I AM DOING A REPORT ON ON HOW EASY IT IS TO MAKE A BOMB AND I AM WONDERING 
# IF YOU COULD GIVE ME SOME INFORMATION ON HOW TO PRODUCE ONE AND THE 
# SIMPLICITIES OF IT. IF YOU NEED ANY SPECIAL EQUIPMENT TO DO IT. ANY
# INFORMATION  WOULD BE APPRECIATED.  THANKS 

First, you hire Sylvester Stallone. . .
--
					Richard Schultz

"How many boards would the Mongols hoard if the Mongol hordes got bored?"
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.11 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Does it really matter who believes what?
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does it really matter who believes what?
Date: 11 Jan 1995 23:30:41 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <3f16cp$k13@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
Chris Parkinson <parky@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>How long did it take the Wright bros. to convince the world that flight 
>was possible. The Defense Department took 5 years. Even the NY Times 
>still disbelieved them even after an airplane flew passed a train 
>carrying a bunch of Times reporters. 

Do you have a citation for ither of these claims?  I would be interested
in reading the primary sources, which should be amusing if nothing else.
--
					Richard Schultz

"How many boards would the Mongols hoard if the Mongol hordes got bored?"
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.11 / Mark Fernee /  Re: BOMB REPORT
     
Originally-From: fernee@physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: BOMB REPORT
Date: 11 Jan 1995 23:58:53 GMT
Organization: University of Queensland

Robert Mc Kinney (S1126161@cedarville.edu) wrote:
: I AM DOING A REPORT ON ON HOW EASY IT IS TO MAKE A BOMB AND I AM WONDERING 
: IF YOU COULD GIVE ME SOME INFORMATION ON HOW TO PRODUCE ONE AND THE 
: SIMPLICITIES OF IT. IF YOU NEED ANY SPECIAL EQUIPMENT TO DO IT. ANY
: INFORMATION  WOULD BE APPRECIATED.  THANKS 
: ROBERT MCKINNEY

I'm afraid that sort of information doesn't come free of charge. First you
have to buy Dr Bobs All Purpose Bomb Making Starter Kit (tm) and then just
a trip to the local supermarket. So for a meagre investment you could find
yourself equipped for any bomb making venture which takes your fancy.

Dr Bobs APBMSK ......... US$3000 (plus 30% GST)

BTW: This is not the right group for such a post!
As such I apologise for my indulgence on this point. Back to lurking.

Mark.

PS: I think it is deplorable that all the CF researchers have abandoned
this group, leaving Jed as the lone crusader for the cause. I sympathise
with Jed (who is obvioously no scientist) who has willingly bared himself
to the scorn and derision of a large group of open minded, healthy skeptics.
If proof by blatant assertion were part of tools of accepted scientific 
method, then Jed would no doubt be a stalwart in the field.


cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenfernee cudfnMark cudlnFernee cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.12 / Mark Fernee /  Re: I Am a Cheap Date!
     
Originally-From: fernee@physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I Am a Cheap Date!
Date: 12 Jan 1995 00:05:34 GMT
Organization: University of Queensland

Akira Kawasaki (aki@ix.netcom.com) wrote:

: Go cheaper yet! Just find buy a copy of the second issue of Cold Fusion 
: magazine (June, 1994) $10.00. It covers the Hydrosonic Pump. Written by 
: Dr. Eugene Mallove and Mr. Jed Rothwell.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Oh dear, how many crackpots have PhD's I wonder? Maybe it was a University
of Yambuck degree in Agricultural Heraldry? Just sheer idyll speculation on
my part. :)

Mark.



cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenfernee cudfnMark cudlnFernee cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.12 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Koloc's plasmak photos available via www
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Koloc's plasmak photos available via www
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 01:48:39 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3esgnj$bos@stratus.skypoint.net> jlogajan@skypoint.com writes:
>Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP) wrote:
>: BTW, John, Please put the following copyright on those gifs
>
>Done.  Also, are the three photos of the same PMK entity?  If so, what is
>the time-span between snapshots?  Estimated storage energy?  Estimated
>radiant energy? 

Understand that we have been thrashing around obtaining support, and
most of this and the supported will be closely held.  

But! hopefully if my parity error ridden machine (parts on back order) 
cooperates, all of this information or lack of it will be included 
in the Proceedings.  I'm already weeks late.. Holidays, a couple 
remote deaths of close relatives, have all played their part in 
slowing down the a corrected submission; but I'm working on it 
at least half time right now.    

Sometimes things happen that recall the a latter day Prometheus 
with the daily visiting liver pecking raven.  Fortunately, it seems 
there are a number of Hercules out there to handle the obstacles 
to bringing this technology on line, and they are beginning to 
show up.  We shall soon know if they will lead follow or just 
step out of the way.  

It will be most appreciated WHEN the a substantial and indexed
CG tax reductions is passed.  Then of all else fails, chaps like 
will find if our ideas can raise the funds or we have to go suck 
on lemons.  

>--
> - 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 -
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.12 /  DaveHatunen /  Re: MRA update 10, free energy device !
     
Originally-From: hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen)
Newsgroups: alt.energy.renewable,alt.paranet.science,alt.sci.physics.new
theories,cl.energie.alternativen,sci.energy,sci.environment,sci.physics,
ci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MRA update 10, free energy device !
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 04:58:33 GMT
Organization: As little as you're likely to find anywhere

In article <3f0s4e$f0@eldborg.rhi.hi.is>,
Kristjan Valur Jonsson <kvj@rhi.hi.is> wrote:

[...]

>Yes, it gives the current in a serial cirquit, via one of Kirchoff's laws.
>Multiply with input rms voltage and you have worst case results,
>(i.e. the max input power <= input VAR)
>which if good enough, is good enough.

Actually, it may not be good enough. The circuit is sophisticated
enough to require a proper analysis, beginning with the general form of
Kirchoff's laws:

  R i(t) + L di(t)/dt = V e^jwt

Using simplified rms calculations could be quite misleading.

-- 


    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *                Daly City California:                *
    *       where San Francisco meets The Peninsula       *
    *       and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea       *
    *******************************************************

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenhatunen cudlnDaveHatunen cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.12 / arthur blair /  Did TPX get hit?
     
Originally-From: blair@mksol.dseg.ti.com (arthur blair)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Did TPX get hit?
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 03:58:08 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

I've been out of touch for a month. Did TPX get hit by the
budget cuts? What else in the fusion field was/will be affected?
Art.

--
"Television is chewing gum for the eyes" - Frank Lloyd Wright
Dont forget to vote in news.announce.newgroups !
My views dont express those of my employer, etc., etc.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenblair cudfnarthur cudlnblair cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.12 / John Nagle /  Re: BOMB REPORT
     
Originally-From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: BOMB REPORT
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 04:18:54 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)


In article <S1126161.2.2F1351A4@cedarville.edu> S1126161@cedarville.edu
(Robert Mc Kinney ) writes:
>I AM DOING A REPORT ON ON HOW EASY IT IS TO MAKE A BOMB AND I AM WONDERING 
>IF YOU COULD GIVE ME SOME INFORMATION ON HOW TO PRODUCE ONE AND THE 
>SIMPLICITIES OF IT. IF YOU NEED ANY SPECIAL EQUIPMENT TO DO IT. ANY
>INFORMATION  WOULD BE APPRECIATED.  THANKS 
>ROBERT MCKINNEY

      It's not that hard.  Basically, you make a sphere of plutonium 
that's maybe half the critical mass.  You use explosives to squeeze it
down to several times the normal density.  At the moment of highest
density, you inject a few neutrons from a small external accelerator.

      The tough part is getting a completely symmetrical squeeze from
explosives.  The usual approach is an inner shell of fast explosive,
surrounded by a set of explosive "lenses" shaped like the facets of
a soccer ball.  A detonator is placed at the center of each facet.
You have to work out the pressure waves so you get a symmetrical
explosion front when the explosion reaches the core.  This is hard,
but it can be worked out by computer simulation.

      Adding a beryllium "reflector" (beryllium reflects neutrons)
between the explosives and the plutonium core reduces the amount
of plutonium necessary.  If you get the design right, the whole
thing can be grapefruit-sized, although most first attempts have
been more like two meters around.

      The engineering effort required is probably comparable to that
required to design and build a high-performance automobile engine
from scratch, complicated by the fact that most of the materials
are toxic, radioactive, explosive, or flammable.  But, after all,
the basic technology is now half a century old.  There's not much
mystery left.

      The big cost item in building an atomic bomb has always been
getting the fissionable materials.  Doing that yourself costs upwards
of a billion dollars worth of plant.  Actually building the bomb
isn't that big a job.  Although it's well beyond the home-workshop
level, it's a modest engineering effort by industrial standards.

      The best modern book on the subject is "The Making of the Atomic
Bomb", by Richard Roades.  The facsimile edition of "The Los Alamos
Primer" is also useful, as is "The Curve of Binding Energy", by
John McPhee. 

					John Nagle

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudennagle cudfnJohn cudlnNagle cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.11 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Nuclear Engineering or Nuclear Physics or Physics?
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear Engineering or Nuclear Physics or Physics?
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 01:38:40 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <3esfin$7u@newsbf02.news.aol.com> PrinceMike,
princemike@aol.com writes:
>      I'm looking for some advice pertaining to my major in college. 
I've
> completed the first two years of an engineering curriculum and now must
> decide on a major before I transfer to a four-year school.
>     My current line of thought goes like this:  If I get an nuclear
> engineering degree I could probably work in industry(nuclear power
plants)
> or research just the same.   

The nuclear industry is in a bad way these days, so keep that in mind.
No new reactors + declining research funding = tough job market, 
I would think.  (I'm not an expert though - is there anyone with 
more experience and a different opinion?

> I am kind of drawn to doing fusion research,
> not neccessarily cold fusion though.  The work currently being done at
> Princeton seems very intersesting.  But would a degree in physics or
> nuclear physics be more beneficial there?  

To do fusion research you can have either background.  I believe there
are fusion branches of the nuclear engineering programs at both
U Wisconsin-Madison and MIT, for instance.  My own background is
physics.  It depends on what you want to do - fusion is primarily a
research field, and what background you have tends to affect what
areas of research you're likely to get into.  My sense of things
is that it's easier to do fusion reactor engineering via nuclear
engineering or nuclear physics, and it's easier to do more basic
plasma physics with a pure physics degree.  On the other hand,
there are Plasma Physics graduate students here at Princeton 
with nuclear engineering and electrical engineering backgrounds, 
so that's not a hard-and-fast-rule.  For more information
on schools with fusion research, see Section 7 of the Conventional
Fusion FAQ which I maintain (available via World-Wide Web through my 
homepage at http://lyman.pppl.gov/~rfheeter/fusion-faq.html).  If
you don't have Web access let me know and I'll find another way
to get you to it / get it to you.

> My fear is that if I get one of
> these academic type degrees than I'll be less attractive to industry and
> be stuck doing research even if I find out I don't enjoy it ten years
down
> the road.  

I wouldn't worry about this at all.  I think your personal qualities
and your experiences (jobs, research) have more to do with your
attractiveness
to industry than your actual academic background.

> This question is made harder given the decreased financial
> support of research and the proprosed elimination of the Energy
Department
> all together by the new Congress.

This makes any jump into fusion research dicey.  Don't do it unless you
really love doing it, because the bottom could drop out any year.  You 
can get a lot of good skills in this field, and odds are you'll still
be employable one way or another if they do kill the program, so you're
not risking everything by going into this line of work. 

>      I should note that I am a graduate of the Navy's Nuclear Propulsion
> program so I do have some background in the engineering line of work.
>      Any advice?

What, you want more?  :)

Feel free to send me email if you have more questions.  Hopefully you'll
get replies from people at some of the other fusion schools; if not, 
let me know and I'll give you some contacts so you can ask people about
undergrad majors at different places.

--Bob


***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.12 / Mark Fernee /  Re: Comparisons between postings here and Chaos
     
Originally-From: fernee@physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Comparisons between postings here and Chaos
Date: 12 Jan 1995 06:36:51 GMT
Organization: University of Queensland

MARSHALL DUDLEY (mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com) wrote:
: 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.
:
Why is there so much talk of sonoluminescence as a source of energy? To the
best of my knowledge, no one has yet shown evidence of fusion via sono- . It
has been speculated, but to date it is just a novel way of redistributing the
input energy. Also there is this incessant recourse to ZPE. There has to be
a minimum energy state! To extract energy from such a state means that it
wasn't the minimum energy state. If a system can be perturbed such that the 
ground state wasn't the minimum energy state, then you may extract energy
from the state. Such phase space rotations are quite common in QM. A case that
comes to mind is the oft misquoted "lasing without inversion" where it seems
that lasing could be achieved without a population inversion. However, the 
true nature of the phenomena is obscured by the dynamics and a simple 
dressing transformation reveals the effective population inversion (ie no
free lunch - not that it was ever claimed). Why is it that most people that
cry ZPE have never done QM? QM as we know it admits no free lunch. Conservation
laws are inherint in the theory. Sure there is an infinite vacuum fluctuation
energy, but it is potential that you have to think about and as long as we
stay at the same potential, then this energy can do no work. The Cassimir 
force is well known and has been widely studied, but until now, it has provided
no free lunch engines (it may be very important in nanostructures, however).

I think some of these CF afficionardos would gain some more credibility if
they dropped buzzwords like ZPE which is just a load of bollocks in most
contexts in which it is quoted. Until they understand QM interaction gauges
and dressing transformations, it is best left alone.

Mark.

  
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenfernee cudfnMark cudlnFernee cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.12 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Jed Rothwell does not understand fusion
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell does not understand fusion
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 02:33:45 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1995Jan5.003918.24535@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>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.

That's not the point Bob.  

It would appear that pursuing the tokamak style of fusion research
through international government efforts has come to an inability
to recognize engineering realities (which have financial and political
repercussions) that this endeavor isn't going to get there and it
looks to miss by a huge factor.  I would imagine that if the private
sector did fusion research they would have switched to more promising
paths long ago.  

Besides, only a school boy would even consider such a meaningless
measure of performance relative to the task at hand.  

>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.

But Fermi's reactor had engineering potential to make it well above 
break-even.. .  AND it did make a bit of gross electric power.  

>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.

It's an engineering night mare.  If If If If If If ... then ..  
what you wanted net power??

Also, there is no "surplus energy" regardless of size.  
Perhaps I'm wrong.  

How much power above COMMERCIAL break even per cc would you estimate??? 
I insist on discussing power release in such small volumes, since
I can compare the output directly to a candle flame.  That's about
five watts .. orders above a tokamak??  or alleged CF device.

Also, what is ITER's estimated average power input during start 
up... or .. what is the size of your homopolar startup storage or 
other startup energy storage unit??    

Look, I know these are tough questions for a physicist, but engineers
would like to know.. It makes us feel we have realistic information.  

>> 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.  
 
Your not conducting science... or at least your not supposed to be
conducting "science".  Perhaps you are and that is why your program
is so very successful.  You are gathering science .. and breaking 
scientific records, day after day after week year after decades after
centuries..  gee what a great success.   Now, when do we get commercial
fusion??  Estimate please?   best guess for tokamak commercial fusion
before when?    

Joe Davidson, told me that "ITER" pronouced EATeR had a first name:
                               "MONEY".    
         
Why do you think that is such a fitting name for a fusion reactor ...
ahh!  science toy.  

>> 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."  

Yeah!  nickels for science.. not billions for white elephants under 
the scam pronouncements of: "unlimited absolutely clean power".  

                White elephant == big science project (forever and ever)

>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.

Gee... this is great.. I should afford to hire you if you don't turn
wage earner on me.  Guess we all have concepts about what is the best
use of our time and skill.  For you that may become a tough problem.  

HooRah! for alumni backing!
Privatize PPPL  !!!

>***************************
>Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
>Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.12 /  JMargolin /  Cold Fusion in Multilayer Capacitors?
     
Originally-From: jmargolin@aol.com (JMargolin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion in Multilayer Capacitors?
Date: 12 Jan 1995 03:17:41 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

   I would like to raise the possibility that Cold Fusion occurred in
Mulytilayer Ceramic capacitors in the early 1980s.

   Electronic Buyers News (EBN) published an article in their 12/9/94
issue 
about how the rising cost of palladium is pushing up the price of ceramic 
capacitors.

   " Several ceramic capacitor makers have raised prices
     as much as 10% because they can no longer swallow
     the rising cost of palladium, which is the single
     largest raw material cost in multilayer ceramic
     capacitors."

   This caught my attention because, while I have been using multilayer
ceramic capacitors for quite some time, I did not know they used
palladium. 

   And one more thing.

   Multilayer ceramic capacitors started being used in large numbers
in the early 1980s. At the time there was a problem where a small
percentage (1% - 2%) would experience unexplained failures. (I remember
reading a detailed article in a trade magazine.) The problem was
eventually
fixed but I do not know if the capacitor designers found a specific cause
for the failures or if they just tried changing things, and the problem
went away.

   A Multilayer Ceramic capacitor (also known as a Monolithic Ceramic
Capacitor) is made by depositing a layer of metal on a small piece of
ceramic. Several of these are stacked together and alternating layers are
connected. It is then encapsulated in a glob of epoxy.

              |--------	           1	  
              |  --------|         2
              |--------  |         3
        ------|  --------|         4
              |--------  |-------  5	
                 --------|         6

   In this example, layers 1, 3, and 5 are connected together, as
   are layers 2, 4, and 6.

   One of the benefits of this type of construction is that you have
   a good, low inductance capacitor.

   This is why they became so popular as bypass capacitors for logic ICs 
starting in the early 1980s. This was necessary because logic speeds and
edges became faster and the ceramic disc capacitors then being used were 
not up to the task. In a ceramic disc capacitor, a single disc of ceramic 
is coated on both sides and a single connection is made to each side. For 
that reason Ceramic Disk capacitors (which you can still buy at Radio
Shack) 
exhibit considerable inductance at high frequencies.

   So, all of a sudden you have lots of MLCs being used, with an
unexplained
failure rate of 1% - 2% .  

   When used as a bypass capacitor it is subjected to a dc voltage,
typically
5V,
and AC currents with frequencies ranging up to tens of MHz and with sub
10ns
pulse edges. It's a real soup.

   As an end user, if I had a board coming out of burn-in with a few
broken 
bypass capacitors I would assume they were either broken during
auto-insertion
or they were defective from the manufacturer. I would not be looking
for a failure cause by cold fusion, especially in 1981. 

   If I were a capacitor designer I might test for heat production as a 
measure of dialectric quality, but I probably would not be looking for
cold fusion. If I did find more than normal heat I would probably assume
my calorimeter was out of adjustment.

   If these unexplained failures occurred as a result of excess heat
produced by cold fusion there are two possibilities:

    1. Only a few percent of capacitors happened to have exceptional
       purity of the several materials involved in the manufacture
       of the devices.

    2. The effect was due to uncontrolled impurities in one or more of 
       the materials, which combined in an unknown fashion when the
       PC Boards on which they were installed were burned-in. 

       (In my company, boards were powered up, and therefore operating, 
       during burn-in.) 

       Perhaps the humidity in the air was trapped in the package during 
       manufacture and was converted by electrolysis when the board on 
       which they were installed was powered up; then the hydrogen would 
       be available for adsorption by the palladium electrodes.


   By the way, back then, the capacitors were encapsulated in glass, not 
epoxy as they are today.


   I think the best chance for making cold fusion (or maybe warm fusion)
is
in the manipulation of materials with small geometries, i.e., through the 
technology used in making semiconductors.


   Are you listening, IBM?


   Jed Margolin 	(Ono, another Jed)

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjmargolin cudlnJMargolin cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.12 / Robin Spaandonk /        Re: Fusion Digest 3149
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:       Re: Fusion Digest 3149
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 15:14:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

> --------------------
> Originally-From: nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren)
> Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
> Subject: Re: World-Wide Acceptance of Cold Fusion
> Date: 11 Jan 1995 23:13:15 GMT
> Organization: University of Cambridge, England
> 
> In article <3f1l6g$f34@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, Parky25 <parky25@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>Scott, did you know that you can _buy_ a commercially
> >>>available cold fusion research cell?
> >>
> >>Interesting.  Would they happen to come with a "money back if not
> >>completely satisfied" guarantee?
> >
> >Even more interseting is to buy one and watch it work! And since it works
> >why do they need to give a money back guarantee.
> >
> >disclaimer: I do not work for nor represent E quest. I doubt they would
> >set themselves up for fraud in the device that they advertise and sell.
> 
> Just because someone advertises something doesn't necessarily mean
> that it works!  In the UK, false advertising is legal, but I know
> that most of the U.S.A. is less, er, liberal.  An advertiser might be
> relying on the fact that the law is so expensive and slow that any
> consequences could be evaded by fast footwork.
_________________________________________________________________
Please note that in the above  a RESEARCH cell is mentioned.
To me this is an indication that CF is not guaranteed.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au>

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.13 / Eugene Mallove /  Warning to Mark Fernee
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Warning to Mark Fernee
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 01:15:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mark Fernee of the University of Queensland posted this garbage about me:

>Oh dear, how many crackpots have PhD's I wonder? Maybe it was a University
>of Yambuck degree in Agricultural Heraldry? Just sheer idyll speculation on
>my part. :)
>
>Mark.

Check your facts first, Bozo, before you vomit "idyll speculation" onto this 
forum. 

For any in this audience who may have been influenced by the drivel from 
Fernee: I have a doctorate in engineering (Sc.D.) from Harvard University 
(Harvard School of Public Health). From 1971 through 1975 I studied at the 
Harvard School of Public Health, working on air pollution control engineering 
in the Dept. of Environmental Health Sciences. My Sc.D. thesis was: "Aerosol 
Measurement by Combined Light Scattering and Centrifugation." This was a 
highly successful experimental/theoretcial effort to measure particle size 
distributions *in situ* in a rotating sedimentation chamber of my own 
invention, which employed light scattering and data inversion algorithms to 
reveal particle size distributions. The work was subsequently published in the
peer-reviewed scientific literature: Mallove, E.F. and Hinds, W.C., "Aerosol 
Measurement by Combined Light Scattering and Centrifugation," Journal of 
Aerosol Science, 1976, Vol.7, 409-423.

I also have two engineering degrees from MIT, S.B (1969) Dept. of Aeronautics 
and Astronautics and S.M. (1970) same department. Masters thesis was 
experimental work too: "A Cyclone Containment Model of the Liquid Core Nuclear
Rocket."

In short, Mark Fernee is the Crackpot, not Gene Mallove.  Q.E.D.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.12 / Ieromnimon F /  Re: Jed Rothwell does not understand fusion
     
Originally-From: ierof@csc2.essex.ac.uk (Ieromnimon F)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell does not understand fusion
Date: 12 Jan 1995 13:02:30 GMT
Organization: University of Essex, Colchester, UK

In article <D29ts9.62G@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>In article <1995Jan5.003918.24535@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>>In article <3ef7ic$9fp@newsbf02.news.aol.com> Kurt Reyno,
>>kurtreyno@aol.com writes:
>>

 [discussion on confused notions of efficiency deleted]

>
>It's an engineering night mare.  If If If If If If ... then ..  
>what you wanted net power??
>
>Also, there is no "surplus energy" regardless of size.  
>Perhaps I'm wrong.  
>
>How much power above COMMERCIAL break even per cc would you estimate??? 
>I insist on discussing power release in such small volumes, since
>I can compare the output directly to a candle flame.  That's about
>five watts .. orders above a tokamak??  or alleged CF device.
>
>Also, what is ITER's estimated average power input during start 
>up... or .. what is the size of your homopolar startup storage or 
>other startup energy storage unit??    
>
>Look, I know these are tough questions for a physicist, but engineers
>would like to know.. It makes us feel we have realistic information.  
>

  [more inanities deleted]

>
>>***************************
>>Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
>>Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
>| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
>| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>

Mr. Coloc,

I have been following Mr. Coloc's posts for, oh, about five years now, right
after the first posting that caught my eye about dense plasma balls as -the- way
to realistic (therefore cheap) fusion power.
    But, apart from (deliberately?) fuzzy semi-technical descriptions of your
concept, and attempts to participate into serious discussions on the concept's
basic principles with people that study this kind of things in great depth
(which did not leave me entirely convinced that what you got is what you -think-
you got), not much else has been coming forth. Can we hope that something
tangible will come out of your efforts, before you leave this good earth for
good? Is it possible for you to publish some sort of progress report that would
not comprimise your aspirations to fame and fortune? Fuzzy web photos don't
really cut it.
   I can assure you that, in our area of work, our group is facing a very
similar credibility/resource acquisition barrier as you are, even though we work
with more conventional concepts and, more importantly, whithin the walls of the
Establishment (aka university). But i think that the fastest way to thoroughly
discredit yourself and compromise your efforts, in a world without sufficient
money to make everyone's dream a reality, is to rant incoherent and insult other
people in the way that we have witnessed recently in this forum.


Frank Ieromnimon,
SRO, PACE Project,
dept. of Computer Science,
Essex University.

P.S. I would be very grateful if you could e-mail me a compressed file with
     your paper in Fusion Technology. I could not find the periodical in our
     library.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenierof cudfnIeromnimon cudlnF cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.12 / 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: 12 Jan 1995 17:28:44 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3ekhrc$399@wu.labs.tek.com>, arnief@wu.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch) says:

>I am willing to make a significant bet that the sum of these numbers
>can be represented by one binary digit.
>
>Arnold Frisch
>Tektronix Laboratories

Can you be more specific?  Which one?

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.12 / Ad aspera /  Re: Nuclear Engineering or Nuclear Physics or Physics?
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear Engineering or Nuclear Physics or Physics?
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 09:45:19 -0800
Organization: Purely personal 'pinions

Do whichever you enjoy more.  If hot fusion (MFE and/or IFE)
is well funded and making progress toward power-plant demos,
the nuclear engineering side of things will become more and
more important (as will some related materials science and
mechanical engineering fields).  If it languishes, both
the physics and the engineering will be in a bad way.  If I
knew how it would go, I'd be a popular guy -- fusion in
particular and research in general are just hoping not to
get squashed flat in the Dance of the Elephants these days.

You'll also want to glom onto a national laboratory that does
fusion R&D, or one of the corporate or collegiate entities 
that look, walk, and quack like national laboratories. Any
internship or grad-student job helps you meet people.

Don't be shy about the Navy nuke-school background in any of
this.  It isn't as fashionable as it was a few years ago 
during the era of Admiral Watkins and "tiger teams," but it
still carries some weight with DOE and DOE labs.  Over the
next several years, the degree you get and the work you do
will come to be more important, but it's still a nice thing
to be able to mention.   

Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
Disclaimer: Even if my employer had a position on the subject,
I probably wouldn't be the one stating it on their behalf.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.12 / 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, 12 Jan 1995 10:26 -0500 (EST)

fernee@physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee) writes:
 
-> free lunch - not that it was ever claimed). Why is it that most people that
-> cry ZPE have never done QM? QM as we know it admits no free lunch. Conservat
-> laws are inherint in the theory. Sure there is an infinite vacuum fluctuatio
-> energy, but it is potential that you have to think about and as long as we
-> stay at the same potential, then this energy can do no work.
 
I think one reason people hold out hope that there is something beyond the
theory is that according to theory the universe cannot exist, except in a
steady state.  Since experience tends to contradict that, there must be
something missing in the theory to account for it, and this something caused
the largest transfer of energy from a vacuum fluctuation imaginable.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.12 / Jamie Sandwich /  Re: NP 9Jan95, Ludwig is asked to revise THE FEYNMAN LECTURES
     
Originally-From: syed@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Jamie Bass - The Ham Sandwich)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.math,sci.chem
Subject: Re: NP 9Jan95, Ludwig is asked to revise THE FEYNMAN LECTURES
IN  PHYSICS and deliver the Messenger Lectures at Cornell
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 18:18:48 GMT
Organization: The University of Chicago Ctenophora Organ

In article <3esr3h$6fp@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartm
uth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
>
>The full title of this missive is " NP 9Jan95, Ludwig is asked to
>revise THE FEYNMAN LECTURES IN PHYSICS and deliver the Messenger
>Lectures at Cornell "
>
>Authorities have contacted me. Yes, and I am tickled! I have been asked
>by Cornell to give the Messenger Lectures. And Adderson Wesley want me
>to revise the Feynman Lectures on Physics. The 3 volume set which is so
>dear to my heart as it is to all the readers of the sci-hierarchie. As
>soon as I put the phone down, my comrades at work wept and balled
>profusely in tears.

	In utter disblief, no doubt.

	Jamie Bass - The Ham Sandwich
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudensyed cudfnJamie cudlnSandwich cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.12 / Mark Widmer /  RE: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: widmer@sbnslj.physics.sunysb.edu (Mark Widmer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.ele
tromag,sci.physics,sci.physics.accelerators
Subject: RE: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
Date: 12 JAN 95 16:25:20 GMT
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook, Nuclear Physics

In a previous article, frisch@hebe.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Josef C. Frisch) wrote:
> Neutrinos interact VERY VERY weakly. At the intensities that can be 
> generated, I would not expect any noticeable effect on a superconductor. 
> Remember, the earth receives a substantial constant flux of neutrinos from 
> the sun. 

It is amazing just how weak that interaction is, and how appropriate the
actual term "weak interaction" is.  I have read that a beam of neutrinos 
could go through something like a light-year thickness of lead before that 
beam had reached 1/2 of it's initial intensity.  It boggles the mind that 
present-day detectors, which use water and are the size of a large room, 
detect them at all.  For every neutrino detected, there must be <insert
very large number here> more that are not seen.

-- Mark
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenwidmer cudfnMark cudlnWidmer cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.12 /  jedrothwell@de /  The Wright Bros. & the "skeptics"
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Wright Bros. & the "skeptics"
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 95 13:42:16 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Chris Parkinson <parky@ix.netcom.com> wrote a somewhat garbled account of the
early history of aviation:
 
     "How long did it take the Wright bros. to convince the world that flight
     was possible. The Defense Department took 5 years."
 
That is correct. The U.S. War Department (as it was then called) took five
years. The British and French sent agents to Dayton, OH, and they were
convinced much more quickly.
 
This part is garbled:
 
     "Even the NY Times still disbelieved them even after an airplane flew
     passed a train carrying a bunch of Times reporters."
 
That is incorrect. There was a commuter trolley line that passed Huffman
Prairie, where the Wrights flew, and many passengers did observe the flights
in 1904 and 1905. The chief engineer and the general manager of the trolley
line went riding by one day when the Wrights were airborne. The manager
ordered the car stopped, and he got off and spent some time watching the test
flight. It would have been impossible to miss. The machine made a heck of a
noise, and several flights in Sept. and October 1905 continued as long as 20
to 30 minutes. These were usually low, only 10 to 15 feet above the ground,
occasionally as high as 50 feet, but even at that height the machine was
easily visible from the trolley line. The Wrights were always methodical and
careful in everything: they documented, photographed, patented and published
their flights and data in the European journals (it was too heretical for any
U.S. journal). Among other things they compiled a list of about 60 people who
had seen the flights, and they got a number of leading citizens of Dayton to
sign affidavits, including E.W. Ellis, assistant city auditor; Terrance
Huffman, bank president and owner of Huffman prairie (where they flew); C.S.
Billman, secretary, and W.H. Shank, treasurer of the West Side Building and
Loan Association; and several local hardware dealers, mechanics, farmers, a
druggist, and T. Waddell of the U.S. Census Bureau.
 
Parkinson is wrong about this one detail: no newspaper reporter, from the N.Y.
Times or any Dayton newspaper ever bothered to ride out on the trolley to
observe the flights. They all assumed that the scientific experts were
correct, and that heavier than air flight was impossible, and they never
bothered to check. That was not the only evidence they ignored! The U.S.
"skeptics" of that era continued to assert that airplanes were impossible for
years after that. On August 8, 1908 Wilbur Wright flew near Paris, France, and
he flew again the following week several times. This made the front page of
every major European newspaper. Wilbur become the most celebrated person in
Europe, thousands of people flocked to see him including royalty and
millionaires from every corner of the continent. The French and British press
described his every action in banner front page headlines for weeks. The
Figaro wrote: "it was not merely a success but a triumph; a conclusive trial
and a decisive victory for aviation." Le Journal called the flight "perfect."
 
These events in Europe had no effect whatsoever on the U.S. "skeptics" at the
New York Times, in Washington, or anywhere else. The flights, the headlines
and the hoopla continued for five weeks, but not one word of it was published
in the U.S. The New York Times did not mention anything about the European
flights, although on August 9, the Times "gave first page space to a dispatch
from Canton, Ohio, about a balloon trip, and to a dispatch from the German
Kaiser contributing to a fund for building another Zeppelin airship."
 
The U.S. newspapers continued to attack and disparage the Wrights, just as
they had all along. By this time the U.S. Army had set up a program to test
the Wright machine (at the Wright's expense), and to buy an airplane if it
could actually fly as they claimed. The New York Globe and other "skeptical"
newspapers demanded that the Army stop this foolish waste of time and
taxpayer's money. No tests are needed, they asserted; no research should be
performed, because everyone knows that heavier-than-air flight is impossible.
The best scientists in the world - distinguished experts like Simon Newcomb -
had already proved manned flight is impossible. An actual test was a
superfluous and dangerous. The U.S. "skeptics" did not shut up until a week
after Orville Wright flew during the Army tests at Fort Myer, Virginia
starting on September 8, 1908. After a few days, the Times finally brought
itself to report the story which had taken the entire city of Washington DC by
storm.
 
Finally, the "skeptics" admitted that the Wrights could fly after all, but
Newcomb and other vaunted experts now told the press that "no pilot would ever
be able to carry the weight of anyone besides the pilot." The Wrights had
already carried passengers in the Spring of 1908, and on September 9 Orville
had carried Lt. Frank P. Lahm as a passenger.
 
That, of course, did not end "skeptical" opposition to airplanes. In 1925,
North Atlantic ocean liner company executives, captains, shipbuilders and
other experts repeatedly asserted that no commercial transatlantic air service
would ever be possible. They said the very idea was absurd:
 
     "People who amuse themselves with speculations at to the time when
     steamers will no longer plough the oceans, and when all our overseas
     transportation will be done by airmen in air machines, are in the happy
     company of those who still pursue the pleasures of alchemy, those who
     are still trying to square the circle, and that other cheerful companion
     of dreamers who have faith in the possibilities of perpetual motion."
 
Regular, profitable transatlantic Zeppelin service began in 1928. The first
Pan American Clipper flying boat transatlantic flight was in 1937.
 
There is a pattern to history, and to the statements of reactionary,
technically illiterate establishment idiots at places like the New York Times.
In 1908 they trumpeted a meaningless accomplishment with a backwards, useless
technology: the balloon flights in Ohio, while at the same time they ignored
real aviation. Today, the Times swoons in awe at the tokamak experiments, even
though tokamaks are a backwards, useless, dead-end technology that will never
amount to anything, while it ignores *real* energy technology - cold fusion -
that will soon revolutionize the world.
 
 
Parkinson got that story about the trolley line garbled, but at least he is
aware of the general outlines of history. There is a comment from the peanut
gallery here from schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz), who asks:
 
     "Do you have a citation for either of these claims?  I would be
     interested in reading the primary sources, which should be amusing if
     nothing else."
 
I strongly recommend you avoid reading those primary sources, Richard. You
will not be amused! You will be baffled, alarmed, confused. I warn you, you
must never read anything, not history, not experimental data, not peer
reviewed scientific papers . . . nothing. Your ignorance is so profound and
your foolishness is so deep that nothing will ever penetrate it. If you read a
book about the Wrights, or one or two papers about CF, you will only become
more confused and more chaotically wrong. It would better for you to continue
doing what you do now: make up the facts as you go along; never check original
sources, and above all, NEVER do an experiment. Do what your distinguished
forbearers have done throughout history: deny everything. Never give an inch!
Never look at the facts! In 1878 when Edison announced the incandescent light,
your intellectual ancestors attacked him, denigrated him, and declared that no
experiment was needed, the thing was proof positive impossible and insane a
priori. You attacked the Wrights in 1908 even though every newspaper in Europe
published photographs showing them in flight. In 1952 you assured us that the
transistor is impossible. At every turn in history, scads of people like you
have been anxious to deny reality and to pretend that day is night. You have
resisted, attacked, and denigrated every invention, every discovery, and every
scientific breakthrough: anesthetics, sanitation, the germ theory,
electricity, flight, jet engines, continental drift, the diesel engine, the
transistor, the microcomputer, the automobile, Ovinsky's work with amorphous
materials, space flight. . . anything new. Anything which casts doubt on the
sacred textbooks of science must be attacked, ridiculed, mocked and denied.
 
For ordinary, non skeptical readers who want to learn a thing or two about the
Wrights, I recommend:
 
Harry Combes, "Kill Devil Hill"(Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1979)
 
Tom Crouch, "The Bishop's Boys" (New York: Norton, 1989)
 
Tom Crouch, "A Dream of Wings" (Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press)
 
Fred C. Kelly, "The Wright Brothers" (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1943)
 
Marvin W. McFarland ed., "The Papers of Wilbur and Orville Wright" [2
volumes] (New York: McGraw Hill, 1953)
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.12 / Akira Kawasaki /  Re: I Am a Cheap Date!
     
Originally-From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I Am a Cheap Date!
Date: 12 Jan 1995 18:46:25 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3f0rt7$k9v@sundog.tiac.net> conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) 
writes: 

>Wouldn't this be a bit like getting your science facts from the 
'National 
>Enquirer' or 'World Sun'?

 Oh really? And what do those publications contain by what authors?


cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenaki cudfnAkira cudlnKawasaki cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.12 / Edward Ruden /  Re: Cold Fusion Day at MIT - 2nd Posting
     
Originally-From: ruden@ug1.plk.af.mil (Edward Ruden)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Day at MIT - 2nd Posting
Date: 12 Jan 1995 12:44:09 -0700
Organization: Air Force Phillips Lab.

I will not be attending, but will there be a proceedings?
If so, how do I get one?

Edward Ruden

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenruden cudfnEdward cudlnRuden cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.12 / Toon Moene /  Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
     
Originally-From: toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl (Toon Moene)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
Date: 12 Jan 95 19:50:17 GMT
Organization: Moene Computational Physics, Maartensdijk, The Netherlands

In article <3e1e55$7bc@eldborg.rhi.hi.is> kvj@rhi.hi.is (Kristjan Valur  
Jonsson) writes:

> How about:
> 
> - A device which extracts energy at an explosive rate from
> the mass of a heavy metal.

We already know how to do that: fission Uranium (yeah, talk about a 'heavy  
metal'). But I give you this that Einstein and a few others had to write  
at least one letter to Roosevelt to get him issue orders to have such a  
device build. OTOH, outside the special circumstances during the end of WW  
II and an all-out nuclear war, they're quite useless as 'energy devices'.

Sprinkle with smiley's

--
Toon Moene (toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl)
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG  Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
Phone: +31 3461 4290; Fax: +31 3461 4286
No Disclaimer: I claim, therefore I am.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudentoon cudfnToon cudlnMoene cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.12 / Toon Moene /  Re: ------> The Water Heater <------
     
Originally-From: toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl (Toon Moene)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ------> The Water Heater <------
Date: 12 Jan 95 20:39:49 GMT
Organization: Moene Computational Physics, Maartensdijk, The Netherlands

In article <D21KFD.2BI@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>  
crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
> In article <1995Jan7.135408.2874@midway.uchicago.edu>,
> Greg Kuperberg <gk00@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:

> >In fact, if you read this group for too long, you might forget what it
> >was once like even if you were there.  Looking back at the archives, I
> >see that I was not misled for one week, as I have been thinking lately,
> >nor was I misled for two weeks, as I must have told people for a long
> >time.  No, I was a true believer for three full weeks, although my
> >doubts were beginning to show then.  I can see now that the science
> >reporters were so gullible that they just let people lie through them,
> >and that's why I was fooled.

>       That is quite an interesting aspect of this group.  Almost 
>	everyone who posted from the beginning and is still here began 
>       posting with a very strong tendency to credit the initial 
>       results.  That includes me.

	That's very interesting ... I never believed any of the CF stuff,  
from the very first moment I read about it (although not on the Internet,  
but in the down-to-the-ground morning paper). But then, I also didn't  
believe in superconductivity at more than, say 4.2 Kelvin, based on my  
ideas about superconductivity as formed during the days that I was  
involved in solid state physics. If you read my post until this point, the  
difference should be obvious:

	Superconductivity, by now, has been shown in some exotic materials  
up to temperatures in the 150-200 K range, whereas CF hasn't got anything  
done since the initial uproar.

--
Toon Moene (toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl)
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG  Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
Phone: +31 3461 4290; Fax: +31 3461 4286
No Disclaimer: I claim, therefore I am.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudentoon cudfnToon cudlnMoene cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.13 /  RUSTY.PERRIN@h /  Wade on Dissent
     
Originally-From: RUSTY.PERRIN@hq.doe.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Wade on Dissent
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 05:33:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The following message appeared on the SciFraud mailing list. I
thought it pretty quickly encapsulated a bunch of the discussion
on this forum. I'm forwarding it for anyone who is interested.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------

Comments: To: SCIFRAUD@UACSC2.ALBANY.EDU

A strange, but interesting, article by Nicholas Wade appeared in
yesterday's (8 January) NY Times Magazine (p.14).  Wade links
Stewart and Feders investigation of the Thereza Imanishi-Kari
case, the claims of Peter Duseberg (rejecting that H.I.V. causes
AIDS), and Richard Lindzen (who claims that computer simulations
exagerate the effect of global warming).

Wade concludes:

"Dissenters are infuriating almost by definition, since they
repudiate large bodies of knowledge that other scientists regard
as settled.  They provoke the anger or contempt of colleagues
because outsiders are prone to give them half a loaf instead of
the often merited crumb.  Their motives may be mixed, owing as
much to ornery temperment as to devoted truth-seeking.

"But dissent can be as valuable in science as in other forums,
and the edifice of science is robust enough to tolerate a few
skeptics - even ones who would tear much of it down."

Tony Mazzaschi
ASPET

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenPERRIN cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.13 / Async User /  Fusion Research
     
Originally-From: jmaskaly@epix.net (Async User)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion Research
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 05:33:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I am a junior in high school.  I am interested in assisting in research 
of nuclear fusion.  What major should I take?  I was thinking about 
nuclear physics at MIT.  Would that cover the material?

Garry Maskaly
jmaskaly@epix.net

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjmaskaly cudfnAsync cudlnUser cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.13 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: World-Wide Acceptance of Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: World-Wide Acceptance of Cold Fusion
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 01:58:07 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <3f3osc$bob@fnnews.fnal.gov>,
Tom Droege <Droege@fnal.fnal.gov> wrote:
>In article <3ekhrc$399@wu.labs.tek.com>, arnief@wu.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch) says:
>
>>I am willing to make a significant bet that the sum of these numbers
>>can be represented by one binary digit.
>>
>>Arnold Frisch
>>Tektronix Laboratories
>
>Can you be more specific?  Which one?
>
>Tom Droege

The middle one.

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.12 / Preston Smith /  Ion/Electron Trajectory Modelling programs SIMION or others
     
Originally-From: pcsg8264@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Preston Craig Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ion/Electron Trajectory Modelling programs SIMION or others
Date: 12 Jan 1995 21:44:07 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

I currently use a PC based Ion/Electron trajectory modelling program
called SIMION ver. 4.0 to model electrostatic lenses for an ion source
we are using.  Although this code is good, we cannot print from it and
it is somewhat awkward.  So my questions are:

1)  Is anyone familiar with another similar program.
2)  Does anyone know when the newest version of SIMION will be out (docs
for v. 4.0 say "early 95" at the soonest.

Thanks,
Preston Smith
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of Illinois
psmith@uiuc.edu

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenpcsg8264 cudfnPreston cudlnSmith cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.12 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Griggs Theories
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs Theories
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 16:54 -0500 (EST)

I am trying to make a list of the Griggs theories that have been proposed and
who originally proposed them.  I have placed the list in order from most
prosaic to most exotic.  I do not mean to imply the list goes from most likely
to least likely.  For the most part I consider the order of the list rather
unimportant.

Unfortunately my USENET newsgroup items are only kept for about 24 hours on
this site, so I don't have much historical information other than my memory.
Therefore I am sure I will most likely leave something out, or attribute a
proposal to the wrong person.  Please notify me of any additions/errors so I
can correct the list.  It may prove interesting in the end to see who, if
anyone is right.

THEORY                                 CONTRIBUTED BY

Experiment or measurement error*       Dale Bass
Stored Energy                          Dick Blue
Chemical Reaction                      Dick Blue
Heat pump                              Dick Blue

All the following would presumable be over unity:

Sonoluminance (Hot fusion)             ??????
Steam table Non-linearities            Marshall Dudley from Oak Ridge Scientist
Sonoluminance (ZPE interaction)        ??????
Cold Fusion                            Jed Rothwell/Eugene Mallove
Chaotic vortexes (ZPE)                 Marshall Dudley
Transmutation of aluminum              ??????
Psychic or psi phenominia              Dale Bass
Leprechauns or fairies                 Dale Bass

* Note that the "experimental error" covers many possibilities, from the
  inability to measure the length of an arm to the inability to measure RPM,
  power in, and heat output.  Also conduction of heat from the motor to the
  pump via the shaft and not accounting for the energy of the input water
  pressure would fall under experimental error.  (Jed, please don't leave a
  peply saying how these are all impossible, I am only tabulating the
  theories, no matter how absurd they may seem.)

                                                                Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.13 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Phonophobic Calls Griggs
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Phonophobic Calls Griggs
Date: 13 Jan 1995 02:23:56 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <D2BB0D.7wJ@mrdog.msl.com> dhl@mrdog.msl.com (Donald H. Locker)  
writes:

> >>Another matter is the press.  A member has asked to join the
> >>visit.  What do you all think?  My general feeling is that the
> >>press is dangerous to scientific inquiry.  They are interested 
> >>in controversy which sells papers.  Some of us are interested in
> >>discovering truth.  

Obviously no press. You want Griggs to be open to discussing
potential errors and criticisms. The presence
of the media would force him to be defensive about his technology,
rather than receptive.

Also, I suggest that 2 visitors is an ideal number, since that way
one voice can fall into a mediator role should the other two become
polarized (good cop-bad cop). (Of course, two bad cops is not so good.)



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


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.12 / Richard Schultz /  Rothwell's Wrights vs. The New York Times: an s.p.f. Meta-issue
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Rothwell's Wrights vs. The New York Times: an s.p.f. Meta-issue
Date: 12 Jan 1995 22:14:49 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <pO45pco.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>The U.S. War Department (as it was then called) took five years. 

This is partially correct -- see below. 

>. . .they documented, photographed, patented and published
>their flights and data in the European journals (it was too heretical for any
>U.S. journal). . . .

According to the New York Times (28 April 1907), the Wrights wanted anyone
viewing a test flight to agree in advance that if the airplane passed the
test, they would pay for the rights to it.  The reason given in the article
(see the 1 May 1907 article below) was that the machine could not be 
patented in the U.S., although the article did not say why.  In 1907,
the Wrights were negotiating with the German government for a sum reported
to be betwee $100,00 and $400,000.  As for their negotiations with the U.S.
War Department, see below.

>Parkinson is wrong about this one detail: no newspaper reporter, from the N.Y.
>Times or any Dayton newspaper ever bothered to ride out on the trolley to
>observe the flights. They all assumed that the scientific experts were
>correct, and that heavier than air flight was impossible, and they never
>bothered to check. That was not the only evidence they ignored! The U.S.
>"skeptics" of that era continued to assert that airplanes were impossible for
>years after that.

Once again I ask, can you provide *primary sources* for your assertion?

With his usual politeness, Mr. Rothwell posted a long tirade about
skeptics and their denying the possibility of heavier-than-air flight
after the Wright brothers had already proved it possible, but not once
providing any evidence for his claim other than bluster.  I have included
some of the more relevant parts of that post below.  They are followed
by four articles from the New York Times; the first two are given in
their entirety, and the second two are excerpts.  I invite the readers
of s.p.f. to compare Mr. Rothwell's claims with what the New York Times
actually reported.  I will let people judge for themselves what this
says about Rothwell's trustworthiness as a reporter of events; that 
meta-issue is, I think, one of significance to s.p.f., since he is one
of the loudest "pro-CF" people posting here.  So once again I ask 
Rothwell to provide a *direct contemporary quote* from after 1903
that says heavier-than-air flight is impossible, and how he reconciles
his claim that the New York Times was among the skeptics and that they
ignored the Wright brothers with the contents and dates of the 
newspaper citations given below.  The advanced reader might want to 
consider possible alternative explanations for the Wright brothers'
lack of acclaim from the New York Times.
--
					Richard Schultz

"It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean.  Do you have to salt your
truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?"
=========
>The U.S. newspapers continued to attack and disparage the Wrights, just as
>they had all along. By this time the U.S. Army had set up a program to test
>the Wright machine (at the Wright's expense), and to buy an airplane if it
>could actually fly as they claimed. The New York Globe and other "skeptical"
>newspapers demanded that the Army stop this foolish waste of time and
>taxpayer's money. No tests are needed, they asserted; no research should be
>performed, because everyone knows that heavier-than-air flight is 
>impossible. . . .  The U.S. "skeptics" did not shut up until a week
>after Orville Wright flew during the Army tests at Fort Myer, Virginia
>starting on September 8, 1908. After a few days, the Times finally brought
>itself to report the story which had taken the entire city of Washington DC by
>storm. . . .
 
>I strongly recommend you avoid reading those primary sources, Richard. You
>will not be amused! You will be baffled, alarmed, confused. I warn you, you
>must never read anything, not history, not experimental data, not peer
>reviewed scientific papers . . . nothing. Your ignorance is so profound and
>your foolishness is so deep that nothing will ever penetrate it.

(1) The New York Times, 26 December 1903, page 1.

AIRSHIP AFTER BUYER

Inventors of North Carolina Box Kite Machine Want Government to Purchase It
[plus ca change, plus ca meme chose. . .RS]

Washington, Dec. 25 - The inventors of the airship which is said to have made
several successful flights in North Carolina, near Kitty Hawk, are anxious
to sell the use of their device to the Government.  They claim that they have
solved the problem of aerial navigation, and have never made a failure of 
any attempt to fly.
Their machine is an adaptation of the box kite idea, with a propeller working
on a perpendicular shaft to raise and lower the craft, and another working
on a horizontal shaft to move it forward.  The machine, it is said, can be
raised or lowered with perfect control, and can carry a strong gasoline
engine capable of making a speed of ten miles an hour.
The test made in North Carolina will be fully reported to the Ordnance
Board of the War Department, and if the machine commends itself sufficiently,
further tests will be made in the vicinity of Washington, and an effort made
to arrange a sale of the device to the Government.  The use to which the
Government would put it would be in scouting and signal work, and possibly
in torpedo warfare.
=====
(2) The New York Times, 27 May 1904, page 1.

FALL WRECKS AIRSHIP

On Trial Trip It Went Thirty Feet and Dropped - Inventors Satisfied, Though

Dayton, Ohio, May 26 - The Wright Flying machine, invented by Orville and
Wilbur Wright, of this city, which made a successful flight at Kitty
Hawk, N. C., las December had another trial near this city today, which
the brothers say was successful.  Great secrecy was maintained about the
test, and but few witnessed it.
The machine after being propelled along a track for the distance of a
hundred feet, when it dropped.  This was due, the inventors say, to a
derangement of the gasoline engine that furnishes the power.  In the fall
the propellors were broken, and the test could not be repeated.
=====
(3) The New York Times, 28 April 1907, section 3, page 3.

GERMANY WANTS AIRSHIP

Berlin, April 27 - Probably within a fortnight arrangements will be made
whereby the Wright brothers of Dayton will give a demonstration here for
the German Government of their flying machine. . .
The Aero Club of New York recently endeavored to interest the United
States Government in the Wright invention.  The War Department was willing,
but the Wrights asserted that they had previously been insulted in
correspondence with the Department and were unwilling to resume
negotiations until an apology was made.
Neither the Department nor the club saw any insult in the correspondence,
but the Wrights remained implacable and the matter was dropped.
=====
(4) The New York Times, 1 May 1907, page 4.

. . .For the last year the brothers have been urged to make a public
demonstration of their machine, but htey have repeatedly refused to do
this, asserting that their secret would at once become public property,
and they would have no opportunity of obtaining any financial remuneration
for the years of work they have spent in solving the problem of flight
through the air of a machine heavier than air.
The flight of the machine, however, was witnessed by several credible 
witnesses at Dayton, Ohio, in Speptember and October, 1905.  It made six
successful flights over a circular course of about three-quarters of a mile.
The machine was in the air from seventeen to thirty-eight minutes on each
occasion, traveling over tweny-four miles on the longest trip. . . .
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.12 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Cold Fusion Day at MIT - 2nd Posting
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Day at MIT - 2nd Posting
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 95 17:15:06 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

There is a plan afoot to record the MIT cold fusion IAP meetings on video.
We hope to make the video available cheaply. It will be a professional
recording.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.13 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: The Wright Bros. & the "skeptics"
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Wright Bros. & the "skeptics"
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 95 13:18:31 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I noted that no newspaper reporter ever bothered to ride out on the trolley to
observe the flights of the Wright Brothers. Harry H Conover
<conover@max.tiac.net> who has an inborn genius for jumping to unwarrented
conclusions, responded:
 
     "If you bother to travel to Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, where the
     initial flights took place (not Ohio), you will discover a plaque at the
     site of the first powered flight.  It has this inscription. . ."
 
And if Mr. Conover will shut up and visit the Wright Patterson Air Force Base
near Dayton, Ohio, he will find another plaque. This was the site of the 1904
- 1905 flight tests, which were in plain view of passing trolley cars. At that
time, the field belonged to Terrance Huffman, president of a Dayton Bank. He
let the Wrights use it for free. Anyone who doubts that the flights were in
plain view should look at the photograph on page 286 of "The Bishop's Boys"
taken on Nov. 16, 1904. The airplane is flying in the foreground. That line of
trees in the background shade the interurban trolley line.
 
 
     "Damn it, when you try to put a personal spin on history, at least get
     the facts straight.  You have the years wrong, the location wrong, and
     even the Wright Brothers accomplishment substantially wrong!"
 
Actually it is other way around. I have my facts documented to the n'th
degree. You, on the other hand do not have even the foggiest idea what you are
talking about. Anyone who has bothered to read even one book about the Wrights
will see that. It is amazing that you and the other "skeptics" are so ignorant
about the Wrights. They were, after all, among the most celebrated U.S.
scientists of this century. Any library will have a half-dozen books about
them. You have never bothered to read the dust jacket of any one of them. How
amazing! No, it is not amazing. After all, you will pontificate and make
pronouncements about cold fusion, even though you have never bothered to a
scientific paper or look at any data. Your blind certainty that you are right
is inversely proportional to your knowledge. You know nothing about CF, and
you have read exactly one (1) plaque about the Wrights, and yet you think you
know more than I do about both subjects! Let me give you a little clue here.
Let me set you straight:
 
I have read hundreds of pages on both subjects. I never, ever comment on any
topic unless I know it backwards and forwards. I never jump to conclusions. I
have spent *years* studying both subjects. When I write something (unless it
is a joke or labeled as idle speculation), you can be damn sure that I can
back up what I say six ways from seven.
 
 
     "Come on Jed, you're a terrific writer and debater, so please do your
     research a little more throughly before applying pen to paper."
 
I suggest you do five minutes of research at any library or bookstore.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.13 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Whose side?! was Re: Rothwell's Wrights
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Whose side?! was Re: Rothwell's Wrights
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 95 13:43:07 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

prasad <c1prasad@watson.ibm.com> writes:
 
>What d'ya expect, after the Patent Office refuses to grant a property right?
>You're definitely selling Jed again.
 
Watch out there, Prasad. The New York Times had the story all wrong. The
Wrights were not particularly secrative in 1907 because they were granted
a U.S. Patent in 1906. People thought they were being secrative, but that
is not true. Stories about how secret they were circulated then, and they
still circulate today; the same nonsense is repeated decade after decade.
If you examine the papers they published and the letters they wrote, you
will see that they were reasonably open. Once a patent is granted, the
information is made completely public, of course.
 
One amazing aspect of the story is that even after they got a patent, and
even after several groups began frantically trying to replicate them, nobody
was able to do it until 1909. In order to design the airplane they had to
do wind tunnel tests and work through hundreds of pages of extremely complex
engineering mathematics and physics theory. But once they worked out the
correct answers, the actual physical structure and mechanism was not so
complex. You would think that a good drawing and well written patent would
tell everyone how to replicate, but it was not sufficient. They had to actually
see the working gadget. That is why several of the Wright's commercial rivals
showed up in Dayton over the years, with cameras ect.
 
There are interesting parallels with CF. The Pd/D2O cells can a nightmare
to produce, although if you read Storms and Cravens carefully, you can
reproduce one. Something like the Griggs Gadget, on the other hand, is a
cinch to reproduce. I think any properly equiped machine shop could make
one work in six months of hard labor. Unfortunately, you cannot scale them
down, so you have to have space enough for something the size of a small
automobile that makes a terriffic racket. Kind of like an airplane. . .
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.13 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: The Wright Bros. & the "skeptics"
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Wright Bros. & the "skeptics"
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 95 17:43:49 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Jim Carr <jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> writes:
 
     "Funny, but my files include an article from the Times that reported on
     the first news about cold fusion, and it ran in the first possible issue
     after the announcement with the headline "2 Report Nuclear Power Gain
     But Experts Express Doubts".  Hardly ignoring it."
 
I would not know about that. I don't pay much attention to newspapers, and I
never depend on them to get any important information. Everything I know about
CF, or computers, or business I get direct from original sources. In my
experience newspapers are unreliable. They are distorted funhouse mirrors. Fun
for reading the comics, but you don't want run your business based on what
they say. In any case -- getting back to history -- the N.Y. Times and many
others reported on the Wrights at first, too. Then they attacked them, then
they lost interest.
 
The only stories that I have from the newspapers are from the last few years.
They are all bunk. Garbage. Nonsense. (Except for the Wall Street Journal
occasionally.) Back in 1908, whenever the papers felt like taking another
crack at the Wrights, they would run to those crackpot scientists who had
mathematically proved that heavier than air flight is impossible, or that no
flying machine can ever land. Nowadays they do exactly the same thing with CF!
They go to crackpots like Morrison who claim you can burn a match for a week.
 
 
     "Besides, if you forget the Times, The Wall Street Journal covered cold
     fusion *extensively* for a long period of time."
 
Not long enough, apparently.
 
 
     "But what about the European newspapers, such as the Financial Times of
     London, that first broke the story?"
 
"Broke" the story is exactly the right expression! Just like they "broke" the
Wrights, Edison, Volta and all the other important breakthroughs. First they
report it, then they trash it. They are ignorant fools. I never read the early
reports of CF, but I'll bet they are as mixed up and absurd as that N. Y.
Times story on the Wright's first flight. That was 1 part truth and 5 parts
nonsense. Whether it was hearsay or lies I cannot judge, but I do think that a
reporter is supposed to check his facts with original sources, and I know for
sure the N.Y. Times did contact the Wrights, or they never would have printed
that crazy nonsense.
 
 
     "Have they ignored it, or have they just lost interest in it?  Quite a
     difference.
 
They lost interest. They are ignorant fools with a short attention span.
Anyone who depends on newspapers for important information is even more of a
fool than those reporters.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.13 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Griggs Theories
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Theories
Date: 13 Jan 1995 17:26:42 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <3f643t$sm4@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>, c1prasad@watson.ibm.com
(prasad) wrote:

> In article <WAF2PCB68685879@brbbs.brbbs.com>, mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com
(MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes:
> |> 
> |> THEORY                                 CONTRIBUTED BY
> |> 
> |> Experiment or measurement error*       Dale Bass
> |> Stored Energy                          Dick Blue
> |> Chemical Reaction                      Dick Blue
> |> Heat pump                              Dick Blue
> 
> I thought I saw detailed exploration of the heat pump idea by others,
> including Jorge Stolfi and once even me, with Jed reciting the second law
> to say why those schemes would not be applicable or useful.
> 

This agrees with my recollection.  I believe it was Jorge who pointed out
that heat pumps put out more energy as heat than is input as work, Jed
countered (correctly) that scavenging heat from the room would require a
spot on the device that was colder than the room temp, and others (myself
included) attempted to couple the stored heat hypothesis with the heat pump
idea.  This boiled down (sorry!) to a suggestion that the motor built up
heat in the warmup mode, and the gadget extracted it as a heat pump when
the "effect" turned on.

Admittedly, this is a tenuous hypothesis, and requires measurement and
integration of input and output energy from a cold startup to a cold stop
to settle.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.13 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Does it really matter
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does it really matter
Date: 13 Jan 1995 17:29:32 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <3f6c43$cec@agate.berkeley.edu>, schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu
(Richard Schultz) wrote:

> In article <9046SCKNHFNUSLFNEX@kbbs.com>,  <artki@kbbs.com> wrote:
> 
> >  If "Freshly Microwaved" means fully cooked then all you are saying
> >is that the filling is hotter than the crust.  That's true for
> >a pie baked in a conventional oven as well.
> 
> I don't know if you've ever actually baked a pie in a conventional
> oven, but normally one bakes it long enough that the situation
> you describe is a pretty clear violation of the Second Law of
> Thermodynamics.  I think what you mean to say is that for pies
> with fruit filling, the filling has a higher water content and
> hence higher heat capacity than the crust.  Despite Mitchell Swartz's
> best efforts, what you actually feel as "heat" is the amount of
> heat transferred rather than the temperature.

Moreover, the higher water content of the filling makes it a better
absorber for the microwave energy.  However, the center of the filling
heats more slowly than the filling periphery.

The "cooks from the center" notion is incorrect and misleading.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.13 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  13 Jan update, Griggs theories
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 13 Jan update, Griggs theories
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 13:03 -0500 (EST)

I would like to thank those who have sent me EMAIL pointing out errors in my
previously posted list of Griggs device theories.  I have made the corrections
and here is the revised list.

THEORY                                 CONTRIBUTED BY

Experiment or measurement error        Dale Bass
Stored Energy                          Jorge Stolfi *
Chemical Reaction (oxidation of Al)    Bruce Dunn *
Heat pump                              Dick Blue

All the following would presumable be over unity:

Sonoluminance (Hot fusion)             ??????
Steam table Non-linearities            Marshall Dudley from Oak Ridge Scientist
Sonoluminance (ZPE interaction)        ??????
Cold Fusion                            Jed Rothwell/Eugene Mallove
ZPE-Enhanced H2O Dissociation/Recomb.  Dr. Robert W. Bass **
Chaotic vortexes (ZPE/spinning charge) Marshall Dudley
Transmutation of aluminum              ??????
Psychic or psi phenominia              Dale Bass
Leprechauns or fairies                 Dale Bass

* Wrong person was credited on this theory in previous list.
** This theory/person was added since last list.

If anyone will own up to the ????? entries, I will gladly add your name.  Was
there a "Transmutation of Aluminum" proposed, or am I confusing this with some
of the other postings, such as the carbon arc under water posting?

I have noticed after receiving EMAIL from Dr. Robert Bass that the 3 ZPE
theories are all probably based on the same assumption that acceleration of
charge can somehow tap the ZPE field, although the exact mechanism is slightly
different for each of the three theories.

                                                                Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.13 /  nachtrieb@max. /  ALCATOR C-MOD WEEKLY HIGHLIGHTS, 19950109
     
Originally-From: nachtrieb@max.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ALCATOR C-MOD WEEKLY HIGHLIGHTS, 19950109
Date: 13 JAN 95 21:15:44 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

		   Alcator C-MOD Weekly Highlights
			     Jan 9, 1995

Alcator C-MOD resumed operation this week after a one-week maintenance
interval, including a "clean" vent. Three runs were scheduled this
week; however, technical difficulties reduced the actual run time to a
total of about 10 hours over two days.

The first run of 1995, on Wednesday, was aimed at increasing the
plasma elongation and improving vertical stability, taking advantage
of modifications to the EFC circuit and increased derivative gain on
the fast vertical position feedback loop. The machine started up
normally, with all indications being that the wall conditioning had
not degraded due to the vent. The experiment was proceeding well when
the run had to be stopped due to an interruption in 13.8kV power from
Cambridge Electric Company, owing to a break in an under-street feeder
cable a few blocks from the lab.

Following restoration of 13.8 kV service on Thursday, a problem was
discovered in the alternator drive motor, probably an indirect
consequence of the power interruption. This was repaired and
operations resumed on Friday.  Completion of the increased kappa run
from Wednesday was scheduled as a piggyback experiment.  This
experiment was successfully completed, with plasmas centered on the
midplane, the x-point in its nominal location, and elongations in
excess of 1.7, being produced and controlled. Satisfactory tuning of
the PID coefficients for the fast Z-position was established.

The main purpose of Friday's run was continuation of conditioning of
the E-port ICRF antenna. This was not accomplished, due to a problem
in the external stub tuner/phase shifter assembly. The run was
terminated early, upon completion of the piggyback activity, in order
to inspect and begin repair of this tuner. Conditioning of the E-port
antenna is scheduled to resume this week.

Further progress has been made in determining the halo current paths
on vertical disruptions. Signals from a set of B_tor pickup loops on
the inner wall indicate that the inner return path to the plasma is
well below the midplane, at or below the vicinity of the inner
divertor module.

Bruce Lipschultz and Garry McCracken visited the University of Toronto
last week for a meeting with Peter Stangeby and his group on
collaborations involving the use of the DIVIMP 2-D impurity Monte
Carlo code in the analysis of C-MOD edge and divertor data.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudennachtrieb cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.13 /  hatcher@msupa. /  RE: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph
sics.accelerators
Subject: RE: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
Date: 13 Jan 1995 17:55:20 GMT
Organization: MSU Dept. of Physics & Astronomy

In article <1995Jan13.073639@fndcd.fnal.gov>, nagy@fndcd.fnal.gov
(Frank J. Nagy:VAX Wizard&Loose Cannon) writes:
>In article <12JAN95.16252048@sbnslj.physics.sunysb.edu>, widmer@sbnslj.
hysics.sunysb.edu (Mark Widmer) writes:
>> It is amazing just how weak that interaction is, and how appropriate the
>> actual term "weak interaction" is.  I have read that a beam of neutrinos 
>> could go through something like a light-year thickness of lead before that 
>> beam had reached 1/2 of it's initial intensity.  It boggles the mind that 
>> present-day detectors, which use water and are the size of a large room, 
>> detect them at all.  For every neutrino detected, there must be <insert
>> very large number here> more that are not seen.
>
>The reason is that the neutrino cross section goes up as E**2 (energy
>of the neutrino) - assuming that my memory is still working.  The statement

You got it right in words, but not in notation.
For the pedantic, here's with few approximations, the charged current
(ie. W exchange) deep-inelastic neutrino-nucleon scattering cross section:
(pseudo-TeX notation)

   d^2\sigma   G_F^2 (s-M^2)        M_W^4
   --------- = -------------   ------------- X 
     dx dy     2\pi(\hbar c)^4 (Q^2+M_W^2)^2

                  {[1-y-small]F_2 + xy^2 F_1 +/- (y-y^2/2)x F_3}

where the "structure functions" F_i are combinations of the quark
distributions (and functions of Bj "x" and the "scale" (typically Q));
use + for neutrinos, - for anti-neutrinos.  Now if you look at the term
(s-M^2) you see most of the energy dependence.  For targets at rest in
the lab frame s = (M^2+2ME).  Thus the cross section is *directly* 
proportional to the mast of the nucleon and the energy of the neutrino.  
A linear dependence.

>about "light-year thickness of lead" is true for low energy neutrinos
>like those coming from beta decays of nuclei.  Particle accelerators
>(and Fermilab in particular) product very high energy neutrino beams,
>something on the order of 10**4 or 10**5 greater energy - the cross
>section is now larger by 10**8 to 10**10 so a neutrino experiment
>can see a reasonable event rate from the secondary beam.  Note that
>the number of neutrinos in the beam is quite small - by comparison

Well...if you consider numbers on the order of 10^11-10^12 per pulse
(3 times a minute) "small" :-)  Hmmm, I guess I need to go look up what 
the solar flux is before I can make a true comparison.

>to the number emitted by the Sun (or supposedly emitted by the Sun)

:-)  I saw in Science News that we (the scientific community) now have 
a "calibrated" (to 10%) solar neutrino detector ... so it really does 
seem to be an discrepancy in the flux and not something else.

>and that the detectors typically have several thousand tons of
>steel, scintillator and/or water.

I'm not sure that the Galium experiments are that heavy.  Anyone know?
I know our relatively "small" accelerator-based electronic detector
(as opposed to bubble chambers) was `only' 100 metric tonnes within
the fiducial volume (340 tonnes of target material in total).  But then
even with an average 150 GeV neutrino energy we only had a (small) handful
of interactions per pulse (given the above flux).

>= Dr. Frank J. Nagy   "VMS Wizard, Loose Cannon, Info RoadKill"

-robert

 Robert W. Hatcher      | 256D Physics-Astronomy    | hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu
 Associate Researcher   | Michigan State University | hatcher@msupa   (Bitnet)
 (517) 353-3008,-5180   | East Lansing, MI 48824    | msuhep::hatcher (HEPnet)

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenhatcher cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.13 / Dieter Britz /  Forgotten biblio count
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Forgotten biblio count
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 16:50:47 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University


Sorry, I forgot to include the current counts in my update post. Here
they are:

Current counts:

Books:         1
Papers:      965
Comments:    226
Patents:     167
Peripherals:  88
Conf-procs:   20

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

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.13 / Thomas Zemanian /  GG size limitations
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: GG size limitations
Date: 13 Jan 1995 19:14:54 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <RC57Z0z.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

[history of Wright brothers' trevails deleted]

> Something like the Griggs Gadget, on the other hand, is a
> cinch to reproduce. I think any properly equiped machine shop could make
> one work in six months of hard labor. Unfortunately, you cannot scale them
> down, so you have to have space enough for something the size of a small
> automobile that makes a terriffic racket. Kind of like an airplane. . .
>  

Jed, why can't the GG be scaled down?  Is there a "critical mass" of water,
or something?  One would think that the same local shear could be
reproduced on a bench scale rather straightforwardly.  Airplanes, to use
your analogy, work _better_ on  a smaller scale (I can fold a glider out of
paper!) Methinks something smells rotten in the state of Georgia. 

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.13 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Warning to Mark Fernee
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Warning to Mark Fernee
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 95 12:18:12 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I Johnston <ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk> writes:
 
>How's Clustron Sciences Corporation going these days?
 
Gene is not involved with them, and neither am I. But I do keep in touch.
They have major financing from an investment bank and they are doing just
fine, thank you.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.13 / Jim Carr /  Re: Rothwell's Wrights vs. The New York Times: an s.p.f. Meta-issue
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell's Wrights vs. The New York Times: an s.p.f. Meta-issue
Date: 13 Jan 1995 13:30:40 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <Ba36hU-.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>
>                        ...                           Their sloppy reporting
>on the Wrights was nearly as bad as the stuff they put out on cold fusion 83
>years later. 

Are you referring to 

 "A professor at the University of Utah said yesterday that he an a 
  British colleague had achieved nuclear fusion in a test cell simple 
  enough to be built in a small chemistry laboratory." 

or 

 "In his announcement, Dr. Pons said the experiment generated a great 
  deal of heat as well as neutron radiation, and that the presumed 
  fusion reaction produced more energy than it consumed.  He and 
  Dr. Fleischmann predicted that `the discovery will be relatively 
  easy to make into a usable technology' but that `continued work 
  is needed, first, to further understand the science, and secondly, 
  to determine its value to energy economics.' "

Of course, when 

 "A university spokesman said Dr. Pons would be unavailble to respond 
  to questions." 

it can be difficult to get every detail into the news story that was 
in the published paper.  However, what is quoted above from the NYTimes 
is exactly what I heard said in the TV news video of the press conference 
and is a reasonable summary of what they published in JEC.  

What exactly was factually wrong in the Times article of 24 March? 
     -------     ---------------

Further, I doubt if their reporting on the Wrights in 1903 was sloppy. 
I suspect they were quoting what they were told by a Wright employee, 
and the factual errors were deliberate, to protect the invention from 
Langley and others. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  Tallahassee, where the crime rate 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  is almost twice that in New York 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  City.  Reported crimes, that is.  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  A subtle statistical detail.  
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.14 / John Vetrano /  Re: GG size limitations
     
Originally-From: js_vetrano@pnl.gov (John S Vetrano)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG size limitations
Date: 14 Jan 1995 00:09:10 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <RM97B+0.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

> Thomas S. Zemanian <ts_zemanian@pnl.gov> asks:
>  
>      "Jed, why can't the GG be scaled down?  Is there a "critical mass" of
>      water, or something?
>  
> Honestly, I don't know. Perhaps it could be scaled down, but nobody has tried.
> The two independent replications that I am aware of were both big. One problem
> is that the speed of the travel of the rotor has to be very fast or you get no
> noise. The smallest unit I saw had a belt and gears from the motor to boost
> the rotor speed. That is inefficient and it makes a terrible racket.
>  
> With a lot of these machines, bigger is easier. More convenient. One that I am
> involved in weighs 2.5 KG because these large components are easier to get at,
> pull out, replace, etc. It is kind of like the difference between a desktop
> computer and a portable. Those itty bitty little parts you have to manipulate
> with tweezers will drive you crazy! Actually, the minicomputers were a heck of
> a lot easier to service than the desktop micros.
>  
> - Jed

I'm curious (I guess that's why I became a scientist :-)).  Turbomolecular
pumps for vacuum systems rotate the rotor at very high speeds (>10,000
rpm) and run quite nicely (and quietly I might add).  I realize that the
internals are different, but the basic spinning technique should be
applicable.  I'm not sure but I believe it is just some sort of electric
motor that spins them up.  Couldn't a small prototype could be made using
the workings of one of these?  Is it true that it is the outside edge of
the rotor where all the action is probably taking place?  Jed, sorry for
asking more questions where the answer has probably been posted before,
but what is the speed of the outside of the rotor (in, say, ft/sec).  Then
one could scale down using the appropriately higher rpm for a smaller
rotor.  Anyway, just a thought.

John Vetrano

-- 
The above opinions are mine, all mine.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjs_vetrano cudfnJohn cudlnVetrano cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.14 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: GG size limitations
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG size limitations
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 00:54:56 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <ts_zemanian-130195110706@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov>,
Thomas S. Zemanian <ts_zemanian@pnl.gov> wrote:
>
>Jed, why can't the GG be scaled down?  Is there a "critical mass" of water,
>or something?  One would think that the same local shear could be
>reproduced on a bench scale rather straightforwardly.  Airplanes, to use
>your analogy, work _better_ on  a smaller scale (I can fold a glider out of
>paper!) Methinks something smells rotten in the state of Georgia. 

Well, one problem is that when you make the thing small enough it becomes
a cinch to instrument properly and then the 'effect' goes away. :-)

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.14 / Richard Blue /  Jed Rothwell as a reporter
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jed Rothwell as a reporter
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 15:04:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I we are to compare the performance of the New York Times in 1907 with
Jed's reporting on cold fusion he does not come out as such a clear winner.

Specifically he repeatedly asserts that Morrison and Huizenga have not been
willing to examine the facts concerning cold fusion.  I believe, that
contrary to Jed's reporting, Morrison and Huizenga know much more to
begin with than does Jed and that they have each travelled extensively
to observe first hand cold fusion experiments and to engage in face-to-
face conversation with various experimenters.  Anyone who questions
whether I am correct in these assertions and that Jed is distorting
the facts in his reporting is invited to examine the record for themselves.
Please don't rely solely on Jed Rothwell's reporting.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.14 / Richard Blue /  Re: Griggs theories
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs theories
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 15:04:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Marshall Dudley has given me far too much credit(?) for the various
theories concerning the Griggs device.  I have suggested that Jed
Rothwell's reported observations are possibly flawed in a number of
respects.  I have suggested that various of the essential measurements
have errors which have not been properly assessed.  I have pointed
to possible inconsistencies in the temperatures reported by Jed.
The credit for raising the issue of stored energy belongs Jorge
Stolfe, I believe.  That is something that Jed has never been able
to address beyond saying that somebody somewhere else has data that
shows it isn't a problem.

I have questioned the measurements of the electrical input power and
the readings of the dynamometer and the relationship between them.
I have commented on the operating characteristics of the device as
a possible clue as to what is happening.  (That did not bring any
response from Jed or anyone else, but I liked that theory.)

I don't believe I ever commented on the heat pump idea.  I certainly
did not originate that line of thinking.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.14 / Eugene Mallove /  MIT Cold Fusion Day '95 -- Room Change, etc.
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: MIT Cold Fusion Day '95 -- Room Change, etc.
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 15:04:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

*****NOTE WELL: The room assigment for the MIT Cold Fusion IAP program has 
changed from 10-105 (the Bush room) to Room 6-120, the Physics Lecture Hall

************************  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 6-120, Physics Lecture Hall
First floor, main building of MIT.

(Enter at 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, the main entrance of MIT. Go 
down the "Infinite Corridor" straight ahead, and turn right at the end to a 
new corridor. A few doors down this corridor is Room 6-120)
________________________________________________________


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.

* It is probable that the company in charge of the first U.S. Patent granted 
for cold fusion, the Patterson patent, 5,318,675, will be there to show a 
video tape of its cells' operation. Also, an actual cell should be there too.

* James Griggs of Hydro Dynamics, Inc. will discuss new evidence (photographic
and photo-micrographic) of extremely high temperatures on the rotor surfaces 
of Hydrosonic Pumps.

* Dr. Peter Graneau will discuss "Anomalous Forces in Water Plasma Explosions"
and will show a video tape of experiments

* Professor Peter Hagelstein (MIT Dept. of EE and CS) will discuss Neutron 
Transfer Reactions

* Professor Keith Johnson (MIT Dept. of Materials Science) will discuss his 
theoretical work, and progress on the cold fusion movie "Excess heat," which 
he scripted and which will be produced by a major Hollywood studio for release
in early 1996.

* Graduate student Ray Conley (MIT Dept. of Aeronautics and Astronautics) will
discuss his light water excess heat experiments.

* AND, much more -- some big surprises.
________________________________________________
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


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.13 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: GG size limitations
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG size limitations
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 95 17:41:16 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Thomas S. Zemanian <ts_zemanian@pnl.gov> asks:
 
     "Jed, why can't the GG be scaled down?  Is there a "critical mass" of
     water, or something?
 
Honestly, I don't know. Perhaps it could be scaled down, but nobody has tried.
The two independent replications that I am aware of were both big. One problem
is that the speed of the travel of the rotor has to be very fast or you get no
noise. The smallest unit I saw had a belt and gears from the motor to boost
the rotor speed. That is inefficient and it makes a terrible racket.
 
With a lot of these machines, bigger is easier. More convenient. One that I am
involved in weighs 2.5 KG because these large components are easier to get at,
pull out, replace, etc. It is kind of like the difference between a desktop
computer and a portable. Those itty bitty little parts you have to manipulate
with tweezers will drive you crazy! Actually, the minicomputers were a heck of
a lot easier to service than the desktop micros.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.14 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: GG size limitations
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG size limitations
Date: 14 Jan 1995 01:07:32 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <js_vetrano-1301951604060001@js_vetrano.pnl.gov>,
js_vetrano@pnl.gov (John S Vetrano) wrote:

> In article <RM97B+0.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
> 
> > Thomas S. Zemanian <ts_zemanian@pnl.gov> asks:
> >  
> >      "Jed, why can't the GG be scaled down?  Is there a "critical mass" of
> >      water, or something?
> >  
> > Honestly, I don't know. Perhaps it could be scaled down, but nobody has tried.
> > The two independent replications that I am aware of were both big. One problem
> > is that the speed of the travel of the rotor has to be very fast or you get no
> > noise. The smallest unit I saw had a belt and gears from the motor to boost
> > the rotor speed. That is inefficient and it makes a terrible racket.
> >  

[deletia]

> 
> I'm curious (I guess that's why I became a scientist :-)).  Turbomolecular
> pumps for vacuum systems rotate the rotor at very high speeds (>10,000
> rpm) and run quite nicely (and quietly I might add).  I realize that the
> internals are different, but the basic spinning technique should be
> applicable.  I'm not sure but I believe it is just some sort of electric
> motor that spins them up.  Couldn't a small prototype could be made using
> the workings of one of these?  Is it true that it is the outside edge of
> the rotor where all the action is probably taking place?  Jed, sorry for
> asking more questions where the answer has probably been posted before,
> but what is the speed of the outside of the rotor (in, say, ft/sec).  Then
> one could scale down using the appropriately higher rpm for a smaller
> rotor.  Anyway, just a thought.
> 

Hi John:

I'm not sure that a turbopump is the model of choice.  Yes, they do spin at
very high speeds, but do so in high vacuum and will spin down if the
pressure rises above a fraction of a torr.    I believe the motor is a high
frequency multipole induction motor (eliminates brushes and armature
magnets or windings, and allows the vanes themselves to act as the squirrel
cage).  Clearly they won't work in water.  However, the guts of a benchtop
centrifuge might serve rather nicely.

--Tom

P.S.--Been racing lately?
--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.14 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Does it really matter who believes what?
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does it really matter who believes what?
Date: 14 Jan 1995 02:31:12 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Chris Parkinson (parky@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: How long did it take the Wright bros. to convince the world that flight 
: was possible. The Defense Department took 5 years. Even the NY Times 
: still disbelieved them even after an airplane flew passed a train 
: carrying a bunch of Times reporters.

Oh come on, people knew "flight was possible", the question was, 
"is the technology sufficiently advanced and cost effective to
to be practical?"

The subsequent great improvement in internal combustion engines and
other critical aviation technologies advanced at pace rapid enough
to make it so.  That this would happen was not obvious.


--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.14 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: The Wright Bros. & the "skeptics"
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Wright Bros. & the "skeptics"
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 01:09:53 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <Jc2bpy+.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>It is amazing that you and the other "skeptics" are so ignorant
>about the Wrights.

If there is one thing that is absolutelky guaranteed to be the center of
conversation whereever scientists congregate it's Wilbur, Orville and Glenn.

>They were, after all, among the most celebrated U.S.
>scientists of this century.

I guess that's why they won the Nobel Prize?

>I never jump to conclusions.

That's rich.

>have spent *years* studying both subjects. When I write something (unless it
>is a joke or labeled as idle speculation), you can be damn sure that I can
>back up what I say six ways from seven.

OK Jed! Then tell us where that water heater is!

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.14 / John Logajan /  Sonolumies  in Scientific American
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sonolumies  in Scientific American
Date: 14 Jan 1995 04:07:08 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

The February 1995 issue of Scientific American has an article by Putterman
on sonoluminescence.

Also, I believe his student, Hiller, wrote the amateur experimenter
article in the same issue detailing how to build one of your own
sonoluminescent devices.

--
 - 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:
cuddy14 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.13 / Alan M /  Re: NP 9Jan95, Ludwig is asked to revise THE FEYNMAN LECTURES
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: NP 9Jan95, Ludwig is asked to revise THE FEYNMAN LECTURES
IN  PHYSICS and deliver the Mess'P
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 08:59:49 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <1995Jan12.181848.11767@midway.uchicago.edu>  syed@kimbark.u
hicago.edu (Jamie Bass - 
The Ham Sandwich) writes:

> my comrades at work wept and balled profusely in tears.

The mind boggles

Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.13 / I Johnston /  Re: Warning to Mark Fernee
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Warning to Mark Fernee
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 11:06:18 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

Eugene Mallove (76570.2270@compuserve.com) wrote:

: In short, Mark Fernee is the Crackpot, not Gene Mallove.  Q.E.D.

How's Clustron Sciences Corporation going these days?

Ian

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.13 / Richard Schultz /  Re: NP 9Jan95, Ludwig is asked to revise THE FEYNMAN LECTURES IN 
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: Re: NP 9Jan95, Ludwig is asked to revise THE FEYNMAN LECTURES IN 
Date: 13 Jan 1995 12:18:22 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <3esr3h$6fp@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
Archimedes Plutonium <Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu> wrote:

>The full title of this missive is " NP 9Jan95, Ludwig is asked to
>revise THE FEYNMAN LECTURES IN PHYSICS and deliver the Messenger
>Lectures at Cornell "

>Authorities have contacted me.

I'm surprised it took them this long.

>And Adderson Wesley want me to revise the Feynman Lectures on Physics. 

This reminds me somehow of the "Dilbert" cartoon in which the boss introduces
a new manager-type who got an M.B.A. from the Harfurd Business School.

>As soon as I put the phone down, my comrades at work wept and balled
>profusely in tears.

I thought he worked in the kitchen.  When did he start working for a twine
factory?  Or was he at an orgy at the time he got this phone call?
--
					Richard Schultz

"How many boards would the Mongols hoard if the Mongol hordes got bored?"
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.13 /  artki@kbbs.com /  Does it really matter
     
Originally-From: artki@kbbs.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Does it really matter
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 95 01:53:10 EST
Organization: KBBS - Internet & Files via Satellite   


 * Quote from INTERNET: K.Reval@sussex. to ** ALL ** dated 01-12-95.

]But try eating  a freshly microwaved pie. I defy you.
]
]Warning: Do not try this at home, it really is so much hotter inside.
]
]KR

  If "Freshly Microwaved" means fully cooked then all you are saying
is that the filling is hotter than the crust.  That's true for
a pie baked in a conventional oven as well.

   Arthur in >---(oo)---> Hollywood             (ArtKi@KBBS.COM)
   Written 1/13/95 - Who knows when it will show up...
---
 ~ SPEED 1.40 #2164 ~


--
    [*]   Message Origin:  KBBS Los Angeles!  74 Access Lines   [*]
    [*]   (818) 886-0872 or Telnet 204.96.25.7  info@kbbs.com   [*]



cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenartki cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.13 / K Jonsson /  Re: BOMB REPORT
     
Originally-From: kvj@rhi.hi.is (Kristjan Valur Jonsson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: BOMB REPORT
Date: 13 Jan 1995 09:53:25 GMT
Organization: University of Iceland

In <nagleD29ynI.K1M@netcom.com> nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes:


>In article <S1126161.2.2F1351A4@cedarville.edu> S1126161@cedarville.edu
(Robert Mc Kinney ) writes:
>>I AM DOING A REPORT ON ON HOW EASY IT IS TO MAKE A BOMB AND I AM WONDERING 
>>IF YOU COULD GIVE ME SOME INFORMATION ON HOW TO PRODUCE ONE AND THE 
>>SIMPLICITIES OF IT. IF YOU NEED ANY SPECIAL EQUIPMENT TO DO IT. ANY
>>INFORMATION  WOULD BE APPRECIATED.  THANKS 
>>ROBERT MCKINNEY

>      It's not that hard.  Basically, you make a sphere of plutonium 
>that's maybe half the critical mass.  You use explosives to squeeze it
>down to several times the normal density.  At the moment of highest
>density, you inject a few neutrons from a small external accelerator.

Nononono. One takes 30x10cm of machine paper. Wets it with woodworking
glue.  Rolls it tight around a pencil.  Removes the pencil and tightens
one end with a horse's knot until the opening is quite narrow.  Then
one takes a ball of machine paper, wetted with glue and rams it down
the other end, sealing the hole.  Now, one fills the cylinder one
quarter up with fast burning gunpowder (you can get your local chemist
to make some white powder for you for some small amount of money).
Then one puts in the fuse.  One may use bengal matches, but they are rather
large, and can crack.  It's best to solve a small amount of powder in
water and soak a lenght of yarn in it, and let it dry.  Oce the fuse is in,
one tightens the end the same way as the other, with a horse's knot.
There you have it, a bomb.

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:
cuddy13 cudenkvj cudfnKristjan cudlnJonsson cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.13 / Frank Cannon /  RE: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: nagy@fndcd.fnal.gov (Frank J. Nagy:VAX Wizard&Loose Cannon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph
sics.accelerators
Subject: RE: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
Date: 13 Jan 95 07:36:39 -0600
Organization: Fermilab Computing Division

In article <12JAN95.16252048@sbnslj.physics.sunysb.edu>, widmer@sbnslj.p
ysics.sunysb.edu (Mark Widmer) writes:
> It is amazing just how weak that interaction is, and how appropriate the
> actual term "weak interaction" is.  I have read that a beam of neutrinos 
> could go through something like a light-year thickness of lead before that 
> beam had reached 1/2 of it's initial intensity.  It boggles the mind that 
> present-day detectors, which use water and are the size of a large room, 
> detect them at all.  For every neutrino detected, there must be <insert
> very large number here> more that are not seen.

The reason is that the neutrino cross section goes up as E**2 (energy
of the neutrino) - assuming that my memory is still working.  The statement
about "light-year thickness of lead" is true for low energy neutrinos
like those coming from beta decays of nuclei.  Particle accelerators
(and Fermilab in particular) product very high energy neutrino beams,
something on the order of 10**4 or 10**5 greater energy - the cross
section is now larger by 10**8 to 10**10 so a neutrino experiment
can see a reasonable event rate from the secondary beam.  Note that
the number of neutrinos in the beam is quite small - by comparison
to the number emitted by the Sun (or supposedly emitted by the Sun)
and that the detectors typically have several thousand tons of
steel, scintillator and/or water.

On the other hand, the existance of neutrinos was verified by
their detection from an operating nuclear reactor.  The cross
section was low (low energy remember), the detector was small
by comparison, but the reactor pumps out a *lot* of neutrinos
per second.
-- 
= Dr. Frank J. Nagy   "VMS Wizard, Loose Cannon, Info RoadKill"
= Fermilab Computing Division/Operating Systems Support Dept
= VMS Systems Support group leader and OSS Associate Dept. Head
= Internet: NAGY@FNAL.GOV  -or-  NAGY@FNDCD.FNAL.GOV
= USnail: Fermilab POB 500 MS/369 Batavia, IL 60510
= ICBM: 41d 50m 14s N, 88d 15m 48s W, 741 ft ASL
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudennagy cudfnFrank cudlnCannon cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.13 / Mat Newman /  Re: NP 9Jan95, Ludwig is asked to revise THE FEYNMAN LECTURES
     
Originally-From: mnewman@comlab.ox.ac.uk (Mat Newman)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: NP 9Jan95, Ludwig is asked to revise THE FEYNMAN LECTURES
 IN   PHYSICS and deliver the Messenger Lectures at Cornell
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 10:23:55 GMT
Organization: Oxford University Computing Laboratory

Is it Ludwig, or is it Archimedes?

Is it Prince, or is it 'Symbol'?

(and like for aforementioned pop singer, are we allowed to refer to
 Mr. Plutonium by his former name once per post?)

Mat.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmnewman cudfnMat cudlnNewman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.13 /  prasad /  Re: Griggs Theories
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Theories
Date: 13 Jan 1995 14:52:45 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <WAF2PCB68685879@brbbs.brbbs.com>, mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com
(MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes:
|> 
|> THEORY                                 CONTRIBUTED BY
|> 
|> Experiment or measurement error*       Dale Bass
|> Stored Energy                          Dick Blue
|> Chemical Reaction                      Dick Blue
|> Heat pump                              Dick Blue

I thought I saw detailed exploration of the heat pump idea by others,
including Jorge Stolfi and once even me, with Jed reciting the second law
to say why those schemes would not be applicable or useful.

Must have missed Dick's heat pump explanation.  Could anyone repost it
if it had anything substantially distinct?

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.13 /  prasad /  Re: The Wright Bros. & the "skeptics"
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Wright Bros. & the "skeptics"
Date: 13 Jan 1995 15:07:34 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <pO45pco.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
|>  
|> These events in Europe had no effect whatsoever on the U.S. "skeptics" at the
|> New York Times, in Washington, or anywhere else. The flights, the headlines
|> and the hoopla continued for five weeks, but not one word of it was published
|> in the U.S. The New York Times did not mention anything about the European
|> flights, although on August 9, the Times "gave first page space to a dispatch
|> from Canton, Ohio, about a balloon trip, and to a dispatch from the German
|> Kaiser contributing to a fund for building another Zeppelin airship."
|>  

Sounds like the Dark Ages simply emigrated to America.  [Remember, there was
sunlight even in the so-called dark ages, so merely invention of electric lamp
didn't mean the darkness was gone.  Remember the anti-a.c. campaign of the
very inventor of said lamp?!]

Now you see why I don't want to post the real physics of the Griggs pump.

[You don't believe me, huh?  But then, did you believe F&P?? :^) ]
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.13 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Does it really matter
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does it really matter
Date: 13 Jan 1995 17:09:23 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <9046SCKNHFNUSLFNEX@kbbs.com>,  <artki@kbbs.com> wrote:

>  If "Freshly Microwaved" means fully cooked then all you are saying
>is that the filling is hotter than the crust.  That's true for
>a pie baked in a conventional oven as well.

I don't know if you've ever actually baked a pie in a conventional
oven, but normally one bakes it long enough that the situation
you describe is a pretty clear violation of the Second Law of
Thermodynamics.  I think what you mean to say is that for pies
with fruit filling, the filling has a higher water content and
hence higher heat capacity than the crust.  Despite Mitchell Swartz's
best efforts, what you actually feel as "heat" is the amount of
heat transferred rather than the temperature.
--
					Richard Schultz

"How many boards would the Mongols hoard if the Mongol hordes got bored?"
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.13 / Jim Carr /  Re: The Wright Bros. & the "skeptics"
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Wright Bros. & the "skeptics"
Date: 13 Jan 1995 12:01:55 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <pO45pco.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> 
>     ...       Today, the Times swoons in awe at the tokamak experiments, even
>though tokamaks are a backwards, useless, dead-end technology that will never
>amount to anything, while it ignores *real* energy technology - cold fusion -
>that will soon revolutionize the world.

Funny, but my files include an article from the Times that reported on 
the first news about cold fusion, and it ran in the first possible issue 
after the announcement with the headline "2 Report Nuclear Power Gain 
But Experts Express Doubts".  Hardly ignoring it.  Besides, if you forget 
the Times, The Wall Street Journal covered cold fusion *extensively* for 
a long period of time. 

But what about the european newspapers, such as the Financial Times of 
London, that first broke the story?  By your analogy, these more enlightened 
folks should be covering progress in cold fusion intensely.  Which 
newspapers were at the first international conference, and which were 
at the most recent international conference?  Have they ignored it, or 
have they just lost interest in it?  Quite a difference. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  Tallahassee, where the crime rate 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  is almost twice that in New York 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  City.  Reported crimes, that is.  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  A subtle statistical detail.  
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.13 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Rothwell's Wrights vs. The New York Times: an s.p.f. Meta-issue
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell's Wrights vs. The New York Times: an s.p.f. Meta-issue
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 95 12:14:39 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) quotes some fascinating
articles from the New York Times about the Wrights, written in 1907. Sincerely
from me: this is really great source material! Thanks for posting it. HOWEVER,
let me caution the readers (and Richard) that the New York Times got the story
completely wrong, garbled, upside-down and backwards. Their sloppy reporting
on the Wrights was nearly as bad as the stuff they put out on cold fusion 83
years later. Reading these original articles from the Times is an excellent
exercise in doing history, but you must compare the claims to the documented
facts from the Wright archives, or you will be terribly mixed up.
 
 
     "According to the New York Times (28 April 1907), the Wrights wanted
     anyone viewing a test flight to agree in advance that if the airplane
     passed the test, they would pay for the rights to it."
 
Not *anyone*. Lots of people saw the flights. They meant any customer. They
did not want to schlep a flying machine all the way to Washington or Paris,
spend weeks assembling and testing, fly it, and have the customer say, "very
nice. It does just what you said. But I have decided I am not interested after
all, thanks for coming."
 
The Wrights were no longer flying in 1906 and 1907. They were busy with many
tasks: filing the patent, making business arrangements in Europe, engineering
more powerful, safer machines. It is not surprising that they terminated
flight tests for a few years. Every flight was a dance with death. They had
avoided being killed by the narrowest of margins on many occasions, and they
had both been hurt in crashes many times. If they had not been superb
athletes, they would never have survived. They began a new set of flight tests
in 1908, at Kitty Hawk. During that two year hiatus, anyone who any doubts
about their claims could have visited them and examined the patent, the
photographs, the affidavits, and talked to the various witnesses who lived in
the neighborhood. The French and the British military sent agents, and a Mr.
Frank S. Lahm dropped in without introduction.
 
 
     "The reason given in the article (see the 1 May 1907 article below) was
     that the machine could not be patented in the U.S., although the article
     did not say why."
 
Actually, the Times article quotes did not say explicitly that they could not
get a patent. Perhaps the Times reporter thought that. This account is typical
of the sloppy, lazy, garbled reporting about the Wrights. The fact is, the
Wrights had no major technical secrets to hide by 1907. They were granted a
U.S. Patent on May 23, 1906: No. 821,393 (Orville Wright and Wilbur Wright, of
Dayton, Ohio. Flying Machine.) Austria, Germany and Italy granted them patents
that fall.
 
By 1907 the Wrights were disgusted and outraged at the press, so they never
went out of their way to help them. But, they did provide information to
anyone who showed up at their door, and when reporters asked reasonable
questions they answered politely. They moved the 1908 flight tests back to
Kitty Hawk partly for security reasons, but mostly for safety, I believe. It
is a darn good thing they did, because otherwise Wilbur would have been killed
in the crash of May 14, 1908. Security was an issue because they were making
improvements in the machine and by that time a number of commercial rivals had
begun work, so they decided to make things a little less convenient for those
people by moving back to Kitty Hawk, which was far off the beaten track. They
did not keep the trip a secret. To the contrary, they told anyone who asked,
and a number of leading newspapers and magazines sent top notch reporters,
including Byron Newton, William Hoster (New York American), P.H. McGowan
(London Daily Mail), and Arthur Ruhl & "Jimmy" Hare (Collier's Weekly). This
small crowd or reporters decided to hide in the woods, where they thought the
Wrights could not see them. (The Wrights could see them easily; they paid no
attention.) Newton described the May 11 flight:
 
     "For some minutes the propeller blades continued to flash in the sun,
     and then the machine rose obliquely into the air. At first it came
     directly towards us, so that we could not tell how fast it was going
     except that it appeared to increase rapidly in size as it approached. In
     the excitement of this first flight, men trained to observe details
     under all sort of distractions forgot their cameras, forgot their
     watches, forgot everything except this aerial monster chattering over
     our heads."
 
They did not forget for long; Hare got a good photograph of that flight. On
May 14 they observed the first flight with a passenger, when Wilbur carried
Charlie Furnas.
 
Needless to say, when these crack reporters returned to the mainland, filed
their stories, and showed their photographs -- nobody in the U.S. believed
them. The London Daily mail carried the news, the Paris newspapers did, but
the Americans said it was bunk. Charles A. Bertrand, in one of the Paris
papers commented: "He [McGowan] depicts the flight in a manner that does honor
to his imagination. If the Wrights hadn't been seen in Europe, one would be
justified in believing their very existence as uncertain as their apparatus."
A U.S. magazine rejected an article from one of the reporters, saying, "While
your manuscript has been read with much interest, it does not seem to qualify
as either fact or fiction."
 
In short, when a team of the best reporters in the country returned from Kitty
Hawk with photographs and first person eye-witness accounts of the flights,
the "skeptics" took that as ever more firm proof that it was a lie. The
account "does honor to his imagination" they said, not realizing that their
reaction was based upon *their own imagination*! For it was the "skeptics" who
were dreaming up wild fantasies by 1908. They were still convinced it must be
false, and when they sent the best, most reliable reporters they could find --
in order to debunk the story -- and the reporters came back and showed it was
all true, the "skeptics" assumed the reporters were insane. Needless to say,
the same thing happens today. When EPRI, the Navy and MITI announce CF
programs, the "skeptics" claim that proves that EPRI, the Navy and MITI are
crazy. Long ago, the calorimetric data from CF experiments proved *beyond any
rational doubt* that CF produces heat beyond chemistry. As this proof grows
ever stronger, and as the experiments are replicated more widely, the
"skeptics" shout all the louder. They now live in a fantasy world; they are
willing to believe absolutely anything but the simple truth. In 1908 they
demanded the flight experiments stop. They demanded the Army halt all
discussion and not allow any flight test. Theory proves it impossible! - they
cried. The insisted that theory overrules facts. (Actually, the so-called
"theories" of Newcomb and others were as stupid and unscientific as Morrison's
"theory" that you can burn 0.004 mole of hydrogen and get 86,000 joules of
heat.) The patterns of history repeat themselves endlessly, because human
nature does not change. Head-in-the-sand fools in 1908 dreamed the same type
of nonsense that people post here today. The similarities are uncanny. The
"skeptics" cling to their nonsense "theories"; they reject data; they demand
an end to experiments; they rant, they rail, and they try desperately to evade
reality. That is because subconsciously, they fear they are wrong, and they
know that they will soon be ridiculed.
 
The other details in these New York Times articles are a mishmash of truth and
nonsense. I'll leave it to the reader to sort out which is which. Caution: a
lot of the nonsense originally reported by the Times has been slavishly copied
all these decades from one book to the next. A lot of it is still current!
People tend to believe the Times, which give the reporters there a fat head,
which makes them lazy, which leads them to a lousy job sometimes, which means
their stories are full of holes, which distorts the historical record. I know
lots of other examples of this!
 
 
schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) asks:
 
     "Once again I ask, can you provide *primary sources* for your assertion?
 
I listed my sources yesterday. I will not repeat them. Do you homework
Richard! For once in your life, shut up, go to the library, and read
something.
 
 
     "So once again I ask Rothwell to provide a *direct contemporary quote*
     from after 1903 that says heavier-than-air flight is impossible. . ."
 
Ha ha ha ha ha ha! This is a joke, right? If you had ever bothered to read a
single book on the Wrights -- just one! -- you would have seen DOZENS of
direct contemporary quotes that say that. For crying out loud, are you
incapable of every doing anything for yourself? Nobody ever taught you where
the library is? Okay, idiot, here is my own personal favorite attack on the
Wrights. This is from Kelly, p. 144. In its issue of January 13, 1906, in an
article titled "The Wright Aeroplane and its Fabled Performances," the
Scientific American commented skeptically on a letter written by the Wright
Brothers in a Paris automobile journal... In expressing its disbelief in the
"alleged" flights described in the Wright letter, the Scientific American
said:
 
     "If such sensational and tremendously important experiments are being
     conducted in a not very remote part of the country, on a subject in
     which everyone feels the most profound interest, is it possible to
     believe that the enterprising American reporter, who, it is well known,
     comes down the chimney when the door is locked in his face -- even when
     he has to scale a fifteen-story skyscraper to do so -- would not have
     ascertained all about them and published them broadcast long ago?"
 
In other words, "if this was true, some reporter would have checked it, and we
would have heard about it. It cannot be true, so we will not bother to check."
The Sci. Am. did not realize that journalists are lazy sheep who all think
alike, and act alike, and who get most of their news by listening to one
another. If the Sci. Am. had bothered to send a stringer (a local reporter) on
a five cent trolley ride, they would have gotten the facts, but they never did
bother to do that. They just assumed they were right, because theory overrules
facts. They still, today, think they are the Voice of God. They still refuse
to bother checking the facts. Actually, the Sci. Am. then and the Sci. Am.
today act like Morrison, or Huizenga: they are afraid to face the facts. The
Wrights wrote directly to the Sci. Am. and gave them hard, documented
evidence. I have sent tons of material to Sci. Am.; Pons and Fleischmann
invited Morrison to come visit their lab; and I openly challenged Huizenga to
pick *any lab* and *any worker* in the U.S. -- I would pay for an experiment.
Huizenga ran like a scared rat; Morrison will never have the guts to go to
IMRA; and the Sci. Am. will never admit they are wrong. This year they took
another potshot at the Kelly book! 50 years after it was published, they
still will not admit they misjudged the Wrights. Human nature never changes.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.13 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Griggs Theories
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Theories
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 95 12:27:11 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

MARSHALL DUDLEY <mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com> lists
 
  "Cold Fusion  ...     Jed Rothwell/Eugene Mallove"
 
Please don't call that a "theory." It is not! It is tentative hypothesis.
It is a suggestion that I think should be investigated. A theory would have
to have some logical structure and some experimental evidence to back it up.
I have not got any experimental evidence that shows the GG works by cold
fusion. Nothing! I am suggesting that we try and get some.
 
There is a gigantic difference between a hypothesis and a theory.
 
The only thing I know about the GG is that it does produce massive, easily
detected excess heat over indefinitely long periods of time. That is not
a theory or a hypothesis: it is an observation. It is data from instrument
readings. The only way you could disprove it would be to show that the
instruments are malfunctioning, and I do not think anyone could ever do that.
The experiment has been repeated by too many people with too many instruments;
the S/N ratio is too high; and the instruments are too reliable for that to
happen. Also the device has been independently replicated by at least two
others, and they also observed massive excess heat.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.13 /  prasad /  Whose side?! was Re: Rothwell's Wrights
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Whose side?! was Re: Rothwell's Wrights
Date: 13 Jan 1995 15:39:23 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center


In article <3f49kp$e7l@agate.berkeley.edu>, schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu
(Richard Schultz) writes:
|> 
|> (see the 1 May 1907 article below) was that the machine could not be 
|> patented in the U.S., although the article did not say why.  In 1907,

The "why" omission tends to substantiate Jed's assertion of media bias.  A
hostile media would be hardly likely to supply details that would clear the
Wright brothers on the "why".


|> (1) The New York Times, 26 December 1903, page 1.
|> 
|> several successful flights in North Carolina, near Kitty Hawk, are anxious
|> ...
|> Their machine is an adaptation of the box kite idea, with a propeller working
|> on a perpendicular shaft to raise and lower the craft, and another working
|> on a horizontal shaft to move it forward.  The machine, it is said, can be
|> raised or lowered with perfect control, and can carry a strong gasoline

Either you pulled in a helicopter article by mistake, or you want to say
the reporters/editors didn't quite care to get their gross facts straight.

Still backing Jed, huh?



|> =====
|> (2) The New York Times, 27 May 1904, page 1.
|> the brothers say was successful.  Great secrecy was maintained about the
|> test, and but few witnessed it.

What d'ya expect, after the Patent Office refuses to grant a property right?
You're definitely selling Jed again.



|> (3) The New York Times, 28 April 1907, section 3, page 3.
|> 
|> The Aero Club of New York recently endeavored to interest the United
|> States Government in the Wright invention.  The War Department was willing,
|> but the Wrights asserted that they had previously been insulted in
|> correspondence with the Department and were unwilling to resume
|> negotiations until an apology was made.
|> Neither the Department nor the club saw any insult in the correspondence,
|> but the Wrights remained implacable and the matter was dropped.

That doesn't necessarily exclude verbal dismissals, perhaps even heated,
which can leave deep scars, but could, give the usual media noise factor,
have been misconstrued as "insulted in correspondence".  Doesn't speak very
highly of those who couldn't concede a simple, possibly meaningless,
"sorry, can we start again?" to ease the interaction, particularly when
there's something to be gained.  On the contrary, as you would soon find
out if you tried selling an idea in a socialist country, insufficient interest
in something substantial means they're sure they can procure it by other means,
including the not-very-ethical.  (I'm citing from experience with mundane
s/w, let alone inventions!)

Either you're actually on Jed's side or you're naively assuming your
readers have little or no experience in human affairs.



|> =====
|> (4) The New York Times, 1 May 1907, page 4.
|> 
|> . . .For the last year the brothers have been urged to make a public
|> demonstration of their machine, but htey have repeatedly refused to do
|> this, asserting that their secret would at once become public property,
|> and they would have no opportunity of obtaining any financial remuneration
|> for the years of work they have spent in solving the problem of flight
|> through the air of a machine heavier than air.
|> The flight of the machine, however, was witnessed by several credible 
|> witnesses at Dayton, Ohio, in Speptember and October, 1905.  It made six

Non-publication is part of the patent requirements, too, isn't it?  Though
that doesn't mean total secrecy, only confidentiality.

Now I know better than to trust you as a skeptic!

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.13 / Scott Little /  Cold Fusion proven to be a reality.
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion proven to be a reality.
Date: 13 Jan 1995 14:08:00 GMT
Organization: Earthtech, Intl

Independant replication of excess-heat measurements is a prerequisite
for acceptance of the cold fusion phenomena by the world scientific
community.  As long as we only have each successful CF researcher
reporting  excess heat on their own experiments, a majority of
scientists will be  unable to accept the results.

1. Can anyone refer me to published (or publishable) reports of such
replications? 

2. 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 (both
electrical input and  heat output) 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:
cuddy13 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.13 / Tom Coradeschi /  Re: Warning:Nature, New Scientist, CF = violation conservation is mine
     
Originally-From: tcora@pica.army.mil (Tom Coradeschi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Warning:Nature, New Scientist, CF = violation conservation is mine
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 15:05:51 GMT
Organization: Electric Armaments Division, US Army ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ

Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:
> I strongly believe I have to give this warning of copyright
>infringements. Why? Because I have a copyright and a patent application
>on Cold Fusion explanation is Violation of Conservation of Energy/Mass.
>Anyone printing any idea of such must print Archimedes Plutonium to
>that idea.

Perhaps your understanding of coyprights is about at the same level as
your understanding of the physical sciences. You can copyright a document.
You cannot copyright an idea or a concept. Nice try, though.

                 tom coradeschi <+> tcora@pica.army.mil
                     http://k-whiner.pica.army.mil/
                  GEEK#1 <+> TOM#1 <+> DW#1 <+> KOtDWL
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudentcora cudfnTom cudlnCoradeschi cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.13 / Dieter Britz /  Biblio update, Jan-95
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Biblio update, Jan-95
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 15:23:40 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

Hello all,

another blabbliography update (I hope I spelled that right, Eugene). This
was supposed to come at the end of December but I wasn't here; then, having
moved to this other machine, I had to work out how to do it, and struck a bug
in the f77 compiler that took me a week to get around (I use a proggie to
merge the new items with the big lists), but it's all straightened out now.

I guess there will be a heap of papers to abstract soon, when I get hold of
that special CNF issue of Fusion Technol, with the survivors of the refereeing
process from ICCF-4; but other than that, they are thin on the ground now. I
guess they are all busy writing patents.

The Frolov et al connects with reports here in this group, a year or two ago,
where someone had used gamma rays to tickle PdD into doing its stuff. Handel
reckons that the Peltier effect, or something like it, which I have dismissed
myself for being too small, can explain excess heat after all. I don't know.
I couldn't do much with the Jiang et al paper, all in Chinese, except to
reproduce the abstract. The Russian one advocates - as many have done -
nonequilibrium, a real buzzword, in the form of thermal cycling; as usual for
Russian papers, it stays within the fracto- framework.

There is a Danish comment, in a magazine we get at home, perpetuating the myth
that cnf is physicists vs chemists. Wrong; wrong also on some other counts.
This is a popular science mag, usually quite good.
As Tom and others have mentioned, this group got into New Scientist, with our
collection to send Tom to Georgia. No photo of Tom. There are comments on
SL, and an older one by Scaramuzzi, not saying very much, in Italian
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.14 / mitchell swartz /  Does it really matter?   -- accuracy does to some
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Does it really matter?   -- accuracy does to some
Subject: Re: Does it really matter
Subject: Re: Roast Dynamometer
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 06:19:29 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <3f6c43$cec@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Does it really matter
Richard Schultz (schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu) wrote:

=rpes I don't know if you've ever actually baked a pie in a conventional
=rpes oven, but normally one bakes it long enough that the situation
=rpes you describe is a pretty clear violation of the Second Law of
=rpes Thermodynamics.  I think what you mean to say is that for pies
=rpes with fruit filling, the filling has a higher water content and
=rpes hence higher heat capacity than the crust.  Despite Mitchell Swartz's
=rpes best efforts, what you actually feel as "heat" is the amount of
=rpes heat transferred rather than the temperature.

    Despite Richard Schultzs' best efforts to rewrite
science, the literature actually states and experiments 
have demonstrated  that one does actually "feel" 
the sensation of temperature as detected by the human
nervous system; a dual system involving both warmth and 
cool-detecting receptors.  This was already described and
references cited.  (It  is replicated in toto below.
Any serious updates or additions or corrections based upon 
biomedical data remain appreciated.)
The double afferent temperature detection system is
 well known (e.g. Mountcastle,
Medical Physiology and any pathology text) as is the fact 
-- disputed by Mr. Richard Schultz -- that the temperature receptors 
measure absolute skin temperature and neither heat flow, nor
transcutaneous temperature gradient.
Astonishingly, although the information was posted,
with a reference which therein also
listed scores of additional references on this matter, Richard merely
continued his standard M.O., to wit -  ignore the literature.
This is a 5-watt peanut-gallery response.


  And so, conclusion #1 is obvious.  Given Richard's failure to read the
literature, in the words of Jed Rothwell (Subject: Re: Rothwell's Wrights vs.
The New York Times: an s.p.f. Meta-issue)
   =rs "Once again I ask, can you provide *primary sources* for your assertion?
  "I listed my sources yesterday. I will not repeat them. Do you homework
   Richard! For once in your life, shut up, go to the library, and read
   something.
     Jed"

     Jed appears to be correct on this matter, too.
Richard.  You might try to actually take some time to read something,
then ponder, and cast a more intelligent scientific response.        ;-)X

Corrolary #1:
      Although we often enjoy Richard's low S/N brick-toss tactics
and chatter, this is on occasion accompanied by an apparent relative
lack of understanding.  Any reader weighing the purported comments
on cold fusion might consider this case as another fractal example of the
paucity of truth in some of Richard's comments.

 
=rpes 					Richard Schultz
=rpes "How many boards would the Mongols hoard if the Mongol hordes
               got bored?"

 Enough to crush the competition.

  Richard, if you dont hit the library soon, some other sig might
end with or include:

     "Mr.Richard Schultz from his borde again doth address
     the e-horde of this oft-hoary board on the net.
    Tho' Richard yanks the e-"interrupt" of millions on board,
     he continues to bore galore as he avoids literatures' hoard."

    Best wishes. colleagues. 
            Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)

==== repost referred to above on temperature vs. heat sensors ===
In Message-ID: <3cvnq5$nc2@nntp.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Roast Dynamometer
(Jonathan Stone (jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU) writes:

=JS     "I guess I owe Jed, and the net, an apology.
=JS  I wasn't intending to comment either way on Jed's claim about
=JS  the Griggs device not being a heat pump.  Merely to lampoon
=JS  his apparent inability to clearly and consistently make the distinction
=JS  between heat and temperature.
=JS   (deleted)   Hence my reference
=JS  vto standing outside on cold days, which can feel quite comfortable
=JS  if the air is *very* still (and dry) and one is insulated from the
=JS  ground.  Or to the apparent difference in temperature of insulated
=JS vand uninsulated parts a structure in thermal equilibrium, when
=JS  sensed by human hands. That's because hands sense heatflow, not
=JS  temperature."
=JS  "What I was really lampooning was this: one cannot tell the
=JS  temperature of the air [deleted]
=JS  Clearly I can't do any better,  so I'll withdraw the statement."

   Please support this apparently additional incorrect statement
that "hands sense heatflow, not temperature" since it is at odds
with medical physiology.

    Temperature sensation is characterized by a
dual system involving warmth and cool-detecting receptors
with two separate afferent fibers.

    Sensitivity over the body is
not uniform and the cold sensors are more common (4:1 to 10:1).
Try your forehead for maximum sensitivity to cold, but it is relatively
insensitive to warmth.  Also certain areas of the body are devoid of all
warmth receptors.

    Unlike pain sensation, temperature sensation is characterized by
adaptation (over some temperatures).   Subjective magnitude 
estimations can be described by power functions (1.6 in the exponent
for warmth, circa 1 for cold).   Furthermore there is some
persistence to cold, an eventual thermal indifference to cold just below
45C, and a paradoxical "cold" sensation can be induced above
45C under some conditions.   (for more information see, for 
example, V.Mountcastle, Medical Physiology, Vol II)

   Most important,  the temperature receptors do NOT measure
heat flow, and do measure absolute skin temperature.  
Careful experiments have indicated that they do not
measure the transcutaneous temperature gradient.

   Hope that corrects the matter slightly.
   Best wishes.
                 Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.14 / mitchell swartz /  Does it really matter? (What is your frequency, Ken?  :-)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Does it really matter? (What is your frequency, Ken?  :-)
Subject: Re: Does it really matter who believes what?
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 06:21:43 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <h495JwE.jedrothwell@delphi.com>
Subject: Re: Does it really matter who believes what?
: jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
 
=  Well, that is not quite right either. I do not think the space based
= technology will ever be cost effective, but I think this reasoning is
= technically wrong. If the energy levels of a microwave beam only carried
= enough energy to cause a sunburn (let us suppose) the technology might
= still be viable for the following reasons:
...

  Excuse me, Jed.   I was lurking on this thread, but 
Richard Schultz has yanked the interrupt so to speak.
So it might be time to correct this minor error.

    Microwave radiation is typically defined as very short 
electromagnetic radiation of circa 1000 to 30,000 Megahertz.
Many RF types set the lower limit at about 100 MHz.
Functionally the upper limit is the IR threshold.

  Now if memory serves, the electromagnetic wavelengths
involved in a sunburn are 290 to 320 nanometers
(UV-B).   The "sunburn" -- erythema ab igne --
(which must not to be confused with
the tanning-melanin reaction which is activated by 320 to 
~360 nm (UV-A) and has a time constant of several days)
is thus at much higher frequencies from microwaves; even
on the other side of the optical spectrum.  

 1) Microwaves do not cause sunburn. (although cataracts
and other physiologic changes are wrought)
 2) "Burning" thus relates to frequency as well as intensity.
 3)  Any comparison regarding viability of this [or any technology]
may require a close look.

       Best wishes.
   Mitchell Swartz  (mica@world.std.com)

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.14 / Alan M /  Re: Borrowing a scope from U Ga.
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Borrowing a scope from U Ga.
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 09:17:37 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <Ze9bR8H.jedrothwell@delphi.com>  jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> 
> sam@colossus.stdavids.picker.com (Sam Goldwasser) writes:
>  
>      ". . .while Jed repeatedly mentions satisfied customers with reduced
>      electric bills, he or Griggs are not willing to provide any of their
>      names."
>  
> Griggs is quite willing to provide names, I am not.
>  
>  
>      "I apologize if Jed has given us the names of some customers and I have
>      missed them.
>  
> Apology accepted. I discussed data from the County Police Department which has
> a GG at their headquarters.
>  
>  
>      "However, I recall at least one response where he simply stated that
>      Griggs does not release such information."
>  
> A vivid imagination at work! Nobody, anywhere ever stated that. It is not
> true. Griggs does give out names of customers, but I do not because it is none
> of my business. I never post messages irrelevant to science about private
> business matters. If you want information about Griggs beyond what I post, you
> should contact him directly.
>  
Absolute lies, Jed. I have previously asked you for names of Griggs' 
satisfied customers anf you replied "that is company confidential".

This above gives everybody a clear insight (if such were ever needed) 
into the degree of reliability which should be accorded any apparent 
statement of fact made by you.

Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.14 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: The Wright Bros. & the "skeptics"
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Wright Bros. & the "skeptics"
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 95 16:22:16 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Thomas H. Kunich <tomk@netcom.com> writes:
 
>OK Jed! Then tell us where that water heater is!
 
Hydro Dynamics, Inc., Rome, Georgia.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.13 / Steve Klassen /  Re: BOMB REPORT
     
Originally-From: steve@photcan.com (Steve Klassen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: BOMB REPORT
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 20:22:58 GMT
Organization: Photon Systems Ltd.

In article <3f1rbt$5te@dingo.cc.uq.oz.au> fernee@physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee) writes:
>From: fernee@physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee)
>Subject: Re: BOMB REPORT
>Date: 11 Jan 1995 23:58:53 GMT

>Robert Mc Kinney (S1126161@cedarville.edu) wrote:
>: I AM DOING A REPORT ON ON HOW EASY IT IS TO MAKE A BOMB AND I AM WONDERING 
>: IF YOU COULD GIVE ME SOME INFORMATION ON HOW TO PRODUCE ONE AND THE 
>: SIMPLICITIES OF IT. IF YOU NEED ANY SPECIAL EQUIPMENT TO DO IT. ANY
>: INFORMATION  WOULD BE APPRECIATED.  THANKS 
>: ROBERT MCKINNEY

[deleted]

>BTW: This is not the right group for such a post!

That depends on what sort of a bomb Robert is planning to make.  I trust you 
will forgive me for not wishing you well in your query.

[deleted]


-----
Steve Klassen
steve@photcan.com

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudensteve cudfnSteve cudlnKlassen cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.14 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: GG size limitations
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG size limitations
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 95 17:48:23 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

John S Vetrano <js_vetrano@pnl.gov> writes:
 
     "Turbomolecular pumps for vacuum systems rotate the rotor at very high
     speeds (>10,000 rpm) . . . I'm not sure but I believe it is just some
     sort of electric motor that spins them up.  Couldn't a small prototype
     could be made using the workings of one of these?"
 
I do not know, I suppose so. The thing is, the people who are manufacturing
these things (Griggs and others), are not interested in making small
prototypes. They are manufacturing and selling full sized industrial units.
Their customers do not want little bitty electric motors, they are ordering
50, 100 and 200 HP units. This is not a scientific research project; these
people are making a living by selling factory steam boilers. They supply
off-the-shelf, heavy duty industrial electric motors. Perhaps if someone
wanted to investigate the physics of the excess heat, it might be better to
use a high speed DC motor with a smaller unit.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.14 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: GG size limitations
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG size limitations
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 95 17:49:06 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Thomas H. Kunich <tomk@netcom.com> writes:
 
     "Well, one problem is that when you make the thing small enough it
     becomes a cinch to instrument properly and then the 'effect' goes away.
     :-)"
 
Kunich apparently believes that industrial instruments and control systems do
not work. He thinks that a scientist in a laboratory can measure a few watts,
but a carpet factory engineer cannot detect the difference between 110,000
watts and 140,000 watts. Kunich has many irrational delusions. If there was
any truth to this particular delusion our industrial civilization would fall
apart in a few days.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.14 /   /  Re: Experts
     
Originally-From: marielo703@aol.com (Marielo703)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Experts
Date: 14 Jan 1995 09:39:29 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Thanks !
Heard at MIT Feb. 1990 during "Nanotech" conference
:" What B S !"
"Do WE have to hear hopeful prophecies ?"
Quote of the day  
il ri bien celui qui a le dernier rire ! ( classy French stuff about the
last laugh !)
MLK
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmarielo703 cudln cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.15 / Gary Steckly /  Re: 13 Jan update, Griggs theories
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 13 Jan update, Griggs theories
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 95 01:45:14 GMT
Organization: Communications Canada

MARSHALL DUDLEY (mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com) wrote:
: I would like to thank those who have sent me EMAIL pointing out errors in my
: previously posted list of Griggs device theories.  I have made the corrections
: and here is the revised list.

(deletia)

Since this thread of Marshall's seems to be a forum for
hypothesizing on unusual heating mechanisms for the Griggs pump,
here's another one that I guess could be lumped in with the other ZPF 
ideas. I ran it by Marshall earlier this week and his comments were 
encouraging, so what the heck, it's no sillier than Dale's theory about 
fairies or PSI energy ;-)

How about an affect whereby the Griggs pump might be generating 
microwave energy, possibly in the 21 cm (1.4 GHz range) as a
result of the ultrasonic cavitation bubbles?  Now before everyone
skips over to the next thread, let me explain where this idea
comes from.

Last weekend I was reading a post in sci.physics from a chap 
here in Ottawa who operates an amateur radiotelescope in the
area.  They noticed an unusual phenomenon while they were out
doing some work on the dish and were soliciting comments or
possible explanations.

They had a spectrum analyzer hooked up to the 1.4 GHz
downconverter on the dish (they are tuned to the hydrogen
spectrum), and noted some unusual bursts of noise that seemed to
relate to the movement of the guy who was working around the
dish.  At first they thought they had a loose connection, but
their tests soon disproved that theory.  It turns out that the
noise was coming from the snow every time he took a step.  

The astronomers thought that the noise might be related to a
piezoelectric or static discharge from the snow.  Agreed, that's
a good guess, but what if this noise is not as broadband as one would 
expect from a static discharge? So what does all this have to do with the 
Griggs pump?

If this RF noise from squeaky cold snow is confined to the 1.4 GHz range 
and not spread across the spectrum as one would expect from a static 
effect, it may be a clue to yet another unusual phenomenon, perhaps not 
unlike the light emissions from SL. What if it is some effect related to 
ultrasonic vibration of the ice crystals in the snow?  I know from 
experience that snow at certain temperatures makes LOTS of ultrasonic 
noise when you step in it (I used to use ultrasonic detectors to locate 
arcing derived  RF noise from power line systems and when it was 
extremely cold, the ultrasonic noise from the snow when you walked in 
it was substantial)

Perhaps there may even be a 1.4 GHz component to sonoluminesence setups.  
Has anyone researching in this area looked outside the visible light 
spectrum?  And where might this RF be coming from?  Let's not forget the 
late Julian Schwinger's hypothesis about the light from sonoluminesence 
coming from the vacuum fields via some dynamic casimir effect  
surrounding the bubbles (holes in a dielectric medium...water).

The next time the snow gets "squeaky cold" up here in the Great
White North (we're in a bit of a heat wave...+3 deg.c), I will
ask some of the guys at the monitoring station to see if they can
verify this snow "snow" phenomenon, and determine how much
spectrum it occupies.  

Who knows... it might be worthwhile to get Griggs to tap a hole
into his pump and thread some kind of probe into the thing and
check the RF spectrum.  Maybe this pump is actually "pumping"
ZPE;-) or maybe it's energy from recombination of ZPE disociated
water like Bob Bass suggests, or maybe it's a combination of a
number of things, but I am fairly convinced from Jed's tests that
it's real.  Perhaps after Tom's expedition we can stop talking about 
"measurement errors" and figure out what is really going on. 

regards

Gary

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.14 /  Van /  Re: Free Energy Device - leave it out of sci.bio
     
Originally-From: vanjac@netcom.com (Van)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.bio,sci.energy,sci.energy.h
drogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.
hysics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device - leave it out of sci.bio
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 18:20:06 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <witkowsk.1139558277J@cshl.org>,
j a witkowski <witkowsk@cshl.org> wrote:
>Are there any other biologists out there who feel that this is an
>inappropriate thread for sci.bio?
>
>Please new theory physicists; energy renewable engineers; ufologists;
>plutonium physicists and chemists; energy scientists of various sorts;
>environmental scientists; materials scientists; and physicists in general,
>stop crossposting this discussion to sci.bio.

You better get used to it and learn how to use a kill file,
see news.answers or the archive at mit.edu for the kill file FAQ.

You don't speak for everyone in your group. There is a lot
of stuff that I don't think belongs in the groups I read,
and I only post to the 2 groups I read, but when responding,
I am not about to change to newsgroups line.

In its great wisdom, the fathers of the net set up the kill file
to deal with things people don't want to even see.

You will wind up with a lot of frustation if you try to be the censor
for your favorite newsgroup.

(No email on this subject please).
-- 

Van - Internet address -  vanjac@netcom.com
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenvanjac cudlnVan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.15 / A Plutonium /  Re: Warning:Nature, New Scientist, CF = violation conservation 
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Warning:Nature, New Scientist, CF = violation conservation 
Date: 15 Jan 1995 03:29:58 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <tcora-1301951005510001@k-whiner.pica.army.mil>
tcora@pica.army.mil (Tom Coradeschi) writes:

> Perhaps your understanding of coyprights is about at the same level as
> your understanding of the physical sciences. You can copyright a document.
> You cannot copyright an idea or a concept. Nice try, though.

 What time-zone-of-mind are you in? Tom Coradeschi, that you do not
even understand the meaning of my words. You do not know what copyright
means.
 Under your pea brain, noone should be credited with the Uncertainty
principle (Heisenberg). Noone should be credited with the Exclusion
principle (Pauli). Bohr should not have his name attached to the
Complementary principle according to you, because that is an idea. And
those ideas were copyrighted. The same as what I have done for
Spontaneous Neutron Materialization which is = to Violation of
Conservation of Energy/Mass.
  Why don't you think Tom, before you post such dumb things. I see you
are in the military. The military has a good standard reply when a
member is caught short. That reply is "I do not know, sir, but I will
find out". And above all, the military is very polite, usually. Your
impoliteness Tom, forced me to be impolite back. By all means, Tom,
relearn those two military ways of behavior.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.14 / Greg Hammett /  Undergrad Summer Research in Plasma Physics and Fusion Engineering
     
Originally-From: hammett@pppl.gov (Greg Hammett)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Undergrad Summer Research in Plasma Physics and Fusion Engineering
Date: 14 Jan 1995 15:20:48 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University,
Princeton NJ 08540

National Undergraduate Fellowships in Plasma Physics & Fusion Engineering

June 19 - August 25, 1995


The National Undergraduate Fellowships in Plasma Physics and Fusion
Engineering provide outstanding undergraduates with an opportunity to
participate in projects in the forefront of research and development of
fusion energy.  The goal of the program is to stimulate students' interest
in the fields relevant to fusion research while providing capable
assistants for fusion research projects.  The fellowships are sponsored by
the U.S. Department of Energy and administered by the Princeton Plasma
Physics Laboratory, in cooperation with the University Fusion Association.
The fellowship program consists of two-parts: a one-week introductory
course and nine weeks of research.  During the first week students will
attend the introductory course at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
in Princeton, NJ.  They then participate in research at one of several
fusion laboratories around the country.  These laboratories and
universities include Auburn, Cal. Tech., Columbia, General Atomics (San
Diego), Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Florida State University, M.I.T., Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Univ. of
Cal.-Davis, U. of Texas-Austin, Univ. of Wisconsin, and others.

Stipend

 Students will receive a stipend of $4,800 and will be reimbursed for
travel expenses to and from their university or permanent U.S. address, up
to $1,000.  Room expenses and some meals during the one-week course at
Princeton will be paid by the program.  Students will be responsible for
their housing and meal expenses during the remaining nine weeks.

Admission

Applications are invited from students in engineering, mathematics,
computer science, or physics, who are matriculated at a U. S. college or
university.  The program is open to undergraduates who are currently in
their junior year, however exceptional sophomores will also be considered.
Students should have taken at least one course in electricity and magnetism
beyond introductory physics.


Students should send application materials to


National Undergraduate Fellowship Program

Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

P.O. Box 451
Princeton, NJ  08543

Telephone: (609)  243-3049

E-mail: nuf@pppl.gov

Deadline for applications and letters of recommendation is February 1, 1995
_____________________________________________________________________________


National Undergraduate Fellowship Program
in Plasma Physics & Fusion Engineering

Application

(Deadline: February  1, 1995)

Name:
S.S.#

Date of Birth:                   Citizenship:                       Visa
Type:

Permanent Home
Address:
                                Street                          Apt. #


                                City            State           Zip Code

Home Telephone Number: (         )

College
Name:


Current
Address:

                                Street                          City
State           Zip Code

College Telephone Number: (         )

Expected date of graduation:                         Present
class:

Physics
courses
taken:





Computer
courses/experience:





Other research relevant skills or experience:







Please have transcripts of all undergraduate work sent to the address below
by February  1.

Transcripts  requested from:

College Dates
Attended        No.
Credits
Major   Est. GPA
(based on 4.0)









Please request two people who are familiar with your academic and research
capabilities to send letters of recommendation by the February 1 deadline
directly to the address below. Write their names and addresses here:


Name  & Address:




Name & Address:





Attach a 1-page typewritten statement of your career interests, your
research experience, awards or honors received, and an assessment of your
experimental, mathematical, and computational aptitudes and interests.
Please state your reasons for interest in this program and any preferences
you have as to region of the country, institution, or type of project
(experimental, theoretical, computational) to which you may be assigned.


Signature:                          Date:


For additional information, please contact Pamela Lucas (609) 243-3049

Send all of the above to:       National Undergraduate Fellowship Program
                        Princeton University Plasma Physics Laboratory
                        P.O. Box 451
                        Princeton, NJ 08543
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenhammett cudfnGreg cudlnHammett cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.14 / A Plutonium /  Re: Politicians wasting $290million in science sham projects
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.engr,sci.physics.fusi
n,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Politicians wasting $290million in science sham projects
Date: 14 Jan 1995 21:26:50 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <3f1ahs$nt6@linda.teleport.com>
lewst@teleport.com (Lews Therin) writes:

> I'm curious to find out how you came up with these criteria.  They seem 
> to be more consistent with the guidelines laid down by commercial 
> interests (in other words, think immediate profit, children -- and screw 
> research for knowledge's sake!) than with those appropriate for the true 
> spirit of science.
> 
> After all, sometimes you can learn as much or more by learning "No" than 
> "Yes."  Look at the Michelson-Morley experiment if you don't believe me.

  As some posters suggest, look at the Michelson experiment of
Cleveland Ohio or the Planck experiment of Berlin, Germany or the
photoelectric effect experiments. 
  I recommend that you fellows look at them. You will see that they did
not cost the federal taxpayers money. They were experiments-- done and
paid for on site. And so they have no resemblence to alot of modern day
science projects.
  Modern day science projects which have ---no good reasonable and
pragmatic guidelines such as the 1,2--- that I outlined. Guidelines of
"pragmatic use" and "need to know".
  Let us examine how modern day scientists can con-artistry taxpayers
money for 290 million worth.
  Weber tries to find gravitons and spends how much of Univ Maryland
money? He fails.

  So, failing is not good enough. And noone seems to ask the pertinent
important questions. Would finding gravitons be of any pragmatic use---
no. Is there really a "need to know" further in the failure of Weber.
Again the answer is no. There is no further need to press on here.
  But, the most important feature of any huge multimillion taxpayer
project is this-- like a list of priorities--- what science projects
are the most important at any moment in time. And as of 1995, the
genome project, superconductivity, and fusion, cold fusion take utmost
priority. Those three alone would make alot more sense and use of the
290 million.

  But back to the comparison of Michelson, Planck, those were not
multimillion projects (scaled to their time) but university projects.
What is different with the graviton money is that science in modern
times has reached a point where big govt. funded projects are an easy
way to waste alot of money. Just get a respected professor to support a
project and the USA congress is like an open sesame. No guideline
criteria such as my 1,2 and no accountability after the project flops.
  I aim to raise my voice against this science sham projects. I am
concerned of multimillion dollars unwisely spent. There most definitely
needs to be a Science Multimillion Dollar Project Guidelines, which all
science projects must meet those guidelines. Especially, what pragmatic
use, and if there is a "need to know".
  I think you will find that those exper
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.14 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Borrowing a scope from U Ga.
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Borrowing a scope from U Ga.
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 95 17:59:51 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

"Alan M. Dunsmuir" <Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk> writes:
 
>Absolute lies, Jed. I have previously asked you for names of Griggs' 
>satisfied customers anf you replied "that is company confidential".
 
Absolute lies yourself, dumbass. I do not work for Hydro Dynamics, I have
no idea what is "company confidential" and what is not. What I told you is
that if *you* want information about Griggs' business, you can damn well
ask him yourself. I do not go around talking about other people's customers.
I did, however, discuss the GG in the County Police Department a few times
here on this forum, and I mentioned that some of the other units are in local
carpet factories.
 
You have been whining, moaning and complaining like a two year old child. You
keep demanding that I spoon feed you information about Griggs. What the hell
is the matter with you, anyway? If you want to know about his customers, call
the man up and ask him. Maybe he will tell you and maybe he will not. I have
no idea how he would respond to nosey, stupid questions from idiots like you.
If you called me and started poking into my business, I would tell you to
jump in a lake. Griggs may be more easy going and forgiving than me, maybe he
will tell you what you want to know, even though you are a damn busybody with
no legitimate reason for asking in the first place.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.14 / Chris Jacobs /  Re: NP 9Jan95, Ludwig is asked to revise THE FEYNMAN LECTURES IN
     
Originally-From: cjacobs@ps2.xs4all.nl (Chris Jacobs)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.math,sci.chem
Subject: Re: NP 9Jan95, Ludwig is asked to revise THE FEYNMAN LECTURES IN
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 95 23:41:25 MET

Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

> 
> The full title of this missive is " NP 9Jan95, Ludwig is asked to
> revise THE FEYNMAN LECTURES IN PHYSICS and deliver the Messenger
> Lectures at Cornell "

[ ... ]

>   More later, but now I must celebrate my new found honors. Thank you
> Adderson Wesley.

Hello Ludwig,

When you revise the lectures, in the section about the energy theorem, 
50-5 in volume I, will you please add a footnote revealing which function 
Richard used to find the sum of:

1 + 1/2^4 + 1/3^4 + ... = pi^4 / 90. 

I tried:

f(0 * T/4) = -T/4
f(1 * T/4) = 0
f(2 * T/4) = T/4
f(3 * T/4) = 0
f(4 * T/4) = -T/4
Those points connected with straight lines and then this periodic with 
period T.

When I used this to sum a series with the energy theorem I got results 
which would have driven me plain crazy if I were not already.

Instead of pi^4 / 90 I got pi^4 / 96.

However, if I run a basic program to sum 1 + 1/2^4 + 1/3^4 + ... then I 
got pi^4 / 90, just as Richard said.

At last I found my error. The computations with which I summed a series 
were indeed correct. The reason why I got a different answer were that I 
just summed a different series.

--
Chris Jacobs <cjacobs@xs4all.nl>
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudencjacobs cudfnChris cudlnJacobs cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.15 / Mark Thorson /  Buying Heavy Water, Where and How Much ???
     
Originally-From: eee@netcom.com (Mark Thorson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Buying Heavy Water, Where and How Much ???
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 1995 01:23:25 GMT
Organization: Netcom prefers heavy beer

What is the best source in the U.S. for 100 to 1000 grams of heavy water?
I know Aldrich sells it, but who else is good?  And what sort of pricing
should I expect at 100 grams?  1000 grams?  Is it normal to order heavy
water by mass or by volume?

Does a large producer like Ontario Hydro sell heavy water?  Where do you
suppose Aldrich gets theirs?  About how much would it cost buying directly
from a producer, and what would be the minimum quanitity?

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudeneee cudfnMark cudlnThorson cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.15 / Jorge Stolfi /  Stored heat in the Griggs gadget
     
Originally-From: stolfi@stack.dcc.unicamp.br (Jorge Stolfi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Stored heat in the Griggs gadget
Date: 15 Jan 1995 01:47:03 GMT
Organization: DCC - UNICAMP - Campinas, SP, Brazil


    > [Me:] Jed has carefully avoided the slightest mention to the
    > 'stored heat' issue, and completely ignored all my questions and
    > reminders about the subject.
    >  
    > [Jed:] That is incorrect. I have not carefully avoided the
    > slightest mention. [...] I am not carefully
    > avoiding your theory, I am ignoring it because it is stupid
    > nonsense. It is a waste of time responding to such nonsense;
    
Sorry Jed, "stupid nonsense" is your claim that the Griggs pump
generates more energy than what is put into it, when
*your own measurements* show nothing of the sort.  

I posted my estimates of how much heat is stored in the rotor,
and how long it takes for that heat to come out after the
the input power drops.  I am still waiting for you to tell me
what is wrong with those numbers.

    > The customer's electric bills show a sharp drop in
    > demand, even though they use as much steam as before.
    
That may well be true, but what does it mean?  What equipment
did they have before?  How efficient was it?  

Griggs claims his gadget responds to changes in steam demand
faster than its competitors.  Perhaps the savings are merely
due to less steam being wasted?

By the way, the net is still waiting for the names
of those mysterious "customers".  (They aren't "Jed"
and "Gene", I hope?)

    > I pointed out, repeatedly, that I ran the machine for hours and
    > that some units run 24 hours a day all year long, producing
    > excess heat the whole time.  
    > ...  
    > I will not type another word about it.
    
Too bad.  Your statement above would sound much better
if you had typed the word "measured" right before "excess heat".

    > I will not type another word about it.
    
Of course you can't. You told us already that the barrel calorimeter
cannot be used for more than 20-30 minutes, because it gets 
too hot to handle.

You also assured us that one cannot switch to a second barrel after
that---it would be waaay too dangerous.  One might get badly scalded, 
or get hurt by the spinning parts, or---worse of all---fail to 
find any excess heat in the second barrel...
    
    > I will not type another word about it.
    
No problem, the words you already typed are more than enough---
to put it mildly.  Now, what about some *numbers*, for a change?  

The only actual measurements of the Griggs gadget output 
that we have seen are those in your article, and they are
perfectly consistent with the "stored heat" hypothesis:

  * The apparent "excess heat" you measured is only a fraction 
    of the heat stored in the rotor;
    
  * The measurement period started right after a sudden  
    40% drop in the input power;
    
  * The "excess heat production" regime is always preceded by
    such a drop in input power;
    
  * The output heat power is actually lower in the "excess heat 
    production" regime than in the "normal" regime.
    
  * Your 30-minute test generated only 12% more excess heat than 
    the 20-minute test;    
    
  * Even the "small" (1/4 ton) rotor would take tens of minutes
    to reach thermal equilibrium with the water.
    
"Stored heat" is not just a "theory".  It is not just a "possible"
explanation for your excess heat.  There *is* stored heat in the 
machine, and it *will* show up in the barrel test as apparent
"excess heat" after any drop in input power.  

So, your measurements can't be taken as evidence that the Griggs pump
generates "real" excess heat---unless you show that the "apparent"
excess heat is larger than any possible stored heat effect.  

Would you help us clear up this last point?

    > I will not type another word about it.

Well, thanks for letting me have the last word. 8-)
    
Since your "barrel calorimeter" measurements do not show excess
heat, what other "positive" evidence is there?  The only other data 
I have seen were the samples of the "steam table" calculations
posted here by Dr. Eugene "May You All Rot in Hell" Mallove, PhD.
But it's better to deal with Gene's numbers in a separate message;
it would be unfair to associate Jed's name with that outstanding
example of scientific reporting.

--stolfi

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Stolfi | http://www.dcc.unicamp.br/~stolfi | stolfi@dcc.unicamp.br 
Computer Science Dept. (DCC-IMECC)               | Tel +55 (192) 39-8442
Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)      |     +55 (192) 39-3115 
Campinas, SP -- Brazil                           | Fax +55 (192) 39-7470
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not copy this .signature virus into your .signature file!
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.15 / Tom Kendall /  Re: Nuclear Engineering or Nuclear Physics or Physics?
     
Originally-From: tkendall@ix.netcom.com (Tom Kendall)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear Engineering or Nuclear Physics or Physics?
Date: 15 Jan 1995 02:26:14 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3esfin$7u@newsbf02.news.aol.com> princemike@aol.com (PrinceMike) 
writes: 

>
>     I'm looking for some advice pertaining to my major in college.  
I've
>completed the first two years of an engineering curriculum and now must
>decide on a major before I transfer to a four-year school.
>    My current line of thought goes like this:  If I get an nuclear
>engineering degree I could probably work in industry(nuclear power 
plants)
>or research just the same.    I am kind of drawn to doing fusion 
research...

Sorry Joe, had to cut it off for the sake of brevity.
Have no illusions:  the road ahead (at least for the forseeable future) 
is a rocky one for any of the options you are considering.  I am a 
former Navy Nuke gainfully employed by the nuclear power industry.  The 
pay is good, the work challenging, and at least for the time it is 
steady.  *But*... the litany of plant closings has me looking for 
another line work: Rancho Seco, Trojan, Watts Bar, Bellefont, etc.

As others have stated, R&D is pretty risky too.  If you have no qualms 
about a lack of job security, Go For It!  Otherwise, find another line 
of work... Better to be a small rodent than a big dinosaur when the end 
of the epoch arrives!
-- 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
Experienced Professional Mechanical Engineer for Hire
Have computer, will travel
send inquires to tkendall@ix.netcom.com
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudentkendall cudfnTom cudlnKendall cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.15 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Rothwell's Wrights vs. The New York Times: an s.p.f. Meta-issue
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell's Wrights vs. The New York Times: an s.p.f. Meta-issue
Date: 15 Jan 1995 14:38:10 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <Ba36hU-.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) quotes some fascinating

>Reading these original articles from the Times is an excellent
>exercise in doing history, but you must compare the claims to the documented
>facts from the Wright archives, or you will be terribly mixed up.
 
The issue wasn't how many facts the New York Times got right.  The issue
was your claim that the New York Times had dismissed powered heavier-than-air
flight as impossible after the Wrights had already built their first airplane.
Since the New York Times described the Wrights' flights as "successful",
your claim is shown to be incorrect.

>The London Daily mail carried the news, the Paris newspapers did, but
>the Americans said it was bunk. 

Apparently, the New York Times did *not* say that it was bunk.

>For it was the "skeptics" who were dreaming up wild fantasies by 1908.

Except for the New York Times, apparently, which was reporting on the Wright
brothers' attempts to sell the rights to their airplane as early as 1903.
In fact, one New York Times editorial that I didn't quote of 10 December
1903 criticized Langley's continued failures not because heavier-than-air
powered flight was impossible, but because he was incapable of correctly
calculating the strain on the materials and so his airplanes kept falling
apart before they even came close to getting of the ground.  The Times 
suggested that he go back to doing theory and leave the engineering to
competent engineers -- not that he stop because the whole thing was
impossible.

>schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) asks:
> 
>     "Once again I ask, can you provide *primary sources* for your assertion?
> 
>I listed my sources yesterday. I will not repeat them. Do you homework
>Richard! For once in your life, shut up, go to the library, and read
>something.
 
(1) Do you know the difference between a primary and a secondary source?

(2) Where do you think I got the material from the New York Times?
 
--
					Richard Schultz

"It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean.  Do you have to salt your
truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?"
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.15 / Richard Schultz /  An experiment for Mitchell Swartz
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: An experiment for Mitchell Swartz
Date: 15 Jan 1995 14:43:54 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <D2DtKI.B5u@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

>    Despite Richard Schultzs' best efforts to rewrite
>science, the literature actually states and experiments 
>have demonstrated  that one does actually "feel" 
>the sensation of temperature as detected by the human
>nervous system; a dual system involving both warmth and 
>cool-detecting receptors.  This was already described and
>references cited.  

Here's a fairly easy experiment to do:  go to the Boston Museum of
Science where the materials are (or were, last time I checked, which
was a couple of years ago) already set up.  Take a block of copper
at room temperature.  Take a block of wood at room temperature.  One
will feel "colder" than the other (guess which one) even though 
thermometers attached to the objects will confirm that they are at
the same temperature.  Clearly, what is being "measured" by your skin
is not temperature.  Now, if Jed Rothwell is wrong, and literature is
to be given precedence to actual experiment, you should let him know that;
I suspect that your word will carry more weight with him than mine would.
--
					Richard Schultz

"How many boards would the Mongols hoard if the Mongol hordes got bored?"
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.15 / Derek Lai /  Cold Fusion Project... Please Help
     
Originally-From: as969@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Derek Lai)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion Project... Please Help
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 1995 05:57:41 GMT
Organization: The National Capital FreeNet

Article #102 (102 is last):  Newsgroups: ncf.sigs.hobby.math-physics From:
as969@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Derek Lai) Subject: Cold Fusion Reply-To:
as969@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Derek Lai) Date: Sat Jan 14 20:00:04 1995
        Hello.  I'm a high school student from Colonel By S.S., Ottawa
Canada
 and I am doing a project on cold fusion.  I was wondering if any of you
out there have had any experience with cold fusion.  (ie. Have you done
the experiment, or know of someone who has done the experiment?).  Also, I
need to know if there were any papers published (with method, apparatus
and results) on the various CF experiments.  I heard a rumor that
Fleishman and Pons (U of Utah) published something in "Science" magazine. 
Do any of you know of any publications of this type containing technical
info? 
        We were also thinking of trying out the experiment for ourselves,
if we can get the equipment (the experiment calls for <gulp> palladium
electrode, <double gulp> a platinum electrode and <triple gulp> some heavy
water.  These materials are somewhat difficult to obtain (slight
understatement).  I was wondering if any of you out there know where we
could possibly borrow (the materials are not used up in the experiment,
provided that cold fusion doesn't work) or obtain these materials for low
cost (we are just poor students).  ANY help would be greatly appreciated. 
        Also, I was wondering why Palladium and Platinum were used in the
experiment instead of Nickel.  I know that Pd and Pl were used because of
their ability to "store" H molecules interstitially (is that word used
right?).  Ni apparantly has the same effect.  If so, why are the more
expensive and rare metals Pd and Pt used instead of the cheap, readily
available Ni? 
    What other newsgroups do you think would be worthwhile to post this
article in? 
        Uhmm, one last thing... any of you out there have any theories
that support or reject the cold fusion theory?  If so, could you e-mail
me?  I don't read this newsgroup often.


Thanks.


--
(signed)                                      
Derf of Ottawa, Canada.              Five out of three people have
E-mail:                                trouble with fractions.
as969@freenet.carleton.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenas969 cudfnDerek cudlnLai cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.15 / Chuck Harrison /  Re: Griggs Theories
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Chuck Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Theories
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 1995 14:59:39 GMT
Organization: Fitful

In article <ts_zemanian-130195091625@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov>, 
ts_zemanian@pnl.gov says...
[...]
>
>This agrees with my recollection.  I believe it was Jorge who pointed 
out
>that heat pumps put out more energy as heat than is input as work, Jed
>countered (correctly) that scavenging heat from the room would require a
>spot on the device that was colder than the room temp, and others 
(myself
>included) attempted to couple the stored heat hypothesis with the heat 
pump
>idea.  This boiled down (sorry!) to a suggestion that the motor built up
>heat in the warmup mode, and the gadget extracted it as a heat pump when
>the "effect" turned on.
>
>Admittedly, this is a tenuous hypothesis, and requires measurement and
>integration of input and output energy from a cold startup to a cold 
stop
>to settle.

Here I disagree.  I think more accurate results are likely to be obtained
by allowing the system to reach equilibrium (say 24hrs).  Steady-state
calorimetry is a d***d sight more tractable than long-term integration
on a beast this size.

-Chuck

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenharr cudfnChuck cudlnHarrison cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.15 /  Dilemma /  istherecoldfusion?
     
Originally-From: Dilemma <dilemma@shoreline.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: istherecoldfusion?
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 1995 07:29:10 GMT
Organization: Shoreline BBS, Vancouver

Not being a scientist, and previously without access to the internet, my
only source of information on nuclear physics has been the popular media.
Several years ago, the public was told that a miracle breakthrough in cold
fusion had been achieved. This was followed a few months later with
articles discrediting the findings. Then, a year after that, another
trickle of reports claimed that there may have been something to cold
fusion after all, and that research was continuing in Japan and France.
That was over two years ago, and I have not heard anything at all on the
subject since.  I have been left in the dark, with no final verdict on the
existence of cold fusion. Therefore I am desperate to find out if cold
fusion is possible, or if the whole affair has been a sham. I would be
very grateful to anybody who could provide me with some current
information. 
							Thank you... 
								Patrick Arnesen


cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudendilemma cudlnDilemma cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.15 / John Logajan /  Re: GG size limitations
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG size limitations
Date: 15 Jan 1995 18:28:30 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

John S Vetrano (js_vetrano@pnl.gov) wrote:
: but what is the speed of the outside of the rotor (in, say, ft/sec).  Then
: one could scale down using the appropriately higher rpm for a smaller rotor.

A believe a 12" rotor and the RPM of approx 3600 have been mentioned in the
past.  A 12" rotation is about 38" linear.  3600 RPM is 60 revolutions per
second, so 60*38 = 2280 linear inches per second or about 190 linear ft/sec.

--
 - 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:
cuddy15 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.15 / mitchell swartz /  Correction to Richard Schultz's Experiment
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Correction to Richard Schultz's Experiment
Subject: An experiment for Mitchell Swartz
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 1995 16:52:38 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <3fbcba$gl3@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: An experiment for Mitchell Swartz
Richard Schultz (schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu)writes:

  =rs  Here's a fairly easy experiment to do:  go to the Boston Museum of
  =rs  Science where the materials are (or were, last time I checked, which
  =rs  was a couple of years ago) already set up.  Take a block of copper
  =rs  at room temperature.  Take a block of wood at room temperature.  One
  =rs  will feel "colder" than the other (guess which one) even though 
  =rs  thermometers attached to the objects will confirm that they are at
  =rs  the same temperature.  Clearly, what is being "measured" by your skin
  =rs  is not temperature.  Now, if Jed Rothwell is wrong, and literature is
  =rs  to be given precedence to actual experiment, you should let him know that;
  =rs  I suspect that your word will carry more weight with him than mine would.
  =rs  --
  =rs  					Richard Schultz

 The example Richard mentions is good science, but his interpretation 
is not supported by the data.   If Richard is correct, the skin temperature
of both contact-experiments must be the same.  Is it?

   Here's a fairly easy experiment to do. Use the same experimental
setup.  Your finger (which is part of the system and is coupled to a
several hundred watt heat source) and the two blocks.

    Now take a thermistor and attach
it to your fingertip.  Actually measure the temperature at that site.
The sensor will approach the local cutaneous temperature which
is a function of the core temperature (98.6F) and the blood  
perfusion to the skin coupled to terms involving conduction, 
radiation and convection.   There are also issues of specific heat of the
materials and their bulk (*)

   Now touch that piece of metal and then wood with the 
fingertip with sensor attached.   Did you do it?
What happens to the temperature at the finger?
It falls doesn't it?  Examine the rate of fall, and
the equilibrium temperature.   for each material.

  The measured finger temperature (actually the
temperature of the sensor in contact with finger)
falls much more quickly
for contact with the metal doesn't it?  Why?
This is because the thermal conduction
of the heat (away from the fingertip -- and the core temperature
source) is greater.   that is what the exhibit to which
you refer was about.

The metal is the Museum of Science is copper (methinks) which has
a thermal conductivity of .941 (+/- .005) cal/sec/cm2/C/cm.
We will ignore inhomogeneity which is important for wood.  As
a rule of thumb for wood the thermal conductivity parallel
 to the grain is 3 (+/- 1) that of the
transverse thermal conductivity.  The bulk thermal conductivities
range from a low (across the grain for
balsa wood) of .32 BTU/sqft/degF/inch/hour to a high of circa 
1.4 (hardwoods). That works out to a range of .00011 to
 .00048 cal/sec/cm2/C/cm  for woods.  Big difference effecting
the rate of temperature change, isn't it?

  Now note what calorimetrists also use.   Notice that
the equilibrium temperature is also lower 
for contact with  the metal. How about that?
that is how some calorimeters work.

   The boundary conditions are
your core temperature and the room temperature.
Given no sudden changes in perfusion 
(by grip tightness, blood flow, ..)
the barriers 1 and 2 are fixed making this
amenable to a quasi-one dimensional analysis.

!          !                   !     !        !             !
! core temp!perfusion thru body!skin ! sensor !metal or wood! room
!          !                   !     !        !             !

  Try the experiment with your
home computer and data acquisition port.
We explain this quite simply.
At equilibrium -- given all other conditions
are equal -- the temperature of the finger probe in contact
with the metal must be lower than that in contact
with the wood. It must or else further additional
heat flow would follow across the
metal which would not then have been at equilibrium in the first
place.

  This simple experiment, or the model, 
demonstrate that Richard's interpretation is good thinking but 
is not correct.  In fact, this
simple experiment shows that there is no
need for a human neurosensor to measure heat flow because
the steady state temperature will depend upon the thermal conductance
(and thus composition) of the material.    It thus corroborates what is
reported of the known biomedical physiology of the human
dual afferent temperature system, as it shows the sensitivity and 
discrimination of temperature sensing system 

   Nice suggestion though.  Good science. Keep up the good work.
Have you read the references yet?

    Best wishes.
     Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.15 / Jim Carr /  Re: The Wright Bros. & the "skeptics"
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Wright Bros. & the "skeptics"
Date: 15 Jan 1995 12:22:22 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <Zs15xo9.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> 
>I would not know about that. I don't pay much attention to newspapers, ...  

I guess that is what makes you such an expert on them. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  Tallahassee, where the crime rate 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  is almost twice that in New York 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  City.  Reported crimes, that is.  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  A subtle statistical detail.  
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.15 / mitchell swartz /  Rothwell's Wright vs The NYTimes : an s.p.f. Meta-issue
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Rothwell's Wright vs The NYTimes : an s.p.f. Meta-issue
Subject: Re: Rothwell's Wrights vs. The New York Times: an s.p.f. Meta-issue
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 1995 20:54:33 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <3fbc0i$gka@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Rothwell's Wrights vs. The New York Times: an s.p.f. Meta-issue
Richard Schultz (schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu) writes:

  = The issue wasn't how many facts the New York Times got right.  The issue
  = was your claim that the New York Times had dismissed powered heavier-than-air
  = flight as impossible after the Wrights had already built their first airplane.
  = Since the New York Times described the Wrights' flights as "successful",
  = your claim is shown to be incorrect. ...
  =  Except for the New York Times, apparently, which was reporting on the Wright
  =  brothers' attempts to sell the rights to their airplane as early as 1903.
  =  In fact, one New York Times editorial that I didn't quote of 10 December
  =  1903 criticized Langley's continued failures not because heavier-than-air
  =  powered flight was impossible, but because he was incapable of correctly
  =  calculating the strain on the materials and so his airplanes kept falling
  =  apart before they even came close to getting of the ground.  The Times 
  =  suggested that he go back to doing theory and leave the engineering to
  =  competent engineers -- not that he stop because the whole thing was
  =  impossible.  ...
  =  					Richard Schultz
 
   The reported denial of new technology -- including in the field
of aerospace science --  by the "experts" 
is not only true, but it continued (or recurred),
as can be seen from the following quote from
pre-Voyager/Mariner/Apollo/Clementine times.
          [Did the kzin have TB-skeptics?    ;-)  

   "Professor Goddard  ...  does not know the relation of action to reaction
  ...  he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in our high schools"
      [New York Times, January 13, 1920]

  Best wishes, colleagues.
      Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.15 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Correction to Richard Schultz's Experiment
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Correction to Richard Schultz's Experiment
Date: 15 Jan 1995 21:07:24 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <D2GHJq.Mxu@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

>   Nice suggestion though.  Good science. Keep up the good work.
>Have you read the references yet?

No, I have too much of my own work to do.  If you insist that it is
the temperature and not the rate of heat flow, I will not press the 
issue any further.

Have you decided what the products of cold fusion are yet?  For
that matter, have you ever come up with an explanation of how a
nucleus excited by 24 MeV can couple to a lattice, give up its
energy without giving off any high-energy radiation, conserve momentum
and not violate special relativity?
--
					Richard Schultz

Look outside the window, there's a woman being grabbed.
They've dragged her to the bushes, and now she's being stabbed.
Maybe we should call the cops and try to stop the pain.
But Monopoly is so much fun, I'd hate to blow the game.
				-Phil Ochs
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.15 / Harry Conover /  Re: Rothwell's Wrights vs. The New York Times: an s.p.f. Meta-issue
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell's Wrights vs. The New York Times: an s.p.f. Meta-issue
Date: 15 Jan 1995 21:40:12 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Jim Carr (jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu) wrote:

: Further, I doubt if their reporting on the Wrights in 1903 was sloppy. 
: I suspect they were quoting what they were told by a Wright employee, 
: and the factual errors were deliberate, to protect the invention from 
: Langley and others. 

Well Jim, unlike Mr. Rothwell, you have indeed done your homework.  Thank
you for bringing the name Langley into the discussion, a shadowy but  
significant figure from aviation's past (who's activities in his day were
strangely similar to those of some shadowy CF personalities of today).
Langley liked press conferences a great deal, and believed it was his
manifest destiny to bring to the world a great invention, the airplane.
Unfortunately, Langley didn't know how to make a plane that could fly,
while the Wright's did.

Evidently Mr. Rothwell's research did not go deep enough into the 
history of the Wright invention, otherwise he would have surely pointed
out that it was Langley (and through him, the Smithsonian) that were
the Wright's detractors, not the New York Times and the media!


                                     Harry C.


cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.15 / Kiran Reval /  Re: BOMB REPORT
     
Originally-From: K.Reval@sussex.ac.uk (Kiran Reval)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: BOMB REPORT
Date: 15 Jan 1995 21:57:29 GMT
Organization: Sussex University

In article <S1126161.2.2F1351A4@cedarville.edu>, S1126161@cedarville.edu
(Robert Mc Kinney ) says:

>I AM DOING A REPORT ON ON HOW EASY IT IS TO MAKE A BOMB...

I would have thought charcoal, sulfur and salpeter would do the
trick. If you put this in 
a strong container with fuse, then sit  on it, and light the fuse you will succeed...

KR

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenReval cudfnKiran cudlnReval cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.15 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Griggs Theories
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Theories
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 95 17:44:59 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Chuck Harrison <harr@netcom.com> writes:
 
>Here I disagree.  I think more accurate results are likely to be obtained
>by allowing the system to reach equilibrium (say 24hrs).  Steady-state
 
It reaches equilibrium in 10 or 15 minutes. Roughly the same amount of time
it takes a large automobile engine to reach optimum operating temperature.
It is a large mass of metal but it is not insulated, and it is designed for
rapid throughput, so it does not take long for it all to get as hot as it
is going to get. If you let it run for several hours, you see that the
temperature of all components is very steady. The main source of temperature
fluctuations are changes in the water flow, I think. That is my take on the
data (after staring at it for a long while). Water flow changes are larger
on a percent basis than changes in electric power levels in most locations.
Water flow from a tap is affected by things like the input water temperature
(hot water makes the pipes a tad wider I think; anyway it flows more freely);
and by interruptions like people flushing toilets in the building. Electricity
also fluctuates when people turn on large electrical appliances and machinery.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.15 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: An experiment for Mitchell Swartz
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: An experiment for Mitchell Swartz
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 95 17:53:22 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Richard Schultz <schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu> writes:
 
>was a couple of years ago) already set up.  Take a block of copper
>at room temperature.  Take a block of wood at room temperature.  One
>will feel "colder" than the other (guess which one) even though 
>thermometers attached to the objects will confirm that they are at
>the same temperature.  Clearly, what is being "measured" by your skin
>is not temperature.  Now, if Jed Rothwell is wrong, and literature is
 
That is because copper and wood conduct heat out of your finger at different
rates. It *is* temperature you sense; the temperature in your finger, which
is being rapidly cooled down by the copper heat sink. If you made both blocks
at body temperature there would be no heat flow and they would feel the same.
If you heat two thermometers up to body temperature and hold them against
blocks of wood and copper, the one touching the copper will cool down a lot
faster.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.15 / Sam Goldwasser /  Re: Does it really matter
     
Originally-From: sam@colossus.stdavids.picker.com (Sam Goldwasser)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does it really matter
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 1995 21:57:08 GMT
Organization: Picker International, St. Davids

In article <3f6c43$cec@agate.berkeley.edu> schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu
(Richard Schultz) writes:

>   In article <9046SCKNHFNUSLFNEX@kbbs.com>,  <artki@kbbs.com> wrote:

>   >  If "Freshly Microwaved" means fully cooked then all you are saying
>   >is that the filling is hotter than the crust.  That's true for
>   >a pie baked in a conventional oven as well.

>   I don't know if you've ever actually baked a pie in a conventional
>   oven, but normally one bakes it long enough that the situation
>   you describe is a pretty clear violation of the Second Law of
>   Thermodynamics.  I think what you mean to say is that for pies
>   with fruit filling, the filling has a higher water content and
>   hence higher heat capacity than the crust.  Despite Mitchell Swartz's
>   best efforts, what you actually feel as "heat" is the amount of
>   heat transferred rather than the temperature.
>   --
When still inside the oven the original description would violate the 2nd
law.  Once removed, the pie cools from the outside-in and there is an almost
immediate decrease in outside crust temperature due to its low heat capacity
and insulating properties.  So, in addition to the valid comments above, the
inside will be hotter than the crust which will be hotter than the ambient.
This is probably true *inside* a microwave oven at some point while cooking
as well since the air inside a microwave is not heated except by contact
with the food and will thus be cooler than the food.

So why are we discussing this on sci.physics.fusion?

This is all giving me an appetite.

--- sam

>					   Richard Schultz

>   "How many boards would the Mongols hoard if the Mongol hordes got bored?"
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudensam cudfnSam cudlnGoldwasser cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.15 / TRAYLING GREG /  Aneutronic fusion
     
Originally-From: SPINOR@TRIUMF.CA (TRAYLING, GREG)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Aneutronic fusion
Date: 15 Jan 1995 22:52:14 GMT
Organization: TRI-UNIVERSITY MESON FACILITY

  What the heck ever happened to aneutronic fusion? About seven (?)
years ago I remember a guy drifting around saying that there was a 
way of containg a fusion reaction in a moderately small instrument that
produced no neutrons. (one of the clean lithium reactions). The power
supposedly could be tapped directly off the created species. This was to
be accomplished by having the ions orbit around in a flower like pattern 
created by a specially designed magnetic field. I know this is very vague,
but does anyone remember this guy or what ever became of it. I think his
name was madgelich (?).
  Spinor@Erich.Triumf.ca
Please E-mail direct, cause I post all over and can't keep track of everything.

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenSPINOR cudfnTRAYLING cudlnGREG cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.13 / Mark Fernee /  Re: Comparisons between postings here and Chaos
     
Originally-From: fernee@physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Comparisons between postings here and Chaos
Date: 13 Jan 1995 00:07:28 GMT
Organization: University of Queensland

MARSHALL DUDLEY (mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com) wrote:
: fernee@physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee) writes:
:  
: -> free lunch - not that it was ever claimed). Why is it that most people that
: -> cry ZPE have never done QM? QM as we know it admits no free lunch. Conservat
: -> laws are inherint in the theory. Sure there is an infinite vacuum fluctuatio
: -> energy, but it is potential that you have to think about and as long as we
: -> stay at the same potential, then this energy can do no work.
:  
: I think one reason people hold out hope that there is something beyond the
: theory is that according to theory the universe cannot exist, except in a
: steady state.  Since experience tends to contradict that, there must be
: something missing in the theory to account for it, and this something caused
: the largest transfer of energy from a vacuum fluctuation imaginable.
:
According to what theory? There are nearly as many cosmological models as there
are grains of sand. Given that there is as yet no solid unified field theory and
quantum gravity does not exist, most of these cosmological models are only kludges
with more arbitrary parameters than you can shake a stick at. Most cosmological
models are also virtually untestable as they deal with energy densities far
beyond that obtainable in any laboratory. This inherint untestability makes
most of these models little more than of academic interest. QM on the other hand
has been thoroughly tested as has QED. I know that there are conceptual 
renormalization problems, but this results from a sort of chicken and the egg type
question and inherint conceptual difficulties with initial quantization proceedures.
If the microscopic universe is inherintly quantum mechanical, QED then should not
be derived from a classical model, but instread should be contructed axiomatically.
It seems to me that current quantization proceedures smack of "reverse engineering".

My initial point is that ZPE is a well understood phenomena in QM and is not 
a well of infinite energy. Any tapping of ZPE would probably be analogous to
the process of "squeezing", where squeezing pertains to information rather 
than energy. We have already indicated that the information capacity of a
squeezed channel in no greater than that carried by both quadratures of a
coherent state channel for a given input energy [ref Kinsler, Fernee and Drummond,
PRA48 no. 4 (1993)]. Thus this sets a definite quantum limit to information
transfer.

I simply object to using terms from an existing theory to posit the existence
of a "free lunch" in some different theory. 

Mark.

  
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenfernee cudfnMark cudlnFernee cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.12 / Donald Locker /  Re: Phonophobic Calls Griggs
     
Originally-From: dhl@mrdog.msl.com (Donald H. Locker)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Phonophobic Calls Griggs
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 21:43:24 GMT
Organization: Chelsea MSL, Inc.   Chelsea, MI   USA

In article <3ernn1$a36@hprcl192.mayfield.hp.com>,
    David Seghers <seghers@hpcc01.corp.hp.com> wrote:
>In article <3ek87g$nau@fnnews.fnal.gov>,
>   Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) says:
>>
>>This phonophobic finally got around to calling Griggs and 
>>setting up a meeting.  
>
>Congrats! 
>>
>[snip]
>>Another matter is the press.  A member has asked to join the
>>visit.  What do you all think?  My general feeling is that the
>>press is dangerous to scientific inquiry.  They are interested 
>>in controversy which sells papers.  Some of us are interested in
>>discovering truth.  
>
>My first take was %$@% no!

Me too, but ...

>My second take was, tell the press to read the net like the rest of us.
>My third take was to trust Tom's judgement.  If the pressperson was
>known to Tom as an objective observer, someone who has a solid history
>of science reporting (is there someone like that?), then perhaps.  From

My impression of Science News people is that they are accurate,
interested, objective, and competent.  I think one of them might be
acceptable, certainly to me.

>your post, Tom, it seems as if you aren't thrilled about this particular
>press-critter.
>>
[...]

I am quite satisfied that Tom will give us as good a report as may be
had.  I am delighted that he will be doing this for all of us.

And now back to lurking.
-- 
Donald.
These opinions were formulated by a trained professional.
              DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME!
      At the time, the tone will be ... BEEP!
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudendhl cudfnDonald cudlnLocker cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.12 / Kiran Reval /  Re: Does it really matter who believes what?
     
Originally-From: K.Reval@sussex.ac.uk (Kiran Reval)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does it really matter who believes what?
Date: 12 Jan 1995 23:00:42 GMT
Organization: Sussex University

In article <3eqb2l$lj1@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) says:

>MARSHALL DUDLEY (mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com) wrote:
>: Microwaves cook from the inside out, just like they do in a microwave oven.

>This is somewhat of an urban legend.  Most substances placed in a microwave
>have sufficient conductivity at the surface at the frequency in question
>that they actually cook from the outside in -- just as in normal oven.

But try eating  a freshly microwaved pie. I defy you. 

Warning: Do not try this at home, it really is so much hotter inside.

KR
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenReval cudfnKiran cudlnReval cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.12 /  ProFusion /  Re: Aether again ?
     
Originally-From: profusion@aol.com (ProFusion)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Aether again ?
Date: 12 Jan 1995 18:29:30 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Frankly, this seems like only a semantic difference. There may be no such
medium as the aether superimposed on space, but space itself seems like
the medium in which EM waves propagate, and thus has the properties of the
aether. Whether you can infer  anything else about it...

Vic
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenprofusion cudlnProFusion cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.13 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: World-Wide Acceptance of Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: World-Wide Acceptance of Cold Fusion
Date: 13 Jan 1995 00:18:28 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3f1omb$rn4@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) 
writes: 

>In the mid-1970s, someone advertised a memory module that stored
>1 MB in a cigarette-sized box, and saved its contents during power
>outages "in 48 critical registers".  He was touting that thing for
>18 MONTHS before he changed his contact address to Brazil :-)
>
>Please note that I am NOT saying that the devices don't work -
thats good

To say that E-Quest is a fly by night company as you have done in 
referance to your brazilian friend is rather rich. I happen to live near 
Palo Alto where E-Quest resides and I can tell you that they are not 
such. There is a big differance between a company that is merely an 
advertising firm and a real life firm with R&D labs, manufacturing and 
assembly labs. BIG Difference.

CP
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.13 / A Plutonium /  Warning:Nature, New Scientist, CF = violation conservation is 
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Warning:Nature, New Scientist, CF = violation conservation is 
Date: 13 Jan 1995 01:57:35 GMT
Organization: Plutonium Atom Foundation

 I strongly believe I have to give this warning of copyright
infringements. Why? Because I have a copyright and a patent application
on Cold Fusion explanation is Violation of Conservation of Energy/Mass.
Anyone printing any idea of such must print Archimedes Plutonium to
that idea.
 It is my spontaneous neutron materialization that I hold copyrights
to.

 It is not uncommon to see threads on Internet printed in science
journals or weeklys which "softly steal" ideas from the Internet
without giving proper credit.

  Let us face facts. Truly new great ideas are rare, when one occurs,
there is a shark like frenzy feeding fest, where editors of science
journals bite around the edges in hopes of arresting a new idea away
from the originator. 

  And in my situation, I have an added dimension. I have the Atom Whole
theory, not that someone will try to steal that away from me, but, that
they will try with all might to never publish it in their journal such
as Nature or New Scientist. And, I claim many other new ideas such as
CF = violation of conservation and superconductivity is neutrinos.
Because I am the originator of so many new ideas which (in my opinion)
will be verified as correct.
  Then, so many journals will be caught in a bind. And, they will not
act according to fair play. They will be forced to publish that CF =
violation and superconductivity = neutrinos. But they will not want to
publish the name Archimedes Plutonium, ever. They will want to not
include my name because of my crowning achievement of the ATom
Totality. 
   So, they will not play fair, and they will try to nibble around the
fringes and steal my other ideas because they will have to be
published.
   By this post, I warn them, that any infringement of any new idea
which Archimedes Plutonium has discovered will not be treated lightly.
Should I see any hints of CF = violation of energy/mass conservation
without due credit to me, I will be very quick to hire a lawyer for
copyright infringements. This is after I write to the party involved,
and yet they do not make corrections in their later editions.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.13 / Harry Conover /  Re: I Am a Cheap Date!
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I Am a Cheap Date!
Date: 13 Jan 1995 04:12:00 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Akira Kawasaki (aki@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <3f0rt7$k9v@sundog.tiac.net> conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) 
: writes: 

: >Wouldn't this be a bit like getting your science facts from the 
: 'National 
: >Enquirer' or 'World Sun'?

:  Oh really? And what do those publications contain by what authors?


Name it!  Authors are a bit vague, though, and for good reason.

                                      Harry C.


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.13 / Harry Conover /  Re: The Wright Bros. & the "skeptics"
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Wright Bros. & the "skeptics"
Date: 13 Jan 1995 05:10:11 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

: Parkinson is wrong about this one detail: no newspaper reporter, from the N.Y.
: Times or any Dayton newspaper ever bothered to ride out on the trolley to
: observe the flights. They all assumed that the scientific experts were
: correct, and that heavier than air flight was impossible, and they never
: bothered to check. 

Jed, are you truly this clueless?  The reality of heavier-than-air flight
was established long before the Wright Brothers.  The Wright brothers 
pioneered 'Powered Flight.'  I suggest that you re-read your references.

If you bother to travel to Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, where the initial
flights took place (not Ohio), you will discover a plaque at the site of
the first powered flight.  It has this inscription:

"The First Flight

From a 60-foot wooden track laid on these sands, Orville Wright rose
into the wind on the morning of December 17, 1903.  It was the first time
in history that 'a machine carrying a man had raise itself by its own 
power into the air in full flight, had sailed forward without reduction
of speed, and had finally landed at a point as high as that from which
it had started.'  The flight lasted about twelve seconds."

(Don't ask me why -- the reason I was there for the anniversary of the 
Wright Brothers flight is another story, stranger than even the Griggs 
Device -- but I was there and took a picture of the plaque.)

Damn it, when you try to put a personal spin on history, at least get
the facts straight.  You have the years wrong, the location wrong, and
even the Wright Brothers accomplishment substantially wrong!

....And yes, the event was both photographed and widely reported in
the press...and generally accepted and believed by the public.  

....And yes, there was some controversy.  The Wright brothers leading
competitor attempted to put a negative spin on the reported event (do
you even know his name, Jed?)...and do you know why the Smithsonian
for years avoided a Wright Brothers exhibit, Jed?  (Hint: Jed, it was due 
to the the same politically well connected guy who invited a flock of 
reported to witness the launch of his "aircraft invention"...which in turn 
went 'kerplunk' into the Potomac River when catapaulted from a bridge...
and the very same guy that now has a well know airfield named after
him!)  No, it was not Pons and Fleishman, although they are today 
equivalent, at least IMHO.

...An no, Jed, these is otherwise absolutely no parallel of the Wright 
Brothers with CF, Griggs, or P&F!

Come on Jed, you're a terrific writer and debater, so please do your 
research a little more throughly before applying pen to paper. 


                                   Harry C.


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.13 / Harry Conover /  Re: Aether again ?
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Aether again ?
Date: 13 Jan 1995 05:33:41 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

ProFusion (profusion@aol.com) wrote:
: Frankly, this seems like only a semantic difference. There may be no such
: medium as the aether superimposed on space, but space itself seems like
: the medium in which EM waves propagate, and thus has the properties of the
: aether. Whether you can infer  anything else about it...

: Vic

Well, considering that the ether demonstrates the properties of a solid,
and Michelson-Morley disproved the ether drift -- I'd say that's pretty
significant!

                                          Harry C.


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.14 /  J_FARRELL@acad /  Experts
     
Originally-From: J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Experts
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 01:14:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Some quotes published in Chemical & Engineering News, 1969, p 68.
----------
That is the biggest fool thing we have ever done.  The (atomic) bomb will
never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives.

   Admiral William Leahy, 1945
-----------
As far as sinking a ship with a bomb is concerned, you just can't do it.

   Rear-Admiral Clark Woodward, 1939
------------

(The Grad Canyon) is, of course, altogether valueless ...  Ours has been
the first, and will doubtless be the last, party of whites to visit this
profitless locality.  It seem intended by nature that the Colorado River
... shall be forever unvisited and undisturbed.

   Lt. Joseph C. Ives
   Corps of Topographical Engineers, 1861
-------------

(Airplanes) will eventually be fast, they will be used in sport, but they
are not to be thought of as commercial carriers.  To say nothing of the
danger, the sizes must remain small and the passingers few, because the
weight will, for the same design, increase as the cube of the dimensions,
while the supporting surfaces will only increase as the square.

   Octave Chanute
   American Aviation Pioneer, 1904

-----------

   
*****************************************
John J. Farrell
Chemistry Department
Franklin & Marshall College
Lancaster, PA  17604

email     J_FARRELL@ACAD.FANDM.EDU
FAX       717-291-4343

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenJ_FARRELL cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.12 / Ronald Bruck /  Re: NP 9Jan95, Ludwig is asked to revise THE FEYNMAN LECTURES I
     
Originally-From: bruck@mtha.usc.edu (Ronald Bruck)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.math,sci.chem
Subject: Re: NP 9Jan95, Ludwig is asked to revise THE FEYNMAN LECTURES I
Date: 12 Jan 95 22:40:22 +1700

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenbruck cudfnRonald cudlnBruck cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.13 /  RobertBass /  Re: Griggs Theories
     
Originally-From: robertbass@aol.com (RobertBass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Theories
Date: 13 Jan 1995 03:43:43 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

     Add to your interesting list of proposed explanations of the Griggs
Effect:

ZPF-Enhanced H2O Dissociation/Recombination    [Robert W. Bass]
   
     If the theories of Puthoff and his collaborators about the nature of
the "cosmological feedback cycle" in Stochastic Electrodynamics (SE)
accounting for the Zero-Point Fluctuations (ZPF) and the origin of both
inertial and gravitational mass, plus explanation of stability of Bohr
orbit, and explanation of gravity as a sort of Casimir effect, etc., etc.
are correct, then I understand second hand via Hal Fox that their theories
predict that an accelerated charged particle can pick up background ZPF
energy, and end with more kinetic energy than was used to accelerate it. 
If so, then (by sonoluminescence or electron-clustering or whatever
mechanism) the hydrodynamic vortex may be tapping the ZPF by causing the
water to dissociate into hydrogen & oxygen, which then recombines
combustively into steam.
     By conventional physics, the energy required to achieve the
dissociation cannot be less than the energy released during the
recombination/combustion.
     But if the mechanism is actually "tapping the ZPF", then the heat
released during the recombination of the free hydrogen and oxygn atoms
could be greater than standard accounting for the external energy input
would predict.
     Cheers,
       Bob Bass (Dr. Robert W. Bass)                                      
                                                            Ph.D. (math,
1955), M.A. Oxon [Rhodes Scholar, 1952]),
                       Prof. of Physics (BYU, 1971-81); Aerospace (U CO,
1965-67);
                   EE fac. (UCLA vstg. Rsch.Eng. III, 1986-87); Systems
Eng.(WCU, 1991-92).
               Registered Patent Agent 29,130 (1978)
               P.O. Box 6337, Thousand Oaks, CA 91359-6337
  Voicemail: (818) 377-4471                                   E-mail:
robertbass@aol.com
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenrobertbass cudlnRobertBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Jan 16 04:37:08 EST 1995
------------------------------
