1995.01.17 /  bearpaw /  Re: MIT Cold Fusion Day '95 -- Room Change, etc. Repostng.
     
Originally-From: bearpaw@world.std.com (bearpaw)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MIT Cold Fusion Day '95 -- Room Change, etc. Repostng.
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 17:15:45 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

HWHN61A@prodigy.com (Thomas Selby) writes:

>As a contributor to the Griggs field trip fund, may I suggest a use for 
>the money remaining after Tom's Georgia trip?  It sounded like we would 
>have more than enough left to send someone to Boston for a day.  I know 
>it's short notice but it would be good to have some first hand reporting 
>on the events of the day.  Any volunteers?

Well, I *live* in Boston, I'm already planning on going, and I seem to
be the nearest thing to a Cold Fusion Agnostic (tm) that I know of.

Unfortunately, my Physics/Chemistry knowledge stops at the level of
college undergrad courses taken over a decade ago, and I wouldn't know
a calorimeter if I accidentally sat on it.  (Granted, that may be part
of why I'm a CF Agnostic.  :-)  )

Bearpaw MacDonald

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbearpaw cudlnbearpaw cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.17 / Chris - /  Canards
     
Originally-From: chrisk@gomez.stortek.com (Chris Kostanick - X6359)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Canards
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 95 09:42:45 MST

I know that is really off topic, but there is one point that
jumped out at me.

>(I know it's off topic a bit, but what the hell)

>1) The Wright brothers were like many other pioneers in areas of
>technology thought 'impossible' (so perhaps a bit like cf?). There
>contribution was not so much _how_ they did it but _that_ they did it.
>In fact, many of their design details were wrong, or sub-optimal -
>canard elevator, pusher propellors, wing-warping for example - but once
 ^^^^^^

Actually, canards were more optimal. A canard elevator (one forward of
the center of lift) contributes lift to the whole package. The
standard elevator (aft of the center of lift) supplies down force
and robs some efficency. This is why the Rutan plane designs all
use canards. If you do the canard design right the canard will stall
before the main wing stalls and drop the nose for you. (On some of
the Rutan designs if you hold the stick all the way back the nose
will bob as the plane noses up, the canard stalls, the nose drops,
the canard un-stalls, the nose lifts ... until you get tired of
it.) The airplane that flew around the world without refueling was
a canard design. (Designed by one of the Rutan brothers and flown
by the other one. I can never keep track of which one is Burt and
which one is Dick.)

Note, none of this relates to CF. I started out a true hopeful on
CF, but the lack of progress and real publications has made me
quite skeptical. Too bad, it would have been very useful if it
had worked. If CF is ever accepted I will be happy, nay delighted
to announce myself as a moronic skeptopath in this very forum, but
I'm not holding my breath. 

Chris Kostanick
chrisk@gomez.stortek.com
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenchrisk cudfnChris cudln- cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.17 / Richard Schultz /  Re: The Wright Bros. & the "skeptics"
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Wright Bros. & the "skeptics"
Date: 17 Jan 1995 17:47:04 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <5q4YZ5d.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>Got it? Scientific papers give you facts. Newspapers give you mistakes. I
>don't have to be expert to realize that.
 
What about the scientific papers that indicate that there is no such
thing as P&F style cold fusion?
 
>. . . .I do not know if their coverage of the P&F news
>conference was accurate or not, but I do know that a news conferences is not
>science. A news conferences is a waste of time. It has no importance at all.
>What matters are facts published in scientific papers and patents. The N. Y.
>Times does not begin to understand these facts.

Then why did P&F choose to make their initial announcement of "Cold
Fusion" at a press conference instead of waiting for the paper to be
published?  (They are hardly the only scientists who are guilty of this
sort of thing, BTW; and I got the impression at the time that they had had
their arms twisted to some extent by the U of U administration to have
the press conference coincide with the submission rather than publication
of the original paper.)
--
					Richard Schultz

"Life is a blur of Republicans and meat."   -- Zippy
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.17 / Thomas Lockyer /  Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph
sics.accelerators
Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
Date: 17 Jan 1995 19:26:55 GMT
Organization: Silicon Valley Public Access Link



>James A. Carr (jac@scri.fsu.edu)  Writes:
> Neutrinos interact by exchanging a vector boson, either a W or Z.

James: Thanks for the reply.  I remember the history of the electro-weak 
theory, it was the first theory that was ever granted a Nobel before the  
theory had been experimentally verified.  This of course meant the Nobel 
prize would have to be given to a gigantic experiment designed to try 
and detect the W and Z.   (Nominations for the physics prize are by the 
previous Nobel laureates). Science by fiat!  

If we look at that experimental evidence, it is not very convincing.  
First, at high energies, most of the stuff happens at small distances, 
out of range of the detector, so one must *indirectly* try to devise a 
scenario by extrapolating back into a jumble of other particles.  So, 
one must look for an ordinary, isolated high energy electron.  This 
requires piling  inference upon inference upon inference, that 
stretches  ones credulity.  I am not convinced that nature needs an 
intermediate that lasts only 10^-20 seconds or less.  

> You cannot change data because it does not fit your model.

Yes, but  i think we should  not believe all of the conclusions from 
experiments, without looking at the original data.  If you bother to 
look at the experimental results, you may not (from your own background) 
be willing to reach the same conclusions as the authors.  Unfortunately, 
very little of the original papers appear in the books on the subject. 

Regards: Tom.

  
 -- 
Thomas N. Lockyer <lockyer@svpal.org>     
1611 Fallen Leaf Lane Los Altos, CA USA 94024-6212
Tel. (415)967-9550
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenlockyer cudfnThomas cudlnLockyer cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.18 / Richard Schultz /  Re: The Wright Bros. & the "skeptics"
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Wright Bros. & the "skeptics"
Date: 18 Jan 1995 18:09:44 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <hix65pr.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>Richard Schultz <schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu> writes:
 
>>Then why did P&F choose to make their initial announcement of "Cold
>>Fusion" at a press conference instead of waiting for the paper to be
>>published?  
 
>They did not choose to do that. The university did. P&F wanted to keep
>the whole thing under wraps a while longer.

I wonder (and wondered at the time) just how the university managed
to force P&F to give the press conference.  Pons had tenure at the
University of Utah, after all.
--
					Richard Schultz

". . .in short, his post became untenable; and having swallowed his
quantum of tea, he judged it expedient to evacuate."
				Charlotte Bronte, _Shirley_
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.18 / Matt Austern /  Re: Free Energy Device
     
Originally-From: matt@physics10.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device
Date: 18 Jan 1995 18:11:49 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)

In article <1995Jan18.161042.22402@ttinews.tti.com> jackson@soldev.tti.c
m (Dick Jackson) writes:

> Ha! Whenever did anyone working with patents ever come up with
> a half-way decent theory????

What a wonderful straight line...  I wish I could think of something
particularly clever to do with it.  

I'm not feeling particularly clever today, though, so I'll just point
out that the greatest scientist of this century was a patent clerk.  A
rather good patent clerk, for that matter: he got promoted quite
quickly.
--

                               --matt
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.18 / Jeffrey Templon /  Convincing Experimental Evidence (was Re: Producing a neutrino ...)
     
Originally-From: templon@paramount.nikhefk.nikhef.nl (Jeffrey Templon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph
sics.accelerators
Subject: Convincing Experimental Evidence (was Re: Producing a neutrino ...)
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 09:46:02 GMT
Organization: NIKHEFK


This one's getting WAY out there ...

In <3fh5lv$1v4@borg.svpal.org> lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) writes:

>>James A. Carr (jac@scri.fsu.edu)  Writes:
>> Neutrinos interact by exchanging a vector boson, either a W or Z.

>James: Thanks for the reply.  I remember the history of the electro-weak 
>theory, it was the first theory that was ever granted a Nobel before the  
>theory had been experimentally verified.  This of course meant the Nobel 
>prize would have to be given to a gigantic experiment designed to try 
>and detect the W and Z.   (Nominations for the physics prize are by the 
>previous Nobel laureates). Science by fiat!  

This is not true.  The electroweak theory predicted lots of things,
among them these bosons.  These bosons were not able to be detected
by current technology when the prize was given, but lots of
the other things were.  As for this being the first, you've
forgotten about Einstein.  His relativity theories were
basically accepted as correct before we had the technology to
detect all the predictions as being correct or not (time dilation,
gravitational lensing, etc.)  Ah, but you're right, they didn't
have the guts to give him the prize for relativity in 1905;
it was for the photoelectric effect.

>If we look at that experimental evidence, it is not very convincing.  
>First, at high energies, most of the stuff happens at small distances, 
>out of range of the detector, so one must *indirectly* try to devise a 
>scenario by extrapolating back into a jumble of other particles.  So, 

OK, if we go with this one, let's throw all of nuclear physics
in the can as well.  The resonant states I detected as large
peaks (also seen by tens of other researchers at other laboratories
using the same (p,p') reaction, as well as reactions involving
pions, electrons, and photons) last for a comparable amount
of time.  I had to wait for the durn scattered protons and
decay particles to travel a few meters (25 cm in the case
of the decay particles) before they ever got detected, and
by that time the reaction was already over tens of nanoseconds
ago.  It must have been some crazy insidious background effect
that just happens to look exactly the same in an energy
spectrum, no matter where you do your experiment or with
what sort of detectors or incident beam.

Maybe I should go into politics.

						JT
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudentemplon cudfnJeffrey cudlnTemplon cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.18 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: The Wright Bros. & the "skeptics"
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Wright Bros. & the "skeptics"
Date: 18 Jan 95 19:08:23 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Laboratories, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR

In article <hix65pr.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>Richard Schultz <schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu> writes:
> 
>>Then why did P&F choose to make their initial announcement of "Cold
>>Fusion" at a press conference instead of waiting for the paper to be
>>published?  (They are hardly the only scientists who are guilty of this
> 
>They did not choose to do that. The university did. P&F wanted to keep
>the whole thing under wraps a while longer.
> 
>- Jed








Shoulda burried it.


Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.18 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Re: GG vs SL
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG vs SL
Date: 18 Jan 95 21:29:51 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi folks, have a nice day....
In article <3fesqv$82p@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com
(John Logajan) writes:
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
> In order of magnitude terms:
> 
> The Griggs device and the current round of sonoluminesence laboratory
> experiments exist in about the same relative volume of water -- but the
> Griggs device is subjecting it to on the order of 200 times higher
> energy density.
> 
> --
>  - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
John, could you please post your calculations and/or sources of the
energy densities?
Thanks in anticipation.
Best Regards,
Daryl Owen.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudendowen cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.19 / Michael Kenward /  s.p.f. is for CF
     
Originally-From: m.kenward@bbcnc.org.uk (Michael Kenward)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: s.p.f. is for CF
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 05:43:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>Date: 18 Jan 95 12:06:27 EST
>From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
>To: m.kenward@bbcnc.org.uk
>MMDF-Warning:  Parse error in original version of preceding line at
auntie.bbcnc.org.uk
>Subject: s.p.f. is for CF
>
>To: >INTERNET:m.kenward@bbcnc.org.uk
>
>m.kenward@bbcnc.org.uk (Michael Kenward) writes:
>
>     "Now, can we get back to talking about fusion, preferably hot fusion.
>     You know, the sort that we know exists."
>
>Strictly speaking, this forum is for cold fusion, not hot. I believe the hot
>fusion folks have their own forum somewhere. Not that it matters. If the hot
>fusion people want to post their pseudo-science and their pitiful results
>from time to time, that's okay. It makes our stuff look good! After all, we
>get hundreds of times more energy than they do, for a billion times less
>money.
>
>- Jed
>
>


The above message came to me from you know who. It carries two lessons. One
is that the name of this list is wrong. It is not a fusion list. It is a
cold fusion list.

The second is that anyone who comments on what appears here runs the risk
not only of being harangued in public, they will get personal mail.

The message does, though, explain why I haven't found much reality
hereabouts. Does anyone know the address of a list on hot fusion? (I nearly
said 'real fusion'.)

Michael Kenward

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenkenward cudfnMichael cudlnKenward cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.18 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: This forum officially for CF, not HF
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: This forum officially for CF, not HF
Date: 18 Jan 95 22:24:12 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Laboratories, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR

In article <pgz6Rzo.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
.....
...
..
>Strictly speaking, this forum is for cold fusion, not hot. I believe the hot
>fusion folks have their own forum somewhere. Not that it matters. If the hot
>fusion people want to post their pitiful, miserable results here from time to
>time, that's okay. It makes us look good! After all, we get hundreds of times
>more energy than they do, for a billion times less money. They will never make
>a water heater, whereas we not only make them, we sell them!
> 
>- Jed





I think we could heat a hell of a lot of water with a heat exchanger
that works off your gaseous emanations.


Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.18 /  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: 18 Jan 1995 17:53:11 GMT
Organization: MSU Dept. of Physics & Astronomy

In article <3fi3p8$2kp@borg.svpal.org>, lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) writes:
[...lots about possible problems with -solar- neutrino exp/theory]

>Sorry to get carried away, but neutrino theory and detection claims, as 
>presently given, are not convincing, in my view.

Again, I ask, is your "difficulty" strictly limited to the low energy
regime...or does it also extend into the range E_{\nu} 5-500 GeV?
You talk solely about the low energy range, but make "pronouncements"
about "neutrino theory and detection claims" without qualifiers.  I agree
that the situation w/ regards to the solar neutrinos is still problematic,
but I respectfully request that you stop speaking as if there were problems
with the *entire* theory.  It just sorely hurts your credibility when you
simply dismiss what is fantastically good agreement of expt/theory.

-robert
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenhatcher cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.19 / Scott Mueller /  Re: This forum officially for CF, not HF
     
Originally-From: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: This forum officially for CF, not HF
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 15:31:27 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA

>In article <pgz6Rzo.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>>Strictly speaking, this forum is for cold fusion, not hot. I believe the hot
>>fusion folks have their own forum somewhere.

Claimer:  I Was Here.

Sci.physics.fusion was indeed originally created as a forum to contain the
CNF discussions that were spilling all over the net.  (Actually, alt.fusion
was, and s.p.f took over from a.f.)  The group description line in the
"Official" list of Usenet newsgroups even calls out cold fusion specifically.

However, this is the only "fusion" newsgroup on Usenet.  Therefore, as far as
I (and the other charter members of s.p.f, I'm sure) am concerned, hot fusion
is just as welcome here as cold.  There may be a hot fusion mailing list, but
I am not aware of its name and could not direct people there if asked.

-- 
Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (tandem|ub-gate)!zorch!scott
Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests.

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.18 /  prasad /  Re: MIT Cold Fusion Day '95 -- Room Change, etc. Repostng.
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MIT Cold Fusion Day '95 -- Room Change, etc. Repostng.
Date: 18 Jan 1995 17:05:09 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <3fgfjl$qj4@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com>, HWHN61A@prodigy.com
(Thomas Selby) writes:
|> As a contributor to the Griggs field trip fund, may I suggest a use for 
|> the money remaining after Tom's Georgia trip?  It sounded like we would 
|> have more than enough left to send someone to Boston for a day.  I know 
|> it's short notice but it would be good to have some first hand reporting 
|> on the events of the day.  Any volunteers?

Well, I live upstate NY, and I intend driving over for a first hand look,
especially since Griggs is going to be there in person. (funding not reqd!)

I have been revising my thermodynamics over this past year, with due thanks
to a number of discussions in here and sci.physics, and think I have a good
nose for things electrical, though not infallible.

But don't know if my report will be useful; I'll see what I can do.  In
any case, hope to meet at least some of the interested others there.

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.18 / CHU CHUNG /  Re: Fusion Fundamentals Question
     
Originally-From: chuti@ecf.toronto.edu (CHU  TING CHUNG)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Fundamentals Question
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 18:07:21 GMT
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility

In article <3fcauo$soc@hptemp1.cc.umr.edu>,  <sdrumm@albert.nuc.umr.edu> wrote:
>
>Approximately 14.1MeV is contained in the neutron, while only 3.5MeV is
>contained in the alpha (Helium) particle.
>
>Why does this occur?  Any help or directions to reference material would
>be appreciated.  Thanx for the assist.
>
 I am also taking an introductory course in fusion and we had just gone 
over this in class. The energy is distributed as the inverse of the mass
ratio between the neutron and the helium particle, and since the mass 
ratio is 1:4, the energy is distributed as 4:1.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenchuti cudfnCHU cudlnCHUNG cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.18 / CHU CHUNG /  helium 3
     
Originally-From: chuti@ecf.toronto.edu (CHU  TING CHUNG)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: helium 3
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 18:18:09 GMT
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility

 Does anyone have any information on the source of helium 3 on earth?
Does the helium burning reaction involve radioactivity at all?

 Thanks for the help.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenchuti cudfnCHU cudlnCHUNG cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.18 /  Tingod /  NON-CONSERVATION OF ENERGY
     
Originally-From: me@tingod.demon.co.uk (Tingod)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: NON-CONSERVATION OF ENERGY
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 02:20:08 +0000
Organization: Myorganisation

This newsgroup appears to be devoted to systems for the creation
of energy out of nothing.  As a complete change I will shortly
describe an experiment that takes energy and turns it into nothing. 
You may think that there is not likey to be a great call for such a
device and you may be right.  Nevertheless if energy can be shown
to be capable of destruction then it is a relatively small step to
assume that it may also be capable of creation.  There are those
that would insist that to create energy one must first master the
art of destroying it.
It is essential for a clear explanation that I include a diagram of
the apparatus used in the experiment and it's set-up.  This will
enable others to dupicate the effect if they have access to a
simple helium-neon laser.

Here are the instructions for converting the following coded
diagram into normal graphical form.
Obtain uudecode.exe from your local BBS.  Copy this posting renamed net.uue.
Enter uudecode -path-net.uue -path- ed.gif.  Use a graphics view program 
capable of displaying ??.gif files.  Print diagram from program utility 
or by using Print Screen.
Return to this text 
Start of coded diagram
section 1 of uuencode 4.21 of file ED.GIF    by R.E.M.

begin 644 ED.GIF
M1TE&.#=A`````),`````````J@"J``"JJJH``*H`JJI5`*JJJE5550``_P#_
M``#___\``/\`____`/___RP`````@`+@`0,$^_"!2:N]..O-N_]@*(YD:9YH
MJJYLZ[YP+,^T)M5XKN]\[__`H'!(_#V.MZ)RR6PZG]"H=-I*4J_8K';+[7J5
MUJ]X3"Z;SVAA.,UNN]_P.'<MK]OO^+Q^S^_[_X"!@H.$A8:'B(F*BXR-CH^0
MD9*3E)66EYB9FIN<G9Z?H*&BHZ2EIJ>HJ:JKK*VNK["QLK.TM;:WN+FZN[R]
MOK_`P<+#Q,7&Q\C)RLO,S<[/T-'2T]35UM?8V=K;W-W>W^#AXN/DY>;GZ.GJ
MZ^SM[N_P\?+S]/7V]_CY^OO\_?[^``,*'$BPH,&#"!,J7,BPH<.'$"-*G$BQ
M`A(Z%3.B.C*!^Z/&CQLM8`1)DM.:D2536L+H4:7+E1Q:OISI"*5%FS1S_L$I
MDJ?.GW9\7A`*M"@;HD.1&EWZ12D&F4RCGG%JXR)4J5BQ4`VQ-:M7'EVY?AW[
M)*P(LV33KD![EJW:MV>!N(5+=\-<$G?KZNU().]>N'Y+!/X[=K!@PHCC,C&<
M>"F2)HP;_[0:6:SDRQ8[6BU2&;/*))0?J_$L.4QHT49()S[I\;2/SH5.RYY-
MN[;MV[!5K\V`&D!HL*NN=A&NNVQ5UIMSY!Y$?$OSXDML]KZ9?,9S4->U+H<^
M@N=TZA=I;`>4_4IY[JD]?.])&<9YD^/=QZ]6G>\'O_-/$%V?^[2^BOQ]O">%
M@/%882`(^#G7EE"__<<*@5!`^,Z!%)@V76_AQ?2=A3)5YY]U>!'8X&$/`LB"
MA.[X-Y)IF55H5XLN\F:?2*\))N&(EI58!HKMK,@>5`9F:`.,,VJ&FI"^\?="
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M$J%=NU&V>&W35.MZ^[V]B*]XTW8VV@,"N>#>$O&+(:UQ`ZY,RI'J:KA#,\MI
M_&/ABQ<3]=AC1TY/UY3;;;DW;6<.^>:^=.XYZ`1USJT)E9.^CNFG/ZXZ0*RW
MKOCK_,0N.^&T[V/[[7_GCL_NO$/\N>]1#L=JNYH3OPSP1J*>O/+(,-^\Z]##
M(_WTLU??H_%V\9BZ]M9<WW'VX*,C_OBXEV\^]V,B/[SZGIQ/G?/OP[^)_/-3
M;_\XD_=._O[A>!Y>TD<^``90@`HCH`(-R+\H4&5T##3'J=Q'OPB>0U+=HJ`%
M)1@=%$!P@^5`(,<**#P0KL]E=ZJ@"2\HEWUI<(42W(Z@O"="&.JB;'/YH`TO
MF"D7Z'"'/)2!IFA8/R"&(D&J>J$1S7>76Q%QB?OL^%ZZDJA"**XN!8;YH15/
MN+`NLJ>*6U3'`[$8MB>&,8I\PV+WE`B9(I[1"T@1U!K!")X63O&-JAC9;HY#
MQR*-YVMX3`6#?#A'_<UK!RP*9'#4XRC^:+%2P%F:(D_A-(V9,2DU>LHD!8DN
MG[$Q;>$ZY"9+$38C7!)2G9'.*$VQ)DM^,CU!6Z4HUD:R/F;R6;(\HB9==DI8
MXC*79",8+U^)2*H!\WZ2-"4Q&V7,8V8"D,.T)3/3Z$Q-@$9MT@03ZJII$E`J
M,YNIVB8WGWE'JRU3B.`:YTHPV$MMIE.=R7+"(]$)+7@R8Y[N(:0]E]?.&"!Q
MG]'K)['D`]!CX/RSGN$LJ#`.^LYB*72A`MUCO!X*#(;JYY84W85%O3C1C&HT
MHA=%X2A;*<IDDF*CS;3D)L-"TCJ:5&L@'2!G5EI2))GL8'%:YSFIR31%MO)K
M7-KE\5S*K1JV<:<V$UH@?PHC0,+L*D[U(R%0^DO(X)&D'NH2([6Z+BWM)*88
MB]!5*7;(J`KUCF95UAZH6E)YJE.M6(/JF[Q)'K!VLF\>+28BV"I,*A@UKU]%
M:EL#!5@S"?:L67!C8;7`5[H.:+$E.JQ7$UL4Q=+'KI/5BE$L2PVV%HZSUP!M
M8@ME"*I^EBFBU0Y<`PO.S)HG*JDU#VEC8]?3PA86I2HM6&U[6\/[(ND0#.5M
M;UV16]J>4[C#;45QIQI1Y"8WLK_5+3&=^]S@S):YKZ1N=?-X7>:T4[O;%61W
M!?%#\(9W(^,-A`[->UY*IK>N+V1O>UGY7M;JZ@;RG2\IVY.W_OKW5>6D+%UB
MZU?^^O?`"`Y54_1"X$`9.,$0CO!LX+B7!O=MM7[PW%]3FA8+.["^&?9>\`C[
M%P]'",0!0A%H-KS5$N,6Q7S86,#\NIH78SC%2G$8B=]EX^CVY:7*$9'.O&7B
M$/98BJI:5BT3.&2QEN;(+';1Q`+,L$$6TJJ7*7(\#96?7'DGRE1VL3X'NDC7
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MU4KS6SRUCM;MH\Z<>S7\SHE/N`-3&&3MDT;Y)H7\IL(S;RYT(_+Y4JE]Q#P]
MK>'_R/M8=F&5D9]\*%MXB)7!-/T+9/\ZX.=H^(5^^G52TZ<@\L$8=U8]^Y=$
M[C<&661\D]=[O@5_2E4L;1:!OK.`Z[9WC`5G8X8^&=A_;9!*[H)V"FA_+_<K
ML#%J-W6"$YB"OG)^;/%4+DA<,`AS@<9S?1:"+^A&^L>!G\=R()@[&MA(#:A9
MH6=\4N(T`HA:(D@&-P6$@0=U<2>!-BB%\2=W1TAW5%B%/'B%6[A]@A>&>;=L
M4VB%RE6`\29\9+AX;.>&RE.$Z-:&B^%!:LAW?7>&7YB&6+AML4>'7B9SI->#
M%+:!>V<M)#2(8$B!_/XD1)*7>I0'>=`CARY$AQ48:'#5))*U>H38@3*H+)N7
M>V/WA*_5>M=%-W9(B5?4B:4X3"HR>OK1A(Y!BH^E-A[B)M$WB;3H9&"S&>R7
MBC7(AY8822?F&C.DBI!%3P5VAW"8C+0P.?K72,Y8"Y\E+8PXC35A*M8HB]@H
M!Z?%@MS8C<2W8'@HB.+(2N18CF]WCJ24CNH8A*\SC)X8B:XE6L@%CLC(04J'
M>R%%CT65AVLXCT,8B_EH9,=S3=F29_ARC38G23;59#;W9VY5B)`(C+3WBP'8
M?--B,$274$L#5+]%<*FG+0RI>F+8C+GH@C@5?$8R>_L(?1'95!0W9/PGP57B
MUX@4B9(6280<J9&3M9*6UI!9%7&@=W$;^9(2-0=EN)-$F)`-1U3_:'&>I&Y"
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M'MB<Z&F;O"A]XMF>_O>>\'F>\@D'8+8<^'B?:CE3GA2?_)F=ERB#`!J@^$DE
M\;&?!AH47;9D[+F@;F-'WV2?$!JA&&6*!5JAD7>#5*E7T42A&OIZQ/BA#QJB
M_-A1YI2A)NIG'IJB(+JB.X*B3,.=!6DK(;F5.AB<03=K)<I-5JEO7L>B[M0G
M-/I05AF2"LF$L-B2+(ES=0B38*.B;W6C0CF35UF/KW:2.'E44CI.6$6E+2EH
MH09\3.IT3[JE7/JB/BI*T'236HB5U+:2?DAF:=JCU?2EF*8E82B1IS,G^5*2
M9EB6=2J=_-[9AUR9H_M6I#!JH8(J3]M8H^>8:0ZFJ(LZ@DEY85U:J5`8I)C(
MH:"FJ?29=8;HJ0`&JL8AA`=(JJ5JJEGXA@RHJJW"JA,IJJD*JZ0BJZW:8I]H
MJZ."JV<:J-W'J[WJJP&Y:L1Z3\!ZK,Y02<K:68S7K-`@DM!:)0TYK=0*D-:J
M)BZ9K=@`J-SZK>`:KI-IK%A*D]@JKN34CP#9INBJ2T+9H1CH34Y)INTZKC%Y
M)4%UD%=ZE.-7KQG&IC))E%655AWIK^114Q4CE0*[L%RFE0;K?V3U;#]JIGKZ
MBP]K30YK=!>[L1S;L1[[L2`;LB([LB1;LB9[LBB;LBJ[LJ0LV[(N^[(P&[,R
M.[,T6[,V>[,XF[,ZN[,\V[,^^[-`&[1".[1$6[1&>[1(F[1*N[1,V[1.^[10
M&[52.[546[56>[58F[5:N[5<V[5>^[5@&[9B.[9D6[9F>[9HF[9JN[9LV[9N
M^[9P&[=R.[=T6[=V>[=XF[=ZN[=\V[=^^[>`&[B".[B$6[B&>[B(F[B*N[B,
5V[B.^[B0&[F2.[F46[F6.PT1```[
`
end
sum -r/size 6850/5571 section (from "begin" to "end")
sum -r/size 23436/4026 entire input file

End of coded diagram

c:  Energy Loss in Cancelling Anti-phase Beams

By careful adjustment of the positions of the two pieces of plate
glass the two beams meeting at point M, 1 and 3, can be made to be
in anti-phase across their whole width.  As a result the net light
reaching the screen is zero.  That is, beam 4 apparently no longer 
exists. The image on the screen projected by the lens is used
to make the said adjustment.  It takes considerable patience to set
up the two pieces of plate glass to achieve this condition.  An
additional piece of thin glass sheet may be positioned in beam 2 and
rotated to aid obtaining the required perfect cancelling condition. 
By perfect I mean that at least 90 percent of the light is
cancelled out. 
Where now is the energy that must be present in the two cancelling
beams?. 
In other experiments it will be found that when two
beams cancel there is a correspond non-cancelling of some other
beams to compensate.  Not in this case!
This question can only be resolved by repeating the experiment
using a powerful laser.  If energy is still reaching the screen,
despite the cancelling of the two beams, then a suitable sensitive
detector should be able to detect it.  These detectors must detect
very minute changes in either momentum or temperature.  A simple
photo-detector only confirms the projected image energy as less 
than 90 percent.
Unfortunately this high-power version of the experiment remains to
be implemented.
If, as seems highly unlikely, no energy is detected the only
remaining conclusion is that the conservation of energy law does
not apply in this case!

D.A.Chalmers

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenme cudlnTingod cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.17 /  harmon@hepnsf. /  Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: harmon@hepnsf.csudh.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: 17 Jan 1995 22:55:03 GMT
Organization: CSU Dominguez Hills, Carson,  CA, USA

In article <3fh5lv$1v4@borg.svpal.org>, lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) writes:
>
>If we look at that experimental evidence, it is not very convincing.  
>First, at high energies, most of the stuff happens at small distances, 
>out of range of the detector, so one must *indirectly* try to devise a 
>scenario by extrapolating back into a jumble of other particles.  So, 
>one must look for an ordinary, isolated high energy electron.  This 
>requires piling  inference upon inference upon inference, that 
>stretches  ones credulity.  I am not convinced that nature needs an 
>intermediate that lasts only 10^-20 seconds or less.  

There are other reactions.  The mechanism for K^0 -> mu+ + mu-
reguires two W's, other Kaon decays require one, the rate for 
beta decay is dependent upon the W mass and the weak coupling constant,
Pion decays into leptons require a W.  So there is more evidence than
neutrino scattering. 

>Yes, but  i think we should  not believe all of the conclusions from 
>experiments, without looking at the original data.  If you bother to 
>look at the experimental results, you may not (from your own background) 
>be willing to reach the same conclusions as the authors.  Unfortunately, 
>very little of the original papers appear in the books on the subject. 

Data reduction, just to get it to the point were you can publish graphs
in a journal, is a major pain in the butt.  Unless you want to get the data
tapes and write your own programs to extract any meaningful results, you
are just going to have to trust those who do.

Craig
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenharmon cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.17 / Matt Austern /  Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph
sics.accelerators
Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
Date: 17 Jan 1995 23:52:56 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)

In article <3fh5lv$1v4@borg.svpal.org> lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) writes:

> James: Thanks for the reply.  I remember the history of the electro-weak 
> theory, it was the first theory that was ever granted a Nobel before the  
> theory had been experimentally verified.  

Nonsense.  The Weinberg-Salam SU(2)xU(1) theory made quantitative 
predictions about deep inelastic scattering; it passed quite a few
experimental tests long before the discovery of the W and Z.

And nowadays, of course, it has passed far more tests than just the
ones that were known about in the 1970s; it has been verified to
rather extraordinary precision at the LEP experments.

There are a lot of valid criticisms of SU(2)xU(1), but lack of
experimental evidence isn't one of them.  That criticism is
simply false.

> I am not convinced that nature needs an 
> intermediate that lasts only 10^-20 seconds or less.  

I don't know what nature does and doesn't need; I do, though, know
(some of) what nature does and doesn't have.  One thing that nature
has is a highly unstable intermediate vector boson.
--

                               --matt
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.18 / A Plutonium /  Re: In article: SUPERCONDUCTIVITY CORRECT THEORY
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: In article: SUPERCONDUCTIVITY CORRECT THEORY
Date: 18 Jan 1995 02:14:52 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <9501152337.aa19198@agora.stm.it>
R.Boscarelli@agora.stm.it writes:

> dated 30 Dec 1994
> Archimedes Plutonium writes:
> >The  first  organic superconductor was discovered in 1979 with
> >tetramethyltetraselenafulvalenePF6, a salt,-- (TMTSF)2PF6 with 
> >a Tc at 0.9K
> etc.
> Are there stereo ordered polymers in the list of superconducting organic
> 
> compounds?
> In a straight tube a mouse runs faster than in a maze.
> Say hello to Euclides.
> 
> [Ah Faustus, now hast thou than one bare hour to live...]
> Riccardo Boscarelli

 Mr. Boscarelli, are stereo ordered polymers light polarizers? 
 Have you heard of any experimental setup of a superconductor with the
Meissner effect and a beam of neutrinos aimed at the superconductor and
 upsetting or disturbing, or interfering with the Meissner effect? Have
you heard of any such experiments conducted with both electron
neutrinos and muon neutrinos?
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.17 / Tom Coradeschi /  Re: Politicians wasting $290million in science sham projects
     
Originally-From: tcora@pica.army.mil (Tom Coradeschi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Politicians wasting $290million in science sham projects
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 22:22:31 GMT
Organization: Electric Armaments Division, US Army ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ

mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) wrote:
>Archimedes Plutonium (Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
>: Just get a respected professor to support a
>: project and the USA congress is like an open sesame.
>
>"I command thee! Shazam! Grant be funded!"
>
>he he ho ho ha ha ha ha.
>
>``Open sesame''.   
>
>What next?  Madonna a virgin, and trying out
>in the Metropolitan Opera auditions?
>
>This one even beats spontaneous muon materialization or whatever.

Yeh. Given how tough it is to get congress to pony up for anything these
days. I can get you a busload of "respected professors" and it still won't
get you diddly.

                 tom coradeschi <+> tcora@pica.army.mil
                     http://k-whiner.pica.army.mil/
                  GEEK#1 <+> TOM#1 <+> DW#1 <+> KOtDWL
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudentcora cudfnTom cudlnCoradeschi cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.19 / 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: 19 Jan 1995 01:15:40 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <tcora-1701951046290001@k-whiner.pica.army.mil>
tcora@pica.army.mil (Tom Coradeschi) writes:

> No. They are not required to give you credit. If I paraphrase something
> you have published (and make no mistake, your works must be published in
> some way, shape or form to be copyrightable), I have every right to do so
> without reference. If I quote from your works, I should reference you as
> author. However, there is no legal obligation to do so, but merely a moral
> one. The legal obligation arises should I attempt to redistribute your
> works without attribution or compensation.

  You are probably correct in your outline. And, I think the Internet
is more valuable as a single source entity, above and beyond any single
publisher, take for example NATURE, or NEW SCIENTIST, or MATHEMATICAL
INTELLIGENCER, or SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN. Certainly, the aim of publishing
is to make an idea or thread of thought "public", to put it in the
"public domain", then the Internet itself is superior over all other
forms of publishing. I do not mean the silliness, the common day tripe,
or the question answer posts. I mean the posts that have new and
original ideas.
  Tom, you probably are correct for the general outline. But the laws
that protect one for publishing in say math AMS journal, is the same
natured law that would protect me with my Internet published proofs of
the Riemann Hypothesis. And perhaps there is no law precedence for such
as yet, because the Internet is so new, and rarely has there been any
good stuff posted on the Internet-- all of which changed as of 1993.
   What I am saying is that I think the editors of the major magazines
and books and newslines of physics, engineering, math, I do not think
they are that dumb as to gamble, lifting some new and original idea
from the Internet  and reclaiming it for someone, or by someone else.
   If I have to make case law precedence, should Nature or New
Scientist print my new and original ideas without giving me credit,
they, ... will hear from me very quickly,  very quickly, . .  I do not
think they are that dumb.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.18 /  KUNNE@frcpn11. /  Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: KUNNE@frcpn11.in2p3.fr
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph
sics.accelerators
Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 16:28:41 MET
Organization: In2p3

In article <3fh5lv$1v4@borg.svpal.org>
lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) writes:
 
>Yes, but  i think we should  not believe all of the conclusions from
>experiments, without looking at the original data.  If you bother to
>look at the experimental results, you may not (from your own background)
>be willing to reach the same conclusions as the authors.  Unfortunately,
>very little of the original papers appear in the books on the subject.
>
You seem to have a misconception about these particle physics experiments.
Most of them are collaborations of up to hundreds of physicists.
 
And while not everyone of them knows everything about his experiment,
there still is a lot of scrutiny on all of the steps and details of the
chain of analysis that leads from the raw data tapes to the publishable
plots and tables. This is a process that takes months, if not years.
 
When I find myself presenting a piece of analysis, then I can expect a lot
of critical remarks of the type: What about this background? Did you check...?
What is the effect of this?
 
On top of that, a lot of experiments have been redone by different methods
and different people. It is very unlikely, that all the conclusions from
these experiments and experimentalists are wrong and that they all made the
same mistakes.
 
Greetings,
Ronald
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenKUNNE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.18 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  18 Jan. Update, Griggs Theories
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 18 Jan. Update, Griggs Theories
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 14:20 -0500 (EST)

Jed objects to calling these theories.  Actually theory have several meanings
which run the gamet from a speculative idea to an idea which has great deal of
evidence.  If one speaks in scientific terms then according to my Webster's
Dictionary Theory "implies considerable evidence in support of a formulated
general principle explaining the operation of certain pehnomena", whereas
hypothesis "implies an inadequacy of evidence in support of an explaination
that is tentatively inferred often as a basis for further experimentation".

Since many of the readers of these posts are trained in science, I agree that
hypothesis would be a better choice.  Now to figure out the plural of
hypothesis.  The dictionary says "PL: ses".  I am not sure if that means
hypotheses or hypothesisses.


THEORY                                 CONTRIBUTED BY

Experiment or measurement error        Dale Bass
Stored Energy                          Jorge Stolfi
Chemical Reaction (oxidation of Al)    Bruce Dunn
Heat pump                              Jorge Stolfi (since retracted)
Cold Mist (instead of steam)           ????? *
Steam-air mixture                      ????? *

All the following would presumable be over unity:

Sonoluminance (Hot fusion)             ??????
Steam table Non-linearities            Marshall Dudley from Oak Ridge Scientist
ZPE heat pump                          Marshall Dudley *
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              ??????

* This hypothesis/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 removed the Psychic/psi phenominia and Leprechauns/fairies previously
attributed to Dale Bass for 2 reasons.  First I am not certain if the postings
that referred to these "causes" were on the Griggs device or the P&F device.
Second, I believe that Dale was being facetious in those postings in which he
proposed such hypothesis.  If he is serious, I will add them back.

A quick note on the ZPE heat pump entry.  One of the arguments I hear against
ZPE (or vacuum energy) being the source of any excess energy is based on our
understanding of the second law of thermodynamics.  A result of this law is
that you cannot extract energy from the thermal energy of a body without
using additional energy to extract this energy (or having a colder body to dump
into).  An example of this of course is a heat pump, where high quality
energy is used to extract heat from a body.  Basically thermal energy and
vacuum energy are characterized by random fluctuations, and without Maxwell's
demon cannot be tapped directly.  However, this argument does not mean that
you cannot "pump" energy from the vacuum energy, just as you can pump heat
from one physical body to another physical body, as long as entropy increases.
Thus the entry on "ZPE heat pump".  This could very well be associated with
one of the other ZPE theories, and if true might mean that a self sustaining
machine might be improbable.

                                                                Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.19 / 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: 19 Jan 1995 02:24:15 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <3fdhj1$icv@network.ucsd.edu>
mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:

> ``Open sesame''.

  You laugh. But $290 million to spend on the back to back failure of
Weber to detect gravitons is far worse than spending 3 billion on the
left testicle of a tsetse fly for national security reasons.

  If they go ahead and throw away the 290 million for Kip Thorne's
graviton experiments. Then I think a movie, in the format of a song
where singers are singing different words, sort of like Simon and
Garfunkle (sp?) singing the song Parsley sage rosemary and thyme. Have
a movie showing all the Congressmen and physicists resonsible for the
290 million graviton gaffe, and like that medley, show the 3 billion
left testicle of the tsetse fly research and debate intermingled, just
as the intermingling of the song mentioned above. Whenever that movie
is made in the future, call it "Thorne's Tsetse Testicle Gravelyton."
That parody should be the best selling comedy movie for the season.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.19 / Barry Merriman /  Re: This forum officially for CF, not HF
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: This forum officially for CF, not HF
Date: 19 Jan 1995 19:06:28 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <pgz6Rzo.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> m.kenward@bbcnc.org.uk (Michael Kenward) writes:
>  
>      "Now, can we get back to talking about fusion, preferably hot fusion.
>      You know, the sort that we know exists."
>  
> Strictly speaking, this forum is for cold fusion, not hot. I believe the hot
> fusion folks have their own forum somewhere. Not that it matters. If the hot
> fusion people want to post their pitiful, miserable results here from time to
> time, that's okay. It makes us look good! After all, we get hundreds of times
> more energy than they do, for a billion times less money. They will never  
make
> a water heater, whereas we not only make them, we sell them!
>  
> - Jed

This forum was created in response to the original CF results---but
fusion is fusion---i.e. joining of nuclei. 

As for CF results vs HF results: unfortunately, CF has no fusion
results accepted by the general physics community, so HF
is ahead in that regard. As for water heaters---most plasma 
tokamak experiments have water based cooling systems, so
we have water heaters too. Nyah! :-)



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


cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.18 / Dick Jackson /  Re: Free Energy Device
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 16:10:42 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea

In article <3fcj0j$ocs@newsbf02.news.aol.com> robertbass@aol.com (RobertBass) writes:
>     My derivation of Planck's constant provides the "exact" known value
>of the former, multiplied by uncertainty factors equivalent to the
>uncertainties in our knowledge of the mean density of the universe, in
>terms of which the value of Hubble's constant is usually stated (as in
>Peeble's book).
>     What is remarkable is to have proved that one gets the right order of
>magnitude for the Planck constant from the current cosmological data.  I
>should have stated my result better:  the _exact_ value of Planck's
>constant, as measured by microphysics, lies within the interval which is
>prescribed by my use of cosmological data, as measured by astronomers. 
>Bob Bass (Dr. Robert W. Bass), former Prof. of Physics, of Aerospace,
>of EE, & of Systems Engineering; now Registered Patent Agent 29,130.
				      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ha! Whenever did anyone working with patents ever come up with
a half-way decent theory????

Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.18 /  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: Wed, 18 Jan 95 11:58:42 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I wrote that the newspaper versions of CF science and the real thing are
completely different,  and that the newspaper versions is just nonsense &
confusion. jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wants to talk about press
conferences instead of science. He writes:
 
     "You repeat this over and over again, but you have yet to give a single
     example from the news report of 24 March 1989 that is most relevant to
     your repeated diatribes."
 
I do not know anything about that press conference. I missed it. I did not
read the newspaper accounts about it. Furthermore, I do not give a damn about
it, I don't what was said, I do not know whether the newspaper reports of it
were accurate, inaccurate, or pure fiction. Press conferences are not
important. I am interested in the science of cold fusion, not the public
relations fiascos.
 
     "Or are you saying that it is nonsense to write that Pons and
     Fleischmann claimed to have seen neutrons?  Are you saying they never
     made such a claim?
 
Of course they made that claim! Lots of people have seen neutrons with CF.
Read the literature, it is all there. They see neutrons, tritium, massive
excess heat and other proof that a nuclear reaction is occurring.
 
 
     "Get specific.  Your generalizations are meaningless drivel."
 
Generalizations, hell. I say the science reporting is bunk. The N.Y. Times,
the Washington Post, Nature magazine, the New Scientist and a bunch of others
say that cold fusion has not been replicated, they say there is no evidence of
nuclear reactions, they say Pons and Fleischmann have been repudiated and
proven wrong. The New Scientist took a figure out the Phys. Lett. A paper,
mislabeled it, and claimed it showed that Pons and Fleischmann are getting
only a few watts per cc when in fact they are getting 3,700 W per cc.
 
 
     "Given your *repeated* emphasis on ignoring initial reports of a new
     technology, the relevant news stories would be the March 1989 one."
 
I have never emphasized the initial reports! I don't care about initial
reports. You are the one who keeps nattering on about the stupid press
conference in 1989! I am talking about distorted nonsensical reports published
months and years later, long after peer-reviewed scientific papers were
available. As a matter of fact, this thread started out as a discussion of the
press coverage of the Wrights during the years 1905 through 1908. That press
coverage was completely screwy, distorted, laughable and wrong. The initial
reports published after the Dec. 1903 flight were also wildly incorrect, but I
suppose that was forgivable, because it was an obscure field. The reporters
could have contacted the Wrights directly to get the facts; or they could have
contacted the Coast Guard crew that assisted with and witnessed the flights;
or they could have looked up the proceedings of the Western Society of
Engineers Sept. 1901 paper by Wilbur Wright, "Some Aeronautical Experiments."
But they did not. They just invented the story instead. What is unforgivable
was that years later, even after the Wrights were granted a patent, reporters
were *still* inventing and publishing nonsense. And the very same thing is
true about cold fusion today. SRI, Los Alamos and many, many others published
data long ago that should have ended the controversy and the distorted
reporting years ago. What do we have instead? More garbage. Instead of
reporting proven facts from laboratory experiments, the New York Times and
others publish crackpot nonsense from loony-toons like Morrison. And the New
Scientist pretends Pons and Fleischmann wrote 2 watts instead 1,700.
Journalistic standards are no better than they were at the turn of the
century! Just the other day, the New Scientist wrote about Droege's plans to
visit Griggs. Did they contact Griggs, or his customers, or me, or anyone with
any knowledge of the situation? Did they look up the patent? Did they talk to
anyone who has independently replicated the device? No, they contacted
Morrison, and he gave them the usual line of propaganda. He does not a damn
thing about the Griggs device, any more than Simon Newcomb knew about
airplanes. He is a crackpot "instant expert" who has "mathematically proved"
that calorimetry does not work.
 
 
     "Either stop this BS about the NYTimes or identify a factual error in
     that story.  I assert that the excerpts I posted are accurate based on
     the journal articles and the videotape I saw broadcast on the evening
     news about the press conference in Utah."
 
And I assert that press conference in Utah has nothing remotely to do with
science, and that I do not give a damn about it or know anything about it, and
that I will discuss it again. I am interested in science, not public
relations. You "skeptics" can go ahead and talk about press conferences all
you like, I'll stick to science. If you want hot air, press conferences, and
public relations instead of science, I suggest you look at the hot fusion
program. Everything they do is a public relations scam designed to steal more
tax money. They have not accomplished anything of technological value in the
last forty years, and they never will. Hot fusion is nothing but razzle dazzle
hype and hot air -- press conferences instead of progress. Maybe that is why
you "skeptics" are so obsessed with the Utah conference. You probably think
that all science is supposed to be done by press conference.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.19 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Water heater sales
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Water heater sales
Date: 19 Jan 1995 21:58:07 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <JWw4Btz.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>. . .They produce 10% to 30% excess heat. . . .
>It is not as efficient as a gas or oil fired boiler. . .

I'm not an engineer, so maybe I'm mising something here.  Did you change
the definition of "efficient" between these two sentences?  On casual
reading, it looks like you are saying that a gas or oil fired boiler 
produces *more* than 30% excess heat.
--
					Richard Schultz

". . .in short, his post became untenable; and having swallowed his
quantum of tea, he judged it expedient to evacuate."
				Charlotte Bronte, _Shirley_
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.18 /  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: Wed, 18 Jan 95 12:00:19 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Richard Schultz <schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu> writes:
 
>Then why did P&F choose to make their initial announcement of "Cold
>Fusion" at a press conference instead of waiting for the paper to be
>published?  (They are hardly the only scientists who are guilty of this
 
They did not choose to do that. The university did. P&F wanted to keep
the whole thing under wraps a while longer.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.19 / Matt Kennel /  NYTimes and Fusion
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: NYTimes and Fusion
Date: 19 Jan 1995 22:42:42 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Well the New York Times ran an *atrocious* piece about fusion today.

At least it was an opinion piece on the editorial section,
and not a regular science writer.

Basic premise:  why aren't we working on He3 fusion *instead* of
hydrogen fusion and going to the moon to get it?

assertions:

  D-T fusion produces neutrons {true}
  So it will produce huge amounts of waste {3 to 6 orders of magnitude less
					    than fission, much less harmful}
  and a reactor might meltdown and we'd be DOOMED! {preposterous}



The japanese and europeans are spending 10% of their money on
"helium fusion research instead of hydrogen" and so should we. 

{Number seems crazy!  There's no real conflict between the two.  Basic
 reality: it's so much harder to get He3 fusion we have to try for D-T
 first.  But nearly everything you learn from D-T still applies to He3, it's
 all plasma.  A barely running He3 reactor would be an outrageously blazing
 D-T reactor.  So Dr Koloc, if you can ignite p-Be, just how many megatons
 would it blow if Iran bought one and filled it with D-T?  1/2 :-) }

We can go to the moon and mine it from there.
  {that's as hard a problem as getting the fusion reactor to begin with!}


--
-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:
cuddy19 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.18 /  jedrothwell@de /  This forum officially for CF, not HF
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: This forum officially for CF, not HF
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 12:15:28 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

m.kenward@bbcnc.org.uk (Michael Kenward) writes:
 
     "Now, can we get back to talking about fusion, preferably hot fusion.
     You know, the sort that we know exists."
 
Strictly speaking, this forum is for cold fusion, not hot. I believe the hot
fusion folks have their own forum somewhere. Not that it matters. If the hot
fusion people want to post their pitiful, miserable results here from time to
time, that's okay. It makes us look good! After all, we get hundreds of times
more energy than they do, for a billion times less money. They will never make
a water heater, whereas we not only make them, we sell them!
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.18 / Paul Karol /  Re: Tritium in iso out
     
Originally-From: Paul Karol <pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tritium in iso out
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 11:22:32 -0500
Organization: Chemistry, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

My understanding is that a tritium experiment was tried by a group here
at Carnegie Mellon with negative results and subsequently abandoned.

Paul J. Karol
Nuclear Chemist
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudfnPaul cudlnKarol cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.18 / Mahipal Virdy /  Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: virdy@pogo.den.mmc.com (Mahipal Singh Virdy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph
sics.accelerators
Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 18:31:22 GMT
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics

In article <3fh5lv$1v4@borg.svpal.org>,
Thomas Lockyer <lockyer@svpal.svpal.org> wrote:
>
>
>>James A. Carr (jac@scri.fsu.edu)  Writes:
>> Neutrinos interact by exchanging a vector boson, either a W or Z.
>
[deletions]
>one must look for an ordinary, isolated high energy electron.  This 
>requires piling  inference upon inference upon inference, that 
>stretches  ones credulity.  I am not convinced that nature needs an 
>intermediate that lasts only 10^-20 seconds or less.  
>

Do you have a rationale for this time window limit? 10^-20 seconds must
have some basis in theory or experiment?

>> You cannot change data because it does not fit your model.
>
>Yes, but  i think we should  not believe all of the conclusions from 
>experiments, without looking at the original data.  If you bother to 
>look at the experimental results, you may not (from your own background) 
>be willing to reach the same conclusions as the authors.  Unfortunately, 
>very little of the original papers appear in the books on the subject. 
>

Yes, but isn't experimental data propriatary? Besides this, there are
trained experts who know how to objectively interpret the data so that
others wouldn't have to rework the work. 

Mahipal,
d(<me>)=meanvalue+fluctuationvalue


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenvirdy cudfnMahipal cudlnVirdy cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.18 / 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: 18 Jan 1995 14:06:03 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <hCx6Rbi.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>
>I wrote that the newspaper versions of CF science and the real thing are
>completely different,  and that the newspaper versions is just nonsense &
>confusion. jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wants to talk about press
>conferences instead of science. He writes:
> 
>     "You repeat this over and over again, but you have yet to give a single
>     example from the news report of 24 March 1989 that is most relevant to
>     your repeated diatribes."

Exactly, and once again you assert that the newspaper reports on CF are 
different from the real thing without giving a single citation as I 
asked you to do in the quote above and elsewhere in that post and others. 
Without a citation, I cannot judge if the reporter made a statement or 
reported that someone else debunked the experiment, and whether it was a 
news story or a commentary.  A crucial distinction if you claim bias on 
the part of the reporter. 

But perhaps we do agree.  

>     "Or are you saying that it is nonsense to write that Pons and
>     Fleischmann claimed to have seen neutrons?  Are you saying they never
>     made such a claim?
> 
>Of course they made that claim! Lots of people have seen neutrons with CF.
>Read the literature, it is all there. They see neutrons, tritium, massive
>excess heat and other proof that a nuclear reaction is occurring.

Which means then, that you *agree* with me that the NYTimes article gave 
a correct and accurate description of the science reported in the first 
Pons and Fleischman paper.  So your initial statement that *everything* 
in the NYTimes concerning CF is false and misleading was wrong. 


But lets talk about science.  None of the recent P&F papers have presented 
any evidence at all concerning the products (neutrons and tritium) of 
nuclear reactions and their errata and comments all but retracted the 
initial (discredited) claims in their first paper.  They talk about 
heat output and only about heat output, being rather careful to not 
mention a theory as to its source. 

What is the most recent article by P&F (not someone else) in the refereed 
literature that makes a claim that they see neutrons or tritium or helium 
(not just heat) as a result of electrochemically induced CF?  

-- 
 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:
cuddy18 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Jan 20 04:37:05 EST 1995
------------------------------
