1995.01.18 / Jim Carr /  Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
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 14:40:17 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <3fh5lv$1v4@borg.svpal.org> 
lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) writes:
>
>                ...         I am not convinced that nature needs an 
>intermediate that lasts only 10^-20 seconds or less.  

Many of the doubters in the physics community (mostly non-HEP people 
by that time) were convinced when the intermediate was produced 
directly in p-pbar collisions and its decays observed. 

Now that 15 million Z's have been observed and the branching ratios 
for different decay modes studied in great detail, it is hard to 
see how anyone could doubt the *existence* of that intermediate 
and that its properties are exactly those needed to explain what 
is known at low energies about the weak interaction.  When LEP-200 
comes on line, the same will be done for the W's. 

-- 
 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 
------------------------------
1995.01.19 / Richard Milton /  Re: Rothwell's Wrights vs. The New York Times: an s.p.f. Meta-issue
     
Originally-From: richard@milton.win-uk.net (Richard Milton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell's Wrights vs. The New York Times: an s.p.f. Meta-issue
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 03:55:28 GMT

 
In article <D2HvIB.CrH@festival.ed.ac.uk>, I Johnston 
(ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk) writes:

>
>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
>the principle had been established others were able to pick up the ball
>and run with it. Much like Baird and television, too.


I agree with all your conclusions, Ian, but I think you're
not giving the Wrights as much credit as they merit.

It's true that they took pains to learn everything they
could about every previous attempt to fly, but they
originated most of aerodynamics.  They designed and built
the first wind-tunnel, they found the optimum dimensions
for an aerofoil wing and they designed the first airscrew
propellor, all from first principles which the themselves 
derived.  They weren't just clever bicycle mechanics but
great natural scientists.

Incidentally, it wasn't just the popular press that scoffed
at them. In  January 1906 (that's more than two years after
they had first flown) "Scientific American" published an
editorial accusing them of being a pair of hoaxers.  The
editor wrote:

"If such sensational and tremendously important experiments
are being conducted in a not very remote part of the
country, on a subject in which almost everybody 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 if he has to scale a fifteen-storey skyscraper to
do so -- would not have ascertained all about them and
published [it] long ago?"


Richard

--
*****************************¦********************************
Richard Milton               ¦ 
10 Pembury Road              ¦ "Nothing is too wonderful to be  
Tonbridge, Kent TN9 2HX      ¦  true if it be consistent with 
United Kingdom               ¦  the laws of nature."
Tel/Fax: 0732 353427         ¦
richard@milton.win-uk.net    ¦             Michael Faraday
============================================================== 

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenrichard cudfnRichard cudlnMilton cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.19 / Richard Milton /  Re: Does it really matter who believes what?
     
Originally-From: richard@milton.win-uk.net (Richard Milton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does it really matter who believes what?
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 04:04:21 GMT

 
In article <3f7d1g$rcf@network.ucsd.edu>, Matt Kennel (mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu) writes:
>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, most professional scientists though powered heavier
than air flight was probably impossible.  For example,
Simon Newcombe, professor of mathematics and astronomy at
Johns Hopkins U, wrote in "The Independent" just three
weeks before the Wright's first flight that powered flight
was "impossible" and he suggested that it would only become
possible if new metals could be found.  The same opinion
had been expressed a year before in the "North American
Review" by Rear Admiral George Melville, Chief Engineer of
the US Navy.


Richard 

--
*****************************¦********************************
Richard Milton               ¦ 
10 Pembury Road              ¦ "Nothing is too wonderful to be  
Tonbridge, Kent TN9 2HX      ¦  true if it be consistent with 
United Kingdom               ¦  the laws of nature."
Tel/Fax: 0732 353427         ¦
richard@milton.win-uk.net    ¦             Michael Faraday
============================================================== 

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenrichard cudfnRichard cudlnMilton cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.18 / Jim Carr /  Re: Tritium in iso out
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tritium in iso out
Date: 18 Jan 1995 15:56:39 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <199501171252.XAA29165@oznet02.ozemail.com.au> 
rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk) writes:
>
>Has anyone tried CF in an electrolytic cell, using equal portions of 
>T and D? i.e. Heavy water wherein half of the Deuterium is replaced by 
>Tritium.

A group at McMaster reported in Phys. Rev. C 41, R1899 (1990) on an 
experiment where a D2O electrolyte was used with a Ti cathode that 
had been loaded with tritium to half-filling.  They only looked for 
neutrons, and found none above background. 

-- 
 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 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.18 /  jedrothwell@de /  Earthquake victim info. available
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Earthquake victim info. available
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 17:08:17 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

People with relatives or friends in Kobe, Japan who are anxious to hear about
them are advised to look in CompuServe's JAPAN forum, section 20. The library
section 20 contains a list of victims in kanji format, downloaded from the
WWW.
 
The Yomiuri and other national newspapers publish updated lists every day. The
U.S. Satellite edition should have a complete list tomorrow, Jan. 19, 1995. A
list by fax, in Japanese, is available from the Nippon Broadcasting Company.
Call 011-81-3-3211-2233 or 011-81-3-3211-2234 FROM YOUR FAX MACHINE. You will
be instructed by a recorded message.
 
The death toll is now over 3000.
 
- Jed Rothwell
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.18 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  helium 3
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: helium 3
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 16:03 -0500 (EST)

chuti@ecf.toronto.edu (CHU  TING CHUNG) writes:
 
->  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.
 
He3 is found in wells, quite often accompanying natural gas.  It most likely
was created by decay of tritium through beta decay.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.19 / James Crotinger /  Split the group [was: This forum officially for CF, not HF]
     
Originally-From: jac@gandalf.llnl.gov (James Crotinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Split the group [was: This forum officially for CF, not HF]
Date: 19 Jan 1995 05:20:18 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, NCD


  You're full of it. Said forum is for hot and cold fusion. 

  IMHO this group should be split into sci.physics.fusion.{hot,cold},
but discussions to do so in the past have not shown sufficient
support. At 50-100 messages per day, the volume is certainly large
enough to justify a split.  I think most hot fusion researchers are
turned off by the volume of the cold-fusion, over-unity-device, etc.,
discussions, and having a place for hot-fusion discussions would
promote more interaction amongst said folks.

  Jim
-- 
 ------------------------------------------------/\--------------------------
James A. Crotinger     Lawrence Livermore N'Lab // \ The above views are mine
jac@moonshine.llnl.gov P.O. Box 808;  L-630 \\ //---\  and are not neces-
(510) 422-0259         Livermore CA  94550   \\/Amiga\  sarily those of LLNL.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjac cudfnJames cudlnCrotinger cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.19 / Pete McNamara /  Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: mcnamara@vxaluw.cern.ch (Pete McNamara)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph
sics.accelerators
Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 13:42:56 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin


In article <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!  
>
>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.  
>

At this point, you have definitely entered the land of the crackpot.
Do you have any reason to suggest that there is no Z boson?  What
about the very good measurements of these particles which have been
done at LEP and SLAC?  Your claim that these physicists are somehow
cheating and making these particles up is not very believable.

Pete
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmcnamara cudfnPete cudlnMcNamara cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.19 / Cameron Bass /  Re: 18 Jan. Update, Griggs Theories
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 18 Jan. Update, Griggs Theories
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 04:34:05 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <WAF2PCB810159636@brbbs.brbbs.com>,
MARSHALL DUDLEY <mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com> wrote:
>Jed objects to calling these theories.  Actually theory have several meanings
>
>THEORY                                 CONTRIBUTED BY
...
>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              ??????
...
>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.

     Pixies, not 'fairies'.  And Pixie Theory seems to have roughly as
     much scientific content in the context of Griggs' machine as, 
     say,  'ZPE-Enhanced H2O Dissociation/Recomb.' or 'Cold Fusion'.

                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.19 / Bob Casanova /  Water heater sales
     
Originally-From: cas@ops1.bwi.wec.com (Bob Casanova)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Water heater sales
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 13:15:03 GMT
Organization: Westinghouse

In article <pgz6Rzo.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
>Subject: This forum officially for CF, not HF
>Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 12:15:28 -0500

>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

Great! Since you sell them, please quote price and availability, and provide a 
synopsis of specifications.
Bob C.
  <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
  <<< Good, fast, cheap!  (Pick 2) >>>
  <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What the net needs is a good bus arbiter
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudencas cudfnBob cudlnCasanova cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.19 /  DanHicks /  Re: Canards
     
Originally-From: danhicks@aol.com (DanHicks)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Canards
Date: 19 Jan 1995 00:18:57 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Actually, the Wrights succeeded precisely BECAUSE they were very
methodical and scientific about their design.  They studied airflow in a
wind tunnel (in the process discovering that existing airflow theories
were wrong) and produced aircraft designs that were very stable and
efficient (stability being the main thing that earlier inventors missed). 
In addition to the canard design with its inherent stability, they used
wing warping -- which had to be reinvented by the designers of the
Gossimer Condor and its kin as it is a crutial part of controlling slowly
moving aircraft.  It was only later, after the Wrights had become
embittered and when they were competing against Curtis that they started
failing to approach their designs in a scientific fashion.
Dan Hicks
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudendanhicks cudlnDanHicks cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.19 / Michael Painter /  Re: Cold Fusion Day at MIT - 2nd Post..
     
Originally-From: Michael Painter <70720.151@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Day at MIT - 2nd Post..
Date: 19 Jan 1995 05:31:14 GMT
Organization: Silversword Satellite Co.

Jed,

Good to hear about the recording and best of luck.

--Michael
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden151 cudfnMichael cudlnPainter cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.19 /  RobertBass /  Re: Rothwell's Wrights vs. The New York Times: an s.p.f. Meta-issue
     
Originally-From: robertbass@aol.com (RobertBass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell's Wrights vs. The New York Times: an s.p.f. Meta-issue
Date: 19 Jan 1995 01:02:29 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

   I agree with Richard Milton that the previous posting did not give
enough credit to the Wright brothers.
    My fields of specialization (& original publications) include Aircraft
Stability & Control, which I have taught both in the Dept. of Aerospace
Engineering Sciences at the U of Colorado, and in the Aero Dept. at the
Egyptian Air Academy.  It is a comonplace observation among cognoscenti of
this subject that the Wright brothers' greatest contribution was to
"improve" the gliders of Lilienthal and other predecessors by "making them
less Stable but more Controllable", i.e. they counter-intuitively
_reduced_ the "natural aerodynamic stability" but made their aircraft more
amenable to (human-eye) feedback stabilization as in closed-loop control
systems.
   The previous posting deprecates their "wing warping" technique for
control; however, the very latest in "adaptive flight controls" (under
R&D) feature wing warping for low speed aerodynamic controllability. 
Furthermore, the main concept in their control system was not _how_ they
achieved the aerodynamic control torques (whether by wing warping or by
ailerons, etc.) but the concept of artificial stabilization itself, and
their patents were broad enough to cover what the previous poster would
regard as more "modern" flight control systems.
     The proof of this is as follows.  One of their rivals, Glenn Curtis,
set out to revive Prof. Samuel Langley's reputation by proving that his
machine could have flown if not for bad luck during launches. In the
1910's, if memory serves, Curtis repaired and refurbished "Langley's
Folly" and then successfully flew it in a public demonstration designed to
discredit the Wright brothers.
    However, the "bicycle mechanics" had the last laugh; they took Curtis
to Court and proved in a court of law that the hidden improvements in
Langley's machine which Curtis had sneaked in while "restoring" it
included vital teachings which the world had first learned from the
Wrights, and which made it airworthy only _after_ a rebuilding which was
more than an authentic "restoration", were actually direct Infringments of
their patents (under the "Doctrine of Equivalents")!
     Even if Langley's Folly had not got snagged during launch, it would
have crashed anyway (because of lack of controllability).
     Incidentally, Controllability has received a precise scientific
definition in terms of the state-variable formulation of linearized system
dynamics.  If the evolution in time of a system is governed by dx/dt = Ax
+ b.u, where x is an n-vector, and A is an n by n constant square matrix,
and b is a constant n-vector, and the scalar u will be used for feedback
control, then in 1960 R.E. Kalman defined the system as Controllable if
the determinant of the matrix (b, Ab, (A^2)b, ...,(A^[n-1])b) does not
vanish.  He proved that then there exists an _open loop_ control law u =
u(t) which will drive the state x to the null state x = 0 regardless of
initial state.
    This is an example of the use of the Fisher Information Matrix from
statistics.
     In 1961 I showed Kalman an algebraic proof that if a system is
Controllable as he defined it, then for _any_  pre-assigned "closed-loop
eigenvalue constellation" that satisfies the Routh-Hurwitz stability
criteria, there is a unique autonomous closed-loop feedback control law of
the form u = k.x (where k is a constant "gain" n-vector) which causes the
closed-loop system to have those pre-assigned "complex frequencies &
damping ratios".  (Kalman was kind enough to call this The Fundamental
Theorem of Control Theory.)  The greater the Degree of Controllability (as
defined by Friedland) then the "smaller" the required gain-vector to
achieve the same amount of stability.
     This was the Wright brothers' greatest achievement: by "gains" small
enough to be supplied by the pilot, they could artificially stabilize
their aircraft to a far greater stability than could ever be achieved by
any "naturally stable" aerodynamic object (which is what their
predecessors had sought).
     robertbass@aol.com
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenrobertbass cudlnRobertBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.19 / John Logajan /  Re: GG vs SL
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG vs SL
Date: 19 Jan 1995 06:20:23 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

prasad (c1prasad@watson.ibm.com) wrote:
: |> 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.
: |> 

: I'm very interested in the energy density.  Any typical figures?

The energy input figures I "guessed" at about 30 HP for a Griggs device
and about 100 Watts for an ultrasonic amplifier.  30HP * 750W = 22.5KW.

22.5KW/100W = 225:1.
      
One Griggs device has a 12 inch rotor which appears to be about 4 inches
wide. The spacing is likely on the order of 1/10 inch between the rotor
and the shell.  12*pi = 38".  38*4*.1 = 15 Cubic/Inches, or about 2.5"
on a side, not unlike the dimensions of a SL experiment.

--
 - 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:
cuddy19 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.19 /  RobertBass /  Re: helium 3
     
Originally-From: robertbass@aol.com (RobertBass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: helium 3
Date: 19 Jan 1995 01:18:03 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

See the under-appreciated book "Prehistory & Earth Models", published  in
London (I seem to remember Max Parrish), by Nitro-Nobel Medalist and
physical chemist Melvin A. Cook.
     The editor of Nature called the data regarding loss of helium
remarked on by Cook one of the most remarkable "anomalies" in physical
science he had ever seen!
    robertbass@aol.com
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenrobertbass cudlnRobertBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.19 /  RobertBass /  Re: Free Energy Device
     
Originally-From: robertbass@aol.com (RobertBass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device
Date: 19 Jan 1995 01:50:29 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

   In his posting jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson) writes:

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

   (I have filed this under "JACKATTAK.LT1" Here is my reply:)
  
  Dear Dick:
Thanks for throwing this marshmallow at me.  You must have been secretly
on my side and hoping that someone would post the "obvious" riposte!
     I shook hands with Swiss patent clerk Einstein in his office in the
Spring of 1950.  Also I met him again in the late Fall at a sailing party
for Rhodes Scholars in the Class of 1950 at the home of Frank Aydelotte
(director of the IAS).
     When Aydelotte said, "Now, Einstein, do you have any parting advice
for these young men?", Einstein replied:
     "If I could give the young men any advice it would be this:  Never
believe anything just because you read it in the newspapers or hear it on
the radio or because everyone else believes it.  ALWAYS THINK FOR
YOURSELF!"
     The standard biographies of Einstein report that he had a _lifelong_
interest in patents & inventions.
     robertbass@aol.com
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenrobertbass cudlnRobertBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.20 / A Rivero /  Reminder
     
Originally-From: rivero@sol.unizar.es (Alejandro Rivero)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reminder
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 13:46:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

> Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
> 
> In article <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!  
> >
> >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.  
> >
> 
> At this point, you have definitely entered the land of the crackpot.
> Do you have any reason to suggest that there is no Z boson?  What
> about the very good measurements of these particles which have been
> done at LEP and SLAC?  Your claim that these physicists are somehow
> cheating and making these particles up is not very believable.
> 
> Pete

To rephrase the question:
There ARE some megabites of scattering data from measurements in
particle accelerators. The electro-weak theory is consistent
with such measurements.

Of course, yu can object to such theory by proposing a alternate
one at the same consistence level. By example you can
propose the theory "it is a big big cheat" Fortunately, that
is not science, it is only faith.

Science request, to admit a new theory, at least one of the following
two requisites:
-To cut in Occam razor mood the previous theory, this is to have
the same predictive and calculational power with less "philosophical" input.
-To predict new relationships not derived from previous theory. Such relations
must be verified to finally accept the theory. 

(and of course. to replace the older theory, the new one will justify all
the old data at the same calculational level. If not, the new theory
simply coexists with the old)

So, afirmations as "I dont think nature needs Z" are not valid, as you
can no predict new phenomena and you can not fit the older ones.

==
Sorry the badwitch waste, but I have a natural tendence to mak
this evangelization if I feel someone needs to hear it. 
I promise not to write more postings in the following two weeks. So tme
to meditation is granted...
						Alejandro 

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenrivero cudfnAlejandro cudlnRivero cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.19 /  RobertBass /  In Defense of Simon Newcomb
     
Originally-From: robertbass@aol.com (RobertBass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: In Defense of Simon Newcomb
Date: 19 Jan 1995 02:46:19 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

  In the 'metascience of cf' (incompetent negative predictions by great
authorities), there is much bandying about of Simon Newcomb as a horrible
example, since he published a mathematical 'proof' that man-carrying
heavier-than-air flight was apparently "impossible" according to the known
Laws of Physics.
   I agree that he did stumble badly, in making an apparently harmless but
ill advised _assumption_ (the same as Huizenga's alleged 3 "miracles"
supposedly required if CF is true [though in a recent preprint Bob
Parmenter of U of AZ has deflated miracles 2 & 3, and in my forthcoming
ICCF5 I purport to have definitively deflated miracle 1]).
  However, in my not uninformed opinion, Simon Newcomb was by far the
greatest American scientist of the 19th century; he was also the greatest
mathematician ever born in the Western Hemisphere.
   (Excuse my condescension, but I studied Newcomb's subject, Celestial
Mechanics under Aurel Wintner [author of the first book on infinite
matrices & quantum mechanics, in 1927 in Leipzig, from which von Neumann
shamelessly copied!], author of the Princeton U Press book on the subject;
I hope that my 1955 classmate, Dr. Shlomo Sternberg, now a Full Prof. in
the Harvard math dept & a Member of the NAS, and author of two books on
Celestial Mechanics, would agree with me that "probably the greatest
result of pure mathematics in the 20th century was the proof by
Kolmogorov's student Arnol'd that if a solar-system like n-body
configuration has periods 'suffiicently incommensurate, i.e.sufficiently
poorly approximable by rational numbers (as defined by the great Carl
Ludwig Siegel)' then in Newtonian mechanics it has eternal stability
[orbital stability].")
  It so happens that this is just an _improvement_ of what Newcomb
discovered in  1874!  He found a _formal_ multiply-periodic exact solution
of the Newtonian n-body problem, in the sense that the terms on the LHS &
RHS of the equivalent infinite system of nonlinear equations (equate the
Fourier coefficents) agrees term-by-term [disregarding convergence
issues].  I actually retrieved a dusty copy of Newcomb's epochal paper
from the archives in the Smithsonian basement!
  Poincare was inspired by Newcomb to discover what is today popular among
physicists as "Nonlinear Science" and "Chaos" theory (mostly known in
1899) by showing that if one perturbed each term in the Newcomb series by
an infinitesimal amount, and if the perturbations _added_ up to an
arbitrarily small amount, the series could be made to _diverge_!  Thus he
discovered "wild motions."  However, Arnol'd proved that sufficiently FAR
FROM RESONANCE Newcomb's series converge!  (But they don't converge
uniformly, except in certain circumstances.)     Interestingly, NEAR
RESONANCE, there is no general result; sometimes the series diverge (wild
motions); sometimes they converge _uniformly_ giving true eternal orbital
stability (analogous to phase-lock loops in electronics).
   When I debated CF face-to-face with Will Happer (mastermind of DO's
rejection of CF), I asked him (having in mind Bob Bush's theoretically
predicted and experimentally-measured "fine structure" of dependence of
excess enthalpy upon P&F-cell's current & temperature), "Can you tell me
any episode in the entire history of science where a highly complicated
prediction was made, and also confirmed experimentally, and then turned
out to be mistaken?"
   He replied: "What about the epicycles?"
   I answered; "The epicycles were not mistaken; if you take Simon
Newcomb's solution of the Newtonian n-body problem, and expand in
multiply-periodic Fourier series, the radii of the epcycles are just the
Fourier coefficients!"
  Heisenberg discovered Quantum Mechanics _after_ he had proof-read the
galley sheets of Max Born's book, "The Mechanics of the Atom," which used
Newcomb's type of ideas to extend the Bohr theory to multiple-electron
atoms.
   As of the last time I noticed Dynamical Astronomy, no one had improved
Newcomb's formula for the precession of the plane of the ecliptic.
   Newcomb was commissioned by the Tsar to design telescopes for Russia.
   When Newcomb died, the crowned heads of Europe sent their Ambassadors
to his funeral.
   His great nephew, William A. Newcomb of the Lawrence Livermore Lab,
seems to me to have inherited his great-uncle's talent in applied
mathematics (e.g. both in magnetohydrodynamic stability theory, as
important in hot fusion, and in celestial mechanics, as in whether Pluto
is an escaped satellite).
   Incidentally, for those interested in Hot Fusion:
   The above type of sophisticated state-space math can be applied to the
magnetic field lines defining the surface of a unity-beta magnetic bottle.
 You can read about my patented Topolotron in the books of Tom Dolan
(1982) and Reece Roth (1986).  If you get a copy of my 1974 Patent (issued
in 1980), you will find that I explicitly knew about, and stated the exact
equations for, what is now called "second stability' but was not known to
the rest of the world until 1985!  Also I published the non-cusped Kidney
Bean cross-section idea in 1969, though later users of it never mention my
priority.  Finally, I got a patent on the _cure_ for the violent
disruptive instability (predating both Stix's idea that it is due to
volumetric ergodicity [chaos] of a vacuum field line, and L.C. Wood's
thermodynamic origins ideas, and the electromagnetic instabilities ignored
in Lundquist theory) before others had even diagnosed the disease!
   robertbass@aol.com
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenrobertbass cudlnRobertBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.20 / Robin Spaandonk /  Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 17:40:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

> Originally-From: me@tingod.demon.co.uk (Tingod)
[SNIP]
> 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!
> 
> D.A.Chalmers
__________________________________________________________
This looks to me like the optical equivalent of a tranformer with no 
load on the secondary. In other words, the energy ends up in the air,
the glass, and especially in the laser itself. What you have created 
is in fact a rather complex mirror. So the result achieved is 
equivalent to that of placing a highly reflective mirror directly in 
front of the laser, and reflecting its energy directly back into the 
device itself.
Ok, so now shoot me down in flames.

Regards,

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

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.19 / I Johnston /  Re: Rothwell's Wrights vs. The New York Times: an s.p.f. Meta-issue
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell's Wrights vs. The New York Times: an s.p.f. Meta-issue
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 10:47:35 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

Richard Milton (richard@milton.win-uk.net) wrote:
:  
: In article <D2HvIB.CrH@festival.ed.ac.uk>, I Johnston 
: (ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk) writes:

: >
: >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
: >the principle had been established others were able to pick up the ball
: >and run with it. Much like Baird and television, too.


: I agree with all your conclusions, Ian, but I think you're
: not giving the Wrights as much credit as they merit.

Sorry, didn't mean to do that. To my mind, the Wright brothers were
great engineers, in the tradition of Brunel, Stephenson, Stevenson,
Telford, Fulton (for the americans!) et al. No insult meant - I am an
engineer myself - well, engineering scientist. They didn't invent
anything drastically new - cambered aerofoils were known, but they were
the first to optimise them successfully, ditto airscrews, ditto internal
combustion engines. They were the first to appreciate the importance of
aileron drag and adverse yaw and suss out the relation required between
yaw and bank control inputs. It has been claimed that by sticking a yaw
string on a bracing wire in front of the pilot they invented the first
aeroplane instrument...

So overall, lots of good technical work adn brilliant engineering. Only
one thing spoils it to my mind - having become the first recorded
successful soaring pilots in the world, why they they have to go and
spoil it by putting an engine on? Nasty, crude, noisy smelly things.
(Engines, not Orville and Wilbur). Guess what I do in my spare time...

Ian

PS And they deliberately designed the flyers without dihedral to avoid
excessive stability. For that degree of bravery alone they deserved acclaim!
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.19 /  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: Thu, 19 Jan 95 16:14:44 MET
Organization: In2p3

In article <3fi3p8$2kp@borg.svpal.org>
lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) writes:
 
>Jeffrey, thanks for your reply; I am pleased that you are working with
>proton scattering experiments.  I like proton scattering experiments,
>much more repeatable and, to me easier to believe, especially the
>polarized proton, polarized target ones that tend to refute the quark
>model.  The proton reportedly acts like it has a single hard core that
>contains most of the spin and charge. Counterclockwise spinning protons,
>in scattering with a clockwise polarized target, go straight, clockwise
>are deflected to the side.  What is your take on this?  Maybe start a new
>thread, or email me?
 
After having demolished all theories about neutrinos Tom finds his happyness
in proton-proton scattering  :-)
However, now the `quarkmodel' (as he calls it) is suffering from it.
 
The experiments Tom refers to, were done at the AGS synchrotron at Brookhaven,
by Krisch et al. (among others).
 With polarized proton target and beam the asymmetry in
the cross-section with the two spins parallel and anti-parallel was mesured.
 
As a function of incident momentum and scattering angle of 90 degrees
they found the following shape:
 
Asym .7   |
metry.6     |                 |||
     .5        |            |
     .4                    |
     .3         |         |
     .2
     .1          |||||||||
      0
         0   2   4   6   8  10  12
 
                      Plab (GeV/c)
 
This indeed means that at 12 GeV/c the cross-section between parallel
spinning protons is about four times as big as that between anti-parallel
spinning protons.
 
Tom is getting so excited because QCD, the theory that describes the
interactions between the quarks in the protons also makes the following
statement:
 
"At sufficiently high energy spin effects are surpressed."
 
However, this statement is only qualitative. It is valid only in the
energy domain where QCD can be applied. That is in processes and energies
high enough so that the interactions really take place between the individual
quarks, rather than between the protons as a whole.
 
Fact is, that even at much higher energies, like at the Tevatron and
SppS colliders *elastic* proton-proton scattering still are collisions between
protons *as a whole* rather than between individual quarks.
 
This has to be so, because the three quarks in one proton have to stay
together in the collision, to appear afterwards as a proton.
 
Conclusion: while these spineffects are surprising and not explained,
they are hardly fatal for QCD, which has only successes sofar.
 
When applied where applicable, of course.
 
Greetings,
Ronald
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenKUNNE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.19 /  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: Thu, 19 Jan 95 11:33:17 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

     "[P&F] talk about heat output and only about heat output, being rather
     careful to not mention a theory as to its source."
 
That's right. That's a wise thing to do, because the heat proves it is not
chemical, and the lack of a gigantic neutron flux proves it is not hot fusion.
All else is speculation. Everyone should be careful not to mention a theory
when describing observations. Data first, theory later.
 
 
     "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?
 
Most recent? I don't have them sorted by date in Fusion Facts bibliography.
There are tons of papers about those subjects, but I do not follow them, so
you will have to do your own homework. I suggest you read the latest review by
Ed Storms or check out Transactions of Fusion Technology, Vol 26, Number 4T,
Part 2, (Dec. 1994). Anyway, here are few authors you might want to check out:
 
Neutrons: Bittner, Meister et al, latest I have is Fusion Technology 23
(1993); Bressani et al.; Takahashi, Iida et al. U. Osaka; Okamoto et al. U.
Tokyo Inst. of Technology.
 
Tritium: Claytor Los Alamos; Will; Sevilla; Bockris.
 
Helium: E-Quest; Miles, Bush, Lagowski; Chein, Hodko, Minevski, Bockris (J.
Electryanalytic Chem).
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.19 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Canards
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Canards
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 95 11:36:09 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

DanHicks <danhicks@aol.com> writes:
 
     "Actually, the Wrights succeeded precisely BECAUSE they were very
     methodical and scientific about their design. They studied airflow in a
     wind tunnel (in the process discovering that existing airflow theories
     were wrong) and produced aircraft designs that were very stable and
     efficient (stability being the main thing that earlier inventors
     missed). In addition to the canard design with its inherent stability."
 
In "Kill Devil Hill" H. Combs makes a very important point about the canard
design: it saved their lives on several occasions. When the early gliders
stalled completely and fell down, the canard acted as a kind of parachute.
When the gliders and powered airplanes went out of control and crashed head on
into the ground, the canard wing absorbed the shock in many cases and
protected the pilot. This design was a stroke of genius. It was one of the
many superb features of the early Wright Flyers.
 
The pusher propellers were also safer than tractor propellers, and they
produced less turbulent air near the wings.
 
 
     "It was only later, after the Wrights had become embittered and when
     they were competing against Curtis that they started failing to approach
     their designs in a scientific fashion."
 
I think the later designs were no less scientific, but they did fall behind
the competition after 1909. There were many reasons: they were tired; they
were busy; they had escaped death on so many occasions, perhaps they were
feeling too old for daredevil flight testing. The worst aspect of the Wright
Flyers were the controls, which they changed too frequently, and which worked
in a counter intuitive fashion. They killed at least one student in his first
and only flight. Curtis and others invented much better controls.
 
The Wright's callous attitude towards human engineering reminds me a little of
modern day computer hackers, who refuse to bother with user friendly intuitive
designs. Hackers demand friendly users instead. The Wrights were superb
athletes, and they were amazingly brave, so they figured real pilots should
"get used to" those counterintuitive control levers, and real pilots don't
need seat belts. The Wrights formed a nine man exhibition flight team. By
mid-1912 all but one had been killed in crashes, and the survivor - Bonney -
died in a machine of his own design in 1928. (Crouch p. 435).
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.19 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Water heater sales
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Water heater sales
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 95 11:42:19 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Actually, strictly speaking, I personally do not sell CF water heaters. I am
working on other CF gadgets; I don't sell any kind. The place to contact if
you want a heater is:
 
Mr. James Griggs
Hydro Dynamics
8 Redmond Court
Rome, GA 30165
 
Tel: 706-234-4111
Fax: 706-234-0702
 
They sell BIG units. I mean like 100 or 200 KW, starting at $10,000. They are
suitable for factories only, not homes or for laboratory tests. They produce
10% to 30% excess heat. With an industrial app., 30% of 200 KW is enough to
pay for the machine in a year or two. It is not as efficient as a gas or oil
fired boiler, but it is a heck of a lot better than an electrically fired
unit, and there are many apps where only electricity can be used.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.19 / Tom Droege /  Re: Water heater sales
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Water heater sales
Date: 19 Jan 1995 18:07:27 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <cas.406.0008401C@ops1.bwi.wec.com>, cas@ops1.bwi.wec.com (Bob Casanova) says:
>
>In article <pgz6Rzo.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>>From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
>>Subject: This forum officially for CF, not HF
>>Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 12:15:28 -0500
>
>>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
>
>Great! Since you sell them, please quote price and availability, and provide a 
>synopsis of specifications.
>Bob C.
>  <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>  <<< Good, fast, cheap!  (Pick 2) >>>
>  <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>What the net needs is a good bus arbiter

Put me on the list for a data sheet Jed. 

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.20 / Matt Austern /  Re: 18 Jan. Update, Griggs Theories
     
Originally-From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 18 Jan. Update, Griggs Theories
Date: 20 Jan 1995 01:12:20 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)

In article <D2My0t.3M0@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgini
.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

>      Pixies, not 'fairies'.  And Pixie Theory seems to have roughly as
>      much scientific content in the context of Griggs' machine as, 
>      say,  'ZPE-Enhanced H2O Dissociation/Recomb.' or 'Cold Fusion'.

Yep.  The "Cold Fusion" part, especially, puzzles me. 

Let's imagine, for a moment, that everything Griggs claims (or
everything Rothwell claims; the question of just who is claiming what
seems a bit muddled) is actually true.  Why on earth would you
imagine that it has anything, anything at all, to do with the
Pons-Fleishmann "cold fusion"?

The "cold fusion" that folks claimed to have discovered five years ago
consisted of electrochemical cells that involved palladium electrodes
and heavy water.  Pons and Fleishmann claimed to have observed nuclear
reaction products, including neutrons, helium, and high-energy
photons.

And Griggs's machine?  No electrochemistry, no palladium, no
electrodes, no deuterium, no nuclear reaction products.  All you're
doing is sloshing a bunch of water around and getting out steam; even
if it is true that this is a breakthrough of some sort or another,
there doesn't seem to be any reason whatsoever to think that it is
related in any way to what Pons and Fleishmann called "cold fusion".
--

                               --matt
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.19 /  nachtrieb@max. /  ALCATOR C-MOD WEEKLY HIGHLIGHTS, 19950117
     
Originally-From: nachtrieb@max.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ALCATOR C-MOD WEEKLY HIGHLIGHTS, 19950117
Date: 19 JAN 95 15:47:58 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

		   Alcator C-MOD Weekly Highlights
			     Jan 17,1995

Operation continued on Alcator C-MOD this week. Four runs were
scheduled and completed. Principal experiments included studies of
divertor detachment and ion cyclotron radio frequency (ICRF) antenna
conditioning and heating.

The Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR)-type neutral particle analyzer
(PCX) at F-port was calibrated using a series of reproducible
discharges. The mass discrimination was explored using varying
concentrations of hydrogen (H) minority in deuterium (D) plasmas, with
cross-calibration to the U. Md. Spectroscopic diagnostic. Calibration
data were also obtained for the K-port tangential charge exchange
(TCX) system. During this run several piggy-back experiments were also
conducted, including lithium (Li) pellet injection, conditioning of
the E-port ICRF antenna, and a vertical scan of the electron cyclotron
emission (ECE) system.

Experiments on the effect of increasing radiation on divertor
detachment (miniproposal #043) were carried out using neon (Ne)
puffing into standard 800kA lower single null (SN) discharges. The
plasma density was ramped from about 1 to 3e20/m3 with varying amounts
of Ne injection. The power conducted through the last closed flux
surface (LCFS) varied from 800kW to less than 200kW. Detailed data
were obtained for the upstream scrape-off layer (SOL) using the fast
scanning probe as well as at the target plate. Strikepoint control was
used to keep the outer strike position at its nominal location.

Conditioning of the E-port dipole ICRF antenna (MP#054) was completed,
and heating studies (MP#059) using this antenna begun. Target plasmas
were 800kA lower SN with a small outer gap, with typical density
around 2e20/m3. Up to 1.75 MW was coupled through the antenna. Heating
was found to be comparable to that observed previously using the
D-port antenna; for 1.6MW the plasma stored energy increased by about
25kJ in L-mode. Several shots were run with Li pellet injection just
prior to the turn-on of the RF. These showed good heating, up to 40kJ
increase in the diamagnetic stored energy. Several edge-localized mode
(ELM)-free H-modes were also obtained in the high-density post-pellet
RF-heated phase.

A second piggy-back experiment on this run was an investigation of
magnetic dipole (M1) lines of titanium (Ti)-like xenon (Xe) and
tungsten (W) (MP#072), which are of interest for International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) ion temperature diagnostics.
Xe injection was successfully carried out, however the predicted
forbidden line at 4139A was not observed. Divertor detachment was
obtained on several shots; these results provide additional data for
the detachment studies carried out earlier in the week. Radiation
properties for Xe and W in the main plasma were measured.

Analysis of confinement data is continuing. This week we contributed
190 time-slices to be included in the ITER L-mode
database. Examination of our growing H-mode database indicates that
the outer gap may be a significant parameter in determining the H-mode
threshold, at least in the ohmic cases.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudennachtrieb cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.20 / Tom Droege /  Why is is called the GG here?
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Why is is called the GG here?
Date: 20 Jan 1995 18:53:38 GMT
Organization: fermilab

Since I am supposed to be an expert in this area ;^)  .  What is
the origin of using GG for the Grigs device?

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.19 /  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: 19 Jan 1995 16:55:36 GMT
Organization: CSU Dominguez Hills, Carson,  CA, USA

In article <1995Jan19.134256.10420@dxcern.cern.ch>, mcnamara@vxaluw.cern
ch (Pete McNamara) writes:
>
>At this point, you have definitely entered the land of the crackpot.
>Do you have any reason to suggest that there is no Z boson?  What
>about the very good measurements of these particles which have been
>done at LEP and SLAC?  Your claim that these physicists are somehow
>cheating and making these particles up is not very believable.

I don't know.  It seems to me if high energy types are going to
continue to request public funding for their projects, they are going to
have to spend more time making the explanations for their experiments
and the interpretation of those results more accessible to their funding
source, i.e. the taxpayer.  And basically his premise about the difficulty
in subtracting the background, being based upon inferences, is right.

Craig
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenharmon cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.19 / 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: 19 Jan 1995 17:56:54 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <Bw+Z5f1.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> 
>There are tons of papers about those subjects, but I do not follow them, so
>you will have to do your own homework. 

In other words, you are willing to assert that P&F see neutrons etc etc 
but the only paper you know about where they actually make such a claim 
is the same one I know of -- the results that they cannot and do not 
defend and have said publicly, but not in print, that those results 
have been retracted.  So who sounds like the tabloid now? 

Don't say "stick to science" and they say you don't follow it. 

-- 
 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:
cuddy19 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.19 / 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: 19 Jan 1995 23:35:58 GMT
Organization: Silicon Valley Public Access Link

 <3fh5lv$1v4@borg.svpal.org> <3fhatp$1bfn@msunews.cl.msu.edu>:
Distribution: 

>Robert W. Hatcher (hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu) Writes:

> Run, don't walk, to your local bookstore and order:
> The Experimental Foundations of Particle Physics.....

Robert, I have had that book since it first can out in 1991, love it. So 
now we can talk to the same experimental data. Pages 227, and 228 
purports to show experimental confirmation that neutrino cross sections 
increase with energy. As usual, the (theoretical) neutrino flux is 
monitored by the muon flux (theoretically) associated with it. There is 
the rub!

The experiments at Brookhaven in 1962 (see page 184) set the tone for all 
later HEP neutrino experiments. Brookhaven got * cosmic ray muon 
background* in their spark chamber, that, in their words (see page 188) 
"In 1800 cosmic-ray photographs thus obtained, 21 could be accepted as 
neutrino events." What is meant by "neutrino events" are the cosmic-ray 
muons that come horizontal or nearly horizontal. ( by saying "accepted as 
neutrino events" is as if * muons resulting from neutrinos* was a 
foregone conclusion.).

Brookhaven tried to *gate* a window that would reduce the cosmic muon 
background. To calibrate the gate timing they *raised the energy of the 
accelerator to generate more muons* through the steel shield! Then the 
energy from the accelerator was reduced and the experiment proceeded to 
count the muons that got through the shield "as signal" ! I believe in 
muon type neutrinos, but Brookhaven's famous experiment stretches my 
credulity.

Unfortunately, this type of experiment detects only the ubiquitous muon.

Don't get me wrong, i absolutely believe in neutrinos, i just don't 
believe we are detecting them because our experiments are based on seeing 
charged particles (theoretically) produced by the neutrino. Seeing 
ordinary charged particles flying around at odd angles or odd times, is 
not proof set in concrete, in my view. We seem too easily able to accept 
as *proof* of neutrino detection, some theoretical ability of the 
neutrino to transmute or *knock-on* charged particles.

Regards: Tom.


--
Thomas N. Lockyer <lockyer@svpal.org>     
1611 Fallen Leaf Lane
Los Altos, CA USA 94024-6212
Tel. (415)967-9550
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenlockyer cudfnThomas cudlnLockyer cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.19 / 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: 19 Jan 1995 23:40:30 GMT
Organization: Silicon Valley Public Access Link

 <3fgabk$bbs@nic-nac.CSU.net>:    
Distribution: 




>Craig Harmon (harmon@hepnsf.csudh.edu) Writes:
> Well the crosssection would be markedly higher if there was a 
>sizable magnetic moment. 

Yes, and if the neutrino mass is small, the magnetic moment would be 
enormous from Ub = ( e hbar/2 x mass in kg) since mass is in the denominator.

>  just put in your model's 
>magnetic moment and calculate the cross section and see how
> far off it is from experiment]

The vector model indicates, when total vector structures are added , that 
the neutrinos can only spin when in concert with the electron or 
positron.  This serves to create rest mass and the complex internal 
charge currents known  to exist in the proton and neutron.   In this 
model, once the neutrino of beta decay decouples from the electron 
structure, it no longer spins.  This means not having to justify the 
paradox of comparison to the characteristics of other spin 1/2 particles. 
When free, the neutrino  model does not spin.   These vector models 
construct a  perfectly good proton and neutron. Is this the way nature 
is?  All that can be said, at this point, is that the resulting geometry 
relates the fundamental physical constants, in their proper ratios, and 
so  mimics nature.   You've got to buy my book to see how the model 
develops, and how the models fits together.  Cost is $6.95 US, postpaid 
to  anywhere. 

Regards: Tom.


--
Thomas N. Lockyer <lockyer@svpal.org>     
1611 Fallen Leaf Lane
Los Altos, CA USA 94024-6212
Tel. (415)967-9550
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenlockyer cudfnThomas cudlnLockyer cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.19 / CHU CHUNG /  nova
     
Originally-From: chuti@ecf.toronto.edu (CHU  TING CHUNG)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: nova
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 18:02:52 GMT
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility


 Does anyone know what fusion processes are involved in the nova phenomenon
in stellar evolution?

 Thanks again.

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenchuti cudfnCHU cudlnCHUNG cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.19 / Bruce TK /  Re: Split the group [was: This forum officially for CF, not HF]
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Split the group [was: This forum officially for CF, not HF]
Date: 19 Jan 1995 16:11:38 +0100
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching


In article <JAC.95Jan18212019@gandalf.llnl.gov>, 
	jac@gandalf.llnl.gov (James Crotinger) writes:

|>   You're full of it. Said forum is for hot and cold fusion. 
|> 
|>   IMHO this group should be split into sci.physics.fusion.{hot,cold},
|> but discussions to do so in the past have not shown sufficient
|> support. At 50-100 messages per day, the volume is certainly large
|> enough to justify a split.  I think most hot fusion researchers are
|> turned off by the volume of the cold-fusion, over-unity-device, etc.,
|> discussions, and having a place for hot-fusion discussions would
|> promote more interaction amongst said folks.

I'd be in full agreement with this.  I have no trouble with CF being here
and chuckle at their (actually, just Jed's) trouble at seeing the very
occasional HF post here.  Sci.physics.plasmas is a natural place for us
to go (and labs who post news post it there), but we were somewhat
discouraged against that by the s.p.p charter.  By now, however, I think
the group has evolved to the point that HF is very much a part of it.

So a split is OK, but since HF is but a dent here and CF don't crosspost
elsewhere, then a de-facto split has already occurred, and it is by way
of allowing HF to be discussed in s.p.p.

One thing I'll say very much in support and appreciation of CF long-termers:
they don't go crazy with crossposts to sci.physics, etc, and aside from the
back and forth are pretty good at nettiquette.

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.19 / A Plutonium /  Re: ideas & copyrights (Was ... A. Pu)
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: ideas & copyrights (Was ... A. Pu)
Date: 19 Jan 1995 17:09:28 GMT
Organization: Plutonium Atom Foundation

In article <USE2PCB923864333@brbbs.brbbs.com>
mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes:

> Really?  I would be very interested in seeing that patent.  What is the patent
> number so I can look it up?

Patent pending 1991 USA 07/737,170 and 1994 USA    08/304,118
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.19 / Mark Runyan /  Re: This forum officially for CF, not HF
     
Originally-From: runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: This forum officially for CF, not HF
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 19:22:17 GMT
Organization: HP

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
>...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!

What company sells CF water heaters and what articles in reviewed journals
document the energy claims?

 -==  Mark Runyan  runyan@cup.hp.com  408)447-6676  FAX: 408)447-6268  ==-
 -== HP, 19447 Pruneridge Avenue, MS 47LA   Cupertino, CA, USA  95014  ==-
 -==       URL-> http://www.cup.hp.com/~runyan/index.html              ==-
QUIT
              ==-
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenrunyan cudfnMark cudlnRunyan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.19 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: In Defense of Simon Newcomb
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: In Defense of Simon Newcomb
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 95 14:44:29 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Robert Bass <robertbass@aol.com> writes:
 
     ". . . in my not uninformed opinion, Simon Newcomb was by far the
     greatest American scientist of the 19th century; he was also the
     greatest mathematician ever born in the Western Hemisphere."
 
That shows that a person can be a genius about some things and a fool about
others. Newcomb should have stuck to what he was good at, rather than
pontificating about subjects he knew nothing about. His statements about
airplanes were preposterous; for example, he declared that even if an airplane
could fly, it could never land safely:
 
     "Once he [the pilot] slackens his speed, down he begins to fall. -- Once
     he stops, he falls a dead mass. How shall he reach the ground without
     destroying his delicate machinery? I do not think that even the most
     imaginative inventor has yet put on paper a demonstrative, successful
     way of meeting this difficulty."
 
     - S. Newcomb, The Independent magazine, Oct. 22, 1903
 
That is not as stupid as the Dick Blue's statements about calorimetry, but it
is pretty dumb. By 1903, a few dozen of people had successfully flown gliders,
landed on wheels or skids, and described the technique in the literature.
Newcomb's problem was that he never bothered to read the literature. His other
famous quotes:
 
     "The mathematician of today admits that he can neither square the
     circle, duplicate the cube, or trisect the angle. May not our
     mechanicians, in like manner, be ultimately forced to admit that aerial
     flight is one of the great class of problems with which man can never
     cope?
 
     - S. Newcomb, The Independent magazine, Oct. 22, 1903
 
     "The demonstration that no possible combination of known substances,
     known forms of machinery, and known forms of force can be united in a
     practical machine by which man shall fly for long distances through the
     air, seems to this writer as complete as it is possible for the
     demonstration of any physical fact to be."
 
     - S. Newcomb, 1906
 
My all-time favorite prediction about aviation was made by Wilbur Wright. He
wrote:
 
     "I confess that in 1901 I said to my brother Orville that man would not
     fly for fifty years. This demonstration of my impotence as a prophet
     gave me such a shock that ever since I have . . . avoided all
     predictions."
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.20 / 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: 20 Jan 1995 00:21:20 GMT
Organization: Silicon Valley Public Access Link



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

> (snip)
>Finding solar neutrinos is tougher. However, Homestake
>has been doing precisely that, day after day for many years.
>After 1000s of days, it starts to add up. And you have a hypothesis
>for where the Ar-37 comes from?

Jim, there is a way that false positives from cosmic rays can transmute 
the Cl-37. See for example the Scientific American article ( Jul 69) by 
John N. Bahcall. page 30, "High energy muons are very penetrating and can 
knock proton's out of nuclei well below the earth's surface. If such a 
proton entered the neutrino detector, it could mimic the entry of a solar 
neutrino by converting chlorine 37 (37Cl) into an atom of radioactive 
argon 37 (37Ar)" unquote. Forgive me for dropping names, but sometimes to 
make a point........

> While GALLEX, using exactly the same method, saw neutrinos from day one.

Not strictly true. GALLEX was on hold in 1991 to remove impurities that 
collected in the detector.

>And why a big water Cherenkov detector also sees neutrinos
>(whose source direction follows the sun) while using a completely
> different method?

Jim, see Scientific American (April 1991) page 22, Homestake makes a 
claim on sunspot correlation. But as the article says, ..."the sunspot 
number appear to change inversely with the measured neutrino 
flux-depending one one's eyesight and ones faith in the data". unquote. I 
don't take these claims as proof of neutrino detection. Note how these 
articles all say "measured neutrino flux" that in itself begs the 
conclusion that neutrinos are really (indirectly) being detected.

>---- since Cl only sees a very rare branch in solar fusion......

Again, these types of statements presuppose that the neutrinos are really 
being detected, i think we should say theoretically is expected to 
see..... And as Bahcall points out, background can get you coming and 
going, with mimic transmutations. There is absolutely no way we can 
actually measure this mimicking background. Who is to say that all signal 
is not background?

Regards: Tom.



--
Thomas N. Lockyer <lockyer@svpal.org>     
1611 Fallen Leaf Lane
Los Altos, CA USA 94024-6212
Tel. (415)967-9550
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenlockyer cudfnThomas cudlnLockyer cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Jan 21 04:37:06 EST 1995
------------------------------
