1995.02.16 /  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: 16 Feb 1995 01:59:37 GMT
Organization: MSU Dept. of Physics & Astronomy

In article <3htvgk$27i@borg.svpal.org>, lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) writes:
>> Todd K. Pedlar (todd@numep4.phys.nwu.rdu) Writes:
>
>> Regardless of the speed of the neutrino, it can carry energy, momentum,
>> and just like every other particle known to man, has a wave particle 
>duality.
>> Why do you question whether it can escape it?
>
>Todd, what you say is correct,  but the neutrino theory violates what we 
>know about particles, in several respects.  
>
>1) all (non composite) particles with a spin angular momentum of 1/2 h 
>bar also have a mass, charge and magnetic moment.  

So it is the exception.  That doesn't "prove" that it doesn't have the
properties attributed to it... all you 've said is that the neutrino
isn't an {electron,muon,tau,quark}, since those are the spin 1/2 particles
excluding the neutrino.

>2) all neutral (composite ) particles, that have spin 1/2 h bar,  also 
>have a magnetic moment and mass.  

Of course *composite* particles (states) are going to have masses and
magnetic moments...because they are made up of massive charged particles.
The magnetic moment part simply says that they aren't delta functions.

>3) A magnetic moment requires charge currents, so a neutral particle 
>requires complex charge currents and a composite structure.

Huh?  Buzzword city.....and bad logic.  *Composite* neutral particles 
have internal structure that gives rise to magnetic moments.  This says
nothing about what we should expect from fundamental (non-composite)
neutral particles.

>So, if the neutrino has a spin of 1/2 then it must have mass.  If a 

No it doesn't...unless you're going to claim it is a composite particle
made up of more elementary charged particles.  And if you so claim then
you better provide us with some evidence that such "more fundamental"
particle exist.

>neutrino  has mass then it must have a magnetic moment.  If a neutrino 
>has a magnetic moment and is not composite, then it must have a charge.  

I think you've confused yourself here....not all of this follows from
your premise without some other (I would charge, invalid) assumptions.

>The VPP model indicates the neutrinos can only spin when in concert with 
>the electron or positron, creating rest mass and the complex internal 
>charge currents, that exist in  the composites.

Who the fuck cares what the VPP model indicates about processes we can't/
haven't measured.  What we *really* want to know is what it predicts for
thing we can measure such as:
  * the cross section as a function of E_nu
  * the relative cross section for nu vs. anti-nu at fixed energies
  * the y=E_h/E_nu distribution for nu and anti-nu
just for a start.

>> (snip)
>> It does not violate any rule.......Decrease in cross section with 
>energy is
>>  hardly universal.
>
>Again what you say is true.  

Phew.  For a minute I thought you were going to deny it.... So you admit
that what you originally stated was wrong.  Early on you asserted (wrongly)
that NO cross section _ever_ increase with energy.

>                             But the neutrino is neutral and theory is 
>trying to make a kind of super photon out of it. 

No, not a "super photon".  In fact it has a quite different coupling
than the photon.  Not just in strength (the weak force) but in helicity
(V-A).  You're attacking a straw-particle if you think we're setting
up the neutrino as a "super photon".  It is fundamentally different.

>                                                 All other things being 
>equal, if the shielding size or composition is not changed, increasing 
>energy universally will  increase penetration.  Neutrino theory believes 
>energy decreases penetration.

Huh?  This doesn't follow, except in your circular logic.  Above you admit
that some cross sections increase with energy.  This means that all other
things being equal, that their "penetration" decreases (on average) with
energy.  And, oddly enough, the neutrino *is* just such one particle.

>>  This shameless plugging of your book is getting tiresome. 
>
>Sorry, Todd, but (as far as I  know)  the VPP book details the only model 
>claiming to give an energy structure for the neutrino.  To make the VPP 

Sure, it's only only book written by enough of a crackpot to make such a
claim.  That DOESN'T make it true, or even a good model.  In fact the
data provides sufficient evidence to rule out your model since it make
predictions incompatible with observation.  Compare this to the standard
model (including weak interactions) that _aren't_ ruled out.

[...lots of buzzword bullshit removed...]

-robert
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenhatcher cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.15 / John Nagle /  Re: MRA true believer diatribe!
     
Originally-From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MRA true believer diatribe!
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 03:41:41 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty) writes:
>In the mean time, Norm found that the insertion of a resistor or even a
>current probe into the input line will spoil the anomalous effects.  Is
>this a cop-out, self-deception, or just plain deviousness on Norm's part,
>saying that any attempt at measuring the input power will make the "magic"
>go away?  Could be.  Or he could be right, since the "magic" (if real) is
>not following known principles, so it's not entirely unexpected that 
>something like the insertion of a sampling resistor may indeed mess up 
>the effect. 

     Wootan says that when others evaluate the circuit.  But when he
evaluates his own circuit, it's OK to put a resistance in the input
side.  See Wootan's own posting below, from Beaty's BBS, at
"http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/mra.html".

  Message 10936                                  DATE/TIME: 01/26/95 09:08
  From   : NORMAN WOOTAN
  To     : NORMAN COMPARINI
  Subject: MRATEST1 Response
[...]
  To show you that this "DOG" is not going to lay down and die is
  evidenced by my latest MRA that I constructed last night which does the
  following: Input, 53.5VAC @ 33,600HZ with an output of 120.2VDC into a
  resistive load of a standard light bulb rated 120V 13.5 Watts burning
  very brightly.  Input current?^[[CWell let's put it this way, I placed a
  small miniature Radio Shack lamp rated at 6V @ .025A in series with the
  MRA input and the tiny little lamp was burning very bright while
  sustaining the output load.  Keep in mind that we are dissipating power
  in the form of heat and light in the series resistive load in the input
  side of the circuit therefore the question arrises as to what is the
  effective voltage and current across the piezo and primary coil of the
  MRA circuit. 

I think that makes it clear that the resistor issue is just an excuse.

					John Nagle
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudennagle cudfnJohn cudlnNagle cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.16 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets
Date: 16 Feb 1995 03:41:04 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <9502151613.AA26798@pilot1.cl.msu.edu> blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A  
Blue) writes:
> Some of you seen to have missed the point when I offered to
> sell you a Griggs Device demonstration kit which was untested.
> 
> I don't know how you spend your money (or time), but I would
> assume that in most cases you would spend it where you have
> some reasonable expectation of receiving something of value
> in return.  If a Mr. Huffman offers to sell a test version
> of the Griggs device what do you expect to receive?  In what
> way will a Huffman device be better than the version I have
> offered?
> 

The whole point is that Huffman tentatively claims that his version 
of the device also measures out at well over unity. Assuming he sticks
to the claim, and Jed and Griggs, say, come to believe its the same
effect, buying one would be a convenient way to invesitigate it 
in the privacy of ones own lab.


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


cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.16 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Griggs Question
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Question
Date: 16 Feb 1995 03:48:35 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3hte3j$4fa@fnnews.fnal.gov> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)  
writes:
> This is pretty much what I plan(see below) to do. 

> Then the real test of the Griggs device.  Does he show me something
> that causes me to attempt duplication?  My pledge to you is that I 
> will attempt duplication if my visit convinces me that the Griggs 
> device is over unity from whatever cause. 

What exactly does that mean? I sincerely expect that Griggs has a procedure
which gives him aparent over unity results, and that superficialy
one can;t spot the problem. But---I have a very very...very high expectation
that he has not discovered a new power source. Whether its all a measuring
artifact or some more obscure cause, I can't say.

So, the only realistic reason to attempt duplication is to find out 
why it _doesn't_ work, not to prove that it does. 

I.e., its primarily an intriguing  puzzle or an exercise---not a route to a new
energy source.




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


cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.15 / 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: 15 Feb 1995 22:33:56 GMT
Organization: Silicon Valley Public Access Link




> Todd K. Pedlar (todd@numep4.phys.nwu.rdu) Writes:

> Regardless of the speed of the neutrino, it can carry energy, momentum,
> and just like every other particle known to man, has a wave particle 
duality.
> Why do you question whether it can escape it?

Todd, what you say is correct,  but the neutrino theory violates what we 
know about particles, in several respects.  

1) all (non composite) particles with a spin angular momentum of 1/2 h 
bar also have a mass, charge and magnetic moment.  

2) all neutral (composite ) particles, that have spin 1/2 h bar,  also 
have a magnetic moment and mass.  

3) A magnetic moment requires charge currents, so a neutral particle 
requires complex charge currents and a composite structure.

So, if the neutrino has a spin of 1/2 then it must have mass.  If a 
neutrino  has mass then it must have a magnetic moment.  If a neutrino 
has a magnetic moment and is not composite, then it must have a charge.  

The VPP model indicates the neutrinos can only spin when in concert with 
the electron or positron, creating rest mass and the complex internal 
charge currents, that exist in  the composites.

> (snip)
> It does not violate any rule.......Decrease in cross section with 
energy is
>  hardly universal.

Again what you say is true.  But the neutrino is neutral and theory is 
trying to make a kind of super photon out of it. All other things being 
equal, if the shielding size or composition is not changed, increasing 
energy universally will  increase penetration.  Neutrino theory believes 
energy decreases penetration.

>  This shameless plugging of your book is getting tiresome. 

Sorry, Todd, but (as far as I  know)  the VPP book details the only model 
claiming to give an energy structure for the neutrino.  To make the VPP 
neutrinos (if you like to doodle) simply take the Poynting vector and see 
how many cubes you can construct using the criteria that the E and B 
phasors, that are shared between the four (S) vector edges go into and 
out of each (S) in a continuos flow.  Only theoretical  electron, 
electron type neutrino, and the muon type neutrino energy structures (and 
their anti particles) are possible.  These are the only simple particle 
types that are the *FINAL* decay products. That our VPP model approach 
can only create these simple, basic particles, is encouraging. If you 
give me your FAX number (use e mail) I'll send you the diagrammed cube 
models, free! 

Regards: Tom.
  


--
Thomas N. Lockyer <lockyer@svpal.org>     
1611 Fallen Leaf Lane
Los Altos, CA USA 94024-6212
Tel. (415)967-9550
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenlockyer cudfnThomas cudlnLockyer cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.15 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets!
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets!
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 95 11:20:14 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Cameron Randale Bass <crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> writes:
 
>     So everyone sends an independent agent to Griggs lab to do independent
>     testing on his device?  How costly and disruptive.
 
No, not everyone. Only people who want to buy the thing should do that.
Dick Blue and I are talking about people who are considering spending
money on these devices. Given the extraordinary nature of the claims, any
prudent person would either go in person or send an agent to the site to
verify the claims before issuing a check. Alternatively, a person might
ask for a free trial period before paying.
 
Dick Blue offered a pretend claim that he has invented an over unity device,
in an effort to ridicule those of us who take such claims seriously. I pointed
out to him that people like me always make triple sure of every product and
every claim, and that Dick could never fool me with a bogus product that does
not actually produce excess heat.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.16 /  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: 16 Feb 1995 01:59:37 GMT
Organization: MSU Dept. of Physics & Astronomy

In article <3htvgk$27i@borg.svpal.org>, lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) writes:
>> Todd K. Pedlar (todd@numep4.phys.nwu.rdu) Writes:
>
>> Regardless of the speed of the neutrino, it can carry energy, momentum,
>> and just like every other particle known to man, has a wave particle 
>duality.
>> Why do you question whether it can escape it?
>
>Todd, what you say is correct,  but the neutrino theory violates what we 
>know about particles, in several respects.  
>
>1) all (non composite) particles with a spin angular momentum of 1/2 h 
>bar also have a mass, charge and magnetic moment.  

So it is the exception.  That doesn't "prove" that it doesn't have the
properties attributed to it... all you 've said is that the neutrino
isn't an {electron,muon,tau,quark}, since those are the spin 1/2 particles
excluding the neutrino.

>2) all neutral (composite ) particles, that have spin 1/2 h bar,  also 
>have a magnetic moment and mass.  

Of course *composite* particles (states) are going to have masses and
magnetic moments...because they are made up of massive charged particles.
The magnetic moment part simply says that they aren't delta functions.

>3) A magnetic moment requires charge currents, so a neutral particle 
>requires complex charge currents and a composite structure.

Huh?  Buzzword city.....and bad logic.  *Composite* neutral particles 
have internal structure that gives rise to magnetic moments.  This says
nothing about what we should expect from fundamental (non-composite)
neutral particles.

>So, if the neutrino has a spin of 1/2 then it must have mass.  If a 

No it doesn't...unless you're going to claim it is a composite particle
made up of more elementary charged particles.  And if you so claim then
you better provide us with some evidence that such "more fundamental"
particle exist.

>neutrino  has mass then it must have a magnetic moment.  If a neutrino 
>has a magnetic moment and is not composite, then it must have a charge.  

I think you've confused yourself here....not all of this follows from
your premise without some other (I would charge, invalid) assumptions.

>The VPP model indicates the neutrinos can only spin when in concert with 
>the electron or positron, creating rest mass and the complex internal 
>charge currents, that exist in  the composites.

Who the fuck cares what the VPP model indicates about processes we can't/
haven't measured.  What we *really* want to know is what it predicts for
thing we can measure such as:
  * the cross section as a function of E_nu
  * the relative cross section for nu vs. anti-nu at fixed energies
  * the y=E_h/E_nu distribution for nu and anti-nu
just for a start.

>> (snip)
>> It does not violate any rule.......Decrease in cross section with 
>energy is
>>  hardly universal.
>
>Again what you say is true.  

Phew.  For a minute I thought you were going to deny it.... So you admit
that what you originally stated was wrong.  Early on you asserted (wrongly)
that NO cross section _ever_ increase with energy.

>                             But the neutrino is neutral and theory is 
>trying to make a kind of super photon out of it. 

No, not a "super photon".  In fact it has a quite different coupling
than the photon.  Not just in strength (the weak force) but in helicity
(V-A).  You're attacking a straw-particle if you think we're setting
up the neutrino as a "super photon".  It is fundamentally different.

>                                                 All other things being 
>equal, if the shielding size or composition is not changed, increasing 
>energy universally will  increase penetration.  Neutrino theory believes 
>energy decreases penetration.

Huh?  This doesn't follow, except in your circular logic.  Above you admit
that some cross sections increase with energy.  This means that all other
things being equal, that their "penetration" decreases (on average) with
energy.  And, oddly enough, the neutrino *is* just such one particle.

>>  This shameless plugging of your book is getting tiresome. 
>
>Sorry, Todd, but (as far as I  know)  the VPP book details the only model 
>claiming to give an energy structure for the neutrino.  To make the VPP 

Sure, it's only only book written by enough of a crackpot to make such a
claim.  That DOESN'T make it true, or even a good model.  In fact the
data provides sufficient evidence to rule out your model since it make
predictions incompatible with observation.  Compare this to the standard
model (including weak interactions) that _aren't_ ruled out.

[...lots of buzzword bullshit removed...]

-robert
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenhatcher cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.15 / John Nagle /  Re: MRA true believer diatribe!
     
Originally-From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MRA true believer diatribe!
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 03:41:41 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty) writes:
>In the mean time, Norm found that the insertion of a resistor or even a
>current probe into the input line will spoil the anomalous effects.  Is
>this a cop-out, self-deception, or just plain deviousness on Norm's part,
>saying that any attempt at measuring the input power will make the "magic"
>go away?  Could be.  Or he could be right, since the "magic" (if real) is
>not following known principles, so it's not entirely unexpected that 
>something like the insertion of a sampling resistor may indeed mess up 
>the effect. 

     Wootan says that when others evaluate the circuit.  But when he
evaluates his own circuit, it's OK to put a resistance in the input
side.  See Wootan's own posting below, from Beaty's BBS, at
"http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/mra.html".

  Message 10936                                  DATE/TIME: 01/26/95 09:08
  From   : NORMAN WOOTAN
  To     : NORMAN COMPARINI
  Subject: MRATEST1 Response
[...]
  To show you that this "DOG" is not going to lay down and die is
  evidenced by my latest MRA that I constructed last night which does the
  following: Input, 53.5VAC @ 33,600HZ with an output of 120.2VDC into a
  resistive load of a standard light bulb rated 120V 13.5 Watts burning
  very brightly.  Input current?^[[CWell let's put it this way, I placed a
  small miniature Radio Shack lamp rated at 6V @ .025A in series with the
  MRA input and the tiny little lamp was burning very bright while
  sustaining the output load.  Keep in mind that we are dissipating power
  in the form of heat and light in the series resistive load in the input
  side of the circuit therefore the question arrises as to what is the
  effective voltage and current across the piezo and primary coil of the
  MRA circuit. 

I think that makes it clear that the resistor issue is just an excuse.

					John Nagle
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudennagle cudfnJohn cudlnNagle cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.16 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets
Date: 16 Feb 1995 03:41:04 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <9502151613.AA26798@pilot1.cl.msu.edu> blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A  
Blue) writes:
> Some of you seen to have missed the point when I offered to
> sell you a Griggs Device demonstration kit which was untested.
> 
> I don't know how you spend your money (or time), but I would
> assume that in most cases you would spend it where you have
> some reasonable expectation of receiving something of value
> in return.  If a Mr. Huffman offers to sell a test version
> of the Griggs device what do you expect to receive?  In what
> way will a Huffman device be better than the version I have
> offered?
> 

The whole point is that Huffman tentatively claims that his version 
of the device also measures out at well over unity. Assuming he sticks
to the claim, and Jed and Griggs, say, come to believe its the same
effect, buying one would be a convenient way to invesitigate it 
in the privacy of ones own lab.


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


cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.16 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Griggs Question
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Question
Date: 16 Feb 1995 03:48:35 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3hte3j$4fa@fnnews.fnal.gov> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)  
writes:
> This is pretty much what I plan(see below) to do. 

> Then the real test of the Griggs device.  Does he show me something
> that causes me to attempt duplication?  My pledge to you is that I 
> will attempt duplication if my visit convinces me that the Griggs 
> device is over unity from whatever cause. 

What exactly does that mean? I sincerely expect that Griggs has a procedure
which gives him aparent over unity results, and that superficialy
one can;t spot the problem. But---I have a very very...very high expectation
that he has not discovered a new power source. Whether its all a measuring
artifact or some more obscure cause, I can't say.

So, the only realistic reason to attempt duplication is to find out 
why it _doesn't_ work, not to prove that it does. 

I.e., its primarily an intriguing  puzzle or an exercise---not a route to a new
energy source.




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


cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.15 / 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: 15 Feb 1995 22:33:56 GMT
Organization: Silicon Valley Public Access Link




> Todd K. Pedlar (todd@numep4.phys.nwu.rdu) Writes:

> Regardless of the speed of the neutrino, it can carry energy, momentum,
> and just like every other particle known to man, has a wave particle 
duality.
> Why do you question whether it can escape it?

Todd, what you say is correct,  but the neutrino theory violates what we 
know about particles, in several respects.  

1) all (non composite) particles with a spin angular momentum of 1/2 h 
bar also have a mass, charge and magnetic moment.  

2) all neutral (composite ) particles, that have spin 1/2 h bar,  also 
have a magnetic moment and mass.  

3) A magnetic moment requires charge currents, so a neutral particle 
requires complex charge currents and a composite structure.

So, if the neutrino has a spin of 1/2 then it must have mass.  If a 
neutrino  has mass then it must have a magnetic moment.  If a neutrino 
has a magnetic moment and is not composite, then it must have a charge.  

The VPP model indicates the neutrinos can only spin when in concert with 
the electron or positron, creating rest mass and the complex internal 
charge currents, that exist in  the composites.

> (snip)
> It does not violate any rule.......Decrease in cross section with 
energy is
>  hardly universal.

Again what you say is true.  But the neutrino is neutral and theory is 
trying to make a kind of super photon out of it. All other things being 
equal, if the shielding size or composition is not changed, increasing 
energy universally will  increase penetration.  Neutrino theory believes 
energy decreases penetration.

>  This shameless plugging of your book is getting tiresome. 

Sorry, Todd, but (as far as I  know)  the VPP book details the only model 
claiming to give an energy structure for the neutrino.  To make the VPP 
neutrinos (if you like to doodle) simply take the Poynting vector and see 
how many cubes you can construct using the criteria that the E and B 
phasors, that are shared between the four (S) vector edges go into and 
out of each (S) in a continuos flow.  Only theoretical  electron, 
electron type neutrino, and the muon type neutrino energy structures (and 
their anti particles) are possible.  These are the only simple particle 
types that are the *FINAL* decay products. That our VPP model approach 
can only create these simple, basic particles, is encouraging. If you 
give me your FAX number (use e mail) I'll send you the diagrammed cube 
models, free! 

Regards: Tom.
  


--
Thomas N. Lockyer <lockyer@svpal.org>     
1611 Fallen Leaf Lane
Los Altos, CA USA 94024-6212
Tel. (415)967-9550
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenlockyer cudfnThomas cudlnLockyer cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.15 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets!
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets!
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 95 11:20:14 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Cameron Randale Bass <crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> writes:
 
>     So everyone sends an independent agent to Griggs lab to do independent
>     testing on his device?  How costly and disruptive.
 
No, not everyone. Only people who want to buy the thing should do that.
Dick Blue and I are talking about people who are considering spending
money on these devices. Given the extraordinary nature of the claims, any
prudent person would either go in person or send an agent to the site to
verify the claims before issuing a check. Alternatively, a person might
ask for a free trial period before paying.
 
Dick Blue offered a pretend claim that he has invented an over unity device,
in an effort to ridicule those of us who take such claims seriously. I pointed
out to him that people like me always make triple sure of every product and
every claim, and that Dick could never fool me with a bogus product that does
not actually produce excess heat.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.14 / I Johnston /  Re: Tiny table top Hydrosonic Pump
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tiny table top Hydrosonic Pump
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 15:39:51 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

Let me get this straight...

If I buy one of these machines and start in correctly, it will continue
to run with no mechanical power input _and_ produce excess heat?

Ian 

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: I Johnston <ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk> writes:
:  
: >Are you now claiming that these small pumps produce mechanical power as
: >well as excess heat?
:  
: Yes. This one does, and it would even if there was no excess heat. The
: holes in the rotor make it act as a steam turbine. If there was no excess
: heat, then of course the mechanical turning effect would not add to overall
: energy balance any more than the vibration from the machine would.
:  
: - Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.16 / Tom Droege /  Re: Did Tom go to Rome?
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Did Tom go to Rome?
Date: 16 Feb 1995 01:29:50 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <1995Feb15.225536.28194@clark.dgim.doc.ca>, gsteckly@dgim.doc
ca (Gary Steckly) says:
>
>It has been a week now since the Droege expedition to look at the Griggs 
>gadget was to have happened.  So has anyone heard from Tom?  Did he 
>actually go or did the confusion with Marshall's trip cause him to cancel 
>his trip?  
>
>I notice a lot of posts are referring to the trip as if it is still off 
>in the future somewhere.  Any news?  Tom? Are you out there?
>
>regards
>
>Gary

I think the date is the 8th of March. Jennifer bought the ticket.  I know
a long time in the future, but we have to give you all mileage for you
dollars.

Tom Droege

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.15 / Paul Simmonds /  www.jet.uk now on line
     
Originally-From: Paul.Simmonds@jet.uk (Paul Simmonds)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: www.jet.uk now on line
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 95 11:35:15 GMT
Organization: JET Joint Undertaking

The subject says it all, please feel free to take a look.

From - Paul.Simmonds@jet.uk

===============================================================================
    The above article is the personal view of the poster and should not be
       considered as an official comment from the JET Joint Undertaking
===============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenSimmonds cudfnPaul cudlnSimmonds cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.14 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Joe Champion and Transmutation
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Joe Champion and Transmutation
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 18:28:20 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <3hopsa$783@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
Jollie MM <jolliemm@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>Does anyone out there know anything about Joe Champion's past?  
>>Apparently he had some fraud associated with his past.  He is 
>>promoting/researching the transmutation of elements and has had some 
>>dealing with cold fustion researchers at A & M.  Does anyone else 
>>support his theories on transmutation?
>
>Dear Gordon:
>
>Joe Champion is partly a fraud partly onto something.  What he is on to
>was
>given to him by Jack Keller, who is a good friend of mine.  Bockris knows
>the
>story well because Champion defrauded him as well.  Champion has got some
>of the direction right but his books are a complete rip-off.  I know,
>Keller knows, Bockris knows, and Roberto Monti knows, but we aren't
>talking yet.  Maybe
>by the next cold fusion conference. Don't waste time trying to replicate
>what
>Champion is doing.  Look for Jack Keller's patent, which I wrote.

     And please pay a visit to alt.alien.visitors for further examples
     of this style of 'disclosure'.

                             dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.14 / 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: 14 Feb 1995 22:38:43 GMT
Organization: Silicon Valley Public Access Link

Robert: I wanted to cut this off a couple of messages ago because the 
rhetoric was out of hand.  But I have some questions.  Let this be our 
last posts so we can regroup, ok?

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

>> Huh? You're making No sense here...obviously you don't even
>> understand the most basics of what you are arguing against.

You may be right, those figures are excerpts on page #240, so I don't 
have the benefit of the full report. From what I see, the figure shows 
the pion count at about 80 GeV is 3000 and the kaon count is about 1000 
at 240 GeV. From this you are trying to show neutrino crossections 
increase with energy? The neutrinos are supposed to (theoretically) pick 
up kinetic energy from these? How does that work? Why didn't the 10 MeV 
neutrinos in the SN87A * explosion* pick up kinetic energy? Why don't the 
neutrinos in the sun's violently boiling interior add kinetic energy to 
those electron type, and muon type neutrinos? Seems rather ad hoc to 
apply theory of neutrinos picking up energy, just in accelerators.

No insults or bullshit please.

>>Again I asked you ......If you wish to claim that what I have
>> on tape (100,000+ events) are NOT neutrino interactions,......

No, I would like to have you explain how so many events have been 
recorded.  Neutrinos are supposed to be hard to detect.  How did so many 
neutrinos deside to stop in the flash chamber, after 1000 meters of 
berm,  two bubble chambers, lab E and the steel of the final bend 
magnet,  and get their picture taken?  Boggles the mind!

Robert:  Please stop trying to make a straw man out of me by claiming I 
said there  was a great conspiracy by the HEP community.  The strongest 
word I used was *deluding* themselves.  Now delusion does not imply a 
conspiracy and does not have the moral implications of actual fraud.  I 
like to think all are reasonably honest persons and are making honestly 
mistaken conclusions based on a faulty theory.  I don't expect the young 
turks to make  mentor problems, they would be committing professional 
suicide, and be blackballed like any industrial whistle blower.   It was 
CERN that first claimed to have seen a neutral current event, so 
Europeans accept the theory.

P.S. E Mail me your nearest Fermilab Fax number and I will send you some 
information explaining where I am coming from.   

-Tom.



--
Thomas N. Lockyer <lockyer@svpal.org>     
1611 Fallen Leaf Lane
Los Altos, CA USA 94024-6212
Tel. (415)967-9550
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenlockyer cudfnThomas cudlnLockyer cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.16 / James Panetta /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: panetta@finch.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (James H. Panetta)
Newsgroups: ,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.parti
le,sci.research,sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 03:21:08 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <3hb5ov$dv5@news.utdallas.edu>, iblum@utdallas.edu (Ira K Blum) writes:
|> I think its a conspiracy.

You let them know, Ira.  You will have to be terminated.  
I'll have Pat do it after he comes back from the meeting.

     --Jim

--
My opinions are mine...not SLAC's...not Caltech's...not DOE's...mine.
(except by random, unforseeable coincidences)
panetta@cithex.caltech.edu   panetta@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenpanetta cudfnJames cudlnPanetta cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.14 / B Hourahine /  Re: WAKE UP YOU SCIENTISTS (was Non-conservation of energy)
     
Originally-From: py93bh@exeter.ac.uk (B.Hourahine)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: WAKE UP YOU SCIENTISTS (was Non-conservation of energy)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 21:36:12 GMT
Organization: University of Exeter, UK

I was just passing through and saw this thread .  I got involved
in a discussion about something simular about 1 yr ago and the conclusion
reached was that photon-photon cancelation does not occur due to QED, 
the photons merely scatter of each other (I'm not going to draw any
Feinman diagrams) .  This has been experimentally observed .  
ps. I thought for the x-ray beam => e+ e- you had to have atoms or simular
present to alow momentum transfer .

My appologies for any mistakes or misinterpretations
B.Hourahine@exeter.ac.uk
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenpy93bh cudfnB cudlnHourahine cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.16 / Robin Spaandonk /        Re: "something going on"
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:       Re: "something going on"
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 11:45:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

> Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
> Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
> Subject: Re: Ultrasound
> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 18:17:37 GMT
> Organization: University of Virginia
> 
> In article <199502140742.SAA02192@oznet02.ozemail.com.au>,
> Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
> >[SNIP]
> >>     No, the question is why 'we' care about sound that is a
> >>     consequence of the cavitation.  Observation that we have
> >>     been offered absolutely no energy spectrum just begs the more
> >>     fundamental question, to wit, 'Who cares?'
> >>
> >>     The observation that one can cause localized bubble formation
> >>     using appropriately directed ultrasound seems to have no
> >>     bearing on Griggs device at all beyond Jed's and others' apparent
> >>     misapprehensions.
> >>
> >>                                 dale bass
> >_____________________________________________________________
> >There is one other outlandish possibility:
> >Sound at various frequecies may be connected to ZPE by forced
> >oscillation of non-linear elements. (Anything from molecules to
> >quarks). So even if the chance is small, I for one would like to
> >know, especially as there is a reasonable chance that "something" is
> >going on.
> 
>      Apart from the observation that this speculation nothing to do with
>      what I'm talking about, how does one assign a probability
>      to 'something going on'?
> 
>                           dale bass
______________________________________________________________
As far as I am concerned, when someone claims to observe an 
extraordinary phenomenon I always assume that there is a possibility 
that they are both telling the truth, and even that they are right.
As I have been reading much on ZPE of late, from varied sources, I do 
not consider it beyond the bounds of possibility that something 
extraordinary (in the sense that it lies outside our current 
understanding) is going on. Particularly, when the circumstances 
involve some form of externally applied oscillation. Hence my 
"reasonable chance" above.

Regards,

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

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.15 / Daryl Owen /  supercritical water
     
Originally-From: owen@werple.mira.net.au (Daryl Owen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: supercritical water
Date: 15 Feb 1995 11:45:34 +1100
Organization: werple public-access unix, Melbourne


Hi folks, have a nice day :) ..........
On 7Feb95, stolfi@stack.dcc.unicamp.br (Jorge Stolfi) writes:
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>    > [Daryl Owen:] Now, the "tuned" system -must- require -more-
>    > input current (and therefore power) -just in order to generate
>    > the powerful ultrasonics-  [...] the nub of the problem is that the
>    > extra power (& current) required to produce the ultrasonics has
>    > apparently not been measured or accounted for.  If indeed there
>    > is an increase in the input power -to produce the ultrasonics-    
>Quite the opposite, Jed has repeatedly stated that the 
>"mysterious heat-producing phenomenon" always manifests
>itself by a sudden *drop* in the input power---40%, 
>in the published experiments---while the output temperature
>stays constant.
>Note the miraculous coincidence: when the "Griggs effect"
>kicks in, it not only starts producing 10 kW of extra heat, but
>also somehow reduces the viscosity of water by just the right amount
>to cause the motor load to drop by 10 kW.
>Amazing? Wait, there is more --- this miraculous coincidence happens
>with liquid water at 150F or dry steam at 320F and 80 psi,
>and with any size of pump and motor.
----snip----
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
Ref the above: I had earlier speculated that the observed drop in motor
load -may- have been due to the Griggs effect causing a change in the 
rotor/steam/water interface, however there -is- a way to alter the
viscosity of water......
At certain high pressures and temperatures some liquids (including water
and carbon dioxide), do not change state into a gas, but instead become
"supercritical", a kind of state intermediate between a liquid and a gas
and having some properties of each.
Water becomes supercritical at temperatures > 374 deg.C and pressures
> 218 atmospheres. While these are above the figures mentioned (above),
it may be possible for them to be achieved by cavitation in localised 
areas in the Griggs device.
Some of the properties of supercritical water include.......
1) It occupies three times the volume of ordinary water
2) It has weaker molecular bonds is considerably more compressible
 than at STP.
3) It will not dissolve NaCl, mixes readily with oily substances,
 and as it still dissolves oxygen is capable of -supporting a flameless
 variety of combustion-. However before the TB's jump to conclusions,
 they should remember that combustion requires a feedstock, and while 
 hydrogen peroxide might occur to some as possible, just remember that
 although this -may- be produced by cavitation, that its production would 
 require extra input energy ........

For a good article on supercritical liquids see the "New Scientist",
6 August 94, page 32.

Could all you good folks please note that I now have a new email address
due to my resignation from Monash University and transfer to the
(much more lucrative) private sector. This transition means I have been
(and will be) pretty busy for a while, so I may be a tardy in my postings
and email.
					Regards to all,
					Daryl Owen.
				Email: owen@werple.mira.net.au

   



cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenowen cudfnDaryl cudlnOwen cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.15 / Tord Malmgren /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: tordm@vana (Tord G.M. Malmgren)
Newsgroups: ,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.parti
le,sci.research,sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 15 Feb 1995 08:20:17 GMT
Organization: Department of Physics, University of Stockholm -- Sweden

In article <3hb5ov$dv5@news.utdallas.edu>, iblum@utdallas.edu (Ira K Blum) writes:

>I think its a conspiracy.

 what I think is funny is the "data" thing. I'll bet that the magellan
data is just a bunch of figures from different layers and parts in
various places, and is stored in some weird fashion, and the files
are probably pretty big.

 I wonder if a de-coding program, data-analysis program aswell as
a fortran compiler is available to the poster. Plus all the libraries
needed to compile the things. I wonder if he realizes data don't
come in neat tables now adays?

>Please direct all flames to /dev/null

 oh no, this is internet... ;)
(I might direct it to NL:, though...)



 ----------------------+-------------------------------------------------------
 Tord G.M. Malmgren    | These opinions are my OWN, and NOT of this department!
 Stockholm University  +-------------------------------------------------------
 Department of Physics | InterNet: TordM@VanA.PhySto.SE
 Box 6730              | BITNet  : TordM@SESUF51
 113 85 Stockholm      | Phone   : +46-8-164588
 SWEDEN                | GIF     : bbs.augsburg.edu /files/user_gifs/tord.gif
 ----------------------+-------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudentordm cudfnTord cudlnMalmgren cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.15 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets!
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets!
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 95 20:45:57 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Cameron Randale Bass <crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> writes:
 
>     Not astonishingly, I don't send anyone to Parker Hydraulics to 
>     test their devices before I buy one.  On the other hand a 
 
If the machine you buy from them costs $10,000 to $20,000 and you do not
test it in advance then you are extremely irresponsible. Naturally, if you
have already purchased that model and you know it works and it fits your
needs, that's different, but if this is the first time you are buying one,
and you accept it sight unseen and pay in advance, you are asking for trouble.
I would never in a million years hire you for a purchasing department.
 
>     free trial period would be quit nice.  When can I expect to receive
>     my 'Grigg's device' for a free trial?
 
Don't be silly; you are not a potential customer. And if you were, you would
have to discuss that matter with Hydro Dynamics, not me. I have nothing to do
with the company; I do not represent them in any way, and I do not know what
their sales policies are. I do know that they have installed units on a trial
basis before.
 
>     Jed, you're really going to have to decide whether this Griggs stuff
>     is easy or hard and stick with that line.  
 
Do not be ridiculous. It is absolutely inconcievable that *I* would spend
$10,000 on any first-time equipment without either testing it in advance or
getting it on a partial payment, trial basis. If I had any use for the a Griggs
device I would demand those terms. If I bought a $10,000 gadget from *IBM*
I would demand those terms! Nobody in his right mind plunks down ten grand
without taking many precautions. At least, nobody in private industry does.
People working for Uncle Sam, or for the State of Virginia piss away money
all the time in ridiculous ways. That's because it is not their money -- they
steal it from the taxpayers, so they don't care whether it is wasted or not.
 
As for "this Griggs stuff" -- it is easy for me, but quite impossible for you,
because you wear blinders that do not let you understand even the simplest
and most obvious truths.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.16 / Josef Frisch /  Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: frisch@hebe.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Josef C. Frisch)
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, 16 Feb 1995 16:52:05 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

Robert, 
Thanks very much for posting the data to WWW. The data, of course, looks quite
reasonable, although I'm a machine physicist, and not really qualified to
evaluate the data. I can see, however, that the data my look confusing to someone
who does not understand the measurements. Another (very secondary, but readable)
source for neutrino interaction data is given in "Physics Vade Mecum", which
references "Review of Particle Properties, PHys Lett 204B, 1988". This gives a
graph of neutrino cross section vs energy from about 10GeV to 200Gev. The data is
from 10 different experiments, done at different sites. All of the data (above
about 20GeV, where things get noisy) falls along a line giving a linear increase
in cross section with energy. 

Maybe it would help in your "discussion" if you show a plot of total cross
section vs energy. The phase space may be confusing. 



--- Joe Frisch ----

Fnord Don't forget the secret physicists meeting next week. Fnord
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenfrisch cudfnJosef cudlnFrisch cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.15 /  JRusi /  Re: Helium III (3) Bedtime Stories...
     
Originally-From: jrusi@aol.com (JRusi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Helium III (3) Bedtime Stories...
Date: 15 Feb 1995 00:42:10 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

check out ad astra may/june 1994

if you find anything else please let me know!

tony rusi
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjrusi cudlnJRusi cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.15 / Tim Mirabile /  Griggs?
     
Originally-From: Tim Mirabile <tim@mail.htp.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs?
Date: 15 Feb 1995 21:36:31 GMT
Organization: HTP Services 516-757-0210

What is this Griggs device?  Does it have anything
to do with fusion?  I read all the articles here but
I'm only getting bits and pieces from all the
discussion.  Is there a place I can download a more
complete description?

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudentim cudfnTim cudlnMirabile cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.16 / Paul Koloc /  Re: "Hot" Fusion
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Hot" Fusion
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 08:27:12 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3gkdb8$3hc@usenet.rpi.edu> tuttt@rpi.edu writes:
>>Since this newsgroup was specifically created for the discussion of
>>cold fusion, any fission of the newsgroup should work the other way
>>round. If you want a separate group for hot fusion topics only, set
>>up a RFD/CFV.

>Actually if this group was created to discuss "cold" fusion, it
should have been labeled as such a group from the start (I.E. sci.physic
.cold.fusion). The fact is, ALL known forms of fusion reactions
(proton-proton, carbon-cycle, triple-alpha, D-D, D-He, D-T, etc.)
occur at temperatures measured in thousands of Kelvins and are
therefore "hot" by default. The so-called "cold" fusion is a hypothesis
only. It has not been shown to exist. Sorry, guys. 

>No hard feelings,but I'm not backing down on this one. 

BTB, I posted hot stuff to this group at its inception.  

Your back down statement doesn't sound very open minded..  kinda of 
like a muley Missourian...?? Hot temperature connotes (though not on 
slate), that a Maxwellian distribution is involved.  However, that is 
the sense I get from your preachings.  

In any event, many of these reactions were induced by particle beams of
one of the fuel species hitting into a "solid" target containing the
other fuel species.  Now since the "lateral" motion of these flying
particles did not match their beam velocity, then one might suspect 
that they were laterally cool and "monovectorially" hot.  Well that's
one of of six for your side.   
Some of those reactions are "aneutronic", meaning fusion/fission 
reactions.  These, therefore, get by God's prohibition: 
            " What God hath joined let no man put asunder!"  
That was in the days when man was a handed beast and it was NOT 
referring to the male of the species.  

Hmmmmm! and an engineer too.  might have expected as much from a physicist,
but an engineer??   My.. my.. weather MUST be chilly up there.  
>______________________________________________________________________________
>Teresa E Tutt                   |
>tuttt@rpi.edu                /\ | /\
>EPHY '96                    (  >X<  )          "Life need not be easy
>                             \/ | \/             provided it is not empty"
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.16 / Paul Koloc /  Re: "Hot" Fusion
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Hot" Fusion
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 08:42:19 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <USE2PCB36966930@brbbs.brbbs.com> mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com writes:
>tuttt@cii3116-01.its.rpi.edu (Teresa E. Tutt) writes:
> 
>-> The fact is, ALL known forms of fusion reactions (proton-proton, carbon-cycl
>-> triple-alpha, D-D, D-He, D-T, etc.) occur at temperatures measured in
>-> thousands of Kelvins and are therefore "hot" by default. The so-called "cold
>-> fusion is a hypothesis only. It has not been shown to exist. Sorry, guys.
> 
>Wrong. Ever heard of muon catalyzed fusion?  It is cold fusion, not hot fusion
>and has been proven to exist, and is accepted by virtually everyone in the
>know.

Well now I wouldn't exactly call it "coldfusion", I mean it certainly wouldn't
be near the temperatures below the melt point of aluminum.  

>-> No hard feelings,but I'm not backing down on this one.

>Pretty arrogant attitude for someone who is wrong.
 
Gee, I don't think she's all wrong, especially since your proven mf 
existence, doesn't exactly work in any garages around of which I know.  
That is Marshall, it's not exacly commonly attempted or practiced.   
Besides she did mention heat and the reacting fuel pairs, so technically
I don't think you .. .   well.. . will win the law suit.  

Let's call it cold fusion cold if -- below 1 ev
Let's call it cool fusion if      -- between 1 ev and 50 KeV  (ITER)
Let's call it hot fusion if it's  -- above 50 or 100 KeV (PLASMAK burners).   

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

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.15 /  jedrothwell@de /  A Precise Description of the Over Unity Calculation
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A Precise Description of the Over Unity Calculation
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 95 11:14:14 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Various people here asserted that the Griggs verification experiment is
terribly complex and subtle. They have implied that it would weeks to do
properly and that it takes expert knowledge to analyze the results. For
example, B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton) writes:
 
     "I have no wish to be associated _in any way_ with a group of
     enthusiastic scientists trying to quantify and write a detailed
     scientific report on the Griggs device after such a brief period of
     setting up, calibrations, and measurements."
 
And, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman), has suggested:
 
     ". . . the most important thing you can get from Griggs is a precise
     description of exactly what he does to compute an over unity performance
     (for each of the independent ways in which he does so). Ideally, this
     would be a logical description coupled to a step by step demonstration,
     from start to finish, from setting up the instruments through plugging
     the final numbers through the calculator.
 
     The point his: the most important thing you can do in your visit is
     probably discover exactly what the _claim_ is. Since, in all reality,
     his device does not produce more energy than it puts out, it is all an
     artifact of a specific procedure, and so that procedure---being one of
     zillions possible---has to be spelled out precisely, preferably beyond
     verbal/logical description, and instead at the operational level: i.e.
     here's exactly what I do to produce this over unity calculation."
 
This implies that the experimental protocol is unique, difficult to
understand, and that the results have many different potential interpretations
("zillions").
 
These statements are all absurd nonsense. The Griggs experiment is not
complicated; it is same type of test that has been routinely performed in
factories and houses millions of times since the beginning of the industrial
revolution. There is one and only one possible interpretation of the results.
If Merriman honestly does not understand the level of physics this experiment
calls for, he should go back and review some junior high school physics
textbooks, and he should look of the definition of "BTU" in any dictionary.
Every single piece of information and every algorithm used by Griggs is
spelled out in any introductory physics textbook. You need only one conversion
factor, which you will find in any dictionary, almanac or encyclopedia. Any
qualified HVAC repairman or engineer on earth could perform this test in one
hour with absolute confidence. Countless people perform similar routine tests
all over the world every day.
 
I will grant that some of the advanced calibration procedures are tricky, but
if we simply assume that the Dranetz meter is working to within, say, +/-5%,
then there can be no question the excess heat is real. That is a safe
assumption, because General Electric's specifications indicate it is much
better than 5%. Furthermore, nobody here has ever given any serious technical
reason to suspect the Dranetz may be wrong. We have seen endless arm waving
and hysterical nonsense, but nobody has given a quantitative, scientific
reason to doubt that the Dranetz and the dynamometer are working according to
specifications. The only reason it would take anyone longer than an hour to
perform this test is this: the results are so astounding that any rational
person will want to do it again a few times and come back the next day for
another look.
 
Merriman makes a false analogy to programming:
 
     ". . . an analogy would be debugging a piece of code: when there seems
     to be a bug in performance, I don't convene a panel of specialists in
     VLSI, magnetic media, operating systems, compiler design, condensed
     matter, cosmic rays, etc...Even though in principle it could be due to
     any one of those effects. Instead, I just methodically keep reproducing
     the bug, while simplifying and isolating the buggy behavior until the
     cause manifests itself. It doesn't hurt to have another person around,
     familiar with the problem to bounce ideas off of---but beyond that, its
     just careful, methodical, rational testing. The most important thing to
     have is time for many iterations, and freedom to simplify things as much
     as possible, change out potentially defective components, do blank runs,
     etc."
 
Here is better analogy. What we have is eight line program written in BASIC.
This is the sort of program you will find in any book about computers written
any time in the last 30 years. Any programmer who glances at it will see that
it is correct and that the results speak for themselves. What we have in this
forum are ten thousand maniacs waving their arms and yelling that LET
statements and IF ... THEN statements never work, and that an eight line
computer program is too difficult to be understood or debugged. It is far too
complicated, they assert, even though it happens to be methodology you will
find in every textbook ever written on the subject.
 
To put this in concrete terms, here is the a "precise description" of "this
over unity calculation" that Merriman asks for, spelled out in all its glory,
in BASIC. He will find confirmation of this in any dictionary. Here is the
program that the skeptics claim is so complicated it defeats Modern Science.
If Merriman and the others here truly do not understand this level of science
(or programming), then I am appalled at their ignorance.
 
10 INPUT "Dranetz Kilowatt hours reading? ", DRANETZ
20 INPUT "          Starting temperature? ", START
30 INPUT "             Final temperature? ", FINAL
40 INPUT "     Weight of water in pounds? ", POUNDS
50 LET DELTAT = FINAL - START
60 LET BTU = DELTAT * POUNDS
70 LET ENTHALPY = BTU * .0002928
80 IF ENTHALPY > DRANETZ THEN PRINT "There is excess heat!"
 
Go ahead and debug that! Show us the error.
 
(Note: I apologize for using such a barbaric computer language. Since every
DOS computer comes equipped with BASIC and every person over 30 who ever
studied programming must have seen some BASIC programs, I thought I should
stick with this.)
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.17 / Tom Droege /  Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets
Date: 17 Feb 1995 00:14:57 GMT
Organization: fermilab

Seems to me that buying a device where the needle points to "over unity"
is absolutely worthless from a scientific viewpoint.  The idea of 
science is that someone describes an experiment *and the theory behind
the result*.  A pretty loose definition of "theory" is allowed.  Then
based on the "theory" another experimenter builds his version of the 
apparatus based on the proposed theory - i.e. squishing D into the 
Pd lattice gets em close enough to fuse.  

Exact copies of an astounding device are of little use.  There has to
be some concept of what is going on so that a different implementation
can be made based on the concept.  Then there is power in a replication
of result.  

I say build your own from the description in the published paper (or
after taking a trip to Mecca or Rome or whatever to see a demo).

Tom Droege

In article <3huhgg$spr@deadmin.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) says:
>
>In article <9502151613.AA26798@pilot1.cl.msu.edu> blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A  
>Blue) writes:
>> Some of you seen to have missed the point when I offered to
>> sell you a Griggs Device demonstration kit which was untested.
>> 
>> I don't know how you spend your money (or time), but I would
>> assume that in most cases you would spend it where you have
>> some reasonable expectation of receiving something of value
>> in return.  If a Mr. Huffman offers to sell a test version
>> of the Griggs device what do you expect to receive?  In what
>> way will a Huffman device be better than the version I have
>> offered?
>> 
>
>The whole point is that Huffman tentatively claims that his version 
>of the device also measures out at well over unity. Assuming he sticks
>to the claim, and Jed and Griggs, say, come to believe its the same
>effect, buying one would be a convenient way to invesitigate it 
>in the privacy of ones own lab.
>
>
>--
>Barry Merriman
>UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
>UCLA Dept. of Math
>merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
>
>
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Feb 17 04:37:05 EST 1995
------------------------------
