1995.03.30 / mitchell swartz /  News on cf in March 20 C&EN
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: News on cf in March 20 C&EN
Subject: Re: News on cf in March 20 C&EN
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 02:33:52 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <kjSOYe200iV1E593sy@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: News on cf in March 20 C&EN
Paul Karol <pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

  > thanks for posting that further evidence of obstruction to information
  > dissemination in this chemical/solid-state/nuclear field.
 =  "What ARE you talking about?  My understanding is that there were to be
 = two papers submitted on "cold fusion".  "
 
   Thanks for the interesting comments, but what are YOU talking about?
   First, you refer to two papers    Only two?
  How could three (3) papers have been withdrawn?  to wit:
  > = "According to ACS officials, three papers have been
  > =officially
  > =withdrawn, including one from Pons and Fleischmann"

 Why is your understanding at variation with the Press Release? 
   [thanks in advance.]

I called and spoke with both Dr. Kohn and a few individuals at ACS.  
Dr. Kohn reminds us that Dr. Bockris was given short shrift last
year.  [And who here does not realize and remember that P+F
 have been totally mistreated. ]
 ACS has not released its statement on the cf matter yet,
 but states it will in the next few days. 

     -----------------------        
= The article in C&EN noted that after there was an
 =AGREEMENT on accepting the two "cnf" papers, something on the order of
 =another dozen appeared along with what amounted to a demand for a
 =symposium by the cnf constituency.  

Demand?  What was the nature of this demand?   hostages?  threat?
  Please be specific when, and if, you get your story together.
 According to Dr. Kohn there was no demand but only several
abstracts presented.  Was that really threatening?
     Thought you people liked science.

     -----------------------        
 ="Not only can a symposium not be
 =into the schedule, but now the number of papers outside the
 =pre-organized symposia exceeded the capacity of the "general" symposium.

 Exactly who are you kidding?  There are >5000 papers [5600 by one count]
and some 30 divisions of topics!!
  How would 3 papers effect 5600?    even 14? 
    not a large percentage is it.    And they were science/chemistry papers.
  

 = The suggestion was made that rather than restricting the number of
 =papers accepted, something we DID NOT think was in the interest of
 =disemination of information, that the poster session, with its large
 =capacity and much bigger audience draw, be used.  
   
   Really?  As your own ACS office reported:
    > =The assignment of the papers to the poster
    > =session was a surprise and 'has had something of a disastrous effect,' Kohn
    > =tells C&EN"  ... "According to ACS officials, three papers have been
    > =officially withdrawn, including one from Pons and Fleischmann"
  Clearly not in the best interest of disemination of information, was it?
  And given how ACS reportedly treated Dr. Bockris last year,
by purportedly preventing his coordinating participation there,
much might be gained by courtesy, right? 
 {Could you please comment on those alleged reports re Dr. Bockris?}

Now for the numeric issues.  Much of what you post seems
reasonable but there are some obvious questions.
These few cf papers apparently moved  to the poster
session.  And that is out of 5600 non-cf papers!!  what is the big deal in
letting a few more motivated, passionate scientists/chemists speak.

     -----------------------        
   =  "I, for one, look forward to visiting
   =those remaining poster presentations and regret the stuffy reneging by a
   =few unjustifiably disgruntled cnfers."
   =Paul J. Karol
    =Vice Chairman, DNCT

  "In a free and republican government, you cannot restrain 
the voice of the multitude.  Every man will speak as he thinks."
  [George Washington to Lafayette (9/1/1778)]

   The public, actually misses out any
attempt to filter out papers in this field, don't we?
 How many papers will actually be read in this field out of your 5600
papers, sir?  Please do let us know at your earliest convenience.
 We will stay tuned.
     -----------------------        

Furthermore, for the record ----
  the filtration has nothing to do with reproducibility, does it?
because we note there may be a topic (or division) on earthquake and landslide 
prediction at the upcoming meeting.

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



cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.30 / mitchell swartz /  News on cf in March 20 C&EN -- heavywatergate again?
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: News on cf in March 20 C&EN -- heavywatergate again?
Subject: Re: News on cf in March 20 C&EN
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 02:36:55 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <3lc5va$cru@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: News on cf in March 20 C&EN
Richard Schultz schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu) wrote:

  >=[Gustave] "Kohn admits he told the [cf] researchers he approached that they
  >=would be presenting oral papers.  The assignment of the papers to the poster
  >=session was a surprise and 'has had something of a disastrous effect,' Kohn
  >=tells C&EN"  ... "According to ACS officials, three papers have been 
  >=officially withdrawn, including one from Pons and Fleischmann"
 =Thanks for posting further evidence that you are totally without a clue.
 =Kohn (who was trying to organize the session) told people they would
 =be giving oral presentations *beofre* he checked with the Program
 =Chairperson to find out if it was okay.  In fact, allowing the 
 =poster sessions was a fairly gracious move on her part.  

 You appear to be lecturing again without a clue, Richard.  
To get a better understanding of this matter
I called and spoke with both Dr. Kohn and ACS.  
Dr. Kohn reminds us that Dr. Bockris was given short shrift last
year.  [And who here does not realize that P+F have been totally
mistreated. ]
 ACS has not released its statement on the cf matter yet,
 but states it will in the next few days. 
However, note: These few papers are out of 5600 papers!!

  What is the big deal.    3 (or even 14) out of >5000.

  Best wishes.


cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.30 / mitchell swartz /  News on cf in March 20 C&EN -- men in black are unlikely
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: News on cf in March 20 C&EN -- men in black are unlikely
Subject: Re: News on cf in March 20 C&EN
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 02:39:10 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <3lcnnr$ea1@saba.info.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: News on cf in March 20 C&EN
Scott Le Grand [legrand@tesla.mbi.ucla.edu] wrote:

=What exactly is lost by changing one's presentation to a poster from
=a lecture?  For reference, I've given ~5 talks at scientific conferences, and 
=I've done ~8 posters as well.  I'm even giving a talk at the April meeting of the
=ACS (not cold-fusion related in any way), and my abstract was submitted about
=a year ago although I don't remember the exact date, damned missing time. 
=A talk consists of giving a lecture for 25 minutes and then taking 5 minutes 
=of (usually simple) questions.  In contrast, a poster session consists of taking 
=the figures from your talk and adding some descriptive text so that anyone can 
=understand your research (ideally) just by reading your poster.  In addition, the
=presenter is supposed to stand by their poster for several hours describing it 
=to all who are interested and field lengthy, detailed questions...

  Good points.  It matters to some people, and reluctance to poster sessions
may increase in importance  with the age of the presenter,
 and distance (some of the papers were reportedly from France
and Japan).  You are from CA, right?

=But there's no cover-up here...  No men in black...  No secretive government
=agencies...  Anyone with clinching evidence for cold fusion can present it
=as well, if not better, with a poster...  Anyone whose evidence will
=distintegrate in the daylight like a vampire is in for a rough ride...
=Scott

  Doesn't seem like you follow the literature on this matter.
  Best wishes.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 / Phil Andrews /  Re: Fusioneers, exit right was Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: Phil Andrews <pa0q+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusioneers, exit right was Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 17:07:30 -0500
Organization: Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

>From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
...
> Seriuosly, though, I talked with a friend
>who went to Supercomputing '94 last year and his remark was that the vast
>majority of the new and neat applications were biological/medical. Things
>like CFD for the heart.

I can't resist replying to this. Your friend probably saw either the
Animation or Virtual Reality exhibit (or maybe we only sent that to
SIGGRAPH) of Peskin and McQueen's CFD model for a pig heart. Both
exhibits were made by my group, and I got my Ph.D. from Princeton Plasma
Physics Lab in '82. So you see, wherever you want to go, Plasma
Physicists are already there ! Seriously, though, I think most who
jumped ship went into Computers, although some went to Business School !

-Phil Andrews, Scientific Visualization Coordinator, Pittsburgh
Supercomputing Center
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudfnPhil cudlnAndrews cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.30 / Vertner Vergon /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: vergon@netcom.com (Vertner Vergon)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.
stro,sci.edu,sci.energy,sci.engr,sci.logic,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.phys
cs.computational.fluid-dynamics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusio
,sci.physics.particle,sci.research
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 09:58:29 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <1995Mar18.153200.15612@dxcern.cern.ch>,
Pete McNamara <mcnamara@vxaluw.cern.ch> wrote:
>
>In article <vergonD5HGDs.n11@netcom.com>, vergon@netcom.com (Vertner
>Vergon) writes:
>
>>This is an interesting thread -- with an interesting twist.
>>
>>I published a book in 1976 [ modestly :-)  ] entitled Relativity
>>Beyond
>>Einstein that contained my Dual Velocity Theory of Relativity.
>>
>>In it I maintained that a better relativity theory could be had by
>>generalizing Newtonian mechanics (I termed it "creating a bridge
>>between
>>NM and relativistic mechanics").
>>
>>Actually, in the beginning, I thought I was going to come up with 
>>something very different than Einstein's SR. As things went along I
>>began 
>>to see that I was developing a parallel theory. Certain reviewers were
>>>telling me that I was saying the same thing in a different way.
>>
>>But when I finished there were certain differences. For example,
>>in SR we have the concept of "relativistic mass" that creates quite 
>>a bit of controversy and "un-understanding" -- or *mis*understanding 
>>if you please, to wit:
>>
>>               Momentum is given as P = gamma m, which is often
>>written
>>   
>>                                         mv
>>                                    P = ----  
>>                                          R
>>    (R = Lorentz transformation)           
>>
>>It is always assumed that R modifies m, creating the unexplainable --
>>often 
>>causing problems -- 'relativitic mass'.
>>
>>As an inherent part of my theory R modifies v, not m. This gives us an
>>invariant mass.
>>
>
>But of course, you must use the normal, unmodified v to calculate
>R.  This use of R also does not apply to energy.
>
>Thus, it appears to be nothing but a word game.
>
>Pete

Appearnces can be deceiving.  Observe:


 v                                            _______________
--- = V                V/R = V_o             /
 c                                          /       V_o^2
                                           /    ------------    =  V
                                        2 /     1 + V_o^2
                                       \ /

                1
     --------------------  = R
           |           |
      sqrt | 1 + V_o^2 |
           |           | 



As to R applying to energy,   E.K = mc^2 ( 1/R -1 )

and E = mc^2/R




You know, you might consider putting you ego to one side, read things
with an open mind -- and who knows, you might learn something.

Putting other people down does NOT elevate you.


Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre 
minds.    

                                                --- Einstein
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenvergon cudfnVertner cudlnVergon cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.30 / Vertner Vergon /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: vergon@netcom.com (Vertner Vergon)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.logic,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physi
s.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 10:36:26 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <3l4elq$lvt@acasun.eckerd.edu>,
Bryan Wallace <wallace@acasun.eckerd.edu> wrote:

MUCH DELETED



>   In Chapter 4 of my book I give an example of the open arrogance and lack of
>objectivity and integrity of the modern physics politicians that tend to
>resist change to more realistic theories, I quote from the published
>retirement address of the particle physicist Robert R. Wilson, the 1985
>president of the American Physical Society:
>
>    Just suppose, even though it is probably a logical impossibility, some
>  smart aleck came up with a simple, self-evident, closed theory of
>  everything.  I--and so many others--have had a perfectly wonderful life
>  pursuing the will-o'-the-wisp of unification.  I have dreamed of my
>  children, their children and their children's children all having this
>  same beautiful experience.
>    All that would end.
>    APS membership would drop precipitously.  Fellow members, could we
>  afford this catastrophe?  We must prepare a crisis-management plan for
>  this eventuality, however remote.  First we must voice a hearty denial. 
>  Then we should ostracize the culprit and hold up for years any
>  publication by the use of our well-practiced referees.[28 p.30]

At first I thought you were too hard on him. I thought he was speaking
humorously. But then I realized, the system REALLY works that way.

So I guess the final conclusion is that "truth is oft' spoken in jest".

The fct is ..."some smart aleck" ... has come "up with a simple, 
self-evident closed theory of everything".

I posted it here for several weeks --  ON THE QUANTUM AS A PHYSICAL ENTITY.

The silence was deafening.

I've news for you, we don't need  Robert R. Wilson -- or the APS to
suppress anything new. The mental inertia out there in never never
land is equal to that of the galaxy. I had supposed that exposing my 
theory on the net would circumnavigate the Wilsons, et al and that
it would be given a fair shake. Forget it.


A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and 
making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually 
die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.         

                                                 --- Max Planck

For a better world                V.V.  Model Maker




>   My book is now archived in many Internet libraries and can be found by
>using Gopher and World Wide Web and will be available from Project Gutenberg
>archives and on their CDROM's.  The free standard 311KB ASCII version can be
>obtained by anonymous ftp from ftp.germany.eu.net in the directory
>/pub/books/wallace by using "get farce.txt".  The file in the directory is in
>a compressed form and called farce.txt.gz but if you leave off the .gz the
>system will send you the uncompressed text.  Unix computer systems have a
>command called "gunzip" that will uncompress the .gz format.  The
>HTML/World-Wide Web Hypertext version of the book is available via
>
>URL:http://www.Germany.EU.net/books/farce/farce.html
>
>If one prefers to obtain a copy of the ASCII version by email they can send
>the request to my wallace@eckerd.edu address, and if their system has a size
>limit for email I can send the book in segments, with the largest being 55KB
>for Chapter 3.
>
>Bryan
>
>
>
>


cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenvergon cudfnVertner cudlnVergon cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.30 / Vertner Vergon /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: vergon@netcom.com (Vertner Vergon)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.logic,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physi
s.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 10:46:15 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <Pine.ULT.3.90.950327194639.2572B-100000@osuunx.ucc.okstate.edu>,
Ken  <mgmtfxt@osuunx.ucc.okstate.edu> wrote:
>On 27 Mar 1995, Paul Budnik wrote:
>
>> Thomas Clarke (clarke@acme.ucf.edu) wrote:
>> : You should heed Feynman's advice:
>> 
>> : "Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it
>> : 'But how can it be like that?' because you will 'down the drain'
>> : into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped.
>> : Nobody knows how it can be like that."
>> 
>> : (Richard Feynman quoted in Elemental Mind by Nick Herbert)
>> 
>> Perhaps this is one thing in which Feynman was mistaken. Feynman
>> may have been the most intuitively gifted of recent prominient physicists.
>> It seems to me that he took this extrodinary gift and used it
>> to serve a primarily intellectual approach to physics. The result
>> was extrordinary contributions to physics. But perhaps, just perhaps,
>> had he focused more on developing his intuition in its own right rather
>> than as a servant to intellect he could have done more. Perhaps he
>> could have figured out how it can be like that. For it is only intuition
>> and not intellect that can see around corners and beyond the limitations
>> of our current conceptual framework.
>> 
>> Paul Budnik
>> 
>> 
>
>Intuition - Your mind's way of letting you know that it doesn't always 
>have to explain itself. 
>

IMHO intuition is the subconscious mind doing a fantastic job of compiling
data we are not even aware of and then processing it with its own logic.

I have consciously used it to great advantage.



For a better world                V.V.  Model Maker








>
>                              #####  
>                              )0~0(
>+--------------------------oOo--O--oOo--------------------------------------+
>|                              Ken                                          |
>|                                                                           |
>|        "But, how can I know what I think until I hear what I say?"        |
>+___________________________________________________________________________+
>


cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenvergon cudfnVertner cudlnVergon cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.30 / Vertner Vergon /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: vergon@netcom.com (Vertner Vergon)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.logic,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physi
s.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 10:52:42 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <1995Mar27.163818.24479@leeds.ac.uk>,
S Rees <men5sr@sun.leeds.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <3l4elq$lvt@acasun.eckerd.edu> wallace@acasun.eckerd.edu
(Bryan Wallace) writes:
>>
>[lots of interesting stuff deleted]
>>   In Chapter 4 of my book I give an example of the open arrogance and lack of
>>objectivity and integrity of the modern physics politicians that tend to
>>resist change to more realistic theories, I quote from the published
>>retirement address of the particle physicist Robert R. Wilson, the 1985
>>president of the American Physical Society:
>>
>>    Just suppose, even though it is probably a logical impossibility, some
>>  smart aleck came up with a simple, self-evident, closed theory of
>>  everything.  I--and so many others--have had a perfectly wonderful life
>>  pursuing the will-o'-the-wisp of unification.  I have dreamed of my
>>  children, their children and their children's children all having this
>>  same beautiful experience.
>>    All that would end.
>>    APS membership would drop precipitously.  Fellow members, could we
>>  afford this catastrophe?  We must prepare a crisis-management plan for
>>  this eventuality, however remote.  First we must voice a hearty denial. 
>>  Then we should ostracize the culprit and hold up for years any
>>  publication by the use of our well-practiced referees.[28 p.30]
>>
>>
>Americans are known throught the world for their curious lack of a sense
>of irony.  It is strange that a rare attempt by one of their number to use
>it should be so completely misunderstood by another.  The above quote is
>clearly an ironical commentary about how discovering the holy grail of
>physics will destroy the discipline itself; it is a humoruos aside,
>A JOKE.
>
>Apart from that, thanks for an interesting post.  Theoretical physics
>is now getting so far beyond the comprehension of the layman books
>that attempt to clarify the subject are invaluable.
>
>Simon
>
Einstein is reputed to have said that if we really understood the universe,
we could teach it to children.

I believe that.

For a better world                V.V.  Model Maker

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenvergon cudfnVertner cudlnVergon cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.30 / Lee Rudolph /  Re: Grigg visit: Droege found no error
     
Originally-From: lrudolph@panix.com (Lee Rudolph)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Grigg visit: Droege found no error
Date: 30 Mar 1995 07:09:01 -0500
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC

gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:

>while it is true that a lot of people
>have a Victorian understanding of medicine, many more have a Babylonian
>understanding of mathematics.  From a mathematical point of view, the
>gambling industry persuades people to hand over cash in return for
>nothing, simply by making the financial terms of the transactions
>slightly too subtle for them to understand.

Well, I abhor the gambling biz as much as you seem to.  But you
mustn't forget that one component of a devoted gambler's utility
function is (apparently) the adrenalin rush that's part of gambling.
They aren't handing over cash in return for nothing (though they're
handing it over in return for something that I myself would rather
not have--but I'm extraordinarily risk-averse).

I didn't reset the followups because I couldn't think of a better
newsgroup for this discussion.  

Lee Rudolph
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenlrudolph cudfnLee cudlnRudolph cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.30 / Richard Schultz /  Re: News on cf in March 20 C&EN
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: News on cf in March 20 C&EN
Date: 30 Mar 1995 12:27:24 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <D68F4G.874@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

>   First, you refer to two papers    Only two?

To paraphrase your buddy Jed Rothwell, why don't you *read* the damn
article?  According to the program chairman, Kohn originally told her
that there would be *two* papers submitted to the general session for
unsolicited general papers.  That was back in September -- already 
past the deadline.  Then he showed up in November with *14*, which was
more than she had room for even if she accepted no other unsolicited
papers.

You really ought to make some effort to get a clue.  Really.
--
					Richard Schultz

"You don't even have a clue as to which clue you're missing." -- Miss Manners
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.30 / Richard Schultz /  Re: News on cf in March 20 C&EN -- heavywatergate again?
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: News on cf in March 20 C&EN -- heavywatergate again?
Date: 30 Mar 1995 13:03:18 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <D68F9J.9zo@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

> You appear to be lecturing again without a clue, Richard.  

Umm, no, of the two of us, one has read the article in question,
and it clearly was not you.  From other articles you have posted,
I get the impression that you didn't even bother to read the
lengthy excerpt that I posted here.

>Dr. Kohn reminds us that Dr. Bockris was given short shrift last
>year.  [And who here does not realize that P+F have been totally
>mistreated. ]

What happened last year is irrelevant.  If Kohn had contacted her before
the deadline, or proposed the symposium at the proper time and been
dismissed without a hearing, you might have a case.  As it is, she was
more than fair, treating the CF people exactly as she treated the non-CF
people; she decided to give everyone who submitted an opportunity to
present a poster.  That was actually a *better* deal for the CFers than
what Kohn proposed, namely that Baisden pick three or four "best" papers
of the fourteen.  Of course, had she done so, you would have accused her
of censoring CF as well.

As for P&F, their response ("if we can't give an oral presentation, we
won't give any") is occasionally heard, but it certainly smacks of 
childishness regardless of who makes it.  The only exception I can
think of is people whose institution will not cover travel costs unless
the paper is given orally, but these people normally indicate their 
preference at the time they submit their abstract.  In most meetings with
which I have been involved, the default is that if there is no room in the
oral session, you agree to be assigned to a poster session.  As for their
"mistreatment", I am not sure who you think is mistreating them.  I
would think that being given a lab in the south of France to do whatever 
research suits your fancy hardly qualifies as mistreatment.  In any case,
it was their choice to do science by press conference, and to publish
a paper with data that was shoddily collected or (in at least one case)
falsified.  It wastheir choice to threaten with lawsuits people who had
the temerity to question their data collection methods.  P&F are, alas,
a clear case of sowing what you reap.

> ACS has not released its statement on the cf matter yet,
> but states it will in the next few days. 

Is that all they said to you when you contacted them?

>However, note: These few papers are out of 5600 papers!!
>  What is the big deal.    3 (or even 14) out of >5000.

Further evidence of cluelesness on your part.  First of all, the 5600
papers includes posters -- and the CF people were offered the opportunity
to give posters.

As for what is the big deal, the only way one could get three papers
would be by selecting them from the fourteen, and Basiden quite reasonably
said that she had no desire to do that, since she could not judge the
relative quality.  Had there only been three submissions (i.e. if Kohn
had not misled her about his intentions), none of this would have happened.

Have you ever been involved in the programming of a large scientific
conference?  I would guess not from the naivete of your wide-eyed
"What's the big deal?"  This has already been explained to you, and I will
try one more time, although you seem particularly immune to understanding
things that go against your preconceptions.  Conferences like the ACS
meeting are planned years in advance -- for example, the sites for the
ACS meetings are determined at least a decade in advance.  When you set
up the program, you arrange with the convention center and/or hotels
for a certain number of meeting rooms on a certain number of days.  This
is set up far in advance, frequently more than a year before the meeting.  
Then you divvy up those rooms among the various symposia.  Thus, you can't
simply "add another session" four months before the meeting.  There simply
aren't any more rooms available, nor any times in which to have them.
There is more flexibility with poster sessions, because they generally are
not in the same rooms that have oral presentations (so you might be able
to schedule another one if there is a time when no posters are being 
presented), and it's often possible to just squeeze a few more bulletin
boards into the room in which an existing poster session is being held.
Now some divisions such as the Nuclear Chemistry division will set aside
a half-day (4 hours x 0.5 hours/paper = 8 papers maximum) for papers
that don't fit into any of the topics of the particular symposia, but
do fit under the overall interest of the division.  Had there only been
two or three submissions, Baisden probably would have put them there.
But fourteen?  Even if she only picked the "best eight", that would leave
no room for anyone else.  

The reason that you can't just "add fourteen papers" is *precisely because*
there are already 5600 papers being given.  In order to accomodate such a
large number of presentations, the program committees have to run everything
with a large lead time and cannot afford to bend the rules.  For example,
have you considered that there were probably other people whose papers were
rejected due to lack of time?  (I don't know whether that happens at the
ACS meeting, but I do know that at another conference with which I have
been involved, they do in fact reject something like half of the submissions
for oral presentations, although many of the rejects end up in the
poster sessions.)  Now what would happen if each of the hundreds of people
whose request to give an oral presentation had been denied were to say "what's
one more paper -- you already have 5600"?  Have you thought for even a
moment that maybe, just maybe, there is a reason why these conferences have
rules about how papers are to be submitted, and the Kohn & Co. violated 
those rules?

And in any case, you have not really addressed the point that Baisden was
more than fair to the CFers -- she didn't reject their papers, although
she could have; she offered to treat them *exactly the same* as the other
unsolicited papers.  If you think about it, that means that she is being
unfair to the non-CF submissions, since now none of them would be giving
oral presentations either.

If there is some part of the above that you still don't understand, please
let me know, and I will try to clarify it for you.
--
					Richard Schultz

"Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time." -- The French Knight

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.30 / Cindy Lundgren /  Re: A Pt anode doesn't decompose Peroxide
     
Originally-From: lundgrca@esvax.dnet.dupont.com (Cindy Lundgren)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Pt anode doesn't decompose Peroxide
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 12:53:48 GMT
Organization: DuPont all opinions my own

In article <3lcd4c$5qf@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com (John
Logajan) wrote:
> 
> John N. White (jnw@jazzmin.vnet.net) wrote:
> : I have tested Pt which has been used as an anode and found that it
> : does not cause H2O2 to decompose. Presumably this is due to a
> : thin layer that formed on the Pt during electrolysis.
> 
> Well, I'm not one to stand in the way of experimental evidence, so I'll
> have to retract my position on this.
> 
> --
>  - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
>  - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
>  -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -


I missed the original post, but it has been my experience that most noble
metals _will_ decompose hydrogen peroxide. In fact I have used Pt as an
anode in the presence of peroxide (using Pd as a cathode) and there was
violent bubbling at both electrodes upon the addition of peroxide. When I
took the Pt anode out of solution, I could actually see gas evolution off
of the surface. H2O2 is not very stable and is easily reduced to water
(H2O2 +2H+ +2e- ---> 2H2O, E = 1.77V vs NHE), even without the presence of
metals. John, how did you test your anode? The type of oxide formed is
dependent on potential, but most of the oxides have redox potentials such
that they are capable of reducing peroxide. (see table of Pt oxide
Reduction potentials , on pg 322 in "Surface Electrochemistry, A Molecular
Level Approach", J.O'M. Bockris, S. Khan, Plenum Press, 1993).

Cindy Lundgren
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenlundgrca cudfnCindy cudlnLundgren cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.30 / Jurgen Botz /  CF in Bologna
     
Originally-From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CF in Bologna
Date: 30 Mar 1995 14:22:12 GMT
Organization: Mount Holyoke College, MA, USA

Or is it Baloney?  It isn't April 1st yet.  I just read in
clari.tw.science, article <Ritaly-fusionUR45e_5MT@clarinet.com>, that
scientists at the University of Bologna claim to have produced 100 kW
hours of energy from 1 gram of hydrogen.  They also claim to have
detected neutrons and gamma radiation emmited by their
system.  Professor Sergio Focardi of the University of Bologna says
that: ``We have the certainty that the system we are experimenting
with produces energy through a process that is perfectly replicable
and controllable.  Measures based on controlling the external
temperature of the system prove without a shadow of doubt that energy
is emitted from this system.''  The techwire news service got the
information from the AGI news agency.

Is it real, is it another P&F, or is it an early April Fools joke?
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjbotz cudfnJurgen cudlnBotz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.30 / mitchell swartz /  News on cf in March 20 C&EN -- heavywatergate again?
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: News on cf in March 20 C&EN -- heavywatergate again?
Subject: Re: News on cf in March 20 C&EN -- heavywatergate again?
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 14:25:22 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <3lea6m$npg@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: News on cf in March 20 C&EN -- heavywatergate again?
Richard Schultz [schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu) wrote:

   >Dr. Kohn reminds us that Dr. Bockris was given short shrift last
   >year.  [And who here does not realize that P+F have been totally
   >mistreated. ]
= What happened last year is irrelevant. 

  It may not be.  Such putative treatment would not have occurred if this was
piezoelectricity, would it?   Where there is a pattern, your hand-waving
excuses become increasingly irrelevant.


= If Kohn had contacted her before
=the deadline, or proposed the symposium at the proper time and been
=dismissed without a hearing, [... one side of the story ....]

  Please address the issue, or state your exact relationship in this
 for clarity.    Thanks.



=As for P&F, their response ("if we can't give an oral presentation, we
=won't give any") is occasionally heard, but it certainly smacks of 
=childishness regardless of who makes it. 

   Is this an actual quote in this case?


= The only exception I can
=think of is people whose institution will not cover travel costs unless
=the paper is given orally, but these people normally indicate their 
=preference at the time they submit their abstract.  In most meetings with
=which I have been involved, the default is that if there is no room in the
=oral session, you agree to be assigned to a poster session. 

True.



   > ACS has not released its statement on the cf matter yet,
   > but states it will in the next few days. 
=Is that all they said to you when you contacted them?

  No, one woman stated that she was told to say nothing about 
this subject. "can't comment on it" was the phrase used.
About the other subjects --  they were great.  As always.


    >However, note: These few papers are out of 5600 papers!!
    >  What is the big deal.    3 (or even 14) out of >5000.
=Further evidence of cluelesness on your part.  First of all, the 5600
=papers includes posters -- and the CF people were offered the opportunity
=to give posters.

  How many posters exactly, since you know so much.  We can work out
the info from that.  Thanks in advance.



=Have you ever been involved in the programming of a large scientific
=conference?  I would guess not from the naivete of your wide-eyed
="What's the big deal?"  This has already been explained to you, and I will
=try one more time, although you seem particularly immune to understanding
=things that go against your preconceptions.  Conferences like the ACS
=meeting are planned years in advance -- for example, the sites for the
=ACS meetings are determined at least a decade in advance.  When you set
=up the program, you arrange with the convention center and/or hotels
=for a certain number of meeting rooms on a certain number of days.  This
=is set up far in advance, frequently more than a year before the meeting.  
=Then you divvy up those rooms among the various symposia.  Thus, you can't
=simply "add another session" four months before the meeting.  There simply
=aren't any more rooms available, nor any times in which to have them.
=  [zip]
=The reason that you can't just "add fourteen papers" is *precisely because*
=there are already 5600 papers being given.  In order to accomodate such a
=large number of presentations, the program committees have to run everything
=with a large lead time and cannot afford to bend the rules.  For example,
=have you considered that there were probably other people whose papers were
=rejected due to lack of time?  (I don't know whether that happens at the
=ACS meeting, but I do know that at another conference with which I have
=been involved, they do in fact reject something like half of the submissions
=for oral presentations, although many of the rejects end up in the
=poster sessions.)  Now what would happen if each of the hundreds of people
=whose request to give an oral presentation had been denied were to say "what's
=one more paper -- you already have 5600"?  Have you thought for even a
=moment that maybe, just maybe, there is a reason why these conferences have
=rules about how papers are to be submitted, and the Kohn & Co. violated 
=those rules?

  You certainly seem to be knowledgeable on this for the American Chemical
Society.  Here is what another American said about such long-winded
attempts to censor based upon martinet theory:

  "In a free and republican government, you cannot restrain 
the voice of the multitude.  Every man will speak as he thinks."
  [George Washington to Lafayette (9/1/1778)]


 There are several sides to this story, and the grief which the science
community heaped on people who merely reported a new
material science is unwarranted.

  Best wishes.
   

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.30 / mitchell swartz /  News of cf in March 20 C&EN
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: News of cf in March 20 C&EN
Subject: Re: News on cf in March 20 C&EN
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 14:26:32 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 In Message-ID: <3le83c$jsq@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: News on cf in March 20 C&EN
Richard Schultz [schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu) wrote:

 =To paraphrase your buddy Jed Rothwell, why don't you *read* the damn
 =article?  

 To paraphrase Jed, whom is not a "buddy" but whom I have only
met at cf conferences and meetings and lectures,
"I contacted the principals to obtain the two different sides of the
story because I do not trust newpaper reports"

 =According to the program chairman, Kohn originally told her
 =that there would be *two* papers submitted to the general session for
 =unsolicited general papers.  That was back in September -- already 
 =past the deadline.  Then he showed up in November with *14*, which was
 =more than she had room for even if she accepted no other unsolicited
 =papers.

 There are several sides to this story.
  Best wishes.


cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.30 / Lawrence Mead /  Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
     
Originally-From: lrmead@whale.st.usm.edu (Lawrence R. Mead)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment,sci.
nergy,sci.materials
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
Date: 30 Mar 1995 14:29:18 GMT
Organization: University of Southern Mississippi

Akira Kawasaki (aki@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <3kc9to$hrd@server.st.usm.edu> lrmead@whale.st.usm.edu (Lawrence R. 
: Mead) writes: 
:        
: >How about the ratio of *repeatable results* confirmed/ public dollars?
: >
: Articles 19022 and 19023 posted here on the Internet 
: sci.physics.fusion newsgroup makes for interesting responses to your 
: question. Of course there are others but it is not in my capacity to 
: rattle them off readily. Perhaps your perusal of any number of cold 
: fusion publications available may convince you of repeatability of 
: excess heat beyond chemical heat, internationally. And the question that 
: arises are, if beyond chemical heat, where is it coming from except by 
: nuclear processes and by what mechanism in a solid state enviroment?  
: -AK- 

I remain skeptical. Excess heat does not imply fusion as you point out.
So far, I do not see compelling evidence of room temperature fusion in
the *mainstream* physics literature. When - and if - such evidence does
appear, it will make Phys. Rev. Letters shortly thereafter, I will wager.

--

Lawrence R. Mead (lrmead@whale.st.usm.edu) | ESCHEW OBFUSCATION !
Associate Professor of Physics             | ESPOUSE ELUCIDATION !

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenlrmead cudfnLawrence cudlnMead cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.30 / Richard Blue /  Re: What to do with $700
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What to do with $700
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 15:54:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

As one of the contributors,  I have gotten my money's worth.  Tom
Droege made the trip to Georgia, did what he had proposed to do, and
we have gotten our report.  Our little "residual cash" just demonstrates
the our present communications links have not merged electronic funds
transfers into the Internet.  As for my vote:  Tom should do whatever
he likes with the money.  I suggest a gift for his long-suffering wife.
Can you imagine what cold fusion has done to her household?  I
renounce all claims to my contribution and to the funds remaining.

Having said that, I still can't resist commenting on the idea of awarding
a prize for cold fusion research.  Haven't we yet learned that defining
a "valid result" as it relates to cold fusion claims is next to impossible?
What we have seen since that fateful day in 1989 certainly demonstrates that
claims for the generation of excess heat are a dime a dozen.  Of course most
such claims don't have a leg to stand on, but how are you going to screen
out all the really rotten examples of bad calorimetery?  I don't believe
we should do anything to encourage another wave of experimentation by
people who have nothing new to offer by way of experimental skills, resources,
or knowledge.

I have always maintained the position that evidence for a nuclear reaction
process should involve direct detection of a reaction product or the release
of "energy beyond chemistry" before it is degraded to the level of the thermal
background.  Cold fusion advocates have simply had to fabricate rather
weak excuses for the nonexistance of any direct evidence of unusually large
energy releases while claiming that indirect, weak observations based on
signals that, by definition, can be generated by non-nuclear sources.
As for making an award for a new observation that provides solid evidence
for a nuclear reaction process, there is lots of data that says its not
going to happen witnin the context of what is now known as cold fusion
research.  I think the prize money would likely remain in the bank until we
have all gone to our rewards, and the State of Illinois would claim the
account.

As for the Griggs affair, the best use to be made of the Droege Report is for
instruction in the importance of proper methods for doing science.  I clues are
there for those willing and able to read them that:  (1) James Griggs has no
evidence to support a claim for overunity operation.  (2)James Griggs has no
workable plan for obtaining such evidence.

Those of you who think "there must be something going on" are simply missing
the lessons provided by 6 years of CF investigations.  In Grigg's case, he
starts with a gadget that just about has to work at the 100% efficiency level,
and then tries to "improve" on that by rather mindless, undirected diddling
about.  His problem is that he probably has no way of recognizing whether
he has made an improvement or just a bigger error in the measurements.  Now
that's the kindest spin one can put on Grigg's efforts.  He is sincere but
misguided.

There is another side of James Griggs to be considered, however.  He has a
device for sale.  The salesman's art frequently involves encouraging the
would-be customer to assume something about the product that is never actually
claimed.  Have any of you bought that heat sink for defrosting hamburgers?
Maybe it operates by cold fusion.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.30 / Paul Karol /  Re: News on cf in March 20 C&EN
     
Originally-From: Paul Karol <pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: News on cf in March 20 C&EN
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 09:59:29 -0500
Organization: Chemistry, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.sci.physics.fusion: 30-Mar-95 News on cf in March
20 C&EN by mitchell swartz@world.st 
>  =  "What ARE you talking about?  My understanding is that there were to be
>  = two papers submitted on "cold fusion".  "
>  
>    Thanks for the interesting comments, but what are YOU talking about?
>    First, you refer to two papers    Only two?
>   How could three (3) papers have been withdrawn?  to wit:
>   > = "According to ACS officials, three papers have been
>   > =officially
>   > =withdrawn, including one from Pons and Fleischmann"

**********************

Let's see now.  It appears from several posts that not only have you not
read the C&EN article that stimulated your original diatribe, but you
are not paying attention to the syntax of E-mail messages.  I noted that
there "were to be two papers".  I was being generous in my original
message, but the implication was that a bait and switch maneuver was
tried.  Two papers were dangled and then 14 were submitted.  That's how
you explain three papers being withdrawn when "only two were to be
submitted".  I hate to get personal, but you seem to be having technical
difficulties.  I await your  riposte.

Paul J. Karol
Nuclear Chemist

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudfnPaul cudlnKarol cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.30 / Harry Conover /  Re: Is this question forbidden?
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is this question forbidden?
Date: 30 Mar 1995 15:10:25 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Scott Little (little@eden.com) wrote:

[snip, snip]

: Perhaps I'm not the world's greatest character judge but, when I met
: Griggs, all suspicion of the possibility of deception vanished
: without a trace!

But Scott, hasn't this always been the first prerequisite for any 
really good 'confidence man'?

One of the nice things about independent replication is that it 
eliminates the need for such a consideration to be addressed.  

                               Harry C.

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.30 / Jim Bowery /  Re: A simple question
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A simple question
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 14:46:55 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:
> Do the calculation some time: accelerate at 1g until you get halfway
> to Alpha Centauri, then slow down.  Assume you have a magical drive
> that can convert 100% of the mass of your fuel into kinetic energy.
> The question: what fuel to payload ratio do you have to start out
> with?  The answer turns out to be quite depressing.
> 
> (Yes, I have heard of Robert Bussard.  There are some strong reasons,
> though, for thinking that his idea won't work.  Alas.)

Not the least of which is that Bussard, himself, has told me that
he doesn't think the "Bussard Ram Jet" is a workable scheme!

He is understandably frustrated that his name became widely known, not
for the technology that he thinks will work (Farnsworth's electrostatic
 confinement technology), but for a science fictionalization of a
throw-away idea he had back in teh 60's.
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
                 Change the tools and you change the rules.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.30 / Gary Steckly /  Re: $700 prize not effective...changes needed
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@clark.dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: $700 prize not effective...changes needed
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 95 14:32:44 GMT
Organization: Industry Canada

In article <3lcrk7$jhh@boris.eden.com> little@eden.com (Scott Little) writes:
>From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
>Subject: Re: $700 prize not effective...changes needed
>Date: 29 Mar 1995 23:48:23 GMT


>Tom, you are of course right about the "winning of it"...it's just that I
>naively wish that the $700 could be actually USED positively somehow.

>In article <gsteckly.106.000BAE01@clark.dgim.doc.ca>, gsteckly@clark.dg
m.doc.ca (Gary Steckly) says:

>>Scott, I recall that on several occasions you indicated your willingness to 
>>participate with an offer of your services and facilities.  What ever happened 
>>to the suggestion that someone test the Griggs-like scale model built by Mr. 
>>Huffman?  Would you like to give it a go?  Any interest with this idea?  Could 
>>we not rent or purchase this device for 700 bucks?  I believe Huffmans price 
>>was around 150 for materials.  Comments?

>I am definitely interested in and willing to perform energy measurement
>replication on any device that someone else has measured to be over-unity.
>At the moment, I have quite a bit of my own research going on so I'm trying
>to limit this offer to devices already built and measured by someone else.
>My organization, EarthTech International will be formally extending this
>offer in the near future in some of the alternative energy publications.
>Depending upon the nature of the device, I am willing to go to great lengths
>to make these measurements.  We have a pretty complete lab here and a 
>machine shop that I can use to make unusual test apparatus (e.g. 
>dynamometers, special calorimeter chambers, etc.) quickly.

>I have been in communication with Huffman and he is building a new version
>of his device which I hope to get my hands on after he's done some
>preliminary testing.

Well this really changes things IMHO.  I reviewed the comments that were 
circulated a while back on the suggestion to test a Huffman version of 
"the pump", and there was a lot of positive reaction.  Now we find out that 
Scott has already been actively following this lead with Mr. Huffman.

Scott, did Mr. Huffman indicate how much this would cost?  I would love to 
contribute towards the costs of your testing of this device.  It seems you 
could get some real quantitative results on a laboratory size device.

I agree as well with the comments that have surfaced on the difficulty of 
administering a prize that could go unclaimed for years.  The sooner we 
dispense with this money the better.  It seems that we could accomplish 
this with the purchase of a Huffman pump.

Comments?

Gary
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.30 / Tom Droege /  I give up
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: I give up
Date: 30 Mar 1995 17:13:05 GMT
Organization: fermilab

I see no hope of getting a agreement on what to do with the 
$700 before Bill Page goes to France.  So I will quit trying
to make a proposal that most can agree to.  I propose that 
we revert to Roberts Rules of Order and throw the meeting 
open to motions as to what to do with the $700.  

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.30 /  jedrothwell@de /  Is this question forbidden?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Is this question forbidden?
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 95 12:54:52 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

johmann@aol.com (Johmann) writes:
 
     "This endless discussion of the Griggs water heater seems to be ignoring
     the possibility of deliberate deception."
 
The question has not been ignored. Countless people have asserted it is
fraud, and many others like Britz have insinuated that it must be.
 
 
     "Did Jed check for hidden wires: supplying power, for example, to a
     resistance heater hidden somewhere along the flow path?"
 
Yes, I did. VERY carefully, and very thoroughly. More important (and far
more convincing), his customers and the people who have replicated him, like
MADI, have also determined that no fraud is involved.
 
 
     "As an analogy, suppose after 5+ years of the original P&F announcement,
     P&F were still claiming results that only appeared when measured at
     their laboratory?"
 
That is nonsense, the results have appeared in hundreds of other labs,
including the labs of the worst enemies of cold fusion at Cal Tech, MIT and
Harwell.
 
 
     "Has Griggs offered to loan one of his water heaters to one or more of
     the national labs, university labs, or industry labs? If not, then why
     not?
 
Yes, he did make that offer. I extended it to several major labs, but none of
them took him up on it. I do not know if the offer is still open or not. I
seen no point to doing that now, because he has already been independently
replicated.
 
 
In response to Johmann's posting, Droege writes:
 
 
     "Could Griggs have concealed something from me?  Sure.  It could be as
     simple as a factor of 1.08 somewhere in his computer program.  Did he?
     I have no idea.  If someone wants to cheat on his home turf he can
     always do it.  The chance of detection is small for any deceivor who is
     a smart as the deceivee."
 
This is 100% pure, unadulterated, unscientific, bullshit. Anyone knows that
Griggs could reprogram his computer to show bogus information -- that would be
trivial. That is why you must bring your own thermometer and power meter. You
cannot possibly trust Griggs in a situation like this, and you should never
trust any computer under any circumstances. Let me repeat that, in caps:
 
                    BRING YOUR OWN INSTRUMENTS!!!
 
Griggs cannot magically corrupt a mercury thermometer. It will show the
correct temperature of the water to within 1 deg F, and that is sufficient
accuracy to prove that the effect is real and far above the error bars.
 
If you bring your own instruments you can be sure there is no deception. If
you do not bring your own instruments, you can never be sure of that. The
whole thing could easily be a put-up job; nobody could detect it. Droege
thinks he can tell somewhat by judging Griggs' personality. As a businessman,
I would never in a million years try to judge personality, background, or
claims just by meeting someone and shaking his hand. The most effective
con-men are superb actors. They make a point of coming across as the most
sincere people you would ever want to meet. It is crazy to try and judge a
scientific claim by looking at a man's personality! There is one and only way
to judge: you must *measure* the effect using independently calibrated
instruments that you yourself are certain have not been tampered with, and
that you yourself know are sufficiently accurate and precise.
 
As I pointed out here many times before, the input measurement with the power
meter is the one thing that I cannot independently verify, because I don't
have a large recording meter and I am not expert enough to use one with
assurance. That, as I have said many times, makes me nervous. But not too
nervous, given these independent replications. I am sure that Griggs has no
influence in Moscow.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.30 / Bill Page /  Re: Now what to do with $700
     
Originally-From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Now what to do with $700
Date: 30 Mar 1995 17:46:46 GMT
Organization: dsis

In article <3lc1t0$so1@ceylon.gte.com>, rv01@harvey.gte.com (Robert Virzi) says:
>
>...           Let's subsidize a student or anyone going to ICCFn
>in return for a report.  Or a side trip to P&F labs from ICCF5.  I
>don't know if $700 is enough, but I would suspect we could get add-
>itional funding if we could get a report from someone >neutral<
>visiting P&Fs lab in Nice.
>

Now, it so happens that I, as well as several other people who
participate here, am going to ICCF5 (in ten days time)
and the conference just happens to be located right next door
(figuratively speaking) to the P&F labs. You are very likely to
see several reports on the conference here - for free. Also, if
you are able and care to, check-out the URL:

  http://xfactor.wpi.edu:8080/iccf5.html

in the coming weeks.

I'd be *real interested* in visiting the P&F laboratory and making
a report here, but I don't see how $700 would help. I think the
main problem is getting an invitation, and second would be getting
their approval to publish anything here. This news group is not highly
regarded by the famous duo.

And about >neutral<: I doubt that anyone is really neutral on this
issue - if they were, why would they bother to read s.p.f?

Cheers,

Bill Page.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenwspage cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 / Dean Edmonds /  Re: Now what to do with $700
     
Originally-From: deane@excalibur.net5c.io.org (Dean Edmonds)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Now what to do with $700
Date: 29 Mar 1995 13:34:16 -0500
Organization: Teleride Sage Ltd.

In article <3la0lr$dai@fnnews.fnal.gov>,
Tom Droege <Droege@fnal.fnal.gov> wrote:
>I have received a lot of private opinions that have not yet
>appeared here. I think almost everyone would go for a prize.
>
>Here is another  try for some rules:
[...]
>
>C) At least one replication to be published here. (these also may
>be published elsewhere)

You might want to rephrase this as "one *independent* replication" and
then leave the definition of `independent' to the judges. This will help
to avoid collusion.

=========================================================================
  - deane
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudendeane cudfnDean cudlnEdmonds cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 / Dean Edmonds /  Re: Now what to do with $700
     
Originally-From: deane@excalibur.net5c.io.org (Dean Edmonds)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Now what to do with $700
Date: 29 Mar 1995 13:46:35 -0500
Organization: Teleride Sage Ltd.

In article <3la99q$ak4@deadmin.ucsd.edu>,
Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> wrote:
>In article <3l94bp$are@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com> HWHN61A@prodigy.com (Thomas  
>Selby) writes:
>> As an original contributor I support this idea, and am willing to sweeten 
>> the pot.
>
>I really don't think holding the $700 dollars in escrow as a prize
>is a very productive use of the money, for two reasons:
>
>(1) a $1000 prize can easily be covered should the (unlikely) need 
>    arise---no need to keep the money itself in escrow. 

This is true at the $1,000 level, but my hope is that others will contribute,
making the prize even larger. If we were to offer a larger prize of, say,
$10,000, without previous financial commitment, then there would be much
shuffling of feet when the time came to pay up.

At very least there should be specific pledges of money, although even this
is prone to the problem of group turnover over longer periods of time.

Cash up-front has the advantage that you can receive interest on it and
you have no possibility of collection problems later on.

>BUT, If we really want to have a Cold Fusion Prize, the proper way to 
>do it is this: 
>    
>    (i)  get a human proponent who's name carries some 
>    media weight, and who is willing to personally associate themselves
>    with the debate---Steve Jones is the ideal choice. This is needed
>    to generate the initial media interest, and get folks to take note
>    (Joe Schmoe's CF prize is not so interesting;  Steve Jones's is, both 
>     to the Science news mags and the scientists involved).

Normally I would agree. However, given the vast amount of attention that
the Internet has drawn in the public media lately, we might be better served
to bill it as the `Internet Cold Fusion Prize'. This would be sure to
generate interest from a wide segment of the media.

>    (ii) Take the $1000 dollars to an insurance company, and use it to 
>    take out a roughly $100,000 policy, for some limited time, 
>    say 5 years (if no one can claim it in 5 years, CF is dead anyway).
>    There are companies that would do this sort of thing, especially 
>    with an Expert like Steve Jones to tell them the odds of it really
>    being true are << 100:1,  and he is mainly doing this as a stunt
>    to try and goad the secretive CF researchers into opening up
>    their experiments.

Excellent idea, assuming that someone is willing to do the footwork.

=========================================================================
  - deane
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudendeane cudfnDean cudlnEdmonds cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.30 / Harry Conover /  Re: Windows is as fast as common A/D hardware
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Windows is as fast as common A/D hardware
Date: 30 Mar 1995 17:45:29 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: For readers who wonder how Keithly pulls it off, a paragraph on page 170
: explains:
:  
:      "Normal and High Speed Modes. NOTEBOOK has two modes of collecting data:
:      normal and high speed. At lower acquisition rates (Normal Mode), the
:      computer can perform foreground tasks or display data in real time while
:      acquiring data in the background. In High Speed Mode (up to the fastest
:      your hardware can handle), NOTEBOOK dedicates the computer entirely to
:      the collection of data. The result is support for a wide range of data
:      acquisition products."


Jed, my copy of Keithley's 'Data Acquisition Catalog and Reference Guide' 
(Volume 25 -- 1992) say something else -- something quite different!

Top of page 171:  "NOTEBOOK For Windows" [snip, snip] " Since Windows is 
not a real time system, NOTEBOOK software is limited to using the 
operating system for services such as data acquisition.  This limits the 
software to the non-interrupt mode, thus providing a maximum sample rate of
2 Hz per block."

This is precisely why Keithley's premier data acquisition software package
(VIEWDAC) is limited to running under DOS!

Please explain.

Jed, I don't know about you, but I don't consider 2 Hz to be particularly 
fast, and certainly not up to the performance of most of the data 
acquisition boads that Keithley offers.

: In my experience this trick works well. When you put the kibosh on
: multitasking and grab all the resources in Windows, it gives you pretty much
: the same speed as DOS alone. Norton Utilities says it works with my computer,
: anyway.

Evidently, your experience is somewhat different from Keithley's and the 
rest of us.

                                      Harry C.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.30 / Harry Conover /  Re: Windows is as fast as common A/D hardware
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Windows is as fast as common A/D hardware
Date: 30 Mar 1995 18:13:06 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: For readers who wonder how Keithly pulls it off, a paragraph on page 170
: explains:
:  
:      "Normal and High Speed Modes. NOTEBOOK has two modes of collecting data:
:      normal and high speed. At lower acquisition rates (Normal Mode), the


Now just a moment -- which Keithley software package are you using?  One 
moment you're talking about 'SNAP-MASTER,' and in the next post you're 
talking about 'NOTEBOOK.'  Given that these are completely different 
software packages having fundamentally different applications, which one 
is it?

Given that Keithley's software packages are somewhat pricey, it doesn't 
seem to make much sense that you'd be using both.  In fact, let me raise 
the question:  Are you really familiar with either, or just reading the 
catalog?

                                     Harry C.

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.30 / Mark Muhlestein /  Re: I give up
     
Originally-From: mmm@park.uvsc.edu (Mark Muhlestein)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I give up
Date: 30 Mar 1995 11:39:42 -0700
Organization: Utah Valley State College, Orem, Utah

In article <3leor1$s07@fnnews.fnal.gov> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
>I see no hope of getting a agreement on what to do with the 
>$700 before Bill Page goes to France.  So I will quit trying
>to make a proposal that most can agree to.  I propose that 
>we revert to Roberts Rules of Order and throw the meeting 
>open to motions as to what to do with the $700.  
>
>Tom Droege

I confess I can see little point to awarding the money as a prize,
since success would in all likelihood mean instant global fame and the
potential for money greater than the combined lifetime earnings of all
s.p.f readers.

As one of the contributors, I think the idea most aligned with the
original purpose would be to use the funds to support further
investigations of cf claims.  Since Scott Little has repeatedly offered
his services to do just that, I would recommend giving the money to
him, if he can arrange for testing of some credible sounding claim.
The string attached is that I would like to see any results reported
here first.

Mark Muhlestein -- mmm@artisoft.com -- mmm@park.uvsc.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmmm cudfnMark cudlnMuhlestein cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.30 / Bradley Sherman /  Re: CF in Bologna
     
Originally-From: bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF in Bologna
Date: 30 Mar 1995 19:32:14 GMT
Organization: Dendrome, A Genome Database for Forest Trees

In article <3leeqk$7o4@mudraker.mtholyoke.edu> jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
>    ...  Professor Sergio Focardi of the University of Bologna says
>that: ``We have the certainty that the system we are experimenting
>with produces energy through a process that is perfectly replicable
>and controllable. ...


I'm sure Dr. Droege would be willing to take a trip to the old
Country.  (Bologna's not far from Florence and Venice, Tom.)

$700 is a good start on a trip to Italy. I'll ante up another
$25 if there is anything to be investigated there.

   --bks

-- 
Bradley K. Sherman             | Institute of Forest Genetics
bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov          |                 P.O. Box 245
510-559-6437  FAX:510-559-6440 |       Berkeley, CA 94701 USA
<a href="http://s27w007.pswfs.gov/~bks/">Dendrome Project</a>
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenbks cudfnBradley cudlnSherman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.30 / Tom Droege /  Re: What to do with $700
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What to do with $700
Date: 30 Mar 1995 19:55:00 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <9503301540.AA16907@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>, blue@pilot.msu.edu
(Richard A Blue) says:
>
>As one of the contributors,  I have gotten my money's worth.  Tom
>Droege made the trip to Georgia, did what he had proposed to do, and
>we have gotten our report.  Our little "residual cash" just demonstrates
>the our present communications links have not merged electronic funds
>transfers into the Internet.  As for my vote:  Tom should do whatever
>he likes with the money.  I suggest a gift for his long-suffering wife.
>Can you imagine what cold fusion has done to her household?  I
>renounce all claims to my contribution and to the funds remaining.

I thank you and Jennifer thanks you.  But she has been entertained by the
whole affair.  Odd, but true.  So she has her money's worth too.

>
>Having said that, I still can't resist commenting on the idea of awarding
>a prize for cold fusion research.  Haven't we yet learned that defining
>a "valid result" as it relates to cold fusion claims is next to impossible?
>What we have seen since that fateful day in 1989 certainly demonstrates that
>claims for the generation of excess heat are a dime a dozen.  Of course most
>such claims don't have a leg to stand on, but how are you going to screen
>out all the really rotten examples of bad calorimetery?  I don't believe
>we should do anything to encourage another wave of experimentation by
>people who have nothing new to offer by way of experimental skills, resources,
>or knowledge.

That is why my condition for award was not "truth" but a replication and
a vote.  Tennessee legislature not withstanding, you cannot determine
truth by vote.  But you can award a prize.  So the submitter just has to
convince us that he has a positive result.  This is not necissarily 
science, but it is fun.

>
>I have always maintained the position that evidence for a nuclear reaction
>process should involve direct detection of a reaction product or the release
>of "energy beyond chemistry" before it is degraded to the level of the thermal
>background.  Cold fusion advocates have simply had to fabricate rather
>weak excuses for the nonexistance of any direct evidence of unusually large
>energy releases while claiming that indirect, weak observations based on
>signals that, by definition, can be generated by non-nuclear sources.
>As for making an award for a new observation that provides solid evidence
>for a nuclear reaction process, there is lots of data that says its not
>going to happen witnin the context of what is now known as cold fusion
>research.  I think the prize money would likely remain in the bank until we
>have all gone to our rewards, and the State of Illinois would claim the
>account.

I would hope to be able to set it up so it lasted as long as s.p.f could
be kept going.  Forever.  It could grow quite large.  

>
>As for the Griggs affair, the best use to be made of the Droege Report is for
>instruction in the importance of proper methods for doing science.  I clues are
>there for those willing and able to read them that:  (1) James Griggs has no
>evidence to support a claim for overunity operation.  (2)James Griggs has no
>workable plan for obtaining such evidence.

But a prize and the attempts to claim it would do just that.  I think we
all here have learned more about the scientific process worrying about 
cold fusion claims.  I can say for myself, that I have learned more about
the scientific process here than in 32 years of work at Princeton,
Argonne National Laboratory, and Fermilab.  When you are "the" establishment
you do not think about the rules of the game. 

(snip)

Tom Droege

>Dick Blue
>
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.30 / Tom Droege /  Re: CF in Bologna
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF in Bologna
Date: 30 Mar 1995 19:58:44 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3lf0vu$ddb@overload.lbl.gov>, bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov
(Bradley K. Sherman) says:
>
>In article <3leeqk$7o4@mudraker.mtholyoke.edu> jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
>>    ...  Professor Sergio Focardi of the University of Bologna says
>>that: ``We have the certainty that the system we are experimenting
>>with produces energy through a process that is perfectly replicable
>>and controllable. ...
>
>
>I'm sure Dr. Droege would be willing to take a trip to the old
>Country.  (Bologna's not far from Florence and Venice, Tom.)
>
>$700 is a good start on a trip to Italy. I'll ante up another
>$25 if there is anything to be investigated there.

Hey!  I never thought of this as a possible retirement carreer.  There 
are certainly enough of these type of events to keep one busy.  Hmmm!
I wonder how long s.p.f would keep supporting me.  

Tom Droege
>
>   --bks
>
>-- 
>Bradley K. Sherman             | Institute of Forest Genetics
>bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov          |                 P.O. Box 245
>510-559-6437  FAX:510-559-6440 |       Berkeley, CA 94701 USA
><a href="http://s27w007.pswfs.gov/~bks/">Dendrome Project</a>
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.30 / Richard Schultz /  Re: News on cf in March 20 C&EN -- heavywatergate again?
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: News on cf in March 20 C&EN -- heavywatergate again?
Date: 30 Mar 1995 21:22:36 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <D69C2A.246@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

>Where there is a pattern, your hand-waving excuses become increasingly 
>irrelevant.

Except that there is no pattern.  The CF researchers have been given
the opportunity to present their work at the ACS meeting -- indeed, 
even P&F's poster is listed in the final program, which appears in
the 6 March issue of C&E News.  The one who is presenting "hand-waving
excuses" is you, sir.  I asked you a simple yes-or-no question:
have you ever been involved in the programming of a large science
conference?  Your attempt to drag in irrelevancies does not succeed
in obfuscating your unwillingness (surely it can't be inability) to
answer that simple question.  I gave you a detailed description of
how these programs are worked out.  Not as a shill for the ACS, which
you seem to think I am being, but as a person who has attended
such meetings and known the people who actually do the programming.
I have also been involved in a minor way (but one that kept me close
enough to know what's going on) with the program committee of the
Pittsburgh Conference (which has fewer technical papers, but more 
registrants, than the national ACS meetings do).  I'll be happy
to provide you with the means to contact the program chairpeople of
PittCon from recent years, and you can ask them if I know how the
programming works yourself if you don't believe me.

And speaking of hand-waving, I note that you do not dispute anything
in what I said.  

>= If Kohn had contacted her before
>=the deadline, or proposed the symposium at the proper time and been
>=dismissed without a hearing, [... one side of the story ....]

And speking of hand-waving, you have yet to present any other side
of the story.  Do you dispute that Kohn did not approach Baisden
until September?  Do you dispute that at that time he suggested a
small number of CF papers?  Do you dispute that in November he 
turned up with a dozen?  Do you claim that Baisden treated the CF
papers any differently than the non-CF papers submitted late?

>  Please address the issue, or state your exact relationship in this
> for clarity.    Thanks.

What issue am I failing to address?  I have explained to you how the
program at a large conference is set; how late papers are handled; and
how Kohn apparently tried to bend the rules.  I have also explained that 
Baisden has allowed the CF people to present their results anyway.  Please
state explicitly and directly, without obfuscation, what issue I am
failing to address.

As for "relationship", why does my relationship (speaking of clarity, you
might have indicated to what I am supposed to state my exact
relationship) make any difference?

If you are accusing me of distorting some fact to protect the ACS
(as if they needed my protection), please come out and say so.  It
would help if you said which fact(s) you think I'm distorting.  For
what it's worth, I am not in the pay of the ACS.

>=In most meetings with
>=which I have been involved, the default is that if there is no room in the
>=oral session, you agree to be assigned to a poster session. 

>True.

So then you agree that P&F really have nothing to complain about from the
ACS, given that there wasn't enough room for their work to be presented
orally?

>  How many posters exactly, since you know so much.  We can work out
>the info from that.  Thanks in advance.

A cursory check of the final program shows that the division is about
65% oral, 35% poster.  I counted 5582 papers.  I tried not to include papers
that were listed in the final program as withdrawn, but I might have
missed some.  I also didn't include the plenary session or the mock trial
with DNA evidence.

I'm not sure what we can "work out" from that information.  I have 
explained to you that there is an upper limit on the number of oral
presentations due to lack of time and limited numbers of rooms.
If another thousand people had submitted papers after all of the slots
for oral presentations had been filled, then all thousand would have
been posters, and conversely, had there only been enough submissions
to fill the oral slots, there would have been no posters.  The large
number of posters in divisions like Physical and Organic as opposed
to Agricultural illustrates what I mean.

[my lengthy description of how a program is assembled deleted]

>  You certainly seem to be knowledgeable on this for the American Chemical
>Society.  

This seems to be a welcome change of attitude from your previous 
claim that I don't know what I'm talking about.  I note that you do not 
dispute any of my description of how such programs are set up, nor do 
you dispute my explanation of why it is difficult at large meetings to 
add oral papers only four and a half months before the conference but
less difficult to add poster presentations.  From your failure to answer my
question of whether you have ever been involved in setting programs at
large conference, I take it that the answer is "no," which if you 
think about it, means that you have no basis for claiming that I don't
know what I'm talking about.  Actually, even if the answer is "yes,"
you have no basis for claiming that I don't know what I'm talking about,
since in that case, you would know that what I was saying was nothing less
than the truth.  And the whole reason why I took the time to explain it 
in detail for you was because I seem to know more about it than you do.  
Since you have no interest in learning about it, it looks like it's going to
stay that way.

>Here is what another American said about such long-winded
>attempts to censor based upon martinet theory:

Whom have I attempted to censor?  Indeed, whom has *anyone* tried to
censor?  I'm sorry if my explanation seemed long-winded to you.  I
really thought that you might have some interest in learning something.
I really don't know why I bother -- I've read your postings for far
too long to really think that that could possibly be true.

There is one other point you have failed to consider in all of your
claims of censorship:  *no one* has prevented these people from 
presenting their data at the ACS meeting.  Indeed, if you were to
take the trouble to look up the ACS meeting's Final Program, you
would discover that they are all listed there, including Pons &
Fleischmann's. 

> There are several sides to this story, and the grief which the science
>community heaped on people who merely reported a new
>material science is unwarranted.

And speaking of unanswered questions, you might address my question of
how Baisden's decision that they should give their papers as posters
rather than oral presentations is "heaping" any more "grief" than it
would be for the numerous other scientists who have had exactly
the same thing happen to them.  Since I'm listing questions that
you can't be bothered to answer, here's another one for you, slightly
rephrased:  do you really expect me to believe that if Baisden had
selected three or four papers for oral presntation, you would not
be crying "censorship" just as loudly?

So now I leave it to you.  You can give specific answers to any of
the questions I have asked here; you can dispute any of my descriptions
or claims -- I would prefer that you actually present some facts when
you do so, although I realize that's not your style; you can actually
present the "other sides to this story"; you could admit that you're
wrong and that there has been no censorship.  Or you could just
shut up, which would at least have the advantage that you wouldn't
be digging yourself in any deeper than you already have.
--
					Richard Schultz

"You don't even have a clue as to which clue you're missing." -- Miss Manners
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.30 / Richard Schultz /  Re: News of cf in March 20 C&EN
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: News of cf in March 20 C&EN
Date: 30 Mar 1995 21:28:39 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <D69C48.2t2@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

> =To paraphrase your buddy Jed Rothwell, why don't you *read* the damn
> =article?  

> To paraphrase Jed, whom [sic] is not a "buddy" but whom I have only
>met at cf conferences and meetings and lectures,
>"I contacted the principals to obtain the two different sides of the
>story because I do not trust newpaper reports"

Since you admit that you haven't read the original article, then how
can you possibly make any kind of informed comment on what it said?
(viz. your question about the "three withdrawn papers")

> There are several sides to this story.

Funny how you seem unable to describe any of them.
--
					Richard Schultz

"Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time." -- The French Knight
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.30 / Tom Droege /  Working on Certificates
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Working on Certificates
Date: 30 Mar 1995 22:26:11 GMT
Organization: fermilab

Just to let everyone know who coughed up money, I have received 
the certificates from Scott, and will be signing them.  If I can
find the negative, I will include a picture of me at the "cold 
fusion" calorimeter.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.30 / mitchell swartz /  What to do with $700
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What to do with $700
Subject: Re: What to do with $700
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 22:29:01 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <9503301540.AA16907@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Re: What to do with $700
Richard A Blue [blue@pilot.msu.edu] writes:

 ="I have always maintained the position that evidence for a nuclear reaction
 =process should involve direct detection of a reaction product or the release
 =of "energy beyond chemistry" before it is degraded to the level of the thermal
 =background."
  True. The award should probably go to Mel Miles for the helium work.

 =  "Cold fusion advocates have simply had to fabricate rather
 =weak excuses for the nonexistance of any direct evidence of unusually large
 =energy releases while claiming that indirect, weak observations based on
 =signals that, by definition, can be generated by non-nuclear sources."
  Cold fusion skeptics have simply had to fabricate rather
weak excuses for ignoring the unusually large literature demonstrating
energy releases while claiming that cold fusion must follow their
plasma-like assumptions.

 = " Have any of you bought that heat sink for defrosting hamburgers?
 =Maybe it operates by cold fusion.
 =Dick Blue"
 Is it really a heat sink??  It looks, and colored, like a radiator. 
  Best wishes

  
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.30 / mitchell swartz /  News on cf in March 20 C&EN -- heavywatergate again?
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy
Subject: News on cf in March 20 C&EN -- heavywatergate again?
Subject: Re: News on cf in March 20 C&EN -- heavywatergate again?
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 22:34:10 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <3lf7es$elb@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: News on cf in March 20 C&EN -- heavywatergate again?
Richard Schultz (schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu) wrote:

    >Where there is a pattern, your hand-waving excuses
    > become increasingly irrelevant.
= "Except that there is no pattern"

  Except that there IS a pattern, and it is left for historians,
sociologists, anthropologists and writers to 
grind it out.  and my bet is that they will.  and that the 
phenomenon may be both periodic and all too typical.

For you to claim that there is no historic pendulum swing
against this material science in the US and the UK is TB-denial.
Keep claiming it, and we'll watch the expanding hole grow 
beneath your feet.


   >  How many posters exactly, since you know so much.  
   >  We can work out
   >the info from that.  Thanks in advance.
= A cursory check of the final program shows that the division is about
= 65% oral, 35% poster.  I counted 5582 papers.  I tried not to include papers
= that were listed in the final program as withdrawn, but I might have
= missed some.  I also didn't include the plenary session or the mock trial
= with DNA evidence.

OK.     5582 papers. close to the 5600 estimate.  
  35% posters implies the following.
  For 14 submissions, let's consider the expected number of 
oral presentations, & ignoring for the moment your arguments of time, and 
this and that, and ...   
   the Expectation value is 65%      number   9
       Observed             0%                0

   Alternatively, with a 35% probability of poster session assignation,
 the probability of all 14 submissions going to the poster sessions
  (with assumptions above) would be only
    .35 * 0.35 * ....... =~   0.000 000 4   
   That is less than  "one in a million", isn't it?

  The rest is, therefore, commentary.
 Best wishes.
           
"You don't even have a clue as to which clue you're missing." -- Miss Manners

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.30 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Positive March '95 Amoco CF Result
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Positive March '95 Amoco CF Result
Date: 30 Mar 95 20:51:34 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Laboratories, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR

In article <3l7m8g$gnk@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com> GGRV13A@prodigy.com
(John Nix jr) writes:
>In a separate post, Jed Rothwell notes a positive CF experiment in:
>
>> See: Amoco Production Company, 
>> Research Departent, 
>> T. V. Lautzenhiser, D. W. Phelps, Report T-90-E-02, 90081ART0082,
>> 19 March 1995, "Cold Fusion: Report on a Recent Amoco Experiment."
> 
>Assuming this report is intended for public release, would someone with a 
>copy of this report please post a summary of the abstract and conclusion 
>here?




Irrespective of what the report says, Amoco terminated this work because
they did not believe it was going anywhere.


And, by the way, Jed knows all about this.



Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Mar 31 04:37:04 EST 1995
------------------------------
