1995.04.09 / Paul Koloc /  Re: POLL: How long till power plants? 2062  Tell me you joking? Help
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: POLL: How long till power plants? 2062  Tell me you joking? Help
Date: Sun, 9 Apr 1995 05:27:27 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3lpc6n$9i6@curly.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu
(John W. Cobb) writes:
>In article <D6EHuv.1zq@prometheus.UUCP>,
>Paul M. Koloc <pmk@promethe.UUCP> wrote:
>>In article <3lc6tj$qpd@curly.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu
(John W. Cobb) writes:
>>>In article <3l9ucc$iu@spool.cs.wisc.edu>,
>>>Michael Brumm <brumm@cs.wisc.edu> wrote:
>>>>  I'm about to do something scarey in a newsgroup: take a poll.
>>>Okay, I'll bite
>>>>    When will the first hot fusion power plant come on-line?
>>>
>>>Year: 2062 *(see note below)
>>Sure except that the wrong state of matter is being used opposite the
>>plasma in the first place.  It's a giddy useless effort.  First start
>>with the correct state of matter, THEN go looking at materials.  
>>Silly.  

>Well, there is a point here. If the first wall is solid, then the materials
>problems I outlined are the proper and prudent course of action.

>On the other hand, Koloc seems to advocate (pardons in advance if I
>mis-represent) a liquid first wall. 

The first wall is a liquid dense gas (after compression and during burn). 
                                 ^^^  
>                                 Well this is all fine and good if
>it works. In fact I've done some work on just such a type of fusion
>scheme that allows one to evade the Virial theorem restrictions on
>equilibrium. 

It depends on the geometry.  For example if the configuration is 
cylindrical and the compression is 2 D against the major axis, then
it is unstable to RT, since the field maintains a pretty much uniform
cross-section.  Consequently, radial perturbations are unchecked or
grow.  Sort of like a puff of a breeze against a cloud of smoke.   

In the case of a Spherical compression, which has ANY net inward 
additional volume confining surface tension other than the bounding
atmosphere, it is a different situation, since the internal energy 
(pressure) is higher and perturbations are met with increasing 
(restorative) force.  You remember the harangue about the Virial
Theorem and my frustration with Carlson's simplistic ignoring of the
conditions within the bounded region.  It turns out that the bounded
region MUST BE CONTINUOUS and NOT HAVE DISCONTINUITIES within.  
The PLASMAK(tm) topology clearly does.  It has discontinous boundaries
for current and field direction, etc. and therefore the boundary 
conditions imposed by the Virial are inadequate to apply.  Further,
we have produced these objects and they are clearly stable for 
huge numbers of MHD times.  And liquid or gas, the differnce mass 
density between boundary air pressure versus the Mantle plasma, let 
alone versus the vacuum poloidal region surrounding the Spheromak 
like Kernel plasma (with a hole), is evidence to the contrary of 
your expressed notions.  Compression only scales self similarly.  

The high internal energy of this topology is not exactly a secret, 
nor is it undiscoverable by numerical means.  Simply compute the
fields correctly (mag fields alone are good enough) and solve for  
for the energy by ordinary volume integral summing. (Div Theorem) 
Mixed and radially changing currents and corresponding fields with 
in the Kernel ring are follow the Taylor criteria for force free 
discharge.  

The first numerical work of Okabyashi and Todd at PPPL (Spheromak) is 
fine as an initial guide, except that you must include  the hole (as 
plotted) and set the conducting shell to whatever shape generates the 
arbitary uniform pressure of the Mantle (isobaric or omnigenous as you 
prefer), for example, in the precompressional state at 1 or 2 atm.    

>                However, the difficulties of maintaining a transition
>from plasma to gas to liquid are mind-bogglingly complex. 

First of all... relax, get a grip on yourself and a good 9 hour sleep,
and then buzz down to the hardware store and by a box of matches or
a swatch of candles.  Then boogie back and light them one at a time
and observe the gas-flame boundary until you can't lift your arm to 
light another or until it no longer "boogles your brain".  Now think 
about all those neutrals ramming into those poor little air fuel mixed 
gases that are trying to stay ignited, and ask yourself 
                        "   HOW COULD THIS BE??  "

              Simple  it's not a silly vacuum where the reaction rates
are incredibly low and diffusion paths are incredibly long.  NOPE
those "incoming" sound speed guys just get bounced back, because there 
is nothing as insulating as thick dense air.  So they can't cool that 
flame like the situation in a tokamak where an impurity cloud flakes off 
the liner on the neutron bombarded wall and zips UNIMPEDDED into the 
fuel plasma.  

If you think about this John, you will see that the Mantle is an onion 
of layers upon layers of plasmas and gas mixtures and radiation 
environments that filters the radiated energy from the Kernel plasma 
on its way out to freedom,  absorbing and reemitting it at lower energy 
over and over again producing a avalance of gradient regimes, which ease 
the energy out of there hoarding it as if they were Scottish bankers 
at a gold minting festival.  

>                                       In fact it
>makes engineering the first wall components look trivial by
>comparison, IMO. 

In fact solid first wall and components are engineering nightmares by
comparison.  And consider that for p^11B we change the Mantle 50 or
60 times each second.  Cheap.  Not so cheap to change out the first
wall of a tokamak .... huh??   Nor as quick???  Well there has to 
be an advantage here. Cheapness and built in operational replacement!!!
It just all comes together; don't you just love it??

>   There are tremendous problems that have not even begun
>to be adequately explored. Let me just mention 2. First, the
>liquid/gas interface will be notoriously unstable to Rayleigh-Taylor
>modes, particulalrly if one proposes to use the liquid blanket as a
>compression device as I understand Paul's Plasmak concept. 

This is great!!!  Some one is actually considering the reality of
it's engineering advantages.  I love it.  
It's a liquid dense gas, and even if we use a thin liquid wall boundary,
the density inertia, will freeze its position for the time scale of the
compression.  

> This is a
>really tough problem that has defied solution. The only alternative
>seems to be to avoid it. In fact, from what I understand of Inertial
>Fusion with lasers, we would already be well on the way to commercial
>laser fusion if these interchange modes could be surpressed.

Inertial time scale (RTI) relates to size and these things are huge 
by comparison to micropellets of laser fusion, although miniscule 
by comparison to a 9 story cube (ITER).  Also, they are weak with
respect to peak forces for ICF pellets, although tremendously greater 
in developed plasma pressure than pressures that can be utilized in 
tokamaks.  

>Second, if your force balance equilibrium depends on externally applied
>pressure, as Paul's seems to, then there must be some transition region
>where plasma condensation is occuring. 

About 8 to 9% of the peak toroidal field pressure is exerted at the 
Mantle boundary.  But the transition layer is not in the Kernel plasma.  

>That is there is a region that is
>emitting a lot of light where outgoing plasma is recombining and/or ingoing
>gas is ionized. Now this is a big problem for 2 reasons. First, it will mean
>the loss of a great deal of energy by means of radiation. This is bad. This
>is why current experiments try very hard to reduce impurities to increase
>confinement. 

It's a matter of energy density (pressure), and a PMK has plenty, so 
that the low Z fuel (even p-11B) will be fully stripped within the Kernel.
The Mantle doesn't have to be fully stripped, and in the final compression
stage could use higher Z gases since the diffusion times at such densities
is huge.  Further the fusion energy released will drive the equilbrium
ionization of the static currents far far above their current pumped level, 
so that in a sense, the hole chamber blanket will become a plasma and merge 
with the Mantle.  Impurities are somthing that can't be kept out of a vacuum
system plasmas with solid state walls, simply because there is nothing
to oppose gas, liquid, and solid state matter from traversing the vac mag
insulating field.  In the PMK there are no such states of matter used
to line the vacuum insulating field and no such unimpeded diffusion can
take place.   Secondly, we can ram the energy into the PMK quickly, and
kick it up to burn very fast. And thirdly, we don't lose all that energy
that's radiated away because it heats the blanket which helps to compress
the Kernel field and fueled plasma.  That economy doesn't happen in a
Tok.  So why would anyone want to continue funding such an obsolete 
white elephant.  

> Paul's plasmak seems to risk being a bright light flash but
>nowhere near a fusion device. 

I don't think so.  If that were the case  the airborne PMKs from much
higher Z would fail, and it turns out that the harder we compression
heat them the more viable they become, as far as input vs output are
concerned.  But perhaps you have some algorithm that I have overlooked? 

>The second problem is that the existence
>of this plasma/gas boundary is notoriously unstable to the generation
>of an ingoing or an outgoing recombination/ionization front. The first
>case will mean that the plasma is snuffed, the second will mean that it
>will tear itself apart. 

Sorry, but I have no currents running in this region, so if that boundary
retreats or expands is of no consequence, within reason.  As far as
this application is concerned we have fantasitically more insulating plasma
than we need, and it only gets more rugged under compression and then
under burn it includes the chamber blanket. 

You remember we have run these things? 

>If you are looking for a good fusion plasma, you are
>not looking for a glowing plasma. You want one hot enough and pure enough
>so that it does not emit light.

Don't be silly!  Glowing indicates good trapping of energy resources.  
Remember, you are not seeing the Kernel plasma here. That shell is
the Mantle, and it is vacuum insulated from the Kernel, and only 
maintained by Kernel Bremsstrahlung.  Glowing plasma could also mean 
a hot plasma (burning p^11B) that is putting out 10 megawatts/cc from 
the Kernel plasma, but mostly in the X-ray region where your eyes may 
not be so sensitive.  Your arguments are without any physics basis.  
Give me some formulary estimates. Book's book?  

>Now I've been ripping on Paul's plasmak idea, but not really to demean it. I
>am in favor of investigating curious devices that might offer potential, no
>matter how bizzare. My
>point is that I predicated my previous answer based on my integrated experience
>and my point of view. I am callling it like I see it. While I am aware of
>some of Paul's ideas, I certainly don't claim to have taken the time to
>dissassemble them all and understand them to the marrow. Nevertheless I

Hey don't be to quick to pat your knock out as effective here.  

>am led very strongly to concluded that upon further examination, the plasmak
>has warts every bit as big as Tokamaks, or RFP's, or stellerators, or FRC's,
>even if it does present some desirable features. It is not likely to be the 
>cheap "end-run" that we would all wnat to find.

Well, what are you willing to put up against this prediction, that we 
could use?  And would you have the tenacity, now that you have thrown 
up dust, to follow though on your negative speculations, or are you 
content to just leave things open to question?   Surely, your reputation 
would like you to pick up a bit more on some of this and perhaps we 
can come to agreement on numbers?

>Now this brings up an interesting point. I guessed 2062. Paul guesses
>40005 (or more). What's the difference? That is, in terms of planning

Of course this was a comment relating to tokamak.  My real estimate
is "never", since it is so unlike any other of the billions of functioning
fusion power generators throughout the universe.  And you did catch
my hint.  Well, commercial use of fusion will start out modestly,
but our technology has an infinity of deeper applications beyond the
reach of a tokamak's wildest vision. 

BTW The patents on the tokamak are gone.  

>A very good point that is all too often overlooked. Of course we have to
>also make allowances for the possibility that no simple cheap solution
>exists. 

Not yet we don't.  We aren't even close to considering reasonable 
approaches in the engineering sense. It's silly to blow most of the
sci budget on a loser and deprive science and education of resources,
and thwart fusion development at the same time, all in the name of
fusion development by a legal research monopoly.   Dump DoE.  

>What do we do then? Do we give up, or do we roll up our sleeves
>and try things which are not simple. 

No, we use our noodle and figure out the things that are easy.  If
I move toward hot fusion, then for certain a corporation of some
medium stature can.  Then we look for fixes to the things that are
easy that worked best but not good enough.  Of course, my contention
is that we have found a major solution here.  The CF guys better
get off their butts, because I can think of a number of things where
it would be very handy to have a fusion device that worked at 
something less than a megawatt per cc.  And, I could use one as a
charge generator for deep space missions to kick over our thrust engines
or gigawatt electric generators .   

>Current policy seems to be to roll
>up our sleeves. At least in this post, I seem to be saying, maybe we should
>seriously consider giving up (or at least include it in a list of options).
>I think Paul would say that he sees a cheap, simple solution, but many others
>might think he is selling snake oil.

I'm not selling, I'm doing.  What are you doing? not being independently
wealthy enough to jump in here with me.    :-)

Sure this technology will work.. but I can't do it alone... well maybe
I could't.  Still it looks like there are those that are getting seriously
interested and to the point where it is starting to spread out as not
just my project, but theirs. Some of the Home gang: Roger Fujii, 
Arch Sproul, Nancy Batson, R.Bruce Pittman, J. Bowery, Deanna Cooper,
my family, R. Davis, T. Stemmy and a couple of netters I'm not certain if 
they would approve the notariety.  Of course some are putting more in
and some less, but each and everone is moving things ahead.  

>My words are being twisted and used against me. Help! In previous comments
>I have said that some results we see today are impressive and to be appaulded.
>In this thread I made the above comment about a lack of progress. Apparently,
>I am caught riding both sides of the fence. However, fear not. I am consistent.
>As I said in my original post, there is a lag between investment in design
>and construction and results. Over a decade ago, the U.S. fusion program was
>making significant progress building new devices. One of those devices was 
>TFTR which did deliver what it had promised when it was designed. This was the
>subject of my discussion on the other threads. 

TFTR delivered when it had promised???  HA!  ten years +late and a
fraction.  I know, those promises were "revised downward" year, after 
year,.. .  after year ... . 

>The problem is that the program has been retreating ever since TFTR
>was built. It has staged holding actions in the form of DIII-D and
>Alcaotr C-MOD, but it has completely sacrificed its quick light
>calvery in terms of all alternate concepts. The past has delivered as
>promised and the future will do so as well, but fusion can only
>deliver, when it is given the resources it requires. Do not fault the
>lack of results over the next 15 years with a fundamental lack of
>capacity of fusion science, rather it is a collective lack of will to
>pursue the program to its logical conclusion (or perhaps it is a
>conscious decision depending on how you read the tea leaves)

You should run for Congress!  great..  loved it

BTW  Fusion is delivering?. considering the sinking financial condition
of our country -- y.  It's not delivering realistic fusion development, it 
did deliver justification for expenditures, and big corp and sci welfare.  

>>What? they have confinment.  

>Speaking of confinement times, what is the energy loss time in a plasmak and
>how does it scale with device size?  

Better than inductance or size.   But consider there are other aspects.  
What's the burn time?  So the absolute energy confinement time isn't
the pickle, but rather how does it compare to the burn or energy delivery
time.  For p-11^B, we want to get the energy into the blanket fast, 
and recover self compression heating. The loss times should be okay, BUT
it does depend on the behavior and exact nature of super sharp boundaries. 
These occur because of the hyperconductivity.  What the nature of 
the current density at the boundary is will have to be investigated 
experimentally.  Loss times before compression are "forever".  Notice
that they ran energetics in TFTR and ATC at PPPL and TK Chu analysed
the data.  He discovered that losses were clamped also, and was the
first one I heard use the expression "forever" for the current trapping.  
These currents were induced in shakedown during gas fill/drive EMF profile
studies on those tokamak devices.  

So why don't tokamaks use energetic currents???  It's because at the
vacuum conditions of the plasma in the tokamak, the density is so mensicule
that the resistivity from energetic currents is negligible.  But since
this resistivity (unlike thermal electrons) is proportional to density,
the PMK experiences sufficient joule heating to reach inital compression
heating temperature quite quickly.  Of course at compression burn conditions
the joule heating from the eneretic currents is greatly increased due to
the c^3 scaling of density and it turns out it comes up to about the
same value as the thermal currents (utlizing p^11B).   Incidentally,
mixtures of energetic and thermal currents in tokamaks do not work either. 


>You heard it here first folks. in 12 years until we all have Plasmaks.
>Watch your electricity bills plummet. Lord knows I sure would like to see it.

Electricity?.. H..l,  Propulsion my good man.  propulsion.  
                              Or was that  "Plastic" 

Although electricity is important for present day humankind, it is propulsion
where the real energy consumption will take place.  15 tons of p^11B just
zipping to Mars and back.  Of couse that's a mighty fast trip by today's
pack-burro like standards.  

>On a more serious note, please take note. Fusion proponents have consistently
>been chided and spanked for "over-promising" the arrival of fusion. Now from
>a sociological point of view how does this occur? Well, you have just seen it.
>Responsible people give responsible estimates that are a long way off. Then
>unrelated fringe elements promise the sky. No-one who is responsible
>endorses those estimates, and many actively repudiate them. Nevertheless,
>people tend to remember the one or two people who are loudly shouting "I can
>do it cheap, in a few months, in my garage" and transfer that unrealism as a
>stain that tarnishes those who acted responsibly. This is why you have seen
>many posters who have expressed no small amount of consternation at Paul, or
>in previous times, Bussard because they know what comes next. Their wild
>promises become the Albatrosses that hang from the fusion program's neck
>for years to come. 

I just calls it the way I sees it.  One must first have a "workable idea".
That just could be the difference.  What do you have to sweat, it's
not costing you a dime.  

>Just note that DOE has but estimates for DEMO at around 2035. I gave you my
>personal estimate of 2062 for commercial power and it was PAUL KOLOC who 
>promised it to you in 12 years.  If he does it, more power to him [sorry 
>for the pun]. but if he fails, don't blame me, or Tokamaks, or FRC's, or
>DOE, or anyone else for overpromising because I did not do it.

Actually, it is the arrogance of the USDoE energy monopoly to bully all 
fusion research into the tokamak and ITER, and to make it next to 
impossible for you or me to develop fusion as ordinarily we could with 
considerably more facility.  The USDoE  "UNDER PROMISES" what could 
have already been done and this underpromising puts off industry which 
is over taxed to cover there consumption.  The USDoE doesn't know what 
they are doing, they don't know to use engineering physics, nor do they 
know to project management with critical evaluation.  

So we are stuck with a nightmare, a junk idea, and our country is being 
bleed of billions over the years which added to the other trickles is a 
torrent of blood.  Yet, there is little or no reality based progress.   

>-john .w cobb
>-- 
>John W. Cobb	Quietly Making Noise, Pissing off the old Kill-Joys
>		-Jimmy Buffett
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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:
cuddy9 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.09 / Martin Sevior /  Comments on cold fusion found on the internet.
     
Originally-From: Martin Sevior <msevior>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Comments on cold fusion found on the internet.
Date: Sun, 9 Apr 1995 14:55:15 GMT
Organization: CERN European Lab for Particle Physics

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.09 / Martin Sevior /  Some comments on cold ufsion source found on the internet.
     
Originally-From: Martin Sevior <msevior>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Some comments on cold ufsion source found on the internet.
Date: Sun, 9 Apr 1995 14:58:21 GMT
Organization: CERN European Lab for Particle Physics

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

 --------------------------------176411097316175
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

I hope this works. I never done this with Netscape.

 --------------------------------176411097316175
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain

Hi Fusioners,
	    I've been following this group for a few weeks or so and I've also
skimmed the World Wide Web to look at various cold fusion references.  It
seems that people from this group funded a site-visit by Tom Droege where
he investigated the Griggs over-unity hydro-sonic pump. Having read his
report and the followup by Griggs it's not obvious that the investigator
could have come to any stronger conclusion unless he believes what Griggs
and the people in his company told him. Since he approached the
investigation with a very methodical "I'll only believe what I see with my
own eyes" he was bound to produce such an inconclusive report. 

As far as I can understand things, Griggs and his employees make a very
simple measurement of temperature rise versus mechanical power input.
After many measurements they find a repeatable and reproducible excess in
temperature rise compared to what would be expected from the mechanical
input power. There are only 3 ways they could screw up this measurement. 

1. They could have the mechanical input power wrong.

2. They could measure the temperatures before and after the pump incorrectly.

3. They could make an arithmetic mistake in their calculations.

I'll deal with 3 first. They didn't.

For (1) it seems very unlikely as reported by Tom Droege.  That leaves
(2), the temperature readings are incorrect. Thermocouples are very simple
devices and typically give measurement errors of less than 1 degree when
used in the manner employed at Hydro Dynamics. The only worrying thing is
what the ultrasonic energy is doing to the thermocouples.  I cannot think
of a mechanism that would lead to their incorrect behaviour but on the
other hand there is no conventional Physics that would explain the excess
heat.  However, given that there are 6 thermocouples downstream from the
device, probably placed at different distances from the device, it would
appear unlikely that all 6 would receive the same amount of ultra-sonic
energy. Given that all 6 read the same temperature it would take a truly
bizzare effect from the ultrasonic energy to make all 6 read the same
number. In addition the temperature rise reported by Tom Droege is exactly
what one would expect from devices correctly reading temperatures.
Presumably the ultra-sonic energy would commence at turn on and if it did
affect the thermocouples one would expect a rapid change in their readings
right after turn on. No such effect was reported. The conclusion is that
the 6 thermocouples are all reading the same because that is the
temperature of the water. 

Griggs goes on to state that they have tried many times to find mistakes
in their procedures but have not. Really the essence of Tom Droege's
report is: "I don't know you well enough to believe you and I can't
believe you until a number of other people have confirmed your result". 

Given the magnitude of the impact on Science if Griggs is right, it seems
a very reasonable attitude if the Griggs result stands in isolation. 

That brings me to what Russ George of E-Quest Sciences reported at the ACS
and is reproduced on the WWW
(http://www.hooked.net/users/rgeorge/index.html). This company claims a
method producing excess heat from ultrasonic cavitation in heavy water
with Palladium and Titanium targets. The basis of their claim is an
increase in water temperature above what one would expect from the input
of ultra-sonic energy. 

In their (copyrighted) description they carefully explain their
calibration procedure (heating the water with a resister and measuring the
temperature rise) and a number of control runs where the heavy water is
replaced by light water and the Palladium is replaced with other metals in
both heavy and light water. They only see an effect in the case of heavy
water with Palladium or Titanium targets. In these cases the net heat
excess is a factor of 2 to 10 times the input energy. 

However their most intriguing result is the measured production of 4He and
3He from runs that also produce excess heat. These experiments took place
at Los Alamos National Lab and the Helium measurements were made at
Rockwell Rocketdyne. They report concentrations of 4He about 100 times
atmospheric and levels of 3He over 5 orders of magnitude above atmospheric
concentration of 3He. These are not small effects and they are apparently
reproducible at will. 

I noted with interested there is a debate on sci.physics.fusion about what to
do with the left over money from Tom Droege's visit to Hydrosonic. I suggest
it be used to send him to E-QUEST!

Martin Sevior

 --------------------------------176411097316175--
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.09 / Bryan Wallace /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: wallace@acasun.eckerd.edu (Bryan Wallace)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 9 Apr 1995 12:13:50 -0400
Organization: Eckerd College, St. Petersburg, Florida


This post is in reply to the Sean Cordone sscordon@argo.acs.oakland.edu 01 Apr
1995 13:23:53 post in the Thread "Farce of farce of physics" in the newsgroup
"sci.skeptic".

Sean wrote:

>My God, aren't there any skeptics on sci.skeptic?? This "Farce of Physics"
>thread has elicited nothing but "gee, that sounds interesting" or "I've
>figured out the universe and been rejected by the science community as well".
>Does it not seem strange that evidence contradicting established theories
>conceived by some of the greatest minds of the twentieth century is being
>disseminating on the Internet, cross posted to alt.aliens,
>alt.abduction.anal.probe, or whatever??? Even if one experiment SEEMS to
>condradict SR, big deal. Data quality and quality of data analysis vary
>enormously. What about the NUMEROUS high quality results that validate SR,
>e.g. time dilation measured by atomic clocks, all of particle physics (why do
>we need synchotrons? In a non-relativistic universe a cyclotron would be
>sufficient to achieve arbitrarily high energies.) I downloaded the monograph.
>This guy has some radar sounding data that he thinks is strange, and a huge
>chip on his shoulder. Most of the monograph is a rambling discussion of the
>authors failure to get funding, mixed in with various out-of-context quotes
>by physics luminaries that he uses to vacuously point out the shortcomings of
>cutting edge physics. Big revelation! As an alternative he offers Newton's
>_300-year-old_ "corpuscular theory of light"! If you recognize the
>difficulties of the wave-particle duality problem, how, pray tell, do you
>account for interference patterns with your "particles." True, scientists
>hope that in the end nature will prove to be simple, but you can't simply a
>priori declare it to be so!
>
>True, science has a lot of inertia due to human nature (the unaccountable
>variables of established careers and so on). But the 20th century has seen
>revolutions in science (and the adoption of some pretty weird theories, under
>the weight of experimental evidence) on a scale never before seen in any
>field of human intellectual activity. Many weird theories have been rejected,
>as well; during the eighties, string theory was a hot topic. Today, it's dead
>and many PhD's have had to look for work in another field. It's part of the
>process, and it functions far better than any other we've tried (just ask
>Galileo...) 
>
>I would also point out that just as physicists have a vested interest in
>defending the validity of the physics they have learned, so too do outsiders
>(or less euphemistically, charlatans) have an interest in declaring the whole
>field invalid, a farce; this would circuitously validate their own work while
>making superfluous the recognition from the "mainstream" that they fail to
>receive.
>
>Sean

In reply to Sean, there is a vast array of evidence that contradicts Special
Relativity but because of pathological and political reasons, most modern
physicists refuse to acknowledge it.  The numerous high quality results such
as time dilation and the limit of speed c for particle acceleration in the
earth lab can all be explained by Feynman's dynamic ether.  I challenge Sean
to prove that my quotes by physics luminaries are "out-of-context" as he
claims.  Before he died, Einstein realized that the fundamental first
postulate that gave the name to his relativity theories, was false.  In an
article by I. Bernard Cohen titled "An Interview with Einstein" that starts on
page 69 of the July 1955 issue of the journal Scientific American, Cohen
wrote:

  ... Einstein said, he thought that Newton's greatest achievement was his
  recognition of the role of privileged systems.  He repeated this statement
  several times and with great emphasis.  This is rather puzzling, I thought
  to myself, because today we believe that there are no privileged systems,
  only inertial systems; there is no privileged frame--not even our solar
  system--which we can say is privileged in the sense of being fixed in space,
  or having special physical properties not possible in other systems.  Due to
  Einstein's own work we no longer believe (as Newton did) in concepts of
  absolute space and absolute time, nor in a privileged system at rest or in
  motion with respect to absolute space. ...

In Chapter 3 of my book "The Farce of Physics" we find that near the end of
his life in 1954, Einstein wrote to his dear friend M. Besso:

  I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field
  concept,i.e., on continuous structures.  In that case, nothing remains of my
  entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of
  modern physics.

In Chapter 7 of my book I wrote:

  ... In 1951, David Bohm's causal pilot wave theory caused Louis de Broglie
  to abandon the Copenhagen interpretation and return to his original
  deterministic philosophy of quantum mechanics.[118]  In 1953, Erwin
  Schrodinger, in his paper, `What is matter?',[119] writes: `Physics stands
  at a grave crisis of ideas.  In the face of this crisis, many maintain that
  no objective picture of reality is possible.  However, the optimists among
  us (of whom I consider myself one) look upon this view as a philosophical
  extravagance born of despair.'  In 1957, the Soviet physicist V. A. Fock
  `went to Copenhagen and presented Niels Bohr with a paper in which
  complementarity was criticized in four different ways: (1) one should insist
  on the fact that the psi function of quantum mechanics represents something
  real; (2) the presence of precise mathematical laws is equivalent to a
  certain type of causality; (3) limitations in understanding come only from
  the use of a classical language; (4) no "uncontrollable interaction" between
  apparatus and system takes place during measurements.  After reading the
  paper, it is known that Bohr agreed on these four points.'[120]  In 1963, P.
  A. M. Dirac, in his paper, `The evolution of the physicist's picture of
  nature',[65] writes: `one can make a safe guess that uncertainty relations
  in their present form will not survive in the physics of the future'.  
  Andr‚ Mercier reports[121] a conversation with Werner Heisenberg, in which
  Heisenberg argued `that even major modifications of present physical
  theories would not transform them into the desired new theory, as quite
  different and novel ideas are required.  Secondly, the impact of quantum
  theory and relativity theory on the minds of those scholars who helped found
  them during the first half of our century is conceivably such that they are
  imprisoned by these theories and thus cannot help but reason conformably,
  that is, in terms of traditional concepts; whereas the need is for a whole
  revolution of thought, which can only be carried through by nonconformists.'

There is little question that Feynman was a nonconformist.  On page 10 of
James Gleick's new book "GENIUS, THE LIFE AND SCIENCE OF RICHARD FEYNMAN"
Gleick writes:

  ..."Dick could get away with a lot because he was so goddamn smart," a
  theorist said. ...

On page 11 he wrote:

  ... At the atomic bomb project he was the thorn in the side of the military
  censors.  On the commission investigating the 1986 space-shuttle explosion
  he was the outsider who pushed aside red tape to uncover the true cause.  He
  was the enemy of pomp, convention, quackery, and hypocrisy.  He was the boy
  who saw the emperor with no clothes. ...

On page 16 he states:

     After he died several colleagues tried to write his epitaph.  One was
  Schwinger, in certain time not just his colleague but his preeminent rival,
  who chose these words: "An honest man, the outstanding intuitionist of our
  age, and a prime example of what may lie in store for anyone who dares to
  follow the beat of a different drum." ...

On page 146 we find the details of Feynman's PhD thesis contain the following
comments:

  ...But the analogy is unfortunately all too perfect; the infinite answers
  are all too prevalent and confusing."  So he disposed of the field--at least
  the old idea of the field as a free medium for carrying waves.  The field is
  a "derived concept," he wrote.  "The field in actuality is entirely
  determined by the particles."...

On page 348 of the book we find the statement:

  ...Feynman himself remained nearly as uncomfortable as Dirac.  He continued
  to say that renormalization was "dippy" and "a shell game" and "hocus-
  pocus."

On page 368 we find:

  A theorist who can juggle different theories in his mind has a creative
  advantage, Feynman argued, when it comes time to change the theories....

On page 14 of Feynman's 1985 book "QED, The Strange Theory of Light and
Matter" we find the following statement:

  ...Thus light is something like raindrops--each little lump of light is
  called a photon--and if the light is all one color, all the "rain-drops" are
  the same size.

On page 15 of his book he states:

     I want to emphasize that light comes in this form--particles.  It is very
  important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of
  you who have gone to school, where you were probably told something about
  light behaving like waves.  I'm telling you the way it does behave--like
  particles.

On page 37 he argues:

  ...Quantum electrodynamics "resolves" this wave-particle duality by saying
  that light is made of particles (as Newton originally thought), but the
  price of this great advancement of science is a retreat by physics to the
  position of being able to calculate only the probability that a photon will
  hit a detector, without offering a good model of how it actually happens.

On page 119 he writes:

  ...We must accept some very bizarre behavior: the amplification and
  suppression of probabilities, light reflecting from all parts of a mirror,
  light travelling in paths other than a straight line, photons going faster
  or slower than the conventional speed of light...

With regard to interference experiment we find the following arguments in
Chapter 7 of my book:

  ... In John S. Bell's paper `On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox',[126]
  Bell states: `It is the requirement of locality, or more precisely that the
  result of a measurement on one system be unaffected by operations on a
  distant system with which it has interacted in the past, that creates the
  essential difficulty' (for causality).  If one follows Dirac's suggestion to
  introduce non-local hidden variables inside the particles themselves, i.e.
  drop the point-particle picture, then one opens the possibility of such an
  action at a distance propagating as phase motion.[127]  This is consistent
  with Louis de Broglie's argument[128] that a particle `could be compared to
  a small clock', and it is also compatible with the Figure 1 photon (a) and
  electron (g) wave patterns.  Modern laser interference experiments[129,130]
  clearly show that the old probabilistic argument that a photon interferes
  with itself, is untenable.  The experiments can be explained, however, by
  the argument that clock-like photons synchronize clock-like electrons in the
  interference area, and future photons then interact with the electrons.

   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:
cuddy9 cudenwallace cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.09 / Neil Rickert /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 9 Apr 1995 13:55:44 -0500
Organization: Northern Illinois University

In <3m913u$k8u@acasun.eckerd.edu> wallace@acasun.eckerd.edu (Bryan Wallace) writes:

Wallace spews out more garbage, including:

>In reply to Sean, there is a vast array of evidence that contradicts Special
>Relativity but because of pathological and political reasons, most modern
>physicists refuse to acknowledge it.

Anyone who claims this simply does not understand special relativity.
Wallace has been saying this sort of nonsense for some time now.
Wallace doesn't understand special relativity.  It is time for him
to stop this ridiculuous farce of his.

The plain *fact* of the matter is that special relativity is a self
consistent, and therefore irrefutable piece of mathematics.  If the
data does not agree with special relativity, then the data is wrong.
It is as simple as that.  Wallace won't admit that, and his failure
to admit it reveals that he does not know what he is talking about.

Many physicists are quite aware of the irrefutability of special
relativity.  They are well aware that if the data disagrees, then
it is the data that is wrong.  That is why, when Wallace points to
data which he claims is contrary to SR, these physicists ignore
Wallace.  They know that the data must be wrong.  Wallace incorrectly
interprets this as evidence of a conspiracy theory.

Wallace needs to study SR, and find out what it is all about.  When
he finally understands why SR is irrefutable, perhaps he can have
something to say about whether SR is or is not a well chosen theory.
But until Wallace understands SR sufficiently well to realize that SR
is irrefutable, he should stop his ridiculuous campaign of
harassment.

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenrickert cudfnNeil cudlnRickert cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.09 / E Givotovsky /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: evg1@crux2.cit.cornell.edu (Eugenia V Givotovsky)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 9 Apr 1995 20:58:09 GMT
Organization: Cornell University

rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:

>Wallace ...  :

>>In reply to Sean, there is a vast array of evidence that contradicts Special
>>Relativity but because of pathological and political reasons, most modern
>>physicists refuse to acknowledge it.

>Anyone who claims this simply does not understand special relativity.
>Wallace has been saying this sort of nonsense for some time now.
>Wallace doesn't understand special relativity.

>The plain *fact* of the matter is that special relativity is a self
>consistent, and therefore irrefutable piece of mathematics.  If the

No doubt about that...

>data does not agree with special relativity, then the data is wrong.

This includes the relationship between theory and experiment.  By 
definition, you can not claim that nothing better than SR can be created. 
You simply do not know the future.

>It is as simple as that.  Wallace won't admit that, and his failure
>to admit it reveals that he does not know what he is talking about.

The Wallace's problem is: not understanding SR he can not put a real 
price on it and can not compare what he is trying to put forward 
instead SR. 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenevg1 cudfnEugenia cudlnGivotovsky cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.09 / wendy wolk /  I need info on heavy water
     
Originally-From: wolk@aludra.usc.edu (wendy wolk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: I need info on heavy water
Date: 9 Apr 1995 22:03:04 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

could anyone tell me the chem. formula for heavy water and any other
useful information about it. I need this info for a screenplay that I am
writing.
      thanks
         -wendy
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenwolk cudfnwendy cudlnwolk cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.09 / C Harrison /  Periodic Post: Cold Fusion online at sunsite.unc.edu
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Periodic Post: Cold Fusion online at sunsite.unc.edu
Date: Sun, 9 Apr 1995 22:06:51 GMT
Organization: Fitful

This message is posted periodically to inform readers about on-line
data sources related to "cold fusion" which are located at the 
University of North Carolina SunSITE server.

Two public WAIS (Wide Area Information Server) sources are online:
(1) Dieter Britz's Bibliography (periodically updated), and
(2) A sci.physics.fusion archive (1989 to present).
WAIS provides for multiple keyword searches in these databases.  It
does _not_ support boolean logic in the searching :-(.

1.  If you are directly connected to Internet, you can log onto a public
    WAIS server at the University of North Carolina:
    %telnet sunsite.unc.edu
    ...
    login: swais
    ...
    TERM = (unknown) vt100
    It takes a minute to load ...

    <use ? for online help>
    <use /cold to locate the cold-fusion "Source" - the Britz biblio>
    < or use /fusion to locate the fusion-digest source>
    <follow the prompts to select the source and enter your keywords
     for searching>

2.  If you have a "gopher" client, you can use it for WAIS access.  Many 
    university campuses provide gopher as a public information service.
2a. On most systems, you first select an option labeled "Other Systems",
    then from that menu select "WAIS based information".  Since each
    gopher site creates its own menus, I can't tell you exactly where to
    go from there.
2b. If you can gopher to SunSITE, at UNC, navigate the menus down thru
    SunSITE archives..All archives..Academic..Physics..Cold-fusion.
    You will find the searchable databases (typically marked <?>), as
    well as the primary-literature files discussed below.
2c. If you can 'telnet' but not 'gopher', you may telnet to
    sunsite.unc.edu and login as 'gopher'.  Then follow 2a or 2b above.

3.  If you have World Wide Web (WWW) browser, such as Mosaic, Cello, or
    Lynx, you may use the following URL's:
     wais://sunsite.unc.edu/cold-fusion       Britz bibliography
     wais://sunsite.unc.edu/fusion-digest     newsgroup archive
     gopher://sunsite.unc.edu/11/../.pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion

4.  If you have a WAIS client on your system (the most common ones are
    "swais" -- character-based, and "xwais" -- for X-Windows), use it.  The
    Britz source is called "cold-fusion" and it is listed in the 
    directory-of-servers.

    If you _want_ a WAIS client program to run on your system, several are
    available in the public domain.  Try ftp-ing to one of these sites:
      sunsite.unc.edu
      think.com

There are several additional files archived at sunsite (e.g. Bollinger's
Twist of Ribbon, preprints of the Fleischmann&Pons 1989 paper), which
are accessible by anonymous ftp.
    %ftp sunsite.unc.edu
    . . .
    >cd pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion
    >dir
The collection (mostly primary papers) maintained by vince cate has been
copied over to pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion/vince-cate.

Additional contributions are welcome; e-mail cfh@sunsite.unc.edu.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.09 / Ed Matthews /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: Ed Matthews <ewm@gladstone.uoregon.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: Sun, 9 Apr 1995 16:30:19 -0700
Organization: University of Oregon


> 
> The plain *fact* of the matter is that special relativity is a self
> consistent, and therefore irrefutable piece of mathematics.  If the
> data does not agree with special relativity, then the data is wrong.

It used to be in the nature of physics to create theory that reflected 
data (i.e., the facts of reality).  This statement implies the opposite - 
that data that does not conform to our theory is necessarily invalid.

I can easily create a system of symbols and rules which are consistent, 
but that says _nothing_ of the nature of reality.  A theory is true in so 
far as it accurately reflects reality.

As far as Wallace's data is concerned, it may be in error.  But such 
error cannot be established merely by the inconsistency of it with SR.

What if the same method were applied to discrepencies between Newtonian 
gravity and relativity?  We know that certain data contradict Newton's 
theary, such as in the case of Mercury.  But physicists did not throw out 
the data to save the theory - they adopted a new theory to save the data.

This is what is meant by the phrase "primacy of existence".  Reality 
always comes first, and shapes the theory, not the other way around.

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
          Ed Matthews          | University of Oregon  - Physics Major 
   ewm@gladstone.uoregon.edu   | Mathematics and Philosophy Minor

The most selfish of all things is the independent mind that recognizes no 
authority higher than its own and no value higher than its judgement of 
truth.                                   - Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenewm cudfnEd cudlnMatthews cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.10 / David Cook /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: dcook@utpapa.ph.utexas.edu (David M. Cook)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 10 Apr 1995 01:05:35 GMT
Organization: Physics Department, University of Texas at Austin

In article <3m913u$k8u@acasun.eckerd.edu>,
Bryan Wallace <wallace@acasun.eckerd.edu> wrote:
> [...] can all be explained by Feynman's dynamic ether.  [...]

I've never read about this in any of Feynman's papers.  Could you post a 
reference for this?  Thanks,

Dave Cook

PS:  Feynman's seminal papers on Quantum Field Theory (the ones that won
him the Nobel prize) all take SR as a given.  These papers can all be
found in a Dover book of reprints edited by Schwinger.  They are very
readable as technical papers go.  In Feynman's pedagogical writings on SR
there is no hint of any dissatifaction with the theory. 


cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudendcook cudfnDavid cudlnCook cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.10 / Michael Burns /  Re: TMI and PM_Square explanations !
     
Originally-From: mburns@indirect.com (Michael J. Burns)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,alt.energy.renewable,alt.paranet.science,alt.sci.
hysics.new-theories,cl.energie.alternativen,sci.environment,sci.physics,
ci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: TMI and PM_Square explanations !
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 02:37:53 GMT
Organization: Internet Direct, indirect.com

Stefan Hartmann (harti@shb.contrib.de) wrote:
: Hi,
: I received this from an "anonymous" friend. Please read it and let me know
: what you think about this theory for the explanation of the TOMI and PM_Square
: effect !


: c) Permanent Magnet Motors
:                     ___________________________
:                   /                             \
:                 /                                 \
:  Mu metal     /                                     \
:  housing    /                                         \
:           /                                             \
:         /                                                 \
:       /                   _______________                   \
:     /                   /    ------->     \                   \
:    |       current    /      B-fields       \                  |
:    |          tube  /           |             \                |
:    |              /             |               \              |
:    |             |    /---------|----------\     |             |
:    |             |  / _______  <--  ________ \   |             |
:    |             |  ||S     N| /-\ |N      S||   |             |
:    |             |  ||_______| \-/ |________||   |             |
:    |             |  \       axis wire        /   |             |
:    |             |    \--------------------/     |             |
:    |              \           rotor              /             |
:    |               \    \                      /               |
:    |                \     \-->               /                 |
:     \                 \ ___________________/                  /
:       \                                                     /
:         \                                                 /
:           \                                             /
:             \                                         /
:               \                                     /
:                 \                                 /
:                   \_____________________________/

: fig.4 magnetic motor with no brushes; top view
: the magnet charges on the rotor are spinning around the axis wire
: in the stationary double circular and opposite rot B fields of
: the wire and the current tube.

Unfortunately, there is no opposite B field inside the current tube due to
the current in the current tube.  The B field due to the tube cancels inside
but does exist outside the tube.

The Jackson text is entirely wrong if it does discuss magnetic fields 
without a potential - the electromagnetic 4-potential A always applies to 
the conservation of 4-momentum (energy and momentum) by electromagnetic 
interactions.  See GRAVITATION by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler.

The simultaneous presence of bare electric and magnetic monopole charges is
required to destroy the 4-potential and allow free energy devices.  I 
have found a design for such a device and submitted it for publication in 
the spirit of criticism of monopole theory.

--
Michael J. Burns     Contradiction resolution is the stuff of the universe.
mburns@indirect.com  Observers fulfill the apriori need for fallibility.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmburns cudfnMichael cudlnBurns cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Apr 10 04:37:04 EDT 1995
------------------------------
