1995.04.13 / David Ramage /  Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
     
Originally-From: dramage@lamar.colostate.edu (David Ramage)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.accelerators,sci.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.med
sci.research,rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 1995 00:29:30 -0600
Organization: Colorado State University

In article <D6vr65.LJv@info.physics.utoronto.ca>,
neufeld@physics.utoronto.ca wrote:

> In article <holcomb.797565311@stripe.Colorado.EDU>,
> HOLCOMB MICHAEL D <holcomb@stripe.Colorado.EDU> wrote:
> >Heavy water is just, well, heavier.  A heavy water
> >molecule will weigh about 16/14 = 1.143 times as much as a normal water atom.
> >Questions about "dosage" become questions like "what are the ill effects of
> >drinking XXX gallons of water in a day?"
> >
>    No, that's not true. The different isotopic mass has a significant
> effect. As deuterium is incorporated into tissues it affects the hydrogen
> bonding strengths at the replaced sites, including the strength of the
> rungs in DNA and RNA.  This, I understand, is the main reason for the
> toxicity of deuterium, and a body burden of several percent is enough to
> be fatal.
> 
This is exactly right.  Deuterium substitution effects both thermodynamics
(bond strengths) and kinetics (reaction rates).  In most reactions,
including those in biochemical pathways, deuterium slows the rate of
reaction dramatically. Reaction rates are often slowed by 20-30% by
deuterium substitution, and sometimes by more than ten times.  The source
of this effect is the different force constants of the deuterium or
hydrogen bond to the other element.  Introductory physical chemistry books
generally discuss this.  At any rate the effect of different bond
strengths and altered reaction rates on biological systems can be easily
imagined especially since proton (or deutron if poisoned by D2O) transfer
is intimately involved in biological processes.

David Ramage
Chemistry Department
Colorado State University
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudendramage cudfnDavid cudlnRamage cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.13 / Joe Guokas /  Re: Review of new cold fusion magazine
     
Originally-From: joeguokas@aol.com (Joe Guokas)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Review of new cold fusion magazine
Date: 13 Apr 1995 00:04:26 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Several posters commented on Takaaki Matsumoto's observations of
"bacteria" forming in nuclear emulsions during his cold fusion
experiments.  

Before this becomes an urban legend, let me offer an explanation.  

This reference to "bacteria" is probably a metaphor, not a delusion.  In
several of his earlier papers, Matsumoto named anomalous tracks seen in
his nuclear emulsions according to their appearance, not their cause.  For
example, he called some patterns "rabbit's-foot" tracks.  

Names like "bacteria" and "rabbit's-foot" are probably just unfortunate
choices of words.   :-)

Joe Guokas
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjoeguokas cudfnJoe cudlnGuokas cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.13 / Robin Spaandonk /        Re: Fusion Digest 3576
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:       Re: Fusion Digest 3576
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 1995 08:14:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
>Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
>Subject: Re:       Re:  Fusion timetable
>Date: 12 Apr 1995 02:02:04 GMT
>Organization: UCSD SOE
>
>In article <199504101239.WAA10213@oznet02.ozemail.com.au>
>rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk) writes:
>>
>> How about the following suggestion:
>>
>> Take only $50.- million / annum off the Tokamak program, for a period
>> of 7 years. Distribute these funds over half a dozen ACs. Those
>> people who were working on the Tokamak and being paid with these
>> funds could transfer to work on the ACs as well. Result:
>> 1) Imperceptible delay in the overall timetable of the Tok.
>> 2) Development work gets done on ACs.
>> 3) Everyone remains employed.
>> 4) Transferred people gain broader experience.
>
>Well, they took 15 million of last week---can you say budget recision---and
>you didn't even get a single AC funded by that :-)
>
>Still, it doesn't really work like you suggest---thats akin to saying:
>ok, Robin, why don't you have 6 kids, and to feed them you get by
>on 1000 calories a day for the next 5 years.
>
>Two obvious problems: (1) you will shrivel away on 1000 cal/day, and
>(2) as your kids grow, they will want increased food---where does
>that come from.
>
>Those realities are on top of the turf wars that always result from shifting
>funding around within one community.
>
>--
>Barry Merriman
>UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
>UCLA Dept. of Math
>bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)

Barry,

This is a poor analogy.  To start with I would have to go without
more than 1 part in 7 of my food in order to feed six children. In
other words I'm only suggesting a 1/7 reduction in the work on the
tok. This would take the form of certain experiments not being
carried out, or delayed for a few years, and the associated
researchers transferring to work on ACs, on a voluntary basis.
(I suspect that at least 1 in 7 of the current researchers wouldn't 
mind working on at least 1 of the ACs of their choice - especially if 
the pay remained the same, and they had the option of returning to 
the tok. programme if the AC didn't pan out.)

Your second point is also barely applicable, as I would be morally
bound to support all of my children, come what may, where the
same is not true of the AC programmes. As soon as they prove
non-viable you can simply stop funding them. If on the other hand
they prove promising, then they have demonstrated their worth, and
should continue to be funded. Perhaps in conjunction with the tok.
programme, perhaps instead of it (if they prove very good).

Where turf wars are concerned, I think that given the commitment of
the nation to the fusion programme, it behoves researchers in the
field to put aside petty emotional squabbles, and get on with a
reasonable and well balanced approach to the problem of harnessing
nuclear fusion, which I am sure in the log run, is everyone's goal.
It is natural for someone working on a large project like the tok. to feel 
a certain pride in their work. I would not wish to decry this, but rather 
redirect it. Instead of saying "I work on the tokamak programme", one 
could say "I work on the fusion programme". And this would be 
acknowledged as valuable work, irrespective of the particular device. 

Regards,

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

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.13 / 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.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 1995 07:41:47 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <3m9ajg$593@mp.cs.niu.edu>, Neil Rickert <rickert@cs.niu.edu> wrote:
>In <3m913u$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.
>
What arrogance. Wallace apparently understands SR better than you do
and therfore can see some of its shortcomings.

Your tirade is almost hysterical. It smacks of a small mind frightened
of something new and is very unprofessional. You exhibit the blind faith
of a man who cannot think for himself.

I have posted several examples of shortcomings in SR. Where were you
to refute them?

Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre 
minds.  

                                            --- Einstein

V.V.      Model maker
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenvergon cudfnVertner cudlnVergon cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.13 /  prasad /  Re: HUFFMAN DEVICE
     
Originally-From: prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: HUFFMAN DEVICE
Date: 13 Apr 1995 12:44:27 GMT
Organization: sometimes

In article <1995Apr11.224535.16068@clark.dgim.doc.ca>, gsteckly@dgim.doc
ca (Gary Steckly) writes:
|> Michael Huffman (knuke@big.aa.net) wrote:
|> ...
|> A short while back Scott Little mentioned that you are working on a 
|> new unit that might be available for him to test.  As a contributor 
|> to the Droege expedition, I have been trying to muster support to use the 
|> remaining funds ($700) to purchase or lease your device for testing at Mr. 
|> Little's lab. Would that amount cover the purchase/lease/shipping of this 
|> device in the event that any of the other contributors are interested?

Equally importantly, has Huffman got any excess energy results yet?
It would be pointless testing a perfectly classical device.

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenprasad cudlnprasad cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.12 / Frank Pitt /  Re: I. Johnston's statements about Rothwell are fabrications
     
Originally-From: frankie@mundens.equinox.gen.nz (Frank Pitt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I. Johnston's statements about Rothwell are fabrications
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 95 23:58:43 GMT
Organization: Munden's Bar

In article <3mf5t7$g3t@deadmin.ucsd.edu> barry@starfire.ucsd.edu writes:


>I would guess that Jed likes to view himself as a man with a mission,
>to bring the CF truth to an ignorant populace. I think he also likes
>his effective role as local CF spokesperson, since it gives him 
>a certain power and importance. 
>
>He probably also plans to---somehow, its not clear---become the next
>Bill Gates based on the coming CF mega-payoff.

I want to know if he's the Rothwell of "Rothwell International" that tried 
to jump on the OOP bandwagon by offering courses in OO methods, 
advertised a bit in JOOP, and now seems to have disappeared.

Probably completely different people, but they seem to have the same
marketing style.

Frankie

	    
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenfrankie cudfnFrank cudlnPitt cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.13 / Martin Sevior /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: Martin Sevior <msevior>
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: Thu, 13 Apr 1995 19:27:34 GMT
Organization: CERN European Lab for Particle Physics

>
>Without looking up anything and without calculating anything, I am willing to
>bet that it takes more than 11 orders of magnitude to span a single electron
>on one end and planetary orbit on the other.
>
>[SR is exceeding well verified, just not over its entire claim operating range].
>

I agree. On the other hand I haven't heard of claims from the people that 
make the measurements that they've found evidence of violations of SR.

Martin Sevior

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.13 / Martin Sevior /  Re: What's wrong with E-QUEST results?
     
Originally-From: Martin Sevior <msevior>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's wrong with E-QUEST results?
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 1995 19:40:04 GMT
Organization: CERN European Lab for Particle Physics

>
>I should remind you all that I posted results of this type of experiment 
>here several years ago.  There are very large calorimetry problems.  There
>is a very large background to be subtracted.  The ultrasonic transducer 
>puts a lot of energy into the water.  That is what it is designed to do.  
>The problem is that there is no good way to measure how much energy is 
>being put into the water from the transducer.  This is a big mass of metal
>at resonance.  Here is a clue.  The type of device that I bought, then
>shipped off to Steve Jones has a tuning knob.  Each time you use it you
>tune it up to todays conditions.  I remember that the device was rated
>at 300 watts or so.  On a good day you might get 150 watts or so into 
>the water. But a slight change in tuning and it might go to 30 watts.  
>
>As soon as I started this type of experiment a few years back, I realized
>what the problem was.  I could not think of any way to measure the power
>put into the water from the ultrasonic transducer.  No measurement, no
>experiment.  I guess I am just too picky about measuring everything to 
>have fun.  
>
>Tom Droege

The voice of experience. This sounds much more plausable. It would also
make the E-QUEST heat excess claim more like 10% above input power not an
order of magnitude. I can easiliy believe a 10% mistake under these 
circumstances.

I can't believe the 3He production claim either. 3He is the only stable 
nucleus with more protons than neutrons. To make it you've got to put the
neutrons somewhere. Since it's made in macroscopically large quantities
that's a lot of neutrons and a HUGE amount of radiation. 

Martin Sevior

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.13 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  What's wrong with E-QUEST results?
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What's wrong with E-QUEST results?
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 1995 12:00 -0500 (EST)

blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes:
 
-> To illustrate my point consider the following.  I start with a quartz
-> bubble a few cm in diameter and evacuate it as well as possible to
-> a pressure of say 10^-8 Torr.  We then close it off and wait for a
-> sufficient period before the contents is analyzed for helium.  If I
-> find that the contents is 10% helium while the concentration of helium
-> is only a tiny fraction of that can I assert that the observed helium
-> did not come from the atmosphere?  I think not.
 
Dick, I think you are using some bad reasoning here.  Basically you are talking
about osmosis here, and all that happens is that the partial pressure of helium
inside the bubble and outside the bubble equalizes.  After stabilization, the
quantity of helium inside the bubble would be identical to the amount that
would be there if you were to open it to the air.  The only difference is that
the denser gases would be excluded from entering the bubble.
 
Now if the experiment uses a partial vacuum, your argument would be valid.  If
it is held at atmosphere pressure, than there should be no variation from
normal atmospheric concentrations, and if it is at an elevated pressure, and
there is anything that the helium can diffuse through, it should be less than
atmospheric concentration.  Let's not ignore the laws of physics to try and
make a point.
 
I think a better argument would be that the palladium absorbs helium from the
air, and when you introduce hydrogen, this previously absorbed helium is forced
out.  That may not hold water either, but I am not aware of any laws that such
and argument would violate.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.13 / 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: Thu, 13 Apr 1995 13:36:14 -0700
Organization: University of Oregon


> 
> When Einstein proposed SR, the standard for the measurement of time
> was based on the mean solar day, and the standard for length was
> based on a platinum rod in Paris.  The question of the constancy of
> the speed of light was a genuine empirical question.  However, since
> then both standards have been redefined to be more consistent with
> SR, and the result is that the constancy of the speed of light is now
> guaranteed by the measuring standards.  It is no longer an empirical
> question.

That's circular reasoning.  If the reason why the statndards are derived 
from the speed of light is that the speed is constant in free space, then 
one can't conclude that _because_ the standard is based on c, c must be 
constant.  Also, this is irrelevent to the issue of the cansancy of c.  
Either c is constant or it isn't, and that is independent of whatever 
standards we adopt to measure that speed.  (We must use some standard, 
but the choice of using feet, meters, seconds, or hours does not affect 
the issue.)

Thus, you have not refuted Wallace's claim that c is not constant in free 
space.

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
          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:
cuddy13 cudenewm cudfnEd cudlnMatthews cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.13 / Barry Merriman /  Re: What's wrong with E-QUEST results?
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's wrong with E-QUEST results?
Date: 13 Apr 1995 20:48:28 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3mjl6r$9ln@fnnews.fnal.gov> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)  
writes:

> I guess I am just too picky about measuring everything to 
> have fun.  
> 
> Tom Droege

That is definitely your problem, Tom. Come on---loosen up those protocols
and joing the positive-results crowd! Itsa easy, everyone is doing it :-)

By the way, according to a japanese fusioneer (hot) visiting us, MITI
is in the middle of a 6 year $35 million dollar CF project---though he
and the great majority of the fusion researchers are very doubtful 
about the results and don't really fathom why MITI is so interested in it.



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


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.13 / Tom Droege /  Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.accelerators,sci.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.med
sci.research,rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
Date: 13 Apr 1995 21:37:54 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <keeshu-1304951515370001@maccasey.nikhefk.nikhef.nl>,
keeshu@nikhef.nl (Kees Huyser) says:
>

>Here is the Material Data Sheet for Deuterium:

Ahhh!  The good old MSDS that makes everything look so dangerous
that you miss the real hazards.  But it does say 30%  is lethal.  

Those that enjoyed the MSDS for Deuterium will love the one for
sand.  But I suppose because of it children are not allowed to
play in sand boxes anymore.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.13 / 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: 13 Apr 1995 16:59:49 -0500
Organization: Northern Illinois University

In <Pine.SOL.3.91.950413132858.6766C-100000@gladstone.uoregon.edu>
Ed Matthews <ewm@gladstone.uoregon.edu> writes:

>> When Einstein proposed SR, the standard for the measurement of time
>> was based on the mean solar day, and the standard for length was
>> based on a platinum rod in Paris.  The question of the constancy of
>> the speed of light was a genuine empirical question.  However, since
>> then both standards have been redefined to be more consistent with
>> SR, and the result is that the constancy of the speed of light is now
>> guaranteed by the measuring standards.  It is no longer an empirical
>> question.

>That's circular reasoning.  If the reason why the statndards are derived 
>from the speed of light is that the speed is constant in free space, then 
>one can't conclude that _because_ the standard is based on c, c must be 
>constant.

There is no circular reasoning.

Obviously, the current standards were only adopted after there had
been substantial empirical support for SR.  However, once the
standards are defined so as to make c constant, then c is constant by
definition and no experimental evidence can change that.

Of course, if SR does not match our reality very accurately, we would
still expect to see data which persuaded us to drop SR.  But that
data could not be in the form of measurements which violated the
constancy of c.

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenrickert cudfnNeil cudlnRickert cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.13 /  ElliotKenl /  Re: Warm Fusion
     
Originally-From: elliotkenl@aol.com (ElliotKenl)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Warm Fusion
Date: 13 Apr 1995 18:44:33 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I've also been interested in ultrasound and water/metal systems. I
wouldn't dignify what I've been doing as experimentation; more like
dabbling.  At any rate, I find that I can produce a tremendous amount of
excess heat using water and aluminum in an ultrasonic bath.  However, this
is not anomalous because aluminum oxide has a very heat heat of formation.
 I wonder if others showing excess heat results in ultrasonic systems have
had the same observation.

Best regards,
Elliot Kennel
Yellow Springs OH
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenelliotkenl cudlnElliotKenl cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.13 / Peter Hickman /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: phickman@b4pph19e.bnr.ca (Peter Hickman)
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: 13 Apr 1995 22:46:40 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada


In article <3mjrcu$hlc@bmerhc5e.bnr.ca>, schow@bnr.ca (Stanley T.H. Chow) writes:
|> In article <D6zICG.Enx@news.cern.ch>, Martin Sevior  <msevior> wrote:



|> >As a rule professional
|> >Theoretical Physcists are far more imaginitive than amauter's and any number
|> >of wild and wooly theories would contend :-)!
|> 
|> I don't know if you intended this as a dig or compliment, but I certainly
|> agree that professional T.P. have some *really* wild theories.
|> 
|> 
|> >
|> >To be successful they'd also have to explain why SR works so incredibally well
|> >on the sub-atomic scale.
|> 
|> On the other hand, you also have to explain why verification at sub-atomic
|> scale should imply any thing at astronomical scale.
|> 
|> 
|> >Experimental Particle Physicists use SR everyday
|> >at accelerators and Cosmic ray experiments all over the world. Indeed Quantum
|> >Electrodynamics, which requires SR as input, has been verified to the limit
|> >of experimental error for the gyromagnetic ratio of the electron. This
|> >is 11 significant figures or 1 part in 100 billion. Verification to one part
|> >in 100 billion is a pretty good test of a theory and a long way from a farce.
|> 
|> Without looking up anything and without calculating anything, I am willing to
|> bet that it takes more than 11 orders of magnitude to span a single electron
|> on one end and planetary orbit on the other.
|> 
|> [SR is exceeding well verified, just not over its entire claim operating range].
|> 

	Here's a possible catch (special point)....over vast distances
special relativity is expected to need a little help from General
Relativity.  Right?



|> 
|> -- 
|> Stanley Chow;  schow@bnr.ca, stanley.chow-ott@nt.com; (613) 763-2831
|> Bell Northern Research Ltd., PO Box 3511 Station C, Ottawa, Ontario
|> Me? Represent other people? Don't make them laugh so hard.

	



Keywords: 

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenphickman cudfnPeter cudlnHickman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.14 / C Waltemath /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: clw@ohsu.edu (Charles Waltemath)
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: 14 Apr 1995 00:08:10 GMT
Organization: Oregon Health Sciences University

  Could someone please resurect Feynman to pronounce an end to this BS!!

Ignore the ignorant!
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenclw cudfnCharles cudlnWaltemath cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.13 / J Alexander /  Sonoluminescence,ColdFusion, Griggs Generator
     
Originally-From: joi@ozemail.com.au (Jonathon Alexander)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sonoluminescence,ColdFusion, Griggs Generator
Date: 13 Apr 1995 22:24:16 GMT
Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd - Australia

Let's design a better Griggs generator:

(SL=SonoLuminescence)

Feb 1995 Scientific American ran an interesting article on 'Sonoluminescence'
by Seth J. Putterman. Bubbles in water are compressed to enormous pressures
and temperatures by sound waves, and emit blue light. It was suggested in the
article that 'There was a highly speculative change that the comparison 
between
inertial confinement fusion and sonoluminescence might indeed reveal a deeper
similarity'

'The Amateur Scientist' section explained how to set up an SL experiment at
home.

It appears there is a possibility that all cold fusion phenomena are 
related to
high pressures. There is some envelope used by hot fusion engineers where
a given combination of plasma density, temperature and containment time is
required for fusion, but the various dimensions can be traded-off. If 
pressure
and was high enourgh, it might act similarly to a high enough temperature to
cause nuclei to come close enough for fusion.

Inside palladium, hydrogen absorbed electrolytically may experience some
very high equivalent pressures.

Inside the Griggs generator, the sound and vibration cause by rotating blades
in water (if that is how it works) may cause sufficiently large numbers of
SL bubbles for measurable heat generation, via whatever phenomenon
is causing the light emission in SL, be it fusion or otherwise. 

The possible relationship between the Griggs generator, SL and Cold Fusion
suggests a couple of lines of research:

(1) Add Heavy water (D2O) to water used in Griggs generator and see if
it has any measurable effect on temperatures generated. I have a little
I could donate for the experiment.

(2) Design a new Griggs-type generator based on SL and Ceramic sound
transducers rather than rotating blades. Design for maximum number of
bubbles to be generated, rather than just one. (A surface coverered with
an array of transducers, with some form of mass bubble initiation inside?)
Using sound rather than rotating mechanical device will dramatically reduce
energy input and make any heat output more easily distinguishable from
energy input. Experiment with heavy water as well as normal water.
(Curved surfaces at transducers may be required for focussing effect, as
in Sci Am curved flask, and curved surfaces of propellers)

Might create quite a nice little low-pollution energy-generator!

Regards and good luck.
John Alexander joi@ozemail.com.au I am not a physicist.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjoi cudfnJonathon cudlnAlexander cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.14 /  Oolong /  Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
     
Originally-From: phoenix@pride.ugcs.caltech.edu (Oolong)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.accelerators,sci.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.med
sci.research,rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
Date: 14 Apr 1995 00:45:36 GMT
Organization: Murray's Mud Minions

Tom Droege <Droege@fnal.fnal.gov> wrote:
/In article <keeshu-1304951515370001@maccasey.nikhefk.nikhef.nl>,
keeshu@nikhef.nl (Kees Huyser) says:

/>Here is the Material Data Sheet for Deuterium:
/Ahhh!  The good old MSDS that makes everything look so dangerous
/that you miss the real hazards.  But it does say 30%  is lethal.  

Yep.  It would also be nice if it had a couple of explanatory paragraphs
along the way.  "In case of ingestion, give victim lots of water."  Nice
if you said _why_... or compared it to other hazards.

/Those that enjoyed the MSDS for Deuterium will love the one for
/sand.  But I suppose because of it children are not allowed to

Post?

Slainte,
-xx- Damien Sullivan X-) <*> http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~phoenix

They made his home a living grave
Until the bravest of the brave
Was forced to leave the poorest of the poor.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenphoenix cudlnOolong cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.14 / mitchell swartz /  Add'l info (& short survey) on solid state (cold) nuclear fusion
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.electronics,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion,sci.
nergy,sci.edu,sci.materials
Subject: Add'l info (& short survey) on solid state (cold) nuclear fusion
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 02:35:17 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

This is an offer for additional information on cold fusion,
and a request for help in completing a short survey on 
attitudes towards, and general knowledge of, cold fusion.

With respect to the survey:
  The final results of the fusion survey will be completed
shortly.   This is the third call for input to the survey sheet
which has been very slightly modified by the comments of several of the
thoughtful respondees.   :-)
 The preponderance of respondees so far are physicists, 
with major inputs from fusion scientists and engineers ,
mech./elec. engineers, material scientists, and chemists.
There are several students, and some journalists.
All are invited -  there are ~10 non-technical questions.

As previously, an offer for much more literature and
information regarding the field of
cold fusion is available to anyone who helps this research.
However, all replies to the survey are welcome and will be counted.

The survey sheet and other details can be obtained by simply mailing 
e-mail to me with the     Subject: Survey3
 Best wishes and thanks in advance.
                        Mitchell Swartz  [mica@world.std.com]

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.13 / Martin Sevior /  Re: What's wrong with E-QUEST results?
     
Originally-From: Martin Sevior <msevior>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's wrong with E-QUEST results?
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 1995 14:01:39 GMT
Organization: CERN European Lab for Particle Physics

In response to: What's wrong with the E-QUEST results? by Richard Blue

the article found in
 http://www.hooked.net/users/rgeorge/index.html#fusion
but I don't think you've done a good job in finding what's wrong with
their measurements. I would like everyone interested to read this article
in full but I think it would be a violation of copyright for me to post it
here without their permission. 

To take your points one by one:

>You may think that they have made sufficient control measurements
>to demonstrate proper energy balance for cases that do not produce
>excess heat, but doing a proper control measurements may be very
>tricky.  For example, if D2O is replaced by H2O as a control does
>the coupling of ultrasound power into the sample volume remain
>unaltered?  My answer is most probably it does not.

This certainly not a big enough effect to explain their excess heat claim
and to invalidate their control experiments. For a start one of their
control runs is to use Stainless Steel in Heavy water where the coupling
of the ultrasonic transducer to the system would be the same as for the
excess heat runs. Secondly the density of heavy water is only 10% larger
than light water. If the adiabatic bulk modulus of heavy water is the same
as light water, (seems reasonable), this gives the speed of sound in heavy
water about 5% less than light water. The impedance mis-match between the
transducer and the medium goes as the square of the difference in sound
velocities and so results in a 10% difference in energy input between the
two systems, light and heavy water. Also the speed of sound in the
(presumably) piezoelectric transducer is faster than water so the coupling
to the light water will be better than the heavy water. The E-QUEST
article gives no information about whether or not this effect was taken
into account. If they didn't, neglecting this effect is only likely to
depress their excess energy measurement. In any case their claimed energy
excess is up to a factor of 10 larger than their energy input so a 10%
effect is not going to make a difference. This corroborates their heavy
water control experiment too. 

It seems to me that doing calorimetry in this kind of device is much easier
than in a Pons and Fleischman type system since there is no heat of
dissociation of water to worry about and no devolved gases.


>
>The fog that surrounds the helium claims largely has to do with supposed
>comparisons between the levels observed and the "natural" background levels
>for the detected gases in the atmosphere.  When the results are stated
>as being N times the concentration in the atmosphere I presume the reader
>is expected to conclude that any value for N greater than one clearly
>rules out the possibility that the atmosphere is the ultimate source of
>the helium being detected.  That is false and deceptive reasoning!
>
>To illustrate my point consider the following.  I start with a quartz
>bubble a few cm in diameter and evacuate it as well as possible to
>a pressure of say 10^-8 Torr.  We then close it off and wait for a
>sufficient period before the contents is analyzed for helium.  If I
>find that the contents is 10% helium while the concentration of helium
>is only a tiny fraction of that can I assert that the observed helium
>did not come from the atmosphere?  I think not.
>Clearly the use of such a comparison by E-Quest or anyone else is
>evidence for saying they don't even understand the problem.  I think
>that sheds some doubt on the likelyhood that they will perform a properly
>designed experiment.
>

Here I think I'm to blame by not posting their article in full. Their
system was closed, operates at atmospheric pressure and the pressuring gas
was high purity argon. The measured concentration of 4He in this gas was
0.477 ppm.  The atmospheric concentration is 5.2 ppm. After a "short"
(they don't say how long) excess heat run, the concentration of 4He was
measured to be 2.4 ppm. After the long run (20 hours of excess heat
production) it was measured to be 552 ppm. 

> 
>What could be wrong with the
experimental design at E-Quest?  I don't 
>have enough information from reliable sources to say, but I did see 
>mention of a "rubber membrane" at one point.  If there is, in fact, 
>a rubber membrane in the E-Quest device I think the case for saying 
>the helium comes from the atmosphere is greatly enhanced. 
> 

Atmospheric Helium is not a credible source of contamination in this case
since a concentration of 4He 10 times atmospheric was measured and the
experiment was performed at atmospheric pressure. If helium could be
concentrated to 10 times it's atmospheric value in a passive device, it
would be possible to isolate 4He through a series of nested passive
devices each of which provides a factor of 10 increase in helium
concentration until, bingo, you've got 100% 4He! A rubber membrane that
this property would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. (Entropy
increases with time.)

> 
>But, you protest, what
about the 3He?  Here again the comparison 
>given is not appropriate to the experimental conditions.  There is 
>also the appeal to the authority given by the fact that measurements 
>were made at Los Alamos National Laboratory.  Let me simple mention 
>that if I were to name labs where the concentration of 3He in the 
>atmosphere may be unusually high, Los Alamos ranks well up on the list. 
>Was the ratio of 3He to 4He actually measured for the atmosphere 
>in the room where the E-Quest results were confirmed?
> 

Upon rereading their article I find their quoted numbers don't match the
their quoted measured ratio. The numbers available are: After the short
run, 4He concentration 2.55 ppm, 3He concentration 0.0003 ppm (though they
quote it as 0.3 ppb). I get the ratio 4He/3He = 8*10^3 not 182 as written.
This is still a long way from the expected ratio of 8*10^5. 

I think it's highly unlikely that there's a local enhancement of the
3He/4He at Los Alamos. If I run some numbers assuming measurement was made
in the middle of a 1 tonne store of Tritium spread over 1 square
kilometer and a 3He diffusion rate of 1 meter per second I get a
3He/4He ratio of 2*10^-7..  much less than the usual atmospheric 
concentration of about 1*10^-6. ( I have no idea of how much
Tritium is at Los Alamos. The number is almost certainly classified!)
I think that is estimate is almost certainly an upper limit but I agree
the best way would be to simply measure the concentration in the room.
They do not mention such a measurement.

In addition the E-QUEST document says the Los Alamos experiment confirmed
previous measurements and that no Helium was found in control experiments.

Finally they claim the measured Helium production is within an order
of magnitude of the observed heat excess. I can't confirm this since the
heat excess during the Los Alamos experiment is not not given, nor is the
volume of the containing Argon gas.

>
>The final question, as always, is replication.  That doesn't not just
>mean counting the number of times the same errors have been repeated
>by the same people using the same methods.
>
> Dick Blue

In this I fully agree.

To me the most puzzling thing thing is where are the neutrons corresponding
to 3He production? The E-QUEST experiment at Los Alamos says no neutrons or
gammas were detected during the excess heat runs.

Now presumably the 3He comes from

D + D => 3He + neutron           (1)

Given a resumed heat production of 10 Watts (the article does not say what
the heat excess was) and a 4He/3He production ratio of 200 to 1, then reaction
1 would produce around 3*10^11 neutrons per second! Not only would this
be REALLY easy to detect, it would be extremely dangerous to the experimenters.
The equipment used at Los Alamos should be able to detect a neutron flux
10 million times smaller than this.

No such yield was observed.

So where do the neutrons go?

Martin Sevior




cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.14 / Edward Lewis /  .....Plasmoids......
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: .....Plasmoids......
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 03:07:11 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago



			Copyright 1995 by Edward Lewis All Rights Reserved

Here is a copy of an article that I wrote.  I haven't edited it for the
sci.physics.fusion newsgroup.  Posted March 30, 1995.

Edward Lewis							March 8, 1995
P. O. Box 13060
Chicago, Illinois  60613

PLASMOID PHENOMENA
	
	Fundamental anomalous phenomena are the contradictions of the
postulates of the premises of peopleUs theories, and the environment.
Those who apprehend a theory and experience according to the theory
may experience the contradictions.  It seems that since the
fundamental postulates of peopleUs premises are few, the kinds of
fundamental anomalies are few.  During the last 20 years, the number
of people who have been experiencing and reporting about the anomalies
of the Q.M. and Relativity theories has been rapidly increasing.  The
last 20 years is that which Thomas Kuhn called a Rcrisis period,S and
there have been crisis periods at about every 80 year interval since
1500 .  It seems to me that a group of fundamental phenomena of the
current set of phenomena is that of RplasmoidS phenomena.

	In earlier articles, IUve written that atoms are plasmoid
phenomena.  Plasmoids seem to be basically an electrical-magnetic
phenomena -- plasmoids have converted to electricity.  The magnetism
is an aspect of the electricity.  I suspect that atoms are like ball
lightning -- if this is so then atoms may often be toroidally shaped,
and may usually not contain inner clumps in the middle.  The magnetism
of atoms is an electrical phenomena similar to the magnetism of the
earth.  People have experienced that the magnetism (people have used
the term Rmagnetic lines of forceS) of the earth is electrical
currents.  Light is the same as electricity since it interconverts .
Inertia, accretion, and separation of plasmoids is also an
electrical-magnetic phenomena -- as relative motion of plasmoids also
seems to be.

	Almost all or all the phenomena that I know about seem to be
plasmoid phenomena.  Substance seems to be a plasmoid phenomena
because galaxies are plasmoids and substance converts to other kinds
of plasmoid phenomena, light, and electricity .  Micrometer-sized
plasmoid phenomena has been reported to be the locus of neutron
emission , and ball lightning-like phenomena has been associated with
neutron production also.  Like other plasmoids, atoms may clump and
divide and dissipate so that new substances, elements and isotopes are
produced.  It seems that plasmoid phenomena are the same though the
size varies.  For example, galaxies seem to convert to jets, beams,
and electrical currents in the middle, and this seems to be similar to
the jets, beams, and electrical discharges from ball lightning, the
beams and electrical discharges from micrometer-sized plasmoids, the
beams from discharge devices reported by Savvatimova and Karabut et
al., and the beam or jet that a plasmoid emitted on nuclear emulsion
that Matsumoto showed .  I think that EVs(5), ball lightning,
plasmoids, tornadoes and galaxies are similar phenomena since they
behave similarly .

	People have produced plasmoid and BL-like phenomena for a long
time.  W. Bostick produced that which he called plasmoids by
discharging through electrodes , and according to A. Peratt , he
coined the term.  In this paper, Bostick had already begun to tell
others about his speculation that galaxies and the phenomena he
produced were similar.  He compared the shapes and the travel of these
things.  He also speculated a little about the identity of
"particles."  According to experimental results, many people including
Bostick, Alfven (Nobel Prize, Magneto-hydrodynamics), Peratt and
Lerner have developed similar extensive astrophysical theories that
model the universe as plasmoids; while others, such as Bostick
developed models of particles as plasmoids.  For decades, many people
have tried to use plasmoids for weapons and for fusion, and it is well
known that plasmoids are associated with element, isotope, and neutron
production.

	In the latter part of the 1700s, people were producing ball
lighting-like phenomena by using Leyden jars, a kind of condensor, and
in the late 1800s, Plante and others studied BL-like phenomena
produced by discharge through wires and in plate condensors.  Tesla
also produced such phenomena.  There have been about 8 international
conferences about ball lightning and luminous atmospheric phenomena
during the last 8 years.  In 1992, I began to tell people about my
idea that tiny ball-lightning phenomena were produced in CF apparatus.
Matsumoto has reported about the observation of tiny ball
lightning-like phenomena in some cold fusion apparatus .
	
	Most if not all other anomalous phenomena that I know about
can be described as plasmoid phenomena.  For example,
superconductivity seems to be similar to the phenomena of ball
lightning traveling though materials such as ceramics and glass
without leaving holes or visible effects, yet ball lightning may
convert to an electrical surge after touching a wire or it may convert
to a bolt of lightning.  Also, sonoluminescence and RcavitationS seems
to be a phenomena of the water converting to light and perhaps
electricity, and to other atoms and bigger micrometer-sized plasmoids.
The pits and the localized melting seem to be plasmoid and discharge
effects.  The vortex phenomena photographed by Stringham and George
are plasmoid phenomena.

	I suggest that people use nuclear emulsions and check their
apparatus microscopically to find plasmoids or their effects. Also,
check the electrical grounding of the apparatus and see whether there
are electrical surges.  I suspect that in many apparatus much
substance may convert and leave as plasmoids and/or electricity.
Also, I suggest that people try to check whether things like time
(maybe use atomic clocks ), accretion (the clumping of plasmoids), and
magnetism change around their cold fusion and plasmoid apparatus.
There is much evidence of anomalous changes of these things around and
in plasmoid phenomena such as discharge phenomena, ball lightning,
solar flares, volcanoes and earthquakes.  The changes of the accretion
of plasmoid phenomena associated with plasmoid phenomena is the
production of new elements and substances.  Check for
superconductivity, since this is a plasmoid phenomena.  Also, I
suspect that storms on earth greatly affect at least some CF
apparatus.  Hawkins and others reported that a electrolysis apparatus
exhibited heat and gamma-ray excursions at the times of electrical
storms, but not otherwise.  In this vein, it is interesting that V. A.
Filimonov reports that a neutron source greatly stimulates CF
phenomena .  Lightning is associated with neutron production .  IUm
speculating that neutrons are a plasmoid environment, like larger
plasmoids.
	
	On one weekly T.V. show about unusual phenomena that is shown
in Chicago, there was a report about people who were in Gulf Breeze,
Florida in the U.S.A. who reported seeing a small light orbiting a
larger luminous orb.  I have read the reports of people who have seen
two BL revolve about a common center and of people who have seen
several BL revolving together.  I suspect that according to the new
set of phenomena, the reason the small BL-like phenomena was orbiting
the bigger orb is the same reason that the planets orbit the Sun.
	
	If I could suggest some experiments, as I suggested in 1992 ,
look for the emission of neutrons and other kinds of plasmoids during
stress of substances other than hydrogen and during stresses other
than electrical discharge, such as by thermal cycling or fracture.
When I was 5 or 6, I produced tiny, unusual BL-like phenomena (sparks)
by fracturing a certain kind of rock.  Composites or combinations of
elements with big differences of Roxidation stateS or
electronegativity may prove useful; this seems superficially similar
to Hora, Miley et al.Us idea of using differences in Fermi level.
-------Footnotes

 E. Lewis, RThe Periodic Production of Rationalized Phenomena and
the Past Periodic Depressions,S manuscript article, 1992, 1994, 1995.
 A. Tonomura (Imperial Award and Japan Academy Award) experienced
the conversion of electrons to light.
 E. Lewis, RPlasmoids and Cold Fusion,S Cold Fusion Times, 2 (no. 1), 4 (Summer, 1994).
 W. H. Bostick, W. Prior, L. Grunberger, and G. Emmert, RPair Production
of Plasma Vortices,S Physics of Fluids, 9, 2078 (1966).
 K. Shoulders, "Energy Conversion Using High Charge Density," Patent Number 5,123,039.
 G. Dijkhuis and J. Pijpelink,  "Performance of a High-Voltage
Test Facility Designed for Investigation of Ball Lightning," Proc.
First International Symposium on Ball Lightning (Fire Ball) --
The Science of Ball Lightning (Fire Ball)  Tokyo, Japan, July 4-6,
1988, World Scientific Company, Singapore, p. 336.
 T. Matsumoto, "Searching for Tiny Black Holes During Cold Fusion,"
Fusion Technology, 22, 281 (Sept. 1992);  Fig. 2b.
 E. Lewis,  RLuminous Tornadoes and Other Plasmoids, Cold Fusion
Times, 1 (no. 4), 4 (Winter, 1994).
 V. Nardi, W. Bostick, J. Feugeas, and W. Prior, "Internal Structure
of Electron-Beam Filaments," Physical Review A, 22, no. 5, 2211
(November, 1980).
 A. Peratt, email note, January 27,  1995.
 A. Peratt, REvolution of the Plasma Universe:  I.  Double Radio
Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets,S  IEEE Trans. Plasma
Science., vol. PS-14, 385 (1986).  Many other articles as well.
 Eric Lerner, The Big Bang Never Happened, New York, 1991.
 W. Bostick, RThe Plasmoid Construction of the Superstring,S 21st
Century Science & Technology, p. 58, Winter 1990.
 W. Bostick, RHow Superstrings Form the Basis of Nuclear Matter,S
21st Century Science & Technology, p. 66, Winter 1990.
 W. Bostick, RMass, Charge, and Current:  The Essence and Morphology,S
 Physics Essays, 4 (no.5), 45 (1991).  Millenium Twain sent me
this reference in January or Feb. of 1994.
 J. Tennenbaum, RBehind the Russian SDI Offer:  A Scientific, Technologi
al, and Strategic Revolution,S 21st Century Science & Technology,
p. 36, Summer 1993.
 RUSAF Conducts Experiments with Compact Toroids for Future Space
Weapons,S Aviation Week & Space Technology, 130, 60 (May 15, 1989).
 E. Lewis, RA Proposal for the Performance of Four Kinds of Experiments
to Test My Own Hypotheses and a Statement of a Deduction about
Phenomena,S manuscript article, October 19, 1992.
 T. Matsumoto, RCold Fusion Experiments by Using Electrical Discharge
in Water,S  distributed at the ICCF4.
 T. Matsumoto, RObservation of Tiny Ball Lightning During Electrical
Discharge in Water,S sub. to FT, Jan. 23, 1994.
 T. Matsumoto, RTwo Proposals Concerning Cold Fusion,S Fusion Technology
 26, 1337 (December 1994).
 E. Lewis.  There is an abstract in the back of the ICCF3 about two experiments.
 N. Hawkins, RPossible Natural Cold Fusion in the Atmosphere,S
Fusion Technology, 19, 2212 (July, 1991).
 N. Hawkins, S.-Sh. Yi, X.-Zh. Qi, S. Li, L. Wang, and Q. X. Zu,
RInvestigations of Mechanisms and Occurrence of Meteorologically
Triggered Cold Fusion at the Chinese Academy of Sciences,S  Proc.
Conf. Anomalous Nuclear Effects in Deuterium/Solid Systems, Provo,
Utah, October 22-24, 1990.
 V. A. Filimonov, RA New Cold Fusion Phenomenon,S sci.physics.fusion
newsgroup (article #16526, from profusion@aol.com), January 21, 1995.
 S. Shah, H. Razdan, C. Bhat, and Q. Ali, RNeutron Generation in
Lightning Bolts,S Nature, 313, 773 (1985).
 SIGHTINGS, Saturday, December 3, 1994, 6:00 P.M.
 E. Lewis, RA Description of Phenomena According to My Theory and
Experiments to Test My Theory, manuscript article, submitted to
Fusion Technology, December 1992.
 G. Miley, H. Hora, E. G. Batyrbekov, R. Zich, RElectrolytic Cell
With Multilayer Thin-Film Electrodes,S  Transactions of Fusion
Technology, 26, 313 (December 1994).







cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.14 / Edward Lewis /  .....cf produced plasmoids.....
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: .....cf produced plasmoids.....
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 03:11:12 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

(c) 1994 by Edward Lewis All Rights Reserved
December 22, 1994

	I have been posting articles about tiny ball lightning and
plasmoids for a while now.  In a letter to the Editor in the December,
1994 issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY, Matsumoto reports about the
observation of tiny ball lightning in several cold fusion experiments,
and he suggests that people use nuclear emulsions.  He's written
manuscripts about tiny ball lightning that are produced by discharge
apparatus also.  Sufficient evidence of the production of things that
can be called "plasmoids" or tiny ball lightning is the many kinds of
plasmoid traces that Matsumoto has produced, and the EB-filament paper
by Nardi and Bostick et al.: V. Nardi, W. H.  Bostick, J. Feugeas, and
W. Prior, "Internal Structure of ELectron-Beam Filaments," Physical
Review A, 22, no. 5, 2211 (November, 1980).  This is substantial
proof, in my opinion.  Some of the ring traces are very similar, and
some of the other traces are similar too.  I'd also like to suggest
that people use nuclear emulsions awith various kinds of cold fusion
and plasmoid experiments.  Many of the plasmoids produced by
electrolysis and discharge are the same.  And people have known for a
long time that plasmoids and discharges are associated with neutron
production.  They are the locus of neutron production.



              (c) 1994 by Edward Lewis All Rights Reserved

        I've posted versions of this article several times on this
newsgroup since December of 1993; and I've posted several articles
about plasmoids and cold fusion on this newsgroup since January of
1993.  If anyone wants to reproduce or resend this article, get my
permission first.

                        PLASMOIDS AND COLD FUSION

        W. Bostick produced that which he called plasmoids by
discharging through electrodes.  Bostick wrote a paper that was titled
"Plasmoids" that was published in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN in 1957(1).  He
may have been the first to apply this term to this phenomena.
According to Peratt, Bostick coined the term  In this paper, he had
already began to tell others about his speculation that galaxies and
the phenomena he produced were similar.  He compared the shapes and
the travel of these things.  He also speculated a little about the
identity of "particles."  He shows pictures of different kinds of
plasmoid shapes in the article and related these to different kinds of
shapes of galaxies.  Many people including Bostick, Alfven who is a
physics Nobel Prize winner, Peratt and Lerner have developed similar
astronomical theories that model the universe as plasmoids and that
can be said to be derivations or summarizations of the experimental
work of W. Bostick and others.  It has become evident that atoms can
be defined as plasmoids, especially as according to the phenomena
produced by Ken Shoulders.  It seems that there are many different
kinds of plasmoid phenomena.  The EVs that Ken Shoulders produced and
ball lightning may be classified as kinds of this general phenomena.
There is evidence that both plasmoids and ball lightning are
associated with neutrons, radioactivity, production of elements, and
excess radiation, and that they are a locus of this.

                Based on the phenomena that Matsumoto produced, the
traces, the pictures and descriptions of electrodes, the pictures of
stationary BL and corona-like phenomena, the visible BL-like phenomena
that he reports, and the sparks that he observed that left traces like
those produced during electrolysis and discharge, one may categorize
CF phenomena as tiny ball-lightning or plasmoids.  Important evidence
is the holes and trails on and in emulsions and electrodes that
Matsumoto produced by discharging and electrolysis, the holes in
electrodes that Liaw et al. produced, the holes in electrodes that
others produced, the empty areas in electrodes that are shaped liked
grains that Matsumoto and Silver et al. produced and the half-empty
grains that Matsumoto produced, and the holes and tunnels and trails
on and in electrodes that Silver produced.  The tunnels, round holes,
and trail-like marks are similar to those that are produced by ball
lightning phenomena, though ball lightning are associated with bigger
effects.  These tunnels, round holes, and trail-like marks are also
similar to those produced by the EV phenomena that K. Shoulders
produced.  Silver and his co-authors who published a paper in the
December, 1993 issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY have reproduced the tunnels,
holes, and trail-like markings in metals that Matsumoto produced.
These tunnels, holes, and trail-marks are evidence of the conversion
and change of materials.  Important evidence that both CF phenomena
and substance in general are plasmoid phenomena is Matsumoto's
experience of the production of electricity by apparatus.  I suspect
that plasmoid phenomena such as electrodes and other materials may
convert to be bigger plasmoids and light and electricity.  EVs and
ball lightning are known to convert to light and electricity.  I think
that all substance can be identified as plasmoid phenomena.

        I suspect that the round holes in electrodes that Matsumoto
produced and the round holes and tunnels that Silver produced are due
to the boring of BL-like phenomena -- the substance was converted to
light, electricity or other kinds of plasmoids, I suspect.  And I
suspect that the grain-shaped voids or pits that they produced is
evidence of the conversion of the grain to light or electricity or of
the production of other kinds of plasmoids, though there may also be
the distortion of the grains or the dislocation of grains by
separation.  Some plasmoids are apparently able to travel through
materials, even if the plasmoids are very big.  The plasmoids that
Matsumoto has produced does this, and this is major evidence to
support my deductions.  Matsumoto has also shown pictures of sectioned
electrodes with what seem to me to be trail-like tracks, as if tiny
BL-like phenomena traveled inside and left tracks.

        Many other anomalous phenomena can be described as plasmoid
phenomena.  For example, superconductivity seem to be similar to the
phenomena of ball lightning traveling though materials such as
ceramics and glass without leaving holes or visible effects, yet ball
lightning may convert to an electrical surge after touching a wire or
it may convert to a bolt of lightning.  Also, sonoluminescence seems
to be a phenomena of the water converting to light and perhaps
electricity.  1)W. Bostick, "Plasmoids," SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, 197, 87
(October 1957).

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.14 / Edward Lewis /  ....tornadoes......
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ....tornadoes......
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 03:12:42 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago


Dec. 7, 1993
posted on Oct. 28, 1994

Luminous Tornadoes and Other Plasmoids

	During the past 1 3/4 years I've been posting articles about
ball lightning, plasmoids, EVs, and cold fusion on sci.physics.fusion
newsgroup. This is a version of one that I posted last winter.  Does
anyone have any reports about anomalous atmospheric phenomena?

        People have often seen bright or luminous tornadoes.
According to prior research, a large percentage of tornadoes are
bright or glowing, and people have experienced that some are quite hot.
(see B. Vonnegut and J. R. Weyer, "Luminous Phenomena Accompanying
Tornadoes," WEATHERWISE, 19-2 (Apr. 1966), 66-68. and B. Vonnegut and
J. R. Weyer, "Luminous Phenomena in Nocturnal Tornadoes, SCIENCE,
(1966), 1213-1220.)

        Storms on the Earth are probably an atmospheric manifestation
of earth plasmoid activity, according to Tesla's experience of
electricity in the ground that accompanied a storm.  Even clouds may
be such a manifestation.  Clouds seem to be plasmoid phenomena.  And
clouds may convert to ball lightning.  People have seen clouds which
contained a glowing spot, and in one case it is fairly documented that
a cloud with a glowing spot produced a tornado.

        Tornadoes are a locus for the conversion of substance
to light and electricity.  The power of tornadoes is anomalously high.
People have seen lightning from a large area converge to the area of a
cyclone, but this seems to only be part of the reason for the power.
People have seen tornadoes that had parts that were so bright that
they described the phenomena as being too bright to look at though the
tornadoes were quite a ways away; one person described tornadoes that
lit up the surroundings so that it was as if the direct sun was
shining during a period of time.  In one case, a thermometer measured
that the temperature of the air increased by about 20 degrees during
the passage of a tornado.

        I would say that tornadoes and ball lightning are the same
type of phenomena, though ball lightning is smaller.  I classify both
ball lightning and tornadoes, storms, clouds, and other phenomena as
kinds of a phenomena that I call plasmoid phenomena.  Galaxies and
atoms are other types of this kind of phenomena, according to my
theory.

        I would say that the cold fusion phenomena is a plasmoid
phenomena.  People have produced many types of phenomena including
traces and holes and tunnels that are similar to those produced by
plasmoid phenomena.  I would say that tiny plasmoids like ball
lightning are being produced. At the ICCF4, Matsumoto reported about
tiny ball lightning in his CF apparatus.  I suggest that people read
his articles in FUSION TECHNOLOGY.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.13 / 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: 13 Apr 1995 10:11:50 -0500
Organization: Northern Illinois University

In <3mhvk1$9rh@vent.pipex.net> JohnatAcadInt <ah63@solo.pipex.com> writes:
>rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) wrote:

>> 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.

>> 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.

>So, when Wallace finally agrees with you he will discover that, all 
>along, he had simply made logical errors ( would be nice to see you 
>sometime about some real estate we have on tap). This follows because
>of your cavalier attitude to data.

You evidently are a person of conviction.  You call a spade a spade,
and if you see a hoe and can't tell the difference you call that a
spade too.  You have sized me up, decided what must be the core of
what I believe, and have attempted to tear me to shreds on that
basis.  But how accurately have you sized me up?

Let's start with my purported cavalier attitute to data.  I said
(referring to Wallace), and you quoted, "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." That statement of mine
would seem to suggest that I do place value on the data.  But, let me
be more explicit.  I can conceive of many types of data which would
be logically consistent with SR, yet which might persuade us that SR
does not provide a very accurate picture of reality.  Oh, by the way,
I am not interested in that real estate you have on tap.

>Arguably, since Hume there has been no "objective proof" that one 
>scientific theory is better than any other. Science still seems to have
>done quite well.

>All science does is create and then test hypotheses - which can neither
>be proved nor disproved. No empirical proposition of a general sort can 
>be proved, though there are striking regularities in nature, and our 
>power to predict likely outcomes of our actions is based on these ...
>or, more properly, based on our expecations!

>It is above all based on statistics: there is no such thing as a fact!

I don't have any serious objections to what you have just said.

>The Platonist (?), Mr Rickert, is right to defend our gains, but even 
>Russell, never mind Whitehead, would have not have embraced his hubris
>in respect of his subject. One has to wonder whether he really under-
>stands what it would mean to have a priori synthetic knowledge of the
>world he and I share, but if he does, I hope it includes` hot runners
>at Epsom and, given so, he and I should get together for our mutual
>benefit.

Ironically, I have been criticizing platonism on another thread.
Here I am accused of being an adherent.  I must wonder at your
cavalier attitude to data, that you can pull the accusation of
platonism out of your hat without any basis to substantiate it.  As
for a priori synthetic knowledge, I am not sure what level of
understanding I would have to reach in order to gain your approval.
I understand it well enough to consider the whole idea absurd.  Does
that suffice in your eyes?

>What we all do together is create hypotheses, and then test them. 
>Passing the test does not prove the hypothesis. Nor does failing the
>test disprove it, because both the hypothesis and the means of testing
>it are the product of our time and culture, and, as has been repeatedly 
>shown, we are only too willing to sacrifice individuals for the sake
>of our "results". Throughout history people have defended anything 
>from square wheels to phlogiston. 

Now let me see if I have this straight.  You claim that failing a
test does not disprove a hypothesis.  I claim that SR is
irrefutable.  I am having great difficulty seeing why it is that you
think you are disagreeing with me.  Perhaps you think me timid for
only listing SR as irrefutable, instead of including all hypotheses
as you seem to have done.

>In the sense that we have gained greater control over our world,
>scientific knowledge is cumulative. It is not however cumulative
>in the way Mr Rickert intends, since this would imply crystal-
>ball gifts which would eliminate the need for science and, to boot,
>save us much time, money and energy.

I am amused by your interest in crystal balls.  You seem to assume,
for no reasons that I can tell, that I claim crystal ball gifts,
and you criticize me for it.  Yet in the same breath you claim
crystal ball powers for yourself which enable you to read my
intentions.  I regret to inform you that your crystal ball is in
a state of serious disrepair.

>All the same, if a hypothesis passes the test, we can proceed with 
>greater confidence to apply it to a wider range of phenomena. If it
>fails the test, we will at some stage have to go back and find out
>what went "wrong". This is the only reason we eventually come to 
>prefer one hypothesis over another. It is done on practical
>grounds alone, not because the one has been proved and the other 
>destroyed - and certainly not on Rickert's curious grounds, which
>seem to amount, since his arguments are faulty, to little more than 
>the notion that anyone who disagrees with him is either stupid 
>or ignorant, Wallace being, seemingly, a soft target, and a source
>of Brownie points. Ho hum. (He doesn't seem to need our help, does he?.)

I agree with you that hypotheses are preferred on a practical basis.
I don't know where you get your ideas as to my so-called curious
grounds.  I will let others judge for themselves whether my arguments
are faulty.  I am not claiming to be the ultimate authority.

Might I suggest that there is an authority on this.  There is an
international standards body.  It sets the official definition of the
standard for measuring time, and it sets the official definition of
the standard for measuring distance.  If you were to consult those
standards, you would discover that, under present day standards of
measurement, the velocity of light in vacuum is constant by
definition.  The unit of length is defined in terms of the unit of
time, so as to make it constant.  The standards are defined to be
portable, so that the standards in any inertial frame would give the
same constant value for the velocity of light.  It is the adoption of
international standards based on SR which makes SR irrefutable.  If
Wallace's data shows that the velocity of light is not constant, that
demonstrates that Wallace did not follow the international standards
in obtaining those measurements.

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenrickert cudfnNeil cudlnRickert cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.13 / 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: 13 Apr 1995 10:34:17 -0500
Organization: Northern Illinois University

In <3mid20$bs5@vent.pipex.net> JohnatAcadInt <ah63@solo.pipex.com> writes:
>rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) wrote:

><snip>

>> I hope that is still approximately the case.  But that does not
>> prevent a scientific theory from having a large component which is
>> mathematical and irrefutable.  Generally speaking, established
>> scientific theories are not refuted.  Rather, they are displaced by
>> new theories which more fully encompass the data.

Let me add to my remark, quoted above, a remark made by you in a
previous posting.  You said:

	What we all do together is create hypotheses, and then test
	them.  Passing the test does not prove the hypothesis. Nor
	does failing the test disprove it, because both the
	hypothesis and the means of testing it are the product of our
	time and culture, and, as has been repeatedly shown, we are
	only too willing to sacrifice individuals for the sake of our
	"results".

Since what you said is not far from a rewording of what I said, 
I must assume that you are criticizing your own views as much as
you are criticizing mine.

>Because not everybody here will have ploughed through Kant, I think I 
>ought to say what Rickert's position implies as regards synthetic
>a priori propositions. It does not imply only that the earlier is
>consistent with the later, but that the later is in principle *derivable* 
>from the earlier, in the sense, roughly, of Aristotelian teleology. 

Since your own assertion quoted previously is so similar to the comment
of mine that you are criticizing, I must assume that you aim this
criticism at yourself.  Assuming that you accept your own reasoning,
this must imply that you support Kant's view on the synthetic a priori.

For myself, I am not persuaded by your reasoning, and I reject the
idea of the synthetic a priori as obviously absurd.

>Given Rickert's position, if I am not mistaken, the trial-and-error 
>process which has taken us from the cave to our centrally-heated rooms 
>with our 486s has been an unnecessary journey: forget the Nobel Prizes, 
>a reasonably bright person could have deduced it all from the outset
>of the quest for knowledge. What a pity it's all taken such a long 
>time! 

Evidently you are seriously mistaken, and have completely misread
what I was saying.

>It would be churlish of me to pinion Mr Rickert for his prose alone,
>yet anyone who takes the time to examine it will quickly see that
>he uses "irrefutable"in quite disparate senses. In the first of these,
>he identifies mathematics with a world beyond challenge which if and 
>only if it is true is irrefutable, and I hope I do not misrepresent
>him here -: . In his second sense, he suggests, with no apparent 
>consciousness of having changed horses, that old theories are displaced 
>by new in, perhaps, the way that one soap powder is displaced by its 
>predecessor - though he seems to think the new powders necessarily 
>better by deduction. Personally, I prefer to see whether the stains 
>come out.

Well, I did not suggest that irrefutability has anything to do with
why old theories are replaced by new.  Nor did I suggest that the
process has anything to do with soap powder or deduction.  I did
suggest that the replacement of old theories with new has something
to do with the new theories better handling the empirical data.

>"The case", said Sherlock Holmes, as we chatted over our cigars that
>night in our rooms at Baker Street, 'is one where ... we have been
>compelled to reason backwards from effects to causes."

>Mr Rickert would be well-advised, at least epistemologically speaking,
>to take account of the force of the word "compelled" as used here
>by Conan Doyle -: He might find it helpful, in addition, to take 
>consider the views of the likes of Sarfatti and Hoyle, et al. , who 
>have a fierce respect for evidence, and charmingly (well, mostly) 
>dismiss the idiotic constraints placed on science, knowing that:

You might take your own advice with reference to Conan Doyle.  It
seems you make a practice of jumping to conclusions without any
substantiating evidence.  As for Sarfatti, his approach may well be
charming.  But his speculation about QM and the brain is a clear
example of disregard for the evidence.

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenrickert cudfnNeil cudlnRickert cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.13 / John White /  Re: A Pt anode doesn't decompose Peroxide
     
Originally-From: jnw@elvis.vnet.net (John N. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Pt anode doesn't decompose Peroxide
Date: 13 Apr 1995 11:13:17 -0500
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

lundgrca@esvax.dnet.dupont.com (Cindy Lundgren) writes:
>                                             ... In fact there has been a
> lot of work by echemists to design electrodes that will produce peroxide
> preferentially. It is hard to do. 

That is certainly true. It took Pons many years and many millions of dollars
to develop his system.

>      I don't follow the cf literature, but I wouldn't be surprised if the
> "secret ingrediants" were added to increase the overvoltage for the H2
> evolution reaction on Pd, to allow increased hydrogen loading.

Yes, that is one reason for adding them. But when many super-clean cells
failed to produce the CNF effects, researchers started adding compounds
containing silicon, boron, aluminum, etc. to simulate possibly beneficial
contamination. Also, many things were tried for reasons known only to
the researcher who tried them. (BTW, thats D2, not H2.)

Pons in particular likes to run many cells and try many things. Even
at NCFI he used to have 64 cells. Now that he has his own research
building I would expect he has hundreds of cells running.
-- 
jnw@vnet.net
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.13 / John White /  Re: A Pt anode doesn't decompose Peroxide
     
Originally-From: jnw@elvis.vnet.net (John N. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Pt anode doesn't decompose Peroxide
Date: 13 Apr 1995 11:15:19 -0500
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk> writes:
> It may well be that the Pt anode is so covered with gunk after prolonged
> electrolysis in a dirty solution, that it's not Pt any more and will refuse
> to catalyse H2O2 (or D2O2) decomposition. However, have y'all forgotten the
> cathode that is also in the cell? It is indeed a cathode (you get D2 evolution)
> and therefore will reduce D2O2, as it wanders over to it.

Don't forget that the cathode will also be covered with gunk. In fact,
the gunk is usually added with the cathode in mind. It is not true that
a cathode will decompose peroxide just because it is a cathode. Most
cathodes will, but it is possible to have a surface layer that prevents
it.

>                                                            Let's assume that
> some D2O2 gets made at the Pt anode (I don't believe it, but let's allow it);
> it would then be transported over to the Pd cathode, there to be reduced back
> to D2O.

This will happen if the surface layer on the cathode doesn't prevent it.
In fact, I suspect that this happens in many CNF cells. The net result
is that oxygen is carried over to the cathode where it can recombine.

> In fact, I believe that [peroxide] has been looked at. I don't have the
> Report of the Cold Fusion Institute but I believe it's in there (Wadsworth?).
> Does anyone have this?

I don't believe that Pons' cells were ever looked at. Although he had many
cells at the NCFI he seemed to be separate from the rest of the organization.
I don't believe anyone else at NCFI ever got much in the way of excess heat.

> If you did get D2O2, this would have been noticed in several ways. For one
> thing, people who measure gas evolution to get a handle on their current
> efficiency (assuming only deuterium and oxygen evolution) would notice;

Of the few who actually made such measurements, many saw just such a
discrepancy. They assumed it was due to recombination, however.

> also, everyone knows that when CNF electrolysists stop the current, the
> bubbles stop - they would keep going at both electrodes, as the D2O2
> decomposes. Instead, they get slow bubbling at the Pd, as it outgasses the
> D2.

The coatings which allowed the peroxide to accumulate in the first place
would prevent this. (And how do you know that what comes off the Pd is D2?
When has any CNF researcher ever checked?)

> "Syrup" would be obvious as such, if not by its pale Mitchell-Blue colour
> (or whatever colour it really has, I don't care).

Peroxide is only a "syrup" when anhydrous and cool. I am not suggesting that
the peroxide ever becomes anhydrous, as its stability rapidly drops when the
last little bit of water is removed. Modern references state that peroxide
is colorless.

>                                                    Whoever suggested that a
> D2O2 syrup with a bit of D2O in it (in the Heat After Death cell) would give
> 100 C by evaporation of the water component and its recondensation at the
> cell top, ought to look up distillation of mixtures in basic phys chem books.

Nobody knows what temperature the D2O2 solution was at during heat-after-
death. The temperature sensor was in the upper part of the cell, well above
the solution. D2O generated by the peroxide decomposing would condense on
the sensors wires and trickle down to the sensor. The droplet of D2O on
the sensor would prevent it from rising above about 100C.

The only information about the temperature of the solution itself is that
the plastic plug at the bottom of the anode was partially melted. This is
probably due to a local hot spot where the peroxide was decomposed by the
anode, the bottom of which was still submerged after the cathode went "dry".
(The coating would no longer prevent D2O2 decomposition after the cell
reached the boiling point.)

> Once again: as an explanation for 'excess heat', FORGET PEROXIDE.

I predict that if and when Pons tests for peroxide, he will discover
that it is the cause of his bursts. I further predict that this will
come as a surprise to many electrochemists, in spite of the fact that
it is the most mundane explanation which fits the facts, and should
have been suspected and tested for from the beginning.
-- 
jnw@vnet.net
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.13 / Ron Hill /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: ron@canuck.com (Ron Hill)
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: 13 Apr 1995 06:18:40 GMT
Organization: Canada Connect Corporation

rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) wrote:
> 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.

No.  SR is not mathematics.  SR is physics.  Self-consistency is a
necessary condition for a valid physical theory, but not a sufficient one. 
Valid hypotheses are also necessary.

> 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.

Again, no.  The data *may* be wrong, not "must".

> 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.

It's fairly clear from the tone of your post that you haven't actually
read TFoP.  I suggest you do so.  It will help you to learn to distinguish
between crank physics and a genuine scientific dispute.  From what I've
read, Wallace understands SR (and probably scientific principles) better
than you do.  It may be presumptuous of me, but I'll try to shed a little
light on the matter. 

Wallace contends that one of Einstein's postulates is wrong;  viz. he
contends that the speed of light in vacuum is not constant.  In this, he's
attacking SR in the only way it can be attacked;  he's going after the
validity of the postulates.  If you assume that Einstein's postulates are
correct, SR falls out cleanly;  it's absurdly simple math. 

From my reading, it appears that Wallace has two experimental results to
back up his position.  First, there's the analysis of the radar returns
from Venus, which apparently fits a Galilean (c+v) speed of light better
than the Einsteinian (c) prediction.  Second, there's the methods used to
estimate spacecraft position (from JPL's planetary missions) which, again,
appear to confirm c+v light speed.  Any attempt to invalidate his take on
the situation *must* show that the experimental results are wrong.  It is
insufficient to say that you *believe* that they are wrong.  It's not
sufficient to say that *everybody* believes that they are wrong.  That's
not science, that's scientism.  Refute the experimental results and the
theory dies.  End of story. 

That being said, I'd like to hear Dr. Wallace's explanation of how the
Michelson-Morley experiment can confirm SR, if the two experimental
results mentioned above are sound.  I'd also like to hear about the rest
of this ostensible "vast array of evidence".  On the whole, the manuscript
of TFoP is pretty good, but it needs to be reorganized, to better focus on
these experimental results.  It's useful to describe how science "goes off
the rails", but it's not especially useful to make it the central focus of
the book, in my opinion. 

--
Ron Hill (ron@canuck.com)
colon, dash, right parenthesis
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenron cudfnRon cudlnHill cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.13 / John Cobb /  Re: POLL: How long till power plants? 2062  Tell me you joking? Help
     
Originally-From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: POLL: How long till power plants? 2062  Tell me you joking? Help
Date: 13 Apr 1995 11:50:24 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <D6r5ts.AxJ@prometheus.UUCP>,
Paul M. Koloc <pmk@promethe.UUCP> wrote:
>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.ed
 (John W. Cobb) writes:

>>>>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). 
>                                 ^^^  

I stand corrected.

>>                                 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....
>
>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. ...

Interesting, I'll have to cogitate on this a bit

I'm still a bit skeptical, because you know, the plasma is always
out to screw us. :>

>
>>                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,

Whew, I did and I feel much better.

>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??  "

It could be because the flame is fairly cool, much less than fusion
ignition temperatures and moreover, much of the energy of the flame is
leaving in the form of visible of infrared radiation because it hasn't
"burned through the ioniztion barrier. The really hot plasmas don't glow, 
they are dark. Radiation == cooling.

>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.  

The devil's in the details here. Ionization/recombination fronts are
notoriously unstable. Transport across them also means a lot of energy
loss. I don't see how this arrangement sets up some sort of heavy
duty transport barrier, although this seems like what you are describing.
Is this what you are trying to communicate? If so, why is there a
transport barrier. Remember, dense gas is NOT a better insulator than
vacuum. And in terms of radiation, it doesn't make any difference because
all media are optically thin, or are you saying you are going to be
optically thick? That presents its own problems.

>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.  
>

I'll grant that a liquid first wall has engineering advantages over a
solid wall. For example, its really easy to install a new liquid wall.
However, the catch is it has got to work. It is like I keep cautioning
about FRC's. I really like them and they have a lot of reactor advantages,
but its no use if they don't work. So until we know transport better,
we can't commit.

>>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. 
>
>You remember we have run these things? 

Yea, I know, I keep hearing that, and I know you gave me a set of
refs. htat I haven't been able to lay hands on yet (mea culpa). But in
spite of my laziness, would you care to describe a little about your 
experiments? What size discharges? Do you have diagnostics about things
like the internal peak temperature or transport information?

>
>>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.

I'm not being silly. If its glowing, it must be giving off energy (how
else could you see it?) So given the same internal core temperature,
I'll take the dark plasma over the glowing one anyday because it means
it is probably better at confining energy. Think about it. When the
house energy guys come and take a picture of my house in infrared, they
point to the BRIGHT spots in the photo as indications of where I am
losing heat. They same is true with plasmas.

>  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.  

This is correct. If the core temperature is very different, then it is an
apples and oranges comparison, but if the core is the same temp., then
dark means better confinement. Now any glowing we are seeing here is NOT
from p^11B buring, because it hasn't happened yet. It is from radiative
losses of external energy input (in PMK's case, from compressive heating,
I believe).

>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
>>My
>>point is that I predicated my previous answer based on my integrated experience
>>and my point of view.... 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 ..
>>the plasmak
>>has warts ...
>
>Well, what are you willing to put up against this prediction, that we 
>could use?  

How about the obligatory steak dinner that PMK's will not produce electric
power delivered to the grid by year XXXX, or a bet that the first 
commercial fusion power will be something other than Plasmak's?
Although I fear neither of us will have teeth enough to chew on a cow
when that happens :>

>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?   

Ouch, it hurts when the aim is true. In all honesty, I have not had time
to trace all citations to PMK-type devices, although I am familiar with
spheromaks. And no, I really haven't committed to "follow through" with
my negative speculations. As you have noticed, my reply is already a bit 
tardy, times are busy here. So there is a mea culpa here. I wish I could
have, but I haven't and realistically, I don't think I will be able to
curl up with a set of papers and work out the details in the near future.
Thinking about these things is not my vocation, but my avocation. Having
said that, let me add that I am not content to leave thing open to question.
My point is that I don't want others to get the impression that there is
a closed consensus opinion that is actually counter to the conclusions one
would draw from a "counting noses" opinion survey. Now just because most 
people don't think highly of PMK's, or more accurately, are not aware of 
the idea, doesn't make that opinion correct. So lacking universal awareness
and agreement and given my reluctance to speed dozens of hours in 
"recreational research" at this time, maybe you could facillitate and
deeper Q&A here on this newsgroup? I know I would be interested.

>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?

That would be nice.

>>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. 

Now wait a minute. What is the energy confinement time? This is a very
well defined concept. Has it been measured?

>  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. 

That's right, the question is is A > B, so tell me what the value of 
B (energy loss rate) is.

> 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.  
>

you lost me here. How can a particle decay time, or current decay time
be forever?

>
>>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.  

Okay fine, but let's walk before we high jump 27 feet. Some people
suggest that we should crawl before we walk, but I am not that patient.
Apparently Paul is even less so.

>
>>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.  

It could cost people their careers. It has in the past.

-john .w cobb



-- 
John W. Cobb	Quietly Making Noise, Pissing off the old Kill-Joys
		-Jimmy Buffett

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.13 / Tom Droege /  Re: What's wrong with E-QUEST results?
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's wrong with E-QUEST results?
Date: 13 Apr 1995 16:58:03 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <D6z8As.3nr@news.cern.ch>, Martin Sevior <msevior> says:
>
>In response to: What's wrong with the E-QUEST results? by Richard Blue
>
>the article found in
> http://www.hooked.net/users/rgeorge/index.html#fusion
>but I don't think you've done a good job in finding what's wrong with
>their measurements. I would like everyone interested to read this article
>in full but I think it would be a violation of copyright for me to post it
>here without their permission. 
>
>To take your points one by one:
>
>>You may think that they have made sufficient control measurements
>>to demonstrate proper energy balance for cases that do not produce
>>excess heat, but doing a proper control measurements may be very
>>tricky.  For example, if D2O is replaced by H2O as a control does

>
>It seems to me that doing calorimetry in this kind of device is much easier
>than in a Pons and Fleischman type system since there is no heat of
>dissociation of water to worry about and no devolved gases.
>

I should remind you all that I posted results of this type of experiment 
here several years ago.  There are very large calorimetry problems.  There
is a very large background to be subtracted.  The ultrasonic transducer 
puts a lot of energy into the water.  That is what it is designed to do.  
The problem is that there is no good way to measure how much energy is 
being put into the water from the transducer.  This is a big mass of metal
at resonance.  Here is a clue.  The type of device that I bought, then
shipped off to Steve Jones has a tuning knob.  Each time you use it you
tune it up to todays conditions.  I remember that the device was rated
at 300 watts or so.  On a good day you might get 150 watts or so into 
the water. But a slight change in tuning and it might go to 30 watts.  

As soon as I started this type of experiment a few years back, I realized
what the problem was.  I could not think of any way to measure the power
put into the water from the ultrasonic transducer.  No measurement, no
experiment.  I guess I am just too picky about measuring everything to 
have fun.  

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.13 / John Logajan /  Re: Review of new cold fusion magazine
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Review of new cold fusion magazine
Date: 13 Apr 1995 15:01:52 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Joe Guokas (joeguokas@aol.com) wrote:
: Several posters commented on Takaaki Matsumoto's observations of
: "bacteria" forming in nuclear emulsions during his cold fusion
: experiments.  

: Before this becomes an urban legend, let me offer an explanation.  

: This reference to "bacteria" is probably a metaphor, not a delusion.  In
: several of his earlier papers, Matsumoto named anomalous tracks seen in
: his nuclear emulsions according to their appearance, not their cause.  For
: example, he called some patterns "rabbit's-foot" tracks.  

: Names like "bacteria" and "rabbit's-foot" are probably just unfortunate
: choices of words.   :-)


I think the case for him being metaphorical is not very strong.  Consider
the actual text of his remarks:

   Several kinds of traces were recorded in the nuclear emulsions ...
   The sixth [kind] were strange traces like microbacteria...

Okay, so far this does look metaphorical, but he goes on:

   ... they were not complete microbacteria such as exist in a natural
   environment.  They might have been prototypes of microbacteria. Since
   they were not seen on the reference emulsion ... it is reasonable to
   to infer that they were newly created by the electrical discharge.

Fortunately Matsumoto concludes:

   More data should be required for a detailed discussion about this topic.

   
So his discussion is bizarre, stronger than a mere metaphor, yet thankfully
even he suggests the data is insufficient for anything more than mention
of the observation.

--
 - 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    -
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.13 / James Stolin /  Re: Review of new cold fusion magazine
     
Originally-From: FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Review of new cold fusion magazine
Date: 13 Apr 1995 17:32:03 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

joeguokas@aol.com (Joe Guokas) wrote:
>
>Several posters commented on Takaaki Matsumoto's observations of
>"bacteria" forming in nuclear emulsions during his cold fusion
>experiments.  
>
>Before this becomes an urban legend, let me offer an explanation.  
>
>This reference to "bacteria" is probably a metaphor, not a delusion.  
In
>several of his earlier papers, Matsumoto named anomalous tracks seen in
>his nuclear emulsions according to their appearance, not their cause.  
For
>example, he called some patterns "rabbit's-foot" tracks.  
>
>Names like "bacteria" and "rabbit's-foot" are probably just unfortunate
>choices of words.   :-)

Also, don't forget that word and sentences can get profoundly screwed up 
in translation.  I still laugh about a sign on a Japanese lathe that says 
"Dairy grease to nipples on chuck".  Yes, that's "Dairy" as in dairy cow! 
 The translation should have been "grease the chuck daily" but instead 
came out rather "kinky". <G>
-
Jim Stolin  -  Illinois Computer Service  -  fknf40a@prodigy.com
Opinions are my own ... but should be yours.

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.13 / Martin Sevior /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: Martin Sevior <msevior>
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: Thu, 13 Apr 1995 17:38:39 GMT
Organization: CERN European Lab for Particle Physics

The real issue as always is "what is the experimental input into the theory".
If it's some supposed discrepencies found by planetary radar and/or
deep space tracking, why aren't the groups who do these measurements
explaining the discrepencies to mystified Physicists? If the results are
real why doesn't JPL jump and down and say they've discovered Einstein
was wrong? You can be sure that if had found such effects that they believed
they would make such a claim. It would earn them world fame and a Nobel
prize after their results were confirmed.

As soon as such a claim were made you could be sure that LOTS of theoretical
Physicists would attempt to interpret the new data. As a rule professional
Theoretical Physcists are far more imaginitive than amauter's and any number
of wild and wooly theories would contend :-)!

To be successful they'd also have to explain why SR works so incredibally well
on the sub-atomic scale. Experimental Particle Physicists use SR everyday
at accelerators and Cosmic ray experiments all over the world. Indeed Quantum
Electrodynamics, which requires SR as input, has been verified to the limit
of experimental error for the gyromagnetic ratio of the electron. This
is 11 significant figures or 1 part in 100 billion. Verification to one part
in 100 billion is a pretty good test of a theory and a long way from a farce.

Martin Sevior

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.13 / Stanley Chow /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: schow@bnr.ca (Stanley T.H. Chow)
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: 13 Apr 1995 18:43:42 GMT
Organization: Bell Northern Research Ltd, Ottawa

In article <D6zICG.Enx@news.cern.ch>, Martin Sevior  <msevior> wrote:
>As a rule professional
>Theoretical Physcists are far more imaginitive than amauter's and any number
>of wild and wooly theories would contend :-)!

I don't know if you intended this as a dig or compliment, but I certainly
agree that professional T.P. have some *really* wild theories.


>
>To be successful they'd also have to explain why SR works so incredibally well
>on the sub-atomic scale.

On the other hand, you also have to explain why verification at sub-atomic
scale should imply any thing at astronomical scale.


>Experimental Particle Physicists use SR everyday
>at accelerators and Cosmic ray experiments all over the world. Indeed Quantum
>Electrodynamics, which requires SR as input, has been verified to the limit
>of experimental error for the gyromagnetic ratio of the electron. This
>is 11 significant figures or 1 part in 100 billion. Verification to one part
>in 100 billion is a pretty good test of a theory and a long way from a farce.

Without looking up anything and without calculating anything, I am willing to
bet that it takes more than 11 orders of magnitude to span a single electron
on one end and planetary orbit on the other.

[SR is exceeding well verified, just not over its entire claim operating range].


-- 
Stanley Chow;  schow@bnr.ca, stanley.chow-ott@nt.com; (613) 763-2831
Bell Northern Research Ltd., PO Box 3511 Station C, Ottawa, Ontario
Me? Represent other people? Don't make them laugh so hard.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenschow cudfnStanley cudlnChow cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.13 / 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: 13 Apr 1995 13:59:48 -0500
Organization: Northern Illinois University

In <3mifo0$j3h@mp.canuck.com> ron@canuck.com (Ron Hill) writes:
>rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) wrote:
>> In <3m913u$k8u@acasun.eckerd.edu> wallace@acasun.eckerd.edu (Bryan Wallace) writes:

>> 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.

>No.  SR is not mathematics.  SR is physics.  Self-consistency is a
>necessary condition for a valid physical theory, but not a sufficient one. 
>Valid hypotheses are also necessary.

What is your point?  I most certainly did not suggest that self
consistency was a sufficient condition.

>> 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.

>Again, no.  The data *may* be wrong, not "must".

>> 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.

>It's fairly clear from the tone of your post that you haven't actually
>read TFoP.  I suggest you do so.  It will help you to learn to distinguish
>between crank physics and a genuine scientific dispute.

Actually, I have read it.

>                                                         From what I've
>read, Wallace understands SR (and probably scientific principles) better
>than you do.  It may be presumptuous of me, but I'll try to shed a little
>light on the matter. 

>Wallace contends that one of Einstein's postulates is wrong;  viz. he
>contends that the speed of light in vacuum is not constant.  In this, he's
>attacking SR in the only way it can be attacked;  he's going after the
>validity of the postulates.

Actually, this is one way that it cannot be attacked.

When Einstein proposed SR, the standard for the measurement of time
was based on the mean solar day, and the standard for length was
based on a platinum rod in Paris.  The question of the constancy of
the speed of light was a genuine empirical question.  However, since
then both standards have been redefined to be more consistent with
SR, and the result is that the constancy of the speed of light is now
guaranteed by the measuring standards.  It is no longer an empirical
question.

>                             If you assume that Einstein's postulates are
>correct, SR falls out cleanly;  it's absurdly simple math. 

Thank you.  You are agreeing with my point.  The current
international standards guarantee that the postulates are correct.
Therefore SR falls out cleanly and is irrefutable.  If SR was badly
chosen there might still be data to suggest that it does not conform
well to reality, but that data could not actually refute SR.

>From my reading, it appears that Wallace has two experimental results to
>back up his position.  First, there's the analysis of the radar returns
>from Venus, which apparently fits a Galilean (c+v) speed of light better
>than the Einsteinian (c) prediction.  Second, there's the methods used to
>estimate spacecraft position (from JPL's planetary missions) which, again,
>appear to confirm c+v light speed.  Any attempt to invalidate his take on
>the situation *must* show that the experimental results are wrong.  It is
>insufficient to say that you *believe* that they are wrong.  It's not
>sufficient to say that *everybody* believes that they are wrong.  That's
>not science, that's scientism.  Refute the experimental results and the
>theory dies.  End of story. 

If Mr Wallace reads the international standards for measuring length
and time, he will discover that the data he is using cannot be
consistent with those standards.  I hope you are right that this will
be the end of the story.  Somehow, I doubt it.

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenrickert cudfnNeil cudlnRickert cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Apr 14 04:37:05 EDT 1995
------------------------------
