1995.05.02 / Robert Bass /  CERN's Disinformation Agent Doug Morrison
     
Originally-From: rbrtbass@ix.netcom.com (Robert Bass)
Originally-From: rbrtbass@ix.netcom.com (Robert Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CERN's Disinformation Agent Doug Morrison
Subject: CERN's Disinformation Agent Doug Morrison
Subject: Read First! Re 3 Posts on Cold Fusion
Date: 2 May 1995 07:01:43 GMT
Organization: Netcom

Originally-From: rbrtbass@ix.netcom.com (Robert Bass)
Subject: CERN's Disinformation Agent Doug Morrison
To:  drom@vxcern.cern.ch (Douglas R. O. Morrison)

	Here is a message I just posted:

Subject: Read First! Re 3 Posts on Cold Fusion
To: [deleted]
	Assoc. Dean
	School of Engineering
	major private University

	If you have seen the article "Pariah Science" in a 1994 issue of 
"The American Scholar," by Caltech Provost and Physics Professor, David

Goodstein, then you know that he admits that 'no one is listening.'
	I would discribe Goodstein's paper as the first step in Caltech 
starting to back down and admit error when they dismissed cold fusion
in 
1989.  In the paper Goodstein attempts to whitewash the role of Caltech

theorist Steve Koonin with his paper 'proving' deuterium fusion at low 
energies is 'impossible', though with admirable intellectual honesty 
he gives enough factual evidence that the discerninig reader can 'read 
between the lines' and see that in his heart he knows 'the jig is up.'
	I just got back from ICCF-5 at Monte Carlo. I have forwarded to 
you 3 reports on ICCF5 from Bill Page's privately-run Discussion Group 
on Cold Fusion.  Bill cites the Exhibit by James Patterson & Dennis 
Cravens of a cold fusion cell (using ordinary water and nickel
cathodes) 
that was producing 3 times more energy out than in during the 4 days of

the conference.  It starts up in about 10 minutes and is reliable.
	Patterson has got 3 issued patents because in his PTO 
applications he never mentioned 'cold fusion' and finessed the question

of energy generation; his  specification obliquely claims energy 
production, but in his patent claims he does not, I am told.  Otherwise

the PTO would have sat on it as they have [unconstitutionally!] sat on 
200 other cold fusion patent applications for the past 6 years.
	Two of the 3 reports I am forwarding are by Douglas Morrison of 
CERN.  Imagine the subject you love and value most, and then think of 
the _arch-enemy_ of that subject, who will do _anything_ to suppress it

(and in this example will be bad-mouthing it until the day that Cold 
Fusion-Powered cars are being sold by Toyota!), and then imagine him 
being able to spread his propaganda freely through the disinformation 
machine of the Establishment!  That's Morrison: a paid disinformation 
agent of CERN.  I wonder if you can spot his numerous misrepresentations 
of fact?  Some of them are so egregious that I am going to send him a 
public letter about them:
	His first BIG LIE is that 'Koonin has proved that cold fusion is 
impossible' because when deuterons are as close as they are in 
deuterium molecules (or liquid deuterium) they do not fuse.
	This is utter incompetence.  He is neglecting the _periodicity_ 
of the deuteron lattice inside a host metallic lattice (such as 
palladium or titanium).  The phenomenon of Resonant Transparency of 
Coulomb Barriers is well understand in Quantum Mechanics (see Bohm's 
classic QM book) and is well-established experimentally in both Atomic 
Physics and Nuclear Physics.  But Koonin treated the problem as if it 
were a purely _local_ instead of a _global_ problem (his first mistake); 
and Koonin also ignored the main theorem of Solid State Physics (Bloch's 
Theorem) which says that a solution of Schroedinger's equation inside a 
periodic lattice is irrelevant unless its logarithmic derivative is 
_periodic_ in space with the same period as the lattice!
	Morrison also ignores the massive evidence that d+d goes to 
helium-4 inside palladium lattices; enough He-4 to account for the heat 
has been measured repeatedly by Mel Miles at CLNWPS and by Gozzi at the 
U of Rome!  (This is difficult, because the amount of helium that will 
be produced is less than the ambient trace-helium near many chemistry 
labs; stainless steel vessels must be used, etc.)  Morrison also ignores 
that hundreds of researchers (mainly in Japan, Italy, India and some 
independent mavericks in the USA) have reproduced the F&P experiments 
and that there have been peer-reviewed papers in archival journals by 
internationally recognized calorimetrists pointing out the numerous 
errors made in the "Big 3" negative experiments (MIT, Caltech, and 
Harwell).  At MIT there was outright criminal fraud and alteration of 
evidence [evidence published in "Cold Fusion" magazine, and analyzed 
scientifically by MIT electrical engineer Dr. Mitchell Swartz], as a 
result of which the director of the MIT Plasma Fusion Center has been 
replaced and last June or July MIT allowed to be printed a cover story 
on 'Cold Fusion Heats Up!' in the MIT Technology Review, and then MIT 
allowed Dr. Eugene Mallove (an MIT alumnus and Harvard D.Sc.), who was 
the MIT press officer that exposed the criminal fraud [and resigned in 
disgust, after having been manipulated by hot fusioneers to tell 
falsehoods to the public in the name of MIT] to stage an all-day event 
widely billed as the 'MIT Cold Fusion Day.'  The reanalysis of Harwell's 
results by others (to whom Harwell loaned their equipment) is gradually 
forcing them to the edge of admitting that they analyzed their results 
mistakenly, and they can be expected to retract their negative report 
soon.  Finally, several experts have published peer-reviewed papers 
calling the Caltech experiments of Nathan Lewis in effect a travesty of 
unrecognized incompetence and pointing out that there was clear evidence 
of excess heat which was not admitted.
	Furthermore, Morrison ignores the fact that the well-financed 
and meticulously performed experiments of McKubre at SRI have shown that 
whenever the _same_ conditions are present, the _same_ results are 
obtained! In particular, McKubre's results on the minimum loading (85% 
into the beta phase) agree almost perfectly with the extensive 
experimental results obtained in Japan.
	Goodstein is trying to whitewash Caltech faculty members Lewis & 
Koonin by talking about the necessity of loading past the alpha phase, 
and to the beta phase, as if it were a big secret which has taken 6 
years to unearth!  The actual historical record shows that 'everybody' 
knew about critical loading within a few months [it had been in the 
prior literature for decades], and furthermore, as a review of the 
papers at ICCF-k, (k = 1,2,3,4,5), shows, and as McKubre has pointed 
out, _no one_ who has taken the trouble to achieve better than 85% 
beta-phase loading and _verify_ it before proceeding with a current 
density past critical has _ever_ failed to detect excess heat!
	I have designed a _definitive_ protocol for an experiment which 
will settle the matter once and for all, because one of the arch foes of 
cold fusion in the Western Hemisphere (a USA counterpart of Morrison) 
has told me off the record that he would admit he was wrong if my 
experiment works as I predict.
	 A professor of Statistics at Temple U says he will give me a 
Certificate that my Protocol would establish the reality of cold nuclear 
fusion at the 95% Confidence Level (as well as my patent pending Quantum 
Resonance Triggering process for inducing and controlling same).
	If 5 identically-prepared palladium needles loaded with 
deuterium to the beta phase (testable by McKubre's patented Resistivity 
test) are then [folowing Bockris] quick-frozen in liquid nitrogen, and 
have electrodes attached to the tops and bottoms, and are pulsed at 17.7 
volts for k-microseconds for k = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 [where k = 0 is a 
'control' blank], then I claim that an amount of helium-4, _NOT_ 
previously present, will appear in each needle; the frozen needles can 
be sawed up and sent to independent testing labs for the helium-4 assay 
on a double-blind basis. I claim that (omitting experimental error of 
small magnitude) an unpredicted amount A of he-4 will be found in the 
second needle, and amounts k.A of he-4 will be found in the kth needle!
	The intepretation of my '5 Frozen Needles Protocol' depends only 
upon Conservation of Baryon Number!  No one could possibly doubt that I 
had performed low-energy nuclear fusion in a table-top apparatus without 
particle accelerators or thermonuclear temperatures or Megajoule laser 
implosions!  (Also the figure of 17.7 volts is from my computation of 
the Spectrum of Resonant Transparency of the Coulomb Barrier, 
sufficiently far above the ground level that the approximation I made in 
using the WKB method is utterly negligible, and sufficiently far that 
the line-broadening by Zero Point Fluctuations [ZPF] from the fact that 
quantum numbers are not n but are (n + [1/2]) and so do not vanish even 
at n = 0, is great enough for the line-width to be nearly 50% of the 
distance to the next line.)
	The one valid objection to Resonant Transmission is that made 
independently by Rabinowitz & Worledge and by Jaendel, who point out 
that by the conventional Breit-Wigner line broadening theory (see e.g. 
Bohm's book), it would take 10^10 years for the excited deuteron to 
tunnel through the Coulomb Barrier to the adjacent bound deuteron unless 
its energy level were _exactly_ correct to hundreds of decimal places!  
However, I have overcome that objection by including an effect ignored 
by those critics, namely ZPF line-broadening (from the jittering of the 
whole lattice, even at absolute zero Kelvins), which enables the quantum 
tunneling to take place in 8 femtoseconds!
	The second BIG LIE which Morrison tells is his repeated attempt 
to obfuscate the significance of failure by F&P to get plentiful excess 
heat when they used ordinary water instead of heavy water, by claiming 
that now that everybody is getting excess heat with ordinary water their 
blank was no significant blank.  I cannot believe that a person of 
Morrison's professional education and experience actually does not 
perceive the all-important role of the host lattice, which he never 
mentions.  In talking about ordinary and heavy water both working, and 
not mentioning the host lattice, he is engaged in a vicious 
disinformation campaign of either extraordinary willful blindness or 
deliberate destructive intent.
	There is an elementary reason why protons work in nickel, but 
not in palladium!  My 1991 patent application on QRT showed that only if 
the _empirical_ Schwinger Ratio [ratio of particle-lattice period L of 
bound particles (distance determined by an otherwise irrelevant host 
lattice) to the rms vibration amplitude Lambda of ZPF fluctuations by 
bound particles of the same species], when divided by pi and rounded 
off, is an ODD integer, will an excited particle of the same species be 
able to have a resonant non-elastic collision with a bound particle!
	The Schwinger Ratio is an _empirical_ ratio, but it varies from 
particle/host-lattice combination to particle/host-latttice combination.
	However, my rigorously globally convergent and _periodic_ 
Coulomb/Madelung/Fermi-Thomas potential V(r) = V(r + 2.L) has been 
VALIDATED because it _predicts_ the Schwinger Ratio correctly to whithin 
three-tenths of one percent of empirically-measured reality!
	And my QRT test has worked on 7 combinations, of which I only 
knew about 5 when I submitted the patent in June, 1991!
	In particular, Dr. Morrison, when you apply my QRT process 
criterion to protons in palladium you get 8, which is EVEN, and which 
predicts therefore that ordinary water will not work in an F&P cell!
	But, Dr. Morrison, when you apply the simple QRT process 
criterion (which is so simple that a high-school student can understand 
it!) to protons in nickel, you get 13, which is ODD, so in a nickel 
cathode protons will exothermically fuse to produce deuterons!
	My simple QRT criterion is from a simplified semi-classical 
theory, comparable to the Bohr atom's relation to the exact solution of 
the Schroedinger equation.  But my full theory is completely Quantum 
Mechanical.
	However, once you understand my WKB computation of the lowest 
600 energy levels constiuting the Spectrum of Resonant Transparency 
to the alleged Coulomb Barrier from the Schroedinger equation and my new 
Coulomb/Madelung/Fermi-Thomas potential for representing correctly and 
_globally_ the exact electostatic field encountered by an excited 
positively-charged particle inside an electrically neutral lattice of 
freely circulating electrons and bound positive particles of the same 
species, then the mystery of the ODD/EVEN criterion of my patent-pending 
QRT[tm] process test will become clear; because it is only if an ODD 
number of de Broglie wavelengths of the excited particle can fit within 
the potential well between the nearest two bound positive particles that 
_resonant-transmission_ transarency is possible!  (The optical analog is 
well understood in physical optics & often showed to undergraduates by 
e.g. Bob Bush at Cal polymona, whose TRM theory  --  inspired by that of 
Los Alamos hot fusioneer Leaf Turner --  and perfected by the inclusion 
of the best features of the cold fusion theory of late Nobel Laureate, 
Julian Schwinger, plus ideas I learned from Robert Parmenter of U AZ 
[done in conjunction with Nobel Laureate Willis Lamb], Scott & Talbott 
Chubb of the NRL, the early Hagelstein of MIT, as well as Rabinowitz, 
Kim, and others to whom I apologize for name-omission -- which has been 
validated by his measurement of the 'fine spectrum' of variations of the 
excess enthalpy as a function of current or temperature in experiments 
done in collaboration with Bob Eagleton -- that is the basis of 'my' 
theory, except that it is unjust to call it 'my' theory without 
acknowledging that if I have seen farther than others it is because I 
have been privileged to stand on the shoulders of GIANTS!)
	In addition to my technical paper (which I have publicly 
challenged Rabinowitz & Kim, who identified fatal flaws in 173 published 
theories of cold fusion, to fault if they can!), I have written a 
tutorial paper with 10 clear illustrations which an undergraduate who 
knows calculus and has heard of Newton's laws can understand.
	Dr. Morrison, you make a big show of following cold fusion, 
compiling statistics, etc., but you have apparently not bothered to 
consult Hal Fox's "Cold Fusion Source Book", published by the Fusion 
Information Center, P.O. Box 58639, Salt Lake City, Utah 84158, USA 
[voice (801) 583-6232; FAX (801) 583-2963] else you would have known 
about my QRT criterion in my paper on LINT [Lattice Induced Nuclear 
Transmutations] and about the Spectrum of Resonant Transparency in my 
tutorial paper "Is the Alleged Coulomb Barrier Actually a Resonantly 
Transparent Mirror?"; or you could have read my slightly less-perfected 
version of 'my' theory in the paper which I gave at ICCF-4 and which was 
in the EPRI-published Proceedings.  In the interests of 'full 
disclosure' of hidden agendas [which you _never_ do] I will confess that 
you must forgive my advertisement of Dr. Fox's newsletter FUSION FACTS 
and his Source Book because in its January issue his monthly newsletter, 
now its 6th year no thanks to the Establishment, named me [along with 
McKubre] as a 'Fusion Scientist of 1995' for the theory alluded to above.
	Dr. Morrison, since you don't read the FIC material, I am going 
to send you my complete set of papers, from the most tutorial to the most 
technical, and I challenge you, with all the resources of CERN behind 
you, to find a significant technical mistake or invalidating mathematical 
or theoretical error in the 'first principles Quantum Mechanical 
_prediction_ of Cold Fusion' which these papers contain!  If you cannot 
within a few weeks point out a fatal flaw in the paper I submitted to 
ICCF5, then you need to _retract_ your two biggest disinformation 
points: (1) that 99% of all scientist believe the Coulomb Barrier cannot 
be overcome [because it is the opinion of 99% of the _informed_ 
scientists which counts!]; and (2) that F&P were not utterly correct 
scientifically when they used ordinary water as a diagnostic control in 
evidence that their excess heat was obtained from deuterium fusion, 
because the heat disappeared when ordinary water was substituted in 
_palladium_ lattices.
	Dr. Morrison, you used up a significant portion of your lengthy 
review on non-scientific peripheral trivia (such as the psychotic's 
letter [or hoax] to a cf magazine) instead of grappling with the REAL 
scientific issues which I outlined above.
	Instead of repeating your monologue about polywater & N-rays and 
'pathological science', why don't you do some _real science_ for a 
change, and either refute my QM theory above or admit to having been a 
fountain of 'pathological skepticism!'
	Wearily,
		Bob Bass
-- 
Dr. Robert W. Bass, Registered Patent Agent 29,130 [ex-prof Physics]
Inventor: Topolotron, Plasmasphere, issued; QRT ColdFusion, pending
P.O. Box 6337, Thousand Oaks, CA 91359-6337
Voice-Mail: (818) 377-4471         e-Mail: rbrtbass@ix.netcom.com
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrbrtbass cudfnRobert cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.02 / ESS SB /  Gyrotron sought
     
Originally-From: esssb@aol.com (ESS SB)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Gyrotron sought
Date: 2 May 1995 07:23:21 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Looking for a gyrotron, 28 ghz and higher,200Kw,CW...used or in need of
repair.........thank you!!!

ESS SB@AOL.COM
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenesssb cudfnESS cudlnSB cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.02 / Dieter Britz /  Bass without ichor
     
Originally-From: britz@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bass without ichor
Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 13:00:41 GMT
Date: 2 May 1995 07:01:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

rbrtbass@ix.netcom.com (Robert Bass) writes in Fusion Digest 3649
Date: 2 May 1995 07:01:43 GMT
[with many Subject lines:]
   - CERN's Disinformation Agent Doug Morrison
   - CERN's Disinformation Agent Doug Morrison
   - Read First! Re 3 Posts on Cold Fusion
   - CERN's Disinformation Agent Doug Morrison
   - Read First! Re 3 Posts on Cold Fusion
 
and in addition:
 
>        Here is a message I just posted:
 
>Subject: Read First! Re 3 Posts on Cold Fusion

Hey! This time there was nothing about the smell of a spider's ichor, just
before it strikes! Are you subtly telling us that Douglas Morrison is less
virulent than Frank Close? He (Douglas) might resent that.

-- Dieter Britz  alias  britz@kemi.aau.dk

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.01 / Scott Lurndal /  Re: Uranium / Fission question
     
Originally-From: scott@farout.Convergent.Com (Scott Lurndal)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Uranium / Fission question
Date: 1 May 1995 23:29:52 GMT
Organization: Unisys Open Systems Group, San Jose

In article <3ngob0$8cp@crcnis3.unl.edu>, poydence@unlinfo.unl.edu
(Paul A. Poydence) writes:
|> I have been reading various texts about nuclear fission reactions,
|> and all of them indicate that Uranium 235 is the best usable material.
|> What each of the texts neglects to mention is why this is so.  Please
|> help.  If you have the answer or suggestions about where I may find it,
|> please respond via e-mail.  Thanks.
|> 

The only difference between the isotopes U238 and U235 is the 
number of neutrons - U235 is short three compared to U238 - this makes U235
much more likely to capture a neutron and thus continue the fission process.

scott
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnLurndal cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.02 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Jones' hypothesis on E-quest helium
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones' hypothesis on E-quest helium
Date: Tue, 2 May 95 10:06:13 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Richard Schultz <schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu> writes:
 
>What kind of mass spectrometer?
 
Like I said, talk to Rockwell.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.02 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re:  Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest Helium
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest Helium
Date: Tue, 2 May 95 10:10:13 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

jonesse@plasma.byu.edu (Steve Jones) made up the following crazy story:
 
   "At the CF conference in Nagoya
   in 1992, Yamaguchi claimed production of heat and helium.  Nate Hoffman (a
   helium-detection expert) then rose and asked Yamaguchi if he had *any* glass
   in his system, since the Paneth & Peters experience had shown that glass is
   a veritable sponge for helium.  Yamaguchi said "No", emphatically.  There
   was also a press conf. to tout these results to the world -- and at the same
   time NTT stock jumped up by billions of dollars!  NTT even offered a "kit"
   for about $450,000 so anyone could repeat the experiment.
 
   Then the whole thing crashed:  in subsequent questioning, Nate and I learned
   that in fact there is glass in the NTT set-up -- lots of it!  Yamaguchi
   faxed me with an admission of glass windows 5 cm thick, and an apology.  The
   NTT kit is no longer available, and Yamaguchi was 'released' from NTT (I
   understand -- someone please correct me if I'm wrong)."
 
This is truly breathtaking in its inventiveness. I hardly know where to begin.
I shall not even attempt to correct all of the farcical nonsense here, but
let me just point out a few things:
 
1. Yamaguchi faxed me, not Jones. I sent a copy on to Jones. The tone of the
   message is not the least bit apologetic. It is informative. It corrects
   these absurd illusions and mistaken ideas dreamed up by Hoffman and Jones
   at ICCF3. They paid no attention to that fax or to any subsequent
   communication with Yamaguchi, so he stopped trying to correct them.
 
2. The fax showed how glass could not possibly have been the source of
   contamination. Jones apparently believes that helium can spontaneously and
   instantly leak through 5 cm of glass just at the moment an excess heat
   event occurs, but that never happens during a test run or a run with no
   heat. This is highly implausible, to put it mildly.
 
3. The work was subsequently replicated by others at NTT and Mitsubishi. It
   has not been retracted. As far as I know, the kit is still for sale.
 
4. Yamaguchi was not 'released' from NTT. They are still paying his salary.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.02 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Why Some Experiments Don't Need Error Bars
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why Some Experiments Don't Need Error Bars
Date: Tue, 2 May 95 12:07:23 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

William Rowe <browe@netcom.com> writes:
 
>Back to the Patterson cell. The result which is being reported is
>inherently numerical. So many joules of excess energy, so many degrees of
>temperature rise etc. These are measurements that need error bars.
 
Well, okay, if you really feel that way, why not tell us what *you* think
the error are? Surely you are familliar with the instruments I listed:
voltmeters, ammeters, a stopwatch, a 10 ml graduated cylinder . . . Any
scientist can come up with realistic estimate of the errors for such
standard, off-the-shelf equipment.
 
Actually, as far as I know, Cravens will have plenty of error bars in his
reports. I have not seen the final Proceedings version yet. He always
supplies copious information about possible errors and estimates of the
error range. Furthermore, the laboratory version of the experiment is
much more accurate and precise than the "traveling" portable version. So
I am sure the data will be quite convincing.
 
My point was that you don't even need any error bars when the effect is as
large as this. During the startup period, or during calibration with the
joule heater, the Delta T temperature is exactly where it should be: down
at 0.1 or 0.2 deg C. When the reaction starts it goes up to 2 degrees or
higher. I don't see how anyone can argue with that.
 
Let me quibble -- very slightly -- with your historic examples. You mentioned
the all-or-nothing Morse transmission. This I would call a presence or
absense test. It is theoretically possible that static and noise on the line
might have mimicked a person tapping the key in Baltimore, so a skeptic
might have demanded S/N noise analyses and error bars. And, in fact, skeptics
back in 1840 did say it was probably noise, or a cheap carnival trick.
Furthermore, let us look at another of my examples; the atom bomb. If the
bomb had been only twice as large as a chemical explosion from a bomb of
the same mass, then I am sure everyone would have demanded careful instrument
analysis of the power and nuclear products before concluding it was a nuclear
reaction. If it had been 10 times bigger than a TNT bomb, some people still
would have doubted the issue, and there would still be a requirement for
error bars. In other words, the bomb test did rely upon a *numerical
analysis* of the effect. However, the bomb was a million times more powerful
than a TNT bomb of the same mass would have been, so anyone watching it
could do an instant approximate analysis in their heads and be sure of the
results.
 
Relating this to the Cravens CETI cell, some people have said that a closed
loop self-sustaining motor would prove the issue without error bars or numbers.
This is true. But suppose you saw an open loop test along these lines: a
small battery powers a large cell, hich is extremely hot and which causes
a gallon of water to boil continuously. (This would be impossible to do
at this stage, but just pretend you see it). This is qualitatively the same
as the small 1-watt test, and since it is not self-sustaining, a person
could argue that it requires a numeric, quantitative analysis with error
bars. However, anyone with common sense knows that a small battery cannot
output enough energy to make a gallon of water boil, so this test would
obviously be so far above the error bars it would be ridiculous to doubt it.
Now then . . . <ahem> what I assert is that the present test is so obvious
and so far above the error bars (any error bars, no matter how pessamistic)
that it is ridiculous to question it. Everyone knows how voltmeters, ammeters
and thermistors work. Everyone knows the rough error limits and reliability
of these instruments. No right minded scientist would claim that an ordinary
digital voltmeter is likely to mix up 1 volt and 10 volts -- we all know that
the meter would break altogether, or show gobbledy gook flashing numbers
before it did that. I assert that any sensible person who looks at the
Cravens CETI demo will see that it works even without performing a rigorous
analysis. On the other hand, I did perform one, even before I got to ICCF5.
I will publish it by and by.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.02 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  CERN's Disinformation Agent Doug Morrison
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CERN's Disinformation Agent Doug Morrison
Date: Tue, 02 May 1995 13:03 -0500 (EST)

rbrtbass@ix.netcom.com (Robert Bass) writes:
 
->         If 5 identically-prepared palladium needles loaded with
-> deuterium to the beta phase (testable by McKubre's patented Resistivity
-> test) are then [folowing Bockris] quick-frozen in liquid nitrogen, and
-> have electrodes attached to the tops and bottoms, and are pulsed at 17.7
-> volts for k-microseconds for k = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 [where k = 0 is a
-> 'control' blank], then I claim that an amount of helium-4, _NOT_
-> previously present, will appear in each needle; the frozen needles can
-> be sawed up and sent to independent testing labs for the helium-4 assay
-> on a double-blind basis. I claim that (omitting experimental error of
-> small magnitude) an unpredicted amount A of he-4 will be found in the
-> second needle, and amounts k.A of he-4 will be found in the kth needle!
-> ...
-> ...     (Also the figure of 17.7 volts is from my computation of
-> the Spectrum of Resonant Transparency of the Coulomb Barrier,
-> sufficiently far above the ground level that the approximation I made in
-> using the WKB method is utterly negligible, and sufficiently far that
-> the line-broadening by Zero Point Fluctuations [ZPF] from the fact that
-> quantum numbers are not n but are (n + [1/2]) and so do not vanish even
-> at n = 0, is great enough for the line-width to be nearly 50% of the
-> distance to the next line.)
 
Thank you for your very informative post.  Unfortunately I am not skilled
sufficiently in QM to follow all that you write, but I am glad to see that
some theorists are making inroads into this phenomemon.  That your theory has
had predictive power bodes very well for the likelyhood that your theory is
correct, or at least partially correct.
 
However, as an electrical engineer, I am somewhat puzzled by the 17.7 volt
emf.  Would this voltage not depend on the length of the needle?  Normally
potential gradient is important, not the overall potential from end to end.
 
Could you elaborate on this a bit more?
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy02 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.02 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Highlights of the Fifth International CF Conference
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Highlights of the Fifth International CF Conference
Date: Tue, 2 May 95 14:11:44 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Tom Droege <Droege@fnal.fnal.gov> writes:
 
>But I think we should think up a suitable penalty for Jed if the 
>water heater does not appear by  - say January 1 1997?  What say Jed,
>two shaved heads against your one.  How can you resist those odds?
 
Don't be ridiculous, Tom. I won that bet years ago. Commercial sales of
excess energy heaters began when Griggs sold his first machine. I expect
the reports of Potapov's devices are also true. Whether those devices
are powered by the same energy that P&F discovered is immaterial to me; it
is functionally the same, and present day physics cannot explain it.
 
You would say, no doubt, that your "investigation" shows that Griggs may not
have any excess because of the daffy ideas you dreamed up about electric
motors interfering with bimetalic thermometers and thermocouples. I say
that is a bunch of bunk, and I say you *know damn well* it is bunk. If you
had any guts you would have tested your ideas. The fact that you did not
spend two minutes doing that proves that you don't believe it any more than
I do. You know perfectly well that your ideas don't hold water. That is why
you did not test them and you did not bring any instruments. Any person with
any guts at all would have put his ideas to the test.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.02 / Tom Droege /  Re: Highlights of the Fifth International CF Conference
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Highlights of the Fifth International CF Conference
Date: 2 May 1995 18:40:21 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <1995Apr27.124603.2198@plasma.byu.edu>, jonesse@plasma.byu.edu says:
snip

>*hydrogen* rather than deuterium.  (Hey, I thought we sent Tom Droege to
>investigate the Griggs device, and he found that claims of 'excess heat' from
>this machine were terribly exaggerated-  yet Jed again hypes the Griggs
>device...)
>
>I would hope that investors can see through such hype and keep their hands
>on their wallets, money intact.

For the record, I do not believe that I said anything about the claims
of excess heat.  I think I said that they did not have records or 
measurements of sufficient quality to make any scientific claim.  There
is a difference.  I would be guilty of the same error as Griggs if I
drew any conclusions from their measurements.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.01 / Robert Heeter /  Re: FS:ADVANCED PHYSICS BOOKS
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FS:ADVANCED PHYSICS BOOKS
Date: 1 May 1995 21:06:38 -0400
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University,
Princeton NJ 08540

In article <3nunq9$cmd@news.nd.edu>,
akash bandyopadhyay <abandyop@manganese.> wrote:
>		
>	FOLLOWING ADVANCED PHYSICS / PHYSICS RELATED BOOKS ARE FOR SALE
>

Sigh.  Where's that moderated group?

***************************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@pppl.gov
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Fusion FAQ:  http://www.pppl.gov/~rfheeter



cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.02 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Int
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Int
Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 14:32:11 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3nne9a$s8f@news.htp.com> Tim Mirabile <tim@mail.htp.com> writes:
>pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) wrote:
>
>> In article <3mqbj3$oe6@newsbf02.news.aol.com> mharmer@aol.com (MHarmer) writes:
 
>> >Muon catalized fusion is considered conventional fusion. It isn't any
>> >different except that it requires a muon source and lower temperatures.
              ^^^^^^     
>> You have that right.  

>I'd call it conventional because it's been proven and
>doesn't require any "new physics".

Proven?
I thought the muons have a limited life, and don't catalyse a sufficient
number of burns to produce more energy out than is required to generate
and collect the muon beasties in the first place.  So it's DISPROVEN, 
except as a sort of laboratory parlor trick.     

Besides, you do make a point.  So, if muon cf is conventional, then 
certainly BL is also conventional, since it is part of nature, and seems 
to work well in the sun.  As far as those avocating work in this area, 
then consider Kadomtsev.  Also the Russians and now the US have been 
spending big bucks on this area of fusion on the quiet and for years.  
Other names, are MICF or MTF.  I think they receive a big chunk of the 
2 billion they were just funded for such work.  Quite a bit of dough 
for some allegedly non-conventional stuff!   

No my friend, what we have here, is a chap trying desperately to protect
the old paradigm.  If we start looking at a system of physics as 
conventional or not, then you start to form a creed; it is then not a 
system of improving understanding and knowledge.   Convention in such 
a young discipline as plasma physics should have NOTHING to do with 
"what's conventional".  After all, it was "convention" 60 years ago 
to claim there was just 3 states of matter, which excluded the plasma
state altogether.  Even the ancient Greeks did better than that.  Let's 
face it, we have a case of scientific censorship, mild though it seems.  

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

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.02 / Barry Merriman /  Re: info on hair care
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: info on hair care
Date: 2 May 1995 19:17:21 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3o3csn$q4r@news1.halcyon.com> eaton1@coho.halcyon.com  
(Eaton/Cutler-Hammer Corp.) writes:
> RichardFre (richardfre@aol.com) wrote:
> : I will be glad to mail anybody the latest information on Hair.  I have
> : devoted my entire medical practice to
> : hair loss. please send SASE to Dr. Dilon Ellis, 155-21 Cherry Ave, 
> : Flushing, NY 11355
> 

I think this fellow is just a CF true-believer who expects
to cash in once all the skeptics shave their heads :-)


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


cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.02 / Barry Merriman /  Re: POLL: How long till power plants? 2062  Tell me you joking? Help
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: POLL: How long till power plants? 2062  Tell me you joking? Help
Date: 2 May 1995 19:40:09 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <D7uAD5.4pw@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)  
writes:
> 
> About 10 percent by formation and thermal ballistics to compression
> params, and then the rest by compression heating.  Although, for d^3He, 
> the compression heating to say 40's keV will be continued by alpha 
> particle heating 

Won't such a plasmak need to be fairly large, so that the larmor orbit
of the alpha is well inside the sphere? Just how large do you envision
a Plasmak as being, for power plan't applications?
 

> 
> The ICF guys compress systems with uniform internal energy densities.  
> Think of soap bubbles, blow on them and they can recover.  This is with
> just a squidgion of higher pressure within the film.  In a Spheromak/PMK
> config, the toroidal axis pressure is 10 to 12.5 times the boundary 
> pressure, so these things are compression SUPER BALLS. 

You are mixing metaphors here---your basic point about a superball
is correct, but soap bubbles return to spherical shape mainly due to their
surface tension, not due to the higher internal pressure.

Personally, I would suspect the biggest show stopper would be 
``turbulent'' effects, which might cause the plasmak to unravel
befor eit can achieve the desired compression. After all---it is
turbulence that is preventing the tokamak from working admirably.

So, what is your argument that there won't be large fluctuations, 
with the resulting fluctuation driven transport ruining your confinement?

Even if ball lighting is a Plasmak like phenomena, it may be that that
the higher neutral particle densities therein damp a lot of the fluctuations
and make it more stable---but then such neutral levels would not be comaptible
with conditions necessary for fusion, so the natural phenomena may not
scale up to a fusion reactor.





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


cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.02 / John Cobb /  Re: Synchrotron Radiation in Tokamak's
     
Originally-From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Synchrotron Radiation in Tokamak's
Date: 2 May 1995 14:54:41 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <3nqp25$10v@cnn.Princeton.EDU>,
Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
>In article <AWC.95Apr21094704@spelsf.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> Arthur     
>Carlson        TOK, awc@spelsf.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de writes:
>> Now to the question of significance. For the standard tokamak reactor
>> concept (much criticized in this group), synchrotron radiation losses
>> can be neglected. However, if you want to go to alternate fuels, you
>> have to go to higher temperatures, where it can be a serious
>> problem. The most popular proposal to get around this is to
>> simultaneously go to very high beta: If the plasma pressure is
>> sufficiently high, the magnetic field within the plasma is low, so you
>> have less gyro-motion and less synchrotron radiation.
>
>Hmm.  You make it sound like a high-beta advanced fuels machine can 
>have less synchrotron radiation than a D-T machine.  I think this is a 
>bit off.  Synchrotron radiation must scale with the number of particles,
>so higher beta => higher density and/or temperature => higher radiation.  
>However, I think the power loss scales like (beta)*B^4 = nT * B^2.  
>Most of the increase in beta (or nT) goes to give you an increase in
>fusion reactivity, right, so you can't really cut B that much.
>So while synchrotron losses from a high-beta advanced-fuels machine 
>will be lower than a low-beta advanced-fuels machine, I think they're 
>still going to be higher than your standard D-T tokamak.

I have not put in the exact numbers on this issue myself. In fact, I am
very glad that Bob and Art are discussing this. I am very interestted :>

Let me give my 2 cents worth. I think there is something I'm missing, but
I always seem to get these types of arguements bass-ackwards. "~" means
"scales like"
Synchrotron_Power_loss_rate ~ nT * B^2 (This is what Bob said above, right?)
Total stored Energy ~ nT
Therfore,
Tau-energy (energy confinement time) ~ B^(-2).
Now this energy confinemet time is only considering Synchrotron losses and
not other losses like Brems. or particle transport, or line radiation, etc.
but allow me to consider only Syn. losses under the assumption it is the
dominant energy loss channel. 

Now what happens when beta is increased?
Well a whole lot of things so it really doesn't make sense to talk about
increasing beta, "keeping all else constant". Ignoring that caveat, let me
just work the argument anyway. Suppose I wish to keep the fusion power level
constant. Then I keep density (n) and Temperature (T) constant. Then increasing
beta means decreasing magnetic field (B). So doubling beta means cutting
B^2 in half, which means doubling Tau-Energy. So the conclusion is that
Tau-Energy ~ 1/Beta.

1) did anybody follow that argument?
2) Of those that did, did it make sense? (I'm by no means claiming to be
an authority here. I'm thinking outloud.)

caveats:
Of course there are other loss channels to consider, so that
1/(Tau_energy) = (1/Tau_energy_synchrotron) + (1/tau_energy_brems.) +
                 (1/Tau_energy_convection) + ....

 
I'm not exactly sure about how to answer this question exhaustively, however,
here is one try. Look at a plot of fusion reactivity (\bar{\sigma v} for
a Maxwellian), for example, I am looking at fig. 2.4 in Glasstone and Lovberg.
My crude eyeballing seems to say that I can get the same reactivity from
D-3He that I do from D-T if the Temperature is increased by a factor of 5
(I guess this assumes a 3He rich 50/50 D/3He fuel mix???).

Now if I keep the density constant, this means the total stored power
will be five times more than in the same power level D-T reactor.

So what are the appropriate dimensionless variables to consider when one is
looking at reactor scaling and performance? My guess is beta, B, T, and
fuel mix.

>Actually the answer we were given on this in class was that it *was*
>possible to reflect *synchrotron* radiation back into the plasma with
>a high level of efficiency.

Yes, I've seen people suggest this, but how well will it work? I mean is there
experimental data to support it or is it just some nice clean neat theorists'
idea that has practical problems (mea culpa: I'm a recovering theorist). The
problem I see is that you need your walls to be much less absorptive than
the plasma, over a broad range of frequencies. I don't claim to be an
expert on this particular point, but it sounds like an easy idea to visualize
but a difficult one to realize. Although, as Bob indicates, reflection is
the standard and well accepted answer.

>Synchrotron radiation is lower in fusion machines than in accelerators
>primarily because (a) the particles have much less energy, so they
>don't radiate as much, and (b) the plasma is generally optically-thick
>to the radiation, which provides a certain measure of insulation against
>radiation losses.

What about the simple thermodynamic argument that if the plasma is optically
thick, then in equilibrium, the walls will reach the same temperature as
the radiating core? That is, if the walls have no cooling, and if their
reflectivity is 1- \epsilon, then in the long time limit, T_wall = some
approriate average T of the radiating plasma. Now given a wall cooling power, 
a reflectivity, a plasma radiating power and a plasma absoprtion coefficient,
then what temperature does this imply for the wall? I don't have the 
appropriate numbers on hand, but my (often wrong) intuition says the walls
will get very hot, or the cooling power will need to be large. But I should
really shut up, because I don't really know this issue inside and out and
it is really bad form to criticize a novel idea to solve an important problem
when the criticism is not firmly based.

>
>The dominant method of radiation loss in most fusion plasmas is (I think)
>not actually synchrotron radiation, but bremsstrahlung.  Because we have
>electrons colliding with ions, the electron bremsstrahlung radiation is
>large.  Bremsstrahlung losses also scale unfavorably with plasma beta,
>and will be quite a problem for high-beta advanced-fuels machines.

Any numbers here? I used to know the expected power losses from these
channels, but I have a mind like a steel sieve.

-john .w cobb

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

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.02 / Doug Shade /  Re: Griggs Trip Publicity
     
Originally-From: rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com (Doug Shade)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Trip Publicity
Date: 2 May 1995 19:42:39 GMT
Organization: Motorola LICD

In article <3o3p56$bar@fnnews.fnal.gov>
Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:

> In article <3noprd$l4t@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) says:

> >  Zo niet Tom Droege, een van de ont-
> >werpers van de elektronica voor de ma-
> >chines ...
> 
> I am told that this says I was responsible for designing
> the Griggs electronics.  To set the record straight, I 
> did not.
> 
> Tom Droege

AH HA! A spy!  I knew it all along.  You have been secretly employed by
Griggs!  No wonder he is not on line yet...  

(just kidding)

Doug Shade
rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrxjf20 cudfnDoug cudlnShade cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.02 / A Plutonium /  me on TV in Boston WCVB
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.engr,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.math,misc.invest.stocks
rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: me on TV in Boston WCVB
Date: 2 May 1995 22:08:13 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

I have been on TV before. Out in South Dakota circa 1986-87 I was put
on TV bicycling into Vermillion in the middle of winter. 

TV waves are forever unless intercepted. What I mean by that is that if
higher intelligence is listening in on us from another planet, they can
see me pedalling into Vermillion. Then, so very importantly, tune in to
(our) Tues 23 May 1995 to a program called CHRONICLE "Slice of Life in
Hanover" shown in Boston 7:30 and for those in the armed forces
(military) that is 19:30 hour. (I just did not want the armed forces to
miss this treat.)

       In Boston  7:30 PM on Channel 5   WCVB

       In Hanover carried on New England Cable News Channel, channel 34
at
                  8:30 PM

  I especially thank this TV organization for spending over an hour
with me 14:30-16:00 interviewing me and making a TV film of me. I
especially give kind thanks to two very nice people, both Lyn and Art
who made this thing happen!

   So then, if our imagined superior intelligence is listening in on
Earth, on 23 May 1995 (their time) they will be self assured, comforted
by the fact that us Earthlings will have finally got that science
discovery correct.

   I think we are the most advanced creatures in the universe, though.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.03 / D Lu /  Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB
     
Originally-From: dtlu38@quads.uchicago.edu (D. T.K. Lu)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.engr,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.math,misc.invest.stocks
rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB
Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 00:33:57 GMT
Organization: The University of Chicago

In article <3o6agd$8vp@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
Archimedes Plutonium <Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>I have been on TV before. Out in South Dakota circa 1986-87 I was put
>on TV bicycling into Vermillion in the middle of winter. 
>
>TV waves are forever unless intercepted. What I mean by that is that if
>higher intelligence is listening in on us from another planet, they can
>see me pedalling into Vermillion. Then, so very importantly, tune in to
>(our) Tues 23 May 1995 to a program called CHRONICLE "Slice of Life in
>Hanover" shown in Boston 7:30 and for those in the armed forces
>(military) that is 19:30 hour. (I just did not want the armed forces to
>miss this treat.)
>
>       In Boston  7:30 PM on Channel 5   WCVB
>
>       In Hanover carried on New England Cable News Channel, channel 34
>at
>                  8:30 PM
>
>  I especially thank this TV organization for spending over an hour
>with me 14:30-16:00 interviewing me and making a TV film of me. I
>especially give kind thanks to two very nice people, both Lyn and Art
>who made this thing happen!
>
>   So then, if our imagined superior intelligence is listening in on
>Earth, on 23 May 1995 (their time) they will be self assured, comforted
>by the fact that us Earthlings will have finally got that science
>discovery correct.
>
>   I think we are the most advanced creatures in the universe, though.

this is pathetic.
i wish you ran a public company, i would short the shit out of it.

-- 

Wendy Gramm For First Lady !!!
dtlu38@quads.uchicago.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudendtlu38 cudfnD cudlnLu cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.02 /  Visor@globalco /  Re: -bleep- trip Publicity
     
Originally-From: Visor@globalcom.net
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: -bleep- trip Publicity
Date: Tue, 02 May 95 20:27:06 PDT
Organization: GlobalCom



-cut-
> > >  Zo niet -cut-, een van de ont-
> > >werpers van de elektronica voor de ma-
> > >chines ...
> > 
> > I am told that this says I was responsible for designing
> > the -edit- electronics.  To set the record straight, I 
> > did not.
> > 
> > -edit-
-cut-

I was just thinking.(Yes, I know it is hard to beleive). Is this the 
international conspiracy everone is talking about. Have we now found 
the famous"THEM". Why say you didn't unless you did? What kind of 
record do you need to set staight? Why a record and not a CD? Do you 
trust the translation? Who do you know that reads that -ferrin 
langwitch-?

I guess I will have to check with Boris and Natasha on this one...or 
was that moose and squirrel...

Sorry, but it has been a long, dark day and this group always 
brightens me up.

cudkeys:
cuddy02 cudenVisor cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.03 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Marconi, signals, and noise
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Marconi, signals, and noise
Date: 3 May 1995 02:10:11 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <D7xt23.Csw@eskimo.com> "John A. Rusi" <windski@eskimo.com> writes:
> You hit upon something inherent in American education. Namely the untrue   
> concept that we know 99% of what can be known. I think we probably know   
> less than a an almost infinite number of magnitudes less than that. 
>  

This is not a question of what we have not yet discovered, its
a question of what we have already _verified_ in the past. There
may be a vast amount of unkown future knowledge, but how
much of it will require us to make _major_ revisions of previous
knowledge. This is virtually unheard of----even such radical theories
as special relativity, general relativity and quantum-mechanics did 
not overturn the established physics of the day. They mainly added
to it, by _extending it_ into a realm where it was previously known
to be poorly applicable. No one came along and found that gravity
was really an inverse 8th power law instead of a 2nd power law.

In the CF arena, the main issue is nuclear reaction rates, which
we think are pretty well understood, and the CF-ers like to claim that 
these rates are radically altered, and the reactions themselves modified,
by the prescence of the solid state. Now, this idea is superficially
appealling, but our understaning of nuclear processes makes it unlikely,
and further is not, to my knowledge, any theoretical or experimental
evidence that clearly supports this yet. (Certainly no one has diagnosed
nuclear reactions occuring in the solid state with any where near the precision 
that they have been monitored in classical nuclear physics---so the
experimental jury has to be considered out, even by CF proponents.)



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


cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.02 /  WThreeton /  Nuclear Weapons
     
Originally-From: wthreeton@aol.com (WThreeton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nuclear Weapons
Date: 2 May 1995 22:17:49 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

If anyone can tell me about how nuclear weapons work, I'll appreciate it. 
I have a research paper due for my high school physics class, any help
will be appreciated.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenwthreeton cudlnWThreeton cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.03 / William Rowe /  Re: Why Some Experiments Don't Need Error Bars
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (William Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why Some Experiments Don't Need Error Bars
Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 03:54:21 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <BIw8S8z.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

>William Rowe <browe@netcom.com> writes:
> 
>>Back to the Patterson cell. The result which is being reported is
>>inherently numerical. So many joules of excess energy, so many degrees of
>>temperature rise etc. These are measurements that need error bars.
> 
>Well, okay, if you really feel that way, why not tell us what *you* think
>the error are? Surely you are familliar with the instruments I listed:
>voltmeters, ammeters, a stopwatch, a 10 ml graduated cylinder . . . Any
>scientist can come up with realistic estimate of the errors for such
>standard, off-the-shelf equipment.

Surely, you can't be serious. How you can expect anyone to arrive at a
reasonable estimate of error from an equipment list alone is beyond me.
Errors are the result of experimental technique and protocol as much if
not more so than the actual equipment used.

> 
>My point was that you don't even need any error bars when the effect is as
>large as this. During the startup period, or during calibration with the
>joule heater, the Delta T temperature is exactly where it should be: down
>at 0.1 or 0.2 deg C. When the reaction starts it goes up to 2 degrees or
>higher. I don't see how anyone can argue with that.

IF the error is say plus/minus 5 degrees would you maintain a 2 degree
difference is significant? IF the error is this large, it sould suggest to
me the effect is simply noise.

> 
>Let me quibble -- very slightly -- with your historic examples. You mentioned
>the all-or-nothing Morse transmission. This I would call a presence or
>absense test. It is theoretically possible that static and noise on the line

Fine, call it a absence/presence test. My point is this type of
"experiment" is not equivalent to the Patterson cell "experiment" and does
not eliminate the need for error bars associated with the excess heat
measurement.
-- 
William Rowe                                                   browe@netcom.com
MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenbrowe cudfnWilliam cudlnRowe cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.03 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Jones' hypothesis on E-quest helium
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones' hypothesis on E-quest helium
Date: 3 May 1995 04:15:54 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <BiyeKq9.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>Richard Schultz <schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu> writes:
> 
>>What kind of mass spectrometer?
 
>Like I said, talk to Rockwell.

Then you agree with me that you are in fact not in a position to judge
their competence to accurately measure the helium in their samples, despite
your earlier claims to the contrary?
--
					Richard Schultz

"The palladium based systems are a useless dead end. Who cares about them?"
			--Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 10 Dec 1992
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.03 / Paul Koloc /  Re: A question
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy.hydrogen,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: A question
Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 02:14:41 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3nubui$g42@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov> kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov writes:
>Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP) wrote:

>> But it's driven by near surface fusion processes in the sun and biological
>> feed back on the earth's surface.  An increase in total CO2 atmospheric
>> inventory as additional input to the atmosphere by a factor of 2 or 3 
>> wouldn't have much effect on heating, since the biosphere would simply 
>> expand to cover the desserts and increase the biomass surface density.  
>
>Say what?

>There's no nuclear fusion near the sun's surface!  (otherwise it would
>shine in gammas and neutrons.  "Unless you have 1,000,000 sunblock you
>will have a very bad day")

I did not say fusion ON the sun's surface, I said Near the sun's surface.
It turns out that the sun is kind of big and near there could be relatively
really far here.   However, near is so close that the volume involved
can net heat the surface over a period of centuries, (or cool it over a 
period of centuries).  What? you haven't figured out HOW?? From whence
such fusion power comes and goes???  Well don't worry about it, it's
an ONLY Paul M. Koloc mechanism.  (Actually Herb Berk, and J. Hammer,
have a big part of it, too. )  If you really want to know, far be
it from me to deprive you.  Just ask.     

>How will the desert start to bloom?  The potential response of local 
>climate to changes in atmospheric parameters is not at all clear or
>well settled.  Still most research that I've heard about generally seems
>to result in greater climate extremes, meaning deserts will stay even
>drier.  Unless you can show that rainfall will definitely be different
>in deserts I don't know how you can say this.

When ever more energy is trapped in the atmosphere, the higher energy
modes are excited.   For example, one such mode is an increase in 
equatorial-polar exchange.  Because the solar output is governed by
the near surface burns and their turbulance, the bigger ones generate
the largest heating pulses.  It so happens this last one 1988, was
the highest in the current set (come in 5 solar cycles to the set).  
The last previous set peak was in 1933, and not quite as strong.  

The pulse goes on strongly for several years during which the oceans 
(especially the Pacific) heat and this stores in a huge vortex north 
and south of the equator a reservoir of warmer water.  The land responds 
quickly and heats with air mass rising, so there is drought.  The 
oceans are initially cool and contribute little moisture.  Remember
the "RUNAWAY Green HOUSE effect of 1988??"

Then the thermsl solar pulse diminishes (few years) but by this time 
the oceans are warmed and contribute moisture in rising air which is 
dumped on the quickly cooling (now cooler) land, and we have excessive 
rains (at least during the stronger pulse cycles).  

We have been experiencing this phase for a few years now, remember 
the new Great Lake --  "IOWA"  a year or so ago?  Even Europe and 
Asia flooding is/was increased.  The more locally noticeable features 
of this global effect "seen" by our weather chaps call it "El Nino" 
with wavy signs to get an "yo" sound.   But whatever, CA went from 
drought to HEY! turn it off!.  Somebody.   Well it will teach them 
to make their reservoirs large enough for a 55 year cycle and not 
a 5 year one.   Next "effect of the phase"??  bit more winter snow
and shorter cooler summers, and then followed by the next heat up. 

Plant life increase???  Yep the growth rates increase with increased
CO2 AND the water transport also increases with CO2, just open 
a bottle of pop, and you will form a cloud.  So there will be
more clouding, more albedo (reflection of sunlight), and more
water for thirsty little fast growing non-suffocating plants.  

Now with the HUGELY extended plant carpet on the land masses 
(filled in deserts), well I mean, it will be enough to tangle up 
even the most determined Japanese wood cutters and shippers.  All 
the sun light won't generate near the surface heating it otherwise 
would generate due to the cooling its absorbtion and effective energy 
utilization by the biomass.  So, a trememdous feed back system is 
born with more plants, more animals and more places to hid from 
our fiendish screwups.  

>Deserts are barren because there's not enough water!  

>There's plenty of CO2 in deserts, it's obviously not the limiting factor.  
>Consider CO2 concentration in Brazil to Algeria.  Pretty similar.  Consider
>H20 availability in Brazil and Algeria.

Bull!  It gets below freezing in the dessert at night, indicating
the paucity of the CO2 "greenhouse gas".  Only water vapor is the 
effective green house gas on this planet, notwithstanding the crap 
from the media and gov sky falling fund my project.  CO2 levels 
should be three times greater.   Could you breath on less than 1% 
O2?  Huh pal.  Try it.  

So Give plants a break; so you will have to excercise a bit more by 
mowing more he lawn more often .. so what?  It's good for you , and 
good for plants, (they love your CO2 spouting hot.. . ah!  warm air?)
>matt

Cruel unfeeling canabalistic humanoids just don't know what it's 
like to be a poor trod upon sensitive plant.  The world is an
40's Auswitz for plants under human domination.          :-(  
No care, no concern and they want to turn down our air supply even more.  
Gasp! !
                              :-)

                       Help plants, EXHALE! 
                           ...  only.  
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed May  3 04:37:05 EDT 1995
------------------------------
