1995.05.27 / Bill Rowe /  Re: More insanity from Richard Blue
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More insanity from Richard Blue
Date: Sat, 27 May 1995 04:30:07 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Jed Rothwell seems to agree with Dick Blues comments as follows.

1) Craven's experiment is supposed to be a robust demo of CF
2) It requires an expert to get good results
3) There are unpublished details which are needed to get good results
4) No info is available re scaling or otherwise controling the output

But Jed takes exception to Dick Blues comments indicating Craven's device
has done nothing to further CF investigations. I for one agree with Dick
Blue. There is an inherent comflict between statement 1) and the rest. In
fact, statements 3) through 4) seem remarkably concrugent to a receipe for
snake oil.

Basically, there are two ways to convince skeptics.

1) Publish results in sufficient detail so that the skeptics can repeat
the experiments and get the same results. This is the preffered way of
scientific investigations.

2) Make enough money selling your devices so that skeptics can't fail to
notice. If you can do this, a willing skeptic can buy a device and do
whatever he wants to analyze it/reverse engineer it until he becomes
convinced.

Frankly, I very much doubt you will be sucessful with approach 2).
-- 
William Rowe                                                   browe@netcom.com
MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.26 / Robert Horst /  Re: "CF heater" available for purchase -- and testing!
     
Originally-From: horst_bob@tandem.com (Robert Horst)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "CF heater" available for purchase -- and testing!
Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 20:36:08 GMT
Organization: Tandem Computers

> > >Subject: Re: "CF heater" available for purchase -- and testing!
I like this plan too.  Depending on who wants to do it, I will be happy
with either Tom or Scott Little testing the device.

-- Bob Horst
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenhorst_bob cudfnRobert cudlnHorst cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.27 / 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: Sat, 27 May 1995 05:59:07 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <16MAY199519140446@vxdel1.cern.ch>,
A.LOPEZ <team6@vxdel1.cern.ch> wrote:
>In article <vergonD8oE29.33y@netcom.com>, vergon@netcom.com (Vertner Vergon) writes...
>
>[deleted]
>
>> 
>>Everyone is familiar with the modern agreement that mass is invariant.
>> 
>>What the poor souls cannot see is that the photon has mass -- and *that*
>>mass is also invariant. The rest mass equals the moving mass.
>> 
>
>  Mr Vergon, in answer to one of my posts in alt.sci.physics.new-theories
>  concerning the Doppler effect, you have claimed that the photon mass
>  is NOT invariant. Could you please make up your mind on the subject? 
>  Does a photon's mass depend on the observer, or not?
>
>    Regards,
>           Alfonso Lopez
>

True, I did not state the case clearly because subconciously I assumed you
posess the construct of the photon as I have recounted it before.

Also, I was attempting to be brief.

My apologies.

Let me clarify.

The photon (my theory) is composed of a multiplicity of quanta (each is a
wavelet) -- like a class room is composed of a multiplicity of students.

The Doppler effect changes the number of wavelets in the photon. Thus the
mass of the photon is variable. Failed grades changes the number of 
students in a class, thus the size of the class is variable.

BUT, each student (quantum) has an invariant mass.

That was what I meant when I said that PHOTONIC MASS is invariant, i.e.,
the basic units comprising the photon is invariable, the number of units
in the photon is a function of the doppler effect and IS variable.

Es claro? :-)  I hope.

Sincerely


V.V.     The Ugly Duckling

p.s. Had you read my thesis these posts would not have been necessary.
And while we are piddling here with the appetizers, the feast goes 
unattended.



>[deleted]
>
>>Regards,
>> 
>> 
>>V.V.     The Ugly Duckling


cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenvergon cudfnVertner cudlnVergon cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.26 /  jonesse@physc2 /  Re: Jones hypothesis about 3He in E-Quest experiments
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc2.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones hypothesis about 3He in E-Quest experiments
Date: 26 May 95 16:35:27 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <JSxfk+j.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> William Rowe <browe@netcom.com> writes:
>  
>>Did Rockwell measure a sample for tritium content? Were they even asked
>>to? Your statement above i.e., "... I am sure they do." makes a lot of
>>assumptions.
>  
> Yes, they did. So did Los Alamos in that same experiment.
>  
> - Jed

So tell us, Jed, did they find tritium?
I predict that they did.
(Remember my hypothesis that the 3He found came from tritium decay,
and that the tritium was simply contamination in the palladium.)

Waiting for the other shoe to drop,
Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.27 / Bryan Wallace /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 27 May 1995 11:13:12 -0400
Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc.

KAnko (kanko@aol.com) wrote:
: Mr. Wallace,

: Before I take exception to your work, I would like to agree with you on
: something.  I agree that scientists who are unwilling to test their
: hypothesis are not good scientists.  I agree that modern physics is theory
: driven today, which is wrong.  Someone who derives a theory and then heads
: out to prove it are doomed to prove whatever they want.  Science should be
: about observing-theorizing-testing-retheorizing-and so on.  However, much
: like Rush Limbaugh, you have started with sound footing and have left the
: path.

: Since I studied particle physics, that is where I will start.  For what I
: could get out of your book you do not believe in quarks??  If this is
: true, how do you explain away the results from both electron-positron
: colliders and proton-antiproton colliders??  If you collide an electron
: and a positron above a certain energy, jets of hadrons emerge.  Where are
: these coming from??  Also as you increase the energy of the C.O.M. system,
: new jets emerge.  The ratio of e+e- >> jets / e+e- >> mu+mu- jumps in
: steps as each new qaurk can be made.  The coupling is consistant with 1/3
: or 2/3 electric charges being involved.  And this is QED, maybe the most
: tested theory in nature.

: In proton collisions, how do you explain large tranverse momentum events
: without quarks.  If protons have no underlying structure, then p+p-
: collisions would yeild a mush of stuff down the collider pipe.  However,
: both UA1 and CDF have seen events where jets of particles are thrown
: almost perpendicular to the collider pipe.  This certainly seems like
: quarks colliding.

: I will stp here to allow you a chance to reply, but there is much more. 
: Again, I agree with you when you sopeak out against a theory driven
: science.  Science must make observations first and then attempt to explain
: them.

: Take you for your time,

: Dr. Kevin Ankoviak

Kevin,

   I agree with Hiesenberg's arguments in Chapter 2 of my free book "The 
Farce of Physics."  Particles are not "elementary" but are the "spectrum 
of matter" ... "the quark hypothesis is not really taken seriously today 
by its proponents" ... "Everthing outside of the dynamics is just a 
verbal description of the table of data."  Also the arguments of Glashow 
and Lederman:

  True, the standard Model does explain a very great deal.  Nevertheless 
it is not yet a proper theory, principally because it does not satisfy 
the physicists naive faith in elegance and simplicity.  It involves some 
17 allegedly fundamental particles and the same number of arbitrary and 
tunable parameters, ...

Bryan


cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.27 / Bryan Wallace /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 27 May 1995 11:25:26 -0400
Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc.

David M. Cook (dcook@linux3.ph.utexas.edu) wrote:
: In article <3q23mi$6s0@xcalibur.intnet.net>,
: Bryan Wallace <wallaceb@news.IntNet.net> wrote:
: >   As I state in Chapter 2 of my book "The Farce of Physics", Einstein
: >believed that the ether sea exists but that it is invisible and can't be
: >detected by experiments.  

: I'm sure it's true that you state this in your book.  

: >Since neither Einstein's relativity ether theory [...]

: There is simply no such animal.

: Dave Cook

I've quoted Einstein's ether arguments just as he published them!  You 
can look them up if you don't believe me.  A very interesting article 
titled "Einstein and the ether" was published in the March 1988 Vol. 94 
No. 1625 issue of ELECTRONICS & WIRELESS WORLD starting on page 238 by 
Ludvik Kostro of Gdansk University.

Bryan


cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.27 / Bryan Wallace /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 27 May 1995 11:33:37 -0400
Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc.

Conrad (conrad@skid.ps.uci.edu) wrote:
: wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace) writes:
: [snip]

: >     Einstein's theory fails the Cavendish experiment, insists Huseyin Yilmaz
: >  of the Electro-Optics Technology Center at Tufts University in Medford,
: >  Mass., and Hamamatsu Photonics in Hamamatsu City, Japan.  In other words,
: >  the equations of general relativity have no solutions in which two bodies
: >  of finite size actually attract each other.
: >     "Thus, strictly speaking, according to general relativity, and apple
: >  detached from its branch would not fall to the ground," Yilmaz declares.
: [snip]

: Yilmaz's work in this area has some serious errors.  A rigorous derivation
: by Frittelli & Reula, Commun. Math. Phys. 166:221 (1994) shows that
: general relativity has a good Newtonian limit.

: Yilmaz has advanced his own theory of gravity, which has been shown to
: have serious problems by Misner, (preprint 9504050, gr-qc@xxx.lanl.gov).
: Misner has shown that Yilmaz's theory has static solutions!  It would
: allow a solar system in which the sun and planets are at rest.
: --
:  //===============================\\
: ||  Conrad, conrad@hepxvt.uci.edu  ||
: ||   You have to decide to live.   ||
:  \\===============================//

General relativity has a good Newtonian limit for a single body!  JPL 
must use Newtonian Mechanics to calculate *real* orbits in the solar system!

Bryan


cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.27 / Bryan Wallace /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 27 May 1995 11:41:03 -0400
Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc.

Conrad (conrad@skid.ps.uci.edu) wrote:
: wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace) writes:

: [snip]

: >The Relativists refuse to accept the evidence against the first and 
: >second postulates, and claim the all powerful ether/space/vacuum made the 
: >Universe in a Big Bang.  The Creationist claim the all powerful God made 
: >the Universe in six days.  Is there a significant difference between them?

: What evidence?  I have not seen any evidence from you that refutes
: general relativity nor any of it's postulates.  Your claims that data
: from interplanetary spacecraft disprove GR are wrong.  The fact that
: JPL uses GR in it's orbit calculations is explicitly stated in Ch 5 of
: the "Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac".  I do not
: accept your conspiracy theory that implies that JPL scientists lie
: about their work.

: I don't know of any astronomer who claims "the all powerful
: ether/space/vacuum made the Universe in a Big Bang".  All they claim
: is that a "Big Bang" appears to have happened.  I am not aware of any
: theorist who claims to know the "cause" of the "Big Bang".
: Furthermore the "Big Bang" theory makes predictions that are being
: tested by observation.  These include the observed motion of the
: distant galaxies, primordial abundances, and the microwave background.
: --
:  //===============================\\
: ||  Conrad, conrad@hepxvt.uci.edu  ||
: ||   You have to decide to live.   ||
:  \\===============================//

If you read my book you will find my references to the published 
literature.  The very *fact* that JPL refuses to publish an objective 
comparison of the wave and particle models for light in space is 
*overwhelming* evidence that modern physics is a *farce*!

Bryan

 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.27 / Bryan Wallace /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 27 May 1995 11:49:02 -0400
Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc.

Kevin Sterner (sterner@sel.hep.upenn.edu) wrote:
: In article <3q2c81$5ap@uuneo.neosoft.com>, Tom Richardson <tmc@sam.neosoft.com> writes:

: > You're correct in your statement that the creation model for the universe   
: > is not a theory in that it is neither observeable, testable, nor   
: > repeatable.  But the only other plausible explanation of the origin and 
: > existence of the universe falls in the same boat, namely Evolution.  Both 
: > the Creation and Evolution model use circumstantial evidence to "prove" 
: > their correctness.  And, ultimately, whichever model is accepted must be  
: > accepted by faith.  Which model does the available observeable data   
: > best support?  The debate over the evidence continues.  I know that   
: > Creation science has been called a religion because it states that a   
: > Supreme "spiritual" Being created all physical things out of nothing.    
: > But since evolution is also "believed" to be true, shouldn't it also be  
: > classified as a religion?  There are many who have a zealot-like belief 
: > in evolution and take it very personally if their belief system is   
: > questioned.  Such is also the case with Islam, Christianity, Bhuddism, 
: > atheism, etc.

: Evolution is only a religion when you stretch the meaning of the word
: "belief" to the point where it covers everything.  Scientists have to
: believe in the results of experiments.  People have to believe in the
: information they get from their senses.  Are these religions?

: Evolution is not repeatable, nor in *very narrow* terms is it testable.
: OTOH, neither is history.  Does that make history a religion?

: The physical and circumstantial evidence that the species of the world
: developed through evolution is far greater than that for the existence
: of Jesus Christ.  Any Christian should thus be very wary of discarding
: evolution on the basis of lack of evidence.

: Let me also point out that the main objection to creationism is not
: that some degree of faith is required, but that the central mechanism
: (involving an omnipotent god) is implausible.

: -- K.

: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Kevin L. Sterner  |  U. Penn. High Energy Physics  |  Smash the welfare state!
: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you think that the omnipotent invisible vacuum of modern physics is 
more plausible than the omnipotent invisible god?

Bryan


cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.27 / David Cook /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: dcook@utpapa.ph.utexas.edu (David M. Cook)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 27 May 1995 16:19:43 GMT
Organization: Physics Department, University of Texas at Austin

In article <3q7g96$4em@xcalibur.intnet.net>,
Bryan Wallace <wallaceb@news.IntNet.net> wrote:

>I've quoted Einstein's ether arguments just as he published them!  

Einstein wrote about the ether concept.  But his 1905 theory makes
absolutely no reference to and has no dependence on any such concept.

Dave Cook
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudendcook cudfnDavid cudlnCook cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.27 / Bryan Wallace /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 27 May 1995 12:38:44 -0400
Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc.

Gene Preston (gene.preston@access.texas.gov) wrote:
: wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace) wrote:
: ...
: >   As I state in Chapter 2 of my book "The Farce of Physics", Einstein
: >believed that the ether sea exists but that it is invisible and can't be
: >detected by experiments. ...

: >Since neither Einstein's relativity ether theory nor biblical creation theory
: >can be tested by the scientific method, it is logical to assume that they are
: >both not legitimate scientific theories! ...

: gene replies:

: Sorry to disagree with you, but Einstein's theories have stood up well
: under experimental testing.  Any new theory will need to agree with
: the same experiments used to test Einstein's theories.
:  
: gene.preston@access.texas.gov

As I've shown in my free electronic book "The Farce of Physics", Einstein 
lost faith in his theories toward the end of his life.  I have also shown 
the overwhelming evidence against his two basic postulates, but many of 
the arguments related to relativity theories are supported by the modern 
evidence.

Bryan


cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.27 / Bryan Wallace /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 27 May 1995 12:44:52 -0400
Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc.

Joann_Clement@jetsystem.com wrote:


: WA>The Relativists refuse to accept the evidence against the first and
: WA>second postulates, and claim the all powerful ether/space/vacuum made the
: WA>Universe in a Big Bang.  The Creationist claim the all powerful God made
: WA>the Universe in six days.  Is there a significant difference between them?

: WA>Bryan

: Yes, there is, Bryan.

: The Relativists are at least seraching deeper and deeper into the
: natural cause(s) of the universe's creation.  They may never solve the
: riddle completely, and even if they do, they won't be sure if they are
: correct.

: The Creationists are a bunch of pitiful sheep who need a man-made crutch
: called God to explain their mysteries.  I.e. - A pleasant, refined man
: with a white beard and a robe waved his hand and "made" the universe,
: childbirth is not a "wonder of nature," but rather a "Divine Miracle,"
: everything in life, including a person being murdered or dying of
: cancer, "has it's purpose...it was 'their time' to be called by God."
: People who think this way are sick and need help.

: I am proud to not be a pathetic religious freak who depends on the
: invisible and non-existent to explain things I do not understand.  I
: certainly don't know everything, but I am much wiser than someone who
: gets down on their knees every night and prays to that which does not
: exist.

: JHJ

: ========================= !!! Automated Notice !!! =======================
:  E-mail replies to this user should have the following on the first line  
:  of message text:        TO: Joann Clement
: ============================================================================

The Relativists are a bunch of pitiful sheep who need a man-made crutch 
called Einstein to explain their mysteries!

Bryan


cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.27 / Bryan Wallace /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 27 May 1995 12:53:55 -0400
Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc.

Jeff Chilton (chilton@wishep.physics.wisc.edu) wrote:
: I, for one, am getting a little tired of this silly argument.  I tried
: slogging through Wallace's Web site.  I was expecting to see a lot of
: inane arguments based on a complete lack of understanding of physics (a la
: R. McElwaine).  There were a few of those, to be sure.  But my main
: problem is that there's almost no original work in Wallace's treatise. 
: Just looking at the first part of a chapter chosen at random (Chapter 4,
: to be exact) there are only 35 lines of original "thought," to the 126
: lines of quotes taken out of context.  That means only about 30% of this
: crap is really due to Wallace!  Where I come from, that's considered
: plagarism, even if you do provide proper references.

: I also tire of Wallace constantly pointing out his membership in the
: American Physical Society.  So what?  I'm a member, and I'm just a
: mediocre graduate student.  _Anyone_ can become a member.  You just send
: in the $50/yr. or whatever it is and you're a member.

: -- 
: ******************************************************************************
: * Jeffrey E. Chilton - UW Madison Dept. of Physics  | "It is wrong to be     *
: *       B635-A Chamberlin Hall (608) 262 9657       |  French."              *
: *         chilton@wishep.physics.wisc.edu           |             --Al Bundy *
: * http://www.physics.wisc.edu/~chilton/chilton.html |                        *
: ******************************************************************************

You have a weird concept of what plagiarizm is!  I've cited the author 
and the source for all my quotes and one has only to read the original 
work to see if they are in context.  If you would stop slogging and 
actually read the relatively short book, you would find that Chapter 7 is 
devoted to my research and publications.

Bryan


cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.27 /  Van /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: vanjac@netcom.com (Van)
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: Sat, 27 May 1995 17:02:36 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

>The Relativists refuse to accept the evidence against the first and 
>second postulates, and claim the all powerful ether/space/vacuum made the 
>Universe in a Big Bang.  The Creationist claim the all powerful God made 
>the Universe in six days.  Is there a significant difference between them?
>
>Bryan

No. Scientists don't claim to know why the universe exists, or how it
came into being. They admit ignorance, they don't know why a universe
exists. They do the best they can to understand and describe that universe,
using the methods of science.

Then there are those who claim to know what no one knows, how and why
the universe came into existence. They have nothing but assertions
which there is no reason to believe, like "the bible says god created
the universe", for which there is no more evidence than
"turtles all the way down".

There is a significant difference. Scientists (usually) don't claim to
know things that they don't. Beleivers do claim knowledge of things
they have no knowledge of.
-- 
Van  --  Email: vanjac@netcom.com
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenvanjac cudlnVan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.27 /  Van /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: vanjac@netcom.com (Van)
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: Sat, 27 May 1995 17:08:38 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <3q3c0n$e52@news.primenet.com>,
Lawson English <english@primenet.com> wrote:
>
>The Relativists also have a problem: "What came before the Big Bang?"

There was no time before the big-bang. A scientist once said
(I forget the name, but agree with the statement), that this
question makes no sense, and is the logical equivalent of

"what is north of the north pole?".
-- 
Van  --  Email: vanjac@netcom.com
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenvanjac cudlnVan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.27 /  KAnko /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: kanko@aol.com (KAnko)
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: 27 May 1995 14:14:56 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Bryan Wallace responded:


 -----------------------------forwarded message-------------------

Kevin,

   I agree with Hiesenberg's arguments in Chapter 2 of my free book "The 
Farce of Physics."  Particles are not "elementary" but are the "spectrum 
of matter" ... "the quark hypothesis is not really taken seriously today 
by its proponents" ... "Everthing outside of the dynamics is just a 
verbal description of the table of data."  Also the arguments of Glashow 
and Lederman:

  True, the standard Model does explain a very great deal.  Nevertheless 
it is not yet a proper theory, principally because it does not satisfy 
the physicists naive faith in elegance and simplicity.  It involves some 
17 allegedly fundamental particles and the same number of arbitrary and 
tunable parameters, ...

Bryan

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

Sir,

I understand this, I have read your book.  Now I have some results you
haven't discussed which I want you to justify. 

If the particles are just exited states of each other, then the kind of
collisions one would get in proton-antiproton colliders would be very
different.  You would not have the proportion of high transverse momentum
collisions that are seen.  Probability calculations are not the
mathematics mumbo-jumbo you attack.  Anyone can make a probability
calculation.  So once again, how do you explain away the kinematics of
high transverse momentum particles in the aftermath of a proton-antiproton
collision???

Also, how do you explain away the electron-proton scattering results from
Stanford in the 60's??  If you send pointlike particles (the electrons) at
the protons, they don't scatter off the protons.  They seem to be
scattering off of smaller objects inside the protons, the quarks or
partons.  If you are invalidating this result, then you are invalidating
Rutherford's famous scattering of alpha particles off of gold experiments.
 Do you also believe that the atom is not made up of a nucleus and an
electron cloud around it??

I am always interested in alternative theories Mr. Wallace, however
Heisenberg was never able to explain these two results.  Can you,

Thank you in advance,

Dr. Kevin Ankoviak

"Now that we've found truth, will it become beauty"
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenkanko cudlnKAnko cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.27 /  parsec@worf.ne /  Re: "CF heater" available for purchase -- and testing!
     
Originally-From: parsec@worf.netins.net
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "CF heater" available for purchase -- and testing!
Date: 27 May 1995 13:31:04 -0500
Organization: Iowa Network Services, Des Moines, Iowa, USA

In article <1995May24.163736.2250@plasma.byu.edu>,
 <jonesse@plasma.byu.edu> wrote:

>How about it, Tom?  Any comments from those on s.p.f. who contributed to the 
>previous exposee?   At least we have a claim of a working (light) water heater,
>available for purchase.  Makes for a definitive test, one supposes.

And one supposes Vizor Inc, (and Moldavians everywhere), would be all
a-tingle at the prospect of excess heat confirmation from respected
investigators.  A 12 kw ultrasonic device might not fit Tom or Scott's
instrumentation.  


  And cheap,
>too.  (Speaking of the cost of the device, not of the value of Tom's time.) 


cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenparsec cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
when? / Phil Oliver /      
Originally-From: Phil Oliver <phil@indy.net>
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc
books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.el
ctromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic

Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 27 May 1995 19:39:37 GMT
Organization: IndyNet - Indys Internet Gateway (info@indy.net)

 
  I personally do not see a contradiction between acknowledging the 
quark model's ability to abstractly describe a morass of data from 
particle physics -- and the possibility, or probability, that  
quarks are not themselves the most elementary structure of hadronic 
matter. Existence is full of intermediate levels of hierarchy -- 
visible objects -> molecules -> atoms -> neutrons/protons/electrons ... 
and there's a big difference between identifying basic entities -- 
and identifying the ways in which those entities -- given their 
nature -- can interact with each other. 
 
  I think incidentally that there's a great deal to be said for 
some as yet not fully discovered variant of "ether" theories -- 
or "vacuum" theories to use the modern lingo! -- where all of existence 
is seen as an actual continuous and seamless whole, with "excitations" 
(or whatever they should be called) constituting the metaphysical 
differentia we call matter, energy, spacetime, etc. After all, there 
must be *some* physical mechanism for the inter-conversion of matter 
and energy (e.g., e+ + e- -> 2 gammas); and infinitely thin boundaries 
(a naive model of a hard surfaced particle) can not logically exist. 
Given that, existence truly must be a seamless whole, and discovery 
of its most fundamental properties will *be* the vaunted unified 
theory of physics. I do not incidentally consider Mr. Wallaces'  
writing to be very rational on this score and yes I've read the whole 
book. 
 
 
Phil Oliver 


cudkeys:
cudenphil cudfnPhil cudlnOliver cudszM 
------------------------------
1995.05.27 / David Cook /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: dcook@linux5.ph.utexas.edu (David M. Cook)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 27 May 1995 14:56:52 -0500
Organization: Physics Department, University of Texas at Austin

In article <3q7kik$4ub@xcalibur.intnet.net>,
Bryan Wallace <wallaceb@news.IntNet.net> wrote:

>I have also shown the overwhelming evidence against his two basic postulates
>[...]

And I was quite underwhelmed by it.

Dave Cook
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudendcook cudfnDavid cudlnCook cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.27 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Spherical Tokamaks all the rage
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Spherical Tokamaks all the rage
Date: Sat, 27 May 1995 18:50:36 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3ptp21$m69@soenews.ucsd.edu> barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>In article <D90JMB.BH5@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)  
>writes:
>> 
>> So let's really put it to the test!
>> What would be great is to run a competition.  Any one of us produces 
>> or WE ALL DIE.   
>
>Hmm...now that is a novel approach to concept selection. I like it!
>However, I'm not going to line up on the tokamak side :-)

I might be the kind of incentive that would encourage unflagging cooperation!  
>--
>Barry Merriman
>UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
>UCLA Dept. of Math
>bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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:
cuddy27 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.27 / 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: Sat, 27 May 1995 14:51:13 -0700
Organization: University of Oregon


On 27 May 1995, Bryan Wallace wrote:

> The very *fact* that JPL refuses to publish an objective 
> comparison of the wave and particle models for light in space is 
> *overwhelming* evidence that modern physics is a *farce*!

I don't understand your point here.  Are you suggesting that JPL is 
suppressing information?  If that is based on some particular incident, 
are the other options ruled out (such as the idea that there may have 
been some fundamental flaw in a report which would have invalidated the 
data, and not publishing the report because of that)?

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
          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:
cuddy27 cudenewm cudfnEd cudlnMatthews cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.27 / Paul Koloc /  Re: operating spheromaks
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: operating spheromaks
Date: Sat, 27 May 1995 20:01:09 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

>I am looking for information on the spheromaks in the world that are
>currently in operation.  Is a spheromak the same as a low-aspect ratio
>tokamak?  I know of only two so-called low-aspect ratio tokamaks: START in
>the UK (at JET I believe), and MEDUSA at the Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison. 
>Does anyone know of any others?  Or of any distinguishing characteristics 
>that would make a spheromak different from a low-aspect ratio tokamak?

A tokamak is a current-mode-1 toroidal device, while a Spheromak is a 
current-mode-2 device.  Stellarators had essentially no plasma current
or self generated field and are current-mode-0.  Tokamaks have one
toroidal current giving rise to a confining poloidal (azimuthal if it
were a linear discharge) field.  The spheromak has both poloidal and
toroidal currents within the plasma and they are distributed so that
these currents are quite parallel to the field they generate within
the volume the current bearing plasma.  This is the so called Taylor 
condition.    There is a current-mode-3 topology which is the PLASMAK(tm)
magnetoplasmoid.  It is a sort of an all-plasma-current-embodiment of 
the spheromak and contains ALL of currents and fields necessary for 
complete confinement and stability.  The third current flows in a 
blanket gas supported gas shell which maintains conductance by virtue 
of energy currents formed during initial excitation.  

I have a bunch of stuff accumulated over the last year which follows 
and discusses activity relating to spheromaks in some way. Mostly, 
there are Names, and Types of activities via work as expressed in papers 
and conferences.  You can contact authors individually.   

|       %%%%%%%%%   ALTERNATE CONCEPTS THEORY -- NEWSLINE   %%%%%%%%%
|           PHYSICS OF SPHERICAL CONTINUOUS INERTIAL FUSION WORKSHOP
|The Department of Energy (DOE) and the Electric Power Research Institute
|(EPRI) are organizing a workshop to assess the physics basis of spherically
|convergent continuous fusion systems.  These systems include Inertial
|Electrostatic Confinement (IEC) and systems combining electrostatic and
|magnetic confinement, such as the Polywell=81 or Penning Trap concepts.  The
|goal of this workshop is to collect relevant theoretical and experimental
|physics work addressing issues.
|
|The organizing committee,
|	Dan Barnes - Los Alamos
|	Tom Schneider - EPRI
|	Ron Blanken - DOE/Office of Fusion Energy
|	Nick Krall - Krall Associates
|	Gerry Kulcinski - University of Wisconsin
|	George Miley - University of Illinois
|	Bill Nevins - Lawrence Livermore
|
|is planning a two day program of invited presentations focusing on generic
|and concept specific issues.  A list of topics is enclosed.  The program
|also includes extended time for discussion and for accommodating
|contributed papers.  If you would like to contribute a paper, please return
|the following registration form as soon as practical.  You may respond
|electronically to FAX number (505) 665-7150 or via internet to
|dbarnes@ctrss2.lanl.gov or june@ctrss2.lanl.gov.  The final day of the
|workshop (Saturday morning, January 14) is reserved for discussions of
|applications (neutron source, space power, transmutations, fusion energy,
|etc.) and proposed next steps to resolve physics issues.
|
|The organizing committee will prepare a concise summary of the workshop
|which will be a consensus view of the major physics issues, the status of
|these issues (theoretically and experimentally), and next steps toward
|developing these systems toward near term and long term applications.  This
|summary will be published in Fusion Technology.  The proceedings of the
|workshop, including this summary will be published as a Los Alamos report.
|Speakers are requested to provide a four page extended synopsis of their
|presentation by January 31, 1995, for these proceedings.
|
|Please let us know if you will be participating and whether you wish to
|make a presentation.  An agenda will be sent to you in a few days.  If you
|are able to let us know, by electronic (FAX or internet) means, we will
|send further information by these means.  We look forward to an exciting
|and productive workshop.
|
|TOPICS:
|
|*  Generic Issues
|   -   Limits on convergence
|         Source
|         Asphericity
|         Coulomb scattering
|   -   Power balance
|         Ion energy scattering
|         Electron scattering and energy confinement
|   -   Waves and instabilities
|   -   Computer modeling
|   -   Scaling expectations
|   -   Direct conversion issues
|
|*  Specific Issues
|   -   Gridded systems
|         Grid losses of ions and electrons
|         Experimental results (scaling, profiles)
|   -   Poly wells
|   -   Magnetic geometry and MHD
|         Electron losses (cusp, cross field)
|         Experimental results
|   -   Penning Traps
|         Spherical Symmetry
|         Electron losses
|         Experimental results
|
|*  Furture directions
|
|The Physics of Spherical Continuous Inertial Fusion Workshop is scheduled
|for January 12--14, 1995, at the Eldorado Hotel, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
|Registration will be held from 7:30--8:00 a.m. on Thursday, January 12,
|1995, with the workshop beginning at 8:00 a.m.  The workshop is scheduled
|to end on Saturday, January 14, in the early afternoon.
|
|Technical information may be obtained by contacting Dan Barnes,
|505-667-4394 (phone) or 505-665-7150 (fax) or via internet at
|dbarnes@penning.lanl.gov or june@ctrss2.lanl.gov.  Lenora Alsbrook,
|Protocol Office Conference Coordinator, will assist with logistics and can
|be contacted at 505-667-8449 (phone) or 505-667-7530 (fax).
|
|
|Los Alamos National Labortory
|Protocol Office, MS P366
|Attention:  BUS-1 Conference Accountant
|Los Alamos, NM 87545
|Phone:  505-667-6774  -  Fax:  505-667-7530
|(Lenora Alsbrook)
|
|
|June D. Garcia
|Group T-15
|Los Alamos National Laboratory
|june@ctrss2.lanl.gov
|505-667-4394
|
|       %%%%%%%%%   ALTERNATE CONCEPTS THEORY -- NEWSLINE   %%%%%%%%%
|The 6th international Toki Conference on Plasma Physics and Controlled 
|Nuclear Fusion was held 11/29-12/2/94 at Toki city, Japan on the topic,
|RESEARCH FOR ADVANCED CONCEPTS IN MAGNETIC FUSION.  The conference was 
|attended by 240 participants from more than a dozen countries, including
|16 from the US, 11 from Russia and FSU countries, and 14 from the European 
|community.  There were 121 presentations (36 oral).  This was by far the 
|largest Toki conference yet, indicating a strong interest, worldwide, in 
|advanced concepts.
|        Summary comments by M. Fujiwara (conference chairman) with his 
|viewson the key issues for several alternate concepts.  His summary slide:
|	HELICAL SYSTEMS:  (1) transport studies in low collisionality (nu-
|star = 10^-3 or 10^-4;  (2) H mode should be developed up to H=2;  
|(3) steady-state operation in LHD,W7X.
|	LOW ASPECT-RATIO TOKAMAK:  (1) almost all of its characteristics 
|are attractive except for easy continuation to a tokamak type reactor;  
|(2) important physics studies are possible, and may contribute to key 
|physics of other concepts.
|	RFP:  (1) confinement studies on magnetic fluctuations and 
|confinement improvement should be demonstrated by current profile control;  
|(2) self-organization physics and dynamo mechanism.
|	FRC:  (1) efficient and slow build-up of plasmas, and long pulse;  
|(2) realize large s number plasmas, and establish the confinement scaling 
|to predict the feasibility of DHe3 reactor plasmas.
|	MIRRORS:  (1) can the concepts be maintained in high dense plasmas 
|relevant to fusion plasmas, e.g. will the tandem potential possible at 
|10^13 - 10^14 cm^-3;  (2) the possibility of DHe3 plasma confinement.
|	COMMON PHYSICS OF ALTERNATE CONCEPTS -- several areas of important 
|progress were discussed:  (1) self-organization mechanism and transport;  
|(2) H-mode physics in stellarator/tokamaks/mirrors;  (3) self-sustained 
|turbulence and transport model;  (4) magnetic reconnection physics 
|covering various configurations.
|	For further information contact S. Sudo (conference secretary), 
|sudo@dgsss.nifs.ac.jp
|                                -----Submitted by Loren Steinhauer, 1/9/95
|
|       %%%%%%%%%   ALTERNATE CONCEPTS THEORY -- NEWSLINE   %%%%%%%%%
|
|The 6th international Toki Conference on Plasma Physics and Controlled 
|Nuclear Fusion was held 11/29-12/2/94 at Toki city, Japan on the topic,
|RESEARCH FOR ADVANCED CONCEPTS IN MAGNETIC FUSION.  The conference was 
|attended by 240 participants from more than a dozen countries, including
|16 from the US, 11 from Russia and FSU countries, and 14 from the European 
|community.  There were 121 presentations (36 oral).  This was by far the 
|largest Toki conference yet, indicating a strong interest, worldwide, in 
|advanced concepts.
|        Summary comments by M. Fujiwara (conference chairman) with his 
|viewson the key issues for several alternate concepts.  His summary slide:
|	HELICAL SYSTEMS:  (1) transport studies in low collisionality (nu-
|star = 10^-3 or 10^-4;  (2) H mode should be developed up to H=2;  
|(3) steady-state operation in LHD,W7X.
|	LOW ASPECT-RATIO TOKAMAK:  (1) almost all of its characteristics 
|are attractive except for easy continuation to a tokamak type reactor;  
|(2) important physics studies are possible, and may contribute to key 
|physics of other concepts.
|	RFP:  (1) confinement studies on magnetic fluctuations and 
|confinement improvement should be demonstrated by current profile control;  
|(2) self-organization physics and dynamo mechanism.
|	FRC:  (1) efficient and slow build-up of plasmas, and long pulse;  
|(2) realize large s number plasmas, and establish the confinement scaling 
|to predict the feasibility of DHe3 reactor plasmas.
|	MIRRORS:  (1) can the concepts be maintained in high dense plasmas 
|relevant to fusion plasmas, e.g. will the tandem potential possible at 
|10^13 - 10^14 cm^-3;  (2) the possibility of DHe3 plasma confinement.
|	COMMON PHYSICS OF ALTERNATE CONCEPTS -- several areas of important 
|progress were discussed:  (1) self-organization mechanism and transport;  
|(2) H-mode physics in stellarator/tokamaks/mirrors;  (3) self-sustained 
|turbulence and transport model;  (4) magnetic reconnection physics 
|covering various configurations.
|	For further information contact S. Sudo (conference secretary), 
|sudo@dgsss.nifs.ac.jp
|                                -----Submitted by Loren Steinhauer, 1/9/95
|
|       %%%%%%%%%   ALTERNATE CONCEPTS THEORY -- NEWSLINE   %%%%%%%%%
|Announcement:
|	     US-JAPAN WORKSHOP ON COMPACT TOROID PHYSICS AND 
|      	   APPLICATIONS TO TOKAMAK REFUELING AND CURRENT DRIVE
|			Seattle, 13-15 March 1995
|
|     The workshop focusses on compact toroids physics, technology, and 
|applications.  The tentative workshop organization is as follows:
|     Monday 13 March	 AM  FRC experiments
|			 PM  FRC theory
|			     spheromaks
|     Tuesday 14 March    AM  compact toroid applications--fueling
|			     compact toroid applications--technology
|			 PM  laboratory tours
|     Wednesday 15 March  AM  concepts and future plans
|So far approximately 20 presentations are tentatively included in the 
|schedule.  If you are interested in attending and making a presentation, 
|contact Loren Steinhauer, (206) 881-9380;  fax (206) 881-7547;  email:
|Steinhauer@AA.Washington.edu
|     The conference hotel is the Residence Inn by Marriott / Lake Union.
|Make hotel reservations at (206) 624-6000.  The deadline for booking a 
|hotel room at the conference rate ($120/suite, $130/studio-lakeside) is
|20 February.  The conference registration fee is $50 ($20 grad students) 
|and includes a banquet.
|		--submitted by Loren Steinhauer
|
|       %%%%%%%%%   ALTERNATE CONCEPTS THEORY -- NEWSLINE   %%%%%%%%%
|Submitted by:  Loren Steinhauer
|
|The US-Japan Workshop, "Physics of D-3He Fusion" was held 5-7 December 1994
|in Nagoya.  It included 22 presentations.  The 35 participants at the 
|workshop included five from the US and five from Russia.
|	Five speakers gave recent results from FRC experiments [Osaka Un., 
|Nihon Un., Tokyo Un., TRINITI (Troitsk), Un. Washington].  These talks
|emphasized control of the FRC start-up and equilibrium.  The possibility of 
|alternative start-up procedures, especially spheromak merging, were 
|highlighted.  The prospects for D3He were discussed with respect to FRCs, 
|spherical tokamaks, and inertial electrostatic confinement.  Plans for 
|the test of the travelling wave direct energy convertor, was presented by 
|Y. Yasaka (Kyoto Un.):  the experiment, which will begin operations this 
|spring, will be the first test of a technology unique to advanced fuel 
|systems.  New current-drive ideas relevant to D3He systems were presented:  
|rotating magnetic field current drive, A. Hoffman (Un. Washington) and
|M. Ohnishi (Kyoto Un.); and passive current drive by fishscale walls, W.
|Kernbichler (Graz Un.).
|	For information on these and other presentations, contact 
|Y. Tomita at...  Tomita@NIFSbbs.NIFS.ac.Jp
|
|        ALTERNATE CONCEPTS THEORY COMMUNITY at SHERWOOD / LAKE TAHOE
|
|At the Sherwood Conference there will be a meeting of the alternate 
|concepts theory community:
|
|	Time:  5 - 6 pm  
|	Date:  Monday,  3 April
|	Room:  Tamarack-C  (pool level, Sierra Conference Center)
|
|The meeting will feature discussions on how to promote Alternate Concepts 
|theory.  Ron McKnight, Walter Sadowski, and Mike Crisp will represent the 
|OFE perspective.
|	Address questions to Loren Steinhauer, University of Washington,
|(206) 881-9380;  fax -7547;  internet:  Steinhauer@AA.Washington.edu
|
|From uucp Mon Apr 10 13:47 EDT 1995
|>From mimsy!CTR.AA.WASHINGTON.EDU!ACTHEORY  Mon Apr 10 13:47:02 1995
|Received: by prometheus (5.61/1.35)
|	id AA22674; Mon, 10 Apr 95 13:47:03 -0400
|Received: from bashful.u.washington.edu 
|	by mimsy.cs.UMD.EDU (8.6.11/UMIACS-0.9/04-05-88)
|	id OAA07671; Mon, 10 Apr 1995 14:27:46 -0400
|Received: from ctr.aa.washington.edu by bashful.u.washington.edu
|	(5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA11526;
|	Mon, 10 Apr 95 11:27:42 -0700
|Date: Mon, 10 Apr 95 11:25 PST
|From: ACTHEORY@AA.WASHINGTON.EDU
|Subject: US-Japan workshop summary
|Sender: ACTHEORY@CTR.AA.WASHINGTON.EDU
|To: Baldwin3@LLNL.gov, CBarnes@LANL.gov, DBarnes@Penning.LANL.gov,
|        Batchelor@FEDC04.FED.ORNL.gov, Beckstead@toka.ireq-ccfm.hydro.qc.ca,
|        PMB@iago.Caltech.edu, berk@hagar.ph.utexas.edu,
|        amitava@iowa.physics.uiowa.edu, AHB17@Columbia.edu,
|        Braams@cims.nyu.edu, JUB@LANL.gov, Brooks@AA.Washington.edu,
|        MBrown3@cc.Swarthmore.edu, 76234.3303@compuserve.com,
|        emg@fusion.ph.utexas.edu, Cary@Boulder.Colorado.edu,
|        chapman@juno.physics.wisc.edu, cheeseman@pluto.arc.nasa.gov,
|        Choi@ecn.Purdue.edu, chum@gav.gat.com, cobbjw@ornl.gov,
|        collerain@gav.gat.com, David.Crandall@mailgw.ER.DOE.gov,
|        Crawford@AA.Washington.edu, Michael.Crisp@mailgw.ER.DOE.gov,
|        benjamin.cross@srs.gov, dawson@physics.ucla.edu,
|        72570.707@compuserve.com, tjd@inel.gov, Dory@FEDC06.Fed.ORNL.gov,
|        William.Dove@mailgw.ER.DOE.gov, drake1@llnl.gov, Gepstein@ota.gov,
|        AF@LLNL.gov, mGoeckner@PPPL.gov, June@CTRss2.LANL.gov,
|        Gulick@FRL.physics.McGill.CA, hammer2@llnl.gov,
|        Hanson@Physics.Auburn.edu, Hewett@kristen.LLNL.gov,
|        Jarboe@AA.Washington.edu, JLJ@theory.PPPL.gov
|Message-Id: <15419FB3765A600B1C@CTR.AA.WASHINGTON.EDU>
|X-Envelope-To: pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu
|X-Vms-To: @ACTHEORY
|Status: RO
|>        %%%%%%%%%   ALTERNATE CONCEPTS THEORY -- NEWSLINE   %%%%%%%%%
|>
|>      The US-Japan workshop "Compact Toroid Physics and Applications to 
|> Tokamak Fueling and Current Drive" was held in Seattle, 13-15 March 1995.  
|> It was attended by 38 persons including a Japanese delegation of eight, 
|> and one from Canada.  
|>      The workshop addressed three key issues:  (1) How to form and sustain 
|> compact toroids (CT); (2) Practical aspects of fueling and current drive 
|> plus alternate applications of CTs; and (3) Where to go from here, what 
|> do we know, what do we need to know, and how much will it cost.  An 
|> abstract booklet of the 24 formal presentations was compiled and is 
|> available upon request.  
|> Submitted by:  Loren C. Steinhauer  (steinhauer@aa.washington.edu)
|
|To: Baldwin3@LLNL.gov, CBarnes@LANL.gov, DBarnes@Penning.LANL.gov,
|        Batchelor@FEDC04.FED.ORNL.gov, Beckstead@toka.ireq-ccfm.hydro.qc.ca,
|        PMB@iago.Caltech.edu, berk@hagar.ph.utexas.edu,
|        amitava@iowa.physics.uiowa.edu, AHB17@Columbia.edu,
|        Braams@cims.nyu.edu, JUB@LANL.gov, Brooks@AA.Washington.edu,
|        MBrown3@cc.Swarthmore.edu, 76234.3303@compuserve.com,
|        emg@fusion.ph.utexas.edu, Cary@Boulder.Colorado.edu,
|        chapman@juno.physics.wisc.edu, cheeseman@pluto.arc.nasa.gov,
|        Choi@ecn.Purdue.edu, chum@gav.gat.com, cobbjw@ornl.gov,
|        collerain@gav.gat.com, David.Crandall@mailgw.ER.DOE.gov,
|        Crawford@AA.Washington.edu, Michael.Crisp@mailgw.ER.DOE.gov,
|        benjamin.cross@srs.gov, dawson@physics.ucla.edu,
|        72570.707@compuserve.com, tjd@inel.gov, Dory@FEDC06.Fed.ORNL.gov,
|        William.Dove@mailgw.ER.DOE.gov, drake1@llnl.gov, Gepstein@ota.gov,
|        AF@LLNL.gov, mGoeckner@PPPL.gov, June@CTRss2.LANL.gov,
|        Gulick@FRL.physics.McGill.CA, hammer2@llnl.gov,
|        Hanson@Physics.Auburn.edu, Hewett@kristen.LLNL.gov,
|        Jarboe@AA.Washington.edu, JLJ@theory.PPPL.gov
|
|       %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|       %%%%%%%%%   ALTERNATE CONCEPTS THEORY -- NEWSLINE   %%%%%%%%%
|------ %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ------
|     The US-Japan workshop "Compact Toroid Physics and Applications to 
|Tokamak Fueling and Current Drive" was held in Seattle, 13-15 March 1995.  
|It was attended by 38 persons including a Japanese delegation of eight, 
|and one from Canada.  
|     The workshop addressed three key issues:  (1) How to form and sustain 
|compact toroids (CT); (2) Practical aspects of fueling and current drive 
|plus alternate applications of CTs; and (3) Where to go from here, what 
|do we know, what do we need to know, and how much will it cost.  An 
|abstract booklet of the 24 formal presentations was compiled and is 
|available upon request.  If you are interested in getting a copy of the 
|slides from any one presentation, then contact that speaker directly.  The 
|following is a list of the 24 formal presentations.
|
|EXPERIMENTS
|T. TAKAHASHI (Nihon Un.), Translation experiment of an FRC plasma in NUCTE-3
|A.L. HOFFMAN (Un. Washington), From TRX to LSX/mod.
|M. KATSURAI (Tokyo Un.), Experimental studies on MHD dynamics of CTs and 
|   compact tokamaks in the TS-3 device.
|J.B. GREENLY, (Cornell Un.), Design of the Cornell FIREX:  field-reversed  
|   ion ring experiment.
|A. MARTIN (Un. Washington), Formation and sustainment of a low-aspect ratio 
|   tokamak using coaxial helicity injection.
|R. BROWN (Swarthmore Coll.), Two gun spheromak experiments at Swarthmore.
|
|COMPACT TOROID PHYSICS
|S. GOTO (Osaka Un.), Flow pattern of scraped-off plasma from FRC.
|M. OKUBO (Osaka Un.), Measurements of end-loss ion energy and estimation of 
|   convective energy loss from FRC.
|A. ISHIDA (Niigata Un.), Stability of FRCs.
|S. OHI (Osaka Un.), FRC plasma heating by axial injection of pusled intense 
|   ion beam.
|E.A. CRAWFORD, Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities in FRC radial dynamics.
|L.C. STEINHAUER (Un. Washington), High-beta minimum energy states.
|
|PLASMOID INJECTION PHYSICS AND TECHNOLOGY
|T. UYAMA (Himeji Inst. Technol.), CT injection and helicity injection 
|   experiments in HIT.
|R. RAMAN (Varennes), Non-disruptive fueling of a tokamak by CT injection.
|P.M. BELLAN (Caltech), High velocity compact torus injector for the TEXT 
|   tokamak.
|R.E. PETERKIN (Phillips Lab.), How to drive a CT to high density and high 
|   speed.
|J.C. THOMAS (Titan-PSI), Technology of high repetition rate compact toroid 
|   guns.
|S. GOTO (Osaka Un.), New approach of FRC translation techniques for pasma 
|   movement and energy input.
|
|CURRENT DRIVE AND ALTERNATE APPLICATIONS
|M. OHNISHI (Kyoto Un.), Steady equilibrium of FRC with rotating magnetic 
|   field.
|B.A. NELSON (Un. Washington), Helicity injection in tokamaks and spheromaks
|G.F. KIUTTU (Phillips Lab.), High-energy, high-Z CTs for x-ray conversion.
|
|CONCEPTS AND EXPERIMENT PLANS
|J.T. SLOUGH (Un. Washington), Possible FRC research on LSX/mod.
|C. BARNES (LANL), Plans for a hot sustained spheromak.
|L.J. PERKINS (LLNL), How well does the FRC pass the "reactor test"?
|
|Submitted by:  Loren C. Steinhauer  (steinhauer@aa.washington.edu)
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Thanks, and I look forward to any information you can pass on.

>James Danielson
>Dept. of Physics
>Univ. Calif. Irvine
>
>email: eapu523@ea.oac.uci.edu
>Thanks, and I look forward to any information you can pass on.
>James Danielson
>Dept. of Physics
>Univ. Calif. Irvine
>email: eapu523@ea.oac.uci.edu

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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:
cuddy27 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun May 28 04:37:03 EDT 1995
------------------------------
