1995.06.06 /  Tstolper@aol.c /  FTMS & FTICRMS
     
Originally-From: Tstolper@aol.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FTMS & FTICRMS
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 03:55:15 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Carl Ijames: 

Thanks for the information about mass spectrometry in your post of May 17,
1995, carried in Scott Hazen Mueller's Fusion Digest No. 3707 of the same
date.

Some of it went over the head of this neophyte, though.

What do the acronyms FTMS and FTICRMS stand for?  The closest the little
acronym reference book at my local branch library could come was FTI =
frequency time indicator.

You said that you were using an FTMS device with a resolution far better than
the best available commercially.  Where did your mass spectrometer come from?
 Did you have to build it yourself?

Will it work on gasses as well as on liquids or solids?

Can you recommend a good article, on the level of Scientific American, about
this kind of spectrometry?

Tom Stolper

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenTstolper cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.06 / T Hamilton /  Trinity Project
     
Originally-From: DNHC64A@prodigy.com (Timothy Hamilton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Trinity Project
Date: 6 Jun 1995 08:24:14 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

SUBJECT: Trinity Project 
     I am looking for any information pertaining to the Trinity Project 
which was conducted at Los Alamos National Labs and other sites in New 
Mexico.  I am specifically interested in any internet sites or archive 
information that deals with this subject.  I would also be extremely 
interested in people who were involved in the project, are still alive 
and are willing to be interviewed for a T.V. special.
     Thank you in advance for your help and cooperation. 12649


cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenDNHC64A cudfnTimothy cudlnHamilton cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.06 / Suresh Singh /  Test
     
Originally-From: Suresh Man Singh <suresxv@hpl3bol1.cern.ch>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Test
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 09:08:20 GMT
Organization: CERN European Lab for Particle Physics

This is just a test pls igonre it.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudensuresxv cudfnSuresh cudlnSingh cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.06 / Scott Little /  Re: $700 will do just fine
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: $700 will do just fine
Date: 6 Jun 1995 04:05:10 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

In article <pG9+dkU.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com says:

>Actually, I would like about a thousand of them at that price, because the
>add on equipment alone (pumps, pipes and plumbing) is worth more than
>$700. 

Jed, my understanding (vague as it is) is that the device costs "a few hundred
dollars" by itself (without the associated pump and accessories) and thus
I said that $700 should just about get one into the US (a wild guess on the
shipping costs).  You're right, a 4kW pump will cost a pretty penny...
probably quite a bit more than the P device!
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.06 /  jedrothwell@de /  More weird science from Dick Blue
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More weird science from Dick Blue
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 95 09:32:38 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) is a master at inventing impossible
physics. I would call his work "science fiction" but that would be an insult
to the memory of Asimov and Heinlein. His "theories" would be rejected by any
self-respecting SF magazine. They are so absurd, they would be rejected by
"The National Inquirer." In his latest opus he pretends that is possible to
magically add energy to water by running the water through a filter. You do
not require any external source of energy, or any stored chemical energy!
Conservation of energy has been tossed aside. You just run the water through a
filter and it magically "picks up" energy (probably orgone energy.) Blue
apparently believes this. He probably believes in homeopathy too. Here is his
latest wild idea:
 
     "There is also an 8 micron filter of some sort according to Jed.  I
     wonder what purpose that filter serves and what are the materials used
     in its construction.  In fact I think it is essential to know something
     about all the materials exposed to the flowing electrolyte."
 
Whatever those materials may be, they surely cannot store and magically
release megajoules of energy. Nobody has ever observed a filter "energize"
water before. In any case, Patterson and Cravens used to run without a filter,
and they got plenty of excess heat, so I guess the heat is not coming from
Orgone Energy or homeopathy after all. Tough luck, Dick!
 
(Note: they added the filter because they found that after months of running a
cell, it gets cruddy.)
 
 
And here is more absurd nonsense from Blue. This stuff violates the
conservation of energy and several other fundamental laws of physics, but that
never bothers Dick Blue:
 
     "It is the flowing electrolyte that makes the Cravens experiment
     slightly different from other CF investigations so, perhaps, we should
     give that feature some special consideration."
 
Uh, huh. On the other hand, since hundreds of other experiments with separate
electrolyte and cooling water have shown excess heat, that proves circulating
the electrolyte has nothing to do with it. But we will pretend all these other
experiments don't exist, right? Make a special case for no rational reason.
Why not?
 
 
     "I have already pointed out that the fluid flow can do mechanical work
     to deposit energy within the cell boundary."
 
Yes and several other people pointed out that this energy is ten thousand
times too small to explain anything.
 
 
     "I would now like to suggest the possibility of another transport
     mechanism associated with the flowing electrolyte.  Suppose the chemical
     composition of the fluid exiting the cell is not identical to the
     composition of the fluid that reenters?"
 
Suppose it isn't identical. Suppose there is a chemical transformation. Where
does the energy to make that transformation come from? What is the ultimate
source of outside energy? The overhead lights? I know! Orgone energy! Call
Vienna! Call the "National Inquirer." Call those men in white coats with the
net.
 
 
     "Is it possible to construct a chemical heat engine in which reversible
     changes of chemical state occur at two different points in the fluid
     circuit, one point inside the cell boundary and one point outside the
     cell boundary?"
 
Yes, of course it is possible. You must have some external source of energy
that causes a chemical transformation, storing energy in the fluid. Further on,
the transformation is reversed. There are only three problems with this
particular setup:
 
1.   There is no external source of energy.
 
2.   The fluid, in this case, is 95% water, and you cannot store chemical
     energy in water.
 
3.   In the circuit outside the cell there is a reservoir, a pump, a filter
     and some plastic tubes. None of these things can produce a chemical
     transformation (apart from minute levels of contamination).
 
 
 
     "There are two parts of the Cravens demonstration that have never been
     discussed in detail.  Since the electrolyte returns to the cell cooler
     than when it exited there has to be some form of heat exchanger external
     to the cell.  Did anyone examine the heat exchanger, and can they say
     anything about it?"
 
Of course that has been discussed in detail. Not here, but at ICCF5, in
various papers, and in conversations with Cravens. The problem is that Dick
Blue NEVER, EVER actually reads any scientific paper, he never talks to any
scientist, and he never looks at a schematic or a photograph, so he never has
the slightest idea what he is talking about. Anyway . . . a person with an
ounce of common sense would know exactly where the heat exchanger is, and how
it works. It is called a "plastic tube." When you heat up water 4 deg C and
run it through an uninsulated plastic tube at 10 ml/min, it cools down
quickly. By the time the water travels from the cell to the gas separator (the
graduated cylinder) it is almost back to room temperature. By the time it gets
back to the reservoir, it has cooled down completely. This will be immediately
obvious to any person who looks a photo or a schematic of the cell. Any person
with common sense, that is.
 
If you insulate the tube between the cell and the graduated cylinder, the
fluid will still be warm when it gets there, losing only about 1 deg C during
the trip.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.06 /  jedrothwell@de /  Thanks for admitting you are ignorant, Arnie
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Thanks for admitting you are ignorant, Arnie
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 95 10:41:26 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I asked arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch) whether he has actually read any
scientific papers about cold fusion. In his non-response, he tacitly admits
the answer is no, he has not read anything. I asked what he has "seen." He
responds:
 
    "What I have seen, and see almost every day in this newsgroup, is
    your facile attempts . . ."
 
Right. No reference to any papers. You evade the issue and attack me instead.
That settles it. Thanks for admitting you have read nothing and you know
nothing.
 
 
   "You are in no position to question me about what I read."
 
No need to, Arnie! I recognize an ignorant fool when I see one. Obviously you
have not read anything.
 
 
   "I suppose now, that Pons and Fleishmann [sic] seem no longer to be working
   'in the area'" . . .
 
Oh, sure. You heard that from Morrison, and you believe it. Say, I have a
bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. It never occurs to a True Believer
like you to check out the facts independently. That's why you never read any
scientific papers. You take you opinions directly from people like Morrison.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.06 /  jedrothwell@de /  Aryan Science Numerology from Morrison
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Aryan Science Numerology from Morrison
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 95 10:42:45 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Now that Morrison has graced this newsgroup with more of his imaginative
reporting, I think it is time to re-post some of previous contributions to
20th century science sociology. I refer, of course, to . . . <drum roll>
 
GREAT MOMENTS IN MODERN SCIENCE: MORRISON EXPLAINS HIS "REGIONALIZATION"
THEORY
 
If you corner Douglas Morrison and ask him why Japanese government and
industry invests in cold fusion, and why Italians and Russians get good CF
results while the U.S. invests practically nothing, he will probably fall back
on his Aryan Science Numerology, or "Regionalization of Results" theory. You
can read about this theory in his ICCF1 (1990) paper. He talked about it the
NOVA science program, "Confusion in a Jar" (1991), and again this summer at
Tufts (we have a video of the Tufts lecture). In a nutshell, the theory holds
that "good" science is done by a handful of "good" research institutes which
are all in Northern Europe and the Northeastern United States. These are the
big name, establishment places like Princeton, Harwell, M.I.T., and --
coincidentally -- CERN. (He does not admit that Harwell, CalTech and MIT
actually got postive results.) Institutes in Southern Europe, Asia, and
Southern U.S. produce only marginal, "bad," inconsequential, and often
"pathological" science. In the NOVA program, the announcer voice over says:
 
     "A disturbing pattern emerged in cold fusion experiments. Labs at high
     prestige universities generally got negative results. Elsewhere results
     were often positive." [World map is displayed with voice-over.]
 
Then Dr. Morrison speaks on camera:
 
     "I was absolutely astonished when I took northern Europe -- northwestern
     Europe.  All the results were, no, no, no, no -- they couldn't find it.
     And when I took southern Europe it was all yes, yes, yes.  And when I
     took eastern  Europe it was all yes, yes, yes.  The United States
     divided into two parts. If you took the major laboratories and what I
     call the greater region of The New York Times -- where it was read very
     much -- it was no, no, no. If you took the remainder of the United
     States -- the southern part of the United States, it was yes, yes,
     yes.... This rather horrified me."
 
. . . Like most racists, Morrison does not hide his opinions. He glories in
them! He brags about them, he advertises his ideas on national television,
lectures about them, and writes about them. He pretends to be "horrified" that
he has discovered people who eat garlic and people with dark skin cannot do
science. The local Klu Klux Klan here in Georgia cries crocodile tears for
black people, who -- they claim -- just don't have what it takes. They just
can't compete. It is cruel to give them a chance. Yes, horrifying. Oh, how
horrified Morrison must be when he realizes that those funny little people
cannot do science. But how convenient! He can ignore them. He can throw out
all scientific papers from places like KEK, because he knows the authors are
the wrong color and they talk funny. All he has to do is pretend that Harwell,
Cal Tech and MIT never got any results either. Maybe he can prove those
researchers are not Aryans. That would uphold the Honor and Purity of Science.
 
I'll tell you what horrifies me. It is that the "skeptics" here buy whatever
filthy slop Morrison dishes up. He writes nonsense in the newspapers, and the
people here believe it is true, just because he said it. People like Droege,
who have seen Morrison's neo-Nazi ideas (because I sent him this material
years ago) insist that Morrison is a distinguished gentleman and a scholar in
spite of his odd views about society. His review of ICCF5 did not contain any
scientific data, and not a single quote from any paper or speaker. His views
on society are obnoxious, his public statement and published papers
reprehensible, and his newspaper reporting consists of distortion, innuendo,
and rumor, but he is a gentleman and scholar as far as the "skeptics" are
concerned, because he tells them what they want to believe.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.06 / 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: 6 Jun 1995 11:06:29 -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,

   It should soon be possible for you to ftp my published paper p.wp5 
that is in WordPerfect 5.1 format that includes imbedded graphics from:
ftp.intnet.net in the directory /pub/BOOKS/Wallace .  The paper contains 
dynamic ether computer simulations of quarks.

Bryan

 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.06 / Dick Jackson /  Re: Potapov device costs far more than $700
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Potapov device costs far more than $700
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 15:10:06 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea

In article <RU5fkh2.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>People have commented here that the Potapov device might be tested for
>$700 or so. This estimate is at least one order of magnitude too low. I wrote
>that the core of the machine can be purchased for $260 "in quantity." This is
>a business term meaning "when you buy a lot of them at one time." That does
>not mean you can buy just one machine at that price. Furthermore, I meant
>F.O.B. Kishinev, Moldavia. Getting things from Moldavia costs a great deal
>of money. I also said you need pumps and other hardware, all of which costs
>much more than $700.
> 
>Some readers of this forum are not observant, and they tend to go off on a
>tangent on skimpy, incomplete information and guesswork. There is no
>possibility that anyone in North American could test the Potapov device for
>a mere $700. Several people in N. America and Europe have tested it, and
>they have found it works, but they paid a lot more than $700.

The people marketing this "device" should be only too happy to rent one
or even loan one to s.p.f.  Unless, of course, they are too inexperienced
in the ways of free enterprise to value publicity. After all, the
other tests you mention have, unfortunately, been ignored by the
world's press -- you would think they would be unhappy about that.

Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.06 / mitchell swartz /  information on solid state ("cold") fusion
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: information on solid state ("cold") fusion
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 16:10:49 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


This is an opportunity for additional information 
on cold nuclear fusion; info with a S/N 
above the internet-normal noise level.  
 
Despite the too frequent dismissals from people wanting
to keep the status quo or who are relatively uninformed,
cold fusion -- the conversion of hydrogen in water
to helium and the additional possibility of other pathways
including latent heat usage,  with the generation of excess energy
has been confirmed, and actually now includes 
diverse aqueous, gas, and solid-state systems.  
These phenomena operate at power densities 
more than two orders of magnitude greater than at the 
time of the initial announcement in 1989.

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

 If you want more information regarding the field of
cold fusion, or the physics and material science and chemistry
used in these processes [which are not in violation of "known"
physics], simply e-mail your request
to:     mica@world.std.com  
        subject: Newbie Info

   Best wishes.



cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.06 /  WARK /  Re: "INVESTORS DOUBT COLD FUSION": Article
     
Originally-From: wark@aol.com (WARK)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "INVESTORS DOUBT COLD FUSION": Article
Date: 6 Jun 1995 12:13:20 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Yes it appears Dr. Morrison did author the article. The whole article,
translated into english, appears in another posting. 
-AK- 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenwark cudlnWARK cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.06 / Jim Carr /  Re: Misinformation about Pd
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Misinformation about Pd
Date: 6 Jun 1995 14:01:08 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

After 

|>Dick Blue said:
|
|>Pd 6, Cd 8, Sn 10, Te 8, Xe 9

to point out that there is nothing special about the number of 
isotopes of Palladium, Winfinity repeats this claim with an 
additional statement of 'fact' ...

In article <3qr9gm$n7v@newsbf02.news.aol.com> 
winfinity@aol.com (Winfinity) writes:
>
>Palladium not only has an unusual number of stable isotopes, it also has a
>relatively large percentage spread between these isotopes.  

Care to quote your figure of merit for 'relatively large'? 

Pd has a spread of 8 (102 to 110) for 8/106 = 7.5%

The nearby Ru and Mo also have the same spread and are lighter so the 
% range is greater.  Much greater if you count Ru-106 (372 days). 

Just to pick one from the list given by Dick Blue above, for Sn we have 12
(112 to 124) for 12/118 = 10.2% 

Then there is Ca with a spread of 8 (40 to 48, 6 isotopes) for a relative 
spread of 8/43 = 18.6% -- and even Mg (2/25 = 8%) is as big as Pd. 

>As our model of the nucleus is still undergoing further refinement, this
>might fit into some framework.  Just a thought.

Ours or yours?  In any case, pay more attention to the data than any model. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <carr@scri.fsu.edu>    |  "My pet light bulb is a year old  
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  today.  That is 5.9 trillion miles 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  in light years.  Your mileage may 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  vary."   -- Heywood Banks 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.06 / Barry Merriman /  Shrinking hydrogen---any QM ways?
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Shrinking hydrogen---any QM ways?
Date: 6 Jun 1995 18:19:50 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

Obviously the most benign way to create fusion is to find
a way to shrink neutral hydrogen atoms. This allows the nuclei to 
get close together without feeling the electric repulsion, to the
point where they fuse spontaneously (with a little help from 
quantum tunneling across the remaining distance) 
at ``room tempeprature''  (< 1000 degrees C). 

So, the question becomes: is there any way to shrink---i.e. reduce
the radius of the electron orbital---nuetral hydrogen (by menas
consistent with QM, given that QM is known to be pretty accurate in 
describing atomic physics; this is unlike Mill's et al theory in
which they alter QM to suit their purpose).

So far, only one way has ever been demonstrated, which is to replace the 
normal electron with a heavy electron---i.e. muon, which is 200 x as massive
as e and thus has an orbital radius 200 x smaller. The only flaw with this
muon catalyzed fusion is that it costs more to make the muons
than what you get back from fusion energy (only by a factor of 3 or 
so, but it appears hard to beat that due to muons sticking
to the alpha's with certain probability...comments from S.J. ?)

So, aside from using muons to shrink H, can anyone think of
any other sound approach? 

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


cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.06 /  Winfinity /  Re: More misinformation about Pd
     
Originally-From: winfinity@aol.com (Winfinity)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More misinformation about Pd
Date: 6 Jun 1995 17:27:03 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

>Dick Blue said:

>What would be a big deal would be if you found a way to encourage
>that "neutron flow".  The fact that several different isotopes of
>Pd exist in nature and that the relative isotopic abundances don't
>vary a lot from sample to sample is a clue that something keeps those
>neutrons put in spite of the fact that there is energy to be gained
>by moving them around.

Dick, I agree with you completely that there is a "wall" preventing the
described realignments from occurring.  At least, under normal
circumstances.

I am not trying to stir up any unconventional physics ideas here (really).
 And the "uniqueness" of palladium, as you point out, is not complete (as
I believe I pointed out in my original post).

I think the point I originally made went as follows: 

1. If you accept that CF experiments are onto something (which is not
decided 100% in the negative for some people), and
2. We want an explanation for what's happening that doesn't require new
theory, then
3. Perhaps palladium is active in the equation.

As to your suggestion of further homework for me, I think that would be
called for too.

Thanks for the comments.

-David Schneider
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenwinfinity cudlnWinfinity cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.06 / Scott Little /  Attention SPF readers:  Your vote is needed
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Attention SPF readers:  Your vote is needed
Date: 6 Jun 1995 21:44:36 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l


I have been communicating with Bryan Wallace, the originator of the many
Farce of Physics posts that fill this newsgroup.  I have asked him to
stop cross-posting into this newsgroup and he tells me that many of his
active readers are in this newsgroup.  If that is true, then perhaps he 
has reason to be posting here.

Please indicate your choice in this matter.  I will tally the responses
and forward them to Mr Wallace.


____ I wish to see all Farce of Physics posts disappear from s.p.f.


____ I like the Farce of Physics posts being in s.p.f.


____ other, please explain:



cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.06 / Scott Little /  Re: Shrinking hydrogen---any QM ways?
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Shrinking hydrogen---any QM ways?
Date: 6 Jun 1995 21:51:35 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

In article <3r2686$lfn@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) says:
>

>So, aside from using muons to shrink H, can anyone think of
>any other sound approach? 

If you accept that the ground state of the electron is that orbit in 
which the electron is in equilibrium with the zero-point field (a 
theory discussed at length by Puthoff in a PhysRev paper some years
ago), then it is perfectly reasonable that all you have to do is move
the H atom into a cavity-like structure where some of the ZPF modes have
been eliminated and, voila, the orbit shrinks.  Such a place is, for
example, a metallic lattice.

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.06 / Tom Droege /  Re: Attention SPF readers:  Your vote is needed
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Attention SPF readers:  Your vote is needed
Date: 6 Jun 1995 22:15:28 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3r2i84$b8s@boris.eden.com>, little@eden.com (Scott Little) says:
>
>
>I have been communicating with Bryan Wallace, the originator of the many
>Farce of Physics posts that fill this newsgroup.  I have asked him to
>stop cross-posting into this newsgroup and he tells me that many of his
>active readers are in this newsgroup.  If that is true, then perhaps he 
>has reason to be posting here.
>
>Please indicate your choice in this matter.  I will tally the responses
>and forward them to Mr Wallace.
>
>
>__X_ I wish to see all Farce of Physics posts disappear from s.p.f.
>
>
>____ I like the Farce of Physics posts being in s.p.f.
>
>
>____ other, please explain:
>
>
>

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.06 / Tom Droege /  Re: Shrinking hydrogen---any QM ways?
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Shrinking hydrogen---any QM ways?
Date: 6 Jun 1995 22:19:57 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3r2il7$b8s@boris.eden.com>, little@eden.com (Scott Little) says:
>
>In article <3r2686$lfn@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) says:
>>
>
>>So, aside from using muons to shrink H, can anyone think of
>>any other sound approach? 
>
>If you accept that the ground state of the electron is that orbit in 
>which the electron is in equilibrium with the zero-point field (a 
>theory discussed at length by Puthoff in a PhysRev paper some years
>ago), then it is perfectly reasonable that all you have to do is move
>the H atom into a cavity-like structure where some of the ZPF modes have
>been eliminated and, voila, the orbit shrinks.  Such a place is, for
>example, a metallic lattice.
>

With this in mind, some of my experiments involved very slow temperature
ramps.  The idea was to scan through possible resonances.  This was 
the last experiment that I did with the Mark I and it was what motivated
me to build the Mark II.  

On experiment seemed to indicate temperature bursts that came at the 
same points on the up ramp as on the following down ramp. 

I was never able to replicate the experiment.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Jun  7 04:37:05 EDT 1995
------------------------------
