1995.06.13 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 08:07:51 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <jkondis.802817775@orion.oac.uci.edu>,
jkondis@orion.oac.uci.edu (John Kondis) wrote:

> I didn't want to get into this thread again, but there are a few 
> misconceptions that should be cleared up here...
> 
> singtech@teleport.com (C. Cagle) writes:
> 
> >deane@excalibur.net5c.io.org (Dean Edmonds) wrote:
> 
> >> So the vehemence of your post is both overdone and out of place.
> >> 
> >> If Mr. Wallace wishes to post about cold fusion, he is free to do so
> >> here. But broadly-based physical theories which do not deal with the
> >> specifics of cold fusion clearly have nothing to do with cold fusion and
> >> therefore belong elsewhere.
> >>
=============================================================================
> 
> >Dean,  specialization is for insects.  If Wallace has any valid points or
> >has anything which is correct or right (or more accurate than other
> >physical models) then his postings belong here as well as many other
> >places.  
> 
> No.  Specialization makes the world go around.  And it is at the base 
> of why insects as well as humans survive. 

***{You are missing, or ignoring, Mr. Cagle's point--to wit: that in the
specific case of cold fusion (which, coincidentally, happens to be the
case under discussion!) there is an obvious, crying need for a new,
generalized explanatory framework. "Cold fusion" is impossible within the
context of mainstream physics, Mr. Kondis! Thus if it is real, a new
approach to the fundamentals of physics is called for, and that
possibility renders relevant a serious attention to new fundamental views
of physics, even when the material doesn't deal directly with "cold
fusion" by name. This isn't a field like auto mechanics, where everything
is satisfactorialy explained and we can ignore new theories! Since Bryan
Wallace is attacking mainstream physics on some very basic grounds, it is
reasonable to listen to what he has to say. If you disagree with this,
then don't listen to him. But don't try to tell me I can't listen to him,
if I choose. --Mitchell Jones}***

Bryan Wallace's points need to 
> be brought up in one or more of:
> 
>      sci.physics
>      alt.sci.physics.new-theories
>      soc.history.science
> 
> ...which, if memory serves correctly, he has indeed posted to.  Fusion 
> is simply not the topic of his work.  General, broad, physical 
> discussions or discussions about the practitioners of astrophysics 
> belong in groups other than s.p.f.  There is no question of that.
> 
> >If he can make a case against field theory (which Einstein
> >himself, it seems, lived to regret) then it should have a profound effect
> >on fusion concepts inasmuch as quantum mechanics is steeped in field
> >theory. You cannot separate fundamental physics from anything that is
> >physically real.  
> 
> This is very much besides the point.  With this rationale, philosophical 
> problems against mathematical models such as space-time manifolds would 
> also belong in here.  So would EPR and Everett discussions.  So would the 
> posts by the guy who believes 4+4=7.  But, they don't belong here.  Each 
> has its place.

***{There exists a vast array of possible postings to sci.physics.fusion
which might conceivably be relevant to "cold fusion" despite the fact that
they never use the term "cold fusion." Some clearly are relevant--i.e.,
are of interest to readers of this group--while others are of arguable
relevance or no relevance. The issue here, however, is how the answers to
these questions are to be determined. And the method employed in
unmoderated forums is this: (1) Those who post material, in the vast
majority of cases, make a good faith attempt to post it where they think
it will elicit responses. By this means, the vast majority of the
irrelevant material is diverted away from sci.physics.fusion. (2) Of that
tiny proportion of material which does, in fact, get posted to
sci.physics.fusion, individual readers of the forum make personal,
individualized decisions to read or not to read, and to respond or not to
respond, based on their personal values, knowledge, and interests. (3) If
the person who posted the material gets no responses, there is no reward,
and the typical response is a modification of behavior. The person either
ceases to post to the forum, or else he modifies his new postings in ways
designed to cater to the requirements of the forum participants. As for
his old, poorly designed postings, well, they merely roll off the server
when their time expires, just like all the well-designed postings and the
mediocre postings.  No moderater or "goon squad" is required here. The
system works miraculously well, given only that the participants are sane,
that they are not criminals, and that they are making a good faith attempt
to post to newsgroups where their material is relevant. Moreover, a
non-censorious fallback system exists to deal  with the insane, with
criminals, and with people (e.g., "spammers") who do not make a good faith
attempt to post material where it is relevant. In those cases, the system
administrators at the affected connect sites take action to remove
offending postings, to warn the perpetrators, and, where necessary,
terminate access privileges. But this is not censorship: usenet is the
main attraction which sells internet connect services to the general
public, and unmoderated groups are the main drawing card of usenet
precisely *because* they are uncensored. Just as "moderated newsgroups die
quick deaths," so too do connect service providers with censorious system
administrators. The reason is simple: the unmoderated internet newsgroup
is the first real instance of free speech and a free press to ever exist
in the world. Traditional media, such as newspapers, are all both
monitored (the monitors are called "editors"), and controlled by the
government. Government control occurs because, as government has grown, it
has assumed a virtual monopoly of news sources. Reporters on the crime
beat, for example, must be on good terms with the police. If they are not,
the police punish them by behaving as an uncooperative, misleading, and
obstructive source, thereby wrecking their job performance and their
careers. And the same applies if you are on the White House beat, the
Congressional beat, or whatever. As government has grown, it has become
the source for virtually all news, and as a result there has arisen a
controlled press, whose reporters and editors worship the state and the
concept of state power, and sing the praises of the political ideology
that was dominant when their careers were in their formative stages. The
appearance of a controlled press, however, is one of dull uniformity, like
a state housing project in the former Soviet Union. There is no diversity,
no sparkle, no clash of opinion, and thus no sense of anticipation as a
clash of opinion (a story) plays itself out. How does the capitalistic
system respond to such a state of affairs? We have the answer. Its called
the internet. Here we have the unmoderated newsgroup. There is no editor,
and everybody with an internet connection is a reporter. Here millions of
sources of information and millions of minds can, and will, be brought to
bear to unmask a lie. And here we have the sparkle, the clash of opinion,
and the sense of anticipation as stories play themselves out. Because of
usenet's unmoderated groups, the internet is entertaining to members of
the general public who are not computer techies. As a result, the internet
is experiencing exponential growth, with worldwide access rising past 50
million, and connect service providers experiencing explosive growth. The
public is attracted to free speech and a free press, and they are laying
their money down. Of course, most of them have not identified, in words,
the source of that attraction: they don't know that when they pay their
monthly connect fees the values they receive are free speech and a free
press, but that is nevertheless the fact. What is important, however, is
this: those who run the successful companies that sell connect services do
know it. Sellers who do not recognize what it is that attracts the public
to their product are prone to make changes that detract from that value,
and go broke. That is why, among of the hundreds of thousands of
organizations that offer connect services, it is widely recognized that
moderated newsgroups do not sell connect time. Result: the connect service
providers will fight tooth and claw, to the bitter end, against the
government or against self-appointed authoritarians such as yourself, to
defend the concept of the unmoderated group. The growth of the internet is
driven by the growth of usenet, and the growth of usenet is driven by the
appeal of unmoderated groups. It is the primary reason that close to 50
million people are connected to the internet, and it is also the reason
more than a billion will be connected by the year 2000. This is big money,
Mr. Kondis! You can't stop it. You can howl until you are hoarse,
petition, argue--whatever: nothing you or your kind can do will work,
because you are pissing against the tide. This is the most powerful market
force on this planet. Internet providers who want to stay in business
simply will not intervene in a case like this, where the intervention
could reasonably be interpreted as an act of censorship.They are not
censors: they are anti-censors. They reserve their interventions for cases
where there is not the slightest ambiguity whatsoever with regard to their
motivations: they go after people who post garbage, or who post death
threats, or who engage in blatantly illegal activity, or who are clearly
not making a good faith attempt to post their material in newsgroups where
it is on topic. If, for example, Sam places an ad for his used harpsichord
in 1000 newsgroups, they will use special programs called "cancelbots" to
delete his posts and, if he persists, they will terminate his connect
privileges. But there is no ambiguity here. If there were, they wouldn't
do it! That is why no sane system administrator at a private connect
service would touch the Wallace case with a 10 foot pole. Siding with your
"goon squad" would smack of censorship, and would elicit massive criticism
on the net!  Their reputations would be toast, and they would take a huge
hit in the wallet. Bottom line: give it up--this is a fight you can't win.
--Mitchell Jones}***          
> 
> As an aside, I recently coordinated a group creation.  The process 
> takes a long time, and it really impresses upon one the need for a 
> well-defined charter.  The whole purpose of the Usenet *hierarchy* is 
> that proper discussions can be placed in the proper slots, to make it 
> easier for the Internet user (especially the new user) to tread through a 
> given group. 

***{Yes, and this purpose is achieved as described above. --Mitchell Jones}***

 It really sucks when someone who hasn't even learned how to 
> use his newsreader (much less killfiles) has to wade through unrelated 
> topics before finding stuff that he really wants to read or that 
> interests him.  Since this *is* s.p.fusion, cold fusion discussions 
> belong here, as they are on-topic, regardless of the philosophical or 
> other problems any users might have with it.  But again, "Farce of 
> Physics" posts do not belong here, unless they are made relevant to 
> fusion.

***{Baloney. It's a judgment call that each participant gets to make
himself. You want to make the decision for the rest of us, but it isn't
your call. See above. --Mitchell Jones
> 
> The charter of a group is important.  It exists to keep some semblance of 
> sanity among the groups.  FAQ's serve the same end.  If a topic does not 
> fit in with a group's charter, but other newsgroups serve the particular 
> topic, then no, the topic does not belong in that particular group.

***{True, but in an unmoderated newsgroup you don't get to make the call
for others. See above. --Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
> >One of the protesters to Wallace complained about his 20
> >cents and admitted he couldn't resist it.  Sounds like a personal
> >problem.  
> 
> This is totally the wrong attitude.  We all have to pay for the articles 
> that get posted, one way or the other.  Some internet providers do in 
> fact download all unread articles when a Usenet session is requested for 
> a certain group.  Regardless, as users, we all need to cooperate with 
> each other.  When articles are off-topic, they should not be posted.  I 
> really thought it was disgusting when Bryan Wallace said: "I'm gonna keep 
> posting here no matter what anybody says." or something to that effect.

***{Yes, it's disgusting when somebody, somewhere, has the power to act
independently of you. Nobody on earth should ever be empowered to make any
decision for himself, without consulting with you first. --Mitchell
Jones}*** 
> 
> >And whatever gave you the idea that majority rule has anything
> >to do with rectitude or moral right?  Lynch mobs operate on the same
> >principle.  Whoever said get rid of Wallace might as well have said "Get a
> >rope".  You ought to be ashamed of yourselves for your mean and petty
> >dispositions.
> 
> And you ought to be ashamed of yourself, Mr. Cagle.  Demanding proper 
> usage of Usenet is no different from bemoaning the "white-coated-welfare- 
> queens" who waste your hard-earned (tax) money.  It is, after all, a 
> waste of everyone's money and resources when off-topic articles are 
> posted.  And a waste of countless individual's time and money when they 
> have to pay, one way or another, for articles that don't fit a group's 
> charter.  This is the same reason that spam is a serious breach of 
> Internet ethics.

***{Baloney (no pun intended). Spamming--i.e., the mass posting of
blatantly irrelevant advertisements to vast numbers of newsgroups--is
unambiguous. No sane person can escape the fact that the person who does
it is not making a good faith attempt to post only to relevant groups.
Thus system administrators can move against it without raising suspicions
that they are engaging in censorship. But you can make no such claim about
the Wallace postings to this group. He isn't guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt--not by a long shot. Indeed, in my view the limited set of groups to
which he posts clearly indicates a good faith attempt, on his part, to
post to relevant areas. As such, this is a case where the appropriate
response to his postings is to read them if interested and skip if not. No
intervention is called for here. This is precisely the kind of case which
unmoderated newsgroups can easily handle. --Mitchell Jones}***  
> 
> As a second aside, I should remind the reader that there was a recent 
> vote to reorganize sci.physics.fusion.  One of the groups, as many will 
> recall, was to be moderated, mostly so that people interested in "hot" 
> fusion could have a forum for themselves, undisturbed by cold fusion 
> enthusiasts.  The vote did not pass, but it did not fail overwhelmingly.  
> I did not vote myself, but if a vote came up just to moderate s.p.f, I 
> would certainly vote for it, to keep articles here on-topic.  The recent 
> "Farce" threads have no business here, unless Bryan wants to discuss 
> fusion.

***{As has been said many times by others, "moderated newsgroups die a
quick death." For that reason, I fully support the desire of "hot fusion"
enthusiasts for a moderated newsgroup! You guys are a censorious pack of
blood suckers, for the most part, and the sooner we are rid of you, the
better. You spend your lives riding on the backs of the people, pouring
money extorted from taxpayers down a bottomless rathole. Between
government checks, you sit at your desks with pencils in your hands,
dreaming of "hot fusion," in very much the same way that a wino, between
government checks, lies in the gutter with a bottle in his hand, dreaming
of pink elephants. How many hundreds of billions in stolen money are you
guys going to throw away before you are willing to open your eyes and look
at some alternatives? What you are doing ain't working, guys! It's time to
wake up, look at the facts, eat some humble pie, and stop trying to muzzle
others. We are all sorry that you wasted your careers and our money
chasing a flawed vision, but now it is time cut the losses and move on!
Your lives are not over. There are other visions to chase, and other fish
to fry. --Mitchell Jones}***   
> 
> A final aside.  People seem very anxious to choose sides on this issue, 
> and I noticed the tendency is that CF proponents side up with Mr. 
> Wallace. 

***{That's right: "cold fusion" proponents recognize the relevance of
unorthodox views of physics to the area they are investigating, and they
also recognize that if there were an information daddy deciding what could
and could not be posted, they would be standing out in the rain, next to
Wallace, wishing they had free speech and access to a free press.
--Mitchell Jones}***

Bryan also seems to incite division, by quoting from magazines 
> what horrible things the establishment physicists have to say about CF.  
> Also, those with "alternative theories", regardless of how goofy, seem to 
> want to side up with Wallace.  But please remember, regardless of 
> personal background, the discussion here is about posts being relevant to 
> a group.  It is clear that "Farce of Physics" threads do not belong in 
> s.p.f, because they don't show relevance to fusion issues.

***{As noted above, this is debatable. In addition, Mister
Would-be-Censor, you need to focus your mind on the fact that it isn't
your call. I realize, of course, that you sincerely believe that nobody
ought to be able to think a thought or write a line without your
permission. However, that's not the way it is. Us foks out hir ina wuds
gits ta mek ar own iggerent decisions arsefs, thanky veri much, sir!
--Mitchell Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 95 02:02:51 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Corporation

In article <21cenlogic-1206951752190001@austin-1-7.i-link.net>,
   21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:

>***{Derek, I was about to give you a withering blast, until I saw your
>happy face at the end of the line! The point I would have made, less
>nicely, would have been that sob stories are no longer sufficient to
>persuade us to surrender our rights. More and more people are beginning to
>see that the person who loses rights to save a few bucks is, in the net, a
>loser, and fewer and fewer people have any sympathy for teary-eyed people
>with their hands out. --MJ}***

Just what rights do you perceive you are losing? It appears that the only 
"right" you are fighting for is the right to foul the nest.

Be specific in your answer, if you have one.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: Same old same old...
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Same old same old...
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 95 02:23:47 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Corporation

In article <3riqco$4o9@rmstar.efi.com>, chris@efi.com (Chris Phoenix) wrote:
[deleted]
>
>If you find yourself agreeing with
>my observation, then wonder for a moment whether there will be
>anything new two years from now, or five, or ten.
>
[deleted]
>Thanks,
>Chris Phoenix     chris@efi.com
>

Of course the same thing can be said of hot fusion. When I joined the 
workforce in 1963, _they_ assured us we would have commercial hot fusion in 
THIRTY years. Now, thirty-two years later, _they_ assure us we will have hot 
fusion in THIRTY-FIVE years.

The cold fusion people just promised too much, too soon. Raised too many 
expectations. The cold fusion people should learn a lesson from the hot 
fusioneers.

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 / Mark Mallory /  Re: Fluke? How many flukes does it take?
     
Originally-From: mmallory@netcom.com (Mark Mallory)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fluke? How many flukes does it take?
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 06:25:54 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Paul Stowe (pstowe@ix.netcom.com) wrote:

: How many Flukes does it take to no longer be a Fluke

: * this variance can be explained

: I AM TRYING TO HELP AND GET HELP.


I take it you do not believe it is a fluke.  I and others have tried to 
explain that it really *is*, but apparently we are not convincing.  I 
don't believe I can offer any further help.  Perhaps others can.

Good Luck to you.

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmmallory cudfnMark cudlnMallory cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 /   /  Re: Merriman's "Regionalization" counter-examples not valid
     
Originally-From: mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman's "Regionalization" counter-examples not valid
Date: 13 Jun 1995 03:05:06 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

N-rays have nothing to do with neutrons. Very early this century, after
x-rays were discovered, a fellow named Blandot in France claimed to have
found a new radiation which he dubbed N-rays. His discovery could only be
reproduced by him (and perhaps a few others) and was finally found to be
false and even a hoax.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmrichar353 cudln cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 / Paul Koloc /  Re: What happened to Riggatrons?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What happened to Riggatrons?
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 05:57:15 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3rgo10$jmh@newsbf02.news.aol.com> jdavid2355@aol.com (JDavid2355) writes:
>I was a science reporter for the LA Times San Diego bureau back in the
>early 1980s and I talked to Robert Bussard when he was still working on
>the Riggatron. I was familiar with him because of his earlier imaginative
>work on starship designs, etc. After they went under, I heard a rumor that
>their bankroller -- Bob Guccione (of Penthouse!) -- may have had to pull
>out because the funds were mishandled by a San Diego investor who later
>went to prison. I recall that the J. David Dominelli scandal was hot in
>San Diego about the same time; I have absolutely no idea if Dominelli was
>Guccione's investor, though. I'd love to know what ever happened to
>Bussard. I'll never forget an enjoyable afternoon with him, a handsome man
>in a white suit with a thick shock of white hair: It was a typical
>Southern California day, full of sunshine and high hopes that later
>dissolved. 

The venture went belly up, and the place was paddle locked when the 
additional funding needed was not raised by their endeavors.  
However, Bob received funding from ARPA and although the bulk of the
work was done at a small place in LJ CA Bob moved to Virginia, where
he still is located at his company EMC2.  He older and perhaps more
deliberate and realistic about what the incredible odds are to get
much cooperation from government or even large Corporations.  Still 
his resolve is as strong as ever.  His focus recently, is on an 
electro static scheme.  

>Let me know if you learn anything more. You might call General Atomic (now
>GA Technologies, in La Jolla) and ask if anyone there knows; maybe their
>old boss Harold Agnew is still alive and around. 


>-- Best,
> Keay Davidson, Science Writer, San Francisco Examiner 
Keag, send me an email note directly and I can respond to it with
Bob's last address and I think I have his Tel no also.  I received
correspondence from him a couple of weeks back commenting on things
in general, and especially to a paper on a novel fusion approach and 
recent progress we have made here.  
-- 
Paul
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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:
cuddy13 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 / Dieter Britz /  Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 10:04:02 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On 10 Jun 1995, John Kondis wrote:
[...] 
> The charter of a group is important.  It exists to keep some semblance of 
> sanity among the groups.  FAQ's serve the same end.  If a topic does not 
> fit in with a group's charter, but other newsgroups serve the particular 
> topic, then no, the topic does not belong in that particular group.

Exactly; when you create a group, you have jump through hoops, defining the
charter etc quite precisely. These shrill defenders of Wallace are saying
that when that group exists, forget the charter and post anything at all.
Such a high density of off-topic stuff discourages on-topic posters. I have
heard it from people: No, that group is not interesting any more, too much
bullshit, not worth posting to.

[...] 
> As a second aside, I should remind the reader that there was a recent 
> vote to reorganize sci.physics.fusion.  One of the groups, as many will 
> recall, was to be moderated, mostly so that people interested in "hot" 
> fusion could have a forum for themselves, undisturbed by cold fusion 
> enthusiasts.  The vote did not pass, but it did not fail overwhelmingly.  

Ah, that's not 100% right: it was to be for both hot and cold fusion, lightly
moderated mainly to keep out non-fusion stuff and personal abuse. Yes, it 
failed.

> I did not vote myself, but if a vote came up just to moderate s.p.f, I 
> would certainly vote for it, to keep articles here on-topic.  The recent 
> "Farce" threads have no business here, unless Bryan wants to discuss 
> fusion.  

Now that is an interesting thought and I wonder how many spf readers would
go for it? If, e.g., moderation would only ensure that postings are indeed
about fusion. One could be moderate about it, I'd hate to see, say, the
odd humorous posting exluded. But who could argue against 
exclusion of non-fusion such as Farce, etc, and the sort of unproductive
personal abuse ("You are an idiot!!") - except of course the abusers 
themselves? Is anyone willing to have a go at this? It wouldn't be an easy
task and there would be a lot of abuse, but it might just come off.
 
> A final aside.  People seem very anxious to choose sides on this issue, 
> and I noticed the tendency is that CF proponents side up with Mr. 
> Wallace.  Bryan also seems to incite division, by quoting from magazines 

If so, where were their votes? There were zero votes for keeping Farce...


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

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 / Richard Schultz /  Re: N-Rays
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: N-Rays
Date: 13 Jun 1995 11:38:35 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <3rj9hb$b4q@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
MRichar353 <mrichar353@aol.com> wrote:
>N-rays have nothing to do with neutrons. Very early this century, after
>x-rays were discovered, a fellow named Blandot in France claimed to have
>found a new radiation which he dubbed N-rays. His discovery could only be
>reproduced by him (and perhaps a few others) and was finally found to be
>false and even a hoax.

Some references to discussions of N-Rays:

Physics Today, October 1989:  transcript of Irving Langmuir's famous
  talk on "Pathological Science"

Scientific American, May 1980:  article by Klotz on the N-Ray affair

Also, Martin Gardner's book "The New Age:  Notes of a Fringe-Watcher"
has a passing reference to the N-Ray controversy (pp. 15-16).

					Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Originally-From: Prasad,Ramon <100437.530@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
Subject: Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 18:11:22 -0500
Date: 10 Jun 1995 08:36:47 GMT
Organization: 21st Century Logic
Organization: via CompuServe Information Service

In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.950613094636.1602E-100000@kemi.aau.dk>, Dieter
Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk> wrote:

> On 10 Jun 1995, John Kondis wrote:
> [...] 
> > The charter of a group is important.  It exists to keep some semblance of 
> > sanity among the groups.  FAQ's serve the same end.  If a topic does not 
> > fit in with a group's charter, but other newsgroups serve the particular 
> > topic, then no, the topic does not belong in that particular group.
> 
> Exactly; when you create a group, you have jump through hoops, defining the
> charter etc quite precisely. These shrill defenders of Wallace are saying
> that when that group exists, forget the charter and post anything at all.
> Such a high density of off-topic stuff discourages on-topic posters. I have
> heard it from people: No, that group is not interesting any more, too much
> bullshit, not worth posting to.

***{God, you guys are transparent! If you really want Wallace to talk
about fusion, why don't you post messages in his thread asking about
specific problems related to fusion? As best I can determine, he responds
to everything. I don't agree with many of his positions, and I don't have
time at the moment to interrogate him about how they relate to my own
views about physics, because I have other irons in the fire--like trying
to fend off a band of censorious yahoos, for example--but if you guys have
the time to argue about the irrelevance of Mr. Wallace's thread to your
areas of interest, why don't you solve the problem the easy way, by simply
asking him how his theories relate to your areas of interest? But
n-o-o-o-o, you wouldn't even consider doing that. And the reason is
obvious to anyone with intelligence above that of the average bacterium:
you guys aren't really interested in persuading Mr. Wallace to talk about
matters of relevance to sci.physics.fusion. What you really want to do is
employ non-rational bullying and intimidation to run him out of this
newsgroup.This is a symbolic issue to you guys: you have to prevail by
non-rational means, because belief that intimidation must be successful at
crushing individuality is essential to your self-esteem. That, at any
rate, is the way it looks to me. --Mitchell Jones}***  
> 
> [...] 
> > As a second aside, I should remind the reader that there was a recent 
> > vote to reorganize sci.physics.fusion.  One of the groups, as many will 
> > recall, was to be moderated, mostly so that people interested in "hot" 
> > fusion could have a forum for themselves, undisturbed by cold fusion 
> > enthusiasts.  The vote did not pass, but it did not fail overwhelmingly.  
> 
> Ah, that's not 100% right: it was to be for both hot and cold fusion, lightly
> moderated mainly to keep out non-fusion stuff and personal abuse. Yes, it 
> failed.

***{Here is my suggestion: create a moderated newsgroup called
sci.censorious.yahoo.fusion with a charter that expressly bans posting
from Bryan Wallace. That should satisfy you guys! --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> > I did not vote myself, but if a vote came up just to moderate s.p.f, I 
> > would certainly vote for it, to keep articles here on-topic.  The recent 
> > "Farce" threads have no business here, unless Bryan wants to discuss 
> > fusion.

***{Yadda, yadda, yadda. If you want him to discuss fusion, then post
something about fusion in his thread and challenge him to respond to it!
Come on, I double dog dare you to do it! :-) --Mitchell Jones}***  
> 
> Now that is an interesting thought and I wonder how many spf readers would
> go for it? If, e.g., moderation would only ensure that postings are indeed
> about fusion. One could be moderate about it, I'd hate to see, say, the
> odd humorous posting exluded. 

***{That's right. In sci.censorious.yahoo.fusion, irrelevant postings
would only be excluded if the head censorious yahoo wanted them excluded!
--Mitchell Jones}***

 But who could argue against 
> exclusion of non-fusion such as Farce, etc, and the sort of unproductive
> personal abuse ("You are an idiot!!") 

***{Gee, I wish I had said that! It sure as hell is relevant to this
thread! --Mitchell Jones}***

- except of course the abusers 
> themselves? Is anyone willing to have a go at this? It wouldn't be an easy
> task and there would be a lot of abuse, but it might just come off.

***{You've got my vote, if you agree to call it
sci.censorious.yahoo.fusion. But if you want to lie about what it is and
call it something else, then I'm agin it! --Mitchell Jones}***

>  
> > A final aside.  People seem very anxious to choose sides on this issue, 
> > and I noticed the tendency is that CF proponents side up with Mr. 
> > Wallace.  Bryan also seems to incite division, by quoting from magazines 
> 
> If so, where were their votes? There were zero votes for keeping Farce...
>
>
>-- Dieter Britz  alias  britz@kemi.aau.dk

***{Do you, perhaps, have a fork in your tongue? I ask because..., oh
never mind! To explain would be uncivilized. The following re-post should
suffice: 
 -------------------------------------------------
Path:
echo.i-link.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!news.inhouse.compuserve.com!news.produc
ion.compuserve.com!news
Originally-From: Prasad,Ramon <100437.530@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
Date: 10 Jun 1995 08:36:47 GMT
Organization: via CompuServe Information Service
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <3rblj0$8eh$1@mhadf.production.compuserve.com>
References: <3r5tn4$gjo@boris.eden.com>

Dear Sir,

There is no need to include or exclude any postings provided they 
conform to legality. To do so is to introduce censorship which 
implies that the originator of the rule knows what is "right".

It is far better to allow the natual rise and fall (or rise and 
rise if that is what it is to be) to take place. This will harm 
no one, and allow tolerance its place.
      
My vote is against.

Best Wishes, Yours sincerely, 
Ramon Prasad <internet:100437.530@compuserve.com>
 -------------------------------------------------

I would add that Ramon Prasad was not the only person to vote no and not
be counted. There were others. Further, the larger group of obvious
opponents of this absurdity refused to vote, for several reasons:

(1) Many refused because Scott Little and the "goon squad" boys obviously
had an agenda, and couldn't be trusted to count the votes. We were later
proved right in this, because the no vote re-posted above was not the only
no-vote that was not counted. There were also a number of implied no votes
(e.g., me, Mr. Cagle, etc.) that were not counted. (Those who doubt any of
this can contact me via e-mail, and I will flatly prove it.) Given this
sorry performance, it is obvious that the yes vote total can't be trusted
either. 

(2) Many refused because it would obviously be absurd to make these types
of decisions by vote. There is no way to identify who is eligible to vote
here and who is not. There would be nothing to stop the "goon squad," or
their opponents for that matter, from bringing in bogus voters who have no
interest whatever in this newsgroup, but who support one side for
extraneous ideological reasons. Thus the very idea of this vote is crap.

(3) Many refused to vote because it would be absurd to exclude Bryan even
if a majority of the votes came down in favor of it. How many other people
who post here would fail such a popularity contest, for various reasons?
Are we going to vote to exclude them all? And how large a majority is
required? It is obvious that there could be lot's of interest in someone's
postings, yet still be a minority interest. There is no objective way to
decide such questions.

(4) Many refused to vote because, by voting, they would have tacitly
accepted that these censorious yahoos had somehow been empowered to do
what they were doing. 

The bottom line is simple: you guys don't have a shread of a justification
for what your are doing. Your vote was bogus. Your authority to conduct it
was bogus. Your justifications for persecuting Wallace were bogus. The
whole sorry episode was a symbolic exercise in censorship and
intimidation, nothing more, and nothing less, and that fact is obvious to
anyone who sees with his own eyes and thinks with his own brain.
--Mitchell Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 /   /  Re: a ZPF primer
     
Originally-From: mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: a ZPF primer
Date: 13 Jun 1995 22:15:37 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Referring to the post by Scott Little on this thread: I hate to spoil the
party here, but attributing the stability of atoms to the zero point field
is not generally accepted as far as I know. The stability of atoms (the
reason why the electron doesn't spiral into the nucleus) is simple
non-relativistic quantum mechanics.

If the ZPF were responsible, then one would think that a detailed
knowledge of the ZPF would  be necessary to calculate (for example) the
ground state of hydrogen. Yet this calculation requires no mention of the
ZPF, and the calculation agrees with experiment.

If I am not mistaken, Puthoff is somewhat of a crank. Lot's of
metaphysical talk, but the connection with reality (reality = numerical
calculations and quantitative experimental results) is tenuous at best.

Regarding Scott's statements regarding the ZPF as being the cause of
inertia, this is extremely speculative at best. And devoid of numerical
content, which is the real problem.

Mark Richardson
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmrichar353 cudln cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 /   /  Re: Fluke? How many flukes does it take?
     
Originally-From: mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fluke? How many flukes does it take?
Date: 13 Jun 1995 22:17:19 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

This person is crying out for help.

I don't think that the kind of help he needs is available on this
newsgroup...
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmrichar353 cudln cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 / John White /  Re: comments on the Cravens demo
     
Originally-From: jnw@elvis.vnet.net (John N. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: comments on the Cravens demo
Date: 13 Jun 1995 22:24:19 -0500
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

Dick Blue seems to be suggesting that the electrolyte flowing into
the Cravens demo cell is chemically different from the electrolyte
leaving the cell, and that there is a flow of energy into the
cell due to this difference. Let's consider how this might work.

One curious aspect of the Cravens demo is the rather large amount of
power going into the pump motor as compared with the actual amount
of pumping. Let's assume that some of this extra energy is going
into cavitation, which will cause high temperatures where the
cavities collapse.

Let's also assume that there is a reaction such as:
XY + energy <==> X + Y
with a potential barrier such that either high temperature or a
catalyst is required for the reaction to go.

Normally XY is present in the electrolyte, but the high temperature
from cavitation in the pump allows the reaction to occur and drives
it to the X + Y side. The electrolyte cannot return to equilibrium
after leaving the pump unless there is a catalyst present.

The reaction  X + Y -> XY + energy  can be catalyzed by a nickel surface,
but only if there is an electric field present. It doesn't matter how
much current is flowing, as long as there is enough to cause a potential
drop at the nickel surface. So there is little advantage to currents
higher than this minimum, which will thus give the highest ratio of
reaction energy to electrolytic input power.

Of course, the nickel will be more reactive if it's stressed a bit.
This can be accomplished by making a Ni-Pd-Ni sandwich of thin films,
and then loading the Pd with hydrogen.

Obviously, a larger surface area of the catalytic nickel will make it
easier for the reaction to proceed. It doesn't matter if the current
density is uniform, so we can get the large surface area with a packed
bed of plated spheres.

Dick, is this what you have in mind?
-- 
jnw@vnet.net
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 /   /  Re: Why Does Traffic on Moderated Groups Drop?
     
Originally-From: mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why Does Traffic on Moderated Groups Drop?
Date: 13 Jun 1995 23:23:06 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

You know, Jed, you're right in a way. If non-cranks left this group, then
poor dupes interested in CF would only have cranks to answer their
questions.

I withdraw my suggestion.

Mark Richardson
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmrichar353 cudln cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 /   /  Re: comments on the Cravens demo
     
Originally-From: mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: comments on the Cravens demo
Date: 13 Jun 1995 23:23:07 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Jed (everyone here knows Jed) writes:

"And who cares whether or not it is fusion? That has never been an issue.
It
could be fusion, or ZPE, or any damn thing. The only thing we can be sure
of
is that it is NOT chemistry."

You know Jed, again you are right in a way. The only way to put this whole
subject to bed is to find out what is actually going on in those
experiments. Would be nice to have one of these "working" setups donated
to some reputable researchers with the challenge to explain what is going
on. The people who make it work don't seem to know what's happening, and
the people who could figure out what's happening can't make it work. Need
to put these people together.

BTW, since it's not the electromatic force (chemistry) or the strong force
(fusion), what is it? The weak force? Gravity? Must be one or the other.

Mark Richardson

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmrichar353 cudln cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 21:07:05 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.950613164148.4528B-100000@kemi.aau.dk>, Dieter
Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk> wrote:

> On 11 Jun 1995, Bryan Wallace wrote:
> 
> > John Logajan (jlogajan@skypoint.com) wrote:
> > : Please delete sci.physics.fusion from your follow-ups to this topic.
> > 
> > : A vote was taken and in a massive landslide, sci.physics.fusion readers
> > : have decided that Farce cross-postings are inapproriate in that newsgroup.
> > 
> > : Sci.physics.fusion is run through an e-mail gateway and those users can
> > : end up with transport bills for non-topic related material.
> > 
> > : Thanks for your cooperation.  Further notices will be via e-mail to
> > : offenders -- and much more nasty.  :-(
> > 
> > : --
> > :  - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
> > :  - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
> > :  -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -
> > 
> > Shortly after I crossposted a reply that included sci.physics.fusion
to this 
> > post, I could no longer read my mail!  It would appear that Logajan was 
> > not making an idle threat!!  Who should one contact to stop this type of 
> > harrassment, the FBI?
> 
> Well, Bryan, now it's you trying to restrict other's freedom to email, eh?
> By your own argument, if anyone feels like sending you Mb of fan(e)mail,
> they have a perfect right to do so, right? I doubt that Logajan is in fact
> doing that, he is no rash mouth frother, I'm just making a point. You need
> not call the FBI, you need only stop cross posting to this group. 
> 
> By the way, note that although Wallace's post went out to all those groups
> (alien.visitors etc etc), I removed all except this one; it can be done.
> This is for those who don't know that.
> 
> -- Dieter Britz  alias  britz@kemi.aau.dk

And there you have it, folks: plain as the nose on your face. Dieter Britz
has apparently forcibly removed Mr. Wallace's posts without his consent,
via a cancelbot. For those who do not understand, a "cancelbot" is a
program that sends out an internet packet designed to masquerade as a
packet from the person who posted the message that is being canceled. In
this case, the packet would masquerade as one sent by Mr. Wallace, thereby
fooling the server software at the thousands of connect sites that carry,
in the named case, alt.alien.visitors, into thinking the packet was sent
by Mr. Wallace and was a request by him to delete his article. What we
have here, apparently, is an act of deliberate fraud committed by Dieter
Britz, with the intent of abridging Mr. Wallace's rights under the first
amendment. Accordingly, I advise Mr. Wallace to report this act to his
internet provider, and to consult with his attorney. 

Is there anyone out there who doubts, at this point, that these people are
exactly what I have been saying they were from the beginning? Is there
anyone out there who cannot see that if this can be done to Wallace, it
can be done to any of us? Is there anyone who fails to see that,
regardless of whether we agree with Wallace, we now must stand behind him?
Does anybody want internet newsgroups to be "moderated" by cancelbot? What
if you say something that somebody disagrees with and they have a
cancelbot? What if you post to a group and somebody with a cancelbot
thinks your post is irrelevant to that group? Is this what you want? Does
anybody out there dare to stand up in support of this? Is there any
systems administrator at any connect site, anywhere on the net, who thinks
a crime has not been committed here? Is there anyone selling internet
connect services to the public who can't see what censorship by cancelbot
is going to do to the product they are offering to the public? Do any of
you guys really believe that the sparkle, the variety, the conflict, and
the freedom of expression on usenet newsgroups will survive this kind of
an assault? And if it doesn't survive, does any provider of connect
services believe that those services will be as valuable as they were
before? Does anybody really believe that they can sell connect services to
the public, if all they have to offer is the grey uniformity of a medium
that offends no one? 

You guys better move on this. And you better move big. And you better move
fast. If you don't, your investments are going to flush right down the
toilet, and the internet is going to go down with them. 

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.14 / James Stolin /  Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
     
Originally-From: FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
Date: 14 Jun 1995 04:47:18 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

>James Stolin <FKNF40A@prodigy.com> writes:
> 
>>   WRONG!  It appears that YOU have a very limited understanding of 
>>Internet News.  Some people do not have the option of selecting notes 
by 
>>subject.  Those receiving sci.physics.fusion via listservers get ALL 
>>notes and pay whether they read them or not.
> 
>I get s.p.f. via a listserver, but if I see it is a big file I just kill 
it.
>Why download everything? I don't read every section of the Sunday 
newspaper
>either. If you start to download one and it looks pretty boring, you 
just
>abort the transaction and kill the file. Or if you see it is about this
>"Farce" business.
> 
>You can always go in directly if you need to.

Jed,

   Please re-read my comments that you replied to.  I don't think that 
you understand the implications of what I said.  There is a diverse group 
of newsgroup reader programs being used.  Some do not have the 
capabilities to abort downloads. Some receive the newsgroup as EMAIL. Etc,
 etc.  Options for a particular reader are NOT available to all.  I am 
fortunate in that the Prodigy newsreader threads all notes by subject.  
However, I do not automatically assume that yours and others readrers do 
the same.

   The controversy over Wallace's posts is being handled by anarchic (sp?
) net methods.  If he continues his spamming, enough pressure will 
probably be brought upon his provider to encourage action from that 
direction.  It's been done to Mr Wallace before when he refused to cease 
spamming and it will, unfortunately, probably be done again.  Also, this 
may unfortunately further enhance his feelings of persecution.  Though we 
do have freedom of speech on the net, there are limits to breaches of 
netiquette that will be tolerated.  Mr Wallace has just pissed off too 
many people with the spamming and may suffer the consequences.  
-
Jim Stolin  -  Illinois Computer Service  -  fknf40a@prodigy.com
Opinions are my own ... but could be yours.

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Attention SPF readers:  Your vote is needed
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Attention SPF readers:  Your vote is needed
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 23:00:11 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <3r9kgs$lab@ds8.scri.fsu.edu>, jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:

> In article <R6xe9u+.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> > 
> >Actually, I cannot make head or tail of the "Farce" and I ignore it. But
> >Mr. Wallace has as much right to post messages as anyone else, and Mr.
> >Little is wa-a-a-y out of line telling him not to. I cannot imagine what
> >harm his postings could cause, no matter how incorrect they might be.
> 
> So, Jed, as one of the people who pays to get the bytes posted in this 
> newsgroup, you would not mind if I posted an ultra-high resolution 
> gigabyte MPEG constructed from a video shot while driving around 
> town, uuencoded and posted in a zillion parts with different subject 
> lines?  

***{If you did that, it would be unambiguous and unarguable that you had
no intent to post a message on the forum, because you didn't post a
message. In such a case, it would be appropriate for the access provider
to take action, precisely because of the crystal clear nature of the
situation. It is not possible to censor a non-communication. Thus the
access provider would incur no suspicion of censorship by intervening in a
case of this kind. Nobody would criticize them for doing it. However, in
the case under discussion, we simply have a difference of opinion in an
arguable matter. The evidence clearly indicates a good faith attempt on
Wallace's part to post his material where it is relevant, and the
appropriate remedy for those who think he is off topic is to not read his
posts or else respond to them by asking him to explain how his theories
relate to fusion. No "goon squad" is required, and attempts to jam his
e-mail access and fraudulently delete his posts violate his rights.
--Mitchell Jones}***

Anyone with net access can post to a newsgroup, but netiquette 
> (enforced in some cases by the rules of the access provider, and in 
> extreme cases by the net itself against the provider) says the posts 
> should be appropriate to the group.

***{Yes, but as I have noted so many times that my carpal tunnel is acting
up, in a case where a good faith attempt has been made by a sane person to
post properly, the indicated remedy is as described above. Otherwise,
every internet user's rights are threatened, because *all any of us can do
is make a good faith attempt to post to relevant groups.* If we do that,
then we should not be subject to "goon squad" harassment and intimidation.
Nobody should be faulted for doing the best he can. That's why your "goon
squad" is exactly as labeled: a gang of vicious, mean spirited people who
aim to impose their will irrespective of the pain they cause to others and
the rights they trample. --Mitchell Jones}***  
> 
> This group has as its subject fusion (hot and cold) and fusion-related 
> subjects, a situation established by a democratic vote under Usenet rules 
> and recently reinforced by a newsgroup creation vote.  The "Farce" posts 
> do not fall in this category. They *do* fall in a number of other 
> categories with newsgroups, and Wallace has a perfect right to post 
> them in *those* groups.  It is as inappropriate here as it would be 
> in rec.gardening. 
 
***{In your opinion. Reasonable people disagree with you, and they are
entitled to their opinions. Nobody gave you the right to impose your will
on others. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> -- 
>  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:
cuddy13 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Why Does Traffic on Moderated Groups Drop?
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why Does Traffic on Moderated Groups Drop?
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 23:33:23 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <3rfotp$bah@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, mrichar353@aol.com
(MRichar353) wrote:

> It's rather amusing to read all of the justifications given in this thread
> concerning the lower number of posts to moderated newsgroups. I submit
> that if one simply counts the number of posts which contribute materially
> to the subject and ignore all the truly ignorant pseudo-science
> "contributions" (which are in the vast majority on this newsgroup, for
> example), then one would probably find parity between moderated and
> unmoderated newsgroups (controlling for the level of interest in the
> topic).
> 
> A simpler way of putting this is that the silly stuff doesn't make it past
> the moderator.
> 
> I suggest that a moderated newsgroup concerning fusion be created. Then I
> could read useful and serious communications. If I occasionally wanted to
> take a walk in fairy-tale land, I could read the unmoderated group.

That's a great idea. Call the moderated group sci.physics.fusion.orthodox,
and call the other group sci.physics.fusion.unorthodox. That way, those
who love censorship and those who love freedom will both have what they
want, and this unseemly catfight between the two groups will be over. It
strikes me as a compromise made in heaven! --Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 / Alan M /  Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
     
Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" <Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
Date: 13 Jun 1995 14:51:55 +0100
Organization: Home

In article: <Rqyelhu.jedrothwell@delphi.com>  jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> I get s.p.f. via a listserver, but if I see it is a big file I just kill it.
> Why download everything? I don't read every section of the Sunday newspaper
> either. If you start to download one and it looks pretty boring, you just
> abort the transaction and kill the file. Or if you see it is about this
> "Farce" business.
> 
That (as might be expected from you) is a gross over-simplification.

I take sci.physics.fusion as one of my selection of 'Net NewsGroups, and
my download software has no facilities - other than via a kill file which 
is set up by author - to be selective on what is downloaded.

EVERYTHING posted to sci.physics.fusion since my previous on-line session
is downloaded to me, and if I try to intervene to kill any specific
message, the entire download session is aborted and I have to start over
again.

My guess is that the majority of readers of sci.physics,fusion have access
like mine. For us the 'Farce of Physics' is an imposition on our pocketbooks,
which I only wish I could bill straight back to Bryan Wallace.

-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.12 / Jim Carr /  Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
Date: 12 Jun 1995 19:10:47 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <singtech-1006950436010001@ip-salem1-01.teleport.com> 
singtech@teleport.com (C. Cagle) writes:
>
>Dean,  specialization is for insects.  

How many of the Usenet newsgroups do you read?  Fewer than 500?  Why
do you choose that special set?  Maybe those charters do serve a 
purpose. 

Case closed. 

-- 
 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:
cuddy12 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Topic about off-topic is off-topic
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Topic about off-topic is off-topic
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 09:18:08 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <3rcdcr$6lp@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com wrote:

> Since the topic about being off-topic is itself off-topic, I will post
> no more about it.
> 
> --
>  - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
>  - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
>  -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -

***{You know, John, I thought that too, until I read your post. That
forced me to think again and, having done so, I realize that I was wrong.
The truth is, the matter of how usenet works is relevant to participants
in every usenet newsgroup. It is part of the fundamental framework in
which we operate and, when it is misunderstood, dire consequences (e.g.,
the rise of "goon squads") can ensue. So I was wrong about that, and so
are you. Freedom of speech and how it works is relevant to every user of
the internet, because it is what the internet is all about! The kind of
debate we have had here would have a salutary effect in every newsgroup,
because it would serve to educate participants about how the system works
and, as a consequence, would enable it to work more smoothly due to the
absence of "goon squads" and similar distractions. --Mitchell Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 /  jedrothwell@de /  N-Rays and Cold Fusion FAQ
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: N-Rays and Cold Fusion FAQ
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 95 11:05:03 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

The issue of "N-Rays" comes up from time to time in discussions of cold
fusion. Here is an essay I wrote about N-Rays and Cold Fusion in December
1991, with footnotes revised slightly. The evidence for CF has grown much
stronger since 1991. The number of positive experiments has increased
tremendously, and the signal to noise ratio is much higher.
 
 
N-RAYS AND COLD FUSION
 
by Jed Rothwell
 
 
N-Rays are discussed in a paper by Irving M. Klotz titled "The N-Ray Affair"
[1]. Here are some facts from the article which I think show the vast
difference between N-Rays and CF. Briefly: N-Rays were 'discovered' in 1903 by
a distinguished French physicist Rene Blondlot. It was a mistake, not a hoax.
A few others got into the act right away, another scientist, and spiritualist.
After a while, others joined. In the first half of 1903 four papers were
published. "In the first half of 1904 the number had risen to 54." I do not
know if this is cumulative or if it means the 6 month total. Then on September
29, 1904 Nature published an article by the American physicist R. W. Wood that
immediately debunked the whole thing, and nothing was ever heard of the idea
again. Now, let me point out just a few of the major differences between this
story and the history of CF. Space limitations do not allow me to do justice
to the subject:
 
There was not widespread opposition N-Rays; people thought it might be true.
Whereas, many top scientists ruthlessly attacked Pons and Fleischmann just as
soon as they announced. This is well documented, and I have a filecabinet
drawer full of attacks, some of them made within hours of the announcement.
 
The number of N-Ray articles peaked at 54 (or perhaps that was the cumulative
total). Storms [1]
 
alone cites 359 articles, and this is not a complete listing by any means (for
one reason, Storms does not read Japanese.) Some of Storm's references are
negative, but I count them anyway, because I presume the 54 N-Ray articles may
include some negatives, and after all, a good negative analysis is as valuable
as a positive one, because it sets the limits and helps define the phenomenon.
 
One visit, from one physicist, brought down the N-Ray house of cards. CF has
survived dozens of skeptical visits and attempts to debunk it, ranging from
the honest, well thought out criticism of the Japanese IEEE meetings to the
slanderous attacks by Taubes [2] on Bockris's work. There have been hundreds
of attacks on CF, and no major CF scientist has withdrawn any major part of
their work, except (as often noted here) in 1989 Pons and Fleischmann quickly
admitted that their Neutron work was no good. The only important CF work that
has been proven conclusively wrong are the negative experiments at CalTech,
MIT and Harwell.
 
N-Rays were difficult to detect; workers claimed that they were seeing
something close to the limits of detectability. The best CF workers claim to
be getting 3 to 10 times more heat out than they put in; they claim to measure
tritium 10,000x background, and so on. They are saying it is easy to detect,
not hard. This might mean they are: 1. Right; 2. Liars, or; 3. Incompetents
who do not know how to read their instruments; but in any case, they claim a
much higher signal-to-noise ratio than Blondlot did.
 
N-Rays fell apart abruptly in late 1904, but the research did not die out
right away, there were still some going on in '05. As late as '06 Blondlot was
still saying "the phenomenona are much too delicate [for a simple
demonstration]." Quite a contrast to Pons and Fleischmann. A year or so after
their discovery, they demonstrated it to one of the world's toughest, most
knowledgable corporate R&D departments, and they secured carte blanche R&D
money.
 
There was no long term corporate R&D in N-Rays. There *were* excellent
corporate R&D labs in 1903, by the way. Whereas, by 1991, most CF research was
sponsored by EPRI, Japanese megacorporations, or the Japanese government.
 
CF has lasted 3 years, and grows stronger each month. N-Rays abruptly
disappeared after 18 months.
 
In conclusion, I would say that the N-Ray affair and CF have nothing in
common.
 
 
                              Footnotes
 
1. I. M. Klotz, "The N-Ray Affair," Scientific American, vol. 242 #5, May
1980, pp. 168 - 175
 
2. E. Storms, "Review of Experimental Observations About the Cold Fusion
Effect," Fusion Technology, Vol. 20 Dec. 1991, pp. 443 - 477.
 
3. Reprinted in: G. Taubes, "Bad Science," (Random House: 1993), along with
many other attacks on other scientists.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 / Dieter Britz /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 16:49:23 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On 11 Jun 1995, Bryan Wallace wrote:

> John Logajan (jlogajan@skypoint.com) wrote:
> : Please delete sci.physics.fusion from your follow-ups to this topic.
> 
> : A vote was taken and in a massive landslide, sci.physics.fusion readers
> : have decided that Farce cross-postings are inapproriate in that newsgroup.
> 
> : Sci.physics.fusion is run through an e-mail gateway and those users can
> : end up with transport bills for non-topic related material.
> 
> : Thanks for your cooperation.  Further notices will be via e-mail to
> : offenders -- and much more nasty.  :-(
> 
> : --
> :  - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
> :  - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
> :  -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -
> 
> Shortly after I crossposted a reply that included sci.physics.fusion to this 
> post, I could no longer read my mail!  It would appear that Logajan was 
> not making an idle threat!!  Who should one contact to stop this type of 
> harrassment, the FBI?

Well, Bryan, now it's you trying to restrict other's freedom to email, eh?
By your own argument, if anyone feels like sending you Mb of fan(e)mail,
they have a perfect right to do so, right? I doubt that Logajan is in fact
doing that, he is no rash mouth frother, I'm just making a point. You need
not call the FBI, you need only stop cross posting to this group. 

By the way, note that although Wallace's post went out to all those groups
(alien.visitors etc etc), I removed all except this one; it can be done.
This is for those who don't know that.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: N-Rays and Cold Fusion FAQ
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: N-Rays and Cold Fusion FAQ
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 95 11:27:56 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Let me try that again . . . I said I was going to revise the footnotes. The
version I posted was halfway done.
 
REPOSTED VERSION
 
The issue of "N-Rays" comes up from time to time in discussions of cold
fusion. Here is an essay I wrote about N-Rays and Cold Fusion in December
1991, with footnotes revised slightly. The evidence for CF has grown much
stronger since 1991. The number of positive experiments has increased
tremendously, and the signal to noise ratio is much higher.
 
 
N-RAYS AND COLD FUSION
 
by Jed Rothwell
 
 
N-Rays are discussed in a paper by Irving M. Klotz titled "The N-Ray Affair"
[1]. Here are some facts from the article which I think show the vast
difference between N-Rays and CF. Briefly: N-Rays were 'discovered' in 1903 by
a distinguished French physicist Rene Blondlot. It was a mistake, not a hoax.
A few others got into the act right away, another scientist, and spiritualist.
After a while, others joined. In the first half of 1903 four papers were
published. Klotz says "in the first half of 1904 the number had risen to 54."
I do not know if this is cumulative or if it means the 6 month total. Then on
September 29, 1904 Nature published an article by the American physicist R. W.
Wood that immediately debunked the whole thing, and nothing was ever heard of
the idea again. Now, let me point out just a few of the major differences
between this story and the history of CF. Space limitations do not allow me
to do justice to the subject:
 
There was not widespread opposition N-Rays; people thought it might be true.
Whereas, many top scientists ruthlessly attacked Pons and Fleischmann just as
soon as they announced. This is well documented, and I have a filecabinet
drawer full of attacks, some of them made within hours of the announcement.
 
The number of N-Ray articles peaked at 54 (or perhaps that was the cumulative
total). Storms [2] alone cites 359 articles, and this is not a complete listing
by any means (for one reason, Storms does not read Japanese.) Some of Storm's
references are negative, but I count them anyway, because I presume the 54
N-Ray articles may include some negatives, and after all, a good negative
analysis is as valuable as a positive one, because it sets the limits and helps
define the phenomenon.
 
One visit, from one physicist, brought down the N-Ray house of cards. CF has
survived dozens of skeptical visits and attempts to debunk it, ranging from
the honest, well thought out criticism of the Japanese IEEE meetings to the
slanderous attacks by Taubes [3] on Bockris's work. There have been hundreds
of attacks on CF, and no major CF scientist has withdrawn any major part of
their work, except (as often noted here) in 1989 Pons and Fleischmann quickly
admitted that their Neutron work was no good. The only important CF work that
has been proven conclusively wrong are the negative experiments at CalTech,
MIT and Harwell.
 
N-Rays were difficult to detect; workers claimed that they were seeing
something close to the limits of detectability. The best CF workers claim to
be getting 3 to 10 times more heat out than they put in; they claim to measure
tritium 10,000x background, and so on. They are saying it is easy to detect,
not hard. This might mean they are: 1. Right; 2. Liars, or; 3. Incompetents
who do not know how to read their instruments; but in any case, they claim a
much higher signal-to-noise ratio than Blondlot did.
 
N-Rays fell apart abruptly in late 1904, but the research did not die out
right away, there were still some going on in '05. As late as '06 Blondlot was
still saying "the phenomenona are much too delicate [for a simple
demonstration]." Quite a contrast to Pons and Fleischmann. A year or so after
their discovery, they demonstrated it to one of the world's toughest, most
knowledgable corporate R&D departments, and they secured carte blanche R&D
money.
 
There was no long term corporate R&D in N-Rays. There *were* excellent
corporate R&D labs in 1903, by the way. Whereas, by 1991, most CF research was
sponsored by EPRI, Japanese megacorporations, or the Japanese government.
 
CF has lasted 3 years, and grows stronger each month. N-Rays abruptly
disappeared after 18 months.
 
In conclusion, I would say that the N-Ray affair and CF have nothing in
common.
 
 
                              Footnotes
 
1. I. M. Klotz, "The N-Ray Affair," Scientific American, vol. 242 #5, May
1980, pp. 168 - 175
 
2. E. Storms, "Review of Experimental Observations About the Cold Fusion
Effect," Fusion Technology, Vol. 20 Dec. 1991, pp. 443 - 477.
 
3. Reprinted in: G. Taubes, "Bad Science," (Random House: 1993), along with
many other attacks on other scientists.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 /  D /  Any cool cold fusion?
     
Originally-From: "D. Berry" <berrd@mail.syntron.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Any cool cold fusion?
Date: 13 Jun 1995 15:35:28 GMT
Organization: Phoenix Data Systems

From what I gather so far, my understanding is that the product of all   
flavors of the "cold" fusion devices is HEAT. Are there any devices out   
there or possibly in the works that have as their direct output, good ol'   
fashion electrons without the necessity of mechanical moving parts such   
as pumps, rotors, etc.?  Is there any possibility of producing electrons   
directly as the product of the nuclear reactions as opposed to heat? From   
an engineering standpoint, this would seem very benificial since it may   
allow a direct repacement for batteries.

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenberrd cudlnD cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 / Edward Ruden /  Re: Merriman's "Regionalization" counter-examples not valid
     
Originally-From: ruden@ug1.plk.af.mil (Edward Ruden)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman's "Regionalization" counter-examples not valid
Date: 13 Jun 1995 09:34:50 -0600
Organization: Air Force Phillips Lab.

mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353) writes:

>N-rays have nothing to do with neutrons. ...
>... and was finally found to be
>false and even a hoax. 

From the article I read on N-rays (Sci. Amer.?), N-rays were never found to 
be a hoax, at least not one perpetuated by Blodlot (sp?) himself.  It was
(and is) considered instead to be one of the archtype examples of the incredible
ability of people to deceive themselves (like CF).

Edward L. Ruden

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenruden cudfnEdward cudlnRuden cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 / mitchell swartz /  re: Merriman's "Regionalization" counter-examples not valid
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: re: Merriman's "Regionalization" counter-examples not valid
Subject: Re: Merriman's "Regionalization" counter-examples not valid
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 16:06:02 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <3rkb6q$t8t@ug1.plk.af.mil>
Subject: Re: Merriman's "Regionalization" counter-examples not valid
Edward L. Ruden [ruden@ug1.plk.af.mil] writes:

    "From the article I read on N-rays (Sci. Amer.?), 
     N-rays were never found to 
    be a hoax, at least not one perpetuated by Blodlot (sp?) himself.  
    It was (and is) considered instead to be one of the archtype examples
     of the incredible ability of people to deceive themselves (like CF)."

 IMHO, given CF is quite real and given that N-rays were not real,
perhaps for consistency you might state this as:

"It was (and is) considered instead to be one of the archtype examples 
of the incredible ability of people to deceive themselves (like the theory
of the planets revolving around the Earth, or the attempted cover up of CF)."

  Best wishes.
    Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)



cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 / Scott Little /  a ZPF primer
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: a ZPF primer
Date: 13 Jun 1995 16:13:02 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

Since it is probably highly pertinent to both HF and CF, I thought I
would offer to this forum a brief description of the zero-point field
(ZPF).  Those of you who have never really considered it before should 
brace yourselves.

taken from "The energetic vacuum: implications for energy research" by H.E. 
Puthoff:

To understand just what the significance of zero-point energy is, let 
us begin with a simple harmonic oscillator.  According to classical 
theory, such a harmonic oscillator, once excited but with excitation 
removed, will come to rest (because of friction losses).  In quantum 
theory, however, this is not the case.  Instead, such an oscillator 
will always retain a finite amount of "jiggle".  The average energy 
(kinetic plus potential) associated with this residuum of motion, the 
so-called zero-point energy, is given by E=hw/2 where h is Planck's 
constant (1.054 * 10^-34 joule/sec) and w is the frequency of 
oscillation.  The meaning of the adjective zero-point is that such 
motion exists even at a temperature of absolute zero where no thermal 
agitation effects remain.  Similarly , if a cavity electromangetic 
mode is excited and then left to decay, the field energy dies away, 
again to a minimum value E=hw/2 (half a photon's worth), indicating 
that fields as well as mechanical systems are subject to zero-point 
fluctuations.  It is the presence of such ZPF "noise" that can never 
be gotten rid of, no matter how perfect the technology, that sets a 
lower limit on the detectability of electromagnetic signals. 

If we now consider the universe as a whole as constituting a 
giant cavity, then we approach a continuum of possible modes 
(frequencies, directions) of propagation of electromagnetic waves. 
Again, even in the absence of overt excitation, quantum theory has us 
assign an energy E=hw/2 to each mode.  Multiplication of this energy 
by a density of modes factor then yields an expressioin for the
spectral energy density that characterises the vacuum electromagnetic
zero-point energy

          r(w)dw = (hw^3)/(2pi^2c^3)dw joules/m^3
          
There are a number of properties of this zero-point energy 
distribution that are worthy of note.  First, the  frequency behavior
is seen to diverge as w^3.  In the absence of a high-frequency cutoff
this would imply an infinite energy density.  As discussed by Feynman
and Hibbs, however, we have no evidence that QED remains vaild at
asymptotically high frequencies (vanishingly small wavelengths). 
Therefore, we are justified in assuming a high-frequency cutoff, and
arguments based on the requirements of general relativity place this
cutoff near the Planck frequency  (~10^-33 cm).  Even with this
cutoff, the mass-density equivalent of the vacuum ZPF fields is still
on the order of 10^94 g/cm^3.  This caused Wheeler to remark that
"elementary particles represent a percentage-wise almost completely
negligible change in the locally violent conditions that characterise
the vacuum...In other words,  elementary particles do not form a
really basic starting point for the description of nature.  Instead,
they represent a first-order correction to vacuum physics."  As high
as this value is, one might think that the vacuum energy would be
easy to observe.  Although this is true in a certain sense (it is the
source of quantum noise), by and large the homogeneity and isotropy
of the ZPF distribution prevent naive observation, and only
departures from uniformity yield overtly observable effects.

Contributing to the lack of direct observability is a second feature 
of the ZPF spectrum; namely, its Lorentz invariance.  Whereas motion 
through all other radiation fields, random or otherwise, can be 
detected by Doppler-shift phenomena, the ZPF spectrum with its cubic 
frequency dependence is unique in that detailed cancellation of 
Doppler shifts with velocity changes leaves the spectrum unchanged. 

The paper goes on to explore various ramifications of the ZPF but I
will stop quoting here and lay on a few of my favorite stunning
conclusions:

1.  The ZPF is not weak!  It is the unimaginably dense "fabric of 
space" in which matter as we know it exists as nearly insignificant 
perturbations.

2.  The ZPF is responsible for the existence of atoms.  The reason 
electrons don't spiral into the nucleus is that they are in 
equilibrium with the ZPF in their ground states.

3.  Interactions between matter and the ZPF are responsible for the 
mysterious phenomena we call "inertia".  The force that resists 
acceleration arises because of a radiation pressure exerted by the ZPF
against the accelerating body. 




cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
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: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 13:30:15 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <3rerb3$l9v@xcalibur.IntNet.net>, wallaceb@news.IntNet.net
(Bryan Wallace) wrote:

> John Logajan (jlogajan@skypoint.com) wrote:
> : Please delete sci.physics.fusion from your follow-ups to this topic.
> 
> : A vote was taken and in a massive landslide, sci.physics.fusion readers
> : have decided that Farce cross-postings are inapproriate in that newsgroup.
> 
> : Sci.physics.fusion is run through an e-mail gateway and those users can
> : end up with transport bills for non-topic related material.
> 
> : Thanks for your cooperation.  Further notices will be via e-mail to
> : offenders -- and much more nasty.  :-(
> 
> : --
> :  - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
> :  - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
> :  -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -
> 
> Shortly after I crossposted a reply that included sci.physics.fusion to this 
> post, I could no longer read my mail!  It would appear that Logajan was 
> not making an idle threat!!  Who should one contact to stop this type of 
> harrassment, the FBI?
> 
> Bryan

Bryan, they lost the argument, so now the velvet glove comes off to reveal
the iron fist below. Censorious scum, hell bent to suppress our freedom of
speech, will stop at nothing. Contact your system administrator at your
internet service provider: the "goon squad" is attempting to suppress your
freedom of speech, which just so happens to be the value that you are
paying your internet provider to deliver! Which means: this is a direct
assault on the ability of the providers of internet connect services to
stay in business! Talk to them about what Logajan and these other scum are
doing, with particular attention to the implications: if they permit
Logajan to set himself up as self-proclaimed information czar to all of
the unmoderated newsgroups, their ability to attract customers away from
the mainstream media will be jeopardized. If you can convey this issue to
them clearly enough, they *will* take action! What action? Simple: those
who attempt to censor others by clogging up their access to e-mail should
be warned first, and if they persist in their censorious behavior, they
should have their internet connect privileges terminated.  Feel free to
use my posts in any way that would further the process!

Good luck,

Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: Shrinking hydrogen---any QM ways?
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Shrinking hydrogen---any QM ways?
Date: 13 Jun 1995 18:42:28 GMT
Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here.

Scott Little (little@eden.com) wrote:
: In article <3r84eu$fc0@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu
(Barry Merriman) says:
: >

: >But we must remember the ZPF is very weak...

: Actually it's not weak at all. Not a lot of folks seem to realize the full
: magnitude of the ZPF.  It is, in fact, the most energetic "thing" in our
: everyday experience.  

: If the ZPF is responsible for establishing the ground state of electron
: orbits around nuclei then you could say that the ZPF is responsible (and
: necessary) for the existence of matter as we know it.

It's a rather bizzare way of thinking about things, i'd say.

If you need a "zero point force" it sounds like you're still trying
to explain quantum mechanics with classical mechanics, rather than the
other way around.

matt
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: Same old same old...
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Same old same old...
Date: 13 Jun 1995 18:45:34 GMT
Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here.

Bob Sullivan (bsulliva@sky.net) wrote:

: Of course the same thing can be said of hot fusion. When I joined the 
: workforce in 1963, _they_ assured us we would have commercial hot fusion in 
: THIRTY years. Now, thirty-two years later, _they_ assure us we will have hot 
: fusion in THIRTY-FIVE years.

Didn't hot fusion run into unexpected physics? (anomalous diffusion?)


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 / Mike H /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: "Mike H." <mike@avon.demon.co.uk>
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.skepti
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 13 Jun 1995 19:51:22 +0100
Date: 12 Jun 1995 21:37 GMT
Organization: Demon Internet News Service

Date: 12 Jun 1995 21:37 GMT
Message-ID: <06121995213750um@avon.demon.co.uk>
References:  <3rcrbu$drv@xcalibur.IntNet.net>

 
On 10 Jun 1995 15:21:34 -0400, in <3rcrbu$drv@xcalibur.IntNet.net>
          wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace) wrote.....

> Since the planets do not have infinitesimally small mass, GR *can't* be used
> by JPL to calculate useful orbits in the solar system!  Your forth paragraph
> is a pathological argument, see Chapter 2 for Irving Langmuir's colloquium on
> "pathological science."  In Chapter 4 of my book I stated Einstein's argument
> on light speed as follows:
> 
>     With reference to the question of double stars presenting evidence
>   against his relativity theory, he wrote the Berlin University Observatory
>   astronomer Erwin Finlay-Freundlich the following:

Technical term: Bollocks.

With GR, a point source of mass and a planet are identical in effect at any 
point away from the radius of the planet.

The truth is that Newton is actually pretty good for most things and that GR 
will give a better (ie more accurate number). The classic example is 
perhillion advance of uranus ISTR.


 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Mike H. (Software Sans Frontieres)  PGP:818C97EB75366540  8A27D2AB8E7482CB 
  Umail 1.50 from ftp.demon.co.uk:/pub/ibmpc/umail,/pub/ibmpc/windows/umail 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmike cudfnMike cudlnH cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Books/ Information/ Demonstration of Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Books/ Information/ Demonstration of Cold Fusion
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 95 15:13:56 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

"Nicholas Hill" <nhill@cix.compulink.co.uk> writes:
 
>I am eager top see a cold fusion experiment in operation. I would like to 
>see an already setup experiment in operation but failing this would be 
>prepared to set one up.
 
That is a lot more complicated than you might think. Roughly equivalent
to seeing a demonstration of an airplane in 1909. I suggest you read the
literature carefully and start getting in contact with the major players
in the field. They might invite you in. I suggest you start with my ICCF5
report (because it is handy -- right here on my disk), so I will e-mail
it to you.
 
 
>Can someone clearly illustrate what the main claimed cold fusion 
>experiments are and the differences between them?
 
Lots of people could explain that, and people like Storms did a masterful
job during his ICCF5 lecture and in his Fusion Technology reviews. But it
takes 30 or 40 pages to begin to do it. You will never see that kind of
detailed information on Internet. It does not belong here. This medium is
too informal, and it does not support graphs, tables, schematics or
photographs, which are essential to serious scientific discourse in my
opinion.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: a ZPF primer
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: a ZPF primer
Date: 13 Jun 1995 19:23:59 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL


Okay, thanks Scott.  That answers a lot.

So, if the contention is that zero point energy is due to atoms being in
equilibrium with the ZPF, then several considerations arise:

-the ZPF must be all pervasive and extremely uniform, otherwise the zero
point energy correction to spectra would change as the ZPF changes with
location.

-the schemes whereby energy is withdrawn from the ZPF are at variance with
thermo laws (either One or Two).  This is not impossible; these laws are
but observations, as some on this newsgroup are fond of reminding us
repeatedly.  However, I'd like to see some better evidence, to whit:

-extraction of zero point energy from a hydrogen atom will alter the
energy level of the electron and therefore alter the electron density
about the proton as well.  This should have observable consequences, both
for Raman spectra and for chemical shifts under NMR experiments.  Thus are
such schemes testable.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 12:56:53 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <3rir15$79o_001@dialin-ttyq6.sky.net>, bsulliva@sky.net (Bob
Sullivan) wrote:

> In article <21cenlogic-1206951747180001@austin-1-7.i-link.net>,
>    21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:
> >In article <3rb2rn$idd@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com wrote:
> 
>         [ ...deleted..]
> 
> >> John Logajan writing:
> >> Just asking for a little common courtesy, no more, no less.  There
> >> are appropriate forums for your general topic, and should there be
> >> any specific relevence of it to the topic of fusion, then your posts
> >> in that specific regard are welcome here.
> 
> > Mitchell Jones writing:
> >***{That's right. John Logajan is God almighty. All praise be to him on
> >high! We don't get to decide what and where we post. He gets to decide!
> >--Mitchell Jones}***
> >
> 
> For the information of the casual observers:
> 
> Extracted from "How to find the right place to post (FAQ)"
> 
> [Quote]
> 
> [...Other topics deleted...]
> 
> Subject: Crossposting to multiple newsgroups
> 
> Think very carefully before crossposting to more than one, or perhaps 
> two, newsgroups.  It is considered highly inappropriate to broadcast
> your message to a wide selection of newsgroups merely to have more people 
> read it.  Note also that many people automatically ignore articles posted 
> to more than two or three groups.  Follow the general rules of Netiquette 
> (Usenet etiquette) described in the news.announce.newusers postings above.
> 
> Often, even when an article is appropriate for multiple newsgroups, it
> is desirable to redirect all followup discussion into one particular
> newsgroup.  You can do this by adding a Followup-To header line that
> lists the single newsgroup where further discussion will go.  (You should
> also mention in the body of the article that you have redirected
> followups to that group, so that people interested in following the
> subject can find it.)  For example:
> 
>    Newsgroups:  rec.pets.cats,misc.consumers.house
>    Followup-To: rec.pets.cats
>    Subject: Need product to remove cat odor from carpets
> 
>    [Followups redirected to rec.pets.cats]
> 
>    Text of article
> 
> [End quote]

***{Not a bad quote. I agree with every word of it. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> John is right. It is a simple matter of courtesy. When the exercise of 
> "rights" is tempered with consideration for others, we all win. When anarchy 
> rules, we all lose.
> 
> In case you skipped the relevant part. Here it is again:
> 
> [Quote]
> 
> It is considered highly inappropriate to broadcast your message to a wide 
> selection of newsgroups merely to have more people read it.
> 
> [End qoute]

***{That's right, it is. Whether you post to one group or ten, you should
honestly believe that the material you are posting is appropriate in each
and every one of them. And, as far as Bryan Wallace's decision to post in
the 10 groups he selected, I am convinced that he did, in fact, honestly
hold such a belief when he posted. Do you disagree? Do you honestly
believe that, if he were motivated by a crude desire to broadcast his
message to the widest possible audience, he would have limited his posts
to ten specific newsgroups where it can be plausibly argued that they
might be of interest? If so, please state your evidence. If not, then
please admit openly that what really is motivating you is a desire to shut
his mouth! --Mitchell Jones}***   
> 
> 
> Good Posting Seal of Approval:
>         This article has been posted
>         to a single newsgroup: s.p.f

***{You are s-o-o-o-o good! Why, I'll bet you could be trusted to be
information daddy to us all! --Mitchell Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: comments on the Cravens demo
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: comments on the Cravens demo
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 95 15:46:50 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Richard A Blue <blue@pilot.msu.edu> writes:
 
>long.  Suppose, however, the products of a chemical reaction within the
>cell are simply recombined in the external loop or that the inverse occurs.
>All I am suggesting is that something exits the cell in a lower energy state
>than when it returns, the energy difference being roughly 0.1 J per Ml.
>Nothing continues to be formed or consumed in the process.  It is all
>recycled.  In that case it will not run out after some fixed time period.
 
And how would that work, Richard? What chemical process do you think could
trap energy from the surroundings and convert it to 60 to 100 joules of
chemical energy per minute? What did you have in mind? Photosynthesis? If the
gadget was jet black it could not capture and convert enough ambient energy!
Not even if it captured every photon and every cosmic ray. There is no way
this arrangement of components could chemically convert that much energy. The
device is MUCH TOO SMALL for that, the light and other forms of ambient energy
striking it are MUCH TOO LOW. You are many orders of magnitude wrong, as
usual. As always!
 
What preposterous nonsense you write! Why don't you set up an experiment to
demonstrate this magnificent new form of photosynthesis (or whatever it is)
you have invented? Show us how you pump water though a plastic tube and
magically perform these wonderous chemical transformations. You will make
billions extracting more free energy from the surroundings than nature puts
there in the first place.
 
And who cares whether or not it is fusion? That has never been an issue. It
could be fusion, or ZPE, or any damn thing. The only thing we can be sure of
is that it is NOT chemistry.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Why Does Traffic on Moderated Groups Drop?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why Does Traffic on Moderated Groups Drop?
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 95 15:49:16 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

MRichar353 <mrichar353@aol.com> writes:
 
>I suggest that a moderated newsgroup concerning fusion be created. Then I
>could read useful and serious communications. If I occasionally wanted to
>take a walk in fairy-tale land, I could read the unmoderated group.
 
I suggest you go create that moderated group right away. ASAP. Go to it,
get to work. Please have Britz, Blue and the others join you. And while
you are at it, please shut up and stop posting things to this group.
 
BTW, if you want to see useful and serious communications about CF, you
might try reading the scientific literature. Just a wild suggestion. Hey,
it works for me!
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 13 Jun 1995 19:49:52 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <21cenlogic-1306951330150001@austin-1-1.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:

> In article <3rerb3$l9v@xcalibur.IntNet.net>, wallaceb@news.IntNet.net
> (Bryan Wallace) wrote:
> 

[deletia]
> > 
> > Shortly after I crossposted a reply that included sci.physics.fusion
to this 
> > post, I could no longer read my mail!  It would appear that Logajan was 
> > not making an idle threat!!  Who should one contact to stop this type of 
> > harrassment, the FBI?
> > 
> > Bryan
> 
> Bryan, they lost the argument, so now the velvet glove comes off to reveal
> the iron fist below. Censorious scum, hell bent to suppress our freedom of
> speech, will stop at nothing. Contact your system administrator at your
> internet service provider: the "goon squad" is attempting to suppress your
> freedom of speech, which just so happens to be the value that you are
> paying your internet provider to deliver! Which means: this is a direct
> assault on the ability of the providers of internet connect services to
> stay in business! Talk to them about what Logajan and these other scum are
> doing, with particular attention to the implications: if they permit
> Logajan to set himself up as self-proclaimed information czar to all of
> the unmoderated newsgroups, their ability to attract customers away from
> the mainstream media will be jeopardized. If you can convey this issue to
> them clearly enough, they *will* take action! What action? Simple: those
> who attempt to censor others by clogging up their access to e-mail should
> be warned first, and if they persist in their censorious behavior, they
> should have their internet connect privileges terminated.  Feel free to
> use my posts in any way that would further the process!
> 

Hi Mitchell,

Satisfy my curiousity: how does one go about disabling someone else's
e-mail at a different site, short of methods like mailbombing which leave
an obvious trail?

How is a polite request to consider limiting the groups to which one posts
a suppression of free speech?  Isn't that free speech as well?

Thanks for your consideration,

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 / Dick Jackson /  Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 19:57:33 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea

Bryan Wallace writes:
>
>My posting does not cost you anything unless you read the file!  You have 
>a very limited understanding of Internet News.  You need to read the free 
>book, Cold Fusion is as much a Farce as many of the other areas of 
>research in modern physics. I read sci.physics.fusion every day and have 
>as much right to post in this group as you do.  If you don't like what I 
>have to say, don't read it!!!

Anyone with reasonably good manners will post to this group only
on subjects relevant to fusion.

Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Plea for free speech
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Plea for free speech
Date: 13 Jun 1995 20:38:52 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <singtech-1006950514350001@ip-salem1-01.teleport.com>  
singtech@teleport.com (C. Cagle) writes:
> In article <950610034018.668@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu>,
> VNONINSKI@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu wrote:
> 
> > Dear Colleagues,
> > 
> > Please, allow Wallace, Ludwig, Edward and anybody else to entertain his or 
> > her  right of free speech. 

> Right on! If there were more people with your attitude, science would
> progress ever so much faster and we might have portable fusion reactors in
> our cars and homes and boats and planes and ships and factories by now.
> 

Right on!...In fact, we need free thinkers like Wallace, Ludwig, and Edward
_in charge_ of science. The folks running things know are clearly stuck
in mental ruts.

:-)


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


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 / Barry Merriman /  Re: science power and religion
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: science power and religion
Date: 13 Jun 1995 20:43:57 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3rao7f$5lm@overload.lbl.gov> Jean-Paul Biberian  
<jpb@sunspot.ssl.berkeley.edu> writes:
> Science Power and Religion
> 
> Jean-Paul Biberian 
> Email: jpb@sunspot.ssl.berkeley.edu
> 
> The rejection of "Cold Fusion" by the scientific 
> establishment, in spite of obvious experimental facts, is 
> and will be analysed for many years by sociologists as a 
> unique case of strong splitting of the scientific 
> community into two very opposite sides. 

Excellent essay. I think you should expand your essay to include 
similar phenomena that have also been rejected by the scientific 
establishment in spite of obvious facts: UFO's, psychic phenomena,
creationism, ...

All are being suppressed by the stodgy scientific establishment, who
fear new developments.






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


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 / Jim Carr /  s.p.fusion charter (was Re: attn Bryan Wallace)
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: s.p.fusion charter (was Re: attn Bryan Wallace)
Date: 13 Jun 1995 11:14:30 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

The offical CFV for the creation of sci.physics.fusion can be found in 
the archive; it was posted on 21 April 1989.  It states

  Sci.physics.fusion is for discussing fusion and fusion related topics.
  Technically this is a movement of a newsgroup alt.fusion to an area of
  wider distribution.  The goal is to make fusion related articles
  available to everyone and to curtail the crossposting to sci.physics.
  The group is to be unmoderated.

I think this is pretty clear, although newcomers might need the 
clarification that since alt.fusion was created to divert traffic 
on cold fusion to a single location, "cold fusion" is covered by 
this charter as 'fusion related'.  Given the history of this group 
and the wide variety of theories and speculations that appear here, 
there is no question that we tolerate just about anything as long 
as it *is* related to fusion. 

Further, the charter is explicit about reduction of cross posting, 
making it clear that if an article is fusion related it should appear 
in s.p.f and *not* in sci.physics.  And vice versa. 

-- 
 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:
cuddy13 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 / Jim Carr /  Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
Date: 13 Jun 1995 11:24:43 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <21cenlogic-1306950807510001@austin-1-2.i-link.net> 
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:
>
>***{You are missing, or ignoring, Mr. Cagle's point--to wit: that in the
>specific case of cold fusion (which, coincidentally, happens to be the
>case under discussion!) there is an obvious, crying need for a new,
>generalized explanatory framework.

I never saw that point being made in what Wallace has written in a 
debate that appears mostly on the history and philosophy of a part 
of physics unrelated to fusion, hot or cold.  And if he does choose 
to post some views on cold fusion, he should post that subject to 
this group and not the other sci groups he has been using. 
 
>                                   "Cold fusion" is impossible within the
>context of mainstream physics, Mr. Kondis! 

That statement is false.  It is well known that cold fusion includes 
muon catalyzed fusion, which is perfectly consistent with mainstream 
physics. 

>                                           Thus if it is real, a new
>approach to the fundamentals of physics is called for, and that
>possibility renders relevant a serious attention to new fundamental views
>of physics, even when the material doesn't deal directly with "cold
>fusion" by name. 

No.  If that new approach is capable of explaining some of the data 
associated with cold fusion, that aspect of the theory belongs here. 
We have given attention to all sorts of new theories that purport to 
explain cold fusion, but there is no point to burying this group under 
a deluge of posts that have nothing to do with cold fusion and make 
no claims to explain anything to do with cold fusion. 

-- 
 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:
cuddy13 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 / Jim Carr /  Re: Merriman's "Regionalization" counter-examples not valid
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman's "Regionalization" counter-examples not valid
Date: 13 Jun 1995 11:37:26 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <3rj9hb$b4q@newsbf02.news.aol.com> 
mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353) writes:
>
>N-rays have nothing to do with neutrons. Very early this century, after
>x-rays were discovered, a fellow named Blandot in France claimed to have
>found a new radiation which he dubbed N-rays. His discovery could only be
>reproduced by him (and perhaps a few others) and was finally found to be
>false and even a hoax.

I don't think anyone ever claimed it was a hoax.  It was more along the 
lines of delusion.  If you thought they existed, you saw the effect. 
If you did not belive, you saw nothing.  This was a result of the fact 
that all observations were made in the dark under conditions where 
various vision artifacts can make you think you see things (the reason 
particle detection with scintillators and 'telescopes' could only be 
done for 10 minutes or so at a time).  The absence of double-blind 
conditions during the experiment meant the observer always knew what 
sort of observations were expected, and it helped if you believed that 
it was great that a fellow Frenchman had made this great discovery.  The 
effect was seen by too many people for it to be a simple hoax.  

-- 
 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:
cuddy13 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Misinformation about Pd
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Misinformation about Pd
Date: 13 Jun 1995 23:29:19 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <USE2PCB705432599@brbbs.brbbs.com> mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL  
DUDLEY) writes:
> Looking at the periodic table I have noticed something which I was not aware  
of
> before.  The three metals which are reported to give excess heat (Ni, Pd and
> Pt) are all in the right hand column of group 8.  They are the only entries
> in this column.  Could be a coincidence, or a hint at what is happening.
>  
>                                                                 Marshall
>  

What about Titanium?

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


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Same old same old...
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Same old same old...
Date: 13 Jun 1995 23:36:01 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3riqco$4o9@rmstar.efi.com> chris@efi.com (Chris Phoenix) writes:
> 

Why do skeptics keep reading?

Aside from the info on real fusion that appears here, inclduing
Paul Koloc's poetry, there are a few enticements to keep reading:

First, this new species of ``CF'' devices such as the Griggs device, etc,
which work by stirring water, are quite interesting. Not because they really
produce energy, but because its a challenge to figure out
why folks are misunderstanding such a simple configuration.

Second, traditional CF a la P&F does seem to go on, and I like to keep
and eye on it, to see how it ultimately pans out (i.e. exactly what 
effect are they observing).

Third, and most importantly, I live to see the day when Jed Rothwell
has to admit that all of CF is a bust :-)

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


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 / A Siegman /  Re: a ZPF primer
     
Originally-From: siegman@ee.stanford.edu (A. E. Siegman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: a ZPF primer
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 16:52:16 -0800
Organization: Stanford University

In article <3rkdee$ji@boris.eden.com>, little@eden.com (Scott Little) wrote:

>  Since it is probably highly pertinent to both HF and CF, I thought I
>  would offer to this forum a brief description of the zero-point field
>  (ZPF).  Those of you who have never really considered it before should 
>  brace yourselves.
>  
>  taken from "The energetic vacuum: implications for energy research" by H.E. 
>  Puthoff:
>  
>  To understand just what the significance of zero-point energy is, let 
>  us begin with a simple harmonic oscillator.  According to classical 
>  theory, such a harmonic oscillator, once excited but with excitation 
>  removed, will come to rest (because of friction losses).  In quantum 
>  theory, however, this is not the case.  Instead, such an oscillator 
>  will always retain a finite amount of "jiggle".  The average energy 
>  (kinetic plus potential) associated with this residuum of motion, the 
>  so-called zero-point energy, is given by E=hw/2 where h is Planck's 
>  constant (1.054 * 10^-34 joule/sec) and w is the frequency of 
>  oscillation.  

REPEAT THREE TIMES AFTER ME:  

   1)  In the quantum theory of the simple harmonic oscillator there are
zero-point *fluctuations*  (ZPF) and zero-point *energy* (ZPE). The
zero-point fluctuations are associated with the quantum-mechnical theory
of the position, or motion, of the oscillator and NOT its energy.  The
zero-point energy is associated with the quantum-mechanical theory and
prediction of the energy in the oscillator.  These are NOT the same thing
in the quantum theory of the harmonic oscillator, even if they are in the
classical theory, and are NOT directly related by any straightforward
relationship.

   2)  In the formulation of the quantum theory of the SHO there is an
arbitrary choice of the mathematical ordering of certain operators (the
"creation and annihilation operators") as one goes from the classical to
the quantum theory. Making different choices for this ordering does NOT in
any way change the quantum laws of motion of the SHO, nor the predictions
of the quantum theory as to any measurable observables of the SHO.  It
also does not change the quantum predictions of the ZPF (which are,
recall, NOT the same as the ZPE).

   3) By making different choices of this ordering, however, one can make
the predicted zero-point *energy* of the ground state of an SHO have any
value one wants: positive, negative, or zero.  In fact, the most symmetric
choice makes the ZPE identically zero.  

   4)  This is of course totally irrelevant to anything physical, since
all it does is shift the whole energy scale up and down, and all one is
ever concerned with in any physical situation are CHANGES between the
lowest possible state (the zero-point state) and some higher-energy state
-- and these changes don't change when the scale they're measured against
itself shifts.  (If you cut off the bottom 12" of your yardstick, then use
it to measure the height as you lift a weight 1 foot off the floor, you've
only lifted the weight 1 foot even though it's now matched up against the
2 foot marking on your yardstick).

   5)  In brief, energy extraction from the ZPE of SHOs (or any other
quantum system) is garbage, garbage, garbage! (and it seems worthwhile
saying that3 X 3 = 9 times).
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudensiegman cudfnA cudlnSiegman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.14 / John Logajan /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 14 Jun 1995 00:25:56 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Dieter Britz (britz@kemi.aau.dk) wrote:
: By your own argument, if anyone feels like sending you Mb of fan(e)mail,
: they have a perfect right to do so, right? I doubt that Logajan is in fact
: doing that

All I've done and all I will do is that for each apparently mis-cross-posted
posting, I will e-mail a reminder to that person, including Wallace.  My
reminders are far shorter than Wallace's posts -- so if he sees it as
"mailbox stuffing" just maybe he will get the idea of the magnitude of
his output to others which is far worse even on the individual, and 
orders of magnitude worse on the aggregate.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.14 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: comments on the Cravens demo
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: comments on the Cravens demo
Date: 14 Jun 1995 00:58:21 GMT
Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here.

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: And who cares whether or not it is fusion? That has never been an issue. It
: could be fusion, or ZPE, or any damn thing. The only thing we can be sure of
: is that it is NOT chemistry.

Or nuclear reactions. 

The experimental non-evidence for nuclear reactions is certainly as
compelling as the non-evidence for chemical reactions.

: - Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Merriman's "Regionalization" counter-examples not valid
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman's "Regionalization" counter-examples not valid
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 95 21:28:18 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Richard Schultz <schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu> writes:
 
>Remind me again -- in which countries besides France were N-Rays ever taken
>seriously?  As I recall, Blondlot and coworkers derided the inability of
 
None that I am aware of, but it was fairly widespread within France. The
number of papers peaked at 50 or so. See the Sci. Am. article referenced
in my thread "N-Rays and Cold Fusion FAQ."
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.14 / Martin Sevior /  Re: Blue comments on Craven's demo
     
Originally-From: Martin Sevior <msevior>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Blue comments on Craven's demo
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 01:57:22 GMT
Organization: CERN European Lab for Particle Physics

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Jun 14 04:37:05 EDT 1995
------------------------------
