1995.06.13 / Bruce Scott /  URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce D. Scott)
Originally-From: Jim Drake, President
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
Date: 13 Jun 1995 18:45:52 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching


Don't Chop Away The Physics Support!
 -----------------------------------

It is a critical time for the US fusion energy program.  While massive
success has been realised in the Princeton TFTR experiment -- a clear
demonstration of fusion production at the level of 10 megawatts,
bringing actual breakeven very much closer -- there is a move in the DOE
appropriations committees to sharply narrow the focus to the ITER
experiment (ITER = International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor).
In the process, university basic science support is threatened with
outright elimination.

    There is a problem: we still don't know enough about the details of
    how these plasmas behave to reliably predict the performance of a
    new experiment whose size is very different from today's versions.

Fusion energy as a development program is entirely unprecedented in one
vital aspect: the physical mechanism of production has been observed
only in the experiments -- not in nature around us under ``everyday
conditions'' -- and the physics of how these devices behave is still not
entirely known.  It can be argued that ITER is an ambitious gamble, even
with physics support.  But ITER without physics support may a recipe for
disaster.  The tokamak concept may turn out not to be viable, and if
this is the case we need the flexibility to re-orient our research.

    The point is, this is not merely a technology problem.  It is
    a physics problem the answers to which remain unknown.

One day in the not-too-distant future, perhaps as soon as 50 years, we
are going to have to confidently know how to produce energy by means of
fusion if we are to maintain our energy-dependent civilisation.  Fossil
fuels are running out, and the population is too great to depend on
solar power or other known alternatives.  So maintaining the viability
of independent, non-mission-driven, fusion research is of utmost
importance to our future, not least the well being of our children and
grandchildren.

The 38 percent reduction with which fusion research was disproportionately 
singled out last Thursday is a serious threat to that.  It should not be
allowed to stand. 

Below, I append the details and a list of contacts who might make a
difference. 

--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott                                The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson



To: Members of the University Fusion Association
Originally-From: Jim Drake, President
 
I am writing you to enlist your help to save the US Fusion Program from
virtual elimination by the US House of Representatives.  PLEASE READ
THIS NOW. TOMORROW WILL BE TOO LATE.
 
The Energy and Environment Subcommittee of the House Science Committee
on Thurday June 8 singled out the Fusion Energy Program for a 38%
reduction in FY1996 while at the same time collapsing the program around
ITER. PPPL takes the largest hit with the elimination of TFTR and
TPX. APP is reduced by $13.2m down to a level of $35.7m.  Of this amount
$7.1m is mandated to support ITER, $7.1 is for alternate concepts and
$10.0m is for NERSC. The reductions in the APP budget will be disastrous
both for the theory program and experiments at universities.
 
The 38% reduction in the fusion budget greatly exceeds the 20% reduction
of energy supply accounts in DOE, of which the Fusion Program is a part,
mandated by the House Budget Resolution. This reflects Chairman
Rohrabacher's strong negative opinions about fusion. In his words we are
"deadwood".
 
The next major step in the funding cycle occurs in the Energy and Water
Development Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee WHO WILL
MARKUP THE FY1996 APPROPRIATIONS BILL NEXT TUESDAY, JUNE 13. The
Chairman of this Subcommittee is John T.  Myers(R) from Indiana. The
following is a table of the members of the Committee along with their
telephone and fax numbers.
 
    DS ST Representative (Party)         Phone & E-Mail   Fax
    == == =============================  ==============   ==============
     7 IN Myers, John T. (R)             1-202-225-5805   1-202-225-1649
            2372 RHOB 
     5 KY Rogers, Harold (R)             1-202-225-4601   1-202-225-0940
            2468 RHOB
    11 MI Knollenberg, Joe (R)           1-202-225-5802   1-202-226-2356
            1221 LHOB
     1 CA Riggs, Frank (R)               1-202-225-3311   1-202-225-3403
            1714 LHOB
    11 NJ Frelinghuysen, Rodney (R)      1-202-225-5034   1-202-225-3186
            1514 Cannon
     5 OR Bunn, Jim (R)                  1-202-225-5711   1-202-225-2994
            1517 LHOB
     4 AL Bevill, Thomas (D)             1-202-225-4876   1-202-225-1604
            2302 RHOB
     3 CA Fazio, Vic (D)                 1-202-225-5716   1-202-225-0354
            2113 RHOB                      dcaucus@hr.house.gov
     1 TX Chapman, Jim (D)               1-202-225-3035   1-202-225-7265
            2417 RHOB
 
The proper address for mail to the House is 
 
                   Honorable John Doe
                   United States House of Representatives
                   Washinton DC 20515-FOUR
 
where FOUR is a four digit code (optional) which will speed delivery.
When time is short, fax is the best approach.
 
[...]

The Myers Committee does not have to stick with the budget 
number of the Rohrbacher Committee. They have even more flexibility
with respect to allocation of cuts. I suggest the following talking
points in support of the general program:
 
(1)Fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas have a limited supply
   of the order of 30-50 years. We must supply energy for our children.
(2)Fusion is one of the few relatively environmentally benign sources
   for central power generation.
(3)The development of fusion energy has been difficult because we
   had to develop a invent a new field of science, plasma physics.
   In spite of the challenges, the progress has been steady. Power
   production has increased by a factor of 100,000,000 over 20 years.
(4)The world record production of 10.7 million watts of power in
   TFTR is close to breakeven and is a major accomplishment.
(5)The scientists involved in the program are of the highest quality
   and are developing innovative techniques for building a smaller
   and less costly fusion reactor. The US domestic program is designed
   to test these ideas.
(7)The fusion energy program in the DOE is also the major supporter
   of plasma science, which has a wide variety of technological
   applications of military and economic importance if the US is to 
   maintain its position as a world leader.
 
 
More specific talking points with respect to the present budget
situation:
 
(1)The members of our community recognize the difficult budget
   situation faced by the country but believe that to single out
   the Fusion Program for such a large cut (38%) compared to
   other DOE energy supply programs (20%) is unreasonable. A budget
   level of the order of $290m would cause severe disruptions
   but would not decimate the program.
(2)The collapse of the Program around ITER while drastically cutting
   the domestic program is scientifically unjustifiable and
   literally threatens the discipline of plasma science. 
(3)Basic university research is particularly negatively impacted
   because of the large cut in Applied Plasma Physics.
 
[...]

Advice on writing a good letter:
 
(1)The letter should not be too long, at the most 1-2 typed pages.
(2)Make your main point clearly at the beginning and then back
   it up later in the letter.
(3)Don't get too technical.

[...]

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.14 / Richard Schultz /  Re: a ZPF primer
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: a ZPF primer
Date: 14 Jun 1995 11:07:54 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <3rlgo9$quk@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
MRichar353 <mrichar353@aol.com> wrote:

>If I am not mistaken, Puthoff is somewhat of a crank. 

Well, he *is* half of the team that "proved" that Uri Geller has (or had,
the experiments were done about 20 years ago) psychic powers.  How that
reflects on his competence as a physicist I leave for the reader to decide.
--
					Richard Schultz

"French bread makes very good skis" 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 /  jonesse@plasma /  Re: Shrinking hydrogen---any QM ways?
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Shrinking hydrogen---any QM ways?
Date: 13 Jun 95 12:30:21 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

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

Scott, I think you may be overlooking two important facts about hydrogen in
metals:
1.  The hydrogen generally is no longer a molecule or even an atom, but
rather mainly an ion in an interstitial site in the lattice, with electrons
shared (in bands).
2.  The separation between hydrogen nuclei in such a lattice is significantly
*larger* than the separation between p's, d's or t's in isotopic molecular
forms of hydrogen.  In plain English, the separation of deuterons in a D2
molecule (for example) is about 0.7 angstroms.  When deuterium saturates
a palladium lattice, the d-d separation *increases* to about 1.2 angstroms
(the number is approx., I can look it up again if you really need it).

So where is the evidence that "the orbit shrinks"?

--Steve Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjonesse cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 /  jonesse@plasma /  Re:  Jed attacks Morrison
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Jed attacks Morrison
Date: 13 Jun 95 12:42:17 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <JMx8tK3.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>   
> For the record: I was just kidding about wanting to buy 1000 machines. Really.
> I do *not* want anyone to ship me a thousand new, used, boxed or unboxed
> 4 kW pumps. Thanks very much, but no thanks. My wife would have a fit! I have
> enough partial computers and bicycles already, too. Thanks anyway.
>  
> - Jed

Very funny.  And hopefully you were kidding when you said:
"I see no reason for me to confine my messages to private e-mail, or to pretend
that Morrison is anything other than a slimy racist. ... he is unfit to report
on any scientific or social issue.  We have been handling Morrison with kid
gloves for too long.  We don't like to talk about his sick ideas, so we smile
and pretend he does not really mean it."  [Jed Rothwell]

I find nothing in my own experience with Douglas which would indicate that
he is a "slimy racist"  or "unfit to report on any scientific or social issue."
Au contraire.  He has visited BYU at least twice and given an
excellent physics colloquium.  I have talked to him at various 
scientific meetings.  

Jed, you should be ashamed of yourself for such reprehensible attacks.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjonesse cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.14 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Misinformation about Pd
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Misinformation about Pd
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 09:43 -0500 (EST)

barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
 
-> What about Titanium?
 
Opps.
 
                                                        Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.14 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Merriman's "Regionalization" counter-examples not valid
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman's "Regionalization" counter-examples not valid
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 09:55 -0500 (EST)

jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
 
-> 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.
 
This brings up something which caught my attention about a month ago.  I read
somewhere that if you stare at the blue sky you can see "orgone energy" as lots
of little tadpole or sperm like things zooming all over the sky.  I had never
noticed this and not believing in orgone energy I dismissed it.  However about
3 days later after jogging, I laid down on my back to rest and rested my eyes
while looking at the blue sky, and behold there they were.  I almost jumped out
of my skin.  Playing with the focusing of my eyes they appeared to be about 40
feet away.
 
Well I was about to dismiss this as some sort of self delusion when my
granddaughter got and lost a helium balloon at O'Charleys resturant.  My
21 year old son, and myself were watching the balloon as it slowly
disappeared into the wild blue yonder.  At this point my son said in a very
serious voice, "dad, I think something is wrong with my eyes, I am see all
these squiggly things when I look at the sky."  Now mind you I never discussed
this with him, and he had no idea I was seeing, but ignoring, the same thing.
Thus the possibility of self delusion seemed to be disproven.
 
A couple of weeks later I was at a meeting with 6 other people and mentioned it
to them.  5 of them replied that, yes they had seen it as well, and a couple
said it was energy.  At this point I am befuddled.  How can a phenomenon be so
easy to see with your naked eye, yet I have never read of it in any scientific
journal.  I have no idea if it is real, psychic, an aberration of they eye or
what.
 
 
Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.14 / 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: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 01:47:38 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <ts_zemanian-1306951243280001@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov>,
ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) wrote:

> 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?

***{Here's one way to do it: you whip up a mob mentality among those who
are inclined to want to bully and intimidate others. You call the mob a
"goon squad," and you persuade the members of your "goon squad" to talk to
their friends, and they to theirs, and so on, persuading everybody to
e-mail "nastygrams" to Bryan Wallace. Result: you flood him with e-mail in
such volume that he literally doesn't have time to sift out the real
messages from the bogus ones. Another way to do it would be
programmatically--i.e., by mailbombing. You could simply put an e-mail
program into an incrementing loop, so that it sends out thousands of bogus
messages to one person, in much the same manner that "spammers" send out
thousands of posts to different newsgroups. Now, frankly, I have no idea
which method was used on Wallace, but he did say that he could no longer
read his e-mail, so it appears that he was victimized one way or the
other. 

Here is my return question to you: do you think the "nastygram" harassment
technique is appropriate to the internet? Do you want to be vulnerable to
every nut case and pressure group on the net who might take offense at
something you say or who might disagree with where you choose to post? How
would you feel if your mail reader were overwhelmed by harrassing
messages? Even worse, if we assume that Derek Britz's post means what it
seems to mean, how do you feel about that? Do you believe that assault by
cancelbot is OK?

Speaking for myself, I am horrified as much by the implications of the
e-mail assault, which almost certainly has taken place, as by the
cancelbot assault, which may have or may have not. --Mitchell Jones}*** 

> 
> 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?

***{Of course it is. In the present case, however, there was massive
evidence of the intent to bully and intimidate, of which the :"nastygram"
technique is only one example. They weren't trying to convince Wallace to
alter his behavior: they were attempting to intimidate him into acting
against his convictions. But, I've gone into all of that already, in great
detail. Perhaps you are a latecomer to the thread. If so, contact me via
e-mail and let me know how much you have, and I'll try to supply the
missing pieces. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> Thanks for your consideration,
> 
> --Tom
> 
> --
> The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 

***{Who, me? I don't use no steenking cancelbots! :-) --Mitchell Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 / Martin Sevior /  Blue's explanations of the Craven's demo.
     
Originally-From: msevior@tauon.ph.unimelb.edu.au (Martin Sevior)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Blue's explanations of the Craven's demo.
Date: 13 Jun 1995 03:04:56 GMT
Organization: University of Melbourne

Dick Blue writes:

>To address John Logajan's remarks:

>The specific point I was trying to make draws a destinction between
>thermal energy transport and chemical energy transport in the
>circulating electrolyte of the Cravens demo device.  The use of
>the dewar and the other points you raise address only the question
>of thermal energy transport.  On this I concede that the data
>indicates the transport of one watt net flow out of the cell.  The

Ok this is the vital point Dick because the rest follows from here.

>calibrations to which you refer presumably indicate that, prior
>to the onset of whatever, the themal transport does match the electrical
>power input; but then something happens.  The debate concern what
>it is that can happen result in an additional one watt of thermal
>energy transport.

>An essential part of the CF argument has always been that there must
>be an undetected nuclear process occuring because chemistry cannot
>account for the excess heat.  I have just been suggesting that this
>argument, for the Cravens demo, may be full of holes.  So far no one
>has come forward to explain why it is impossible to add chemical
>energy transport to the list of possible ways to account for the
>observed excess heat.  As I said, I believe the requirement is for
>the addition of 0.1 J per ml of electrolyte in the portion of the
>fluid circuit external to the cell.
>

I'll take up the challenge of why the Craven's measurement CANNOT be due
to a reversible chemical process. It's the second law of themodynamics.
"Heat can't flow from the cooler the hotter!".

Chemical heat pumps efficienctly transfer heat from warmer regions to
cooler regions. At one stage I recall hearing about ideas to generate
energy from Stockholm's harbour during winter because the temperature
in the water was balmy 8 degress C while the air temperature was below
zero. This was workable because chemical heat pumps could efficiently
transfer heat from the 8 degree harbour to the sub-zero air temperature
where a low efficiency Carnot cycle machine would generate mechanical
energy.

Dick agrees that the data support a consistent 1 watt energy flow from
the cell to be distributed to the ambient environment, the only way
that can happen in a reversable chemical reaction is for the cell to be
at a higher temperature than the ambient environment. Therefore there
must be a process occuring in the cell that raises it's temperature.
As soon as the temperature in the cell is higher than the ambient
environment no reversable reaction can transfer heat from the ambient
environment to the cell.

The points of attack on the Craven's demo is whether or not 1 extra
watt of heat energy is actually coming out of cell or wether some
STORED chemical energy is being consumed. Reversable chemical processes
violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


Martin Sevior




cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmsevior cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 / Martin Sevior /  Re: Morrisons's article.
     
Originally-From: Martin Sevior <msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Morrisons's article.
Date: 13 Jun 1995 04:33:30 GMT
Organization: School of Physics, University of Melbourne.

How do you know for sure that EPRI still funds CNF and Pons is still working
in the field Jed? Sorry for being perdantic but it seems to me that if 
Morrison is distributing incorrect information in mannor of tabloid
publications 
then his Scientific credibility is gone. I want to be sure about the facts
first.

Martin Sevior

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmsevior cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.14 / Martin Sevior /  Re: Blue's explanations of the Craven's demo.
     
Originally-From: Martin Sevior <msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Blue's explanations of the Craven's demo.
Date: 14 Jun 1995 04:26:02 GMT
Organization: School of Physics, University of Melbourne.

msevior@tauon.ph.unimelb.edu.au (Martin Sevior) wrote:
>
>The points of attack on the Craven's demo is whether or not 1 extra
>watt of heat energy is actually coming out of cell or wether some
>STORED chemical energy is being consumed. Reversable chemical processes
>violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
>

(Sorry for the grammer and spelling. anyway...)

As a corollory Dick, given that you think 1 watt of heat is coming from the 
cell, if Cravens can run his cell for several weeks, do you think you'd
admit that there was an effect beyond chemistry? If not, how long should
he run for?

Martin Sevior

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmsevior cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.14 /  jedrothwell@de /  Definition of "heat beyond chemistry"
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Definition of "heat beyond chemistry"
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 95 17:44:59 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I got an e-mail note from a nuclear chemist who is miffed at my use of the
word "chemical" as opposed to "nuclear" energy. He defines "chemistry"
broadly:
 
     "I include in this scope conventional chemical changes such as hydrogen
     iodide decomposing to give hydrogen and iodine and nuclear changes, such
     as carbon plus helium giving oxygen. So whatever the anomalous
     hydrogen-palladium mechanism is, if there is a change, I and many others
     in the know still regard it as chemistry."
 
For the record, when I say "the limits of chemical energy" I mean the energy
you get out of atoms combining and splitting electrovalent or covalent
electron bonds. The absolute, upper theoretical limits of this energy is
roughly 20 eV per atom as far as I know. The most energetic common chemical
reaction I know comes from burning coal which yields 4 eV per atom. (This is
not the best energy per unit of mass, which comes from octane.) I suppose that
burning a diamond would yield more than 4 eV.
 
Anything which affects the nucleus I define as nuclear energy. Nuclear energy
goes beyond the limits of chemistry by six or more orders of magnitude, as
everyone knows (everyone including my correspondent).
 
I define any process that transmutes isotopes or elements as "nuclear" or
perhaps "nuclear chemistry" to go along with my correspondent's wishes.
Ordinary chemistry in and of itself cannot change the nucleus. Sometimes, a
chemical reaction can set the stage for a nuclear transformation, indirectly.
Two examples of this are: 1. The chemical explosion that implodes a critical
mass of nuclear fuel in a fission bomb; and 2. The electrochemical processes
that set up the nuclear-active state in a CF cell, by concentrating hydrogen,
raising the temperature, and exciting the lattice.
 
It may turn out that these distinctions are somewhat artificial, because the
Coulomb barrier is apparently not all that it has been cracked up to be. As
Bockris put it: "A great law that we all used to believe in, that nuclear
reactions can only take place at huge temperatures, is not true. This is a
shibboleth we have only just got over."
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.14 / Larry Kubo /  Re: Same old same old...
     
Originally-From: larryk@sr.hp.com (Larry Kubo)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Same old same old...
Date: 14 Jun 1995 21:59:51 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard Sonoma County

Horacio Gasquet (gasquet@fusion.ph.utexas.edu) wrote:

: Wasn't there an article in Physics Today this month about Pseudo-Science 
: that mentioned cold fusion?  If cold fusion is real, you have to 
: establish a mechanism.  Crack growth?  It's a stretch but maybe.  
: Someone has to do an experiment to test it.  Nothing short of STM 
: measurements correlated to a highly localized measure of nuclear 
: activity would convince me that it is real.

High temperature superconductivity existance does not yet have a generally
accepted mechanism, but it is widely reproducible. I am willing to
phenomenologically accept CF (or whatever) as long as it is reproducible
by established means, and everyone agrees on the net results.
But as long as holy monks want to silently whisper
among themselves at the oracle, I will ignore them.

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenlarryk cudfnLarry cudlnKubo cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.14 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Shrinking hydrogen---any QM ways?
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Shrinking hydrogen---any QM ways?
Date: 14 Jun 1995 22:38:29 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <3rmoua$e8h@boris.eden.com>, little@eden.com (Scott Little) wrote:

[deletia]

> BTW, do you know the proper sign of the heat of formation of typical hydrides?
> i.e. is heat evolved as the hydride forms or is the process endothermic?
> If heat is evolved, would'nt that show that something is dropping to a 
> lower energy state?

Yes, but not as you're thinking.  The usual description is the generation
of bonding and nonbonding molecular orbitals.  In a nutshell, however, the
energy released due to bringing each nuclues closer to the other's
electron(s) is greater than that required to bring the nuclei into closer
proximity and the electrons into closer proximity.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.14 /  zp00121@UABDPO /  fusion and kwashiorkor
     
Originally-From: zp00121@UABDPO.DPO.UAB.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: fusion and kwashiorkor
Date: 14 Jun 1995 23:05:07 GMT
Organization: UAB.EDU

I was wondering if there might be a connection between the fact
that stars fuse up to Fe before
they supernova and the fact that the most credible hypothesis for
kwashiorkor, a disease of
malnourished children characterized by edema, skin lesions, and
bleached hair, signs that iron
catalyzed free radical reactions have gone haywire. After all,
iron's power lies in its ability to act
as an oxygen attractor. Perhaps, there is something in this peculiarity
of stars and people that
might lead to a better understanding of fusion?

An Amateur Astrophysicist who happens to be a nutritionist
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenzp00121 cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.14 / 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: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 19:09:16 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <3rlpkm$2fhm@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>, FKNF40A@prodigy.com
(James Stolin) wrote:

> 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.

***{Jim, we can let issues like this be decided by the number of people
who are "pissed off." If we do, we destroy the diversity that gives value
to usenet, and we also destroy the ability of access providers to sell
connect time to non-techies (i.e., to members of the general public).
Think about it: if majority rule dominates here, then access providers
will lose their competitive advantage over the mainstream media--i.e.,
they will find themselves trying to persuade people to pay to connect to
the grey uniformity of a medium that offends no one, in preference to the
grey uniformity of the mainstream media with which people are already
familiar. Result: the explosive growth of the internet will cease and the
companies that provide connect services will find the prices of their
stocks to be in a major bear market. Many will go bankrupt, and the growth
potential of those that remain will be vastly less than it was before.
Bottom line: this is a serious matter that deserves careful consideration.
We all love the internet and want it to succeed and grow. For that reason,
it behooves us to focus on, and understand, the conditions that are
necessary to support that growth. The decisions that are being made now
have the potential to have disastrous consequences in the future.
--Mitchell Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.14 / 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: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 09:16:54 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <DA0J04.5D4@cix.compulink.co.uk>, nhill@cix.compulink.co.uk
("Nicholas Hill") wrote:

> I agreee cross-posting activity is undesirable for the net.
> 
> I would typically not respond to cross-postings as a matter of principle. 
> In this instance, i had headers switched off so it was'nt obvious the 
> message had been cross-posted.

Nicholas, we need to be very clear as to what we mean when we criticize
"cross posting." As the term is normally used, cross-posting refers to the
posting of one article to two or more newsgroups at the same time. Nothing
in this definition refers to the question of whether one has selected the
groups carefully with an eye to ensuring that the post will be on topic in
all the groups. All that counts is that the postings to the various groups
take place simultaneously--which, of course, can only be accomplished
under software control. This means that Wallace could post the same
message to his ten groups, but do each in a separate e-main operation, and
he would not be cross posting! In other words, if Wallace does it all
manually, by your rationale, he could continue to post the same articles
to the same groups that he posts to now, and you would not object! But, of
course, this clearly is not your intent. You do not object to the fact
that he is using software to make efficient posts. What you really object
to is the fact that, in your opinion, his posts are off-topic in
sci.physics.fusion. Bottom line: this isn't about cross posting at all. It
is about whether Wallace has a right to decide where he posts, as I have
been saying from the beginning. I would also add, as an aside, that
cross-posting makes a more efficient utilization of system resources than
does manual posting, and is thus a good thing not merely from the
standpoint of the person doing the posting, but also from the standpoint
of everyone else. There are hundreds of thousands of access providers on
the internet who maintain newsgroups on their databases. When they receive
a packet containing a message cross-posted to ten groups, that message
only gets stored once, with a pointer to each newsgroup to which it is
posted. But when the same message comes in via ten separate packets, each
referencing a single newsgroup, the message gets stored ten separate times
on the newsgroup database, each with a pointer to one group. The gross
inefficiency of the latter method is obvious. Bottom line: this isn't
about cross-posting, its about who decides where Wallace, and everybody
else, gets to post. Are we each to be permitted to decide for ourselves,
so long as we act in good faith, or not? And, if not, then will someone
please explain to me how we are to protect ourselves from harassment, if
doing the best we can isn't good enough? --Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.14 / 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: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 09:30:35 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

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

> 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

Gee, why am I not surprised! If you guys go off by yourselves and leave
the rest of us alone, you won't be able to impose your will on us! You
need us! The censor will be frustrated if he is not permited to associate
with the person he wants to censor! Without victims, where would criminals
be?

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.15 / John Logajan /  Re: fusion and kwashiorkor
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fusion and kwashiorkor
Date: 15 Jun 1995 00:48:17 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

zp00121@UABDPO.DPO.UAB.EDU wrote:
: I was wondering if there might be a connection between the fact that stars
: fuse up to Fe before they supernova and the fact that the most credible
: hypothesis for kwashiorkor, a disease of malnourished children characterized
: by edema, skin lesions, and bleached hair, signs that iron catalyzed free
: radical reactions have gone haywire.

Not really.  Iron is unique in it's nuclear "binding energy" in that to form
heavier nuclie than iron takes energy.  So you might view the creation of
iron in a star as the creation of spent fuel (ash.)  When the fuel to
heat the star runs out, it cools and begins to collapse inward.  This
gravitational collapse adds the energy to create the heavier nuclie.
I believe this last gasp happens rather quickly and that explains the
run-away gravitational collapse, which can rebound a bit and give up
some of its final energy in an explosive reaction, the nova or supernova.

It really isn't related to the chemical properties of iron.  There are,
after all, other human maladies related to various chemicals that have
no bearing on the life of stellar objects.

--
 - 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:
cuddy15 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.14 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: s.p.fusion charter (was Re: attn Bryan Wallace)
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: s.p.fusion charter (was Re: attn Bryan Wallace)
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 09:47:50 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <3rka0m$d5@ds8.scri.fsu.edu>, jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:

> 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.

***{Therefore new approaches to fundamental physics are relevant. The
reason: cold fusion is impossible according to the precepts of mainstream
theoretical physics. Until a satisfactory explanation for cold fusion is
found, or enough evidence is foud to convince proponents that it does not
exist, there will be interest in new theoretical approaches in this forum.
--Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
> 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.

***{Totally bogus: the charter uses the word "curtail" in reference to
cross-posting. According to my dictionary, curtail means "to cut off a
part of, abridge, reduce, or diminish." Note that it does not mean "to
eliminate." Thus a reasonable interpretation of the charter's comments
about cross-posting is that they refer to inappropriate cross posting, not
to all cross posting. Thus we are back to square one: the issue is (a)
whether Bryan Wallace's cross posts are appropriate or not (I say they
are), and, far more importantly, (b) who decides (i.e., Wallace, or the
"goon squad"). --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:
cuddy14 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.14 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Books/ Information/ Demonstration of Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Books/ Information/ Demonstration of Cold Fusion
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 16:58:44 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On Mon, 12 Jun 1995, Nicholas Hill wrote:

> 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.
> 
> Can anyone suggest where i could see such an experiment taking place, 
> prefrably allowing me to take measurements. I am in London and would 
> prefer a local sight. Alternatively, can someone point me to some reading 
> matter which gives concise information how to set an experiment up?

Off-hand, I can't think of a single UK lab that tried CNF, except Harwell
(the classic Williams et al study) with a resounding null; so you're out of
luck in the UK, I reckon. Oh, be warned: there are those who believe that the
Harwell experiment in fact got a positive result but swept it under the 
carpet.

> Can someone clearly illustrate what the main claimed cold fusion 
> experiments are and the differences between them?

This is a tall order, droog. The bibliography now has just under 1000 
published papers in it (you can get the files by ftp, see my recent update)
and a great number of techniques have been tried. A number of metals, in a
number of electrolytes, both heavy and light water, and using a variety of
current (charging) regimes (to pulse or not to pulse) and even irradiation, 
and the metal as chunks, wires, foils, plates, films on beads, sponge,
suspension; metal/gas  systems with and without temperature cycling; 
zapping between deuterated metal electrodes, passing large currents through
ditto, applying high pressure, up to diamond anvil regimes; glow discharge,
ion beams; deuterated ferroelectrics up and down past the Curie temperature; 
shooting high-speed pellets at deuterated crystals; ultrasonics; and even 
just mixing the contents of two test-tubes; and lately we have a water 
stirrer (Al paddle) generating free-lunch heat supposedly by ultrasonics 
(not properly published, they just sell the thing). You name it, it's been 
tried, so take your pick. Have fun.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.14 / Richard Schultz /  Re: comments on the Cravens demo
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: comments on the Cravens demo
Date: 14 Jun 1995 15:11:51 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

Dick Blue (wiser than I) is apparently ignoring Mitchell Swartz's latest
missive, but I have at least one question.

In article <DA2v35.HAt@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

>Generally speaking, helium-4 is made in the palladium
>systems, although other products occur if the samples
>are of lower purity or coherence length.

What exactly do you mean by "coherence length" in this context?  I have
only heard the term used to refer to lasers, where it is a function more
of the laser design, and only indirectly the nature of the laser medium.

But I will admit that I am baffled as to what significance (or meaning)
the term could have in the context of "fusion" or even fusion.  Would
you be so kind as to enlighten us?
--
					Richard Schultz

"A fool always finds a greater fool to admire him." -- Nicolas Boileau
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.14 / mitchell swartz /  Some Sensors Censor (was "Merriman's "Regionalization" counter-")
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Some Sensors Censor (was "Merriman's "Regionalization" counter-")
Subject: Re: Merriman's "Regionalization" counter-examples not valid
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 15:27:24 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <USE2PCB979372343@brbbs.brbbs.com>
Subject: Re: Merriman's "Regionalization" counter-examples not valid
mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes:
 
-> 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.
           [jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)]

"This brings up something which caught my attention about a month ago.  I read
somewhere that if you stare at the blue sky you can see "orgone energy" as lots
of little tadpole or sperm like things zooming all over the sky.  I had never
noticed this and not believing in orgone energy I dismissed it.  However about
3 days later after jogging, I laid down on my back to rest and rested my eyes
while looking at the blue sky, and behold there they were.  I almost jumped out
of my skin.  Playing with the focusing of my eyes they appeared to be about 40
feet away."
"Well I was about to dismiss this as some sort of self delusion when my
granddaughter got and lost a helium balloon at O'Charleys resturant.  My
21 year old son, and myself were watching the balloon as it slowly
disappeared into the wild blue yonder.  At this point my son said in a very
serious voice, "dad, I think something is wrong with my eyes, I am see all
these squiggly things when I look at the sky."  Now mind you I never discussed
this with him, and he had no idea I was seeing, but ignoring, the same thing.
Thus the possibility of self delusion seemed to be disproven."
"A couple of weeks later I was at a meeting with 6 other people and mentioned it
to them.  5 of them replied that, yes they had seen it as well, and a couple
said it was energy.  At this point I am befuddled.  How can a phenomenon be so
easy to see with your naked eye, yet I have never read of it in any scientific
journal.  I have no idea if it is real, psychic, an aberration of they eye or
what."

  Amazing.  And it appears that some of  these people attempt to put down 
cold fusion and other solid state phenomena using hand-waving "magic
arguments"

 Here is a suggestion for how science will resolve
Marshalls-orgone energy-tadpolelike things. 

.  You might get a book Marshall -- on the eye. 
Then get  a small penlight and your
son and enough time to examine the blood vascular system which is in
front of your eye's retina.   It actually is scaffolded there in the
stereoconstellation of the orbit ALL THE TIME but is never seen because it 
MOVES with your eye's retina and therefore disappears (except for the
"floaters" or blood cells within the vascular tree which move and 
are therefore seen).  [go read the classic texts on what the 
"frogs eye tells the frogs brain"; key names: McCulloch, Pitts, Lettvin]

  to see the vessels:
  The flashlight should be depressed gently between the eyeball
and the skull above the central axis of the eye.  Maybe  a millimeter or
two depression, and then if you move the flashlight back and forth so that
the light is the vector fixed to the central retina, and so that
the SHADOW of the vessels -- made by the penlight --
impact the retina, then the blood vessels will suddenly appear, and be seen to
disappear into your blind spot.  When the penlight is stopped moving,
they will disappear because the eye-brain does not see non-moving
objects.

   Psychic energy indeed.  Get a book and study this, and how the
retina deconvolves it all.  Then you might go and really read up on
cold fusion this time.            ;-)X

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


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.14 /  jedrothwell@de /  So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares?
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 95 11:42:45 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I wrote that it does not matter whether CF is fusion or not, and "the only
thing we can be sure of is that it is NOT chemistry." Several people seem to
want to clarify this non-issue. mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
writes:
 
     "Or nuclear reactions.
 
     The experimental non-evidence for nuclear reactions is certainly as
     compelling as the non-evidence for chemical reactions."
 
Yes? Well . . . so what? Why does it matter whether it is a nuclear reaction
or not? People will pay for it either way. The customer does not care where
the energy comes from.
 
In point of fact, this statement is technically incorrect. There is lots of
evidence that some CF reactions are nuclear, and zero evidence that they are
chemical. Nuclear evidence includes the fact that some CF reactions produce
helium commensurate with a fusion reaction, and some produce low levels of
tritium. You cannot transmute elements or isotopes with a chemical reaction.
The specifics of this nuclear reaction are still not understood.
 
But, as I said, it does not make a dime's worth of difference where the heat
comes from, just as long as you can buy a terrajoule of it for a penny and
sell it for a hundred dollars. What matters is m-o-n-e-y: the bottom linem
profit, scratch, moola, the big jack. That is MUCH more important than
physics.
 
Really, I cannot imagine why anyone gives a darn what causes CF energy.
Scientists seem obsessed with that issue to the exclusion of all practical
concerns. There are hundred questions more important than that, starting with:
How much does it cost? Answer: virtually nothing. How much can we sell it for?
Lots! What is the fuel consumption? Too small to measure. How much pollution
does it generate? None. Those are important questions. "What causes it?" is a
trivial question, way down the list.
 
 
In response to those same comments, mrichar353@aol.com (Mrichar353) writes:
 
     "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."
 
I disagree. I think the only way to put the subject to bed is to
commercialize, sell millions of units, and put the DoE and OPEC out of
business.
 
 
     "Would be nice to have one of these "working" setups donated to some
     reputable researchers with the challenge to explain what is going on."
 
No, it would be a waste of time. Most "reputable researchers" at academic
locations don't know what they are doing. "Reputable researchers" at the DoE
are crooks and liars. "Reputable researchers" at most energy companies have
orders not to find things like CF. No, the only people who can deal with this
properly are corporate R&D scientists and rich inventors like Patterson and
Potapov. They are exactly the right people, and they are doing CF research,
filing patents, and working to commercialize.
 
 
     "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."
 
No, we need to keep them apart. People like Steve Jones, Dick Blue, Tom Droege
and Barry Merriman have a track record of being wrong, wrong and more wrong,
so they have no role to play in this research. The people who make it work
know a terrific amount about what is happening. They are the ones who will
figure it out. People who don't do experiments know nothing.
 
 
     "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."
 
Who knows? Who cares?
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.14 /  jedrothwell@de /  Barry Merriman is irrational and unscientific
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Barry Merriman is irrational and unscientific
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 95 11:43:46 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

3barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) is irrational and unscientific. He
writes:
 
     "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."
 
This is topsy-turvy logic. Let us go over the assertions here.
 
1. Merriman thinks there is a mistake. He offers no reason for that. He
certainly cannot prove that the machine violates any laws of physics, because
it does not. There is no evidence that it violates conservation of energy or
any other law, and nobody has ever seriously suggested it does.
 
2. It is "a challenge" (difficult) to figure out why "folks" (scientists)
cannot find this mistake, because:
 
3. The configuration is simple.
 
Well, if the configuration is simple, then any mistake will be simple to find.
That stands to reason. There are, as I have pointed out countless times, only
three parameters: temperature, weight of water, input electrical energy. After
many months of empty, useless talk, it has become obvious that no "skeptic"
can think of a single reason to doubt the measurements. Nobody disputes that
the temperature is correct to within one degree F; mass to within one-half
pound; and electric power to within 0.1% (G.E.'s specs for the Dranetz).
Anyone can walk into Hydro Dynamics and test the thermometers, the weight
scale, and the Dranetz to confirm this. Anyone can draw a set of error bars
from these figures and see that the excess is miles and miles above them. So
there are no holes in the measurements. None has been found by any of the
scientists who visited, or the customers, or by Droege or anyone else.
Obviously, there are no remaining holes to be found because -- as Merriman
himself admits -- the configuration is simple. It could not be simpler.
 
Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that the measurements are correct
and the heat is real. I do not see how anyone who calls himself a scientist
could arrive at any other conclusion. Merriman gives us no logical reason for
rejecting the data, and no physical laws upon which he bases his assertions.
 
If there can be a hole, where is it Berry? If there are more than three
parameters, what is the fourth one? I say put up or shut up! Do you assert the
thermometers are not correct to within 1 deg F? Prove it! You can't. Your
assertions are empty.
 
Don't weasel out of the discussion. Show us some science, or shut up.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.14 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: a ZPF primer
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: a ZPF primer
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 10:18 -0500 (EST)

mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353) writes:
 
-> 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.
 
Is this not circular reasoning?  Quantum mechanics was developed to explain why
certain things, like the electon not spiraling into the nucleus, happen, and
the equations were developed to match the experimental evidence.  I don't think
there is the knowledge of WHY this is so.  Now to say that it is explained by
quantum mechanics I think is quite naive.
 
-> 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.
 
Is not the full equation of the field detailed knowledge enough?
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.14 / 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: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 10:40:07 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

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

My first reaction to the above sentence was to assume that "all those
groups" refered to the physical bits of information in those groups, as
stored on thousands of databases scattered throughout the internet. I made
that assumption out of necessity, because that is where Wallace's post
went out to. However, I have since received a message suggesting that
Britz is guilty of muddled thinking--i.e., that "all those groups" means
one thing in the first part of his sentence (before the comma), and
another thing in the second part of the sentence. In the first part of the
sentence, Britz equated "all those groups" with the physical bits of
information in the groups listed by Wallace, as stored on thousands of
databases scattered throughout the internet. However, in the second part
of the sentence, Britz equated "all those groups" with "all" and
simultaneously switched the meaning to refer to the words used by Wallace
to symbolize those groups on his newsgroup line! In other words, Britz
intended to say something such as the following:   

"Although Wallace's post listed ten groups on the newsgroup line, I
deleted nine of them when I replied to him. It can be done."

Could this be what Britz intended? I certainly hope so and, looking at his
newsgroup line, I see that he did in fact delete nine of the groups listed
by Wallace!  

Speak up, Dieter, are you a cancelbot renegade, or not?

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.14 / Horacio Gasquet /  Re: Same old same old...
     
Originally-From: Horacio Gasquet <gasquet@fusion.ph.utexas.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Same old same old...
Date: 14 Jun 1995 16:12:38 GMT
Organization: Fusion Research Center  UT Austin


chris@efi.com (Chris Phoenix) wrote:
>
>I followed sci.physics.fusion for a couple of years after cold fusion
>first made the news.  I eventually stopped following it because I
>realized that it hadn't changed in the past year: it was composed of
>the same topics.  Change the names and dates, and you couldn't tell
>which year a day's postings were from.  When I realized this, I
>realized that the field was going absolutely nowhere--at least as
>reported in the newsgroup.
>

Wasn't there an article in Physics Today this month about Psudo-Science 
that mentioned cold fusion?  If cold fusion is real, you have to 
establish a mechanism.  Crack growth?  It's a stretch but maybe.  
Someone has to do an experiment to test it.  Nothing short of STM 
measurements correlated to a highly localized measure of nuclear 
activity would convince me that it is real.


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudengasquet cudfnHoracio cudlnGasquet cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 / Jim Carr /  Re: science power and religion
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: science power and religion
Date: 13 Jun 1995 17:01:33 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <3rao7f$5lm@overload.lbl.gov> 
Jean-Paul Biberian <jpb@sunspot.ssl.berkeley.edu> writes:
>
>Science Power and Religion

>Another interesting comparison between science and 
>religion is their inability to accept changes. 

The major problem with your thesis is that the evidence from 
two contemporary events, high-Tc superconductivity and cold 
fusion, does not support your thesis.  In both cases a large 
number of scientists set out to duplicate the experiments as 
described in the initial publications.  In both cases there 
were claims of success in those attempts very early on.  The 
shift in opinions to a particular conclusion followed rather 
different outcomes as those experiments were studied further. 

In another case, where the data were slower to be understood, it 
still took less than 5 years for the quark hypothesis to be 
accepted widely across the physics community once charmonium 
and its excited states were seen at SLAC.  

Change that is supported by clear and unambiguous experimental 
evidence happens rather easily in science. 

-- 
 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 
------------------------------
1995.06.14 / Horacio Gasquet /  Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
     
Originally-From: Horacio Gasquet <gasquet@fusion.ph.utexas.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
Date: 14 Jun 1995 16:29:58 GMT
Organization: Fusion Research Center  UT Austin

Yes, the budget looks bad.

     Clinton is likely to veto the whole Rep. budget proposal so there 
is some hope, but congress is really doing a number on us.

Here are my fears:

    1)  They cut everything except for ITER as proposed (some small 
exceptions may exist)

    2)  University level research is killed and people everywhere are 
layed off right as I am graduating.  (Not that I am staying in fusion)

    3)  A year or two down the road they cancel ITER because it was 
conceived in another budget climate and we really cannot afford it.


The result:  Magnetic Fusion research will be totally gutted.  This is 
going to be a one two punch that will totally wipe out the field just as 
we are starting to understand H-mode and have really cool new ideas like 
helicity injection and low aspect ratio tokamaks like HIT and Start that 
we would like to scale up.

Check out the proposal for USTX at the Fusion Research Center
http//w3fusion.ph.utexas.edu

Here is a nice 1MA machine that has been carefully designed with current 
budget pressures in mind.  A reactor relevant machine for less than $10M 
per year including construction costs.  Only $4M/year for 80 employees, 
computers, and operation costs is not a bad deal.  This really is a 
bargan, but alas, the current budget could not even support this 
program.

Get your resume's up to date.  Unless congress wakes up an realizes that 
ITER is a waste of money, we are all going to suffer.


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudengasquet cudfnHoracio cudlnGasquet cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.14 / 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: 14 Jun 1995 16:41:41 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <21cenlogic-1406950147380001@austin-1-3.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:
> In article <ts_zemanian-1306951243280001@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov>,
> ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) wrote:
> 

[deletia]

> > 
> > 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?
> 
> ***{Here's one way to do it: you whip up a mob mentality among those who
> are inclined to want to bully and intimidate others. You call the mob a
> "goon squad," and you persuade the members of your "goon squad" to talk to
> their friends, and they to theirs, and so on, persuading everybody to
> e-mail "nastygrams" to Bryan Wallace. Result: you flood him with e-mail in
> such volume that he literally doesn't have time to sift out the real
> messages from the bogus ones. Another way to do it would be
> programmatically--i.e., by mailbombing. You could simply put an e-mail
> program into an incrementing loop, so that it sends out thousands of bogus
> messages to one person, in much the same manner that "spammers" send out
> thousands of posts to different newsgroups. Now, frankly, I have no idea
> which method was used on Wallace, but he did say that he could no longer
> read his e-mail, so it appears that he was victimized one way or the
> other. 

Or, simply, that he had trouble with the system unrelated to anything
anyone sent him.

> 
> Here is my return question to you: do you think the "nastygram" harassment
> technique is appropriate to the internet? Do you want to be vulnerable to
> every nut case and pressure group on the net who might take offense at
> something you say or who might disagree with where you choose to post? How
> would you feel if your mail reader were overwhelmed by harrassing
> messages? Even worse, if we assume that Derek Britz's post means what it
> seems to mean, how do you feel about that? Do you believe that assault by
> cancelbot is OK?

As for the mailbombing, I would complain to the postmasters at the
offending site(s).

Dieter (not Derek) Britz removed extraneous *newsgroups* from the header
of *his*own*post*only*, apparently to demonstrate the ease with which a
newsgroups line and a followups line can be trimmed.  I've not seen
anything even vaguely suggesting forged cancels were involved.  Calm down.

> ***{Who, me? I don't use no steenking cancelbots! :-) --Mitchell Jones}***

Neither has anyone else involved.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.14 / Akira Kawasaki /  Douglas Morrison's full article re-posted (Re: Article in Tribune de Geneve.)
     
Originally-From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Douglas Morrison's full article re-posted (Re: Article in Tribune de Geneve.)
Date: 14 Jun 1995 17:08:26 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <9506040827.AA18176@dxmint.cern.ch> drom@vxcern.cern.ch writes: 
>

I have taken the liberty of re-posting this earlier important post by
drom@vxcern.ch which seems to have been missed by the discussions going
on.
-AK-

>DM-95-4
>The article below appeared in the Tribune de Geneve on 31 May 1995.
>This is a translation into English. The titles and subtitles are the
>responsibility of the Tribune editors.
>
>        INVESTORS DOUBT COLD FUSION. PERHAPS ITS SECOND DEATH 
> 
>  THE SOURCE OF ENERGY REVEALED IN 1989 HAS ALREADY BEEN DENOUNCED BY
>MANY SCIENTISTS. THE ENTERPRISES WHICH HAS INVESTED IN THIS SECTOR
>SEEM NOW TO BE RETIRING ON THE TIPS OF THEIR TOES.
>  
>                   By Douglas MORRISON, physicist.
>
>    "Cold Fusion is dead, isn't it?" is a question I have often been
asked
>these last few years. This simple question is hard to answer. Over 99%
of the
>world's scientists think it is dead scientifically, but Fleischmann
and Pons
>and a small group of several hundred True Believers have continued and
they
>have been successful in raising funding of tens of millions of
dollars. 
>    This affair began in March 1989 when Fleischmann and Pons, two
>electrochemists working in Utah, announced to the world that they had
found a
>solution to World's energy problems with no pollution. They said that
they
>could cause fusion of the deuterium in heavy water in a jar, giving
abundant
>power which was cheap and non-polluting. 
>
>A NEW SCIENCE IS BORN
>    Almost at the same time, the Exxon Valdez ran aground on the
Alaska coast
>and spilled vast amounts of oil. The photographs of this ecological
catastrophe
>and of the agony of thousands of birds, moved the entire world. This
favoured
>the propagation of cold fusion and soon confirmation of Fleischmann
and Pons's
>results came from experiments in many countries. A new science, that
of "cold
>fusion" was born.
>    Martin Fleischmann was a distinguished electrochemist in England,
and
>Stanley Pons, his student, was a professor in Utah. The Sun's energy
comes from
>fusion of hydrogen atoms giving ultimately atoms of helium and a large
>diffusion of energy. But this happens at very high temperatures, 15
million
>degrees. It is hot fusion. From the fact that palladium can absorb
large
>amounts of hydrogen, the two researchers undertook, by means of
>electrochemistry, to drive heavy hydrogen (deuterium) into the metal,
make the
>nuclei come closer together, and cause fusion at room temperature(cold
fusion)
>giving excess heat.
>    They declared their experiments gave "one watt in, four watts
out". 
>
>PALLADIUM BECOMES SCARCE
>      Almost all large science-based organisations and many small
groups of
>people tried the experiment - palladium became scarce and its price
soared. As
>more confirmations appeared in the media, Fleischmann and Pons raised
their
>claim "one watt in, ten watts out". 
>    However when their scientific paper appeared, some rather obvious
faults
>were pointed out. Some careful experimenters reported finding no
excess heat or
>neutrons or tritium . Doubts began to spread. The US government
started a crash
>programme to investigate - their labs could not reproduce the claims
and a
>panel of 22 outstanding scientists investigated and reported that
there was no
>evidence to support cold fusion. Indeed when they visited labs
claiming to have
>working cold fusion cells, they were never able to see one actually
working!
>
>MILLIONS FLOW IN FOR RESEARCH
>    So by the end of 1989, it seemed cold fusion was dead and the vast
majority
>of the world's scientists abandoned the search for confirmation and
considered
>it simply an unfortunate error. But despite the weight of scientific
evidence,
>Fleischmann and Pons and some colleagues were very persistent. In
addition
>there was a substantial group of people and organisations who had
supported
>cold fusion and who continued to support it very actively despite the
lack of a
>decisive scientific experiment.
>    They were well funded. The State of Utah voted $5 million to set
up a
>National Cold Fusion Institute, NCFI, in Salt Lake City. The powerful
American
>Electrical Power Research Institute, EPRI, also gave millions. While
many
>supporters were scientists, sometimes famous ones such as Nobel
laureate Julian
>Schwinger, others were interested from the ecological aspect and often
they
>claimed that big business and big science were conspiring against them
to
>preserve their existing privileges.
>
>PONS SURFACES IN FRANCE
>    This persecution complex helped to unite them and they became a
cohort of
>True Believers who would not be dissuaded by mere scientific
arguments. Also
>there were a substantial number attracted by financial considerations
since if 
>the claim were true, many billions of dollars would be earned. 
>    Utah finally realised that no results were coming from its
institute. At
>this moment, Pons vanished, leaving no forwarding address and it was
some time
>before it was learnt that he was in the South of France. He and his
colleagues
>had persuaded the boss of the Toyota car company that cold fusion had
a fair
>chance of working. They established a new company, IMRA Europe S.A.,
which
>equipped a fine new laboratory for Fleischmann and Pons to develop
cold fusion
>in the Sophia Antipolis science park in the hills above Nice. Other
Japanese
>companies also became interested and NTT, the company which had the
biggest
>share capitalisation in the world, declared that they had solved the
cold
>fusion mystery and had made it reliable - their share value rose by 8
billion
>dollars in one day, but declined to normal after a few days. 
>    Then the powerful Japanese Ministry of International Trade and
Industry,
>MITI, announced that they were allocating some $30 million to cold
fusion and
>setting up a new agency, New Hydrogen Energy, NHE, which would do
experiments
>in collaboration with other private companies (it was noted that the
name NHE
>avoids saying cold fusion - just in case .....). True Believers could
believe
>that cold fusion was alive and thriving despite the hostility of the
>establishment scientists.  
>
>AN ASTONISHING CONTRADICTION
>       Every so often there would be a new claim which would be sent
to the
>media, but then the excitement would die down again as it was
investigated. An
>amazing thing was that originally Fleischmann and Pons said they knew
they had
>observed nuclear fusion because they observed excess heat with heavy
water but
>not with normal water, but then suddenly some ten groups said they
found excess
>heat with normal light hydrogen. It might have been expected that this
>contradiction would sow doubt in the minds of True Believers but not
at all.
>The most recent flash of excitement was from Bologna in March when the
Rector
>called a press conference to announce that they had done an experiment
with
>normal light hydrogen at Siena and found excess heat reliably, but had
problems
>when a probing journalist asked questions.
>     At Easter was held the 5th International Cold Fusion Conference.
Again it
>was held in luxurious surroundings - a five star hotel in Monte Carlo.
It was a
>very strange meeting, different from previous ones and people were
rather
>despondent afterwards at the lack of progress. Only True Believers
were invited
>plus a few people that they wished to impress. Pons was said to have
influenza
>and never attended any session but was occasionally seen around.
Fleischmann on
>the other hand, spoke four times. The participants expected to visit
the IMRA
>lab on the hills overlooking Cap d'Antibes, but the invitation never
came. What
>is more, the laboratory was closed completely.
>
>UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
>    Mystery! Also one expected to hear from the Bologna/Siena people
who had
>just announced a big discovery, but they never turned up. Then it was
heard
>that EPRI had spent over $10 million on cold fusion but it was hinted
that they
>had stopped further funding. Furthermore the work of the new Japanese
agency,
>NHE, did not seem to support cold fusion. Then there were the
mysteries of IMRA.
>As they still had not reported any results after three years, it was
possible
>that they had found something and hence were keeping commercial
secrecy. But it
>was also possible that they found nothing at all.
>    How much longer will the cold fusion serial last? History teaches
us of
>wrong scientific results which have been propagated for several years.
If the
>original discoverers declared they had made a mistake, then the belief
ended
>quickly. But where the originators persisted and attacked the null
experiments
>which disproved their claim, then the affair has sometimes lasted many
years. 
>As Fleischmann and Pons show no signs of retracting, it may be
expected
>that the True Believers in cold fusion could stay firm for several
years. 
>
>THE KNELL OF COLD FUSION?
>    There may have been a dramatic change in this situation. It has
just been
>learnt from a reliable source, that Fleischmann spends most of his
time in
>England and that Pons is now working on some other project for IMRA.
Now if
>these two originators have stopped devoting all their energies to cold
fusion,
>this could sound the death knell. Did they choose to stop full time
work or did
>IMRA ask them? Doubt if one will ever know as commercial companies
that have
>spent money on bad science, tend to be very discrete about it. 
>    So this seems the second death of cold fusion. This episode has
lasted a
>long time because it raised such great hopes - everyone is an
ecologist now and
>wants cheap abundant energy that is non-polluting. But this dream must
be
>supported by a Science which is good and just.
>
>

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenaki cudfnAkira cudlnKawasaki cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.14 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Books/ Information/ Demonstration of Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Books/ Information/ Demonstration of Cold Fusion
Date: 14 Jun 1995 10:17:51 -0700
Organization: Tektronix Laboratories, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR

In article <xK99F5k.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>"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


It's always obvious and easy, and anyone who doubts is an idiot and a fool
until someone wants to see a demo or do it themselves.

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


You couldn't seriously, scientific discourse with the average high
school student.


Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.14 / Mark North /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: north@nosc.mil (Mark H. North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 16:28:10 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:

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

>> 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.

>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. 

Since you are obviously a clueless newbie allow me to help you out.
First, you need to go over to news.announce.newusers and browse a
while. While there, ask someone about setting followups or trimming
the Newsgroups: line. This is what Dieter is referring to. It is called
netiquette. Its purpose is to reduce irrelevant crossposts.
Next, buy yourself a good dictionary and practice using it on these
words:

censorship
logic
persuasion
civility
etiquette
paranoia
obnoxious

Then, with the change you get from buying the dictionary, buy yourself
a clue.

>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. 

Yeah, how dare he. Let's declare war on Denmark. You ass. After you
get through drooling on your dictionary ask at your high school if you
can get into a class on US government. In that class you will learn that
the 1st amendment is a set of restrictions placed on Congress not on
individuals. It is not a violation of the 1st amendment if someone
stuffs a sock in your mouth because you are an obnoxious asshole.

>Accordingly, I advise Mr. Wallace to report this act to his
>internet provider, and to consult with his attorney. 

While we're waving lawyers around perhaps Dieter should get one and
go after you for libeling him.

>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? 

It certainly wouldn't break my heart if someone did it to you.

> [incredible rant deleted ]

Thanks for urinating on our doorstep. The toilet is just down the hall
next to alt.conspiracy.

>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. 

BTW, ask your doctor to up your Thorazine -- it's not working.

Mark

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.14 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Same old same old...
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Same old same old...
Date: 14 Jun 1995 10:25:30 -0700
Organization: Tektronix Laboratories, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR

In article <3rl7d1$a9c@soenews.ucsd.edu> barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
............
......
...
>Third, and most importantly, I live to see the day when Jed Rothwell
>has to admit that all of CF is a bust :-)

If you believe that Rothwell will ever admit that, you've been smoking
some very strong weed.



Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.14 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: Merriman's "Regionalization" counter-examples not valid
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman's "Regionalization" counter-examples not valid
Date: 14 Jun 1995 18:01:44 GMT
Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here.

MARSHALL DUDLEY (mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com) wrote:

: This brings up something which caught my attention about a month ago.  I read
: somewhere that if you stare at the blue sky you can see "orgone energy" as lots
: of little tadpole or sperm like things zooming all over the sky.  I had never
: noticed this and not believing in orgone energy I dismissed it.  However about
: 3 days later after jogging, I laid down on my back to rest and rested my eyes
: while looking at the blue sky, and behold there they were.  I almost jumped out
: of my skin.  Playing with the focusing of my eyes they appeared to be about 40
: feet away.

I thought these were pieces of crud floating on your eye's lens.  I see
little vaguely bacterium-like dots.  If I think about it, the light
and dark bands look kind of like a Bessel function, e.g. from diffraction.

If they appeared 40 feet away no matter where you were, they 
aren't real.


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.14 / Mark Muhlestein /  Censorship on sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: mmm@park.uvsc.edu (Mark Muhlestein)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Censorship on sci.physics.fusion
Date: 14 Jun 1995 12:37:20 -0600
Organization: Utah Valley State College, Orem, Utah


Mitchell,

Look, this is very simple. No one is trying to censor anybody. Scott
Little was told by Wallace that people reading s.p.f wanted to see his
"Farce" posts in that group.  Scott then posted, asking the group if
they in fact wanted to see those posts in s.p.f, and the overwhelming
result was "no."

John Logajan's "goon squad" tactic of sending email reminders to those
crossposting unwanted articles seems like a reasonable response to me.
Since you apparently aren't familiar with John's contributions to this
group, you did not realize John was having a bit of fun in using the
term "goon squad." John is a staunch Libertarian, and would be the last
one to try to restrict someone else's freedom.

I have been reading this newsgroup since 1989, and I can assure you that
this is one group which is very open to discussions of (on topic) new
ideas. You appear to show little familiarity with the group, and your
criticisms are pathetically wide of the mark. I'd suggest that you find
out a little more about the actual situation before you get more worked
up about this nonexistent "threat." Your efforts would be better spent
trying to convince people who actually want to censor on-topic posts
(e.g. alt.religion.scientology).

I'm appending some original articles for reference. I hope you will
read them carefully and reconsider whether your response wasn't perhaps
too strong.

==========================================================================
> Message-ID: <3r2i84$b8s@boris.eden.com>
> From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
> I have been communicating with Bryan Wallace, the originator of the many
> Farce of Physics posts that fill this newsgroup.  I have asked him to
> stop cross-posting into this newsgroup and he tells me that many of his
> active readers are in this newsgroup.  If that is true, then perhaps he 
> has reason to be posting here.
> 
> Please indicate your choice in this matter.  I will tally the responses
> and forward them to Mr Wallace.
> ____ I wish to see all Farce of Physics posts disappear from s.p.f.
> ____ I like the Farce of Physics posts being in s.p.f.
> ____ other, please explain:
==========================================================================
> Message-ID: <3r37hq$nn7@stratus.skypoint.net>
> I just did a little investigative work.  Of the last 195 unexpired articles
> in my newsreader only a single Farce posting was posted with s.p.f. as the
> only newsgroup (by a Mr. Hill.)  All others included multiple newsgroups
> such as:
> 
> [deleted]
> 
> And in any event, it is irrelevent if posters from this or any other
> group respond to Wallace -- what is relevent is if the contents of those
> postings are within the charter of the newsgroup to which they are
> posted.
> 
> However, even if you got Wallace to stop his childish behavior, you
> still have to get all the other responders to his postings to likewise
> trim the follow-up groups.  So getting Wallace to stop is not going
> to solve the problem.
> 
> The only effective solution is for each and every Farce posting you
> see cross-posted to that bizarre array of newsgroups is to send a
> nasty-gram to the originator of the posting -- Wallace or otherwise,
> telling them to knock it off.  They won't like it and their responses
> won't be pretty -- but that's what the job entails.
> 
> Who'll volunteer to join our little goon squad? 
> --
>     - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -

==========================================================================
Mark Muhlestein -- mmm@park.uvsc.edu

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmmm cudfnMark cudlnMuhlestein cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.14 / Scott Little /  Re: a ZPF primer
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: a ZPF primer
Date: 14 Jun 1995 13:19:55 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

In article <3rlgo9$quk@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353) says:
>
>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 role of the ZPF in the stability of atoms has been analyzed  in a
paper entitled "Ground state of hydrogen  as a
zero-point-fluctuation-determined state", H.E. Puthoff, Physical 
Review D, Vol 35, No 10, 15 MAY 1987.

In this paper, Puthoff demonstrates that you can calculate the ground
state of the H atom simply by assuming the existence of the ZPF...

>If I am not mistaken, Puthoff is somewhat of a crank. Lot's of
>metaphysical talk.

It's possible to be both interested in metaphysics and a competent
physicist. Puthoff is.

>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.

Speculative, I agree but not without analytical support.

The idea that inertia is a result of the ZPF has also been explored in 
considerable detail in a paper entitled "Inertia as a zero-point-field 
Lorentz force", Bernhard Haisch, Alfonso Rueda, H.E. Puthoff, Physical
Review A, Vol 49, No 2, FEB 1994.

Rueda is responsible for the difficult mathematics in this paper and I
regret to say that I cannot follow it.  However, the fundamental concept 
is easy enough to grasp and very appealing to me as an engineer, mainly
because it at least opens up the possibility that inertia, being a Lorentz
force, could somehow be manipulated!

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.14 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Merriman's "Regionalization" counter-examples not valid
     
Originally-From: rschultz@phoenix.princeton.edu (Richard H. Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman's "Regionalization" counter-examples not valid
Date: 14 Jun 1995 17:53:25 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <Ji58976.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>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. 

If you agree that N-Rays were indeed "regionalized" (i.e. not accepted 
outside of France) then why did you say that it was not a valid example
of "regionalization"?

>The number of papers peaked at 50 or so. See the Sci. Am. article referenced
>in my thread "N-Rays and Cold Fusion FAQ."

You mean the article by Irving Klotz that I mentioned in my followup on
the topic?  And why not the lecture by Langmuir, or does that one hit
too close to home?
--
					Richard Schultz

"You don't even have a clue as to which clue you're missing." -- Miss Manners
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenrschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.14 /  jedrothwell@de /  I apologize on behalf of Morrison (and Jones!)
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: I apologize on behalf of Morrison (and Jones!)
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 95 14:51:00 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Steve Jones, in a monumental display of irrationality, apparently wants *me*
to apologize because Morrison is a slimeball. He writes:
 
     "I find nothing in my own experience with Douglas which would indicate
     that he is a "slimy racist"  or "unfit to report on any scientific or
     social issue." . . . Jed, you should be ashamed of yourself for such
     reprehensible attacks."
 
Okay, Steve. You asked for it! This is weird, because I am not Morrison. I
don't go around to college campuses displaying maps and cooked-up "statistics"
to prove that only white people can think. He does! But okay: I hereby
apologize on Morrison's behalf for polluting the cold fusion debate with
rumors, nonsense, and racist ideology that would make a vulture throw up. It
isn't my job to apologize, but Morrison never will -- he brags about doing
this stuff!
 
Is that better?
 
Or could it be that you yourself believe in the "Regionalization" theory?
Could it be that you really, truly find "nothing" in your own experience, or
in history, that resembles these ideas? I'll tell where to look: read David
Duke, or Mein Kampf. For that matter, read the 19th century attacks on the
Mormons. It is the same old story: "People who are not like me cannot think.
They can't do science. They cannot read a thermometer. I know in advance that
everything they do is 'pathological' because [their skin is a different
color / their religion is different / they don't speak English / etc. / etc.]"
 
 
Now that I have apologized for Morrison, maybe I should work on a mea culpa
for you too, Steve. You apparently launched another one of your patented sneak
attacks in this latest bogus "paper" that "proves" Miles is wrong. Naturally,
you did not tell him what you were up to. He was mighty upset when he found
out you intended to publish without giving him a chance to review the paper or
respond. He sent me copies of the letters he wrote, and asked me to post them
on Internet. I find the whole story so sordid that I have avoided posting
them. I was hoping that at the last moment you might reconsider and act like a
scientist and a scholar. But no, I see you went ahead with it, so maybe I will
go ahead and post the truth about you again. I apologize in advance for
showing the world what a slimeball you are.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.14 / Mark North /  Re: Merriman's "Regionalization" counter-examples not valid
     
Originally-From: north@nosc.mil (Mark H. North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman's "Regionalization" counter-examples not valid
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 18:28:29 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes:

>This brings up something which caught my attention about a month ago.  I read
>somewhere that if you stare at the blue sky you can see "orgone energy" as lots
>of little tadpole or sperm like things zooming all over the sky. 

These are white blood cells. Try it sometime when you have an infection
or fever -- you'll see lots more.

Mark

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.14 / David Baraff /  Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares?
     
Originally-From: baraff@cs.cmu.edu (David Baraff)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares?
Date: 14 Jun 1995 19:16:07 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <RS1dF59.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>What matters is m-o-n-e-y: the bottom linem
>profit, scratch, moola, the big jack. That is MUCH more important than
>physics.

I think that Jed has finally defined himself.

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbaraff cudfnDavid cudlnBaraff cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.14 / Barry Merriman /  Re: a ZPF primer
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: a ZPF primer
Date: 14 Jun 1995 19:27:56 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3rlgo9$quk@newsbf02.news.aol.com> mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353)  
writes:
> 
> 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.
> 

Well, its all a bit circular, as the existence of the ZPF is
a prediction (really extrapolation) of QM, and 
the orbital structure of hydrogen is also a (precise) prediction
of QM. Thus, in the current framework of QM, the ZPF could not be
regarded as explanatory, as it is derivative. I guess the idea
Puthoff wants to project is that the ZPF is more basic than
the theory of QM, and that if we accept it it can be used
to explain other things without QM (he thinks...)

But counter to that, note the standard QM calculation of the energy
levels of H is done assuming a vacuum background, while the experiment
done in the real world have the ZPF background, yet the two agree
with great precision. So, I fail to see the logic of saying the universal ZPF 
determines these energy levels, when it plays no role in the 
theoretical derivation.


> 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.

Well, yes. He was big into ``remote viewing'' psychic experiments
with Russel Targ for years. That in itself would be excusable, but
he definetly seemed to be a true believer type for psychic stuff 
(he bought into the Geller stuff and all that...).

Still, since he really is trained in physics, I'm will to accept
that he might have a useful idea. But the idea that the ZPF determines
atomic structure just doesn't seem to be on solid ground.




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


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.14 / Paul Karol /  Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares?
     
Originally-From: Paul Karol <pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares?
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 15:34:58 -0400
Organization: Chemistry, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.sci.physics.fusion: 14-Jun-95 So what if CF is not
nuclea.. by jedrothwell@delphi.com 
> I wrote that it does not matter whether CF is fusion or not, and "the only
> thing we can be sure of is that it is NOT chemistry." 

Although it is not directly related to the intent of your reply, I must
object to your statement above.  Chemistry is the science of
transformations, of changes.  As a nuclear chemist, I am very well aware
of that general definition.  I include in this scope conventional
chemical changes such as hydrogen iodide decomposing to give hydrogen
and iodine and nuclear changes, such as carbon plus helium giving
oxygen.  So whatever the anomalous hydrogen-palladium mechanism is, if
there is a change, I and many others in the know still regard it as
chemistry.  The question is merely whether or not it is nuclear.

Paul J. Karol
Nuclear CHEMIST


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudfnPaul cudlnKarol cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.14 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Barry Merriman is irrational and unscientific
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Barry Merriman is irrational and unscientific
Date: 14 Jun 1995 19:43:42 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <Ry9-db6.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> 3barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) is irrational and unscientific. He
> writes:
>  
>      "this new species of ``CF'' devices such as the Griggs device,
>      etc, which work by stirring water, is quite interesting. Not because
>      they really produce energy, but because its a challenge to figure out
>      why folks are misunderstanding such a simple configuration."
>  
..
>  
> Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that the measurements are correct
> and the heat is real.

>  
> If there can be a hole, where is it Berry? If there are more than three
> parameters, what is the fourth one? I say put up or shut up! 
> Do you assert the thermometers are not correct to within 1 deg F? 
> Prove it! You can't. Your assertions are empty.
>  

I think you can recall my ``theory'' as to what is going on: 

Phase 1: the device starts up and stores heat, perhaps quite a bit of 
it in the central cyclinder in particular, which is a large 
mass of metal somewhat thermally insulated from the environment 
by the vapor/liquid layer surrounding it. This phase lasts ~ 20 minutes

Phase 2: the fluid in the device goes into a state that
has a reduced effective viscocity (given its a mutliphase flow,
this could easily result from a change in the percentages 
or locations of the liquid, steam and vacuum phases). This results in
less torque on the rotor and thus a drop in the input power
to the motor. This phase lasts ~30 minutes

Phase 3: device is shut down and remaining stored heat is realeased
back to environment. This phases lasts ~ 1 minute

Now: the experiments you conducted, and others you described, only
did a energy balance for phase 2 and phase 3----you ignore the 
energy stored in the system in phase 1. Thus you are missing a potentially
large stored energy (you have no way of knowing it, as you didn;t
measure power in during phase 1, and you can;t measure rotor
temperature).

Further, calculations done in this group clearly show it is possible to 
store enough heat in the rotor (without melting it) to produce
an apparent excess energy Phase 2 run of nearly an hour.


So: the ``fourth variable'' is simple the heat stored
in the device during start up. Surely you can see this 
is a serious gap if you are trying to prove a new source
of energy, from stirred water, has been discovered. You will
also recal that I am not particulalry critical of your experiments,
except that they don't control phase 1.





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


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.14 / Barry Merriman /  Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares?
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares?
Date: 14 Jun 1995 19:49:41 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <RS1dF59.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>  
> Yes? Well . . . so what? Why does it matter whether it is a nuclear reaction
> or not? People will pay for it either way. The customer does not care where
> the energy comes from.
>  

Yes, and on this point: now that you have identified two (or more) companies
(one in eastern Europe, plus Griggs, and maybe E-quest) that are 
actually selling commercial CF devices, why are you not trying
like crazy to get a piece of these companies? I mean, if what you
believe is true, these will be bigger than general electric in a
mater of years.

If I were you, every spare dime I had would be in those companies.


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


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.14 / Scott Little /  Re: Shrinking hydrogen---any QM ways?
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Shrinking hydrogen---any QM ways?
Date: 14 Jun 1995 13:41:30 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

In article <1995Jun13.123021.2275@plasma.byu.edu>, jonesse@plasma.byu.edu says:

>Scott, I think you may be overlooking two important facts about hydrogen in
>metals:
>1.  The hydrogen generally is no longer a molecule or even an atom, but
>rather mainly an ion in an interstitial site in the lattice, with electrons
>shared (in bands).

This is a good point, Steven.  Can one assign an effective energy level to
the H atom's electron in this situation?  If so, is it lower than the 
ground state, indicating an energy loss by the electron.

BTW, do you know the proper sign of the heat of formation of typical hydrides?
i.e. is heat evolved as the hydride forms or is the process endothermic?
If heat is evolved, would'nt that show that something is dropping to a 
lower energy state?

>2.  The separation between hydrogen nuclei in such a lattice is significantly
>*larger* than the separation between p's, d's or t's in isotopic molecular
>forms of hydrogen.  In plain English, the separation of deuterons in a D2
>molecule (for example) is about 0.7 angstroms.  When deuterium saturates
>a palladium lattice, the d-d separation *increases* to about 1.2 angstroms
>(the number is approx., I can look it up again if you really need it).

Most interesting...Off the subject a bit, why do folks think that putting
D into a Pd lattice would enhance the opportunities for fusion, then?



cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Jun 15 04:37:06 EDT 1995
------------------------------
