1995.06.19 / Bill Page /  Re: a ZPF primer
     
Originally-From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: a ZPF primer
Date: 19 Jun 1995 13:08:55 GMT
Organization: Daneliuk & Page

In article <3s35us$66p@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353) says:
>
>Dave, have you ever read an elementary quantum mechanics text? As I posted
>a few days ago to this thread, the QM explanation of the stability of
>atomic matter is not a matter of "defining it away" at all. Read my
>earlier post, which outlined the QM reasoning (which is rather simply
>related to the wave nature of particles).
>
>It's really weird that people have heard of rather far-out explanations of
>physical phenomena while the very successful, 70-year-old QM seems
>completely unknown or at least misunderstood! Should this newsgroup be
>called sci.physics.a.current.affair?

Mark,

To understand the reservations which many people have expressed regarding
the completeness of the conventional QM "explanation", I think you have
to go beyond the level of the typical elementary QM text. At the very
least, the "explanation" which you gave in your earlier message has to
be supplimented by assumptions regarding the (anti-)symmetry of the
many-body electron wavefunction.  And while you are at it, since you have
understood that "particles" do not have trajectories in QM, perhaps
you can review exactly what constituents a "particle" and a
"trajectory" in the conventional theory. You truly must be from the
next generation of physicists if you think that the conventional
theory itself is not a "rather far-out explanation".

Here is a quote I like taken from a recent QM text (which is quite
decent in its coverage of the details of QM but which also doesn't
ignore all of the philosophical issues) "Quantum Mechanics" by Amit
Goswami, Wm C. Brown Publishers, 1992:

> There are two aspects of learning quantum mechanics. The first and
> foremost is, as Richard Feynman used to say, to learn to calculate.
> However, the quantum mechanical way of calculating is quite
> different from the classical ways; one finds that one has to get
> used to a new kind of thinking. And thus I would add a second
> dictum to Feynman's: learn to think quantum mechanically. This will
> involve a certain amount of investment into the exploration for the
> meaning of quantum mechanics, but it's worth it. And if the
> exploration for the meaning occasionally shocks you, you can always
> take consolation from a comment that Niels Bohr made, "Those who
> are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot
> possibly have understood it."


Now, all of this is a bit far removed from the subject of cold fusion,
but I think it is important to keep in mind that some people have argued
against cold fusion on the basis of the presumed completeness of the
present quantum theory and the existing body of experimental evidence
which supports it. This presumption leads them to believe that the
anomalous "CF" phenomena is ruled out by the application of this theory
to the experimental situations in which "CF" has been observed.

In spite of the concise beauty of much of the foundations of QM and the
wide range of its empirical success, I don't think that this confidence
in the theory is warranted. For one thing, exact solutions to the
Schrodinger equation are known only for very simple cases. The
application of QM to most realistic situations requires a number of
significant approximations many of which are not easily justified in
an intuitive manner and amount to additional assumptions which one must
add to QM. And secondly, in spite of many years of effort to re-
concile them, QM and general relativity remain as separate theories.
Even the relativistic quantum field theories remain largely
incomplete except perhaps from some very specific cases (e.g. quantum
electrodynamics - QED).

I think that Feynman's relatively humble view: that QM is "a way of
calculating" should be emphasized more strongly. Feynman did not say
(at least not in this context) that QM was the last word on the nature
of physical reality. Feynman did seem to believe that in the limited
domain of QED, refinements would amount to improvements in the
numerical accuracy of certain physical constants. But it was clear that
he did not think that this applied to the larger domain of physics as a
whole. From "QED The Strange Theory of Light and Matter", Richard P.
Feynman, Princeton University Press, 1985:

> The branches of physics that deal with questions such as
> why iron (with 26 protons) is magnetic, while copper (with
> 29) is not, or why one gas is transparent and another one
> is not, are called "solid-state physics," or "liquid-state physics"
> or "honest physics." The branch of physics that found
> these three simple little actions [QED] (the easiest part) is called
> "fundamental physics" - we stole that name in order to 
> make the other physicists feel uncomfortable! The most
> interesting problems today - and certainly the most practicle
> problems - are obviously in solid-state physics. But
> someone said that there is nothing so practical as a good theory,
> and the theory of quantum electrodynamics is definately a
> good theory!

One thing that all "CF" phenomena seem to have in common is that
they all apparently occur in the solid-state.

In the final chapter "Loose Ends" after summarizing those parts of
quantum mechanics that are not explicitly dealt with in QED, Feynman
observes:

> So that's everything about the rest of quantum physics.
> It's a terrible mix-up, and you might say it's a hopeless mess
> physics has got itself worked into. But it has always looked
> like this. Nature has always looked like a horrible mess, but
> as we go along we see patterns and put theories together;
> a certain clarity comes and things get simpler. The mess I
> just showed you [theory of quarks] is much smaller than the
> mess I would have had to make ten years ago, telling you about
> the more than four hundred particles. And think about the mess
> at the beginning of this century, when there was heat, magnetism,
> electricity, light, X-rays, ultraviolet rays, indices of refraction,
> coeeficients of reflection and other properties of various
> substances, all of which we have since put together
> into one theory, quantum electrodynamics.

And in Feynman's closing remarks, here is where theories like Puthoff's
ZPF theory of inertia start to come in:

> Throughout this entire story there remains one especially
> unsatisfactory feature: the observed masses of the
> particles, m.  There is no theory that adequately explains
> these numbers. We use the numbers in all our theories, but
> we don't understand them - what they are, or where they
> come from. I believe that from a fundamental point of
> view, this is a very interesting and serious problem.
>
> I'm sorry if all this speculation about new particles confused
> you, but I decided to complete my discussion of the
> rest of physics to show you how the *character* of those laws -
> the framework of amplitudes, the diagrams that represent
> the interactions to be calculated, and so on - appears to be
> the same as for the theory of quantum electrodynamics,
> our best example of a good theory.

Don't get me wrong. I do think that theoretical physics has made
enormous gains and that it is important to realize just how much
success there has been. I have spent more than twenty years (off
and on) studying physics and I probably will spend at least that
much more again before I grow too tired. This is not a closed
subject. There is plenty of work to do on both the fundations and
the applications of the theories. In my opinion, the "CF" phenomena
provide just one more opportunity to exercise our developing
skills.

Cheers,
Bill Page.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenwspage cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.19 / Richard Blue /  Reply to Martin Sevior
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Martin Sevior
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 13:35:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Martin,
As for the question of the Cravens pump power being laid to rest,
I believe I have raised a slightly differenct issue.  The total
mechanical work done by the pump on the fluid is not sufficient
to account for more than a small fraction of the observed one
watt of heating that occurs within the dewar portion of the circuit.
That I accept as a know fact, but there are an amazing number of
unknowns about this device that, as far as we know, have not been
investigated.

The calculation of the mechanical work done on the fluid involves,
as you indicate, the multiplication of a flow rate by a pressure
differential.  The flow rate, I assume, is the same for all parts of
the system (no branches), but what pressure differential has been
measured and reported?  There can be several different pressure
differentials to be considered, right?

However, my main point was to make it clear that no single ambient
temperature can describe the external portion of the fluid circuit.
The pump can certainly transfer heat to the fluid stream by thermal
conduction and do work on the fluid inside the pump that would
not be accounted for in measurements of pressure differences outside
the pump.  Thus I am confident that the fluid exits the pump at a
temperature higher than at entry and highter than "ambient."  One
would assume that the fluid is then cooled by heat exchange with
ambient air before it reenters the the cell.  It would seem then
that the highest temperature in the loop is at the pump.

My understanding is that the temperatures recorded are those of
calorimetric significance if you assume that the energy source is
entirely within the dewar.  I think all that can be said about an
external energy source is that its effect does not appear entirely
as heat.  You may be correct that it is not "known chemistry", but
so what?

Now let me jump to the E-quest contamination question.  You express
doubt at there being anything unusual or variable about the level
of atmospheric helium in the lab where the E-quest experiments were
run because the lab was specially ventilated.  In my mind that raises
further doubts that one could be confident that the helium concentration
matches any world average normal standard concentration.  The reason
that lab is ventilated is because there are frequently sources of
strange gases present, right?

I suspect, however, that the contamination question is much more complex
than you and others tend to suspect.  Firstly I ask whether all the
E-Quest results in question arise from experiments conducted at Los Alamos?
Most significant, I believe, is to gain a clear understanding of what samples
were analyzed and how those samples were obtained and processes before
they reached the business end of a mass spec.  Do you know the details
or do you assume that nothing significant was done that could alter the
helium concentrations.

Let me suggest some reasons why I think the "atmospheric helium concentration"
is a bit of a red herring.  The helium, if we are to believe the E-quest
claim, is produced in a bath of D2O.  That sample analyzed for helium is
taken from the argon cover gas.  As far as I know a comparison of the helium
concentration with the atmospheric concentration tells us absolutely nothing
unless the contamination enters the argon directly in the form of a finite
leak.

Now the sample would most likely be saturated with D2O and the instrument used
for the analysis does not resolve D2+ ions from 4He+ ions.  There is an
unexplained step in the measurement process.  Do you know the details about
this step in the analysis?

Interesting bit of information:  The instrument used for the analysis was
designed specifically for the analysis of helium in liquid and solid materials.
Why then are the E-Quest results based on the analysis of the cover gas rather
than the D2O liquid that is supposed to be in direct contact with the helium
source?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.19 / R Atkinson /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: atk@uebemc.siemens.de (Richard Atkinson)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 19 Jun 1995 14:13:50 GMT
Organization: Siemens AG, Munich, Ueb ES 

Bryan Wallace (wallaceb@news.IntNet.net) wrote:

<Complaint about crossposting snipped>

:    I have received a large number of book requests, posts, and related
: correspondence from people who read and post in sci.physics.fusion, and I read
: this newsgroup every day.  I have as much right to post in this group as you

<ridicule of cold fusion snipped>

I'm very interested in how you determine which newsgroup people are posting
from on a crossposted thread. If you can do this with your newsreader
please let me know which one you use.

Also could you give a breakdown on the proportions of posts from each of
the newsgroups you cross post into:

alt.alien.visitors,
alt.paranet.ufo,
alt.philosophy.objectivism,
alt.sci.physics.new-theories,
misc.books.technical,
sci.astro,sci.energy,
sci.misc,
sci.physics,
sci.physics.electromag,
sci.physics.fusion,
sci.physics.particle,
sci.research,sci.skeptic

Thanks in anticipation
Richard
--
+------------------------------------------------------+
| Richard Atkinson        atk@uebemc.siemens.de        |
|                         Phone +49 89 722 22886       |
|                         Fax   +49 89 722 47416       |
| You'll come a waltzing Matilda with me ...           |
+------------------------------------------------------+
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenatk cudfnRichard cudlnAtkinson cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.19 / 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: 19 Jun 1995 05:38:55 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3s31hb$aq7@soenews.ucsd.edu> barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry  
Merriman) writes:
> Given the state of technological illeteracy in our country, and
                                   ^^^^^^^^^
> the tendency for conspiratirial thinking, 
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> there should be no problems with public acceptance of that approach. :-)

Also, I want no comments about problems with illiteracy among
scientists---it should be clear to all who have been observant that I 
don't know how to type.


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


cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.19 / Martin Sevior /  Re:Blue comments on Craven's demo
     
Originally-From: Martin Sevior <msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:Blue comments on Craven's demo
Date: 19 Jun 1995 05:42:55 GMT
Organization: School of Physics, University of Melbourne.

Well Dick I thought the issue of the pump power had been settled. Let's go
through it again. The mechincal power supplied by the pump to the fluid is:

Power = Pressure * flow rate.

From John Logain's home page description of the Craven's set up, the flow rate
is 10 ml/min = 1.6*10^-7 cubic meters/sec. (I can only calculate in MKS units!)

From earlier posts on this subject it seems the pressure differential across
the pump was 14 pounds/square inch = 9.7 * 10^4 Newtons/meters square.

Therefore mechanical power to the fluid is  = 9.7*10^4  * 1.6*10^-7 
                                            = 1.6*10^-2 Watts.

From this it's clear that motion of fluid through the setup cannot come
anywhere near the observed temperature rise. Likewise it's not possible for
any constriction in the fluid flow (as in the filter) to raise the temperature
above that of the cell since the cell provides at least one watt worth of heat
to the cell.

I was willing to admit that the moving elements on the pump MIGHT be at a 
higher temperature than the cell because of a post by Jed which stated that
the motor used by Cravens was very inefficient in the conversion of electrical
energy to mechanical power. It's a long stretch from there to a situation
where the heat generated by the inefficiency in the motor is transported to the 
pump.

I also stand by what I stated about the electrolyte in your "chemical
solution".
I'd love to own the patent rights to a chemical that efficiently absorbs heat
in an aqueaus solution at 20 degrees C without rising in temperature, that then
only releases the heat in a catalytic reaction with Ni/Pd beads.

Can any Chemists out there name a compound that possesses something like
these qualities?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not claiming the Cravens demo proves the existence of
CNF. What it is though is an extremely interesting experiment that deserves 
widespread scrutiny and investigation. Including the chemical possibility 
raised by you. 

However there appear to be a number of people who wish that all "CF"
experiments
cease as they are all a waste of time. I think such an attitude is 
premature in the light of results of at least, Cravens and E-QUEST. 

Martin Sevior

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmsevior cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.19 / Martin Sevior /  Re: C&EN article on Steve Jones vs Miles
     
Originally-From: Martin Sevior <msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: C&EN article on Steve Jones vs Miles
Date: 19 Jun 1995 06:00:49 GMT
Organization: School of Physics, University of Melbourne.

ijames@codon.nih.gov (Carl F. Ijames) wrote:
>There is a 3.5 page article (with two pictures of SJ) in the June 5, 1995
>issue of Chemical & Engineering News (the weekly news magazine of the
>American Chemical Society), entitled  "Cold Fusion Believer Turned Skeptic
>Crusades for More Rigorous Research." 


[much deleted]



>     [description of sonofusion and E-Quest claims skipped]
>     In a message posted on the s.p.f news group in April, Jones made the
>following comments:  "So what is all this talk fo the helium level in the
>E-Quest experiments being much greater than the atmospheric
>concentration?  Rather, one must ask:  What was the helium concentration
>in the lab during the experiments?
>     "I asked this of Russ George (not a Ph.D. scientist, incidentally),
>and he replied that the helium concentration in the lab during the
>experiments was not measured.  I gather that they have not measured the
>helium levels in the lab at all."
>     "I claim therefore that George and Stringham ... cannot rule out
>helium contamination.  Until they measure helium levels in the lab during
>their experiments, their results will remain inconclusive and
>questionable."
>     [more skipped]
>     George previously did accept Jones's offer to bring a portable X-ray
>detector to E-Quest to check their "sonofusion" experiment, but the
>instrument could not be used because of technical problems.
>     In any case, George says Jones's criticisms of the E-Quest helium
>results are "absurd" and expresses concern that Jones's "Internet snipes"
>will be getting a wider venue through this C&EN article.

I'd just like to point out again how unlikely is Steve Jones's explanation
of the E-QUEST results given the entire protocol taken by the experimenters.
The reader should also be aware that the measurements were made in a lab
designed to handle tritium so there are large exhaust fans and a continuous
flow of air through the room.

1. The runs made with blank experiments show a Helium concentration equal
to the initial concentrations of He in the high purity argon atmosphere. This
concentration is a factor of 10 BELOW atmospheric Helium concentrations.

2. The "short" run showed a He concentration about a factor of 10 above
the background in the argon gas. ie. At concentrations equal to atmospheric.

3. The "long" run showed 4He concentrations about a factor of 1000 above
background which is a factor 100 greater than atmospheric concentration.

In each case the He observes correlates nicely which the total excess heat
recorded.

Steve's argument requires a highly leaky arrangement and an atmospheric
He concentration that fluctuations by a factor of 10 BELOW normal to a factor
100 above normal all in a highly ventillated room. I cannot even think of a
means to reduce the local He concentration in a large volume of air.

I leave it to the reader to decide if Steve's arguments are absurd.

Martin Sevior

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmsevior cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.19 /   /  Re: a ZPF primer
     
Originally-From: mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: a ZPF primer
Date: 19 Jun 1995 02:37:16 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

David Davies wrote:

The only arguments I have seen (other than Puthoff et al) just define
the problem away. Putup or shutup. The other irritating habit of the
Defenders of the Faith is name-dropping. A quote from de Broglie would
be interesting but tricky. He seems to have shifted his ground during
the course of his life. 
.......................................................

Dave, have you ever read an elementary quantum mechanics text? As I posted
a few days ago to this thread, the QM explanation of the stability of
atomic matter is not a matter of "defining it away" at all. Read my
earlier post, which outlined the QM reasoning (which is rather simply
related to the wave nature of particles).

It's really weird that people have heard of rather far-out explanations of
physical phenomena while the very successful, 70-year-old QM seems
completely unknown or at least misunderstood! Should this newsgroup be
called sci.physics.a.current.affair?

Mark Richardson
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmrichar353 cudln cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.19 / Paul Koloc /  Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 05:37:57 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3rtk9s$r4t@cnn.Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@pho
nix.princeton.edu> writes:
>In article <3rn2q6$o0p@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> Horacio Gasquet,
>gasquet@fusion.ph.utexas.edu writes:
>(Fears about next year's budget.)

>>     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)

>I just started to realize that if the cuts go *really* deep, then
>all the obvious spin-off fields (other areas of plasma research,
>Wall-Street type jobs, industry, etc) will be glutted with physicists
>too.  So even if you leave the field it's likely to be tough.  Damn!
 
>>     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.

>It's definitely not going to be a fun summer around here either.
>Gridlock doesn't seem so bad when you're about to get run over!
>I used to think speaking up for science didn't matter too much
>(though I enjoyed it), but now, hearing American political leaders
>spouting the same sort of confused and technically inaccurate
>stuff that Limbaugh does, it's clear that that attitude won't work.

It's just that the books have to be balanced, Bob.  You and your
lofty buddies have been soaring on borrowed Japanese money, and the
plug is being pulled.  The value of the dollar is in the dumpster.  
Wake up.  The joy ride couldn't go on forever, and besides you didn't
seem to be so depressed when the Alternative Concepts where cut
and those groups were shut down with most of their personell dumped.  

>I think the act of sharing one's science with the public (so that 
>they *understand* it, at least at some level, and aren't simply
>trying to balance your voice against someone else's to decide who
>is right by the sound of things) should be a considered a professional 
>responsibility as important as doing the original research in the 
>first place.  Science is obviously valuable as it becomes new 
>technology and improved standards of living, but people don't seem
>to realize that you can't have the benefits without doing the research
>first.  Of course, the current Republican plan for DOE eliminates all 
>science education funding too.  Oh well.

But Bob, you are not supposed to be doing "science" but to be "using"
science to be doing engineering work to create a workable fusion reactor.  
The National Science Foundation does "Science" and the DoE isn't needed
to do "Science" so .. ... why not cut out that huge expense that
hasn't been doing what congress intended?  We can't afford TWO science
agencies.   

>And then they have the gall to proclaim that their budget proposals
>"protect" funding for scientific research!  Sheesh!

Naturally, one doesn't want an engineering agency doing "science" right?

And that is exactly what they are correcting and "Protecting" science 
from the corruption of "big project nowhere white elephants".  Yep ...  
You argued for exactly the image (reitered by you herein above) by which 
they now percieve you -- and now they are correcting that situation.  
Well... you seemed to have picked up and transmitted your organization's 
view, very accurately.       

>***************************
>Robert F. Heeter
>Email:  rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
>Web:  http://w3.pppl.gov/~rfheeter
>Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
>As always, I represent only myself, and not Princeton!

                 What is the impact energy of one ITER 
                          falling from Mar's LPO
                        to the surface of New Jersey?  
                           KerzzzZZZ.. .splatTTT!       
oops.

Next week  ... How many gallons of water does Lake ITER hold??
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+


cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.19 / Dave Oldridge /  Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares?
     
Originally-From: doldridg@fox.nstn.ns.ca (Dave Oldridge)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares?
Date: 19 Jun 1995 08:00:21 -0300
Organization: Nova Scotia Technology Network

In article <3rpuvd$cag@paperboy.osf.org>,
condict@ziti.osf.org (Michael Condict) wrote:

> Boy, you really left yourself wide open there.  How many electricity
> companies are there today with "Tesla" in their name?  Where are the
> heirs to the Tesla fortune?  Why don't we read about them in People
> magazine?

Ever hear of Westinghouse?  George put up the money, Tesla the know-how
and they built Niagara Falls.  Edison couldn't figure out how to
transmit power that far.

 --
 Dave Oldridge
 doldridg@fox.nstn.ns.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudendoldridg cudfnDave cudlnOldridge cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.19 / Richard Schultz /  Re: I apologize on behalf
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I apologize on behalf
Date: 19 Jun 1995 11:36:33 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <8AB82C3.063F003547.uuout@execnet.com>,
BILLC <billc@execnet.com> wrote:

>I'm a longtime ACS member.  I'd guess C&EN ran the article because of
>the discussion/controversy surronding the proposal for a session at the
>recent Anaheim nat'l mtg.  That's the one downgraded to a poster
>session.

Let's be a little more accurate.  The session at the ACS meeting wasn't
"downgraded" to a poster session.  Rather, the number of submitted papers
was larger than could be fit into a half-day oral presentation session,
so the organizer decided to change it to a poster session in order to allow
everyone to be able to present his paper.

I don't know why so many people, scientists and non-scientists alike,
have this idea that posters are somehow less worthy than oral papers.
Based on my experience as a scientist, the overwhelming majority of
scientists have absolutely no clue whatsoever about public speaking, and
many if not most oral presentations are boring, poorly organized, and
transmit virtually no information to the audience.  Posters, on the other
hand, allow the audience to interact with the author one-on-one, and 
allow examination of the slides at one's leisure (as opposed to an oral
presentation, in which calling out "wait a minute, I'm not done looking
at the previous slide" is simply not done).
--
					Richard Schultz

"The palladium based systems are a useless dead end. Who cares about them?"
			--Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 10 Dec 1992
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.19 / Bryan Wallace /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 19 Jun 1995 11:17:24 -0400
Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc.

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

: Ok, I am back after digesting you 4 papers at intnet.net, and as for as I
: could tell you propose that fused electrons and positrons make up the
: baryons and hadrons.  Is this correct??

Yes, the positive and negative electrons are the fundamental building 
blocks for the rest of the particles.  The difference between a positive 
and negative electron is related to the direction of the mass dynamics 
of the dynamic fluid/ether that moves at the speed of light.  It is the 
only material in the Universe and its dynamics defines space and time and 
all physical phenomena.

: What charge would these bodies 
have??  How many fused pairs??

If you have an even number of positive and negative electrons the charge 
would cancel, if there is an extra + or - electron, then you would have 
its uncancelled charge.  The number of pairs needs to be determined along 
with the question of how much mass goes into binding energy.

: As for electrons, positrons and radiation being the only things that
: emerge from a collision, don't forget the other stable particles protons
: and neutrons.

The neutron is not stable outside of an atomic structure, it decays into 
a proton, electron, and the binding energy.  The protons and neutrons are 
also made from electrons.  A major question for the particle physicists 
to decide is:  Can the matter and anti-matter in protons neutrons be 
transformed into energy?

: I await your reply,

: Dr. Kevin Ankoviak

Bryan


cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.19 / John Logajan /  Re: cooling
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: cooling
Date: 19 Jun 1995 15:58:03 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Barry Merriman (barry@starfire.ucsd.edu) wrote:
: I'm trying to stick with known facts:
: (1) there is some heat stored in the device before it goes
: into excess heat steam mode.

Actually, I seem to recall that Tom Droege watched a quick demo and
I don't think they did a long run-up before excess heat appeared.
I do recall that Tom suggested that the "stored heat" hypothesis
was unlikely (in the run he saw.)  Hope I am not misremembering
what Tom reported.


: Given that, why are you defending _not_ doing a careful
: measurement of the heat stored in (1)?

I'm defending no such thing!  I love data.  More data, more data!
All I am doing is trying to make sure offered hypothesis are consistent
with *all* the available data.  I certainly accept that eventually
some of the available data might itself be inconsistent (i.e. wrong)
but we need more/better data before that day comes.

There appears to be something non-obvious going on in Griggs' device.
I haven't taken a position on whether it is true anomalous heat,
a measurement artifact, or outright fraud.  It's sufficiently
interesting to warrant further investigation.  The same could be said
for the Patterson device.


--
 - 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:
cuddy19 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.19 / John White /  Re: cooling
     
Originally-From: jnw@elvis.vnet.net (John N. White)
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: cooling
Date: 19 Jun 1995 12:33:37 -0500
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
> Just as an intuitive guess, I'd suspect that the viscosity of super-heated
> steam is roughly equivalent to the viscosity of regular air.  So just
> how much heat is generated by a rotor rotating in air?  Hint -- I've
> never seen a rotor of any size heat to red heat under such circumstances. :-)

Well, I guess we can call NASA and tell them that they don't need those
troublesome heat shield tiles after all.  :-)

In the Griggs device the layer of steam is very thin, and the very high
relative velocity between the water on one side and the rotor on the
other means that a tremendous amount of heat will be generated in this
layer. A rotor in free air is not a comparable situation.

Some rotors have shown signs of melting, so high rotor temperatures happen.

> I think if you want heating via turbulence, you are going to have to have
> direct water/rotor contact ...

I suspect that in the high viscosity state, the flow in the steam layer
is laminar. The thinness of the layer would suppress turbulence. Once
the rotor became hot enough, the layer could no longer dissipate heat
in both directions, and would become hotter, with more heat flowing into
the water. This would boil more water, thickening the layer of steam.
This thicker layer could then support turbulence.

A turbulent steam layer would conduct heat much better, causing more
water to boil, and the layer to become even thicker. This very thick
layer of steam would have a lower resistance to the rotation of the
rotor, resulting in a reduction of input power. This is what we have
been calling the low viscosity state. In this state the turbulence in
the layer would transport heat from the rotor to the water, resulting
in the excess heat. This will continue until the rotor cools off.

> If the heat is generated at the outer surface of the rotor, than that
> heat will spread toward the axis.  This implies a non-uniform heat
> distribution, and therefore a gradiation along the water/rotor sides
> in which this steam-layer condition will not exist. 

The first problem here is the "water/rotor sides". There is no significant
liquid water along the sides, only steam (water vapor). The centrifugal
force holds the water firmly against the rim. It is like in the spin
cycle of a washing machine, where the clothes are firmly held against
the outer rim. The conditions in a Griggs device are far more extreme
than those in a washing machine, however.

The heat will spread towards the center more easily than you suppose.
In addition to the fact that aluminum is a good conductor of heat,
the Griggs rotor has a number of radial holes in it. These holes will
be filled with steam, which conducts heat by convection. Cooler steam
will move outward due to the centrifugal force, while hotter steam moves
inward. The steam is at 80psi and the centrifugal force is thousands of
times greater than gravity, so the rate of heat flow will be much greater
even than in the aluminum. This means that the entire mass of the rotor
will be involved in storing heat.

It also means that the aluminum that is nearest the holes will become
a little hotter, and so the surfaces on the sides of the rotor will
become a little hotter in places that are nearest to the paths of the
holes as they travel towards the center of the rotor. An aluminum
surface will change appearance when heated, and this is very sensitive
to the temperature reached, so an image of the holes should appear
along the sides of the rotor due to this effect. I understand that
this, in fact, has been observed.
-- 
jnw@vnet.net
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.19 / Barry Merriman /  Re: cooling
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: cooling
Date: 19 Jun 1995 20:53:53 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3s46qb$95g@stratus.skypoint.net> jlogajan@skypoint.com (John  
Logajan) writes:
> Barry Merriman (barry@starfire.ucsd.edu) wrote:
> : I'm trying to stick with known facts:
> : (1) there is some heat stored in the device before it goes
> : into excess heat steam mode.
> 
> Actually, I seem to recall that Tom Droege watched a quick demo and
> I don't think they did a long run-up before excess heat appeared.
> I do recall that Tom suggested that the "stored heat" hypothesis
> was unlikely (in the run he saw.)  Hope I am not misremembering
> what Tom reported.

But Tom watched a ``hot water'' mode run---no significant startup time, 
but only 6--8% excess heat. If thats all the device ever did, it
would hardly warrant any mention...thats too fine a margin to get excited
about given the level of their protocols as described by Tom D.

All the steam mode cases (> 50% excess heat) I have heard reported had a 
roughly 20 minute warmup time. It is odd, is it not, that they can
induce their peculiar reaction to make 6% excess heat with no
warmup, but it takes a 20 minute warmup to get 60% excess heat?



> 
> I'm defending no such thing!  I love data.  More data, more data!
> All I am doing is trying to make sure offered hypothesis are consistent
> with *all* the available data.  

And your point that T_out does not seem to vary is well taken. In the
stored heat hypothesis, that would require the internal temp gradients
and/or thermal conductivity to have a certain size of variation in
time. But it does not come close to ruling it out.

> There appears to be something non-obvious going on in Griggs' device.
> I haven't taken a position on whether it is true anomalous heat,
> a measurement artifact, or outright fraud.  It's sufficiently
> interesting to warrant further investigation.  The same could be said
> for the Patterson device.

Agreed, and it seems our only hope for determinig this is to fund some
sci.phys.fusion research, or via M. Dudley's coming expedition.

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


cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.19 / Joseph Davidson /  Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
     
Originally-From: jhd@radix.net (Joseph Davidson)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
Date: 19 Jun 1995 21:25:08 GMT
Organization: RadixNet Internet Services

Robert F. Heeter (rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu) wrote:

: I just started to realize that if the cuts go *really* deep, then
: all the obvious spin-off fields (other areas of plasma research,
: Wall-Street type jobs, industry, etc) will be glutted with physicists
: too.  So even if you leave the field it's likely to be tough.  Damn!
:  

The Wall Street jobs are already glutted.  You need a backround in system 
programming and finance to even get an interview.

 --------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Davidson Ph.D.   - VP Marketing and Training
RadixNet Internet Services --  http://www.radix.net
Full Internet Connectivity at All Levels for Washington DC Metro area
We have over 20 years of network and telephone experience
301 567 5200, fax 301 839 0836, info@radix.net
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjhd cudfnJoseph cudlnDavidson cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.19 / Dick Jackson /  Re: Same old same old...
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Same old same old...
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 22:16:19 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea

In article <3riqco$4o9@rmstar.efi.com> chris@efi.com (Chris Phoenix) writes:
>
>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:
...
>But you skeptics--why are you still here?  This

Points well taken, BUT ... I, and I *think*, most of the other skeptics
left in this group still have a little hope that there *is* something
strange going on. If it turns out that there is, it would be ample
reward for all the churning of the mud over the last few years.

And if, as unfortunately probable, the "pseudo" part of pseudo-science
wins out, I will have had the pleasure of electronically meeting the
several remarkable and/or interesting gentlemen who have carried the
principal load on s.p.f.

On the whole this has been a well mannered and civilized meeting place.
I *believe* (without having done any kind of verification) that the
skeptics have generally been civil, and that most of the ad hominem
opinions that have been expressed have come from the true believers
and loony whackos -- I find this interesting.

Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.16 / Bill Rowe /  Re: Barry Merriman is irrational and unscientific
     
Originally-From: wjrowe@ccgate.hac.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Barry Merriman is irrational and unscientific
Date: 16 Jun 1995 18:25:10 GMT
Organization: Hughes Space Company

I think one of the problems with trying to explain the Griggs device is
the lack of knowledge about the degree of uncertainty in the published
data. For example Jed keeps refering to the 0.1% accuracy of the Dranetz
meter as specified in the GE Manual as the uncertainty. However, the
actual uncertainty depends on how the instrument is calibrated, used and
read. It is not at all unreasonable to have uncertainty in actual
measurements as much as 10 times specified limits.

I can hear Jed now saying this is another effort by skeptics to cast doubt
over what he perceives as irrefutable data. However, it seems when Tom
Droege went to see the Griggs device he found much the same problem, i.e.,
no log books, no calibration curves etc. Given the lack of data regarding
calibration, its not clear to me there is even an effect that needs
explaining.

-- 
#include std disclaimers
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenwjrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.20 /  MIchalchik /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: MIchalchik <MichalcM@physlog-po.physlog.uiowa.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 20 Jun 1995 00:40:14 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa

As far as I can tell by reading only this brief exchange. I think
 that you are way off base. The phenomena you are attempting to describe
 are well covered by the "Standard Model" (this is really what its is
 called) of physics. Read up on quarks and quantum chromodynamics and I 
think you'll see the problems that you are trying to solve have already
been solved by this theory.

This is a list off the top of my head of the things that the standard
model explains and predicts but your model misses.

1) Conservation of Baryon Number. The total number of protons, neutrons
antiprotons and antineutrons does not seem to change in any physical
process. In a collision producing particals (the number of baryons and
anti-baryons is the same before and after the collision). If all these
particals were just made up of positrons and electrons why couldn't
they be generated or destroyed without respect to this conservation law.
Hell why is the proton so damn stable that we have never seen one decay?

2) Why are interactions between electrons and positrons so unstable. I
have worked with isotopes that give off positrons. The positron survives
for a infinitesmal fraction of a second before it is anihilated by 
colliding with an electron. People have been mixing positrons and 
electrons at every energy you can want and they always go poof in a
burst of gamma rays after a fraction of a second.

3) What are heavy leptons made out of. Muons and Taons behave just like
electrons or positrons but they are much more massive. Can your theory
preict the masses of these particals like the standard model can.

4) Can your theory predict the masses of the baryons like the standard
model can.

5) What are neutrinos in your theory. The are neutral particals so they
would have to be made up of both electrons and positrons, but they are
less massive than either. Why don't they interact with electrons or 
positrons if they are made up of them.

6) What is the strong and weak nuclear force in your theory. Why are 
baryons, mesons, and hadrons affected by them while leptons are not. Can
your theory predict the field associated with these forces like the
standard model can. 

I could go on but if you study the problems that physics soveld about 25
years ago you'll see that you are not only reinventing the wheel, but
you have pick a square to role your theory on. You seem to have a lot
of imagination, but not enough rogor or education. I encourage you to
pursue your interests with more training and on a sounder footing.


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenMichalcM cudlnMIchalchik cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.19 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Merriman's theory shot down in flames!
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman's theory shot down in flames!
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 95 22:08:50 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

David Baraff <baraff@cs.cmu.edu> writes:
 
>In article <p03e17w.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>>Like I said, get serious. Do science. Or shut up. Repeating theories that
>>you know are wrong does not constitute doing science.
>>
>>- Jed
>
>No, I can't. Its too easy...
>
>       Oh, what the hell.  Pot. Kettle. Black.
 
You misunderstand. I have no theory. Only data; experimental evidence.
Nobody here has ever disproved my data, or shown any mistakes in the
experiments, therefore the data stands and I am right.
 
I have no theory, and no way to explain the heat beyond chemistry. I don't
need a theory to prove that I am right. All I have to do is show there are
no mistakes in the experiments. The cause of the heat might remain a
mystery for decades, the way superconducting has, but the fact that CF
produces megajoules of heat per mole of material will remain forever.
 
I never quote theries. I have none. You -- and many others -- are apparently
confused about the definitions of theory and data, and their roles in the
scientific process.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.19 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares?
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 95 22:14:26 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

David Baraff <baraff@cs.cmu.edu> writes:
 
>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.
 
Darn right! Money is my priority. Science is secondary. You can make money
without science, but you can't do science without money. Money is always
the first and most important priority in any undertaking commercial,
scientific, or political. That's a fact and if you don't like it, I suggest
you move to another universe somewhere. Or maybe move to Cuba or North
Korea. Everywhere else on earth, Money Matters Most.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.19 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares?
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 95 22:15:54 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> writes:
 
>If I were you, every spare dime I had would be in those companies.
 
If you were me, you would have a hell of a lot more spare dimes than you
do, and you would never, ever take free financial advice from people who
know nothing about business.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.19 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares?
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 95 22:23:35 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Matthew Kennel <mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu> writes:
 
>You think you'll be able to make a terajoule for a penny without
>having the faintest idea how it works?   
 
Darn right I will. Other people can figure it out. That's not my job.
Why should I know? Do you think Bill Gates is an expert in transistors?
 
>OK to put in crass money terms:  If you figure out how it really works
>you'll make MO' MONEY!   You'll have the high voltage 
 
Correction: if *someone else* figures out how it works  . . . I will make MO'
MONEY. That's fine with me. I am confident I can find thousands of other
people who will figure it out for me. Experts like that are a dime a dozen.
Heck, the GOP is going to close down the DOE and save the country a bundle
and -- at the same time -- they will put thousands of experts in the streets
begging for jobs. I'll be able to hire them for ten cents on the dollar!
It's perfect.
 
>If you figure out how it really works you'll come up with new different
>things to do with the principles you discover and maybe you'll cure cancer.
>MO 'MONEY.
 
What a lot of B.S. How would you know? You don't understand thing one about
CF, so how can you possibly make any projections. I'll tell you what: you
invent high voltage CF, or cancer-curing CF, and you come to me and I'll
show YOU how to make money with it. Okay? Don't go telling me what people
can or cannot do with CF. I know a thousand times more about that particular
subject than you ever will. How Ridiculous!
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.19 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares?
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 95 22:26:38 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Michael Condict <condict@ziti.osf.org> writes:
 
>Boy, you really left yourself wide open there.  How many electricity
>companies are there today with "Tesla" in their name?  Where are the
 
Westinghouse. But they did not use the guy's name, did they? There is a
lesson in that, isn't there. Say what you like, but in the real world
Mr. Westinghouse was a lot smarter than Mr. Telsa, wasn't he? He ended
up holding all the money, Telsa held the bag. It is an old trick.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.19 / Dean Edmonds /  Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
     
Originally-From: deane@excalibur.net5c.io.org (Dean Edmonds)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
Date: 19 Jun 1995 20:27:01 -0400
Organization: Teleride Sage Ltd.

In article <21cenlogic-1506951344190001@austin-1-9.i-link.net>,
Mitchell Jones <21cenlogic@i-link.net> wrote:
>In article <3rpksi$24ga@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>, FKNF40A@prodigy.com
>(James Stolin) wrote:
>
>> Mitch,
>>    The majority of people like the books on the library shelves sorted by 
>> subject, author or some other recognizable pattern.  People also like 
>> things in the grocery store in some semblance of order.  Persons 
>> disrupting the ordered systems get kicked out of libraries and grocery 
>> stores.
>
>Jim, you are a latecomer to the thread. All your comments have been made
>before, and answered in detail. Since you want "preserve bandwidth," I
>will send some of the relevant posts to you via e-mail. --Mitchell Jones

You are correct that these points have been made before. I, for one, brought
up the analogy of books in a library. However, this point was not addressed.
Or rather, it was addressed by the "Farce" proponents ignoring it, presumably
because they have no rational answer to it.
=============================================================================
  - deane
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudendeane cudfnDean cudlnEdmonds cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.20 / John Logajan /  Wallace
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Wallace
Date: 20 Jun 1995 04:30:14 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

It just occured to me that if we can ever educate Mr. Wallace on the
proper forums for the appropriate topics, he could retitle all
his postings to:

The PARSE of Physics

:-)

--
 - 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:
cuddy20 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.20 / John Logajan /  Re: cooling
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: cooling
Date: 20 Jun 1995 04:53:10 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

John N. White (jnw@elvis.vnet.net) wrote:
: > I've never seen a rotor of any size heat to red heat under such
: > circumstances. :-)

: Well, I guess we can call NASA and tell them that they don't need those
: troublesome heat shield tiles after all.  :-)

Tell it to the Indy car drivers -- maybe they need heat shield tiles
to keep their racecar bodies from melting.  :-)


: In the Griggs device the layer of steam is very thin...

Have you any comparable system in which the layer of steam prevented
turbulent penetration by liquid water undergoing tens of horsepower
of driven chaotic force?


: Some rotors have shown signs of melting, so high rotor temperatures happen.

I believe there are claims of small pits which resemble localized melting.
In the case of bulk melting of the rotor, it is likely that the rotor would
deform under the centrigual forces *near* the melting point, but before
the melting point was reached.  So with bulk melting you would expect
a radially stretched disk first.  This would be noticeable by the fact
that the rotor suddenly seizes up against the outer shell, and the shell
is then torn from its moorings, and the system literally twists itself
into an accident in progress. :-)

--
 - 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:
cuddy20 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.20 / Charles Cagle /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: Charles Cagle <singtech@teleport.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 20 Jun 1995 07:09:12 GMT
Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016

Right on Mitchell. It appears we have come across a little brother to 
big brother.  But what do we do, or to whom can we protest? 

We gotta stop this kind of heavy handed crap.  And right now.  So what 
is the plan?

Best Regards,


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudensingtech cudfnCharles cudlnCagle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.20 / Charles Cagle /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: Charles Cagle <singtech@teleport.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 20 Jun 1995 07:13:49 GMT
Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016

Don't jive us Dieter!  If you did a cancelbot you ought to be ashamed.

If not, then you ought to be ashamed of the fact that someone who knew 
how acted as your accomplice whether you supported the idea or not.  
Your dialogue may have begun an unpleasant thing and you have wasted far 
more bandwidth than was appropriate.

Best Regards,


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudensingtech cudfnCharles cudlnCagle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.20 / Charles Cagle /  Re: Any cool cold fusion?
     
Originally-From: Charles Cagle <singtech@teleport.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Any cool cold fusion?
Date: 20 Jun 1995 07:25:18 GMT
Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016

Sure.  Singularity Technologies, Inc. has a new design which outputs a 
directed pulsed beam of particles which pass through conversion arrays 
to extract the kinetic energy of the particles directly to electric 
current.

Regards,


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudensingtech cudfnCharles cudlnCagle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.19 / Richard Schultz /  Re: a ZPF primer
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: a ZPF primer
Date: 19 Jun 1995 11:54:15 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <3s2thu$h18@huxley.anu.edu.au>,
David R Davies <drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au> wrote:

>Read again: **In the case of hydrogen** OK? 

Read again:  the electron in a hydrogen atom isn't accelerating, therefore
it doesn't radiate.  Q.E.D.

>>What QM explains (as others have pointed out, *without* any need to
>>invoke ZPF) is why the electron in a hydrogen atom doesn't go spinning
>>into the nucleus, radiating as it goes.  

>The only arguments I have seen (other than Puthoff et al) just define
>the problem away. Putup or shutup. 

I would guess that the best example of "putup or shutup" is the ability
of QM to predict the spectrum of the hydrogen atom *exactly* without any
need for ZPF.

Other posters have already explained that standard QM does not "define
the problem away".  QM is based on a series of postulates (which can
vary slightly in their exact formulation depending on who is doing the
formulating).  In my undergrad p-chem text (Berry, Rice, and Ross [aka
"Berries, Rice, and Raisins, the Breakfast Cereal of P-Chem Texts"]),
they are listed as follows (I have abridged them somewhat to save space):

 -----------------------------------------------
(1) Every physical system is completely described by a wavefunction 
Psi(q,t), where q are the coordinates that define the system; Psi and
its first derivatives are finite, continuous, and single-valued, except
that the derivative may be discontinuous at an infintely high potential 
barrier. 

(2) The probability that the coordinates of the system are in the range
dq around q is given by [Psi*(q. . .t)][Psi(q. . .t)].

(3) For every variable Q of classical mechanics there corresponds a 
linear Hermitian operator Q.  If Q(classical) is one of the coordinates
or time, Q(qm) is multiplication by Q(classical); if Q(classical) is
the momentum p conjugate to the coordinate q, the operator is given
by (-ih/2*pi)(d/dq).  (That's supposed to be the partial derivative,
but ASCII doesn't have curly d's).  If Q(classical) is a function of
both coordinates and momenta, the operator is obtained by substituting
the above expression for the momenta.

(4) Any possible measurement of the variable Q(classical) for a single 
atom or molecule can only yield one of the eigenvalues of the corresponding
operator Q(qm).

(5) All wave functions must satisfy the time-dependent Schroedinger 
equation.

(6) The expectation value of the variable Q(classical) is given by
the integral of (Psi*)[Q(qm)](Psi) over all possible values of the 
coordinates.
 -----------------------------------------------------

Now, if you can find in there somewhere where the stability of the 
hydrogen atom is assumed rather than derived, feel free to give
us a demonstration.  In other words, put up or shut up.
--
					Richard Schultz

"You don't even have a clue as to which clue you're missing." -- Miss Manners
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.19 / Dieter Britz /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 13:58:29 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On Thu, 15 Jun 1995, Mitchell Jones wrote:
[.... cancelling a lot of verbiage, without apologies {:]]
> 
> Perhaps your problem is that you really don't understand what is wrong
> with Britz' sentence. If that is the case, let me try again. here is
> Britz' statement:
[... much more removed...] 
> Frankly, as I have stated in a post to sci.physics.fusion, I now believe
> that Dieter Britz is merely guilty of muddled thinking, not of a cancelbot

I confess to the occasional muddle, no problem there;

> attack on Wallace. However, if you expect me to apologize for being able
> to rationally interpret his sentence, or to feel bad because my own
> thinking is not muddled, I suggest that you not hold your breath while you

Since it is I who is supposed to be the injured party, you're absolved, 
Mitch boy, I don't insist on an apology (humour, intended or otherwise, 
doesn't offend me anyway, it makes me laugh). But it would be nice if we 
could stop this thread, I believe all points have been made, several 
times over. Wallace can look after himself, I am sure, he doesn't need a 
Knight in shining armour. He now knows he is, aside from one or two 
voices, not welcome in this group and like a reasonable person, will 
no doubt draw the correct conclusions.

Remember 'fusion' ? 

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


cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.19 / Richard Blue /  Re: cooling
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: cooling
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 12:45:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In the revival of the discussion concerning the Griggs device
John Logajon expresses skepticism about the possibility for
heating the rotor to sufficiently high temperature to make
the energy storage hypothesis viable.

I would remind you that one of the unexplained datums provided
by Jed Rothwell was that the case temperature was elevated to
well above the boiling point.  Any notion that the case and rotor
are close to thermal equilibrium with the fluid discharge from
the pump goes out the window it seems to me.

The one thing that becomes obvious anytime the topic of the Griggs
pump is raised is that the data available is simply so incomplete
that we really have little upon which we can base a discussion.  That
was more or less confirmed by the Droege mission to Georgia.

One key point about the Griggs device (and most all CF devices) is
that the question is always whether there is "excess heat."  That is
to say the experiment looks for additional heat where there is
already a known but poorly controlled and poorly quantified source.
In the case of the Griggs device there are kilowatts of heating
that would presumably require no new physics to explain, but this
baseline heating is clearly not well understood.  There does not
even seem to be a systematic attempt to investigate it because the
attention has gone directly to the "excess".

I would like to know, for example, what is the power input required to
drive an empty pump.  Is there enough heat generated in shaft-seal
and bearing friction to account for a hot casing?  It would also be
important to investigate what happens as the device cycles from
hot water output to steam output.  Then perhaps one could begin
to see effects of starting with a hot rotor and case to compare with
the cold starts.

It is the lack of information about this device that is probably
most indicative that no strange physics need be invoked.  All that
we have here is a tinkerer trying to sell his machine.  That is
no basis to go off on flights of fancy about new energy sources.
Before anyone can begin to understand how this device works they
will need more information.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Jun 20 04:37:05 EDT 1995
------------------------------
