1995.06.23 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Merriman's theory shot down in flames!
     
Originally-From: rschultz@phoenix.princeton.edu (Richard H. Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman's theory shot down in flames!
Date: 23 Jun 1995 11:20:37 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <3sdmcj$buu@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca> mefuller@acs4.acs.ucalgary.c
 (Michael Ernest Fullerton) writes:
>Richard Schultz (schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu) wrote:
>: In article <xeyfWYi.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>: >Nobody here has ever disproved my data, or shown any mistakes in the
>: >experiments, therefore the data stands and I am right.
  
>: Do you believe that UFOs are extraterrestrial spacecraft?  After all, that
>: is *exactly* (as in word for word) the argument that the proponents of
>: the "we are being visited by extraterrestrials who are clever enough to
>: never show themselves clearly and obviously" school of thought use.  

>'[Some] UFO's are piloted by ET's.'
>' "Cold fusion" is caused by X.'
>
>Those sound like theories to me.  Jed seems to basically be
>saying:  I see all this evidence for a new source of energy.
>What is wrong with this?  Isn't this how science is supposed to
>work?  Or is science about mindlessly _believing_ that all unusual
>things must automatically be bunk?

No, science is generally about trying to find explanations for events.
(You'll notice that Rothwell himself never answered my question.)  The
commonality between Rothwell and the UFO Believers that I was pointing
out is not their preference for theories that fly in the face of well-
established science, nor is it that the alternate theories that they
propose in fact make no sense a priori.  It is rather the common claim
that "I cannot think of any other explanation, therefore it *must* be
X", or perhaps more precisely, "I cannot think of any explanation that
does not invoke X, therefore X must be the cause of my observations."

One's inability to explain an observation does not mean that the 
observation has no explanation.

>Isn't science about collecting data, and trying to be sure it is
>right? Or is science about believing certain data is always
>wrong, and spending all your time trying to deny it?

I am not an expert in the philosophy of science.  As far as I can tell,
most scientists go about their business and leave the question of what
they are doing to the philosophers.  But one famous quotation from the
sociologist Marcello Truzzi is worth mentioning here:  "Extraordinary
claims demand extraordinary evidence."  Whether it is extraterrrestrial
spacecraft, ESP, polywater, or cold fusion, any claim that is in serious
conflict with well-established theory (here I am using theory in its
precise sense, as in Atomic Theory) must necessarily be supported with
not just adequate evidence, but with *extraordinary* evidence.  

If you read what most of the skeptics say, most of them are not 
opposed in principle to the idea that Coulomb's Law, Conservation of
Angular Momentum, Quantum Mechanics, etc., might be violated in this
bizarre set of circumstances.  What they tend to think is that given
a choice of "these theories that have explained every observation ever
made so far are wrong" and "there is some flaw in the experiment or the
interpretation of the data," they will choose the latter.  And that is
(more or less) the way science does work.  For example, earlier in this
century, there was a major revolution in physics, and by and large, the
new theories gained rapid acceptance because they explained the data
better than the old theories.  Indeed, if you look carefully at the
first experimental "verification" of General Relativity, it really
wasn't good enough to distinguish the predictions of Relativistic
and Newtonian gravitational theories, but as the former already 
explained a lot of things that the latter could not, people were 
predisposed to believe that data.  On the other hand, plate tectonics
took quite a bit longer to be accepted than relativity or quantum
mechanics, because at the time it was proposed, there really weren't
that many observations that it could better explain than competing
theories, and it wasn't until such observations were made that the
theory gained wide acceptance.

And one final point for you to consider:  one of the most prominent and
well-spoken skeptics (Steven Jones) started out as the person who
thought cold fusion might be real and set out to look for it.  So your
apparent belief that the skeptics are ignoring the data because it would
upset their pet theories (or perhaps jeopardize their funding) does not
appear to be borne out by the data.  Dare I ask if you plan to modify
your theory accordingly?
--
					Richard Schultz

"I don't know why you are wrong, but my data shows you are completely off."
			--Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 21 Jul 1992
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenrschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.23 / mitchell swartz /  Seeking info on Tronac 450 calorimeter
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Seeking info on Tronac 450 calorimeter
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 14:14:09 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


  We have just obtained a Tronac 450 calorimeter and 
Isothermal 550 adaptor for our studies and have a 
question or two on the devices.
If anyone has personal experience with this calorimetric
equipment, especially in this field, could you please
contact by e-mail if possible.  
   Thanks in advance.
   Best wishes,
   Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.23 / Bryan Wallace /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: wallaceb@news.gate.net (Bryan G. Wallace)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 23 Jun 1995 10:34:34 -0400

James Stolin (FKNF40A@prodigy.com) wrote:
: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:

: > <Lot's snipped>

:    I know you said your server was down so I'll not rehash why you 
: brought up an old post of mine.  Regardless of how Dieter worded his post,
:  you and the few other Wallace supporters are the only one's that 
: misunderstood Dieter's post.  It was not muddled to me or most others.  
: We understood perfectly that he had edited the header of a Wallace post 
: so his reply wouldn't spam.   It appears that your conclusions is 
: somewhat different from the majority of us so as you said, we'll just 
: have to disagree.



: -
: Jim Stolin  -  Illinois Computer Service  -  fknf40a@prodigy.com
: Opinions are my own ... but could be yours.

I did not misunderstand his post, I told him in an email answer how to 
do it.  The people who operate the Internet do not consider proper 
crossposting using commas on the Newsgroups line to be spamming.  I 
suspect that the real reason you don't like the topic thread "The Farce 
of Physics" is that you are sensitive to the word "farce" with regard to 
cold fusion.  In any  case I plan to only post this thread in sci.physics 
in the future.  Most of the posts have been negative, probably because 
most physicists don't dare to post positive comments on this.  The 
correspondence on the other hand has been mostly positive.  Because of 
the huge mass of the correspondence, I've had to spend most of my time 
answering email.  This is the major reason I've decided to go back to 
only posting in sci.physics.

Bryan

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.23 / David Tonhofer /  Hot stuff
     
Originally-From: tonhofer@inf.ethz.ch (David Tonhofer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hot stuff
Date: 23 Jun 1995 17:38:53 +0200
Organization: ETHZ

  Hello,

  Does anyone have a rational explanation for the excessive level
  of flames in this newsgroup? The waste heat generated surely beats
  the output of any CF device.

  Has the time come for sci.physics.fusion.flameahead?

								-- David
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudentonhofer cudfnDavid cudlnTonhofer cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.23 / Edward Lewis /  Plasmoids
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Plasmoids
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 21:59:11 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

(c) 1994 by Edward Lewis All Rights Reserved
December 22, 1994

	I have been posting articles about tiny ball lightning and
plasmoids for a while now.  In a letter to the Editor in the December,
1994 issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY, Matsumoto reports about the
observation of tiny ball lightning in several cold fusion experiments,
and he suggests that people use nuclear emulsions.  He's written
manuscripts about tiny ball lightning that are produced by discharge
apparatus also.  Sufficient evidence of the production of things that
can be called "plasmoids" or tiny ball lightning is the many kinds of
plasmoid traces that Matsumoto has produced, and the EB-filament paper
by Nardi and Bostick et al.: V. Nardi, W. H.  Bostick, J. Feugeas, and
W. Prior, "Internal Structure of ELectron-Beam Filaments," Physical
Review A, 22, no. 5, 2211 (November, 1980).  This is substantial
proof, in my opinion.  Some of the ring traces are very similar, and
some of the other traces are similar too.  I'd also like to suggest
that people use nuclear emulsions awith various kinds of cold fusion
and plasmoid experiments.  Many of the plasmoids produced by
electrolysis and discharge are the same.  And people have known for a
long time that plasmoids and discharges are associated with neutron
production.  They are the locus of neutron production.



              (c) 1994 by Edward Lewis All Rights Reserved

        I've posted versions of this article several times on this
newsgroup since December of 1993; and I've posted several articles
about plasmoids and cold fusion on this newsgroup since January of
1993.  If anyone wants to reproduce or resend this article, get my
permission first.

                        PLASMOIDS AND COLD FUSION

        W. Bostick produced that which he called plasmoids by
discharging through electrodes.  Bostick wrote a paper that was titled
"Plasmoids" that was published in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN in 1957(1).  He
may have been the first to apply this term to this phenomena.
According to Peratt, Bostick coined the term  In this paper, he had
already began to tell others about his speculation that galaxies and
the phenomena he produced were similar.  He compared the shapes and
the travel of these things.  He also speculated a little about the
identity of "particles."  He shows pictures of different kinds of
plasmoid shapes in the article and related these to different kinds of
shapes of galaxies.  Many people including Bostick, Alfven who is a
physics Nobel Prize winner, Peratt and Lerner have developed similar
astronomical theories that model the universe as plasmoids and that
can be said to be derivations or summarizations of the experimental
work of W. Bostick and others.  It has become evident that atoms can
be defined as plasmoids, especially as according to the phenomena
produced by Ken Shoulders.  It seems that there are many different
kinds of plasmoid phenomena.  The EVs that Ken Shoulders produced and
ball lightning may be classified as kinds of this general phenomena.
There is evidence that both plasmoids and ball lightning are
associated with neutrons, radioactivity, production of elements, and
excess radiation, and that they are a locus of this.

                Based on the phenomena that Matsumoto produced, the
traces, the pictures and descriptions of electrodes, the pictures of
stationary BL and corona-like phenomena, the visible BL-like phenomena
that he reports, and the sparks that he observed that left traces like
those produced during electrolysis and discharge, one may categorize
CF phenomena as tiny ball-lightning or plasmoids.  Important evidence
is the holes and trails on and in emulsions and electrodes that
Matsumoto produced by discharging and electrolysis, the holes in
electrodes that Liaw et al. produced, the holes in electrodes that
others produced, the empty areas in electrodes that are shaped liked
grains that Matsumoto and Silver et al. produced and the half-empty
grains that Matsumoto produced, and the holes and tunnels and trails
on and in electrodes that Silver produced.  The tunnels, round holes,
and trail-like marks are similar to those that are produced by ball
lightning phenomena, though ball lightning are associated with bigger
effects.  These tunnels, round holes, and trail-like marks are also
similar to those produced by the EV phenomena that K. Shoulders
produced.  Silver and his co-authors who published a paper in the
December, 1993 issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY have reproduced the tunnels,
holes, and trail-like markings in metals that Matsumoto produced.
These tunnels, holes, and trail-marks are evidence of the conversion
and change of materials.  Important evidence that both CF phenomena
and substance in general are plasmoid phenomena is Matsumoto's
experience of the production of electricity by apparatus.  I suspect
that plasmoid phenomena such as electrodes and other materials may
convert to be bigger plasmoids and light and electricity.  EVs and
ball lightning are known to convert to light and electricity.  I think
that all substance can be identified as plasmoid phenomena.

        I suspect that the round holes in electrodes that Matsumoto
produced and the round holes and tunnels that Silver produced are due
to the boring of BL-like phenomena -- the substance was converted to
light, electricity or other kinds of plasmoids, I suspect.  And I
suspect that the grain-shaped voids or pits that they produced is
evidence of the conversion of the grain to light or electricity or of
the production of other kinds of plasmoids, though there may also be
the distortion of the grains or the dislocation of grains by
separation.  Some plasmoids are apparently able to travel through
materials, even if the plasmoids are very big.  The plasmoids that
Matsumoto has produced does this, and this is major evidence to
support my deductions.  Matsumoto has also shown pictures of sectioned
electrodes with what seem to me to be trail-like tracks, as if tiny
BL-like phenomena traveled inside and left tracks.

        Many other anomalous phenomena can be described as plasmoid
phenomena.  For example, superconductivity seem to be similar to the
phenomena of ball lightning traveling though materials such as
ceramics and glass without leaving holes or visible effects, yet ball
lightning may convert to an electrical surge after touching a wire or
it may convert to a bolt of lightning.  Also, sonoluminescence seems
to be a phenomena of the water converting to light and perhaps
electricity.  1)W. Bostick, "Plasmoids," SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, 197, 87
(October 1957).

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.23 / James Stolin /  Re: Amazing behaviour
     
Originally-From: FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Amazing behaviour
Date: 23 Jun 1995 23:30:11 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

  I already replied to an EMAIL of this note and didn't realize that it 
was also posted. 

singtech@teleport.com (C. Cagle) wrote:
>
>One line of truth would a working reactor make.  Surround that one line
>with all the drivel of a thousand ranting psuedoscientists and its 
still
>truth.  And you could still figure out how to catalyzed fusion reaction. 

>It would be worth wading in after, don't you think?

   One line of truth would be a needle in Wallace's haystack and probably 
not worth the effort.  The truth would be obscured by the rest of the 
ramblings and might be overlooked.  The exception would be if Wallace 
posted his "needle" and left the "haystack" out.  That would also 
encourage people to read more.

>Mr. Stolin.  I used the operative word 'if' in my 'false accusation'.  
Are
>Dieter's feeling hurt?  Are you looking out for him?  

   "If" included or not, claims of Dieter owing apologies still ring 
false.  Dieter was damned if he used a cancelbot, damned if he didn't, 
and damned if no cancelbot were used by anyone.  He has contributed to 
this newsgroup and was the victim of a mob lynching.

>Lighten up you guys!  Dieter ... are you listening?  I'm sorry I 
accused
>you (if in fact that's what I did).  OK James?

OK.  Good advice for >ALL< to hear and take. 

>"It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established
> authorities are wrong."   Voltaire

"It is dangerous to be wrong in matters on which the established
 authorities are right."    Stolin <g>

-
Jim Stolin  -  Illinois Computer Service  -  fknf40a@prodigy.com
Opinions are my own ... but could be yours.

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.23 / A Plutonium /  Re: Where's the CNF water heater Heeter?
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Where's the CNF water heater Heeter?
Date: 23 Jun 1995 23:35:52 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <tomkDAn83B.Hx5@netcom.com>
tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:

> I guess that means that you cannot come up with a reasonable
> answer to the question of where Pons and Fleischman's water heater
> is.
> 
> By all means rant and rave all you want. Cold Nuclear Fusion just
> doesn't seem to be able to raise any more steam than your words.
> 
> 
> It is rapidly becoming futile to even talk about CNF because no
> matter what interesting mistakes the various researchers have
> made, they are still nothing more than mistakes.

  Hey, birdbrain, CF experiments are "top secret" classified material
in some parts of the world. 
  Why do you think the shares of Cannon have gone so high?
  Do you actually think that CF will be laid wide open for the world on
the Internet? Do you think the world is going to beat a path to your
door to tell you its for real? Do you think the first CF reactor or
neutron device would be a loudly heralded celebration with news media
coverage? CF has the potential to change the balance of world power
among nations, dumbo, bet you never thought of that. You think that the
Japanese or Russians if they have a CF device operational right now,
that they would broadcast it on Internet or some physics journal? Or
even the USA? CF and neutron production is top secret government
material, not only for producing power but as other devices such as eg
a neutron source, and the first CF reactor will be under the strictest
science secrecy both by corporations and government. 
  If Japan takes the major adances in technology, it behooves them to
be as secret as possible. If Pons and Fleischmann leave the arena of
CF, it is not out of some imagined defeat but the reverse--that it has
now already surpassed them in engineering. The patent of Cannon already
did that. The stuff you see on the Internet are just novelties in
comparison with the state of the art of CF the stuff kept secret.
Science, and with CF especially has reached a point where it will be
classified material not widely disseminated. I believe this appraisal
on my part is fairly accurate. What we hear in the news or these garage
experiments or Univ experiments are minor in comparison to what is
going on in special labs. There they are probably trying to make
accurate hadron count. As I said so many times before, CF will not
become a science until we can get some accurate hadron count before and
after. That requires equipment beyond Pons and Fleischmann and all of
these garage and Univ flybynight labs.

  My advice to you and so many posters to sci.physics.fusion is just
keep an open mind. There may not be much to report for a long time in
cold fusion, but some breaking news will eventually occur and CF will
then be a bigger science than the high temperature superconductors.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.23 / James Stolin /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 23 Jun 1995 23:57:25 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

wallaceb@news.gate.net (Bryan G. Wallace) wrote:
>
>I did not misunderstand his post, I told him in an email answer how to 
>do it.  The people who operate the Internet do not consider proper 
>crossposting using commas on the Newsgroups line to be spamming.

   It would have helped the temperature level here a bit if you had 
informed your ardent supporters of this fact. <g>

>I suspect that the real reason you don't like the topic thread "The 
Farce 
>of Physics" is that you are sensitive to the word "farce" with regard to 

>cold fusion.  In any  case I plan to only post this thread in sci.
physics 
>in the future.  Most of the posts have been negative, probably because 
>most physicists don't dare to post positive comments on this.  The 
>correspondence on the other hand has been mostly positive.  Because of 
>the huge mass of the correspondence, I've had to spend most of my time 
>answering email.  This is the major reason I've decided to go back to 
>only posting in sci.physics.

Bryan,

   Actually, I have downloaded "Farce", read portions of it and may read 
more when time permits.  However, I find a lack of hard information in 
Farce so it is not high on my priority list.

   What I and others object to is the excessive cross-posting which IS 
spamming.  Short excerpts pertaining to the topics of newsgroups you 
cross post to would not be objectionable.  Got something to say about 
fusion, cold or otherwise?  I'd welcome it here.  But please don't 
mention fusion in alt.alien.visitors unless it's about them suppressing 
or revealing the "secret". <g> 
-
Jim Stolin  -  Illinois Computer Service  -  fknf40a@prodigy.com
Opinions are my own ... but could be yours.

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.24 / 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: 24 Jun 1995 00:01:15 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <21cenlogic-2006951440550001@austin-2-5.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:
> In article <3rtq71$1f1q@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>, FKNF40A@prodigy.com
> (James Stolin) wrote:

[_magna_cum_deletia_]

> >    This is not a valid comparison.  Dieter did not claim to use a 
> > cancelbot.  You wrongly claimed he did.  The fault is yours.  You should 
> > apologize but we won't hold out breaths.
> 
> ***{And I won't hold my breath waiting for you to admit that Dieter's
> statement was badly worded, or that my interpretation of his statement was
> plausible.  --Mitchell Jones}***
> 

Hi Mitchell:

I am interested in how you feel it would be "plausible" for anyone to be
able cancel a post "in" all but one of the newsgroups to which it had been
crossposted.  Remember, the article number is the same "in" each of the
newsgroups.  Such an attack would require accessing _via_ a control
message the post in question, and selectively editing the newsgroups
line.  I don't think this qualifies as "plausible".

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.23 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Last word on Griggs
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Last word on Griggs
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 95 23:01:41 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Archimedes Plutonium <Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu> writes:
 
> Jed, I wish you would drop communicating with Merriman. I had
 
I think you are right. I will, unless he comes up with something new.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.23 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Clarification of JR's Barrel Tests
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Clarification of JR's Barrel Tests
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 95 23:03:43 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

These questions addressed in thread: "Questions from Merriman and . . ."
 
- JR
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.24 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: Fusion through electron-beam inertial confinement???
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion through electron-beam inertial confinement???
Date: 24 Jun 1995 03:03:00 GMT
Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here.

Arthur H Kerschen (ahk@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu) wrote:
: 	Science (and Science Fiction) writer Jerry Pournelle believed in
: 1980 that fusion was most promising through electron-beam inertial
: confinement. That is heating fusionable atoms fast enough through an
: electron beam to produce fusion (as opposed to laser and particle beam
: inertial confinement, or magnetic confinement as in a tokomak).

Sounds like it *is* particle beam inertial confinement.  Otherwise
how can an e-beam confine fusion fuel?  Seems like it would blow
it apart.  There's no way you can just zap it hot enough for
spontaneous fusion.  Even a fission bomb can't do it that way.

The trick is to zap a hollow shell of some high Z material, fully
ionizing it, which produces x-rays which compress the fuel pellet.

Why the 2-stage process?  Because, I believe, its very very hard
to get uniform heating and compression: otherwise the fuel squeezes
in one place and squirts out the other, like squeezing a mustard
bottle.

Given that you have to squeeze it to nearly Fermi degenerate densities,
you've got to squeeze it very very hard and very very fast and very
very evenly.

If you generate a gas of x-rays, you will equilibrate the radiation
pressure at the speed of light resulting in even squeezing of the pellet.

THe only advantage to using e-beams vs lasers is that they might
be more energy efficient compared to the precise but inefficient (2%) lasers.

That means your plant will cost less and you'll be closer to breakeven from
the get-go.

I guess that fast high-Z nuclei would be much more efficient at depositing
energy than e-beams.

cheers
Matt
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.24 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: Implications of Miles helium data
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles helium data
Date: 24 Jun 1995 03:10:36 GMT
Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here.

mitchell swartz (mica@world.std.com) wrote:
:   In Message-ID: <9506211326.AA37786@pilot03.cl.msu.edu>
: Subject: Implications of Miles helium data
: Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) writes:

: -.  I don't believe
: -that it is good scientific practice to take the positive result as
: -a given and reject the contamination alternative until some of these
: -implications have been considered.

:  True.  therefore it is important that they did include
: controls for leakage and also adopted use of their metallic containers
: used to minimize (and thus rule out) contamination issues.

:       ================================
: -As I have said before, I see a very fundamental problem with the notion
: -that a nuclear reaction occurs in a crystal lattice that releases a huge
: -amount of energy per event but then remains undetected until the
: -energy is all degraded to lattice phonons at a very ordinary temperature.
:  
: It is a problem if one only considers beam impact experiments.

Why do you keep on harping on this?  The quantity in question is the
matrix element of transitions between excited nuclear states and
states with the decayed nucleus and ionizing radiation.

The only difference 'beam fusion' and non-beam fusion is that
the initial kinetic energy in the second one is slightly less than
the first one.  How is that going to change the initial state for
the radiation reaction ("wavefunction of excited nuclear state')
when that energy difference is eV's next to MeV's.  Answer: it won't.

Think:

Drop a safe from a 10 story building, starting from rest.
Drop a safe from a 10 story building, giving it a 0.001 m/s push.

So, how can you arrange it that the second one creates a huge crater
(detectable reaction products) and the first one some how ends up
motionless on unbroken ground but in the process boiling up a pot of
coffee in the stove next door.  

You can't, you'll get a crater either way.

: Furthermore, until one looks for intermediates, one cannot say that
: they remain "undetectable".   the problem is that there are few 
: events, all with a very short lifetime, and all located within the
: material which is loaded.

How are they all 'located within the material'?  How did they stop?
What made them stop?


You don't realize the enormity of the violations of known laws that
you are blithely accepting. 

cheers
matt
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.24 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: Cravens demo interesting?
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cravens demo interesting?
Date: 24 Jun 1995 03:11:41 GMT
Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here.

Martin Sevior (msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au) wrote:
: Well Dick I find the demo very interesting. It appears to produce over watt of
: excess heat reliablly without a large preload time so there's no question
: of peroxide generation and storage. The results seem totally
: reproducable. The flow calorimetry agrees nicely with the calibration
: resistive heater. No excess heat is generated when the ni/Pd beads are replaced
: with gold plated beads.

: I can't find anything wrong with the experiment. It seems you can't nor can
: anyone else on the s.p.f newsgroup.

: Here's a device that seems to produce over 1 watt of energy from nowhere!

Did it produce net work over thermodynamic carnot limit?

: Surely that's interesting and deserves a full and thorough investigation?

: Martin Sevior

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.24 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: Nuclear reaction products in CF
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear reaction products in CF
Date: 24 Jun 1995 03:19:11 GMT
Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here.

Charles Cagle (singtech@teleport.com) wrote:
: You wrote:

: >He accuses me of favoring only neutron detection results and dismisses 
: >that option by an assertion that the reactions, due to some undefined 
: >mechanism, simply do not involve neutron emission.  I would ask that 
: >someone explain this before it gets accepted as being a perfectly 
: >ordinary thing to have happen.  I will, however, not insist that 
: >neutron detection is the only diagnosic that may be considered.  I 
: >would find charged particle detection, gamma measurements, and X-ray 
: >detection to be well suited to the task athand; provided they are done 
: >in an appropriately specific manner.

: Aneutronic reactions can occur if another participating particle or 
: field matrix can share the momentum.  The lattice structure within a 
: metal may provide such a "secret sharer" and permit DD reactions without 
: the product nuclei (alpha particle) breaking down to an enegetic neutron 
: and tritium. 

How?  The lattice structure is mediated by electronic bonds of characteristic
strength 1ev.  The typical energy of interaction between some hypothetical
charged particle and the lattice is thus of the order of a few eV's.
Nuclear reactions have MeV energies,  you can't slow it down in one
collision: there will be many many and some of these will produce observable
radiation.

If you suppose you have *uncharged* particles emitted, then you have
a tougher problem, as what's to prevent these things from zipping out of
the lattice unobstructed, and therefore not depositing any heat in the
substance.

 The evolution of heat would ensue from both the metal 
: because of energy provided to its lattice field and because the alpha 
: particle would depart the reaction zone at 11.3.% c (but would collide 
: immediately and evolve more heat).

The collision is certain to excite processes (bump electrons
out of their orbit) that later emit characteristic decay x-rays.

These haven't been observed but would be very nice evidence for
nuclear reactions---even unexpected nonstandard ones.

: Best Regards,

: Charles Cagle
: Singularity Technologies, Inc.
: singtech@teleport.com


cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.24 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: cooling
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: cooling
Date: 24 Jun 1995 03:21:45 GMT
Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here.

Barry Merriman (barry@starfire.ucsd.edu) wrote:
: 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.

Even still, 
putting in 100 watts of electricity and getting 106 watts of heat in
slightly hot water is a money losing proposition, as Jed well knows.

100 watts of electricity and 400 watts of superheated steam continuously,
now that would work.

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.24 / Damir Smitlener /  I don't see a FAQ, so here goes a Cold Fusion question
     
Originally-From: damir@mindspring.com (Damir Smitlener)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: I don't see a FAQ, so here goes a Cold Fusion question
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 00:23:47 -0500
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises

Over in misc.invest.stocks people are talking about dropping real money on
companies that promise Cold Fusion. As far as I can tell, there are now
(at least) two types of "cold fusion" being touted; the original and now
discredited Utah glass-of-water-and-some-Pd variety, and a more recent (?)
variation involving zapping metals with high-energy particles (though I
haven't looked at it closely enough to understand how this type of process
could be considered "cold".)

Are people being foolish by investing (eg buying stocks) in firms claiming
success, either present or near-future, in this field? Is there real
substance here, or is it another PolyWater - or is it just to early to
tell?

-- 
damir smitlener                  |  
damir@mindspring.com             |
smitty@optica.mirc.gatech.edu    |
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudendamir cudfnDamir cudlnSmitlener cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.23 / Jack Bernstein /  Japanese Tables of Contents
     
Originally-From: japanese@netcom.com (Jack Bernstein)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Japanese Tables of Contents
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 16:20:59 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

*********JAPANLINK, Vol. 1, No. 12**********************

*************Table of Contents From *****************

*******Japanese Science and Engineering Journals**********

************6 / 22 / 1995 - Physics Edition **************

***For information about the articles listed below, contact:***

**********InterLingua at jkarae@netcom.com*************

***************************************************



 ---------------------------------------------------------
APPLIED PHYSICS / OYO BUTURI 
Vol. 64, No. 3, MAR 1995

PUBLISHED BY

THE JAPAN SOCIETY OF APPLIED PHYSICS
 ----------------------------------------------------------

Shigeo MINAMI 207

High-density optical storage materials (Takao SUZUKI) 208

Preparation of bismuth-substituted rare-earth iron garnet films for 
magneto-optical recording media by pulsed laser ablation (Akiharu 
MORIMOTO and Tatsuo SHIMIZU) 220

Power-law conductivity---its interpretation and application (Michio SUGI 
and Kazuhiro SAITO) 226

Anomalous photoinduced current transient in nematic liquid crystals 
(Akihiko SUGIMURA and OU-YANG Zhong-can) 232

Magneto-optical garnet disk for short-wavelength recording (Sumio 
KURODA and Kenji SHONO) 236

Optically induced spin orientation and photomagnetism (Yoshihiro 
TAKAGI, Shojiro TAKEYAMA and Satoru ADACHI) 241

Electroluminescent diode with organic multiple-quantum-well structures 
(Yutaka OHMORI and Katsumi YOSHINO) 246

Holographic motion picture by hole burning (Masaharu MITSUNAGA, 
Naoshi UESUGI, Hiroko SASAKI and Koichi KARAKI) 250

Superconducting magnetic levitation system aiming for a future mass 
standard (Fuyuhiko SHIOTA) 255

Research on thermal protection materials for reentry vehicle (Yoshiki 
MORINO and Toshinari YOSHINAKA) 259

A criticism on university education in the fields of science)
and Technology (Toshihiko OHSAWA) 263

Science education as general background formation, and training for 
scientists and engineers (Tadahiro SEKIMOTO) 266

Training teachers to educate scientifically minded pupils---Physics 
education at teachers training school---(Yoshio KAMISHINA) 269

Physics education in elementary and secondary school---to foster 
inquiring minds (Tae RYU) 272

English Abstracts 277



 ---------------------------------------------------------
JAPANESE JOURNAL OF OPTICS / KOGAKU
Vol. 24, No. 3, MAR 1995

PUBLISHED BY

THE OPTICAL SOCIETY OF JAPAN
 ----------------------------------------------------------

Experiments and Theorists (Koichi Furutsu) 133

Spectral Changes of Light Induced by Scattering (Tomohiro Shirai and 
Toshimitsu Asakura) 134

The Role of Atmospheric Scattering on Satellite Remote Sensing (Tsutomu 
Takashima) 141

Light Scattering by Fractal Aggregate (Tadashi Mukai, Takashi Kozasa and 
Hajime Okamoto) 147

Radiation Pressure-Induced Freezing (Yasuhiro Harada) 153

Radiation and Scattering from a Random Water Surface (Kyu Yoshimori) 
159

Multiple Scattering of Light Pulse in Biological Tissue and Optical 
Tomography (Yukio Yamada) 165

Monte Carlo Simulations for the Description of Light Transport in Tissue 
(Mutsuhisa Hiraoka, S.R. Arridge and D.T Delpy) 167

Dependence of Er3+ Emission Intensity on Dopant Concentrations for 
Yb3+ and Er3+ Codoped Fluoride Glass (Tetsuro Izumitani and Yeong C. 
Lin) 169

Report on 1994 Nagoya Meeting on the Optical Society of Japan (Hideo 
Furuhashi) 174

Reviews of Foreign Literature     175

Announcements     178



 -----------------------------------------------------------
JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES

PUBLISHED BY

UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO
 ------------------------------------------------------------

Nondegeneracy and single-point-blowup for solution of the heat equation 
with a nonlinear boundary condition (Bei Hu) 251

On the discrete Boltzmann equation with linear and nonlinear terms 
(Mitsuru YAMAZAKI) 277

On the special values of abelian L-functions (Ki-Seng TAN) 305

On some generating functions for McKay numbers-prime power 
divisibilities of the hook products of Young diagrams (Hiroaki 
NAKAMURA) 321

Bifurcation from flat-layered solutions to reaction diffusion systems in 
two space dimensions (Masaharu TANIGUCHI) 339

On some differential inclusions and their applications (Grzegorz 
LUKASZEWICZ and Bui An TON) 369

Groupes fondamentales associes aux feuilletages de codimension un 
mesures (Paulo GASMAO) 393

On the number of rational maps between varieties of general type (T. 
BANDMAN and D. MARKUSHEVICH) 423

Stability for the deep Benard problem (Zakaria CHARKI) 435

On the maximum value of the first coefficients of Kazhdan-Lusztig 
polynomials for symmetric groups (Hiroyuki TAGAWA) 461



 ------------------------------------------------------
PHYSICS / BUTSURI
Vol. 50, No. 3, MAR 1995

PUBLISHED BY

THE PHYSICAL SOCIETY OF JAPAN
 ----------------------------------------------------------

The Second Year as Editor-in-Chief (Hiroshi Ezawa)  167

A Wide Survey of the Universe with New Technologies--Sloan Digital Sky 
Survey--(Sadanori OKAMURA and Mamoru DOI)  168

Evidence for Top Quark Production (Kunitaka KONDO, Koji 
TAKIGAWA, Shin Hong Kim and Takeshi CHIKAMATSU)  176

Quantum Nucleation--Decay of Metastable States in Many Particle 
Systems at Ultralow Temperatures--(Takeo SATOH and Shin TAKAGI)  
184

Field-Induced Spin Density Wave Transitions (Toshihito OSADA)  192

A Construction of Two-Dimensional Large Position-Sensitive Scintillation 
Detectors--An Application to a Neutron Polarimeter--(Hideyuki SAKAI) 
202

Gamma Ray Bursts as Relativistic Astrophysical Objects (Hiroshi 
HANAMI)  209

Discovery of Cepheids in the Virgo Cluster--The Hubble Constant and 
Age of the Universe-- (Hideyuki SAIO)  213

Breakthrough in Development of Stripper Foils in the World (Isao 
SUGAI)  216

Experience of Friday Evening Discourse (Akira TOMOMURA)  218

International Science School for High School Students (Yoshitaka KUNO)  
220

Prof. Takeo Hori (Masakazu HAYASHI)  223

Dr. Hiroshi Tanino (Shuji ABE)  223

Kobe Earthquake Information  225

Letters and Comments  229

Notice Board  230



 ---------------------------------------------
SCIENCE / KAGAKU
Vol. 65, No. 3, MAR. 1995

PUBLISHED BY

IWANAMI SHOTEN
 ----------------------------------------------

Hanshin Earthquake Disaster and Earthquake Prediction. (Yoshio 
FUKAO) 129

Various Types of Earthquakes; from the Kushiro Shore Earthquake to the 
Hyogo Prefecture Southern Region Earthquake. (Masayuki KIKUCHI) 
131

Units. (Ryou IKEUCHI) 144

RNA World inside an Organism. (Kensaku SAKAMOTO and Shigeyuki 
YOKOYAMA) 133

Tunnel Phenomenon in Early Space - Space Theory after COBE. (Setsu 
SASAKI) 146

Earth's Rotation Shaken by the Atmosphere - Interaction of Atmospheric 
Air, Hydrosphere, Mantle, and Core. (Isao NAITOH) 154

Element Synthesis in Unstable Atomic Nucleus and Space. (Isao 
TANIBATA) 163

Molecular Mechanism of Crown Goal Guidance - Genetic Transmission 
from Procaryote to Eucaryote. (Mineo Kojima) 171

What is Geology? (8) - Plate Tectonics Revolution - (Part 2) End of 
Antitheses and the Revolution. (Akiho TSUSHIRO) 181

Hidden Active Faults. (Shin Sugimura) 188

Book Reviews: 
"Science of Life Bodies" by S. OKADA (Shuichi ONIGASHIRA) 189

"Michael Farraday" by J.M. THOMAS (Miki WADATSU) 190

How the Government and the People Differ in Their Accuracy in 
Predicting the Hyogo Earthquake and the Weather Forecast. 191

Active Faults in Awajishima and the Hanshin Region. 170

[50 Years Ago] 162

Preview of Next Issue/Postscript. 192


 -----------------------------------------------------
JAPANESE JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS.  PART 1, R
Vol. 34, No. 3, MAR 01 1995
 -----------------------------------------------------

Heterostructure Fe:InP/InGaAs Metal-Semiconductor Field-Effect 
Transistors Grown by Metalorganic Chemical Vapor 
Deposition.(Yokoyama. Meiso, Shei. Shih-Chang, Su. Yan-Kuin) 1413

Effect of Hydrogen Plasma Treatment on n-InP Surfaces. (Shirafuji. Junji, 
Sakamoto. Yoshifumi, Sugino. Takashi) 1417

NMR Study of Y2Co14Bx Compounds. (Adachi. Kengo, Maruyama. 
Fumio, Nagai. Hiroyuki) 1542

Microstructure and Phase-Transformation Studies of Cu-Ni-Sn Alloys. 
(Pal. Hiranmay, Pradhan. Swapan Kumar, De. Madhusudan)1619

Effect of Annealing on Photoluminescence Spectra and Film Structure in a-
SiNx:H. (Nakayama. Yoshikazu, Wakita. Kazuki, Makimura. Shinji) 1425

Increased Optical Damage Resistance and Transparency in MgO-Doped 
LiTaO3 Single Crystals. (Ito. Kohei, Nitanda. Fumio, Furukawa. Yasunori) 
1546

Characteristics of Surface Acoustic Waves on Proton-Exchanged and 
Annealed Proton-Exchanged Z-Cut LiNbO 3 Using Pyrophosphoric Acid. 
(Cheng. Chien-Chuan, Chen. Ying-Chung, Tsai. Bo-Wen) 1627

AC Conduction Mechanism in Borate Glasses Containing Antimony and 
Arsenic Ions. (Chakravorty. D., Datta. A., Giri. A.K.) 1431

Accelerated Response of Photochromic Liquid Crystalline Cell by Laser 
Pulse Excitation. (Ichimura. Kunihiro, Kamezaki. Hisamitsu, Kawanishi. 
Yuji) 1550

Properties of the CdSe-Doped Glass Thin Films Prepared by Ion-Beam 
sputtering Method. (Suzuoki. Yasuo, Matsuno. Noriaki, Mizutani. 
Teruyosi) 1631

Effects of F(+) Implantation on the Characteristics of Poly-Si Films and 
Low-Temperature n-ch Poly-Si Thin-Film Transistors. (Lee. Kwyro, Park. 
Jin Won, Ahn. Bytung Tae) 1436

Fuzzy Analysis of the Linear Equivalent for Fabricating a Holographic 
Optical Element in Photoresist. (Hu. Chin Pio, Chang. Rong Seng, Lin. 
Chern Sheng) 1554

Oriented Tin-Doped Indium Oxide films on <001> Preferred Oriented 
Polycrystalline ZnO Films. (Yi. Choong Hoon, Yasui. Itaru, Shigesato. 
Yuzo) 1638

Electrical Properties of Layered ZrSe2 Single Crystals Annealed in 
Selenium Atmosphere. (Nakashima. Akio, Ikari. Tetsuo, Maeda. Kouji) 
1442

Sn-Sb-Se/Sb-Bi Bilayer Phase-Change Media for High-Density Write-Once 
Optical Recording. (Horigome. Shinkichi, Nishida. Tetsuya, Sugiyama. 
Hisataka) 1562

Preparation of Variouus Oxide Films by an Electrophoretic Deposition 
Method: A Study of the Mechanism. (Koura. Nobuyuki, Tsukamoto. 
Takeyo, Hotta. Touru) 1643

Epitaxial Growth and Electrical Characteristics of beta-SiC on Si by Low-
Pressure Rapid Thermal Chemical Vapor Deposition. (Yaung. Dun-Nian, 
Hwang. Jun-Dar, Fang. Yean-Kuen) 1447

Imaging in an Optical Projection System with a Laser Light Source. I: 
Gaussian Laser Light Illumination. (Takamoto. Kiichi, Kawai. Yoshio) 
1569

Highly Sensitive Detection of Oxygen from Si(111)7 x 7 Surface by Time-
of-Flight-Type Electron Stimulated-Desorption Spectroscopy. (Ueda. 
Kazuyuki) 1648

Novel Selective Growth Using a Native Oxide on a (110) Cleaved Plane of 
AlGaAs/GaAs Superlattice. (Tamamura. Toshiaki, Notomi. Masaya, 
Kadota. Yoshiaki) 1451

Imaging in an Optical Projection System with a Laser Light Source. II: 
Multi-Transverse-Mode Laser Light Illumination. (Takamoto. Kiichi) 
1576

Formative Time Determination in Nitrogen-Filled Tube Using Statistical 
Methods. (Pejovic. Momcilo, Zivkovic. Jasmina, Ristic. Goran) 1652

Broadening of Exciton Luminescence Line in Modified CdTe/ZnTe Multi-
Quantum Wells. (Yuan. Shixin, Yoshimura. Satoshi, Nakata. Hiroyasu) 
1459

Threshold Current and Its Temperature Dependence in InGaAsP/InP 
Strained Quantum-Well Lasers under a Magnetic Field (Short Note). 
(Sugawara. Mitsuru) 1583

Free Path and Scattering Probability of Ions in a Glow Discharge Sheath. 
(Tagami. Takashi, Tanaka. Shuhei) 1657

Threading Dislocation Reduction in GaAs on Si with a Single InGaAs 
Intermediate Layer. (Katahama. Hisashi, Shiba. Yasunari, Asai. Koyu) 
1466

Piezoelectric and Dielectric Properties of Aromatic Polyureas Synthesized 
by Vapor Deposition Polymerization. (Fukada. Eiichi, Wang. Xian-Shan, 
Takahashi. Yoshikazu) 1585

Electron Spectroscopy for Chemical Analysis Study on Influence of 
Polymerization on Anisotropic Etching of Thick Silicon Oxide Using C 2 F 
6 Based ER-RIBE. (Dutta. Achyut Kumar) 1663

The Damage Energy Transfer to Interfacial Oxide by Phosphorus Ion 
Implantation for Small Geometry Polysilicon to Polysilicon Contact. 
(Shibata. Hideki, Hashimoto. Kazuhiko) 1472

Dynamic Measurement of Capacitance Variation of Piezoelectric Ceramics 
with Stress. (Mandai. Yukihiro, Cho. Yasuo) 1591

Convolution-Fitting Method for Doppler-Broadening Plasma Ion 
Temperature Measurement. (Mimura. Mikio, Sato. Kuninori) 1668

Calculation of Diffusion Component of Leakage Current in pn Junctions 
Formed in Various Types of Silicon Wafers (Intrinsic Gettering, 
Epitaxial, Silicon on Insulator). (Shingyouji. Takayuki, Murakami. Yoshio, Abe. 
Hidenobu) 1477

Reviewing the Forces of Electret Motors by Applying Maxwell Stress 
Tensor and Delta Function. (Tada. Yasufusa) 1595

Optical Emission Analysis of Triple-Fold Plume Formed at Pulsed IR 
Laser Ablation of Graphite. (Tasaka. Yoshiharu, Tanaka. Masatoshi, 
Usami. Seiji) 1673

Relationship between Low-Noise Performance and Electron Confinement 
in the Channel of Two-Mode Channel Field-Effect Transistors in aq Low-
Drain-Current Condition. (Harada. Yasoo, Sawada. Minoru, Matsumura. 
Kohji) 1483

Effects of Saponification Rate on Electrooptical Properties and 
Morphology of Poly(vinyl alcohol)/Liquid Crystal Composite Films. 
(Ono. Hiroshi, Kawatsuki. Nobuhiro) 1601

A Method of Analyzing Fatigue Cracks in Cast Iron by Measuring 
Vibration Characteristics Caused by Impact Striking. (Honjoh. Katsuhiko,
 Masuda. Jun-ichi) 1681

Relation between Stress-Induced Leakage Current and Dielectric 
Breakdown in SiN-Based Antifuses. (Yoshii. Ichiro, Yasuda. Hiroaki, 
Ikeda. Naoki) 1488

Production of High-Quality Thin-Film Samples of Al-Cu-Fe Icosahedral 
Quasicrystal. (Takeuchi. Shin, Yoshioka. Akinori, Edagawa. Keiichi) 1606

Investigation of the Characteristics of a Piezoelectric Chopper for a 
Modulation-Type Pyroelectric Infrared Detector. (Takeuchi. Kousuke, 
Yokoo. Toshiaki, Nakano. Shoichi) 1690

New Fabrication Method and Electrical Characteristics of Conical Silicon 
Field Emitters. (Mimura. Hidenori, Hashiguchi. Gen) 1493

Carbon Nanocapsules Grown on Carbon Fibers. (Kon. Jun-ichi, Kusunoki. 
Michiko, Ikuhara. Yuichi) 1610

Resolution Enhancement by Oblique Illumination Optical Lithography 
Using a Transmittance-Adjusted Pupil Filter. (Horiuchi. Toshiyuki, 
Harada. Katsuhiro, Mimura. Yoshiaki) 1698

GaAs Oxide Removal Using Hydrogen Plasma Studied by Surface Second-
Harmonic Generation. (Kimura. Takahiro, Yamada. Chikashi) 1498

Crystallization of V(5+)- and Zr(4+)-Substituted KTiOPO4 Crystals from 
Flux. (Fukuda. Tsuguo, Chani. Valery I., Shimamura. Kiyoshi) 1615

Can Electric Field Influence the Sensitivity of CR-39 Detector? 
(Matiullah, Takeda. Naoto, Kudo. Katsuhisa) 1709

Chemical Reaction of Sb Atoms in Si Melt (Short Note). (Kimura. 
Shigeyuki, Huang. Xinming, Terashima. Kazutaka) 1502

Very Long and Large-Area RF Plasma Productions by Odd Surface Waves 
for Online Mass Production of Amorphous Silicon Solar Cells or Mirrors. 
[33(1994)4226]. (Nonaka. Shigehiko) 1711

Strain-Compensated Multi-Quantum Barriers for Reduction of Electron 
Leakages in Long-Wavelength Semiconductor Lasers (Short Note). (Iga. 
Kenichi, Loh. Terhoe, Miyamoto. Tomoyuki) 1504

Characterization of EuBa2Cu3Oy Synthesized in Shock Processes. 
(Syono. Yasuhiko, Hikosaka. Hideaki, Atou. Toshiyuki) 1506

Modulation Voltage and Flux Noise in High-Tc Grain Boundary Junction 
Superconducting Quantum Interference Devices. (Matsuda. Mizushi, 
Suzuki. Daisuke, Kuriki. Shinya) 1510

Anisotropic Etching Process for Submicron Patterning of Nb Using CF4. 
(Hayakawa. Hisao, Akaike. Hiroyuki, Watanabe. Takeaki) 1515

Magnetic Flux Focusing in DyBaCuO Step-Edge Josephson Junctions 
(Short Note). (Umezawa. Toshimasa, Higashino. Yasushi) 1519

Magnetic Susceptibility of Some Mixed-Metal Compounds: 
NBu4Zn(II)xFe(II)1-x[Fe(III)(ox)3]. (Okawa. Hisashi, Bhattacharjee. 
Ashis, Iijima. Seiichiro) 1521

Magnetoresistance Effects in Ni-Fe-Co/Cu/Co-Pt Trilayers. (Tsunashima. 
Shigeru, Hoshino. Katsumi, Nakatani. Ryoichi) 1526

Ferrite Plating of Ba-Containing Iron Oxide Films Using Chelated Highly 
Alkaline (pH=11-13) Aqueous Solutions. (Tamaura. Yutaka, Itoh. 
Tomoyuki, Miki. Takeshi) 1534

Dependence of Magnetization on Short-Range Order for Ni3Mn Alloys. 
(Okazaki.Teiko) 1537


 ----------------------------------------------------
JAPANESE JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS.  PART 2,  L
Vol. 34, No. 3B, MAR 15 1995
 ----------------------------------------------------

Improving the Quality of GaAs Films by Electron Beam Irradiation during 
Molecular Beam Epitaxial Growth at Low Temperature. (Tamura. 
Susumu, Kinoshita. Koushi, Yamashita. Kazumi) 339

Excess current through Single-Barrier Structures with Si-Planar-Doped 
AlAs Layer. (Fukuyama. Hiroyuki, Waho. Takao) 342

Impact Ionization in 0.1 mum Metal-Oxide-Semiconductor Field-Effect 
Transistors. (Kurata. Hajime, Nara. Yasuo, Sugii. Toshihiro) 345

A Missing Link is Found: a Nongmuir-Blodgett Films [34 (1995) L 131]. 
(Vithana. Hemasiri, Johnson. David, Lando. Jerome) 396


 ------------------------------------------------------
JAPANESE JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS.  PART 2, L
Vol. 34, No. 4A, APR 01 1995
 ------------------------------------------------------

Real-Time Observations on the Cleaning Process of Patterned GaAs 
substrates. (Morishita. Yoshitaka, Nomura. Yasuhiko, Katayama. 
Yoshifumi) L397

New Epitaxial Growth Method of Cubic GaN on (100) GaAs Using 
(CH3)3Ga, HCl, and NH3. (Miura. Yoshiki, Takahashi. Naoyuki, Seki. 
Hisashi) L401

Near-1.3-mum High-Intensity Photoluminescence at Room Temperature 
by InAs/GaAs Multi-Coupled Quantum Dots. (Tackeuchi. Atsushi, 
Nakata. Yoshiaki, Yokoyama. Naoki) L405

Numerical Analysis of Influence of Surface Barrier on Current-Voltage 
Characteristics for Narrow Superconducting Lines. (Andoh. Hiroya, 
Kusunoki. Masanobu, Hayakawa. Hisao) L408

Magnetic Anisotropy of Sm2(Fe1-xCox)17Cy. (Izumi. Hirokazu, 
Machida. Ken-ichi, Adachi. Gin-ya) L412

Spin-Valve Memory Elements Using [{Co-Pt/Cu/Ni-Fe-Co}/Cu] 
Multilayers. (Irie. Yousuke, Sakakima. Hiroshi, Kawawake. Yasuhiro) 
L415

Enhancement Effect of Plasma Enhanced Chemical Vapor Deposited SiN 
Capping Layer on Dielectric Cap Quantum Well Disordering. (Choi. Won 
Jun, Lee. Seok, Cho. Kyuman) L418

Effect of Alumina on Crystallization of Low-Dielectric Lead Borosilicate 
Glass. (Jean. Jau-Ho, Lin. S.-C., Yang. S.-L.) L422

Transmission Electron Microscopy Study of La-Doped Bi-Sr-Cu-O 
Compound. (Lu. bin, Li. Fang-hua, Zhang. Yu-heng) L425

In Situ Monitoring of Al Growth in Chemical Vapor Deposition by 
Detecting Reflected Laser Light Intensity. (Sugai. Kazumi, Okabayashi. 
Hidekazu, Kishida. Shunji) L429

Photoelectron Spectroscopy of EuBa2Cu3O7-y Thin Film Surfaces 
Treated by an Electron Cyclotron Resonance Oxygen Ion Beam. (Asano. 
Hidefumi, Suzuki. Minoru, Oshima. Masaharu) L433

Characterization of Chemically Vapor Deposited Silicon Nitride Films 
from Disilane and Ammonia. (Henda. Redhouane, Laanab. Larbi, 
Fourmeaux. Robert) L437

Preparation and Magnetooptical Properties of Cd1-xMnxTe Microcrystal-
Doped SiO2 Glass Thin Films. (Nasu. Hiroyuki, Hayashi. Masayuki, 
Hirao. Kazuyuki) L440

CFx (X=1-3) Radical Measurements in ECR Etching Plasma Employing 
C4F8 Gas by Infrared Diode Laser Absorption Spectroscopy. (Miyata. 
Koji, Takahashi. Kunimasa, Goto. Toshio) L444

Simple Direct Monitoring of SiH3 Radical and Particulates in a Silane 
Plasma with Ultraviolet Transmission Spectroscopy. (Toyoda. Hirotaka, 
Goto. Masashi, Sugai. Hideo) L448

Micropattern of Inorganic Film Prepared by UV-Irradiation and Heat 
Treatment of Polyalkylsilyne Film. (Watanabe. Akira, Nagai. Yoshinori, 
Matsuda. Minoru) L452

Copper Oxide-Loaded Tin Dioxide Thin Film for Detection of Dilute 
Hydrogen Sulfide. (Yoo. Do Joon, Tamaki. Jun, Yamazoe. Noboru) L455

Fluorination of Fullerene Film by CF4 Plasma. (Mieno. Testu, Sakurai. 
Atsushi) L458

Atomic-resolution Imaging of ZnSSe(110) Surface with Ultrahigh-Vacuum 
Atomic Force Microscope (UHV-AFM). (Sugawara. Yasuhiro, Ohta. 
Masahiro, Morita. Seizo) L462

Neutral Stream Extraction from Electron Cyclotron Resonance Plasma by 
Using Parallel Magnetic Field. (Jin. Yoshito, Tsuchizawa. Tai, Matsuo. 
Seitaro) L465

\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
<<                                                                  >>
<< InterLingua                             Phone: 310/792-3636      >>   
<< 423 S. Pacific Coast Hwy, #208          Fax: 310/792-3642        >> 
<< Redondo Beach, CA 90277                 Email: japanese@aol.com  >>
<<                                                                  >>
<< Specializing in document retrieval and translation from Japan    >>
<<                                                                  >>
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjapanese cudfnJack cudlnBernstein cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.23 / A Plutonium /  Re: Where's the CNF water heater Heeter?
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Where's the CNF water heater Heeter?
Date: 23 Jun 1995 16:25:31 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <tomkDALLw2.Fv7@netcom.com>
tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) wrote something similar:

But Thomas Fuckdog Kunich writes this:


 Hmm, it's been -- how many billions of dollars that FuckdogKunich seen
spent on hot fusion? A REALLY LONG TIME, since Princeton Tokamaks
told us that pack of lies about how they measured radiation and excess
heat.
Then there was that whopper about how they already promised to reach
breakeven that would heat an ordinary house's water for the trillion
spent on it.

 Hey, I am an asshole Kunich, bring on the water heater and plasma.
 
 What's the matter Fuckdog a la Kunich? Where is this thing enema? So
what's the deal? Are you just going to change the subject to the
further mystical adventures of Princeton scam? I think we all agreed
that FuckdogKunich simply was a measurement error with poor
documentation for another 2 trillion. Your observations, witty as they
are, cannot turn FuckdogKunich into a scientist.
 -------------------

  Jed it is about time that cold fusion can stand on it's own merits by
just posting the facts and ignoring all of these Boeotians. It looks
better for cold fusion and yourself Jed by completely ignoring them,
such as the above poster. There are enough scientists searching for the
truth of cold fusion that it would be better to let these nonscientists
and haters of science paint themselves.
  Jed, the best thing to do is just save all the posts against cold
fusion and when the tide has turned, we cold fusioners will arrange to
have "fired" all of those persons who were virulently against the
science. Not only fire them, but paint them into the blacklist of
science history. Just keep their posts, have all the posts archived.
And just post the facts of cold fusion. Forget chasing after these
haters because it wastes your precious time. Their are plenty of cold
fusioners now that all of sci.physics.fusion can be filled with the
hate of those pathological skeptics and it would not make a dent in the
progress.
   Jed, please do not chase after them, the chasing is no benefit to
the science of cold fusion itself.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.23 / A Plutonium /  Re: Last word on Griggs
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Last word on Griggs
Date: 23 Jun 1995 16:38:35 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <Bix+eDb.jedrothwell@delphi.com>
jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

> barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>  
>     "no one denies that you are the source of the most detailed
>     experimental data on the Griggs device---why do you think people
>     address questions about it to you?"
>  
> God only knows! I myself always get information from original sources. You
> are s-t-r-a-n-g-e. First you ask me a question, then you refuse to believe
> the answer. So why ask in the first place? In any case, I am outta this job.
> I will drop the subject after this message, unless someone asks an
> interesting question.

 Jed, I wish you would drop communicating with Merriman. I had
condemned him to Styx and so I totally ignore him. He is a complete
waste of your time. Unlike Steve Jones who at least does experiments,
Merriman is just a fat tub of lard behind a computer. Notice the fancy
title in his signature block? That only means the only physics
experiment he ever performs is roasting a hot dog and he probably can't
do that well.
 Instead of trying to straighten out these freaks-in-science like
Merriman, Jed, just totally ignore them. Most readers know
instinctively that Merriman is not a working scientist and his
objections are clueless. Please Jed, just post facts concerning cold
fusion and stop wasting your valuable time chasing or having a
conversation with these freaks.
  Just keep the posts archived for future use. When Cold Fusion is
exploited, then is the time to engage with these freaks. Then we will
boot them out of any and all science jobs that they are in. Just keep
their freakish posts but ignore them totally.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.23 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Who cares if it is all smoke and mirrors?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Who cares if it is all smoke and mirrors?
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 95 13:15:06 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Richard A Blue <blue@pilot.msu.edu> writes:
 
>Pardon me, but I don't believe that there will be a big rush
>to invest in a technology that has no underlying rational basis.
 
Pardon me, but the whole history of science and technology proves you are
wrong. Every single invention and discovery started out without an
underlying rational basis. Every one of them! Nobody understood fire when
it was first discovered. Nobody understood gunpowder, or the incandescent
light at first. That's why it took a genius like Edison to puzzle it out, and
he did not finish the job in his lifetime. Nobody understood the physics of
flight until a generation after Kitty Hawk and a World War that dependedd
upon airplanes. Nobody understands superconducting today. Ask any
semiconductor expert whether every single aspect of semiconductor design
and production is fully understood or not and he will laugh in your face.
 
All technology and all science begins as a total mystery. Gradually, partly,
it becomes less of a mystery, but the process never ends. There is not
complete underlying rational basis to *any* technology. Not even rubbing
sticks together to make fire. Can anyone *really* define what friction is,
and how it works on the subatomic level? I have read enough of the physics
of friction to know that many aspects of it remain a mystery to modern
science, yet we have been starting fires by rubbing sticks for hundreds of
thousands of years.
 
Dick Blue and other academic scientists do not understand anything about
the dynamics of technology, or the history of technology, or the limits of
human understanding.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.23 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Shameful behavior
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Shameful behavior
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 95 13:27:14 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Harry H Conover <conover@max.tiac.net> writes:
 
>behavior -- possibly gang behavior.  I question what
>it is about Wallace that sets him apart for this special 
>treatment -- evidently something beyond spamming that 
>Archimedes Plutonium, Stefan Hartmann and others -- all characterized 
>by frequent postings of  verbose nonsense -- lack.  Still, the 
 
I agree with your comments. I myself cannot judge whether Wallace's comments
are valid or not. I do not understand that level of phyiscs at all. But
his overall tone sounds reasonable and his references and quotes sound
legitimate to me. So I do not understand why anyone would be upset by his
postings. The worst he could be is wrong. What harm could that cause?
 
>Check your facts on this.  Two of Wallace's biggest attackers are 
>relative newcomers to s.p.f., while one of Wallace's supporters,
>Jed Rothwell, is a (bite my tongue on saying this) central 
>to most of the ongoing CF debates.  
 
I hasten to say that I have contributed nothing to ongoing CF debates about
theory, which is what Wallace is discussing. It is completely over my head.
But, let me point out that Wallace made one or two comments about cold fusion
in which he quoted some skeptic like Huizenga (I don't recall who). He
touched upon the experimental evidence, which is the part I *do* understand.
Wallace's quoted statements were wrong. His judgement about CF is seriously
flawed. But that does not bother me, and I would never attack him here or
"spam" him (whatever that means). As long as his tone is reasonably
respectful and scientific, why should I care if he is wrong? Lots of people
are wrong. As long as they maintain a civil tone, and as long as they give
me reasonable credibility, I will always remain civil with them. I only
get nasty when people attack me, or when they endlessly repeat some crackpot
theory like "stored heat" when I and Logajan and others have carefully and
repeatedly shown that these theories must be incorrect, according to
elementary principles. I don't mind high level confusion, but people who
continually assert things that violate the conservation of energy really
should turn it off, I think.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.23 /  jedrothwell@de /  Britz is crazy: Potapov not secret
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Britz is crazy: Potapov not secret
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 95 13:32:49 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk> writes:
 
     "A couple of weeks ago we (i.e. those of us who made contributions to
     the "Send Tom to Griggs" fund) decided to use the remaining $700 for
     Scott Little to buy one of these Russian Potapov devices and take a
     close look at it. We are told that thousands of them are being sold all
     over the former Soviet Union. I have a contact who knows where Potapov
     is and I thought it would be easy to get this info. It turns out that it
     is not; there is some unexplained secrecy about this. . . ."
 
What are you talking about, Britz?!? Potapov's address is right there in his
papers! I published it, here, on several occasions, for crying out loud. I
have tons of information from him. The company is Vizor Inc, it is located in
Kishinev, Moldavia. To be exact: 277012 Pushkin Street #24. The telephone is
virtually unreachable from the West. Supposedly it is 23-38-10. Nobody there
speaks English, so you must write in Russian.
 
Weeks ago, when Scott Little went looking for a Potapov device, naturally he
contacted me. I gave him the address in the return e-mail.
 
I cannot understand Britz! What would motivate a person to publish a
preposterous untrue statement like this: "there is some unexplained secrecy."
It reminds me of Morrison's bogus report on ICCF5. Anyone who bothers to check
*any* original sources will see instantly it is wrong. Did Britz bother to
read my ICCF5 Highlights review? That was the original source of the
information. It lists the address, it has footnotes. Did he look up the
references? Did he talk to Sapogin? He couldn't have! He did not ask me for
the address, even though I am the one who posted the information. I am
constantly posting information -- even in response to things like Merriman's
idiotic theories about "stored heat" that magically lasts for years. Why
wouldn't I tell him? As long as the information has no financial value to me,
I'll share it if I am asked politely, or if I feel like tweaking someone's
nose with it.
 
I CANNOT UNDERSTAND why anyone would be so unwilling to lift a finger to find
out this sort of thing. Do you expect to find Potapov's address by e.s.p? Do
you expect it will magically appear on your computer screen? Did you hope he
would read your mind and mail you information without your asking? Why on
earth would anyone claim there is secrecy before bothering to EVEN ASK FOR THE
ADDRESS?!? It is crazy.
 
 
     "While I can't understand the need for secrecy, there may well be some
     good reason for it. That is what my source tells me, too; he also
     assures me that the device works, and I believe he has seen it."
 
Well, of course there has to be *some* secrecy surrounding the R&D at Vizor.
It is a corporation in business to make money. There must always be a modicum
of secrecy. In any case this person Deiter spoke with is correct as far as I
know. The machines do work, according to most reliable reports from people who
have seen them. I can confirm they are being sold all over the Soviet Union,
in large numbers. That is what I said in my ICCF5 Highlights paper. However, I
have not independently tested a machine myself, so I am not certain it works.
I am more sure of other CF devices, like the ones from Griggs and the Cravens/
CETI demo, because I have tested them myself. I also have more confidence in
machines from people like Pons and Fleischmann, McKubre, Oriani, Mizuno and
Storms. These are well documented and I have spoken at length with the
scientists, so I know more about them than I know about Potapov.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.23 / Chris Kostanick /  Re: Amazing behaviour
     
Originally-From: chrisk@gomez.stortek.com (Chris Kostanick)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Amazing behaviour
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 17:09:51 GMT
Organization: Storage Technology Corporation

singtech@teleport.com (C. Cagle) writes:

>Say something worthwhile about fusion, Dieter, and don't suppose that
>people who are not posting are not participating.  They either private
>email responses (which you would have no way of knowing about) or they are
>interested but may not wish to contribute at the time for a variety of
>reasons.

This is hilarious. Someone who, to my recollection, hasn't posted
anything useful about fusion tells the CF Biblio maintainer to 
do some useful work. 

Chris Kostanick
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenchrisk cudfnChris cudlnKostanick cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.23 / Alan M /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" <Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 18:31:03
Organization: Home

In article: <3sejdq$30k9@navajo.gate.net>  wallaceb@news.gate.net
(Bryan G. Wallace) writes:
> I suspect that the real reason you don't like the topic thread "The Farce 
> of Physics" is that you are sensitive to the word "farce" with regard to 
> cold fusion.  In any  case I plan to only post this thread in sci.physics 
> in the future.

No. I don't like the thread (a) because it has no connexion with fusion
and (b) because it is mainly egoistic rubbish. Cold Fusion is itself
enough of a Farce not to need any off-topic postings by you and your
friends.

But thank you for deciding not to post here any more, even it is for
the wrong reasons. Goodbye, Bryan, and good riddance.
-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

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

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.23 / Tom Droege /  Re: Last word on Griggs
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Last word on Griggs
Date: 23 Jun 1995 18:26:38 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3sdhqe$f77@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) says:

>Well, my policy is not to waste effort on trying to convert 
>believers. Instead, I prefer to make them suffer at their
>own expense, preferably by somehow transferring their money
>to me via their gullibility. 
>
>Care to make any bets on whether Griggs will still be claiming 
>excess heat 2 years from now?
>

Careful, Barry.  My estimate is that Griggs will not give up so
fast. He has stuck to it for 6 years or so, so I would pridict
that he will stick to it 6 years more.  If you want to bet on
"claiming excesss heat 2 years from now"  I will take some of 
your money.  

Tom Droege

>
>--
>Barry Merriman
>UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
>UCLA Dept. of Math
>bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
>
>
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.23 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Seeking info on Tronac 450 calorimeter
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Seeking info on Tronac 450 calorimeter
Date: 23 Jun 1995 18:20:09 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <DAMq7M.E8M@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

>If anyone has personal experience with this calorimetric
>equipment, especially in this field, could you please
>contact by e-mail if possible.  

Hey, why should we do your homework for you?  It's all in the literature!
Don't you have a phone to call the manufacturer?  As if all we have to
do all day is answer the same silly questions over and over again.
--
					Richard Schultz

"You just make this crap up and publish it without thinking. . . You did not
have the foggiest, vaguest idea what the man was doing. . . Did you ever
think, for even a second, what might happen to you if these people turn
out to be right?" -- Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 6 January 1993
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.23 / mitchell swartz /  Re: comments on the Cravens demo
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: comments on the Cravens demo
Subject: Re: comments on the Cravens demo
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 19:10:45 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <3rmu7n$3g6@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: comments on the Cravens demo
schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Philosopher of the Dangerous Maybe, writes

  " I have at least one question."

   There were eight or so questions there, and all
unanswered before your question.
Are you man enough to answer and respond?
  Probably not.   {thanks in advance if you do.}


cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.23 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Merriman's theory shot down in flames!
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman's theory shot down in flames!
Subject: Re: Merriman's theory shot down in flames!
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 19:12:37 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <3se825$mn9@cnn.Princeton.EDU>
Subject: Re: Merriman's theory shot down in flames!
rschultz@phoenix.princeton.edu (Richard H. Schultz) writes:

-"You'll notice that Rothwell himself never answered my question."

Why should he?
Many people do not, because Mr. Schultz has an unfortunate
tendency to, on occasion, act childishly and with exceptional hubris.
An additional reason may be that he also avoids questions as he 
attempts to dazzle with his nonsense, prose, and poetry.

It is not lost on readers here, that the commonality between Schultz
and Flat-worlders and Astrologers is their preference for theories 
that fly in the face of scientific observation.

Whether it is lasers, Josephson junctions, p-n junctions, the Hall
effect, triplet production, or cold fusion, any rebuttal by such skeptics 
ought be supported with evidence.  Here it is not.
Schultz's ability to "hand-wave" and "brick-toss" words to attempt to
invalidate an observation does not mean that the 
observation does not exist.   

    ====================================

-"If you read what most of the skeptics say, most of them are not 
-opposed in principle to the idea that Coulomb's Law, Conservation of
-Angular Momentum, Quantum Mechanics, etc., might be violated in this
-bizarre set of circumstances." 

There is absolutely no evidence that these are violated or even need
to be revised.  Instead, the statement by Schultz
shows the absolute lack of science and logic which this particular
spokesman for the HOTFUSION community will spout to attempt
to coverup the subject and developing scientific field of cold fusion.

It is not lost on readers here, that whenever some HOTFUSION-believers 
think they can hand-wave claiming "every observation is wrong" or
"there is some flaw in the experiment or the
interpretation of the data," they will choose to do so instead of
carefully examining the data for information.

  As Mr. Schultz, posting from Princeton, notes,
it is quite apparent that some of the HOTFUSION-Believers
are simply ignoring the cold fusion data because it would
upset their pet theories (or perhaps jeopardize their funding).
This interpretation is borne out by their copious repetitive &
nonsensical response to the data supplied from
numerous laboratories.

   Their fears and self-preserving reflex may not be correct, however,
because the key to control of fusion may require combination 
of all these (hot, cold, lukewarm, etc.) techniques.



cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.23 / mitchell swartz /  Seeking info on Tronac 450 calorimeter
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Seeking info on Tronac 450 calorimeter
Subject: Re: Seeking info on Tronac 450 calorimeter
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 19:14:49 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <3sf0kp$l08@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Seeking info on Tronac 450 calorimeter
schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) demonstrates
his mental pathology once again:

   >If anyone has personal experience with this calorimetric
   >equipment, especially in this field, could you please
   >contact by e-mail if possible.  
=rpes  "Hey, why should we do your homework for you? 
=rpes   It's all in the literature!
=rpes  Don't you have a phone to call the manufacturer? 
=rpes   As if all we have to
=rpes  do all day is answer the same silly questions over 
=rpes  and over again."

  We?    Peanuts Envy, indeed, Mr. Schultz.




cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.23 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Where's the CNF water heater Heeter?
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Where's the CNF water heater Heeter?
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 20:40:23 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

I guess that means that you cannot come up with a reasonable
answer to the question of where Pons and Fleischman's water heater
is.

By all means rant and rave all you want. Cold Nuclear Fusion just
doesn't seem to be able to raise any more steam than your words.


It is rapidly becoming futile to even talk about CNF because no
matter what interesting mistakes the various researchers have
made, they are still nothing more than mistakes.


cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.23 /  EJPAGE /  Re: Permanent Magnet CF Experiments?
     
Originally-From: EJPAGE <CST9436@RDC.AB.CA>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Permanent Magnet CF Experiments?
Date: 23 Jun 1995 21:48:36 GMT
Organization: RDC

Hi, Bill  Just picked up this thread.  Taking an Internet howto course 
in Red Deer.  


cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenCST9436 cudlnEJPAGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.23 /  EJPAGE /  Re: Permanent Magnet CF Experiments?
     
Originally-From: EJPAGE <CST9436@RDC.AB.CA>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Permanent Magnet CF Experiments?
Date: 23 Jun 1995 21:49:36 GMT
Organization: RDC

Hi, Bill  Just picked up this thread.  Taking an Internet howto course 
in Red Deer.  


cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenCST9436 cudlnEJPAGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.22 / Jim Carr /  Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
Date: 22 Jun 1995 13:53:25 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

Although the original post here focused on the cuts to specific 
parts of the fusion-energy budget, the pattern noted (funding DOE 
national labs at the expense of more cost-effective university 
research groups) is common to other changes proposed by the budget 
committee.  For example, they plan to eliminate all 5 university 
nuclear physics labs (including the international user facility 
at the MIT Bates electron accelerator).  Thus there appear to be 
wider issues than just the fusion program involved here, and it is 
not a matter of making decisions based on value -vs- cost after a 
review of the various programs.  

In article <DAEnn9.Fps@prometheus.UUCP> 
pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>
>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.  

Fair point, but that begs the question of what expenditures were 
the cause of the unbalanced budget.  The part of the federal budget 
for research as a % of GDP has remained small and fairly constant 
over many decades.  It is not much different from years when the 
budget was in balance.  If it you believe the reason for cutting 
the budget is to punish a profligate past, the cuts should reflect 
that past.  What is actually happening, across the board cuts, 
suggests that the national value placed on research (in general, 
also reflected in tax code changes that affect the private sector) 
has fallen significantly in the past 40 years. 

>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.   

Actually, there are three major ones and a few other smaller ones. 
NIH is huge and growing.  The reduction in physical science research 
over the past 20 years has reflected a change in priorities, not a 
reduction in overall science spending.  This is changing now. 

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

NSF funds engineering, not DOE.  ;-) 

DOE, as I am sure you know, was cobbled together from entities that 
did science, ones that did engineering, and ones that manufacture 
and maintain the nuclear stockpile.  Disassembling it would not be 
so bad if the science money went to NSF (although having different 
sets of contract monitors does seem to have its advantages at times, 
which is why there is biology in NSF as well as NIH).  But the money 
is not going to the NSF, it is going to the big multipurpose labs. 

>And that is exactly what they are correcting and "Protecting" science 
>from the corruption of "big project nowhere white elephants".  Yep ...  

That is not so clear as you seem to think.  The shift in priorities 
from university programs to large labs is good? 

-- 
 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:
cuddy22 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.23 /  EJPAGE /  Re: Permanent Magnet CF Experiments?
     
Originally-From: EJPAGE <CST9436@RDC.AB.CA>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Permanent Magnet CF Experiments?
Date: 23 Jun 1995 21:48:04 GMT
Organization: RDC

Hi, Bill  Just picked up this thread.  Taking an Internet howto course 
in Red Deer.  


cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenCST9436 cudlnEJPAGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.23 /  DEVLI /  Re: Permanent Magnet CF Experiments?
     
Originally-From: DEVLI <CST9436@RDC.AB.CA>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Permanent Magnet CF Experiments?
Date: 23 Jun 1995 21:54:14 GMT
Organization: RDC

hi, Bill  Just pickled up this thread  Taking an internet course in Red 
Deer.  TTYL  EJP


cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenCST9436 cudlnDEVLI cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.23 /  DEVLI /  Re: Permanent Magnet CF Experiments?
     
Originally-From: DEVLI <CST9436@RDC.AB.CA>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Permanent Magnet CF Experiments?
Date: 23 Jun 1995 21:54:48 GMT
Organization: RDC

hi, Bill  Just pickled up this thread  Taking an internet course in Red 
Deer.  TTYL  EJP


cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenCST9436 cudlnDEVLI cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.23 /  DEVLI /  Re: Permanent Magnet CF Experiments?
     
Originally-From: DEVLI <CST9436@RDC.AB.CA>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Permanent Magnet CF Experiments?
Date: 23 Jun 1995 21:54:53 GMT
Organization: RDC

hi, Bill  Just pickled up this thread  Taking an internet course in Red 
Deer.  TTYL  EJP


cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenCST9436 cudlnDEVLI cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.23 /  DEVLI /  Re: Permanent Magnet CF Experiments?
     
Originally-From: DEVLI <CST9436@RDC.AB.CA>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Permanent Magnet CF Experiments?
Date: 23 Jun 1995 21:55:02 GMT
Organization: RDC

hi, Bill  Just pickled up this thread  Taking an internet course in Red 
Deer.  TTYL  EJP


cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenCST9436 cudlnDEVLI cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.22 /  jedrothwell@de /  Last word on Griggs
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Last word on Griggs
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 95 23:52:35 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
 
    "no one denies that you are the source of the most detailed
    experimental data on the Griggs device---why do you think people
    address questions about it to you?"
 
God only knows! I myself always get information from original sources. You
are s-t-r-a-n-g-e. First you ask me a question, then you refuse to believe
the answer. So why ask in the first place? In any case, I am outta this job.
I will drop the subject after this message, unless someone asks an
interesting question.
 
You want to believe this kooky stuff about magic energy storage that lasts
for years? Fine. You want to propose a "test" of this crackpot theory? Good!
Go to Rome Georgia and do your test. Don't bother me about it, because I will
never drive 40 miles to test your crazy ideas. At MIT and at ICCF5 Griggs said
explicitly that any scientist who wants to do any test is welcome to do it,
as long as the scientist pays and does all the work. And if you don't like
his secrecy agreement, just buy a system for $10,000, take it home and do
any test you like.
 
 
    "(Say, whatever happened to getting Griggs online---I'd much
    rather communicate with him directly)."
 
Ummm. . .  The U.S. Post Office is still in business, last I checked. Phones
still work too, for voice and fax as well as data. I never have any trouble
communicating with Griggs directly.
 
 
    "Yes, I agree with you that Tom D.'s reported contained no
    useful experimental information. It was of sociological interest
    only . . ."
 
No, it was not. Tom is a lousy sociologist. He is a poor judge of character
and he does not know beans about business.
 
 
    ". . . and basically made the point that Griggs has a sincere interest
    and open mind about getting to the bottom of what is going on in his
    machine, and also that the experimental protocols he has used in the past
    are not up to the standards of scientific proof of excess energy --
    especially in the hot water mode."
 
No, that is incorrect. Tom did not find any reason to doubt the protocols or
the instrumentation. He made up two or three bogus reasons, but I blasted
them ten seconds after reading his report. It was like shooting fish in a
barrel. For example, he said that maybe the machine might have affected the
performance of the thermocouples. I pointed out that the thermocouples are
confirmed with bimetallic thermometers and that you can check this problem
a minute after the machine is turned off. Tom admitted I was right, and that
he had made a mistake on that point. He was wrong about everything he said
too. Not a little bit wrong: completely wrong. Out to lunch.
 
The thing is, if Tom had concluded there *was* excess heat, then you people
would have read his report carefully, and *you* would have shot all those fish
even faster than me! You would be yelling "why didn't you check the
thermocouples after the machine was turned off!!!" You would have found the
report littered with technical errors and sloppy mistakes. Tom's procedures
were so sloppy and his observations so skimpy that his mistakes could easily
have gone the other way -- he might as easily have been convinced as not
convinced.
 
It is amazing to me how you so-called "skeptics" will swallow a report like
Tom's without questions or doubts or criticism. Then you swallow Morrison's
political report on ICCF5 without checking original sources. Then you
believe the Jones fairy tale of magical helium leaks at Los Alamos, that
sometimes leak in a thousand times below atmospheric concentration, and
sometimes 100 times more, at unnatural isotopic ratios. Then you buy Blue's
magic water that stores heat without rising in temperature. Is there
*anything* you will *not* believe?!? You people are the biggest suckers in
history. Heck, you even believe the Tokamak Hot Fusion claims! That is the
biggest swindle in the history of science. You are not skeptics, you are True
Believers.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.23 / Robert Heeter /  Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares?
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares?
Date: 23 Jun 1995 03:49:27 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <pu7-G25.jedrothwell@delphi.com> , jedrothwell@delphi.com
writes:
><jedrothwell@delphi.com> writes:
> 
>>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.
> 
>Note to Humor Impaired readers: that is a joke. In real life I would never
>think of hiring any out-of-work DOE scientists. Not even to take out the
>garbage.

Damn!  There goes my big job opportunity!  Damn!  

;)

Don't worry Jed.  If I'm ever out on the street looking for a
job, I wouldn't even consider asking you for one.  It would
be much more fun to design and build things that actually
worked as advertised.  :)

(Note to humor-impaired readers:  this is a joke in the
same way that Rothwell's was, so don't blame me for it.)

-------------------
Bob ("Not yet a DOE scientist, but likely to be 
                                         unemployed anyway") Heeter
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu / rfheeter@pppl.gov
http://www.princeton.edu/~rfheeter
Of course I do not speak for anyone else in any of the above.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.23 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Last word on Griggs
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Last word on Griggs
Date: 23 Jun 1995 05:01:02 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <Bix+eDb.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>  
>  
> I will drop the subject after this message, unless someone asks an
> interesting question.

Sounds good to me.


> It is amazing to me how you so-called "skeptics" will swallow a report like
> Tom's without questions or doubts or criticism. Then you swallow Morrison's
> political report on ICCF5 without checking original sources. Then you
> believe the Jones fairy tale of magical helium leaks at Los Alamos, that
> sometimes leak in a thousand times below atmospheric concentration, and
> sometimes 100 times more, at unnatural isotopic ratios. Then you buy Blue's
> magic water that stores heat without rising in temperature. Is there
> *anything* you will *not* believe?!? You people are the biggest suckers in
> history. Heck, you even believe the Tokamak Hot Fusion claims! That is the
> biggest swindle in the history of science. You are not skeptics, you are True
> Believers.
>  

Well, my policy is not to waste effort on trying to convert 
believers. Instead, I prefer to make them suffer at their
own expense, preferably by somehow transferring their money
to me via their gullibility. 

Care to make any bets on whether Griggs will still be claiming 
excess heat 2 years from now?


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


cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.23 / Arthur Kerschen /  Fusion through electron-beam inertial confinement???
     
Originally-From: ahk@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Arthur H Kerschen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion through electron-beam inertial confinement???
Date: 23 Jun 1995 05:20:47 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Unix Users Group

	Science (and Science Fiction) writer Jerry Pournelle believed in
1980 that fusion was most promising through electron-beam inertial
confinement. That is heating fusionable atoms fast enough through an
electron beam to produce fusion (as opposed to laser and particle beam
inertial confinement, or magnetic confinement as in a tokomak).
	Sandia Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico was working on 
this back then, but I haven't heard anything about that line of research 
lately. I admit that I'm a sceptic on the topic of cold fusion although I 
bought some Paladium when it was first suggested by Pons and Fleishmann. 
	Does anyone know if electron-beam inertial confinement research is
still going on or did it reach a dead end years ago? 

                               -- Arthur Kerschen
                               ahk@gas.uug.arizona.edu
                               Secretary, Arizona Libertarian Party
 
	"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the
price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what
course others may take but as for me; give me liberty or give me death." 
                               -- Patrick Henry

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenahk cudfnArthur cudlnKerschen cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.23 /  JensTroll /  Re: Books/ Information/ Demonstration of Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: jenstroll@aol.com (JensTroll)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Books/ Information/ Demonstration of Cold Fusion
Date: 23 Jun 1995 02:34:31 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

>Subject: Re: Books/ Information/ Demonstration of Cold Fusion
>From: arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
>Date: 14 Jun 1995 10:17:51 -0700
>Message-ID: <3rn5jv$bbi@wu.cse.tek.com>
>
>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

Sir,  
You are quite rude and offensive. As the above clearly shows.  The man is
entitled to his opinions, as are you.  Be that as it may, and even though
I might not agree with statements he made in whole or in part, I think I
preffer his company, and manners to yours.  

Good day
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjenstroll cudlnJensTroll cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.23 / M Fullerton /  Re: Merriman's theory shot down in flames!
     
Originally-From: mefuller@acs4.acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael Ernest Fullerton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman's theory shot down in flames!
Date: 23 Jun 1995 06:18:59 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary

Richard Schultz (schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu) wrote:
: In article <xeyfWYi.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

: >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.
:  
: Do you believe that UFOs are extraterrestrial spacecraft?  After all, that
: is *exactly* (as in word for word) the argument that the proponents of
: the "we are being visited by extraterrestrials who are clever enough to
: never show themselves clearly and obviously" school of thought use.  They
: (and the Bermuda Triangle-ists, Ramtha fans, Gellerites, etc.) are fond
: of pointing out how no one has ever disproved their data, and therefore
: they must be right, as well.

'[Some] UFO's are piloted by ET's.'
' "Cold fusion" is caused by X.'

Those sound like theories to me.  Jed seems to basically be
saying:  I see all this evidence for a new source of energy.
What is wrong with this?  Isn't this how science is supposed to
work?  Or is science about mindlessly _believing_ that all unusual
things must automatically be bunk?

Isn't science about collecting data, and trying to be sure it is
right? Or is science about believing certain data is always
wrong, and spending all your time trying to deny it?

: >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.


--
Michael Fullerton |  Seeds, like ideas, don't germinate in concrete
Home Page:           http://www.ucalgary.ca/~mefuller/
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmefuller cudfnMichael cudlnFullerton cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.23 / 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: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 08:59:11 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On Tue, 20 Jun 1995, Mitchell Jones wrote:

[... lots of dots ...]
> ***{Baloney. Dieter has not denied that he switched meaning in mid
> sentence. What I have concluded, as a result of an extensive e-mail
> discussion with him, is that he is using software that doesn't permit him
> to go back and correct mistakes. That is why the sentence got posted in
> its defective form. Unlike you, Dieter has not seen fit to deny the
> obvious. --Mitchell Jones}***

I confess: I do not deny the obvious. There, I've said it.

Mitch, you need to see a topologist, to help you untie the knots you have 
got yourself into. As I say, remember fusion?

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


cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.23 / C Cagle /  Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
     
Originally-From: singtech@teleport.com (C. Cagle)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 03:26:09 -0800
Organization: Singularity Technologies, Inc.

In article <3sanoo$bo2@cnn.Princeton.EDU>, Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:

> In article <3s5u4q$sjl@maureen.teleport.com> Charles Cagle,
> singtech@teleport.com writes:
> > The U.S. Fusion program is an utter con job.  And you are either very 
> > naive for believing that breakeven is just around the corner or so 
> > morally corrupt that you are hopeless.
> 
> Given that TFTR is within a factor of 3 or so and JET is expected to
> make breakeven whenever it goes to full DT, I have no idea where
> you get this idea.  As for the con job, speak for yourself, perhaps,
> but TFTR has delivered on everything it promised, with less budget
> than expected, albeit over a somewhat longer timescale (due primarily
> to congressional budget cuts in the early and mid 1980s).
> 
> > Talk in usable watt-secs.  Or kilowatt hours of usable power.  Not in 
> > amounts of energy released per unit of time.  Cut the release period to 
> > very small increments of time and the power rises.  Go to zero and the 
> > nod of a piss ant's head provides infinite energy.  Do you really 
> > believe everyone is as naive as to believe your pitch?
> 
> TFTR produced 33 MJ of fusion power in one day recently.  That's
> just shy of 10 kWh.  Not a lot, admittedly, but definitely not nothing.
> But TFTR was never designed to produce much more than that.
> The problem is that while we know how to build machines that will
> achieve breakeven and beyond, we haven't figured out how to get
> the construction funding for them.

Care to mention the input?
 
> > The U.S. Fusion program is not close to breakeven because they haven't
> a 
> > clue about the fusion process.
> 
> Care to enlighten me on this one?  A program which goes from 
> producing 0.000001 of breakeven (to within a couple of zeros) to producing
> 0.3 of breakeven, in just 25 years or so, is clearly "close" and most 
> certainly "has a clue".

It is distasteful how you manipulate numbers as if they had meaning.  I'm
sure you'd be embarassed if it were put into a realistic and honest
sentence that contained costs, etc.  I can light a match and produce more
than your first number, or crush a titanium chip...or 
  
> > I urge everyone interested in progress in this area to support the 
> > immediate firing of all WELFARE QUEENS IN WHITE COATES associated with 
> > DOE and PPPL et al.  Support the cut and private enterprise will have a 
> > solution in a year.
> 
> Funny, but no one I know around here wears a white coat. 

Null results.
  
> If private enterprise thought it could have a solution in a year,
> they'd be working on it right now - there'd be a huge economic
> incentive to do the research. However, it's just not happening.

That you know about, anyway.
  
> Still, the fact that you believe what you wrote suggests that 
> maybe it is you who is (to rephrase your second sentence from 
> far above) "either very naive for believing that ... or so morally 
> corrupt that you are hopeless."  Or perhaps you have a few
> *facts* that you'd like to share which would support your views?
 
Sure, I've got a few facts.  More than 10 billion of them down the drain.

> Frankly, you could get more respect if you were a little more polite.  

I can't say as I wish to be respected by those I disdain.  And how do you
practice politeness with those who are picking the pocket of the
taxpayers?

>For instance, I would have replied to your private emails if it weren't
for >hostile postings like these.  

I get hostile just thinking about a scientific elite managing to pick the
pockets, legally, of course, with NJ  congressmen's help, of hard working
citizens.

>I ain't no welfare queen. 

I forgot, that's right.  Instead, you are a welfare queen in training.

Really, Bob, none of this is personal, well...unless it applies, of course.

-- 
"It is dangerous to be right in
 matters on which the established
 authorities are wrong."

Voltaire
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudensingtech cudfnC cudlnCagle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.23 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Permanent Magnet CF Experiments?
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Permanent Magnet CF Experiments?
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 11:23:30 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On 22 Jun 1995, GeorgeRW wrote:

> Is there anyone out there at the present time who is conducting any CF
> experiments using permanent magnets as one of the variables? 
> 
> Is there anyone who knows of any experiments which used electromagnets and
> produced positive results, either alone or any other stimulus?
> 
> Now, I am aware of some experiments that were performed approximately two
> years ago, but I am interested in current work?
> 
> Is there any theoretical work which in any way incorporates magnetics into
> the CF theory structure?
> 
> George Wisniewski
> 

I checked for "magnetic" in the big biblio file and found these three 
papers. They are all theoretical, it seems noone has tried this (and 
published the results in a journal). I have shortened the items a bit,
down to where they actuall mention "magnetic". Park, in the final part of
his paper, does not actually say one should use a magnetic field, but that
one should optimise the Pd surface so as to be aligned best in a magnetic
sense. For the full abstracts, see the big file in the archives; better
still, get the papes and read them. They are all easily got.

#
Kim YE;   Fusion Technol. 19 (1991) 558.
"Surface reaction mechanism for deuterium-deuterium fusion with a
gas/solid-state fusion device".
[...] ... The theory leads to suggestions for optimisation of
the yield: an oxide coating, a pulsed voltage, surface asperities, control of
the size and number of the bubbles or pockets and a magnetic field to divert
electrons, which might interfere. 
#
Park AE;  Fusion Technol. 24 (1993) 319.
"Some thoughts on a simple mechanism for the 2H + 2H --> 4He cold fusion
reaction".
** Six references are cited as evidence for 4He production correlated with
excess heat; thus, the reaction d + d --> 4He must be the one. The author
calls it the compressed-rotational-shielded (CRS) cold fusion reaction. It has
not been proven not to take place in the cold fusion environment. At one stage
of this reaction, two d nuclei are brought close together by momentum,
compression and internal ground-state rotations in the presence of an excess
of electrons at the Pd surface; e.g. in the presence of a magnetic field. An
#
Roessler OE, Becker J, Hoffmann M, Nadler W;   Z. Naturforsch. A44 (1989) 329.
"Fermi gas like hypothesis for Fleischmann-Pons experiments."
[...]..  A testable implication is submitted: by applying a strong magnetic
field in conjunction with an RF source (NMR technique), it would be possible
to align the spins of the bosons. Hereby these composite bosons will become
'doubly polarised' (1988) since both subspins are equal. This would suddenly
introduce Pauli repulsion amongst all the constituent subparticles, the
protons and neutrons. The cold fusion should therefore come to a virtual stop
immediately.
 

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

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.23 / C Cagle /  Re: Amazing behaviour
     
Originally-From: singtech@teleport.com (C. Cagle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Amazing behaviour
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 03:50:47 -0800
Organization: Singularity Technologies, Inc.

In article <3sa95q$oo2@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>, FKNF40A@prodigy.com
(James Stolin) wrote:

> singtech@teleport.com (C. Cagle) wrote:

>   If something wothwhile was said about fusion, I'm sure we'd all welcome 
> Wallace's posts.  However, trying to dig a few relevant lines out of 
> several hundred precludes any meaningful info.  Perhaps Wallace could 
> snip out the irrelevant portions?

One line of truth would a working reactor make.  Surround that one line
with all the drivel of a thousand ranting psuedoscientists and its still
truth.  And you could still figure out how to catalyzed fusion reaction. 
It would be worth wading in after, don't you think?

>    You didn't come here to stir things up?  It sure looked that way.  You 
> blasted Dieter with false accusations and claimed he owed an apology 
> whether he used the cancelbot or not.  A cancelbot was NOTR used and you 
> still haven't apologized to Dieter.

Mr. Stolin.  I used the operative word 'if' in my 'false accusation'.  Are
Dieter's feeling hurt?  Are you looking out for him?  

Lighten up you guys!  Dieter ... are you listening?  I'm sorry I accused
you (if in fact that's what I did).  OK James?

Best Regards,

-- 
"It is dangerous to be right in
 matters on which the established
 authorities are wrong."

Voltaire
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudensingtech cudfnC cudlnCagle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.23 / Dieter Britz /  Potapov device purchase problems
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Potapov device purchase problems
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 13:16:32 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

A couple of weeks ago we (i.e. those of us who made contributions to the
"Send Tom to Griggs" fund) decided to use the remaining $700 for Scott
Little to buy one of these Russian Potapov devices and take a close look
at it. We are told that thousands of them are being sold all over the former
Soviet Union. I have a contact who knows where Potapov is and I thought it
would be easy to get this info. It turns out that it is not; there is some
unexplained secrecy about this. This is strange because this can hardly be
a secret, when thousands of the things are being sold somewhere, but there
you are. I am making an effort at the moment to get the address from
another contact but he has very sporadic email connection and I don't know
when I'll get an answer (or whether) - let alone what it will be.

I am told, however, that all will be officially revealed in a "short time",
so I guess we just wait for the moment.

It would be wrong to conclude from all this that there is something wrong
with the device itself and that Potapov doesn't want anyone looking at it,
for fear of exposure. While I can't understand the need for secrecy, there
may well be some good reason for it. That is what my source tells me, too;
he also assures me that the device works, and I believe he has seen it.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Jun 24 04:37:03 EDT 1995
------------------------------
