1995.06.29 / Dieter Britz /  Biblio update Jun-95
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Biblio update Jun-95
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 11:53:52 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University


Starry droogs,

another bunch coming up. I got the Lewenstein items from the man himself
and although the one in Recherche appeared in a thing called just that, I
deemed it to be a comment, rather than a paper. This will not stop me from
citing it at some future time, because Bruce presents some interesting
figures of publication statistics, comparing, e.g., CNF with other stories.
In the sci-soc paper, he finds that groups like this one, despite speeding
up knowledge accumulation, are not so helpful. He concludes this because he
finds that too much of what is written here is of low quality, in terms of
what researchers need. Another argument for a moderated group...

I found the Morioka interesting, purely from the view that positron
annihilation has been used as a tool to investigate CNF (a few Chinese papers)
but M suggests it as a trigger for fusion. I suspect that, as with ion beams
etc, the positrons will require more energy to produce than that given off by
the 'cold fusion' resulting - if any. Then we have another Russian paper,
on phase transition, here the alpha/beta one. This falls under the heading of
looking for any kind of violent processes that might be taking place in
crystal lattices and might favour fusion somehow. Phase transitions (also in
ferroelectrics), cracking, etc, have been considered. Tsvetkov et al made
some MD calculations and find the idea feasible.


Journal Papers: Current count = 990
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#
Lewenstein BV; Science, Technol. & Human Values 20 (1995) 123.
"Do public electronic bulletin boards help create scientific knowledge? The
cold fusion case".
** Sci-soc
The author, a science sociologist, examines the title question, looking at how
electronic mail, news groups etc (computer-mediated communication or CMC)
affect the spread of knowledge. CMC has certain characteristics of its own.
BVL takes the cold fusion as a case study.  CMC (and the telefax) played a
significant role in the spread of the cold fusion news. Bulletin boards (by
which BVL means news groups) have certain properties, and one that interests
the author is the "big and little ideas" distribution. He concludes that,
despite the faster spread of news, these news groups do not all help
professionals very much and will not soon replace face-to-face communication.
A cold fusion chronology is appended.
#...................................................................... Jun-95
Morioka S;  Il Nuovo Cimento 107A (1994) 2755.
"Nuclear fusion triggered by positron annihilation at vacancies in deuterated
metals".
** Theory, cnf activation by positron annihilation, res+
The author states that positrons beamed at PdD will be trapped in crystal
vacancies, as will deuterons. So, when positrons annihilate with electrons,
the approx. 1 MeV energy from this might be given to the deuteron, which would
then crash into others, causing fusion. This argument is then backed up by
theory, and the result is that the fusion rate is, among other things, limited
by the concentration of vacancies and, using reasonable parameters, might be
about 4 orders of magnitude above those reported by Jones et al (1989) (now
retracted).  This is a testable hypothesis.  Mar-94/May-94
#...................................................................... Jun-95
Tsvetkov SA, Bondarenko NB, Bel'tyukov IL, Varaksin A, Zhivoderov AA;
Phys. Metals Metallogr. 76 (1993) 399.
(Originally in Fiz. Met. Metaloved. 76 (1993) 94).
"Molecular-dynamics calculation of phase transitions in the Pd-D system and
cold nuclear fusion".
** Theory, calculation, phase transition, PdD, res+, no FPH/Jones ref
This team has previously proposed that phase transitions may play a role in
initiating cold fusion, and have developed some models. Here, they attempt by
means of molecular dynamics to find the optimum conditions.  The beta-alpha
transition in palladium deuteride in particular was considered.
Microcrystallites with free boundaries containing 10^3 Pd atoms were the basis
for the MD calculations, at temperatures 300, 350 400 and 450 K. The results
of computer runs are that both energetic deuterons, and favourable d-d
approach are possible, optimum at about 300K. This agrees with some
experimental results (Zelenskii et al 1990).  Nov-92/Oct-93
#..................................................................... Jun-95

Comments Current count: 235
^^^^^^^^
#
Lewenstein BV; La Recherche 266 (1994) 636 (June issue) (in French).
"La saga de la fusion froide".
** BL tells the story of cold fusion., up to the end of 1993 or so. There is a
full colour photo of F&P. More interesting, there are publication statistics,
comparing the publication rates in general and specialist outlets with
scientific papers (submission rate and appearance rate) as well as similar
data for items on the Exxon Valdez affair and high temperature
superconductivity. Cold fusion shares with Exxon a sharp initial peak,
followed by low activity with occasional revivals. The article also tabulates
a chronology of the main events in the cold fusion story.
#...................................................................... Jun-95



How to retrieve the archived biblio files:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
1. By ftp from vm1.nodak.edu; log in as anonymous, giving your email
   address as password. Then cd to fusion. There are many files here, so
   do not use dir; if you are after the biblio files only, try
   dir fusion.cnf-*
   and then get or mget what you want.
2. Send an email to listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, blank subject and the message
   get fusion.<whatever you want>. To find out what there is, send
   index fusion
   This gets you an email with the directory of all files there, with which
   you can also match Fusion Digest numbers with file names, before getting
   those files. The index, or files you ask for, will be emailed to you.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.29 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Potapov device test discussion
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Potapov device test discussion
Date: 29 Jun 1995 16:01:31 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <3st52v$1np@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>, monkey@engin.umich.edu
(Monkey King) wrote:

> In article <3srotd$lao@netfs.dnd.ca>, Bill Page <wspage@ncs.dnd.ca> wrote:
> >In article <73044-804263664@mindlink.bc.ca>, Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
(Bruce Dunn) says:
> >>Clearly, what is needed in the test setup is some thermometers to measure
> >>the temperature of water going into the pump, going from the pump to the
> >>device, and going out of the device.  The delta Ts and flow rates should
> >>directly indicate the thermal inputs of the pump vs. the device.
> >>
> >I wonder if it is practical to attempt to measure 0.1 deg. C. temperature
> >differences in a high volume turbulent flow. Even measuring the flow
> >rate accurately enought might be problematic. It is much easier to
> >measure the integrated effect on the heat reservoir.
> 
> It may not be practical to measure delta-T as it flows, but how about
> taking out the Potapov device, just run the water through the pump for some
> time, say 30 minutes, and measure the final temperature?   You can then put
> the Potapov thing back in, run for the same time, and see the difference.
> 

You'll also need to measure the pressure drop across the Potapov device,
and replace the device with some resistance to flow that produces the same
pressure drop.  (A simple globe valve might work.)  Otherwise, the
increased resistance to flow will cause the pump to put more energy into
driving the system, and there will be an apparent, but unreal, excess
heat.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.29 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: Where's the CNF water heater Heeter?
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Where's the CNF water heater Heeter?
Date: 29 Jun 1995 16:40:29 GMT
Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here.

Archimedes Plutonium (Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
:   To the contrary, I see many con jobs in science and math. Here is a
: short list.
: 1) Weinberg on Big Bang
: 2) Hawking on Black Holes
: 3) whoever on Neutron stars
: 4) Evolution theory
: 5) Einstein on GR
: 6) Guth on Inflation
: 7) BCS on superconductivity
: 8) Cantor on transfinites
: 9) Cantor on diagonal method
: 10) Apell&Haken on 4 color mapping problem
: 11) Smale, Freedman on PC
: 12) the Continuum Hypothesis nonproblem
: 13) Taylor/Wiles on FLT

I'd like one of those jobs please. 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.29 / B Vidugiris /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 17:03:52 GMT
Organization: Motorola CCRD

In article <3sptpf$86i@kilroy.id.net>, Tom Potter <tdp@id.net> wrote:
)In article <DAp7z4.EJq@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>, aroytbur@alchemy.chem
utoronto.ca (Artur Roytburg) says:

)The thought occurs to me:
)how long would it take for a completely valid theory of everything,
)to be validated and accepted,
)if the theory was the work of a Mayan or Black?

The thought occurs to me:

How long would it take for a completely valid (as far as can be tested)
theory of, not everything, but a pretty good subset, to be validated
and accepted by Tom Potter if the theory in question was proposed
by one or more icky professional scientist(s)?
 
Like that awful relativity theory, or that really bizarre (no joke
here) quntum theory?

Inquiring minds want to know :-)
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenbhv cudfnBronis cudlnVidugiris cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.29 / Tom Potter /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter )
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: 29 Jun 1995 18:54:48 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3sqe60$799@electron.rutgers.edu> bweiner@electron.rutgers.edu (Ben Weiner) writes: 

>
>tdp@id.net (Tom Potter) writes:

>>The thought occurs to me:
>>how long would it take for a completely valid theory of everything,
>>to be validated and accepted,
>>if the theory was the work of a Mayan or Black?

>innuendo aside

What "innuendo"?

>(why drag race/ethnicity into this?)

Because race, religion, ethnicity, nationality and credentials
greatly affect the proliferation of information.

>, if a completely
>valid theory of everything (presuming such a thing exists, of which
>I am not convinced) is published tomorrow, it will take a _long_ time
>before it is accepted by all physicists.  Even if it's published by
>somebody who might be expected to come up with a theory of
>everything, say Ed Witten.

Why not Leroy Brown or Huaman Poma?

>If the supposed TOE is published by an established theoretical
>physicist who happens to be Mayan or Black (African-American,
>did you mean?), I don't think it will take significantly longer
>to be accepted than if published by a established theoretical physicist
>who happens to be white.  If it is published by, say, a person
>without a college degree, it will take a very long time to be
>accepted regardless of the ethnicity of the proponent.

Who determines who is in the establishment?
Are you saying that credentialism determines the value of truth?

>I hope you weren't using "Mayan or Black" as short hand for outsiders
>excluded from the physics establishment.  You didn't really mean to
>imply that there aren't any Mayan or Black physicists, did you?
>Because of course there are - not in proportion to their share of
>the world's population, regrettably, but it seems like you might
>have just written all the Mayan or Black physicists out of your mind.

I could have mentioned any group ( Or person )
that I perceived as stigmatized and discounted.

>(Friendly warning:  Don't try to out-politically correct me.  You
>are messing with an expert.  Heh, heh, heh.)

Should I fear you because you are an expert at distorting truth
and stigmatizing people? Show us your skills.

I am in the truth business, not the "politically correct" business.
I am an equal opportunity flamer.
I have no inhibitions about flaming Blacks, Whites, Christians,
Jews, conservatives or liberals where truth is involved.

>btw, about TOEs, theories of everything are overrated.  The day
>somebody comes up with a theory that allows simple analytical
>calculation of magnetohydrodynamics problems, then I'll be impressed.
>Also, I have an open challenge out to all crackpots on sci.physics
>to come up with a good alternative theory for the temperature
>dependence of the heat capacity of metals.  Nobody's ever bit.

Post the accepted theory, and what you perceive to be its' flaws.
Perhaps I, or one of the other crackpots ( Crackpot -  a term commonly
used to stigmatize someone outside the group, and to try to create a
discounting of the information they present. ) will bite.

To counter your challenge to "crackpots", I would like to offer a challenge
to the controlled fusion experts, who over the last fifty years, have spent
billions of dollars of tax payers hard earned money. Do it!

I will check the newspapers next week
to see if my challenge has been accepted.

If they haven't accepted my challenge,
I can only assume that they are crackpots.
Put up or shut up!

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.29 / Charles Cagle /  Re: Cold Fusion???
     
Originally-From: <singtech@teleport.com> (Charles Cagle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion???
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 02:29:27 -0800
Organization: Singularity Technologies, Inc.

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

>Uh, I'll admit it when you provide some actual evidence rather than 
>just a claim from someone of dubious background---unless you would
>care to post your credential for making such claims in liue of
>actual evidence. I mean, if you were a former top DOE official 
>maybe your comments would carry some weight on their own. 

Barry, I spoke with Robert O. Hunter right after he resigned as head of
DOE.  As most political appointees who have moved up the ranks he was
careful not to call anybody names, but he did tell me what was going on.
Also, just a few short weeks before there was an article (I believe it was
in Science or Science News) detailing his troubles.  He was trying to pull
the plug on PPPL as a waste of money and as a project that was without
hope of success.  He ran smack into the political machinery of New Jersey
(PPPL) and the next thing you know he was down the road.  That's the
problem with the system that you are in Barry, there is not much room for
people with integrity.

>But, in reality I suspect you are a crank with their own axe to grind.
>You wouldn't happen to have any radical new theories of physics
>that allow miraculous inventions which never actually
>get built, now would you?> 

Well, of course, I have an axe to grind.  It's waste in gov't brought on
by dishonesty in science.  That's a pretty big axe as far as many people
are concerned - and a reasonable one at that.

I *do* happen to have "a radical new theory of physics" which will allow
several new inventions to appear - but unlike you I'm not looking for a
gov't hand out to pay for it.  Plus, I think there is a more than an even
chance my own particular design for a fusion reactor will eventually get
built - and work.  It is true that private enterprise also runs into costs
problems as well as any other endeavor.  But I'll manage without the fraud
and guile that has characterized the U.S. Fusion program as of late.

<snip> so that is proof that fusion
>managers are not afraid of pulling such a plug, no?

Not really, I suspect its more like pulling teeth (or rather like pulling
a sucking child off of a breast).  Gov't programs don't die easy and when
they do, they've generally moved on to the next con anyway.  They transfer
easily over to the next deal. Business as usual.

>However, since JET is scheduled to demonstrate breakeven next 
>year, how is that going to effect your world view. Would
>you care to bet, say $1000 that they can't do it?

Better yet, why don't you just agree to commit suicide if they don't.

>And, pray tell, just how many staff scientists work underneath you?
>You wouldn't happen to be the _only_ technical officier would you?

Is there a point here?  I am not ashamed to say that I am, in fact, nearly
the entire working staff.  So what?  Working alone, I might be able to
accomplish something that thousands working together cannot.  Do you hold
that to be impossible?  I've put 23 years in on this and it is just now
looking like it might pay off.  I've got newspaper articles lambasting me
for suggesting low temperature fusion processes clear back in 1980.  Mr.
Merriman, what were you doing with fusion 15 years ago?  Again, another
local paper did a story on my efforts to harness low-temperature fusion in
1987 about two years before Pons et al and BYU's Jones went public. It's
in the public record that I was involved in this research.  What's more
Barry, I don't even have a degree in physics.  Does that make me not a
scientist in your world view?  And I don't hold having a degree or two
against you or anyone who does.  I dropped out of college physics when I
realized that the things I wanted to know were not known.  Simple things
like what is charge?, what is gravity? The facts were that the
'establishment' didn't have the answers to those questions.  They still
don't.  Since physics was a personal passion and love then and now, my
efforts could be classified as "amateur" which by definition is a "lover
or dovotee of an art or science".  I do it because I can do nothing else. 
I'm driven by the joy it gives me.  To me, obtaining the truth is more
precious than gold and more desireable than the praise of men.  Why are
you in science?  Do you love it, or does it give you a sense of elitism?
If I get confrontational it is because I am jealous for the pure
principles of science which I see you and others trod over with
carelessness.  And don't confuse yourself by thinking that I feel I am a
poor misunderstood genius, or that I feel persecuted.  It simply isn't
so.  What I found didn't take genius, it took re-evaluating fundamental
concepts about the behavior and interaction of charged particles, and to
this day I am still astounded that no one else has stumbled across the
same thing.  I didn't believe it myself for several years until I took it
to a top nuclear weapons designer who worked at the cutting edge of
physics at Los Alamos.  When I presented the theorem to him he responded:
"This is amazing. Where did you get this stuff?  This is the first
original idea I've seen in physics in twenty years!"  A few weeks later
when a local newspaper was doing an article on my research he reiterated
his original impression to the interviewing reporter.

>I am still waiting for you to send me some technical references to your 
>radical ideas, but I guess it is not in your best interest to 
>correspond with actual scientists.

You can keep on waiting, too.  As soon as the patent applications are
filed you will know all about it.  On the other hand I do correspond with
actual scientists Barry (not that you are one of them) but "real"
scientists, I've had discussions with David Bohm (now dead) on a
geometrical interpretation of potentials and local events with global
effects, once with Y. Aharanov (similar ideas), with Thomas Gold, with
Hans Alfven (now dead) concerning current limits of monoenergetic beams of
charged particles, once with Wheeler (years ago about advanced
potentials), with James Tuck (dead now) about creating ball lightning (he
was formerly involved with Project Sherwood at Los Alamos) and am
presently engaged in exchanges with several fellows who together have
published dozens of articles in Physical Review Letters on particle
creation and gravity and topology. Actually, I've exchanged papers and/or
ideas with a virtual host of investigators, from briefly Paul Koloc, to
Jones at BYU, to Robert Golka in Utah, Bob Bass at BYU, and Gerhard
Dijiikis in Rotterdam (he's published several articles in Nature).  I've
discussed ball lightning with Stanley Singer (whose written several books
on the subject). But so what?  I have agreed with some, some have agreed
with me, I've disagreed with some and some have disagreed with me. The
exchange of ideas, how ever much we might have agreed or disagreed was
never as venemous as it gets on this newgroup.  The one characteristic
that I have noted with all of those whom I would classify as 'real'
scientists as opposed to most in this newsgroup was that they were secure
sufficiently in their persons that they could listen to an idea with an
open mind instead of an open mouth. And, whether or not there was
agreement on the items discussed I always came away a richer person for
having participated in the process.

I have incautiously dropped several hints about the direction my work has
taken and the approaches used - and since filing day is getting closer - I
could do it again, but would I be casting pearls before swine?  That's the
experience I've seen here.  Suggest something new and this newsgroup comes
alive like jackals after a wounded gazelle.  Seldom does anyone say, OK
let's hear the whole story.  Instead, people like Dick Blue who has
stuffed himself with too much knowledge, most of which is useless
(otherwise he'd have his own design) begins to pontificate on why
something is wrong instead of shutting up and listening to why something
may be right.  This newsgroup is absolutely vitriolic to new ideas.  Or on
the other hand it is simply gullible to certain other ideas.  There is not
a bleeding one of you who really understands in detail the actual fusion
process yet you all proclaim yourselves to be experts.  You evaluate new
concepts from within your own failed frameworks and smugly and arrogantly
lambast those who would add something new.  You are dogs in the manger. 
You can't eat the straw (make fusion) and you damn sure want to make those
who might, stay away.  What are you going to do if I or some other person
steps up with the key you all have been missing?

When some of us get fed up with your fraud (not you alone Barry, but that
of many of the regulars) and speak out, there you come out again, teeth
bared and asses showing.  You can't see the problem because you are the
problem.

Nevertheless, there are a few people who participate (or lurk) with this
newsgroup who are really possess the true spirit of the scientific method,
process, and tradition.  They are anxious to hear new ideas, to explore
alien concepts, to listen and exchange with a politeness and bearing that
is absolutely foreign to most of you.

Last, I have shared some of these ideas in depth with several members of
this newgroup through private posts.  Why would any sane person want to
subject themselves to this wasp nest?  And what makes you think you have
the capacity to evaluate what I may be able to offer?  Pearls again,
pearls.

Reasonable requests from reasonable people for further information about
Singularity Technologies'  SCYBOLT (Singularity CatalYzed Beam Output Low
Temperature) nuclear fusion reactor concept will likely be honored through
private email or snail mail.

Best Regards,

-- 
Charles Cagle
Chief Technical Officer
Singularity Technologies, Inc,
1640 Oak Grove Road, N.W.
Salem, OR 97304

Ph/Fx 503/362-7781


I sought the fount of fire in hollow reed,
Hid privily, a measureless resource
For man, and mighty teacher of all arts.  - Aeschylus ..Prometheus Bound

email> singtech@teleport.com
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudensingtech cudfnCharles cudlnCagle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.28 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Cold Fusion???
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion???
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 1995 00:29:42 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <3sli77$n4f@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry
Merriman) wrote:

> In article <21cenlogic-2406951508080001@austin-1-2.i-link.net>  
> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:
> > In article <DAJxKw.IKs@crash.cts.com>, bigphil@cts.com (Phil Palisoul II)  
> wrote:
> > 
> > > after taking a high school chemistry class, i was told that ...
> > > phil, san diego
> > > bigphil@cts.com
> > 
> > Phil, two comments:
> > 
> > (3) ... the proponents of "hot fusion"--i.e., the essentially goofy
notion of
> > controlling a thermonuclear explosion--believe it. To prove their
> > dedication to this idea, they have flushed 40 years and roughly $100
> > billion (looted from taxpayers, of course!) down an apparently bottomless
> > rathole, without a scintilla of success. 
> > 
> > --Mitchell Jones
> > 
> 
> Oh, and Phil, one more comment: beware of taking science advice from
> folks on the Internet. It is quite possible that they don't know
> what they are talking about, and may also spin hyperbolic lies in order to 
> grind some personal axe. Mitchell Jones provides a good example of
> this above. His one testable claim, the $100 billion dollar figure, is 
> too large by a factor of about 5 (The US has spent around $10 billion,
> over 35 years; if you adjust into todays dollars, _maybe_ that would 
> total $50 billion, 1995). And his claim that there is not
> one scintilla of success is laughable. Perhaps he could explain how the
> evil DOE scientists have fooled congress and DOE officials into 
> continuing funding for 35 years, while, meanwhile in the labs, 
> they were not accomplishing anything at all....
> 
> 
> If anything, the reason fusion is in trouble now is because of making 
> too much progress...the limitations of the Tokamak have become too clear
> now that the technology is fairly well developed.
> 
> 
> --
> Barry Merriman
> UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
> UCLA Dept. of Math
> bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)

Barry, it looks to me like your biases are showing again. The figure I
quoted stuck in my mind several years ago, while reading one of the
articles that proliferated during the initial Pons-Fleischmann hoopla. I
don't remember the source or the assumptions, but I do have one comment:
if your $10 billion number is really $20 billion and you adjust it for
inflation, the $100 billion figure is plausible by your own reasoning.
Since it is in the interest of the participants in the "hot fusion"
boondoggle to downplay the amount of money they have wasted, and since
they can easily do so by simply construing as narrowly as possible the
meaning of "fusion research," I really don't see a rational basis for your
objection to the figure that I gave. These types of bureaucratic money
laundering techniques are endemic throughout the federal budget, and it
would be absurd to assume that they are not practiced in the "hot fusion"
area. 

Because of the obvious weakness of your argument, I find myself unable to
come up with a rational explanation for the accusatory tone of your post.
Why did you suggest that I was telling "hyperbolic lies in order to grind
some sort of personal axe?" Could this be a case of "projection"--i.e., of
accusing another of something of which the accuser is guilty? Based on
your signature, after all, you appear to be attached to the UCSD Fusion
Energy Research Center. Could it be that you are the beneficiary, directly
or indirectly, of grants under the U.S. fusion energy budget? If so, then
shouldn't you play the role of the good judge, and recuse yourself from
commenting on this topic, due to having a "personal axe to grind?" 

--Mitchell Jones

--Carol Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.29 /  meron@cars3.uc /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 19:06:23 GMT
Organization: CARS, U. of Chicago, Chicago IL 60637

In article <3sqe60$799@electron.rutgers.edu>, bweiner@electron.rutgers.e
u (Ben Weiner) writes:
>tdp@id.net (Tom Potter) writes:
>
>>The thought occurs to me:
>>how long would it take for a completely valid theory of everything,
>>to be validated and accepted,
>>if the theory was the work of a Mayan or Black?
>
>innuendo aside (why drag race/ethnicity into this?), if a completely 
>valid theory of everything (presuming such a thing exists, of which 
>I am not convinced) is published tomorrow, it will take a _long_ time 
>before it is accepted by all physicists.  Even if it's published by
>somebody who might be expected to come up with a theory of
>everything, say Ed Witten.  
>
>If the supposed TOE is published by an established theoretical
>physicist who happens to be Mayan or Black (African-American, 
>did you mean?), I don't think it will take significantly longer
>to be accepted than if published by a established theoretical physicist
>who happens to be white.  If it is published by, say, a person
>without a college degree, it will take a very long time to be
>accepted regardless of the ethnicity of the proponent.

Uh, I would say yes/no/maybe on the last one.  When you submit a paper, to
Phys. Rev. for example, nobody asks for your credentials and degrees.  So in
this sense it doesn't matter.  There is some built in bias in the system in the
sence that the editors may view a paper which arrives from a residential adress
(as opposed to institutional one) with some suspicion and subject it to a
closer scrutiny.  However, no paper will be rejected solely on the grounds that
the author is not a member of the academia.

There is one advantage, though, that an established and well known physicist
enjoys, namely the ability to make his ideas known fast to the people whose
opinion matter.  An example that comes to mind is the use of the SU3 symmetry
in elementary particle theory, which gave rise to the quark concept and,
eventually, to what is known now as the Standard Model.  It was conceived
independently by two people, Murray Gell-Mann in the US and Yuval Neeman in
Israel, at approximately the same time.  I may be wrong on the exact chronology
but to the best of my recollection (somebody correct me if I'm wrong) Neeman's
submission of the paper preceded Gell-Mann's presentation of the theory, at a
meeting.  However, Gell-Mann was at that time the "dear child" of theoretical
physics, the one that was expected to come with some real breakthrough, while
Neeman was a virtual unknown.  The result:  Gell-Mann got the Nobel prize and
Neeman is still mostly unknown (out of Israel).

Therefore I would say, yes, you can get your theory accepted faster if you are
a member of the academia, and faster yet if you're well known, but the time
delay involved are not very big and won't matter much except in the case of a
real close race.



Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu	|  chances are he is doing just the same"
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmeron cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.29 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: 29 Jun 1995 20:21:44 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <3susto$ivk@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
Tom Potter  <tdp@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>I am an equal opportunity flamer.

As the saying goes, hard work is no substitute for talent.

>I will check the newspapers next week 
>to see if my challenge has been accepted.
>
>If they haven't accepted my challenge,
>I can only assume that they are crackpots.

What's amazing about crackpots is thatthey can be counted upon to do the
stereotypically crackpot thing with a straight face.
--
					Richard Schultz

"You don't even have a clue as to which clue you're missing." -- Miss Manners
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.29 / Richard Blue /  Re: Implications of Miles experiments
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles experiments
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 20:50:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mitchell Swartz must have reference to a theory for cold fusion,
but he is very shy about telling whose theory he is refering to.
The clues are very sparse, but so far we have heard "coherence length"
and "S-orbitals" and a few other very scientific sounding terms.
There is a slight problem, however, in that some of us have difficulting
figuring out what Mitchell is talking about.

Let me attack the S-orbital question.  Much that has been written about
theories for cold fusion has come from people involved with atomic physics
or chemistry.  They know that when they throw off some term it applies to
atomic states, but they seem to forget that to do nuclear fusion there is
another set of degrees of freedom that must be involved.  I want to know
what S-orbitals are involved in nuclear fusion?  Please be clear on this
point.

As an aside I will note that in general CF theorists want to describe quantum
states that have no nuclear degrees of freedom - a rather strange thing to
do if you are trying to describe a nuclear reaction.  Then as an afterthought
they will tell us that, by the way, the nuclear degrees of freedom are all
messed about and in total thermal equilibrium with the lattice.  Hmmmm!

The other way I know that Mitchell has a theory is that he can tell us with
absolute certainty that only phonons are allowed for the deexcitation.  Since
this is known as an absolute fact there is no further need for experimentation.
It is totally pointless to attempt to make an observation of any other form
of decay!  Talk about ignoring the experimental evidence!

Come on Mitchell.  Can't you give us just a little hint as to how you have
arrived at these insights?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.29 / Joshua Levy /  Re: I don't see a FAQ, so here goes a Cold Fusion question
     
Originally-From: joshua@veritas.com (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I don't see a FAQ, so here goes a Cold Fusion question
Date: 29 Jun 1995 14:01:45 -0700
Organization: VERITAS Software Corp., Santa Clara  CA

nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) writes:
>Commercial research funding is a form of gambling, and can be
>analysed by standard Game Theory.  CF always was a very long shot,
>but had/has the potential to repay its investment thousands of times
>over.  This means that investing in it could still be worthwhile,
>even if you believe that it is 99.9% sure to be an imaginary effect.
>If you believe that it is 99.9999% sure to be imaginary, it probably
>isn't worth investing in.

That assumes you know you are investing in "Cold Fusion".  Six years
ago, you would have invested in P&F, thinking it was "cold fusion".
Five years ago, you would have invested in the Japanise or Italian
efforts, thinking they were "cold fusion".  Now you will need to
invest in Griggs or the device out of the ex-USSR, but how do you know
that those will be cold fusion in a year? 

Joshua Levy <joshua@centerline.com>

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjoshua cudfnJoshua cudlnLevy cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.29 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: 10 billion spent on hot fusion? Instead divide it three  ways
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: 10 billion spent on hot fusion? Instead divide it three  ways
Date: 29 Jun 1995 21:42:27 GMT
Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here.

Thomas H. Kunich (tomk@netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <3st4hu$po8@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,

: >2) Inertial confinement has only one strike against it, does the theory
: >work? But control is inherent, it is built into the system, unlike hot
: >fusion.

: Inertial confinement is very HOT fusion indeed. "Control" as you call
: it is no more built into it than any other fusion. You just set off
: smaller bombs. Harnessing power delivered in such a manner is
: difficult. Practicality is improbable.

How is turning ICF generated power harder than the same task for
magnetically confined fusion?

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.28 /  prasad /  Re: Any cool cold fusion?
     
Originally-From: prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Any cool cold fusion?
Date: 28 Jun 1995 12:32:12 GMT
Organization: sometimes

In article <3s5t4u$sjl@maureen.teleport.com>, Charles Cagle <singtech@te
eport.com> writes:
|> Sure.  Singularity Technologies, Inc. has a new design which outputs a 
|> directed pulsed beam of particles which pass through conversion arrays 
|> to extract the kinetic energy of the particles directly to electric 
|> current.
|> 
|> Regards,

I'm keenly interested in the approach.  What do the conversion arrays do?
Where's the "fusion"?  How's the kinetic energy extracted?

I'd very much appreciate your posting or e-mailing a reply.  I'd like to
contact Singularity.  I've been developing a method for doing a direct
conversion with a new design for fission reactors, which can potentially
cut the bulk and make them several orders of magnitude safer.  In my method
(basic us pat filed recently), the energy comes out of the containment
directly thru wires as A.C., and the conversion takes no moving parts.

--
// email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenprasad cudlnprasad cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.29 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Cold Fusion???
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion???
Date: 29 Jun 1995 22:08:23 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <21cenlogic-2806950029420001@austin-1-4.i-link.net>  
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:
> 
> Barry, it looks to me like your biases are showing again. The figure I
> quoted stuck in my mind several years ago, while reading one of the
> articles that proliferated during the initial Pons-Fleischmann hoopla. I
> don't remember the source or the assumptions, but I do have one comment:
> if your $10 billion number is really $20 billion and you adjust it for
> inflation, the $100 billion figure is plausible by your own reasoning.

As I detailed in another post, if one sums up the dollar
amounts of the US Magnetic Fusion Energy budgets since
their inception, ~1958--1995, one gets roughly 7.7 Billion
(I didn't have the budgets for every single year, so I 
interpolated---take that as +/-10%). Adjusting that into today dollars
would less than double that amount, since most of it was spent
less than one inflationary doubling time ago. Thus $15 Billion
is an upper bound. I see no sleight of hand in the above calculation.
That is the money budget by the US for magnetic fusion, period.




> Since it is in the interest of the participants in the "hot fusion"
> boondoggle to downplay the amount of money they have wasted, and since
> they can easily do so by simply construing as narrowly as possible the
> meaning of "fusion research," 

I constured it to mean research funded by the MFE budget---pretty
wild assumption, eh?

> I really don't see a rational basis for your
> objection to the figure that I gave. T

I don't see any basis for your figure at all---its apparently 
based on a weak recollection of something you read in the 
newspapers 6 years ago. Thats very authoritative.

> 
> Because of the obvious weakness of your argument, I find myself unable to
> come up with a rational explanation for the accusatory tone of your post.
> Why did you suggest that I was telling "hyperbolic lies in order to grind
> some sort of personal axe?" 

Your mistake about the dollar figure could certainly just be an honest
mistake. But, it is clear you are telling a hyperbolic lie when you
say there is "not one scintilla of success". I again challenge you:
spell out your definition of succes.

> Based on
> your signature, after all, you appear to be attached to the UCSD Fusion
> Energy Research Center. Could it be that you are the beneficiary, directly
> or indirectly, of grants under the U.S. fusion energy budget? If so, then
> shouldn't you play the role of the good judge, and recuse yourself from
> commenting on this topic, due to having a "personal axe to grind?" 
> 


Yes, my salary comes entirely from the DOE and has for 4 years. Before
that it came from the NSF---sloppin' at the government trough, wooh boy!

By the way, that salary is lower by 20%--50% than what I could make
being a university professor, or even at the national labs 
on other programs, and is lower than that which I would have
been earning if I simply stayed in my prior job.
Yes, I took a voluntary pay cut to work on fusion, and I work at a rate far
below what private industry would pay for my services. 

In short, I'm effectively donating my skills to the fusion program,
which is fine with me because I support the overall goal of a plentiful,
clean energy source,

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


cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.30 / Derek Ross /  The Potapov device resembles a Hilsch Vortex Tube
     
Originally-From: rossd@arbroath.win-uk.net (Derek Ross)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Potapov device resembles a Hilsch Vortex Tube
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 1995 00:44:42 GMT

 
Scott

I was very interested in your description of the Potapov device. 
Mechanically speaking, it strongly - almost identically - resembles
a heat pump device known as the Hilsch Vortex tube which was
developed during the second world war for heating/refrigeration. 

In article <3sjvb8$pgq@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, Scott Little
(little@eden.com) writes: 
  >Preliminary Test Results on the Potapov Device
  >... Snip ...
  >Apparatus
  >
  >The device we tested is known as a YUSMAR-2 to the 
  >manufacturer. Apparently, these devices are enjoying some 
  >acceptance in Russia as building heaters and the YUSMAR-2 is 
  >the second in a line of four models that they make.  For 
  >this model, the manufacturer specifies an inlet pressure 
  >head of 50 meters of water (71 psi) and a flow rate range of 
  >12.5-23  cubic meters per hour (55-101 gpm).
  >
  >The device we tested consists of a largely cylindrical 
  >chamber with a tangential inlet that spirals gradually into 
  >the cylindrical body of the chamber.  There is a main axial 
  >outlet that occupies most of one end of the chamber and a 
  >secondary, smaller axial outlet on the other end of the 
  >chamber.  The chamber is 2.5" in diameter and 1" high. The 
  >inlet port is rectangular, 1" high and 0.6"  wide.  The main 
  >outlet is 2" in diameter. The secondary outlet is about 3/8" 
  >in diameter. Outside the chamber, the inlet pipe is a cone 
  >which tapers from 2" pipe down to the rectangular inlet over 
  >a distance of 5".  The main axial outlet immediately opens 
  >into a 24" long section of 2" pipe.
  >

This would make a very good description of a Hilsch Vortex Tube. 
The main outlet is the hot outlet, the secondary outlet is the cold
outlet. The only difference is that a Hilsch tube is supposed to be
fed with compressed air (70psi would be reasonable but it should
produce a noticeable temperature difference above 30psi). I don't
know how well it would work with water. With air you can get
temperatures down to -56degC at the cold end or up to 175degC at
the hot end if it's well designed and properly adjusted. 


   >...Snip...
   >The small line marked "bypass" connects the secondary outlet 
   >to the main exit pipe.  This line appears to be an optional 
   >feature of the Potapov device.  In the literature 
   >accompanying our YUSMAR-2, the bypass line is not shown.  
   >However, in a photograph we obtained which shows a device 
   >similar in size to the YUSMAR-2, the bypass line is clearly 
   >present.  We conducted tests with and without this line.
   >

If this device is operated with compressed air the "bypass" should
be removed otherwise you are mixing your hot and your cold
air outputs.  Presumably the same is true for water operation. 

>...Snip...
   >Conclusions
   >
   >The Potapov device we tested did not show any evidence of 
   >over-unity performance in our tests.  The observed efficiency 
   >is 4-8% lower than the rated motor efficiency.  This 
   >difference is significant and is probably due to heat losses 
   >to the air and to the body of the pump, which were not 
   >measured in these tests.
   >
   >Our test conditions closely matched the manufacturer's 
   >recommended operating conditions for the YUSMAR-2.  Our head 
   >pressure was about 60 psi instead of the recommended 71 psi 
   >but our 106 gpm flow rate was at the high end of the 
   >recommended range (55-101 gpm).  It therefore does not seem 
   >likely that we were "underfeeding" the device.
   >
   >We can find no explanation for the failure of this Potapov
   >device to perform as reported (300% over-unity).  It is 
   >possible that we have failed to meet some operating condition
   >that is critical for the over-unity performance.  We will be
   >exploring other operating conditions in the future and we
   >welcome any suggestions for further testing. 
   >

I strongly recommend that you try testing it with air as well
as water.  Provided that the "bypass" is disconnected, you should
find that an air run will produce over-unity quantities of
heat at the main output relative to electrical input energy (pump
shaft work really).  The theoretical limit at room temperature *is*
about 300%.  But this is the theoretical limit for *any* heat pump
run at room temperature. 

For more information on the Hilsch Vortex tube you can refer to "The
Amateur Scientist" by C L Stong published by Heinemann in
London during 1962. Naturally this was a set of reprints from
Scientific American but the book doesn't say which issues the
articles originally appeared in. It must be sometime during the
1950's though.  The particular article is called "The Hilsch Vortex
Tube". It describes how to make one and gives graphs of performance
under various conditions. 

I hope this is helpful, even if I'm wrong about the
resemblance between the Hilsch and Potapov devices. I'm very
interested in the progress of your tests. Good luck with them. 

Cheers

Derek 



cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenrossd cudfnDerek cudlnRoss cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.30 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Implications of Miles experiments
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles experiments
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles experiments
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 1995 01:25:39 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


 In Message-ID: <9506292048.AA22005@pilot02.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles experiments
blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes:

-"Let me attack the S-orbital question.  Much that has been written about
-theories for cold fusion has come from people involved with atomic physics
-or chemistry.  They know that when they throw off some term it applies to
-atomic states, but they seem to forget that to do nuclear fusion there is
-another set of degrees of freedom that must be involved. " 

  Is this a silly attack .. or what.   Where is the beef?
 Please be clear on this point.
Where is the single objection, proof, or whatever as an
"attack" on the fact that the s-orbital is consistent with QM
in coupling a lattice and a nucleus.

  Dick, if you expect me to pull your chestnuts out of the fire in
your decisive agreement that there is a basis for CF  -- dream on.

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

-"As an aside I will note that in general CF theorists want to describe quantum
-states that have no nuclear degrees of freedom - a rather strange thing to
-do if you are trying to describe a nuclear reaction.  Then as an afterthought
-they will tell us that, by the way, the nuclear degrees of freedom are all
-messed about and in total thermal equilibrium with the lattice.  Hmmmm!"

  You are making this up.  If the facts dont fit -- just "change" them, eh?
Many CF theorist discuss several degrees of freedom.  You have chosen
to avoid the literature again  --- and it shows.
  Why don't you prove your silly allegation before you ask a response.

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

-"The other way I know that Mitchell has a theory is that he can tell us with
-absolute certainty that only phonons are allowed for the deexcitation."  

 Note that 
    1)  I didn't say that, and 
    2)  that such deduction only shows that we know Sherlock Holmes,
and -- on this -- Dick Blue appears to be no Sherlock Holmes.
Talk about ignoring what has been posted; but it is consistent with
Dick (and several others) ignoring the experimental evidence, too!

    Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.30 / Tom Potter /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter )
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: 30 Jun 1995 01:27:15 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <1995Jun29.170352.3978@schbbs.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com
(Bronis Vidugiris) writes: 

>
>In article <3sptpf$86i@kilroy.id.net>, Tom Potter <tdp@id.net> wrote:
>)In article <DAp7z4.EJq@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>, aroytbur@alchemy.che
.utoronto.ca (Artur Roytburg) says:
>
>)The thought occurs to me:
>)how long would it take for a completely valid theory of everything,
>)to be validated and accepted,
>)if the theory was the work of a Mayan or Black?
>
>The thought occurs to me:
>
>How long would it take for a completely valid (as far as can be tested)
>theory of, not everything, but a pretty good subset, to be validated
>and accepted by Tom Potter if the theory in question was proposed
>by one or more icky professional scientist(s)?
> 
>Like that awful relativity theory, or that really bizarre (no joke
>here) quntum theory?
>
>Inquiring minds want to know :-)
>
To all inquiring minds.
Tom Potter is not in the theory validation business.
He is the freedom of speech business.

BTW, what is this quntum theory????




cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.29 / Ben Weiner /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: bweiner@electron.rutgers.edu (Ben Weiner)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: 29 Jun 1995 19:51:31 -0400
Organization: Rutgers University

kovsky@netcom.com (Bob Kovsky) writes:

 [I challenged him to show where Kuhn says that theories are first scorned
than accepted ]

>	"How, then, are scientists brought to make this transition?  Part 
>of the answer is that they are very often not.  Copernicanism made few 
>converts for almost a century after Copernicus' death.  Newton's work was 
>not generally accepted, particularly on the Continent, for more than half 
>a century after the <Principia> appeared.  Priestley never accepted the 
>oxygen theory, nor Lord Kelvin the electromagnetic theory, and so on.  
>The difficulties of conversion have often been noted by scientists 
>themselves.  Darwin ... wrote...  and Max Planck ... sadly remarked..."
>	"...Lifelong resistance, particularly from those whose productive 
>careers have committed them to an older tradition of normal science, is 
>not a violation of scientific standards but an index to the nature of 
>scientific research itself.  The source of resistance is the assurance 
>that the older paradigm will ultimately solve all problems, that nature 
>can be shoved into the box the paradigm provides."

>And so on.

>Kuhn, <The Structure of Scientific Revolutions>, at 148-150 in my 
>paperback version (Second Edition, Enlarged) (in lurid pink), chap. XII.

Fair enough, but the quotation continues after "... paradigm provides." :

  "Inevitably, at times of revolution, that assurance seems stubborn and
 pigheaded as indeed it sometimes becomes.  But it is also something
 more.  That same assurance is what makes normal or puzzle-solving
 science possible.  ...
  "Still to say that resistance is inevitable and legitimate, that
 paradigm change cannot be justified by proof, is not to say that no
 arguments ar erelevant or that scientists cannot be persuaded to
 change their minds.  Though a generation is sometimes required to
 effect the change, scientific communities have again and again been
 converted to new paradigms.  Furthermore, these conversions occur not
 despite the fact that scientists are human, but becauise they are.
 Though some scientists, particularly the older and more experienced
 ones, may resist indefinitely, most of them can be reached in one way
 or another."  

and so on.  

Many of Kuhn's examples of scientists who remain resistant (Priestley,
Kelvin) were fairly old at the time they resisted a new theory.  There
is always resistance from oldsters.  But in modern science, a
"generation" can mean ten years.  Whereas in the time of Newton a
generation of scientists was much longer.  I say this merely to point
out that the "wait for the older scientists to die out" idea has
validity but can no longer be literally applied.  Kuhn's ideas
should not provide great comfort to voices crying in the wilderness
nor do they imply that the opposition of scientists to new theories
is always the stubbornness of uncreative types with an outdated
paradigm.  (I jumped in here because I thought people were trying
to push that line.  If I was wrong sorry about that.)

Anyway, I'm still not convinced the story is about evolution of a
given theory from "scorned to accepted."  Almost every theory is
attacked at first, at least by the anonymous referee.  But most theories
are pretty primitive (or "speculative") in their formative stages and 
deserve to be attacked.  What I don't like about the "scorned to 
accepted" version is that it makes it seem as if the theory is
unchanged from its first moment of promulgation to its enshrinement
as The New Paradigm.  This is hardly ever true - general relativity
may be an exception, but it was also accepted rapidly.  I think
the saga of continental drift and plate tectonics is more common,
where the paradigm which is eventually adopted is far different
from the original proposal.


cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenbweiner cudfnBen cudlnWeiner cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.30 / Tom Potter /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter )
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: 30 Jun 1995 01:42:11 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3sv20o$129@agate.berkeley.edu> schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) writes: 

>
>In article <3susto$ivk@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
>Tom Potter  <tdp@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>I am an equal opportunity flamer.
>
>As the saying goes, hard work is no substitute for talent.
What is your talent? Trying to inhibit free speech?

>>I will check the newspapers next week 
>>to see if my challenge has been accepted.
>>
>>If they haven't accepted my challenge,
>>I can only assume that they are crackpots.
>
>What's amazing about crackpots is thatthey can be counted upon to do the
>stereotypically crackpot thing with a straight face.

It appears that my post on the emphasis of the "system" on culture orgin,
rather than truth, seems to have flushed a lot of stereotypes out of the
woodwork. I might post some of the stereotypical hate letters I received
from some paranoid, stereotypical people who are afraid to allow a free
exchange of information. 



cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.30 / William Beaty /  Re: Potapov device tests
     
Originally-From: billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Potapov device tests
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 1995 00:43:11 GMT
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever

Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) wrote:

<delete>

: The confusion begins when you start to look for adjustable parameters with
: which you may seek to control the performance of the Potapov device.
: Basically that device, as I understand it, is totally passive.  You have
: a flow rate and a pressure differential that are totally linked.  If
: you set one the other is determined.  At this point we see the Potapov
: fans running for cover under the excuse that Scott has not done his
: testing in the appropriate operating range.  The "effect" has not
: kicked in...

...which may be the case.  Should he immediately give up when the initial
tests fail to show an effect?  Or should he assume that some difference in
his setup is causing a problem?  It's my understanding that the entire
"furnace" was not purchased, but only the "magic" part was aquired, and
that his setup has considerable differences.  If the "effect" is based on
acoustics, then rubber hose versus metal pipe would be a major change.  If
the "effect" is based on cavitation, then absolute pressure within the
device would be important.  What if the inventor should later tell us 
that distilled water is necessary, or give some other requirement?

Now if the inventor supplied an entire device, in working order, then a
null result would be more convincing. 


: It seems to me that if you buy that argument, Scott has little choice but
: to beef up his pump to get a higher throughput.  That is unless there
: is buried in the Moldavian instruction book some information as to how
: one tunes the device to make it work its magic at a lower flow rate.

Rather than doing this, it might make more sense to get in contact with 
the inventor and get some advice.

-- 
....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenbillb cudfnWilliam cudlnBeaty cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.29 / Charles Cagle /  cmsg cancel <-2906950229270001@ip-salem2-31.teleport.com>
     
Originally-From: <singtech@teleport.com> (Charles Cagle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <-2906950229270001@ip-salem2-31.teleport.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 19:43:38 -0800
Organization: Singularity Technologies, Inc.

cancel <-2906950229270001@ip-salem2-31.teleport.com>
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudensingtech cudfnCharles cudlnCagle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.29 / Charles Cagle /  cmsg cancel <-2906950229270001@ip-salem2-31.teleport.com>
     
Originally-From: <singtech@teleport.com> (Charles Cagle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <-2906950229270001@ip-salem2-31.teleport.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 19:45:25 -0800
Organization: Singularity Technologies, Inc.

cancel <-2906950229270001@ip-salem2-31.teleport.com>
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudensingtech cudfnCharles cudlnCagle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.29 / Charles Cagle /  Re: Cold Fusion???
     
Originally-From: <singtech@teleport.com> (Charles Cagle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion???
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 19:48:52 -0800
Organization: Singularity Technologies, Inc.

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

>Uh, I'll admit it when you provide some actual evidence rather than 
>just a claim from someone of dubious background---unless you would
>care to post your credential for making such claims in liue of
>actual evidence. I mean, if you were a former top DOE official 
>maybe your comments would carry some weight on their own. 

Barry, I spoke with Robert O. Hunter right after he resigned as *head* of
DOE.  As most political appointees who have moved up the ranks he was
careful not to call anybody names, but he did tell me what was going on.
Also, just a few short weeks before there was an article (I believe it was
in Science or Science News) detailing his troubles.  He was trying to pull
the plug on PPPL as a waste of money and as a project that was without
hope of success.  He ran smack into the political machinery of New Jersey
(PPPL) and the next thing you know he was down the road.  That's the
problem with the system that you are in Barry, there is not much room for
people with integrity.

>But, in reality I suspect you are a crank with their own axe to grind.
>You wouldn't happen to have any radical new theories of physics
>that allow miraculous inventions which never actually
>get built, now would you?> 

Well, of course, I have an axe to grind.  It's waste in gov't brought on
by dishonesty in science.  That's a pretty big axe as far as many people
are concerned - and a reasonable one at that.

I *do* happen to have "a radical new theory of physics" which will allow
several new inventions to appear - but unlike you I'm not looking for a
gov't hand out to pay for it.  Plus, I think there is a more than an even
chance my own particular design for a fusion reactor will eventually get
built - and work.  It is true that private enterprise also runs into costs
problems as well as any other endeavor.  But I'll manage without the fraud
and guile that has characterized the U.S. Fusion program as of late.

<snip> so that is proof that fusion
>managers are not afraid of pulling such a plug, no?

Not really, I suspect its more like pulling teeth (or rather like pulling
a sucking child off of a breast).  Gov't programs don't die easy and when
they do, they've generally moved on to the next con anyway.  They transfer
easily over to the next deal. Business as usual.

>However, since JET is scheduled to demonstrate breakeven next 
>year, how is that going to effect your world view. Would
>you care to bet, say $1000 that they can't do it?

Better yet, why don't you just agree to commit suicide if they don't.

>And, pray tell, just how many staff scientists work underneath you?
>You wouldn't happen to be the _only_ technical officier would you?

Is there a point here?  I am not ashamed to say that I am, in fact, nearly
the entire working staff.  So what?  Working alone, I might be able to
accomplish something that thousands working together cannot.  Do you hold
that to be impossible?  I've put 23 years in on this and it is just now
looking like it might pay off.  I've got newspaper articles lambasting me
for suggesting low temperature fusion processes clear back in 1980.  Mr.
Merriman, what were you doing with fusion 15 years ago?  Again, another
local paper did a story on my efforts to harness low-temperature fusion in
1987 about two years before Pons et al and BYU's Jones went public. It's
in the public record that I was involved in this research.  What's more
Barry, I don't even have a degree in physics.  Does that make me not a
scientist in your world view?  And I don't hold having a degree or two
against you or anyone who does.  I dropped out of college physics when I
realized that the things I wanted to know were not known.  Simple things
like what is charge?, what is gravity? The facts were that the
'establishment' didn't have the answers to those questions.  They still
don't.  Since physics was a personal passion and love then and now, my
efforts could be classified as "amateur" which by definition is a "lover
or dovotee of an art or science".  I do it because I can do nothing else. 
I'm driven by the joy it gives me.  To me, obtaining the truth is more
precious than gold and more desireable than the praise of men.  Why are
you in science?  Do you love it, or does it give you a sense of elitism?
If I get confrontational it is because I am jealous for the pure
principles of science which I see you and others trod over with
carelessness.  And don't confuse yourself by thinking that I feel I am a
poor misunderstood genius, or that I feel persecuted.  It simply isn't
so.  What I found didn't take genius, it took re-evaluating fundamental
concepts about the behavior and interaction of charged particles, and to
this day I am still astounded that no one else has stumbled across the
same thing.  I didn't believe it myself for several years until I took it
to a top nuclear weapons designer who worked at the cutting edge of
physics at Los Alamos.  When I presented the theorem to him he responded:
"This is amazing. Where did you get this stuff?  This is the first
original idea I've seen in physics in twenty years!"  A few weeks later
when a local newspaper was doing an article on my research he reiterated
his original impression to the interviewing reporter.

>I am still waiting for you to send me some technical references to your 
>radical ideas, but I guess it is not in your best interest to 
>correspond with actual scientists.

You can keep on waiting, too.  As soon as the patent applications are
filed you will know all about it.  On the other hand I do correspond with
actual scientists Barry (not that you are one of them) but "real"
scientists, I've had discussions with David Bohm (now dead) on a
geometrical interpretation of potentials and local events with global
effects, once with Y. Aharanov (similar ideas), with Thomas Gold, with
Hans Alfven (now dead) concerning current limits of monoenergetic beams of
charged particles, once with Wheeler (years ago about advanced
potentials), with James Tuck (dead now) about creating ball lightning (he
was formerly involved with Project Sherwood at Los Alamos) and am
presently engaged in exchanges with several fellows who together have
published dozens of articles in Physical Review Letters on particle
creation and gravity and topology. Actually, I've exchanged papers and/or
ideas with a virtual host of investigators, from briefly Paul Koloc, to
Jones at BYU, to Robert Golka in Utah, Bob Bass at BYU, and Gerhard
Dijiikis in Rotterdam (he's published several articles in Nature).  I've
discussed ball lightning with Stanley Singer (whose written several books
on the subject). But so what?  I have agreed with some, some have agreed
with me, I've disagreed with some and some have disagreed with me. The
exchange of ideas, how ever much we might have agreed or disagreed was
never as venemous as it gets on this newgroup.  The one characteristic
that I have noted with all of those whom I would classify as 'real'
scientists as opposed to most in this newsgroup was that they were secure
sufficiently in their persons that they could listen to an idea with an
open mind instead of an open mouth. And, whether or not there was
agreement on the items discussed I always came away a richer person for
having participated in the process.

I have incautiously dropped several hints about the direction my work has
taken and the approaches used - and since filing day is getting closer - I
could do it again, but would I be casting pearls before swine?  That's the
experience I've seen here.  Suggest something new and this newsgroup comes
alive like jackals after a wounded gazelle.  Seldom does anyone say, OK
let's hear the whole story.  Instead, people like Dick Blue who has
stuffed himself with too much knowledge, most of which is useless
(otherwise he'd have his own design) begins to pontificate on why
something is wrong instead of shutting up and listening to why something
may be right.  This newsgroup is absolutely vitriolic to new ideas.  Or on
the other hand it is simply gullible to certain other ideas.  There is not
a bleeding one of you who really understands in detail the actual fusion
process yet you all proclaim yourselves to be experts.  You evaluate new
concepts from within your own failed frameworks and smugly and arrogantly
lambast those who would add something new.  You are dogs in the manger. 
You can't eat the straw (make fusion) and you damn sure want to make those
who might, stay away.  What are you going to do if I or some other person
steps up with the key you all have been missing?

When some of us get fed up with your fraud (not you alone Barry, but that
of many of the regulars) and speak out, there you come out again, teeth
bared and asses showing.  You can't see the problem because you are the
problem.

Nevertheless, there are a few people who participate (or lurk) with this
newsgroup who are really possess the true spirit of the scientific method,
process, and tradition.  They are anxious to hear new ideas, to explore
alien concepts, to listen and exchange with a politeness and bearing that
is absolutely foreign to most of you.

Last, I have shared some of these ideas in depth with several members of
this newgroup through private posts.  Why would any sane person want to
subject themselves to this wasp nest?  And what makes you think you have
the capacity to evaluate what I may be able to offer?

Reasonable requests from reasonable people for further information about
Singularity Technologies'  SCYBOLT (Singularity CatalYzed Beam Output Low
Temperature) nuclear fusion reactor concept will likely be honored through
private email or snail mail.

Best Regards,

-- 
Charles Cagle
Chief Technical Officer
Singularity Technologies, Inc,
1640 Oak Grove Road, N.W.
Salem, OR 97304

Ph/Fx 503/362-7781


I sought the fount of fire in hollow reed,
Hid privily, a measureless resource
For man, and mighty teacher of all arts.  - Aeschylus ..Prometheus Bound

email> singtech@teleport.com
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudensingtech cudfnCharles cudlnCagle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.29 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: 10 billion spent on hot fusion? Instead divide it three 
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: 10 billion spent on hot fusion? Instead divide it three 
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 05:11:45 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <3st4hu$po8@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
Archimedes Plutonium <Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu> wrote:

>  The main drift of my post was just recognition of facts. 
>1) Hot fusion has two strikes against it, whether the theory works is
>unknown and the control of plasma is perhaps a losing cause.

That hot fusion works is completely known. That it is practical is
questionable. Do we want to pay to settle this question? That's the
only unknown.

>2) Inertial confinement has only one strike against it, does the theory
>work? But control is inherent, it is built into the system, unlike hot
>fusion.

Inertial confinement is very HOT fusion indeed. "Control" as you call
it is no more built into it than any other fusion. You just set off
smaller bombs. Harnessing power delivered in such a manner is
difficult. Practicality is improbable.

>3) Sonoluminescence, we do know that we have a science as yet
>unexplained. It may be inertial confinement of cavity physics of sound
>energy.

You appear to like to call phenomena "science" as if that imparts
some magic to it. In any case there are no neutrons so it isn't
nuclear. What's more, it's hardly interesting.

>4) Cold fusion, CF, we do not yet have a confirmed science. But it may
>be inertial confinement of cavity physics of electrical energy.

In fact there is no "science" at all. The best that could be said is that
there is some unexplained "excess" heat. THe worse that could be said is 
that the overwhelming majority of experiments have been done in a slip
shod manner and that none of the result have been without error in
procedure.

>  It may turn out that CF is a science. But a science that is not
>output predictable. Think about it.

AP, science is the manner in which the mechanisms behind the universe
are defined. If it "is not output predictable" there is no science
involved, just art. Try powering your car with art.


cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.29 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 08:44:39 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University


RE the question whether any real scientific discoveries were initially 
ridiculed: Let us, here in this group, now drop the subject. We now know 
enough, I think, about Semmelweiss and Wegener. Remember fusion?

Note that again I have removed groups other than this one from the header.
I did it without sending any cancelbots this time, Mitch, and without 
getting muddled in the middle of a sentence {:]

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

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.29 / Charles Cagle /  Re: Cold Fusion???
     
Originally-From: <singtech@teleport.com (Charles Cagle <singtech@teleport.com>)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion???
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 02:27:51 -0800
Organization: Singularity Technologies, Inc.

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

>Uh, I'll admit it when you provide some actual evidence rather than 
>just a claim from someone of dubious background---unless you would
>care to post your credential for making such claims in liue of
>actual evidence. I mean, if you were a former top DOE official 
>maybe your comments would carry some weight on their own. 

Barry, I spoke with Robert O. Hunter right after he resigned as head of
DOE.  As most political appointees who have moved up the ranks he was
careful not to call anybody names, but he did tell me what was going on.
Also, just a few short weeks before there was an article (I believe it was
in Science or Science News) detailing his troubles.  He was trying to pull
the plug on PPPL as a waste of money and as a project that was without
hope of success.  He ran smack into the political machinery of New Jersey
(PPPL) and the next thing you know he was down the road.  That's the
problem with the system that you are in Barry, there is not much room for
people with integrity.

>But, in reality I suspect you are a crank with their own axe to grind.
>You wouldn't happen to have any radical new theories of physics
>that allow miraculous inventions which never actually
>get built, now would you?> 

Well, of course, I have an axe to grind.  It's waste in gov't brought on
by dishonesty in science.  That's a pretty big axe as far as many people
are concerned - and a reasonable one at that.

I *do* happen to have "a radical new theory of physics" which will allow
several new inventions to appear - but unlike you I'm not looking for a
gov't hand out to pay for it.  Plus, I think there is a more than an even
chance my own particular design for a fusion reactor will eventually get
built - and work.  It is true that private enterprise also runs into costs
problems as well as any other endeavor.  But I'll manage without the fraud
and guile that has characterized the U.S. Fusion program as of late.

<snip> so that is proof that fusion
>managers are not afraid of pulling such a plug, no?

Not really, I suspect its more like pulling teeth (or rather like pulling
a sucking child off of a breast).  Gov't programs don't die easy and when
they do, they've generally moved on to the next con anyway.  They transfer
easily over to the next deal. Business as usual.

>However, since JET is scheduled to demonstrate breakeven next 
>year, how is that going to effect your world view. Would
>you care to bet, say $1000 that they can't do it?

Better yet, why don't you just agree to commit suicide if they don't.

>And, pray tell, just how many staff scientists work underneath you?
>You wouldn't happen to be the _only_ technical officier would you?

Is there a point here?  I am not ashamed to say that I am, in fact, nearly
the entire working staff.  So what?  Working alone, I might be able to
accomplish something that thousands working together cannot.  Do you hold
that to be impossible?  I've put 23 years in on this and it is just now
looking like it might pay off.  I've got newspaper articles lambasting me
for suggesting low temperature fusion processes clear back in 1980.  Mr.
Merriman, what were you doing with fusion 15 years ago?  Again, another
local paper did a story on my efforts to harness low-temperature fusion in
1987 about two years before Pons et al and BYU's Jones went public. It's
in the public record that I was involved in this research.  What's more
Barry, I don't even have a degree in physics.  Does that make me not a
scientist in your world view?  And I don't hold having a degree or two
against you or anyone who does.  I dropped out of college physics when I
realized that the things I wanted to know were not known.  Simple things
like what is charge?, what is gravity? The facts were that the
'establishment' didn't have the answers to those questions.  They still
don't.  Since physics was a personal passion and love then and now, my
efforts could be classified as "amateur" which by definition is a "lover
or dovotee of an art or science".  I do it because I can do nothing else. 
I'm driven by the joy it gives me.  To me, obtaining the truth is more
precious than gold and more desireable than the praise of men.  Why are
you in science?  Do you love it, or does it give you a sense of elitism?
If I get confrontational it is because I am jealous for the pure
principles of science which I see you and others trod over with
carelessness.  And don't confuse yourself by thinking that I feel I am a
poor misunderstood genius, or that I feel persecuted.  It simply isn't
so.  What I found didn't take genius, it took re-evaluating fundamental
concepts about the behavior and interaction of charged particles, and to
this day I am still astounded that no one else has stumbled across the
same thing.  I didn't believe it myself for several years until I took it
to a top nuclear weapons designer who worked at the cutting edge of
physics at Los Alamos.  When I presented the theorem to him he responded:
"This is amazing. Where did you get this stuff?  This is the first
original idea I've seen in physics in twenty years!"  A few weeks later
when a local newspaper was doing an article on my research he reiterated
his original impression to the interviewing reporter.

>I am still waiting for you to send me some technical references to your 
>radical ideas, but I guess it is not in your best interest to 
>correspond with actual scientists.

You can keep on waiting, too.  As soon as the patent applications are
filed you will know all about it.  On the other hand I do correspond with
actual scientists Barry (not that you are one of them) but "real"
scientists, I've had discussions with David Bohm (now dead) on a
geometrical interpretation of potentials and local events with global
effects, once with Y. Aharanov (similar ideas), with Thomas Gold, with
Hans Alfven (now dead) concerning current limits of monoenergetic beams of
charged particles, once with Wheeler (years ago about advanced
potentials), with James Tuck (dead now) about creating ball lightning (he
was formerly involved with Project Sherwood at Los Alamos) and am
presently engaged in exchanges with several fellows who together have
published dozens of articles in Physical Review Letters on particle
creation and gravity and topology. Actually, I've exchanged papers and/or
ideas with a virtual host of investigators, from briefly Paul Koloc, to
Jones at BYU, to Robert Golka in Utah, Bob Bass at BYU, and Gerhard
Dijiikis in Rotterdam (he's published several articles in Nature).  I've
discussed ball lightning with Stanley Singer (whose written several books
on the subject). But so what?  I have agreed with some, some have agreed
with me, I've disagreed with some and some have disagreed with me. The
exchange of ideas, how ever much we might have agreed or disagreed was
never as venemous as it gets on this newgroup.  The one characteristic
that I have noted with all of those whom I would classify as 'real'
scientists as opposed to most in this newsgroup was that they were secure
sufficiently in their persons that they could listen to an idea with an
open mind instead of an open mouth. And, whether or not there was
agreement on the items discussed I always came away a richer person for
having participated in the process.

I have incautiously dropped several hints about the direction my work has
taken and the approaches used - and since filing day is getting closer - I
could do it again, but would I be casting pearls before swine?  That's the
experience I've seen here.  Suggest something new and this newsgroup comes
alive like jackals after a wounded gazelle.  Seldom does anyone say, OK
let's hear the whole story.  Instead, people like Dick Blue who has
stuffed himself with too much knowledge, most of which is useless
(otherwise he'd have his own design) begins to pontificate on why
something is wrong instead of shutting up and listening to why something
may be right.  This newsgroup is absolutely vitriolic to new ideas.  Or on
the other hand it is simply gullible to certain other ideas.  There is not
a bleeding one of you who really understands in detail the actual fusion
process yet you all proclaim yourselves to be experts.  You evaluate new
concepts from within your own failed frameworks and smugly and arrogantly
lambast those who would add something new.  You are dogs in the manger. 
You can't eat the straw (make fusion) and you damn sure want to make those
who might, stay away.  What are you going to do if I or some other person
steps up with the key you all have been missing?

When some of us get fed up with your fraud (not you alone Barry, but that
of many of the regulars) and speak out, there you come out again, teeth
bared and asses showing.  You can't see the problem because you are the
problem.

Nevertheless, there are a few people who participate (or lurk) with this
newsgroup who are really possess the true spirit of the scientific method,
process, and tradition.  They are anxious to hear new ideas, to explore
alien concepts, to listen and exchange with a politeness and bearing that
is absolutely foreign to most of you.

Last, I have shared some of these ideas in depth with several members of
this newgroup through private posts.  Why would any sane person want to
subject themselves to this wasp nest?  And what makes you think you have
the capacity to evaluate what I may be able to offer?  Pearls again,
pearls.

Reasonable requests from reasonable people for further information about
Singularity Technologies'  SCYBOLT (Singularity CatalYzed Beam Output Low
Temperature) nuclear fusion reactor concept will likely be honored through
private email or snail mail.

Best Regards,

-- 
Charles Cagle
Chief Technical Officer
Singularity Technologies, Inc,
1640 Oak Grove Road, N.W.
Salem, OR 97304

Ph/Fx 503/362-7781


I sought the fount of fire in hollow reed,
Hid privily, a measureless resource
For man, and mighty teacher of all arts.  - Aeschylus ..Prometheus Bound

email> singtech@teleport.com
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudensingtech cudfnCharles cudlnCagle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Jun 30 04:37:03 EDT 1995
------------------------------
