1995.06.30 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 1995 16:47:20 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


  In Message-ID: <3t14nu$4h@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz),
e-Philosopher of the Dangerous Definitely, continues
his unique, incoherent and puerile remarks.

 =rpes  "Given that, here is an abnormal response:  bub,
 =rpes      [zip] ....    Richard Schultz"

   Based upon his posts, illogical, unresearched,
nonresponsive, and often saliently depraved (vide infra),
Schultz's behavior remains insulting to many people.

   A few cognitive tests might determine the etiology of his
comments, focus, and thinking.  Then again, maybe
a radiological approach ought be considered. 

  Until then we can only imagine why any woman or anyone
in Wyoming would want to support his funding, or those of
his sponsors.

 ========================================     
"Look, strange women lying on their backs in ponds handing
 out swords. . .that's no basis for a system of government."
  [Richard Schultz, unattributed, plagarized, or original?]
         <3ssbnj$mb9@agate.berkeley.edu>


"I think you're thinking of Wyoming, where the men are men, 
the women are men, and the sheep are scared."
       [Richard Schultz, 22 Jun 1995; 
          <3scoir$m73@agate.berkeley.edu>]


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 17:37:11 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3t14nu$4h@agate.berkeley.edu> schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) writes: 

>since you ask, my talent is for identifying and labelling the terminally clueless.
>--
>					Richard Schultz

I suppose you had a lot of practice developing your "talent"
by observing the people around you when you were growing up.

I was unfortunate, in that I was never around "the terminally clueless"
until I incountered you, so I am just developing the talent for
recognizing them. Perhaps some day, I might have the opportunity of meeting
your family and friends so that I can hone my ability.


cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.30 / Chris Kostanick /  Re: Where's the CNF water heater Heeter?
     
Originally-From: chrisk@gomez.stortek.com (Chris Kostanick)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Where's the CNF water heater Heeter?
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 1995 17:32:19 GMT
Organization: Storage Technology Corporation

tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:

>I guess that's why Russia is so far ahead of us. No, wait, that's _France_
>that's so far ahead of us. No, wait, that's Japan that's so far ahead
>of us. No, wait, it must be Sark that's so far ahead of us.

No, Atlantis _was_ very far ahead of us. But one day they got CF
reactions running in all their hottubs and it blew the continent
apart.

Chris "CF heats my garbage disposal" Kostanick
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenchrisk cudfnChris cudlnKostanick cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.30 / Chris Kostanick /  Re: Any cool cold fusion?
     
Originally-From: chrisk@gomez.stortek.com (Chris Kostanick)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Any cool cold fusion?
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 1995 17:37:22 GMT
Organization: Storage Technology Corporation

prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad) writes:

>  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.

Now that the patent has been applied for, can you sketch the basic
method out for us?

Chris Kostanick
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenchrisk cudfnChris cudlnKostanick cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.30 / 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: 30 Jun 1995 14:09:17 -0400
Organization: Rutgers University

By the way, I did not see the beginning of this thread, and so I 
don't know if anyone ever answered the question in the title,
"Has anyone convinced a crackpot?"

My short answer is, if a person can be convinced that he/she is wrong,
he/she is manifestly not a crackpot.  If you want a more substantive
answer: There have been a number of instances on sci.physics where
refutations of somebody who is more or less crackpot appeared to make
them shut up and go away (or give up in frustration), but they never
admitted to actually being wrong.

The only instance I can think of is Jack Sarfatti, who insisted at
great length that it was possible to have instantaneous communication
through variants of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment, but
eventually admitted that it wouldn't work in standard quantum
mechanics (he immediately switched to advocating some kind of
non-linear variant of QM).  One might say that excluding the one and
only Sarfmeister from a definition of "crackpot" instantly vitiates
the definition.  I think he's more of a snake-oil salesman than a
crackpot though.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenbweiner cudfnBen cudlnWeiner cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.30 / 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: 30 Jun 1995 17:59:07 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <3svp1k$fv6@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353) writes:

> Remember folks, Mr. Plutonium as actually a dishwasher at Dartmouth (this
> was verified by another poster to this newsgroup). Looks like the network
> administrator at Dartmouth is either very loose with handing out internet
> accounts or has a strong sense of humor!
> 
> Mark Richardson

  Go to Hell, Acheron that is. For your few minutes of hate-mongering
and spite-mongering, you now will have your soul in hell. Atom, make
done
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.30 / 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: 30 Jun 1995 18:01:12 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <3t04dv$gha@maureen.teleport.com>
Charles Cagle <singtech@teleport.com> writes:

> Say what you want about Archimedes Plutonium, but sometimes what he says 
> is lucid, to the point and scarily accurate.  His list of cons will 
> probably be known as 'scientific follies of yesteryear' one day in the 
> not too distant future.
> 
> The BCS theory is like a 15 year old nag at the races with her jockey 
> (represented by BCS supporters) continuing to whip her on when all the 
> other horses have lapped her and crossed the finish line.  The BCS 
> supporters simply don't have the integrity to let it die.  It was dead 
> before they got the Nobel prize and has now been hacked up and made into 
> glue.  Kill this nag, somebody, and bury it!
> 
> As for anyone who would like to have one of those con jobs, well they 
> could have all the money in the world and still be bankrupt where it 
> counts.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Charles Cagle
> Chief Technical Officer
> Singularity Technologies, Inc,
> 1640 Oak Grove Road, N.W.
> Salem, OR 97304

  You are a smart man Mr. Cagle, please continue your wisdom.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.30 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: 30 Jun 1995 19:16:28 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <DAzvyw.KL9@world.std.com>, mica@world.std.com (mitchell
swartz) wrote:

>  ========================================     
> "Look, strange women lying on their backs in ponds handing
>  out swords. . .that's no basis for a system of government."
>   [Richard Schultz, unattributed, plagarized, or original?]
>          <3ssbnj$mb9@agate.berkeley.edu>
> 

It's a quote from the film _Monty Python and the Holy Grail_.  Arthur is
explaining to an argumentative subject his divine right to the throne:
************************************
Arthur:  

The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering Samite, held
aloft from the bosom of the water Excalibur, signifying by divine right
that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur.  That is why I am your king!

Peasant:  

Listen: strange women, lying in ponds, distributing swords is no basis for
a system of government.  Supreme executive power derives from a mandate
from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!  You can't
expect to wield supreme executive power because some watery tart threw a
sword at you!  If I went round claiming I was emperor because some
moistened bink had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
*********************************

It's quite a humorous scene.  I recommend you rent the movie and enjoy it.
I don't think, however, that this quote demonstrates unbalance on the part
of Dr. Schultz.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.30 / 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: 30 Jun 1995 16:47:51 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <DArKGH.2o@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>
>It seems to me that the DoE for what ever reason, has found its way
>into a number of peripheral areas that are no longer essential to its
>original mission, which itself has been well accomplished.    

I thought you had been around long enough to know that the DOE doe 
not have a single well defined, let alone "original" mission.  The 
DOE was the successor to ERDA, which was cobbled together out of 
the AEC and various non-nuclear energy programs from the Dept of 
Interior as well as new ones created during the first energy crisis. 

The basic research goals that came along with the parts that started 
in the AEC have been well accomplished but that work is not complete, 
since learning and education are never complete. 

>Well, Jim, with the rising debt and interest payments, GDP becomes 
>a less defensible comparison.  

I think it is the only valid one.  If you prefer fraction of the 
budget, do you think the plan to increase the percentage devoted 
to welfare is the right way to go?  

>I Think some kind of a rolling bevy of small programs for universities 
>is fine, and defense programs at fewer national labs, 

My point was that the movement in Congress was away from this approach 
and in favor of doing all research (including that targeted at being 
industrially competitive) at national labs.  Remember the move in the 
NSF a few years ago at the behest of Congress that was stopped only
because industry said it was opposed? 

>                                                      and a huge 
>increase in research and development funded at and by tax relief for 
>corporations in the form of long term indexed investment oriented 
>capital gains features, to build this R&D Private Industry Engine.  

I could not agree more, but the engine has been largely dismantled 
with the remnants at universities.  Rebuilding it will take more 
time than it took to destroy it, and will only happen if industry 
is convinced those policy changes will last long enough.  

-- 
 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:
cuddy30 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.29 / Monkey King /  Re: Potapov device test discussion
     
Originally-From: monkey@engin.umich.edu (Monkey King)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Potapov device test discussion
Date: 29 Jun 1995 16:51:17 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <ts_zemanian-2906950855570001@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov>,
Thomas S. Zemanian <ts_zemanian@pnl.gov> wrote:
>
>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.

Yes, of course, it should be obvious to anybody skill in the trade :-).










-- 
Monkey King                 | This message printed on 
monkey@engin.umich.edu      | recycled material.
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmonkey cudfnMonkey cudlnKing cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.30 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Potapov device test (preliminary)
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Potapov device test (preliminary)
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 1995 16:51 -0500 (EST)

arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch) writes:
 
-> Some time ago, I posted a message that tried to explain that many
-> "accurate" power meters lose their accuracy when measuring non-linear
-> loads.  We characterize the distorted current waveforms associated with
-> these loads by their "crest factor".  High crest factor loads draw
-> currents that tend to be peaked.  High crest factor, low power factor
-> loads can be a real problem such instruments and can degrade accuracy
-> from tenths of a percent to tens of percentage points.
 
I don't think this is relavent to systems which are driven by syncronous or
induction motors.  I have never seen a motor which had a high crest factor.
High crest factors are common to power supplies (where charging of the
capacitors is done at peak voltage) and where there are transformers or
inductors which are reaching saturation.  Unless the motor is being operated in
excess of it's voltage rating, the currrent draw should be almost a pure sine
wave lagging the voltage by some amount.  Currents of this nature are handled
quite accurately by standard power meters.
 
                                                               Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.30 / Charles Cagle /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: <singtech@teleport.com> (Charles Cagle)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 1995 04:18:37 -0800
Organization: Singularity Technologies, Inc.

In article <3snvq4$ncu@electron.rutgers.edu>, bweiner@electron.rutgers.edu
(Ben Weiner) wrote:



> Well, it's the same story.  Wegener didn't deserve to be ridiculed,
> but basically he was ahead of his time, which is a polite way of
> saying that in his time, he wasn't right.  Note the distinction
> between "continental drift" and "plate tectonics."  The former is a
> speculative idea which explains some geological observations - an
> idea, which, in much modified form, turns out to be correct.  "Plate
> tectonics" however is more than just "continental drift" - it's a 
> full-blown theory, or if you like, a fully developed Kuhnian paradigm.
> 
> Notice how the theory is formed from a phenomenon - continental drift,
> which is essentially a geological observation - and a mechanism,
> the lithosphere which "drifts" on the lower mantle.  You need both,
> crackpots generally forget one or the other.

What about S. Warren Carey?  He is considered a 'crackpot' by most modern
geologists or geophysicists even though his tireless lecturing across the
U.S. was an influential factor in getting western geologists to accept
continental mobility.  Now that he has pushed on ahead to even more
comprehensive ideas and derides subduction as a myth he is now considered
a ratbag by many.  But what is interesting is not that geologists consider
his ideas looney but that they take him as a threat.  So he is not simply
ignored but openly and vehemently hated.  If there was any single person
that could threaten the house of cards the subduction theorists have
built, it is without doubt this man.  There are many who have rallied
around him but at the cost of loss of personal credibility in their own
academic careers.

In fact, to attempt to secure the high ground against his relentless
assualts on their assine ideas they now declare "not the theory of
subduction but the fact of subduction" when foisting their drivel upon the
unsuspecting PBS audiences.  Their reliance upon bad science is virtually
ignored and they tend to believe their own press and documentaries.  They
have stuck their necks so far out on this phoney subduction crap that any
theory presented to oppose it is met with violent opposition.  

Here's the deal.  Planets grow.  Read S. Warren Carey's book: Title = 
"Theories of the Earth and Universe"  {A History of Dogma in the Earth 
Sciences}  Published in 1988 by Stanford Univ. Press.  Cost is about $45 
U.S.

ISBN 0-8047-1364-2  

S. Warren Carey is the author.  He is Professor Emeritus of Geology at 
the University of Tasmania; an Honorary Life Fellow of the Geological 
Societies of America, London, and Australia; and former President of the 
Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science; 
also Fellow of the Royal Society, I believe.

He has been collecting the evidence for an explanding planet for longer 
than many of us have been alive.

Regards to All,

-- 
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:
cuddy30 cudensingtech cudfnCharles cudlnCagle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.30 /  jedrothwell@de /  Steve Jones attacks himself
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Steve Jones attacks himself
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 95 10:02:02 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I am often flattered to see "skeptics" quote me in these cute little "e-mail
signature line" things. I see that Steve Jones has quoted one of my better
lines:
 
     ""One conclusive experiment can and MUST overrule the entire existing
     database, no matter how certain or long established it may be. ... Okay,
     a million, million previous experiments showed that E=Mc2.  So what?
     Every single one of them was wrong.  Period.  It does not work in metal
     lattices under electrolysis, and Einstein was flat out wrong."
 
     - Jed Rothwell, 21 Dec. 1992
 
Jones, however, is quoting me out of context, in a way that makes me look
foolish. Actually, it was Jones himself who made a foolish claim here. Just to
set the record straight, let me explain to the General Reader what is going
on. Jones will probably lie about this again, but here are the facts:
 
1. Jones claimed that if CF is true, it is a violation of Einstein's special
relativity.
 
2. I cannot judge such issues, but I pointed out that no other scientist makes
this claim. I have spoken with Hagelstein, Fleischmann, Chubb, Vigier and many
others, and not a single one of them agrees that CF violates relativity. Jones
must be wrong.
 
3. However, I pointed out that in all cases, when experimental evidence *does*
conflict with theory, the evidence wins and the theory loses. Therefore, if --
hypothetically! -- Jones is right, then Jones has inadvertently proved that
Einstein is wrong. No doubt Jones would win a Nobel Prize for doing that
someday.
 
I stated this in purely hypothetical terms. I added that Jones must be wrong,
because it is so unlikely that relativity is incorrect. Jones has now stripped
out the main part of my message and quoted me out of context, to make it look
as if I am the one who believes relativity might be wrong. It is just the
opposite. He is the only one who embraces this idea. I suspect it is a
crackpot idea, like Morrison's "cigarette lighter" idea or Blue's theory that
you can store a calorie of energy in a gram of water without raising the
temperature by one degree C. Most "skeptical" ideas turn out to be crackpot
theories. You can always prove a "skeptic" is wrong, but it is seldom worth
the time and effort it takes to do so. In this case, Jones has proven himself
wrong, and saved us all the trouble. He himself points out how unlikely his
revised relativity is.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.30 / Dieter Britz /  Small biblio update
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Small biblio update
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 1995 16:28:16 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

I have had the item below for a while but forgot to add it to the last 
update, so here it is now. It goes (has gone) into the archived file
fusion.cnf-conf.

Conferences/procs: Count = 21
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#
International Symposium "Cold Fusion and Advanced Energy Sources",
Minsk (Belarussia) 24-26 May 1994. Orhanising co-chairmen: Prof. H. Fox,
Academician A.N. Baraboshkin.
There were about 40 papers read. Apart from the strong Russian, Ukrainian and
Belorussian contingent, there were papers from the USA, China, Japan, France,
Italy, Romania, Hungary and India. The Belarussian State University Folklore
Group entertained the delegates.
#...................................................................... Jun-95


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

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.30 / Bob Kovsky /  Re: Resistance to acceptance of new ideas
     
Originally-From: kovsky@netcom.com (Bob Kovsky)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Resistance to acceptance of new ideas
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 1995 14:58:02 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

	I recall reading about the difficulty some young physicists had 
in getting attention for pioneer work in "chaos."  I think it was a 
chapter in Glieck's <Chaos> or it may have in Waldrup's <Complexity>.  In 
any event, these were 3 or so fellows at UC Santa Barbara who were 
studying phenomena like dripping faucets and were applying the 
mathematics of "chaos."  (A funny name for studying differential 
equations!)  Could not get published or get anyone to talk to them.  They 
were fortunate because people in <other fields> were dealing with similar 
problems so they eventually made their mark.  Someone who knows more or 
who has the book available may be able to fill in.

*   *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *   * 
    Bob Kovsky          |  A Natural Science of Freedom 
    kovsky@netcom.com   |  Materials available by anonymous ftp
                        |  At ftp.netcom.com/pub/fr/freedom
*   *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *   * 

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenkovsky cudfnBob cudlnKovsky cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.30 / 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: 30 Jun 1995 15:20:30 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <3svkpj$nvt@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
Tom Potter  <tdp@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

[tp] >>>I am an equal opportunity flamer.

[rs] >>As the saying goes, hard work is no substitute for talent.

[tp] >What is your talent? Trying to inhibit free speech?

I suppose that the normal response that would either be "huh?" 
(although anyone who reads Swartz and Rothwell has to learn to accept
non sequiturs as a matter of course) or possibly *PLONK* (probably the
best thing to do all in all).

Given that, here is an abnormal response:  bub, I was not commenting on
any talent of mine, merely your lack of talent as a flamer (as evidenced
by your spelling flame on someone who mistyped "quantum").  You and
Swartz ought to go into business together as "Lamers 'R' Us." But 
since you ask, my talent is for identifying and labelling the terminally
clueless.  Congratulations.
--
					Richard Schultz

"You don't even have a clue as to which clue you're missing." -- Miss Manners
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.30 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Steve Jones attacks himself
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Steve Jones attacks himself
Date: 30 Jun 1995 15:26:35 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <5w9fnMa.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>Jones will probably lie about this again, but here are the facts:
> 
>1. Jones claimed that if CF is true, it is a violation of Einstein's special
>relativity.

For someone as fond of calling other people liars as you are, you have a
remarkable penchant for calling untrue things "facts."  Why don't you
(as the saying goes) go back through the literature (it's all archived
at sunsite.unc.edu) and compare what Jones actually claimed with what
you say he claimed.

> Most "skeptical" ideas turn out to be crackpot theories.

Are you suddenly changing your mind about Galileo? 
--
					Richard Schultz

"P&F are getting so much heat that you hardly need any calorimetry at all."
			--Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 19 Jul 1992
"The palladium based systems are a useless dead end. Who cares about them?"
			--Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 10 Dec 1992
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.30 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Potapov device test (preliminary)
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Potapov device test (preliminary)
Date: 30 Jun 1995 08:33:10 -0700
Organization: Tektronix Laboratories, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR

In article <pm1-+Pw.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>Another problem here is that you got yourself a power company billing meter.
>That's fine, but it shows apparent power. You need to know the power factor
>to compute real power. I'll bet if you use a better meter to measure PF, you
>will see that you are a tad over unity already. Maybe 10 or 20%. That's
>no big deal compared to what the Yusmar will give you when you set it up
>right.

Some time ago, I posted a message that tried to explain that many
"accurate" power meters lose their accuracy when measuring non-linear
loads.  We characterize the distorted current waveforms associated with
these loads by their "crest factor".  High crest factor loads draw
currents that tend to be peaked.  High crest factor, low power factor
loads can be a real problem such instruments and can degrade accuracy
from tenths of a percent to tens of percentage points.

When I asked questions about the "Dranetz" power meter that Jed likes
to refer to, his response was always that its unquestionably accurate.
Now it turns out, he doesn't even know what the power company is
measuring!

Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.30 / Alan M /  Re: Posting test
     
Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" <Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Posting test
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 1995 17:19:46
Organization: Home

In article: <3ss5ep$q1a@boris.eden.com>  little@eden.com (Scott Little) writes:
> Sorry to use up article header bandwidth but I'd like to hear when you
> folks see this article on yr servers.  I posted this at 1 PM CST on
> 28JUN95 to my news-server.  Thanks.
> 

I'm reading it at 17.20 BST, Friday June 30th, in London. But I haven't been 
on-line since 07.00 this morning. (It wasn't here then.)

-- 
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:
cuddy30 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.01 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Where's the CNF water heater Heeter?
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Where's the CNF water heater Heeter?
Date: 1 Jul 1995 00:49:45 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3t1e1b$unh@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> In article <3svp1k$fv6@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
> mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353) writes:
> 
> > Remember folks, Mr. Plutonium as actually a dishwasher at Dartmouth (this
> > was verified by another poster to this newsgroup). Looks like the network
> > administrator at Dartmouth is either very loose with handing out internet
> > accounts or has a strong sense of humor!
> > 
> > Mark Richardson
> 
>   Go to Hell, Acheron that is. For your few minutes of hate-mongering
> and spite-mongering, you now will have your soul in hell. Atom, make
> done

Mr. Plutonium (didn't you name used to be Ludwig Van, though?
I suggest Johann Sebastian Plutonium as a suitably megalomaniacal
name), when you admit that Cantor's diagonal argument does show
that the real numbers are uncountable, then mayboe people will
take you more seriously...


It is good to know, however, that Dartmouth has well educated
(if insane) dishwashers.



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


cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.30 / 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: 30 Jun 1995 20:47:35 -0400
Organization: Rutgers University

tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter ) writes:
> bweiner@electron.rutgers.edu (Ben Weiner) writes: 
    [snips]
>>>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?
 [snip]
>>(why drag race/ethnicity into this?)

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

No shit.  You asked a question and I answered it.  What criteria will
affect establishment physicists' acceptance of a TOE?  My answer is
that credentials will have a considerable effect and ethnicity will
have very little effect.

>>... 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 you ask the average physicist "Name the person most likely to come
up with a TOE in the next 5 years" they'll say Ed Witten.  Nonetheless
even if Ed Witten announces tomorrow that he has one, it will take a
while before it is accepted.  

By the way, I hope "Leroy Brown" is a real person who is developing an
alternative theory of everything, and not some attempt of yours to
make up a "stereotypically Black" name.  That would be rather gross.
Ditto for 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?

That's easy, the establishment, otherwise it wouldn't be much of
an establishment would it???

>Are you saying that credentialism determines the value of truth?

No for chrissake, I'm answering your question.  I didn't say it
was GOOD that it would take longer for an un-credentialed person
to get a theory accepted.  I'm admitting what you want to hear - 
that the scientific establishment does not consider everything
completely impartially, and you're flaming me for admitting it!  This
is deliciously ironic.

>>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.

I don't care what you could have said, I care what you _did_ say
because it shows us something about what you're thinking.  It
sounds like you're getting a little defensive.  It also sounds
like in fact you didn't have any specific Mayan or Black people
in mind but were just playing the race card in an attempt to
score points.  Maybe you should run for Congress.

>>(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.

Ah, if only I were an expert at distorting truth and stigmatizing
people!  I could quit grad school and get a cushy job as a political
consultant.

    [snips]
>>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.

The simplest version of the "accepted" theory is the Sommerfeld
free-electron-gas model.  It is described in Chapter 2 of Ashcroft and
Mermin's book _Solid State Physics_.  Ch. 1 describes the classical
model which preceded it and why it doesn't work; Ch. 3 describes the
more subtle shortcomings of the simplest Sommerfeld model.  These are
all short and easy to read BTW.  

The reason I mention it is that many so-called crackpot theories
modify quantum mechanics; the Sommerfeld model is one of the simplest
applications of quantum statistics explaining a real-world phenomenon
which is quite puzzling in the context of classical physics.
It is incredibly important yet I have never seen an "alternative"
theory address it - probably because it's not flashy like black holes
or relativity.

>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.

I issued a challenge to Usenet crackpots, or alternative-theorists
if you like, on Usenet.  If you plan to check the newspapers, I suggest
that you make your challenge by taking out ads in the newspapers.
A full page ad in the New York Times should get their attention.

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

BTW, I am reading this on sci.physics, not sci.physics.fusion, and
am in fact not personally responsible for the direction and success of 
the US controlled fusion program.  Bye now.

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenbweiner cudfnBen cudlnWeiner cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.01 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Time to close it down?
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Time to close it down?
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 1995 01:16:13 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

And, of course, you both ignore the simple fact that fusion is a general 
area of natural and technical phenomena, but then, the inmates are 
returning to the asylum, aren't they?
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
                 Change the tools and you change the rules.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.30 / Barry Merriman /  Re: J. Rothwell & M. Jones Wrong on Semmelweis
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: J. Rothwell & M. Jones Wrong on Semmelweis
Date: 30 Jun 1995 03:21:35 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3srdge$a08@agate.berkeley.edu> schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard  
Schultz) writes:
> 
> More seriously, that was an excellent post, although I'm not sure what
> good you expect it to do.  For instance, Jed Rothwell once posted that
> the New York Times did not believe that the Wright Brothers had a
> working airplane for several years.  I responded by quoting the 1903
> New York Times articles that proved him wrong, but that has not stopped
> him even momentarily from promulgating his myth of how the "media"
> refused to believe that flight was possible even after it had been 
> demonstrated.
> --

Well, in this case I was hoping to more widely correct the myths
surrounding Semmelweis's life---whether Jed R. or Mitch Jones 
take these corrections to heart I can't control, but at least 
the myth will not be propagated through this venue. 

Also, one can't help but want to correct Jed when he is in error---even
though it was an innocent error, as he was simply promoting the
popular account of I.S.'s life---because his conversational style
is so beligerent and condescending. 

In any case, all this talk about the right brothers, Semmelweis,
etc, whats the point? These ancient historical cases have little
bearing on todays science (people haven't changed, but the number
of active scientists, their resources and their means of 
communicating have, all tending to favor more rapid development 
of real experimental phenomena). I don't think we are going to make any 
useful judgements on CF by making analogies with century old discoveries.

I would much rather concentrate on the real issue, which is cold fusion.
And within that issue, I'd like to concentrate on a fixed target, 
say P & F: consider that at the time of their news conference,1989,
they claimed to have been actively working on CF for 4 years, and
to have already put, as I roughly recall, ~$100,000 worth of effort into it.
Then, they got a cool $5 mill from the Utah gov, which sustained them
for another couple years in a much larger facility and set up. 
Still, the result of that original 6 year
effort, which was largely publically funded and thus clearly belonging
to the citizens,  was basically nil---i.e. no clear demonstration that any 
real, new physical phenomena exists.

Next, they went into seclusion in France, where they have had a further 
4 years of presumably fully funded work. But still: no clear demonstration.
ICCF 5 was practically in their home town, but not even a tour of
their lab was provided.

When is anyone going to call these guys out? Granted, they are
privately funded now, but to the extent that they consider themselves
scientists, they have an obligation to be forthcoming about their
discoveries---especially since I suspect all possible patents have
already been filed long ago.




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


cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.29 /   /  Re: J. Rothwell & M. Jones Wrong on Semmelweis
     
Originally-From: mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: J. Rothwell & M. Jones Wrong on Semmelweis
Date: 29 Jun 1995 22:50:27 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Barry Merriman wrote:

So, you see, Semelweis clearly failed because he didn't have the 
personal skills needed for such a campaign. Rather than lamenting 
the tragedy of Semmelweiss---who essentially self-destructed,
throwing himself off a path originally much like Listers inexorable
climb---one should lament the tragedy of Lister, who, even doing
*everything right* took 15 years to spread his ideas just
within his country.
======================================================

Looks like there actually is a significant similarity between Semelweis
and Jed! Of course there is one crucial difference, Semelweis was
correct...

Mark Richardson
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmrichar353 cudln cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.29 /   /  Re: Where's the CNF water heater Heeter?
     
Originally-From: mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Where's the CNF water heater Heeter?
Date: 29 Jun 1995 22:54:44 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Archimedes Plutonium 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
==============================================

Remember folks, Mr. Plutonium as actually a dishwasher at Dartmouth (this
was verified by another poster to this newsgroup). Looks like the network
administrator at Dartmouth is either very loose with handing out internet
accounts or has a strong sense of humor!

Mark Richardson
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmrichar353 cudln cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.30 / Charles Cagle /  Re: Where's the CNF water heater Heeter?
     
Originally-From: Charles Cagle <singtech@teleport.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Where's the CNF water heater Heeter?
Date: 30 Jun 1995 06:09:03 GMT
Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016

mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel) wrote:
>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. 

Say what you want about Archimedes Plutonium, but sometimes what he says 
is lucid, to the point and scarily accurate.  His list of cons will 
probably be known as 'scientific follies of yesteryear' one day in the 
not too distant future.

The BCS theory is like a 15 year old nag at the races with her jockey 
(represented by BCS supporters) continuing to whip her on when all the 
other horses have lapped her and crossed the finish line.  The BCS 
supporters simply don't have the integrity to let it die.  It was dead 
before they got the Nobel prize and has now been hacked up and made into 
glue.  Kill this nag, somebody, and bury it!

As for anyone who would like to have one of those con jobs, well they 
could have all the money in the world and still be bankrupt where it 
counts.

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:
cuddy30 cudensingtech cudfnCharles cudlnCagle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.30 /  matt@godzilla. /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: matt@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: 30 Jun 1995 06:20:21 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley

In article <3svea3$8mo@electron.rutgers.edu> bweiner@electron.rutgers.ed
 (Ben Weiner) writes:

> 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.

Then there's the even more entertaining case: the theory is
enthusiastically accepted but gets changed drastically anyway.

I'm thinking of inflation, for example.  Guth got a lot of attention
the instant he proposed it, and lots of people accepted it.  In 
the particle astrophysics crowd, at any rate, inflation became
conventional wisdom quite quickly.

Despite that, it became clear after a short while that inflation in
its original form had severe problems.  Nobody believes in Classic
Inflation anymore; instead, there are bloody battles between the
adherent of the various schismatic inflationary theories.
--
Matt Austern				      matt@physics.berkeley.edu
http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmatt cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.28 / Scott Little /  Posting test
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Posting test
Date: 28 Jun 1995 18:02:01 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

Sorry to use up article header bandwidth but I'd like to hear when you
folks see this article on yr servers.  I posted this at 1 PM CST on
28JUN95 to my news-server.  Thanks.

Stay tuned for Potapov report #2, coming soon.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.30 / Ron Wickersham /  Re: Posting test
     
Originally-From: rjw@crl.com (Ron Wickersham)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Posting test
Date: 30 Jun 1995 00:37:00 -0700
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access	(415) 705-6060  [Login: guest]

Scott Little (little@eden.com) wrote:
: Sorry to use up article header bandwidth but I'd like to hear when you
: folks see this article on yr servers.  I posted this at 1 PM CST on
: 28JUN95 to my news-server.  Thanks.

on crl.com it was not here at 10:00 PM 29JUN95 but was here at 12:30 AM PST 
30JUN95.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenrjw cudfnRon cudlnWickersham cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.27 /  jonesse@plasma /  EPRI funding of CF
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: EPRI funding of CF
Date: 27 Jun 95 17:19:46 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <hszcuc9.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> <jonesse@physc2.byu.edu> writes:
>  
>>Nate Hoffman, a long-time consultant for EPRI regarding CF issues, told
>>me recently that EPRI is no longer supporting Mike McKubre's CF work --
>>that is where the lion's share of EPRI funding was going.  Perhaps
>>Jed will tell us just what EPRI is supporting -- perhaps a small amount
>>to check the E-quest claims?
>  
> Ha! You wish it were so, don't you? You and Nate are both full of bull.
>  
> - Jed

You seem to be avoiding the issue, Jed:  What is EPRI supporting?
At what level?

[Yesterday I called a colleague at EPRI who said that there is "no
significant funding" by EPRI for any cold fusion work at present,
including that of Mike McKubre.]

--Steven Jones

>"One conclusive experiment can and MUST overrule the entire existing
>database, no matter how certain or long established it may be. ...
>Okay, a million, million previous experiments showed that E=Mc2.  So what?
>Every single one of them was wrong.  Period.  It does not work in metal
>lattices under electrolysis, and Einstein was flat out wrong."
--Jed Rothwell, 21 Dec. 1992 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjonesse cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.30 / Paul Koloc /  Re: A conspicuous House Budget Item
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A conspicuous House Budget Item
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 1995 10:12:01 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3st90q$ef@soenews.ucsd.edu> barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:

[on funding Sonoluminescence]  

>Now, who got that little item tucked in there?!? So, I guess
>ol' Newt is a sono-fusion guy :-). Personally, I support the
>research, but I just though it odd they felt compelled to explicity
>mention it in the budget...I didn't realize sono-fusion was
>a major topic with the U.S people :-). Also, it seems odd that
>congress is mandating specific research topics.

With DoE's hyper-aggressive funding of alternate paths to fusion, this 
comes as a lovable sarcasm.  

>--
>Barry Merriman
>UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
>UCLA Dept. of Math
>bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.30 / Robin Spaandonk /  Re: Potapov device test discussion
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Potapov device test discussion
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 1995 10:01:08 GMT
Organization: Improving

On 28 Jun 1995 14:27:57 GMT, wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) 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.

If the so called "effect" kicks in, then I doubt seriously if the
temperature differential will still be 0.1 deg. C.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@netspace.net.au>

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Jul  1 04:37:05 EDT 1995
------------------------------
