1995.07.01 /  matjanis@phoen /  Market odds of "Operational fusion reactor" at 66 to 70%
     
Originally-From: matjanis@phoenix.princeton.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Market odds of "Operational fusion reactor" at 66 to 70%
Date: 1 Jul 95 09:40:02 GMT
Organization: Alberta Research Council

The full description of this claim is as follows:

A power plant will sell energy produced by nuclear fusion by 31 December
2045. After its initial energy sale, it must operate (i.e., sell energy)
regularly for a minimum of one year. "Regularly" is defined as >50% of the
time.

 Information on fusion energy is available from the Office of Fusion
Energy.


This claim will be judged 31 Jan 2047.

The odds shown in the subject line are the consensus of participants in an
Idea Futures market (the two percentages are the buy and sell prices for
'funny money' bets).  You can learn more about this market by pointing your
world wide web browser to

     http://if.arc.ab.ca/~jamesm/IF/IF.shtml

To participate in the market, a web browser with forms support is mandatory
(e.g., Mosaic2alpha or later, Lynx, NetScape).  Instructions for accessing the
web (including email and plain text browsers) are in the WWW FAQ, posted to
news.answers, and the various comp.infosystems.www groups.

The current odds for all claims on the market are as follows:

comp claims:
     35P6  60 - 69%  .35micron P6
     3SAT  40 - 53%  Good 3SAT Algorithm by 2020
     5500  71 - 99%  5500 Software Patents in 1995
     BOB3  20 - 25%  Bob sells 3,000,000 copies
     Cash  89 - 90%  E-Cash implemented before '97
     Ches  76 - 77%  Machine Chess Champion by 2000
     ChkS  80 - 84%  Checkers solved by 2005
     ChP6  72 - 77%  INTEL P6 cheaper than $1000
     CNTX  79 - 95%  connectix trades on stock mark
     DNA$  21 - 25%  Commercial DNA computer
     DNAT  33 - 34%  DNA-based Turing machine demo
     FacK  40 - 45%  1024bit number factored by '10
     Fact  60 - 70%  512 Bit number factored by '97
     GoCh  37 - 39%  Machine GO Champion by 2020
     GROW  65 - 69%  GROW wins on Internet
     IF~$  56 - 64%  IF Players > 35% Invested
     iNSP  49 - 60%  Native Signal Processing wins
     IReg  69 - 70%  Internet regulated in US
     Java  78 - 82%  Java wins on Internet
     LA25  92 - 98%  LINPACK 25000MFlops 12/31/95
     LA30  88 - 90%  LINPACK 30000MFlops 12/31/95
     LEvr  68 - 92%  LINPACK variable 12/31/99
     MANZ  26 - 70%  Jim Manzi Resigns &lt 2 years
     NIPC  49 - 70%  Non-Intel PCs Dominate by 2000
     NoKb  61 - 69%  Keyboards replaced by ???
     OS2X  21 - 30%  OS/2 is killed before 1997
     Pt15  15 - 60%  FCC restricts Part 15 devices
     SPat  33 - 35%  New patenting for programs
     SSLW   8 - 12%  SSL wins on Internet
     TcTk  27 - 35%  Tcl/Tk wins on the Internet
     Tran  66 - 67%  Machine Translation by 2015
     UNIX  40 - 42%  UNIX is irrelevant by 2000
     USMS   3 -  8%  U.S. makes DOS/Win Public Stds
     Veri  50 - 98%  Verilog wins in EDA
     VRML  89 - 95%  VRML wins on Internet
     WN95  90 - 94%  Windows 95 ships by 21 Sept 95
sci claims:
     3VDE  70 - 75%  3Var DiophantineEquations 2050
     Astr   9 - 13%  Astrology Stat'ly Significant
     Canc  36 - 40%  Cancer Cured by 2010
     CCx0  70 - 97%  Cosmological Constant &gt; 0.
     CFsn  15 - 17%  Cold Fusion
     Cryo  11 - 20%  Cryonics Catches On by 2000
     Cybo  32 - 40%  Cyborgs by 2035/12/31
     Ferm  96 - 98%  Fermat's Last Theorem resolved
     Fusn  66 - 70%  Operational fusion reactor
     GBch  65 - 74%  Goldbach Conjecture by 2020
     GRBr  48 - 55%  Gamma Ray Bursters are nearby
     Higg  50 - 57%  Higgs particle discovered 2005
     HIVC  48 - 53%  HIV cure by 2005
     HIVV  45 - 53%  HIV Vaccine by 2000
     Huri  68 - 77%  Very large Hurricane in 95
     Immo  21 - 23%  Immortality by 2050
     J9Eq   2 -  3%  Parkfield Quake By July 9th
     MdCd   7 - 30%  More MD's than CD's in 1997.
     Mini   5 - 60%  More Md's in 97 than Cd's
     Moon  46 - 50%  Moonbase by 2025
     Neut  77 - 78%  Neutrino mass >0
     NLud  12 - 18%  Neo-Luddite K. Sale wins bet
     NSF$  34 - 43%  NSF budget is reduced
     PFol  76 - 90%  Protein folding solved by 2010
     Popl  75 - 82%  World population > 10 Billion
     RHyp  65 - 80%  Riemann Hypothesis by 2020
     SGun  35 - 44%  Space gun by 2010
     SLvl  38 - 41%  1 m rise in Sea Level
     Spce  55 - 60%  Private Space Exploitation
     SSTO  59 - 64%  Single Stage to Orbit
     Stew  18 - 22%  Nanotech Stewart platform
     Tach  11 - 17%  Time communication possible.
     Time  11 - 12%  Time Travel
     UFOx  13 - 14%  Existence of UFOs verified
     Univ  29 - 33%  Eventual Collapse of Universe
     Uran  15 - 25%  Stable TransUranic Isotope
     VTRA  35 - 45%  Virtual Travel by 2001
     XLif  41 - 50%  Extraterrestrial Life by 2050
misc claims:
     $vIF  77 - 84%  Real $ Ver. of IF (&lt1.1.2000)
     1040  28 - 34%  US Taxes unchanged in 2001
     3UPD   1 - 16%  3DO Upgrade Ships by 12/95
     3UPP  14 - 16%  3DO Upgrade less than US$225
     3UPT  51 - 95%  Rumored 3DO Upgrade Specs True
     AHCc  50 - 62%  Alberta cuts clinic funding
     AJCD   0 -  3%  Atari Jaguar CD Ships by 7/95
     Am30   6 - 17%  30 amends. to US Const by 2000
     Amig  23 - 25%  PowerPC based  Amiga by 1/1/97
     APPL  36 - 37%  Apple Computer dies by 2005
     As97  40 - 50%  Assassination attempt by 97
     ATrB  31 - 54%  A New Asian Trade Bloc by 2000
     AusR  83 - 91%  Australian Republic by 2002
     B5S3  99 -100%  Babylon 5 has 3rd Season
     B5S4  91 - 94%  Babylon 5 has 4th Season
     B5S5  83 - 85%  Babylon 5 has 5th season
     BAT4   2 - 20%  BATMAN FOREVER blockbuster hit
     BC96  42 - 43%  Clinton re-elected in 96
     BOOK  80 - 88%  Sports Book in US outside NV
     BOS1  26 - 55%  Bosnian Govt Frees Sarajevo
     Bosn  14 - 18%  Bosnian War ended 1-Jan-96
     CADE  30 - 70%  Big 5 European CAD Vendor
     ccar  51 - 58%  "Zero Emission" Cars not reqrd
     CERT  31 - 39%  U.S.-Certified Encryption Only
     Colt  18 - 22%  Ban on assault weapons lifted
     CPB$  22 - 29%  Public Broadcasting Funds Cut
     CPfP  15 - 20%  Colin Powell runs for Pres.
     CPiP  12 - 40%  UK Conservative in power 7/97
     CrpX  35 - 37%  Strong crypto exportable by 96
     DENG  24 - 25%  Death of Deng triggers revolt
     DOCX  57 - 58%  U.S. Commerce Dept abolished
     dole  32 - 33%  Dole beats Clinton for Pres
     Epdm  30 - 34%  Deadly Epidemic in G7/EC
     FCCX  22 - 31%  FCC is disbanded
     FSTX   9 - 10%  Fed sales intead of income tax
     Ging  24 - 27%  Gingrich enters Prez race
     Hank   1 -  3%  Foster becomes Surgeon Genl
     HEAD  49 - 51%  coin toss comes up heads
     HOFF   2 - 67%  Mark Hoffman resigns
     Infl  22 - 29%  Inflation 2010/1995 >= 4.0
     ISDN  56 - 60%  25% Telephones ISDN by 2000
     Jack  20 - 25%  Jackson/Presley divorce
     Jl12  49 - 59%  13 OJ jurors dismissed
     JMGn  49 - 68%  John Major out by 1/1/96
     KNSU   5 -  7%  North and South Korea Unify
     MacC  61 - 65%  Mac clone sales> Macs by 7/97
     MLAW  17 - 18%  Minimalist Legal System wins
     Ms.P  45 - 49%  Woman President by 2013
     Naf2  30 - 45%  NaftaPlus signed by Clinton
     Nipl  86 - 90%  Nudity on Network TV by 1999
     NoPW  46 - 70%  Pete Wilson out by 5/1/96
     NS2X  75 - 78%  Netscape doubles on first day
     OJdt  11 - 95%  (OJ trial end - 95.7.1)/200
     OJgt  43 - 44%  O.J Simpson found Guilty
     OJMT  56 - 58%  Mistrial or hung jury for OJ
     OKbr  95 - 98%  Oklahoma Bomber a U.S. Citizen
     omca   2 - 10%  Ovitz hired to head MCA
     Pete  15 - 16%  PETE WILSON Republican Nominee
     PGPX  28 - 34%  Zimmermann tried on PGP export
     PicF  80 - 83%  Residential Videophones 2005
     pmin  34 - 38%  Prez w/o majority on 2/1/97
     Poc1  20 - 24%  Pocahontas #1 US Summer Film
     Quak  72 - 73%  Big West Coast Quake by 2010
     QueS   5 -  9%  Quebec separation
     road  40 - 99%  Fed Roadway Funds cut by 2005
     Rsgn   6 -  7%  Clinton resigns or impeached
     SShX  26 - 38%  Shuttle disaster by 1/1/2000
     SSma  49 - 55%  Same-sex marriages legal in US
     surg  70 - 75%  unnatural cosmetic surgery
     SWIV  17 - 22%  Star Wars movie 4 by 1997
     TBnp  48 - 49%  Tony Blair next British PM
     TBOT  21 - 28%  Economical Beverage Robot.
     Terr  46 - 55%  Nuke capable Terrorists
     TrCm  61 - 62%  Chemical/bio terrorist attack
     TVCD  44 - 49%  Sony/Philips CD videodisk wins
     U64D   2 -  8%  Ultra 64 Ships By 12/95
     U64P  75 - 88%  Ultra 64 less than US$280
     U64T  75 - 90%  Rumored Ultra 64 Specs True
     UKCO  79 - 99%  Local Internet in UK by 1997
     UNAA   2 -  5%  Unabomber gets bomb on plane
     UnaB  35 - 39%  "Unabomber" caught by 6/1/96
     WELD   4 - 10%  Bill Weld - Next Attorney Gen.

Full descriptions and conditions of these claims are available at

     http://if.arc.ab.ca/~jamesm/IF/allclaims.shtml

This message is automatically posted to this newsgroup on a quarterly basis
as specified by the owner of the claim:  matjanis@phoenix.princeton.edu

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmatjanis cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.29 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Correcting Mitchell Jones's Ignorance
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Correcting Mitchell Jones's Ignorance
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 05:12:43 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <3smqc0$3e4@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) wrote:
> 
> > they have flushed 40 years and roughly $100
> > billion (looted from taxpayers, of course!) down an apparently bottomless
> > rathole, without a scintilla of success. My own opinion, for what it's
> > worth, is that this dog won't hunt. 
> > 
> > --Mitchell Jones
> 
> Allow me to correct the gross ignorance you are spreading around,
> with a brief & approximate budgetary history.
> 
> Fusion was first proposed as the sun's energy
> source circa 1928. Fusion reactions were first
> demonstrated in the lab by Rutherford in 1932, via
> his beam & target experiments. 
> 
> (At the time, Rutherford
> said it was ``moonshine'' to consider producing
> energy this way (and indeed, his beam fusion cannot
> produce more energy than it consumes).)
> 
> Not much happened til after the WWII, 1946, when secret 
> fusion experiments were commenced, probably primarily
> with the goal of using fusion neutrons to breed plutonium
> for weapons.
> 
> The US and other national fusion programs were declassified
> circa 1958, and public, non-military funding of magnetic
> confinement fusion began. The total US expeditures for magnetic
> confinement fusion go something like this:
> 
> 1958--1969   ~ $0.4 Billion    ( flat budget and 
>                                  low level reflects limited progress 
>                                  of early attempts at fusion )
> 
> 1970--1979   ~ $1.5 Billion    (increasing budget reflects the early
>                                 success of the Tokamak concept,
>                                 and also the Energy Crisis of
>                                 the late 70's)
> 
> 1980--1989  ~  $4.0 Billion    (flat, heavy expenditure reflects construction
>                                 costs of several major experimental 
>                                 reactors (TFTR, MFTF) )
> 
> 1990--1995 ~   $1.8 Billion    (budget slowly declining, partly due to no
>                                 major new construction)
> 
> Total:         $7.7 Billion    ( probabaly less than $6 Billion of this went
>                                  into the tokamak concept )
> 
> Adjusted for inflation, this number in 1995 dollars would 
> be less than $15 Billion dollars.
> 
> So, Mitchell, generously speaking, your estimate is off by a factor 
> of 7. Even if you summed up the entire _world_ expenditures
> on magnetic confinement fusion, you would only get about 4 x 
> this amount, or $60 Billion in todays dollars.

***{To repeat what I said in another post: it isn't my estimate. I read it
in a newspaper or magazine article back during the initial flurry
following the Pons-Fleischmann announcement. As I also said, I do not
remember the specific source or the assumptions upon which the estimate
was based. Nevertheless, I must say that your continued howling about this
matter leaves me open mouthed with amazement. Maybe the estimate *was* for
the entire world. I really don't know, or care very much. If it was for
the world, I am sure it was less than the true number, because the truth
of the matter is that you guys are embarrassed by how much money you have
wasted, and you do everything you can to cover that number up! Well,
here's a flash for you: you guys have been riding on the backs of the
people long enough, and the people are sick and tired of being ridden on!
We don't believe bogus numbers any more, because it has dawned on us that
those who will steal will also lie! We see it all the time: gigantic
totals of looted funds hidden from taxpayer scrutiny by
missclassification, "off budget" tricks, "covert" funding, and on and on.
You guys just don't get it, do you? You aren't regarded as "experts" any
more: you are regarded as lying bloodsuckers! Your credibility is shot. We
look upon you guys the same way a cop looks upon a thief: if he confess to
one burglary, he probably did ten; if he confesses to ten, he probably did
a hundred. To repeat: those who steal will also lie. That's why we aren't
impressed by bogus numbers any more: it has suddenly dawned on us that you
guys have "a personal axe to grind." (Gee, who used that phrase?) We know
you want the total of wasted money to appear as small as possible, and so
we just multiply whatever numbers you put out by a "fudge factor"--say
five or ten--whatever seems necessary to produce a reasonable sounding
total. If we see a number in the press that seems to reflect the fudge
factor--say $100 billion--we accept it without much criticism. How do we
make such a judgement? Simple, we know roughly what you fusion guys are
admitting to have stolen, and we simply do what the cop does when he
evaluates the confession of the thief: we assume that the true total is
much, much higher. If you don't like this reaction, I suggest you switch
to the private sector. See how carrying the load feels, and maybe you will
begin to develop a different attitude toward bloodsuckers who spend their
lives riding on other people's backs. --Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
> As for your claim that ``without a scintilla of success'': could
> you please tell us what criterion you are using to measure success?
> All the meaningful fusion parameters have increased by many orders
> of magnitude since the program started.
 
***{Here is the "meaningful parameter," Barry: you have to earn a profit.
Which means: your goofy scheme of controlling a thermonuclear explosion
has to produce more energy than it consumes!  --Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
> Perhaps you mean that it hasn't reached breakeven? Well, TFTR as
> originally billed was supposed to reach breakeven in 1989, if fully
> funded. It wasn't really fully funded as desired, and instead it
> has reached 30% of breakeven in 1995. Something of a let down, but
> hardly disasterous and certainly a major improvement over what
> was possible when TFTR was designed. 

***{Yadda, yadda, yadda. Breakeven has been just around the corner for
forty goddamned years! For forty years guys just like you have been saying
it would have been achieved already, if only a little more money had been
looted from the people! It's just like the goddamned public "schools" or
the goddamned "war on poverty," or the goddamned "war on drugs:" just give
us a little more loot, say the bloodsuckers, and we will fix the
problems--and they say it for decade after tiresome decade. The beat just
goes on, and on, and on, and on. All the slaves have to do is keep
shelling out the cash, forever and ever, and accept that each of these
little crusades doesn't ever have to produce the promised result. Well, we
don't believe that bullshit any longer, Barry! The party's over! Get it?
--Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
> If you really want breakeven, JET should reach it next year.

***{Ho, ho, ho, ho! Ha, ha, ha, ha! Hee, hee, hee, hee! --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> Further, the program has historically killed research directions
> that were not making progress: after sinking ~ 1 Billion of the
> 7.7 mentioned above into mirror concepts, including $300 M into
> a major facility, DOE cut the mirror program because it became
> clear that it would not be likely to go much beyond 
> breakeven (not enough to make a viable power plant).
> 
> So, I think this demonstrates that your assertions are totally
> at odds with reality. 

***{My assertions are totally at odds with the reality that you guys want
to ride on the backs of the people forever. That is a fact. --Mitchell
Jones}*** 
> 
> By the way, there are valid criticisms one could make about 
> magnetic fusion. Primarily, one could say that: extrapolating from
> what we _know now_, a tokamak based power plant would be at best 
> marginally economically attractive in 2050. 

***{Here is a valid criticism, Barry: it ain't your money. It's our money!
Get it? --Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
> A reasonable person _could_ conclude from that the Tokamak program 
> should be cut back/redirected. (They could also conclude the opposite).
> 
> HOWEVER: a reasonable person must not arbitrarily cut back the tokamak
> program without simultaneously spelling otu some future energy strategy
> for the US and world.
> 
> So, Mitch: given that you want fusion research killed, why don't
> you spell out for us your long term world energy strategy?

***{My long term world energy strategy is simple: you guys should get off
the backs of the people, so they can invest their hard earned money in
energy research that seems plausible *to them.* If you do that, then the
financial markets will decide which energy programs to fund and which to
not fund, based upon a reasonable analysis of the prospects of success,
rather than on the biased projections of would-be parasites. It's called
capitalism, Barry, and it is the engine that is hurling us forward into a
better world. You guys aren't the solution; you are the problem!
--Mitchell Jones}***   
> 
> --
> Barry Merriman
> UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
> UCLA Dept. of Math
> bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.29 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: J. Rothwell & M. Jones Wrong on Semmelweis
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: J. Rothwell & M. Jones Wrong on Semmelweis
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 11:40:51 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <3sq9ao$4tn@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry
Merriman) wrote:

> Jed Rothwell and now Mitch Jones are spreading *folklore* about 
> Ignaz Semmelweis. I would just let it go, but (1) I hate to see popular
> myths propagated unchecked, and (2) maybe there is some small
> chance I can demonstrate to these guys that there are some flaws
> in their world views.
> 
> Now look: I didn't start this topic, and I don't
> what its relevance to CF is. Apparently CF believers
> keep an active file labeled 
> "Brilliant Minds Thwarted By Their Ignorant Contemporaries"
> and un-critically accept all entries they read about. Case
> in point: Most of the melodrama built about around 
> Semmelweiss is a _fiction_.
> 
> The original exchange is innocent enough: 
> 
> > Frank Manning wrote:
> >  
> >     "In 1847, Ignaz Semmelweis got the idea that the washing of hands . . .
> >     Even so, his theory aroused fierce opposition from entrenched authority,
> >     and his career suffered badly."
> >  
> >  
> > barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
> >  
> >     "..for awhile. As I recall, it caught on quite soon enough---because
> >     it was so easy to demonstrate the effectiveness---and he lived to be
> >     a recognized hero."
> 
> First, let me amend this by saying I had Semmelweis partly confused with 
> some of his contemporaries, such as Lister & Pasteur, who did achieve 
> the full measure of fame they diserved. Also, let me point out that 
> Manning post is not too far off---I was just trying to counterbalance
> his conclusion that Semmelweis was crushed by the powers that be.
> As I will point out below, Semmelweis's accomplishment was _far_ from ignored
> or suprresed, and his carrer suffered primarily due to his own
> personal problems, not those imposed upon him by others.

***{The fact that Semmelweis encountered vicious, prolonged harassment
from his professional colleagues after he attempted to point out the
deadly consequences of their behavior could not, according to you, have
contributed to the destruction of his career. My reaction: you strike me
as a living example of fear of going against one's professional
colleagues, Barry. After all, that's really why you are totally closed
minded about these "cold fusion" claims, isn't it? Me, I argue with Jed,
but I am open to the truth, whatever it may be. You, on the other hand,
seem to be bound and determined to maintain your position regardless of
what he says. Why would that be, if you do not fear the wrath of your
professional colleagues? Further, if you dare not accuse your professional
colleagues of misjudging an unorthodox energy claim, would you dare to
accuse them of being mass killers? How can you downplay the significance
of Semmelweis's conflict with his peers, while taking such absurd, extreme
measures to avoid conflict with your own peers? --Mitchell Jones}***    
> 
> 
> Now, Jed Rothwell jumps in with his usual caustic style:
> 
> >  
> > You recall wrong, Barry. I suggest you do your homework. Semmelweis was
> > driven out of Vienna in disgrace. He was never granted a license to practice
> > medicine. 
> 
> that is false, he did practice medicine, and he left abruptly from
> vienna on his own, not driven out.

***{He didn't have to have a lynch mob on his heels when he left in order
to be "driven out," Barry! You simply choose to ignore the climate of
hatred and animosity that existed between Semmelweis and his colleagues,
apparently because you fear your own colleagues so much that you dare not
even acknowledge the possibility that they might misbehave. What a joke!
--Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
> > He died a few years later from an infection following a medical
> > proceedure. 
> 
> No, he died 15 years later, followoing a severe beating and suffering
> from degenrative brain disease.

***{What do you know about it, Barry? Two days ago you were telling the
world that he died a respected hero. I have read a half dozen accounts of
the way Semmelweis died over the years, and they all had him strapped to
his bed, dying from infected wounds because the physician that dressed
those wounds didn't wash his filthy hands. And now you come along with a
revisionist account and expect us to believe it? Get real! Do you also
doubt the Holocaust, perhaps? --Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
> >The doctors who attacked him went on murdering their patients for
> > another generation or two (20 to 40 years). I am amazed you are so ignorant
> > ... [Civil war infections]...but alas, Semmelweis had been long forgotten. 
> >  
> > Merriman, like most "skeptics" frequently makes offhand remarks about
CF that
> > are astounding incorrect and ignorant. Now we see that he is grossly
> > ignorant about other subjects as well. - Jed
> 
> Well, Jed, what goes around comes around. But thank you for 
> suggesting I do my homework. Now, please replace ``skeptic''
> by ``believer'' in the above diatribe, and insert your own name in
> as the recipeint of your invectives. Thank you.
> 
> Next, Mitch Jones (apparently not wanting to dwell on his recent
> incredibly wrong post about the US fusion budget and progress
> in magnetic fusion)

***{Let's do dwell on it, Barry! Check out my reply. It's sitting there,
waiting for your rapier sharp arguments. Go to it! --Mitchell Jones}***

 jumps in, with a full elaboration of the 
> popular Semmelweiss myth: responding to my post, he says
> 
> >Wrong again. 
> 
> Uh, what is this ``again''? If I recall, the only recent wrong was your
> claim that the US spent ``roughly $100 Billion'' on fusion, with
> no success at all. But I guess you don;t want to debate a point
> on which you are clearly in the wrong by a large margin (U.S.
> has spent roughly $15 billion on magnetic fusion, in 1995 dollars,
> with plenty of success.)

***{See above, you jerk. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> Back to Mitchell Jones's popular mythology:
> 
> >Semmelweis developed his theory from observing the different
> >fatality rates when babies were delivered by doctors, who in those days
> >were in the habit of moving back and forth between the delivery room and
> >the autopsy room without washing their hands, as compared to midwives, who
> >obviously performed no autopsies. The "puerperal fever" was simply an
> >infection 
> 
> so far so good.
> 
> > Thus Semmelweis' campaign for the routine washing of
> >hands involved an explicit claim that doctors in hospitals were mass
> >killers,     
> 
> 
> Yes, delivered with considerable personal invective, as his writings
> show. This presentation is not likely to win any converts
> to a new doctrine, is it? (some CFers could take
> a lesson here.)

***{Stop and focus on what you are doing, Barry: you are simultaneously
(a) assuming that Semmelweis's colleagues were so palpably evil that they
would not even try his suggestion, despite the possibility that they were
killing their patients, and (b) implying that he was somehow to blame for
directing "considerable personal invective" at those very same palpably
evil colleagues! Since you can't seem to criticize your peers even in the
abstract, let me draw the appropriate conclusion for you: the fact that
Semmelweis's colleagues were so palpably evil that they would refuse to
wash their hands after it was proven that they were killing people
suggests that "considerable personal invective" *should* have been
directed their way. Bottom line: there is nothing in Semmelweis's behavior
that was inappropriate. He wasn't at fault: they were at fault. Get it?
--Mitchell Jones}***  
> 
> 
> > Result:
> >Semmelweis' professional colleagues hated him and hounded him without
> >mercy. 
> 
> This is false, He was _well_ received by his younger couleagues
> and _teachers_. Only the senior doctors resisted his ideas, though
> they did not attack him as you suggested.

***{Of *course* they didn't! They were so totally evil that they continued
to kill their patients rather than bother to wash their hands, but they
were simultaneously s-o-o-o-o nice that they refrained from attacking
Semmelweis in any way, shape, or form! Barry, it is very difficult to
respond to you without turning the air blue with four letter words! What
you are saying here, in a word, is idiotic. --Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
> 
> >As a consequence, he began to exhibit bizarre, paranoic behavior
> >(who wouldn't: his colleagues were, in fact, out to get him!), 
> 
> No, they were not out to get him---in fact, he had many powerful 
> supporters initially, whom he alienated by his own actions. 

***{Yup, his colleagues committed mass murder rather than wash their
hands, and yet they were pure as the driven snow in their dealings with
Semmelweis! It was all his fault! He alienated his supporters by his own
actions! Here is a question for you: how does a person who argues against
mass murder lose his support among decent human beings? Do you insist on
perfect decorum when a man is trying to stop mass murder? If that man
fails to maintain his composure at all times, do you switch your
allegiance to the mass murderers? Frankly, Barry, I am rapidly moving
toward the conclusion that you are out of your ever lovin' mind.
--Mitchell Jones}***

> His bizarre behavior set in more than a decade after the inital controversy.

***{Yup, and of course the hatred and hostile acts of colleagues who
committed mass murder rather than wash their hands had no connection
whatsoever with Semmelweis's subsequent bizarre behavior. Hell, they
wanted to be his golfing buddies! Duh! --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> 
> >and they
> >seized upon that behavior as an excuse to have him confined, under
> >restraints (he was strapped to his bed), in a lunatic asylum. 
> 
> It was not an excuse. By his own wife's accounts, he became 
> fully psychotic and she was unable to care for him. She and
> some of his _friends_ are the ones who had him committed.

***{Yup, and the deterioration of his mental state had nothing to do with
the mistreatment he received from his colleagues, which, of course, never,
ever happened! Duh! --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> 
> > And, when he
> >wore his skin raw by tugging at his restraints, one of the physicians who
> >hated him was called straight from the autopsy room to dress his wounds.
> >Semmelweis begged the man to wash his hands before dressing the wounds,
> >but his lunatic ravings were ignored, and so Semmelweis died of the
> >affliction he had tried to cure.
> >--Mitchell Jones
> 
> This last part is _total_ fabrication, propagated in most popular
> accounts. It is obviously added to get the
> full measure of irony in the retellings of the story. Do you ever 
> question these sort amzing coincidences? 

***{Yup, them thar "popular accounts"--i.e., the accounts that make sense
and, as a result, are widely read--are total fabrication! What an amazing
coincidence it would be, that a man strapped to his bed would wear his
wrists raw by tugging at his restraints, and that, in a city where most
doctors were mass murderers who killed by refusing to wash their hands,
said man should die of an infection caused by those filthy hands! Why what
fool would believe a story like that! --Mitchell Jones}***

It should be clear
> to any reader that this ending is a little too symetrical to be true.

***{Yup, you note an effect, and you note a cause that would produce that
effect, so what do you conclude: that the cause produced the effect? Nah!
That would be too symmetrical! --Mitchell Jones}***


> Also, M. Jones's account gives a compressed sense of time---I.S's decline
> and death occured 20 years after the original controversy.

***{Yup, and of course the hatred that his colleagues felt for him only
lasted for the first five minutes or so after his original announcement,
right? Nobody is so tough that it takes 20 years to grind them down,
right? Not Barry Merriman, at any rate! He, apparently, will not stray one
angstrom unit away from the position approved by his colleagues! Nobody is
going to have to grind old Barry down, by gum! He will defend the views of
his colleagues to the very end, he will, he will! --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> Here is the brief, straight dope on Semmelweiss. The full account
> is in the medical history "Doctors", by Sherwin Nuland, M.D., professor
> of surgery and the history of Medicine, at Yale. copyright 1988 & 1995,
> pages 238--262 (by the way, Jed: this was easy homework for me,
> as it was already on my bookshelf at home, well worn).

***{Yup, the defense of the mainstream point-of-view is Barry's passion,
it is, it is! Any book that does that is on his bookshelf, and well worn!
--Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> Here is a summary quote from the introduction (pg 239):
> 
> "He was brought to his tragic fate by his own self destructive nature, 
> and not, as popular historians have told us for generations, by the
> overwhelming gods of a backward medical establishment."

***{Yup, we all know how wonderful "the establishment" is, don't we,
folks? All hail the mighty "establishment!" Long may it reign! We trust
you and worship you all, and we solemnly promise to grovel before you and
"fund" you forever! --Mitchell Jones}***  
> 
> 
> Now, lets stick with the facts of the matter, breifly. 
> 
> I.S. was anewly graduated doctor in Vienna, 1844, and took a
> 3 year position there as an assistant to a senior obstetrician.
> Through  accurate observations and a great insight,
> he came up with the idea that childbed fever 
> (which killed postpartum mothers in large
> numbers, up to 25% that went to the hospital at times) was an 
> infection transmitted by unwashed hands (subsequent to autopsies).
> He tested his idea by using his authority to implement a hand washing 
> policy at the hospital for a year, and the statistics clearly showed
> he reduced the incidence from 18% to 1%. His boss stubbronly
> refused to admit that I.S. had found the solution to this longstanding
> problem, however.
> 
> I.S. did not publish or publically defend these results, but 
> several of his younger colleagues and former teachers immediatly 
> (1847) took to promoting I.S.'s work, published medical journal articles, 
> made public statements, and even delivered  an address to the Austrian 
> academy of Sciences, their most prestigous scientifc body.
> 
> Another quote (pg 248):
> 
> "The mythologists of I.S.'s life write of a lonely, misunderstood
> figure, fighting an almost universal opposition before being 
> overwhelmed by the sheer weight of numbers and influence, 
> and consequently deystroyed. The truth is otherwise. 

***{Sure it is. Historians who lived back then knew nothing of the facts.
They just wrote lies. But now, thankfully, we have a wonderful "modern"
historian to revise those silly old accounts, thereby enabling us to see
the truth! If the new truth doesn't seem to make a hell of a lot of sense,
who cares? We have to believe it on faith, don't we? I mean, what other
choice is there? We can't very well compare the two accounts and decide
that we believe the one that makes sense! Why, that would be uncivilized!
--Mitchell Jones}***

The emerging leaders
> who within a few years became victorious in Vienna, were all
> with Semmelweis. In a portrait made in 1853 of the 
> Collegium of the medical faculty nine of the 15 professors in the picture
> are among those who gave active support...Of those pictured, only...[one]...
> still remained to represent the oppostion. (The other five
> men took no stand."

***{What more do we need to know? I mean, that settles the issue, right?
If a picture was taken which includes more supporters of Semmelweis than
opponents, then it follows that Semmelweis had more supporters than
opponents, right? Gee, what great analysis! --Mitchell Jones}***

> 
> For a variety of complex, not fully understood, social, cultural
> and racial reasons, I.S. himself made no public presentations
> of his results. However, on the personal level he had become 
> quite obnoxiuos, and anyone who questioned his results was greeted
> with his derisions and accusation of being a murderer if they failed
> to follow his advice. In short, he was an a**hole about it all, and
> this no doubt turned off some doctors who would have otherwise
> been more receptive. His boss, for one, remained unconvinced and 
> I.S. job was not renewed (1849).

***{Yup, Semmelweis was an asshole because he failed to remain perfectly
composed while watching mass murder take place! And those who didn't even
bother to try a simple expedient like washing their hands, when told that
it saved lives, were pure as the driven snow! --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
{Massive quote of delusional "historian" deleted.}
>  
***{I'm not going to go on with this, Barry. I can see that I am repeating
myself. The revisionist "historian" that you quoted ad nauseam is merely
spewing forth at greater length the same nonsense you summarized before
you quoted him. Anyone who sees with his own eyes and thinks with his own
brain can chop this stuff to pieces, as I have amply demonstrated above.
--Mitchell Jones}***

 > 
> So: Jed Rothwell and Michael Jones: would you care to debate 
> the veracity of the above with the highly mythologized versions
> you presented.

***{Been there, done that. There's not a stick left standing in your
revisionist house-of-cards, Barry. What's your next wild claim--that the
Holocaust never happened? --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> In particular, lets cut to the chase: there is no support in 
> the Ignac Semmelweis story for the idea the cold fusion researchers
> are a persecuted minority who's ideas are in danger of
> being crushed by a stifling scientific hierarchy. I suggest you
> shed yourself from the martyr/savior complexes that you seem to be
> fostering.

***{Of course there isn't! Why any fool can see that! Nobody would ever,
ever draw such a parallel! We're with you, Barry! We don't think the
scientific hierarchy is "stifling!" All us folks out here in the woods
worship the "scienfific hierarchy" and we promise to let it ride on our
backs forever! Honest injun! --Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
> --
> Barry Merriman
> UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
> UCLA Dept. of Math
> bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.01 / Allan Proudfoot /  Cold Fusion FAQ or Information
     
Originally-From: alanp@newwave.manawatu.planet.co.nz (Allan Proudfoot)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion FAQ or Information
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 95 22:34:16 NZT

I have heard a lot about "Cold Fusion" and it's possible potential. However 
I don't know really know what it is, or theorys behind it.

Is the a FAQ for Cold Fusion ? or could somebody send me some information 
on it.

Thank you in advance.

Cheers

Allan.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenalanp cudfnAllan cudlnProudfoot cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.01 / Richard Blue /  Re: Implications of Miles Results
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles Results
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 1995 17:05:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

OK, Mitchell, I apologize for having accused you of having a theory for
cold fusion.  Clearly I was wrong, but I was attempting to provoke you
into revealing your sources.  It seems you have none.

As for S-orbitals, you still don't get my point.  To do fusion in a PdD
lattice I assume we start with Pd nuclei, deuterons, and electrons.  My
guess is that when you mention S-orbitals you are thinking about electrons
associated with the Pd nucleus and the fact that those electrons spend
more time in the vicinity of the nuclues than an electron in a P-orbital.
Am I getting warm?  Is this what you had in mind?  OK I concede that there
are S-orbitals like that, but what does that have to do with cold fusion?
The world is full of s-orbitals, and all those systems appear to be
pretty stable with respect to nuclear fusion.

As to the question of decay of the intermediate nuclear state formed in
cold fusion, I can't seem to get you to commit to one position or the other.
Now you say that you do not assert that all deexcitations are mediated by
phonons.  Does that mean that there could be a neutron or a gamma ray
emitted occasionally?  Suppose the branching ratio is 1 in 1,000,000.
Shouldn't that have been detected by now?  Suppose it's one in one billion.
Does that put us beyond the limits of detectability?  I don't think so.
The experimental measurements should still be a cakewalk.  On the other hand,
there would certainly have to be some mighty strange physics with your
s-orbitals and all.  Do you actually believe that is what is happening?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.01 / Robert Heeter /  Re: A conspicuous House Budget Item
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A conspicuous House Budget Item
Date: 1 Jul 1995 18:58:05 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <3st90q$ef@soenews.ucsd.edu> Barry Merriman,
barry@starfire.ucsd.edu writes:
>>"Within available funds, $1,000,000 is provided to fund
>>peer-reviewed research on the potential energy applications of
>>sonoluminescence.  Sonoluminescence is an effect in which highly
>>concentrated sound waves in liquids generate very short bursts of
>>light from bubbles in the liquid.  Calculations have suggested the
>>possibility of its use in inertial fusion applications."
>>
>
>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.

Actually, I believe Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA, heads House
Science subcommittee dealing with Fusion, if I remember right) 
was responsible for that little nicety.  He just had an article
published on the "Back Page" of the APS News, very interesting.

I found it more than a little intriguing (though not at all
surprising) to read the language of the fusion authorization
bill.  The bill argues for funding DIII-D, ITER, and sonoluminescence
based fusion.  Strangely enough, the major groups doing these
projects are all based in southern California.  (DIII-D is in
San Diego, the US ITER Home Team is based in San Diego, and
there's a major Sonoluminescence group at UCLA.)

Rohrabacher representes a district in Southern California.
Coincidence?  I don't thinks so!

I don't object to funding DIII-D or sonoluminescence fusion
provided some balance is maintained in the program; but
to have an all-southern-CA fusion program, as the
House authorization bill would create, is ridiculous!

 -----------------------------------------------------
Bob Heeter
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu / rfheeter@pppl.gov
http://www.princeton.edu/~rfheeter
Of course I do not speak for anyone else in any of the above.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.01 / Scott Little /  The Experimentalist's Lament
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Experimentalist's Lament
Date: 1 Jul 1995 20:18:22 GMT
Organization: EarthTech International

There is an interesting and somewhat frustrating situation 
that exists when attempting to replicate the experimental 
results of others.  For example, consider an inventor who 
claims that his new device produces more energy than that 
required to drive it.  To check out his claim, we acquire or 
build a copy of the device, set up the necessary apparatus, 
and begin making energy balance measurements.  A single 
robust experiment that produces a positive result is 
sufficient to prove his claim.  However, if our first 
experiment produces a negative result, we vary some 
parameter and perform another experiment.  If that 
experiment is also negative, we vary that parameter again or 
perhaps we vary a different parameter and run another 
experiment.  No matter how many variations we try, there 
will always be one more parameter that can be varied again 
to produce a different experiment.  In other words, to be 
absolutely sure that the inventor's claim is false, an 
infinite number of negative experiments is required. 



cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.01 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: Resistance to acceptance of new ideas
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Resistance to acceptance of new ideas
Date: 1 Jul 1995 20:51:38 GMT
Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here.

Bob Kovsky (kovsky@netcom.com) wrote:
: 	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. 

It did take a little while at first, given that they were 
"only" graduate students in 1979.  The names I can recall are Norm Packard,
Doyne Farmer, Jim Crutchfield, and Rob Shaw.  Let's see how hard it
was to get published.....just searching for those 4 names....

The key paper:

@Article{Packard:1980::,
  author =       "N. H. Packard and J. P. Crutchfield and J. D. Farmer
                 and R. S. Shaw",
  title =        "Geometry from a time series",
  year =         "1980",
  journal =      "Phys. Rev. Lett.",
  volume =       "45",
  pages =        "712--716",
  keywords =     "time series, reconstruction",
}      

And others around the same time...

@Article{Crutchfield:1980::a,
  author =       "J. Crutchfield and D. Farmer and N. Packard and R.
                 Shaw and G. Jones and R. J. Donelly",
  title =        "Power Spectral Analysis of a Dynamical System",
  year =         "1980",
  journal =      "Phys. Lett. A",
  volume =       "76",
  pages =        "1--4",
  number =       "1",
}

@Article{Crutchfield:1981::,
  author =       "J. P. Crutchfield and M. Nauenberg and J. Rudnik",
  title =        "Scaling for external noise at the onset of chaos",
  year =         "1981",
  journal =      "Phys. Rev. Lett.",
  volume =       "46",
  pages =        "933",
  keywords =     "external noise, chaos, onset, scaling",
}   

@Article{Farmer:1980::,
  author =       "J. D. Farmer and J. P. Crutchfield and H. Froehling
                 and N. H. Packard and R. S. Shaw",
  title =        "Power spectra and mixing properties of strange
                 attractors.",
  year =         "1980",
  journal =      "Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci.",
  volume =       "357",
  pages =        "453",
  keywords =     "attractor, strange, strange attractor",
} 


@Article{Froehling:1981::,
  author =       "H. Froehling and J. P. Crutchfield and J. D. Farmer
                 and N. H. Packard and R. S. Shaw",
  title =        "On determining the dimension of chaotic flows.",
  year =         "1981",
  journal =      "Physica D",
  volume =       "3",
  pages =        "605--617",
  keywords =     "chaotic, correlation dimension, data, c+",
}

@Article{Huberman:1980::,
  author =       "B. A. Huberman and J. P Crutchfield and N. H.
                 Packard",
  title =        "Noise phenomena in {J}osephson junctions.",
  year =         "1980",
  journal =      "Appl. Phys. Lett.",
  volume =       "37",
  pages =        "750",
  keywords =     "noise",
} 

@Article{Shaw:1981::,
  author =       "R. S. Shaw",
  title =        "Strange attractors, chaotic behavior, and information
                 flow.",
  year =         "1981",
  journal =      "Z. Naturforsch.",
  volume =       "36",
  pages =        "80--112",
  keywords =     "attractor, chaotic, strange, strange attractor, flow,
                 information",
}
  

: They 
: were fortunate because people in <other fields> were dealing with similar 
: problems so they eventually made their mark.

"eventually" was 2 years or so.  I remember another important paper in
Physica D from 1983 {That journal was started with nonlinear dynamics as its
main subject, and remains a widely respected one in the field} from Doyne
Farmer teamed up with Ed Ott, and Celso Grebogi, *physics* professors at the
U of Maryland.  The latter two are now major big shots in the field.

Norm Packard and Doyne Farmer later went on to found Prediction Co
in Santa Fe, NM.  (They've been featured in Business Week and are supposedly
doing quite well).

No consipiracy theory to suppress chaos needed.

And let's not forget Ed Lorenz doing brilliant work for decades, and widely
accepted and respected among conventional meterologists.

: Someone who knows more or 
: who has the book available may be able to fill in.

Glad to be of service.

The bottom line is that new ideas which shook up the general
ways of thinking in physics were widely accepted and recognized as
a result of the force of their experimental demonstrations and
compelling theoretical explanations.

cheers
Matt
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.01 / Tom Droege /  Re: The Experimentalist's Lament
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Experimentalist's Lament
Date: 1 Jul 1995 21:35:21 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3t4aie$m4n@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, little@eden.com (Scott Little) says:
>
>There is an interesting and somewhat frustrating situation 
>that exists when attempting to replicate the experimental 
>results of others.  For example, consider an inventor who 
>claims that his new device produces more energy than that 
>required to drive it.  To check out his claim, we acquire or 
>build a copy of the device, set up the necessary apparatus, 
>and begin making energy balance measurements.  A single 
>robust experiment that produces a positive result is 
>sufficient to prove his claim.  However, if our first 
>experiment produces a negative result, we vary some 
>parameter and perform another experiment.  If that 
>experiment is also negative, we vary that parameter again or 
>perhaps we vary a different parameter and run another 
>experiment.  No matter how many variations we try, there 
>will always be one more parameter that can be varied again 
>to produce a different experiment.  In other words, to be 
>absolutely sure that the inventor's claim is false, an 
>infinite number of negative experiments is required. 
>
>
>
Scott,

The final vote is taken with the feet.  Since you can't
prove a claim is wrong, you can only be persuaded by the
eloquence of the initial claim to attempt a replication. 
If after a few tries your enthusiasm wears thin, then you
just walk away.  It is up to the claimant to keep you 
working by providing you with the information you need.
Remember, a claimant need replicators, not the other way
around.  

"A replicators life is not an 'appy one"

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.01 / Bill Rowe /  Re: Cold Fusion FAQ or Information
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion FAQ or Information
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 1995 18:53:22 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <1022wgz5f@newwave.manawatu.planet.co.nz>,
alanp@newwave.manawatu.planet.co.nz wrote:

>I have heard a lot about "Cold Fusion" and it's possible potential. However 
>I don't know really know what it is, or theorys behind it.
>
>Is the a FAQ for Cold Fusion ? or could somebody send me some information 
>on it.

Robert Heater maintains a fusion FAQ which I think covers some aspects of
cold fusion. You also might check the bibliography of papers and books
Dieter Britz maintains.
-- 
William Rowe                                                   browe@netcom.com
MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.01 / Myke Stanbridge /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: mykestan@csu.murdoch.edu.au (Myke Stanbridge)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: 1 Jul 1995 22:27:10 GMT


This thread makes some interesting points that call out
for additions. 

(1) Progress in science is not necessarily scientific progress
    in the strictest sense. Progress in science demands a very
    broad and multi-disciplined view that takes in unpalatable
    offerings, digests them, separates the food from the waste
    and then proceeds to grow. Past waste may become rich food
    in future research. For example, anomalous data which look
    like experimental artifacts, but with greater accuracy can
    either dissolve or crystallize. In so doing they may offer
    regret or elation - the Excalibur of falsifiable inquiry.
 
(2) William Beaty offers a quotation that defeats his intended
    purpose. When the creators demand: "...NARROWLY PROSCRIBED
    AREAS..." it literally means *broadly permitted* since the
    word "proscribed" means prohibited or condemned. I mention
    this because it illustrates how careful one must be with a
    presummed understanding and its use in communicating ideas
    and offering material in support. This is a characteristic
    that usually emerges in naive, and often prosaic, crackpot
    blitherings.

(3) I may pique Matt Austern's historical pride by noting that
    the amateur scientist Johann Balmer first proposed in 1884
    an empirical formula for all 14 hydrogen lines then-known
    He was summarily dismissed as: "Rather silly to think that
    such number fiddling should have any importance." This was
    uttered by the iracible Rutherford. See Pledge, 1966. Most
    physicists know of the Heaviside layer, but how many think
    about the drama and derision he suffered as an amateur? He
    was responsible for many lasting innovations. The Atlantic 
    cable-echo elimination for example. A nasty problem in its 
    day. Leon Brillouin (1970) wrote: "..., but the reader may
    remember that Heaviside as the forgotten genius of physics
    was abandoned by everybody except a few faithful friends."

(4) Another weird fact is that Einstein's Newtonian atavism in
    proposing the photon in 1905 (his Nobel effort) received a
    terse remark from Millikan: "...bold, not to say reckless,
    hypothesis." Sommerfeld was not so kind!

Myke, :) 
      

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmykestan cudfnMyke cudlnStanbridge cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.01 / W Bernecky /  Wirbelrohr or vortex tube
     
Originally-From: bernecky@starbase.nl.nuwc.navy.mil (W. Robert Bernecky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Wirbelrohr or vortex tube
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 1995 23:11:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The following may be relevant to the Potapov device.

It contains excerpts from "And yet it moves...strange systems &
subtle questions in physics," by Mark P. Silverman, Cambridge
University Press, 1993; Chpt 6 "The Wirbelrohr's roar".

"It was a Wirbelrohr, he explained; you blew into the stem, and
out one end of the cross-tube flowed hot air, while cold air
flowed out the other. I laughed; I was certain he was teasing me.
Although I had never heard of a Wirbelrohr, I recognised a
Maxwell demon when it was described."

"...he machined in his basement workshop a working model which I
received from him shortly afterwards. The exterior was more or
less just as he had described it: two identical long thin-walled
tubes (the cross-bar of the T), were connected by cylindrical
collars screwed into each end of a short section of pipe that
formed the central chamber; a gas inlet nozzle (the stem of the
T), shorter than the other two tubes but otherwise of identical
construction, joined the midsection tangentially (Fig. 6.1). Ex-
ternally, except for a throttling valve at the far end of one
output tube to control air flow, the entire device manifested bi-
lateral symmetry with respect to a plane through the nozzle per-
pendicular to the cross-tubes.

"Only someone with the lung capacity of Hercules could actually
blow into the stem.  Instead, the nozzle was meant to be attached
to a source of compressed air.  Taking the Wirbelrohr into my
laboratory, I looked sceptically for a moment at its symmetrical
shape before opening the valve by my work table that started the
flow of room-temperature compressed air. Then, with frost forming
on the outside surface of one tube, I yelped with pain and aston-
ishment when, touching the other tube, I burned my fingers!"

"...With the few parts of the Wirbelrohr laid out on my table, I
understood better the significance of the German name, Wirbel-
rohr, or vortex tube. The heart of the device is the central
chamber with a spiral cavity and offset nozzle. Compressed gas
entering this chamber streams around the walls of the cavity in a
high-speed vortex.  But what gives rise to spatially separated
air currents at different temperatures? ...the placement in one
cross-tube (the cold one) of a small-aperture diaphragm effec-
tively blocked the efflux of gas along the walls of the tube,
thereby forcing this part of the air flow to exit through the
other arm whose cross-section was unconstrained.


                 |-----------|
   --------------|           |------------------
                             |   "COLD" PIPE
    "HOT" PIPE
                             | <--- diaphragm 
   --------------|           |------------------
                 |---|   |---|
             /       |   |
      CENTRAL        |   |
      CHAMBER        |   |
         |           |   | <- INLET
       _____
      /      \			Fig 6 - Schematic of Wirbelrohr or 
    /   __     \                vortex tube.
   /   /        \
  |   /          |  Top View
  |   |          |       
   \  | |       /
    \ | |      /
      | |    /
      | |--- 
      | |
      | | <- INLET
      | |
          Room-temperature compressed air enters the inlet tube,
          spirals around the central chamber, and exits through
          the 'hot' pipe with unconstrained cross-section or
          through the 'cold' pipe whose aperture is restricted 
          by a diaphragm.


"The glimmer of a potential mechanism dawned on me. Had the in-
coming air conserved angular momentum, the rotational frequency
of air molecules nearest the axis of the central chamber would be
higher - as would also be the corresponding rotational kinetic
energy - than peripheral layers of air. However, internal fric-
tion between gas layers comprising the vortex would tend to es-
tablish a constant angular velocity throughout the cross-section
of the chamber. In other words, each layer of gas within the vor-
tex would exert a tangential force upon the next outer layer,
thereby doing work upon it at the expense of its internal energy
(while at the same time receiving kinetic energy from the preced-
ing inner layer). Energy would consequently flow from the center
radially outward to the walls generating a system with a low-
pressure, cooled axial region and a high-pressure, heated circum-
ferential region.  Because of the diaphragm, the cooler axial air
had to exit one tube (the cold side), whereas a mixture of axial
and peripheral air exited the other (the hot side).

"The presence of the throttling valve on the hot side now made
sense. If the low pressure of the air nearest the axis of the
tube fell below atmospheric pressure, the cold air would not exit
at all...By throttling the flow, pressure within the central
chamber was increased sufficiently so that air could exit both
tubes.

"...with some simplifying assumptions I was able to calculate the
entropy change... Under what is termed adiabatic conditions -
i.e. with no heat exchange with the environment - the 2nd Law re-
quires that the entropy change of the gas, alone, be >= zero.
The resulting mathematical expression, augmented by the equation
of state of an ideal diatomic gas and the conservation of energy
(1st Law) yields an inequality:

 (x^f)[(1-fx)/(1-f)]^(1-f) >= (Pf/Pi)^(2/7)

 where x= Tc/Ti
       Tc  is temperature of cold air
       Ti  is initial temperature
       Pf  is the final pressure
       Pi  is the initial pressure
       f is the fraction of gas directed thru the cold side


"By setting the expression for the entropy change equal to zero,
I could calculate the lowest temperature that the cold tube
should be able to reach if the gas flow were an ideal reversible
process. The result was astonishing.  With an input pressure of
10 atmospheres and the throttling set for a fraction f= 0.3, com-
pressed air at room temperature (20 C) could in principle be
cooled to about -258 C, a mere 15 degrees above absolute zero!
(The corresponding temperature of the hot side would have been 80
C.)

"...The first experimental demonstation of a vortex tube seems to
have been reported in 1933 by a French engineer, Georges Ranque
[1].  by German physicist Rudolph Hilsch came to the attention of
American chemist R.M. Milton... In Hilsch's hands, proper selec-
tion of the air fraction f (~ .33) and an input pressure of a few
atmospheres gave rise to an amazing output of 200 C at the hot
end and -50 C at the cold end[2]. Hilsch, who was the one to coin
the term Wirbelrohr, used the tube in place of an ammonia pre-
cooling apparatus in a machine to liquify air.

"...Milton was not satisfied with the interpretation of Hilsch
and Ranque that frictional loss of kinetic energy produced the
radial temperature distribution...."

M Kurosaka et al[3,4], in 1982, proposed a far different mecha-
nism, supported by experiment.

"With a loud roar air rushes turbulently thru the Wirbelrohr,
just as it does thru a jet engine or a vacuum cleaner.  Buried
within that roar, however, is a pure tone, a "vortex whistle" as
it has been called...the vortex whistle can be produced by tan-
gential introduction and swirling of gas in a stationary tube. It
is this pure tone that is purportedly responsible for the spec-
tacular separation of temperature in a vortex tube.

"The Ranque-Hilsch effect is a steady-state phenomenon - i.e. an
effect that survives averaging over time. How can a high-pitch
whistle - a sound that, depending on air velocity and cavity ge-
ometry, can be on the order of a few kilohertz - influence the
steady component of flow? The answer...was by 'acoustic stream-
ing'.  As a result of a small nonlinear convection term in the
fluid equation of motion, an acoustic wave can act back upon the
steady flow and modify its properties substantially. In the ab-
sence of unsteady disturbances, the air flows in a 'free' vortex
around the axis of the tube; the speed of the air is close to ze-
ro at the center (like a hurricane), increases to a maximum at
mid-radius, and drops to a small value near the walls. Acoustic
streaming, however, deforms the free vortex into a 'forced' vor-
tex where the air speed increases linearly from the center to the
periphery.  Acoustic streaming and the production of a forece
vortex, rather than mere static centrifugation, engender the
Ranque-Hilsch effect.

"The experimental test could not be more direct. Remove the whis-
tle, and only the whistle, and see whether the radial temperature
distribution remains. To do this [Kurosaka] monitored the entire
roar with a microphone and ...decomposed it into frequencies of
which the discrete component of the lowest frequency and largest
amplitude was identified as the vortex whistle. Next, he enclosed
the Wirbelrohr inside a tunable acoustic suppressor: a cylindri-
cal section of Teflon with radially drilled holes serving as
acoustic cavities distributed uniformly around the circumference.
Inside each hole was a small tuning rod that could be inserted
until it touched the outer shell of the Wirbelrohr to close off
the cavity, or withdrawn incrementally to make the cavity reso-
nant at the specified frequency to be suppressed.

"To simplify the experimental test, he sealed off one output of
the vortex tube and monitored with thermocouples the temperatuare
difference between the center and periphery. In the absence of
the suppressor, an increase in pressure produced, as I had no-
ticed when experimenting with my own vortex tube, a louder roar
and greater temperature difference. When, however, the acoustic
cavity was adjusted to suppress only the frequency of the vortex
whistle (leaving unaffected the rest of the turbulent noise), the
temperature difference plunged precipitously at the instant the
corresponding input air pressure was reached. In one such trial,
the centerline temperature jumped 33 C, from -50 C to -17 C. With
further increase in pressure, the frequency of the whistle rose,
and as it exceeded the narrow band of the acoustic suppressor,
the temperature difference increased again.

"Additional evidence came from a striking transformation in the
natuare of the flow...Before the vortex whistle was suppressed,
the exhaust air swirled rapidly near and outside the tube periph-
ery in the manner expected for a forced vortex. Upon supprssion,
however, the forced vortex was also abruptly suppressed; now qui-
escent at the periphery, the air rushed out close to the center-
line."

"For all I know, the case of the mysterious Wirbelrohr is largely
closed although, science being what it is, future version of that
device may yet hold some suprises in store. I have sometimes won-
dered, for example, what would result from supplying a vortex
tube, not with room-temperature air, but with a quantum fluid,
like liquid helium, free of viscosity and friction.

The exorcism of the demon in the Wirbelrohr will not, I suspect,
dampen one bit the ardour of those whose passion it is to chal-
lenge the 2nd Law. Despite the time and effort that has been
frittered away in the past, others will undoubtedly try again.
On the whole such schemes are bound to fail, but every so often,
as in the case of Maxwell's own whimsical creation, this failure
has its positive side: when, from the clash between human ingenu-
ity and the laws of nature, there emerge sounder knowledge and
deeper understanding."

[1] G. Ranque, "Experiences sur la Detente Giratore avec Produc-
tions Simultanees d'un Echappement d'air Chaud et d'un Echappe-
ment d'air Froid", J. de Physique et Radium 4(7)(1933) 112 S.

[2] R. Hilsch, "The Use of the Expansion of Gases in a Centrifu-
gal Field as Cooling Process", Rev. Sci. Instrum. 18 (1947) 108.

[3] M. Kurosaka, "Acoustic Streaming in Swirling Flow and the
 Ranque-Hilsch (Vortex Tube) Effect", J. Fluid Mech.
124(1982)139.

[4] M. Kurosaka, J.Q. Chu, & J.R. Goodman, "Ranque-Hilsch Effect
Revisited: Temperature Separation Traced to Orderly Spinning
Waves or Vortex Whistle", conference of Am Inst. of Aero & Astro
1982.

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenbernecky cudfnW cudlnBernecky cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.30 /   /  Extropy Institute info
     
Originally-From: julrey0974@aol.com (JUlrey0974)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Extropy Institute info
Date: 30 Jun 1995 23:36:57 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

If you're receiving this message, I should tell you now that there's a 99%
chance that it has nothing to do with the list or newsgroup you got it
from.  I'm posting it not because of it's direct relevance but because it
reflects some or even many of the values expressed by readers of the list.
 Most of you have probably read the above (contrived?) words and thought,
"Oh no, I smell a scam coming."  Relax, I'm not here to sell you anything,
just to bring an organization to your attention that you might not have
known existed.  This organization is called Extropy Institute, and the
primary objectives and ideals of this group are what I intend to discuss
here.  
ExI (as it will from here on out be abbreviated) is a scientifically based
organization that is dedicated to the advancement of mankind.  That means
using technology for such purposes as extending the human life span and
overcoming the limits imposed on us by the forces of nature.  It also
means philosophically training ourselves to deal with this expansion and
with life in general (even a blind man can see that technology is maturing
at a much faster rate than the moral understanding of mankind).  If you've
read this far and are still interested, the following is a formal
declaration of the institute's principles:

BOUNDLESS EXPANSION- Seeking more intelligence, wisdom, and effectiveness,
an unlimited lifespan, and the removal of political, cultural, biological,
and psychological limits to self-actualization and self-realization. 
Perpetually overcoming constraints on our progress and possibilites. 
Expanding into the universe and advancing without end.

SELF TRANSFORMATION- Affirming continual moral, intellectual, and physical
self-improvement, through reason and critical thinking, personal
responsibility, and experimentation.  Seeking biological and neurological
augmentation.

DYNAMIC OPTIMISM- Fueling dynamic action with positive expectations. 
Adopting a rational, action-based optimism, shunning both blind faith and
stagnant pessimism.

INTELLIGENT TECHNOLOGY- Applying science and technology creatively to
transcend "natural" limits imposed by our biological heritage, culture,
and environment.

SPONTANEOUS ORDER- Supporting decentralized, voluntaristic social
coordination processes.  Fostering tolerance, diversity, long-term
thinking, personal responsibility, and individual liberty.

Again, I'd like to stress that this is NOT a cult or religious group, etc.
 It is strictly SCIENCE-based and all arguments/conclusions are made with
regards to progressive technology and physics.  The literature is written
in laymen's language so everyone should be able to follow it rather
easily.  Recent EXTROPY articles include Utility Fog, Ocean Colonization,
The emergence of celestial civilization, etc.  If you are already
interested and would like to look into obtaining the magazine, I'll post
info at the end of this note, but I know most of you aren't willing to
part with your hard earned money based solely on the talk of a shyster
like me!  ;)   Not to fear, there are several web pages and internet
resources which I will attempt to list a good portion of below:

The main page of the Extropy Institute is located
athttp://www.c2.org/~arkuat/exi/extropy.html

The following are also Extropy related, though run by sympathetic
individuals:

Extropia!:  http://www.gsu.edu/~libndc/extro.html

Infinite Payoff/Transhuman Technology: 
http://desire.apana.org.au/~qix/extro.html

Anders Transhuman Page:  http://www.nada.kth.se/~nv91-asa/trans.html

Outlier's Gulch:  ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/dk/dkrieger/home.html

Fitz' Extropy Page:  http://iquest.com/~fitz/extropy/

Ralph C. Merkle's Home Page: 
ftp://parcftp.xerox.com/pub/merkle/merklesHomePage.html

>Most of the above will lead you to other related pages of interest, so I
won't waste your time trying to compile a complete list.  There are also
mailing lists which you can subscribe to by sending a request to
EXTROPIANS-REQUEST@EXTROPY.ORG (specify whether you want real time or
digest mode- if unsure try digest mode) and an essay list for longer, more
carefully prepared electronic manuscripts (send request to
EXI-ESSAY-REQUEST@GNU.AI.MIT.EDU).  These lists give you a 30 day trial
after which you must pay $14 a month to remain on them.  There are also
local lists for the following areas:

San Francisco (exi-bay-request@gnu.ai.mit.edu)
Boston (exi-bos-request@gnu.ai.mit.edu)
Los Angeles (exi-la-request@gnu.ai.mit.edu)
New York City (exi-nyc-request@gnu.ai.mit.edu)

A newsgroup is located at ALT.EXTROPIANS

Back issues of Extropy are available for downloading at the first home
page I listed, but you can also order hard copies for $5 an issue or
subscriptions for $18 US (foreign rates should be available at the home
page).  Memberships are also available which give you a subscription to
Extropy, it's sister journal Exponent plus membership discounts on books,
tapes, etc.  Again, I'm not trying to sell you anything here.  I'd advise
checking out the home pages first to give you a better idea of what we're
talking about here.  
The president of ExI is Max More, who can be reached at more@extropy.org
The mailing address for ExI is 13428 Maxella Avenue, #273, Marina Del Rey,
CA  90292 (310) 398-0375.

Another closely related organization is The Alcor Foundation (12327
Doherty Street, Riverside CA  92503  (800) 367-2228)  which is "a
non-profit tax-exempt scientific and educational organization dedicated to
advancing the science of cryonics and promoting it as a rational option." 
Cryonics, as you may know, is the process of preserving bodies at low
temperatures in the hopes that technology will allow them to be revived
healthily in the future.  Send your mailing address to INFO@ALCOR.ORG for
more information.

Without sounding too sappy I must say my discovery of ExI two years ago
radically altered the meaning of my life and my future in particular.  It
allowed me to admit at last that I didn't believe in God or spirituality
and was indeed a rational man of science (not that the institute denounces
religion or spirituality in any way, it merely promotes free thinking is
all).  And while they might not be on TV begging for contributions
alongside PBS the simple fact is most people are not aware of the goals of
this organization, and hence it's lack of popularity inhibits the amount
of federal research funds advanced toward their projects.  Awareness and
support are key ingredients if the goals of extropians and mankind in
general are to be advanced ( I daresay most people wouldn't mind living
forever!).  The facts, the rationality with which all problems are
approached should give hope to even the most jaded of skeptics.  Like I've
mentioned, I'm not trying to get you to make a huge donation (but I won't
try to stop you if you choose to do so!) but rather to spread the word. 
What the organization needs more than anything is publicity (although
funds wouldn't hurt).  Just give it a try- access the ExI home page and
there is more than enough info there for you to decide whether or not you
want to be a part of it.  Even if you don't technically want to "join" the
institute, it will lead you to areas of exploration which may turn you on
to new thoughts and ideas about life and the world we live in- in fact
it's much like philosophy only based in science and the application of
technology (although pure philosophical issues do arise frequently).  I
feel that i've taken enough of your time, and if you've read this far I
owe you a debt of gratitude.  If you check it out and decide it's the
thing for you, please e mail me and let me know- I'm always looking
forward to hearing from individuals with interests similar to my own. 
Finally, I apologize for the crudity of this document- it is a rough draft
and may be revised if it is greeted positively.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjulrey0974 cudln cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.01 / Alan M /  Re: Where's the CNF water heater Heeter?
     
Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" <Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Where's the CNF water heater Heeter?
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 1995 06:30:35
Organization: Home

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!
> 

As I understand matters, the charter at Dartmouth requires any employee who
requests a 'Net account be given one. Ludwig (sorry - Archimedes) is simply
exercising his standard employee's rights.

-- 
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:
cuddy01 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.01 / Alan M /  Re: Extropy Institute info
     
Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" <Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Extropy Institute info
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 1995 06:40:48
Organization: Home

In article: <3t2fsp$6fj@newsbf02.news.aol.com>  julrey0974@aol.com (JUlrey0974) writes:
> If you're receiving this message, I should tell you now that there's a 99%
> chance that it has nothing to do with the list or newsgroup you got it
> from.  I'm posting it not because of it's direct relevance but because it
> reflects some or even many of the values expressed by readers of the list.

      [long, expensive to download and interest-free drivel deleted]

 Oh piss off with your advertisements. I hope you get well and
truly mail-bombed for this.

  If you check it out and decide it's the
> thing for you, please e mail me and let me know- I'm always looking
> forward to hearing from individuals with interests similar to my own. 
> Finally, I apologize for the crudity of this document- it is a rough draft
> and may be revised if it is greeted positively.
>

I trust you enjoyed your brief foray into the world of the 'Net. I sincerely
hope your service provider is able to bill you for all the grief you will
 have caused him by this spam, before pulling your account.
 
-- 
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:
cuddy01 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.01 / Alan M /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" <Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 1995 06:35:19
Organization: Home

In article: <ts_zemanian-3006951210570001@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov>
 ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. 
Zemanian) writes:
> If I went round claiming I was emperor because some
> moistened bink had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

I think you'll find that ought to be 'bint'. This is English slang
(derived from army usage) which in turn arises from the time spent
by the British Army in arabic-speaking climes.

-- 
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:
cuddy01 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Jul  2 04:37:07 EDT 1995
------------------------------
