1995.07.02 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Cold Fusion FAQ or Information
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion FAQ or Information
Date: 2 Jul 1995 16:29:54 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <browe-0107951154030001@192.0.2.1> Bill Rowe, browe@netcom.com
writes:
>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.

Uh-oh.  Time for some corrections.  First, it's "Heeter" (but that's no
big deal).  Second, the Conventional Fusion FAQ explicitly avoids
discussing Cold Fusion, precisely because - to paraphrase
Alan's statement, we don't really know what it is, or the theories
behind it.  More precisely, there are at least three classes of
answers to any CF question, and which one you believe depends 
on your overall attitude towards the phenomena.  Skeptics
will favor the answer that supports the idea that CF is bunk,
believers will favor answers which support the validity of CF,
and then there are those in between who will say the answer
is that we simply don't know for sure what's going on yet.

Alan - if you ask about CF on this group, you'll get a lot of 
"help" from the believers, and then they'll be "corrected" 
by the skeptics, and then you'll get both sides of the picture.

But the bottom line is still that there is still no commercial
"cold fusion" device, though there are some devices which
some people claim produce more energy than they consume,
and therefore "must" be cold fusion devices.  

This is about as neutral a statement as I can come up with,
and is similar to what I would put in the FAQ if I were
inclined to do so.  But I'll bet this starts a flamewar
anyway.

 -----------------------------------------------------
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:
cuddy2 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.02 / Mark Mallory /  Re: Energy Conservation Law
     
Originally-From: mmallory@netcom.com (Mark Mallory)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energy Conservation Law
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 1995 18:56:48 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

euejin_jeong (ejeong@pinet.aip.org) wrote:


: Here is a question for all of you.
: Suppose you rotate a gyroscope in the direction perpendicular to its
: rotation axis. It takes energy to do that. Where the energy go after
: you finish the work. Energy doesn't seem to be conserved. Energy didn't
: go to increase the angular momentum of the gyro. What is wrong in this
: thought experiment ?

Actually it does *not* require energy to do that.  It only requires 
torque.  The precessional motion is at right angles to the applied 
torque, therefore the product of torque and rotation (energy), is 
zero.

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmmallory cudfnMark cudlnMallory cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.01 / Prasad Ramon /  Re: Dieter's incessant anti-Wallace behavior
     
Originally-From: Prasad,Ramon <100437.530@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dieter's incessant anti-Wallace behavior
Date: 1 Jul 1995 10:01:09 GMT
Organization: -- None --

C.Cagle has pointed out that not all persons who frequent 
sci.physics.fusion and who do not make frequent contributions are 
here to make trouble. I agree with him. It amazes me that some 
people can become so agitated about so small a matter. Mr Wallace 
may have acted somewhat discourteously in overpromoting his book 
in Usenet groups that are not directly related to the contents. 
So what! He hasn't "stolen $100 bilion of taxpayers money and 
poured it down a bottomless rat-hole" yet has he.

The great strength of the internet mode of communication is that 
it is not edited, there are a minimum of rules. There is no House 
Committee to say yes sir or no sir. From what I can see much of 
the propagation of the new science of Cold Fusion has been 
expedited precisely because on internet there is no "authotity".
Breath the pure air of freedom! Do not be in a hurry to throw it 
away. It is well-worth having and well-worth suffering some small 
inconveniences for.

As a matter of fact I re-read the first four capters of The Farce 
of Physics this morning. Whether or not you agree with his thesis 
it is incumbent on all physicists to make themselves aware of the 
self-serving nature of institutionalization- which some theories 
have now become
                Very Best Wishes,Yours sincerely,                
          Ramon Prasad <internet:100437.530@compuserve.com>
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cuden530 cudfnPrasad cudlnRamon cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.02 / Peter Weis /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: pweis@Direct.CA (Peter H. Weis)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: 2 Jul 1995 20:11:22 GMT
Organization: Internet Direct Inc.

In a fairly recent brief to the Supreme Court (regarding the value of 
scientific evidence in court proceedings), Stephen J. Gould and 11 other
eminent science historians stated that, "Most of today's widely accepted
theories in science were originally considered the excentric thoughts
of heretics". This quote is almost verbatim, as I appear to have lost
the original quote in NEWSWEEK "The Good, The Bad, and The Published"
about a year ago.
  Also mentioned among several other recent examples is Barbara 
McClintocks ground-breaking 1950 discovery of "jumping genes", for which
she was roundly ridiculed by her peers, until she was awarded, albeit
30 years later, the 1980 Nobel Prize for her outstanding achievement.
  Her erstwhile detractors were reduced to looking down and making 
small circles in the sand with their left foot - and they are still
as far from a chance at the Nobel as ever.
peter; 

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenpweis cudfnPeter cudlnWeis cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.02 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: The Experimentalist's Lament
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Experimentalist's Lament
Date: 2 Jul 1995 20:25:32 GMT
Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here.

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
:  
: There is a very strange ethic among scientists. I have no idea where it came
: from, and I have never encountered it elsewhere. It is hard for me to describe,
: but apparently the ideal procedure when you replicate a machine, is to do it
: *without help*. The inventor publishes a paper or a formula, and you pick it
: up without consulting the fellow, and you magically know how to make one
: without making mistakes and without consulting with him. If you do have to
: consult, that somehow defiles the magical "purity" of the replication; you are
: no longer a "virgin" replicator, and your results are suspect. It goes
: something like that, anyway. I don't know; I don't get it.

The idea is to replicate the physical conditions that lead the 
hypothesized experimental effect under consideration, but not possibly
incidental unknown factors in the apparatus and procedures that could
conceivably cause systematic experimental error.

For instance, if the hypothesis is that churning water in a particularly odd
way makes anomalous heat because of some unknown physical force--- then
replicate the conditions for churning, but not the particular design details
of the calorimeter and other measuring devices.  If the effect is authentic,
then the replicator ought to see quantitatively similar results.  If it is
due to some hard to pin down but boring interaction in the measurement
apparatus, then the replicator might not see the same results.

: That ethic is
: diametrically opposed to everything that I have ever learned and done in my
: life. I always insist on getting every scrap of information directly from
: original sources, and visiting the factory for training before proceeding.

That is a good idea, but there are still good reasons to use different
measurement techniques.

: Even when I have worked with similar products, if it is important then I go
: by the book, I take the training course, and I and follow instructions
: *exactly*. Never guess. Always ask. Never try to figure it out by yourself.
: The fellow who sold it to you owes you an explanation. You paid for customer
: support, so if you need help, get it. That is how industry works, and I cannot
: imagine why anyone would do it any other way. 

This is appropriate for buying products that have already been proven to
work.  If I were setting up a PC to run a D/A board, then yes it's a good
idea to follow the manufacturer's directions to the letter, as the PC is not
the item of interest.  If, on the other hand, Intel claims to have a 10
trillion SPECmark Novium CPU at 5 megahertz and my task is to verify that
claim I think it's reasonable to use my own benchmark programs in my own
motherboard and my own digital scopes. 

: - Jed

cheers
matt
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.02 / 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: Sun, 2 Jul 1995 20:21:40 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3t45rt$nuq@cnn.Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@pho
nix.princeton.edu> writes:
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Newsreader: Nuntius 2.0.4_PPC
>X-XXMessage-ID: <AC1B12B2CB01416F@rfheeter.remote.princeton.edu>
>X-XXDate: Sat, 1 Jul 1995 18:56:50 GMT
>
>In article <3st90q$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.  

>>Now, who got that little item tucked in there?!? So, I guess
>>ol' Newt is a sono-fusion guy :-).  .. .

>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,?  what's the matter, at least fusion will be funded
on a broader basis, and look at it this way, "You" might
end up with a job in lovely LaJolla, instead of sinking
into the New Jersey clay.  
>------------------------------------------------------
>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.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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:
cuddy2 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.02 /  meron@cars3.uc /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 1995 20:55:36 GMT
Organization: CARS, U. of Chicago, Chicago IL 60637

In article <3t6uha$ngo@stud.Direct.CA>, pweis@Direct.CA (Peter H. Weis) writes:
>In a fairly recent brief to the Supreme Court (regarding the value of 
>scientific evidence in court proceedings), Stephen J. Gould and 11 other
>eminent science historians stated that, "Most of today's widely accepted
>theories in science were originally considered the excentric thoughts
>of heretics". This quote is almost verbatim, as I appear to have lost
>the original quote in NEWSWEEK "The Good, The Bad, and The Published"
>about a year ago.
>  Also mentioned among several other recent examples is Barbara 
>McClintocks ground-breaking 1950 discovery of "jumping genes", for which
>she was roundly ridiculed by her peers, until she was awarded, albeit
>30 years later, the 1980 Nobel Prize for her outstanding achievement.
>  Her erstwhile detractors were reduced to looking down and making 
>small circles in the sand with their left foot - and they are still
>as far from a chance at the Nobel as ever.
>peter; 

This is very nice and very misleading at the same time.  The implication seems
to be "so and so (insert the name of your popular historical figure here) was
ridiculed by his peers but later was proved right.  Therefore, since I'm
currently ridiculed by my peers, I'll also be proven right, eventually".  I've
seen this reasoning applied not only to science but also to the arts, politics,
indeed any area of human activity.

The problem with this reasoning is that it is based on selective data.  It
ignores the fact that for every case of an idea that is first considered
worthless and later accepted, there have been tens or  hundreds of ideas that 
were and remain worthless.  The reason this is not widely recognized is that
over time the successes are remembered and the failures forgetten.
Nevertheless, they were there.  You may read about Van Gogh who didn't sell a
single painting in his life but is considered nowadays one of the greatest
painters ever.  You don't read about hundreds of his contemporaries whose
paintings were ignored then and are still ignored.

Therefore, while the fact that an idea is being ridiculed is not an absolute
proof of its worthlessness, it is definitely not a proof of its correctness
either.


Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu	|  chances are he is doing just the same"
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmeron cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.02 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Implications of Miles Results
     
Originally-From: rschultz@phoenix.princeton.edu (Richard H. Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles Results
Date: 2 Jul 1995 13:38:01 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <9507011702.AA24791@pilot01.cl.msu.edu> blue@pilot.msu.edu
(Richard A Blue) writes:

>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.

When he first brought up the possible relevance of Moessbauer-type
effects, I thought he was talking about the recoilless emission of
photons to show that there is an interaction between the nuclei and
the lattice.  I think that at the time, most of the questions about his
hypothesis were being made on the assumption that that's what he had in
mind.  

But now that he brings up s-orbitals, perhaps he is talking about the
kind of information that Moessbauer spectroscopy reveals thanks to the
lack of nuclear recoil.  That is that the difference in the energies of
the ground and excited states of the Fe* nucleus will be perturbed by
the environment in which the nucleus finds itself (this is basic
group theory, and I'll skip the details for now).  One of the
interactions that will affect the resonant energy is the distribution of
electrons about the nucleus.  If this is what Mr. Swartz had in mind, 
then it's not in the least surprising that he refuses to attach any
numbers to his theory.  Let's take a for instance.  Suppose that we
bring our sample into resonance with the 57Fe source by moving it at
2 mm/sec (a not atypical speed).  The energy *difference* (i.e. that
part of the signal that can be attributed to interactions between the
nucleus and its environment) in that case is less than one-millionth
(that's <10(-6) eV)! (14.4 keV * 8065.5 cm-1/eV * 0.2 cm/sec gives you
the frequency shift of about 23 MHz; divide by c to get 0.00077 cm-1,
which equals just under 10(-7) eV.)

So if I understand correctly what Mr. Swartz is hypothesizing, he wants
an interaction that is on the order of 10(-7) eV to mediate an energy
transition on the order of 10(8) eV!  Thus, his "Existence Theorem" 
is not 4-6 orders of magnitude, as we had thought, but fifteen.  I
would say that it doesn't look good for his theory even absent the
more fundamental objections you and Steven Jones have already raised.
--
					Richard Schultz
             "an optimist is a guy
              that has never had
              much experience"
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.02 / Walter R /  Quantum Mechanics is dead.
     
Originally-From: "Walter E.R. Cassani" <cassani@Linux.InfoSquare.it>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Quantum Mechanics is dead.
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 1995 16:59:51 +0200
Organization: Comm 2000 - Milan, Italy


Yes, goodbye Quantum Mechanics.

Albert was right, a new, more complete, causal, theory is born.

This is: The Wave Theory of the Field.

It is available in  <<  http://www.inet.it/cassani/index.html  >> 

The INDEX of  "The Wave Theory of the Field" is:

LETTER
The Letter contains the provocatory announce that : " a new, unitary 
Wave Theory, for justification of masses and fields, is born ".
The original idea coming from : "Il Campo Unificato" -Robota srl-.
(The Unified Field) published 10/09/84 in Milan -Italy-

ABSTRACT
It contains arguments of the book translation, published 
in Italy in 1989, entitled " La Teoria Ondulatoria del Campo ",
more widely treated in the next book in 1994:
"Albert Aveva Ragione - DIO NON GIOCA A DADI"
"Albert Was Right - GOD DON'T PLAY DICE".


INTRODUCTION
It shows the concept of space-time, that qualify the actual model
of space-time continuum, to clarify the idea that everybody
form about it, in order to define new ideas to create a " discrete " 
model of space-time.

PERTURBATION OF SCHILD'S DISCRETE SPACE-TIME
It shows the nature and properties of a Schild's discrete space-time, 
that can be interpreted like waves of perturbations of its own metrical 
structure, and can be read like perturbations of a new, plausible, 
discrete, metrical " Ether ".

WAVE HYPOTHESIS OF THE MASS FIELDS
Starting from equality of two energies: Einstein's energy  E = m c^2  
and  Planck's energy  E = h v, we make the hypothesis that all 
subatomic particles are elementary sources of spherical waves that, 
in complex, constitute all spherical fields ascribing to particles.

WAVE MOMENTUM
With this elementary waves we discover a new law for elementary
interaction light - particle that involve a simple symmetry principle.

ENERGY AND ITS VARIATIONS
Where we discover the real variation's nature of Photon, and the 
relation between elementary waves and De Broglie waves. 

THE RELATIVE SYMMETRY PRINCIPLE
This simple and elementary symmetry principle constitutes the
unique law that regulates the four interactions, that unify, under a 
omnicomprensive vision, Quantum Mechanics and all other 
physical dynamics.

THE INERTIA'S WAVE NATURE
We discover that, the wave nature of masses, and the variation's
nature of Relative Symmetry Principle, conduces to consider
the Inertia like natural and " local " consequence bodies' wave structure.

THE WAVE NATURE OF QUANTUM GRAVITY
It appens that, the same model of the variation's nature of the 
Relative Symmetry Principle, applied to Inertia, results an extraordinary
consequent model to describe a Wave Quantum Gravity interaction.

TERMINAL VELOCITIES FOR MASSES
The exclusive wave nature of bodies, and the space-time
quantization, displays the impossibility for masses to surpass 
the velocity of own waves, that move at light velocity, and to reduce 
its wavelength, for Doppler effect, under the "discrete" length. 

THE FIFTH INTERACTION
Because impossibility to return at continuum space-time concept,
we can comprehend impossibility to reduce a wavelength, that 
describes bodies' mass, to infinitesimal. And consequently,  
we can understand existence of a Fifth Repulsive Interaction 
that acts with more evidence in cosmological field, between 
the maxi-bodies, and prevent any indiscriminate increase of masses.  

WAVE INTERPRETATION OF GENERAL RELATIVITY
An unexpected, simple completion of General Relativity discovers
the inevitable, causal connection with Quantum Mechanics, realizing
the dream so long time pursued from Albert.

WAVE DESCRIPTION OF THE COMPTON EFFECT
With the wave interpretation of experimental data, derived from Compton
effect, we immediately show possibilities, verifying the Relative Symmetry
Principle's capacities, applying the new unification between QM and GR.

WAVE MODEL OF ELECTRON AND PROTON
A new extrapolation of Compton effect, conduces to discover an 
extraordinary resonance's wave mechanism, that allows to verify the 
possible existence of a creative wave's system, so far called : " particle ".

WAVE CREATION OF PAIRS
The generalization of the same extraordinary resonance's wave mechanism
allows to justify the phenomenon of creation of pairs.

WAVE INTERPRETATION OF THE LORENTZ FORCE
The application of a dynamical orientation, for the same wave mechanism
that we identify with particle, shows that happens wen it is submitted 
to magnetic field, showing that the Lorentz force is a consequence of 
Doppler relativistic effect of particle's oriented wave system.

THE WAVE NATURE OF ELECTRIC CHARGE
The geometrical analysis, of the "discrete", shows that particle's wave 
structure presents the characteristics, that we have so far justified and
quantified with the electrical charge concept.   

THE VECTORIAL DESCRIPTION OF PARTICLES
The specularity of the pairs' creation allows to consider the opposition
particle - antiparticle, that conduces to justify the electromagnetic
interactions like violations of characteristic  " chirality's properties " 
of the wave mechanism - particles.

THE PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVE ISOTROPY
From the VECTORIAL description of the wave mechanism - particles
we can justify existence of one principle of relative isotropy
that comprehends in a generalization the Relative Symmetry Principle.

STATISTICAL POSSIBILITIES FOR CREATION 
OF SINGLES PARTICLES
We deduce from quantification of statistical possibilities, inherent 
in geometrical wave structures, to overlap particle-antiparticle, 
in annihilation phenomena, from which we can concept 
a causal wave chain to create matter in elementary particles. 

MASS DEFECT AND WAVE NUCLEAR FORCE
The comparation, to nuclear distances, of two Protons-wave model
show that at distance 1 Fermi the electromagnetic interactions are 
absent, because are absent the waves that characterize electrical 
interactions. This implies a different point of view for the forces in act.
From this different view we can support an original explication
of Cold Fusion.  

THE NEUTRON WAVE MODEL
The different wave structures and interactions between the nucleons
conduces to consider a new possibility for a Neutron wave model.

BETA DECAY IN WAVE MODEL
The new wave model shows a causal chain that justify, better that 
actual way, the entire process of Beta Decay and, consequently,
allows the wave nature of Neutrinos.

THE MUON AND PION WAVE MODEL
From wave model of Beta Decay process we can deduce all masses,
charges, energies, spins, and decays of all particles' family.

THE WAVE ATOM
The atom's quantum energy's levels can now be interpreted, like wave
resonance's organizations, of the wave source-electron in resonance's
orbits, that contain and describe integer numbers of Doppler 
wavelength on the specific orbit. 

THE WAVE CONSTANT OF FINE STRUCTURE
The complete, causal comprehension to wave nature, of Constant
of Fine Structure, conclude from presence of  two relativistic Doppler 
wavelength of two waves that move in opposite directions
on the same resonance orbit, that obey to more parameters
that condition their wave resonance states. 

LIGHT LIKE WAVE'S VARIATION 
The final consequence, of existence of resonant orbits and
non resonant orbits for the wave source-electron, that jump between
two different states of resonance, concludes itself with a directional 
wave emission, of a modulation of frequency, that we call : " Photon ".

Good reading, and...... please to destroy it, if you be able.

               Walter E. R. Cassani
************************************************
          cassani@linux.infosquare.it

     For FTP of  " The Wave Theory of the Field "
    <<  ftp.infosquare.it  >>  in  pub/theory/ 
     Files: wtf-1.doc , wtf-2.doc  =  1.7 Mb 
     in Microsoft Word 6.
               
 For the Theory in W W Web, with formulae and figures:
      <<   http://www.inet.it/cassani/index.html  >>

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








cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudencassani cudfnWalter cudlnR cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.02 / 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: 2 Jul 1995 17:19:31 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3t643r$d9k@cnn.Princeton.EDU> rschultz@phoenix.princeton.edu
(Richard H. Schultz) writes: 

>
>In article <3t1co7$rlq@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter ) writes:
>
>>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.
>
>No need for you to go to so much trouble:  just look in a mirror.
>--
>					Richard Schultz
>
>"You don't even have a clue as to which clue you're missing." -- Miss Manners
>
I have done that but I need more samples.




cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.02 /  meron@cars3.uc /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 1995 17:30:30 GMT
Organization: CARS, U. of Chicago, Chicago IL 60637

In article <3t6kf3$ck0@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter ) writes:
>In <3t643r$d9k@cnn.Princeton.EDU> rschultz@phoenix.princeton.edu
(Richard H. Schultz) writes: 
>
>>
>>In article <3t1co7$rlq@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter ) writes:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>No need for you to go to so much trouble:  just look in a mirror.
>>--
>>					Richard Schultz
>>
>>"You don't even have a clue as to which clue you're missing." -- Miss Manners
>>
>I have done that but I need more samples.

Guys, while I have nothing against a bit of personal abuse here and there,
while can't you continue this argument through E-mail.  The rest of us are not
even mildly interested ("and I'm unanimous in this" as Mrs. Slocombe used to
say)


Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu	|  chances are he is doing just the same"
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmeron cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.02 / Harry Conover /  Re: Energy Conservation Law
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energy Conservation Law
Date: 2 Jul 1995 17:59:31 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

euejin_jeong (ejeong@pinet.aip.org) wrote:


: Here is a question for all of you.
: Suppose you rotate a gyroscope in the direction perpendicular to its
: rotation axis. It takes energy to do that. Where the energy go after
: you finish the work. Energy doesn't seem to be conserved. Energy didn't
: go to increase the angular momentum of the gyro. What is wrong in this
: thought experiment ?


If you apply a force at right angles to the rotational axis, the gyro
will precess.  Input energy is equal to the precessional energy.

If you constrain the gyro so that it cannot precess, the input energy
is dissipated by bearing friction (eg. converted to heat).

                                      Harry C.

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.02 /  parsec@worf.ne /  Re: Any cool cold fusion?
     
Originally-From: parsec@worf.netins.net
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Any cool cold fusion?
Date: 2 Jul 1995 16:29:32 -0500
Organization: Iowa Network Services, Des Moines, Iowa, USA

In article <3sri4c$r11@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>,
prasad <prasad@watson.ibm.com> wrote:

>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.

Great!  

>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.

'out of the containment'?  Please tell us more.

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenparsec cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.02 / Paul Koloc /  Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 1995 21:04:33 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3t1ntn$7ph@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>In article <DArKGH.2o@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>>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?  

Which welfare are you intending here?? 

>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? 

Well that's not quite true, certainly a number of very influential
"fat cat" industries, that are so bloated so to be competitive danger
from upstart small companies that may benefit and get a leg up by such
such programs.  On the otherhand, the governments demands for 
intellectual property rights exceeded thier contribution considerably
in most cases and they also required an increasing number of hoops
to jump through.  Consequently,  small business backed out, for these
reasons, not because the basic idea wasn't a good one.  But as they
say put a few jerks in the interaction line and it it gets foobarred
every time.   
>>                                                      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.  

So what!  A little effort and balls makes for worthwhile results.  

>-- 
> 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 
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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:
cuddy2 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.03 / Harry Conover /  Re: A conspicuous House Budget Item
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A conspicuous House Budget Item
Date: 3 Jul 1995 02:20:19 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP) wrote:

: Bob,?  what's the matter, at least fusion will be funded
: on a broader basis, and look at it this way, "You" might
: end up with a job in lovely LaJolla, instead of sinking
: into the New Jersey clay.  

Paul.... As an ex-New Jersian, that "clay" is officially
known as "sandy loam".  Before being paved over with asphalt,
it was one of the most fertile growing areas in the East.

So much for American credibility re "Save the Rain Forests."

Also, so much for progress....

                                    Harry C.

The Raritan Aquifier underlying New Jersey is one of, if not,
the largest fresh water reservoirs in the world.  It provide water
to one of the most productive agricultural areas in the entire United
States. When the state was paved over with interstate highways, the Green 
Movement didn't give a shit, preferring to focus on the needs of African
and South American jungle regions.  So much for the credibility of the 
Green Movement!  (Forive me for this editorial diversion.)






    

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.03 / E Corp /  Eskimo.com discussion list down
     
Originally-From: eaton1@coho.halcyon.com (Eaton/Cutler-Hammer Corp.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Eskimo.com discussion list down
Date: 3 Jul 1995 02:40:49 GMT
Organization: Northwest Nexus, Inc. - Professional Internet Services

Sorry, but my internet provider is currently offline and the vortex-l
discussion list is down.  They had a serious breakin, and are supposedly
fixing security holes before going back online.  Since two days have
passed, I suspect that the vandals must have done some damage to system
s/w.  I haven't heard any announcement updates, only the initial one about
the hacker breakin. 



--
===================================+==================================
Bill Beaty                        Design Engineer
Eaton/Cutler-Hammer Corp.         Industrial Optoelectronics
720 80th St. SW                   voice: 1-800-426-9184
Everett, WA 98203-6299            fax:   1-206-347-0544
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudeneaton1 cudfnEaton/Cutler-Hammer cudlnCorp cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.02 / Charles Cagle /  Convinced A Crackpot??
     
Originally-From: <singtech@teleport.com> (Charles Cagle)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Convinced A Crackpot??
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 1995 19:58:39 -0800
Organization: Singularity Technologies, Inc.

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

> kovsky@netcom.com (Bob Kovsky) writes:
> 
> >       With due acknowledgement for the varieties of historical 
> >experience, the general rule is that new ideas are first dismissed, then 
> >denounced, subsequently opposed, and only finally accepted.  Any history 
> >of science will describe such a course of events.  Try <The Structure of 
> >Scientific Revolutions> by Kuhn for openers.
 
> Please don't assume ignorance on our parts - and don't generalize
> blithely with this little story about the evolution of theories from
> scorned to accepted. 

Which would be worse, for us to assume your ignorance or for you to assume
it.  We already know that you do not possess the key to the inner
mysteries of physics because if you did you would be the source of
unprecedented progress in science.  We know of your ignorance and of our
own, but do you?  Would you rather us to assume you are possessed of
sagacity and erudition of which we have scant evidence?

Ignorance is no sin, since it is merely a lack of knowledge; it simply
means one don't know.  However, compound ignorance is a sin.  A person in
that state doesn't know that they don't know. A child in his simplicity
can only be ignorant - but he is wise in his ignorance for he knows that
he knows not.  Only when grown can he compound his ignorance by assuming
that he knows; and by coming to believe that he knows, then finally by
becoming fixed in the knowledge of his knowing.

> C. Cagle somewhat snidely suggested that people here should go read Kuhn.  
> Perhaps in fact it is C. Cagle who needs to re-read Kuhn.

Sorry, that you thought it came in an insinuating, nasty or derogatory
manner (snidely).  I put it forth rather as a bit of information.  There
are, I suppose, many people who haven't read Kuhn.  Exposure to his ideas,
which illustrate the weaknesses of the mechanisms of progress in science,
would, I suspect, help any person gain new insight.  If that insight
brings forth distrust in 'science' I see that as healthy, for far too many
trust the status quo and are satisfied with it.  Many people have seen
Kuhn's analysis or presentation not just as the way science is done but as
the way science is done badly.

I think it far more instructive to understand the whys and wherefores of
resistance to changes in scientific models not as a natural and 'good'
evolutionary process that eventually bears sweet fruit but rather as an
'evil'  process that stems from the fears of individuals at the prospect
of the loss of control, power, prestige, credibility, reputation, and
position.  Each man can be defined as a collection of ideas that resides
within his own sphere.  As a child he can uncritically allow the entrance
of a great host of concepts and has developed no attachment to any. 
Neither has he developed a mechanism to sort the ideas into categories. 
Now comes the concept of good and evil.  That old tree.  This is the
sorter.  According to the fruit of this 'tree' some ideas promote a
continuation of existence while some promote self destruction.  Each
person may decide what is 'good' for himself and he holds fast to ideas
(and then acts them out) which he sees as promoting his own best interests
and life.  Since each person at the fundamental level of existence sees
themselves as a collection of ideas and concepts, the loss of one or more
of these is, in a sense, a sort of partial personal death.  When one's
status, prestige, and position in society is also tied to one or more of
these self sphere inner concepts any new contrary idea is particularly
threatening.  If he can listen to the new idea and that idea correlates
and incorporates previous data which was both explicable and inexplicable
with his old paradigm he will have a cognitive dissonance.  This is an
internal struggle which eventually will result in the rejection and
expulsion of one or of the other of the paradigms.  Now we finally come to
the true measure of the man.  If his worldly goods, (position, prestige,
power, etc.) are hard linked to his previous paradigm he must make a
decision to give up what he has for the 'truth' that the new paradigm
offers or cling to the old ideas.  If he has the courage to sell all that
he has to buy this new 'pearl of great price' then he represents the kind
of man who is more likely to make true scientific progress.  If he is
unwilling to make that sacrifice then he is unworthy of the new truth and
he must continue in ignorance.  Scientific progress is driven by these
little personal vignettes which collectively resolve into the present
state of the art.  The scientific body politic is like a living organism
and various members self differentiate into disciplines (which are like
organs) and sometimes further into functionary units such as
immuno-response mechanisms.  These immuno-response personality's sole
function is to attack anything that threatens the existing organ.  When a
person has self differentiated to the level of immuno-response all they do
is protect the status quo.  They generally have an in-depth knowledge of
that particular discipline and that so much so that they only allow
information or ideas to pass which matches previous patterns and act
hostile to information or ideas which does not correspond to previous
patterns.  It is easy to carry the analogy one more step and see that an
immuno response mechanism which becomes perfect in its defense strategies
also keeps the organ in stasis.  And stasis is the death of science unless
all is known.  The differentiation of science into disciplines may for a
short while allow science to progress in tiny steps within individual
areas but only when science is wholistic in its scope can true progress be
made.  When geology, geophysics, cosmology, chemistry, etc. agrees to use
the proven mechanisms of physics (as the mother science) then they
progress together.  But when physics cannot account for the anomalies that
become known through research within any sub-discipline then the
fundamental concepts of physics itself must be re-examined.  Any basic
change in underlying principles is not only threatening to the mother
discipline but also to all of the children.  A fundamental change at a
basic level requires upheaval throughout science.  Resistence is almost
overwhelming because reputations and careers are frequently built upon
what is assumed and put forth as competence in a particular discipline. 
When their competence is brought into question and men's life works may be
shown to be folly there arises such fierce antagonisms that the whole idea
of progress through the use of the scientific method suffers and gives way
to illogic and petty attacks upon personalities.

Unfortunately, what we frequently see lurking in these newsgroups are
those immuno-response creatures who have appointed themselves guardians of
various disciplines; they become dogs in the manger neither making nor
contributing to progress but they also growl at, threaten, and otherwise
intimidate those who would put forth new ideas.  They pontificate upon the
theories of the status quo and regurgitate old ideas and old concepts and
become hostile to new proposals by applying perjorative labels (wacko,
crackpot, net loon, etc.) to those would offer them up.  This only serves
to intimidate those who would make progress through change.  This
formidable barrier, some argue, prevents senseless and radical change
within the field.  This is true, but it also has the effect of preventing
timely needed changes.  It carelessly tosses out the baby with the
bathwater and therefore unnecessarily hinders progress.  All this attitude
accomplishes is to protect the reputations and vanities of vain men.

-- 
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:
cuddy02 cudensingtech cudfnCharles cudlnCagle cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.01 / Ben Newsam /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: Ben Newsam <Ben@microser.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 95 23:18:32 GMT
Organization: Micro Services

ts_zemanian@pnl.gov "Thomas S. Zemanian" writes:

> 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!

Long live the Anarcho-Syndicalist Peasants!!

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Newsam               Micro Services -- ben@microser.demon.co.uk
                             Tel & Fax: -- +44 (114) 285 2727
Programming, Documentation, Consultancy -- Windows, SDK, MFC, C++ etc.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudenBen cudfnBen cudlnNewsam cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.01 /  jedrothwell@de /  The Experimentalist's Lament
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Experimentalist's Lament
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 95 21:37:41 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

little@eden.com (Scott Little) writes:
 
    "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."
 
That methodology is wrong. If industry worked on that basis, we would still be
living in caves. The procedures Little has outlined are emphatically NOT
appropriate, and not effective. If, after a month or two, you find that you
are unable to replicate a machine, the obvious course of action is to *bring
in the person who invented the machine*. Get help! Get it directly from the
most qualified person. The idea that a scientist should flounder around on
his own trying one parameter after another strikes me as crazy. Here is how it
should be done:
 
1. Before you start, you go to the scientist and get a complete description
of the machine, along with photos, schematics and so on. Watch a machine in
action, and test it yourself if you have time. If possible, get a demo machine.
 
2. You go back to your factory, assemble the demo (or a new machine) exactly
according to instructions. You test it. If it does not work, you re-read the
instructions carefully.
 
3. If it *still* doesn't work, you consult with the scientist, and if all else
fails you bring the machine to him or bring him to your site.
 
4. Above all, avoid guesswork and wasting time. We do not put together
computers or automobile transmissions without instructions, and nobody should
try to do a CF experiment without instructions if that can be avoided.
 
5. If, after you have had the inventor himself go over it at your place for
a week or two, and you find that even *he* cannot make it work, the obvious
conclusion is that it is either a mistake that never worked, or a product not
fit to market.
 
I would say these are the normal 5 steps in a corporate evaluation of a new
product. I would call that an S.O.P. (Standard Operating Procedure). After
you take all of these steps, you can reach a firm conclusion. It is a
cut-and-dry process. Frankly, I do not understand why Scott Little would be
mystified or lost, or why he would wonder what to do next. Evaluating a claim
or a new product seems like a straightforward business to me. If you have not
done all those things, you cannot reach any conclusion about the product
either way. For all you know, you might be incompetent with that particular
product. You might be one of those people who cannot correctly install and test
a hard disk in a PC. If you have not done all 5 steps, then you are not serious
about the testing product and your opinion is not worth squat. A lot of people
bugged out of CF early on. When I later talked to them I realized that they had
never even done step 1 or step 2, so their "experiments" are a joke.
 
The CF company that does this right, by the way, is CETI. They make sure their
customers know exactly how to do the experiment. They train them properly.
That is how any new machine is handled by industry professionals. Technology
is not supposed to be a guessing game.
 
 
There is a very strange ethic among scientists. I have no idea where it came
from, and I have never encountered it elsewhere. It is hard for me to describe,
but apparently the ideal procedure when you replicate a machine, is to do it
*without help*. The inventor publishes a paper or a formula, and you pick it
up without consulting the fellow, and you magically know how to make one
without making mistakes and without consulting with him. If you do have to
consult, that somehow defiles the magical "purity" of the replication; you are
no longer a "virgin" replicator, and your results are suspect. It goes
something like that, anyway. I don't know; I don't get it. That ethic is
diametrically opposed to everything that I have ever learned and done in my
life. I always insist on getting every scrap of information directly from
original sources, and visiting the factory for training before proceeding.
Even when I have worked with similar products, if it is important then I go
by the book, I take the training course, and I and follow instructions
*exactly*. Never guess. Always ask. Never try to figure it out by yourself.
The fellow who sold it to you owes you an explanation. You paid for customer
support, so if you need help, get it. That is how industry works, and I cannot
imagine why anyone would do it any other way. Why make life difficult for
yourself?
 
Some CF experiments cannot be described in detail, because the parameters
are not well understood. I recommend you avoid those experiments, but some
people insist on doing them anyway, for some inexplicable reason. The least
predictable experiment is with Pd electrolysis. Even that is well described
in the literature. From time to time I hear from people who are just starting
out, or from people who have been floundering around for years with that
experiment, and I often find that they have not read Cravens or Storms or the
others who *spell out exactly* how to do it, in detail. Why bother proceeding
if you have not read Storms? What can you hope to accomplish? Even when you
do it exactly the way he describes, your chances of success are small. If you
do not follow instructions, your chances of success are between zero and none.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjedrothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.02 /   /  Energy Conservation Law
     
Originally-From: ejeong@pinet.aip.org (euejin_jeong)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Energy Conservation Law
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 1995 03:35:48 GMT
Organization: AIP


cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenejeong cudln cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.02 /   /  Energy Conservation Law
     
Originally-From: ejeong@pinet.aip.org (euejin_jeong)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Energy Conservation Law
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 1995 03:35:29 GMT
Organization: AIP



Here is a question for all of you.
Suppose you rotate a gyroscope in the direction perpendicular to its
rotation axis. It takes energy to do that. Where the energy go after
you finish the work. Energy doesn't seem to be conserved. Energy didn't
go to increase the angular momentum of the gyro. What is wrong in this
thought experiment ?
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenejeong cudln cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.02 / Robin Spaandonk /  Re: The Experimentalist's Lament
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Experimentalist's Lament
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 1995 04:52:12 GMT
Organization: Improving

On 1 Jul 1995 20:18:22 GMT, little@eden.com (Scott Little) wrote:

>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. 

Actually, all that is required is that the original experiment be
duplicated as closely as possible, and the result be reported.
At least that would satisfy me.

Regards,

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





cudkeys:
cuddy02 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.02 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: rschultz@phoenix.princeton.edu (Richard H. Schultz)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: 2 Jul 1995 12:40:27 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <3t1co7$rlq@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter ) writes:

>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.

No need for you to go to so much trouble:  just look in a mirror.
--
					Richard Schultz

"You don't even have a clue as to which clue you're missing." -- Miss Manners
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.02 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: rschultz@phoenix.princeton.edu (Richard H. Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: 2 Jul 1995 12:51:31 GMT
Organization: Princeton University


In article <DAzvyw.KL9@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>
>  In Message-ID: <3t14nu$4h@agate.berkeley.edu>

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

Speaking of non-responsive, are you ever going to answer my request that
you tell me just who you think my employer(s), sponsor(s), or funder(s)
are?  This is yet another area about which I am guessing you have a
minimal clue -- even though I once gave you a truly massive hint in
email.  From your decision to cease quoting my quotation of Kay
Thompson (i.e. "French Bread makes good skis", which is from _Eloise
in Paris_), I take it that you received my email on the subject.
Care to tell the readers of s.p.f. the name of the newsgroup and the
context in which you found my Wyoming quote?  (BTW, your constant
harping on that quotation indicates to me that you've never lived in
that part of the country.  If you had, you'd realize that it's nothing
more than a simple statement of truth.)

> ========================================     
>"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?]

I vote for "saliently depraved."  Plagarized [sic] is a second
choice.

(Here's another clue for you:  if I put it in quotation marks, the odds
are that I'm quoting someone.  Doubtless they forgot to tell you about 
that at MIT.)
--
					Richard Schultz

"Life is a blur of Republicans and meat."   -- Zippy
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.02 / 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: Sun, 2 Jul 1995 14:15:13 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Matthew Kennel wrote:
>Bob Kovsky (kovsky@netcom.com) wrote:
>: 	I recall reading about the difficulty some young physicists had 
>: in getting attention for pioneer work in "chaos."  
>
>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::,
...
>
>And others around the same time...
>
>@Article{Crutchfield:1980::a,
...
>@Article{Crutchfield:1981::,
...
>@Article{Farmer:1980::,

>@Article{Froehling:1981::,
...
>@Article{Huberman:1980::,
...
>@Article{Shaw:1981::,
...
>No consipiracy theory to suppress chaos needed.
...
>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

Score one (or more) for Matt

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


cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenkovsky cudfnBob cudlnKovsky cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Jul  3 04:37:03 EDT 1995
------------------------------
