1995.07.06 / Ben Weiner /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: bweiner@electron.rutgers.edu (Ben Weiner)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: 6 Jul 1995 11:06:37 -0400
Organization: Rutgers University

lounesto@dopey.hut.fi (Pertti Lounesto) writes:

>bweiner@electron.rutgers.edu (Ben Weiner) writes:

>> I said he was wrong.  Saying someone is wrong is a scientific judgment
>> (not an objective judgment, but it is scientific).

>Why is saying someone is wrong not objective?  It is of course more
>polite to say that an argument is wrong, rather than a person.

Scientific evaluations of the correctness of a theory are not
objective.  Many people will say that that is an anti-rationalist,
anti-science, and (gasp) post-modernist ignoramic position.
They're wrong (hee hee).  Real scientists should - and often do -
admit that when reading a paper they take many factors which are
not "objective" into account, such as their opinion of the authors'
prior work.  More substantial critiques of objectivity in science
have been made by people such as Bruno Latour (e.g. "Science in Action").

>So how should one formulate a scientific objective evaluation that
>someone, or some argument, does not hold, fails, is not valid, is
>flawed, is incorrect, is erroneous, is mistaken, ...  As an non-native
>English speaker I cannot put such expressions in any order according
>to politeness, objectivity, or scientific basis.  Maybe you, Ben
>Wiener, could give a taxonomy of such expressions.  I am sure that
>such taxonomy would help many non-native English speakers.

>Let me give a specific example.  Many physics books claim that for
>matrices and quaternions the following holds:

>       exp(A+B) = exp(A) exp(B)  if and only if  AB =BA

>[this example is taken from page 73 of a physics book, but the name
>of the book is not important now].  Clearly,  AB = BA  implies
>exp(A+B) = exp(A) exp(B)  but  from  AB = BA  it does not follow
>that  exp(A+B) = exp(A) exp(B).  

I think you must have said something backwards because you've just
contradicted yourself: does AB=BA imply exp(A+B)=exp(A)exp(B), or not?
You must have inadvertently reversed one of your clauses.  I'll take 
your word that the book is in error, since it's been years since I've
thought about quaternions.

>This can be seen by the counter-
>example  A = 3pi*i  and  B = 4pi*j  in quaternions.  

This is a mathematical statement.  Mathematics is not a science.
(Shit, I'm in for it now.  I'm putting on the asbestos suit.)
Mathematics can be axiomatized (more or less) and it has no
experimental component, both of which are vast differences from the
"sciences" (biology, chemistry, physics, etc.)  The whole point of
axiomatizing something and following rules of logic is that you can
make objective statements.

Fortunately or unfortunately, science doesn't play that way.  One
always has to compare an insufficient amount of data to a theory which
is insufficiently subtle and the resulting decision is never fully
objective.  Or as the saying goes: "Nobody believes a theoretical
paper except its author; everybody believes an experimental paper -
except its author."

>So, Ben
>Wiener, why is it not objective to say that the author is wrong
>(after all he contradicts himself)?  

I think one of the reasons people think you are being rude is that
you repeatedly address them by their full names.   This may be a
purely American quirk, but to us it sounds belligerent.  You're
also repeatedly misspelling my name even though your newsreader
has spelled it correctly for you at the top of the article.

>I know that it would be more
>polite to say to him that "I do not understand your argument"
>or that "I cannot follow your reasoning".  Such expressions not
>only could be taken literally, but also might be perceived as
>sarcastic (when used by a non-native English speaker).  So, what
>should I say to such an author/authors, if it is not objective
>to say the he is wrong?

This is all a non-issue.

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenbweiner cudfnBen cudlnWeiner cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.06 / Arnie Frisch /  Power Meters/Crest Factor
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Power Meters/Crest Factor
Date: 6 Jul 1995 08:05:49 -0700
Organization: Tektronix Laboratories, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR

In article <USE2PCB122556467@brbbs.brbbs.com> mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com writes:
>arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch) writes:
> 
>-> Some time ago, I posted a message that tried to explain that many
>-> "accurate" power meters lose their accuracy when measuring non-linear
>-> loads.  We characterize the distorted current waveforms associated with
>-> these loads by their "crest factor".  ......
........
>......................Unless the motor is being operated in
>excess of it's voltage rating, the currrent draw should be almost a pure sine
>wave lagging the voltage by some amount.  Currents of this nature are handled
>quite accurately by standard power meters.


Actually, any ferromagnetic load will exhibit some crest factor
problems because of the reduced permeability of the metal (iron
usually) near the peak of the input voltage.  As the voltage increases
in value, the metal becomes closer to saturation and the current
becomes even more peaked.  For motors, the effect is more obvious under
lightly loaded conditions, where it is not masked by load current
required to produce torque.  It is NOT true that the current "should be
almost a pure sine wave", as can be verified by anyone with an
oscilloscope and a good current probe.


Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.06 / B Vidugiris /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 16:29:59 GMT
Organization: Motorola CCRD

In article <3t1ekd$gkm@electron.rutgers.edu>,
Ben Weiner <bweiner@electron.rutgers.edu> wrote:
)By the way, I did not see the beginning of this thread, and so I 
)don't know if anyone ever answered the question in the title,
)"Has anyone convinced a crackpot?"
)
)My short answer is, if a person can be convinced that he/she is wrong,
)he/she is manifestly not a crackpot. 

That's my opinion too, though I would remove the "manifestly".
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenbhv cudfnBronis cudlnVidugiris cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.06 / Jose Garcia /  Tenured Professor Fired at North Dakota
     
Originally-From: getino@pinon.ccu.uniovi.es (Jose Getino Garcia)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tenured Professor Fired at North Dakota
Date: 6 Jul 1995 15:42:37 GMT
Organization: Universidad de Oviedo

[ Article crossposted from sci.physics.cond-matter ]
[ Author was Jose Getino Garcia ]
[ Posted on 6 Jul 1995 14:20:37 GMT ]

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

     This is an urgent request for your support to help fully reinstate
our colleague Manuel de Llano who was recently terminated as the only
tenured full professor of physics at North Dakota State University in
Fargo, ND, USA.

     Prior to testifying on university matters at the state legislature, de
Llano had published personal opinions in city and campus newspapers asking
for leadership to ensure accountability, equal-employment-opportunity and
academic meritocracy at his taxpayer-supported university, all in accord
with the institution's own Mission Statement.  Shortly after testifying
he was served notice of dismissal by the outgoing university president
who had publicly stated that such utterances "compounded the university's
internal problems" rather than helping resolve them.

     De Llano, a U.S.-born Hispanic, has variously been charged with: "lack
of collegiality"; "disruptive conduct"; self "plagiarism"; "disregard for
professional integrity"; making "false accusations" of "ethnic and racial
bias"; "excessive filing of...grievances" (which were never granted a
hearing); "libeling the chair and dean";  and of "failure to fulfill his
institutional responsibilities" in spite of outstanding performance in his
department in research and work with graduate students. (All above quotes
are direct quotes.)

     On August 15, 1994 a first university senate faculty committee
hearing his appeal to the dismissal judged the termination unwarranted.
The university president overrode this ruling.  A higher appeal faculty
committee later arbitrarily switched the dismissal-cause bylaw cited b------------------

NOTE: If you wish to help de Llano, please write in his behalf to:
      Ms. Patricia Hill, President, North Dakota State Board of Higher
      Education, State Capitol, Bismarck, ND 58505-0230, USA, Phone:
      1-701-328-2960 or Fax: 1-701-328-2961, asking her explicitly to
      share your letter with the six other Board members.  The Board
      will be taking action on an Appeal by de Llano, perhaps
      at its meeting on July 22, 1995.  De Llano is an active member
      of the AAUP, the NDEA and the AFT/NDPEA; until further notice he
      may be reached through  lubka@badlands.nodak.edu  or at 3101
      Maple Street, Fargo, ND, 58102, USA, Phone 701-280-2537.

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudengetino cudfnJose cudlnGarcia cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.06 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,
lt.consciousness,alt.paranormal,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: 6 Jul 1995 18:15:42 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <3tc863$6e3@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>It is true that I tried to get local decoding of nonlocal messages
>using only orthodox quantum mechanics in violation of Eberhard's
>theorem. Like Nick Herbert, I was playing Devil's Advocate. I am now
>persuaded that faster-than-light "telepathic" communication (which can
>be precognitive as well) using EPR spin correlations is not possible
>within orthodox theory. 

Back in the 1970's, Martin Gardner reported that you had claimed to have
invented a device to transmit coded information faster than the speed
of light, and that you were trying to patent it (I can't remember now
if said that you had a patent pending or if you actually had a patent).

Whatever became of that device?  Did you decide that it didn't work before
completing the patent, or after, or was Martin Gardner mistaken in his
report?  I've been wondering about that.
--
					Richard Schultz

"Life is a blur of Republicans and meat."   -- Zippy
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.06 / Mark North /  Re: Implications of Miles result
     
Originally-From: north@nosc.mil (Mark H. North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles result
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 18:53:34 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

URWF21A@prodigy.com (Robert Cormack) writes:

>(Sorry, I can't be more specific about the reference -- I'll find it if 
>you are interested).  They spent considerable time and effort following 
>up a chance finding -- that the half-life of tritium INCREASED 
>significantly when it was adsorbed by titanium.  IF this work can be 
>replicated, then any argument (based on theory) that adsorbtion by a 
>crystal lattice can't effect nuclear events is moot.

Reifenschweiler, Otto, "Reduced radioactivity of tritium in small
titanium particles", Phys Lett A (1994) 149-153.

Reifenschweiler's affiliations is given as Retired Chief Physicist,
Philips Research Laboratories, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.

His current (1994) address is given as
Jan Sluytersweg 13, 5645 JA Eindhoven.



Mark

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.06 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Power Meters/Crest Factor
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Power Meters/Crest Factor
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 1995 15:11 -0500 (EST)

arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch) writes:
 
-> Actually, any ferromagnetic load will exhibit some crest factor
-> problems because of the reduced permeability of the metal (iron
-> usually) near the peak of the input voltage.
 
That is incorrect.  The reduced permeability occurs near the peak of the
magnetic flux, not the peak of the voltage.  For a typical inductor (or the
leakage current in a transformer or motor), this occurs at approximately 90
degrees (or pi/2 radians) after the voltage peak since the flux and current
both will lag the voltage by almost 90 degrees.  This peak occurs at
essentually voltage cross-over for a sine wave.
 
-> As the voltage increases
-> in value, the metal becomes closer to saturation and the current
-> becomes even more peaked.
 
Once again it is the current that is important, not the voltage, except that
the voltage will drive the current (ignoring ohmic losses) according to
i = integral(V/L dv/dt).
 
-> For motors, the effect is more obvious under
-> lightly loaded conditions, where it is not masked by load current
-> required to produce torque.  It is NOT true that the current "should be
-> almost a pure sine wave", as can be verified by anyone with an
-> oscilloscope and a good current probe.
 
We were not talking about near no-load conditions.  At near full load the
current draw will mask the very small crest factor current, unless the
ferromagnetic device is nearing saturation.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy06 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.06 / Greg Ewing /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: greg@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz (Greg Ewing)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 6 Jul 1995 02:16:17 GMT
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand


In article <AC20E1EC96681D3BF@berty.demon.co.uk>, berty@demon.co.uk
(Frank Vachell Philpot) writes:
|> 
|> I agree that protons and neutrons must be made of electrons and positrons.

Just because the decay of a neutron gives rise to an electron
does not mean that the neutron contained the electron beforehand.
Rather, the electron (and also an antineutrino, to conserve the
number of leptons in the universe) comes into existence when
the decay occurs.

If you have trouble with the idea of particles appearing and
disappearing, think of this: You throw a stone into a pond,
and ripples radiate from where it lands. Would you say that
the stone contained the ripples before you threw it?

|> Frank 
|> berty@demon. co.uk

Greg
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudengreg cudfnGreg cudlnEwing cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.05 / William Easttom /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: skeptic@icon.net (William C. Easttom II)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 1995 21:17:04
Organization: (ICON) InterConnect Online, Inc.

In article <3tf99u$sup@agate.berkeley.edu> ted@physics2.berkeley.edu
(Emory F. Bunn) writes:
>From: ted@physics2.berkeley.edu (Emory F. Bunn)
>Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
>Date: 6 Jul 1995 00:04:14 GMT

>In article <AC20E1EC96681D3BF@berty.demon.co.uk>,
>Frank Vachell Philpot <berty@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Protons themselves have been probed by scattering of high velocity electron
>>beams. They appear to have three distince centres of mass which are called
>>quarks. I can only belive that these will turn out to be formed of  groups
>>of electrons and positrons ( one more positron than electron ).

I am not sure I understand you, are you claiming that there are no quarks?  
And while I am somewhat a novice at physics it seems to me that the mass of 
electrons an positrons (being the same) are about 1/1800 that of protons, 
therefore two positrons and one electron would not come close to making the 
mass of a proton.  Please feel free to correct me as I freely admit that my 
grasp of physics is limited to two introductory courses and a few laymens 
books.

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenskeptic cudfnWilliam cudlnEasttom cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.06 / Bill Rowe /  Re: THE COLD FUSION  is a REALITY
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: THE COLD FUSION  is a REALITY
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 04:39:23 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <3tcff3$9lv@sirio.cineca.it>, pmne06k1@te.nettuno.it wrote:

[ skipped ]

> MASS DEFECT AND WAVE NUCLEAR FORCE
>The comparation, to nuclear distances, of two Protons-wave model show
>that at distance 1 Fermi the electromagnetics 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.

Suppose your theory is exactly correct in predicting the electromagnetic
interactions are absence once two nuclei are within 1 fermi of one
another. This still doesn't explain cold fusion. It requires energy to get
two protons within 1 fermi of each other. Although I haven't done the
calculation yet, I am quite certain the energy required will be on the
order of that required by convential fusion unless the electromagnetic
effects start decreasing significantly well before a distance of 1 fermi
is reached. 

Would you care to share your thoughts as to what the electomagnetic forces
are at say 2 fermi or 4 fermi where you are indicating the electromagnetic
interactions still exist?
-- 
William Rowe                                                   browe@netcom.com
MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.06 / Pertti Lounesto /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: lounesto@dopey.hut.fi (Pertti Lounesto)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: 06 Jul 1995 05:59:33 GMT
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology

bweiner@electron.rutgers.edu (Ben Weiner) writes:

> I said he was wrong.  Saying someone is wrong is a scientific judgment
> (not an objective judgment, but it is scientific).

Why is saying someone is wrong not objective?  It is of course more
polite to say that an argument is wrong, rather than a person.
So how should one formulate a scientific objective evaluation that
someone, or some argument, does not hold, fails, is not valid, is
flawed, is incorrect, is erroneous, is mistaken, ...  As an non-native
English speaker I cannot put such expressions in any order according
to politeness, objectivity, or scientific basis.  Maybe you, Ben
Wiener, could give a taxonomy of such expressions.  I am sure that
such taxonomy would help many non-native English speakers.

Let me give a specific example.  Many physics books claim that for
matrices and quaternions the following holds:

       exp(A+B) = exp(A) exp(B)  if and only if  AB =BA

[this example is taken from page 73 of a physics book, but the name
of the book is not important now].  Clearly,  AB = BA  implies
exp(A+B) = exp(A) exp(B)  but  from  AB = BA  it does not follow
that  exp(A+B) = exp(A) exp(B).  This can be seen by the counter-
example  A = 3pi*i  and  B = 4pi*j  in quaternions.  So, Ben
Wiener, why is it not objective to say that the author is wrong
(after all he contradicts himself)?  I know that it would be more
polite to say to him that "I do not understand your argument"
or that "I cannot follow your reasoning".  Such expressions not
only could be taken literally, but also might be perceived as
sarcastic (when used by a non-native English speaker).  So, what
should I say to such an author/authors, if it is not objective
to say the he is wrong?
-- 
   Pertti Lounesto                     Triality is quadratic
cudkeys:
cuddy06 cudenlounesto cudfnPertti cudlnLounesto cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.06 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Can anyone convince a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: Re: Can anyone convince a crackpot?
Subject: Re: Can anyone convince a crackpot?
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 03:29:59 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


  In Message-ID: <3t9pl3$ivp@cnn.Princeton.EDU>
Subject: Re: Can anyone convince a crackpot?
rschultz@phoenix.princeton.edu (Richard H. Schultz)
continues his "peanuts envy" ways, determined to avoid
science yet again.

 -rs  "Can there be any doubt that the man's a true poet?  
 -rs  Or at least a better poet than he is a scientist.
 -rs  --
 -rs  					Richard Schultz
 -rs  
 -rs  "I seem to smell a peculiar and a fishlike smell."
 -rs  

  That it not fair to judge poetry and not give one
a chance to write some.
How about:

  There once was a man named Shultz, a quack,
  a "doctor" whose sig. cited sheep. gents, and yak;
    his posts made us sleep,
    he'd discuss science ne'er a peep,
'cause busy he was playing with his brainiac.

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.05 / 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: Wed, 5 Jul 1995 03:46:18 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3t7k53$eve@sundog.tiac.net> conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes:
>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.

>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.)

Harry, ...  I am from Iowa, and .. well .. New Jersey loam looks
pretty much like clay by comparison.  As far as productivity is
concerned, well since your State is now covered with turnpikes and 
express ways, I guess it wouldn't by sporting to mention totals 
of mega-bushels of grain or tonages of beef, eggs, swine, and even
cat fish.                                       :-)

Still home is where we grew up, so it's always the best, no matter what
the name.   
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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:
cuddy5 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.06 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Can anyone convince a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Can anyone convince a crackpot?
Date: 6 Jul 1995 12:14:10 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <DB9z1z.4rL@world.std.com>,
mitchell ("Ninbad the Nailer") swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

>  In Message-ID: <3t9pl3$ivp@cnn.Princeton.EDU>
>Subject: Re: Can anyone convince a crackpot?
>rschultz@phoenix.princeton.edu (Richard H. Schultz)
>continues his "peanuts envy" ways, determined to avoid
>science yet again.

(1) In an earlier post, you said that the CF product distribution is
affected by a number of factors including sample purity and "coherence
length [sic]."  Could you please provide a reference to a published
report that describes how these correlations were measured, by whom,
and when?

(2) In a response to your claim that there may be some relation between
the Moessbauer effect and CF, I presented a calculation that seems to
indicate that there is a difference of fifteen orders of magnitude in
energy between those observed in Moessbauer spectroscopy and those 
involved in D+D fusion.  Could you please either show the error in my
calculation, explain the process of induction that allows you to 
extrapolate over fifteen orders of magnitude, or admit that your 
hypothesis cannot explain cold fusion?

(3) Is there any measurable property of a CF system *independent* of
measured excess heat that correlates with the amount of measured excess
heat that a given experiment will yield?  If so, what is it, and how
do the two variables correlate?

>  That it not fair to judge poetry and not give one
>a chance to write some.

Huh?  The poetry I "judged" was taken from your own writing, although, as
usual, you deleted it from your response.

>  There once was a man named Shultz, a quack,
>  a "doctor" whose sig. cited sheep. gents, and yak;
>    his posts made us sleep,
>    he'd discuss science ne'er a peep,
>'cause busy he was playing with his brainiac.

Well, there are three issues here:  one is that your poem doesn't scan;
I recommend that you stick to free verse.  Number two is your inability
to spell my name correctly, or notice that no .sig file of mine has
ever cited sheep, gents, or yak.  Number three is that I have asked
the three *science* questions above any number of times, and they always
seem to evaporate at some point between the time you read them and the
time you write your response.
--
					Richard Schultz

"A fly, sir, may sting a stately horse, and make him wince; but one is but an
insect, and the other is a horse still." -- Samuel Johnson
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Jul  7 04:37:05 EDT 1995
------------------------------
