1995.07.06 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Cold Fusion???
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion???
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 1995 12:39:04 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <3sqmo1$8nn@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry
Merriman) wrote:

> In article <3sqjpa$dh3@maureen.teleport.com> Charles Cagle  
> <singtech@teleport.com> writes:
> > barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) wrote:
> > 
> > >Oh, and Phil, one more comment: beware of taking science advice from
> > >folks on the Internet. It is quite possible that they don't know
> > >what they are talking about, and may also spin hyperbolic lies in order 
> > >to grind some personal axe. 
> > 
> > That specifically applies to you, Barry.
> 
> Oh really? Care to spell out how---or do you think you do so below?
> 
> > 
> 
> > claim of 100 Billion is a whole 
> > lot closer to the truth than claims of potential success with PPPL's 
> > fusion efforts.  And with all the side line support it may be closer to 
> > the truth at 100 Billion than most are willing to admit.  Amazing how 
> > creative accounting can enter into the picture when hiding the true 
> > cost.  
> 
> Creative accounting??? Look, Mr. Cagle, I spelled the U.S.
> magnetic fusion energy budget out in fair detail, from 
> its inception in 1958 to the present. The total expenditures
> are about $8 billion, maybe translating to $15 billion in 1995 dollars.
> THAT WAS THE BUDGET. Exactly what hidden expenditures are you talking 
> about?
> 
> Unless you can document a hidden expenditure, I suggest you abandon
> the futile attempt to inflate expenditures.

***{Barry, you haven't been listening. The whole point of Mr. Cagle's
argument, and of mine as well, is that the government figures are bogus.
You don't seem to comprehend that once an institution gets caught lying a
few times, and once its techniques for cooking the books become known, its
figures become simply noise.You claim to have "documented" U.S. spending
on "hot fusion" by simply obtaining government figures and posting them,
but you didn't demonstrate a damned thing by posting government figures.
They lie whenever it suits their purposes, and if you haven't noticed
that, you are truly living in a dream world. As for your demand that Mr.
Cagle "document" the "hidden" expenditures, how do you propose that he do
that? The whole point of hiding the expenditures is to keep them from
showing up on the documents. What is Mr. Cagle supposed to do, go back in
time, become invisible, and observe the uses to which each and every
dollar not officially budgeted to fusion were actually put? What you need
to do, if you really want to argue this point, is address the real issue:
the credibility of government figures. If you want us, or any sane person,
to be persuaded by the government figures that you are quoting, you need
to give us some reason for thinking that those figures can be trusted. Do
you, for example, deny that virtually the entire federal budget is a lie?
Do you believe, for example, that it is reasonable to accept their
"national debt" estimates of about $5 trillion, when social security
obligations alone total about $18 trillion? Why not address the actual
issue, Barry? --Mitchell Jones}***

 > 
> > How about the costs to keep gov't labs going which have 
> > connections and interests in the fusion programs?  Not count them either 
> > or any related portion of associated expenditures?  I think Mitchell is 
> > far closer to the truth than you are Barry.  
> 
> The national labs do _far far more_ than work on fusion. Their
> primary reason for existence is weapons development. It is
> rediculaous to try and include their budgets into the costs
> of fusion, just because a small fraction of lab personell work
> on fusion.

***{Barry, it is routine within the government to divert funds by
misclassification. If a particular lab has funding allocated from a dozen
different sources and, because of bad luck during the last session of
congress, has less officially allocated to a particular purpose than they
would like, it is simply the norm to divert the needed money from other
areas and, when reporting time comes around, charge the expenditures
against the programs for which funds were allotted. Truth be told, I'll
bet you are doing this yourself, right now. But, of course, the truth
won't be told, will it, Barry? And that is the whole point: lying is part
of the bureaucratic routine. That's why nobody believes you guys any more!
--Mitchell Jones}***   
> 
> >  The truth hurts.  If you can't admit that the 
> > U.S. program on fusion is in moral and scientific trouble then you are 
> > also in moral trouble, or morally bankrupt.
> 
> Uh, I'll admit it when you provide some actual evidence rather than 
> just a claim from someone of dubious background---unless you would
> care to post your credential for making such claims in liue of
> actual evidence. 

***{Here we go again. Everything goes back to the government, doesn't it,
Barry? In the immense majority of cases, a person who has
"credentials"--i.e., an advanced degree--is a person who memorized
whatever his teachers and professors told him to memorize, regardless of
whether it made any sense, and gave it back to them at exam time. As such,
"credentials" are virtual proof that the person who possesses them is
determined to believe whatever is necessary to be accepted by those in
positions of authority. Thus your demand that Mr. Cagle trot forth an
advanced degree in order to justify criticizing the government is a
virtual Catch 22. Before he gets to criticize the government, you want him
to produce a piece of paper that is, for practical purposes, only
available to those who do not criticize the government! --Mitchell
Jones}***

 I mean, if you were a former top DOE official 
> maybe your comments would carry some weight on their own. 

***{Right. If you aren't a card-carrying looter, you comments don't carry
any weight! After all, why would anyone listen to someone who may be
honest? --Mitchell Jones}***

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

***{Yup, those whose opinions haven't been certified by the government are
obviously  "cranks with their own axes to grind." Everybody is
automatically discredited in advance except those who have been proven to
worship the state! --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> 
> > The limitations of the 
> > Tokamak are that it will never yield break even.  I would say that is 
> > pretty good reason for pulling the plug on the thugs.
> 
> Yes, that is an excellent reason to pull the plug, and such a plug
> was pulled onmagnetic mirror fusion, so that is proof that fusion
> managers are not afraid of pulling such a plug, no?
> 
> However, since JET is scheduled to demonstrate breakeven next 
> year, how is that going to effect your world view. Would
> you care to bet, say $1000 that they can't do it?

***{Why would anybody make a gentleman's wager with you, Barry? Do you,
perhaps, operate under the delusion that you can label those who disagree
with you as "hyperbolic liars," "cranks," etc., and still be classified as
a gentleman? As for JET, well, who knows what the future will bring?
Judged by the track record, the odds are hugely against breakeven being
achieved next year. However, if we assume for the sake of argument that it
were to be achieved, that wouldn't mean that any of the $100 billion or so
that has already been poured down the "hot fusion" rathole was well
invested, for several reasons: 

(1) The feasibility of a particular piece of engineering is always
dependent on the technological context. JET does not use the technology of
1950, or 1960, or 1970, or 1980: it uses the technology of the 1990's.
Thus if we falsely assume that it will work, that will not mean breakeven
could have been achieved in 1980, or in 1970, or in 1960, and it will not
mean that the money spent during those earlier times was not poured down a
rathole. That, in fact, is the essential fallacy of government funding of
this type of research: it ignores the technological context. When "hot
fusion" eventually "works," it will happen because of improvements in the
technological context that were driven by competition in the private
sector, not because of the money spent on the project in prior years by
the government.

(2) That, in turn, underscores the enormous advantage of market driven
research: to obtain private r & d funds, a project does not merely have to
appeal to technological illiterates in congress: it also has to get past
the scrutiny of corporate r & d men who are familiar with the existing
technological context. Result: in the private sector, "hot fusion" would
not have been funded in the last 40 years. Instead, the money would flow
only if and when the project began to make sense. Private investors aren't
trying to buy votes: they are trying to make money. When private money
moves into an area, the job tends to get done. That's why a complete
cutoff of government funding of scientific research is needed: we won't
give up the successes, only the failures.

--Mitchell Jones}***      
> 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > Charles Cagle
> > Chief Technical Officer
> > Singularity Technologies, Inc,
> 
> And, pray tell, just how many staff scientists work underneath you?
> You wouldn't happen to be the _only_ technical officier would you?
> I am still waiting for you to send me some technical references to your 
> radical ideas, but I guess it is not in your best interest to correspond
> with actual scientists.

***{Barry, the evidence suggests that you are merely a government
certified authority worshipper and social parasite, not a scientist.
Charles is slumming when he talks to you. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> 
> --
> Barry Merriman
> UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
> UCLA Dept. of Math
> bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy06 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.07 / Robin Spaandonk /  Re: Potapov Device Test - Round 2
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Potapov Device Test - Round 2
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 1995 10:30:31 GMT
Organization: Improving

On 6 Jul 1995 01:15:31 GMT, wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) wrote:

>In article <3te2qc$lvo@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, little@eden.com (Scott Little) says:
>>
>>Potapov Device Tests - Round 2
>>5JUN95
>>...
>>
>>In all of these tests, the bypass line was absent (see 
>>Discussion below).
>>

>Do you mean that the small outlet was closed?

>>...
>>
>>Discussion
>>
>>...
>>  
>>2.  The exact configuration of the bypass line is a mystery.  
>>We are considering fabricating and installing a bypass line 
>>that closely resembles those seen in various photographs of 
>>the Potapov device.

>In view of the similarities between the Potapov device and the
>Hilsch Tube heat pump, I think it would be interesting to
>look for any temperature differences between the small outlet
>and the large outlet. Can we assume that the "bypass line"
>(Is that the terminology used in the Yushmar literature? Or
>it this your assumed function of the line?) is there to feed
>water already at a higher temperature around the vortex?

From a previous description of the Hilsch-Tube, I believe I remember
seeing that the smaller of the two tubes was the cold outlet. From the
photos of the Yushmar device, it would appear that the small tube is
the bypass tube. This implies that if the Yushmar device is in fact
operating (or supposed to operate) according to the same principles as
the Hilsch-Tube, then the bypass tube would be carrying cold, not hot
water. Please anyone feel free to correct me.
[snip]
>Keep up the good work!

>Cheers,
>Bill Page.

Regards,

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

cudkeys:
cuddy07 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.07 / I Johnston /  Re: The Experimentalist's Lament
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Experimentalist's Lament
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 12:14:26 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
:  
: By the way, Kennel's example is perhaps not an analogy so much as a parallel,
: because electrochemical CF is similar to transistor technology. It is a solid
: state phenomenon that depends upon subtle, difficult surface chemistry. If an
: average scientist had attempted to make his own transistor in 1954, he would
: have failed for the same reason you cannot make a CF device today.

Second year undergraduate physics practical in Oxford - making a
transistor. It's not doing it that's the problem, it's knowing what has
to be done. If only the CF world would decide whether it wants to
electrolyse water, pump it, squirt it through a vortex pipe or irradiate
it we might be getting somewhere. It didn't take this long to get
transistors right. 

Ian
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.07 / Janne Wallenius /  Re: To Steve Jones: What happened to Journal Muon Catalyzed Fusion?
     
Originally-From: Janne Wallenius <janne@bear.kvac.uu.se>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: To Steve Jones: What happened to Journal Muon Catalyzed Fusion?
Date: 7 Jul 1995 13:27:52 GMT
Organization: Uppsala University

jonesse@plasma.byu.edu wrote:

> Funding for mu-c-fusion dropped dramatically around 1992.  The output of
> research papers dropped also, and the separate journal "Muon Catalyzed Fusion"
> was discontinued.  Papers now are published mostly in "Hyperfine
> Interactions," where our group's latest paper (on muon-alpha sticking) was
> also published in 1994.  There was an international meeting on mu-c-f in
> Dubna, Russia last month.  Research continues slowly, mostly outside
> the USA.  An ISTC grant to the Russians for experiments at Dubna was
> recently approved; our group participates in that effort (but with no
> external funding as yet).
> --Steven Jones

I would think that an additional reason for the journal merging
with "Hyperfine Interactions" was the high cost for keeping
a "one-issue per year" publication, which I imagine can be
ridiculous in Switzerland.
Even though the Dubna meeting did not bring a rebirth of muon
catalysed fusion, very interesting experimental and theoretical
results were presented. Alas almost nothing on sticking, but
it seems now that new phenomena in the kinetics of the cycle
will be very important, and a bunch of publications have been
submitted and or published in Phys Rev A the last year.
For experimentalists I suppose that a major breakthrough
will be an experiment proposed to be made at TRIUMF, where
sticking and stripping will be separately measured at high
densities for the first time. 

By the way, was it really visa problems that forced you to
cancel your participation, prof Jones? Your presence would
have been appreciated.

- Jan Wallenius

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjanne cudfnJanne cudlnWallenius cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.07 /  jedrothwell@de /  The Experimentalist's Lament
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Experimentalist's Lament
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 95 11:33:44 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) writes:
 
     "If only the CF world would decide whether it wants to electrolyze
     water, pump it, squirt it through a vortex pipe or irradiate it we might
     be getting somewhere."
 
There is no such thing as "the CF world." The scientists working on
electrolysis CF have nothing to do with scientists working on ultrasound
cavitation techniques. Most of the electrochemists are hostile towards the
ultrasound work, they know nothing about it, and their comments about it are
as ignorant as those of the "skeptics" here in this newsgroup. For that
matter, many of the scientists working on palladium are hostile towards
nickel.
 
There is also no reason to believe the electrochemical CF phenomena have
anything to do with the ultrasound pumping and vortex phenomena. There is no
experimental evidence showing any connection, and no theory as far as I know.
The only similarity between the two is that both produce heat beyond the
limits of chemistry.
 
Johnston has grouped together unrelated experiments and unrelated workers, and
accused the workers of being indecisive *as if* the same scientists were
simultaneously working on different experiments. This is illogical and
contrary to fact. It is a 'straw man;' that is: "an argument set up so as to
be easily refuted or defeated."
 
 
     "It didn't take this long to get transistors right."
 
That is correct; it took far longer. Research on transistors began in 1925.
The first working device was in 1948. The first practical device was in 1952,
and the error rate in transistor production did not drop to the level achieved
in conventional CF (~50% failure rate) until the 1960s. Not only did it take
35 years to bring the transistor to the level already achieved by CF, but it
took thousands of times more money. This is also true of the incandescent
lighting, which took 20 years to develop (1858 - 1878).
 
By the standards of history and in comparison to similar technology, CF
development is progressing very rapidly indeed.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjedrothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.07 /  blaine@freenet /  Re: Convinced A Crackpot??
     
Originally-From: blaine@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca ()
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Convinced A Crackpot??
Date: 7 Jul 1995 16:38:59 GMT
Organization: Edmonton Freenet, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

"When the scientist refuses to look at the data ... the average person 
will seek unscientific explanations." - Robert Anton Wilson

--
BLAINE GORDON MANYLUK                email: blaine@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
EDMONTON, AB
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenblaine cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.07 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: extrapolation
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: extrapolation
Date: 7 Jul 1995 19:53:12 GMT
Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here.

Jean-Paul Biberian (jpb@sunspot.ssl.berkeley.edu) wrote:
: One of the major arguments addressed against cold fusion is the lack or 
: very low level of radiation observed. This is practically the only isue 
: raised by Huizenga in his book. The point made is the following: at all 
: energy there is always the same branching ratio between the three 
: possible ones. Therefore an extrapolation at zero kinetic energy should 
: give the same distribution of reaction by products.

: This statement is extremely dangerous. We all know that it is pretty 
: safe to interpolate, but very very dangerous to extrapolate. An easy 
: example is the following.

: Take a particle and pass it through a hole much larger than the particle 
: size, the particle will nicely behave and will go in a straight line. If 
: you decrease the size of the hole the particle will still go straight. 
: However at a given dimension, the particle will not go staright and will 
: actually diffract.

: If we had used the kind of reasoning employed by opponemts of cold 
: fusion, we would have implied that all experimental facts show that 
: whatever the size of the hole the particle should go staright. However 
: under a critical dimension, the nature of the system changes and our 
: interpretation is no more valid.

: People should be very careful in extrapolating models not adapted to the 
: actual problem.

Yes, however, you should heed your own advice.

What matters in the case of nuclear fusion is the transition rate between:

  Nucleus in excited state    ->    free particles and daughter nucleus.

You calculate this with the Fermi formula, which needs

1) the wave function of the nuclear particles in the excited state
2) the matrix element controlling the dynamics, in this case deduced 
   from the strong force
3) the wave functions of the various output 'channels' corresponding to
   the possibilities in the final state.

{This is a fact about quantum mechanics in general, not specifically
 nuclear physics} 

The point is that the initial kinetic energy of the reacting nuclei,
whether in a 'beam' or in solid state, is infinitesimally small
compared to the energy gained from the initial fusion.  This means
that the 'wave functions of the particles in the excited state' will
be nearly identical whether or not the initial reacting nuclei
came in with zero or nonzero relative kinetic energies.  {For example
does a grenade explode very differently if you roll it at 1cm/sec vs
having it sit still?  No, shrapnel comes out either way.}

Indeed internal energy 'fluctuations' of the nucleus are likely larger 
(an eigenstate of total energy might not be an eigenstate of individual
 'nucleons energy') than the difference in relative kinetic energies
between hypothesized cold and hot fusion. 

So that's why it's very hard to imagine any plausible physical process
that can change the branching ratios to such a tremendous degree
as necessary to support the hypothesis of 'excess heat from nuclear reactions'
given the complete lack of observed radiation.  

Of course if the kinetic energies are really large, like in a particle
accelerator, then it will make a difference, but these energies have
to be at least comparable to the nuclear binding energies.  In fact that's
exactly how the physics that we do now know about was explored. 

Even hot plasma fusion doesn't have energies close enough to this to
make a big difference in nucleon dynamics. 

And finally, physically observed real cold nuclear fusion (muon
catalyzed) does NOT show any difference in nuclear branching ratios, even
though the relative kinetic energy of the reacting nuclei is just as low
as with 'cold fusion' devices.

So the hypothesis that the resultant products of nuclear fusion might be
very different simply as a result of close to zero relative incoming kinetic
energy is strongly rejected by major theoretical considerations as well as
direct experimental investigation. 

If it were 1931, it might have been worthwhile to entertain this hypothesis
seriously, but we know much more about nuclear physics now.

: Jean-Paul Biberian

: jpb@sunspot.ssl.berkeley.edu


cheers
matt
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.07 / Erik Francis /  Re: Convinced A Crackpot??
     
Originally-From: max@alcyone.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Convinced A Crackpot??
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 95 11:43:07 PDT
Organization: &tSftDotIotE

blaine@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca () writes:

> "When the scientist refuses to look at the data ... the average person 
> will seek unscientific explanations." - Robert Anton Wilson

Nah, the average person looks for unscientific explanations regardless of 
what the scientist does.  That's because, at first glance, they're seem 
more interesting, and they're certainly easier to grasp.


Erik Max Francis, &tSftDotIotE ...!uuwest!alcyone!max max@alcyone.darkside.com
San Jose, CA   GIGO, Omega, Psi, Universe   ICBM:  37 20 07 N  121 53 38 W  _
H.3`S,3,P,3$S,#$Q,C`Q,3,P,3$S,#$Q,3`Q,3,P,C$Q,#(Q.#`-"C`-  ftmfbs ccpm mc2 / \
Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt.  ("All things that are, are lights.")   -><- \_/
cudkeys:
cuddy07 cudenmax cudfnErik cudlnFrancis cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.07 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Implications of Miles result
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles result
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 95 17:56:02 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Richard Schultz <schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu> writes:
 
>As I understand what Dick Blue was saying, he was asking for a set of
>conditions in which it is possible to predict beforehand that these 
>conditions will lead to excess heat (e.g. glowing green) that are independent 
>of whether excess heat has already been observed from that sample.  What
 
I do not think that is what Dick Blue meant, but in any case the answer to
this question is Yes, there is a set of conditions that allow an experimenter
to predict in advance that a particular Pd sample is likely to work. See
Cravens, and Storms. If you do perform the examination and tests as they
recommend, you can greatly increase the chance of success. To put it another
way, if you examine a sample carefully, and you see one or more of the
problems they describe, you can predict that the sample will *not* work.
 
To be precise, this question refers to post-experimental analysis of the
sample. The question is "whether excess heat has already been observed. . ."
I do not know as much about this issue. Most of the literature is concerned
with predicting whether a sample will work, rather than trying to determine
whether it has already worked. I am sure there are signs left in the metal,
but I am not very familiar with them. For example, with the E-Quest technique
you inject deuterium very deeply into the sample; much more deeply than with
electrolysis. That is probably why there is a lot more helium in an used
E-Quest sample then in most electrolysis samples.
 
The reason workers are so concerned with predictng future performance, as
opposed to determining the past, is because they do not want to waste time
trying to make dud samples work, and because when the experiment ends they
already know whether it worked or not. There is no need to look for helium
in a sample, or to look for color changes or other evidence that it did
work. You know it worked! It got hot. You have the calorimetric data. There
is no point in looking for nuclear ash in the cathode because in most cases
most of the ash is in the gas surrounding the cathode, or the effluent gas.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjedrothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.07 / Charles Cagle /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: Charles Cagle <singtech@teleport.com>
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: 7 Jul 1995 22:45:46 GMT
Organization: Singularity Technologies, Inc.

tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter ) wrote:

>
>It should be obvious to anyone with intelligence, that "truth" in societies 
>where flamers are active will be biased toward the concepts of 
>bold and boorish people. Boorish flamers contaminate science, politics, religion,
>morality and all other "truths".
>
>I certainly intend to expose flamers at every opportunity as they
>are the problem, rather than the solution.
>
>They inhibit shy and modest people from sharing their ideas.
>
>They are the main cause of noise in the system; due to their posts,
>the indignation of the people they attack, and the posts of people,
>like me, who can't tolerate their negative impact on society.

Amen!, Mr. Potter, Amen!

If they are incapable of grasping a new idea they apparently feel
they must at least show themselves capable of ridiculing that idea=
  If not the idea then the person who presented the idea.

But there does remain the problem of people who post ideas that
are not necessarily contrary to other ideas but to the facts themsel=
ves.  They argue for something new sometimes contrary to what is
obvious to all are the facts.  Even so, as subscribers or posters t=
o a newsgroup it is more appropriate to exercise restraint and
be tolerant even if what is posted seems outlandish.

Best Regards,


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

Ph/Fx 503/362-7781

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

email> singtech@teleport.com


cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudensingtech cudfnCharles cudlnCagle cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.06 /  meron@cars3.uc /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 22:28:08 GMT
Organization: CARS, U. of Chicago, Chicago IL 60637

In article <3tgu5t$k9c@electron.rutgers.edu>, bweiner@electron.rutgers.e
u (Ben Weiner) writes:
>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).

I won't use any of these terms since I don't put much value in labels.  I'll
just express my opinion, which is that what you say is a nonsense.  Of course
you can have an objective evaluation, it is called experimental verification
(or falsification).  Now, would you say that scientific evaluations may not be
objective, or even quite often are not objective, then I would be the first to
agree with you.  But, the broad sweeping generalization "are not objective" is
not true.  Or, maybe you believe that relativity superseded Newtonian mechanics
because people liked Einstein's personality better.

>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."

Closer to the mark now, but still not quite there.  True, you can never
absolutely prove a theory based on finite data.  However, you can disprove a
theory based on the same.  For example (I'm recycling my previous example) just
a routine scroutiny of a synchrotron in action suffices to say that Newtonian
mechanics fails to describe the dynamics of the beam while relativistic
mechanics works just fine.  Does this mean that relativity won't one day be
repalaced by a more "subtle" theory.  No, it doesn't.  But, it does prove in an
objective way that Newtonian mechanics is not a subtle enough description of
reality.


Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu	|  chances are he is doing just the same"
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmeron cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.06 / J Biberian /  extrapolation
     
Originally-From: Jean-Paul Biberian <jpb@sunspot.ssl.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: extrapolation
Date: 6 Jul 1995 22:38:01 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley CA

One of the major arguments addressed against cold fusion is the lack or 
very low level of radiation observed. This is practically the only isue 
raised by Huizenga in his book. The point made is the following: at all 
energy there is always the same branching ratio between the three 
possible ones. Therefore an extrapolation at zero kinetic energy should 
give the same distribution of reaction by products.

This statement is extremely dangerous. We all know that it is pretty 
safe to interpolate, but very very dangerous to extrapolate. An easy 
example is the following.

Take a particle and pass it through a hole much larger than the particle 
size, the particle will nicely behave and will go in a straight line. If 
you decrease the size of the hole the particle will still go straight. 
However at a given dimension, the particle will not go staright and will 
actually diffract.

If we had used the kind of reasoning employed by opponemts of cold 
fusion, we would have implied that all experimental facts show that 
whatever the size of the hole the particle should go staright. However 
under a critical dimension, the nature of the system changes and our 
interpretation is no more valid.

People should be very careful in extrapolating models not adapted to the 
actual problem.

Jean-Paul Biberian

jpb@sunspot.ssl.berkeley.edu


cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjpb cudfnJean-Paul cudlnBiberian cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.03 /  Mick_muller@fm /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: Mick_muller@fmi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: 3 Jul 1995 04:52:15 GMT
Organization: Freeport McMoran Indonesia


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

Wasn't this little gem a line from That Monty python gem, "The Holy Grail"??

Mick Muller 
PT Freeport Indonesia

These are my opinions only, not those of my employer.
Anyone silly enough to believe that my employer is 
as warped as myself has big problems. 
"Gaze outwards to the stars, not inwards to your navel" (Bill Borthwick)

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenMick_muller cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.06 / Erik Francis /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: max@alcyone.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 95 15:40:07 PDT
Organization: &tSftDotIotE

tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter ) writes:

> In <1995Jul5.190017.27563@biosym.com> jpb@iris85.biosym.com (Jan Bielawski) w
> 
> >In article <3sptct$86i@kilroy.id.net> tdp@id.net (Tom Potter) writes:
> ><
> ><Even Newton was inhibited for making many of his ideas public for
> ><many years because he was so hurt by criticism.
> >
> >Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the reason for the delay that 
> >for a while he was unable to prove convincingly that uniform spherical 
> >objects could be treated as point masses in gravity?
> 
> It should be obvious to anyone with intelligence, that "truth" in societies 
> where flamers are active will be biased toward the concepts of 
> bold and boorish people. Boorish flamers contaminate science, politics, relig
> morality and all other "truths".
> 
> I certainly intend to expose flamers at every opportunity as they
> are the problem, rather than the solution.
> 
> They inhibit shy and modest people from sharing their ideas.

Where is the flaming herE?


Erik Max Francis, &tSftDotIotE ...!uuwest!alcyone!max max@alcyone.darkside.com
San Jose, CA   GIGO, Omega, Psi, Universe   ICBM:  37 20 07 N  121 53 38 W  _
H.3`S,3,P,3$S,#$Q,C`Q,3,P,3$S,#$Q,3`Q,3,P,C$Q,#(Q.#`-"C`-  ftmfbs ccpm mc2 / \
Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt.  ("All things that are, are lights.")   -><- \_/
cudkeys:
cuddy06 cudenmax cudfnErik cudlnFrancis cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.06 / Erik Francis /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: max@alcyone.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 95 22:34:24 PDT
Organization: &tSftDotIotE

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

> This is a mathematical statement.  Mathematics is not a science.
> (Shit, I'm in for it now.  I'm putting on the asbestos suit.)

I got your back.

> lounesto@dopey.hut.fi (Pertti Lounesto) writes:
> 
> >So, Ben
> >Wiener, why is it not objective to say that the author is wrong
> >(after all he contradicts himself)?

How about:  Because the person claiming the contradiction could be 
wrong himself?


Erik Max Francis, &tSftDotIotE ...!uuwest!alcyone!max max@alcyone.darkside.com
San Jose, CA   GIGO, Omega, Psi, Universe   ICBM:  37 20 07 N  121 53 38 W  _
H.3`S,3,P,3$S,#$Q,C`Q,3,P,3$S,#$Q,3`Q,3,P,C$Q,#(Q.#`-"C`-  ftmfbs ccpm mc2 / \
Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt.  ("All things that are, are lights.")   -><- \_/
cudkeys:
cuddy06 cudenmax cudfnErik cudlnFrancis cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.07 / 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: 07 Jul 1995 07:50:13 GMT
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology

EF=max@alcyone.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis) writes:
BW=bweiner@electron.rutgers.edu (Ben Weiner) writes:
PL=lounesto@dopey.hut.fi (Pertti Lounesto) writes:

PL> Let me give a specific example.  Many physics books claim that for
PL> matrices and quaternions the following holds:
PL>       exp(A+B) = exp(A) exp(B)  if and only if  AB =BA
PL> [this example is taken from page 73 of a physics book, but the name
PL> of the book is not important now].  Clearly,  AB = BA  implies
PL> exp(A+B) = exp(A) exp(B)  but  from  AB = BA  it does not follow
PL> that  exp(A+B) = exp(A) exp(B).  This can be seen by the counter-
PL> example  A = 3pi*i  and  B = 4pi*j  in quaternions.  So, Ben
PL> Wiener, why is it not objective to say that the author is wrong
PL> (after all he contradicts himself)?

BW> I think you must have said something backwards because you've just
BW> contradicted yourself: does AB=BA imply exp(A+B)=exp(A)exp(B), or not?
BW> You must have inadvertently reversed one of your clauses.

EF> How about:  Because the person claiming the contradiction could be 
EF> wrong himself?

I not only could be wrong, but also I know I am wrong, if you give me a
counter-example to my statement  "AB=BA implies exp(A+B)=exp(A)exp(B)"
for matrices  A,B  or show that my counter-example to the statement 
"exp(A+B)=exp(A)exp(B) implies  AB = BA"  is not valid.  For your
convenience, I translate my counter-example to matrices:

       A = 3pi [0 i       B = 4pi [0 1
                i 0]              -1 0].

If you show I am wrong, I have an opportunity to not only to correct my
misconceptions, but also to learn new things, and will feel grateful to you.
-- 
   Pertti Lounesto                     Triality is quadratic
cudkeys:
cuddy07 cudenlounesto cudfnPertti cudlnLounesto cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.07 / Robin Spaandonk /  Re: Potapov device photos now on-line
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Potapov device photos now on-line
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 1995 07:17:29 GMT
Organization: Improving

On 5 Jul 1995 03:11:37 GMT, jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
wrote:
[snip]
>Sorry, I just made up names since I wasn't sure of the correct terminology.
>I guess I wasn't very consistent. :-)  I suppose I could have called
>them "hearts" just to add confusion.  But "hearts", "cores", and
>"tubes" all refer to the same thing.  Take the things in the 5th
>picture, paint them orange and you have the things in the previous
>four pictures.

>I can't answer any of your other questions because I don't know.

>--
> - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
> - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
> -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -
John,

I don't suppose it would be possible to get a photo of one of the
cores, cut through with a hack-saw to reveal the inside would it?
(To allow better comparison with a Hilsch-Tube).

Regards,


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


cudkeys:
cuddy07 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Jul  8 04:37:10 EDT 1995
------------------------------
