1995.07.12 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: absorption of hydrogen by palladium
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: absorption of hydrogen by palladium
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 14:20 -0500 (EST)

schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) writes:
 
 
-> I'll answer your first question first, even though it may make your second
-> question irrelevant.  Palladium's crystal structure is face-centered cubic,
-> not hexagonal.  (Source:  Ashcroft & Mermin, _Solid State Physics_.)
 
Thanks.  Never could find a reference, but finding that the majority of
crystals listed were hex, selected what I though would be most probable.  Seems
to never work, that is why I never gamble. :(  At least a cubic is much easier
for me to visualize.
 
-> To visualize a hexagonal close-packed lattice, try this experiment.  It
-> works best with styrofoam spheres because you can connect them with
-> toothpicks, although any kind of spheres would work just as well, I suppose.
-> Make three two-dimensional layers of spheres, with each layer in a
-> "triangular lattice" (each sphere surrounded by six others).  Place one
-> layer above the second so that the spheres of the top layer sit on
-> interstices of the first.  Now if you look down at the two layers, you
-> will see that there are two kinds of interstices in the top layer:  those
-> that sit above spheres of the bottom layer, and those that sit above
-> interstices of the bottom layer.  If you put the third layer so that the
-> spheres lie above the spheres of the bottom layer, then you have a
-> hexagonal close-packed structure.  If you put the third layer above the
-> interstices of the first layer (with a fourth layer directly above the
-> first, fifth above the second, etc.), then you have the face-centered cubic
-> structure.  Chapter Four of the aforementioned Ashcroft and Mermin has
-> pictures of all of this along with further pictures and descriptions of
-> different kinds of crystal lattices.
 
Opps, forget my previous comment about easier to visulize, I thought
face-centered cubic would be like sodium chloride.  I guess I better make a
trip to the library and find that "Solid State Physics" book.
 
-> Of course, this won't tell the whole story, as your average sample of
-> Pd is not a single crystal, and I suspect that a single crystal of Pd
-> wouldn't remain that way very long once you start stuffing H atome into
-> it.  I would think that you'd have to consider where the H atoms are at
-> the boundaries between different areas in the Pd sample.  Has anyone
-> tried to determine if there is a correlation between the observed
-> amount of excess heat and the degree to which the Pd sample is a
-> single crystal?
 
That would be interesting to determine.  However I am still trying to determine
if the maximum hydrogen that can be absorbed corrolates with the expected
number of interstices.
 
Thanks for the post.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.12 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: absorption of hydrogen by palladium
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: absorption of hydrogen by palladium
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 14:12 -0500 (EST)

<singtech@teleport.com> (Charles Cagle) writes:
 
-> Palladium foil, I have read, when heated in a vacuum to remove other gases
-> absorbs up to 936 times its volume of hydrogen, increasing somewhat in
-> volume during the process.
 
This is what I keep running into.  No where else in chemistry have I run into
ratios of reaction substance given in volume instead of weight or atom ratios.
This is meaningless, since the volume of hydrogen varies over orders of
magnitude with both pressure and temperature.
 
-> It has been thought that a palladium hydride
-> PdH2 or Pd3H may be formed but there is much evidence against this.
 
Adding that my CRC handbook indicates that it may be forming PD2H, we have
the possibility of 1H per 2 Pd, 2H per 1 Pd or 3H per 1 Pd now.  I am having
the hardest time getting a straight answer on just what 100% loading would be.
 
-> It is
-> found that the amount of hydrogen absorbed depends on the temperature and
-> pressure and the palladium hydrogen system obeys Henry's Law.
 
That's not surprising.  Since they are measuring the hydrogen by volume which
varies by temperature and volume, of course the ratios will vary with
temperature and pressure.  It would be much more meaningful if they would see
if the ratios vary by WEIGHT with temperature and pressure.
 
Thanks for the post.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.12 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: absorption of hydrogen by palladium
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: absorption of hydrogen by palladium
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 16:57 -0500 (EST)

-> Look, the only way to insure you know how much is loaded is to meter known
-> quantities into a sealed vacuum container of a known volume which contains
-> the measured sample to be loaded.

I am talking theory here, not experiment.  What I want to know is how much
SHOULD a fully loaded sample of palladium hold?  This is for theoretical work.
I am looking at other possibiities besides absorption, but until I know what
ratio the palladium can take up, I have no idea if my theory would hold up to
reality or not.  I don't want to come up with a theory, and after posting it
have someone immediately say, "but palladium holds twice (or half) as much as
your theory would dictate so it is wrong."  If it is THAT wrong, I would prefer
to determine it myself and never post it.

                                                                Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.12 /  Syclopse /  Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: syclopse@aol.com (Syclopse)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion
Date: 12 Jul 1995 18:22:00 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I am new to the specifics of cold fusions.
I have a very general knowledge on at the most basic level what cold
fusion, or even fusion is.  Can anyone suggest some literature on the
internet or at the bookstore which I could acquire and use to expand my
basic knowledge?
I'd appreciate any suggestions from anyone.   
                       thank you.
                               Syclopse on America Online   a.k.a    Matt

Syclopse@aol.com a.k.a. Matt.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudensyclopse cudlnSyclopse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.12 / Tom Droege /  Re: absorption of hydrogen by palladium
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: absorption of hydrogen by palladium
Date: 12 Jul 1995 23:06:41 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <WAF2PCB692391994@brbbs.brbbs.com>, mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com
(MARSHALL DUDLEY) says:
>
>-> Look, the only way to insure you know how much is loaded is to meter known
>-> quantities into a sealed vacuum container of a known volume which contains
>-> the measured sample to be loaded.
>
>I am talking theory here, not experiment.  What I want to know is how much
>SHOULD a fully loaded sample of palladium hold?  This is for theoretical work.
>I am looking at other possibiities besides absorption, but until I know what
>ratio the palladium can take up, I have no idea if my theory would hold up to
>reality or not.  I don't want to come up with a theory, and after posting it
>have someone immediately say, "but palladium holds twice (or half) as much as
>your theory would dictate so it is wrong."  If it is THAT wrong, I would prefer
>to determine it myself and never post it.
>
>                                                                Marshall

Dear Marshall,

I will try to respond to your question, but since this is from memory I may 
not have it all right.

When they talk about loading ratios, it is atom ratios.  That is 1/1 means 
one atom of D or H for each atom of Pd.  Thus when McKubre talks abot nothing
happening until .9 or so, he is talking about .9 atoms of D to one atom of
Pd.  

When I was doing these experiments, I measured loading three ways.  

1)  Since I ran with a recombiner in the cell, one sees an excess of 
Oxygen as the D loads into the Pd.  During short runs this was good to
+/-  1-2%

2)  Since the D is not recombined with O, there is an energy loss during 
loading that can be measured with the calorimetry.  This has to be 
corrected for the heat of absorption of the D into Pd which can be 
positive or negative.  It depends where you are.  ;^)  My calorimetry
was good enough that I could measure this to +/- 5-10%

3)  The resistance of Pd increases as it is loaded up to 0.72 D/Pd.  
Higher loading causes it to decrease until at 1/1 it is approximately
back to the original resistance.  This is how McKubre measures the
loading.  He seems confident that the loading will never go balow the
0.7 point so he claims he is never confused. 

On a number of runs I got above 0.9/1 with high confidence.  Some got
to 1.1 or 1.2.   

Now all the above assumes that you have a nice crystal lattice. 

If you look up an old Princeton Dissertation, G.A.Moore, 1939 you 
will find there may be something else happening.  There seem to be 
good reasons to believe that it is very hard to get above 1/1 in the
lattice.  More measured either 1.7 or 2.2 (from memory).  He thought
that H could also hide in the "rifts in the slip planes".  In other
words, up to 1/1 can sit in the Pd crystal structure, but some can
also hide in the "holes" where two crystal structures come together. 
For this reason, my brother and I originally set out to make single
crystal Pd for these experiments.  We almost bought a surplus float
zone crystal puller, but the scrap heap got it about a week before 
we got there.  I now think this would not have done any good.  You 
may start with a nice single crystal, but once you start loading it
the forces are so high that it will be destroyed.

Note that Moore worked with very fine wires.  I recall 0.1 mm.  Thus 
he could do experiments relatively quickly.

I think the loading in the "holes" may be even more interesting than
the loading in the crystal lattice.  I recall both Huggins and Oriani
talking about this at ICCF4 and at least one other paper.

Tom Droege 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.13 / Richard Blue /  Re: Implications of Miles results
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles results
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 02:35:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Another in a series of exchanges with Mitchell Swartz

First topic - loading and interstitials.  From your reply, Mitchell,
I gather that you consider all the hydrogen in PdH to be "interstitial"?
I thought the usual sense of that word is that it refers to atoms that
are not in normal lattice sites, and as applied to PdH interstitial hydrogen
would be only some fraction of the total "load" and thus could not be
determined by simple conservation of hydrogen atoms as you suggest.

Second topic - acoustic and optical branches of the phonon spectrum.
As for my reference, I was starting from the presentation one might
find in any solid state physics text.  Indeed there are these two
branches in the phonon spectrum for a simple lattice.  I was asking
for help from you as to why the PdH lattice is special in this regard.
Clearly you have nothing to offer.  Sorry I ask.

Third topic - lattice-nucleus coupling.  Both Mitchell Swartz and Bob
Cormach seem to want to apply a simple null test to this question.
For them the lattice-nucleus coupling either exists or it does not exist.
Then as their logic would have it, any demonstration of the existance of
this coupling in even one case is sufficient to "prove" that cold fusion
is really occuring wherever we want it to occur.  No further test of the
cold fusion hypothesis is required!

The Swartz approach to the lattice-nucleus coupling is not acceptable
physics in my book.  I acknowledge that there are many circumstances in
which such couplings are clearly demonstrated.  In fact a great deal of
nuclear physics and solid state physics investigations have made use of
this couplings as probes to investigate some very intricate details of
nuclear and/or atomic structures.  As a prime example one need only mention
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance - MRI to some of you perhaps.  I also would
not leave out Mitchell's favorite, Mossbauer Effect.

What I would suggest is that we need to move beyond the mere existance of
a nuclear-lattice coupling to a discussion of the quantitative aspects of
such couplings.  If one assigns an energy scale to the various known
couplings there is a pattern that is worth noting.  The energies involved
in nuclear-lattice couplings are not very big.  They don't have very
large effects on the nuclear states involved.  Now is such experimental
data something we can simply ignore?  I claim that all the experimental
data that addresses this question has to be considered and given weight
appropriately along with the CF calorimetry data.  To my mind it defies
logic to assert that this body of experimental data should be ignored
in this discussion.  The evidence clearly indicates that nuclear-lattice
couplings are, at most, small perturbations on nuclear states.  Is there
anyone who would challenge that statement as a good summary for the vast
body of data available?

Fourth Subject - PdD vs. NiH.  Mitchell suggests that TBskeptics(?) have
failed to note that there is a clear difference between these two systems
with regard to the host metal lattice.  I see that they are different, but
I have been totally mystified as to what significance we are to see in this
difference.  It seems to me that the fusion reaction that has never been
satisfactorially explained for PdD can have nothing in common with the
NiH case.  Instead of one mystery we have two.  Is that supposed to be
progress?

Fifth Subject - Chubb and Chubb theory.  One of several issues that are
"supposed to be" clarified by CF theory are the selection rules that
are said to prohibit certain nuclear decays.  My assertion is that there
is no analysis that demonstrate any such prohibitions.  Mitchell seems
to think that anything in print which mentions this subject constitutes
solid theoretical proof that all undesired decays are prohibited.
We also see the tired assertion that I have simply not done my homework
and read the proper papers.  I have a long series of private E-mail
exchanges with Scott Chubb in which these issues were discussed.  From
those exchanges I assume I have been given a reasonable sampling of the
Chubb analysis.  In other words, I do not make my assertions concerning
the selection rules without having made some effort to understand the
"literature."  However, if there is some specific point that I have
overlooked I would welcome hearing about it.  I do not intend, however,
to undertake any general reading of all CF literature.  Sorry, about that.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.11 / Bill Rowe /  Re: Convinced A Crackpot??
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Convinced A Crackpot??
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 21:20:30 -0700
Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - finger or email info@alt.net

In article <3tum2e$8vp@news1.halcyon.com>, sciclub@chinook.halcyon.com
(James Burrows) wrote:

[ skipped ]

Actually, what I was trying to argue for is a reasoned approach. New ideas
should not be discarded out of hand as "crackpot" just because they are
new. Also, those who don't pursue these ideas after understanding them
shouldn't be labled closeminded.

I had written

>: Researchers do puruse off the wall ideas and do get funding to do so. You
>: only have to look at the efforts spent on cold fusion to see this is true.
>: Many other examples can be found.

to which you responded

>But it was my impression that in the US, the federal government made it
>illegal for researchers to use NSF funding, even the discresionary lab
>funding, for research of cold fusion.  And the major journals, "knowing" 
>that CF was all bunk, would reject unread any CF paper.  Am I wrong in
>this?  If not, and if CF eventually proves useful, then this decision by
>the government will be seen as an enormous mistaken attempt to suppress a
>valuable new discovery.  It's true that funding sources have been found
>elsewhere for CF researchers.  But it's also true that the government's
>early judgement that CF is false has put an immense barrier in the way of
>research, at least in this country. Not only the funding issue impacts CF. 
>Until recently the US patent office would not accept CF patents.  Doesn't
>this put a large damper on CF research by independant companies?  During
>this time, significant numbers of patents have been made in countries
>other than the US. 

I am sure there are limitations placed on NSF funding. I don't know
whether this source of funding could be used to pursue CF or not. But
certainly NSF is not the only source of research funds. 

I truly haven't researched all of the funding sources that are available
for CF. However, Jed Rothwell has several times indicated EPRI is a source
of funding. Also, I assume Steve Jones has gotten funding through BYU.
Perhaps Steve would care to comment

Yes there are patents being issued. Is this bad for research? I don't
know. It seems to me there is more than enough to do to understand various
CF phenomena that existance of patents shouldn't have much effect on
research.

>Is this situation good?  I suppose it depends on whether CF eventually
>comes to anything.  Even if it turns out to be a mass of mistakes and
>wishful thinking, I personally don't agree with this type of suppression
>of research by the government. 

I don't see the problem as one of suppression. Rather I see it as an issue
of resource limitations. Perhaps CF will be the energy source of the next
decade replacing most existing sources. But what of other projects?

I realize there are several here that would disagree with me and I might
be wrong. However, the available data suggests to me it is much more
likely that work being done on tokamaks will yeild a useful energy source
than CF. Even if you don't agree as to the relative merits of CF and
tokamak research, surely there are other examples you could think of
especially if fields other than fusion physics are included.
-- 
William Rowe                                                   browe@netcom.com
MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.12 / Charles Cagle /  Re: absorption of hydrogen by palladium
     
Originally-From: <singtech@teleport.com> (Charles Cagle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: absorption of hydrogen by palladium
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 02:56:53 -0800
Organization: Singularity Technologies, Inc.

Dear Mr. Dudley,

In article <WAF2PCB302976550@brbbs.brbbs.com>, mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com wrote:

> I have been working on a hypothesis on cold fusion in palladium.  I am a
little
> confused on the absorption of hydrogen (or deuterium) in palladium.  I
had been
> assuming (apparently incorrectly) that palladium would absorb hydrogen up to
> the point where there were an equal number of hydrogen atoms as palladium
> atoms.  I assumed that this was 100% loaded. 

Palladium foil, I have read, when heated in a vacuum to remove other gases
absorbs up to 936 times its volume of hydrogen, increasing somewhat in
volume during the process.  It has been thought that a palladium hydride
PdH2 or Pd3H may be formed but there is much evidence against this.  It is
found that the amount of hydrogen absorbed depends on the temperature and
pressure and the palladium hydrogen system obeys Henry's Law.

It is probable that the Hydrogen is actually dissolved in the Pd, but in
order to avoid begging the question the term 'occlusion' is applied to
this type of gas absorption.  The 'occluded' hydrogen is more reactive
chemically than free hydrogen, and has the reducing power of nascent
hydrogen.

Incidently, hydrogen produced at higher voltages seems to be more
chemically reactive.  It may be that this extra chemical energy associated
with hydrogen that has come out of Pd is the cause of all the hoopla and
perhaps there is no fusion going on after all!  Wouldn't that be
something.

If you want fusion to occur just load your Pd foil as indicated above then
hit it with a strong burst of soft x-rays.  Stand by with a boron floride
neutron detector and you will probably get a burst that is proportional to
the intensity (not the wavelength) of the x-ray burst.  I promise you that
you will get plenty of fusion reactions.  Hard x-rays or gammas won't do
but super hard ultra violet to soft x-rays will work wonders.  To get the
soft x-rays pass hard x-rays or gamma rays through a high Z material
plasma.  Put a thin wire of uranium across a large current to create the
high Z plasma - then shoot your hard x-rays at the plasma having your
loaded foil on the other side as a target.  Careful though, with a piece
of foil as big as a thumbnail you might get part of your lab to vaporize.

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:
cuddy12 cudensingtech cudfnCharles cudlnCagle cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.12 / Richard Schultz /  Re: absorption of hydrogen by palladium
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: absorption of hydrogen by palladium
Date: 12 Jul 1995 12:17:23 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <WAF2PCB302976550@brbbs.brbbs.com>,
MARSHALL DUDLEY <mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com> wrote:

>So I started looking at the sites where hydrogen could be stored in
>a hex crystal (I am assuming palladium is a hex crystal, I have been unable to
>find any reference to the crystal structure).  What I found was that in a two
>dimensional array of hex atoms, there are twice as many sites for hydrogen as
>there are atoms.  Try as I may, I am unable to fully visualize a solid hex
>crystal, so I am not sure if there would be twice as many sites, or 4 times as
>many sites as atoms in the solid.

I'll answer your first question first, even though it may make your second
question irrelevant.  Palladium's crystal structure is face-centered cubic,
not hexagonal.  (Source:  Ashcroft & Mermin, _Solid State Physics_.)

To visualize a hexagonal close-packed lattice, try this experiment.  It
works best with styrofoam spheres because you can connect them with 
toothpicks, although any kind of spheres would work just as well, I suppose.
Make three two-dimensional layers of spheres, with each layer in a 
"triangular lattice" (each sphere surrounded by six others).  Place one
layer above the second so that the spheres of the top layer sit on
interstices of the first.  Now if you look down at the two layers, you
will see that there are two kinds of interstices in the top layer:  those
that sit above spheres of the bottom layer, and those that sit above
interstices of the bottom layer.  If you put the third layer so that the
spheres lie above the spheres of the bottom layer, then you have a
hexagonal close-packed structure.  If you put the third layer above the
interstices of the first layer (with a fourth layer directly above the
first, fifth above the second, etc.), then you have the face-centered cubic
structure.  Chapter Four of the aforementioned Ashcroft and Mermin has 
pictures of all of this along with further pictures and descriptions of 
different kinds of crystal lattices.

Of course, this won't tell the whole story, as your average sample of
Pd is not a single crystal, and I suspect that a single crystal of Pd
wouldn't remain that way very long once you start stuffing H atome into
it.  I would think that you'd have to consider where the H atoms are at
the boundaries between different areas in the Pd sample.  Has anyone
tried to determine if there is a correlation between the observed
amount of excess heat and the degree to which the Pd sample is a
single crystal?
--
					Richard Schultz

"P&F are getting so much heat that you hardly need any calorimetry at all."
			--Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 19 Jul 1992
"The palladium based systems are a useless dead end. Who cares about them?"
			--Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 10 Dec 1992
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.12 / Akira Kawasaki /  Re: Potapov Device Tests - Round 3
     
Originally-From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Potapov Device Tests - Round 3
Date: 12 Jul 1995 15:49:21 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3tv2l8$6si@boris.eden.com> little@eden.com (Scott Little) writes: 
>
>In article <3tuajt$oln@netfs.dnd.ca>, wspage@msmail.dsis.dnd.ca (Bill
Page) says:
>
>>It is interesting to note that you have apparently mounted the
>>device "upside down" compared to the photos. 
>
   I seem to have missed something along the way lurking around the
Potapov discussion going on here but why was not the whole Potapov
device, pump motor, radiator, and et cetera not purchased for testing? 
If it was a matter of funding, there is the whole newsgroup to appeal
to just as in the particular Griggs visit by Mr. Droege. And is there a
dearth of Russian translators to not transform the pump literature and
instructions into clear english? From an observer, there seems to be
too much unnessary stumbling around to get results. My sincere
apologies if this is the scientific method in vogue nowdays. By the
way, I do wish definitive success one way or another in defining the
device. Even now, its not too late to acquire the whole thing for
testing.
-AK-
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenaki cudfnAkira cudlnKawasaki cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.12 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: The Golden Anniversary of Trinity (Atomic Age)
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Golden Anniversary of Trinity (Atomic Age)
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 95 12:54:53 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Wayne Price <SUCOR@I-link.net> writes:
 
     "Celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Atomic Age. . . . J. Robert
     Oppenheimer is standing before the bellowing mushroom cloud at 008
     seconds after detonation.  Oppenheimer after observing the results of
     his creation quoted an ancient Hindu text, "Now I am become death, the
     destroyer of worlds". . . . Check out this Fractal Design color art work
     at: .alt.binaries.pictures.misc . . .Comments welcomed!
 
You want comments? Okay, you asked for it. As a Japanese - American, I find
this posting sick, disgusting, and outrageous. Look, no reasonable person
disputes that in war it is sometimes necessary to use inhuman methods. War is
hell. Many (but by no means all) Japanese people acknowledge that it is a good
thing the bomb brought the war to a quick end. But good grief! It is nothing
to "celebrate"!!!
 
Why not "celebrate" the battle of Cold Harbor or the Siege of Verdun? You can
post a nice fractal picture of General Grant observing the results of his
orders, thinking: "Jesus Christ, I just massacred 13,000 of my own men for
nothing." If you are going to have a fractal picture of Oppenheimer, I suggest
you juxtapose it with photographs of the children dying in agony, with the
skin torn off the bodies and flies crawling over their faces. I think that
Oppenheimer himself would be appalled at the idea of "celebrating" or
romanticizing the bomb in this fashion. It is like celebrating the use of
poison gas in World War I. Any decent human being will morn such cruel,
shameful, hideous events, not celebrate them. It is good to recall this
history, because it teaches us the folly of war, and makes us hope that we
will never again be forced to use such inhuman weapons.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjedrothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Jul 13 04:37:06 EDT 1995
------------------------------
