1995.07.17 / Jim McClune /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: c517402@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE (Jim McClune)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,
ci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: 17 Jul 1995 15:30:58 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Columbia

Eleaticus (ThnkTank@cris.com) wrote:
: !---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?
: ! Eleaticus                                      Think Tank Eleatic ?
: ! "Anything that requires or encourages systematic examination of   ?
: !  premises, logic, and conclusions" 

Say What?

El·e·at·ic \,el-eÅ-'at-ik\ adj
:of or relating to a school of Greek philosophers founded 
by Parmenides and developed by Zeno and marked by belief 
in the unity of being and the unreality of motion or change

--
Jim McClune

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenc517402 cudfnJim cudlnMcClune cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.17 / Paul Budnik /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: paul@mtnmath.mtnmath.com (Paul Budnik)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: 17 Jul 1995 09:16:53 -0700
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070

Robert F. Heeter (rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu) wrote:

: Below you will find FYI98 from the American Institute of Physics, 
: which contains recent news on the state of the fusion program.
: The House of Representatives passed an appropriation of only
: $229 million, down from this year's funding of about $370 million.

It is most unfortunate that in these times of tight budgets *any*
money is being thrown down this rat hole. We have a perfectly
good fusion reactor conveniently delivering to us more energy than
we could ever safely use and that is far more reliable than anything
we will ever be able to build on earth. It is located at a safe
distance of 93 million miles so we do not have to worry about the
radioactive products it creates.

We ought to be spending money figuring out how to effectively use that
power source and not create another monstrous and monstrously expensive
boondoggle like nuclear power is today. The main reason we do not is
that nobody can control that power source. The infrastructure to exploit
it would be widely owned and therefore is anathema to the corporations that
make their livings selling energy.

[...]

: Fusion has been singled out this year for
: some reason, apparently because it's long-term basic research 
: which actually dares to have a practical goal in mind (high-energy 
: particle physics and nuclear physics and other "pure" areas of 
: physics were barely scratched by the House budget, by comparison).  

In general there is far too much big ticket research on projects of
doubtful or nonexistent practical consequences. The money for basic
research ought to support more researchers. Of course your need
equipment and resources to do research but you need some sense of
proportion. If a field of research is horribly expensive with
no practical consequences (like high energy particle physics) then
pursuing the field is a bad idea for now. That does not mean we will never
answer the questions in that field. It only means we will wait until
theory, technology or both make that research more practical.

: Those who support applied research say it's too expensive 
: and will take too long; those who support basic research say
: it's too applied.  Sheesh!

They are both correct. The more important reason is that fusion power
is a very bad idea. There are much better long term solutions to the problem
of energy and this is where we should be putting our resources.

: Energy research (only a few billion
: dollars per year including private funding) is cheap considering
: that energy represents the foundation of the economy and 
: roughly 10% of GNP (that would be $500 Billion plus); what
: is spent on energy supply R&D is just a drop in the bucket.

That argument would make sense if there were reasons to believe fusion
research was a reasonable approach to dealing with the energy problem.

: I urge those of you who support fusion to write or call you
: senators this week; on an arcane technical issue like this,
: a few voices can make a big difference, especially if they
: come from outside the fusion program.

And I urge those who oppose it to do the same. There must be
some sensible people inside the fusion program who understand
what a boondoggle it is. Their inputs would be especially valuable.

:  Even a cut to $320
: million (envisioned by PCAST) will virtually eliminate any 
: chance of getting a demonstration fusion reactor within the 
: next 30 years.

This is utter nonsense. You have no idea what is going to happen
in technology in the next 30 years. 

: (Barring some miracle, like a working Plasmak,
: of course.)  Still, it $320 million would be far better
: than $229M, which would virtually kill the program.

Those pursuing big technology projects frequently think they have
the only workable solution. Businesses who think that way
(such as IBM with mainframes) get into very deep trouble sooner
or later. The marketplace is far more decisive in such
matters than politicians.

There are many terrible things Washington
is doing in the name of balancing the budget and reducing
government but killing this program would be a very good thing.

Paul Budnik
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenpaul cudfnPaul cudlnBudnik cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.17 / Doug Merritt /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: doug@netcom.com (Doug Merritt)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,
ci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 16:51:41 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

In article <3ucqri$hcl@newsbf02.news.aol.com> mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353) writes:
>Gary Cruse wrote:
>
>:                      Correct or incorrect,  I have problems 
>:                      with having to earn the right to hold
>:                      an opinion.  Do you have such backing
>:                      behind every opinion you hold?
>
>Generally it is considered good form to know whereof one speaks when one
>*speaks* one's opinion.

Since Mark's comment here is not exactly universally popular, let
me point something out: Let's say for a moment that everyone
has a right to their opinion (neglecting the fact that "right"
is quite ill-defined). There is still the question of what happens
next.

Compare someone who has deep background in (say) american history.
Maybe they're a prof in the subject at a respected university. Now
let's say they're arguing with someone with no background in history
at all (i.e. the average U.S. citizen :-), but who has the firm opinion
that Benjamin Franklin was the first U.S.  president.

Now perhaps it's true that this person has the right to their
dimwitted opinion, however it's equally obvious that they're being
a complete jerk on the subject, and that very few would particularly
enjoy them exercising their right to be a jerk.

Sometimes this is abbreviated that "one should earn the right to
an opinion". It doesn't literally mean they should be arrested or
something for holding an opinion they haven't earned in some sense,
it just means that they're a jerk if they insist on exercising
the right to hold an opinion without the appropriate background.

Since undoubtedly everyone has interacted with such jerks at times,
this shouldn't be that controversial. (And of course, most of us
have *been* jerks in that sense at times. :-)
	Doug
-- 
Doug Merritt				doug@netcom.com
Professional Wild-eyed Visionary	Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow

Unicode Novis Cypherpunks Gutenberg Wavelets Conlang Logli Alife Anthro
Computational linguistics Fundamental physics Cogsci Egyptology GA TLAs
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudendoug cudfnDoug cudlnMerritt cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.17 / B Vidugiris /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,
ci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 17:20:00 GMT
Organization: Motorola CCRD

In article <3uc1dv$923@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
JAllen1356 <jallen1356@aol.com> wrote:

)I find little to justify your argument that the cycle is fundamental.  

It is perfectly consistent to use a normalized set of units to express
everything in terms of time units.  In fact, the standard reference on
GR, "Gravitation" by MTW, does this.  Distance, mass, energy, charge,
all get converted to seconds via a somewhat strange set of unit
conversions.  (I'd have to look up the charge conversions, but I'm
pretty sure they do this).

Saying that cycles are the best measure of time isn't that far out
either, though one might well be temped to say "cycles in what?" :-(.

So far, I don't see anything that is necessarily new here.

Of course, the more traditional view is that "Time is defined to make
motion simple" - also from Gravitation by MTW.

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbhv cudfnBronis cudlnVidugiris cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.17 / Anders Nielsen /  Re: General Relativity sucks,
     
Originally-From: joshu@diku.dk (Anders Nielsen)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,
ci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks,
Date: 17 Jul 1995 18:21:30 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, U of Copenhagen

In <3udsik$ko6@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter ) writes:

>In <3udn7r$gbd@alaska.nwlink.com> William Sommerwerck <williams@nwlink.com> writes: 
>
>>
>>> General Relativity suggests that mass distorts time and space.
>>> It is more likely that mass is a distortion of cycles than vice versa.
>>
>>> Rather than looking forward from cycles, to time, to space,
>>> to mass, and examining the relationships between each step,
>>> GR provides a backwards, distorted look at time and space.
>>> It is analogous to using carbon as the basic unit of object,
>>> and defining atoms (larger and smaller) and particles in terms of it.
>>> It can be made to work, but unnecessarily complicates the problem.
>>
>>Okay. Come up with a coherent, testable, mathematical description of
>>the universe from your point of view, and I, and other sensible people
>>will give it serious consideration.
>>
>>Don't expect anyone to seriously consider "theories" you haven't
>>worked through.
>
>I have posted articles which develop the basics of such a theory
>several times, in several forms in these forums. Apparently, you
>have not read them. Obviously, I don't want to over post the same
>information and become flame-bait. I suggest that you go back and
>read some of my posts and do some thinking ( And calculating )
>using them as a basis. 

Is there anything which your theory explains better (whichever that
means) than the general relativity, or is it the same?

(No I havent read your articles either, but please email them
to me if you feel like it)
-- 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Work is a Four Letter word" (Song by The Smiths)
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Anders Nielsen
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjoshu cudfnAnders cudlnNielsen cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.17 /  jedrothwell@de /  Silly nonsense from Robert Heeter
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Silly nonsense from Robert Heeter
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 95 16:48:56 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

This is trivial, but annoying. A mosquito named Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>, who knows nothing about cold fusion because
he has read nothing about it -- not even the papers I posted here! -- posted
the following nonsense:
 
     "To hear CFRA (or at least Rothwell) tell it, everything from swirling
     ordinary water (Griggs, Potapov) to low-temperature gas discharges to
     nickel+vapor (Piantelli) to nickel-hydrogen electrolysis is "Cold
     Fusion", and not just palladium-deuterium electrolysis."
 
That is not what I wrote in any of the papers published here or anywhere else.
Nobody I know has said anything like that. There is no experimental evidence
to support this statement, so only a "skeptic" like Robert would dare to make
it. "Skeptics" ignore evidence and make up facts to fit whatever foolishness
comes into their heads. Just to remind readers what I have actually said,
repeatedly, here is a paragraph from "Highlights of the Fifth International
Conference on Cold Fusion:"
 
     "The Potapov device may or may not tap the same source of energy as the
     electrochemical CF cells and the E-Quest device. I have no idea whether
     it does or not. One startling piece of evidence seems to indicate that
     it may not. Sapogin reports that the device was run for many months in a
     closed circuit yet it did not generate any significant level of helium,
     tritium or other nuclear ash. Sapogin thinks he can explain this with
     his unitary quantum theory which he published in Il Nuovo Cimento. [7] I
     am glad it is not my job to explain it. This baffling result appears to
     contradict results from E-Quest, the Naval Weapons Center and others who
     have found helium commensurate with a nuclear reaction. Perhaps there
     are two different, unrelated processes at work. From the standpoint of
     business and technology, it does not matter if there are two processes
     or two hundred."
 
 
Heeter also posts the follows twaddle:
 
     "Note that Jed Rothwell works for Cold Fusion Research Advocates
     (CFRA)."
 
In no sense to do I work for the CFRA.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjedrothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.17 / W Sommerwerck /  Re: General Relativity sucks,
     
Originally-From: William Sommerwerck <williams@nwlink.com>
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,
ci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks,
Date: 17 Jul 1995 13:06:02 GMT
Organization: Northwest Link

> General Relativity suggests that mass distorts time and space.
> It is more likely that mass is a distortion of cycles than vice versa.

> Rather than looking forward from cycles, to time, to space,
> to mass, and examining the relationships between each step,
> GR provides a backwards, distorted look at time and space.
> It is analogous to using carbon as the basic unit of object,
> and defining atoms (larger and smaller) and particles in terms of it.
> It can be made to work, but unnecessarily complicates the problem.

Okay. Come up with a coherent, testable, mathematical description of
the universe from your point of view, and I, and other sensible people
will give it serious consideration.

Don't expect anyone to seriously consider "theories" you haven't
worked through.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenwilliams cudfnWilliam cudlnSommerwerck cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.17 / Richard Blue /  Bogus 12-sigma statistics
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bogus 12-sigma statistics
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 14:20:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

There is very little in this world that can be determined by a
"12-sigma measurement."  When anyone makes a claim for such
precision all the warning flags should go up.  Certainly such
claims should be given special scrutiny.

With regard to the fundamental measurements made by Miles, et al.
there is not one piece of data that is anything close to being
a 12-sigma result.  How anyone could claim 12-sigma for a result
derived from measurements made with less than 1-sigma accuracy
has been a mystery to me.

Consider, for example, the detection of helium in the effluent
gas.  The detection method employed, i.e. mass spectrometry,
is rather difficult to quantify.  In no single measurement can
the concentration of helium be specified accurately, yet to
assert that any helium has been produced at all it is necessary
to measure perhaps two or three different backgrounds and subtract
them.  But if none of these backgrounds can be determined with
great precision, the determination of net helium production
cannot be a 12-sigma result.  I doubt that it is a solid 1-sigma
result.

As for the calorimetry, Miles methods have never been particularly
precise.  In fact, if you read ALL the papers published by Miles
on cold fusion you will discover a rather striking transition in
which his claimed statistical accuracy improved rather magically.
I will call your attention to his method for calibrating the
calorimeter.  Certainly no result obtained by the use of the calimeter
can be more precise than the calibration.  In fact there are reasons
which Miles points out himself to doubt that excess heat can
be determined even with a precision equalling that of the calibration.

Consider how it is that one calibrates the Miles calorimeter.  You
must input a known amount of heat energy under conditions that match
the experiment in all essential ways except that there is certainly
no excess heat.  Now suppose you try several different calibration
methods.  Each method yields a different calibration.  Clearly there
are experimental errors associated with each calibration.  There
are also systematic differences to be considered.  Now here is
where the fun begins.  How are you going to treat the observed
variations in the calorimeter calibrations?

Miles has chosen to treat his various calibrations as if there are
no systematic differences, but he offers no evidence to justify
a belief that all calibrations are equivalent except for random
errors.  This leads him, I believe, to overestimate the accuracy of
his calibrations.  Thus all his estimates of sigma for the determination
of excess heat are quit possibly wrong.

Miles then provides us with data concerning the correlation between
excess heat and helium - two parameters that are certainly not
determined with anything like 12-sigma accuracy.  I have lost track
of how many independent measurements are involved because Miles keeps
recycling old data, but let us say it is of the order of a dozen.
Can someone consruct for me a statistical model to show how you can
get a 12-sigma result from a dozen 1-sigma measurements, even if
you over look the fact that Miles may have selectively pruned his
data set before doing the correlation?  I think we have a severe
case of the use of bogus statistics.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.17 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Magnetic Target Fusion
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnetic Target Fusion
Date: 17 Jul 1995 12:22:08 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <DBtBoK.9CE@prometheus.UUCP> Paul M. Koloc,
pmk@prometheus.UUCP writes:
>What's your read on MTF (Magnetic Target Fusion) as to its 
>conventionality  or unconventionality?    

Probably conventional; I'll add the references you listed
to my (long, growing) list of things to look at for the FAQ.

My criterion for conventionality is crystallizing somewhat
into a decision on whether or not there is a consensus on
how the proposed scheme basically works.  New ideas that
work using "conventional" physics (confinement, implosion, etc)
would still be conventional, even though new.

>To me it would seem to be a hybrid of your two highly exclusive
>categories, magnetic fusion and inertial fusion.  

Those aren't "my" categories - I didn't name them or anything.
I don't see that they're necessarily exclusive either, so don't
try and pin that on me.  (It would appear that you've gone off
and used that generalized "you" again!)

I have nothing against hybrid schemes as long as they don't
require totally new laws of physics to function.  Even then
I try to keep an open mind, but won't put them in the FAQ.

 -----------------------------------------------------
Bob Heeter
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu / rfheeter@pppl.gov
http://www.princeton.edu/~rfheeter
Of course I do not speak for anyone else in any of the above.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.17 / Tom Potter /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter )
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,
ci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: 17 Jul 1995 14:28:59 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3ucqri$hcl@newsbf02.news.aol.com> mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353) writes: 

>Generally it is considered good form to know whereof one speaks when one
>*speaks* one's opinion.
>
>Mark Richardson

In my opinion you are displaying bad form.


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.17 / Tom Potter /  Re: General Relativity sucks,
     
Originally-From: tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter )
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,
ci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks,
Date: 17 Jul 1995 14:37:08 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3udn7r$gbd@alaska.nwlink.com> William Sommerwerck <williams@nwlink.com> writes: 

>
>> General Relativity suggests that mass distorts time and space.
>> It is more likely that mass is a distortion of cycles than vice versa.
>
>> Rather than looking forward from cycles, to time, to space,
>> to mass, and examining the relationships between each step,
>> GR provides a backwards, distorted look at time and space.
>> It is analogous to using carbon as the basic unit of object,
>> and defining atoms (larger and smaller) and particles in terms of it.
>> It can be made to work, but unnecessarily complicates the problem.
>
>Okay. Come up with a coherent, testable, mathematical description of
>the universe from your point of view, and I, and other sensible people
>will give it serious consideration.
>
>Don't expect anyone to seriously consider "theories" you haven't
>worked through.

I have posted articles which develop the basics of such a theory
several times, in several forms in these forums. Apparently, you
have not read them. Obviously, I don't want to over post the same
information and become flame-bait. I suggest that you go back and
read some of my posts and do some thinking ( And calculating )
using them as a basis. 



cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.17 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion
Date: 17 Jul 1995 13:16:53 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <J5DB4g1.jedrothwell@delphi.com> , jedrothwell@delphi.com
writes:
>Syclopse <syclopse@aol.com> writes:
>>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?
> 
>From:
> 
>Cold Fusion Research Advocates
>2060 Peachtree Industrial Court, Suite 313
>Chamblee, Georgia 30341
> 
>Phone: 404-451-9890   Fax: 404-458-2404
> 
>                              July 10, 1995
> 
>Recommended Publications
> 
>Here are some recommended publications relating to cold fusion.

[ Self-serving list of only pro-cold-fusion publications trimmed. 
Note that Jed Rothwell works for Cold Fusion Research Advocates (CFRA). ]

Of course, those will only give you one side of the story.
If you want to balance out your perspective, you will also want to
read Close's book _Too Hot to Handle_; Taubes' book _Bad Science_; 
and/or also the book by Huizenga.  To hear CFRA (or at least Rothwell)
tell it, everything from swirling ordinary water (Griggs, Potapov) 
to low-temperature gas discharges to nickel+vapor (Piantelli) 
to nickel-hydrogen electrolysis is "Cold Fusion", and not just 
palladium-deuterium electrolysis.   Of course, there's no
theory for any of these, much less a comprehensive theory that
explains all of them simultaneously and justifies the group
label of "Cold Fusion."  The only thing these experiments seem
to have in common is (1) apparent excess energy production,
(2) but only when some (not all) experimenters do the 
experiments, which are (3) at ordinary temperatures, (4) using 
systems containing isotopes of hydrogen, plus (5) some 
type of metal matrix; and finally (6) only where fusion 
reactions are considered virtually impossible by contemporary 
physics.

Most CF experiments have some sort of energy input,
such as electricity, heat, or mechanical agitation.
I would have listed this as criterion (7) above;
however, as there is no actual theory for CF, and if CF 
really works without requiring nuclei to slam together
and fuse, all types of energy input seem like 
useless complications.  I have thought of some
much simpler and more elegant experiments.  (But
please see the footnote after you read this.)

Here is a virtually-infinite list of 
 --------------------------------------------------
Cold Fusion Experiments that Have Not (Yet) Been Tried
(or if they have, they are closely-held corporate secrets)
 --------------------------------------------------
(1) Place deuterated electrolyte solution in palladium 
flask; measure temperature relative to ambient for days 
on end.  If even slightly hotter under some circumstances 
(not necessarily highly reproducible), then call press 
conference and claim CF.

(2) Same experiment, but who needs the electrolyte?
Cheaper and safer to just use deuterated water.

(3) For that matter, who needs deuterium?  Just
use ordinary water.

(4) to (6) Same experiments as (1)-(3), only with 
nickel flask.

(7) to (N), N large: Same experiment, only with any 
hydrogen-containing liquid and/or any metal flask.

(N+1) to (M), M>>N:  Same experiments, only use gaseous 
deuterium or protium, or other hydrogen-containing 
gases, instead of liquids.

(M+1) to (P), P>>M: Same experiment, only use a 
glass flask (why is glass supposed to be inert in 
these experiments?), but put small pieces of metal 
inside the glass.  (Remember, you must have metal 
in order to satisfy criteria 1-6 above!  People might 
get suspicious if you claim excess heat using water 
in a glass flask.)

(P+1) to (Q): Same experiment as above, only use 
specially-layered metal beads.

(Q+1) to (infinity) Heck, just place any hydrogen-containing
substance into any sort of container, add a little
metal in any form, and look for excess heat!  
Note - organic containers are allowed, although
PETA will be offended if you do experiments on
laboratory animals.  (Call press conference immediately 
to announce that you have an explanation for earth's 
geothermal power source, too.)

As you can see, there are any number of possible 
experiments which have not yet been tried, so if you'd
like to make your mark, just buy a couple thermometers
and set up an experiment in your (basement, kitchen,
bedroom, car, office, friend's-neighbor's-uncle's-cat,
whatever)!  You could be famous!  

But you won't be rich, because I've already taken 
out patent rights on all of the above ideas.  Unless, 
that is, you'd like to invest in my company (Cold 
Fusion Research Avocados), in which case I'll 
send you a complete starter kit and the complete 
limited-partnership paperwork for five thousand 
dollars  (oops, I can't advertise on Usenet; forget 
I said that!).

 -----------------------------------------------------
Bob Heeter
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu / rfheeter@pppl.gov
http://www.princeton.edu/~rfheeter
Of course I do not speak for anyone else in any of the above.

 ----------------------------------------------------
Footnote:  Though skeptical of the aims of some of the commercial
advocates of cold fusion, and skeptical of the highly
contradictory and mostly irreproducible experimental
evidence, I remain (mostly) open-minded about the phenomenon's 
existence.  I'm just hoping someone will do a conclusive
experiment, instead of the ones I listed.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.17 /   /  Follow Up
     
Originally-From: <102057.2046@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Follow Up
Date: 17 Jul 1995 19:45:11 GMT
Organization: CompuServe Incorporated


 mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes:
>OK, the message I received from Tom Droege clarified the concept of
>loading in Pd sufficiently for me to see that it does not appear to
>contradict a hypothesis I have been working on.
>
>Here is my hypothesis.  I would appreciate any response that addresses
>the technical aspects of this hypothesis.  I can do without the flames,
>if I have made a stupid blunder, let me know, but if we don't post
>ideas, we won't make any progress.
>
>When Palladium absorbs hydrogen, it is not going into the interstices
>of the crystal.  Instead it is combining with the Palladium chemically,
>sort of.
>
>Normally Pd forms covalent bonds sharing electrons.  However with hydrogen
>and deuterium it forms a ionic bond, with the hydrogen or deuterium losing
>an electron to the outer shell of the palladium. (from now on when I say
>hydrogen, I mean both hydrogen and deuterium). This leaves the palladium
>atom with a -1 charge.
>
>Normally an ionic bond creates two atoms attracted to each other
>electrostaticly.  However when hydrogen loses an electron, it no
>longer has a shell, all we have is a proton (or proton and neutron with
>deuterium).
>
>Thus we cannot have two atoms attracted electrostatically.  Instead the
>proton is electrostatically attracted INTO the outer shell of the
>palladium.  At this point it sees part of the charge of the palladium
>nucleus and is repelled back outside of the outer shell.  When outside
>the shell it sees a -1 charge, but when inside the outer shell it sees
>a +11 charge (the outer shell of Pd had 10 electrons, plus the extra
>from the hydrogen).
>
>This action I will call porpoising, since it is similar to how a
>porpoise swims at the surface of the water.  I would expect that the
>proton would be inside of the outer shell only about 9% of the time due
>to the differences in the charges it sees when inside vs outside the
>shell.
>
>Since the hydrogen nucleas spends most of it's time outside of the
>shell, the effect would be that adjacent atoms with a porpoising
>proton, would tend to have the proton on each move into an area
>where it is facing an atom without a proton, or which has the proton
>facing the other direction.  If all the atoms surrounding the palladium
>have protons, then there would be a diffusion force from the coulomb
>repulsion that would tend to spread out the protons such that each would
>not have to face another proton.
>
>Now, from what I have determined diffusion can avoid head on protons up
>to a loading of 83.33%.  Once beyond 83.33% there will be sites which
>have protons facing each other on adjacent palladium atoms.  I would
>expect two effects of this.  First I would expect that loading above
>84.4% to suddenly be more difficult to achieve.  Secondly, if my
>hypothesis is correct I would expect that cold fusion would start
>occuring only once this level of loading is approached or exceeded.
>
>An interesting observation of this hypothesis is that when the proton
>is inside the shell, the shell shields its charge from being seen from
>outside the shell.  Thus the proton can suddenly appear outside the
>shell, without any warning.  If two seperate but adjacent atoms have
>porposing protons, then the protons will both occasionally appear
>outside their shells simultaneously, and at a point in which tunneling
>would ensure fusion.  Thus we avoid the problem of coulomb repulsion
>through the shielding effects of the outer shell of palladium.
>
>Other effects I would expect if this hypothesis is correct are:
>
>Any disturbance that would disrupt the even distribution of protons
>would enhance the fusion rate.  Thus loading shocks, thermal shocks,
>mechanical shocks, even magnetic and electrostatic shocks could all
>enhance the fusion rate until the protons become evenly distributed
>again.
>
>Application of electromagnetic waves which would cause random movement
>of the protons around or between the atoms would enhance the effect.
>These waves may be in the radio fequency or microwave region, or even
>in the X-ray region.  Even ultrasonic vibration could have an effect. I
>would expect that there would be resonant wavelengths which would have
>much greater effects than other wavelengths in the same range.
>
>The start of fusion in a area could generate a shock wave of heat,
>protons, stress, and possibly EM waves which would spread, eventually
>causing a significant portion of the palladium to "turn on".  Some
>people refer to this as ignition.
>
>------
>
>Now I will address what would be expected if loading exceeds 100%.  In
>this case not only will virtually all palladium atoms have a proton,
>but some will have 2 of them.  Those which have two protons will most
>likely end up with the protons staying on opposite sides of the atom
>due to coulomb repulsion.  However, if one of the protons is disturbed
>sufficiently, either by a near miss from the proton of an adjacent
>atom, or by an external force, such as a resonant or high level EM wave,
>it could be hurled around the atom so that it ends up on the same side as
>the other proton.  In some cases one could be inside the shell and the
>other outside the shell, both penetrating the shell at virtually the same
>spot at the same time.  Once again we could expect fusion to occur from
>tunneling.  Thus I would expect that loadings greater than 100% could
>show a marked rise in the fusion rate, especially if there is some type
>of disrupting force, such as an EM wave employed.
>
>One thing that this hypothesis does not explain is the lack of high
>energy particles or gammas when a fusion occurs.  The only thing I can
>think of is the observation that fusion would occur virtually at the
>outer shell of the palladium.  This position could somehow lead to rapid
>cooling of the nucleus by the electrons (11 to 22 of them) in the shell(s).
>If this happens the energy would be dissapated by a stream of electrons
>being thrown off the atom, similar to betas, but with too low an energy to
>be detected easily.  As each gets thrown off, the net positive charge would
>attract electrons from adjacent atoms to fill the outer shell, and then
>they in turn would get thrown off until sufficient energy is lost from
>the nucleus for it to capture a couple of electrons for it's own shell.
>For this to work effectively the palladium must be electrically conductive,
>which of course it is.
>
>Although the metal mentioned is palladium, the same hypothesis should apply to
>other metals which are conductive and absorb hydrogen in a similar manner.
>
>Intellegent responses encouraged.
>
>                                                                Marshall


Marshall:

Scott Lucas, Idaho Nat'L Eng Lab:

Ph: 301 816 7787
Fax: 301 816 7767

In one of your first statements, I assume you mean that Pd loses an electron 
to its outer shell in response to the D+ ion, since we are speaking of diffusion
of H+ or D+ ions into the lattice via some potential. I have thought
some what along these lines
also, so I like your ideas. One thing to remeber here is that we may be 
talking about a two-fluid model. I would surmise that the H+ or D+ ions are
a phonon fluid, and that the heat generated by an H+ & H+ or a D+ & D+
would have to be carried off by phonons, except that the H+ or D+
have low conductivity for heat, compared to valence electrons. I would hypothesize
that the two fluids, D+ or H+ act as phonons and that the valence electrons,
the other fluid, would be drawn rapdily to the heat imbalnce, and the cooler 
electrons would "condense" on the phonon fluid or H+ and D+ fusion.
We would be looking at electron capture, and I think we can show thru
Quantum Mechanics a reaction path without neutrons, but tritium or Helium4.
We might also be able to show the "condensation" potential of the electrons
via wave mechanics. Anyway, just a thought. Would like to work with you on this,
I'm not a flame thrower.

Scott
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cuden2046 cudln cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.17 / A Plutonium /  Re: Tifft; Atom Totality explains + predicts quantized galaxy  
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tifft; Atom Totality explains + predicts quantized galaxy  
Date: 17 Jul 1995 23:14:50 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <3uepji$shq@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

> 
>   Here, where Mr. Tomes is questioning the PU Atom Totality Whole
> theory to actually explain and predict the Tifft quantized galaxy
> speeds. Here, I can now further push the theory. I will do so in an
> immediate follow-up to this post.

In article <16395197.2388.20418@kcbbs.gen.nz>
rtomes@kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes) writes:

> My usenet server has been malfunctioning so I am using another one.
> My apologies for this message being possibly late or duplicated.
>  
> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:
>  
> >               GALAXY SPEEDS ARE QUANTIZED
>  
> >       There was a massive compilation of data produced by W. Tifft of
> the
> >Univ. of Arizona starting in the early 1970's. 
>  ... and much more ...
>  
> I agree that Tifft's work is very important and has been too often
> ignored.  You do not produce anything which shows that you can calculate
> or predict the observed quanta.  I would be more 
> interested if you could do this.
>  
> Here are two papers which I posted to usenet some months back.
> The first makes a set of predictions about quantised red shifts at
> a time when I knew of only the 72 km/s quantum.  The second lists
> the quanta found by Tifft which I was pointed to by someone who read my
> predictions.  The matches are very good


   Thanks Mr. Ray Tomes for your post has now pushed my ideas further
into the quantized galaxy speeds. 

   Now I am no expert on the Schroedinger waveequation. BTW, who in the
world claims themselves as the experts on it?

   Anyway, Tifft quantized galaxy speeds are enough confirmed that they
are facts.

  Take the 231PU Atom Totality Whole Theory. Take the Born
Interpretation of say the 94th electron dot cloud picture that each of
those dots is a galaxy and the mass of that particular galaxy is part
of the mass of the electron itself.

  The Schroedinger equation dot cloud picture is a continuous function.
But when we inject into that continuity, inject

     (1) quantized galaxy speeds,  each dot is quantized speed

     (2) each galaxy has another variable besides speed -- galactic
mass

     (3) and of course the dots from the waveequation as to the
probability of finding the electron there 

   So, then, Mr. Tomes, if some computer can be set-up to run a
computer program of the Schroedinger Equation for the 94th electron, a
dot cloud picture with dots having "quantized speeds" the result is
that the Schroedinger Equation predicts the 72 km/s quantum

  The Schroedinger Equation of the 94th electron when computer run with
the galaxies as dots of the electron cloud will yield the  72 km/s
quantum

   The Atom Totality Whole theory will not only predict quantized
galaxy speeds but it will explain and give the actual numbers out of
the Schroedinger Equation. But it does not stop there.

   If you take the Schroedinger Equation and interpret the dots as
stars and planets. Then the Schroedinger Equation will predict and
explain the Titius-Bode Rule. This is important for it will explain
that Solar systems are formed not by the stupid and silly presently
believed theory of interstellar dust, but instead, by spontaneous
neutron materialization. Solar Systems and planets grow from new matter
created by radioactivity from the nucleus of the Atom Totality nucleus.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.17 / Tom Potter /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter )
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,
ci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: 17 Jul 1995 22:59:25 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <1995Jul17.172000.9013@schbbs.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com
(Bronis Vidugiris) writes: 

>
>In article <3uc1dv$923@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
>JAllen1356 <jallen1356@aol.com> wrote:
>
>)I find little to justify your argument that the cycle is fundamental.  

Are you saying that:
	time(X) <> cycles(reference) / cycles(X)
	distance <> time * a constant   "C"
	mass(A) <> distance(B)^3 / time(common)^2 / a constant    "G"

>It is perfectly consistent to use a normalized set of units to express
>everything in terms of time units.  In fact, the standard reference on
>GR, "Gravitation" by MTW, does this.  Distance, mass, energy, charge,
>all get converted to seconds via a somewhat strange set of unit
>conversions.  (I'd have to look up the charge conversions, but I'm
>pretty sure they do this).

Of course, this is sometimes done to simply calculations but
I think everyone still believes in space and mass as fundamental
things.

>Saying that cycles are the best measure of time isn't that far out
>either, though one might well be temped to say "cycles in what?" :-(.

Saying "cycles in what" is like saying "who made God".
If you recursively examine the intensions of any object,
you are left with only properties.
If you recursively examine these properties ny eliminating
the constants, you are left with only cycles.

>So far, I don't see anything that is necessarily new here.

GR indicates that time and space are distorted by mass.
I thnk this is wrong, and that time, space and mass
are made of mind stuff, and the only physical reality is cycles.

>Of course, the more traditional view is that "Time is defined to make
>motion simple" - also from Gravitation by MTW.

This is also wrong because you are using space to define time,
when in fact space is basically an expression of time.

In other words, distance = time * C
Although it might be said that time = distance / C
an examination starting from the fundamental unit of information,
( Bits or cycles ) will clearly show that while variations in C
will affect distance, it will not affect time.

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.17 / R Schumacher /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,
ci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: 17 Jul 1995 18:01:37 -0500
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, TX USA

>                      Correct or incorrect,  I have problems 
>                      with having to earn the right to hold
>                      an opinion.  Do you have such backing


Any idiot can hold an opinion, as the Net demonstrates over and over.
The challenge is in holding an *informed* opinion. Try again. You
might want to switch to decaf.


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenschumach cudfnRichard cudlnSchumacher cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.17 / R Schumacher /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,
ci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: 17 Jul 1995 18:04:44 -0500
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, TX USA


>Are you saying that:
>	time(X) <> cycles(reference) / cycles(X)


Indeed. You've defined time as a dimendionless quantity. This is
not consistent with your other "definitions":

>and 	distance <> time * C
>AND 	mass <> distance^3 / time^2 / G


>If you do, you may not be convinced.
>but at least you will have thought about the fundamentals,
>and will be richer for the experience.

Arrogant little snot. Have you passed even a freshman physics course?

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenschumach cudfnRichard cudlnSchumacher cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.17 / A Plutonium /  Tifft; Atom Totality explains + predicts quantized galaxy 
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tifft; Atom Totality explains + predicts quantized galaxy 
Subject: FAQ6 Tifft quantized galaxy speeds favors Atom Totality Whole
Date: 17 Jul 1995 22:35:16 GMT
Date: 7 Jul 1995 04:53:41 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College
Organization: Plutonium College

  I had posted the gist of the below post several times but never
really providing either explanation or prediction from the Atom
Totality theory. Today I read Ray Tomes post and from his post am
compelled to offer more. Since my initial post on Tifft is already long
I will provide the explanation and prediction in a follow-up to this
post.

  This below Tifft post received several follow-up dumb posts -- Tom
Wilson talking out of his not-even-wrong mouth says 

"First, to say "When Tifft's work was confirmed" is grossly inaccurate.
 It has never been confirmed. " 

IMHO, this space-cadet, (what a graduate student?? telling Dr. Tifft
something) named Tom Wilson never mentions the UK researchers who
confirmed plus extended Tifft's own work. I can only imagine that Tom
is so new to science that he has not yet taken upon himself the
practice of checking things out before opening his big fat dumb mouth.

Check it out Tom,  check it out before opening your big fat dumb mouth,
for, Tom, one of the most important things of science where you lack
knowledge and understanding,  why,  go and check it out instead of
posting for all-time your ignorance on the subject.

Subject: FAQ6 Tifft quantized galaxy speeds favors Atom Totality Whole
theory
Date: 7 Jul 1995 04:53:41 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <3tiekl$9a@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

                GALAXY SPEEDS ARE QUANTIZED

        There was a massive compilation of data produced by W. Tifft of
the Univ. of Arizona starting in the early 1970's. This information was
suppressed by many science journals since it is counter to the current
bandwagon of Big-Bang. Present science journals not only impede the
free flow of science speculation, but on a more important level, they
even impede the free flow of science facts. Tifft quantized galaxy
speeds was recently confirmed by researchers in UK, where they tried to
make Tifft's work go away. Instead they came to realize Tifft was
thoroughly correct and they went on to expand on Tifft's work. Such
amazing work should have received worldwide attention and by all
physics magazines. Instead it was suppressed and prejudiced against
being printed in say Nature magazine and most others.  
  When Tifft's work was confirmed, one would then think that science
journals would then start to report this important science work such as
Nature and other journals. Instead, these biased journals never report
anything which they are not immediately trying to "sell". Nature is
selling Big-Bang baloney and recently I heard they were even warming-up
to the Gaia goofballism. Which I guess goes to show that even science
magazines are more faddish than what people want to admit.

         I improve Tifft's discovery of quantized galaxy speeds by math
logic. Since Tifft measured the superposition of starlight from
particular
galaxies, then the quantization of superpositioned starlight implies
that the star speeds are quantized. In other words, the stronger
implication of quantized superpositioned starlight is that the stars
speeds themselves are quantized. The cosmic red-shifting of light is
quantized. This means that stars and hence the galaxies can have only
specific speeds, jumping from one speed to the next, with no speeds
in-between. 
        Now a better understanding for the large red-shifts of the
hydrogen
spectral lines emitted from quasars can be made. The Big-Bang  of the
observable universe falsely speculates that quasars are some of the
oldest astronomical objects whereas an Atom Totality sees quasars as
otherwise undifferentiated stars from other stars except that they are
in the highly curved part of the 5f6 lobes. And quasars are of the same
age as other stars such as the Sun.  Quantized red-shift would explain
quasars as normal stars which are only different from other normal
stars because they are in the highly curved portion of the 5f6 of
231@94. Tifft's quantized red-shift can be used to draw conclusions of
where in the 5f6 we are.
        This science report of quantized galaxy speeds further supports
the PU theory. Quantized galaxy speeds by Tifft thoroughly destroys and
dismisses fake theories such as the Big-Bang. No wonder Nature magazine
rarely if ever mentions the work of Tifft. Was Tifft work ever on the
front cover of Nature?

   Since quantum physics is physics of the atom then quantization of
galaxy speeds implies that the observable universe is quantum physics,
meaning it is part of an atom, specifically the 94th electron of one
atom of 231@94.  The quantization of galaxy speeds is irrefutable
evidence that the observable universe is a structure itself.
Quantization writ large in the universe means the universe is quantum
mechanics. Quantum Mechanics simply means atom. Thus the universe is an
atom.
        Quantized galaxy speeds along with the Bell Inequality and the
Aspect experimental results of the 1980's verifying the Bell inequality
are two science facts that quantum theory holds on the large scale, not
just the small scale of atoms but the large scale of astronomy.  Since
quantum theory is strictly the science of atoms, these two science
facts are strong evidence that the large scale observable universe is
part of one atom, that atom is one atom of 231Pu.
        The observation that the speed of galaxies can have only set
values of speeds implies that quantization is on the large scale of the
universe itself, and not just on measurements of atoms. Galaxy speed
quantization implies that the large scale universe has an atomic
structure. Both the Big-Bang theory and Steady-State theory have no
explanation for galaxy speed quantization and neither one of these
theories offers any explanation for the Bell inequality with the Aspect
experimental result. The Bell inequality with the Aspect experimental
result is the other evidence of quantization in the large scale
observable universe.

  In another FAQ I discuss the Titius-Bode rule of the spacing of
planets. This law is connected to the quantized galaxy to quantized
star speeds. The Titius-Bode rule of planet spacing is required of
planets inside a universe structure of an atom. Just as the lines of
force that Faraday had imagined in space, so too, space of an electron
observable universe is ruled by electromagnetism which spaces planets
to rule.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.17 / A Plutonium /  Re: Tifft; Atom Totality explains + predicts quantized galaxy  
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tifft; Atom Totality explains + predicts quantized galaxy  
Date: 17 Jul 1995 22:52:34 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <3ueoj4$hma@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

>   I had posted the gist of the below post several times but never
> really providing either explanation or prediction from the Atom
> Totality theory. Today I read Ray Tomes post and from his post am
> compelled to offer more. Since my initial post on Tifft is already long
> I will provide the explanation and prediction in a follow-up to this
> post.

  Some readers may wonder why post this also to sci.physics.fusion? I
will tell you. It is all a logical progression and since the theory of
Atom Whole posits superdeterminism. Superdeterminism has it that all
things occur for a meaning, a purpose. Everything that happens is for a
purpose.

  
  Today, 9JUL95, I met Dr. Vesselin Noninski, a sci.physics.fusion
regular, and his friend Paul White here at Kiewit. .  .  .  . Spent
almost an hour talking with them both here at Kiewit from 19:00-20:00
on this day 9 July 1995  .  .  . 

In the conversation I wanted to quickly explain in 2 minutes the PU
Atom Whole theory and was stopped when I pronounced that the dots in
the electron cloud of the 94th electron of 231PU were continuous dots
by the Schroedinger equation. That stopped my explanation for the time
being. Because I knew that the equation was continuous and had not
really thoroughly given more thought to it because I was under the
picture that the Born Interpretation was just that, an interpretation.
. .

  Long after Dr. Noninski and his friend departed I was thinking of how
to better explain the dots of the electron cloud as actual galaxies of
the night sky. That conversation with Dr. Noninski and his friend was
9Jul95 and here in 17Jul95 that conversation has immensely helped me
push further the theory for I can now see the Tifft quantized galaxy
speeds is related to that continuous wavefunction for electron dot
picture.

  Here, where Mr. Tomes is questioning the PU Atom Totality Whole
theory to actually explain and predict the Tifft quantized galaxy
speeds. Here, I can now further push the theory. I will do so in an
immediate follow-up to this post.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.17 / A Plutonium /  Re: FAQ6 Tifft quantized galaxy speeds f
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FAQ6 Tifft quantized galaxy speeds f
Date: 17 Jul 1995 23:18:08 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <16395197.2388.20418@kcbbs.gen.nz>
rtomes@kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes) writes:

> My usenet server has been malfunctioning so I am using another one.
> My apologies for this message being possibly late or duplicated.
>  
> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:
>  
> >               GALAXY SPEEDS ARE QUANTIZED
>  
> >       There was a massive compilation of data produced by W. Tifft of
> the
> >Univ. of Arizona starting in the early 1970's. 
>  ... and much more ...
>  
> I agree that Tifft's work is very important and has been too often
> ignored.  You do not produce anything which shows that you can calculate
> or predict the observed quanta.  I would be more 
> interested if you could do this.
>  
> Here are two papers which I posted to usenet some months back.
> The first makes a set of predictions about quantised red shifts at
> a time when I knew of only the 72 km/s quantum.  The second lists
> the quanta found by Tifft which I was pointed to by someone who read my
> predictions.  The matches are very good

In article <3uepji$shq@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

> 
>   Here, where Mr. Tomes is questioning the PU Atom Totality Whole
> theory to actually explain and predict the Tifft quantized galaxy
> speeds. Here, I can now further push the theory. I will do so in an
> immediate follow-up to this post.

In article <16395197.2388.20418@kcbbs.gen.nz>
rtomes@kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes) writes:

> My usenet server has been malfunctioning so I am using another one.
> My apologies for this message being possibly late or duplicated.
>  
> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:
>  
> >               GALAXY SPEEDS ARE QUANTIZED
>  
> >       There was a massive compilation of data produced by W. Tifft of
> the
> >Univ. of Arizona starting in the early 1970's. 
>  ... and much more ...
>  
> I agree that Tifft's work is very important and has been too often
> ignored.  You do not produce anything which shows that you can calculate
> or predict the observed quanta.  I would be more 
> interested if you could do this.
>  
> Here are two papers which I posted to usenet some months back.
> The first makes a set of predictions about quantised red shifts at
> a time when I knew of only the 72 km/s quantum.  The second lists
> the quanta found by Tifft which I was pointed to by someone who read my
> predictions.  The matches are very good


   Thanks Mr. Ray Tomes for your post has now pushed my ideas further
into the quantized galaxy speeds. 

   Now I am no expert on the Schroedinger waveequation. BTW, who in the
world claims themselves as the experts on it?

   Anyway, Tifft quantized galaxy speeds are enough confirmed that they
are facts.

  Take the 231PU Atom Totality Whole Theory. Take the Born
Interpretation of say the 94th electron dot cloud picture that each of
those dots is a galaxy and the mass of that particular galaxy is part
of the mass of the electron itself.

  The Schroedinger equation dot cloud picture is a continuous function.
But when we inject into that continuity, inject

     (1) quantized galaxy speeds,  each dot is quantized speed

     (2) each galaxy has another variable besides speed -- galactic
mass

     (3) and of course the dots from the waveequation as to the
probability of finding the electron there 

   So, then, Mr. Tomes, if some computer can be set-up to run a
computer program of the Schroedinger Equation for the 94th electron, a
dot cloud picture with dots having "quantized speeds" the result is
that the Schroedinger Equation predicts the 72 km/s quantum

  The Schroedinger Equation of the 94th electron when computer run with
the galaxies as dots of the electron cloud will yield the  72 km/s
quantum

   The Atom Totality Whole theory will not only predict quantized
galaxy speeds but it will explain and give the actual numbers out of
the Schroedinger Equation. But it does not stop there.

   If you take the Schroedinger Equation and interpret the dots as
stars and planets. Then the Schroedinger Equation will predict and
explain the Titius-Bode Rule. This is important for it will explain
that Solar systems are formed not by the stupid and silly presently
believed theory of interstellar dust, but instead, by spontaneous
neutron materialization. Solar Systems and planets grow from new matter
created by radioactivity from the nucleus of the Atom Totality nucleus.

   Mr. Tomes, perhaps your research is the hint of the math of the
Schroedinger Equation to explain the 72 km/s quantum ?? I say perhaps
because I do not see how your harmonics connects to the Schroedinger
Equation. But as I said above, I am no expert on the Schroedinger
Equation.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.18 / Eric Mamajek /  Re: FAQ6 Tifft quantized galaxy speeds f
     
Originally-From: Eric Mamajek <mamajek>
Newsgroups: sci.astro,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FAQ6 Tifft quantized galaxy speeds f
Date: 18 Jul 1995 02:36:56 GMT
Organization: Penn State University, Center for Academic Computing

:::"If you take the Schroedinger Equation and interpret the dots as
stars and planets. Then the Schroedinger Equation will predict and
explain the Titius-Bode Rule. This is important for it will explain
that Solar systems are formed not by the stupid and silly presently
believed theory of interstellar dust, but instead, by spontaneous
neutron materialization.":::

  I'd hate to bust your bubble, but there's two problems here...
       1) The Titius-Bode law is not a rule, its barely a good approximation.
          Read any elementary astronomy text book, and it will
compare the predictions of 
          the Titius-Bode law and the true,measured orbital radii
(in AU) of the nine major
          planets. This "rule" is only accurate within a few percent
for the planets up through
          Saturn, it begins to run astray for the outer three planets.  Want to look for 
          harmonics and patterns among the planets???? Read some resonance theory and 
          orbital mechanics.

        2) The process of solar systems accreting from interstellar gas and dust is well 
          well accepted in astronomical journals and by astronomers
(professional anyway).
          Disks of interstellar dust are seen around young stars
very often... the classical 
          case was the disk found around Beta Pictoris back in
1984. Since then, disks of 
          gas and dust have been observed around some bright,young stars (e.g. Vega &
Fomalhaut), and around slews of young T Tauri stars (e.g. many stars in the Orion
Nebula, the Taurus-Auriga molecular clouds, etc.). Optical properties of these disks
          have been calculated (Temperatures, densities,spectra,etc.) and it is
          well accepted that these disks contain the building blocks of planets
(NH3,H20,CO,CH4,
          metals, sillicates, hydrocarbons,etc.). I suggest reading
some books on protostars,
          and T Tauri stars, as well as some interstellar chemistry....







                                          Eric Mamajek

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudfnEric cudlnMamajek cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.17 / Bill Rowe /  Re: Bogus 12-sigma statistics
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bogus 12-sigma statistics
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 20:47:28 -0700
Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - finger or email info@alt.net

In article <USE2PCB170332197@brbbs.brbbs.com>, mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com wrote:

>blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes:
> 
>-> There is very little in this world that can be determined by a
>-> "12-sigma measurement."  When anyone makes a claim for such
>-> precision all the warning flags should go up.  Certainly such
>-> claims should be given special scrutiny.
> 
>This is a rather broad reaching statement, which as far as I can tell is rather
>off-the wall.  Many, many measurements in industry and science are 12 sigma or
>better.  In fact measurements of 12 sigma or better are very common.  For
>intance, if you have a voltmeter which has an accuracy of +/- 1 millivolt (not
>untypical of a digital voltmeter), a measurement of 12 mV would be a 12 sigma
>measurement.

Actually, this is a misuse of the term sigma. Sigma is normally used to
mean the variation in a distribution. Using your example, a value of sigma
equal to one milivolt would mean I would be very unlikely to find the
actual voltage was as low as 6mV when the meter reads 12mV. If I take the
reading 12mV which should be the mean of the distribution and divide by
sigma I get something known as the coefficient of variation. This is
definitely not sigma and does not have the same meaning.
-- 
William Rowe                                                   browe@netcom.com
MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.18 /  JensTroll /  Re: Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: jenstroll@aol.com (JensTroll)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion
Date: 18 Jul 1995 00:50:18 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Previously I, (jenstroll@aol.com AKA- Alfred N. Montestruc, III, P.E.) 
wrote as a small part of a reply to someone asking questions re "what is
fusion" and what is cold fusion"; 
> 
> I spent the summer of 1990 at University of Utah campus working on my
> dissertation project.  There I met several Chemical Engineering graduate
> students who were employed with the cold fusion research group, though
not
> academically (not for degrees).  Those students told me that they saw
> repeatable helium (He4) production results in some of the experiments
run.
>  I don't personally know what is or was going on, but I strongly doubt
> that a massive conspiracy existed to rip-off the state of Utah, so I
> believe that those guys were telling the truth.  
> 
> If one accepts the proposition that those students were telling the
truth,
> which I do as I see no motive for them to lie, 

=====================================================


barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) placed that portion of my post in
a post he made and wrote in response to it;

|Why do you view it in terms of truth or lie? Have
|you ever considered that a scientist might just, 
|somehow, make a mistake? As I recall, the final 
|word on the He4 measurements done at Utah was
|at best inconclusive.
|
|As for ripping off the state of Utah: if they really did find
|something there, and then pulled out and moved to France,
|that would seem like ripping of the state, which supported
|that work directly at the CF institute and indirectly through
|Pons' faculty position.

=====================================================

Taking these comments one at a time;

|" truth or lie?

ANSWER---  I don't expect everyone to accept that necessarily someone is
telling the truth as (obviously) some people lie.  

====================================================

|Have you ever considered that a scientist might just, 
|somehow, make a mistake? As I recall, the final 
|word on the He4 measurements done at Utah was
|at best inconclusive.

ANSWER --- Sure, I've made them myself.  I worked from January 1987
through December 1993 as a graduate laboratory research assistant.  I have
designed, assembled the equipment, organized the people, and participated
in performing, and analyzed results of more than 4 large scale experiments
at an industrial facility which involved a ~ 10 million dollar chemical
processing unit which could have been seriously damaged if any one of many
pieces of equipment that I designed, and in some cases built, failed
during any of those experiments.  I have also designed and run bench scale
laboratory experiments.   I've taken (and passed) graduate level courses
in Experimental Statistics.  Which I subsequently used in analyzing above
mentioned experiments.

Somehow, given the above, I think that I have some qualifications to
discuss whether or not results of an experiment are "conclusive" or not.  
My judgement *on what I was told at that time* was that they saw helium 4
produced in some experiments conclusively.  The only possible error in
that that I could see was 1) they were lieing, 2) very weird systematic
error.  

I have *not* read any papers on the subject.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjenstroll cudlnJensTroll cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.18 /  JensTroll /  Re: Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: jenstroll@aol.com (JensTroll)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion
Date: 18 Jul 1995 01:20:37 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Hi bob,
The one thing that bothers me about "hot" fusion physics guys making fun
of cold fusion is this.   All of your theorys about fusion revolve around
gas/plasma phase materials.  Those theorys are obviously correct (H-bombs
do work).  

Why do you feel so strongly that your theories apply to the behavior of
matter in the solid phase ??  (Or even the liquid phase for that matter?)

Let me give you an example to think about.  You know that fuel cells can
work.  I studied gas phase combustion in graduate school, let us suppose
that fuel cells were undiscovered and somebody tells me that he could turn
Hydrogen gas and Oxygen gas into electricity and water in an apparatus
that kept the temperatures at ~ room temperature and most of the work was
done in a wet solid.   Should I belive him? Why?  You might be interested
to know that fuel cells are very, very touchy about impurities, the right
voltage, , , 

Just cause he's having a very hard time duplicating positive results, does
that make all his positive results B.S.?

Question;

Suppose for some unknown reason the reacton ;

D2+D2 + XX -> He4 + XX +photon (appropriate wavelength)

were possible and in fact probable enough under the right conditions to
produce results like those claimed.

Say for the sake of arguement that XX is a palladium atom (very massive
with respect to D2 or He4.   

Wouldn't that explain the lack of nutrons?

Wouldn't the high mass of XX soak off a large fraction of the energy
produced and so lower the freq. (and energy) of the photon.  Wouldn't that
help to explain low radiation?

Wouldn't the third body (XX) allow the D2+D2->He4 reacton to go from a
momentum balance point of view?

Just stuff to think about.

Al Montestruc (JensTroll@aol.com)
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjenstroll cudlnJensTroll cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.17 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Bogus 12-sigma statistics
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bogus 12-sigma statistics
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 16:37 -0500 (EST)

blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes:
 
-> There is very little in this world that can be determined by a
-> "12-sigma measurement."  When anyone makes a claim for such
-> precision all the warning flags should go up.  Certainly such
-> claims should be given special scrutiny.
 
This is a rather broad reaching statement, which as far as I can tell is rather
off-the wall.  Many, many measurements in industry and science are 12 sigma or
better.  In fact measurements of 12 sigma or better are very common.  For
intance, if you have a voltmeter which has an accuracy of +/- 1 millivolt (not
untypical of a digital voltmeter), a measurement of 12 mV would be a 12 sigma
measurement. A measurement of a volt would be a whopping 1000 sigma
measurement. The bigger the sigma the less chance that you are measureing
noise, or calibration errors. Contrary to your statement, when a measurement is
of a low sigma, not a large sigma, the red flags should go up.  Big sigmas are
good and indicate significance, low sigmas are questionable.
 
I could name a lot of things which go way beyond 12 sigma.  If you look outside
and see it is daylight, look at a light bulb to see if it is lit, check the
tap and see if it is running, or hear a clap of thunder, or even listening to
someone talk to you, they are all well over 12 sigma over background noise
levels.  CD's have a dynamic range of over 80 dB.   That signal to noise ratio
works out to over 10,000 sigma! Having worked in industry for several decades,
I think I can safely say that more measurements I have made are over, rather
than under 12 sigma. The only consistant measurements which I made which are
less than 12 sigma were nuclear measurements, which have to to be compared with
background rates. And even those would quite often be over 12 sigma in
significance.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.17 / Scott Little /  Potapov Device Tests - Round 4
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Potapov Device Tests - Round 4
Date: 17 Jul 1995 21:31:54 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

Potapov Device Tests - Round 4
EarthTech International
Scott Little
H.E. Puthoff
17JUL95

Introduction

For the 4th series of tests, we explored a range of flow 
rates and we tried a smaller bypass line.  No evidence of 
over-unity performance was observed.

We also installed electrical probes in the main vortex 
chamber in an effort to detect any voltage being generated 
across the vortex. Small voltages and currents were 
observed.

Apparatus

The new bypass line was fabricated from 1/2" EMT thinwall 
conduit which has an inside diameter of 0.62".  Like the 
first bypass line, it was fitted with a port near the main 
vortex chamber for a pressure/vacuum gauge.

For all of the tests in this report we used the 1.04" 
diameter pipe for the main outlet.

Expressing these pipe sizes as fractions of the pump's 
discharge port area A (1.59" dia), we have:

              1" outlet pipe:  0.43A
              3/4" EMT bypass: 0.27A
              1/2" EMT bypass: 0.15A

As reported before, our pump achieves an input pressure of 
around 60 psi and a flow rate of about 100 gpm with no 
additional restrictions.  In order to limit the flow rate 
for these tests, we added an adjustable valve at the end of 
1" outlet pipe.  

The voltage probes were designed to touch the water in the 
vortex at some distance inside the chamber (i.e. not right 
against the wall, where the flow velocity would be very low) 
with a minimal disturbance of the flow.  They were 
constructed by drilling 1/4" diameter holes, axially 
oriented, through the end wall of the main vortex chamber.  
One hole is almost touching the outer wall of the chamber 
and the other is located at about 1/2 the radius of the 
chamber.  Into these holes we inserted short pieces of 1/4" 
OD, 1/8" ID vinyl tubing and positioned the tubing so it was 
flush with the inside surface of the vortex chamber.  Into 
the tubing we inserted 1/8" dia brass rods whose ends had 
been fashioned into thin blades 1/4" long with tapered 
leading and trailing edges.  The rods were rotated and 
positioned until the blades were parallel to the walls of 
the vortex chamber and only the blade-like portion of the 
rod was protruding into the vortex chamber. The tips of 
these probes thus protrude 1/4" into the water.  The brass 
rods were very tight in the tubing which provided a reliable 
leak-proof seal (for most of the tests).

For the electrical measurements we used a Fluke-87 DVM for 
both the open-circuit (except for 10 megohm DVM input 
impedance) voltage and the short-circuit (except for the DVM 
shunt resistance) current.

For comparison purposes only, an immersion heater was 
constructed from a 4kW residential water heater element 
(purchased as a replacement element from Home Depot for 
$9.50).  The element was fitted to the end of a 1-1/2" pipe 
so it could be lowered into the 55 gallon barrel and 
positioned near the bottom.  This heater was wired through 
the watthour meter so its energy consumption could be 
measured.

Procedure

The test procedure followed in the energy balance 
measurements is identical to that described in our 3rd 
report.

For the vortex electrical measurements we observed (somewhat 
inconsistently) the voltage and current under various 
operating conditions during the energy balance testing.  We 
also performed a semi-quantitative scan of voltage vs flow 
rate by observing the voltage while varying the flow rate 
all the way from about 100 gpm to 0 gpm using the adjustable 
valve.

Results

In the data tables below, the various headings are:

# = reading number
count = count of the watthour disc revolutions
T = temperature of the water bath (Centigrade)
time = hour:minute:second clock time of the reading
P(inlet) = gauge pressure in the feed pipe (psi)
P(bypass) = gauge pressure in the bypass line (psi)
mV = millivolts read across the voltage probes
? = observation not made

With the 3/4" EMT bypass line (the larger one), and the flow 
rate adjusted to 54 gpm, we took the following readings with 
343 pounds of water in the barrel:

#   count    T         time    P(inlet) P(bypass)   mV
1    0    32.0     15:45:00    62       +45   -40 to +40
2   36    33.6     15:51:30    63        45        ? 
3   95    36.1     16:02:00    64        45        ?
4  201    40.4     16:20:56    64        45        ?
5  283    43.5     16:35:27    64        45   -80 to -95   
6  378    46.8     16:52:42    64        45   140 to 144
7  465    49.4     17:08:04    63        45   139 to 141
8  555    52.0     17:24:12    64        45   108 to 109
9  646    54.3     17:40:32    64        45   320 to 360
10 738    56.4     17:57:20    63        45     ~250

Just after observation 10, we attached a 100 ohm load 
resistor across the voltage probes and read 6 mV.  We then 
tried a 1000 ohm load resistor and observed 40 mV.

Computing the overall efficiencies, average temperatures, 
and average electrical power consumption for each pair of 
the above readings we get: 

pair     efficiency     avg temp     elec. power
1-2        74%           32.8         3.59 kW
2-3        71%           34.9         3.64
3-4        68%           38.3         3.63
4-5        63%           42.0         3.66
5-6        58%           45.0         3.57
6-7        50%           48.1         3.67
7-8        48%           50.7         3.61
8-9        42%           53.2         3.61
9-10       38%           55.4         3.55

These points are plotted with the letter "e" on the graph 
below.

For the next series of tests, we installed the 1/2" EMT 
bypass line.  The flow adjustment valve was closed down 
until the flow rate was measured at 40 gpm.  Shortly after 
making this adjustment, one of the voltage electrodes blew 
out of the vortex chamber and a powerful jet of water shot 
up and struck the ceiling of the lab, creating a rather 
gentle shower that persisted for a few seconds until I could 
recover my senses and turn off the pump!  A simple clamp 
prevented recurrence of this phenomena. With 337.5 pounds of 
water in the barrel we observed:

#   count    T         time    P(inlet) P(bypass)  mV  uA
1    0    28.7     10:41:00    67       +55       400  10
2   85    32.7     10:58:00    68        55       250   5
3  260    40.5     11:31:48    67        55       -40 -.6
4  363    44.8     11:52:00    67        55        32  .5

On a different day, with 370.5 pounds of water already 
heated up (with the immersion heater) the following readings 
were obtained (same bypass line, same flow rate):

5    0    64.1     12:12:15     ?        ?         ?   ?
6   58    65.2     12:22:34     ?        ?         ?   ?
7   175   67.2     12:43:17     ?        ?         ?   ?

Pairing these observations, we get:

pair     efficiency     avg temp     elec. power
1-2        78%           30.7         3.24 kW
2-3        74%           36.6         3.35
3-4        69%           42.7         3.30
5-6        34%           64.7         3.64
6-7        31%           66.2         3.66

These points are plotted with the letter "m" on the graph 
below.

A few of the immersion heater efficiencies are plotted with 
the letter "i" on the graph below.  The numerical data is 
not given because it is not particularly pertinent.

   .
   .
 80-      nvs                      i  
O  .       n  mn                               
V  .             s                              
E  .            e   m av                           
R  .             ae     s                i    i
A70-                 s     a                    
L  .                 e    m                    
L  .                                              
   .                     e    s  c            
E  .                             a             
F60-                                               
F  .                        e       sr         
I  .                                  xv a     
C  .   m = 1.04,.620,40                           
I  .   e = 1.04,.825,54                  s r    
E50-   s = 1.04,.825,~100      e              a  
N  .   r = 1.39,.825,~100         e    
C  .   n = 106 gpm (P device)                     
Y  .   a = 54 gpm (P device)                          
   .   c = 65 gpm (P device)        e                  
%40-   x = 65 gpm+air (P device)                 r  vc
   .   v = 60 gpm (gate valve)        e               
   .   i = immersion heater                           
   .                                            m      
   .                                             m     
 30-                                                   
   |.........|.........|.........|.........|.........|...
   2         3         4         5         6         7
   0         0         0         0         0         0
                        AVERAGE BATH TEMPERATURE (C)

The three numbers listed in the legend for points m,e,s, & r 
are outlet diameter (inches), bypass diameter (inches), and 
flow rate (gpm) respectively.

The semi-quantitative voltage scan mentioned in the 
procedure section was performed with the 3/4" EMT bypass 
line installed.  We simply watched the voltmeter while 
slowly varying the flow restriction valve from open to 
closed.  The voltage remained around 70-90 mV throughout the 
flow range from 100 gpm to 0 gpm.

Error discussion

It is clear that the combination of lower flow rates and the 
presence of the bypass line (additional heat loss area) is 
adversely affecting the overall efficiency.  Note in 
particular the "e" data points in which we had the largest 
surface area bypass line combined with a relatively low flow 
rate.  This worsening of the correlation between observed 
efficiency and average bath temperature definitely increases 
the minimum detectable amount of excess energy.  However, if 
some compensation is made for the lower flow rates when 
judging these data points, we should still be able to 
recognize as unusual a point which had, say, 20% excess heat 
being generated in the Potapov device.

Conclusion

There is no obvious indication that the new data points 
represent excess energy production in the Potapov device.  
If our Potapov device is producing excess energy, it is 
substantially less than 20% of the energy required to drive 
the device.

There are no large voltages or currents generated by the 
vortex in our Potapov device under the operating conditions 
tried thus far.

Discussion

In the tests performed thus far, we have varied flow rates 
and aperture ratios rather widely.  We have used flow rates 
at both the low and high end of the recommended range for 
the Yusmar-1 as well as nearly twice the recommended flow 
rate.  We have tried outlet apertures of .73A and .43A and 
bypass apertures of .27A and .15A where A is the area of the 
pump discharge port.

Next we will try an outlet aperture of .50A and a bypass 
aperture of .20A (precisely the values recommended by 
Potapov).  These ratios will be achieved by inserting 
machined reducing sleeves into existing pipes (i.e. the 1-
1/4" outlet pipe and the 3/4" EMT bypass line).

A remaining question is the preferred orientation of the 
Potapov device.  It is shown in both orientations in the 
photos in IE #2.  We are presently assuming that means it 
must work in either orientation.

The observed voltages were highly erratic, sometimes ranging 
up to several hundred millivolts but often varying from 
positive to negative in the 10's of millivolts.  Observed 
short circuit currents were fairly low, never more than 10 
microamps.  The test involving a 100 ohm resistor produced 
the highest current, 60 microamps.  We did measure the 
voltage with the Potapov device full of still water and got 
around 35 mV and .3 microamps, substantially lower than some 
of the observations when the device was running.  This 
implies that there is some voltage generation mechanism at 
work in the vortex.  Perhaps the erratic nature of our 
results was caused by the inner electrode not reliably 
touching the water.  Calculations show that the inner radius 
of our vortex is approximately at 1/2 R, where the electrode 
is located.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.17 /   /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,
ci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: 17 Jul 1995 01:01:38 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Gary Cruse wrote:

:                      Correct or incorrect,  I have problems 
:                      with having to earn the right to hold
:                      an opinion.  Do you have such backing
:                      behind every opinion you hold?

Generally it is considered good form to know whereof one speaks when one
*speaks* one's opinion.

Mark Richardson
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmrichar353 cudln cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.17 / Charles Cagle /  Re: A new model of PROTON explains COLD FUSION.
     
Originally-From: <singtech@teleport.com> (Charles Cagle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A new model of PROTON explains COLD FUSION.
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 01:16:17 -0800
Organization: Singularity Technologies, Inc.

In article <Pine.LNX.3.91.950715003802.11627B-100000@Linux.InfoSquare.it>,
"Walter E.R. Cassani" <cassani@Linux.InfoSquare.it> wrote:

> Goodbye Quantum Mechanics and Cromodinamics.

Is the 2nd one related to what the Cro-Magnon knew about noise or flying rocks.
 
>Albert was right, a new, more complete, causal, theory is born.

On a first name basis, are you?  I'm sure he'll be pleased to know.  Or do
you mean he was right when he suspected that he was wrong and that field
theory was a castle in the sky?
 
>This is: The Wave Theory of the Field.

Isn't that an oxymoron? 

<Giant Snip>

Let's get real here!  Can you take this nice theory that explains
everything and build a working fusion reactor.  Yes, or No?  If it is just
same old same old repackaged with new names then can you say that it is an
advance?

Can you take it and predictively build new technology? And everyone
thought Wallace was tedious.

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:
cuddy17 cudensingtech cudfnCharles cudlnCagle cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.17 / Dr Rich /  Re: The WAVE nature of NEUTRON explains COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: "Dr. Rich Artym" <rartym@galacta.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The WAVE nature of NEUTRON explains COLD FUSION
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 95 07:46:35 GMT
Organization: Galacta Institute for Computer Rights

A couple of questions:

1) Has anyone outside of the originating group had a look at this "Wave
   Theory of the Field" to determine whether it is both genuine and a
   theory of science?  (It doesn't need to be consistent with existing
   models, but it should at least be consistent with itself and allow
   mathematical predictions to be made.)  Since it claims to explain CF,
   perhaps some serious CF group that doesn't yet have a good theory
   might usefully spend a little time checking this one out?  Even if
   the result is a big "NO", the exercise might yield some new ideas.

2) Has anyone inside or outside of the originating group extracted some
   new predictions that would allow experimentation to test the theory?
   Also, since the article was posted to sci.physics.fusion, can we
   please have some predictions that relate to fusion?

Needless to say, until both conditions are met then the theory will be
going nowhere, even if it is completely genuine, scientific and accurate.


###########  Dr. Rich Artym  ================  PGP public key available
# galacta #  Internet: rich@galacta.demon.co.uk     DNS 158.152.156.137
# ->demon #            rich@mail.g7exm[.uk].ampr.org   DNS 44.131.164.1
# ->ampr  #  NTS/BBS : g7exm@gb7msw.#33.gbr.eu
# ->nexus #  Fun     : Unix, X, TCP/IP, OSI, kernel, O-O, C++, Soft/Eng
# ->NTS   #  More fun: Regional IP Coordinator Hertfordshire + N.London
###########  Q'Quote : "Object type is a detail of its implementation."

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrartym cudfnDr cudlnRich cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.17 / Paul Koloc /  Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 09:09:05 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3ts8kj$r39@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>In article <DB3x7n.A1A@prometheus.UUCP> 
>pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>>Which welfare are you intending here?? 

>As generally used in the budget discussions, welfare consists of direct 
>payments excluding Social Security.  This includes Medicare, Medicaid, and 
>the various AFDC-type programs.  People from my generation and younger 
>might also include Social Security and the unfunded (future) costs of 
>federal retirement programs, but those are ignored in the cash-type 
>accounting used in the federal budget. 

Cash?    Cash-type??   are you speaking of borrowed Cash??    

Cash is generally used as an indication that it's "good money" which
wasn't borrowed.   As far as SS is concerned, I thought that had
a current surplus and was used to pad the budget so the real deficit 
doesn't show its even slimmier head.  

So Borrowed money that's spent without means for repayment seems to 
be a fundamental form of the dole for our government for the last
30 years.  I guess that makes US Gov. discretionary funding part of 
that dole.  

>Take a look for yourself.  It is all there on the soon-not-to-be-a-Dept. 
>of Commerce gopher, including data going back to the beginning.  It was 
>also spelled out nicely in the USNews issue devoted to the budget. 

Yep! there is mischief afoot.   But hell, one frying pan to another,
is probably going to be the main course for the next few decades.  One
thing is clear, if it ain't one thing ... it's always somethin else.   

Rosananadana                       :-)      

In a sense, there is a real economic depression for scientists which
is rolling along in this ecomony with good Corporate earnings.  So,
maybe it's time to start practicing our depression humor.  
I noticed that congress is taking some special care of facilities closing
in CA, but not elsewhere.  They will be offering some "privatization"
incentives, including startup funds.  Also, one plasma facility has
been spared, Kirtland's Phillips lab.  

Otherwise, there are a number of labs just holding on in the "stealth"
mode, hoping no one will notice them and that the axe will pass them
by during the berserker sweeps the next few years.  Well... that is 
probably exactly the wrong tactic.  But I can't lose, so I guess 
I'll clap my trap.  

Good luck.  
We here are determined to generate fusion regardless of the hardships.  

>-- 
> James A. Carr   <carr@scri.fsu.edu>    |  "My pet light bulb is a year old  
>    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  today.  That is 5.9 trillion miles 
> Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  in light years.  Your mileage may 
> Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  vary."   -- Heywood Banks 
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.17 / Richard Schultz /  Re: The WAVE nature of NEUTRON explains COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The WAVE nature of NEUTRON explains COLD FUSION
Date: 17 Jul 1995 10:58:48 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe


UN-altered DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT information is ENCOURAGED.
--
					Richard Schultz

. . . well, *someone* had to say it.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.17 / Andrew Cooke /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: ajc@reaxp01.roe.ac.uk (Andrew Cooke)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.
stro,sci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.
usion,sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 09:50:48 GMT
Organization: Institute for Astronomy, Royal Observatory Edinburgh

	science is a religion and truth is knowable, hmmm?

	could you tell us all just which parts of science are true
	and which are just good approximations?

	and could you imagine answering the same question around
	the turn of the century (before physics went downhill!)
	and compare answers?

	and could you give the number of times an effect has to be
	observed before a suspected cause is a `true' cause and not
	just an accident?

	finally, could you argue against the thesis that supermarkets
	are a religion - after all they have big buildings where lots
	of people go, and if you don't follow certain behavioural
	patterns (like paying for example) you are expelled.

	andrew


	
In article <-1607950120230001@ip-salem2-05.teleport.com>,
 <singtech@teleport.com> wrote:
>In article <805190629snz@galacta.demon.co.uk>, rich@galacta.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
>
>> As scientists we should be careful to keep both feet on the firm ground
>> of the scientific method and not try claiming knowledge of some greater
>> truth regarding reality.  Leave that to philosophy and religion. 
>
>Rich, you may be a doctor or a Ph.D. but I think you missed a class or two.
>
>Like modern science isn't a religion?  And philosophy?  Goodness, physics
>used to be called 'natural philosophy'.  Physics has never made a
>significant advance without philosophy first encouraging it and
>authorizing it to do so.(Thomas Mann)  When there was a split a little
>after the turn of the century where philosophy was no longer the guiding
>instrument, its been downhill for physics ever since.
> 
[...]
-- 
  A.Cooke@roe.ac.uk  work phone 0131 668 8357  home phone/fax 0131 667 0208
    institute for astronomy, royal observatory, blackford hill, edinburgh
                     http://www.roe.ac.uk/ajcwww
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenajc cudfnAndrew cudlnCooke cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.17 / Richard Blue /  Re: Marshall Dudley hypothesis
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Marshall Dudley hypothesis
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 13:30:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Marshall, when writing about restrictions to normal decay modes following
cold fusion, seems to think that the rates for neutron or proton emission
can remain unchanged but simply lose out to competing new decay modes.
I don't believe that you can come up with numbers that would support that
notion.

To start with the decay rates for neutron and proton emission from excited
4He are damn fast.  Those of you used to working on the time scales associated
with atomic processes simply have not gotten that message.  Nothing atomic
can happen fast enough to make the required difference, Marshall.  Have you
considered the implications of asserting that a decay occurs in 10^-40 seconds?
Now to associate such time scales with phonons in the PdD lattice is absurd.

As to my suggestions concerning the required "special nature" of Pd, Marshall
replies:

md: The only requirements were that the material behave in a similar manner
md: to Pd and be conductive. ...  In fact any metal which appears to absorb
md: large quantitaties of hydrogen should be a good candidate.

That is precisely my point!  There are several metals that will absorb large
quantities of hydrogen - much more than Pd.  Consider Uranium or Zirconium.
So there are many possible systems that meet your requirments.  Indeed it
has been common practice to store large quantities of hydrogen isotopes in
the form of metal hydrides under conditions where significant fusion, had it
occured, would certainly have been detected, provided you accept the notion
that the normal decay modes are not suppressed by huge factors.

It has been CF advocates who have been insisting that special properties of
Pd are involved.  How else can they justify the belief that deuterium fuses
in Pd while hydrogen fuses in nickel but not the other way round?

Now if the loading factor is so important for cold fusion, I am at a loss to
understand why so little of the experimental evidence that CF advocates
tend to cite comes from experiments in which there are any measurements
to indicate what the loading factor actual was.  It has become an article
of faith - not a matter of experimental evidence.

As for the possible detection of neutrons emitted at low energies - Marshall
you simply have to better inform yourself concerning the behavior of thermal
neutrons.  Your thinking is shot through with a number of gross blunders
regarding neutrons, their interactions, and their detection.

As for the energy of thermal neutrons - that is as slow as they can possibly
get without some heroic measure to cool them further.  Once a thermal neutron
is free in a solid material there are only three things that can happen to
it: (1)It can be captured by a nucleus of the host material. (2)It can beta
decay. (3)It can diffuse out of the host material.

Any one of these three processes is detectable.  In particular neutron capture
is generally a radiative process, i.e. gamma radiation is emitted following
the capture.  Should the neutron diffuse out into surrounding water - something
you seem to allow may happen, it will likely be captured by hydrogen.  Again
you assume that this capture process has no signature, but on that point you
are certainly wrong!  The capture of a thermal neutron by a proton to form
deuterium results in the emission of a 2.2 MeV gamma ray - something even
Pons and Fleischmann could have detected.  Indeed their data showing the
absence of that gamma ray was the first clear evidence of a negative result
for cold fusion via electrolysis!  Cold fusion was dead on arrival.  However,
here we are 6+ years later with the rotting corpse still stinking up the
place.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Jul 18 04:37:05 EDT 1995
------------------------------
