1995.07.18 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Follow Up
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Follow Up
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 11:38 -0500 (EST)

<102057.2046@compuserve.com> writes:
 
-> 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 diffu
-> of H+ or D+ ions into the lattice via some potential.
 
I don't quite follow you here.  Basically if you have a H+ or D+ ion, then you
have an electron from the H or D that has to go somewhere.  Normally you would
expect it to go to the outer shell of the Pd.  If the Pd looses an electron to
to the D+ ion, then you would no longer have an ion, but plain old deuterium
atom again. Am I misinterpreting something here?
 
-> I have thought some wh
-> 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.
 
Could you define phonon fluid?  Phonons are just vibrations which travel and
dissipate similar to sound waves, right?  Could you help me with this concept
a bit?
 
-> I would hypot
-> 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.
 
Electron capture changes a proton to a neutron.  Are you saying that neutrons
generated through electron capture remain in a nucleus, or do you mean
something else by "electron capture"?
 
-> 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 t
-> I'm not a flame thrower.
 
I would like very much for someone familiar with QM to work with me on this.
However I am not sure we are on the same wavelength right now.  You may want to
follow up with EMAIL only until I can figure out exactly what you are
proposing.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.18 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Bogus 12-sigma statistics
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bogus 12-sigma statistics
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 11:52 -0500 (EST)

schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) writes:
 
-> As several people have already mentioned, there are several fundamental
-> reasons to question whether "sigma" can be properly used as a quality
-> parameter in the mass spec experiments.  You will note that Swartz insists
-> on describing the results as "12 sigma" but gets remarkably vague when asked
-> "12 sigma" relative to *what*.  But even a "12 sigma" result can be of
-> questionable value, as can be seen if we actually attempt a quantitative
-> estimate of what he is or might be talking about.
 
I was not objecting to Dick's comment within the context of the experiment.
I was objecting to his comment that 12 sigma measurements are quite uncommon
in the real world, when in fact they are not.  There could be problems with the
experiment in which 12 sigma was not actually realized, I don't know, as I have
not taken the time to look at the data and so forth.  I was only commenting on
his very broad statment which covered much more than this specific experiment
and is not, as far as I am concerned, accurate.
 
I am going to go through the rest of your post and work up a reply to it.  It
will take a little time for me to work the math and determine if I agree with
it or not.
 
Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.18 / Bob Casanova /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: cas@ops1.bwi.wec.com (Bob Casanova)
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: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 16:20:34 GMT
Organization: Westinghouse Electric Corporation

In article <-1607950120230001@ip-salem2-05.teleport.com> <singtech@telep
rt.com> (Charles Cagle) writes:
>From: <singtech@teleport.com> (Charles Cagle)
>Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
>Date: Sun, 16 Jul 1995 01:20:23 -0800

>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?

Oh? Please point out the requirements for faith in modern science. With 
supporting evidence.

  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.
>

Yep. Relativity (G & S), quantum mechanics, cosmology and numerous other 
fields have certainly gone downhill since 1900. Duh. 

>> This may be "obvious" to most, but it bears repeating, especially in
>> education where we want to stimulate insight, not create converts.

>You are very wrong.  We need to create converts to the idea that truth is
>knowable and that academia generally doesn't have the answers either to
>the creative process or the process of gaining insight.  What it can do is
>regurgitate facts and concepts and has little taste for differentiating
>between the two.

Evidence, please.

>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

Bob C.

* Good, fast, cheap!  (Pick 2) *
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudencas cudfnBob cudlnCasanova cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.18 / Ben Newsam /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: Ben Newsam <Ben@microser.demon.co.uk>
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: Tue, 18 Jul 95 15:59:55 GMT
Organization: Micro Services

ladams@sensemedia.net "Larry Adams" writes:

> Tom, you're crossing at an intersection. Suddenly, a car turns directly
> in front of you...you believe in the contracting space between you and
> the car and you believe the car is massive and has momentum...YOU GET
> YOUR ASS OUT OF THE WAY!!! Space and mass ARE fundamental things!

Important, yes. Fundamental, no.

> THE CAR ABOVE IS *NOT* MADE OF MIND STUFF -IT WILL RUN YOU DOWN!!

Agreed. But its *spatiality* is your mind's interpretation of its reality.
Tom postulates that Space and matter are *made of* Time. The best you can
do is say that they *exist in* Time.

> The real world is objective, not subjective. Einstein argued that the
> world exists independently of the observer. It is not made of mind stuff,
> it is made of body stuff. Physics is about the physical; take your
> mind stuff to the metaphysical newsgroups! -L.A.

Where do you get your objective information from? Your senses? How objective
are they? Presumably the world *does* exist independently, but you only
have your own brain's word for *how*. As regards "Physics is about the
physical", you sound like a mechanical engineer to me. If you're not
prepared to speculate about the nature of physical nature, then I'm afraid
it's *you* that should find a new newsgroup.

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Newsam               Micro Services -- ben@microser.demon.co.uk
Tel & Fax: -- +44 (114) 233 2071   Tel: -- +44 (114) 285 2727
"I'm not known for blowing my own trumpet." --- Hugh Grant
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenBen cudfnBen cudlnNewsam cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.18 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Implications of Miles results
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles results
Date: 18 Jul 1995 17:29:31 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <DBx4oA.CA4@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

>" I have asked him repeatedly to comment on
>my calculation that the Moessbauer effect, for example, is 15 orders of
>magnitude too weak to account for the effect for which he is looking."
>
>  Mr. Schultz original "calculation", rather post, was:
>
>>The energy *difference* (i.e. that part of the signal that can be attributed 
>>to interactions between the nucleus and its environment) in that case 
>>is less than one-millionth  (that's <10(-6) eV)!
>>(14.4 keV * 8065.5 cm-1/eV * 0.2 cm/sec gives you the frequency shift of 
>>about 23 MHz; divide by c to get 0.00077 cm-1, which equals just under 
>>10(-7) eV.)"
>
>  How about:  Mr. Schultz's error number 3
>
>  Mr. Schultz gets 0.1 microeV for the interaction energy
>between lattice and nucleus.

Do you even have a clue as to what I was calculating?  Apparently not.
I was calculating the *perturbation on the nuclear energy level*.
Duh.  If you have to move the target at 0.2 cm/sec in order to bring
it into resonance with the source, then that means that (as per above)
the energy level of the target nucleus has been perturbed by less than
0.1 micro-eV.  In case you hadn't noticed, your "Moessbauer magic method"
has to modulate an excited nucleus that has an energy of 24 MeV.  It
seems to me that your lattic-nuclear coupling is much too small to make
any difference to the nucleus, which implies that it is going to decay
pretty much the way it would if it were not in the lattice.  Now, if you
can find some way for your perturbation to be significant *to the 
nucleus*, I'd be most interested in hearing about it.

>  But if there is an interaction with even ONE PHONON
>in the lattice, then the energy of the phonon must be
>the baseline.    Phonons in PdD have energies of several millieV.
 
What aspect of my calculation above even mentions phonons?  The
interaction of the phonons with the lattice is to enable the source
nucleus to decay without recoil.  If it weren't for that, the amount
of Doppler broadening due to the recoil would completely swamp the
signal due to the perturbations of the nuclear energy levels.  Why?
Because, as I showed above, the perturbation of the nuclear energy
levels is incredibly small relative to the spacings between the
levels themselves.  Duh.

>  So Mr. Schultz is off by more than five orders of magnitude
>on his estimate of the energy of a SINGLE relevant phonon in the PdD lattice
>(which has ~30-45 milli eV).

Note that my calculation has nothing to do with the phonons -- it
was about the nucleus.  And I note that you have not shown that my
calculation was wrong -- only that the perturbation of the nuclear
energy levels is much smaller than the amount of energy in a phonon.
If you think about that for a while, you would realize that you have 
inadvertently proved my point.
--
					Richard Schultz

"You don't even have a clue as to which clue you're missing." -- Miss Manners

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.18 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Follow Up
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Follow Up
Date: 18 Jul 1995 17:38:54 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <USE2PCB692914982@brbbs.brbbs.com>,
MARSHALL DUDLEY <mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com> wrote:

>I don't quite follow you here.  Basically if you have a H+ or D+ ion, then you
>have an electron from the H or D that has to go somewhere.  Normally you would
>expect it to go to the outer shell of the Pd.  If the Pd looses an electron to
>to the D+ ion, then you would no longer have an ion, but plain old deuterium
>atom again. Am I misinterpreting something here?

I believe that we are talking about an electrochemical cell here.  The 
positively charged H+(D+) ions migrate toward the Pd cathode and the
negatively charged OH-(OD-) ions migrate toward the anode.  The "electron
from the H or D" hasn't "gone" anywhere.  The original water molecule
has been broken up into two ions.
-- 
					Richard Schultz

"I seem to smell a peculiar and a fishlike smell."
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.18 / Matt Austern /  Re: Bogus 12-sigma statistics
     
Originally-From: matt@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bogus 12-sigma statistics
Date: 18 Jul 1995 18:15:31 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley

In article <USE2PCB710871860@brbbs.brbbs.com> mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com
(MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes:

> I was not objecting to Dick's comment within the context of the
> experiment.  I was objecting to his comment that 12 sigma
> measurements are quite uncommon in the real world, when in fact they
> are not.  There could be problems with the experiment in which 12
> sigma was not actually realized, I don't know, as I have not taken
> the time to look at the data and so forth.  I was only commenting on
> his very broad statment which covered much more than this specific
> experiment and is not, as far as I am concerned, accurate.

The real reason I'm extremely uncomfortable with calling anything "12
sigma" is that the description really only makes sense if you're
assuming a gaussian distribution of errors.  By the time you're 12
standard deviations away from the mean, though, you're far, far out on
the distribution's tail.  Are there really any error distributions out
there in the real world that are still gaussian that far from the
mean?  I'm not familiar with any.  In my neck of the woods, people
worry about non-gaussian tails long before getting to 12 standard
deviations from the mean.
-- 
Matt Austern				      matt@physics.berkeley.edu
http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.18 /  prasad, 71155. /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: prasad, 71155.3116@compuserve.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: 18 Jul 1995 13:24:41 GMT
Organization: sometimes

GR doesn't suck, it merely shows how gravity sucks, blackhole!
Thought the clarification might help ;-)

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cuden3116 cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.18 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Bogus 12-sigma statistics
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bogus 12-sigma statistics
Date: 18 Jul 1995 14:49:44 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <DBwz9v.C35@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

>  In Message-ID: <3ug7hg$sh4@agate.berkeley.edu>
>Subject: Re: Bogus 12-sigma statistics
>schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) attempts to
>"knock" the Miles CF helium information, and scientists
>at various US centers.

No, what I did was demonstrate that the claim of "12 sigma" results
without further quantification is meaningless.  This is irrespective
of whether the data are valid or not.

>  Mr. Schultz writes 

That's Dr. Schultz to you, buddy.

>(of the data linking excess heat in Pd/D2O systems and He4), 
>"the results as "12 sigma" (are)  remarkably vague"

If there were an award for consistent ability to quote out of context,
you would be a shoe-in.  What I actually said was

>> You will note that Swartz insists on describing the results as "12 sigma"
>> but gets remarkably vague when asked "12 sigma" relative to *what*.  

I think the distortion of what I said was reamrkable even for you.

>  Schultz then itemizes what he thinks the results were
>  "Suppose the background is 20 +/- 2 counts per second. "  ...
>  " Suppose the signal were 12 +/- 1 counts per second.
>    Against a background of 20 +/- 2 counts per second,"
>
>  This is equal portions of hot air and hand waving.

No, what I was doing was trying to illustrate by using reasonable numbers
why "12 sigma" can be a meaningless claim.  Unlike you, I have actually
performed experiments using a quadrupole mass spectrometer as part of
the apparatus, so I know what I'm talking about.  It really wouldn't
do you any harm to admit that you don't know what a Daly detector is.
Really.  The numbers I gave, merely as examples, are prefectly reasonable
quantities.  And I explained in detail that the numbers I used were just
typical background levels for QPMS experiments, not just "hot air and
hand waving."

>  This following is from the report  "HEAT AND HELIUM MEASUREMENTS IN 
>DEUTERATED PALLADIUM"  by Melvin Miles and B. Bush, of the Chemistry 
>Division, Research Department Naval Air Warfare  Center 
>Weapons Division China Lake, CA.

If they don't have the guts to submit their report to the refereed
literature, then I don't see any reason to take them seriously.

>Of course unlike the hot air from the fusion people,
>these people take technology seriously and perform well.

That comment is so silly that I don't even need to respond, except to
say that you really seem to be under a misapprehension about what I
do for a living -- even though I have told you.

But note the clever obfuscation in the following quotation from the
report:

>The  measured rate of 4He production (10^11-10^12 4He/s*W) is the correct 
>magnitude for typical  deuteron fusion reactions that yield 
>helium as a product.  . . .
>helium concentrations in Table II support a  detection limit of 
>approximately 10^l3 4He/500 mL in these experiments as 
>reported  previously.  Mean values for the measured helium 
>concentrations in these control  experiments are 4.4 +/-0.6 ppb 
>or 5.1 +/-0.7 x 10^l3 4He/500 mL.   ...  For experiments 
>producing excess power, five helium measurements using these 
>same  metal flasks have been completed. These experiments 
>yield a mean value of 2.0 +/-0.5 x  1011 4He/s*W after 
>correcting for background levels of helium measured in control  
>studies (Table II).  This value is once again the correct 
>magnitude for typical deuteron  fusion reactions that yield 4He 
>as a product. "

Note that the detection limit and the helium concentrations in "control"
experiments are given in units of atoms/500 mL, while helium concentrations
from "excess power" experiments are given in atoms/J (which isn't even a
concentration unit), making direct comparison of the numbers impossible.

> The 93 expts used metal flasks and full consideration for
>atmostpheric contamination.

You still haven't answered the question of why there would be any He
in the electrolysis gas given that He is essentially immobile in Pd.

It could be that I am mixing up two sets of experiments in my mind,
but I thought that in these experiments, Miles et al. did *not* take
samples of the laboratory air and measure the He concentration
therein.  And considering that "standard" dry air is about 5 ppm He
(i.e. a thousand times more concentrated than that in the "electrolysis
gas" samples), I'm not sure that atmospheric contamination can be ruled
out either.

>     The helium in the metal flask set was reportedly examined by two 
>additional labs (Rockwell and Bureau of Mines). 
>These are two more laboratories which we can add to the
>Research Department of the Naval Air Warfare  Center 
>Weapons Division China Lake, CA, that are run by
>scientists whom Mr. Schultz assures us know "nothing"
>and who he purports are incompetant (unlike himself).

First of all, I never made any claim that any of the scientists involved
know nothing.  I claimed that reporting a mass spectrometric result in
terms of "sigmas above background" rather than in terms of a signal-to-
noise ratio tells the person reading the report nothing.  And despite
your own "hot air and hand waving," you have yet to show me wrong.

>conclusion 1:
> The increases of excess heat and He4 production
>were linked and at ~ 12 sigma above background.

(1) This conclusion does *not* follow from anything you have presented above.

(2) Despite your claims that I was "hand-waving," my guess came pretty 
close to what was reported.  I had figured the standard deviation of 
the background would be about 10% of the background, and the experimenters
reported that it was about 15%. 

(3) Note that if you do the multiplication I originally suggested, you
get that the background is 4.4 +/- 0.6 ppb, implying that a "12-sigma"
signal is 7.2 ppb, yielding a signal/noise ratio of less than two --
which is what I originally predicted.

>conclusion 2:
>Calculation of probability of the excess heat-He4 results 
>from random errors from all combined experiments is
>circa   1/134,000,000

These calculations always depend on certain assumptions about the 
distribution of errors, and other posters have already shown that
these assumptions are not necessarily valid.  In any case, the possibility
of systematic errors is not excluded either by that calculation or by
the experiment as described above.

>conclusion 3:
>  skeptics who continue to rely on being spoon-fed
>(like Mr. Schultz) appear to have a high probability of
>spouting nonsense at variance to the published reports.

(1) That's another entry on the Swartz FUQ list:  why is it that when 
anyone wants to engage in a discussion and asks politely for a
citation to results, this is "being spoon-fed" (as opposed to other
branches of science, in which it is considered proper form to just
supply the citation)?  And why should I be expected to have at my
fingertips something that is not from the refereed literature?
And why was Swartz's request for information about his Prozac 450
Calorimeter (information easily available from manufacturer) no
a desire to be "spoon-fed"?

(2) You have not demonstrated by any means that anything I have said
was nonsense.  Indeed, you proved my point exactly, which was that
quoting a result as "12 sigmas" without giving any other quantitative
data is meaningless.  You have not shown how my objection to testing
"electrolysis gas" being silly because He is immobile in Pd is
"nonsense."  You have not demonstrated that my concerns about 
correct measurment of background and compensation from possible 
contamination are "nonsense" except to assert them to be so with
no supporting evidence whatsoever.  As I said, your "Jiminy Cricket"
style of proof doesn't work, no matter who is doing it.
--
					Richard Schultz

"I don't know why you are wrong, but my data shows you are completely off."
			--Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 21 Jul 1992
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.18 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Marshall Dudley hyhpothesis
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Marshall Dudley hyhpothesis
Date: 18 Jul 1995 15:05:03 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <USE2PCB923077940@brbbs.brbbs.com>,
MARSHALL DUDLEY <mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com> wrote:

>However, how can be be sure that a few neutrons don't leak out?  
>Adding a neutron to one of the palladium isotopes simply makes it the 
>next higher isotope, and since palladium naturally occurs with many different 
>isotopes, detecting an isotope ratio shift would be very difficult.  

Dick Blue has already addressed the thermal neutron problem in general,
but there is another problem that you have overlooked.  Palladium does
have several isotopes, true.  But of them, adding a neutron to 
102Pd, 106Pd, 108Pd, and 110Pd, which together account for about two-
thirds of the Pd nuclei in the sample, will yield a *radioactive*
nucleus whose breakdown will yield inter alia gamma rays with known
energies.  So once again there would be high energy radiation with a
known spectrum -- and we all know that that doesn't happen.  Unless
you are proposing some kind of mechanism that will transfer the neutrons
only to 104Pd and 105Pd and not yield excited product nuclei.
--
					Richard Schultz
             "an optimist is a guy
              that has never had
              much experience"
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.18 / Robert Heeter /  This is not sci.physics.gravity!  No GR postings!
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: This is not sci.physics.gravity!  No GR postings!
Date: 18 Jul 1995 14:00:57 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Would people please be a little more careful to keep their
postings on-charter?  This is ridiculous!

 -----------------------------------------------------
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:
cuddy18 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.18 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Silly nonsense from Robert Heeter
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Silly nonsense from Robert Heeter
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 95 11:34:34 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I should add it is hilarious that Heeter would make this stupid insinuation,
"Note that Jed Rothwell works for Cold Fusion Research Advocates . . ."
Talk about leaving yourself wide open! Readers should note that Heeter works
for the hot fusion program. In other words, Heeter makes his living by
stealing money from the taxpayers. He is a welfare cheat and a propaganda
agent for the Hot Fusion Pie-In-The-Sky National Boondoggle and Welfare
Program for PhDs. He is the last person on earth who should be making veiled
accusations about the corrupting influence of money.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjedrothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.18 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Implications of Miles results
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles results
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles results
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 15:36:10 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


  In Message-ID: <3ugf8l$2v4@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles results
schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) complains

" I have asked him repeatedly to comment on
my calculation that the Moessbauer effect, for example, is 15 orders of
magnitude too weak to account for the effect for which he is looking."

  Mr. Schultz original "calculation", rather post, was:

 -rpes    "The energy *difference* (i.e. that
 -rpes  part of the signal that can be attributed 
 -rpes  to interactions between the nucleus and its 
 -rpes  environment) in that case 
 -rpes  is less than one-millionth  (that's <10(-6) eV)!
 -rpes  (14.4 keV * 8065.5 cm-1/eV * 0.2 cm/sec 
 -rpes  gives you
 -rpes  the frequency shift of about 23 MHz; 
 - rpes  divide by c to get 0.00077 cm-1,
 -rpes  which equals just under 10(-7) eV.)"

  How about:  Mr. Schultz's error number 3

  Mr. Schultz gets 0.1 microeV for the interaction energy
between lattice and nucleus.
  But if there is an interaction with even ONE PHONON
in the lattice, then the energy of the phonon must be
the baseline.    Phonons in PdD
have energies of several millieV.

  10^-7 ev is not 3-4x10^-2 eV

  So Mr. Schultz is off by more than five orders of magnitude
on his estimate of the energy of a SINGLE 
relevant phonon in the PdD lattice
(which has ~30-45 milli eV).

  Could his mind be in a different location.  
                      Wyoming perhaps?    ;-)X
  
      -    Mitchell Swartz
   ====================================

     "I think you're thinking of Wyoming, where the 
                  men are men, the women
       are men, and the sheep are scared."
         [Richard Schultz, Berkeley, Princeton, 22 Jun 1995;
        <3scoir$m73@agate.berkeley.edu>]



cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.18 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 95 11:41:05 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Jim Carr <jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> writes:
 
>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. . . .
 
Yes, that is the conventional definition. But the "welfare programs" that
we have in mind are the gigantic Pie-In-The-Sky "science" programs like
hot fusion. These are not intended to do science or to solve the energy
crisis any more than the DoD $600 toilet seats are intended to defend the
nation in time of war. The hot fusion program is a cover to steal money
and enrich private contractors and PhD scientists who are too lazy, stupid
or corrupt to do honest work. The amount of money stolen by DoE and DoD
programs like this is much greater in the aggregate than the amount stolen
by fraud in Social Security and AFDC (welfare cheats).
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjedrothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.18 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Marshall Dudley hyhpothesis
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Marshall Dudley hyhpothesis
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 14:03 -0500 (EST)

schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) writes:
 
-> have several isotopes, true.  But of them, adding a neutron to
-> 102Pd, 106Pd, 108Pd, and 110Pd, which together account for about two-
-> thirds of the Pd nuclei in the sample, will yield a *radioactive*
-> nucleus whose breakdown will yield inter alia gamma rays with known
-> energies.  So once again there would be high energy radiation with a
-> known spectrum -- and we all know that that doesn't happen.
 
First I am not proposing any neutrons being generated at all.  The hypothesis
actually does not address what happens to the excited nucleus after fusion.
However, if neutrons are generated, and they may well be, then I was proposing
why we may not see them.  Lets look at each of the isotopes you list above and
see what we would expect to happen.
 
102Pd + n = 103Pd.
 
The highest energy photon of any intensity from this isotope is 23.3 Kev, and
it comprises only 1.94% of the decays.  Even if this X-ray made it out of the
sample, it would not be detected with the equipment normally used to detect
gammas.
 
106Pd + n = 107Pd
 
HIghest energy photon = 44 Kev.  Once again not detectable.
 
107Pd IT mode
 
Highest energy photon = 214.9 Kev.  This consitutes 69% of the decays and would
constitute the best chance for detection if formed in significant quantity
(instead of 107Pd non-IT). I doubt if experiments thus far which are looking
for gammas in the 10 Mev+ range looked at this low an energy. I am also not
sure how penetrating this energy would be to Palladium. I think it would be
worthwhile to see if energy of this magnitude is detectable. Detection would
need to be made during the experiment as the half-life is only 21.3 seconds.
 
109Pd
 
The highest energy of any intensity is 88 Kev, once again probably not
detectable. There are a bunch of lines above this reaching 1.01 Mev, but they
have such low intensities (.01% to .000076%) they would most likely be in the
noise and thus not detectable.
 
109Pd IT mode
 
Maximum energy of photons is 188.9 Kev.  55.8% will give of that energy.  Same
arguement as with the 107Pt IT mode of 214.9 Kev.
 
111Pd
 
This isotope has at least 83 lines, running from 59.79 Kev to 1.863 Mev.
None of the line have an intensity greater than .84% (the 579.96 Kev line).
Once again, although most of these lines are detectable, there are so many of
them and the intensity so low, detecting them would be extremely difficult.
 
111Pd IT mode
 
Over 105 lines, max intensity is 33.6 % at 172Kev.  This isotope may be seen
if the 172Kev line was examined and the equipment was set up to go that low,
and that energy will penetrate Pd sufficiently.  I would not dismiss it until
I verified that this line was checked, and that the equipment and experiment
were so that this line could be detected.
 
Fact is if experiments were looking for 10+ Mev gammas, none of these lines
would have been seen.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.18 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Implications of Miles results
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles results
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles results
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 18:52:55 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


  In Message-ID: <3ugr1r$89s@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles results
schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)  wrote:

        >  How about:  Mr. Schultz's error number 3
        >  Mr. Schultz gets 0.1 microeV for the interaction energy
         >between lattice and nucleus.
  -rpes  -"Do you even have a clue as to what I was calculating?
                        Apparently not.
  -rpes  -I was calculating the *perturbation on the nuclear energy level*.
  -rpes  -Duh.  "

"Duh" is right, Mr. Schultz.   He should try to define what he 
means by perturbation exactly, and given that -
then explain why his calculation was off by 5 orders of magnitude
(we ignore for the moment if it is even applicable).   

  Apparently Mr. Schultz does not disagree that he was off by 5 orders
of magnitude.  If he thinks about that for a while, he would
 realize that he has inadvertently proved my point.

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

      >  But if there is an interaction with even ONE PHONON
      >in the lattice, then the energy of the phonon must be
      >the baseline.    Phonons in PdD have energies of several millieV.
 -rpes  "What aspect of my calculation above even mentions phonons? ... "
 -rpes  "Note that my calculation has nothing to do with the phonons -- it
 -rpes was about the nucleus."

   Really?   "nothing to do with the phonons?"
      no phonons?    nothing to do with phonons?  
      How about from Mr. Schultz's own posts, showing a
rather sieve-like memory (which matches both the calculations, and logic).

 -rs  " You suggest that that state gives up all of its energy to the 
 -rs  lattice.  .....special relativity prevents
 -rs  all of the energy from being depostied as phonons in the normal lifetime ...."
   [schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz);  28 Jun 1995 
         Message-ID: <3ssbnj$mb9@agate.berkeley.edu>]

              or 

 -rs  "The "new" pathway has to suppress the old one -- or else we'd see it.
 -rs  You are suggesting that the only case of a MeV excitation that does not
 -rs  lead to MeV products is He* in Pd.  Therefore, there must be some 
 -rs  mechanism that not only provides a pathway for turning all of this MeV
 -rs  energy into eV phonons, but also prevents the He* from *ever* decaying the
 -rs  way it does when it's not in the lattice.  What mechanism do you propose
 -rs  that would do such a thing?"
   [schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz);  28 Jun 1995 
         Message-ID: <3ssbnj$mb9@agate.berkeley.edu>]

   or did Mr. Schultz mean that Moessbauer spectroscopy has nothing
to do with (or the absence of ) lattice vibrations?


     Mitchell Swartz




cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.18 / Ira Blum /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: iblum@utdallas.edu (Ira K Blum)
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: 18 Jul 1995 19:05:30 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Dallas, ACC

In article <3ugfe2$bm1@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>, tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter ) writes:
|> In <3ueqac$o09@starman.convex.com> schumach@convex.com (Richard
A. Schumacher) writes: 
|> >
|> >>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":
|> 
|> The inconsistencies introduced by the constants "C" and "G" are not mine.
|> Those are inconsistencies of the existing system.
|> 

I believe you are confused.  Constants like "C" and "G" have units.  they 
are not dimensionles.  therefore
distance = C * time (which is only true for light) does not mean that a 
second is equivelent to a meter.

In a much more real sense, the proper way to reference this is:

distance(t) = V(t) * t   where distance and velocity are both functions 
of time.  This is much more often true for particles than your equation.  
Sometimes V(t) isn't even a normal function, it can be all sorts of 
things, especially at a quantum level.  In quantum concepts, you see this:

H(v,x,t)psi = E(t)psi, the Schroedinger equation. where H, the Hamiltonian, 
is usually expressed as the following differential operator:  
del^2/2m + V(v,x,t) where V is a potential which can be dependant on 
velocity, position, and time (although Heisenberg had different ideas) 
E(t) is another differential operator which usually looks like this: -id/dt
Note that I am setting h (plank's constant) to 1 for this.  

|> "C" ( Unnecessarily ) introduces the concept of distance.

The concept of distance is both necessary and sufficient to explain most 
physical phenomena.  However, you are certainly welcome to express all of 
your distances in plank-seconds or light-years, those being the only two 
distance measures which are time-related.  (well, there's also the 
driving time distance, but that's colloquial)

|> "G" ( Unnecessarily ) introduces the concept of mass.
|> 

Please tell my fiance that the concept of mass is unimportant.  She 
thinks I'm too massive and should lose some of it.  I'll tell you what.  
You stand there and I'll drop a 100ton (metric) weight on your head.  If 
you can feasibly explain mass away, you might not be crushed.  (then 
again, you might.)  

|> >>and 	distance <> time * C
|> >>AND 	mass <> distance^3 / time^2 / G
|> 
|> BTW, run an experiment.
|> Measure cycles(reference) and cycles(X).

I can't measure cycles in an experiment.  (unless you are refering to 
bicycles or motorcycles.)  experiments usually measure such mundane 
concepts as time and distance.  

|> Divide cycles(X) into cycles(reference) and see what you get.
|> 

pudding?

-- 
Ira
iblum@utdallas.edu
Go Rangers and Phillies (and Cowboys and Mavericks and Speed Racer Go!)
'Any fan of the game with any intelligence at all can define
most things that are and are not "in the best interest of baseball"'
Scott R. Susor
Please direct all flames to /dev/null
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudeniblum cudfnIra cudlnBlum cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.18 / Thomas Clarke /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
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: 18 Jul 1995 12:33:48 GMT
Organization: Institute for Simulation and Training, Orlando, Fl.

In article <3trl6i$qa3@netnews.upenn.edu> sterner@sel.hep.upenn.edu
(Kevin Sterner) writes:

>you can get into ... word games and mind games about whether 
>the things we perceive with our detectors (e.g. a calorimeter or an eye)
>actually correspond to things that exist independently "in the real world 
>out there", but by this logic you can never prove that anything exists--a
>"tree" is no firmer a concept than an "electron".  You can't even prove
>that there *is* a "real world out there"!  The only effect is that you've 
>debased the concept of "existence" to something meaningless.

That's it.  The discoveries about the quantum realm are calling into
question "existence" and our naive way of thinking about it.
I suggest you look at Henry Stapp's "Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics"
In short, Stapp suggests collapsing two mysteries into one.
The problem of observation in quantum mechanics - how can 
apparently discrete electrons be in two places at once?  - and
the problem of consiousness - what are qualia, feelings etc.

Stapp has a kind of dualistic view.  The world is mind+matter, but
he is very physicalistic.  Mind/consicousness is physical and
manifest in some of the strangeness of quantum mechnanics in addition
to our subjective experiences.

>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Kevin L. Sterner  |  U. Penn. High Energy Physics  |  Smash the welfare state!
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The strange stuff happens mostly at lower energies where the de Broglie
wavelengths are longer.

Tom Clarke


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenclarke cudfnThomas cudlnClarke cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.18 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Bogus 12-sigma statistics
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bogus 12-sigma statistics
Subject: Re: Bogus 12-sigma statistics
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 13:39:31 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


  In Message-ID: <3ug7hg$sh4@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Bogus 12-sigma statistics
schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) attempts to
"knock" the Miles CF helium information, and scientists
at various US centers.

  Mr. Schultz writes (of the data linking excess heat
in Pd/D2O systems and He4), 
"the results as "12 sigma" (are)  remarkably vague"

  Schultz then itemizes what he thinks the results were
  "Suppose the background is 20 +/- 2 counts per second. "  ...
  " Suppose the signal were 12 +/- 1 counts per second.
    Against a background of 20 +/- 2 counts per second,"

  This is equal portions of hot air and hand waving.

  This following is from the report  "HEAT 
AND HELIUM MEASUREMENTS IN DEUTERATED 
PALLADIUM"   by
Melvin Miles and B. Bush, of the Chemistry 
Division, Research Department Naval Air Warfare  Center 
Weapons Division China Lake, CA.

Of course unlike the hot air from the fusion people,
these people take technology seriously and perform well.

 "Our previous results present a correlation between the 
measured excess poser and  helium production in D2O-LiOD 
electrolysis cells using palladium cathodes.  The  measured 
rate of 4He production (10^11-10^12 4He/s*W) is the correct 
magnitude for typical  deuteron fusion reactions that yield 
helium as a product.  *****   Metal flasks were used  to collect 
the electrolysis gas samples in order to minimize atmospheric 
contamination  due to helium diffusion through glass.  The 
helium concentrations in Table II support a  detection limit of 
approximately 10^l3 4He/500 mL in these experiments as 
reported  previously.  Mean values for the measured helium 
concentrations in these control  experiments are 4.4 +/-0.6 ppb 
or 5.1 +/-0.7 x 10^l3 4He/500 mL.   ...  For experiments 
producing excess power, five helium measurements using these 
same  metal flasks have been completed. These experiments 
yield a mean value of 2.0 +/-0.5 x  1011 4He/s*W after 
correcting for background levels of helium measured in control  
studies (Table II).  This value is once again the correct 
magnitude for typical deuteron  fusion reactions that yield 4He 
as a product. "

Here is a short review of the data from several years by
Dr. Miles.   The 90-92 expts used Pyrex glass flasks. 
 The 93 expts used metal flasks and full consideration for
atmostpheric contamination.

  first experiments: 90-91     8 with excess enthalpy (i.e. +ve)
                               yield 10^11 to 10^12 helium-4/watt-sec
  first experiments: 90-91     6  negative yield no increase 

  second experiments: 92       3 +ve with increased helium
                                ave: ca. 3 x 10^11   helium-4/watt-sec

  third experiments: 93       5 +ve with increased helium
                              ave: ca. 3 x 10^11   helium-4/watt-sec
  third experiments: 93       5  negative yield no increase

 Now all backgrounds were subtracted to derive the incremental helium-4 
production rate normalized to power.

     The helium in the metal flask set was reportedly examined by two 
additional labs (Rockwell and Bureau of Mines). 
These are two more laboratories which we can add to the
Research Department of the Naval Air Warfare  Center 
Weapons Division China Lake, CA, that are run by
scientists whom Mr. Schultz assures us know "nothing"
and who he purports are incompetant (unlike himself).

conclusion 1:
 The increases of excess heat and He4 production
were linked and at ~ 12 sigma above background.

conclusion 2:
Calculation of probability of the excess heat-He4 results 
from random errors from all combined experiments is
circa   1/134,000,000

conclusion 3:
  skeptics who continue to rely on being spoon-fed
(like Mr. Schultz) appear to have a high probability of
spouting nonsense at variance to the published reports.
 
    Best wishes colleagues, 
            Mitchell Swartz  [mica@world.std]

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.18 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Implications of Miles results
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles results
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles results
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 13:44:48 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


  In Message-ID: <3u2tnl$oh6@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles results
schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) 

-Why not just say "fusion is what powers the sun, so therefore fusion
-exists," and leave it at that?  
  
  THAT, of course, is just what the hot fusion people
have been relying on for decades.   
  [ignoring the sun is so far away, and it just could be
we do not thoroughly understand the sun, and the tests are not
quite the sampling variety as of yet, ...  ]

  Glad Richard Schultz brought it up, although it indelibly
weakens the hot fusion argument for funding hot fusion
considerably. 

     In fact, given that cold fusion break-even
regularly eclipses anything in hot fusion, and given that
cold fusion has had only half a decade to hot fusion's five
decades, perhaps this comment by Richard Schultz again
points to, and clarifies, the very essence of why we should
invest in a diversity of  energy systems including cold fusion, 
impact fusion, Shiva, plasma fusion, etc. in a balanced fashion.

   Mitchell Swartz  (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.18 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Implications of Miles results
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles results
Date: 18 Jul 1995 14:08:21 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <DBwzIp.CyL@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
>  In Message-ID: <3u2tnl$oh6@agate.berkeley.edu>
>Subject: Re: Implications of Miles results
>schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) 

>>Why not just say "fusion is what powers the sun, so therefore fusion
>>exists," and leave it at that?  
>  
>  THAT, of course, is just what the hot fusion people
>have been relying on for decades.   
>  [ignoring the sun is so far away, and it just could be
>we do not thoroughly understand the sun, and the tests are not
>quite the sampling variety as of yet, ...  ]

Once again, by deleting the context in which my original question was
asked, Swartz manages to totally avoid addressing the issue that was
raised.  That issue (in case anyone besides Swartz has been unable
to figure it out) is that Swartz has claimed that the existence of
some effect by which the nuclei in a lattice can couple to the electrons
is sufficient to hypothesize such an effect's being responsible for
cold fusion.  It has been pointed out to him several times that all of the
effects of this type known are small perturbations (*extremely* small
perturbations) to the relatively large nuclear energy levels.  A rational
inductive process (as opposed to Swartz's Jiminy Cricket style of
induction) would lead one to conclude that the perturbations of this
type (e.g. that which lead to the Moessbauer effect) are going to be
much too small to mediate the CF reaction (decay of 4He* to 4He with
no high energy radiation and complete or nearly complete suppression of
competing decay pathways).  I have asked him repeatedly to comment on
my calculation that the Moessbauer effect, for example, is 15 orders of
magnitude too weak to account for the effect for which he is looking.

The comment of mine that he reprints above was to point out that if you
are going to extrapolate 15 orders of magnitude up, you might as well
extrapolate from the sun down to CF.  His reply is more or less a complete
non-sequitur, as the hot fusion people are aware of the energy scales 
involved and (so far as I know) have never needed to extrapolate 15 
orders of magnitude in order to explain some claimed effect.  Quite
the opposite -- given the *known* parameters of hot fusion, the
question is primarily a technical one of achieving those parameters;
not extrapolating in some bizarre way to "prove" that it must be
possible.  If Swartz thinks that the calculations done by the hot fusion
folks on what confinement parameters need to be achieved are bogus,
he is welcome to post his own calculations as refutations.
--
					Richard Schultz

"There are no fools as tiresome as those who have some wit." -- La Rochefoucald
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.18 / 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: 18 Jul 1995 14:11:14 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3ueqac$o09@starman.convex.com> schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes: 
>
>>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":

The inconsistencies introduced by the constants "C" and "G" are not mine.
Those are inconsistencies of the existing system.

"C" ( Unnecessarily ) introduces the concept of distance.
"G" ( Unnecessarily ) introduces the concept of mass.

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

BTW, run an experiment.
Measure cycles(reference) and cycles(X).
Divide cycles(X) into cycles(reference) and see what you get.






cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.18 / 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: 18 Jul 1995 14:25:40 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3ug6vb$i81@emerald.oz.net> Larry Adams <ladams@sensemedia.net> writes: 

>
>tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter ) wrote:
>>
>>I think everyone still believes in space and mass as fundamental
>>things.
>
>Tom, you're crossing at an intersection. Suddenly, a car turns directly
>in front of you...you believe in the contracting space between you and
>the car and you believe the car is massive and has momentum...YOU GET
>YOUR ASS OUT OF THE WAY!!! Space and mass ARE fundamental things!
>
>>Saying "cycles in what" is like saying "who made God".
>>If you recursively examine the intensions of any object...
>
>I argued earlier that you are preaching metaphysical BS. Now, I have
>more proof: "the intensions of an object."
>
>>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...
>
>THE CAR ABOVE IS *NOT* MADE OF MIND STUFF -IT WILL RUN YOU DOWN!!
>
>The real world is objective, not subjective. Einstein argued that the
>world exists independently of the observer. It is not made of mind stuff,
>it is made of body stuff. Physics is about the physical; take your
>mind stuff to the metaphysical newsgroups! -L.A.

Apparently, you don't understand what I am writing about.
I am writing about a world more causal ( To avoiding confusing objective
with a world implying objects. ) than the subject world of mind stuff
which synthesizes properties like space and mass.

Space and mass are sensory perceptions of a simple matrix of cycles
and cycles ratios. From the standpoint of physics, it is better to
reduce the sensory properties to the simplist expression.

You are talking subjective and metaphysical. I am talking physics.

Ass = mass = distance^3 / time^2 = cycles^2 / cycles^3
 ^                                   ^ 
 !                                   !
( mind stuff )                     ( physics stuff )

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.18 / Nahum Gat /  TechExpo WWW for Science and Engineering
     
Originally-From: Nahum Gat <oksi@cerfnet.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TechExpo WWW for Science and Engineering
Date: 18 Jul 1995 05:33:59 GMT
Organization: Opto-Knowledge Systems, Inc.

Dear Colleague,

TechExpo has just about doubled the postings of information on 
upcoming technical and scientific conferences.  The posting is free to 
technical societies, universities and similar orgs.  
Please check it out at WWW URL:

http://www.techexpo.com/


It also contains info on technical societies, magazines, links to 
academia and government site of technical info, as well as a directory of 
hi-tech firms including their products and services.

Regards,

Nahum Gat, Ph.D.
President
Opto-Knowledge Systems, Inc.
310/372-6665 (T)
310/379-9842 (F)
Manhattan Beach, CA 


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenoksi cudfnNahum cudlnGat cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.18 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 10:19:02 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On 18 Jul 1995, JensTroll wrote:

> 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.
[...]

Jens, before this develops into a drawn-out argument, please note that the
4He results you heard about were retracted by the investigators themselves.
I have this item in my bibliography (archived file fusion.cnf-cmnt)

Worthy W, Dagani R;  C&EN 67 (1989), May, p.5.
"Utah chemists back off from some fusion claims".
** An early retraction by F&P, at the Electrochemical Society meeting in LA,
of some of their earlier claims, i.e. the detection of neutrons and 4He,
explained as instrumental shortcomings. The neutron results as published were
simply wrong, says Fleischmann, and the 4He measurements were based on the
false assumption that the 4He, if formed, would come out of the Pd; the
immobility of He in Pd would prevent this. But F&P stand by their excess heat.

No doubt you have access to C&EN and can check this. I know that later, 
others thought they have observed 4He (and this has been discussed); but
F&P themselves no longer claim to have done so, nor to have seen neutrons
etc; they only claim excess heat now.

-- Dieter Britz  alias  britz@kemi.aau.dk

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.18 / Andrew Cooke /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: ajc@reaxp01.roe.ac.uk (Andrew Cooke)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.energy,sci.misc,s
i.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle
sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 10:43:18 GMT
Organization: Institute for Astronomy, Royal Observatory Edinburgh

In article <1995Jul13.204344.16823@news2.den.mmc.com>,
Mahipal Singh Virdy <virdy@pogo.den.mmc.com> wrote:
[...]
>scientist. Your NONSENSE about "theoretical constructs" doesn't alter
>the fact that science is talking about something absolutely REAL. The
>electrons that bombard your computer screen are REAL and they make this
>communication link possible. Enjoy what you've got but stop being
>hypocritical about Science. [Not directed to you persoanlly Al.]
[...]

	the telephone was developed (i believe) before people knew
	about electrons.  presumably they had people then saying that 
	`the electric flux is real' and `it is not just a model'.

	the effect of what we call electrons is real - i don't doubt
	that we can all watch television.  but what we call electrons
	could actually `be' something quite different.

	back to the above: he is saying that `electrons' refers to our 
	current model of what makes a television work.  he's not saying 
	that he's imagining television!

	andrew

-- 
  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:
cuddy18 cudenajc cudfnAndrew cudlnCooke cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.18 / Larry Adams /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: Larry Adams <ladams@sensemedia.net>
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: 18 Jul 1995 11:46:51 GMT
Organization: None.

tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter ) wrote:
>
>I think everyone still believes in space and mass as fundamental
>things.

Tom, you're crossing at an intersection. Suddenly, a car turns directly
in front of you...you believe in the contracting space between you and
the car and you believe the car is massive and has momentum...YOU GET
YOUR ASS OUT OF THE WAY!!! Space and mass ARE fundamental things!

>Saying "cycles in what" is like saying "who made God".
>If you recursively examine the intensions of any object...

I argued earlier that you are preaching metaphysical BS. Now, I have
more proof: "the intensions of an object."

>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...

THE CAR ABOVE IS *NOT* MADE OF MIND STUFF -IT WILL RUN YOU DOWN!!

The real world is objective, not subjective. Einstein argued that the
world exists independently of the observer. It is not made of mind stuff,
it is made of body stuff. Physics is about the physical; take your
mind stuff to the metaphysical newsgroups! -L.A.



cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenladams cudfnLarry cudlnAdams cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.18 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Bogus 12-sigma statistics
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bogus 12-sigma statistics
Date: 18 Jul 1995 11:56:32 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <USE2PCB170332197@brbbs.brbbs.com>,
MARSHALL DUDLEY <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.
 
>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.

As several people have already mentioned, there are several fundamental
reasons to question whether "sigma" can be properly used as a quality 
parameter in the mass spec experiments.  You will note that Swartz insists
on describing the results as "12 sigma" but gets remarkably vague when asked
"12 sigma" relative to *what*.  But even a "12 sigma" result can be of
questionable value, as can be seen if we actually attempt a quantitative
estimate of what he is or might be talking about.

Let's assume for the moment that these mass spectrometrists are using a
hyper-spiffy pulse counting detector (say a Daly-type detector).  Let's
first consider the "sigma" in terms of background noise signal.  Suppose
the background is 20 +/- 2 counts per second.  That's actually pretty 
decent background in such a system.  Now a "12-sigma" signal against that
background will only by 24 counts of signal.  Even if we assume that the
background's "sigma" is 5 counts per second, the "12-sigma" signal is
only 60 counts/second.  So we can see that the signal-to-noise (which
is actually the important parameter in a mass spec experiment) can
be pretty lousy (1-3) even with a "12-sigma" signal.  I have made
on obvious oversimplification, in that I have ignored the distribution in
the signal itself.  It's possible that the "12 sigmas" we are talking about
is that the experimental signal is 12 times larger than its standard
deviation.  In that case, telling us that the signal is "12 sigmas" tells
us exactly nothing.  Suppose the signal were 12 +/- 1 counts per second.
Against a background of 20 +/- 2 counts per second, I would describe the
result as something closer to "wishful thinking" than as a tremendously
significant result.  And if the background were hundreds of counts per
second (not unreasonable by any stretch of the imagination), your 12 cps
signal is basically noise.  Of course, it's possible that the background
is 20 cps and the signal is 1200 +/- 100 cps.  But merely citing the
result in terms of some "sigma" instead of in terms of signal-to-noise
ratio tells us absolutely nothing about the quality of the data.

Now, in the above analysis, I have made a second, more subtle 
oversimplification that once again works *against* the "12-sigma"
signal being real.  When I gave a number for the background, that was an
"ideal" background, i.e. in the absolute absence of anything that might
give a signal (so what you're basically left with is PMT dark noise and
the occasional molecule from the vacuum somehow zapping your detector).
In real life, the background is unlikely to be this clean for two reasons.
First, the ions that you are attempting to detect are of low mass.
Because of the way quadrupole mass spectrometers work, the background 
rises as you get closer and closer to the "zero" setting ("zero" being
equivalent to allowing the mass spec to pass all ions regardless of mass).
Thus, the actual background at mass 4 is likely to be much larger than
the ideal background; and even if the resolution is set very high, this will
also discriminate against the actual ions you're looking for.  But even
though the background *level* is likely to be high, the background
*variance* can plausibly be assumed to be not that much larger.  Even
if the background variance scales with the background level, you're still
left with the same problem that is discussed in the previous paragraph:
your signal-to-noise may not be anything to write home about.

The second problem in the mass spec experiment is that the attempt is
being made to find 4He against a background of deuterium (which also
has a mass of 4).  Now it may be true that the system is set up to
exclude as much (D2)+ as possible, but that is still no guarantee that
the level will be zero -- in fact, I for one would be extremely surprised
if it were.  That means that you are now introducing a background at
the same mass as your signal (no way is a QPMS going to distinguish
4He from D2, although an ICR might).  So the number of sigmas will once
again tell you exactly nothing about whether your signal indicates you
have any products of cold fusion in your sample.

The above analysis was merely to indicate that calling the result "12
sigma" is meaningless.  Even without that, however, there are good reasons
to question whether the entire experiment is not meaningless.  First of all,
helium is essentially immobile in a Pd lattice, so it's not clear to
me why these experimenters expected that they would find any He in the
gas above the electrode (unless, I suppose, they think that CF is a surface
rather than a lattice effect).  As others have pointed out, however, 
there is no reason to believe that the He content in any chemistry 
laboratory will be the same as the "official" concentration in air, and
given the ubiquity of He use in laboratories, there is every reason to 
believe that it will be higher.  Taken together, these points indicate
that merely taking a sample from a CF cell and rushing it to the mass
spec is not necessarily going to tell you anything.  In order to provide
a meaningful result (i.e. one in which the signal reflects an actual
increase in 4He due to CF), you need to do a much more careful
investigation.

I would suggest that you have to run two cells in parallel.  Both
cells are loaded the same way, and then one is left that way while the
other one is set up to do "CF."  Then samples from *both* are collected
in the same way, and both are tested for He (I would want that test to
be double-blind, but that's not as important).  Then the test for
significance is -- are the two signals *different from each other*?  That
would be much more compelling than comparing the signal from one cell to 
some arbitrary background, as collecting the background in the way I have 
described will eliminate possible systematic errors such as those
described above.  To be completely rigorous, you would have to run the 
experiment switching which cell was the control and which the "CF" cell
in order to control for the possibility that the Pd in the two cells
happened to have different He levels.

I hope that this exposition has made it more clear why the insistence
on calling the signal "12 sigmas" without further quantitation ought
to raise one's eyebrows.  The use of the term "12 sigma" in this 
context, without further clarification, is not sufficient to demonstrate
that the experimental results were positive.
--
					Richard Schultz

"You just make this crap up and publish it without thinking. . . You did not
have the foggiest, vaguest idea what the man was doing. . . Did you ever
think, for even a second, what might happen to you if these people turn
out to be right?" -- Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 6 January 1993
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Jul 19 04:37:05 EDT 1995
------------------------------
