1995.07.19 / Richard Schultz /  Mitchell Swartz, professional troll (was Miles results)
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mitchell Swartz, professional troll (was Miles results)
Date: 19 Jul 1995 13:10:58 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

I have stated that Swartz's continual misrepresentation of what I say
for no clear purpose other than to get a reaction has long since ceased
to be amusing and is now just tiresome.  Therefore, until and unless
he answers the two questions in this post, I will not post any more
to this thread.  I think I've made my position clear enough, and there
is a limit to how much of my repeating myself even I can stand.

In article <DBxs5r.6G3@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

> Doubt we will ever see Mr. Schultz acknowledge his
>sophomoric errors in this matter [or in so many of the
>others of his barbs and rebarbs all over the net].

Question #1:  Can you give a specific example of *one* error, sophomoric
or otherwise, that I have posted to any newsgroup other than s.p.f. that
I have not acknowledged as soon as my mistake was pointed out?
By error, I mean a mistaken statement of fact that was meant to be taken
seriously (as opposed to ironic, sarcastic, or joking statements such
as "French bread makes good skis").  (I can think of one embarassing 
mistake I posted to soc.culture.jewish, but as soon as someone posted the
correct information, I conceded the error and apologized for it.)  If
you cannot cite one, then I expect you to apologize for the libel.

>  In summary, Mr. Richard Shultz's derivation is not applicable
>(it is in non-binary lattice), it is not correct to within 
>ONE OPTICAL PHONON, and is a silly attempt
>to confuse signal bandwidth with energy transfer.
>
>   Such thinking shows frantic confusion
>on his part regarding many subjects once again, and it is
>clear that  Mr. Schultz has again exposed his lack of 
>physical understanding.

Well, at least I know how to spell your name; would that you would do
me the same courtesy.  But I digress.  I have explained the calculation
I did and what it showed any number of times, but I realize that reading
comprehension is not your strong suit.  So I shall recap for (I promise)
the last time.

(1) D+D yields as the initial fusion product a highly (24 MeV) excited 4He*.

(2) Mitchell Swartz claimed that this nucleus, when found in a Pd lattice,
can and does decay without production of high-energy radiation, and that
all of the excess energy goes into excitation of lattice phonons.

(3) Steven Jones demonstrated that Special Relativity constraints indicate
that the sequence in #2 cannot happen given the known properties of the He
nucleus and of the decay of excited nuclei in general.

(4) Swartz claims that the lattice can "couple" to the nucleus in such a
way as to allow #2.  This claim implies that the lattice is somehow able
to perturb the He* nucleus to prevent its decay along normal channels.  He
gave as an example of such a coupling the Moessbauer effect.

(5) The next step is to consider whether it is reasonable to invoke 
the Moessbauer effect to explain the decay of the He* nucleus without
production of high-energy photons.  I claim that the relevant comparison 
in this case is not the keV nuclear excitation that is used in the Moessbauer 
experiment vs. the MeV excitation of the He*.  Rather, I maintain that the 
important consideration for deciding whether it is reasonable to invoke 
a "Moessbauer-type" coupling to explain how the He* nucleus can decay without 
producing any high-energy radiation is to compare the amount by which the 
energy levels *of the nucleus* are affected by the environment of the nucleus
with the energy scale of the nuclear decay process.  By "Moessbauer-type
coupling,"  I mean the energy splittings caused by the various interactions
of the nucleus with the electrons that lead to observed Moessbauer spectra.

(6) I calculated the amount by which nuclear energy levels are affected
by the interaction of the nucleus with the electrons surrounding it in a
typical Moessbauer experiment.  The difference in the energy emitted by
the source and that absorbed by the target differs by something less than
1 part in 10^10.  (Note that this is separate from the coupling that allows
the emission and absorption of the photon to occur without recoil.  As I
pointed out in an earlier post, it is this recoilless emission and absorption
of the photon that allows one to observe the Moessbauer effect experimentally,
as otherwise the Doppler broadening of the signal would be far larger than
the linewidth of the signal itself.)  

(7) I concluded that the effect upon the internal energy of the nucleus
that gives rise to Moessbauer spectroscopy is far too small to mediate
the kind of process that would be necessary to enable the He* nucleus to
decay without production of high-energy radiation (and for that matter,
without the usual 1:1 3He:T ratio that is seen in all other cases and that
one would expect from a naive "conservation of angular momentum" argument).

So far, Swartz has not given any quantitative refutation of the calculations
done in the line of reasoning above (indeed, his attempts to refute Jones
led Swartz to calculate that solar radiation could not travel more than
nanometers, revealing his complete lack of understanding of what he was 
talking about).  Indeed, he has given no worthwhile qualitative reason
to doubt any of what I say above except to continually confound the energy
scales of the Moessbauer photon and lattice phonons (which I wasn't talking
about) with the energy scale of the splitting of the nuclear energy levels
in the Moessbauer experiment (which I was talking about, and which he
refuses to believe I was talking about).  I am not saying that I cannot
be proved wrong -- indeed, I offered the above line of reasoning in the hope
that someone out there might consider having a rational discussion about it.

Trying to have a rational discussion with Swartz is worse than trying to
have a rational discussion with a brick wall, as the brick wall merely
ignores you, while Swartz goes out of his way to twist the words of anyone
who disagrees with him.  That is why I am not going to post to this thread
again until Swartz answers question #1 above and the following question:

Question #2.  Given a typical Moessbauer experiment that uses the 14.4 keV
transition of the 57Fe nucleus in which the source and sample nuclei are
brought into resonance at a relative velocity of 2.2 mm/sec, what is
the delta-E of the Moessbauer transition in the sample nucleus?  That is,
what is the *difference* in energy between the energy level of the 
excited nucleus and the energy level to which the absorbing nucleus is
excited?
--
					Richard Schultz

"You don't even have a clue as to which clue you're missing." -- Miss Manners
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.19 / 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: 19 Jul 1995 13:20:10 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <ijames-1807951841290001@156.40.188.208>,
Carl F. Ijames <ijames@codon.nih.gov> wrote:

>The first articles in this series haven't reached my newserver yet so I
>don't know can't what kind of mass analyzer was actually used or whose
>data we are discussing, but 4He is 4.002603, D2 is 4.028204, and
>resolution is m/delta m = 157.  Given equal abundances, this is actually
>pretty easy on a quadrupole.  

Note your caveat -- "given equal abundances."  The situation I was 
describing was trying to quantitatively pick out a small amount of 4He
against a large background of D2.  It may be possible in theory, but 
based on my experience with quadrupoles, in practice it will be tough
if not impossible.  Heck, it's tough enough to quantitatively pick out
a small signal at m/z = 57 from a much larger one at m/z = 56 (although
it can be done, and I have done it -- cf. my 1988 JACS article).
--
					Richard Schultz

"How many boards would the Mongols hoard if the Mongol hordes got bored?"
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.19 / I Johnston /  Re: Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 13:53:06 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

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

: Note that Jed Rothwell works for Cold Fusion Research Advocates (CFRA). ]

As I thought I understood it, Jed _is_ Cold Fusion Research Advocates. I
seem to remember a rather heated post of his some time back explaining
that he could call himself anything he liked, and just because he chose
CFRA we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that it was a formal
organisation of any sort. The word "Jesuitical" sprang to mind at the
time.

Doubtless Mr Rothwell will correct me, at length, using the words
"fool", "knows nothing", "commercially confidential", "beyond
chemistry", "knows nothing about science" and "I don't care about
theory" several times.

Ian
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.19 / 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: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 14:55:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I would suggest that Marshall is still overlooking an important
point when he considers neutron capture by one of the Pd isotopes.

It would be more appropriate to rewrite Marshall's equations as
follows:

       102Pd + n = 103Pd + 7.61 MeV excitation energy
       106Pd + n = 107Pd + 6.38 MeV excitation energy

The gamma rays you must consider are not just those emitted following the
beta decay of the 103Pd and 107Pd isotopes.  The nuclei in question have
to shed  several MeV via rapid gamma decays before they reach their
ground state yet you assume that this cascade of gammas will go undetected.
The energies you need to consider are in the 100 KeV range and higher.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.19 / 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: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 14:37:14 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  
In Message-ID: <3uitb0$e2c@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Bogus 12-sigma statistics
schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) wrote:

    >   In his continued attempt to impugn Dr. Miles
    >(and anyone else who reads or works in this field),
-schultz   "This is a lie."

  It is demonstrated by Mr. Schultz's own postings.
Mr. Peanuts Envy has in fact added these comments
from Jed Rothwell to his own sig trying to glorify the
squabbles he (and a few others) create here.

"What is this whacko attitude you people out here in Fusion Digest have?
What is the matter with you?  This place is a Goddamn Pirahna pool! Let's
have some patience, and some manners."
			--Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 14 Jan 1993

"You just make this crap up and publish it without thinking. . . You did not
have the foggiest, vaguest idea what the man was doing. "
                    -- Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 6 January 1993

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

-schultz "When I took physical science way back in eighth grade, I learned
-schultz   that concentration is number of items per unit volume."

 Despite more frantic handwaving,   Mr. Schultz's inability 
to recognize ash is exposed and is consistent with his  
attempts to impugn.  It may also be consistent with his "eigth grade"
physical science education about which he brags.

        -    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:
cuddy19 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.19 / mitchell swartz /  Mr. Richard Schultz - his eighth grade education at work
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mr. Richard Schultz - his eighth grade education at work
Subject: Mitchell Swartz, professional troll (was Miles results)
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 14:39:58 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <3uj092$hlu@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Mitchell Swartz, professional troll (was Miles results)
schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) pouts.

  In his previous post, he admitted to an eighth grade physical
science level.  Here he demonstrates his emotional maturity
consistent with four-year old levels.

   Schultz's continual misrepresentations of what various people
say has no purpose other than to get a reaction and to discourage
interest in this field.
He again makes many erroneous statements, allegations, that have
been gone over before.

  Schultz's posts have long since ceased to be amusing, in his latest
following removal of the endless vituperous ad hominems
so typical of the Mr. Schultz.
  Child-like individuals like Mr. Schultz -- who hide in wait
as trolls (quite a projection on his part)  and post to interrupt
discussion, science, and communications --
 need never concern themselves with the truth apparently.  

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

     "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:
cuddy19 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.19 / Andy Fogliano /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: Andy Fogliano <SFN@wsdot.wa.gov>
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: 19 Jul 1995 16:02:37 GMT
Organization: Washington State Department Of Transportation

Turn off the TV. Andy


cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenSFN cudfnAndy cudlnFogliano cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.19 / Barry Merriman /  The Experimentalists lament
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Experimentalists lament
Date: 19 Jul 1995 01:38:38 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <10@milton.win-uk.net>  writes:
>  

> In
> medicine it was argued for years that aspirin was beneficial in
> heart disease and rejected by skeptics.  

I don't recall any ``rejection by skeptics''. Undoubtedly all they 
wanted was more thorough study. That hardly constitutes rejection,
especially in the context of drug effects in humans, whereing theory
is a fairly poor guide.


>It was only when a huge
> clinical trial involving 22,000 subjects was put together that the
> very small experimental effect was confirmed.  Yet it became obvious
> so quickly when enough people were got together that the
> exprimenters wound up the experiment because they felt that
> morally they could not deny aspirin to the control group -- they
> would experience 45% more heart attacks.
> 

You contradict yourself several fold: first, if their were a large
skeptical consituency, the aspirin study would never have
made it to such a large scale study, would it? Second, if the effect
was ``small'' they wouldn;t have interrupted the study early, would 
they? Finally, a 45% reduction in mortality is hardly small.



--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.19 / John Vetrano /  Microstructural Examination
     
Originally-From: js_vetrano@pnl.gov (John Vetrano)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Microstructural Examination
Date: 19 Jul 1995 01:09:18 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL


    > Conservation of mass, isn't it?
    >  what does not go into gas, and does not
    > remain in the solution, enters the metal.
-I just wanted to point out that these atoms can form small bubbles in the
-microstructure of the Pd.  It is quite common.  Therefore, they would not
-be present in the interstices of the lattice, but the situation does not
-violate conservation of mass.  

--Here Mitchell Swartz responded
If you draw a surface area surrounding and enclosing the
entire cathode, there are flux terms representing any
and all deuteron mass transfer from the solution to
 the metal (and leaving too on the a microscopic basis).

The penetration of that area (consider Gauss' law) by
D or D+   or D2 must all be counted, including that which
goes to the gas (or hopefully to fusion in a much much smaller
flux; but that is assumed to be 0 outside of the metal)

You might, as an exercise, add up the fluxes at the barrier
to the electrode (total surface integral), including their
origins by electrophoretic movements and diffusion,
and then  throw in charge transfer, mass conservation
(Gauss' law again) and the wee possibility of that non-trivial
fusion flux and see how they are related.

----
Now, I am not ready to dig up data for all the fluxes for a cathode, but
my point is that I agree with conservation of mass but just because H or D
go into a metal does NOT mean that they necessarily reside in the
interstices of the lattice.  When you load Pd with D it swells.  Now, has
anyone looked to see if the swelling is due to D in interstitial
positions, or merely residing in cute little bubbles (typical size
probably 2 nm in diameter).  There would be differences in the swelling
amount per D atom.  Has that been measured?  (by the way, formation of
these bubbles is the primary cause of swelling in stainless steels
irradiated in fast fission reactors).  Did you mean that the accounting of
the fluxes is done by current measurements?  If that were so, wouldn't
there be no way to distinguish between two D+ ions combining at the
surface (and going into the solution) and two ions combining in the
lattice (and going into a bubble)?

-----
  I wrote:
-Question for either Mitchell Swartz or anyone else in the know.  Our
-library does not have access to the CF literature (i.e. the conference
-proceedings) but I have been curious for some time if anyone has done
-Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) studies of the metal before or
-after a CF reaction.  This technique gives a direct look at the lattice
-and can tell you many things about the processes that have occurred
-there.  If you have any specific papers or researchers that have done this
-I would appreciate any information.  Thanks in advance.

-Regards,
-John Vetrano   js_vetrano@pnl.gov


---and Mitchell Swartz replied:
Yes.  and your comments are correct.
There are SEM pictures in the first ref below if memory serves,
and more morpho data in the second.  

suggest SCI CITATIONS on the these as a start

D.R. ROLISON, P. P. TRZASKOMA, "Morphological Differences between
 Hydrogen-Loaded and Deuterium-loaded Palladium as observed by SEM", 
 J. Electroanal. Chem., 287, 375 (1990

Matsumoto, T. and K. Kurokawa,
   Fusion Technology, Vol. 20, 323-329 (1991)

[Despite the attacks of the TBskeptics against autoradiography, it too
is another means to examine with a direct view of the lattice.
Unless the spectrum analyzer is connected to flying spot scanner
or such, the spatial data might be lost.]

  Best wishes.

   Mitchell Swartz 

-----
I looked up these papers.  The first one is fine but the second is
completely worthless (no statements of starting materials, no "before"
examination, what they call cavities are actually "hills" on the
surface).  HOWEVER, while SEM yields pretty pictures it is insufficient
for anything happening in the lattice as it is a surface technique. 
Almost a glorified optical microscope.  I thought that the jist of CF was
that it is a lattice phenomenon.  Heck, if it is a surface effect then do
thermal spray and get submicron-sized balls of Pd and go to it.  Plenty of
surface area there.

When I say that TEM lets you look at the lattice, I mean directly.  Squint
and you see the atoms (actually that is a bit incorrect; you see atomic
columns).  Any local changes in lattice parameter are easily measured. 
Any defects from high energy reactions are easily visible.  People do this
every day.

I'm not trying to give offense to anyone, it is just that this is my area
of expertise (unlike some of the discussion of Mass Spectrometry, which
I've heard of :-) ) and I'm trying to indicate that it is perhaps a good
technique to look at these phenomena.

--- Chuck Sites also replied:
TEM work is tricky with electrodes used in an conventional electrolytic 
type experiment simply due to the sample size and the difficulty getting 
undistured Angstrom thick specimens. It might be a really good technique
for thin films loaded in pressurised D gas however.  I got a peak at a 
few cells Tom Droege ran under an SEM with backscatter.  In that case 
there was alot of chemistry involved with some of the electrolyte fusing 
with the surface metal.  Too bad we couldn't disern any isotopic shifts.

---
Actually, I only need a 1.2 mm diameter disk, down to about 50 microns
thick (though actually 3 mm diameter is more standard).  Are electrodes
that small?  While it is not always straightforward, we do prepare samples
here that have developed corrosion cracks as well as samples that have
undergone radiation damage.  

Anyway, I'm sure you have all stopped reading by now, but I wanted to at
least set the record straight about these things.

Regards,

John Vetrano
js_vetrano@pnl.gov

p.s.  Thanks, Mitchell, for pointing out those references.  Though I
didn't think the second was any good it was in the middle of a section
devoted to CF and I learned a few things from other articles in there.

-- 
The above opinions are mine, all mine.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjs_vetrano cudfnJohn cudlnVetrano cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.19 / mitchell swartz /  The Experimentalists lament
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Experimentalists lament
Subject: The Experimentalists lament
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 03:14:48 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <3uhnmu$78@soenews.ucsd.edu>
Subject: The Experimentalists lament
barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:

   > In
   > medicine it was argued for years that aspirin was beneficial in
   > heart disease and rejected by skeptics.  
"I don't recall any ``rejection by skeptics''. Undoubtedly all they 
wanted was more thorough study. That hardly constitutes rejection,
especially in the context of drug effects in humans, whereing theory
is a fairly poor guide."

Not sure what a "whereing theory" is, but facts are:
   1)  Medicine is very conservative and physicians and
surgeons are both skeptical.   That constitutes
rejection, and the options are not offered to the
patients.

 The response of medical community to correct and fresh
ideas has often been tardive by decades (or worse).
That can be because of diffusion times, or resistance to
the ideas -- even when what is "known" is wrong.  

    Semmelweis was discussed previously here
albeit too much.  Here are three more examples:
add in gastric ulcers, and conservative 
mastectomy with postoperative radiation for select
breast carcinoma  or limb salvage with high dose
precision radiotherapy and conservative resection
for chondrosarcomas and fibrosarcomas.

In the case of postoperative radiotherapy for breast carcinoma
and prepoperative XRT with conservative
resection for soft tissue sarcoma there are STILL skeptics
not undertaking the optimal proceedure despite the
overwhelming data.
 The patients were -- and many are still --
denied in all  the cited
cases because of "conventional wisdom" which just
happens to be: WRONG.

   2)  Also pharmacology is a very good guide to the
effect of drugs on humans 
   (go get a copy of Goodman and Gilman,
   Textbook of Pharmacology for an exercise)

Barry, think you are wrong again on this matter of skepticism
   in medicine.
[BTW, do you know as little about fusion as you do
    about the history of medicine?]

   Best wishes.
    Mitchell Swartz





cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.19 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Silly nonsense from Robert Heeter
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Silly nonsense from Robert Heeter
Date: 19 Jul 1995 03:53:19 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <ZlKiYfQ.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

> Just to remind readers what I have actually said,
> repeatedly, here is a paragraph from "Highlights of the Fifth International
> Conference on Cold Fusion:"
>  
>      ....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."
>  
> - Jed

I find it interesting that you don't offer up as equally likely
that the device simply doesn't work, and experimental error is
the source of the conflicting results. I guess that would just be
too radical of a concept...much more cautious to invoke revolutionary
physics.

--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.18 / Charles Cagle /  Re: New Gravitational force
     
Originally-From: <singtech@teleport.com> (Charles Cagle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: New Gravitational force
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 22:44:35 -0800
Organization: Singularity Technologies, Inc.

In article <3ttmr8$rgo@otis.netspace.net.au>, rvanspaa@netspace.net.au
(Robin van Spaandonk) wrote:

> On 10 Jul 1995 15:19:44 GMT, tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter ) wrote:
> 
> >In <1995Jul9.024703.5859@pinet.aip.org> ejeong@pinet.aip.org
(euejin_jeong) writes: 
> 
> >>    The propulsion mechanism of infinitely advanced beings has been
> >>    thoroughly studied and explained.
> 
> >This is our last warning!
> >Quit deciminating this information!
> Was that decimating, or disseminating?:-)
> 
> >The Federation


Hey, Robin.  How are you?  I enjoy your humor as above.  We haven't
connected in months.  What is going on.  Employed yet?

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:
cuddy18 cudensingtech cudfnCharles cudlnCagle cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.19 / 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: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 16:19:08 GMT
Organization: Motorola CCRD

In article <3ueq0d$1jl@ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
Tom Potter  <tdp@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
)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"

Nope.  I agree with all of the above  (or at least the first two, I'd
have to double-check the math on number 3, I'm assuming you have it
right, and if you have made a minor typographical error it probably
doesn't matter because there is some similar relationship anyway.

Actually, I think cycles are probably the best way to measure
time in practice.  There are other ways of measuring time - a waterclock
doesn't use cycles, it uses intepolation on a linear process.  Cycles
are more accurate, generally, than such other methods.  Cycles are what
we use to define our time standards - and have been for some time
(oops, self-reference here!) because before atomic clocks we used
other cycles (the sidereal day comes to mind).  AFAIK anyway, I'm not
totally up on the history of timekeeping.

However, I'm not convinced they are fundamental from a philosophical point
of view.  Given standard concepts of space and time, cycles fall out as a
translation symmetry.

It's not too clear to me how well one can work backwards from cycles
to concepts of space and time, though.

)>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.

Yes, to some extent. It's clear that time and space are closely related by
the invariance of the speed of light, and that it is in many circumstances
productive to combine them into "lorentz invariants".  It's probably still
a mistake to claim that time and space they are philosophically the same,
though. IMO, anyway.  At least until one explains the "arrow of time" which
seems to be one obvious difference beween the two.

)>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.

If you succeed in explaining all of existing concepts of space and
time with cycles, you've done something that may have philosophical
significance, but it really amounts to a change of language only.  IMO.
So far I'm not convinced that you have the same explanatory power
with cycles as with space and time.

)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.

Oh-oh.  "mind stuff??????"  Not being a mind-body dualist, I don't
really belive in mind as a "stuff".  This is something that doesn't
fit in with your "cycles", either.  Where did this pop out of?

)>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.

It's not compatible with your philosophy , probably, but it's one way of
viewing time.  I don't totally agree with it myself, it seems a bit glib. 
It's in geniuine print, though, (MTW, Gravitation) and it's an interesting
way ov thinking about time.  IMO, anyway.  

)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.

There's something missing here.....

Alright - I think I've got it.  In the concept of space, we have
the idea of the "nearness" or neighborhood.  I don't see how you
get this concept out of pure cycles.

I'd say that you can reduce the number of units needed to one
(time) with various conversion factors, but you still need that one
unit, you can't make things totally dimensionless.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbhv cudfnBronis cudlnVidugiris cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.19 / mitchell swartz /  Microstructural Examination
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Microstructural Examination
Subject: Microstructural Examination
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 16:44:08 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <js_vetrano-1807951809190001@js_vetrano.pnl.gov>
Subject: Microstructural Examination
js_vetrano@pnl.gov (John Vetrano) wrote:

 "Now, I am not ready to dig up data for all the fluxes for a cathode, but
 my point is that I agree with conservation of mass but just because H or D
 go into a metal does NOT mean that they necessarily reside in the
 interstices of the lattice. "

     true
   
     ======================================

" When you load Pd with D it swells."  
   
    true
   
     ======================================

   "Now, has anyone looked to see if the swelling is due to D in interstitial
   positions, or merely residing in cute little bubbles (typical size
  probably 2 nm in diameter).  There would be differences in the swelling
   amount per D atom.  Has that been measured? "
   
"swelling" is due to changes in the coherent lattice AND due to
disorganizational destructive changes.
the former is good, the latter bad and appear in the SEM
photographs to which you were referred.

good point on the differences in swelling you suggest.
   
     ======================================

  "Did you mean that the accounting of
   the fluxes is done by current measurements? "

No.  dont think so because many things can contribute
to conduction/polarization effects.  
(confer von Hippel, Dielectrics and Waves for example)
   
     ======================================

    "If that were so, wouldn't
   there be no way to distinguish between two D+ ions combining at the
   surface (and going into the solution) and two ions combining in the
  lattice (and going into a bubble)?"

Not by current, but possibly by mass, and by the gas pressure
produced by diatomic deuterium.
 Also, into the ambient is another pathway for diatomic deuterium.
   
     ======================================

  "p.s.  Thanks, Mitchell, for pointing out those references.  Though I
  didn't think the second was any good it was in the middle of a section
  devoted to CF and I learned a few things from other articles in there."

   your welcome.  agree with your assessment on these papers.

  Best wishes.
   Mitchell Swartz 


cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.19 / 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: 19 Jul 1995 16:52:22 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <DBywM2.Asq@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

>Mr. Peanuts Envy has in fact added these comments
                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>from Jed Rothwell to his own sig trying to glorify the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>squabbles he (and a few others) create here.

If Jed Rothwell makes inflammatory remarks, he, not I, is responsible
for them.  

>> "When I took physical science way back in eighth grade, I learned
>>   that concentration is number of items per unit volume."
>
> Despite more frantic handwaving,   Mr. Schultz's inability 
>to recognize ash is exposed and is consistent with his  
>attempts to impugn.  It may also be consistent with his "eigth grade"
>physical science education about which he brags.

Let me get this straight -- are you telling me that concentration has
some definition other than number of objects per unit volume?
If you are, please provide us with an alternate definition.  If you
are not, please explain to me how He atoms/J is a measure of 
concentration rather than of mass.  If you are claiming that it
is possible to directly compare, from the information you have
posted, the number of He atoms/J with the background He, given in
atoms/500 mL of gas, please just show how.  You know, stick to the
science and all that.
--
					Richard Schultz

"You don't even have a clue as to which clue you're missing." -- Miss Manners
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.19 / Jim Bowery /  Re: A conspicuous House Budget Item
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A conspicuous House Budget Item
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 16:40:28 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Robert F. Heeter (rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu) wrote:
: Actually, I believe Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA, heads House
: Science subcommittee dealing with Fusion, if I remember right) 
: was responsible for that little nicety.  He just had an article
: published on the "Back Page" of the APS News, very interesting.

Rohrabacher has a habit of "picking winners" in technology even when 
offered an opportunity to prove his ostensibly libertarian leanings via 
some sort of incentive system.  When I brought up the idea that RT 
Jones's oblique flying wing SST was about as far as one could take 
transportation within the atmosphere, and beyond those speeds (~mach 2) 
one should get out of the atmophere with reuseable ballistics, the impact 
seemed to be to give the DC-X a boost rather than the incentive programs 
I was pushing at the time.

The fusion act replacement that I was circulating about the time that my 
last legislative success (launch service vouchers) went through never saw 
the light of day even though it was probably my best work on creating a 
system of incentives for technology development to date.  Rohrabacher got 
a copy of that as did many others who should have been eager to jump on a 
way to get government out of "picking winners" -- that is if they had any 
principles.  Instead, we get politicians continuing to make technical 
judgements on behalf of "the people".

The Republicans have the principles of Nazis and the Democrats have the 
principles of Commies.  
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
                 Change the tools and you change the rules.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.19 / mitchell swartz /  Troll-like behavior by Richard Schultz (was Miles Result)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Troll-like behavior by Richard Schultz (was Miles Result)
Subject: Mitchell Swartz, professional troll (was Miles results)
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 14:55:39 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


  In Message-ID: <3uj092$hlu@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Mitchell Swartz, professional troll (was Miles results)
schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) pouts
and projects key again.

  In his previous post, he admitted to an eighth grade physical
science level.  Here he demonstrates his emotional maturity
consistent with four-year old levels.
Child-like individuals like Mr. Schultz -- who hide in wait
as trolls (quite a projection on his part) on numerous newgroups
and post to interrupt discussion, science, and communications --
 need never concern themselves with the truth apparently.  

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

     "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:
cuddy19 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.19 / Alan M /  Re: Mitchell Swartz, professional troll (was Miles results)
     
Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" <Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mitchell Swartz, professional troll (was Miles results)
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 17:54:20
Organization: Home

In article: <3uj092$hlu@agate.berkeley.edu>  schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu
(Richard Schultz) 
writes:

> I have stated that Swartz's continual misrepresentation of what I say
> for no clear purpose other than to get a reaction has long since ceased
> to be amusing and is now just tiresome.  Therefore, until and unless
> he answers the two questions in this post, I will not post any more
> to this thread.  I think I've made my position clear enough, and there
> is a limit to how much of my repeating myself even I can stand.

With the quality and style of support for CF concepts that Swartz has been
showing here in his dialog with you, I don't think you need lose much sleep
over the possible consequences of a temporary withdrawal from the argument.

The probability that he will *ever* produce anything worth reading, far less
commenting on is zero - to beyond a twelve-sigma confidence level <g>.

He's probably necessary to CF, if only to complete the Langmuir criteria.
-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.



cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.19 / Tom Droege /  Re: Microstructural Examination
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Microstructural Examination
Date: 19 Jul 1995 17:46:40 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <js_vetrano-1807951809190001@js_vetrano.pnl.gov>, js_vetrano@
nl.gov (John Vetrano) says:
>
>
>    > Conservation of mass, isn't it?
>    >  what does not go into gas, and does not
>    > remain in the solution, enters the metal.
>-I just wanted to point out that these atoms can form small bubbles in the
>-microstructure of the Pd.  It is quite common.  Therefore, they would not
>-be present in the interstices of the lattice, but the situation does not
>-violate conservation of mass.  

(snip)

I have a Princeton PhD thesis from 1940 by G.A. Moore that discusses
this.  Nicely dug up by brother Lee John.  He found that H goes not 
only into the crystal lattice but also into what he calls "the rifts
in the slip planes."  As I remember, he reached loadings of 1.7 or so.
He concluded that about half was in the crystal lattice and about half
in the rifts.  Moore worked with very fine wires, 0.1 mm as I recall.
Some very interesting stuff.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.19 / mitchell swartz /  Alan Dunsmuir, UK's "can't quote poetry right" troll
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Alan Dunsmuir, UK's "can't quote poetry right" troll
Subject: Re: Mitchell Swartz, professional troll (was Miles results)
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 18:09:48 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


  In Message-ID: <836138695wnr@moonrake.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Mitchell Swartz, professional troll (was Miles results)
Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk  "Alan M. Dunsmuir" proves
once again, as he has extensively on sci.skeptic and 
sci.physics.fusion that he has NOTHING scientific
to say about ANYTHING.

  But then Master Dunsmuir spends most of his time pointing
out that he "can't even quote poetry right".

   so true.



cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.19 / 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: Wed, 19 Jul 95 18:05:35 GMT
Organization: Micro Services

bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com "Bronis Vidugiris" writes:

> Tom Potter  <tdp@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> )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.
> 
> Oh-oh.  "mind stuff??????"  Not being a mind-body dualist, I don't
> really belive in mind as a "stuff".  This is something that doesn't
> fit in with your "cycles", either.  Where did this pop out of?

I know what he means by "mind stuff". He means like poetry, music, or
according to some, software.

"We are such stuff
As dreams are made on, and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep."
-The Tempest, Act IV, Scene 1

I think you know what he means really, don't you?
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
cuddy19 cudenBen cudfnBen cudlnNewsam cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.19 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Tifft; Atom Totality explains + predicts quantized galaxy
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tifft; Atom Totality explains + predicts quantized galaxy
Date: 19 Jul 1995 18:51:15 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

Mr Plutonium: why don't you direct your posts
to the appropriate news groups. This is sci.physics.FUSION

I suggest you post mainly to 

alt.weird.physics.and.its.relation.to.my.psychotic.religious.fantasy.about.Pu



--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.19 / 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: 19 Jul 1995 18:52:25 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Dallas, ACC

In article <3ui64l$re5@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>, tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter ) writes:
|> In <3uh0lq$31f@news.utdallas.edu> iblum@utdallas.edu (Ira K Blum) writes: 
|> >
|> >In article <3ugfe2$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
|> Who said "C" and "G" were dimensionless?
|> I have made many posts in these forums, all dimensionally correct.
|> 

Your inference is that distance is only a facet of time and that time is 
dimensionless.  constants like "C" and "G" are usefull because they are 
parts of transformations.  these transformations can NOT be ignored.

|> >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.  
|> Fundamentally, what we percieve as velocity is a dimensionless tangent
|> multiplied by "C". This tangent is an interaction or radial time
|> divided by a period or cyclical time. When applied to the electron, 
|> this tangent is known as the "fine structure constant".
|> Velocity(X) = tangent(X) * C  
|>             =  time(interaction)/ time(period)  
|>             =  FSC * C 
|> 

You are being slippery.  the fine structure constant only applies to a 
particle travelling in an interactive medium at relativistic speeds.  In 
vacuum or at non-relativistic speeds, v = dx/dt  (simple)

|> >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.  
|> As you perhaps know, the del function has the dimensions of a reciprocal distance.
|> I will look over this paragraph offline and see if it is correct.
|> 

del is not a function, del is an operator.  del^2 is usually referred to 
as the laplacian.  try looking that up.

|> >|> "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)
|> Are you saying that all distances cannot be expressed as time / C ??
|> They can and this expression is more fundamental.
|> 

As a matter of fact I just stated that all distance can be expressed as 
time/C, since that is what light-years does.  I also stated that 
distances can be measured in plank-seconds, which you ignored.  the 
question is not whether it can be done, the question is of convenience. 

|> >|> "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.)  
|> The intensions or the fundamental properties of mass are:
|> 	mass(A) = tangent(A)^2 * tangent(B)^3 * time(period) * C^5 / G
|> 

since tangent(a), tangent(b) are not physically measurable quantities and 
are instead philisophical constructs with no real meaning (that you've 
shown) I'll regard this statement as bunk.

|> According to your logic, hydrogen is more fundamental than protons and electrons.
|> 

depends on context.  in gas theory, hydrogen is more fundamental than 
protons and electrons.  in molecular theory, the electron is important, 
but the proton isn't.  in atomic theory, hydrogen is just a 
conglomeration of protons and electrons.  in current particle physics, 
the proton is a conglomeration of quarks and gluons while the electron 
remains.  In each case the results are measureable.  If I detect a pion 
flying through the drift chamber, I can report its momentum, energy, the 
amount of time it takes to travers the drift chamber, and position.  

|> >|> >>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.  
|> 
|> If you can count, you can measure cycles.
|> To measure time, you need to count two cycles concurrently.
|> 

then cycles are too abstract a concept to be used in particle physics.  
Go back and use some more thinkons and come up with something which might 
make physics easier, and not more difficult.

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

pudding.

|> 
|> Okay, here is a question for you.
|> The Cowboys have the ball on the own 9 yard line, 4th and 2 yards to go
|> for a first down. They lead 20 to 14.
|> Thirty seconds left in the game. What do you do?

If I'm the Cowboys, I tell the Punter to run around in the end zone until 
the clock expires.  This would ensure that I would win the game.

-- 
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:
cuddy19 cudeniblum cudfnIra cudlnBlum cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.19 / Tom Droege /  Re: Microstructural Examination
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Microstructural Examination
Date: 19 Jul 1995 17:46:40 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <js_vetrano-1807951809190001@js_vetrano.pnl.gov>, js_vetrano@
nl.gov (John Vetrano) says:
>
>
>    > Conservation of mass, isn't it?
>    >  what does not go into gas, and does not
>    > remain in the solution, enters the metal.
>-I just wanted to point out that these atoms can form small bubbles in the
>-microstructure of the Pd.  It is quite common.  Therefore, they would not
>-be present in the interstices of the lattice, but the situation does not
>-violate conservation of mass.  

(snip)

I have a Princeton PhD thesis from 1940 by G.A. Moore that discusses
this.  Nicely dug up by brother Lee John.  He found that H goes not 
only into the crystal lattice but also into what he calls "the rifts
in the slip planes."  As I remember, he reached loadings of 1.7 or so.
He concluded that about half was in the crystal lattice and about half
in the rifts.  Moore worked with very fine wires, 0.1 mm as I recall.
Some very interesting stuff.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.19 / mitchell swartz /  Alan Dunsmuir, UK's "can't quote poetry right" troll
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Alan Dunsmuir, UK's "can't quote poetry right" troll
Subject: Re: Mitchell Swartz, professional troll (was Miles results)
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 18:09:48 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


  In Message-ID: <836138695wnr@moonrake.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Mitchell Swartz, professional troll (was Miles results)
Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk  "Alan M. Dunsmuir" proves
once again, as he has extensively on sci.skeptic and 
sci.physics.fusion that he has NOTHING scientific
to say about ANYTHING.

  But then Master Dunsmuir spends most of his time pointing
out that he "can't even quote poetry right".

   so true.



cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.19 / 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: Wed, 19 Jul 95 18:05:35 GMT
Organization: Micro Services

bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com "Bronis Vidugiris" writes:

> Tom Potter  <tdp@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> )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.
> 
> Oh-oh.  "mind stuff??????"  Not being a mind-body dualist, I don't
> really belive in mind as a "stuff".  This is something that doesn't
> fit in with your "cycles", either.  Where did this pop out of?

I know what he means by "mind stuff". He means like poetry, music, or
according to some, software.

"We are such stuff
As dreams are made on, and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep."
-The Tempest, Act IV, Scene 1

I think you know what he means really, don't you?
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
cuddy19 cudenBen cudfnBen cudlnNewsam cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.19 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Tifft; Atom Totality explains + predicts quantized galaxy
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tifft; Atom Totality explains + predicts quantized galaxy
Date: 19 Jul 1995 18:51:15 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

Mr Plutonium: why don't you direct your posts
to the appropriate news groups. This is sci.physics.FUSION

I suggest you post mainly to 

alt.weird.physics.and.its.relation.to.my.psychotic.religious.fantasy.about.Pu



--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.19 / 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: 19 Jul 1995 18:52:25 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Dallas, ACC

In article <3ui64l$re5@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>, tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter ) writes:
|> In <3uh0lq$31f@news.utdallas.edu> iblum@utdallas.edu (Ira K Blum) writes: 
|> >
|> >In article <3ugfe2$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
|> Who said "C" and "G" were dimensionless?
|> I have made many posts in these forums, all dimensionally correct.
|> 

Your inference is that distance is only a facet of time and that time is 
dimensionless.  constants like "C" and "G" are usefull because they are 
parts of transformations.  these transformations can NOT be ignored.

|> >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.  
|> Fundamentally, what we percieve as velocity is a dimensionless tangent
|> multiplied by "C". This tangent is an interaction or radial time
|> divided by a period or cyclical time. When applied to the electron, 
|> this tangent is known as the "fine structure constant".
|> Velocity(X) = tangent(X) * C  
|>             =  time(interaction)/ time(period)  
|>             =  FSC * C 
|> 

You are being slippery.  the fine structure constant only applies to a 
particle travelling in an interactive medium at relativistic speeds.  In 
vacuum or at non-relativistic speeds, v = dx/dt  (simple)

|> >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.  
|> As you perhaps know, the del function has the dimensions of a reciprocal distance.
|> I will look over this paragraph offline and see if it is correct.
|> 

del is not a function, del is an operator.  del^2 is usually referred to 
as the laplacian.  try looking that up.

|> >|> "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)
|> Are you saying that all distances cannot be expressed as time / C ??
|> They can and this expression is more fundamental.
|> 

As a matter of fact I just stated that all distance can be expressed as 
time/C, since that is what light-years does.  I also stated that 
distances can be measured in plank-seconds, which you ignored.  the 
question is not whether it can be done, the question is of convenience. 

|> >|> "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.)  
|> The intensions or the fundamental properties of mass are:
|> 	mass(A) = tangent(A)^2 * tangent(B)^3 * time(period) * C^5 / G
|> 

since tangent(a), tangent(b) are not physically measurable quantities and 
are instead philisophical constructs with no real meaning (that you've 
shown) I'll regard this statement as bunk.

|> According to your logic, hydrogen is more fundamental than protons and electrons.
|> 

depends on context.  in gas theory, hydrogen is more fundamental than 
protons and electrons.  in molecular theory, the electron is important, 
but the proton isn't.  in atomic theory, hydrogen is just a 
conglomeration of protons and electrons.  in current particle physics, 
the proton is a conglomeration of quarks and gluons while the electron 
remains.  In each case the results are measureable.  If I detect a pion 
flying through the drift chamber, I can report its momentum, energy, the 
amount of time it takes to travers the drift chamber, and position.  

|> >|> >>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.  
|> 
|> If you can count, you can measure cycles.
|> To measure time, you need to count two cycles concurrently.
|> 

then cycles are too abstract a concept to be used in particle physics.  
Go back and use some more thinkons and come up with something which might 
make physics easier, and not more difficult.

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

pudding.

|> 
|> Okay, here is a question for you.
|> The Cowboys have the ball on the own 9 yard line, 4th and 2 yards to go
|> for a first down. They lead 20 to 14.
|> Thirty seconds left in the game. What do you do?

If I'm the Cowboys, I tell the Punter to run around in the end zone until 
the clock expires.  This would ensure that I would win the game.

-- 
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:
cuddy19 cudeniblum cudfnIra cudlnBlum cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.19 / 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: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 19:45:07 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


   In Message-ID: <3ujd86$n1t@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Bogus 12-sigma statistics
Richard Schultz (schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu) wrote:

    >> "When I took physical science way back in eighth grade, I learned
    >>   that concentration is number of items per unit volume."
> Despite more frantic handwaving,   Mr. Schultz's inability 
>to recognize ash is exposed and is consistent with his  
>attempts to impugn.  It may also be consistent with his "eighth grade"
>physical science education about which he brags.

 =rs  "Let me get this straight -- are you telling me that concentration has
 =rs  some definition other than number of objects per unit volume?
 =rs  If you are, please provide us with an alternate definition.  If you
 =rs  are not, please explain to me how He atoms/J is a measure of 
 =rs  concentration rather than of mass.  If you are claiming that it
 =rs  is possible to directly compare, from the information you have
 =rs  posted, the number of He atoms/J with the background He, given in
 =rs  atoms/500 mL of gas, please just show how.  You know, stick to the
 =rs  science and all that.

Further comments on Mr. Schultz's error #5
 ---------------------------------------------------------
Definition?
after Webster's:   concentration   --- "relative content of a component"

In this case, the component is helium-4.  Ash.
Did Mr. Schultz even read the post?  Here it is, then the critical
excerpt.

 "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.
 "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. "

  The post says, "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)."

It does not say concentration per unit volume.  Therefore,
it is apparent that Dr. Miles correctly calculated that amount of
generated helium, observing and correcting for any
inward diffusion of helium from the ambient,
and linked it to E=mc^2 properly as stated in the above quote.

This falls squarely within the definition of "concentration"
(per Webster's - vide supra), and demonstrates ash
commensurate with the observed excess heat.
           QED

    Best wishes colleagues, 
            Mitchell Swartz  [mica@world.std.com]


cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.19 / mitchell swartz /  cancel <DBz6Js.Avt@world.std.com>
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <DBz6Js.Avt@world.std.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 19:28:41 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

cancel <DBz6Js.Avt@world.std.com> in newsgroup sci.physics.fusion
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.19 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Marshall Dudley hyhpothesis
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Marshall Dudley hyhpothesis
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 10:37 -0500 (EST)

north@nosc.mil (Mark H. North) writes:
 
-> You are overlooking capture gammas (range 1-10Mev). For example, n-p
-> generates a 2.2Mev capture gamma. This is the famous gamma ray that F&P
-> thought was at 2.5 Mev and later turned up at 2.2 on their graph.
-> Most, if not all, nuclei emit capture gammas when they absorb a thermal
-> neutron. These gammas have nothing to do with radioactive decay.
 
Actually I was not overlooking them.  No where in my nuclear textbooks or
during my courses in nuclear physics was I ever exposed to this information.
I have made a note of it so I will know next time.  Thanks.
 
-> I don't know who would be looking only for >10 Mev gammas. Typical nuclear
-> instrumentation covers a range of approx. 50kev-10Mev. And for the
-> type of x-rays you cited in this article a solid state detector would
-> be used with Emin of about 5kev.
 
That is true for X-rays.  I was assuming that they were using a Jelly or
intrinsic germanium detector, since anything less would not give good lines.
 
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.19 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Hypothesis to explain cold fusion in metals
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hypothesis to explain cold fusion in metals
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 10:56 -0500 (EST)

barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
 
-> This is an invocation of magic. The classical coulomb collision
-> process cannot cool a 14MeV alpha particle in a few collisions,
-> as coulomb collsisons are very weak for such a high energy particle.
 
Are you sure it is an alpha particle?  Basically if a He4 nucleus is stationary
it is helium, and if it is moving at a high velocity it is an alpha.  Now
if we start with two D2 nucli which are basically stationary, how could we get
the inertia for an alpha particle upon fusion?  I agree the nucleus will be
very excited, but I don't see how it could gain the inertia to be moving.  If
there is a mechanism for it to gain this inertia from the surrounding matrix,
then that would also imply there is a mechanism for dissipation of the excess
energy to the matrix would it not?
 
If there is no mechanism for it to gain this inertia, then we would end up with
a very excited, but stationary He nucleus smack in the middle of the outer
shell of the metal atom (per the hypothesis).  At what rate would such a
nucleus interact with the outer shell electrons?  A million per nanosecond?
Unfortunately I have not found a reference which gives the orbital velocity of
electrons in Pd or Ni, but once I find it I think I will be able to estimate
the interaction rate to at least an order of magnitude.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.19 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Follow Up
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Follow Up
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 12:07 -0500 (EST)

Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk> writes:
 
-> What I think Marshall Dudley was referring to is what happens to the
-> electrons given off by that monatomic neutral H when it enters into the
-> metal.
 
That is correct.
 
-> The answer is that - assuming that the H does turn into a
-> positively charged proton, which is not quite 100% agreed upon by the
-> experts - the electron joins the sea of electrons already there. Pd is a
-> metal, and thus consists of a lattice of positively charged metal ions
-> surrounded by a sea of unattached electrons (what Pauling calls the
-> metallic bond). The electron does not go into the outer shell of some Pd
-> ion. PdH (and PdD) is still metallic, its resistivity is only twice that
-> of pure Pd, remember.
 
If the electron was not pulled off the proton by the palladium, then why would
it leave? I fully expect it to go to the outer shell of the Palladium.  If we
look at the conductivity of Palladium, we would expect it to rise as electrons
are added and the shell fills, and that is what we see.  If we look at the
valence of Pd we find that it is +2.  That means that if we add two electrons,
the shell will be filled (the other electrons are involved in the metallic
bond). Thus if we have 100% loading, we end up with one missing electron to
fill a shell. This would be expected to exactly halve the conductivity, which
is exactly what happens.
 
-> There is thus no reason to suppose that there might
-> be reactions between the Pd ions and the hydrogen; these ions would keep
-> well away from each other
 
Why, one is a negative ion and the other positive.  Coulomb forces would tend
to make them attract.  In fact this would normally form an ionic bond if the
hydrogen or deuterium had any electrons left (that if it were other than a
single proton element).
 
-> as would the protons (or deuterons) from each  other.
 
Agreed.
 
-> I also point out that others have thought of fusion reactions
-> involving deuterons and Pd; for one thing, I am told that the Coulomb
-> barrier is even bigger than for d-d fusion; for another, people have
-> searched for isotope changes that would result from such fusion, and found
-> none.
 
I agree this seems highly unlikely without proposing some presently unknown
mechanism.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.19 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Marshall Dudley hyhpothesis
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Marshall Dudley hyhpothesis
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 12:38 -0500 (EST)

-> blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes:
 
-> 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 associa
-> 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 seco
-> Now to associate such time scales with phonons in the PdD lattice is absurd
 
Unfortunately, we had a loss of news feed when Richard posted this item, and I
am actually replying to a quote someone else made from his post.  Therefore I
may miss something else he said that deserves a reply.  If so, it is because I
have not seen it.
 
Now for the question.  Where does that 1E-40 number come from?  Is it
experimental or theoretical?  I don't believe it is experimental since
electronics are hard pressed to measure times shorter than 1E-13 seconds.
Even using track length measurements of a particle traveling near the speed
of light cannot do better than probably 1E-20 second.  Thus the time must be
theoretical, right?  And if not backed up by experiment, how much trust
can we put in this number?
 
                                                        Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.19 / John Vetrano /  Re: Microstructural Examination
     
Originally-From: js_vetrano@pnl.gov (John Vetrano)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Microstructural Examination
Date: 19 Jul 1995 21:05:38 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <3ujge0$1bc@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
wrote:

> In article <js_vetrano-1807951809190001@js_vetrano.pnl.gov>,
js_vetrano@pnl.gov (John Vetrano) says:
> >
> >
> >    > Conservation of mass, isn't it?
> >    >  what does not go into gas, and does not
> >    > remain in the solution, enters the metal.
> >-I just wanted to point out that these atoms can form small bubbles in the
> >-microstructure of the Pd.  It is quite common.  Therefore, they would not
> >-be present in the interstices of the lattice, but the situation does not
> >-violate conservation of mass.  
> 
> (snip)
> 
> I have a Princeton PhD thesis from 1940 by G.A. Moore that discusses
> this.  Nicely dug up by brother Lee John.  He found that H goes not 
> only into the crystal lattice but also into what he calls "the rifts
> in the slip planes."  As I remember, he reached loadings of 1.7 or so.
> He concluded that about half was in the crystal lattice and about half
> in the rifts.  Moore worked with very fine wires, 0.1 mm as I recall.
> Some very interesting stuff.
> 
> Tom Droege

Tom,

I was going to reply to your earlier mention of this but waited too long
and it went off the reader.  Anyway, I would guess that the "rifts" he
mentions are what are now referred to as dislocations.  I believe that in
1940 they had been postulated but it wasn't until the 50's or so that they
were actually observed.  Yes, they make nice sinks for all sorts of things
that are present in the matrix (due to the associated strain fields).  It
is the movement of dislocations along a slip plane (typically the
(111)-type planes in the face-centered cubic structrure) that causes
macroscopic deformation.  How did he conclude that half of the H was in
the "rifts"?  The grains were probably at least the diameter of the wire
and so it would be like looking at a "string" of single crystals.  Did he
deform the wire at all before or after loading?  Then, depending on the
orientation of each grain, there would be different amounts of
dislocations present, and perhaps higher or lower loading was observed in
those grains.(?).  Depending on the situation, impurities or other
substances that agglomerate at dislocations remain in either lattice or
interstitial sites (they remain in whichever they prefer in the perfect
lattice), though under some conditions the local concentration may be high
enough to cause some sort of precipitation (or bubble formation).  I
recently stumbled across a good review article about the Pd-H and Pd-D
systems written in 1990 or so (in response to the renewed interest of
these systems) but didn't copy it and couldn't find it with my cursory
look the other day.  If I see it again I'll post the reference.

John Vetrano
js_vetrano@pnl.gov

-- 
The above opinions are mine, all mine.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjs_vetrano cudfnJohn cudlnVetrano cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.19 / 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: 19 Jul 1995 05:44:53 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3uh0lq$31f@news.utdallas.edu> iblum@utdallas.edu (Ira K Blum) writes: 
>
>In article <3ugfe2$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
Who said "C" and "G" were dimensionless?
I have made many posts in these forums, all dimensionally correct.

>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.  
Fundamentally, what we percieve as velocity is a dimensionless tangent
multiplied by "C". This tangent is an interaction or radial time
divided by a period or cyclical time. When applied to the electron, 
this tangent is known as the "fine structure constant".
Velocity(X) = tangent(X) * C  
            =  time(interaction)/ time(period)  
            =  FSC * C 

>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.  
As you perhaps know, the del function has the dimensions of a reciprocal distance.
I will look over this paragraph offline and see if it is correct.

>|> "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)
Are you saying that all distances cannot be expressed as time / C ??
They can and this expression is more fundamental.

>|> "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.)  
The intensions or the fundamental properties of mass are:
	mass(A) = tangent(A)^2 * tangent(B)^3 * time(period) * C^5 / G

According to your logic, hydrogen is more fundamental than protons and electrons.

>|> >>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.  

If you can count, you can measure cycles.
To measure time, you need to count two cycles concurrently.

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

Time....

>-- 
>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
>

Okay, here is a question for you.
The Cowboys have the ball on the own 9 yard line, 4th and 2 yards to go
for a first down. They lead 20 to 14.
Thirty seconds left in the game. What do you do?
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.19 / 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: 19 Jul 1995 12:20:48 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <DBxtsE.7rK@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

>   In his continued attempt to impugn Dr. Miles
>(and anyone else who reads or works in this field),

This is a lie.

>it is Richard Schultz's knowledge
>of dimensional analysis which is heralded.  (not)
>
>>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.

Mr. "Out of Context" strikes again.  What he conveniently left out was
his quotation of background signal in terms of atoms/500 mL of sample
gas.  As I said, it is impossible to compare the quoted background with
the quoted signal as they are given in different units, and the section
quoted gave no indication of the percentage of the He from the sample
that was collected in the "electrolysis gas", nor what the volume of
"electrolysis gas" was.

>--->   Richard Schultz's error #5
>
>"atoms/J (which isn't even a concentration unit)"?
>
>Given E=mc^2 this is exactly correct.  The subject
>was helium 4 production.  the mass is M(He4)
>
>and the total mass is  #atoms * M(He4)

Hello?  When I took physical science way back in eighth grade, I learned
that concentration is number of items per unit volume.  "Atoms/J" is
*not* a concentration unit by any reasonable definition of concentration.
I never said that given the number of atoms/J and the number of J produced
that you can't calculate how many atoms were expected to be produced.
But in traditional "Mr. Out of Context" style, Swartz has ignored the main
point once again.  The issue was:  would there have been enough He atoms
from the CF experiment to distinguish them from the background?  The
detection limit of the mass spec apparatus was given, reasonably enough,
in ppb (aka units of concentration) and He atoms/500 mL (aka units of
concentration).  The amount of He supposedly produced in the fusion
experiment was described in atoms/J -- which is *not* a unit of concentration.
Even if the number of atoms produced could have been calculated from the
information Swartz chose to excert, that number would have been useless
for determining whether the signal could have been separated from the
noise, as we still need to know by what factor these atoms have been 
diluted.  And this whole discussion begs the issue of how they got the
He out of the Pd in the first place.
--
					Richard Schultz

"You don't even have a clue as to which clue you're missing." -- Miss Manners
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.19 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Follow Up
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Follow Up
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 14:27:01 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On 18 Jul 1995, Richard Schultz wrote:

> 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.

I think you are confusing two phenomena here: the electrolysis of water,
and (what I think Dudley was thinking of) the state of palladium deuteride.
In the alkaline solution (let's stick to light water for illustration), you
do not have H+ ions being reduced at the cathode, it's water itself. The 
reactions are
cathode:  4H2O + 4e- --> 2H2 + 4OH-
anode:    4OH-       --> 2H2O + O2 + 4e-
overall:  2H2O       --> 2H2 + O2
The cathodic reaction is a simplification, it goes through several steps
and has a branch in which adsorbed monatomic (neutral) hydrogen enters the 
metal.

What I think Marshall Dudley was referring to is what happens to the
electrons given off by that monatomic neutral H when it enters into the
metal. The answer is that - assuming that the H does turn into a
positively charged proton, which is not quite 100% agreed upon by the
experts - the electron joins the sea of electrons already there. Pd is a
metal, and thus consists of a lattice of positively charged metal ions
surrounded by a sea of unattached electrons (what Pauling calls the
metallic bond). The electron does not go into the outer shell of some Pd
ion. PdH (and PdD) is still metallic, its resistivity is only twice that
of pure Pd, remember. There is thus no reason to suppose that there might
be reactions between the Pd ions and the hydrogen; these ions would keep
well away from each other - as would the protons (or deuterons) from each
other. I also point out that others have thought of fusion reactions
involving deuterons and Pd; for one thing, I am told that the Coulomb
barrier is even bigger than for d-d fusion; for another, people have
searched for isotope changes that would result from such fusion, and found
none. 

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

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.19 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Bogus 12-sigma statistics
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bogus 12-sigma statistics
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 14:37:15 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On 18 Jul 1995, Matt Austern wrote:

> 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

Come on, you blokes, that is exactly the point being made! If you know the
noise (or error) distribution of some signal, and then you measure at 12
sigmas away from the mean (or zero), this indicates that you are not
within the range of the error, and therefore you have a real signal -
something else - in your hands. E.g. if the neutron background over a long
period has a mean of x and a sigma (rms) of s, and you measure x+12s, then
it is unlikely to be background, another signal has likely intruded. That
is what these people are trying to say. What can be argued is whether they
in fact know the distribution, and have accounted for possible systematic
errors, etc. But if they can show a 12 sigma effect, they've got something
- whatever that is. 

As inane as this is, it's far better than gravity dipoles, physics farces,
new wave theories, etc etc etc...

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

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.19 / Tom Potter /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: 19 Jul 1995 12:51:54 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3ugcmp$rq8@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> prasad, 71155.3116@compuserve.com writes: 

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

And as I implied in my little joke:
it sucks "time and space".
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS 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 16:11 -0500 (EST)

schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) writes:
 
-> 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 is an extremely high deviation for 20 CPM background.  If you count
background for 1 second the standard deviation would be 4.47 CPM.  If you count
it for 100 seconds, then the standard deviation would be only .447 CPM.  The
+/- 2 CPM implys that you are only counting the background for 5 seconds.
Normally one would want to characterize the background to a much higher
precision than that.  I would expect a background to be counted for 60 to 100
minutes. If this is done then the counting statistics on the background would
be +/- .00373 and +/- .00289 CPM respectively.  Or is there something other
than counting statistics contributing to this high 2 CPM deviation?
 
-> 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.
 
Are we talking counts or counts per second? Are you assuming a measurement
always takes one second?  Your analysis is wrong either way though.  Since you
are talking about counting statistics, the 24 count signal plus 20 count
background would yield 44 counts total, and THAT would have a statistical
deviation of 6.63 counts (working with a one second measurement).  Adding that
to the 2 CPM deviation of the background subtract you get a total deviation of
6.9 CPM. (Errors add as the root of the sum of the squares when non-corrolated
numbers are added or subtracted).  Thus we have 24 +/- 6.9 CPM. This would be
a 3.46 sigma result, not a 12 sigma result.  To reach a 12 sigma result would
require a much longer counting time.  In fact, unless you characterised the
backgound to better than +/- 2 CPM, you could never reach a 12 sigma result
on a 24 CPM sample no matter how long you counted, you could only approach
12 sigma as you approach infinte counting time.
 
->  Even if we assume that the background's "sigma" is 5 counts per second,
-> the "12-sigma" signal is only 60 counts/second.
 
Same mistakes you made on the previous example.
 
-> 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.
 
No, I see it can be pretty lousy for a 3.5 sigma signal.  The possiblity of the
signal being noise or statistics would be about 1 chance in several thousand.
It is approximately 1 in 1000 for a 3 sigma signal. Not great, but in may cases
useable.
 
-> I have made
-> on obvious oversimplification, in that I have ignored the distribution in
-> the signal itself.
 
This is not an oversimplification.  It gives totally erroneous results.
 
-> 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.
 
Using those numbers gives you a standard deviation of 12 +/- 2.23 CPM, which
would be 5.37 sigma.  Not a bad for significance, but certainly not 12 sigma.
 
-> 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 a 12 cps would be noise, but that is irrelevent since a 12
sigma signal would be, by definition, much higher than 12 CPS.  Depending
on counting time, it could be hundreds of CPS.  IE. If you have 100 +/- 2 CPM
background then the sample would have to be over 380 CPM to obtain a 12 sigma
result for a one second counting time.  This seems to be a paper tiger you have
constructed here.
 
-> 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.
 
I disagree, the only reason you do not get information on the quality of the
data is that you are not computing the significance right.  The reason for
standard deviation computations is to determine the quality of the data.  To
claim it does not give that information pulls the rug out of virtually all
scientific research.
 
-> 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).
 
Considering how high it was, I would not consider it ideal.  Machine variations
should be much less than 1% and would have virtually no effect on a deviation
of 2% since they add in quadrature.
 
-> 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;
 
Why bother with ideal background?  No one who knows what they are doing works
with ideal backgrounds.  They measure it, and use the actual 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 more I read of your message the more I realize you don't seem to have any
idea how backgrounds, counting statistics and standard deviations work.  The
reason for using sigma and standard deviation is to eliminate arguements such
as above.  If you have something which gives a larger deviation, then you
express the error with a larger deviation.  End of story.
 
BTW background variance should scale to the square root of the background.
 
-> 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.
 
Once again, if the sigmas tell you you have it, then you either do, or you
figured the deviation wrong.  You have indicated possible problems with the
experiment or computation of the sigma.  If that is true then you need to argue
that they made a mistake in computing the sigma, not that sigma or standard
deviation tell you nothing.  If done correctly, it tells you a lot. If the true
sigma was 12, then they have excellent signal/noise ratio. If they don't then
they don't have a sigma of 12.
 
-> The above analysis was merely to indicate that calling the result "12
-> sigma" is meaningless.
 
It is not meaningless.  Either they have very good data, or miscomputed the
sigma.  If the sigma was miscomputed, then THAT is where you should be putting
your attention, not arguing that the yardstick that all of science uses for
significance 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).
 
Why do you feel it is immobile in palladium?  Is there any literature or
experiments to back up this contention?  The reason I ask is that helium
diffuses through many things, including glass.  I don't know whether it does or
not, but am curious as to where this information comes from.
 
-> 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 agree with this.  But you are departing from what I wrote that you were
challenging.
 
-> 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.
 
What type of claification?  If it was done right, then no clarification is
necessary.  If it was not done right then I guess they should have said that
"we compute a 12 sigma significance, but it is really a 1.3 sigma because we
did not account for this and that".  Sigma should contain ALL variables.  If it
doesn't then it is not sigma.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL 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 16:29 -0500 (EST)

matt@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Matt Austern) writes:
 
-> 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.
 
Now, this post I can agree with.  However, is it really important if the result
has a probability of 1:1,000,000,000 or 1:1,000,000,000,000 of not being
significant?  We end up working with exceedingly small probabilities once you
get beyond 5 or so sigma anyway.
 
                                                        Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Jul 20 04:37:06 EDT 1995
------------------------------
