1995.07.20 / 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: 20 Jul 1995 11:21:25 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <DBzAv7.FvG@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

>>  "Let me get this straight -- are you telling me that concentration has
>>  some definition other than number of objects per unit volume?

>Definition?
>after Webster's:   concentration   --- "relative content of a component"

Definition?
CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (64th Edition), a more likely 
source for the definitions used by scientists:

Concentration -- The amount of a substance in weight, moles, or equivalents
contained in unit volume.

"Contained in unit volume."  Is any of this beginning to sink in yet?


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

Note that the detection limits and measured concentrations of the 
control experiments are given in concentration units.

> ...  For experiments
>producing excess power, five helium measurements using these 
>same  metal flasks have been completed. These experiments 
>yield a mean value of 2.0 +/-0.5 x  1011 4He/s*W after 
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>correcting for background levels of helium measured in control  
>studies (Table II).  This value is once again the correct 
>magnitude for typical deuteron  fusion reactions that yield 4He 
>as a product. "

Note that the "excess power" measurments are given in units of
atoms/J excess heat.  Unless we know how much excess heat there was
(a quantity not specified in the excerpt Swartz posted), how much gas
was collected, what percentage of He atoms produced in CF are likely to
have made it into the "electrolysis gas", and by what factor the 
"electrolysis gas" was diluted during its collection, we cannot compare
the amount of He observed with the background or with the detection
limits.

>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.

It is not apparent that he did any of these things -- or rather,
it is not apparent that he did any of them correctly.  That is why
I would have expected the results to have been reported in the form
of "the background He concentration was X He/500 mL, and the amount
observed from experiments producing excess heat was Y He/500 mL.
From (Y-X) we can calculate that this corresponds to Z He/J excess
heat, which is consistent to within a factor of W of the excess heat
having arisen from D + D fusion."

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

It does not fall within the definition of "concentration" actually used
by scientists (per the CRC - vide supra).  More to the point, it is
not a *demonstration* of anything.  It is an assertion whose truth or
falsity we cannot check because not enough information was given to
check it.  My fundamental question in all of this -- what was the 
signal-to-noise ratio in the mass spectra in which "He 12 sigmas
over background" were observed -- has yet to be answered.  A related
question that occurred to me was, how many sigmas are the error bars?
Sometimes you see error bars reported as one sigma, and sometimes as
two.  If the reported uncertainties in the background are actually 
2 sigmas, then your "12 sigma" signal corresponds to a S/N of less than
one, which doesn't strike me as a particularly compelling result.
Especially since my second question -- how did they get the He out of the
Pd in the first place -- also remains unanswered.
--
					Richard Schultz

"To be, or not to be, I there's the point,
To Die, to sleepe, is that all?  I all;
No, to sleepe, to dreame, I mary there it goes. . ."
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Silly nonsense from ykw
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Silly nonsense from ykw
Date: 20 Jul 1995 11:32:22 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <5BCBoJi.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
 
>You "skeptics" say these stupid things and you waste bandwidth just because
>you are too lazy to read the papers. You misrepresent what I say, you claim
>that Miles has not published in a peer reviewed journal when in fact he has,
>and you make yourselves look like asses -- all because you refuse to read
>the literature. Why do you bother posting comments here? Why participate
>in the first place? The only message you send is this: "I have not read
>any of this stuff, I have nothing to contribute but static." We know that
>already, so shut up.

I suppose, if I were the countersuggestible type, I might ask why you 
continued to state that the "media" refused to believe that the Wright
Brothers had flown or even that heavier-than-air flight was possible
*after* I posted quotations from the New York Times that said the exact
opposite.  But rather than that, I will point out that you and your
buddy Swartz have made a hobby out of misrepresenting what other people
say -- why should you expect any different treatment?  And your
comments on "refusing to read the literature" are truly laughable.  How
often do you actually supply literature references as opposed to 
spouting nonsense about "reading the literature"?  As I said to Mitchell
Swartz, it is generally considered a courtesy among scientists that when
someone asks "where was this reported" to answer by giving a reference.
It is also common courtesy that when someone appears to be unaware of a
result to say "this was done in paper X which appeared in journal Y in
issue Z" -- not to start screaming about "why do you participate at all?".

Indeed, "static" pretty much sums up the content of most of what you
post on this subject.  But maybe you will be willing to help out and
discuss any of the scientific issues that I have brought up to Mitchell
Swartz.  Since literature is your forte, you can start with my request
for a reference to the results that Swartz claim indicate a correlation
between sample purity and CF product distribution.
--
					Richard Schultz

"You just make this crap up and publish it without thinking. . . You did not
have the foggiest, vaguest idea what the man was doing. . . Did you ever
think, for even a second, what might happen to you if these people turn
out to be right?" -- Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 6 January 1993
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 / Richard Schultz /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
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: 20 Jul 1995 11:38:16 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <3uk85a$rf2@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
Tom Potter  <tdp@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>As several people have informed me by email that they missed
>my original posts on "cycles", and several others have asked me
>to elaborate on my "theory", I am reposting some of this information.

Until and unless your New General Relativity provides an explanation for
Cold Fusion, please keep it out of sci.physics.fusion.  We have enough
loonies here as it is.
--
					Richard Schultz

"Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time." -- The French Knight
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Alan Dunsmuir, UK's "can't quote poetry right" troll
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Alan Dunsmuir, UK's "can't quote poetry right" troll
Date: 20 Jul 1995 11:35:37 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <DBz6GC.9tJ@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

[beable beable beable]

Well, he certainly succeeded in trolling *you*.
--
					Richard Schultz

"You don't even have a clue as to which clue you're missing." -- Miss Manners
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Follow Up
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Follow Up
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 09:52:34 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On Wed, 19 Jul 1995, MARSHALL DUDLEY wrote:

> 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.

As I said, hydrogen joins Pd in the lattice, and its electron joins the sea
of ditto already there from the Pd. The deuterons are somewhat mobile, while
the Pd nuclei are static. You're a bit off with "exactly half" - it's 1/1.8
at its maximum, and in fact goes up again at loadings higher than 0.8 or so,
where the maximum occurs.

>  
> -> 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).

Which ions are negative here? I see only positive Pd sites and positive
deuterons. Unless... well, there are some who reckon that hydrogen is 
present in PdH as H- ions. As I remember, Baranowski considers this unlikely
for Pd.

Marshall considers, I think, deuterons moving into the outer electron 
regions of the Pd sites (is that right, Marshall?). Overall, each Pd site
is positively charged, but maybe there is an inhomogeneous charge 
distribution in the volume around each one. Question to you quantum 
mechanics out there: Is there maybe a Pd-d distance at which there is
attraction between the two? What, roughly, would be the shape of the 
curve of energy vs Pd-d distance?

In any case, Marshall, say the d can get into the electron region; what 
do you think will happen there? Nothing nuclear, certainly, but what? 

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

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 / Antony Price /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: aprice@geol.uwa.edu.au (Antony Price)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 14:19:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

        I'm just a humble Physics Graduate, and I read this news group
purely out of interest. The thread concerning the 'Farce of Physics' seems
to be getting a little out of hand, but the point I wish to make is that if
Wallace was trying to present new ideas to the community for comment, he
shouldn't have call that community 'farcical'. If I were to allow my
imagination to wander, I might begin to think that he was looking to 'but
heads' before the thread started in earnest.

Antony.

____________________________________________________________________________
Antony David Price BSc (Hons)                         aprice@geol.uwa.edu.au
Dept. of Geology and Geophysics                                (09) 380 1920
The University of Western Australia                       Nedlands W.A. 6009
____________________________________________________________________________
    "I didn't do it."   -   Bart Simpson


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenaprice cudfnAntony cudlnPrice cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 / 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: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 14:22:43 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


  In Message-ID: <3ule7l$nhd@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Bogus 12-sigma statistics
schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) continues
to impugn Dr. Miles:

 -rpes   "It is not apparent that he did any of these things -- or rather,
 -rpes  it is not apparent that he did any of them correctly."

  Previously, Mr. Schlultz claimed he never did this.
He has, even though it is not apparent he has even read
the series of papers in question.

      >   In his continued attempt to impugn Dr. Miles
     >(and anyone else who reads or works in this field),
  Mr. Schultz -->  "This is a lie."
        [19 Jul 1995
    Message-ID: <3uitb0$e2c@agate.berkeley.edu>]

  Moi?      he said.
  But,  Yes ,    he does, however.

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



cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 / mitchell swartz /  cancel <DC0qp7.CIq@world.std.com>
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <DC0qp7.CIq@world.std.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 14:31:09 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

cancel <DC0qp7.CIq@world.std.com> in newsgroup sci.physics.fusion
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 / Bill Page /  Re: Follow Up
     
Originally-From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Follow Up
Date: 20 Jul 1995 12:17:02 GMT
Organization: Daneliuk & Page

In article <USE2PCB994511879@brbbs.brbbs.com>, mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com
(MARSHALL DUDLEY) says:
>
>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.

To talk sensibly about this issue, you really need a reasonable solid
state model of electronic states in metals. In fact we have a well developed
model in the modern theory of the electron band structure which is central
to semiconductor physics.

Actually, there is considerable agreement both experimentally and theoretically
that the electrons of the absorbed hydrogen do occuppy some of the empty
conduction band states in Pd. A very useful review of the literature is
provided by R. Oriani, "The Physical and Metallurgical Aspects of Hydrogen
in Metals", Proceedings: Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion, p18-1.

> 
>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

No, this is not what is observed. As hydrogen is absorbed by Pd, the
conductivity at first falls (resistance rises) up to a ratio of around
0.7 H atom/Pd atom where the conductivity is about 1/2 that of pure Pd.
As the loading is increased, the conductivity rises again (resistance falls)
until at about 1.0 H atom/Pd atom, the conductivity is again almost the
same as the pure metal.

Whether or not conductivity rises as a result of the addition of electrons
to empty conduction bands in the metal is not a simple question. For example,
an electrical insulator is a material in which a conduction band is
completely full (plus there is a substantial energy gap before the next
available empty band). In the case of the conduction bands of Pd, there is
still, however, something of a mystery that I don't believe is fully
resolved. That is that the theory says there are only about 0.35 empty
spaces (electron holes) per Pd atom. So it is not clear from the band
state model alone why the conduction minimum occurs at 0.7 H atom/Pd atom.

This is also related to the transition from exothermic absorption (a small
amount of heat is given off as H is absorbed into Pd) to an endothermic
process somewhere between 0.7 and 1.0 H atom/ Pd atom. Pons and Fleischmann
consider this transition to be critically important to the phenomena that
they observe. Another significant factor are the discrete changes in the
lattice structure of the metal as the ratio of H/Pd increases.  At low
concentrations the lattice remains essential the same as the pure metal.
This is called the alpha-phase of the Pd-H "alloy". As the concentration
increases there is a sudden transition in isolated domains within the
Pd lattice that spontaneously change to another lattice structure with
the same geometry but larger spacing between the Pd atoms. This is
called the beta-phase. P&F believe they have found evidence of a third
lattice phase, that they call gamma Pd-H which forms near the 1:1 Pd:H
ratio (Bartolomeo, Fleischmann et. al. "The Alpha, Beta, Gamma of the
Palladium-Hydrogen System", Proceedings: Fourth International Conference
on Cold Fusion", p19-1).

>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.

This model is too naive and in fact contradicts the observations.

>
> ...
>

Cheers,
Bill Page.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenwspage cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 /  jedrothwell@de /  Refs. on CF, refs. on Wright Bros.
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Refs. on CF, refs. on Wright Bros.
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 95 14:41:17 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz), demonstrates an amazing talent
for sticking his foot in his mouth, by asking me (of all people!):
 
     "How often do you actually supply literature references as opposed to
     spouting nonsense about 'reading the literature'"?
 
How often? Several times a day, some days. Good Grief! I myself *originate* a
large chunk of the material floating around. Go look at Logajan's home page,
or in CompuServe SCIENCE library 2, or read Fusion Facts or Infinite Energy.
Lokkit all them footnotes! (I confess, I grab a lot of them straight out of
the Fusion Facts diskette bibliography, which is the handiest thing since
sliced bread.) I recently uploaded my brief list of Recommended Publications
here. As it happens, I had accidentally deleted Mitch Swartz's magazine from
that list, so let me make amends:
 
     Cold Fusion Times, by Mitchell Swartz, P.O. Box 81135, Wellesley Hills,
     MA 02181 E-mail address: mica@world.std.com
 
 
Shultz also whines:
 
     "I suppose, if I were the countersuggestible type, I might ask why you
     continued to state that the "media" refused to believe that the Wright
     Brothers had flown or even that heavier-than-air flight was possible
     *after* I posted quotations from the New York Times that said the exact
     opposite.
 
Ha! You wish! "Countersuggestible" is the wrong word here. This is a case of
an auto-suggestible or hypnotic belief in one's own fantasies. You don't know
beans about the Wrights. Nothing! Heck, I am no expert, but at least I have
read six or eight popular books about them. For readers who actually do want
to learn something about the Wrights, here is a nice starter bibliography:
 
Fred Kelly, "The Wright Brothers," (New York: Harcourt, Brace 1943)
 
Harry Combs, "Kill Devil Hill," (Boston: Houghton Mifflin 1979)
 
Tom Crouch, "The Bishop's Boys," (New York: W. W. Norton 1990)
 
The Wrights were great scientists and wonderful people, well worth learning
about. I recommend the other books by Tom Crouch, who is chairman of the
department of aeronautics at the National Air & Space Museum of the
Smithsonian Institution. He is also a nice guy, as you see in the recent
interview in The Learning Channel biography of the Wrights. As for the press
versus the Wrights, here is one of my canned quotes showing how things stood
until the morning of September 3, 1908. This quote appears in most books about
them:
 
     "If such sensational and tremendously important experiments are being
     conducted in a not very remote part of the country, on a subject in
     which everyone feels the most profound interest, is it possible to
     believe that the enterprising American reporter, who, it is well known,
     comes down the chimney when the door is locked in his face -- even when
     he has to scale a fifteen-story skyscraper to do so -- would not have
     ascertained all about them and published them broadcast long ago?"
 
"The Wright Aeroplane and its Fabled Performances" article Scientific
American, January 13, 1906 (three years after the Kitty Hawk flight)
 
Here is an interesting thought about the Kelly book. Apparently it is in the
public domain, so I am thinking of scanning it and uploading it into Internet,
because it is so delicious. Anyone who would like to assist in that is welcome
to contact me. (Proof reading an OCR'ed document is hard work.) In their 50
year retrospective column, the Scientific American recently took *yet another*
potshot at this book, because it showed what asses they were at the turn of
the century. Like the Bourbon Dynasty, the Sci. Am. editors learn nothing and
they forget nothing.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjedrothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Follow Up
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Follow Up
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 14:04 -0500 (EST)

-> ... and so you have Pd sites, still positive, and deuterons, somewhat mobile
-> but also positive. Which one do you reckon is negative? Or are you thinking
-> of those outer-shell electrons around the Pd nucleus?

If you have an extra electron in the outer shell of the Pd, then the Pd atom
will be negative.  The electron cloud can be viewed as a hollow shell
containing the total charge of all the electrons in that shell.  If you are
outside of the outer shell, then the charge will look exactly like it is
located at the center of the atom.  Thus if you are outside the outer shell,
the atom will appear to have a -1 charge.  If you penetrate the outer shell, so
you are between the outer and the next shell, then you will see a +10 charge,
since the nucleus of the Pd will not be fully shielded any more.

-> I suppose, as a
-> deuteron approaches a Pd site, it might at some point be attracted more by
-> the electrons than repelled by the (further-away) nucleus. As it gets closer
-> still, the repulsion would take effect.

All charge within a sphere or a shell can be mathmetically reduced to that
charge located at the center of the sphere or shell (when viewed from outside
of the shpere or shell). You are making it more complicated than it really is.
The equations are the same as for gravity, ie. you can compute the
gravitational attraction of a planet by assuming all the mass is at the
center, and there is no gravitational attraction if you are within a hollow
shell of a planet.  The sizes are a little smaller, but the equations are the
same.

                                                                Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 / 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: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 13:33 -0500 (EST)

jenstroll@aol.com (JensTroll) writes:
 
-> If you can modify your theory to include a very "near miss" of the Pd atom
-> you can use this reaction equasion;
->
-> D+D+Pd -> He4 + Pd + photon
 
In that case the photon would be of quite high energy, and detectable as a
gamma.  There does not seem to be much evidence for generation of gammas in
these systems.  Whether this is viewed as unfortunate depends on whether you
are wanting to "prove" cold fusion through the existance of gammas and
neutrons, or you want to provide CF to the masses without deadly radiation.
 
-> If you don't see neutrons, you must have two bodys leaving the reaction to
-> balance the momentum and energy eq.s.  This can be done if you have a
-> three body collision in which two fuse.
 
That is not necessarily true.  If you start with stationary or two nuclei
traveling in opposite directions at the same speed, then the inertial is 0.
Then if the resulting nuclei is stationary, all that has to balance is the
energy.
 
-> None of the above make any such collisions likely from the point of view
-> of the energy required to bring the nucli close enough to react.
 
The main point of the hypothesis is that the H1 or D2 nuclei move thorugh the
outer shell of the metal.  The effect is that anything on the other side of the
shell does not see through the shell, the coulomb field is shielded by the
shell, similar to how the screen grid in a pentode shields the main grid from
the plate.  If you have a nucleus penetrate the outer shell at very near the
same spot that another nucleus happens to be on the other side, then they can
suddenly be within the distance that tunneling can take place.  It can be
argued that this will get around the coulomb barrier.
 
                                                             Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Rothwell's analysis of the DoE
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell's analysis of the DoE
Date: 20 Jul 1995 19:09:17 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <JRMAYr3.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>Just shut the whole place down, and give all those
>scientists their walking papers. If they all end up flipping burgers for
>a living it would serve them right! At least they would be contributing
>something usefull to society.

Is there some reason why you never saw fit to respond to my article
giving an example of a DoE scientist who is and has been doing useful
research of a kind that industry has not traditionally supported, and
probably wouldn't support if you shut down the DoE?
--
					Richard Schultz

"It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean.  Do you have to salt your
truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?"
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.19 / Mahipal Virdy /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: virdy@pogo.den.mmc.com (Mahipal Singh Virdy)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.energy,sci.misc,s
i.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle
sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 20:42:27 GMT
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics

In article <DBwr48.LLG@festival.ed.ac.uk>,
Andrew Cooke <A.Cooke@roe.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <1995Jul13.204344.16823@news2.den.mmc.com>,
>Mahipal Singh Virdy <virdy@pogo.den.mmc.com> wrote:
>[...]
>>scientist. Your NONSENSE about "theoretical constructs" doesn't alter
>>the fact that science is talking about something absolutely REAL. The
>>electrons that bombard your computer screen are REAL and they make this
>>communication link possible. Enjoy what you've got but stop being
>>hypocritical about Science. [Not directed to you persoanlly Al.]
>[...]
>
>	the telephone was developed (i believe) before people knew
>	about electrons.  presumably they had people then saying that 
>	`the electric flux is real' and `it is not just a model'.
>

A simpler model may be that the balance beam was invented and used in
ancient Egyptian times. Long before Newton postulated the idea of
gravitational attraction. Fine. The "effect" and "the latest set of
models" are not necessarily in a one-to-one correspondence. As a
scientist, I can't argue against the idea that more than one *MODEL* 
may predict equally accurate outcomes. 

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

Or an electron may be a classical object or a quantum probability wave.
That's two different models for an electron. Any other contenders that I
should be aware of? Even if it is completely different than currently
thought, science is still the mode by which to study what it is. BTW, I
can't even imagine what it would be. I guess I need to get out more. ;-)

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

Agreed, but hesitantly. Science is not just about the atomic and
subatomic particles. Science spans all scales of mass, energy, size,
etc. So, instead of arguing about whether an electron is real or just a
theoretical construct, let's consider the set of objects we do and can
consider real. Temperature, number of Taj Mahals on Earth, CERN,
Fermilab, a square is not a circle, 1=1, etc. Are any of these real? Are
they "effects" and therefore experiential rather than merely
existential? How do you define "REAL"? 

Maybe, just maybe, if we agree on large scale structures and experiences
(i.e., dropping a TV from atop a monument with a image of a screaming
scientist pressed against the screen; us with music, pizza, and scantily
clad babes dancing... for the publicity ;-)...) we can via the
scientific method extrapolate our thinking down to the infinitesimally
small. 

Mahipal,
|meforce>
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenvirdy cudfnMahipal cudlnVirdy cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 /  JensTroll /  Re: Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: jenstroll@aol.com (JensTroll)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion
Date: 20 Jul 1995 00:17:34 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

OK,  if P&F of the CF Institute and the other researchers attached to that
group retracted their claimed results of He4 production (taken in context
and without some form of arm twisting), I will stipulate that I know of no
evidence to support CF.  So I think any reasonable hope that a Hydrogen
immersed in solid Palladium fusion reactor could work must be abandoned
until or unless someone show some conclusive evidence that such fusion
reactons can take place.

However I would like to comment that it has been my experiance that
theorists (yes even respected ones employed at "respectable" universities
) can and do ignore valid experimental results that contridict their pet
theorys.

Note, I said arm twisting because I've been the subject of arm twisting
while a graduate student.  I was told not to publish perfictly valid
experimental results (which the P.I. who told me not to publish knew and
acknowledged to be valid.), because it would disprove a previously
published hypothesis of our research group.  He said something to the
effect that it would make us look stupid.  After getting over being P.O.
ed abouti it, and once I thought it over, I though it would make us look
like  honest and credible researchers.   Oh well.  That was one event
amoung many which led to me leaving graduate school.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjenstroll cudlnJensTroll cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 / Charles Sites /  Re: extrapolation
     
Originally-From: cbsite01@starbase.spd.louisville.edu (Charles B Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: extrapolation
Date: 20 Jul 1995 04:31:56 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville, Louisville KY USA

In <3ts91c$r4q@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:

>In article <3thok9$rj2@overload.lbl.gov> 
>Jean-Paul Biberian <jpb@sunspot.ssl.berkeley.edu> writes:
>>
>>One of the major arguments addressed against cold fusion is the lack or 
>>very low level of radiation observed. This is practically the only isue 
>>raised by Huizenga in his book. 

>That is mainly because Huizenga foolishly decided to include in his 
>investigation all of the claims made in the first P&F(&H) paper, and 
>radiation was prominent in that paper as a sign of fusion. 

>>                                 The point made is the following: at all 
>>energy there is always the same branching ratio between the three 
>>possible ones. Therefore an extrapolation at zero kinetic energy should 
>>give the same distribution of reaction by products.
>>
>>This statement is extremely dangerous. 

>That is true, and was the reason for much theoretical investigation 
>after the initial reports. 

>However, you do not mention that one of the data points, that for 
>muon catalyzed fusion, is very close in energy to where the electro-
>chemical CF is supposed to occur, much closer than it is to the thermal 
>data points.  Extrapolation was actually the motivation of the work by 
>Jones, if you read his early paper with Van Siclen. 

Good Paper.  But if you follow some of the quantum statistical argument 
as used by Chubbs & Chubbs, there are arguments for the branching ratio 
being schewed.  Most extrapilations of branching ratios to zero energy 
do not include Multi-body effects.  So on looking at a purly classic 
collision scattering in cold fusion may be a wrong approach to what is
happening. 

>-- 
> James A. Carr   <carr@scri.fsu.edu>    |  "My pet light bulb is a year old  
>    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  today.  That is 5.9 trillion miles 
> Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  in light years.  Your mileage may 
> Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  vary."   -- Heywood Banks 

Chuck Sites               | cbsite01@starbase.spd.louisville.edu    | \e-  e-/
System Programmer         | (502)-852-7070                          |  \~~~>/
Electrical Engineering    |-----------------------------------------|  /<~~~\
University of Louisville  | http://www.spd.louisville.edu/~cbsite01 | /e-  e-\


--
Chuck Sites               | cbsite01@starbase.spd.louisville.edu    | \e-  e-/
System Programmer         | (502)-852-7070                          |  \~~~>/
Electrical Engineering    |-----------------------------------------|  /<~~~\
University of Louisville  | http://www.spd.louisville.edu/~cbsite01 | /e-  e-\
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudencbsite01 cudfnCharles cudlnSites cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 /  JensTroll /  Re: Hypothesis to explain cold fusion in metals
     
Originally-From: jenstroll@aol.com (JensTroll)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hypothesis to explain cold fusion in metals
Date: 20 Jul 1995 00:26:18 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

If you can modify your theory to include a very "near miss" of the Pd atom
you can use this reaction equasion;

D+D+Pd -> He4 + Pd + photon

That will cover the lack of neutrons, and is physically possible in the
sense that the energy and momentum equasions will balance.  However, you
will need to explain the lack of gamma and x-rays detected in another
manner. 

Also it would be useful to show some reason why the above reaction would
be preffered to ;

D+D -> He3 + n + photon 

If you don't see neutrons, you must have two bodys leaving the reaction to
balance the momentum and energy eq.s.  This can be done if you have a
three body collision in which two fuse.

None of the above make any such collisions likely from the point of view
of the energy required to bring the nucli close enough to react.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjenstroll cudlnJensTroll cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 / 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: 20 Jul 1995 04:42:54 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <dougDBzt2H.D9@netcom.com> doug@netcom.com (Doug Merritt) writes: 

>
>In article <3uk85a$rf2@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter ) writes:
>>
>>As several people have informed me by email that they missed
>>my original posts on "cycles", and several others have asked me
>>to elaborate on my "theory", I am reposting some of this information.
>
>So aside from it being your preferred approach, what does it allow
>you to predict/calculate that usual approaches do not? I keep
>missing that.
>	Doug
>-- 
>Doug Merritt				doug@netcom.com
>Professional Wild-eyed Visionary	Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow
>
>Unicode Novis Cypherpunks Gutenberg Wavelets Conlang Logli Alife Anthro
>Computational linguistics Fundamental physics Cogsci Egyptology GA TLAs

I get a better variance when I compute orbital data.
It lets you see the properties associated with both parties to a
two body interaction, and there are no one body interactions.
It suggests an energy-like property which is symmetrical to noth parties
to an interaction. 
   x = precession * C^6 / G = energy(A) * velocity(A) = energy(B) * velocity(B)

It is symmetrical.
It gets rid of all constants.
It gets rid of all properties except a cycle common to all observations.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 / John Logajan /  Re: Microstructural Examination
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Microstructural Examination
Date: 20 Jul 1995 05:20:04 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Tom Droege (Droege@fnal.fnal.gov) wrote:
: 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.

It sure would be interesting to know the ratio of "slip plane" volume to
bulk volume.  If the ratio is high, we could be talking some very densely
packed matter here.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 / mitchell swartz /  Silly nonsense from Richard Schultz
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Silly nonsense from Richard Schultz
Subject: Re: Silly nonsense from ykw
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 14:34:04 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  IN Message-ID: <3ules6$nk7@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Silly nonsense from ykw
schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) tells
falsehoods agaiin as he writes:

"As I said to Mitchell
Swartz, it is generally considered a courtesy among scientists that when
someone asks "where was this reported" to answer by giving a reference."

  Mr. Schultz was given a reference - MANY TIMES.
  Here is one example:

"The Proceedings ICCF4 (4 volumes in first edition),
then 3 cm thick in Dec. Fusion Technology.
[Although Dr. Britz does not count these papers
as papers (methinks -- and apologies in advance if
                    this an error)
despite that the 3 cm version was peer-reviewed
and is short of what appears to be 2/3-3/4 of the
input papers for this final peer-reviewed version.]"

Here is a second reference citation for Mr. Schultz. 


  "Mr. Schultz:
  You would be familiar if you kept up with the cold fusion literature.
  It is big, but not a big as that on HOT FUSION or EBOLA virus,
  so there is not explanation for your constant need to be "spoon-fed".
  As is commonly uses "coherence length" is 
  a term used to refer to lasers. and to other coherent systems.
  In those cases it is a function of physical relations
  within the laser as it is designed, and it also ---- (zip)
    If Schultz -- or the other TB-skeptics -- had actually 
  read the cold fusion literature (e.g. Proc. of 
  ICCF-4) there use of coherent lengths, systems, and
  function were discussed in at least two papers.  In one
  this referred to Peter Hagelstein's theories, in the other
  this dealt with the PERIODIC wavefunction within the
  palladium lattice.   
  Any further discussion would require a reading of  more literature.
    It is unlikely any TB-CF-skeptic will. "


 It was prophetic since Mr. Schultz STILL has neither
read the Proc ICCF (1994) - not peer reviewed 4 volumes
or Proc ICCF (1995) peer reviewed, 1 volume in 
Fusion Technology Dec 1994.

As always the m.o. of the TB-skeptic is 
1) first whine about the publication not being spoon-fed
2)  whine about the publication not being "peer-reviewed"
   (which is often WRONG)
3) whine about the need for spoon-feeding of themselves since
they did not bother to get, read, think about, the publication.

       Best wishes, colleagues.
          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, 22 Jun 1995; 
          <3scoir$m73@agate.berkeley.edu>]


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 / mitchell swartz /  cancel <DC0qr7.D60@world.std.com>
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <DC0qr7.D60@world.std.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 14:54:48 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

cancel <DC0qr7.D60@world.std.com> in newsgroup sci.physics.fusion
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 / 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: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 15:04:23 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

[mea culpa -- please ignore the previous post with two 
  posting errors after too much work and too little
   rereading]


  In Message-ID: <3ule7l$nhd@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Bogus 12-sigma statistics
schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) wrote:

   >Definition?
   >after Webster's:   concentration   --- "relative content of a component"
 =rs   Definition?
 =rs   CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics 
 =rs   (64th Edition), a more likely 
 =rs   source for the definitions used by scientists:
 =rs   Concentration -- The amount of a substance in weight, 
 =rs   moles, or equivalents
 =rs   contained in unit volume.

  The Websters definition includes the general term which is 
correct.  After all it could be concentration per cm^2 on a surface
and the CRC misses it enitirely.  or it could be "ash" which is 
missed by CRC in its limited definition.

The units in this most important case are:     mass/energy     

The except is " 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).  "


  Which is correct.
This value is once again the correct because J denotes the
time integral of the input
electrical power = energy (joules).
 
The use of "ash" does fall within the definition of "concentration"
actually used by scientists in this field if fusion is actually
considered as the putative cause. 

       -   Mitchell Swartz


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 / Scott Little /  Potapov Device Tests - Round 5
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Potapov Device Tests - Round 5
Date: 20 Jul 1995 15:12:35 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

Potapov Device Tests - Round 5
EarthTech International
Scott Little
H.E. Puthoff
20JUL95

Introduction

For the 5th series of tests on our Yusmar-1, we adjusted the 
outlet and bypass apertures to precisely 0.50A and 0.20A 
respectively where A is the area of the pump discharge port.  
With these apertures we explored a range of flow rates from 
well below the recommended minimum to well above the 
recommended maximum. No evidence of over-unity performance 
was observed.

Apparatus

The original bypass line (made from 3/4" EMT thinwall 
conduit) was fitted with a machined sleeve with an inside 
diameter of 0.711" which makes its area precisely 0.20 times 
the area of the pump discharge port (1-1/2" pipe) which is 
1.59" inside diameter.  The sleeve is approximately 1.5" 
long and is located in the very end of the bypass line where 
it attaches to the main vortex chamber of the Yusmar-1.  The 
rest of the bypass line was left at the original inside 
diameter which is 0.825".

The outlet end of the Yusmar-1 was fitted with another 
machined sleeve, also about 1.5" long, whose inside diameter 
is 1.124" making its area precisely 0.50 times the area of 
the pump discharge port.  This sleeve was located flush with 
the main diameter reduction so that the entire reduction 
occurs essentially as a single step.

About 8" beyond this diameter reduction, the adjustable 
valve described in the last report was attached so that the 
total flow rate could be adjusted.


Procedure

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

However, we did make a small alteration to our test 
procedure to shorten the time required for each series of 
observations at a particular flowrate.  After a given pair 
of observations were taken (from which an efficiency is 
computed), the immersion heater was operated along with the 
Yusmar to rapidly bring the water temperature up to the next 
desired value.  When that value was reached, the immersion 
heater was turned off and a new pair of observations were 
made with only the Yusmar device running.  In this manner, 
we were able to measure the Yusmar's heating efficiency over 
a wide range of temperatures without having to wait for the 
Yusmar to heat the water all the way by itself.

A casual observation of the voltage developed across the 
electrodes we installed showed substantially the same 
behavior as reported previously.  We therefore did not 
record voltages during these tests.


Results

In the data tables below, the various headings are:

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

With a 26 gpm flowrate and 322 pounds of water in the 
barrel:

#     count    T        time     P(inlet)  P(bypass)  
1      0      31.85    11:09:02     69        +65         
2     98      36.5     11:30:25     69         65  
3      0      44.3     11:59:50     68         65 
4    104      48.3     12:23:56     68         65 
5      0      60.4     12:51:44     68         65    
6    104      63.25    13:14:50     66         65 

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

pair     efficiency     avg temp (degrees C)
1-2         73%          34.2    
3-4         61%          46.3    
5-6         43%          61.8    

With a 38 gpm flowrate and 324.5 pounds of water in the 
barrel:

#     count    T        time     P(inlet)  P(bypass)  
1      0      29.4     16:20:00     65        +55         
2    108      34.6     16:41:25     65         55  
3      0      47.7     17:06:21     67         55 
4    107      51.5     17:28:04     66         55 
5      0      59.9     17:46:20     65         55    
6    127      63.2     18:12:00     66         55 

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

pair     efficiency     avg temp (degrees C)
1-2         76%          32.0    
3-4         56%          49.6    
5-6         41%          61.5    

With a 53 gpm flowrate and 347 pounds of water in the 
barrel:

#     count    T        time     P(inlet)  P(bypass)  
1      0      43.25     8:53:20     67        +50         
2    127      48.2      9:16:29     67         50  
3      0      60.9      9:42:38     66         50 
4    113      63.6     10:03:22     65         50 

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

pair     efficiency     avg temp (degrees C)
1-2         66%          45.7    
3-4         40%          62.3    

With a 62 gpm flowrate and 343.5 pounds of water in the 
barrel:

#     count    T        time     P(inlet)  P(bypass)  
1      0      28.45    10:28:35     64        +35         
2    132      34.6     10:49:47     64         38  
3      0      41.9     11:04:32     64         38 
4    143      47.6     11:27:48     64         38 
5      0      61.0     11:56:57     62         39    
6    125      64.1     12:16:56     63         40 

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

pair     efficiency     avg temp (degrees C)
1-2         78%          31.5    
3-4         67%          44.8    
5-6         42%          62.6    

With a 99 gpm flowrate and 356.5 pounds of water in the 
barrel:

#     count    T        time     P(inlet)  P(bypass)  
1      0      29.6     14:38:55     60        +8        
2    156      36.4     14:59:47     58         8  
3      0      43.1     15:12:56     58         7 
4    140      48.4     15:31:55     58         8 
5      0      67.4     16:08:45     57         8    
6    107      69.4     16:23:11     57         8 

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

pair     efficiency     avg temp (degrees C)
1-2         76%          33.0    
3-4         66%          45.8    
5-6         33%          68.4    

All of these data points are plotted below along with the 
data presented in our 2nd report for the gate valve (all the 
other data points have been removed for clarity).

   .
   .
 80-       v 
O  .          #                                
V  .           o*                               
E  .             x     v                           
R  .                                           
A70-                                            
L  .                                           
L  .                        #*+                   
   .                                          
E  .                         x                 
F60-                                               
F  .                                           
I  .                             o     v       
C  .                                              
I  .                                            
E50-                                             
N  .                                          
C  .                                              
Y  .                                                  
   .   x = 26 gpm                           ox#       
%40-   o = 38 gpm                            +     v 
   .   + = 53 gpm                                    
   .   # = 62 gpm                                   
   .   * = 99 gpm                                  *  
   .   v = 60 gpm (gate valve)                                               
 30-                                                  
   .                                                  
   |.........|.........|.........|.........|.........|...
   2         3         4         5         6         7
   0         0         0         0         0         0
                        AVERAGE BATH TEMPERATURE (C)


Error discussion

In this series of tests, we made a number of the 
observations in duplicate in order to check our measurement 
procedure.  The computed efficiencies for these duplicate 
observations (made as close together in time as possible) 
typically agreed within 1% relative.  Despite this 
precision, we still observe a significant scatter (visible 
in the graph above) in the correlation between overall 
efficiency and average bath temperature due probably to 
several factors which can vary throughout a given run (e.g. 
ambient temperature).

We roughly estimate our minimum detectable amount of excess 
energy from the Potapov device to be in the 15-20% range.  
Since only about 50% of the total input energy is delivered 
to the Potapov device in our setup, such an excess would 
result in an 8-10% increase in the measured overall 
efficiency.


Conclusion

There is no visible tendency for the new data points to lie 
above the curve defined by the "v" points which were 
obtained by replacing the Potapov device with a simple 
restriction.  In fact, the new data points tend to lie a bit 
below that curve probably because of the bypass line which 
increases the surface area available for heat loss.  The 
bypass line was not present during the gate valve runs.

Even though we have followed the flow aperture 
recommendations of the inventor (Potapov) precisely we still 
do not see any hint of excess energy even when the device is 
operated over a range of flow rates that extends well on 
either side of the recommended range (35-55 gpm).


Discussion

At this point, we feel that we have given our Potapov device 
a reasonable opportunity to show at least a hint of the 
large over-unity performance that has been claimed.  It 
appears that the device does not perform as claimed but, of 
course, we could still be missing some critical combination 
of operating parameters.

Rather than continue searching for such a combination, we 
will now attempt to communicate our findings to Dr. Potapov 
and ask for his assistance with further testing.


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 / Richard Schultz /  Citations (how not to provide them)
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Citations (how not to provide them)
Date: 20 Jul 1995 17:27:05 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

Having demonstrated his unfamiliarity with the concept of "concentration,"
Mitchell Swartz goes on to show us that he hasn't a clue about how to
properly cite sources either.  At least he spelled my name right this time.

In article <DC0qp7.CIq@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

>  Mr. Schultz was given a reference - MANY TIMES.

>"The Proceedings ICCF4 (4 volumes in first edition),
>then 3 cm thick in Dec. Fusion Technology.

>    If Schultz -- or the other TB-skeptics -- had actually 
>  read the cold fusion literature (e.g. Proc. of 
>  ICCF-4) there use of coherent lengths, systems, and
>  function were discussed in at least two papers.  In one
>  this referred to Peter Hagelstein's theories, in the other
>  this dealt with the PERIODIC wavefunction within the
>  palladium lattice.   

> It was prophetic since Mr. Schultz STILL has neither
>read the Proc ICCF (1994) - not peer reviewed 4 volumes
>or Proc ICCF (1995) peer reviewed, 1 volume in 
>Fusion Technology Dec 1994.

Swartz once made a very specific claim, namely that there was a report
of a correlation between sample purity and CF product distribution.
I asked him for a reference.  (Actually I asked him who did the work,
when, and where was it reported -- figuring that he wouldn't know what
a proper citation was if it hit him in the face, which appears to have
been correct.)

None of what you have provided above is of any use as a citation.
If I want to get the paper that interests me, I will have to get it from
interlibrary loan, as Princeton does not appear to have the ICCF-4
proceedings in its library.  That's where an actual citation comes in
handy.  Since, apparently, this was not part of your MIT education (although,
as usual, it *was* part of my eighth grade education), let me 
explain to you what a literature citation properly contains.  It has
the following information:

* Author(s)
* Journal of publication
* Date of Journal issue
* Pages on which reference is to be found

While some referencing styles require the title, most scientific writing
does not on the theory that the above information is sufficient to find
the article of interest.

Now, for example, you claimed that a measurement had been made of a 
correlation between the purity of the Pd and the nature of CF products.
To me, this would be an interesting result, and so I asked for the 
reference.  Just think of what would have happened if, instead of complaining
about how awful it is that I want to be spoon-fed, or instead of giving
as a "reference" a set of conference proceedings through which I would
have to wade in order to find the report of interest, you had just given
the reference (and you could have even commented "I shouldn't have to do
this for you, but in the interest of disseminating the information, here
it is").  I would have obtained the reference, read it, and perhaps we
would have had something of substance to discuss.

On the other hand, I have observed one obvious correlation.  At every
step of the way, if there is a choice between providing a useful answer
to a question and not providing a useful answer to a question, you have
invariably chosen the latter route, whether it be through ignoring the
question, distorting it, or giving insufficient information for a complete
response and then repeating ever more shrilly that you have answered it
(viz. your bizarre insistence that "concentration units" can have units
of energy in the denominator, or your refusal to back up your claims
about your publication list or about "sophomoric errors" you claim I
have made "all over the net.")

I am well aware that the link between correlation and causality has to
be made very carefully.  But your behavior has consistently been that
of someone with something to hide.  Even factoring in your obvious
pathological inability to admit even the possibility that you might be
wrong about something, let alone actually admit that you are wrong 
about something, one inescapable conclusion remains:  if it walks like
a duck, and if it quacks like a duck, the odds are that it probably
really is a duck.
--
					Richard Schultz

"To be, or not to be, I there's the point,
To Die, to sleepe, is that all?  I all;
No, to sleepe, to dreame, I mary there it goes. . ."
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Musings from "A mosquito"
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Musings from "A mosquito"
Date: 20 Jul 1995 17:36:19 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <JTLC4h1.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>For that matter, I don't care whether CF is fusion or some other form of
>energy. Maybe it is ZPE. Who knows? Maybe the First Law is wrong and energy is
>not conserved! I doubt it, but I don't care about that any more than I care
>about the market share for Ban Under Arm Deodorant. I am not in the physics
>business so I don't care which theory has the biggest market share this week.
 
If you think that it's possible that the First Law is wrong, then wouldn't
it be a more profitable use of your time to work on Perpetual Motion?
Most attempts at Perpetual Motion don't depend on rare and expensive
metals like Palladium.

And when is that P&F water heater going to hit the market?  And what
about that working CF generator you promised us by the end of 1993?
Or are we only allowed to make fun of hot fusion experiments when 
the timetable gets pushed back?

>Real people want *results*. They want cheap energy. 

This statement is not completely true (at least in the U.S.).  Just 
look at how much resistance there is to the use of fission energy,
for example.

>They do not want pie-in-the-sky promises and meaningless academic nitpicking 
>from hot fusion ripoff artists like Heeter.

As opposed to the pie-in-the-sky promises that cold fusion, I will use
a more neutral term, advocates such as yourself that don't have any
academic nitpickin?  I fail to see the advantages of the one over
the other.  But as Mitchell Swartz will be happy to tell you, I am
excessively undereducated, so I could be missing something fairly 
obvious here.
--
					Richard Schultz

"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
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 / Doug Merritt /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: doug@netcom.com (Doug Merritt)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,
ci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 17:22:36 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

In article <3ukmse$hi4@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter ) writes:
>I get a better variance when I compute orbital data.

Perhaps you have a specific example you've worked out and compared
with other approaches, that you could post to illustrate this?
	Doug
-- 
Doug Merritt				doug@netcom.com
Professional Wild-eyed Visionary	Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow

Unicode Novis Cypherpunks Gutenberg Wavelets Conlang Logli Alife Anthro
Computational linguistics Fundamental physics Cogsci Egyptology GA TLAs
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudendoug cudfnDoug cudlnMerritt cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 / mitchell swartz /  Citations (how not to provide them)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Citations (how not to provide them)
Subject: Citations (how not to provide them)
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 18:08:50 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


  In Message-ID: <3um3l9$3kf@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Citations (how not to provide them)
schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) bemoans

***** on Richard Schultz's error #5 regarding what Dr. Miles said

 =rpes   "Having demonstrated his unfamiliarity with
 =rpes    the concept of "concentration,""

  Richard Schultz continues not understanding a simple
physical principle.  
  For example, that if
15 die are thrown into a circle the concentration is
15 die (or dice, excuse me) in a circle.

it could be 15 die/(area cm^2) or, say,  1.4 die/cm^2
  (left as exercise to determine circle radius)

That is not volume.  It is a concentration
 
The generated concentration of ASH is as Dr. Miles 
presented it, and will not be represented here again
to keep bandwidth low and S/N high.

In summary,
    concentration, after thinking about it, is much closer
to Webster's definition than the limited sophomoric
one demanded by Mr. Schultz.

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

****** on Richard Schultz's error #6 regarding references

   Richard Schultz now admits he got the reference
but demands more.  
Richard has not been allowed to pursue the literature, and
has been victimized by not being given spoon-fed
papers out of a clear cited volume of papers.   Tsk.  How cruel.

(In fact, the Proceedings were not only cited by  both Mr. Rothwell
and myself, and by others, and some have even posted the locations 
to obtain this material)   

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

****** on Richard Schultz's analogy and needs

As Mr. Schultz says at last in this post 
    (most zipped, and some perhaps out of context   ;-)X

    =rpes  "I want to be spoon-fed....
    =rpes  "I am   ... a duck, and if it quacks like a duck,
    =rpes   the odds are that it probably
     =rpes  really is a duck."      Richard Schultz"

   And so it goes.  


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 / 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: Citations (how not to provide them)
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 18:11:22 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <3um3l9$3kf@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Citations (how not to provide them)
schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) bemoans

***** on Richard Schultz's error #5 regarding what Dr. Miles said

 =rpes   "Having demonstrated his unfamiliarity with
 =rpes    the concept of "concentration,""

  Richard Schultz continues not understanding a simple
physical principle.  
  For example, that if
15 die are thrown into a circle the concentration is
15 die (or dice, excuse me) in a circle.

it could be 15 die/(area cm^2) or, say,  1.4 die/cm^2
  (left as exercise to determine circle radius)

That is not volume.  It is a concentration
 
The generated concentration of ASH is as Dr. Miles 
presented it, and will not be represented here again
to keep bandwidth low and S/N high.

In summary,
    concentration, after thinking about it, is much closer
to Webster's definition than the limited sophomoric
one demanded by Mr. Schultz.

   And so it goes.  


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 /  jedrothwell@de /  Musings from "A mosquito"
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Musings from "A mosquito"
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 95 12:06:29 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> posted a bunch of poorly
formatted quotes from me, which he has either not read or he does not
understand. This is a stupid, trivial, waste of time and bandwidth, but I
should spend a few minutes setting the record straight. Heeter writes:
 
     "You're on record as saying Piantelli's nickel-vapor experiments are CF
     (See Excerpt 1 appended below.).
 
Of course they are.
 
 
     "You're also on record as saying (at least some of the time) that
     Griggs' device (which you wrote up in Cold Fusion Times, and who
     presented at MIT's Cold Fusion day, and who also presented at the Fifth
     International Conference on Cold Fusion) is "evidently" a CF Device (See
     Excerpt 2 appended below)."
 
That's my guess, but I don't know for sure, and I don't care. Maybe the GG
taps the same form of energy as CF, maybe not. That is a trivial issue.
 
 
     "That same report you gave on ICCF5 indicates that you think Cravens'
     light-water experiments are CF (Excerpt 3), along with the E-Quest
     results."
 
Of course the Cravens cell is CF. It is very similar to the work with Pd and
Ti. Heck, ask Morrison or Blue and they will tell it is exactly the same! They
don't even realize that nickel and palladium are different elements, they are
such dodo-brains.
 
 
     "While you apparently have decided to verbally sit on the fence about
     Potapov and Griggs . . ."
 
This is garbage! This is where Heeter and all other "skeptical" scientists
always go wrong. Let's get this straight, once and for all. I am NOT fence
sitting. I DON'T CARE WHAT MAKES THEM GO. Maybe it is CF, maybe it isn't. I
don't give a damn. The only thing I care about is finding a practical,
profitable source of clean energy. Solar, wind, CF, ZPE, satellite solar,
geothermal . . . all are fine with me. The underlying physics are irrelevant.
For that matter, I don't care whether CF is fusion or some other form of
energy. Maybe it is ZPE. Who knows? Maybe the First Law is wrong and energy is
not conserved! I doubt it, but I don't care about that any more than I care
about the market share for Ban Under Arm Deodorant. I am not in the physics
business so I don't care which theory has the biggest market share this week.
 
 
     ". . . your actions speak otherwise - you are enthusiastically
     publicizing their results, writing about them in Cold Fusion Times, and
     helping them get included in ICCF5. . . ."
 
Well of course I am enthusiastic about them!!! They are promising new sources
of energy. They are cheap, clean, reliable, and they have already produced
millions of time more saleable energy than hot fusion ever will. Any good
desktop CF experiment will produce more energy than the best experiment
Heeter's billion dollar hot fusion PPPL Tokamak ever will. He knows that, and
he is consumed with jealously and fear. He knows that eventually the taxpayers
will shut down his scam operation. We produce hundreds of times more energy
than he does, and our gadgets cost a hundred million times less than his. He
knows that if we debate practical, economic *energy* he will look like a
monkey, so he wants to talk about whether Griggs is CF or not instead. That is
a waste of time; there is no evidence either way. Nobody has ever performed a
test to find out if Griggs is CF.
 
 
     "To my mind that means that you think they're at least likely to be
     "CF"."
 
To your mind?!? What the heck does that mean? I don't have any firm opinion as
to whether they are "likely to be 'CF'" or not. I don't give a fig about that,
so why should I have an opinion?
 
 
     "You're certainly inclined to speak of all these experiments in the same
     breath, as if they used the same physical process (also Excerpt 3)."
 
Certainly not. I have stated very clearly, time after time, that it makes no
difference what physical process or processes are involved.
 
Heeter's comments are symptomatic of the whole problem with U.S. science and
the DoE. Heeter think that the taxpayers want him to sit on his butt all day
arguing about scientific theories. He believes it matters whether or not CF is
fusion. Out here in the real world, real people -- taxpayers, industrialists,
people who have to heat houses in winter -- do not care about such trivial
academic debates. Heat is heat, energy is energy. Fusion, fission, solar, ZPE
or green-cheese energy; no sane person cares where it comes from. Real people
want *results*. They want cheap energy. They do not want pie-in-the-sky
promises and meaningless academic nitpicking from hot fusion ripoff artists
like Heeter.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjedrothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: A conspicuous House Budget Item
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A conspicuous House Budget Item
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 95 12:13:11 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Jim Bowery <jabowery@netcom.com> writes:
 
>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 
 
That's a darn shame. But that's politics for you. I gave up on that stuff
years ago. The process is so currupt, and the DoE is so mired in corruption
and academic lunacy like the hot fusion program that there is no point in
trying to save it. Just shut the whole place down, and give all those
scientists their walking papers. If they all end up flipping burgers for
a living it would serve them right! At least they would be contributing
something usefull to society.
 
In real life what will happen is much better than that. Real scientists from
the DoE will soon find real jobs doing useful research. Hot fusion idiots
propaganda agents and rip off artists like Morrison and Heeter will flip
burgers.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjedrothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion
Date: 20 Jul 1995 14:45:37 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Hello Al -

Before you jump on me for making fun of Cold Fusion, please reread
the footnote at the bottom of the article I posted:

$ Footnote:  Though skeptical of the aims of some of the commercial
$ advocates of cold fusion, and skeptical of the highly
$ contradictory and mostly irreproducible experimental
$ evidence, I remain (mostly) open-minded about the phenomenon's 
$ existence.  I'm just hoping someone will do a conclusive
$ experiment, instead of the ones I listed.

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

Actually, the actual fusion theories have little to do with the state 
of matter and a lot to do with the quantum physics of nearby nuclei.
The only reason why we end up experimenting with plasmas is because
*usually* that's the only way to get nuclei to collide with enough
energy that there's anything more than an infinitesimal chance of
a reaction.

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

Primarily because in muon-catalyzed fusion, where a beam of muons
is pumped into a liquid hydrogen tank, the same nuclear physics 
works, the branching ratios are what is predicted by theory, and generally
we understand how that works too, using the *same* theories that
work for high-temperature plasmas.  Muon-catalyzed fusion experiments
have been done in a wide range of ordinary temperatures, from very
low (liquid H2, I think) to relatively high (hundreds of degrees K).
When a theory works all the way from 100 K to 1,000,000,000 K, you 
generally feel pretty confident that it's right.  

However, as the disclaimer says, I'm open-minded about the phenomenon.
There is a minute chance that the quantum physics of nuclear interactions
changes in some bizarre way under certain circumstances.  It seems
extremely unlikely that the same phenomenon would explain all the
proclaimed results, but the universe is strange, so who knows?

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

Sure you can believe that.  Chemical reactions are fundamentally
electical in nature; if an ordinary battery can work there's no reason
why a fuel cell can't.  When I first learned about fuel cells I didn't
sit there and scratch my head and say "what the hell?"; I said "Aha!
Cool!".
It may be that fuel cells are touchy and hard to assemble without 
knowing what you're doing, but the phenomenon itself is not 
fundamentally implausible.  

>Question;
>
>Suppose for some unknown reason the reacton ;
>
>D2+D2 + XX -> He4 + XX +photon (appropriate wavelength)
>
>were possible and in fact probable enough under the right conditions to
>produce results like those claimed.
>
>Say for the sake of arguement that XX is a palladium atom (very massive
>with respect to D2 or He4.   

The problem is in specifying what "the right conditions" are.  
When people get positive results using all possible combinations of
(ordinary hydrogen and/or deuterium) and (palladium and/or nickel
and/or other metals) and (gas phase, liquid phase, and/or plasma phase)
and (mechanical power input, thermal power input, and/or electrical
power input), then I get very suspicious.  Especially because I've
read several of the original articles and I was not impressed.
Pons & Fleischmann's original article in particular is a combination
of stupid physics mistakes and inadequate reporting of their technique.

>Wouldn't that explain the lack of nutrons?

Sure, but see below:

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

Nope.  Write out the momentum and energy conservation equations for
the reaction and you will see that if there are only two products,
the heavier one carries off most of the momentum but very little energy;
the light one gets all the energy.  That 4He is going to be flying
*very* fast, and you should see all sorts of gamma and x-rays from 
when it collides with the other atoms nearby.  Unfortunately there 
aren't enough atoms nearby for it to couple energy into the solid 
without emitting easily-observed gamma and x-rays - the speed of 
light isn't fast enough for it to interact with lots of particles
before it decays.

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

Yes (as I said above), but if you do "allow the reaction to go" then
you get high-energy helium, not low-energy.

>Just stuff to think about.

Believe me, I've thought about it.  I just don't buy it yet.
Like I said in the footnote; someone ought to do a definitive
experiment.

--Bob Heeter














 -----------------------------------------------------
Bob Heeter
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu / rfheeter@pppl.gov
http://www.princeton.edu/~rfheeter
Of course I do not speak for anyone else in any of the above.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 / Tom Droege /  Re: Follow Up
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Follow Up
Date: 20 Jul 1995 17:19:26 GMT
Organization: fermilab


In article <USE2PCB994511879@brbbs.brbbs.com>, mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com
(MARSHALL DUDLEY) says:

(snip)

>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.
> 

No, this is not "exactly what happens".  The resistance increases until
about a loading of 0.7.  Then it decreases back to near the unloaded
value at a loading of around 1.0.  McKubre has discussed this at length
in various presentations, see for example Figure 1 of his ACCF1 paper.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 / 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: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 13:40 -0500 (EST)

jenstroll@aol.com (JensTroll) writes:
 
-> MARSHALL, the energy of two D's fusing must go somewhere immediately upon
-> fusion.  If you started out with a He atom at ground state, and then
-> stripped the He atom of it's electrons, this would not cover the energy
-> release.  If you allow a photon emmision, this will allow some energy to
-> get out but then you can't balance the energy and momentum eq.s at the
-> same time w/o use of a third body (see my previous post).  To have a
-> working theory with stationary He, you must show someplace for the energy
-> to go immediatly.
 
What is immediately?  Nothing happens in 0 time.  Dick Blue has indicated that
the decay should occur within 1E-40 second.  The options that are available
depend very strongly on what the half-life of the decay modes are.  I have
asked Dick where he got this number from.  At this point I am not convinced it
has any experimental data to back it up, at least until I read a reply from
Dick indicating otherwise. I don't take anything for granted, but want to know
on what basis various "known facts" were determined or derived.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 / P DEVELOPMENT /  nuclear analytical chemistry
     
Originally-From: prodev1a@fox.nstn.ca (PROCESS TCHNOLOGY & DEVELOPMENT)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: nuclear analytical chemistry
Date: 20 Jul 1995 19:10:46 GMT
Organization: NSTN Inc. ICS/Windows Dialup User

Is there a way to separate Europium from Samarium isotope? simple
question but is there a simple answer?
signed FISSION
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenprodev1a cudfnPROCESS cudlnDEVELOPMENT cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Musings from "A mosquito"
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Musings from "A mosquito"
Subject: Re: Musings from "A mosquito"
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 19:43:02 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


  In Message-ID: <3um46j$3p2@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Musings from "A mosquito"
schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) opines

"But as Mitchell Swartz will be happy to tell you, I am
excessively undereducated, so I could be missing something fairly 
obvious here.            	Richard Schultz"

    Mr. Schultz, bucking for the Storm's "Flying Pig Award" for 1995,
  ought to get a grip.

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

--->   Fact #1    Everyone makes errors.
  He shouldn't take it too personally.  
  Even Drs. Fleischmann and Pons made a mistake in their
1989 paper.                     ;-)X
      (neutron production;  But much of the rest was correct).

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

--->  Fact #2:
Back to Master Schultz's silly post

  I would not tell, and couldn't care, and simply dont have any of infantile
goober-like fixations similar to those which Richard Schultz demonstrates
in effervescent fashion as he goes on-and-on about his education,
publications, and (yes, to those who missed it twice here) body part lengths.

 As a result of his obsessions and the current vogue of X-files, thought
it prudent to have a look.  
  So  took a look but couldn't  find any of his putative
papers in Dieter's fine compendia, but might have missed.

He does seem to post quite a bit to alt.revisionism and perhaps that
  group is more appropriate for him.  (no joke that)

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

--->  Fact #3
  It was Mr. Schultz who demanded others'
credentials,  and Mr. Schultz who demanded answer's from
others about their publications, and poor-"handicapped"
Mr. Schultz who demanded evermore
"precise" references so he could pen them for his "secretary".  
How special.   
And of course it was Mr. Schultz, who -- when asked to 
"put up or shut up" a post HIS publications list
and CV first and then others would consider following his
lead  --  apparently was dumbstruck.  This oblivion and/or fear
was heralded by the fact
that when such "light" was irradiated upon his troll-like behavior , he
promptly stuck his tail -- ? already smoking from numerous 
                       trips between Princeton and Berkeley --
between his lower extremities and slithered towards the keyboard
to dispatch more of his silly little libels and woozy bleats [for
better, and much more formal, references, and  in such-and-such
a format].   What a woos (excuse spelling).

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

--->  Fact #4
  If there was really education received by Master Schultz,
there would be no need  to constantly "spoon-feed" him,
nor would there be the incessant cry from him to have others
help him organize the references in sufficient form so that
he could then give to his "secretary" or "librarian".   

   ===========================
"I think you're thinking of Wyoming, where the men are men, 
the women are men, and the sheep are scared."
  [Richard Schultz, Princeton and Berkeley, 22 Jun 1995]
/








cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion
Date: 20 Jul 1995 20:02:51 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3uklcu$p7j@newsbf02.news.aol.com> jenstroll@aol.com (JensTroll)  
writes:

> I was told not to publish perfictly valid
> experimental results (which the P.I. who told me not to publish knew and
> acknowledged to be valid.), because it would disprove a previously
> published hypothesis of our research group.  He said something to the
> effect that it would make us look stupid.  After getting over being P.O.
> ed abouti it, and once I thought it over, I though it would make us look
> like  honest and credible researchers.   

You were right. If the stuff you folks were researching was
of any great interest, some other researcher elsewhere will
make your same discovery soon enough, and really make your
former group look stupid.

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


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 / Barry Merriman /  Re: The Experimentalists lament
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Experimentalists lament
Date: 20 Jul 1995 20:19:56 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <DBy10o.FC3@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)  
writes:

> [BTW, do you know as little about fusion as you do
>     about the history of medicine?]
> 
>    Best wishes.
>     Mitchell Swartz
> 

Apparently so, since I still don't believe P & F style CF has been
demonstrated, nor do I believe that Ignac Semmelweiss met his
death at the un-sterile hands of his prior colleagues, all the
while pleading for them to disinfect before treating his wounds.

Since you are in possesion of such immense understanding of new
medicine and new physics, I am amazed that you are not a practicing physician
or developing your own CF devices. I guess your are beyond all that
trivial actual application of your knowledge, and on to a greater calling,
educating USENET news readers. Oh well, I admit my inferiority. I am still
at the level where all I can do is actually do research in my fields
of expertise.






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


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Follow Up
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Follow Up
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 13:47 -0500 (EST)

Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk> writes:
 
-> In any case, Marshall, say the d can get into the electron region; what
-> do you think will happen there? Nothing nuclear, certainly, but what?
 
Shielding.  The positive charge on the d ion would be shielded, making it
possible for another d ion to approach within tunneling distance which would
not be possible if coulomb repulsion were present.
 
                                                           Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 / Barry Merriman /  Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
Date: 20 Jul 1995 20:22:42 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <5HGBwLR.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:


> The amount of money stolen by DoE and DoD
> programs like this is much greater in the aggregate than the amount stolen
> by fraud in Social Security and AFDC (welfare cheats).
>  

I know you never speak out with out sources...I'd be interested in
where I can locate such an economic analysis.




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


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 / Robert Huss /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: rhuss@risky.ecs.umass.edu (Robert Huss)
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: 20 Jul 1995 21:17:10 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

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



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


Okay, I've never heard of "cycles" as fundamental units, but now
you give me something to work with. You say we can "measure"
cycles. From this I gather there are many different cycles
you could use as a base. I can count the spinning of the earth,
the orbit of the earth, the beating of my heart, etc. Is
this what a cycle is? Now, how do you define the
count of these cycles without time? Counting cycles implies
a starting point and an ending point and a direction of time.
Therefore time is still a fundamental.
Bob.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenrhuss cudfnRobert cudlnHuss cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 / J Firestone /  Any double blind tests?
     
Originally-From: jefff@sccsi.com (Jeffrey B. Firestone)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Any double blind tests?
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 21:21:19 GMT
Organization: South Coast Computer Services (sccsi.com)

Have their been any double blind tests of a apparatus such as the
Clean Energy Technologies' device that was on display at the ICCF5
Conference?

It would appear that this is a roubust device with predictable and
repeatable performance characteristics.  Such a device would make a
good candidate for a double blind test.


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjefff cudfnJeffrey cudlnFirestone cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 / Charles Cagle /  cmsg cancel <-2007951550530001@ip-salem2-23.teleport.com>
     
Originally-From: <singtech@teleport.com> (Charles Cagle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <-2007951550530001@ip-salem2-23.teleport.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 15:51:03 -0800
Organization: Singularity Technologies, Inc.

cancel <-2007951550530001@ip-salem2-23.teleport.com>
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudensingtech cudfnCharles cudlnCagle cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 / Charles Cagle /  NO GR POSTINGS - Says Heeter - What Gall!
     
Originally-From: <singtech@teleport.com> (Charles Cagle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: NO GR POSTINGS - Says Heeter - What Gall!
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 15:53:35 -0800
Organization: Singularity Technologies, Inc.

In article <3ugeqp$j4q@cnn.Princeton.EDU>, Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:

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

Back off Heeter, GR *is* related to fusion along with SR, particularly so
if it is a local event which is globally mediated.

If you wish to be so insect-like in your specializations that is fine for
you, but some of us who think the destiny of men is to be generalists
believe that the entire cosmos is related.  You know - like in Mach's
Principle - as in the interrelationships of mass to mass - as in what gets
reduced when a fusion event occurs!  If that isn't global and related to
the whole of physics and therefore fusion, pray tell, what is?

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:
cuddy20 cudensingtech cudfnCharles cudlnCagle cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 / Dr Rich /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: "Dr. Rich Artym" <rartym@galacta.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: Thu, 20 Jul 95 15:20:51 GMT
Organization: Galacta Institute for Computer Rights

In article <3uk85a$rf2@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
           tdp@ix.netcom.com "Tom Potter " writes:

>    The "Uncertainty Principle" arises as the fundamental cycle
>    associated with an electron is the finest cycle available to
>    us to compare other cycles to. This is analogous to the carrier
>    frequency used in modems and radio transmitters. We cannot
>    transmit ( and detect ) more cycles of information than the
>    number of cycles available to us ( The carrier frequency )
>    to convey the information.

You'd better drop modems from your analogy as there is no carrier
frequency as such in most modems.  If you are referring to the baud or
symbol rate, this is not the fundamental limit on the information rate
through a given channel: the S/N ratio of the channel provides that.
As far as radio is concerned, most normal radio transmitters do have a
carrier frequency, but the correspondance between that and modulation
bandwidth is far too messy to help you as an analogy. 


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

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenrartym cudfnDr cudlnRich cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Potapov Device Tests - Round 5
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Potapov Device Tests - Round 5
Date: 21 Jul 1995 00:42:57 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3ulrp3$3a2@boris.eden.com> little@eden.com (Scott Little) writes:
> 
> Rather than continue searching for such a combination, we 
> will now attempt to communicate our findings to Dr. Potapov 
> and ask for his assistance with further testing.
> 

A wise move. Presumably he can furnish you with 
a protocol that generates the %300 percent excess
figure that we hear. I would request from him
both the precise experimental hardware setup, flow
parameters, and measurement procedure use to get
the excess (since in all likely-hood, the excess is
the result of an invalid measurment process).

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


cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 / Robert Heeter /  Musings from "A mosquito"
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Musings from "A mosquito"
Subject: Griggs gadget may not be CF
Subject: Re: Griggs device tests
Subject: Highlights of the Fifth International Conference on Cold Fusion
Date: 20 Jul 1995 04:37:30 GMT
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 1994 00:12:44 GMT
Date: 14 Sep 1994 01:48:36 GMT
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 95 13:13:25 -0500
Organization: Princeton University
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Organization: CFRA
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Hmm...  Wonder what Jed has to say this time?

In article <ZlKiYfQ.jedrothwell@delphi.com> , jedrothwell@delphi.com
writes:
[ CF Advocates' Defensive Tactic #1: Call the other guy uncreative names:
]
>This is trivial, but annoying. A mosquito named Robert F. Heeter

A mosquito, eh?  I like it!  Buzzes incessantly around you, sucks out
a little fluid here and there, leaving behind annoying, painful welts,
with a significant chance of disease infection; reproduces mightily
and rises to replace itself, never leaving you in peace, no matter how
many of them you swat - I can live with that.

Perhaps you'd like to be more creative?  "Gnat" would have been better 
than "mosquito," for instance - just as annoying, but less dangerous
since they don't leave behind those itchy welts.  A mite is even 
better - they're so small you never even notice them, though they 
crawl all over your flesh, into your mouth, up your nose, etc.

In the pantheon of minor insects, the mosquito just isn't a very
creative call.  I'm really disappointed; I expected to draw a much
more creative rant with what I posted!

[ CF Advocates' Defensive Tactic #2: Accuse the other guy of ignorance: ]
><rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>, who knows nothing about cold fusion because
>he has read nothing about it -- not even the papers I posted here! -- 

I always enjoy this one the most.  I mean, how on earth does Jed know 
what I have / have not read?  Had he bothered to read into the archives
a little - or had he remembered some of the debates here from the 
past two years - he might have noticed some postings of mine where
I very clearly *had* read, say, Piantelli's _Nuovo Cimento_ article on
the thermal cycling of a nickel rod in a hydrogen atmosphere, which
was a hot topic about a year ago.  Or Kucherov's article on "cold fusion"
in glow discharges.  Of course, I've also read Miles reports and 
the original (laughable, really) Pons & Fleischmann article with its
bogus X-ray claims.  And that's just a few.  No, he clearly knows
nothing about what I do or do not know, but it's very convenient to
dismiss someone by proclaiming that they don't know anything.

[ CF Advocates' Defensive Tactic #3: If you say enough different and
contradictory things, then you can always deny any statement of
your position and back it up with a quote supporting yourself: ]

[I originally wrote: ] 
>     "To hear CFRA (or at least Rothwell) tell it, everything from swirling
>     ordinary water (Griggs, Potapov) to low-temperature gas discharges to
>     nickel+vapor (Piantelli) to nickel-hydrogen electrolysis is "Cold
>     Fusion", and not just palladium-deuterium electrolysis."
> 
>That is not what I wrote in any of the papers published here or anywhere else.
>Nobody I know has said anything like that.
[... and ... ]
>Just to remind readers what I have actually said,
>repeatedly, here is a paragraph from "Highlights of the Fifth International
>Conference on Cold Fusion:"
> 
>     "The Potapov device may or may not tap the same source of energy as the
>     electrochemical CF cells and the E-Quest device. I have no idea whether
>     it does or not. One startling piece of evidence seems to indicate that
>     it may not. Sapogin reports that the device was run for many months in a
>     closed circuit yet it did not generate any significant level of helium,
>     tritium or other nuclear ash. Sapogin thinks he can explain this with
>     his unitary quantum theory which he published in Il Nuovo Cimento. [7] I
>     am glad it is not my job to explain it. This baffling result appears to
>     contradict results from E-Quest, the Naval Weapons Center and others who
>     have found helium commensurate with a nuclear reaction. Perhaps there
>     are two different, unrelated processes at work. From the standpoint of
>     business and technology, it does not matter if there are two processes
>     or two hundred."
> 
Hah hah hah!  This made me laugh the first time, and it hasn't gotten
stale yet.

Let's actually look at your digital paper trail on this subject:

You're on record as saying Piantelli's nickel-vapor experiments
are CF (See Excerpt 1 appended below.).    You're also on record as saying
(at least some of the time) that Griggs' device (which you wrote up in
Cold Fusion Times, and who presented at MIT's Cold Fusion day, and who
also presented at the Fifth International Conference on Cold Fusion) is
"evidently" a CF Device (See Excerpt 2 appended below).  That same report
you gave on ICCF5 indicates that you think Cravens' light-water
experiments
are CF (Excerpt 3), along with the E-Quest results.  While you apparently
have decided to verbally sit on the fence about Potapov and Griggs, your
actions speak otherwise - you are enthusiastically publicizing their
results,
writing about them in Cold Fusion Times, and helping them get included in
ICCF5. 
To my mind that means that you think they're at least likely to be "CF".
You're certainly inclined to speak of all these experiments in the same
breath, as
if they used the same physical process (also Excerpt 3).  If you like I'll
put up some quotes where you discuss Kucherov's low-temp glow
discharges as CF experiments too.

Since I've shown that you consider each of these devices separately to
be "Cold Fusion" experiments of some sort, and that even though you have
expressed uncertainty about Griggs & Potapov your *actions* regarding 
these devices indicate that you (and others) think they are CF devices, 
(where else do you get "heat beyond chemistry"?) do you still want to
deny my
original statement?


[ CF Advocates' Defensive Tactic #4: Accuse the skeptics of your own
faults: ]
>There is no experimental evidence
>to support this statement, so only a "skeptic" like Robert would dare to make
>it. "Skeptics" ignore evidence and make up facts to fit whatever foolishness
>comes into their heads. 

Which evidence have I ignored so far, and what facts did I make up?
As you can see, I haven't made any statements I wasn't prepared to
support with your own quotations.  The evidence so far is that my 
original statement was completely accurate.

But since there is as yet no "experimental evidence" that I "ignore
evidence 
and make up facts"; it is you who seem to be fabricating arguements to 
fit your own foolishness.  I'd say you've hoisted yourself by your own 
soiled petard.


[CF Advocates' Defensive Tactic #5: Never ever divulge your associations,
connections, employment, motives, etc.  When pressed, resort to feeble
semantics and half-truths: ]
 
>Heeter also posts the follows twaddle: 
>     "Note that Jed Rothwell works for Cold Fusion Research Advocates
>     (CFRA)."
>In no sense to do I work for the CFRA.
                  ^^^^^^^  In no sense TO DO you make any grammatical
sense, either.

Well, you list yourself as a member of the organization, post on the
internet as a member of the organization, and advertise for them on the
'Net.
Sorry I missed out on the big distinction between the above activities
and "working for" them.  (See Excerpts #2 and #3) 
This is not exactly a huge difference from my perspective.  So what's 
the connection, anyway?  I guess "work for" is the wrong phrasing; 
I should have said "Jed Rothwell is strongly associated with CFRA."

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

*************************************
Excerpt 1 - Rothwell claims Piantelli is CF.
From the fusion digest archives:
*************************************
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs gadget may not be CF
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 1994 00:12:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG

I mentioned that a CF experiment has produced about a hundred times more
energy than the best hot fusion experiments. People who have read the
literature will know that I was referring to the Piantelli work. I also
mentioned that a "CF water heater" is already available from Hydro
Dynamics in
Cartersville, Georgia. This device was invented and patented by James
Griggs.
Let me clarify something: I am not sure whether this really is a CF
heater or
not. If it is, then it holds the world record for net CF energy, since
some of
the installed heaters have been producing 30+ KW excess energy on demand
for
years.

***************************************
Excerpt 2 - Rothwell claims Griggs gadget is
"evidently" CF (also from fusion digest archives):
*************************************** 
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs device tests
Date: 14 Sep 1994 01:48:36 GMT
Organization: CFRA
[...]
Nobody is claiming that the Griggs machine is
a 'free energy' machine. Evidently, it is a CF reactor, it converts
hydrogen
into helium and releases energy.
[...]

**************************************
Excerpt 3 - Rothwell and CFRA; Other devices
(from the fusion digest archives)
**************************************
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Highlights of the Fifth International Conference on Cold Fusion
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 95 13:13:25 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE FIFTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COLD FUSION
 
Jed Rothwell
Cold Fusion Research Advocates
************************* - asterisks added by R.F. Heeter
2060 Peachtree Industrial Court, Suite 313
Chamblee, Georgia 30341

[...]

Patterson's company, Clean Energy Technology (CETI), got together with
Dennis
Cravens and brought to the conference a demonstration cell in a flow
calorimeter. It worked spectacularly well. Cravens [2] discussed it on the
first day. The device output 3 to 5 times input energy, ignoring energy
lost
to electrolysis gases, and as much as 10 times input if you include
various
factors like electrolysis gases and the heat lost from the cell
container. I
will describe it in detail in a later communication. Briefly, input was
usually held at about 0.4 watts I*V, although on the last day it was
raised to
0.8 watts for a while. The flow rate was 10 ml per minute. When the
machine
was first rolled into position and turned on in the morning, there was no
excess for 10 or 20 minutes, and the temperature Delta T fluctuated
around 0.2
deg C, indicating about 0.14 watts output. The rest was lost to known heat
leaks from the cell container and to the effluent gasses from
electrolysis,
which were measured in a gas flowmeter. As the reaction turned on, the
Delta T
gradually rose to about 2 deg C, and sometimes rose as high as 4 deg C,
indicating 20 to 40 calories per minute, or 1.4 to 2.8 watts.
 
Patterson's device is described in U.S. Patents 5,036,031 and 4,943,355.
It is
a thin film light water system. It incorporates plastic beads coated with
Cu,
Ni, Pd, and another layer of Ni. CETI has agreed in principle to work with
some of my contacts at major institutions, especially Japanese National
Laboratories and Universities. They asked me to make arrangements, which
I am
hustling to do. CETI is very cooperative and open. I have been following
their
work for about a year. Few other scientists seem to be as willing to share
information, and no other scientists think as quickly or solve problems
with
such dispatch. A few months ago they had problems with high temperatures
and
pressures destroying the beads and melting the plastic cell containers.
They
designed new beads with an extra outer layer of nickel, and they found
new,
temperature resistant cell materials. They are oriented toward fixing
engineering problems and building practical, commercially useful systems.
That
is what the field most needs.
 
The CETI demo system is fairly predictable, well controlled, and well
behaved,
although it did get a bit quirky in the harsh conditions of the ICCF5
hallway.
During breaks, the hotel coffee pots kept tripping the circuit breakers.
This
sent jolts of power through the transformer, which crashed the
experiment. The
CF reaction started up again every time, usually in about 10 minutes. The
high
precision flowmeter unfortunately did not survive the beating, the
batteries
and power supplies in it burned up. Fortunately, the low precision
flowmeter
-- a 10-ml lab supply graduated glass cylinder plus stopwatch -- cannot be
affected by power outages and excess voltage. The experiment was
subjected to
other abuses: the cart holding the experiment was wheeled up to a hotel
room
every night, carried on elevators, and pushed around. Cravens even lifted
the
cell from its container to show it to people while it was running! Yet in
spite of this, the reaction started up in the morning after 10 or 20
minutes
of electrolysis, although on the last day it took about a half hour, and
the
power was turned up higher than before. The fact that the cell survived
this
treatment at all demonstrates that this is one of the most robust and
practical electrochemical CF systems yet developed. By the last day, the
batteries in the differential electronic thermometer got weak and a minor
0.2
deg C bias appeared between them, which could be observed by switching the
leads to the input and output thermistors. This was not significant,
because
the Delta T ranged from 2 to 4 deg C when the reaction was on, and it was
less
than 0.4 deg C when there was no excess heat.
 
I asked a number of the leading CF people what they thought of the demo
and
the Cravens talk. Some of them were enthusiastic. Peter Hagelstein spent a
long time with Cravens going over the instrumentation and results step by
step, in his ultra-careful, thoughtful fashion. But when I asked other
leading
CF scientists what they thought, they evaded me or expressed open
hostility.
The excuses and nonsense they gave me would be worthy of the most
pathological
"skeptic." I believe they are jealous. They cannot bring themselves to
admit
they have been trumped by the light water approach. The most pathological
skeptic on earth himself, Morrison, said that he could not judge the
experiment and he would have to have Droege look at it before reaching any
conclusion. That was, at least, a lot funnier than the responses of the CF
scientists who oppose light water.


[...]

 Innovation comes first, theory and refinements
follow. The devices from Patterson, E-Quest, Griggs, and Potapov prove
that I
am right about this. An effective demonstration system *can* be built now,
even before a theory emerges.

[...]

I expect the Potapov device will be verified. In that case, it is the most
important, most practical, and most promising excess heat device yet
invented.
Given that fact, if it was up to me, I would schedule three days of
discussion
about the ultrasound, light water and other practical devices, and devote
only
a half day to electrochemical heavy water - palladium CF and other
marginal
techniques. The focus of a conference should be on methods that work, not
methods which happened to be discovered first.

[...]

*****************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.19 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Marshall Dudley hypothesis
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Marshall Dudley hypothesis
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 17:37 -0500 (EST)

blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes:
 
-> 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.
 
You are correct and I withdraw my previous objection to your objection to my
comments. :)
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 / 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: 20 Jul 1995 00:31:38 GMT
Organization: Netcom


As several people have informed me by email that they missed
my original posts on "cycles", and several others have asked me
to elaborate on my "theory", I am reposting some of this information.

                        ------------

1. The fundamental unit of information and perception
   is the BIT ( BInary uniT ),
   which in its' most fundamentally form is a cycle.

2. Time is the ratio of cycles.

        time(X) = cycles(reference) / cycles(X)

3. Two bodies ( A system ) interact about a common point, in a common time.
   The common point is the center of mass of the system,
   and the common time is the period.

4. All properties can be defined in terms of three times.

   Time(P) = the period of the system / 2 pi
   Time(A) = the interaction time between body(A) and the system center of mass.
   Time(B) = the interaction time between body(B) and the system center of mass.

   Periods must be divided by 2 pi in order to equate periods,
   which are perceived as cycles, to interaction times,
   which are perceived as radii ( radians ).
   
5. Distance is interaction time multiplied by a constant
   ( "C", the speed of light. ) which is used to express time
   in convenient "distance" units.

   distance(X) = time(X) * C

6. Velocity is fundamentally a tangent function, which is the ratio
   of an interaction time and a period time.
   The dimensionless tangent functions defined by a system are:

   tangent(A) = interaction time(A) / time(P)
   tangent(B) = interaction time(B) / time(P)

   velocity(A) = tangent(A) * C = distance(A) / time(P)
   velocity(B) = tangent(B) * C = distance(B) / time(P)

7. The mass of a body(A) is defined in terms of the reaction of another
   body(B) to it. Kepler was the first to observe this relationship,
   Newton was the first to understand it and Einstein restated this
   relationship as his "Equivalence Principle".

   Mass(A) = tangent(B)^3 * time(P) * C^3 / G
   Mass(B) = tangent(A)^3 * time(P) * C^3 / G

   Where "C" is "the speed of light"
   and "G" is the universal gravitational constant.

   C is a constant used to express interaction times as distances and G
   is a constant used to express the combination of times we call mass in
   convenient mass units after the interaction times have been expressed
   as distances. The constants "C" and "G" ( Like distance and mass ) are
   unnecessary and simply complicate the property system.

   As can be seen, C^3 / G can be considered to be a
   universal mass per time constant.

8. Mass defined in terms of cycles ( Information ):
   mass(A) = ( cycles(B) / cycles(reference) )^3
           * ( cycles(P) / cycles(reference) )^1
           * C^3
           / G

   Of course, as a constant ( 2 pi ) relates cycles and radians,
   radians can be substituted for cycles in these equations.

9. The energy of interacting bodies are:
   energy(A) = tangent(B)^3 * tangent(A)^2 * time(P) * C^5 / G
   energy(B) = tangent(A)^3 * tangent(B)^2 * time(P) * C^5 / G

10. Energy defined in terms of cycles ( Information ):
    energy(A) = ( cycles(B) / cycles(reference) )^3
              * ( cycles(A) / cycles(reference) )^2
              * ( cycles(P) / cycles(reference) )^1
              * C^5
              / G

   As can be seen, C^5 / G can be considered to be a
   universal energy per time constant.

11. As I previously posted, a universal charge per time constant
    can be defined as:
    U(Q) = ( 2 * permittivity * C^3 / G )^.5

    The value of this constant is:   1.3881044 X 10^25 amperes.

12. As can be seen, time, distance and mass have been defined in
    terms of cycles. As all of the physical properties are defined
    in terms of time, distance and mass, they can also be defined
    in terms of information ( Cycles ) and a couple of constants.

                        ---------

Notes:

   It is important to note, that time, as a system property,
   is the unique period time of the system under observation.
   Although we use stable outside references to clock the
   ratios of period and interaction times of a system and
   to compare independent systems, any harmonics in the reference
   cycles introduces errors into the system under observation.

                        ---------

   Radius is commonly defined in physics as:
   radius = ( time(A) + time(B) ) * C
   ( See #4 above for definition of time(A) and time(B) )

   This definition introduces critical misconceptions into
   physics and is the source of many errors, including the
   reduced mass of the electron. One of the misconceptions it
   introduces is that the "Earth orbits the Sun".
   The fact is, that all pairs of bodies in the universe
   interact about the center of mass common to each.

   And what is a body?
   It is the perception of some aggregate of cycles,
   which is associated with some "point"
   which is actually an ordinal storage element in the "memory",
   of the "observer".

                        ---------

   The "Uncertainty Principle" arises as the fundamental cycle
   associated with an electron is the finest cycle available to
   us to compare other cycles to. This is analogous to the carrier
   frequency used in modems and radio transmitters. We cannot
   transmit ( and detect ) more cycles of information than the
   number of cycles available to us ( The carrier frequency )
   to convey the information.

                        ------------

   As I have shown in previous posts, a universal time per
   mass constant can be defined as:

   U(M) = G / C^3

   The time equivalence of a mass would be:

   time(mass A) = mass(A) * U(M)
   time(mass B) = mass(B) * U(M)
   
   Perhaps the most important equation of physics is:

   time(mass A) * time(mass B) = time(P) * time(X)

   where time(X) is the precession period of the system
   divided by 2 * pi, and time(P) is as defined in #4.

   The precession period is associated with energy.

   precession period = energy(A) * velocity(A) * G / C^6
                     = energy(B) * velocity(B) * G / C^6

                        ------------

   Although I do not wish to gore sacred cows, it appears that
   that mass being less fundamental than space, time and cycles,
   does not distort space and time, but arises from space and time,
   and more fundamentally from cycles, which are quanta of
   perception and measurement.

                        -----------

   The system, I have outlined is much simpler and more precise
   than conventional physics. In its' simplist form, all physical
   properties could be expressed in terms of tangent functions
   and one reference time:

   property(X) = tangent(A)^l * tangent(B)^m * time(reference)^n

   This system eliminates the errors caused by the radius misconception
   and the proliferation of all kinds of crazy units associated
   with scientists and King's body parts.

   Property(X) can be expressed in conventional units:
   property(conventional) = property(X) * C^( l + m ) * G^x

   where x is 0 for properties expressed in the time-space domain,
   and 1 for properties expressed in the time-space-mass domain.
   Time-space-mass domain properties are properties with a factor
   of mass in its' definition. ( Mass, momentum, energy, etc. )

                        ------------

   The basic concepts presented above are covered in some
   detail in my Windows-based, hypertext, graphics oriented,
   physics tutorial, PHYSICST.ZIP, which can be downloaded from
   many FTP sites around the world, including SIMTEL and CICA.

   The latest version 5.0, which contains an atomic particle chart,
   which shows the relationships between the long-lived particles,
   is only available on America-on-Line and gmutant.wrlc.org at this time.
   I will upload it to other sites when I get time.

   I would appreciate that if anyone downloads version 5.0, that they
   post it to the FTP sites which have older versions.

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.19 / Sergio Pomante /  THE COLD FUSION  is a REALITY
     
Originally-From: pmne06k1@te.nettuno.it (Sergio Pomante)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: THE COLD FUSION  is a REALITY
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 21:08:53 GMT
Organization: Cineca


 Yes, goodbye Quantum Mechanics.

 Albert Einstein was right, a new , more complete, causal , theory is
 born.
 
 This is : The Wave theory of the Field.
 
 It' s available in http://www.inet.it/cassani/index.html.

 Some extract....

 MASS DEFECT AND WAVE NUCLEAR FORCE
The comparation, to nuclear distances, of two Protons-wave model show
that at distance 1 Fermi the electromagnetics interactions are absent,
because are absent the waves that characterize electrical
interactions.This implies a different point of view for the forces in
act.From this different view we can support an original explication
of COLD FUSION.

 Good reading, and ... please, destroy it , if you are be able.

 The author: Walter E.R. Cassani  e-mail : cassani@linux.infosquare.it








     
 SERGIO POMANTE --- Theoretical physics student -- Bologna University (Italy)

                Address: Via Emilia Levante 118, 40139 Bologna                  
                Phone  : 39-51-548778 /39-85-8937016 
       Internet E-mail : pmne06k1@te.nettuno.it 
                   WWW : http://www.inet.it/cassani/index.html
                                                 

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenpmne06k1 cudfnSergio cudlnPomante cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.19 / R Schumacher /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,
ci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: 19 Jul 1995 20:13:56 -0500
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, TX USA

State some testable prediction made by your "theory".


cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenschumach cudfnRichard cudlnSchumacher cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.19 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Silly nonsense from Robert Heeter
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Silly nonsense from Robert Heeter
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 95 22:22:10 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> writes:
 
>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
 
B.S. The next paragraph in the essay dealt with that likelihood. I described
my efforts to verify the thing, and the necessity of verification.
 
As usual, you don't know what you are talking about. You mouth off about
papers, essays and reports that you have never even taken the time to read.
You "skeptics" say these stupid things and you waste bandwidth just because
you are too lazy to read the papers. You misrepresent what I say, you claim
that Miles has not published in a peer reviewed journal when in fact he has,
and you make yourselves look like asses -- all because you refuse to read
the literature. Why do you bother posting comments here? Why participate
in the first place? The only message you send is this: "I have not read
any of this stuff, I have nothing to contribute but static." We know that
already, so shut up.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjedrothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 / Doug Merritt /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: doug@netcom.com (Doug Merritt)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,
ci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 02:18:16 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

In article <3uk85a$rf2@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter ) writes:
>
>As several people have informed me by email that they missed
>my original posts on "cycles", and several others have asked me
>to elaborate on my "theory", I am reposting some of this information.

So aside from it being your preferred approach, what does it allow
you to predict/calculate that usual approaches do not? I keep
missing that.
	Doug
-- 
Doug Merritt				doug@netcom.com
Professional Wild-eyed Visionary	Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow

Unicode Novis Cypherpunks Gutenberg Wavelets Conlang Logli Alife Anthro
Computational linguistics Fundamental physics Cogsci Egyptology GA TLAs
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudendoug cudfnDoug cudlnMerritt cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 /  JensTroll /  Re: Hypothesis to explain cold fusion in metals
     
Originally-From: jenstroll@aol.com (JensTroll)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hypothesis to explain cold fusion in metals
Date: 20 Jul 1995 00:38:56 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes;

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?

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

MARSHALL, the energy of two D's fusing must go somewhere immediately upon
fusion.  If you started out with a He atom at ground state, and then
stripped the He atom of it's electrons, this would not cover the energy
release.  If you allow a photon emmision, this will allow some energy to
get out but then you can't balance the energy and momentum eq.s at the
same time w/o use of a third body (see my previous post).  To have a
working theory with stationary He, you must show someplace for the energy
to go immediatly.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjenstroll cudlnJensTroll cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Jul 21 04:37:06 EDT 1995
------------------------------
