1995.07.29 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 1995 17:58:03 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <3ulq6h$nd2@cnn.Princeton.EDU>, Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:

[megasnip]
> 
> >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.   
> 
[snip]
> 
> >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.

***{Here you guys have agreed to treat this problem classically, and you
are simply visualizing an alpha particle forming next to a palladium atom,
and pushing off to the tune of 20 MeV or so. Most of the energy goes to
the alpha, and it kicks off some x-rays or gammas when it bounces around
elsewhere. Well, fine. But there are other ways to play this game. For
example, why not imagine the alpha forming *between* two palladium atoms,
and simultaneously kicking off from both of them? Result: the alpha
doesn't move, and the two palladiums get 10 MeV apiece, which works out as
heat in the lattice. Don't tell me this is improbable. I *know* it is
improbable (read: not previously observed), but the scenario you two have
been discussing isn't probable, either. The whole point of all this is
that nobody really knows what in the hell is going on in that palladium
lattice. It's mighty crowded in there, and it is hard to be sure exactly
what specific circumstance leads to the formation of the alpha particles.
Maybe they *really do* form between colliding palladium atoms. I, for one,
certainly can't prove they don't. --Mitchell Jones}***  
> 
> >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:
cuddy29 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.29 / Robin Spaandonk /  Re: Moessbauer Effect?
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Moessbauer Effect?
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 1995 23:26:03 GMT
Organization: Improving

On 27 Jul 1995 05:25:28 GMT, mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew
Kennel) wrote:

>Dave Davies (dave.davies@anu.edu.au) wrote:
>: Bill Page says:
[snip]
>: A phonon can build up incrementally as it recruits more atoms so the 
>: energy of the reaction could, hypothetically, be bled off relatively 
>: slowly.

>This doesn't make any sense. 

>Phonons are a fancy name for quantum sound.

>You have an excited nucleus.  Now just how is it supposed to make sound?

Perhaps through the electrical field interaction between the protons
of the excited nucleus and those of other nuclei. This is the essence
of sound in a lattice. In other words vibrations are transmitted
through the repulsive force of positive charge against positive
charge.
When a nucleus is excited, one way or another, its protons vibrate
(rotate) etc. faster. (neutrons too of course). This vibration must
set up vibrations in the electrical field surrounding the nucleus. The
reason for the lack of interaction with other nuclei, is both due to
distance, and frequency. Energy is passed along in the form of
phonons, when the energy rich atom (nucleus,particle,etc.) vibrates at
a frequency matching a resonance frequency in another atom. MeV
excitations of an individual nucleus match frequencies far in excess
of those of normal phonons, (e.g. meV-eV) as mentioned elsewhere.
Which is why under normal circumstances "so little" energy transfer
takes place (i.e. no resonance). Or in QM terms the energy difference
between excited nuclear states is far greater than that between
excited lattice states. 

>How can it "jiggle" back and forth against the lattice without emitting
>something else?  Remember you have to conserve momentum.

Imagine a single proton within a nucleus vibrating backward and
forward through the nucleus. As it leaves the nucleus on one side, it
starts to feel (very weakly) the repulsive force of another nucleus,
and repels it (very gently) with its own field. In so doing it has
passed a tiny portion of its energy on to the other nucleus, before it
is pulled back into its own nucleus by the nuclear binding force. This
could be viewed as phonon transfer of nuclear excitation energy. 
But we all know that energy is quantized, and therefore this is
impossible. right?:-)}}}

>: dave


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@netspace.net.au>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything,
Learns all his life,
And leaves knowing nothing.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.30 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Silly nonsense from Robert Heeter
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Silly nonsense from Robert Heeter
Date: 30 Jul 1995 01:20:18 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <21cenlogic-2907951648530001@austin-1-14.i-link.net>  
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:
>  barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) wrote:
> 

> > 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.
> 


> [What if] one fails to find a reasonable source for the error? 
> The clearest example
> of this difficulty is the hot water run on the Griggs device, where simple
> calculations of the heat imparted to the water divided by the equivalent
> heat of the electric power consumed gives percentage COP's of 110% for
> hours and hours and days and days. 

10% Xcess is too subtle for me. Sorry. If the 10% figure came from a NIST
report, I would take it seriously. Coming from an industrial development
lab, that is not strong enough evidence. Yes, it warrants some further
investigation, but only folks working directly with Griggs, on
a long term basis,  are likely to get to the bottom of that.

> How can this be, when a simple electrical resistance heater,
> immersed in a heavily insulated water flow and consuming the same amount
> of power, would only give percentage COP's of 98 or 99%? 

"would", or "did". I.e., was a careful blind crossover
"really" experiment done, in which a suitable blank hot water run was 
compared with an Xcess heat hot water run? If so, was some sort
of cross over also done on the measuring apparatus, as well. Etc, Etc.
If one really wanted to get to the bottom of the hot water mode, one
would suitably isolate the system and key system variables, and start 
doing methodical comparisons and eliminations.  But 5--10% is a subtle
effect, undoubtedly near the resolution of their combined instruments
and protocol.

> you exhibit an equally blatant
> lack of interest in facts. Doesn't it bother you *at all* that you cannot
> find specific sources of error in seemingly simple calorimetry such as
> this?

No, becasue the deviation from what is expected is too small
to get excited about. It would bother me if *I was the experimenter*,
but I'm not. As an observer, my basic reaction is: this mode has
no other signature beyond producing a few percent excess heat. They
have probably simply optimized the reinforcement of the myriad of
minor errors in their system---that is the mode. I leave it to the
experimenter to locate the problem.

>(As you know, I have certain misgivings about Griggs' steam runs,
> and I would like to see either longer runs or some accounting of the
> energy balance in the warmup phase; but the hot water runs seem so simple
> that I can no longer imagine how the percentage COP's that have been
> reported could be wrong. Granted, the claim of percentage COP's in excess
> of 100% is extraordinary, and requires extraordinary proof; but the hot
> water run and the associated calculations, it seems to me, are precisely
> that--extraordinary proof.)
> 
> Any comment?


Jed's steam run experiments are different , in that there is a well
defined physical mode that kicks in: reduced viscocity of the 
working fluid, and also that there is enormous Xcess heat. And
I reach the same conclusion as you---those runs are indeterminant becasue 
they are too short to cover up for the uncontrolled warm phase.

The hot water runs cannot compensate for the failing of the steam run
experiments. They are different beasts.
--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.28 / Bill Rowe /  Re: OFF-CHARTER POSTS Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: OFF-CHARTER POSTS Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 21:16:44 -0700
Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net

In article <21cenlogic-2707951341040001@austin-1-5.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:

[ skipped ]

>Here is my message for you, Bob: since you claim that discussions of
>gravitation are irrelevant, I take it that you know what the proper
>explanation of "cold fusion" is, and that it lies outside the framework of
>gravitaitonal theory. Therefore, please enlighten the rest of us. Tell us
>what is going on here, in this so called "cold fusion" area, and explain
>it with crystal clarity and total lack of ambiguity, so that we can be
>absolutely sure that gravitational theory has nothing to do with it. Once
>you have done that, then we will all in unison shout "Get a rope!" and we
>will go out and hang the "off charter" offenders from the nearest tree!
>And, of course, if you fail to produce such an explanation, then we will
>have to hang you instead!

Let me see if I understand your logic. Since I don't have a model for CF,
I can't show any subject I care to discuss isn't related to CF. Therefore
I should feel free to discuss that subject here on the possiblity it might
be related to CF. Should I now begin a thread on my vacation plans? Oh,
you say it needs to have something to do with physics. Ok, how about a
discussion of semiconductor surface states.

Just perhaps, as a matter of courtesy, I should at least mention the word
fusion or even better state why I think semiconductor surface states or my
vacation plans have something to do with CF.

Note I also restricted the follow up line to sci.physics.fusion in keeping
with the spirit of reducing cross-posting.
-- 
William Rowe                                                   browe@netcom.com
MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.29 / Ben Bullock /  Re: NP28JUL95, SEVEN SAMURAI-ettes, Bullock,Sugawara, ... Tanaka,
     
Originally-From: ben@theory4.kek.jp (Ben Bullock)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion,sci
physics.electromag
Subject: Re: NP28JUL95, SEVEN SAMURAI-ettes, Bullock,Sugawara, ... Tanaka,
Date: 29 Jul 1995 05:15:05 GMT
Organization: KEK , Tsukuba , Japan

Ben Bullock (ben@theory4.kek.jp) wrote:

> I've written to
> 
> 	postmaster@dartmouth.edu
> 	postmaster@dartvax.dartmouth.edu

Also I have written to the head of Dartmouth College

	James.O.Freedman@Dartmouth.EDU

the computer manager of Dartmouth College

	AndyJW@dartmouth.edu

and his assistant manager

	Molly.Harbaugh@dartmouth.edu

> to complain about the obscene, racist, and highly offensive contents
> of this post.  I encourage others to do the same.

I have also requested that Plutonium's usenet access be revoked.

--
Ben Bullock @ KEK (National Laboratory for High Energy Physics) /
address: 1-1 Oho, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305, JAPAN / TEL: 0298-64-5403 /
FAX: 0298-64-7831 / e-mail: ben@theory.kek.jp / DECNET: KEKVAX::BEN
[in Japanese]: $@%Y%s!&%V%m%C%/!w9b%(%M%k%.!<J*M}3X8&5f=j(J $@!J$D$/$P!K(J

		 $@J9$/$O0l;~$NCQ!"J9$+$L$OKvBe$NCQ!#(J
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenben cudfnBen cudlnBullock cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.29 / Ben Bullock /  cmsg cancel <3vce8k$73m@keknews.kek.jp>
     
Originally-From: ben@theory4.kek.jp (Ben Bullock)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion,sci
physics.electromag
Subject: cmsg cancel <3vce8k$73m@keknews.kek.jp>
Date: 29 Jul 1995 05:25:33 GMT
Organization: KEK , Tsukuba , Japan

Article cancelled from within tin v1.1 PL6
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenben cudfnBen cudlnBullock cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.29 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Refs. on CF, refs. on Wright Bros.
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Refs. on CF, refs. on Wright Bros.
Date: 29 Jul 1995 21:29:36 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <21cenlogic-2907951126000001@austin-1-13.i-link.net>  
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:
> 
> Get it?
> 
> --Mitchell Jones
> 

I appreciate fully your original thesis that initial accepting
media articles don;t rule out the possibility of the media later
rejecting/negating some occurence. That is certainly true.

I was simply pointing out that this _did not_ happen with
could fusion:

The mainstream media has never rejected CF...it has just slowly 
lost interest, due to a lack of accepted results. I was just
looking at a clipping from WSJ* reporting on the Maui CF
conference (1993) last night, and there was no tone of rejection
in the article. It was fairly balanced, pro and con.

As for the scientific media, it has polarized: most journals
ignore, and a few reject, CF, but at least one prominent and appropriate
venue---Fusion Tech---gives it ample attention.

SO: where is the uniform media rejection of CF? In your prior
post you mentioned the media rejection of CF as if it were 
an obvious, accepted fact. If it is, Why does Britz maintain
an ever growing bibliography?





*(By the way, in that article, Pons says they were getting reliably
4 x out what they put in, at absolute excess heat levels of 100--200
watts. Given that that was about 2 yeasr ago, one wonders...)



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


cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.29 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Nuclear reaction time scales
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear reaction time scales
Date: 29 Jul 1995 21:43:25 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3ve0t5$k33@newsbf02.news.aol.com> mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353)  
writes:
> Mitchell Swartz wrote:
> 
> >  The TB skeptics continue to "make up" numbers to "prove"
> >their point.
> >
> >What is the time-scale?  
> >
> >Are deexcitation times limited to the range from 10-21 to 10-41 seconds
> > as the vocal skeptics of the field?
> >
> > No.  

Its not my ``claim''. 10^-20 is simply the anticipated transition
time for a typical *MeV* transition, from the uncertainty principle

dt dE >= h

This provides a lower bound---the transition *cannot* happen
any faster. Slower transitions are possible, but only if there
is a greatly restricted set of states to decay to, due to 
a symmetry of the wavefunction, for e.g.

You will notice that the group of decay times you present do
scale with this sort of 1/E behavior, as well. However, that
does not completely account for them, because the for the 1 keV
energy range you are in, the uncertainty principle gives the 
estimate (lower bound)

dt ~> 10^-14 seconds

while the transitions you mention actually occur on the 10^-9 
timescale.

Perhaps someone can explain for us the remaining 5-6 orders of
magnitude discrepancy (are the states listed meta-stable?)









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


cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.29 / A Plutonium /  Re: NP28JUL95, SEVEN SAMURAI-ettes, Bullock,Sugawara, ... 
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion,sci
physics.electromag
Subject: Re: NP28JUL95, SEVEN SAMURAI-ettes, Bullock,Sugawara, ... 
Date: 29 Jul 1995 21:27:40 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <3vcg4p$797@keknews.kek.jp>
ben@theory4.kek.jp (Ben Bullock) writes:

> 
> I have also requested that Plutonium's usenet access be revoked.
> 
> --
> Ben Bullock @ KEK (National Laboratory for High Energy Physics) /
> address: 1-1 Oho, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305, JAPAN / TEL: 0298-64-5403 /

  Ben I noticed KEK world wide web site, but no pictures of you. I know
you are extremely busy with your authorship of sci.physics CRACKPOT
FAQ. And that takes precedence even over KEK work. But I will get movie
company contacts soon. These Movie companies are wanting to film this
Neanderthal Park movie. English subtitles or dubbed English I have not
made up my mind yet. You can appreciate how movie directors want things
ready to go when they come into town.
   So I was wondering if you please would not show a nice picture of
yourself in the www KEK site, a big close-up face picture of yourself
Ben, and another with your mouth wide open. And a picture of the other
Samurai-ettes profiling their lower body.
   I got to have a pre-layout ready for the movie executives. A
close-up of your face Ben would help me alot to get a layout of where
you get squirted in the face with semen by Samurai-ette Sugawara.
Please pay attention to detail Ben, which of course your science
background will help. And centimeter measurements of your mouth will
sincerely help in the Movie layout.
                               Thanks for your attention
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.29 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Silly nonsense from Robert Heeter
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Silly nonsense from Robert Heeter
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 1995 16:48:53 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <3uhvjf$2gs@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry
Merriman) wrote:

> In article <ZlKiYfQ.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> 
> > Just to remind readers what I have actually said,
> > repeatedly, here is a paragraph from "Highlights of the Fifth International
> > Conference on Cold Fusion:"
> >  
> >      ....This baffling result appears to
> >      contradict results from E-Quest, the Naval Weapons Center and
others who
> >      have found helium commensurate with a nuclear reaction. Perhaps there
> >      are two different, unrelated processes at work. From the standpoint of
> >      business and technology, it does not matter if there are two processes
> >      or two hundred."
> >  
> > - Jed
> 
> I find it interesting that you don't offer up as equally likely
> that the device simply doesn't work, and experimental error is
> the source of the conflicting results. I guess that would just be
> too radical of a concept...much more cautious to invoke revolutionary
> physics.
> 
> --
> Barry Merriman
> UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
> UCLA Dept. of Math
> bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)

Barry, it is difficult to "offer up as equally likely" the hypothesis that
experimental error is the source of a result if, after protracted thought,
one fails to find a reasonable source for the error. The clearest example
of this difficulty is the hot water run on the Griggs device, where simple
calculations of the heat imparted to the water divided by the equivalent
heat of the electric power consumed gives percentage COP's of 110% for
hours and hours and days and days. (See John Logajan's web page for the
data.) How can this be, when a simple electrical resistance heater,
immersed in a heavily insulated water flow and consuming the same amount
of power, would only give percentage COP's of 98 or 99%? Isn't it obvious,
given the heat lost by the Griggs device due to friction in the motor and
through the poorly insulated rotor housing, that there must be some heat
source other than the input electric power? How can you ignore your own 
inability to find a specific error in a simple protocol such as this, and
continue to simply chant on about unnamed, non-specific, purely
hypothetical error sources? You continually chide Jed for his lack of
interest in theory, but it seems to me that you exhibit an equally blatant
lack of interest in facts. Doesn't it bother you *at all* that you cannot
find specific sources of error in seemingly simple calorimetry such as
this? (As you know, I have certain misgivings about Griggs' steam runs,
and I would like to see either longer runs or some accounting of the
energy balance in the warmup phase; but the hot water runs seem so simple
that I can no longer imagine how the percentage COP's that have been
reported could be wrong. Granted, the claim of percentage COP's in excess
of 100% is extraordinary, and requires extraordinary proof; but the hot
water run and the associated calculations, it seems to me, are precisely
that--extraordinary proof.)

Any comment?

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.28 / A Plutonium /  Re: 231PU TOTALITY, PHYSICS kills BIO-EVOLUTION, Darwin fakes  
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 231PU TOTALITY, PHYSICS kills BIO-EVOLUTION, Darwin fakes  
Date: 28 Jul 1995 23:09:53 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <3vb7eu$fmi@news.iadfw.net>
bsnyder@iadfw.net (Bill Snyder) writes:

> 
>    [the usual drivel mercifully snipped]
> 
> Ludwig -- oops, I mean Archie -- looks like you got an especially bad
> shipment of drugs this time.  Better see if your supplier has any of
> the last load left.
> 
> While you sometimes manage to be even funnier and more clueless than
> Rothwell (notable feats!), this drooling and raving is just a bore.

  Yeh, these smear campaigners just hit my bad side the last two days.
I guess many jokers feel they can just keep pushing and pushing and
never get a shove back.

  But I think the solution for sci.physics as a newsgroup is that
recognize there will always be unscientific posts. There will always be
fakes in even the gospel of accepted physics theories. Much of the old
generation praised guys like Hawking and Weinberg but will they be
viewed as nonscientists in the future generations or worse as cranks
and crackpots? And the only difference between say a Hawking and
another crackpot is that Hawking is an established crackpot. But I am
digressing. . .

  I think these would be improvements to sci.physics. Notice the clari.
newsgroups have alot of Reuters or AP or other presses spill news. Let
us have more of that in sci.physics. But as the bulwark of sci.physics.
Let someone post say 5 pages a week on a book such as Halliday and
Resnick extended version the one with the yellow cover and green waves.
Five pages a week with attempted diagrams and drawings and then have
say Emory or other physics professionals say comment on it. Let
sci.physics have a sort of like readers corner. So then people who go
through sci.physics for learning can get hooked on the sort of learning
classroom corner of sci.physics. And let that post along with the news
flashes be the cornerstone of sci.physics. And for those who want
entertainment they can easily recognize the comedy posts. Sci. physics
lacks a stalwart meat and potatoes type of corner. And that Halliday
and Resnick out of print book is a very good book to translate here
word for word into sci.physics. It would be sort of like a MECHANICAL
UNIVERSE to the sci.physics newsgroup surrounded by mostly the
background noise like on TV where most other shows are wasteland.
   Perhaps you Bill may start such a thing on sci.physics. I have my
hands full of math.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Jul 30 04:37:03 EDT 1995
------------------------------
