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 04:26:30 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <3v9il0$p8h@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

>   So then, to perhaps stop this Barry hate insanity escalation, I raise
> the stakes further. 
>   For one, perhaps Barry Merriman is not a person but a computer
> set-up.


 I was wrong on that hunch. It is hard for me to square away with the
idea that someone can study math or physics yet contain so much useless
hatred. On WWW I see a picture of Barry Merriman. So he is a real
person. And this is a list of people working in that Research Program. 
But I am not able to distinguish who is the "boss" of Merriman or the
director of those people. Who is it? So I can request that he say to
Merriman, "stop all Internet hate posts aimed at Archimedes Plutonium."
 If I can not spot that boss or director, I shall go down the list one
by one


Name                Phone       E-mail                       Room
                                                                       
                            
Blush, Lisa                          lisa@pisces.fusion.ucla.edu      
UCLA               
Boedo, Jose                          jboedo@pisces.ucsd.edu           
460, EBU-II               
Boivin, Robert                       boivin@pisces.fusion.ucla.edu    
UCLA               
Carter, Charlotte        47905       carter@fusion.ucsd.edu           
460, EBU-II        
Chia, Ping                           chia@kailas.fusion.ucla.edu      
UCLA               
Chousal, Leo                         lchousal@pisces.ucsd.edu         
460, EBU-II
Conn, Robert             46237       rconn@de.ucsd.edu                
7313 EBU-I
Cuthbertson, John        49721       jcuthbertson@pisces.ucsd.edu     
366, EBU-II        
Doerner, Russ            47830       rdoerner@pisces.ucsd.edu         
456, EBU-II        
Fager, Barbara           47876       fager@fusion.ucsd.edu            
460, EBU-II        
Flynn, Allisa            42983       flynn@fusion.ucsd.edu            
460, EBU-II        
Gray, Doug                           dgray@pisces.ucsd.edu            
UCLA               
Grossman, Arthur         49711       grossman@fusion.ucsd.edu         
359, EBU-II        
Gunner, Greg                         ggunner@pisces.ucsd.edu          
460, EBU-II               
Hirooka, Yoshi           49720       hirooka@pisces.fusion.ucla.edu   
458, EBU-II        
Latchem, John            49724       jlatchem@pisces.ucsd.edu         
464, EBU-II        
Laval, Barbara           47829       laval@fusion.ucsd.edu            
455, EBU-II        
Lee, Bong-Ju             47828       lee@fusion.ucsd.edu              
365, EBU-II        
Lehmer, Ron              49740       rlehmer@pisces.ucsd.edu          
367, EBU-II        
Luckhardt, Stan          49725       sluckhardt@pisces.ucsd.edu       
358, EBU-II        
Luong, Phil                          phil@pisces.fusion.ucla.edu      
UCLA               
Mau, Tak-Kuen            49711       mau@fusion.ucsd.edu              
359, EBU-II        
Mays, Chris                          mays@chakra.fusion.ucla.edu      
UCLA               
Merriman, Barry          47767       merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu         
365, EBU-II        
Miller, Ron              47842       miller@fusion.ucsd.edu           
457, EBU-II        
Moyer, Rick              49723       rmoyer@pisces.ucsd.edu           
366, EBU-II        
Najmabadi, Farrokh       47869       najmabadi@fusion.ucsd.edu        
457B, EBU-II       
Schmitz, Lothar                      schmitz@pisces.fusion.ucla.edu   
UCLA               
Sze, Daniel              42975       sze@pisces.fusion.ucla.edu       
UCLA               
Tillack, Mark            47897       tillack@fusion.ucsd.edu          
458A, EBU-II       
Won, Jon-Gik                         jongik@pisces.fusion.ucla.edu    
460, EBU-II               
Wang, Xue-Ren            47789       wang@fusion.ucsd.edu             
464, EBU-II  
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.28 / David Davies /  Re: extrapolation
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: extrapolation
Date: 28 Jul 1995 13:58:10 +1000
Organization: Australian National University

jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>|mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel) wrote:
>|..
>|>
>|>The point is that the initial kinetic energy of the reacting nuclei,
>|>whether in a 'beam' or in solid state, is infinitesimally small
>|>compared to the energy gained from the initial fusion.  This means
>|>that the 'wave functions of the particles in the excited state' will
>|>be nearly identical whether or not the initial reacting nuclei
>|>came in with zero or nonzero relative kinetic energies.  
>In article <3tq3f1$ilf@manuel.anu.edu.au> 
>Dave Davies <dave.davies@anu.edu.au> writes:
>
>>Variations of this argument have been posted here for years. That doesn't
>>make them right. 

>It also does not make them wrong.  The more important of these variations
>takes note of the fact that those extrapolations proved reasonably correct 
>when they were used to predict muon-catalyzed fusion rates.  This variation 
>was then used to predict piezo-nuclear fusion in a refereed publication 
>by van Siclen and Jones, a result that led to the CF experiments by Jones. 

I am scattering my argument among different streams here but to consolidate
a little, the main distinction that comes to my mind between the examples 
you list above and a Pd-CF situation is that your examples bring two quantum
systems together that are not coherent and force them to merge over a relatively
short time frame (small fractions of a second) whereas there is a possibility
that in the xtal matrix the reacting nuclei are able to be part of an extended
and coherent ensemble of particles for periods of seconds or much longer.

The Moesbauer effect has been used as an example to demonstrate the sort of
ensemble behaviour that is possible in a crystal lattice.  

... stuff on interaction energy deleted
My previous post was partly in response to the suggestion that the interaction
energy was the critical factor and that beam experiments were an adequate model
for what might be happening in Pd-CF. It still seems possible to me that a nuclear
reaction could be catalysed by an appropriate QM ensemble at very low energies -
ie. sub-ev or thermal energies.

>>My key point here, as usual, is not to claim that CF is proven or understood
>>but that it is not rational to totally dismiss it because it is strange.

>No one did that.  Those that rejected it out of hand did so because the 
>rates were implausibly large to be consistent with experimental results 
>such as Jones had reported in the past, and many of those who doubted 
>on day-zero were at most skeptical when Jones reported his neutron 
>measurements a day later.  The doubts came as results were retracted. 

which is just what I am saying. People rejected the results because there
was no evidence of neutrons which were expected from past experience. No
neutrons was a strange result. Branching ratios were not what was expected
etc. so many people rejected everything to do with CF.

I think F&P made a serious error in presenting their results but that is in
the past now. It shouldn't influence scientific discussion of what is happening
today with many other workers in the field. 

>The lack of a specific phenomenon that can be identified as CF (is 
>it plain water with Nickel or deuterated water with Palladium or ...) 
>is an added difficulty.  As you note, not all of the theories can be 
>right because they contradict one another.  

The H-Ni and D-Pd results are not obviously in conflict - just confusing.

There may be no fusion but then the E-quest He measurements look strong to
me. I would prefer to think that we can eventually tap energy from the vacuum
along the lines of Puthoff etc. 


dave


cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.29 /   /  Re: Marshall Dudley hyhpothesis
     
Originally-From: mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Marshall Dudley hyhpothesis
Date: 29 Jul 1995 03:45:34 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Marshall Dudley wrote:

>You bring up a very good point here.  If you have a He4 nucleus which is
>highly
>excited (> 20Mev) then it could theoretically capture an electron.  The
>capture
>would decrease the nucleus's energy by around 800Kev.  Then since H4
>(Quatium?) is unstable, it would emit a beta particle, returning it back
to
>He4, but losing the energy of the beta in the process.
> 
>You state that a nucleus can only decay by specific energy (quantum)
amounts.
>However when I check beta and alpha emitters, I find that emitters will
emit
>a
>broad range of energies from virtually 0 energy up to a certain maximum. 
How
>do you reconcile these two "facts"?
> 

Rather simply. Beta decays are three-body decays. n -> p + e- + nu-bar
(anti-neutrino). The electron and anti-neutrino share the energy, which is
fixed (ignoring the recoil of the proton).  All weak decays are like this.

Alpha emission is a strong interaction process and is generally two-body.
In which case the resulting alpha has a well-defined energy, due to the
well-defined mass of the final nucleus.

Indeed an excited nucleus could capture an electron. However this is a
weak process competing with a strong process, and the strong process (or
even an electromagnetic process like gamma emission) wins by a huge
factor.

You might want to pick up an introductory nuclear physics text. I'm not
being facetious, there is a lot of information you could use.

Mark Richardson
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmrichar353 cudln cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.29 / C Jacobs /  Re: Solar-panelled highways
     
Originally-From: cjacobs@chinese.engin.umich.edu (C S Jacobs)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Solar-panelled highways
Date: 29 Jul 1995 12:49:37 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor



> Wouldn't having translucent solar panels kind of defeat the purpose?
> I mean, how do you propose to actually collect any energy if you're
> letting all of the light through?  Unless you're proposing to use
> Edmund Scientific-style radiometers (you know, those things that spin
> around when the sun shines on them) to run turbines

Actually, there is ongoing development of translucent solar cells.   The cells
actually have collector grids on both sides and the back catches reflected light
off of pavement.  Currently, a solar cell does not "catch all the light" anyway
much is reflected or left unabsorbed.
-Craig
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudencjacobs cudfnC cudlnJacobs cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.29 / C Jacobs /  Re: Solar-panelled highways
     
Originally-From: cjacobs@chinese.engin.umich.edu (C S Jacobs)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Solar-panelled highways
Date: 29 Jul 1995 12:55:14 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor


In article <3v7aph$fmc@otis.netspace.net.au>, rvanspaa@netspace.net.au
(Robin van Spaandonk) writes:

> If current solar panels had a transparent backing, instead of opaque,
> how much light would they allow to pass? I suspect quite a lot, given
> that only about 25% is converted into electrical energy. Granted much
> of the remainder is converted to heat, but a good portion of this
>
Tell me, where do you get 25% effecient solar cells?   I would really like to
know.

-Craig
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudencjacobs cudfnC cudlnJacobs cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.29 / Robert Heeter /  Re: OFF-CHARTER POSTS Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: OFF-CHARTER POSTS Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: 29 Jul 1995 14:23:54 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <3v5a9i$7cn@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> Tom Potter,
tdp@ix.netcom.com writes:
>In <3un2bs$h0c@cnn.Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter ><rfheeter@phoenix.p
inceton.edu> writes: 
>
>>All this is very interesting, but it does not belong in
>>sci.physics.fusion.  We all know where to find this info
>>and there's no need to waste bandwidth with superfluous
>>crossposting.  Please show a little more respect for
>>the rest of us on the internet.

>All this is very interesting, but it does not belong in ANY forum.

On the contrary, I think discussions *about* newsgroup charters,
and which topics are within a given charter, is a valid subject
for discussion.

>If you have an objection with ANY post by ANY individual in ANY forum,
>you will save bandwidth and superfluous crossposting by emailing the
>individual rather than cluttering up forums with this nonesense.

This is true for small numbers of postings by single individuals;
however, the abuse of netiquette was so vast in this case that I
felt a counter-post would be worthwhile.

>At least the original posters on this subject were discussing science.
>You are simply expressing a childish opinion.

Yes, and now you know how the rest of us feel when you continue
to allow your completely irrelevant threads to be crossposted
to sci.physics.fusion.  Your opinion of my post mirrors the
opinions that many of us have here about your own postings.
Does this give you a better sense of why we're upset?

>Do not clutter up Internet by starting childish flame wars.

I was politely pointing out that your postings were off-topic.
I didn't personally attack you or anyone else.  
This is not a flame war.

 -----------------------------------------------------
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 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.29 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Refs. on CF, refs. on Wright Bros.
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Refs. on CF, refs. on Wright Bros.
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 1995 11:26:00 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <3v981u$m9q@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry
Merriman) wrote:

> In article <21cenlogic-2607951820110001@austin-1-6.i-link.net>  
> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:
> 
> > Surely you are aware that many of the initial articles written in response
> > to the Pons-Fleischmann announcement--i.e., in late March and early April,
> > 1989--were also inclined to take the claim at face value. Would you cite
> > those articles as evidence that the media did not reject the
> > Pons-Fleischmann claims?
> > 
> > --Mitchell Jones
> > 
> 
> 
> Yes. Certainly the popular media in no way rejected the 
> P&F claims. Also, the scientific media was pretty accepting,
> at first. Later, it polarized, with certain journals like Nature
> wanting nothing further to do with CF, and others, like Fusion
> Technology, still readily accepting papers.
> 
> The reason for these polarizations is not clear---i.e. to what
> extent it represents personal biases of the editors, vs the
> extent it represents the spotty record and nature of the field
> itself. Fusion Technology has a long history of welcoming 
> speculative ideas in fusion, both in letters and articles, so
> it is not surprising they picked up the ball. But it is also 
> understandable that more general purpose journals may not
> want to report speculative ideas in fusion, as it is too far 
> off their topic and specialty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Barry Merriman
> UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
> UCLA Dept. of Math
> bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)

Wow, talk about dropping context! 

Barry, the issue here arises out of the dispute between Jed Rothwell and
Richard Schultz. Jed took the position that, for several years after the
original Wright brothers flight, most of the U.S. media and the
"scientific" establishment denied that the flight had ever taken place.
Richard attempted to rebut that position by citing a couple of newspaper
articles which, immediately after the flight, took the Wrights' claims at
face value. His point was apparently that those two articles proved that
Jed was wrong--i.e., that the mainstream media did *not* continue to deny
that the Wrights had flown for *years* after the flight had taken place. I
then pointed out the absurdity of Richard's argument by noting that a
number of the early articles that responded to the original
Pons-Fleischmann claims took those claims at face value and that, by
Richard Schultz's reasoning, that would indicate that the mainstream media
did not (and, by implication, do not) reject the Pons-Fleischmann claims. 

How did you respond to this? You simply fixated on the fact that I used
the past tense ("did not") rather than the present tense ("do not"),
ignored the obvious implication of what I said, and proceeded to natter on
and on about "polarization" in the media, varying policies at different
journals, etc. In the process, you totally ignored, and apparently totally
missed, the point. Therefore, let me spell it out for you: Richard Schultz
cited two early articles that took the Wrights' claims at face value as
proof that, years after the fact, the majority of the media did *not* deny
the Wrights' claims. Therefore, if he were logically consistent, Richard
Schultz would also have to take the early articles which accepted the
Pons-Fleischmann claims at face value as proof that, today, the majority
of the media do not deny the Pons-Fleischmann claims!

Get it?

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.28 / mitchell swartz /  Nuclear reaction time scales
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nuclear reaction time scales
Subject: Nuclear reaction time scales
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 16:51:37 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In  Message-ID: <9507281513.AA25405@pilot05.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Nuclear reaction time scales
blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes

 =db  "I seemed to have generated some confusion with my posting of the value
 =db  10^-40 sec as a time scale for a nuclear process.  Let me try to clear
 =db  that up just a little bit.    .....
 =db  Now where did I get a number like 10^-40 second? "
 
  Most of us think you made it up.

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

 =db  "That was not intended to
 =db  be the normal time scale for the decay of an isolated nuclear state.  It
 =db  is much too short.  Several others have correctly pointed out that the
 =db  appropiate times to be considered for "normal" nuclear transitions in the
 =db  context of fusion are more like 10^-23 to perhaps 10^-20."

  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.  
The time scales of deexcitation is closer to nanoseconds.
Here are some examples, and corroboration showing
this is reasonable.  
  
1)  The half life time constant of the transition leading from the 
excited state of Fe57 [used in Mossbauer spectroscopy 
discussed here]  is scores of nanoseconds.

2)    This deexcitation time is reasonable based upon other well known 
Mossbauer resonance isotopes (see table below).

3)  The actual time for deexcitation can be estimated from the width
of the output in the frequency domain.  That derived factor
is shown in the table as the natural line width.
 This is also consistent with these numbers

 -----------------------------------------------
isotope E2-E1             T1/2 	            2G 
	
transition energy	half-life natural line-width 
Symbol 	keV            	   ns          	 mm/sec 
40K    	29.4    	    4.26        	2.18 
57Fe 	14.41 		    97.81     		0.19 
57Fe 	136.46 		    8.7     		0.23 
61Ni 	67.4 		    5.06    	 	0.8 
 -----------------------------------------------
 	 	 	 
Attention is directed to the fact that these deexcitation times are
not the putative 10^-21 to 10^-41 seconds which TB-skeptics need for their
now evanescent vaporcriticisms.

Care to challenge any of these Dick?
If not, the relevant deexcitation times are 10^-9 seconds. 
Your futher criticism should start from that more honest time scale. 

   Best wishes.
  Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)



cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz 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,soc.culture.japan
Subject: Re: NP28JUL95, SEVEN SAMURAI-ettes, Bullock,Sugawara, ... 
Date: 29 Jul 1995 18:22:03 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <3vciei$o2i@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter ) writes:

> In <3vce8k$73m@keknews.kek.jp> ben@theory4.kek.jp (Ben Bullock) writes: 
> 
> >
> >Thanks to Greg Weeks for alerting me to the existence of this post (I
> >usually killfile Plutonium posts).
> >
> >I've written to
> >
> >       postmaster@dartmouth.edu
> >       postmaster@dartvax.dartmouth.edu
> >
> >to complain about the obscene, racist, and highly offensive contents
> >of this post.  I encourage others to do the same.  If there are any
> >other addresses (either normal mail or e-mail) of people in charge of
> >Dartmouth College to whom complaints about this kind of post can be
> >addressed, please let me know.
> >
> >--
> >Ben Bullock @ KEK (National Laboratory for High Energy Physics) /
> >address: 1-1 Oho, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305, JAPAN / TEL: 0298-64-5403 /
> >FAX: 0298-64-7831 / e-mail: ben@theory.kek.jp / DECNET: KEKVAX::BEN
> >[in Japanese]: $@%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
> 
> 
> I, for one, will support Plutonium, and will EMAIL your superiors, 
> listing some of your divisive and offensive posts.
> 
> I know that I would never permit people to ruin the good name of the companies 
> I have owned and managed. I trust that the people at KEK are people of good will, 
> and will not tolerate anyone ruining their good name.
> 
> He who sews the wind, reaps the whirlwind.
> 

   Tom, my own personal opinion is that Dr. Sugawara and the rest of
KEK, except Ben Bullock are very good people. And that most do not know
English well enough to understand what Ben Bullock spews to the world.
Nor do they realize that Ben Bullock is not a KEK asset, but a
grotesque liability. I feel confident that the good people of KEK will
quickly muffle this disgrace and liability of Ben Bullock. It is the
non-fluency of English that I feel Ben Bullock has gotten by so far,
but soon to change.
   Coupled to the mitigating fact that Ben Bullock is so immensely
NAIVE. In my youth we never used the word naive, we just called someone
so naive as "dense". The naivety of Ben Bullock is so very laughable.
How a man in a glass house threw so many stones, naively thinking that
the people around him and his glass house will never receive any stones
in return.

  Please Greg Weeks, please alert me to the posts here in sci.physics
where Ben Bullock accused a totally innocent person of lying.  Ben
called him a "liar". I would like to see that post again and store it.
The post where Ben called a sci.physics poster a liar.

  Please Greg Weeks post to this thread the "liar calling" post and
please refresh my mind with the post where Ben asked for a voting poll
but excluded someone from actually voting because that person was of a
different mind than Ben. Now, I don't know how democratic in spirit KEK
Japan is. And for the life of me I don't understand how come Ben
Bullock has come charging into sci.physics like a raging herd of gnu,
to overturn a rich history of this newsgroup just to satisfy this one
person named Ben Bullock (a bull in a fine china shop). Mr. Weeks
please inform this thread of that "liar" post by Ben Bullock and his
undemocratic vote taking post. 
   On perhaps, maybe calling people liars when they are good people and
restricting votes is just what Ben Bullock thinks is preparing and
training him in his work at KEK, Japan
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.29 /   /  Re: Nuclear reaction time scales
     
Originally-From: mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear reaction time scales
Date: 29 Jul 1995 15:07:17 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

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.  
>The time scales of deexcitation is closer to nanoseconds.
>Here are some examples, and corroboration showing
>this is reasonable.  
>  
>1)  The half life time constant of the transition leading from the 
>excited state of Fe57 [used in Mossbauer spectroscopy 
>discussed here]  is scores of nanoseconds.
>
>2)    This deexcitation time is reasonable based upon other well known 
>Mossbauer resonance isotopes (see table below).
>
>3)  The actual time for deexcitation can be estimated from the width
>of the output in the frequency domain.  That derived factor
>is shown in the table as the natural line width.
> This is also consistent with these numbers
>
>------------------------------------------------
>isotope E2-E1             T1/2 	            2G 
>	
>transition energy	half-life natural line-width 
>Symbol 	keV            	   ns          	 mm/sec 
>40K    	29.4    	    4.26        	2.18 
>57Fe 	14.41 		    97.81     		0.19 
>57Fe 	136.46 		    8.7     		0.23 
>61Ni 	67.4 		    5.06    	 	0.8 
>------------------------------------------------
> 	 	 	 
>Attention is directed to the fact that these deexcitation times are
>not the putative 10^-21 to 10^-41 seconds which TB-skeptics need for
their
>now evanescent vaporcriticisms.
>
>Care to challenge any of these Dick?
>If not, the relevant deexcitation times are 10^-9 seconds. 
>Your futher criticism should start from that more honest time scale. 
>

Actually your numbers are completely correct, but not at all relavent to
the discussion of the mean life of the He4* nucleus produced in d+d
fusion.

All of the excited state decays you mentioned are from states that have
such a low excitation energy that a strong decay such as neutron emission
is not energetically possible. Therefore the electromagnetic decays you
cited are indeed the dominant modes.

If a strong decay is possible, as it most certainly is for He4*, then the
decay time is indeed on the order of 10^-20 seconds.

In order to disprove a point it is generally a good idea to understand
it's basis first.

Mark Richardson
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmrichar353 cudln cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.28 / A Plutonium /  Sugawara-Bullock-KEK-Japan libel acts
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Sugawara-Bullock-KEK-Japan libel acts
Date: 28 Jul 1995 19:06:39 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <135304Z28071995@anon.penet.fi>
an211894@anon.penet.fi (DORAEMON) writes:

> 
>  #####  ######     #     #####  #    #  ######  ####### #######  #####
> #     # #     #   # #   #     # #   #   #     # #     #    #    #     #
> #       #     #  #   #  #       #  #    #     # #     #    #    #
> #       ######  #     # #       ###     ######  #     #    #     #####
> #       #   #   ####### #       #  #    #       #     #    #          #
> #     # #    #  #     # #     # #   #   #       #     #    #    #     #
>  #####  #     # #     #  #####  #    #  #       #######    #     #####
> 
>                         #######    #     #####
>                         #         # #   #     #
>                         #        #   #  #     #
>                         #####   #     # #     #
>                         #       ####### #   # #
>                         #       #     # #    #
>                         #       #     #  #### #
> 
> 
> SCI.PHYSICS CRACKPOTS FAQ

My good name was further smeared. I am going to post the names of the
individuals at KEK. Unless someone there starts to get there act
together I will condemn their eternal souls to hell, acheron and styx
that is.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.29 / John Galt /  Please repost Fusion FAQ site
     
Originally-From: galileo@teleport.com (John Galt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Please repost Fusion FAQ site
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 1995 12:42:03
Organization: The Observatory

When I tried to browse the site, it said there was no DNS entry, yadda, yadda, 
yadda.
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudengalileo cudfnJohn cudlnGalt cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.30 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion
Date: 30 Jul 1995 04:35:23 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <21cenlogic-2907951758030001@austin-1-14.i-link.net> Mitchell
Jones, 21cenlogic@i-link.net writes:
>***{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. 

Okay, that's the picture, and I'm glad you see why 
it's problematic for CF.  

>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. 

An interesting idea, but how do you plan to get two palladium
nuclei close enough to a single alpha that they could pick 
up 10 MeV each?  Remember, for both of them to interact that 
strongly with the alpha, they will have to be *really* close 
to the alpha.  You need to show that you can get palladium 
nuclei that close without giving them so much energy that
they destroy the lattice.

Of course, the other problem with your hypothesis is that 
10MeV palladium nuclei will *also* "kick off some x-rays or 
gammas when [they] bounce around elsewhere" (to resurrect your 
own phrase).  You can't have an appreciable number of 
10MeV Pd nuclei in a lattice without knowing about it!

>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}*** 

Actually, the palladium lattice is almost entirely empty space, if
you consider how close the nuclei have to get for nuclear reactions to
occur.  That's an important point.  Why don't you do the calculation
to see how close an alpha would have to be to have a 10MeV interaction
with a Pd nucleus?  Just picture them as point charges.
Now compare that with a typical lattice separation distance.  
Which is bigger?  

I think the bottom line is that with some simple
logical arguments you can go a long way towards setting
very stringent criteria which any viable theory of CF must
satisfy.  These criteria eliminate from consideration
both the theories discussed above.  The only way for an
alpha to be born in the lattice without any telltale
x-rays, gamma-rays, or other high-energy side effects is
if it somehow gives up essentially all its energy to the
lattice immediately upon birth.  But that requires it to 
be coupled to not one, not two, but thousands of lattice 
atoms.  The trouble is, why should it do that instead of 
what it normally does?  And how do you get around the 
fact that the speed of light is too slow for the alpha 
to interact with all those nuclei in a sufficiently short 
time?  Hence the mystery, and the joy of Cold Fusion theory.

But just because the problem is unsolved doesn't mean 
that you can't eliminate many ideas from consideration 
with simple arguments based on core principles of physics.
(Unless you're willing to question those core principles,
which the experimental evidence hasn't convinced me I should
do yet.)  Keep this in mind as you think about CF.

 -----------------------------------------------------
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:
cuddy30 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.30 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: Marshall Dudley hyhpothesis
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Marshall Dudley hyhpothesis
Date: 30 Jul 1995 02:46:51 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I have a few more thoughts that come to my mind regarding aspects of
Marshall Dudley type He4 production and decay.

1. Perhaps this is irrelevant but I am sure the He4 can and does deexcite
trivially by:

       He4 -> D + D

reversing the energy producing fusion reaction. 

2. If electron capture happens and I know it does I just don't know how
often, the subsequent deexcitation by beta decay could just as well emit a
muon and this muon could go on to catalize hundreds of fusion reactions
before its life expires. Such catalitic fusion reactions would perhaps
happen more often if every metal ion had more than one hydrogen embedded
in its outer shell. The embedded hydrogen or D shares an electron with the
metal ion, so some of the time it does have an electron make an orbit or
two around it. If a muon got mixed into that system it could catalize the
fusion of the two hydrogen or D that are embedded in the same shell. The
muon would then be expelled to go to other ions. This could explain why
flare-ups happened in P&F experiments. (If they happened)

3. If the fusion reaction happens without subsequent electron capture by
the highly excited He4 this He4 could perhaps still deexcite by muonic
beta decay albeit with a very low likelyhood. I don't know the branching
ratio if this reaction was ever observed at all. 

4. I am aware that a proton does not just capture an electron because
obviously normal matter could not exist if that reaction happened. On the
other hand I think the proton does capture the electron from time to time
using "borrowed" energy. Perhaps under normal conditions that reaction
does not happen or it instantly reverses itself due to having to pay back
the energy "loan". On the other hand if conditions are such that the
electron capture is followed by fusion, the mass defect may be used to
return the loan. Of course the question is how often if at all any of
these reactions happen. 

I would like to build a practical fusion reactor (don't we all) and would
like to find out if any of the following might make a difference:

- The hydrogen escaping from the system through the part of the palladium
that may be exposed to the environment. That is perhaps the palladium is
not fully submerged in the electrolyt or for example the palladium is the
flask itself holding the electrolyt? I have read the original publication
by P&F and they had a pressure computation there. I wonder if that can be
related to actual pressure with which the Hydrogen escapes?

- What is the relative merit of other materials for example Nickel or
Titanium versus Palladium?

- P&F wrote that they thought the reaction rate was proportional to
Palladium volume. If that were the case wouldn't it make sense to try big
chunks of metals for these cold fusion experiments?  Can't we just pump
the hydrogen into the metal?  Why bother with the electrolytic systems?

I am not looking for definitive answers and I realize that my theoretical
knowledge is lacking but I do appretiate your comments and thoughts on
these questions even if you are not sure about the answer. 

Zoltan Szakaly
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.30 / Kevin Kroha /  Re: Solar-panelled highways
     
Originally-From: dlmrs@erinews (Kevin Kroha)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Solar-panelled highways
Date: 30 Jul 1995 09:27:19 GMT
Organization: Ericsson

C S Jacobs (cjacobs@chinese.engin.umich.edu) wrote:

: In article <3v7aph$fmc@otis.netspace.net.au>, rvanspaa@netspace.net.au
(Robin van Spaandonk) writes:

: Tell me, where do you get 25% effecient solar cells?   I would really like to
: know.

: -Craig

NREL has developed a solar technology for NASA which is more resistant
 to the damaging affects of unshielded solar radiation (which degrades 
 silicon and gallium arsenide).

The panel have two layers - the topmost, Indium phosphide, protects the
 solar panel as well as capturing high energy photons.

The bottom layer captures low energy photons, i think its the same
 material as normal, terrestial PVs.

Together, they have an efficiency of OVER THIRY PERCENT  30% !

Of course, they are probably EXTREMELY expensive, but at least they've
 proven its possible.

-----

This didn't occur to me until just now - maybe this benchmark is
 meaningless for us, if the atmosphere shields us from all that high energy
 radiation?  ...   Even so, maybe we can still get really high efficiencies
 (kW/m^2) by layering normal, tranlucent PVs...


-kevin
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudendlmrs cudfnKevin cudlnKroha 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 11:16:20 GMT
Organization: Improving

On 27 Jul 1995 11:14:28 GMT, schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard
Schultz) wrote:

>In article <3v6rtu$b6p@manuel.anu.edu.au>,
>Dave Davies  <dave.davies@anu.edu.au> wrote:

>>A phonon can build up incrementally as it recruits more atoms so the 
>>energy of the reaction could, hypothetically, be bled off relatively 
>>slowly.

>Steven Jones has already addressed this issue.  The problem is that 
>you have to dissipate 24 MeV of energy inside the lifetime of the 4He*

I presume that the calculated lifetime of the 4He* is based on the
wave function of a single nucleus. If however multiple nuclei are
involved, then I presume that this would lead to splitting of the
energy levels, while they were in one an other's neighborhood.
This could mean that a small transition would be possible between two
parts of a "split" level, the energy of this transition being passed
to phonons (a phonon?). If the nuclei were then to separate again, the
original levels would tend to be restored, i.e. the perturbation would
be removed. However the energy once passed on is not easily recovered,
this could lead to an exited nucleus in a strange metastable state,
forbidden to completely decay, and forced to wait until another such
collision occurred to rid itself of more energy. Of course, I could
also be whistling Dixie. 

>nucleus.  He showed that special relativity considerations make it 
>impossible for all of the energy to go into phonons in the time available
>to it.  I could probably dig up the old articles if you were interested
>(or you could get them from sunsite; as I recall, using "special relativity"
>as the keywords finds them pretty quickly).
>--
>					Richard Schultz

>"How many boards would the Mongols hoard if the Mongol hordes got bored?"

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 
------------------------------
1995.07.29 / A Plutonium /  UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center,attn:Mr.Mark Tillack 
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Originally-From: sarfatti@ix.netcom.com (Jack Sarfatti)
Originally-From: Benjamin.J.Tilly@dartmouth.edu (Benjamin J. Tilly)
Originally-From: tony@nexus.yorku.ca (Anthony Wallis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center,attn:Mr.Mark Tillack 
Subject: Re: Who is Ludwig?
Subject: Re: Does Ludwig Von deserve an internet account?
Subject: Does Barry Merriman deserve an internet account?
Date: 29 Jul 1995 20:38:41 GMT
Date: 13 Aug 1994 06:48:39 GMT
Date: 9 Aug 1994 18:30:17 GMT
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 1994 21:58:55 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College
Organization: Netcom
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Organization: York University

  ONE of perhaps 50 posts to world via Internet where Barry Merriman
has called my "sanity" into question. I do not save Barry's post except
for the one which prompted me to tell him to go to hell. I reproduce
that thread below. But, I do know that Barry has posted regularly and
frequently to the world regards my mental health. I hope someone can
document in detail those posts of Barry. Since asking him to stop gets
nowhere. I am going to ask the boss of Barry to kindly call Barry and
ask what is up with this posturing? Is it that Barry has some kind of
fetish with other peoples mental health and needs to broadcast it to
the world? Or is it that Barry has these peer reviews where one block
rates Barry's mental health, and Barry was upset over this?
   So, Mr. Tillack, I do not know if you are Barry's superior but your
title is far above Barry's there at UCSD and connected UCLA. Can you
Mr. Tillack advise me as to "asking that Barry cease and desist from
ever mentioning or hinting of me to the world Internet". I had sent you
an email asking the same but no word from you Mr. Tillack.

   Or, this could be another avenue of a solution that may satisfy
Barry also. Please send  $500.00 from UCSD Fusion Center or UCLA math
dept (whatever connection Barry has there?) send that check to
Archimedes Plutonium, Dartmouth College, Hanover NH 03755. It will get
to me. With that money I will have a complete physical and mental
hospital check-up and post the results to Internet. Barry is so overly
concerned about my mental health and so have him send that money and I
will then "prove the putting". Thank you Barry Merriman.

  Please note below the posts of where Barry Merriman early on attacked
me viciously about my "mental well being"

Originally-From: sarfatti@ix.netcom.com (Jack Sarfatti)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Who is Ludwig?
Date: 13 Aug 1994 06:48:39 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <32hqc7$s15@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>

In <1994Aug12.210952.3639@math.ucla.edu> barry@joshua.math.ucla.edu
(Barry Merriman) writes: 


>
>>Also, the act of LP washing dishes mentioned in a discreditable note
>>by a few writers need not neccesarily be thought of as a low status activity.
>>Often the greatest thoughts turn up during work
>>where the thinking process to a large extent may be
>>freed from the task at hand, such as when washing dishes.
>
>Yes, but alternatively dishwashing is also a great activity
>for those with mental illnesses that impair their ability
>to function in society.
>
>
>
>
>--
>Barry Merriman
>UCLA Dept. of Math
>UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
>barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)   barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (NeXTMail)
>
Barry - stop! This is getting to be an obsession for you!
Yes, but alternatively math teaching is also a great activity for those
with mental illnesses that impair their ability to function in
the business world outside the Ivory Tower. Did not George Bernard
Shaw say "Those that cannot do, teach." ? And what about all those
fine salt of the earth who do an honest day's work diswashing - and
what of housewives?  :-) 

"Who is Ludvig?, That all the boys adore him? ... "
sung to "Who is Sylvia?"
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1994.08.09 / Benjamin Tilly /  Re: Does Ludwig Von deserve an internet account?
     
Originally-From: Benjamin.J.Tilly@dartmouth.edu (Benjamin J. Tilly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Does Ludwig Von deserve an internet account?
Date: 9 Aug 1994 18:30:17 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Lines: 68
Message-ID: <328hvp$mf9@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
References: <3287j9$jds@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>

In <1994Aug9.024535.2253@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu
(Barry Merriman) writes: 

>
>> In article <31ud23$poe@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu  
>(Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
> >Probability of landing on a Rational point is 33.33...%
> >Probability of landing on a Irrational Algebraic point is 33.33...%
> >Probability of landing on a Transcendental point is 33.33...%
>
>
>As basically everything Ludwig Von writes is illogical drivel such as
>the above, it seems pretty clear that he is suffering from 
>mental illness.
>
Perhaps, perhaps not. He certainly does have a...refreshing...view of
reality.

>My question: should a mentally ill person be allowed to spew
>on the Internet, just for the entertainment of casual observers?
>
He is allowed on the net because he is interested in posting on the net
and qualifies for access under Dartmouth rules. Whatever the effect of
his being on the net is, his account should not be revoked because
people do not agree with him, or because people laugh at him. The last
time that I checked he was a legal adult. As long as Dartmouth wishes
to let him have access I do not think that anyone else should try to
tell them not to for anything approaching the above reasons. If
Dartmouth chooses to not continue giving him an account then they have
that right, though I fully support his right to buy access elsewhere,
and I do not think that anyone else has the right to try to tell the
people whom he is getting access from that they should not give it to
him "for his own benefit".

>Personally, I think dartmouth should revoke his account until he
>gets some psychiatric attention. Odds are with modern psychiatric
>drugs they could straighten him out.
>
I am hardly his strongest supporter. But I would disagree with this
totally. I do *not* think that they have the right to send him to
psychiatric attention without a good reason (threats of actually
committing violence, which I have not seen, would qualify as a good
reason for me). They can suggest it to him, and they would not be the
first to do so. (I believe that a similar suggestion was made when he
got kicked out of the military. (I think that he was in the Navy.) He
did not seem pleased at the suggestion however. :-)
>--
>Barry Merriman
>UCLA Dept. of Math
>UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
>barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 --------------------------------------------------------------
 ------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Originally-From: tony@nexus.yorku.ca (Anthony Wallis)
Subject: Does Barry Merriman deserve an internet account?
Message-ID: <CuAFq8.1Iy@newshub.ccs.yorku.ca>
Organization: York University
References: <1994Aug9.203955.13142@math.ucla.edu>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 1994 21:58:55 GMT
Lines: 24

Barry Merriman (barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu) reprises his
viewpoint :
> Most respondents turn this into a free speech issue, and I'm 
> all for free speech. But, it could also be viewed as a mental 
> health issue: mentally ill/unstable folks such as Ludwig  ..
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes, most reponses were about free speech.  One notable exception
was my response, which was not about free speech, but simply
questioning the objective content in your assertion of the
Ludwig's "mental illness".  I was, perhaps politely, suggesting
that you really don't know what you are talking about.  This is
the second time you have asserted your arrogant presumption that
Lugwig Plutonium is "mentally ill" without basis other than your
own preconceptions.  I no longer feel a need for politeness.
Given the mass of well-documented abuses of psychiatric
labelling for political purposes, I consider individuals like you,
Barry Merriman, to be a greater threat to science, objectivity,
empirical methodology, and the root values of Western
civilisation than any army of Ludwigian kooks.

--
tony@nexus.yorku.ca = Tony Wallis, York University, North York, Canada.
-------------end of post and well spoken MR. TONY WALLIS ! --------

AND NOW A YEAR LATER I SEE  THIS post 
In article <3v3l0s$38i@soenews.ucsd.edu>
barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:

> You don't seem to get it----Arch.Pu. adopted that name, and
> espouses a religion based on Plutonium, because he is a nut.
> I can't diagnose what mental illness he has, but that he
> has one is fairly clear.
> 
> 
> --
> Barry Merriman
> UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
> UCLA Dept. of Math
> bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


In article <3v9otm$he0@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

> 
> Name                Phone       E-mail                       Room
>                                                                        
>                             
> Blush, Lisa                          lisa@pisces.fusion.ucla.edu      
> UCLA               
> Boedo, Jose                          jboedo@pisces.ucsd.edu           
> 460, EBU-II               
> Boivin, Robert                       boivin@pisces.fusion.ucla.edu    
> UCLA               
> Carter, Charlotte        47905       carter@fusion.ucsd.edu           
> 460, EBU-II        
> Chia, Ping                           chia@kailas.fusion.ucla.edu      
> UCLA               
> Chousal, Leo                         lchousal@pisces.ucsd.edu         
> 460, EBU-II
> Conn, Robert             46237       rconn@de.ucsd.edu                
> 7313 EBU-I
> Cuthbertson, John        49721       jcuthbertson@pisces.ucsd.edu     
> 366, EBU-II        
> Doerner, Russ            47830       rdoerner@pisces.ucsd.edu         
> 456, EBU-II        
> Fager, Barbara           47876       fager@fusion.ucsd.edu            
> 460, EBU-II        
> Flynn, Allisa            42983       flynn@fusion.ucsd.edu            
> 460, EBU-II        
> Gray, Doug                           dgray@pisces.ucsd.edu            
> UCLA               
> Grossman, Arthur         49711       grossman@fusion.ucsd.edu         
> 359, EBU-II        
> Gunner, Greg                         ggunner@pisces.ucsd.edu          
> 460, EBU-II               
> Hirooka, Yoshi           49720       hirooka@pisces.fusion.ucla.edu   
> 458, EBU-II        
> Latchem, John            49724       jlatchem@pisces.ucsd.edu         
> 464, EBU-II        
> Laval, Barbara           47829       laval@fusion.ucsd.edu            
> 455, EBU-II        
> Lee, Bong-Ju             47828       lee@fusion.ucsd.edu              
> 365, EBU-II        
> Lehmer, Ron              49740       rlehmer@pisces.ucsd.edu          
> 367, EBU-II        
> Luckhardt, Stan          49725       sluckhardt@pisces.ucsd.edu       
> 358, EBU-II        
> Luong, Phil                          phil@pisces.fusion.ucla.edu      
> UCLA               
> Mau, Tak-Kuen            49711       mau@fusion.ucsd.edu              
> 359, EBU-II        
> Mays, Chris                          mays@chakra.fusion.ucla.edu      
> UCLA               
> Merriman, Barry          47767       merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu         
> 365, EBU-II        
> Miller, Ron              47842       miller@fusion.ucsd.edu           
> 457, EBU-II        
> Moyer, Rick              49723       rmoyer@pisces.ucsd.edu           
> 366, EBU-II        
> Najmabadi, Farrokh       47869       najmabadi@fusion.ucsd.edu        
> 457B, EBU-II       
> Schmitz, Lothar                      schmitz@pisces.fusion.ucla.edu   
> UCLA               
> Sze, Daniel              42975       sze@pisces.fusion.ucla.edu       
> UCLA               
> Tillack, Mark            47897       tillack@fusion.ucsd.edu          
> 458A, EBU-II       
> Won, Jon-Gik                         jongik@pisces.fusion.ucla.edu    
> 460, EBU-II               
> Wang, Xue-Ren            47789       wang@fusion.ucsd.edu             
> 464, EBU-II  


   MR. Tillack, if you are not Barry Merriman's boss please say who in
this above list is Barry's boss.  Thank you kindly and sent email to
Mr. Tillack
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenTilly cudfnBenjamin cudlnTilly cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
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,soc.culture.japan,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: NP28JUL95, SEVEN SAMURAI-ettes, Bullock,Sugawara, ... 
Date: 29 Jul 1995 17:15:08 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

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

> 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


   Oh, my, me oh my what be you saying here Ben. Your naivety precedes
you and never before have I seen such naivety.

   Be you saying that 



     #    #  
     #   #   
     #  #   
     ###     
     #  #   
     #   #  
     #    # 

    *******
    *
    *
    *****
    *
    *
    ********    (Say, Ben, you have more time for this foolishness than
I do, would you please make more big letters and words in your title?
Or ask Dr. Sagawara for more time away from the big bamboo machines in
order for you to make more letters and words in your posts)

     #    #  
     #   #   
     #  #   
     ###     
     #  #   
     #   #  
     #    # 

 #####  ######     #     #####  #    #  
#     # #     #   # #   #     # #   #   #     # #     #    #    #     #
#       #     #  #   #  #       #  #    #     # #     #    #    #
#       ######  #     # #       ###     ######  #     #    #     #####
#       #   #   ####### #       #  #    #       #     #    #          #
#     # #    #  #     # #     # #   #   #       #     #    #    #     #
 #####  #     # #     #  #####  #    #  #       #######    #     #####

                        #######    #     #####
                        #         # #   #     #
                        #        #   #  #     #
                        #####   #     # #     #
                        #       ####### #   # #
                        #       #     # #    #
                        #       #     #  #### #


SCI.PHYSICS CRACKPOTS FAQ
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[note: Thanks for all the e-mails.  I am glad this FAQ has proved
worthwhile to so many different people.  Thanks also for the
suggestions for crackpots and URLs to add to the list.]

Since this document is in development, and has changed so fast since
last Tuesday, it seems to be about time to post it again.  Doraemon
will stick to a weekly or maybe bi-weekly posting schedule when things
have stabilised a bit more.

Changes
^^^^^^^
a lot of them, including

(o) Doraemon has changed all the "pet theory" entries to CAPITAL
LETTERS.

(o) New entries, and new abbreviations, see below.

How to get in touch
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If you want to send anonymous e-mail to Doraemon, send to

        an211894@anon.penet.fi

and if you do not want to send anonymously, then use

        na211894@anon.penet.fi

Don't be a space-potato like Hannu "survival balls" Poropudas and send
"anonymous" e-mail to Doraemon telling Doraemon what your name is - if
you want to send e-mail directly just use the na name above (na = not
anonymous).

Key to crackpot list:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
        N: name of pet theory
        P: physics sanity level
        S: general sanity level
        C: comments 
        URL: WWW site or other URL.

[It seems that no self-respecting crackpot is complete without a WWW /
ftp site devoted to their efforts, and so Doraemon is including this
information where known.]

Abbreviations:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
SRIW:   thinks that special relativity is wrong.
QMIW:   thinks that quantum mechanics is wrong.
OTOG:   has own theory of gravity.
OTOU:   has own theory of the universe.
UG:     utterly meaningless gibberish. No connection to established
science.
NL:     mentioned in the "net legends" FAQ.  The most longstanding
crackpots.

************* begin crackpots list *********
          Nyanko Sensei works for KEK, just a crumby dishwasher

          Nao Nojiri is a potwasher by trade and smokes

          Hajime Aoki a poor diswasher UG

          Michio Ikehara a janitor at KEK learned how to sell lemonade
on the side
  (sorry for the incomplete list but Ben Bullock is my idol, and I
don't move until my idol Ben Bullock tells me to move on this important
issues)

Say Ben when will your third revised Crackpot Faq be posted so that I
make arrangements from my dishwashing boss and run over to the
computers and become inspired by your leadership, Uh, Ben when is the
next revision due??

          Nobuyuki Ishibashi 
          Yasuhiro Okada 
          Jun-ichi Kamoshita 
          Toshiya Kawai 
          Hikaru Kawai 
          Makoto Kobayashi 
          Naoki Sasakura 
          Yasuhiro Shimizu 
          Robert Szalapski 
          Hirotaka Sugawara 
          Hiroyuki Takata 
          Minoru Tanaka 
          Masaharu Tanabashi 
          Seong-Youl Choi 
          Asato Tsuchiya 
          Takayuki Nakajima 
          Jun Nishimura 
          Mihoko M. Nojiri 
          Kaoru Hagiwara 
          Machiko Hatsuda 
          Ken-ji Hamada 
          N. D. Hari Dass 
          Ben K. Bullock 
          Seiji Matsumoto 
          Kenji Mohri 
          Tsuguo Mogami 
          Takeo Moroi 
          Youichi Yamada 
          Yuriko Takei 
          Masanori Okawa 
          Satsuki Oda 
          Yoshinobu Kuramashi 
          Yoshimasa Kurihara 
          Yoshimitsu Shimizu 
          Hideyuki Suzuki 
          Noritsugu Tsuda 
          Hiroyuki Hagura 
          Shoji Hashimoto 
          Junpei Fujimoto 
          Tetsuyuki Yukawa 
          Brian E. Hanlon 
  *******************

  BTW, Ben, since your my idol, even though naive I can overlook your
one flaw. Just what type of newspaper headlines would you think most
flowery?

   President Freedman of Dartmouth Fires Dishwasher

or

  KEK, Japan, Fires More Potwashers Than Particles?

or

  Ben Bullock, KEK, One If By Land, Two If By Sea

 Personally I like the last, don't you Ben? But you are my idol and I
don't move unless you permit me to move
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.30 / david rogers /  Combustion - New Energy Source
     
Originally-From: rogersda@direct.ca (david rogers)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Combustion - New Energy Source
Date: 30 Jul 1995 10:33:16 GMT
Organization: Internet Direct Inc.

Non Combustion Energy Source is the next Revolution of mankind.

Breaking chemical bonds has been and still is our primary source of
energy. Chicago's heat wave and the mid-west's halving it's normal
wheat production are a direct cause and effect of out species use
of combustible energy and it's associated CO2 + other emmissions.

Wars and revolutions have made major changes with our history but NON
compare with that technology has.

In my opinion our time is very limited to produce the goods for a 
non combutible energy source and you people conducting research
in physics hold a major key.

New Gas Turbines will be introduced next year in N. America which
will be 10-15% more efficient and Dams will no
longer compete on price. I did the calculation and switching from
Dams to Natural Gas Turbines to generate electricity wil DOUBLE CO2
emissions in BC alone.

It became so obvious to me NOn-Combustible energy production is
perhaps the key to our very survival. The new energy source needs be
economic, safe, non-polluting and immediate ( i.e. like striking
a match ).

Is there someone out there who can solve this?

David. 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenrogersda cudfndavid cudlnrogers cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.30 / Ben Bullock /  Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
     
Originally-From: ben@theory5.kek.jp (Ben Bullock)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
Date: 30 Jul 1995 11:11:40 GMT
Organization: KEK , Tsukuba , Japan

Barry Merriman (barry@starfire.ucsd.edu) wrote:

> I don't think Mr. Plutonium needs censureship. I think he needs
> mental health counceling. Rather than just calling for them to 
> pull the plug on his account (he could always get access through
> another provider anyway), I think they should make his continued
> access conditional on his getting ongoing treatment at the campus
> mental health clinic. Perhaps that carrot would motivate him to get the
> treatment that he clearly needs.

I have deliberately avoided posting followups in most of the recent
discussions in the hope that it would die down of its own accord, but
after reading this I have no choice but to point out that I strongly
disagree with this approach.

I have no idea whether or not Plutonium is mentally ill.  Although it
is certainly possible, even likely, that he is mentally ill or suffers
from some kind of psychologial problem, I would not care to make this
kind of judgement about him.  Firstly, I am not trained in psychiatry
or diagnosis of mental illness, secondly I have never met Plutonium,
and thirdly, even if I was fairly convinced that he was mentally ill
on the basis of his usenet posts, this would be *speculation* on my
part.

What I *know* is that his recent posts were extremely offensive, being
bigoted, obscene and racist.  What I *do* *not* *know* is whether he
is mentally ill or not.  Let us, if we choose to complain about
Plutonium's activities, stick to matters of *clearly* *verifiable*
*facts*, such as the racist, bigoted obscenity found in his posts,
instead of complaining on the basis of unsupported speculations as to
his mental health condition.

In summary, I request that you complain about *facts*.  Do not
complain on the basis of *unsupported* *speculations*, however likely
they may be.

--
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:
cuddy30 cudenben cudfnBen cudlnBullock cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.30 / A Plutonium /  Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Originally-From: tony@nexus.yorku.ca (Anthony Wallis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
Subject: Does Barry Merriman deserve an internet account?
Date: 30 Jul 1995 11:32:02 GMT
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 1994 21:58:55 GMT
Organization: Plutonium Atom Foundation
Organization: York University

In article <3vfh8b$fji@soenews.ucsd.edu>
barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:

> I don't think Mr. Plutonium needs censureship. I think he needs
> mental health counceling. Rather than just calling for them to 
> pull the plug on his account (he could always get access through
> another provider anyway), I think they should make his continued
> access conditional on his getting ongoing treatment at the campus
> mental health clinic. Perhaps that carrot would motivate him to get the
> treatment that he clearly needs.

   I have not collected every one of Barry Merriman's posts which "he
claims that I am mentally ill". My reckoning is that he has posted
somewhere around 50 to the world via Internet making this assertion.
Make the above number 51. 
In 1994, I had told Barry to go to hell and ignored his attacks on me.
   In my last post to Internet I asked that Barry send me $500. for the
cost of a physical and mental hospital checkup. 
    I see that Barry claims affiliation with two organizations ----
> --
> Barry Merriman
> UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
> UCLA Dept. of Math
> bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)

   I am providing all of my posts to Internet to these affiliates via
email. Including the Dean of Math dept UCLA.
> 
> Name                Phone       E-mail                       Room
>                                                                        
>                             
> Blush, Lisa                          lisa@pisces.fusion.ucla.edu      
> UCLA               
> Boedo, Jose                          jboedo@pisces.ucsd.edu           
> 460, EBU-II               
> Boivin, Robert                       boivin@pisces.fusion.ucla.edu    
> UCLA               
> Carter, Charlotte        47905       carter@fusion.ucsd.edu           
> 460, EBU-II        
> Chia, Ping                           chia@kailas.fusion.ucla.edu      
> UCLA               
> Chousal, Leo                         lchousal@pisces.ucsd.edu         
> 460, EBU-II
> Conn, Robert             46237       rconn@de.ucsd.edu                
> 7313 EBU-I
> Cuthbertson, John        49721       jcuthbertson@pisces.ucsd.edu     
> 366, EBU-II        
> Doerner, Russ            47830       rdoerner@pisces.ucsd.edu         
> 456, EBU-II        
> Fager, Barbara           47876       fager@fusion.ucsd.edu            
> 460, EBU-II        
> Flynn, Allisa            42983       flynn@fusion.ucsd.edu            
> 460, EBU-II        
> Gray, Doug                           dgray@pisces.ucsd.edu            
> UCLA               
> Grossman, Arthur         49711       grossman@fusion.ucsd.edu         
> 359, EBU-II        
> Gunner, Greg                         ggunner@pisces.ucsd.edu          
> 460, EBU-II               
> Hirooka, Yoshi           49720       hirooka@pisces.fusion.ucla.edu   
> 458, EBU-II        
> Latchem, John            49724       jlatchem@pisces.ucsd.edu         
> 464, EBU-II        
> Laval, Barbara           47829       laval@fusion.ucsd.edu            
> 455, EBU-II        
> Lee, Bong-Ju             47828       lee@fusion.ucsd.edu              
> 365, EBU-II        
> Lehmer, Ron              49740       rlehmer@pisces.ucsd.edu          
> 367, EBU-II        
> Luckhardt, Stan          49725       sluckhardt@pisces.ucsd.edu       
> 358, EBU-II        
> Luong, Phil                          phil@pisces.fusion.ucla.edu      
> UCLA               
> Mau, Tak-Kuen            49711       mau@fusion.ucsd.edu              
> 359, EBU-II        
> Mays, Chris                          mays@chakra.fusion.ucla.edu      
> UCLA               
> Merriman, Barry          47767       merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu         
> 365, EBU-II        
> Miller, Ron              47842       miller@fusion.ucsd.edu           
> 457, EBU-II        
> Moyer, Rick              49723       rmoyer@pisces.ucsd.edu           
> 366, EBU-II        
> Najmabadi, Farrokh       47869       najmabadi@fusion.ucsd.edu        
> 457B, EBU-II       
> Schmitz, Lothar                      schmitz@pisces.fusion.ucla.edu   
> UCLA               
> Sze, Daniel              42975       sze@pisces.fusion.ucla.edu       
> UCLA               
> Tillack, Mark            47897       tillack@fusion.ucsd.edu          
> 458A, EBU-II       
> Won, Jon-Gik                         jongik@pisces.fusion.ucla.edu    
> 460, EBU-II               
> Wang, Xue-Ren            47789       wang@fusion.ucsd.edu             
> 464, EBU-II  

--- 1994 Post ----
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Originally-From: tony@nexus.yorku.ca (Anthony Wallis)
Subject: Does Barry Merriman deserve an internet account?
Message-ID: <CuAFq8.1Iy@newshub.ccs.yorku.ca>
Organization: York University
References: <1994Aug9.203955.13142@math.ucla.edu>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 1994 21:58:55 GMT
Lines: 24

Barry Merriman (barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu) reprises his
viewpoint :
> Most respondents turn this into a free speech issue, and I'm 
> all for free speech. But, it could also be viewed as a mental 
> health issue: mentally ill/unstable folks such as Ludwig  ..
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes, most reponses were about free speech.  One notable exception
was my response, which was not about free speech, but simply
questioning the objective content in your assertion of the
Ludwig's "mental illness".  I was, perhaps politely, suggesting
that you really don't know what you are talking about.  This is
the second time you have asserted your arrogant presumption that
Lugwig Plutonium is "mentally ill" without basis other than your
own preconceptions.  I no longer feel a need for politeness.
Given the mass of well-documented abuses of psychiatric
labelling for political purposes, I consider individuals like you,
Barry Merriman, to be a greater threat to science, objectivity,
empirical methodology, and the root values of Western
civilisation than any army of Ludwigian kooks.

--
tony@nexus.yorku.ca = Tony Wallis, York University, North York, Canada.
------ end of 1994 post ------

  Since Barry has made this --- worldwide Internet posting obssession
over my mental health *frequent* ---,   and, I doubt that his posts are
of genuine concern over my mental health.  Leads me to the conclusion
that Barry will not send 500 bucks for me to have a physical and mental
checkup in the local hospital and I post the results to Internet. Nay,
what Barry's gameplan is -- is to try to smear my theory of Plutonium
Atom Totality.

  In a legal suit, there are three pockets here. There is Barry, UCLA
math, and UCSD. Legal damages $500 per post, now 51 posts makes for
something like $25,000. But in treble damages is now approaching 100 K.

   I will email today this posting to all of Barry's above listed
associates. I have already contacted Mr. Mark Tillack over this issue
of Barry's non-stop posting of my state of health. And should Mr.
Tillack or all others in the above ignore me and the Barry posts
continue, then I can only conclude that they encourage and delight in
encouraging Barry to do this. Perhaps it is time for someone to "look
to see what health Barry is in?"  And please, very please will someone
pay the courtesy of warning me should Barry purchase a plane ticket for
destination New Hampshire.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.30 / A Plutonium /  Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,alt.sc
.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
Date: 30 Jul 1995 11:42:46 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <3vf134$d9a@keknews.kek.jp>
ben@theory5.kek.jp (Ben Bullock) writes:

> Excuse me for following myself up, but please don't use this address
> as Molly Harbaugh is not responsible for this matter.  Thanks very
> much for your understanding and cooperation.


  And to think that a full salaried employee of KEK is paid to spend
his time on this above?  My gosh, no wonder KEK is a dud project. Japan
ought to spend those millions on firecrackers and have a pretty 4th of
July over Mt. Fuji next year.  Say, Dr. Sugawara, will you be using the
above as a reference in Physical Review Letters any time soon??  I want
to read that good physics coming out of KEK.


>  
> > > 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.
> 
> Thanks to everyone who has written to Dartmouth to complain about
> Archimedes Plutonium.  I sincerely hope that on the basis of
> Plutonium's current crop of racist, offensive and obscene articles
> Dartmouth College will prevent Plutonium permanently from having any
> kind of USENET access.
> 
> --
> Ben Bullock @ KEK (National Laboratory for High Energy Physics) /
> address: 1-1 Oho, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305, JAPAN / TEL: 0298-64-5403 /

   Let the world note that Ben is piping out of his you know what
above. The only posts received here are Ben's posts. Of course he
pretends to make it look like some big response. 
   Ben is the anon author of the Crackpot FAQ, and please stay tuned
for the KEK CRACKPOT FAQ. I am the author of the KEK Crackpot FAQ in
response to Ben's ongoing attacks of innocent people in sci.physics.
Ben was named aptly as Ben Bullock for he is a Bully and needs to learn
his lesson the hard way.
   And I am no chicken liver for the KEK Crackpot FAQ is not anon. My
name is right there.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.30 / Tom Potter /  Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
     
Originally-From: tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter )
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
Date: 30 Jul 1995 13:22:35 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3vfpdc$eog@keknews.kek.jp> ben@theory5.kek.jp (Ben Bullock) writes: 

>
>Barry Merriman (barry@starfire.ucsd.edu) wrote:
>
>> I don't think Mr. Plutonium needs censureship. I think he needs
>> mental health counceling. Rather than just calling for them to 
>> pull the plug on his account (he could always get access through
>> another provider anyway), I think they should make his continued
>> access conditional on his getting ongoing treatment at the campus
>> mental health clinic. Perhaps that carrot would motivate him to get the
>> treatment that he clearly needs.
>
>I have deliberately avoided posting followups in most of the recent
>discussions in the hope that it would die down of its own accord, but
>after reading this I have no choice but to point out that I strongly
>disagree with this approach.
>
>I have no idea whether or not Plutonium is mentally ill.  Although it
>is certainly possible, even likely, that he is mentally ill or suffers
>from some kind of psychologial problem, I would not care to make this
>kind of judgement about him.  Firstly, I am not trained in psychiatry
>or diagnosis of mental illness, secondly I have never met Plutonium,
>and thirdly, even if I was fairly convinced that he was mentally ill
>on the basis of his usenet posts, this would be *speculation* on my
>part.
>
>What I *know* is that his recent posts were extremely offensive, being
>bigoted, obscene and racist.  What I *do* *not* *know* is whether he
>is mentally ill or not.  Let us, if we choose to complain about
>Plutonium's activities, stick to matters of *clearly* *verifiable*
>*facts*, such as the racist, bigoted obscenity found in his posts,
>instead of complaining on the basis of unsupported speculations as to
>his mental health condition.
>
>In summary, I request that you complain about *facts*.  Do not
>complain on the basis of *unsupported* *speculations*, however likely
>they may be.
>
>--
>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

Somehow, when I read this post, 
I get an image of Captain Queeg < sp? > playing with his balls.

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.30 / mitchell swartz /  Nuclear reaction time scales
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nuclear reaction time scales
Subject: Re: Nuclear reaction time scales
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 1995 13:23:05 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <3ve0t5$k33@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Nuclear reaction time scales
mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353) 
Mark Richardson wrote:

   >transition energy	half-life natural line-width 
   >Symbol 	keV            	   ns          	 mm/sec 
   >40K    	29.4    	    4.26        	2.18 
   >57Fe 	14.41 		    97.81     		0.19 
   >57Fe 	136.46 		    8.7     		0.23 
   >61Ni 	67.4 		    5.06    	 	0.8 
	 	 	 
 = "Actually your numbers are completely correct, but not at all relavent to
 = the discussion of the mean life of the He4* nucleus produced in d+d
 = fusion.
 = 
 = All of the excited state decays you mentioned are from states that have
 = such a low excitation energy that a strong decay such as neutron emission
 = is not energetically possible. Therefore the electromagnetic decays you
 = cited are indeed the dominant modes.
 = If a strong decay is possible, as it most certainly is for He4*, then the
 = decay time is indeed on the order of 10^-20 seconds."

  But these are relevant because the numbers cited are for
excited nuclear states which can  permissably deexcite
by electric dipole transitions. 

  The deexcitation:  He4* ---> He4 (ground state)
does not have that opportunity at low temp
theoretically secondary to isospin restriction.  True, or not?

  Therefore, given your claim shifting ~10^-9  to 10^-20 sec,
am looking forward to your reference for your info on this matter:
specifically He4* in a low-temperature (relative to "hot" fusion) 
environment.           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

     Thanks in advance, Mark.

     Mitchell Swartz
       (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.30 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: Combustion - New Energy Source
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Combustion - New Energy Source
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 95 13:02:23 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Corporation

In article <3vfn5c$3kd@stud.Direct.CA>,
   rogersda@direct.ca (david rogers) wrote:
>Non Combustion Energy Source is the next Revolution of mankind.
>

[snip]

>It became so obvious to me NOn-Combustible energy production is
>perhaps the key to our very survival. The new energy source needs be
>economic, safe, non-polluting and immediate ( i.e. like striking
>a match ).
>
>Is there someone out there who can solve this?
>
>David. 

Good news! The problem has already been solved. The French have already 
drastically reduced their CO2 production using this technology. It's called 
nuclear fission.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.30 / mitchell swartz /  Nuclear reaction time scales
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nuclear reaction time scales
Subject: Re: Nuclear reaction time scales
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 1995 13:58:52 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


  In Message-ID: <3vea1t$634@soenews.ucsd.edu>
Subject: Re: Nuclear reaction time scales
barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) wrote:

     > >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?)"

This discrepancy should have shown you your own faux pas
over which many of us have been smiling for several weeks, 
Mr. Merriman.   In fact several of your previous posts have
this error repeatedly, making it not correct, only widely
present.

The reason for the discrepancy is that you keep confusing
the energy of the transition
         (midfrequency Eo = E2-E1= deltaE)
with the half-width of the output spectrum. 
           delta-E = natural linewidth in freq space

 It is that latter to which the uncertainty principle relates.

That error is the reason you get silly numbers.
You keep putting in the former definition because it gives
you numbers like <<10^-21 which you like because it helps
your vaporcriticisms of cold fusion.
  
But now, as you discuss above,  the wrong calculations 
are off, and so you then ask for help with your 10^6 magnitude
error.   

Notice that if you put in the right numbers the relationship
between the natural line width and lifetime remains 
correct and of the proper magnitude.

Picking up a junior level book on signal processing
might help too.  Maybe even that book on Mossbauer 
spectroscopy.     ;-)X

Good luck on your studies and hot fusion.

  Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.30 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 1995 14:40:12 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <3vfpdc$eog@keknews.kek.jp>, Ben Bullock <ben@theory5.kek.jp> wrote:
>
>I have no idea whether or not Plutonium is mentally ill.  Although it
>is certainly possible, even likely, that he is mentally ill or suffers
>from some kind of psychologial problem, I would not care to make this
>kind of judgement about him.  Firstly, I am not trained in psychiatry
>or diagnosis of mental illness, secondly I have never met Plutonium,
>and thirdly, even if I was fairly convinced that he was mentally ill
>on the basis of his usenet posts, this would be *speculation* on my
>part.
>
>What I *know* is that his recent posts were extremely offensive, being
>bigoted, obscene and racist.

You know, Plutonium and I don't, ahem, see eye-to-eye on _anything_.
But Freedom of SPeech includes those freedoms to hold beliefs and
philosophies that are repugnant to the majority.

This string reminds me that some people aren't willing to accept the
responsibilities of those freedoms. To argue with Plutonium is one
thing, to ignore him has been my choice. But to try and silence him in
this manner is a pretty discusting trick.

Maybe if everyone gets together and complains to the system manager
several score of ScD's can defeat a janitor by stabbing him in the back.


cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.30 /  jedrothwell@de /  Semiconductor surface is relevant to CF
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Semiconductor surface is relevant to CF
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 95 11:51:29 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

There has been a tedious discussion here about "off-topic" postings. Robert
Heeter, who frequently writes about hot fusion, says that people should not
publish message here about aspects of science that may have nothing to do with
CF. My guess is that hot fusion has little to do with CF, so perhaps Heeter
should take a dose of his own medicine and take his Tokamaks elsewhere. In any
case I think this approach is misguided and I urge readers to stop this petty
arguing. At this stage, nobody knows what CF is. We know that in some cases it
does cause nuclear fusion, synthesizing a heavy isotope (tritium) and a
heavier element (helium). There is increasing evidence that CF can cause
fusion or even fission of much heavier elements in the host metal. However,
this does not prove that all CF energy comes from fusion per se. It could be
that the fusion is a by-product of a reaction even more powerful, like ZPE.
Perhaps CF fusion is analogous to a chemical fire triggered by the heat from a
nuclear reaction. The fusion adds just a little heat to the much greater heat
from ZPE, and that explains why there is not usually enough nuclear ash to
account for the heat.
 
That is mere speculation on my part, but I do have an important point: since
we do not know what CF is, and since it appears to upset many longstanding
theories, we cannot predict which branch of science may provide important
answers to the mystery of CF. So a discussion of CF must remain open minded to
all branches of science, including ones that on the surface seem unlikely to
be helpful. At this stage, the eclectic approach is essential.
 
One of the people who objected to the eclectic approach is browe@netcom.com
(Bill Rowe). He made a sarcastic comment in which he inadvertently showed
exactly why he is wrong. He wrote:
 
     "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
     possibility 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."
 
If Rowe intends to go on a vacation to Japan then I can suggest an itinerary
highly relevant to CF. In particular, he should visit KEK, where they have
been doing some splendid CF work lately. More to the point, if Rowe would
share his knowledge of semiconductor surface states I might be inclined to
publish it in "Infinite Energy" because this topic is *front and center* in
any serious discussion of CF. CF may or not be nuclear, but it most definitely
is a solid state phenomenon, and a deep knowledge of surface states (physics
and chemistry) is essential to understanding it. Experts in material science
and surface chemistry like Storms and Patterson are doing some of the most
important work in this field. If CF devices are manufactured, much of the
machinery and techniques used will be similar to those used in the
semiconductor industry. Some experiments already use semiconductor technology
taken off the shelf and modified for this purpose; see NTT, and Miley at the
Univ. of Illinois.
 
To answer Rowe's rhetorical question: Yes, you should feel free to discuss
that subject here on the possibility it might be related to CF. It is vital to
the scientific process that you do that. Other things essential to the
scientific process are free speech, freedom of expression, an open minded
attitude, and a willingness to suspend believe and withhold judgement of new
ideas. These constitute the bedrock basis of science and other enlightened
academic inquiry in fields like history, sociology, anthropology. In all
cases, it is far better to err on the side of caution and open mindedness. A
thousand ideas that appear to be irrelevant or mistaken may, in fact, contain
just one idea that turns out to be of vital importance to the field, so no
idea should be ignored just because at first glance it appears to be
irrelevant, and no poster should be told to go elsewhere.
 
On the other hand, there are some threads which even the posters themselves
will grant have gotten off the subject. I think, for example, the discussion
of solar energy photovoltaic chips in road beds should be moved to sci.energy.
Four or five messages about this are fine, but if the topic continues to
attract discussion, I would favor moving it to another forum. Unless, that is,
someone suddenly realizes that photovoltaic chips may have some vital link to
CF.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjedrothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.30 / Jack Sarfatti /  Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
     
Originally-From: sarfatti@ix.netcom.com (Jack Sarfatti)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
Date: 30 Jul 1995 16:00:51 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3vf134$d9a@keknews.kek.jp> ben@theory5.kek.jp (Ben Bullock) writes:

>
>Ben Bullock (ben@theory4.kek.jp) wrote:
>
>> 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
>
>Excuse me for following myself up, but please don't use this address
>as Molly Harbaugh is not responsible for this matter.  Thanks very
>much for your understanding and cooperation.
> 
>> > 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.
>
>Thanks to everyone who has written to Dartmouth to complain about
>Archimedes Plutonium.  I sincerely hope that on the basis of
>Plutonium's current crop of racist, offensive and obscene articles
>Dartmouth College will prevent Plutonium permanently from having any
>kind of USENET access.
>
>--
>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


Ben you are reaping what you have sown. It's your own damn fault for
being such a rude asshole much of the time. One must respect everyone's
self-esteem. Plutonium does have cause to seek revenge against you. I
don't approve of either of you.  The best way to handle messages that
offend you is to put them in your kill file - or, most simply, do not
bother to read them.  No one forces you to open up a message. I don't
read lots of stuff posted. What's the big deal. I don't always follow
my own advise but increaingly I do. "He who lives by the sword will die
by the sword."  "If you get into a pissing match with a skunk in a
strong wind, you will wet yourself." (Robert Jones, Glen Ellen) :-)

Let this be a lesson for everyone. It's not worth burning bits to
attack people personally with labels "crackpot", allegations of
"insanity" etc. Plutonium is simply exercising his rights - though I
doubt he has the means to go to court, he probably has damaged Ben's
prospect of continued employment in Japan because the Japanese are very
concerned with image and saving face and Ben should have realized this.
I think Ben's pursuit of Plutonium and others is an expression of his
own desire to self-destruct professionally since it doesn't take a
rocket scientist to realize what I am talking about.

The best way for Ben to try to salvage his position is to publically
apologize to Plutonium for any insults.  This does not imply any
acceptance of Plutonium's ideas however.

The best policy to to be polite while maintaining integrity.  One can
say I think this idea is not correct etc but you don't have to also say
the guy is a nut - even if he is. :-) Also use a lot of smileys.



cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudensarfatti cudfnJack cudlnSarfatti cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.30 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Nuclear reaction time scales
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear reaction time scales
Date: 30 Jul 1995 17:27:36 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <DCJ6IH.DK1@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

>  Therefore, given your claim shifting ~10^-9  to 10^-20 sec,
>am looking forward to your reference for your info on this matter:
>specifically He4* in a low-temperature (relative to "hot" fusion) 
>environment.           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I take it that you have read the relevant literature on muon-catalyzed
fusion before asking this question?

And have you come up with the delta-E for the 57Fe energy levels in the
Moessbauer experiment I described yet?
--
					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:
cuddy30 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.30 / Jim Bowery /  Re: A conspicuous House Budget Item
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A conspicuous House Budget Item
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 1995 17:32:47 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Thanks, Paul.

This was an early version of the incentives act, which still contained
language specific to magnetic confinement.  I generalized the language
to be less technology-specific in later drafts.  I have located a hard
copy which I will type in.

PS:  I have become convinced that central governments such as the US Federal 
Government are a paramount threat to life and should cease to exist -- all 
powers devolving to governing bodies no more centralized and INTERNALLY less 
heterogenous than the various states.  As a consequence, if the US Government 
were to, in its desperation for some semblance of legitimacy, pass this 
act or some act inspired by it (AS UNLIKELY AS THAT MAY BE) and succeed 
in stimulating fusion energy technology development, I would regret the 
fact that it may add credibility to the concept of central government.  
My hope is that, in the unlikely event this happens, the freedoms 
created by fusion energy will be sufficient to counter-balance the 
increased threat from central governments.  I make this statement out of 
a sense of ethical obligation, not any delusion as to the power of words.
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
                 Change the tools and you change the rules.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.30 /   /  Re: Nuclear reaction time scales
     
Originally-From: mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear reaction time scales
Date: 30 Jul 1995 13:47:10 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

     Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) wrote:


>But these are relevant because the numbers cited are for
>excited nuclear states which can  permissably deexcite
>by electric dipole transitions. 
>
>  The deexcitation:  He4* ---> He4 (ground state)
>does not have that opportunity at low temp
>theoretically secondary to isospin restriction.  True, or not?
>
>  Therefore, given your claim shifting ~10^-9  to 10^-20 sec,
>am looking forward to your reference for your info on this matter:
>specifically He4* in a low-temperature (relative to "hot" fusion) 
>environment.           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>     Thanks in advance, Mark.

The point here is that the gamma transitions you mentioned produce
relatively long lifetimes because they are electromagnetic and therefore
slow, as I showed in my last post. Strong transitions, such as neutron
emission, are not energetically allowed and so the electromagnetic
transition is the only possibility for decay *in those cases*.

In the case of He4*, strong transitions *are* energetically allowed. In
situations like this where both strong and electromagnetic decays are
allowed, both will occur with rates depending on the relative strengths of
the interactions as well as details of the particular decay mechanism
(like whether the electromagnetic decay is E1, E2, M1, etc.). The strong
decay will occur at a rate several orders of magnitude faster than the
electromagnetic unless the strong decay is very near threshold (or of
course below threshold), which is *not* the case here.

I can't find my copy of Segre, so I will have to go get another copy to
give you a reference. In addition I will research the specific situation
of muon-catalyzed d+d fusion, since this should be practically identical
to the situation of the (putative) Pd-catalyzed d+d fusion. Then I can
speak quantitatively about excitation energies, allowed decay modes, etc.
It may be a few days before I can take the time to do this (I have a day
job).

Has anyone tried a combination of deuterated and tritiated water in a CF
experiment. If d+d happens in CF then one would think that d+t would go
like a bat out of hell.

Mark Richardson
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmrichar353 cudln cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.30 /   /  Re: Nuclear reaction time scales
     
Originally-From: mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear reaction time scales
Date: 30 Jul 1995 13:47:33 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) wrote:

>This discrepancy should have shown you your own faux pas
>over which many of us have been smiling for several weeks, 
>Mr. Merriman.   In fact several of your previous posts have
>this error repeatedly, making it not correct, only widely
>present.
>
>The reason for the discrepancy is that you keep confusing
>the energy of the transition
>         (midfrequency Eo = E2-E1= deltaE)
>with the half-width of the output spectrum. 
>           delta-E = natural linewidth in freq space
>
> It is that latter to which the uncertainty principle relates.
>
>That error is the reason you get silly numbers.
>You keep putting in the former definition because it gives
>you numbers like <<10^-21 which you like because it helps
>your vaporcriticisms of cold fusion.
>  
>But now, as you discuss above,  the wrong calculations 
>are off, and so you then ask for help with your 10^6 magnitude
>error.   
>
>Notice that if you put in the right numbers the relationship
>between the natural line width and lifetime remains 
>correct and of the proper magnitude.
>
>Picking up a junior level book on signal processing
>might help too.  Maybe even that book on Mossbauer 
>spectroscopy.     ;-)X
>
>Good luck on your studies and hot fusion.


Now, now, Mitchell, be nice.

The reason Barry used the approximation that the width of the excited
state = excitation energy is that the two energies are usually of the same
order of magnitude in strong decays, unless the strong decay is inhibited
by being very near threshold (not the case here).

The relavent book would be on nuclear physics, btw.

Mark Richardson
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmrichar353 cudln cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.30 / Robert Heeter /  Hot Fusion:  Challenges and Approaches
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Originally-From:  Robert F. Heeter
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hot Fusion:  Challenges and Approaches
Date: 30 Jul 1995 17:59:40 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

I have been having an email conversation with Chris Costello 
(cjc@esi.roc.servtech.com); I thought others might be interested
in reading one of our notes, so I got his permission to post this.
There have been some new results in the Reversed Shear 
approach, so I have added some additional comments in [brackets]:

Originally-From:  Robert F. Heeter
To:  Chris Costello

Hi Chris - 

>Thank you for directing me to the NRL formulary.  It was most helpful.  With
>your knowledge of fusion, would you help me compile a prioritized list of the
>top 5 (more or less as appropriate) technical hurdles to overcome in
>attaining a controlled break-even fusion reaction?  I would guess that problems
>such as plasma instabilities, plasma impurities, etc. would be on the list?

To achieve break-even I think all you need to do is put a 50-50
mix of D-T fuel in a high-performance JET (Joint European Torus - world's
largest tokamak) plasma discharge.  They expect to get breakeven in
a couple years when they switch to D-T fuel.

[ There is an outside chance that TFTR can achieve breakeven at
approx 20 MW fusion power using the new reversed shear 
enhanced confinement mode; more news on this soon. ]
 
Since breakeven is [relatively] trivial, here is the main hurdle to be 
overcome in getting an ignited plasma:  the plasma quality, defined by the
"Lawson value" (product of particle density and energy confinement time) 
is a factor of 5-10 too small for ignition (5 in JET, 10 in TFTR).  

Some of the obvious ideas - reducing instabilities, using
strong auxiliary heating, reducing impurity influx into the 
plasma - have already been implemented successfully (yielding 
tremendous progress from 1975 to 1995).

Still, there are a few possible ways to get the last factor of 10, 
listed below roughly from "most likely to work immediately", down 
to "least likely".  [This is just my own perspective, of course.]

(1) The ITER method:  build a larger reactor to get the extra
confinement time from sheer size.  [Also using some shaping,
but not H-mode.]
        Advantage:  we're confident we can do it.
        Disadvantage:  costs about $10 billion.

(2) The Shaping method:  play with the plasma shape to get extra 
density and confinement time from better plasma performance.
(It turns out that vertically elongated, kidney-bean-shaped plasmas
have higher pressure limits and better energy confinement).
        Advantage:  not very expensive; get a factor of 2 improvement
        Disadvantage:  not thoroughly tested

(3) The Profile Control method:  tweak the plasma to have current, 
pressure and temperature profiles that either maximize fusion power 
output, reduce energy transport losses, or allow higher core densities.
[ I would fit Reversed Shear into this category, since they achieve
it by controlling the current profile, and thus the magnetic shear. ]
        Advantage:  might also get another factor-of-2 [or better!] 
                     improvement
        Disadvantage:  [may] require a lot of expensive hardware, not
                        very well understood yet

Aside: TPX was designed to take maximum advantage of shaping and
profile control in a large-scale experiment.

(4) The Low Aspect-Ratio method (NSTX):  a fatter torus (smaller 
donut hole) should "naturally" give you better profiles and higher 
densities.
        Advantage:  smaller machines needed, not as expensive  
        Disadvantages:  may have worse confinement; hard to engineer
                          the center core against neutrons.

(5) The Transport Suppression method:  there have been some reports
that special externally-launched waves (or other mechanisms) have 
the effect of suppressing energy transport and boosting the energy 
confinement time.
[ Reversed-shear seems to be a transport suppression scheme too. ]
        Advantage:  another possible factor of 2 or better
        Disadvantages:  may require a lot of wave power; 
                        not well understood, though some evidence.

(6) The Energy Channeling / Hot Ion Mode method:  use plasma waves 
to transfer alpha-particle fusion power directly to the fuel ions; 
reduces fraction of available pressure used by alpha particles and 
electrons, allowing increased ion density and thus increased fusion 
reactivity.
        Advantage:  another possible factor of 2; may be able to
                        use same wave as in Transport Suppression
        Disadvantage:  has not been tested experimentally yet, 
                        may need too much wave power


--------------
The last two listed below are distinct from the 5 above,
but still worth having on the list: 
[ In other words, these shouldn't be construed as inherently
worse than the others just because they're at the end. ]

(7) The Alternative Concepts method:  try looking for a device other
than the tokamak which may get you to ignition for less cost.
        Advantage:  could be a lot cheaper/faster/better; a lot
                        of old ideas weren't fully explored.
        Disadvantage:  could just be pie-in-the-sky; hard to think
                        of really new ideas after 40 years.

(8) The unknown idea method:  Some new inspiration may allow much
better control of the plasma.
        Advantage:  Hey, it would be great.    
        Disadvantage:  You can't count on miracles.


Say, would you mind if I posted this message (including your question)
up on the sci.physics.fusion group?

--Bob

 -----------------------------------------------------
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:
cuddy30 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.30 / Jim Bowery /  Re: A conspicuous House Budget Item
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A conspicuous House Budget Item
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 1995 19:15:24 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)


I believe this is the most recent version of the act:

 ------------------------ cut here --------------------------

REPLACEMENT OF
PUBLIC LAW 96-389, sec 3 CHAPTER 101 -- 
FUSION ENERGY ENGINEERING


(Author's note:  For a legislative history and purpose see
1980 U.S. Code Gong. And Adm. News. P. 3336.)

Sec 9301.  Congressional findings and declaration of policy

(a) The Congress hereby finds that --

     (1) the United States and the world would enjoy
enormous and critically needed benefits from the commercial
availability of environmentally clean and virtually
inexhaustible sources of energy;

     (2) in theory, the fusion of light atomic nuclei can
provide the basis for such energy sources;

     (3) the concept of fusion energy based on the
confinement of high temperature plasmas has been the subject
of ongoing government-funded research and development for
over three decades;

     (4) during these decades our understanding of high
temperature plasmas has progressed to the point that, with
appropriate government incentives, the tradition of 
diversity and risk management in our free enterprise system
can expand the frontiers of fusion energy technology at a 
rate far greater and at a cost far lower than centrally
planned programs funded by the government alone;

     (5) progress in fusion energy systems is currently
limited by a the lack of a diversity in technical approaches
being explored;

     (6) to ensure the timely commercialization of fusion
energy systems, the United States Government must create an
environment in which the inherent commercial rewards of
fusion energy technology are leveraged by supplementary
Federal funds so as to motivate many diverse inventors and
investors in the private sector who will freely and rapidly
develop the frontiers of fusion energy technology;

     (7) it is vital that the Federal Government continue
its direct financial support for scientific research in the
physics of high temperature plasmas as this creates
fundamental new knowledge of immense value which cannot be
patented or reasonably treated as intellectual property;

     (8) it is a proper role for the Federal Government to
stimulate accelerated commercial investment in the 
development and demonstration of fusion energy technologies;
and

     (9) the stimulation of commercial investment in the
development of fusion technology can be accelerated through
the award of cash prizes to entrepreneurs achieving
significant technical milestones and the granting of funds
matching those put at risk by private investors.

(b) It is therefore declared to be the policy of the United
States and the purpose of this chapter to stimulate
commercial investment in the development and demonstration
of fusion energy systems and continued scientific research
into the physics of high temperature plasmas.  Further, it
is declared to be the policy of the United States and the
purpose of this chapter that the objectives of such a
program shall be --

     (1) to promote the orderly transition from the current
research and development program to a new one in which the
private sector capabilities and manages risks inherent in the
development and demonstration of fusion energy technologies 
under the disciplined diversity of free enterprise while the
government continues to directly fund plasma physics
research:

     (2) to stimulate private sector investment in fusion
energy technology by awarding substantial prizes for
significant technical achievement and matching private
investment with public grants;

     (3) to, over time, systematically remove public support
for private investment in fusion energy development and
demonstration commensurate with the removal of barriers to
commercial deployment of fusion energy systems;

     (4) to continue international cooperation in plasma
science for the benefit of all nations;

     (5) to give preferential treatment to aneutronic fusion
cycles;

     (6) to give preferential treatment to fusion cycles
that make use of readily available fuels;

     (7) to stimulate the commercial deployment of
competitive fusion energy sources; and

     (8) to demonstrate that United States science in
partnership with commercially financed technology
development and operation continues the tradition of world
leadership in science and technology.


Sec. 9302.  Definitions

For the purposes of this chapter --

     (1) "fusion" means a process whereby two light nuclei,
such as deuterium and tritium, collide, forming a compound
nucleus, which subsequently separates into constituents
which are different from the original colliding nuclei, and
which carry away the accompanying energy release;

     (2) "energy system" means a facility designed to
utilize energy released in the fusion process for the
generation of electricity and the production of hydrogen or
other fuels;

     (3) "Secretary" means Secretary of Energy;

     (4) "scientific research" means activities that
discover knowledge about natural phenomena, which, under
existing statute, cannot be held as intellectual property
via patent;

     (5) "scientific knowledge" means knowledge acquired or
discovered through scientific research;

     (6) "development" means the acquisition of knowledge or
reduction to practice of an invention which does not exist
in nature and which has some practical value or which has 
value as intellectual property under patent law or other
statutes;

     (7) "engineering break-even" means the production, by a
fusion energy device, of a fission burn which consumes at
least 5% of the confined fusion fuel and which produces at 
least twice the energy consumed by the fusion energy device
during the burn;

     (8) "commercial break-even" means the self-sustaining
operation of a fusion energy device by feeding its power
output back to its power input without the need for any
outside energy input except fuel;

     (9) "commonly available" is any fuel whose dollar
(1992) per ounce commercial price multiplied by the number
of tons of plant and equipment required to burn it perl
million watts sustained power production is a quantity less
than 10,000 dollar-tons per megawatt-ounce.

     (10) "energetically aneutronic" means any fuel which,
when burned in a fusion energy system, produces neutron
radiation carrying away less than 10% of the produced
energy;

     (11) "environmentally aneutronic" means any fuel which,
when burned in a fusion energy system, produces neutron
radiation carrying away less than 1% of the produced energy;


Sec. 9303.  Program activities

  (a) Scientific research in areas where lack of knowledge
      limits the development of fusion energy systems;

     (1) The Secretary shall periodically survey commercial
participants in fusion energy technology development or
potential investors in same to determine critical gaps in
scientific knowledge;

     (2) The Secretary shall initiate scientific research
emphasizing gaps in scientific knowledge as determined from
the survey of commercial developers and investors;

     (3) The Secretary shall fully disclose to the public
all discoveries made in the course of government-funded
research under this program;

     (4) The Secretary shall, on an annual basis, convene an
independent panel, no member of which may have received 
Federal funds for fusion-related research or development in
the last 5 years nor served on the panel in the last 5 
years, to review scientific research activities to ensure
Federal plasma physics funds are not being used for
patentable fusion technology development purposes instead of
unpatentable scientific research into plasma physics;

     (5) If the independent review panel determines an
activity is development rather than research, the Federal
funds used for such development must be repaid to the United
States Treasury to reduce the federal debt;

     (6) Physicists receiving income from government-funded
fusion energy research or development prior to the enactment
of this legislation are to be awarded an annual grant for
the next 5 years equal to their average annual income
derived from Federally-funded fusion energy programs over 
the last 5 years, up to a limit of $60,000(1992) per year,
the purpose of which is to recognize their commitment and
contribution to the field and to aid in their transition to
the new funding environment; and

     (7) Commercial Fusion Enterprises, as defined in
9303.b.1 may enjoin the government from continuing to 
directly fund scientific research in plasma physics which
they believe to be in competition with their efforts to
develop fusion technology.

  (b) The stimulation of commercial investment in fusion
      technology development;

     (1) Any private, for profit, business owned or
controlled by United States persons which is primarily
engaged in the development of fusion technology qualifies as
a Commercial Fusion Enterprise.

     (2) Every U.S. citizen possessing a patent for a fusion
energy system is to be provided with full reimbursement of
all tax-deductible expenses incurred in the pursuit of 
their patent, up to a maximum of $100,000; the purpose of
which is to assist the inventor in the pursuit of private
financing of further development of the patented technology
under the incentives of the current Act.

     (3) Any facility owned or controlled by United States
persons generally used by Commercial Fusion Enterprises and
primarily used for the development of fusion technology
qualifies as a Commercial Fusion Center and also as a
Commercial Fusion Enterprise.

     (4) Commercial Fusion Enterprises shall receive
matching funds from the government for each private
investment they make toward the development of fusion
technology.

     (5) Funds provided by the government, as well as the
private funds they match, shall be used to develop fusion
energy technology.  Failure to use such funds to develop
fusion energy technology shall render the Commercial Fusion
Enterprise liable for such damages and criminal penalties as
are warranted under the existing statutes against securities
fraud currently enforced by the Securities and Exchange 
Commission.

     (6) The first Commercial Fusion Enterprise to
demonstrate engineering break-even shall receive a
$100,000,000 prize from the Fusion Energy Trust Fund, which
is hereby established, and whose contents are to be invested
in 30 year Treasury instruments and whose disbursements are
to be administered by the National Academy of Engineering.

     (7) The first Commercial Fusion Enterprise to 
demonstrate engineering break-even using a cycle burning an
energetically aneutronic fuel shall receive a $100,000,000
prize from the Fusion Energy Trust Fund.

     (8) The first Commercial Fusion Enterprise to
demonstrate engineering break-even using a cycle burning an
environmentally aneutronic fuel shall receive a $100,000,000
prize from the Fusion Energy Trust Fund.

     (9) The first Commercial Fusion Enterprise to 
demonstrate engineering break-even using a cycle
burning a commonly available energetically aneutronic fuel
shall receive a $100,000,000 prize from the Fusion Energy 
Trust Fund.

     (10) The first Commercial Fusion Enterprise to 
demonstrate engineering-break-even using a cycle 
burning a commonly available environmentally aneutronic fuel
shall receive a $100,000,000 prize from the Fusion Energy
Trust Fund.

     (11) The first Commercial Fusion Enterprise to
demonstrate commercial break-even shall receive a
$100,000,000 prize from the Fusion Energy Trust Fund.

     (12) The first Commercial Fusion Enterprise to
demonstrate commercial break-even based on a fusion cycle
burning an energetically aneutronic fuel shall receive a 
$100,000,000 prize from the Fusion Energy Trust Fund.

     (13) The first Commercial Fusion Enterprise to
demonstrate commercial break-even based on a fusion cycle
burning an environmentally aneutronic fuel shall receive a 
$100,000,000 prize from the Fusion Energy Trust Fund.

     (14) The first Commercial Fusion Enterprise to 
demonstrate commercial break-even using a cycle burning a 
commonly available energetically aneutronic fuel shall 
receive a $100,000,000 prize from the Fusion Energy Trust 
Fund.

     (15) The first Commercial Fusion Enterprise to 
demonstrate commercial break-even using a cycle burning a 
commonly available environmentally aneutronic fuel shall 
receive a $100,000,000 prize from the Fusion Energy Trust 
Fund.

     (16) The first Commercial Fusion Enterprise to
demonstrate engineering break-even at power densities above
1 million watts per ton of equipment shall receive a 
$100,000,000 prize from the Fusion Energy Trust Fund.

     (17) The first Commercial Fusion Enterprise to
demonstrate commercial break-even at power densities above 1
million watts per ton of equipment shall receive a
$100,000,000 prize from the Fusion Energy Trust fund.

     (18) Interest income on the Fusion Energy Trust Fund
shall be used to increase the value of all prizes according
to the Producer Price Index.  Excess income shall be 
returned to the United States Treasury used to reduce the
national debt.

     (19) One year after this bill becomes law, The 
Secretary shall hold a series of 10 monthly publicly
advertised auctions.  At each auction 10 kilograms of
Helium-3 will be sold to the highest bidder.  The winning
bidder must:

     a) be a Commercial Fusion Enterprise.
     b) not have already won a previous auction.
     c) not have cross-ownership with any other Commercial
Fusion Enterprise that has already won at a previous 
auction.
     d) have a board of directors and officers that do not
overlap with the board of directors and officers of any 
other Commercial Fusion Enterprise that has already won at
a previous auction and;
     e) not have more than 10% of its ownership in common
with any other Commercial Fusion Enterprise that has already
won at a previous auction.

     (20) The Secretary shall make 100 acres of the Nevada
nuclear test range available to Commercial Fusion
Enterprises.  This land shall:

     a) cost no more than $1000 per month to lease per acre,
including all user fees.
     b) be remote enough that the instantaneous release of 1 
gram of tritium gas per month will pose no significant 
health risk to those outside the test range.
     c) be located on land suitable for construction.
     d) have paved access to the center of the 100 acre
area.


Sec. 9304  International cooperation

Scientific research, as defined specifically in this act,
being of a limited and nonproprietary nature, shall be
conducted in a spirit of academic freedom and openness
wherein scientists shall freely cooperate and communicate
with other scientists without regard to national boundaries.
It is the intent of Congress that the State Department take
action to facilitate the free international exchange of such
purely scientific information and work.


Sec. 9305.  Dissemination of information

(a) The Secretary shall take all necessary steps to assure
all scientific knowledge relevant to fusion is made readily
available to interested United States persons:  Provided,
however, that upon a showing to the Secretary by any person
that any information or portion thereof provided to the
Secretary directly or indirectly from such person would, if
made public, divulge (1) trade secrets or (2) other 
proprietary information of such persons, the Secretary shall
not disclose such information and disclosure thereof shall
be punishable under section 1905 of Title 18.

(b) The Secretary shall maintain an aggressive program in
the United States for the provision of public information
and educational materials to promote widespread knowledge of
fusion among educational, community, business, 
environmental, labor, and governmental entities and the
public at large.


Sec. 9306.  Annual report

     As a separate part of the annual report submitted 
pursuant to section 7321 of this title, the Secretary shall
submit to Congress an annual report of activities pursuant
to this chapter.  Such report shall include --

     (a) a list of recent discoveries in plasma
physics as funded under this chapter;

     (b) a list of Commercial Fusion Enterprises, their
levels of capitalization, Fusion Energy Trust Fund prize
applications and Fusion Energy Trust Fund prize awards;

    (c) an analysis of the progress made in commercializing
fusion technology; and

    (d) suggestions for improvements in the national
fusion program, including recommendations for legislation.


Sec. 9307.  Authorization of appropriations; contract 
authority

     There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1993,
such sums as are provided in the annual authorization Act
pursuant to section 7270 of this title.

 ------------------------ cut here --------------------------


-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
                 Change the tools and you change the rules.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.30 / Bruce Scott /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce D. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: 30 Jul 1995 19:46:07 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

Paul Budnik (paul@mtnmath.mtnmath.com) wrote:

[...]

:                                             We have a perfectly
: good fusion reactor conveniently delivering to us more energy than
: we could ever safely use and that is far more reliable than anything
: we will ever be able to build on earth. It is located at a safe
: distance of 93 million miles so we do not have to worry about the
: radioactive products it creates.

Having deleted the first sentence, I heartily agree with this rest.
Unfortunately, there is a good reason why this won't work for most
countries:  too many people, and the attendant demands on land use.

And I heartily doubt that Rohrbacher has any high-level principles in
mind when going after the physics in fusion but saving ITER.  What do
they think will happen when (not if) it doesn't perform as expected?
Only the NASA performance of saving the Space Station is worse.


--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott                                The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.30 / Tim Hollebeek /  Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
     
Originally-From: tim@handel.Princeton.EDU (Tim Hollebeek)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
Date: 30 Jul 1995 18:44:47 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <tomkDCJA30.EL3@netcom.com>,
Thomas H. Kunich <tomk@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <3vfpdc$eog@keknews.kek.jp>, Ben Bullock <ben@theory5.kek.jp> wrote:
>This string reminds me that some people aren't willing to accept the
>responsibilities of those freedoms. To argue with Plutonium is one
>thing, to ignore him has been my choice. But to try and silence him in
>this manner is a pretty discusting trick.

Dartmouth is footing the bill for his net access, and most likely the
computers his posts originate at.  They have a right to know what they
are paying for, and terminate his access if they disapprove of what he
uses it for.  I don't see where free speech figures into tho.
-- 
Tim Hollebeek        |"What is love? 'tis not hereafter; Present mirth hath
PChem Grad Student   |present laughter; What's to come is still unsure: In
Princeton University |delay there lies no plenty; Then come kiss me, sweet and
 --------------------|twenty, Youth's a stuff will not endure." -Twelfth Night
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudentim cudfnTim cudlnHollebeek cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.30 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Hot Fusion:  Challenges and Approaches
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce D. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hot Fusion:  Challenges and Approaches
Date: 30 Jul 1995 20:10:53 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

Bob, I notice something very conspicuous about your suggestions:

: (1) The ITER method:  

: (2) The Shaping method:  

: (3) The Profile Control method:  

: (4) The Low Aspect-Ratio method (NSTX):  

: (5) The Transport Suppression method:  

: (6) The Energy Channeling / Hot Ion Mode method:  

: (7) The Alternative Concepts method:  

: (8) The unknown idea method:  

Except for "the ITER method", all of these will be better addressed
computationally before a major restructuring in terms of hardware is
committed.  By about five years, or maybe less, transport in confined,
magnetised plasmas will have ceased to be a mystery, and I don't just
mean tokamaks (in which the two-dimensional character of the geometry is
a real bonus for computations).  We will have sufficient power to test
known transport physics via direct simulation in all of the different
configurations people have dreamed up and explore various ways to
externally control profiles and magnetic geometry.  Then, not now, is
the time to think of designing a reactor.

This is the reason I've been saying since the very beginning that ITER
is premature.  Worse, it has a chance to kill fusion as a viable program
for good.

--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott                                The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.30 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: 30 Jul 1995 21:04:23 GMT
Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here.

Kevin Fultz (kevinf@sequent.com) wrote:

: And I think you will find that the price of photovoltaics is about 3
: orders of magnitude higher than asphalt.  

What's the worlds' processing capacity of silicon?


: kevinf@sequent.com


cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.30 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: Solar-panelled highways
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Solar-panelled highways
Date: 30 Jul 1995 21:07:02 GMT
Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here.

Robin van Spaandonk (rvanspaa@netspace.net.au) wrote:
: If current solar panels had a transparent backing, instead of opaque,
: how much light would they allow to pass? I suspect quite a lot, given
: that only about 25% is converted into electrical energy. Granted much
: of the remainder is converted to heat, but a good portion of this
: would be due to the opaque backing.
: (If I'm making a complete fool of myself again, I'm sure you will all
: let me know. :-)

It's quite a trick to make transparent backings that somehow manage to
suck up all of the light and turn it into electricity.

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.30 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: Combustion - New Energy Source
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Combustion - New Energy Source
Date: 30 Jul 1995 21:16:59 GMT
Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here.

david rogers (rogersda@direct.ca) wrote:

: New Gas Turbines will be introduced next year in N. America which
will be 10-15% more efficient and Dams will no
: longer compete on price. I did the calculation and switching from
: Dams to Natural Gas Turbines to generate electricity wil DOUBLE CO2
: emissions in BC alone.

: It became so obvious to me NOn-Combustible energy production is
: perhaps the key to our very survival. The new energy source needs be
: economic, safe, non-polluting and immediate ( i.e. like striking
: a match ).

: Is there someone out there who can solve this?

Yeah, it's called nuclear fission.  

: David. 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.30 / Patrick Esch /  Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
     
Originally-From: vanesch@dice2.desy.de (Patrick P. E. Esch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
Date: 30 Jul 1995 21:38:46 GMT
Organization: DESY

Ben Bullock (ben@theory5.kek.jp) wrote:
: Barry Merriman (barry@starfire.ucsd.edu) wrote:


: What I *know* is that his recent posts were extremely offensive, being
: bigoted, obscene and racist.  What I *do* *not* *know* is whether he
: is mentally ill or not.  Let us, if we choose to complain about
: Plutonium's activities, stick to matters of *clearly* *verifiable*
: *facts*, such as the racist, bigoted obscenity found in his posts,
: instead of complaining on the basis of unsupported speculations as to
: his mental health condition.

: In summary, I request that you complain about *facts*.  Do not
: complain on the basis of *unsupported* *speculations*, however likely
: they may be.



Ben, I highly estimate you as a physicist, but sometimes, you make
me nervous.  I don't know what Pu wrote.  I don't know because
he's in my killfile since years.  So the only annoying things that
clutter up sci.physics is all these silly reactions to the random
bitstreams coming from the Darthmouth usenet server.
You guys are supposed to be intelligent people.  So behave like
that, put all the crazy weasels on this board in a killfile and
don't react on them.  Then I don't have to read that bullshit either.

cheers,
Patrick.
: --
: 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

--
---
Patrick Van Esch
http://www.iihe.ac.be/hep/pp/vanesch
mail:   vanesch@dice2.desy.de
for PGP public key: finger vanesch@dice2.desy.de
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenvanesch cudfnPatrick cudlnEsch cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.30 / 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: 30 Jul 1995 21:46:37 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3vggjl$67f@newsbf02.news.aol.com> mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353)  
writes:
> Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) wrote:
> 

> >
> >The reason for the discrepancy is that you keep confusing
> >the energy of the transition
> >         (midfrequency Eo = E2-E1= deltaE)
> >with the half-width of the output spectrum. 
> >           delta-E = natural linewidth in freq space
> >
> > It is that latter to which the uncertainty principle relates.
> >

I agree entirely, and never said otherwise. The point is, the two
are commonly comparable.

> >That error is the reason you get silly numbers.
> >You keep putting in the former definition because it gives
> >you numbers like <<10^-21 which you like because it helps
> >your vaporcriticisms of cold fusion.
> >  

No, I am not even making a criticism of cold fusion here.

I put in the former because it is the only energy scale
available without particular information about the transition
process. I noted that under special circumstances the
times can be much longer. Generically, its not, and it
will never be on a faster timescale than that.


> >But now, as you discuss above,  the wrong calculations 
> >are off, and so you then ask for help with your 10^6 magnitude
> >error.   
> >
> >Notice that if you put in the right numbers the relationship
> >between the natural line width and lifetime remains 
> >correct and of the proper magnitude.

Good. That _partially_ answers my question---I.e. the question was why 
the transition times were 10^6 times longer than those suggested by 
Eo above, and your answer is that the line width of these transitions
is << Eo. Makes perfect sense to me. But, it really means I should
clarify the question to be: 

Why are these particular nuclear transitions lines so narrow relative 
to the transition energies. I gather the answer is that they 
are mediated by EM force and not the strong force. Can you clarify this?
 
> >
> >Good luck on your studies and hot fusion.

Good luck on your studies and cold fusion.

--
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 
------------------------------
1995.07.30 / A Plutonium /  Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
Date: 30 Jul 1995 23:47:47 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <3vgabj$kek@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
sarfatti@ix.netcom.com (Jack Sarfatti) writes:

> The best way for Ben to try to salvage his position is to publically
> apologize to Plutonium for any insults.  This does not imply any
> acceptance of Plutonium's ideas however.

  Well said Jack. If Ben apologizes publicly to me, cease and desist
from posting Crackpot FAQ, and never posts regarding me, I too will
never mention or hint of Ben Bullock nor any other members of the KEK
team. We all know deep down that this whole thing is just a waste of
valuable time from what we should be doing ----- physics
   If Ben continues to name me or hint of my name as a crackpot or
smears my name I will feel at full liberty to cover sci.physics with
KEK names as veritable movie stars in many Neaderthal Park movies.
   BTW, Jack, I think you were just making fun of Wilson in California,
but I am not laughing for I tend to see Calif politics as creative and
leading the rest of the nation. I really appreciate what California is
doing for air quality and air pollution. I would like to revisit
California before I pass off into the next life and see SF, SD with
electric cars and air as clean as here in Dartmouth.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.31 / Walter R /  LOOK OUT !...NEUTRON NOT EXISTS IN ATOM
     
Originally-From: "Walter E.R. Cassani" <cassani@Linux.InfoSquare.it>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: LOOK OUT !...NEUTRON NOT EXISTS IN ATOM
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 01:51:54 +0200
Organization: Comm 2000 - Milan, Italy



Yes, a new model shows that Neutron exists only out the nucleous.

Albert was right, a new, more complete, causal, theory is born.

This is: The Wave Theory of the Field.

It is available in  <<  http://www.inet.it/cassani/index.html  >> 

The INDEX of  "The Wave Theory of the Field" is:

LETTER
The Letter contains the provocatory announce that : " a new, unitary 
Wave Theory, for justification of masses and fields, is born ".
The original idea coming from : "Il Campo Unificato" -Robota srl-.
(The Unified Field) published 10/09/84 in Milan -Italy-

ABSTRACT
It contains arguments of the book translation, published 
in Italy in 1989, entitled " La Teoria Ondulatoria del Campo ",
more widely treated in the next book in 1994:
"Albert Aveva Ragione - DIO NON GIOCA A DADI"
"Albert Was Right - GOD DON'T PLAY DICE".


INTRODUCTION
It shows the concept of space-time, that qualify the actual model
of space-time continuum, to clarify the idea that everybody
form about it, in order to define new ideas to create a " discrete " 
model of space-time.

PERTURBATION OF SCHILD'S DISCRETE SPACE-TIME
It shows the nature and properties of a Schild's discrete space-time, 
that can be interpreted like waves of perturbations of its own metrical 
structure, and can be read like perturbations of a new, plausible, 
discrete, metrical " Ether ".

WAVE HYPOTHESIS OF THE MASS FIELDS
Starting from equality of two energies: Einstein's energy  E = m c^2  
and  Planck's energy  E = h v, we make the hypothesis that all 
subatomic particles are elementary sources of spherical waves that, 
in complex, constitute all spherical fields ascribing to particles.

WAVE MOMENTUM
With this elementary waves we discover a new law for elementary
interaction light - particle that involve a simple symmetry principle.

ENERGY AND ITS VARIATIONS
Where we discover the real variation's nature of Photon, and the 
relation between elementary waves and De Broglie waves. 

THE RELATIVE SYMMETRY PRINCIPLE
This simple and elementary symmetry principle constitutes the
unique law that regulates the four interactions, that unify, under a 
omnicomprensive vision, Quantum Mechanics and all other 
physical dynamics.

THE INERTIA'S WAVE NATURE
We discover that, the wave nature of masses, and the variation's
nature of Relative Symmetry Principle, conduces to consider
the Inertia like natural and " local " consequence bodies' wave structure.

THE WAVE NATURE OF QUANTUM GRAVITY
It appens that, the same model of the variation's nature of the 
Relative Symmetry Principle, applied to Inertia, results an extraordinary
consequent model to describe a Wave Quantum Gravity interaction.

TERMINAL VELOCITIES FOR MASSES
The exclusive wave nature of bodies, and the space-time
quantization, displays the impossibility for masses to surpass 
the velocity of own waves, that move at light velocity, and to reduce 
its wavelength, for Doppler effect, under the "discrete" length. 

THE FIFTH INTERACTION
Because impossibility to return at continuum space-time concept,
we can comprehend impossibility to reduce a wavelength, that 
describes bodies' mass, to infinitesimal. And consequently,  
we can understand existence of a Fifth Repulsive Interaction 
that acts with more evidence in cosmological field, between 
the maxi-bodies, and prevent any indiscriminate increase of masses.  

WAVE INTERPRETATION OF GENERAL RELATIVITY
An unexpected, simple completion of General Relativity discovers
the inevitable, causal connection with Quantum Mechanics, realizing
the dream so long time pursued from Albert.

WAVE DESCRIPTION OF THE COMPTON EFFECT
With the wave interpretation of experimental data, derived from Compton
effect, we immediately show possibilities, verifying the Relative Symmetry
Principle's capacities, applying the new unification between QM and GR.

WAVE MODEL OF ELECTRON AND PROTON
A new extrapolation of Compton effect, conduces to discover an 
extraordinary resonance's wave mechanism, that allows to verify the 
possible existence of a creative wave's system, so far called : " particle ".

WAVE CREATION OF PAIRS
The generalization of the same extraordinary resonance's wave mechanism
allows to justify the phenomenon of creation of pairs.

WAVE INTERPRETATION OF THE LORENTZ FORCE
The application of a dynamical orientation, for the same wave mechanism
that we identify with particle, shows that happens wen it is submitted 
to magnetic field, showing that the Lorentz force is a consequence of 
Doppler relativistic effect of particle's oriented wave system.

THE WAVE NATURE OF ELECTRIC CHARGE
The geometrical analysis, of the "discrete", shows that particle's wave 
structure presents the characteristics, that we have so far justified and
quantified with the electrical charge concept.   

THE VECTORIAL DESCRIPTION OF PARTICLES
The specularity of the pairs' creation allows to consider the opposition
particle - antiparticle, that conduces to justify the electromagnetic
interactions like violations of characteristic  " chirality's properties " 
of the wave mechanism - particles.

THE PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVE ISOTROPY
From the VECTORIAL description of the wave mechanism - particles
we can justify existence of one principle of relative isotropy
that comprehends in a generalization the Relative Symmetry Principle.

STATISTICAL POSSIBILITIES FOR CREATION 
OF SINGLES PARTICLES
We deduce from quantification of statistical possibilities, inherent 
in geometrical wave structures, to overlap particle-antiparticle, 
in annihilation phenomena, from which we can concept 
a causal wave chain to create matter in elementary particles. 

MASS DEFECT AND WAVE NUCLEAR FORCE
The comparation, to nuclear distances, of two Protons-wave model
show that at distance 1 Fermi the electromagnetic 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.  

THE NEUTRON WAVE MODEL
The different wave structures and interactions between the nucleons
conduces to consider a new possibility for a Neutron wave model.

BETA DECAY IN WAVE MODEL
The new wave model shows a causal chain that justify, better that 
actual way, the entire process of Beta Decay and, consequently,
allows the wave nature of Neutrinos.

THE MUON AND PION WAVE MODEL
From wave model of Beta Decay process we can deduce all masses,
charges, energies, spins, and decays of all particles' family.

THE WAVE ATOM
The atom's quantum energy's levels can now be interpreted, like wave
resonance's organizations, of the wave source-electron in resonance's
orbits, that contain and describe integer numbers of Doppler 
wavelength on the specific orbit. 

THE WAVE CONSTANT OF FINE STRUCTURE
The complete, causal comprehension to wave nature, of Constant
of Fine Structure, conclude from presence of  two relativistic Doppler 
wavelength of two waves that move in opposite directions
on the same resonance orbit, that obey to more parameters
that condition their wave resonance states. 

LIGHT LIKE WAVE'S VARIATION 
The final consequence, of existence of resonant orbits and
non resonant orbits for the wave source-electron, that jump between
two different states of resonance, concludes itself with a directional 
wave emission, of a modulation of frequency, that we call : " Photon ".

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

                         Walter E. R. Cassani
**************************************************
                   cassani@linux.infosquare.it

     For FTP of  " The Wave Theory of the Field "
    <<  ftp.infosquare.it  >>  in  pub/theory/ 
     Files: wtf-1.doc , wtf-2.doc  =  1.7 Mb 
     in Microsoft Word 6.
               
 For the Theory in W W Web, with formulae and figures:
      <<   http://www.inet.it/cassani/index.html  >>

**************************************************
 









cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudencassani cudfnWalter cudlnR cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.31 / Harry Conover /  Re: LOOK OUT !...NEUTRON NOT EXISTS IN ATOM
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: LOOK OUT !...NEUTRON NOT EXISTS IN ATOM
Date: 31 Jul 1995 00:53:36 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Walter E.R. Cassani (cassani@Linux.InfoSquare.it) wrote:


: Yes, a new model shows that Neutron exists only out the nucleous.

: Albert was right, a new, more complete, causal, theory is born.

: This is: The Wave Theory of the Field.


Hey, did you guys flunk classical and atomic physics, or what?

                                              Harry C.
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.31 / Johan Wevers /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: johanw@vulcan.xs4all.nl (Johan Wevers)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 02:06:54 +0200
Organization: Vulcan Academy of Sciences

Bruce D. Scott <bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de> wrote:

>What do they think will happen when (not if) it doesn't perform as expected?

Why do you think ITER won't function as expected? It is not that much
larger than JET to expect the scaling laws derived from the smaller
models to be completely useless (although without a solid theoretical
understanding such laws should always be suspected).

--
ir. J.C.A. Wevers          ||    The only nature of reality is physics.
johanw@vulcan.xs4all.nl    ||    http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/index.html
Finger johanw@xs4all.nl for my PGP public key.     PGP-KeyID: 0xD42F80B1
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenjohanw cudfnJohan cudlnWevers cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.31 / Johan Wevers /  Re: NP28JUL95, SEVEN SAMURAI-ettes, Bullock,Sugawara, ... Tanaka,
     
Originally-From: johanw@vulcan.xs4all.nl (Johan Wevers)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion,sci
physics.electromag
Subject: Re: NP28JUL95, SEVEN SAMURAI-ettes, Bullock,Sugawara, ... Tanaka,
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 02:12:51 +0200
Organization: Vulcan Academy of Sciences

Summary: 
Expires: 
References: <3vbhpm$jiu@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Sender: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: Vulcan Academy of Sciences
X-Newsreader: TRN 1.96 (beta) for OS/2
Keywords: 
Cc: 

Archimedes Plutonium <Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu> wrote:

[lengthy personal attack deleted]

Please stick to physics, you're bad enough in that. Don't make it worse.

--
ir. J.C.A. Wevers          ||    The only nature of reality is physics.
johanw@vulcan.xs4all.nl    ||    http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/index.html
Finger johanw@xs4all.nl for my PGP public key.     PGP-KeyID: 0xD42F80B1
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenjohanw cudfnJohan cudlnWevers cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.30 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Nuclear reaction time scales
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear reaction time scales
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 1995 20:15 -0500 (EST)

mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353) writes:
 
-> The strong
-> decay will occur at a rate several orders of magnitude faster than the
-> electromagnetic unless the strong decay is very near threshold (or of
-> course below threshold), which is *not* the case here.
 
This point has been made by several people.  How does one compute the
threshold?  What is the threshold for He4?  I think the answer to this could
be fairly important when discussing alternate decay modes.
 
                                                                marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.31 / Jack Sarfatti /  Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
     
Originally-From: sarfatti@ix.netcom.com (Jack Sarfatti)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
Date: 31 Jul 1995 01:17:37 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3vfpdc$eog@keknews.kek.jp> ben@theory5.kek.jp (Ben Bullock) writes:

>
>Barry Merriman (barry@starfire.ucsd.edu) wrote:
>
>> I don't think Mr. Plutonium needs censureship. I think he needs
>> mental health counceling. Rather than just calling for them to 
>> pull the plug on his account (he could always get access through
>> another provider anyway), I think they should make his continued
>> access conditional on his getting ongoing treatment at the campus
>> mental health clinic. Perhaps that carrot would motivate him to get
the
>> treatment that he clearly needs.
>

>I have no idea whether or not Plutonium is mentally ill.  Although it
>is certainly possible, even likely, that he is mentally ill or suffers
>from some kind of psychologial problem, I would not care to make this
>kind of judgement about him.  Firstly, I am not trained in psychiatry
>or diagnosis of mental illness, secondly I have never met Plutonium,
>and thirdly, even if I was fairly convinced that he was mentally ill
>on the basis of his usenet posts, this would be *speculation* on my
>part.
>
Apparently I have confused Ben with Barry and should not have said BB
called AP "insane". Sorry old chap - but what do you expect from the
World's Worst Physicist other than Harpo Marxist chaos and confusion?  
This really is a Tempest in a Teapot. :-)
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudensarfatti cudfnJack cudlnSarfatti cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.31 / Jack Sarfatti /  Re: SCI PHYSICS CRACKPOTS FAQ
     
Originally-From: sarfatti@ix.netcom.com (Jack Sarfatti)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SCI PHYSICS CRACKPOTS FAQ
Date: 31 Jul 1995 01:28:26 GMT
Organization: Netcom

Hey guys, this is all good material for a Mel Brooks movie about the
Internet.  I am getting a good chuckle reading some of the more recent
exchanges. :-)
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudensarfatti cudfnJack cudlnSarfatti cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.28 / A Plutonium /  Dr. Sugawara, Ben Bullock, and KEK Japan
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Originally-From: Archimedes Plutonium
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Dr. Sugawara, Ben Bullock, and KEK Japan
Subject: Ben Bullock of KEK, Japan
Date: 28 Jul 1995 03:25:32 GMT
Date: 27 Jul 95 23:21:42 EDT
Organization: Plutonium College


MY EMAIL 
Date: 27 Jul 95 23:21:42 EDT
Originally-From: Archimedes Plutonium
Subject: Ben Bullock of KEK, Japan
To: sugawara@director.kek.jp

In article <053341Z24071995@anon.penet.fi>
an211894@anon.penet.fi (Mos Burger) writes:

> Archimedes Plutonium / N: Plutonium whole atom theory / P: utter
> gibberish / S: utter gibberish / C: Plutonium is a dishwasher at
> Dartmouth college.  His educational institution has a policy of giving
> internet access to all employees.  He used to call himself Ludwig
> Plutonium.  Also infests sci.math.

I do not know who this writer is. Another poster suggested it was Ben
Bullock. I suppose someone can run a sort of CIA analysis on the
writing, format, style, choice of words, grammar and indicate with high
probability that it was in fact Ben Bullock. If not him it could be
anyone of these others as highly likely candidates.

ACHERON condemned
ACHERON

Lawrence McKnight
Thomas McCormack
Mike Griffin
Sally Richardson
In article <ue2gic1w165w@fred.com>
aesop@fred.com (aesop)

Travis Stone
Richard D Pierce
Benjamin P. Carter 
Paul S. Carney
Dr Bruce Scott and Art Kotz 

Mats Grahm

In article <2vu8pr$t96@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>
foreman@mth.msu.edu (Brendan Foreman)


Tobias Feaux de Lacroix
David E. Joyce 
John Baez

In article <1994Jan31.112657.21884@math.ucla.edu>
zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny)

Zdislav V. Kovarik

Alan M. Horowitz
Mike Zorn
Daliah Saper
dave@beamlab () 
seanm@sun23.cs.wisc.edu (Sean Mooney) 

Joe Roth <joe.roth@DaytonOH.ATT.COM>

jsan@acca.nmsu.edu (Joe San Filippo) 

Phil Storm

rreiner@clark.net (Ronald Reiner)

John Chandler

hawthorn@waikato.ac.nz

Mark Richardson







STYX condemned
STYX

Dick Adams
Jason Lee
Jason Kodish
Scott Brown
Mike Moroney
David Dixon
Robert J. Harley
Adam Miller
Erik Max Francis

" Path:
dartvax.dartmouth.edu!news.bu.edu!gw1.att.com!csn!tali.hsc.colorado.edu!

argos.HSC.Colorado.EDU!QUARK "

Jason V Robertson
Marilyn Vos Savant
Ben Bullock@KEK


Joel Polowin

In article <CrCx7v.BL7@acsu.buffalo.edu>
bandy-s@acsu.buffalo.edu (Graviton)

Michael Moroney

Andrew Bajorinas

David Erwin

Barry Merriman

David Delaney, Craig Dickson, Michele Tepper

Ben Bullock

Robert Charles Mahar
Steve Price
David Kastrup

Jeffrey N. Woodford to Styx, Atom
elbert-chang@nwu.edu (Elbert I. Chang)

 dtlu38@quads.uchicago.edu (D. T.K. Lu)
Mario Luoni, Hitachi Central Research Lab

Douglas J. Zare

Carl J Lydick

Matthew A Lewis
*******************************************

  But I suspect it is Ben Bullock as another poster indicated. And so,
I am tired of this hate  mail. 

  So I am going to raise the stakes higher. For I can only
pragmatically ignore hatred to the point where I can no longer ignore
it and must act. I cannot believe that a real physics person can spend
so much time on Internet drivelling like a rabid dog with "hatred".
That must consume more energy out of the person than to do actual
physics. So, Ben Bullock may be a computer robot set-up. 

  But this much is clear. From, "International Research Centers
Directory 1996-1997" was an entry. And I quote

" National Laboratory for High Energy Physics, Dr. Hirotaka Sugawara,
Dir. Gen.  E-mail  sugawara@director.kek.jp

Organizational Notes: founded 1971. Present organization in the
Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, Tokyo. Staff 342 research
professionals, 110 supporting professionals, 196 technicians, and 3
others. "
---- end of quote ----

  I am emailing this post to Dr. Sugawara, immediately after I post it
to the Internet. 

   I want Ben Bullock to never, ever mention or refer to me in a
negative way on the Internet or World Wide Web. This WWW connection of
hate post has riled me. 

   This post will expire off the Internet in 4 days. When it expires
and if Ben Bullock or the computer set up in that name continues with
hate mail towards Archimedes Plutonium. Well then, one by one I feel no
bones in condemning real live known persons connected to 
> Ben Bullock @ KEK (National Lab. for High Energy Physics)
>               1-1 Oho, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, JAPAN : tel. 0298 64 5401

 Simple, escalate the hate posts, and I escalate the condemnations to
hell, Styx that is

  Simple, never mention my name in a hatred or negative post, and I not
you. Simple as that

This post sent via email to Dr. Sugawara at a approx the same time as
this Internet post GMT
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.28 / A Plutonium /  Re: SCI PHYSICS CRACKPOTS FAQ
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SCI PHYSICS CRACKPOTS FAQ
Date: 28 Jul 1995 03:20:39 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <053341Z24071995@anon.penet.fi>
an211894@anon.penet.fi (Mos Burger) writes:

> Archimedes Plutonium / N: Plutonium whole atom theory / P: utter
> gibberish / S: utter gibberish / C: Plutonium is a dishwasher at
> Dartmouth college.  His educational institution has a policy of giving
> internet access to all employees.  He used to call himself Ludwig
> Plutonium.  Also infests sci.math.

I do not know who this writer is. Another poster suggested it was Ben
Bullock. I suppose someone can run a sort of CIA analysis on the
writing, format, style, choice of words, grammar and indicate with high
probability that it was in fact Ben Bullock. If not him it could be
anyone of these others as highly likely candidates.

ACHERON condemned
ACHERON

Lawrence McKnight
Thomas McCormack
Mike Griffin
Sally Richardson
In article <ue2gic1w165w@fred.com>
aesop@fred.com (aesop)

Travis Stone
Richard D Pierce
Benjamin P. Carter 
Paul S. Carney
Dr Bruce Scott and Art Kotz 

Mats Grahm

In article <2vu8pr$t96@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>
foreman@mth.msu.edu (Brendan Foreman)


Tobias Feaux de Lacroix
David E. Joyce 
John Baez

In article <1994Jan31.112657.21884@math.ucla.edu>
zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny)

Zdislav V. Kovarik

Alan M. Horowitz
Mike Zorn
Daliah Saper
dave@beamlab () 
seanm@sun23.cs.wisc.edu (Sean Mooney) 

Joe Roth <joe.roth@DaytonOH.ATT.COM>

jsan@acca.nmsu.edu (Joe San Filippo) 

Phil Storm

rreiner@clark.net (Ronald Reiner)

John Chandler

hawthorn@waikato.ac.nz

Mark Richardson







STYX condemned
STYX

Dick Adams
Jason Lee
Jason Kodish
Scott Brown
Mike Moroney
David Dixon
Robert J. Harley
Adam Miller
Erik Max Francis

" Path:
dartvax.dartmouth.edu!news.bu.edu!gw1.att.com!csn!tali.hsc.colorado.edu!

argos.HSC.Colorado.EDU!QUARK "

Jason V Robertson
Marilyn Vos Savant
Ben Bullock@KEK


Joel Polowin

In article <CrCx7v.BL7@acsu.buffalo.edu>
bandy-s@acsu.buffalo.edu (Graviton)

Michael Moroney

Andrew Bajorinas

David Erwin

Barry Merriman

David Delaney, Craig Dickson, Michele Tepper

Ben Bullock

Robert Charles Mahar
Steve Price
David Kastrup

Jeffrey N. Woodford to Styx, Atom
elbert-chang@nwu.edu (Elbert I. Chang)

 dtlu38@quads.uchicago.edu (D. T.K. Lu)
Mario Luoni, Hitachi Central Research Lab

Douglas J. Zare

Carl J Lydick

Matthew A Lewis
*******************************************

  But I suspect it is Ben Bullock as another poster indicated. And so,
I am tired of this hate  mail. 

  So I am going to raise the stakes higher. For I can only
pragmatically ignore hatred to the point where I can no longer ignore
it and must act. I cannot believe that a real physics person can spend
so much time on Internet drivelling like a rabid dog with "hatred".
That must consume more energy out of the person than to do actual
physics. So, Ben Bullock may be a computer robot set-up. 

  But this much is clear. From, "International Research Centers
Directory 1996-1997" was an entry. And I quote

" National Laboratory for High Energy Physics, Dr. Hirotaka Sugawara,
Dir. Gen.  E-mail  sugawara@director.kek.jp

Organizational Notes: founded 1971. Present organization in the
Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, Tokyo. Staff 342 research
professionals, 110 supporting professionals, 196 technicians, and 3
others. "
---- end of quote ----

  I am emailing this post to Dr. Sugawara, immediately after I post it
to the Internet. 

   I want Ben Bullock to never, ever mention or refer to me in a
negative way on the Internet or World Wide Web. This WWW connection of
hate post has riled me. 

   This post will expire off the Internet in 4 days. When it expires
and if Ben Bullock or the computer set up in that name continues with
hate mail towards Archimedes Plutonium. Well then, one by one I feel no
bones in condemning real live known persons connected to 
> Ben Bullock @ KEK (National Lab. for High Energy Physics)
>               1-1 Oho, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, JAPAN : tel. 0298 64 5401

 Simple, escalate the hate posts, and I escalate the condemnations to
hell, Styx that is

  Simple, never mention my name in a hatred or negative post, and I not
you. Simple as that

This post sent via email to Dr. Sugawara at a approx the same time as
this Internet post GMT
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.29 / Jack Sarfatti /  Re: CRACKPOTS FAQ - REVISED VERSION
     
Originally-From: sarfatti@ix.netcom.com (Jack Sarfatti)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion,sci.math
Subject: Re: CRACKPOTS FAQ - REVISED VERSION
Date: 29 Jul 1995 06:20:45 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3vbaha$ed@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu
(Archimedes Plutonium) writes: 
>
>In article <453000319wnr@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
>Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>> This thread, which started off as a light-hearted dig at a few 
>> well-known characters on this group, has got nasty. I don't know who

>> originated it, and I don't think anyone else does.
>
> You may as well get used to it now, the Internet  will be used for
>ACCOUNTIBILTY, ACCOUNTABILITY. People will be hired or fired based on
>their Internet exposer. I have it in mind to start a petition to ease 
>out Ben Bullock and Barry Merriman from their present jobs to ones
>should I say that "more closely fits their ambitions and aptitude".
>Something like the side-window attendant at MacDonalds hamburger
shops.
>Anyone want to start a petition here on Internet to be submitted to
the
>bosses respective of Ben Bullock and Barry Merriman?
>
>      Ben Bullock   (for)   (against)   (abstain)   (disdain)
>      Barry Merriman  (for retaining present job) (against retaining
>present job)  (for revoking Internet priveleges for an entire year)
>
>  Personally if Barry or Ben owned a dog, I doubt that their dogs
would
>vote favorably for them?

Well Archimedes waxes quite eloquent and with some lucidity when
peaked. :-)
>
>   Get used to the Internet, what you post can be eternally held
>against you. And as I remarked before, that perhaps 50% of the
regulars
>to Usenet have now eliminated their chances of ever being high
>political figure, because their posts evince their bigotry and
>prejudices and plain dumb stupidity.

Here I beg to differ, are not bigotry, prejudice and plain dumb
stupidity exactly the central qualities of many a successful politician
- take our Governor Pete Wilson, for example, on Prop 187 and
affirmative action.  How about Ben and Barry for the Republican ticket?

>   Alot of these newsweeklies have a weekly article about the
Internet,
>and I am thinking of New Scientist especially. But their evaluation of
>the Internet misses the big point. The big issue is not freedom of
>speech, or superhighway of news. The big issue is accountability.
Never
>before in Earths history have so many people and organizations been
>held accountable. That is the big deal of the INTERNET, it is
>ACCOUNTABILITY


Geez - Archimedes- why don't you run for office? I can imagine the
crowds cheering as they Goose Step to the polls ACCOUNTABILITY!
ACCOUNTABILITY! ... Maybe Michael Jackson should do a new video called
ACCOUNTABILITY! It has a sinister ring.  I have heard it before in the
Weimar Republic perhaps? :-)
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudensarfatti cudfnJack cudlnSarfatti cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.28 / 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: 28 Jul 1995 04:37:31 GMT
Organization: Netcom


I would like to comment on a portion of a "flame", I received by EMAIL
from a professor at a large Midwestern U.S. college, regarding my 
"cycle" theory as it indicates that even some learned people misunderstand 
how time and cycles are related.

>My opinion of your cycles stuff is that inverse time (cycles) is not
>any more or less fundamental than normal time.  Your opinion that 
>that cycles are more fundamental is a philosophical judgement which
>has no bearing on the way nature actually does things.

The point that must be understood is that although cycles can be
expressed in inverse time, inverse time and cycles are not the same.
A cycle is a "quantum" whereas inverse time is a "real number".

If the universe is in fact quantum, then cycles are in fact more
fundamental than inverse time. If, as the professor indicates,
cycles are not more fundamental than time ( Or inverse time which
he mistakenly indicates is the same as cycles. ), then we should
scrap quantum mechanics.

It is my perception that "nature actually does things" in a quantum way.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.28 / A Plutonium /  NP28JUL95, SEVEN SAMURAI-ettes, Bullock,Sugawara, ... Tanaka,
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion,sci
physics.electromag
Subject: NP28JUL95, SEVEN SAMURAI-ettes, Bullock,Sugawara, ... Tanaka,
Date: 28 Jul 1995 20:37:10 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

 NEANDERTHAL PARK 28July1995  The Seven Samurai-ettes MOVIE

          Nyanko Sensei 
          Nao Nojiri 
          Hajime Aoki 
          Michio Ikehara 
          Nobuyuki Ishibashi 
          Yasuhiro Okada 
          Jun-ichi Kamoshita 
          Toshiya Kawai 
          Hikaru Kawai 
          Makoto Kobayashi 
          Naoki Sasakura 
          Yasuhiro Shimizu 
          Robert Szalapski 
          Hirotaka Sugawara 
          Hiroyuki Takata 
          Minoru Tanaka 
          Masaharu Tanabashi 
          Seong-Youl Choi 
          Asato Tsuchiya 
          Takayuki Nakajima 
          Jun Nishimura 
          Mihoko M. Nojiri 
          Kaoru Hagiwara 
          Machiko Hatsuda 
          Ken-ji Hamada 
          N. D. Hari Dass 
          Ben K. Bullock 
          Seiji Matsumoto 
          Kenji Mohri 
          Tsuguo Mogami 
          Takeo Moroi 
          Youichi Yamada 
          Yuriko Takei 
          Masanori Okawa 
          Satsuki Oda 
          Yoshinobu Kuramashi 
          Yoshimasa Kurihara 
          Yoshimitsu Shimizu 
          Hideyuki Suzuki 
          Noritsugu Tsuda 
          Hiroyuki Hagura 
          Shoji Hashimoto 
          Junpei Fujimoto 
          Tetsuyuki Yukawa 
          Brian E. Hanlon 

  SETTING, ancient Japan in the time of the seven samurai and KEK. Show
KEK compared to machines that really work in Europe. Say, has  Hirotaka
Sugawara found the spout where to fill the machine with gasoline yet?? 

  The above should each be given Saki profiles, not unlike Dewars
profiles
Here is an example of 1 Saki profile:

    BEN BULLOCK: smokes Camels, snores when sleeping with Junpei
Fujimoto. Keeps his pockets full of change just to jingle them all day
long irritating everyone around him. Has the manners of a wild boar,
but then Ben is not Japanese either. Tried to wed  Mihoko M. Nojiri but
called off due to interracialness. Is now going steady with Brian E.
Hanlon. Nicknames: Bent Buttock. Favorite food : summer shorts and
likes to cook lobster, not that Ben eats lobster but that at a
precocious age Bent figured out that there was no Lobster God and so
goes into lobster cooking just for the fun of seeing lobster boiled to
death.


   Setting for the MOVIE Seven Samurai-ettes is KEK Japan .  Show alot
of machinery in background
   Opening scene shows the Seven Samurai-ettes with the tools of their
trade, plying their trade, their ding dongs or one eyed snake

   Show Ben Bullock display his one eyed snake in a duel with Samurai
warrior Sugawara
   Ben jabs forward

   Tanaka with a hump grunt moves back and screechs like a wild macau
monkey

   Kobayashi shouting in Chinese " dawne lum pow dawne soo sum pow "
(meaning shoot your cannons with 3 or 4 squirts)

   The final scene like the scene in THE HIGHLANDER sword fight, but
remember the Samurai-ettes conquered Japan with their one eyed snakes

   Ben to Sugawara plugs up any holes

   Sugawara stumbling and backing up into the KEK heavy equipment
machinery

   Sugawara jabs it into Ben's Buttock  (canned cheers in background
showing pretty geisha gals untarnished by decadent West blue jeans)

   Ben shouts," ouwwee do that again" in English of course

   Tanaka comes close to Ben and gooses him, not once but three times

   "OUUWWEE,  owueuu    

    Sugawara is close to the fatal jab to Ben, not just a goose or a
grope


    Climax,  do we have climax??  Action camera

   Sugawara pulls it out and squirts it all over Ben's face

   Show close-ups and stop stills of Ben's face covered in that sticky
white ....

   Sugawara looks at Kobayashi and says in English "no this is not Star
Trek kobayashi muru" "You moron, this is Japan not Hollywood

   Kobayashi to Ben in Chinese "dawny soo sum poo?"

   Ben to Kobayashi, no, his cannons squirted four times into my face

   Kawai to Ben, ahsoo, ahsoo, ahsoo, backing away and bowing, but
white man's face goes good with white goo


Please stay tuned for more episodes of Ben Bullock the charging
Bullcock or Buttock on this same fine TV listening channel, parental
disgression where 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.27 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Marshall Dudley hyhpothesis
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Marshall Dudley hyhpothesis
Date: 27 Jul 1995 22:55:55 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <3ugiiv$4be@agate.berkeley.edu> schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu
(Richard Schultz) writes:

  > Dick Blue has already addressed the thermal neutron problem in general,
  > but there is another problem that you have overlooked.  Palladium does
  > have several isotopes, true.  But of them, adding a neutron to 
  > 102Pd, 106Pd, 108Pd, and 110Pd, which together account for about two-
  > thirds of the Pd nuclei in the sample, will yield a *radioactive*
  > nucleus whose breakdown will yield inter alia gamma rays with known
  > energies.

    Yes, and no.  Most of the decay pathways involve beta emission,
and any "signature" gammas are either in the 10's of KV range or broad
spectrum from the beta decay.  If you look for this path, you need to
look for low intensity gammas...

 > So once again there would be high energy radiation with a known
 > spectrum -- and we all know that that doesn't happen.  Unless you
 > are proposing some kind of mechanism that will transfer the
 > neutrons only to 104Pd and 105Pd and not yield excited product
 > nuclei.

    Detecting the gammas from this would be pretty hard, as they
wouldn't penetrate most CF set-ups, and wouldn't result in residual
radioactivity.  The thing to look for are changes in isotope ratios,
and Silver.  There was one paper at the Second? Cold Fusion conference
that did just that...

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.28 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion
Date: 28 Jul 1995 22:39:26 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <-2107952159370001@ip-salem2-22.teleport.com> Charles Cagle,
singtech@teleport.com writes:
>> 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.  
>
>Can we let this statement pass?  Robert, Robert, Robert.  Where were you
>when the conservation of momentum law was taught in your physics class?  

What makes you so sure it wasn't phrased that way intentionally? :)
>
>Can you actually believe you wrote this?

That was pretty silly, wasn't it?  But how come no one else caught it?
Is this group really that mindless?  Obviously if there are two
products and total momentum is taken to be zero (center of mass
frame of reference) then both particles must have equal and
opposite momentum.  However, because energy goes like mv^2
and momentum is only mv, this means the lighter particle
will have higher velocity, and therefore much greater energy.

 -----------------------------------------------------
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:
cuddy28 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter 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 02:39:28 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <3v3l0s$38i@soenews.ucsd.edu>
barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:

> You don't seem to get it----Arch.Pu. adopted that name, and
> espouses a religion based on Plutonium, because he is a nut.
> I can't diagnose what mental illness he has, but that he
> has one is fairly clear.
> 
> 
> --
> Barry Merriman
> UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
> UCLA Dept. of Math
> bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)

 In 1994, I condemned Barry Merriman to Styx for his continuing hate
posts. In many cases the hate mail ceases after a person is condemned.
I don't know what happens but it seems to stop. And when a person is
condemned to Styx or Acheron, I cease to want to read or know anything
about the person. Yesterday I opened up sci.physics to see that the
main agenda in the group was the topic of "crackpot". Now that does not
surprize me for the majority of conversation or discussion between
people, no matter what the subject is, is negative conversation, people
running down other people or things. Rare is it that someone is
optimistic and building.

   And to see that Ben Bullock has reached new heights of hate
postings. Reminding me of Barry Merriman hate posts. Barry seems to
persist in trying to label me as insane. I have too many projects of
"building" to waste time on these negative people with their negative
attitudes. And it shows that academic circles have their fair share of
negative type of people. 
 And sure enough I looked through sci.physics to see if Barry has made
some further hate posts remarking about my mental health. And sure
enough Barry has done that.   Well, then, today I am fed up with the
likes of the Ben Bullock's and the Barry Merriman's of this world. It
seems that these two are so persistent that I must raise the stakes
higher.
  So then, to perhaps stop this Barry hate insanity escalation, I raise
the stakes further. 
  For one, perhaps Barry Merriman is not a person but a computer
set-up. That would make sense since the persistence of his hate posts
seems to indicate that this is not a real person but a computer set-up
to ceaselessly torment. And the end title looks fishy, UCLA dept of
Math. I doubt that there is a math professor from UCLA with the name of
Barry Merriman. If Barry Merriman is just a robot, then the person/s in
charge of that robot have been already condemned to Styx. I am going to
find out who is the chair of the dept of math at UCLA, who that person
is. That is easy, although it cuts into my own projects time. 
  For one I do know that Michael Freedman is a math professor at UCSD.
And perhaps I may tangle the name Michael Freedman with that of Barry
Merriman. How much does it take to have Michael Freedman call up Barry
Merriman (man or robot) to cease this hate mail? I am going to find out
if there is any reality to the title:
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center

or, 

UCLA Dept. of Math

I am going to post the names of the dept head of those two titles. And
if after this post of mine expires (what 4 days ??) and still more
Barry Merriman posts that come to my attention alluding to my " mental
health ", then I feel no bones about condemning known real persons to
Styx. The more the merrier, I say. 

Come on Barry Merriman, UCLA Dept. of Math, and UCSD Fusion Energy
Research Center. Continue with your hate mail attacks on me, and I will
condemn UCSD and UCLA math dept one by one to hell. And you can thank
it all on Barry Merriman. The man or robot who never had the
commonsense to quit hate mail posts.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.29 / Tom Potter /  Re: NP28JUL95, SEVEN SAMURAI-ettes, Bullock,Sugawara, ... Tanaka,
     
Originally-From: tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter )
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 05:54:26 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3vce8k$73m@keknews.kek.jp> ben@theory4.kek.jp (Ben Bullock) writes: 

>
>Thanks to Greg Weeks for alerting me to the existence of this post (I
>usually killfile Plutonium posts).
>
>I've written to
>
>	postmaster@dartmouth.edu
>	postmaster@dartvax.dartmouth.edu
>
>to complain about the obscene, racist, and highly offensive contents
>of this post.  I encourage others to do the same.  If there are any
>other addresses (either normal mail or e-mail) of people in charge of
>Dartmouth College to whom complaints about this kind of post can be
>addressed, please let me know.
>
>--
>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


I, for one, will support Plutonium, and will EMAIL your superiors, 
listing some of your divisive and offensive posts.

I know that I would never permit people to ruin the good name of the companies 
I have owned and managed. I trust that the people at KEK are people of good will, 
and will not tolerate anyone ruining their good name.

He who sews the wind, reaps the whirlwind.




cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.30 /   /  Re: Nuclear reaction time scales
     
Originally-From: mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear reaction time scales
Date: 30 Jul 1995 00:19:10 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Barry Merriman wrote:

>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?)

I guess I wasn't explicit enough in my explanation. As I said, if strong
decays are energetically possible then the lifetime will be around 10^-20
sec. If they are not allowed, as in the case of the decays cited by
Mitchell, then electromagnetic decays can occur. The width of the excited
state is proportional to the strength of the interaction (among a lot of
other things).

So electromagnetic decays are naturally supressed compared to strong
decays by a factor of alpha (1/137). In addition the E1 (electric dipole)
electromagnetic transition, for example, is further inhibited by the small
size of the nucleus relative to the wavelength of the emitted gamma, which
gives another factor of about 1000 for gamma energies in the range cited
by Mitchell.

In short, the weaker the decay interaction strength the longer the
lifetime.

Mark Richardson
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmrichar353 cudln cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.30 / Ben Bullock /  Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
     
Originally-From: ben@theory5.kek.jp (Ben Bullock)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
Date: 30 Jul 1995 04:16:36 GMT
Organization: KEK , Tsukuba , Japan

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

> 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

Excuse me for following myself up, but please don't use this address
as Molly Harbaugh is not responsible for this matter.  Thanks very
much for your understanding and cooperation.
 
> > 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.

Thanks to everyone who has written to Dartmouth to complain about
Archimedes Plutonium.  I sincerely hope that on the basis of
Plutonium's current crop of racist, offensive and obscene articles
Dartmouth College will prevent Plutonium permanently from having any
kind of USENET access.

--
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:
cuddy30 cudenben cudfnBen cudlnBullock cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.29 /  FLMAYER /  Re: SCI PHYSICS CRACKPOTS FAQ
     
Originally-From: flmayer@aol.com (FLMAYER)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SCI PHYSICS CRACKPOTS FAQ
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 1995 05:43:38 GMT
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <3v9l27$u4t@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:

> ACHERON condemned
> ACHERON
> 
> Lawrence McKnight
...

> STYX condemned
> STYX
> 
> Dick Adams
> Jason Lee
...

>Well then, one by one I feel no
>bones in condemning real live known persons connected to 
>> Ben Bullock @ KEK (National Lab. for High Energy Physics)
>>               1-1 Oho, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, JAPAN : tel. 0298 64 5401

> Simple, escalate the hate posts, and I escalate the condemnations to
>hell, Styx that is

========

> I cannot believe that a real physics person can spend
> so much time on Internet drivelling like a rabid dog with "hatred".

You don't see a contradiction between this last sentence and condemning
a bunch of people to mythical hells?

Frank Mayer
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenflmayer cudlnFLMAYER cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.30 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Please repost Fusion FAQ site
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Please repost Fusion FAQ site
Date: 30 Jul 1995 03:25:47 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <galileo.41.000CB3C7@teleport.com> John Galt,
galileo@teleport.com writes:
>When I tried to browse the site, it said there was no DNS entry, yadda, yadda, 
>yadda.

The Web site was working fine this afternoon; 
it's http://www.pppl.gov/~rfheeter.

If you try the correct address and it doesn't work,
the problem is most likely on your end.
 
(In the future I suggest you email these sorts of
questions directly to the relevant FAQ maintainer,
e.g., me, rather than wasting bandwidth on the group,
unless you can't reach me and you're sure there's 
something wrong with the site that others would care about.)

 -----------------------------------------------------
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:
cuddy30 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.29 / Charles Cagle /  cmsg cancel <-2107951903510001@ip-salem2-12.teleport.com>
     
Originally-From: <singtech@teleport.com> (Charles Cagle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <-2107951903510001@ip-salem2-12.teleport.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 1995 22:34:51 -0800
Organization: Singularity Technologies, Inc.

cancel <-2107951903510001@ip-salem2-12.teleport.com>
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudensingtech cudfnCharles cudlnCagle cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.30 / Tom Potter /  Re: SCI PHYSICS CRACKPOTS FAQ
     
Originally-From: tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter )
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SCI PHYSICS CRACKPOTS FAQ
Date: 30 Jul 1995 05:36:28 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3uxndg$mvk@newsbf02.news.aol.com> flmayer@aol.com (FLMAYER) writes: 
>
>In article <3v9l27$u4t@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
>Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:

>> Simple, escalate the hate posts, and I escalate the condemnations to
>>hell, Styx that is
>
>========
>
>> I cannot believe that a real physics person can spend
>> so much time on Internet drivelling like a rabid dog with "hatred".
>
>You don't see a contradiction between this last sentence and condemning
>a bunch of people to mythical hells?
>
>Frank Mayer

I note that you object to Plutonium 
"condemning a bunch of people to mythical hells".

As I occasionly like to tell some people "where to go",
and I want to do it right,
and as you seem to be an expert in this subject,
would you please tell me the correct way to do this?

Would it be okay, if I simply told them to "go to Hell"?



cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.30 / Robert Heeter /  Solution to Off-Charter Posts; Crossposting Netiquette
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Solution to Off-Charter Posts; Crossposting Netiquette
Date: 30 Jul 1995 04:11:08 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

There have been a number of discussions here about the
value of crossposting certain threads into sci.physics.fusion.
Some (including myself) have argued that certain threads do
not belong here, while others apparently feel that for 
intellectual diversity we should be exposed to every post 
on every idea that might conceivably relate to our group's 
charter.  I would like to propose what I feel is a 
reasonable compromise, one which much of the 'net has 
already embraced as acceptable netiquette.

The solution is this:  When posting into a thread which is
crossposted to multiple groups, one should also set
the followups to go into a *single*, most-relevant group, 
and then mention at the top of the post which group that is.  
This has no ill effects that I can see, and four positive 
effects:

(1)  One's post gets a large audience, which is proper 
for initiating threads on topics which may be of interest
to a minority of readers of a broad spectrum of groups.

(2)  Other interested individuals will see where to go 
to get more information, and can subscribe to the 
followup group if necessary.

(3)  Bandwidth is not wasted since the whole thread is not 
inflicted on groups for which it is not highly relevant.

(4)  The original poster's responsible behavior will earn
him/her more respect from those readers of the various groups 
who would otherwise be offended at unnecessary and/or
marginally relevant postings.


For support, I refer interested readers to the following
excerpt from "How to find the right place to post", which is
a netiquette FAQ posted on news.announce.newusers:

In article <post_faq_806718324@BRONZE.LCS.MIT.EDU> Aliza R. Panitz,
buglady@bronze.lcs.mit.edu writes:
>Subject: Crossposting to multiple newsgroups
>
>Think very carefully before crossposting to more than one, or perhaps 
>two, newsgroups.  It is considered highly inappropriate to broadcast
>your message to a wide selection of newsgroups merely to have more people 
>read it.  Note also that many people automatically ignore articles posted 
>to more than two or three groups.  Follow the general rules of Netiquette 
>(Usenet etiquette) described in the news.announce.newusers postings above.
>
>Often, even when an article is appropriate for multiple newsgroups, it
>is desirable to redirect all followup discussion into one particular
>newsgroup.  You can do this by adding a Followup-To header line that
>lists the single newsgroup where further discussion will go.  (You should
>also mention in the body of the article that you have redirected
>followups to that group, so that people interested in following the
>subject can find it.)  For example:
>
>   Newsgroups:  rec.pets.cats,misc.consumers.house
>   Followup-To: rec.pets.cats
>   Subject: Need product to remove cat odor from carpets
>
>   [Followups redirected to rec.pets.cats]
>
>   Text of article

 -----------------------------------------------------
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:
cuddy30 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Jul 31 04:37:05 EDT 1995
------------------------------
