1995.08.16 / Paul Koloc /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 09:00:20 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <40qrsb$2pa@martha.utcc.utk.edu> mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu
(Matthew Kennel) writes:
>Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP) wrote:
>
>: Actually it is a hybrid form of fusion energy which produces no
>: neutrons.  The fuel is protium (ordinary hydrogen) burned with the
>: most abundant form of boron (^11B).  About a liter of it is
>: required to power a plant for a day operating at 10 gigawatts 
>: electric.  Storage is a problem since UPS could tranport the needs
>: and they could be stored in a closet.   

>Suppose, in 2005, after the Libertarian party wins in Congress, the capital
>gains tax eliminated and your company is innundated with millions of
>investment dollars, the Iraqi government decides to buy one of your p-B11
>ignition-capable Plasmak burners fresh off its Korean assembly line. :-)

>Would there be major problem if they decided to set it up in a basement in
>Tel Aviv, fuel it instead with D-T, set a timer and hop on the first
>plane to Baghdad?

By the time that happened, Iraq will likely be a member of the United
Israeli Pact For Prosperity.  

But,  just as a thought .. .
Yes, the Israelis would trace the T, zap the subterrean dwellers, and
bomb the crap out of the North Korean nuclear plants, (as if they were
the source for the T, and if not then maybe just one or two) and
all of the nuclear plants in Iraq.    Since the device would melt,
and not detonate little unmanagable trouble would be generated.  

>: +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>: | Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
>: | mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
>: | VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
>: +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.16 /   /  MIT Patent
     
Originally-From: <102057.2046@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: MIT Patent
Date: 16 Aug 1995 08:53:13 GMT
Organization: CompuServe Incorporated


 Martin Sevior <msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au> writes:
>Thanks to Marshall Dudley for distributing the MIT patent to the newsgroup.
>
>It's fascinating reading. It provides a plausible Quantum Mechanical scenario
>that dramatically decreases the seperation between hydrogen nuclei in a
>metal lattice under the influence of electrolysis. This answers Barry 
>Merrimans question about QM ways to decrease the seperation between hydrogen 
>nuclei. Since Barry is mathematically inclined I hope he will utilize his
>expertise and provide a critique for us.
>
>They skirt the issue of exact nuclear reaction mechanism citing very low
>energies, (this contradicts the fact that muon catilyzed fusion fusion occurs 
>at these energies much like regular fusion), and many body nuclear reactions. 
>Well this latter is a first. They have no way of changing the nuclear branching
>ratios or for that matter saying how they get energy out of bringing protons
>together.
>
>Their mechanism is a surface effect and they
>describe ways to enhance the "interaction" rate by producing surface
>distortions on the cathode. There are some very detailed descriptions of
>methods
>to do this via scoring with diamond tips, Molecular deposition, CVD deposition
>and more. They also claim the effect is enhanced by depositing metal layers
>on polystyrene. Is this how Patterson works?
>
>
>Their very detailed desciptions indicate they've actually done a lot of this
>work. Since they've gone to the expense of filing a patent I presume they've
>seen a positive effects. Their descriptions of schemes to increase the heat
>flow indicate they see a lot heat. Hopefully publications describing this
>work will follow.
>
>Anyway there's planty of meat for interesting controversy here. Barry has a
>problem in his own sphere of expertise, the nuclear physicists can worry about
>why there's no ionizing radiation, their academic work shows the importance of
>having a theory to Jed (it allows them to intelligently maximize the effect),
>the ZPE guys can explain it all once they get their protons close together
>and their location, Boston Mass., provides a data point that contradicts 
>Morrison's regionalization theory. Finally many will point out that it's all
>premature since they don't show any results and so how can we judge anyway.
>
>Planty of fun for all!
>
>Martin Sevior
>


Marshall or Martin:

Could you please put the patent back up on the newsgroup, some of us 
folks at INEL are interested in perusing the full text. Could we also get
diagrams? INEL has done some work on the Mills Cell in the past, so we
are interested.

Ken Watts
Scott Lucas
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cuden2046 cudln cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.15 / Walter R /  The solved EINSTEIN'S UNIFIED FIELD THEOREM
     
Originally-From: "Walter E.R. Cassani" <cassani@Linux.InfoSquare.it>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The solved EINSTEIN'S UNIFIED FIELD THEOREM
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 00:03:51 +0200
Organization: Comm 2000 - Milan, Italy


Hello !

You could be able to recognize a Unified Field Theory,
if you could it see one ?

"" Also if it's wrote in a rough English "" ?

Quantum Mechanics is ready to be substituted for a new
causal, unified theory.

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 prevents 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
Adress:             Via V. Bellini 6  - 20032 CORMANO (MI) ITALY
Ph.      039 2 6151692         FAX     039 2 89401197
*****************************************************************************
                   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 formulas and figures:
      <<   http://www.inet.it/cassani/index.html  >>

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

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudencassani cudfnWalter cudlnR cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.15 / 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,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: 15 Aug 1995 19:19:30 GMT
Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here.

Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP) wrote:
: All models that I know tauting the "SOLAR CONSTANT" are based on 
: physics of a lone core fusion generator.  If one includes a bunch
: of loose cannon fusioneers who zap out their thing sub-surface, 
: that certainly does add a bit of charm to the kettle.  

Have observations shown neutron/x-ray bursts (from this near surface
fusion, presumably) correlated with the solar cycle?

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.15 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Q:  Low inductance current measuring shunts?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Q:  Low inductance current measuring shunts?
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 19:42:45 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <umc.2.00219242@primenet.com> umc@primenet.com (Unitek
Miyachi Corporation) writes:
>I am looking for the manufacturer names and contacts for coaxial low 
>inductance current shunts.  I need to measure pulse currents to 10,000A with 
>risetimes of 50 - 100 microseconds.
>
>Thanks.
That's a quite slow pulse, so an air core rogowski coil should work
which you could wind yourself.  What we use (shorter pulses 250kA +)
are coaxail resistors which consist of 3 or 4 inch diameter Cu tubes,
about 3 or 4 inches in length. The center one has a break of a
centimeter or so which is bridged with brass shim stock (the resistor).   
The bottom edges of two tubes are aligned and silver soldered.  A mylar
sheet just fits between the tubes as the insulator, and the top end
of the tubes are connected to a 1/4 " thick annulus of brass (OD) and 
a 1/4" brass disk (ID) with bolt holes for buss mounting.   The only 
tricky part is that the BNC is the only point of bank (buss) ground,
or ground loops can eat you alive.   

Calibration comes from an oscillatory discharge of known voltage and
capacitance.  

Don't kill youself to often.  
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.15 / Bill Rowe /  Re: Yoshiaka Arata
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Yoshiaka Arata
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 20:51:52 -0700
Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net

In article <40pih6$1b8@dub-news-svc-2.compuserve.com>, <
100437.530@compuserve.com (Ramon Prasad)> wrote:

>Why must the cold fusion phenomenon fit itself within the currently 
>accepted formulations of quantum mechanics?  There are many things that
>quantum theory cannot explain now, so that modifications will be required.
>If cold fusion turns out to be a new type of behavior of matter then quantum
>theory will require, at the very least, some modifications. Julian Schwinger,
>who published a series of tentative ideas on the cold fusion processes,
>made the comment: "Have we forgotten that physics is an experimental 
>science?"

Perhaps the phenomena we are calling CF is an actual fusion process that
does not fit current quantum theory. However, before quantum theory is
cast aside shouldn't we have better evidence that fusion is indeed taking
place and it doesn't fit current quantum theory? Given the overwhelming
amount of experimental evidence that supports current quantum theory, I
for one think there needs to be much better data for the CF phemonena
before it is assumed it doesn't obey quantum mechanics.
-- 
William Rowe                                                   browe@netcom.com
MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.15 / Bill Rowe /  Re: Ignition in TFTR
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ignition in TFTR
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 20:37:52 -0700
Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net

In article <EACHUS.95Aug14155429@spectre.mitre.org>,
eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) wrote:

>  Hmmm... Since there is no simple theoretical limit to the possible
>increase in burn rate, I would rather say slim to none.  But to use an
>analogy, they should be able to pour enough gasoline on the bonfire to
>get it pretty hot, even if the logs don't catch fire.  (A situation
>where most of the nucleons in the core of the plasma come from the
>neutral beam injectors.)
>

Actually if I add enough gasoline at a sufficiently high rate, wouldn't I
either see a saturation of the burn rate or perhaps extinguishing the fire
since a large portion of the gasoline would be effectively isolated from
the air? Similarly with a sufficiently dense plasma might there be enough
collisions with electrons to see a saturation effect?
-- 
William Rowe                                                   browe@netcom.com
MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.16 / Richard Blue /  Re: Accepted formulations of QM
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Accepted formulations of QM
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 15:45:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Ramon Prasad asks:

"Why must the cold fusion phenomenon fit itself within the
currently accepted formulation of quantum mechanics?"

Firstly, you simply cannot interpret data outside of some
formulation.  The act of measurement which you seem to
think provides evidence for cold fusion certainly involves
some "currently accepted formulation" of physics.  I would
suggest that you most likely are considering only a
possible modification of this currently accepted formulation.
You should feel free to suggest what modification you
believe can rescue cold fusion.  Six years of discussion
has not brought many suggestions to the fore for our
consideration.

Secondly, I would question what it is that you refer to in
the singular as "the cold fusion phenomenon?"  How do you
connect experiments on the electrolysis of light water
to those involving heavy water?  Why is the stirring of
water connected to ultrasound shocking?  What makes an
observation involving helium significant to cold fusion?
Without a formulation of some sort none of this makes
any sense.

In fact a serious attempt to connect the accepted cold
fusion results to a single phenomenon will run into
great difficulty.  If you lump all this together you
will find that there are some inconsistancies within
the data set.  That has nothing to do with quantum
mechanics, but it certainly bodes ill for anyone attempting
to use cold fusion to justify a reformulation of
currently accepted theories.  Don't forget there is
lots of other data to be considered as well.  That is,
after all, how we arrived at what is currently accepted.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.16 / Paul Koloc /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 06:34:20 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <40qs02$2pa@martha.utcc.utk.edu> mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu
(Matthew Kennel) writes:
>Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP) wrote:
>: All models that I know tauting the "SOLAR CONSTANT" are based on 
>: physics of a lone core fusion generator.  If one includes a bunch
>: of loose cannon fusioneers who zap out their thing sub-surface, 
>: that certainly does add a bit of charm to the kettle.  

>Have observations shown neutron/x-ray bursts (from this near surface
>fusion, presumably) correlated with the solar cycle?  

What might be better would be to be listening for the few minutes or
hours that such burns are being set off each set of 11 years, using 
the monster neutrino trapps.   Then too, we could look for a
resulting pressure wave that such a global burn would feed, and
perhaps even resonantly.  

As for x-rays???
The boundary layer where pulse thermalization expells mag flux and the
the displacement driven fusion burns are produced is quite some distance 
beneath the surface.  The reaction likely extinguishes by the time
the magnetoplasmmoids reach pressure equilibrium, and long before
any significant migration toward the surface has taken place.   

Adiabatic cooling will have chilled the Kernel or core plasma by the
time the surface is reached.  So the only X-rays that will be seen 
will more likely come from the bursting of magnetic pressure as
the broken up but highly magnetized and chilled plasma remnants reach
the surface where the flux can expand outward nearly without bound, 
and loosed fields can accelerate or drive particles to the high 
velocities and into X-ray emmissions.   

So certainly such emissions are not from direct fusion drive.  Still 
indirectly some x-rays definitely result from related or allied 
phenomena.  (sunspots showing  up.)   

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.15 /  jedrothwell@de /  Droege's experiments proved nothing
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Droege's experiments proved nothing
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 95 23:18:39 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
 
     "Some engineers - say Scott Little and myself have made good
     measurements and have found null results.  I can point out a few
     physicists (some with great prizes) that have made some bad
     measurements."
 
This is incorrect. Droege's measurements were not "good" in any scientific
sense. His experiments proved nothing, because his electrochemistry was
severely flawed. He reported that the cathodes sometimes came out visibly bent
and twisted. This is caused by severely uneven loading, which is a fatal.
Visible cracking or distortion eliminates any possibility of a CF reaction.
Droege's co-worker Tibbals reported that post-experiment cells and electrolyte
were severely contaminated.
 
Droege did not replicate the experiments. We cannot draw any conclusions from
his work. It makes no sense to say that he did "good" measurements when we
know he could not have measured anything, because we know that essential
conditions for the reaction were not met. Qualified scientists who did
replicate the work, like McKubre, Kunimatsu, Oriani, Bockris, Storms and
Mizuno did see the effect. Their knowledge of electrochemistry and materials
is light years ahead of Droege's, and they also know far more than he does
about calorimetry.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjedrothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.16 /  CoolWar /  Fullerene Fusion and Electrodynamic Plasma
     
Originally-From: coolwar@aol.com (CoolWar)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fullerene Fusion and Electrodynamic Plasma
Date: 16 Aug 1995 12:39:43 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In response to requests for information, please accept the following:
We have had limited success in our attempts to achieve a fusion generated
electrodynamic plasma resulting from "fullerene fusion".  These results
are soon to be published.  We plan to refine the apparatus to a more
advanced configuration.  Hints and precursors to fullerene fusion are
present in a number of published articles.  There has been an abundance of
research involving the fullerene molecule.  Hydrogenated fullerene has
manifested a luminescence similar to the sonoluminescence effect. 
Beardmore et al. reported that the interaction of hydrogen with C60
fullerenes created a plasma where "during the sublimation process, the H
plasma glows a violet colour".  (K. Beardmore, R. Smith, A. Richter and B
Mertesacker.  "The Interaction of Hydrogen with C60 Fullerenes", Journal
of Physics, Condensed Matter, 6, ( 1994), pp 7351-7364.)  In another
precursor, a patent issued in 1982 purports the generation of fusion
energy activated by the sonoluminescence effect in molten lithium. (H.G.
Flynn. " A Method of Generating Energy by Acoustically Induced Cavitation
Fusion and Reactor Therefor." U.S. Patent #4,333,796. June 8, 1982.)  The
vast accumulation in these and related research efforts have provided the
basis for an experimental protocal to test and develop fullerene fusion.

PS  We are interested in finding a supplier and economical access to a
source of liquid Hydrogen, preferably in Northern California assistance in
this regard would be greatly appreciated.  

Warren L. Cooley, President
Chuck Bennett, Sr. Engineer
American Cold Fusion Engineering and Supply
P.O. Box 191394
Sacramento, CA 95819
1-800-713-9345
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudencoolwar cudlnCoolWar cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.16 /   /  Method for calculation of local curvature
     
Originally-From: "alex" <alex@frolov.spb.su>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Method for calculation of local curvature
Date: 16 Aug 1995 20:46:24 +0400
Organization: Alexander V. Frolov, Private Account


            THE METHOD FOR CALCULATION OF LOCAL CURVATURE

                        by Alexander  V. Frolov
            P.O.Box 37, 193024, St.-Petersburg, Russia
                       email: alex@frolov.spb.su



     "Matter is bound up energy and energy is liberated matter."

                                      John Ernst Worrell Keely, 1893


      "Action is curvature of World."

                                      Pavel D. Ouspensky, 1911



                          INTRODUCTION

        This conception regards matter as the superposition of waves of
density of time that makes possible the carring out of calculations for
transformation of local space-time parameters for certain mass-object.
The waves of density of flow of time can be considered as gravitational
waves but chronal approach seem more perspective for development of
conception.
        It may by somewhat fantastic theory but it is not deprive of
physical meaning and it can be experimentally verified.

                TIME AS RADIUS OF SPATIAL CURVATURE

        The truth of the matter wave theory is now widely recognized.
Shredinger's description of electron as a wave packet is well-known.
Attractive as this theory may seem at first sight, it is opened to one
serious objection: the wave superpositions are unstable and must flow.
To solve a problem enable with supposition that particle as stable wave
packet can be real in resonator of self-closed local space-time of this
particle. It is resonator for waves of density of time, or gravitational
waves in other words.
        As curvature is basic description of the space, as it lead to
rolling up of the one-dimensional space ( line ) in circumference, and
to self-closing of surface in sphere. It is clear that self-closing of
three-dimensional space ( 3-space ) can take place only in direction
outside of 3-space, that is the time-direction.
        By definition, the linear curvature is

                            p=1/r            [1/m]          F.1

                            where p is curvature
                                  r is radius

Sphere curvature is found as total for two lines:

                            p''=2/r          [1/m]          F.2

By similar arguments, the spatial curvature can be obtaned as sum for
three dimensions:

                            p'''=3/r         [1/m]          F.3

Let's now appeal to simplified model of space-time relation that is
established as

                            f=c/l            [1/s]          F.4

      where f is frequency of oscillations   [1/s]
            c is constant of spreading       [m/s]
            l is electromagnetic wave-length   [m]

As the frequency is inversely proportional to the period

                            f=1/t            [1/s]          F.5
                            t=1/f              [s]          F.6

as for the sake of symmetry it is necessary to consider the fourth
parameter, which is inversely proportional to the wave-length

                            p=1/l            [1/m]          F.7

It is so call "wave number" that is mainly used in spectrum analysis.
In case of identification wave-length and curvature radius the formula
F.4 can be obtained as

                            f=cp             [1/s]          F.8

The equality of radius from F.1 and wave-length from F.7 is well-known
property of wave-resonator. For linear system like antenna it is optimum
length of dipoles of antenna. For 3-space it is resonant process.

By this sort of approach the velocity of light can be considered as a
factor of summarizing in F.3. The mathematical power 10^8 can be omited
here since it is the scale of measurement only. In any case electromagnetic
wave is passing 3 units of distance in space for 1 unit of "distance" in
time ( 3 decimetre per one microsecond ).

The unevenness of real curvature for our space explane the difference
coefficient
                          k=3/2,99792458=1,0007             F.9

It is difference that demonstrate the possibility for changes in 3-space.
If k=1,(0) it means that space is only 3-dimensional like 3-axises
Decart's system. Analogy is k=1,(0) for line. This direct one-dimensional
space of line have not any changes and have not time.

So, the time as radius of 3-curvature

                         t=r'''              [s]            F.10

and the time period as linear radius

                         t=r/c               [s]            F.11

It is correspond to F.4 and F.5 as

                         t=l/c               [s]            F.12
                         where l is electromagnetic wave-length

Note, for case of r=0 the processes take place instantly and the space
is compressed in point. In other limit case the curvature is equal to
zero and period tries to obtain infinity. It is the state of stop-time
and opened ( flat ) non-curved space.

                SPATIAL CURVATURE VALUE FOR OUR PLANET

        Before the continuation let us assume that he theory of similarity
for microcosm and macrocosm is true, hence the planet can be considered
as elementary particle in certain case.
        Substitute in the formula of matter wave-length

                         l=h/(MV)            [m]            F.13
                         where h is Plank's constant
                               M is mass
                               V is velocity
the parameters of our planet and obtain the value

                         l=3,725x10^-63      [m]            F.14

In strength of supposition that velocity of light in 3-space is only
factor 3, let us assume that in 4-system it is found as total curvature
for 4 dimensions and it equal to value 4.
In this case the formula for energy

                         E=MC^2=9M                          F.15

can be transformed in next

                         E=16M'                             F.16

                    where M  is mass of 3-space description of system
                          M' is mass of 4-space description of system

Using F.13 let us represent mass as

                         M=h/(lV)                           F.17

Note important supposition: The total energy of system is the same
independently of different dimensionality description. It means that
if one consider energy of system in 3-space only, the same amount of
energy ( but in other form of energy ) must be considered in 4-space
description because of the system is the same. So, total energy of
Universe is the same independently of topology that is using for theory
of Universe.

Now we obtain the correlation for 4-mass desription and 3-mass description

                       16 h         9h
                    ---------- = ---------                  F.18
                       l' V        l'' V

                    where l'  is wave-length in 4-space
                          l'' is wave-length in 3-space

As the 3-space and 4-space are the same system for different description
of energy in it, as the velocity is the same, so we have formula

                          l'= (16/9) l''                    F.19

Substitute value for l'' from F.14 and obtain value for 4-wave-length

                          l'=66,22x10^-64    [m]            F.20

that conform to curvature

                     p'=1/l'=151,00x10^60    [1/m]          F.21

Please, note that it is whole number value.

On the other hand, the period of planet rotation around Sun is about
31557600 seconds, that conformes to the oscillation frequency value

                     f=1/t=3,1688x10^-8      [1/s]          F.22

The wave-length by F.4 for frequency from F.22 is equal to

                     l=c/f=9,46x10exp16      [m]            F.23

The curvature for this length - radius is

                     p=1/l=1,05700x10exp-17  [1/m]          F.24

Please, note the whole number value here also. The 10^-17 is
the scale of measurement question only.

The correlation of F.24 and F.21 is clear

                     p/p'=7x10^-80                          F.25

        The mathematical connection of a matter wave-length ( so
call De Broigl's wave ) and electromagnetic wave-length for such
sort natural mass-object as planet is the confirmation of the
supposition that the Time for 3-space can be considered as radius
of its curvature that display itself as changes or processes in
this 3-space.  The "self-closing" of 3-space is demonstrating as
periodical self-reproduction of spatial material objects in time,
or "existance in time from Past in Future".

               WHOLE NUMBERS FOR VALUES OF CURVATURE

        Let us consider two examples to show why description of Time
as radius of spatial curvature is useful.
        The calculation for Bohr's radius:

                 r=0.52917 Angstrom                         F.26

The curvature    p=1/r=3,0075x10^9           [1/m]          F.27

The linear curvature by F.3 is

                 p'=p/3=1,0025x10^9          [1/m]          F.28

So, the curvature for space of hydrogen atom is equal to unit and in
strength of this reason it is impossible to create the atom that have
curvature lower than unit.
Deviation k=1,0025 is demonstration of possibility for changes in this
space, as noted above.

Another example is DNA molecule. the unfolded spire-length of it is equal
to 71,441 Angstrom. By F.1 it is conformes to a curvature value

                     p=1/l=14x10^7           [1/m]          F.29

Note, that this value is whole number 14,0000 up to fourth sign.
Conclusion: stable form of any natural element of matter from atom to
molecules is possible only for whole number value of curvature
of space of this element. Element can be linear (one-dimensional), flat
(two-dimensional) or spatial (three-dimensional).

Following the practical experience of the calculation of corkscrew
antenna parameters it is known that the optimal correlation of the
pitch and wave-length is equal to 0,24. For DNA-helical structure
this correlation is equal to 0,48. So, value 14 from F.29 can be
considered as 7x2 or double-self-closed. In other words, period of
natutral processes is 720 degrees or two 360 degrees cycles.
Experimental evidence favours this assumption since some elementary
particles spin period is equal to 720 degrees.

Now let us make calculation for displacement of spiral DNA branches.
Two branches have period 34 Angstrom and displacement 23,8 Angstrom.
In other words, the "back wave" is displaced relatively to the "direct
wave" on 0,7 of the period of wave. It is 50,088 Angstrom and by F.1
it is curvature

                    p=2x10^8                 [1/m]          F.30

The conclusion: Branches of DNA molecule are created by means of
displacement from zero-state, when branches are in the same place,
and value of this displacement is correspond to unit of curvature.
Formula F.30 show p=2 since both branches are moved in opposite
sides from zero-state on unit of curvature p=1. In conventional form
it correspond to certain distance in Angstrom, for example.

This idea can be generalized for electron-positron pair also to find
conditions for resonant zero-point oscillations.

                    CONCLUSIONS

        The parameters of matter as process can be calculated by
means of "spatial curvature method" considered above.
        Stable state of certain chemical element can be described
as "whole number position" for value of curvature. The guided
transformation of this position can be applicated for resonance
stimulation of nuclear transmutation to get power output for
transmission of matter from high-energy level of existance to
lower-energy level according to well-known formulation

                      1               1
              p=R{---------  -   -----------}               F.31
                    Nexp2           Mexp2

       where p=1/l is wave number, physically "p" is curvature for
radius r=l;
             R is Ridberg's constant;
             N is number of lower level;
             M is number of upper level.

If the curvature difference between two stable states of matter is
known it is possible to calculate the energy portion for resonance
stimulation of transformation  ( fusion or splitting ) for matter.
Formula for energy is

                  E = h f                                   F.32

                  where h is Plank's constant
                        f is frequency

By F.4 obtain that energy can be calculated as

                         h c
                  E = ----------                            F.33
                          l

              where l is electromagnetic wave-length of stimulation

Since technical possibility for creation of electromagnetic waves are
limited there are another way also. In strength of correlation  F.25
the resonance stimulation is possible by means of "matter wave" or
De Broigl's waves.

        It would be premature to say about the validity of this conception
since the assumptotions underlying it are opened to question. It is
necessary to make the experimental verification of this approach to the
resonant nature of matter. In case of its practicable the control by the
spatial curvature, rate of time and stability of matter can be discussed
not as fantasy but as technology.

        Alexander V. Frolov
        St.-Petersburg,
        Russia
=======================================================================

        Author is interested in serious proposals for joint work on
experimental verification of this conception.

P.O.Box 37, 193024,
St.-Petersburg, Russia.
email alex@frolov.spb.su
........................


cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenalex cudln cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.16 / Tom Potter /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter )
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
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: 16 Aug 1995 14:39:59 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <21cenlogic-1508951229010001@austin-2-14.i-link.net>
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes: 
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)

>Tom, I am writing yet again in reference to your table of solar system
values.
>
>First, I finally made a lucky guess and managed to decipher a whole
row of
>data in your table. My guess was that if T is the period of a planet's
>orbit in seconds, then TIME(C) = T/2¼.

<< Much discussion of errors deleted. >>

I apologize for causing you so much time and trouble.
Unfortunately, I neglected to multiply the values in the DISTANCE
columns by TIME(C) in my spreadsheet and the values for distance and
velocity came out the same. I think that this lead to all of the
problems you noted.

I am reposting, what I hope is an error-free, spread-sheet-listing,
and a clearer version of my "information theory of physics", based on
your observations.

I appreciate your efforts in spotting this error, and I hope you will
take the time to see if this post passes your inspection. I think this
post answers most of your objections.

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

This article defines the physical properties in terms of information.

John Wheeler said, "If we're ever going to find an element of nature
that explains space and time, we surely have to find something that
is deeper than space and time..". ( Page 66, "The Ghost in the Atom". )

What is deeper than space and time, is simple and obvious.
It is cycles! Time, space ( distance ), mass, energy and all other
physical properties are simple functions of cycles.

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

2. Time is a cycle ratio.
   time(X) = cycle count of an external reference / cycle count of X

   The external reference is commonly selected to yield a time(X)
   in a useable sensory range. As finer measurements are made
   and time(X) approaches one, the "uncertainty" of the measurement
   becomes limited by the fineness of the external reference cycle.

3. Ordinality, or neighborhood, is also a cycle ratio.
   ordinality(X) = cycle count of X / cycle count of background

   The cycle count of the background is commonly assumed to be one,
   which is presumed to be the cycle associated with the life
   of the universe. The "red shift" is commonly used to establish
   the ordinality of "space".

4. Simple and compound bodies ( Systems ) are perceived as centers
   of activity, and are associated with the property mass.

5. Two bodies interact about a common point, in a common time.

   a. The common time is the natural period of the system.
      ( The number of counts ( Cycles ) of an external reference
        for each cycle of the system. )

   b. The common point is where the system is perceived. ( Ordinality )

6. Interaction times exist between each party to an interaction
   and the common point.

   Interaction time is the number of counts ( Cycles )
   of the external reference between when a change is observed in
   a body, and when a causal change is observed at the common point.

7. Tangents are dimensionless functions of interaction and common time.
   As a point of reference, the tangent associated with the electron is
   called the "fine structure constant". Velocity divided by C is
   a tangent function.

   TANGENT(X) = INTERACTION TIME(X) / ( COMMON TIME / ( 2 pi ) )
   As COMMON TIME ( PERIOD ) is commonly measured in cycles
   whereas most other properties are measured in radians, it
   is convenient to divided the period by ( 2 * pi ) in
   order to express all properties in the same units.

   Special Relativity follows from the addition of tangents.

8. A mass can be expressed in terms of its' time equivalence as:

   time(mass) = mass * U
   Where U is a universal time per mass constant.

   U = G / C^3
   Where G is the universal gravitation constant
   and C is the universal space per time constant. ( Speed of light )

9. The most fundamental equation in physics is:

   time(mass(A)) * time(mass(B)) = time(period) * time(precession)

   Period and precession times are periods divided by 2 pi.

   This equation, which shows the relationship between two bodies,
   time and space, has been viewed three ways historically.

   1. Kepler first observed it with his:
      mass(Sun) * G = velocity(planet)^3 * period /  2pi

   2. Newton understood it more completely with his:
      force = mass(A) * mass(B) * G / radius^2

   3. Einstein restated it as his "Equivalence Principle",
      but, like Kepler, ignored one of the bodies.

      Newton's equation can be corrected to:
  force(B) * G * distance(B) = mass(A) * G * mass(B) * G / distance(B)

      as distance(B) is not quite equivalent to the radius, and
      the G constant must be associated with each mass-like
      property in order to maintain symmetry. Even with this
      correction, Newton's equation is skewed, and both sides of
      the equation would have to be multiplied by velocity
      to eliminate the skew.

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

A spreadsheet of Solar System data computed from these principles
follows:

All properties are expressed in meters, kilograms seconds.

C = 2.99792458E+8 - Universal space per time constant (speed of light)
G = 6.6720000E-11 - Universal gravitation constant

The TANGENTS listed below are averaged over one orbit,
and TIME(C) = orbital period / ( 2 pi )

                        MERCURY        VENUS          EARTH
            TANGENT(A)   8.72442047E-7  8.72442047E-7  1.57433954E-6
            TANGENT(B)   1.59681487E-4  1.59681487E-4  1.16814496E-4
            TIME(C)      1.20966471E+6  3.08985780E+6  5.02263604E+6

All physical properties can be computed from the equation:
PROPERTY(X) = TANGENT(A)^L * TANGENT(B)^M * TIME(C)^N * C^(L+M) / G^O

Note, that if "C" and "G" were set equal to one, ( As they should be )
all properties would have the dimension of TIME(C)^N

The properties below were computed using the data and equation above.

L,M,N,O     PROPERTY(X)  MERCURY        VENUS          EARTH
1,0,0,0     VELOCITY(A)  2.61551546E+2  4.71975121E+2  4.29754810E+2
0,1,0,0     VELOCITY(B)  4.78713054E+4  3.50201049E+4  2.97842296E+4
1,0,1,0     DISTANCE(A)  3.16389674E+8  1.45833601E+9  2.15850200E+9
0,1,1,0     DISTANCE(B)  5.7908229E+10  1.0820714E+11  1.4959534E+11
3,0,1,1     MASS(B)      3.2440000E+23  4.8690000E+24  5.9750000E+24
0,3,1,1     MASS(A)      1.9890000E+30  1.9890000E+30  1.9890000E+30
3,2,1,1     ENERGY(B)*2  7.4341511E+32  5.9713793E+33  5.3004245E+33
2,3,1,1     ENERGY(A)*2  1.3606592E+35  4.4307066E+35  3.6734681E+35
3,3,1,1     PRECESSION   3.5588252E+37  2.0911833E+38  1.5786906E+38
MASS(A)*VELOCITY(A)^3    3.5588252E+37  2.0911833E+38  1.5786906E+38
MASS(B)*VELOCITY(B)^3    3.5588252E+37  2.0911833E+38  1.5786906E+38

It can be seen that other physical properties such as momentum and
force can be computed by using the appropriate values for L,M,N and O.

Note the following:
1. O = 1 for properties defined in terms of mass. (Energy, power, etc.)
2. MASS(X) * VELOCITY(X)^3 is more fundamental and symmetrical than
   ENERGY. ( As suggested in step 9 above. )
3. Note that DISTANCE(B) is approximately equal to the RADIUS.
4. Although an external CYCLE reference is used as a time reference,
   TIME(C) is unique to each system, and is not affected by the
   reference. In other words, an external reference is used in order
   to compare the period time and the interaction times of a system.
   It does not enter into the dynamics of the system.
5. Conventional physics tends to focus on one party to an interaction,
   usually the least massive body. For example, Kepler's law and
   Einstein's Equivalence Principle consider only one body. Newton's
   Law is more complete as it considers both parties to an interaction.
6. It is more efficient, and convenient, to perform all calculations
   in terms of tangents and time, and to convert to conventional
   units, after the calculations are complete. In fact, it is best to
   dispense with "C", "G" and conventional units, altogether.
7. Time and inverse time are considered to be continuous properties,
   whereas cycles are quantum properties and thus more compatible with
   quantum mechanics. At the most fundamental level, a fraction of a
   cycle cannot be perceived or measured. The fundamental unit of
   information ( BIT ) is the cycle associated with the electron.
8. The PRECESSION values listed are actually PRECESSION * C^6 / G
9. Radius is commonly defined in physics as:
   radius = ( interaction time(A) + interaction time(B) ) * C
   This leads to "reduced mass" errors, and to the popular
   misconception that the "Earth orbits the Sun", when, in fact,
   all pairs of bodies in the universe interact about a center
   common to both.
10. A body is the perception of an aggregate of cycles,
    which an observer associates with some "point".
    The "point" is actually an ordinal storage element
    in the "memory" of the "observer".
11. The physical properties, other than cycles, are mind stuff.
    The hierarchy of transformations from fundamental "reality"
    ( Cycles ) to perception is as follows:
    cycles -> cycle ratios -> physical properties ( frequency,
    energy, etc. ) -> sensory input -> auto correlation with
    simultaneous sensory inputs -> cross correlation with
    existing memory -> mental perception
12. Fundamental reality is composed of properties, rather than objects.
    If we recursively examine the intensions of any object,
    we ultimately end up with only properties.
    ( Charge, baryon number, hyper charge, etc. )
    If we recursively examine these properties, we ultimately
    end up with only cycles or BITS of information.
13. Equations, such as Greens functions and General Relativity
which are formulated using time, distance and mass properties,
must accept the errors that come with non-fundamental properties.
It we use time in our equations and experiments, we must accept
the harmonics and beats that come with the reference time. If we
use space in our equations and experiments, we must accept the
errors that come about due to variations in our interaction
distance per time "probe" ( Light ). For example, if a calcite
cube is equal in X, Y, and Z space, is it also equal in X, Y and Z
transient time? Are permittivity and permeabilty constant everywhere?
13. The speed of light constant "C" is simply a constant used to
    express interaction times in sebsible distance units.
14. a. The "speed of light" is when interaction time
       equals observation time. ( Tangent = one )

    b. When the tangent is less than one, observation time
       is greater than interaction time. ( The velocity
       is less than the "speed of light". )

    c. When the tangent is greater than one, observation time
       is less than the interaction time
       ( We perceive changes in systems before they occur. ),

There is nothing unusual about perceiving changes in
systems before they occur. This is how we think.
For example, if I toss a lighted firecracker into a crowd,
the "perception tangents" of some in the crowd are likely
to be greater than one. They "perceive" what will happen,
before it happens.

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

   The basic concepts presented above are covered in some
   detail in my Windows-based, hypertext, graphics oriented,
   physics tutorial, PHYSICST.ZIP, which can be downloaded from
   many FTP sites around the world, including SIMTEL and CICA echos.
   It can also be downloaded from the WEB site:
   http:/coyote.csusm.edu/cwis/winworld/educate.html

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



cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.16 / Richard Blue /  Re: Off the deep end
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Off the deep end
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 15:10:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Pardon me while I attempt to extract my size 12's from my
oral cavity.

I was trying to counter the oft-repeated assertion that
nuclear physicists are opposed to cold fusion because it
represents some form of threat to their continued wellbeing.
In that connection I pointed out what I believe to be
the case with regard to the general level of expertise
of the cold fusion advocates.

I did not say, nor did I intend to indicate, that everyone
skilled in engineering, chemistry, and/or computer science
has "gone off the deep end" with respect to cold fusion.

I am well aware and appreciative of the fact that some of
the most significant contributions to the cold fusion
debate have come from engineers.  To be specific, I think
we have all learned a bit more about the measurement of
AC power within the context that was typical for a cold
fusion experiment.

I am well aware and appreciative of the contributions made
by chemists in clearing up some of the more esoteric aspects
of electrochemistry.  In particular the criticism of the
Pons and Fleischmann use of fugacity to bolster their CF
claims played a key role in this discussion.

I also believe that computer scientists, particularly those
familiar with realtime data logging and data processing,
were able to point out those areas where CF experimentation
using automated measurement systems could and did go astray.

Now is there anyone else whose feathers I may have inadvertently
ruffled?  It's just that we nuclear types are feeling a
bit defensive in this era where ignorance on a given subject
seems to have become an essential qualification for entry
into the debate on that subject.

As a nuclear physicist I say the the nuclear aspects of cold
fusion is pure crap.  Now if the rest of you will hold up
your end of the discussion we should be able to put this topic
to rest in short order!

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Aug 17 04:37:06 EDT 1995
------------------------------
