1995.08.17 / Alan M /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" <Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 18:55:44 +0100
Organization: Home

In article: <21cenlogic-1708951135400001@austin-1-14.i-link.net>  
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:
> I am unable, despite hours of
> struggle, to find a consistent rationale within your system. You seem 
to
> be switching definitions willy-nilly from formula to formula, as if 
you
> are totally unconcerned with the meaning of it all. --Mitchell Jones}

Welcome to the Club, Mitchell.
-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

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

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.17 / Matt Austern /  Re: Accepted Formulation of QM
     
Originally-From: matt@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Accepted Formulation of QM
Date: 17 Aug 1995 19:42:58 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley (computational neuroscience)

In article <40uqra$as7@dub-news-svc-1.compuserve.com> <100437.530@compus
rve.com (Ramon Prasad)> writes:

> I
> personally feel that cold fusion involves a combination of fusion 
> processes  (one after the other) that ought not to occur according to
> conventional theory. How or why this happens, I have no idea. That is,
> something is happening, which should not according to nuclear physics.
> The scientific response is to commission further investigations, not to 
> deny the phenomenon.

That's what scientists did, six years ago.  They found that if they
did the experiments sloppily they got a variety of contradictory
results, and if they did the experiments carefully then they got null
results.  At that point they lost interest---wisely.  The vast majority
of scientists aren't going around furiously trying to debunk cold 
fusion: they no long care enough to bother.

Scientists aren't going to become interested in cold fusion again as a
result of harrangues.  If you want the scientific community to care,
you'll have to present it with a good, replicable [*] experiment where
all possible sources of error have been analyzed.  Until you do that,
nobody is going to care.

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

[*] There seems to be a lot of confusion about what "replication"
means.  Replication does not mean that you do two different
experiments and get two different results, both of which seem kinda
weird in one way or another: it means that two different groups do the
same experiment and get the same result.  If you do not provide enough
information in your paper for someone else to replicate your result
then you are not doing science, and nobody will care what you say.

-- 
  Matt Austern                             He showed his lower teeth.  "We 
  matt@physics.berkeley.edu                all have flaws," he said, "and 
  http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt             mine is being wicked."
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.17 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 14:59:45 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <browe-1408951927200001@192.0.2.1>, browe@netcom.com (Bill
Rowe) wrote:

> In article <21cenlogic-1208950956330001@austin-1-5.i-link.net>,
> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:
> 
> >***{Buy a "Hydrosonic Pump" from Griggs, create a calorimetric setup as
> >per your specifications (you know: one where you account for the energy
> >invested in the warmup phase), use the flow, input water temperature, and
> >power specs recommended by Griggs, do a steam run, and see if you get
> >excess heat. Simple. If you then get a percentage COP of 160 or so, as
> >reported by Jed, then you are in business. I would love to see you do it,
> >Barry. Of course, if you got the percentage COP of 160, your "hot fusion"
> >colleagues would tear you limb from limb, but why worry? That's a small
> >price to pay for making history, right? :-) --Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
> Yeah, simple if you have independent funding, have no need to account for
> expenditure of that funding and don't mind investing your time etc. 
> 
> I would assume the Barry's funding like that of most of us doesn't come
> from venture capitalists. Rather it comes from fairly hard nosed project
> managers who want to see the work is useful to the organization and is
> likely to have some benefit. Getting funding for evaluation of the Griggs
> device which is most likely not an over unity device, isn't very likely at
> all.
> -- 
> William Rowe                                                  
browe@netcom.com
> MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383

Oddly, after forty years and untold billions looted from the taxpayers,
hot fusion is nowhere near as close to unity as the Griggs device, and yet
those very self-same "hard nosed project managers" are eager to fight to
the death to get it funded! Why do you suppose that is? Here is the
answer, in case you are interested: it will only take $40-50k to prove,
once and for all, that the Griggs device is over unity. That's chump
change for "hard nosed project managers" who are in the habit of looting
billions. Worse, if the Griggs device is proven, the "hot fusion" cash cow
will dry up permanently, and be replaced with a technology that is ideally
suited to tinkerers who do their work in garages and basements. People
will be doing calorimetry on their kitchen blenders, running outboard
motors in 55 gallon drums, etc., as a new age of individual
experimentation begins, all without the involvement of, or need for,
government funding! *That* is the dirty little secret which explains why
"hard nosed project managers" (read "bloodsuckers") don't want any work to
be done on the Griggs device or on anything similar. 

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.18 / Bruce Simpson /  CF materials
     
Originally-From: bruce@faxmail.co.nz (Bruce Simpson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CF materials
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 17:28:40 GMT
Organization: FaxMail Technologies

If one were to attempt some experimentation (albeit not in a
particularly scientific environment), where would be the best source
of components such as electrolyte and anode/cathode materials and how
much would one expect to pay for enough quantity to support several
different instances of the basic experiment?

Thanks
Bruce
Someone who is *not* a physicist and can only just tie his own
shoe-laces :-)

*----[Fixed-price software development over the net ]----*
|     bsimpson@iprolink.co.nz or bruce@faxmail.co.nz     |
*--[C/C++, Win, OS/2, POSIX, device-drivers, fax, comms]-*

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbruce cudfnBruce cudlnSimpson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.18 / David Naugler /  Re: MIT Patent
     
Originally-From: David Naugler <dnaugler@sfu.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MIT Patent
Date: 18 Aug 1995 01:33:48 GMT
Organization: Simon Fraser University

<102057.2046@compuserve.com> wrote:

>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

Yes please Marshall,

Could you repost a postscript version of the patent? That would
make the math easier to read.

David Naugler
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy Laboratory
Institute of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry
Simon Fraser University


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudendnaugler cudfnDavid cudlnNaugler cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.18 / Ramon Prasad /  Re: Accepted Formulation of QM
     
Originally-From: <100437.530@compuserve.com (Ramon Prasad)>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Accepted Formulation of QM
Date: 18 Aug 1995 02:15:00 GMT
Organization: CompuServe Incorporated


matt@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Matt Austern) wrote: (amongst other
things)

>...if they did the experiment carefully they got null results.

>scientists arn't going to become interested again as a result of
>harrangues...

>...you'll have to present it with a good replicable experiment

I am not an experimental physicist so I'm out of my field. My 
understanding is that quite intricate requirements must be satisfied
in order to get positive results. These are now known and available to
anyone who wishes to run an experiment.

I hope that none of my communications can be classed as harrangues. If
so I apologise. I have been trying to make the point that academic
science has left the field prematurely. There has accumulated now a
very large body of evidence, on a world-wide basis, which cannot
simply be ignored. This is not a viable option for academic science,
and, if pursued for long enough, will lead to a Kuhn-type revolution.

I am in agreement about replicable experiments. My understanding
is that there are now in operation apparatus sets which are reproducing
the "cold fusion" phenomenon with over 90% reliability. Infinite Energy
issue no. 2 provides details.

Very Best Wishes, Yours sincerely,
Ramon Prasad <100437.530@compuserve.com> 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cuden530 cudfnRamon cudlnPrasad cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.18 / Robin Spaandonk /  Re: Method for calculation of local curvature
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Method for calculation of local curvature
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 06:36:58 GMT
Organization: Improving

In article <ACFvWCmKb3@frolov.spb.su>, "alex" wrote :


>            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

Nonsense. This is purely coincidental, and based upon the definition
of the meter, and the definition of the second. Had you chosen feet or
inches in which to do your length measurements, or hours, minutes,
days, weeks, etc. in which to do your time measurements, the number
would have been totally different.

[rest snipped due to faulty conclusions based on faulty logic]
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:
cuddy18 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.16 / Robert Eachus /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: 16 Aug 1995 19:27:32 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <40qs02$2pa@martha.utcc.utk.edu> mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu
(Matthew Kennel) writes:

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

   The solar neutrino observatories have observed anything but
constant burning.  I know of no attempts to analyze the data for
correlation to the sunspot cycles, but at a minimum there is a paper
in it for anyone who can get hold of the raw data.  I don't think the
Gallium experiments have been running long enough for an entire
sunspot cycle, but the clorine experiments certainly have, and the
data should just about be enough now to give you an answer one way or
the other.


--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.16 / Gary Hanyzewski /  Photo of Pons-Fleischman device ?
     
Originally-From: garyh@sdsc.edu (Gary Hanyzewski)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Photo of Pons-Fleischman device ?
Date: 16 Aug 1995 21:06:58 GMT
Organization: San Diego Supercomputer Center @ UCSD

	Does anyone have a photo of the original Pons-Fleishman device 
	that started the whole 'cold fusion' furor?

	Thanks

	Gary

---
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
         Gary Hanyzewski                | "... There are more things in
      Sr. programmer/analyst   		|      heaven and earth than
         garyh@sdsc.edut                |      are dreamt of in your 	
     >>                       <<        |      philosophy ...."
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudengaryh cudfnGary cudlnHanyzewski cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.15 / Harry Conover /  Re: (no subject)
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.space.tech,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: (no subject)
Date: 15 Aug 1995 22:55:12 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Simon Rowland (rowland@eagle.ca) wrote:
: ______________ORIGIONAL ARTICLE \/____________________

: Yipppie!!!!

:   They're planning to build an experimental nuclear fusion plant outside 
: my house in Southern Ontario, Canada!!! There is currently a thermal 
: plant which was built in the big 1960's power plant rush, which is 
: sitting there, unused, and a big international organization is going to 
: spend almost $10 billion over the next 30 years to build and carry out 
: experiments (while generating power) there. The refurbishment of the old 
: plant will go on between 1998 and 2008. (WOW!!!)

WOW**WOW! (Wow raised to the Wow power).  :-)
Particularly awesome since, to date, man lacks both the 
knowledge to build such a fusion plant as well as the certainty of 
knowledge that one can ever be built.  

:   It's particularily great because the existing building is very big and 
: needs to be guarded, heated and lighted/maintained, even though it 
: hasn't been used *at all*. Great planning on the part of those 1960's 
: people. Also, we've just quashed (a few years ago) a plan, with the help 
: of the old NDP government (the conservatives are in now... )-: a plan to 
: build a *thirteenth* (count 'em-13) nuclear fission plant in that 
: building, with all it's radiatioactve by-products and everything, even 
: though the twelve others are running at a fraction of capacity (go 
: figure-the hydro company won't admit it made a mistake). Anyway, I'M SO 
: HAPPY :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) !!!!!!!!!

I'm glad you're happy!  Still, don't be too eager to invest or commit
public funds to a project that lacks a viable plan to achieve success.
(Sorry to sound like such a wet blanket, but facts are facts.)

You may want to monitor the status of hot fusion research by following 
the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup.  They have a hot fusion FAQ 
available that will update you on the current progress/status of 
ongoing work in this field of physics research.

                                      Harry C.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.16 / H Anvin /  Re: (no subject)
     
Originally-From: hpa@asgard.yggdrasil.com (H. Peter Anvin)
Newsgroups: sci.space.tech,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: (no subject)
Date: 16 Aug 1995 04:59:48 GMT
Organization: Yggdrasil Computing, Inc.

Followup to:  <40p221$rn@marlo.eagle.ca>
By author:    Simon Rowland <rowland@eagle.ca>
In newsgroup: sci.physics.fusion
> 
> h) Fission plants don't cost $10 billion bucks, nor do they take
>    over 10 years to use, nor do they carry out experiments in the core= 
>    of it.                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    ^^^^^
> 

Well, wasn't there a plant in Ukraine which went kabloie because of
that?  (1/2 :-) -- I lived pretty close to the main fallout zone.)

	/hpa



-- 
PGP public key available - finger hpa@yggdrasil.com
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens."  --  Baha'u'llah
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenhpa cudfnH cudlnAnvin cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.17 / Ramon Prasad /  Re: Accepted Formulation of QM
     
Originally-From: <100437.530@compuserve.com (Ramon Prasad)>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Accepted Formulation of QM
Date: 17 Aug 1995 07:24:26 GMT
Organization: CompuServe Incorporated


blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard Blue) wrote (amongst other things):

>You should feel free to suggest what modification you believe can resue
>cold fusion

I have no program other than to say that academic science must take its
head out of the sand and commence some serious investigations, both 
experimental and theoretical. I have read many explanations and ideas. I
personally feel that cold fusion involves a combination of fusion 
processes  (one after the other) that ought not to occur according to
conventional theory. How or why this happens, I have no idea. That is,
something is happening, which should not according to nuclear physics.
The scientific response is to commission further investigations, not to 
deny the phenomenon.

There is no question of rescuing cold fusion. The infant had a 
spectacular birth and has survived, despite many assults, the early years
of childhood. We now have a very healthy young boy!

>How do you connect experiments on the electrolysis of light water...
>heavy water...ultrasound...helium...etc

Only with great difficulty! As I said, I have no theory. This is a muli-faceted
experience. Some people report nuclear products others do not. Why this
should be so I do not know.

>inconsistencies within the data set...

I agree. It may be that there is a class of phenomena, and that different
experiments are selecting different but related processes.. All the more
reason to initiate investigations that will uncover the fundamental
processes and thier relation to each other.

>...bodes ill for anyone attempting to use cold fusion to justify  a
re-formulation of currently accepted theories.

I agree, and I am not trying to do this. I do not know to what extent
current theories of nuclear physics and quantum theory  will require
modifications. It was Dave Wark who implied that cold fusion must 
conform to the tenets of Q.Th. if he is to take it seriously.

This is the whole point. We have a ( class of ) phenomena which have
no explanation within current nuclear physics or quantum theory. We can

(i) deny it exists
(ii) try to produce explanations within current theories
(iii) if this fails try small modifications of current theories
(iv) if this fails try large modifications of current theories
(v) if this fails invent some new theories

Academic science has opted for (i). This will not work. People within
the field have tried and failed with (ii) so are now at the stage of (iii)
or (iv). I hope they are successful but suspect that we will be eventually
impelled towards option (v).

Very Best Wishes, Yours sincerely,
Ramon Prasad <internet:100437.530@compuserve.com>
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cuden530 cudfnRamon cudlnPrasad cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.17 / 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: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 07:04:58 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <EACHUS.95Aug16152732@spectre.mitre.org> eachus@spectre.mitre
org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
>In article <40qs02$2pa@martha.utcc.utk.edu> mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu
(Matthew Kennel) writes:

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

>   The solar neutrino observatories have observed anything but
>constant burning.  I know of no attempts to analyze the data for
>correlation to the sunspot cycles, but at a minimum there is a paper
>in it for anyone who can get hold of the raw data.  I don't think the
>Gallium experiments have been running long enough for an entire
>sunspot cycle, but the clorine experiments certainly have, and the
>data should just about be enough now to give you an answer one way or
>the other.

I'm not certain that they would pay any attention to a short time
steps if there is little reason to expect such detail??  Still the 
stored data may contain such raw information, so it could be just 
a matter of dredging for such spiky detail .    

As far as x-rays and neutrons, these would be generated too deep
to see.  On the otherhand, knock off neutrons from deuterium could
generate near surface and surface neutron flux.  The energy spectrum
is different.   
>					Robert I. Eachus
>
>with Standard_Disclaimer;
>use  Standard_Disclaimer;
>function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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:
cuddy17 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.17 /  Tstolper@aol.c /  MIT Patent:  Official Printed Version:  Only Three Bucks
     
Originally-From: Tstolper@aol.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: MIT Patent:  Official Printed Version:  Only Three Bucks
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 14:13:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Ken,

What a pleasant surprise to see a communication from you amid all the static.
 (Are Internet groups like ham radio before WWII?)  It's surprises like this
that keep me skimming sci.physics.fusion.

If you (or any other members of the College of Sci.Physics.Fusion) want
readable, high-resolution diagrams, why not get a printed copy of the patent?

If you have the patent number, U.S. patents can be purchased for $3 each
from: COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS & TRADEMARKS
PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE
WASHINGTON, DC 20231.  

Check payable to Commissioner of Patents & Trademarks.  

U.S. patents can also be purchased by coupons, one coupon per patent.  A book
of 100 coupons sells for $150.  

It looks as if the dam at the U.S. patent office may finally be cracking.
 Who knows, maybe it's time to buy a book of coupons, especially if the
proposal to publish all patent applications 18 months after they're submitted
is approved.

Tom Stolper

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenTstolper cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.17 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Off the deep end
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Off the deep end
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 95 11:42:10 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Richard A Blue <blue@pilot.msu.edu> writes:
 
>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
 
As someone who has actually read the literature, I say you are full of
pure crap. You have no idea what you are talking about. The nuclear effects
demonstrated at Los Alamos, KEK, Osaka National U., Rockwell and elsewhere
are real beyond any question. The tritium, neutrons and excess heat at
thousands of eV per atom prove that CF must be a nuclear effect (perhaps
combined with something even more energetic.) You have never disproven
a single one of these results. In fact, you are such a craven coward, you
refuse to even read about or discuss any of these results. You are not
fooling anyone but yourself and your fellow Lunatic Skeptics.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjedrothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.17 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Droege's experiments proved nothing
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege's experiments proved nothing
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 95 11:43:23 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Thomas H. Kunich <tomk@netcom.com> writes:
 
    "And if you read Droege's reports you will find that he himself reported
    on the "contamination" and the results of investigations of it."
 
No, he did not. The contaminating materials included cat hairs and a dead
fly galvanized to the cathode. Droege did not discuss these materials. Also,
he used the wrong type of test tube and the wrong type of electrolyte.
 
 
    "All materials said to be used by F&P."
 
No, I am quite sure F&P did not recommend adding organic materials and
deceased insects to the electrolyte.
 
 
Me:  "Droege did not replicate the experiment"
 
THC: "Come again? Didn't he run three separate experiments with increasingly
     sophisticated instrumentation?"
 
The problem was not in the instrumentation, it was in the experimental
technique and the electrochemistry. Droege built a fine fishing pole and he
used good bait, but he was fishing in a dry hole. He should have read the
literature and consulted with experts. I urged him to do so at the time. Three
experiments are nowhere near enough, but in any case, if he had taken
reasonable precautions, and he had run a reasonable number of tests, perhaps
after 20 or 30 tries he might have seen the effect. It is not *that difficult*
to do a CF experiment. After all, the three great enemies of CF, MIT, Harwell,
and Cal Tech all got excess heat in 1989, even though their experimental
technique was sloppy.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjedrothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.16 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Droege's experiments proved nothing
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege's experiments proved nothing
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 23:58:07 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

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

>This is incorrect. Droege's measurements were not "good" in any scientific
>sense.

And what is your qualifications for judging science Jed?

>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.

And if you read Droege's reports you will find that he himself reported on
the "contamination" and the results of investigations of it. All materials
said to be used by F&P. But don't let that stop you from making statements
about scientific evidence that you aren't qualified to judge.

>Droege did not replicate the experiments.

Come again? Didn't he run three separate experiments with incerasingly
sophisticated instrumentation? Oh yeh, you aren't qualified to judge
that either -- only to comment on it.

>We cannot draw any conclusions from
>his work.

We can tell as much as we can from experiments by P&F and others that
had positive findings. We can tell even more from the fact that there
has yet to be one commercial product from this so highly publicized
media event. Positive findings would have led to far more publicity
than has been the case. Most scientists have completely discounted
cold fusion after reading absolute incompetent drivel from true believers
like yourself. You have probably singlehandedly done more to disprove
cold fusion than the entire pantheon of experimenters.

>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.

"And yet it still revolves."

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.17 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
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: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 11:35:40 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <40m9uv$6od@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom
Potter ) wrote:

> In <21cenlogic-1308951142020001@austin-2-7.i-link.net>
> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes: 
> >
> >In article <405jep$dq8@ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>, tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom
> >Potter ) wrote:
> >
> >> 1. TIME(X) = an external reference cycle count / the cycle count of
> X
> >
> >***{Ok, Sam is 20 years old. The time of Sam, or TIME(SAM), by your
> >formalism, would equal 20, right? The "external reference cycle" is 1
> >orbit by the earth around the sun, and thus equals 1, right? And the
> >"cycle count of Sam" is equal to 20, right? Therefore, TIME (SAM) =
> the
> >cycle count of Sam/the external reference cycle count = 20/1 = 20. But
> >that's not what you said; it is the reciprocal of what you said. What
> am I
> >missing? --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> Two kinds of time can be associated with systems. One is analogous to
> the period and one to the decay, of a pendulum. A stable external
> "period time" is used to measure both of these times.
> 
> The time used in the equations of physics is not global, but is unique
> to the system under observation. A separate time exists for every
> system. It is called the natural period of the system.
> 
> Sam is a composite, entropic system in which many systems are decaying,
> or giving up energy to the universe at different rates. Simple isolated
> systems are periodic. When they exchange energy with the universe
> homogeneously, they change exponentially. Composites systems, with
> non-homogeneous interfaces with the universe, commonly have a "bathtub"
> curve decay characteristic, They have a steep "infant mortality rate",
> a flat entropic life rate, and a semisteep "wearout" rate.
> 
> The external reference ( The Sun ) used to "time " Sam has cycled 20
> times between the point on the curve called birth and "now".
> 
> Time(Sam) = 20 cycles(Sun) / interval(birth till now)

***{If the result of this division is to be 20, as it must be, then the
denominator must equal 1 and you are guilty of switching units in
mid-formula. In the numerator, the unit is 1 orbit around the sun, whereas
in the denominator the unit must be 20 orbits around the sun. In my view,
it is as wrong to switch units in mid-formula as it is to switch
definitions in mid-sentence. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> As can be seen, entropic, or decay times, involve intervals, whereas
> cyclical times involve periods. Period time is in the explicate order
> whereas decay time is in the implicate order and is a statistical
> process.
> 
> >> 2. Two bodies interact about a common point, in a common time.
> >
> >***{Is this a statement about orbital mechanics? In that case, if we
> >ignore the other planets, we can say that the Sun and the earth orbit
> a
> >common center of mass with a period of about 365 days. Is this an
> example
> >of what you mean? --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> All pairs of bodies interact about a common center. 

***{All two-body systems, by definition, have a center of mass. And I
suppose that there is some sense in which the interactions which they have
could be said to take place "about" that center. However, that does not
mean it is always useful to employ center of mass as a tool in analyzing
such interactions. For example, if the sun emits a gamma photon which,
8.33 minutes later, snaps a DNA strand in Sam's elbow, reference to the
center of mass of the sun-Sam system will do nothing to explicate what
happened. However, when you say that "all pairs of bodies interact about a
common center," you leave the impression that you think that the center of
mass is important in the analysis of all two-body physical interactions.
--Mitchell Jones}***

While the Earth and
> Sun are interacting about their common center in 365 days, both are
> interacting with all other bodies in the universe.
> 
> >>    a. The common time is the natural period of the system.
> >
> >***{I.e., the "common time" is the common orbital period (365 days)
> shared
> >by both bodies, right? --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> Yes.
> 
> >>       ( The number of counts ( Cycles ) of an external reference
> >>         for each cycle of the system. )
> >
> >***{E.g., the number of rotations of the earth on its axis
> corresponding
> >to one orbit of the earth (or the sun) about the center of mass of the
> >assumed two-body system, which is about 365, right? --Mitchell
> Jones}***
> 
> Although, I have implied that bodies interact about a common center of
> mass or gravity, neither of these is absolutely correct. The common
> point can be better referred to as the center of time, and this can be
> computed simply and accurately.

***{If you do not mean the center of mass, you need to specify what you
*do* mean, and how the point in question is to be computed. As for calling
it a "center of time," that sounds like a self-contradiction. Time is not
located in a specific region and, thus, cannot reasonably be said to have
a "center." --Mitchell Jones}***

> 
> >>    b. Interaction time is the number of counts ( Cycles )
> >>       between when a change is observed in a body, and when
> >>       a causal change is observed in the system.
> >>
> >> 3. TANGENT(X) = INTERACTION TIME(X) / COMMON TIME / ( 2 pi )
> >
> >***{I have several problems with this:
> >
> >(1) At the beginning you said that these "tangents" are functions of
> mass
> >and time, yet here I see no reference to mass. If you are referring
> >narrowly to the area of orbital mechanics, period and orbital radius
> are
> >usually measured, and mass of the central body is inferred from that.
> So
> >what about distance (radius)? How do you reduce distance to time? Are
> you
> >expressing distance in light years (or light minutes, light seconds,
> >etc.)?
> 
> As you have observed, the "tangents" are actually cycle ratios,
> which can be more simply expressed as time ratios. Mass is a three
> dimensional perception of tangents and the external reference. Of
> course, the tangent can be approximately computed as:
> 
>    tangent(Earth) = ( mass(sun) * G / ( Period / 2 pi ) )^.33333 / C^3

***{Here is a statement that ought to be verifiable. Tangent(Earth) should
be the same as either Tangent(A) or Tangent(B) in your table, in the
column for Earth, right? Is it? Well, here is the computation:

Mass(sun) = 1.989E+30
G = 6.67E-11
Period/2¼ = Time(Earth) = Time(C) in the Earth column = 5.023E+6
C = 3E+8

Plugging these values in, we get:

Tangent Earth) = {[(1.989E+30* 6.67E-11)/5.023E+6]^.33333}/(3E+8)^3 =
{[13.27E+19/5.023E+6]^.33333}/(3E+8)^3 = {[2.64E+13]^.33333}/(3E+8)^3 =
{[264000E+8]^.33333}/(3E+8)^3 = (64.15E+2)/(3E+8)^3 = (64.15E+2)/(27E+24)
= 2.38E-22

If I did the aritimetic right, this result should match either Tangent(A)
or Tangent(B) for Earth. Those two values (rounded) were 1.57E-6 and
1.68E-4. If Tangent(Earth) matches neither, then what is it? Your
"tangents" seem to multiply like rabbits, and they seem to behave like
Cheshire cats: just when I think I know where they are, they vanish and
reappear somewhere else!

Did I mess up somewhere here, Tom, or is this a subtle plot on your part
to drive me insane? --Mitchell Jones}***    
> 
> The relationship between distance and time is determined by the units
> used for "C". Furlongs per fortnight, meter per second, miles per
> second, etc.
> 
> >(2) Assuming that you are using light travel times to measure
> distance, it
> >looks to me like you are going to have to divide all times by the
> speed of
> >light to make such a formalism work. For example, suppose that you
> have
> >the radius of the earth's orbit: r = 1.5E+11 meters; and you have the
> >period: T = 3.15E+7 seconds. In that case, the velocity of the earth
> in
> >its orbit is roughly V = 2¼r/T = 3E+4 meters/sec. That is simple.
> However,
> >if you use light travel times to measure distance, the formula
> becomes: V
> >= [2¼(r/c)]/[T/c] This formula will give the same answer for the
> velocity
> >of the earth in its orbit as the previous one, but only because the
> use of
> >light times to measure distances (e.g., r/c instead of r) is
> accompanied
> >by the division of all times by the speed of light (e.g., T/c instead
> of
> >T).
> >
> >(3) The expression  "TANGENT(X) = INTERACTION TIME(X) / COMMON TIME /
> (
> >2¼)" is mathematically unclear: a/(b/c) is not the same as (a/b)/c
> except
> >in the special cases where c = 1 or -1. Which do you intend? I note
> that,
> >in (2) above, I can bring 2¼ down from the numerator, getting: V =
> >[r/c]/[(T/C)/2¼] My guess, therefore, is that (T/c)/2¼ is your "common
> >time" or "period."
> 
> I used the notation common to spreadsheets and assumed that anyone who
> took the time to make the calculations would pick up on that, as you
> have.

***{Unfortunately, as I indicated in a later post, I subsequently refuted
the above assumption when I discovered that I could calculate "Time(C)" by
assuming that it was equal to T/(2¼), rather than equal to  (T/c)/(2¼).
Which means: the above reasoning ceases to work for "Velocity(B)." Bottom
line: the assumptions that I have to make about your meaning in order to
calculate one part of your table do not hold up when I attempt to apply
them to calculate other parts of your table. I am unable, despite hours of
struggle, to find a consistent rationale within your system. You seem to
be switching definitions willy-nilly from formula to formula, as if you
are totally unconcerned with the meaning of it all. --Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
> >(4) In the 4th row, third column of your table of calculated values, I
> >find the value 2.97842296E+4, which appears to be velocity of the
> earth in
> >its orbit in meters/sec, carried out to more digits of accuracy than I
> >bothered with above. Your general formula for that table was
> PROPERTY(X) =
> >TANGENT(A)^L*TANGENT(B)^M*TIME(C)^N*C^(L+M)/G^O. When I apply the
> exponent
> >values of L,M,N,O = {0,1,1,0}, the formula reduces to PROPERTY(X) =
> >1*TAN(B)*TIME(C)*C. Logically, therefore, we have PROPERTY(X) =
> >{INTERACTION TIME(B)/[(T/c)/2¼]}*TIME(C)*c. Therefore, [INTERACTION
> >TIME(B)]*TIME(C)*c = r/c. Therefore [INTERACTION TIME(B)]*TIME(C)  =
> >r/c^2. How do I go further? Well, just guessing, let's say that
> >INTERACTION TIME(B) = T/c. If so, then TIME(C) = r/Tc. Result: it all
> >works, and you get the right answer.
> >
> >Unfortunately, the latter stages of this reasoning do not make any
> sense
> >visually. Something is wrong somewhere, and I quite frankly have only
> >a vague idea of what you are talking about, despite spending several
> hours
> >racking my brain in an attempt to make sense out of your post. Any
> >comment? --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> I would suggest that you work out a few examples using the equation:
>   PROPERTY(X) = TANGENT(A)^L*TANGENT(B)^M*TIME(C)^N*C^(L+M)/G^O

***{I tried, Tom. It ain't working. I can find no interpretation of your
equation that works consistently to calculate the various values in your
table. If an interpretation works in one place, it breaks down as soon as
I attempt to apply it somewhere else. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> considering that:
> 1. The tangential velocity of body(A) = tangent(A) * C
> 2. The tangential velocity of body(B) = tangent(B) * C
> 3. Time(C) = period / ( 2 pi )

***{Here is a perfect example of the inconsistency of your definitions:
the tangential velocity (i.e., the orbital velocity) of the earth,
extracted from the equation given above by applying the exponents
(0,1,1,0), as given in your table, gives:

PROPERTY(X) = VELOCITY(B) =TANGENT(B)*TIME(C)*C

Nevertheless, you are now claiming that the tangential velocity of body B
equals tangent(B)*c, which could only be if time(C) = 1. This is
mathematical gibberish, Tom! --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> You don't have to worry about G and C as these are just constants
> used to express distances and the properties defined in terms of mass
> in the desired units. They have nothing to do with physics. The thing
> to do is set them equal to one and forget them.

***{You claimed, in the post where you presented your table, that you were
using the MKS system of units. Given that statement, neither the value of
G nor that of C (usually written as c, the speed of light), is equal to 1.
Period. This is simply a fact. --Mitchell Jones}***  
> 
> The main point to consider is that, although an external reference
> cycle or time, is used to determine the tangents within a closed
> system, the common time is unique to each system. In other words,
> period time is not a global, homogeneous property.

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.17 / Alan M /  Re: Off the deep end
     
Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" <Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Off the deep end
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 18:53:51 +0100
Organization: Home

In article: <ppNBDqa.jedrothwell@delphi.com>  jedrothwell@delphi.com 
writes:
> As someone who has actually read the literature, I say you are full of
> pure crap. You have no idea what you are talking about. The nuclear 
effects
> demonstrated at Los Alamos, KEK, Osaka National U., Rockwell and 
elsewhere
> are real beyond any question. The tritium, neutrons and excess heat at
> thousands of eV per atom prove that CF must be a nuclear effect 
(perhaps
> combined with something even more energetic.) You have never disproven
> a single one of these results. In fact, you are such a craven coward, 
you
> refuse to even read about or discuss any of these results. You are not
> fooling anyone but yourself and your fellow Lunatic Skeptics.
>

Er... thank you Jed for a fine science-based posting. Fully up to what 
we expect of you.
 
-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

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

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Aug 18 04:37:04 EDT 1995
------------------------------
