1995.08.18 / Ben Weiner /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: bweiner@electron.rutgers.edu (Ben Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: 18 Aug 1995 14:13:23 -0400
Organization: Rutgers University

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.

Old news.  Ray Davis (PI of the long running Homestake chlorine experiment) 
claimed a possible correlation with the sunspot cycle a long time ago.
I think it's fair to say that most people don't see it in the data.

I think it is misleading to say that the neutrino experiments "have
observed anything but constant burning."  The number of neutrinos
detected is very small and there is also the potential for large
systematic errors since the tank flushing process is such an
undertaking.  Constant burning is likely just as consistent with the
data as anything else.

-- 
stop!  look!  and listen, sinner jim whitney!
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbweiner cudfnBen cudlnWeiner cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.18 /  jedrothwell@de /  Off the deep end
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Off the deep end
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 95 17:00:54 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Dick Blue writes:
 
    "He also uses "Los Alamos" in much the same manner.  What experimental
    results are you refering to under that heading, Jed?"
 
You know damn well what results I mean, you swine. I have reported on three
different groups there, countless times: Storms, Claytor, and E-Quest.
 
You will deny that any of that exists, because you are a lying s.o.b. You
have been denying it all for years! Go right ahead, blather on. Tell us
more about magic water that holds energy without getting any hotter. That's
your latest "theory" isn't it? Make up some other stupid crap! I probably
will not respond because normally I do not bother reading your lies, evasions,
and your crackpot theories. In this case I thought you should know that you
have not suckered everyone. You skeptics hate us, so it is good for you to
be reminded that we hate your guts too, and we can bite back when we feel
like it. I can be as abusive as any of you, I have the luxury of being *right*
and having facts and experimental evidence on my side. All you have is "magic
water" and the stupid lies you yourself invent.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjedrothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.18 /  prasad /  Re: Off the deep end
     
Originally-From: prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Off the deep end
Date: 18 Aug 1995 22:59:02 GMT
Organization: sometimes

In article <9508161452.AA16520@pilot03.cl.msu.edu>, blue@pilot.msu.edu
(Richard A Blue) 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
|> your end of the discussion we should be able to put this topic
|> to rest in short order!
|> 

Looks like you're all set to put Mr Micawber to shame!

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenprasad cudlnprasad cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.18 /  meron@cars3.uc /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 23:16:09 GMT
Organization: CARS, U. of Chicago, Chicago IL 60637

In article <411hun$g7p@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, attilasw@ix.netcom.com
(Jeffrey A. Dracup ) writes:
>I'd have to agree with Mr. Budnik.  I don't believe it is too
>outlandish to set goals which are workable at the hundred-year mark. 
>It certainly helps focus short-term, and limited-resource efforts (such
>as conservation or local-star solar.)
>
>If the goal is to increase the net standard of living for our
>particular species, we will require a) more land and b) more energy. 
>There has always been a direct correlation between the average quantity
>of usuable energy available per capita and the global average standard
>of living.
>
>In order to get more land, for the short term (next 30 to 50 years) we
>need the energy to constuct something along the lines of thousand
>square mile seaworthy barges - useable for agriculture or living space.
>With only one-seventh the Earth's surface now covered by land, we could
>add a substantial surface area without significantly effecting the
>current land/ocean ratio.

The total area of land is somewhere in the vicinity of 60 million square miles.
Even taking into account that part of it isn't usable, I still fail to see where
adding another thousand square miles is going to make a difference.


Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu	|  chances are he is doing just the same"
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmeron cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.18 / A Plutonium /  Re: Pulsar mechanism, why they pulse, why they shut down
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.
lectromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Pulsar mechanism, why they pulse, why they shut down
Date: 18 Aug 1995 05:29:19 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <DDC7qI.7o7@prometheus.UUCP>
pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:

> Yep the Earth should have a Ni/Fe core. ... But .. .. 
> I believe that Fe+++++++++++ traps a bit to much energetic light  
> a stars middle, not to be bouyed to the surface by the diffusion 
> of this photonic flux outward.  So in fact the center of the star 
> "cleans" itself of high "Z" crude and dumps it on the surface.  True 
> over time the sludge will build up and it may for become quite a 
> reflective shell there and trap light and energy which could 
> eventually heat up and lift off to become a scum ring as the star 
> "shucks" off the scum film.  Then the star can radiation cools and 
> shrink to a back to a smaller size.  Of course, the idea here is 
> to give you a crumb for a planet formation scheme.  This is pretty 
> slick, but we probably don't have the size scale to employ it. 
> 
> I don't think this mechanism constitutes the current understanding 
> but it seems to make more sense to me than your "rsnm - thingy". 


  Paul, is there any journal literature as to why iridium is so
abundant in asteroids?  Anyone tried to reconcile that abundance? It
seems to me that if the Dust Cloud theory were correct then the
asteroids would not have any iron-iridium asteroids at all?
  Paul, has anyone done an experiment "cold fusion" type where they
take changing magnetic fields around elements 20 through iron to gain
energy? Forget the cold water test tube cold fusion. The mechanism is
spontaneous neutron materialization and it is catalyzed by changing
magnetic fields.

  Do the elements from element 20 up to iron show a statistical
abundance towards neutron excess?
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.19 / John Freckleton /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: jrfreckl@w301pcasnd.wr.usgs.gov. (John R. Freckleton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 1995 01:44:18 GMT
Organization: Representing myself

In article <DDJ4My.D0z@midway.uchicago.edu>, meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
> In article <411hun$g7p@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, attilasw@ix.netcom.com
(Jeffrey A. Dracup ) writes:
> >I'd have to agree with Mr. Budnik.  I don't believe it is too
> >outlandish to set goals which are workable at the hundred-year mark. 
> >It certainly helps focus short-term, and limited-resource efforts (such
> >as conservation or local-star solar.)
> >
> >If the goal is to increase the net standard of living for our
> >particular species, we will require a) more land and b) more energy. 
> >There has always been a direct correlation between the average quantity
> >of usuable energy available per capita and the global average standard
> >of living.
> >
> >In order to get more land, for the short term (next 30 to 50 years) we
> >need the energy to constuct something along the lines of thousand
> >square mile seaworthy barges - useable for agriculture or living space.
> >With only one-seventh the Earth's surface now covered by land, we could
> >add a substantial surface area without significantly effecting the
> >current land/ocean ratio.
> 


> The total area of land is somewhere in the vicinity of 60 million square miles.
> Even taking into account that part of it isn't usable, I still fail to see where
                                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> adding another thousand square miles is going to make a difference.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   
> 
> 
> Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
> meron@cars3.uchicago.edu	|  chances are he is doing just the same"


   Indeed, and that's why one could consider that what possibly was meant
   by 'thousand square mile' is 'thousand mile square' (or, 1 million square
   miles  [supplied as a courtesy for the multiplicatively challenged]), or,
   an additional ~1/60th increase in land area (further consideration granted 
   to the fractionally challenged--i.e. 1/2-witted).

   Physics Jeopardy:
   Author: Chapter XXIII-- 'Theories of action at a distance' 
   Hints:
   Agent 007
   'One glass's' early occupation
   Type of optimization problem (abbreviated)
   Fluid-extraction borehole

   (Be sure to phrase your answer in the form of a question.)
  
   John F. 

-- 
JRF
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjrfreckl cudfnJohn cudlnFreckleton cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.18 / Robin Spaandonk /  Vacuum energy
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Vacuum energy
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 06:36:53 GMT
Organization: Improving

One frequently sees solutions to QM problems, that involve "borrowing"
energy from the vacuum. Could someone explain to me in relatively
simple terms, exactly what mandates that this energy must be returned?
Please do not invoke the law of conservation of mass-energy, as it is
precisely this which I am trying to expand into a  law of conservation
of mass-energy-zero-point-energy.
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 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.18 / 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: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 15:10:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Raman Prasad charges that, "Academic science has opted for
<i> - deny that it (cold fusion) exists."

WRONG.  Academic science has given cold fusion very careful
consideration in all the ways you suggest.  You simply have
not been paying attention to what has been going on.

One can always suggest that more effort should go to investigate
cold fusion.  There is no limit to the resources that could
be redirected into such investigations, but how do you justify
the allocation of more resources to a field of research that
is most notable for the number of dead ends it has produced.

McKubre's results were among the more frequently cited, but
clearly his continued investigations provided diminishing
returns such that further expenditures were not justified.
The same could be said for the work at the institute of the
University of Utah, and it now appears that Pons and Fleischmann
may have terminated their efforts.  I could make a very long
list of all the very promising experiments that have led
nowhere.  A random search for a needle in the haystack that
may not even be there is seldom a good experimental plan
yet that is what you seem to advocate.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.18 / Richard Blue /  Re: nuclear evidence for CF
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: nuclear evidence for CF
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 15:45:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell says the nuclear evidence to support CF is in great
shape although his listing of the labs that provide that evidence
hints that his case is mostly bluff and bluster, as per usual.

Rockwell, I believe, has done nothing relating to nuclear evidence
for cold fusion beyond the analysis of certain samples for helium.
The experimentation that I would call into question is the preparation
of the samples which Rockwell analyzed.  I think Jed should give
the "credit" to those who actually did the experimentation, but he
seems to think the Rockwell name constitutes evidence.

He also uses "Los Alamos" in much the same manner.  What experimental
results are you refering to under that heading, Jed?

I believe that when you drag the nuclear evidence to which Jed makes
reference out into the open you find that it is definitely a very
mixed bag, including unpublished and unpublishable data.

To say that my low opinion of the nuclear evidence derives from
not reading the literature is, as always, incorrect.  I have read
plenty of this stuff and pointed out a number of glaring problems,
but that cuts no ice with Jed.

Let's see what the facts really are with regard to nuclear evidence
for cold fusion.  With the possible exception of claims for helium
production, there have never been any claims by anyone and anytime
for the detection of nuclear reaction products at levels conmensurate
with the claimed levels of excess heat.  Can you cite a single
example to refute that statement, Jed?

In summary, only those experiments involving the detection of helium
remain in the running as even claimed to have detected a nuclear
reaction process responsible for the generation of heat at the watt
level or above.  The overwhelming evidence is that cold fusion does
not produce neutrons, gamma rays, X-rays, protons, or tritium in
a truly significant manner.  Now if you want to get bogged down in
discussions as to whether any of the above have been detected at levels
many orders of magnitude to low to be of much interest go right ahead.
In any case the nuclear aspects of cold fusion are still in deep
water without any hope for rescue.  I doubt the a ton of fluorescent
fullerenes with save the day.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.18 / Tom Potter /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter )
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,
ci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: 18 Aug 1995 16:26:28 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <21cenlogic-1708951135400001@austin-1-14.i-link.net>
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes: 
>
>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 I have stated many times:
TIME(X) = an external reference cycle count / the cycle count of X

I don't know how to state this more clearly.
If we use the Earths cycle about the Sun as our reference,
and TIME(X) is the TIME of Sam (The interval between his birth and now)
then the interval TIME(X) is:
TIME(X) = 20 reference cycles per the unit interval.

It must be noted that I haven't even written about the implicit order,
or the statistical relationships between systems. I have been writing
about the explicate order, or the simple, non-statistical, interaction
between two isolated bodies. The life, or interval, of Sam involves far
more than two bodies and is a statistical process, rather than a
simple, classical physics process.

>> 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}***

Again, you are making the jump between the explicate and the implicate
orders. So far, I have stayed within the Classical confines of the
"Correspondence Principle" rather than crossing into quantum mechanics.
For example, let's assume that two, completely isolated, fundamental
particles have been interacting about their common center for an
eternity. Now, one day, something happens and their common center ( In
relation to some observer light years away. ) suddenly changes. What I
have been writing about ( And what Classical physics is about. )
concerns the relationships between the two isolated bodies, not what
happened to make the common center change in relationship to the
observer. Our discrete math cannot handle the multitude of interactions
in the universe, so they must be treated statistically, rather than as
hard, fast, directly computable relationships.

>> 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}***

Again, imagine an isolated, two body, system. If I cannot see the
components of the system, but observe the composite system as a unitary
body, I observe the changes in terms of a center of change. Perhaps
this center is associated with mass, or charge, or baryon number or
some other property. An observer cannot observe a change in the center
of a system, caused by a change occurring at some component to the
system, until after the time interval between the changes. 
( Interaction time )

>> 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}***

God, you're good at catching my errors!
The equation above should have been:
tangent(Earth) = ( mass(sun) * G / ( Period / 2 pi ) )^.33333 / C

I moved C outside the parenthesis, to make it clearer,
but neglected to correct the powers.

I apologize again for spinning your wheels, but I greatly appreciate
your perception.

>> 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:

 This is where you are going astray.
 I define velocity(A) as (1,0,0,0)
      and velocity(B) as (0,1,0,0)
(0,1,1,0) would be analogous to Keplers equals area per equal time for
the area traced out by body(B).

>***{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}***

I am suggesting that it is more convenient, more accurate, and less
confusing, to drop the MKS and all other systems and use my system.
As can be seen, the values of "C" and "G" in the equation

PROPERTY(X) = TANGENT(A)^L*TANGENT(B)^M*TIME(C)^N*C^(L+M)/G^O

determine what system of units one is applying.

Of course, the selection of the reference which is used to quantify
TIME(C) determines the time units. If the cycle of the system under
observation is used as its own reference, then all properties reduce to
factors of dimensionless tangent functions. This means that we can
compute all the Classical properties of the interactions between
particles by using just their "fine structure constants". Of course,
statistics would still be needed to compute <?> a systems interface
with the larger universe.


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.18 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: CF materials
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF materials
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 95 13:26:23 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Bruce Simpson <bruce@faxmail.co.nz> writes:
 
>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?
 
It is essential that you begin by reading the literature and by contacting
skilled, experienced people like Ed Storms. You need to learn how to
pretest the materials, and how to recognize good cathode material. There
is a great deal of know-how involved in this work. It takes as much
skill and practice as, say, repairing automobile engines or gormet
cooking.
 
The actual cost of the cathode materials is typically zero ($0.00) because
if you demonstrate that you are serious and you know what you are doing,
the precious metal companies will give you samples of material for free.
On the other hand, if you want to manufacture custom made cathodes according
to the Patterson patent formulas, or if you want to make machines like the
ones shown in the Canon patents or the NTT papers, I suppose that would
cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars. You have to be "skilled in the
art" (as the patent lawyers say), you have to be an expert at thin film
deposition techniques and surface chemistry. No ordinary person working
on his own can hope to manufacture these things, any more than you can
manufacture a working copy of an Intel CPU chip. As I said, the only way
to do it is to talk to the people who have already succeeded. Call Canon,
call Patterson. If you have something to offer them, they might be inclined
to assist you.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjedrothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.18 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Off the deep end
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Off the deep end
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 95 13:37:56 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

"Alan M. Dunsmuir" <Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk> writes:
 
>Er... thank you Jed for a fine science-based posting. Fully up to what
>we expect of you.
 
And how about yourself, idiot? You have not read a damn thing, you have never
attempted to disprove any CF result. What is your point anyway? Why quote me?
Since you are a gutless wonder who refuses to challenge the experimental
results by talking science, why not just shut up and go away?
 
Maybe you have some brilliant science ideas to offer us, like Dick Blue has
done. His idea to explain the Cravens / CETI cell was a real masterpiece,
wasn't it? Yessir, we should all applaud this genius who believes he can
store energy in water without raising the temperature. And also Dick thinks
that if you clap hard, Tinker Bell will come back to life too. Yes, Dick is
the consumate Crackpot Scientist, they should make him President of the Flat
Earth Society, along with Morrison, Jones and all you other crackpots.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjedrothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.18 / Jeffrey Dracup /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: attilasw@ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Dracup )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: 18 Aug 1995 08:11:03 GMT
Organization: Netcom

I'd have to agree with Mr. Budnik.  I don't believe it is too
outlandish to set goals which are workable at the hundred-year mark. 
It certainly helps focus short-term, and limited-resource efforts (such
as conservation or local-star solar.)

If the goal is to increase the net standard of living for our
particular species, we will require a) more land and b) more energy. 
There has always been a direct correlation between the average quantity
of usuable energy available per capita and the global average standard
of living.

In order to get more land, for the short term (next 30 to 50 years) we
need the energy to constuct something along the lines of thousand
square mile seaworthy barges - useable for agriculture or living space.
With only one-seventh the Earth's surface now covered by land, we could
add a substantial surface area without significantly effecting the
current land/ocean ratio.

For the long term, development of controllable energy devices, fusion
or otherwise, with capacities far in excess of what could be achieved
even by coating the entire Earth and Moon with solar cells, is
necessary.  It is necessary both for what we would now consider
large-scale engineering projects, and the power to travel to other land
masses (planets).  Travelling to other planets also has the added
benefit of possibly broadening our pool of available materials. 
Remember what titanium did for aircraft?

Who knows, with enough energy, and the computing power to control it,
maybe we'll have the ability to create our own materials, to suit, and
in large quantities, in the next 100 or so years.

The key to it all is energy - lots of it.  The idea that we have enough
energy now reminds me of the U.S. Government research and conclusion in
the 60's that a total of 50 Mainframe computers would meet the needs
for the entire U.S. for the forseeable future.

     - Jeff Dracup.



In <3vo4ks$59f@mtnmath.com> paul@mtnmath.com (Paul Budnik) writes: 
>
>Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP) wrote:
>: In article <3vip26$9a1@mtnmath.com> paul@mtnmath.com (Paul Budnik)
writes:
>: >Bruce D. Scott (bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de) wrote:
>: >: Paul Budnik (paul@mtnmath.mtnmath.com) wrote:
>
>: >: [...]
>: >: :                                             We have a perfectly
>: >: : good fusion reactor conveniently delivering to us more energy
than
>: >: : we could ever safely use and that is far more reliable than
anything
>: >: : we will ever be able to build on earth. It is located at a safe
>: >: : distance of 93 million miles so we do not have to worry about
the
>: >: : radioactive products it creates.
>
>: I don't think so.  Few people are aware that the solar constant
isn't.  
>: There have been periods extending for several hundred years when
>: the orb has either underpreformed or over performed, with quite 
>: serious effects to man's economy and well being.  
>
>You think we can make a fusion reactor that will produce output
>even above or below expectations for several hundred years?
>
>: Further it doesn't provide energy which we can untilize safely in
>: high densities for driving fast transport for example.
>
>Of course there are issues of storage of energy. But these all seem
>more tractable than fusion. Keep in mind that we can use solar
>energy to make just about any fuel. It is only a question of cost,
>efficiency and the environmental impact of the entire cycle of
>manufacturing and using the fuel.
>
>: >: Having deleted the first sentence, I heartily agree with this
rest.
>: >: Unfortunately, there is a good reason why this won't work for
most
>: >: countries:  too many people, and the attendant demands on land
use.
>
>: >That is ridiculous. For most of the worlds population enough power
>: >could be generated for individual use with solar roofs. You need
solar
>: >farms only for industrial or high density populations. There are
plenty
>: >of desserts in the world that are not usable for much else. 
>
>: I have a different opinion!  We will need the desserts, and your
shingle 
>: every roof for solar is vastly too expensive. These things don't 
>: last forever, and they aren't very efficient.  Or do you count 
>: subsidized projects as cheap?
>
>A recent issue of Business Week pointed out that solar is expected
>to be cost competitive with grid power in many urban areas by the
>year 2000. Once that crossover happens I expect the use of solar
>to grow rapidly and the costs to continue to fall as efficiencies
>rise. The research that is making this possible was motivated by
>the need to expand electrical capacity without increasing pollution
>in LA. Solar is ideal for this since its output is at a peak when
>demand for air conditioning is also at a peak. The breakthrough
>came when TI was able to manufacture solar cells from amorphous
>silicon. This greatly reduced costs. If the money that has been
>thrown down the rat hole of fusion research had been well invested
>in solar research solar would probably be in wide spread use today.
>
>: >The *only* long term alternatives are solar
>: >or nuclear (including fusion). There is a finite amount of fossil
>: >fuel and we seem to already be suffering the ill effects of using
too
>: >much of this. The origin of the energy in all fossil fuel
>: >is solar. It is not a question of converting to solar power but
rather
>: >of using solar in a way that is not environmentally damaging and
>: >is sustainable.
>
>: Quite the contrary.  We haven't been using nearly enough ff.  What
>: is required to raise the level of the biosphere on earth is to
>: restore huge amounts of atmospheric CO2 (the levels present during 
>: the carbonaceous period).
>
>First fossil fuel is solar power. It is just solar power in a
>form that is not sustainable. Second we need to understand the
>atmosphere and the planet far better before we start reengineering
>the atmosphere. Large scale engineering projects taken on with
>too narrow an understanding of the entire system regularly lead
>to disasters that cost a fortune to undo. It is possible that
>projects on this scale cannot be undone.
>
>: Then there would be an accelerated plant 
>: growth which would result in far more density tonage of biosphere 
>: and surface coverage (including those desserts).  What's required
>: is to clean the CO2 of other acid gases, and that can be done
>: with lime stone.  Or use fusion energy to release C02 from such
>: stone formations and use the remaining basic oxides to de-acidify 
>: exiting acid regions.  The advantage here, is that O2 is increased 
>: as well as C02.    
>
>Fuel from plants (as opposed to fossil fuel) might be a significant
>element in a solar economy.
>
>The rest of what you suggest is bizarre and dangerous. Lets solve the
>problems we understand. Solving problems we do not understand is a
good
>way to get into a great deal of trouble as recent history has
demonstrated
>over and over.
>
>: Then there are those energy intensive (actually power intensive)
>: applications, that solar hasn't a chance of fixing.  These would
>: be terra-forming projects, super sonic high payload earth and
>: planetary transport and power space (asteroids) and planetary 
>: soil reconditioning or generation for agriculture efforts, mining 
>: and building.  
>
>Dream on, just please do not try to actually do any of these things.
>Perhaps you should seek employment as a writer for Star Trek.
>
>: >Nuclear is obscenely expensive when you
>: >take into account the cost of storing and monitoring the
radioactive
>: >by products for 50,000 years or more. Solar is the only practical
>: >alternative. A recent issue of Business Week mentioned that it is
expected
>: >to be competitive with grid power in many major urban areas by the
>: >year 2,000. With wide spread use prices will fall much more rapidly
>: >and efficiencies will increase significantly. It is only a matter
of
>: >time and thinking with a little common sense.
>
>: Besides God prohibits the use of fission, or so I'm told.  And
>: that leaves just one cheap, clean and powerful alternative which 
>: is high density aneutronic (fusion) energy devices.  There are 
>: three commercial companies devoted to developing just such beasties.
 
>: It's too tough a problem for the DoE and its pet Labs.  
>
>You cannot say solar power does not work because the world for the
>most part is run on solar power. It is only a question of converting
>to a sustainable and environmentally benign form of solar power.
>
>Many companies invest in technological solutions that never pan out.
>I cannot say that it is impossible to develop a clean safe form of
fusion
>but I think it quite unlikely with any foreseeable technology.
>In contrast solar can solve the problems economically and with
>existing technology. Some parts of the puzzle such as energy storage
>for transportation are not yet economical but they will be in
>a foreseeable time frame. Were other forms of power required to
>pay their full cost (including pollution damage) solar would be
>widely competitive today.
>
>Paul Budnik

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenattilasw cudfnJeffrey cudlnDracup cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.18 / Johan Wevers /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: johanw@vulcan.xs4all.nl (Johan Wevers)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 23:11:01 +0200
Organization: Vulcan Academy of Sciences

Jeffrey A. Dracup  <attilasw@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>If the goal is to increase the net standard of living for our
>particular species, we will require a) more land and b) more energy.

What about decreasing the number of humans? Earth is much too crowded now
anyway.

--
ir. J.C.A. Wevers          ||    The only nature of reality is physics.
johanw@vulcan.xs4all.nl    ||    http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/index.html
Finger johanw@xs4all.nl for my PGP public key.     PGP-KeyID: 0xD42F80B1
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjohanw cudfnJohan cudlnWevers cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.18 / Dave Oldridge /  Re: Accepted formulations of QM
     
Originally-From: doldridg@fox.nstn.ns.ca (Dave Oldridge)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Accepted formulations of QM
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 14:08:53 -0300
Organization: Nova Scotia Technology Network

In article <9508161525.AA19573@pilot03.cl.msu.edu>,
blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) wrote:

> believe can rescue cold fusion.  Six years of discussion
> has not brought many suggestions to the fore for our
> consideration.

The same thing is happening in astronomy.  Our knowledge of the age of
the universe comes from two different bodies of theory and observation.
General relativity and cosmology are indicating an age younger than the
theoretical age of many stars, according to the current theories of
stellar evolution.  Now there is a lot less heat in this debate because
the observations are fully documented and easily repeated, but it
clearly shows that SOMETHING is amiss in either our knowledge of general
relativity or in our knowledge of the quantum mechanics underlying
hydrogen fusion (which is basically what stellar evolution is about).
The debate has gone on for quite a bit longer than six years and will
probably continue until someone actually finds the answer...

My point is that we don't necessarily know everything there is to know
about the fusion of hydrogen atoms.  One answer to the above dilemna may
be that a good deal more fusion takes place than our current theories
indicate should happen.  Whether that has any bearing on any of the
current crop of "cold fusion" experiments, I cannot say, but it
certainly has a bearing on fusion in general.

> Secondly, I would question what it is that you refer to in
> the singular as "the cold fusion phenomenon?"  How do you

That is certainly a problem.  The whole field is moving in about eight
or nine different directions.  That's not necessarily bad, but it
requires some sorting.  However, new theory will only come from
analyzing experiments that truly and reproducibly give anomalous
results.  My overall impression is that a few people are beginning to
isolate such experimental protocols from all the noise but that we are
not "there" yet.

> 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

I wouldn't worry about it at this stage.  Just look for errors in the
experiments and try to isolate those that truly show some anomaly with
regard to current models.  That's not hard if fusion is really occuring
when your model says it should not, because you should be seeing gobs of
extra energy...

> 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.

Yep...anything new will have to explain the data that gave us what we
have.  Otherwise we're just trading one incomplete theory for another
(probably even more incomplete) one.

But I don't think an experimenter has to have a theory to explain his
experiment.  If the experiment really does what is advertised and is
repeatable, then it is up to the theoretical physics people to explain
why it does what it does.  If current theory is not up to the task, then
current theory needs work.  But we already knew that, didn't we?

 --
 Dave Oldridge
 doldridg@fox.nstn.ns.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudendoldridg cudfnDave cudlnOldridge cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Aug 19 04:37:04 EDT 1995
------------------------------
