1995.08.18 / Edward Lewis /  tornado article
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: tornado article
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 00:37:55 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago


Dec. 7, 1993
posted on Oct. 28, 1994

Luminous Tornadoes and Other Plasmoids

	During the past 1 3/4 years I've been posting articles about
ball lightning, plasmoids, EVs, and cold fusion on sci.physics.fusion
newsgroup. This is a version of one that I posted last winter.  Does
anyone have any reports about anomalous atmospheric phenomena?

        People have often seen bright or luminous tornadoes.
According to prior research, a large percentage of tornadoes are
bright or glowing, and people have experienced that some are quite hot.
(see B. Vonnegut and J. R. Weyer, "Luminous Phenomena Accompanying
Tornadoes," WEATHERWISE, 19-2 (Apr. 1966), 66-68. and B. Vonnegut and
J. R. Weyer, "Luminous Phenomena in Nocturnal Tornadoes, SCIENCE,
(1966), 1213-1220.)

        Storms on the Earth are probably an atmospheric manifestation
of earth plasmoid activity, according to Tesla's experience of
electricity in the ground that accompanied a storm.  Even clouds may
be such a manifestation.  Clouds seem to be plasmoid phenomena.  And
clouds may convert to ball lightning.  People have seen clouds which
contained a glowing spot, and in one case it is fairly documented that
a cloud with a glowing spot produced a tornado.

        Tornadoes are a locus for the conversion of substance
to light and electricity.  The power of tornadoes is anomalously high.
People have seen lightning from a large area converge to the area of a
cyclone, but this seems to only be part of the reason for the power.
People have seen tornadoes that had parts that were so bright that
they described the phenomena as being too bright to look at though the
tornadoes were quite a ways away; one person described tornadoes that
lit up the surroundings so that it was as if the direct sun was
shining during a period of time.  In one case, a thermometer measured
that the temperature of the air increased by about 20 degrees during
the passage of a tornado.

        I would say that tornadoes and ball lightning are the same
type of phenomena, though ball lightning is smaller.  I classify both
ball lightning and tornadoes, storms, clouds, and other phenomena as
kinds of a phenomena that I call plasmoid phenomena.  Galaxies and
atoms are other types of this kind of phenomena, according to my
theory.

        I would say that the cold fusion phenomena is a plasmoid
phenomena.  People have produced many types of phenomena including
traces and holes and tunnels that are similar to those produced by
plasmoid phenomena.  I would say that tiny plasmoids like ball
lightning are being produced. At the ICCF4, Matsumoto reported about
tiny ball lightning in his CF apparatus.  I suggest that people read
his articles in FUSION TECHNOLOGY.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.20 / 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: Sun, 20 Aug 1995 15:46:25 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <416op6$ei7@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, Johmann <johmann@aol.com> wrote:
>Jed is criticizing Droege justifiably, I believe.
>
>Jed likes to quote the positive CF results of domestic and foreign
>Ph.D's, whereas the skeptic camp (mostly composed of welfare queens)
>likes to quote the likes of Droege, an uncredentialed amateur, as their
>authority on the subject. To me, this says a great deal about which side
>is likely to be correct.

CF, if real would be one of the most earth shaking events in recorded
history. The economics of it would make most of the world essentially
rich. There is _no_ competent scientist that wouldn't want to be involved
in such an event.

So, where's the beef? Over five years after P&F have announced discovery
of it, after countless scientists both privately and publically have
experimented with these ideas -- there is NOTHING to show for it.

I guess this is a case where your "welfare queens" are kicking your 
ideas around. Go snivel that your "True Believers" aren't educated
enough to give you something that doesn't exist -- a free lunch.


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.20 / Doug Merritt /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: doug@netcom.com (Doug Merritt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 1995 16:47:25 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

In article <303501e5.56554c43414e@vulcan.xs4all.nl> johanw@vulcan.xs4all
nl (Johan Wevers) writes:
>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.

This is a popular point of view with radical environmentalists
(see the book Green Rage), including at its most extreme the Unabomber.

However, outside of cities, the Earth doesn't appear to be at all crowded
(been out in the countryside recently???) And cities account for only
a tiny, tiny fraction of world land area.

So I wonder in what vague removed-from-reality armchair sense you
think Earth is "much too crowded"; I don't see it. (I *do* see various
problems with current industrial & agricultural practices, but they
are several abstract and debatable steps removed from "too crowded".)

The Unabomber writes of visiting remote areas in the Sierras, so I
guess he doesn't actually say "too crowded"; he just dislikes technology
and pollution, come to think of it.
	Doug
-- 
Doug Merritt				doug@netcom.com
Professional Wild-eyed Visionary	Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow

Unicode Novis Cypherpunks Gutenberg Wavelets Conlang Logli Alife Anthro
Computational linguistics Fundamental physics Cogsci Egyptology GA TLAs
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudendoug cudfnDoug cudlnMerritt cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.20 / Andres Kruse /  Re: plasmoid article
     
Originally-From: h28@zwager.nikhef.nl (Andres Kruse)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: plasmoid article
Date: 20 Aug 95 16:54:46 GMT

In article <DDHDpy.Epq@midway.uchicago.edu> edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu
(Edward Lewis) writes:


			   Copyright 1995 by Edward Lewis All Rights Reserved

   Posted March 30, 1995.

   Edward Lewis						March 8, 1995
   P. O. Box 13060						Revised, May 8, 1995
   Chicago, Illinois  60613

   PLASMOID PHENOMENA

[stuff deleted]

	   In earlier articles, I've written that atoms are plasmoid
   phenomena.  Plasmoids seem to be basically an electrical-magnetic
   phenomena -- plasmoids have converted to electricity.  The magnetism
   is an aspect of the electricity.  I suspect that atoms are like ball
   lightning -- if this is so then atoms may often be toroidally shaped,
   and may usually not contain inner clumps in the middle.  The magnetism

Eh.. most of your post seems too far out that I don't want to start
commenting about it... and I really don't want to start a threat here..
... but are you suggesting that your model of the atom is better 
than the nucleus+electrons model of an atom? Can you explain 
something like the Rutherford experiment? How does chemistry work
in your picture? What you have posted here doesn't sound like science,
does it? It's a joke, right?

[rest deleted]

-- Andres (A.Kruse@nikhef.nl)
-- 
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Andres Kruse      | NIKHEF - National Institute for Nuclear Physics
A.Kruse@nikhef.nl | and High-Energy Physics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenh28 cudfnAndres cudlnKruse cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.20 /  Restrict /  Government Restricts Internet!!
     
Originally-From: johnbach@net (Restrict)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Government Restricts Internet!!
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 1995 19:05:09 GMT
Organization: Netcom





SPEAK UP AMERICA -- MAKE YOUR VOTE COUNT


Question:  Should the United States Government interfere and put 
           restrictions on the use of the Internet??


CALL:  1-900-945-5600  ext  163  and cast your vote.

Cost:  $1.98 per call (NOT per minute)  Call Today

       Must be 18+/Touch Tones Only

       InfoService/Studio City, CA/213-993-3366


Results of this survey will be compiled and sent to members of 
the House and Senate.  Thank you for casting your vote and for 
making your voice heard.


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjohnbach cudlnRestrict cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.20 /  Restrict /  cmsg cancel <4180ua$8r0@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
     
Originally-From: johnbach@net (Restrict)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <4180ua$8r0@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
Date: 20 Aug 1995 19:17:06 GMT

Spam cancelled by clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjohnbach cudlnRestrict cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.20 / Bradford Holden /  Re: Pulsar mechanism, why they pulse, why they shut down
     
Originally-From: holden@oddjob.uchicago.edu (Bradford Holden)
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: Sun, 20 Aug 1995 19:48:56 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago, Astronomy and Astrophysics

In article <DDJu7q.DuD@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
< stuff obliterated >
>Aren't there Fe absorption lines in the sun's spectra?  
Yes.  Iron is one of the most common elements in the universe, it is 
especially common considering how heavy it is compared to other common 
elements like carbon. Yea supernova.

>So why couldn't the asteroids have been a planet which then 
>lost most of its lighter elements and later unfortunately blew 
>itself apart.  The center of the object may have been more 

Ah yes, the exploding planet hypothesis.  Where is Tom van Flandren when
we need him?  Most people (TvF excepted) do not think that the Exploding 
Planet Hypothesis is reasonable.  Why?  Where does the energy to destroy an
entire planet come from?  If you add up all the mass in all the planets you
get something the size of a moon (its smaller then Pluto) which is a lot of
energy to break apart.  Most solar system theorist type believe that the
part of the proto-planetary disk which the asteroid belts are now in just 
didn't have enough mass to form anything of note especially with Jupiter so
close.  The iron was just there, just like it was just there for the earth,
Mars (Mars is red right?  red means iron) and all the rest of the inner 
planets.  

The rest of the post has nada to do with astronomy, astrology or God so I
won't comment.



-- 
Bradford  Holden 

gradual student at the University of Chicago

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenholden cudfnBradford cudlnHolden cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.20 /  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: Sun, 20 Aug 95 17:49:26 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I would like to add another thought about getting help when you need it. I
said that Tom knows a lot about calorimetry but not enough about
electrochemistry to do a successful experiment. I have seen the opposite
situation. Leading electrochemists and material sciences experts like Bockris
and Storms sometimes consult with calorimetry experts and people in other
disciplines. Unlike Tom, they never hesitate to call for outside help and
outside opinions. Years ago, Bockris told me that although he has built many
calorimeters during his career, he decided that since CF heat measurement is
so critical and controversial, he should call in "the best man in the State of
Texas, just to have a look at our calorimeter." The man dropped by for a
friendly visit. After examining the machine he asked "how much power are you
trying to measure?" When Bockris told him, he laughed and said that any
calorimeter could measure such high levels. In his paper, Storms acknowledges
the assistance of a glassware expert in building his flow calorimeter.
 
Not many people can do a whole CF experiment from start to finish without
expert help. There is a common myth that CF experiments are often done in
garages or in people's spare time. There is a myth that they are best done on
a shoestring. The only person I know who has done a good experiment in his
garage is Cravens, and he had a well equipped lab in there and a full-time
faculty position in a college nearby. I have a number of photographs of the
experimental setups at places like Hokkaido U., Osaka U., and KEK. When you
look at the snapshots you can see for yourself why it takes a team of four or
five skilled scientists a year to assemble and calibrate the machines, plus a
few hundred thousand dollars I guess. As a matter of fact, I recently scanned
and sent the snapshot from KEK to John Logajan. I did not send him a word of
explanation about it, so he is probably wondering what the heck it is! (I'll
get around to that Real Soon, John.) Maybe he will post that in his home page,
so anyone can see it and get a sense of what I mean. The people at KEK have so
much work to do in preparation for each experiment that when I last talked to
them about a month ago, they had not even done another run after ICCF5.
 
[Note: "KEK" is Japan's National High Energy Physics Lab. The acronym comes
from the Japanese name. They do Good Work. They are Morrison's worst
nightmare, because he cited them years ago as an example of top national lab
that had null results in a CF experiment. After they started getting positive
results, they dropped off the map as far as Morrison is concerned.]
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjedrothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.20 / A Anderson /  Re: tornado article
     
Originally-From: Alexander Anderson <sandy@almide.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: tornado article
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 1995 21:16:36 GMT
Organization: Mide Services

Edward Lewis writes,

    "...I classify both ball lightning and tornadoes, storms, clouds, 
and other phenomena as kinds of a phenomena that I call plasmoid 
phenomena. Galaxies and atoms are other types of this kind of 
phenomena, according to my theory..."

    How strange.  

    I classify both raindrops and kittens, tooth-fairies, monday 
mornings, and other phenomena as kinds of a phenomena that I call 
doobeewahwah phenomena.  Universes and tax returns are other types 
of this kind of phenomena, according to MY theory.

   We can't BOTH be right, can we?    



Sandy    
-- 
// Alexander Anderson                         Computer Science Student //
// Home Fone    : +44 (0) 171-794-4543            Middlesex University //
// Home Email   : sandy@almide.demon.co.uk                Bounds Green //
// College Email: alexander9@mdx.ac.uk                          London //
//                                                                  UK //

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudensandy cudfnAlexander cudlnAnderson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.19 / Lloyd Zusman /  Re: Pulsar mechanism, why they pulse, why they shut down
     
Originally-From: ljz@panix.com (Lloyd Zusman)
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: 19 Aug 1995 13:36:09 GMT
Organization: As Fast

In article <412ubm$3vb@cnn.Princeton.EDU>, Eric Prebys  wrote:
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> I must say, I'm becoming a real Archimedes Plutonium fan.  In
> the few posts I've read, he has managed to display his total
> ignorance of a pretty impressive range of topics, from physics
> to paleontology - while all the while remaining thoroughly
> obnoxious.  I've come to the conclusion that it must be a joke.
> No one could be that big an idiot and still be able to type,
> and if anyone were that obnoxious,  I'd at least expect them
> to have the courage to use their real name.

Archimedes Plutonium is indeed his real name.  He legally changed it a
little less than a year ago from his former legal name, Ludwig
Plutonium.  This name was also a legal name change from an earlier
legal name, and there may have been one or two other legal names prior
to that, as well.

For more information about the very interesting life of Mr. Plutonium,
check out his autobiography.  It's available here on the net at at
least one FTP site, but I forget the exact location (anyone have the
FTP address?).


--
Lloyd Zusman    	01234567 <-- The world famous Indent-o-Meter.
ljz@asfast.com          ^	     Indent or be indented.
   To get my PGP public key automatically mailed to you, please
   send me email with the following string as the subject or on a
   line by itself in the message (leave off the quotation marks):
                    "mail-request public-key"

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenljz cudfnLloyd cudlnZusman cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.19 / Bill Rowe /  Re: Accepted Formulation of QM
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Accepted Formulation of QM
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 1995 11:22:04 -0700
Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net

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

[skippe]
>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).

It seems to me before we can reach your (ii) above, we have to have some
consensus as to what "it" is. This is key. I think it is very clear there
is something of interest occurring. However, it is not at all clear that
what is occuring is fusion.
-- 
William Rowe                                                   browe@netcom.com
MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.19 / Bill Rowe /  Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 1995 11:35:18 -0700
Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net

In article <21cenlogic-1708951459450001@austin-2-5.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:

>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. 

You do like to assume the worst in people don't you? Do you really think a
project manager can aritrarily spend $40-50K on a pet project without
approval?

The point of the "hot" fusion program being funded is there are numerous
experiments which have been replicated with considerable theory to support
it. Such simply isn't the case with the Griggs device.

If I can only support either current fusion programs or the Griggs device,
I for one would support the current programs. The current programs are
much much more likely to produce a energy source than the Griggs device
IHMO.
-- 
William Rowe                                                   browe@netcom.com
MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.20 /  Johmann /  Re: Droege's experiments proved nothing
     
Originally-From: johmann@aol.com (Johmann)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege's experiments proved nothing
Date: 20 Aug 1995 03:38:14 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Jed is criticizing Droege justifiably, I believe.

As I recall, Droege has admitted to a lack of proper credentials: he has
no Ph.D.

Thus, his experimental efforts were those of an amateur, and he had no
more qualification to do those experiments than my neighborhood garage
mechanic.

Jed likes to quote the positive CF results of domestic and foreign
Ph.D's, whereas the skeptic camp (mostly composed of welfare queens)
likes to quote the likes of Droege, an uncredentialed amateur, as their
authority on the subject. To me, this says a great deal about which side
is likely to be correct.


Kurt Johmann
--
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjohmann cudlnJohmann cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.20 / 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: Sun, 20 Aug 1995 13:30:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Prasad, you seem to take it for granted that there is such a thing
as a working Patterson power cell that runs on cold fusion.  I
assert that you have no evidence to support that position.  I do not,
however, ask that you adopt my point of view merely on the basis of
my authority.  My authority carries no weight in deciding the issue,
beyond the possibility that I can offer some information relevant
to the making of a rational evaluation of the claims concerning
the Patterson power cell.

My claim is that the readings of two thermometers cannot provide
sufficient evidence to confirm that cold fusion is occuring.  The
reason is quit obvious.  A thermometer simply does not provide
adequate signal-to-noise ratio.  For example, I can get an elevated
temperature reading by sticking the thermometer up my .... well,
under my tongue.  That does not demonstrate that I run on cold fusion.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.20 /  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: Sun, 20 Aug 95 09:16:42 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Johmann <johmann@aol.com> writes:
 
>Jed is criticizing Droege justifiably, I believe.
>
>As I recall, Droege has admitted to a lack of proper credentials: he has
>no Ph.D.
>
>Thus, his experimental efforts were those of an amateur, and he had no
>more qualification to do those experiments than my neighborhood garage
>mechanic.
 
Well now . . . I would not go quite that far. Tom certainly is qualified
to build a good calorimeter. He did! His instrument is magnificent in many
ways, although I do not think it is an appropriate design for this particular
job. I think that on the instrumentation side, Tom is superbly qualified,
but he failed badly on the electrochemistry side. At the time he was doing
the work, I urged him again and again to get in contact with some of the
experts like Bockris, Storms or Oriani. He could have learned valuable
techniques from them in things like cleanliness, even loading, pre-testing of
cathode materials, and so on. I think if he had done that, he might have
succeeded.
 
I do not think that a person must necessarily have proper credentials and a
Ph.D. to do an electrochemical CF experiment. On the other hand, having
20, 30 or even 50 years of experience doing electrochemistry is a priceless
advantage! Compared to someone like Bockris, Fleischmann, or Patterson, Tom
and I know virtually *nothing* about how to do these experiments. Before I
was born, these people made the mistakes Tom & I are just learning to avoid.
I am not always impressed by people with academic credentials, but I *am*
impressed by people who have decades of experience and who can describe in
great detail aspects of the problem that most other experimenters never
even imagine exist. In my opinion, Tom thoughtlessly dismissed these people
and he assumed he could do the experiment with no knowledge, no practice,
no experience and no training. I have seen many experts at work at many
different jobs. I find that all jobs are harder than they look. I have great
respect for experts in all fields, including farmers, fishermen, bakers, and
a fellow I met who blends and distributes chicken feed.
 
A few weeks ago I spent a half-hour talking to a man who was repairing the
sewer outside my office. He operated a small backhoe, then he put a
computerized camera probe into the pipe, then he attached a new pipe to the
broken section. Of course I knew this is skilled work, but I was still amazed
at his ability to locate and repair the break, and at his vast knowledge of
conditions undeground, pipes, materials, bonding techniques and so on. What I
am saying is that if Tom or I were to try and operate that backhoe, the camera
probe, and the pipe bonding equipment, we would botch the job beyond repair.
Just because Tom is good at instrumentation, that does not mean he can
automatically do electrochemistry or sewer repair or chickenfeed mixing. It
is pure conceit for anyone to imagine that he is good at all jobs and he
knows everything and he never needs help from anyone.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjedrothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.20 / Richard Blue /  Re: Currently accepted formulations of QM
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Currently accepted formulations of QM
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 1995 14:30:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dave Oldridge suggests that cold fusion research proceeds as follows:

(1)The experimenters forget about accepted theories and just make measurements
totally unbiased by any expectations regarding the outcome their experiments.

(2)Once they have solid experimental evidence for something like cold fusion
occuring any theory that seems to be in disagreement with these experimental
results is swept away to be replaced by a new theory.

I don't think the present cold fusion situation fits well into this sort of
model for scientific progress.  For one thing you shouldn't get too glib about
sweeping away presently accepted theories until you explore, to some extent
what it is you must propose in order to encompass this new data.

For example, consider a major revision in quantum thermodynamics.  If you are
going to rewrite that theory because of the results of cold fusion
experimentation you have to worry about whether you can even interpret the
experimenal results without the theory you expect to replace.  That is to
say you must use a theory that you are now calling suspect.  The logic
of how you expect to proceed escapes me.

Thus we find in many discussions of cold fusion the notion that some form
of many-body physics is involved.  The formulations that have been proposed
appear to be quit orthodox within the context of condensed matter physics.
That is to say they are decidedly not new or revolutionary.  However, they
also do not address the basic nuclear reaction physics that most certainly
has to be involved.  That part of the theory is assumed to be where all
the unspecified changes are to be made.  I see no good reason to assume that
the many-body formulations for the atomic aspects of the problem are all
"correct", but that none of the nuclear aspects of the problem need be given
any consideration because that is the theory to be trashed.  Why don't we
start by trashing the existing formulations for many-body physics?

Actually all the talk of discarding the currently accepted formulations of
QM are quit premature.  Cold fusion data as it currently exists has enough
problems to be reconciled to just the most basic aspects of physics.  The
essence of the argument in support of cold fusion is "heat beyond chemistry."
That is to say there appears to be more heat generated than can be the result
of any chemical process.  That, having been said, leads to the notion that
a nuclear fusion reaction is the likely alternative.

However, before you buy into that line of reasoning you should ask what it
is that sets a limit to define "beyond chemistry."  If you are going to
reformulate QM it seems likely you could arrive at some new limit that
will accommodate the CF levels of excess heat without any resort to
nuclear reactions.  I suspect that you really don't want to do that.  You
really are rather fond of chemistry as me currently know it.  It does have
its limits, however, and they come down to the question of how tightly
bound atomic electrons can be and how much energy can be gained by shifting
electrons around a bit.  We know those numbers, right?

Now if you have an energy source that is "hotter" than chemistry, by
definition, it is potentially disruptive to the atomic structures in which
this energy is to be released.  Suppose you set out to design an experiment
to detect such a disruptive, high energy process.  Would you want to
detect the energy early in its release while it is still clearly differentiated
from ordinary thermal sources, or would you prefer to let the energy
degrade until it cannot be differentiated from all the other potential
thermal sources?  Cold fusion experimentation opts for the latter.
How do you justify that approach to the design of the experiments?

Indeed when you delve into the theories put forth to explain cold fusion
results the all seem to contain something equivalent to "now by magic the
energy gets degraded without a trace of there ever having been a higher
energy transient state."  That is to say, because no high energy states are
every observed to exist it is assumed that they do not exist.  At that point
I suggest you have just assumed away the essential requirement that there
be a source reaction that is beyond chemistry.  How can you have it both
ways?

I suggest that it is folly to wait for the experimental results before you
consider any needed reformulations of the theory.  You have to place the
experimental data into some context for interpretation.  For example, if
you are investigating the fusion of deuterons to form 4He in any excited
state I would suspect you need to know something about that excited state
or states before you continue much further.  If you look at what is know
about the nuclear state of 4He it becomes clear that your experiment is
in trouble.  I would not rule out the possibility that this indicates
that something is wrong with the experiment.  Indeed there are many things
that are known to be wrong with those experiments so why is a reformulation
of QM assumed to be the next order of business?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.20 / 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: Sun, 20 Aug 1995 14:45:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

My, my, Jed, you certainly are getting nasty!  Being right
appears to be taking its toll on your generally pleasant
manner.  All I was suggesting was that when you make reference
to the works of Storms, Claytor, or E-Quest that you not
lump them under the general heading of Los Alamos.  Particularly
the latter has little to do with Los Alamos.

Since you have given me the opportunity to ask, what have any
of these three produced lately?  Is it possible that we have
here yet three more examples of CF transients?  Oh well, they
join an honored group of other flashes in the pan, so to speak.
In any case who would want to bother with D2O now that Cravens
is up and running on tap water.  Speaking of tap water, wasn't
there some guy named Mills doing wonderful things with that
a few years ago?  I wonder how his experiments are progressing?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.18 / Edward Lewis /  plasmoid article
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: plasmoid article
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 00:37:10 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago



			Copyright 1995 by Edward Lewis All Rights Reserved

Posted March 30, 1995.

Edward Lewis						March 8, 1995
P. O. Box 13060						Revised, May 8, 1995
Chicago, Illinois  60613

PLASMOID PHENOMENA
	
	Fundamental anomalous phenomena are the contradictions of the
postulates of the premises of people's theories, and the environment.
Those who apprehend a theory and experience according to the theory
may experience the contradictions.  It seems that since the
fundamental postulates of people's premises are few, the kinds of
fundamental anomalies are few.  During the last 20 years, the number
of people who have been experiencing and reporting about the anomalies
of the Q.M. and Relativity theories has been rapidly increasing.  The
last 20 years is that which Thomas Kuhn called a "crisis period," and
there have been crisis periods at about every 80 year interval since
1500(1).  It seems to me that a group of fundamental phenomena of the
current set of phenomena is that of "plasmoid" phenomena.

	In earlier articles, I've written that atoms are plasmoid
phenomena.  Plasmoids seem to be basically an electrical-magnetic
phenomena -- plasmoids have converted to electricity.  The magnetism
is an aspect of the electricity.  I suspect that atoms are like ball
lightning -- if this is so then atoms may often be toroidally shaped,
and may usually not contain inner clumps in the middle.  The magnetism
of atoms is an electrical phenomena similar to the magnetism of the
earth.  People have experienced that the magnetism (people have used
the term "magnetic lines of force") of the earth is electrical
currents.  Light is the same as electricity since it interconverts(2).
Inertia, accretion, and separation of plasmoids is also an
electrical-magnetic phenomena -- as relative motion of plasmoids also
seems to be.

	Almost all or all the phenomena that I know about seem to be
plasmoid phenomena.  Substance seems to be a plasmoid phenomena
because galaxies are plasmoids and substance converts to other kinds
of plasmoid phenomena, light, and electricity(3).  Micrometer-sized
plasmoid phenomena has been reported to be the locus of neutron
emission(45), and ball lightning-like phenomena(6) has been associated
with neutron production also.  Matsumoto has shown traces of plasmoids
that moved on the surface of emulsions while emitting little plasmoids
people might call particles (like the "Superstar" trace in FUS. TECH.,
22, 165 (August, 1992), Fig. 8).  Like other plasmoids, atoms may
clump and divide and dissipate so that new substances, elements and
isotopes, and electricity and light are produced.  It seems that
plasmoid phenomena are the same though the size varies.  For example,
galaxies seem to convert to jets, beams, and electrical currents in
the middle,in that which seems to be a vortex, such as in the galaxies
M87, Cygnus A, and NGC4258, and this seems to be similar to the jets,
beams, and electrical discharges from ball lightning, the beams and
electrical discharges from micrometer-sized plasmoids, the beams from
discharge devices reported by Savvatimova and Karabut et al., and the
beam or jet that a plasmoid emitted on nuclear emulsion that Matsumoto
showed(7).  I think that EVs(5), ball lightning, plasmoids, tornadoes
and galaxies are similar phenomena since they behave similarly(8).

	People have produced plasmoid and BL-like phenomena for a long
time.  W. Bostick produced that which he called plasmoids by
discharging through electrodes(9), and according to A. Peratt(10), he
coined the term.  In this paper, Bostick had already begun to tell
others about his speculation that galaxies and the phenomena he
produced were similar.  He compared the shapes and the travel of these
things.  He also speculated a little about the identity of
"particles."  According to experimental results, many people including
Bostick, Alfven (Nobel Prize, Magneto-hydrodynamics), Peratt(11) and
Lerner(12) have developed similar extensive astrophysical theories
that model the universe as plasmoids; while others, such as
Bostick(13,14,15) developed models of particles as plasmoids.  For
decades, many people have tried to use plasmoids for weapons(16,17)
and for fusion, and it is well known that plasmoids are associated
with element, isotope, and neutron production.

	In the latter part of the 1700s, people were producing ball
lighting-like phenomena by using Leyden jars, a kind of condensor, and
in the late 1800s, Plante and others studied BL-like phenomena
produced by discharge through wires and in plate condensors.  Tesla
also produced such phenomena.  There have been about 8 international
conferences about ball lightning and luminous atmospheric phenomena
during the last 8 years.  In 1992, after reading literature about ball
lightning and reading cold fusion articles, I began to tell(18)
Matsumoto and other people about my idea that tiny ball-lightning
phenomena were produced in "cold fusion" apparatus, and about how the
ball lightning phenomena that were produced by electrolysis "cold
fusion" apparatus produced the many kinds of micrometer sized
anomalous traces in nuclear emulsions that Matsumoto had shown in
several articles in THE JOURNAL OF FUSION TECHNOLOGY.  Since then,
Matsumoto has reported about the observation of tiny ball
lightning-like phenomena in some cold fusion apparatus(19,20,21), and
he has produced many more traces that are better evidence of the
production of things that can be called tiny ball lightning or
plasmoids.  I use the term plasmoid as a general term.
	
	Most if not all other anomalous phenomena that I know about
can be described as plasmoid phenomena.  For example,
superconductivity seems to be similar to the phenomena of ball
lightning traveling though materials such as ceramics and glass
without leaving holes or visible effects, yet ball lightning may
convert to an electrical surge after touching a wire or it may convert
to a bolt of lightning.  Also, sonoluminescence and "cavitation" seems
to be a phenomena of the water and other substances converting to
light and perhaps electricity, and to other atoms and bigger
micrometer-sized plasmoids.  The pits and the localized melting seem
to be plasmoid and discharge effects.  The vortex phenomena
photographed by Stringham and George are plasmoid phenomena.

	I suggest that people use nuclear emulsions and check their
apparatus microscopically to find plasmoids or their effects. Also,
check the electrical grounding of the apparatus and see whether there
are electrical surges.  I suspect that in many apparatus much
substance may convert and leave as plasmoids and/or electricity.
Also, I suggest that people try to check whether things like time
(maybe use atomic clocks(22)), accretion (the clumping of plasmoids,
even very large ones), and magnetism change around their cold fusion
and plasmoid apparatus.  There is much evidence of anomalous changes
of these things around and in plasmoid phenomena such as discharge
phenomena, ball lightning, solar flares, volcanoes and earthquakes.
The changes of the accretion of plasmoid phenomena associated with
plasmoid phenomena is the production of new elements and substances.
For example, a BL-like phenomena landed on a hill near Vladivostok in
Russia called Height 611.  It left residues of rare earths, strange
alloys, and filaments of quartz with filaments of gold 7 micrometers
wide inside(23).  Check for superconductivity, since this is a
plasmoid phenomena.  Also, I suspect that storms on earth greatly
affect at least some CF apparatus.  Hawkins(24) and others(25)
reported that a electrolysis apparatus exhibited heat and gamma-ray
excursions at the times of electrical storms, but not otherwise.  In
this vein, it is interesting that V. A.  Filimonov reports that a
neutron source greatly stimulates CF phenomena(26).  Lightning is
associated with neutron production(27).  I'm speculating that neutrons
are a plasmoid environment, like larger plasmoids.
	
	On one weekly T.V. show(28) about unusual phenomena that is shown
in Chicago, there was a report about people who were in Gulf Breeze,
Florida in the U.S.A. who reported seeing a small light orbiting a
larger luminous orb.  I have read the reports of people who have seen
two BL revolve about a common center and of people who have seen
several BL revolving together.  I suspect that according to the new
set of phenomena, the reason the small BL-like phenomena was orbiting
the bigger orb is the same reason that the planets orbit the Sun.
	
	If I could suggest some experiments, as I suggested in 1992(29),
look for the emission of neutrons and other kinds of plasmoids during
stress of substances other than hydrogen and during stresses other
than electrical discharge, such as by thermal cycling or fracture.
When I was 5 or 6, I produced tiny, unusual BL-like phenomena (sparks)
that flew around, changed colors, and made a noise by fracturing a
certain kind of rock.  Composites or combinations of elements with big
differences of "oxidation state"(29) or electronegativity may prove
useful; this seems superficially similar to Hora, Miley et al.'s(30) idea
of using differences in Fermi level.

-------Footnotes

1) E. Lewis, "The Periodic Production of Rationalized Phenomena and
the Past Periodic Depressions," manuscript article, 1992, 1994, 1995.
2)For example, electron holography provides a means of converting
electrons to light.
3)E. Lewis, "Plasmoids and Cold Fusion," Cold Fusion Times, 2 (no. 1),
4 (Summer, 1994).
4)W. H. Bostick, W. Prior, L. Grunberger, and G. Emmert, "Pair
Production of Plasma Vortices," Physics of Fluids, 9, 2078 (1966).
5)K. Shoulders, "Energy Conversion Using High Charge Density," Patent
Number 5,123,039.
6)G. Dijkhuis and J. Pijpelink, "Performance of a High-Voltage Test
Facility Designed for Investigation of Ball Lightning," Proc. First
International Symposium on Ball Lightning (Fire Ball) -- The Science
of Ball Lightning (Fire Ball) Tokyo, Japan, July 4-6, 1988, World
Scientific Company, Singapore, p. 336.
7)T. Matsumoto, "Searching for Tiny Black Holes During Cold Fusion,"
Fusion Technology, 22, 281 (Sept. 1992); Fig. 2b.
8)E. Lewis, "Luminous Tornadoes and Other Plasmoids," Cold Fusion
Times, 1 (no. 4), 4 (Winter, 1994).
9)W. Bostick, "Plasmoids," SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, 197, 87 (October 1957).
10)A. Peratt, email note, January 27,  1995.
11)A. Peratt, "Evolution of the Plasma Universe: I.  Double Radio
Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets," IEEE Trans. Plasma
Science., vol. PS-14, 385 (1986).  Many other articles as well.
12)Eric Lerner, THE BIG BANG NEVER HAPPENED, New York, 1991.
13)W. Bostick, "The Plasmoid Construction of the Superstring," 21st
Century Science & Technology, p. 58, Winter 1990.
14)W. Bostick, "How Superstrings Form the Basis of Nuclear Matter,"
21st Century Science & Technology, p. 66, Winter 1990.
15)W. Bostick, "Mass, Charge, and Current: The Essence and
Morphology," Physics Essays, 4 (no.5), 45 (1991).  Millenium Twain
sent me this reference in January or Feb. of 1994.
16)J. Tennenbaum, "Behind the Russian SDI Offer: A Scientific,
Technological, and Strategic Revolution," 21st Century Science &
Technology, p. 36, Summer 1993.
17)"USAF Conducts Experiments with Compact Toroids for Future Space
Weapons," Aviation Week & Space Technology, 130, 60 (May 15, 1989).
18)E. Lewis, "A Proposal for the Performance of Four Kinds of
Experiments to Test My Own Hypotheses and a Statement of a Deduction
about Phenomena," manuscript article, October 19, 1992.
19)T. Matsumoto, "Cold Fusion Experiments by Using Electrical
Discharge in Water," distributed at the ICCF4.
20)T. Matsumoto, "Observation of Tiny Ball Lightning During Electrical
Discharge in Water," sub. to FT, Jan. 23, 1994.
21)T. Matsumoto, "Two Proposals Concerning Cold Fusion," Fusion
Technology, 26, 1337 (December 1994).
22)E. Lewis.  There is an abstract in the back of the ICCF3 abstract
booklet about two experiments.
23)SIGHTINGS, Saturday, April 1, 1995, 11:30 P.M.
24)N. Hawkins, "Possible Natural Cold Fusion in the Atmosphere,"
Fusion Technology, 19, 2212 (July, 1991).
25)N. Hawkins, S.-Sh. Yi, X.-Zh. Qi, S. Li, L. Wang, and Q. X. Zu,
"Investigations of Mechanisms and Occurrence of Meteorologically
Triggered Cold Fusion at the Chinese Academy of Sciences," Proc. Conf.
Anomalous Nuclear Effects in Deuterium/Solid Systems, Provo, Utah,
October 22-24, 1990.
26) V. A. Filimonov, "A New Cold Fusion Phenomenon,"
sci.physics.fusion newsgroup (article #16526, from profusion@aol.com),
January 21, 1995.
27) S. Shah, H. Razdan, C. Bhat, and Q. Ali, "Neutron Generation in
Lightning Bolts," NATURE, 313, 773 (1985).
28)SIGHTINGS, Saturday, December 3, 1994, 6:00 P.M.
29)E. Lewis, "A Description of Phenomena According to My Theory and
Experiments to Test My Theory," manuscript article, submitted to
FUSION TECHNOLOGY, December 1992.
30)G. Miley, H. Hora, E. G. Batyrbekov, R. Zich, "Electrolytic Cell
With Multilayer Thin-Film Electrodes," Transactions of Fusion
Technology, 26, 313 (December 1994).







cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Aug 21 04:37:09 EDT 1995
------------------------------
