1995.08.26 / Emory Bunn /  Re: Neutrinos have mass?
     
Originally-From: ted@physics2.berkeley.edu (Emory F. Bunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Neutrinos have mass?
Date: 26 Aug 1995 02:23:00 GMT
Organization: Physics Department, U.C. Berkeley

In article <WAF2PCB826937367@brbbs.brbbs.com>,
MARSHALL DUDLEY <mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com> wrote:
>But what I am really confused about is the claim that if the neutrinos have
>mass, then they could explain much of the missing "dark matter".  I don't see
>how it would make any difference at all, one way or the other.  We know the
>relativistic mass of a neutrino, it is proportional to the energy.  Thus a
>neutrino of a certain energy has a certain mass (much of it relativistic).  Why
>would it matter if it has rest mass or not.  

This is a good question, although I strongly urge you to stop using
the term "mass" to mean "total energy."  The consensus among
physicists these days is to use "mass" to mean "rest mass."

But in this case, that's mostly a matter of semantics: if you're
interested, say, in deciding whether the Universe has a high enough
density to be closed or not, then what you care about is the total
energy density, and whether you call it mass or not doesn't matter.

If the big-bang model is right, then most of the neutrinos out there
are left over from the very early Universe.  (There is predicted to be
a cosmic neutrino background roughly analogous to the cosmic microwave
background.)  When these neutrinos were produced, in the first tiny
fraction of a second after the big bang, they had energies much larger
than any rest mass they might have, so they were extremely
relativistic.  At that time, it would have made no measurable
difference to anything at all (e.g., the number density or the energy
density of neutrinos) whether they had mass or not.

But today things are different.  Those neutrinos that were produced at
early times with high energies have since redshifted to very low
energies.  (As the Universe expands, all moving particles lose kinetic
energy.)  If they are massless, then they have redshifted in energy
all the way down to a few milli-electron-volts.  But if a neutrino has
mass, then its total energy can't possibly be less than its rest
mass.  So the total energy density of neutrinos *today* depends very
strongly on whether or not neutrinos have mass, even though the total
energy density when they were created was independent of mass.

-Ted
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudented cudfnEmory cudlnBunn cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.25 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Droege's experiments proved nothing
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege's experiments proved nothing
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 21:29:25 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <41fd6n$t5m@volcano.jrv.qc.ca>, Joseph Raulet
<raulet@jrv.qc.ca> wrote:

> >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.
> 
> I don't beilive it. I have never heard such degree of stupidity
> and intolerance. How dare you denigrate the idea of a person base
> on what diploma the person have or have not rather than a logical
> examination of it supositions? You have the privilege to not share
> the ideas of a person, but trying to denigrate or umiliating 
> a human bean like you have done on a public place is simply a
> lack of jugement and public-spiritedness.
> 
> I know peopols like you. They are fast to juge, slow to change.
> They can easily evaluate a person base on his sex, race or social rank.
> 
> Einstein was right! The most commun things in the univers are hydrogen
> and studidity!
> 
> 
> Joseph Raulet

Joseph, you are correct. A diploma, after all, is merely a statement from
a government controlled "education" institution attesting to one's
knowledge of a subject. Given the demonstrated failures of governments in
all areas of endeavor, including education, there is no objective value to
such a piece of paper. In truth, each man's qualifications to speak on a
subject are simply the reasons he has for his opinions, nothing more and
nothing less. Thus Droege, properly, is to be judged on the basis of his
arguments, as are we all. 

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.26 /  VCockeram /  Test append
     
Originally-From: vcockeram@aol.com (VCockeram)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Test append
Date: 26 Aug 1995 00:15:40 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

A lurker since March 1989 sends his first test append. What a great group.
Thanks, Vince Cockeram   Las Vegas, Nevada
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenvcockeram cudlnVCockeram cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.26 / Patrick McKay /  Radioactivity Help
     
Originally-From: Patrick McKay <mckay@global.co.za>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Radioactivity Help
Date: 26 Aug 1995 04:22:39 GMT
Organization: McKay Home

Hi Please could you send me some information on radioactivity. I dont 
mind what type of radioactivity it is but I need it for a project.

ps Please try to send to my e-mail address mckay@global.co.za

Thanks Allot Patrick McKay :->

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmckay cudfnPatrick cudlnMcKay cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.25 / A Siegman /  Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
     
Originally-From: siegman@ee.stanford.edu (A. E. Siegman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 13:17:53 -0800
Organization: Stanford University

>  I think that a lot of people in this group have no idea what
>  reproducibility means.  When I talk about something being reproducible
>  I mean that two different groups do the same experiment and get
>  the same result.  I explicitly do *not* mean that two groups do 
>  vaguely similar experiments and that both of them get results that
>  seem kinda weird in one way or another.
>
>  .....
>  
>  It's been six years, and I still haven't even seen a single example
>  of replication in "cold fusion".  That's one of the reasons I no
>  longer think it's worth taking seriously.
>  -- 
>    Matt Austern                             

      
      EXCELLENT!  SUPERB!  SAYS IT ALL!   (Shouting intentional)
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudensiegman cudfnA cudlnSiegman cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.26 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: Kasagi; D-beam into Ti
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kasagi; D-beam into Ti
Date: 26 Aug 1995 03:27:39 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I hereby thank Dr. S.E.Jones for faxing me a copy of Kasagi's paper.

For those who have not seen this I summarize again here:

The authors bombarded deuterated titanium targets with low energy (up to
150 keV) deuteron particles. The target titanium was deuterated up to a
level of 1.2, particle emissions were detected at various angles with
various filters and barriers.

In this experiment one would expect collision products from primary d+d
reactions as well as secondary reactions where the products from the
primary collisions collide with further d particles. Other reactions can
also be expected such as collisions with contaminants and the titanium
itself.

The detectors in this experiment found protons up to 17 MeV as well as
alpha particles up to 6.5 MeV energies, these cannot be explained by
primary or secondary collisions. The spectrum structure consisted of a
large bump and a sharp peak superimposed. The sharp peak corresponded to
an anomalous high concentration of He3 in the target. The large bump could
be explained by the (3) secondary reaction below but this could not
account for the 18 MeV protons at the high end of the spectrum. The paper
discusses various reactions that could produce the He4 particles and
concludes that they could not be produced by any known mechanism. 


The expected primary reactions are:

D + D    ->    p + t  ( 4.03 MeV )                   (1)

D + D    ->    n + He3 ( 3.27 MeV )               (2)

Secondary reactions:

D + He3  ->  p + He4 ( 18.35 MeV )              (3)

D + t  ->  n + He4 (  )                                  (4)

The authors propose to explain both the anomalous proton and alpha
emissions by the same mechanism. This is a proposed reaction:

D + D + D  -> p + n + He4     (21.62 MeV)    (5)

If this reaction were to happen it would properly account for the observed
spectra of protons and He4 particles. The trouble is that this is a three
body reaction and should only happen very rarely if observed at all. This
means that if the experimantalists are right there is an unknown
amplification mechanism that causes a significant increase in the reaction
rate of the (5) reaction.

From here on my personal comments follow:

It seems to me that the amplification factor might be some kind of
coupling mechanism which may bring two deuterons together so that they can
later be hit by the deuteron from the beam. Based on our previous
discussions here this may have something to do with the electron being
caught in between the deuterons. At a loading factor of 1.2 there are many
titanium atoms that have two deuterons in their outermost shells. Such a
coupling may be relevant from cold fusion point of view.

I would kind of be curious about the spectrum up to 1 MeV of incident
deuteron energy, because at that level enough energy is available to emit
a neutrino and finalize the electron capture. Of course that reaction is
mediated by the weak interaction and would happen rarely it still might be
relevant for the fusion to occur.


Zoltan Szakaly

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.26 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: Cold Fusion information available
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion information available
Date: 26 Aug 1995 03:29:24 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Thank you Jed for your posting of information sources on cold fusion.

Zoltan Szakaly
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.24 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 23:12:02 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <41aaps$js0@anemone.saclay.cea.fr>, Mario Pain
<pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr> wrote:

> 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. 
> >
> >--Mitchell Jones
> >
> What I find fascinating about the debate about cold fusion is the
> little zest of paranoia cold fusioners exhibit at the slightest
> provocation. I can believe that the (nasty) people of the hot
> fusion world will keep quiet about something which could deprive
> them of their livelyhood. But how do you interpret the fact that
> people who stand to win a lot if cold fusion worked, namely, 
> corporation who could exploit the patents, do not finance the
> research projects on cold fusion ?

***{Mario, we live in an age of insectlike specialization, due in large
part to the effects of government controlled "education." Most venture
capitalists know nothing of science, and when asked to finance research,
they routinely call in "experts" in the relevant area to assist them in
evaluating the proposal. In the present case, this means that they call in
an establishment physicist who, quite naturally, believes that "cold
fusion" is impossible, and give him the authority to give a "thumbs up" or
"thumbs down" on the project. And, shock of shocks, guess how he
invariably decides! Nor is this idle speculation on my part: I have
attempted personally to line up financing for CF research, and have
personally encountered the roadblock described above. The only way to get
around it is to find a venture capitalist who is competent in physics and
engineering, capable of evaluating the evidence himself, and who is also a
freethinker. By the way, it is also a good idea to not hold your breath
while you are looking! --Mitchell Jones}*** 

> The other fascinating thing about cold fusion is the way it 
> correspond to the American fantasy: a cheap, non polluting way of
> producing energy would please everybody.
 
***{It will not please the "hot fusion" looters whose multi-billion dollar
cash cow it will dry up, nor the electric utilities, nor OPEC, whom it
will put permanently out of business, nor the governments which will see
their power diminished in direct proportion to the freedom and
independence gained by the people from this technology. All of these
threatened groups will employ every means, fair or foul, to protect and
maintain their positions, and the public interest can quite simply be
damned. --Mitchell Jones}*** 

But in addition cold
> fusion promises that you can do the thing in your garage, with
> no special knowledge! Too good to be true ?

***{Not if you base your opinion on the evidence. --Mitchell Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.25 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 01:23:21 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <mnj-2108951649350001@mnj.cmo.ornl.gov>, mnj@ornl.gov (Bonnie
Nestor) wrote:

> In article <41aaps$js0@anemone.saclay.cea.fr>, Mario Pain
> <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr> wrote:
> 
> > 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. 
> > >
> > >--Mitchell Jones
> > >
> > What I find fascinating about the debate about cold fusion is the
> > little zest of paranoia cold fusioners exhibit at the slightest
> > provocation. I can believe that the (nasty) people of the hot
> > fusion world will keep quiet about something which could deprive
> > them of their livelyhood. But how do you interpret the fact that
> > people who stand to win a lot if cold fusion worked, namely, 
> > corporation who could exploit the patents, do not finance the
> > research projects on cold fusion ?
> 
> Precisely my question. Have the unspeakably evil hot fusion people so
> intimidated the major corporations of this country that none of them --
> no, not one -- will pony up the "chump change" needed to prove that the
> Griggs device is over unity and capitalize on the results?

***{See my answer to Mario, posted above. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> And one other thing. All those "untold billions looted from the taxpayers"
> have been provided to the wicked welfare queens of hot fusion courtesy of
> the U.S. Congress. Either your elected representatives are (1) not smart
> enough to figure out that DOE is hoodwinking them or (2) corrupt. Either
> way, the public has only itself to blame.

***{Actually, I would think it is obvious that the typical member of
congress is both stupid *and* corrupt. And, when you stop to think about
it, it is hard to imagine how it could be otherwise: the average voter,
who has been appropriately referred to as "boobus Americanus," is an
intolerant fool whose first priority is to use the agency of government to
tyrannize over his fellow man. Such a dim bulb is he that, for example, he
cannot comprehend the distinction between (a) passing a law that will
eliminate prostitution, and (b) passing a law that will give a monopoly on
prostitution to the mob.Similarly, he sees no difference between (a)
passing a law preventing the use of narcotics, and (b) passing a law
giving a monopoly on the sale of narcotics to the mob. And on and on it
goes, for one issue after another. In each case the American voter,
blighted imbecile that he is, thinks he is supporting (a) when, in fact,
he is supporting (b). In such a context it is no surprise that the mob has
become more and more powerful year by year, with its income from its
legislated monopolies soaring to such levels that it is able to control by
bribery, blackmail, coercion, and other forms of manipulation, public
officials throughout society. Nor is it a surprise that what was once
"government of the people, by the people, for the people," has become
government of the mob, by the mob, and for the mob. Nor is the result
surprising: that we are now being treated to the ongoing, grotesque
spectacle of a mob boss sitting in the White House, protected from
exposure by law enforcement agencies, judges, and a Republican congress
who are as hip deep in the cesspool of criminality as he is. As for what
can be done about it, the answer is *not a damned thing*, because, as you
say, the public itself--good old boobus Americanus--is the immovable,
unchangeable root of the problem. The mob is firmly in the saddle,
unchallenged and unchallengeable, rulers of us all. --Mitchell
Jones}***    
> 
> Bonnie Nestor
> mnj@ornl.gov
> DISCLAIMER: I work at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, for Lockheed Martin
Energy Systems, which is under contract to the U.S. Department of Energy
-- but I don't speak for any of them, and they return the favor.

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.25 / I Johnston /  Re: Droege's experiments proved nothing
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege's experiments proved nothing
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 10:32:20 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
:  
: It is true however, that anyone who learns to do the experiment properly
: will get a positive result, because the laws of nature are uniform. 

where "do the experiment properly" means "repeat all details, including
the mistakes, of other experiments"

: Even people
: who try *not* to get a positive result will get one. In 1989 Harwell, Cal Tech,
: and MIT all got positive results, even though they reported negative
: results.

: I would not call them "competant" but their results are positive.

Why do any of us bother? Jed obviously has so little idea of
experimental science, statistics or logic that it's getting futile even
to make the points that arise reading rubbish like the above. All we
have are the ravings of a nutter who has invested time and money in
something he doesn't understand for what seems to be a mixture of
financial greed and millenial reactionary politics.

Folks, we'll never convince him. Let's not try. After all, his own
rantings are obvious enough a warning about his mental state.


Ian
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.25 / A Anderson /  Re: Theory of Relativity
     
Originally-From: Alexander Anderson <sandy@almide.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Theory of Relativity
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 11:22:30 GMT
Organization: Mide Services

Yes,

    There's a remote sub-ethernet site 

        hstl://bigbang.uni/FAQ

    but it's moving away from so fast, the pages arrive before you 
request them.  However, TCL/IL is being upgraded in this respect to 
cope with this.



Ydnas
-- 
// 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:
cuddy25 cudensandy cudfnAlexander cudlnAnderson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.25 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Off the deep end
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Off the deep end
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 95 08:51:10 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
 
>Apparently Jed never looks in the mirror...
 
What the heck do you know, Heeter? You claim that CF violates laws of physics.
Have you got any proof of that? Have you got any reason for saying that?
You say it does, but Schwinger and a lot of other physicists say it does
not. They say it can be explained according to the known laws. You probably
think you are a lot smarter an Schwinger and Hagelstein. You have not even
read their papers, you have no idea what their theories say, but you dismiss
them. Such arrogance!
 
Dick Blue's "Magic Water" theory is a violation of elementary physics. It is
crackpot science. Real theories that have been proposed by real scientists to
explain CF. These do not violate known laws.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjedrothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.25 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 95 08:57:44 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Bill Rowe <browe@netcom.com> writes:
 
>This is exactly what critics mean when the say CF experiments have not
>been replicated. The only commonality seems to be more heat than can be
>explained by known chemistry. This just isn't sufficient to consider CF
>experiments as being replicated or an instance of fusion.
 
No, that is not what I said, and that is not what the literature shows.
That is NOT the only commonality, by a long shot. Controlling parameters
like loading and current density and temperature have been identified.
Critical metalurgical conditions have been identified.
 
You keep repeating this bullshit about "no commonality" and "no replication"
but that does not make it true. Say it a hundred times if you like, the
only thing you prove is that you have never bothered to look at the literature,
or if you have you prove you are a liar.
 
Furthermore, even if it was true that all we have to show is heat beyond the
limits of chemistry, that alone would make CF the most important discovery
in the history of science. Add to that the *certain* evidence of tritium and
helium -- which prove that nuclear transmuations are occurring -- and you
a discovery of earthshaking importance. So who cares whether it is all fusion,
partly fusion, or something else that gives rise to fusion?
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjedrothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.25 / Bruce TOK /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: 25 Aug 1995 14:37:03 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

Doug Merritt (doug@netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <41c94e$f0g@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> A.Cooke@roe.ac.uk writes:
: >In article <dougDDMBz2.Gxw@netcom.com>, Doug Merritt <doug@netcom.com> wrote:
: >>The Unabomber writes of visiting remote areas in the Sierras, so I
: >>guess he doesn't actually say "too crowded"; he just dislikes technology
: >
: >	has the unabomber made public statements?  i'm afraid i've
: >	only heard of this person via the net and the fbi most wanted
: >	page.
: >	is there anywhere on the net where i can read them?

: Information officially provided by the FBI:

: 	http://www.usdoj.gov/fbi/unabom.html

: A site with newspaper articles, copies of the manifesto excerpts,
: etc, maintained by someone who thought more should be online
: than the terse FBI stuff:

: 	http://pages.prodigy.com/CA/gvmm68e/home.html

: The background on the "public statements" is that some newspapers
: decided to publish excerpts from a long work that the Unabomber
: requested be published. There have also been a couple of letters
: that have been made public.

Doug, do you still believe this "Unabomber" characterises all
environmentalists?  You sure have given that impression.

--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott                                The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTOK cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.25 / Joseph Raulet /  Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
     
Originally-From: Joseph Raulet <raulet@jrv.qc.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
Date: 25 Aug 1995 18:08:55 GMT
Organization: RAULET  Informatique

The fact that CF don't match with the actual models of
fusion means nothing. It is the experience that validate
or invalidate a theory, not the invers. Don't talk like
the Vatican who, in a certain period of history, pretended
that Galileo was not write in is speculation about the movements
of the earth because it don't fit with theirs anthropocentrics
views.


Joseph Raulet


cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenraulet cudfnJoseph cudlnRaulet cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.24 / Rich Hawryluk /  TFTR Update August 24, 1995
     
Originally-From: rhawryluk@pppl.gov (Rich Hawryluk)
Newsgroups: pppl.tftr.news,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TFTR Update August 24, 1995
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 18:38:54 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

Status (August 22nd, 1995):

Since the last update on July 21st further experiments and analysis of the
Enhanced Reverse Mode (ERS) regime has been performed on TFTR.


Experimental Summary
____________________

Reversed shear experiments were run the week of Aug 14th and 21st.
Transitions into the ERS mode were obtained on many shots at an input power
level of 28 MW. The peak density reached 1.0e20 and was maintained at that
level for 0.25 s by reducing the NBI power to 5 MW. The beta norm has now
reached almost 2.0 when the input power was reduced to avoid a disruption.
This technique allowed us to obtain several ERS mode discharges without any
disruptions.

During the week of Aug. 14th, particle transport was studied in reverse
shear plasmas using tritium gas puffs.  Small amounts of tritium gas were
puffed into reverse shear and enhanced reverse shear plasmas heated with
deuterium neutral beams.  The tritium introduced in the gas puff and the
deuterium injected with the neutral beams produce 14 MeV neutrons which are
measured with a neutron collimator array and global neutron detectors.
When these experiments were conducted on well-confined supershot plasmas in
TFTR the neutrons signal due to the tritium gas puff would reach a peak in
0.05-0.07 s and completely decay after 0.15 s (IAEA meeting, Seville, Spain
(1994) and PRL 75 85 (1995).  Preliminary analysis indicates that the core
of the reverse shear plasmas has hydrogenic particle transport
substantially lower than that in the best supershots in TFTR which implies
longer core particle confinement times.  Detailed analysis of this
data is now underway.


Stability Summary
____________________

Plasmas with reversed magnetic field shear have the advantage of being
robustly stable to ideal high-n modes. The standard TFTR reversed shear
plasmas (lower internal inductance, li) as well as those produced at high
poloidal beta  (high li, eBp = 1.2) are robustly stable to high-n modes in
the plasma core. Modeling of these plasmas shows a stable region extending
all the way out to 65 to 80% of the minor radius from the plasma core, i.e.
this means that the center of the plasma has complete access to the 2nd
stability regime. In these cases, central pressure gradients, dp/dpsi have
reached values exceeding those obtained in the best TFTR supershots.

Numerical calculations of the MHD stability predicts an n=1 infernal mode,
consistent with the experimental observations. According to ideal MHD
theory, the betaN* limit is sensitive to the value of q_min, r_min, q(0),
and the total plasma current. With further optimization we hope to extend
the betaN* limit beyond the previous value of 3.5. In the short term, modest
changes can be achieved by changing the inductively prepared  current
distribution;  when current drive systems become available we would hope to
maintain a reversed q(r) for the full duration of the heating pulse.



Transport Summary
____________________

Transport analysis of these plasmas indicates that the electron particle
diffusivity has decreased by a factor up to 50 and is approximately the
neoclassical value.   Assuming the classical ion-electron energy exchange,
the inferred ion thermal loss in the core is substantially lower than
predicted by standard neoclassical theory throughout the reversed shear
region.   The electron thermal loss is not changed significantly, and the
inferred chi-e is larger than chi-i or De. Further theoretical work is
underway to evaluate the role  of short plasma gradient scales length in
modifying the standard neoclassical transport. Initial measurements by the
correlation reflectometer indicate that the amplitude of density
fluctuations is reduced with reversed shear. Furthermore, during the
reversed-shear phase, there is a complete absence of coherent MHD activity
from the core of the plasma. A copy of a TFTR paper submitted for
publication by Levinton et al. is available from Pat Shangle
(pshangle@pppl.gov) which describes the enhanced reverse shear mode on
TFTR.

During this week, the ERS transition has been observed in D-T discharges.
In contrast with supershot discharges in which a strong isotope effect had
previously been observed, the isotope scaling in the ERS regime appears to
be much weaker.




Modeling Summary
____________________

The thermal equilibrium DT simulations of the ERS mode are based on the
measured particle and thermal diffusivities from a 25 MW D  TFTR
discharge which exhibited the enhanced confinement of the ERS regime.
These simulations represent an estimate of what the conditions could be
like in a DT discharge at the same beam power if the discharge came into
thermal equilibrium with the NBI fueling and heating.  In thermal
equilibrium with the good core particle confinement, the simulations
predict high central densities of about 3e20 m-3.

If the current profile specified by MHD theory could be realized and the
enhanced confinement presently observed experimentally on TFTR could be
maintained in the reverse shear region, then TFTR D-T plasmas could produce
>20 MW of fusion power with the injection of 20 MW with substantial core alpha
>heating in the range of the core auxiliary heating power. While a great deal
>of further experimental development coupled with more theoretical modeling is
>required to demonstrate and understand these very exciting and new
conditions, the ERS mode offers a path to substantial extend the scope
of burning plasma physics experiments on TFTR.


R. J. Hawryluk
609-243-3306
e-mail rhawryluk@pppl.gov


P.S.  If you do not wish to receive notices of TFTR status, please contact
me or send a message to postmaster@pppl.gov.  If you are aware of others
who wish to receive notices, please send a message to postmaster@pppl.gov
and do not send a message to tftr_news_info.


_________________________________________________________________________
R. J. Hawryluk
rhawryluk@pppl.gov
PPPL - LOB 325
Phone:  (609) 243-3306
Fax:    (609) 243-3248
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenrhawryluk cudfnRich cudlnHawryluk cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.25 /  schiette@inrs- /  Date of press conference on CF
     
Originally-From: schiette@inrs-ener.uquebec.ca
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Date of press conference on CF
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 16:21:42 GMT
Organization: Universite du Quebec



Hi,

Can someone tell me the date of the first press conference
where Pons & Fleishmann announced that they had "discovered" CF.

			Tanks in advance,

				  Francois Schiettekatte
				  schiette@inrs-ener.uquebec.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenschiette cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.25 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
Date: 25 Aug 1995 15:13:53 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I remember that in the early times about a year or two after P&F discovery
there was a fatal accident I believe it was at SRI. I am wondering about
the reason why the accident happened, I am sure it was during an
electrolytic cold fusion experiment. I believe the program was
subsequently shut down. I wonder if anyone can tell me more details. I am
pretty sure that the cold fusion reaction shuts down when the cell melts
so it is safe from a runaway reaction. Perhaps the explosion was caused by
hydrogen oxygen chemical reaction.

Sorry if I am deviating from the subject matter of this thread, I just
have no doubt in my mind that CF is possible, it is happening and it will
become a commercial reality soon. I actually have read the literature. 

Zoltan Szakaly
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.25 /  jedrothwell@de /  Cold Fusion information available
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion information available
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 95 15:33:43 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

In March, 1989 a new source of energy popularly know as "cold fusion" was
announced by Professors Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons. This caused a
great media brouhaha, but there have been few articles about the subject in
U.S. media since then. A great deal of work in this field has been done. While
progress is frustratingly slow in some ways, the technology still looks
extremely promising. Most of the R&D is now being done in Japan by Japanese
corporations, which tend to keep their results under wraps. For example, we
have heard little from Pons and Fleischmann over the last three years because
they are now in charge of the Toyota IMRA research project in Nice, France,
and they are official advisors to the Ministry of International Trade and
Industry (MITI) R&D project. Toyota and MITI like to play their cards close to
the vest.
 
I would like to encourage anyone who is interested in this subject to read the
scientific literature. A great many papers have been published in the last 6
years. It is difficult to say how many, because there is no central
bibliography in English. I have a text bibliography in Word Perfect format
from "Fusion Facts" magazine. It is dated December 1993, it is 131 pages long
with roughly 12 listing per page, so there were more over 1500 papers 2 years
ago. (This bibliography does not cover all of the Japanese papers.) There are
so many papers that before jumping into the subject, I recommend you read some
broad reviews and books, particularly the ones written by Mallove, and Storms.
Here are some recommended publications to get started with. Items marked
[E-Mail] are available from me e-mail or diskette. Items marked [SCIENCE Lib
2] can be downloaded from the CompuServe SCIENCE forum physics library 2.
 
 
GENERAL
 
Fire from Ice: Searching for the Truth Behind the Cold Fusion Furor, (John
Wiley & Sons, May, 1991), by Dr. Eugene F. Mallove. The definitive book on the
subject.
 
E. Storms, "Cold Fusion Heats Up," Technology Review, May-June 1994 issue
(MIT), 20-29
 
E. Storms (Los Alamos, retired), "A Critical Review of the 'Cold Fusion'
Effect," submitted to Physical Review B (1995) 67 [Preprints available from
me]
 
Infinite Energy Magazine, Edited by E. Mallove, P.O. Box 2816, Concord, NH
03302-2816, Tel: 603-228-4516, Fax: 603-224-5975 E-mail: 76570,2270
 
Information on cold fusion can be found in the John Logajan's World Wide Web
home page: URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan
 
J. Rothwell, "Highlights of the Fifth International Conference on Cold
Fusion," 14 pages, [E-Mail] [SCIENCE Lib 2]
 
 
TECHNICAL
 
Cold Fusion Times, by Mitchell Swartz, P.O. Box 81135, Wellesley Hills, MA
02181 E-mail address: mica@world.std.com
 
Fusion Technology, a technical journal published by the ANS has published many
articles about cold fusion. Contact: Publications Manager, The American
Nuclear Society, 555 North Kensington Ave, Lagrange Park, IL 60525. Back
issues of Fusion Technology are available from the APS publications office at
708-352-6611.
 
Fusion Facts, a monthly newsletter. Contact subscription office at: P.O. Box
48639, Salt Lake City, UT 84158. Tel: 801-583-6232  Fax: 801-583-6245. Fusion
Facts publishes the diskette bibliography I referred to above.
 
The Fifth International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF5) was sponsored by
IMRA and held in Monte-Carlo, Monaco April 9 - 13, 1995. The proceedings will
be published by IMRA Europe, S.A., Center Scientifique, B.P. 213, 22, rue
Albert Caquot, 06904 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France. Mallove offers a set 4
videotapes "Highlights of ICCF5." This is over 8 hours long and it includes
all abstracts and an index of participants. Contact:
76570.2270@compuserve.com.
 
The Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF4).
This conference was sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI),
Advanced Nuclear Systems, and by the U.S. Office of Naval Research. It was
held December 6 - 9, 1993, at Hyatt Regency Maui, Lahaina, HI. The proceedings
can be purchased from: EPRI Distribution Center * 207 Coggins Drive * P.O. Box
23205 * Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 * Tel: 510-934-4212
 
Another version of the ICCF4 proceedings was published by the American Nuclear
Society: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion,
Dec. 6 - 9, 1993, Transactions of Fusion Technology, 1993, Vol. 26, No. 4T,
Part 2 (Dec. 1994), ISSN: 0748-1896. This is a peer-reviewed set of some of
the papers.
 
Frontiers of Cold Fusion, ed. H. Ikegami. The proceedings of the Third
International Conference on Cold Fusion (Nagoya, Japan, October 21 - 25, 1992)
in Nagoya, Japan. Available from Universal Academy Press, Inc., PR Hogo 5
Bldg., 6-16-2, Hongo, Bunkyo Tokyo 113, JAPAN. Tel. 011-81-3-3813-7232, Fax:
011-81-3-3813-5932. Price 22,000 yen (U.S. $194.77, Air shipping: $26.65)
 
P. Hagelstein (M.I.T.), "Summary Of Third International Conference On Cold
Fusion In Nagoya," 43 pages, $5 [E-Mail] [SCIENCE Lib 2]
 
The Science of Cold Fusion, ed. T. Bressani. The proceedings of the Second
Annual Conference On Cold Fusion. (Como, Italy, June 29 - July 4, 1991);
contact: SIF, Via L. degli Ondalo 2, 40124 Bologna, ITALY. From the Second
Annual Conference proceedings, we recommend: M. McKubre (SRI), "Isothermal
Flow Calorimetric Investigations Of The D/Pd System," p. 419 - 443
 
M. McKubre et al., "Isothermal flow calorimetric investigations of the D/Pd
and H/Pd systems,"  J. Electroanal. Chem. 368 (1994) 55
 
M. H. Miles (Naval Air Weapons Center), B. F. Bush (SRI), D. E. Stillwell
(CAES), "Calorimetric Principles and Problems in Measurements of Excess Power
during Pd-D2O Electrolysis," J. Phys. Chem. 1994, 98, p. 1948-1952
 
M. Fleischmann (Univ. Southampton), S. Pons (IMRA Europe), "Calorimetry of the
Pd-D2O system: from simplicity via complications to simplicity," Physics
Letters A, 176 (1993) 118-129
 
E. Storms (Los Alamos), "Review of Experimental Observations About The Cold
Fusion Effect," Fusion Technology, Vol. 20, Dec. 1991 433 - 477. Dated, but
still a superb technical introduction to the field.
 
O. Reifenschweiler (Philips), "Reduced radioactivity of tritium in small
titanium particles," Physics Letters A, 184 (1994) 149-153
 
M. H. Miles and R. A. Hollins (Naval Air Weapons Center), B.F. Bush and J.J.
Lagowski (Univ. Texas), "Correlation of excess power and helium production
during D2O and H2O electrolysis using palladium cathodes," J. of
Electroanalytical Chemistry, 346 (1993) 99 - 117.
 
H. Gerischer (Fritz Harber Institute Der Max Plank), "Memorandum On The
Present State Of Knowledge On Cold Fusion."  [E-Mail] [SCIENCE Lib 2]
 
 
MEDIA COVERAGE
 
BBC "Horizon" series science documentary, "Too Close to the Sun." Broadcast in
the U.K. and Canada, March 1994.
 
Popular Science, August 1993 issue, "COLD FUSION Fact or Fantasy," by Jerry
Bishop, cover story
 
Sunday Times (U.K), June 27, 1993, "Nuclear confusion," by Neville Hodgkinson,
cover story
 
The National Public Radio (NPR) program "Science Friday" on June 25, 1993 was
devoted to cold fusion. It was moderated by Ira Flatow. Panelists included
Michael McKubre of SRI, John Huizenga of Rochester University, Peter
Hagelstein of MIT, Melvin Miles of the Naval Air Warfare Center, and Bruce
Lewenstein of Cornell University. For a tape, send $12.50 to: NPR Tapes *
Washington, DC 20036 * Visa orders: 202-822-2323. Specify the date (06/25/93)
 
The NPR program "Science Friday" was again devoted to cold fusion on January
20, 1995.
 
The Canadian Broadcasting Company (CBC) broadcast a superb documentary on cold
fusion on June 24, 1993, titled "The Secret Life of Cold Fusion."
 
New York Times, November 17, 1992, "Cold Fusion, Derided in U.S., Is Hot In
Japan," by Andrew Pollack, p. B5
 
 
- Jed Rothwell
Cold Fusion Research Advocates
2060 Peachtree Industrial Court, Suite 313
Chamblee, Georgia 30341
 
Tel: 770-451-9890
Fax: 770-458-2404
Home: 770-458-8107
E-Mail: CompuServe 72240,1256 or JEDROTHWELL@DELPHI.COM
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjedrothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.21 / Martin Sevior /  Re: Off the deep end
     
Originally-From: Martin Sevior <msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Off the deep end
Date: 21 Aug 1995 03:01:08 GMT
Organization: School of Physics, University of Melbourne.

blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) wrote:
>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.
>

No but if you didn't eat for 12 months you would have to conclude that food
doesn't power your body. This is the essence of what makes Patterson's Cell
interesting.

Martin Sevior

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmsevior cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.25 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Nuclear Contamination
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear Contamination
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 17:10:21 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <1995Aug23.165010.11585@nosc.mil>, north@nosc.mil (Mark H.
North) wrote:

> dview@earthlink.net asks:
> 
> >I need some practical advice on de-contaminating a *slightly* radioactive 
> >antique. Let me 'splain: 
> 
> >I collect magnetic compasses as a hobby.  About a year ago I found a
very cool, 
> >WW1 infantrymans marching compass at an antique show.  It was pretty advanced
> >for the time, fluid filled with a sighting magnifier that allowed you
to read 
> >directly without refocusing your eye. Anyway, the thing was in pretty bad 
> >shape so I drained what was left of the fluid and disassembled it.  Inside, 
> >on either side of the sighting optics, there are two glass ampoules with 
> >something dark pink sealed inside. They reminded me of the Tritium modules 
> >found in modern day mil-spec compasses.  After it occured to me that
> >they didn't have access to tritium back then I figured that I better be safe 
> >and check this thing for radiation.  So I borrowed a Geiger counter and sure 
> >enough, It's pretty active. If I've read this instrument correctly 
it's about 
> >4000 CPM (Curies per min.?) or about 4mR/hr  (whatever that is) at a
distance 
> >of about 5cm.  Unfortunately,  most of the other metal parts in this thing 
> >register a fair number of "clicks" as well.
> 
> >I would like to know the answers to the following:
> 
> >What would the source most likely be made of?
> >(By the way, it no longer glows)
> 
> First off, CPM is probably counts/minute (a Curie is 3.7E10 disintegrations
> per second and represents a huge amount of radioactivity. The units
> Curies per minute don't make much sense in any case).
> 
> Secondly, what you call a Geiger counter is probably a survey meter which
> integrates over time and is probably calibrated for gamma radiation.
> 
> If these assumptions are true then the numbers you give are consistent with
> a gamma source of about 10 micro Curies with energy around 1 Mev.
> Although that energy is a little high I would guess you have a Radium
> or Thorium source that was used for its alpha activity. The alphas do not
> penetrate the glass. Alpha emitters are very bad for you if inhaled. 
> Do not break open the glass. Originally the inside of the glass was 
> probably coated with a fluorescing material which has since disintegrated 
> or degraded.
> 
> >Is that level of radiation dangerous ? 
> 
> Not particularly but I wouldn't carry it around in my pocket especially
> if you haven't had a family yet. If you are determined to keep it put it
> somewhere where it will be several feet away from anybody at all times.
> 
> >I haven't tried to clean it yet. All of the parts are coated with oxide and 
> >some paint. Is the contamination likely to be into the brass or would it 
> >just be on the surface?
> 
> >Can it be de-contaminated?
> 
> >AND
> 
> >What is the best way to do this?
> 
> If the glass ampules are intact there should be no contamination to worry
> about. If they can be removed without risk of damage then do so and use
> your survey meter on the case. It should not give a reading above 
> background. If it does, you have a problem and I would turn it over to the
> local HAZMAT people.
> 
> >I appreciate any advice. (I know that alot of you are going to tell me
to toss 
> >it. I don't want to do that if it can be avoided).
> 
> I have cross posted this to sci.physics in case anybody over there wants
> to comment on my comments.
> 
> Mark

Gee, is this the censorious fellow who claims to cancelbot the posts of
persons whom he deems to be "off topic?" If so, then why are you replying
in detail to the above blatantly off-topic post, rather than launching a
cancelbot to wipe it off of all the newsgroup servers around the world?
Could it be, perhaps, that you are a typical would-be censor, whose true
definition of "off topic" means simply "not of interest to me?" 

Just curious. 

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Aug 26 04:37:05 EDT 1995
------------------------------
