1995.08.28 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Neutrinos have mass?
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Neutrinos have mass?
Date: 28 Aug 1995 19:25:49 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <WAF2PCB909314841@brbbs.brbbs.com> mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com
(MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes:

  > For instance, when there was a supernova a few years ago, the
  > neutrinos and light from the supernova were received
  > simultaneously.  If the neutrinos has mass then they would have
  > lagged behind the massless photon.

   Ah, the fun of real science...  Since the neutrinos come from deep
within the supernova, the neutrinos from a nearby supernova are
expected to "lead" the visible radiation, by as much as several hours.
If the neutrinos have a large positive mass, they will arrive well
after the first blast of visible light, especially for a supernova in
a different galaxy.  (Supernova 1989A was in the Lesser Megellantic
Cloud, one of the nearest to the Milky Way.)

   However, if neutrinos are actually tacyons (particles that travel
faster than light) they will have an imaginary mass.  Recent
experiments have be "consistant with" an imaginary mass, but have not
ruled out the possibility of a small positive or zero mass.  (One
effect of any non-zero mass would be to provide an explantion for the
"missing" neutrinos coming from the sun.)

   In any case the neutrinos from 1989A apparently did arrive before
the X-rays, but not enough before to rule out any of the alternatives.
So until we can detect neutrinos from more distant galaxies, the
question is still open.
--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.28 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Heavy Metal Deuterides
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heavy Metal Deuterides
Date: 28 Aug 1995 19:53:41 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <41ipd3$fsi@martha.utcc.utk.edu> mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu
(Matthew Kennel) writes:

 > I think that in WW2, there was a really bad accident loading
 > munitions into a warship.  I think that explosion was O(5kt) and
 > obliterated one ship entirely and blew up large chunks of another
 > one hundreds of meters into the air.

   I think that the one you are thinking of was near Chicago, and was
originally blamed on sabotage. (Don't flame me, everyone now seems to
agree that it wasn't...)

   Of course the two biggest non-nuclear man-made explosions both
involved ammonium nitrate, like the Oklahoma city bombing, one in
Germany, one in Texas City.  Of course, at that time no one knew that
ammonium nitrate was an explosive! (The "normal" decomposition
reaction for ammonium nitrate NH4NO3 --> 2 H2O + N2O is not a problem,
it's 2 NH4NO3 --> 4 H2O + 2 N2 + O2 that causes the trouble, and
that does not occur unless the ammonium nitrate is confined and under
pressure.  Of course adding fuel oil to combine with that oxygen makes
it more powerful.)

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.28 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: Marshall Dudley Hypothesis revisited
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Marshall Dudley Hypothesis revisited
Date: 28 Aug 1995 15:08:30 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

It seems to me that you forget the possibility that the electron occupies
an orbit around the D or H some of the time. I think time sharing occurs
and the electron occupies a high orbit around the metal ion part of the
time, the other part of the time it will be in orbit around the H or D.
You could also say that it is in a mixed state. My experience shows the
quantum mechanical wave function is a physical reality not just our
imagination. The electrons generate a charge cloud around the atom. This
is not like a narrow shell but a diffuse cloud-like charge distribution. 

You have a very good point when you describe polarization i.e. change in
the electron cloud charge distribution. Since the H or D is a localized
positive charge, the electrons will tend to spend more time around it then
elsewhere. 

The reason why the electron capture does not happen all the time in nature
is because of the 800 keV or so energy needed to emit the neutrino and
finalize the electron capture. I suspect partial electron captures happen
all the time creating an intermediate quantum state that cannot convert to
the final state because the energy is not there to emit the neutrino. This
intermediate quantum state will represent no net charge and will enter
into fusion reactions creating fusion products that have inherited the 800
keV energy deficit, (the neutrino is emitted as soon as fusion makes the
energy available). Now after such an electron capture mediated fusion
reaction we have a nucleus that is prone to beta decay because it has just
absorbed an electron and it has a neutron surplus. It also might emit a
neutron so in a D+D reaction I would expect:

D  +  D  +  e  ->  He4 + fast electron + gammas + neutrinos               
(1)

or

D  +  D  +  e  ->  T + thermal neutron + gammas                           
    (2)

or

D  +  D  +  e  -> He3 + thermal neutron + fast electron + gammas +
neutrinos   (3)

The thermal neutron is emitted because the binding energy of the neutron
to tritium is non-existent. The gammas are emitted when the T de-excites.
The T is of course not stable long term but that does not matter here. In
(1) the fast electron in many reactions carries enough energy to enter a
new D with electron capture, and cause proliferation of thermal neutrons.
The above reactions explain cold fusion phenomena because the radiative
products are benign, not easy to detect. 

For completeness sake I need to say that all of this is just speculation. 

Zoltan Szakaly
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.28 / Joseph Raulet /  Re: CF Project
     
Originally-From: Joseph Raulet <raulet@jrv.qc.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF Project
Date: 28 Aug 1995 22:31:53 GMT
Organization: RAULET  Informatique

realmikel@aol.com (REALMIKEL) wrote:
>I am a student doing a project trying to creative positive results with a
                                                   ^^^^^^^^
>CF device or theory. Can anyone help or guide me, please email

And M. Pain answer:

>I can only give you one piece of advice: forget it !!!


>M. Pain

Why telling this mister Pain?
Are you suggesting that anyone who try to studing
CF lost its time, or you think that stuying
a subject that has not the approval of the 
scientific establishement is an act of herisy? 
Maybe both?

Joseph Raulet




cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenraulet cudfnJoseph cudlnRaulet cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.28 /  jedrothwell@de /  Galileo was NOT easily reproduced!
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Galileo was NOT easily reproduced!
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 95 18:05:29 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

matt@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Matt Austern) writes:
 
     "Galileo's empirical observations about the moons of Jupiter and about
     the mountains of Luna were perfectly reproducible: anyone who looked
     through a telescope (an easily constructed piece of apparatus at the
     time) could see the same thing that he did."
 
That is COMPLETELY incorrect. Austern does not know anything about Galileo,
his telescope, or the history of science. It was many years before good
telescopes were reliably replicated.
 
Koestler describes the Galileo fiasco in "The Watershed." Galileo's 1610 work
were a classic example of a botched, rushed, inadequate experiment. He
performed a preliminary experiment with inadequate instrumentation. Before
anyone got a chance to replicate he boasted to the world that he had made an
earthshaking discovery. When the experts came to his house to look though his
"clumsy telescope" (Koestler's description -- and the picture bears it out!)
they could hardly see a thing, and much of what they could see was
experimental error:
 
     "Sometimes a fixed star appeared in duplicate."
 
     "The marvel is not so much that he found Jupiter's moons, but that he
     was able to find Jupiter itself."
 
     "Thus, it was not entirely unreasonable to suspect that the *blurred
     dots* which appeared to the strained and watering eye pressed to the
     spectacles-sized lenses might be optical illusions in the atmosphere, or
     somehow produced by the mysterious gadget itself." (My emphasis)
 
The telescope was not even mounted properly at first. He went around showing
it to people and trying to convince them with a sloppy, half finished
experiment, with a telescope you had to aim by hand. This was forty years
after Tycho began building mounted instruments capable of locating planets to
within a fraction of an arc-minute.
 
 
Austern who knows nothing about Galileo and nothing about CF, continues to
wing it with the following fantasy:
 
     "Most people who try to replicate a "cold fusions" experiment
     (replicating an experiment means doing the same experiment, not doing
     something vaguely reminiscent of it) see nothing at all."
 
Whereas everyone who attempted to replicate Galileo saw nothing. Austin does
not wish to face reality, but the fact is that CF was widely replicated by the
end of 1989. Even MIT, Cal Tech and Harwell replicated it, as much as they did
not want to.
 
Austern says:
 
     "I have yet to hear of any case where two groups do the same "cold
     fusion" experiment and get the same result . . ."
 
That is the classic Drasin Defense. As Drasin puts it: "Avoid examining the
actual evidence. This allows you to say with impunity, 'I have seen absolutely
no evidence to support such ridiculous claims!' " It is a simple technique.
You put your hands firmly over your eyes, you refuse to look at any evidence.
When other people say "here are close replications, here are peer reviewed
papers" you pretend you cannot hear. It is the Three Little Monkeys defense:
see no evidence, hear no evidence, speak no evidence.
 
It is typical of a "skeptic" like Austin to substitute fairy tales for the
true history of events in 1610. He knows nothing about Galileo, but that does
not stop him from making up a lovey-dovey everything-went-fine version of
history which fits nicely with his naive preconceptions how science works. If
he ever took the trouble to find out what really happened in 1610, or in
1989, he would realize that he is wrong. But, like all "skeptics," Austin
never does his homework, he spouts off in perfect ignorance, so he is always
wrong. It makes it real easy for me, since I (usually) have enough sense to
Look It Up. Dealing with the likes of Austin and Dick Blue is like shooting
fish in a barrel.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjedrothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.28 / 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: 28 Aug 1995 22:43:51 GMT
Organization: RAULET  Informatique

>Joseph Raulet (raulet@jrv.qc.ca) wrote:
>: 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.

And someone who prefer to stay anonimus aswered:

>Egh. Not Galileo again.  Look, everybody who could remotely be called a
>"scientist" at that time believed Galileo as soon as they looked through >the
>telescope, read his logs, and saw his experiment and understood his
>penetrating explanations.  Case Closed.

>The Catholic church then wasn't exactly known as a center of progressive
>enlightened thinking, and it never even pretended to really care about
>"scientific" issues one bit.

>: Joseph Raulet


Maybe someday you could read in an history book:

Everybody who could remotely be called a
"scientist" at that time believed in the CF experiences
as soon as they verified cairfully the experiments,
read the data, and understood all the penetrating explanations.

The CF critics group then wasn't exactly known as
a center of progressive enlightened thinking, and it never even
pretended to really care about "scientific" issues one bit.

Jsoeph Raulet

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenraulet cudfnJoseph cudlnRaulet cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.28 / Horace Heffner /  Re: The Marshall Dudley Hypothesis
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Marshall Dudley Hypothesis
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 14:38:29 -0900
Organization: none

In article <199508281527.LAA17059@pilot03.cl.msu.edu>, blue@pilot.msu.edu
(Richard A Blue) wrote:

[snip]
 
> Before one should begin to construct theories as to why a loaded
> Pd lattice becomes the site for a special type of nuclear process
> I would say there should be some evidence to support the notion
> that the basic physics is somehow altered.  Certainly the electrostatic
> interation between protons and this lattice can be explored further
> by anyone who has a serious inclination to do so, but just making
> a wild hypothesis that derives from an unrealistic picture of
> atomic structure does little to further the cause for cold fusion.
> 
> Dick Blue

Hopefully you read all the way to what I wrote at the bottom of my post (a
lot to ask - I apologize for the long post!) What I suggest there is the
possibility that, looked at from another perspective, Dudley's Hypothesis
of sheilded porpoising electrons implies that conventional quantum
effects, non nuclear effects, might be responsible for excess energy.  The
proposed effects do not directly involve the palladium nucleus, but
hydrogen nuclei that approch each other from opposite sides of an electron
shell - Dudley's porpoising electrons.  The distance between the nuclei
required to obtain the suggested effect is only that distance sufficient
to create an energy barrier to shielding electrons, not strong force
distances.

-- 
Horace Heffner 907-746-0820    <hheffner@matsu.ak.net>
PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.28 / Horace Heffner /  Re: Marshall Dudley Hypothesis revisited
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Marshall Dudley Hypothesis revisited
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 14:51:26 -0900
Organization: none

In article <41ste9$2v2@martha.utcc.utk.edu>, mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu
(Matthew Kennel) wrote:

> 
> The problem is that this shielding from atomic electrons is only
> going to work at atomic scales: you can sheield coulomb repulsion of
> O(eV) strength.
> 
> Unfortunately, the strong nuclear force doesn't start having any
> effect until the nucleons are much much closer together where the
> Coulomb repulsion is O(keV's).   At that point the atomic electrons
> are irrelevant, their effective density is far too low in the
> space between the nucleons to have any substantial repulsive effect.
> 

Please read the bottom of my post following the quote of Marshall Dudley. 
The sheilding Dudley proposes to create porpoising H nuclei *is* at an
atomic level. In the adaptation of his theory I proposed in my post that
creation of an energy barrier by porpoising H nuclei, resulting in
electron tunneling, is the cause of extra energy, not nuclear fusion.  The
strong force is not involved in this proposed effect.

-- 
Horace Heffner 907-746-0820    <hheffner@matsu.ak.net>
PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.29 / Tom Droege /  Re: Droege's experiments proved nothing
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege's experiments proved nothing
Date: 29 Aug 1995 00:11:08 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <DE0I0D.3pv@festival.ed.ac.uk>, ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) says:
>
>Johmann (johmann@aol.com) 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.
>
>This is just plain silly. A PhD indicates that the holder has spent a
>great deal of time on one very small problem and has written a turgid
>and tedious piece of prose describing it in mindless detail. It says
>nothing about the holder's ability outside the thesis subject - and
>precious little about their ability within it.
>
>As a perfect example, read the ignorant ravings of Eugene Mallove, whose
>PhD in aerosols is often held up as his qualification to push back the
>frontiers of nuclear physics.
>
>Ian
>
>PS What's Jed's PhD in?

Gosh, I am really sorry I missed this original post.  I am off doing
astronomy now, and only check in here every few days.  I do admit that
I am missing a PhD.  My friends keep telling me I should get one.  But 
I do not *need* one to do the work I want to do or to get published.
What I do need is to know a little more statistics so I could do a 
better job stating my arguments about measurements. 

In most PhD programs, one is led through the process of attacking a
problem, developing the techniques to make measruements, taking
data, analyzing the data, and writing it up for presentation to one's
peers.  I have been through this process a few times now, and so I 
don't think much would be gained to do it formally.  I do miss some 
of the formal training.  But it was just not possible for me to earn
enough money to stay in school and still take a full time course load.
So it was off to the Navy, and then to earn a living.  These days there
are many sources of student loans, etc.  It was different in 1953.  

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.29 / Tom Droege /  Re: Hello again / Solar stove
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hello again / Solar stove
Date: 29 Aug 1995 00:23:11 GMT
Organization: fermilab

>In article <1995Aug26.212055.2372@plasma.byu.edu> jonesse@plasma.byu.edu writes:
>>Thanks to all for responses regarding the solar stove development.  Possible
>>applications in 3rd-world countries will be considered with the help of BYU's
>>Benson Institute, which has considerable experience already in these countries
>>with solar homes, water-supply systems, etc.  One solution to the problem of
>>focussing the sun on the bottom of a pan or plate without risking eye damage is
>>to look *through* the inflatable parabolic mirror at the focussed bright spot,
>>since the aluminized plastic transmits some light.  Automatically tracking 
>>the sun's motion

I assume you have thought about Fresnel lenses.  I have tested some of 
the ones Edmund Scientific sells.  They are much too good for this 
purpose.  The 10" I tested was good to about 2' of arc.  So you could
make them much more crudely.  I figure you could stamp them out of 
plexiglass or the very cheapest plastic.  All you need is a pretty 
simple frame.  The trick would be to *not* get a sharp focus.  You 
don't want to burn a hole through the bottom of the pot.  You should
not have much trouble getting a 6" spot from a 3'x3' lens.  Should cook
a lot of yams.  

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.29 / Tom Potter /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter )
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,
ci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: 29 Aug 1995 00:57:10 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <21cenlogic-2808951107140001@austin-1-5.i-link.net>
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes: 
>
>Tom: Just a note to let you know that I plan to get back to your table
of
>astronomical values as soon as I can. Do not take my silence for
>agreement. I am simply too busy to work on your stuff right now. By
the
>way, I do appreciate the serious tone of your posts, despite my
>disagreements with the content. --Mitchell Jones
>
>===========================================================

And I appreciate the serious tone of your disagreement.


cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.29 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: The Marshall Dudley Hypothesis
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Marshall Dudley Hypothesis
Date: 29 Aug 1995 01:16:38 GMT
Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here.

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

: Before one should begin to construct theories as to why a loaded
: Pd lattice becomes the site for a special type of nuclear process
: I would say there should be some evidence to support the notion
: that the basic physics is somehow altered.  Certainly the electrostatic
: interation between protons and this lattice can be explored further
: by anyone who has a serious inclination to do so, but just making
: a wild hypothesis that derives from an unrealistic picture of
: atomic structure does little to further the cause for cold fusion.

: Dick Blue

I think the only conceivable theory of "cold fusion" must 
involve *initial conditions* of the *nucleon wave functions* that are
very unusual.

That really means that the initial state isn't at all "deuterium" atoms
but something truly 'weird'.   (No I have no idea how to accomplish this
given short-range strong interactions.)

That's the only halfway conceivable way to have nuclear reaction
channels for the output that are so different from conventional
understanding necessary to explain experimental (non)-results. 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.28 /  CoolWar /  re CF project
     
Originally-From: coolwar@aol.com (CoolWar)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: re CF project
Date: 28 Aug 1995 23:06:45 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Very interesting subject that you have picked to work on.  If you will
send me a mailing address I would be happy to send some information on the
developments we are working on a Amercian Cold Fusion Engineering and
Supply.  To get an idea look at Fullerene Fusion and Electrodynamic Plasma
this newsgroup.
Regards, 
Warren L. Cooley
American Cold Fusion
P.O. Box 191394
Sacramento, CA 95819-1394
916-736-0104
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudencoolwar cudlnCoolWar cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.29 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Hello again / Solar stove
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hello again / Solar stove
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 02:55:28 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <21cenlogic-2808951423100001@austin-2-14.i-link.net>,
Mitchell Jones <21cenlogic@i-link.net> wrote:

>***{Another socialist pipe dream! Don't you guys ever look at the facts?
>The problem in the "third world" is socialism, not lack of free solar
>stoves supplied gratis by the advanced (i.e., capitalist) countries.

Hate to explain this to you, but NO ONE is suggesting that we _give_ anything
to anyone. Does the word "cheap" used in my message bear no meaning to you?
Exactly what matter does it make what a countries government is if the people
who are so-called "governed" have never seen a government employee?

Haven't you ever been out of your own back yard?

>You
>are right in thinking that desertification is caused by the cutting and
>burning of forests for fuel; but what you do not see is that if the land
>in those countries had private owners, they would have an incentive to
>practice sound land management, and would act to prevent the destruction
>of their land.

Do you mean like in the Amazon rain forest where settlers are given land
if they will clear and farm it? Hmm, they still seem to be clear cutting,
over-using the land for a couple of years and then moving on to more
free land.

 (If you think private owners "desertify" their land by
>clear-cutting all of their timber, talk to the people at Weyerhauser.)

Oh good! Let's compare a rich soiled temperate country to a desertified
equatorial poverty stricken hole. Real intelligent comparison!

>It
>is only because the land in backward countries is owned by "everyone"
>(i.e., by no one) that desertification occurs.

I suggest you actually know something about that which you write.
Desertification is caused by OVER POPULATION and bad social practices
brought in by good souls just trying to civilize the heathens.

As civilized people we have been forced by our own morals to introduce
medical care, the desire for goods that require money to purchase and
domesticated animals etc. that have caused these other societies to overuse
their lands, to over populate their lands and to desertify through simple
overuse. It isn't our fault, but neither is it theirs and ALL of our
futures are at stake if the weather patterns change drastically.

 If you want the advanced
>countries to do something, for "free," to save the world's weather, you
>might suggest that they invade the socialist nations, kick out their
>governments, and restore private property rights. While this is not a
>policy I recommend, it is the only policy that would work. The rest is
>just baloney. --Mitchell Jones}*** 

Baloney Mitchell -- Tribes in Africa and in South America and even in Asia
have had these same problems with land even though they have
historically owned their lands. What we are seeing is the outcome of
societies brought too suddenly into the 20th century.

Nice touch, that, about starting a war. Real humanitarian you are.

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.29 / Robin Spaandonk /  Re: Neutrinos have mass?
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Neutrinos have mass?
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 01:47:25 GMT
Organization: Improving

In article <WAF2PCB826937367@brbbs.brbbs.com>, MARSHALL DUDLEY wrote :

>I was just reading the July issue of Discover magazine.  An article says that
>some scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory have done some experiments
>which indicate that the neutrino has mass.  Their evidence seems pretty slim to
>me, and seems to run counter to other evidence to the contrary.  For instance,
>when there was a supernova a few years ago, the neutrinos and light from the
>supernova were received simultaneously.  If the neutrinos has mass then they
>would have lagged behind the massless photon.
>
>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.  Mass is mass, and the effect of
>the mass on the universe should not matter on whether the mass is rest or
>relativistic. Since the total mass (relativistic + rest) would not change
>whether the rest mass is 0 or not, why would this make any difference as to
>amount of mass it could account for in the "dark matter".
>
>                                                                Marshall
This raises an interesting point. If relativistic mass is dependent
upon frame of reference, then the amount of gravity contributed to the
universe as a whole, would also depend upon frame of reference (for
all matter!). This being the case, then how can anyone ever say,
whether the universe is open or closed? 
Or is gravitational mass independent of relativistic mass?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@netspace.net.au>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything,
Learns all his life,
And leaves knowing nothing.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.27 / Horace Heffner /  Marshall Dudley Hypothesis revisited
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Marshall Dudley Hypothesis revisited
Subject: Hypothesis to explain cold fusion in metals Date: Thu, 13 Jul
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 1995 22:47:22 -0900
Organization: none

July 13, 1995, Marshall Dudley proposed in sci.physics.fusion a hypothesis
regarding how cold fusion might occur in a palladium lattice. IMHO this
hypothesis did not get the attention and discussion it deserves. The
Dudley Hypothesis opens many questions regarding the quantum nature of the
lattice, and thus provides opportunities for amateurs like me to learn
from discussions of those questions.   For that reason I am quoting the
hypothesis here with some questions and points regarding the possibility
that electron tunneling might be the source of the energy observed.

Sorry, as a newbie, I couldn't figure out how to get this quote to have
all leading ">"'s.



Begin quote of the Marshall Dudley Hypothesis:

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) Newsgroups:
sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hypothesis to explain cold fusion in metals Date: Thu, 13 Jul
1995 14:14 -0500 (EST) 

OK, the message I received from Tom Droege clarified the concept of
loading in Pd sufficiently for me to see that it does not appear to
contradict a hypothesis I have been working on. 

Here is my hypothesis. I would appreciate any response that addresses the
technical aspects of this hypothesis. I can do without the flames, if I
have made a stupid blunder, let me know, but if we don't post ideas, we
won't make any progress.

When Palladium absorbs hydrogen, it is not going into the interstices of
the crystal. Instead it is combining with the Palladium chemically, sort
of.

Normally Pd forms covalent bonds sharing electrons. However with hydrogen
and deuterium it forms a ionic bond, with the hydrogen or deuterium losing
an electron to the outer shell of the palladium. (from now on when I say
hydrogen, I mean both hydrogen and deuterium). This leaves the palladium
atom with a -1 charge.

Normally an ionic bond creates two atoms attracted to each other
electrostaticly. However when hydrogen loses an electron, it no longer has
a shell, all we have is a proton (or proton and neutron with deuterium).

Thus we cannot have two atoms attracted electrostatically. Instead the
proton is electrostatically attracted INTO the outer shell of the
palladium. At this point it sees part of the charge of the palladium
nucleus and is repelled back outside of the outer shell. When outside the
shell it sees a -1 charge, but when inside the outer shell it sees a +11
charge (the outer shell of Pd had 10 electrons, plus the extra from the
hydrogen).

This action I will call porpoising, since it is similar to how a porpoise
swims at the surface of the water. I would expect that the proton would be
inside of the outer shell only about 9% of the time due to the differences
in the charges it sees when inside vs outside the shell.

Since the hydrogen nucleas spends most of it's time outside of the shell,
the effect would be that adjacent atoms with a porpoising proton, would
tend to have the proton on each move into an area where it is facing an
atom without a proton, or which has the proton facing the other direction.
If all the atoms surrounding the palladium have protons, then there would
be a diffusion force from the coulomb repulsion that would tend to spread
out the protons such that each would not have to face another proton.

Now, from what I have determined diffusion can avoid head on protons up to
a loading of 83.33%. Once beyond 83.33% there will be sites which have
protons facing each other on adjacent palladium atoms. I would expect two
effects of this. First I would expect that loading above 84.4% to suddenly
be more difficult to achieve. Secondly, if my hypothesis is correct I
would expect that cold fusion would start occuring only once this level of
loading is approached or exceeded. 

An interesting observation of this hypothesis is that when the proton is
inside the shell, the shell shields its charge from being seen from
outside the shell. Thus the proton can suddenly appear outside the shell,
without any warning. If two seperate but adjacent atoms have porposing
protons, then the protons will both occasionally appear outside their
shells simultaneously, and at a point in which tunneling would ensure
fusion. Thus we avoid the problem of coulomb repulsion through the
shielding effects of the outer shell of palladium. 

Other effects I would expect if this hypothesis is correct are: 

Any disturbance that would disrupt the even distribution of protons would
enhance the fusion rate. Thus loading shocks, thermal shocks, mechanical
shocks, even magnetic and electrostatic shocks could all enhance the
fusion rate until the protons become evenly distributed again.

Application of electromagnetic waves which would cause random movement of
the protons around or between the atoms would enhance the effect. These
waves may be in the radio fequency or microwave region, or even in the
X-ray region. Even ultrasonic vibration could have an effect. I would
expect that there would be resonant wavelengths which would have much
greater effects than other wavelengths in the same range. 

The start of fusion in a area could generate a shock wave of heat,
protons, stress, and possibly EM waves which would spread, eventually
causing a significant portion of the palladium to "turn on". Some people
refer to this as ignition.

------

Now I will address what would be expected if loading exceeds 100%. In this
case not only will virtually all palladium atoms have a proton, but some
will have 2 of them. Those which have two protons will most likely end up
with the protons staying on opposite sides of the atom due to coulomb
repulsion. However, if one of the protons is disturbed sufficiently,
either by a near miss from the proton of an adjacent atom, or by an
external force, such as a resonant or high level EM wave, it could be
hurled around the atom so that it ends up on the same side as the other
proton. In some cases one could be inside the shell and the other outside
the shell, both penetrating the shell at virtually the same spot at the
same time. Once again we could expect fusion to occur from tunneling. Thus
I would expect that loadings greater than 100% could show a marked rise in
the fusion rate, especially if there is some type of disrupting force,
such as an EM wave employed. 

One thing that this hypothesis does not explain is the lack of high energy
particles or gammas when a fusion occurs. The only thing I can think of is
the observation that fusion would occur virtually at the outer shell of
the palladium. This position could somehow lead to rapid cooling of the
nucleus by the electrons (11 to 22 of them) in the shell(s). If this
happens the energy would be dissapated by a stream of electrons being
thrown off the atom, similar to betas, but with too low an energy to be
detected easily. As each gets thrown off, the net positive charge would
attract electrons from adjacent atoms to fill the outer shell, and then
they in turn would get thrown off until sufficient energy is lost from the
nucleus for it to capture a couple of electrons for it's own shell. For
this to work effectively the palladium must be electrically conductive,
which of course it is.

Although the metal mentioned is palladium, the same hypothesis should
apply to other metals which are conductive and absorb hydrogen in a
similar manner. 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 
End quote of the Marshall Dudley Hypothesis.

Shielding:

The shielding effect theorized I believe is due to a quantum equivalent to
the Faraday Ice Pail Effect.  This effect occurs when a charged object is
placed inside a conductor (e.g. an ice pail).  No matter where the object
is moved inside the conductor, exactly the right amount of electrons are
attracted to the locality (on the surface of the conductor) of the charged
object to cancel it's electrostatic field outside the conductor. Motion of
the charge inside the conductor is not detectable outside the conductor.
From outside the inside charge always appears to be located at the center
of volume of the conductor.

Quantum shielding:

For the hypothesized shielding to occur, the probability of shell electron
presence in the locality of the proton would have to change in an amount
exactly right to cancel the field outside the shell. As a proton
approached the shell, the probability would have to approach 1. As a
proton approached the shell it would materialize an electron at it's
location.  If this theory is correct, electron capture should be a very
common thing, and the corresponding radiation effects should be seen. Is
there evidence of this? From what I have seen lurking about here for a
while, there may be some evidence for electron capture in minimal amounts.


The shielding possibilities:

From my simplistic and limited point of view, there are only three
possibilities:

(a)  Total shielding occurs,
(b)  Some shielding occurs, or 
(c)  No shielding occurs.

Hypothesis for cases (a) and (b):

If total or some shielding occurs, then the electron probability density
increases at least somewhat as the proton approaches the shell.  It seems
like this would be true from both inside and outside the shell, i.e. a
proton (for brevity let's assume we are dealing with a nickel hydride
system) approaching the shell would create an electron probability density
"shadow" on the shell as it approached from either inside or outside the
shell.  The shadows of two approaching protons (one inside, one outside)
would add, possibly materializing at least one electron (i.e an electron
equivalent wave).  If this electron were directly between the protons and
equidistant from each it would experience a net force of zero from the
protons.  If we continue the hypothesis, i.e. by assuming electrons locked
in the outer orbital can have a shielding effect, then we see the electron
is trapped in a circular energy barrier, for if it moves off the center
line it experiences a net force from both protons back toward the
centerline.  If the electron can magically move far enough away from the
centerline, the force from the two protons would be neutralized by
shielding effects from other electrons.

Electron tunneling:

If the hypothesis for (a) and (b) and my assumptions above are true (a
very very big "if" I know!), then there is some probability the trapped
electron can escape by tunneling through the barrier.  If this happens,
the two protons would suddenly have acquired potential energy, which would
quickly be converted into kinetic energy via. repulsion.  Immediately
after the tunneling all other energies, excluding the newfound potential
energy, should otherwise remain unchanged. (Is this true?)  There would be
no ash.  Case (b) would be similar to case (a), but probabilities of and
magnitudes of positive effects would be reduced.

Case (c), no shielding:

Even if there is no shielding effect, if a proton moves inside a shell of
electrons, it should suddenly experience a cancellation of the force from
electrons in the outer shell (integral of forces zero). This may not be as
true in the outer conduction band, which is very fuzzy, but should be more
true in inner shells.  If this is true, then an extreme (i.e. about 10 to
1)  non-linearity occurs in the electrostatic field at the shell
boundary.  

Proton tunneling:

Imagine a motionless proton sitting at an electrostatically neutral  point
in the shell.  If such a proton can make quantum leaps (for what ever
initiating reason, but reasons with a fixed energy cost, and equal
distance jumps being equally probable) in any direction with equal
probability (here's another big "if" I would like comments on) it should
experience large outward forces from quantum leaps inward, thereby gaining
10 times the energy from a fixed distance leap inward than from a leap
outward.  This idea can be extended to protons in motion at the boundary,
but for protons located away from the shell boundary leaps of a fixed
distance summed over all directions net out to zero or nearly zero energy
gain, while at the shell  boundary it does not appear to be so. I'm sure
my lack of knowledge of quantum theory is showing here.  Any help out
there? I realize the probability distribution might be distorted away from
the volume of greater outward force, but the particle is in a neutral (net
force of zero) location, so why should this be so?  

If this proton tunneling effect is real and but can only be seen at inner
shell boundaries, then the effect can only be observed when the protons
have a large average energy (temperature).

Electron Tunneling in case (c):

Conditions similar to those outlined for cases (a) and (b) could arise
even without shielding effects at a shell, especially if electrons are
being conducted through the lattice.  The likelihood of a collision of two
protons involving a shielding electron would appear to be significantly
reduced though.

Observations:

If quantum tunneling, as proposed, is the cause of the excess energy, then
placing the lattice in a magnetic field should increase the effect due to
increasing the probability two porpoising protons would approach the shell
on collision course by tending to keep them in a plane perpendicular to
the magnetic field.  Further, because their spins would tend to align with
the field, they may tend to magnetically attract each other from opposite
sides of the shell.  This could create a porpoising pair oscillating back
and forth across the shell.

The electrolysis is a surface effect, needed only to load the lattice. The
tunneling effect would be a volume effect, which would be enhanced by
stirring things up *inside* the lattice with a current.  This suggests
setting up a current *through* the lattice (in addition to the
electrolysis current) might be fruitful.  Achieving this might best be
accomplished by putting an oscillator inside the cell so DC current would
still be the source of energy to the cell, but large current oscillations
could be set up through the lattice (wire, film, beads, etc.)

Detecting an energy excess would be easier if loading occurred by putting
the lattice inside a high pressure vessel containing hydrogen.  Wait for
equilibrium, use permanent magnets, stir things up with the oscillator,
turn it off, and look for excess heat.  Use the same experiment with low
loading (pressure)  as a control.  It's a one thermistor (thermometer)
experiment.

Well, there it is, more grist for the mill.

Regards,

Horace

-- 
Horace Heffner 907-746-0820    <hheffner@matsu.ak.net>
PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.28 / Bill Page /  Re: Kasagi; D-beam into Ti
     
Originally-From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kasagi; D-beam into Ti
Date: 28 Aug 1995 12:49:27 GMT
Organization: Daneliuk & Page

In article <41midb$biv@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC) says:
>
>I hereby thank Dr. S.E.Jones for faxing me a copy of Kasagi's paper.
>
>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.
>
>...
>
>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.

Yeong E. Kim and Alexander L. Zubarev, Department of Physics, Purdue
University have examined three body inelastic scattering cross-sections
in their ICCF5 paper "Uncertainties of Conventional Theories and New
Improved Formulations of Low-energy Nuclear Fusion Reactions". They
show that an explicit solution to the three-body Schrodinger equation
exists which gives a much higher fusion rate than simple extrapolation
from two-body reactions. Kim and Zubarev reference Kasagi's experimental
results.

>...
>                                              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.

K. Kamada, et. al. in "Electron Impact p-p and d-d Fusion in Molecules
embedded in Al", Proc. 7th Inter. Conf. on Emerging Nuclear Energy
Systems (ICENES'93), p.168, Sept. 1993, and "Anomalous Heat Evolution
of Deuteron Implanted Al on Electron Bombardment", Proc. ICCF5, present
evidence of high energy protons and alpha particles from experiments
involving the bombardment of hydrogen imbedded in a dense sub-surface
structure by (relatively) low energy electrons. Again, by conventional
theories fusion is not expected but anamalously high particle emission
is observed for *both* implanted protons as well as deuterons. From
this, the authors conclude that p+p+e -> d + nu as well as
d+d+e reactions must be occurring. The presence of high energy
alpha particles in both cases suggest further secondary reactions,
possibly of the three-body kind mentioned above.

Kamada, et. al. theorize that it is not electrons from the primary
electron beam, but rather secondary electrons excited from the Al K and
L shells that are involved in the putative weak interactions.

Cheers,
Bill Page.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenwspage cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.28 / Elliot Kennel /  Re: Dick's theory (was Re: Off the deep end)
     
Originally-From: Elliot Kennel <71756.3025@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dick's theory (was Re: Off the deep end)
Date: 28 Aug 1995 13:41:18 GMT
Organization: Space Exploration Associates

Dear John,
	What is the pump power for the device, and what is the 
reference for it?  A while back, there was some chatter in this 
forum which erroneously (in my opinion) calculated the power by 
confusing the internal pressure, P,  with the pressure drop Delta 
P.  I tried to clarify this, but wound up getting a lecture on 
the difference between gauge pressure and absolute pressure so I 
gave up. 

Best regards,
Elliot Kennel
Yellow Springs OH  

-- 

Elliot Kennel
Yellow Springs OH
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cuden3025 cudfnElliot cudlnKennel cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.28 / 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: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 08:24:12 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

Johmann (johmann@aol.com) 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.

This is just plain silly. A PhD indicates that the holder has spent a
great deal of time on one very small problem and has written a turgid
and tedious piece of prose describing it in mindless detail. It says
nothing about the holder's ability outside the thesis subject - and
precious little about their ability within it.

As a perfect example, read the ignorant ravings of Eugene Mallove, whose
PhD in aerosols is often held up as his qualification to push back the
frontiers of nuclear physics.

Ian

PS What's Jed's PhD in?
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.28 / I Johnston /  Re: Off the deep end
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Off the deep end
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 08:31:54 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

: think you are a lot smarter an <someone> and <someone>. You have not even
: read their papers, you have no idea what their theories say, but you dismiss
: them. Such arrogance!

Hardly credible, is it, gang? The boy is obviously incapable of reading
scientific papers or of understanding them. He cheerfully calls the
world wide physics and engineering community idiots, cheats and
congenital liars and bushes aside the whole of modern experimental
physicss as an irritating gnat's bite in his quest for believers and
money. Then he calls others arrogant - the deluded and self deluding fool.


: 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.

I am speechless. Jed criticising crackpot science which violates
physical laws.

Ian

PS I know we try to avoid direct attacks - on the skeptical side - but
Jed's continuous shrill offensiveness and arrogance gets me down
occasionally. Forgive me.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.28 / Richard Blue /  Re: The Marshall Dudley Hypothesis
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Marshall Dudley Hypothesis
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 15:30:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Since there has been a request for further discussion of the Marshall
Dudley hypothesis, I'll see if I can stir things up a bit on that
matter.

For starters Marshall relies heavily on taking the concept of "electron
shell" quite literally as he describes a proton moving to the inside
of the outer shell of electrons surrounding a Pd nucleus.  As a basic
rule whenever you see someone trying to construct an atomic theory
based on some simple mechanistic picture you should begin to suspect
that they have "gone off the deep end," to make further use of that
phrase.

I would remind Marshall that the Pd atom is not an onion that can be
pealed layer by layer, and his notion that outer shell electrons are
located in some form of distinct layer at a well defined radius is
contrary to experimental fact.  For the purposes of discussing the
electrostatic interaction potential between a proton and a Pd atom
we must consider the overall charge density distribution.  That is
basically what determines the potential energy of the interaction
between the proton and the Pd atom.

Now by elementary electrostatics, as a proton moves to a smaller
radius relative to the Pd nucleus the charge it sees becomes more
positive and the interaction potential rises.  Thus it takes more
energy to push the proton to a smaller radius.  We know that outside
a rather well defined radius the only charges to be found are the
electrons so indeed at some radius the positive nuclear charge of
the Pd will be neutralized or shielded by the atomic electons.
We also know for certain that there must be a radius within which
the net charge is positive.

How do we know there is a radius within which the net charge is
positive?  The electrons experience this same charge, do they
not.  If there were not a net positive charge in the vacinity
of the Pd nucleus the electrons would not hang around!  The
Pd lattice would fall apart.

Thus Marshall Dudley's hypothesis starts to fall apart also.
The key question is what is the interaction potential between
a proton and a Pd nucleus.  That is an experimentally determined
quantity.  In what is essentially an analog to Rutherford's
original alpha scattering experiment one can determine the electrostatic
potential as a function of radius by scattering protons from Pd
nuclei.  The electrons DO NOT shield the positive charge at a
sufficiently small radius to result in cold fusion.  That is an
experimental fact!

Before one should begin to construct theories as to why a loaded
Pd lattice becomes the site for a special type of nuclear process
I would say there should be some evidence to support the notion
that the basic physics is somehow altered.  Certainly the electrostatic
interation between protons and this lattice can be explored further
by anyone who has a serious inclination to do so, but just making
a wild hypothesis that derives from an unrealistic picture of
atomic structure does little to further the cause for cold fusion.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.28 / Mario Pain /  Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
     
Originally-From: Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
Date: 28 Aug 1995 15:16:27 GMT
Organization: cea

Dear Jed,

     I do not quote your post because it is long and it would get to difficult to
read. Before all, thanks for trying to answer my objections in a scientific way.
There are a few think I would still like to clarify:

     I think we will never agree on what an experiment is and I would say more, 
we will not agree on what science is. I do not think that what Edison did on 
the electric bulb was "science". From what I read, he was a practical man, who
did not bother about understanding why things worked as long as they worked. This
being said, there is no derogatory sense in not being scientific. As I already 
said, if people had waited to understand fire before using it for cooking, then
we would still be in the cave.
     Concerning experiments, I agree you cannot usually control all parameters
of an experiment to guarantee perfect repeatability. But if the theory is well
made, you can isolate and control the RELEVANT parameters, which is usually enough.
And in case you cannot control them, you can measure them and check they are
consistent with your theory.

     Concerning CF experiments, you gave me a litterature, so allow me time to
read it before commenting. Nevertheless, when you say that "some fusion" must
take place because there is thritium, I must point out that to my best knowledge 
no neutrons have ever been detected.

Once again, thanks for your civilized comments


Mario Pain

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.28 / 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: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 16:00:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

While some of you think the Cravens demo of the Patterson cell represents
some form of breakthrough in cold fusion research because it is highly
reproducible, I would invite you to step back to consider the particular
features of this experiment.  Why should it be different or better than
the other approaches tried for cold fusion induced via electrolysis?

Any time we skeptics ask about what has been learned concerning improvements
in cold fusion experiments we get back some assertions concerning the
"requirements" for success.  Recently Jed Rothwell has been repeating his
claims that Tom Droege did not do the electrochemistry correctly.  Of course
what is generally lacking is a clear statement as to what Tom failed to
do correctly.  Perhaps an examination of the Cravens experiment in relation
to the dogma laid down by Jed Rothwell will lead to some insight into the
nature of the electrochemistry the Tom Droege, Todd Green , and others
failed to do right.

One of the old assertions concerning the electrochemistry was that high
current density was essential.  In the Cravens demo device, however, the
cathode surface area is much larger and the current density is quite low
by normal CF standards, right?

None of the CF experiments I have been aware of every placed much significance
the the concentration of the electrolyte.  In fact the concentration was
allowed to vary in an uncontrolled manner, was never monitored, and seldom
discussed as an experimental parameter.  Thus expert electrochemists never
seemed to care about the concentration even when the experimental data contains
clear indications that changes in concentration are having significant effects.

In light of the history of neglect of the electrolyte as a significant part of
cold fusion experimentation is it not appropriate to wonder why the Patterson
cell used a particular electrolyte and a much higher concentration than
has been the common practice?  Why would one want this conbination of a high
concentration of ions at low current density?  Why have we heard so little
about the effects of simple variations in the basic ingredients of the
electrochemical cell?

Of course the big mystery concerning the Cravens demo has to be light water
versus heavy water.  I cannot get over the casual way in which cold fusion
advocates take this change in the essential ingredient in stride without
giving it another that.  Heavy water today, light water tomorrow, and
strawberry soda tomorrow.  It's basically all the same magic.

Well, so the most successful (?) form of cold fusion by chemistry uses a
different fuel, a different electrolyte, a different physical form for the
cathode, a low current density, and a circulation system of a sort never
employed before.  Do you think we will ever learn how variations in the
parameters relating to any of these differences influence the production
of excess heat?  Of course, by the Rothwell standard,  Cravens has
replicated P&F in detail.  It is just that the replication involves a
few differences.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.28 / 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: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 10:32:34 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <R7Dgb72.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

> Mitchell Jones <21cenlogic@i-link.net> writes:
>  
> >nothing less. Thus Droege, properly, is to be judged on the basis of his
> >arguments, as are we all. 
>  
> Tom Droege actually did an experiment, unlike most of the people here.
> Therefore, we can judge him on the basis of his work, rather than his
> arguments.

***{A quibble, Jed. When you state a judgment about Droege and he
responds, an argument results, and somebody wins or loses. And it is on
the basis of the outcome that we judge him, and you. To repeat: Droege,
properly, is to be judged on the basis of his arguments, as are we all.
--Mitchell Jones}***

 I judge him as follows:
>  
> Calorimetry  A
> Picking the right tool for the job  B-
> Reporting results  A+
> Electrochemistry  F-
>  
> Overall grade:
>  
> A for effort, F for results.
>  
> - Jed

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.28 / Mario Pain /  Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
     
Originally-From: Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Date: 28 Aug 1995 15:31:52 GMT
Organization: cea

21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:
 The fact that I want to kick the "hot fusion" hogs away from the
>public trough does not mean I want to take their place, and I have said as
>much many times in the past. My position is that government should limit
>itself to the protection of property rights. "Transfer payments,"
>"subsidies," "economic regulations," and all the other euphemisms for
>legalized theft should be ended. Period. In short, I advocate a social
>system in which nobody, including myself, can indulge in a parasitic
>lifestyle. --Mitchell Jones}*** 
>
     Sorry to break the thread on CF, but this last statement deserves in my opinion
a separate discussion. Of course we do not have the same perception of public
financing of research (which by the way is more common in Europe than in the US),
but I find yours inconsistent. If I understand well , government should limit its
intervention in the field of research to protection of property rights. Therefore,
research should be in the hands of the large corporations... which have the
strongest interest to see that a simple device like CF generators (assuming they
work) never see the day ?

Thanks for listening

M. Pain

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.28 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,
ci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 11:07:14 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

Tom: Just a note to let you know that I plan to get back to your table of
astronomical values as soon as I can. Do not take my silence for
agreement. I am simply too busy to work on your stuff right now. By the
way, I do appreciate the serious tone of your posts, despite my
disagreements with the content. --Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.28 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: Neutrinos have mass?
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Neutrinos have mass?
Date: 28 Aug 1995 17:05:23 GMT
Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here.

Craig Harmon (charmon@skid.ps.uci.edu) wrote:
: In article <WAF2PCB909314841@brbbs.brbbs.com>,
: MARSHALL DUDLEY <mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com> wrote:
: >I was just reading the July issue of Discover magazine.  An article says that
: >some scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory have done some experiments
: >which indicate that the neutrino has mass.  Their evidence seems pretty slim to
: >me, and seems to run counter to other evidence to the contrary. 

: Someone briefly talked about the experiment at the last Super K meeting 
: at UCI.  If I understood them correctly, there  was a problem with background
: subtraction, and the event rate had a funny distribution in the detector, 
: making it very sensitive to the fiducial cuts.  The physical explanation 
: for the fiducial cuts was not clear.  Also, I am wondering if they have 
: derived a delta m that compares with the many years of Kamioka data.  

: Craig

I thought I heard about a LANL experiment which generated mu-neutrinos
in an accelerator, let them ride through a few hundred feet of
earth, and then detected electron neutrinos in a tank.

This was presumed to be able to occur only if neutrino flavor mixing happened
which can happen in current theory only if nu-e had non-zero mass.

They calculated the mass implied and it was somewhat below the SN1987A
derived upper limit. 

Is this result under dispute? 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.28 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: Marshall Dudley Hypothesis revisited
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Marshall Dudley Hypothesis revisited
Date: 28 Aug 1995 17:12:41 GMT
Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here.

: {A Dudley Theory}
: An interesting observation of this hypothesis is that when the proton is
: inside the shell, the shell shields its charge from being seen from
: outside the shell. Thus the proton can suddenly appear outside the shell,
: without any warning. If two seperate but adjacent atoms have porposing
: protons, then the protons will both occasionally appear outside their
: shells simultaneously, and at a point in which tunneling would ensure
: fusion. Thus we avoid the problem of coulomb repulsion through the
: shielding effects of the outer shell of palladium. 

The problem is that this shielding from atomic electrons is only
going to work at atomic scales: you can sheield coulomb repulsion of
O(eV) strength.

Unfortunately, the strong nuclear force doesn't start having any
effect until the nucleons are much much closer together where the
Coulomb repulsion is O(keV's).   At that point the atomic electrons
are irrelevant, their effective density is far too low in the
space between the nucleons to have any substantial repulsive effect.

: One thing that this hypothesis does not explain is the lack of high energy
: particles or gammas when a fusion occurs. The only thing I can think of is
: the observation that fusion would occur virtually at the outer shell of
: the palladium. This position could somehow lead to rapid cooling of the
: nucleus by the electrons (11 to 22 of them) in the shell(s). If this
: happens the energy would be dissapated by a stream of electrons being
: thrown off the atom, similar to betas, but with too low an energy to be
: detected easily.

No the relaxation of electrons to their normal nuclear position would
cause easily observable lattice-characteristic-x-rays.

This is why professor Jones says that the existence of these x-rays is a strong
indication of nuclear reactions, whether conventional or not, in solids.

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.28 / Alan M /  Re: Droege's experiments proved nothing
     
Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" <Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege's experiments proved nothing
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 16:08:34 +0100
Organization: Home

In article: <DE0I0D.3pv@festival.ed.ac.uk>  ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I 
Johnston) writes:
> PS What's Jed's PhD in?
> 

I think in his case it stands for 'Pretty hopeless Dickhead'.
-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

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

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.28 / Matt Austern /  Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
     
Originally-From: matt@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
Date: 28 Aug 1995 18:12:04 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley (computational neuroscience)

In article <41l3jn$if1@volcano.jrv.qc.ca> Joseph Raulet <raulet@jrv.qc.ca> writes:

> 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.

Galileo's empirical observations about the moons of Jupiter and about
the mountains of Luna were perfectly reproducible: anyone who looked
through a telescope (an easily constructed piece of apparatus at the
time) could see the same thing that he did.

That is in stark contrast to the "cold fusion" situation, where
reproducibility is nil.  Most people who try to replicate a "cold
fusions" experiment (replicating an experiment means doing the same
experiment, not doing something vaguely reminiscent of it) see nothing
at all.  I have yet to hear of any case where two groups do the same
"cold fusion" experiment and get the same result---except, of course,
for the null result.
-- 
  Matt Austern                             He showed his lower teeth.  "We 
  matt@physics.berkeley.edu                all have flaws," he said, "and 
  http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt             mine is being wicked."
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.28 / David Knapp /  Re: Neutrinos have mass?
     
Originally-From: David Knapp <dk@llnl.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Neutrinos have mass?
Date: 28 Aug 1995 18:41:25 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel) wrote:
>I thought I heard about a LANL experiment which generated mu-neutrinos
>in an accelerator, let them ride through a few hundred feet of
>earth, and then detected electron neutrinos in a tank.

>They calculated the mass implied and it was somewhat below the SN1987A
>derived upper limit. 

   Where did you get this last bit?  I have never heard that!  Neutrino oscillation
experiments give two parameters:  delta_m^2 and sin(2*theta).  Neither gives the
absolute magnitude of the mass, but only the difference between the flavors.  One
can make the argument that the mass is of the same order of magnitude as the mass
difference between the flavors.  In any case, there were allowed values for 
delta_m^2 that they derive are still lower than the best limits from tritium beta
decay experiments, which (in turn) are _far_ lower than the limits from SN1987A.

  -- Dave


cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudendk cudfnDavid cudlnKnapp cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.28 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Hello again / Solar stove
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hello again / Solar stove
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 14:23:10 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <tomkDDuBBy.5uo@netcom.com>, tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
wrote:

> In article <41i624$25h@coranto.ucs.mun.ca>,
> John Lewis <court@kelvin.physics.mun.ca> wrote:
> 
> >It's very important in this kind of a project to find and address
> >*all* of the constraints and parameters.  For example, very few parts
> >of the world have sunshine 365 days a year.  What are users of a solar
> >stove going to do on cloudy days?
> 
> Searching for, finding and hauling back fuel for cooking presently
> consumes a large portion of the energy balance of 3rd world societies.
> Yes, the sun doesn't shine 365 days a year, but most of the 3rd world
> lies in areas where the sun is quite common. The idea is that 80%
> of the fuel could be saved with solar technology if it can be reduced
> to 3rd world pricing (meaning essentially free -- remember that it would
> pay the rest of the world to finance conversions to save the world's
> weather!)

***{Another socialist pipe dream! Don't you guys ever look at the facts?
The problem in the "third world" is socialism, not lack of free solar
stoves supplied gratis by the advanced (i.e., capitalist) countries. You
are right in thinking that desertification is caused by the cutting and
burning of forests for fuel; but what you do not see is that if the land
in those countries had private owners, they would have an incentive to
practice sound land management, and would act to prevent the destruction
of their land. (If you think private owners "desertify" their land by
clear-cutting all of their timber, talk to the people at Weyerhauser.) It
is only because the land in backward countries is owned by "everyone"
(i.e., by no one) that desertification occurs. If you want the advanced
countries to do something, for "free," to save the world's weather, you
might suggest that they invade the socialist nations, kick out their
governments, and restore private property rights. While this is not a
policy I recommend, it is the only policy that would work. The rest is
just baloney. --Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
> >Myself
> >and a couple of associates once spent some time on concepts for solar-powered
> >water purifiers, which we would have proposed to a programme of the
> >Canadian International development Agency.
> 
> Another good idea whose time has come -- plastic films are readily
> available.

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.28 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Date: 28 Aug 1995 20:09:30 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <21cenlogic-2608951545420001@austin-1-4.i-link.net>  
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:
> ***{True enough. Fortunately, my house is made of steel! :-) --Mitchell
> Jones}*** 


Perhaps the same steel used to construct the hull of the Titanic?


--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Aug 29 04:37:04 EDT 1995
------------------------------
