1995.09.01 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: Kasagi 17 MeV protons
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kasagi 17 MeV protons
Date: 1 Sep 1995 13:08:15 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Perhaps I was unreasonably short in presenting Kasagi et.al. findings
here. I would not even have presented these findings if I had thought that
the experimenters were sloppy in any way. Obviously they made sure that
the incoming beam was clean (they deflected it 15 degrees in a magnetic
field to sort out impurities) and they made sure the detected protons were
not pileups in the detector. (They double checked the experiment with a
200 um aluminum foil which caused the pileups to disappear) They also
carefully prepared the Ti target ( I will not detail here unless somebody
wants to know very badly). 

Zoltan Szakaly
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.01 /  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, 1 Sep 95 13:21:26 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) writes:
 
     "You make a valid point that those who haven't studied a field
     extensively are likely to make mistakes experts wouldn't. Couldn't the
     same point be made about electrochemists? In essence, they are making
     claims counter to prevailing expertise of physics and fusion experts who
     have spent years studying their fields."
 
Of course. For example, Pons and Fleischmann made a mistake measuring neutrons
back in 1989. Fortunately, CF conferences attract many experts in physics,
particularly from the Japanese labs like the National Inst. for (hot) Fusion
Science, Osaka Nat. U., and KEK. This kind of interdisciplinary cooperation is
essential.
 
Still, when you talk about the hands-on aspects of electrochemical CF, the
real experts are the electrochemists. This is analogous to saying that when
you build an implosion fission bomb, the experts in chemical explosives do
most of the work. I believe that was one of the stickiest problems in the
Manhattan project work at Los Alamos. Atom bombs are triggered by chemistry
(chemical explosives), and CF is triggered by electrochemistry.
 
Of course there are many other forms of CF which have nothing to do with
electrochemistry. Some CF is done by the folks in the physics departments with
no help from the electrochemists, like ion beam loading.
 
If this statement is meant to suggest that CF appears to contradict some
aspects of hot fusion theories, that is a non-issue. Of course it does! But
this sentence is framed wrong: "In essence, they are making claims counter to
prevailing expertise of physics and fusion . . ." This should read: "They
are preforming experiments that yield data that appears to contradict the
prevailing expertise . . ." Everyone knows that. Everyone knows that CF cannot
be HF, because if it was radiation would kill everyone in the room. Whatever
it is and however strange the results might seem, the experiments have been
widely replicated and the signal to noise ratio is high, so the results are
real. Some physicists say CF results conflict with present day theory, while
others say it does not. I myself cannot judge that issue, and I do not care,
but I can say that if it turns out there is a conflict, the experiments win
and theory loses. That is the inescapable, iron-clad rule of science. No
exceptions are granted, not for any theory, ever. All of the expertise in the
world cannot overrule high-sigma replicated experimental data.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.01 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Cold Fusion information available
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion information available
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 95 13:30:17 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Jim Carr <jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> writes:
 
>}to "Fusion Facts" and I have list of nearly every scientist in the world who
>}has done his own experiment and published the results, positive or negative,
>}either in the peer reviewed literature or in conference proceedings. There are
 
 
>I find it interesting that Jed chose to post this article only in the 
>sci.physics newsgroup, where you folks would not be expected to notice 
>that he omitted one prominent name - Steve Jones - and another active 
>experimenter, Tom Droege, who post extensively on sci.physics.fusion 
>but whose opinions about cold fusion are not the ones Jed holds. 
 
Hey Jim, do you have trouble reading Engish? Do you need new glasses or
something? I said I do not find the names of people who post here in the
Fusion Facts bibilography. I said that as far as I know, they have not
published the data or reported it at a conference. Droege wrote one paper
about calorimetry, but nothing about his experiments, so he is not on the
list. Jones retracted his CF work. At ICCF3 he said it was a mistake. So
it is cancelled. Obviously, if the scientist himself stands up and retracts,
I do not count that as a result any more. Postitive or negative, I toss it
out.
 
It may be that Droege, and Dick Blue, and you and 27,458 other "skeptics" have
all performed splendid CF experiments. But, you have not published the
results anywhere, and you have not reported them at any conference that
Hal Fox or I heard about. So you don't count. Just talking about work on
Internet casually does not count. You have to stand and deliver.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.01 /  SLBRIT /  Re: alt.my.dick.is.bigger.than.your.dick
     
Originally-From: slbrit@aol.com (SLBRIT)
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: alt.my.dick.is.bigger.than.your.dick
Date: 1 Sep 1995 14:48:41 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Children, children...

Have we so little minds and limited vocabulary that we use such immature
vocabulary?  How old are you -- REALLY...?    Grow up and be adults. 
Otherwise please find another forum for your prepubescent tantrums!

Is there no common decency left in forums designed for intelligent
discourse....?

slbrit@aol.com
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenslbrit cudlnSLBRIT cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.01 / 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: 01 Sep 1995 19:12:53 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley (computational neuroscience)

In article <browe-3108952110560001@192.0.2.1> browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) writes:

> You make a valid point that those who haven't studied a field extensively
> are likely to make mistakes experts wouldn't. Couldn't the same point be
> made about electrochemists? In essence, they are making claims counter to
> prevailing expertise of physics and fusion experts who have spent years
> studying their fields.

Except that, by and large, electrochemists *aren't* saying that.  It's
unfair to tar all electrochemists by pointing to a couple of cranks
who happen to have degrees in electrochemistry.  The vast majority of
electrochemists aren't making any bizarre claims about getting nuclear
reactions by pumping current through water.
-- 
  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:
cuddy01 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.01 / Tom Droege /  How To Spend the $700
     
Originally-From: droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: How To Spend the $700
Date: 1 Sep 1995 14:22:34 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway

OK folks, here is a proposal to get rid of the $700.

If you all will look at:

http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~richmond/tass.html

you will see what I am up to.  It is not "cold fusion".

However, donations will be accepted.  Some of you may
even think it is a worthwhile cause.  So how about you
all relinquishing the $700 to help finance a telescope.
I have a nice group in Slovinia that wants one, but there
are lots of places it could go.  We could label it the "Cold
Fusion Memorial Telescope"

Tom Droege  

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudendroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.01 / Tom Potter /  Re: alt.my.dick.is.bigger.than.your.dick
     
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: alt.my.dick.is.bigger.than.your.dick
Date: 1 Sep 1995 21:49:36 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <1995Sep1.140602.9328@news2.den.mmc.com> virdy@pogo.den.mmc.com
(Mahipal Singh Virdy) writes: 
>
>In article <41ql7c$26g@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
>Tom Potter  <tdp@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>In <1995Aug24.172022.13911@news2.den.mmc.com> virdy@pogo.den.mmc.com
>>(Mahipal Singh Virdy) writes: 
>>>
>>>I was wondering who named this thread. It's Tom Potter. Surprise! ~
>>>Wow! What a clever suggestion. Hail to the TP:Toilet Paper
>>>
>>>Mahipal,
>>>God, Rubbish this idiotic makes <me> so damn angry.
>>
>>You flip between anger and euphoria too much.
>>Stay on your lithium.
>
>I've never heard of Lithium being used as a narcotic. I must get out
>more.
>
>Look Tom, I'm sorry for snapping at you. But if you can't see how
>nonsense like this is *worse* than a waste of bandwidth... Nevermind,
I
>think you know this.
>
>About egoes in general, this aspect of the human condition is in no
way
>special to or limited to sci.*. Try sci.math sometimes. Try
>any.where.damn.it! 
>
>But I shouldn't have snapped at you or anyone. Not my forte'.
>
>Mahipal,
>|meforce>

Virdy, were you sent by the "Dark Side" to harrass me?

The "alt.my.dick.is.bigger.than.your.dick" post was to make the point
that we should concentrate on ideas, rathers than egos in these forums.
It was a case against flaming and adding noise to the system.
( And I think that most people got the idea. )

Beware! The FORCE is with me!


cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.01 / Frank Jordan /  Re: alt.my.dick.is.bigger.than.your.dick
     
Originally-From: Frank Jordan <fjordan@spacectr.cbu.edu>
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: alt.my.dick.is.bigger.than.your.dick
Date: 1 Sep 1995 20:28:55 GMT
Organization: Memphis Space Center

slbrit@aol.com (SLBRIT) wrote:
>Children, children...
>
>Have we so little minds and limited vocabulary that we use >such
immature vocabulary?  How old are you -- REALLY...?  >  Grow up
and be adults. 
>Otherwise please find another forum for your prepubescent >tantrums!
>
>Is there no common decency left in forums designed for >intelligent discourse....?
>
>slbrit@aol.com

There is a person whose pet theory was being critiqued, 
maybe a bit too harshly and flamed back.  He eventually 
just freaked out IMHO and started this thread.

I agree with you that there's absolutely no need for such 
drivel.

Frank Jordan

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenfjordan cudfnFrank cudlnJordan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.01 / Bill Rowe /  Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 1995 15:52:09 -0700
Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net

In article <MATT.95Sep1121253@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU>,
matt@physics.berkeley.edu wrote:

>In article <browe-3108952110560001@192.0.2.1> browe@netcom.com (Bill
Rowe) writes:
>
>> You make a valid point that those who haven't studied a field extensively
>> are likely to make mistakes experts wouldn't. Couldn't the same point be
>> made about electrochemists? In essence, they are making claims counter to
>> prevailing expertise of physics and fusion experts who have spent years
>> studying their fields.
>
>Except that, by and large, electrochemists *aren't* saying that.  It's
>unfair to tar all electrochemists by pointing to a couple of cranks
>who happen to have degrees in electrochemistry.  The vast majority of
>electrochemists aren't making any bizarre claims about getting nuclear
>reactions by pumping current through water.

You are right. I really didn't mean to imply all electrochemists make
extravagant claims. Instead, I was trying to make the point that some of
the experts Jed cites are making claims outside of their field of
expertise and perhaps have made significant errors.
-- 
MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.02 / Barry Merriman /  Re: How To Spend the $700
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How To Spend the $700
Date: 2 Sep 1995 00:05:19 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <199509011926.AA15102@storm.fnal.gov> droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom  
Droege) writes:
> OK folks, here is a proposal to get rid of the $700.
> 
> If you all will look at:
> 
> http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~richmond/tass.html
> 
> you will see what I am up to.  It is not "cold fusion".
> 
> However, donations will be accepted.  Some of you may
> even think it is a worthwhile cause.  So how about you
> all relinquishing the $700 to help finance a telescope.
> I have a nice group in Slovinia that wants one, but there
> are lots of places it could go.  We could label it the "Cold
> Fusion Memorial Telescope"
> 
> Tom Droege  

Don't forget that for $500 we can get Archimedes Plutonium to 
undergo a mental health exam and report the results on the
Internet.

That may be a more interesting researh project than cold fusion
or astronomy.



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


cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.31 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 95 22:07:40 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Corporation

In article <R7BCs8k.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
>I pointed out that at CF conferences, bald headed scientist spend four days
>talking about experiment that worked. Contrary to Matt's imaginary scenario
>they do not all file in front of the podium and say "another year, but no
>result yet." In response Bob Sullivan <bsulliva@sky.net> writes:
> 
>>Doggoneit, Jed, which horse are you going to ride? You can't have it both
>>ways. Sometimes, you say that most people can't reproduce the cf experiments
>>because they don't have the special expertise that it requires. Now you want
>>to argue that anybody and his dog can do it. Mebbe you ought to keep notes 
on
>>the positions you have taken.
> 
>You statement is absurd. The scientists who attend cold fusion conferences
>are experts. Most of them are in their 60s, and they have done
>electrochemistry for 40 years. They have the special expertise required to
>replicate the work. At the conferences they spend days talking about the
>nitty gritty detail. That is what the conferences are for!
> 
>Look here, think about a conference on brain surgery or medieval Japanese
>literature. Pretend that you have spent the last four days listening to
>lectures and looking a slides of the latest techniques in these fields.
>Okay, does that make you an expert, ready to walk into any operating room
>and take over? If the professor of ancient Japanese literature is out of
>town are you prepared to take over her class for the day? Are you some kind
>of 5 day wonder who can master a new language in a few days and read a few
>hundred books? I doubt it. By the same token, if you were to throw together
>an electrochemical experiment in CF, or in any other form of surface
>catalysis, you will make DOZENS of stupid mistakes. For that matter, if you
>tried to take care of 200 chickens for a monthy you would kill a lot of them,
>and if you tried to fix transmission in my car you would probably botch it.
>Most jobs require experience, practice and skill. Even jobs that most people
>think are easy. If you think that electrochemistry is easy, then you know
>nothing about it. Try spending a few hours at a CF conference and you will
>realize how little you know.
> 


I know enough to realize that the argument you make above is in total 
contradiction to the argument you made in the message I was responding to.


>Sullivan also writes:
> 
>>15-yard penalty for using the you-haven't-read-the-literature argument
>>as a substitute for presenting facts.
> 
>People like Matt who refuse to read the literature are not even playing the
>game. They do not even a clue where the stadium is. Anyone who dares to
>critique CF without reading the literature is a flaming imbicile, not fit to
>call himself a scientist. It is first rule of science that before you open
>your yap, you must have some idea what the hell you are talking about, and
>you can only learn by reading and by doing. ESP does not work. Word of mouth
>distorted descriptions of papers are garbage. YOU MUST READ ORIGINAL SOURCES.
> 


5-yard delay of game penalty for trying to invoke the you-haven't-read-the- 
literature argument a second time.


>You talk about 'presenting facts' to me. Ha! I have put more facts here than
>all the "skeptics" combined. You are demanding that I spoon feed Matt more
>facts, and more. You want me to do his homework for him. Forget it! I have
>two kid at home, I don't need any more.
> 
>- Jed


I will give you credit for a large volume of factoids. Whether they eventually 
rise to the level of fact remains to be seen.
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.31 / Jim Carr /  Re: Cold Fusion information available
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion information available
Date: 31 Aug 1995 18:39:31 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <R7Jh86d.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
}
}                           ...                                   I subscribe
}to "Fusion Facts" and I have list of nearly every scientist in the world who
}has done his own experiment and published the results, positive or negative,
}either in the peer reviewed literature or in conference proceedings. There are
}several hundred people actively engaged in CF experimentation and theory. Out
}of all those people, only Bill Page and Mitch Swartz have ever posted messages
}to sci.physics.fusion.   ... 

I find it interesting that Jed chose to post this article only in the 
sci.physics newsgroup, where you folks would not be expected to notice 
that he omitted one prominent name - Steve Jones - and another active 
experimenter, Tom Droege, who post extensively on sci.physics.fusion 
but whose opinions about cold fusion are not the ones Jed holds. 

Carlson's statement that there are many knowledgable people, both about 
relevant experiment and theory, in sci.physics.fusion is true. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     | "What a long strange trip it's 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  been."       
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |              Jerry Garcia
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |                1942-1995 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.31 / Dick Jackson /  Re: a plasmoid article
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: a plasmoid article
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 22:57:24 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea

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

I believe that douughnuts are plasmoid phenomena. If I get just a few
I get energy, but too much makes me sick. Very much like nuclear
radiation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And since doughnuts are, probably bagels are also, but I haven't
confirmed this yet.

Watch for my 7000 line article on bakeries and zero point energy, in it
I will conclusively settle the bagel issue once and for all.

Joachim Prasidinom^H^H^H^H^HRubidium
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.31 / A Plutonium /  NEW YORK TIMES reports the fraud waste and abuse of science
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.particle,s
i.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.fusion,sci.bio.paleontology
Subject: NEW YORK TIMES reports the fraud waste and abuse of science
Date: 31 Aug 1995 23:22:25 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

  I am so very happy that the news correspondents read the Internet,
alt.sci.physics.plutonium et al where they learn the truth. Of course
they can write it better than I can, my language has to be worse than
my science, for Archimedes of old was never known for his ditsy novels
and fictions. 

  Now, on Tues Aug 29, 1995 NYT Science Times page C9. BTW, thanks for
taking up my suggestion and reporting mostly on animal stories, for
this is what the general public loves to read about, you being the All
Creatures Great & Small in newspaper science, please write a story on
these things -- black flies, deer flies, ticks, electric eels,
horseflys for I need to know more about them.

  Getting back to C9, it was reported and I quote in part

 ... cut off funds for the $10 billion superconducting supercollider, a
proton accelerator

 . . . serious reduction of financing in 1996.  House action calls for
a reduction of 36.4 percent in the budget for magnetic confinement
fusion . . Princeton Plasma Physics Lab in New Jersey
--- end of quoting in part of NYT ---

   I would like to add also that the article mentions that there was
some underhandedness in the money for the supercollider, I forgot NYT's
exact words but it sounded like money fraud or misconduct

   Anyone, can you remember when the NYT Science Times printed a story
on past Mass Extinctions covering not only the Dinosaurs but earlier
mass extinctions. Thanks for any help
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.01 / For Peorth /  Fusion FAQ?
     
Originally-From: wwong8@mars.calstatela.edu (For Love of Peorth)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion FAQ?
Date: 1 Sep 1995 00:30:49 GMT
Organization: Information Resources and Technology

Hi there,

  Could the one posting the FAQ continue posting the rest of it or
  perhaps repost it?  I saw the intro 0/?? and that was it...

  If not, then could someone with a copy of the FAQ email it to me?

  Thanks.  Email addr: wwong8@calstatela.edu

  Wing.

--
@}-,-'---    @}-,-'---    @}-,-'---    @}-,-'---    @}-,-'---    @}-,-'---
-----=== WING * WONG ===-----  "Can't live life hiding underneath your bed,
Anime Otaku   X   MechWarrior   got to live the life you create inside 
===-----    TANG     -----===   your head"  - Tenchi Muyou
  wwong8@calstatela.edu   Watashi wa Ryoko to Peorth-sama dai suki desu yo!
@}-,-'---    @}-,-'---    @}-,-'---    @}-,-'---    @}-,-'---    @}-,-'---
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenwwong8 cudfnFor cudlnPeorth cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.01 / David Davies /  Energy Localization in Nonlinear Lattices
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Energy Localization in Nonlinear Lattices
Date: 1 Sep 1995 13:24:44 +1000
Organization: Australian National University


I have looked at the MIT patent posted here recently (#05411654) and am not 
particularly impressed with it as a patent. It seems to contain little, if 
anything, that is new technology and looks more like the work of over-zealous 
patent lawers.   

Having said that, I must admit that it points down an interesting path and 
has some interesting bibliographical references. One in particular stands out 
and I have quoted some of what I think are its key points below.   

The emphasis is that of the original authors, converted from italics. Typo's 
are probably mine. 

 
Energy Localization in nonlinear Lattices, Thierry Dauxois & Michel Peyrard,
Laboratorie de Physique de l'Ecole Normale Superieure de Lyon, Lyon, France
Physical Review Letters, Vol 70, #25, 21 June 1993 

 
Abstract: 

"We discuss the process by which energy, initially evenly distributed in a 
nonlinear lattice, can localize itself into large amplitude excitations. We 
show that the standard modulation instability mechanism, which can initiate 
the process by small amplitude breathers, is completed efficiently, in the 
presence of discreteness, by energy exchange mechanisms between the nonlinear 
excitations which favour systematically the growth of the larger excitations. 
The process is, however, self-regulated because the large amplitude 
excitations are finally trapped by the Pierls-Nabarro potential."  

Further quotes from the body of the article: 

"... We want to point out that, in a discrete lattice, nonlinear energy 
localization is very different from its counterpart in a continuum medium. In 
particular, we show that, besides the familiar mechanism of modulation 
instability, which is itself strongly modified by discreteness effects, there 
is an additional channel for energy concentration, which is specific to 
lattices, but is not sensitive to the details of the nonlinear lattice model 
which is considered. Therefore it appears as a very general process leading 
to localization of energy in a lattice."  

"... Such a mechanism is not observed in a continuum medium because there the 
breathers generated by modulational instability are well approximated by 
solitons of the nonlinear Schrodinger (NLS) equation which can pass through 
each other without exchanging energy. On the contrary, when discreteness 
effects are present, the energy of each excitation is NOT conserved in 
collisions, and, the important point is, that THE EXCHANGE TENDS TO FAVOUR 
THE GROWTH OF THE LARGER EXCITATION."  

"... The detail of the interaction between discrete breathers depends on the 
precise conditions of the collision, and in particular on the relative phases 
of the two breathers when they collide. It may even happen that, in a single 
collision, the bigger breather loses some energy. However, we have observed 
that the average effect of multiple collisions occurring randomly in a 
lattice, is always to increase the amplitude of the larger excitations. THIS 
PHENOMENON IS VERY GENERAL AND VERY ROBUST TO PERTURBATIONS. In particular, 
the same behavior is found in a thermalized system, which is important for 
physical applications."  

"... In fact, we observe that its growth rate is larger in the presence of 
thermal fluctuations because it collects some energy from the fluctuations. 
The results do not depend on the boundary conditions. Multiple collisions can 
also be generated by periodic boundary conditions and the same results are 
found. More importantly, the results do not depend on the particular 
nonlinear lattice model which is considered."  

"... The mechanism of discreteness-induced energy localization that we have 
described here can appear in a wide variety of physical systems involving 
lattices."  

 

This report generally confirms, and in no way contradicts, my own 
computational experiments in energy transfer in arrays of nonlinear 
resonators.  

 
dave


cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.01 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: The Marshall Dudley Hypothesis
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Marshall Dudley Hypothesis
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 1995 09:55:27 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <hheffner-3008951137570001@204.57.193.73>,
hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner) wrote:

> In article <199508281527.LAA17059@pilot03.cl.msu.edu>, blue@pilot.msu.edu
> (Richard A Blue) wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > 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
> 
> The proposed alteration of the basic physics occurs not in the proximity
> of the Pd nucleus, but in the outer shell of the Pd atoms.  The difference
> is in the fact that the conditions proposed for multiple porpoising H
> nuclei is a low energy condition, and a highly likey condition. I believe,
> under the hypothesis, that one would expect a large portion of atoms to
> ceate the condition of two H nuclei separated by high density electron
> probability cloud. 
> 
> What I have suggested is the possibility that this condition creates an
> energy barrier around the cloud. Due to the presence of two H nuceli in
> the vicinity, it seems the probability density would, at some minimal
> distance, exceed 1; i.e. the shielding effect would induce a probability
> density with an aggregate charge exceeding one electron. From a particle
> point of view, there would be an electron between the H nucei.  

***{If this reasoning were valid, then why wouldn't fusion occur in the
simple case of an H2 molecule? Here we also have the situation frequently
arising where there is an electron between the H nuclei. What special
circumstance forces the two nuclei together in your case and not here? It
seems to me that if the coulomb barrier fails to prevent fusion at
ordinary temperatures in your example, then molecular hydrogen at ordinary
temperatures should also promote fusion, and yet it clearly does not.
--Mitchell Jones}***

This
> electron would be surrounded by an electrostatic energy barrier created by
> the H nuclei.  In addition, it is proposed that there might be an
> attractive force due to spin alignment. A magnetic field established by
> such an effect, if present, would create an additional energy barrier
> around the electron, plus further attract the H nuclei together.  The
> attraction effect of spin alignment would be subtle and would not manifest
> itself if the relative momenta of the H nuclei were high.  A low energy
> condition is a pre-condition.  High energy scattering experiments do not
> seem relevant to this hypothesised condition.
> 
> It seems the hypothesized conditions would greatly increase the potential
> for fusion, especially if a high energy 4th particle were involved. 
> Further, I suggested the possibility that, if there truly is an energy
> barrier around the hypothesised shielding electron, electron tunneling
> could occur, eliminating the shielding, thereby adding thermal energy to
> the H nuclei. 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Horace
> 
> -- 
> Horace Heffner 907-746-0820    <hheffner@matsu.ak.net>
> PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.01 / Mahipal Virdy /  Re: alt.my.dick.is.bigger.than.your.dick
     
Originally-From: virdy@pogo.den.mmc.com (Mahipal Singh Virdy)
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: alt.my.dick.is.bigger.than.your.dick
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 14:06:02 GMT
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics

In article <41ql7c$26g@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
Tom Potter  <tdp@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <1995Aug24.172022.13911@news2.den.mmc.com> virdy@pogo.den.mmc.com
>(Mahipal Singh Virdy) writes: 
>>
>>I was wondering who named this thread. It's Tom Potter. Surprise! ~
>>Wow! What a clever suggestion. Hail to the TP:Toilet Paper
>>
>>Mahipal,
>>God, Rubbish this idiotic makes <me> so damn angry.
>
>You flip between anger and euphoria too much.
>Stay on your lithium.
>
>

I've never heard of Lithium being used as a narcotic. I must get out
more.

Look Tom, I'm sorry for snapping at you. But if you can't see how
nonsense like this is *worse* than a waste of bandwidth... Nevermind, I
think you know this.

About egoes in general, this aspect of the human condition is in no way
special to or limited to sci.*. Try sci.math sometimes. Try
any.where.damn.it! 

But I shouldn't have snapped at you or anyone. Not my forte'.

Mahipal,
|meforce>
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenvirdy cudfnMahipal cudlnVirdy cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.01 / Dick Jackson /  Re: Energy Localization in Nonlinear Lattices
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energy Localization in Nonlinear Lattices
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 15:22:13 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea


Could someone please explain what a "breather" is. (Crystal lattice
phenomenon variety).

Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.01 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Marshall Dudley Hypothesis revisited
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Marshall Dudley Hypothesis revisited
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 1995 10:32:36 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <420esk$5me@seymour.sfu.ca>, David Naugler <dnaugler@sfu.ca> wrote:

> Marshall Dudley wrote:
> 
> >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.
> 
> I think the Marshall Dudley Hypothesis is worthwhile and parallels my
own thinking. 
> However, I think the chemistry described above is backwards. The relative 
> electronegativities of hydrogen and most metals is such that the
hydrogen is found as a 
> -1 hydride and the metal is positive. 

***{Your description does not seem to apply to an electrolysis
experiment--not while the current is turned on, at any rate. In
electrolysis experiments, hydrogen ions are attracted to the negative
terminal (the cathode), which implies that their charge is positive. (If
they were negatively charged, they would move in the opposite direction.)
Moreover, in the Pons-Fleischmann setup (which is being discussed here),
the cathode is made of palladium, which would make the palladium negative
by definition. Further, I can't see how your description would apply to a
loaded palladium cathode even after the current was turned off. I would
expect that the H ions within the lattice (i.e., the protons and
deuterons), due to their positive charges, would slowly migrate to the
surface of the metal, pick up stray electrons, form H2 molecules, and
bleed off into the atmosphere. A loaded palladium cathode, when the
current was turned off, would thus retain a sizable positive charge for
some time, due very explicitly to the presence of the protons and
deuterons. Does anyone know if this description fits the facts? --Mitchell
Jones}***

For palladium with valences of +2 and +4 there 
> would be two deuterides, PdD2 and PdD4 possible. Note that if these are
formed at the 
> cathode surface, free deuterium cations (deuterons) in solution would be
accelerated into 
> a deuteride (anion). Quantum mechanics is rich enough to allow a
decription of a process 
> where the deuteron tunnels through the electron cloud of the deuteride.
Note that the 
> electrons provide a shielding of the mutual electrostatic repulsion of
the nuclei, just 
> like in muon calalyzed deuterium fusion.
>

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.01 / Arthur TOK /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: awc@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur Carlson TOK )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,
ci.astro,sci.energy,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.particle,sci.rese
rch,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 01 Sep 1995 14:34:35 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <4251rf$2acs@hopi.gate.net> wallaceb@news.gate.net (Bryan G. Wallace) writes:
> I have a copy of one of the articles in my files.  The D + T device yields     
> 6 X 10^9 neutrons per pulse with a pulse length of 10 microseconds and peak
> voltage of 180 keV.  Each D + T reaction generates 17.59 MeV with 14 MeV going
> to the neutron, a nice multiplication factor.

You mean 18 MeV/180 keV = 100 as the multiplication factor? Too bad
that less than 1 ion in 100 undergoes a fusion before slowing down.

> ...  The second important point is that you
> don't need a thermonuclear temperature to burn lithium deuteride, all you need
> is a neutron to fission lithium6 and it yields 4.78 MeV and T.  This is more
> then enough energy to ignite the D + T reaction that gives a 14 MeV neutron to
> continue the process.

You seem to be thinking of the reaction pair
      n + Li6 ->   He4 + T
      D +  T  ->   He4 + n
      --------------------
      D + Li6 -> 2 He4

Your first problem is that you need a meter or so of fuel to stop the
neutron. Your second problem is that your T will usually slow to a
stop before reacting. Your third problem is that, unlike fission, you
only produce one neutron in each cycle, so any parasitic reactions
will rapidly bring the process to a halt. Still, you'd need a detailed
calculation to see whether you can save the idea by adding a neutron
multiplier (Li7 and U238 spring to mind) to the cocktail.

You might do better in a hot, magnetized plasma with the pair         
       p  + Li6 ->   He4 + He3
      He3 + Li6 -> 2 He4 + p
      --------------------
          2 Li6 -> 3 He4
but the cross section is so small that this scheme is marginal at
best.

Followups set to sci.physics.fusion.

-- 
To study, to finish, to publish. -- Benjamin Franklin

Dr. Arthur Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTOK cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.01 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 1995 10:54:22 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <1995Aug31.110105@oxvaxd>, dwark@vax.oxford.ac.uk wrote:

> In article <browe-3008951444260001@x-147-17-20-187.es.hac.com>,
browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) writes:
> > In article <41vumi$1t96@seminole.gate.net>, wallaceb@news.gate.net (Bryan
> > G. Wallace) wrote:
> 
> snip
> 
> > 
> >>In doing a literature search for our Eckerd College Ionics Research
Project, I
> >>came across a series of articles published from 1949 to 1966 in the journal
> >>REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS.  The articles gave detailed
instructions on
> >>how to make relatively simple gas discharge tube D + D and D + T neutron
> >>generators and how to measure the neutrons produced by them.  My log entry
> >>dated 8/15/74 shows we could get 10g of lithium deuteride from Merck &
Co. for
> >>$73 and a 50 liter lecture bottle of 99.5% pure deuterium for $58 from
> >>Matheson Gas Products.  The Ionics Lab already had all the vacuum and
> >>electronic equipment we would have needed for such a fusion reactor research
> >>project.  Given the information in Rhodes book, I suspect that if we
had gone
> >>ahead with the fusion project we may well have been able to create a simple
> >>low cost fusion power reactor.
> > 
> 
> snip again
> 
> > The discharge tube is essentially equivalent to a plasma approach to
> > fusion. I have no doubt the gas discharge tube described is relatively
> > simple and cheap to build. It might even generate a few fusion neutrons.
> > However, I am quite certain if you build one you will find the amount of
> > enrgy out from any fusion reactions is far less than the amount of energy
> > you put in to get the fusion to occur. If you doubt this I would suggest
> > trying the experiment. Also should you decide to try the experiment, you
> > should be aware most of the fusion energy from a D-T reaction is found in
> > a 14MeV neutron. If there is any significant fusion energy being produced
> > you will have quite a few of these neutrons. It is definitely not healthy
> > or desirable to be exposed to any significant fluence of high energy
> > particles such as 14MeV neutrons.
> > 
> 
>     I was waiting for someone else to point this out, but no one has, so I
> guess I will.  Such devices are in fact quite common and are commercially
> available.  They consist of a tube with an electrostatic accelerator and a
> target with deuterium or tritium.  They are used to produce neutrons for well
> logging.  They do not by any stretch of the imagination produce net energy 
> gain, however.
> 
> Dave Wark

An intriguing post! Very puzzling. What, exactly, do you mean by "well
logging?" Surely such a device is not lowered into bore holes! My best
guess is that it is used in the examination of the core samples that are
brought up from oil and gas drilling, or, perhaps more likely, from test
boring in mineral deposits. A neutron beam, in such a situation, might
detect the presence of heavy metals such as gold, silver, lead, or
uranium. This is a pure guess, however. Am I in the ball park at all?

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.31 / Bill Rowe /  Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 21:10:17 -0700
Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net

In article <R7BCs8k.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

>Look here, think about a conference on brain surgery or medieval Japanese
>literature. Pretend that you have spent the last four days listening to
>lectures and looking a slides of the latest techniques in these fields.
>Okay, does that make you an expert, ready to walk into any operating room
>and take over? If the professor of ancient Japanese literature is out of
>town are you prepared to take over her class for the day? Are you some kind
>of 5 day wonder who can master a new language in a few days and read a few
>hundred books? I doubt it. By the same token, if you were to throw together
>an electrochemical experiment in CF, or in any other form of surface
>catalysis, you will make DOZENS of stupid mistakes. For that matter, if you
>tried to take care of 200 chickens for a monthy you would kill a lot of them,
>and if you tried to fix transmission in my car you would probably botch it.
>Most jobs require experience, practice and skill. Even jobs that most people
>think are easy. If you think that electrochemistry is easy, then you know
>nothing about it. Try spending a few hours at a CF conference and you will
>realize how little you know.

You make a valid point that those who haven't studied a field extensively
are likely to make mistakes experts wouldn't. Couldn't the same point be
made about electrochemists? In essence, they are making claims counter to
prevailing expertise of physics and fusion experts who have spent years
studying their fields.
-- 
MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.01 / David Wyland /  Re: Kasagi 17 MeV protons
     
Originally-From: dcwyland@ix.netcom.com (David Wyland )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kasagi 17 MeV protons
Date: 1 Sep 1995 04:11:20 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <199508301356.JAA46619@pilot06.cl.msu.edu> blue@pilot.msu.edu
(Richard A Blue) writes: 
>
>Kasagi et al. bombarded a titanium deuteride target with 150 keV
deuterons
>and observed the charged particle spectrum emitted.  The claim is that
>there are "anomolous protons" at 17 MeV included in that spectrum.
>
>Before we read too much into this result I think a simple discussion
of
>the likely experimental problems is in order.  First we need to ask
the
>basic question, "How clean is the experiment?"  In other words what is
>there in the target other than titanium and deuterium, and what is in
the
>beam other than 150 keV deuterons?
>

..snip

Say, what?

150 Kev in => 17 Mev out. 

17 Mev seems like a big number, easy to measure since it is two orders
of magnitude above the incident beam. Unless you have 17 Mev or so
particles coming in, I don't see how you get significant yield of  17
Mev particles coming out, regardless of cleanliness. (Unless you have
some radioactive dirt in the lab system.) Even with impurities, 150 Kev
in to 17 Mev out is still interesting: _Something_ must be going on to
produce the energy gain. 

This seems like a conventional, almost traditional "shoot the particles
at the target and see what comes out" experiment. I would hope and
expect that the equipment and lab technique to do this kind of
experiment are very well established by now. For example, 150 Kev is
the same sort of energy used by high quality commercial ion implanters
for semiconductors. 

Suggestions on experimental technique are always good. I hope that the
researchers in question had already taken the problems your suggestions
refer to into account.

This looks like an interesting experiment that has some nice tie-in to
both conventional nuclear theory and some of the CF experiments. I hope
we hear more about it.   

Dave Wyland

"Denial is not just a river in Egypt."
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudendcwyland cudfnDavid cudlnWyland cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.01 / David Wyland /  Re: Hello again / Solar stove
     
Originally-From: dcwyland@ix.netcom.com (David Wyland )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hello again / Solar stove
Date: 1 Sep 1995 04:30:29 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <tomkDE5JDM.77t@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
writes: 
>
>In article <41vgso$ke6@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
>David Wyland  <dcwyland@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>The Servel refrigerator worked well and was competitive in price with
>>electric units. The electric units finally won, but I'm not sure why.
>>The Servel cycle used Ammonia, as the carrier gas, as I recall. It is
>>not inherently expensive, just specialized.
>
>Ammonia is highly toxic. The Short Term Exposure Limit (STEL) is
>35 ppm -- rather small don't you think? This refrigerator was shunted
>off the production pathway because of health and safety concerns that
>are more than sufficient. As someone that has only recently recovered
>from serious lung damage caused by the presence of ammonia in an
>unlabeled product I can testify that you would never want to encounter
>this problem -- or have your children killed or permanently injurred
>by this stuff.
>
>Now, mind you, ammonia isn't the only product that could be used in
>this manner (did you know that Einstein was one of the two patent
>holders on this method?) So why have additional household dangers
>if there is an option?
>
I don't think ammonia leaks were ever a problem with these
refrigerators.  Refrigerators of any kind are sealed systems that seem
to last forever (40+ years, in my experience) unless you physically
break them. Ammonia was used for quite some time in the early
refrigerators until Freon came along. 

However, you would probably use something else today because there is
undoubtedly more to choose from. You might check to see what the large
chemical-compressor chillers in hotels, meat lockers, etc. use today. 

Dave Wyland

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudendcwyland cudfnDavid cudlnWyland cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.01 / Tom Droege /  The Amateur Sky Survey
     
Originally-From: Tom Droege <droege@wwa.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Amateur Sky Survey
Date: 1 Sep 1995 05:27:03 GMT
Organization: The Amateur Sky Survey

In case any of you have been wondering what I have been doing,
you can look at the home page for The Amateur Sky Survey that
was generously created for tass by Michael Richmond.

It is at:

http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~richmond/tass.html

If no one can think of a better use soon, I will ask that I 
be allowed to spend the $700 on tass.

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudendroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.01 / Tom Droege /  Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
     
Originally-From: Tom Droege <droege@wwa.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Date: 1 Sep 1995 05:33:17 GMT
Organization: The Amateur Sky Survey

21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:
(snip)

>Seriously: I argue to win. Therefore, when I discover that the arguments I
>am using are weaker than those being used against me, I switch positions,
>and argue the other way. In the unlikely event that you guys managed to
>come up with some telling blow against, say, the validity of the Griggs
>result, I would simply say: "Hey, neat--so Griggs is wrong after all!
>Fancy that!" At that point, I would begin to post messages using that
>argument to attack whomever was still supporting Griggs--probably Jed--and
>you would be left standing there, all dressed up with no place to go! What
>would you do then, Barry? You would be all primed for a long-drawn-out
>struggle, at the end of which you would triumph and look like a hero, and
>you would just wind up frustrated! It would be really sad!  
> 
>--Mitchell Jones
>
>===========================================================

Hey! Mitchell, this is a sci. group.  That stands for science.  The 
goal of science it to find truth, not win arguments.  Possibly you 
want alt.law

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudendroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.31 / 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: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 21:47:24 -0900
Organization: none

In article <41t47e$4nh@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, zoltanccc@aol.com
(ZoltanCCC) wrote:

> 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

It appears to me now that you are right about this.  Somehow, I got the
impression that there was not room for an orbital to form under heavy
loading conditions, i.e. if more than one H per Pd then some site would
have to be occupied by more than one H. Using 12.0 g/cm^3 density for Pd,
106.4 g/mol I come up with a volume per atom of 1.47E-23 cm^3.  This
corresponds to a lattice radius of 1.23 A. Assuming Pd atoms on corners of
a cube, this gives a diagonal of 4.23 A, leaving room for a sphere of .89
A.  An unbound H atom has radius of .79 A, so one fits in there snugly. I
thought this would preclude two H orbitals at a site. However, I just
noticed that in a covalent bond the H radius shrinks to .32 A.  As I
understand it, this is not a covalent bond situation, but it seems that
small radii shared orbits are a real likelyhood. 

Any clarification on this would be appreciated. I really appreciate the
education you folks are giving me. I plan to spend personal money on an
experiment soon, and want to make the most of it.

It sure would be great to have a computer simulation of these lattice Pd/H
interactions.


> 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. 
> 

> Zoltan Szakaly

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

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.01 / Ralf Guenther /  Re: LiD crystal fracturing and D-D Fusion
     
Originally-From: yuigu01@commlink.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (Ralf Guenther)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: LiD crystal fracturing and D-D Fusion
Date: 1 Sep 1995 06:48:35 GMT
Organization: InterNetNews at ZDV Uni-Tuebingen

here have been a number of papers by the Derjaguin group, also on 
Titanium Fracture, which report low level neutron emissions.
Attempts to reproduce them (Price Nature 343, 542 (1990) for example)
failed.
The proposed mechanism is "fracto-fusion", i.e. acceleration of deuterons
by electric fields that are generated during lattice fracture. That 
high energy particles are emitted in such circumstances has been
shown earlier by Dickinson (J. Mat. Sci. 16, 2897 (1981)). Interesting
in this context is also
the "pyroelectric x-ray generator" (J.D. Brownridge Nature 358, 287 (1992).)
I think the work on fusion generated by low energy mechanical treatment (op-
posed to high energy impacts, with hypervelocity projectiles or explosive
driven imposions) is very doubtful. The high energy particle emissions
from fracture are established. 
Bye
Ralf
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenyuigu01 cudfnRalf cudlnGuenther cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.01 / Anderson Mpower /  CFV: sci.physics.fusion.naysayers
     
Originally-From: mpowers9@temasek.teleview.com.sg (Anderson @ Mpower)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CFV: sci.physics.fusion.naysayers
Date: 1 Sep 1995 20:59:10 +0800
Organization: Teleview, Singapore Telecom

Someplace for those who wish to practice negative elocution,
so that the rest of us can read factual accounts and reports
concerning what has happened/not happened on the scene...

Thanks
-- 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
Discover the businesses of MENSA members at the MpowerBase: 
http://cyber-active.com/mpower		Mpower Consultants, Ltd.(M^)

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmpowers9 cudfnAnderson cudlnMpower cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.01 / Herve Cornec /  IMPORTANT DISCOVERY on Atomic Ionisation Potentials
     
Originally-From: Herve Le Cornec <Herve.Le.Cornec@afuu.fr>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: IMPORTANT DISCOVERY on Atomic Ionisation Potentials
Date: 1 Sep 1995 15:16:44 GMT
Organization: Association Francaise des Utilisateurs d'UNIX (AFUU)

Hello world,    <http://www.afuu.fr/HERVE>

Unespectedly I established that the square root of atomic 
ionisation potentials (AIP) are distributed very closely to 
first degree polynomias depending upon the atomic number 
and the number of electrons (see figures at URL down here). 
Indeed straight lines appear when only ploting square roots 
of AIP with report to the atomic number or with report to 
the number of electrons. 

As far as I know, this property of AIP has never been 
described before.

I was surprised because the quantum mechanics explains 
that the Schrodinger's equation can not simulate AIP for 
polyelectronic atoms as the equation is too complex to 
be solved. Furthermore the consistent field theory, which 
might do it, is very heavy in calculations. Therefore it 
was unexpected to observe such a simple behavior for 
the AIP.
 
I wrote an article (URL down here) to give all the 
informations and experimental plots that I own and to 
propose an explanation for this experimental behavior. 
Unfortunatly I could only give a qualitative explanation 
of the phenomenon by the mean of Plank's law and the 
properties of momentum in quantum mechanics. 

A global qualitative and quantitative explanation of 
this experimental phenomenon is still to be discovered, 
so there is a challenge to accept : will some one out 
here succeed to give such a global explanation for this 
very simple behavior of the AIP distribution ?
 
More informations : <http://www.afuu.fr/HERVE>

--- HCl ---

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenCornec cudfnHerve cudlnCornec cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Sep  2 04:37:07 EDT 1995
------------------------------
