1995.09.01 / 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: Fri, 01 Sep 1995 16:25:31 -0900
Organization: none

In article <21cenlogic-2308950155060001@austin-1-5.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:

>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: 
>
   [snip]
>
>>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}***


In a nutshell, cramped conditions of a packed lattice provide otherwise
unlikely ways for H nuclei to interact with electrons and each other in
low energy conditions.

In an H2 molecule the H nuclei have low relative kinetic energy, but it is
this low energy which forces them to remain at a fixed distance due to the
stability of the surrounding interlocked shells.  Escaping this condition
requires an ionizing level of energy, thus destroying the shell, and
giving the H nuclei a velocity precluding the interaction  hypothesized.

The special circumstance of the hypothesis is, if sufficient packing of
the lattice occurs, that some H nuclei are in a state where there is no
room for an orbital to be formed. One or two of these nuclei could orbit a
single Pd atom by giving up their electrons to an ionic bond, thus
generating a net attraction to the neighboring Pd atom.  This creates a
hypothesized condition whereby H nuclei can approach each other with low
kinetic energy by means of Faraday Shielding.  This shielding is provided
by modified (increased) charge probability distribution in the Pd shell
induced on the shell by H nuclei, in the vicinity of the nuclei, as they
approach the shell from opposite sides.

Regards,

Horace

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

cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.02 / 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: 2 Sep 1995 00:54:05 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <427qe7$dio@odin.cbu.edu> Frank Jordan <fjordan@spacectr.cbu.edu>
writes: 
>
>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

I started this thread in a conscious effort to draw attention to the
ego tripping and flaming that goes on in the science forums.
There was no emotion involved in the effort. As an ex sales engineer,
teacher, father, employer, slumlord, etc., I have found it necessary
sometimes to get down in the gutter and duke it out with disruptive
elements. 

Several people, who I am sure are normally very civil, have taken the
same agressive stance, against the disruptive people in these forums.
As some may have notice, several of the main offenders have shut up or
toned down, as they know that their reputations may be affected by
engaging in public flame wars. 

Tit squared for for two tats is the best strategy in the game of life.
Sometimes you have to take a stand with bullies, be they they physical,
financial, governmental or mental. Sometimes you have to go to war, and
when you go to war, you should fight battles on fields advantageous to
you. This means punching nerds in the mouth, dazzling big brutes with
fancy talk, dragging credentialed people into the gutter, suing
government and corporate bureaucracies, etc. Bullies of any kind should
not be tolerated. A tit for tat society is a polite society.

Let's hope that the moon is in the seventh house.....

Peace brother.

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.02 / Robin Spaandonk /  Re: Hello again / Solar stove
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hello again / Solar stove
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 1995 02:52:05 GMT
Organization: Improving

In article <41vlfp$92@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, David Wyland  wrote :
[snip]
>Thought number two. You can have electric power for aiming if you want
>it. It's called solar cells. The power for moving a balanced,
>lightweight plastic mirror should be quite small at 15 degrees per
>hour. Four solar cells plus a single cheap integrated circuit chip
>could supply the power and sense the direction as well. Small solar is
>now common: witness solar calculators. Solar power for control is
>potentially practical and cheap, if it provides a significant added
>benefit.
A simple wind-up (spring powered) clockwork mechanism would be even
cheaper.

>
>Good luck!
>
>Dave Wyland
>
>

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:
cuddy02 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.02 / 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: 2 Sep 1995 13:21:26 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <4289of$331@hilbert.dnai.com> Gary Ingram <dtbsware@dnai.com>
writes: 
>
>I should restrain myself but;
>
>ok Tom, so where does the force eminate from?
>
>Gary

Spinach.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.02 / 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: Sat, 02 Sep 1995 06:13:52 -0900
Organization: none

In article <21cenlogic-0109951032360001@austin-1-5.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:

> 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}***
> 


I believe as the H+ ions enter the cathode a corresponding flow of
electrons enters the cathode. Otherwise, the cathode would quickly reach
millions of volts! So, we can assume an electrically balanced condition
inside the cathode.

I would like to take this opportunity to clear up some mistaken thoughts I
previously posted here. First, some data from the Handbook of Chemistry
and Physics (HCP) and a Sargent-Welch periodic table. All sizes in A
(1e-10 m).

Radius of Pd atom: (Pd) 1.79, (Pd covalent) 1.28, (Pd+2) .80, (Pd+4) .65
Radius of H atom: (H) .79, (H-1) 1.54, H (covalent) .32
Bond lengths: (H-H) .746, (Pd-Pd) 2.751
Density of Pd: 12.0 g/cm^3
At. Wt. of Pd: 106.4

Now, the Pd lattice is cubic, face centered. You could imagine building
this lattice by taking 1 atom thick sheets of spheres arranged in square
patterns and laying them one on top of each other, but the top layer atoms
resting naturally in the spaces between the bottom layer atoms.  The bonds
formed are between atoms in seperate layers only.  If we call the distance
between alternate sheets S, then the bond length D will be 1/2 the length
of the diagonal of the cube S^3, or .866 S. I seem to recall the jist of
this being posted before.

For simplicity sake let's assume all atoms are spheres.  Now, applying
common sense, suppose we considered an imaginary Pd made up of only
alternate sheets. It would have half the density, or 6.0 g.cm^3.  Also,
each atom would occupy a cube (S^3) of volume V. Applying Avogadro's
number we get 6.79E22 atoms/cm for Pd. Our half density sheets would
therefore have 3.40E22 atoms/cm^3, so V = 2.94E-23 cm^3, and S = 3.09E-8
cm^3 = 3.09 A.  This gives D = 2.67 A, which corresponds within about 3
percent with the published bond length of 2.751. So this is good, common
sense and published values agree.

Now this means we have a radius R for Pd in the lattice because R =.5 D =
1.38 A.  This radius corresponds best with a covalent radius. 

Now, the largest sphere that can be placed between the Pd spheres is
diameter d = S - R - R = S - D = .134 S.  Since S = 3.09 A, d = (.134 *
3.09) A = .414 A. This means the H atom will have a radius r = .5 d = .207
A.  This appears to be too small to be covalent (i.e. .32), so we are led
to think the bond must be ionic. This agrees with other chemistry if I
recall correctly, and is the basis for Marshall Dudley's Hypothesis.
Loading above 1-1 leaves no room for H orbitals.

Anyone, please comment on flaws in this line of reasoning.




> 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.
> >
> 
> ===========================================================

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

cudkeys:
cuddy02 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.02 / Andrew Cooke /  Re: Neutrinos have mass?
     
Originally-From: ajc@islay.roe.ac.uk (Andrew Cooke)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Neutrinos have mass?
Date: 2 Sep 1995 14:46:56 GMT
Organization: Institute for Astronomy, Royal Observatory Edinburgh

	i don't know about the new results, but i can comment a bit on your
	other points:
	
In article <WAF2PCB826937367@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.  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.

	there are three problems here:

	- the number of neutrinos detected isn't many and they aren't
	all at exactly the same time
	- there may be some uncertainty in the expected time between
	neutrino emission and photon emission (it's not clear that the
	neutrinos and photons come from exactly the same moment in the
	supernova process).
	- there are different kinds of neutrinos.  detectors are sensitive
	to certain kinds, and things are more complicated because they
	might change from one kind to another (if they are massive)
	(i'm not sure on this last point - someone might like to confirm
	or correct this?).

	so the timing evidence isn't tight enough to exclude a small
	mass for (whatever type of) the neutrino, as far as i know.

>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".

	while it's true that massless particles are a `source' of gravity
	(where i'm taking `mass' to be rest mass - see the long + tedious
	thread on all this somewhere else in sci.physics) there may be
	enough neutrinos that even a small (rest) mass provides the
	extra mass/energy density needed to help close the universe.

	few people, i believe, would be happy if the `dark matter' was
	just neutrinos, because what we see of the distribution of galaxies
	suggests that at least some of the `dark matter' should be much
	more clumped (`colder').

	hope that makes some sense,
	andrew

-- 
  A.Cooke@roe.ac.uk  work phone 0131 668 8357  home phone/fax 0131 667 0208
    institute for astronomy, royal observatory, blackford hill, edinburgh
                     http://www.roe.ac.uk/ajcwww
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenajc cudfnAndrew cudlnCooke cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.02 / Robin Spaandonk /  Re: Marshall Dudley Hypothesis revisited
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Marshall Dudley Hypothesis revisited
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 1995 02:51:57 GMT
Organization: Improving

In article <420e3s$p23@viewlog.viewlogic.com>, Mike Crow wrote :
[snip]
> How about a ring shaped lattice with inductors around it to induce a current 
>through it. Use DC to load the ring with protons(?). If there are free protons 
>in the lattice they should flow through the ring, pushed by the magnetic field 
>from the inductors. As this "current" and loading increases there could be a 
>chance that 2 protons would try to jump into the same inter-lattice site and fuse.
Hmmm... A Tok in a bottle!
[snip]
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:
cuddy02 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.02 / Tom Droege /  Re: How To Spend the $700
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How To Spend the $700
Date: 2 Sep 1995 16:25:39 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <199509011926.AA15102@storm.fnal.gov>, droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) says:
>
>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  
>

Sorry for posting the same message twice.  This is really a
test to see if I can post at all.  Something seems to be 
full.  I get a message "400 No Space Left on Device Writing 
History File - Trottling"  It would seem a bad thing to
be throttled.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.02 / Kevin Romero /  Answer to zero-point energy question by Robin
     
Originally-From: kevin.romero@internetmci.com (Kevin Romero)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Answer to zero-point energy question by Robin
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 95 03:06:59 GMT
Organization: Wizards

You wrote:
>One frequently sees solutions to QM problems, that involve "borrowing"
>energy from the vacuum. Could someone explain to me in relatively
>simple terms, exactly what mandates that this energy must be returned?

{ Heisenbergs uncertainty relation when  applied to Energy and Time. KJR}


>Please do not invoke the law of conservation of mass-energy, as it is
>precisely this which I am trying to expand into a  law of conservation
>of mass-energy-zero-point-energy.
>Regards,
>
>Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@netspace.net.au>
>-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
>Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything,
>Learns all his life,
>And leaves knowing nothing.
>-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
>

If you borrow out of the quantum vacuum ,  you have to put it back right away or violate
the uncertainty principle.

Which leaves the nagging question, well where did the mass of the universe come from
if not from the quantum vacuum in some great cosmic burp.  Certainly with all the energy
in the universe, by the above argument it would have been over
before it started {figuratively}.



						Kevin Romero

cudkeys:
cuddy02 cudenromero cudfnKevin cudlnRomero cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.02 / Gary Ingram /  Re: alt.my.dick.is.bigger.than.your.dick
     
Originally-From: Gary Ingram <dtbsware@dnai.com>
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: 2 Sep 1995 00:50:23 GMT
Organization: dTb Software

I should restrain myself but;

ok Tom, so where does the force eminate from?

Gary

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudendtbsware cudfnGary cudlnIngram cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.02 / Ramon Prasad /  Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
     
Originally-From: <100437.530@compuserve.com (Ramon Prasad)>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
Date: 2 Sep 1995 17:58:34 GMT
Organization: CompuServe Incorporated


matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) wrote:

>Nowadays, it's only a tiny minority of physicists who bother to remember
>that those papers (of P & F) ever existed.

A fractal pattern that is vanishing down a black hole but which always
remains the same! But how to blot it out completely - that's the thing?
Send letters to newsgroups with the title sci.physics.FUSION pointing
out that they never have existed, do not exist now, and will never
exist in the future.

There is always the danger that the fractal pattern is unstable and
if bombarded with deuterons will reverse itself into an exploding
big bang! We must be very careful. Proper shielding is required.

Very Best Wishes, Yours sincerely,
Ramon Prasad <internet:100437.530@compuserve.com>
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cuden530 cudfnRamon cudlnPrasad cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.02 / 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: Sat, 02 Sep 1995 12:06:43 -0700
Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net

In article <hDMi0o+.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

>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."
> 

[skipped]

>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.

Actually, I don't disagree with your rewrite of the sentence. In fact, I
would emphasize the word "appears" in your rewrite. To me that empasizes
the data may not be all that is desired. Uncertainty in the data and
interpretation of the meaning of the data are some of the biggest
problems.

Finally, from your previous posts it is apparent you and I disagree as to
the meaning of the term "replicated experiment". As others have stated, CF
really hasn't accomplished much in the way of replicated experiments.
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"
cudkeys:
cuddy02 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.02 / 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: Sat, 02 Sep 1995 11:46:31 -0900
Organization: none

In article <428kcc$koa@otis.netspace.net.au>, rvanspaa@netspace.net.au
(Robin van Spaandonk) wrote:

> In article <420e3s$p23@viewlog.viewlogic.com>, Mike Crow wrote :
> [snip]
> > How about a ring shaped lattice with inductors around it to induce a
current 
> >through it. Use DC to load the ring with protons(?). If there are free
protons 
> >in the lattice they should flow through the ring, pushed by the
magnetic field 
> >from the inductors. As this "current" and loading increases there could be a 
> >chance that 2 protons would try to jump into the same inter-lattice
site and fuse.
> Hmmm... A Tok in a bottle!
> [snip]
> Regards,
> 
> Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@netspace.net.au>

If you go this route, it might be a useful to make the "bottle" a ring
shaped trough. This way you keep the electrolyte off other parts.  The
anode could be a (nearly closed) broken circle, so it would not pick up an
induced current.

Extrapolating the idea a little, suppose the thing were to be self
destructing.  Then, here would be no limit to the size field that could be
generated, only the duration of confinement time. If made small and cheap,
and detonated under water, it might be practical. Surrounding with lead or
uranium could increase the confinement time.  Use the shock to drive big
piezoectric generators to charge for the next blast. Use the neutron flux
in a conventional way to generate heat in a surrounding jacket. Hmm, maybe
Pd isn't the ticket, maybe a Li compound, then you don't need the trough
at all ...

Well, happy imaginings,  8)

Horace

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

cudkeys:
cuddy02 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.02 / Dave Oldridge /  Re: Hello again / Solar stove
     
Originally-From: doldridg@fox.nstn.ns.ca (Dave Oldridge)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hello again / Solar stove
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 1995 12:37:19 -0300
Organization: Nova Scotia Technology Network

In article <21cenlogic-2908952324240001@austin-1-9.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:

> ***{Let me see if I understand what you are saying. Suppose that we do
> calorimetry on a conventional cell of the sort that merely separates
> hydrogen from oxygen by electrolysis. In this setup, the electrical power
> consumption has two effects: it heats the water, and it separates H2O
> molecules into H2, which bubbles out at the cathode and is trapped, and
> O2, which bubbles out at the anode and is trapped. Logically, therefore,
> if we compute the BTU's added to the electrolyte (by raising its
> temperature), and add that amount to the heat that results from
> recombining the trapped O2 and H2, we should have a total that, assuming
> no losses, is equivalent to the electric power consumed. Right? If this is

That would seem to be the best way to do it.  But I think some
researchers have simply been measuring the amount of electrolysis and
then COMPUTING the chemical seperation energy.  I don't like that
technique because it's prone to error and can be "tricked" by
recombination.  The method you are suggesting is much better and will,
if anything, err on the side of too little heat out (due to possible
electrolysis products dissolved in the water).  That's much easier to
correct for and calibrate from "cold" runs.  And if you get excess heat
before the corrections, you can at least be sure its excess and start
looking for the "fuel" that's producing it.  But I'd look really close
at possible chemical fuels.  With raw oxygen and raw hydrogen bubbling
around in there, all sorts of chemistry is possible between these
materials and the metals.

 --
 Dave Oldridge
 doldridg@fox.nstn.ns.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy02 cudendoldridg cudfnDave cudlnOldridge cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.02 / Horace Heffner /  Re: How To Spend the $700
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How To Spend the $700
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 1995 16:30:12 -0900
Organization: none

In article <42a0i4$csi@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
wrote:

> In article <199509011926.AA15102@storm.fnal.gov>, droege@fnal.fnal.gov
(Tom Droege) says:
> >
> >OK folks, here is a proposal to get rid of the $700.
> >

[snip]

Why be in a hurry?  There may be more newbies like myself willing to
contribute.  It was way before my time lurking here, but what was the
original purpose of the fund?  Was it for research/validation work?  If
so, it seems like a good fund to have around. Besides, it's been fun
watching the suggestions!

BTW, where do you send contributions. Is anyone still taking them? Is
there a standard donation, like $50?

Thanks,

Horace

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

cudkeys:
cuddy02 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.03 / 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: 3 Sep 1995 01:21:53 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <427ki9$dqg@newsbf02.news.aol.com> slbrit@aol.com (SLBRIT) writes: 
>
>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

I think the title makes the point very well.

For example, your post is basically a statement of dick size,
only you perceive it as:

"I am more moral and intelligent than you!"

Rather than the more generic:

"My dick is bigger than your dick."

Everyone is superior to everyone else in some way.
"My dick is bigger than your dick" is a root mean squared statement of
overall superiority. It includes looks, wealth, athletic ability,
education, maturity, status, race, religion, genetics, national origin,
etc. So rather than take the time to make a weasel-worded statement of
your superiority, just tell them your dick size. They'll know what you
mean and show you the respect that you deserve.







cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.02 /  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: Sat, 2 Sep 95 23:04:13 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I wrote that CF experiments yield data that appears to contradict the
prevailing expertise in physics. browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) responds:
 
     "Actually, I don't disagree with your rewrite of the sentence. In fact,
     I would emphasize the word "appears" in your rewrite. To me that
     emphasizes the data may not be all that is desired."
 
Anyone can see I did not use the word "appears" in that sense. This is a silly
word game. Rowe has deliberately substituted his sense of the word for mine,
to make it look as if I am conceding a point. This introduces confusion into
the debate.
 
I meant, of course, that some physicists say the data contradicts theory,
while others say it does not. The data itself is quite solid, because the
signal to noise ratio is high. It is all that is desired, and under normal
circumstances it would instantly convince any scientist. The data does not
convince "skeptics" because they refuse to look at it, and because they are
irrational. Most CF reactions generate a watt or two excess power, and some
generate 200 to 300 watts. No scientist anywhere on earth will have any
trouble detecting a 1 watt reaction, so there can be rational doubt that the
effect is real. That is like measuring one centimeter plus/minus a millimeter.
It is trivial, it could have been done in any lab in the 1860s. After six
years, no "skeptic" has ever raised a valid scientific objection to the
calorimetry of the leading CF scientists. Since CF excess power often
continues to the point where the cells generate thousands or even millions of
times more energy than a chemical cell could, chemistry is ruled out. Dick
Blue has asserted that you cannot measure energy merely by observing a readily
detected elevated temperature from a body over a period of time, but Blue is
wrong, and his assertion is a violation of elementary thermodynamics and many
other fundamental laws.
 
This discussion began with the assertion that CF electrochemists might be
making a mistake in performing nuclear measurements. That is true, but the
proof that CF is not chemical lies in calorimetry, which is not a nuclear
measurement at all. Electrochemists are as qualified as anyone to measure
heat. Knowledge of nuclear physics, techniques and tools (like neutron
measuring) have no bearing on this.
 
The calorimetry proves that CF is not chemical, but of course it does not
prove CF *is nuclear*. That is proved by the tritium, helium and neutrons.
Tritium is easy to detect with confidence, even by an electrochemist. Helium
and neutrons require advanced techniques that an electrochemists might well
botch (just as a physicist might botch an electrochemical experiment).
Fortunately however, many of the best CF helium measurements have been made at
Rockwell International, by physicists. This is the best facility in the world
for helium, and these people are the best qualified. So there is no question
the helium is being measured correctly and it too must be real.
 
 
     "Uncertainty in the data and interpretation of the meaning of the data
     are some of the biggest problems.
 
There is no uncertainty it the data whatsoever. The interpretation is the
problem. If Rowe disagrees with this statement, he should point out exactly
where, why and how there is room for uncertainty in the results published by
McKubre, Kunimatsu, Arata, Miles, Pons and Fleischmann, Cravens, Oriani, or
the groups at Hitachi, Toshiba, Canon, Shell Oil or Amoco. "Skeptics" like
Rowe often assert that the data is uncertain, but they never actually give any
reason, so I do not think they have one in mind. The only specific details
that "skeptics" have ever raised have been with regard to Pons and
Fleischmann's static calorimetry, and the objections had raised had no
scientific merit. All objections, without exception, were absurd violations of
elementary physics or out-and-out blunders. Anyone who doubts this should
review the debates between Morrison and Fleischmann, and Jones and
Fleischmann. Fleischmann easily demolished all of the points they raised.
 
 
     "Finally, from your previous posts it is apparent you and I disagree as
     to the meaning of the term "replicated experiment". As others have
     stated, CF really hasn't accomplished much in the way of replicated
     experiments."
 
This is incorrect. We agree on these definitions. By any reasonable scientific
standard, Kunimatsu closely replicated McKubre. Taking into account the
controlling parameters, the 1989 excess heat seen by Miles, P&F, Harwell, MIT
and Cal Tech match closely. The data matches better than, say, the power
levels from the first three U.S. atomic bombs and from the 1949 Soviet bomb.
No scientist questions the assertion that these four explosions were nuclear
in origin, not chemical, and that all four were replications of the same
phenomenon, even though different nuclear fuel was used (U and Pu).
 
Rowe is pretending the data from McKubre and Kunimatsu does not exist. If he
saw it, he would have to admit this is a close replication. No doubt Rowe and
I would agree on what a Labrador retriever is and what it looks like. I assert
these dogs exist. Since Rowe will deny anything I say, no matter how much
proof I have, he will pretend they have vanished from the face of the earth,
or they never existed, they are a figment of my imagination, or that no dog on
earth resembles a Labrador retriever closely enough for us to be sure it
really is one. Rowe questions Sigma-90 data from SRI, and measurements of
power levels that anyone could have performed with confidence 120 years ago,
but he cannot tell us any technical reason why he questions this data, because
his doubts are emotional, not rational.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.02 /  CoolWar /  Re: Fullerene Fusion to TFTR Ignition Announcement
     
Originally-From: coolwar@aol.com (CoolWar)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fullerene Fusion to TFTR Ignition Announcement
Date: 2 Sep 1995 23:28:29 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Dear Dr. Hawryluk,
I was glad to know via E-mail you are interested in any experimental
results that become available.  It is a request that we have seen numerous
times.  We are independent researchers without the luxury of institutional
support as a result we are struggling to find the means to provide the
sophisticated experimental data demanded by the conventional scientific
community.  After reading the recent article in Sept., Scientific American
about hot fusion and knowing something of the sophistication of your TFTR
experiments.  I would be reluctant to even suggest you consider the crude
experimental observations we have made to date.  We are forced at this
time into a default position.

However, it is my opinion that theory and the individual human mind that
is its genesis is the most powerful and primary ingredient in the world
today.  I am somewhat disturbed when confronted with what I can only
characterize as a lack of the ability to make judgment that seems to be
endemic in our society.  I believe there was a time in the history of man
when individuals had the ability to listen to the reasoned theory of
another and based only on understanding and intuition find the courage to
embrace that theory and move to action and proof.  That time and those
qualities are now rare and the power of the mind and the integrity of
individual judgment misunderstood and underrated.  Part of what we have to
say in the context of what we intend to achieve is designed to right that
wrong and reinstate integrity and the ability to make judgment as primary
values in our society.

Our patent suggests a fundamental role of the spherical molecule, C60
fullerene, as a part of matter production cycles in the universe.  Since
we believe fusion is involved, we have reduced the system to practice for
harnessing of fusion energy.  We are in a peculiar situation because we
are advocating the "hyping" of cold fusion reactions to the molten or
gaseous state to increase the temperature and therefore the power output. 
The cold fusion advocates are nervous about this because we purpose
melting their solid metal lattice schemes.

On the other hand, our method is very similar in concept to a molecular
sized Tokamack however the apparatus is designed as a "stand-alone"
device.  By utilizing the unique characteristics of the carbon fullerene a
fusion generated vortex results in the captivation of fusion energy in an
way that converts fusion energy directly to holding power and confinement
power due to the nature of the dynamic shape of the spherical torrid
plasma vortex.  We have designed a standing wave of Maxwellian
electrodynamics that balls up into a billowing vortex comprised of loose
carbon atoms and tremendous energy.  This shape creates a suction that
supersedes the need for external magnetic confinement fields.  A
multiplexed feedback system is created.  Our vortex is initiated when a
fusion reaction causes the carbon atoms from the spherical molecule to
collapse and implode.  The billowing vortex acts like a large energy
absorbing flywheel to soak up and store kinetic energy, electodynamic
energy and fusion generated mass-energy.  The beauty of this system is
that not only does the vortex promote lower temperature fusion, but it
also holds and contains the energy in a natural configuration, the vortex.
 So now we are in trouble with the hot fusion advocates, because
retrofitting the Tokamack or inertial confinement schemes to utilize
deuterated fullerenes would obsolete much of the elaborate equipment used.

We will keep working to the maximum extent of our capabilities to develop
and provide the experimental evidence confirming our theory.  We also
think about this work frequently in the context of a world society that is
facing the limits of a dying age, the age of fossil fuels.  It is our
belief that we are rapidly approaching a "fail-safe" point of sorts. 
Practical fusion energy must become a reality and new horizons of human
possiblity must be established before our world society flies by
fail-safe.  It is in this context that we would welcome any assistance in
the more rapid development of our work that might be forthcoming.  Thank
you.
Sincerely,
Warren L. Cooley
President
Charles E. Bennett
Senior Engineer
American Cold Fusion Engineering and Supply
P.O. Box 191394
Sacramento, CA 95819-1394
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudencoolwar cudlnCoolWar cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Sep  3 04:37:05 EDT 1995
------------------------------
