1995.09.06 / 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: Wed, 06 Sep 1995 17:22:31 -0900
Organization: none

In article <21cenlogic-0509951113520001@austin-2-12.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:

[snip]

> ***{The point here is to accurately visualize what is going on in the
> palladium cathode. To do that, we must accept the fact that the hydrogen
> ions (protons and/or deuterons) retain their positive charges until
> *after* they enter the cathode. Think about it: if, when a hydrogen ion
> appeared at the surface of the cathode, it were to be handed an electron,
> it would immediately become electrically neutral, and would cease to be
> attracted to the cathode. In that case, it would bubble away as a gas and
> loading would be impossible. Here, instead, is what must happen: (1) When
> an H+ reaches the surface of the cathode, it retains its charge, and
> enters the lattice structure. (2) The presence of H+ ions within the outer
> layers of the lattice gives those layers a positive charge, while the
> inner layers retain their negative charges. (3) When enough H+ ions have
> packed into the outer layers of the cathode to neutralize the charge of
> the cathode, the voltage gradient between the anode and the surface of the
> cathode disappears, and the H+ ions in solution are no longer attracted to
> the surface of the cathode. Thus the + charge in the outer layer of the
> cathode does not build up to "millions of volts," but only to the level
> necessary to eliminate the voltage gradient from anode to the surface of
> the cathode. In effect, the anode charge migrates into the outer surface
> of the palladium electrode, and the cathode charge retreats into the inner
> portion of the palladium electrode. (4)) Once the anode's charge has
> migrated to the surface of the cathode via this mechanism, loading of the
> palladium electrode does *not* cease, because H+ ions on the inner surface
> of the positive region are constantly having electrons passed to them from
> the negatively charged central region. Each time this happens, the
> affected H+ ion becomes a neutral H atom. However, it can't bubble out of
> the solution, because it is trapped inside the palladium electrode. (5)
> Each time a new, neutralized hydrogen atom is added to the pool of those
> trapped inside, the positive charge of the surface region drops slightly,
> and a new H+ ion enters the surface region from the outside, again
> eliminating the voltage gradient between the anode and the surface of the
> cathode. (6) Then, another H+ ion inside the palladium electrode is handed
> yet another electron and neutralized. (7) Then, another H+ ion enters the
> surface. And on and on it goes, until saturation loading is approached,
> and, hopefully, "cold fusion" kicks in. Bottom line: it isn't necessary
> that the cathode achieve a charge of "millions of volts;" but it *is*
> necessary that it build up a positively charged region on its outer
> surface, in order for the loading process to take place at all. --Mitchell
> Jones}***  
> > 

> In article <hheffner-0209950613530001@204.57.193.68>,
> hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner) wrote:
> 

Requoted here with minor typo's corrected to aid in voltage calculation to
follow:

> > 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^3 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 = 3.09 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 =(0.5)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.
> > 

[snip]

Now, to check your model of the electrode surface, let's assume a single
H+ ion blocks each entry hole to the lattice (i.e. the ion layer is only
one atom thick.) From the above calculations we have surface atoms in a
square array, with the sides of each square rougly S = 3.09E-8 cm. 
Therefore each Pd atom presents an area of roughly S^2 = 9.55E-16 cm^2. 
So we have roughly 1/(S^2) = 1.05E15 ions in a 1 cm^2 area. For
simplicity, let's assume we area talking about a 1 cm^2 surface area
cathode. This cathode would then have a charge Q=(1.06E-19C/ion)*(1.05E15
ions) =1.11E-4 Coulombs.

Now, what we are talking about is essentially a  capacitor with area = 1
cm^2 and a plate separation of S. This let's us use the capacitance
formula:

C = e_k * A / S =  (8.85E-12 F/m) (.01 m)^2 / (3.09E-10 m)
C = (8.85E-12 * 1E-4 / 3.09E-10 ) F
C = 2.86E-6 F (about 3 uF)

Now volts = Q/C = (1.11E-4)/(2.86E-6) = 38 volts. 

This is still a pretty big barrier.  This implies that to just balance an
electrode voltage of 2 volts, thus terminating electrolysis, that only
about one site in 19 could be occupied by a + ion.

I have a different mental model I would like to share. I don't know if it
is correct, but I'll spell it out, as if it's a fact, so it can be
disected.

Water molecules are bipolar, electrostatically speaking. So, if a + ion is
in solution, the adjacent water molecules align their - sides toward the +
ion. Now we have a sphere with all + sides of the water molecules on the
surface. The water molecules adjacent to the sphere align their - sides
toward that layer around the sphere, and so on. There is in effect a hugh
ionically bonded +1 charge molecule (clump) that migrates through the
electrolyte.  When the clump reaches the cathode, the elctrostatic force
of the cathode, if sufficient voltage, can separate the + ion from the
clump.

It seems like, if this is true, H atoms preceeding a clump to the cathode,
and at the surface of the cathode, would have a very high probability of
being forced into a site by a clump. Also, some would H atoms would
escape, combining with other H atoms to form H2 and bubble out.

What do you think?

> 
> Horace, your posts are tightly focused, high on content and relevant
> logic, and are excellent food for thought. I, for one, appreciate them
> very much. Thank you! 
> 
> --Mitchell Jones
> 
> ===========================================================

Thanks for the support much needed by this newbie.

Horace

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

cudkeys:
cuddy06 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.06 /  Labrys /  Re: CFV: sci.physics.fusion.naysayers
     
Originally-From: tuttt@cii3112-19.its.rpi.edu (Labrys)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CFV: sci.physics.fusion.naysayers
Date: 6 Sep 1995 16:41:56 GMT
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.

In article <42isqa$5p9@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu
(Barry Merriman) writes:
|> In article <42702u$eut@temasek.teleview.com.sg>  
|> mpowers9@temasek.teleview.com.sg (Anderson @ Mpower) writes:
|> > 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
|> >
|> 
|> Before bifurcating the group, such reports as you desire would
|> have to appear hear in the first place. While in the past there
|> has occasionally been experimental reports posted here (though
|> much of it is related to grigss like devices), it is a highly 
|> infrequent occurance. 
|> 
|> I am all for it---how about getting P&F to post a little update on their
|> latest experiments.
|> 
|> 
|> --
|> Barry Merriman
|> UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
|> UCLA Dept. of Math
|> bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
|> 
|> 

How about a Conventional Fusion Newsgroup (MFE,ICF, etc.)?
-- 
_______________________________________________________________________

Teresa E Tutt               /\       /\
tuttt@rpi.edu              // \  n  / \\
EPHY '96                  ((   #>X<#   ))     "Life need not be easy
                           \\ /  H  \ //      provided it is not empty"
                            \/   H   \/              -Lise Meitner
                                 H
                                | |
                                | | 
                                | |
		        	 U
http://www.rpi.edu/~tuttt
_______________________________________________________________________
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudentuttt cudlnLabrys cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.06 /   /  Re: Fusion by "Hyper-shear"
     
Originally-From: mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion by "Hyper-shear"
Date: 6 Sep 1995 22:51:12 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) wrote:

>You forget to cover solar fusion, muon-catalyzed fusion, and the
>spontaneous generation of the universe. But I'm sure your theory is
>general enough to cover these effects as well.

I have a feeling that his theory is general to cover all phenomena, even
those which don't occur.

Mark Richardson
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmrichar353 cudln cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.06 / 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: Wed, 06 Sep 1995 21:00:08 -0700
Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net

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

>Chemists do not need to have an feel for nuclear reaction to prove that
>CF is nuclear. The proof is based upon calorimetry -- which is what chemists
>do -- and upon titium, which is easy enough for a chemist to detect with
>confidence. There is no need for any intellectual appreciation of the
>difference between the domains, or any deep knowledge of nuclear reactions.
>All you have to do is show a small body that gets much hotter than the
>surroundings, and stays much hotter than any chemically fueled body of the
>same mass. It is very simple. The proof, tools, and methodology have nothing
>in common with the kind of tools and methodology used by the nuclear
>physicists.

Calorimetry alone is not sufficient evidence to show a nuclear reaction is
taking place. This simply indicates something is happening that can't be
readily explained with known chemistry. It may be there is more to
chemistry than we currently understand or there may be other effects which
are neither chemical nor nuclear in nature.

>The nuclear physicists themselves have lost track of the fundamentals of their
>own field. They think that nuclear physics can only be based upon the
>sophisticated, expensive and ultraprecise toys they use. They forget that
>Curie and others at the dawn of the nuclear age became aware of nuclear
>energy releases because small bodies produced heat and radiation far
>longer than a chemical reaction would allow. The Curies would have
>*instantly* recognized that CF must be nuclear. They were used to dealing
>with that kind of experiment and those kinds of relatively crude tools
>(plus a gieger counter of course). Today's nuclear physicists who deny CF
>is nuclear are the people who have forgotten what the different energy
>domains are like, and what a macroscopic nuclear reaction does.

One of the fundamentals of nuclear physics as currently understood is
fusion generates high energy particles with corresponding xrays and gamma
rays as these particles interact with other substances. The inability of
CF to consistantly see these effects is one of the fundamental reasons for
questioning whether CF is indeed fusion.

Secondly, Curie, Bequerel (sp) and others didn't merely detect anomolous
heat. There were other effects noted such as fogged photograhic films.
Hence, the term "radioactivity".
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"
cudkeys:
cuddy06 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.06 / Edward Lewis /  Another plasmoids article
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Another plasmoids article
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 22:16:15 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

(c) 1994 by Edward Lewis All Rights Reserved
December 22, 1994

	I have been posting articles about tiny ball lightning and
plasmoids for a while now.  In a letter to the Editor in the December,
1994 issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY, Matsumoto reports about the
observation of tiny ball lightning in several cold fusion experiments,
and he suggests that people use nuclear emulsions.  He's written
manuscripts about tiny ball lightning that are produced by discharge
apparatus also.  Sufficient evidence of the production of things that
can be called "plasmoids" or tiny ball lightning is the many kinds of
plasmoid traces that Matsumoto has produced, and the EB-filament paper
by Nardi and Bostick et al.: V. Nardi, W. H.  Bostick, J. Feugeas, and
W. Prior, "Internal Structure of ELectron-Beam Filaments," Physical
Review A, 22, no. 5, 2211 (November, 1980).  This is substantial
proof, in my opinion.  Some of the ring traces are very similar, and
some of the other traces are similar too.  I'd also like to suggest
that people use nuclear emulsions awith various kinds of cold fusion
and plasmoid experiments.  Many of the plasmoids produced by
electrolysis and discharge are the same.  And people have known for a
long time that plasmoids and discharges are associated with neutron
production.  They are the locus of neutron production.



              (c) 1994 by Edward Lewis All Rights Reserved

        I've posted versions of this article several times on this
newsgroup since December of 1993; and I've posted several articles
about plasmoids and cold fusion on this newsgroup since January of
1993.  If anyone wants to reproduce or resend this article, get my
permission first.

                        PLASMOIDS AND COLD FUSION

        W. Bostick produced that which he called plasmoids by
discharging through electrodes.  Bostick wrote a paper that was titled
"Plasmoids" that was published in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN in 1957(1).  He
may have been the first to apply this term to this phenomena.
According to Peratt, Bostick coined the term  In this paper, he had
already began to tell others about his speculation that galaxies and
the phenomena he produced were similar.  He compared the shapes and
the travel of these things.  He also speculated a little about the
identity of "particles."  He shows pictures of different kinds of
plasmoid shapes in the article and related these to different kinds of
shapes of galaxies.  Many people including Bostick, Alfven who is a
physics Nobel Prize winner, Peratt and Lerner have developed similar
astronomical theories that model the universe as plasmoids and that
can be said to be derivations or summarizations of the experimental
work of W. Bostick and others.  It has become evident that atoms can
be defined as plasmoids, especially as according to the phenomena
produced by Ken Shoulders.  It seems that there are many different
kinds of plasmoid phenomena.  The EVs that Ken Shoulders produced and
ball lightning may be classified as kinds of this general phenomena.
There is evidence that both plasmoids and ball lightning are
associated with neutrons, radioactivity, production of elements, and
excess radiation, and that they are a locus of this.

                Based on the phenomena that Matsumoto produced, the
traces, the pictures and descriptions of electrodes, the pictures of
stationary BL and corona-like phenomena, the visible BL-like phenomena
that he reports, and the sparks that he observed that left traces like
those produced during electrolysis and discharge, one may categorize
CF phenomena as tiny ball-lightning or plasmoids.  Important evidence
is the holes and trails on and in emulsions and electrodes that
Matsumoto produced by discharging and electrolysis, the holes in
electrodes that Liaw et al. produced, the holes in electrodes that
others produced, the empty areas in electrodes that are shaped liked
grains that Matsumoto and Silver et al. produced and the half-empty
grains that Matsumoto produced, and the holes and tunnels and trails
on and in electrodes that Silver produced.  The tunnels, round holes,
and trail-like marks are similar to those that are produced by ball
lightning phenomena, though ball lightning are associated with bigger
effects.  These tunnels, round holes, and trail-like marks are also
similar to those produced by the EV phenomena that K. Shoulders
produced.  Silver and his co-authors who published a paper in the
December, 1993 issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY have reproduced the tunnels,
holes, and trail-like markings in metals that Matsumoto produced.
These tunnels, holes, and trail-marks are evidence of the conversion
and change of materials.  Important evidence that both CF phenomena
and substance in general are plasmoid phenomena is Matsumoto's
experience of the production of electricity by apparatus.  I suspect
that plasmoid phenomena such as electrodes and other materials may
convert to be bigger plasmoids and light and electricity.  EVs and
ball lightning are known to convert to light and electricity.  I think
that all substance can be identified as plasmoid phenomena.

        I suspect that the round holes in electrodes that Matsumoto
produced and the round holes and tunnels that Silver produced are due
to the boring of BL-like phenomena -- the substance was converted to
light, electricity or other kinds of plasmoids, I suspect.  And I
suspect that the grain-shaped voids or pits that they produced is
evidence of the conversion of the grain to light or electricity or of
the production of other kinds of plasmoids, though there may also be
the distortion of the grains or the dislocation of grains by
separation.  Some plasmoids are apparently able to travel through
materials, even if the plasmoids are very big.  The plasmoids that
Matsumoto has produced does this, and this is major evidence to
support my deductions.  Matsumoto has also shown pictures of sectioned
electrodes with what seem to me to be trail-like tracks, as if tiny
BL-like phenomena traveled inside and left tracks.

        Many other anomalous phenomena can be described as plasmoid
phenomena.  For example, superconductivity seem to be similar to the
phenomena of ball lightning traveling though materials such as
ceramics and glass without leaving holes or visible effects, yet ball
lightning may convert to an electrical surge after touching a wire or
it may convert to a bolt of lightning.  Also, sonoluminescence seems
to be a phenomena of the water converting to light and perhaps
electricity.  1)W. Bostick, "Plasmoids," SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, 197, 87
(October 1957).

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.06 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Fusion by "Hyper-shear"
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion by "Hyper-shear"
Date: 6 Sep 1995 23:21:53 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <42ksgo$2fb@newsbf02.news.aol.com> coolwar@aol.com (CoolWar) writes:
> We are proposing a new theory that will encompass all fusion effects

You forget to cover solar fusion, muon-catalyzed fusion, and the
spontaneous generation of the universe. But I'm sure your theory is
general enough to cover these effects as well.

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


cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.06 / Edward Lewis /  Me teach you Physicks
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Me teach you Physicks
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 22:07:57 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago



			Copyright 1995 by Edward Lewis All Rights Reserved

Posted March 30, 1995.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-------Footnotes

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







cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.05 / Horace Heffner /  Re: FULLERENE FUSION SEARCHING FOR LIQUID D
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FULLERENE FUSION SEARCHING FOR LIQUID D
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 1995 23:12:14 -0900
Organization: none

In article <42inok$dub@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, coolwar@aol.com (CoolWar) wrote:

> We are working with endohedrally loaded carbon fullerenes as a confinement
> matrix.  We are interested in the highest possible concentration of
> deuterons inside the fullerene cage.  We are interested in running an
> experiment using a slurry mix of liquid deuterium and C60.  We theorize
> that the activity of the molecule under these conditions and the shell
> energy barriers would be significantly reduced allowing liquid deuterons
> to flow into the interior space of the cage.  Separating the slurry and
> allowing the fullerenes to warm would produce a dense contentration  of
> deuterium gas trapped in the fullerene.

Another experiment you might want to try if you haven't is along these
lines: make a compressed plug of C60, attach a circular electrode
(cathode) with holes in it to one side of the plug, insert plug, and a
supporting circular frame if necessary, snugly (waterproof seal) in middle
of a piece of flexible tubing which is then bent into a U shape with the
plug at the bottom, insert an anode in the tube opposite the cathode, add
an *acid* electrolyte, and run DC current at about 2 V. If you eventually
get  bubbles through the holes at the cathode, you know you have drawn a
current of H+ ions through the C60 plug. What is special about this
configuration is that you are guaranteed you are pulling H+ ions because
the electrolyte is acid. H+ ions are nearly dimensionless.  If an H+ ion
enters a C60 it might be trapped by  shielding of the C60, or by acquiring
an electron while inside the C60, or even better by forming H2 molecules
inside the C60. If this is true, the plug should pick up a significant
increase in density.  You might even achieve a higher loading by using H+
ions than by using H2 molecules at near absolute zero. You might also have
to use a lot more than 2 volts to get things in gear.

Best of luck with your endeavor,

Horace

 
> We do not have the required equipment to perform this experiment.  Please,
> anyone with interest and access to the required equipment and material
> contact me immediately.  We have established some intellecutual property
> rights in this area a successful collaboration could be very rewarding.
> Sincerely,
> Warren L. Cooley
> P.O. Box 191394
> Sacramento, CA 945819-1394
> 1-800-713-9345

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

cudkeys:
cuddy05 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.06 / Horace Heffner /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 1995 00:03:53 -0900
Organization: none

In article <42gqp0$1g4@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, zoltanccc@aol.com
(ZoltanCCC) wrote:

> I overlooked the fact that the reaction:
> 
> n  +  Li7  ->  Li6  +  n  +  n
> 
> requires a high energy neutron and it produces two low energy ones. On the
> other hand this will not effect our scenario since the other reactions:
> 
>       n  +  Li6  ->  He4  +  T
>       D  +   T   ->  He4  +  n
> 
> produce energetic neutrons and the reaction 
> 
> 
>       D  +  Li6  ->  He4  +  He4
> 
> produces plenty of heat.
> 
> 
> 
> Zoltan Szakaly


Wouldn't you need a fusion reactor to see these in any numbers?  

       D  +   T   ->  He4  +  n
       D  +  Li6  ->  He4  +  He4

It appears that unless you had a way to insure a nearly dead on hit every
time the D's will just run out of momentum too fast from near miss
collisions.

Regards,

Horace

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

cudkeys:
cuddy06 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.06 / Emeka Nwankwo /  cmsg cancel <1995Sep5.152248.3034@es.dupont.com>
     
Originally-From: nwankweo@esvax.dnet.dupont.com (Emeka Nwankwo)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <1995Sep5.152248.3034@es.dupont.com>
Date: 6 Sep 1995 09:23:10 GMT

EMP/ECP (aka SPAM) cancelled by clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca.

See news.admin.net-abuse.announce, report 19950906.01 for further details
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudennwankweo cudfnEmeka cudlnNwankwo cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.06 / Robin Spaandonk /  Re: Answer to zero-point energy question by Robin
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Answer to zero-point energy question by Robin
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 1995 12:28:43 GMT
Organization: Improving

In article <AWC.95Sep4091030@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de>, Arthur
Carlson TOK  wrote :
[snip]
>Who says there's a lot of energy in the universe? The conventional
>wisdom is that the *negative* gravitational energy just balances all
>the positive energy, leaving a marginally "closed" universe with zero
>net energy.
Perhaps you could explain just what *negative* energy is?
>
>(Nobel Prize thought: Is the necessity of zero total energy for the
>universe to grow from a quantum fluctuation an alternative to the
>inflationary scenario, which also tries to explain the fine tuning of
>the net energy in the universe?)
>
>(Warning: Posting outside of expertise!)
>-- 
>To study, to finish, to publish. -- Benjamin Franklin
>
>Dr. Arthur Carlson
>Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
>Garching, Germany
>carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de

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:
cuddy06 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.06 / Lawrence Mead /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: lrmead@whale.st.usm.edu (Lawrence R. Mead)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,
ci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: 6 Sep 1995 13:05:06 GMT
Organization: University of Southern Mississippi

Frank Jordan (fjordan@spacectr.cbu.edu) wrote:
: mberezetsk@aol.com (MBerezetsk) wrote:
: >>On Sun, 13 Aug 1995 05:30:19 -0400 (EDT)
: >> "Ammons@cris.com" <Ammons@cris.com> wrote:
: >
: >
: >>Black Holes suck! Gravity sucks!
: >
: >
: >The wind blows.  It sucks.
: >

: No, the wind is called 'Maria'!

: (Boy, is this thread getting off-topic!)

Nooooo, they call the wind 'Mariah'    ;-)

--

Lawrence R. Mead (lrmead@whale.st.usm.edu) 
ESCHEW OBFUSCATION ! ESPOUSE ELUCIDATION !
http://www.usm.edu/usmhburg/sci_tech/phy/mead.html 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenlrmead cudfnLawrence cudlnMead cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.06 /  CoolWar /  Fusion by "Hyper-shear"
     
Originally-From: coolwar@aol.com (CoolWar)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion by "Hyper-shear"
Date: 6 Sep 1995 15:24:08 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

We are proposing a new theory that will encompass all fusion effects and
that will lead to the optimization of devices to produce fusion energy.  A
new term is coined called "hyper-shear".  This results when a binary
mixture of heterogeneuos plasma is composed of intense energy in an array
of larger particles.  The larger particles absorb energy and act as
inertia anchors to promote fluid circulation that results in vorticity
patterns.  These vortices are inherently stable.  This theory can explain
cold, warm and hot fusion phenomena as well as sonoluminescence.  Very
steep and sharp gradients in the shear mode create tangential velocity
profiles around larger particles in fluids that become gaseous plasmas. 
In cold fusion, small micro-bubbles of gaseous metal result in
"hyper-shear".  In sonoluminescence, "hyper-shear" is created around
dissolved inert noble gases.  In the Tokamak, recent longevity of burn
stability has resulted by creating "hyper-shear" modes within the plasma. 
We are theorizing that deuterated fullerene will sublime and implode thus
creating a hyper-shear effect in a mixture of deuterium and loose carbon
atoms.
Charles E. Bennett
Senior Engineer
American Cold Fusion Engineering and Supply
P.O. Box 191394
Sacramento, CA 95819
916-736-0104
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudencoolwar cudlnCoolWar cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.06 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 1995 14:26:13 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <browe-0409951356500001@192.0.2.1>, browe@netcom.com (Bill
Rowe) wrote:

> In article <21cenlogic-0309952104580001@austin-2-8.i-link.net>,
> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:
> 
> >In article <MATT.95Aug31115325@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU>,
> >matt@physics.berkeley.edu wrote:
> >
> >> If all of the "cold fusion" results are correct, then producing more
> >> electricity than you put in is impossible.  
> >
> >***{Based on this statement, I would say you are the one who is assuming
> >something "pretty weird." If a steam turbine and generator setup having an
> >overall efficienty of .33 were driven by steam from a Griggs device, the
> >overall COP would be .33 x 1.6 = .528 *right now!*  Granting, as you did,
> >that the present results are valid, this would mean we have a new energy
> >source, and thus it would be reasonable to expect further research to
> >yield improvements in the COP's of such devices, to 1.8, to 2.4, to 3.5,
> >etc. It is hard to say where this process would end, but it is *not* hard
> >to see that when the COP passes 3, the overall device--reactor, steam
> >turbine, and generator combined--goes over unity, and begins to produce
> >more output power than is input.
> 
> Even assuming all of the data for the Griggs device represents a new
> source of energy resulting in a COP of 1.6, it is a major jump to believe
> this can be improved significantly. 

***{Why is that, Bill? I challenge you to name any fuel for which the
first use was as efficient as the technology that developed later. Wood,
for example, was at first burned in the open, and most of the energy was
wasted heating the air and the ground. Modern wood burning stoves are
vastly more efficient than this, in terms of delivering the energy to the
desired target (e.g., to a stewpot). The same can be said of every other
fuel: coal, natural gas, gasoline, diesel fuel, kerosene, propane,
U235--you name it. (Do you think they still use the original Fermi
graphite pile design in modern nuclear power plants? Do you believe that
modern gasoline engines are not more efficient than those of 100 years
ago?) Bottom line: the initial technology which demonstrates the use of a
fuel as an energy source is always grossly inefficient compared to the
technology that develops later.Your doubt that this would be the case with
"cold fusion" runs contrary to the uniform pattern of human experience
dating back to the stone age, and is one more piece of evidence, in a pile
that is already mountainously high, that your criticisms of this new
technology are based on emotion rather than reason. I don't know what your
hidden agenda is, but it is becoming crystal clear that you have one.
--Mitchell Jones}***

The only real evidence of the Griggs
> device having a COP greater than unity is the calorimetry. Certainly, the
> energy isn't created from nothing. Something must be acting as the fuel
> while something else acts to "burn" that fuel. How can anyone hope to
> scale the COP to say a factor of 3 when neither the fuel nor the mechanism
> for "burning" that fuel have been identified?

***{It is clear that the fuel is present in water, Bill, and it is also
clear that the Griggs device is a mechanism for "burning" it. That level
of understanding, plus a program of experimentation with similar devices
(i.e., cavitation void generators), should suffice to elevate the
efficiency of the technology. Do you believe that stone age man had an
accurate theory of combustion when he discovered the clay ovens which he
used to melt copper, tin, lead, and zinc, thereby inaugurating the bronze
age? Do you think the ancient Chinese had an accurate theory of combustion
before they discovered the air-injection furnace and began to produce iron
and steel? You position is absurd, Bill. You would have us wait until we
know everything about a prototype device before we begin the experimental
process that is necessary to improve it. But why? What is the biasing
factor that is preventing you from seeing the obvious, relative to this
technology? Do you think you are demonstrating gameness by hurling
yourself off the cliff and onto the rocks, over and over and over again?
--Mitchell Jones}***   
> 
> Frankly, the lack of a credible hypothesis of where the energy comes from
> as well as experiments to test such a hypothesis is the single biggest
> reason for doubting the Griggs device will amount to anything significant.
> -- 
> "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"

***{Apparently. --Mitchell Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy06 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.05 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Galileo was NOT easily reproduced!
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Galileo was NOT easily reproduced!
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 95 17:32:31 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

John Lewis <court@kelvin.physics.mun.ca> writes:
 
>However you cut it, I think that CF has been something of a scandal,
with supposedly competent,
>professional scientists, leaders in their fields in some instances,
>reporting work that was sloppy and ill-considered.  Of course, many
>of them were chemists, which I suppose may explain, if it does
not excuse, their work ...
>half :-)
 
You are quite right. There was a lot of sloppy, scandalous CF work from
professional scientists -- leaders in their fields even -- in the early
days of CF. The experiments at Cal Tech and MIT were particularly
egregious examples of this. Quite unforgivable. Schlock science.
 
The papers from Pons and Fleischmann, on the other hand, were a model of
how to do groundbreaking science on a shoestring. Their papers are always
difficult, even for an expert, but they are superb, and everything they
said about calorimetry and excess heat has been proved right. They were
a little off on neutrons, but as Stan Pons says, being half right in
science is a great accomplishment.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.05 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Garbage heap
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Garbage heap
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 95 17:50:31 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk> writes:
 
>To the TBs of cold fusion, I have a nice quote I found in a little book by
>Max Perutz, "Is Science Necessary?" (p.196), in a review he wrote of Peter
>Medawar's book "Advice to a Young Scientist":
>
>"Medawar admonishes the young to formulate hypotheses but not to identify
>with them. 'The intensity of a conviction that a hypothesis is true has
>no bearing on whether it is true or false'. Voltaire put it more
 
CF is not based upon a hypothesis. It is based upon high sigma replicated
experimental data. When a scientist does not cling to replicated data as the
one infallible source of truth in science, he abandons rationality. He has no
standard to judge reality. We are not dogmatic about any hypothesis; we do not
claim we can explain CF. All we say is that facts are facts, and the heat must
be real and beyond chemistry. We say there is a mystery here that requires an
explanation. That is no hypothesis, it is the starting point or foundation for
a hypothesis. It is equivalent to saying that we have observed morphological
similarities between species and evidence of extinction, so we do not believe
species are immutable. That is not the same as proposing the Theory of
Evolution, but it *is* the starting point -- the first question -- that leads
to that theory. We say the CF phenomenon IS REAL and not a hoax or artifact of
the instruments. We do not explain it, we formulate no hypotheses, except one:
thermometers show temperature, calorimetry does work.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.05 /  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: Tue, 5 Sep 95 17:59:28 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

John Lewis <court@kelvin.physics.mun.ca> writes:
 
>Certainly a true statement.  I do think however, that many chemists have attempted
>to extrapolate their "feel" for chemical reactions to nuclear reactions, without
>fully appreciating how different the two realms are - for starters, how different
 
Chemists do not need to have an feel for nuclear reaction to prove that
CF is nuclear. The proof is based upon calorimetry -- which is what chemists
do -- and upon titium, which is easy enough for a chemist to detect with
confidence. There is no need for any intellectual appreciation of the
difference between the domains, or any deep knowledge of nuclear reactions.
All you have to do is show a small body that gets much hotter than the
surroundings, and stays much hotter than any chemically fueled body of the
same mass. It is very simple. The proof, tools, and methodology have nothing
in common with the kind of tools and methodology used by the nuclear
physicists.
 
The nuclear physicists themselves have lost track of the fundamentals of their
own field. They think that nuclear physics can only be based upon the
sophisticated, expensive and ultraprecise toys they use. They forget that
Curie and others at the dawn of the nuclear age became aware of nuclear
energy releases because small bodies produced heat and radiation far
longer than a chemical reaction would allow. The Curies would have
*instantly* recognized that CF must be nuclear. They were used to dealing
with that kind of experiment and those kinds of relatively crude tools
(plus a gieger counter of course). Today's nuclear physicists who deny CF
is nuclear are the people who have forgotten what the different energy
domains are like, and what a macroscopic nuclear reaction does.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.05 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 1995 12:16 -0500 (EST)

hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner) writes:
 
-> There is a significant energy loss here.
-> From a previous post, we have atomic masses:
->
->
-> Li6 = 6.015121
-> n   = 1.008665
->       --------
-> +   = 7.023786
-> Li7 = 7.016003
-> -   = 0.007783
->
-> There is a net gain of mass from the reaction. This is a reaction that
-> consumes large amounts of energy.  There can be no "chain".  You might be
-> able to soup things up by adding layers of, or creating mixtures with,
-> materials fissionable with slow neutrons, like U235,  U233 or Pu239. This
-> would give the advantage of a non-critical mass reactor directly
-> throttleable with the current input. But that would make things really
-> dirty!
 
I am really confused by this post.  We are not talking about adding a neutron
to Li6, but to Li7.  Even so we get a slight mass loss of 7.783 Kev when adding
a neutron to Li6, so I still don't see what you are talking about.
 
I will have to check my references and see if there is a mass loss when a Li7
captures a neutron.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy05 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.05 /  CoolWar /  FULLERENE FUSION SEARCHING FOR LIQUID D
     
Originally-From: coolwar@aol.com (CoolWar)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FULLERENE FUSION SEARCHING FOR LIQUID D
Date: 5 Sep 1995 19:50:44 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

We are working with endohedrally loaded carbon fullerenes as a confinement
matrix.  We are interested in the highest possible concentration of
deuterons inside the fullerene cage.  We are interested in running an
experiment using a slurry mix of liquid deuterium and C60.  We theorize
that the activity of the molecule under these conditions and the shell
energy barriers would be significantly reduced allowing liquid deuterons
to flow into the interior space of the cage.  Separating the slurry and
allowing the fullerenes to warm would produce a dense contentration  of
deuterium gas trapped in the fullerene.
We do not have the required equipment to perform this experiment.  Please,
anyone with interest and access to the required equipment and material
contact me immediately.  We have established some intellecutual property
rights in this area a successful collaboration could be very rewarding.
Sincerely,
Warren L. Cooley
P.O. Box 191394
Sacramento, CA 945819-1394
1-800-713-9345
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudencoolwar cudlnCoolWar cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.05 /  Labrys /  Re: CF Project
     
Originally-From: tuttt@cii3112-19.its.rpi.edu (Labrys)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF Project
Date: 5 Sep 1995 19:42:02 GMT
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.

> Are you suggesting that anyone who try to studing
> CF lost its time, or you think that stuying

Haye, reell gud speling. and gramur tu

> scientific establishement is an act of herisy?

Herisy? Heresy? That's the ticket! Long live the Herrutik!
-- 
_______________________________________________________________________

Teresa E Tutt               /\       /\
tuttt@rpi.edu              // \  n  / \\
EPHY '96                  ((   #>X<#   ))     "Life need not be easy
                           \\ /  H  \ //      provided it is not empty"
                            \/   H   \/              -Lise Meitner
                                 H
                                | |
                                | | 
                                | |
		        	 U
http://www.rpi.edu/~tuttt
_______________________________________________________________________
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudentuttt cudlnLabrys cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.06 / Barry Merriman /  Re: CFV: sci.physics.fusion.naysayers
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CFV: sci.physics.fusion.naysayers
Date: 6 Sep 1995 01:16:58 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <42702u$eut@temasek.teleview.com.sg>  
mpowers9@temasek.teleview.com.sg (Anderson @ Mpower) writes:
> 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
>

Before bifurcating the group, such reports as you desire would
have to appear hear in the first place. While in the past there
has occasionally been experimental reports posted here (though
much of it is related to grigss like devices), it is a highly 
infrequent occurance. 

I am all for it---how about getting P&F to post a little update on their
latest experiments.


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


cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.06 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Date: 6 Sep 1995 01:31:34 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <21cenlogic-0409950034330001@austin-2-8.i-link.net>  
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:
> In article <4265ut$bhg@sake.wwa.com>, Tom Droege <droege@wwa.com> wrote:
> 

> The reward I seek is not a
> favorable vote from a jury, or kudos from an audience I have impressed,
> but rather the feeling of self-satisfaction that results from a case well
> made. 


Then maybe you should consider alt.philosophy---you seem to have a
philosopher's approach to science.


> 
> As for seeking the truth, I would note the following: (a) the strongest
> argument a person knows relative to an issue is the best approximation to
> the truth that he has; and (b) the person who believes whatever seems to
> be supported by the strongest arguments is virtually immune to bias:
> unlike those who believe what they want to believe, losing an argument
> actually affects his opinion! 



Your fatal error seems the need to ``believe'' anything, and the notion
of ``truth'' itself. I don't have any ``beliefs'' related to the Griggs 
device, cold fusion, etc. I have some opinions and intuitions,  but I would 
not elevate  them to the status of beliefs. 
I don't have any particular emotional
investment in these things---I just want to know how things do/don't work and 
what we can/can't do with them. The issues of truth, belief, and other such
quasi-religious or emotionally laden concepts don't really enter into it
for me. I am a scientist; I'm really just interested in whether
this stuff ``works'', and wether it can be used for energy generation.
You can cast this into talk of beliefs and truth if you want, but I 
don't view it that way. The most relavent emotion is curiosity. 

Nor will the type of ``arguments'' you seem to favor on sci.fusion lead
to any useful conclusions. Garbage in, garbage out, as they say. These
are primarily experimental questions, and they will only be resolved by
repeated, careful experiments.





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


cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.06 / 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: Wed, 06 Sep 95 01:39:29 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Corporation

In article <pLJj0Jd.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
>bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan) writes:
> 
>     "My point was that Jed has too many irons in the fire and he tends to
>     respond with whatever happens to pop into his head at the time -- even
>     if it contradicts what he said earlier. Jed could be much more effective
>     if he would realize that not every assertion needs to be rebutted."
> 
>Wrong on all counts.
> 
>I never respond with whatever happens to pop into my head. My arguments are
>carefully worked out, internally logical, and backed by careful reading of 
the
>literature. There is no contradiction between my statements that it takes an
>expert to replicate CF and the statement that most CF experiments work. 

[snip]

>- Jed

Surely, you jest. You just did it again!
cudkeys:
cuddy06 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Sep  7 04:37:26 EDT 1995
------------------------------
