1995.09.11 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Recombination and apparent xs heat
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Recombination and apparent xs heat
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 23:21:00 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

Steve, when I re-read my previous post in this thread, an hour or so after
I sent it off, I was horrified. I can't believe the grouchy, hostile tone
of it! Therefore, before you waste your time defending your integrity, I
would like to retract, apologize, and explain. The explanation is simple:
I have been responding to "cold fusion" deniers in this newsgroup for a
very long time, and they are all beginning to blend together. Result: my
feelings of frustration at certain specific individuals who have exhibited
what I regard as blockheaded behavior seem to be crossfeeding into my
reactions to others, such as yourself, who have not yet done so. It is
clear that, if I am to avoid becoming a total grouch, I am going to have
to make a deliberate, intense effort to fight this tendency to become
irritated with one person and then take it out on someone else. Again, I
apologize for the unduly scathing tone of my previous post. A revised
version follows. 

--Mitchell Jones

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <1995Sep1.141555.2390@plasma.byu.edu>, jonesse@plasma.byu.edu wrote:

> Mitchell Jones questions the possibility that recombination of D2 and O2
> (or H2 and O2) in an electrolytic cell could result in apparent excess heat,
> as we claimed in our paper

***{Not quite. What I questioned was your apparent denial that the heat of
recombination ought to be counted as part of the output energy, for the
purpose of finding excess heat. --Mitchell Jones}***

 , "Faradaic efficiencies less than 100% during
> electolysis of water can account for reports of excess heat in 'cold fusion'
> cells," J. Phys. Chem., 99 (1995) 6973.
> 
> Mitchell would be well advised to read our paper before making such comments

***{Why? I was responding to your post, not to your paper. --Mitchell Jones}***

> (he obviously has not done so yet). 

***{You are right about that. --Mitchell Jones}***

 Briefly, the problem arises when
> experimenters use open cells then *assume* that all the input energy which
> goes to decompose the water is simply lost as the gases all bubble out of the
> cell.  P&F (early experiments at least), Mills, Srinivasan and others made
> these assumptions, for example.
> 
> But what we (and others) have shown is that recombination *in* the cell can be
> in fact significant.  This chemical process leads to generation of substantial
> heat, which appears to be excess heat when 100% Faradaic eff. (no
> recombination) is erroneously assumed.

***{I appreciate your clarification of your original post. I take it that
you are saying that some experimenters simply calculated the heat of
recombination from the electric current consumption and added it to the
output total. Since some of the gasses remained in the electrolyte and
recombined there, they raised the temperature and, in essence, were
counted twice. This, of course, would erroneously elevate the output heat
by some small amount, and, in an experiment that produced very little
"excess heat," could account for the result. But it does not, for example,
explain experiments (e.g., that of Cravens) which produced excess heat on
the order of 300-1000%! 

Frankly, now that I see what you were saying, I must say that I don't see
much significance to it. All you seem to be saying is that some obscure
group of CF experimenters made a trivial error that invalidated their
results. Even if that is true, it doesn't seem to be a point that merits
much discussion. Don't you think we ought to spend our time dissecting the
strong results--i.e., the ones that are most difficult to explain
away--rather than these obscure and seemingly transparent mistakes?
--Mitchell Jones}***       
> 
> Read the paper, Mitchell.

***{Steve, I have much more interest in experiments such as that of
Cravens, where results are too large to be easily explained away. My
assumption is that you do not claim that a weak effect such as the double
counting of a small portion of the heat of recombination would invalidate
that result. My question to you, therefore, is this: what flaw, if any, do
you see in it? --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> --Steven Jones
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, I apologize for the hostility of my previous post. How dare I
criticize the tone of *your* post, when my own was so wildly
inappropriate!  

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.11 / Joseph Raulet /  Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
     
Originally-From: Joseph Raulet <raulet@jrv.qc.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
Date: 11 Sep 1995 22:40:41 GMT
Organization: RAULET  Informatique

>jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

>And I would add that you have not read the literature, the patents, or
>papers like "How to Produce the Pons-Fleishmann Effect" by Ed Storms, so
>you don't know what the hell you are talking about. This *has* been
>achieved for the most part with CF experiments, but you don't happen to
>know bout it. Don't confuse your own ignorance with the state of the art.
>
>- Jed

:And Bob Sullivan wrote:

:5-yard, delay-of-game penalty for the you-haven't-read-the-literature
:argument.

:15 yard penalty, personal foul -- ad hominem attack.  Don't confuse ad 
:hominem
:attacks with scientific argument.

Very interesting mister Sullivan! The sense of humor is a great and 
necessery quality to maintain a psychologic equilibrium in our time,
but I think Jed has a crucial point: How can somebody evaluate the 
state of the art in any domain without reading the literature. If you have 
a special technic, I would be happy if you could share it with me because 
I have not always the time to read (I have a little girl!). I know that
Jojo the psychic have wrote a book about the subject and the title was:
***How to talk about everything without knowing nothing!"***. Is it
the technic you recommand?

One of your fans...

Joseph Raulet






cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenraulet cudfnJoseph cudlnRaulet cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.10 /   /  Re: ? Singularity Technology ?
     
Originally-From: <singtech@teleport.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ? Singularity Technology ?
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 1995 20:00:22 -0800
Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016

In article <35194231wnr@moonrake.demon.co.uk>, Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk wrote:

> In article: <42n67j$qe7@ns1.win.net>  bugs@news.win.net (Mark Hittinger) 
> writes:
> > Just saw this come in - haven't seen any mention on this group... FYI
> > 
> 
> Cagle posts here occasionally. His messages make him sound like a close 
> relative of Archimedes Plutonium and/or Bryan Wallace. He gets *very* 
> angry with anybody who doesn't show adequate respect for non-orthodox 
> physics.
> 
> (Now THAT'S one use I wouldn't like to see Tom Droege's $700 put to! 
> <g>)
> 
> -- 
> Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)
> 
>          I am his Highness' dog at Kew
>          Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
>                               [Alexander Pope]

Well, Alan, all I have done really is to try to defend the right of even
the most unorthodox ideas to be heard.  It is a bit amusing to consider
that my defense of Archimedes or Wallace is taken to represent a
relationship or affiliation between myself and them.  Your connections are
non sequitur. I would defend your right to post new ideas (with respect to
physics) as vigourously.  I can not bring myself to defend Archimedes's
assertions nor Wallace's conclusions but rather only their right to
announce them and post them.  I admit I have been hard on a few posters
who felt it is their 'duty' to 'warn the world' against such as Pu and
Wallace - and have, therefore, taken, oftimes, it to be my 'duty' to
respond to such lynch parties with the appropriate vehemence or rancor
such behavior deserves.  

Since you find wisdom in Pope:

³Be thou first true merit 
to befriend.
His praise is lost who waits
til all commend.² 

[Alexander Pope]

At least, I would think you and others should have the good character to
hold back belittling those with new ideas even if you think their work not
worthy of praise.  But when you belittle them you serve no one.

Now if organizations have pursued folly for years upon years and decade
upon decade as the 'establishment' has pursued 'hot' fusion it might be
time for another quote:

³The ruling passion, be it what it will,
The ruling passion conquers reason still.²   - Pope -

Since, they are, after all, depleting our pocketbooks, and think they have
the righteous right to do so, I think a little belittling is their due.

Best Regards,

-- 






I sought the fount of fire in hollow reed,
Hid privily, a measureless resource
For man, and mighty teacher of all arts.  - Aeschylus ..Prometheus Bound

email> singtech@teleport.com
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudensingtech cudln cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.12 / 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: Tue, 12 Sep 95 04:54:59 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Corporation

In article <432dt9$dh7@volcano.jrv.qc.ca>,
   Joseph Raulet <raulet@jrv.qc.ca> wrote:
>>jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
>
>>And I would add that you have not read the literature, the patents, or
>>papers like "How to Produce the Pons-Fleishmann Effect" by Ed Storms, so
>>you don't know what the hell you are talking about. This *has* been
>>achieved for the most part with CF experiments, but you don't happen to
>>know bout it. Don't confuse your own ignorance with the state of the art.
>>
>>- Jed
>
>:And Bob Sullivan wrote:
>
>:5-yard, delay-of-game penalty for the you-haven't-read-the-literature
>:argument.
>
>:15 yard penalty, personal foul -- ad hominem attack.  Don't confuse ad 
>:hominem
>:attacks with scientific argument.
>
>Very interesting mister Sullivan! The sense of humor is a great and 
>necessery quality to maintain a psychologic equilibrium in our time,
>but I think Jed has a crucial point: How can somebody evaluate the 
>state of the art in any domain without reading the literature. If you have 
>a special technic, I would be happy if you could share it with me because 
>I have not always the time to read (I have a little girl!). I know that
>Jojo the psychic have wrote a book about the subject and the title was:
>***How to talk about everything without knowing nothing!"***. Is it
>the technic you recommand?
>
>One of your fans...
>
>Joseph Raulet
>

I doubt that anyone has read ALL of the literature on any topic, so a 
non-specific "you haven't read the literature" argument accomplishes very 
little.  How much better it would be to say something like 

	"I'm basing my arguments reported by so-and-so in such-and-such 
	journal. I recommend that you get a copy and give me your comments."

	or

	"So-and-so reached just the opposite conclusion in his article in 
	such-and-such journal. Why do you disagree?"

These examples would further discussion. Jed uses the argument as a putdown to 
cut off discussion.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.10 / Jim Bowery /  cancel <jaboweryDEnxz8.LxC@netcom.com>
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <jaboweryDEnxz8.LxC@netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 1995 14:59:21 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Article cancelled from within tin [v1.2 PL1]
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
                 Change the tools and you change the rules.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.10 / Barry Merriman /  Congressman Walker on CF
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Congressman Walker on CF
Date: 10 Sep 1995 22:46:01 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

The latest Popular Science has an interview on science funding,
with congressmen Walker and Brown. Walker mentions specifically
that he would like to see funding on innovative energy concepts
such as Cold Fusion. He says its clearly not fusion, but that we
should figure out what it is. Doesn't say much more than that.



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


cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.10 / 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: 10 Sep 1995 22:59:57 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

> In article <21cenlogic-0909950707080001@austin-1-5.i-link.net>,
> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:
> 
>   This is why real scientists are easy to identify: when they
> > lose an argument, they alter their beliefs. --Mitchell Jones}***
> > 

So I take it Einstein was not a real scientist, because he 
refused to accept Quantum Mechanics?

In short, your depiction of science as a series of winning
and losing arguments is the sort of viewpoint only a non-scientist
could hold. Scientists go around looking at things, trying to 
understand how they work. Useful paradigms for understanding
persist, non-useful ones much less so. One need not ``believe'' the 
useful paradigms, nor even like them, and may even spend considerable 
effort to replace them, as the case of Einstein and QM. Making use
of a paradigm does not amount to altering ones beliefs.

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


cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.11 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: CFV: sci.physics.fusion.naysayers
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CFV: sci.physics.fusion.naysayers
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 95 08:53:53 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Bob Sullivan <bsulliva@sky.net> writes:
 
>You will find, however, that measuring input and output temperature 
>differences and electric energy input is both inadequate to to measure furnace 
>efficiencies and inadequate to demonstrate cold fusion. [Partial hint: you 
>need to measure the chemical energy input to the furnace.]
 
Again, you are saying thing that everyone here knows, and that you know
damn well I understand. I do not need to tell you that CF cells do not
consume any chemical fuel.
 
>By the way, why don't you "read the literature" on A/C COPs, you will be in 
>for a BIG SURPRISE! A/Cs routinely operate at over-unity COP's. A COP > 4.0 is 
 
I also understand what a heat pump is and how it works. I have posted many,
many messages about heat pumps. If you are at all familiar with my work you
would know that. If you are not familiar with my work then do not presume
I have never read any elementary textbooks on heat engines.
 
CF devices cannot be heat pumps either. This has been demonstrated in
countless papers.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.11 / Richard Schultz /  Re: CFV: sci.physics.fusion.naysayers
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CFV: sci.physics.fusion.naysayers
Date: 11 Sep 1995 14:04:47 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <h7BAFuV.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>Bullshit!
>Anyone who says that calorimetry is not "adequate to
>demonstrate cold fusion" is a complete scientific ignoramus, First Class.

Now let me make sure I have this straight.  You have claimed on several
occasions that the leaders in the CF field are unwilling to post here
because they are unwilling to put up with the vituperation and personal
abuse found here.  Now of those posting on the subject of CF here, no
one regularly writes as much personal invective and schoolyard namecalling
as you do -- and yet the skeptically minded are willing to continue to
post and are willing to take a position even though it might be wrong.
Do you care to explain why the leaders in the CF filed are such retiring
shy flowers -- or is it your personal abuse that they intend to shun?
--
					Richard Schultz

"What is this whacko attitude you people out here in Fusion Digest have?
What is the matter with you?  This place is a Goddamn Pirahna pool! Let's
have some patience, and some manners."
			--Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 14 Jan 1993
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.11 / Richard Schultz /  Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
Date: 11 Sep 1995 14:15:17 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <Z9CAsZW.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>No skeptic has shown an error in the methodology employed by Miles, 
>Yamaguchi, or Stringham & George. . .

I'm not sure what the layman's term for the above statement is, but so
far as I know, the technical term for it is "lie." Any number of people
have shown significant errors or likely sources of error in the mass 
spectrometry, primarily using the mass spectrometers under conditions
in which the stated resolution is unlikely to be the actual resolution.
And I noticed that the results from Miles quoted here by Mitchell Swartz
were reported in such a way that it is impossible to determine what
the actual signal-to-noise ratio was.  These objections to the 
methodology of the mass spec attempts at determination of He (there
are others, for example, it is not clear how one can extract He from
Pd, in which it is not very mobile in any quantitative fashion) have
been posted here time and again, and except for your denial that they
exist, no one has shown that these objections have been overcome.
--
					Richard Schultz

"P&F are getting so much heat that you hardly need any calorimetry at all."
			--Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 19 Jul 1992
"The palladium based systems are a useless dead end. Who cares about them?"
			--Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 10 Dec 1992

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.14 / R Schroeppel /  Idea Futures
     
Originally-From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Idea Futures
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 01:55:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

yarvin-norman@CS.YALE.EDU (Norman Yarvin) writes
    Of course 5% interest for 10 years is a lot less than my bank pays me.
    My bank is likely to actually pay the money, too. :-)

The IF concept is that in a real-money game, the stakeholder would invest
the stake in some low-risk way.  You would, in effect, be gambling with
1995 dollars, and the winner would receive the stake + interest.

This till leaves the annual ROI at only interest+.5%, which would not be
enough to attract a savvy investor who can do better.

Rich Schroeppel  rcs@cs.arizona.edu

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenrcs cudfnRichard cudlnSchroeppel cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.12 / Benjamin Tilly /  Re: Censorship of my posts?
     
Originally-From: Benjamin.J.Tilly@dartmouth.edu (Benjamin J. Tilly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci
chem,sci.bio.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle,news.admin.net
abuse.misc
Subject: Re: Censorship of my posts?
Date: 12 Sep 1995 18:19:19 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <432hk7$k52@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

> In article <432h7a$k52@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> 
> >  Has anyone seen any of my 30 cancelled posts.
> 
>   I found out it was anonymously forged cancels of my posts.
> 
> What or who is :    bga.com.
> 
That need not be true. Somebody who can forge a cancel can forge a
return address. (Also that is not a person, that is a site, send a
message to postmaster@bga.com and you *might* be able to get action.)

>   And, if no action is taken and my posts are further compromised in
> the future. Please tell, how I can do the same thing on other people,
> lest I miss out on some fun.

Archimedes, you can't do it. The only people who can are system
administrators, and people who know enough to hack some site properly.
Forging cancels is NOT considered acceptable behavior under ordinary
situations, and even if I could tell you (which I can't for the reason
that I have never learned how to do it), I wouldn't.

If you want to find out more about this subject and related ones, check
out news.admin.misc and news.admin.net-abuse.misc.

Ben Tilly
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenTilly cudfnBenjamin cudlnTilly cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.12 / Benjamin Tilly /  Re: Censorship of my posts?
     
Originally-From: Benjamin.J.Tilly@dartmouth.edu (Benjamin J. Tilly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci
chem,sci.bio.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Censorship of my posts?
Date: 12 Sep 1995 18:25:14 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <Pine.OSF.3.90.950912101001.5305B-100000@thunder>
Wolfgang Wuster <bss166@bangor.ac.uk> writes:

> On 11 Sep 1995, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 
> >    Anyone have thoughts or experiences with having their posts
> > cancelled against their will?
> 
> Probably not. And that should serve as a hint to you.

Wolfgang, I do not care HOW much you may dislike Archimedes. He has a
right to post without interference as long as he stays within
acceptable limits. And nobody has the right to decide based on content
what acceptable limits are other than the Dartmouth administration (who
can decide whether he has the right to an account on their machines).

There are certain situations where cancels are justifiable. Basically
it comes down to 3 situations. One is that Archimedes wants to cancel
his article. The second is if Dartmouth wants to cancel an article of
his for some extreme reason (I find it hard to think of a reason
extreme enough, but it is not up to me to decide that). And the last is
if he spams.

For more on this please read news.announce.newusers and
news.admin.net-abuse.announce.

Ben Tilly
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenTilly cudfnBenjamin cudlnTilly cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.12 / Wolfgang Wuster /  Re: Censorship of my posts?
     
Originally-From: Wolfgang Wuster <bss166@bangor.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci
chem,sci.bio.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Censorship of my posts?
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 1995 16:25:29 +0100 (BST)
Organization: University of Wales, Bangor.

On 12 Sep 1995, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> >   Perhaps 30 posts were censored and deleted yesterday. It was not I.
> > And I asked a person in charge here at Dartmouth, reply being "not
> > Dartmouth."  Hence, someone outside has forged my name and cancelled 30
> > of my posts. Is it really that easy?
> 
> Here is one of the forged cancels:
> 
> ]Path: ...!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!bga.com!news
> ]From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
> ]Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math
> ]Subject: cmsg cancel <42tlst$vk0@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
> ]Control: cancel <42tlst$vk0@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
> ]Date: 10 Sep 1995 21:21:50 GMT
> ]Organization: Real/Time Communications - Bob Gustwick and Associates
> ]Lines: 1
> ]Message-ID: <42vkte$324@giga.bga.com>
> ]NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.181.162.16
> ]
> ]Article cancelled from NR/2

I used not to believe in God or in Angels of Mercy, but now I believe 
that one or the other is hidden in one of those headers...

If you read this, THANK YOU!!!
--
Wolfgang Wuster

Thought for the day: If you see a light at the end of the tunnel,
it is probably a train coming your way.














cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenbss166 cudfnWolfgang cudlnWuster cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.12 / Mario Pain /  Re: French nuclear test agenda
     
Originally-From: Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: French nuclear test agenda
Date: 12 Sep 1995 13:59:15 GMT
Organization: cea

I disagree,

  France has detonated a nuclear device and plans to detonate seven others
before the signature of the Test Ban Treaty in ordre to be ready to develop
nuclear weapons under simulation, should this be necessary. USA does not 
need extra tests because it has made enough tests already to be able to
develop these weapons under simulation. By the way, the commitment to the 
Test Ban Treaty by president Clinton is much weaker (it made some reservations)
than president Chirac.
  But the nuclear tests by France have also another goal: to make credible
the french nuclear deterrent, by showing that France is still a sovereign
country and is ready to take soverign decisions and carry them out whatever
the rest of the world may think of it.
  From this point of view, I can only agree with this policy."My country,
right or wrong" (rather like "my mother, drunk or sober").

Mario Pain

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.11 /  kurtz@imap2.as /  Re: Cold Fusion information available
     
Originally-From: kurtz@imap2.asu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion information available
Date: 11 Sep 1995 20:19:22 GMT
Organization: Arizona State University

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
:  
: There are two sets of people, A and B. A is the set of all people who have
: published scientific papers about CF. B is the set of all people who post
: messages here. The union of A and B includes only three people as far as
: I can tell.
...
: - Jed

Can we assume your postings on other topics in this newsgroup have all 
the accuracy and reliability that this post on set unions demonstrates?

--Lynn Kurtz

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenkurtz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.12 / Mario Pain /  Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
     
Originally-From: Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
Date: 12 Sep 1995 13:30:22 GMT
Organization: cea

Joseph Raulet <raulet@jrv.qc.ca> wrote:
>I have not always the time to read (I have a little girl!). I know that
>Jojo the psychic have wrote a book about the subject and the title was:
>***How to talk about everything without knowing nothing!"***. Is it
>the technic you recommand?
>
  Well, if you have not read the book by Jojo the psychic, how dare you
to make any comment about his methods ?

Mario Pain


cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.12 / Bruce TOK /  Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.energy,sci.space.tech,mis
.industry.utilities.electric
Subject: Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005
Date: 12 Sep 1995 09:43:56 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

Jim Bowery (jabowery@netcom.com) wrote:
: Bruce Scott TOK (bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de) wrote:

: : I'll bet against this.  

: It's not that simple.  The Idea Futures Exchange requires you to trade on
: the odds.  

: Right now the IFE has the odds at between 5% and 10%.  If you think it is 
: less likely than 5% you can sell at 5% and make, at a maximum, 5% on your 
: money if you are right.

You're right; I just read all the docs.  It would only be worthwhile if
the idea-futures exchange clientele had an outlook similar to that of
this newsgroup (s.p.fusion), giving the IFE a higher bid price.

It also looks like the IFE is only a worthwhile exercise if you remain
active in it more or less continuously.  I might like to be but for now
I haven't the time.  Sounds like fun anyway.

--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott                                The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTOK cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.12 / Mario Pain /  Re: Does it really matter?
     
Originally-From: Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does it really matter?
Date: 12 Sep 1995 13:42:14 GMT
Organization: cea

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
>Bruce Scott TOK <bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de> writes:
> 
>>What if the effect is due to experimental error?
> 
>The effect cannot be due to experimental error. If it was, it would not have
>been so widely reproduced, by so many people, at such high signal to noise
>ratios. One or two scientists might mismeasure water tempertures by 4 degrees,
>or even 20 or 50 deg C, but hundreds of scientists would never make such
>extreme errors. If you do not think that replication + high S/N ratio =
>scientific proof then you have no standards by which you can determine true
>from false. If you don't believe experimental evidence than you are likely to
>believe in any damn thing.
> 
>- Jed

 Against faith, even the Gods contend in vain.

Mario
























cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.10 / Horace Heffner /  Re: CF emissions
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion
Subject: Re: CF emissions
Subject: Re: Yet another summary of the APS cold fusion session
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 1995 11:11:42 -0900
Date: 9 May 89 04:58:15 GMT
Organization: none
Organization: Bell Canada, Business Development, Toronto

In article <prGj0pw.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

> Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@netspace.net.au> writes:
>  
> >photons in the visible spectrum, either directly or indirectly. This
> >means that any such experiment that was actually producing excess
> >energy, ought to glow in the dark. Does this happen?
>  
> Not that I am aware of, but it could be that nobody has checked. In many
> cold fusion experimnts, the cathode is sealed inside a steel cell, where
> it could not be seen. In other experiments it is inside a glass container,
> usually submerged in a bath. I do not know if anyone has tried turning
> off the lights to look for a glow. How strong do you suppose this light
> might be? Would it require a photomultiplier?
>  
> - Jed

This post as been nagging at me because I remeber reading in some book
about someone stating there might be a cathode glow, and scientists all
over the world rushing into their labs to do something they hadn't
previously thought to do - turn out the lights and look at their bubbling
electrolysis cells! I simply can not remember where I saw this. I think
perhaps it was a book on fusion history. I do recall it was stated that no
glow was seen.

Visible photons were suggested as early as 1989. See quoted post that follows:

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  -

Originally-From: jeff@censor.UUCP (Jeff Hunter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion
Subject: Re: Yet another summary of the APS cold fusion session
Date: 9 May 89 04:58:15 GMT
Organization: Bell Canada, Business Development, Toronto

In article <3495@alembic.UUCP>, csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes:
> Take a look at the papers by Horowitz and by Koonin and Nauenberg.
> Both come to the conclusion that the dominant reaction should be
> D + p --> He-3 + gamma + 5.49 MeV or He-3 + e-e+ + 4.5 MeV. No neutrons.
> The neutron producing path may be a very minor part of energy production
> in this process. So the question is, what should we expect to see?
>
        A nice blue glow.

> If Horowitz is right, the electron-positron emission branch should be
> favored, and there should be a sharp peak in gamma emission at 0.511 MeV
> due to electron-positron annihilation.
>
        That's 10% of your energy coming out as Beta radiation. No need
for fancy instruments. Just turn out the lights and look.

> And what if it turns out that F&P are completely wrong, but Jones is
> right? It's still fusion, and it doesn't require millions of dollars
> worth of equipment to experiment with. Once we understand the physics
> involved, it may still be possible to turn it into a commercially
> viable energy source. A new avenue for fusion research has been
> opened up; this is the real value of the "Utah Fusion Circus".

        Well if you read the paper carefully you'll see that Jones
calibrated his neutron spectrometer with neutrons produced from fusion
of deuterons accellerated by a Van-de-Graaf generator. In other words
he used a classic "hot fusion" technique that didn't require millions
of dollars, and probably gave him more than 4e-3 counts/sec he was
getting from his cells. Granted, Jones cold fusion may scale up better,
but I haven't bought palladium futures.
        The real value would be the bulk effects of Jones fusion in
heating the Earth and other celestial bodies. This could produce
measurable effects.

--
      ___   __   __   {utzoo,lsuc}!censor!jeff  (416-595-2705)
      /    / /) /  )     -- my opinions --
    -/ _ -/-   /-     No one born with a mouth and a need is innocent.
 (__/ (/_/   _/_                                   Greg Bear

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I'll continue looking - until it quits bugging me!

Regards,

Horace

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

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.11 / Bruce TOK /  Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.energy,sci.space.tech,mis
.industry.utilities.electric
Subject: Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005
Date: 11 Sep 1995 11:26:59 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

Jim Bowery (jabowery@netcom.com) wrote:
: A new claim is now open for trading on the Idea Futures Exchange 
: (http://if.arc.ab.ca/IF.shtml) under the trading symbol "ball":

: Before midnight, December 31, 2005, there will exist an operational 
: commmercial energy system using boron-11 plus hydrogen-1 as its primary 
: fuel, delivering less than 1% of its energy in the form of neutron 
: radiation. This system will be based on Paul M. Koloc's 
: magnetohydrodynamic model of artificial ball lightning, which he calls 
: the PLASMAK(tm).


I'll bet against this.  


--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott                                The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTOK cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.12 / 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: Tue, 12 Sep 1995 00:14:22 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <42vqld$rso@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry
Merriman) wrote:

> > In article <21cenlogic-0909950707080001@austin-1-5.i-link.net>,
> > 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:
> > 
> >   This is why real scientists are easy to identify: when they
> > > lose an argument, they alter their beliefs. --Mitchell Jones}***
> > > 
> 
> So I take it Einstein was not a real scientist, because he 
> refused to accept Quantum Mechanics?

***{Barry, I suspect that you are aware of my contempt for "quantum
mechanics." (I have certainly hinted at it often enough.) Needless to say,
I hesitate to criticize Einstein because he refused to accept it, when I
do not accept it myself! I will say this, though: my measure of whether I
have "lost" an argument is simply whether I continue to believe, after the
argument, that the position I took is the stronger. The issue is whether,
with the benefit of hindsight, I would feel more comfortable arguing the
same way or the opposite way.  As for whether Einstein thought he had
"lost" his famous argument with Bohr in this sense, I really do not know.
I will, however, admit to a strong suspicion that Einstein felt that he
had lost. The reason: Einstein's theories were, at root, flawed in
essentially the same way as Bohr's. (Both denied the validity of the
principle of continuity.) Since Bohr's denial was more consistently
practiced, I consider it likely that he "won" the argument, for whatever
that is worth. --Mitchell Jones}***   
> 
> In short, your depiction of science as a series of winning
> and losing arguments is the sort of viewpoint only a non-scientist
> could hold. 

***{A silly statement, Barry! No law of man or of nature requires a
scientist to accept logical positivism! There were scientists for
centuries before Ernst Mach put forth his inchoate theories. Many of them
conceived of science as a search for truth, not as a ritualistic game of
"hypothesis testing" in which the very existence of "ultimate truth" was
explicitly and formally denied. Perhaps you are confusing the requirements
of philosophical correctness, as they apply in many university
environments, for the definition of what a scientist ought to be!
--Mitchell Jones}***

  Scientists go around looking at things, trying to 
> understand how they work. Useful paradigms for understanding
> persist, non-useful ones much less so. One need not ``believe'' the 
> useful paradigms

***{If the strongest argument, relative to an issue, is the best
approximation to the truth that we have, then the conclusion of that
argument is what we *ought* to believe. I accept that, and so all I have
to do to form an opinion about a topic is assess the strength of the
various cases that can be made, pro and con, on the issue. Once I have an
opinion about which argument is stronger, the conclusion of that argument
becomes my opinion. This is a wonderful system, because it frees me from
subjective biases. If, in the process of trying to defend a position, I
discover a line of reasoning that I cannot answer, I am forced *by
definition* to call the conclusion of that reasoning my opinion. That, in
my view, is absolutely wonderful. Why would anyone want to form opinions
any other way? --Mitchell Jones}***

, nor even like them, and may even spend considerable 
> effort to replace them, as the case of Einstein and QM. Making use
> of a paradigm does not amount to altering ones beliefs.

***{Why not? What is the source of this hangup about changing your
opinion, Barry? If you should ever try it, you will discover that it
neither blinds your eye nor breaks your leg! --Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
> --
> Barry Merriman
> UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
> UCLA Dept. of Math
> bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.12 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: CFV: sci.physics.fusion.naysayers
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CFV: sci.physics.fusion.naysayers
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 95 01:55:16 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Corporation

In article <x-MBNQZ.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
>Bob Sullivan <bsulliva@sky.net> writes:
> 
>>You will find, however, that measuring input and output temperature 
>>differences and electric energy input is both inadequate to to measure 
furnace 
>>efficiencies and inadequate to demonstrate cold fusion. [Partial hint: you 
>>need to measure the chemical energy input to the furnace.]
> 
>Again, you are saying thing that everyone here knows, and that you know
>damn well I understand. I do not need to tell you that CF cells do not
>consume any chemical fuel.
> 
>>By the way, why don't you "read the literature" on A/C COPs, you will be in 
>>for a BIG SURPRISE! A/Cs routinely operate at over-unity COP's. A COP > 4.0 
is 
> 
>I also understand what a heat pump is and how it works. I have posted many,
>many messages about heat pumps. If you are at all familiar with my work you
>would know that. If you are not familiar with my work then do not presume
>I have never read any elementary textbooks on heat engines.
> 
>CF devices cannot be heat pumps either. This has been demonstrated in
>countless papers.
> 
>- Jed




Lets put things back into context, Jed. Earlier, you said:

>>>Bullshit! Claims of excess heat for furnaces and air conditioners could be
>>>INSTANTLY disproved with thermometers and electric energy measurements.
>>>Any high school kid can prove that. Thousands of times a day, all over the
>>>world, HVAC technicians measure heater and air conditioner performance with
>>>thermometers and electric power meters, and 
>>>_they_always_come_with_COP_ratings_less_than_100%_. [emphasis added]

To which I later responded:

>>By the way, why don't you "read the literature" on A/C COPs, you will be in 
>>for a BIG SURPRISE! A/Cs routinely operate at over-unity COP's. A COP > 4.0 
>>is not unusual for a top-of-the-line residential A/C.

Ignoring your earlier colossal blunder on COPs, you now have the audacity to 
claim that you, in effect, wrote the book on heatpumps:

>I also understand what a heat pump is and how it works. I have posted many,
>many messages about heat pumps. If you are at all familiar with my work you
>would know that. If you are not familiar with my work then do not presume
>I have never read any elementary textbooks on heat engines.

Just like the Energizer Bunny, you just keep going, and going, and . . .

Here's a nickel.  Buy yourself a clue.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.11 /  physics@atl-in /  Risky! Was Re: Sonoluminescence Water
     
Originally-From: physics@atl-intl.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Risky! Was Re: Sonoluminescence Water
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 23:35:09 UNDEFINED
Organization: Interport Communications Corp.

In article <42n10i$ji5@newsbf02.news.aol.com> iweld4u@aol.com (I Weld 4U) writes:

>batch. My proposed process would be to boil water in the microwave for
>five minutes in a pressure cooker and then cool without breaking the

If your pressure cooker is conductive metal, e.g. steel, putting
it into a microwave oven is not recommended, to put it mildly.

   David E. Miller
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenphysics cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.09 / Jim Bowery /  cmsg cancel <jaboweryDEnAEF.Jxw@netcom.com>
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.energy,sci.space.tech,sci.physics.plasma
Subject: cmsg cancel <jaboweryDEnAEF.Jxw@netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 1995 15:44:39 GMT
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access

Xposted into sci.physics.plasma by accident by sci.space.tech moderator, 
being cancelled and reposted w/o that group in newsgroups list.

-george william herbert
gherbert@crl.com  Moderator, sci.space.tech & sci.space.science
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.13 / Richard Blue /  Re: 27,458 skeptics
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 27,458 skeptics
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 13:40:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This group's leading nonscientist continues to reveal his lack of
understanding of the scientific process.  Jed Rothwell, without shame, asserts
that, "Those who are convinced it (CF) is real do not believe in any
particular hypothesis or theory."

That is, indeed, the essence of the problem we have with the cold fusion
advocates.  They continue to assert that a weird assortment of data from
various unrelated experiments constitutes evidence for the reality of
cold fusion, but they have no definition to offer for that very term, cold
fusion.  Since they offer no hypothesis there is none to be tested.  As
a defensive strategy it is an effective way to avoid being shot down by
scientific argument.  However, in this case, a good defense does not
serve as an offense.  Cold fusion investigations are going nowhere, a fact
that becomes increasingly evident with the passage of time.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.12 / Jim Bowery /  Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.energy,sci.space.tech,mis
.industry.utilities.electric
Subject: Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 1995 04:55:00 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Bruce Scott TOK (bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de) wrote:

: I'll bet against this.  

It's not that simple.  The Idea Futures Exchange requires you to trade on
the odds.  

Right now the IFE has the odds at between 5% and 10%.  If you think it is 
less likely than 5% you can sell at 5% and make, at a maximum, 5% on your 
money if you are right.
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
                 Change the tools and you change the rules.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.11 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: CFV: sci.physics.fusion.naysayers
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CFV: sci.physics.fusion.naysayers
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 95 04:54:46 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Corporation

In article <h7BAFuV.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
>Bob Sullivan <bsulliva@sky.net> writes:
> 
>>It's not fatuous nonsense, Jed. It only is only mirrors your own uncritical 
>>analysis of excess heat claims. Obviously, claims of excess heat fail for 
>>furnaces and air conditioners. Now you are close to the point where you can 
>>admit that thermometers and electric energy measurements are inadequate to 
>>demonstrate cold fusion. If anything is impeding discussion it's your 
failure 
> 
>Bullshit! Claims of excess heat for furnaces and air conditioners could be
>INSTANTLY disproved with thermometers and electric energy measurements.
>Any high school kid can prove that. Thousands of times a day, all over the
>world, HVAC technicians measure heater and air conditioner performance with
>thermometers and electric power meters, and they always come with COP ratings
>less than 100%. Anyone who says that calorimetry is not "adequate to
>demonstrate cold fusion" is a complete scientific ignoramus, First Class.
>Thermometers and electric power meters have been used for this very purpose
>since before the U.S. civil war.
> 
>- Jed

Of course, HVAC technicians know how to measure HVAC efficiencies, silly 
goose. If you would take the time to actually read what I wrote, you'll see 
that I didn't say anything to the contrary.  

You will find, however, that measuring input and output temperature 
differences and electric energy input is both inadequate to to measure furnace 
efficiencies and inadequate to demonstrate cold fusion. [Partial hint: you 
need to measure the chemical energy input to the furnace.]

By the way, why don't you "read the literature" on A/C COPs, you will be in 
for a BIG SURPRISE! A/Cs routinely operate at over-unity COP's. A COP > 4.0 is 
not unusual for a top-of-the-line residential A/C. Commercial units with 
cooling towers have even higher COPs. No, I'm not claiming that any 
conservation laws are violated. Read the literature, it's fascinating, and you 
might learn a thing or two. You might even start to grasp what I am saying to 
you. 

Amazing! It certainly surprises me that thermometers and electric power (sic) 
meters have been used to demonstrate cold fusion since before the U. S. Civil 
War. It may surprise a few others, too. Did you find this in the literature?
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.12 /   /  Re: ? Singularity Technology ?
     
Originally-From: <singtech@teleport.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ? Singularity Technology ?
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 1995 01:10:16 -0800
Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016

In article <431rgf$f0o@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry
Merriman) wrote:

> In article <-1009952000220001@ip-salem2-07.teleport.com>  
> <singtech@teleport.com> writes:
> 
> > At least, I would think you and others should have the good character to
> > hold back belittling those with new ideas even if you think their work not
> > worthy of praise.  But when you belittle them you serve no one.
> > 
> > 
> > Since, they are [hot fusion] depleting our pocketbooks, and think they have
> > the righteous right to do so, I think a little belittling is their due.
> > 
> 
> That is an interesting hypocrisy you subscribe to: any flake can post
> wacky ideas, and they should not be belittled. But real scientists who
> have invested their lives into developing a new energy technology 
> deserve to be belittled....

Well, that is a narrow view, Barry, even for you.  'Flakes' as you are
want to describe them; and you weren't necessarily pointed in who that
might be, so let's just consider them those persons not connected in such
a manner so as to be able to obtain tax money to support their ideas, are
not, by definition here, taking my tax money.  So as far as I am
concerned, their alternate views of reality are certainly welcomed.  Just
as the views of any 'non-flake' are also welcome.  Taking my tax money
isn't welcome.  Conning a nation isn't welcome.  You seem to assume that
the 'flakes' are also those who haven't devoted their lives to any pursuit
of truth (or your version of it which might be 'new energy technology'). 
Again, how very narrow and judgemental of you.

The day that the entire military industrial whore complex (or would that
be conplex?) of scientists gets dismantled can't happen too soon.

I have little choice to allow or disallow funding for any project which
might suit the fancy of the myriad of scientists supported at places such
as LANL or PPPL so the portion of my taxes devoted to DOE, DOD, etc. which
gets funneled to such places are so funneled without my assent.  Sure -
write my congressman.  What can be done by or within the law is not always
moral.  I consider any national expenditures made past 1958 after closure
of Project Sherwood to accomplish fusion to have been pretty much an
ongoing con game.  Not all players are cons by intent but they are all
Welfare Queens In White Coats in spite of their intentions or character. 
Fusion should be pretty much bought and paid for by private money, not tax
money.

There is always this war going on in this and a few other newsgroups -
driven mainly - I believe by a certain envy of those who have not the
funding toward those who do.  That's half of the war.  The other half is
the 'snooty' demeanor of the establishment scientists toward those who are
not in their 'guild'.  Considering that the 'halfs' I mentioned are not
quantitative terms but merely figures of speech indicating significant
portions, we could proceed with 'other' components which make for the
battle without really going over unity.  So - another 'half' might be
derived from the rancor that establishment scientists (again, not naming
all) sometimes express toward novel ideas which they are incapable of
considering.  Another component could just as easily be said to be derived
from the 'flakes', as you have called them, anger toward the
'establishment' for obvious dead-ends pursued at the expense of billions
in tax dollars.  Maybe we are over unity here and actually have enough for
several wars - which we see carried out daily in these newsgroups.

I think these sorts of things really detract from all of us.  Our
involvement in these bitter exchanges makes us all lesser men than we
could be.  So instead of a pleasant exchange of ideas we all become
polarized.  Instead of patiently listening to ideas we all go on the
attack.  And many are only here to see, feel, and be part of the disputes
that arise, almost like the crowds that appear at places like Daytona,
secretly hoping for violent wrecks, etc.  These bitter exchanges appeal to
our baser qualities.  I, for one, have participated far more in these
exchanges than reasonable decorum would allow.  And I actually regret not
making better use of my time.  But here I am anyway puttin up an argument
against attitudes of superiority such as you seem to be good at conveying.

Best Regards,

-- 






I sought the fount of fire in hollow reed,
Hid privily, a measureless resource
For man, and mighty teacher of all arts.  - Aeschylus ..Prometheus Bound

email> singtech@teleport.com
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudensingtech cudln cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.12 / sci aeronautics /  cmsg cancel <DEKspr.E0v@goodnet.com>
     
Originally-From: sci.aeronautics <DEKsKt.BMH@goodnet.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <DEKspr.E0v@goodnet.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 1995 16:53:46 GMT
Organization: GoodNet (602)303-9500

Cancelled because it's spam.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenBMH cudfnsci cudlnaeronautics cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.12 / Norman Yarvin /  Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005
     
Originally-From: yarvin-norman@CS.YALE.EDU (Norman Yarvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.energy,sci.space.tech,mis
.industry.utilities.electric
Subject: Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005
Date: 12 Sep 1995 03:10:11 -0400
Organization: Yale Computer Science Department

jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>Bruce Scott TOK (bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de) wrote:
>
>: I'll bet against this.  
>
>It's not that simple.  The Idea Futures Exchange requires you to trade on
>the odds.  
>
>Right now the IFE has the odds at between 5% and 10%.  If you think it is 
>less likely than 5% you can sell at 5% and make, at a maximum, 5% on your 
>money if you are right.

Unfortunately it isn't real money.  Darn anti-gambling laws :-).  It'd
be rather nice to be able to deprive rabid fusion zealots of their
money.

Of course 5% interest for 10 years is a lot less than my bank pays me.
My bank is likely to actually pay the money, too. :-)


--
Norman Yarvin						yarvin@cs.yale.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudennorman cudfnNorman cudlnYarvin cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.12 / A Plutonium /  Re: Censorship of my posts?
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci
chem,sci.bio.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Censorship of my posts?
Date: 12 Sep 1995 11:39:12 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <432grg$k52@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

> 
>   Perhaps 30 posts were censored and deleted yesterday. It was not I.
> And I asked a person in charge here at Dartmouth, reply being "not
> Dartmouth."  Hence, someone outside has forged my name and cancelled 30
> of my posts. Is it really that easy?

Here is one of the forged cancels:

]Path: ...!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!bga.com!news
]From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
]Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math
]Subject: cmsg cancel <42tlst$vk0@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
]Control: cancel <42tlst$vk0@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
]Date: 10 Sep 1995 21:21:50 GMT
]Organization: Real/Time Communications - Bob Gustwick and Associates
]Lines: 1
]Message-ID: <42vkte$324@giga.bga.com>
]NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.181.162.16
]
]Article cancelled from NR/2
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.12 / A Plutonium /  Forged checks now forged posts; laws concerning forgery
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci
chem,sci.bio.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Forged checks now forged posts; laws concerning forgery
Date: 12 Sep 1995 11:44:36 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <433rh0$aaf@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

> ]Subject: cmsg cancel <42tlst$vk0@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
> ]Control: cancel <42tlst$vk0@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
> ]Date: 10 Sep 1995 21:21:50 GMT
> ]Organization: Real/Time Communications - Bob Gustwick and Associates
> ]Lines: 1

]     Section 2707(d)(2) refers to the defense set forth in 18 U.S.C.
]Sec. 2518(7).  This defense is not relevant in this context.  Section
]2518(7) refers to the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic
]communication and applies only to "any investigative or law
enforcement
]officer, specially designated by the Attorney General, the Deputy
Attorney
]General, the Associate Attorney General, or by the principal
prosecuting
]attorney of any State or subdivision thereof acting pursuant to a
statute
]of that State . . . ."  18 U.S.C. Sec. 2518(7).
]
]     Section 2707(d)(3) refers to the defense set forth in 18 U.S.C.
]Sec. 2511(3).  This defense is also not relevant in this context. 
Section
]2511(3): (a) states the general rule that "a person or entity
providing an
]electronic communication service to the public shall not intentionally
]divulge the contents of any communication (other than one to such
person
]or entity, or an agent thereof) while in transmission on that service
to
]any person or entity other than an addressee or intended recipient of
such
]communication or an agent of such addressee or intended recipient";
and
](b) sets forth the exceptions where such a person or entity "may
divulge
]the contents of any such communication."  18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511(3).
]
]     Section 2701(c)(3) refers to the defense set forth in 18 U.S.C.
]Sec. 2703.  This defense is also not relevant.  Section 2703 sets
forth the
]"[r]equirements for governmental access."  18 U.S.C. Sec. 2703.
]
]     Section 2701(c)(3) also refers to the defense set forth in 18
U.S.C.
]Sec. 2704.  This defense is also not relevant.  Section 2704 sets
forth the
]circumstances under which a governmental agency "may include in its
]subpoena or court order a requirement that the service provider to
whom the
]request is directed create a backup copy of the contents of the
electronic
]communications sought in or
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.12 / Eric Albers /  Re: Censorship of my posts?
     
Originally-From: erica@nowhere.com  (Eric Albers)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.math,sci.chem,sci.bio.misc,sci.phy
ics.fusion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Censorship of my posts?
Date: 12 Sep 1995 11:45:10 GMT
Organization: Internet Interstate

In <4335qc$342u@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>, Michael Varney <mcvarney@holly
colostate.edu> writes:
>
>
>Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) 
>wrote:
>>In article <432h7a$k52@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>>Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
>>
>>>  Has anyone seen any of my 30 cancelled posts.
>>
>>  I found out it was anonymously forged cancels of my posts.
>>
>>What or who is :    bga.com.
>>
>>  And, if no action is taken and my posts are further compromised in
>>the future. Please tell, how I can do the same thing on other people,
>>lest I miss out on some fun.
>
>
>:-)
>
:-)))
Poor guy, someone cancelled his posts.

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenerica cudfnEric cudlnAlbers cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.10 / Horace Heffner /  Re: Kasagi 17 MeV protons
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kasagi 17 MeV protons
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 1995 16:34:17 -0900
Organization: none

In article <1995Sep1.140303.2389@plasma.byu.edu>, jonesse@plasma.byu.edu wrote:

[snip]  

> 
> The question is:  why not check out
> the claim?  This is rather straightforward given a 150 keV d+ beam and
> TiDx targets, and surface barrier detectors.  A delta-E & E telescope would
> be ideal; or one could simply use foil degraders to knock out the
> 3 MeV p signal from d+d to prevent interference from this reaction.
> 

[snip]


Does anyone know how much concrete shielding would be required to do this
experiment safely?  I am looking at doing another type of experiment that
involves high voltage and that probably would not cause any fusion
radiation. However, I would like to be safe in case there are any
surprises.

Thanks,

Horace

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

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.13 / Richard Blue /  Questionable Calorimetry
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Questionable Calorimetry
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 14:30:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Speaking for myself, as I generally do, I do question much of
the calorimetric evidence that has been presented to support
claims for cold fusion.  It does not automatically follow that
anyone who sets out to do calorimetry gets it right to arbitrary
precision everytime.

There are numerous examples in the CF literature where we have
signs that the claimed effect may be an artifact of sloppy
calorimetry.  The most general form that this takes is an improper
assessment of experimental error including a confusion between
randomly fluctuating results and a systematic bias.

There seems to be little recognition of the fact that many CF
positive results "disappear" if you make but a slight shift in
the calibration of the calorimeter.  It then is obvious to me
that the methods used to calibrate these devices should be
subject to careful scrutiny.  If, as indeed the case for one
famous experimenter, it is established that several different
methods lead to several different calorimeter constants I would
say it is established fact that there is no such thing as a
calorimeter "constant".  What you get is influenced by the nature
of the heat source and the conditions underwhich the measurements
are made.  There is no doubt that this potential for systematic
error exists.  It is just a question of determining the size of
the experimental error that may result.

Of course many of you will say that systematic error would be
recognized through cross comparisons among measurements made
using different setups in different laboratories.  That would
be the case if we were dealing with regular measurements that
are highly reproducible.  However, it is in the nature of the
results presented to support claims of cold fusion that appropriate
comparisons between different experimental runs cannot be made.
The results are very irregular so there is no way to recognize
systematic errors - unless you believe as I do that evidence
other than calorimetry must be provided to test the calorimetry.
That is to say I do not believe that the calorimetry has, in
every case, been made self-verifying to the required level of
accuracy.

What we do find if you consider all the calorimetry that has
been done is that the size of the claimed effect diminishes
as the precision of the calorimetry improves.  Now is that
not an interesting effect?

I think it may help to sort out those results of most recent
interest and classify the precision of the calorimetry.  Just
to get the ball rolling I offer my evaluations as follows:
    (1) Pons and Fleischmann - rather crude with slow data sampling rates
    (2) Miles - rather crude with slow data rates
    (3) Griggs - very crude
    (4) Cravens - poor with unspecified and uncontrolled ambient conditions
    (5) McKubre - improved precision led to decreasing effect
    (6) E-Quest - inadequate instrumentation

I also point out the fact that only three of these involve measurements
on the same system in any sense of that word.

I am not going to sign off on the "reality" of the calorimetry until
there is replication of more of the details in experiments where the
effect is more clearly something that can be controlled by variations
in experimental parameters.  Until that is achieved I think that
errors in calorimetry remain a likely explanation for the "effect."

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.13 / Richard Blue /  Re: Naysayers
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Naysayers
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 14:45:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell lists a number of statements in a manner intended
to imply that they were extracted from the posts of cold fusion
skeptics.  However, a few distortions have crept in.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.10 / Jim Carr /  Re: CFV: sci.physics.fusion.naysayers
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CFV: sci.physics.fusion.naysayers
Date: 10 Sep 1995 19:20:34 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <42kj0k$t7r@usenet.rpi.edu> tuttt@rpi.edu writes:
>
>How about a Conventional Fusion Newsgroup (MFE,ICF, etc.)?

Conventional fusion can be discussed here. 

If you are concerned with signal-to-noise, put a code like MFE or ICF 
or TFTR in the Subject line so that it is easily tracked by even a
semi-intelligent newsreader. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  What a long strange trip it's 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  been.        
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |              Jerry Garcia
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |                1942-1995 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.10 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: CFV: sci.physics.fusion.naysayers
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CFV: sci.physics.fusion.naysayers
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 95 22:09:33 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Bob Sullivan <bsulliva@sky.net> writes:
 
>It's not fatuous nonsense, Jed. It only is only mirrors your own uncritical 
>analysis of excess heat claims. Obviously, claims of excess heat fail for 
>furnaces and air conditioners. Now you are close to the point where you can 
>admit that thermometers and electric energy measurements are inadequate to 
>demonstrate cold fusion. If anything is impeding discussion it's your failure 
 
Bullshit! Claims of excess heat for furnaces and air conditioners could be
INSTANTLY disproved with thermometers and electric energy measurements.
Any high school kid can prove that. Thousands of times a day, all over the
world, HVAC technicians measure heater and air conditioner performance with
thermometers and electric power meters, and they always come with COP ratings
less than 100%. Anyone who says that calorimetry is not "adequate to
demonstrate cold fusion" is a complete scientific ignoramus, First Class.
Thermometers and electric power meters have been used for this very purpose
since before the U.S. civil war.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.11 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: Does it really matter?
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does it really matter?
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 95 01:20:21 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Corporation

In article <BDMD1mf.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
>Bob Sullivan <bsulliva@sky.net> writes:
> 
>>Non-rigorous, incomplete, inaccurate, and simply wrong analyses have not 
>>been eliminated as a source of error. Most of the claims will fall to close 
>>scrutiny. One or two may not, but until they are subjected to independent, 
> 
>They have been eliminated. They were eliminated years ago, by workers like
>McKubre and Fritz Will. You have not read the literature, you know nothing
>about their work, so your statements are totally in error. Unless you can
>show some source of error in the work at SRI, Los Alamos, KEK, IMRA and
>elsewhere you are wrong and I am right.
> 
>You think that you can prove there is a mistake just by waving your arms and
>repeating that statement over and over again. "A mistake, a mistake a mistake
>a mistake." That does not mean a damn thing! This is science, not voodoo.
>You think there is a mistake? Okay, show it to us. Put up or shut up.

Gee, Jed, do you really want to face up to the "stupid" facts?

What about the E-Quest results. The head gas samples sat for a couple of 
months before the guys could scrape up the bucks to have the sample analyzed. 
I'm sure they didn't plan it that way, and if they had the resources they 
would have had the analysis done immediately. Nevertheless, my stupid analysis 
says the delay throws the results into doubt. Perhaps an unavoidable error, 
but still a procedural error. 

What about the Cravens demo. The excess heat is not only non-proportion to 
input, my stupid spreadsheet analysis points to output unrelated to input. It 
looks like you get x amount of excess with large imputs, x amount with medium 
inputs, and x amount with teeny tiny inputs. I guess this was what you were 
talking about earlier when you told about output with no input. This may look 
like irrefutable proof of cold fusion to you, but it looks like pure and 
simple systematic error to me. Sure looks they're missing something in the 
analysis. Sort of like neglecting to take the natural gas input to a furnace 
into account when calculating the efficiency.

It would seem to this stupid person that you might want to eliminate the easy 
things before making any grand leaps, but of course, you know better.

Lot's of tests could be made. Analyze the chemistry of the cell liquid before 
and after the run. Analyze the chemistry of the head gases. Analyse chemistry 
of the cathode before and after the run. Got to a once-through design. Run the 
cell without any electrical input at all. Increase the size of the cell to see 
if it has any effect on the results. Actually make continuous recordings of 
the pressure drop across the cell. Lot's of non-nuclear things to do. You can 
huff and you can puff, but these "stupid" questions won't go away.

Gosh, we haven't even gotten to things nuclear, but some people will get the 
point even if you don't.

What about the Griggs Gadget? The stored heat hypothesis seems to be a better 
explanation that cold fusion.  Cooked numbers is an even more likely candidate 
-- like adjusting kilowatt-hours for power factor or using guesses in place of 
actual measurements. But, I guess stupid people shouldn't ask questions.

I could go on about things like Potapov devices, sonoluminescence, zero-point 
energy, but some people will understand. Excess energy claims are almost as 
common as claims of 'savings" from the telephone companies, and the excess 
energy claims are just as reliable.

>Where is it? These people published in the peer reviewed literature years
>ago. You have had 3 or 4 years to read their papers and find a mistake. So
>where is it? Nowhere! You haven't even read the papers. You are all bluster
>and bullshit, just like Dick Blue and Morrison. These people have *never*
>taken on *a single published paper* and found even one mistake. Oh sure, they
>talk about magical cigarette lighter effects that produce 150 effects, but
>anyone familliar with the literature knows that these effect can actually
>only produce 6 nanowatts. The problem is that Blue & Morrison don't
>understand what it means to be 8 orders of magnitude wrong -- or they
>pretend they don't know. Their "explanations" explain nothing. As for the
>rest of you "skeptics" none of you has the guts to even read McKubre or 
>Miles, and I am sure none of you could ever find any mistakes in their 
>papers. You have had 5 years, but you have never attempted to disprove even 
>*one* paper, so it is a cinch you never will try, because you know as well as 
>I do that you can't.
> 
>- Jed

5-yard delay-of-game penalty for the "you haven't read the literature" 
argument.

15-yard personal foul penalty for the ad hominem attacks.

You're not making arguments, Jed. You're just arguing, and you're doing more 
damage to yourself than to your "opponents."
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.11 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: How To Spend the $700
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How To Spend the $700
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 20:12:21 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <42d4js$qon@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, zoltanccc@aol.com
(ZoltanCCC) wrote:

> I have not yet contributed money but I have an oppinion.
> 
> 
> First of all 700 dollars is not a lot of money, but it could serve as a
> seed for a larger amount to be collected over some time.
> 
> I am a man of action but of course words are useful to make sure that when
> you act you are doing the right thing. 
> 
> What I have in mind is that we should collect money and simultaneously
> brainstorm on how to build a working nuclear reactor. Once we have enough
> money and we have developed the concept to maturity we build it and
> publish our results here.

***{Zoltan, you are a good guy, but I can't believe you have reached
adulthood without noticing that you can't just go out an build a nuclear
reactor and publish your results? Wake up, man! That stuff about "the land
of the free" is just window dressing! The reality is that in "modern"
Amerika (gee, an inadvertent misspelling!), we "free" folks have to kiss a
hundred bureaucratic butts for permission to go to bed at night! And, in
spite of that, you expect to just go out and build a nuclear reactor
because it seems like an intresting science project! Wow! This post is a
joke, right? --Mitchell Jones}***  
> 
> I would also be willing to construct the device since I have the means and
> some prerequisite knowledge.
> 
> Perhaps if the money is spent on supplies there would not be a tax
> problem. For example we could buy deuterium or some metal like titanium or
> lithium it would be a good start. I also think we need some process
> control electronics like a processor board and some i/o hardware.
> 
> Zoltan Szakaly

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Sep 14 04:37:05 EDT 1995
------------------------------
