1995.09.13 / Tom Droege /  Re: Questionable Calorimetry
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Questionable Calorimetry
Date: 13 Sep 1995 17:42:33 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <199509131425.KAA36149@pilot06.cl.msu.edu>, blue@pilot.msu.ed
 (Richard A Blue) says:

>in experimental parameters.  Until that is achieved I think that
>errors in calorimetry remain a likely explanation for the "effect."
>
>Dick Blue
>

I agree 100%.  As we wrote in our first cold fusion paper which presented
a "positive" result: "Still, there are enough calibration runs which show
too much heat and D2O runs which show little or no heat that the whole
process could be noise."

As time goes on, the measurements look more and more like "noise" to
me.  I have posted many articles noting the specifics of the "noise"
here.  

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.13 / Tom Droege /  Time to Clean Out the Laboratory
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Time to Clean Out the Laboratory
Date: 13 Sep 1995 17:45:19 GMT
Organization: fermilab

I am about to clean out the "cold fusion" laboratory to set 
up to do astronomy.  The calorimeter is broken, so I would
have to build a new one anyway if I wanted to do more work.
But it may be time to dispose of the chemicals and other 
possibly toxic stuff.  So a clean up is coming. 

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.14 / A Plutonium /  Censorship, making Internet threads better
     
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: Censorship, making Internet threads better
Date: 14 Sep 1995 00:26:48 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <436bir$qlj@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>
ajc@reaxp01.roe.ac.uk (Andrew Cooke) writes:

> 
>         personally i don't think you should worry too much.  it
>         was probably a one-off.  you probably post a lot more than
>         they have time to cancel.
> 
>         andrew

  Having read Andrew's post gave me an idea which I at one time thought
was already present in the mechanics of posting. One time I tried to
reply to a poster as a follow-up and could not.

  So here is an idea which I think is good and the computer people
might want to engineer and implement. In a post allow for a block
similar to the newsgroup block which allows or permits the sender to
"block" any person who was listed from following-up on your post. Call
it a "Nonpreference Block" and anyone listed in this block cannot
participate in that particular thread but would be bothered to start
their own new thread.  Or the reverse, have a "Preferred Poster Block"
which the sender of a post lists only those persons which he/she
desires a response from, and anyone else is electronically prohibited.

  Another idea, have a NonCancellation Block, which if checked, no
other post can cancel it. Such a block would at least slow down these
rampant forgery cancellations.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.13 / Ramon Prasad /  Re: A simple speculation
     
Originally-From: <100437.530@compuserve.com (Ramon Prasad)>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A simple speculation
Date: 13 Sep 1995 15:30:59 GMT
Organization: CompuServe Incorporated


zoltanccc@aol.com (Zoltan Szakaly) wrote (amongst other things):

>In a loaded lattice freely moving electrons, bound electrons, metal
>ions and protons or deuterons exist creating the possibility of 
>electron capture.

Taking this as a starting point and admitting straight away that we 
are involved in pure speculation, consider the following scenario:

(i) A deuteron located at some point within the palladium lattice
undergoes an electron capture process

                  D + e(-)   -->  2n  +  nu

The resulting object (two bound neutrons) is comparatively stable
(charge independence) and begins to float away from its location 
in th lattice (nothing to hold it there)

(ii) Two such objects collide and bind together (no Coulomb barriers)

                  2n + 2n  -->  4n

(iii) The resulting object is stable (charge independence again) and
can undergo single or double neutron beta decay

                  4n --> T + e(-) + nu
or
                  4n --> alpha + 2e(-) + 2 nu

with the available energy going into the kinetic energy of the decay
products. The products of this process are either tritium or helium. 
These will collide with the lattice and their kinetic energy converted
into heat.

We therefore require the lattice to promote electron capture with a 
high probability followed by the collision and binding together of the
neutral objects so formed. It could be that a high loading of the
palladium lattice with deuterium will promote both processes.

Very Best Wishes,Yours sincerely,
Ramon Prasad <internet:100437.530@compuserve.com>
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden530 cudfnRamon cudlnPrasad cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.13 / Jeff Tuckey /  Re: Censorship of my posts?
     
Originally-From: tuckey@nacto.lkg.dec.com (Jeff Tuckey)
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: 13 Sep 1995 19:40:25 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - High Performance Networks


In article <435sv6$b23@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, dasmiller@aol.com (Das Miller) writes:
|>from  falk@peregrine.eng.sun.com (Ed Falk):
|>
|>>Content-based censorship is unacceptable.
|>
|>Of course, this begs the question . .  if 
|>content isn't sufficient, what is?  And if 
|>nothing is, why the reference to content?
|>
|> 

current netiquette allows** for censorship of spamming, which just means 
massive crossposting (posting to 20 groups or more is a rule of thumb
to qualify as spamming)...  

this silly thread is propagating to 8 groups, which is a bit spammish.
followups directed to just sci.physics where the noise is already so
high, so this won't matter much...

keep in mind of course, that anyone sufficiently clever enough and
with enough time on her hands can learn how to forge cancels.  this is
all it takes to be a net policeman. they are self elected. in general,
the net police have followed reasonable netiquette in their activity
-- but there is nothing to prevent abuse on their part, afterall
their cancels are just 'forged' to begin with... it's all a very slippery
slope.  

isn't anarchy fun ?   now if the U.S. government would stop suppressing 
encryption and authentication technology, we might be able to come up
with other political approaches (democratic, oligarchic, socialistic, etc.)
that are sound in their technological foundations... but perhaps
its a good thing that governments haven't figured this out just yet... 


**: i say 'allows' only because this practice does happen on the net 
in a fairly organized manner and the net community hasn't gotten too upset
over it.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudentuckey cudfnJeff cudlnTuckey cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.13 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 14:32:43 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <436rc5$fo0@wu.cse.tek.com>, arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie
Frisch) wrote:

> In article <pLGgkV7.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> .......
> ....
> ..
> >I gathered from this informal conversation that HTSC work about as well as
> >CF cathodes. You can make most of them work, maybe half or two-thirds, but
> >you never know how well they will work or how strong the effect will be,
> >or exactly where the cut-off temperature is. Perhaps they have improved by
> >now.
> 
> 
> Again, you are all wet!
> 
> HTSC devices not only are uniformly accepted as fact, they are actually
> made and sold as products!  They fly in satellites.  They do useful
> things.

***{Arnold, you are the one who is all wet. In the factory, the devices
are tested and sorted into categories depending upon current carrying
capacity, etc. Bad ones--and there are plenty--are sorted into the trash.
Next, the good devices are labeled, packaged, and offered for sale. At
that point, individual devices are reliable: you know how each one will
perform, because it has been measured, and its performance categories are
noted on the package. That, however, does nothing to undercut Jed's
statement: he was obviously talking about the predictability of the
manufacturing process itself. The point is that, before sorting and
measuring, there is no way to know how well a particular device will work,
or what its performance characteristics will be. This is basically the
same situation as the one that applies to CF cathodes, transistors, SCR's,
and multitudes of other solid state devices. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> Where the hell is Pons' and Fleischmann's water heater?
> 
> Arnold Frisch
> Tektronix Laboratories
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Any ideas or opinions expressed here do not necessarily
> reflect the ideas or opinions of my employer.
> --------------------------------------------------------

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.13 / Cary Jamison /  Re: Does it really matter?
     
Originally-From: cary@svl.trw.com (Cary Jamison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does it really matter?
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 12:17:42 -0700
Organization: TRW ASG

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

> Bob Sullivan <bsulliva@sky.net> writes:
>  
> >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
>  
> That is correct. Excess heat is governed by loading and other controlling
> parameters. Input electricity plays a role in establishing loading, but
> once the metal is loaded and the reaction starts, input power no longer
> matters as much. In some cases, you can turn off power altogether and the
> reaction continues. This is called "heat after death."

Are you saying that Cravens has also seen "heat after death" or are you
mixing various experiments again?  If he has seen it, have there been
others also, besides P&F, that have reported it?


-- 
Cary Jamison
cary@svl.trw.com
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudencary cudfnCary cudlnJamison cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.15 / 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: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 12:50:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Zoltan, I continue to be a faithful reader of this newsgroup.  However,
as I see it the "theories" involving electron capture don't yet make
sufficient contact with reality to have inspired much comment on my part.

You are one of those who speaks of electron shells and the space required
to form electron shells as if those electrons were marbles being packed
into an array.  That picture is wrong, very wrong.  It has no connection
to real atomic physics.  It is misleading to think and talk in those terms,
and it misdirects your attention away from the physics.  You cannot possibly
arrive at an explanation of cold fusion or anything else by employing such
arguments.

Electron capture is a real phenomenon, and I would say that it is well
understood.  The rates for the process and the circumstances underwhich
those rates become significant are known.  If you want to consider a
possible role for electron capture in some cold fusion process you have
to make a connection between that knowledge and the conditions appropriate
for describing the PdD lattice.  It is all in the numbers.  If you don't
have the numbers you don't have anything, and so far I have not seen any
numbers.

Since the claim has always been that cold fusion is a rare event requiring
precisely the proper (unspecified) conditions before it will occur at all
your theory must involve some description of those very special conditions.
We know, for a fact, that cold fusion does not occur under most circumstances.
Does your theory set out those conditions in which it will not occur?

Setting aside all questions as to how cold fusion may be induced, we should
still expect to see that you take a few basic conservation principles into
account.  I would like to see you track through your model reaction with
energy conservation in mind, for example.  For starters you should note
that it takes energy to squeeze deuterons and/or electrons into locations
where they do not ordinarily reside.  Furthermore you cannot assume that
the addition of a deuteron to a lattice site previously empty has no effect
on that lattice.  Finally you must remember that plain old quantum mechanics
has to be considered.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.14 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,
ci.astro,sci.energy,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.particle,
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 14 Sep 1995 02:23:42 GMT
Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here.

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
: The point is that the atomic cross sections for soft X-rays are much, 
: much bigger than the nuclear cross sections (by a factor of 10^8 - 
: 10^10).  So, if you want to induce fusion using X-rays you'll waste way 
: more energy on the photons that "don't make it" than you'll gain from 
: the few which do.  

That's why Bombs work by having that massive pulse of soft X-rays squeeze 
and evenly hit big fat atoms which themselves contain the fusion fuel.

: Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu	|  chances are he is doing just the same"
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.13 / Ramon Prasad /  Re: A simple speculation
     
Originally-From: <100437.530@compuserve.com (Ramon Prasad)>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A simple speculation
Date: 13 Sep 1995 20:46:06 GMT
Organization: CompuServe Incorporated


In my letter with this title I made a mistke in omitting an 'n' from 
the decay products in one process:

                4n --> T + e(-) + nu + n

In this case the  4n object is not stable but decays into a triton,
neutron with a simultaneous beta decay. Of course I have no 
evidence that the 4n object exists, but if it did it could explain 
qualitativly heat production and nuclear products without having 
to overcome a Coulomb barrier.

Very Best Wishes, Yours sincerely,
Ramon Prasad <internet:100437.530@compuserve.com>
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden530 cudfnRamon cudlnPrasad cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.15 / Richard Blue /  Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 13:05:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

At last a cold fusion advocate has had the guts to make a hypothesis
that is testable.  Mitchell Jones proposes a mechanism for the Griggs
phenomenon that produces copius 2.22 MeV gamma rays.  In fact, if you
track the energy release I believe that almost all the energy will be
in those gammas.  Now a 10 kW gamma source would be a signal that is
hard to miss!  Where do those gamma rays go, Mitchell?  Don't tell me
that they just get absorbed in the water.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.13 / Horace Heffner /  Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion"
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion"
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 17:39:11 -0900
Organization: none

In article <21cenlogic-1109951052420001@austin-1-9.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:

> In article <hheffner-0609951722310001@204.57.193.72>,
> hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner) wrote:
> 
> > 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                                                           
      ^^^^^^
It just can't do this without detection of a voltage reduction and current
reduction at the cathode, which doesn't happen. What does happen is an
inflow (current) of electrons to balance the charges in the conductor.
This was understood in Faraday's time.

> > > 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)
                                  ^^^^^^^

This just can not happen, can it?  Where is the ionization potential
coming from to dislodge this trapped atom?  If there is none the atom is
trapped. There can be no H diffusion into the electrode because all the
surface sites would be occupied and thus blocked, which is contrary to
fact. Massive volumes of H diffuse into the lattice, more than one for
every site. If what you are saying were true, diffusion would be only a
surface effect.


> > > 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
> 
> ***{Note: the radius of the innermost Bohr orbit is .53 Å, and that of the
> H+ ion (a proton) is .0000137 Å. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> > > > 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.
>  
> ***{It is misleading to refer to this lattice as cubic. The smallest unit
                                                   ^^^^^^

Please note above, I referred to Pd as "cubic, face centered", which it
is, as opposed to "cubic" or "cubic, body centered".


> cell consists of two four-sided pyramids (e.g., like the Egyptian
> pyramids) joined base-to-base. The faces of each pyramid are equilateral
> triangles with a side length of about 2.67 Å. The cubic unit cell to which
> you refer is three times as large, and is not a satisfactory conceptual
> unit for present purposes. The reason: when loading takes place, it is the
> double-pyramid unit cells that are loaded--i.e., that have H atoms placed
> in their centers. --Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
> 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. 
>  
> ***{Using the calculated bond length of 2.67 Å rather than the published
> one, the size of the entry hole in one of the triangular pyramid faces is
> large enough to permit the passage of a sphere with a radius of .206 Å.
> This means entry is permitted only to H+ (protons) or D+ (deuterons). A
> neutral hydrogen atom is too large to pass through the face and into the
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

And thereby you have disproved your own theory!  The surface of the
elctrode must become blocked.  No diffusion is possible.


> unit cell. Once inside the cell, of course, there is room in the center
> for a sphere of radius .55 Å, which will accomodate one neutral H atom
> with its electron orbiting at the innermost Bohr radius of .53 Å. To get
> there, however, its parts must enter as separate charged particles--i.e.,
> as a proton and an electron---and combine after they are inside. At this
> point, it is appropriate to ask ourselves what sort of loading ratios
> result from such a process. For example, if there is one H atom inside
> each unit cell of the lattice, what is the loading ratio? Well, for an
> infinite lattice the count of unit cells is simply three times the count
> of the number of Pd atoms in the lattice. (Since each Pd atom in a layer
> is the top of a vertical unit cell in the two layers below it, the number
> of vertical unit cells equals the number of Pd atoms in the lattice. The
> same is true of unit cells oriented right to left and front to back. Hence
> there are 3 times as many unit cells as Pd atoms in the lattice.) If we
> stuff a single, neutral H atom into each unit cell, therefore, we would
> have a ratio of 3 H to every Pd! It therefore follows that, for the



I just don't understand this. Maybe you could explain further.  I suspect
we might be talking about two different geometries, in which case it is
highly probable my conception is wrong.  I did the geometry above off the
top of my head, so that adds credence to what *you* are saying. I guess
I'll just have to make a trip to the library to find something simple with
pictures!  

However, let me explain something else I am thinking so it will be easier
to clear this up.  Each cell has one and only one top vertex. Each atom is
the top of only one cell. So it seems that this represents a 1-1
relationship of cells to atoms. A loading above 100% implies there are at
least two H stuffed into at least 1 cell, by the pidgeonhole pricipl.
Extending the logic, unless there is sufficient lattice expansion or
cracking to take care of it, every H atom over 100% loading must exist in
a cell with other H atoms.   


> loading ratios that are actually seen (not much above .8), more than two
> thirds of the unit cells are unoccupied.  --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> 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.) 
> 
> ***{I never said they would block entry. They are, in fact, too small to
> block entry. They do, however, carry their positive charges with them into
> the lattice until such time as they meet up with outgoing electrons. Since
> protons are more than 1837 times as massive as electrons, their drift
> velocities in the lattice are vastly reduced, and they tend to not
> penetrate very deeply before being neutralized. Thus the positive charge
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

And therefore block the surface to additional diffusion.


> that migrates to the cathode will be concentrated in the outer regions of
> the lattice. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
>  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.
> 
> ***{The fact that a minority of the sites are occupied by H+ ions at a
> given instant is not a problem. The absolutely crucial point here is not
> that the surface of the cathode acquires the full positive charge of the
> anode, but rather that H+ ions *must* penetrate into the lattice before
> being neutralized in order for loading to take place. The reason:
> electrons that are given over to H+ ions before they enter the unit cells

This is not true if "given over" does not include stripping the electron
from the conduction band. All that is required is that an electron charge
be paired, ie.e brought to close proximity, not that a bond forms or that
the electron must leave the conduction band.


> of the lattice result in gas production, not loading. Once a particular
> unit cell is occupied by an H+ ion, the next step is to hand it an
> electron, converting it into a neutral H atom which, because the radius of
> the innermost Bohr orbit is .53 Å, is now trapped inside the unit cell.
> This is the way the lattice is loaded, *because it has to be.* To repeat:
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is not true. For example, I gave an alternative theory in my Straw
Horse Hypothesis now posted.


> electrons that are given over to H+ ions before they enter the unit cells
> of the lattice result in gas production, not loading. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> > 
> > 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
> > dissected.
> 
> ***{I am not sure why you are presenting an alternative model here. None
> of the statements that you made above revealed any reason for rejecting
> the model that I have proposed. If your difficulty lies solely in the

My difficulty lies in the fact that your model does not take into account
the bipolar nature of water, nor the fact that electrodes are perfectly
capable of conducting the most minute currents and voltages, and that
unbalanced charge inside a conductor, especially as a macro phenomena,
does not agree with experimental facts, or even Faraday's theory and
experiments. You ask me to give up too much personal experience without
any apparent reason.


> implication, admittedly conveyed by my early description, that the full
> anode charge migrates to the surface of the cathode, then let me emphasize
> again that this is not necessary. What is necessary--absolutely
> necessary--is that H+ ions enter the lattice cells before they receive

Not true again, for reasons above.

> electrons. This fact implies that there is going to be some degree of
> migration of the anode charge into the outer portion of the cathode, but
> does not necessitate that the full anode charge do so. --Mitchell
> Jones}***  
> > 
> > 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?
> 
> ***{To repeat: I do not see a need for an alternative model. A voltage
> gradient is all that is required to attract an H+ ion into the unit cells
> of the cathode. It doesn't have to be "forced" in: the openings in the
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Even though pressure increase at the surface of an electrode is an effect,
I think you are right about this. The H+ atom will induce a - charge on
the cathode in it's vivinity, thus further attracting itself to the
electrode, generating a demand for more current, and electrostatically,
but losely bonding itself to the lattice. By losely I mean both the H+ ion
and the induced electron are free to move through the lattice, it's just
that motion generated phonons would slow them down.


> triangular faces of the unit cells are large enough for it to move in
> *very* easily--as easily as a fly into an amphitheater, in fact. Remember:
> an H+ is simply a proton--i.e., the nucleus of a hydrogen atom. The
> standard formula, curve-fitted to the experimental data, for computing the
> radius of a nucleus is simply r = (1.37E-13)A^(1/3), where r is the radius
> in cm and A is the mass number. For H+ the mass number (number of protons
> plus number of neutrons) is 1, so r = 1.37E-13 cm = .0000137 A.  Once
> inside the cathode, such an H+ ion will drift toward the electron source
> until it acquires an orbital electron. At that point, it will become an
> electrically neutral H atom, with an effective radius as per the innermost
> Bohr orbit (.53 Å or slightly larger). This means, roughly speaking, that
> its radius will increase by four orders of magnitude when it captures an
> electron, and it will become trapped in the unit cell which it is

Trapped, thus preventing futher diffusion, means what you say is at odds
with the facts.

> occupying at that time. --Mitchell Jones}*** 
> > 

[snip]


> 
> ***{At this point, I would like to toss out what I call the protoneutron
> theory of "cold fusion." If this theory is correct, then "cold fusion"
> ain't fusion! 
> 

This is about all I can deal with at this time. I have various private
email discussions going, and no time for real world stuff like sleep. I am
beginning to wonder if getting this internet accout was such a good idea! 


You have my admiration and respect for publishing your theory I and look
foreward to delving into it.


> Needless to say, I present the protoneutron theory as a hypothesis subject
> to verification or falsification. If it proves to be indefensible, then I
> will abandon it. On that, you have my absolute guarantee. --Mitchell
> Jones}***
> 
> ===========================================================

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

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.14 / Martin Sevior /  Kasagi data: I withdraw my "explanation"
     
Originally-From: msevior@axnd02.cern.ch (Martin Sevior)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Kasagi data: I withdraw my "explanation"
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 01:16:25 GMT
Organization: CERN European Lab for Particle Physics

Thanks to Professor Jones for FAXXing me the Kasagi paper. After reading
the paper it's obvious that the authors did carefully consider the effects
of the 3He recoiling through the deuterium loaded lattice. In fact they
considered it far more carefully than I, performed
a full simulation of the process and found that the majority of the
excess protons at around 15 MeV are well explained by this process.

However there remains a broad spectrum of protons between 12 MeV and 17
MeV that are not explained by this effect, particularly at 155 degrees.

In addition the energy distribution of alpha particles up 6.5 MeV cannot
be explained via this mechanism.

Although Robert Heeter is right in that if you consider the energy range
of alpha's emitted from both

3He + d => p + alpha and T + d => n + alpha

You can get to 6.5 MeV.

However these high energy alpha's are emitted in the forward direction
and the detectors are placed in the backward hemisphere so the high energy
alpha's don't get to the detector.

Now I haven't done the detailed simulation performed by Kasagi et al. but
I've run a few combinations of angles from both the primary

d + d => 3He + n and d + d =>T + p

and the secondary

3He + d => p + alpha and T + d => n + alpha

and I don't get to 6.5 MeV. The best I can do is about 5.1 MeV. Since
this effect seems to involve new Physics I think it is important to check
the simulation of Kasagi et al. The Physics is straight forward but it
is some work to program in all the cross sections and energy dependencies.
I'll try to do this over the next few weeks. I invite Robert Heeter and his
friends to do the same and we can see if we agree with each other and Kasagi
et al.

I think the alpha spectrum is the clearest indication of an anomalous effect
especially since the detectors were calibrated right at these energies.
However this interpretation of the data require a detailed simulation of
the primary and secondary reactions which should definitely be independently
simulated.

In any case for the time being I withdraw my "explanation" of the Kasagi
et al. data. This certainly shows the value of Jed's constant admonishment to
"read the literature".

Martin Sevior


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmsevior cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.14 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: Does it really matter?
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does it really matter?
Date: 14 Sep 1995 01:21:02 GMT
Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here.

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

: There are a number of descriptions in the literature that indicate "cold
: fusion" to be capable of self-sustaining operation. In these "heat after
: death" episodes, the cathode continues to produce heat long after the
: input power is turned off. Dr. Tadahiko Mizuno at Hokkaido National
: University, for example, has reported a "heat after death" episode in
: which an unconnected cathode continued to operate for 55 hours and yielded
: up 792,000 joules of heat. Needless to say, this output was uncorrelated
: with the input! 

What approximate temperature difference above that of the
eventual heat dump was this heat produced at?

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.14 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: French nuclear test agenda
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: French nuclear test agenda
Date: 14 Sep 1995 01:27:44 GMT
Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here.

Richard Rydge (rrydge@zeta.org.au) wrote:

: 	Dr Hutton said the new generation of weapons included battlefield
: neutron bombs designed to destroy life but not property by a vast
: pulse of radiation, electromagnetic weapons and "tailored nukes" with
: very specific uses such as bunker-busting.

: 	The risk with all such devices was that they made the use of nuclear
: weapons more acceptable because they more closely resembled
: conventional weapons in purpose and effect, he warned.

Then so what?

I'm afraid of nuclear weapons because it's easy to entirely obliterate
civilization, including myself, not because they happen to use reactions
mediated by the strong force.



cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.14 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: French nuclear test agenda
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: French nuclear test agenda
Date: 14 Sep 1995 01:40:35 GMT
Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here.

Bruce Simpson (bruce@faxmail.co.nz) wrote:
: {Nasty stuff about how agressive and non-democratic france is 
:  and how it's building its arsenal}

OK, all that may be true.  But it seems that every single point you
make applies to China at ten times the force.

In Australia, are you more worried about France or China?

Are you so afraid of offending China's 'sensibilities' that nobody
really dares to confront them?  {PRC's algorithm:  do whatever it
wants, screw anyone.  Act incredibly insulted when anybody dares complain.}

Besides, it's not even clear that France has multistage fusion weapons,
though China definitely does. 

Testing a few low-yield bombs really doesn't make a real difference:  it's
the attitudes, intentions combined with the capabilities of the regime in
power that does. 

Witness USA and the Soviet Union.  As *soon* as the Communist Party and
USSR was dissolved, the major threat disappeared even though the
hardware stayed the same.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.14 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: Put up or shut up?  I doubt it.
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Put up or shut up?  I doubt it.
Date: 14 Sep 1995 01:59:44 GMT
Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here.

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: As I stated about a hundred times here, I have no idea whether standard
: physics conflicts with CF or not. Some experts say it does, other experts,
: like Hagelstein, Chubb, Preparata and Schwinger say it does not. I cannot
: judge. I note, however, that Hagelstein, Chubb and others CF scientists have
: published extensive theories, whereas the people who claim standard physics
: conflicts with CF results have published nothing as far as I know. Not even a
: critique of the Hagelstein theory. So I do not think they are rigorous or
: serious.

Um, one of the only halfway-coherent theories from Chubb was discussed
extensively here.  At least there was something even halfway sensical
to argue about. It was not convincing because it seemingly
confused the notion of "particles having delocalized wave functions" with
"overlapping wave functions".  Consider a helium atom: it's two ground
state electrons are certainly "delocalized" in the lowest orbital, but
their individual wave functions do not really "overlap". The electrostatic
repulsion *still* works normally so that if you see one, you're not
likely to see the other one close by---their positions will be anticorrelated.

And much more importantly, the Chubb theory didn't do ANYTHING to explain
the lack of detectable radition from nuclear reactions.  As has been
repeated over and over, a sensible theory must address the wave functions
of the nucleon coordinates, it's the only way to possibly explain titanic
violations of standard reaction channels.

: It is okay for me to have not read the literature as long as I never make
: comments or take sides in debate about theory, except to assert basic
: scientific concepts like 'data beats theory.'

Well 'good data beat bad theory'.  So in my opinion the lack of 10^9 neutrons
per second when we know we can see 1 beats Chubb theory.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.13 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Does it really matter?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does it really matter?
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 95 22:30:19 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Cary Jamison <cary@svl.trw.com> asks:
 
     "Are you saying that Cravens has also seen "heat after death" or are you
     mixing various experiments again?"
 
I never mix experiments. I said that I have not seen data from any experiment
where the output tracks input exactly. It often follows after a delay, but it
is never exactly proportional. It is true that as a cell loses loading the CF
reaction fades after a while, and this trend can sometimes be reversed by
ramping up power, but the power does not directly cause the heat. It causes
high loading, which in turn causes the heat, which is why there is a delay and
why it sometimes fails to work: renewed high loading can be prevented by
changes in the cell like dirt, or cracking.
 
Furthermore, in every electrolysis experiment there is a latent period of
loading before the reaction starts up, with steady input and no excess heat
output (output equals input). With pure Pd this can last for weeks. With the
thin film Ni + Pd sandwich in the CETI device it is usually 20 minutes to an
hour. In other words, 20 minutes into the experiment the proportion of output
to input changes drastically. Output is not tightly coupled with input. A CF
device is not an power amplifier. Output is only smooth in the morning before
the heat turns on; after that it fluctuates, even when input is held steady.
 
Another important fact shows that electrolysis power alone has no direct
connection with the heat: other methods of loading metals like gas loading,
ultrasound, and ion beam loading also work. You get excess heat beyond
chemistry and other nuclear effects no matter what method you use to cram the
hydrogen into the metal lattice. If CF was an electrolysis power amplifier,
these methods would not work.
 
 
     "If he has seen it [heat after death], have there been others also,
     besides P&F, that have reported it?"
 
Yes, many people have reported it, notably Mizuno and McKubre. More to the
point, anyone can see a limited version of it simply by turning down the power
or turning off the power to an active cell. See the example in Arata's paper.
The cell may cool down, but if you look at the curve closely you sometimes see
it is not cooling down as fast as it does with a joule heater or a dummy
electrode. Also, the heat is usually too large to be caused by escaping
hydrogen. With the CETI cell, there are only micrograms of trapped hydrogen,
in ~40 mg of metal.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.13 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: 27,458 skeptics
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 27,458 skeptics
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 95 22:38:50 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Richard A Blue <blue@pilot.msu.edu> writes:
 
>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
 
This is utter nonsense, as usual. We have a working definition for CF that
is every bit as good as the present day working definition and understanding
of high temperature superconducting. We know what it does, we know most of
the controlling parameters, we know the critical onset values for many of
the parameters, we can define and predict the behavior in many systems. Compared
to the situation in 1989 there is now a *mountain* of data describing beta
phase palladium. Thousands of pages, mostly in Japanese. Questions about the
material that nobody had even thought up back then have now been answered
in detail.
 
Dick Blue thinks there is no definition because he has never read any of the
literature and he does not have the foggiest idea what kind of research
has been done, and what the goal of the researchers is. He is not describing
the state of the art, he is describing his own black, deep, unyeilding
ignorance, and his own stubborn refusal to *read the literature* and learn
something about the subject before chattering on about it.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.14 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion"
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion"
Date: 14 Sep 1995 02:05:14 GMT
Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here.

ZoltanCCC (zoltanccc@aol.com) wrote:
: After fusion (D + D fusion)
: we need to explain why the HE4* does not de-excite by neutron or proton
: emission. This could be explained by the energy removed in the form of a
: neutrino and possibly beta decay which emits an energetic electron and
: another neutrino. 

What is not explained is how to prevent neutron or proton emission, which
we know to be physical fact in that nuclear reaction.  

Just because it's a 'nuclear' reaction doesn't mean it's truly any more
esoteric than the fact that if you let go of a coffee cup you can't prevent
it from falling.  I mean you can't think "Well it MIGHT decide to decay away
into nothingness through chemical oxidization reactions and leave no trace"
when in reality it's going to hit the floor and break.

An emitted neutrino will not cause excess heat, and MeV level electrons
can certainly cause tremendous lattice X-ray excitation which is not
experimentally observed.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.14 / 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: Thu, 14 Sep 95 04:47:43 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Corporation

In article <21cenlogic-1109951616150001@austin-1-7.i-link.net>,
   21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:

[lots of stuff deleted]

>***{If the reaction has the capacity to be self-sustaining, then, once it
>"turns on," output can be literally unrelated to the input. In that sense,
>a "CF" cell would be like a nuclear reactor: you would need a conventional
>power source to fire the beast up, but once it got going, it could run on
>its own. Under such circumstances, output would correlate poorly with
>input, or not at all. 

I have to disagree with your example. In a nuclear reactor, all of the output 
is related to known, specific input.  The law of conservation of energy is 
alive and well.

Strictly speaking, if you have greater output than input, you have a problem: 
You have not identified all of the inputs. 

That unidentified input may be a previously unknown nuclear reaction or it may 
come from conventional sources in the apparatus, but there ain't no such thing 
as output without input.

I am less inclined than you are to attribute "apparent" excess power to 
non-conventional sources. I think that most cases can be attributed to 
conventional sources, and I think I am right "in most cases."  That does not 
mean I believe the exceptional case cannot occur.

[more stuff deleted]
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.13 / Horace Heffner /  Simulation Program of Possible Interest
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Simulation Program of Possible Interest
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 22:37:26 -0900
Organization: none

The following post, made in sci.chem.electrochem, may be of interest to
some readers of this group.  Note successful use to simulate hydrogen
diffusion in metals.



> From:   SMTP%"ELETQM-L%BRUFU@UICVM.UIC.EDU"  1-SEP-1995 07:25:44.29
> To:     NAGY
> CC:     
> Subj:   Digital Simulation of thermodynamic equilibrium constants
> 
> Date:         Thu, 31 Aug 1995 13:33:21 -0400
> Reply-To:     Open Discussion Forum for the Electrochemistry Community
>               <ELETQM-L%BRUFU@UICVM.UIC.EDU>
> Sender:       Open Discussion Forum for the Electrochemistry Community
>               <ELETQM-L%BRUFU@UICVM.UIC.EDU>
> From:         Andrzej Lasia <alasia@STRUCTURE.CHIMIE.USHERB.CA>
> Subject:      Digital Simulation of thermodynamic equilibrium constants
> Comments: To: eletqm-l@brufu.bitnet
> To:           Multiple recipients of list ELETQM-L
<ELETQM-L%BRUFU@UICVM.UIC.EDU>
> 
> Ad: Dr. Carlo Nervi.
> 
> I have been doing digital simulations for some time. Before, I was
> using Cranck-Nicolson method. Recently, I started to use Differential-
> Algebraic Equation method. It is better than R-K, it may contain
> differential and algebraic equations. You may use, for example,
> two differential eqns. describing diffusion (dCa/dt and dCb/dt)
> and add a condition that a/b=K.
> My paper using this technique is now accepted and I am sending you,
> by mail, a copy of it. The main program is available from netlib,
> written by Petzold. I have used it to simulate hydrogen diffusion
> in metals, with some differential equation on the surface.
> R-K method should also work in this case, but the DAE method
> takes care of all the problems connected with the differential
> equations and additional conditions.
> To check your method try a case for which analytical solution is
> known, e.g. first order preceding reaction.
> If you have any other questions do not hesitate to ask.
> Best regards
> Andrzej Lasia
> 
> 
> Andrzej Lasia
> Departement de chimie
> Universite de Sherbrooke
> Sherbrooke, Quebec
> J1K 2R1 Canada
> tel: (819)821-7097
> FAX: (819)821-8017
> e-mail: alasia@structure.chimie.usherb.ca

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

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.14 / Andrew Cooke /  Re: Censorship of my posts?
     
Originally-From: ajc@reaxp01.roe.ac.uk (Andrew Cooke)
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: 14 Sep 1995 14:43:27 GMT
Organization: Institute for Astronomy, Royal Observatory Edinburgh

In article <438hv4$7k@keknews.kek.jp>, Ben Bullock <ben@theory3.kek.jp> wrote:
>Benjamin J. Tilly (Benjamin.J.Tilly@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
>> Wolfgang Wuster <bss166@bangor.ac.uk> writes:
>> 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).
>
>This is true in principle.  However, since after repeated complaints
>about Plutonium from so many people, the Dartmouth administration has
>done absolutely nothing...

	so, to paraphrase, because -

	a) complaints are not successful in stopping him
	b) dartmouth doesn't reply to your mail

	you think the `principle` should be dropped.  in other words,
	do as you think fit, or else.

	your moral integrity never fails to impress me.  its agility
	is unmatched.

	andrew

-- 
  A.Cooke@roe.ac.uk  work phone 0131 668 8357  home phone/fax 0131 667 0208
    institute for astronomy, royal observatory, blackford hill, edinburgh
                     http://www.roe.ac.uk/ajcwww
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenajc cudfnAndrew cudlnCooke cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.14 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Question for Jed
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Question for Jed
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 95 09:10:56 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> writes:
 
>Jed, what do you consider to be the best current reference
>papers for CF, i.e. those that most forcefully
>establish the existence of the effect. I have a little time,
>and I'd like to catch up on some reading. 
>
>I looked for Ed Storms reveiw paper on the INSPEC database, but it apparently  
>has not appeared anywhere yet?
 
Here is my standard list:
 
GENERAL
 
Fire from Ice: Searching for the Truth Behind the Cold Fusion Furor, (John
Wiley & Sons, May, 1991), by Dr. Eugene F. Mallove $26 (including postage).
The definitive book on the subject.
 
E. Storms, "Cold Fusion Heats Up," Technology Review, May-June 1994 issue
(MIT), 20-29
 
Infinite Energy Magazine, Edited by E. Mallove, P.O. Box 2816, Concord, NH
03302-2816, Tel: 603-228-4516, Fax: 603-224-5975 E-mail:
76570.2270@compuserve.com
 
Information on cold fusion can be found on the John Logajan's World Wide Web
home page: URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan
 
 
TECHNICAL
 
Cold Fusion Times, by Mitchell Swartz, P.O. Box 81135, Wellesley Hills, MA
02181 E-mail address: mica@world.std.com
 
Fusion Technology, a technical journal published by the ANS has published many
articles about cold fusion. Contact: Publications Manager, The American
Nuclear Society, 555 North Kensington Ave, Lagrange Park, IL 60525. Back
issues of Fusion Technology are available from the APS publications office at
708-352-6611.
 
Fusion Facts, a monthly newsletter. Contact subscription office at: P.O. Box
48639, Salt Lake City, UT 84158. Tel: 801-583-6232  Fax: 801-583-6245
 
E. Storms, "Critical Review of the 'Cold Fusion' Effect," Submitted to Phys.
Rev. B (1995). (Preprints available from Storms or Jed Rothwell)
 
E. Storms, "How to Produce the Pons-Fleischmann Effect," Fusion Technology,
1995 (If this has not already come out, preprints are available from Storms or
Jed Rothwell)
 
The Fifth International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF5) was sponsored by
IMRA and held in Monte-Carlo, Monaco April 9 - 13, 1995. The proceedings will
be published by IMRA Europe, S.A., Center Scientifique, B.P. 213, 22, rue
Albert Caquot, 06904 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France. Mallove offers a set 4
videotapes "Highlights of ICCF5." This is over 8 hours long and it includes
all abstracts and an index of participants. Contact:
76570.2270@compuserve.com.
 
J. Rothwell, "Highlights of the Fifth International Conference on Cold
Fusion," 14 pages, [E-Mail] [SCIENCE Lib 2]
 
The Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF4).
This conference was sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI),
Advanced Nuclear Systems, and by the U.S. Office of Naval Research. It was
held December 6 - 9, 1993, at Hyatt Regency Maui, Lahaina, HI. The proceedings
can be purchased from: EPRI Distribution Center * 207 Coggins Drive * P.O. Box
23205 * Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 * Tel: 510-934-4212
 
Another version of the ICCF4 proceedings was published by the American Nuclear
Society: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion,
Dec. 6 - 9, 1993, Transactions of Fusion Technology, 1993, Vol. 26, No. 4T,
Part 2 (Dec. 1994), ISSN: 0748-1896. This is a peer-reviewed set of some of
the formost papers.
 
Frontiers of Cold Fusion, ed. H. Ikegami. The proceedings of the Third
International Conference on Cold Fusion (Nagoya, Japan, October 21 - 25, 1992)
in Nagoya, Japan. Available from Universal Academy Press, Inc., PR Hogo 5
Bldg., 6-16-2, Hongo, Bunkyo Tokyo 113, JAPAN. Tel. 011-81-3-3813-7232, Fax:
011-81-3-3813-5932. Price 22,000 yen (U.S. $194.77, Air shipping: $26.65)
 
P. Hagelstein (M.I.T.), "Summary Of Third International Conference On Cold
Fusion In Nagoya," 43 pages, $5 [E-Mail] [SCIENCE Lib 2]
 
The Science of Cold Fusion, ed. T. Bressani. The proceedings of the Second
Annual Conference On Cold Fusion. (Como, Italy, June 29 - July 4, 1991);
contact: SIF, Via L. degli Ondalo 2, 40124 Bologna, ITALY. From the Second
Annual Conference proceedings, we recommend: M. McKubre (SRI), "Isothermal
Flow Calorimetric Investigations Of The D/Pd System," p. 419 - 443
 
M. McKubre et al., "Isothermal flow calorimetric investigations of the D/Pd
and H/Pd systems,"  J. Electroanal. Chem. 368 (1994) 55
 
S. Focardi (Bologna U.), R. Habel (Cagliari U.), F. Piantelli (Siena U.),
"Anomalous Heat Production in Ni-H Systems," Il Nuovo Cimento, Vol 107 A, Feb.
1994, p. 163 - 167
 
M. H. Miles (Naval Air Weapons Center), B. F. Bush (SRI), D. E. Stillwell
(CAES), "Calorimetric Principles and Problems in Measurements of Excess Power
during Pd-D2O Electrolysis," J. Phys. Chem. 1994, 98, p. 1948-1952
 
M. Fleischmann (Univ. Southampton), S. Pons (IMRA Europe), "Calorimetry of the
Pd-D2O system: from simplicity via complications to simplicity," Physics
Letters A, 176 (1993) 118-129
 
E. Storms (Los Alamos), "Review of Experimental Observations About The Cold
Fusion Effect," Fusion Technology, Vol. 20, Dec. 1991 433 - 477. A superb
technical introduction to the field.
 
O. Reifenschweiler (Philips), "Reduced radioactivity of tritium in small
titanium particles," Physics Letters A, 184 (1994) 149-153
 
M. H. Miles and R. A. Hollins (Naval Air Weapons Center), B.F. Bush and J.J.
Lagowski (Univ. Texas), "Correlation of excess power and helium production
during D2O and H2O electrolysis using palladium cathodes," J. of
Electroanalytical Chemistry, 346 (1993) 99 - 117.
 
H. Gerischer (Fritz Harber Institute Der Max Plank), "Memorandum On The
Present State Of Knowledge On Cold Fusion."  [E-Mail] [SCIENCE Lib 2]
 
Information about the Mills light water experiment. [E-Mail] [SCIENCE Lib 2]
 
 
MEDIA COVERAGE
 
BBC "Horizon" series science documentary, "Too Close to the Sun." Broadcast
March 21, 1994. Scheduled to be shown by the CBC in Canada on April 4, 1994
 
Popular Science, August 1993 issue, "COLD FUSION Fact or Fantasy," by Jerry
Bishop, cover story
 
Sunday Times (U.K), June 27, 1993, "Nuclear confusion," by Neville Hodgkinson,
cover story
 
The National Public Radio (NPR) program "Science Friday" on June 25, 1993 was
devoted to cold fusion. It was moderated by Ira Flatow. Panelists included
Michael McKubre of SRI, John Huizenga of Rochester University, Peter
Hagelstein of MIT, Melvin Miles of the Naval Air Warfare Center, and Bruce
Lewenstein of Cornell University. For a tape, send $12.50 to: NPR Tapes *
Washington, DC 20036 * Visa orders: 202-822-2323. Specify the date (06/25/93)
 
The NPR program "Science Friday" was again devoted to cold fusion on January
20, 1995.
 
The Canadian Broadcasting Company (CBC) broadcast a superb documentary on cold
fusion on June 24, 1993, titled "The Secret Life of Cold Fusion." For a copy,
contact: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation * Post Broadcast Unit * Room 5-E,
314 J * P.O. Box 500 * Station A * Toronto, Canada M5W 1E6. The cost is $85
Canadian plus appropriate tax. Specify program title and date.
 
New York Times, November 17, 1992, "Cold Fusion, Derided in U.S., Is Hot In
Japan," by Andrew Pollack, p. B5
 
The Observer (UK), December 6, 1992, "Western sceptics hand Japan cheap power
on a plate," by Michael White
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.14 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Censorship of my posts?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Censorship of my posts?
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 95 09:19:03 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Wolfgang Wuster <bss166@bangor.ac.uk> writes:
 
>want to cancel his posts. We all have all sorts of rights, but some
>reflection on how and when we exercise them would make life a lot more
>pleasant for everybody, and avoid others feeling the need to violate them,
>as in this case. 
 
Wow! This is strange. Let me get this straight: We should be nice, and polite,
so that we do not accidentally make other people go and violate our legal
rights. If some guy comes and burns a cross on my lawn, it is my fault
because I upset him. Right?
 
Nope. Sorry. People can get as upset as they like by the postings of Prof. Pu,
but they damn well better not violate his right to post. If they do, the
police aught to go after them. That is what we pay the police to do. Society
is not organized to promote good manners and pleasent relations, it is
organized to protect basic human rights in an unfriendly, agressive and
competative world.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.14 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: CFV: sci.physics.fusion.naysayers
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CFV: sci.physics.fusion.naysayers
Date: 14 Sep 1995 02:10:41 GMT
Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here.

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
:  
: This is *exactly* the kind of uncalled for, nonsensical comment that prevents
: real scientific discussions on Internet. EVERYONE -- you, me, Dick Blue -- all
: of us understand the fundamentals of physics well enough to know that a
: match cannot burn for a week. Everyone knows pefectly well what I mean when
: I refer to "a small body remaining hot." Yet you drag in this kind of stupid
: argument simply in order to confuse people and prevent serious discussion
: of the issues! What is the point? Do you think I do not know that furnaces
: must be supplied with fuel? Do you think I am unaware of the difference in
: fuel consumption performances between a furnace and a nuclear power reactor?
: I ask you, what the hell is the point of saying that a gas furnace
: demonstrates cold fusion by Jed's standards when you know damn well that is
: not true? Is it possible that you seriously believe I am that stupid? Do
: you honestly think I do not know that furnaces consume oil or gas?

So, what *experiments* have conclusively demonstrated excess production of
*work*?
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.14 / 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: Thu, 14 Sep 95 02:27:31 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Corporation

In article <BPBidmh.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
>Bob Sullivan <bsulliva@sky.net> writes:
> 
>>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
> 
>That is correct. Excess heat is governed by loading and other controlling
>parameters. Input electricity plays a role in establishing loading, but
>once the metal is loaded and the reaction starts, input power no longer
>matters as much. In some cases, you can turn off power altogether and the
>reaction continues. This is called "heat after death."

Three comments:

1. Looks like you'll quickly run into problems with conservation laws.

2. If that kind of thing could happen, it seems that pure chance would lead to 
natural, localized loadings sufficient to "light the fire" with possible 
spectacular results. Any evidence of this?

3. How do we know the pump^H^H^H^Hbutler didn't do it?

>If the excess heat was proportional to input, I would suspect an experimental
>error somewhere. I have never seen a result where input tracked output
>closely.
 

Lack of proportionality also fits neatly with my assertion that most of the 
claims of cold fusion are worthless.  
 

>>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
> 
>Oh, well, if you are going to include this kind of stuff in the category of
>"scientific critique" then why not throw in the Morrison versus Fleischmann
>debate? Or Jones versus Fleischmann? It isn't science, but it's a laff riot.
>If you want to include crackpot science then let's throw in crystal healing
>energy and the Proceedings of the Flat Earth Society. Why not? Anything goes
>on Internet.
> 
>Hey, if you are going to drag out this nonsense about stored-heat-as-
>explanation-for-Griggs, maybe I should republish the debate in which 
Morrison,
>Droege et al demonstrated that they do not know the difference between 150
>watts and 6 nanowatts. We can all have a good laugh.
> 
>- Jed

No need to replay the past, because new debates will arise as long as there 
are an unlimited number of ways to do it wrong and no concenus that there is, 
presently, even one way to do it right.

Your perspective seems to be that at least one of the cold fusion claims is 
right. My perspective is that most "cold fusion" claims are wrong. These 
positions are not mutually exclusive.  We can both be right. My position does 
not exclude your position. Your position does not exclude mine.

I believe that we have grounds for optimism. In the last hundred years science 
got turned on its ear -- twice. General relativity and quantum mechanics set 
the stage for the development of previously undreamed of energy sources: 
fission and (hot) fusion.  We know that GR and QM are inconsistent with one 
another.  This leaves the door open for possible further developments from a 
unified theory that removes the inconsistencies.

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.14 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 95 02:32:00 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Corporation

In article <21cenlogic-1209951854450001@austin-1-7.i-link.net>,
   21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:
>In article <4333r3$6t0_001@ip022.sky.net>, bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
>wrote:
>
>> In article <432dt9$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.
>
>Bob, you have a point, but your criticisms of Jed need to be leavened with
>understanding. I myself have (mildly) chastised him, via e-mail, for his
>temperamental outbursts. "You will catch more flies with honey than with
>vinegar," I told him. 


I, too, have had private discussions with him along the same lines. 


>But now, with more experience in this newsgroup
>under my belt, I am beginning to see why he deals with people the way he
>does. The truth is, you guys (CF skeptics) tend to be blockheaded,
>stubborn, and virtually impervious to reason.


Blockheaded? 		Maybe?
Stubborn? 		Definitely.
Inpervious to reason?	You missed the mark on that one.

I think you will find that we are all individuals with indivdual perspectives. 
We need a broader classification spectrum. I prefer to be classed among the 
"cautiously hopeful." [Emphasis on cautiously]


>Dealing with you is
>extremely frustrating, and after awhile it is very difficult to be nice.
>You all begin to blend together, and it becomes very difficult not to be a
>grouch. 


Are you mixing singular and plural "you"? I doubt that you have dealt with me 
enough to reach any kind of conclusion about me unless you are inclined to 
jump to conclusions.


>A perfect example is my reply to Steve Jones, which is posted in
>the solar stove thread. In it, I momentarily forgot that I had not dealt
>with him before, that he had not exhibited blockheaded behavior in
>response to me, and that, therefore, he ought to be treated with respect.
>Instead, in a moment of apparent madness, I permitted him to become
>symbolic of every unyielding, illogical, blockheaded post which you guys
>have hurled my way in the past few months, and I unfairly dumped on him.
>The moral of the story is simple: people must be judged, and dealt with,
>as individuals, rather than as representatives of amorphous collectives
>*but such a standard, in this group, is very hard to meet.* If Jed is less
>than perfect in his adherence to that lofty principle, *so too are we
>all,* and we ought to try to understand where the problem really lies--to
>wit: this is a very contentious group, and it has a lot of people who post
>the first idiotic thing that comes to mind, and then sit back and wait for
>someone else to do the thinking that they should have done before they
>sent it out. This is the true source of most of our difficulties, and we
>can all contribute to solving the problem by being self-critical of our
>posts before we reach over and hit that "send" button! 
>
>--Mitchell Jones
>
>===========================================================


I missed your original post (we've been having news server problems up the 
line) but I did see your followup. I thought it set a good example for all of 
us to consider. 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.13 / Bill Rowe /  Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 20:39:06 -0700
Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net

In article <21cenlogic-1109950941270001@austin-1-9.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:

>In article <browe-0809952118440001@10.0.2.1>, browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
>wrote:
>
>> 
>> I notice in all of the examples you cited above there was a pretty solid
>> understanding of what created the heat/power and why the development
>> improved the situation. 
>
>***{Absolutely false. Stone age man did *not* understand how fire worked,
>except at the very crude level of how to produce it. He knew that, with
>appropriate tinder (e.g., dry grass), some flint to produce sparks, and
>good technique, a fire could be started and used to burn wood, thereby
>producing heat. He had not knowledge of chemistry and, hence, no theory of
>combustion. In short, he had the "know-how" to burn wood, but did not have
>understanding. Similarly, today, Griggs has "know-how" which enables him
>to "burn" water, producing "excess heat," but he does not have
>understanding. Bottom line: the same situation exists, today, vis-a-vis
>the Griggs device (and, possibly, other cavitation void generators such as
>that of Potapov) as existed in the stone age relative to fire. --Mitchell
>Jones}***

<sigh> I suppose this might actually be correct. However, since stoneage
man didn't leave us much in the way of records this is really an
assumption on your part albeit a reasonable one. In any case, can we keep
the examples a little more pertainent perhaps to at least the 19th century
and later.

>The point I was making is this level of
>> understanding has not been achieved for the Griggs device. Consequently, I
>> see it as a major leap of faith to assume it can be made into a practical
>> energy source at this time. I will agree if the effect is real and it is
>> understood then it may be possible to improve on it.
[skipped]

>> 
>> I don't have a hidden agenda here. I simply think expections the Griggs
>> device can be improved to a COP of say 3 are equivalent to early
>> expectations for the tokamak. 
>
>***{Not at all. The idea of controlling a thermonuclear explosion is
>inherently nutty. But there is nothing nutty about the Griggs device,
>because the anomalous heat is simply a fact, not an idea. If Griggs'
>activities can be said to be driven by an idea, it would be the idea that
>experimentation can lead to improvement even in the absence of a detailed
>understanding of a phenomenon, and there is nothing nutty about that: it
>has happened over and over again in human history. --Mitchell Jones}***

There is a major difference between tokamaks and the Griggs device. We
know fusion is possible, takes place etc. Essentially none of this has
been firmly established for the Griggs device. The question for tokamaks
is how to achieve containment and controll above breakeven. Yes, this has
proved difficult and may prove too difficult. But any way you look at it
the experimental evidence that fusion is possible in a tokamak is orders
of magnitude better than evidence for the Griggs device.
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.14 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,
ci.astro,sci.energy,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.particle,sci.rese
rch,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 14 Sep 1995 02:19:01 GMT
Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here.

(Charles Cagle) (singtech@teleport.com) wrote:
: In article <42dtc2$gg5@navajo.gate.net>, wallaceb@news.gate.net (Bryan G.
: Wallace) wrote:

: Various and sundry remarks concerning Lithium fusion.  Added to this were
: remarks by others who thought that the 'Shrimp' device somehow generated
: 15 Kilotons of TNT explosive power by being a pure fusion weapon.

: Threads like these make it evident that few of the participants have done
: their homework.  The neutrons are useful for initiating or boosting the
: fission portion of the weapon primarily.  The catalyst for envolvement of
: the lithium deuteride rod are the soft x-rays generated by an intense
: burst of hard x-rays and gamma rays (from the fission portion of the
: weapon) which ionizes a high Z foil which separates or lies between the
: fission portion of the weapon and the fusion fuel rod.  The high Z atoms
: absorb the high energy gamma and hard x-rays and immediately re-emit them
: as soft x-rays which then pours through the fusion fuel rod in an intense
: burst.  There is a coupling which occurs between the deuterons and the
: soft x-rays which cannot occur between hard x-rays or gamma rays.

Well actually it's that the soft x-rays are better at squeezing and
evaporating the high Z ablator that compresses the fusion fuel, I thought.

: The exact mechanism which engenders fusion at this point is totally missed
: by the designers themselves.  It is not the energy imparted to the
: deuterons but a special relationship that develops between them (and is
: not collisional) which allows them to undergo nuclear fusion.

What do you mean by this?  What is this "special relationship?" 

: So, simply because a fusion bomb works is not evidence that those who
: design them know the exact mechanism of fusion itself.  The Chinese had
: gunpowder for a thousand years and brought it to a high art without
: understanding the chemistry behind it.

: Because they have not known this one secret is the reason why controlled
: 'hot' fusion processes will never work.

Why is it that tokamaks at give fusion reactions in quantities as predicted by
their collisional cross sections for the given density, temperature and
pressure?

Does your mechanism (whatever it is) explain that as well as cyclotron
experiments?  If so this is interesting.

: Charles Cagle
: Singularity Technologies, Inc,
: 1640 Oak Grove Road, N.W.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.15 / Barry Merriman /  Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion"
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion"
Date: 15 Sep 1995 01:50:58 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <21cenlogic-1309950839370001@austin-1-14.i-link.net>  
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:

> 
> (2) Since "there ain't nothin in them voids," they collapse as soon as
> they move to a less turbulent point in the flow. 

There's not much, but they are filled with vapor.

> 
> (3) When a void collapses, the walls crash together at the center,
> producing momentary giant overpressures. 

Sure, but how giant? Atomic processing involving the vapor
trapped in the void, and the non-uniform collapse can limit the 
strength of the overpressure.

> 
> (4) In the moment of final collapse, there is a tiny sphere at the center
> of the former void, where the situation is sufficiently crowded at the
> microscopic level so that electrons in the lowermost (K) shells of
> hydrogen atoms do not have room to orbit. 

As noted, it is extremely unlikely that things remain ideal down
to this microscopic regime; spherical symmetry and well defined
phase difference are proabably lost well before the ``tiny sphere''
reaches molecular dimensions. 

In your theory, all the symetries conspire to give you your desired
orbit compression, but without exciting myriad other atomic 
processes first. Most unlikely. Far more likely would be to excite
the electrons of the most highly compressed gas, and they radiate
away the extreme overpressure.



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


cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.15 / Richard Blue /  Reproducible but not predictable?
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reproducible but not predictable?
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 14:35:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In the cold fusion debate words such as "reproducible,"
"predictable," and "replication" get tossed around in strange
and wondrous ways.  It seems the very nature of the evidence
put forward in support of cold fusion is such that the data
becomes difficult to test for validity.  I think that fact alone
should put us on alert that we are not dealing with a normal
kind of scientific evidence.  If "pathogical science" is to
occur this is a likely setting.

Still I think it may be possible to piece together enough evidence
to show that something is wrong.  We now have a set of claims for
established necessary conditions for the occurance of cold fusion,
at least for the PdD system.  The claim is that certain conditions
for purity of cathode and electrolyte and for the level of loading
must be met in order for the cold fusion reaction to occur.  If
you fail to meet these requirements your experiment will be a flop.
This is the explanation for the number of significant failures
in the attempts to replicate the various cold fusion results.

Now as the conditions for the onset of cold fusion become more exacting
it seems to me to become increasingly less likely that all portions
of a given cathode would participate equally in the cold fusion
process.  It becomes increasingly less likely that the process would
start and continue in an orderly manner.  The reaction would likely
occur in bursts.  Indeed those bursts of heat output have been frequently
noticed and commented upon!

If I think of the cathode as an ensemble of domains in which the cold
fusion reaction may or may not be occuring in any given time period my
measurements of the integrated heat output clearly involve some form
of ensemble averaging.  Now should we not be able to learn something about
the underlying processes from a statistical study of those ensemble averages?

Off the top of my head it seems to me that certain features I would expect
to see in the data do not appear to be present in the cold fusion results.
I find particularly puzzling the claims that a given run may clearly show
the effect or it may show nothing, and there are relatively few cases
in which it is difficult to decide whether the answer is YES or NO.
I should think that the kind of averaging refered to above would lead to
a rather large portion of the data lying in the MAYBE range.

Does anyone have any explanation for the lack of MAYBE results?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.15 / Richard Blue /  Multineutron systems
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Multineutron systems
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 14:55:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Ramon Prasad makes some rather wild suggestions concerning the behavior
of nuclear systems of two or more neutrons.  He speaks of neutrons
"drifting slowly apart".  Please!

The dineutron system simply does not behave in accord with your picure.
The important physics questions is how long do those neutrons remain
within the range of the nuclear interaction.  I would suggest that it
is not long enough.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that the lifetime of the dineutron
is long enough to be of interest in this discussion?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.13 /  REALMIKEL /  CF Project: Repost
     
Originally-From: realmikel@aol.com (REALMIKEL)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CF Project: Repost
Date: 13 Sep 1995 22:44:21 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I am a high school student working on a series of CF experiments. If
anyone has any ideas, insights or suggestions please contact me at
REALMIKEL@aol.com                                Daniel Lax
                             
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenrealmikel cudlnREALMIKEL cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.14 /  Ken /  Re: Censorship of my posts?
     
Originally-From: ken2fx@aol.com (Ken 2fx)
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: 14 Sep 1995 01:11:40 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Wolfgang Wuster wrote:

> I am not saying that he does not have the right to post.
> We all have all sorts of rights, but some reflection on how and when we
> exercise them would make life a lot more pleasant for everybody, and
> avoid others feeling the need to violate them, as in this case.

Are you saying that someone has the right to censor him?

> it should be up to the user community to determine what is or is not
> acceptable.

Just how does the "community" determine anything in this kind of forum.
Was there a vote? It seems to me that one person thinks that he should act
for all.

> The only end result of this kind of spamming is an increased tendency
> towards moderated newsgroups, where acceptable limits will be determined
> by one moderator.

It seems to me that this is what sci.astro already is. If someone posts
what is considered to be an inappropriate message it gets canceled by the
"moderator." The "moderator" has not even benefited himself. By the time
he takes the trouble to figure out that the post doesn't "belong" and
cancel it he could have just skipped it. So the fact of the matter is, he
is protecting everyone else from the post. Oh boy, just what the Internet
needs, someone to decide for me what I will be allowed to read and post.

This is a public forum. If he wants to participate in a public newsgroup
he should be ready to accept the fact that the public will be there too.
It seems to me that if you want to participate in this forum you should
try to keep within the "rules." Cancelling another persons post is not
within the rules! If you want to tell them with a reply or E-mail, go for
it. If the group wants to flame them, ok. If he really thought that he was
acting within the rules he would do it in the open rather than hiding like
a snake in the grass. It is this kind of mentality that thinks it is ok to
exclude Jews or Blacks from the group because they don't want to be
exposed to something that is below them. Discrimination is discrimination
even if it is intellectual discrimination.

I would like to offer a suggestion that would totally solve this problem.
Start a sci.astro Mailing list. Then insist that anyone that wants to
subscribe must agree to basic rules. Anyone that violates the rules gets
locked out. This way all the intellectual snobs could talk to themselves
without being bothered by human beings.

I will have to settle for the enjoyment I get in the knowledge that with
the advent of AOL etc. this person will eventually be overwhelmed by the
"public." He will have to spend all of his time censoring us. With any
luck he will be driven away and we will not have to put up with that kind
of totalitarianism.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenken2fx cudlnKen cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.14 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: ? Singularity Technology ?
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ? Singularity Technology ?
Date: 14 Sep 1995 01:10:37 GMT
Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here.

singtech@teleport.com wrote:
: Fusion should be pretty much bought and paid for by private money, not tax
: money.

OK.  So, if GE and TVA thought they could build a fusion reactor I'm
sure the DOE wouldn't *STOP* them (unless they planned to breed Pu239 in
Iraq with it).

If GE decided it would plunk down a few gigabucks into their own non-tokamak
design, I even bet DOE might put in some matching funds if it agreed with
GE's optimism.

But they don't. 

The reality is that the government is hardly 'in competition' with private
enterprise here.

Yes there is a slight amount of taxation that everybody would have returned
to them, but there's no doubt that fusion would magically appear.

So arguing the government should NOT fund fusion is de facto equivalent to
saying nobody should work on fusion today, it's useless forget about it.

: email> singtech@teleport.com
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.13 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion"
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion"
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 08:39:37 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

OK, you guys, I've been waiting for two days to see if somebody was going
to earn three ataboys by noticing that the protoneutron theory explains
the Griggs result! Time's up! The ataboy window is closed!

Here's the way Griggs' machine generates excess heat: 

(1) The 3500 rpm rotation of the "cylinder full of holes" produces massive
turbulence in the water, and generates millions of tiny cavitation voids. 

(2) Since "there ain't nothin in them voids," they collapse as soon as
they move to a less turbulent point in the flow. 

(3) When a void collapses, the walls crash together at the center,
producing momentary giant overpressures. (This is a phenomenon well known
to plumbers. When, for example, a long column of water running in an empty
pipe slams into a closed valve, the giant overpressure that results is
known as a "surge," and a blown valve is the frequent result.)

(4) In the moment of final collapse, there is a tiny sphere at the center
of the former void, where the situation is sufficiently crowded at the
microscopic level so that electrons in the lowermost (K) shells of
hydrogen atoms do not have room to orbit. While the duration of this
moment is short in human terms, it is an eternity on the time scale of a
hydrogen atom, whose electron revolves around its nucleus at a frequency
of 10 quadrillion revolutions per second.  

(5) For an instant, therefore, such spheres are packed with protoneutrons. 

(6) Since protoneutrons are rapaciously hungry for the energy of
transformation into neutrons, and since there are occasional gammas in the
background radiation to which we are all exposed, a tiny percentage of
these protoneutrons will capture gammas and transform into thermal
neutrons. 

(7) Those thermal neutrons will quickly enter the nuclei of neighboring  H
or O atoms, and kick off gammas of their own when the product nuclei drop
to the ground state. In the case of neutron absorption by a hydrogen, for
example, we have: p + n --> d + 2.22 Mev (gamma), as previously discussed
in the explanation of CF electrolysis.

(8) Since the surrounding solution contains millions of cavitation bubbles
in all stages of collapse, it follows that at any given moment the
solution contains billions of protoneutrons. Which means: the 2.22 Mev
gamma is surrounded by protoneutrons and isn't going anywhere: they are
going to suck that puppy dry--which means: it is going to produce 2 more
thermal neutrons, plus dump some heat into the fluid. 

(9) So here, again, we have the same old chain reaction that we discussed
the other day, in which one thermal neutron begets two plus heat, which
beget four plus more heat, which beget 8 plus heat, and on and on. This
time, however, the process occurs in the dynamic environment of a
turbulent fluid, rather than in the static environment of a palladium
lattice.  

Bottom line: the Griggs device would be "cold fusion," except that "cold
fusion" itself isn't fusion. What we have here, instead, is a protoneutron
heat engine: an odd device that burns hydrogen so completely that even the
nuclear energy is extracted, and yet it produces no pollution and no
radiation. It is a "soft" energy source, as benign and non-threatening as
flowers on a sunny day, and what it means is simple: the age of pollution,
of centralized energy sources, and of centralized political power, is
over.

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.14 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Censorship, making Internet threads better
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Censorship, making Internet threads better
Date: 14 Sep 1995 20:04:33 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <437ss8$3r1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

Perhaps the best way to avoid censorship and make
Internet threads better is to 
OBSERVE NET CULTURE AND ONLY POST TO RELEVANT NEWSGROUPS.

Anyone who consistently fails to do this deserves whatever
comes their way.


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


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.13 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
Date: 13 Sep 1995 07:55:01 -0700
Organization: Tektronix Laboratories, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR

In article <pLGgkV7.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
.......
....
..
>I gathered from this informal conversation that HTSC work about as well as
>CF cathodes. You can make most of them work, maybe half or two-thirds, but
>you never know how well they will work or how strong the effect will be,
>or exactly where the cut-off temperature is. Perhaps they have improved by
>now.


Again, you are all wet!

HTSC devices not only are uniformly accepted as fact, they are actually
made and sold as products!  They fly in satellites.  They do useful
things.

Where the hell is Pons' and Fleischmann's water heater?

Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
 -------------------------------------------------------
Any ideas or opinions expressed here do not necessarily
reflect the ideas or opinions of my employer.
 -------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.13 / 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: 13 Sep 1995 15:26:16 GMT
Organization: cea

msevior@axnd02.cern.ch (Martin Sevior) wrote:
>There are several issues here all  of which make people in the South Pacific
>extremely angry at the French.
>
>a) What so special about France that it needs it's own nuclear
>weapons? There are hundreds of soverign nations in world. Why
>shouldn't Germany, Japan, Australia or even New Zealand have tem too?
>
 Nothing of course. Except that you cannot rewrite history. At a time 
when all european countries seemed to be either in the Soviet or American
spheres of influence, the possession of a nuclear weapon was the only
way to keep a little sovereignty. De Gaulle understood that.

>They would certainly be within thethe technological capabilities of these 
>countries. The answer of course is that these countries recognize
>that their security is enhanced by nuclear non-proliferation. They trust the
>US to police nuclear weapon development.

 You may trust the USA to be the policeman of the world. We do not. We
consider extremely important to keep our freedom to make our own decisions,
which can be very different (and even contrary) to the policies of the United
States.

>No such trust exists for France as it has shown throughout it's history that
>it only ever persues it's own interests.

 If you think that the USA has EVER done anything throughout it's history
to other purposes than to further its own interests, you are sadly mistaken.
I, for one, would like a few examples.
>
>b) If France must develop weapons and set them off, why not do it in
>it's own region of the world? Why not set them off under an island off
>the French coast?
>
 I would not object to that, except that if you decide to do testing, let's
do it in the way which is less dangerous for civilian populations. If France
had an island off its coast which was as far from any important town as Mururoa
is from, let's say, New Zealand, I would not be against testing it there.

>There are very few issues about which the Australian people have been so
>united. 96% of Australians believe France is wrong in it's nuclear testing
>program.
>
 96% of Australians can be wrong. I am not surprised by this figure: there is
nothing to be lost in Australia by being against the tests and nothing to be
won by being for them.

>If the French think that they gain respect or even fear from the possesion
>of nuclear weapons they are badly mistaken.
>
 I do not think France is looking for either. The only thing we want to prove
is that when we decide to do something, we do it regardless
of any external pressure. I found a lot of people who thought that "a little
boycott of their wines and perfumes and those little froggies will change
their minds". Now, these people know they were wrong.

Thanks for listening

Mario

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.13 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Jones's Retraction...
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Jones's Retraction...
Date: 13 Sep 1995 15:43:51 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.


In article <42tqjp$n8g@cnn.Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@pho
nix.princeton.edu> writes:

  > This is just bogus.  Steve Jones was a member of one of the two
  > primary groups reporting cold fusion results.  He initially
  > reported positive results for neutron emission from his cold
  > fusion cell; this was one of the key initial "results" in cold
  > fusion.  By reanalyzing his data and retracting this result, he
  > turned a crucial positive report of fusion products into a crucial
  > negative report on fusion products.

   Anyone looking for a Nobel Prize?  Stephen's retraction is very
good documentation of an "unexplaned phenomena."  Most are eventually
explained as experimental error, but some are explained by work that
earns Nobel Prizes.

    Professor Jones showed that something was inducing correlated
events between detectors believed separate.  It may have been an
electronics glitch caused by inductive crossover.  It may have been a
cosmic ray signature.  (But I think the events were above expected
cosmic ray background.)  Or it could be detection of, say a WIMP
decaying.  The multiple detections were more likely to be in adjacent
detectors, where if the detections were actually neutrons created by
fusion bursts in the cold fusion apparatus, the multiple detections
should have occured in all possible pairs of detectors.

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.13 / 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: 13 Sep 1995 16:01:25 GMT
Organization: cea

bruce@faxmail.co.nz (Bruce Simpson) wrote:

>Hang on - France's previous nuclear tests (a lot of them, both
>atmospheric and under-ground) have already proven to the world that
>they are a nuclear power with an awsome arsenal.  The lie that they
>need to further refine their technology is patently ludicrous.  You
>can only kill someone *once* and any attacking country would be as
>"deterred" by nuclear weapons that were 10 years old as they would be
>by state-of-the-art.  Fission and fussion have known effects when used
>in weapons, improving the efficiency by 20% isn't really going to be
>the deciding factor that turns an invading army away.

 I do not want to enter into a technical debate on the need or not of
carrying out tests, since I am not an expert. But I think you did not
catch my main point: Everybody may know that france has an awesome
arsenal. But a lot of people believe (specially after the Mitterrand 
years) that France has no more an independent military and foreign 
policy. That is in my opinion the most important feature of this tests:
to show that once the French government has taken a decision, it carries
it out regardless what other people may think.

>
>Besides which it is the job of NATO to protect Europe from agressors.
>NATO is already armed to the teeth with state-of-the-art nuclear
>armament.  By ignoring this fact and effectively thumbing their nose
>at their supposed allies, France is effectively saying that it doesn't
>trust the other countries which have NATO membership.  Personally if I
>were a NATO member I'd feel more than a little offended by this
>arrogance.
>
 Your point is well taken. We may trust NATO to get armed to the teeth
with state-of-the-art weapons. But if France's foreign policies conflict
with those of the United States, can we trust NATO to be on our side ? I 
think not. As I say, there is more in this affair than simple defense 
matters. There is a question of sovereignity as well.


><wildly unfounded speculation mode on>
>
>Given that the *majority* of French citizens are opposed to the
>testing yet the government (in the form of Mr Chirac) carry on
>regardless, one has to wonder about the true health of democracy in
>that country. 

 Mr Chirac said on television before his election that he intended to
restart nuclear testing. He is only keeping his electoral promises, 
which should on the contrary suggest that french democracy is quite
healthy. I must point out to you that if public opinion (as it is 
expressed in opinion polls) was followed in France, we would have the
death penalty re-established today, with a larger majority than the one
against nuclear testing.

>To perhaps overstate and make wild extrapolations -
>does anyone remember the 1930's?  Remember how Germany built up its
>military might far beyond that necessary for defensive purposes and
>how a humble house-painter 'took control' of the nation, disregarding
>any viewpoints which were at odds with his own?
>
 But such viewpoints were those of the majority of his people. You cannot
have it both ways. Either you use the argument that the majority is right
or you do not.

>When the French complain about how they have been invaded three times
>during this century one has to wonder if perhaps revenge is not on
>someone's mind?
>
 Well, we won two out of three, so revenge should not be on our side !!!

><wildly unfounded speculation mode off>
>
>Sounds silly doesn't it?  Check your history books - stranger things
>have happend on a regular basis!
>
 Yes it does, and it is !

>It is time that the western world took France to task over its
>arrogant and delinquent behaviour.

 Having read this paragraph (twice), I am still happier to know that my
country has an efficient deterrent. And by the way, why do you mention only
the "western world". Has God by any chance given the "western world" the
right to police and judge the rest of the world ?

>Why should we have to put up with
>a country that chooses to flout such institutions as the European and
>World Courts?

 Because the European and World courts are institutions which are largely
political and have been in the past always on the side of the powerful.
The day the World court condemns the USA for their policy in Vietnam, I will
start believing in the world court.
>
>The French Government places itself above the law and is not above
>using agression and unethical tactics to achieve its ends.
>
 To my best knowledge, all countries do so when they can get away with
it. It is called sovereignty.
 By the way, the entry of Greenpeace ships on the Mururoa exclusion zone
is also an illegal act. Would you consider that Greenpeace is also "above
the law" ?

>When agents of its secret service engaged in an act of inernational
>terrorism on foreign shores by killing a Greenpeace member and bombing
>the Rainbow Warrior they then blackmailed the New Zealand government
>into releasing the agents which had been caught and convicted of the
>attrocity by threatening to block NZ's access to the valuable European
>export markets.

 Sorry, but if the boycott is a lawfull tactics against the frech government,
then it must be lawful against the NZ government as well. That being said, I 
fully condemn the act you are referring to.

>So instead of deservedly serving sentance for the
>murder of an innocent man and the violent invasion of a friendly
>nation, the convicted agents were reluctantly repatriated to France
>with New Zealand under threat of loosing a key export market.
>
>Let's face it,  Chirac is a loose cannon,

 I do not understand: The "act of international terrorism" to which you
refer occured under Mitterrand's term of office. Mitterrand may be a loose
cannon, but there is nothing that allows you to say that Chirac is one.
>
>BTW: do you realise that the French Government is moving to make the
>use of encryption by French citizens a criminal offense?  Even
>posessing a copy of something as innocuous as PGP could earn you a
>prison sentance.
>
 What do you mean by "encryption" ? Could you give me the origin of such
a novel information ? I do not know (and I work on a connected field !!) of
any move whatsoever to make encryption illegal. By the way, such a move would
require a change in the french constitution.

>Do you *still* think that there isn't something *very* wrong with the
>French democratic process?  
>
 I wait for your confirmation on the above information. I you do not confirm it,
I will think that something is very wrong in the way you are informed. to put
it plainly, that you have been slightly intoxicated.

>Do you *still* think that a country whose leader has these attitudes
>to democracy and privacy, and who places himself above the law should
>be entitled to continue the development of an already awsome nuclear
>arsenal?
>
 Once again, I wait for your confirmation.



cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.13 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: 27,458 skeptics
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 27,458 skeptics
Date: 13 Sep 1995 12:09:39 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

It seems that Richard has not read our newsgroup recently. What I mean is
that for the past two month we have been posting various theories on how
to explain cold fusion phenomena and arguing on their relative merit and
so on. I myself have proposed that the reactions are catalized by electron
via the electron capture process. 

Read our newsgroup Richard.

Zoltan Szakaly
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.13 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: How To Spend the $700
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How To Spend the $700
Date: 13 Sep 1995 12:10:29 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I was actually not joking. I do intend to build a reactor and to
experiment with various propulsion systems possibly nuclear. I just don't
want to go out and do work before I understand what I am doing. Building a
device takes a lot of time and money and thinking can save a whole lot of
effort, so I try to think a lot before I jump to action. I thought this
newsgroup would give me some good info to consider before I build my
nuclear reactor. I don't think any government agency would stand in my way
especially if I don't go around asking everybody' s permission. Of course
I still have to excersize due diligence when it comes to safety, I have to
ensure that I don't endanger myself and others. 

Zoltan Szakaly
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.12 / Mario Pain /  Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005
     
Originally-From: Mario Pain <pain@pegase.cad.cea.fr>
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 14:12:51 GMT
Organization: cea

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

And so will I. Amateurs ?

Mario Pain   



















                         

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.14 / Barry Merriman /  Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
Date: 14 Sep 1995 23:04:10 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <438470$6ro_002@ip029.sky.net> bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)  
writes:

> >I permitted him to become
> >symbolic of every unyielding, illogical, blockheaded post which you guys
> >have hurled my way in the past few months, 

I'm glad to see you're now beyond blanket criticism of
those about whom who know little....

> >The moral of the story is simple: people must be judged, and dealt with,
> >as individuals, rather than as representatives of amorphous collectives
> >*but such a standard, in this group, is very hard to meet.* 

Well, I realize that I'm a blockheaded, stubborn, impervious
to reason wefare-queen-in-a-white-coat, and so my opinion
is of diminished importance, but I might suggest that you
simply avoid namecalling, flaming, etc. If you get that upset about
things you read on a newsgroup, you really need to develop 
more of a life.




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


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.14 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Recombination and apparent xs heat
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Recombination and apparent xs heat
Date: 14 Sep 1995 23:16:24 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <21cenlogic-1109952321000001@austin-1-3.i-link.net>  
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:

> 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. 

I'd like to know more about these ``deniers'': are there any of
them who you think want CF to not exist?

I personally would love it if it were true.

AS far as I see it, the bulk of the deniers would simply
like to see a **single experiment** independently replicted 
at several academic labs.

Jed recently said the great bulk of CF literature puts CF 
in about the same postion as HiTC superconductivity. This
is not true---less than one year after the HiTC discovery, we
were able to replicate it (Meissner levitation effect 
in a liquid N cooled sample) in a graduate solid state
physics class at U of Chicago, effortlessy. I imagine hundreds
of other such demonstrations occured at other universities and
labs about that time.

This is what is missing from CF---a configuration that is
sufficietly well defined and simple for direct replication
at other labs, like the ``recipe'' for HiTC superconductors
+ verification via the Meissner effect.

For example, if P&F were to release a recipe for a heat-after-death
experiment, that would be a very simple way to demonstrate heat 
beyond chemistry.






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


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.14 / Barry Merriman /  Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion"
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion"
Date: 14 Sep 1995 23:24:38 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE


Mitchell Jones writes:

> ... the theoretical underpinnings of [my] protoneutron theory. 
> ... I have no "credentials" in physics ....


ZoltanCC writes:

> Thank you for your detailed post regarding our cold fusion theories.
> 
> I myself do not have credentials of physics

There seems to be inverse correlation between the amount of
training in physics one has, and one ability to propose cold
fusion theories.

I wonder why.... :-)



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


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.13 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: A simple speculation
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A simple speculation
Date: 13 Sep 1995 19:56:35 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I wholehartedly agree and thank you for your comment.

The big question is: How does the lattice promote electron capture?

Perhaps by not providing enough room for an electron shell to form?

The second big question: Where does the energy come from to allow electron
capture? 

Perhaps it is borrowed for a short time form quantum fluctuations and
replaced by subsequent fusion.

Zoltan Szakaly
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.14 / Bruce Simpson /  Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion"
     
Originally-From: bruce@faxmail.co.nz (Bruce Simpson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion"
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 21:10:38 GMT
Organization: FaxMail Technologies

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

>OK, you guys, I've been waiting for two days to see if somebody was going
>to earn three ataboys by noticing that the protoneutron theory explains
>the Griggs result! Time's up! The ataboy window is closed!

>Here's the way Griggs' machine generates excess heat: 

[explanation snipped]

Given that the implementation is so simple,that there appears to be a
theoretical explanation for the effect and that if sufficiently scaled
it stands to be an almost limitless source of clean power- why isn't
this technology being further exploited?

Are the yeilds too low for practical use?

Is there some theoretical or practical reason that it can't be scaled
or improved to provide practical yeilds?

Is the explanation offered the accepted theory or is it simply a
postulation?


*----[Fixed-price software development over the net ]----*
|     bsimpson@iprolink.co.nz or bruce@faxmail.co.nz     |
*--[C/C++, Win, OS/2, POSIX, device-drivers, fax, comms]-*

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbruce cudfnBruce cudlnSimpson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.14 / Bruce Simpson /  Re: French nuclear test agenda
     
Originally-From: bruce@faxmail.co.nz (Bruce Simpson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: French nuclear test agenda
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 21:41:00 GMT
Organization: FaxMail Technologies

Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr> wrote:

>msevior@axnd02.cern.ch (Martin Sevior) wrote:

>>b) If France must develop weapons and set them off, why not do it in
>>it's own region of the world? Why not set them off under an island off
>>the French coast?
>>
> I would not object to that, except that if you decide to do testing, let's
>do it in the way which is less dangerous for civilian populations. If France
>had an island off its coast which was as far from any important town as Mururoa
>is from, let's say, New Zealand, I would not be against testing it there.

But France has repeatedly claimed that there is *NO* risk associated
with these tests.  If this is indeed the case then it matters not
whether the devices are tested in downtown Paris or anywhere else for
that matter.  You can't claim total safety on one hand and "reduced
risk" on the other.


*----[Fixed-price software development over the net ]----*
|     bsimpson@iprolink.co.nz or bruce@faxmail.co.nz     |
*--[C/C++, Win, OS/2, POSIX, device-drivers, fax, comms]-*

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbruce cudfnBruce cudlnSimpson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.14 / Bruce Simpson /  Re: French nuclear test agenda
     
Originally-From: bruce@faxmail.co.nz (Bruce Simpson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: French nuclear test agenda
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 21:41:10 GMT
Organization: FaxMail Technologies

Note that I've replied to Mario in email since this is a decidedly
off-topic thread and even I get a little annoyed when I see "ban the
bomb" messages appearing in inappropriate newsgroups :-)

I will however make public comment on one component of the message as
I feel it will be of interest to all internet users:

Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr> wrote:

>bruce@faxmail.co.nz (Bruce Simpson) wrote:

>>BTW: do you realise that the French Government is moving to make the
>>use of encryption by French citizens a criminal offense?  Even
>>posessing a copy of something as innocuous as PGP could earn you a
>>prison sentance.
>>
> What do you mean by "encryption" ? Could you give me the origin of such
>a novel information ? I do not know (and I work on a connected field !!) of
>any move whatsoever to make encryption illegal. By the way, such a move would
>require a change in the french constitution.

The BBC World News Television service reported Frances plans to ban
the use of PGP last week in several of their news broadcasts.  If I
recall correctly, they also stated that any from of encryption that
allowed individual citizens to restrict government access to their
information was to be outlawed.

Normally I consider the BBC to be responsible and (as far as any media
can be) a relatively reliable source of such news.  The fact that
Mario is not aware of these moves means that either the BBC was wrong
or the French Government are going out of their way to conceal their
plans from their own citizens.

If I were a French citizen I would not be proud of my government at
the moment.


*----[Fixed-price software development over the net ]----*
|     bsimpson@iprolink.co.nz or bruce@faxmail.co.nz     |
*--[C/C++, Win, OS/2, POSIX, device-drivers, fax, comms]-*

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbruce cudfnBruce cudlnSimpson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.13 / Bill Rowe /  Re: How To Spend the $700
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How To Spend the $700
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 21:13:33 -0700
Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net

In article <21cenlogic-1109952012210001@austin-1-3.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:

>***{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}***  

Should I take your comments to mean you feel it should be permitted for
someone to build a nuclear reactor without the "bureaucratic permission"?
Frankly, if I could be sure any "accidents" only affected the
experimenter, I would say why not. However, given the odds an "accident"
wouldn't be so benign and the number of people who might try something
like this having no idea of risks involved or unwilling to take reasonable
precaution, I for one am extremely glad it isn't very easy to do things
like this.
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.14 /  meron@cars3.uc /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,
ci.astro,sci.energy,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.particle,
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 03:52:29 GMT
Organization: CARS, U. of Chicago, Chicago IL 60637

In article <4383ne$2nu@martha.utcc.utk.edu>, mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu
(Matthew Kennel) writes:
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>: The point is that the atomic cross sections for soft X-rays are much, 
>: much bigger than the nuclear cross sections (by a factor of 10^8 - 
>: 10^10).  So, if you want to induce fusion using X-rays you'll waste way 
>: more energy on the photons that "don't make it" than you'll gain from 
>: the few which do.  
>
>That's why Bombs work by having that massive pulse of soft X-rays squeeze 
>and evenly hit big fat atoms which themselves contain the fusion fuel.
>
True.  That's why you need a very massive pulse to achieve it.  It is 
a "leaky bucket" problem, you need a very big hose to fill it before 
it manages to leak the energy away.

Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu	|  chances are he is doing just the same"
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmeron cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.14 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 95 04:07:28 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Corporation

In article <BDAj923.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
>Mitchell,
> 
>Thanks for assembling these different messages from this thread. I would like
>to point out something about the dialog here. It starts out with me saying:
> 
>   "And I would add that you have not read the literature, the patents, or
>   papers like "How to Produce the Pons-Fleischmann Effect" by Ed Storms. . 
"
> 
>And soon we have someone saying:
> 
>> 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.
> 
>You see that I started out -- as I always do! -- citing a specific paper.


Always? Give us a break.

Let's pull in your full statement (partially quoted above):

>>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.

This is a clear putdown. No question about the intent. The reference to Ed 
Storms is purely incidental.


>A
>few messages later on Mr. Skeptic accuses me of stonewalling and cutting off
>discussion by not citing a specific paper. This has happened countless times.


The number of times I have called you on this is a little less than 
"countless" unless you have fewer than five fingers. 

If by countless you mean the number of times you have used the 
you-haven't-read-the-literature argument, well, you may be right.


>I sometimes wonder if I should simply post the list of 1500 CF papers every
>week, so all readers learn that there is such a thing as original scientific
>literature and *you too* can go to the library and read it.


Invoking some amorphous thing called "the literature" is no substitute for 
specific facts and cites? Specificity is the key. It isn't much help to say 
the needle is in _some_ haystack _somewhere_.


>Over the years the "skeptics" have repeatedly accused me of not telling what
>literature I have in mind. This is a particularly dumb thing to say about me,
>of all people, because as it happens, I just spent $85 making copies of that
>paper (with Ed Storms' permission of course) and handing them out to a couple
>dozen people who contacted me via e-mail. They contacted me because I
>regularly post a list of "Recommended Publications" here and in a few other
>Internet Newsgroups. I would also point out that my review of ICCF5 included
>14 footnotes and copious quotes from the Abstracts and lectures at the
>conference, whereas the "skeptical" review of that conference by Morrison did
>not quote a single paper or list any titles. Furthermore, I am a contributing
>editor to "Infinite Energy" and I contribute to "Fusion Facts." I have gone
>on record again and again in this forum and in others with hard facts,
>publication titles, and other resources, and I have helped hundreds of people
>get original source material on CF. Yet in spite of this, the "skeptics"
>whine, moan and complain that I am holding back and not spoon feeding them
>every fact and every title the moment they demand it! As you said:
> 
>     "The truth is, you guys (CF skeptics) tend to be blockheaded, stubborn,
>     and virtually impervious to reason. Dealing with you is extremely
>     frustrating, and after awhile it is very difficult to be nice."
> 
>I think that being nice is the wrong approach in many cases. It is like 
giving
>a failing student a passing grade. This is part of the modern "I'm okay,
>you're okay" ethic, which I do not agree with. People who are too lazy to do
>their own homework are contemptible and ill-mannered. In an academic setting
>(which is more or less what a "sci." newsgroup is) such behavior is grossly
>inappropriate. They should be told they are out of line and treated like
>people who talk during movies.


Time to give it a rest. Those blood vessels throbbing at your temples are 
likely to burst.

 
>As a humorous footnote, let me add that not only do "skeptics" attack me for
>not giving them information, but recently one of them whined and moaned
>because I gave too much, making it too readily available. When I posted my
>"Recommended Publications" over in sci.physics and three other locations, Jim
>Carr complained that I am "spamming the network." I pointed out to him that
>just before I posted, the Hot Fusion FAQ was posted in a half dozen groups,
>including several that I missed, and that the Hot Fusion FAQ filesize is
>roughly ten times bigger than my humble, short little list of peer-reviewed 
CF
>publications. Apparently Jim thinks it is "spamming" when I put out 4 copies
>of a 10 KB file three times a year, but it is perfectly okay to put out a
>dozen copies of a 100 KB file every month when the subject is hot fusion.
> 
>- Jed


Spamming doesn't have anthing to do with content or size. It's pure numbers. 
Four does not qualify, since the frequency is low.  By the way, the fact that 
one person posts spams does not justify spams by others. [The foregoing is not 
a comment on the content of your post. Please restrict any followup comments 
on this paragraph to the appropriate definition of "spam."]
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.14 / 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: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 15:17:53 +0100 (BST)
Organization: University of Wales, Bangor.

On 14 Sep 1995, Ken 2fx wrote:

> Wolfgang Wuster wrote:
> 
> > I am not saying that he does not have the right to post.
> > We all have all sorts of rights, but some reflection on how and when we
> > exercise them would make life a lot more pleasant for everybody, and
> > avoid others feeling the need to violate them, as in this case.
> 
> Are you saying that someone has the right to censor him?

No, no-one has the right to do that, and I did not say that anyone did. 

However, constantly annoying a large section of people can result in
someone taking the law into their own hands, without having the right. As
an analogy, you have the right to walk into a bar in Harlem and say
whatever you want about black people (free speech - even if not
politically correct). The people in the bar do not have the right to
silence you, right? However, you would probably agree with me that it
would not be a very wise move to exercise this particular right. If
someone did exercise this right and suffered the consequences, I would not
approve of these consequences, but I would feel a certain amount of glee.
Just like in this situation here. 

> > it should be up to the user community to determine what is or is not
> > acceptable.
> 
> Just how does the "community" determine anything in this kind of forum.
> Was there a vote? It seems to me that one person thinks that he should act
> for all.

In most newsgroups I am aware of, a user who regularly spams irrelevant
material will have the undesirability of his actions pointed out to him
repeatedly and increasingly forcefully by other users of the group. If the
matter is contentious, then others may step in in favour of the
"violator". Happens all over the net all the time. In most cases where the
tide is against him/her, the spammer/violator eventually goes away. I have
seen a number of posts suggesting to A. Pu. that he should go away, but
none complimenting him on his post (except when the issue of free speech is
dragged into the discussion). 

> > The only end result of this kind of spamming is an increased tendency
> > towards moderated newsgroups, where acceptable limits will be determined
> > by one moderator.
> 
> It seems to me that this is what sci.astro already is. If someone posts
> what is considered to be an inappropriate message it gets canceled by the
> "moderator." The "moderator" has not even benefited himself. By the time
> he takes the trouble to figure out that the post doesn't "belong" and
> cancel it he could have just skipped it. So the fact of the matter is, he
> is protecting everyone else from the post. Oh boy, just what the Internet
> needs, someone to decide for me what I will be allowed to read and post.

As to the cancelling of messages by a self-appointed net.cop, I have
already stated that I do not regard that as correct. However, the urge to
cancel them was provoked by Pu himself.  Finally, I take it from Pu's post
that the only cancelled posts were on alt.sci.physics.plutonium, not the
other groups. 

> This is a public forum. If he wants to participate in a public newsgroup
> he should be ready to accept the fact that the public will be there too.
> It seems to me that if you want to participate in this forum you should
> try to keep within the "rules." Cancelling another persons post is not
> within the rules!

... which is what I said in my previous post. I don't entirely follow your
argument, but if you are insinuating that I cancelled Pu's posts, I have 
to disappoint you. Hacking is not among my talents, I'm afraid. 

[muddled stuff deleted]

To summarise: Pu continually spams a load of irrelevant posts to a whole
bunch of groups. Yes, he has a right to do so, but irritates many through
exercising it. A number of users say he should go away. He doesn't.
Someone [not me!!] takes the law into their own hands and forges a cancel.
No, he had no right to do so. But *I* *do* have the right to gloat, and I
am exercising that right (as have several others in this thread). 

End of thread, RIP.

--
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:
cuddy14 cudenbss166 cudfnWolfgang cudlnWuster cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.14 / Olov Marklund /  Re: Censorship of my posts?
     
Originally-From: olovm@my21.sm.luth.se (Olov Marklund)
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: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 14:50:31 GMT
Organization: University of Lulea, Department of CSEE.


Benjamin.J.Tilly@dartmouth.edu (Benjamin J. Tilly) wrote:
<About AP:s cancelled articles>
>There are certain situations where cancels are justifiable.
[...]
>And the last is if he spams.

Benjamin, as much as I agree with you on the topic of censorship,
I like to point out that posting incoherent rants (so called PRAYERS,
silly songs e.t.c) all over the sci-hierarchy, is pretty much what
many people (me included) consider to be (one form of) spamming.

                              Regards

                               Olov
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenolovm cudfnOlov cudlnMarklund cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.14 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion"
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion"
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 09:00:29 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <435sna$b09@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, zoltanccc@aol.com
(ZoltanCCC) wrote:

> Thank you for your rather detailed post Mitchell regarding our cold fusion
> theories. Here I will try to clarify my views regarding the subjects that
> came up.
> 
> I myself do not have credentials of physics but I did formally study
> quantum mechanics as part of my electrical engineering curriculum. I do
> have the desire to build a nuclear reactor sometime but due to lack of
> time I restrict myself to building robot wrist force sensors and
> controllers for robot arms. I belong to the group of people who share Dr.
> Fredkin's views who thinks that the universe is a cellular automaton and
> all behaviours of elementary particles can be explained if you now what
> rule governs the computations of this machine, what structures correspond
> to various particles and what topology the interconnections have. I do not
> agree with him completely though because I think the universe might just
> be a fancy holodeck, the computations may be performed by a computer which
> is not actually in our universe. 

***{This sounds like the old "brain in a vat" theory, where each human is
just a brain in a vat with electrodes attached, and with his sensory
inputs being fed to him by a gigantic computer. By this scenario, our
human bodies and the universe we know do not exist. Only our brains and an
alien universe unknown to us exist. (This, of course, would be the
universe containing the gigantic computer, its operators, the vat, the
electrodes, our brains, etc.) The difference between your scenario and
this, apparently, is that you do not even concede that our brains exist.
Frankly, I reject both of these theories, though it would serve no purpose
to get into the reasons here. --Mitchell Jones}***

  I had discussions on this with Dr Feynman
> who absolutely believed in quantum mechanics and thought that perhaps
> Fredkin was right but only to the extent that the universe computes the
> quantum mechanical wave function. I tend to agree with him but there is a
> problem of dimensionality. In any case I think we can agree that we are
> somewhat more likely to be right if we explain cold fusion in terms of
> quantum mechanical phenomena as opposed to a classical theory.

***{Rubbish. Let's get something straight: "quantum mechanics" is not
mathematics; it is an *interpretation* of mathematics. Specifically, it is
the "Copenhagen interpretation," according to which phenomena in the
microcosm are "quantized," probabilities are "objective," variables are
"experimenter dependent," and on and on. 

To explain, let me first back up a bit. Basically, there are four kinds of
physicists: (1) Experimental physicists collect data. (2) Mathematical
physicists "curve fit" the data to algebraic equations, composite
functions, or computer algorithms, thereby expressing it in a compact form
suited to analysis and the performance of calculations. (3) Theoretical
physicists form theories which "interpret" the data--which means: they
construct visual models that represent the world in ways that explain the
data, thereby making it possible to think about the world, make
predictions, solve problems, do calculations, etc. (4) Applied physicists
(who, in the West, are mostly termed "engineers") do the day-to-day grunt
work of physics, by actually using the visual models to think about
problems, using the math or the algorithms to do calculations, etc. 

Within the context of such facts, the equations of mathematical physics
are merely a compact method of expressing the data collected by
experimentalists. They have no philosophy, and they don't give a hoot in
hell about how we "interpret" them. This means that theoretical physicists
can disagree, even if mathematical physicists agree. Theoretical
physicists who endorse the "quantum mechanical" or "Copenhagen"
interpretation of the math have no exclusive claim to it. Those who
endorse other models can accept, and use, the mathematics without
embarassment. This means that I can, and do, accept virtually all of the
mathematics routinely used by practitioners of "quantum mechanics" without
accepting the "Copenhagen" interpretation itself. Indeed, not merely do I
not accept the interpretation on which "quantum mechanics" is based, *I
hold it in active contempt.* 

Why? Because the notion that motion in the microcosm is quantized violates
the principle of continuity. The principle of continuity, remember, holds
that *no entity may come into existence out of nothing or vanish into
nothing.* It is an unassailable metaphysical fact, and any theory which
contradicts it must fail on that account alone. If, for example, things
can leap into existence out of nothing, then we have no basis for the
inference from sensation to source, which means: we have no basis for
belief in the existence of anything, including ourselves. Thus "quantum
mechanics," with its zoo of continuity violating "electron jumps" and the
rest, I reject out of hand.

The math, on the other hand, is fine and dandy. It is the visual
model--i.e., the quantum mechanics itself--that I reject. Instead, I
regard the preferred orbits of Bohr and Somerfield as *stable* orbits, not
as the only orbits; and I explicitly affirm that the electron continues to
exist during the time interval of a "jump"--i.e., during the time when it
is transiting from one orbit to another. This means that all of the
in-between orbits affirmed by classical mechanics exist, and are sometimes
occupied. The fact that they are unstable (for reasons that I will not go
into here) only means that under normal circumstances they are not
occupied for very long. Anyway, bottom line: I do not deny the validity of
most of the mathematics used by the practitioners of "quantum mechanics,"
and I do not deny that some of them (e.g., Feynmann, Schwinger, Dirac)
have made important contributions to mathematical physics. What I *do*
deny is their brain dead, continuity violating interpretation of the
mathematics, and their claim that believers in that  brain dead
interpretation are the only one's who have a right to claim the
mathematics. The fact is that most of their math was ported over from
classical mechanics--specifically: from wave mechanics--and they no more
have an exclusive claim to the results of the curve fitting process than
does anyone else. --Mitchell Jones}***   
> 
> Based on my reading of the literature I absolutely believe that cold
> fusion is actually happening, I have no doubt in my mind. 
> 
> If we think that cold fusion is happening we need to explain what is the
> mechanism that does away with the repulsive force between nuclei and we
> need to explain why excessive radiation is not emitted. In fact we know
> that fusion is happening and if we try to figure out how it is happening,
> the lack of excessive radiation is a helpful hint as to what may be going
> on.
> 
> For our explanation we have a soup of particles including Pd ions, Li
> ions, p, d, e and possibly contaminants. We are pretty sure that if the e
> forms a shell around the proton or d particle it will make fusion
> impossible due to its large radius and in that case only a free neutron
> can penetrate and transmutate it. So either we don't have electron shells
> around all d particles or we have free neutrons roaming about or maybe we
> have both. 
> 
> Free neutrons can only be created locally in the lattice because they
> decay by beta emission after a short time (15 minutes or so) although they
> may be created by the cosmic radiation and later multiplied by some
> reaction in the lattice.
> 
> It seems a little easier to assume that some protons or deuterons do not
> have shells around them. In your "Protoneutron theory" you assume that
> already existing hydrogen shells totally fill up the available space in 
> the lattice 

***{Not totally: they fill up most of it, but there still remain
odd-shaped channels between the outer shells of the various atoms in the
lattice. The important point is that sufficient room does not exist, in
those channels, for orthodox hydrogen atoms to form. The largest available
orbit is much smaller than the innermost Bohr orbit of hydrogen.
--Mitchell Jones}***

and newly arriving deuterons cannot form a shell because there
> is no room. The electrons arrive and they are attracted to the proton
> (deuteron) but they cannot form a shell sphere because all space is
> occupied, so they just hang around and you call this the "protoneutron".
> 
> Marshall on the other hand would rather assume that the deuterons find a
> place to hang out in the electron shells of the metal ions and do not have
> a shell of their own.
> In this case the hydrogen is metallized sort of and gives up its electron
> to the lattice just like the metal ions did. 
> 
> I think that Mitchell you are right in that the hydrogen ion will be
> repelled by the metal ions and will occupy a spot in the middle of the
> unit cell, subsequently acquireing an electron shell. 

***{Good. I was afraid we were going to get into trench warfare on this
point, since is was central both to Marshall's theory and to the "electron
capture" theory that you derived from it. (And, by extension, I take it
that we can now set aside the notion of "porpoising neuclei" as well?) By
the way: that is a terrible choice of words. "Electron capture" is a
standard topic in nuclear physics textbooks. In other words, there already
exists a well-developed theory bearing that name. --Mitchell Jones}***

On the other hand
> you are wrong in that the free electrons will form a "protoneutron" with
> the free deuterons. I think the free electrons will accelerate on approach
> to the deuteron and decelerate going away from it. They will not form any
> kind of bound state.

***{I didn't say they would. In fact, I explicitly referred to the
protoneutron as "wildly unstable." Its existence depends utterly upon an
environment which absolutely precludes it from transforming into one of
the stable states. On the other hand, as I have also noted, I very
explicitly affirm the existence of the classical orbits, and I very
explicitly affirm that, when the conditions mandate it, they can be
occupied. As for your claim that the free electrons will accelerate on
approach to the deuteron and decelerate going away from it, that is
virtually tautological. It says nothing about whether the electron does or
does not have escape velocity, which is the only thing that matters here.
If it does not have escape velocity, and if the environment is such that
the stable orbits are precluded, then it will, in fact, linger in the
unstable, classical orbits--i.e., the orbits which, according to "quantum
mechanics," do not exist. If you claim otherwise, then you are claiming a
violation of the conservation laws. --Mitchell Jones}***    
> 
> If we don't assume free roaming neutrons in the latti

***{At this point, your post was truncated. I do not know what proportion
of all the newsgroup servers in the world have the truncated version of
your post, but it may be that they all do. I suggest that you re-post. I
will continue my analysis as soon as I receive the remainder of your
comments. --Mitchell Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.14 / Horace Heffner /  Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion"
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion"
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 09:27:25 -0900
Organization: none

In article <435sna$b09@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, zoltanccc@aol.com
(ZoltanCCC) wrote:

[sinp]

> Marshall on the other hand would rather assume that the deuterons find a
> place to hang out in the electron shells of the metal ions and do not have
> a shell of their own.
> In this case the hydrogen is metallized sort of and gives up its electron
> to the lattice just like the metal ions did. 
> 
> I think that Mitchell you are right in that the hydrogen ion will be
> repelled by the metal ions and will occupy a spot in the middle of the

If no shell around the H ion is involved (e.g. can't be formed due to lack
of room), there is no reason to believe this. The H+ is surrounded by -
conduction bands. The H+ ion will induce (hold) a further - charge in the
conduction band, thus being attracted towards the boundary of the cell it
ios in. If you doubt this, try charging up a piece of plastic wrap on a
long thread and then dangling the charged plastic in the center of a metal
bucket. It will be attracted to the sides.  Faraday will be confirmed yet
again.

> unit cell, subsequently acquireing an electron shell. On the other hand
> you are wrong in that the free electrons will form a "protoneutron" with
> the free deuterons. I think the free electrons will accelerate on approach
> to the deuteron and decelerate going away from it. They will not form any
> kind of bound state. 
>

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

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Sep 16 04:37:06 EDT 1995
------------------------------
