1995.09.19 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Infinite Energy Vol 1, No. 3
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Infinite Energy Vol 1, No. 3
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 15:11 -0500 (EST)

I received the latest Infinite Energy yesterday, and had a chance to read it
last night.  I am impressed with several articles and the class of this
magazine.  It is much better than the first issue which I reported on here
previously.

There are a number of articles on cold fusion, and several on other devices,
such as various cavitation devices.  I found the article "Low-Energy
Transmutation Conference of Texas A&M" very interesting.  It was composed of
short reports on each of the papers given at this conference.

Included are:

"Overview of EPRI Program in Deuterided Metals." by Dr. Thomas O. Pussell of
the Electric Power Research Institute in Palo Alto, California.  This paper
reports on cold fusion cells with traces of boron and aluminum.  Two fast
neutron episodes were reported (but at only 2X background).  The cathodes were
determined to be radioactive after the run and it appears that isotopes of Ag,
Pd, Rh and Ru were generated by transmutation.

"Iron Formation in Gold and Palladium Cathodes" by Dr. T. Ohmori of Hokkaido
University.  This paper reports excess heat using gold, silver, nickel and tin
cathodes in light water and light water.  In the case of gold, iron was also
produced, and the quantity produced was proportional to the amount of excess
energy produced.  Excess power ranged from .2 to 1 watt.  The excess was not
expressed as a percentage above unity.  The ratio of Fe57 to Fe54 was not
consistant with a natural source.

"Material Analysis after Glow Discharge" by Dr. Y. Kucherow of ENECO.  A number
of elements were found that should not have been there.  Which elements were
found was not given.

"Microanalysis of Pd Cathodes after Electrolysis in Aquous Acids" by Dr. John
Dash of Portland St. University.  This paper reports on a cell using Pd and
sulfuric acid.  A light water cell was operated as a control against the heavy
water cell.  Active areas were found in the heavy water cells by microscope
examination, and these areas showed the presence of sliver and cadmium.  Large
quantities of gold were found in spikes protruding from the lelctrodes in BOTH
the heavy and light water control cells.  The gold spikes continued to grow
even after removal from the cell.

Duplicating the experiment with titanium cathodes gave increased amount of
excess heat, causing the cell to run 4 degrees higher.  In the case of titanium
Cr, Fe and Ca were found in one of the active areas.

Reviewer's note:  The continued growth of the gold spike after removal from the
solution is not surprising.  Gold tends to migrate very easily, and causes many
problems in IC manufacturing because it tends to want to grow spikes and
bridges if there is any significant electric field in the vicinity.  Copper
must be plated with nickel prior to gold plating connectors or jewelry, or the
gold will migrate into the copper.  If gold does not have an affinity for the
palladium, then it is expected to migrate to an area where it does have an
affinity, ie. into the already gold spike.

"Electrolytically Stimulated Cold Nuclear Synthesis of Strontium from
Rubidium" by Dr. Robert Bush of Cal Plly, Pomona.  This paper reports that
experiments with a nickel produced strontium by adding a proton to rubidium.
It does not state where the rubidium came from.  Strontium was found after the
run which was not present prior to the run.  The isotope ratios of the
strontium were checked and found to be different than that from natural
sources.  I suspect that rubidium and strontium got confused in the writing of
this report as it starts out talking about how the isotopic abundance of
rubidium is well known, but then claims that the ratios of strontium were what
was actually checked.

"Low Temperature Nuclear Change of Alkali Metallic Ions Caused by Electrolysis"
by Dr. Reiko Notoya of Catalysis Research Center at Hokkaido Unviersity in
Japan.  Light water experiments were reported to change potassium to calcium,
Cs-133 to something with a mass of 134, and sodium 25 to sodium 24.  This
report lacks much detail, like how adding a proton to Na25 would give a isotope
with an atomic weight 1 less.

"Mechanism of Low Temperature Transmutation" by Dr. Georgiy S. Rabzi of
Ukrainian Int'l Academy of Original Ideas in Russia (I assume).  This paper was
originally written in Russian and a translation was passed out.  The report is
not very convincing as measurements in the normal sense were not made, or at
least not reported.  For instance a steel nut became copper colored and was
decreased in size, and magnetic stainless steel turned non-magnetic.  (IE. I
could duplicate the reported steel nut changes by immersion in nitric acid).

The only place where specifics were reported was where lead (99.5% purity)
ended up with 3% silver content after treating it to 650 degrees C.  No
specifics as to what else was done were given, and I am sure that simply
heating lead would not cause this.  If it did, then bullet and fishing sinker
manufacturers would have discovered it long ago. (Hmmm, I wonder if the Lone
Ranger, naaaa) :).  No radioactivity was reported. They claim that nuclear
wastes may be made non-radioactive via transmutations.

"Uncertainties of Conventional Theories and New Improved Formulations of
Low-Energy Nuclear Fusion Reactions" by Yeong E. Kim and Alexander L. Zubarev
of the Dept. of Phyusics at Purdue University in West Layfayette, Indiana.
This theoratical paper reports that by using new formulations based on the
optical theorem and the radial distribution function near cancellation of the
Gamow factor (coulomb barrier) can occur.  They also indicate that the
probability of 3 body reactions is much higher than previously suspected as
well.

"Neutron Capture in Low Temperature Nuclear REactions" by Dr. Peter Hagelstein
of MIT.  This theoretical paper discusses a number of things which are not
presently accepted by theorists, such as energy transfers and neutron hopping,
and proposes theories to explain these results.  The concept of a phonon laser
is discussed.

"Can the Electron Catalyzed Fusion Model (ECFM) Account for Light Water Fusion"
by Dr. Robert Bush of Cal Poly, Pomona.  This theoretical paper discusses the
stability of the hydrogen atom as a result of the ZPE field.  According to this
theory, a distortion of the field can cause the electron in a hydrogen atom to
go into a higher energy state and give off energy.  Tritium production with
heavy water an palladium should occur about about 82.5% loading, but the
production vs loading is a 12th power function according to this paper.  (That
would certainly explain inconsistant results.)  An editors note states that
this theory has been criticized as being too empirical.  However if it has
predictive capability, then it could still be quite useful.

"General Explanation of Radioactivities in the Experiments of Deuterided
Metals" by Mr. R. Davis.  No organization or country/state are given.  This
paper deals with the nucleon cluster model, which is reviewed further down.

"Analysis of Elements for Solid State Electrolyte in Deuterium Atmosphere
during Aplied Electric Field"  This paper discusses the use of a proton
conductor in a deuterium atmosphere at 400 to 700 degree C.  Alternating
voltages of from 5 to 45 volts were applied, and a "few watts of excess thermal
power" was produced.  Input power was not give, so there is no way to figure
the % over unity.  In addition several elements were produced which were not
present prior to testing.  These include Al, Bi, Sm, Gd and Dy.

"Experimental Examination of Russel's Theory of Transmutation" by Toby Grotz,
Dr. Timothy A. Binder and Ronald J. Kovac of the University of Science and
Philosophy.  This paper reports attempts the authors made in trying to
duplicate the work of Russel from about 100 years ago.  They report positive
results in producing florine from water vapor and an element with atomic weight
of 5 from vacuum plasma experiments.

"Tritium Production from a Low Voltage Deuterium Discharge on Palladium and
Other Metals" by Dr. Thomas Claytor of Los Alamos National Lab.  This paper
discribes a device in which substantial amounts of tritium are produced by a
plazma type device.

"Orbital Rearrangements of Mono-atomic Elements" by Mr. D. Hudson.  This paper
claims that it is possible to make some elements "invisible" to normal chemical
analysis.  Apparently this is done by clustering a few atoms together.  It does
not appear that this paper is reporting any fusion or transmutations.

"Variation of the Half-lives of Radioactive Elements and Associated Cold Fusion
and Cold Fusion Reactions" by Dr. Roberto Monti of Burns Development Ltd.  This
paper discusses experiments in which the chemical composition of the materials
after "ignition" was dramatically different than what it was prior to
"ignition".  A note from the editor states that Bockris mentioned claims that
seom radioactive materials can be neutralized somewhat by heating to 1,000 to
1,500 degrees C.
(Continued next message)
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.19 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: Lost neutron mass and electron capture
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lost neutron mass and electron capture
Date: 19 Sep 1995 16:24:17 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

When a neutron decays it emits an electron and a neutrino and becomes a
proton.

The neutrino and electron share about 0.782 MeV energy. In every reaction
a different portion of the energy is carried away by the electron. 

I believe the energy of 0.782 is needed in addition to the kinetic energy
gained by the electron falling into the proton.

Incidentally I am wondering how much energy the electrons have due to
their thermal motion in the lattice. The naked deutrerons have good
mobility as well as the electrons and they collide due to thermal motion.
I am curious how much extra energy we need to get the 0.782 MeV. If
somebody could look this up it would be great.

Zoltan Szakaly
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.18 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 10:01:42 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <43dqam$12o@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, mrichar353@aol.com
(MRichar353) wrote:

> blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) wrote:
> 
> >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.
> 
> Probably the easiest method of detection would be to examine the mean life
> of persons standing in the vicinity of the apparatus. Of course, they
> wouldn't be standing very long...
> 
> Mark Richardson

Mark, it is bad policy to read a criticism of a post but not the post
itself. The critic may be deranged, or ignorant, or may not even have
bothered to read the original post himself. Because of that, if you post
based solely on having read a criticism, you run a high risk of looking
like a jerk. 

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.18 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 10:09:13 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <43dukk$34t@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry
Merriman) wrote:

> In article <199509151301.JAA31026@pilot04.cl.msu.edu> blue@pilot.msu.edu  
> (Richard A Blue) writes:
> > 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
> 
> I think Griggs would be dead if such a gamma source really
> existed, so the theory must be wrong. Next!


***{Barry, I suggest that you consult with Mark Anderson. He is apparently
looking for advice on how to look like a jerk. Since this is an area in
which you are an established expert, I think you should take him under
your wing! --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> --
> Barry Merriman
> UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
> UCLA Dept. of Math
> bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.19 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: 27,458 skeptics
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 27,458 skeptics
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 95 10:05:53 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) writes:
 
     "No, I did not forget tritium. Your comments stated tritium may or may
     not be produced in CF experiments. If it is possible to have CF and no
     tritium then tritium is not an essential component of CF."
 
It is also possible to have fission without a run-away chain reaction
resulting in an explosion. But the fact that such explosions can occur is
essential to understanding fission. The fact that some CF cells, under some
circumstances, produce large amounts of tritium is vital to understanding the
nature of CF. The tritium is much easier to detect than helium. It proves that
nuclear transmutations can occur in metal hydrides at room temperature. This
should come as a great surprise to physicists, who believe transmutations can
only occur at much higher energy levels. The tritium proves the coulomb
barrier can be overcome at room temperature, so it is logical to assume that
it is also being overcome in heat generating CF reactions. The helium shows
this is the case. Overall, the proof that CF incorporates nuclear reactions is
rock solid, and so is the proof that CF cannot be chemical. The massive excess
plus the fact that no chemical changes occur in a working cell clinch that.
However, the fact that CF does include nuclear reactions does not preclude the
possibility that it might also include other reactions even more energetic
than fission or fusion.
 
In short, tritium may or not be always be generated by CF (that issue is not
settled to my satisfaction) but it is sometimes generated, and that fact
essential to our understanding of the process. If you define CF and you leave
out all mention of tritium, that is like defining fission while leaving out
the fact that it can be used to make a bomb. You cannot forget tritium. When
you pretend CF does not produce tritium, that helps you pretend room
temperature nuclear reactions cannot occur in metal hydrides, which helps you
rewrite reality any way you like. When you can pick and choose whatever data
catches your fancy, and ignore the rest, you can prove anything you like. You
could even prove that fission much be a chemical reaction. That's fun, but it
isn't science.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.19 / N Redington /  New Online Physics Resource
     
Originally-From: redingtn@athena.mit.edu (Norman H Redington)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics
Subject: New Online Physics Resource
Date: 19 Sep 1995 14:44:42 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dear Colleague:

This is to bring to your attention a new physics resource on
the World Wide Web which I am making available for free to the
world scientific community: the Net Advance of Physics Homepage. 

What I have created is a collection of links to review-article
preprints and advanced (mainly graduate-school level) tutorials 
in all areas of physics. One might think of -The Net Advance of 
Physics- as being an encyclopaedia, like the old -Handbuch
der Physik-; links are indexed both alphabetically and by branch
of physics, generally under multiple keywords. 

On the other hand, one might also view it as as a review journal.
I hope that the authors of review articles indexed here will
find time to update their work periodically; if they do so, -The
Net Advance of Physics- could well become a significant work of
reference. I also hope that physicists will consider writing
review articles expressly for publication here.

I am strongly committed to making -The Net Advance of Physics-
available without charge on every physicists' electronic
desktop. I would like to invite you to visit the site and, if you 
think it interesting or useful, link it to your own web page.
In any case, I would welcome your comments or suggestions.
Obviously the site is under perpetual construction, and the
number of topics covered will increase.

The location of the URL is 

              http://pobox.com/~redingtn

Sincerely,

Norman Hugh Redington,


cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenredingtn cudfnNorman cudlnRedington cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.19 / Robin Spaandonk /  Re: Reproducible but not predictable?
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reproducible but not predictable?
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 13:26:28 GMT
Organization: Improving

In article <199509151434.KAA38413@pilot04.cl.msu.edu>, Richard A Blue
wrote :
[snip]
>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
>
If the process is dependent upon certain global conditions being met
as well as the local conditions you specify, then only in those cases
where all conditions are met would CF occur. If the global conditions
are much more important than the local conditions, then ensemble
averaging would play a correspondingly less significant role. Success
or failure being primarily a function of whether or not the global
conditions are met. This would be more pronounced, if those global
conditions were sharply peaked.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@netspace.net.au>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything,
Learns all his life,
And leaves knowing nothing.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.19 / Robin Spaandonk /  Lost neutron mass and electron capture
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Lost neutron mass and electron capture
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 13:26:38 GMT
Organization: Improving

I have noted that the mass given for the H atom in the CRC Handbook is
equal to the mass of a proton plus the mass of an electron. So what is
so surprising about that you may say?
Well if the proton and the electron are treated as classical point
charges of opposite sign, then at normal atomic sizes, the electron
has a considerable potential energy relative to the proton. In fact
the amount of energy that this represents is determined by the
distance to which they approach each other. Now in an electron
capture, that distance becomes very small.
In fact if you do the sums, it turns out that the electron needs to
approach the proton to within a distance of 1.841 F in order that the
energy delivered is equal to that required to make up the .782 MeV
difference in mass between H and a neutron. Now it seems to me that
1.841 F is a very reasonable distance for electron capture. In other
words, if electron capture is to take place, in fact little or no
extra energy need be supplied to the Hydrogen atom. This energy in
fact is already present in the potential energy of the two charges
relative to one another in the original atom. 
This further implies that when a neutron decays into a hydrogen atom,
no extra energy is released. 

Now will someone please tell me where I went wrong?
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@netspace.net.au>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything,
Learns all his life,
And leaves knowing nothing.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.18 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: 27,458 skeptics
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 27,458 skeptics
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 95 13:04:32 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Richard Schultz <schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu> asks:
 
     "Which is it?  Does CF produce tritium always, sometimes, or never?"
 
Read the literature and you will see for yourself.
 
 
     "And the fundamental questions of what is the actual He background level
     and how was the He removed from the Pd are by no means out of line.  And
     I have yet to see a coherent answer to either of those questions."
 
Read the literature, and you will see the answer. You have yet to look, so you
have yet to see.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.18 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 95 13:12:50 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Bob Sullivan <bsulliva@sky.net> writes:
 
>No need to do the experiment. It's already been done. The water does gain 
>heat. The Rothwell measurement protocol would identify it as cold fusion --  
>heat beyond chemistry, but the heat gain is explained by conventional physics. 
 
Nonsense. You have not read any of my papers about Griggs. A waterfall is
an example of mechanical energy added to the water. This is exactly like
the blank or null runs I reported with the Griggs machine. There is no
excess.
 
Incidentally, when and where did anyone measure the water temperature above
and below Niagra Falls? Do you have any specific references or do you recall
any work like this? I know that the temperature at other waterfalls has been
measured. J. P. Joule measured one during his honeymoon. But I do not know
if anyone has checked Niagra. It is so large that it might harbor an anomaly
-- if any waterfall does.
 
This comment of yours is typical of the "ignorant skeptic." You put words in
my mouth even though all of my papers about this very subject (Griggs)
specifically and repeatedly say just the opposite of what you claim I say.
You pay no attention to the literature or to previous messages; you invent
arguments and statements and then you pretend that I said them. This is the
"straw man" technique of debating. It is irrational, impolite and it is a
waste of everyone's time, including yours, so you should stop doing it.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.19 / Paul Karol /  Re: Lost neutron mass and electron capture
     
Originally-From: Paul Karol <pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lost neutron mass and electron capture
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 12:51:25 -0400
Organization: Chemistry, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.sci.physics.fusion: 19-Sep-95 Lost neutron mass
and elect.. by Robin van Spaandonk@nets 
> In fact if you do the sums, it turns out that the electron needs to
> approach the proton to within a distance of 1.841 F in order that the
> energy delivered is equal to that required to make up the .782 MeV
> difference in mass between H and a neutron. Now it seems to me that
> 1.841 F is a very reasonable distance for electron capture. In other

Assuming total energy is constant, how does an electron approach a
nucleus, changing the potential energy, and therefore its kinetic
energy, and therefore its velocity, and not radiate energy as required
classically for an accelerating charge?

PJK
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudfnPaul cudlnKarol cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.18 / Chris Sanderson /  What ever happened to muon-catalyzed fusion?
     
Originally-From: cisande@gamma.std.com (Chris Sanderson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What ever happened to muon-catalyzed fusion?
Date: 18 Sep 1995 17:05:02 GMT
Organization: Clemson University, Clemson, SC

I posted this question to sci.physics. They suggested I post
over here. Silly me.

The question remains: What ever happened to muon catalyzed
fusion? 

To sci.physics people: I have your replies, there is no need to
repeat what has already been said. This question is for the fusion
people. Thanks in advance.

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudencisande cudfnChris cudlnSanderson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.19 / 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: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 00:57:35 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <43igr8$c2h@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, zoltanccc@aol.com
(ZoltanCCC) wrote:

> In order to preserve bandwidth I do not wish to comment in length on
> anything you say that involves the question of who deserves credit for
> what aspect of what we discover by brainstorming in this newsgroup.

***{What's this "we," white man? :-) Seriously, you continue to use loaded
words with which I disagree. Each participant in a newsgroup discussion is
a unique individual, not a member of some sort of homogeneous collective,
and such insights as he or she might gain are made alone, not as part of
some sort of "team." Moreover, there is a vast range of variation from
participant to participant regarding the relationship between what he puts
into the discussion versus what he takes away from it. A person who brings
a fully conceived solution to the table, for example, puts in far more
than he takes out. On the other hand, those who come with questions and
leave with answers take out far more than they put in. Thus I reject your
characterization of what has been going on here. Your view is both
fundamentally collectivistic and at variance with the facts.  

With regard to who deserves credit for what, I can only say that since you
repeatedly brought the subject up and I never said a single word about it
except in response to you, it follows that if you drop the topic, it is
dead. And good riddance to it! --Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
> I would like to comment on the philosophical issue of a particle moving
> from one spot to another in space. In my view space is a computer that
> obviously computes the states of particles and stores information that
> indicates their positions, velocities and so on. 

***{We have to distinguish between information, the entities on which the
information is stored, and the entities which the information describes.
Otherwise, we fall into the absurd view that nothing exists except
information. The existence of information presupposes the existence of
entities on which the information is stored, and, if the information is
correct, it presupposes the existence of the entities which the
information is "about." The existence of particles (entities) is thus more
fundamental than the existence of "information," and it is not reasonable
to treat particles as if they are information, or as if their existence
depends on information. The epistemological status of information is
derived from, and subordinate to, the concept of particle/entity--which
means: reality is not derived from, based upon, or supported by the
existence of information. Bottom line: reality has an objective character
that is independent of our information about it. If we want our
information to be accurate, we must adjust it to reality, because reality
is not going to adjust itself to our information. --Mitchell Jones}***

These views are not mine
> alone. When one is to assume the electron moves on a trajectory there is a
> finite granularity on which scale the electron does not exist because it
> is really a complicated structure whose information is being copied from
> location to location as it moves. 

***{The clear implication of this description is that the particle is
identical with the information. (Otherwise, why does the information have
to move? In a human-made computer here on earth, for example, we don't
have to move the information denoting the present location of a space
probe just because the probe moves. We can simply overwrite the old
information with the new information as the probe moves through space.)
Unfortunately, if particles/entities are just "information," then no
"things" exist for the information to be "about." Such a position amounts
to a denial of existence itself. --Mitchell Jones}***

 The area of space where the electron's
> wave function is may be very large, macroscopic in size. 

***{Here, again, you continue on the same tack, treating "quantum
mechanical" interpretations and the concepts derived from them as if they
are reality itself. But this is totally wrong. The wave function is a
mathematical construct that exists here on earth, in the minds of
physicists, not out there in space. It is a curve-fitted approximation to
the data obtained thus far by experimental physicists, using the crude
instruments available to us at the present time and the even cruder ones
available in the past, and is the evolved result of much "tweaking." The
tweaking has been repeatedly necessary in the past because discrepancies
between prediction and observation have been routinely noticed, as
instrumentation has improved and more experiments have been done.
Moreover, it is an absolutely certain fact that further tweaking will be
necessary in the future. Why will it be necessary? Because reality is a
separate thing, independent from and in on way dependent upon the "wave
function" or any other information construct that we use to describe it.
Because "quantum mechanics" denies this, it is properly classified under
the heading of religion, not science. --Mitchell Jones}***

  The pointlike
> electron is just a phenomena that is observed when the wave function
> collapses on the point of impact. To say for example that electrons go
> around and around the nucleus is not a correct picture of reality because
> the wave function for example for the first shell is a bell shaped curve
> with its center at the nucleus. 

***{Wrong again. All of the phenomena of nature are the outcome of the
interactions of particles/entities, and all particles, including the
electron, move in strict accordance with the principle of continuity. [For
new readers of this thread: the principle of continuity holds that no
entity may come into existence out of nothing or vanish into nothing.] The
principle of continuity is a fundamental, inescapable metaphysical fact.
Without it, the entire structure of human knowledge instantly crumbles,
taking with it the wave function and all the other curve-fitted
mathematical constructs of modern physics. Since the validity of the
principle of continuity and the entity/particle worldview is foundational
to knowledge itself, it follows that any "interpretation" of curve-fitted
mathematics which conflicts with it is wrong on its face, and must be
tossed out. Since the "quantum mechanical" interpretation is explicity a
denial of the validity of the principle of continuity, it fails on a
priori, logical grounds. 

Why is the validity of the principle of continuity foundational to
knowledge itself? Because if it is possible for any particular thing--a
pomegranate, say--to leap into existence out of nothing, then it would be
possible for any other thing--our sensations, say--to do likewise. In that
case, we would have no basis for the inference from sensation to source.
This means sunlight would not permit us to infer the existence of the sun;
the images of our hands, feet, torso, legs, etc., would not permit us to
infer the existence of our bodies; remembered events would not permit us
to infer the existence of brain structures (i.e., "memory") where such
information is stored; and so on. The implication: if the principle of
continuity is invalid, then we have no basis for belief in the existence
of anything, including ourselves. This means the entire structure of human
knowledge collapses if the principle of continuity is wrong. Therefore any
"interpretation" of curve-fitted mathematics that conflicts with it must
be wrong, and must be tossed out. 

Since "quantum mechanics" is explicitly based on the notion that motion in
the microcosm is discontinuous--i.e., a series of discrete "quantum leaps"
or "jumps" in which the particle vanishes from one location in the chain
and magically appears at the next, without passing through the intervening
space--it follows that "quantum mechanics" is a fundamentally flawed idea
that must be tossed out. Indeed, the idea is so grotesque that even if we
were to falsely assume that no other "interpretation" of the curve-fitted
mathematics of physics were available, "quantum mechanics" would still not
merit an instant's consideration. *One cannot add to the structure of
human knowledge by tearing away the supports that make knowledge
possible.*  --Mitchell Jones}***

<side issues snipped>
> 
> Zoltan Szakaly

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.19 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: What ever happened to muon-catalyzed fusion?
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What ever happened to muon-catalyzed fusion?
Date: 19 Sep 1995 02:08:15 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

What I know is from a Scientific American article. A muon can catalize up
to several hundred fusion reactions. The process works in a chamber of gas
irradiated with muons, around 600 C temperature if I recall correctly. The
problem is that the muons are expensive to make, the whole thing is not
worth it because of the cost of the muons. 

The mass of a muon is over 100 MeV, so it is not easy to make one. 

Perhaps my contribution to this subject is useless, but I would like to
see a discussion of it.

Zoltan Szakaly
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.17 /   /  (no subject)
     
Originally-From: <hench>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: (no subject)
Date: 17 Sep 1995 15:47:42 GMT
Organization: Technical University of Brno, Czech Republic

There's an interesting article on Fusion in this weeks issue
of "The Economist", in case anyone was interested...
--
***********************************************************
** J.J. Hench  Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic **
** URL: http://www.utia.cas.cz/user_data/hench/home.html **
***********************************************************

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudln cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.17 /   /  The Economist
     
Originally-From: <hench>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Economist
Date: 17 Sep 1995 15:48:44 GMT
Organization: Technical University of Brno, Czech Republic

There's an interesting article on Fusion in this weeks issue
of "The Economist", in case anyone was interested...
--
***********************************************************
** J.J. Hench  Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic **
** URL: http://www.utia.cas.cz/user_data/hench/home.html **
***********************************************************

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudln cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.19 /   /  cmsg cancel <-1709950214210001@ip-salem1-21.teleport.com>
     
Originally-From: <singtech@teleport.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <-1709950214210001@ip-salem1-21.teleport.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 02:23:12 -0800
Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016

cancel <-1709950214210001@ip-salem1-21.teleport.com>
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudensingtech cudln cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.18 / Arthur TOK /  Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005
     
Originally-From: awc@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur Carlson TOK )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.energy,sci.space.policy,m
sc.industry.utilities.electric
Subject: Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005
Date: 18 Sep 1995 12:17:36 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <jaboweryDF18xI.3Kv@netcom.com> jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:

> How about we go for a much nearer term claim that is just as incredible
> according to your prior posts ridiculing Paul Koloc's supposed failure
> to grasp basic principles of physics like the virial theorem:
> 
> By December 21, 1995, I will produce three independent witnesses of 
> unimpeachable credentials, who claim that they recognize the essential
> validity of Paul Koloc's MHD model of a stable compound plasma 
> configuration (plasma shell containing a vacum poloidal field containing 
>  a toroidal plasma with relativistic currents).

There are some procedural and some substantial problems here. First,
we would need operating definitions of "unimpeachable" and
"essentially valid". We would also need to determine just what part of
the many things Paul Koloc has and has not said constitute his
model. But we don't need to go into details here for a different
reason: There's a world of difference between some people endorsing an
idea and the truth of that idea. You can probably find three people
with six Ph.D.'s who will testify to the validity of any crackpot
idea. Depending on how the terms are defined, I would give something
close to even odds that you actually could find three such people
(even without offering them $1000 each from your winnings.) The
original bet had a number of restrictive clauses that make it a sure
thing.  Above all, it's hard to overlook an existing commercial power
plant and hard to pretend a nonexisting one is there, so we're dealing
with facts more than opinions. On the other hand, to get to facts of
this quality requires many years, which makes betting on them
unattractive for other reasons. Add to that the fact that I am not
more money hungry than average (otherwise I wouldn't have gone into
physics), so gambling for its own sake doesn't excite me, and I have
to conclude that it is unlikely that we will ever devise a bet which
is interesting to both of us. However, ...

In article <43hji1$1qpt@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de
(Bruce Scott TOK ) writes:

> If Paul and you publish the model including those relativistic currents
> as a valid equilibrium _including the model calculation_ by December 31,
> 1996, I will buy each of you a bottle of good champagne, publicly if you
> like.  If math isn't your style, find a coauthor who will do that part.
> The list of journals which qualify is: ...
> 
> Note that 1996 is no typo; I do mean 1996.  That gives you 14 months
> plus. 

This starts to get interesting. The time scale is reasonable, the
criteria and method of judgement (refereed journal) sufficiently
unambiguous and rigorous. As it stands, just requiring a proven
equilibrium which looks something like a plasmak, I would give odds
not too much better than 1:1 because I believe such an equilibrium
exists. (Whether Paul Koloc can prove it is the interesting question.)
If the criterion is explicitly added that this equilibrium must
violate the virial theorem, I would offer some very favorable odds, if
anyone is interested.


And finally, this thread has been going on too long to be carried in
five newsgroups. I've trimmed the followups list to
sci.physics.fusion. Yell if you feel snubbed. (Cheer if you're glad to
be rid of it.)
-- 
To study, to finish, to publish. -- Benjamin Franklin

Dr. Arthur Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTOK cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.18 / Richard Schultz /  Re: 27,458 skeptics
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 27,458 skeptics
Date: 18 Sep 1995 15:03:53 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

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

>You forgot tritium! As I said hundred times: Don't throw away the data. There
>is no point to pretending CF does not produce tritium.

But in article <hVBDtrR.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, he had written
 
>Most heat generating cells do not produce measurable amounts of tritium.

Which is it?  Does CF produce tritium always, sometimes, or never?  If 
the answer is "always", then perhaps you should consider retracting the
second statement above.  If the answer is "sometimes," then perhaps
you should consider retracting (or at least significantly modifying)
the first statement above.  I assume that you do not think that the answer is 
"never".

(Back to article <RLLhVJk>, in which Rothwell discusses the questions
raised about the He detection methods used by CF researchers.)

>As far as I am concerned these "questions" that have
>been raised have no scientific merit. . .

Excuse me for asking, but what does your belief have to do with it?  One
thing you should learn about science is that "arguments from authority"
rarely cut it.  And that is all that you (or your acolyte Mitchell Swartz)
have presented.  Now you can argue about neutrons or tritium all you want,
and I will admit that I am not much of an expert.  But I have a piece of
news for you: my Ph. D. research project was in tandem mass spectrometry.
And I would say that I have a much better idea of what a QPMS (something
whose operating principles I, unlike you, have some understanding of) can
and cannot do than you do.  The questions raised about the conditions under 
which the measurements were made, and the error analyses made therefrom, are
neither without scientific merit, nor are they raised to obfuscate
any issues.  In fact, peer reviews of papers in mass spectrometry almost
always end up asking some variant of those two questions if the result is
even remotely questionable.  "Are you *sure* that you have adequately
separated signal from background?" is *not* an unreasonable question,
especially when the background and foreground signals are reported in
completely different units.  And the fundamental questions of what is
the actual He background level and how was the He removed from the Pd are
by no means out of line.  And I have yet to see a coherent answer to either
of those questions.

I am hardly the first one to suggest this to you, but in line with the
Yiddish aphorism that if three people tell you you're drunk go lie down,
I would like to add my voice to the chorus that before you go on
another one of your patented rants about the scientific method, and 
what is and is not a legitimate scientific question, you make some effort
to learn at least a flyspeck about how science is actually practiced by
scientists.  And before you go around claiming a second time that you 
NEVER EVER comment on things that are over your head you consider your
comments in this thread and how they are likely to be received by 
people who can, say, see over the wainscoting without standing on
tiptoe.  (P.S.  Arthur Koestler doesn't count unless you want to 
openly admit that you are, let us say, eccentric in the extreme.)
--
					Richard Schultz

"You don't even have a clue as to which clue you're missing." -- Miss Manners
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.18 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 09:53:54 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <199509151301.JAA31026@pilot04.cl.msu.edu>, blue@pilot.msu.edu
(Richard A Blue) wrote:

> 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

Dick, what can I say? In my original post concerning the protoneutron
theory, I hypothesized that protoneutrons are rapacious gamma ray
absorbers--that when the gamma is above about .78 Mev, its energy is used
to turn the protoneutron into a neutron, and that when it is less than
that, it is absorbed by the protoneutron in the form of kinetic energy.
This means that gammas will not be emitted from an environment in which
there are lots of protoneutrons, and it means that this "signal," which
you label as "hard to miss" will be, in fact, hard to find. Here is my
question for you: why do you post comments about a theory which you
apparently have not bothered to read? 

As for the truth value of my hypothesis, well, that will be decided by
analyzing the experimental evidence, if and when the appropriate
experiments are done. In my original post I suggested two possible
experimental tests: 

(1) It may be that protoneutrons soak up gamma energy before the photons
reach the speed of light. In that case, an experimental test might involve
the introduction of thermal neutrons into an environment thought to be
rich in protoneutrons. A known number of thermal neutrons would produce a
predictable sprinkling of gamma emissions from an unloaded cathode, and,
if those emissions were absent from a "turned on" cathode, would confirm
the hypothesis.

(2) It may be that protoneutrons soak up gamma energy after the photons
reach the speed of light. In that case, an experimental test might involve
bombarding a palladium cathode with gammas larger than .78 Mev both before
and after the cathode "turned on,"  and comparing the resulting gamma
absorptions. By my hypothesis, virtually all the gammas would be absorbed
that entered "turned on" regions of the cathode. Indeed, it would be
possible to use gammas to "x-ray" a cathode, and map the regions that had
and had not turned on. 

I should note, by the way, that my intuition suggests that protoneutrons
do, in fact, absorb gammas after the photons reach lightspeed, rather than
before, and so I regard it as likely that both the experiment described in
(1) and (2) will yield positive results. Less likely, but possible, would
be a negative outcome on (2) and a positive outcome on (1). And, of
course, if both (1) and (2) are negative, and the experiments are sound,
then the protoneutron theory is refuted.

Now, back to your post: frankly, I don't understand why you bother to make
posts like that. Maybe you think that your unsupported opinion is going to
carry the day, somehow, and that is why you do it. If so, then surely, at
some level, you must realize that is incorrect. There are people out in
the real world who are actually serious about this stuff. They are reading
the papers and doing experimental work. They aren't going to let your
unsupported intuitions control what they believe, any more than they will
let mine do so. They will run the experiments and settle the protoneutron
question once and for all. If the verdict comes in and the arguments are
rock solid, then we will both have to accept it, whether we like it or
not. 

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.18 / 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: 18 Sep 1995 15:01:10 GMT
Organization: cea

jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
>>  But the nuclear tests by France have also another goal: to make credible
>>the french nuclear deterrent, by showing that France is still a sovereign
>>country and is ready to take soverign decisions and carry them out whatever
>>the rest of the world may think of it.
>
>Does the big bad Deutsch Mark scare the poor little old franc?  
>
>Chunnel tourists from Britain ordering boiled beef in your restautrants? 
>
>EuroDisney still open?  
>
>Nothing like a sovereign decision to make you feel better. 
>
 That is a trivial way to see it. If the purpose of this forum is to throw
insults at each other, then drop dead.

>If France *really* wanted to demonstrate credibility, they would set 
>off the tests right there in France.  To prove you are ready to use 
>nuclear weapons, you have to prove that you are ready and willing to 
>commit national suicide.  
>
 But the tests are being done "right in france", since for your information
tahitians are french citizens. And before you start shouting that that is
colonial nonsense, remember that the USA also has a few "colonies" in the 
region. But that is not the point.
 Testing nuclear weapons in continental France would not "prove that you
are ready to commit national suicide", since there is very little chance of
a nuclear accident. The only thing it would prove is readiness to risk the
political future of the government for no real benefit !

Mario


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.18 / Mario Pain /  Re: Creation of an Academy of Sciences in Quebec
     
Originally-From: Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Creation of an Academy of Sciences in Quebec
Date: 18 Sep 1995 15:05:12 GMT
Organization: cea

zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC) wrote:
>Charactristic of the French Canadians to post in French into a newsgroup
>that has been exclusively in English. 
>
>Wake up guys, the rest of the continent speaks english.
>
>Zoltan Szakaly

 The rest of what continent ? Well of course mexicans do not exist, and neither
do canadian french...

Mario







cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Sep 20 04:37:04 EDT 1995
------------------------------
