1995.09.28 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 95 03:53:15 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Corporation

In article <21cenlogic-2709951849550001@austin-2-16.i-link.net>,
   21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:
>In article <43r8fk$72c_001@ip012.sky.net>, bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
>wrote:
><big snip>
> 
>> Mitchell, Mitchell, Mitchell. Settle down. Of course it looks absurd to 
you. 
>> You COMPLETELY MISSED THE POINT. In my original post, I made two points. 1) 
>> Potential energy can be converted to heat. 2) Water falling over a 
waterfall 
>> will meet the often-stated, but questionable, Rothwell criterion for cold 
>> fusion.
>
>***{The issue between you and Jed, as I understand it, is whether
>calorimetry can be used to demonstrate "excess heat." You claim it cannot;
>he claims that it can. Within that presumed context, there would seem to
>be two possibilities: either your comments about the conversion of
>potential energy into heat are irrelevant, or else you meant by them what
>I took you to mean. But now you say this interpretation is incorrect. So I
>find myself wondering what issue you have in mind. Are you, perhaps,
>trying to criticize the definition of "cold fusion" as "heat beyond
>chemistry?" If so, then since the conversion of potential energy to heat
>has nothing to do with chemistry, you have a point. But if that was your
>point, why not merely state it to Jed. He will agree, and that will be
>that. There is nothing to argue about there. --Mitchell Jones}***
>> 
>> _I_ didn't even mention the Griggs gadget. Jed did.  I hope you weren't 
>> confusing me with Jed.  If so, I am offended, and if Jed will let me
>speak for 
>> him in just this one case, I'm sure he is offended, too.
>
>***{By the way, don't you think you were just a little bit unfair to Jed?
>You said: "Are you saying that a measured temperature difference is
>insufficient to justify a claim of cold fusion? If so, I'm glad you
>finally agree with me." Surely you are aware that Jed never claimed, or
>thought, that "cold fusion" is taking place at every location where a
>temperature gradient exists!  --Mitchell Jones}***
>
>===========================================================


You still don't get. do you, Mitchell? Jed said (paraphrasing) all he needed 
to demonstrate excess heat is two thermometers and a power (sic) meter. I gave 
his a few absurdly simple examples where the Rothwell protocol would fail 
miserably. In case you missed it, a top of the line residential air 
conditioner will have a COP > 4.0. Air conditioners "cool", but I don't know 
of anyone who claims air conditioners are powered by cold fusion. If such 
persons exist, I'm sure they would have shown up here on s.p.f.

In another message, Jed said that the electrical input could be immaterial to 
excess heat production: heat after death. These two claims, taken together, 
seem to point to a conclusion that Jed has trapped himself in a box where he 
is close to claiming (quoting your statement above)

	"cold fusion" is taking place at every location where a
	temperature gradient exists!

Go figure.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.27 / Barry Merriman /  Kasagi paper
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Kasagi paper
Date: 27 Sep 1995 22:27:18 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

Just to expand on my previous comment:

It seems that before looking for more exotic
reactions, one needs to simulate the proton and alpha spectra
that can result from the following reactions:

Give a population composed of the following energetic potential 
reactants (species @ energy) (which are present in
the beam, and as a result of nuclear fusions)

n @ 2.5  , 14 MeV
p @ 14   , 3  MeV, 
D @ 0.15      MeV, 
3He @ 1       MeV, 
4He @ 3.5, 3.6MeV

consider the collision of these (coulomb coll. in the
case of charged particles) with

D @ 0, 0.15 MeV
3He @ 0, 1 MeV

to produce energized reactants for a 

D + 3He -> p (14 MeV + extra KE)  + 4He (3.6 MeV + extra KE)

so that the broad distribution of the ``extra KE'' random variable
would match the observed high energy tail of p, 4He.

Also, one could consider collisions between the first population above,
and 

p @ 14   , 3  MeV, 
4He @ 3.5, 3.6MeV

to directly add KE to these products, which would could also contribute
to the observed spectrum.

----------

Aside from the possibility that the anomalous high energy tail 
comes from collisons as described above, if we consider the proposed
reaction in the paper, D + D + D -> p + n + a, what is the chance that
an excited D + D state could last long enough to slam into
another D nucleus? They do one attempt at estimating this in the
paper (and its way too small by their calc, because they use
the prob of two target D's being within a nuclear radius of eachother,
then getting hit by a beam D).

Instead, what if one estimated it this way: The original beam 
D (0.15MeV) hits a target D, and forms an excited nuclear state
(D + D)*, which is moving at a velocity of ~ 10^6 m/sec. Thus, to
travel the distance to an adjacent D, which is ~ 1 Ang = 10^-10 m, 
it would take 10^-16 seconds. 

Now, the normal lifetime of (D + D)* would be ~ h/dE, where dE is
the transition energy, which, being ~ 1MeV, gives a lifetime
of about 10^-20 seconds. So, all we would need is a metastable state 
that lasts an additional 10,000 x longer to make this feasible....
possible?




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


cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.28 / Jacques Distler /  Re: All atoms are Hydrogen Atom Systems -> Superposition Principle
     
Originally-From: distler@golem.ph.utexas.edu (Jacques Distler)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: All atoms are Hydrogen Atom Systems -> Superposition Principle
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 01:16:17 -0600
Organization: Physics Department, University of Texas at Austin

In article <44cot6$idh@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:

>In article <distler-2409950005300001@slip-29-9.ots.utexas.edu>
 <snip>
>>    http://www-pdg.lbl.gov/rpp/book/contents.html
>> 
 <snip>
>Thanks but rarely do these things give you the information according to
>the way you need it. I need the name of particle, its lifetime, its
>MEV, what it decays into.
>
<snip>

Did you bother to LOOK? 

The particle Data listings give you the NAMES, the MASSES
(in MeV), the lifetimes and decay modes (most particles have SEVERAL
different decay modes; the PDG gives you the branching fraction into
each). 

What more do you want? Or are you just too busy typing Usenet News
articles to bother looking this up for yourself?

Jacques Distler
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudendistler cudfnJacques cudlnDistler cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.27 / Horace Heffner /  Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 22:46:18 -0900
Organization: none

In article <21cenlogic-2609951605590001@austin-2-15.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:

[snip]
> 
> ***{The time required for loading of the unit cells depends upon the drift
> velocities of the electrons and protons within the cathode, and those
> velocities are a tiny fraction of the speed of light. Such drift currents
> depend upon the gradient (i.e., the voltage drop) and the resistance
> within each circuit element, and it is a simple matter to calculate the
> drift velocities of the electrons if the current, the nature of the
> conductor, and the conductor cross section are all known. The formula is V
> = I/(nAe), where V is the drift velocity of the electrons in m/sec, I is
> the current in amps, n is the number of free electrons per cubic meter of
> copper, A is the cross sectional area of the wire in square meters, and e
> is the charge of an electron in coulombs. If, for example, the copper wire
> leading to the cathode has a 1 square mm cross section and carries a
> current of 1 amp, the formula gives and average drift velocity for the
> electrons of 7.8E-5 meters per second, or .078 mm/sec. [For copper, n =
> 8.0E+28 free electrons per cubic meter, and e = 1.6E-19 coulombs.] Note
> that these sorts of drift velocities are far, far slower than the slowest
> snail ever crawled! It is precisely because this velocity is so low, and
> because of the layout and internal complexities of the cathode, that H+
> ions have time to disseminate into it before meeting up with an electron.
> If, as you apparently believe, the electrons were to leap across the
> cathode at the speed of light, then of course they would be sitting at the
> surface waiting impatiently for an H+ to appear, and the possibility of an
> H+ actually working its way into the interior would be zero. That,
> however, is manifestly not the case. --Mitchell Jones}***  
> 

To make discussion more manageable, perhaps dealing with issues in smaller
chunks is a good idea. I'd like to deal with the easiest issue first:
electrode voltage gradients.

The electron drift velocity is completely irrelevant.  What is relevant is
the rate at which charge is equalized, i.e. demand is satisfied, voltage
gradients in the electrode eliminated.  To see who is all wet on this
issue I propose you do a (hopefully just mental) experiment. Take a long
*empty* garden hose and connect to a faucet. Turn on the water and count
the n seconds until water runs out nozzel at the end of the hose.  This
number, divided by the number of feet in the hose, gives an average drift
velocity analagous to your electron drift velocity above. Now, turn off
the faucet and point the hose at your face. 8^)  Since, by your reasoning
above, the water can only move through the hose at drift velocity, you
will have n seconds to turn the nozzel away from your face, so turn on the
faucet and at n-1 seconds later turn the nozzel away from your face.  By
your reasoning you should have turned the nozzel away before the water
could reach the nozzel.  So, who is all wet?

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

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.27 / Horace Heffner /  Re: Lost neutron mass and electron capture
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lost neutron mass and electron capture
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 23:20:22 -0900
Organization: none

In article <IkMKqfS00Uh7E1v5dE@andrew.cmu.edu>, Paul Karol
<pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:

> Excerpts from netnews.sci.physics.fusion: 20-Sep-95 Re: Lost neutron
> mass and e.. by Horace Heffner@matsu.ak. 
> > For electrons in orbit, the orbit is (already) of a size determined by the
> > deBroglie wavelength. For electrons approaching a proton (or any positive
> > charge), the classical force must be reduced, as it is for orbital
> > electrons, to compensate for the portion of the electron's charge
> > probability density on the opposite side of the proton, and vice versa.
> > One mechanism that reduces the deBroglie wavelength sufficiently that the
> > coulomb force operates at maximum attractive force for the duration of the
> > approach to the nucleus, is for the electron to acquire adequate momentum
> > before the collision interaction, i.e. before approaching within the
> > deBroglie wavelength.  For complete stable atoms this potential energy of
> > collapse does not exist, so would not be expected to show up in the mass.
> 
> Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but I think you may be
> misunderstanding stationary states and standing waves.  The electron in
> its 1s orbital (not orbit, a classical term) has no fixed deBroglie
> wavelength.  It has a well-defined, non-changing (standing) probability
> amplitude of where its electron will be distributed.  The radial
> distribution peaks at the Bohr radius (or 1.5 times it, I forget which).
>  Furthermore, that electron has a well-defined, non-changing
> distribution of momenta too.  Quantum mechanics, which does not seem to
> be broken, only unnerving, does not allow any more specific
> determination of the electron's description to have meaning, i.e., to be
> legitimate.
> 
> PJK

Yes, but we are mixing our metaphors here, so to speek. My fault.  But I
think the jist of what I am saying here still has some merit.  If the H
atom electron is in an orbital the integral of its electron charge
probability distribution (integrated over three axes, not just one) nets
out to -1 at the location of the nucleus. The electron *is* at the nucleus
in an average sense.  There is no potential energy. Similarly, if an
electron not in an orbital, but in orbit around an H nucleus, or
"colliding" with an H nucleus, approaches the nucleus withing the
deBroglie wavelength, the electrostatic postential is reduced because in
effect "part of" the electron is on the opposite side of the nucleus.  A
collision generating high energy photons, or permitting high energy close
approach to the nucleus would require a kind of running start toward the
nucleus to keep the free electron radius at less than the distance to the
nucleus.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.28 / Horace Heffner /  Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 05:29:23 -0900
Organization: none

In article <hheffner-2709951143300001@204.57.193.68>,
hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner) wrote:

> In article <4485to$spv@boris.eden.com>, little@eden.com (Scott Little) wrote:
> 
> > In article <hheffner-2409951335370001@204.57.193.65>,
> hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner) says:
> > 
> > >Specific heat is important because a specific heat for aqueous inorganic
> > >solutions can be less than .85 that of distilled water.
> > 
> > Horace, roughly how much "salt" do you have to put in to get it down
> > that low?
> > 
> > Do you have any data on typical specific heats of tap water?
> 
> First, let me say that there really is no typical tap water.  Water
> chemistry can vary significantly even within a single network. I learned a
> little bit about this because I am president of our local Class A water
> utility (the only person luniacal enough to take this thankless,
> bureaucracy entangled, unpaid job), so have attended various water testing
> and treatment courses offered by the National Rural Water Association.
> 
> It is true that it may take a lot of "salt" to depress the specific heat
> enough to account for the observed 9-10 percent excess heat, but combined
> with density decreases due to outgassing, you have a significant
> uncontrolled experimental variable.
> 
> To more specifically answer your question, the Handbook of Chemistry and
> Physics, 29th edition, pp. 1743-1744 has specific heats of various
> inorganic aqueous solutions at different temperature ranges.
> Concentrations, for which specific heats are given, are in ratios of water
> molecules to molecules of solutes (25, 50 and 100). Here are some
> examples:
> 
> Ferric chloride:    0.666, 0.750, 0.854
> Magnesium chloride: 0.787, 0.861, 0.914
> Potassium carbonate:0.760, 0.851, 0.916
> Potassium nitrate:  0.832, 0.900, 0.943
> Sodium carbonate:   0.865, 0.907, 0.943
> Sodium sulfate:     0.819, 0.878, 0.960
Also consider:
  Lithium hydroxide:  -----, 0.941, 0.973

This implies, for example, using a lithium hydroxide electrolyte as a
pumped calorimitry fluid can impart a 6 percent error, not counting any H2
microbubble contributions to specific gravity changes in the cell, or
specific heat depression by other solutes.

Will the culpable please respond?

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

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.28 / mitchell swartz /  Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 15:49:27 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 In  Message-ID: <hheffner-2809950529230001@204.57.193.72>
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner) wrote:

  (in response to)
> To more specifically answer your question, the Handbook of Chemistry and
> Physics, 29th edition, pp. 1743-1744 has specific heats of various
> inorganic aqueous solutions at different temperature ranges.
> Concentrations, for which specific heats are given, are in ratios of water
> molecules to molecules of solutes (25, 50 and 100). Here are some
> examples:
> 
> Ferric chloride:    0.666, 0.750, 0.854
> Magnesium chloride: 0.787, 0.861, 0.914
> Potassium carbonate:0.760, 0.851, 0.916
> Potassium nitrate:  0.832, 0.900, 0.943
> Sodium carbonate:   0.865, 0.907, 0.943
> Sodium sulfate:     0.819, 0.878, 0.960

  = "Also consider:
  =   Lithium hydroxide:  -----, 0.941, 0.973
  = 
  = This implies, for example, using a lithium hydroxide electrolyte as a
  = pumped calorimitry fluid can impart a 6 percent error, not counting any H2
  = microbubble contributions to specific gravity changes in the cell, or
  = specific heat depression by other solutes.
  = 
  = Will the culpable please respond?"

  Actually, you appear to be ignoring the difference between thermometry and
good calorimetry.

  A good control would null out the difference anyway, in some
types of calorimeters. 
Dont know if that is applicable in this case, however.

  In those cases were the control would balance
this appropriately, this 3-6% difference (0.5 
-1 M solution) would be attributed erroneously to the mass*thermal
characteristics of the materials in the solution.  

  Best wishes.
     Mitchell Swartz  (mica@world.std.com
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.25 / Martin Sevior /  Re: French nuclear test agenda
     
Originally-From: Martin Sevior <msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: French nuclear test agenda
Date: 25 Sep 1995 02:14:17 GMT
Organization: School of Physics, University of Melbourne.

Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr> wrote:
>msevior@axnd02.cern.ch (Martin Sevior) wrote:
>
>>That time is long gone. France already has about 400 nuclear weapons. Would
>>you feel safer if Germany, Italy, Poland or Serbia said: " We want to assert
>>our sovereignty. We will build and stockpile nuclear weapons". What would be
>>your reaction? Would you use military force to prevent this? Surely there's
>>a sensible limit to the demonstration of sovereignty in world with over a
>>hundred sovereign nations.
>>
> No, I would not feel safer. I would not encourage them to do so and I can
>perfectly understand their opposition to France's nuclear test campaign.
> But personnally is why I think the French nuclear deterrent is a good thing
>not only for France, but also for other people. I think there is a danger of
>having ONE power in this world without a valid counterweight. If the only
>credible deterrent is the United States's one, then I think we are up to a lot
>of trouble (see later). 
>

You (being French) trust France to act in its own best interests but as its
continually shown, France cares very little for other countries. I doubt
that people in Germany, Italy, Poland and Serbia trust France any more than
the USA.

>
> The problem was not Asia. The problem was that a strong communist block 
>might have given a lot of ideas to countries like Argentina (I lived in that
>country so I know what I am talking about) Brasil, Iran and so on. The "Equilibrium
>of terror" allowed many countries to shake economical domination by 
>recovering their national resources from international companies (many of them
>with large American capitals). The nationalisation of the Suez canal by 
>Nasser or the Iranian petroleum by Mossadegh are good examples.
> I am not passing judgement on the question if this nationalisations where
>good or bad for those countries. They  were without the shadow of a doubt
>a very bad thing for American companies.
>

I doubt that many Amercians thought they were laying down their lives for the
sake of Exxon. If they were, they were certainly acting against their
interests!
The Amercians thought they were acting noblely by "saving" a country from the
"tyranny" of communism. Ask a Pole how they liked being run the Russians. 
Intervening in Vietnam after they had been pushed into communism during their
war of liberation from France was the price America thought it had to pay to
prevent more such episodes. Certainly the USA paid an enormous price to
contain the Soviets. If they had not, what do think Europe would be like now?

>>
>>2. Enlightened self interest.
>>
>>(a) Intervening in the 1st world war. America was never directly threatened
>>by Germany. Yet it came to the aid of France and Britain.
>>
> Perhaps, but very late. The USA always waited until the last minute to 
>intervene so they appeared to be the victors at a minimum cost.
>
Ture enough. Although the intervention was the final straw in Germany's
capitulation. We Australians suffered greater casualties than the US for a
far smaller population. 

>
>>(d) A relatively open market to foreign goods. Japanese products are cheaper
>>in the USA than any other country (including Japan).
>>
> You must be joking !!!
>

How much is a Toyota Corolla in France? Is it less than 48,000 FF?

>>In these cases the US recognized it's real interests were also those of
>>rivals or potential rivals and that immediate costs would be more than offset
>>by long term gains. The last case is particularly instructive as the
>>dinasaurs of American industry were shaken up with new ideas and methods.
>>The result is a more productive economy and better products and services
>>for it's consumers.
>>
> That is exactly what I said: The USA always served their own interests. They
>appeared to serve other people's interests only when long term gains for 
>THEM were likely to result. Sometimes other people benefited from this
>attitude, and sometimes they lost everything by it.
>

Not true. Everyone in the world has benefitted from the relatively open market
in the USA. In my opinion, the world benefitted from the US policy of
containment of the Sovient Union. If the US had not done this would France
and the rest of Europe be as free and as prosperous as they are now? Would
France have it's own nuclear arsenal if the US had retreated into Isolationism
after world war II?

>>
>>In any case this latest round of nuclear explosions show that France has
>>a much weaker idea of "enlightened self interest" than the USA.
>>
> I do not see why. Could you explain ? It may be helpful to compare with
>the way the Bikini tests were organized.
>

IMHO France has damaged its long term interests in these latest set of tests.
It appears that France is very keen to keep its "possessions" in the South
Pacific. The region is now so anti-French that it's likely these countries
will attempt to gain independence. At the very least France will have to put
even more money into these countries to persuade them to stay French.

I agree that the Bikini tests were much worse than what France is doing at
Muraroa. The US has sensibally stopped testing in other parts of the world
however.

>>
>>There are inhabited islands within 100 km of Mururoa. I think France has
>>some islands that distance off it's coast. Go for it.
>
> There are indeed. But within 1000 km of Mururoa there are less than 100.000
>inhabitants. Within 1000 km of any of those islands, there are more than 30
>million.
>

So it's OK if a few Polynesians die but not French citizens. But wait, aren't
people in Tahitti French citizens too? I guess they don't count as "proper"
citizens then.

>>
>>We may well be right too. In any case we're asserting our soverignty in a
>>sensible way to try to convince a former colonial power with dreams of
>>still being a Great Power that it is foolish and wrong. Do 96% of French
>>people agree with the weapons program?
>>
> No. But 69 % call for the death penalty to be reestablished. I do not think
>you have to do what opinion polls tell.
>

You think they it's morally correct to explode nuclear weapons? 

>>
>>Your joking right? France is exploding nuclear weapons because the rest of
>>world says not to? Isn't that like a 6-year old child juggling knives because
>>her mommy says not to? I think the real reason is the misguided belief of
>>gaining world respect.
>>
>
>>France does do a lot of things well that really would
>>gain world respect. Why not put the money into space exploration?  Why not
>>build the generation of Fusion reactors?
>
> France puts money in both (actually, I work on fusion research). I agree with
>you that Nuclear weapons (or any kind of weapons, for that matter) never were a 
>way to make other people respect you. 
>They were and are a way to make people fear
>you. And in the real world, I am sorry to say, it is fear, and
not respect, >which keeps your country independent. All the brillian=
t french scientists, >artists and
>engineers could not keep Hitler out of France.
> 

The world is no more fearful of France than it already was. France's actions
may well spell the end of its presence in the South Pacific. It is certainly
not a good time to be a French Tourist done here. Much like being a South 
African abroad during appartheid. France has not advanced its cause in the
world
with these tests.

I know that France does some great and admirable things including Space
exploration and good fusion research. The tone of your writing suggests you
wish to see France advance. My point is that all of this good work counts for
naught against these stupid and arrogant tests. A strong democracy is one where
the citizens continually challenge
>>
>>France's nuclear weapons program has got to be costing hundreds of millions
>>of dollars. This amount of money in any of these alternative projects would 
>>be enough to make a real impact, would be viewed
>>as admirable by the rest of world and would be things that compete with
>>America and so demonstrate your sovereignty too.
>
> Sovereignty is not about winning a race. It is not "more fun to compete". I think
>(whithout being offensive) that it is difficult for a New Zealander to see the
>problem in the same way. You are far off from the world, and if you want to 
>do something in your country, nobody will interfere. Our historical experience
>is quite different.
>
>"Always ready to debate"
>
>Mario Pain
>

I'm an Australian, not a New Zealander. 
France can do what it likes on its own
soil as far as I'm concerned. Historically, we had to fight very hard against
the Japanese to continue to be independent. With a fair bit of aid from US 
we succeded. Apparently you think France can live independently of the rest
of the world. You cannot. If the whole world is against you, that should tell
you something.

Martin Sevior
Melbourne, Australia

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenmsevior cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.25 / Martin Sevior /  Re: French nuclear test agenda
     
Originally-From: Martin Sevior <msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: French nuclear test agenda
Date: 25 Sep 1995 02:14:23 GMT
Organization: School of Physics, University of Melbourne.

Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr> wrote:
>msevior@axnd02.cern.ch (Martin Sevior) wrote:
>
>>That time is long gone. France already has about 400 nuclear weapons. Would
>>you feel safer if Germany, Italy, Poland or Serbia said: " We want to assert
>>our sovereignty. We will build and stockpile nuclear weapons". What would be
>>your reaction? Would you use military force to prevent this? Surely there's
>>a sensible limit to the demonstration of sovereignty in world with over a
>>hundred sovereign nations.
>>
> No, I would not feel safer. I would not encourage them to do so and I can
>perfectly understand their opposition to France's nuclear test campaign.
> But personnally is why I think the French nuclear deterrent is a good thing
>not only for France, but also for other people. I think there is a danger of
>having ONE power in this world without a valid counterweight. If the only
>credible deterrent is the United States's one, then I think we are up to a lot
>of trouble (see later). 
>

You (being French) trust France to act in its own best interests but as its
continually shown, France cares very little for other countries. I doubt
that people in Germany, Italy, Poland and Serbia trust France any more than
the USA.

>
> The problem was not Asia. The problem was that a strong communist block 
>might have given a lot of ideas to countries like Argentina (I lived in that
>country so I know what I am talking about) Brasil, Iran and so on. The "Equilibrium
>of terror" allowed many countries to shake economical domination by 
>recovering their national resources from international companies (many of them
>with large American capitals). The nationalisation of the Suez canal by 
>Nasser or the Iranian petroleum by Mossadegh are good examples.
> I am not passing judgement on the question if this nationalisations where
>good or bad for those countries. They  were without the shadow of a doubt
>a very bad thing for American companies.
>

I doubt that many Amercians thought they were laying down their lives for the
sake of Exxon. If they were, they were certainly acting against their
interests!
The Amercians thought they were acting noblely by "saving" a country from the
"tyranny" of communism. Ask a Pole how they liked being run the Russians. 
Intervening in Vietnam after they had been pushed into communism during their
war of liberation from France was the price America thought it had to pay to
prevent more such episodes. Certainly the USA paid an enormous price to
contain the Soviets. If they had not, what do think Europe would be like now?

>>
>>2. Enlightened self interest.
>>
>>(a) Intervening in the 1st world war. America was never directly threatened
>>by Germany. Yet it came to the aid of France and Britain.
>>
> Perhaps, but very late. The USA always waited until the last minute to 
>intervene so they appeared to be the victors at a minimum cost.
>
Ture enough. Although the intervention was the final straw in Germany's
capitulation. We Australians suffered greater casualties than the US for a
far smaller population. 

>
>>(d) A relatively open market to foreign goods. Japanese products are cheaper
>>in the USA than any other country (including Japan).
>>
> You must be joking !!!
>

How much is a Toyota Corolla in France? Is it less than 48,000 FF?

>>In these cases the US recognized it's real interests were also those of
>>rivals or potential rivals and that immediate costs would be more than offset
>>by long term gains. The last case is particularly instructive as the
>>dinasaurs of American industry were shaken up with new ideas and methods.
>>The result is a more productive economy and better products and services
>>for it's consumers.
>>
> That is exactly what I said: The USA always served their own interests. They
>appeared to serve other people's interests only when long term gains for 
>THEM were likely to result. Sometimes other people benefited from this
>attitude, and sometimes they lost everything by it.
>

Not true. Everyone in the world has benefitted from the relatively open market
in the USA. In my opinion, the world benefitted from the US policy of
containment of the Sovient Union. If the US had not done this would France
and the rest of Europe be as free and as prosperous as they are now? Would
France have it's own nuclear arsenal if the US had retreated into Isolationism
after world war II?

>>
>>In any case this latest round of nuclear explosions show that France has
>>a much weaker idea of "enlightened self interest" than the USA.
>>
> I do not see why. Could you explain ? It may be helpful to compare with
>the way the Bikini tests were organized.
>

IMHO France has damaged its long term interests in these latest set of tests.
It appears that France is very keen to keep its "possessions" in the South
Pacific. The region is now so anti-French that it's likely these countries
will attempt to gain independence. At the very least France will have to put
even more money into these countries to persuade them to stay French.

I agree that the Bikini tests were much worse than what France is doing at
Muraroa. The US has sensibally stopped testing in other parts of the world
however.

>>
>>There are inhabited islands within 100 km of Mururoa. I think France has
>>some islands that distance off it's coast. Go for it.
>
> There are indeed. But within 1000 km of Mururoa there are less than 100.000
>inhabitants. Within 1000 km of any of those islands, there are more than 30
>million.
>

So it's OK if a few Polynesians die but not French citizens. But wait, aren't
people in Tahitti French citizens too? I guess they don't count as "proper"
citizens then.

>>
>>We may well be right too. In any case we're asserting our soverignty in a
>>sensible way to try to convince a former colonial power with dreams of
>>still being a Great Power that it is foolish and wrong. Do 96% of French
>>people agree with the weapons program?
>>
> No. But 69 % call for the death penalty to be reestablished. I do not think
>you have to do what opinion polls tell.
>

You think they it's morally correct to explode nuclear weapons? 

>>
>>Your joking right? France is exploding nuclear weapons because the rest of
>>world says not to? Isn't that like a 6-year old child juggling knives because
>>her mommy says not to? I think the real reason is the misguided belief of
>>gaining world respect.
>>
>
>>France does do a lot of things well that really would
>>gain world respect. Why not put the money into space exploration?  Why not
>>build the generation of Fusion reactors?
>
> France puts money in both (actually, I work on fusion research). I agree with
>you that Nuclear weapons (or any kind of weapons, for that matter) never were a 
>way to make other people respect you. 
>They were and are a way to make people fear
>you. And in the real world, I am sorry to say, it is fear, and
not respect, >which keeps your country independent. All the brillian=
t french scientists, >artists and
>engineers could not keep Hitler out of France.
> 

The world is no more fearful of France than it already was. France's actions
may well spell the end of its presence in the South Pacific. It is certainly
not a good time to be a French Tourist done here. Much like being a South 
African abroad during appartheid. France has not advanced its cause in the
world
with these tests.

I know that France does some great and admirable things including Space
exploration and good fusion research. The tone of your writing suggests you
wish to see France advance. My point is that all of this good work counts for
naught against these stupid and arrogant tests. A strong democracy is one where
the citizens continually challenge
>>
>>France's nuclear weapons program has got to be costing hundreds of millions
>>of dollars. This amount of money in any of these alternative projects would 
>>be enough to make a real impact, would be viewed
>>as admirable by the rest of world and would be things that compete with
>>America and so demonstrate your sovereignty too.
>
> Sovereignty is not about winning a race. It is not "more fun to compete". I think
>(whithout being offensive) that it is difficult for a New Zealander to see the
>problem in the same way. You are far off from the world, and if you want to 
>do something in your country, nobody will interfere. Our historical experience
>is quite different.
>
>"Always ready to debate"
>
>Mario Pain
>

I'm an Australian, not a New Zealander. 
France can do what it likes on its own
soil as far as I'm concerned. Historically, we had to fight very hard against
the Japanese to continue to be independent. With a fair bit of aid from US 
we succeded. Apparently you think France can live independently of the rest
of the world. You cannot. If the whole world is against you, that should tell
you something.

Martin Sevior
Melbourne, Australia

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenmsevior cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.28 /   /  Re: Lost neutron mass and electron capture
     
Originally-From: mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lost neutron mass and electron capture
Date: 28 Sep 1995 12:55:53 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)wrote:

>Yes, but we are mixing our metaphors here, so to speek. My fault.  But I
>think the jist of what I am saying here still has some merit.  If the H
>atom electron is in an orbital the integral of its electron charge
>probability distribution (integrated over three axes, not just one) nets
>out to -1 at the location of the nucleus. The electron *is* at the
nucleus
>in an average sense.  There is no potential energy. Similarly, if an
>electron not in an orbital, but in orbit around an H nucleus, or
>"colliding" with an H nucleus, approaches the nucleus withing the
>deBroglie wavelength, the electrostatic postential is reduced because in
>effect "part of" the electron is on the opposite side of the nucleus.  A
>collision generating high energy photons, or permitting high energy close
>approach to the nucleus would require a kind of running start toward the
>nucleus to keep the free electron radius at less than the distance to the
>nucleus.

This is not at all how qm works. First, the average radius of the ground
state electron wave function is well-defined mathematically, and is equal
to 1.5 bohr radii. Secondly, there *is* potential energy, metaphors do not
cancel out mathematics. Thirdly, there is no shielding by the same
electron which feels the shielding. Shielding *does* occur, but in
multi-electron atome only.

Mark Richardson
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenmrichar353 cudln cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.27 / 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: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 19:58:59 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <44c7fp$4apa@lamar.ColoState.EDU>, gelfand@lamar.ColoState.EDU
(Martin Gelfand) wrote:

> This little exchange is getting way to long, so forgive me for
> massibe editing and a relatively brief response...
> 
> In article <21cenlogic-2609951811480001@austin-2-15.i-link.net>
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:
> >In article <446nte$1mqq@lamar.ColoState.EDU>, gelfand@lamar.ColoState.EDU
> >(Martin Gelfand) wrote:
> >
> >> In article <21cenlogic-2309950219360001@austin-1-10.i-link.net>
> >21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:
> >> >In article <43srd2$3kko@lamar.ColoState.EDU>, gelfand@lamar.ColoState.EDU
> >> >(Martin Gelfand) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> In article <21cenlogic-2009951048240001@austin-1-4.i-link.net>
> >> >21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >By the way, speaking of ether theory, are you aware that the
existence of
> >> >> >the ether was proven more than 60 years ago, and is generally
accepted by
> >> >> >top physicists today? I'll bet not. That's because you buy ...
> >> >> 
> >> >> The statement 'every knowledgeable physicist today accepts 
> >> >> the existence of "Dirac's ocean"' is about forty to fifty years out
> >> >> of date, now.  ....
> >> >
> >> >***{Martin, the issue here is not what present day physicists will *say*
> >> >if asked whether they believe in an "ether" or in "Dirac's ocean." What
> >> >they will say is influenced by non-rational considerations ....
> >> 
> >> To summarize:  What Mitchell meant initially is that nowadays 
> >> physicists don't view the vacuum as "empty", because of 
> >> vacuum fluctuations (the quantum-field theoretic analog of the
> >> zero-point motion of the simple harmonic oscillator).  So far, so
> >> good, even if the statement was made initially in a manner that
> >> offended my sensibilities.
> >
> >***{I'm not sure why. Dirac put forth an ether theory under a new name,
> >made predictions based upon it, and was hooted at by his professional
> >peers. But then, oddly, his predictions proved to be correct!
 
>    This is a selective reading of the history.  It is true
> that Dirac's considerations concering his first-quantized relativistic
> theory of the electron led him to postulate the existence of
> positrons:  a remarkable achievement.  But it is also true that
> the Dirac equation leads to some definitely incorrect predictions
> which; attempts to account for its deficiencies ultimately led
> to the development of quantum electrodynamics.  Which is why I ask
> you to please desist from saying that physicists currently believe
> in Dirac's ocean (even if they refuse to admit it to be true):
> we "believe in" (and actually have excellent experimental evidence
> for) vacuum fluctuations, which is quite different from
> believing in the reality of an infinite density of negative-energy
> electrons.

***{As I have already said: what's in a name, Martin? You want to
emphasize the differences between what Dirac believed, what the classical
physicists believed, and what "modern" physicists believe. I, on the other
hand, want to emphasize the similarities. To repeat: Dirac openly embraced
the idea that space was not empty, that it exhibited properties that had
to be taken into account in order to comprehend electromagnetic phenomena.
*This is also what Maxwell said, and what Faraday said, what Michelson
said, and it is also what every knowledgeable physicist says today.* You
guys want to have things both ways: you want to hoot at the dumb classical
physicists for believing that space contained an invisible material that
was necessary to the explanation of light; but then, on the other hand,
you believe the same thing yourselves! It's a neat trick, if you can get
away with it. But the game is about up, old buddy! --Mitchell Jones}***
  
> > Result: he
> >received the Nobel Prize and, thereafter, no knowledgeable physicist dared
> >to claim that the vacuum was empty in the sense that had been intended by
> >those who, a mere thirty years before, had contemptuously tossed out the
> >earlier ether theories. And what's in a name, Martin? The question of
> >whether or not the ether exists, surely, must have to do with whether or
> >not "space" is empty, right? I mean, if we all agree that what we are
> >calling "space" is a complex substance with manifold properties, just as
> >the classical physicists claimed, then are we really being fair when we
> >continue to hoot at them and teach unsuspecting students that their
> >theories were refuted? I think not. --Mitchell Jones}***
   
>    Hardly.  The classical ether theories were not merely statements
> that "space" is a complex substance; they were more specifically claims 
> that light waves could be understood as mechanical oscillations of 
> a continuous elastic media which permeated (or indeed constituted)
> "empty space".  That particular notion has indeed been refuted.

***{The purely wave theories of light have, of course, been refuted. The
photoelectric effect settled that. But at a more fundamental level of
abstraction the classical physicists have proven to be right, and the
euphoric rush to embrace "empty space" which accompanied the rise of
"relativity theory" has proven to be a hopeless dead end. That is simply a
fact. You know it; I know it; and every other person who has thought
deeply about these questions knows it. So why not talk about it openly?
When is the taboo about the dreaded "ether" word going to end? --Mitchell
Jones}***

  > >  [...]
> >(even though in practice
> >> quantum mechanics makes clear predictions for nearly every
> >> experiment one can construct)
> >
> >***{Rubbish. "Quantum mechanics" doesn't predict anything whatsoever.
> >"Quantum mechanics" is an inept attempt to "interpret" the curve-fitted
> >mathematics of physics in accordance with the precepts of a bankrupt
> >philosophy. The mathematics itself is what "predicts." And, to the extent
> >that experiments stay within the interpolated regions of the curves, the
> >results tend to be extremely accurate. But where is the surprise? Once
> >mathematical constructs have been curve fitted to experimentally measured
> >data points, would we not expect them to "predict" the interpolated
> >regions of the curves to which they have been deliberately fitted? What
> >does this outcome have to do with how the math is "interpreted?"
> >--Mitchell Jones}***
  
>   Rubbish yourself.  You have no idea what consitutes curve fitting.
> Surely there is quite a bit of curve fitting done in physics, for the
> purposes of summarizing the results of experiments (or calculations),
> but quantum mechanics and relativity per se don't involve any
> fitting whatsoever.  If you do a calculation of the "twin paradox
> effect" (for want of a better name; I trust every knows what
> the twin "paradox" is) _what is being fit_?  Likewise, if one
> calculates the spectrum of a hydrogen atom using the Schrodinger
> equation, where is any fitting being done?

***{You really must be kidding! The implication of your statement is that
mathematical physicists just go off into a dark room, sans data, and make
up equations! Read a little of the history of physics, for Christ's sake!
Bohr wrestled with the data for months before he came up with his theory
to explain the circular orbits of hydrogen. And Sommerfeld likewise
studied and thought about data for months before he could find the
mathematical constructs that would explain the other orbits. These guys
spent every waking hour immersed in data. Einstein did likewise. To
repeat, there are two basic processes at work in mathematical physics:
curve fitting, and tweaking. Some mathematical physicists study the data
and find the constructs that fit it; others study new data and the old
constructs, and find "transformations" (tweaks) that take the new data
into account. Period. That's the essence of the process. Your implied
claim that mathematical physicists just go off into a dark room, totally
unaware of the experimental data, and pull equations out of their behinds,
is beyond absurdity. --Mitchell Jones}***

>    The bankrupt philosophy is yours.  Simply put, what has your
> philosophy done for you lately?  The efficacy of quantum mechanics
> and relatively are pretty obvious, on the other hand.

***{I repeat: "quantum mechanics" and "relativity" are interpretations of
curve fitted mathematics, nothing more. Their proponents have no more
basis for claiming exclusive use of the associated mathematical constructs
than do their opponents. Bohr and Einstein might just as well have claimed
that their mathematical endeavors proved their beer drinking preferences
as that they proved their philosophical worldviews! What pompous,
arrogant, dishonest fools they both were!  --Mitchell Jones}***
 
> [....]
> >
> >In summary, a classical ether requires three things: (1) an acknowledgment
> >that "space" has attributes; (2) an acknowledgment that entities are the
> >bearers of those attributes; and (3) an acknowledgment that entities
> >behave in strict accordance with the principle of continuity. Since you
> >cannot deny (1), the game is up, because attempts to argue against the
> >epistemological validity of (2) and (3) are quite hopeless, as I will
> >happily demonstrate to you if you care to get into it. --Mitchell
> >Jones}***
      
>    This is strikingly reminiscent of a pre-Newtonian natural philosophy.
> Notice the absence of any sort of mathematical formulation (at least
> so far).  Good luck, Mitchell, and farewell to this conversation.
> I have some "curve fitting" to do.
> 
> Martin Gelfand
> Dept of Physics, Colorado State University

***{Yup. Sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes he eats you. It's real
sad! --Mitchell Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.27 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 20:31:53 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <hheffner-2409951335370001@204.57.193.65>,
hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner) wrote:

> As a newbie, I may have missed something in the long history of threads on
> the Griggs device tests. However, it seems like a couple of variables
> might have been overlooked, so I'll post this anyway for the benefit of
> others who may have missed the discussion also. Below is quoted a set of
> sample data points and calculations provided by Mitchell Jones in an
> earlier post of his. In reference to this calculation, it appears the
> density and specific heat (heat content) of the water is not addressed. 
> 
> Specific heat is important because a specific heat for aqueous inorganic
> solutions can be less than .85 that of distilled water. Water with a
> specific heat of .85 will only require .85 the energy per gram that
> distilled water takes  to heat to the same temperature, thus the
> calculation of heat energy produced below could be off by 1/.85x100 -100 =
> 17 percent. Specific heat could be depressed by hard water, water treated
> with chlorine, chlorine compounds, or sulfates.
> 
> Density plays an identical role with respect to potential error.
> Measurements would be affected by any density loss immediately prior to
> the meter. This can be caused by outgassing due to pressure loss just
> prior to the meter. Very small bubbles at the meter will be measured as
> water volume. These bubbles could be chlorine, air, or CO2. The effect
> would be significant if the water came from a carbonaceous (limestone)
> aquifer, or was treated with aeriation or chlorination. In addition,
> sulfate treatment, now newly mandated in many regions, produces dissolved
> gasses.
> 
> The combined effect of specific heat and density depression could
> potentially account for the observed results. To compensate, water samples
> of a known specific volume could be taken before and after the experiment,
> and calorimitry performed using a resistive heating element to measure the
> amount of time it takes to raise the temperature of that particular volume
> from the observed inlet temperature to the observed outlet temperature.
> (Note that the heat content and density of water varies with temperature
> and pressure.) 
> 
> Another option would be to run the experiment with degassed deionized
> water, but this could change the actual observed effect. 
<repost of my old material deleted>
 
> Regards,                          <hheffner@matsu.ak.net>
>                                   PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
> Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820

As always, Horace, you posts are intelligent and excellent food for
thought! You ask fascinating questions!

Now, down to business: the requirement that city water be drinkable is
what defeats your idea. Human beings are enormously sensitive to
impurities in water, and those sensitivities impact on the policies of the
providers of drinking water. Result: drinking water that seems "hard" to
human tastes generally contains mere trace levels of dissolved minerals.
Result: the specific heat of drinking water differs negligibly from that
of distilled water. But, of course, why should you believe me? Here is a
simple experiment that anyone can do: get two identical glasses. Fill them
to the same level, one with tap water, the other with distilled water, and
let them set until they are in thermal equilibrium with the surrounding
air. Then measure their temperature and record it. Next, place the two
glasses in your oven,  turn it on, and leave them long enough to kick the
temperature up to 150 F. or so. Then take them out, and measure their
temperatures. (Be careful to place the two glasses so that they are equal
distances from the heat source. If you use a microwave, place them on a
rotating turntable.) I just did this with my own household water (which
incidentally, is back country well water that is far too hard to be
drinkable), and I found that the temperatures were identical to within the
half degree or so accuracy of the instrument. I suggest that you try this
experiment where you live, and that others who read this also try it.
(Perhaps someone will read this who lives in Rome, Georgia, where Griggs
did his experiment, and we can lay this idea completely to rest!)

Anyway: another good try, Horace, but no cigar! 

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.28 /  Roger /  HELP : Godfrey vs Hallam-Baker  - some facts wanted.
     
Originally-From: roger@southern.co.nz (Roger )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: HELP : Godfrey vs Hallam-Baker  - some facts wanted.
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 13:57:01 LOCAL
Organization: Southern InterNet Services

Hi, I'm a freelance writer researching an article on the Net and the legal 
issues surrounding it's use.   I'm trying to clarify the countries of 
residence of Laurence Godfrey and Philp Hallam-Baker, both of whom are 
physicists who were involved in a recent libel case in the UK.

If anyone could enlighten me, forward this message to the above mentioned or 
forward their email addresses to me this would be much appreciated.  Replies 
by email (roger@southern.co.nz) only please as to avoid cluttering up this 
group with information some may view as irrelevant.

Apologies in advance to anyone who thinks this message should not appear in 
these groups but other avenues of investigation have turned up nothing.   The 
issue of libel on the Net is very significant and I'd like to have the 
opportunity to talk to those who have had first hand experience in this area.

Thanks (and apologies) in advance.


Cheers,
Roger.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenroger cudlnRoger cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.27 / Robin Spaandonk /  Re: A simple speculation
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A simple speculation
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 11:56:24 GMT
Organization: Improving

In article <445kcf$kb3$1@mhafm.production.compuserve.com>, Ramon
Prasad wrote :

>schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) wrote:
>
>>What is the mean D-D distance in deuterated Pd?
>>What is the mean D-D distance in D2O?
>
>The bond length in palladium is given by my old and battered
>copy of the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics as
>
>                Pd-Pd  = 2.7511 Au
For the record, this is also the D-D distance, when deuterium is in
the octahedral positions. (As are the Pd atoms i.e. each D is enclosed
by a Pd octahedron, and each Pd is enclosed by a D octahedron).
>
>The bond length between two H atoms on H2O, taking account of
>the bond angle is given as
>
>                  H-H = 1.5144 Au
>
>I hope you found this information an enjoyable experience! 
>
>-- 
>Very Best Wishes, Yours sincerely,
>Ramon Prasad <internet:100437.530@compuserve.com>

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:
cuddy27 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.28 / mitchell swartz /  Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 04:31:45 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <21cenlogic-2709952031530001@austin-2-16.i-link.net>
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
  and  hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner) debate:

Horace Heffner:
> As a newbie, I may have missed something in the long history of threads on
> the Griggs device tests. However, it seems like a couple of variables
> might have been overlooked, so I'll post this anyway for the benefit of
> others who may have missed the discussion also. Below is quoted a set of
> sample data points and calculations provided by Mitchell Jones in an
> earlier post of his. In reference to this calculation, it appears the
> density and specific heat (heat content) of the water is not addressed. 
> 
> Specific heat is important because a specific heat for aqueous inorganic
> solutions can be less than .85 that of distilled water. Water with a
> specific heat of .85 will only require .85 the energy per gram that
> distilled water takes  to heat to the same temperature, thus the
> calculation of heat energy produced below could be off by 1/.85x100 -100 =
> 17 percent. Specific heat could be depressed by hard water, water treated
> with chlorine, chlorine compounds, or sulfates.
> 
> Density plays an identical role with respect to potential error.
> Measurements would be affected by any density loss immediately prior to
> the meter. This can be caused by outgassing due to pressure loss just
> prior to the meter. Very small bubbles at the meter will be measured as
> water volume. These bubbles could be chlorine, air, or CO2. The effect
> would be significant if the water came from a carbonaceous (limestone)
> aquifer, or was treated with aeriation or chlorination. In addition,
> sulfate treatment, now newly mandated in many regions, produces dissolved
> gasses.
> 
> The combined effect of specific heat and density depression could
> potentially account for the observed results. To compensate, water samples
> of a known specific volume could be taken before and after the experiment,
> and calorimitry performed using a resistive heating element to measure the
> amount of time it takes to raise the temperature of that particular volume
> from the observed inlet temperature to the observed outlet temperature.
> (Note that the heat content and density of water varies with temperature
> and pressure.) 
> Another option would be to run the experiment with degassed deionized
> water, but this could change the actual observed effect. 
<repost of my old material deleted>
> Regards,                          <hheffner@matsu.ak.net>
>                                   PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
> Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820

Mitchell Jones:
"As always, Horace, you posts are intelligent and excellent food for
thought! You ask fascinating questions!
"Now, down to business: the requirement that city water be drinkable is
what defeats your idea. Human beings are enormously sensitive to
impurities in water, and those sensitivities impact on the policies of the
providers of drinking water. Result: drinking water that seems "hard" to
human tastes generally contains mere trace levels of dissolved minerals.
Result: the specific heat of drinking water differs negligibly from that
of distilled water. But, of course, why should you believe me? Here is a
simple experiment that anyone can do: get two identical glasses. Fill them
to the same level, one with tap water, the other with distilled water, and
let them set until they are in thermal equilibrium with the surrounding
air. Then measure their temperature and record it. Next, place the two
glasses in your oven,  turn it on, and leave them long enough to kick the
temperature up to 150 F. or so. Then take them out, and measure their
temperatures. (Be careful to place the two glasses so that they are equal
distances from the heat source. If you use a microwave, place them on a
rotating turntable.) I just did this with my own household water (which
incidentally, is back country well water that is far too hard to be
drinkable), and I found that the temperatures were identical to within the
half degree or so accuracy of the instrument. I suggest that you try this
experiment where you live, and that others who read this also try it.
(Perhaps someone will read this who lives in Rome, Georgia, where Griggs
did his experiment, and we can lay this idea completely to rest!)
Anyway: another good try, Horace, but no cigar! 
--Mitchell Jones"
             -----------------------------------
         
   No.  this test is insufficient to disprove Horace's suggestion
because of the dielectric properties of the media in question.
The rotating turntable is a good start but more is required.

To wit: The absorption of the electromagnetic radiation varies for the two
substances - distilled water and "hard" water.

You might try to write out the differential equation involving the 
loss tangent and the specific heat.  

  Here is some represenatative data (MIT, RLPC) all at 25C

=====================================================================
Real part of the complex permittivity (i.e. dielectric "constant") and the
loss tangent of "pure" water and 0.5 molar water.
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
freq.       10^6           10^7         3 x10^8      3 x 10^9      10^10
====================================================================

conductivity water
relative permittivity (real part = dielectric constant)
             78.2           78.2           77.5         76.7          55

loss tangent  400            46             160          1570         5400




0.5 molal aqueous NaCl

relative permittivity (real part = dielectric constant)
                                              69           67          51

loss tangent                                39000        6250        6300
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Given this data involving the different absorbtivities of incident
microwave radiation, such "proof" involving presumed equal heating for equal
irradiation times simply does not appear adequate to disprove the comments
regarding specific heats as discussed by Horace.

   It actually must be demonstrated that equal amounts
of energy are transfered to each solution in order to disprove it by the cited
experiment.

  Best wishes.
    Mitchell Swartz  (mica@world.std.com)

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.27 / 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: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 15:46:29 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <DFFwDJ.CBJ@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU>,
panetta@finch.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (James H. Panetta) wrote:

> In article <21cenlogic-2209951952380001@austin-2-6.i-link.net>,
> Mitchell Jones <21cenlogic@i-link.net> wrote:
> >In article <DFADHC.947@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU>,
> >panetta@finch.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (James H. Panetta) wrote:
> >>
> >> You really can't use the proton radius to determine the size of a
> >> H+ ion, you should determine the radius at which the coulomb force
> >> is powerful enough to remove an electron from a neighboring atom.
> >
> >***{The implication of your suggestion seems to be that H+ ions cannot
> >exist either in the electrolyte or in the palladium electrode, because
> >each will tear an electron away from the outer shell of the first atom it
> >approaches, thereby becoming a neutral hydrogen atom. In fact, that is not
> >what happens. The reason is that the other atoms also have a grip on those
> >electrons, and in the ensuing tugs of war, they have the advantage. I
> >could tell you why that is the case, but it would require a lengthy
> >digression. Suffice it to say that it is a fact: ions exist. Since your
> >suggestion implies that they do not, it must be wrong. --Mitchell
> >Jones}*** 
> 
> No.  I did not say this at all.  I said that you cannot treat the 
> H+ ion as a proton in vacuo.  You must account for the coulomb field
> and it's interaction with neighboring atoms.  Also, remember that the
> palladium electrode contains excess electrons, so these are available
> to the H+ ion as well as valence electrons from Pd.

***{OK, I'm not going to try to force words into your mouth. Just as long
as we are in agreement that the effective size of the H+ ions in this
situation is small enough for them to easily drift into the unit cells of
the lattice, this is a side issue anyway. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> <Protoneutron stuff deleted>
> 
> >> First problem, electrons do not *spiral* in to the nucleus.
> 
> >***{Here, you are merely quoting standard "quantum mechanical" dogma. In
> >case you haven't read my comments on this subject in other posts, let me
> >state for the record that I bear an active contempt for "quantum
> >mechanics."
> 
> You then bear an "active contempt" for a theory which fits the known
> data.

***{As I noted in my response to Martin Gelfand, this is not true.
"Quantum mechanics" is a natural language, quasi-philosophical
"interpretation" of curve fitted mathematics. As such, it predicts nothing
whatsoever. The curve fitted mathematics, of course, does predict, to
multi-digit accuracy, the positions of data points that lie between those
which have been experimentally tested. This, however, is not surprising:
when the gaps between experimentally determined data points are small, we
would expect the points that lie in the gaps will lie close to the curve
connecting the points. The important fact, however, is that the techniques
of mathematical curve fitting have nothing to do with how the resulting
mathematical constructs are "interpreted." You simply take the
experimentally measured data points, fit a curve to them, and define
whatever supplementary rules (e.g., the use of integers only) that may
seem to be required. After having done that, you cannot then claim that
those constructs validate your philosophy, any more than you can claim
that they support your taste in television programming, or your preference
to fish for bass rather than trout. Bottom line: the curve fitted
constructs of mathematical physics are available for use by *all*
physicists, not merely by those who are adherents of irrationalist
philosophies. I can use the curve fitted math constructs just as freely as
anyone you, and your implied claim that they somehow support your
interpretation and yours alone, or that when I deny that interpretation I
also must deny the mathematics, are totally false. --Mitchell Jones}***   
> 
> >            In my view, the "preferred" orbits--i.e., the Bohr-Sommerfeld
> >orbits--are not the only orbits. The classical, transitional orbits also
> >exist, and are sometimes occupied. I view them as wildly unstable, and
> >normally occupied only so fleetingly that, with present instruments, such
> >occupancy cannot be detected.
> 
> Wrong.  The standard orbits can be easily detected by a common spectrograph.
> If these are normally occupied only fleetingly, then show a reasonable
> explanation for the Balmer, Lyman, and Paschen series of spectroscopic
> lines.  The *very* well known frequencies of these are well defined with
> the use of standard undergraduate level quantum mechanics.  If these
> orbits weren't occupied, then explain the 21cm line.

***{I never denied that the stable orbits were occupied under the
circumstances where spectrograph measurements are made. The Lyman, Balmer,
and Paschen series of spectral lines, if memory serves, come from
inter-orbit electron transitions in hydrogen, not from nuclear electron
capture! (Lyman series jumps are to n = 1, Balmer series jumps are to n =
2, and Paschen series jumps are to n =3, I believe.) What you do is get a
cloud of highly excited hydrogen gas, in which many of the atoms have
their electrons in orbits 2 through 5, and you measure the emissions
spectrum. You discover that the various transitions that occur produce
emissions at the frequencies that correspond to the energy differences
between the orbits. An electron that jumps, for example, from orbit 5 to
orbit 3 emits the energy difference in the form of a photon at one of the
Paschen frequencies. Result: the various lines you mentioned show up on
the spectrograph. However, obviously, these electrons aren't jumping down
to grazing altitude above the nucleus and forming protoneutrons, and so
the absence of emissions of the required frequency is entirely to be
expected. (Here again is an opportunity to demonstrate technical
expertise: devise a scheme whereby you can force electrons that are in
preferred orbits to jump to grazing altitude above the nucleus *under
circumstances where the resulting emissions can be measured.* If you can
do it, I tip my hat to you in advance. If you can't, then don't claim that
spectrographic results refute the protoneutron theory. --Mitchell
Jones}***       
> 
> >                              However, under exceptional circumstances
> >such as the ones we are discussing, where insufficient space is available
> >for the Bohr-Sommerfeld orbits, 
> 
> I still have no idea why you are talking about "insufficient space" for
> the electron.  By this argument there is "insufficient space" in the
> solar core.  Densities there are much higher than the densities of 
> hydrogen in a palladium electrode.  By your arguments, the entire
> sun should have converted by now.

***{This has been answered in other posts. In brief, the protoelectron is
a low energy state. Three conditions must be met in order for it to exist:
(1) There must be insufficient space for the electron to form a
Bohr-Sommerfeld orbit. (2) There must be insufficient energy for it to
merge with the proton to form a neutron. (3) The proton-electron pair must
not be subject to disruptive thermal collisions. In the solar core,
condition (3) is never met, and so protoneutrons do not exist there. What
we have, instead, is a high energy hydrogen plasma in which particular
protons and electrons do not linger in the vicinity of one another.
--Mitchell Jones}***  
> 
> >for the Bohr-Sommerfeld orbits, and insufficient energy is available for
> >the nucleus (the proton) to absorb the electron, I believe that the
> >electron is essentially forced into the classical orbits. Result: it
> >spirals down to what I call "grazing altitude" above the nucleus,
> >radiating away its excess energy as it goes, and forms a protoneutron. 
> 
> Is this radiation continuous?  If so, why has it never been seen in
> observations of astrophysical hydrogen clouds?

***{In interstellar hydrogen clouds, condition (1), above, is never met,
and so protoneutrons do not exist there. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> >As a matter of curiosity, what do you think happens to an electron under
> >these circumstances? Remember: it lacks the energy needed to escape from
> >the grip of the proton; it lacks the space needed to utilize the
> >Bohr-Sommerfeld orbits; and it lacks the energy needed to merge with the
> >proton and form a neutron. So what does it do? --Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
> Get this straight:  Nobody really talks about the Bohr-Sommerfeld theory
> anymore.  It doesn't fit the data.  Quantum Mechanics does.  Use
> your theory to derive standard observables like the spectrographic
> lines listed above, or toss it.

***{Two points: (a) You didn't answer my question, so I will repeat it: in
cases where an electron lacks the energy needed to escape from the grip of
a proton, lacks the space needed to utilize the Bohr-Sommerfeld orbits,
and  lacks the energy needed to merge with the proton and form a neutron,
what does it do? (b) Your comment about the Bohr-Sommerfeld theory not
matching the Lyman, Balmer, and Paschen spectrographic lines is wrong. If
you will check your facts, you will discover that the Bohr-Sommerfeld
theory was specifically curve fitted to those very same spectral lines! It
has, of course, been subsequently "tweaked" a bit, as more data points
were collected by subsequent experiments, but you are very, very wrong if
you insist that the presently accepted mathematical constructs are
anything other than tweaked variants of the Bohr-Sommerfeld theory.
--Mitchell Jones}***     
> 
> >> >                 Why doesn't it become an actual neutron? The answer: in
> >> > the reaction p + e --> n, the mass of the proton is 1.67239E-24 grams
> >> > while that of the electron is .00091E-24 grams.
> >> 
> >> Second problem, p+e-->n violates lepton number conservation.  Where's
> >> the neutrino?
> >
> >***{I have noted in other posts that I consider it a waste of time to
> >mention the neutrino. It has nothing to do with the points presently at
> >issue. --Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
> It has something to do with the points in the issue.  Unless you can
> account for *all* known facts in your theory, the theory is wrong.

***{Why make empty assertions, James? If you think showing the neutrinos
will shed light on "cold fusion," tell me why, and I will happily show
them! Otherwise, I will continue to save keystrokes by *not* showing them.
--Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
> >> Third problem, electron capture is known to proceed via W exchange.
> >> This process is well known, and calculable.  The theory fits the known
> >> data.  What prediction would your protoneutron theory give for
> >> sodium-22 EC?  Iron-55?
> >
> >***{You misunderstand. I am not proposing a mathematical procedure for
> >calculating anything about electron captures. I am putting forward the
> >hypothesis that when a hydrogen ion acquires an electron under certain
> >very specific conditions (i.e., where insufficient space is available to
> >form a Bohr-Sommerfeld orbit, and insufficient energy is available to
> >permit neutron formation) a wildly unstable type of particle which I call
> >a protoneutron can come into existence and accumulate.  It is my conjecture
> >that such particles have extraordinarily large gamma absorption cross
> >sections, and that their existence can be used to explain the "cold
> >fusion" results. If you suspect that there is more to my position than
> >meets the eye, you are correct: I do, in fact, have very specific reasons
> >for expecting this particle to have the properties that I attribute to it.
> >However, no purpose would be served by getting into those reasons here.
> >The hypothesis is both clear and testable, and that is all that matters.
> >If the tests that I have proposed support the existence of protoneutrons,
> >then you "quantum mechanics" guys will simply have to tweak your
> >mathematics again, like you have done 10,000 times already, to make room
> >for it. Afterwards, you can claim that you predicted it all along, as you
> >have also done 10,000 times already. ("Quantum mechanics" gurus are like
> >stock market prognosticators: they predict the past to 12 or 15 digits of
> >accuracy, but the future is quite another matter!)    
> 
> What tests have you proposed?  What are the possible sources of error?
> What controls do you propose?

***{Re-read my original post for a generalized description of how the
proposal can be tested. If you want to run such an experiment, send me
your design, and I will comment on controls and sources of error.
--Mitchell Jones}***

 What mathematics have we tweaked?

***{In brief: everything. The entire structure of mathematical physics,
including those constructs falsely claimed by "quantum mechanics" and
"relativity" is the result of curve fitting and tweaking. That's what
mathematical physicists do: they fit curves to the data gathered by
experimentalists and, when new data begins to deviate from the generally
accepted constructs, they are tweaked. The fashionable word for tweaking,
of course, is "transformation." Thus we apply "dressing transformations"
to the original Hamiltonian, we apply the "Lorentz transformation" to the
equations of Newtonian mechanics, and on and on. But, of course, we try
not to talk about such things. Why not? Because if we talk about them very
much, the little con game will collapse. Which con game? The one in which
the anti-rational precepts of a bankrupt philosophy are smuggled into the
minds of unsuspecting students based on the bogus claim that curve fitted
mathematics, for some unspecified and unspecifiable reason, can only be
used by the proponents of that very same bankrupt, anti-rational
philosophy! --Mitchell Jones}***  

> 
> >As for your questions about sodium and iron, my reaction is that it would
> >be *enormously* difficult to apply the protoneutron scenario to anything
> >other than hydrogen or its isotopes. Think about it: to apply the scenario
> >to Fe-55, you would have to somehow strip 26 electrons away, place the
> >resulting nucleus into circumstances where none of the Bohr-Sommerfeld
> >orbits were possible, and then introduce a single free electron. The hope
> >would be that the electron would spiral down and orbit the nucleus at
> >grazing altitude, where it would become... what? You couldn't very well
> >call the result a protoneutron, because it would contain 26 protons and 29
> >neutrons. I suppose we could make a stretch and call it a "compound
> >protoneutron," but doing so, in my view, would be a large leap indeed.
> >Moreover, leaving nomenclature aside, how would you create such a thing? I
> >frankly have no idea, but if you can somehow manage it, I am willing to
> >compliment your technical wizardry in advance! --Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
> One cannot create something that does not exist.  Besides it's *easy* to
> strip the electrons off Fe-55.  Nuclear physicists do it all the time.

***{Yup, but they don't produce compound protoneutrons. And, by the way, I
never said that the bizarre Fe-55 compound protoneutron existed. My
reference to it was in response to a question by you. --MJ}***
> 
> >> Fourth problem, if protoneutrons exist, they will cause an effect in
> >> the endpoint energy of tritium beta decay.  The endpoint curve is
> >> extremely well known due to the search for massive neutrinos.
> >> What is this effect?
> >
> >***{Protoneutrons do not exist under the circumstances where tritium beta
> >decay has been measured, and they have nothing whatsoever to do with those
> >measurements.
> 
> Why not?  Given your explanation of how the electrons behave, there must 
> be some part of a tritium sample where there is "not enough room" for
> the standard orbits. 

***{Why do you say this? If you mean *pure tritium,* your statement is
pure nonsense. Nobody denies that the Bohr-Somerfeld shells are capable of
supporting the structure of materials, under standard conditions of
temperature and pressure. Therefore, if you are not uttering nonsense, it
follows that you are talking about tritium that has been absorbed into
some sort of constraining medium, such as a crystal lattice. Note,
however, that when I stated that there was insufficient room in a loaded
palladium lattice for the Bohr-Sommerfeld orbits to form, I presented
specific measurements to prove it. Here, however, you present nothing but
an empty assertion. Presumably, you refer to tritium trapped in the
lattice of some crystal, but you didn't bother to specify what crystal, or
to describe the lattice structure, or to give any measurements. Result: I
haven't the foggiest idea of what you are talking about. --Mitchell
Jones}***

 Therefore there is an effect from your model.  But
> there is no effect seen in the data.  Therefore your model is *incorrect*.

***{And here, after having failed utterly to specify what your premise is,
you use it to leap to the conclusion that the protoneutron theory is
incorrect! Wow! --Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
> >> > I would add that I am perfectly aware of the conflict between the
> >> > protoneutron theory and "quantum mechanics." This is a classical
> >> > mechanical theory, and classical mechanics is based on the principle of
> >> > continuity--i.e., the principle that no entity may come into
existence out
> >> > of nothing or vanish into nothing. The principle of continuity indicates
> >> > that an entity can arrive at, or leave, a location in one way only: by
> >> > successively occupying each position in a continuous spatial pathway to,
> >> > or away from, that location. The implication is that motion is
continuous,
> >> > not a series of quantized "jumps."
> >> 
> >> Then explain the photoelectric effect.
> >
> >***{There is nothing about the photoelectric effect that violates
> >classical mechanics. Suppose you drill a small hole in the surface of a
> >billiard table, drop a strand of 10 pound test fishing line down into it,
> >pour in a drop of epoxy, and then, 6 inches away, attach the other end to
> >a billiard ball by the same method. If you then shoot ten cue balls of
> >steadily increasing mass at it, all with the same velocity, you will
> >create a situation strictly analogous to the photoelectric effect. If you
> >pick the right velocity then there will be a cutoff mass where, for cue
> >balls lighter than that, total energy will be insufficient to break the
> >fishing line and the object ball will remain bound. For heavier balls, on
> >the other hand, the string will break and the object ball will fly free.
> >Since you cannot very well deny that classical mechanics explains this
> >situation, how can you deny that it also explains the photoelectric
> >effect?
> 
> But why is it *always the same frequency* of light that induces the
> effect for each element?  By your arguments above, the electrons don't
> really sit in the standard energy levels.

***{It isn't "always the same frequency." In the classical photoelectric
effect experiment, a freshly sandpapered piece of zinc is connected to an
electroscope and given a negative charge. Result: the two pieces of foil
in the electroscope repel each other, and stand apart. Next, ordinary
light is directed at the zinc plate. Result: the pieces of foil in the
electroscope continue to stand apart, even if the intensity of the light
is very high, thus indicating that the electrons on the zinc plate have
*not* been knocked free. (Here, the analogy to shots by cue balls that are
too light to break the string is exact.) Next, we bring up an electric arc
welder or some other source that emits more energetic photons, and turn it
on. Result: even at low intensity, the foil plates of the electroscope
quickly droop together, indicating that the excess electrons on the zinc
plate are being knocked away. (Here, the analogy to shots by cue balls
that are heavy enough to break the string is exact.) And note very
specifically that this works for any photon source that has an energy
equal to or greater than that required to knock the electrons away, not
merely for photons of one frequency, as you suggest. This result was used
to refute the wave theory of light. The reasoning was simply that,
according to the wave theory, the energy of light spreads out in
homogeneous, spherical waves, and, thus, the amount of energy that an
electron would be able to absorb from one tiny spot on such an expanding
wave front would be negligible. Thus, by the wave theory, the only way to
knock an electron loose would be to turn up the intensity to huge levels,
hitting it with lots of waves at once. But that didn't work here. Instead,
it was discovered that some electrons were knocked loose at all
intensities of the light, if the frequency were above a certain minimum.
This result justified the photon theory of light. The idea is that the
"waves" are really sheets of photons moving outward from the source.
Between the photons in a sheet, there is no light energy. Instead, all the
light energy in the region around a photon is concentrated in the photon
itself. Result: if the photon hits an electron, the energy it carries is
*not* negligible, and the photoelectric effect is explained. (This
experiment is described in most elementary physics textbooks. Physics:
Foundations and Frontiers, by Gamov and Cleveland, pg. 382-383, is one
good place to look.) Bottom line: you were the one who referred to "the
photoelectric effect," and asked me to explain it classically, and I did
so. Now it appears that you didn't understand what the photoelectric was,
and so you want to go over to some other example and ask a different
question. Well, that's fine. But I'm afraid you are going to have to be
specific. Tell me exactly what it is that you want me to explain, and I
will give it my best shot. --Mitchell Jones}***    
> 
> >And now, a more important point: you have strongly implied that you
> >endorse the standard "quantum mechanical" interpretation--to wit: that
> >motion in the microcosm consists of a series of quantized "jumps" or
> >"leaps" in which the entity disappears from one spatial position and
> >magically reappears at the next one, without passing through the gap
> >between the two positions.
> 
> This is not what quantum mechanics says.  It says that particles in
> a system can only exist in certain discrete *states*.  These
> states are *not* positions.  Given a hydrogen atom, an electron in
> the state n=1 has the maximum probability of being at
> the Bohr radius.  In the state n=2, l=0, the electron has the
> maximum probability of being at twice the Bohr radius.  THIS 
> DOES NOT MEAN that an electron in the state n=1 cannot be found
> outside the Bohr radius.  Please read and *understand* something
> like Eisberg and Resnick (an elementary quantum text) before
> you talk about things which you don't understand.

***{Jim, I don't want to be too hard on you, since I was probably arguing
about these issues before you were born, but the truth of the matter is
that it is *you* who do not understand. And this may not be your fault:
the truth is that a con game is being conducted here, by professors who
are proponents of irrationalist philosophy. They want to use the
undeniable power of curve fitted mathematics to justify their
philosophical world view, and so they routinely assert, utterly without
foundation, that the "Copenhagen interpretation" of that mathematics is
one and the same thing as the mathematics itself. However, that is not the
case. In order to discuss these issues, we must clearly distinguish
between the two things. So let me be specific: nothing in the mathematics
by which we calculate the probability of finding an electron at a
particular place requires a violation of the principle of continuity. We
can interpret the mathematics in ways that are strictly in accordance with
continuity, *and I applaud you for doing so.* The fact that you do not buy
into the "quantum leap" idea speaks highly for your innate intelligence
and good judgment. However, you need to recognize that when you resist the
discontinuous view, you are resisting "quantum mechanics." By the
Copenhagen interpretation, "quantum leaps" are explicitly discrete, and do
not involve the electron passing through the intervening space. It simply
vanishes from its position in one of the orbits, and reappears in the next
one, like magic. If you doubt this, there are lots of books you can read.
A good place to start would be *Niels Bohr: His Heritage and Legacy,* by
Jan Faye. This is a book dripping with delicious quotes. For example, on
pg 128, Bohr refers to "the so-called quantum postulate, which attributes
to any process an essential discontinuity, or rather individuality,
completely foreign to classical theories and symbolized by Planck's
quantum of action." Still not satisfied? Then read the book, and then
however many other books it takes until you *are* satisfied. At some
point, hopefully, you will come to recognize that "quantum mechanics" is
not science: it is a bankrupt, irrational, purely evil philosophy
masquerading as science. --Mitchell Jones}***     
> 
> >> What evidence is there that quantum mechanics is wrong?  All evidence I
> >> have seen and *performed* experiments to examine has shown that quantum
> >> mechanics fits the data.
> >
> >***{You misunderstand. It is necessary to sharply distinguish between the
> >curve fitted mathematical constructs of physics, and the visual models by
> >which the mathematics is "interpreted." I do not deny that the curve
> >fitted mathematics fits the experimental results. (That would be a
> >contradiction in terms!) What I do deny is the validity of the "quantum
> >mechanical"--i.e., the "Copenhagen"--interpretation of those mathematical
> >formulations. However much they may wish it were so, the fact is that the
> >advocates of "quantum mechanics" have no more right to claim the curve
> >fitted mathematics than does anybody else. Mathematical constructs have no
> >viewpoint about physical theory, and do not give a hoot in hell how they
> >are "interpreted." The issue here is not about the math, but about the
> >"interpretations"--i.e., about whether the "quantum mechanical" attack on
> >the principle of continuity can be sustained or not. --Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
> Classical physics is just as much a construct as quantum mechanics.
> Should we throw that out too?

***{I never said we should throw out the mathematical constructs. What I
said was that we should recognize the fact--and it is a fact--that the
mathematical constructs are the result of a philosophically neutral
process of curve fitting. Curve fitted mathematics has no philosophy, and
doesn't give a hoot in hell how we "interpret" it. This means that
irrationalists have no divinely granted claim to the mathematical tools of
physics. Those tools can be used by any person who has need for them,
irrespective of philosophy, and cannot be used to justify any philosophy.
Philosophical questions are, and must be, solved by philosophical
arguments, not by science. Science investigates a world that is presumed
to exist. Philosophy provides the justification for that presumption. Thus
every conclusion of science rests on underlying philosophical foundations,
rather than vice versa. The arguments that require the epistemological
validity of the principle of continuity are massive, overwhelming, and
entirely philosophical. All they crush is the "quantum mechanical" and the
"relativistic" interpretations of the curve fitted mathematics, not the
mathematics itself. --Mitchell Jones}***   
> 
>   --Jim Panetta
> 
> -- 
> --
> My opinions are mine...not SLAC's...not Caltech's...not DOE's...mine.
> (except by random, unforseeable coincidences)
> panetta@cithex.caltech.edu   panetta@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.27 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 18:49:55 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <43r8fk$72c_001@ip012.sky.net>, bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
wrote:
<big snip>
 
> Mitchell, Mitchell, Mitchell. Settle down. Of course it looks absurd to you. 
> You COMPLETELY MISSED THE POINT. In my original post, I made two points. 1) 
> Potential energy can be converted to heat. 2) Water falling over a waterfall 
> will meet the often-stated, but questionable, Rothwell criterion for cold 
> fusion.

***{The issue between you and Jed, as I understand it, is whether
calorimetry can be used to demonstrate "excess heat." You claim it cannot;
he claims that it can. Within that presumed context, there would seem to
be two possibilities: either your comments about the conversion of
potential energy into heat are irrelevant, or else you meant by them what
I took you to mean. But now you say this interpretation is incorrect. So I
find myself wondering what issue you have in mind. Are you, perhaps,
trying to criticize the definition of "cold fusion" as "heat beyond
chemistry?" If so, then since the conversion of potential energy to heat
has nothing to do with chemistry, you have a point. But if that was your
point, why not merely state it to Jed. He will agree, and that will be
that. There is nothing to argue about there. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> _I_ didn't even mention the Griggs gadget. Jed did.  I hope you weren't 
> confusing me with Jed.  If so, I am offended, and if Jed will let me
speak for 
> him in just this one case, I'm sure he is offended, too.

***{By the way, don't you think you were just a little bit unfair to Jed?
You said: "Are you saying that a measured temperature difference is
insufficient to justify a claim of cold fusion? If so, I'm glad you
finally agree with me." Surely you are aware that Jed never claimed, or
thought, that "cold fusion" is taking place at every location where a
temperature gradient exists!  --Mitchell Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.28 / Robert Eachus /  Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion"
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion"
Date: 28 Sep 1995 00:04:45 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.


   In article <hheffner-1909951842490001@204.57.193.64>, hheffner@matsu.
k.net (Horace Heffner) wrote:

   > An octahedron is symmetric about all three axes. It can be
   > chopped up into pairs of tetrahedrons in three ways.  However,
   > you are chopping up the same volume when you do this. There is no
   > tetrahedral interior, only a single octahedral interior.

In article <21cenlogic-2609951143410001@austin-1-1.i-link.net>
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:

  > ***{True. However,...

   Stop right there.  Symmetric means symmetric.  If you rotate a regular
octahedron 90 degrees in any direction, you can't tell you have done
so.

  >         ...if we assume that the palladium layers are oriented so
  > that the edges of the cubes run right-left, front-back, and up-down, then
  > there exist three types of octahedral unit cells: those which can be
  > separated into two four-sided, up-down oriented pyramids (i.e., like those
  > in Egypt); those which can be separated into two four-sided left-right
  > oriented pyramids; and those which can be separated into two four-sided
  > front-back oriented pyramids. --Mitchell Jones}***

  See what you agreed to above.  If you have to construct an
octahedron or three, and then do the slicing.  The octahedrons will be
identical before slicing.


--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.28 / A Plutonium /  Re: All atoms are Hydrogen Atom Systems -> Superposition 
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: All atoms are Hydrogen Atom Systems -> Superposition 
Date: 28 Sep 1995 00:05:58 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <distler-2409950005300001@slip-29-9.ots.utexas.edu>
distler@golem.ph.utexas.edu (Jacques Distler) writes:

> 
>    http://www-pdg.lbl.gov/rpp/book/contents.html
> 
> Check it out. More than enough information for a 100 of your posts.

Thanks but rarely do these things give you the information according to
the way you need it. I need the name of particle, its lifetime, its
MEV, what it decays into.

  Ira gave me a starting list. But I need more.

  Some questions. Can a hydrogen atom exist if no neutrinos existed?
That is, is a hydrogen atom at all dependent on the existence of
neutrinos? What particles are hydrogen atoms dependent upon other than
electron, proton, and photons?
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.28 / A Plutonium /  Re: All atoms are Hydrogen Atom Systems -> Superposition 
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: All atoms are Hydrogen Atom Systems -> Superposition 
Date: 28 Sep 1995 00:17:17 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.950925202110.3598E-100000@omega>
DUPREE <cmd0936@omega.uta.edu> writes:

>   Don't know where the neutron part is coming from.  However, since we 
> can't solve the S.E., a common method of finding the wave function for 
> more complicated atom is by placing the individual electrons in other 
> atoms in various hydrogen orbitals, and then superposing them.  I think 
> that is what is being said here.  That is, the 1s orbital in hydrogen is 
> a valid solution to the S.E. so the Helium atom can be described by 
> placing it's two electrons in 1s orbitals, and then linearly superposing 
> them, which would still be a valid solution, although not necessarily a 
> good description of helium.  Obviously there are better ways of doing 
> this approximating process.

 Yes that is what I was trying to get at about linear, yet some posters
dismissed without much thought. Since matter is both particle and wave
the hydrogen atom is also a wave. So what I was implying is that if all
atoms could not be built up from only the lowliest of atoms then we
would not have a superposition principle because the essence of the
superposition principle is its linearity, and the SE would not be a
linear equation nor the Dirac Eq.
  Hydrogen Atom Systems and the Superposition principle are supporting
of one another. The fact that we have a superposition principle
supports the fact that an atom is built-up linearly by hydrogen atom
wavefunctions or particles of hydrogen atom systems. 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.28 / A Plutonium /  Muon space = to proton space?
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Muon space = to proton space?
Date: 28 Sep 1995 00:34:56 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

 We know that the electron space is huge compared to the nucleus. Under
Hydrogen Atom Systems, hyasys, where hydrogen is the fundamental
building block of all particles that hydrogen is the last and basic
particle from which all other particles are made, or is a derivative
product thereof such as photons, etc.

 Is the space of the muon equal to the space of the proton? What number
to give the fine-structure variable for a nuclear electron whose space
equals that of a proton, and what number to give to the nuclear
electrons such that they equilibriate the strength of the strong
nuclear force of attraction? It is my first hunch that the reason the
muon MEV is 1/9 the proton or neutron is that it is just exactly at
that MEV for a muon that the space of the muon equals exactly the space
incompassed by a proton or neutron. Apparently for a exchange particle
in Quantumdynamics, the size of the exchange particle is important for
it is interrelated to the force field.

  Anyone know of any physics experiments of theory which suggests that
the strong nuclear exchange particles have to be of equal size?  This
is an important question and if true would be the 4th experimental test
of nuclear electrons and HYASYS. In fact, such experimental
verification would cinch the HYASYS theory for it would explain muon
mass and draw in so much other heretofor loose threads.

  By the way does anyone know if anyone else has proffered a theory
like this about Hydrogen Atom Systems? I have asked my friends and they
all say that they could not remember anyone saying anything like this.
The closest is that pions were the strong nuclear force. In HYASYS, it
is nuclear protons which are the strong nuclear force. In HYASYS, all
atoms are just composed of protons and electrons, and all atoms are
just a numerical build-up of hydrogen atom systems.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Sep 29 04:37:16 EDT 1995
------------------------------
