1995.10.01 / 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: Sun, 01 Oct 1995 12:44:08 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <1995Sep29.134918.1622@es.dupont.com>,
diebolmp@esvx23.es.dupont.com wrote:

> >Mitch, I was perfectly aware that this objection could be raised when I
> >made my post, and yet I made it anyway. To see why, let's forget that we
> >are talking about drinking water and suppose that we are talking about
> >some gaggable, saturated brew of hugely soluble chemicals which, say, has
> >a specific heat of .85, and that we are comparing it to distilled water.
> >In accordance with my experimental plan, we put equal amounts in two
> >identical glasses and wait until both are at room temperature--70 F., say.
> >Next, we place them in a microwave on a rotating turntable, and give them
> >a long enough zap to bring the distilled water to, let us say, 150 degrees
> >F. Checking the temperature of the "brew," we discover that it is 164.12
> >degrees--i.e., exactly what we would expect based on the specific heat of
> >..85. Does that tell us anything? Yes: it tells us that the "brew" absorbed
> >exactly the same amount of energy from the microwave radiation as did the
> >distilled water. 
> >
> >Now let's take our gedanken experiment a step further. Suppose that we
> >didn't know the specific heat of the "brew," but we strongly suspected
> >that it was .85, and we ran the same experiment and got the same results.
> >Would that tell us anything? The answer is yes: it confirms our
> >hypothesis. When we do the calculation based on the presumed specific heat
> >value of .85, we get the endpoint temperature that we actually measured.
> >You, of course, will object that the two liquids may not have absorbed the
> >same amounts of heat from the microwaves, and will argue that we cannot
> >justifiably conclude that the specific heat is .85. However, your
> >objection posits a miracle: not merely does it assume that the specific
> >heat is not .85, it also posits that the microwave absorption coefficient
> 
> Let me get this straight - you make an assumption, then say that if you
> are wrong, it must be nothing short of a miracle!  Why bother to do this
> experiment if you are so certain of the results?

***{The point of the above was that the experiment I suggested has
probative value--specifically, that it shifts the odds very strongly
against the hypothesis being tested (to wit: that the specific heat of the
tap water was significantly less than that of the distilled water). Why?
Because it is extremely unlikely that the ratio of microwave radiation
absorbed by tap water to that absorbed by distilled water would be exactly
what was needed to compensate for the difference in specific heat. Let me
be specific: I put the two samples in a microwave and raised the
temperature of the distilled water by 80 degrees F., and discovered that
the tap water sample also rose by 80 degrees. Since it is *extremely*
unlikely that the specific heat of tap water is *more* than that of
distilled water, it follows that it must be equal, or less. But if it were
less, then its temperature would have risen by more. Since it didn't, the
specific heats are either equal, or else the difference in the absorbed
energy was exactly what was needed to compensate for the difference in the
specific heat! --Mitchell Jones}***  
> 
> >of water is the reciprocal of the specific heat. While this possible, it
> >is also extremely unlikely, and that unlikelihood gives strong probative
> >value to the results of my experiment. 
> >
> >I would add that no experiment is "perfect" in the sense of proving a
> >conclusion absolutely and for all time, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
> >Objections such as the one raised by you are always possible, because
> >there is no way to control for everything. I, however, am satisfied that
> >this experiment has strong probative value because of the extremely low
> >likelihood that the microwave absorption coefficient of water is always
> >the reciprocal of its specific heat, as you imply. 
> >
> >--Mitchell Jones
> >
> >P.S. I repeated the experiment in my electric oven, and got the same
> >result. Are you now going to postulate that the infrared absorption
> >coefficient of water is *also* the reciprocal of the specific heat?
> >
> >===========================================================
> 
> I don't see how your experiments - either in the microwave or in a 
> conventional oven - can measure heat capacity UNLESS YOU ALSO MEASURE
> THE HEAT GOING INTO AND OUT OF THE MATERIAL. 

***{Think again. See above. --Mitchell Jones}***

 That's the whole idea
> behind heat capacity - how much temperature change you get when you
> add a given amount of heat to a material - not how much temperature
> change when you heat it to a certain temperature.
> 
> Both experiments (microwave and conventional oven) are, I believe, 
> hopelessly flawed.

***{See above. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> If I were to put a brick and a glass of water into a 90 C oven, I
> would expect them to come out at 90 C, regardless of their heat 
> capacities.  For that matter, the air in the oven will also be
> around 90 C, despite the fact that it will have a much lower
> heat capacity than the water or brick.

***{You obviously would set the oven so it would put out far more heat
than you need. When I put the two samples in my conventional electric oven
(not a microwave), for example, I set the oven for 500 F, and left the
samples in until they had risen from room temperature to 150 or so. When I
took them out, both had risen by exactly the same amount. That indicates
to me that they have essentially the same specific heat, because there is
no reason to think that they absorbed different amounts of heat. (Why not?
To repeat: because that posits a miracle--that the difference in the heat
absorbed is exactly in the ratio needed to compensate for the difference
in the specific heat.) --Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
> As for the microwave, heating rate depends not just on the rate that
> you throw energy into the system, but on the rate that it absorbs
> the energy.  

***{As noted above, the specific heat of the tap water must be less or
equal to that of distilled water, not higher. If it were less, the
endpoint temperature would have been greater. Since it wasn't, then either
the specific heats were equal, or the difference in the absorbed heat was
exactly as required to compensate for the differences in the specific
heat--which is extremely unlikely, to put it mildly. Besides, as noted, I
got the same result in my electric oven. That requires a double miracle:
that the difference in microwave heat absorbed was exactly what was needed
to compensate for the difference in the specific heat, and that the same
was true for the differences in infrared heat absorbed! --Mitchell
Jones}***

Consider the following examples; the microwave heat
> temperatures are taken from
> Minerals and Metallurgurical Processing, page 39, Feb 1988.
> and the specific heats are taken from the CRC:
> 
> Material   Specific Heat    Microwave temperature
> Cobalt        0.11           697 C in 3 minutes
> Vanadium      0.12           557 C in 1 minute
> Tantalum      0.16           177 C in 1 minute
> graphite <1 micron          1073 C in 1.75 minutes
> graphite -200 mesh           780 C in 6 minutes
> (graphite specific heat is 0.124)
> 
> The two graphite examples clearly show how much properties other
> than specific heat can effect the temperature reached in a microwave.
> 
> An additional complication for microwave heating is that the efficiency
> with which materials absorb microwaves is dependant on temperature.
> Anyone who had tried to melt butter evenly in a microwave has seen
> this.  A few hot spots form, where the butter begins to melt.  These
> areas absorb radiation more efficiently than the cold spots, so they
> heat up more and more, and pretty soon your butter looks like swiss
> cheese.  People often assume that this is due to "hot spots" in the
> microwave, but it is actually due to this instability in adsorption.

***{That's why I used a rotating turntable. --Mitchell Jones}***

> Another example of this is the "defrost" button on a microwave.  
> When run under these conditions, the microwave is actually operating 
> only about a third of the time.  The delay between microwave pulses is 
> there to give the hot spots a chance to transfer their heat to colder 
> areas, and thereby give a more even heating.  If the situation were 
> reversed, with the cold areas absorbing heat more efficiently than the 
> hot areas, then food could be defrosted on the high setting without
> risk of cooking some areas while leaving other areas still frozen.
> 
> I am certainly not saying that the heat capacity of tap water is
> significantly different from that of distilled water, but what I
> am sayin is that if you want to measure heat capacities, you should do 
> a true heat capacity experiment (which is not that hard to do), rather 
> than a more indirect experiment which has a lot of hidden assumptions 
> (such as that the heat flux is constant and the same for two different 
> materials).

***{This problem is far less complicated than you think. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> 
> Mike Diebold
> 
> ****************************************************************
>          Opinions of the author, not of DuPont
> ****************************************************************

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.01 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Griggs simplicity incarnate
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs simplicity incarnate
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 1995 12:49:53 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <199509291435.KAA59577@pilot03.cl.msu.edu>, blue@pilot.msu.edu
(Richard A Blue) wrote:

> Since the question of water purity has come into the debate over
> measurements of the performance of the Griggs device I thought
> I would remind everyone that a portion of the evidence put forth
> by Jed Rothwell involves operations of the Griggs device in
> carpet mills where the water is certainly not potable.

***{Why do you say so? Most carpet mills use city water, just like
everyone else. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> Indeed one of the claimed advantages of the Griggs device over
> conventional steam generators is that it runs well on trashy
> water.

***{Irrelevant, since there is no reason to believe that Griggs was using
"trashy water" in his experimental runs. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> Dick Blue

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.01 / Bill Rowe /  Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 1995 12:31:11 -0700
Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net

In article <21cenlogic-0110951150010001@austin-1-1.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:

[it refers to the principle of continuity]

>***{It's bad to violate it because, without it, the entire structure of
>human knowledge collapses. Simply put: if things can leap into existence
>out of nothing, then we have no basis for the inference from sensation to
>source--which means: our sensations may simply be leaping into existence
>out of nothing. Which means: we cannot infer the existence of the sun from
>sunlight; we cannot infer the existence the existence of our bodies merely
>because we receive sensations from the various parts of our bodies (the
>sensations may be leaping into existence out of nothing); and so on.
>Bottom line: the principle of continuity is an absolute truth, because if
>it is or may be false, then we have no basis for believing in the
>existence of anything. We lose ourselves, the world, and all knowledge
>about the world, including history, biology, "quantum mechanics,"
>"relativity," and on and on. --Mitchell Jones}***

The idea of continuity you are expressing seems to be essentially an
extrapolation of everday experience. While I agree it is a reasonable
extrapolation and have nothing to replace it with, I am not so certain it
is a good model for reality.

Suppose both space and time are actually discrete things at some very fine
level. If the granularity were sufficiently fine there it would be
exceedingly difficult to impossible to detect the granularity. In this
case, there would be essentially no difference for most things between a
continuous and discrete spacetime. Perhaps the characteristics ascribed to
quantum mechanics are our first glimmerings of a discrete spacetime.

It could be argued our perceptions of spacetime are actually discrete.
When we observe things see them at a point in spacetime. If for no other
reason than finite precision of experiments, values assigned to events are
discrete. Ultimately, the only thing continuity does is avoid the question
of existence between two discrete points in spacetime.
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.01 / 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: Sun, 01 Oct 1995 11:50:01 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <MATT.95Sep30141446@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU>,
matt@physics.berkeley.edu wrote:

> In article <21cenlogic-2009951048240001@austin-1-4.i-link.net>
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:
> 
> 
> > However, as I have noted elsewhere, such imagined gaps
> > in motion violate the principle of continuity. However brief the velocity
> > rise time may be, the principle of continuity requires that the photon
> > pass through all the intervening states of motion. Period. 
> 
> What is this principle of continuity of yours?  

***{Matt, I've stated it many times in postings to this group, and so I
take it you are only an occasional reader here. In any case, to repeat:
the principle of continuity states simply that no entity may come into
existence out of nothing or vanish into nothing. --Mitchell Jones}***

Why do you believe in
> it

***{As I have stated many times in other posts, I  believe in it because
it supports the entire structure of human knowledge. --Mitchell Jones}***

, and what's so bad about violating it?

***{It's bad to violate it because, without it, the entire structure of
human knowledge collapses. Simply put: if things can leap into existence
out of nothing, then we have no basis for the inference from sensation to
source--which means: our sensations may simply be leaping into existence
out of nothing. Which means: we cannot infer the existence of the sun from
sunlight; we cannot infer the existence the existence of our bodies merely
because we receive sensations from the various parts of our bodies (the
sensations may be leaping into existence out of nothing); and so on.
Bottom line: the principle of continuity is an absolute truth, because if
it is or may be false, then we have no basis for believing in the
existence of anything. We lose ourselves, the world, and all knowledge
about the world, including history, biology, "quantum mechanics,"
"relativity," and on and on. --Mitchell Jones}***
   
 What is the experimental
> evidence in favor of it, whatever it is?

***{It is supported by the fact that, without it, we lose all of the
evidence that has been collected throughout human history, experimental or
otherwise. It is a self-evident, absolute truth, because it is
foundational to the existence of knowledge itself. (If you deny it you
claim knowledge, and hence engage in self-contradiction. If you claim to
doubt it, you claim knowledge, and hence engage in self-contradiction.
Truth, therefore, is a concept that has no meaning without it.) --Mitchell
Jones}***
> 
> Me, I don't believe in some nebulously defined but universally
> applicable principle of continuity.  I do believe in Maxwell's
> equations, which have extensive experimental support and which
> clearly indicate that the speed of propagation of electromagnetic
> radiation in a vacuum is always c.

***{Without the principle of continuity, you lose Maxwell's equations. If,
for example, you say you know the equations exist because you remember
them, I will say: if the inference from sensation to source is invalid,
then those memories--i.e., brain structures which store the alleged
information about "Maxwell's equations"--may not exist at all! The
sensations which you think are coming from "memory" may simply be leaping
into existence out of nothing! Conclusion: if Maxwell's equations--or any
other mathematical or natural language statement--are interpreted in a way
that brings them into conflict with the principle of continuity, then that
interpretation must be wrong. 

Then how can Maxwell's equations be interpreted in a way that does not
produce such a conflict? Simple: give up this absurd notion that the
constructs of curve fitted mathematics contain deep and profound truths
about the world. They do not. They are, in fact, nothing more than a
shorthand method of expressing experimental results. They permit us to
reconstruct those results, to interpolate with acceptable accuracy between
the experimentally determined data points, and, if we are lucky, to
extrapolate into nearby regions. They do not, however, indicate anything
about the underlying causation--which means: (a) we must expect them to
break down when extreme extrapolations are attempted, (b) we must expect
to have to "tweak" them even in the interpolated regions, as the
accuracies of our measuring instruments continue to improve, and (c) if we
want to understand what is going on, we must construct visualizable
mechanical models of the causation. 

Bottom line: the creation of mathematical constructs that fit the
experimentally determined data points is a high calling. It requires
immersion in the data, mathematical knowledge, hard work, and talent.
However, *it is not the be all and the end all of physics.* It provides
the means for doing calculations, and it provides theoretical physicists
with compact descriptions of the world on which they can focus their
thoughts. But it is their work--the construction of visualizable
mechanical models of causation--that conveys understanding of the physical
world. And it is their models, not the crude, curve fitted formulations of
mathematical physics, that provide the basis for the kinds of extreme case
extrapolations which, today, the ignorant attempt to derive from curve
fitted mathematics. --Mitchell Jones}***
> -- 
>   Matt Austern                             He showed his lower teeth.  "We 
>   matt@physics.berkeley.edu                all have flaws," he said, "and 
>   http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt             mine is being wicked."

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.01 / 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: Sun, 01 Oct 1995 12:00:43 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <browe-3009951136330001@10.0.2.15>, browe@netcom.com (Bill
Rowe) wrote:

> I apparently didn't make my point clear. I agree the difference between
> the specific heat of drinking water and that of distilled water is
> insignificant. I also understand the source of the water for the Griggs
> device is tap water which I assume to be drinking water.
> 
> The point I was attempting to make is operation of the Griggs device may
> alter the water from what is considered potable. In fact, I thought this
> was one of the advantages of the Griggs device, that is the ability to run
> on fairly dirty water. If continued operation of the Griggs device
> contaminates the water for whatever reason is it possible there are enough
> contaminants to alter the specific heat of the water as was suggested by
> Horace?
> -- 
> "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"

You are correct: I did skate past your point. To answer directly, I
suppose if the Griggs effluent were recycled in a closed loop, some
buildup of contaminants could occur in the water. As noted, cavitation
causes pitting of the rotor, and undoubtedly releases tiny particles of
aluminum into the water. Various reactions could result with the minerals
or the chlorine in the water, perhaps producing a buildup of soluble
aluminum salts. However, such considerations *do not* impact on the
"excess heat" result from the Griggs experiment, because the effluent
water was not recycled either in the steam runs or in the hot water runs. 

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.30 / Paul Koloc /  Re: ? Singularity Technology ?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ? Singularity Technology ?
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 1995 09:19:33 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <4482um$fls@cnn.Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@pho
nix.princeton.edu> writes:
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Newsreader: Nuntius 2.0.4_PPC
>X-XXMessage-ID: <AC8D03DAED03416F@rfheeter.remote.princeton.edu>
>X-XXDate: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 05:11:54 GMT
>
>In article <EACHUS.95Sep22192556@spectre.mitre.org> Robert I. Eachus,
>eachus@spectre.mitre.org writes:

>Except that the dominant reaction branch is n + Li7 --> 4He + T + n 
>and is endothermic, although it does propagate the neutron.
>At least, this is what the FAQ says, and I'm fairly certain it's true.
>If the FAQ needs correcting, give me a reference and I'll fix it.

Yep!        - 2.6 MeV


>>However most "first wall" breeders are expected to use:
>>
>>    n + Be9 --> 2n + 2 He4
>>    -- which only works with high energy neutrons

Yep!     14MeV neutrons as from the D-T reaction. 

>... and multiplies the neutrons somewhat, to make up for the
>inevitable losses due to absorption by the rest of the reactor
>structure.

Oh joy.      :-(

So

>>    n + Li6 --> H3 + He4
>>    -- to produce tritium to be recycled
>
>Right.  The actual consumables in a "D-T" fusion plant are
>D and Li, with a little Be.  The T and n are essentially 
>intermediaries which make it a lot easier than burning D-Li fuel 
>in the plasma.


Why??   T is radioactive, and highly diffusible in containers.  
and why compare with d-Li, better to try d-^3He. 

The n from the D-T reaction is also contaminating from reactions 
with the vessel wall, and they are awfully hot (14.7MeV) and so
are not easy to stop. 

>------------------------------------------------------
>Bob Heeter
>Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
>rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu / rfheeter@pppl.gov
>http://www.princeton.edu/~rfheeter
>Of course I do not speak for anyone else in any of the above.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,BX 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+


cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.30 / Bill Rowe /  Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 1995 11:35:55 -0700
Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net

I apparently didn't make my point clear. I agree the difference between
the specific heat of drinking water and that of distilled water is
insignificant. I also understand the source of the water for the Griggs
device is tap water which I assume to be drinking water.

The point I was attempting to make is operation of the Griggs device may
alter the water from what is considered potable. In fact, I thought this
was one of the advantages of the Griggs device, that is the ability to run
on fairly dirty water. If continued operation of the Griggs device
contaminates the water for whatever reason is it possible there are enough
contaminants to alter the specific heat of the water as was suggested by
Horace?
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.30 / Matt Austern /  Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
     
Originally-From: matt@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
Date: 30 Sep 1995 21:14:46 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley (computational neuroscience)

In article <21cenlogic-2009951048240001@austin-1-4.i-link.net>
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:


> However, as I have noted elsewhere, such imagined gaps
> in motion violate the principle of continuity. However brief the velocity
> rise time may be, the principle of continuity requires that the photon
> pass through all the intervening states of motion. Period. 

What is this principle of continuity of yours?  Why do you believe in
it, and what's so bad about violating it?  What is the experimental
evidence in favor of it, whatever it is?

Me, I don't believe in some nebulously defined but universally
applicable principle of continuity.  I do believe in Maxwell's
equations, which have extensive experimental support and which
clearly indicate that the speed of propagation of electromagnetic
radiation in a vacuum is always c.
-- 
  Matt Austern                             He showed his lower teeth.  "We 
  matt@physics.berkeley.edu                all have flaws," he said, "and 
  http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt             mine is being wicked."
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.01 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Kasagi paper
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kasagi paper
Date: 1 Oct 1995 01:06:44 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <1995Sep29.143904.2415@plasma.byu.edu> ,
jonesse@plasma.byu.edu writes:
>Kasagi et al. report that when they run for long enough periods of time
>to build up sufficient 3He (via d+d --> 3He + n), they do indeed see the
>proton peak at 14 MeV which Barry describes above -- but the peak is narrow
>and does not match the observed high energy proton bump.  Moreover, in most
>cases this 14 MeV peak is clearly absent, so the d+3He reaction is not
>responsible for the anomalous p bump.
>
>As for the alphas, Barry, look at Fig. 4 in the Kasagi paper I faxed to you.
>The calculated spectral shapes for what they call 'the sequential
>reaction' (namely, d+3He --> p + alpha) are entirely different from the
>observed bumps in alphas at 135 and 155 degrees (which are anomalous).  
>Indeed, the conventional  D(3He,alpha)p
>reaction fails to give alphas with energy above 5 MeV, whereas alphas
>having up to 6.5 MeV are reported.

I posted an article on this earlier which seems to have been lost in the
noise on the group.  I brought the Kasagi paper to a weekly grad-student
discussion group here and we went through the data and decided
that Kasagi et. al. seemed to have missed a possiblity.  While they
consider a sequential reaction involving stopped 3He products fusing
with D beam ions, it was definitely not clear that they had considered
reactions where the fast 3He products fuse with cold deuterons in
the target as they 3He's slow down.  

Velocity of 150 keV D:  3.8 x 10^6 m/s
Velocity of 1 MeV 3He:  8.0 x 10^6 m/s
Velocity of 3.6 MeV 4He:  13.1 x 10^6 m/s

The center-of-mass velocity of the beam-target D-D reaction
is 1.9 x 10^6 m/s.  In this frame, 3He ions are born with a
center-of-mass energy of 1 MeV, which gives a laboratory-frame
velocity spread of (-)6.1 to (+)9.9 x 10^6 m/s, with the low
velocity occuring for ions produced travelling back up the beam,
and the high velocity for ions travelling along the beam.  
These 3He ions can *immediately* fuse with stationary D 
(or beam D, but there's a heck of a lot more stationary D in 
the target).  The center of mass velocity for *this* secondary 
reaction is 3/5 of the 3He velocity, or -3.7 to +5.9 x 10^6 m/s.  
The 3He-D reaction then produces alphas with 3.6 MeV in the
secondary collision center-of-mass frame, which therefore
have velocities in the lab frame of up to 16.8 x 10^6 m/s
for alphas propagating back into the beam, or 19.0 x 10^6 m/s
in the forward direction.  This corresponds to pure-backwards
alpha energies up to 5.9 meV and forwards alpha energies
up to 7.6 MeV.  At the intermediate angles considered by Kasagi
et al, and considering that some of the D beam ions will elastically
scatter off heavy Ti lattice ions, it seems entirely plausible
that one could get a few 6.5 MeV alphas (and, by similar mechanisms,
17+ MeV protons) from 3He-D reactions.

There's no need to repeat the experiment or to invoke 3-body
reactions until this explanation is proven incorrect. 

>> 
>> 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.
>
>No, the 14 MeV protons are absent in short runs, as I mentioned above; 
>everything else is absorbed in a 200 micron-thick Al degrader -- but the
>anomalous high-energy protons make it through and are still seen (in
>rates too small to be explained in terms of pile-up).

This isn't a pile-up effect, it's a collisional-scattering effect.
A 3.6 MeV alpha could get hammered up to higher energy by a
14 MeV proton, which travels much more quickly.

I don't buy this particular explanation though; those sort of 
collisions are too rare.

 -----------------------------------------------------
Bob Heeter
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu / rfheeter@pppl.gov
http://www.princeton.edu/~rfheeter
Of course I do not speak for anyone else in any of the above.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.01 / 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: Sun, 01 Oct 1995 10:59:30 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <44hnsm$h85@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry
Merriman) wrote:

> > In <21cenlogic-2009951048240001@austin-1-4.i-link.net>
21cenlogic@i-link.net  
> (Mitchell Jones) writes:
> > 
> > >However brief the velocity
> > >rise time may be, the principle of continuity requires that the photon
> > >pass through all the intervening states of motion. Period.
> 
> Uhh...would you mind telling us exactly what a
> _photon_ is, and what you mean by its speed, to help us visualize its  
> ``acceleration''.
> --
> Barry Merriman
> UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
> UCLA Dept. of Math
> bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)

This strikes me as a way for you to duck the issue, Barry. Rather than
step up and grapple with the principle of continuity, you want to divert
me off onto a complex and irrelevant topic. Well, it happens that I can,
in fact, answer your question about what a photon is and how to visualize
it, and I am willing to do so. However, not wanting to discourage any bad
habits on your part, here's the deal: if you will first explain to me why
you believe that the principle of continuity is invalid, and defend that
view, then I will tell you exactly what a photon is, so you can visualize
its acceleration. Fair enough? 

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.01 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis)
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis)
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 1995 18:13:19 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <44es53$4nle@lamar.ColoState.EDU>, gelfand@lamar.ColoState.EDU
(Martin Gelfand) wrote:

> Mitchell Jones has some serious misconceptions about science;
> I'd like to address one that came up in our public conversation.
> The attribution header is getting too long to be useful, so I've
> axed it.  Mitchell's words are always surrounded by braces
> (preceeded by some asterisks) so its easy to tell who's who.
> [...]
> >> >(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}***
> 
> This "wresting with data" is what distinguishes theoretical
> physicists from mathematicians. It is _not_ the same as curve fitting.

***{Actually, theoretical physicists use mathematical constructs as input,
and produce visual models as their output. It is the mathematical
physicists who "wrestle with data." To them, data is input, and curve
fitted mathematical constructs are the output. The difference between a
mathematical physicist and a mathematician is one of purpose: the
mathematician is interested in the math for its own sake; the mathematical
physicist uses the math as a tool in the curve fitting process. 

As for whether what mathematical physicists do can be appropriately
described as "curve fitting," your view harkens back to our earlier
disagreement about whether a "structured vacuum" is an "ether." In both
cases, you want to emphasize differences and I want to emphasize
similarities. In my view the reason is that you buy into the ongoing con
game which passes for physics nowadays, while I do not. In the specific
case of curve fitted mathematical constructs, the goal of the con game is
to pretend that mathematical physics and theoretical physics are the same
thing, despite the fact that they are radically different. (You implicitly
treated them as the same when you said, incorrectly, that "wresting with
data" is what distinguishes theoretical physicists from mathematicians.") 

In order to comprehend the nature and goals of this particular con game,
it is first necessary to realize that, basically, there are four types of
physicists: (1) Experimental physicists collect data and test hypotheses.
(2) Mathematical physicists express the data in a compact mathematical
form by means of a process that I have described as "curve fitting and
tweaking." (3) Theoretical physicists reflect upon the resulting
mathematical constructs and create visual models of the underlying
phenomena, thereby explaining the math and the data, and enabling others
to understand and think about the phenomena. (4) Applied physicists,
commonly known as "engineers," use the visual models and the mathematical
constructs to solve problems in the real world--e.g., by designing
buildings, bridges, machines, etc.

Within this classification, Nicholas Copernicus was a theoretical
physicist, because he overturned the previous, earth-centered visual model
of the solar system and replaced it with a new, sun-centered one. Isaac
Newton, on the other hand, was primarily an experimental and mathematical
physicist. (His law of universal gravitation, for example, was a purely
curve-fitted mathematical construct which was offered to the world with no
apologies for the fact that there was no accompanying visual model.) Paul
Dirac, by contrast, was a mathematical physicist and a theoretical
physicist: he did not merely produce curve fitted mathematical constructs
which made it possible to calculate data points; he also created the
visual model known as "Dirac's ocean"--to wit: his sea of "extraordinary
electrons" that pervaded all of space. Lord Rutherford was yet another
variant: an experimentalist who, as author of the atomic model, was a
theoretical physicist as well. 

With such distinctions in mind, it becomes possible to understand the
nature of the ongoing con game in physics. The con game arises because
theoretical physics has to do with visual intelligence. The great
theoretical physicists are men with extraordinary abilities to visualize
the way things work, and very low tolerances for verbal or mathematical
constructs which are not accompanied by visual models. Result: the kind of
students who are attracted to theoretical physics are prone to ask
embarassing questions when they have difficulty visualizing the meaning of
a professor's words or of his math. Since the faculties of modern, state
universities are infested by superficial, "scholastically efficient"
memorizers who "saved time" during their student days by remembering
symbols which they did not understand, it is no surprise that professors
of the "modern" ilk tend to feel threatened by students who focus on
visualization. They deal with this "problem" by burying their classes
under an immense flood tide of material. Result: it becomes virtually
impossible, in most courses, to do anything other than memorize the
symbols. In such classes, students who insist on doing the hard mental
work that is necessary to construct visual models either do poorly or
flunk out, while those who remember without understanding earn "top
marks." (Large privately endowed universities such as the Ivy League
schools do not appear to fit this paradigm very well, by the way. There,
students frequently have the time to think deeply about their subject
matter and develop real competencies--or so I am told by persons who have
attended them. The reason, apparently, is that such schools are much more
concerned about satisfying their "customers"--the students and their
parents--than are the faculties of state run universities.)

In any case, once a university system has succumbed to this type of
corruption, the collapse of theoretical physics at that institution soon
follows. As aging professors in the physics department retire, their
chairs are preferentially filled by applicants who earned "top marks,"
rather than by those who earned lower grades or who did not graduate.
Since "top marks," at such institutions, are virtual proof that the
individual in question is a superficial, visually-blighted, rote
memorizer, it follows that pretty soon the chairs in theoretical physics
at that institution are going to be filled with people who can't do
theoretical physics. However, they aren't going to admit that. What they
will do, instead, is use their positions and authority to redefine what
theoretical physics means. Whereas in the past the prestige and the
accolades went to theoretical physicists who constructed useful visual
models, in the new age of mediocrity the prestige and the accolades will
go to those who produce mathematical constructs that fit experimentally
determined data points. Naturally, if such professors openly describe what
they are doing as "mathematical curve fitting," it will be apparent to all
that their mathematical constructs contain no deep truths about the
physical world, and that they are minor players in the game of physics.
Result: they will *not* describe them in that way, and they will resist
with might and main the arguments of those who do. They will argue that
their mathematical constructs contain deep truths about the world; and, as
a corollary, they will argue that visualization is useless or
contraproductive in physics. Once these false premises have been
established, the final step in the process will be to equate theoretical
physics with mathematical physics and, by implication, deny that the old
style of theoretical physics ever existed at all.   

By the way, Martin, please note that no personal judgment is contained in
the above. I am *not* saying that you are one of the guilty parties in all
of this, and I am *not* saying you are a superficial rote memorizer. You
may, for all I know, be one of the victims. It is very difficult to
understand the internal workings of bureaucracy and the way incentives
determine outcomes in such environments. Millions of people buy into the
scam because they are sincerely fooled by it. And they are entitled to be
fooled: the "profscam" is one of the slickest con games around. --Mitchell
Jones}***
            
> Let me give a simple example which, I hope, explains why.
> 
> From the Schrodinger equation one can calculate the spectrum
> of the hydrogen atom (up to hyperfine splittings and other
> effects which are "small").  The formula that results has
> several parameters in it:  the electron mass (more precisely
> the _reduced mass_, which differs from the electron mass
> by a small amount that depends on the nuclear mass), the
> electron charge, and Planck's constant.  The point is that
> all of these parameters can be measured, using methods which
> make no reference whatsoever to the spectrum of the hydrogen
> atom.  

***{Of course they can, but there exist an infinite number of formulations
into which they can be plugged, and Schrodinger's is only one of them.
--Mitchell Jones}***

Planck's constant one can obtain from the photoelectric
> effect; the electron mass to charge ratio by looking at how
> the trajectory of an electron is bent in a magnetic field;
> the electron charge can (nowadays) be measured directly 
> from the ratio of current to input pulse rate in an
> "electron turnstile"; etc etc etc... all methods that make
> no reference whatsoever to the spectrum of hydrogen.  And
> guess what:  the correct answer (again, up to small corrections
> associated with the inexactness of simple Schrodinger equation)
> comes out.

***{Yes, of course, but if the formulation had not given the "correct"
answer--i.e., one that fits the data--it would have joined a hundred
others in Schrodinger's unpublished discard heap, now wouldn't it? That's
why I refer to this process as mathematical curve fitting. The curves that
don't fit the data get tossed! 

Moreover, the same considerations apply to Bohr's earlier struggle to find
a formulation that would derive the Balmer series spectral lines (the
success of which, incidentally, earned hin a Nobel Prize), to Newton's
struggle to identify a mass-based formulation from which he could derive
Kepler's laws (and, thereby, the astronomical data of Tycho Brahe), and on
and on. Of course, as you note, the construction of curve fitted
mathematical formulations seldom starts from scratch. Instead, competent
mathematical physicists build on the formulations that they have inherited
from their predecessors. This is why, in my description of the process, I
focused not merely on the aspect of curve fitting, but also on the aspect
of "tweaking" (or transforming) pre-existing constructs. 

In summary, I would note four things: (1) you ignore the garbage heap of
discarded formualtions that *did not* give the correct answer, (2) you
ignore the fact that the formulations in your example were tweaked
variants of pre-existing mathematical constructs (e.g., Maxwell's
equations), (3) you ignore the fact that the pre-existing constructs were
also curve-fitted, tweaked variants of even earlier constructs (Coulomb's
law, the Biot-Savart law, Faraday's law of induction, etc.), and, most
importantly, (4) you ignore the fact that such constructs are valuable for
one reason only: because they sum up, in a compact form, the implications
of the existing experimental data--which means: they contribute to our
ability to calculate, but not to our ability to understand. 

Point number four, being the most important, requires elaboration. To
convey the relative importance of a mathematical construct as compared to
a visual model of the same phenomenon, an example is required. For that
purpose, therefore, let us work with Newton's law of universal
gravitation, F = GMm/r^2. When Newton made this statement, he was merely
stating a mathematical relationship that fit the data points in the
existing, experimentally determined data base (mostly accumulated by Tycho
Brahe and Galileo), from which other known formulations (e.g., those of
Kepler) could be deduced, and from which he hoped useful interpolations
and even some extrapolations could be made. He did not claim that his
equation *explained* the underlying causal process by which gravity
worked, though he did explicitly debunk the "action at a distance idea"
which was put forward by others who attempted to interpret/explain his
idea.

Why isn't the law of universal gravitation the same as an explanation of
gravitation? This is a distinction that isn't easy to see, until one
confronts an actual explanation. And, in the modern era, the ongoing con
game in physics ensures that students almost never confront such
explanations. We can, however, get around the con game by going back a
ways in the history of physics, to a time when great theoretical
physicists still existed in the world. To that end, therefore, let's
consider the interpretation of Newton's law put forward by an obscure
theoretical physicist by the name of George-Louis LeSage, more than two
hundred years ago. According to LeSage, the universe abounded with tiny
particles which he called "ultra mundane corpuscles." The particles moved
at enormous velolcities and were so small as to pass through great masses
of ordinary matter (including planets and stars) with a very low
probability of striking anything, and yet they were present in such
enormous numbers that they nevertheless exerted continuous forces on even
the smallest of objects. The result: gravitation, in strict accordance
with Newton's law. 

Have you ever asked yourself, for example, why gravity holds you to the
earth as you stand on your feet looking up at the stars? Within the LeSage
model, the answer is simple: there is a continuous downward force pressing
your body to the earth, due to the fact that the rain of "ultra mundane
corpsucles" coming down on you from space is unobstructed, while many of
those rising up from beneath your feet are obstructed by the earth. Thus
the downward force exceeds the upward force, in proportion to the mass of
the earth and your distance from its center, exactly as Newton's law
indicates. 

The difference between the LeSage model, which is theoretical physics at
its best, and the mathematical formulation of Newton, is profound. First,
the Newtonian formula can be derived from LeSage's visual model, but not
the reverse; and, second, the LeSage model makes it possible to understand
and hence think about gravitation in ways that the mathematical
formulation does not. The difference between the two is profound and
stunning, and falls upon the mind like a thunderbolt. No more perfect
illustration of the difference between the products of mathematical and
theoretical physics could possibly be devised. And, by virtue of the fact
that most physicists today have never heard of the LeSage model (and those
few who have believe, incorrectly, that it has been refuted), no more
perfect proof of the ongoing fraud in physics could possibly be devised. 
--Mitchell Jones}***
   
> 
> You see, there is a huge body of knowledge about the world,
> which _overdetermines_ many times the freedom to choose the
> few parameters that exist in theories of the world.

***{True enough. If a familiar formulation comes close to predicting a
newly measured data point, it is likely to be "tweaked" rather than tossed
out. The reason: people are conservative, and cling to old formulations as
long as they can. This, however, merely confirms the fact that the
formulations were produced by curve fitting and tweaking, exactly as I
said. --Mitchell Jones}***

> No, you don't want to use theories outside of their
> range of applicability; but that is a whole hell of a lot
> different that saying that theories are mere "curve fitting".

***{We do not use words in the same way. Thus part of our disagreement may
be terminological and somewhat trivial. However, I also believe that you
think mathematical formulations express deeper truths about the world than
is, in fact, the case. And, as a corollary, I believe you impute far less
significance to visual models and to thinking in terms of them than you
should. I'll bet, for example, that you are not disturbed by the question
of how, in the Newtonian scheme of gravitation, the force gets through
space from one mass to another; and I'll also bet that, in the case of
general relativity, you are not disturbed by the substitution of "curved
space" for "gravitational force." If I am right about these conjectures,
then I would say that your attitudes indicate a virtual indifference to
visualization in physics, because neither of these schemes of gravitation
make any visual sense at all. --Mitchell Jones}***    
> 
> There are indeed two (principal) processes at work in 
> theoretical (not quite the same as mathematical!) physics, 

***{That's a step in the right direction. At least you acknowledge that
there is a difference, although you falsely take it to be small.
--Mitchell Jones}***


> but they are not "curve-fitting" and "tweaking".
> Rather they are "calculating" and "model building".

***{I never said that curve fitting vs. tweaking captured the distinction
between mathematical and theoretical physics. In fact, curve fitting and
tweaking both fall under the heading of mathematical physics. Theoretical
physics, properly, is concerned with the construction of visual models,
or, as you say, "model building." Model building is a process of
visualization and relies on natural language descriptions, not
mathematical ones. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> Regards,
> Martin Gelfand

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Oct  2 04:37:04 EDT 1995
------------------------------
