1995.10.19 / A Plutonium /  HYASYS equations of Strong Nuclear Force; predicting isotopes
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: HYASYS equations of Strong Nuclear Force; predicting isotopes
Date: 19 Oct 1995 19:06:06 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

  Compile a list of 'nuclear' protons in a ratio to nuclear electrons
then correlate the "times of decay" and the particle MEV.  Below is a
brief outline form. From this will come out an equation of state for
the Strong Nuclear Force

Isotope     ratio of nuclear protons to nuclear electrons  time-decay

1@0  1.00866492     1/1=1       B- 10.3 m    .78235 MEV

1@1  1.007825032   99.985% stable
2@1  2.014101778  2/1=2    .015% stable
3@1  3.01604927   3/2=1.5     B- 12.32 y   .01859 MEV

 3@2  3.01602931  3/1 =3   1.37 x 10^-4 % stable
 4@2  4.00260325  4/2 =2   ~100% stable
5@2 5.01222  5/3 =1.666..    n,A  7.6x10^-22 s  
 6@2  6.01888  6/4 =1.5      .807 sec  B- 3.508 MEV
7@2 7.02803  7/5 =1.4        n  3x10^-21 s
 8@2  8.03392  8/6 =1.33..   .119 sec B- 10.65 MEV
 9@2 9.0438  9/7 =1.285..     n
10@2        10/8 =1.25       2n
  .                   .
  .                   .
  .                   .
  .                   .
 5@3 5.01254   5/2 =2.5    3x10^-22 s
 6@3 6.015122  6/3 =2     7.5%  stable
 7@3 7.016004  6/3 =2     92.5%  stable
  8@3 8.022486   8/5 =1.6     B- .84 s  16.004 MEV
  9@3 9.026789  9/6 =1.5        B-  .178 s  13.606 MEV
 10@3 10.03590   10/7 =1.428..    B-  4x10^-22 s  20.84 MEV
 11@3 11.04379  11/8 =1.375       B-  8.7 ms     20.6 MEV
  .                   .
  .                   .
  .                   .
58@28  nickel68%m  58/30 =1.933..
59@28 58.934351   59/31 =1.903..       EC 7.6 x 10^4 y 
60@28  nickel26.2%m  60/32 =1.875..
61@28  nickel1.1%m   61/33 =1.848..
62@28  nickel3.6%m  62/34 =1.823..
63@28 62.929673   63/35 =1.8       B- 100 y  .066945 MEV
64@28  nickel.9%m   64/36 =1.777..
  .                   .
  .                   .
  .                   .
63@29  copper69.1%m  63/34 =1.852..
64@29 63.929768 64/35 =1.828.. 12.701h EC/41% B-/39%/.579MEV
B+/19%/1.6751MEV
65@29  copper30.8%m  65/36 =1.8
  .                   .
  .                   .
  .                   .
112@50  tin.9%m  112/62 =1.806..
113@50   112.905174   113/63 =1.793..   EC 115.1 d  1.036MEV
114@50  tin.6%m  114/64 =1.781..
115@50  tin.3%m  115/65 =1.769..
116@50  tin14.5%m  116/66 =1.757..
117@50  tin7.6%m  117/67 =1.746..
118@50  tin24.2%m  118/68 =1.735..
119@50  tin8.5%m  119/69 =1.724..
120@50  tin32.5%m  120/70 =1.714..
121@50  120.904239     121/71 =1.704..       B-   1.128 d .388MEV
122@50  tin4.6%m 122/72 =1.694..
123@50  122.905723    123/73 =1.684..        B-   129.2 d 1.404MEV
124@50  tin5.7%m 124/74 =1.675..
  .                   .
  .                   .
  .                   .
121@51  antimony57.3%m  121/70 =1.728..
122@51  121.90518    122/71 =1.718..  2.72 d   B-/98%/1.979MEV
                                              B+/2%/1.62MEV
123@51  antimony42.6%m  123/72 =1.708..
  .                   .
  .                   .
  .                   .
122@52  telleri2.5%um  122/70 =1.742..
123@52  telleri.9%um  123/71 =1.732..
124@52  telleri4.7%um  124/72 =1.722..
125@52  telleri7.1%um  125/73 =1.712..
126@52  telleri18.9%um  126/74 =1.702..
127@52 126.905217 127/75 =1.693..  9.4 h   B- .698MEV
128@52  telleri31.7%um  128/76 =1.684..
129@52    128.906596 129/77 =1.675.. 1.16 h   B- 1.498MEV
130@52  telleri33.8%um  130/78 =1.666..
  .                   .
  .                   .
 
196@80  mercury.1%m
197@80
198@80  mercury9.9%m
199@80  mercury16.8%m
200@80  mercury23.1%m
201@80  mercury13.1%m
202@80  mercury29.8%m
203@80
204@80  mercury6.8%m
  .                   .
  .                   .
  .                   .
  .                   .
197@81  196.96954 197/116=1.698..      2.83 h  EC/99%; B+/1%/ 2.18MEV
198@81  197.9405 198/117=1.692..      5.3 h  EC 1MEV, B+ 3.5MEV
199@81 198.9698  199/118=1.686..       7.4 h  EC  1.4 MEV
200@81 199.97095  200/119=1.680..       1.087 d  EC  2.46 MEV
201@81 200.97080  201/120=1.675       3.04 d  EC .48 MEV
202@81 201.97209   202/121=1.669..      12.23 d  EC 1.36 MEV
203@81 thalli29.5%um  203/122=1.663..
204@81 203.973848   204/123=1.658..   3.78 y B-/97%/.7637 MEV
EC/3%/.347MEV
205@81  thalli70.4%um   205/124=1.653..

  .                   .
  .                   .
  .                   .
 182@82 181.99268   182/100 =1.82  alpha .06 s   6.92 MEV
 183@82 182.9919    183/101 =1.81..  alpha .3 s
 184@82 183.9882   184/102 =1.803..  alpha .6 s   6.63 MEV
 185@82 184.9876    185/103 =1.796..  alpha 4.1 s  6.34 MEV
  .                   .
  .                   .
204@82  lead1.4%m
205@82 
206@82  lead24.1%m
207@82  lead22.1%m
208@82  lead52.4%m

  .                   .
  .                   .
  .                   .
 209@82 208.981075  209/127 =1.645..  B- 3.25 h   .644 MEV
 210@82 212.99437   210/128 =1.640.. B- 22.6 y   .0635 MEV
 211@82 213.99870   211/129 =1.635..  B- 36.1 m   1.37 MEV
 212@82 215.0018    212/130 =1.630..  B- 10.64 h  .574 MEV
 213@82 216.0062    213/131 =1.625..  B- 10.2 m  2.1 MEV
 214@82 216.0062    214/132 =1.621..  B- 26.9 m  1.0 MEV
  .                   .
  .                   .

 187@83 186.9935   187/104 =1.798..  alpha 35 ms 
 188@83 187.9922   188/105 =1.790..  alpha 5 ms
 189@83 188.9895   189/106 =1.783..  alpha .68 s 
 190@83 189.9875   190/107 =1.775..  alpha 5. s  6.45 MEV
 191@83 190.9861   191/108 =1.768..  alpha 12. s  6.32 MEV
  .                   .
  .                   .
 212@83 211.99437   212/129 =1.643..  B- 1.009 h   2.254 MEV
 213@83 212.99437   213/130 =1.638.. B- 45.6 m   1.43 MEV
 214@83 213.99870   214/131 =1.633..  B- 19.7 m   3.27 MEV
 215@83 215.0018    215/132 =1.628..  B- 7.7 m  2.3 MEV
 216@83 216.0062    216/133 =1.624..  B- 3.6 m  4.0 MEV
  .                   .
  .                   .
 242@96 242.058828   242/146 =1.657..  alpha 162.8 d   6.216 MEV
 243@96 243.061381   243/147 =1.653..  alpha  28.5 y  6.167 MEV
 244@96 244.062745   244/148 =1.648..  alpha  18.11 y   5.902 MEV
 245@96 245.065485   245/149 =1.644..  alpha 8.5x10^3y  5.623 MEV
 246@96 246.067217   246/150 =1.64  alpha  4.78x10^3y   5.476 MEV
 247@96 247.070346   247/151 =1.635..  alpha 1.56x10^7y  5.352 MEV
  .                   .
  .                   .
 249@96 249.075946   249/153 =1.627..  B-  64.15 m   .9 MEV
 251@96 251.08228   251/155 =1.619..  B- 16.8 m  1.42 MEV
  .                   .
  .                   .
  .                   .
 240@98 240.0623   240/142 =1.690..  alpha   1.1 m   7.719 MEV
 242@98 242.06369   242/144 =1.680..  alpha  3.5 m  7.509 MEV
 244@98 244.06599   244/146 =1.671..  alpha  20. m   7.328 MEV
 245@98 245.068038   245/147 =1.666..  alpha 44. m  7.255 MEV
 246@98 246.068798   246/148 =1.662..  alpha  1.49 h   6.869 MEV
 247@98 247.07099   247/149 =1.657..  alpha 3.11 h  6.55 MEV
 248@98 248.07218   248/150 =1.653..  alpha  334 d   6.369 MEV
 249@98 249.074846   249/151 =1.649..  alpha  351 y  6.295 MEV
 250@98 250.076399   250/152 =1.644..  alpha  13.1 y   6.129 MEV
 251@98 251.079579   251/153 =1.640..  alpha 900 y  6.172 MEV
 252@98 252.081619   252/154 =1.636..  alpha  2.65 y   6.217 MEV
  .                   .
  .                   .
 254m@98 254.088017   254/156 =1.628..  B-  1.64 d   .475 MEV
 255@98 255.09027   255/157 =1.624..  B- 40 d  .29 MEV 
 256m@98  256.0936   256/158 =1.620..  B-  25 m   1.7 MEV
  .                   .
  .                   .
  .                   .
  There is a logarithmic--exponental relationship, a math equation
which relates the variables of alpha decay, mass of isotope and ratio
of nuclear protons to 'nuclear' electrons, and the particle energy. The
above source is CRC 76th edition.

  The function derived is a step function wherein the gaps of the step
function are  the stable isotopes. This function will show that
technetium and prometheum have no gaps, meaning no stable isotopes. A
step function since quantum mechanics is discrete values. It would
really be nice to have a
supercomputer set-up, feeding in all of the above data such as I have
started
to do above and have the computer spit out the step function. At first
feed in only the smooth data points.

  It is likely that another heavily used step function in quantum
physics exists which is the "family" of step functions which when
tinkered with is the correct equation of HYASYS and will predict how
many  isotopes of each element exists.

   There must be got a separate equation for the alpha decay mode then
for the neutron decay mode then for the Beta-, then for EC. Once these
are got then to get a generalized form of equation.

  And perhaps I will have to draw-in a 'natural' time limit for this
equation. Such a natural time limit would be the decay rate of a
neutron of approx 10 min.

  The number 84 or 83 is very important in the equation for 83 is the
last stable element meaning that the nuclear electrons, no matter how
numerous are not able to hold nuclear protons together. And it is not
by coincidence that a muon mass to normal electron mass is 211, and
that 83 + inverse fine-structure variable at the size of a muon is 128
giving 83+128=211.

 It sure would be nice if some supercomputer were to spit out the step
function instead of me spending so much time in deducing it.


  Find out the decay modes of those unstable isotopes between the
stable
isotopes. The step-function equation which predicts stable and
unstable isotopes will have to show these. And perhaps there is a
discernable pattern.

  Perhaps another equation exists which makes all the variables on one
side of the equation equal to a constant such as 83 which is the
Coulombic Strong Nuclear force where no matter how many neutrons are in
the nucleus they via there nuclear electrons cannot hold the protons
together. Such an equation would quickly reconcile the variable data of
the isotopes and it would predict in which way a isotope decays. This
would be a rather difficult equation for it would have to predict the
percentages of decay mode such as B+ and EC, or B+ and EC and IT, or B+
and EC and alpha, etc.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.19 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 15:05:36 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <browe-1610952039250001@10.0.2.15>, browe@netcom.com (Bill
Rowe) wrote:

> In article <21cenlogic-1510951841520001@austin-1-3.i-link.net>,
> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:
> 
> a long description of how to calculate the pressure needed which I have
skipped.
> 
> An even simpler view would be to realize pressure which has units of force
> per unit area is equivalent to force times distance or energy per unit
> volume. 

***{Bill, your point about the dimensionality of the units is well taken.
Dimensionally, we can multiply force divided by area times length divided
by length, producing work (energy) divided by volume. Merely knowing that
5 joules is to be stored in each .238 ml gives you a rate of 21 joules per
cc, which gives 2100 Newton-cm/cm3, which gives 2100 Newtons/cm2, and we
have a pressure already. A Newton is about .2245 lbs, so we have about 472
lbs/cm2. Since an inch is 2.54 cm, a square inch is 6.45 cm2, and,
multiplying by 6.45, we get a pressure of 3043 psi. Dividing by 14.7, that
gives 207 atmospheres. 

My point, of course, was not to simply the calculation but to explicate
the physics. To most people (including, horribly, many who have studied
physics), pressure is not regarded as a form of energy storage. My intent
was to point out that it is, and to provide a visualization of the
connection between potential energy, pressure energy, kinetic energy, and
heat energy. To that end, I employed an indirect method of calculation
that, while not the most efficient way to generate the correct answer, was
well suited to illustrating the connection I wanted to illustrate.
--Mitchell Jones}***

 doesn't give you a pressure in atmospheres until you So with 5 watts  and
14 ml/sec

***{This should be 14 ml/min, not 14 ml/sec, as others have already
pointed out. Correct is .238 ml/sec, which explains why this figure was
used in the calculation above. --Mitchell Jones}***

 I can compute 5/14 joules/ml which
> directly equates to a pressure. Assuming the other numbers posted are
> correct, this should be equivalent to 206 atmospheres.
> -- 
> "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.19 / A Plutonium /  Re: Third experiment: Strong Nuclear Force is nuclear
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Third experiment: Strong Nuclear Force is nuclear
Date: 19 Oct 1995 02:34:26 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <951017152438@are107.lds.loral.com>
hahn@newshost  (Karl Hahn) writes:

> In article <45n35g$ssb@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Archimedes.Plutonium@dar
mouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> 
> [deletia]
> 
> [Feynman quote:]
> >   vacuum). Now the point is that the potential energy is reduced if A
> >   gets smaller, but the smaller A is, the higher the momentum required,
> >   because of the uncertainty principle, and therefore the higher the
> >   kinetic energy. The total energy is 
> >        E = h^2/2mA^2 - e^2/A.     (38.10)
> >   
> >   We do not know what A is, but we know that the atom is going to arrange
> >   itself to make  some kind of compromise so that the energy is as little
> >   as possible. In order to minimize E,  we differentiate with respect to
> >   A, set the derivative equal to zero, and solve for A. The derivative of
> >   E is 
> >       dE/dA = -h^2/mA^3 + e^2/A^2,  (38.11)
> >   
> >   and setting dE/dA = 0 gives for A the value
> >   
> >      A_0 = h^2/me^2 = 0.528 angstrom
> >                               = 0.528 x 10^-10 meter. (38.12)
> >   
> >   This particular distance is called the Bohr radius, and we have thus
> >   learned that atomic dimensions are of the order of angstroms, which is
> >   right: This is pretty good-- in fact, it is amazing, since until now we
> >   have had no basis for understanding the size of atoms! Atoms are
> >   completely impossible from the classical point of view, since the
> >   electrons would spiral into the nucleus.
> >      Now if we put the value (38.12)  for A_0 into (38.10) to find the
> >   energy, it comes out
> >             E_0 = -e^2/2A_0 = -me^4/2h^2 = -13.6ev.   (38.13)
> >   
> [deletia]
> 
> >   --- end of quoting of Feynman Lectures, vol 1, page 38-6 ---
> >   
> >     So, momentum P, where P = mc
> >   
> >    then Uncertainty Principle (UP) we have h/P = h/mc = Compton
> >   wavelength
> >   
> >     Thus, to get around UP, or better yet, put UP to work. We can
> >   calculate what the mass of a nuclear electron is, in order for it to
> >   hold together say the 4 protons of helium 4@2 by the 2 nuclear
> >   electrons. Would the mass of the 2 nuclear electrons be muon masses or
> >   would they be tau masses?
> >   
> >     This is all pretty for the UP predicts what the masses of nuclear
> >   electrons must be in order to be inside the nucleus, or inside the
> >   individual protons moving very rapidly from one proton to another in
> >   order to strong force hold them together. Understand that the Coulombic
> >   nuclear strong force of nuclear electrons is 83 times stronger than
> >   normal Coulomb force.
> 
> You mean you cannot do this yourself, AP, with all your math expertise??
> Allow me to assist:
> 
> A neutron size is on the order of 1e-15 meters.  Substitute that into
> the right hand side of equation 38.12.  Since both h and e are
> constants, m must change.  In fact it must grow by a factor of
> 0.528e-10 meters / 1e-15 meters, or in other words, by a factor of
> 52800.  That would place its mass higher by an order of magnitude
> than a tau and higher by two orders of magnitude than a muon.  So
> tell me, AP, is your conjecture predicting the existence of a new
> lepton of rest energy in the order of 26000 MeV (nearly 30 proton
> masses)?  And if so, why does a neutron weigh far less than 30 proton
> masses, since according to material that you posted above (and I
> agree with) the electron (or whatever you claim is the proton's
> partner in your model of a neutron would have to have that amount
> of mass?


--- McGraw Hill Science & Tech ---
Tau Particle is a lepton with a mass of about 1800 MEV, almost twice
that of the proton. Pointlike in size.

electron, discovered 1890s,   .51 MEV , stable, electron neutrino and
electron antineutrino

muon  , discovered late 1930s,  105.7 MEV ,  2.2 x 10^-6 sec, muon
neutrino and muon antineutrino

tau, discovered 1974-75,  1785 MEV ,  3.4 x 10^-13 sec,  tau neutrino
and tau antineutrino
--- from McGraw Hill Science & Tech ---

  Karl, I was wondering if there is some immediate correlation to the
above, only the reverse. Like one German poster once remarked, "Arc,
why make things so complicated?" I can just imagine in his thick German
accent saying "why make things so c-o-m-p-l-i-k-a-t-e-d?"

  Anyway, I was thinking about the rather arbitrariness of this 0.528 x
10^-10 meter. Let us admit it was rather pulled out of the air from
some crude experiments.

 And it may be that for an atom which has 30 hadrons exactly that the
nuclear electrons in conglomerate equals the total sum of 26000 MeV.

  Thus I am thinking , reverse the process and make the space the
Strong Nuclear Force. We do know, don't we that the Strong Nuclear
Force is local, meaning it is geometrical, thus I will skip over the
MEV and bury the MEV in geometrical space. I mean make Strong Nuclear
Force == geometrical space. In this way a electron is equal to a proton
when you convert electron space to that of proton space. 

 Thus in this manner we can reverse calculations and tell what the
rather precise radius of the helium atom nucleus of 3 hadrons of 4
hadrons of 5 hadrons is etc. The  0.528 x 10^-10 meter corresponds to
the precise radius of a nucleus with 30 hadrons. What size of nucleus
does a muon particle or tau particle correspond with? I do not know
about a muon but a tau corresponds to a 2 hadron nucleus of deuterium.
Are tau particles manufactured from deuterium or helium atoms?

  Thus in this correlation process I have made radius size of atoms
correspond to the strong nuclear force. Thus, nuclear electrons bind
the protons and their space shrunk does not go into increased mass but
instead to that of the Nuclear Strong Force.

  Thus, the Nuclear Strong Force is a math geometry wherein MEV's are
converted into geometrical configurations of calculable radii. It may
be that the muon and tau are the only lepton particles required to
correlate geometrical configurations of protons. In this way,
technetium and promethium have no stable isotope because the lepton
numbers do not make for a complete sphere like radius and instead has
to span between elements 42 , 43 and 44 likewise 60, 61 and 62 to get a
complete radius geometrical sphere.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.19 / John W /  Re: Dipole Gravity 2
     
Originally-From: "John K. W." <jwilkinson@mail.utexas.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dipole Gravity 2
Date: 19 Oct 1995 03:07:42 GMT
Organization: The Univesity of Texas

>> each hemispheres as predicted. Other explanations12-14 lack credibility 
>> since the black hole's enormous attractive gravitational force would not 
>> allow any materials (even photons) to come off from its horizon near the 
>> symmetry axis where the centrifugal force is at the minimum. 

Is it not also possible that the centripital acceleration (i.e. less
of an acceleration gradient) is what allows particles to be sucked
towards the black hole?

What if, for instance, space was warped to such a degree about the poles
that particles and their anti-particles were actually created from the
sheer ammount of energy applied to the space?

Then, the centripital acceleration would actually IMPEDE particles leaving
the horizon, for less energy would be applied to that area of space...

-- 
 /     John K. Wilkinson     -    jwilkinson@mail.utexas.edu     \
| "I don't have the power because I've got the monkeys.  I've got |
 \  the power because I'll set the monkeys LOOSE."  -Dave Foley  /


cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjwilkinson cudfnJohn cudlnW cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.18 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Return to Rome
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Return to Rome
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 95 23:54:44 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Tom Droege <Droege@fnal.fnal.gov> writes:
 
    "It is a little worrisome to me that I am the only one Griggs seems to
    trust. . . . I saw the same group as last time, Jim Griggs, Kelly Hudson,
    Dave Parker but not Scott Smith.  Scott Smith was the engineer who used
    to work for Chukanov.  All the evidence was that Griggs is no longer
    trying to do any science at all. . . . So I think they have canned Scott
    Smith and are no longer trying to do anything serious about a measurement
    program."
 
This is 100% pure garbage, from beginning to end. They trust lots of other
people, they have improved their R&D, and they have emphatically *not* canned
Scott Smith. I talked to Scott today at Hydrodynamics. He was pretty upset to
hear that Tom posted this ugly rumor about him on Internet. It is damn
irresponsible to make up malicious gossip about a guy losing his job, and then
deliberately spread it to thousands of people.
 
This is a typical Droege report: irresponsible, half-assed hearsay &
imagination instead of facts. Tom will not lift a finger to verify his claims,
he just makes stuff up and posts it where thousands of people will see it.
It would take all of five seconds to ask "Where is Scott Smith?" If he had
bothered to do that, they would have said "he is at a customer site today."
Tom's "report" on the Griggs machine was based on the same standard of gutter
tabloid reporting:
 
He did not bother to write down the temperatures or power levels.
He did not bring back any data printouts.
He did not bother to bring his own thermometer or power meter.
He did not bother to count the thermocouples.
He did not notice the thermomoters.
He did not bring a camera or photograph anything.
He made up a cock & bull "hypothesis" that the machine was affecting the
thermocouples. If he had bothered to glance at the thermocouples or
thermometers after the machine was turned off, he would have seen instantly
that this hypothesis is wrong, but no, not Tom, he can't be bothered to check
anything or do anything or write down anything or report any hard facts.
Nope, he just went ahead and published this "explanation" where thousands of
people would read it and be misled.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.18 / Bill Rowe /  Re: CF demo at SOFE
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF demo at SOFE
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 21:26:40 -0700
Organization: AltNet - http://www.alt.net

In article <814001304.11971@pigsty.demon.co.uk>,
malcolm@pigsty.demon.co.uk (Malcolm McMahon) wrote:

>Have you asked yourself the question: Does it _matter_ if it's fusion?
>If cells can be made that consistently put out heat for long periods
>and, in a year or two, I can stick one in my central heating system it
>wouldn't make much difference if it was fussion or the heat was put
>there by the energy fairy.
>
>Of course it's nice to have a theory and it helps optimise the design
>but in the past technologies have been used for years without anyone
>understanding how they worked.

From a physics viewpoint, yes it matters whether it is fusion. From other
perspectives, business, producing energy etc. it may not matter. However,
it may still matter even from these viewpoints when the questions of
safety or long term health hazards arise.
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.18 / Bill Rowe /  Re: CF demo at SOFE
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF demo at SOFE
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 21:55:11 -0700
Organization: AltNet - http://www.alt.net

In article <21cenlogic-1810951717140001@austin-1-13.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:

>In article <browe-1710952030510001@10.0.2.15>, browe@netcom.com (Bill
>Rowe) wrote:
>
>> In article <pbPEg+Q.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
>> 
>> >browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) writes:
>> Let repeat what your logic seems to be
>> 
>> 1) more energy than observed from any known chemistry
>> 2) no possibility of any significant error
>> 3) can't imagine anyway to explain it with chemistry
>> 4) no evidence of fusion other than heat
>> 
>> Therefore the process is not chemistry but fusion.
>> 
>> Of course there is no possibility you have overlooked something or not
>> considered something of importance.
>
>***{Bill, why do you post stuff like this? Surely you must be aware that
>the probability that something has been overlooked depends upon the amount
>of time and effort that one has invested searching for it. Jed has been
>analyzing this stuff for literally years, and arguing about it with people
>such as you and Dick Blue. At some point, he is entitled to conclude that
>he hasn't overlooked anything and that the effect must be real! The fact
>that you and Dick appear to be utterly impervious to reason on this topic
>doesn't mean that everybody else has to be! --Mitchell Jones}***

Jed has also posted comments to the effect he is a businessman and doesn't
understand the physics involved in fusion. This alone indicates there is a
excellent possibility he has overlooked something

>> Somehow this "logic" is simply not convincing. Bluster and insults doesn't
>> make it anymore convincing. In fact, bluster and insults suggests to me
>> there is a lack of completeness or ability to give answers to questions.
>
>***{If I understand you, you are saying that Jed should be infinitely
>patient. In other words, no matter how rockheaded you guys are, no matter
>how many times you ask the same question or succumb to the same fallacy,
>no matter how stubbornly you ignore evidence and logic, no matter how long
>you cling to positions that are crudely, blatantly, obviously
>indefensible, he is obligated to continue politely responding to you,
>forever and ever. The implication would seem to be that you guys don't
>need to argue well, or bring forward sound evidence, or in any way
>demonstrate a shred of a basis for your disbelief. All you have to do is
>remain pig headed and obtuse until your opponent's patience is exhausted,
>at which point you can point to the resulting intemperate outburst as
>evidence of the weakness of his position! Wow! --Mitchell Jones}***   

No, I don't expect Jed or anyone to be infinitely patient. It would be
nice to see Jed directly answer questions rather than ranting about how
incompetent people who ask the questions are. In fact, if there were more
answers and fewer rants it would be a lot easier to evaluate the claims.

It is clear that many experiments seem to be putting out heat than I know
how to explain. The fact I can't explain it doesn't mean it can't be
explained. Frankly, I would like to see CF demostrated unambiguously. It
just hasn't happened yet.
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.19 / John Logajan /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: 19 Oct 1995 06:10:12 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

ZoltanCCC (zoltanccc@aol.com) wrote:
: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu writes:
: >Using the usual way of calculating excess heat, we were able
: >to get 700% "excess heat" -- which was in fact due to recombination.

: I find it curious that somebody was able to produce 700% excess heat by
: recombination of the H2 and O2 gases. For trivial reasons the excess heat
: cannot be more than 100%. 

It is true that heat due to recombination alone can never actually exceed
100%, but you can *think* you have something like 700% excess if you
make the assumption there is no recombination and *subtract* that portion
of the input energy before taking the ratio of in:out.

For instance, suppose you had a cell that had a voltage drop of 1.7 volts
and a current of 1 amp.  The input power would be 1.7 * 1 = 1.7 watts.

Now if we assume the faraday efficiency was 100% it would take 1.48 volts
of that 1.7 volt drop to produce the electrolytic products.
1.48 V * 1 A = 1.48 watts of power going into producing the H2 and O2
gasses.  Those 1.48 watts of power do not show up as heat, since the
energy is being stored in chemical form.  Our thermometer will read
low.  It'll read as if only 1.7-1.48=0.22 watts of heat was being
generated.

Now suppose we think there is no recombination of the gasses and yet
we are getting, say, a temperature equivalent to 1.54 watts -- that
is 700% greater that our expected temperature (equivalent to 0.22 watts.)

But 1.54 watts is really lower than our input of 1.7 watts.  So it looks
like we are getting 700% anomalous heat, but really it is less than
unity (obviously because some of the gasses aren't totally recombining.)


In the end though, this hasn't anything to do with the CETI demos because
the gas correction was not made.  Raw input power was used and the
loss to gasses ignored (a conservative methodology.)  Recombination
can't explain excess heat where the heat loss of recombination was
not included as a correction in the calculation.


--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.18 / Barry Merriman /  Re: CF demo at SOFE
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF demo at SOFE
Date: 18 Oct 1995 23:38:54 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <461tr5$abe@ddi2.digital.net> Robert Tilley <tilleyrw@digital.net>  
writes:
>   As someone who has been following this thread for quite some time as a 
> "lurker", I feel that I have to interject something that is quite 
> similar tohe last posting.
>   Cold fusion works. Period. There is no denying that.

Ok, tell us exactly how you determined this?

My definition of ``works'' is that a _phenomena_ is widely 
replicable amongst those with basic skills in the relevant 
techniques, when they follow some precise recipe.

While CF _might_ work by that definition, it mostly has not yet, because
there has simply been very little publicly verfiable replication....who
is able to replicate P&F's currently secret work, for example?

I suppose it could be said that CETI has a ``working'' CF device,
becuase they have now repeatedly  and publicly demoed it. But then:

Beyond ``working'', it must still be established what the phenomenon
is, and that it really does produce net energy. The latter requires
additional, independent diagnostic analysis of ``working'' devices.

I would agree with the statement that the CETI device probably works,
meaning it has repeatability at what ever level of performance CETI
seems to think is desirable.

I would not agree that its over unity nature has been clearly
demonstrated.


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


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.14 / Mark Burbidge /  Re: Tenth experiments proving HYASYS==strong nuclear force; muons
     
Originally-From: Mark@monark.ftech.co.uk (Mark Burbidge)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tenth experiments proving HYASYS==strong nuclear force; muons
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 12:07:12 GMT
Organization: Frontier Internet Services

{snip}
>> Ok, let's see how good your theory actually is.  You claim that your theory is 
>> a true explanation of the way things are.  So, here is something that is not 
>> exactly explain by the standard model, why do the particles have the masses 
>> that they do.  Why does an electron have a mass of 0.511 MeV?  Can you explain 
>> this with the proper mathematics?  Do NOT just say "Of course my theory 
>> explains this.  Don't you see it?"  That is not giving proof, it is 
>> proselytizing, not to mention bad argumentation.
{note the caution in last 3 lines}

>  John, can you stop capitalizing words, looks like your either
>shouting or baby talk.
{that is called EMPHASIS, . . . . . . .THIS IS SHOUTING, at least that
is my theory, don't you see it?)

>  Okay, you want some masses. I give you some masses. Remember, all of
>the modern day theories, quark, pion, Standard Model, QCD, QED, and Qe2
>(queen eliz. ship)  are deaf dumb mute and silent when it comes to
>giving mass.
Hmm mass of omega was predicted when quarks hypothesised.
(omega = 3 starnge quarks )

>   Mass  of muon explained for it is the muon which comes closest to
>being what nuclear electrons are. You know what normal electrons are
>John from chemistry, right? Nuclear electrons are more like muons. Now
>let us predict the muon mass.
Is this so? Are you saying that "nuclear electrons" (muons according
to you) are 200 times more massive than a "normal" electron? Hmm. Are
you also saying that lepton number is violated as this nuclear
electron (muon) changes into a "normal" electron

>  Use the fine-structure variable, it varies asymptotically to distance
>to other nuclear electrons and to nuclear protons.
Take your word for it - I could look it up, but as always when I check
the news, I've just woken up, and I'm in a hurry to go out!

>  Muon mass is 211 times that normal electron mass.
Yup

>   Inverse alpha in the nucleus is roughly 128
If you say so - see above note.

>   Nuclear protonic coulombic repulsion is stable up to the last stable
>element of bismuth at the number of 83. At 84, it no longer matters how
>many neutrons you pack into a nucleus for the nuclear electrons out of
>neutrons can no longer keep the nucleus stable.
Sounds about the right place - again, I'd need to check exact number -
and I'm quite confortable typing here, thank you. 

>  Now we add 83 to 128 and we arrive at a rest mass energy of 211. But
>211 was the rest mass energy difference between a normal electron and a
>muon which a muon is a nuclear electron.
Whoahh! Atomic NUMBER of bismuth (not even atomic mass) + inverse of
fine structure constant???  Why Bismuth? Why atomic number - which has
NO units, it's a dimensionless number. How can you add a dimensionless
number to  and get a rest mass out? This is the sort of mistake I'd
expect from my second year pupils (12 year olds) By 13 I've taught
them that the UNITS HAVE TO BE THE SAME ON BOTH SIDES!

e.g. You CANNOT add distance to a time and get a mass!

>  It is not by coincidence, John or any reader that the muon catalyzes
>fusion.
Doesn't sound like coincidence, sounds like a scratched head and
someone musing "now, what sound technical and adds up to 211??"

>The reason it does so is because it is a nuclear electron and
>nuclei just love to get a 'free' nuclear electron without a proton from
>a neutron. A muon is a free nuclear electron. And a muon can come out
>of a neutron.
In that case what happens in beta decay? You said that electrons come
out of neutrons too, HOW MUCH STUFF IS IN THERE?

>  Somehow when a neutron is in the nucleus, it decomposes into a
>nuclear electron which can be a muon and a proton. Perhaps the neutrino
>energy went into the forming of a muon out of a normal electron.
That'd need about 210MeV - not likely even if various conservation
laws weren't in trouble here.

{snip}

If you can give a thorough, scientifically valid answer to each and
every point in my response, then you might have some Physics knowledge
after all. However you cannot then I must only presume that you've
bought yourself a "dictionary of physics" and are plucking words and
numbers at random from the "particle physics" and "nuclear physics"
section. I would like you to prove me wrong.  Please try.

MB

M. Burbidge. Mark@Monark.ftech.co.uk
PGP Key Available
Fingerprint: 5F F8 CB D1 A8 A5 66 FE F1 D0 18 07 13 7B CD 6B

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenMark cudfnMark cudlnBurbidge cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.18 / A Plutonium /  Re: Third experiment: Strong Nuclear Force is nuclear
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Third experiment: Strong Nuclear Force is nuclear
Date: 18 Oct 1995 23:37:52 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <46406k$2vj@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

>   I have this new reformulation of UP worked out qualitatively for now,
> and hope to apply math to it to make it right. UP is the same as saying
> that if you have a block of pure 100% metal, say all 238@92 uranium.
> Then after some days after accurate and precise measurement there will
> exist some isotopes of elements lower in number than 92, say lead and
> helium from decay of some 238@92. But also, there will exist some atoms
> of higher elements such as neptunium and some plutonium in that
> starting out pure block of uranium. The old Werner Heisenberg
> Uncertainty Principle as a principle gave only the radioactive decay
> side of the house of probabilities, but it did not give the radioactive
> growth side of the experiment. This I feel is a better statement and
> more precise than was even the old UP of Heisenberg. And if we
> formalize this more general UP into math then old Heisenberg UP will be
> a special term of this more general form of UP. And this more general
> UP will allow me to escape the "nuclear electron" mass and say that the
> Nuclear Strong Force is the difference in that 30 proton mass, that
> 26000 MEV which is not measured because it went into holding the
> protons together as the sticking force the glue of the Strong Nuclear
> Force.

  The math for this new UP will include the 2nd law of thermodynamics
of entropy increase. The 2nd law of thermodynamics really is the old
Heisenberg Uncertainty but it also forgot the 'radioactive growth' side
of the house.

  This new UP will be a great addition to physics for it will directly
connect thermodynamics with quantum physics. The Gedanken Experiment in
all of this is the 100% pure slab of 238@92 uranium and the fact that
most decays down to lighter elements but never all for some will go
higher to neptunium and plutonium. Within that one experiment both the
ideas of the old Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the 2nd law of
thermodynamics are connected and unioned.  But that Experiment goes
beyond both the old Heisenberg UP and the 2nd law of thermodynamics and
the fallout gives insight into the Strong Nuclear Force. The old
Heisenberg UP and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics are completely deaf
dumb and silent as to why neptunium and plutonium can come out of a
purified slab of uranium.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.18 /  Labrys /  Re:  new moderated fusion list
     
Originally-From: tuttt@sage3101-16.its.rpi.edu (Labrys)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  new moderated fusion list
Date: 18 Oct 1995 18:41:15 GMT
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.

Tom Stolper writes:
|>With 20-20 hindsight, a name like sci.physics.cf would have been a 
|>better choice.

No Kidding!

-- 
_______________________________________________________________________

Teresa E Tutt               /\       /\
tuttt@rpi.edu              // \  n  / \\
EPHY '96                  ((   #>X<#   ))     "Life need not be easy
                           \\ /  H  \ //      provided it is not empty"
                            \/   H   \/              -Lise Meitner
                                 H
                                |=|
                                |=| 
                                |=|
		        	 U
http://www.rpi.edu/~tuttt
_______________________________________________________________________
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudentuttt cudlnLabrys cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.18 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: 18 Oct 1995 17:56:31 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <1995Oct17.134903.2431@plasma.byu.edu>, jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
writes:

>I referred to some tests that we used in a light water cell, where we
were
>able to demonstrate the occurence of recombination on the
electrolyte-covered
>electrodes.  Using the usual way of calculating excess heat, we were able
>to get 700% "excess heat" -- which was in fact due to recombination.
>Thus, "overunity"   is *not* sufficient to establish
>a non-chemical source of heat.  Please see our paper in J. Physical Chem.
>1995, 99:6973 for details.  By removing dissolved H2 and O2 (by sparging
>with N2) we were able to "turn off" the putative 'excess heat'
completely.

I find it curious that somebody was able to produce 700% excess heat by
recombination of the H2 and O2 gases. For trivial reasons the excess heat
cannot be more than 100%. 

I also find it strange that somebody could just simply dismiss the idea of
 p + p fusion in a case where it is almost certainly happening. I am
wondering if the Lithium in the electrolyt causes the reaction:

e  +  p  +  Li7  ---> e  +  He4  +  He4  (neutrinos omitted)

This would be the other alternative to think of, if I dismissed the p + p
reaction which I do not. This could be checked by looking at the reaction
rate as it changes with Lithium concentration.

Zoltan Szakaly
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.18 / Charlie Gibbs /  Re: new moderated fusion list
     
Originally-From: Charlie_Gibbs@mindlink.bc.ca (Charlie Gibbs)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: new moderated fusion list
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 95 17:59:14 -0700
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

In article <951018124741_47749880@mail02.mail.aol.com>
Tstolper@aol.com writes:

>The French have a saying:  nothing endures like the provisional.  I
>hope that the word fusion hasn't yet been carved into stone in the
>name of your new moderated group.

>In 1989, it was natural to call this group sci.physics.fusion, but that
>has turned out to be an inappropriate name.  With 20-20 hindsight, a
>name like sci.physics.cf would have been a better choice.

I agree that ".fusion" may not be such a good name, but how would
".cf" be any better?  If "unknown process generating anomalous heat"
is so unwieldy that you want to use a random two-letter abbreviation
instead, why choose "CF" instead of one of the other 675 possible
combinations?  It sounds suspiciously like "cold fusion".

It seems the French saying is right.  I'm afraid the word "fusion"
has been carved into stone in a number of people's minds, as well
as in the name of the new group.

Charlie_Gibbs@mindlink.bc.ca
Lurker since March, 1989

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenCharlie_Gibbs cudfnCharlie cudlnGibbs cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.19 / Martin Sevior /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: msevior@axnd02.cern.ch (Martin Sevior)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 01:43:22 GMT
Organization: CERN European Lab for Particle Physics

jonesse@plasma.byu.edu writes:


[lots snipped]

>I referred to some tests that we used in a light water cell, where we were
>able to demonstrate the occurence of recombination on the electrolyte-covered
>electrodes.  Using the usual way of calculating excess heat, we were able
>to get 700% "excess heat" -- which was in fact due to recombination.
>Thus, "overunity"   is *not* sufficient to establish
>a non-chemical source of heat.  Please see our paper in J. Physical Chem.
>1995, 99:6973 for details.  By removing dissolved H2 and O2 (by sparging
>with N2) we were able to "turn off" the putative 'excess heat' completely.

Interesting, though this would imply a lengthy charging period before
the effect turns on and also a limited period of "excess heat" after this
effect starts up. Given that input to output ratio was a whopping 1:80
this effect would require a pre-charging period of some 100-odd days 
assuming the demonstration was active over the time of the 
conference which is not credible.

Also, all accounts of the Patterson Cell show excess heat production a few
minutes after turn-on. Still it would be very nice to have a detailed
description of any precharging and/or de-gassing of the cell. I guess
we'll have to wait for the conference procedings for those.

Martin Sevior

[rest snipped]
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmsevior cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.19 / Tom Droege /  Re: Return to Rome
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Return to Rome
Date: 19 Oct 1995 16:38:29 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <5FBnwCs.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com says:
>
>Tom Droege <Droege@fnal.fnal.gov> writes:
> 
>    "It is a little worrisome to me that I am the only one Griggs seems to
>    trust. . . . I saw the same group as last time, Jim Griggs, Kelly Hudson,
>    Dave Parker but not Scott Smith.  Scott Smith was the engineer who used
>    to work for Chukanov.  All the evidence was that Griggs is no longer
>    trying to do any science at all. . . . So I think they have canned Scott
>    Smith and are no longer trying to do anything serious about a measurement
>    program."
> 
>This is 100% pure garbage, from beginning to end. They trust lots of other
>people, they have improved their R&D, and they have emphatically *not* canned
>Scott Smith. I talked to Scott today at Hydrodynamics. He was pretty upset to
>hear that Tom posted this ugly rumor about him on Internet. It is damn
>irresponsible to make up malicious gossip about a guy losing his job, and then
>deliberately spread it to thousands of people. (snip)

Well, I am glad to hear that Scott Smith still has a job.  He is the only 
one in the organization that seems to have any idea about how to set up 
a measurement program.  Dave Parker has some knowledge, but I believe he
is a consultant. While at the last meeting much was said about Scott working
on new ways to set up experiments, his name was not mentioned.  I was 
really too occupied witht he film project to ask many questions.  In fact
I did not try to query Griggs at all about progress.  I just observed. 

I stick to my opinion that they are not trying to make any measurements 
about what is going on.  Their focus seems to be on finding commercial 
markets.  This is not a bad thing to do if they are going to survive.  
But they will never find out why their measurements indicate "over unity"
unless they put more effort than was visible to me.

I can only take Jim Griggs at his word that they have not yet bought a 
log book.  Jim, any bound book will do.  It does not have to say "MIT 
Research Notebook" on the cover. You should buy one and start taking 
notes to solve your other problems.  You will be surprised how often you
will want to look back to an earlier measurement.  Without a log book to
remind you what you did before, you will tend to waste time doing the 
same experiments over and over.   

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.19 / Tom Droege /  Re: Return to Rome
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Return to Rome
Date: 19 Oct 1995 16:46:22 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <5FBnwCs.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com says:
>
>Tom Droege <Droege@fnal.fnal.gov> writes:
> 
>    "It is a little worrisome to me that I am the only one Griggs seems to
>    trust. . . . I saw the same group as last time, Jim Griggs, Kelly Hudson,
>    Dave Parker but not Scott Smith.  Scott Smith was the engineer who used
>    to work for Chukanov.  All the evidence was that Griggs is no longer
>    trying to do any science at all. . . . So I think they have canned Scott
>    Smith and are no longer trying to do anything serious about a measurement
>    program."
>

(snip) 

Those who care about such things might want to look at my original post
and see how Jed has edited it.  While the . . . are there to indicate
deletions, I think that Jed's editing job has significantly changed the
flavor of what I said.  Good craftmanship Jed!  That is, if that is what
you want to be good at.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.19 /  jedrothwell@de /  Cold Fusion lecture at Cosmos Club
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion lecture at Cosmos Club
Subject: Cold Fusion lecture at Cosmos Club
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 95 12:29:53 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Subject: Cold Fusion lecture at Cosmos Club
 
LECTURE NOTICE
 
            The Philosophical Society of Washington
                         2048th Meeting
              Friday, October 20, 1995 at 8:15 pm
 
John Wesley Powell Auditorium, Cosmos Club
(entrance at 2170 Florida Avenue, NW)
 
On Friday, October 20, David Nagel, Superintendent of the Condensed Matter and
Radiation Sciences Division, Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), will be giving a
lecture on cold fusion at the Cosmos Club. The title is "Whatever Happened to
'Cold Fusion'?" The Philosophical Society is, quote: "The Oldest Scientific
Society in Washington, Founded 1871." The Society previously hosted a lecture
by Talbott Chubb, another leading cold fusion scientist. Nagel has been a
quiet but powerful supporter of cold fusion for a long time. This is the first
time that he has stepped into the limelight as far as I know. Here is the
abstract:
 
     "'Cold Fusion' is now ignored, disdained and even mocked by scientists
     and the public. This is due to a variety of mistakes by scientists and
     the government, and the unwillingness of journal, magazine and newspaper
     editors to pay attention to this topic. But, does this mean that nothing
     is being done, or should be done, in response to questions raised by
     work on 'cold fusion'? Several hundred people world-wide are spending
     full or part time trying to get to the bottom of the mysteries which
     followed from the 1989 announcement by Pons and Fleischmann. The fifth
     international conference in Europe earlier this year attracted 200
     people, half of them with industrial connections, mainly from Japan,
     Italy, France and the U.S. There are active programs in Russia, India
     and China. A framework for organizing work on 'cold fusion' will be
     presented, along with some of the data which cannot, in the opinion of
     the speaker, be attributed to fraud or error. If correct, these data
     would strongly indicate that nuclear reactions are behind some of the
     observations. They do not support the view that such reactions are
     ordinary fusion; hence, 'cold fusion' is merely a label and not an
     assertion of what is happening. It will be argued that government
     funding of work in this area would not be wasteful, since hydrogen
     science and technology are accepted fields of inquiry. They form the
     basis of a large and growing industry in the U.S. and abroad."
 
The announcement says that non-members are welcome at all meetings.
 
Details will be published in an upcoming issue of "Infinite Energy" magazine.
 
- Jed Rothwell
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.19 / Matt Austern /  Re: CF demo at SOFE
     
Originally-From: matt@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF demo at SOFE
Date: 19 Oct 1995 19:07:30 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley (computational neuroscience)

In article <463d1d$diu@newsgate.sps.mot.com> rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com
(Doug Shade) writes:

> > He knows damn well that no chemical reaction from 40 mg
> > of matter can produce 80 MJ of energy.
> 
> He probably knows damn well that it is no *known* chemical reaction...
> just as well as it could be no *known* nuclear reaction...
> or some other kind of interaction that does not fit into our
> current paradigms.

Also that both the "40 mg" and the "80 MJ" are grossly misleading
numbers.

-- 
  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:
cuddy19 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.19 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,
ci.astro,sci.energy,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.particle,sci.rese
rch,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 13:23:44 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <hheffner-1610950624210001@204.57.193.72>,
hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner) wrote:

> In article <45rq8g$glk@seminole.gate.net>, wallaceb@news.gate.net (Bryan
> G. Wallace) wrote:
> 
> >    The following is in reply to Kennel's 13 Oct 1995 post and Snell's 14 Oct
> > post.  Lithium7 deuteride ignites in a similar way to chemical fuel
since the
> > neutrons and energy produced act to continue the reaction.  The
details on the
> > neutron generators and the x-section for fusion is classified
information, but
> 
> Details on neutron generators are not classified.  Try US Patent 5,152,956
> for example. A quick keyword patent search will find more.
> 
> The cross section of the Li7 to fusion is comparatively immaterial isn't
> it? Maintaining confinement at a temperature which will sustain fusion is
> the problem. Or maybe you mean the cross section of Li7 to neutrons?
> 
> Perhaps you missed the discussion of this in September in this thread. The
> discussion of the reaction
> 
> n  +  Li7  ->  Li6  +  n  +  n
> 
> went something like:
> 
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  begin quote - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>                                                                
> >
> >Looking superficially at this, we have atomic masses:
> >
> >
> >Li6 = 6.015121
> >n   = 1.008665
> >      --------
> >+   = 7.023786
> >Li7 = 7.016003
> >-   = 0.007783
> >
> >There is a net gain of mass from the reaction. This is a reaction that
> >converts fast neutrons in to slow neutrons, and consumes vast amounts of
> >energy in so doing. It doesn't seem useful for generating energy

***{As it happens, you are probably right about this. But this conclusion
does not become clear until some more calculations are done. Considering
the reaction Li7 + n --> Li6 + 2n, the total mass on the left side
(assuming your numbers are correct) is 8.024668 atomic mass units, and on
the right it is 8.032451 atomic mass units. Thus the right side is .007783
units heavier than the left. By my calculation, that converts to a
difference of 1.2929E-26 grams, which is 11.64E-6 ergs, which is 7.27 Mev.
(Since I am too lazy to double-check these numbers, I am including these
details to make it easy for someone to find my mistake!)  Thus if we write
the equation in balanced form, we have:  Li7 + n + 7.27 Mev --> Li6 + 2n.
It is the very large amount of energy that must be supplied to make this
reaction go which renders it useless despite the fact that it produces two
thermal neutrons on the right side. It would be hard to place it in an
environment where the two output neutrons would be able to generate, on
average, more than 3.635 Mev apiece! By contrast, the reaction pn + .78
Mev --> n is useful in a "cold fusion" cell, because the neutron is very
likely to produce far more output energy than that when it is captured.
For example, in the environment of a CF cell, we routinely would get: p +
n --> d + 2.22 Mev, which would pay back the initial investment of .78 Mev
and yield a profit of 1.44 Mev. If, however, we had been in the hole by
the amount of 3.635 Mev per neutron created, we would have been beaten
before we started. --Mitchell Jones}***  

but it
> >sure would "hide" in the form of excess mass a lot of excess energy
> >generated by other fast neutron producing reactions. Perhaps there is some
> >similar mechanism where the signature radiation of cold fusion could also
> >be hidden in mass.

***{Nope. That would make the observed "excess heat" even harder to
explain. What we need is a mechanism that converts the energy into heat,
not a mechanism that converts it into mass. --Mitchell Jones}***
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Horace
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  end quote - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> 
> This is a reaction that is *not* a chain reaction. This is not a secret. 
> Just look at the masses of the reactants and products in the CRC
> handbook.  There is nothing mysterious about it.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> Regards,                          <hheffner@matsu.ak.net>
>                                   PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
> Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.19 / 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: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 13:40:01 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <browe-1610952107140001@10.0.2.15>, browe@netcom.com (Bill
Rowe) wrote:

> In article <21cenlogic-1510951937360001@austin-1-4.i-link.net>,
> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:
> 
> >In article <browe-1310952103020001@10.0.2.15>, browe@netcom.com (Bill
> >Rowe) wrote:
> >
> >> I understand your logic and why resistance decreases in a cavitation
> >> channel. I am not convinced of your extrapolation. In essence, you are
> >> saying at higher rotation speeds the cavitation channel behaves like a
> >> solid preventing diffusion of material into it. I need to see some numbers
> >> before I would be convinced. Frankly, I don't find this explaination any
> >> more satisfying than the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.
> >
> >***{It's just simple algebra, Bill. Assume a particle is intruding into
> >the cavitation channel with velocity V. If there is only one electron in
> >the orbit and the period of the orbit is T, then on the average the
> >particle will have a time interval T/2 to travel into the channel before
> >the electron comes around and knocks it out again. Thus the distance
> >traveled into the channel will be VT/2. Now, clearly, as the orbital
> >frequency increases, VT/2 decreases. What could be simpler, or more
> >unarguable, than that? --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> You make a point the effective penetration of a particle into a cavitation
> channel decreases with increasing orbital frequency. I agree this is true
> but ask so what? What is important is not the average distance traveled by
> the "etheron" but the rate of "etheron" electron interactions and the
> amount and direction of energy/momentum exchange. 

***{Bill, the rate of energy exchange depends on the work done by the
orbiting electron per unit of time. I have already addressed this, when I
pointed out that, in the case of a cavitating boat propeller, less work is
obviously done to eject an occasional vapor particle from the channel than
is done when the channel is full of water! I thought it would be clear to
you that this was the whole point of demonstrating that particle
penetration into the channel declines as the period of revolution
decreases. Let me be specific: work is force times distance moved in the
direction of the force. In a case such as the present one, where a volume
of space is being cleared of obstructions by transporting mass against a
force gradient, the work required declines as the amount of mass in the
region declines and also as the distance to be transported declines. In
the present case, both the amount of matter in the channel and the
distance which it must be moved declines as the orbital period decreases.
And, obviously, when no matter intrudes, both the mass to be moved and the
distance to be moved is zero, and the work required is zero. Result: an
electron orbiting in a cavitation channel does no work, loses no energy,
and thus cannot possibly radiate. It's simple! --Mitchell Jones}***

To pursue a classical
> explaination I would expect the rate to be dependent on the channel
> volume, "etheron" density, electron orbital speed and average drift
> velocity of the "etherons". As far as energy/momentum exchange it will
> clearly depend on the mass difference and nature of the forces which
> govern electron "etheron" interactions.

***{Yes, Bill, but regardless of those details, the principle remains: an
electron that orbits fast enough to produce a cavitation channel will
experience reduced energy expenditure, and, because of that, the observed
stability of "preferred" electron orbits can be explained classically by
simply postulating that the energy expenditure is reduced enough, via
cavitation, to account for the experimental results. And that is the whole
point: proponents of "quantum mechanics" have been hooting at classical
mechanics for three quarters of a century about this, *and they were
wrong, wrong, wrong!* Let me say it again: they were wrong, wrong, wrong!
Got it? --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> Since you haven't said a whole lot about the properties of "etherons" I am
> sure you or I can work out what the properties have to be in order to make
> it unlikely to have observed the "etheron" or decay of the hydrogen atom.
> 
> This process is too much of an "ad hoc" theory for my taste. 

***{To say that it is "ad hoc" implies that the concept is being applied
to the present case only. In fact, however, this type of reasoning
explains an immense range of phenomena that are of interest to engineers,
ranging from boat propeller design to fluid flow in pipes, to turbine
blade design, and on and on. As for the properties of the etherons
themselves, that isn't an ad hoc postulate, either. In fact, the etheron
concept is central to the understanding of both electrodynamics and
relativity. The fact that we haven't gotten into those applications in our
discussions here should not be taken to imply that the concept lacks
generalized utility. (In fact, if you are familiar with Dirac's theories,
you will doubtless note a resemblance between the etheron concept and his
notion of an ocean of "extraordinary electrons" that pervades all of
space. From his variant of the concept, he derived his mathematical
system, and predicted the existence of the positron.) --Mitchell Jones}***

 It may be a
> more accurate description of "reality" than QM but I don't find it any
> more satisfying than QM as a description of the observed data.
> -- 
> "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.19 / A Plutonium /  14th Experiments proving HYASYS; Correlations of nuclear sizes 
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 14th Experiments proving HYASYS; Correlations of nuclear sizes 
Date: 19 Oct 1995 21:46:36 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <951017152438@are107.lds.loral.com>
hahn@newshost  (Karl Hahn) writes:

> In article <45n35g$ssb@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Archimedes.Plutonium@dar
mouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> 
> [deletia]
> 
> [Feynman quote:]
> >   vacuum). Now the point is that the potential energy is reduced if A
> >   gets smaller, but the smaller A is, the higher the momentum required,
> >   because of the uncertainty principle, and therefore the higher the
> >   kinetic energy. The total energy is 
> >        E = h^2/2mA^2 - e^2/A.     (38.10)
> >   
> >   We do not know what A is, but we know that the atom is going to arrange
> >   itself to make  some kind of compromise so that the energy is as little
> >   as possible. In order to minimize E,  we differentiate with respect to
> >   A, set the derivative equal to zero, and solve for A. The derivative of
> >   E is 
> >       dE/dA = -h^2/mA^3 + e^2/A^2,  (38.11)
> >   
> >   and setting dE/dA = 0 gives for A the value
> >   
> >      A_0 = h^2/me^2 = 0.528 angstrom
> >                               = 0.528 x 10^-10 meter. (38.12)
> >   
> >   This particular distance is called the Bohr radius, and we have thus
> >   learned that atomic dimensions are of the order of angstroms, which is
> >   right: This is pretty good-- in fact, it is amazing, since until now we
> >   have had no basis for understanding the size of atoms! Atoms are
> >   completely impossible from the classical point of view, since the
> >   electrons would spiral into the nucleus.
> >      Now if we put the value (38.12)  for A_0 into (38.10) to find the
> >   energy, it comes out
> >             E_0 = -e^2/2A_0 = -me^4/2h^2 = -13.6ev.   (38.13)
> >   
> [deletia]
> 
> >   --- end of quoting of Feynman Lectures, vol 1, page 38-6 ---
> >   
> >     So, momentum P, where P = mc
> >   
> >    then Uncertainty Principle (UP) we have h/P = h/mc = Compton
> >   wavelength
> >   
> >     Thus, to get around UP, or better yet, put UP to work. We can
> >   calculate what the mass of a nuclear electron is, in order for it to
> >   hold together say the 4 protons of helium 4@2 by the 2 nuclear
> >   electrons. Would the mass of the 2 nuclear electrons be muon masses or
> >   would they be tau masses?
> >   
> >     This is all pretty for the UP predicts what the masses of nuclear
> >   electrons must be in order to be inside the nucleus, or inside the
> >   individual protons moving very rapidly from one proton to another in
> >   order to strong force hold them together. Understand that the Coulombic
> >   nuclear strong force of nuclear electrons is 83 times stronger than
> >   normal Coulomb force.
> 
> You mean you cannot do this yourself, AP, with all your math expertise??
> Allow me to assist:
> 
> A neutron size is on the order of 1e-15 meters.  Substitute that into
> the right hand side of equation 38.12.  Since both h and e are
> constants, m must change.  In fact it must grow by a factor of
> 0.528e-10 meters / 1e-15 meters, or in other words, by a factor of
> 52800.  That would place its mass higher by an order of magnitude
> than a tau and higher by two orders of magnitude than a muon.  So
> tell me, AP, is your conjecture predicting the existence of a new
> lepton of rest energy in the order of 26000 MeV (nearly 30 proton
> masses)?  And if so, why does a neutron weigh far less than 30 proton
> masses, since according to material that you posted above (and I
> agree with) the electron (or whatever you claim is the proton's
> partner in your model of a neutron would have to have that amount
> of mass?


  The 14th experiments is very much math oriented. Correlate all the
isotopes as to size and shape of the nucleus. We do have modern
techniques to give sizes of nucleuses.
  The above shows that isotopes containing 30 hadrons should have a
radius of 0.528e-10 meters assuming all neutrons are of the same size
of 1e-15 meters.
 Using the same calibration scheme then the size of the stable
deuterium nucleus and the stable helium nucleus is calculable and then
confirmed against observations. And most importantly the same
calibration scheme should agree with the nuclear size of the alpha
particle containing 4 hadrons, thus the factor should yield approx 4000
MEV and correlate with the size of the alpha particle.

   This correlation scheme should agree with the nuclear geometry of
all isotopes assuming neutrons have the same size.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.19 / Tom Droege /  Re: CF demo at SOFE
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF demo at SOFE
Date: 19 Oct 1995 22:03:48 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <DGpqJ9.A20@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) says:

(snip)

>What neutron flux?  How else would they see in the dark.  And just 
>what makes you think cats don't run on CF?   That finicky food 
>ritual is just for show.  Someone out there have both a cat and a 
>radiation counter??

I have two cats and a radiation counter.  The red cat is clean, the
grey cat won't let me get close enough to make a measurement.  What 
is she hiding?  

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.19 / Paul Koloc /  Re:  new moderated fusion list
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  new moderated fusion list
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 20:22:06 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <951018124741_47749880@mail02.mail.aol.com> Tstolper@aol.com writes:
>Rich,

>Mixing together hot fusion and so-called cold fusion has produced and will
>continue to produce nothing but sterile arguments and confusion, insofar as
>the two groups communicate with each other at all.

>.. .

>In 1989, it was natural to call this group sci.physics.fusion, but that has
>turned out to be an inappropriate name.  With 20-20 hindsight, a name like
>sci.physics.cf would have been a better choice.

So we should rename the group sci.physics.confusion???
                                          ^  ^
>Tom Stolper
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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:
cuddy19 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.19 / Paul Koloc /  Re: CF demo at SOFE
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF demo at SOFE
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 20:35:32 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <462vga$kn6@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) writes:
>mitchell swartz (mica@world.std.com) wrote:
>: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston), Edinburgh University, writes:
>
>:  = PS Scaling point: my cat produced a megajoule of heat last night..."

>What I wanted to point out was that 80MJ, which Jed keeps bandying around
>to impress us, is not really very much heat, particularly when you
>consider the runs lengths of which he also boasts. If my cat was running
>on cold fusion then the neutron flux would have obviated one little trip
>to the vet.

What neutron flux?  How else would they see in the dark.  And just 
what makes you think cats don't run on CF?   That finicky food 
ritual is just for show.  Someone out there have both a cat and a 
radiation counter??

>Ian
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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:
cuddy19 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.19 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Fusion Rocket Question ( Koloc ?)
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Rocket Question ( Koloc ?)
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 21:10:58 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <hheffner-1810950653230001@204.57.193.73> hheffner@matsu.ak.n
t (Horace Heffner) writes:
>In article <MATT.95Oct14134945@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU>,
>matt@physics.berkeley.edu wrote:
>
>[snip]
>> 
>> No, I was thinking of ways of getting around the fuel requirement that
>> are known to be possible under current physics, or at least that
>> aren't known to be impossible.  Things like light sails (possibly
>> using lasers based in your home solar system), or Bussard ramjets
>> (probably impossible, but there's still a tiny bit of hope), or
>> multi-generation ships, or suspended animation.
>> -- 
>>   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."

>It seems to me that determining if vacuum fluctuations exist is criticle
>to this determination.  If vacuum fluctuations can be utilized to create
>(transfer) mass to a moving ship, they can also transfer energy. This
>would mean ship impluse is therefore available without carrying fuel or
>mass reactants.

I assume the mass transfer is in increased apparent (crew view) 
KE to the ship.  How that mechanism is supposed to work is beyond 
my understanding.  Chaps have told me that perhaps our Balls might 
be tapping into this energy source which gives them that added 
viability.    But why do they think that?? 

>From the passenger's point of view, however, earth time would be
>accelerated.  

Increased at least with a decreasing rate for steady power 
input.    

>The net result, from a passenger point of view, is such a
>ship can be designed assuming acceleration can be maintained without
>relativistic effects, provided it is a one way trip. The negative impact
>to passengers only occurs upon a very late return to earth.

Without a bit of relativistic stretch, the return arrival could 
be dusty (crumbling bones).    Relativistic flight has its 
problems too, consider.. 

..When the ship passes onto and along the axis of revolution of 
two nearby neutron stars and is pasting their plane of revolution, 
at or very close to the peak trip velocity, then for a while at 
least the passengers could bask in that Cerenkov glow.   

Unfortunately, our star trek technology is will be more the 
retarded generational approach, but at least our bioelements 
could be transported thither and yon in arduous hops.  Its 
true glory is confined to the miniscule region within a few 
thousand au.  For a while at least that will be fun enough.  
Still, I never was much for vacuum suckers.  No offense, Bob.  

>Regards,                          <hheffner@matsu.ak.net>
>                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
>Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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:
cuddy19 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.19 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: CF demo at SOFE
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF demo at SOFE
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 95 17:55:16 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Matt Austern <matt@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> writes:
 
>Also that both the "40 mg" and the "80 MJ" are grossly misleading
>numbers.
 
Misleading in what sense? Do you have difficulty understanding what
40 milligrams are? Let me help: that's 0.04 grams. 80 megajoules is
how much thermal energy you get from burning 2000 grams of gasoline.
During the run I refer to, in which 80 megajoules of excess heat was
generated, less than 8 megajoules of electrical energy was input into
the cell.
 
I cannot imagine what you find "misleading" about such simple, stark
numbers. If you want to see something misleading, I suggest you read
the message posted by Steve Jones, in which he plays a numbers game to
try to convince gullible people that when CETI inputs 0.06 watts I*V,
and they get out 5 watts, that might be caused by recombination. If
you have any clue what "recombination" means than you will see that is
the most preposterous statement imaginable. I would not even call it
"misleading" because it will only mislead people who know absolutely
NOTHING about basic science.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.19 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: 19 Oct 1995 22:24:05 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Univ. Tenn.

Martin Sevior (msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au) wrote:
: Thanks very much for the news Jed. The Patterson Cell seems to be going from
: strength to strength. By my count there are now 5 independent verifications
: of excess heat production and each new incarnation of the cell produces
: superior
: results.

: Really the Patterson Cell is not following the traditional trajectory of
: Pathalogical Science. As time goes on the effect becomes larger and more
: widely reproduced.

: I have a couple of questions. I don't know if you're in a position to answer:

: <good suggestions>

OK Jed, let's make this really simple and '19th-century'. ;-) 

Can the whatever cells consistently and continuously *boil* initally
room-temperature water at the same 20 times heat out/power in?

This would be convincing to me and many others that there was a legitimate
effect even in the absence of any indication of a mechanism. 

Since you know thermodynamics I presume you can see why this is important.

: Martin Sevior

cheers
Matt
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Oct 20 04:37:04 EDT 1995
------------------------------
