1995.10.21 / 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: 21 Oct 1995 01:23:21 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

Some jerk forged canceled my below

In article <464dfi$b53@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

> In article <951017152438@are107.lds.loral.com>
> hahn@newshost  (Karl Hahn) writes:
> 
> > In article <45n35g$ssb@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Archimedes.Plutonium@d
rtmouth.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:
cuddy21 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.21 / Mark Burbidge /  Re: Third experiment: Strong Nuclear Force is nuclear
     
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: Third experiment: Strong Nuclear Force is nuclear
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 1995 07:26:46 GMT
Organization: Frontier Internet Services

>>   But we can never deny the math and must always in the end rely and
>> depend firstly and foremost on the math. So, yes, HYASYS will predict
>> another lepton much higher than the tau within the range of this 26000
>> MEV of approx. 30 proton mass.

Wow - impressive seeing as a few days ago you never new of the
existance of even the tau!  ;-)

MB
M. Burbidge. Mark@Monark.ftech.co.uk
For PGP key, Send Email with subject GET KEY
Reply should come within the day.
Fingerprint: 5F F8 CB D1 A8 A5 66 FE F1 D0 18 07 13 7B CD 6B

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenMark cudfnMark cudlnBurbidge cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.20 / Bill Rowe /  Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis)
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis)
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 20:21:03 -0700
Organization: AltNet - http://www.alt.net

In article <21cenlogic-1910951340010001@austin-2-6.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:

>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:
>> 
>> 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}***

Your measure of work above isn't meaningful. If you are  going to measure
the work this way it isn't the distance to clear the channel you need to
consider but the entire distance traveled by the etheron as a result of
the collision with the electron. Rather than talk of the average
penetration into the cavitation channel we should be talking of the
momentum/energy exchange as a result of the etheron/electron interaction.
This has nothing to do with the average penetration into the cavitation
channel.

[skipped]
 
>> 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}***

I did not intend for term "ad hoc" to be applied to a theory of cavitation
channels. I was applying it to the theory of etherons. I used the term "ad
hoc" simply because I couldn't think of a better term.

Yes, the existence of many particles has been predicted prior to thier
detection. This may eventually be true of "etherons". It simply seems to
me postulating the existence of "etherons" is an ad hoc postulate made to
arrive at a classical explaination of the hydrogen atom.

As I said before, I prefer the QM explaination to the assumption of "etherons".
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.21 /  jedrothwell@de /  Merriman's nonsense about Miley
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Merriman's nonsense about Miley
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 95 08:57:04 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
 
    "Sure, they [Miley et al.] are getting heat from their beads. My
    understanding, though, is that they have not yet verified that they are
    getting true net energy production over the lifetime of a run."
 
Your understanding is wrong. Completely wrong. They are getting massive net
excess. Thousands of times more than chemistry could produce.
 
 
    "As I understand it, they are still completely open to the possibility
    that some non-energy producing phenomena is at work."
 
As you understand nothing. You just made that up! You have no idea what they
claim. You have not even read their previous papers published last year
where they also showed excess heat from thin film devices.
 
 
    "I think we will have to wait til they make some sort of detailed
    presentation of their finding to judge. Hearsay is not sufficient
    for judging such revolutionary developments."
 
Why should we wait? They published a year ago. What do you mean "Hearsay"?!?
You are the one who is spreading hearsay! Your comments are baseless rumors.
I spoke with them directly, I read their papers, I know what they are doing.
You don't have the foggiest idea what they are doing or what they claim.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.21 / 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: 21 Oct 1995 01:18:50 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

Reposted since someone is forging cancels on me posts. Who is the
culprit?

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?
> 
> --
> |         (V)              |  "Tiger gotta hunt.  Bird gotta fly.
> |   (^    (`>              |   Man gotta sit and wonder why, why, why.
> |  ((\\__/ )               |   Tiger gotta sleep.  Bird gotta land.
> |  (\\<   )   der Nethahn  |   Man gotta tell himself he understand."
> |    \<  )                 |  
> |     ( /                  |                Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
> |      |                   |  
> |      ^           hahn@lds.loral.com          my opinions need not be Loral's
> 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.21 / 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: 21 Oct 1995 01:19:50 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

Some jerk cancelled this post out of alt.sci.physics.plutonium

In article <463lk7$dnq@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

> In article <951017152438@are107.lds.loral.com>
> hahn@newshost  (Karl Hahn) writes:
> 
> >  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?
> 
>   Brief reply for now since I am thinking on this and HYASYS, far and
> away the the most important science in the world, for it is the first
> exploration into the Strong Nuclear Force. 
>   I suppose it is always best to let the math do all the talking; math
> be the final lay-me-down-to-rest; the final arbitrer; math the
> explainor as well as explainee, rather than for " me imposing something
> extra" for something I am searching for.
>   I am seeking the magical number of 83 or 84 or between 83 and 84,
> because the Coulomb repulsive force of the nuclear protons disallows
> for any more stable isotopes. Perhaps I should not be so narrowly
> focused and not seek the 83-84. Perhaps it is not 83-84 but closer to
> 100? Perhaps all isotopes are radioactively unstable even helium.
> Perhaps our understanding of "stable" was just a misunderstanding.
> Perhaps stable was just orders of magnitude less radioactive than say
> thorium 232@90 which occurs naturally and is the most abundant
> occurring isotope of @90 having a half-life at 1.4 x 10^10  years.
> Perhaps the half life of 4@2 helium is something like 10^80 years and
> if we were to get enough of it in one place and waited long enough we
> could measure the decay of some of those helium atoms? Come to think of
> it, this kind of makes math logic sense and would explain why no
> technetium and promethium stable isotopes. No isotopes are stable, all
> decay. For by math logic, if Nature had a fundamental physical laws
> which gave "nuclear stability to infinite time" then, by math logic,
> both technetium and promethium should have stable isotopes because not
> until @83 do you run into difficulty
> 
>   Karl, perhaps I should always let the numbers do the talking. And a
> valuable lesson learned. Too quick am I at looking for the clear cut
> black and white of 83. Instead I should look at the fact that of the
> numbers of decay rate at around 100. They drop off exponentially at
> over a 100. So 100 is perhaps the vital math numbers.
> 
>   I have to research the tau. Somehow the Strong Nuclear Force is the
> reconstituting of Electron Space. A normal Electron occupies a huge
> space and the space of the normal electron is the difference of its
> mass ratio between the proton of approx 1800 times. Thus, when you take
> a normal electron and package it up inside a neutron and put the
> neutron into the nucleus of an atom, that normal electron transforms
> into a nuclear electron where the normal electron space becomes the
> Strong Nuclear Force or Energy or Nuclear Coulombic Force. It is not
> the mass scale measurement. Instead it is Electron space, space
> converted into nuclear electron Strong Nuclear Coulombic Force.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.21 / 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: 21 Oct 1995 01:21:39 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

Some jerk cancelled this post out of alt.sci.physics.plutonium. Will
the Internet eliminate cancel abuse?

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

> In article <951017152438@are107.lds.loral.com>
> hahn@newshost  (Karl Hahn) writes:
> 
> > 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?
> 
>   Karl, are you related to a Erwin Hahn who studied solitons at
> Stanford? Son?
> 
>   Anyway, I see the problem of this huge mass in the nucleus -- yet
> when we weigh the mass of the nucleus we do not get these orders of
> rest mass/energy something like 30 proton masses. However I feel I can
> overcome this obstacle by saying that the 30 proton masses of these
> nuclear electrons is in fact the Strong Nuclear Force. I was hoping the
> number would have come out around 83-84 or 100 where the Coulombic
> force of proton repulsion is dramatic.
> 
>   But we can never deny the math and must always in the end rely and
> depend firstly and foremost on the math. So, yes, HYASYS will predict
> another lepton much higher than the tau within the range of this 26000
> MEV of approx. 30 proton mass.
> 
>   I feel I can overcome this problem of explanation of mass with the
> idea that the Uncertainty Principle of Heisenberg is deficient in the
> area of the nucleus and needs a tune-up to our modern day physics. This
> new version of UP must subsume the old Heisenberg plus make the nuclear
> region right. The new UP must be more general than the old and contain
> the old as a term.
> 
>   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.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.21 / 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: 21 Oct 1995 01:22:40 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

Some jerk forged cancelled this

In article <46434g$68@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

> 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:
cuddy21 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.20 / Bill Rowe /  Re: Rowe describes Jed's logic incorrectly
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rowe describes Jed's logic incorrectly
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 21:24:15 -0700
Organization: AltNet - http://www.alt.net

In article <RdBEoM1.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

>O-boy, o-boy. We have a problem here. Bill Rowe <browe@netcom.com> writes:
> 
>    "Consider the numbers you posted for the SOFE demostration, i.e. a flow
>    rate of 14.28 ml/min with an output power of 4-5 Watts. Given the density
>    of water as 1 g/cc and 18 g/mole for water, these numbers equate to 378
>    J/mole. From Logajan's web page I note the following
> 
>    H+H ==> H2 giving 436,000 J/mole
>    0+0 ==> O2 giving 498,000 J/mole
>    H2+O2 ==> H2O giving 285,800 J/mole
> 
>    All of these reactions are clearly outputing several times the 378 J/mole
>    needed."
> 
>Bill, I hate to say this, but you are very, very mixed up about some
>scientific fundamentals. I honestly think you should take some time to review
>a textbook. You have mixed up power and energy, and you do not seem to
>understand the difference between water and free hydrogen & oxygen gas. Let me
>correct a few mistakes here. Perhaps someone else can do this more gently than
>me, but I'll do my best:
> 
>What does the number of joules per mole for one minute have to do with
>anything? The cell did not stop after one minute. You cannot integrate total
>energy (joules) from power (watts) until you know how long the reaction ran.

[skipped]

You apparently didn't get the point of the comparison. I am will aware of
the difference between energy and power. 

Whether the process is fusion, chemistry or something else, there must be
a reaction and reaction rate. Given these numbers, it should be possible
to calculate an ouput power as the number of reactions times the energy
per reaction times the reaction rate. 

Dividing the output power by the flow rate of water gives an estimate of
the energy needed assuming the water is consumed. As both I and you
pointed out this is a low estimate since not all of the water is consumed
as it flows through the cell. In fact, if the entire source of the energy
were the reaction H2+02 ==> H20 producing the observed flow rate the
resulting power would be far greater than 5W.
 
>This equation "H2+O2 ==> H2O giving 285,800 J/mole" shows how much energy you
>get when you burn free hydrogen and oxygen. This water is already water; H2O.
>You cannot burn it; it is already in the ground state.

Just for the moment assume the process is fusion. I am unwilling to assume
fusion of H but I am willing to assume fusion of D. Since light water
would be about .015% D20 there is a source of D. 

A possible scenario would be the electrolysis separates D as well as H
from water. The D then diffuses into the electrodes and fuses by whatever
process allows fusion in electrodes loaded with D. If a standard D+D
fusion process is assumed you should get several MeV per reaction. Given
the percentage of D in light water this works out to about the right order
of magnitude based on 4-5W out and 20mA in.

The difference between the fusion scenario described above and chemistry
is the assumed reaction and assumed reactants. In the case of fusion, I
have assumed the reactant is D. There isn't very much available so the
energy per reaction must be high as would be expected of a fusion process.

In the case of chemistry, the energy per reaction is much lower. As
indicated above all that is needed is 378 J/mole of water assuming water
is the reactant. This is well within the capacity of chemical reactions.

There are problems with either scenario proposed above. The fusion
scenario requires someway around Coulomb replusion. It also requires a
high percentage of the D to diffuse into the electrodes to undergo fusion.
This seems very unlikely
The problems with the chemistry explaination have already been discussed.

Production of heat alone is insufficient data to eliminate one of these
scenarios.

I also note that you have added several details in your response that were
not in your original post such as an estimate of the total volume of water
involved. If you have sufficient detail to rule out chemistry why not post
all of the data?

>   "Why can't it [85 MJ reaction] be explained by chemistry? What process are
>   you assuming?"

This was taken out of context. It refers to the SOFE demonstration and the
origingal results you posted. There was no mention of an 85MJ reaction.
Additionally, saying the SOFE demo produced 85MJ at a rate of 5W doesn't
rule out chemistry without considerably more detail than what you posted.
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.20 / John White /  Proposed explaination of CETI effect
     
Originally-From: jnw@katie.vnet.net (John N. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Proposed explaination of CETI effect
Date: 20 Oct 1995 23:31:29 -0500
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

The CETI calorimeter uses the extremely dubious method of running the
active electrolyte outside the cell and through the pump. Here is a
specific mundane explanation of what might be happening.

First I assume that there is a Lithium Sulphate Hydrate salt that is
not currently known. The reason it is not known is that it is very
difficult to nucleate its formation, and its surface assumes a state
that is hostile to further growth.

In the CETI cell, however, when the concentrated Lithium Sulphate
electrolyte comes in contact with the nickel surface and overpotential
at the cathode, nucleation of the Hydrate occurs easily. The surface
area of the cathode is very large, so large amounts of the Hydrate will
form, releasing a considerable amount of heat of crystallization
(easily enough to explain the observed temperature rise).

The Hydrate crystals resist further growth due to the nature of their
surface. They also are negatively charged and so repel each other.
Thus the cell will contain what is known as a colloidal dispersion,
or sol. If the particles in a sol are especially small and intrinsically
clear (both true here) the sol will appear clear and give no visual
hint that a large fraction of it is a solid. Note that all this
is very ordinary chemistry.

When the sol is pulled from the cell and enters the warm pump, the
Hydrate crystals will dissolve back into solution, removing heat
from the pump in the process. Then the electrolyte re-enters the
cell, repeating the cycle.

The above is just one of many such explanations of what may be happening
in the CETI calorimeter, given their extremely dubious practice of
running the active electrolyte out of the cell and through the pump.
Doing this makes the pump part of the system, and so the electrical
energy used by the pump must be considered as part of the energy put
into the system (and it's large compared to the "excess heat").
-- 
jnw@vnet.net
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.20 / C Beshers /  Re: Return to Rome
     
Originally-From: beshers@tune.cs.columbia.edu (Clifford Beshers)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Return to Rome
Date: 20 Oct 1995 21:17:50 GMT
Organization: Columbia University Department of Computer Science

In article <468j78$92r@fnnews.fnal.gov> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:


   In article <466s4h$bum@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu
(Barry Merriman) says:
   >
   >In article <465uu5$aip@fnnews.fnal.gov> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)  
   >writes:
   >> 
   >> I can only take Jim Griggs at his word that they have not yet bought a 
   >> log book.  Jim, any bound book will do. 
   >
   >Actually, these days a portable PC might be better. On that
   >note, does Scott Little have an email address? I would love
   >to aske some specific questions about their experimental setups.

   Sorry, I take great exception to this.  You need log books to index
   all that stuff in the computer and to provide the time history of
   the experiments.  True, you could keep a time log on the computer.
   But I note that the experiments here at Fermilab still keep log books
   and they are much used during the data analysis phase to sort out 
   what was actually done.  

   Computers are still not good enough to perform as log books.  It is
   hard (still) to insert sketches of the apparatus in a computer text.
   Also there is the polaroid photo that you want to staple in the log.
   My "cold fusion" logs have things like the receipt for the PD bar 
   that contains the lot number, a used cathode or two.  Samples of 
   the tubing used, exposed film, etc.. 

   While all this sort of thing might some day be possible in a computer,
   I think the time is not yet here.

   Tom Droege

Hmmm...  An interesting challenge, Tom.

Given the right equipment and expertise, the computer will function
better in some ways.  Sketches and polaroid photos can easily be
scanned.  The tubing would be difficult, of course.  The trick here is
to realize that good tools like paper and pencil can be used, and then
the result recorded.

HTML and web browsers provided an easy way of searching and browsing,
both for local and remote people, and are available on every computing
platform.

Hewlett-Packard has announce a new CD-ROM cutter which will be
available soon for ~$1000.  Storing images would be no great hardship.

Finally, digital timestamping works very well and is admissable in
court.  The whole log can be compressed, shipped to surety.com, and a
verification key returned, all through the wonders of the internet and
public key encryption techniques.  This is a *very* powerful service.
It keeps the contents of your logbook secret, and yet those contents
are used to place unique verification information in the public record.
(for more info, see http://www.surety.com/)

Of course, for you, Tom, I suspect this would all be very frustrating,
but for those who have grown up with this technology and use it often,
the computer might well be a better tool, even in its current state,
for recording, verifying and reviewing scientific logs.

Some of the things I find very frustrating about my log book (yes, I
keep a paper one) are that a) I can't enter my digital information
into it, and b) it doesn't have multiple windows so I can't compare
different pages side by side without a photocopier.  Since my business
is software, getting it all onto paper is cumbersome.


-- 
Clifford Beshers                Office:  (212) 939-7087   Lab: (212) 939-7101
Columbia University             Fax:     (212) 666-0140   
500 West 12Oth St., Room 450    WWW:     http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~beshers
New York, NY 10027              Email:   beshers@cs.columbia.edu





cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbeshers cudfnClifford cudlnBeshers cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.20 / Albert Cau /  Superheavy elements
     
Originally-From: Albert Cau <art@imaginet.fr>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Superheavy elements
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 22:16:41 -0700
Organization: ImagiNET

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

 ----------------------------722926310599
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Nature works better than physicists.

	Sorry .    Albert CAU   art@imaginet.fr

 ----------------------------722926310599
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="AAB.TXT"

 Theory  and  Practice  of  Alchemy
A natural nuclear synthesis


Albert CAU, 18 Boulevard Arago, 75013 PARIS (France)  
Tel / Fax: (1) 43 31 27 70   
A chemist, private searcher who will enjoy to get financing 
to complete this research work.

     The most outstanding mystery of Nature that remains to solve 
is Alchemy  described in old treatises written prior  1850. 
It appears that the key material used by alchemists was pitchblende 
from which is extracted Sulphur, the yellow uranyl salt that presents 
a strong green luminescence under UV ; other key material is Fluorite 
from which is extracted Mercury. A complex process using both materials 
following laws of Nature should  produce the Philosopher’s Stone  which 
appears to be the fluoride of the last chemical element, probably 
Z = 126. This element  has a unique property in Nature, it is stable 
as fluoride, but disintegrates itself to give high energy neutron 
( En  > 9 MeV )  when breaking the molecule by a chemical  way.
    The search of the identity of alchemist materials has been 
precisely  described (1). A first basic experiment has been made in 
1986 ( 1, 2 ), the flask containing the extract  has presented during 
several days a surprising gamma activity. Study of the flask mixture 
showed a high concentration of alpha decay products of uranium. The 
explanation of the formation of the Philosopher’s Stone is proposed :
 126-superheavy element is created via a synergism of endothermic and
 exothermic nuclear reactions involving protons and light elements. 


The  Philosopher’s  Stone of alchemists
  The study of alchemy becomes realistic is we discard all alchemy 
treatises written prior 1850 (radioactivity discovery) and all 
freemason points of view. The other point to note is that if it 
existed 5,000 alchemy treatises  in Diderot time it does not mean 
5,000 alchemists had really discovered the Stone. The selection key 
is the relation of Light which is the main feature of  the alchemy 
process.
    Many who seek this Science with out the Light of Nature, are 
precipitated into very great Errors; because they know not the true 
Subject of this Art, but busie themselves about other things altogether 
unfit for the Work.   (Sanguis Naturæ. p.3 )

  We have to select a material owning a relation of light, obviously 
we have to choose a luminescent mineral. We may also say that the 
first material is the Light of Nature, with a concrete meaning : a 
luminescent material. The  true Subject of this Art  is of course  
the prime material used  from the beginning to the end of the process.

     First because of its original Matter is really a kind of stone, 
which being hard and solid like a stone, may be pounded, reduced to 
powder, and resolved into its three elements (which Nature herself 
has joined together ), and  then again may be recombined into a solid 
stone of the fusibility of wax by the skilled hand of the artist 
adjusting the law of Nature. The Sophic Hydrolithe 

      This quote tell us that  from the prime material which is a 
solid stone, we may obtain the Philosopher’s Stone as a stone fusible 
like wax.
     The Philosopher’s Stone is red colored like rubis . It may be 
obtained as a very ponderous crystal  of very low melting point, or 
a  very heavy  oily liquid. We also know that this compound is a 
little soluble in ethyl alcohol .

The transmutation of mercury has been precisely described by Crosset 
de la Haumerie  (1670):

      I saw  that in that fixation of mercury and all others we have 
done, mercury never made any kind of noise or explosion...  We must 
note that the fixation, made in my presence, of mercury into silver, 
was done in a quarter of hour and that the powder used by the alchemist, 
was white ; but for the fixation of mercury into gold, two hours and a
 strong fire were necessary at the  contrary of the fixation of mercury 
into silver.
     The silver produced with the white stone was more ponderous than  
ordinary silver, and nitric acid had no effect on it, or very little ; 
but nitric acid has no effect at all when using more white powder  than 
necessary to carry out the transmutation.
      We must  note two related  facts, the first is that it exists two 
compounds : a  White Stone and a Red Stone. Both compounds are not 
identical from their properties and from the way to prepare them. The 
Red Stone is obtained  from the White Stone; the second fact is that 
the described transmutation of mercury into silver shows that it is 
not the silver we know ( Z = 47 ). Chemical silver reacts easily with 
nitric acid  to produce silver nitrate. Consequently we deduce that 
the alchemy silver is platinium.  We know that platinium is a metal 
looking like silver, for this reason its name platino  a Spanish word 
( in Spanish, the word plata means silver, and platino meant years ago  
small silver). Being more ponderous and unreactive with nitric acid, 
the alchemy silver is necessarily platinium.    We have an other 
relation to note : for platinium  Z = 78, consequently, transmutation 
of mercury into platinium corresponds to a loss of two protons since 
mercury has an atomic number of  Z = 80. 
   The transmutation  of mercury  is described  by numerous authors :
 Nicolas Flamel, Cyliani, and others. At that time, the radioactivity 
had not be discovered, and the atomic relation of gold with mercury 
was unknown.  Cyliani made his first transmutation in 1831, it is 
described in  Hermes dévoilé :
I  took 100 grams of distilled  mercury and put it in a crucible. 
began to fume, I dropped in the crucible  1 gram of my transmutation  
sulfur, it became like an oil above mercury and I saw  mercury 
solidifying  progressively. Then I  increased the fire and made 
it very strong at the end of the operation, until all mercury  be 
fixed ; it took around one hour. I melted it in a small  cup and I 
tested it and found that it was better that native gold.
   Scientific study  of the mercury transmutation  has been done 
by Sherr and Bainbridge in 1941 (4). The transmutation yield using 
an  ion accelerator is very low : the reasons are the low neutron 
beam density and low neutron energy. According Heisenberg we may 
suspect that a very intense neutron beam of high energy could give 
a very high yield. The nuclear reactions are :

% Isotope           Reaction		   Energy (MeV)

6,85    80 Hg 204  + 0n1   81Tl  204      +       e -       +    g

29,80   80 Hg 202  + 0n1   80 Hg 201 + 2  0n1	Q = - 7,75   T >  7,8 MeV

13,22 	80 Hg 201  + 0n1   80 Hg 200 + 2  0n1   Q = - 6,22   T >  6,22 MeV

23,13 	80 Hg 200  + 0n1   80 Hg 199 + 2  0n1	Q = - 8,02   T >  8,1 MeV

16,84 	80 Hg 199  + 0n1   80 Hg 198 + 2  0n1	Q = - 6,65   T >  6,7 MeV 

10,02 	80 Hg 198  + 0n1   80 Hg 196 + 2  0n1	Q = - 8,63   T >  8,7 MeV 

 0,15 	80 Hg 196  + 0n1   80 Hg 197         79  Au 197  +  b +

Q  is, for each  nuclear reaction , the energy of formation       

 We may consider that the  transmutation of mercury into  gold  or  
platinium, depending the Stone you are using ( Red or White ), requires 
that the Stone have the following properties :
-   The Stone are disintegrated by contact  with mercury in a very 
short time in order to produce a high intensity neutron beam.
-   The minimum average energy of neutrons is  9 MeV.
    Taking into account that alchemists used to wrap the Stone in a 
piece of  paper or paraffin and knowing the slowing down effect of 
these materials for neutrons, it  is realistic to think that the 
energy of neutrons produced by the disintegration of the Stone is 
very  high, and probably in the range of cosmic rays energy.
     The Stone may also be used to produce a Universal Medicine having 
a surprising property : an elderly man, when using it, may  become as 
young  as  a  40  y.o. man .
     The preparation of  the Universal  Medicine remains a mystery  
because few authors have given  relevant informations. Artephius tells 
us he has been able to live more than one thousand years, but we know 
nothing about this alchemist except  two alchemy treatises. Those who 
 really understand alchemy process should discover origin of Life and 
consequently how  reacts the Universal Medicine  and how to prepare 
it.
    From these  two properties of the Philosopher’s Stone we may be 
sure that it must be a chemical compound of an unknown chemical  
element.
 From the mercury transmutations described above we deduce that the 
Stone have an amazing property  : they are disintegrated into  high 
energy neutrons  in contact  with a metal like mercury. Therefore we 
have other two reasons  to admit that the Stone are  fluorides of 
unknown   chemical elements. The first is that during the process of 
alchemy, we may not obtain  pure element.. The production of metals  
involves  chemical conditions that are not present during the process 
described by alchemists.  The second reason permits to explain the 
reactivity of the Stone : If we  consider the Stone to be pure elements,  
their property of transmutation of mercury becomes a non-sense  because 
how a stable element may be suddenly disintegrated  into neutrons  in
 presence of mercury  ? The Stone  are  necessarily  compounds of 
unknown elements with atomic number above Z = 110. The existence of 
the Stone depends on a stabilizing factor which is their protective 
chemical surrounding , and a factor of instability which is the  
nuclei of the  new elements. The chemical  surrounding acts as an 
attractant of electronic shells of the central nuclei in order to 
prevent an immediate disintegration of the nuclei.  We know from 
science  that fluoride is the most electronegative element in Nature, 
it has a very strong affinity for electrons. This attractive effect 
of fluorine  permits the stabilization of alchemy elements.  We are 
in presence of an amazing  natural  fact :  a chemical element that 
breaks our concept of atom because the element has all the 
characteristics of an atom , but it may not be isolated as a chemical 
element like any other element. Consequently the Stone are fluoride of 
unknown  superheavy elements  since none  lighter element  own these 
properties. 
A  concise paper about superheavy elements has been written by Seaborg (3).
  Let see  the  methods of works of nuclear physics to obtain new 
elements. Generally  an ion  accelerator is used : a light projectile 
collides with a metallic heavy target of the  chosen  element ( very 
often  uranium ). If we relate this observation with the concept of 
stability developed above, we  immediately understand that nuclear 
physics methods conducing to  heavy transuranium elements are condemned 
to fail if these new elements present the characteristic of stability  
explained  earlier.

	The  prime   materials of alchemists
   The only relevant question about alchemy is the identity of  the 
prime material  because knowing this mineral, science will give us  
the answer whether or not alchemy   is a rational science of Nature. 
Of course we will only use alchemy treatises written before the 
discovery of radioactivity  by Becquerel ( 1986). You will note  
that esoterism made in France by Freemasons is not the main feature of 
these old books, but metaphorical descriptions are widely used for 
evident reasons in relation with the transmission of scientific 
knowledge.
  The method I will employ is a series of quotes that  will be 
explained  concisely, there are taken from various treatises of 
alchemy selected  with my first rule : the relation of Light.
           Now I will speak but a very little of the living Fire, 
which is hidden in the Earth or Center of the World and there has 
taken up its most fixed Habitation ; and by many Philosophers is 
called the Corporal Water ; but it may better be called the Fire of 
Bodies. To know this is the most secret Mystery in all our Philosophy. 
This fixt Fire has a great sympathy with the volatil Fire ; for it 
wanteeth it as an aliment, and to its Nourishment.... But its Operation 
is invisible and very secret, and yet very powerful, which also few 
know; for it operates by its heat in all things which lie in the Earth.   
Sanguis  Naturæ  p. 12 - 13 
         It is a very interesting quote because it is mentioned of 
the special action of a principle included in the prime material  and  
that is responsible  of the feasibility of the alchemy process. Because 
its Operation is invisible and very secret, and yet very powerful, we 
may deduce that it is a very strong reference to nuclear properties of 
the material .
  For the Power and Virtue of this living Fire is so great, that if 
that were absent, the Elements would be dead, especially the Heaven, 
an Element which most of all stands in need  of this Light.        
Sanguis  Naturæ  p. 10
     This quote  does  not describe the prime material, but it insists
on the fact that the alchemy process is the conjunction of different 
things. For example, if you have gas, you will not get any energy  with 
gas alone ; you must  add  air that contain oxygen, but this mix of gas 
still does not react, you have to start the reaction  with  a sparkle. 
It is the same for the alchemy process,  the prime material alone  serve 
for nothing if you have not its companions. For this reason some alchemy 
treatises say that the Subject is waiting for the wise alchemist who will
 know how to awake him.
  For where there is glittering Brightness, there is light ; where is 
Light, there is Heat; where is Heat there is Life and very powerful 
action ; and which is a great matter, in it reign the Elements animated 
with a living Fire, which is a Coelestial vivifying, fertil and greening 
Spirit ; the Light, Force and life of all things.  
Sanguis  Naturæ  p.18
         You have  one of the most interesting  point of alchemy 
philosophy  that also explains why so many time it is question of the  
generation of metals, and of the mineral life.
   And that Sulphur which we call the Green Lyon, is the Fire of Nature, 
which lies hid in the Center of our Subject. Sanguis  Naturæ  p.26
         Sulphur of alchemists presents some strong relations  with 
natural sulfur having an atomic number of  Z = 14.  We have a relation 
of color : both are yellow, and  a relation of  Light. As a matter of 
fact, normal sulfur may burn in oxygen with a bluish  flame to produce 
sulfur dioxide .  Uranyl salts, especially sulfate and nitrate present 
a strong  green luminescence when excited par UV light. Light is 
equivalent to fire  because they depend on the same natural principle. 
Consequently the Sulphur of alchemists  present in the prime material  
is  an uranyl salt. The term Green Lyon  also refers to Sulphur  not 
only because of the green luminescence of uranyl salts, but also because  
uranium in  the (+4)  oxidation state is green. When you heat uranium 
dioxide by ammonium bifluoride, you obtain  a green  colored uranium 
tetrafluoride.
      Our Gold is  not vulgar Gold, which is sold by Gold-smiths, or 
any thing like it, but it is a certain other Substance more precious 
than Gold itself, whose Green and Golden colour does sufficiently 
demonstrate its Original  and Excellence. Sanguis  Naturæ  p.33
 When alchemists speak of their Gold, of  course they want to indicate 
us how precious is the prime  material found in mines , but they  are 
more precise because they also say that this  mineral in associated with 
gold .  Remember this classical  expression the seed of Gold is in Gold 
  that means that where you  have  gold metal, you will also get not 
very far away  alchemist gold.  It exists a strong relation between gold 
deposits ( not placers )  and pitchblende occurrence.  For example South 
Africa gold mines are in fact uranium  ores associated  with gold included 
in quartz, it is also surprising to note that this gold  contains some 
traces of mercury.
 The gold of alchemist   is a black mineral  : pitchblende. Associated  
secondary  minerals are yellow products : autunite, carnotite,.... , but 
also  some green products, the most frequent being  meta-torbernite .
 In this vile and abject Minera, lies hidden the celebrated Stone of the 
Philosopher’s, whose Essence also by reason of its obscurity no body can 
see, unless it be delivered therefrom, and brought to light...  The 
Essence of this minera, whereof the chief colour is green, as a most 
certain indication of life.     Sanguis  Naturæ  p.44
	This is a general description of the prime material : a vile and 
abject Minera  because it was discarded by Miners. Evidently the Essence 
of this Minera is its luminescence that is clearly emphasized by  reason 
of its obscurity and  brought to light. An other indication is that the 
chief colour is green as a reference to the color obtained by attack in 
non oxidizing conditions, and by the fact that some oxidation products 
are green colored.
Years ago Pitchblende was a common mineral in some silver mines which 
most famous is the Joachimsthal mine  in Bohemia. It was a very 
unwelcome black mineral because of its density  similar to the density 
of the black silver sulfide .  Secondary products of pitchblende 
alteration are meta-torbernite  which is a microscopic mineral found 
as very nice tablets of a emerald color  that contain copper and uranyl
 phosphate   (  let relate this fact with the  Emerald  Table , a famous 
symbol of some alchemy treatises).  
Let see now a set of quotes from The Hermetic Museum : a selection of 
relevant alchemy treatises.
For this reason the Sages use none but this natural fire, not because it 
is made by the Sages, but because it is made by Nature.  The Hermetic 
Museum p.145
Again we have this relation of Light, the natural fire  is not prepared 
by the alchemist, that means the inner property of the material is Fire.
Our gold is twofold ; one kind is mature and fixed, the yellow Latten, 
and its heart or centre is pure fire, whereby it is kept from destruction, 
and only purged in the fire. This gold is our male, and it is sexually 
joined to a more crude white gold, the female seed : the two together 
being indissolubly united, constitute our fruitful Hermaphrodite. 
The Hermetic Museum  p.165
we need two materials, they are of course of same nature, that is to say 
they own the relation of  Light, and they are complementary. The Gold  
is the prime material : the Yellow Latten is the clear reference to 
pitchblende ; the White Gold is the reference to fluorite derivatives  
that constitutes the matrice of all the process. ( without fluorine the 
Stone cannot exist ).
Know, ye Scrutators of Nature, that fire is the soul of everything, and 
that God Himself is fire and soul. And the body cannot live without fire. 
For without fire, the other elements have no efficacy.    
The Hermetic Museum  p.213
An other reference to that Fire, the Key of all the alchemy process. It 
is a very high point of Philosophy with evidently a reference to the 
prime material that is considered as a gift of God, and justly the heart 
of this material contains its soul that is to say the Fire. The work of 
the artist is to deliver the soul and to join it with the other elements. 
In clear, you process the pitchblende to obtain raw uranyl salt 
( the luminescent salt ), it contains life, and you join this salt with 
fluorite derivatives  to really start the process.
We also spoke of the fire of the Sage as being one of the chief agents 
in our chemical process, and said that it was an essential preternatural, 
and Divine fire, that is lay hid in our substance, and, that it was 
stirred into action by the influence and aid of the outward fire. 
The Herm. Mus..  p.108
With all we have seen, you should be able to clearly understand this 
quote. Evidently the outward fire is the normal fire we use.
In Gold and Silver our menstrues are not visible to the eye, and are 
only perceived by their effect.       The Hermetic Museum  p.39
Gold  and Silver  are equivalent to Sulphur  and Mercury  of alchemists. 
That is to say uranyl salt and fluorite derivative. A menstrue is an 
acidic solvent ; it is question in the quote of a dissolving action that 
may be observed when running on the process. Sulphur has the power to 
destroy identity of Mercury  : nuclear reactions with the slow formation 
of the germ of the seed. This outstanding dissolving power of Sulphur is 
often described, let also note that when both are joined they produce 
Sulphur or Mercury according authors.
The inward heat is much more powerful than elementary fire, but it is 
tempered and cooled by the water which pervades and refreshs the pores 
of the earth, otherwise all things would be consumed by its fierceness.   
The Hermetic Museum  p.103
Inward heat has the precise meaning we know, and elementary fire has to 
be related with luminescence. Could you believe we have the description 
of a kind of nuclear reactor ?  It is in fact question of the process, 
after the washing of the prime material, you get a product with a very 
strong  gamma activity. It contains most of all radioactive decays 
products of uranium. In this new Mercury you begin to have nuclear 
reactions of formation of the germ of the Stone ( if all proportions are
 respected ), you may note here that it is not a solution, but a 
periodical refreshment of the mixture in order to avoid to stop the 
course of the process. The proportion of elements are a major feature of 
the alchemy process.      
Nature cannot work till it has been supplied with a material, the first 
matter is furnished by God, the second matter by the Sage. But in the 
philosophical work Nature must excite the fire which God has enclosed in 
the centre of each thing. The excitation of this fire is performed by the 
will of Nature, for fire naturally purifies every species of impurity. 
The Hermetic Museum  p.140
We have the exact description of materials. The first matter is furnished 
by God means various things. First this matter as a soul as explained before, 
and it contains inside a powerful fire, therefore the material owns a hidden 
light. Second, the reference to God is not aleatoric, it is clear that 
thousand years ago nobody could know the nuclear properties of matter, 
especially uranium. Consequently the knowledge of these property of 
pitchblende could only be possible with the help of a real adept, probably 
initiated by an other one.The second matter is furnished by the Sage, that 
is to say it is a common chemical work that a skillful chemist may discover: 
it is the processing of fluorite to obtain derivatives such as potassium 
fluoride, ammonium fluoride, ammonium bifluoride, ammonium fluoborate, 
hydrofluoric acid (contaminated by silicohydrofluoric acid ),... The work 
of Nature is a reference to precise conditions required in the alchemy 
process designed as the will of nature.
For if the hidden central fire, which during life was in state of 
passivity, obtain the mastery, it attracks to itself all the pure elements
, which are thus separated from the impure and form the nucleus of a far 
purer form of life. It is thus that our Sages are able to produce immortal 
things, particularly by decomposition of minerals ; and you see that the 
whole process from beginning to end is the work of fire.   
The Hermetic Museum  p.142
We know that the prime material gift of God must be put in a state of 
reactivity. The first operation is the separation of active part and the 
reaction with the complementary part to obtain the germ of the Stone. 
More interesting is that affirmation about the work of fire : 
the synergism of nuclear reactions involving protons and light elements 
to produce these superheavy elements. Of course it is question of the 
inward fire that may be helped in some parts of the process to get more 
favorable conditions.
The inward fire is sufficient, if only it receives nutriment from the 
outward fire, which feeds it as wood feeds elemental fire ; in proportion 
to the quantity of nutriment the inward fire grows and multiplies.    
The Hermetic Museum  p.142
This metaphor has been employed by St. Thomas d’Aquin in its treatise of 
The Philosopher’s Stone. As before we have a full description of nuclear 
activity of the mixture.
Sulphur is by no means the least important of the great principles 
since it is a part of the metals, and even a principal part of the 
Philosopher’s Stone. 
It illumines all bodies since it is the light of the light, and their 
tincture. The Herm. Mus.  p.130
When alchemists say that their Stone is pure Fire, and they name it our  
Sulphur  they always are giving you the relation of Light associated with 
Sulphur as explained before. It means that the Philosopher’s Stone has 
the very peculiar property to be luminescent under a certain grade of 
purity. You could refer to radium salts which luminescent properties 
were well described by Pierre Curie.
It should be noted that common gold is useless for this purpose being 
unsuitable and dead. You must therefore, seek to obtain gold which a pure,
 living spirit, and of which the sulphur is not yet weakened and sophistic
ated, but is pure and clear ; otherwise the first substance, being spiritual 
and ethereal will not combine with it. The Hermetic Museum  p.81
Many have searched the Philosopher’s Stone in gold. Here is the indication
 that common gold in unsuitable for the work. It means that gold    
( Z=79),.  the Gold of alchemists, their Gold, has other nature : it permits 
to prepare the Stone : it is Pitchblende. In this gold we have a living 
spirit, the luminescence of prepared salts ; the quality of the source of 
this gold is important since recent deposits of pitchblende have a low 
content of radioactive decay products. Such indications appear  to  be 
the true learning of a precise process.
Alchemist : Yet the Sages say that their substance is found on the dung 
hill.
  Mercury : What they say is true, but you understand only the letter, 
and not the spirit of their injonctions.   The Hermetic Museum  p.121
There was not so many mines worked for metals, but the most valuable 
metals were gold and silver.  You are clever, and  considering that the 
seed of gold is in gold, you choose to investigate the gold and silver 
mines, especially in Bohemia. It is on the hill of discarded mineral 
of Joachimsthal that you will find your prime material.
Man have it before their eyes, handle it with their hands, yet know it 
not, through they constantly tread it under their feet.  
The Hermetic Museum  p.78
    
     Not enough place 
 ----------------------------722926310599--

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenart cudfnAlbert cudlnCau cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.20 / A Plutonium /  8th Experiments proving HYASYS; metallization of all isotopes
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
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
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.
Subject: 8th Experiments proving HYASYS; metallization of all isotopes
Subject: Eighth experiments prove HYASYS; killfiles quark, pion 
Date: 20 Oct 1995 23:34:04 GMT
Date: 7 Oct 1995 22:05:54 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College
Organization: Plutonium College

   A Dr. John Barrow asked for my 8th experiments concerning
metallization. So I repeat those posts and add more.
----------------
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.
electromag,sci.physics.particle,sci.chem
Subject: Eighth experiments prove HYASYS; killfiles quark, pion 
 theories
Date: 7 Oct 1995 22:05:54 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College
Lines: 109
Message-ID: <456tk2$11h@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
References: <44a273$mnn@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> 
 <451min$i77@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> <453mon$9fj@tribune.usask.ca>  
 <456i59$2c0@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

In article <456rk3$pik@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

> From MECHANICAL UNIVERSE program 31: Voltage, Energy, and Force
> 
> .
> .
> [beautiful music]
> .
> .
> 
> but behind the glittering facade
> charge and field, energy, voltage
>  and force are the stuff of electricity
> and that is the stuff 
> that holds the universe together
> .
> .
> [beautiful music]
> .
> .
> 
> 
> At the beginning of the 1800's 
> a British chemist named John Dalton 
> proposed a law of simple and multiple proportions
> And that law for the first time
> gave a solid scientific foundation to the ancient 
> idea of the Atomic theory of matter
> But not all scientists accepted
> Dalton's theory throughout the century
> there was a group of conservative chemists
> who essentially thought that it was bad 
> science to believe in anything 
> that you could not see
> Of the atomic theory they said
>  we don't need that hypothesis
> And they weren't the only ones
> who didn't believe in Dalton's theory
> Dalton had a rival for the title of 
> greatest chemist in England
> and his name was Humphrey Davy
> And Davy didn't believe in Dalton's theory 
> either but his reason was 
> the exact opposite, he thought 
> that Dalton hadn't gone far enough
> His argument went something like this
> he said look
> there are 40 chemical elements that we know of
> that means that according to Dalton's theory 
> there must be 40 different kinds 
> of indivisible atoms to explain 
> the properties of those elements 
> but he said
> of those 40 elements, 26 are metals
> They all share the same properties of
> shiny surfaces and good electrical and 
> thermal conductivity and mechanical 
> ductility and other properties
> Now he said those can't be
> accidents that just happened 26 separate times
> there must be some underlying principle of metallization
>  that is to say 
> Dalton's atoms must have some inner stucture
> Well, it took a hundred years but it
> turned out in the end that
> both Dalton and Davy were right
> 
> matter is made of atoms
> and atoms do have an inner structure
> which explains why metals exist

  Ask a modern day professor in his office, don't be shy. And ask your
TA in such a way that your TA will bug her/his professor.
  And put the question to them in such a way that you want more than
the usual mere rub off answer. The answer that professors both here in
sci newsgroups or in their office are notorious for. The kind of answer
that just wants you to go away and leave them alone.
  Ask them how our modern theories explains metallization. Ask them how
many of the elements are metals in various temperatures? Such as
hydrogen and helium are metals at a low temperature. Then ask them how
they reconcile metallization with nuclear structure. Repeat Davy's
argument of why is metallization a predominant feature of atoms. For
you see, modern day physics and chemistry have never given a
satisfactory explaination of metallization. Not that electricity is
electron metal bond, but why almost every element is a metal. Ask them
why in the first 100 elements that all of them are metals. For you see,
only HYASYS explains that. The strong nuclear force is hyasys and
hyasys is the nuclear duplicate of metal bonding. For hyasys says that
the protons of the nucleus are held there by the 'nuclear' electrons a
nuclear metal binding strong force.
   You see, until HYASYS, chemists fobbed off as an explaination for
metallization as merely the metallic bond hoping that no student would
ever ask that most of the mass is in the nucleus and so the properties
of metallization would depend on mass, hence the nucleus of atoms, not
just the 'normal' electrons.  Ask them and put them on the spot.

   Eighth experimental setups: chemistry will show that many properties
of specific metals or gases turned to metals at low temperatures can
not be explained by the "chemistry metal bond" but need explaination
from the nuclear strong force. Only Hyasys will explain why all the
elements have the property of metallization. That explanation is this:
the strong nuclear force is the result of the neutrons being nuclear
electrons and protons where the nuclear electrons are shared by all of
the protons of the nucleus. All neutrons are just hydrogen atom systems
where a 'normal' hydrogen electron is now a 'nuclear' electron. Thus,
under HYASYS, all, all isotopes or elements are metals at certain
temperatures.
--------
One of my reply posts said:
   You do not get the point yet. The point is why does every element at
some temperature display "Metallic properties". 
   The point is that you cannot have a chemistry by pretending that the
nucleus and the nuclear forces have no role or such a minor role as to
disregard. Every atom is held by Coulombic forces, so then to pretend
that Chemistry can study the electrons in utter disregard for the
nuclear protons is really loopy logic.
   You fail to see the point. The mass of all macroscopic objects is
contributed from the nucleus. Mass is energy. One could view a wafer of
tin or copper or gold or metallic hydrogen or metallic helium as solely
energy.

   So the question remains why is every, every element at a temperature
range metallic? Davy asked it in the early 1800's. The answer is due to
two things not just one. It is due to the electron metallic bond, but
its other contributing factor is that metallization is nuclear. For the
strong nuclear force is like a very powerful metallic bonding of free
nuclear electrons holding nuclear protons together.

  The fact that all elements display metallic traits at temperatures
implies that metallization is nuclear in origin also.

  Here is a simple proof that metallization is nuclear. Take a film of
lithium and ionize away all the electrons leaving only the nuclear
parts. This residue will still be metallic. There, proof
-----

 New add ons to this Experimental proof of HYASYS

 (1) Yes, take a ionized gas and cool it to a metal, there, proof of
HYASYS for the Nuclear Strong Force is just a stronger metallic bond.
The nucleus of any atom is the holding together of nuclear protons by
nuclear electrons (Hydrogen Atom Systems) and that bonding is
qualitatively the same as metal bonding.

 (2) Yes, take a isotope and ionize away all of its electrons and lump
it together. Hyasys predicts that the lump will be a metal.

 (3) Take a stream of alpha particles and freeze them to form a object
or combine the alpha particles into a lump. That object of alpha
particles will be metallic. In fact, metallization is proof of hyasys,
for hyasys is merely a Coulombic sharing of nuclear electrons, just as
metals share electrons to form the metallic bond. The quark theory
implies crystallization and all the isotopes at some temperature should
be crystalline. In fact since most of the weight or mass of atoms is in
the nucleus then the character trait of most of the elements of the 100
known elements should be crystalline in character, not metallic. That
fact that most of the 100 elements is metallic and the fact that all of
the elements at a specific temperature are metallic implies that the
Nuclear Strong Force makes it such and that the Nuclear Strong Force is
a metallic type of bonding which is exactly what HYASIS is.


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.20 / Bill Rowe /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 19:46:07 -0700
Organization: AltNet - http://www.alt.net

In article <21cenlogic-1910951505360001@austin-2-6.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:

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

[skipped]

>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}***

I didn't realize the point you were making. I had thought your point was
there was no need to resort to differential equations. I would suggest
realizing pressure, force per unit area, has the same units as energy per
unit volume shows a good linkage between pressure and energy.
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.21 / 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: Sat, 21 Oct 1995 18:26:15 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <browe-2010951946450001@10.0.2.15>, browe@netcom.com (Bill
Rowe) wrote:

> In article <21cenlogic-1910951505360001@austin-2-6.i-link.net>,
> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:
> 
> >In article <browe-1610952039250001@10.0.2.15>, browe@netcom.com (Bill
> >Rowe) wrote:
> >
> >> 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. 
> 
> [skipped]
> 
> >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}***
> 
> I didn't realize the point you were making. I had thought your point was
> there was no need to resort to differential equations. 

***{The idea was to show an easily understood pathway by which the
relationship between energy per unit volume and force per unit area could
be derived, without recourse to differential equations. As I have noted
repeatedly elsewhere, visualization is the basis of understanding. Thus
there is no conflict between these two descriptions of "the point." They
are merely different aspects of the same thing. --Mitchell Jones}***

I would suggest
> realizing pressure, force per unit area, has the same units as energy per
> unit volume shows a good linkage between pressure and energy.

***{I disagree. The focus of your approach is upon the symbols and their
interrelationships rather than upon the underlying images which give
meaning to the symbols. A person who had no idea what the various physical
quantities mean, but who knew the rules for converting from one to
another, could reduce 5 joules per .238 ml to 207 atmospheres. Having done
so, he could then teach a parrot to say: "5 joules per .238 milliliters
equates to 207 atmospheres," and the parrot would then understand exactly
as much about the underlying physics as he did--to wit: nothing
whatsoever. Bottom line: the retention of symbols and rules for their
manipulation is quite a different thing from understanding, and failure to
act upon that truth is one of the major things wrong with "education"
today. (None of this, of course, should be taken to imply that the ability
to manipulate symbols is unimportant in physics.) --Mitchell Jones}***
   
> -- 
> "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.21 / 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: 21 Oct 1995 23:25:41 GMT
Organization: not worth saving

In article <46a7ba$sk2@alpha.ftech.net>
Mark@monark.ftech.co.uk (Mark Burbidge) writes:

> Wow - impressive seeing as a few days ago you never new of the
> existance of even the tau!  ;-)
> 
> MB
> M. Burbidge. Mark@Monark.ftech.co.uk

  What does the value of the fine-structure constant have to be for the
electron orbital to be the exact same size as the proton, then the
neutron?
  What is the value of the fine-structure constant for the muon to be
the exact same size as the proton? Someone said it was already the same
size as the proton, but maybe the  loud mouth fool M. Burbidge has
something to say, here. We wait to see what you can add to the
conversation.
  Finally, what is the fine-structure constant value for a tau have to
be for its space to match exactly that of the proton? 
   If you have nothing to contribute to these conversations other than
your hatred, then scram, or I will tell you to go to hell.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.21 / 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: Sat, 21 Oct 1995 18:58:35 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <browe-2010952021410001@10.0.2.15>, browe@netcom.com (Bill
Rowe) wrote:

> In article <21cenlogic-1910951340010001@austin-2-6.i-link.net>,
> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:
> 
> >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:
> >> 
> >> 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}***
> 
> Your measure of work above isn't meaningful. If you are  going to measure
> the work this way it isn't the distance to clear the channel you need to
> consider but the entire distance traveled by the etheron as a result of
> the collision with the electron. Rather than talk of the average
> penetration into the cavitation channel we should be talking of the
> momentum/energy exchange as a result of the etheron/electron interaction.
> This has nothing to do with the average penetration into the cavitation
> channel.

***{Bill, we can split hairs here until the cows come home, but what is
the point? You have agreed that the cavitation channel concept reduces the
work required to maintain the orbit, and you have agreed that etherons
with the right properties can quite adequately explain the observed
stability of the Bohr-Sommerfeld orbits. The rest is just noise.
--Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> [skipped]
>  
> >> 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}***
> 
> I did not intend for term "ad hoc" to be applied to a theory of cavitation
> channels. I was applying it to the theory of etherons. I used the term "ad
> hoc" simply because I couldn't think of a better term.
> 
> Yes, the existence of many particles has been predicted prior to thier
> detection. This may eventually be true of "etherons". It simply seems to
> me postulating the existence of "etherons" is an ad hoc postulate made to
> arrive at a classical explaination of the hydrogen atom.
> 
> As I said before, I prefer the QM explaination to the assumption of
"etherons."

***{What "QM explanation?" Bohr didn't offer a visual model of the
causation which led to "preferred" orbits. He simply applied a "tweak" to
the equations of classical celestial mechanics which made it possible to
fit the experimentally measured data points that existed at the time. His
formulation was offered to the world as an arbitrary assertion, not an
explanation; and the same is true of the various iterations which these
formulae have passed through since his time. Indeed, today the proponents
of "quantum mechanics" have dropped all pretense that visualization of
causation enters into their way of doing physics! Whatever it is that they
are doing, it is quite clear that it has nothing to do with explanation!
--Mitchell Jones}***  
> -- 
> "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.21 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: breeder reactor
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: breeder reactor
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 1995 19:05:24 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <46719a$cm2@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com>, GYDZ19A@prodigy.com
(Michael Wiet) wrote:

> if you know anything about it i would like to know what you know for a 
> project that i am doing. if there is anything also related to a 
> "materializer" from star trek, which is the thing you talk to and the 
> object appears.

***{Yup. I got my materializer from Wal-Mart. It cost $9.95. The first
thing I told it to do was materialize $9.95! It worked good, too! Cheap at
twice the price! --Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
> 
>                                                                
> -
>   MICHAEL WIET  GYDZ19A@prodigy.com

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.21 /  jedrothwell@de /  Bob Sullivan double counts
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bob Sullivan double counts
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 95 20:43:45 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan) writes:
 
    "Add to that a report, from someone with hands on experience with a
    Patterson cell and a sharp eye, which indicates (contrary to reports from
    less reliable observers) that the cell did not seem to be producing gases."
 
Oh, right. Sure. Except for the bubbles in the tubes and the gas flowmeter
that shows the expected amount of gas leaving the cell.
 
 
    "Most likely, the explanation for the Patternson cell is not cold fusion,
    not inaccurate measurements (of which there are plenty) but, instead,
    double counting in the heat balance as Steven and Matt suspect."
 
Double counting?!? You would have to count it EIGHTY TIMES! Can't you do
simple physics? The total input is 60 milliwatts. Total recombination would
give you 60 milliwatts. Output is 5 watts. Can you tell the difference
between 0.06 and 5.00? No, of course you can't. Sorry I asked.
 
Yes, it looks like Steve Jones has caught yet another fool who does not
know what "recombination" means.
 
"Double counting" he says. That's rich! I give you 3 cents. You count it twice.
You tell me that equals 5 dollars. Right? What the hell is that supposed to
mean? Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.21 /  jedrothwell@de /  Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 95 11:17:08 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

There has been a lot of hilarious "skeptical" handwaving here for the past few
days. This proves that "skeptics" know nothing about science, but they do have
vivid imaginations! Their hypotheses can all be disposed of by anyone with a
grade-school education in science. It is not worth bothering with them in most
cases, but it is fun to blow away the most egregiously stupid ideas, because
they show how desperate the skeptics are. So let us look at a few of these
Award Winning ideas.
 
May we have the envelopes please? <Drumroll>
 
 
The all-time award for most stupid, most scientifically inept, most improbable
"objection" goes to Steve Jones for saying that when you input 0.06 watts I*V,
and you get recombination, that can generate 5 watts of heat indefinitely. Way
to go Steve! Of course Steve does not actually believe that himself, but we
should give him an award anyway, because he did manage to convince a few
suckers that this malarkey means something.
 
 
ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) comes up with a whole series of
impossibilities, crammed into the shortest space on record:
 
     "Where "energy in" means "electrical energy in only" and studiously
     ignores the other energy going in to the system, and "heat out" ignores
     the possibility of hot spots caused by localised recombination
     (nucleated by the presence of thermometers)."
 
So much amazing nonsense! Where to start? Well, as anyone knows there cannot
be any other significant level of energy going *into* the system, because that
would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. And, it would show up during
calibration, wouldn't it? Heat out caused by local recombination! Ah, that's a
new one. I have previously described dozens of reasons why this is
preposterous. Let's list a few:
 
There is no recombination. As I pointed out time after time, the cell is
equipped with a gas splitter and a precision gas flowmeter. You can see the
bubbles go through the tube, into the splitter, and you can read the numbers
on the flowmeter -- all of which prove there is no recombination. (Ian will
have to split this section of the award with Professor Jones, who has also
never heard of a gas flowmeter.) As I pointed out in many messages, in some
configurations they use a thermocouple, a thermistor and a thermometer to
measure the output temperature. Ian's theory holds that the gas magically
splits itself into three portions, attaches to all three temperature probes,
and recombines in such as way as to register the same temperature on all
three. Wow! Amazing what nature is capable of. Then, of course, the gas
uncombines and goes out the splitter and through the flowmeter. This scenario
is even more amazing when you realize that the thermometer is *below* the gas
splitter.
 
Very amusing Ian! Keep up the good work.
 
 
Moving right along, we have Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> writing,
and writing, and writing again:
 
     "Miley's group at UofI _has not made any claim of excess heat
     production_. If I'm wrong, please correct me."
 
Naturally, I did correct him. He could have corrected himself by calling them
or by reading their previous publications. Naturally, he repeats this
confabulation again, and he will repeat it again and again in the future. No
doubt he also believes that Rontgen made no claim of seeing inside the body
with his X-Ray one hundred years ago. Good work Barry! Stick to it! Keep
repeating this lie. You may not convince anyone else, but you will convince
yourself.
 
 
browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) wins the 1995 Chemistry Award for not knowing the
difference between water (H2O) and free hydrogen and oxygen gas. He writes,
and writes, and writes again:
 
     "In fact, if the entire source of the energy were the reaction H2+02 ==>
     H20 producing the observed flow rate the resulting power would be far
     greater than 5W."
 
Yes indeed! If we pump in free gas, and get out 14 ml of water per minute,
that would produce a lot more than 5W. However, there is *water* flowing into
the cell, and *water* flowing out. Water is not free hydrogen and oxygen.
There are no canisters of gas attached to the cell. Water, as I pointed out,
is ash. YOU CANNOT BURN IT, because it is already as burned as anything can
be.
 
Rowe also cannot grasp the idea of a loop: that is, of the same water going
around and around. No doubt when he visits a department store, he stares for
hours at the moving escalator, wondering how the people in the basement
manufacture steps so quickly. He should study the latest medical science
advances published by William Harvey. He writes:
 
     "In the case of chemistry, the energy per reaction is much lower. As
     indicated above all that is needed is 378 J/mole of water assuming water
     is the reactant. This is well within the capacity of chemical
     reactions."
 
Rowe does not grasp that we are talking about *the same moles of water* going
round and round. As I said, he is also dead wrong in claiming that 378 J/mole
can be generated from a chemical reaction starting with water. No Bill, not
water. Hydrogen & oxygen gas Yes; water No. There are no exothermic chemical
reactions starting with water. Go back to your textbook and look again.
 
 
jnw@katie.vnet.net (John N. White) gets the Science Fiction award for
inventing the most number of unobserved "facts" and improbable reactions in an
experiment about which he knows nothing:
 
     "The CETI calorimeter uses the extremely dubious method of running the
     active electrolyte outside the cell and through the pump. Here is a
     specific mundane explanation of what might be happening."
 
"Mundane" he calls it! Ha! If one-tenth of his confabulations were true, he
would win the Nobel Prize for originality. No, not mundane; unworldly, unheard
of, impossible. He begins by inventing a new magical salt, and then he makes a
few micrograms of this lithium salt perform amazing wonders, in defiance of
Thermodynamics and A Lot Else:
 
     "First I assume that there is a Lithium Sulphate Hydrate salt that is
     not currently known. The reason it is not known is that it is very
     difficult to nucleate its formation, and its surface assumes a state
     that is hostile to further growth.
 
     In the CETI cell, however, when the concentrated Lithium Sulphate
     electrolyte comes in contact with the nickel surface and overpotential
     at the cathode, nucleation of the Hydrate occurs easily. The surface
     area of the cathode is very large, so large amounts of the Hydrate will
     form . . ."
 
A few micrograms of lithium are going to carry energy and catalyze very large
amounts of Hydrate!?! What will they think up next?
 
     "When the sol is pulled from the cell and enters the warm pump, the
     Hydrate crystals will dissolve back into solution, removing heat from
     the pump in the process. Then the electrolyte re-enters the cell,
     repeating the cycle.
 
How amazing!!! And it works even though the pump is not a bit warm. In fact,
the part of the pump that comes in contact with the solution is room
temperature. You can put your finger on it (it is a thin, transparent plastic
chamber), or you can put a thermocouple just downstream from it while
circulating pure water through the loop, as they did during calibration. There
is *no significant, measurable* level of heat added to the water by the pump.
 
     "The above is just one of many such explanations of what may be
     happening in the CETI calorimeter, given their extremely dubious
     practice of running the active electrolyte out of the cell and through
     the pump."
 
One of many!?! I cannot imagine what the others must be like. Ah, but like so
many "skeptics" White has forgotten that CETI and others have run these cells
in a static configuration, with no pump, no circulation, no Magical
Microscopic Dilithium Energy Crystals capable of transporting impossibly large
burdens of chemical energy.
 
     "Doing this makes the pump part of the system, and so the electrical
     energy used by the pump must be considered as part of the energy put
     into the system (and it's large compared to the "excess heat")."
 
How amazing! Call the Nobel Committee at once! White has found a way to make
waste heat from a pump motor jump around to the other side of the pump,
concentrate itself, enter the chamber that moves the water, and hop right into
his 'Magic Power Crystals' (TM and Copyright J. White, all rights reserved --
and he can have them!) Rewrite thermodynamics! Stop the presses! Wowee, this
*may just be* the 1995 Award Winner.
 
 
We need a special Citation for Accuracy in Media, to be given to Tom Droege
who demands the Griggs carefully write down all his observations in a log
book, and verify everything he claims. Droege himself is so sloppy about
making claims that in the same message he reported a man has been fired who
has not been fired; he reported a company is scaling back on R&D when they
have recently redoubled there efforts. He did not take 10 seconds to ask about
these pretend "facts," he just went ahead and reported them. He is so
unobservant that he failed to notice the machine is equipped with both
thermocouples and bimetallic thermocouples, and he is so ignorant of basic
experimental technique that he made up a ridiculous hypothesis about how the
machine affects thermocouples but he forget to check that hypothesis -- an
action that would have taken 20 seconds and one glance at a computer screen.
 
Droege may have to share the Media Award with the bozo who called the
University of Illinois press office instead of the scientists doing the
research. And the press office itself deserves an honorable mention, because
they are apparently unaware of the fact that Miley is one of the world's most
respected experts in cold fusion and that he has done successful thin film
cold fusion experiments and published his results in the journal that he edits
right there at the University of Illinois.
 
 
Well . . . enough sorting through nonsense. I have not even considered this
year's contributions from Morrison and Dick Blue. These two are perennial
winners, so perhaps we should disqualify them. It is very tempting though.
Perhaps we should have two permanent lifetime awards for them: an Aryan
Science Numerology Award, and a prize for Ever Changing Unspecific Specific
Heat and Most Amazing amount of Hot Air generated by Handwaving friction in
air.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.21 / Bill Rowe /  Re: Return to Rome
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Return to Rome
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 1995 11:52:15 -0700
Organization: AltNet - http://www.alt.net

In article <BESHERS.95Oct20171750@tune.cs.columbia.edu>,
beshers@tune.cs.columbia.edu (Clifford Beshers) wrote:

>In article <468j78$92r@fnnews.fnal.gov> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
writes:

>   Computers are still not good enough to perform as log books.  It is
>   hard (still) to insert sketches of the apparatus in a computer text.
>   Also there is the polaroid photo that you want to staple in the log.
>   My "cold fusion" logs have things like the receipt for the PD bar 
>   that contains the lot number, a used cathode or two.  Samples of 
>   the tubing used, exposed film, etc.. 
>
>   While all this sort of thing might some day be possible in a computer,
>   I think the time is not yet here.
>
>   Tom Droege
>
>Hmmm...  An interesting challenge, Tom.
>
>Given the right equipment and expertise, the computer will function
>better in some ways.  Sketches and polaroid photos can easily be
>scanned.  The tubing would be difficult, of course.  The trick here is
>to realize that good tools like paper and pencil can be used, and then
>the result recorded.

[examples skipped]

>Some of the things I find very frustrating about my log book (yes, I
>keep a paper one) are that a) I can't enter my digital information
>into it, and b) it doesn't have multiple windows so I can't compare
>different pages side by side without a photocopier.  Since my business
>is software, getting it all onto paper is cumbersome.

In a lab setting, I think it will be sometime before a computer is as
handy as a bound log book. You make valid points about the ability to scan
information into a computer. The problem is a matter of convenience. If
the data can't easily be entered into a computer the tendency is to put it
off to a later time. This makes it more likely critical information (often
not seen as critical at the time) gets forgotten or lost. Also, it makes
keeping a log seem more of a chore increasing the tendency to put it off.

Your last comments add to the point I attempting to make. Since your
business is software I assume most of the information of importance is
already in computer storage. Now transferring it to paper becomes tedious
as you point out.

The point is the ideal method of logging data is one that encourages its
use. The more of a chore data logging becomes, the more likely it doesn't
get done effectively if at all. Paper records are simply more convenient
in many cases.
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.21 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 95 18:47:32 GMT

In article <MATT.95Oct18103642@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU>,
   matt@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Matt Austern) wrote:
>In article <1995Oct17.134903.2431@plasma.byu.edu> jonesse@plasma.byu.edu 
writes:
>
>> 3.  The cell is an *open* one, that is, with H2 and O2 bubbling out and
>> presumed to leave without recombination.  If recombination occurs inside
>> the cell -- which cannot be ruled out at present -- then this recombination
>> provides a source of heat that appears to be "excess" but of course is not.
>
>This is an important point.  "Excess heat" is a somewhat ambiguous
>phrase, and the ambiguity has the potential to be misleading.
>
>If one doesn't read the fine print, one might naively think that
>"excess heat" means that you're getting out more energy than you're
>putting in.  In fact, though, it tends, in these experiments, to mean
>that you're getting out less energy than you're putting in but more
>than your theoretical calculations say you ought to be getting out.
>
>I hope everybody realizes that the second claim is far weaker than the
>first, and that it depends crucially on your calculations of how much
>heat you should expect.  As Steve Jones has pointed out, it's easy to
>get spuriously "excess" heat if some of the assumptions in your
>calculation are even slightly wrong.
>
>An experiment that really did involve getting out more energy than
>you're putting in---especially, an experiment that involved getting
>out enough energy to do work---would not be vulnerable to that
>criticism.  It's a pity that there have been no such experiments.

Both points are well taken. Given the construction of the Patterson cell, the 
weight of the evidence points to recombination of oxygen and hydrogen within 
the cell. The cell contains a couple of platinum screens which should be 
effective recombiners. Add to that a report, from someone with hands on 
experience with a Patterson cell and a sharp eye, which indicates (contrary to 
reports from less reliable observers) that the cell did not seem to be 
producing gases.  Most likely, the explanation for the Patternson cell is not 
cold fusion, not inaccurate measurements (of which there are plenty) but, 
instead, double counting in the heat balance as Steven and Matt suspect.

The problem that we have had here on s.p.f is that, for the most part, we 
never get to peek behind the curtain, but now you have a chance to peek behind 
the curtain. John Logajan has been kind enough to post Bruce Klein's raw 
experimental results (via Victor Lapuszynski, associate editor "Cold 
Fusion") from a Patterson cell along with the "excess heat" calculations. You 
can find them at:

	http://www.skypoint.com:80/members/jlogajan/files/klein.txt

Thanks to John, you can read some of the literature.

Go through the calculations. You will find some arithmetic errors, but 
they are not important to the point.

You will find that the gain calculations are not simply measured output 
divided by measured input. Instead, we find the efficiency to be calculated as 
adjusted output divided by adjusted input. The measured output is increased by 
a factor of three (six), and the measured input is decreased by about ~25%.

After you have gone through the calculations, do a few more of your own. Do 
the efficiency calculation for the raw measured numbers. The efficiency in the 
raw numbers is always less than one. Then apply the voltage adjustment and the 
cell efficiency adjustments separately to the raw numbers. Calculate an 
apparent efficiency for each set of numbers.

You will find that the cell efficiency calculated from the raw numbers is not 
a heck of a lot different from the efficiency calculated with a resistor as 
the heat source in the calibration runs.

You might find it useful to arrange the data into tables with all similar 
calculations grouped together, e.g., put all of the calibration data into a 
table with one line per run. This will give you a chance to eyeball the data 
for inconsistencies, unusual relationships, etc.

This little exercise should be enough to point the way critical tests that 
need to be performed by unbiased observers:

1. To what extent, if any, do the Patterson cells with platinum screens 
produce hydrogen and oxygen?

2. Does the knob twiddling to "optimize" output/input ratio throw the cell out 
of equilibrium and bias the results?

3. The hot wire calibrations need to be performed through a broad enough range 
of values (heat and flow) to develop a good set of calibration curves so run 
conditions can be matched to calibration conditions. 

4. The accuracy of the measurements need to be investigated, particularly 
that of the flow measurement. I don't have much confidence with figures stated 
to single-digit precision. (Nor do I have much confidence with implausible 
precision: 14.28 ml/min.)

5. Does Attachment 7 represent the scale up of the Patterson cell -- from the 
size of your little finger to the size of your thunmb?

From other sources:

1. I hear that there has been a problem with crosstalk between the 
thermocouples and the cell voltage. Has that been corrected?

2. I hear the Patterson cell have a tendency to break (burst, split -- 
apparently unrelated to pressure or temperature) during operation. This may be 
a mechanical problem in construction which is aggravated by a hot spot at the 
platinum screen. Has this problem been solved?

Here are a couple of proposed modifications to the Patterson cell that (if 
performed by disinterested outsiders) should provide a definitive test of the 
recombination (and excess heat) hypothesis.

1. Replace the platinum screens with some non-catalyst metal. The "excess" 
heat should disappear.

2. Leave the platinum screens in, but use unplated plastic beads. (This might 
require some proxy cathode material to substitute for the surface area 
provided by the bead plating. (????)) The "excess" heat should continue.

Well, that should give you some things to think about. Have fun!

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.21 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Proposed explaination of CETI effect
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Proposed explaination of CETI effect
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 95 17:51:00 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

John N. White <jnw@katie.vnet.net> writes:
 
>When the sol is pulled from the cell and enters the warm pump, the
 
Your hypothesis is bunk, from beginning to end. This part is particularly
stupid. Why on earth do you think that a laboratory pump manufacturer
would deliberately make a pump that dumps heat into the fluid? Do you think
the electric motor is insulated and set up so that as much heat as possible
is transferred into the fluid? That is absurd. Have you ever seen a pump like
that? Have you ever heard of one? Give me the catalog number. The fluid
passing through a laboratory pump at 14 ml/minute does not get measurably
warm *at all*. You can measure it to the nearest 0.0001 deg C; you will see
nothing. The pump is NOT WARM. Nobody would build a laboratory pump that
gets warm! That would be an incredibly stupid thing to do. The calibration
runs with this calorimeter and with others proves there is no measurable
heat introduced anywhere in the loop; not from the pump, not from water
friction, not from the overhead lights, not from anything.
 
I gave you an Hilarious 'Skeptical' Handwaving Award for your hypothesis.
It was good for something, anyway. Congratulations.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.21 / A Plutonium /  Re: 14th Experiments proving HYASYS; Correlations of 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: 14th Experiments proving HYASYS; Correlations of nuclear 
Date: 21 Oct 1995 21:52:31 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

Until the canceller of my posts and cancells of other people of
alt.sci.physics.plutonium-- ceases and desists-- I have no choice but
just repost all and every one of them so as to keep my train of
thought.

In article <466gvs$jg0@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

> In article <951017152438@are107.lds.loral.com>
> hahn@newshost  (Karl Hahn) writes:
> 
> > In article <45n35g$ssb@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Archimedes.Plutonium@d
rtmouth.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:
cuddy21 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.21 / A Plutonium /  Re: 15th Experiments proving HYASYS; Stability of helium3
     
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: 15th Experiments proving HYASYS; Stability of helium3
Date: 21 Oct 1995 21:53:05 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

Until the canceller of my posts and cancells of other people of
alt.sci.physics.plutonium-- ceases and desists-- I have no choice but
just repost all and every one of them so as to keep my train of
thought.

In article <466ii3$2jt@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

> 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
>   .                   .
>   .                   .
> 
>   A neutron has 1 nuclear electron and 1 nuclear proton and so Hyasys
> would say that is unstable because what need is there for a nuclear
> electron to hold together a single proton? None?
> 
>   Now look at all the other isotopes and see which has the highest
> ratio of nuclear protons to electrons for this isotope is especially
> significant. Of course most readers would know immediately that it was
> helium3 which has 3 nuclear protons yet only 1 nuclear electron.  What
> is the size correlation of 3 hadrons for a nucleus as per Mr. Karl Hahn
> correlation of MEV to a nuclear size? I take it that CERN and other
> outfits have these data all on computer? If not then they are behind
> the learning curve.
> 
>   Thus, helium3 is stable with 3 nuclear protons held together by only
> 1 nuclear electron. There should be some experimental setup that proves
> HYASYS from the difference of stable helium3 compared to stable helium4
> having 2 nuclear electrons.
> 
>   If HYASYS is correct then helium3 atoms should accept an additional
> neutron. Any experiments showing that a batch of helium3 absorbs
> neutrons and becomes helium4?
> 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.21 / A Plutonium /  Re: 16th Experiments proving HYASYS; correlating identical 
     
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: 16th Experiments proving HYASYS; correlating identical 
Date: 21 Oct 1995 21:53:31 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

Until the canceller of my posts and cancells of other people of
alt.sci.physics.plutonium-- ceases and desists-- I have no choice but
just repost all and every one of them so as to keep my train of
thought.

In article <466jep$7d0@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

>    Now go through the list of all isotopes and the nuclei of isotopes
> whose ratio of nuclear protons to nuclear electrons are identical
> should show some nuclear experiments that shows where two nuclear
> isotopes of the same ratio of nuclear protons to nuclear electrons
> results in 'similar behavior'. For example both helium4 and lithium6
> have the same ratio of 2.
> 
>  3@2  3.01602931  3/1 =3   1.37 x 10^-4 % stable
>  4@2  4.00260325  4/2 =2   ~100% stable
> 
>  6@3 6.015122  6/3 =2     7.5%  stable 
> 
>   Thus, experiments set up which uses just the nuclei of these two
> isotopes ought to be able to find congruence of nuclear behavior
> relating to the fact that their ratio is identical. If HYASYS were
> incorrect then there should be absolutely no correlation between these
> cross elements. Such a deciding experiment may consider shooting
> protons into the nuclei of these ionized atoms and look for similarity
> of behavior.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.21 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Proposed explaination of CETI effect
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Proposed explaination of CETI effect
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 1995 10:42 -0500 (EST)

jnw@katie.vnet.net (John N. White) writes:
 
-> The Hydrate crystals resist further growth due to the nature of their
-> surface. They also are negatively charged and so repel each other.
-> Thus the cell will contain what is known as a colloidal dispersion,
-> or sol. If the particles in a sol are especially small and intrinsically
-> clear (both true here) the sol will appear clear and give no visual
-> hint that a large fraction of it is a solid. Note that all this
-> is very ordinary chemistry.
 
This should only be true if the refractive index of the crystals and the
solution are identical.  A condition which is possible, but highly unlikely.
 
-> When the sol is pulled from the cell and enters the warm pump, the
-> Hydrate crystals will dissolve back into solution, removing heat
-> from the pump in the process. Then the electrolyte re-enters the
-> cell, repeating the cycle.
 
What type of pump are they using?  This would certainly be possible with some
types of pumps, such as a piston or turbine, but I would consider unlikely if
they are using the "roller pinching tubing" type.  Anyone know what type of
pump is being used?
 
I think there is one other bit of information that makes this hypothesis
unlikely.  If the crystals are that sensitive to heat, then why would they
remain crystals while hot, but dissolve after cooling in a warm pump and remain
dissolved in the cooler liquid.  I am assuming the pump is on the cool side.
Also, this explaination would only work over a very limited temperature range.
Jed claims that they have obtained excess over a range of at least 75 C.
 
 
                                                                   Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.18 / Mark North /  Re: CF demo at SOFE
     
Originally-From: north@nosc.mil (Mark H. North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF demo at SOFE
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 15:56:03 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

>Why should I show respect for contrarian debunkers like Richard Blue? He
>is not serious. He knows damn well that no chemical reaction from 40 mg
>of matter can produce 80 MJ of energy. He knows that a flow calorimeter is
>better for a demonstration than a static calorimeter. He is posting messages
>like that in order to confuse the issue and make trouble. He knows he is
>wrong, but he does not care. He is here to spread propaganda & confusion, and
>mislead people and start gratuitous arguments.

I'd like to know just exactly what kind of trouble you mean. Do you mean
the kind of trouble that makes potential investors skitish?

>A "skeptic" never *does* anything, he never thinks for himself, he never
>looks up any numbers, he never bothers to call the scientists at U. Ill.
>(although he might call the public relations office, where they know nothing).

All they know is what the 'scientists' tell them. If they weren't given
straight information maybe it's because there was none. In any case,
I tried contacting the scientists but none were available to discuss
the 'cold fusion' demo and no one returned my call. Frankly, I got
the impression that they (at the Nuc Engr. Dept) considered the
'cold fusion' demo at the SOFE conference somewhat of an
embarrassment. (Just an impression, mind you).

>Well,
>I say you are a bunch of fools and jerks, and a disgrace to science, and
>a laughinstock. All of you!

Gosh, even me. >smirk<

Mark






















cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.19 / Mark North /  Re: CF demo at SOFE
     
Originally-From: north@nosc.mil (Mark H. North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF demo at SOFE
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 17:30:23 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

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.

What last posting?

>  Cold fusion works. Period. There is no denying that.

Oh, I guess that settles it then.

>  "But wait! That continuous over-unity reading there MUST be from a 
>faulty meter!!!"

>  What's the point? Those who continue to rebuke the idea as skeptics 
>will ALWAYS do so, even years after this phenomena becomes classroom 
>science.

>  There is no point to further discussion...

Thanks for clearing things up.

Mark






















cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.21 / A Plutonium /  17th Experiments proving HYASYS; integration and consistent 
     
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: 17th Experiments proving HYASYS; integration and consistent 
Date: 21 Oct 1995 22:06:58 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

Notice that the physics of EM is well known, almost a closed science
speaking in a fashion. Notice that the Strong Nuclear Force is barely
opened and understanding is miniscule. Notice that the Coulomb force of
EM is well known and a law of physics which is mathematical. Notice
that the Strong Nuclear force has no math as of it , and only has some
qualitative ideas concerning it.

Now, the HYASYS theory says that the Strong Nuclear Force is merely
hydrogen atom systems wherein the electrons are nuclear electrons and
hold the protons together by sharing these nuclear electrons. Thus,
HYASYS is Coulomb Force only by a magnitude of 100 (83 where the last
stable isotope or around 100 where spontaneous fission of fermium
really sets in with microseconds of lifetime).

  So then, if the HYASYS theory is correct then a natural flowing, a
blending of physical laws of Coulomb become the Strong Nuclear Force
and an integration of ideas of established true laws of physics goes
into understanding the Strong Nuclear Force.

 So far, 17th has been just qualitative. But here is an experiment to
make it worthy. Consider the mode of decay of EC. A Strong Nuclear
Force as Coulombic accepts that mode of decay but the competing
theories of quark, QCD, and Standard Model are deaf dumb and silent
about EC
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.21 / A Plutonium /  18th Experiments proving HYASYS; beauty ends the particle zoo
     
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: 18th Experiments proving HYASYS; beauty ends the particle zoo
Date: 21 Oct 1995 22:27:32 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

The beauty of HYASYS as hydrogen atom sytems being the last cut. And
HYASYS builds all atoms or particles as either additions of hydrogen
atom systems or derivative side-products of hydrogen atom systems.
Think of a human being built from cells. Like the cell theory posits
that all life is a build-up of cells. Now consider say a scat which is
a byproduct of life and the same with say tau particles or all the many
particles in the particle zoo, they are particles in transition to
another hydrogen atom system. All of them have a life span shorter than
the neutron of about 10 minutes. A neutron is a hydrogen atom system
and will decay into the lowest particle there is, the lowest cut, a
hydrogen atom. That is why a neutron has a surface magnetic charge is
because the hydrogen atom inside it has fluxes between its proton and
electron.

  As Dirac was ever led into his great physics accomplishments by the
intuition that if something is so beautiful of an idea that it is so
consistent and ties other things together then the idea must be true.
In other words, physics beauty is truth. With Hyasys all the particle
zoo is put under one sword. With Hyasys we can for the first time apply
math to the Strong Nuclear Force.

  With the Quark theory, QCD and Standard Model, these three I call the
Standard Gossipal they do not explain why there is a lepton family. Why
a electron comes out of the neutron. In fact the decreasing of the
particle zoo is alien to the quark theory  and Standard Model. To
Hyasys, all of the particle zoo is banished, vanquished as merely
byproducts going into transitions of hydrogen atom systems.

  Anyone know of any interesting facts about the Coulomb force which
lends support to it being the Strong Nuclear force?
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.21 / A Plutonium /  19th Experiments proving HYASYS; nonspherical nuclei
     
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: 19th Experiments proving HYASYS; nonspherical nuclei
Date: 21 Oct 1995 22:50:49 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

  Elements 107-109,  are not spherical as the other elements, but
instead are highly lobelike, elongated elliptical shaped. They are
talking about the atom itself. But Hyasys would predict that as the
protons increase in number, the Coulombic Effect of protons would
increasingly diverge from spherical to that of elongated shape. In
fact, can you have a cigar shaped atom yet have a spherical nucleus.
Hyasys would say no, and hyasys would say that the geometrical shape of
the atomic electrons is connected with/ a function of the geometrical
shape of the nucleus.

  In fact experiments can be performed of adding like charges and
seeing how the geometry diverges away from purely spherical as in
hydrogen or helium to that of cigar shaped Coulombic forces. Quark
theory of the Standard Gossipals again are deaf dumb and mute when it
comes to talking about the shape of nuclei.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.22 / Robin Spaandonk /  Re: 7Li(n,2n)6LI driven fusion (was: Farce of Physics)
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 7Li(n,2n)6LI driven fusion (was: Farce of Physics)
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 1995 00:03:28 GMT
Organization: Improving

In article <21cenlogic-1910952045580001@austin-2-8.i-link.net>,
Mitchell Jones wrote :

>In article <462uk2$lto@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, zoltanccc@aol.com
>(ZoltanCCC) wrote:
>
>> I don't remember the possibility of sustained reactions being refuted. The
>> number of reactions that could happen in a complex system as this is
>> large, and possibly we don't know about all of them yet. Some that come to
>> mind are:
>> 
>> n* + Li7 ---> Li6 + n + n                                (1)
>> 
>> This is our original reaction, where I denoted the fast neutron with a *
>> for simplicity.
>> 
>> n  + Li7 ---> Li8 (life is 0.844 secs)                 (2)
>> 
>> In this (2) the neutron is slow.
>> 
>> Li8  --->  e  +  Be8 (life is 0.067 femtosecs)     (3)
>> 
>> Be8  --->  He4  +  He4                                   (4)
>> 
>> The consecutive (3) and (4) yield a whopping 16 MeV of energy taken away
>> by the electron mostly (I think). 
>
>***{In the Cravens demo, if memory serves, the electrolyte contained
>lithium sulfate, and it is possible that lithium plated out on the cathode
>during the demo runs. Since 92.5% of naturally occurring lithium is Li7,

To the best of my knowledge alkali metal salts are used in these
experiments, precisely because they don't plate  out, the alkali
metals being much more reactive than hydrogen, which preferentially
accepts an electron from the cathode. I.e. it is the hydrogen in the
water that "plates out".

>that would be the case for the plated lithium as well. It would
>immediately form lithium oxide in water, which, I believe, is insoluble.

If lithium oxide is insoluble in water, then how do you explain the
use of LiOD in other experiments? In other words, if Li2O were
insoluble, then one would expect the following chemical reaction to
occur 

2*LiOD --> Li2O (precipitate) + D2O


>Would it remain on the cathode? If it did, this reaction would become a
>very real possibility as a surface effect. The thinness of the film would
>relegate it to a minor contributor to the total energy, but it is very
>interesting. It might be worthwhile to try a lithium-palladium alloy as a
>cathode material, if that would be possible. Or perhaps CETI could deposit
>alternating layers of palladium and lithium on their beads. If the top
>layer were palladium, the lithium would be protected from oxidation, and
>things might get really interesting from the standpoint of energy
>production! (The breakdown of Be8 would be cold fission!) --Mitchell
>Jones}***
>
>We also have the following:
[snip]
Regards,

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

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.22 / Robin Spaandonk /  Data
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Data
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 1995 00:03:35 GMT
Organization: Improving

Jed,

Given that you have good contacts with many of the people involved in
the CF field, how would you feel about asking someone like Cravens, if
he would be prepared to allow you to post the data from one of his
earlier experiments to the net? I refer to the data from an experiment
that Cravens already considers outmoded, and therefore of little
financial value. Yet still something that nevertheless produced a
clear positive result.
Regards,

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

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.21 / John White /  Re: Proposed explanation of CETI effect
     
Originally-From: jnw@lys.vnet.net (John N. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Proposed explanation of CETI effect
Date: 21 Oct 1995 23:55:11 -0500
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> John N. White <jnw@katie.vnet.net> writes:
> >When the sol is pulled from the cell and enters the warm pump, the
> 
> Your hypothesis is bunk, from beginning to end. This part is particularly
> stupid. Why on earth do you think that a laboratory pump manufacturer
> would deliberately make a pump that dumps heat into the fluid?

In my experience, the electric motor of a pump is fairly efficient and
most of the loss is in the pump mechanism. Most of this loss then ends
up in the fluid.

> Do you think the electric motor is insulated and set up so that as much
> heat as possible is transferred into the fluid? That is absurd. Have you
> ever seen a pump like that? Have you ever heard of one? Give me the
> catalog number.

I have heard of a place that makes pumps that are said to be especially
effective at transferring heat to the fluid. I don't have the catalog
number, but as I recall this place was in Rome Georgia somewhere.
But it may all be bunk as you say.

> The fluid passing through a laboratory pump at 14 ml/minute does
> not get measurably warm *at all*. You can measure it to the nearest
> 0.0001 deg C; you will see nothing. The pump is NOT WARM.

Gosh, all that energy going into the pump and nothing coming out.
Where does it all go?

Has anyone actually *measured* the temperature of the fluid from the
pump in one of these calorimeters? Saying that it couldn't *possibly*
be warm just tells us what your opinion is, which happens to be
different from my opinion.

> Nobody would build a laboratory pump that gets warm!

So all those laboratory pumps that I found getting warm were built
by Nobody! I have often heard of Nobody and his many accomplishments,
but I never realized that he built my pumps!  :-)

> The calibration runs with this calorimeter and with others proves there
> is no measurable heat introduced anywhere in the loop; not from the pump,
> not from water friction, not from the overhead lights, not from anything.

Let me get this straight. The electrolyte flows out of the cell, is
thermally insulated from any measurable heat exchange, then it flows
back into the cell. Yet the temperature sensor at that point reads
five degrees less than the one measuring the fluid flowing out. Hmmm...
 
> I gave you an Hilarious 'Skeptical' Handwaving Award for your hypothesis.
> It was good for something, anyway. Congratulations.
 
No, you gave me the Science Fiction award. Don't you remember?
-- 
jnw@vnet.net
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.21 / John White /  Re: Proposed explanation of CETI effect
     
Originally-From: jnw@lys.vnet.net (John N. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Proposed explanation of CETI effect
Date: 21 Oct 1995 23:57:02 -0500
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes:
> jnw@katie.vnet.net (John N. White) writes:
> -> If the particles in a sol are especially small and intrinsically
> -> clear (both true here) the sol will appear clear and give no visual
> -> hint that a large fraction of it is a solid.
> 
> This should only be true if the refractive index of the crystals and the
> solution are identical.  A condition which is possible, but highly unlikely.

That is only true if the crystals are large compared to a wavelength
of light. If they are very small compared to a wavelength then the
sol will appear clear even if the refractive index is quite different.
 
> -> When the sol is pulled from the cell and enters the warm pump, ...
 
> What type of pump are they using?  This would certainly be possible with some
> types of pumps, such as a piston or turbine, but I would consider unlikely if
> they are using the "roller pinching tubing" type.  Anyone know what type of
> pump is being used?

"Roller pinching tubing" pumps are rather lossy. (Ever try to turn one by hand?)
I have heard that more than one type of pump has been tried, but I don't
know what the demo used. I suppose they use whatever type gives the best
results.
 
> I think there is one other bit of information that makes this hypothesis
> unlikely.  If the crystals are that sensitive to heat, then why would they
> remain crystals while hot, but dissolve after cooling in a warm pump and remain
> dissolved in the cooler liquid.

"after cooling in a warm pump"???
The idea is that the pump is warmer than the cell, dissolving the crystals.
The crystals would stay dissolved after cooling because it is very difficult
to nucleate their formation. Only the nickel cathode can do that.
BTW, it is normally the case that freezing/crystallizing requires
nucleation, but melting/dissolving does not.

> I am assuming the pump is on the cool side.

Why do you assume that? I would assume that the cooling occurs at the filter,
after the pump. (Of course, if there is actually a heat pump effect going on,
the cooling could occur when whatever released the heat reabsorbs it.)

> Also, this explaination would only work over a very limited temperature range.

True, although the range could be shifted by changing the concentration of
the electrolyte.

> Jed claims that they have obtained excess over a range of at least 75 C.

But the results with many times I*V input have only been reported over a very
narrow temperature range. The low levels of excess heat that have been seen
under other conditions can be explained in other ways, such as recombination.
(Remember, if for each result their is a mundane explanation, then all
results have mundane explanations. There is no need for the explanation
to be the same for all results.)
-- 
jnw@vnet.net
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Oct 22 04:37:08 EDT 1995
------------------------------
