1996.01.17 / Martin Sevior /  Re: Cold Fusion/New Energy Symposium - 1/20/96
     
Originally-From: Martin Sevior <msevior>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion/New Energy Symposium - 1/20/96
Date: 17 Jan 1996 20:32:28 GMT
Organization: The University of British Columbia

jechampion@aol.com (JEChampion) wrote:
>Just read your note.  I know it's late in the day but wondered if you
>would like to have a sample of nuclear synthesized platinum?  If you check
>the isotopic ratios you will have to confirm its man made origin.

OK, I'll bite. How did this material get made and how of it is there?



Martin Sevior

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.17 / I Johnston /  Re: Bose Corp. finds NO excess heat in CF cells -- H2O and D2O tried
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bose Corp. finds NO excess heat in CF cells -- H2O and D2O tried
Date: 17 Jan 1996 16:25:09 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

mitchell swartz (mica@world.std.com) wrote:
:   In Message-ID: <4diggu$ff2@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>
: Subject: Re: Bose Corp. finds NO excess heat in CF cells -- H2O and D2O tried
:  ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) skewers the complex concepts of
: English language and simple communication:

: =ij  "mitchell swartz (mica@world.std.com) wrote:"
: : "The conclusion of the work was NOT that excess heat has not
: : been found in the ligh-water cells. On the contrary, excess heat
: : WAS FOUND AND MEASURED in all the light-water cells."

:  Thanks (not really) for the attempted attribution.
: No.  I did NOT write that.

:   It was quote from the original source quoted by Steve Jones.
: If you really access to what was discussed and a dollop of diligence,
: you would, of course, have known that.

Yes, that's exactly why I left the quote marks in. But for those who
have difficulty with that, "Mitchell said that the paper Steve Jones
cited said that"....

Happy?


: =ij  "Yes, that was implicit and quite clear in Steve Jones' posting - which
: =ij  showed that the excess heat measured was an artifact of an incorrect
: =ij  assumption about the Faraday efficiency. So what?
: =ij  Ian"

:   No.       
: Subject header: " Bose Corp. finds NO excess heat in CF cells
:             -- H2O and D2O tried"

: Quote from letter: "The conclusion of the work was NOT that excess heat
: has not been found in the ligh-water cells. On the contrary, excess heat
: WAS FOUND AND MEASURED in all the light-water cells."

:   These do NOT say the same thing. 

I know. But lots of people have found and measured excess heat. It just
wasn't real excess heat, and they weren't good measurements.

: Also, the caps were actually in the letter.

: No it is time to examine the word: implicit


: ===>   implicit = (after Websters' Dictionary)
:                [from L. implicitus]
: "able to be understood from something else though unexpressed"

Here he is with his bloody Websters' again. Still, at least he hasn't
used the term "ibid" wrongly this time (when what he means is "op. cit.")

Nice to talk with you, dear boy. It makes a change from Jed.

Ian


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.17 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Bose Corp. finds NO excess heat in CF cells -- H2O and D2O tried
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bose Corp. finds NO excess heat in CF cells -- H2O and D2O tried
Subject: Re: Bose Corp. finds NO excess heat in CF cells -- H2O and D2O tried
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 14:04:46 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <4diggu$ff2@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Bose Corp. finds NO excess heat in CF cells -- H2O and D2O tried
 ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) skewers the complex concepts of
English language and simple communication:

=ij  "mitchell swartz (mica@world.std.com) wrote:"
: "The conclusion of the work was NOT that excess heat has not
: been found in the ligh-water cells. On the contrary, excess heat
: WAS FOUND AND MEASURED in all the light-water cells."

 Thanks (not really) for the attempted attribution.
No.  I did NOT write that.

  It was quote from the original source quoted by Steve Jones.
If you really access to what was discussed and a dollop of diligence,
you would, of course, have known that.



=ij  "Yes, that was implicit and quite clear in Steve Jones' posting - which
=ij  showed that the excess heat measured was an artifact of an incorrect
=ij  assumption about the Faraday efficiency. So what?
=ij  Ian"

  No.       
Subject header: " Bose Corp. finds NO excess heat in CF cells
            -- H2O and D2O tried"

Quote from letter: "The conclusion of the work was NOT that excess heat
has not been found in the ligh-water cells. On the contrary, excess heat
WAS FOUND AND MEASURED in all the light-water cells."

  These do NOT say the same thing. 
Also, the caps were actually in the letter.

No it is time to examine the word: implicit


===>   implicit = (after Websters' Dictionary)
               [from L. implicitus]
"able to be understood from something else though unexpressed"

  So, there it is.   
Even though it was exactly the opposite in the explicit text, 
Ian Johnson could clearly determine the opposite meaning even 
though unexpressed.  
    Now what was that "something else", Ian?  

                                       ;-)X
  


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.17 / John Logajan /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: 17 Jan 1996 15:56:55 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Monkey King (monkey@engin.umich.edu) wrote:
: John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> wrote:
: >Hmmm, case #2 has a 40F rise in 7 minutes, equals 5.7F rise per minute.
: >      case #3 has a 28F rise in 5 minutes, equals 5.6F rise per minute.
: >
: >Case 2 average temp was  76F
: >Case 3 average temp was 106F
: >       Ambient temp was 56F
: >
: >My own previous experience cooling bulk stirred water through plastic
: >(a Nalgene tank) was that placing a low speed 12" fan reduced the
: >thermal time constant to 1/3rd.

: The simple explanation might be that for case #2, it started from
: everything being cold, including the pan.  You'd have to heat up the pan as
: well, so it'd take longer time.  For case #3 the pan was already hot, so
: you'd just need to heat the water.

I don't think this is correct.  Case #2 started from 50+F and Case #3
started from 90+F.  They both then rose 40F and 28F respectively.
So in both cases the "pan" was colder at the start and warmer at the
finish.


: To do a real comparison, you'd have to let it start under the same
: conditions.

That would be best because the higher operating temperature increases
the loss rate to the ambient temperature sink.

Mitchell Jone's numbers don't seem to suggest much of any loss, due to
the non-effect of the higher operating temp in case #3 and from the
non-effect of the increased airflow in case #3.  The lack of effect
is indeed puzzling -- he seems to have a well insulated system -- one
that is immune to major external changes.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.17 / Todd K /  Re: All particles with charge have rest mass; my proving it
     
Originally-From: "Todd K. Pedlar" <todd@numep1.phys.nwu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: All particles with charge have rest mass; my proving it
Date: 17 Jan 1996 16:33:33 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University

Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:
>  Before yesterday, before 14Jan1996, noone in the physics world ever
>thought that the neutron had a charge. If my theory pans out then no
>particle has a 0 charge. Many will come close to 0 charge such as the
>neutron but the neutron has a slight tiny charge and I will guess here
>that it is .00000001 charge if the proton is charge 1.

Actually, the photon charge has been measured to be less than 2 x 10^(-32).

See Cocconi, Physics Lett. B 206, 705 (1988).

__________________________________________________________________________
Todd K. Pedlar                	    !  Phone: (708) 491 - 8630
Grad Student, High Energy Physics   !  Fax:   (708) 491 - 8627
Northwestern University	            !  Email:  todd@numep1.phys.nwu.edu
Fermilab Experiment E835            !          toddp@fnalv.fnal.gov
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
		 WWW: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------		 
If you're an archaeologist, I bet it's real embarrassing to put together a
skull from a bunch of ancient bone fragments, but then it turns out it's 
not a skull but just an old dried-out potato.
   
 				- from Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey
__________________________________________________________________________

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudentodd cudfnTodd cudlnK cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.18 / Eric Baird /  Re: Incredibly ignorant statements parroted by Archimedes Plutonium
     
Originally-From: 100130.3306@compuserve.com (Eric Baird)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.particle,soc.culture.british,alt.com
dy.british,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Incredibly ignorant statements parroted by Archimedes Plutonium
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 00:53:56 GMT
Organization: CompuServe Incorporated

On Tue, 16 Jan 1996 16:33:04 GMT, Peter Hullah
<Peter.Hullah@eurocontrol.fr> wrote:
-
>WILL YOU PLEASE REMOVE THIS DISCUSSION FROM SOC.CULTURE.BRITISH AND
>ALT.COMEDY.BRITISH.
-
>WE COULDN'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT PARTICLE PHYSICS ETC.
-
What about the famous Monty Python "Schroedinger's Parrot" sketch?
You mean.. <gasp>.. that _wasn't_ all about quantum mechanics and
information theory?
-
<starts>
Edwin Schroedinger walks into a pet shop, carrying a parrot cage...
-
=Erk=
"It is an ex-particle (it has ceased to be)."

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cuden3306 cudfnEric cudlnBaird cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.18 /  VCockeram /  Re: Some simple calculations assuming 42 CFM.
     
Originally-From: vcockeram@aol.com (VCockeram)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some simple calculations assuming 42 CFM.
Date: 18 Jan 1996 05:27:31 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <4df6j2$rpe@news-f.iadfw.net>, bsnyder@iadfw.net (Bill Snyder)
writes:

>Ten bucks says the figure you're quoting is operating into 0 back
>pressure.  Now, are there some other delivery figures for various
>back-pressures, and maybe a cut-off spec? 
>  -- Bill Snyder       [ This space unintentionally left blank. ]
>
>
>

Sorry Bill, I'm not a betting man (a real plus in this town)  <G>,
but the only ratings for the 121 different fans listed are
Volts, Bearing type, Current(DC), Watts(AC), CFM @ 0C, Noise(dBa).
But whats the point? There is nothing published (a least here in s.p.f)
about back pressure of a cooling fan in the demo being discussed.

Regards, Vince
Las Vegas 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenvcockeram cudlnVCockeram cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.17 / J Chin /  Re: Why has Jupiter Retained it heat
     
Originally-From: psjrl@cc.newcastle.edu.au (J.R. Lee Chin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why has Jupiter Retained it heat
Date: 17 Jan 1996 23:17:47 GMT
Organization: The Uni. of Newcastle

In article <4bipkt$dvh@news1.usa.pipeline.com>, dc3@usa.pipeline.co says...
>
>OK, dumb question, but why is the core of Jupiter still so hot. I can
>understand that as the planet was formed, the pressure increased causing
>the temperature to rise. But, since there is not nuclear fusion at the
>core, why has the heat not radiated away it the billions of years since it
>was formed? This is not a trick question, but one of curiosity. Thanks. 
> 

Dave

Presumably the same reason the earth is still so hot internally:  fission of naturally
occuring radioactive elements.

Cheers

John

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenpsjrl cudfnJ cudlnChin cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.18 / Dave Crouch /  Re: Is electric field = negative charge; magnetic field = positive charge
     
Originally-From: ddcrouch@ccgate.hac.com (Dave Crouch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is electric field = negative charge; magnetic field = positive charge
Date: 18 Jan 1996 17:17:31 GMT
Organization: HMSC

Maybe the photon is just a plutonium atom, Plutonium.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenddcrouch cudfnDave cudlnCrouch cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.18 / Nigel Ashton /  Re: Incredibly ignorant statements parroted by Archimedes Plutonium
     
Originally-From: Nigel Ashton <Nigel@ashton.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.particle,soc.culture.british,alt.com
dy.british,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Incredibly ignorant statements parroted by Archimedes Plutonium
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 96 18:47:28 GMT
Organization: The Ashton household

In article <30FBD340.4A15@eurocontrol.fr>
           Peter.Hullah@eurocontrol.fr "Peter Hullah" writes:

> WILL YOU PLEASE REMOVE THIS DISCUSSION FROM SOC.CULTURE.BRITISH AND
> ALT.COMEDY.BRITISH.
> 
> WE COULDN'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT PARTICLE PHYSICS ETC.

Actually, I am interested in particle physics, just not in this
newsgroup (alt.comedy.british). And please don't shout, even if
you are annoyed.

-- 
Nigel Ashton                          nigel@ashton.demon.co.uk   (home)
Southport, UK                   also  nigel@libparty.demon.co.uk (work)

******************************************************
 "You think that I'll be bad for just a little while,
  But I know that I'll be bad for good."
                                          Jim Steinman
******************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenNigel cudfnNigel cudlnAshton cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.18 / David C /  Re: Why has Jupiter Retained it heat
     
Originally-From: "David C. Nicholas" <dcnichol@crems.rockwell.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why has Jupiter Retained it heat
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 15:45:31 GMT
Organization: Rockwell International

Does anyone have a name of one of the folks ar Rockwell/Rocketdyne who 
worked on the detection of cold fusion ash.

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudendcnichol cudfnDavid cudlnC cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.18 /  jonesse@plasma /  Bose Corp.:  No real excess heat in H2O or D2O cold fusion cells
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bose Corp.:  No real excess heat in H2O or D2O cold fusion cells
Date: 18 Jan 96 13:36:17 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

To avoid any confusion, I post here the entire text of the
Letter from Zvi Shkedi, Ph.D. to Fusion Facts (Dec. 1995 issue).

14 Dec 1995

We were somewhat surprised to read your introduction and comments
in the November 1995 issue of _Fusion Facts_, regarding the two
cold fusion articles published in the November 1995 issue of
_Fusion Technology_.

It appears that the Shkedi et al. paper was completely
misunderstood and misrepresented in the "Editor's Introduction." 
The conclusion of the work was NOT that excess heat has not been
found in the light-water cells.  On the contrary, excess heat WAS
FOUND AND MEASURED in all the light-water cells.  

The difference between this work and all other published research
in the field is that once excess heat was found, the researchers
did not pause to celebrate but continued the research to identify
the source of the excess heat.  To everybody's surprise, including
the authors', the source of the "excess heat" was identified as
unaccounted internal recombination of hydrogen and oxygen.  In
other words, the common assumption that underlies almost even
"successful" light water experiment, i.e. that the Faraday
efficiency is unity, was proven to be wrong.

When the "excess heat" data were analyzed, taking into account the
actual Faraday efficiency, all "excess heat" disappeared and the
energy balance turned out to be exactly zero.  The data, the
methodology, and the analysis, are all presented in the Shkedi et
al. paper.

By contrast, it is interesting to note that in the Mills and Good
paper published in the same issue of Fusion Technology, the excess
heat claimed to be found by Mills and Good is predicated on the
assumption stated following equation (7): "The net Faraday
efficiency of gas evolution is ASSUMED to be unity."

Famous cold fusion scientists have served as consultants to Bose
Corp. throughout the research.  Many more, from around the globe,
have either visited the Bose cold fusion laboratory or were visited
by one of the Bose team members.  The authors have included in the
list of experiments every advice given them by the most famous and
successful cold fusion researchers.  In addition, manuscripts of
the publication were sent out for comments and suggestions to many
researchers with whom the authors kept close contacts.  All the
recommendations have been implemented, yet, the end result was no
real excess heat.

For the heavy-water experiments the authors have tried all known
sources of "hot" palladium; spent unlimited resources to have
custom lots of palladium and palladium/silver manufactured for them
according to successful researchers specifications; had single-
crystal palladium cathodes custom grown; palladium grain size
ranged from a few microns to single crystal; D/Pd loading ratios
were consistently in the range of 0.85 - 0.95; yet, again, no
excess heat.

The authors have offered to some of the most famous scientists in
the field to try their cathodes, cells, and loading protocols in
the Bose calorimeters, at Bose expense.  All offers have been
declined despite the fact that the Bose calorimeters were the most
accurate and stable calorimeters reported in the field.  Since the
Bose cold fusion laboratory has been disassembled this opportunely
is no longer available.

With all due respect, the conclusion is unavoidable.  So let's stop
classifying scientists as believers or non-believers.  Instead,
let's remove from the experiments all assumptions and possible
sources of error.  the challenge presented at the conclusion of the
shkedi et al. paper is still open -- "...all resports claiming the
observation of excess heat should be accompanied by simultaneous
measurements of the actual Faraday efficiency."  Will anyone pick
up the glove?

Very Truly yours,
/s/ Zvi Shkedi
Bose Corporation
The Mountain
Framingham, MA 01701-9168
 --------------------------------------------------------------
I should note that the conclusions of the Shkedi paper, in
particular, no real excess heat, agree entirely with our
experimental results, published in:

J.E. Jones et al., "Faradaic efficiencies less than 100% during
electrolysis of water can account for reports of excess heat in
'cold fusion' cells," J. Physical Chem. 99 (May 1995) 6973-6979.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.18 / ERIC RENOUF /  Re: 4th Experiments proving photon has finite rest mass
     
Originally-From: 017776r@axe.acadiau.ca (ERIC RENOUF)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 4th Experiments proving photon has finite rest mass
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 16:59:30 GMT
Organization: Acadia University

In article <4det2q$1ev@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartm
uth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
>From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
>Subject: 4th Experiments proving photon has finite rest mass
>Date: 16 Jan 1996 00:55:54 GMT

>In article <4dcdvm$hjp@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

>>                          vacuum light tunnel
>>  ___________                _____                  ___________
>> |  ionized  |              |     |                |           |
>> |    matter |              |     |                |  equal    |
>> |           |              |     |                |  matter   |
>> |___________|              |_____|                |___________|
>> _______________________________________________________________
>>                              /\
>>                             /  \  Balancing Beam
>> 
>> 
>>   The beam is balanced and this experimental set-up is analogous to the
>> Cavendish weighing the Earth. But here I am measuring for the rest mass
>> of the photon.
>> 
>>   Now send a photon laser beam through the best vacuum tunnel.
>> According to present modern day physics the photons should go straight
>> through with never any deflection.
>> 
>>   According to my intuition. If the above ionization is built up to a
>> high enough peak there will be a deflection of the photon beam towards
>> or away from the ionized mass depending on whether the ionization is
>> positive or negative. And with proper calculations the rest mass of the
>> photon should be derived. Some may ask why beam and mass at all?
>> Because photons are more effected by their internal 'charge' and not by
>> gravity, in fact, there is no gravity at the photon or atomic level.
>> Gravity is a statistical feature and it is not a physics law at all,
>> just as Ohm's law is not a physics law, both are algorithms and
>> superfluid helium is the observable reality that gravity is just a
>> algorithm a van der Waals force analogy.
>> 
>>   

> The 2nd experiments proving that photons have a finite rest mass was
>the measurements of the bending of light in ionized water one
>positively ionized and the other negatively ionized to discover the
>internal charge of the photon. The tiny charge equivalent to a tiny
>finite rest mass for the photon.

> The 3rd experiments to uncover the fact that the photon and the
>neutrino also have a finite rest mass is to be garnered from the known
>fact that the photon, an energetic photon or energetic neutrino can
>decay into finite rest mass particles such as electron positron pairs.
>So, before decay of an energetic photon, it was thought the photon had
>no charge and no rest mass, but that is bogus because after the decay
>we have two products both having a charge and both having a finite rest
>mass.

>  What I am saying is that my intuition tells me you cannot go from no
>charge and no rest mass and build out of pure energy two particles such
>as the electron and positron. My intuition tells me that there had to
>exist a charge and a rest mass, however tiny they be, but nonetheless
>they had to be there in the first place in order to have two decay
>products which do have a charge and a rest mass. Like building a car,
>you need a frame. And the photon must have a frame or skeleton in order
>to decay into a electron and positron pair.

The total charge of the system is still 0, the charge on the electron and 
the positron cancel each other out.  If the photon did have a charge to 
begin with, it would be lost in this conversion, which contradicts the 
conservation law.

Also, there is less energy, but more mass in the system now, so I don't see 
it as at all unreasonable that the energy would be converted into mass.  
Especially since the amount of mass, as I understand it, matches the amount 
that we expect to find when the amount of energy that is missing is 
converted into mass.

>  Thus this 3rd experiment attempts to go at the inner workings of the
>decay of a photon into electrons. Somewhere already in physics there
>should already be the equations to manipulate the decay of a photon
>into a electron and therein allow predictions of what the tiny finite
>rest mass of the photon should be. 

>  It is my intuition that if the photon had no rest mass, then it would
>be impossible for it to ever decay into a particle which does have a
>rest mass and has a charge.

>  Consider. Ever since the debate got earnest with whether light was a
>wave or a particle with Young, Fresnel, Huygens, Newton, Planck,
>Einstein, and then Quantum Mechanics solving it by saying light is both
>simultaneously. So, why should we be so very very naive as to think
>that energy comes 100% pure in a photon. Better to say that the photon
>is a quantum particle of energy and rest mass combined. We can outline
>experiments for photons which shows all the particle nature of the
>photon, eg, photoelectric effect. Then we can setup the experiments to
>show only the wave nature of light eg the interference double slit
>hiding the particle nature.  

>  Up until now we have only seen experiments which displays the energy
>of photons and hides the finite rest mass. In these three experiments I
>have given today, I hope to show the 'finite rest mass' of the photon
>and hide the energy nature of the photon.

>Here is the 4th experiment proving the photon has finite rest mass. It
>is a remake of the experiments performed proving that the neutron has a
>surface charge. Having a surface charge means the neutron does not have
>a 0 charge but rather instead a very small finite charge. I do not know
>the experimental setup that was used on the neutron. Whatever it was,
>it can be readapted to checkout the surface charge of the photon or
>photons. Perform those experiments and my intuition says that the
>photon has a tiny surface charge. My intuition is counter to present
>day beliefs that the photon and all other 0 charge (supposedly)
>particles are really 0 charge. I say no particle in all the universe
>has 0 charge. I say the charge of a 'neutral' particle is some finite
>number but not 0, as heretofore believed.

>  So the 4th experiment is a readaption a parallel analogy to the
>experimental setup used to discover the surface charge on the neutron.

>  Does anyone out there know what the surface charge on the neutron is?
>Anyone have journal references to the first experiments proving the
>surface charge of the neutron? Where is Karl Hahn when I need him?
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cuden017776r cudfnERIC cudlnRENOUF cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.17 / Geoffrey Landis /  Re: All particles with charge have rest mass; my proving it
     
Originally-From: Geoffrey A. Landis <GLANDIS@lerc.nasa.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: All particles with charge have rest mass; my proving it
Date: 17 Jan 1996 21:16:43 GMT
Organization: Ohio Aerospace Institute, NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <4desip$1ev@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Archimedes Plutonium,
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu writes:
> >...
> >   Now send a photon laser beam through the best vacuum tunnel.
> > According to present modern day physics the photons should go straight
> > through with never any deflection.

Actually, according to general relativity, charge *does* deflect a light
beam.  The deflection is negative (away from the charge), and depends on
the square of the charge 

> >   According to my intuition. If the above ionization is built up to a
> > high enough peak there will be a deflection of the photon beam towards
> > or away from the ionized mass depending on whether the ionization is
> > positive or negative.

That is different than GR, then.  GR predicts that deflection is
independent of whether the sign of the charge is positive or negative,
since the minus sign cancels out.

> > ...
____________________________________________
Geoffrey A. Landis,
Ohio Aerospace Institute at NASA Lewis Research Center
physicist and part-time science fiction writer
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenGLANDIS cudfnGeoffrey cudlnLandis cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.18 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Bose Corp. finds NO excess heat in CF cells -- H2O and D2O tried
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bose Corp. finds NO excess heat in CF cells -- H2O and D2O tried
Date: 18 Jan 1996 21:36:47 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <DLBA6u.HJ0@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
> In Message-ID: <1996Jan16.161313@plasma.byu.edu>
>Subject: Bose Corp. finds NO excess heat in CF cells -- H2O and D2O tried
>Steve Jones of  Brigham Young University writes:
>
>"Letter from Zvi Shkedi of the Bose Corp. in Massachussetts, who led
>an exhaustive search for excess heat from both light water and heavy water
>electrolytic cells.   .....
>
>  The first paragraph of the letter was removed from said post.
>Given the explicit, wide-ranging, and apparently obvious
>and "closed" subject listed in 
>the post, it is important to consider further what that paragraph said.
>
>It said:
>
>"The conclusion of the work was NOT that excess heat has not
>been found in the ligh-water cells. On the contrary, excess heat
>WAS FOUND AND MEASURED in all the light-water cells."





As I understand it, the measurement method and calulations showed excess
heat, but further analysis proved that this result was specious.  And
furthermore, the reason for the specious result was specified and explained.
And finally, that an energy balance showed that there was NO EXCESS HEAT.

So you are grasping at straws.  Another professional has debunked this nonsense,
and the TB's avoided an opportunity to bring their work to the test.


Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
 -------------------------------------------------------
Any ideas or opinions expressed here do not necessarily
reflect the ideas or opinions of my employer.
 -------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.18 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Some simple calculations assuming 42 CFM.
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some simple calculations assuming 42 CFM.
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 16:39:39 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

*****************
Magnum 350 Run #6

Shortly after I posted my heat dissipation calculations to this thread,
Martin Sevior pointed out the following to me via e-mail:

(1) Cravens told him that the 1300 watt power level is not sustainable,
and that the Power Gen run at that level was for roughly 15 minutes,
rather than for two hours as reported by Jed. 

(2) Martin has apparently read somewhere that for the 30 minute, 469 watt
run at Power Gen, the reservoir temperature was 36 degrees C, and the cell
inlet temperature was 35 degrees C. 

Concerning fact number (2), I would note that since the delta-T reported
by Jed for that run was 6.7 degrees C, the cell outlet temperature for the
469 watt run must have been 35 + 6.7 = 41.7 degrees C. This suggests by
implication that the numbers I used in my calculation for the 1300 watt
run were incorrect. The cell inlet temperature for the 1300 watt run could
*not* have been 20 degrees C, as I had been led to believe by earlier
posts to this thread, and by the fact that Jed did not dispute those
posts. Instead, it would have to have been at some higher, unknown level,
and the cell outlet temperature would have been 16 degrees C above that.
What would those levels be? Well, when I assumed the average temperature
difference between the water and the air to be 8 degrees C, I calculated
the maximum heat dissipation capacity for the loop to be 376.5 watts. That
was far less than the 1344 watts that were needed, and so I turned thumbs
down on the Power Gen result. However, if the average temperature of the
water was much higher, the temperature difference from the inside of the
tubing to the outside air would have been larger, and more heat would have
been dissipated. How large a temperature difference would be needed to
validate the Power Gen results? If we let X represent that temperature
difference, the equation is simple: 

X/8 = 1344/376.5

Solving, we discover that X = 28.6 degrees C. So the average equilibrium
temperature in the flow loop would have to be 20 + 28.6 = 48.6 degrees C,
in order to give the loop the capacity to dissipate 1344 watts. The cell
inlet temperature would be 8 degrees below that, or 40.6 degrees C, and
the cell outlet temperature would be 8 degrees above it, or 56.6 degrees
C. 

At this point I must emphasize that *my experiments were designed to
investigate the assumption that the cell inlet temperature was 20 degrees
C and the outlet temperature was 36 degrees C*. That story has been
conclusively refuted. It has, as I noted, twenty wooden stakes in its
heart and is riddled with silver bullets. However, now we have a new,
different story. (At least it seems so. Perhaps I missed this crucially
important information due to inattention, or because I was not reading the
group when it appeared. Does anybody know for a fact that this information
has appeared before? If you do, please supply specifics, so I can verify
that I am not shooting at a moving target here!) 

Since in the earlier runs I shut down my apparatus when the temperature
reached 120 degrees F or 48.9 degrees C, I had no way to be sure that, had
I let those runs go on a bit longer, an equilibrium temperature might not
have been reached. Recognizing this state of affairs, I immediately set up
my apparatus and did another run. 

The heat source was, as usual, the Gran Pappy deep fryer. From the heat
source, 20.6 feet of 3/8th ID thin-walled polyethelyne tubing carried the
fluid through a cooling loop arrangement to the inflow connector of the
Magnum 350 Pump. Arriving there, the fluid poured into the reservoir, was
picked up by the impeller at the bottom, and boosted up the outflow tube
back to the top of the reservoir. From the outlet fitting, another 3.4
feet of tubing carried the fluid back to the Gran Pappy deep fryer. For
this run, the Gran Pappy was inside a closed, sealed styrofoam box. A
forced draft to the cooling loops and the pump reservoir was supplied by
my 60 watt Toastmaster box fan. 

The details of the run are as follows:   

Starting air and water temp: 58 degrees F
Ending air temp: 58 degrees F
Ending water temp: 150 degrees F or 65.6 degrees C
Elapsed time: roughly 12 minutes (there were distractions)
Estimated (not measured) water volume: 4 liters
Estimated (not measured) flow rate: 5 liters/min

Note that the temperature was *not* at equilibrium when it reached 150
degrees F. It was still rising. I shut the system down out of fear of
destroying my pump. Later, I said to hell with that, and fired it up
again. That time, the temperature reached 170 degrees F. At that point, I
noticed my filter cannister beginning to separate out, probably because it
was sealed with a heat-sensitive glue, and I turned the heat off. The
temperature, however, was still rising up to that point.

Comments

As I noted when I originally posted my calculations, they assumed perfect
mixing of the water on the inside of the tubing, as well as perfect mixing
of the air on the outside. This is still true here: the calculated
equilibrium temperature, given above, of 48.6 degrees C assumed perfect
mixing. Since, in my experimental run, the temperature soared far above
that (170 degrees F is 76.7 degrees C), the implication would seem to be
that my heat exchanger is not very efficient. It must fall far, far short
of achieving perfect mixing of the air that surrounds the cooling coils of
plastic tubing. Could it actually be that, as Jed suggested at one point,
Craven's heat exchanger is so efficient that, by means of it, his 3.5 watt
muffin fan can actually dissipate more heat than my 60 watt box fan? It's
an intriguing question, and one that I plan to investigate thoroughly. I
am going to build a heat exchanger that is designed to direct the entire
air flow of the 60 watt box fan very specifically at the coils of tubing
that I want to cool, and see if I can push the equilibrium temperature
down to where my revised calculations now suggest that it should be.

More later. 

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.17 / Daniel Berdine /  Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, Dr. Hill is the wiser, Dr. White washes
     
Originally-From: dpb@penn.com (Daniel Berdine)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.fusion,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, Dr. Hill is the wiser, Dr. White washes
Date: 17 Jan 1996 21:46:47 GMT
Organization: Home

> VERTNER VERGON -
> 
> Who indisputably re-established the existence of radiant mass.
> Who indisputably corrected two errors in the special theory of relativity.
> Who produced the final solution to the twins paradox.
> And who produced a viable model for QED.
> 
> He also developed a *physical* explanation for SR.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nothing like self congratulation, is there?
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudendpb cudfnDaniel cudlnBerdine cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.18 / HECTOR DAVILA /  ***KEYBOARD RECORDERS******************************************
     
Originally-From: hector.d@ix.netcom.com (HECTOR DAVILA )
Newsgroups: sci.nonlinear,sci.op-research,sci.optics,sci.optics.fiber,sc
.philosophy.tech,sci.physics,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.comput
tional.fluid-dynamics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.physics.electromag,sci
physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle,sci.polymers
Subject: ***KEYBOARD RECORDERS******************************************
Date: 18 Jan 1996 23:32:03 GMT
Organization: Netcom

SUBJECT:***KEYBOARD RECORDERS********

ALSO KNOWN AS:Keyboard Grabber, Keyboard Key Logger, Keyboard Monitor,
              Keyboard Recorder. 

PURPOSE: Captures keystrokes and sends & saves them to a hidden file.
         Now you can keep a record of any keyboard activity on your  
         computer. Monitor your computer at home or office. 
         
 My private collection of keyboard recorders is yours for only $9.95.

You will receive 18 different programs on a 3 1/2 disk.
You'll get:KEYCOPY,KEYFAKE,KEYREAD,KEYTRAP,KEYREC,KEYLOGWN(Windows),
           HACKKEY,BAGKEYS,GETIT,PLAYBACK,ROBOKEY,RECORD,ENCORE,
           KCAP10,PTM229N,QWERTMAN,GKG,DEPL.

Just send $9.95 plus $1.00 for shipping and handling to:
     
                  HLD PLUBLISHING COMPANY
                  1680 N. VINE ST. #1103
                  LOS ANGELES, CA. 90028
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudend cudfnHECTOR cudlnDAVILA cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.17 / Daniel Berdine /  Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, Dr. Hill is the wiser, Dr. White washes
     
Originally-From: dpb@penn.com (Daniel Berdine)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.fusion,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, Dr. Hill is the wiser, Dr. White washes
Date: 17 Jan 1996 22:06:25 GMT
Organization: Home

> Here's the main problem. Mathematicians have take over physics and
> left it in an Alice in Wonderland condition.
> 
> They are willig to let the "explanation" of the universe be a 
> mathematical one -- when the truth of the matter is the job is
> half done uless there is a derivation of the math that is *physical*.
> You call that intuitional. If that's what you want to call it, OK.
> 
> The fact remains that settling for the mathematical interpretation is like
> calling the scaffolding to erect a building the building itself.
> 
> 
> V.V.
> 
I'm no physisist, or mathematition, but please V.V. tell me, how is it
that you could describe what subatomic particles do in a "physical" sense
like the physics of a pool ball?  If this is not what you mean by
"physical" ways of describing things, then please tell me.  If it is, then
answer my question please.  I haven't taken any formal physics classes,
but from everything that I have read, It is most defintely not possible to
describe subatomic happenings in this way, and I gather that this was
known for a long time.

-Dan
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudendpb cudfnDaniel cudlnBerdine cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.17 / Alan Schwartz /  Re: Lithium/palladium binary materials (was Cold fusion Demo on ...  MIT
     
Originally-From: Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz <uncleal0@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Lithium/palladium binary materials (was Cold fusion Demo on ...  MIT
Date: 17 Jan 1996 23:02:37 GMT
Organization: The Noble Krell

When "cold fusion" hit the streets I was living in Pasadena, and so hit 
the Material Science floor of Caltech's Milliken Library.  There was a 
pair of large tomes of all element binary and some ternary phase 
diagrams.  The lithium/palladium diagram was eloquent!

I posit that the specific requirement for a lithium cation electrolyte 
and enormous current densities, prolonged electrolysis, and odd cycling 
schemes to obtain anomalous "cold fusion" exotherms all derive from slow 
accumulation and intercalcation of a meta-stable electrode surface rich 
in metallic lithium by electrodeposition.  Equilibrium is then 
exothermically achieved with good kinetics.

While aqueous electrodeposition of an alkali metal is silly at face 
value, lithium is not all that reactive, the current density is high, 
palladium intercalcates Li about as well as H, it >does< take a long 
time...

All the Pd electrodes I have seen have been dense and shiny.  One wonders 
what effect a high area etch would have, or a layer of deposited 
palladium black.

And maybe somebody ought to take a BF3-Geiger tube and walk through the 
Aldrich warehouse, checking out the cylinders of D2 absorbed in HY-STOR 
alloy, just for the fun of it.

-- 
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com  ("zero" before "@")
http://vvv.com/adsint/freehand/uncleal/
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!

(Uncle Al has been Officially convinced to "voluntarily" shut down his 
homepage in February.   You can own his complete 529 essay collection.  
Surf by before it dies!)


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenuncleal0 cudfnAlan cudlnSchwartz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.19 / Grant B /  Re: Cold Fusion / New Energy Symposium - 1/20/96
     
Originally-From: "Grant B. Harris" <gbh@workframe.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion / New Energy Symposium - 1/20/96
Date: 19 Jan 1996 01:35:12 GMT
Organization: Workframe, Inc.

Eugene --

>A complete list of speakers will be available shortly before the >symposium.

I'm ready!  It's the 18th!!!  How 'shortly' do you mean!!!???

-- Grant Harris



cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudengbh cudfnGrant cudlnB cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.18 / Lilian Zuccolo /  Re: CETI Cell Configuration
     
Originally-From: lzuccolo@news.sfu.ca (Lilian Zuccolo)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI Cell Configuration
Date: 18 Jan 1996 23:42:46 GMT
Organization: Simon Fraser University

In article <BVHm+Ds.gherman@delphi.com>,  <gherman@delphi.com> wrote:
>I believe that a magnetically coupled pump turns at the same rate as the motor
>if the pump gets out of sync with the motor the coupling is essentially "broken"
>and no, or at least only very erratic output rpm results. Normally the magnetic
>field locks the pump and motor together up to some max torque limit that is not
>normally exceed.
>.
>The thing that makes aquarium pumps very susceptible to the influence of back
>pressure is that they are centrifugal pumps and not positive displacement. The
>centrifugal element rotates at a speed that is incapable of producing very
>much pressure, and flow falls off rapidly as pressure rises even though the
>pump is still turning at the same speed.
>.
>Gerry Herman


Has anybody thought that the coupling may be of the "eddy current" variety?
and the fluid is cooling the very inefficient metalic ring? that drives 
the pump,that moves the fluid that shows excess heat? Uh?
cheers
Lilian


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenlzuccolo cudfnLilian cudlnZuccolo cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Jan 22 04:37:06 EST 1996
------------------------------
