1996.01.28 / Richard Blue /  Re: Rothwell protocols
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell protocols
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 14:00:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In response to my suggesting that his use of the term "protocol"
is highly questionable, Jed Rothwell informs us that Cravens has
used D2O as well as his usual H2O.  That fact does not address my
point, Jed.  If experiment A uses electrolyte X and experiment B
uses electrolyte Y they are not using the same protocol, are they?

Now as to the loading, I am familiar with what has been done by way
of a determination of the "loading" of a solid cathode.  It is quite
clear that nothing equivalent to that method would apply to the
Craven beads.  I would say there are only two possibilities.  Either
Cravens has devised a unique method for determining the loading or
he has not determined the loading.  Reading all the literature cannot
alter my ignorant state unless Cravens specifically has written on
the topic.  Can you tell us where it is written.

It is interesting to observe how you back away from having claimed
that you personally verified CETI claims.  I note that most recently
you refer to the temperature measurements as "differential" measurements.
Is that because you are now sensing that Mitchell Jones has zeroed
in on a significant flaw in the measurements--that the temperature
of the returning electrolyte is not consistant with the claims.  Did
you consider the significance of the inlet temperature or were you
suckered into believing that only the differential measurement was
important?

As for Mitchell's questions concerning special thermal properties
for TYGON vinyl chloride as opposed to brand X vinyl chloride or
the details of the heat exchanger construction,  the differences
between Mitchell's set-up and the CETI demo are not likely to
prove significant.  CETI and you have some explaining to do.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.28 / LeeYih Chiew /  cmsg cancel <4eeq8r$haf@independence.ecn.uoknor.edu>
     
Originally-From: lchiew@mailhost.ecn.uoknor.edu (LeeYih Chiew)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <4eeq8r$haf@independence.ecn.uoknor.edu>
Date: 28 Jan 1996 08:25:30 GMT


Look, shithead, I can keep cancelling this as fast as
you keep posting it.  All you've succeeded in doing is in
convincing me to yank posting priviledges from *all*
ecn.uoknor.edu machines.  Hope you're happy.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenlchiew cudfnLeeYih cudlnChiew cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.28 /  renee /  cmsg cancel <4efipv$hh2@opal.CyberGate.COM>
     
Originally-From: bledsoe@cybergate.com (renee)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <4efipv$hh2@opal.CyberGate.COM>
Date: 28 Jan 1996 9:52:5 GMT

Cancelled by jem@xpat.postech.ac.kr.  822822725
MMF1
This posting is spam - thousands of these have been posted.
This posting is also a chain-letter.  Chain-letters are illegal.
If you don't believe this, see:
http://www.usps.gov/websites/depart/inspect/chainlet.htm

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenbledsoe cudlnrenee cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.28 /  RMCarrell /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: rmcarrell@aol.com (RMCarrell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: 28 Jan 1996 08:29:08 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

The assertion that difficulty of replication means the CF effect is
non-existant or useless is a big, dead, red herring. As I understand it,
the original PF configuration is fussy to get right unless you are skilled
in the art. But Miley's students built a working Patterson cell from the
patent description, thereby proving that they are skilled in the art. Case
closed. I spent a lot of years working with the the world's largest
manufacturer of television picture tubes like the one you are all looking
at now. When you consider everything that has to go right to make them,
particularly the big ones, any reasonable engineer would say it's
impossible. It is still a struggle to keep the overall yield at a
profitable level, which is over 90%, after millions upon millions have
been made. It took an investment of tens of thousands of man-years (yes,
man-years) to bring the semiconductor industry to its present level and it
takes constant vigilence to maintain it there.

Mike Carrell
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenrmcarrell cudlnRMCarrell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.28 / G Reichlinger /  Re: Significance of Lithium in Electrolytes
     
Originally-From: reichln@ltec.net (Gary Reichlinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Significance of Lithium in Electrolytes
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 19:49:43 GMT
Organization: Navix: Lincoln Telecom Internet Services

reichln@ltec.net (Gary Reichlinger) wrote:

>I was wondering if non-lithium containing electrolytes have shown the
>same results in cold fusion cells as those with lithium hydoxide,
>lithium sulfate, etc. It would be interesting to determine the
>participation of lithium in any chemical or nuclear reactions
>involved.

I appreciate the responses to my original inquiry (above). As a
continuation of this thread, I would also be interested in any
experiments with Li6 or Li7 seperately and if any change in results
was seen. How readily available is concentrated Li6?

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenreichln cudfnGary cudlnReichlinger cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.28 / Harry Conover /  cmsg cancel <4egcvl$7td@sundog.tiac.net>
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <4egcvl$7td@sundog.tiac.net>
Date: 28 Jan 1996 17:52:07 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Article cancelled from within tin [v1.2 PL2]
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.28 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: CETI's 1.3kW CF Reactor Demonstrated!
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI's 1.3kW CF Reactor Demonstrated!
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 16:56:19 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

(In article <4e1qug$g3c@dublin.taec.com>, Ted Craven <ted> wrote:

[Big snip]

>  
> Finally, there are questions as to how closely the temperature at the
> output of the control cell corresponds to the input temperature of the
> demo cell. What was the geometry again? Was it: 
>  
>  pump -> radiator -> throttle valves -> cells -> reservoir -> pump 
>  
> or was it something else? Where do the fluid paths to the cell inputs
> diverge? And what lies between this point and cell inputs?

***{Three points: 

(1) The "reservoir" is part of the pump. That is, the Magnum 220 pump is
configured like an old-fashioned Waring blender, with an electric motor
(or, at least, the stator coils) that sets directly on a table top, and a
removable cylindrical reservoir which is designed to be placed on top of
it. The impeller, which drives the water flow via a centrifugal pump
mechanism, is part of the removable reservoir. (Just as the cutter blades
of a Waring blender are part of the removable decanter that sets on top of
it.) The Magnum reservoir (which the company calls a "cannister") has a
thick black plastic lid with two fittings designed for 3/8ths inch ID
plastic tubing. One fitting receives the inflow tubing, and the other
carries the outflow away from the pump.

(2) The geometry of the flow loop, I think, was: reservoir -> control
valve -> radiator -> cells -> reservoir. Remember: the reservoir is part
of the pump. (The control valve location is the only part of the above
that I am not sure of, by the way. Fortunately, in a closed loop, it
doesn't matter much where it was.)

(3) One of the things that has always bothered me about the Power Gen
setup is this: I am under the impression that the fluid loop simply split
in two just before reaching the cells, thereby leaving the control cell
and the experimental cell hooked in parallel, and that the fluid stream
merged back together downstream from the cells. (I don't believe that
there was a separate control valve for each cell.) If the flow dropped in
the control cell due to its being plugged, for example, I am under the
strong impression that the flow would have increased on the experimental
side. If I am incorrect in this, I would appreciate it if those who know
better would clue me in, because this strikes me as a horrible design.
(Measuring the flow in such a system would be next to impossible, because
the flow would change as soon as you attempted to measure it.)    

--Mitchell Jones}***
    
>  
> Ted Craven
>  
> (All views expressed are entirely my own personal opinions, which are not 
> necessarily shared by any other institutions or individuals.)

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.28 / John Chunko /  Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, Dr. Hill is the wiser, Dr.
     
Originally-From: John Chunko <jdc14@po.cwru.edu>
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.
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 21:03:44 -0800
Organization: Case Western Reserve University

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 
> In article <4eaf66$mhm@rzsun02.rrz.uni-hamburg.de>
> fc3a501@AMRISC02.math.uni-hamburg.de (Hauke Reddmann) writes:
> 
> > What do you mean with "Physicist say the
> > Universe is structureless?"
> > We have galaxies and superheaps(?) at the top.
> > We have atoms and elementary particles at the bottom.
> > Sometimes we even find intelligent life in between.
> > Enough structure for me.
> > Or do you really mean "P. say the U. has no 'telos' -
> > no goal, no sense, no myth" ?
> 
>   I have made that query quite clear. Physicist today do not ask or
> answer the question. Is the universe a structure itself or is it not?
> Leibniz to get his monads said the Universe was a structure something,
> one huge Onion where each cell looks like any other cell. Galaxies,
> stars, space are just parts, but is the whole something? This is the
> question astronomers and cosmologists and physicists simply ignore or
> are too afraid or too stupid to confront.
>   Is the Universe something or is it nothing but a bunch of galaxies in
> space? We all rightfully laugh at it being an Onion. Christian folks
> think the universe is a bunch of galaxies and somewhere god resides out
> there among the galaxies. I, say that since all things, galaxies
> whatever is made up of atoms hence the whole works, the whole thing
> must be an atom itself. Just simple logical reasoning that if
> everything is atoms then that implies the Whole is an atom itself. Even
> Aristotle or Plato who hated Democritus would agree and accept the
> logic that if all things are atoms implies Everything is one atom.


     Just because everything is made up of atoms does not mean or even 
imply in the slightest that the whole of everything must be ==> One <== 
gigantic universal atom. As you said in your post the argument you used 
was indeed very simple, as for the "logic" used, you are as far away from 
logical as the number one is to infinity. Now consider this, following 
simple logical reasoning, if the whole world is made up of people and 
dirt and little forrest critters then the whole world must be one giant 
zookeeper who hasn't taken a shower in a while.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjdc14 cudfnJohn cudlnChunko cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.26 / Bruce TOK /  Re: Why has Jupiter Retained it heat
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why has Jupiter Retained it heat
Date: 26 Jan 1996 12:13:45 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

Paul Stowe (pstowe@ix.netcom.com) wrote:

: Have you ever heard of Convective heat transfer?  Now, take your same
: argument, Namely a fluid medium, and try to figure out the convective
: heat loss.  You will soon find that formative heat is lost with 1
: billion years.  This then STILL begs the original question.

This timescale depends on composition and mass.  Don't forget that
thermal energy is being generated by slow contraction -- gravitational
self-binding energy is being converted to random kinetic energy in the
gas particles.

For Jupiter the cooling time is something over 5 Gyr.  For Saturn it is
more like 3...  After the deep interior temperature drops below a
certain limit, helium starts to separate out.  This differentiation also
deepens the gravitational well, further heating the gas.  On Jupiter it
is debatable whether this "helium rain" has started yet; on Saturn
models suggest it is the largest contributor to the internal heating.


--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott                                The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTOK cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.28 / A Plutonium /  Re: Is electric field = negative charge; magnetic field =  
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
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 =  
Date: 28 Jan 1996 01:38:23 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

--- emailer wrote ---
An outside observer asks whether time can be a variable in the equation

describing the decay pattern of any isotope.  The purpose of the
question 
is to imply that, if time can be a variable for a particular isotope 
without the production of energy in forms we're accustomed to measuring

(ie.no fission or fusion), then the half-life can be shortened or
erased, 
thereby "de-energizing" the isotope. 
--- emailer ---

My idea is that radioactivity itself is time. And that time is not on
par with space. Time is the net effect of atoms, is derivative of
atoms, is a byproduct of atoms. Historical time is a set positioning of
all the atoms. Move any one atom and a new time exists. Freeze all
atoms with no new atom coming into spontaneous creation and time no
longer exists. In my view, different from this emailer is that atoms
make time and time is a secondary feature of atoms just as temperature
is a secondary feature a byproduct of atoms. The emailer above as well
as almost every physicist of now feel that time is some fundamental and
intrinsic property of the universe, more basic than atoms. Not me.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.28 / Robin Spaandonk /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 04:12:46 GMT
Organization: Improving

In article <3109E6A0.7A1C@well.com>, Matt Austern wrote :

>Barry Merriman wrote: 
>> Well, that would be part of the problem I alluded to---if a protocol
>> is extremely difficult, it does not provide an effective way to
>> demonstrate the reality of the phenomena. Of course, maybe thats just the
>> way the world is. But real/or not, such a situation does greatly
>> impede acceptance and understanding, and certainly also creates the
>> possibility that the complex proposal is itself some sort of recipe for
>> producing artifiacts. 
>
>Moreover, if the effect is so finicky that only a few experts in the world
>can possibly have a chance of achieving it, if the concerted effort of a 
>major lab are insufficient, then this means that even if the effect is
>actually real it's worthless for industrial purposes.  If anything's going to be 
>used on a large enough scale to be of any value commercially, then, more or less
>by definition, it has to be trivial to replicate.
>
>The claim that this is all very complicated, and that ordinary skilled scientists
>can't get it right no matter how hard they try, is very much a double edged
>sword.

OTOH this may only be true while the actual nature of the process is
not properly understood. Once this hurdle is overcome, it will
probably prove possible to optimize either for robustness or for
performance, or if we are very lucky, for both at the same time.
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:
cuddy28 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.28 / mitchell swartz /  Re: There is a protocol
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: There is a protocol
Subject: Re: There is a protocol
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 04:02:35 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <199601261732.MAA29128@pilot10.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Re: There is a protocol
Richard A Blue writes: 

=db  "To quote Jed Rothwell:

   jr= "There is a protocol . . . replicated by SRI, IMRA, Ed Storms, Dennis
   jr=  Cravens."

=db  "Really?  My, Jed, you certainly do use the term protocol loosely."
=db  "SRI used D2O and Cravens using H2O. 
=db   If these are part of a common protocol
=db why would you not include the rubbing of two sticks together
=db  as a replication
=db of the same effect?

 Come on, Dick.   Dennis Cravens has examined both D2O and H2O systems
and so Jed was speaking of the heavy water variety.


=db  "You talk the talk, Jed, of well defined protocols, 
         but these people do not
=db  "follow the same protocol in any true sense of that word. 
             I would also remind
=db  "readers that not so long ago you were including ultrasound and mechanical
=db  "pumps in this same "CF protocol."
=db  "Dick Blue

  If you were not so caught up in attempting to discredit this field
(and one wonders if you apply the same meticulous introspection at work)
you might take a step back and consider that some fields have multiple
protocols.

  Consider cancer therapy.

  There are protocols for radiation therapy, for chemotherapy,
for combined chemoradiotherapy (of several varieties),
 for photochemotherapy, for electrophotochemotherapy,
and for ultrasonic-induced hyperthermia linked to radiation therapy,
immunotherapy, cryotherapy, etc. etc. etc.

The existence of them ALL does not negate any of them.

[This does not imply that all protocols DO work (e.g. quack
medical techniques such as laetrile).  However, the existence
of several does not back your purported point.]

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


cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.25 / Marc-AntoineLeg /  Plastic cavitation heating device
     
Originally-From: malegault@accent.net (Marc-AntoineLegault)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Plastic cavitation heating device
Date: 25 Jan 1996 22:14:27 GMT
Organization: Accent Internet


Hi, does someone knows a place on the internet where I can find more
information about Micheal Huffman's steam machine patent under the name 
"Plastic cavitation heating device". I recently subscrib to the magazim 
Infinite Energy and saw a description of it. I'm shure that innovation were 
brought on the machine since it was patent.

Any sources of information would be appreciate; it's for a 
science fair project,

Thank you,
Marc-Antoine Legault

malegault@accent.net  
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenmalegault cudlnMarc-AntoineLegault cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.28 /  renee /  Yes, another make money quick Message!
     
Originally-From: bledsoe@cybergate.com (renee)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Yes, another make money quick Message!
Date: 28 Jan 1996 10:22:55 GMT
Organization: Cybergate Information Services

Read this message carefully (print it out.) It tells you how to make as
much as $50,000 (fifty thousand dollars)! It's easy. It's legal. your
investment is only $5.00 READ ON....
***********************************************************************
IMPORTANT:
This is not a rip-off; it is not indecent; it is not illegal;
the 'risk' -if you call it that a risk - is only $5, and
.... it really works!!!
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
The following is an extract from the original letter
(shortened to save space)

...I will never have to work again. Today I am rich! I have earned
over $400,000 to date ad will become a millionaire within 4 or 5 months.
Anyone can do the same. This money making program works perfectly every
time, 100% of the time. I have NEVER failed to earn $50,000 or more
whenever I wanted...

(The author then goes on to say how skeptical he was when he first
received a letter telling him about this system.  Then, one day when he
was working on his computer....)

...I read several of the message posts and then glanced at the letter
next to the computer. All at once it came to me, I now had the key to my
dreams. I realized that with the power of the computer I could expand and
enhance this money making formula into the most unbelievable cash flow
generator that has ever been created. I substituted the computer bulletin
boards in place of the post office and electronically did by computer
what others were doing 100% by mail. If you believe that someday you
deserve that lucky break that have waited for all your life, simply
follow the easy instructions below. Your dreams WILL come true!

Sincerely yours,
Dave Rhodes
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
INSTRUCTIONS:

PLEASE NOTE: Please follow these instructions EXACTLY, and $50,000
will be yours in 20 to 60 days.

This program has remained successful because of the honesty and integrity
of the participants. Please continue it's success by carefully adhering
to the instructions.

You're now in the Mail Order business, But, in this business your
product is not solid and tangible, It's a service. you are in the
business of developing Mailing Lists. Many large corporations are
happy to pay big bucks for quality lists. (however, The money made
from the mailing lists is secondary to the income which is made from
people like you and me asking to be included in that list.)

1. Mail $1.00 (American Please) to each of the first five names listed
below starting at #1 through #5. Send cash only please (total investment
$5.00 + postage). Enclose a note (wrap the $1 bill with it) giving your
name and address and stating: "Please add my name to your mailing list."
(YOU ARE REQUESTING A LEGITIMATE SERVICE AND YOU ARE PAYING FOR THIS
SERVICE)

2. Remove number 1 name on the list. Move all the other names up one
position.  (Number 2 will become #1 and so on) . Put your own name,
address, and zip (Postal Code) in the #10 position.

3. Post the new letter into 10 separate bulletin boards. Call the
message anything appropriate like "Money Fast" or "Make $50,000 "

4. 60 days later you will have received over $50,000 in cash.

You are in the mail order business and people will be sending you
$1.00 to be placed on your mailing list. This list can then be rented
to a list broker (look in the yellow pages) for extra income on a regular
basis. The list will become more valuable as it grows in size. This is a
service. This is perfectly legal. If you have any doubts, refer to Title
18 Sec. 1302 & 1341 of the Postal lottery laws.

You can keep a copy of this report for yourself and, whenever you need
money, you can use it again.

BUT......PLEASE REMEMBER that this program has remained successful
because of the honesty and integrity of the participants and by their
carefully adhering to the instructions. Look at it this way. If you are
honest, the program will continue and the money that so many others have
received will come your way. If, for some reason, you are dishonest, YOU
will feel the effects and lose out on this great opprutunity.

Note: You should retain every name and address sent to you, either on
a computer or hard copy and keep the notes people send you. This is
PROOF that you are truly providing a service. (Also, it might be a good
idea to wrap the $1 bill in dark paper to reduce the risk of mail theft.)
So, as each post is downloaded and the instructions carefully followed,
five members will be reimbursed for their participation as a List
Developer with one dollar each. Your name will move up the list
geometrically so that when your name reaches the #5 position you will be
receiving thousands of dollars in CASH!!! What an opportunity for only
$5.00 ($1.00 for each of the first five people listed below) Send it now,
add your own name to the list and you're in business.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
HERE IS THE LIST:
1.      Dennis Guetzke,
        1556 Viewsite Dr.       Los Angeles, CA 90069

2.     Greg Perry,
       P.O. Box 70392,          Las Vegas, NV 89170

3.     Jim Long,
       1979 Canterbury Dr,      Las Vegas, NV 89119

4.     Forrest West,
        821 N. Valleywood Cir.    Hixson,Tn. 37343

5.     Cody Landry,
       2458 N 9th #46,          Laramie, WY, 82070

6.     Todd Schager
       1108 Sawmill Rd.         Brick, NJ.  08724

7.      Dan Maibor
        24 Andrea Drive          Canton, MA 02021-3403

8.     Ben Mattes
        5324 Waverly             Montreal, Quebec.  H2T 2X7

9.    Ben Brownell
        120 E Bonita #112        Claremont, Ca  91711-6330

10.   Bill Gruetzenbach
      4725 N. Woodson Ave      
      Fresno, CA. 93705
*********************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenbledsoe cudlnrenee cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Jan 29 04:37:03 EST 1996
------------------------------
