1996.02.02 / David Spain /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: spain@flipper.nexen.com (David Spain)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: 02 Feb 1996 13:35:59 -0500
Organization: ascom Nexion, Acton, MA USA

In article <21cenlogic-0102961420120001@austin-2-8.i-link.net>
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:

> The question is: should I now call an end to this, and declare the Power
> Gen demo a washout, or not? The answer depends on whether I can think of
> any other reasonable things to try. In other words, of the various
> differences that admittedly still remain between my experimental setup and
> that at Power Gen, are there any that are likely to be significant? Well,
> I could get rid of my 60 watt box fan, and replace it with a 3.5 watt
> muffin fan like that used by Cravens at Power Gen. However, that seems
> silly, because what I am looking for here is a change that will
> simultaneously make my system more like Craven's *and* increase the heat
> dissipation capacity of my system. Going to a smaller fan, obviously, will
> *decrease* the heat dissipation capacity of my system. Similarly, it makes

Ummm, I'm a little confused by this assertion. It would seem to me the
relevant factor here is air volume pushed across the tubing per unit
time, not necessarily just the size and wattage of the fan
involved. Its possible that the muffin fan could be moving a faster
column of air across the tubing than your box fan, thus increasing not
decreasing the cooling efficiency of the tubing.  You need to know the
CFM (cubic feet per minute) rating of the fan and the relevant
equations and coefficients of thermal transfer of Tygon to air to
compute what the thermal transfer actually is.

This is beyond my realm of expertise. If someone who's familiar with these
methods is reading this thread, could you post the actual equations?
I'm sure the folks at Tygon would be able to supply you with the correct
information as well.

This may not be as silly as it would appear on the surface ;-)

If on the other hand you've already gone through this process and I
just missed it from a previous thread, well... never mind!

Dave
-- 
David Spain
ascom Nexion
289 Great Road, Acton MA. USA 01720-4739
Phone: USA (508)266-4551  FAX: (508)266-2300
Internet: spain@nexen.com
cudkeys:
cuddy02 cudenspain cudfnDavid cudlnSpain cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.02 / I Johnston /  Re: Responses to T. Craven, M. Jones
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Responses to T. Craven, M. Jones
Date: 2 Feb 1996 17:22:00 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: Bradley K. Sherman <bks@netcom.com> writes:
:  
: >So now we find out that Jed is only reporting
: >what Cravens told him to report.  This is so
: >bogus that even P.T. Barnum wouldn't try it
: >on the public.
:  
: You idiot, can't you read? That is what I have been reporting over and over
: again, in message after message. I said I did NOT check the first run, but
: I checked the other three I observed. My God, how many times do I have
: to repeat myself? This is crazy.

And all the other runs of other systems that you claimed to have
observed. Did the Griggs runs you claimed to have seen ever happen - or
did you write down what Griggs told you with a bit of embellishment for
effect?

Having said that you witnessed a 12 hours run which in fact was an
excursion of a few minutes, wht should we ever believe you again?

Ian
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.02 / I Johnston /  Re: The Amazing Jed seeks the truth.
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Amazing Jed seeks the truth.
Date: 2 Feb 1996 17:25:12 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

Craig Haynie (ccHaynie@ix.netcom.com) wrote:

: Jed hasn't twisted any facts; he reports what he sees. Perhaps
you don't believe his reports, but 
: that's no reason to try to distort the things he does say.

No he doesn't. He reports a mixture of "what he wants to believe" and
"what people tell him" with a dash of "what he can get away with". He
reported as fact a 1300W CETI run lasting many hours which in fact only
lasted a few minutes. No distortion needed.

Ian 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.03 / A Plutonium /  John Chunko posts Curie Plot of tritium beta decay; ineptitude
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.fusion,sci.astro
Subject: John Chunko posts Curie Plot of tritium beta decay; ineptitude
Date: 3 Feb 1996 03:18:48 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <4etldr$bud@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
tdp@ix.netcom.com(Tom Potter ) writes:

> 
> Although this is one of the best flames I have ever read,
> I didn't think it was so good as to merit posting three times.

I suspect the reason he posted that same thing 3 or four times was
because I asked him to post the Curie Plot of tritium beta decay. Since
Chunky does not have the aptitude for that, of course he aims to divert
the attention away from his ineptitude. So again, John Chunko post the
Curie Plot of the tritium beta decay. If you want to play with the big
boys, well, of course your going to be called out from time to time to
actually do some physics
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.01 / Bill Rowe /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 1996 20:42:55 -0800
Organization: none apparent

In article <ant011549345KksR@circlesw.demon.co.uk>, John Skingley
<john@circlesw.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <browe-3001962025010001@10.0.2.15>, Bill Rowe
><mailto:browe@netcom.com> wrote:
>> 
>[snip]
>
>> None of this detracts from the basic point. Things that can't be reduced
>> to a fairly straight forward receipe and require great skill by
>> individuals are almost invariably not produced on a commercial scale. If
>> this is indeed the requirement to reproduce CF effects, I very much doubt
>> I will see much benefit from CF or that it will be produced on a
>> commercial scale.
>
>I would submit that making large scale integrated circuits does not have
>a 'fairly straight forward receipe' and does indeed 'require great skill'.
>The people who make them are highly trained, the exactitude of the task
>is almost mind-blowing. But they ARE 'produced on a commercial scale'.

One of the things I am involved in is the design of LSI ASICs. And yes
this is a complex undertaking from the standpoint there are many steps
involved. But it is a fairly straight forward process. If it were not so,
we would be unable to automate large portions of it.
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain."
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.03 /  VCockeram /  Re: The Amazing Jed seeks the truth.
     
Originally-From: vcockeram@aol.com (VCockeram)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Amazing Jed seeks the truth.
Date: 3 Feb 1996 06:39:33 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <4ethdo$eh2@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>, ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I
Johnston) writes:

       >>  speculation snipped <<
> He reported as fact a 1300W CETI run lasting many
> hours which in fact only lasted a few minutes.
> No distortion needed.
>
>Ian 
>
>
Ian, could you please cite the post where Jed said this
bit about 1300W for many hours?  Thanks.

Regards, Vince


Vince, Lost Wages, Nevada
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenvcockeram cudlnVCockeram cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.03 / Bob Sullivan /  The Amazing Jed seeks the truth. NOT
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Amazing Jed seeks the truth. NOT
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 96 14:31:55 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

In article <4evhhl$fi3@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
   vcockeram@aol.com (VCockeram) wrote:
->In article <4ethdo$eh2@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>, ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I
->Johnston) writes:
->
->       >>  speculation snipped <<
->> He reported as fact a 1300W CETI run lasting many
->> hours which in fact only lasted a few minutes.
->> No distortion needed.
->>
->>Ian 
->>
->>
->Ian, could you please cite the post where Jed said this
->bit about 1300W for many hours?  Thanks.
->
->Regards, Vince
->
->
->Vince, Lost Wages, Nevada

OK, it follows this little blurb.  

It should be useful to note that this same writeup appeared in the December 
issue of Hal Fox's 'Con' Fusion Facts under Jed's byline.  Steven Jones has 
reported that the publication of the December 'Con' Fusion Facts report actually 
preceded the 'event' that it purported to cover, and no one that I know of has 
contested that observation. Go figure.

We don't know Jed's exact role in this fiasco: conspirator, shill, or dupe, but 
it's certain that he is neither the 'brains' behind the scam nor the source of 
the misinformation.  Hal Fox and Dennis Cravens are stockholders in ENECO which 
presumably has a financial interest in the CETI.  We can reasonably conclude 
that this report was just exactly what Hal Fox/Dennis Cravens wanted a gullible 
public to believe, i.e., just what it says -- 1,344 Watts for two hours.  Until 
it was recognized to be a gigantic blunder, this was the ENECO party line.

For the 'over-unity' control cell fans, this is also the post where Jed reported 
the parameters of the heat-generating control cell.

Enjoy!

===============================================================
CAUTION CAUTION CAUTION CAUTION CAUTION CAUTION CAUTION CAUTION
		Government-required Warning Notice
	COLD FUSION CAN BE DANGEROUS TO YOUR POCKETBOOK 
===============================================================

[Quote]

FROM: jedrothwell@delphi.com
SUBJECT: 1,300 watt cold fusion reactor demonstrated
DATE: Tue, 12 DEC 95 22:46:52 -0500
ORGANIZATION: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Atlanta, December 12, 1995 - last week at the Power-Gen '95 Americas power
industry trade show in Anaheim (December 5-7, 1995), a 1-kilowatt cold fusion
reactor was demonstrated by Clean Energy Technologies, Inc. (CETI) of Dallas
Texas. The cathode is composed of thousands of 1 mm diameter co-polymer beads
with a flash coat of copper and multiple layers of electrolytically deposited
thin film nickel and palladium. CETI holds four U.S. patents on the beads,
with additional patents pending. During the demonstration, between 0.1 and 1.5
watts of electricity was input, and the cell output 450 to 1,300 watts of
heat. In April 1995, at the Fifth International Conference on Cold Fusion
(ICCF5) CETI demonstrated a cell with input of 0.14 watts and a peak excess of
2.5 watts, a ratio of 1:18. In October 1995, at the 16th biannual Symposium on
Fusion Engineering (SOFE '95) the University of Illinois showed a CETI cell
with 0.06 watts input and 5 watts peak output, a ratio of 1:83. Ratios at
Power-Gen ranged from 1:1000 to 1:4000.

The ICCF5 and Power-Gen calorimeters were designed and constructed by Dennis
Cravens. The SOFE '95 calorimeter was constructed by George Miley's group at
the University of Illinois.

The Power-Gen cell and calorimeter are much larger than CETI's previous cold
fusion demonstration devices. The cell is 10 cm long, 2.5 cm in diameter,
containing roughly 40 ml of beads. Previous cells had about 1 ml of beads. The
cell itself is wrapped in opaque foam plastic because the cell geometry has
been improved and the improvements are not yet covered by patent applications.
Other components in the calorimeter are made of clear Lucite plastic.
(Photographs of the device can be seen on the World Wide Web address below.)

The flow calorimeter reservoir holds 2.5 liters and the flow rate is set
between 1.0 and 1.5 liters per minute. A control cell is mounted parallel to
the hot cell. The flow to both cells is regulated with precision valves. The
reservoir and pump consist of a Magnum 220 aquarium pump with a micron filter
attachment, with an additional Lucite cylinder built on top of the pump unit
to hold a cooling coil, gas trap, and a 3.5 watt computer cooling fan. Water
is circulated by a magnetic impeller pump, driven by a 50-watt motor mounted
underneath. Static in-line mixers ensure mixing. (These are plastic objects
about an inch long with vanes to stir the flow.) A few weeks before the
conference, Cravens decided to increase the flow rate in order to keep the
temperature below 50 degrees C. The new flow rates exceeded the capacity of
his flowmeters. He was not able to procure a bigger flowmeter in time for the
conference, so no flowmeter was installed. Flow was measured by turning
stopcocks to redirect fluid from the cell outlet tube into a graduated
cylinder for 15 seconds. This test was performed many times, and the flow rate
was not observed to change measurably, except when it was deliberately
adjusted between runs. The water hose from the pump is coiled in an air cooled
box on top of the reservoir. Air is drawn through the box by the cooling fan.
The pump, cooling fan and DC power supplies electrolysis all have one common
AC cord, which is monitored by a Radio Shack analog AC voltmeter and a
multimeter. Total power consumption by all components is 85 watts.

The Delta T temperatures and reservoir temperatures are measured with K-Type
thermocouples, with Omega Model HH22 Microprocessor Thermometers. Power is
measured with Metex M 3800 series multimeters.

The first test was marred by a malfunction in the control cell. The control
cell consisted of tin plated steel shot, arranged as an electrochemical
cathode, in the same configuration as the smaller CETI thin film beads. During
tests at the lab leading up to the conference, this produced no excess heat,
as expected. However, during the first test at one point it appeared to be
producing a Delta T temperature as high as 2.6 deg C. Assuming the flow rate
and input power were stable, this would indicate a 216-watt excess. Cravens
said he thought was due to a short circuit or an obstruction in the flow, or
both, since an obstruction would likely cause both problems. He turned off the
control cell for safety, and repaired it later on. He told me the next day his
suspicion was confirmed, the anode and cathode had come in contact because it
was plugged up. I expect this explains the apparent excess, but I cannot be
sure because I have no detailed data. I was not able to observe the equipment
closely, verify the thermocouple readings, input power levels, flow rate,
or note when the apparent excess began. (The incident occurred soon after I
arrived. I was sitting across the room listening to the exposition.) The
control cell was replaced with a joule heater for the remainder of the
conference, which raised the water temperature the normal, expected amount.

Later on, in subsequent tests, I was able to observe the machine closely, and
to make direct measurements of its performance with my own instruments. I
tested the flow rate on the cold fusion cell side several times. As noted
above, I did not see any measurable variation except when the flow was
deliberately changed from 1,300 ml to 1,000 ml per minute by closing the
valves. I checked the thermocouple readings in the reservoir, inlet and outlet
with two thermistors and a thermometer. They agreed closely with the
thermocouple readings. The reservoir temperature can be taken by removing the
cooling loop section on top and inserting the thermistor probe directly into
the water. Measuring inlet and outlet temperature required a little more
ingenuity. I confirmed the outlet thermocouple reading by taking a 250 ml
sample of water from the outlet pipe during a flow test and immediately
measuring the temperature before the sample cooled significantly. I confirmed
the cold fusion inlet temperature by turning off the control side joule heater
and taking a 250 ml sample from the control outlet pipe.

Here is some sample data:

Test 1, December 4, two hours

INPUT POWER
Measured AC: 0.7 A * 120 V = 84 W
Electrolysis: 0.18 A * 8 V = 1.4 W

OUTPUT POWER
Flow rate 1200 ml/minute (300 ml/15 seconds)
Delta T Temperature 16 to 17 deg C
1200 ml * 16 deg C * 4.2 = 80,640 j/min = 1,344 W


Test 2, December 5, afternoon, 30 minutes.

INPUT POWER
Measured AC: 0.7 A * 140 V = 98 W
Electrolysis: 0.02 A * 3.9 V = 0.1 W

OUTPUT POWER
Flow rate 1000 ml/min (250 ml/15 seconds)
Delta T Temperature 6.7 deg C
1000 ml * 6.7 * 4.2 = 28,140 j/min = 469 W

CETI plans to follow up on this with demonstrations of prototype consumer
products, including larger cells for space heating and heat engines. They are
working to develop these devices as rapidly as they can. They estimate that it
will take six months to one year to make suitable prototypes. CETI is now
engaged in joint R&D projects with five corporate and university strategic
partners, including the University of Illinois and the University of Missouri.
All five have independently verified the excess heat. The University of
Illinois group has fabricated beads from scratch using a sputtering technique
rather than electrolytic deposition. They have observed excess heat from their
own beads as well as beads provided to them by CETI.

Akira Kawasaki and I took many photographs of the calorimeter. I scanned four
of them, and John Logajan uploaded them in his home page:

     WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan

I will describe the Power-Gen demonstration in more detail in an upcoming
issue of "Infinite Energy" magazine.

 - Jed Rothwell
Cold Fusion Research Advocates
2050 Peachtree Industrial Court, Suite 113-A
Chamblee, Georgia 30341

Tel: 770-451-9890
Fax: 770-458-2404
Home: 770-458-8107
E-Mail: JedRothwell@delphi.com

[End Quote]

===============================================================
CAUTION CAUTION CAUTION CAUTION CAUTION CAUTION CAUTION CAUTION
		Government-required Warning Notice
	COLD FUSION CAN BE DANGEROUS TO YOUR POCKETBOOK 
===============================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy03 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.03 / K Postlewaite /  Re: Cold Fusion Article in The WSJ
     
Originally-From: kpost@econ.sas.upenn.edu (Kevin Postlewaite)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Article in The WSJ
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 1996 14:02:58 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

John C <71531.1617@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>The Wall Street Journel had an article about cold fusion on Page 
>A7A, Monday, January 27th, 1996.  The article was about Clean 
>Energy Technology's cold fusion device and the fact that energy 
>engineers are interested in it.  According to the article, 
>Motorola is interested in licensing the technology.

According to the article, CETI said that Motorola was interested, and
Motorola declined to confirm or deny their statement.

cudkeys:
cuddy03 cudenkpost cudfnKevin cudlnPostlewaite cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.02 / Ryan V /  Please halp me catch up!
     
Originally-From: "Ryan V. Bissell" <synaptik@whytel.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Please halp me catch up!
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 1996 20:57:55 -0600
Organization: Retired Podiatrist Baal-Worshippers of Montana

Over a year ago, I was an avid, yet silent observer in this newsgroup.  
I have since then fallen out of the loop, so to speak.

Would someone please update me on what was decided was the cause of the 
heat that was being generated by the device that churned water?
cudkeys:
cuddy02 cudensynaptik cudfnRyan cudlnV cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.03 / Harry Conover /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: 3 Feb 1996 23:00:21 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

John Skingley (john@circlesw.demon.co.uk) wrote:

: All I can say is that I know where your energy is comming from, do you know
: where CF energy comes from. If you do, please speak up!

Possibly from the same source that propels other perpetual motion
devices -- man's imagination!

If and when CF research is shown to produce *any* energy, your question
will become valid. This has not yet occurred and, in spite of a rash 
of unsubstantiated claims by garage experimenters, crackpots and others, 
it appears increasingly less likely with each passing month.

                                   Harry C.

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.03 / John Chunko /  Re: John Chunko posts Curie Plot of tritium beta decay; ineptitude
     
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: John Chunko posts Curie Plot of tritium beta decay; ineptitude
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 1996 20:44:03 -0800
Organization: Case Western Reserve University

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 
> In article <4etldr$bud@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
> tdp@ix.netcom.com(Tom Potter ) writes:
> 
> >
> > Although this is one of the best flames I have ever read,
> > I didn't think it was so good as to merit posting three times.
> 
> I suspect the reason he posted that same thing 3 or four times was
> because I asked him to post the Curie Plot of tritium beta decay. Since
> Chunky does not have the aptitude for that, of course he aims to divert
> the attention away from his ineptitude. So again, John Chunko post the
> Curie Plot of the tritium beta decay. If you want to play with the big
> boys, well, of course your going to be called out from time to time to
> actually do some physics

First, I must admit, that due to the difficulties of our network, my reply 
was accidently posted to the network more than once. Of course
you should be familiar with mistakes, considering that you are 
one. As for your request for a Curie Plot, I am going to assume
that you meant a Kurie Plot (named after F.N.D. Kurie who was 
the first to use this method: Phys. Rev. 48, 167 (1935)). Now while
your chimpanzee master may at times give you tasks to 
perform, such as running to the market for more bananas or learning
your ABC's, it is not in my interest to go running about 
answering your requests every time your ego gets bruised (which
must be quite often). However this once, perhaps out of 
sympathy for your limited intellect, I will give you the following
information. Be forewarned, it contains many big words you 
might not understand.

"The are cases in which the Kurie plot fails to follow a straight
line, indicating that one of the basic assumptions was 
faulty. The main assumptions were:

1. that the neutrino rest mass is zero,

2. that the electron and positron wavefunction can be approximated
by using only the value of the wavefunction at the origin, 
and

3. that the interaction potential may be represented by the constant
g times the simple operator O.

The first assumption is shown by the data to be very good."

Now from this, I am going to assume that somewhere amongst your
chimpanzee master's cage, you found a Kurie plot of tritium 
decay that was not a straight line. So to this, another quote..

"A careful search for such a deviation of points has been made
in the beta spectrum for tritium. Tritium is particularly good 
for this search, because of the value of Em [the difference between
the initial and final energies of the decaying atom] is 
only 18keV, so that a small nonzero neutrino mass should have a
greater effect then in other beta emitters. However, no 
effect could be seen. The accuracy of the experimental places an
upper limit of 200eV on the neutrino rest energy.
   It should be emphasized that no measurement can ever establish
the value of any physical quantity to be exactly zero. Even 
if it is in fact zero, all that one can do experimentally is to
put an upper limit on the value. The upper limit established 
in Fig.7 for the neutrino rest mass, only 1/2000 of the electron's
rest mass, would seem to be equivilant to zero for all 
practical purposes, and the elegant result shown there has stood
unchallanged for many years. However, because there are so 
many neutrinos in the universe, a possible nonzero value even smaller
than this would be of great interest to the 
cosmological theorists."

A Kurie plot of Tritium beta decay can be found on page 585 while
the quoted material is on page 584 of "Introduction to 
Modern Physics" by John D. McGervey, Academic Press Inc., San Diego,
CA (c) 1983. If you happen to disagree with the makers 
of this textbook, I suggest that you write the publishers, except
this time don't use crayons.

   Also, in "Principals of Physical Cosmology" by P.J.E. Peebles,
Priceton University Press, Princeton, NJ (c) 1983, pg. 423, 
it states on the subject of massive electron neutrinos, "... The
present upper bound is about 9eV, and the lower bound still 
includes zero."

   And if this still doesn't answer your innane request and your
deluded fantasy that electron neutrinos have a large rest 
mass it might do you some good to examine the papers "Yet Another
Paper on SN1987A: Large Angle Oscillations, and the 
Electron Neutrino Mass" by Lawrence Krauss and Peter Kernam and
"Treating Solar Model Uncertainities: A Consistent 
Statistical Analysis of Solar Neutrino Models and Data" by Gates,
Krauss, and White. Both of these articles can be found at
http://theory2.phys.cwru.edu/papers/papers.html.

   Now that we have this little problem cleared up once and for
all I'd like to address your unsupported conjecture that a 
photon is composed of two neutrinos. First of all, what type of
neutrinos are being forced into a bound state to form the 
photon - the electron, muon, tau neutrinos, or bits of baby food
left from your breakfest? Secondly, by what mechanism do 
these neutrinos form a photon? Neutrinos interact with normal matter
very very weakly - they have an effective cross-section 
of 10^-43 cm^2. Neutrinos interacting with each other would have
a cross-section much less than this making their interaction 
with each other almost impossible, so how could one force two neutrinos
to interact to form a bound system such as the 
photon? Granted, the upper limit on the rest mass of the electron
neutrion is about 9eV, the tau about .57 MeV, and the muon 
larger than the tau. Now, to keep the photon's final "restmass"
as low as possible let's assume we'll bind two electron 
neutrinos together - how, we'll leave that up to divine intervention.
This would result in a photon "restmass" on the order 
of about 18eV resulting in an effective electromagnetic force range
of less than 10000 light years (from Heisenberg's 
uncertainty relation relating the range of a force to the mass
of the force carrier). This is obviously false since light 
reaches us from distances up to 10 billion light years away, that
is unless you can invent some way to radically alter the 
structure of the universe. Good luck my friend.

   Now, to summarize, in case I lost you anywhere in the above
lines, the Kurie plot for tritium beta decay does not predict 
a rest mass for electron neutrinos but instead sets an upper limit
on the mass. Before wildly conjecturing about something 
you obviously know little about please make sure that the data
you use to support your innane untestable theories is 
applicable to what you are trying to prove. Sorry for the big words
but please bear with me... Also, more modern techniques 
and experiments have placed a new, more accurate upper bound on
electron neutrino rest masses of around 9eV. Lastly, your 
ridiculous hypothesis that two neutrinos make up one photon is
not only physically impossible just from interaction 
probability but the result would most likely be a massive photon,
something that is not only relativistically impossible but 
is not supported by any known experimental finding; look up into
the night sky if you don't believe this, who knows, you 
might at least be able to prove the existence of little green men.
cudkeys:
cuddy03 cudenjdc14 cudfnJohn cudlnChunko cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.02 / james dolan /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: jdolan@math.ucr.edu (james dolan)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: 2 Feb 1996 11:45:33 -0800
Organization: fair play for neptune committee

john skingley writes:

-In article <Pine.HPP.3.91.960131174319.259A-100000@banting.candu.aecl.ca>,
-Eric Carruthers <mailto:carruthe@candu.aecl.ca> wrote:
-> 
-> This sounds an awful lot like a chemical reaction.  What makes you think 
-> there is any fusion going on?  Seen any high energy neutrons flying around?
-
-Because there are no known exothermic chemical reactions which could account
                      ^^^^^
-for it.
-
-> Just what fusion reaction do you suppose could be happening?
-> Some sort of (p,n) reaction?
-
-Who knows? When someone finds out, I expect they will let you know.
     ^^^^^

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjdolan cudfnjames cudlndolan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Feb  4 04:37:05 EST 1996
------------------------------
