1996.02.06 /  Jonathan /  Abduction Fusion Story
     
Originally-From: jnspencer@enterprise.net (Jonathan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Abduction Fusion Story
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 22:32:47 GMT
Organization: enterprise plc


I recently heard of an Alien abduction where the person abducted was
apparently shown their Fusion Generator. This is deadly serious and no
wind up!. If you want to know the details please E-mail me.

Regards
jnspencer@enterprise.net

cudkeys:
cuddy06 cudenjnspencer cudlnJonathan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.06 / MICKEY SCHMIDT /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: SCHMIDTMD%CWISP@pcmail.usafa.af.mil (MICKEY D. SCHMIDT)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 23:38:12 GMT
Organization: United States Air Force Academy

In article <USE2PCB188419855@brbbs.brbbs.com> mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com
(MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes:

>71634.50@compuserve.com (Charles Bragg) writes:
> 
>->         Publius is a lesson to us all. There will always be people who buy
>-> gold mines over the phone.
> 
>So?  I bought some gold mine stock in the late 80's over the phone, and made
>several thousand dollars on it.  I wish I had held on to it, as it is worth
>more than ever now.  Is this suppose to be bad?
> 
>-> There will always be people who see blue
>-> helmets and black helicopters. There isn't much one can do for them.
> 
>I beg you a pardon?  What on earth are you talking about?  My son has a blue
>bicycle helmet, and I can see it, and I have seen, and in fact videotaped and
>photographed, black helicopters many, many times.  I have even seen them parked
>at the airport. They are military aircraft. Are you saying that there is a
>segment of the population that is unable to see ordinary everyday objects?  If
>so, I would say they are the ones that need help.
> 
>Marshall
>

 
Obviously you don't have fanatic patriots in your midst or you would have 
known that the reference is to the UN using black helicopters to take over 
the United States. Colorado is full of these types.... they are really 
worried by these black helicopters.  
Mickey D. Schmidt   [Zowie!!! Look at that E-mail address!]
E-mail address: schmidtmd%34edg%usafa@34trwmail.usafa.af.mil
        #################################################
        # This content in no way relfects the opinions, #
        #  standards or policies of the United States   #
        #    Air Force, The Air Force Acdemy or the     #
        #           United States Govenment.            #
        #################################################                   
                   ...
                .//    .              Phone (719) 472-2779
               .///     .             FAX   (719) 472-4281
        _______.////____._______      Snail Mail:
       /    =================   \       34 ES/CEMM
     /       ======   ======      \     2120 Cadet Drive
   /_______======   ======__________\   USAF Academy, CO
   CENTER FOR EDUCATIONAL MULTIMEDIA                 80840
        USAF ACADEMY PLANETARIUM

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenCWISP cudfnMICKEY cudlnSCHMIDT cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.07 / Brooke Hill /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: Brooke Hill <hill@mfp.com.au>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: 7 Feb 1996 01:16:05 GMT
Organization: MFP Australia


Responding to cynical Jonathon Point.


Not another conspiracy theory !  Ford didn't invest in Sarich to cover it 
up - any more than Nelson Rockefeller's grandson wants to rule the world!
For your information Ralph Sarich recently sold his shares in Sarich 
Orbital Technology - and for the other cynics amongst you - yes he 
probably wants to build a nice house in the western Australian equivalent 
of the Bahamas.

The reality is that the investment 'high jump' is getting higher as we 
progress our technological capability - something the Japanese understand 
well - and unless we're prepared to risk the occasional fall, we'll never 
progress the equivalents of the Sarich engine or cold fusion or whatever.

You guys are soaked up to your eyeballs in negative ions - go out for a 
sail this weekend and pick up some Mg++.

Brooke 'Illuminati' Hill


jonp@wormald.com.au (Jonathan Point) wrote:
>
>As long as world governments clutch the legs of big 
>busine$$, we won't get anything cheaply and even then, we'll only get it
>because some fat MD or CEO can buy a new house in the Bahamas with the
>money! Sigh!  >Meanwhile, I'm looking forward to hearing more
about cold fusion tech->nology. At this stage, I'm hoping that OPEC /=
MOBIL/EXXON/Government don't try to throw a blanket over it/buy
rights and put underground etc. 
I know they probably will - look at who owns the rights to nearly every
>efficient/cost-saving/free energy source at the moment!!!
>I remember as a kid (!), watching something on TV (it was B&W then!!)
>about the Sarich engine. Funny thing, 25 years later, Ford reckons it's
>the next big thing but they ain't gonna sell you one!! HMMMMMMMM!
>
>'Till next time, sceptical and cynical,		JonP


cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenhill cudfnBrooke cudlnHill cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.07 / Grigori Khaskin /  MATH / PHYSICS / INTERNET / Tutor
     
Originally-From: khaskin@sfu.ca (Grigori Khaskin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: MATH / PHYSICS / INTERNET / Tutor
Date: 7 Feb 1996 01:38:57 GMT
Organization: Simon Fraser University

[ Article crossposted from sfu.general ]
[ Author was Grigori Khaskin ]
[ Posted on 2 Feb 1996 19:22:43 GMT ]

   	Math / Physics / Internet / TUTOR

		D A T A B A S E:

	* Ph. D in MATH and PHYSICS  - 1983
	*  Magna Cum Laude           - 1979
	* 10 Years of Teaching and Tutoring Experience
        * Excellent References from the Leading Canadian, USA 
          and W. European Professors
        * All High School, College and U. Students Welcome!
        * Your Home or Mine/Campus, Any Day & Time
	*   Please Call ANDRE @ (604) 294 - 1886,
   	    or Email to khaskin@sfu.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenkhaskin cudfnGrigori cudlnKhaskin cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.07 / Matt Kennel /  Re: A Bose Condesate hypothesis for CF
     
Originally-From: kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Bose Condesate hypothesis for CF
Date: 7 Feb 1996 00:19:00 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN

Horace Heffner (hheffner@anc.ak.net) wrote:

> >
> >Originally-From: kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov (Matt Kennel)
> [snip]
> >
> >We've gotten right to the crux of the misunderstanding about
> >"overlapping" wavefunctions.
> >
> >The answer is:
> >
> >        Yes, all the 'overlapping thingons' have the same probability density
> >        function in space, BUT THIS DOES NOT MEAN THEY OVERLAP!!
> >
> >        Why?  Because they're not in the same place AT THE SAME TIME.
> >        The ground state will find their positions anticorrelated: if particle
> >        A is "on the left" then particle B will be more likely to be "on
> >        the right" if there is a repulsive interaction between them.
> >
> >        so rho(x) can be equal to rho(y) but still rho(x,y) can be
> >        ZERO for ||x - y|| < R.
> >
> >
> [snip]


> Yes, I have seen this before.  This is just more of the wave-particle
> interpretation.  

Indeed it is; it's called "quantum mechanics".  

> Suppose for a moment that there exists no point like
> particles.  The above statements then begin to look like just some kind of
> dogma.  In most scenarios the calculations might end up the same from a
> wavefunction collapse point of view, but the vocabulary and mental models,
> the interpretation, and the derivation, might end up being different, and
> the results might be different in special circumstances.

There exists "no point like particles"?  Well yes, protons are known to
have internal structure, but such a thing is utterly irrelevant at 
room-temperature energies: they are very very tightly  bound and very very
small.

> Most importantly, it appears you have automatically dismissed the notion
> that at a sufficiently low temperature the waveforms can phase lock,
> producing a single particle which will tend to collapse at a single point
> when perturbed.  You offer no evidence to the contrary, either experimental
> or theoretical.

Nu?  "waveforms will phase lock which will collapse at a single point"?
That's ''star trek'' physics.   How do they "collapse at a single point"
with a repulsive interaction??

The picture that I'm supporting supposedly "without evidence" is orthodox
quantum mechanics, which has a definite recipe and answer to this issue:

	You solve for the ground state wave function using the right
	Hamiltonian.  

Bose condensation or palladium or a solid matrix doesn't change the 
interaction Hamiltonian between two protons femtometers apart. 

There is lots and lots of evidence supporting 
quantum mechanics in excellent detail. 

> Since the Weiman-Cornell experiment was conducted on an apparatus costing
> less than $50,000 (an engineering miracle in it's own right IMHO), it seems
> to me a worthwhile experiment to bombard a massive Bose condensate with a
> particle beam to find the true answer.  If only one of the many QM
> interpretations could be eliminated, it would be worthwhile.

This particular problem isn't an issue in any of those "interpretations" of
quantum mechanics. {I agree there might still be new physics to learn in
the hairy depths}  You're confusing Bose condensation with 'correlated
wave function collapses' which seem to imply locality violations.  The second
is the squirrely part of QM, not the first. 

This problem is an ordinary "shut up and calculate" problem for 
which all "interpretations" of QM will give the same answer.  I.e. "what
is the ground state energy" and "what is the spatial correlation function 
between particles in the ground state." 

Quantum mechanics has been experimentally verified for many-body
wavefunctions in addition to just single-body in a potential. 

The recent experimental demonstration of Bose condensation is a stunning
VERIFICATION of standard many body quantum mechanics in quantitative detail.

It condensed just the way that theory said it would.  What alternate
theory do you have in mind?

> Graduate students take note!


> Regards,                          <hheffner@matsu.ak.net>
>                                   PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
> Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820


cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenkennel cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.06 / Jerry Irvine /  Alleged new fusion METHOD
     
Originally-From: jjirvine@cyberg8t.com (Jerry Irvine)
Originally-From: jjirvine@cyberg8t.com (Jerry Irvine)
Originally-From: kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups:
Newsgroups:
Subject: Alleged new fusion METHOD
Subject: Re: Sucker Needed was Re: $3.5 Million Cash needed build Fusion Reactor
Subject: Re: Sucker Needed was Re: $3.5 Million Cash needed build Fusion Reactor
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 08:35:42 -0800
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 19:41:40 -0800
Date: 6 Feb 1996 04:43:55 GMT
Organization: Box 1242, Claremont, CA 91711
Organization: Box 1242, Claremont, CA 91711
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN

I am posting to this group in an effort to confirm publicly distributed
information from the inventor of an alleged new form of "controlling"
fusion.

As I have been asked to aid in capital formation, my only prerequisite was
to establish in advance the theory had some merit which justified further
development.  I would like to seek "free" consultation at this stage to
determine this.  Interested responders shall be sent a non-disclosure
agreement by email by me (the funding seeker) and a copy shall be
forwarded when signed to the inventor for his files.

The basis of the theory is a method of aligning particle vectors in order
to obtain what I refer to as sympathetic energy.  I am in no way a
technical person and my characterization should in no way be considered
accurate or even representative.  However I have found this frame of
reference helpful in accepting the premise of the underlying theory.

Here are a couple of public posts to let you know the current state of
things.  This venture is not even a start-up yet and only has a patent
applied for but not approved.

Posts:

Path: news.cyberg8t.com!host13.cyberg8t.com!user
Originally-From: jjirvine@cyberg8t.com (Jerry Irvine)
Newsgroups:
misc.invest.stocks,misc.invest,misc.invest.canada,misc.invest.funds,misc
invest.futures,misc.invest.real-estate,misc.invest.technical
Subject: Re: Sucker Needed was Re: $3.5 Million Cash needed build Fusion Reactor
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 19:41:40 -0800
Organization: Box 1242, Claremont, CA 91711
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <jjirvine-3101961941400001@host13.cyberg8t.com>
References: <singtech-2701962208470001@ip-salem3-18.teleport.com>
<4ej919$3ng@whale.moscow.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host13.cyberg8t.com
Xref: news.cyberg8t.com misc.invest.stocks:110996 misc.invest:2489
misc.invest.canada:1917 misc.invest.funds:2570 misc.invest.futures:13771
misc.invest.real-estate:1126 misc.invest.technical:1279

In article <4ej919$3ng@whale.moscow.com>, ealbrook@lewiston.com (Liz
Albrook) wrote:

> In article <singtech-2701962208470001@ip-salem3-18.teleport.com>, 
> singtech@teleport.com says...
> >
> >$3.5 Million Cash needed build Fusion Reactor
> >
> 
> Hey, if this portable Fusion device doesn't pay out for you I know of a 
> fellow in Lucedale, MS who has a portable electrical generator with which 
> you can run your whole house off of a D battery who'd no doubt also like 
> some of your money to build a prototype.
> 
> Patent Pending, of course.

Warning: I have corresponded with this fellow alot and have yet to receive
a single mailed piece of verification and when put on the spot he refuses
to.  I had the investors lined up to fully fund it too.

I invite a change of behavior, but till then, watch out.

Jerry

-- 
Jerry Irvine - jjirvine@aol.com, jjirvine@cyberg8t.com
Box 1242, Claremont, CA 91711 USA         ^^^^^^^^
Opinion, the whole thing.

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

Path:
news.cyberg8t.com!news.net99.net!news.igc.net!news.zynet.com!imci2!news.
nternetMCI.com!darwin.sura.net!news.er.usgs.gov!stc06.ctd.ornl.gov!msr!k
nnel
Originally-From: kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups:
misc.invest.stocks,misc.invest,misc.invest.canada,misc.invest.funds,misc
invest.futures,misc.invest.real-estate,misc.invest.technical
Subject: Re: Sucker Needed was Re: $3.5 Million Cash needed build Fusion Reactor
Followup-To: sci.physics.fusion
Date: 6 Feb 1996 04:43:55 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <4f6mab$3j6@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov>
References: <4f3iru$kig@maureen.teleport.com>
<4f50rq$jcq@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>
<singtech-0502961847150001@ip-salem1-23.teleport.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: msr.epm.ornl.gov
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: news.cyberg8t.com misc.invest.stocks:111547 misc.invest:2675
misc.invest.canada:2059 misc.invest.funds:2702 misc.invest.futures:13881
misc.invest.real-estate:1196 misc.invest.technical:1368

singtech@teleport.com wrote:

> You are right.  I'm not the only person who can understand it.  But it
> cannot be explained by conventional physical theory.  Understanding it
> involves making some fundamental changes to modern physics.  The new
> theory incorporates all the old data but not the way we look at that
> data.  Interpretation is everything.  This invention would not be possible
> without a completely new discovery concerning the interaction of charged
> particles.  Fully understanding that Coulomb's Law is, in fact, a special
> case can only be arrived at by understanding the 'general case'.  The
> 'general case' theorem and proof is a new discovery.  The design and
> operation of the SCYBOLT(tm) Reactor system is based upon understanding
> that 'general case'.  Without a training session, most physicists simply
> won't get it.  Once they understand it they can't deny it.

> It is interesting that it is easier to explain this to a four year physics
> grad than to a post-doc.

Does a postdoc who only remembers undergraduate physics count?  ;-)

Why don't you give it a shot? (followups set to sci.physics.fusion).

You do know what you're up against, I hope:  the H-bomb, innumerable
cyclotron experiments, and stellar dynamics are explained by conventional
nuclear fusion.

> But I think that there will be a few sensible people out there who will
> have the vision and wisdom to take a closer look at what I am presenting.

> Best Regards,

> C. Cagle
> Singularity Technologies, Inc.
> 1640 Oak Grove Road, N.W.
> Salem, OR  97304

> Ph: 503/362-7781

> email> singtech@teleport.com

> -- 


> "He who finishes physics, finishes religion and philosophy at the same time"


endqoutes

As you can see he is protective of the actual process and I am not at
liberty to disclose what I do know without a signed non-disclosure
agreement.  Either this thing is the best thing since sliced bread or the
bigest hoax since same.  I am willing to give such a seemingly accurate
idea the benefit of the doubt and the opportunity to have big dollars
thrown at it to show either way.

I also hope that puts a rather large smile on Mr. Cagle's face.

Jerry

-- 
Jerry Irvine - jjirvine@aol.com, jjirvine@cyberg8t.com
Box 1242, Claremont, CA 91711 USA         ^^^^^^^^
Opinion, the whole thing.
cudkeys:
cuddy06 cudenjjirvine cudfnJerry cudlnIrvine cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.06 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Cold fusion - not a chance
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sdi.skeptic
Subject: Cold fusion - not a chance
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 1996 15:08 -0500 (EST)

Brooke Hill <hill@mfp.com.au> writes:
 
 
-> If cold fusion were possible - it would have been
-> revealed in the book of
-> Genesis - like all other great discoveries,
-> including
-> heterosexuality and
-> fruit.
 
Ah yes, lets use the Bible to determine what exists.  Hmm, automobiles,
airplanes, television, spacecraft, the ozone layer, electricity, fission, hot
fusion, computers, telephones and millions of other things that I know exist
are not mentioned.  Also the Earth is flat and the Sun and stars circle the
earth.
 
Gee, get real. The Bible is a good source for finding spiritual truths, not
physical turths.
 
Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy06 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.07 / Carlton Haynie /  CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
     
Originally-From: Carlton Haynie <ccHaynie@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 1996 08:38:57 -0800
Organization: Netcom

Hello All!

I just watched Good Morning America's report on CETI's Patterson Power Cell. 
The science investigator for ABC referenced Dr. George Miley at the 
University of Illinois, Dr. Quinton Bowles at the University of Missouri and 
Motorola by saying they've built and tested several of these devices, have 
all indepently verified the results and can't find anything wrong with CETI's 
claims of excess energy. He went on to say that the devices are extremely 
robust and that the investigators have a "hard time making them not work".

In addition to the reported gains in energy, the clip also showed a power 
cell in Mr. Patterson's lab. One watt of power was going into the cell and 
Mr. Patterson claimed that 200 watts were coming out. The reporter touched 
the cell and said that it felt hot. 

ABC commented that they will continue to follow this story for the next 
several months and that the device will be covered on Nightline, tonight (Feb 
7, 1996).

Craig Haynie
ccHaynie@ix.netcom.com
cudkeys:
cuddy07 cudenccHaynie cudfnCarlton cudlnHaynie cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.07 / Alan M /  Re: Reconciling Magnum and PowerGen data
     
Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" <alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reconciling Magnum and PowerGen data
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 08:30:19 +0000
Organization: The Levitating Pig

In article <horst_bob-060296203654@horst_bob.mis.tandem.com>, Robert
Horst <horst_bob@tandem.com> writes
>These arguments are clearly absurd.  I encourage you to drop this line of
>argument and apologize to those you have libeled.

No. The arguments are sound. It is you who are absurd.
-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenalan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.07 / Alan M /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" <alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 08:28:45 +0000
Organization: The Levitating Pig

In article <4f8g5j$7kg@soap.news.pipex.net>, J B Youles
<john.youles@dial.pipex.com> writes
>On British TV a few years ago, a well-known doctor (Jonathan Miller) said 
>that he could not believe in homeopathy because to do so would need a 
>complete revision in the understanding of the laws of science.
>
>But there was much evidence as to the effectiveness of homeopathy, 
>nevertheless; presumably he would have not been skeptical had it fitted 
>in with his prejudices.

Utter tosh. Were there *any* scientific evidence for the effectiveness
of homeopathy at all, that itself would trigger the 'complete revision
in the understanding of the laws of science' which Miller claimed
(correctly) its acceptance would need.

Rather a good analogy with Cold Fusion, in fact.
-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenalan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.06 / Robert Horst /  Re: Reconciling Magnum and PowerGen data
     
Originally-From: horst_bob@tandem.com (Robert Horst)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reconciling Magnum and PowerGen data
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 20:36:54 +0100
Organization: Tandem Computers

In article <4f5rjb$6hb@tekadm1.cse.tek.com>, arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie
Frisch) wrote:

(concerning alternate explanations for the CETI results)
> 
> I have three possible explanations that are much simpler and more likely.
> 
> 	1.  Fraud.
> 	2.  Incompetence.
> 	3.  Gullible observers.
> 
Arnold Frisch has just accused some fine scientists of fraud in a public
Internet newsgroup where thousands of people may read it.  This is a very
serious charge and should have correspondingly serious proof.  What is your
proof?  I have seen nothing to give even the slightest hint of fraud.

And of course, for it to be fraud, it would have to be a grand conspiracy
involving CETI, Motorola, University of Missouri and University of Illinois
plus scientists who did their own measurements at ICCF, SOFE and PowerGen. 
Or perhaps you are claiming that just Patterson and Cravens are magicians
and everyone else is fooled.  But then how do you explain Miley's group
independently fabricating the beads as well as the calorimetry?  

These arguments are clearly absurd.  I encourage you to drop this line of
argument and apologize to those you have libeled.

-- Bob Horst  
cudkeys:
cuddy06 cudenhorst_bob cudfnRobert cudlnHorst cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.07 / Larry Wharton /  No Griggs results from NASA
     
Originally-From: Larry Wharton <Wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: No Griggs results from NASA
Date: 7 Feb 1996 19:33:38 GMT
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center -- Greenbelt, Maryland USA

I talked to Jim Griggs about his NASA collaboration and found his 
refusal to give out any details quite understandable.  NASA is testing 
his pump as a device to convert cyrogenic fluids into gas.  They are not 
investigating any o-u claims.  They just want to convert liquids into 
gases.  I agree with Jim that his NASA contacts will be very displeased 
with fielding questions about an o-u device.  Should the NASA tests 
reveal any o-u numbers Jim has pledged to give any information available 
to Jed Rothwell and Gene Malove.  So there is no point in calling up 
about the NASA tests.  If anything of interest comes out you will hear 
about it.

Lawrence E. Wharton   wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov
NASA/GSFC code 913, Greenbelt MD 20771
work (301) 286-3486,    home (301) 595-5038


cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenWharton cudfnLarry cudlnWharton cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.07 / Jim Bowery /  Getting out of hand
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Getting out of hand
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 17:38:15 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Well, now... This Patterson character is getting way too uppity.  When 
is the Church of Reason going to send in its Ivy League Inquisitors?
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
                 Change the tools and you change the rules.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Feb  8 04:37:03 EST 1996
------------------------------
