1996.02.14 /  jonesse@plasma /  Re: Jed is wrong and libelous
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed is wrong and libelous
Subject: Re: Jed is wrong and libelous
Date: 14 Feb 96 14:11:54 -0700
Date: 14 Feb 96 14:07:15 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University


Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed is wrong and libelous
Message-ID: <1996Feb14.140715@plasma>
Date: 14 Feb 96 14:07:15 -0700

In article <phCIaQM.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> <jonesse@plasma> writes:
>  
>>I never made a statement "about recombination causing 4000 times more energy
>>than I*V."  Jed's statement is therefore seen to be a deliberate lie.
>  
> No, you never did. 

So Mr. Rothwell admits that his statement was indeed a deliberate lie.


>You just keep writing that recombination can explain
> away the CETI results. Since CETI has gotten 4000 times I*V, the logical
> conclusion of your "recombination" theory is that recombination can cause
> 4000 times input. Ah, but you are clever enough not to state that in so
> many words. You have also said that recombination can explain McKubre'
> results, ignoring the fact that he uses a closed cell. Every few months
> you say that again.
>  

I do not think that recombination alone can explain the CETI results.
Please stop putting words in my mouth.
I have suggested that they measure the Faradaic efficiency during a
"heat-producing" run, and that they also analyze for formation of peroxides
and peroxysulfates.  These would be expected to form in their electrolytic
cell since they use lithium *sulfate* in the electrolyte.  
So far, CETI has not checked for any of these products -- correct me if
they have finally started to look for these.

> You have also said that recombination can explain McKubre' results, ignoring
> the fact that he uses a closed cell.  Every few months you say that again.

No, you are lying again -- I have never said this of McKubre's results.

I *have* said that an excellent test of McKubre's results was made by:
  T. A. Green and T.I. Quickenden, "Calorimetric studies of highly loaded
deuterides and hydrides of palladium," 
J. Electroanal. Chem. 389 (1995) 91-103.

After a careful, thorough search they concluded:
"The major aim of this study was to attempt to verify the earlier findings of
McKubre and coworkers... However, despite the achievement of D/Pd loading
ratios in excess of 0.90 and the satisfaction of other requirements relating to
the experimental duration and current density,  *no evidence* for 
 *any excess heat production* was found in *any* of the experiments..."


>>"I will freely admit those areas where there may be problems.
>>Jones mentions the problems with the temperature measurements...  I feel and
>>have freely admitted that if there is a real problem it is there.... 
>>Yes, you can sometimes get into trouble with thermocouples in electrolytic
>>cells."  -- Dennis Cravens, Nov. 1995 post
>  
> How very clever! You quote part of his post, out of context, without explaining
> that he also explained how he overcame this potential problem by using
> thermistors and thermometers to verify the excess heat. Yes, that paragraph
> alone certainly does give the reader the false impression that Cravens may
> have a problem. And if we stre-e-e-tch our imaginations a little we can
> even believe that U. Illinios, U. Missouri and Motorola also have this
> imaginary problem. Yup, pretty soon we can write off all of the independent
> tests of the CETI cells.
>  
> The trouble is, in real life there is no problem, and there never was. Cravens
> was expressing himself in his usual ultra-cautious scientist mode of speech,
> but any person with an ounce of sense knows that when you double and triple
> check a 3 C Delta T with three different types of thermometers, and all three
> show the difference, it has to be real. That is also true of the 8 and 17 deg C
> differences I observed. If we play games and quote people out of context
> enough we can always make things look doubtful. That's a fun game, but it
> isn't science.
>  
> - Jed

We've been over this before.  My point is, that Cravens admitted to this
problem and I was citing him and not lying.  And yes, Cravens specifically
told me that one of the groups you named had this problem.
Certainly, this is not the only problem that I have suggested for exploration
in the CETI/Patterson cells -- for example, when will they look for 
peroxides and peroxysulfates?  
There are other problems as well, relating to dirtiness
in the cells, bubbles, and so on.  Then there is the issue of the missing
end products or "ash" that would tell us what is really going on.  

There's a lot left to do to verify a real effect in the Patterson cell.  

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.15 /   /  Re: How to keep ice/water in it's solid state at 40degrees celcius? Help
     
Originally-From: aharvey@boulder.nist.gov (3555)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Re: How to keep ice/water in it's solid state at 40degrees celcius? Help
Date: 15 Feb 1996 12:40:36 -0700
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology

In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.960210105039.6322C-100000@alcor.concordia.ca>
Ziad Rahayel <z_rahay@alcor.concordia.ca> writes:
>
>I am not sure I am posting to the right group for this! 
>I am looking for a way to keep ice/water in it's solid state at
>temperatures up to 40degrees celcius.  Any means to do this is welcome,
>thermodynamics, chemical...  Whatever. 

You're right, this (sci.physics.fusion) isn't the right newsgroup.
sci.chem is more appropriate.  I'm crossposting there and setting the
followups to sci.chem.

The only *thermodynamic* way to do that is to go to very high pressure.
Somebody has already pointed out the well-known fact that the freezing
temperature of water goes down with increasing pressure, but what is
less widely known is that this effect does not last forever.  In
particular, at 251.165 K and a pressure of 209.9 MPa, the equilibrium
ice form becomes Ice III and the curve starts to go the other way.
There are several more high-pressure forms.  At 40 degrees C, one can
solidify water (to Ice VI) by raising it to a pressure of about
1224 MPa.  That's not likely to be very easy :-)

Reference for this and related info is W. Wagner et al., "International
Equations for the Pressure along the Melting and along the
Sublimation Curve of Ordinary Water Substance," J. Phys. Chem. Ref.
Data, vol. 23, p.515 (1994).  Wagner's formulations have been adopted
by IAPWS (International Association for the Properties of Water and
Steam), the same people who decide on the official Steam Tables.

Allan Harvey, Thermophysics Division, NIST, aharvey@boulder.nist.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenaharvey cudln cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.16 /  Publius /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: publius@gate.net (Publius)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: 16 Feb 1996 03:44:49 GMT
Organization: CyberGate, Inc.

AndersonBD (andersonbd@aol.com) wrote:
: The thing about your hydrogen/oxygen electrochemical dismissal of the
: "Patterson power cell" phenomenon is that this cannot POSSIBLY be the
: explanation, given accurate power measurement equipment.  The fact is,
: whatever energy you ADD to the cell to LIBERATE oxygen and hydrogen, you
: cannot POSSIBLY gain more energy when chemically burning that same
: hydrogen and oxygen back into water.  Assuming that the "law" of energy
: conservation is valid.    My own theory, assuming that the damn cell
: actually works, is that maybe these palladium/nickel beads which are the
: basis of the Patterson cell can CATALYZE helium from the small amount of
: heavy hydrogen present in all water.  After all, platinum is a great
: catalyst for air pollutants, and palladium is in the same family. 
: However, I doubt that my conclusions are correct.
:                                             - Brad Anderson
:
                                                AndersonBD@aol.com
  What makes me feel good about these experiments
  is that serious people are working on a solution
  to the problem of so-called "Cold Fusion".
  I be lieve the focus must be on plain water a
  potent combination of Hydrogen and Oxygen
  Someone will eventually figure out how to break up
  water into its components at little or no energy investment.
  You;ll never catch me belittling any effort in that direction
  because they are focused on the right target.  PUBLIUS

  
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenpublius cudlnPublius cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.15 /  diebolmp@esvx1 /  Re: final explanation of 2nd law of thermodynamics; entropy sham
     
Originally-From: diebolmp@esvx19.es.dupont.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.chem,sci.astro,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: final explanation of 2nd law of thermodynamics; entropy sham
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 17:42:39 GMT
Organization: DuPont (Opinions are those of the writer only)

In article <4fj1u9$upn@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Archimedes.Plutonium@dart
outh.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
>snip<

>Experiments that prove entropy is a fake concept, a sham.

>snip<

> The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics before my teachings was a not too well
>understood law. As stated in all textbooks before my teachings it was
>not a law but a half-cooked idea. The concept of entropy is a complete
>sham and fakery. 

>snip<

>Of course the pinstriped suited professors of physics could
>never really understand the 2nd Law, and never teach it correctly. Of
>course they could never teach it correctly because they never
>understood it. 

If they don't understand it, and it is a half cooked idea, then why
do they bother to teach it at all?  Wouldn't it be easier for them
to just ignore the whole issue and stick to stuff that they don't
find confusing?  Why bother to construct a "sham and fakery" when
you gain nothing, but run the risk of being exposed as a fake?
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudendiebolmp cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.14 / Seth W /  Re: Jed is wrong and libelous
     
Originally-From: sethw@access5.digex.net (Seth W.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed is wrong and libelous
Date: 14 Feb 1996 22:00:33 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA

jonesse@plasma wrote:
:
: I never made a statement "about recombination causing 4000 times more energy
: than I*V."  Jed's statement is therefore seen to be a deliberate lie.
: Nor do I believe that recombination can cause 4000 times more energy than
: I*V.  But I do believe that recombination can lead to spurious claims of
: "excess heat" production in some cases -- as explained in detail in a 
: *published* paper bearing my name (and colleagues' names):
: 
: J.E. Jones et al., J. Physical Chemistry, 99 (1995) 6973- 6979.
: 

OK, so you've written a paper about errors made where claims of "excess
heat" are concerned.  So given the powers in and out reported thus far, 
to what would you attribute the claims of "excess heat"?  Would it be fair
to say that recombination could not account for all of the excess heat
if the power in and power out have been recorded accurately?

I'm speaking only of the Patterson Cell, not any other "cold fusion" 
experiments out there.

sethw@access.digex.net
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudensethw cudfnSeth cudlnW cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.15 /  jonesse@plasma /  Plans to test the Patterson cell
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Plans to test the Patterson cell
Date: 15 Feb 96 12:51:35 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <4ftm21$jk3@news4.digex.net>, 
sethw@access5.digex.net (Seth W.) writes:
> jonesse@plasma wrote:
> :
> : I never made a statement "about recombination causing 4000 times more energy
> : than I*V."  Jed's statement is therefore seen to be a deliberate lie.
> : Nor do I believe that recombination can cause 4000 times more energy than
> : I*V.  But I do believe that recombination can lead to spurious claims of
> : "excess heat" production in some cases -- as explained in detail in a 
> : *published* paper bearing my name (and colleagues' names):
> : 
> : J.E. Jones et al., J. Physical Chemistry, 99 (1995) 6973- 6979.
> : 
> 
> OK, so you've written a paper about errors made where claims of "excess
> heat" are concerned.  So given the powers in and out reported thus far, 
> to what would you attribute the claims of "excess heat"?  

Based on the little that has been reported so far, along with pictures from
video tape from the Nightline broadcast, we will soon begin actual tests
here.  Note that nothing has been published in a peer-reviewed scientific 
journal so far.
Our procedures therefore are reminiscent of what scientists had to do in 
1989 when
P&F reported their results via news media, and scientific analysis often had
to be based on TV pictures.

Yes, we have some ideas of what may be going on in the Patterson cell.
We do not believe that there is any proton-proton fusion, or proton-induced
fission, etc.  We think the observation of "excess heat" in the blank cell
filled with shot at the PowerGen demonstration (supposed to be a control!) 
gives a strong clue as to what is really happening -- and it's not nuclear!
This is telling, along with the report of much higher electrical resistance in
the cell than one would expect from the geometry and electrolyte used.

But now I think it best to let us do our replication of Patterson/CETI as
well as we can, then we will report our results. 
I will say that it would be foolish for investors to invest money in the
Patterson/CETI cell at the present time, IMHO.

> Would it be fair
> to say that recombination could not account for all of the excess heat
> if the power in and power out have been recorded accurately?
> 
> I'm speaking only of the Patterson Cell, not any other "cold fusion" 
> experiments out there.
> 
> sethw@access.digex.net

Yes, this would be fair to say.
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.15 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Jed is wrong and libelous
     
Originally-From: kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed is wrong and libelous
Date: 15 Feb 1996 17:59:13 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
> <jonesse@plasma> writes:
>  
> >I never made a statement "about recombination causing 4000 times more energy
> >than I*V."  Jed's statement is therefore seen to be a deliberate lie.
>  
> No, you never did. You just keep writing that recombination can explain
> away the CETI results. Since CETI has gotten 4000 times I*V, the logical
> conclusion of your "recombination" theory is that recombination can cause
> 4000 times input. 


Oh stuff it.  This is like the Inquisition.  "Well you didn't say that, but
I *know* you were thinking that! REPENT OR DIE!" 

SJ doesn't think recombination makes 4000 times I*V, he doesn't believe
that "CETI has gotten 4000 times I*V". 

>Ah, but you are clever enough not to state that in so
>many words. 

He's taking the standard like that most conventional physicists would say.
It's not weird or anything. 

> The trouble is, in real life there is no problem, and there never was.

In experimental physics there *ALWAYS* is a problem. 

When you know what the problem is, you're doing OK.  When you don't think
you have any problems, that's when you should worry.

> Cravens
> was expressing himself in his usual ultra-cautious scientist mode of speech,
> but any person with an ounce of sense knows that when you double and triple
> check a 3 C Delta T with three different types of thermometers, and all three
> show the difference, it has to be real. 

Do you have other direct quotes from Prof. Cravens or a lab report saying
this?

> That is also true of the 8 and 17 deg C
> differences I observed. If we play games and quote people out of context
> enough we can always make things look doubtful. That's a fun game, but it
> isn't science.
>  
> - Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenkennel cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.15 / Matt Kennel /  Re: ABC-TV Nightline reports on CETI
     
Originally-From: kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ABC-TV Nightline reports on CETI
Date: 15 Feb 1996 18:44:19 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN

AndersonBD (andersonbd@aol.com) wrote:
> I don't even matter, really, if they CAN turn the power cell's heat into
> electricity.  The implications for home heating, water heating, etc. would
> save huge amounts of energy a year. 

Well good commercially available heat pumps can make 3 or 4x "excess heat"
compared to electricity in.

This isn't rocket science any more.

>                - Brad Anderson
>                 AndersonBD@aol.com
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenkennel cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.14 / Richard Schultz /  Re: cold fusion theory (simple)
     
Originally-From: schultr@ashur.cc.biu.ac.il (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: cold fusion theory (simple)
Date: 14 Feb 1996 08:48:22 GMT
Organization: Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel.

Mark Wong (mawong@m2.dseg.ti.com) wrote:

: Get a copy of any introductory quantum mechanics book.
: Quantum Mechanics Vol. 1, Cohen and Tanoudji, Academic Press

Cohen-Tannoudji is only one person; that is, the first author of the
book is Claude Cohen-Tannoudji.  With a hyphenated last name.


-----
Richard Schultz                              schultr@ashur.cc.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry                      tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel       fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"I don't know why you are wrong, but my data shows you are completely off."
               --Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 21 Jul 1992
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenschultr cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.14 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Patterson Cell==Hair Dryer?????
     
Originally-From: schultr@ashur.cc.biu.ac.il (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Patterson Cell==Hair Dryer?????
Date: 14 Feb 1996 08:49:52 GMT
Organization: Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel.

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

: Yes, it was in the same ballpark. I did not get a chance to measure it
: but I compared it later to a 1500 heater in my office and the warm air
: temperature is roughly the same. 

I thought you said that you didn't observe the 1300 W run?  Wasn't that
your explanation of why your press release says that it lasted two
hours, when in fact it only lasted 15 minutes?

-----
Richard Schultz                                   schultr@ashur.cc.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry                           tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel            fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"You just make this crap up and publish it without thinking. . . You did not
have the foggiest, vaguest idea what the man was doing. . . Did you ever
think, for even a second, what might happen to you if these people turn
out to be right?" -- Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 6 January 1993
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenschultr cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.15 / Seth W /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: sethw@access5.digex.net (Seth W.)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: 15 Feb 1996 16:32:43 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA

Doug Yanega (dyanega@denr1.igis.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: If one of these power cells costs $1500 or more (platinum ain't cheap) and
: works for only 30 minutes, wouldn't you be better off bringing a REAL
: portable generator?

Platinum?  Do you mean palladium?  Still, I don't know what the market 
price for palladium is.  Nickel factors into these cells, too, so maybe
they can be made cheap.  All I've seen in various discussions on the 
Patterson cell is that CETI is making the beads available at a "reasonable"
price.

sethw@access.digex.net
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudensethw cudfnSeth cudlnW cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.15 / John Skingley /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: John Skingley <john@circlesw.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 20:44:12 +0000 (GMT)

In article <4fvuig$a3l@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov>, Matt Kennel
<mailto:kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov> wrote:
> 
> John Skingley (john@circlesw.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> 
> > Homeopathy IS now widly accepted, and by a lot of doctors. The fact that
> > the British Medical Association has not officially accepted it is just
> > another example of how new things, especially ones that are 'un-explainable'
> > take a long time to be accepted by those who have a vested interest in
> > the status quo.
> 
> Like, say, Astrology?
> 

Some of the contributors to this news group seem to be suffering from some
sort of hallucination.

Did anyone else see me mention Astrology?

Those who do not have any clear logical reason for their beliefs, and who
cannot argue in a clear logical manner, seem to suffer from this most. 

The technique seems to be  "Lets imply that this dope beleives in something
that everyone thinks is rubbish, then they will all think he's a dope."

Or perhaps the logic goes, "We cannot accept Astrology (reasons not given)
so we cannot accept Homeoppathy or CF."

If you have anything to contribute to this discussion, Matt, I will welcome
your views, otherwise...  And by the way, Astrology isn't exactly new!

 --------------------------
Regards,  John.
P.O. Box 36, BODMIN, PL30 4YY, U.K. Tel/Fax: +44 1208 850790

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnSkingley cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.15 / J Youles /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: J B Youles <john.youles@dial.pipex.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: 15 Feb 1996 21:30:40 GMT
Organization: Chaotic

kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov (Matt Kennel) wrote:
>John Skingley (john@circlesw.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
>> Homeopathy IS now widly accepted, and by a lot of doctors. The fact that
>> the British Medical Association has not officially accepted it is just
>> another example of how new things, especially ones that are 'un-explainable'
>> take a long time to be accepted by those who have a vested interest in
>> the status quo.
>
>Like, say, Astrology?

Many qualified doctors treat their patients homeopathically; they 
wouldn't do this unless they got good results.  So what if the theory 
seems barmy ?  What theory do allopathic doctors use ?  Since time 
immemorial people have used medicines that worked, whatever the theory.  
If you never used a medicine unless the theory was proven thoroughly, 
most widely accepted drugs today would not be used.



-- 
John Youles 
 -----------------------------------------------------------
"If the weather we are having is a result of the greenhouse
 effect, then someone must have taken out all the glass."
 -----------------------------------------------------------


cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenyoules cudfnJ cudlnYoules cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.15 / Matt Kennel /  Re: [HEven more nonsense from Sullivan!
     
Originally-From: kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: [HEven more nonsense from Sullivan!
Date: 15 Feb 1996 18:09:05 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
> Sullivan's
> ignorance of basic physics is so complete that you would think even his
> fellow "skeptics" would point out his mistake to him, but that is not how
> "skeptics" work. 

Mr Rothwell, which parts of "basic physics" do you consider incontrovertible,
and which parts of "basic physics" do you consider up for grabs?

> - Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenkennel cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.14 / N Christlieb /  Re: cold fusion theory (simple)
     
Originally-From: ph3a510@rzaixsrv2.uni-hamburg.de (Norbert Christlieb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: cold fusion theory (simple)
Date: 14 Feb 1996 10:32:29 GMT
Organization: University of Hamburg -- Germany

euejin_jeong (ejeong@pinet.aip.org) wrote:
:  Ignorance takes many shapes. And this is one of those.
: You seem to think you know something. Actually nothing.

Well, excuse me, seems that I didn't get the argument
in your writing. Could you help me with that?? 

Norbert Christlieb
e-mail norbert@philosophie.uni-hamburg.de

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenph3a510 cudfnNorbert cudlnChristlieb cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.15 / Seth W /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: sethw@access5.digex.net (Seth W.)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: 15 Feb 1996 16:25:49 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA

Wesley Ian Bruce (wesleyb@cin.gov.au) wrote:
:   How long will it take to reach the point where they are 
: taught that the Cold Fusion reactions are a-neutronic and do 
: not produce dangerous radiation.CF is a new type of nuclear 

Probably until somebody can explain what's going on, if anything is going
on, and can explain how "cold fusion" differs from fusion.  I think the
best thing the "CF" crowd could do is come up with a new name.  Then when
people start to correct them, they can say, "No, you're talking about 
fusion, we're talking about [whatever]."  Problem solved.  But as long as
people continue to refer to something called "cold fusion", they open 
themselves up for abuse, and perhaps deservedly so.

sethw@access.digex.net
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudensethw cudfnSeth cudlnW cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.13 / John Logajan /  Re: ABC-TV Nightline reports on CETI
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ABC-TV Nightline reports on CETI
Date: 13 Feb 1996 23:10:50 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Ken Seto (kenseto@erinet.com) wrote:
: must be chemical--perhaps the coated metal surface of the beads were
: reacting with the salts in the water to generate  the excess energy
: observed. If it is a chemical reaction the reaction process will cease
: when all the reactants are consumed and at that point, no more excess
: energy will be generated. 

I believe we calculated this for a previous demo that was  putting
out about 5W and found that the available metal coating, if burned,
would only supply 5W for about 10 minutes -- roughly.

--
 - 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:
cuddy13 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.15 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: 15 Feb 1996 18:38:08 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN

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

> Homeopathy IS now widly accepted, and by a lot of doctors. The fact that
> the British Medical Association has not officially accepted it is just
> another example of how new things, especially ones that are 'un-explainable'
> take a long time to be accepted by those who have a vested interest in
> the status quo.

Like, say, Astrology?

> --------------------------
> Regards,  John.
> P.O. Box 36, BODMIN, PL30 4YY, U.K. Tel/Fax: +44 1208 850790

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenkennel cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.14 / John Skingley /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: John Skingley <john@circlesw.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 11:40:17 +0000 (GMT)

> In article <ant101526d07KksR@circlesw.demon.co.uk>, John Skingley
> <john@circlesw.demon.co.uk> writes
> >My dictionary defines-
> >Objective: adj. existing in the real world outside the human mind.
> >
> >The problem is of course that we experience all things through the human
> >mind, which can be very easily fooled. Your objective truth is the world
> >that YOU perceive, filtered by your personal 'belief system'.
> >
> >Anyway, so called objective science has to be based on axiomatic
> > 'truths'. Things which are held to be self evident, but which are not 
> >proven. This has to be, since you can only 'prove' something in terms 
> >of something else. You *believe* you are now reading text on a VDU 
> >screen. This is subjective belief, not objective fact. You accept what 
> >your senses tell you, or rather how your brain interprets the signals 
> >from those senses, as fact. This is an axiom which cannot be proved.
> >
> >No one can PROVE that there is a world outside the human mind.
>
> Yeh, right. (Who *is* this cookie?)
>
> As I was saying, homeopathy, like CF, is a load of bollocks.
> -- 
> Alan M. Dunsmuir

Now Alan, is that supposed to be a considered, rational reply?

You do not understand what I am saying, so I must be a cookie!
You have no rational argument to show that homeopathy and CF do not
exist, so you resort to extreme language!

Is this an example of your scientific approach to life?

Now if you, or anyone else reading this, *can* PROVE that there is a world
outside the human mind, please present that proof.  You will go down
in history as one of the greatest minds of this centrury.

I am, unlike you, willing to be convinced that I'm wrong.

 --------------------------
Regards,  John.
P.O. Box 36, BODMIN, PL30 4YY, U.K. Tel/Fax: +44 1208 850790

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnSkingley cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.15 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: 15 Feb 1996 22:03:37 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN

John Skingley (john@circlesw.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> In article <4fvuig$a3l@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov>, Matt Kennel
> <mailto:kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov> wrote:
> > 
> > John Skingley (john@circlesw.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> > 
> > > Homeopathy IS now widly accepted, and by a lot of doctors. The fact that
> > > the British Medical Association has not officially accepted it is just
> > > another example of how new things, especially ones that are 'un-explainable'
> > > take a long time to be accepted by those who have a vested interest in
> > > the status quo.
> > 
> > Like, say, Astrology?
> > 

The point being that some things which are "not officially accepted" 
and "un-explainable" will remain so for millenia because they're bullshit.

Sometimes people have a "vested interest in the status quo" because they
really honestly believe the status quo is better than what is being
proposed. 

> Or perhaps the logic goes, "We cannot accept Astrology (reasons not given)
> so we cannot accept Homeoppathy or CF."

No. 

> If you have anything to contribute to this discussion, Matt, I will welcome
> your views, otherwise...  And by the way, Astrology isn't exactly new!

What do you mean by Homeopathy?  Do you mean placebo effect or effect of
mental functioning on disease?  That's been quite strongly determined to be
real.

If you mean "two vials of water in which are diluted at most one molecule
of plant A vs plant B" have statistically and clinically significant
distinct results, I've never heard of any evidence that it's true. 

> ---------------------------
> Regards,  John.
> P.O. Box 36, BODMIN, PL30 4YY, U.K. Tel/Fax: +44 1208 850790

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenkennel cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.15 / Matt Kennel /  Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
     
Originally-From: kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
Date: 15 Feb 1996 18:27:22 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN

Bob Sullivan (bsulliva@sky.net) wrote:
> In article <4fbfsd$anv@news.internetmci.com>, kalim@us.net (Karim Alim) wrote:
> ->bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan) wrote:
> ->
> ->>Too bad ABC, George Miley, Quinton Bowles, and Motorola don't read s.p.f. 
> They 
> ->>could have saved themselves a great deal of unnecessary professional 
> ->>embarrassment.
> ->
> ->So what does this mean, the engineers at Motorola don't know how to
> ->use a fucking voltmeter?  Wait, let me guess, YOU built your own
> ->Patterson Power Cell and can't get it to boil your cup-a-soup,
> ->therefore...
> ->-k.
> ->

> I guess you've missed the recent discussions. The problem is that the ENECO/CETI 
> cell can't boil a cup of soup, therefore . . .

> You don't need a voltmeter: No blisters, no boiling means no 1,344 Watts -- no 
> kidding. 

Remember.  If we're getting "1300/500/200 watts" out in high volume lukewarm
water, but the area of the beads is quite small, then by elementary
rothwell-acceptable thermodynamics the temperature right on the beads
MUST be significantly higher.   There should indeed be some spots right
in the middle of the cell that are damn hot if there is some unknown 
heat-producing reaction in the beads.  That, after all, is the hypothesis,
right? 

Is there?  What is the area of the beads?  How does it compare to the
area of the coils of a 1500 watt hair dryer?  The hair dryer coils get
RED HOT, at least 500C, I'd guess.   That's what you need to transfer enough
heat to make 1500 watts in a hair dryer. 

So, the beads MUST BE HOT if they're the thing that's making heat.

If not, I suspect systematic calorimeter error and mistaken heat balance
calculations. 

Do people agree with this?

Of course, they will be hot from ohmic heating already.  And this will
obviously make temperature gradients in the cell, excess heat or no,
making the inference of "net heat out" from "measured temperature" not
entirely trivial. 

Is it possible to image the water flow by the beads?  At this power level
there should be plenty of heat to drive convection. It would be interesting
to compare the convection patterns in a "control cell" (not functional beads)
at input power P with those in a "working cell" (magic beads) at the same
input power.  Higher heating ought to drive faster and more chaotic 
convection.  (a cheap 'one-shot' way to do this it to inject dye at
local spots in the solution, or perhaps but some marginally buoyant
tracer particles; a fancier way is imaging the refraction patterns). 

And then, compare the convection patterns at the apparent excess heating
condition, with those made by dud beads but whose input electrical 
power is boosted to the same level as the apparent excess heat. 

This whole protcol is qualitative testing to make sure that the extra 
heat observed is really coming from the bead apparatus. 

cheers
mbk
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenkennel cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.14 / Jeff Candy /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: Jeff.Candy@jet.uk (Jeff Candy)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 96 12:26:30 GMT
Organization: JET Joint Undertaking

Wesley Ian Bruce <wesleyb@cin.gov.au> wrote:
>How long will it take to reach the point where they are
>taught that the Cold Fusion reactions are a-neutronic and do
>not produce dangerous radiation.CF is a new type of nuclear
>reaction different in both form and products from gas plasma
>fusion and laser fusion.

The so-called CF reactions are essentially a-everything.
Heat in fusion reactions is generated by the kinetic energy
of fusion products.  Does CF short-circuit the fast particle
(surely not a neutron, since deuterium is no longer a reactant)
and jump right to heat?

My colleague D. Borba has suggested the following table:

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laser and Magnetic confined Fusion |             cold 'fusion'
 ----------------------------------|-----------------------------------------
           FUSION                  |              CONFUSION
                                   |
   ENERGETIC FUSION PRODUCTS       |   NO DANGEROUS FUSION PRODUCTS
 (neutrons, gammas, alphas etc)    |
                                   |      ===> NO FUSION ===> NO FUSION POWER
     ENERGY  ====>  POWER          |
                                   |  SOME EXCESS HEAT (not equal to) FUSION
 ----------------------------------|------------------------------------------




Jeff Candy                   ----------------------------------
Analytic Theory Group        http://hagar.ph.utexas.edu/~candy/
JET Joint Undertaking        ----------------------------------



===============================================================================
    The above article is the personal view of the poster and should not be
       considered as an official comment from the JET Joint Undertaking
===============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenCandy cudfnJeff cudlnCandy cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.13 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Patterson Power Cell
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Patterson Power Cell
Date: 13 Feb 1996 00:10:29 GMT
Organization: Battelle Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

In article <1996Feb12.172757.19992@driftwood.cray.com>,
cd@birch119.cray.com (Chris Dickson) wrote:

> In article <4flksu$c8u@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, davesradio@aol.com
(DavesRadio) writes:
> > Greetings all,
> > 
> > In addition, I intend to replace my existing baseboard hot-water home
> > heating system with these cells!  "Be the first kid on the block to have
> > this new futuristic hydrogen energy conversion heating system in YOUR
> > home..."  :=)
> > 
> This guy is going to get two cold showers at the same time. Brrrrr! 

Yeah, and he's about to take a bath, too.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.15 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Jed is wrong and libelous
     
Originally-From: kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed is wrong and libelous
Date: 15 Feb 1996 17:51:13 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN

jonesse@plasma wrote:

> Jed is wrong as well as libelous in calling me a "conniving liar."  I am not.

> I'm surprised you guys put up with such behavior on spf -- I saw no comments
> from anyone else on this.  Would you allow Mr. Rothwell to call *you* a
> conniving liar?  There seems to be a lack of decency here that ought to be
> checked.

It's like being investigated by Hoover's FBI.  

In the '60s this would put you on the "a1 cool list" in many crowds. 

> --Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenkennel cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.15 / Seth W /  Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
     
Originally-From: sethw@access5.digex.net (Seth W.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
Date: 15 Feb 1996 23:00:02 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA

Matt Kennel (kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov) wrote:
: 
: So, the beads MUST BE HOT if they're the thing that's making heat.
: 
: If not, I suspect systematic calorimeter error and mistaken heat balance
: calculations. 
: 
: Do people agree with this?

Seems reasonable to me.

: Of course, they will be hot from ohmic heating already.  And this will
: obviously make temperature gradients in the cell, excess heat or no,
: making the inference of "net heat out" from "measured temperature" not
: entirely trivial. 

How will the magic beads be hot from ohmic heating already?

: Is it possible to image the water flow by the beads?  At this power level
  
: This whole protcol is qualitative testing to make sure that the extra 
: heat observed is really coming from the bead apparatus. 
: 
: cheers
: mbk

From where else would you suspect heat to be coming?  Did you see either
of the two stories on TV, or have you seen pictures of the apparatus?

sethw@access.digex.net
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudensethw cudfnSeth cudlnW cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.15 / Matt Kennel /  Re: cold fusion theory (simple)
     
Originally-From: kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: cold fusion theory (simple)
Date: 15 Feb 1996 18:03:26 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN

AndersonBD (andersonbd@aol.com) wrote:
> 100 years ago, no one would ever have
> believed that a couple pounds of uranium could produce as much energy as
> thousands of tons of dynamite.

As well they shouldn't have.  

However, in '38 scientists showed clear and convincing and reproducible
evidence that uranium fission could occur.  After Frisch and Meitner's
explanation, everybody understood the impliciation. 

(IMHO, the discovery of nuclear fission was the most astonishingly 
 unexpected experimental discovery of this century..) 

>             - AndersonBD@aol.com
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenkennel cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.12 / Anthony Potts /  Re: Radiation Detecting Wristwatch
     
Originally-From: Anthony Potts <potts@afsmail.cern.ch>
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,sci.engr.biomed,sci.engr.safety,s
i.med.dentistry,sci.med.deseases.cancer,sci.med.immunology,sci.med.occup
tional,sci.med.,radiology,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.fusion,sc
.physics.particle,sci.space.pocicy,sci.physics,sci.med
Subject: Re: Radiation Detecting Wristwatch
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 16:27:38 GMT
Organization: CERN European Lab for Particle Physics



On Thu, 8 Feb 1996, ppm wrote:

> Introduction of the first wristwatch that measures, detects, and counts 
> radioactive radiation and x-rays. Instant Alarm when treshold surpassed; 
> Dose Rate in mrem/h and cumulative Dose in mrem recorded over last 12
> months. For details:
> 
> http://gn2.getnet.com/~ppm/
> 
> Scientific feed-back appreciated.
> 
> 
I can give you some feed-back.

This product is absolutely worthless. If you are working in an 
environment with sources of ionising radiation ,then you will be given a 
dose meter (usually a film badge) to wear. If you are not working in such 
an environment then you do not need something to measure the dose that yo 
are getting.

Basically you need not worry about radiation in your everyday life. You 
can increase your daily doasge by a factor of 50 by moving from Dorset to 
Aberdeen, and this is still accepted as safe. If you are worried about 
ionising radiation then I would suggest that the best safety measure you 
can take is to take all your long-distance journeys on the Earth's 
surface and not to eat any smoke detectors. Apart from that, don't worry.

Anthony Potts

Oh, and cut down on the bananas and Gatorade
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenpotts cudfnAnthony cudlnPotts cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.16 /  singtech@telep /  Re: A Bose Condesate hypothesis for CF
     
Originally-From: singtech@teleport.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Bose Condesate hypothesis for CF
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 03:20:33 -0800
Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016

In article <4fgc4a$asb@gaia.ns.utk.edu>, kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov wrote:

> singtech@teleport.com wrote:
> : That's part of the point.  Coulomb's Law is a special case and only
> : applies to particles which have significant relative motion. 
> 
> Now this is an unusual assertion.  Coulomb's law appears to work
> OK in accurately predicting the mutual capacitance of macroscopic conductors
> at rest. 
> 
> What does "significant relative motion entail"?  Does the thermal
> motion of charges in conductors count as being 'significant enough'?
> If so, does your theory thus predict a change in capacitance as a function
> of temperature?

You obviously asked this question without finishing your read of the post.

> Do you have a specific alternate formulation of the force law in mind? 

Yes, as a matter of fact I do.  You must realize that this is a very
thermal world which we live in and, in fact, there has never been a
experiment conducted in history which demonstrated that Coulomb's Law held
for two charged particles which were in the same rest frame.  In a phone
discussion I had with Cornell this week, he pretty much had to agree to
that assertion and replied that the statement or idea that Coulomb's Law
is a 'special case' was pretty interesting.  Now considering that
virtually all of modern physics has been built on this pillar stone -
wouldn't it be really interesting if my theorem turned out to be true? 
Most of modern physics would come down like a castle in the sky.

The particles in the BEC experiment are interpreted by the experimenters
Cornell and Wieman and their grad students as not really having an
attractive interaction.  They are condensing to a single quantum state but
are even thought to be somewhat repelling one another at the same time. 
They are interpreting the data as if the particles are all moving to a
common low energy state location (sort of like marbles on a tight rubber
sheet would roll to collect at a point where you pushed in on the sheet). 
They are coming together but they are not attracting one another.  But
this may be mere interpretation.  It could be that the reason they are
coming together is because there is an attractive interaction and the
reason such interaction is not more violent is because the electrons of
every atom essentially act like they may be the preventitive items which
precludes a more powerful attractive interaction.  For example they
indicated that deuterium is quite intractable for use in this experiment
because of its molecular structure of D2.  The interaction between the
electron and the nuclei doesn't allow the deuterons to reduce their
relative v to the point where they have de Broglie overlap.  However, if
deuterons are ionized and then made part of a monoenergetic beam where
their velocity vectors don't cross (are single valued) then you can expect
not only a BEC between them but actual nuclear fusion.  I even pointed
this out to Ephriam Fischbach of Purdue last summer and he said the point
that I raised was 'very interesting' and he did not refute it and
suggested I design some experiments which could show this.  What I did
instead was to file a patent application related to this principle.  The
theorem I wrote is relatively crude but more important it is elegantly
simple - and because of that, damn hard to refute.  Or should be damn easy
to refute if it is wrong.  But merely invoking Coulomb's Law is a hell of
a poor attempt at refutation because I am saying that I agree that a lot
of technology and thousands of experiments demonstrate the validity of
Coulomb's Law (but really only for charges that have enough relative
motion where their de Broglie wavelengths are less than their
interparticle distance and those 'pilot' waves are determined only by the
relative motion between the charges).  This goes to the heart of my
argument that Coulomb's Law is a 'special case'.  The 'general case'
(currently submitted in a paper to a well known physics journal)
completely flips the force around when particles are in the same rest
frame.  Then like charged particle become strongly attractively
interactive and unlike charged particles repel one another.  And these
forces are all non-local.  I say  that *all* forces fall under this same
'general case' force law.  BEC's, weak interaction, strong force, the
attractive interaction between electrons in superconducting (Cooper Pairs)
pairs of electrons, and gravity.  The thing to recognize is that these
manifestations of non-local interactions are mediated along the vector
potentials.  One has to have a picture of where the vector potentials fit
into the universe and return to Ehrenberg and Siday's work and Aharanov
and Bohm's work and understand the significance of characterizing the
vector potentials as the media of propagation of all particles.  This
means that in a universe of n particles that the unit charge symetrically
in time consists of exactly 2n-2 vector potentials (assuming a compact
manifold).  Then Maxwell's Div E = 4 pi rho is at best an approximation
and at worst horribly misleading in giving us a valid picture of reality. 
I recommend you get a copy of Aharanov and Bohm's classic paper
"Significance of Electromagnetic Potentials in the Quantum Theory"
published in The Physical Review, Second Series, Vol. 115, No. 3, August
1, 1959, Pages 485-491.  10 years earlier W. Ehrenberg and R. W. Siday,
Proc. Phys. Soc. London, B62, 8 (1949) formulated electron optics with
refractive index represented by the potentials.

So the force between two charged particles in the same rest frame doesn't
fall off as the square of the distance between them because the
interaction is mediated along a single potential and that potential has
zero divergence.  It might be instructive to realize that in a compact
manifold universe of n particles that there are, as I said, 2n-2
potentials that make the unit charge but that really make the particle
complete (past present and future) and therefore makes its net charge
zero.  But we don't get to observe a particle (normally) in the present
and the past simultaneously.  So we only get to see locally that a
particle appears to consist of n-1 potentials and that makes the unit
charge.  But there are always two connections between any two particles in
the universe (compact manifold here again is assumed) the near and the far
(the future and the past).  Together they form a closed loop.  That closed
loop represents the absolute zero state which is the lowest energy state
in the universe.  Since it is likely that all forces can be expressed as
being directly related to the principle of least action or whatever one
might want to call it but it can be expressed in the vernacular that
everything tends to move to the lowest energy state possible.  The zero
state is the lowest conceivable state in the compact manifold universe
(toroidal).  So the force between deuterons in the same rest frame is the
result of a complete degenerate potential loop.  This force can be
equivalent to the strong force and will be independent of the physical
distance between centers (as long as the their de Broglie wavelength,
'lambda', is equal to or greater than the interparticle distance - even if
that distance is light years!  And all this time we've been wondering how
bare iron nuclei can come whipping through space - Where did they get that
energy?  Perhaps from the uninterupted overlap state of two like charged
particles in the same rest frame.  They can accelerate to pretty fantastic
energies if they are in interstellar space and nothing crosses their paths
to disturb their overlap condition (quantum state).
 
> Presumably, it must be a modification of the Lorentz force law, 
> 
>         F = qE + v/c x B

Quoting Carol White in her 'Energy Potential: Toward a New Electromagnetic
Field Theory' ISBN 0-918388-04-X; "It is likely that Lorentz force law
will not prove to be generally valid.  Electrons and positive ions in high
energy plasma, subjected to magnetic fields in plasma focus machines, have
been observed to violate the Lorentz force law as they are in the process
of forming themselves into vortical filaments...."

> : The only
> : time that nuclear fusion can occur between interacting nuclei is when
> : their de Broglie wavelengths are equal to or greater than their
> : interparticle distance (measured center to center).  Get the ionized
> : fusion fuel nuclei (deuterons) into the same rest frame and give them
> : proximity on the order of the mean free path and they will strongly
> : attractively interact and fuse.
> 
> What is the source of the attractive interaction?

I think that it is really related ultimately to the geometry of the
universe, to the potentials which operate non-locally (even out of time,
so to speak).  We could not even have the emission of an electromagnetic
wave if we didn't have the advanced wave falling in from the utmost
'target' in the universe.  So every emitted photon has a target before
emission is possible.  This establishes a foundation for a
superdeterminism, also, by the way.  The potentials which link all
particles in the universe are the media of propagation of EM radiation. 
So what is a particle?  Easy, its the collection of n-1 potentials in a
vortex.  This vision at once puts away the continuum of GR and the
absolute discreteness of particles of QM.

The 'general case':  F= (k(Q1*Q2)/(r^2)) * R(sub m)

Where R(sub m) stands for Relative motion variable, and has one of two
possible values (1 or -1).  R(sub m) = -1 if lambda >= interparticle
distance, and it is 1 if lambda is < interparticle distance.

When R(sub m) is -1, then r approaches zero (effectively) so that F is
equivalent to the strong force in magnitude.

Other notes:

Liu has written several papers {quant-ph/9510004 ['The Real Significance
of the Electromagnetic Potentials'] and quant-ph/9506038 ['Potential
Effect: Aharanov-Bohm Effect of Simply Connected Region']) concerning the
significance of the vector potentials referring not only to Aharanov and
Bohm's work but also to that of Ehrenberg and Siday.  Both of these papers
are available to download from Los Alamos preprint archives at:

        http://xxx.lanl.gov

They will generally be available as either a postscript file or as a
source (Usally LaTex).  If you have difficulty getting them I could send
over my .pdf versions for on screen reading by Adobe Acrobat Reader.

Anyway, you can see that once the potentials are interpreted as dynamic
one dimensional relationships between all particles in the universe that
suddenly Einstein's continuous structure evaporates as does QM's
absolutely discrete particulate matter.  What exists in their place at
once establishes the reality of non-local interactions yets provides a
foundation for local vortical geometries.  Out of this vision along with a
fundamental alteration to Coulomb's Law tumbles virtually the rest of
reality to include gravity, Bose-Einstein Condensates, the 'strong force',
superconduction and more.


I heard that Einstein once stated something to the effect that when we
truly understand the universe that we will be able to explain it to
children.

So do you get it yet?

Another favorite quote I found on the net:

"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas.  If your ideas are any good,
you'll have to ram them down people's throats."
                - Howard Aiken

Best Regards,

rsvp


C. Cagle

-- 


"He who finishes physics, finishes religion and philosophy at the same time"
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudensingtech cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.14 / Bob Sullivan /  cmsg cancel <4frt8s$72c_002@ip81.sky.net>
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <4frt8s$72c_002@ip81.sky.net>
Date: 14 Feb 1996 06:06:23 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

cancel
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.15 / Seth W /  Re: cold fusion theory (simple)
     
Originally-From: sethw@access5.digex.net (Seth W.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: cold fusion theory (simple)
Date: 15 Feb 1996 17:41:11 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA

John Michener (michener@injersey.com) wrote:
: Even if you could dissolve large amounts of hydrogen in Palladium, the 
: presence of the metal lattice would do little to aid in supression of the 
: Coulomb barrier, which is much more local than the interatomic potentials. 
:  The presence of the interatomic potentials and their effect upon on the 
: effective electron mass only affects the delocalized electrons that are 
: interacting with the lattice.  Once electrons become locallized enough to 
: effect the ionic potential, they are interacting with their own mass 
: rather than their effective mass.

Does the presence of delocalized electrons lower the resistance of the 
metal?  Would there be any effect of a magnetic field applied to such a 
metal?  Would it push the electrons to one side and the nuclei to the other?
Would it be possible to pack the nuclei tightly enough within the lattice
to overcome the Coulomb barrier?

sethw@access.digex.net
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudensethw cudfnSeth cudlnW cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.17 / Malcom Sperry /  Re: How to keep ice/water in it's solid state at 40degrees celcius? Help
     
Originally-From: mac@news.connectnet.com (Malcom J. Sperry)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How to keep ice/water in it's solid state at 40degrees celcius? Help
Date: 17 Feb 1996 00:18:19 GMT
Organization: CONNECTnet Internet Network Services (service provider)

If you could put it under high enough pressure such that the 
intermolecular pressure/friction forced each molecule to maintain its exact 
position with respect to the others, it could exhibit at least some of the 
same qulities as a solid/mac


MARSHALL DUDLEY (mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com) wrote:
: Ziad Rahayel <z_rahay@alcor.concordia.ca> writes:
:  
: -> I am not sure I am posting to the right group for this!
:  
: You are not.  Sci.physics and sci.chem would be better choices.
:  
: -> I am looking for a way to keep ice/water in it's solid state at
: -> temperatures up to 40degrees celcius.  Any means to do this is welcome,
: -> thermodynamics, chemical...  Whatever.
:  
: This cannot be done with pure water.  The highest melting point of water occurs
: a small fraction of a degree above 0 C.  Pressures necessary to accomplish this
: would be out of the question.  You state that you can use chemical means.
: There are a number of chemicals that can make the solution of water and the
: chemical solid at 40 C.  Gelatin is one that comes to mind immediately that
: would allow you to take it to about 20 C.  Other similar chemicals, such as
: agar agar I believe will go to higher temperatures.
:  
: Marshall
:  
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmac cudfnMalcom cudlnSperry cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Feb 17 04:37:04 EST 1996
------------------------------
