1996.02.23 /  Fam /  Re: Radiation Detecting Wristwatch
     
Originally-From: "Fam.Borm-Mulder" <j3bkjjm@xs4all.nl>
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.,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.
article
Subject: Re: Radiation Detecting Wristwatch
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 20:20:40 +0000 (GMT)
Organization: XS4ALL, networking for the masses

In article <4gi0qu$2sou@news.doit.wisc.edu>, Mike Baker
<mailto:baker@nucst11.neep.wisc.edu> wrote:
> 
> In article <ant2121481cbEmcX@j3bkjjm.xs4all.nl> "Fam.Borm-Mulder" <j3bkjj=
m@xs4all.nl> 
> writes:
> >
> >In Holland, and to the best of my knowledge in the whole of
> >Europe, separate measurements of the hand or finger dose are
> >required for the few heavilly exposed workers.
> >
> >In Holland we mostly use TLD's instead of filmbadges these days,
> >for both versions are available as hand- or finger-dosimeters.
> >
> >So a wristwatch type of dosimeter may have some applications.
> >BTW how long does it take to get a readout from film-badge 
> >or TLD device ??
> >
> 
> =09A TLD can be read out in a matter of minutes once 
> =09it has been collected by the health physics folks.
> 
> =09I contacted these watch people for more information 
> =09and the biggest problem is that the watch costs
> =09$2300 to $2500 (US dollars) depending on what model
> =09you want.  I think there would only be rare instances 
> =09where this cost is justified.
> 
> =09You also asked about its accuracy, the spec sheet they sent
> =09me says 10% at the calibration point but didn't specify
> =09much else.
> =09
> =09The only reason I can think of that these would be turned
> =09down by a regulatory body would be that they don't =09
> =09provide an exposure record for long term storage.  Film
> =09badges and TLD "glow curves" can be used to meet that 
> =09function.
> 
> 

-- 
Judocus J.J.Borm
Email: j3bkjjm@xs4all.nl

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenj3bkjjm cudlnFam cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.22 / Larry Wharton /  Re: What's the secret?
     
Originally-From: Larry Wharton <Wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's the secret?
Date: 22 Feb 1996 15:06:24 GMT
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center -- Greenbelt, Maryland USA

I tried to word my statement so that there would be no actual claim of 
any stolen ideas. If that is not the case then I give my apologies and 
regrets to Steve Jones.  I did not make any claim as to the origin of 
any of Dr. Jones' ideas as he could have very well have thought them all 
up himself.  I do know that while Dr. Jones was advocating his 
recombination theory I was advocating my internal heat pump theory and I 
did not see anything from him on this later subject.  Now he says he has 
figured it out and will be doing an experiment that will simulate the 
CETI results.  His device will be useless as a heat source.  Since the 
CETI cell output produces apparent excess heat hot water, then it could 
only be useless as a heat source if this hot water contained some 
nagative potential energy product that would dissipate the heat.  This 
sounds exactly like my theory.  Is Steve Jones honest?  There is no 
evidence to the contrary. Is he smart?  No doubt about it.  Many people 
had a hard time with my concept of an internal heat pump that pumps heat 
out of a phase transition, such as salt crystals, or a chemical reaction 
and delivers the products embedded in hot water.  

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


cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenWharton cudfnLarry cudlnWharton cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.23 / Mark Wong /  Re: cold fusion theory (simple)
     
Originally-From: mawong@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Wong)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: cold fusion theory (simple)
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 96 22:57:39 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments

Mark Wong writes:
>
>    ....              Wild speculation by some non scientists heard of Coulomb
>screening.  A red herring of course, since we are talking about nuclear fusion.
>But quantum mechanical tunneling would give us a lower bound on the energy
>required.

Jim Carr writes:
>No, it tells you the rate.  After all, even fusion in the sun proceeds 
>via tunneling through the coulomb barrier.  None of which is relevant 
>to the main discussion except for scientific accuracy.  

Thanks for correcting me.  I was really looking for rate as a function of 
energy in my calculations and I am sorry for the conFUSION of the first post:)
Several others pointed out that there is no lower bound on fusion energy in
direct email to me.
Mark A. Wong                       /             \
Texas Instruments                 /      /|\      \
mawong@m2.dseg.ti.com        ---(.)----<(_+_)>----(.)---
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmawong cudfnMark cudlnWong cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.23 / Howard Landman /  Re: Jed's got the heebie-jeebies
     
Originally-From: landman@hal.COM (Howard Landman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed's got the heebie-jeebies
Date: 23 Feb 1996 17:39:08 -0800
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.

In article <4frq73$1bou@news.unimelb.EDU.AU>,
Martin Sevior  <msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
>The difference being that a magician doesn't let you wander around his trick,
>examine it inside and out and watch it happen for several days on end.

You must be thinking of a stage magician.  Parlor magicians have *LOTS*
of tricks that not only invite audience inspection and participation, but
*depend* on it.  I learned this great rope trick from John H. Conway,
for example, which works best with mathematicians because they KNOW that
what they're seeing is topologically impossible, but once they've gotten
their own hands on the rope, often become convinced that they're not being
tricked.  The cognitive dissonance is truly spectacular ... but I digress.

It is essential for many tricks to get the audience to believe that no
fraud could *possibly* have been perpetrated - even as you mislead them!

Letting them inspect or touch the apparatus, or perform parts of the
trick, helps this end immensely.  Of course, you have to arrange things
so they don't notice the *trick*, but that's the art of magic.  You get
them to believe that they have seen everything, when in fact they have
seen everything but the essential thing.  This is called "misdirection".

	Howard A. Landman
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenlandman cudfnHoward cudlnLandman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.22 / Elliot Kennel /  Re: Plans to test/Hydrogen onlycell...
     
Originally-From: Elliot Kennel <71756.3025@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Plans to test/Hydrogen onlycell...
Date: 22 Feb 1996 18:59:37 GMT
Organization: Applied Sciences Inc

Dave, are you sure you know what you're doing?  Glow discharge 
loading requires only ~300 volts.  What pressure are you trying 
and why?

Best regards,
Elliot Kennel
Yellow Springs Oh
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cuden3025 cudfnElliot cudlnKennel cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.23 / Howard Landman /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: landman@hal.COM (Howard Landman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: 23 Feb 1996 13:57:03 -0800
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.

In article <BJjbzBANmNHxEwVS@moonrake.demon.co.uk>,
Alan M. Dunsmuir <alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>As I was saying, homeopathy, like CF, is a load of bollocks.

My understanding is that the central idea of homeopathy is that smaller
amounts of various substances have more, not less, effect than larger
amounts.  It seems pretty clear that this general principal is horribly
wrong, but that is not the same as saying that it is never true in
specific cases.  There are a lot of non-linear subsystems in biology,
a lot of positive and negative feedbacks, and some pretty strange
things can happen in complex systems like that.  I'd be willing
to bet that a determined search could find examples where the slope
of effect as a function of amount was negative over some range.

An assumption of linearity would make homeopathy provably wrong in
all cases, but that's just an assumption, and a false one.  Nature
isn't linear.

Unfortunately, most homeopaths don't seem the slightest bit interested
in determining when, if ever, their principle applies.

	Howard A. Landman

	"Nature isn't classical, dammit!"
		- Richard Feynman
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenlandman cudfnHoward cudlnLandman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.24 / mitchell swartz /  Cold fusion Table of Contents supplements pointers and refs
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.electronics,sci.materials,
ci.chem,sci.physics
Subject: Cold fusion Table of Contents supplements pointers and refs
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 1996 08:26:08 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


 The Cold Fusion Times' back issue Table of Contents
is finally constructed, and is available on the web at 
  http://world.std.com/~mica/back1.html

  The Cold Fusion Times Back Issue Table of Contents
lists a comprehensive review of coverage extending over 
four years in this field of generating energy from water.

  This supplements the Cold Fusion Times' references
and pointers which are located on the web at
   http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html



cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.23 /   /  Re: Radiation Detecting Wristwatch
     
Originally-From: jman050@aol.com (Jman050)
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.,,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
particle,
Subject: Re: Radiation Detecting Wristwatch
Date: 23 Feb 1996 04:25:31 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Is this wristwatch more useful or convienient than the film type dosage
detectors? If not, than I think the development of this product was a
waste of time, money, and knowledge.

-Jake Mannion, 14

jmannion@choate.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjman050 cudln cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.24 / H Lowenhaupt /  Re: John N. White first with salt theory
     
Originally-From: nimud@lasvegas-nexus.com (Harris Lowenhaupt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: John N. White first with salt theory
Date: 24 Feb 1996 04:30:13 GMT
Organization: Cast Earth; Nickel Laterites



In article <4glf8t$2it@post.gsfc.nasa.gov>, Larry Wharton
<Wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote:

>  Some people think that I am overlooking the salt theory that John N. 
>White came up with a few months age.  I am well aware of it and I think 
>it is important to mention it.  John had purposed that the water pump 
>was the source of energy.  The pump would dissolve salt crystals and put 
>energy into the electrolyte stream.  Then the CETI cell would cause salt 
>crystals to form and release heat.  His arguments were refuted and the 
>theory was discarded.  The main problem was that the pump probably was 
>not inputing enough energy in this form.  Jed Rothwell called John's 
>crystals "magic crystals" in view of the strange properties they would 
>have.  If my crystals need some "magic" property I hope someone will 
>point this out.  In my theory I decided to do away with the role of the 
>pump and simply have the cell forcing salt crystal formation. The heat 
>pumped by the cell would only be limited by the Carnot cycle efficiency 
>and thus much larger amounts of heat could be output compared to the 
>electrolysis power in.  Some excellent analysis was done at the time on 
>John's theory and it is worthwhile to read back over some of this.
>  For my part, I will now try to do a proper entropy flux analysis with 
>all the actual numbers put in.  I hope to have this ready soon.
>
>Lawrence E. Wharton   wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov
>NASA/GSFC code 913, Greenbelt MD 20771
>
work (301) 286-3486,    home (301) 595-5038

Well said, but for appreciation you should use a few paragraphs.  No one
is really able to figure this long multi-thought thing out without a break
in the continuity.  One of the things our community lacks is the ability
to speak and especially to write.  Good luck.  (I'm an electrochemist, not
an engish teacher.)

Harris Lowenhaupt
Cast Earth
Nickel Laterites
nimud@lasvegas-nexus.com
702-294-1132
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudennimud cudfnHarris cudlnLowenhaupt cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.22 / Timothy Smith /  Re: final explanation of 2nd law of thermodynamics; entropy 
     
Originally-From: tps8a@Virginia.EDU (Timothy Paul Smith)
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 
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 04:11:00 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu  writes:
> In article <1996Feb15.174239.2078@es.dupont.com>
> diebolmp@esvx19.es.dupont.com writes:
> 
> > >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?
> 
>   Well taken point. You must excuse my writing, I often get carried
> away when I talk or reflect on the science community. Some have called
> that "ranting". I take my ranting as more comical than logical and I
> seldom review it for grammatical or logical mistakes. The Internet has
> freedom of speech, but I like my freedom to rant much more. In fact I
> esteem the freedom of ranting as a more valuable and more precious
> freedom and worthy of fighting over such as the war of 1812 and the
> Civil War. And the US government concurs, because we are guilty until
> we ourselves prove our innocence to the IRS, but with Freedom of Rant
> and Freedom of Speech we are innocent until proven guilty by a grand
> jury, or not so grand.
> 
>   No, Mr. Diebolm, that was just one of my common rants, I like to rant
> about the science community because they are rather protected from
> society. Science has its overzealous hero worship and its esteem and
> value are so way out of proportion as compared to other communities. I
> mean some science people will go so far as to worship scientists, eg,
> Feynman, Einstein etc. One good thing about Internet is that it can
> refocus some of this hero worship into a better reality of the true
> situation.
> 
>    As for my comments on the 2nd law which flew completely over the
> little mind of Timothy Paul Smith in an earlier follow-up post. 
> 
>   The whole thing about the 2nd law of thermodynamics and entropy is
> that the world failed and neglected to realize that there was a Missing
> Term. Maxwell's fame is based mostly on the synthesizing of the laws of
> Electromagnetism and uncovering the Missing Term in order to synthesize
> the Equations.
>    Here, like Maxwell, I am saying that there was a missing term in the
> 2nd law. There is entropy, but there is another physical term in the
> 2nd law, not as obvious not as easy to grasp. There is a term in the
> 2nd Law which had been missed by all the great physicists before me. It
> is a term which I will call the Ordered Progression and it is for that
> term which created life on Earth. You see, in all physical processes,
> by and large, most are entropic, but that only takes say 95 or 99
> percent of the 'happenings'. For 95% entropy there is a 5% Ordered
> Progression, an advance, a more ordered state created than what was
> given up in entropic disorder.
>    You see, Mr. Diebolm, in my final explanation of the 2nd Law of
> Thermodynamics I am telling the world that they missed the boat about
> the 2nd Law. In the example I gave of the pure Uranium block that 99%
> of the atoms will go down in entropy to being lead and lesser atoms,
> but a tiny few will go up into being a neptunium or plutonium atoms
> within that original block. The old 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is simply
> wrong, it is at a loss to explain my thought experiment, and this
> thought experiment is easy to do in any laboratory and confirm it to be
> the truth.
>    The old 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was an incomplete law, and it
> needed that extra term. I, like Maxwell who found the Missing Term for
> the Maxwell Equations, I found the missing term in the 2nd Law of
> Thermodynamics.
> 
>   I hope that clarifies things better.


	Archimedes, you're full of shit.  
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudentps8a cudfnTimothy cudlnSmith cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.24 / Seth W /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: sethw@access5.digex.net (Seth W.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: 24 Feb 1996 05:47:45 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA

Matt Kennel (kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov) wrote:
: > Anyway, back up say, ten years before the Wright brothers lifted off.
: > Controlled flight didn't seem possible.  In the brief history I just looked
: > up, people had been trying to fly for what? something like 30 or 40 years.
: > In your documentary, did they mention it took the Wright brothers something
: > like 5 years to attract attention from people other than inventors working
: > on similar projects? 
: 
: Dorks, but not mainstream "engineers working on powered flight".  After all

Did the documentary mention hordes of competitors to the Wright brothers?
From the brief summary I read, I really don't get the feeling the field
was getting a lot of attention from anybody but a small group of inventors
pursuing an idea, until, borrowing from what I read, the Wright brothers
"stunned the world" in France some five years after they took their first
flight.

Perhaps what you can say is that the Wright brothers weren't trying to
violate any known engineering principles of the time.  But they WERE
developing new engineering principles, as you alluded to later in what
you wrote.  I think a similar attitude could be taken with regard to 
the experiments with hydrogen and lattices, i.e. a small group of 
individuals is trying to explore a new reaction.  The problem starts when
others or they themselves link it to a known reaction which cannot be
occurring.

: Modern high performance military jets have so much power that their engines
: could make a dining room table fly, so in many ways the first airplane
: was one of the hardest. 

And with all of the stories about the F-14's lately, they might be better
off with the dining room tables . . . .

: 
: >  It probably didn't help any that they were bicycle
: > mechanics.  
: 
: The show said how they communicated with professors in europe, who quickly
: realized that they were on the cutting edge of the science and technology. 
: It certainly did help that they were bicycle mechanics, as they had a good
: machine shop and money to buy good tools. 

I can't help but feel that a majority of scientists would reject two
brothers who were bicycle mechanics.  Maybe the professors in Europe were
considered "kooks" by other professors.

P.S.:  Just for my own curiousity, is there any record of how the Wright
brothers decided which one got to ride first?

sethw@access.digex.net
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudensethw cudfnSeth cudlnW cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.24 / 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: 24 Feb 1996 05:20:20 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA

Harry H Conover (conover@max.tiac.net) wrote:
: Seth W. (sethw@access5.digex.net) wrote:
: : OK, you really like to slam "cold fusion", and the people who are interested
: : in pursuing it.  Would you like to explain why you piped up here in response
: : to a CETI claim?  Since, after all, CETI does not claim to be using "cold
: : fusion" to produce the results observed with the Patterson cell?
: 
: Seth, being new here you're probably unaware that the devices being discussed,
: including CETI's, are lumped into the generic category of CF engines
: (preferable to Free Energy, ZPE, or Perpetual Motion devices). This
: categorization began about a year ago, when nuclear events were pretty
: much found lacking in the CF 'evidence' whereupon Jed Rothwell proclaimed 
: that CF is independent of the producing mechanism.  Most other participants
: in this newsgroup have gone along with this, although it is more than a 
: little misleading.

I am aware that the Patterson cell is being lumped together with other
"cold fusion" experiments or devices.  Since you have conceded that "it is
more than a little misleading," I will not belabor the point.
 
: : For starters, would you tell me of another "cold fusion" experiment of which
: : you are aware which has used "light water" and has been proven false?
:
: For extraordinary claims that violate the entirety of man's accumulated
: knowledge, the burden for evidence or proof falls upon the claimant.  To
: date, no one in CF has successfully built a case for excess heat
: or excess energy that has been able to withstand close critical
: examination and analysis, or to support professional replication.
:
:                                      Harry C.

My question to you, then, is whether you mean to include the Patterson
cell there in your criticism of "cold fusion".  If you do, then I think you
are incorrect, or premature in your conclusion.  Experimentation and
replication have not invalidated the "case for excess heat or excess
energy" where the Patterson cell is concerned--yet.

My concern is that what might be a new approach will be dismissed out of
hand because people associate it with other experiments that have nothing
more to do with it than trying to obtain energy from hydrogen in a metal
lattice.  There are lots of wrong ways to try to do just about anything,
but they don't invalidate the right way.

So if you can tell me of another experiment where thin layers of metal
were used on small beads held in a grid in light water, I'll be content
to listen to you say, "It's been done.  There's nothing there."  But if
you don't know of another experiment similar to the Patterson cell having
been done and previously discredited, then I don't think you should lump
the Patterson cell with other "cold fusion" efforts simply to discredit
the approach.

I think that's only fair.

sethw@access.digex.net

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudensethw cudfnSeth cudlnW cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.21 / Martin Mueller /  Re: Anyone predict spin direction of 231PU ?
     
Originally-From: Martin Mueller <mueller@chem.wisc.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.astro,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Anyone predict spin direction of 231PU ?
Date: 21 Feb 1996 07:30:27 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin

What is your problem?

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmueller cudfnMartin cudlnMueller cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.23 / A Plutonium /  cmsg cancel <4gj6gd$in0@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.chem,sci.astro,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <4gj6gd$in0@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Date: 23 Feb 1996 08:30:19 GMT

Cancelled by jem@xpat.com.  825064219
Plutonium
Cancel of Archimedes Plutonium newsgroup bombing via reposts
of private email to various Usenet newsgroups.

Original Subject was: spin direction of 231PU when discovered
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.23 / A Plutonium /  cmsg cancel <4gj7ac$biv@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.chem,sci.astro,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <4gj7ac$biv@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Date: 23 Feb 1996 08:30:35 GMT

Cancelled by jem@xpat.com.  825064235
Plutonium
Cancel of Archimedes Plutonium newsgroup bombing via reposts
of private email to various Usenet newsgroups.

Original Subject was: Old 2nd Law of Thermodynamics proves Lee and Yang experiment 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Feb 25 04:37:03 EST 1996
------------------------------
