THE WORLD NEEDS COLD FUSION.
goo...@rock.com
fusion, we will unlock the power of the atom, and the world will have
infinite energy and be able to create matter out of energy and thus
infinite wealth.
Cold fusion is for real. Just like the light bulb it may take many
attempts to get right.
Thomas Edison failed more than 1,000 times when trying to create the
light bulb. When asked about it, Edison allegedly said, "I have not
failed 1,000 times. I have successfully discovered 1,000 ways to NOT
make a light bulb."
Cold fusion is for real.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
From Wired Magazine "What If Cold Fusion Is Real?"
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.11/coldfusion_pr.html
"That's what makes cold fusion so nonreproducible," says Storms. "You
have to load the palladium with very high concentrations [of
deuterium], and many samples simply won't tolerate it."
"Heat has practical applications," concedes McKubre, "but what am I
supposed to do with the ability to turn expensive elements into cheap
ones?"
This, finally, is his explanation for many negative results. There's
still a snag, though. Just because he knows how to select good
palladium, doesn't mean he knows how to make it. "Pons and Fleischmann
used to test samples from a supplier, Johnson Matthey, and over the
years they figured out how to create palladium that worked most of the
time. But Johnson Matthey signed a nondisclosure agreement with
Technova, the Toyota-supported group that financed the research in
France. The Japanese thought cold fusion would be hugely successful,
and therefore everyone would want this certain type of palladium, and
they'd clean up."
Of course, it never happened. Technova abandoned cold fusion. But
according to Storms the nondisclosure agreement still exists, and
Johnson Matthey is still bound by it. (A spokesperson at Johnson
Matthey would not confirm that an agreement exists.)
"Someone should buy it from Technova," I suggest.
Storms laughs. "Why should they? It's worthless! You can't make any
money from cold fusion - at least, not using the Pons-Fleischmann
method."
And so, at this point, Storms is stymied. He shows me a paper he has
written, with a grim cover letter: "Ironically, it is now possible to
know why we failed but it is too late to follow a more successful
path ... Without access to widely circulated journals, this negative
attitude within the scientific community obviously cannot be changed.
Even overwhelming proof, as demanded by many scientists in the past,
can have no effect because no mechanism exists for it to be
communicated to the scientific professions."
Hayek
> We can make energy out of matter, and matter out of energy. With cold
> fusion, we will unlock the power of the atom, and the world will have
> infinite energy and be able to create matter out of energy and thus
> infinite wealth.
>
> Cold fusion is for real. Just like the light bulb it may take many
> attempts to get right.
>
> Thomas Edison failed more than 1,000 times when trying to create the
> light bulb. When asked about it, Edison allegedly said, "I have not
> failed 1,000 times. I have successfully discovered 1,000 ways to NOT
> make a light bulb."
>
> Cold fusion is for real.
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/cjinterviewep.htm
Hiv is the cold fusion of virology.
Uwe Hayek.
--
Als ik nu op dit moment geld transfereer [in Belgi隴 naar een
andere rekening staat dat een uur later daar gecrediteerd.
-- Boutros Gali, realiteitsdeskundige.
webpa
Isn't it amazing? When it's too good to be true, and isn't, it MUST
have been suppressed by a gigantic conspiracy.
Benj
> Isn't it amazing? When it's too good to be true, and isn't, it MUST
> have been suppressed by a gigantic conspiracy.
Isn't it amazing? When a reported discovery obviously has the
potential to upend HUGE economic vested interests and suddenly seems
to disappear into a black hole, a host of sheep always appear bleating
that any suggestion of foul play is insanity.
Bill Snyder
Isn't it amazing? When you dump a bunch of shit in the road,
suddenly all these tools of the establishment show up saying,
"Gee, this stinks." Just goes to show how vast the conspiracy is,
I guess.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
roo...@gmail.com
roo...@gmail.com
> g...@rock.com wrote:
> > We can make energy out of matter, and matter out of energy. With cold
> > fusion, we will unlock the power of the atom, and the world will have
> > infinite energy and be able to create matter out of energy and thus
> > infinite wealth.
>
> > Cold fusion is for real. Just like the light bulb it may take many
> > attempts to get right.
>
> > Thomas Edison failed more than 1,000 times when trying to create the
> > light bulb. When asked about it, Edison allegedly said, "I have not
> > failed 1,000 times. I have successfully discovered 1,000 ways to NOT
> > make a light bulb."
>
> > Cold fusion is for real.
>
> http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/cjinterviewep.htm
>
> Hiv is the cold fusion of virology.
>
> Uwe Hayek.
>
> --
Richard Schultz
: On Jul 23, 7:07?pm, webpa <we...@aol.com> wrote:
:> Isn't it amazing? ?When it's too good to be true, and isn't, it MUST
:> have been suppressed by a gigantic conspiracy.
: Isn't it amazing? When a reported discovery obviously has the
: potential to upend HUGE economic vested interests and suddenly seems
: to disappear into a black hole, a host of sheep always appear bleating
: that any suggestion of foul play is insanity.
Isn't it amazing? When a reported discovery violates fundamental
principles of physics, it suddenly seems to disappear into a black hole,
and anyone who suggests a connection between the two is accused (by people
who don't know anything about physics) of being part of some huge
secret conspiracy that only the accuser knows about.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
". . .Mr Schutz [sic] acts like a functional electro-terrorist who
impeads [sic] scientific communications with his too oft-silliness."
-- Mitchell Swartz, sci.physics.fusion article <EEI1o...@world.std.com>
Benj
> Isn't it amazing? When you dump a bunch of shit in the road,
> suddenly all these tools of the establishment show up saying,
> "Gee, this stinks." Just goes to show how vast the conspiracy is,
> I guess.
Isn't it amazing how when tools of the establishment show up to
ridicule and "debunk" any topic that is to be discouraged from any
reasonable discussion, they always have to have the last word?
Did too!
Benj
> Isn't it amazing? When a reported discovery violates fundamental
> principles of physics, it suddenly seems to disappear into a black hole,
> and anyone who suggests a connection between the two is accused (by people
> who don't know anything about physics) of being part of some huge
> secret conspiracy that only the accuser knows about.
Isn't it amazing that when anyone brings up the subject of political
and economic interests just MIGHT be interested in discoveries that
have the potential to up-end their establishment businesses and power
cliques, there is always a host of sheep who seem to know ALL the laws
of physics including those not discovered yet who scream that these
laws have been "violated". Needless to say a careful examination or
even ANY examination of the reported discovery is not a requirement to
having a negative opinion.
Lets ask a couple of questions here:
1. And does not interest by huge economic interests (say oil
companies) constitute a "huge" interest in the impact of new
discoveries upon the business?
2. Aren't conspiracies ALL "secret"? That's what makes them
conspiracies, no?
3. If they are "secret" how can the accuser "know" about them?
4. Isn't the sudden presence of bleating "debunkers" a suspicious
fact?
5. Suspicions are not the same as "knowing" about consipracies. They
are "secret" remember?
6. Why is it that all "debunkers" can do is simply assert that they
are right and you should pay not attention to the man behind the
curtain. No hard facts are ever offered. From whence to they claim
the authority that their opinions should be blindly accepted without
question?
7. And lastly, Why is it that the debunkers throw chaff into the wind
to deftly steer any reasonable discussion of these issues into the
backwaters of school yard name calling and to other more PC topics.
Why is any reasonable discussion of "off limits" topics not allowed?
Tell us again how you have no agenda!
Eeyore
"go...@rock.com" wrote:
> We can make energy out of matter, and matter out of energy. With cold
> fusion, we will unlock the power of the atom,
Shame it doesn't exist.
Graham
Benj
wrote:
Please list your credentials backing up this statement paying
particular attention to your study of physical laws and principles
that have not yet been discovered.
Or is it just that you "won' like us anymore" if we don't believe
every word you utter?
Of course you did say "doesn't exist" rather than "will never exist".
So now I'm wondering about the depth of your research into the various
claims of "cold fusion" by various people up to now. Since you have
obviously studied each one of these in depth to determine that none of
the claims are valid, I presume you are willing to discuss the various
experiments with us in great detail highlighting the various reasons
for failure.
Vince Morgan
"Richard Schultz" <sch...@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message
news:g6c2s4$vsg$1...@news.iucc.ac.il...
> In sci.physics.fusion Benj <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> : On Jul 23, 7:07?pm, webpa <we...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> :> Isn't it amazing? ?When it's too good to be true, and isn't, it MUST
> :> have been suppressed by a gigantic conspiracy.
>
> : Isn't it amazing? When a reported discovery obviously has the
> : potential to upend HUGE economic vested interests and suddenly seems
> : to disappear into a black hole, a host of sheep always appear bleating
> : that any suggestion of foul play is insanity.
>
> Isn't it amazing? When a reported discovery violates fundamental
> principles of physics, it suddenly seems to disappear into a black hole,
> and anyone who suggests a connection between the two is accused (by people
> who don't know anything about physics) of being part of some huge
> secret conspiracy that only the accuser knows about.
>
> -----
> Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
> Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
> Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
And now a chemist knows all there is to know about nuclear physics.
Get real.
Cwatters
"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:e60655e1-8b4e-480c...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 25, 9:25 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
> I presume you are willing to discuss the various
> experiments with us in great detail highlighting the
> various reasons for failure.
Why not be more positive? Perhaps you could start by discussing how you
think it might be made to work.
Benj
<colin.wattersNOS...@TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote:
> Why not be more positive? Perhaps you could start by discussing how you
> think it might be made to work.
Well since you are taking a reasonable approach, I see no reason why I
might not do the same! First let me say that I have not personally
investigated any of the "cold fusion" claims and research and am not
asserting that any of them actually work!
But your suggestion IS the correct one! Namely to first ask the
question "how COULD it work?" Or in other words is there any evidence
that it might be possible? I suggest that the answer to that one is
"yes".
Here's where I think so many physicists have jumped the track. Nuclear
reactions in the present era are well known to exist. Atomic bombs
and accelerators of various types have shown that if you "smash"
things together these kinds of reactions do occur. And it is widely
established that for these kinds of primitive reactions a lot of
energy is required to make them go.
This is in many ways analogous to ordinary chemical reactions which
can be made to operated with certain energies required. But we also
know that in the case of chemical reactions there are OTHER ways to
get them going! These ways include the use of catalysts and enzymes.
Enzymes are especially interesting in that through the use of
geometric conformity they induce reactions to take place (usually in
living things) that would be "impossible" in other circumstances. Now
we need to ask the question: "Could there possibly exist such a thing
as a "nuclear enzyme"? Is there any evidence that suggests that
possibility?
The answer to the earnest student of these subjects would be a
resounding "yes". I refer of course, to the "low energy
transmutations" proposed and studied by C. Louis Kervran and others.
Obtaining iron-clad proof, when living matter is involved is obviously
difficult at best, but I'd have to suppose far from "impossible".
Over his lifetime Kervran obtained strong evidence of nuclear
reactions taking place at plant and animal temperatures!
Transmutations of Calcium in chickens fed no calcium, transmutations
of elements in Oats or sea creatures, and outdoor transmutations on
the stones of monuments. In short a Host of suggested possibilities
for low energy nuclear reactions. He even examined possible physics
mechanisms to bolster this idea, though the nuclear physics is even
now not very well developed.
The evidence there is VERY strong that nuclear reactions can indeed
take place in two ways. First in the high energy smash them together
primitive way that all physicists are familiar with, but also in a
second more highly sophisticated and technological way that life
processes seem to know about.
So if you want a discussion of just HOW so-called "cold fusion" might
be possible, I'd say that HERE is a really good place to start. To
simply scream that such reactions without MeVs of energy is
"impossible" is to really make the claim that one is conversant with
ALL laws of physics including the one's not discovered yet. How stupid
is that?
Clearly the usual approach you find here of name-calling and bold
assertion that any such thing is "impossible" is not only ignorant and
counter productive, but also seems to smack of blatant propaganda
techniques. So that makes me ask the question: "Why is establishment
science so interested in "debunking" the idea of low energy nuclear
reactions?"
You don't suppose "national security" is involved, do you?
Now just where did I leave my tinfoil helmet?
Eeyore
Benj wrote:
> On Jul 26, 10:08 am, "Cwatters"
> <colin.wattersNOS...@TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote:
>
> > Why not be more positive? Perhaps you could start by discussing how you
> > think it might be made to work.
>
> Well since you are taking a reasonable approach, I see no reason why I
> might not do the same! First let me say that I have not personally
> investigated any of the "cold fusion" claims and research and am not
> asserting that any of them actually work!
Start here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
Graham
Bob Myers
> Here's where I think so many physicists have jumped the track. Nuclear
> reactions in the present era are well known to exist. Atomic bombs
> and accelerators of various types have shown that if you "smash"
> things together these kinds of reactions do occur. And it is widely
> established that for these kinds of primitive reactions a lot of
> energy is required to make them go.
You really should learn some very basic physics before you
try to comment on this subject.
"Smashing things together" is a very crude and misleading description
of how an atomic bomb works. You might start by thinking about
what the term "critical mass" means.
> The answer to the earnest student of these subjects would be a
> resounding "yes". I refer of course, to the "low energy
> transmutations" proposed and studied by C. Louis Kervran and others.
You mispelled "gullible" as "earnest" in the above.
Kervran's "theories" (which in truth never came close to meeting
the criteria to be considered "theories" in the scientific sense) are
among the most thoroughly debunked in the biological sciences.
Bob M.
Richard Schultz
: Isn't it amazing how when tools of the establishment show up to
: ridicule and "debunk" any topic that is to be discouraged from any
: reasonable discussion, they always have to have the last word?
The reasonable discussion of cold fusion was held roughly from 1989-1994.
If you have anything new to add to it, please feel free to go ahead.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
Richard Schultz
: "Richard Schultz" <sch...@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message
: news:g6c2s4$vsg$1...@news.iucc.ac.il...
:> Isn't it amazing? When a reported discovery violates fundamental
:> principles of physics, it suddenly seems to disappear into a black hole,
:> and anyone who suggests a connection between the two is accused (by people
:> who don't know anything about physics) of being part of some huge
:> secret conspiracy that only the accuser knows about.
: And now a chemist knows all there is to know about nuclear physics.
: Get real.
I have never claimed to know all there is to know about nuclear physics --
only enough about the fundamental principles of physics in general to
know that "cold fusion" violates them. Or, to put it another way, my
knowledge of nuclear physics is greater than zero; yours is equal to zero.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
Benj
> You really should learn some very basic physics before you
> try to comment on this subject.
Perhaps you might learn a little bit about scientific research and
physics yourself before you start judging how much other people know.
This kind of comment is meaningless. You clearly have no knowledge of
basic physics yourself, save what you have read in "Wikipedia"! Sure,
that's the ultimate source of knowledge! Did you write the article on
"atomic bombs" yourself?
> "Smashing things together" is a very crude and misleading description
> of how an atomic bomb works. You might start by thinking about
> what the term "critical mass" means.
This proves you are a moron. You clearly have no understanding of
nuclear physics and have very limited reading comprehension as well.
You can start by thinking about what the term "atom smasher" means.
You may use Wikipedia to find an answer.
Idiot.
> > The answer to the earnest student of these subjects would be a
> > resounding "yes". I refer of course, to the "low energy
> > transmutations" proposed and studied by C. Louis Kervran and others.
>
> You mispelled "gullible" as "earnest" in the above.
And you misspelled "mispelled" you ignorant fool. Yeah spelling
flames, that wins the debate of who knows more science EVERY time!!!
I take it you call any student "gullible" who does not accept without
question each and every lie that falls from your spewing lips. Most
of us in science call accepting statements without data or proof
"gullible".
Schmuck.
> Kervran's "theories" (which in truth never came close to meeting
> the criteria to be considered "theories" in the scientific sense) are
> among the most thoroughly debunked in the biological sciences.
Cite please? Do you speak fluent French? I heard that CIA employees
are often fluent in several languages. Oh, I get it. The old "proof by
assertion" where your opinion is so important that no other proof is
needed! Oh, I forgot, you won't "like me anymore" unless I accept
every statement you make without hesitation. Hint: I don't give a
rat's ass if you "like" me.
I can see that CWatters call for a sane, reasonable, and adult
discussion of this topic had no effect on you.
Clearly you are a shill attempting (as I so eloquently pointed out
above in this thread) to steer this topic away from any reasonable
discussions.
Or more likely:
Paid Shill.
Why don't you just take your flim-flam and bugger off?
Vince Morgan
> In sci.physics.fusion Vince Morgan <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> : "Richard Schultz" <sch...@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message
> : news:g6c2s4$vsg$1...@news.iucc.ac.il...
>
> :> Isn't it amazing? When a reported discovery violates fundamental
> :> principles of physics, it suddenly seems to disappear into a black
hole,
> :> and anyone who suggests a connection between the two is accused (by
people
> :> who don't know anything about physics) of being part of some huge
> :> secret conspiracy that only the accuser knows about.
>
> : And now a chemist knows all there is to know about nuclear physics.
> : Get real.
>
> I have never claimed to know all there is to know about nuclear physics --
> only enough about the fundamental principles of physics in general to
> know that "cold fusion" violates them. Or, to put it another way, my
> knowledge of nuclear physics is greater than zero; yours is equal to zero.
And evidently you know this via the same means you know 'enough' to decide
that 'for all of eternity' no one will ever find anything within nuclear
physics that might not fit into your (and many of similar ilk) self admitted
limited knowlege of nuclear physics.
I'm pleased to see you don't allow your imited knowlege to interfere with
your unlimited judgements.
What I do or do not know about nuclear physics is 'completely' unknown to
you.
Vince Morgan
> In sci.physics.fusion Vince Morgan <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> : "Richard Schultz" <sch...@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message
> : news:g6c2s4$vsg$1...@news.iucc.ac.il...
>
> :> Isn't it amazing? When a reported discovery violates fundamental
> :> principles of physics, it suddenly seems to disappear into a black
hole,
> :> and anyone who suggests a connection between the two is accused (by
people
> :> who don't know anything about physics) of being part of some huge
> :> secret conspiracy that only the accuser knows about.
>
[]
Technical Report 1862 Febuary 2002
Thermal and Nuclear aspects of the Pd/D20 system
Volume 1: A Decade of Research at Navay Laboratories
[]
Within the forward please read the following.
[qoute]
By the Second Inernationl Conference on Cold Fusion, held at Vill Olmo,
Como, Italy, in June/July 1991, the attitude toward cold fusion was
beginning to take on a more scientific basis. The number of flash-in-the-pan
"believers" had diminished, and the "skeptics" were beginning to be faced
with having to explain the anomalous phenomenon, which by this time had been
observed by many credible scientists throughout the world.
[/quote]
Please pay particular attention to 'credible scientists'. Where do you fit
into this picture Ritchard?
And within same forword, a little further down one may read the following.
[quote]
At China Lake, Dr. Miles and his collaborators showed that a correlation
exists between the rate of the excess enthalpy generation and the quantity
of helium in the gas stream. Such a correlation is the direct evidence of
the nuclear origin of the Fleischmann-Pons effect.
[/quote]
I shan't bother to continue.
Evidently you know better that the NRL. What would they know?
Vince Morgan
Richard Schultz
: What I do or do not know about nuclear physics is 'completely' unknown to
: you.
Actually, it's fairly clear that your knowledge of nuclear physics is
zero, as if it were non-zero, you would know why "cold fusion" as touted
by its enthusiasts is *extremely* unlikely to be a real phenomenon, and
instead of relying on personal attacks on me, you would have dealt with
some of the actual scientific issues, e.g., how an interaction of on
the order of eV can possibly affect a process of on the order of 10 MeV.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."
Vince Morgan
> In sci.physics.fusion Vince Morgan <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> : What I do or do not know about nuclear physics is 'completely' unknown
to
> : you.
>
> Actually, it's fairly clear that your knowledge of nuclear physics is
> zero, as if it were non-zero, you would know why "cold fusion" as touted
> by its enthusiasts is *extremely* unlikely to be a real phenomenon, and
> instead of relying on personal attacks on me, you would have dealt with
> some of the actual scientific issues, e.g., how an interaction of on
> the order of eV can possibly affect a process of on the order of 10 MeV.
>
and I would be simply arguing what so many others have already argued.
I'm not the one saying that 'Coldfusion' is real, nor, obviously am I saying
it's not. What I am saying is as follows.
If the 'evidence' is contrary to current understanding, then either the
evidence is false, or the 'understanding' is.
The evidence has been observed by 'credible scientists'. This suggests that
the current understanding is what is in need of correction.
Unless we are to rashly conclude that the scientists at the NRL and other
notable institutions are a bunch of incompetent fools we should take note of
the 'evidence', should we not? Your apparent ignoring of the quoted
material is screaming louder than I can.
However, I haven't offered you the same courtesy that you have offered
myself.
So, please offer some credible explaination for the excess enthalpy and the
'coresponding' helium production. Then I'll feel obliged to answer your
question.
By the way, the ad hominem did not begin with myself either, please read
your prior posts. However, I do feel a little embarrased at my descent into
such, and will not repeat it.
You have my appologies.
Vince Morgan
Richard Schultz
: If the 'evidence' is contrary to current understanding, then either the
: evidence is false, or the 'understanding' is.
: The evidence has been observed by 'credible scientists'.
That is a necessary but not a sufficient condition. Most of the "scientists"
who have "observed" "Cold Fusion" have in fact not been "credible," and
even "credible" scientists can be wrong.
: This suggests that the current understanding is what is in need
: of correction.
If a "credible scientist" repeats the Michelson-Morley experiment and finds
results contrary to the theory of relativity, does that mean that the
theory of relativity is in need of correction?
: Unless we are to rashly conclude that the scientists at the NRL and other
: notable institutions are a bunch of incompetent fools we should take note of
: the 'evidence', should we not? Your apparent ignoring of the quoted
: material is screaming louder than I can.
I dealt with the papers at the time that they came out, or within a couple
of years of their having come out. You can check the spf archives for
my comments, which I feel no need to repeat. Many of the experiments
were clearly done incompetently.
: So, please offer some credible explaination for the excess enthalpy and the
: 'coresponding' helium production.
The enthalpy was measured improperly; in some cases, possible sources of
error were not considered, and in others, the experiments were not done
competently.
The measurements of "corresponding" helium production were (to my knowledge)
without except carried out improperly, and hence the results were meaningless.
Androcles
| In sci.physics.fusion Vince Morgan <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
|
| : If the 'evidence' is contrary to current understanding, then either the
| : evidence is false, or the 'understanding' is.
| : The evidence has been observed by 'credible scientists'.
|
| That is a necessary but not a sufficient condition. Most of the
"scientists"
| who have "observed" "Cold Fusion" have in fact not been "credible," and
| even "credible" scientists can be wrong.
|
| : This suggests that the current understanding is what is in need
| : of correction.
|
| If a "credible scientist" repeats the Michelson-Morley experiment and
finds
| results contrary to the theory of relativity, does that mean that the
| theory of relativity is in need of correction?
Yes, of course. And if he spins MMX he'll get a positive result.
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?
"Easy: he did NOT say that." - cretin harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch
According to moron van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he wrote.
According to xxein:
It is an artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts.
According to Lamenting Shubert:
Why do you want to know?
" In neither system (meaning frame of reference in modern-day terminology)
is the speed of light c-v or c+v. In both systems the speed of light is c."
-- cretin Jimmy Black fml...@organization.edu.
According to the imbecile Jimmy Black, Einstein did not write the equation
he wrote.
According to Dork Bruere
"I don't give a damn what Einstein wrote."
Benj
> I have never claimed to know all there is to know about nuclear physics --
> only enough about the fundamental principles of physics in general to
> know that "cold fusion" violates them. Or, to put it another way, my
> knowledge of nuclear physics is greater than zero; yours is equal to zero.
And the way you know what my knowledge of nuclear physics is?
And you might add how you came to have knowledge of all the laws of
physics that haven't been discovered yet.
You clearly have nothing of value to add to this conversation.
Yawn.
Richard Schultz
:> I have never claimed to know all there is to know about nuclear physics --
:> only enough about the fundamental principles of physics in general to
:> know that "cold fusion" violates them. Or, to put it another way, my
:> knowledge of nuclear physics is greater than zero; yours is equal to zero.
: And the way you know what my knowledge of nuclear physics is?
Your complete failure to add anything to the discussion that would require
a knowledge of physics implies that you have no knowledge of physics.
: And you might add how you came to have knowledge of all the laws of
: physics that haven't been discovered yet.
The word you're looking for is "strawman." If you have some reason to
believe that there is some non-miraculous mechanism by which the normal
decay channels of an excited 4He nucleus can be completely surpressed,
by all means, share it with us. "We don't know all of the laws of physics"
doesn't cut it, since D+D fusion *has* been observed at room temperature, and
the branching ratio is just what one would expect it to be based on
known physics.
If you have some reason to believe that moving two nuclei further apart
will increase their chances of undergoing fusion, by all means, share it
with us. I would consider such a scenario to be unlikely a priori, but
I'm sure that you have an explanation.
You might also consider the practical question that I've already asked:
nearly 20 years ago, Pons and Fleischmann claimed to *already have* a
working prototype of a cold fusion water heater. Where is the water heater?
Providing a working CF device would obviate any need for theoretical
explations of how it works.
Benj
> In sci.physics.fusion Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> : On Jul 27, 12:53 am, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
> Your complete failure to add anything to the discussion that would require
> a knowledge of physics implies that you have no knowledge of physics.
I have added suggestions and evidence that points to ways cold fusion
COULD work, all you've added is a rehash of high energy nuclear
physics which we already knew going in was a wrong explanation.
Standard faith-based physics dogma does not work to "debunk" phenomena
where it doesn't apply. It's just a snow job.
> : And you might add how you came to have knowledge of all the laws of
> : physics that haven't been discovered yet.
>
> The word you're looking for is "strawman." If you have some reason to
> believe that there is some non-miraculous mechanism by which the normal
> decay channels of an excited 4He nucleus can be completely surpressed,
> by all means, share it with us. "We don't know all of the laws of physics"
> doesn't cut it, since D+D fusion *has* been observed at room temperature, and
> the branching ratio is just what one would expect it to be based on
> known physics.
And while we are on the subject of "strawman" let us note that
"proving" low energy reactions can't take place because high energy
physics says they can't is no proof of anything. If you actually wish
to have a real discussion here, you'd better start talking about The
Salam-Weinberg theory, weak neutral currents, neutrinos, anti-
nuetrinos and all the rest. But your goal only seems to be to piss
into the wind rather than to examine how cold fusion COULD work. I've
pointed to numerous corners of physics where hints abound. You've just
pointed to theory and data that clearly does not and in fact COULD NOT
ever apply. You are a guy a lost a quarter over here but are looking
over there because the light is better! I guess something like the
Nobel Prize in Physics for 1979 isn't "establishment" enough for you.
Psst. The front of your shirt is wet!
Plus you attempt to end all discussion with some kind of statement
that all the relevant discussion was made back in 1989-1994 and there
is nothing left to be said unless you personally approve of it. Kinda
arrogant, aren't you?
> You might also consider the practical question that I've already asked:
> nearly 20 years ago, Pons and Fleischmann claimed to *already have* a
> working prototype of a cold fusion water heater. Where is the water heater?
> Providing a working CF device would obviate any need for theoretical
> explations of how it works.
Sure, and this proves? This is the old "If the government secretly
has UFOs then either take me to see one or bring one to my front lawn
otherwise anything you say can safely be totally disregarded". Right.
Sure. Perhaps you can explain to me why Pons and Fleishmann have not
yet committed "suicide" with three gunshots to the back of the head?
THAT is the real question here. [And I might add that the fact that
they haven't is pretty good evidence that their experiments are NOT
definitive]
Please explain how a working device "obviates the need" for theory?
Clearly your interests are ONLY in "debunking" the whole concept of
low energy interactions. Experimental proof does not mean that one
cannot develop theories for low energy interactions and Theories of
interactions can certainly take place without any definitive proof
that such a device could be build in some manner. The problem here is
that you wish not only to not discuss these issues, but you want to
try to stop everybody else from discussing them as well! If you can't
add something constructive here, how about you just shut up?
Richard Schultz
:> In sci.physics.fusion Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
:> : On Jul 27, 12:53 am, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
:> Your complete failure to add anything to the discussion that would require
:> a knowledge of physics implies that you have no knowledge of physics.
: I have added suggestions and evidence that points to ways cold fusion
: COULD work, all you've added is a rehash of high energy nuclear
: physics which we already knew going in was a wrong explanation.
Muon-catalyzed fusion occurs at room temperature, and indeed, until Pons
and Flesichmann came along, was the process known as "cold fusion." The
branching ratio is the same as in high-temperature fusion, which is not
surprising -- the excited state of the 4He* produced by D+D is much higher
in energy than the kinetic energy of the typical atom even at solar
temperatures.
You have added no suggestions or evidence that points to anything other than
"Then a miracle occurs."
: Standard faith-based physics dogma does not work to "debunk" phenomena
: where it doesn't apply. It's just a snow job.
Your ignorance of how science works is almost as total as your ignorance
of physics.
:> The word you're looking for is "strawman." If you have some reason to
:> believe that there is some non-miraculous mechanism by which the normal
:> decay channels of an excited 4He nucleus can be completely surpressed,
:> by all means, share it with us. "We don't know all of the laws of physics"
:> doesn't cut it, since D+D fusion *has* been observed at room temperature,
:> and the branching ratio is just what one would expect it to be based on
:> known physics.
: And while we are on the subject of "strawman" let us note that
: "proving" low energy reactions can't take place because high energy
: physics says they can't is no proof of anything.
What part of "D+D fusion *has* been observed at room temperature" is
too difficult for you to follow?
: If you actually wish
: to have a real discussion here, you'd better start talking about The
: Salam-Weinberg theory, weak neutral currents, neutrinos, anti-
: nuetrinos and all the rest.
None of that has anything to do with the issue at hand. D+D fusion is
a process that depends on the strong force, not the weak force.
: But your goal only seems to be to piss
: into the wind rather than to examine how cold fusion COULD work.
No, my goal is to point out that there has been no compelling evidence that
cold fusion *does* work, so there is no point in trying to figure out
how it *could* work, given that there is a *lot* of evidence, much of
which is very basic physics (e.g. the special theory of relativity), that
cold fusion as it proponents claim it works is *very* unlikely to be a
real phenomenon.
: I've pointed to numerous corners of physics where hints abound. You've just
: pointed to theory and data that clearly does not and in fact COULD NOT
: ever apply. You are a guy a lost a quarter over here but are looking
: over there because the light is better! I guess something like the
: Nobel Prize in Physics for 1979 isn't "establishment" enough for you.
: Psst. The front of your shirt is wet!
What does the Nobel Prize in Physics for 1979 have to do with fusion?
: Plus you attempt to end all discussion with some kind of statement
: that all the relevant discussion was made back in 1989-1994 and there
: is nothing left to be said unless you personally approve of it. Kinda
: arrogant, aren't you?
The relevant discussion was held in s.p.f. at the time that the experiments
were being performed. Many people (including several people far more
knowledgeable in the field than I am) pointed out the flaws in the
experiments used to "demonstrate" the existence of the phenomenon and the
hypotheses used to "explain" it. One of those people, by the way, was
Steve Jones, who was one of the first people to propose the possibility
of cold fusion, and who retracted his claims when he discovered the flaws
in his original experimental setup.
I suggest that you read the transcript of Irving Langmuir's famous lecture
on "Pathological Science" that was reprinted in _Physics Today_ in late
1989 (I can't remember offhand which issue -- it was sometime between
September and November).
:> You might also consider the practical question that I've already asked:
:> nearly 20 years ago, Pons and Fleischmann claimed to *already have* a
:> working prototype of a cold fusion water heater. Where is the water heater?
:> Providing a working CF device would obviate any need for theoretical
:> explations of how it works.
: Sure, and this proves? This is the old "If the government secretly
: has UFOs then either take me to see one or bring one to my front lawn
: otherwise anything you say can safely be totally disregarded". Right.
You seem to have a great deal of trouble with reading comprehension.
Pons and Fleischmann made two claims: (1) to have discovered a process
of "cold fusion" in Pd and (2) that they had a *working* *prototype* of a
device that was powered by cold fusion. This was not a government secret --
it was on the front page of the newspaper.
: Sure. Perhaps you can explain to me why Pons and Fleishmann have not
: yet committed "suicide" with three gunshots to the back of the head?
Because the real world doesn't work the way that conspiracy nuts such as
yourself would have it.
: Please explain how a working device "obviates the need" for theory?
Because if the device works, it doesn't matter *how* it works. One can
happily build the device and sell it and leave the issue of how it works
to the theorists. That Pons and Fleischmann, or none of the other true
believers, have managed to construct a working device, or to provide a
reproducible experiment that has a signal outside of the noise, is strong
evidence that the effect does not exist.
Ken S. Tucker
Possibly they don't know how to do it yet.
Silicon with some impurity has revolutionized
electronics, it took a century of electricity
research to finally get that reproducible.
It looks quite plausible to me that fusion
can occur within Pd+ with sufficient current.
They seem to know a fair amount about electron
flow in metal, but less about Deuterium flow,
which is a critical apart from trial and error,
to reproduciblity.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
...
Richard Schultz
: They seem to know a fair amount about electron
: flow in metal, but less about Deuterium flow,
: which is a critical apart from trial and error,
: to reproduciblity.
How long did it take from Budnorz and Muller's announcement of "high-T"
superconductivity in cuprates for someone to reproduce their results?
How long did it take to find a material that it is superconductive at
T > 77 K (i.e. above the boiling point of N2)? How long did it take to
develop a device that used a high-T superconductor?
How many of those developments depended on a detailed theory of the behavior
of high-T superconductors?
How long has it been since Pons and Fleischmann claimed to have a
*working* cold fusion water heater?
Benj
> Your ignorance of how science works is almost as total as your ignorance
> of physics.
> None of that has anything to do with the issue at hand. D+D fusion is
> a process that depends on the strong force, not the weak force.
Bingo!
> Because the real world doesn't work the way that conspiracy nuts such as
> yourself would have it.
So lessee. I have total ignorance of "how science works" as well as
total ignorance of physics. I am insane and actually believe that
there is such a thing as conspiracies in politics especially where
politics crosses science. And I have absolutely no experience of the
real world at all.
In short, anything I say is of no value what-so-ever, has any basis in
fact and is entirely a figment of my over-worked imagination.
I think my body of posts to this group prove that was well as your
body of posts proves that you are quite the opposite and the ultimate
authority on all things, and whose prognostications are to be totally
accepted without further proof based solely upon your massive
reputation.
So it's settled then. I"m sorry I didn't recognize your greatness at
once.
PS, Yeah I've read Langmuir's "famous" piece of work. Great propaganda
job to serve as a severe warning for any researcher to not stray too
far from the 'party line" if he/she values his/her career. If you
don't want to be using that Ph.D. to be selling pottery, you'd better
just be content to fill in those blank spots in the Physics handbooks
and keep your nose out of areas where it doesn't belong. Thanks for
reminding us all.
And Oh yeah, congratulations on successfully killing any reasonable
and adult discussion on the internet of "Cold Fusion" and related
topics. I see why you get the big bucks!
Bye.
Richard Schultz
: So lessee. I have total ignorance of "how science works" as well as
: total ignorance of physics. I am insane and actually believe that
: there is such a thing as conspiracies in politics especially where
: politics crosses science. And I have absolutely no experience of the
: real world at all.
If you believe that it is possible for a conspiracy of the sort you
describe to suppress the development of cold fusion, then whatever
experience of the world that you might have obviously failed to
overcome the short-circuit in your brain.
: In short, anything I say is of no value what-so-ever, has any basis in
: fact and is entirely a figment of my over-worked imagination.
If you think that cold fusion is being suppressed by some kind of
conspiracy, then yes, nothing you say has any basis in fact and is
entirely a figment of your over-worked imagination. If you are
suggesting that the people at U.S. Government labs who reported positive
results for cold fusion experiments deliberately did their experiments
incompetently so that people would think that cold fusion does not exist,
then I would have to guess that it's not so much overwork as overindulgence
in happy pills.
: I think my body of posts to this group prove that was well as your
: body of posts proves that you are quite the opposite and the ultimate
: authority on all things, and whose prognostications are to be totally
: accepted without further proof based solely upon your massive
: reputation.
Why don't you go through the archives and examine my criticisms of some
of the experiments -- particularly those in which mass spectrometry was
used to detect "products" of cold fusion -- and respond to those criticisms
with actual science instead of a random screed.
: PS, Yeah I've read Langmuir's "famous" piece of work. Great propaganda
: job to serve as a severe warning for any researcher to not stray too
: far from the 'party line" if he/she values his/her career.
I'm guessing that if you read the transcript, you didn't understand it.
: And Oh yeah, congratulations on successfully killing any reasonable
: and adult discussion on the internet of "Cold Fusion" and related
: topics. I see why you get the big bucks!
Why do you think it is that every Evil Conspiracy is falling all over
itself to pay me for my serivces?
Why do you think that my comments that detailed some of the reasons for
believing that Pd-induced cold fusion is extremely unlikely to be a
real effect are "killing any reasonable and adult discussion"? Is it because
you have no answers for criticisms of the sort raised by Steven Jones
(special relativity prevents a nascent 4He* nucleus from distributing
its excess energy into phonons -- even if a coupling mechanism could be
imagined -- within its lifetime); or that fusion at room temperature has
been observed and that the branching ratio is still 50/50 3He/T; or that
the experimental evidence is irreproducible and generally not far above
the noise; or that Pons and Fleischmann claimed nearly 20 years ago to
have a *working cold fusion device* that no one has seen since?
Ken S. Tucker
below are rhetorical, otherwise please
spec which are serious.
On Jul 28, 2:53 am, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
> In sci.physics.fusion Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> : They seem to know a fair amount about electron
> : flow in metal, but less about Deuterium flow,
> : which is a critical apart from trial and error,
> : to reproduciblity.
>
> How long did it take from Budnorz and Muller's announcement of "high-T"
> superconductivity in cuprates for someone to reproduce their results?
> How long did it take to find a material that it is superconductive at
> T > 77 K (i.e. above the boiling point of N2)? How long did it take to
> develop a device that used a high-T superconductor?
>
> How many of those developments depended on a detailed theory of the behavior
> of high-T superconductors?
>
> How long has it been since Pons and Fleischmann claimed to have a
> *working* cold fusion water heater?
Well what's needed is an understanding of the
geodesical properties of D related to e in Pd.
That provides a probability that D+D will be
pinched within the metal sufficiently to fuse.
That mimics a "chain reaction" probability
when a critical mass of U is achieved.
If I were to suggest in 1935 that a metal can
explode with 1,000,000x more energy/weight than
TNT, I'm sure you would have scoffed, but with
a great effort of theory and experiment the A-
bomb and H-bomb were developed.
HTH
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
PS:Keep the Patent Office open.
Bob Myers
On Jul 28, 12:55 am, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
> So lessee. I have total ignorance of "how science works" as well as
> total ignorance of physics. I am insane and actually believe that
> there is such a thing as conspiracies in politics especially where
> politics crosses science. And I have absolutely no experience of the
> real world at all.
>
> In short, anything I say is of no value what-so-ever, has any basis in
> fact and is entirely a figment of my over-worked imagination.
Finally, you have posted a correct and accurate summary of
your position. Thank you.
Bob M.
Ken S. Tucker
On Jul 28, 1:49 pm, "Bob Myers" <nospample...@address.invalid> wrote:
> "Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
My problem isn't whether cold fusion will work
or not, it has to do with if it does, and who
knows how to do it.
I'm worried that if a Pd bar (or other alloy)
is saturated with D and 100,000 amps is flashed
through it, the SOB will become a mini H-bomb.
Until that issue is resolved, I'd prefer that
cold fusion remain within the zone of crackpot.
Who wants a Kiloton nuke in a beer can?
I analysed (check this out) how large of a
fire ball would be created if I shink the
average H-bomb down to a pin head, I used
Tsar Bomba and reduced dimensions by ratio.
I get a 50' fireball, correct me if I'm wrong,
that's a nifty nano-nuke!
I can improve on that with antimatter.
Do you see the problem?
Our genius for destruction exceeds our ability
to control it. I think Reagan and Gorbatrof
knew that and it scared the bee-geezes out of
them, who the f**k wants that problem?
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Richard Schultz
: Hi Richard, I presume your questions
: below are rhetorical, otherwise please
: spec which are serious.
This is not rhetorical: top-posting is considered very bad form. I
meant for you to think about all of the questions that I asked in the
(presumably vain) hope that you might be able to reach the obvious
conclusion on your own once you were given enough clues.
:> How long did it take from Budnorz and Muller's announcement of "high-T"
:> superconductivity in cuprates for someone to reproduce their results?
:> How long did it take to find a material that it is superconductive at
:> T > 77 K (i.e. above the boiling point of N2)? How long did it take to
:> develop a device that used a high-T superconductor?
:>
:> How many of those developments depended on a detailed theory of the behavior
:> of high-T superconductors?
:>
:> How long has it been since Pons and Fleischmann claimed to have a
:> *working* cold fusion water heater?
: If I were to suggest in 1935 that a metal can explode with 1,000,000x more
: energy/weight than TNT,
H.G. Wells suggested it in 1902.
: I'm sure you would have scoffed, but with a great effort of theory and
: experiment the A-bomb and H-bomb were developed.
That is completely irrelevant to the point I was making. Why don't you
answer the questions above and then think about why what you wrote about
the A-bomb was a straw man.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
Richard Schultz
: I'm worried that if a Pd bar (or other alloy)
: is saturated with D and 100,000 amps is flashed
: through it, the SOB will become a mini H-bomb.
I think that if you make a hat out of aluminum foil, you won't have
to worry so much.
Ken S. Tucker
> In sci.physics.fusion Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> : Hi Richard, I presume your questions
> : below are rhetorical, otherwise please
> : spec which are serious.
>
> This is not rhetorical: top-posting is considered very bad form. I
> meant for you to think about all of the questions that I asked in the
> (presumably vain) hope that you might be able to reach the obvious
> conclusion on your own once you were given enough clues.
>
> :> How long did it take from Budnorz and Muller's announcement of "high-T"
> :> superconductivity in cuprates for someone to reproduce their results?
> :> How long did it take to find a material that it is superconductive at
> :> T > 77 K (i.e. above the boiling point of N2)? How long did it take to
> :> develop a device that used a high-T superconductor?
> :>
> :> How many of those developments depended on a detailed theory of the behavior
> :> of high-T superconductors?
> :>
> :> How long has it been since Pons and Fleischmann claimed to have a
> :> *working* cold fusion water heater?
>
> : If I were to suggest in 1935 that a metal can explode with 1,000,000x more
> : energy/weight than TNT,
>
> H.G. Wells suggested it in 1902.
H.G Wells as a scientific reference, I don't
care to top that one!
Ken
Richard Schultz
:> :> How long did it take from Budnorz and Muller's announcement of "high-T"
:> :> superconductivity in cuprates for someone to reproduce their results?
:> :> How long did it take to find a material that it is superconductive at
:> :> T > 77 K (i.e. above the boiling point of N2)? How long did it take to
:> :> develop a device that used a high-T superconductor?
:> :>
:> :> How many of those developments depended on a detailed theory of the
:> :> behavior of high-T superconductors?
:> :> How long has it been since Pons and Fleischmann claimed to have a
:> :> *working* cold fusion water heater?
:> : If I were to suggest in 1935 that a metal can explode with 1,000,000x
:> : more energy/weight than TNT,
:> H.G. Wells suggested it in 1902.
: H.G Wells as a scientific reference, I don't care to top that one!
Are you really that dumb, or are you just afraid to answer the questions
that I asked?
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
Ken S. Tucker
On Jul 29, 11:15 am, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
> In sci.physics.fusion Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> :> :> How long did it take from Budnorz and Muller's announcement of "high-T"
> :> :> superconductivity in cuprates for someone to reproduce their results?
> :> :> How long did it take to find a material that it is superconductive at
> :> :> T > 77 K (i.e. above the boiling point of N2)? How long did it take to
> :> :> develop a device that used a high-T superconductor?
> :> :>
> :> :> How many of those developments depended on a detailed theory of the
> :> :> behavior of high-T superconductors?
>
> :> :> How long has it been since Pons and Fleischmann claimed to have a
> :> :> *working* cold fusion water heater?
>
> :> : If I were to suggest in 1935 that a metal can explode with 1,000,000x
> :> : more energy/weight than TNT,
>
> :> H.G. Wells suggested it in 1902.
>
> : H.G Wells as a scientific reference, I don't care to top that one!
>
> Are you really that dumb, or are you just afraid to answer the questions
> that I asked?
Well I'm sure you can understand an expert
won't do research that an average high school
student can do.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
PS: After Ricky provided H.G. Well's as a scientific
ref, I'm afraid he'll use Paris Hilton next...
Benj
> "Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
> > So lessee. I have total ignorance of "how science works" as well as
> > total ignorance of physics. I am insane and actually believe that
> > there is such a thing as conspiracies in politics especially where
> > politics crosses science. And I have absolutely no experience of the
> > real world at all.
>
> > In short, anything I say is of no value what-so-ever, has any basis in
> > fact and is entirely a figment of my over-worked imagination.
>
> Finally, you have posted a correct and accurate summary of
> your position. Thank you.
Yep. That's right "Bob". The discussion has been successfully
torpedoed and sunk. You guys have earned your pay and there is nothing
more to say but "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain".
Bill Snyder
Sure there is: "You're friggin' insane. Stupid, too."
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Richard Schultz
: PS: After Ricky provided H.G. Well's [sic] as a scientific ref
Is that an outright lie, or are you really that dumb? Instead of answering
that, why don't you answer my questions about the discovery of
high-temperature superconductivity?
Ken S. Tucker
> In sci.physics.fusion Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> : PS: After Ricky provided H.G. Well's [sic] as a scientific ref
>
> high-temperature superconductivity?
A place to begin is to consider the resistance
of a current flowing through a vacuum such as
in a CRT between the cathode and anode.
AFAIK, there is no resistance to current flow
through a vacuum.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Richard Schultz
: On Jul 29, 9:38 pm, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
:> why don't you answer my questions about the discovery of
:> high-temperature superconductivity?
: A place to begin is to consider the resistance
: of a current flowing through a vacuum such as
: in a CRT between the cathode and anode.
What, if anything, has this to do with the questions that I asked?
Ken S. Tucker
> In sci.physics.fusion Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> : On Jul 29, 9:38 pm, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
>
> :> why don't you answer my questions about the discovery of
> :> high-temperature superconductivity?
>
> : A place to begin is to consider the resistance
> : of a current flowing through a vacuum such as
> : in a CRT between the cathode and anode.
>
> What, if anything, has this to do with the questions that I asked?
We must know you level of education, tell us.
Ken
Richard Schultz
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
Benj
> >Yep. That's right "Bob". The discussion has been successfully
> >torpedoed and sunk. You guys have earned your pay and there is nothing
> >more to say but "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain".
>
> Sure there is: "You're friggin' insane. Stupid, too."
Cite please?
> Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
You mean the space in your head? You and Schultz seem to only be able
to make pronouncements without any proof or references. I take it you
guys are so great that you don't need any additional authority beyond
your word. You both are here to do nothing but throw chaff in the
wind to make the unsuspecting sneeze. Anyone (such a CWatters) with
an interest in "cold fusion" or other "forbidden topics" would do well
to follow my lead and refuse to respond to any of you or your
prepubescent schoolyard taunts. A killfile is too good for you guys.
Lessee if I got it right this time:
Insane/stupid = Questions all theories and demands experimental
support for ideas
Smarter than Einstein = Accepts every word out of your mouth without
question.
bye.
Bill Miller
It seems the the presence or absence of He is a key "pointer" to fusion --
cold or otherwise. It seems that without He, it is clear that fusion has NOT
occurred.
Is the inverse true?
The reason for my question is that there are several Helium wells in the
world. It is a scarce (but essentially useless) element whose only
commercially viable use is for lighter-than-air devices. (Novelists
attention: What would have happened if the US had agreed to sell the Third
Reich Helium? For one, the Hindenburg would not have blown up.) But I
digress.
Where does this Helium come from? Three sources I can think of:
1. It is left over from a few Billion years ago when the Earth was still hot
enough for fusion.
2. It is generated by some non-fusion process that I do not understand.
3. It is/was generated by some natural "cold" fusion process.
Could someone comment, please, on these three obvious sources of Helium?
Bill Miller
(Of course, there is a fourth possible source. Aliens visited the Earth some
years back and buried a few fusion plants in selected locations around the
world. There are probably more, but they cannot be located unless one looks
for them using a forked willow tree branch. Aluminium foil hat is optional.)
Richard Schultz
: The reason for my question is that there are several Helium wells in the
: world. It is a scarce (but essentially useless) element whose only
: commercially viable use is for lighter-than-air devices.
You can stop right there -- liquid He is used a refrigerant for
superconducting magnets used in, e.g., NMR spectrometers.
: For one, the Hindenburg would not have blown up.
Actually, it didn't blow up -- it caught fire.
: Where does this Helium come from? Three sources I can think of:
: 1. It is left over from a few Billion years ago when the Earth was still hot
: enough for fusion.
The earth was never hot enough for fusion.
: 2. It is generated by some non-fusion process that I do not understand.
It is generated by radioactive decay of uranium and thorium.
: 3. It is/was generated by some natural "cold" fusion process.
Steve Jones thought that there might be a *small* amount of natural
cold fusion going on. IIRC, he was looking for tritium, which would be
a more easily detected signature. I don't know that he ever found any.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
Richard Schultz
: You mean the space in your head? You and Schultz seem to only be able
: to make pronouncements without any proof or references.
What proof or references have you given to any of your pronouncements?
All I saw were a bunch of buzzwords that you admitted were irrelevant.
: Insane/stupid = Questions all theories and demands experimental
: support for ideas
It is fairly stupid to question "all" theories, since some theories are much
more strongly grounded than others. In my experience, it's more a matter
of ignorance than stupidity.
Bill Miller
> In sci.physics.fusion Bill Miller <billmil...@worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:
>
> : The reason for my question is that there are several Helium wells in the
> : world. It is a scarce (but essentially useless) element whose only
> : commercially viable use is for lighter-than-air devices.
>
> You can stop right there -- liquid He is used a refrigerant for
> superconducting magnets used in, e.g., NMR spectrometers.
>
> : For one, the Hindenburg would not have blown up.
>
> Actually, it didn't blow up -- it caught fire.
>
> : Where does this Helium come from? Three sources I can think of:
>
> : 1. It is left over from a few Billion years ago when the Earth was still
> hot
> : enough for fusion.
>
> The earth was never hot enough for fusion.
Never's a long time. But I get your point.
>
> : 2. It is generated by some non-fusion process that I do not understand.
>
> It is generated by radioactive decay of uranium and thorium.
>
> : 3. It is/was generated by some natural "cold" fusion process.
>
> Steve Jones thought that there might be a *small* amount of natural
> cold fusion going on. IIRC, he was looking for tritium, which would be
> a more easily detected signature. I don't know that he ever found any.
At last!
An intelligent answer to a basic question.
Thank you!
Bill
Androcles
"Bill Miller" <billmil...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:DG_jk.140669$102....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Fission.
The alpha particle is a helium nucleus.
Ken S. Tucker
> In sci.physics.fusion Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> : On Jul 30, 2:10 am, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
> :> In sci.physics.fusion Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> :> : On Jul 29, 9:38 pm, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
>
> :> :> why don't you answer my questions about the discovery of
> :> :> high-temperature superconductivity?
>
> :> : A place to begin is to consider the resistance
> :> : of a current flowing through a vacuum such as
> :> : in a CRT between the cathode and anode.
>
> :> What, if anything, has this to do with the questions that I asked?
>
> : We must know you level of education, tell us.
>
> What, if anything, has this to do with the questions that I asked?
You may not understand the answer, or I may
not be up to your level of understanding.
Ken
> -----
> Richard Schultz schu...@mail.biu.ac.il
hhc...@yahoo.com
> "Bill Miller" <billmillerkt...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>
> news:DG_jk.140669$102....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> |
> | "Richard Schultz" <schu...@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message
> |news:g6m555$fac$1...@news.iucc.ac.il...
Dhuh!
Do anyone of your asshole following idiots would realize if 'Cold
Fusion' were realitity if 'Cold Fusion' were to be a fact? No, I
doubt if they do consider the ramifications. Maybe this will help...
Consider a plant totally lifeles, free of all organic life and fusing
under the reamining the cold fusion reaction of the very last
remaining components of hydrogen remaining on earth. After 'cold
hyrogen reactions', earth would be simply another lifelies orbital
void in orbit about the sun.
Don't some of you clueless scienifically disadvantageaidiots realize
that this would be be the conseuence of hydrogen fusion, cold, hot, or
otherwise?
Harry C.
Odysseus
"Bill Miller" <billmil...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
<snip>
> Where does this Helium come from? Three sources I can think of:
>
> 1. It is left over from a few Billion years ago when the Earth was still hot
> enough for fusion.
I don't believe the Earth was ever hot or pressurized enough, or
contained H or D in sufficient concentration, to permit conventional
fusion -- and anyway, any ancient He would have mostly escaped into
space by now.
> 2. It is generated by some non-fusion process that I do not understand.
Yes. My understanding is far from comprehensive, but I know that many
radioactive decay processes produce alpha radiation, which consists of
(highly energetic) He-4 nuclei. For example uranium-238 decays to
thorium-234 by emitting an alpha particle. Any of these particles that
'cool down' enough to capture a couple of electrons will become helium
atoms -- which happens very soon, as alpha particles are very slow and
massive compared to other forms of radiation, and can be more or less
completely blocked by a metre or so of of ordinary air, let alone many
kilometres of rock.
> 3. It is/was generated by some natural "cold" fusion process.
I won't say categorically that it's impossible, but AFAIK it's never
been observed in nature -- and #2 is well enough attested to render such
a hypothesis unnecessary.
--
Odysseus
Eeyore
Benj wrote:
> "Bob Myers" <nospample...@address.invalid> wrote:
>
> > You really should learn some very basic physics before you
> > try to comment on this subject.
>
> Perhaps you might learn a little bit about scientific research and
> physics yourself before you start judging how much other people know.
> This kind of comment is meaningless. You clearly have no knowledge of
> basic physics yourself, save what you have read in "Wikipedia"! Sure,
> that's the ultimate source of knowledge! Did you write the article on
> "atomic bombs" yourself?
So how many books on atomic weapons or power have you written ?
What's your view on fast and slow neutrons and suitable moderators ? The
Wigner effect is a bitch isn't it ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner_energy
Graham
Richard Schultz
:> What, if anything, has this to do with the questions that I asked?
:
: You may not understand the answer, or I may
: not be up to your level of understanding.
Since answers to the questions that I asked the amount of time that occurred
between two events, and in one case a number, I'm guessing that I'll be
able to understand your answer.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
Benj
> > 2. It is generated by some non-fusion process that I do not understand.
> > 3. It is/was generated by some natural "cold" fusion process.
>
> I won't say categorically that it's impossible, but AFAIK it's never
> been observed in nature -- and #2 is well enough attested to render such
> a hypothesis unnecessary.
What? You seem to be saying that the two main ideas are A. We don't
have a clue and B. "cold" nuclear reactions about which we also don't
have a clue. Then you say that not having a clue is so "well attested"
that we don't need to go to "cold" reactions as a hypothesis.
Duh. If one doesn't have a clue, the procedure is to try to buy a clue
or at least visit the cluefish desk! "3." has been theorized by some
persons and suggested that the known isotopic variations in IDENTICAL
chemicals derived from plants (eg. sugar) indicates that low energy
reactions may be creating various isotopic reactions that might
explain the various isotopes found on earth. The suggestion is that
these may not have been made in the so-called bogus "big bang" but
rather may have been the result of hundreds of millions of years of
plants engaging in low energy nuclear reactions.
Obviously the so little is known here that there are no proof of
anything, just speculations. But they are interesting speculations to
those of us with more open minds.
Benj
wrote:
> So how many books on atomic weapons or power have you written ?
None, of course. But I have corrected blatant errors in numerous
Wikipedia articles! :-)
> What's your view on fast and slow neutrons and suitable moderators ? The
> Wigner effect is a bitch isn't it ?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner_energy
My "view"? Gosh, I don't know. Giant blocks of paraffin always seemed
to work pretty well for me. But then I wasn't trying to build a bomb.
The point, Graham, is that I said that the mistake in physics over
things like "cold fusion" and "low energy transmutations" is that all
the establishment "debunkers" immediately go on a tirade (like you
are) dragging up all manner of "high energy" facts that are supposed
to "disprove" these proposed effects. Clearly, these effects cannot
be part of the high energy handbook of reactions. You are all trying
to prove to me that heavier than air aircraft can never fly! Just
weigh some metal and then try to get it to float! I tell you guys
that ONLY when you come over to my house and demonstrate a huge block
of Aluminum that is lighter than air, will I EVER believe that heavier
than air aircraft will EVER be possible and even then it will probably
take a hundred years for a working version to actually be developed.
So just where is this so-called "flying machine" that the Wright
brothers claim they have invented? It's been years since they said
they could build it and I haven't seen anything yet! It's all bunk I
tell you!
Do you have ANY sense at all of the point I've tried to make here?
Richard Schultz
: The point, Graham, is that I said that the mistake in physics over
: things like "cold fusion" and "low energy transmutations" is that all
: the establishment "debunkers" immediately go on a tirade (like you
: are) dragging up all manner of "high energy" facts that are supposed
: to "disprove" these proposed effects.
What part of "fusion has been observed at low temperature and behaves
exactly as it does at high temperature" is too difficult for you to follow?
If you can't get that, then asking you to compare the average kinetic
energy of a 4He nucleus at, say 10^6 K, to the excitation energy of a
4He* nucleus is probably a waste of time.
Bill Snyder
<bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>On Jul 30, 5:53 pm, Odysseus <odysseus1479...@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote:
>
>> > 2. It is generated by some non-fusion process that I do not understand.
>
>> > 3. It is/was generated by some natural "cold" fusion process.
>>
>> I won't say categorically that it's impossible, but AFAIK it's never
>> been observed in nature -- and #2 is well enough attested to render such
>> a hypothesis unnecessary.
>
>What? You seem to be saying that the two main ideas are A. We don't
>have a clue and B. "cold" nuclear reactions about which we also don't
>have a clue. Then you say that not having a clue is so "well attested"
>that we don't need to go to "cold" reactions as a hypothesis.
>
>Duh. If one doesn't have a clue, the procedure is to try to buy a clue
>or at least visit the cluefish desk! "3." has been theorized by some
>persons and suggested that the known isotopic variations in IDENTICAL
>chemicals derived from plants (eg. sugar) indicates that low energy
>reactions may be creating various isotopic reactions that might
>explain the various isotopes found on earth.
It has been "theorized by some persons and suggested" that they
need to wear tinfoil to ward off the mind control rays.
>The suggestion is that
>these may not have been made in the so-called bogus "big bang" but
Ah, you also know the big bang to be a hoax, eh? Do you prefer
shiny-side-in or shiny-side-out? Why haven't we heard the
anti-Einstein rant yet?
>rather may have been the result of hundreds of millions of years of
>plants engaging in low energy nuclear reactions.
>
>Obviously the so little is known here that there are no proof of
>anything, just speculations. But they are interesting speculations to
>those of us with more open minds.
"Open mind" is not actually synonymous with "hole in the head,"
but don't let me stop you.
--
Ken S. Tucker
On Jul 30, 9:33 pm, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
> In sci.physics.fusion Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> :> What, if anything, has this to do with the questions that I asked?
> :
> : You may not understand the answer, or I may
> : not be up to your level of understanding.
>
> Since answers to the questions that I asked the amount of time that occurred
> between two events, and in one case a number, I'm guessing that I'll be
> able to understand your answer.
I was invited to NASA's MSFC, Advanced Concept Office
to opine and observe this experiment,
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/anti_grav_000928.html
NASA was absolutely forthright.
I wish I could have been more helpful, so I'm
still working on the study.
The theory really does require a working
knowledge of GR and QT.
You can see Ning Li's work on "gravitomagnetism"
has been published in peer reviewed articles.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Bob Myers
"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:4118b787-fe87-4534...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> So how many books on atomic weapons or power have you written ?
> None, of course. But I have corrected blatant errors in numerous
> Wikipedia articles! :-)
Which, of course, is the rough equivalent of saying "I
have painted over graffiti I didn't like the looks of
with my own."
Bob M.
Benj
> I was invited to NASA's MSFC, Advanced Concept Office
> to opine and observe this experiment,http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/anti_grav_000928.html
> NASA was absolutely forthright.
> I wish I could have been more helpful, so I'm
> still working on the study.
> The theory really does require a working
> knowledge of GR and QT.
> You can see Ning Li's work on "gravitomagnetism"
> has been published in peer reviewed articles.
> Regards
> Ken S. Tucker
Ken,
It's very interesting that NASA is trying to test the old "anti-
gravity paint" idea! Einstein cobbled together the "warped space-
time" idea of gravity, but really it's just a mathematical description
with no 'explanation". Much better is the Wheeler-Feynman "shadow'
theory of gravitation which fits perfectly with the "anti-gravity
paint" idea. The concept is that the universe is filled with radiation
of some kind bouncing around in all directions. As two masses approach
each other, each mass shields the other so that the "radiation
pressure" forces the two masses together. Hence, gravity is seen not
as an "attraction" between masses but rather as a "push" that forces
them together. Hence you are forced earthward by the "shielding" of
the mass of the earth beneath your feet!
Now here's the food for thought. The so-called "disk" gravity shield
is actually working the "wrong" way! According to the Wheeler-Feynman
theory, if the super-conducting disk were truly "shielding gravity"
then to make an object lighter you'd have to have it OVERHEAD rather
than UNDER the object as is proposed with the old "anti-gravity paint"
idea. The disk should actually be making objects HEAVIER rather than
lighter! Just a couple of ideas for you to ponder in your
observations and opinions.
Of course, I'm sure you've read that I "know nothing about science",
so if you'd rather not think about these off-beat ideas, you should
probably simply adopt without proof the opinions of the people here
who are "smarter then Einstein". They will tell you exactly what to
think and what to say. Just accept everything they write without
question and they will like you!
I may have to poke my snoopy nose into these experiments! I wonder
how close the "test device" is to completion?
Benj
> It has been "theorized by some persons and suggested" that they
> need to wear tinfoil to ward off the mind control rays.
Liar. Everybody knows that tinfoil (aluminum foil) is transparent to
"mind control rays". One needs to wear a LEAD foil helmet to actually
be successful in shielding against them. You always have to be
spewing the disinformation, don't you?
Shill and Moron!
[Yeah, Yeah, I know I shouldn't be responding to this childish crap,
but sometimes I just can't help myself! :0]
Spaceman
> On Jul 31, 6:55 am, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
>> It has been "theorized by some persons and suggested" that they
>> need to wear tinfoil to ward off the mind control rays.
>
> Liar. Everybody knows that tinfoil (aluminum foil) is transparent to
> "mind control rays". One needs to wear a LEAD foil helmet to actually
> be successful in shielding against them. You always have to be
> spewing the disinformation, don't you?
All metals only increase the signal recieving allowance
and actually intensify the effect.
You must wear a rotating electromagentic beanie fan
to divert the signals.
:)
(sorry, could not resist)
:)
Richard Schultz
:> :> What, if anything, has this to do with the questions that I asked?
:> :
:> : You may not understand the answer, or I may
:> : not be up to your level of understanding.
:>
:> Since answers to the questions that I asked the amount of time that occurred
:> between two events, and in one case a number, I'm guessing that I'll be
:> able to understand your answer.
:
: I was invited to NASA's MSFC, Advanced Concept Office
What, if anything, has this to do with the questions that I asked? Do you
even remember what they were?
Ken S. Tucker
On Jul 31, 11:08 am, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
> In sci.physics.fusion Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> :> :> What, if anything, has this to do with the questions that I asked?
> :> :
> :> : You may not understand the answer, or I may
> :> : not be up to your level of understanding.
> :>
> :> Since answers to the questions that I asked the amount of time that occurred
> :> between two events, and in one case a number, I'm guessing that I'll be
> :> able to understand your answer.
> :
> : I was invited to NASA's MSFC, Advanced Concept Office
>
> What, if anything, has this to do with the questions that I asked? Do you
> even remember what they were?
Kindly restate your questions, and if I'm
in the area I'll stop in on the university
and provide a lecture, at my pleasure sir.
Who is the boss?
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Richard Schultz
: Kindly restate your questions, and if I'm in the area I'll stop in on
: the university and provide a lecture, at my pleasure sir.
Why don't you just answer them here in this forum? The questions were
### How long did it take from Budnorz and Muller's announcement of "high-T"
### superconductivity in cuprates for someone to reproduce their results?
### How long did it take to find a material that it is superconductive at
### T > 77 K (i.e. above the boiling point of N2)? How long did it take to
### develop a device that used a high-T superconductor?
### How many of those developments depended on a detailed theory of the
### behavior of high-T superconductors?
### How long has it been since Pons and Fleischmann claimed to have a
### *working* cold fusion water heater?
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Apparently, you take me for a complete fool."
"Yeah -- more or less."
Bob & Ray, "Garish Summit"
Ken S. Tucker
There are certain proprietary considerations,
but I hope you post what you find out.
I'm quite amazed that this class of experiment
such as cold-fusion and gravity-attentuation
get people (like Shultz) so emotional, when
they can't ever understand the problem.
I don't understand women of the opposite sex,
but I do not deny they exists :-).
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Ken S. Tucker
> In sci.physics.fusion Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> : Kindly restate your questions, and if I'm in the area I'll stop in on
> : the university and provide a lecture, at my pleasure sir.
>
> Why don't you just answer them here in this forum?
We've answered them all.
Ken
> The questions were
>
> ### How long did it take from Budnorz and Muller's announcement of "high-T"
> ### superconductivity in cuprates for someone to reproduce their results?
> ### How long did it take to find a material that it is superconductive at
> ### T > 77 K (i.e. above the boiling point of N2)? How long did it take to
> ### develop a device that used a high-T superconductor?
> ### How many of those developments depended on a detailed theory of the
> ### behavior of high-T superconductors?
>
> ### How long has it been since Pons and Fleischmann claimed to have a
> ### *working* cold fusion water heater?
>
> -----
> Richard Schultz schu...@mail.biu.ac.il
Bill Miller
"Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:c00f8c8b-2d65-44e7...@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
I imagine you are familiar with the work of Oleg Jefimenko. His theory -- an
extension of Newton to include dynamic as well as static mass -- shows that
under some circumstances antigravitation is possible. Robert Forward did
some intial work along this line back in the 60s, I think.
Bill Miller
Benj
> There are certain proprietary considerations,
> but I hope you post what you find out.
> I'm quite amazed that this class of experiment
> such as cold-fusion and gravity-attentuation
> get people (like Shultz) so emotional, when
> they can't ever understand the problem.
> I don't understand women of the opposite sex,
> but I do not deny they exists :-).
I understand the proprietary thing and would not be surprised if they
just told me to "pound salt". But the name of that VP is familiar to
me and I may have actually worked with him in the past if it is the
same guy! I guess I can hope to get lucky.
As for Shultz, he's just into faith-based physics and like all
religious people he gets real emotional when someone starts to
question his established dogma. You are right, understanding "women
of the opposite sex" is difficult, but for a real challenge try to
understand "women of the same sex!" :-)
Ken S. Tucker
On Aug 1, 8:56 am, "Bill Miller" <billmillerkt...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in messagenews:c00f8c8b-2d65-44e7...@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Back when Ben Franklin 1st started playing
with lighting using kites, humans had no
conception of electricity. Now we can take
a tiny piece of lightning that we call a pico
amp and run that through a solid state
material that we call an IC, that is basis
of modern computational technology.
I'd love to re-incarnate Ben to show him how
far we evolved from those humble beginnings.
Move forward a few centuries to the fella's,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleg_D._Jefimenko
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Forward
and consider the possibilty of a visionary
who lives today. That's why I remain open-
minded and try to assist those projects.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Richard Schultz
: On Aug 1, 2:02 am, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
:> In sci.physics.fusion Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
:>
:> : Kindly restate your questions, and if I'm in the area I'll stop in on
:> : the university and provide a lecture, at my pleasure sir.
:>
:> Why don't you just answer them here in this forum?
:
: We've answered them all.
Please provide a reference to the article in which you answered them.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
Richard Schultz
: Back when Ben Franklin 1st started playing
: with lighting using kites, humans had no
: conception of electricity.
If people had "no conception of electricity," then Franklin would not
have had any reason to try the experiment.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
Richard Schultz
: As for Shultz, he's just into faith-based physics and like all
: religious people he gets real emotional when someone starts to
: question his established dogma.
What's amusing (other than your inability to spell my name) is that, like
most fanatics, you project your own inability to behave rationally onto me.
I seriously doubt that you can point to a single thing that I've written
that could reasonably characterized as "real emotional." On the other
hand, instead of dealing with the very real fundamental physics issues
(e.g. the observation that fusion has been observed at room temperature,
and, as expected, it behaves just like fusion that occurs at high
temperatures -- "then, a miracle happens" is not normally considered a
reasonable way of dealing with a problem in physics), you spend your time
talking about me. That may be flattering, but it really doesn't have much
to do with the issue at hand.
Martin Brown
> "Richard Schultz" <sch...@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message
> news:g6m555$fac$1...@news.iucc.ac.il...
>> In sci.physics.fusion Ken S. Tucker <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>> :> How long did it take from Budnorz and Muller's announcement of "high-T"
>> :> superconductivity in cuprates for someone to reproduce their results?
>> :> How long did it take to find a material that it is superconductive at
>> :> T > 77 K (i.e. above the boiling point of N2)? How long did it take to
>> :> develop a device that used a high-T superconductor?
>> :>
>> :> How many of those developments depended on a detailed theory of the
>> behavior
>> :> of high-T superconductors?
>> :>
>> :> How long has it been since Pons and Fleischmann claimed to have a
>> :> *working* cold fusion water heater?
>>
>> : If I were to suggest in 1935 that a metal can explode with 1,000,000x
>> more
>> : energy/weight than TNT,
>>
>> H.G. Wells suggested it in 1902.
>>
>> : I'm sure you would have scoffed, but with a great effort of theory and
>> : experiment the A-bomb and H-bomb were developed.
>>
>> That is completely irrelevant to the point I was making. Why don't you
>> answer the questions above and then think about why what you wrote about
>> the A-bomb was a straw man.
>>
>> -----
>> Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
>> Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
>> Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
>> -----
>> "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."
>
> It seems the the presence or absence of He is a key "pointer" to fusion --
> cold or otherwise. It seems that without He, it is clear that fusion has NOT
> occurred.
The only thing I would trust is neutrons and/or other energetic
particles leaving the site of the reaction.
>
> Is the inverse true?
>
> The reason for my question is that there are several Helium wells in the
> world. It is a scarce (but essentially useless) element whose only
> commercially viable use is for lighter-than-air devices. (Novelists
> attention: What would have happened if the US had agreed to sell the Third
> Reich Helium? For one, the Hindenburg would not have blown up.) But I
> digress.
>
> Where does this Helium come from? Three sources I can think of:
>
> 1. It is left over from a few Billion years ago when the Earth was still hot
> enough for fusion.
> 2. It is generated by some non-fusion process that I do not understand.
> 3. It is/was generated by some natural "cold" fusion process.
>
> Could someone comment, please, on these three obvious sources of Helium?
I sort of hope you are joking here, but the original source of helium is
alpha particles during spontaneous radioactive decay emitted by
uranium, thorium, radium, radon and co. These elements are common enough
in the crust to provide the helium.
Rutherford first demonstrated that alpha particles were fast helium ions
(or equivalently that helium gas was neutralised slowed down alpha
particle spectroscopically).
http://www-outreach.phy.cam.ac.uk/camphy/physicists/rutherford_prelim.htm
Regards,
Martin Brown
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Ken S. Tucker
> In sci.physics.fusion Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> : Back when Ben Franklin 1st started playing
> : with lighting using kites, humans had no
> : conception of electricity.
>
> If people had "no conception of electricity," then Franklin would not
> have had any reason to try the experiment.
Does Ball Lightning exist?
Ken
Richard Schultz
: Does Ball Lightning exist?
Now I get it.
<plonk>
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
Ken S. Tucker
> In sci.physics.fusion Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> : On Aug 2, 9:48 pm, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
> :> In sci.physics.fusion Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> :> : Back when Ben Franklin 1st started playing
> :> : with lighting using kites, humans had no
> :> : conception of electricity.
>
> :> If people had "no conception of electricity," then Franklin would not
> :> have had any reason to try the experiment.
>
> : Does Ball Lightning exist?
>
> Now I get it.
>
> <plonk>
The great Mr. Schultz has been checked and mated,
by yours truly, Ken S. Tucker, an easy win...
Ball Lightning, is a phenomena that has been
observed, yet no standard theory has yet to
be established, somewhat like "cold fusion".
Indeed the phenomena of Lightning is still
debated in theoretical details, but that
does NOT make it non-existant.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
John Fields
(Richard Schultz) wrote:
>In sci.physics.fusion Ken S. Tucker <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>: On Aug 2, 9:48 pm, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
>:> In sci.physics.fusion Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
>:> : Back when Ben Franklin 1st started playing
>:> : with lighting using kites, humans had no
>:> : conception of electricity.
>
>:> If people had "no conception of electricity," then Franklin would not
>:> have had any reason to try the experiment.
>
>: Does Ball Lightning exist?
>
>Now I get it.
>
><plonk>
>
>-----
>Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
>Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
>Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
>-----
>". . .Mr Schutz [sic] acts like a functional electro-terrorist who
>impeads [sic] scientific communications with his too oft-silliness."
> -- Mitchell Swartz, sci.physics.fusion article <EEI1o...@world.std.com>
---
Mr. Schutz ???
LOL, next time they'll have you being Mr. Schmutz...
Here, what do you think about this:
Suppose for a moment that our universe is merely one of a number of
bubbles surrounded by an infinite expanse of infinitely dense,
infinitely energetic Universe, more or less.
Further, suppose that our bubble was formed by forces in the Universe
which caused something like cavitation to occur.
Then, when our bubble universe was formed and the void appeared, some
of the material from the Universe outgassed into the void and,
eventually, became the matter from which everything in our universe
was made.
However, since the beginning of the formation of our universe, the
unrelenting gravitational force of the Universe has been attracting
the matter in our universe back into itself. Then, because of the
inverse square law on our side of the wall, the closer our matter gets
to the wall the more it'll be attracted to it and the greater its
acceleration will be as it gets closer and closer to the wall.
Hubble noted that as galaxies become more distant, Their red shifts
increase.
However, he couldn't reconcile that claim if all the power came from
an instantaneous big bang, since a bullet shot from a gun always slows
down once it leaves the barrel.
OTOH, If the velocity of the bullet becomes luminal, somewhen in
timrthen its mass becomes infinite, it leaves our local universe and
rejoins the infinite Universe.
So, if this conjecture is true it would explain the reason for the
increasing red shift with distance.
JF
Vince Morgan
nudge my way in here if I may.
As I said previously, I don't beleive, nor disbelieve, in Coldfusion.
I had hoped to see some meaningfull discusion that might offer some
understanding of what is/has been happening in some experiments re.
coldfusion but I've been dissapointed.
What I beleive appears to be virtualy indisputable is the massive thermal
output of a great many experimental runs. That appears to be (to me) the
one relatively consistant phenomena.
If one were to disregard the claims of corresponding helium production (for
whatever reason you choose) one is still stuck trying to explain the
anomolous thermal output.
This anomaly in itself seems to be without explaination, perhaps.
I do believe that Irving Langmuir's discoveries re. atomic hydrogen might be
a clue. He too observed anomolous thermal output in monotomic hydrogen
during recombination. This work is now almost 100 years old and apparently
largely forgotten or overlooked.
Perhaps that is a 'clue', perhaps.
Vince Morgan
era...@gmail.com
Intel is using hafnium oxide in its latest chips.
Now Hafnium Nitride forms a super-computer upto 25.5 K and very little
computing currents are needed.
Of course, faster than light computing can crack today's encryption
----- but by that time you have entangled atoms encryption ---- see
work on quantum computers.
Has anybody measured the speed of an electron in a super-conductor ?
A photon in a super-conductor.
And why should light travel has photons / electromagnetic waves in
Vaccuum.
Is the light encountering resistance in vaccuum (see dark energy) so
it splits up and reforms.
So why the inverse square law ?
Erach
Androcles
<era...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f7c6cc11-59fd-4cb8...@v1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Why the sudden switch from hafnium oxide to Hafnium Nitride
and what the hell does encryption have to do with anything ---- see
work on dictionary?
Tom Kunich
>
> The reasonable discussion of cold fusion was held roughly from 1989-1994.
> If you have anything new to add to it, please feel free to go ahead.
I haven't seen any "reasonable" postings on this site from the pro-cold
fusion crowd in a decade. They all cry about how cold fusion is real and how
we're hiding it because we don't want cheap power. It doesn't seem to occur
to them that cheap power would generate more wealth than the expensive power
it replaced by an order of magnitude.
Tom Kunich
>
> Isn't it amazing that when anyone brings up the subject of political
> and economic interests just MIGHT be interested in discoveries that
> have the potential to up-end their establishment businesses and power
> cliques, there is always a host of sheep who seem to know ALL the laws
> of physics including those not discovered yet who scream that these
> laws have been "violated". Needless to say a careful examination or
> even ANY examination of the reported discovery is not a requirement to
> having a negative opinion.
So, exactly how is it that cheap power generation wouldn't make a lot more
money for the power companies? Do you suppose that somehow cold fusion would
only work in a hot water heater in the basement? Or maybe everyone could
build their very own electrical generator using cold fusion techniques?
Tom Kunich
news:3078dc9b-627e-43e2...@u6g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Possibly they don't know how to do it yet.
> Silicon with some impurity has revolutionized
> electronics, it took a century of electricity
> research to finally get that reproducible.
Huh? They had discovered semiconductor diodes quite soon - around 1874 if
memory serves. By the early 1920's crystal diodes were common. It is
absolutely necessary to also put this in perspective - the scientific method
was still being developed at that time and everything took time as well as
the fact that communications of discoveries took a very long time as well so
that development of those discoveries was very slow in that time.
In comparison think about the discovery of a rather complex science - DNA
multiplication - and the time from discovery to the first products was a
couple of years. Within a decade the science was in every university. In 20
years it is so common that it is a basic part of society now.
Pretending that the very companies that would profit the most from cold
fusion are hiding it because they prefer to make less money is a bit out
there in left field isn't it?
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Now, now, you should know common sense to zealots is like kryptonite
to Superman.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Ken S. Tucker
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in messagenews:3078dc9b-627e-43e2...@u6g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
Nuclear Mega infrastructures are expensive.
The red-tape is $100,000,000 in EPA lawyers,
to start. The set-up - assuming the techno-
recipe is available, would challenge the CEO's
at GE or Seimens, go head sonny boy, put up
or shut up, don't blame us for NIMBYism!
The fuckin' citizens have allowed politically
correct to become Tyanny with etiquette, so
shove you dopey thinking and go suck you local
politicians ass, and stop your fuckin' whining
and complaining to business people who actually
get the job done, and get off your big fat ass
and do it yourself...is that clear enough ???
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Tom Kunich
(prints some completely off subject rant)
Sorry, but unlike you I happen to know that the utility companies don't own
most of the generation plants from whom they buy power. That means that
they're more than willing to buy cheaper power from anyone.
So pretending that somehow they WANT to build a SINGLE huge fusion reactor
that will supply power to half the USA, and of course all of those thousands
of utility companies that you pretend are owners of such things, is simply
silly.
7
>
>
> "go...@rock.com" wrote:
>
>> We can make energy out of matter, and matter out of energy. With cold
>> fusion, we will unlock the power of the atom,
>
> Shame it doesn't exist.
>
> Graham
Prove it.
Bob Myers
As Carl Sagan so frequently noted, the burden of proof is on the
one making the extraordinary claim. I can't prove conclusively that
Santa Claus doesn't exist, either, but until someone shows up with
some pretty good evidence of toys coming out of a workshop run
by elves and situated somewhere near 90 deg. N, I'm sure not
going to worry much about him.
Bob M.
7
Thats not even scientific.
Proof of opposite is extremley strong science and a challenge.
At the moment, the proof of the opposite to cold fusion is very weak.
You could point at an old MIT paper for instance to get it rubbished
by MIT themselves.
The case for cold fusion gets stronger by the day.
The patterson cell works 100% on every demo.
The Fleishman Pons cell worked 1:10 time when it went on demo first.
Now its slightly better than 2:3.
Not enough research work has gone to improve it further because
a lot more people and funding are needed to extend the studies further.
Salmon Egg
Bill
--
Most people go to college to get their missing high school education.
Bill Snyder
<Salm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Do beggers still need horses?
They'll probably ride on the flying pigs instead.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Dancing Fingers
fusion. Not because I think that hot fusion will never work but I
have serious doubts the commercial hot fusion power will ever be
practical. Think about how do you'd contain a hunk of Sun? Then
think about how you'd contain a hunk of super nova, more like modern
Tokama temperatures. How would you open up your superconducting
coils to repair the scalded wall every week, or more? We barely
have the technology to protect the Space Shuttle during re-entry
how in the world can we protect billions of dollars of super-
conductors from a self-contained super-nova?
What is the biggest scam: cold fusion or the promise of controlled,
commercial hot fusion?