Subject: Comments on the Miley transmutation claims #5
From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 15:55:21 GMT
Thus far I have pointed out that for the isotopes of Si, Ca, Ti, and
Cr Miley and Patterson has seriously misrepresented their data.
The evidence they claim supports the notion of massive nuclear
transmutations, in fact, proves just the opposite. Simple, expected
chemical transport is the most plausable explanation for the
mass spectrum they observe for reacted microspheres.
There is also convincing evidence presented by Miley and Patterson
of a total absence of any nuclear reactions occurring as a result
of electrolysis. The authors find no significant indication of
activity.
Rather than to continue to point out the rather complete failure to
provide experimental evidence for nuclear transmutations let us
move on to the general question of "theory." Putting it another
way how could one possibly reconcile transmutations of the sort
claimed with our prior knowledge?
First consider the simple matter of energy balance. The claim
apparently is that a very complex assortment of nuclear reactions
involving not only the thin nickel film but other cell ingredients
as well still leads to a rather stable reaction rate and heat
output for some 300 hours. This stability is achieved in spite
of the fact that the process consumes nearly 40% of the "fuel."
The claim is then that the exact makeup of the reacting film
has little effect on the reation process. Does not this contradict
the usual assertions that some "special condition of matter"
is essential? Why does not the obvious addition of significant
levels of contamination influence the operation?
Perhaps more remarkable than the maintenance of a fixed reaction
rate involving many alternative reaction pathways is the claim
that there still only a tiny fraction of all possible outcomes
showing up in the final states. That is to say that the reaction
is both very general and highly selective in its outcomes.
As yet, of course, no one offers any explanation as to what
mechanism can possibly prevent the formation of any reaction product
in an unstable state. That is a demand for order out of chaos
that is simply incredible!
Let's see what the authors have to say in their section headed
"Reaction Mechanisms Considerations." They note that, "... any
theory for reactions in solids must explain: 1) how the reacting
ions overcome the Coulombic barrier, and 2) what reactions take place
after the ions react." Then, as is generally the case in CF circles,
they address only the first of these two questions. They frankly
admitt they have nothing to offer concerning "reaction mechanisms"
in the more general sense.
So all we have to address is the direction they propose to explain
the vanishing of the Coulomb barrier. Here I think we can see that
they are not even true believers in the theory they invoke. What
the mention is something called SEL theory that involves a shift
in Fermi level at the interface between the thin nickel film and
the plastic microsphere. So "a shift in the Fermi level" is
supposed to account for a drastic alteration of the nuclear Coulomb
barrier? To suggest that is, I believe, somewhat dishonest. You
could not get away with that among knowledgable people.
The obvious dishonesty of an assertion that a shift in Fermi level
for atomic electrons alters the nuclear Coulomb interaction lies
in the fact that not the same electrons can be involved. The electrons
at the Fermi level are not the electrons at the nucleus.
We also know that the authors do not, in fact, believe that the
electrons at the nickel nucleus are in any way perturbed by
the interface with the plastic. If they are to be believed they
even have experimental evidence that significant perturbations of
inner electrons do not occur. That is clearly indicated by their
use of EDX analysis to probe the nickel film. If you use
characteristic X-rays to identify microscopically the constituants
of a film you are relying on the fact the the inner electrons are
not greatly perturbed! Once again the authors prove just the
opposite of what they claim.
Dick Blue
Subject: Cold Fusion Information Available
From: 72240.1256@CompuServe.COM (Jed Rothwell)
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 16:25:19 GMT
To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
[Note: I posted this via the CompuServe interface but I do not think it ever
made it into sci.physics.fusion or the Fusion Digest. Apologies if it comes
up twice this month.]
Information about cold fusion and Infinite Energy magazine can be found at my
home page:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JedRothwell
Contents include:
* Frequently asked questions (FAQ) about cold fusion
* Brief technical review
* Summary Report on the Second International Low Energy Nuclear
Reactions Conference (ILENR2), which was focused on heavy metal
transmutations
* Information and order form for Infinite Energy magazine & video tapes
* Information on videos of lectures by leading cold fusion scientists
* Original sources of information, links to other home pages including Los
Alamos cold fusion experiment, links to discussion groups
* Upcoming conferences, including the preliminary list of papers to be
presented at the Sixth International Conference On Cold Fusion (ICCF6)
Coming soon: A scathing review of ICCF6!
To subscribe to Infinite Energy magazine directly contact:
Eugene F. Mallove, Sc.D.
Editor-in-Chief and Publisher
INFINITE ENERGY: Cold Fusion and New Energy Technology (MAGAZINE)
Cold Fusion Technology
P.O. Box 2816
Concord, NH 03302-2816
Fax: 603-224-5975
Phone: 603-228-4516
Subject: Re: Looking for some ZPE reference info
From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 19:26:43 GMT
In article kenneth paul collins writes:
>Jon Noring wrote:
>> Many of Puthoff's papers have appeared in Physical Review, a peer-reviewed
>> set of physics journals. The last paper with two others discussing the cause
>> of inertia are very interesting. BTW, most of Puthoff's work regarding
>> gravity and inertia has roots with the Sakharov conjecture in the 1960's that
>> gravity is due to the interaction of matter with the ZPE. I think we all
>> know who Sakharov was -- he was that New Age Scientologist physicist in
>> the Soviet Union. :^)
>I have a problem with what Putoff has been doing. It is that what I've seen of
>"his work" is similar to, and made available after, things I've discussed in
>various online places. If it's "his work", why does "his work" seem to always
>parrot what I've discussed at earlier dates? ken collins
Well, this certainly could be documented, and probably should be. But why
didn't you carry through with your ideas and publish them in peer-reviewed
journals? And Puthoff makes it clear that he was inspired to start his
research on Stochastic Electrodynamics, vacuum energy, and so forth, after
reading about Sakharov's Conjecture. So obviously he is building upon the
ideas and foundations of others. Don't all scientists do this?
Anyway, if you can dig up your posts (DejaNews, etc.) with a time stamp, and
then dig up Puthoff's various published papers, we can start putting together
a time line, and from that see if there's any corroboration to your concerns.
Jon Noring
--
OmniMedia Electronic Books | URL: http://www.awa.com/library/omnimedia
9671 S. 1600 West St. | Anonymous FTP:
South Jordan, UT 84095 | ftp.awa.com /pub/softlock/pc/products/OmniMedia
801-253-4037 | E-mail: omnimedia@netcom.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join the Electronic Books Mailing List (EBOOK-List) Today! Just send e-mail
to majordomo@aros.net, and put the following line in the body of the message:
subscribe ebook-list
Subject: Re: Looking for some ZPE reference info
From: kenneth paul collins
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 1996 14:11:02 -0500
Jon Noring wrote:
>
> In article ianj@tattoo.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) writes:
> >paula@southconn.com wrote:
>
> >: Do a search for "puthoff" he has a number of papers on the net about zpe
> >: and zero point field...most are not math intensive and written in a manner
> >: a layman can understand...steve
>
> >Doing the search with an NAND ("scientology" OR "new age") would probably
> >help cut down the work a bit.
>
> Many of Puthoff's papers have appeared in Physical Review, a peer-reviewed
> set of physics journals. The last paper with two others discussing the cause
> of inertia are very interesting. BTW, most of Puthoff's work regarding
> gravity and inertia has roots with the Sakharov conjecture in the 1960's that
> gravity is due to the interaction of matter with the ZPE. I think we all
> know who Sakharov was -- he was that New Age Scientologist physicist in
> the Soviet Union. :^)
I have a problem with what Putoff has been doing. It is that what I've seen of
"his work" is similar to, and made available after, things I've discussed in
various online places. If it's "his work", why does "his work" seem to always
parrot what I've discussed at earlier dates? ken collins
_____________________________________________________
People hate because they fear, and they fear because
they do not understand, and they do not understand
because hating is less work than understanding.
Subject: Re: Plus and minus infinity
From: Le Compte de Beaudrap
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 14:02:18 -0700
On Mon, 4 Nov 1996, A Montvay {TRACS} wrote:
> Asger Tornquist wrote:
> >
> > Alfonso Martinez Vicente wrote:
> >
> > >Do plus infinity and minus infinity meet at the infinity? I mean, if I
> > >go towards the infinity along the real line, will I somehow get to the
> > >the minus infinity?
> >
> > I see no logical reason that + and - inf. should meet. If it were so
> > the result of finding lim(x->+inf.) and lim(x->-inf.) for any real
> > function would give the same result, which it doesn't.
>
> Sorry, but you're wrong here. Because you are taking the limes from
> different sides.
> f(x)=1/x has lim(x->0)=+inf or -inf, depending on approaching from the
> left or the right.
> So this is no proof of +inf and -inf not being the same.
>
> Actually, if you take complex numbers, then you don't distinguish
> between infinity with an argument of 0 degrees or 180 degrees.
> So I would say that in a certain way (taking the real numbers as a
> subset of complex numbers) the two are actually the same.
In fact, just looking at a graph of x = 0, you might say that. Looking at the
slope, one might say that in 0 units forward, it goes 1 unit, 2 units, 3
units, etc. up, or 1 unit, 2 units, 3 units, etc. down. Knowing full well
that n/0 (where n is Real, but not 0) is undefined (currently), it could
still be easily argued that by this logic, +/- infinity is one value.
It's a wonder that, just as has been done for (-1)^0.5 and other similar
values, n/0 hasn't been defined (literally, defined), or such a
convention accepted: if it were, it would be the case that
+infinity = -infinity.
>
> Andras
>
>
Niel de Beaudrap
----------------------
jd@cpsc.ucalgary.ca
Subject: Re: Ditgood's machine
From: david@cgaski.u-net.com (David Gaskill)
Date: 9 Nov 1996 12:18:14 GMT
In message <55vcvr$9ei@elle.eunet.no> - mva@inko.no8 Nov 1996 13:35:55 GMT
writes:
>
>Is this true? re:
>http://atlas.comet.net/~gus/satire/freeenergy.html
Absolutely must be. This is a quote from the Web page.
Andy Billows, the President of Mobile Oil, the value of whose stock plummeted
80% following the announcement of the Ultrajuice, contends, "I've seen it all
before...first it was solar, then geothermal, now it's this confounded
contraption. It's just a fad. It won't last."
David