Subject: Re: Failing to see how hot fusion is expensive
From: jac@ibms46.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Date: 15 Nov 1996 21:46:47 GMT
dietz@interaccess.com (Paul F. Dietz) wrote:
}
} Since when does freezing the design on something make it inexpensive?
} Perhaps *less* expensive, but even ignoring development costs the
} fusion reactor studies have not been able to come up with a
} tokamak-based reactor design burning DT that is more than marginally
} competitive.
Jeramie.Hicks@mail.utexas.edu writes:
>
>Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant to say that the
>commercial reactors will not be designed as physics experimental
>devices, and therefore would not be designed to be easily taken apart,
>studied, changed, etc.
Correct. Instead, they will have to be designed to be easily taken
apart, failed components replaced, etc. That is, they will have to
be maintained -- and maintained by a far less expert staff at that.
In addition, they will have to operate more-or-less continuously
rather than for specific experiments.
Which was cheaper and simpler, the first reactor under Chicago stadium,
the production reactor at Hanford, or a typical commercial reactor?
> Commercial reactors would not have to be nearly
>as dynamically configurable once a working configuration is found; I
>figured that "freezing" the design to a working configuration, rather
>than having a university-style dynamically configurable machine, would
>be a lot cheaper.
Do you mean a lot, as in 1/10 the cost? I don't think so, at least
not in the absolute sense when you consider the scale-up required.
What is the projected cost for construction of a 1 GWe fusion reactor?
*Is* there a projected cost for such a reactor?
--
James A. Carr | "The half of knowledge is knowing
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | where to find knowledge" - Anon.
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | Motto over the entrance to Dodd
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | Hall, former library at FSCW.
Subject: The Covariant Theory - Status Report
From: jgc@magi.com (John G. Cornfield)
Date: 16 Nov 1996 02:46:08 GMT
TCT Status Report
As of this posting about 125 people have downloaded the introduction and first
nine chapters of Part 1 of the "Theory of Radiation, Matter and Nuclei". Part
2 is now being released, on a chapter by chapter basis, at the web site given
below. Chapters 10 and 11 are now available.
The files are available in three compressed formats: MS-Word 6.0 (*wd.zip)
including self extracting (*wd.exe) , and PostScript (*ps.zip).
More details are available in the "Items of Interest ?" section on the "Part
2" status page at the web site, the URL for which follows the article below.
Cheers - John
I have been posting the following article to this newsgroup since early in
December of 1995, and will continue to do so for some time. If you are a new
subscriber, or have missed it, and find it of interest, perhaps a visit to the
URL will see you joining the above group of "readers"?
THE COVARIANT THEORY
In the last few chapters of "A Brief History of Time"(Bantam 1988), Stephen
Hawking writes about an earlier idea of his concerning a new frame of
reference in which to consider physical reality. In essence it is:
- a four dimensional, non-linear frame, finite but unbounded,
(like the surface of the earth, but with two more dimensions),
- using imaginary time as a mathematical device, making the frame
Euclidean,
- the above producing no singularities and causing the distinction
between time and space to disappear.
The above proposal appears to describe very closely a theory I have been
interested in for the past 30 years. It is called "The Covariant Theory" and
is not my own, but the work of another man. It is unpublished, the original
author losing interest in it many years ago. Since I did show interest, he
gave me his original writings, about 1500 pages, which I first organized into
some 60 folders back in 1969.
In 1993 I retired from being a physics teacher (after 34 years!), and have
just recently acquired a new computer. For fun, I've started to put the work
into an electronic form, and am willing to share it with anybody who is
interested. There is no copyright on the material and you can work with it,
communicate, publish etc. as you see fit.
First let me assure you that it does indeed propose a change in the frame of
reference in which to view reality. It is a unique non-linear four dimensional
frame in which space and time are related in a covariant manner, and thus the
name of the theory. It is because the theory is based on a frame change, that
even though the draft was produced over 30 years ago, developments since that
time , such as quark theory and the standard model for example, can be
accommodated, in my opinion, within the theory. The central ideas then, seem
to me to still be viable.
The frame appears to have the capability of unifying the forces of nature in a
new way, since some of the initial predictions relate to meson masses and
properties, nuclear binding energy and structure, and relationships between
ionization potentials across the periodic table. In addition, as a result of
field geometry, various physical constants, such as "e", "h" and "c", are
intimately co-related, thus predicting the existence and value of the fine
structure constant.
The range of topics dealt with requires the potential reader to be comfortable
with the quantum, electromagnetic, and relativity theories and their
mathematical formalism. Generalized mechanics and knowledge of various nuclear
models is also required. In general then it is the theoretical physicist, with
a special interest in nuclear theory, to which this posting is directed, since
rigorous scholarly review and assessment is required.
Now there are a number of problems associated with the preparation and
transfer of the material as well as the central problem of communicating a
frame change. You have to start some place however, and I have decided to
prepare a pre-publication draft of the "Theory of Radiation, Matter and
Nuclei", which comes from about 30 of the 60 folders.
If you are interested in looking into the Covariant Theory, please proceed via
the WWW
to
where you will find a web site providing documentation that should be read
before you access the theory. I have set it up this way to help you make a
decision, since I do not want you to feel you are wasting your time.
Please do not e-mail me until after you have visited my home page.
Thanks - John
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 1/3 (Overview)
From: Robert F. Heeter
Date: 9 Nov 1996 21:59:24 GMT
Reposting article removed by rogue canceller. See news.admin.net-abuse.announce
for further information.
Archive-name: fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview
Last-modified: 26-Feb-1995
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-biweekly
Disclaimer: While this section is still evolving, it should
be useful to many people, and I encourage you to distribute
it to anyone who might be interested (and willing to help!!!).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
### Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Fusion Research
-----------------------------------------------------------------
# Written/Edited by:
Robert F. Heeter
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
# Last Revised February 26, 1995
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*** A. Welcome to the Conventional Fusion FAQ!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
* 1) Contents
This file is intended to indicate
(A) that the Conventional Fusion FAQ exists,
(B) what it discusses,
(C) how to find it on the Internet, and
(D) the status of the Fusion FAQ project
* 2) What is the Conventional Fusion FAQ?
The Conventional Fusion FAQ is a comprehensive, relatively
nontechnical set of answers to many of the frequently asked
questions about fusion science, fusion energy, and fusion
research. Additionally, there is a Glossary of Frequently
Used Terms In Plasma Physics and Fusion Energy Research, which
explains much of the jargon of the field. The Conventional
Fusion FAQ originated as an attempt to provide
answers to many of the typical, basic, or introductory questions
about fusion research, and to provide a listing of references and
other resources for those interested in learning more. The
Glossary section containing Frequently Used Terms (FUT) also
seeks to facilitate communication regarding fusion by providing
brief explanations of the language of the field.
* 3) Scope of the Conventional Fusion FAQ:
Note that this FAQ discusses only the conventional forms of fusion
(primarily magnetic confinement, but also inertial and
muon-catalyzed), and not new/unconventional forms ("cold fusion",
sonoluminescence-induced fusion, or ball-lightning fusion). I
have tried to make this FAQ as uncontroversial and comprehensive
as possible, while still covering everything I felt was
important / standard fare on the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup.
* 4) How to Use the FAQ:
This is a rather large FAQ, and to make it easier to find what
you want, I have outlined each section (including which questions
are answered) in Section 0, Part 2 (posted separately). Hopefully it
will not be too hard to use. Part (C) below describes how to find
the other parts of the FAQ via FTP or the World-Wide Web.
* 5) Claims and Disclaimers:
This is an evolving document, not a completed work. As such,
it may not be correct or up-to-date in all respects.
This document should not be distributed for profit, especially
without my permission. Individual sections may have additional
restrictions. In no case should my name, the revision date,
or this paragraph be removed.
- Robert F. Heeter
--------------------------------------------------------------------
*** B. Contents (Section Listing) of the Conventional Fusion FAQ
--------------------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************************
What This FAQ Discusses
*****************************************************************
(Each of these sections is posted periodically on sci.physics.fusion.
Section 0.1 is posted biweekly, the other parts are posted quarterly.
Each listed part is posted as a separate file.)
Section 0 - Introduction
Part 1/3 - Title Page
Table of Contents
How to Find the FAQ
Current Status of the FAQ project
Part 2/3 - Detailed Outline with List of Questions
Part 3/3 - Revision History
Section 1 - Fusion as a Physical Phenomenon
Section 2 - Fusion as an Energy Source
Part 1/5 - Technical Characteristics
Part 2/5 - Environmental Characteristics
Part 3/5 - Safety Characteristics
Part 4/5 - Economic Characteristics
Part 5/5 - Fusion for Space-Based Power
Section 3 - Fusion as a Scientific Research Program
Part 1/3 - Chronology of Events and Ideas
Part 2/3 - Major Institutes and Policy Actors
Part 3/3 - History of Achievements and Funding
Section 4 - Methods of Containment / Approaches to Fusion
Part 1/2 - Toroidal Magnetic Confinement Approaches
Part 2/2 - Other Approaches (ICF, muon-catalyzed, etc.)
Section 5 - Status of and Plans for Present Devices
Section 6 - Recent Results
Section 7 - Educational Opportunities
Section 8 - Internet Resources
Section 9 - Future Plans
Section 10 - Annotated Bibliography / Reading List
Section 11 - Citations and Acknowledgements
Glossary of Frequently Used Terms (FUT) in Plasma Physics & Fusion:
Part 0/26 - Intro
Part 1/26 - A
Part 2/26 - B
[ ... ]
Part 26/26 - Z
---------------------------------------------------------------
*** C. How to find the Conventional Fusion FAQ on the 'Net:
---------------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************************
### The FAQ about the FAQ:
### How can I obtain a copy of a part of the Fusion FAQ?
*****************************************************************
* 0) Quick Methods (for Experienced Net Users)
(A) World-Wide Web: http://lyman.pppl.gov/~rfheeter/fusion-faq.html
(B) FTP: rtfm.mit.edu in /pub/usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq
* 1) Obtaining the Fusion FAQ from Newsgroups
Those of you reading this on news.answers, sci.answers,
sci.energy, sci.physics, or sci.environment will be able to
find the numerous sections of the full FAQ by reading
sci.physics.fusion periodically. (Please note that not
all sections are completed yet.) Because the FAQ is quite
large, most sections are posted only every three months, to avoid
unnecessary consumption of bandwidth.
All sections of the FAQ which are ready for "official"
distribution are posted to sci.physics.fusion, sci.answers,
and news.answers, so you can get them from these groups by
waiting long enough.
* 2) World-Wide-Web (Mosaic, Netscape, Lynx, etc.):
Several Web versions now exist.
The "official" one is currently at
We hope to have a version on the actual PPPL Web server
() soon.
There are other sites which have made "unofficial" Web versions
from the newsgroup postings. I haven't hunted all of these down
yet, but I know a major one is at this address:
Note that the "official" one will include a number of features
which cannot be found on the "unofficial" ones created by
automated software from the newsgroup postings. In particular
we hope to have links through the outline directly to questions,
and between vocabulary words and their entries in the Glossary,
so that readers unfamiliar with the terminology can get help fast.
(Special acknowledgements to John Wright at PPPL, who is handling
much of the WWW development.)
* 3) FAQ Archives at FTP Sites (Anonymous FTP) - Intro
All completed sections can also be obtained by anonymous FTP
from various FAQ archive sites, such as rtfm.mit.edu. The
address for this archive is:
Please note that sections which are listed above as having
multiple parts (such as the glossary, and section 2) are
stored in subdirectories, where each part has its own
filename; e.g., /fusion-faq/glossary/part0-intro.
Please note also that there are other locations in the rtfm
filespace where fusion FAQ files are stored, but the reference
given above is the easiest to use.
There are a large number of additional FAQ archive sites,
many of which carry the fusion FAQ. These are listed below.
* 4) Additional FAQ archives worldwide (partial list)
There are other FAQ archive sites around the world
which one can try if rtfm is busy; a list is appended
at the bottom of this file.
* 5) Mail Server
If you do not have direct access by WWW or FTP, the
rtfm.mit.edu site supports "ftp by mail": send a message
to mail-server@rtfm.mit.edu with the following 3 lines
in it (cut-and-paste if you like):
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section0-intro/part2-outline
quit
The mail server will send these two introductory
files to you. You can then use the outline (part2)
to determine which files you want. You can receive
any or all of the remaining files by sending another
message with the same general format, if you substitute
the file archive names you wish to receive, in place of the
part "fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview", etc. used above.
* 6) Additional Note / Disclaimer:
Not all sections of the FAQ have been written
yet, nor have they all been "officially" posted.
Thus, you may not find what you're looking for right away.
Sections which are still being drafted are only
posted to sci.physics.fusion. If there's a section
you can't find, send me email and I'll let you know
what's up with it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
*** D. Status of the Conventional Fusion FAQ Project
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* 1) Written FAQ Sections:
Most sections have been at least drafted, but many sections are still
being written. Sections 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, and 9
remain to be completed.
Those sections which have been written could use revising and improving.
I am trying to obtain more information, especially on devices and
confinement approaches; I'm also looking for more information on
international fusion research, especially in Japan & Russia.
*** I'd love any help you might be able to provide!! ***
* 2) Building a Web Version
A "primitive" version (which has all the posted data, but isn't
especially aesthetic) exists now. Would like to add graphics and
cross-references to the Glossary, between FAQ sections, and
to other internet resources (like laboratory Web pages).
* 3) Nuts & Bolts -
I'm looking for ways to enhance the distribution of the FAQ, and
to get additional volunteer help for maintenance and updates.
We are in the process of switching to automated posting via the
rtfm.mit.edu faq posting daemon.
* 4) Status of the Glossary:
# Contains roughly 1000 entries, including acronyms, math terms, jargon, etc.
# Just finished incorporating terms from the "Glossary of Fusion Energy"
published in 1985 by the Dept. of Energy's Office of Scientific and
Technical Information.
# Also working to improve technical quality of entries (more formal.)
# World Wide Web version exists, hope to cross-reference to FAQ.
# Hope to have the Glossary "officially" added to PPPL Web pages.
# Hope to distribute to students, policymakers, journalists,
scientists, i.e., to anyone who needs a quick reference to figure out
what we're really trying to say, or to decipher all the "alphabet
soup." Scientists need to remember that not everyone knows those
"trivial" words we use every day. The glossary and FAQ should be
useful in preparing for talks to lay audiences. Students will
also find it useful to be able to look up unfamiliar technical jargon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
*** E. Appendix: List of Additional FAQ Archive Sites Worldwide
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(The following information was excerpted from the "Introduction to
the *.answers newsgroups" posting on news.answers, from Sept. 9, 1994.)
Other news.answers/FAQ archives (which carry some or all of the FAQs
in the rtfm.mit.edu archive), sorted by country, are:
[ Note that the connection type is on the left. I can't vouch
for the fusion FAQ being on all of these, but it should be
on some. - Bob Heeter ]
Belgium
-------
gopher cc1.kuleuven.ac.be port 70
anonymous FTP cc1.kuleuven.ac.be:/anonymous.202
mail-server listserv@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be get avail faqs
Canada
------
gopher jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca port 70
Finland
-------
anonymous ftp ftp.funet.fi/pub/doc/rtfm
France
------
anonymous FTP grasp1.insa-lyon.fr:/pub/faq
grasp1.insa-lyon.fr:/pub/faq-by-newsgroup
gopher gopher.insa-lyon.fr, port 70
mail server listserver@grasp1.univ-lyon1.fr
Germany
-------
anonymous ftp ftp.Germany.EU.net:/pub/newsarchive/news.answers
ftp.informatik.uni-muenchen.de:/pub/comp/usenet/news.answers
ftp.uni-paderborn.de:/doc/FAQ
ftp.saar.de:/pub/usenet/news.answers (local access only)
gopher gopher.Germany.EU.net, port 70.
gopher.uni-paderborn.de
mail server archive-server@Germany.EU.net
ftp-mailer@informatik.tu-muenchen.de
ftp-mail@uni-paderborn.de
World Wide Web http://www.Germany.EU.net:80/
FSP ftp.Germany.EU.net, port 2001
gopher index gopher://gopher.Germany.EU.net:70/1.archive
gopher://gopher.uni-paderborn.de:70/0/Service/FTP
Korea
-----
anonymous ftp hwarang.postech.ac.kr:/pub/usenet/news.answers
Mexico
------
anonymous ftp mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx:/pub/usenet/news.answers
The Netherlands
---------------
anonymous ftp ftp.cs.ruu.nl:/pub/NEWS.ANSWERS
gopher gopher.win.tue.nl, port 70
mail server mail-server@cs.ruu.nl
Sweden
------
anonymous ftp ftp.sunet.se:/pub/usenet
Switzerland
-----------
anonymous ftp ftp.switch.ch:/info_service/usenet/periodic-postings
anonymous UUCP chx400:ftp/info_service/Usenet/periodic-postings
mail server archiver-server@nic.switch.ch
telnet nic.switch.ch, log in as "info"
Taiwan
------
anonymous ftp ftp.edu.tw:/USENET/FAQ
mail server ftpmail@ftp.edu.tw
United Kingdon
--------------
anonymous ftp src.doc.ic.ac.uk:/usenet/news-faqs/
FSP src.doc.ic.ac.uk port 21
gopher src.doc.ic.ac.uk port 70.
mail server ftpmail@doc.ic.ac.uk
telnet src.doc.ic.ac.uk login as sources
World Wide Web http://src.doc.ic.ac.uk/usenet/news-faqs/
United States
-------------
anonymous ftp ftp.uu.net:/usenet
World Wide Web http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu:80/hypertext/faq/usenet/top.html
Subject: Re: Text of New CETI Brochure -- How sad...
From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 96 13:52:37 GMT
In article <328908c2.11298597@news.internetmci.com>,
kalim@us.net (Karim Alim) wrote:
->bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan) wrote:
->
->>to see who would be graced by licenses to the Patterson Power Cell. Now, they
->>(CETI et al.) are groveling on the street corner, trying to sell the devices
->>bead-by-bead.
->
->"Groveling on the street corner?" Delightfully colorful description,
->but hardly accurate, unless you think of charging $3,750 as
->"groveling" and the American Nuclear Society Meetings as "street
->corners."
All things are relative, Karim. Do you believe that 'cold fusion' would have
generated any interest if its promoters had originally only promised to deliver a
few tens of 'toy' units at kilobucks per unit. The original promises were
riches beyond imagination.
This latest announcement places 'cold fusion' in the same category as the X-ray
glasses I used to see advertised in the back of comic books when I was a kid:
'See through women's clothes!' Only thing, the X-ray glasses were cheaper and
probably worked better.
->>experimenter. Now they claim they can transmute nickel into -- well, you name
->>it, they can make it.
->>
->>How sad...
->
->It *would* be sad *if* they were wrong about the transmutations. Just
->to clarify things, are you implying that George Miley is an idiot or a
->liar? Seems to me that he'd have to be one or the other to screw up
->his findings that badly.
Those possiblities are not unthinkable as you have just demonstrated by letting
your fears show through, but I would attribute the problems to more prosaic
causes. Call it the P&F; syndrome where carelessness, bad technique, and hubris
are fed by intense $$greed$$.
The evidence against cold fusion transmutation is like the dog that didn't bark.
Where are the bodies of the dead graduate students?
->>Strangely, they have chosen to do this at the same time that Joe Champion is
->>heading for the hills, apparently a half-step ahead of a new round of
->>transmutation fraud lawsuits.
->
->Hadn't heard about this, but then I don't read the Enquirer, so...
No need to go to the Enquirer, see the vortex-L discussion group at:
http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/wvort.html. It's Rumor Central for the Truly
Gullible, and Today's Chuckle for the rest of us. [Tell us another whopper Jed.]
->>Pity them, but watch your wallets.
->
->Come now, "pity them?" I doubt that can be a sincere statement when
->it is followed up by "watch your wallets." Who would pity anyone
->who's out to steal from you? If you pity someone who's out to rip you
->off, then you're a bigger idiot than they are.
->-k.
->
I guess you are just one of the compassion-impaired, Karim. Don't you feel a
slight twinge when you walk by the winos on your local skidrow -- even though
you know they would knock you in the head to get the money for a jug of wine?
Pity them, but watch your wallet.
Subject: Re: CETI Sells Cells at ANS meeting
From: gfp@sarnoff.com
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 01:03:09 GMT
>Clean Energy Technology Inc. (CETI) is attending American Nuclear Society
>meeting in Washington, DC this week, at the Sheraton hotel. They have a booth
>where they are demonstrating a 5-watt cold fusion device and selling kits for
>$3,750 each. Since they announced the availability of the kits last month they
>have sold 40 of them, including 15 or so at this meeting. The exhibit at the
>American Nuclear Society Meeting is on today and tomorrow, 11/11/96 and
>11/12/96 from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. The exhibitor organizers say they expect from
>1,000 to 1,200 attendees.
>The U.S. Patent Office has notified CETI that the latest patent will be issued
>within the next few weeks. It is titled: "System in Electrolytic Cell and
>Method for Producing Heat and De-Activating Uranium and Thorium by
>Electrolysis." This patent describes a method by which radionuclides are
>inserted into a special matrix designed for radioactive elements.
>Reding reports that response at the conference has been very polite. There is
>a lot of interest in this technology among those who are initi
>For information on cold fusion tune into:
>http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JedRothwell
>INFINITE ENERGY: Cold Fusion and New Energy Technology (MAGAZINE)
>Cold Fusion Technology
>P.O. Box 2816
I would really like to beleive that an "alternative approach" to
fusion energy has succeeded-but I simply do not beleive it anymore.
Why doesn't this company GIVE ten of these do-it-yourself kits to PBS,
or NBC, tell them to assemble them, and show free energy being created
"live" on the air. (somehow this always happens when no one is
around). Forget the peers, show the public! What happenened to the one
that delivers a kilowatt????? Better still give ME one, and I'll
see if it generates power. Don't tell me about the Japanese!!!!!
Cold fusion seems to be as full as baloney as hot fusion is!!! (stuff
like q=1, except for 300MW of containment field power, for 1/2 sec of
power out, except that the machine can't use tritium, etc. Why don't
they give up!!!!
The only fusion operating fusion reactors continue to be stars and
weapons.
Subject: Re: Text of New CETI Brochure -- How sad...
From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 96 15:18:23 GMT
In article <56bkb6$jdc@stratus.skypoint.net>,
jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) wrote:
->Karim Alim (kalim@us.net) wrote:
->: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan) wrote:
->: >(CETI et al.) are groveling on the street corner, trying to sell the devices
->: >bead-by-bead.
->
->: "Groveling on the street corner?" Delightfully colorful description,
->: but hardly accurate
->
->Hey Karim, these are "trolls", well known tactics on the usenet to incite
->and inflame -- they are of no scientific value and should not be read
->that way. It's an ego thing ... best ignored.
->
->There are valuable insights to be offered both pro and con, but you won't
->find such value in postings such as the one you just responded to.
->
Hi John!
You've always been one of my favorite trollees. I hope you understand that we
trollers would be at a loss without you trollees. Of course, it's a mutually
beneficial symbiotic relationship -- you trollees need the the trollers, too.
I'm (almost) surprised you didn't give up on the bumblers at ENECO/CETI after the
PowerGen travesty (or even before) -- you seem to be rational in most other
respects.
I can imagine the TBs made a run on (medicinal) lithium after PowerGen. I hope
they've gone together on a group purchase to get through this one -- unless, of
course, the TBs really do get their jollies from these manic-depressive cycles.
Sadly, this cycle may be a short one, since Dick Blue has been so rude as to
observe that, unlike the earlier fiascos, ENECO/CETI cold fusion transmutation
self-destructed *before* making it to the launch pad.
BTW, help me out. Beyond 'There's a sucker born every minute.' and 'There's no
fool like an old fool.', what are some, if any, of the valuable 'pro' insights?
Subject: Re: Text of New CETI Brochure -- How sad...
From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 96 15:36:11 GMT
In article <19961113053300.AAA15130@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
rmcarrell@aol.com wrote:
->Bob Sullivan is sad.
->
->To be one of the 60 or so (last count) who qualify for a CETI RIFEX kit,
->you need to have EDX, SIMS, NAA, SEM, Auger(SEM) facilities, list your
->special technical fields of interest, other organizations participating,
->and other individuas participating. If qualified, you will be issued a kit
->at a training seminar at the University of Illinois, December 10, 1996.
->The dollar cost is nominal.
->
->One is in grave danger of having his preconceptions shattered, if he is
->qualified to operate the device and analyze its results.
->
->Mike Carrell
Me? Sad? Hardly. I've always enjoyed the clowns, even the sad ones.
I understand ENECO/CETI has come up with a special reduced-price offer. You can
now get the results without buying the kit. They send you the results they
*think* you would get if you bought the kit. They've even pre-printed the results
-- no waiting necessary. This is in line with the long-standing ENECO/CETI
practice of pre-announcing the results of experiments, a la PowerGen.
Subject: the solution
From: scienza@pianeta.it
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 20:45:41 +0100
INTERNET
Some people prefear to go on thinking that the Einstein’s relativity
theory is right , thinking that matter cannot reach and substain light
velocity, because in this case matter would have an infinitive mass ,
and it would be necessary to transfer to it an infinitive quantity of
energy to reach light velocity.
At the same time the physics substain that at elemental material level
the time does not exist and that in normal conditions it is not possible
to travel in the time.
As opposite to what mentioned before, the writer, after 20 years of
research out of the pubblic ufficial circuit of the physical research,
can prove that things are different.
Some examples of his theories follows:
-The conception of time and space given by Einstein Relativity is
completly inconsistent applied to the case of light velocity of the
matter and the time is translated by some physical, heavy consistent
material particles but normally invisible.
In many cases the theories substained by the physics are uncomplete or
inadeguated to describe the reality, but because of their lack to give
an explanation to the real phenomenons; they continue to substain that
their concepts is the only truth, thing that is false in the reality.
- The Writer gives some information about: 1) travels of matter at light
velocity in present time, 2) the explanation of the natural composition
of the elemental particles that translate the time in the matter, 3) the
explanation of the forces unification, where it is explained the natural
formation in the sub-elemental particles of the electricity, of the
magnetism and the gravity, 4) explanation of matter at null temperature,
where the quarks can be visible and free, because they are stopped in
the space, expanded and enlarged 10(18 ) times or 1 billion of billions
of times and they are freely visible at naked eyes for about 10 minutes
and they reveal their true physical nature as physical particles.
The Writer brings explanations and ascertained cases which confutate
the Einstein’s relativity theory substaining that the matter can not
travel at light velocity.
The contrary is possible. It is given the right explanation of the whole
physical world (included that the real physical structure of the space
is " not "empty" , but it has a completly different structure
" normally " not ascertainable ").
End of December 1996 it will be ready a book , entitled "THE
QUADRIDIMENTIONAL UNIVERSE", where in about 420 pages with colour
photos and pictures , the writer explains these theories and many other
concepts not already reached by the officials science.
Shipment: per Airmail.
Possible markets: All countries except for Italy , Switzerland , Japan,
Cina , C.S.I. and related Countries
DEPOSITED AND PROTECTED CONTENTS SINCE 1994
PLEASE REPLY FOR MORE INFOS OR TO READ FURTHER PAGES:
scienza@pianeta.it
Subject: Re: Text of New CETI Brochure
From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 96 00:11:23 GMT
In article <3287DD56.3346@postoffice.worldnet.att.net>,
kenneth paul collins wrote:
->Eugene Mallove wrote:
->>
->> The following is the text of the new Clean Energy Technologies Brochure:
->> (Transcribed by Gene Mallove -- 11/11/96)[snip]
->> Price $3,750
->> Or extend your research license and membership in the research affiliates
->> program for a full three years for $7,500.[snip]
->>
->> Supply is Limited, Order Today[snip]
->
->I can demonstrate that, long before the CETI cell existed, I developed the
->theoretical foundation upon which the CETI cell rests. I retain sole
->ownership of this work and its applications.
->
->I did this work in order to solve certain sub-problems pertaining to ionic
->dynamics within the brain.
->
->I will grant free licenses to applications of my theoretical work to any who
->will simply agree to publicly acknowledge the relevance of the theory with
->respect to human behavioral dynamics.
->
->The CETI patents are worthless.
->
->The future was delivered years ago. K. P. 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.
Gee, kenneth paul, both you and ENECO/CETI may have some explaining to do. Louis
Kervran won the 1993 Ig Noble Prize in Physics for his 1972 publication on cold
fusion transmutations:
From The Mini-Journal of Irreproducible Results, Issue No.1
Louis Kervran of France, ardent admirer of alchemy, for his
conclusion that the calcium in chickens' eggshells is
created by a process of cold fusion. [For an English
language version of Kervran's research see the book
"Biological Transmutations, and their applications in
chemistry, physics, biology, ecology, medicine, nutrition,
agriculture, geology," by Louis Kervran, Swan House
Publishing Co., 1972.]
http://www.het.brown.edu/news/air/9311.html
Does your work pre-date 1972?
