Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 8/11 (Internet Resources)
From: rfheeter@pppl.gov
Date: 25 Nov 1996 06:08:06 GMT
Archive-name: fusion-faq/section8-internet
Last-modified: 26-Feb-1995
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-quarterly
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!!!).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Internet Information Resources
# This FAQ deals with conventional fusion only, not Cold Fusion. #
Last Revised February 26,1995
Written by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov, unless otherwise cited.
What follows is a listing of many, but not all, of the fusion
energy/research information resources available via the internet.
*** A. Newsgroups:
sci.physics.fusion (unmoderated)
sci.physics.plasma (moderated)
- this latter is for plasma science discussions,
not for fusion issues.
Sci.physics.fusion postings have been archived on a couple
of internet sites. For more information see the sections
on WAIS and Anonymous FTP below.
*** B. WAIS (Wide-Area Information Server) Databases
[ Information on the sunsite.unc.edu WAIS database provided
by Chuck Harrison, harr@netcom.com ]
* sunsite.unc.edu has a searchable WAIS archive of all postings
on sci.physics.fusion (1989-present). According to Chuck
Harrison (harr@netcom.com), "WAIS access means it is
*searchable* on free-text keywords, which means alot when
you're trying to find old vaguely-recollected postings from
the 30MB or so of archive. I created the thing because I
found that hunting through the vm1.nodak.edu [anonymous FTP
site, see below ] archives by ftp was prohibitively
time-consuming, so I suspect anyone who *wants* to look in
the newsgroup history (who knows why? ;-) ) should try
the WAIS database first if they have access (e.g. swais,
WWW, gopher, or telnet to sunsite)."
* Accessing the sunsite archives - directions:
[ The information below is straight from Chuck Harrison ]
1. If you are directly connected to Internet, you can
log onto a public WAIS server at the University of North
Carolina:
%telnet sunsite.unc.edu
...
login: swais
...
TERM = (unknown) vt100
It takes a minute to load ...
Subject: Re: CETI demo at ?ANS
From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 17:10:20 GMT
Well, I did get the snow shovelled this morning so I can take the
time to bring Robin Van Spaandonk up to speed on a few fundamentals
regarding my understanding of nuclear physics.
Yes, Robin, I am aware that nuclear power plants exist and operate
in my part of the world. I will even admit to using electricty
generated by such plants. Actually during the years of the oil
embargo when I was living in Florida I was darned glad to see
the discounts on my electric bills for nuclear power vs. oil-generated
power.
Beyond that, Robin, I know how to induce all sorts of nuclear reactions.
I made a career of doing just that. I learned how to turn them on and
I learned what prevents them from happening. Now when you, or some
other novice comes along and says, "Look at me. I can make nuclear
reactions just by wishing hard." I take a rather skeptical look at
the claim. I ask to see the evidence that you have a nuclear reaction,
and I ask for an explanation as to how what you are doing is likely
to lead to such reactions.
Ultimately, Robin, not you nor anyone else has offered a single shred
of information or even speculation to justify any claim for any sort
of "cold" nuclear reaction. The sad thing is the little nuggets that
have been dropped in an effort to cover this lack of "theory" are
generally totally ridiculus. Take Miley's mention of "a shift in
Fermi level" for example. That may impress someone who is totally
ignorant of the Fermi-gas model of a solid, but any knowledgable
person can see in an instant that Miley is blowing smoke. He has
nothing to justify his wild assertions.
More significantly, I think, Miley by his choice of experimental
techniques gives clear indication that he does not actually believe
that there is anything special about the electronic structure of
the materials in his cathode beads. If the characteristic X-rays
don't show any anomolies why should we believe there are any
electron anomolies that are significant to the induction of massive
transmutation reactions?
I believe, with the Miley experiment, cold fusion has just about
reached the end of the rope, much as I thought it would. The
more ridiculus the claims are the easier it is to shoot them down.
Perhaps as long as only a tiny fraction of the cathode is involved
any evidence for a reaction could remain obscured, but when you
claim a 40% transmutation it is going to be hard to disguise what
is really happening!
So what is really happening? Miley's data tells us. It tells us
that a lot of gunk gets plated on the cathode beads and there are
no nuclear reactions. Big deal! I also note with glee that the
electrochemistry does not work as claimed either, and Patterson is
supposed to be some kind of expert in electrochemistry?
Dick Blue
Subject: Re: CETI Demo at American Nuclear Soc. Mtg.
From: "Karim Alim"
Date: 25 Nov 1996 21:53:01 GMT
Jim Carr wrote in article
<579ufo$ppv@news.fsu.edu>...
> "Karim Alim" writes:
> >
> >For you to blithely say, "Gee, I hope Miley thought of thus-and-so" is
> >hardly a good answer to Miley's comment.
>
> Nothing blithe about it. (Why do we use the Old English adverb but
> not the adjective?) Although Miley identifies some of the problems
> I chose to comment on, mainly as regards what theories they exclude,
> he does not look at them critically as regards the null hypothesis.
> That would require going back to the few real anomalies and checking
> whether they were a result of misidentification of peaks.
>
> Two things stand out to me: the absence of data tables for A < 28
> (this may be an omission from the preprint and not the paper) that
> address what goes on with the electrolyte, and the lack of comment
> about the isotopic purity of the original material. The latter is
> either covered by patents (but cost would be an issue) or indicative
> of the actual (never stated) uncertainties in those data.
In an attempt to bring this back to Miley's comment about being half right:
Presumably all his results do not hinge on one another, e.g. the isotopic
purity of the original elements not being related to the appearance of mass
quantities of Ag, the appearance of Ag not being related to its location
(below the surface where you would not expect contaminants to appear), the
location of the isotopes not being related to excess heat, etc. etc. etc.
In other words, I doubt you could make ONE objection that would both a)
explain ALL the anomalies and b) be in a reasonable realm of possibility.
(Yes, "b)" rules out elves.)
No one is saying that it is impossible to have concerns, objections, or
questions about Miley's findings. Concerns and questions are to be
expected and welcomed. All I am saying is that your raising *two*
questions hardly serves as a response to his statement about having to
re-write the books if what he's seeing is even half-right.
Specifically re isotopic purity, well, if you're going to go around
claiming you've transmuted element "A" into element "B," presumably you
have a good handle on what "A" was before you started the experiment, and
whether there were any isotopes of "B" already present when you started.
Just a thought.
> There is a great deal of history written about them and the
> marketing of their product, the Wright Flyer.
You aren't paying attention. This hardly serves as proof of what they did
NOT do.
> I notice you chose not to comment on the two items of relevance
> to this newsgroup's discussion, which I had assumed was your
> central point. Past claims made by P&F; and CETI are public record.
I notice you can't seem to get it out of your head that 1) This PARTICULAR
thread has nothing to do with P&F;, except insofar as you keep mentioning
them, 2) P&F; have nothing to do with CETI, 3) This thread was originally
about CETI, a fact which becomes apparent once you take the trouble to look
at the Subject, 4) CETI never promised you a water heater.
Seriously, what is it with you? Your inability to separate P&F; from CETI
incurs several logical errors, not the least of which are hasty
generalization and guilt by association.
> I would assume that a person making a claim or objecting to one
> would be familiar with the history of the subject. I would also
> add that when the reader does not do any background work on a
> problem, the reader learns a lot less than is possible by a more
> involved effort. In particular, if you have not followed this
> subject for the past seven and a half years (my how time flies)
> there could be some catching up to do.
You sure make a lot of assumptions, don't you? You also can't follow a
chain of thought very far if you forget that this "look it up" reference
was about the Wright Brothers, NOT COLD FUSION, so I think there would be a
WEE BIT MORE than seven and a half years of "following the subject" you
would expect from me. I would add by way of reply that it doesn't take any
"background work" to spot a logical fallacy. If you say, "All men are
mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore P&F; = CETI" I don't have to know very
much about the terms to know that you're wrong. Also, your definition of
"familiarity" just MIGHT not be the same as everyone else's.
> Do you have a financial interest in the company?
Another logical fallacy: this is called a circumstantial ad hominem. And
by the way, the answer is NO. I know it might be hard for small-minded
people to believe that someone out there might have an open mind towards
CETI without having a financial interest, but then small-minded people have
lots of problems.
> You know, if the folks here were not so burned out by claims made by
> people associated with Jed, it might be possible to organize another
> independent "s.p.f foundation" funded set of experiments like we did
> with the last ones. Maybe someone with more spare change is going
> to try again with the CETI stuff like one of this forum did the last
> time around, with heat, but the price has gone up a lot.
Yeah, like you said, if they were not so burned out. Foregone conclusion,
eh?
> That was what I was asking. Have you done anything more concrete
> than speculate? Do you know the personal risk when operating one
> of these devices if it really does what is being claimed? Do you
> know that the CETI device should be able to power itself except
> for the little detail that it needs a pump?
Non sequitur, non sequitur, non sequitur.... You've lost the point again.
Your original objection (in this thread) was that P&F; promised water
heaters and CETI talked about kilowatt output. I have repeatedly tried to
get you to understand that CETI can't be blamed for P&F;'s perceived
failures. That's all.
I shouldn't even grace any of your non sequiturs with a response, but YES,
I am aware that the CETI device needs a pump, but it interests me to the
extent that I am not aware of many pumps on the market that will transmute
elements.
> I do hope one of the purchasers does a careful set of experiments
> and publishes them in the peer-reviewed literature.
Amen.
-k.
