Subject: Re: CETI demo at ?ANS
From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 11:07:13 GMT
On Mon, 25 Nov 1996 17:10:20 GMT, you wrote:
[snip]
>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
>
Dick,
You may be right in everything you say. If however there really is
something new to be discovered here, you will certainly not be the one to
find it.
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on
temperature.
"....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..."
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Subject: Re: Question about Physics
From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK )
Date: 26 Nov 1996 11:27:31 GMT
pnuss2@aol.com wrote:
: Please help a dumb engineer by identifying the falsehoods below.
: 1 - The events that cause fusion are probabilistic.
On the particle scale, yes. When dealing with very many particles, the
probabilities convert to a reaction rate, which gives the number of
fusion reactions per unit volume, as a function of density and
temperature (and composition).
NB: I am assuming thermonuclear fusion, which means the kinetic energy
needed for a particle pair to undergo fusion is supplied by the random
thermal energy. I am further assuming that all particle species are at
the same temperature (good for magnetic confinement, marginal in the
early stages of a laser fusion shot).
: 2 - Fusion bombs use intense pressure to make these events almost certain.
Replace "almost certain" with "occur more often in a smaller space".
: 3 - Fusion reactors use milder pressure to control the probability of
: these events.
Different design: low energy density as opposed to bomb conditions. The
reason is the magnetic confinement -- that big magnetic field costs you
energy (money).
: 4 - I should bother to to personally investigate other means of
: controlling the
: probability of these events (perhaps through physical structures and
: electro-
: static pressures).
There is virtually no way to affect the fusion reaction rate, except by
affecting the plasma conditions. The only way is to give the particles
a nonthermal distribution. This is being tried; it is one of the
alternative concepts (it is called Migma).
: Thanks for stopping me from wasting my time (if that's your answer) or
: providing rational hopes (the only kind I know) of achieving fusion in a
: bottle.
It will have to be a big bottle.
--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott, Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik, bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de
Remember John Hron: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hron-john/
Subject: Re: An easy one
From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK )
Date: 26 Nov 1996 11:29:09 GMT
Anuj Varma (avarma@hns.com) wrote:
: OK! This should be an easy one for most of you.
: What is the longest sustained fusion that we (mankind) has
: attained? Also, any stats (ensrgy output, efficiency etc) will be
: appreciated
Look up the TFTR web page. The record power is just shy of 10 MW, with
an input power of about 36 MW. I don't remember how long the shot was.
--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott, Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik, bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de
Remember John Hron: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hron-john/
Subject: Re: Are we missing something or are these people misguided.
From: jac@ibms46.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Date: 26 Nov 1996 19:06:16 GMT
"Mike Asher" writes:
>
>If we can measure the speed of light to 18 signficant digit, I think we can
>measure energy output to two digits.
Perhaps. But if you also measure the input to two digits, subtract
them, then include a correction for energy used up by electrolysis
of H and O that escape without recombining, you may not end up with
a two digit result.
--
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: Re: CETI Demo at American Nuclear Soc. Mtg.
From: jac@ibms46.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Date: 26 Nov 1996 19:30:45 GMT
"Karim Alim" writes:
>
> ... 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.
Indeed it was, but someone started talking about totally extraneous
stuff like the Wright brothers and whether this was cold fusion.
And, I might add, one of the three things I mentioned and which has
been conveniently ignored is that CETI did claim a kilowatt in the
not so distant past. Now we see claims that the cell transmutes
whether it is making energy or not. Why should I expect this
claim to last any longer than the previous *CETI* claim?
| Do you have a financial interest in the company?
>Another logical fallacy: this is called a circumstantial ad hominem.
Nope. A number of persons posting strongly pro-CF statements in
the past have had a financial stake in the outcome. This is not
a logical fallacy, it is called full disclosure.
| 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?
Speaking of logical fallacies ... who jumped to a conclusion. I
reserved my judgement of the Miley paper until I read it. I would
even support an experiment out in Utah, but the numbers aren't here
like they were a few years ago.
How long have you been actively involved in cold fusion, and did you
contribute to Tom's trip to Georgia? Are you aware of the experiments
done independently on the CETI cell and what they showed? Are you
aware of how carefully the *first* claims of each new group were
studied by the long-term contributors in this newsgroup and the
investments in time and money required to do so?
You are welcome to do the experiments, and Steve has even offered
the facilities to make some of the critical measurements.
>Non sequitur, non sequitur, non sequitur....
Speaking of which:
>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.
But can CETI be blamed for claiming kilowatt output?
Your argument is that they can be absolved of that because they did
make the predictions about the P&F; water heater?
>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.
Another non sequitur. If CETI overlooked a variety of effects that
led to the kilowatt claim, might they overlook some other contamination
in a different experiment? Fool me once ....
--
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: Re: CETI Demo at American Nuclear Soc. Mtg.
From: arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Date: 26 Nov 1996 19:23:34 GMT
In article <01bbdb1a$a72e90a0$e85020a6@karim.ns.mci.com> "Karim Alim" writes:
>Jim Carr wrote in article
><579ufo$ppv@news.fsu.edu>...
>
>> "Karim Alim" writes:
.....
....
...
..
>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.
.....
....
...
..
Can we infer from this that John has finally concluded that P&F; should be
stripped of their mantle and relegated to the dust heap? Does he finally
agree that they produced nothing of any value?
Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
--------------------------------------------------------
Any ideas or opinions expressed here do not necessarily
reflect the ideas or opinions of my employer.
--------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: CETI Demo at American Nuclear Soc. Mtg.
From: jac@ibms46.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Date: 26 Nov 1996 19:13:54 GMT
"Karim Alim" writes:
>
>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,
Those do, since they are measured the same way. That is, if he did
not use very expensive isotopically pure Si, that sets a scale for
possible errors.
> the appearance of Ag not being related to its location
>(below the surface where you would not expect contaminants to appear), the
It is not clear where you would expect contaminants to appear. Since
Miley did not study the null hypothesis, this was not discussed.
>location of the isotopes not being related to excess heat, etc. etc. etc.
Does this not argue for the null hypothesis?
Are you equating the appearance of "isotopes" as requiring a
nuclear reaction? The only ones that require a nuclear reaction
are ones that do not occur naturally.
>No one is saying that it is impossible to have concerns, objections, or
>questions about Miley's findings.
My concern is that Miley did not have concerns. That means there are
some experimental questions he could have addressed but did not, thus
limiting the information available to those reading the paper.
>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.
One presumes nothing when reading any research paper. The norm in
physics when using an isotopically enriched material is to state the
source and purity and method of assay used.
--
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: Re: CETI Demo at American Nuclear Soc. Mtg.
From: "Karim Alim"
Date: 26 Nov 1996 22:10:56 GMT
Jim Carr wrote in article
<57fgh5$ge3@news.fsu.edu>...
> Indeed it was, but someone started talking about totally extraneous
> stuff like the Wright brothers and whether this was cold fusion.
If you'll check the original post, you'll see it was an analogy.
YOU brought in the P&F; reference, which had nothing to do with the original
post.
> And, I might add, one of the three things I mentioned and which has
> been conveniently ignored is that CETI did claim a kilowatt in the
> not so distant past. Now we see claims that the cell transmutes
> whether it is making energy or not. Why should I expect this
> claim to last any longer than the previous *CETI* claim?
I don't know. Why should you? I have never said that you should.
What I have gathered is that the cells reliably make energy, but that in
doing so the beads also get rather beat-up, and thus there is some doubt as
to whether they would ever make a good energy source. They think they have
a good application for transmuting dangerous radioactive elements into safe
ones, so they are concentrating on that. They are also tired of playing
the calorimetry game, or so I gather.
> Nope. A number of persons posting strongly pro-CF statements in
> the past have had a financial stake in the outcome. This is not
> a logical fallacy, it is called full disclosure.
It's still a logical fallacy, because even if I did have a financial stake
in the outcome, it does not affect the verity of my statement -- or of my
ability to spot flaws in yours. Granted, if someone is making positive
statements about "X" you might want to ask if they own stock in the "X
Manufacturing Company." I understand that. But if you're trying to keep
the conversation on a factual level -- it *is* a .sci newsgroup after all!
-- you wouldn't casually toss such grenades around. I wouldn't ask YOU if
you were a homosexual.
> Speaking of logical fallacies ... who jumped to a conclusion. I
> reserved my judgement of the Miley paper until I read it. I would
> even support an experiment out in Utah, but the numbers aren't here
> like they were a few years ago.
Yes, who jumped to a conclusion? "Oh, it's by Miley, it must be true."
Somehow I don't remember saying that.
> How long have you been actively involved in cold fusion, and did you
> contribute to Tom's trip to Georgia? Are you aware of the experiments
> done independently on the CETI cell and what they showed? Are you
> aware of how carefully the *first* claims of each new group were
> studied by the long-term contributors in this newsgroup and the
> investments in time and money required to do so?
Non sequitur to this thread. I am unaware of a REQUIREMENT for posting to
s.p.f. that you had to have contributed to the Droege cause, or meet
whatever criteria YOU happened to have dreamed up for defining "actively
involved." Christ, next thing you'll tell me I have to be white.
> You are welcome to do the experiments, and Steve has even offered
> the facilities to make some of the critical measurements.
Now if I only had $3,750 lying around... hmmm...
> But can CETI be blamed for claiming kilowatt output?
*IF* it was wrong, which it was, in one case I am aware of, they can be
blamed for making an incorrect observation. I'm sure you've never done
that, so CETI deserves to go straight to Hell, right?
> Your argument is that they can be absolved of that because they did
> make the predictions about the P&F; water heater?
My argument (for the umpteeth time) is that CETI can't be blamed for any of
P&F;'s perceived failures.
> Another non sequitur. If CETI overlooked a variety of effects that
> led to the kilowatt claim, might they overlook some other contamination
> in a different experiment? Fool me once ....
How is my pointing out YOUR non sequitur a non sequitur? You must be using
some new Latin of which there is no known record.
--- ANALOGY WARNING FOR THE CLUE-IMPAIRED ---
Oh, yes, you're right. The Wright brothers only flew 192.5 feet, not 200.
There must be nothing at all to this heavier-than-air flight nonsense.
--- END ANALOGY ---
-k.
Subject: Re: CETI Demo at American Nuclear Soc. Mtg.
From: "Karim Alim"
Date: 26 Nov 1996 20:44:45 GMT
"Bob" Sullivan flatulently pontificated:
> Karim (if that is your real name -- you are starting to sound a lot like
Jed (or
> Mitchell without the {********})) --
Bob -- if that is your "real" name -- you are starting to sound a lot like
a moron.
Excuse the fuck out of me if I sounded a TAD bit frustrated a couple of
posts back, but I was dealing with someone who apparently had enough
cognitive ability to use a keyboard but who couldn't get it out of his head
that CETI was not responsible for the lack of P&F;'s water heaters.
> The earlier suggestion to go to the s.p.f archives was a good one. You
would be
> wise to heed it. Lots of things to be learned from the archives:
This has NO bearing on the conversation in this thread. Even it was
something resembling a valid point, for all YOU know, "Bob," I have read
every single s.p.f. post since day one. Or does your Magical
Who's-Read-Which-Posts software tell you otherwise?
> 1. ENECO/CETI have a long and tarnished history of compounding erroneous
claims
> with even bigger errors.
Non sequitur to this thread. If I wanted to debate your version of CETI's
history vs. mine, I would post to
sci.physics.fusion.ceti.history.bullshit.debate.
> 2. The Patterson Power Cell in its original incarnation was claimed to be
a
> better-than-P&F; cf knockoff. You are sadly in need of a history lesson on
this
> point.
Non sequitur. You are sadly in need of an anti-delusional medication that
allows you to stop assuming that YOU know what history people know and what
they don't.
> 3. Neither (1) what the Wright brothers did or did not do nor (2) what
the
> public, press, politicians, etc, thought or did not think about them has
any
> bearing on the veracity or probity of the cf/transmutation claimants.
It's called an analogy, "Bob," look it up.
> 4. ENECO/CETI claims are most easily 'understood' if you look for their
mistakes
> rather than for 'new science.'
1) Not true.
2) Non sequitur to this thread.
3) I heartily welcome the looking for mistakes as long as YOU DON'T HAVE
RELIGIOUS FAITH THAT THEY MUST EXIST SOMEWHERE.
4) You confuse assumption with understanding.
> 5. Sloppy says it best: Sloppy ideas. Sloppy design. Sloppy
implementation.
> Sloppy analysis.
Why are you rambling about your own newsgroup posts?
> 6. Scientists, even 'eminent' scientists, are not immune to making
mistakes and,
> yes, colossal blunders. The ranks of the cf promoters amply demonstrate
this
> point.
Finally, a point on which we can agree. You're absolutely right! That is
why the CETI "results" have to be analyzed and picked apart. People must
*attempt* to REPLICATE them. They should not ASSUME they are false or true
just because they are associated with the words "cold fusion."
> 7. cf is not about science but, instead, about a social pathology. The
inability
> of the True Believers to acknowledge that they have been hoodwinked by
charlatans
> seems to be the identifying feature of the pathology.
I guess you're the expert on social pathology, huh, "Bob?"
> There are a few 'Rational' True Believers out there -- you can probably
count
> them on one hand, but the remainder fall into the class of the Truly
Gullible. So
> far, you have done nothing to elevate yourself from the latter class. You
are
> plowing ground that has been plowed before.
Plow THIS, "Bob."
"Bob," or whatever your name is, you'll find that if you make comments that
show respect for the other person, as well encourage debate and logical
thinking, you'll get reasonable responses. If you make ad hominem attacks
and dismiss ideas outright, with no consideration, based on guilt by
association, you'll get nothing but the derision and scorn you so richly
deserve.
I would prefer something closer to rational discourse. Your call, "Bob."
-k.
Subject: Re: CETI Demo at American Nuclear Soc. Mtg.
From: "Karim Alim"
Date: 26 Nov 1996 21:33:02 GMT
Jim Carr wrote in article
<57ffhi$fk8@news.fsu.edu>...
> Those do, since they are measured the same way. That is, if he did
> not use very expensive isotopically pure Si, that sets a scale for
> possible errors.
You might as well say that NAA is useless and Miley is an idiot if you are
going to consider errors on that scale.
This is, of course, possible.
Just not likely.
> > the appearance of Ag not being related to its location
> >(below the surface where you would not expect contaminants to appear),
the
>
> It is not clear where you would expect contaminants to appear. Since
> Miley did not study the null hypothesis, this was not discussed.
I am not sure I agree with you. Logically, it makes sense that the
contaminants would be deposited on the outside, not the inside of the bead.
If the contaminants "tunneled" through the interior of the beads, you
would logically expect to see some traces on the outside, maybe some in the
middle, and some in the interior.
They only found silver on the inside.
To test whether silver was somehow migrating from the cell into the beads,
Miley ADDED SILVER to a cell. Supposedly, none of it disappeared, and none
of it appeared to have migrated through any of the beads. Wouldn't you say
this was "studying the null hypothesis?"
> >location of the isotopes not being related to excess heat, etc. etc.
etc.
>
> Does this not argue for the null hypothesis?
I don't know what it argues for, frankly. The emphasis has been on heat
and calorimetry and now everyone's looking for transmuted elements. I
don't know if there is any correlation or not. NOTE: I am merely
SPECULATING on what Miley MIGHT have meant when he made the remark about
re-writing the books if he's half right. That's all!
> Are you equating the appearance of "isotopes" as requiring a
> nuclear reaction? The only ones that require a nuclear reaction
> are ones that do not occur naturally.
No, I'm not. Thanks for the physics lesson.
> My concern is that Miley did not have concerns. That means there are
> some experimental questions he could have addressed but did not, thus
> limiting the information available to those reading the paper.
I don't want to be an apologist for Miley, but: if you didn't read about
YOUR SPECIFIC CONCERNS in the paper it *doesn't* mean HE DIDN'T HAVE THEM.
> One presumes nothing when reading any research paper. The norm in
> physics when using an isotopically enriched material is to state the
> source and purity and method of assay used.
I sympathize with your desire for scrutiny, but I feel that it can be
carried a little too far. When Miley says he is seeing silver, I
*personally* don't get the urge to ask him, "Are you sure? Silver? Atomic
number 47? Are you sure you know it when you see it? Are you sure you can
tell the difference between silver and hydrogen?" Now, that doesn't mean
we take everything he says by faith. We take his results and we attempt to
replicate them. We test for the null hypothesis. But we don't imply that
he is a moron who shouldn't be allowed near a mass spectrometer either,
unless his failures as a scientist make him worthy of such condescension.
-k.
Subject: Re: CETI Demo at American Nuclear Soc. Mtg.
From: "Karim Alim"
Date: 26 Nov 1996 21:36:01 GMT
Arnie Frisch wrote in article
<57fg3m$j9b@tekadm1.cse.tek.com>...
> In article <01bbdb1a$a72e90a0$e85020a6@karim.ns.mci.com> "Karim Alim"
writes:
> >Jim Carr wrote in article
> ><579ufo$ppv@news.fsu.edu>...
> >
> >> "Karim Alim" writes:
> .....
> ....
> ...
> ..
> >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.
> .....
> ....
> ...
> ..
> Can we infer from this that John has finally concluded that P&F; should be
> stripped of their mantle and relegated to the dust heap? Does he finally
> agree that they produced nothing of any value?
If by "John," you really mean me, then no, you cannot infer that.
You can infer that Karim doesn't believe in hasty generalizations or guilt
by association, if you like.
-k.
Subject: Re: CETI Demo at American Nuclear Soc. Mtg.
From: johmann@atlantic.net (Kurt Johmann)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 00:18:58 GMT
Karim Alim wrote:
>"Bob" Sullivan flatulently pontificated:
[most of angry rejoinder to Sullivan's bullshit deleted]
> Plow THIS, "Bob."
>
>"Bob," or whatever your name is, you'll find that if you make comments that
>show respect for the other person, as well encourage debate and logical
>thinking, you'll get reasonable responses. If you make ad hominem attacks
>and dismiss ideas outright, with no consideration, based on guilt by
>association, you'll get nothing but the derision and scorn you so richly
>deserve.
>
>I would prefer something closer to rational discourse. Your call, "Bob."
Karim, just a little friendly advice: stop wasting your time with the
Bob Sullivans of the world. There are actually about a half-dozen
Sullivans on this newsgroup, and they are always on the lookout for
a fresh face on which they can cast their mud.
People like Sullivan are only interested in feeding their egos by
criticizing other people. Rational discourse is the last thing they
want.
All the CF action these days is on vortex-l, partly because Sullivan
and similar ego-feeders are excluded from that e-mail list. If you
aren't already reading vortex-l, you can find it at
http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/wvort.html
Kurt Johmann
--
Subject: Rare Metric Prefixes ?
From: mdecaire@eagle.wbm.ca (Marc Guy DeCaire)
Date: 27 Nov 1996 10:31:37 GMT
The following prefixes are known for metric multiples of units:
10exp12 Tera
10exp9 giga
10exp6 mega
10exp3 kilo
10exp2 hecto
10exp1 deca(deka)
10exp0 unit.
which is preferred-- "deca" or "deka"?
Also, does anyone know the prefixes for the these exponents?
10exp4, 10exp5, 10exp7, 10exp8, 10exp9.
If so, please email directly to my e-mail address:
mdecaire@eagle.wbm.ca
Thanks in advance.
Subject: Re: CETI Demo at American Nuclear Soc. Mtg.
From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir"
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 17:14:31 +0000
In article <57g50i$nq9@news.atlantic.net>, Kurt Johmann
writes
>All the CF action these days is on vortex-l, partly because Sullivan
>and similar ego-feeders are excluded from that e-mail list. If you
>aren't already reading vortex-l, you can find it at
It's SO much cosier when you exclude all the skeptics, isn't it?
Sadly, these mutual masturbation sessions translate into workable CF
devices no easier than does open discussion on uncensored NewsGroups.
--
Alan M. Dunsmuir
"Time flies like an arrow -
Fruit flies like a banana" --- Groucho Marx (as used by Noam Chomsky)
Subject: Cold fusion house cleaning
From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 16:40:56 GMT
Rather than to try to respond to various issues in assorted
threads I am just lumping it all into one message.
Regarding what we can (or should) assume about the thoroughness
of Miley's investigations, if it isn't stated in the paper
it likely did not happen. My experience is that authors leave
out things they are not prepared to deal with. They don't
hold back explanations that are key to making their case.
If Miley actually salted his beads with enriched 28Si before
the electrolysis that took some doing. He must have had
some object in mind, and he owes the reader an explanation.
The only safe conclusion one can reach from the fact that
he does not mention this is that he did not actually see
it as being significant, and in that I say he is wrong.
Having pure 28Si as the initial condition begs an explanation,
and it clearly cannot be the result of the electrolysis which
has not yet occurred!
If Miley had evidence to justify assigning the observed mass 50
peak to titanium rather than to chromium that evidence is an
essential part of his case for transmutations. Why would he
not mention the actual evidence? The safe conclusion, I think,
is because he doesn't have it. None of the analytic techniques
he describes can provide such evidence. So we are left to
guess as to how he arrived at the 50Ti assignment. My guess is
he (or likely a student) started from the bottom and worked
their way up through the masses. They considered titanium
before they looked at chromium so before they realized there
is a conflict with 50Cr they had made the incorrect assignment.
Of course the result of this error confirmed what they were
hoping to find!
Now to address some of the other questions raised here. When
you assert that the silver is "inside" the nickel you are
assuming something about the integrity of the 650 angstrom
layer that is probably not true. I don't think a very
strong case can be made for saying the silver must be produced
from the nickel because it is found "inside."
The essentially arguements for saying the observed gunk comes
form nuclear reactions are (1)induced nuclear activity is
detected (2)the isotopes found are "unnatural" is some prespect.
Miley's data establishes that (1) is not true! At the very
least we have contradictory results arising from his experiments,
but if (2) goes down the drain it's all over.
So what does Miley claim is unnatural about the gunk? He claims
that the isotopic abundance ratios are not the handbook values.
However, when we examine the data we find that simply is not true.
Take silver, for example, since you mentioned it. It looks pretty
natural, the silicon is natural (at least after electrolysis), the
calcium is natural, the titanium is natural, and the chromium is
natural.
Of course there is always the unexplained excess heat, right?
Wrong! Miley did not claim to have confirmed CETI's kilowatt
outputs. The result he gives is 0.5 +/- 0.4 watts. That is
dangerously close to zero. In fact if you make assumptions
about the statistics involved in the interpreation of these
numbers there is at least one chance in 6 for this result to
actually be zero. Even that is being generous because Barry
Merryman has already demonstrated that the technique is
biased by about 0.1 C - enough to make Miley's excess heat
fade into the mists.
Dick Blue
Subject: Re: CETI Demo at American Nuclear Soc. Mtg.
From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Date: 27 Nov 1996 19:49:48 GMT
Alan M. Dunsmuir (alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: writes
: >All the CF action these days is on vortex-l, partly because Sullivan
: >and similar ego-feeders are excluded from that e-mail list. If you
: >aren't already reading vortex-l, you can find it at
: It's SO much cosier when you exclude all the skeptics, isn't it?
No one is excluded from the vortex-l list, but ad hominem is against
the charter of the group, so people could theoreticaly be removed for
flagrant violations of that code. I don't know that it has ever
happened though.
Skeptics on the list would certain include Dr. Barry Merriman, and no
one has ever suggest he be excluded.
--
- John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 -
- 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
- WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan -
Subject: Re: japanese moon mining...
From: gfp@sarnoff.com
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 07:38:26 GMT
gekeays@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca (Gloria Edith Keays) wrote:
>I read an article in the paper today saying the Japanese were
>sending missions (unmanned) to the moon. Apparently, they are
>interested in mining the moon for an isotope of helium for use in
>fusion reactors. Aren't they getting a little ahead of the game,
>or am I missing something???
Machines that can burn He3 are a figment of the imagination. The
higher ignition temperatures, and the braking radiation losses make it
highly unlikely such a machine will appear soon. There are not even
any viable DT burners yet , and they use the "coldest" , easiest to
ignite fuel.
Subject: Re: How it truly works...
From: gfp@sarnoff.com
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 07:50:28 GMT
Seth Clayton wrote:
>I am really interested in how Nuclear Fusion actually goes from being a
>bunch of atoms into power that we can use. It seems a little strange
>that in fission, you smash apart a nucleus, and that gives off energy,
>but it's a little hard to grasp the fact that when you do the opposite
>thing, you can get even more power out of it. If anyone can give me a
>hand on this, I would really appreciate it!
Middle of the periodic table elements, for example, iron are the most
stable (I am not talking about radioactive isotopes of these
elements). All elements have "extra" mass, representing "binding"
energy holding the whole thing together. Elements at the very low end,
and the very high end will release energy if nuclear reactions result
in fragments that tend nearer the center of the chart.
If you break up an uranium atom (i am not discussing how this is
done) , you get two elements of about 92/2 atomic number, extra
neutrons that were left over, and all these fragments have LARGE
kinetic energies representing the binding energy no longer needed by
the more stable middle of the road elements that are the product.
For fusion the opposite is true. Bringing together two hydrogens, for
example- into helium liberates energy because the product is closer to
the center of the chart, and needs LESS binding energy.
Jerry Pulice
