Subject: Re: Can ETAs count marbles?
From: schultr@ashur.cc.biu.ac.il (Richard Schultz)
Date: 2 Dec 1996 12:55:42 GMT
Robin van Spaandonk (rvanspaa@netspace.net.au) wrote:
: Ni58 + 96xD -> Pb208 + 42xH + 916 MeV
Now would you care to explain how you get a significant rate for a
97-body collision, or, failing that, how you manage to avoid creating
any radioactive nuclei along the way?
-----
Richard Schultz schultr@ashur.cc.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"I seem to smell a peculiar and a fishlike smell."
Subject: Re: CETI Demo at American Nuclear Soc. Mtg.
From: "Karim Alim"
Date: 2 Dec 1996 15:19:08 GMT
I Johnston wrote in article
<57sp2t$2i2@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>...
> Where, as a matter of interest, have you "gathered" this? The most
> emphatic claims for excess energy production we ever saw here were - to
> put is charitably - factually incorrect.
If by "here" you mean s.p.f. I'm not surprised.
WHY, "as a matter of interest," do you want to know where I gathered this?
Is it because you are an earnest and diligent seeker of the truth, and you
humbly seek more knowledge about this area? Or -- just MAYBE -- is it
because you plan on TRASHING my information sources OUTRIGHT, no matter
what they were? I'll save you the trouble, okay? "Yes they're wrong. Yes
that paper is wrong. Yes those researchers are stupid. Yes that paper is
wrong too." FEEL BETTER NOW???
Well what would be the point in making any new observations if all the
"facts" are in? That -- making new observations and not assuming they must
be right or wrong -- might be something resembling SCIENCE. You know,
"SCIENCE," like in the first three letters of this newsgroup?
> For them to reduce their calorimetric claims from 1.3kW excess to around
> 1W, then say "we're tired of that game" does not exactly inspire
> confidence.
There is the little matter of input power, but... *sigh* never mind. I
suspect you've already made up your mind on this point and introducing
ANNOYING little things called FACTS might upset the static equilibrium of
your little universe.
> I think he was suggesting that you are making rather a fool of yourself
> here. Remember, "once-and-for-all-finally-this-is-it" cold fusion
> devices come along at a nice steady two a year or so, and for you
> suddenly to turn up, seemingly starry eyed and tell us that no, this
> time it is real about a device thoroughly discussed months ago is apt to
> rouse the cynic in the onlooker.
1) What made you think he was suggesting that? Don't you think you're
projecting?
2) I don't give a shit if YOU or ANYONE ELSE thinks I'm "making a fool of
myself." I have to answer to MY conscience, NOT YOURS.
3) Pat summary but you've misrepresented me, at any rate. I have never
told anyone "THIS IS REAL!!!" But it seems that it's enough for SOME
PEOPLE to condemn someone if they are open-minded enough to think that
certain observations MIGHT be.
Look, lots of other people have made up their minds that ALL of the cf
observations are "factually incorrect." There is no such thing as rational
debate for people whose minds are closed.
For people whose minds are NOT closed, there are plenty of interesting new
observations that can be rationally criticized and/or supported.
-k.
Subject: Re: Rare Metric Prefixes ?
From: "John K.C. Lewis"
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 13:44:57 -0330
What's so rare about these? TeV, PeV, and EeV are used all the time in
high-energy astrophysics. Y and Z are new, but I have no doubt that they
will become common. On the other scale, nm are useful for molecular
phenomena and fm for nuclear. And the zJ and the yg are convenient energy
and mass units for molecular physics. ps is common, and even engineers
use pF!
On 28 Nov 1996, Arthur Carlson TOK wrote:
> The complete list of SI prefixes is:
>
> Factor Prefix Symbol
> ------ ------ ------
> 10^24 yotta Y
> 10^21 zetta Z
> 10^18 exa E
> 10^15 peta P
> 10^12 tera T
> 10^9 giga G
> 10^6 mega M
> 10^3 kilo k
> 10^2 hecto h
> 10^1 deka da
> 10^-1 deci d
> 10^-2 centi c
> 10^-3 milli m
> 10^-6 micro (mu)
> 10^-9 nano n
> 10^-12 pico p
> 10^-15 femto f
> 10^-18 atto a
> 10^-21 zepto z
> 10^-24 yocto y
>
> --
> To study, to finish, to publish. -- Benjamin Franklin
>
> Dr. Arthur Carlson
> Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
> Garching, Germany
> carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
> http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~awc/home.html
>
>
__________________________________________________________
John K.C. Lewis
Department of Physics & Physical Oceanography
Memorial University of Newfoundland
St. John's, NF
Canada A1B 3X7.
FAX: (709) 737-8739
WWW: http://www.physics.mun.ca/~court
Subject: Re: Can ETAs county marbles?
From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 17:55:25 GMT
Yes, Robin I see you have your hand up. So you want to make lead
by sticking 96 deuterons into the nickel and taking out 42 protons.
Well, I guess that does release lots of energy alright. Good for
you! However, I did warn you that this is a trick question.
You see Robin, it's getting this rush of 96 deuterons into the
nickel nucleus that, somehow, does not seem to be very realistic.
What happens if just one of those 96 deuterons does not happen to
be in the right place at the right time? You see it's an organizational
problem. Maxwell, some years ago, proposed that certain very strange
things could be made to occur if there were some form of small, agile,
and intelligent being directing traffic on the atomic scale. Maxwell's
idea was that it could be done just one atom at a time, but now you
have this miniature intelligence herding 96 atoms into a very tiny
place with marvelous precision. Just sorting through all the other
stuff to find only deuterons would be pretty challenging wouldn't it?
The only way I would find your sort of answer acceptable, Robin, is
if you propose a sequencial process - one deuteron at a time, please.
But any sequencial process opens up endless possibilities for getting
stuck part way. That clearly would leave a trail of trash extending
all the way from the starting point to the finish line. Lots of
half-finished lead nuclei would get scattered about the landscape.
Even if you got all 96 deuterons properly coordinated you still have
to spit out just the right number of protons to make lead. Miss by
just one and you likely would have something (dare I say it) radioactive.
Now it seems that John Logajan actual did some marble counting on his
own before I posed the problem. However, John cheated! His assertion
is, in essence, that if you bind just two additional protons to nickel
you can gain enough energy to drive the sytem to the selected set of
final products that Miley claims to observe. The problem with John's
calculation is that he has not properly counted his protons. If you make
that heavy stuff which requires a significantly higher ratio of neutrons
to protons you are going to end up with surpus protons. It can't be
helped (legally). So the energy John gained by binding two protons
is taken back (and then some) by the need to leave a greater number
of protons unbound than he is counting on.
Dick Blue
Subject: Re: CETI Demo at American Nuclear Soc. Mtg.
From: jac@ibms46.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Date: 2 Dec 1996 23:01:59 GMT
} 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:
"Karim Alim" writes:
>
>This has NO bearing on the conversation in this thread.
It does indeed.
>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.
Interesting. Rather surprising given your sudden appearance posting
to the newsgroup. So, since you have been here all along, did you
support Tom's trip?
} 1. ENECO/CETI have a long and tarnished history of compounding erroneous
} claims with even bigger errors.
>Non sequitur to this thread.
If you would look up what non sequitur means, you would know that
(a) you are using it incorrectly here to mean irrelevant rather
than improperly argued and (b) that such data is indeed relevant
to the claims you have made concerning the reliability of CETI
claims.
--
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: 2 Dec 1996 23:15:14 GMT
Jim Carr wrote:
|
| Indeed it was, but someone started talking about totally extraneous
| stuff like the Wright brothers and whether this was cold fusion.
"Karim Alim" writes:
>
> If you'll check the original post, you'll see it was an analogy.
That is what I thought it was, but Karim's later comments indicated
otherwise, given the insistence on direct relevance to CETI.
>YOU brought in the P&F; reference, which had nothing to do with the original
>post.
If you check the original post, you'll see it was an analogy.
As analogies go, it is more relevant than the Wright Brothers to
a discussion of claims for cold fusion and transmutation.
| 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.
OK, then tell us why *you* think it is more reliable.
>What I have gathered is that the cells reliably make energy,
Which independent study did you look at to gather this? For a long
time reader of the newsgroup, you seem remarkably unfamiliar with
the experiments reported here that showed the error CETI was making.
| 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
That is for us, and the SEC, to judge.
IMHO, the only thing that would affect my judgement of your judgement
is your experience in making nuclear physics measurements such as those
discussed in the Miley paper.
| 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.
Sorry, your level of experience in experimental studies of nuclear
phenomena is relevant to this thread. It would only be a non sequitur
if it was a deduction from your statements instead of a new question.
>I am unaware of a REQUIREMENT for posting to
>s.p.f. that you had to have contributed to the Droege cause,
It was not a cause, it was an independent inquiry funded the way
science was funded a century ago. The list of contributors did
not indicate any particular 'side' to the question being looked at
but did suggest who was interested in getting at the facts.
| 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?
No, but it does provide the only other data point we have concerning
the way they look at data.
>My argument (for the umpteeth time) is that CETI can't be blamed for any of
>P&F;'s perceived failures.
I'm not. I am blaming them for their own.
The analogy to P&F;'s similar errors merely indicates a pattern typical
of true believers who ignore the null hypothesis.
--
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: msimon@rworld.com (M Simon)
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 1996 23:54:25 GMT
Karim,
I am willing to admit that there might be something here.
So far I am not convinced.
The sceptics so far have the better of the argument.
If there was as much to cold fusion as there is to ceramic
superconductors we should have seen convincing scientific and
engineering results by now.
So far nothing except new promises when the old ones don't
pan out.
Simon
------------------------------------------------------------
"Karim Alim" wrote:
>I Johnston wrote in article
><57sp2t$2i2@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>...
>> Where, as a matter of interest, have you "gathered" this? The most
>> emphatic claims for excess energy production we ever saw here were - to
>> put is charitably - factually incorrect.
>If by "here" you mean s.p.f. I'm not surprised.
>WHY, "as a matter of interest," do you want to know where I gathered this?
>Is it because you are an earnest and diligent seeker of the truth, and you
>humbly seek more knowledge about this area? Or -- just MAYBE -- is it
>because you plan on TRASHING my information sources OUTRIGHT, no matter
>what they were? I'll save you the trouble, okay? "Yes they're wrong. Yes
>that paper is wrong. Yes those researchers are stupid. Yes that paper is
>wrong too." FEEL BETTER NOW???
>Well what would be the point in making any new observations if all the
>"facts" are in? That -- making new observations and not assuming they must
>be right or wrong -- might be something resembling SCIENCE. You know,
>"SCIENCE," like in the first three letters of this newsgroup?
>> For them to reduce their calorimetric claims from 1.3kW excess to around
>> 1W, then say "we're tired of that game" does not exactly inspire
>> confidence.
>There is the little matter of input power, but... *sigh* never mind. I
>suspect you've already made up your mind on this point and introducing
>ANNOYING little things called FACTS might upset the static equilibrium of
>your little universe.
>> I think he was suggesting that you are making rather a fool of yourself
>> here. Remember, "once-and-for-all-finally-this-is-it" cold fusion
>> devices come along at a nice steady two a year or so, and for you
>> suddenly to turn up, seemingly starry eyed and tell us that no, this
>> time it is real about a device thoroughly discussed months ago is apt to
>> rouse the cynic in the onlooker.
>1) What made you think he was suggesting that? Don't you think you're
>projecting?
>2) I don't give a shit if YOU or ANYONE ELSE thinks I'm "making a fool of
>myself." I have to answer to MY conscience, NOT YOURS.
>3) Pat summary but you've misrepresented me, at any rate. I have never
>told anyone "THIS IS REAL!!!" But it seems that it's enough for SOME
>PEOPLE to condemn someone if they are open-minded enough to think that
>certain observations MIGHT be.
>Look, lots of other people have made up their minds that ALL of the cf
>observations are "factually incorrect." There is no such thing as rational
>debate for people whose minds are closed.
>For people whose minds are NOT closed, there are plenty of interesting new
>observations that can be rationally criticized and/or supported.
>-k.
In the end people get the government they deserve.
Read "The Weapon Shops of Isher" by A.E. vanVogt
Simon
Subject: Re: CETI Demo at American Nuclear Soc. Mtg.
From: jac@ibms46.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Date: 2 Dec 1996 23:40:34 GMT
Jim Carr wrote:
|
| 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.
"Karim Alim" writes:
>
>You might as well say that NAA is useless and Miley is an idiot if you are
>going to consider errors on that scale.
Pay attention. The isotopic analysis was done with SIMS.
I am not sure what you mean by "on that scale". That would indicate
an error of a few percent. Since they do not show any graphs for the
before data, and do not specify any error bars anywhere in the data
tables, there is no way to judge if they had the same statistics.
I do not think Miley is an idiot. What is possible is that he was
so gung ho for a particular result that he overlooked some possible
problems that could indicate the null hypothesis is more likely
than his proposed interpretation.
| > the appearance of Ag not being related to its location
| >(below the surface where you would not expect contaminants to appear),
|
| 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.
What electrochemistry argues against this?
For that matter, how can transmutation explain that there are more
atoms of *everything* afterwards than before?
>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 disagree. The emphasis has always been on whether there is any
physical evidence for fusion or transfer reactions. If you read
the Miley conclusions about possible reactions carefully, you will
see that he pretty much excludes both of these because of the very
unusual patterns in the data and the absence of specific isotopes
you would expect to see.
| 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.
You are welcome. Feel free to ask any other physics questions you
might have about which radioactive isotopes would be expected to
appear if a reaction produced the ones Miley sees.
| 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.
In most research papers, if the author has such concerns they are
addressed or discussed. Referees tend to insist on such things, as
I am sure you must know from personal experience.
| 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.
This is not a desire for scrutiny, it is the norm for the complete
presentation of all relevant information.
> 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?"
You should feel the urge to ask, "Why just Ag-107 and Ag-109? If the
small excess of Ag-107 is real, why don't you see Ag-108?"
> ... We take his results and we attempt to
>replicate them. We test for the null hypothesis.
We can also expect him to do the same.
> But we don't imply that
>he is a moron who shouldn't be allowed near a mass spectrometer either,
Non sequitur. I argued no such thing.
--
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: 3 Dec 1996 00:42:00 GMT
Jim Carr wrote in article
<57vn57$2g8@news.fsu.edu>...
> It does indeed.
Bullshit. Instead of just saying "Does so, nyah nyah" you might try
backing up your assertion with a fact or two.
> Interesting. Rather surprising given your sudden appearance posting
> to the newsgroup. So, since you have been here all along, did you
> support Tom's trip?
OBJECTION, Your Honor, the Prosecution
is clearly badgering the Witness!
Could you please inform the court
where you're going with your questions about the Droege business?
I know the idea of sticking to a thread within a newsgroup is sort of
foreign to you, but could you tell me what bearing the Droege stuff (or
whether you are or are not a homosexual) has on anything related to CETI's
demo, or Miley's comments, or my posts, or this thread? Convince me of its
relevance and I'll gladly tell you my shoe size. If all you want to do is
set up a litmus test for those who YOU think are worthy to have an opinion,
then I'm sorry, fuck you.
> If you would look up what non sequitur means, you would know that
> (a) you are using it incorrectly here to mean irrelevant rather
> than improperly argued and (b) that such data is indeed relevant
> to the claims you have made concerning the reliability of CETI
> claims.
It's Latin for "it does not follow" and IT DOESN'T. I know what it means,
you little pedant. (I bet you get off on correcting spelling errors, too,
huh?) The points that I called "non sequitur" DID NOT FOLLOW as the result
of a logical argument, i.e. from premises to a conclusion.
As for their relevancy, the "DATA" to which you refer is merely Bob's
Sullivan's OPINION on various points (all non sequiturs to my original
post). If you call his half-assed opinions "data" then PLEASE inform us
ALL how:
1) Bob's BELIEF in the "long and tarnished history" of CETI has anything to
do with Miley's remark about being half-right
2) Bob's OPINION about the original claims for the PPC has anything to do
with Miley's remark about being half-right
3) Bob's OPINION about how best to "understand" CETI has anything to do
with Miley's remark about being half-right
If you would like to present some real QUANTIFIABLE data, PLEASE, be my
guest. If all you want to do is pile your bullshit opinion on top of
someone else's bullshit opinion, excuse me if I don't deign to call it
"data" and assume that it necessarily has any relevance to this thread.
-k.
Subject: Re: CETI Demo at American Nuclear Soc. Mtg.
From: "Karim Alim"
Date: 3 Dec 1996 01:44:26 GMT
> That is what I thought it was, but Karim's later comments indicated
> otherwise, given the insistence on direct relevance to CETI.
Which comments? Did his (my) "insistence" really make you think that the
Wright Brothers could be anything BUT an analogy to the CETI case???
> As analogies go, it is more relevant than the Wright Brothers to
> a discussion of claims for cold fusion and transmutation.
You listed "P&F;" as one of the REASONS WHY CETI should have results by now.
You did not say P&F; was an ANALOGY. Logically, you can't have it both
ways.
> OK, then tell us why *you* think it is more reliable.
Once I finish dealing with your other bullshit objections, maybe.
> Which independent study did you look at to gather this? For a long
> time reader of the newsgroup, you seem remarkably unfamiliar with
> the experiments reported here that showed the error CETI was making.
Pssst. Here's a secret: don't get all your information from s.p.f.
> That is for us, and the SEC, to judge.
Last I heard, the SEC wasn't judging what constituted a logical fallacy.
> IMHO, the only thing that would affect my judgement of your judgement
> is your experience in making nuclear physics measurements such as those
> discussed in the Miley paper.
Hmmm... you don't believe Miley, but you'll believe lil ole me????
That's a good one.
> Sorry, your level of experience in experimental studies of nuclear
> phenomena is relevant to this thread. It would only be a non sequitur
> if it was a deduction from your statements instead of a new question.
This is such utter bullshit. Your posts are such great fun. And here I
was thinking it was a non sequitur simply because IT DOESN'T FOLLOW from
anything I've said or implied. Hint: try posting "new questions"
in "new threads." Follow-ups to posts, GENERALLY speaking, have SOME
VAGUE, TENUOUS connection to the original post in the thread.
Okay, now the truth comes out: nobody's allowed to post ANYTHING, or
believe ANYTHING, unless they've met Carr's Level of Experience Test for
Nuclear Phenomena.
The hubris is just dripping from your posts. Remember when the little boy
said the Emperor had no clothes? You would be the fashion designer saying,
"Pay no attention to him, Sire. He has not achieved My Arbitrary Level of
Expertise in couture."
Gee, and here I was naively thinking that SCIENCE was about logically
getting to the truth or falsity of hypotheses and propositions... not about
passing your arbitrary criteria... *sigh* Would it make you feel better if
I told you my REAL NAME was... EDWARD TELLER,
FATHER OF THE HYDROGEN BOMB?
Just kidding. I'm actually channeling the spirit of Richard Feynman. He
told me to haunt assholes like you.
> >I am unaware of a REQUIREMENT for posting to
> >s.p.f. that you had to have contributed to the Droege cause,
>
> It was not a cause, it was an independent inquiry funded the way
> science was funded a century ago. The list of contributors did
> not indicate any particular 'side' to the question being looked at
> but did suggest who was interested in getting at the facts.
God, I can't believe you got hung up on the word "cause." I said the
"Droege cause" in the (dryly humorous) sense of a mission carried out with
zeal. Your immediate NEED to point out that the contributors were not all
from one "side" is a classic case of "methinks you doth protest too much."
No one made that accusation, but given your swiftness to deny it, perhaps
they should.
You miss the POINT altogether -- who makes YOU the God of s.p.f. that YOU
can throw up these requirements???
> No, but it does provide the only other data point we have concerning
> the way they look at data.
Does the phrase "statistically significant" mean anything to you? "Sample
size," maybe?
> I'm not. I am blaming them for their own.
Then WHY did you bring them UP????
> The analogy to P&F;'s similar errors merely indicates a pattern typical
> of true believers who ignore the null hypothesis.
Oh, okay, it's an analogy now. That's okay, you can change your mind
halfway through an argument. I'm sure very few people noticed.
You've got this null hypothesis fetish, and yet I notice you didn't answer
my post asking whether you thought ADDING SILVER to the cell in which large
quantities of silver suddenly appeared as investigating the null
hypothesis. Or maybe you just IGNORED it. That's okay, I'm sure you're
the only person in the world who knows what the null hypothesis is or how
to formulate one.
So your SOLE POINT is that CETI "talked about" kilowatt output at some
point and you have yet to be able to run down to Wal-Mart and buy yourself
a CETI-powered water heater? Is that it?
-k.
Subject: Re: CETI Demo at American Nuclear Soc. Mtg.
From: "Karim Alim"
Date: 3 Dec 1996 03:02:35 GMT
> Pay attention. The isotopic analysis was done with SIMS.
Pay attention. I never said it wasn't.
> I do not think Miley is an idiot. What is possible is that he was
> so gung ho for a particular result that he overlooked some possible
> problems that could indicate the null hypothesis is more likely
> than his proposed interpretation.
Anything's possible. I'm gratified to hear that you don't think Miley's an
idiot. We have that much in common. I don't know if Real Scientists are
"gung ho for a particular result" all that often. But, we're only human
and so, as I say, anything's possible.
> What electrochemistry argues against this?
Probably the same one that allows a block of silver to pass through a block
of nickel and not leave a trace in the nickel.
> For that matter, how can transmutation explain that there are more
> atoms of *everything* afterwards than before?
I don't know what you mean by "everything" -- I don't think anyone is
proposing that matter is being created from nothing. As far as the baryon
accounting problem goes, well, that's Dick Blue's marble counting lesson,
right?
I don't pretend to know HOW observation "X" can happen -- that doesn't mean
that it's a BAD OBSERVATION.
> I disagree. The emphasis has always been on whether there is any
> physical evidence for fusion or transfer reactions. If you read
> the Miley conclusions about possible reactions carefully, you will
> see that he pretty much excludes both of these because of the very
> unusual patterns in the data and the absence of specific isotopes
> you would expect to see.
I have to disagree with your disagreeing. Looking for fusion is
trying to define a process we don't understand in terms of a process we do
understand. Depending on who you talk to, what experiment they performed,
what batch of Pd they used, and what the lunar phase was they MAY or MAY
NOT be seeing what you and I think of as "physical evidence for fusion or
transfer reactions." Hell, they might not even be LOOKING for 3He. Just
my opinion, but the search for fusion got sidetracked when people started
using light water. I got the impression that all CETI wants to do now
is get consistent, repeatable confirmation that there's SOMETHING going on.
> You are welcome. Feel free to ask any other physics questions you
> might have about which radioactive isotopes would be expected to
> appear if a reaction produced the ones Miley sees.
Gee, thanks. Maybe I'll just read your "Basic Nuclear Physics" web
tutorial instead. You do cover cold fusion, don't you?
> In most research papers, if the author has such concerns they are
> addressed or discussed. Referees tend to insist on such things, as
> I am sure you must know from personal experience.
Since you're so sure I guess there is no point in contradicting you.
> This is not a desire for scrutiny, it is the norm for the complete
> presentation of all relevant information.
Well Usenet newsgroups hardly constitute peer review for Physical Review
Letters, "as I am sure you must know from personal experience."
> You should feel the urge to ask, "Why just Ag-107 and Ag-109? If the
> small excess of Ag-107 is real, why don't you see Ag-108?"
I do! I agree with you on that point. I have no idea what the answer is,
though.
I heard that Miley estimated the amount of Ag as 10x what could have been
accounted for by contamination. Granted, that is not as good as 100x or
1000x but I would not characterize it as a "small excess." If you consider
10x a small excess then surely you can forgive P&F; for being "a little
late" with their water heater.
-k.
Subject: Re: CETI Demo at American Nuclear Soc. Mtg.
From: jac@ibms46.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Date: 3 Dec 1996 04:26:18 GMT
"Karim Alim" writes:
... concerning his analogy of the Wright Brothers to Cold Fusion ....
I wrote:
|
| That is what I thought it was, but Karim's later comments indicated
| otherwise, given the insistence on direct relevance to CETI.
>Which comments? Did his (my) "insistence" really make you think that the
>Wright Brothers could be anything BUT an analogy to the CETI case???
No. Did you think that past CETI claims are less relevant to current
CETI claims than what the Wright Brothers did before you were born?
I was referring to your objections to the P&F; analogy because it
was not a result claimed by CETI or Miley. To the best of my
knowledge, they also made not claims about powered flight, but
did make some claims about kilowatt heat output.
| As analogies go, it is more relevant than the Wright Brothers to
| a discussion of claims for cold fusion and transmutation.
>You listed "P&F;" as one of the REASONS WHY CETI should have results by now.
> You did not say P&F; was an ANALOGY.
I thought you were smart enough to see that it was a more relevant
analogy to a cold fusion discussion that that old Rothwell favorite.
--
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: 3 Dec 1996 04:21:28 GMT
Concerning the relevance of past CETI claims to the credibility of
their present claims,
Jim Carr wrote:
}
} It does indeed.
"Karim Alim" writes:
>
>Bullshit. Instead of just saying "Does so, nyah nyah" you might try
>backing up your assertion with a fact or two.
My assertion is that they claimed a kilowatt of heat and, after this
was shown to be based on a simple error by Barry Merriman, we now
see claims consistent with zero from the same device. I believe
this is backed up by the s.p.f archive as claimed. You are welcome,
at your leisure, to prove those statements wrong.
Now, do you have any data to back up your claims that the kilowatt
heat from CETI devices is real?
} If you would look up what non sequitur means, you would know that
} (a) you are using it incorrectly here to mean irrelevant rather
} than improperly argued and (b) that such data is indeed relevant
} to the claims you have made concerning the reliability of CETI
} claims.
>It's Latin for "it does not follow"
Good start. So you were using it incorrectly to mean irrelevant.
>and IT DOESN'T.
Proof by assertion.
--
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: 3 Dec 1996 04:35:41 GMT
I asked:
|
| Which independent study did you look at to gather this? For a long
| time reader of the newsgroup, you seem remarkably unfamiliar with
| the experiments reported here that showed the error CETI was making.
"Karim Alim" writes:
>
>Pssst. Here's a secret: don't get all your information from s.p.f.
Non responsive and totally irrelevant. Who was complaining about
shifting the subject? Where do you get your information?
One of those little details about science is that it puts a lot
of credence in experiment and analysis of same. You can choose
to ignore what Barry found, but you will be expected to defend
that decision.
| Sorry, your level of experience in experimental studies of nuclear
| phenomena is relevant to this thread. It would only be a non sequitur
| if it was a deduction from your statements instead of a new question.
>This is such utter bullshit.
So far, I have only seen BS in Karim's articles. He is welcome to
discuss the physics or chemistry issues, and has had ample opportunity
to do just that, but he would rather make a variety of ad hominem
attacks. So be it. If Karim would like to discuss the physics
issues I raised in my responses, such as things like the presence
or absence of Ag-108 in the data, I would be quite pleased to do so.
It is clear he is not disposed to discuss the science, however.
>Gee, and here I was naively thinking that SCIENCE was about logically
>getting to the truth or falsity of hypotheses and propositions...
No. You are quite wrong there. Science is about doing reliable
experiments, reporting them carefully, and comparing their
results to those of other experiments and the models and theories
that might explain the data and all similar data. Ignorance of
the data and knowledge of logic will not make you a good scientist.
>Does the phrase "statistically significant" mean anything to you? "Sample
>size," maybe?
Yes. Do you think it might be relevant to whether the other isotopes
of Si would be found in the SIMS data?
--
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: 3 Dec 1996 04:15:02 GMT
I Johnston wrote:
}
} Where, as a matter of interest, have you "gathered" this? The most
} emphatic claims for excess energy production we ever saw here were - to
} put is charitably - factually incorrect.
"Karim Alim" writes:
>
>If by "here" you mean s.p.f. I'm not surprised.
You suggest that Rothwell and other reporters of positive results
were lying in their public pronouncements and that the CETI web
site does not convey a factual version of their cliams?
>WHY, "as a matter of interest," do you want to know where I gathered this?
Possibly because Ian is a physicist interested in knowing if some
publication escaped his notice.
Why, as a matter of interest, don't you tell us?
>Is it because you are an earnest and diligent seeker of the truth,
It is for me.
>There is the little matter of input power, but... *sigh* never mind. I
>suspect you've already made up your mind on this point and introducing
>ANNOYING little things called FACTS might upset the static equilibrium of
>your little universe.
You might have given a citation for one of them among the kilobytes
in this article. Responding to a polite request with a diatribe is
not what Ian expected, I should think.
--
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: Can ETAs county marbles?
From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Date: 3 Dec 1996 05:27:42 GMT
Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) wrote:
: Now it seems that John Logajan actual did some marble counting on his
: own before I posed the problem. However, John cheated! His assertion
: is, in essence, that if you bind just two additional protons to nickel
: you can gain enough energy to drive the sytem to the selected set of
: final products that Miley claims to observe. The problem with John's
: calculation is that he has not properly counted his protons. If you make
: that heavy stuff which requires a significantly higher ratio of neutrons
: to protons you are going to end up with surpus protons. It can't be
: helped (legally). So the energy John gained by binding two protons
: is taken back (and then some) by the need to leave a greater number
: of protons unbound than he is counting on.
I'm not sure I follow this objection. I used the published atomic
masses of the before and after products in order to obtain my net
zero "release" energy. Assuming a conservation of mass/energy, and
asserting as one of my explicit assumptions that not much energy was
added or escaped, then the total binding energy (delta mass) of the
products was necessarily equal to the initial binding energy of the
inputs -- though the binding energy was redistributed within the
output products.
On an energy balance alone, there is no problem with my suggestion.
Even if proton/electron pairs had to be converted to neutrons or
vice versa. That's because it is an explicit assumption in my
suggestion that the output mass is essentially equal to the input
mass -- thus all energy is necessarily accounted for and the
"books balance" by definition.
That's not to say my suggestion is correct, just that the energy
balance is by design not an issue.
--
- 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 -
