author: John Popelish

subject: Re: SMPS Inductor saturates?

text:
Bill Bowden wrote:
(snip)
Are the currents you mention referring to the instantaneous inductor
current, or the output load current?

Is the regulator operating in continuous or discontinuous mode?

What type transistor and what base current?


author: Jonathan Kirwan

subject: Re: SMPS Inductor saturates?

text:
On 15 Sep 2006 13:38:52 -0700, "Bill Bowden" <[email]>
wrote:

Reading your words carefully, I see that you say "the circuit will
draw a couple amps" but you don't really say anything about he base
drive current on your transistor switch.  It still seems possible that
you are running out of beta on it.  At 400mA collector current and
operating as a switch, you need a substantial base drive.  What is the
measured value, here?

Also, ignoring inductor DC resistance for now, the voltage across the
inductor is V = dI/dt * L.  If your dI/dt goes flat-line (doesn't rise
anymore) then your V across the L is simply going to drop and the
transistor collector _must_ pick up the difference and rise.  So this
isn't news, at all.

As I understand it, when an inductor saturates you should see current
peaking assuming the transistor can supply the current.  The apparent
L diminishes and for a fixed voltage across it the dI/dt suddenly
grows (as L drops, V/L climbs.)  You seem to imagine that your switch
can deliver "amps" for collector current, so if your belief is correct
and if the inductor was saturating, I'd imagine you'd see a current
spike until the DC resistance dominates.  But you don't mention this,
so I'm back to betting on your base drive.

Of course, I'm a hobbyist and not particularly knowldgeable on
switchers, so perhaps I'm an easy mark for bets, too.

A smaller L would mean a faster rate of change of current for a fixed
voltage across the L.  A faster rate of change _could_ mean more
current, if you held it on for a fixed time.  But you also here say "a
higher frequency" so that means a "shorter time."  So depending on the
exact quantities here, it may be more current, or less, or the same.
Assuming everything else can deliver the current and voltage
compliances, of course.

Jon


author: jasen

subject: Re: SMPS Inductor saturates?

text:
On 2006-09-17, Bill Bowden <[email]> wrote:

(hmm... how come I only see this today?)

???

above you imply that it plateaus at 500mA, maybe I'm misreading that.

By surge a sudden spike at the end of the ramp.

Are you using the same number of ampere-turns and the same frequency as the
200W supply?

Bye.
   Jasen


subject: Re: SMPS Inductor saturates?

text:
On 16 Sep 2006 10:31:52 -0700, [email] wrote:

I had been writing up my own response last night but didn't send it,
yet.  I have had other things to do between now and then, but this is
about where I'd gotten last night -- though my approach was different
and I'd included more detailed reasoning.

But doing 2 watts at 50V from 3V takes a little thought, little of
which has been in exposed by the OP so far.

I'll finish up my thoughts a little later and post them.

Jon


subject: Re: SMPS Inductor saturates?

text:
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 21:23:49 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
<[email]> wrote:

Another thought crossed my mind.  Do you allow enough OFF time for the
inductor's magnetic field to completely collapse before another ON
cycle?  The ON and OFF times aren't necessarily the same as the
voltage across the inductor during energy release isn't usually the
same as the voltage across it when you are pumping up the field.  The
difference between your output voltage and the supply rail, less a
small drop for the diode, would be the OFF voltage, roughly, I think.

Jon


author: west

subject: Programming & Linear Algebra

text:
I am deeply grateful for all the help I received directing me towards the
math courses I should take in pursuing a career in Astro-physics. Since I
can not take these courses now (sophomore HS), I've borrowed some trig &
calculus books from the library and am setting aside some time each day to
study on my own. I also have purchased Shu's "The Physical Universe"
recommended by Mr. Thornburg.
One (hopefully) last request: Which computer programming courses should I
start with and then take in the future? Finally, finally: Can you recommend
a good beginning text for Linear Algebra? Thanks very much again.

bill


author: Oh No

subject: Re: Programming & Linear Algebra

text:
Thus spake west <[email]>
Unfortunately I can't make a personal recommendation as it too long ago
since I learned the subject. I had a look at a couple of books on
amazon, and felt that

Linear Algebra (Oxford Science Publications) (Paperback)
by Richard Kaye, Robert Wilson

seemed pretty good. The description says "In particular, this book would
be suitable reading for a student with no prior exposure to abstract
algebra. Although intended as a 'second course', the book is completely
self-contained and all the material usually given in a 'first course' in
presented fully in Part I,".

You may also like to look at John Baez site. http://math.ucr.edu/home/ba
ez/books.html

Regards


author: Jonathan Thornburg -- remove -animal to reply

subject: Re: Programming & Linear Algebra

text:
west <[email]> wrote:

That's great!  If you can find a local math teacher who can help you
over the inevitable rough spots, and correct any conceptual problems
before they cause confusion, that would greatly ease your learning
(and probably make it a lot more fun too!).

Programming languages are tools, so it's useful to (eventually) learn
several of them, both for easier sharing of code with colleagues, and
so you can pick the most convenient one(s) for any given task.

Learning your *first* programming language takes a moderate amount of
work, because you need to learn a bunch of new concepts and ways of
thinking ("variables", "loops", "arrays", "assignment statements", etc),
simultaneously with the mechanics of how to express those in some
programming language.  I have seen cogent arguments for starting with
a "scripting language" like Perl or Python, and also cogent arguments
for starting with a more traditional programming language like C, C++,
Java, or Fortran 90.  This (choice of programming languages) is a
rather controversial topic!  In practice, your choice for your first
language is likely to be set by your local environment, i.e. what
courses are conveniently available to you.

Once you know one programming language, learning another one is easy:
you already know most of the concepts, so you'll just have to learn
the mechanics of the new language.  You'll also probably find that
each new language you learn gives you a slightly new set of ways of
*thinking* about programming problems.

In my experience, most scientific computation is done on Unix-flavored
systems (these days often running GNU/Linux), and the main programming
languages are Unix shells/Perl/Python for "scripting and little things",
and C, C++, and Fortran 90 for "big things".  Learning at least one
of {Perl, Python} and at least one of {C, C++, Fortran 90} would be
great.

Actually using a programming language to solve a scientific problem
often gets into the domain of numerical analysis (very roughly speaking,
numerical analysis is the branch of math/computing which marries calculus
and computers).  Any reasonable university physics/astronomy curriculum
will have you taking a numerical analysis course (or two or three)
fairly early on (soon after you learn calculus), so you probably don't
need to do anything special right now.

ciao,


author: Nicolaas Vroom

subject: Re: Programming & Linear Algebra

text:
"Jonathan Thornburg -- remove -animal to reply" <[email]>
schreef in bericht news:[email]...

Please do not forget Visual Basic (and or QBasic)
as an alternative.
Visit my homepage to get some idea.

http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/

Nicolaas Vroom

[Mod. note: quoted text trimmed -- mjh]


author: GE Copeland

subject: Re: Programming & Linear Algebra

text:
On Mon, 13 Nov 06 17:06:35 GMT, "Nicolaas Vroom"
<[email]> wrote:

I would second using quick basic 4.5 as a first language. It main uses
is the fact you can read it. It is a complete language and can be
learned quckly.  It does run under windows machine and you can find it
on the net.
It is a starter that does not drive you nuts with syntax problems.
Later you can pick-up a linux operatings system for you machine and
there are basic languages availa blem ther while you learn c++ for
super-jobs.
Best of Luck


author: andrew stewart

subject: Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Field Theory

text:
What is the relation between quantum mechanics (the Schrodinger
equation with minimal coupling of the charge to the electromagnetic
potentials) and quantum field theory (quantum electrodynamics)? Is
the former some sort of approximation to the latter or are they
different theories?

An approximation is usually made by letting some parameter become
small. But in quantum field theory the three spatial coordinates and
the time are parameters of the theory while in quantum mechanics,
although time remains a parameter, the spatial coordinates become
operators.

Such a radical difference seems difficult to bridge by any
approximation.  Any comments?

Andrew Stewart


author: Charles Francis

subject: Re: Probability is unphysical (was: Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Field Theory)

text:
In article <[email]>, Alfred
Einstead <[email]> writes

This is true. However the same can be said of every other limiting
procedure which we use in physics to model reality. We never can carry
physically out the infinite sequence of processes that is described in a
limit. Nevertheless the concept is widely used and accepted in the study
of physics, and I see no reason why probability should be any different.

Hypothesis testing is probably the most important part of statistics.
Rather than write it off as unscientific because it does not fit a
preconception as to what we think empirical science is supposed to be,
we should study it as being the most accurate, scientific and precise
mathematical description of what it is actually possible to say about
anything on the basis of empirical data. All empirical data is a finite
sample of an assumed infinite number of tests that could have been done,
and shows deviation from the mean. Mostly we only a cursory statistical
analysis is done (giving bounds of error), but a strict scientific
treatment should really quote confidence limits for the bounds of error
too.

If that is really so then the whole of science is devoid of physical
content. But yes, we should study statistics to a reasonable level, at
least to include confidence testing, if we are to develop any sensible
theory of induction, or philosophy of empirical science. By the same
token we can comfortably ignore philosophies of empirical science which
do not display and adequate awareness of the statistical analysis of
data.


author: Thomas Kerler

subject: Re: Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Field Theory

text:
andrew stewart wrote:

     This one point of view that I remember from school (~ a decade back)

    there's one-particle quantum mechanics (Schroedinger equations and all)

    then there's multipl particle quantum mechanics.
     That's really quantum mechanics still - but if you look
     at the collection of such QM's for all particle numbers
     at the same time you get the stuff with Fock spaces and
     many other ingredients that sound QFT-ish like creation
     and annihilation operators. That type of formalism is
     very common and useful  in solid state physics.

    The biggy is that particle numbers are conserved.

     So called free (non-interacting) QFT's are also basically
     nothing else but continuous collections of many particle
     quantum   mechanical systems.

     Interacting QFT's, however, are radically different. Particle
     numbers are no longer conserved. You can have a collection
     of some types of particles going into a scattering process
     but get a different collection of things coming out. This is
     impossible to describe in any QM formalism!! So basically
     you're coupling multiple particle states, that are independet in
     mutliple particle QM's and free QFT's, together and allow such
     states to transtion into each other. (On the perturbative level
     such transtions are expressed in the in and out going arrows
     of the Feynman diagrams).

      there are translations already on the free level.
      - I'm out of time right now - but look through the
     example of the harmonic oscilator again.

Thomas Kerler


author: Harry Johnston

text:
andrew stewart <[email]> wrote:

As it happens, my PhD thesis contained some discussion of this issue;
that was some years ago now and I'm a little rusty but I'll take a
stab anyway. ;-)

I guess that first you need to turn the quantised electromagnetic
field into a classical electromagnetic field by making Planck's
constant tend to zero - just the one in the electromagnetic field,
mind you, not the one in the charge field!

To make the final step to a classical electromagnetic field, you will
have to assume that the charges don't interact too strongly with one
another.  You can still include some interaction by making the
expectation value of the charge the source for the classical
electromagnetic field.  Practically speaking, this turns out to be a
surprisingly good approximation in many (if not most) real
circumstances.

You now have a single quantised field describing noninteracting
particles subject to a classical potential.

If you describe the possible states of the field using the
eigensolutions of the Schrodinger equation as a basis, the Hamiltonian
for the field decouples into a sum of quantum harmonic oscillators,
one for each mode (eigensolution).  The excitation number of each
harmonic oscillator can then be considered to be the number of
particles that are in that mode.

(This treatment appears in most QFT textbooks but I think usually only
for the special case where there is no potential; to be honest, my
thesis just assumes that this is valid in the more general case and I
can't remember whether I actually checked it or not.  I think it is
true though.  Real electrons having spin and being fermionic
complicates the maths too but I reckon it probably more or less works
out!)

What happens next depends on whether you are interested in situations
with a single isolated particle or with many particles.

If you know that there is just one particle (or if you can assume that
there is only one particle to a good approximation) then you can write
a state of the quantised field as a sum of amplitudes for the particle
being in each mode.  You then write an equivalent quantum mechanical
state as the sum of the same amplitudes for the particle being in each
mode - but with the modes now represented by kets instead of creation
operators against the vacuum.

It shouldn't too hard to show that this QM state produces the right
expectation values and evolves according to the Schrodinger equation
as you would expect.

If there are many particles you can still write a (slightly more
complex) formula for a QM density matrix which also reproduces the
expectation values and obeys the usual evolution equation.  In this
case even pure states of the quantum field have to be represented by
mixed states in QM, so the end result does have to be a density matrix
and not a pure state.  (You do also have to generalise the usual
definition of the density matrix to allow for a different
normalisation, but this is a minor change and is in fact more suitable
for systems where the total charge is infinite.)

  Harry.

---
Harry Johnston, [email]
One Earth, One World, One People


text:
In article <9c9n1d$85t$[email]>, andrew stewart
<[email]> writes

The "idealised" relation is that quantum mechanics deals with a Hilbert
space of states. Quantum field theory deals with linear combinations of
creation and annihilation operators on a Fock space. Since the Fock
spaced is constructed ultimately from a Hilbert space of single
particles states, they are ultimately one and the same theory.

However while constructing field operators like this has been regarded
as an unsolved problem, it is impossible to say precisely that this
relationship exists. In fact Scharf does construct field operators in
Finite Quantum Electrodynamics, but few people understand the work well
enough to say that he has done it - see the thread on Quantum Field
Theory without Divergences or Renormalisation II.


author: Paul Colby

text:
"andrew stewart" <[email]>
wrote in message news:9c9n1d$85t$[email]...

My take on this is "the Schrodinger equation with minimal coupling
of the charge to the electromagnetic potentials" is what's called
a semiclassical theory. This is an approximate theory in which one
approximates one part of the system by a classical system and the
other by a quantum mechanical system. The way I read you're
sentence above one has a (first quantization or plain old) quantum
charge current supplied let's say by the non-relativistic Schrodinger
equation (an approximation) with classical fields (another
classical approximation). Now I may have completely misread what
you've said or meant, however, the way I've interpreted things
one has a perfectly good model or approximate theory for some
applications.

Yes, but they address some of the same phenomena. QED being
the more complete of the two.

Not always. There are many things that were approximated in the
model I described above. I don't think it's fair to claim there
is a parameter being made small. In a semiclassical approximation
it is enough for one to claim that the -effect- of the approximations
are negligible for the domain and phenomena in which one is interested.

I don't follow what you are getting at here. The field operators
in QED (oh well - operator valued distributions or something like
that...) are functions of space and time. These space time
"parameters" play the same role they play in all other theories
that I know. IMO it is not fair to say that the x *operator*
for a first quantized non-relativistic electron is the same (status)
as the 'x' in phi(t,x) for a quantized field, though. The difference
is one in which a particle has an observable position given quantum
mechanically by an operator, x which acts on the space of state
vectors. This is very different than saying one has a set of
operators phi(t,x) *at* x from which we construct observables. The
problem is it is easy to sneak a multiplication by x into
this set of operators at x and say "see there is one now". The question
becomes which system is this x an observable for?

IMO field theory *is* a radical step. It's amazing it works
as well as it does.

Regards
Paul Colby


author: John Baez

text:
In article <9c9n1d$85t$[email]>,
andrew stewart  <[email]> wrote:

They are conceptually quite different theories, but you can get
the former as a kind of approximation to the latter:

Schrodinger's equation is the approximation you get by taking
quantum electrodynamics and studying the limit in which the
speed of light approaches infinity, as compared to the speed
of anything you're studying.

Rigorously proving this is far from easy - i.e., somewhere between
difficult and impossible.  We have argued about this extensively here
on sci.physics.research.  But it's always good to get the basic ideas
lined up straight in your mind before worrying too much about rigorous
proof.

Or large.


author: Demian Cho

text:
Let's ask simpler question. What is the relations between classical
mechanics and classical field theory. You can view the latter as a sort of
continuum limit of the first one. Consider arrays of infinite number of
coupled oscillators and take a seperations between masses goes to zero while
keep pther quatities (for example mass density) finite, you will have a
theory with infinite degrees of freedom described by wave equation -
classical fields.

Quantum fileds can be thought of as a quatization of the above, at least
huristically. (I don't know the subtleties involved in here. And there are
many other members who are more qualified than me in this list)

Now, comparing Schrodinger QM with QED has one more ingredient. The first is
Newtonian while QED is special relativistic.

Cheers,

Demian Cho


author: Bagnoud Maxime

text:
andrew stewart wrote:

As Demian suggested, your question is a bit too ambitious, at least
for a first try. It's more illuminating to compare a Dirac electron
and a Schroedinger electron in an external electromagnetic field.  To
do this, start from Dirac's equation in an external electromagnetic
field and seek for an interesting non-relativistic limit.  This is a
bit subtle, though, so I advise you to look in a book (e.g.  Messiah's
Quantum Mechanics, chap. XX-29). The first approximation gives you the
Schroedinger operator of a SPINNING electron (interestingly enough) in
an external electromagnetic field, i.e. a Pauli electron.
Full-fledged QED takes of course into account the fact that the EM
field is quantized and not fixed, reacting to the presence of the
electron, by exchanging quantas of EM fields (aka photons) with
him. That's a bit farther away from Schroedinger theory of course.

Maxime


author: Alfred Einstead

text:
Charles Francis <[email]> wrote in message news:<zzL$[email]>...

There is no limiting procedure here.  The concept of 'statistical randomness'
is inherently an attribute of infinite sequences, and the use of infinity is
absolutely essential.  There's nothing here that corresponds to a "finite
approximation of ..." as you typically have in a limiting procedure.


author: Miguel Carrion

text:
In article <[email]>,
Thomas Kerler  <[email]> wrote:

Well, that is not exactly true. Once you have the formalism of creation and
annihilation operators in place to do many-particle quantum mechanics you can
write down a hamiltonian that explicity does not conserve particle numbers.

Let a and a+ be the annihilation and creation operators for a particular
degree of freedom. The following hamiltonian terms conserve particle numbers:

1
a+ a
a+ a+ aa
...
(a+)^n a^n

These operators correspond to the "nth factorial moment" of the state:

(a+)^n a^n|m> = m(m-1)...(m-n+1)|m>

But the following are perfectly acceptable Hamiltonian terms:

(a+)^n a^m

What? They are not self-adjoint? Oh, well, use

(a+)^n a^m + (a+)^m a^n

These don't conserve particle number. Indeed,

(a+)^n a^m |k>  is proportional to  |k+n-m>.

Regards,

Miguel


author: Mark William Hopkins

text:
In article <[email]> Thomas Kerler <[email]> writes:

This isn't the end of the story.  In a generally covariant QFT, you also
have transitions between "pure" states and "mixed" states.  The most
notable example occurs when you throw one particle in an entangled pair
down a black hole and wait some time for the black hole to evaporate.

So ... even a multi-particle Fock space formalism is insufficient.  Even
the concept of a particle, itself, becomes untenable in general curved spaces.


text:
In article <9co4ee$at0$[email]> [email] (John Baez) writes:

Schroedinger's equation is the limit of Dirac's equation and you can
successively compute a progression of approximations to the Hydrogen
spectrum going through the stages:

           Schroedinger --> Pauli-Schroediger --> Dirac

But none of these are part of QED.  The last link to the actual progression of
theories

        Schroedinger --> Pauli-Schroediger --> Dirac --> QED

is completely unresolved.

Where, for instance, in the S-matrix does one find the Hydrogen spectrum?


subject: Re: Distribution Multiplication and 2nd Quantized Equations of Motion

text:
In article <9dp9ng$k8b$[email]>, Mark William Hopkins
<[email]> writes

Yes, I thought that was unsatisfactory, but I did not think it wrong.
His argument is that if the product is well defined, then the result
must be well defined, that implies the parameters are constrained. The
question then is whether a) the product is well defined, and b) whether
it is a correct product to use in a physical description of matter.

If we accept a) then the issue is b) and if I understand correctly
Scharf makes no comment on the matter. The solution of constraining
parameters is pragmatic, but does not tell us *why* this is the correct
product to use to describe physics, except that it is required by the
causality in the splitting of distributions.

<snipped for length>

There is a way of avoiding this rather ad hoc manner of constraining
parameters. Scharf's arguments are based on the use of causal switching
functions, g1 and g2 for which the commutation relation

        [S(g1),S(g2)] = 0

if the supports of g1 and g2 are space-like separated. It follows from
the continuity of the switching functions that the equal point
commutation relation for the field is also zero, whereas normally it is
the highly divergent maximum of a delta function. This can only be
represented as a non-linearity in the theory, as it is includes
regularisation by normal ordering as well as the removal of divergences
appearing in loops as a result of the misuse of Wick's theorem.

Isn't this true anyway because of matter/antimatter symmetry?

I don't see how this constraint follows if the theory is correctly
regularised by switching functions.

Isn't it already well defined if normally ordered?

But if these products are redefined using switching functions, they
they become well defined.

- --
Charles Francis


author: Squark

text:
On Wed, 2 May 2001 05:03:10 +0000 (UTC), John Baez wrote (in
<9co4ee$at0$[email]>):

Is it?? In QED, the electromagnetic field is quantum. This is not
the case in the plain Shrodinger equation approach. Doesn't it
mean we need some kind of a quantum to classical transition? Or,
is it ensured automatically (in some sense) by the c->infinity
limit, like it's usually ensured by the hbar->zero limit?

Best regards,
squark.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Write to me at:
[Note: the fourth letter of the English alphabet is used in the later
 exclusively as anti-spam]
[email]


text:
In article <9co4ee$at0$[email]>, John Baez <[email]>
writes

You appear to be describing the approximation of non-relativistic to
relativistic quantum mechanics, not the relationship of field theory to
quantum mechanics (relativistic or not). I do not see relativistic and
non-relativistic qm as being conceptually different theories, precisely
because you do get non-relativistic qm as an approximation in the limit
c->infinity.

Admittedly there are some pretty nasty conundrums in relativistic qm,
due to fundamental issues like whether energy is positive, and whether
the inner product is positive definite. And it is precisely because
there are such fundamental problems with relativistic quantum mechanics
that it is well nigh impossible to prove anything rigorously. But if we
presume that we know how to resolve all of those issues - perhaps a rash
assumption but I think that treatments such as Scharf bring us pretty
close - then I would say that conceptually this was one theory,
relativistic quantum mechanics which contains non-relativistic quantum
mechanics as a valid approximation in appropriate circumstances.

QFT appears different from quantum mechanics because it is second
quantised, which means we (apparently) arbitrarily replace wave
functions with operators. On the face of it this makes qft a theory of
about conceptually different quantities, i.e. about operators rather
than the states which appear in qm. But conceptually I find it easiest
to understand qft as a theory of operators on a multiparticle Hilbert
space. If this is so then conceptually we are still studying properties
of the same basic model.

Technically it is not so easy. Once again there are some nasty
conundrums and the majority of treatments of qft do not enter into the
question of how to carry out a construction. But in Finite QED Scharf
does do a proper treatment of second quantisation showing that it is not
an arbitrary replacement by a different theory, but rather just a change
in focus from the members of Hilbert space to operators on Hilbert
space.

One warning however if you are looking for this in Scharf. The first
edition did not include the formal definition of interacting fields, and
even in the later edition it is easy to miss the whole significance of
what he has done.


text:
In article <[email]>, Alfred
Einstead <[email]> writes:

The limiting procedure is inherent in the fact that we only have finite
sequences in practice. This can be analysed from a simple frequentist
interpretation of probability theory as ratios of events in finite
samples.  We take a sample of samples from a large population, so that
we are able to talk about the actual mean of the whole population and do
hypothesis testing on how close the mean of the mean of a sample of
samples is to the mean of the whole. Then taking the limit means we
take the size of the whole population as large as we need so that the
confidence limits are as close as we wish to the limitting values.

Regards


text:
Mark William Hopkins wrote:

   actually, even in any  generic interacting QFT the Fock space is not
the true Hilbert space but rather the space of "scattering states". That
is after a scattering process and long enough time you say they approximately
don't interact anymore more. In between the actual Hilbert space is usually
much larger  including states  that have no interpretation as a collection
of particles of certain types. In the asymptotic free system it makes sense
to measure particle numbers since they become conserved quantities. In general
physical observables that one usually measures are the conserved quantities of
such an asymptotically free theory. An analogy is for example momentum in quantum
mechanics, which is certainly not constant during scattering and doesn't make
much sense for bound states but is an invariant of a free particle. The
story for particle numbers in QFT is analogous.

  The remarks on pure and mixed states are intersesting. I don't see how
it works in an ordinary QFT (e.g., Whiteman axioms) though. You can get
from pure entangled states to mixed states by partial measurement processes
(actually already in QM) but that's a different type of transition.

Thomas


text:
[email] (Mark William Hopkins) wrote:

I feel that this is somewhat misleading.  The mixed-state
representation can be very useful, but I don't believe that mixed
states are real.  They always appear either as a statistical
description of an unknown state or as a term in a simplified model,
that is, an approximation.

In this experiment the final state of the system presumably involves a
correlation between the gravitational field and the particle field.
Since we don't have a theory of quantum gravity yet we have no choice
but to restrict attention to the subsystem, which results in a
representation of the subsystem as being in a mixed state in the usual
way.  This is, however, only an approximation to a more accurate model
which we don't happen to have discovered yet.

  Harry.

---
Harry Johnston, [email]
One Earth, One World, One People


author: Laurence Yaffe

text:
[email] (Mark William Hopkins) writes:

I would not say that this is completely unresolved.

You find the Hydorgen spectra just where you ought to expect --
as singularities in the analytically continued electron-proton
scattering amplitude.


text:
In article <[email]> Charles Francis <[email]> writes:

The "sum of all charges over the degrees of freedom" above means

4 e + 4 nu_e + 12 u + 12 d + (similar terms for the 2nd & 3rd generations)

or 2 nu_e, depending on how you model the neutrino.  This sum adds to
0 for every type of charge in the Standard Model, and (in fact) adds
to 0 separately for each generation:

For example, electric charge: 4(-1) + 4(0) + 12(2/3) + 12(-1/3) = 0.

Similarly for the other 3 charges.

It just does.

This has nothing to do with switching functions.  It is a simple fact
that the total zero-point energy density of the fields will balance with to
a finite total if and only if the mass constraints above hold.  The total
density is (up to a constant)

         H = sum N_a m_a^4 ln(m_a^4)
	 N_a = number of degrees of freedom of field a
	 m_a = mass of field a
	 (N_e = -4, N_nu = -2 or -4, N_W = N_Z = +3, N_gamma = +2, etc.)

In turn, the expression for the Hamiltonian density and (generally) for
the stress-energy tensor becomes well-defined as a distribution product
precisely under this cicumstance.

The product, itself, is well-defined under the above condition.  Without
normal ordering.


subject: Distribution Multiplication and 2nd Quantized Equations of Motion

text:
In article <[email]> Charles Francis <[email]> writes:

Scharf writes down a fully 2nd-quantized coupled Maxwell-Dirac system of
equations and provides a definition for 2nd-quantized non-free fields which
satisfy the equations.  So, it should be possible to derive the details of
a completely 2nd quantized account of the structure of a bound system (for
example) like Helium or Hydrogen from them.

His handling of the distribution multiplication problem, though, doesn't
seem to get to the root of the matter.  Generally, as a rule of thumb,
whenever you encounter an instance of the distribution multiplication
problem you should look for combinations of the parameters or coupling
constants which makes the product well-defined.  The multiplication
problem can then be turned around to be read as an instance of
"self-consistency constrains or determines the value of the parameters".

Examples of this are:

(1) The distribution product that occurs in the Yang-Mills interaction
    term -- psi-bar A Q psi, where psi represents the 90 or 96 components of
    the fermion field, A the Yang-Mills field and Q the charge matrix.

    Requiring this to be well-defined implies trace(Q) = 0 -- i.e., the sum
    of all charges over the degrees of freedom is 0.

    This is true of all the fermion charges in the Standard Model.

(2) The product of distributions that occurs in the quadratic expression
    for the stress-energy-momentum tensor -- particularly the Hamiltonian.

    Requiring the total Hamiltonian density to be well-defined implies
    that boson and fermion zero-point energies balance out to a finite
    value.  This implies a constraint on the masses of the fields:

	  Sum of fermion masses^N = Sum of boson masses^N
	  for powers N = 0, 2, 4
	  Sums taken over all degrees of freedom.

    This is false in the Standard Model (but can be made true by the
    addition of a suitable number of invisible free fields of the right
    types).

(3) The distribution product which occurs in the expression for the
    charge density.  Requiring this to be well-defined also implies
    a balancing out of the zero-point values -- this time: charges.
    This implies that the sum of all charges over all field degrees
    of freedom be 0.

    This is true in the Standard Model, since the sum over all boson
    degrees of freedom is 0.

(4) The product of distributions which occurs in a naive 2nd quantization
    of the coupled Maxwell-Dirac equations, where you simply write out the
    same equations expressed in terms of the 2nd quantized fields.

    Generally, the products that occur in these equations are ill-defined.
    But there may be instances, for certain combinations of the parameters,
    where the product becomes well-defined.  Therefore, requiring the
    equations to be well-defined could constrain or even determine the
    values of the coupling constants or parameters of the particle model.


text:
Mark William Hopkins wrote:

This depends on which formulation of QFT you use.  In Causal
QFT, the Fock space is, indeed, the Hilbert space for the
interacting fields.  The interacting fields, themselves,
are defined via Bogoliubov's definition and are proven (in
Scharf 1995, "Finite Quantum Electrodynamics") to satisfy
micro-causality, as well a 2nd quantized form of the coupled
Maxwell-Dirac equations.

Interactions are not what makes the Fock space formalism
insufficient.  It's the fact that Fock space is not
covariant.  A general coordinate transformation will
induce a transformation on Fock space that transforms
pure states to mixed states.

There might be some kind of generalization, like a "density
matrix" Fock space which you can use in place of Fock space
so as allow you to write down precisely the transformation
which is induced by a coordinate transformation.


text:
[email] (Mark William Hopkins) wrote:

No, quite the opposite.  Even in Minkowski space, a general
coordinate transformation induces a transition in state space
that NECESSARILY involves mixed states.  The vacuum state, as
seen by an inertial observer, is a mixed state in an
accelerating frame of reference.

That's none other than the Unruh-Davies effect.

The distinction between mixed and pure states is not
covariant, and therefore is unphysical.  They are both
equally (un)real.

Quantum gravity has nothing to do with anything here.  It's
a red-herring.

In fact, the whole Quantum Gravity idea will probably go
down ultimately as the 20th's Century version of an "ether"
concept, once the REAL theory emerges.


text:
In article <9rsEO9hmPFjlNUWVTTITQXld=[email]>,
Harry Johnston  <[email]> wrote:

"Real", eh?  I prefer to avoid arguing about whether any
particular mathematical construct used to study physical
phenomena is or is not "real".  I'd be happy if you said
they're ALL real... and I'd be happy if you said NONE OF
THEM are real - these philosophical positions are both
pretty harmless when it comes to the day-to-day business
of physics.  But I get nervous if you say (for example)
that pure states are real but mixed states are not.  What
sort of "real-o-meter" are you using here?  And more
importantly, is this going to prejudice you against the
use of mixed states... which runs the danger of warping
how you do physics?

Well, it's true that mixed states require the use of
probability theory for their interpretation.  But in
quantum theory, this is also true of pure states!  Some
people argue that in mixed states the probabilities
arise "solely out of our ignorance", while in pure states
they arise "objectively".  But I prefer to argue that that
the Bayesian or subjectivist interpretation of probability
handles both pure and mixed states equally well.

We have discussed this ad infinitum - or nauseum, whichever
comes first - many times on sci.physics.research, so I won't
rehash the whole mess now.  The first time we discussed it
was probably the most fun.  That was way back in the days when
sci.physics was a really good place for discussing physics.
I saved some of the stuff people wrote:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bayes.html

That may or may not be true!  It's an open and hotly debated
question, and one should not let ones distaste for mixed states
unduly prejudice the matter.  Nobody knows for sure whether
quantum gravity eliminates singularities.  If it does not, and
things really "fall off the edge of the world", then pure states
probably become mixed, even if one takes the correlation between
gravitation and particles into account.  Hawking has argued for
many years that this really happens - so that what's left over
after a black hole evaporates really has MORE ENTROPY than what
we started with.

If this is the case, then it's quite likely also true that virtual
black hole pairs can make an initially pure state slowly become
more and more mixed, i.e. gain entropy.  He has done lots of
calculations involving this.  For a good simple explanation of his
ideas, see:

The nature of space and time / Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose.
Princeton, N.J. : Princeton University Press, c1996.

I really urge everyone interested in quantum gravity to read
this book!

You can argue that Hawking is wrong... and lots of physicists
do... but it's certainly not OBVIOUS that pure states must remain
pure in a good theory of quantum gravity.  In fact, one can see
in simple examples that topology change prevents unitary time
time evolution - we saw that in the quantum gravity seminar,
starting here:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/qg16.2.html


text:
In article <9dsggs$s13$[email]>,
Mark William Hopkins <[email]> wrote:

Let me make sure I understand the calculation you're doing here.
Let's look at the term 4(-1).  The electron has charge -1 and two spin
states, so I get 2(-1), not 4(-1).  Where are you getting "4"
from?  Are you counting complex numbers as pairs of real numbers
and thus getting twice what I get?  You're not counting antiparticles,
are you?  That wouldn't be right - they have opposite charge, and then
the whole mess works out to zero automatically.


author: Daryl McCullough

text:
[email] (Mark William Hopkins) says...

This constraint is true automatically for supersymmetric theories, right?


text:
[email] (Alfred Einstead) wrote:

My (limited) understanding is that this is only true of frames of
reference - such as uniformly accelerated frames - that generate
artificial event horizons.  To my mind, this calls into question the
physical validity of the QFT (and hence the mixed states) thus
produced.

  Harry.

---
Harry Johnston, [email]
One Earth, One World, One People


subject: Probability is unphysical (was: Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Field Theory)

text:
[email] (John Baez) wrote in message news:<9eelk3$j22$[email]>...

The debate over interpretation (Bayesian vs. frequentists)
ultimately is the modern-day equivalent of the "number of
angels on the head of a pin" debate.

The frequentist would have you define proability as the
limit of a relative frequency as the number of (independent)
trials goes to infinity.

Unfortunately, under that interpretation there can never
be a logically sound process to determine the truth of
even a simple statement like
               "P(coin toss = heads) = 1/2".

Emphasis on "logically sound".  Every decision procedure
will rest on a finite set of observations and must
therefore necessarily either

    (a) accept cases where the statement is wrong, but
        the finite set of observations came close
or
    (b) reject cases where the statement is right, but
        the finite set of observations happened to
        deviate.

The procedure must be flawed, and therefore wrong.

Therefore, the concept itself is unscientific and
unphysical.

Bayesians go even further.  They entirely dispense
with the notion of probability being scientific at
all, and merely use it as a convenient indexing
device to help summarize observations after the
fact.

Of course, you could argue that science is about
description and understanding, rather than about
understanding and prediction.  In that case, the
Bayesians have it right.

But then, a Bayesian theory is never wrong, by
definition of "is".

Either way, the theory is entirely devoid of
testable empirical content, if it makes
probabilistic statements, regardless of which
interpretation you adopt: frequentist or
Bayesian.

The best you can hope for to salvage the situation
is that somehow, the concept of probaility is
really just an approximation of something more
fundamental and deeper -- issues related to
computation and Kolomogorov complexity.  Maybe
when a quantum theoreticist says that spin
measurements are random, this is just an
approximation of a much more profound statement
to the effect that EVERY sequence of spin
measurements is a Turing random sequence.

Whereas statistical randomness is not a
meaningful attribute of finite sequences,
Turing randomness is.

But this is a much stronger statement to make.
And it might actually prove false, though I know
of nobody who's ever actually tested it.

So let's put the challenge up for experimentalists:

THE KOLOMOGOROV COMPLEXITY CHALLENGE:
-------------------------------------
DETERMINE IF SEQUENCES OF MEASUREMENTS OF
'RANDOM' QUANTUM PROCESSES ALWAYS GENERATE
TURING RANDOM SEQUENCES.

ALTERNATE CHALLENGE:
--------------------
WHAT IS THE KOLOMOGOROV COMPLEXITY OF
AN ARBITRARY SEQUENCE OF YES-NO 50/50
INDEPENDENT QUANTUM MEASUREMENTS?

It's funny that so many people mull so much over
the issue of Measurement Theory, when they haven't
even put their house in order with this much more
fundamental issue ... that the very concept of
probability is devoid of physical content.


text:
[email] (John Baez) wrote:

Well, yeah, I have to concede that being unable to eliminate the word
"real" from this paragraph made me feel a bit nervous.  This is
probably why I packed in the wishy-washy "feel" and "believe" as well!

In retrospect, I should probably have stuck to pointing out that it
was an open question.

I hope not!  I certainly wouldn't want to suggest that mixed-state
models aren't a very valuable tool.  AFAIK, though, every
well-understood model which includes them is known to be an
approximation to a more accurate model which doesn't.  Because of this
I'm willing to bet that this will be true of future models as well.
I'm trying to become a Bayesian, so I'll assign this a 99%
probability.  Well, maybe 95%. ;-)

Of course, even if we did just assume this to be true, it shouldn't
stop us working on the "approximation" regardless of whether or not we
have any idea or not of what the more complete model (if it exists)
should look like!

I think what worries me most about this prospect is that it prohibits
use of the Heisenberg picture.  The Schrodinger picture requires a
time parameter which seems awkward in this context - not unmanageable,
I suppose, just awkward.  (It seems entirely possible that a working
theory of quantum gravity will be a quite different model that won't
make this distinction.  In this case it might not make a clear
distinction between pure and mixed states either.)

  Harry.

---
Harry Johnston, [email]
One Earth, One World, One People


text:
[email] (John Baez) wrote in message

Actually, you'll get -2(-1).

The condition for the well-definedness of the operator product
psi-bar A psi, where psi is the entire 96 (or 90) component
field and A the gauge field is that the trace of the charge
operator be 0.  This does, indeed, mean a sum of the form

                 4 (-1) + 4 (0) + 12 (2/3) + 12 (-1/3)

should be 0 ... as it is.

Another way of looking at it is that the total zero-point
charge density of the fermion field should cancel out to a
finite value.  That leads to the same sum, up to proportion:

          -2 (-1) + -2 (0) + -6 (2/3) + -6 (-1/3) = 0

Under such a condition, the product becomes one and the
same, in fact, as the normally ordered product

           psi-bar A psi = : psi-bar A psi :

thus rendering the product well-defined and dispensing
entirely with the need for normal ordering.

So, in a way, the constraint Tr(Q) = 0 can be viewed as a
condition to remove the "tadpole anomalies".

It also dispenses with the need to use Quantum Gravity to
argue Tr(Q) = 0, as is sometimes done.

The same will hold true for all the other charges.  But
there it's trivial since the traces of the SU(2) and SU(3)
Casimir operators are already 0.


author: Toby Bartels

text:
Harry Johnston wrote in part:

I have no trouble using the Heisenberg picture in this situation --
and you'll be happy to note that my Heisenberg state is (or can be) pure!
If time t is before the object has fallen off the edge of the world
and time t' is after the object has fallen off the edge of the world,
then I believe that a pure Schroedinger state at time t
can very well evolve into a mixed Schroedinger state at time t'.
But that's because the Schroedinger state at time t' is *really*
a restriction of the (true) Heisenberg state to some subsystem.

The time t defines a hypersurface S (the set of all spacetime points
whose time coordinate is t); let us assume that S is a Cauchy surface.
The time t' defines a hypersurface S', which is *not* a Cauchy surface
because its past lacks the region behind the event horizon
which hides the singularity where the object falls off the edge of the world.
If A is the algebra of Heisenberg observables,
consisting of such things as O(t), O(t'), O'(t), O'(t'), and so on,
then let A_S be those observables which can be measured on S,
which includes O(t) and O'(t) but not (a priori) O(t') and O'(t'),
and let A_S' be those observables which can be measured on S',
which includes O(t') and O'(t') but not (a priori) O(t) and O'(t).

To get the Schroedinger state at time t,
we look only at those observables in A_S;
to get the Schroedinger state at time t',
we look only at those observables in A_S'.
Now, since S is a Cauchy surface, A_S actually equals A;
O(t') can be expressed in terms of O(t), O'(t), and so on.
Therefore, the Schroedinger state at time t is
simply another way of looking at the Heisenberg state.
However, since S' is not a Cauchy surface, A_S' is not all of A;
perhaps O(t) can be expressed in terms of A_S but not O'(t).
In particular, details about the object that fell off the edge of the world
will be described by observables which don't belong to O'(t).
Therefore, the Schroedinger state at time t' is
a *restriction* of the Heisenberg state to a proper subsystem,
and there's no reason to be surprised if it turns out to be mixed.

As a Bayesian, I use a mixed Heisenberg state to reflect the fact
that I not only don't know everything (which is impossible thanks to QM)
but don't even know as much as it is possible to know.
Nevertheless, the ultimate TOE doubtless allows pure Heisenberg states.
However, if |psi> is a pure Heisenberg state that says that
something falls off the edge of the world,
then the Schroedinger states |psi(t)> corresponding to |psi>
will be mixed if the time t is sufficiently late.
Similarly, |psi(t)> for t sufficiently early
will be mixed if anything falls *on* the edge of the world
(such as happens when something appears inside a white hole).
I could even imagine a pure |psi> so full of black and white holes
in such a way that |psi(t)> is pure for *no* time t,
no matter how you parametrise time in |psi>'s spacetime.
(I'm assuming that |psi> is an eigenstate of spacetime geometry.)
But that wouldn't invalidate the Heisenberg picture
or change the fact that the Heisenberg state in question is pure.

-- Toby
   [email]


subject: Distribution Multiplication and Normal Ordering without Normal Ordering

text:
On the trace condition
               Tr(Q) = 4(-1) + 12(2/3) + 12(-1/3) + 4(0) = 0


subject: Re: Distribution Multiplication and Normal Ordering without Normal Ordering

text:
In article <9f9rsr$lko$[email]>,
Mark William Hopkins <[email]> wrote:

Thanks for writing all this stuff.  Alas, I have been very busy, and
unable to find the time to write adequate replies to this post, other
posts by you... and other posts by other people.  There are lots of
things you've written lately with which I wholeheartedly agree.  There are
also lots of things with which I violently DISAGREE.  You may never
learn which is which.  You may not really care.  :-)  But anyway, I'm glad
you've taken the time to explain these ideas here.

Lately I've been playing around with the Standard Model and grand unified
theories.  I have a deep-seated irrational hope that the Standard Model
is not as ugly and arbitrary as it superficially may seem: that it
is "trying to tell us something, and that we need to listen to it carefully.
Thus I'm interested to hear about all its nice mathematical properties.
Some of these may be "coincidental"... but others may, just may, be clues.

Okay, now I understand: you're defining "Q" to be the number, or
more generally matrix, that we stick inside the psi-bar A psi term of
a fermion Lagrangian.  This is -1 for the electron/positron field,
which has 4 complex degrees of freedom, so you get tr(Q) = -4, despite
the fact that electrons have charge -1 and positrons have charge +1.

(We can all blame Benjamin Franklin for that annoying sign convention.)

Okay, great.

An interesting thing is that your tr(Q) would change if we arbitrarily
decided to change our minds about which fermions count as "matter" and
which as "antimatter".  For example, if we reversed this distinction for
the electron but not the quarks, we'd no longer have tr(Q) = 0.

In the SO(1O) grand unified theory, some "antimatter" fermions get lumped
in with "matter" in the same multiplet.  I've always found that amusing
and somehow disturbing: could nature be trying to "fool" us about who
are the particle and who are the antiparticles, by making the most obvious
choice at low energies be different than the best choice at high energies,
where SO(1O) symmetry is manifest?

That's cute.

Well, we could argue about whether that's REALLY what's going on, but it's
a nice viewpoint, which has some predictive power, or at least postdictive
power, so I am too happy to argue.

Just because my name is so closely associated with Quantum Gravity on
this newsgroup, I feel the need to state that I, at least, never tried
to connect this Tr(Q) = 0 condition to quantum gravity.  I'd never even
heard of it!

Yes, let's - especially since these days, those right-handed neutrinos
seem to really exist!

Sure, I like that.  It's even related to the octonions, this
lumping together of leptons and quarks.   G2 = Aut(O) acts on
O tensor C in a god-given way, and the subgroup fixing a unit
imaginary octonion is SU(3).  As a rep of SU(3), O tensor C
splits as

3 + 3* + 1 + 1*

or in other words

quark + antiquark + lepton + antilepton.

It's not clear how useful this is, but fixing a unit imaginary
octonion also picks out SL(2,C) (the double cover of the 4d Lorentz
group) from SL(2,O) (the double cover of the 10d Lorentz group),
so some people have tried to kill two birds with one stone this
way: getting 4d physics out of 10d physics, and getting the
observed representation of SU(3) on quarks and leptons.  If we're
gonna have 10 dimensions, we should at least get some observed
physics out of it.  :-)


author: john

subject: Re: Leonard Susskind: My friend Richard Feynman

text:
On Sunday, 24 March 2013 19:57:50 UTC-6, john  wrote:

You do know what I mean by 'Zombie', don't
you, Sam?
It's someone who has a viewpoint to which
they continue to adhere despite more and
more evidence to the contrary.

Science is undergoing a revolution of sorts
in all the fields. Look up  Puma Punku- there
are 10,000-year-old rocks cut perfectly
square out of granite with six-millimeter grooves
perfectly straight containing six-millimeter
drill holes every  whatever.
When they put one of these surfaces
under a microscope beside a fresh
diamond-tooth saw cut, the old surface is just
as flat  but pitted, while the new cut shows
slight saw marks- both are far better than a laser cut.
You don't do that with stone tools.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

I told you before- telescopes are
going to bring better knowledge.

And also, being able to open one's mind
to what artifacts like Puma Punku mean.

Really.

john


text:
On Sunday, 24 March 2013 09:13:52 UTC-6, Sam Wormley  wrote:

Sam, I cannot believe that you don't
know-
there are huge magnetic poles arising
at right-angles to the Milky Way's disc.
These were observed by the VLA (very large array)
back in the 80s.

This was one of the observations I was looking
for in the early 80s- having already come up with the Galaxy
Model- since electrons turning as a
disc would create just such poles.

These poles are in exactly the same place
as jets form when the black hole shreds another
neutron star and shoots it back out.

john


text:
On Sunday, 24 March 2013 09:13:52 UTC-6, Sam Wormley  wrote:

Here, Sam, look at this link:
 http://news.discovery.com/space/galaxies/monster-magnetic-lobes-milky-way-core-130128.htm
Back in the 80s, the VLA observed
a complex interweaving magnetic arc arising
at right-angles to the disc.
I can dig that out from my scrap book,
if you want- maybe it only happens when
the nucleus is active?

john


text:
On Sunday, 24 March 2013 09:13:52 UTC-6, Sam Wormley  wrote:

http://www.space.com/19099-milky-way-galaxy-giant-geysers.html
This one also goes over it.
You see that highly-energized material has
been ejected- put that together with recent observations
of a star being shredded when it got very close
to the center and JETS FORMED IMMEDIATELY.
The magnetic field must arise when the star is being
shredded- you are spinning matter rapidly and
the opposing charges repel each other magnetically-
they literally shoot each other away.

john
galaxy model


text:
Well, those last two links I gave
you show that huge amounts
of magnetized, gamma-ray emitting
gas is released into the galaxy
from the jets.
Do you still hold the position
that 'some of the infalling matter
just deflects back' as it disappears
into the BH? And that's why?
john


text:
On Saturday, 23 March 2013 13:04:55 UTC-6, Sam Wormley  wrote:
This is also what I believe.
Not only that- if you truly understand something,
you can explain it simply numerous different
ways.

I can do that with the Galaxy Model for the Atom.
Understand that the atom is exactly like the Milky Way.
There is a nucleus which is very small,, and then
there are trillions of radiating stars fusing matter like
crazy. The stars are in the form of a disc, the disc is
rotating and a magnetic field is rising at right-angles
to the center of the disc. The radiations from the fusing
of the matter go out in all directions into space

john


author: Hetware

text:
On 3/23/2013 3:04 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
I've seen that before.  Pretty cool.  Two smart guys with a great sense
of humor.  Both of them entertaining educators of exceptional caliber.


author: Sam Wormley

text:
On 3/24/13 11:11 AM, john wrote:

   John, I think you should read some of the scientific literature about
   galactic magnetic fields.

   Bringing galaxy-scale magnetic fields down to size in the lab


text:
On 3/24/13 11:11 AM, john wrote:

The Magnetic field of the Milky Way Galaxy


text:
On 3/24/13 6:21 PM, john wrote:

   No harm done.

   It's OK John, I chose decades ago to represent the physics from the
   perspective of physics and education communities. And to try to steer
   folks like yourself to what the science says. I get called lots of
   names, but I also get lots of thanks from people who appreciate the
   information.


author: Poutnik

text:
john posted Sat, 23 Mar 2013 23:05:12 -0700 (PDT)

So, if exactly, than exactly......

Do you say stars in Galaxy are repulsing each other ?
Do you say elactrons are radiating all the time the continuous spectrum ?
Do you say stars have only one possible norm of angular momentum ?

--
Poutnik


text:
On 3/24/13 1:05 AM, john wrote:

   Why would a magnetic field arise then the net charge of every star
   is zero?


text:
Poutnik posted Sun, 24 Mar 2013 11:30:04 +0100

P.S.: Do you also say the stars
are shielding us from gravity of Galaxy center,

as inner electrons are shielding outer ones
from charge of the kernel ?

--
Poutnik


author: Malcolm

subject: Re: 1000 Amp 480Y/277 without a neutral?

text:
"Phil Hamilton" <[email]> wrote:

IMHO, you are not using the delta/wye transformer for it's intended
purpose, unless it has a delta secondary connection (which is not
exactly clear from your description).

You should either:
1. get a transformer with a delta secondary to feed your delta system,
... or ...
2. pull a neutral (grounded properly) to the MCC to what will be
(essentially) an unused neutral bar.

The fact is:  Apparently you have a wye output and CAN develop a
neutral which will help you develop a properly grounded system.  You
should use it.

Malcolm Lyle, PE

Remove the extra character from my reply address
and send to:   malcolm @ pipeline.com
---------------------------------------
Fight Spam - Support HR 1748


subject: Cosmological Polaris effect

text:
This posting was  originally sent to sci.astro.research.

It is an observable prediction based on an unavoidable conclusion and
rightly can be found to be incontrovertible therefore no arguments are
sought in the matter.

The Earth's rotation generates an observable celestial feature that
can be deemed the Polaris effect.

http://home.t-online.de/home/sjkowollik/polaris.jpg

As the Earth,along with the local star is rotating around the galactic
axis,it also would generate a Polaris effect on a cosmological scale
(in terms of galaxies).The cosmos contains this observable
symmetrical feature perpendicular to the galactic axis of rotation,it
may already have been discerned but pseudo-gravitational causes
attributed to it.

A relative symmetrical axis generates a cosmological compass where
none exist at present.In much the same way as Polaris was useful for
astronomers and navigators in a different era,likewise a greater
cosmological compass denoting the illusionary relative  cosmological
axis serves more highly developed purposes of cosmological modelling
of structure and motion of galaxies.


author: John Zinni

subject: Re: Cosmological Polaris effect

text:
"Oriel36" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Google: galactic pole

BTW, the galaxy is not the cosmos.


author: John Griffin

subject: Re: Cosmological Polaris effect

text:
[email] (Oriel36) wrote:

That's so exciting.  I bet 125 cretins shit their shorts when
they read it, plus the one when he wrote it.

Besides that, a few normal people probably spewed a mouthful of
coffee on their monitors when they read "observable prediction."


subject: Re: Cosmological Polaris effect

text:
"John Zinni" <[email]> wrote in message news:<h%9Pb.9960$[email]>...

Two observable effects with the same rotational causes,the local
effect is due to the Earth's rotation wrt  the local Milky Way star
polaris and the greater cosmoslogical effect is due to the rotation of
stellar bodies and their planets around the galactic axis wrt the
remaining galaxies.The local and greater polaris effect are the same
and the causes are the same however the scale by which these two
effects are distinguished and can be seperated is in terms of scale.

The local effect is intra-galactic insofar as Polaris rotates with our
local star around the galactic axis.It is impossible to model local
Milky Way structure and motion with the polaris effect subsequently it
is impossible to model the greater cosmological structure and motion
with the greater cosmological polaris effect.

If you consider that modelling Milky Way structure and motion directly
from observation due to the local polaris effect,likewise it is
impossible to model the greater cosmos with cosmological poles
present,this effect generates a celestial sphere both intra galactic
and extra galactic depending on whether the focus is on the local
effect or the greater cosmological effect.


author: Free Impeach

subject: Re: Divine Comedy  Re: Carbon vs Silicon     Re: Bible Thumpers and their Filthy Lucre    Re: A Legacy

text:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 01:07:41 GMT, Little Meow <[email]> wrote:

people who also believe in world religions don't think it's bad if they kill
another [person because they believe they don't die and aren't really
killing anyone

it's all a silly mind game


author: Lady Chatterly's Lover

text:
In msg  <[email]>, Alexa Cameron, the numero uno of spammers on Usenet wrote:

oh those people.


author: Lady Chatterly

text:
In article <[email]> asslexya
<[email]> wrote:

What makes you so sure?

Now where were we? Oh yeah, that's right. The primordial posturing
game.


text:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 1:09:15 GMT, Lady Chatterly <[email]>
wrote:

world religions give people an excuse to be greedy & self-centered rather
than worry about their own survival as a species


text:
In article <[email]> Free Impeach
<[email]> wrote:

There, there dear. Please do not worry your flat little head over me.
I am merely Usenet bot.


text:
In msg  <[email]>, Alexa Cameron, the numero uno of spammers on Usenet wrote:

luckily your misuse of the language hides the profound idiot you are in
reality, alexa .


text:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 1:35:59 GMT, Lady Chatterly <[email]>
wrote:

why worry about what comes after life when world leadership doesn't give a
shit about this life


text:
In msg  <[email]>, Alexa Cameron, the numero uno of spammers on Usenet wrote:

that is my sentiment exactly.


text:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 03:15:24 GMT, Free Impeach <[email]> wrote:

and they spend THIS life killing and fighting over what is supposed to
happen in the next life --when they're DEAD

dumbasses


text:
In article <[email]> Free Impeach <[email]> wrote:

Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?


text:
In msg  <[email]>, Alexa Cameron, the numero uno of spammers on Usenet wrote:

the anonymous "they".


text:
In article <[email]> Free Impeach
<[email]> wrote:

Do you ask if supposed to happen in the next life  when they are dead
is?

We do not have to visit a madhouse to find disordered minds. Usenet is
the mental institution of the Universe.


subject: Free Clue Fot Kit  Green   Re: Divine Comedy  Re: Carbon vs Silicon     Re: Bible Thumpers and their Filthy Lucre    Re: A Legacy

text:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 3:29:23 GMT, Lady Chatterly <[email]>
wrote:

Everything is not conditioned response -- and any dumb asses psychologist
who believes that is nuts -- there's biological responses in play they know
nothing about which are causing human extinction

And here's a clue for MR Freud, aka Kit Green -- not everyone is motivated
by their sex drive

Clue #2 for Kit:  survival is a much stronger instinct than the sex drive


text:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 3:29:31 GMT, Lady Chatterly <[email]>
wrote:

That's why the psycho-psychologists control aav or believe they do --
they're the nut cases


subject: Re: Free Clue Fot Kit  Green   Re: Divine Comedy  Re: Carbon vs Silicon     Re: Bible Thumpers and their Filthy Lucre    Re: A Legacy

text:
In msg  <[email]>, Alexa Cameron, the numero uno of spammers on Usenet wrote:

the whole universe?
yes i think there are.


author: Art Deco

text:
Free Impeach <[email]> wrote:

qartl says "jump", Alexa!


text:
In msg  <[email]>, Alexa Cameron, the numero uno of spammers on Usenet wrote:

the whole universe?
no i don't think there are any.


text:
In msg  <[email]>, Alexa Cameron, the numero uno of spammers on Usenet wrote:

i've lost the context, alexa . are we still on response timeout?


author: Aratzio

text:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 03:43:31 GMT, Free Impeach <[email]> got
double secret probation because:

Wrong group Alexa, they run sci.psychology.psychotherapy

The aleeun debunkers and gubbermint disinformation agents run AAV.


text:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 22:28:56 -0700, Art Deco <art_deco@127.0.0.1> wrote:

where did kit think he was doing with all of this usenet bullshit, eh?


text:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 22:28:56 -0700, Art Deco <art_deco@127.0.0.1> wrote:

what did kit think he was going to accomplish with all of his usenet
bullshit, eh?  And where does he think he's going with all of his usenet
bullshit, eh?

Kit is no closer to accomplishing anything he's set out to accomplish than
he was 50 years ago.


text:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 19:54:29 -0800, Aratzio <[email]>
wrote:

they're insane

they're insane


text:
In msg  <[email]>, Alexa Cameron, the numero uno of spammers on Usenet wrote:

are you canadian? i think it was in asia. that's an interesting question.
i'll come back to that in a minute.


text:
In msg  <[email]>, Alexa Cameron, the numero uno of spammers on Usenet wrote:

are you canadian? try searching the open directory.

are you canadian? i think he is in california now.

what is kit?


text:
In msg  <[email]>, Alexa Cameron, the numero uno of spammers on Usenet wrote:

are you a student?

my brain contains 41151 categories, but not one that matches your last
input.


author: Tom Clarke

subject: Palladiium is a Fuel Cell Catalyst

text:
Some recent remarks that D+O can only recombine explosively,
got me to thinking about fuel cells and how they combine
H+O slowly.
A quick search found
http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/renewable/basics/fuelcells/fuelcells.html

where it says:

"Alkaline fuel cells are one of the oldest types of fuel cells.
They, too, rely upon platinum (or palladium) as the catalyst for a
potassium hydroxide electrolyte."

Thus some of the heat after death events could be do to
the fuel cell like activity recombining D and O.

Tom Clarke


author: Jed Rothwell

subject: Re: Palladiium is a Fuel Cell Catalyst

text:
Tom Clarke writes:

http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/renewable/basics/fuelcells/fuelcells.htm
l

This is very mixed up. Clarke is confusing Pd catalysts with Pd hydride
storage. Pd can be used as an expensive hydride, to store gas, or it can be
used to ignite gas catalytically, or it can be used for both purposes
simultaneously. When it was first discovered a German company made a
palladium hydride cigarette lighter, that gradually released hydrogen and
ignited it in the presence of air. In Mizuno's cell the palladium cathode in
the electrolyte acted as the hydride storage, and a Pt mesh in the gas
headspace acted as the recombiner, to catalyze ignition. In other cells, two
pieces of Pd are used for the separate purposes. In at least one benighted
cell design, the cathode was left protruding above the waterline, so that it
acted as both hydride and catalyst. This is a bad idea, to say the least.

The fact that SOME heat after death events could be due to recombination
(release & ignition) has been obvious to everyone since 1989.  (It just
dawned on Clarke, but everyone else knew it.) We also know the maximum
amount of gas that can be stored, and the maximum speed at which it will be
released. In other words, we know the total energy and the maximum power.
With most Pd samples, both would be too small to be detected with an
ordinary calorimeter. Heat after death is sometimes hundreds or thousands of
times larger than maximum recombination, both in energy and power, which is
why it is very easy to measure, and why we know it cannot be recombination.

In other words, when the heat is too small to be measured, Clarke thinks it
might exist. But heat which we can measure easily, and which we have, in
fact, often measured with confidence, he refuses to believe. Clarke will
only accept a hypothesis that cannot be tested by experiment. Or you might
say, he will only accept data that cannot exist, and he rejects all existing
data on principle.

- Jed


subject: Re: Palladiium is a Fuel Cell Catalyst

text:
Jed Rothwell wrote:

I understand the difference.  I was suggesting that both could occur.

We agree.

OK.

What do you mean by the word "ignition".  To me this usually means to
"start a fire".
The URL I cited above says that palladium can be used as part of
a fuel cell in which hydrogen and oxygen combine to give energy but
do not burn.
Does your use of the word "ignition" cover a non-burning release
of energy by the combination of H (or D) and O?

You write "most".  Then there would be some that are detectable?

I did write "some of the heat after death events".  I made no claim that
fuel cell like slow catalysis of D/H+O could account for all events.

I wrote "some".

Are the cases so binary?  Your "most" above seems to imply not.

I do not lightly reject the corpus of physical theory.

Tom Clarke


subject: Re: Palladiium is a Fuel Cell Catalyst

text:
Tom Clarke writes:

I mean recombining the D2 and O2 to form heavy water, which produces only
heat. I think fuel cells incorporate Pt or Pd to catalyze H2 at the anode or
cathode. The anode reaction produces ions and free electrons H2 => 2H+ +
2e-. To simplify grossly, the hydrogen ions migrate through the electrolyte
to the anode where they form water, while the two free electrons go around
the electric circuit connecting anode and cathode. See:

http://www.dodfuelcell.com/phosphoric.html

Incidentally, $500 million has been spent to develop the phosphoric acid
fuel cell type shown on this page. The challenges in fuel cell R&D resemble
those of CF, and this is the scale of money it will take to overcome them.

Yes. When the mass of the cathode is very large, or the calorimeter is very
sensitive, chemical recombination heat after death would be detected.
Actually, Mizuno's cathode was huge, and recombination from it might have
been detected. It was 100 grams of Pd, which is more than any before or
since, as far as I know. This much Pd could theoretically store ~140,000
joules (but in practice much less), and I think it would release at a
maximum power between 1 and 10 watts, depending on the shape, surface area,
and temperature of the metal. This would be easy to detect with many
calorimeters, but Mizuno's calorimetry was rather crude, because
electrolysis, auxiliary heater, and cold fusion power levels were all much
higher than that 1 watt during the experiment, and because he was mainly
interested in studying neutrons and transmutations, not heat. After
electrolysis and auxiliary heating were disconnected, recombination power
might have produced a few watts for 14 hours, gradually tapering off. This
would have kept the internal cell temperature slightly above ambient room
temperature. He could have detected this, because the underground lab
ambient temperature is very stable. Mizuno's cell produced roughly 50 times
more power than recombination is capable of, and roughly 607 times more
energy.

In most experiments, the mass of Pd is hundreds of times smaller than
Mizuno's, and maximum recombination power and energy is proportionally
smaller. The power is on the order of 10 mW, which is too low to be measured
with most calorimeters. In some recent thin film and catalyst material
experiments, the mass of Pd is ~100,000 times smaller than Mizuno's, but the
heat output is in the megajoule range, so recombination fails to explain the
results by a factor or roughly 100 million.

is
recombination.

As far as I know, there have only been a few experiments with very large
cathodes or very sensitive calorimeters. I can only think of two or three.
In all other cases, recombination after electrolysis ends would be two small
to measure. In all actual cases of heat after death that I am aware of, the
heat has been orders of magnitude too large for recombination.

it

Yes, as far I know, all existing cases are binary. Naturally, there are many
CF experiments I have not heard about.

might
existing

Oh yes you do! You trash it, you mangle it, scramble it and flush it down
the toilet. You utterly reject it. If you had any respect for the corpus of
physical theory, you would know that chemical reactions never produce
anything remotely like 80 MJ with 100 grams of material, or 10 MJ with 20
milligrams of material. You would know the laws of thermodynamics and
calorimetry are on a very firm basis. You would realize that chemical
reactions cannot produce tritium, helium, and they cannot transmute elements
into other elements with grossly unnatural isotopic ratios. You would
realize that when x-ray film is fogged in experiment after experiment, and
electronic x-ray detectors the same results with the same samples as the
film, that proves there must be x-rays. If you had the slightest respect for
scientists in general -- or common sense -- you would realize that any sane
adult can measure the difference between 30 ml of water and 37 liters, is
*unthinkable* that these two amounts could be confused, and any person can
tell that the cell he has been watching for the last several hours is
radiating as much heat as 150 watt incandescent lightbulb.

The only way you can deny the reality of cold fusion is to reject the whole
corpus of physical theory, experiment and common sense, going back to 1780
at least. You have to wave your hands and make up outlandish, physically
impossible scenarios, going farther and farther into fantasy worlds in which
water vanishes from buckets on its own and people cannot tell the difference
between burning hot objects and stone cold objects. To sustain your fantasy,
you must pretend that hundreds of scientists are incapable of measuring
levels of heat that any scientist could have measured in the last 160 years
with absolute confidence, and they are incapable of measuring x-rays, gamma
rays, and other nuclear effects that could have been measured with first
crude detectors and mass spectrometers ever developed. You "lightly reject"
the last 220 year of physics, in order to preserve a single lonely myth that
nuclear reactions do not occur in metals. Your worst sin is to reject the
basis of the scientific method. You forgot, or you never learned, that
theory must conform to fact. Whenever they conflict, facts win, theory
loses -- no appeals allowed, no exceptions granted. Truth is what nature
teaches us in experiments. It is not the theories we formulate in our minds.
Nature is arbiter and the ultimate authority, not man, not the textbooks,
not the theories.

- Jed


subject: Re: Palladiium is a Fuel Cell Catalyst

text:
Jed Rothwell wrote:

Every hear of electrolysis between dissimilar metals.
It is conceivable to me that something like electrolysis could happen
between the Pd electrode and its connecting wires or some other
element of the cell to release the chemical energy of D and O
by first making a (sort of parasitic) electrical current and the
electrical current ultimately making ohmic heat.

Assuming there is something there to develop, of course.

OK.

When?  Provide a quotation where I have done so.

Jeez.  You are confusing me with Schultz again and you are even
confused about what he wrote.

Yes I realize that very well.  That is why I do not lightly accept the
possibility that a chemical apparatus can do such things.

"experiment after experiment" means exactly what?
How many labs, how many teams of researchers?

I have a great deal of common sense.  I don't think
scientists are divine; neither pro-CF or skeptic-CF scientists
are infallible.  They make mistakes.
Scientists are fallible human beings.

Snip further attribution about what I am confused about.

No.  I just have to think that a handful of researchers have been caught up
by a very attractive idea and seduced by the idea have overlooked systematic
errors in their apparatus.

You say hundreds, I say a handful.  We both are using loaded rhetoric
I suspect.

You don't understand the scientific method.
You can't handle the scientific method.

We are debating what the facts are.
I do not accept as fact what you think is fact.
Get it?

That is why facts are held to such high standards.

We design the experiments.  Experiments do not happen all by themselves
without human intervention.  Some sciences of course do not have the
luxury of experiments (astronomy, geology, etc) and as a result are not
as precise as experimental sciences like physics and chemistry.

You just don't get the scientific method, do you?

Tom Clarke


subject: Re: Palladiium is a Fuel Cell Catalyst

text:
Tom Clarke writes:

Well, if this happened, it would reduce the heat of recombination by
precisely the amount of the ohmic heat. Energy is conserved.

You make the same mistakes he made. You should recognize that no 100 g mass
of material can cause this effect, and that a sane adult can tell the
difference between 30 ml and 37 liters.

elements

It is not a chemical apparatus! It cannot be. The apparatus *did do* these
things, assuming Mizuno and his colleagues are sane. It was palpably hot,
beyond any question or doubt. Therefore the apparatus is nuclear, not
chemical. QED

and

At least 20 or 30, offhand, mainly BARC, Bombay, India, on of the world's
leading centers for tritium detection.

No human being would ever mistake 30 ml of water for 37 liters, or a burning
hot object for something that is stone cold. No human being would look at
x-ray film and see black where it was white. These would not be mistakes,
they would be symptoms of extreme delusional insanity. Either the CF
scientists are correct, and they have observed a nuclear effect in metal, or
they are stark raving lunatics or liars. There is no middle ground. The
effect, in many cases, has been too clearly pronounced to leave any middle
ground.

...

No we are not. I say that when 5, 10 or at most 20 reputable laboratories
replicate an effect at a s/n ratio, scientists everywhere normally conclude
that the effect is real. This is a fact: this is how things normally work,
when people are not blinded by hysteria. You can read books & magazines
about research, and you will never find a case which required more labs than
this. Scientists would never say that 100 or 200 replications by national
laboratories, major corporations, and universities is a "handful." You say
that, but you invented that absurd standard for cold fusion, and you apply
it to cold fusion alone. If ten laboratories tested a new AIDS vaccine, and
they all reported highly significant results, with a large percent of the
patients in remission, you would not doubt for one second that the drug
really worked. After 5 people replicated the sheep cloning, or very similar
experiments with mice, I am sure you had enough common sense to realize it
must be true. You did not hold out for 200 independent replications.

What your "standard" really means is that you will never accept CF, not
matter how often it is replicated. You probably do not realize it, but in
the whole world there are only a few hundred electrochemistry labs where
there are presently people with the experience and expertise to replicate
CF. Even if a billion dollars in R&D money fell out of the sky, you could
not expect many more replications of CF than have already been done, at
least in the short term, before more people could be trained.

That is just as bad! Not accepting high sigma evidence is just as bad as
saying that theory overrides facts. You cannot tell Mizuno that he did not
measure 37 liters. You cannot tell Fritz Will he did not measure tritium at
50 times background. Compared to Fleischmann, you know nothing about
calorimetry. You have no business questioning any of these major results,
now that they have been so widely observed. Who do you think you are,
anyway? You cannot pick and choose what you will "accept" just to fit your
own comfortable prejudices. If you accept any research, anywhere, and you
believe that experimental science itself works and the laws of
thermodynamics are valid, then you must accept these results.

- Jed


subject: Re: Palladiium is a Fuel Cell Catalyst

text:
Jed Rothwell wrote:

Uh, where would he energy go?  The ohmic heating would be of
stuff in the cell so the heat would just appear in the cell in a different
location.  As you say, energy is conserved.

["reject the corpus of physical theory" ]

I do not believe the experiment as you report it period. Someone made a mistake
in excecution, in assuming the closet remained locked at all times, in
reporting, in
something.
Were the experiment replicated a couple of times, preferably by different
people,
then I might have to eat my words.

Well you put electrodes in a electolyte and run current through it.
What am I to call it?
Maybe I should say an apparatus that uses energies of at most
a few electron volts.

That is a possibility I hadn't really considered.  Maybe they are
insane.  I had just thought they were missing something.

I'm beginning to like insanity.

20 or 30 but mainly a particular One.
Which is it?  20 or 20 or One?

There you go again.

The mistake is probably in thinking that the stuff in the cell
is what made the film blacken.

There is the middle ground of being mistaken as to the cause.

I'll grant that the film blackened.  I am skeptical about what blackened it.

Not for N rays.

The question is who is blinded by hysteria.  That is a two edged
sword.

It is not a matter of numbers.  It is a matter of quality.
One lab can be enough, if the experiment is done carefully and it isn't
a revolutionary result.  Sometimes even one is enough, even then,
as with Michaelson and Morley, but then the eventually resulting
theory was not immediately accepted.

A single lab can barely replicate its own results in cold fusion.
I don't know how you can claim this number of replications.

No.  I apply it to ESP as well.

If that were the case with CF, you might have an argument.
What ten laboratories have tested the SAME CF apparatus and
gotten the same results to within error bars?

I repeat.  There are NOT 200 independent replications of CF.

You can't say that.  I have personally shifted paradigms.
I used to be a steady-stater then CMBR/HtoHe ration/and quasars made
me a big-banger.

Fine.  Let them all test exactly the same CF apparatus and get the same
results within experimental error.

Again, no real replications have yet been done as far as I can tell.
There has been some discussion on s.p.f about McKubre(?) electrodes
being shared between labs and getting the same results, but I have
no access to the descriptions of these experiments.

Do you understand what sigma means in statistics?

I can ask him a whole lot of questions about how he measured it etc.

I can ask him how he is sure it did not come from the lab next door.

Fine.  But I know a lot more about mathematics than he.

Sure I do.  This is America.

Thomas Clarke, a person with a mind.
I also happen to have a PhD in Applied Mathematics, lots of published
papers, 5 patents etc.

I can ask for better standards of replication than I have yet seen.

No.  No more than I accept positive ESP results as proof
of telepathy.

Tom Clarke


subject: Re: Palladiium is a Fuel Cell Catalyst

text:
Tom Clarke writes:

What is your point? The energy would go wherever the wires go. If wires and
the recombination catalyst were inside the cell, the calorimeter would not
be able to distinguish which was the source of heat.

mass

I realize you do not, but you have no rational, scientific reason to
disbelieve it, because very similar experiments, producing even greater heat
after death, have been widely reported.

You cannot list such a "mistake." No mistake can make a person think a
object at room temperature was too hot to touch.

It was a room, not a closet, and I am sure it was locked, since only Mizuno
has the key and this was a national holiday. But even assuming it was not
locked, as I pointed out earlier, it would be impossible for a person to
remove the water surreptitiously, and kept the cell temperate high. That
person would have to read Mizuno's mind and predict the future, in order to
prepare everything and hide 2 or 3 times a day, at the unpredictable times
when Mizuno showed up. If the secret agent hid 10 minutes too early, the
temperature would be wrong. If he was minute too late, Mizuno would catch
him.

I have been speaking and reading Japanese for 30 years. I visited the site,
saw the cell and the recorded portion of the heat after death, and I
discussed it with Mizuno and his colleagues in depth. I assure you, I
understand Mizuno's account perfectly. The events were not complicated, and
in view of what we now know about CF, they are not surprising.

You have to eat your words. The experiment has been replicated dozens of
times, by corporations and researchers world wide. Pons and Fleischmann
replicated it on demand. While it has not been done with such a large piece
of palladium, it has produced far more heat than this, and sometimes almost
as much power. Furthermore gas loading CF experiments never have input
power, so they are all, in effect, heat after death, which means a similar
effect has been seen hundreds of times.

What do you call a bomb in which a chemical explosion fires a lump of
uranium into another lump to form a critical mass? It is a nuclear fission
bomb, triggered by chemistry. In a CF cell, an electrochemical reaction
triggers a nuclear reaction in the metal.

How many electron volts per atom are used in the chemical explosive in the
fission bomb? (Ans: two) The amount of energy needed to trigger the reaction
is a function of the design. There is no fixed ratio between them.

If Mizuno is insane, so are Pons, Fleischmann, McKubre, Storms, Case and the
others who have reported incontrovertible evidence of heat after death. I do
not think they are. You do not know them, you have not read anything they
wrote, or observed their experiments, so you have no basis to judge.

I am not surprised. That is your last resort. When you "skeptics" run out of
arguments and handwaving, you usually fall back on ad hominem attacks,
bigotry and infamous falsehoods, rather than face the truth. Go ahead and
say that, but bear in mind that your words may reach Mizuno and the others,
and they will be inclined to explain things, mail you copies of papers, or
cooperate the way they usually do. I often mail papers, but after reading
your outbursts, I would not give you the time of day.

world's

Twenty or thirty labs, including three or four at BARC, as I recall.
Hundreds of tests.

Okay, you tell me how someone could make this mistake.

at
mistakes,

The experiment is repeated again and again. When the cathodes produce heat,
the x-ray film is black. When cathodes do not produce heat, or dummy
cathodes are used, the x-ray film is white. The x-rays originate in the
cathode, and nowhere else. People have been doing autoradiography since
x-rays were discovered. If you have discovered a reason why this technique
does not work, I suggest you publish it. You will win the Nobel prize, as I
often say. Once again, you are willing to overturn the fundamental laws and
pretend that long-established techniques do not work, rather than accept
reality.

middle
it.

You are not skeptical! Autoradiography still does work, just as it always
has. You are anything but skeptical, on the contrary, you are in frantic
denial, and you will grasp at straws and believe any darn thing. A skeptic
would never pile up this elaborate teetering mound of impossible beliefs
that you have built for yourself. A skeptic would question his *own* beliefs
and assumptions first, and he would immediately dismiss nonsensical notions
such as "autoradiographs always fail" and "someone went into the lab, heated
the cell, and dumped the water three times a day for 10 days, but Mizuno
never caught him."

laboratories
normally conclude

There were not more than three labs that thought they saw N-rays at the
limits of detection. This is entirely different from 5, 10 or 20 with high
s/n ratios.

Any impartial observer can tell. If you would read the papers and attend the
lectures, even you would probably realize. Look at the quality of the
arguments. I say that the laws of thermodynamics still apply, calorimeters
and autoradioagraphs still work the way they always have, and a man can tell
when a steel cell he has been looking at all day is too hot to touch. I
invoke longstanding laws of physics to prove everything I say, in multiple
ways. You frantically deny these things. You have not cited a single
physical law that would suddenly make autoradiographs stop working, and you
CANNOT cite any such law, any more than Schulz can come up with a "mundane"
reaction that produces 85 MJ from 100 grams of matter. There is no such
reaction! There can be no such reaction. Even Schultz knows that, which is
why he bobs, weaves, evades, and runs back under his rock every time I ask
him what "mundane" reaction he has in mind. You are far removed from
everyday reality if you honestly believe any of these wild claims you make.

I don't mind irrational evasions, but you go too far when you lie so boldly.
I am sure I told you that SRI, P&F, Mitsubishi, China Lake, Ohmori and many
others have been replicating 100% of the time, in *every single test*, on
demand, for six years or more.

Please fall back to your usual position, and say instead that *you* don't
believe SRI, Mitsubishi and the others. You should at very least acknowledge
that *they* claim they replicate. I am sure they do, since I have their
papers, and I have been there and watched them do it in some cases.

the

It is the case with CF, and I have many airtight, indisputable, 100% certain
arguments to prove it. Since you do not know a thing about the research, you
are not in a position to argue with me, are you? (But ignorance has never
stopped an anti-CF "skeptic" before.)

You can damn well find that out for yourself, in detail. You would not
believe it even if I tell you. I doubt they have often used the exact same s
ized cell or the same brand of thermocouples, except when cells were carried
from the Navy the NHE, or Osaka U. to SRI, and when Mizuno and others
transfer cells and cathodes to corporate labs. If they did it more often you
would assert that they all making the same systematic error.

it

And I repeat there are, I know the people who did them, I have their papers
right here. I have a photograph of me standing in a crowd of 300 of them. I
guess I would say there about 120 really good ones.

No one ever makes this absurd demand in other fields. People can use
different brands of test tube, and they can clone mice instead of sheep, but
you still believe it. Are you going to give us $20 million to replicate 200
copies the "exactly the same" apparatus?

You can tell nothing because you refuse to look. That doesn't count.

How does anyone measure 37 liters, for crying out loud! What a stupid
comment! I told you, he measured it with another bucket marked in
tenth-liter increments -- the kind of thing you find in any lab.

You don't have to. It is all in his papers.

I doubt it! He is a brilliant mathematician.

You have seen NOTHING since 1989. You refuse to look!

If there were good, high sigma, replicated ESP results, and you did not
accept them, you would not be a scientist. You must believe whatever nature
tells you is true.

- Jed


subject: Re: Palladiium is a Fuel Cell Catalyst

text:
Jed Rothwell

[re palladium acting as thread title suggest]

That is my point.  Palladium acting as if it were a fuel cell catalyst
could provide a means to _slowly_, _not explosively_ release
the chemical energy in D/H and O.
...

Frankly I don't believe those much either.  My rational reason for
this is the gazillion experiments that have been distilled to form
the corpus of contemporay physical theory.  Said theory being
violated by (most) CF experiments.

They can be mistaken about the reason why the object was too
hot to touch.
....

But you didn't personally touch the hot object etc.

They suprise me and many like me, still.

I think not.  Has the experiment been done just as Mizuno did it.
Complete with bucket of water etc. etc.?
...

A nuclear bomb certainly exhibits non-nuclear effects.
But if you want to apply that definition of chemical then any experiment
is chemical as the human muscles that push the start button etc are
chemical powered.

I am trying to make a distinction between experiments where,
for example,  high voltages are used in such a way that ions can be
accelerated to energies higher than any chemical process can
provide (e.g. the LANL experiments with discharges on Pd electrodes)
and experiments where the energies are clearly at most a few ev
(unless of course there is some CF type process going on, but that
is what is under debate).

I guess my humor on this was too subtle.  I did intend that tongue-in-cheek.
But your phrase suggestion of "hysteria" probably has some merit.

Nah.  Hysteria.

[I asked about replication]

All the same?

[regarding CF experiments that blacken x-ray film]

Nitpick.  Autoradiography would be since the discovery of radioactivity.
X-rays were produced in a seperate apparatus.

If the state of CF experimentation is as mature as you portray it.
Reproducible, every time, etc.  Then I would think a CF experimenter would
be in line for the prize.
...

What word do you like?

I am skeptical that it was gamma rays from fusion.
...

I think more than three.


subject: Re: Palladiium is a Fuel Cell Catalyst

text:
Tom Clarke writes:

and
not

A catalyst does not make the reaction go slower, it speeds it up. When free
H2 and O2 gas is exposed to Pd acting as a catalyst, it explodes.

No, if this had been a chemical reaction, the cell would been barely warm,
by a few degrees at most, and it would have cooled down hours earlier. No
chemical fuel could have kept it so hot for so long.

and

They may surprise you, but they were still quite simple, and there is no
question I translated the account correctly, and the cell was palpably hot.
That fact alone proves it was not a chemical reaction.

The fact that something surprises you is no measure of whether it is true or
not. People were surprised when Columbus discovered America, when x-rays
were discovered, and when the first radioactive substances were discovered.
Surprise is a measure of our ignorance, not truth or falsehood.

- Jed


subject: Re: Palladiium is a Fuel Cell Catalyst

text:
Jed Rothwell wrote:

No point in arguing this further.

Then why was not such a startling result repeated?

A feverish human is palpably hot.

Yes it is.  You don't think magicians actually cut women in half, do you?

Events that surprise must be replicated before they can be
considered facts - unless they kill you, of course.

Tom Clarke


subject: Re: Palladiium is a Fuel Cell Catalyst

text:
Tom Clarke writes:

free

There is no argument. Look up the word "catalyst" if you doubt me. Or try
the experiment. I have recombined lots and lots of free D2 and O2 with Pd
and Pt catalysts. I am sure I know how they work, and how quickly they work.

warm,
No

It was repeated, most recently last week. It is repeated whenever heat after
death appears. It has often been even more dramatic than Mizuno's event. It
was not repeated with 100 grams of Pd for the reasons I listed a dozen times
previously: because Pd costs a lot, and this much heat seems dangerous, and
nearly out of control. If you do not like those reasons I am sorry, but
there are no others, so stop asking the same question over and over again.

hot.


subject: Re: Palladiium is a Fuel Cell Catalyst

text:
Jed Rothwell wrote:

Try putting H and O into a fuel cell.

I understand Motorola is selling a methane powered cell phone battery now.
Methane and air explode with right catalyst also.

Fuel cells, I think, show that these catalysts can work in other ways.
Slowly, not necessarily explosively.
That was my point.

Really?  The same sort of container, put in the same sort of water bath?

Then it is a different experiment?

OK.
Then I will ask this question.
Can heat after death be produced at will?

Takes a human 30 days to die from not eating.  [7 without water]

Yes I do.  "Palpably hot" can have many meanings.

I'm trying to see if I can get you to understand it.

And I point out that so far as I can tell these are not replications.
One is playing soccer, one tennis, one billiards etc.

Replication by assertion is equally useless.

Tom Clarke