"Richard Schultz" wrote in message
...
In sci.physics.fusion Ken S. Tucker wrote:

: Hi Richard, I presume your questions
: below are rhetorical, otherwise please
: spec which are serious.

This is not rhetorical: top-posting is considered very bad form. I
meant for you to think about all of the questions that I asked in the
(presumably vain) hope that you might be able to reach the obvious
conclusion on your own once you were given enough clues.

: How long did it take from Budnorz and Muller's announcement of "high-T"
: superconductivity in cuprates for someone to reproduce their results?
: How long did it take to find a material that it is superconductive at
: T 77 K (i.e. above the boiling point of N2)? How long did it take to
: develop a device that used a high-T superconductor?
:
: How many of those developments depended on a detailed theory of the
behavior
: of high-T superconductors?
:
: How long has it been since Pons and Fleischmann claimed to have a
: *working* cold fusion water heater?

: If I were to suggest in 1935 that a metal can explode with 1,000,000x
more
: energy/weight than TNT,

H.G. Wells suggested it in 1902.

: I'm sure you would have scoffed, but with a great effort of theory and
: experiment the A-bomb and H-bomb were developed.

That is completely irrelevant to the point I was making. Why don't you
answer the questions above and then think about why what you wrote about
the A-bomb was a straw man.

-----
Richard Schultz
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."

It seems the the presence or absence of He is a key "pointer" to fusion --
cold or otherwise. It seems that without He, it is clear that fusion has NOT
occurred.

Is the inverse true?

The reason for my question is that there are several Helium wells in the
world. It is a scarce (but essentially useless) element whose only
commercially viable use is for lighter-than-air devices. (Novelists
attention: What would have happened if the US had agreed to sell the Third
Reich Helium? For one, the Hindenburg would not have blown up.) But I
digress.

Where does this Helium come from? Three sources I can think of:

1. It is left over from a few Billion years ago when the Earth was still hot
enough for fusion.
2. It is generated by some non-fusion process that I do not understand.
3. It is/was generated by some natural "cold" fusion process.

Could someone comment, please, on these three obvious sources of Helium?

Bill Miller

(Of course, there is a fourth possible source. Aliens visited the Earth some
years back and buried a few fusion plants in selected locations around the
world. There are probably more, but they cannot be located unless one looks
for them using a forked willow tree branch. Aluminium foil hat is optional.)

In sci.physics.fusion Bill Miller wrote:

: The reason for my question is that there are several Helium wells in the
: world. It is a scarce (but essentially useless) element whose only
: commercially viable use is for lighter-than-air devices.

You can stop right there -- liquid He is used a refrigerant for
superconducting magnets used in, e.g., NMR spectrometers.

: For one, the Hindenburg would not have blown up.

Actually, it didn't blow up -- it caught fire.

: Where does this Helium come from? Three sources I can think of:

: 1. It is left over from a few Billion years ago when the Earth was still hot
: enough for fusion.

The earth was never hot enough for fusion.

: 2. It is generated by some non-fusion process that I do not understand.

It is generated by radioactive decay of uranium and thorium.

: 3. It is/was generated by some natural "cold" fusion process.

Steve Jones thought that there might be a *small* amount of natural
cold fusion going on. IIRC, he was looking for tritium, which would be
a more easily detected signature. I don't know that he ever found any.

-----
Richard Schultz
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
". . .Mr Schutz [sic] acts like a functional electro-terrorist who
impeads [sic] scientific communications with his too oft-silliness."
-- Mitchell Swartz, sci.physics.fusion article

In sci.physics.fusion Benj wrote:

: You mean the space in your head? You and Schultz seem to only be able
: to make pronouncements without any proof or references.

What proof or references have you given to any of your pronouncements?
All I saw were a bunch of buzzwords that you admitted were irrelevant.

: Insane/stupid = Questions all theories and demands experimental
: support for ideas

It is fairly stupid to question "all" theories, since some theories are much
more strongly grounded than others. In my experience, it's more a matter
of ignorance than stupidity.

-----
Richard Schultz
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
". . .Mr Schutz [sic] acts like a functional electro-terrorist who
impeads [sic] scientific communications with his too oft-silliness."
-- Mitchell Swartz, sci.physics.fusion article

Bill Miller wrote:
"Richard Schultz" wrote in message
...
In sci.physics.fusion Ken S. Tucker wrote:

: How long did it take from Budnorz and Muller's announcement of "high-T"
: superconductivity in cuprates for someone to reproduce their results?
: How long did it take to find a material that it is superconductive at
: T 77 K (i.e. above the boiling point of N2)? How long did it take to
: develop a device that used a high-T superconductor?
:
: How many of those developments depended on a detailed theory of the
behavior
: of high-T superconductors?
:
: How long has it been since Pons and Fleischmann claimed to have a
: *working* cold fusion water heater?

: If I were to suggest in 1935 that a metal can explode with 1,000,000x
more
: energy/weight than TNT,

H.G. Wells suggested it in 1902.

: I'm sure you would have scoffed, but with a great effort of theory and
: experiment the A-bomb and H-bomb were developed.

That is completely irrelevant to the point I was making. Why don't you
answer the questions above and then think about why what you wrote about
the A-bomb was a straw man.

-----
Richard Schultz
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."

It seems the the presence or absence of He is a key "pointer" to fusion --
cold or otherwise. It seems that without He, it is clear that fusion has NOT
occurred.

The only thing I would trust is neutrons and/or other energetic
particles leaving the site of the reaction.

Is the inverse true?

The reason for my question is that there are several Helium wells in the
world. It is a scarce (but essentially useless) element whose only
commercially viable use is for lighter-than-air devices. (Novelists
attention: What would have happened if the US had agreed to sell the Third
Reich Helium? For one, the Hindenburg would not have blown up.) But I
digress.

Where does this Helium come from? Three sources I can think of:

1. It is left over from a few Billion years ago when the Earth was still hot
enough for fusion.
2. It is generated by some non-fusion process that I do not understand.
3. It is/was generated by some natural "cold" fusion process.

Could someone comment, please, on these three obvious sources of Helium?

I sort of hope you are joking here, but the original source of helium is
alpha particles during spontaneous radioactive decay emitted by
uranium, thorium, radium, radon and co. These elements are common enough
in the crust to provide the helium.

Rutherford first demonstrated that alpha particles were fast helium ions
(or equivalently that helium gas was neutralised slowed down alpha
particle spectroscopically).

http://www-outreach.phy.cam.ac.uk/ca...ord_prelim.htm

Regards,
Martin Brown
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

"Richard Schultz" wrote in message
...
In sci.physics.fusion Bill Miller
wrote:

: The reason for my question is that there are several Helium wells in the
: world. It is a scarce (but essentially useless) element whose only
: commercially viable use is for lighter-than-air devices.

You can stop right there -- liquid He is used a refrigerant for
superconducting magnets used in, e.g., NMR spectrometers.

: For one, the Hindenburg would not have blown up.

Actually, it didn't blow up -- it caught fire.

: Where does this Helium come from? Three sources I can think of:

: 1. It is left over from a few Billion years ago when the Earth was still
hot
: enough for fusion.

The earth was never hot enough for fusion.

Never's a long time. But I get your point.

: 2. It is generated by some non-fusion process that I do not understand.

It is generated by radioactive decay of uranium and thorium.

: 3. It is/was generated by some natural "cold" fusion process.

Steve Jones thought that there might be a *small* amount of natural
cold fusion going on. IIRC, he was looking for tritium, which would be
a more easily detected signature. I don't know that he ever found any.

At last!

An intelligent answer to a basic question.

Thank you!

Bill

-----
Richard Schultz
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
". . .Mr Schutz [sic] acts like a functional electro-terrorist who
impeads [sic] scientific communications with his too oft-silliness."
-- Mitchell Swartz, sci.physics.fusion article

"Bill Miller" wrote in message
news |
| "Richard Schultz" wrote in message
| ...
| In sci.physics.fusion Ken S. Tucker wrote:
|
| : Hi Richard, I presume your questions
| : below are rhetorical, otherwise please
| : spec which are serious.
|
| This is not rhetorical: top-posting is considered very bad form. I
| meant for you to think about all of the questions that I asked in the
| (presumably vain) hope that you might be able to reach the obvious
| conclusion on your own once you were given enough clues.
|
| : How long did it take from Budnorz and Muller's announcement of
"high-T"
| : superconductivity in cuprates for someone to reproduce their results?
| : How long did it take to find a material that it is superconductive at
| : T 77 K (i.e. above the boiling point of N2)? How long did it take
to
| : develop a device that used a high-T superconductor?
| :
| : How many of those developments depended on a detailed theory of the
| behavior
| : of high-T superconductors?
| :
| : How long has it been since Pons and Fleischmann claimed to have a
| : *working* cold fusion water heater?
|
| : If I were to suggest in 1935 that a metal can explode with 1,000,000x
| more
| : energy/weight than TNT,
|
| H.G. Wells suggested it in 1902.
|
| : I'm sure you would have scoffed, but with a great effort of theory and
| : experiment the A-bomb and H-bomb were developed.
|
| That is completely irrelevant to the point I was making. Why don't you
| answer the questions above and then think about why what you wrote about
| the A-bomb was a straw man.
|
| -----
| Richard Schultz
| Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
| Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
| -----
| "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."
|
| It seems the the presence or absence of He is a key "pointer" to fusion --
| cold or otherwise. It seems that without He, it is clear that fusion has
NOT
| occurred.
|
| Is the inverse true?
|
| The reason for my question is that there are several Helium wells in the
| world. It is a scarce (but essentially useless) element whose only
| commercially viable use is for lighter-than-air devices. (Novelists
| attention: What would have happened if the US had agreed to sell the Third
| Reich Helium? For one, the Hindenburg would not have blown up.) But I
| digress.
|
| Where does this Helium come from? Three sources I can think of:
|
| 1. It is left over from a few Billion years ago when the Earth was still
hot
| enough for fusion.
| 2. It is generated by some non-fusion process that I do not understand.
| 3. It is/was generated by some natural "cold" fusion process.
|
| Could someone comment, please, on these three obvious sources of Helium?
|
| Bill Miller
|
| (Of course, there is a fourth possible source. Aliens visited the Earth
some
| years back and buried a few fusion plants in selected locations around the
| world. There are probably more, but they cannot be located unless one
looks
| for them using a forked willow tree branch. Aluminium foil hat is
optional.)
|

Fission.
The alpha particle is a helium nucleus.

On Jul 30, 4:39 am, (Richard Schultz) wrote:
In sci.physics.fusion Ken S. Tucker wrote:
: On Jul 30, 2:10 am, (Richard Schultz) wrote:
: In sci.physics.fusion Ken S. Tucker wrote:
: : On Jul 29, 9:38 pm, (Richard Schultz) wrote:

: : why don't you answer my questions about the discovery of
: : high-temperature superconductivity?

: : A place to begin is to consider the resistance
: : of a current flowing through a vacuum such as
: : in a CRT between the cathode and anode.

: What, if anything, has this to do with the questions that I asked?

: We must know you level of education, tell us.

What, if anything, has this to do with the questions that I asked?

You may not understand the answer, or I may
not be up to your level of understanding.
Ken

-----
Richard Schultz
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."

On Jul 30, 12:21*pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"Bill Miller" wrote in message

news |
| "Richard Schultz" wrote in message
...
| In sci.physics.fusion Ken S. Tucker wrote:
|
| : Hi Richard, I presume your questions
| : below are rhetorical, otherwise please
| : spec which are serious.
|
| This is not rhetorical: *top-posting is considered very bad form. *I
| meant for you to think about all of the questions that I asked in the
| (presumably vain) hope that you might be able to reach the obvious
| conclusion on your own once you were given enough clues.
|
| : How long did it take from Budnorz and Muller's announcement of
"high-T"
| : superconductivity in cuprates for someone to reproduce their results?
| : How long did it take to find a material that it is superconductive at
| : T 77 K (i.e. above the boiling point of N2)? *How long did it take
to
| : develop a device that used a high-T superconductor?
| :
| : How many of those developments depended on a detailed theory of the
| behavior
| : of high-T superconductors?
| :
| : How long has it been since Pons and Fleischmann claimed to have a
| : *working* cold fusion water heater?
|
| : If I were to suggest in 1935 that a metal can explode *with 1,000,000x
| more
| : energy/weight than TNT,
|
| H.G. Wells suggested it in 1902.
|
| : I'm sure you would have scoffed, but with a great effort of theory and
| : experiment the A-bomb and H-bomb were developed.
|
| That is completely irrelevant to the point I was making. *Why don't you
| answer the questions above and then think about why what you wrote about
| the A-bomb was a straw man.
|
| -----
| Richard Schultz * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
| Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
| Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
| -----
| "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."
|
| It seems the the presence or absence of He is a key "pointer" to fusion --
| cold or otherwise. It seems that without He, it is clear that fusion has
NOT
| occurred.
|
| Is the inverse true?
|
| The reason for my question is that there are several Helium wells in the
| world. It is a scarce (but essentially useless) element whose only
| commercially viable use is for lighter-than-air devices. (Novelists
| attention: What would have happened if the US had agreed to sell the Third
| Reich Helium? For one, the Hindenburg would not have blown up.) But I
| digress.
|
| Where does this Helium come from? Three sources I can think of:
|
| 1. It is left over from a few Billion years ago when the Earth was still
hot
| enough for fusion.
| 2. It is generated by some non-fusion process that I do not understand.
| 3. It is/was generated by some natural "cold" fusion process.
|
| Could someone comment, please, on these three obvious sources of Helium?
|
| Bill Miller
|
| (Of course, there is a fourth possible source. Aliens visited the Earth
some
| years back and buried a few fusion plants in selected locations around the
| world. There are probably more, but they cannot be located unless one
looks
| for them using a forked willow tree branch. Aluminium foil hat is
optional.)
|

Fission.
The alpha particle is a helium nucleus.

Dhuh!

Do anyone of your asshole following idiots would realize if 'Cold
Fusion' were realitity if 'Cold Fusion' were to be a fact? No, I
doubt if they do consider the ramifications. Maybe this will help...

Consider a plant totally lifeles, free of all organic life and fusing
under the reamining the cold fusion reaction of the very last
remaining components of hydrogen remaining on earth. After 'cold
hyrogen reactions', earth would be simply another lifelies orbital
void in orbit about the sun.

Don't some of you clueless scienifically disadvantageaidiots realize
that this would be be the conseuence of hydrogen fusion, cold, hot, or
otherwise?

Harry C.

In article ,
"Bill Miller" wrote:

snip

Where does this Helium come from? Three sources I can think of:

1. It is left over from a few Billion years ago when the Earth was still hot
enough for fusion.

I don't believe the Earth was ever hot or pressurized enough, or
contained H or D in sufficient concentration, to permit conventional
fusion -- and anyway, any ancient He would have mostly escaped into
space by now.

2. It is generated by some non-fusion process that I do not understand.

Yes. My understanding is far from comprehensive, but I know that many
radioactive decay processes produce alpha radiation, which consists of
(highly energetic) He-4 nuclei. For example uranium-238 decays to
thorium-234 by emitting an alpha particle. Any of these particles that
'cool down' enough to capture a couple of electrons will become helium
atoms -- which happens very soon, as alpha particles are very slow and
massive compared to other forms of radiation, and can be more or less
completely blocked by a metre or so of of ordinary air, let alone many
kilometres of rock.

3. It is/was generated by some natural "cold" fusion process.

I won't say categorically that it's impossible, but AFAIK it's never
been observed in nature -- and #2 is well enough attested to render such
a hypothesis unnecessary.

--
Odysseus

Benj wrote:

"Bob Myers" wrote:

You really should learn some very basic physics before you
try to comment on this subject.

Perhaps you might learn a little bit about scientific research and
physics yourself before you start judging how much other people know.
This kind of comment is meaningless. You clearly have no knowledge of
basic physics yourself, save what you have read in "Wikipedia"! Sure,
that's the ultimate source of knowledge! Did you write the article on
"atomic bombs" yourself?

So how many books on atomic weapons or power have you written ?

What's your view on fast and slow neutrons and suitable moderators ? The
Wigner effect is a bitch isn't it ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner_energy


Graham