From: terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Self-contained anti-matter
Organization: NEC America, Inc. Irving, Texas
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 15:31:12 GMT


Hi folks,

In article <920815153029_72240.1256_EHL34-1@CompuServe.COM>
<72240.1256@compuserve.com> (Jed Rothwell) writes:

> The explanation lies in the unsuspected structure of the proton,
> which is required by the Nucleon Cluster Model of the nucleus as
> the bridge between matter and antimatter...
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

In article <9208180153.AA11515@sleepy.network.com>
logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan) writes:

> The Starship Enterprise of Star Trek fame has OBSOLETE technology!...
> ... Anti-matter is contained within the matter all around us.  Given the
> right conditions, the matter/anti-matter charcteristics of normal matter
> can be combined to produce annihilation energy...


Why Jed and Gene!  You SLY old Farfetchers, you!  ANTI-MATTER annihilations,
hmm??  And here I thought NOBODY wanted to PLAY my game with me (sob!)...

Old time readers will of course recall that I first proposed total matter
annihilation *in the context of a Farfetch* over a year ago in "A Twist of
Ribbon."  Glad to see that the Mallove et al crowd is finally coming around!

Sincere (no kidding) "best of luck" on your hypothesizing, although frankly
I could already give you several pretty good reason why your particular
TMC (total mass conversion) tact won't work.  But I don't think that will
be necessary -- as Tom Droege's points and John Logajon's already email
hint, you are very likely to get some nice, toasty feedback on your idea
in the next few days anyway.

.....

Along the same TMC vein, I might note that:

IF

 a) You are truly, sincerely, and absolutely convinced that anomolous
    heat from Pd(H,D)x systems is REAL,

    AND

 b) That the levels of heat output are well (say an order of magnitude)
    outside the range permissible by plausible chemical theory,

    AND

 c) The levels and types of nuclear byproducts do not match any known
    class or nuclear reactions

THEN

 d) You really, REALLY should study "A Twist of Ribbon" very carefully.
    Mainly because it is primarily the results of an analysis of why
    most approaches to looking for new physics in a solid-state physics
    will NOT work.  "Twist" is literally just the residue left over after
    you whack out whole realms of ways in which physics *cannot* give you
    novel results without resulting in blatant contridictions with either
    well-studied physics or everyday reality.  There are no guarantees at
    all that it is right -- just that it's an approach that for various
    reasons is harder to eliminate as a possible source of new physics.

Obvious question:  Do I meet my own criteria?  If I'm literal about it, the
answer is simpy NO.  I'm too skeptical about the spotty results that have
been reported to date.  As Tom Droege nicely summarized recently, there
have been several intriguing isolated incidents, but that's about it.

Want proof that I don't take myself too seriously, despite the substantial
literature search and study I put into "Twist of Ribbon?"  Well, for one
thing I have no intention whatsoever of forming any kind of company or
promotional group to espouse the ideas in "Twist of Ribbon," *even though
I am convinced the ideas are in Twist are more sound than than the vast
majority of "cold fusion" theories that have been espoused and sometimes
extensively funded.*  If by some weird chance my ideas in Twist *are*
correct or close to correct -- well, all I can say is more power to the
people who have followed up on them and issued patents derived from them.

Want proof that my ideas in Twist should not be taken *too* casually?  In
Twist I predicted that atomic hydrogen and deuterium should be able to
form bands in metal lattices about a year before the existence of such
effects was described in an (unrelated, I'm sure) physics paper and later
summarized in Nature (March something 1992).  Anyone else out there had a
real, previously unknown physics effect predicted and verified as a result
of their attempts to explain Pd(H,D)x heat anomolies?

For myself I'm not into experimentation of the type needed, and have no
interest whatsoever in setting up any personal garage experiments.  (I do
have enormous respect for serious experimenters such who *have* done such
things, though.)

Even if I don't really buy my own ideas based on the evidence to date,
shouldn't I be horribly worried (like Pons et al?) that I *might*, just
*might* be right -- and thus should start patenting the living daylights
out of every word I think, breathe, or write?

Well... why SHOULD I?  Here's a radical idea:  How about being interested
in an idea for its own sake, without being overly concerned about whether
you or anyone else will ever make a dime off of it?

Or even:  If it IS real, it should belong to EVERYBODY -- not just one
small group of people?

And if it ISN'T real... well, can't we at least try to have some good fun
learning and using physics along the way?  Or would such a simple objective
be too disappointing for those of you who were dead set on making big bucks
out of the issue of Pd(H,D)x anomolies?

Maybe that is the real difference between folks like Dr. Steven Jones, for
whom I have enormous respect in how he has handled everything from his data
to the occassional carefully-set-up press attacks against him, and so many
other figures who have been inclined to view interesting Pd(H,D)x amomolies
only through the eyes of a dollar bill.

				Cheers,
				Terry

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion