From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Subject: In defense of Steven Jones
Originator: terry@aslss01
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 23:38:02 GMT

Hi folks,

Assertion:

 o  If you claim massive TmHxYx heat, you are STUCK with something at
    least as bizarre as Twist (or Hydrinos, or Black Holes, etc.)

 o  If you claim only very low level radiation of relatively ordinary
    profiles, you are NOT required to presume Twist-level weirdness,
    nor necessarily any fundamentally new physics at all.

In short, I don't think its at all fair to stuff work like that of Steve
Jones into the same peculiar basket that I firmly believe must contain
all claims for high-level, radiation-clean TmDxHy heat.

If Steven Jones work is valid, then about the worst you would need to
assume intially is that somewhere in the complexity of condensed matter
physics a mechanism for whacking a couple or more atoms together really
hard has been overlooked.  *That* is the sort of thing you should be
looking if you acheive reproducibility of low-level radiation, not some
kind of exotic new twist (heh!) on well-known particle physics.

Cavitation is an effect that helps point this out.  It doesn't exactly
jump out at the casual observer that a tiny collapsing bubble could
create phenomenally high pressures and accelerations, yet it does.
A simple and common event achieves an enormous compression of energy,
with the motion of very large numbers of atoms being collectively applied
to a very small (say millions) number of atoms.  Pretty impressive, really.

Do we really have such a totally wrapped-up understanding of condensed
matter that the possibility of some even more intense cavitation-like
event that might be able to whack just a very few atoms together *really*
hard?  Sorry,but I just *don't* believe our understanding of condensed
matter is that comprehensive or persuasive.  For example, if that energy
of cavitation could in some cases be focused further from millions of
atoms to just a handful, you could easily acheive the Steven Jones style
of "hot-in-cold" fusion (that is, hot events occurring in a cold matrix).

Can that happen?  Well that's sort of the point, isn't it?...  That is, I
honestly don't think anyone can anwer such a question with either a flat
"yes" or a flat "no."

So if you believe the Jones et all results to be accurate, then I'd say
you should be looking for unexpectely effective focusing mechanisms (not
necessarily mechanical) in which the energy of many millions or billions
of atoms can, for a very short time, be brought together and applied to
a mere handful atoms.  Cavitation provides one model, so why not look for
ways in which that model might be improved and/or translated into some
other kind of condensed matter energy transfer event?

You should ask questions like this:  Why *does* cavitation work?  (I'll
give you one hint: the very uniform spherical symmetry of very small
bubbles is critical.)  What makes it stop working?  (Another hint:
turbulence, the same bugaboo that hits the plasma physicists -- the
spherical symmetry of the collapsing bubble falls apart as very small
imperfections in the original bubble symmetry are amplified during the
collapse process.)  Can the same mathematical characteristics (e.g.,
the spherical symmetry) be transferred postulated for any other systems
that exist in condensed matter?

Rather than banging on Steve Jones and others for their claims of low-
level radiation, I'm surprised more physicists and mathematical physicists
don't view it as an interesting problem for stretching both their intuition
and their ability to model condensed matter phenomena.

.....

Now for the high-heat folk:  Sorry guys, YOU are flat out STUCK.

I said it before and I'll say it again: If you accept the reality of trans-
chemical levels of clean heat from TmDxHy systems, then you are either:
a) converting whole atoms directly into heat, or
b) creating energy from the vacuum.

The "cold fusion" line is a total crock, and I think the majority of the
high-heat folks know it by now.  (Evidence?  Interest in Mills' "hydrino"
idea, which is a modified (a) theory -- after all, how *else* are you going
to get that silly "hydrino" to perform its marvelous disappearing act?)
But on it goes, since it helps minimize scathing reviews from Nature and
probably helps preserve the hope of a patent or too.

Face it guys, you are asking for a MAJOR humdinger of a violation of physics.
Good luck, 'cause yer gonna need it!

				Cheers,
				Terry