In article <2oef93$…@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, cas…@superdec.uni.uiuc.edu (Casey Smith) writes:

>I’m working on examining chaotic growth and self organization in crystals and could
>use some help in determining what chemical systems lend themselves best to the observation
>of crystal growth. I have already tried, and have had some success with plating ammonical
>silver. Any advice on experiments I could try or where I could get more information on
>this topic would be greatly appreciated.

Please be aware that ammoniacal silver is potentially dangerous.  Read J.K.
Luchs, Photographic Science and Engineering, 1996, vol 10, p334-337 on safe
handling of ammoniacal silver or you may be generating more chaos than you care
to measure.  The essence of safe handling is to avoid aging the solution, ie.
don’t keep any for later.  Don’t allow evaporation and destroy unused material
with aqueous HCl (itself somewhat hazardous due to heat of reaction).  The
hazard is due to potential silver azide formation and other unstable silver
nitrogen compounds.  In making the silver ammonia complex you should add an
excess of aqueous ammonia quickly to the silver solution.  The presence or
formation of solids is a danger sign.

The above opinions are my own and not those of my employer.  

We need to know what classification the folowing pesticides are
(halogenated hydrocarbon, organophosphate, natural biological
agent, etc)

Acephate         Bendiocarm      Dicrotophos
Methoxychlor     Phosmet         Bacillius thuringiensis
Carbaryl         Diflubenzuron    Nucleopolyhedrosis virus
Trichlorfon

We suspect just from the name that methoxychlor, trichlorfon,
diflubenzuron are halogenated hydrocarbons, Phosmet and
dicrotophos are organophosphates and Bacillius thuringiensis
and Nucleopolyhedrosis virus are biological agents.
Verification and help with the others will be appreciated.

—
Biology Classes, Auburn High School   4163 Riner Road
Riner, VA 24149

right now we are using chem3d on a mac and are looking to purchase the latest
upgrade.  in light of this, we are looking at our other options.  does
anybody out there use chem3d or an equivalent?  what are your opinions of
the package you use?  why did you purchase that package over the other
options?  what special features are present in your package?
if there are enough responses, i will post a summary here in the future.
thanks in advance.
kirk w butz
molecular dynamics laboratory
faculty of science and technology
griffith university
nathan queensland 4111
australia

  What we do know is that Starpower is fusion energy of mostly hydrogen
into helium. But our knowledge of fusion is primitive. One only needs
to indicate the missing neutrino count from the Sun. The missing
neutrino count connects, links with superconductivity. See my "Correct
theory of Superconductivity."

  Below is a outline of the correct theory of fusion. In synopsis form
it is this.

  Weak Nuclear Interaction was a partial law. When it is completed via
the nonconservation of energy/mass it becomes a law (I call it
Radioactivities) on par with the Strong Nuclear Interaction. The four
interactions of physics are these
  (1) Strong Nuclear
  (2) Radioactivities
  (3) Electromagnetism
  (4) Gravity

  The correct Quantum laws combine these four interactions into dual
compliments, the same as Particle-Wave compliments of QM as follows.

  Strong Nuclear-Gravity
  Radioactivities-Electromagnetism

  Whenever experiments are set up which have varying electric current
or potential, there exists a Reifenschweiler type of radioactivity
MODE, or a Sonoluminescence MODE in which the electromagnetism induces
SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION.

Detailed in the textbook Feynman Lectures on Physics  the physics laws
for the strong nuclear force were unknown, and radioactivities (weak
nuclear) were only partially known.  As of 7Nov90, I assert to know the
complete law for radioactivities.  The 4 quantum interactions (1)
nuclear strong (2) radioactivities (3) electromagnetic (4) gravitation,
are more fully explained than the present art of physics. There are 3
components to radioactivities, and these are (1) radioactive decay (2)
radioactive growth, and (3) radioactive spontaneous neutron
materialization. Radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization is the
largest in terms of relative coupling strength of the three. Processes
to induce radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization results in
the engineering of devices for the purpose of harnessing excess heat
energy. Numerous physical evidences in support of radioactive
spontaneous neutron materialization are detailed below such as (a) muon
catalyzed fusion, (b) heat from electrochemical cells of cold fusion
experiments, and (c) cosmic gamma ray-bursts (D) REIFENSCHWEILER
RADIATION (E) SONOLUMINESCE. Given the fuller explanation of
radioactivities, then processes are followed which induces radioactive
spontaneous neutron materialization. Devices (apparatuses) are
engineered to induce radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization
for the purpose of harnessing excess heat energy.  Devices ranging from
battery sized neutron materialization devices, on up to full scale
neutron materialization nuclear power plants are engineered.

                NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION DEVICES

        These are not perpetual motion devices but rather the derivation and
utilization of radioactivities energy not understood before. The first
observers of radioactivity circa late 1800′s and early 1900′s thought
that since some of these radioactive elements were hot, e.g., uranium
is warm in the hands and polonium will burn a hole through your hands,
and continued to glow in the dark, e.g., radium salts glow green in the
dark, that this new phenomenon was perpetual motion. Because of these
unexplained radiations, the many new observers of radioactivity were
quick to think that this new form of energy was perpetual motion, or
violated conservation of energy-mass, or violated other physical laws.
Only with quantum theory was radioactivity well understood to accord
with theory and experimentation, and regarded as one of the 4
interactions (forces) of physics. Note: the concept interaction comes
from Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) and is superior to the concept of
force from Classical Physics. I mostly use the concept interaction in
this application; reason: quantum physics is the correct physics.
        The discovery of radioactive decay (rd) occurred 1896, when Becquerel
discovered radioactivity from uranium. It required 60 years after the
discovery of radioactivity before the uses of radioactivity were
applied in producing nuclear power. Fission radioactivity was
technologically used in the engineering of nuclear reactors which
generates nuclear power, post 1956.
        The discovery of radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization
(rsnm) occurred in late 1990 by myself, Ludwig Plutonium. Then in early
1991, I discovered what induces rsnm and subsequently submitted this
patent application. The technological use of rsnm will be controlled
cold fusion energy by the engineering of Neutron Materialization Power
Plants.
        Quantum mechanics via the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (UP), 1927,
predicts virtual particles from out of nowhere which last for only a
brief period of time. Virtual particles can be electrons, positrons,
neutrons, and even molecules, but generally they are not heavier than
electrons. Particle detectors, gas bubble chambers, and CERN confirm
the postulation of virtual particles. The pinnacle of modern science up
to my teachings was Quantum Electrodynamics (QED).  According to QED,
the vacuum is filled with electron-positron fields. Real
electron-positron pairs are created when photons interact with these
fields. Virtual electron-positron pairs, however can also exist for
short quantum instants of time.
        In late 1990, I realized that not only do virtual particles exist but
that virtual particles were the first clue of particle materialization
from out of nowhere and specifically of neutron materialization. The
extension of virtual particles to that of actual materialized
particles, and specifically to that of neutrons. Neutrons spontaneously
materialize from out of nowhere as a form of radioactivity.  This
radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization (rsnm) is another form
of radioactivities which until 1990 was undiscovered, and the ample
evidences, (see below), for rsnm were unrecognized as such.  I call it
RADIOACTIVE SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION, and I assert it is the
major component of the radioactivities interaction (R).  There are two
other components to radioactivites and these are radioactive decay (rd)
and radioactive growth (rg).
        Feynman in FEYNMAN LECTURES ON PHYSICS  Volume I page 2-10, gives the
following (my edited) account of the 4 interactions (forces) of physics
with a comparison of relative coupling strengths in the table below:
"There seem to be just four kinds of interaction between particles
which , in the order of decreasing strength, are the strong nuclear
interaction, electromagnetic interactions, electroweak interaction, and
gravity.  The photon is coupled to all electromagnetic interactions and
the strength of the interaction is measured by some number which is
1/137.  The detailed law of this coupling is known and is quantum
electrodynamics QED.  Gravity is coupled to all energy and this law is
also known.  Then there is the electroweak interaction which causes the
neutron to disintegrate into proton, electron, and neutrino.  This law
is only partly known.  The strong nuclear interaction, the meson-baryon
interaction, has a strength of 1 on this scale and the law is
completely unknown, although there are some known rules such as the
number of baryons does not change in any reaction. "
        Table 2-3.  Elementary Interactions
        Coupling                Strength*                       Law
Photon to charged particles approx10^ -2             Law known
Gravity to all energy    approx10^ -40      Law known
radioactive decay       approx10^ -5         Law partially known
Mesons to baryons       approx 1      Law unknown (some rules known)
*The strength is a dimensionless measure of the coupling constant
involved in each interaction.
        I change some of FeynmanÕs teachings in the table, giving thus : (A)
renaming weak nuclear as radioactivities (R). (B) radioactivities (R)
consists of 3 components–(1) radioactive decay (rd), (2) radioactive
growth (rg), and (3) radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization
(rsnm) (C)   R is only slightly weaker than the strong nuclear (SN),
and the proper listing of the 4 interactions according to strength is
1) strong nuclear, 2) radioactivities 3) electromagnetic 4)
gravitation.
        Before these teachings, the weak nuclear interaction was considered to
consist of only two components, i.e., radioactive decay and radioactive
growth. I assert that the weak nuclear interaction is an incomplete
interaction law (or force law). What was thought of as the weak nuclear
interaction before my teachings is only a small part, a small component
of the overall radioactivities interaction. The radioactivities
interaction consists of 1) radioactive spontaneous neutron
materialization, plus 2) radioactive decay (weak nuclear), plus 3)
radioactive growth (weak nuclear).  Before my teachings in the art of
physics 0050, the weak nuclear was vaguely understood as radioactive
decay with only a notion of radioactive growth. And leaving out the
most important form of radioactivity, that of radioactive spontaneous
neutron materialization in order to make the interaction law or (force
law) complete. When rd plus rg is added to rsnm, then I assert the
interaction (force) law for radioactivities is complete.  Thus the
complete radioactivities (R) interaction looks like this:  R =
rd+rg+rsnm. Let me define rd and rg below.
        Radioactive growth (rg) is when an atom transmutates (transforms) by
increasing in atomic number Z, such as when a uranium atom transmutates
to a neptunium atom or when a neptunium atom transmutates to a
plutonium atom.  Radioactive growth is when the original atom goes
higher in atomic number. Radioactive growth is when a neutron in the
nucleus of an atom transforms into a proton plus electron, increasing
the atomic number of the original atom. The original atom before the
radioactive growth had atomic number Z and after the radioactive growth
has atomic number Z+1.  
        Radioactive decay (rd) is when any atom of an atomic number Z
transmutates to an atom/s of lower atomic
…

read more »

  If experimenters would switch fuel masses from heavy water and
palladium to that of a better fuel mass of liquified hydrogen and
helium and/or hydrogen and helium ionized gas just as matched by the
SUN and then applying either changing i or changing V, then RSNM
(radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization) will be seen with
predictable results.
        I assert that if these experiments are conducted with the view of
radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization, and not a process of
fusing atoms, not fusion which is in the other quantum dual of
StrongNuclear-Gravity Interaction. Then the experiments will become
clear and the results predictable.
        Yet the current physics community will continue to hang on to failed
ideas for it is a highly conservative community, severely toilet
trained, and slow to change their thinking, even though the evidence
builds up against them.   Professors pretend more than they understand.
Professors of physics are some of the most severely toilet trained
persons on Earth.  One only needs to read sci.physics and
sci.physics.fusion. By the way, sci.physics.research and
sci.math.research and now a newcomer sci.astro are to be completely
recycled by my successors. Pluto make done. At a point in the history
of science, break out the sweet sparkling champagne (1993 and 1994 are
good years). RECYCLE everything from those 3 mentioned newsgroups
out-of-existence starting with 12AUG1993 (the day I appeared). I make
these remarks to lead into the conservation of energy-mass. It is a
known fact of physics from experiment results that the conservation of
energy-mass is violated by virtual particles via the Uncertainty
Principle in QED. And as of the present time the physics community is
highly opposed to DiracÕs suggestion in his book Directions in Physics
 that the conservation of energy-mass is a falsehood.
         But it is reasonable expected behavior of the physics community, for
most people follow the crowd majority rather than follow the minority
who have hard evidence. A physics community would rather follow the
bandwagon of wrong ideas, rather than follow a wagon who has only a few
persons leading the way. This is human nature and let noone be fooled
that a science community is bandwagon long before it is the truth. I
refer to the scientific case of Aristarchus over 2200 years ago who
asserted the heliocentric system from hard evidence of measured
observables. I refer to epicycle theory which was false, yet it was THE
most long-lived science theories in recorded history. Democritus’s
Atomic Theory only became respected after Dalton.  Sentiment and
religion carried the falsehood of the Ptolemy system for thousands of
years. Conservation of energy-mass will continue its popularity with
professors of physics, since most people feel better with the bandwagon
science before they accept hard evidence. Many posters of
sci.physics.fusion are bandwagon posters and I feel sorry for those new
readers who cannot distinguish that pollution and brainwashing.

        (6) The origin of the Sun and the planets in our Solar System, I
assert, is by radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization. Earth is
growing more massive every day, every hour, at a rate which is not
difficult to measure. The physics and astronomy community assigns this
known fact of the growing accretion of the Earth to only one account,
that of the sweep of Earth in its orbit collecting cosmic gas, dust,
and objects. I assert that Earth is growing more massive daily by two
accounts, one from the outer space planetary sweep, but more
importantly from the other account of rsnm occurring in the interior of
Earth induced through the changing electric current i and changing
electric potential V inside Earth.      When astronomers try to reconcile
the account figure for Earth’s daily mass accretion from cosmic sweep
alone, it is not enough. I assert that the daily mass accretion by
Earth is equal to the EarthÕs accretion from outer space plus EarthÕs
internal accretion by rsnm.  The outer space accretion is small in
comparison to the internal accretion.
        Sea floor spreading, continental drift are a consequence of
radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization in the EarthÕs center.
The Earth of the past was a smaller planet explaining well Wegener’s
Gondwanaland and Continental Drift theory.
        The current conventional community of astronomers and physicists
subscribe to some cosmic gaseous cloud approximately 5-10 billion years
ago from which the protosun and protoearth formed.  This is what
conventional astronomy panders off.
        The present physics community believes that the daily mass accretion
of the Earth must all come from the cosmic sweep of gas, dust, and
objects. It is so sad that physics and astronomy subscribe so much to
interstellar gas. They go even further by subscribing importance to
intergalactic gas. They wish to explain the origin of our Sun and our
planets to a primordial gas cloud. It is so sad that modern physics has
reached the heights of quantum theory, and yet the accepted explanation
to such important questions as the origin of planets and the origin of
the stars is still back in the caveman-realm-of-thought of dust and gas
clouds. Readers must ask themselves whether gas clouds should be a
reasonable science explanation for much in physics and astronomy.
Cosmic gas cloud hypothesis is highly suspect.
        The real truth I posit for the origin of planets and stars, and again
I am ahead of my time, is that the Sun is a dot of the Schroedinger
wave equation. A dot of the probability density distribution, a dot of
the electron cloud for the 94th electron of the 231 Plutonium Atom
Totality.  Dots of the electron cloud are locuses where large quantity
of radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization occur. Protosun and
Protoearth started out as a dot of the Schroedinger wave equation,i.e.,
a collection of atoms, which grew via rsnm to our presently observed
Sun and planet Earth. This again leads into my revolutionary theory of
the Plutonium Atom Totality, and I will not stray afield here but refer
the interested reader to my enclosed textbook for more understanding.
        (7) The anomalous facts concerning the planet Mercury. The planet
Mercury has 2 outstanding anomalous facts: 1) huge iron core and 2) a
magnetic field. Conventional physics and astronomy are dumbfounded in
explaining these two facts. But an easy and clear explanation is rsnm.
The planet Mercury as all planets are dots of the electron cloud of the
94th electron of plutonium. Dots of the Schroedinger wave equation is
where electromagnetic potential and current exists, and wherever it
exists there occurs rsnm.
        (8) The case of the light chemical elements emitted from the middle of
the planet Earth, e.g., helium, lithium are inexplicable by science
previous to 1990, in that these elements should have escaped a long
time ago, yet they continue to spew forth in steady amount. The
community of physicists and geologists have no explanation. I have the
explanation with radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization, since
rsnm makes neutrons which some decay into hydrogen and rsnm takes some
hydrogen and forms helium and with helium rsnm sometimes forms lithium.
So there is a continual production and escape of newly formed light
elements from the middle of the Earth.
        (9) The case for the light chemical elements and their anomalous
quantity found in stars. The light elements of lithium, beryllium, and
boron are found in too large of a proportion in stars to be accountable
by fusion. For stars are so hot that these light elements would have
been burned-off and the theoretical rate of creation by hot fusion of
new lithium, beryllium, and boron are too low to what is actually
observed. Here again is another disagreement of hot fusion theory with
respect to the observables, i.e., more lithium, beryllium, and boron in
stars than what there should be. And yet there are not enough light
elements in the intergalactic regions of space. In summary, where the
light elements are found in abundance– hot stars they should not be
there, and where they are not found in abundance– intergalactic space,
there should be more of them there.
        The explanation for these anomalous facts is easy once radioactive
spontaneous neutron materialization is seen as the active working
process. In intergalactic space there is little to no changing electric
potential V or changing current flow i, and so there is little neutron
materialization to form these light elements. But in stars, it is not
so much that they are hot and burn off the light elements but that
stars continually create via neutron materialization these light
elements because of the highly changing V and i of star plasmas.
        (10) The cosmic abundance elements, and the uniform distribution of
the chemical elements in the observable universe in the proportions
that they are observed is strong evidence in support for the process of
radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization. Again the physics
community explains the uniformity due to gaseous intergalactic clouds
as a result of supernovas. But supernova are rare events.
        (11) The observation that when electric current i flowing through
wires or through a light bulb filament or incandescent lamps are hot
and eventually the wires or filaments or other parts wear-out due to
the high temperatures. Those high temperatures are a result of
radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization when i  varies. And
before these teachings, it was inexplicable as to how atoms of zinc
Z=30 contaminated copper Z=29 wire, or atoms of rhenium Z=75
contaminated light bulb filaments or heating coils made of tungsten
Z=74 in these materials after running electric current in the
materials. With rsnm it is a direct consequence that a copper wire will
have atoms of zinc, and a tungsten filament or heater will have atoms
of rhenium after running  a changing electric current i through,
because there is radioactive growth
…

read more »

  When I discuss the violation of conservation of energy-mass I feel
myself in the same position as what Aristarchus was in when he proposed
the heliocentric system several thousands of years ago. The majority of
people are dumbfounded with new ideas even though the evidence is plain
as day and undeniable.
        Dirac would agree from his book Directions in Physics  that
spontaneous neutron materialization is a direct violation of the
conservation of energy-mass.  But conservation violation is nothing
new, for example: (i) It was experimentally shown that the conservation
of parity was violated in 1956 by Lee and Yang.  (ii) And later it was
experimentally shown that charge conjugation multiply parity (CP) were
not conserved. See 1964  Cronin and Fitch. (iii) It is now thus
inferred by assuming if time reversal multiply charge conjugation
multiply parity (TCP) is a good symmetry, that time reversal symmetry
is violated. The conservation of time reversal symmetry means that if
time could run backwards, would it be acceptable to the laws of
physics?  
        My textbook and this patent application both assert that the
conservation of energy-mass is continually violated by the universe at
large. The universe at large has to grow somehow? The present community
of physics professors believe the most likely scenario of growth is the
Big Bang model of the universe. I say that model is wrong. The
observable universe, what we think of as the universe at large, is only
the last electron of one atom of plutonium. The planet Earth is inside
a Plutonium Atom Totality, a part of the 94th electron cavity. The
Plutonium Atom Totality (PU) grows by radioactive spontaneous neutron
materialization. PU says that the Big Bang is merely the Neptunium Atom
Totality Spontaneously Fissioning into our current Plutonium Atom
Totality.

        What technical difficulties are there in rsnm devices?
        1) It is very difficult to measure the exact count of a specific
number of atoms. And extremely difficult to measure the specific count
of neutrons of those counted atoms. Measuring exact counts of atoms and
the neutrons of those atoms before running a changing electric current
i or changing electromagnetic potential V through those atoms and
checking the count afterwards is extremely difficult and never exact.
        2) It is extremely difficult, and perhaps theoretically impossible to
manufacture a slab of a 100% isotope of an element, whether stable or
radioactive, and in the case of hydrogen gas a container of pure
hydrogen. It seems as if there is always contamination by other
isotopes. This contamination is in fact support of my claim of
radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization. That rsnm results in
all samples as being impure and never reaching 100% purity. See reports
on GE striving to manufacture a 100% pure carbon isotope diamond. In
theory, I assert the impossibility of ever achieving 100% purity is
another formulation of the Uncertainty Principle of quantum physics.
        3) The best fuels for Neutron Materialization Power Plants are
hydrogen ions as in the Sun, but hydrogen ions are very explosive and
dangerous to work around when running either a changing electric
current i or a changing electromagnetic potential V through.

        There are 4 and only 4 interactions. These are (1) Strong Nuclear (SN)
(2) Gravitation (G) (3) Radioactivities (R), and (4) Electromagnetism
(EM).
        There are 4 and only 4 quantum principles. These are (1) Uncertainty
(UP) (2) Complementary (CP) (3) Superposition (SP), and (4) Pauli (PP).

         The Complementary Principle states: The wave and the particle aspects
of a quantum entity are both necessary for a complete description.
However, both aspects cannot be revealed simultaneously in a single
experiment. The aspect that is revealed is determined by the nature of
the experiment being done.
        By the fact of CP there exists at least 1 group of complementary
duals. This 1 group consists of particle and wave. Where particle +
wave = the whole description. I propose other groups of CP.
        Taking the 4 interactions as 2 groups of complementary duals. Then one
group is Strong Nuclear and Gravity, represented as SN+G = whole
description. The other group is Radioactivities (R) and
Electromagnetism (EM), represented as R+EM = whole description.
        Applying CP to starpower. Starpower is physically measurable as either
SN+G with never any R nor ever any EM. Or, starpower is physically
measurable as either R+EM with never any SN nor ever any G.
        Thinking quantumwise, hot fusion of our Sun is a measurement from
experimental set-ups for SN+G, and excluding all of R+EM. But our Sun
can be measured as a huge radioactivities pile R along with
electromagnetism EM, written as R+EM for a complete description. This
complete description of R+EM must exclude all of SN+G.
        According to CP since SN+G = whole description, and  R+EM = whole
description. Then the relative coupling strengths of the 4 interactions
has the math equivalence as thus SN+G=R+EM.
        The relative coupling strength of SN is highest and if assigned the
value 1 then gravity is experimentally measured at 10^-40 . But, 1 +
10^-40  is for all practical purposes still 1. The fact that SN+G is
approx 1 implies that since SN+G=R+EM, then R+EM is approx 1.
        Since EM has a relative coupling strength to SN of .01, implies that R
is .99. For all practical purposes then, R almost equals SN.
        But according to FeynmanÕs Table of 1963, the weak nuclear
(radioactive decay) has a relative coupling strength of 10^-5. Since
relative coupling strength for radioactive growth is even less than
radioactive decay implies that there must exist another form of
radioactivities other than rd and rg to complete the interaction law.
Since in hot fusion processes of SN+G, hydrogen is transmutated into
helium. And hydrogen which has only 1 proton and 1 electron
(essentially a 1 neutron system) transmutated into helium containing 2
protons, 2 neutrons, and 2 electrons (essentially a 4 neutron system).
Then the form of radioactivities which completes the radioactivities
interaction (R) is radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization
(rsnm). In the case of hydrogen transmutation to helium, there are 3
neutrons spontaneously materialized with one of those neutrons
decaying, subsequent proton capture, electron capture. So, rsnm has the
relative coupling strength of nearly .99, almost the same as SN at 1.
        I give Feynman’s 1963 Table with my 1991 reinterpretation considering
quantum principles applied to the 4 interactions:
        New Table for Elementary Interactions
        Coupling                Strength                        Law
Photon to charged particles   approx .01                 Law known
Gravity to all energy        approx 10^-40           Law known
radioactivities rsnm+rd+rg  approx .99              Law known
Mesons to baryons          approx 1   Law still unknown but more rules
                                                                known
        Compare my table with that of FeynmanÕs Table given above.  The
largest change is in the category of radioactivity. FeynmanÕs of 1963
is this: radioactive decay                   approx 10^ -5         Law
partially known .
        What I assert as new to the art of physics is that I drastically
change FeynmanÕs Table as given in 1963 and accepted all the way up to
1991. I change the art of physics through the application of quantum
principles.  An atom can act either energylike or timelike, and it
exists in a probabilistic quantum state until a measurement is made.
If energylike property is measured, the atom behaves like energy, and
if a timelike property is measured, the atom behaves like time.
Whether the atom is energylike or timelike is not well defined until
the experimental conditions are specified. Bohr asserted that the
set-up of a device determines what is measured.  To measure mostly one
of two noncommutative properties then the device must be so set-up such
that "an influence on the very conditions which define the possible
types of predictions regarding the future behavior of the system."  
Rewording Bohr’s thought to radioactive spontaneous neutron
materialization devices is: to measure mostly rsnm instead of
electromagnetism requires the set-up of devices in which rsnm prevails
over  electromagnetism.
        The relative coupling strength of SN compared to EM is about 100 to 1.
  This implies that the relative coupling strength of SN compared to R
is about 100 to 99. The periodic chart of chemical elements is evidence
in agreement with these numbers. Element 100 is at the limit of
statistical half-life to Spontaneous Fission stability since that is
the relative coupling strength of SN to EM. Element 100 is similar to
Element 26, because iron is stable to both fusion energy and fission
energy. Spontaneous Fission half-life instability rapidly increases
with atomic number Z=99, element 99, implying that SN is balanced by
R+EM when Z=100.
        Dirac proposed particle materialization in his book Directions in
Physics.  Specifically I propose neutron materialization and that this
neutron materialization occurs both additive and multiplicative
simultaneously. Neutron materialization occurs most often in stars in
their hydrogen plasmas. Stars are magnetohydrodynamic plasmas obeying
laws of electromagnetism. I refer the reader to magnetohydrodynamics,
McGRAW-HILL ENCYCLOPEDIA of Science & Technology  Vol. 10, 7th Ed. 0052
 magnetohydrodynamics pages 327-335.
        I assert that a star in magnetohydrodynamics is radioactivities and
electromagnetism.  Hot fusion is looking at a star as predominantly SN
with the quantum complementary dual of G. When a physicist wants to
measure the dynamics of starpower with what is known as hot fusion,
then the physicist must consider only the complementary duals of SN+G
to the 100% exclusion of R+EM. But if the same physicist wanted to
measure the dynamics of starpower using R+EM, then he must exclude 100%
all interactions of both SN and G. Before 1991 a physicist trying to
explain stellar dynamics by using strong nuclear and gravity and then
…

read more »

Seems straightforward, but:

I’m trying to make N,N-dideuterated tert-butylamine, for the purpose of
making the lithium salt. I’ve tried a couple ways, but flubbed them up,
mostly by screwing around with it and it evaporated (bp=44 C). Has anyone
out there deuterated a volatile amine like this? Just email me
(holl…@garnet.berkeley.edu) if you’ve DONE it. I’ve come up with all
the ideas you have, I’ll bet: I was just hoping for a real live
experience (that worked). Thanks in advance.

Pat

–
————————————————————————–
Patrick Holland                      holl…@garnet.berkeley.edu
Dept. of Chemistry          Q: What do you do to an elephant with 3 balls?
U. Cal, Berkeley               A: Walk him and pitch to the rhino.

 I am very much interested in modern textbooks for students in:

1.Physical Chemistry
2.Analytical Chemistry

 If you can recommend me anything Is will appreciate your help.  It would
be much better to send the
information directly to me: dag.ekeb…@nlh10.nlh.no

Please, indicate AUTHORS, TITLE, YEAR OF EDITION AND PUBLISHERS.
Thank you in advance.
associate professor Dag Ekeberg

I’m looking for papers or other references concerning chaos in molecules such
as chaotic spectra or chatoic motion of atoms in molecules.
Does anybody know some useful review article or textbook about that topic?

Markus

Ever wonder why the definition of dimension in math is the most ancient
fossilized definition of all definitions current in math.

Look at what Kline has to remark about the definition of dimension in
math.
        I quote from the book MATH THOUGHT FROM ANCIENT TO MODERN TIMES: "The
question of dimension, as already noted, was raised by Cantor’s
demonstration of a one-to-one correspondence of line and plane and by
Peano’s curve, which fills out a square.  Frechet (already working with
abstract spaces) and Poincare saw the need for a definition of
dimension that would apply to abstract spaces and yet grant to line and
plane the dimensions usually assumed for them.  The definition that had
been tacitly accepted was the number of coordinates needed to fix the
points of a space.  This definition was not applicable to general
spaces.
        In 1912 Poincare gave a recursive definition. A continuum (a closed
connected set) has dimension n if it can be separated into two parts
whose common boundary consists of continua of dimension n-1. Brouwer
pointed out that the definition does not apply to the cone with two
nappes, because the nappes are separated by a point. Poincare’s
definition was improved by Brouwer,Urysohn,and Menger. (Continued).
Another widely accepted definition is due to Lebesgue. (Continued)."

This is the usual definition of dimension in math– number of
perpendicular directions in Euclidean space, and the number of
coordinates needed to locate a vector in space. All of this is so
primitive along with the dinosaurs. Dinosaur math.

Is it any wonder that the OLD statement of the Poincare Conjecture and
the OLD statement of the 4 Color Mapping problem were impossible to
prove until dimension is given a clean math definition?

As Karl Heuer noted in a thread earlier this year that we will never
prove that 1 is the only odd perfect number until we clearly define
what the factor set of a number is. Karl was echoing Gauss’s idea of a
long time ago. Whenever we have an immensely difficult problem in math,
whenever math breaks down, sputters and quits, then look first at the
definitions we are using. Often in math, the breakdown in math is a
reflection of old decrepit, syphilitic definitions in vogue. I assert
that the definition of "dimension" in math is downright pathetic,
pitiful, and syphilitic. The definition of dimension in math needs alot
of help from physics.

I propose that the correct definition of dimension will be gleaned from
the Schroedinger equation in physics. The correct definition of
dimension for math will come out of Quantum Mechanics. This is
understandable. It was impossible for Newton to see that gravity was
lines-of-force. Newton would have to wait for Faraday. Math would have
to wait for Quantum Mechanics of the SPACE OF ATOMS in order to
formulate the correct definition of dimension.

The correct definition of dimension will square-away the idea of
dimension with respect to atom space because it will come from atomic
structure.

The correct definition of dimension will make the Poincare Conjecture
and the GENERALIZED 4 Color Mapping Problem squared-away.

What is the notion of dimension in Riemannian geometry? Noone on Earth
has a good math definition or clue. It will come from Quantum Mechanics
of the space of atoms via the Schroedinger equation, I speculate.

What is the notion of dimension in Lobachevskian geometry? Noone on
Earth has a good math definition or a clue. It will come from ATOMIC
SPACE via the Schroedinger equation and the Maxwell equations, I
speculate.

What is the arithmetization of dimension? When we are approaching the
correct definition of dimension we will be able to say "this set of
numbers is dimension 1, and that set of numbers is dimension 2, etc." I
speculate.

"Franklin was also relentlessly optimistic. Throughout his life he saw
everything as a wonderful game. A serious game to be sure." Continued
"How did it feel the flail a whirlwind with a whip, or to catch
lightning with a kite?" — Mechanical Universe