1995.01.04 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 01:07:07 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <5Y5Zo2P.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>I have no idea whether the Griggs device works by cold fusion or not, but I do
>know that it produces copious excess heat; enough to pay for the equipment in
>one to six years (depending on how many hours per day it is used.) Griggs just
>finished installing several more systems in factories here in Georgia. There
>is absolutely, positively no question that they produce thousands of watts of
>excess heat -- the big ones put out roughly 22 KW excess, 24 hours a day, 7
>days a week.

So, it is your contention that Griggs claims that his water heaters supply
more energy in heat than is inserted?

>They would never buy the kind of crap Dick Blue peddles about
>how it is impossible to measure a steel arm to +/- 1 cm. *You* believe that, I
>am sure.

This is getting somewhat old Rothwell. Although I generally don't read
anything with your name on it anymore I was reading a string where Dick
Blue questioned the measuring accuracy of the calibration procedure you
were explaining. I did not see him claim that one couldn't measure an arm
length accurately, but he questioned whether _you_ could measure these
arm lengths accurately enough to make your usual preposterous claims of
accuracy.

As someone with practical experience I tended to agree with Dick Blue that
measuring the distance from a fulcrum tends to be a bit touchy and even little
errors in measuring can give substantial errors in calibration of such
mechanisms. As usual you do not seem to grasp the basic principles and so
blather away with your rediculous writings.

>You probably think it is impossible to rewind a VCR too (the Droege
>thesis). People like you will believe anything that supports your illusions
>and your wacky theories. I myself only believe replicated experimental data.

Rothwell, you still don't understand it do you? If you don't know how
much liquid is being lost, how much calibration errors there are and
i.e. how much the liquid level is effected by the course bubbling of the
boiling cells, there is no way to make intelligent speculations let along
claikm accurate measurements.

These skeptical fears could have been addressed by P&F but have not been.
Why? We can all assume that there is a good reason for it. My guess is that
proper documentation of the experiment would reveal evidence of technical
and technique errors.

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.04 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 01:28:18 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <54zYYoS.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>I'll bet you knew what I meant. I'll bet you are nitpicking. Someday,
>you should go looking for errors in the anti-CF postings from Blue,
>Morrison, Jones, et al. It is easier than looking for slip ups in my
>messages because I make trivial errors whereas they are usually 5 or 6
>orders of magnitude off. Better yet, why don't you try *defending* their
>point of view. Explain why nobody can measure anything to the nearest
>centimeter. Amuse us!

You know, Jed, us silly electronics engineers who have actually had to
design real power supplies have yet to figure out what you mean, let alone
what _you_ think you mean.

Sorry, but your knowledge of electronics, power and science in general
leaves something to be desired.

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.04 / Harry Conover /  Re: Calorimetry easier than Fermat's Last Theorem proof
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Calorimetry easier than Fermat's Last Theorem proof
Date: 4 Jan 1995 02:24:51 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
:  
: CF is based on simple laboratory experiments. The proof that the CF effect is
: real is breathtakingly obvious. 

Jed, now wait just one dang minute.  Are you not the same Jed Rothwell
that argued for months that the reason CF experiments could not be 
replicated is because very specialized and sophisticated knowledge
or expertise is required to duplicate the results?  As I recall, you 
compared it to someone trying to fabricate an integrated circuit in their 
basement, or words close to that.

So now I put it to you, Jed: Is CF a simple laboratory experiment or
does it require esoteric skills and equipment?  Surely, it cannot be
both.

: Anyone with a junior high school grasp of
: physics can understand it. 

Since the process is so simple, please explain the mechanism.

: CF is physical phenomenon with a mechanism and physical manifestation that
: register on instruments. 

Interesting.  I was under the impression that CF's inability to register
on instruments formed a major basis for skepticism, and that the only 
experimental basis for arguing its existence is calorimetry...a somewhat
innovative choice of instrumentation for demonstrating the existence of 
a presumably nuclear process.  

                                       Harry C.


ps. Hang in there guy...you've already demonstrated that you have the
    brass balls of a used Hugo salesman!  I admire that.  But please,
    don't solicit investments in this from widows or orphans. Doctors,
    lawyers, brokers, and real estage salesmen are, however, fair 
    game!   :-)


cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.03 / R Schumacher /  Re: MRA update 5, free energy device
     
Originally-From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane
.science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,cl.energie.alternativ
n,de.sci.electronics,sci.energy,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.
aterials,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: MRA update 5, free energy device
Date: 3 Jan 1995 20:45:53 -0600
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, TX USA


Good heavens, man, do you really think there's any value
in posting this stuff? They sound like grade school kids
who have just started playing with radio parts.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenschumach cudfnRichard cudlnSchumacher cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.04 / John Logajan /  Re: When is the Nice conference?
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: When is the Nice conference?
Date: 4 Jan 1995 02:56:11 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Tom Droege (Droege@fnal.fnal.gov) wrote:
: I would like to ask everyone here who has previously attended any of
: the cold fusion conferences, did you get the announcement of ICCF5?

I got a flyer on it earlier this summer -- though I can't recall if either
Jed or Gene sent it to me or if it came with materials from the now
defunct "Cold Fusion" Magazine.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 - WWW URL =  http://www.skypoint.com/subscribers/jlogajan -
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.04 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Calorimetry easier than Fermat's Last Theorem proof
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Calorimetry easier than Fermat's Last Theorem proof
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 03:20:18 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <3ed0tj$fk8@sundog.tiac.net>,
Harry H Conover <conover@max.tiac.net> wrote:

>Interesting.  I was under the impression that CF's inability to register
>on instruments formed a major basis for skepticism, and that the only 
>experimental basis for arguing its existence is calorimetry...a somewhat
>innovative choice of instrumentation for demonstrating the existence of 
>a presumably nuclear process.  

Ahh, someone has finally said it. What the True Believers have been trying
to pass off on the public is that what they claim to be a nuclear process
can only be detected with an incredably error fraught instrumentation
process that they like to describe as an exact science.

>ps. Hang in there guy...you've already demonstrated that you have the
>    brass balls of a used Hugo salesman!

Now this is a funny statement: Do you mean "Yugo", the rediculously
unreliable Yugoslav auto that was an utter failure in the U.S. marketplace?
Or perhaps you mean the "Hugo" which is awarded for science fiction 
stories?

In both cases I think it equally applies to Rothwell and his inability
to understand the difference between voltage and power. Why it wasn't all
that long ago when I designed a 'D' battery powered power supply for a
geiger counter that put out 800V. Stange that Rothwell thinks that
the 3V 'rails' wouldn't allow more than 3V out.

Thats what you can expect when a 'linguist' turns to science. He tals
it to death. :-)

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.04 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 95 00:16:30 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) (that's SCHULTZ -- sorry),
writes:
 
     "BTW, the reason that many of the skeptics like to ask about the water
     heater is given in your sentence above:  if measuring 200 watts is so
     easy, surely it must be even easier to determine whether one has a
     working water heater or not."
 
You are quite right. It is indeed even easier to determine whether one has a
working water heater or not. The reason is that a water heater produces much
higher power levels, which are inherantly easy to measure. For example, the
largest Griggs device inputs 110 KW and outputs between 130 to 140 KW, which
is even more impossible to miss -- or mistake -- than 200 watts. There is no
question at all that these commercial water heaters do create massive levels
of excess energy. For one thing, they save thousands of dollars per year when
they replace electric boilers.
 
 
     "And you seem to have slid by my other point:  I do not know much about
     electrochemistry, but I do know about mass spectrometry.  Why should I
     assume that the CF scientists are any more competent at the former than
     they are at the latter?"
 
Two points, both very important:
 
1. Electrochemistry has nothing to do with it. Many CF devices do not even use
electrochemistry. The issue is calorimetry, not electrochemistry. The
fundamentals of calorimetry are taught in third grade science classes. You
and every other scientist knows them as well as you know Newton's laws.
Forget about electrochemistry: the CF device as a black box which outputs far
more heat than the electrical input. The mechanism and the details of the
device have nothing to do with calorimetry. It is mystery box which outputs
hundreds of thousands of times more energy than the equivalent mass of
chemical fuel. That is really all you need to know about it: that proves it
is not chemical, and it is important.
 
2. You should NEVER assume that CF scientists -- or anyone else -- is competant
about anything. Never. Always read the papers, review the work, visit the
experiments, and decide for yourself whether they are competant or not. You
will find that some of them are brilliant, some are competant, and some are
laughably inept. There are, after all, hundreds of CF scientists.
 
If you cannot judge the calorimetry yourself, then you have no business
posting messages saying the work is no good. You have no business saying they
have not shown "extraordinary proof." Either you are expert enough to judge
calorimetry, which gives you the ability to say they have botched it for thus
and such reasons; or you are *not* expert, in which case you must admit you
cannot tell whether they proved the point or not. I suggest that if you are
not sure how Arata's flow calorimetry works, you should review my daughter's
grade school textbooks from a few years ago. I myself do understand
calorimetry well enough to judge Arata's work, and McKubre's, Mizuno's and
many others. I assert that they *have* demonstrated extraordinary proof of
excess heat. If you say they have not, you better come up with specific
technical reasons to support your case. Otherwise, you look like an evasive
fool. What are you telling us? "I know it is wrong even though I have not
read the papers. I just know by ESP. It is probably a subtle error that shows
up as a five degree C Delta T." How the hell can a subtle error be 5 degrees?
That's about as subtle as theromonuclear explosion. We are talking 150 watts!
If you think that level of heat is subtle, go put your hand on a hot 150 watt
incandescent light bulb that has been left on for a half hour.
 
Getting back to your water heater point -- which was right on the mark -- it
is even easier to tell that a large device is working. Instead of having
440 ml of water 5 deg C hotter than it should be, you get a 50 gallon barrel
of water which should be lukewarm but the excess makes it steaming hot instead.
Stick your arm in the water and you sure can tell the difference!
 
Go ahead and try and find a problem with a quality experiment if you dare.
Since I have a ton of calibration data, schematics and other detailed
information from many of these people, I am sure I can tear apart any
technical reason you dream up as easily as I tore up the Dick Blue's flakey
ideas about Griggs: the 1 cm error; the invisible heat pump; and "cold mist."
Any fool could disprove ideas like that, it is real cinch to defend quality
CF calorimetry. All you have to do is remind Tom Droege that VCR machines
have rewind buttons and you can defeat the best argument he has come up with.
(Well, it is better than the "wired in series" or the "dropletts" crap -- what
a hoot!) You don't even have to figure it out for yourself: just read the
paper, it is right in there. There are plenty of rotten, inconclusive CF
experiments which anyone can tear apart, but no "skeptic" can touch McKubre,
Arata, Pons and Fleischmann, or Griggs.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.04 / Harry Conover /  Re: Calorimetry easier than Fermat's Last Theorem proof
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Calorimetry easier than Fermat's Last Theorem proof
Date: 4 Jan 1995 04:27:58 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Thomas H. Kunich (tomk@netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <3ed0tj$fk8@sundog.tiac.net>,
: Harry H Conover <conover@max.tiac.net> wrote:

: >    brass balls of a used Hugo salesman!

: Now this is a funny statement: Do you mean "Yugo", the rediculously
: unreliable Yugoslav auto that was an utter failure in the U.S. marketplace?
: Or perhaps you mean the "Hugo" which is awarded for science fiction 
: stories?

I actually meant "Yugo".... I could blame it on a typing error, but it
was really a spelling error.  Unlike some of the CF Superstars, I am 
quick to admit when I err.

: In both cases I think it equally applies to Rothwell and his inability
: to understand the difference between voltage and power. 

Yup!

                                     Harry C.

The question remaining is: Is Jed naive, or a 'snake oil salesman'?


cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.03 /  midnight@cruzi /  Ball Lightning a Fusion Mechanism?
     
Originally-From: midnight@cruzio.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ball Lightning a Fusion Mechanism?
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 22:18:20 GMT
Organization: Cruzio Community Networking System, Santa Cruz, CA



    Dear sci.physics newsgroup -

    Thanks to those who responded to me about my Ball lightning inquiry!

    I've been referred to Paul Koloc of this sig . Anybody know his Email
    address?

    Regards ,

    Wolf @ Midnight Auto  (midnight@cruzio.com)
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmidnight cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.04 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  RE:  Dr. Bockris 4-body reaction/further experiments
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE:  Dr. Bockris 4-body reaction/further experiments
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 1995 01:47 -0500 (EST)

jonesse@acoust.byu.edu writes:
 
-> Natural iron, 57Fe/56Fe   0.0230 +- 0.0002
-> Carbon arc      "         0.0231 +- 0.0007
->                           0.0230 +- 0.0002 (another expermental run)
->                           0.0232 +- 0.0002 (yet another run).
->
-> The 54Fe/56Fe ratio was also found, in the carbon residue, to correspond to
-> the ratio found in nature:
->               54Fe/56Fe   0.0638 +- 0.005 (natural iron),
->                           0.0635 +- 0.0010 (in carbon residue)
->
-> These results imply that the iron found in the carbon residue at the bottom
-> of the cell comes from contamination, not from a wild 4-body nuclear reactio
 
That certainly appears to be the case to my way of thinking.  What about the
helium?  Was that ever measured/verified?  Was the He3/He4 ratio checked on it?
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy04 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.04 / Matt Austern /  Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
     
Originally-From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
Date: 04 Jan 1995 05:40:40 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)

In article <568a4NO.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

>      "BTW, the reason that many of the skeptics like to ask about the water
>      heater is given in your sentence above:  if measuring 200 watts is so
>      easy, surely it must be even easier to determine whether one has a
>      working water heater or not."
>  
> You are quite right. It is indeed even easier to determine whether one has a
> working water heater or not. The reason is that a water heater produces much
> higher power levels, which are inherantly easy to measure. For example, the
> largest Griggs device inputs 110 KW and outputs between 130 to 140 KW, which
> is even more impossible to miss -- or mistake -- than 200 watts.

I'm really not interested in the Griggs turbine (which doesn't seem to
have anything at all to do with the D2O electrochemistry that people
five years ago called "cold fusion"); I'd rather not change the
subject just now.  I'm much more interested in the water heater that
Pons claimed to have, five years ago, and that he held in his hands
and showed to reporters.

Pons told reporters all about that water heater five hears ago, and he
has been very silent about it ever since.  Indeed, I should think it
is very easy to tell whether or not you have what Pons claimed to
have---a device the size of a thermos that could economically produce
all the hot water needed by an average American home.

I think it's quite natural to wonder: did Pons really have such a
thing at the time, or didn't he?  If he did, then what happened to it?
And if he didn't, then why did he say he did and why hasn't he
ever corrected those claims?
--

                               --matt
cudkeys:
cuddy04 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.04 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Calorimetry easier than Fermat's Last Theorem proof
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Calorimetry easier than Fermat's Last Theorem proof
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 95 00:59:31 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Harry H Conover <conover@max.tiac.net> writes:
 
     "Are you not the same Jed Rothwell that argued for months that the
     reason CF experiments could not be replicated is because very
     specialized and sophisticated knowledge or expertise is required to
     duplicate the results?  As I recall, you compared it to someone trying
     to fabricate an integrated circuit in their basement, or words close to
     that."
 
Yes, that is exactly what it is like. The fabrication techniques at the
University of Illinois, NTT, and Mitsubishi are taken directly from silicon
chip technologies.
 
 
     "So now I put it to you, Jed: Is CF a simple laboratory experiment or
     does it require esoteric skills and equipment?  Surely, it cannot be
     both."
 
Ah, but of course it *is* both! You have hit the nail on the head! The
analogy is exactly right:
 
     It is extremely difficult to manufacture, say, an integrated circuit for
     a fax machine . . .
 
     BUT
 
     When you make a fax machine chip that works correctly, anyone can see it
     works right! The faxes come out just the way they should.
 
That is the beauty of technology. You do not have to know what is "under the
hood" to know that your car drives, your fax works, your computer runs Word
Perfect properly. In the case of cold fusion, you do not have to know what
makes it work, and you can still be certain it *does work*. All you have to do
is measure the electricity going in, the water flow, and the Delta T
temperature.
 
 
I wrote that anyone with a junior high school grasp of physics can understand
the proof that cold fusion is real. Harry asked:
 
     "Since the process is so simple, please explain the mechanism."
 
I am not sure which mechanism you are talking about. Do you mean the mechanism
that makes cold fusion create heat, or do you mean the mechanics of a flow
calorimeter? I do not have any earthly idea what process makes cold fusion
itself work -- that's nuclear physics. Ask Peter Hagelstein or Scott Chubb.
Whatever it is, it converts hydrogen to helium and liberates heat. But I can
explain how a flow calorimeter works in as much detail as you like! That's
easy.
 
The calorimeter proves that CF heat is real and that CF devices produce
hundreds of thousands of times more energy than a chemical device of
equivalent mass. The calorimeter does not tell you why there is heat, any more
than a rainfall gage tells you why it rains. It just measures heat. If you
want to learn the nuclear mechanism you have to use mass spectrometers,
tritium detectors and other instruments which I am not competent to explain in
detail.
 
 
     "I was under the impression that CF's inability to register on
     instruments formed a major basis for skepticism . . ."
 
Your impression is dead wrong. When a CF cell starts producing 150 watts
excess it registers as a very hefty Delta T temperature increase. There is no
question about it. Mizuno's device got so hot the wires melted and the
thermocouples conked out.
 
I do not know where you got this "impression." It could not have been from
reading the peer reviewed scientific papers or conference proceedings. They
all show graphs and instrument readings, and many of them are as indisputable
as Arata's 5 deg C increase in the Delta T temperature.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.04 / Bradley Sherman /  Re: When is the Nice conference?
     
Originally-From: bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: When is the Nice conference?
Date: 4 Jan 1995 06:04:23 GMT
Organization: Dendrome, A Genome Database for Forest Trees

In article <ha8bgJJ.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> ...
>The date of ICCF-5 is 9 - 13 April 1995. The location is Monte Carlo, Monaco.
>This was decided in the Spring of 1994 and announced here, in this forum,
>many times. The final announcement was also posted in this forum. Here it
>is again:
> ...

Well, I did a WAIS search at sunsite.unc.edu on the keywords:
   fifth conference april monaco 1995
and did not come up with a hit on any such announcements
before 12/94.  (The keywords are essentially inclusively
or'ed in WAIS, so the absence of any keyword in an article
will not prevent the algorithm from finding a document.)
I also tried (iccf monte carlo) and a few others without
success.

This does not prove that it was not announced in this forum
many times.  ``Contrariwise'', continued Tweedledee, ``if it
was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it
isn't, it ain't.  That's logic.''  (Apologies to Logajan and
Bass and Dodgson).

    --bks

-- 
Bradley K. Sherman          Institute of Forest Genetics
bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov                       P.O. Box 245
510-559-6437 FAX:510-559-6440     Berkeley, CA 94701 USA
<a href="http://s27w007.pswfs.gov/">Dendrome Project</a>
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenbks cudfnBradley cudlnSherman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.04 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Re: Refuting the Reifenschweiler effect
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Refuting the Reifenschweiler effect
Date: 4 Jan 95 18:01:05 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

In article <harrD18AMp.5wM@netcom.com>, harr@netcom.com (Chuck Harrison)
writes:
> In article <9412202215.AA30827@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>, blue@pilot.msu.edu
 (Richard A Blue) says:
>>
>>Perhaps I should, for Daryl Owen's benefit, explain my doubts about
>>the Reifenschweiler data in greater detail.
> [...]
> 
> In my opinion Dick Blue does not represent the contents of the "expanded
> unpublished version of the Reifenschweiler paper" very well at all.
> 
Hi Folks,
I agree with Chuck, also Dick -has not- provided (as requested) any
chemical equations relating to the formation of a substance with 
the differing Z which he claims to be responsible for the variation 
in radiation. You still hav'nt substantiated your claims Dick.
Regards to all,
Daryl Owen.

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudendowen cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.04 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
Date: 4 Jan 1995 11:58:34 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <568a4NO.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>You are quite right. It is indeed even easier to determine whether one has a
>working water heater or not. The reason is that a water heater produces much
>higher power levels, which are inherantly easy to measure.

Then why do you get so upset when people ask to see the working water 
heater that Pons claimed he already had in his hand?
--
					Richard Schultz

"You don't even have a clue as to which clue you're missing." -- Miss Manners
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.03 / Richard Wentk /  Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
     
Originally-From: leo@rwentk.demon.co.uk (Richard Wentk)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane
.science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc
.energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 23:34:39 +0000
Organization: The Laughing Lion Company

In article <3e96tu$4e9@eldborg.rhi.hi.is>
           kvj@rhi.hi.is "Kristjan Valur Jonsson" writes:

> >In article <hatunenD1rnw5.BEy@netcom.com>, hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen)
>  writes:
> >=In article <788993933snz@rwentk.demon.co.uk>,
> >=Richard Wentk <leo@rwentk.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> >=>To suggest also that you HAVE to have a PhD (another post, this...) 
> >=>before you can be treated seriously is also daft. I too get sick of 
> >=>postings that start 'Well, I'm no scientist, but...' and then go on to 
> >=>state something that simply isn't true. (My net favourite
has to be 'Mirrors > >=>don't work in a vacuum', BTW... :) ) I'm
no fan of tiresome speculations 
> >=>about the speed of light, either, especially from people who haven't taken 
> >=>the time to understand GR or SR and clearly don't know what they're talking 
> >=>about. 
> 
> >Actually, the above paragraph would appear to give us a very
useful observation> >of how Wentk thinks:  Please note that he
cites GR and SR, rather than
> >observations, as refuting unspecified speculations about the speed of light. 
>  He
> >clearly bases his opinions on what he considers to be reasonable theory rather
> >than on observations.  Hey, come up with a "theory" that he finds convincing
> >and which predicts invisible pink unicorns, and chances are, he'll then insist
> >that invisible pink unicorns exist.

You mean they don't? Awww... :)

BTW you're quite wrong here. If you'd read my post thoroughly you'd have 
realised that I was arguing /for/ more observation rather than
against it. In fact I went so far as to make that point three or four
times, just so it wouldn't be missed. 

Sadly my newsreader seems to have missed the rest of your post. If there
was any more to it - and I'd be particularly interested in some of
your views on the other points I'd made - then I look forward
to reading, and answering, your comments.
 
> Theory and Data are two different things.  He is talking about mis-
> interpretations of GR and SR.  Data showing either to be at fault
> must still be looked at, no?

> Kristjan

Thankyou Kristjan - my point exactly. 
 
RW
-- 
================================================================================
Richard Wentk              |           The Laughing Lion Company
Freelance writing & music  |           "Without stirring abroad
leo@rwentk.demon.co.uk     |          One can know the whole world..."  Lao Tzu
================================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenleo cudfnRichard cudlnWentk cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.04 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 95 08:36:26 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Thomas H. Kunich <tomk@netcom.com> writes:
 
>So, it is your contention that Griggs claims that his water heaters supply
>more energy in heat than is inserted?
 
The units supply more energy in the form of heat than that the electric
energy inserted. Obviously, some extra energy is being generated inside
the unit. It cannot be coming from a chemical reaction, so I suppose it
is nuclear. I don't think it is a ZPE machine. As far as I know there have
been no tests to look for helium or other nuclear products. They looked for
tritium and found no significant amounts. I do not know what could be
generating the heat, but I can rule a heat pump effect, because nothing gets
cold, and I can rule out chemistry, because the thing will generate energy
continuously for months if you leave it running.
 
>were explaining. I did not see him claim that one couldn't measure an arm
>length accurately, but he questioned whether _you_ could measure these
>arm lengths accurately enough to make your usual preposterous claims of
>accuracy.
 
This is nonense. Dick Blue was *not* questioning my ability to measure these
arm lengths. He was questioning the abilities of Griggs and the Eaton
Aerospace Measurement and Controls Corporation. What do you think is going
on?!? Do you think I manufactured the arm when I walked in the door?
 
And what "preposterous claims" are you talking about? Are you are True
Believer like Dick who thinks is impossible for anyone to measure anything?
Have you ever used a ruler or a micrometer? I claimed that I could measure
something to the nearest hundredth of an inch using my grandfather's
turn-of-the-century machine tools (an old fashioned micrometer ect.) Do you
doubt that? Have you ever tried measuring something with ordinary tools?
Dick is claiming that a manufacturing company cannot measure the diameter of
a steel shaft to within a centimeter. If you believe hat crap, you will
believe absolutely anything anyone tells you.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.04 / Robin Spaandonk /  Off topic: Gravity and GR
     
Originally-From: Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Off topic: Gravity and GR
Date: 4 Jan 1995 13:46:25 GMT
Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd - Australia

It has been proposed that according to Einstein's GR, a rapidly rotating mass
should produce a directional gravitational field rather akin to the magnetic
field generated by a rotating electric charge. Try the following thought
experiment. Imagine two such rotating masses coaxial, and rotating in the same
direction. Their gravitational fields would add. Now imagine 10^22 such
devices. Shrink them each to the size of a proton.

Assume for a moment that the assemblage of quarks and gluons within baryons
rotates at
near the speed of light.
Then each baryon would generate a small directional gravitational field. Both
the directional gravitational field, and the magnetic field, can be seen as
relativistic effects. Random alignment of rotational axes would result in such
directional gravitational fields almost cancelling out in normal matter.

Suppose however, that instead of averaging out to exactly nothing, there remains
a small resultant force. In general, baryons would try to align themselves,
such that their directional gravitational fields would reinforce one another.
This results in an overall lower energy content than would be the case for a
net repulsive force. The resultant overall remaining force, may be what we
experience as the force of gravity...An attractive force between collections of
rotating sub-atomic particles, that we call "matter". This means that gravity
itself would be a direct consequence of,  and the ultimate proof of the
validity of, GR.
It also means that the reason that gravity is an attractive force, is because
this is
energetically beneficial, and therefore statistically more likely, in a large
collection of particles.
Gravitational attraction has always been assumed to be an inherent property of
matter.
But is there a point when subdividing matter, beyond which gravitational
attraction stops?
I am suggesting that this is indeed the case, and that gravitational ATTRACTION
is not a property of individual sub-atomic particles. I further suggest that at
the level of sub-atomic particles, gravitational forces are directional, like
magnetic forces. Only when particles clump together, does gravity as an overall
attracting force show up.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
Now of course, some bright spark is going to say:
"Well if you are right, how come I can't produce a piece of material on a
macroscopic scale that exhibits a directional gravitational field, by aligning
all the baryons, sort of like a magnet?"
Answer: "Perhaps you can."
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
Now is there anyone out there interested enough and capable enough to do the
math?

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au>


cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.04 / Richard Blue /  Easy measurements?
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Easy measurements?
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 16:22:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I'll put this in the form of a question for Jed Rothwell.  In which
of the two following cases would you expect to be able to make the
most definitive calorimetric measurement with ease?

A)  There is no power input, but the power out appears to be
    roughly 200 watts.

B)  For an input power of 110 kW the power output appears to be
    roughly 130 kW.

As a hint I will tell you that I find I have no difficulty sensing
whether or not a 100 watt solenoid is energized by feeling it, but
I don't really know whether my new high efficiency furnace meets
its specs.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.04 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Off topic: Gravity and GR
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Off topic: Gravity and GR
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 16:53:14 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

How about taking this over to sci.physics. We have enough off-topic stuff
here already. I am trying to persuade those people to stop cross-posting
it, with limited success. Let's not start yet another epidemic, please.

-- Dieter Britz  alias  britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.04 / Dan Caster /  Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
     
Originally-From: dan@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Dan Caster)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.energy,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics
sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
Date: 4 Jan 1995 16:59:08 GMT
Organization: Dept Biological Structure-University of Washington

Could this thread be deleted from Sci.materials?
It doesn't seem to have anything to do with materials.

-- 
 					Cheers,
					Dan
Greetings from Bainbridge Island, Washington
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudendan cudfnDan cudlnCaster cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.04 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
     
Originally-From: gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 17:08:17 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <MATT.95Jan3214040@physics2.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>Pons told reporters all about that water heater five hears ago, and he
>has been very silent about it ever since.

Actually, he almost immediately backed away from his original claim and
declared that his device was merely a prototype of something that he
and Fleischmann might one day build.  It's interesting that
he hadn't told this to the reporter.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.04 / John Cobb /  Re: Antimatter plasma
     
Originally-From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Antimatter plasma
Date: 4 Jan 1995 11:12:04 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <NV91-ASA.95Jan4143220@gorkij.nada.kth.se>,
Anders Sandberg <nv91-asa@gorkij.nada.kth.se> wrote:
>How would a matter-antimatter plasma (ambiplasma) behave? 
>The most obvious result is of course that it would release
>lots of energy. But when a particle pair annihilates each
>other, they release their energy as hard gamma-photons. But
>these photons can pass a quite long way through the plasma
>without interacting with it, giving them a good chance to
>escape if it is finite. This means that the plasma will
>not become as hot as it would appear, and instead radiate
>away most of its energy while slowly decaying. Anybody
>who has done some calculations on this?

The case where this was most important, cosmologically was when the
temperature of the universe was > 1 MeV but less than ~100 MeV. In that
time, the baryons were stable and frozen out (i.e. very little spontaneous
meson production) but still hot enough for electron-positron pair production.
To put it another way, when the universe was cooler than the quark-gluon
plasma transition but still hotter than the electron-positron plasma 
transition. In that epoch, The universe was populated by huge numbers of
electrons, photons, and positrons. There were baryons of course but as a
fraction of the total number of particles, they were smaller. That is, there
were just as many baryons, but there were many more e- and e+ than baryons.
So the universe was dominated by e-, e+, and photons. There are of course
other situations where e+/e- plasmas are of interest, but I am less familiar
with those cases.

In most earth plasmas today, when an x-ray or gamma-ray is created, it's
absorption path is very long, usually much longer than the extent of the
plasma. This is what you hinted at above where you said that "these photons
can pass a long way through the plasma without interacting with it."
However, there is another extreme. In this case, the density of electromagnetic
scaterrers (in this case e- and e+) are large. Then the distance a photon
will travel before interaction is small. The critical number is the
photon absorption length. If it is long compared to the size of the plasma,
then the plasma is said to be "optically thin". If it is short then the
plasma is said to be "optically thick". An example of an optically thick
plasma is the sun's interior. Most of the light from the sun comes from a
relatively small layer near the surface, the photosphere. The photons created
in the interior of he sun that are created directly from the fusion furnaces
are scattered a gazzilion times before they exit to the surface.

This phenomena is of great interest and has been studied a great deal
(although not by me). It is sometime called radiation hydrodynamics or
radiation transport. The important issue is that there is a tight coupling
between the light fields (photons) and the matter fields (e- and e+).

For the early universe, I believe it is generally accepted that it was
optically thick. Thus you can approximate the temperature of the 
electromagnetic radiation to be approximately equal to the temperature of
the e-/e+ plasma since they will interact strongly enough to equilibrate.

The detailed questions about the exact absorption path length will tell
one some things about the minimum inhomogenous scale lengths that can be
supported in this plasma (since shorter lengths will feel the effects of
non-local optical transport).

There is some speculation that relics of inhomogeneity from this epoch
may still be observable in the large scale structure of the universe today.
The idea is that from a fluctuation-dissipation theory argument, in a
plasma there exist zero-frequency modes that act "clump" light and matter
away from each other, and there is some reason to believe some relics may
have survived until and even past the time of recombination and remain today. 
If you are curious, look in the Fusion Studies Report list gopher at the 
University of Texas at Austin. I don't remember which one, but fetch the list 
of ISFR's and look for things like "zero frequency fluctuations", and 
"electron-positron plasmas" with authors like Tajima, Cable, or Lee. Sorry 
I can't be more precise.

On the other extreme, If you really want to look at an optically thin e-/e+
plasma, then you are correct. Each annihilation means the loss of 1 MeV to
the resulting gamma rays which escape. So the plasma is really just a device
to generate incoherent, uncollimated hard Gamma's (unless you add some
cute collimation, stimulated emission ideas to get a nifty gamma-ray
laser. Of course this might make for neat science fiction. The reality
is much more difficult, because you have to power the beastie with
something that can create copious numbers of e+ to use.

-john .w cobb

-- 
John W. Cobb	16% of all Perot voters believe that if Dolphins
                are so smart, they should be able to get out of 
		those nets.  --Michael Moore, TV Nation

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.04 /  ronedn@cnsvax. /  Howard Baer-where are you?
     
Originally-From: ronedn@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Howard Baer-where are you?
Date: 4 Jan 95 10:48:46 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

Hi Howard,
I've been trying to reach you.  Drop me a line.
Dave
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenronedn cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.04 /  prasad /  Re: What is your opinion?
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What is your opinion?
Date: 4 Jan 1995 17:20:23 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <3ec1tl$4vv@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com
(John Logajan) writes:
|> Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
|> : An example is far more effective than just stating the case.
|> How can an illogical inference be considered "effective?"

In the sense of #voices versus facts, approach particularly used in political
and administrative procedures in civilized world, translates to "might is right"
in primitive societies.  Dale Bass is evidently advocating science by vote
instead of by examination of fact.  Little to distinguish this from the silent
(?) majority on the side of the Church in Church vs. Galileo [medieval Europe].

#include <std/disclaim.h>
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.04 /  prasad /  Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
Date: 4 Jan 1995 17:47:47 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

Dick, let me side with Jed for some post-holiday jest.

In article <3ebfqn$ni1@agate.berkeley.edu>, schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu
(Richard Schultz) writes:
|>  
|> If I read papers from several different authors, and they all claim excess
|> heat output but agree on nothing else, what am I supposed to conclude?

That there must be some excess heat output and nothing else, may be?


|> As I posted elsewhere, "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence."

The number of independent experimenters and their geographical spread is
also extraordinary.


|> other than a delusion.  If one author reports 3He (but no neutrons!), and
|> another reports 4He, and another reports 56Fe (!), then I have to 
|> suspect that there is a problem somewhere.  I get the impression from

May be they are looking at different parts of an elephant, and reporting walls,
pillars, pipes, fans and ropes.  No one knows the jumbo itself yet, and it
even might be largely vacuous (large stomach), but you must admit it is
*extraordinarily* consistent in trumpeting all around the world!


|> right.  Just because I cannot find an error does not mean that there are
|> no errors.  To give a more obvious example, I certainly would never have 

Ditto for your current interpretations of nature, right?  There surely must
be something left to be discovered by our great grand children physicists-to-be.


|> to dig out of his archives the nice things you had to say about Frank 
|> Close who actually took the trouble of analyzing their "objective
|> peer reviewed" data and found it wanting.  What happened to your
|> enthusiasm for them?

And the NBS (now NIST) measured the *electrical output* of a *motor*...
Not much enthu for those who didn't objective read their report, either.


|> I do not claim that CF is impossible, only that it is extremely unlikely.
|> ...
|> experiment that does not.  In my estimation, the CF experimenters have
|> not yet shown any compelling reason to throw out not just current
|> nuclear theory (which, despite your ignorance, is well established) but
|> also *other low-energy nuclear experiment* which the CF true believers
|> find it most convenient to ignore.  The question is not experiment vs.
|> ...
|> far, I think that they both point toward the nonexistence of CF as a
|> real phenomenon.

They might not need to overthrow nuclear theory, they might only need to keep
it out, since, as you keep reminding, nuclear origin is so unlikely an
explanation!


|> Since I work for a living as a scientist, I can assure you that plenty
|> ...
|> theory:  it is *competent* experiment and *competent* theory, and so

And competent experimenter, as you doubtless imply.  Includes you, said NBS,
but excludes one ex senior physicist of a computer company, one ex chief
engineer of nuclear power testing group, one professor emeritus of an ivy
league university, several scientists similarly making their livelihood
working at EPRI and elsewhere,...


|> "It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean.  Do you have to salt your
|> truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?"

True, very true!

How terrible to add nuclear salt till it quenches excess heat no more.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.04 /  prasad /  Re: Prasad's theorem!  was Re: Conservation violation...
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Prasad's theorem!  was Re: Conservation violation...
Date: 4 Jan 1995 17:57:33 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <3ecs7s$m4a@individual.puug.pt>, cmsa@individual.puug.pt
(Carlos Antunes) writes:
|> In article <3ebun0$g3o@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>, c1prasad@watson.ibm.
om (prasad) says:
|> 
|> This is simply not correct! For instance, N is the set of all naturals and
|> they are infinite in number. But dispite the fact that they are infinite

We all know that, and further that your N has little or nothing to do with
the physical premises of my theorem!!
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.04 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 95 13:39:27 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I wrote "It is indeed even easier to determine whether one has a working water
heater or not. The reason is that a water heater produces much higher power
levels, which are inherently easy to measure." schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu
(Richard Schultz) asks an off the wall question:
 
     "Then why do you get so upset when people ask to see the working water
     heater that Pons claimed he already had in his hand?"
 
I do not get upset! Not the least bit. I must have missed the thread here, I
am not sure which water heater you are talking about. Are you are referring to
the one Pons showed on the CBC documentary? The white cylindrical 10 KW
prototype? If that's what you mean, I think it's great. The cat's pajamas! It
is about time they got serious and started work on big devices.
 
I asked Stan about that the last time I met him. He said it is coming along
fine. I would say it is a little late, but nowhere near as late as, say, the
next version of Microsoft Windows (a.k.a. Windows 96). IMRA better hurry
though, because other people are already installing water heaters a lot bigger
than 10 KW. IMRA can be late and still clean up, because they are solid people
who do great work, but they cannot be *too* late. They are like Microsoft: the
industry leader has credibility and it can be late, but if Microsoft Windows
96 comes out in 1997, then IBM and Novel are going to eat Microsoft's lunch in
the meanwhile. Even Microsoft cannot afford to be too late. IMRA is in the
same boat.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.04 / Alastair Mayer /  Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
     
Originally-From: alastair@firewall.ihs.com (Alastair Mayer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
Date: 4 Jan 1995 10:24:54 -0700
Organization: Information Handling Services

The level of ignorance displayed by Jed's critics who ASSumed they
knew what "rail voltage" was certainly casts an interesting reflection
on their other comments.

Jed may or may not be wrong about CF and the Grigg's Gadget, but with
only the evidence of postings here, his engineering knowledge and clarity
of thinking far exceeds that of most of his detractors.  On average
the naysayers are full of sound and fury, whereas Jed - except perhaps
when pushed by someone's extreme rudeness - responds with content and
reason.
  But hey, if you guys want to continue flaming, go right ahead. You
say more about yourselves than about CF, Jed, or the GG.

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenalastair cudfnAlastair cudlnMayer cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.04 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 95 13:41:35 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) asks:
 
     "I'm much more interested in the water heater that Pons claimed to have,
     five years ago, and that he held in his hands and showed to reporters."
 
Five years ago? I never heard about a water heater five years ago. The only
thing I ever saw Stan Pons show reporters five years ago was a mock up of
their static calorimeter, which they brought to the U.S. Congress.
 
 
     "Pons told reporters all about that water heater five hears ago, and he
     has been very silent about it ever since.  Indeed, I should think it is
     very easy to tell whether or not you have what Pons claimed to have---a
     device the size of a thermos that could economically produce all the hot
     water needed by an average American home."
 
I think you are confused. Two years ago on the CBC documentary he showed a
prototype 10 KW heater. That was a white cylindrical object the size of a
large thermos. If that is what you are talking about then the answer is: it is
coming along fine, but it is late. I don't think they have got them up to 10
KW yet. The one they showed on ABC last spring was running at only 40 watts,
but it was continuous over many weeks with a closed cell and a condenser. They
are doing better than that now, but I have not heard they have reached 10 KW.
Maybe they have!
 
I don't know why you say he has been "very silent." He was on ABC's "Good
Morning America" showing the reporter the actual working version. The man goes
on national television showing a working prototype and you say he is silent?
What does he have to do to be noisy? You want him to launch one in orbit?
 
 
     "I think it's quite natural to wonder: did Pons really have such a thing
     at the time, or didn't he?  If he did, then what happened to it? And if
     he didn't, then why did he say he did and why hasn't he ever corrected
     those claims?"
 
Weird questions. Of course he really had such a thing! It was right there, big
as life. He showed it and said it was prototype closed cell reactor. What do
you think it was, a grapefruit? Nothing happened to it; they are still making
them, only they are not dummy prototypes, they actually work continuously.
That's the whole point of the R&D -- they are trying to make commercial
products. Other people, like Griggs, have beat them to the market, but that's
okay for now. Toyota has big market presence, they can afford to be a little
late.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.04 / Alastair Mayer /  Re: Free Energy Device
     
Originally-From: alastair@firewall.ihs.com (Alastair Mayer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device
Date: 4 Jan 1995 10:38:09 -0700
Organization: Information Handling Services

RobertBass (robertbass@aol.com) wrote:
[..much stuff about QM, SED, etc deleted]
:        However, in my SM theory, I take as "given" only the constants
: known to Newton and to Coulomb, plus the astronomical observation of
: Hubble's constant (or, equivalently, the mean density of the cosmos in GR
: cosmologies); and then I derive the variance of the zero-mean Coulombic
: white-noise which is jiggling all charged particles on earth, and from
: that I get Planck's constant EXACTLY!
:        Can this be a "mere numerical coincidence"?

Well, perhaps.  How does the recent re-evaluation of the Hubble Constant
in light of better data from the Hubble Telescope affect your derivation?
(I don't have details on the new Hubble Constant, just heard that it is
being re-evaluted because of contradictory data from the telescope).

 -- Al

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenalastair cudfnAlastair cudlnMayer cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.04 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Comparisons between postings here and Chaos
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Comparisons between postings here and Chaos
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 1995 14:10 -0500 (EST)

The following quotes are from the book: CHAOS making a new science by James
Gleick.

As it turns out the Griggs machine was predated by experiments by Swinney and
Jerry Gollub in 1973.  They were doing experiments to study chaos, and knowing
that chaos was a dissipating mechanism constructed a device much like the
Griggs device (although not a pump).

Page 128:

"With the analog in mind between phase transitions and fluid instabilities, the
two men decided to examine a classic system of liquid confined between two
vertical cylinders.  One cylinder rotated inside the other, pulling the liquid
around with it.  The system enclosed its flow between surfaces.  Thus it
restricted the possible motion of the liquid in space, unlike jets and wakes
in open water.  The rotating cylinders produced what was known to
Couette-Taylor flow.  Typically, the inner cylinder spins inside a stationary
shell,  as a matter of convenience.  As the rotation begins and picks up
speed, the first instability occurs, the liquid forms an elegant pattern
resembling a stack of inner tubes at a service station.  Doughnut-shaped bands
appear around the cylinder, stacked one atop another.  A speck in the fluid
rotates not just east to west but also up and in and down and out around the
doughnuts.  this much was already understood.  G. I. Taylor had seen it and
measured it in 1923."

With respect to complaints that it is very difficult to publish new ideas in
peer reviewed journals, here is what the book says about papers which were
submitted on chaos in the early years:

Page 180:

"Years later Feigenbaum still kept in a desk drawer, where he could get at them
quickly, his rejection letters. By then he had all the recognition he needed.
His Los Alamos work had won him prizes and awards that brought prestige and
money.  But it still rankled that editors of the top academic journals had
deemed his work unfit for publication for two years after he began submitting
it.  The notion of a scientific breakthrough so original and unexpected that it
cannot be published seems a slightly tarnised myth.  Modern science, with its
vast flow of information and its impartial system of peer review, is not
suppose to be a matter of taste.  One editor who sent back a Feigenbaum
manuscript recognized years later that he had rejected a paper that was a
turning point for the field: yet he still argued that the paper had been
unsuited to his journal's audience of applied mathematicians.  In the meantime,
even without publication, Feigenbaum's breakthrough became a superheated piece
of news in certain circles of mathmatics and physics.  The kernel of theory was
disseminated the way most science is now disseminated - through lectures and
preprints.  Feigenbaum described his work at conferences, and requests for
photocopies of his papers came in by the score and then by the hundred."

I think you can now add "USENET" to the "lectures and preprints" of the above
paragraph.

                                                                Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy04 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.04 / Brian Huffman /  Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
     
Originally-From: niimi@b0ig13.fnal.gov (Brian Huffman)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.energy,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics
sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
Date: 4 Jan 1995 14:01:23 -0600
Organization: FERMILAB, Batavia, IL


Hi all,

I've got both EE and physics experience.

I looked up this MRA device on the URL page.

It was pretty clear that their claims do not match the device's capabilities.


In fact, I've actually tested devices that differ from this design only 
slightly.  We were using them as part of devices that supply accurate
clocks to digital electronics (in one case....I've also used them in others).

Here are the differences:

1.) I was not certain of the exact  composition of the crystal...it was 
	just a generic 'crystal' used as a single-frequency resonator.

2.)  I'm sure the exact brand of signal generator was different.

3.)  We didn't actually use a transformer and a recifier....but those 
	circuit elements are so common and DEFINATELY do not extract
	power from anything so I don't think this is a problem.

The point is that in my direct experience with these very similar crystal
circuits there has NEVER been an instance where the device would operate
without an external power source (the wall socket in our case).  Nor 
was it the case that operation continued on it's own after power was 
removed.  This was tested by one of my co-workers who wanted to be sure
that the power up and power down transients wouldn't damage circuit 
elements.   

So here is my experiment in direct conflict with the claims made by the MRA
group.

Here are common traps one can fall in when measuring the output of such
circuits:

  First, you have to measure the power delivered from the signal generator.
This means the Root Mean Squared (RMS) current AND voltage of the signal
generator must be measured.   Now most Sears & Roebuck type triple-meters
DO NOT measure true RMS for any frequency of signal other than 60Hz.
Beckman, Tektronix, Phillips, and many others make meters that DO measure
true RMS over some range of frequencies, but you have to be careful about
what you're getting. 

Second, with transformer circuits it is possible to trade-off the form in
which the power manifests itself.  One can step-up the voltage to HUGE values.
Tesla coils do this quite nicely with 120v AC, achieving in excess of 
50,000 volts (they're really cool too....I'm a big fan of tesla coils).
But you trade off the current.  You end up with the same power BEST CASE!
So in certain situations you can develop enough voltage and current to
do things like blow light-bulbs or cause sparks that otherwise wouldn't be
present.

Last, you have to watch out for transient response.  EVERY circuit that contains
capacitors and/or inductors (transformer is just two coupled inductors). will
store energy in these devices when it is turned on.  If one then quickly 
shorts, or shuts off the device it is possible to achieve very high power 
output....but only for a short TIME.  The energy is the same, it's just that
it was collected over a long time and then released in a short time.


**********************

Now all that said I look back and wonder why I bothered with this.  None 
of these guys are going to make ANY effort to understand their measurements,
and they probably will not even try to ferret out the common problems I've
stated above.  So I'd really like to suggest to all  to just let this thread
die.

Todd H.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenniimi cudfnBrian cudlnHuffman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.04 /  Resampling /  cmsg cancel <3ef21g$9b2@netaxs.com>
     
Originally-From: syoung@Netaxs.com (Resampling)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.edu,sci.math.symbolic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.
ngr,sci.geo.geology,sci.fractals
Subject: cmsg cancel <3ef21g$9b2@netaxs.com>
Date: 4 Jan 1995 20:56:46 GMT
Organization: Netaxs Internet BBS and Shell Accounts

<3ef21g$9b2@netaxs.com> was cancelled from within trn.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudensyoung cudlnResampling cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.04 / R syoung /  If you do statistical analysis (p01045)
     
Originally-From: syoung@unix3.netaxs.com (Resampling; syoung)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.engr,sci.edu,sci.math.symbolic,sci.geo.geolog
,sci.fractals,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: If you do statistical analysis (p01045)
Date: 4 Jan 1995 20:59:06 GMT
Organization: Netaxs Internet BBS and Shell Accounts


     Be more confident in your answers with the "new statistics"
of resampling.  Resampling (including the bootstrap) has
revolutionized the field of statistics and is the method of
choice for much everyday work.

     You can review and download an introductory text on
resampling, plus a variety of articles and a comprehensive
collection of over 100 probability puzzles (and their resampling
solutions).  Contact Peter Bruce: syoung@netaxs.com.


Peter Bruce, Resampling project, University of Maryland

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudensyoung cudfnResampling; cudlnsyoung cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.04 / Alastair Mayer /  Re: patent office is dangerous !
     
Originally-From: alastair@firewall.ihs.com (Alastair Mayer)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.energy,alt.paranet.science,
ci.environment,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: patent office is dangerous !
Date: 4 Jan 1995 14:45:24 -0700
Organization: Information Handling Services

John K. Dobitz (dobitz@texhrc.texaco.com) wrote:
[..stuff on patents deleted..]
: things.  The opposite is a trade secret (like the Coke formula) that is
: truely a secret and nobody knows how to do it except your company and if
: your company loses the secret (fire, flood, famine, pestilence) it is gone
: until someone reinvents it.

You also have no protection if someone independantly duplicates your
formula and goes into competition with you.  (There's some protection
if they stole the secret from you (and you can prove it) rather than
independantly inventing it).
   With a patent, though, you're protected even if someone totally
independantly comes up with the same invention - they lose. (Yeah,
in the real world it's not that simple).

: In exchange for publication, the government grants you exclusive use of
: your patent for a period of time, 17 years in the US if you keep up on the
: maintenence of your patent.  After that time runs out it's a freebie to


 -- Al

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenalastair cudfnAlastair cudlnMayer cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.04 /  jonesse@acoust /  Re: When is the Nice conference?
     
Originally-From: jonesse@acoust.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: When is the Nice conference?
Date: 4 Jan 95 15:14:54 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <3ecmen$f7c@fnnews.fnal.gov>, 
Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
> In article <1995Jan3.181917.9873@midway.uchicago.edu>, gk00@quads.uchi
ago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) says:
>>
>>When is the Nice conference supposed to be?  If a date has not yet been
>>set, there is always the possibility that Pons and Fleischmann will
>>just leave everyone hanging.
> 
> I would like to ask everyone here who has previously attended any of
> the cold fusion conferences, did you get the announcement of ICCF5?
> 
> I did not.  The usual practice for conferences is to at least invite 
> everyone who has attended previous conferences.  I attended the first,
> and fourth, and paid registration for the second.  So I should be on
> the mailing list.  

I attended the 1st, 3rd and 4th, Tom -- and I also received *no* mailing
regarding ICCF5, organized by P&F I understand.

> 
> It seems to me that there is list editing going on here.  In particular
> the January 1 paper deadline, and the lack of mailing to at least me,
> seem to indicate to me that the conference sponsers are trying to make
> sure that skeptics do not show up.  It seems to me that the two papers
> I have published in cold fusion conference proceedings should not have
> earned me the label of "flaming" skeptic.  They were factual papers and
> mostly emphasized good measurement technique.  They were both open to
> the possibility of the effect.  
> 
> So why have I been left off the list???
> 
> Possibly if all who have attended the conferences respond, we can 
> spot a pattern?
> 
> Possibly they just dropped the D's on the floor or something.  Wonder 
> if someone else can comment on the M's and the J's?
> 
Yes, I think there is a definite pattern.  I received private email about
this from Douglas Morrison some weeks ago -- he had not received the mailing
either.  So at least the D's, J's and M's appear missing...

> I need not point out (but do) that editing an invitation list is 
> somewhat beyond the standard practice for scientific meetings.  Perhaps
> the conference sponsers would like to explain their mailing selection
> proceedure.  
> 
> Tom Droege

Good luck.  I do have the announcement, however -- heard about it from
Tom Claytor who did receive the announcement (and he publishes "positive"
results sometimes).  So I have a copy from Claytor, which I then faxed to
Morrison.  Need a copy, Tom, or anyone?

As for myself, I'm not planning to attend this one anyway.  I've already
got a water heater (clean natural gas).

--Steve Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.04 /  jonesse@acoust /  cancel <1995Jan4.151239.1977@acoust.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@acoust.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1995Jan4.151239.1977@acoust.byu.edu>
Date: 4 Jan 95 15:15:50 -0700

cancel <1995Jan4.151239.1977@acoust.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.04 /  jonesse@acoust /  ICCF-5/Monte Carlo/ infomation
     
Originally-From: jonesse@acoust.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ICCF-5/Monte Carlo/ infomation
Date: 4 Jan 95 15:20:41 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Here's some info. regarding ICCF-5, from "Second Announcement" --

9 April (Sunday) - 13 April (Thursday)
At Monte Carlo, MONACO
Discounted room rate at Hotel Loews Monte Carlo:  1,150 FF/night
Registration fee is due 1 January 1995:  2,600 French Francs  (whew!)
One-page abstract due 1 January 1995

I have the forms if anyone wishes these.  But the 1 Jan. 1995 deadlines
are past.

--Steve
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.04 /  jonesse@acoust /  RE:  Dr. Bockris 4-body reaction/further experiments
     
Originally-From: jonesse@acoust.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE:  Dr. Bockris 4-body reaction/further experiments
Date: 4 Jan 95 15:42:46 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <USE2PCB353370415@brbbs.brbbs.com>, 
mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes:
> jonesse@acoust.byu.edu writes:
>  
> -> Natural iron, 57Fe/56Fe   0.0230 +- 0.0002
> -> Carbon arc      "         0.0231 +- 0.0007
> ->                           0.0230 +- 0.0002 (another expermental run)
> ->                           0.0232 +- 0.0002 (yet another run).
> ->
> -> The 54Fe/56Fe ratio was also found, in the carbon residue, to correspond to
> -> the ratio found in nature:
> ->               54Fe/56Fe   0.0638 +- 0.005 (natural iron),
> ->                           0.0635 +- 0.0010 (in carbon residue)
> ->
> -> These results imply that the iron found in the carbon residue at the bottom
> -> of the cell comes from contamination, not from a wild 4-body nuclear 
> -> reaction
>  
> That certainly appears to be the case to my way of thinking.

I think we can close the book on this one.

>  What about the
> helium?  Was that ever measured/verified?  Was the He3/He4 ratio checked on it?
>  
>                                                                 Marshall
>  

I found nothing in the papers to indicate that they had even looked for 3He
or 4He.  Remember, these were a *light water* experiments.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 / Scott Mueller /  FDs lost
     
Originally-From: scott@zorch.sf-bay.org (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FDs lost
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 04:25:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I converted Zorch to a new system over the Xmas holiday.  Unfortunately,
there was a lurking incompatibility in one of the system programs
that caused several FDs to get tossed.  They are apparently completely
lost.  I can probably reconstruct them, but it will take considerable
work.  I will do it if I get enough requests from the list subscribers,
otherwise I won't bother.

-- 
Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (tandem|ub-gate)!zorch!scott
Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests.

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.04 /  DaveHatunen /  Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
     
Originally-From: hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.energy,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics
sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 00:24:55 GMT
Organization: As little as you're likely to find anywhere

In article <3ecifh$q2b@shemesh.tis.com>, Richard Clark <richard@tis.com> wrote:
>In article <3ecaet$5eu@post.gsfc.nasa.gov> Dan_Schwarcz@ccmail.gsfc.nas
.gov (Dan Schwarcz) writes:

[...]

>This ranting brought to you by the same people who still believe that a photon
>is a point particle... The same people who can't find most of the "missing"
>mass in the universe... The same people still looking for a "gravitron"...
>
>I personally don't know *how* their device works, if it actually does. What I
>was trying to do is explain that there are plenty of odd ways to utilize
>existing "laws" wherein useful things can be done without violating any said
>"laws".
>
>Tell me, how *does* superconductivity really work anyway... If we even knew
>that, we'd be well on our way to simply designing the appropriate structures
>instead of searching blindly for room temp...

[...]

>Bet you were one of the folks out telling the Wright Bros. that it was
>physicaly impossible to build anything heavier than air that would fly.
>Probably sat there wondering how a bird could change its weight when it took
>off...

You are not clueless. You are worse. You are half-clued. And it's the
wrong half.



-- 


    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *                Daly City California:                *
    *       where San Francisco meets The Peninsula       *
    *       and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea       *
    *******************************************************

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenhatunen cudlnDaveHatunen cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.04 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: length of torque arm
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: length of torque arm
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 95 16:45:04 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Richard A Blue <blue@pilot.msu.edu> writes:
 
>Although he can quote the specified operating temperature range for
>the dynamometer he cannot tell us whether this instrument remained
>within that temperature range during the course of his measurements.
>In fact his stated temperature for the pump housing gives some grounds
>for suggesting that the dynamometer was excessively hot.
 
I can tell you whether this instrument remained within the proper
temperature range. I HAVE told you that, many times. I'll tell you again,
but I doubt very much it will do any good (perhaps it will help some poor
lurker). I repeat: immediately after we turned off the GG, I put my hand
on the shaft leading into the dynamometer and on the dynamometer housing.
It was not terribly hot. It was certainly far below 77 deg C, which is
the maximum recommended temperature. I would not have been able to hold
my hand on there for long if it had been as hot as a pot of coffee! The
steel shaft is cooled because it is whirling around in air.
 
Now, if I was a betting man, I would bet $5 that Richard Blue will ignore
this message, or he will forget it, and he will drag out this same nonsense
about an overheated dynamometer again and again and again during 1995.
I can correct his whacky ideas with the facts over and over again, but alas
it never registers. He just goes on repeating the same nonsense. I cannot
imagine where he EVER got this idea in the first place though! Anyone knows
that a dynamometer is used to measure the power of electric motors and
internal combustion engines, which get very, very hot. Much hotter than
77 deg C! Obviously, Eaton Aerospace engineers must have taken that fact
into account when they designed the shaft, mountings and connections. What
on earth would they be doing designing a dynamometer that cannot be attached
to a machine that operates at 120 deg C (approximate temp of GG)? What kind
of crazy, useless dynamometer would that be? The whole idea is so far
removed from reality, that I have to rub my eyes and wonder what kind of
topsy turvy imagination Ruchard Blue must have. He dreams up such improbable
ideas! I must admit, he has far better imagination than I do. I am stuck in
the workaday world where people design and install factory instrumentation
to work with ordinary factory equipment in the kind of conditions you see
anyplace on earth.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.04 / Kurt Reyno /  Re: Jed Rothwell does not understand fusion
     
Originally-From: kurtreyno@aol.com (Kurt Reyno)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell does not understand fusion
Date: 4 Jan 1995 17:30:36 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In Article 15729, Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> says:

: I don't normally descend to responding to Rothwell, but

[snip]

: Actually, the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor here at Princeton has now
: generated 10 MW and approximately 10 MJ from fusion.

[snip]

: The annual electricity bill here at PPPL for
: operating TFTR is something like $5 million, making energy a significant

[snip]

: Bzzt!  Wrong.  The integrated fusion power output from TFTR (summing all
: the shots so far) is certainly approaching 200 MJ, if it hasn't exceeded
it

Hmmm, some hard numbers. Okay, let's calculate:

My electric bill shows a charge of about 13 cents per kilowatt-hour. Let's
assume Princeton pays roughly this rate. At $.13 / KWhr, $5 million buys
about 38 billion watt-hours, which is (3.8x10^10 watt-hours x 3600
seconds) =
about 1.4x10^14 joules: 140 trillion joules.

Now, compare 140 trillion joules with 200 million joules (Heeter's 200MJ):
 1.4x10^14 / 2x10^8 = about 690,000

So, in other words, for hot-fusion to generate 1 watt of power from
fusion,
it requires roughly 690,000 watts of input power (ignoring for the moment
the reported claims of some critics that the alleged fusion output is
actually zero). Hmmm, and you call this *success*?! Perhaps in a sense it
is
success, in the Jed-Rothwell sense: that the government hot-fusion program
is welfare payments for the physicists involved and the companies that
supply the hardware. So, as justification for welfare to the elite,
hot-fusion is a great success.

Gee, if CF were threatening my welfare payments, I'd be attacking it too.
Way to go, Heeter: keep fighting for your welfare check.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenkurtreyno cudfnKurt cudlnReyno cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 / Greg Kuperberg /  ------> The Water Heater <------
     
Originally-From: gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Originally-From: mmm@park.uvsc.edu (Mark Muhlestein)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ------> The Water Heater <------
Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 00:36:48 GMT
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 18:19:22 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <RK67olf.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>Five years ago? I never heard about a water heater five years ago.

This water heater:

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Originally-From: mmm@park.uvsc.edu (Mark Muhlestein)
Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 18:19:22 GMT
Message-ID: <D1otKC.Ep9@park.uvsc.edu>

As there have been a few conflicting versions of the "water heater"
story, here is the original article I posted in s.p.f. July 9, 1989:

============================================================
The following article appeared in the Salt Lake City Deseret News, Saturday,
July 8, 1989:

***** BEGIN ARTICLE *****

Hot-water device percolates in Pons' lab

By JoAnn Jacobsen-Wells
Deseret News science writer

A device the size of a thermos that could satisfy the hot-water requirements
of an average home is already percolating in the lab of B. Stanley Pons.
...

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Jan  5 04:37:06 EST 1995
------------------------------
