1995.01.07 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Griggs, Chaos and QM
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs, Chaos and QM
Date: 7 Jan 1995 01:43:11 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

MARSHALL DUDLEY (mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com) wrote:
: Has anyone looked at what type of interactions could be happening at the QM
: level assuming chaotic behaviour of the fluid in the Griggs device.
: Unfortunately I am not sufficiently schooled in QM to take it very far myself,
: but here is my line of thought.

Summary:  Turbulence has vorticity.

: I have read in some ZPE proposals (or theories) that to tap the vacuum energy
: would require very rapid spinning or shuttering (similar to a Windhurst
: machine) of charge or diapoles.  

It's hard to imagine that mechanical fluid turbulence in ordinary
conditions gives conditions not applicable to the Standard Model. 
But anyway....

Also, there is turbulence with "spinning dipoles" all over the
damn place on immense scales. No 30% excess heat has been seen in
the hoover dam or in any of the other laboratory experiments on
fluid turbulence and thermodynamics done in the last 100 years, AFAIK.

What is so different about the Griggs device?  And how is that difference
supposed to translate into any difference at the atomic scale?

After all one of known features of fully developed fluid turbulence is its 
universality at the microscale.

Calling something "chaos" doesn't imbue it with other mystical powers
somehow.

:                                                                 Marshall

cheers
Matt


--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.07 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Griggs, Chaos and QM
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs, Chaos and QM
Date: 7 Jan 1995 01:45:44 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

MARSHALL DUDLEY (mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com) wrote:
: Because that is the nature of fractuals, as you magnify more and more, you keep
: seeing the same pattern ever smaller.  That part is not in dispute, it has been
: proven many times by chaos experiments, and is supported by theory and math.
: Large swirls are seen, thus by chaos theory you should expect to find an ever
: decreasing size of whirls, as the bifurcations split and multiply the whirls.

Down until viscosity.

: If you looked at say the
: water going through a turbine in a dam, who would ever notice if the exit
: temperature showed a 1% higher than expected energy input? 

Everybody using thermodynamic models of geophysical fluid flow, say.

: Between normal
: turbulent flow not having a significant whirl character, and no one considering
: making measurements to .0001 degree to look for possible non-conformance, I am
: not surprised no one else has seen it.

At least I agree with that last statement.

:                                                                 Marshall


--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 /  DanHicks /  Re: Any hope for fission reactors?
     
Originally-From: danhicks@aol.com (DanHicks)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Any hope for fission reactors?
Date: 6 Jan 1995 23:59:12 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

>>>
There is only one hard technical
issue (waste disposal) and one moderately hard one (catastrophe
avoidance).  The latter has now several known solutions.
<<<

But, as you go on to state, the political climate around atomic power
prevents a reasonable approach to "catastrophe avoidance".  The anti-nukes
would not be satisfied with any scheme, while the pro-nukes hide their
heads in the sand and pretend that no problem exists.  In this environment
(as I indicated earlier re Browns Ferry), nothing substantial is done to
improve safety (other than to shut down reactors).

And, from a waste point of view, following the anti-nuke policy and
shutting down reactors that aren't near end of life is a fairly foolish
thing to do, since one might as well "milk" the benefits out of the
already-contaminated reactor.  Likewise, resistance to reprocessing on the
grounds of waste avoidance is foolish, since reprocessing can greatly
reduce total waste generated.

(But, lest the anti-nukes take me to be a pro-nuke, I can't really be
comfortable with any new fission reactors unless and until the pro-nukes
pull their heads out of wherever they've stuck them and admit that (a)
reactors really can fail, and (b) radioactivity is nasty stuff.  Only if
this is done can many of the problems be corrected.
Dan Hicks
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudendanhicks cudlnDanHicks cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.07 / Bruce Hamilton /  Re: Phonophobic Calls Griggs
     
Originally-From: B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Phonophobic Calls Griggs
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 1995 05:38:08 GMT
Organization: Industrial Research Limited

In article <3ek87g$nau@fnnews.fnal.gov> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:

>I found him to be quite reasonable.  We have tenatively set
>Wednesday 8 March for the meeting.  For those that have asked
>to join me, please get in contact.  I will also work down my
>list.  Griggs said it would be OK to bring a couple of other
>people.  

I worry about this, I've also suggested that somebody perhaps 
go as the "recorder" ( perhaps with a video recorder ?), with
the job of recording visual/verbal events, but not to enquire.
But more than two?...

My experience suggests that as Mr Griggs is going to talk to
Tom, other participants could dilute Mr Grigg's attention,
perhaps even causing drift of focus.  I would hope that
Tom and his accomplices ( does that also have criminal 
connotations in the US? :-) ) carefully sort out their roles
well before the 8th March.

>Another matter is the press.  A member has asked to join the
>visit.  What do you all think?  My general feeling is that the
>press is dangerous to scientific inquiry.  They are interested 
>in controversy which sells papers.  Some of us are interested in
>discovering truth.  

I agree, also likely to dilute Mr Griggs' attention. Perhaps suggest
he/she visits Mr Griggs beforehand, and offer an interview with 
you after your visit instead?. 
...
>I think there will be money left over even after we generate 
>suitable certificates of participation.  I understand that Tod Green
>will be in Europe during ICCF5.  How about him as a representative?
>What about it Todd?

I'd be happy for any representative to receive the money, but I
do worry about emulating a recent European gathering of
similar believers - lots of deaths occured in the temple... 

               Bruce Hamilton
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenHamilton cudfnBruce cudlnHamilton cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 /  DanHicks /  Re: ------> The Water Heater <------
     
Originally-From: danhicks@aol.com (DanHicks)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ------> The Water Heater <------
Date: 6 Jan 1995 23:47:33 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

>>>
     "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. ..."
<<<

Minor point:  The above quote does not indicate that all of the energy to
heat the water is coming from CF.  Commercial "flash" water heaters exist
that are about the size of a thermos and which can satisfy the hot-water
requirements of an average home.  The size of the typical water heater is
simply to allow for hot water storage so that the peak energy input need
not be so high.

Now, I'm not claiming that the heat output (wherever it came from) of the
demo cell was truly sufficient for the stated purpose, nor am I claiming
that Pons didn't imply (or actually state) that the energy was from CF. 
But the above quote isn't "evidence" of this one way or another.  However,
if you are going to hold Jed and some others to detailed, rigorous
interpretations of their statements, then the same rigor should apply
here.
Dan Hicks
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudendanhicks cudlnDanHicks cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.07 / T Neustaedter /  Re: Phonophobic Calls Griggs
     
Originally-From: tarl@tarl.net (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Phonophobic Calls Griggs
Date: 7 Jan 1995 05:01:47 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

In article <3ek87g$nau@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
> Another matter is the press.

As far as I am concerned, Tom _is_ the press. That's why we sent
our checks in - for him to go look at what is going on and give
us a report. More importantly, Tom is the qualified press, and 
anyone else who wants in is almost certainly less qualified and
would just get in the way.

My advice to Tom is that if having someone along will help him by
taking notes, providing a check on observations, adding insight, 
or whatever - take someone along. If it won't, don't.
-- 
        Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@east.sun.com [work]
        Ashland, MA, USA	tarl@tarl.net     [home]
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudentarl cudfnTarl cudlnNeustaedter cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.07 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Griggs, Chaos and QM
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs, Chaos and QM
Date: Sat, 07 Jan 1995 00:57 -0500 (EST)

mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
 
-> Also, there is turbulence with "spinning dipoles" all over the
-> damn place on immense scales. No 30% excess heat has been seen in
-> the hoover dam or in any of the other laboratory experiments on
-> fluid turbulence and thermodynamics done in the last 100 years, AFAIK.
 
Whether there is any merit to this argument or not, one would not expect a 30%
excess from Hoover dam anyway.  In the Griggs device, water is in the turbulent
bowels of the machine for some time before exiting.  The quantity of water and
thus the amount of energy necessary to raise the temperature is reasonable
small. In Hoover Dam the water hits the turbine for a split second and then
goes on it's way.  The amount of water that flows through the dam is
tremendous.  I would dare say that an excess of even a megawatt would be barely
measurable in such a flow.  It is like passing your finger quickly through the
flame of a candle, vs holding it there for 10 or so seconds.  In the first case
you might not even sense the increase in temperature.  Only after a reasonable
integration time does it become noticable.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy07 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.07 / John Logajan /  Re: What is your opinion?
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What is your opinion?
Date: 7 Jan 1995 05:57:24 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
: >The logical inference is "no", there simply isn't a causal link between
: >the two premises.

: They're both 'bogus' independently.

It was like pulling teeth, but I think you have now come 'round.  Since they
are independent, there was no way to infer from one to the other, which was
my original objection -- and with which you now seem to admit.

: "There is absolutely, positively no likelyhood."

As a matter of fact, this statement is not necessarily logically flawed.
It may not be empirically flawed either.  The trouble with it is that
there is no way determine its veracity.  Even if everyone in the Universe
believes a thing, they could be either right or wrong. 

We believe from past experience that as more people, especially trained
professionals, believe in a thing, that the likelyhood of them being
wrong declines.

But humans can always be mistaken. And so the above statement asserts
something that may in fact be true but which can never be demonstrated
to be "absolute" in its level of certainty.

--
 - 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:
cuddy7 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.07 / Mohamed Nagi /  Re: Free Energy Device - leave it out of sci.bio
     
Originally-From: bhja@Musicb.McGill.Ca (Mohamed Nagi)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.bio,sci.energy,sci.energy.h
drogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.
hysics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device - leave it out of sci.bio
Date: 7 Jan 1995 08:46:01 GMT
Organization: McGill University Computing Centre

In article <witkowsk.1139558277J@cshl.org>
witkowsk@cshl.org (j a witkowski) writes:

> Are there any other biologists out there who feel that this is an
> inappropriate thread for sci.bio?

Dear sir,

I don't agree with you. I beleive this thread is appropriate for any
science  group. This Thread is not about discussing the particluars of
the MRA device, as much as it is about discussing the philosophy of
Scince in general. In fact, being a scientist in trainning, I enjoy
reading this thread very much (albeit not in all times) because it
brings out various issues , e.g., skeptisism, open mindness, arrogance
, ignorance, stubborness etc. These isuues pertains to all scientific
investigations in virtually any investigative field. I am afraid this
thread will tend to be more technical in other perhaps more relevant
newsgroups as it will be more directed toward disscussing the MRA
device perse. This thread will just die by itself after a while when it
will no longer be informative to read.


"Things should be made as simple as posible, but not simpler".

Mohamed Nagi
bhja@Musicb.McGill.Ca
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenbhja cudfnMohamed cudlnNagi cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.07 / Alan M /  Re: Does it really matter who believes what?
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does it really matter who believes what?
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 1995 06:55:26 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <D1zzC9.H6z@fulcrum.co.uk>  igb@fulcrum.co.uk (Ian G Batten) writes:
> Never mind the theory, the experiments, the papers.  Show us a
> self-sustaining system.
> 
..  until Hell freezes over, Ian. <g>

Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.07 / Randy Smith /  Re: MRA update 9, Free energy device !   (Look!  Numbers!)
     
Originally-From: rsmith@maxwell.ee.washington.edu (Randy Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.science,sci.electronics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MRA update 9, Free energy device !   (Look!  Numbers!)
Date: 7 Jan 1995 10:37:47 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <5dHyuQxPldB@shb.contrib.de>,
Stefan Hartmann <harti@shb.contrib.de> wrote:
>Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,
> alt.paranet.science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,
> cl.energie.alternativen,de.sci.electronics,sci.bio,sci.energy,
> sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,
> sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle

You should think about cutting this list down.  I really don't see how
this relates to biology or particle physics, for example.

...
>===============================================================================
>
>Message 10307                                  DATE/TIME: 12/31/94 14:13
>From   : JOEL MCCLAIN
>To     : ALL
>Subject: MRA I/O Ratios
>Folder : A, "Public Mail"
>
>Test date:  12-31-94
> 
>To measure apples against apples, I've tested the MRA at both of the
>output levels which are important, Maximum Power and Maximum Gain,
>using the resistive equivalent load method.  The measurements were
>made to attain the same signal source voltage drop as when the MRA  
>is in the circuit as well as to measure the current in series with 
>the decade box at those voltage drops.
> 
>The applied voltage is 23.75VAC from a signal source.  At Maximum
>Power, this voltage dropped to 21.9VAC.  At Maximum gain, it dropped
>to 23.25VAC.
> 
>At Maximum Power, the equivalent resistance to obtain a signal voltage 
>drop to 21.9VAC is 165 ohms, and the measured current is 132ma. 
> 
>At Maximum Gain, the equivalent resistance to obtain a signal voltage
>drop to 23.25VAC is 595 ohms, and the measured current is 40ma.

First of all, I'd like to thank you for posting actual measured values
and a description of the experimental technique.  The usual rambling
theory, conspiratorial mumblings, and vague claims are all totally useless
and only lead to massive flamage.  If you honestly want to know if this 
thing works, posting as much detail as you can is the way to go about it.

As to your technique, an equivalent resistance like you were using only 
works if the load reactance is zero and the circuit is linear.  Both 
of these are known to be false, so your technique can give misleading
results.  The first thing to improve is to measure the equivalent 
impedance of your amplifier, as it could match your inductive load more
than your resistive one.


>Input power is calculated using the above measurements to be 2.04W
>RMS at Maximum Power, and 658mw RMS at Maximum Gain.

Whoa!  Hold on here:  why did you multiply by .707?  When most people
see VAC, they think Vrms, not Vp-p, as the latter is almost never used
for power measurements, and is not measured by most equipment.  If this
value was read off a DMM (I would know if you had listed more detail),
this is Vrms, not Vp-p.

In other words: P = Vrms * Irms  (if the power factor is zero)
and  P = Vp-p * .707 * Irms  (if p.f. = 0 and voltage is a sine).
Which means the input power (to the resistance box, at least) is 2.89W 
and 930mW respectively.


>The output power for this test was in rectified and filtered DC volt-
>age applied across a running motor which drew 140ma of current.

You should specify the voltage.  If you measured it at the higher voltage
and it was linear, it would draw about 118mA at the lower voltage, but
I doubt the second, and I don't know about the first.  A motor is a
really bad choice for a test load, anyway.  A resistor is a much easier
to model, and much easier to adjust.


>At Maximum Power, the output voltage w 18.38VDC, and power was
>therefore 2.57W.  This is a gain of .53W, or 1.26 times unity.
> 
>At Maximum Gain, the output voltage was 15.5VDC, and power was
>therefore 2.17W.  This is a gain of 1.51W, or 3.30 times unity.

Using my figures, I get a gain of .9 and 2 respectively.  Of course,
the assumptions made make these figures seriously suspect, so I wouldn't
value them too much.

Randy Smith
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenrsmith cudfnRandy cudlnSmith cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.07 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: ------> The Water Heater <------
     
Originally-From: gk00@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Originally-From: mmm@park.uvsc.edu (Mark Muhlestein)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ------> The Water Heater <------
Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 1995 13:54:08 GMT
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 18:19:22 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago
Organization: Utah Valley State College, Orem, Utah

In article <3el6d5$20i@newsbf02.news.aol.com> danhicks@aol.com (DanHicks) writes:
>Now, I'm not claiming that the heat output (wherever it came from) of the
>demo cell was truly sufficient for the stated purpose, nor am I claiming
>that Pons didn't imply (or actually state) that the energy was from CF. 
>But the above quote isn't "evidence" of this one way or another.  However,
>if you are going to hold Jed and some others to detailed, rigorous
>interpretations of their statements, then the same rigor should apply
>here.

Dan, if you really want to be informed about this, you should start
by reading Gary Taubes' book, "Bad Science".  If you can't stand to
do that, you should read Frank Close's book, "Too Hot to Handle".
If you can't stand to do either of those, you should look at 
the 1989 archives of alt.fusion and sci.physics.fusion at

ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion/fd89

If you just read sci.physics.fusion today, you won't know anything
about the grandstanding, the arrogance, the flim-flams, and the lack of
cooperation from Pons and Fleischmann in 1989.  You won't know about
the gullible reporters, the endless chain of retracted positive claims,
the litigious machinations of Pons and his lawyer Triggs, the APS
meeting where cold fusion was kicked into the dirt, or the debacle of
Pons and the funding committee of the National Cold Fusion Institute.

In fact, if you read this group for too long, you might forget what it
was once like even if you were there.  Looking back at the archives, I
see that I was not misled for one week, as I have been thinking lately,
nor was I misled for two weeks, as I must have told people for a long
time.  No, I was a true believer for three full weeks, although my
doubts were beginning to show then.  I can see now that the science
reporters were so gullible that they just let people lie through them,
and that's why I was fooled.

Now your specific question is answered by the full text of the article
by Joanne Jacobsen-Wells which was posted by Mark Muhlestein a week ago
here, and which STILL HAS NOT EXPIRED on this news server.  But here it
is again in case you missed it:

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Originally-From: mmm@park.uvsc.edu (Mark Muhlestein)
Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
Organization: Utah Valley State College, Orem, Utah
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.

It's the first scale-up of the University of Utah solid-state fusion
experiments that jolted scientists worldwide more than three months ago.

It was on March 23 that Pons and his co-researcher Martin Fleischmann, of
England's Southampton University, announced they had generated large
amounts of excess heat and signs of nuclear fusion using a simple
table-top device.

Despite widespread skepticism from naysayers that the process will ever
become a commercial source of energy, Pons is convinced his scale-up
demonstration could be developed into a practical application in the near
future.

``It wouldn't take care of the family's electrical needs, but it certainly
could provide them with hot water year-round,'' said Pons, who said he's
always believed that the practical application of cold fusion could happen
this fast.

``You have to know the dangers involved in scale-up, and that just takes
time,'' he said.

It also involves risks.

Excess energy, he said, gives rise to increased radiation, which is being
closely monitored by sophisticated new equipment in the U. fusion
laboratories.  A more sensitive spectrometer is measuring gamma-ray
activity, which the U. chemistry professor said is increasingly evident.
And two independent methods of making calorimetric measurements are being
used.

Pons and Fleischmann have completed 10 experiments using electrically
charged palladium and platinum electrodes in a vat of heavy water, whose
hydrogen has been replaced with deuterium.

Ten new ones, including the innovative large demonstration test, are
currently running full steam ahead.

According to Pons, the scale-up -- a mini ``boiler'' -- is, in fact, giving
off 15 to 20 times the amount of energy that is being put into the cell.

Simply put, in its current state it could provide boiling water for a cup
of tea.

Yet the electrode used in the newest experiment is the same size as those
in the original tests -- about the size of a finger tip.

The major differences between the experiments are these:  In the test
tubes, heat is transferred out of the cell into a water bath.
Essentially, the outside of the cell is kept at a very constant
temperature, and measurements are made inside the cell.

The new device is a flow-through cell:  As water moves through the jacket,
the heat is transferred to the outside.  Cold water is put in one end and
hot water comes out of the other.

``But the heat output can be increased substantially in the new experiment
because with the jacket, the heat is not boiled away,'' Pons said.  ``The
scale-up is like a cooling radiator.  If it gets too hot, the water can be
circulated faster or the temperature dropped.''

If the newest experiment proves safe -- which only time will tell -- Pons
believes he should turn it over to a second group of researchers who have
the responsibility of taking fusion out of the lab and putting it into
practical, money-making devices.

If successful, the devices have the potential to help solve the world's
energy supply concerns.

***** END OF ARTICLE *****

Accompanying the article is a color photo of Pons with a mesh-covered
cannister about 30 cm high and about 20 cm in diameter with plastic tubes 
entering and leaving the top, with what appear to be temperature probes 
attached to the tubes.
============================================================


weeks.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.07 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Does it really matter who believes what?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does it really matter who believes what?
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 95 09:17:04 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

igb@fulcrum.co.uk (Ian G Batten) writes:
 
     "Never mind the theory, the experiments, the papers.  Show us a
     self-sustaining system."
 
That is a very sensible approach! Building a self sustaining system has been
the goal all along. Believe me, we are trying to do that. It is terribly
difficult! I am confident that it will be done eventually. For now, the best
commercial product we can offer is an over unity heater that saves you
thousands of dollars per year.
 
 
     "So why do the proponents of Cold Fusion feel the need to argue?"
 
Most of them don't. Just me. I do it as a hobby, but I really should cut back.
It is a waste of money and time.
 
 
     "If they are right, their work is going to make them richer than the
     dreams of avarice. . ."
 
Yes, we certainly hope so. That is why I am involved in it. But this leads to
an interesting point. This whole business is, and aught to be, about money.
Inventing new things, taking a risk, and making a profit is the best way to
benefit society. It is honest, correct, and efficient path to technological
progress. If you want to solve the energy crisis, leave it to the free market.
And that's our problem! Unfortunately for us, we have to compete with a
gigantic, government subsidized golden welfare programs: the DoE, and European
equivalents like ITER and CERN.
 
Instead of honest competition, we are confronted with power politics and
corrupt government agencies that have unlimited amounts of money they can
flush down the toilet. They are forever coming up with wacky ideas that are
guaranteed not to solve the energy crisis: hot fusion, laser fusion,
pie-in-the-sky solar energy, hydrogen energy, and other nonsense dreamed up by
bureaucrats in Washington. These gigantic make-work "research programs"
dominate the energy field. They suck up resources. People at universities do
not bother doing real research, they hop on the gravy train and do this hot
fusion stuff instead. The DoE buys the talent, dominates the R&D market, and
gives people the false impression that they are working to solve the problem.
Investors are not likely to bet against gigantic government programs. It would
be like trying to set up a private power company in a state dominated by the
TVA (half-government run power company). A private business cannot compete
with a government, because whenever the government runs short of cash, they
just print more or steal some more from the taxpayers. Honestly, to call a
spade a spade, this is communism. It is state run industry. Communism always
leads to bloat, corruption, sleaze and garbage products. That is built in to
the system; you cannot avoid it. Communism does not work in Washington any
better than it ever did in Moscow.
 
Not only are we up against brutally unfair competition from the DoE tax
thieves, but we have to deal ill will on the part of the oil companies and
many others in private industry who do not want to see us put them out of
business. And we have to fight the scientific establishment: Nature magazine,
New Scientist, the American Physical Society, and all the others. They are
corrupt, power crazy people.
 
This unfair competition makes it virtually impossible to raise venture capital
funding in the U.S. There is plenty of money in Japan, thank goodness, because
the Japanese are practical. Naturally, their hot fusion lobby is complaining
and trying to stop CF too, but their government is not as stupid as ours, so
it does not let the HF people crush all competition. Research in the U.S. and
the U.K. can only be done on a shoestring, paid for out of pocket. We have
made amazing progress, but we would have made a lot more progress if the deck
was not stacked against us. It is a political battle. It is a fight over money
and power. The DoE and the hot fusion people have it, and we are going to take
it away from them. They plan to settle down for another 50 years of golden
welfare -- ripping off the taxpayers in return for empty promises and machines
that will never deliver a watt of useful power to anyone. We have no friends
in Congress or anywhere else, so we have to go about it the hard way: by
selling products that customers want. Griggs has machines out there installed
in factories, saving thousands of dollars every year.
 
In spite of the political opposition, we have an irresistible weapon. Our
products work. People buy them, because people are not stupid and they like to
save money. Eventually, in spite of all the problems, we *will* build a self
sustaining motor. No doubt the DoE, Nature magazine and the "skeptics" here
will do their best to trash us, attack us, and prevent us from competing. But
word will get out. People will buy the machines, and we will start to make
tons of money. Sooner or later, that will lead to the demise of the DoE, ITER
and the other communist bureaucracies. The energy sector will be returned to
free market competition and the so-called "energy crisis" will vanish. That
would have happened decades ago if the DoE had not prevented it. That prospect
upsets people like Huizenga (DoE hatchet man), Morrison (CERN propaganda
agent), and Robert F. Heeter (DoE lackey). They will be thrown out of work! It
will be bad for them personally but good for the rest of us, because we will
not have to support them any more, and they will be forced to look for honest
jobs.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.07 / Bruce Dunn /  Re: Phonophobic Calls Griggs
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Phonophobic Calls Griggs
Date: Sat, 07 Jan 95 06:41:04 -0800
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

Forget the reporter.  The presence of a reporter will do absolutely nothing
to advance the state of the investigation that we have charged Tom with,
and may interfere.  If the reporter wants to have a story, he/she can
interview Tom after Tom has analyzed his data and posted his report.
--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy07 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.07 / Robin Spaandonk /        Re: Calorimetry offer
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:       Re: Calorimetry offer
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 1995 17:54:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

[SNIP]
> If you will make the cell available at my lab for a period of one month, I
> will perform an extensive series of measurements and provide a
> publication-quality report.  You get the cell back...no strings attached.
> 
> Interested parties should eMail me or call me at 512-346-3848.
> 
> Scott Little, EarthTech Intl., Austin TX 78759, FAX 512-346-3017.
____________________________________________________________
Scott,

If anything comes of this, would you be prepared to publish your 
report in this forum?

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

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.08 / Robin Spaandonk /        Re: Tom's trip
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:       Re: Tom's trip
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 1995 01:50:38 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Tom,

This is a bit off-beat, but if the water running through the GG is 
clean, you might consider tasting it before it goes through, and 
after it comes out. Allow the output water to cool off first of 
course. Taste (and smell too) can be a fairly sensitive indicator of any chemical 
change that might have occurred, and at least let you know whether or 
not a proper chemical analysis is warranted.

Regards,

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

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.07 / Cameron Bass /  Re: What is your opinion?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What is your opinion?
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 1995 15:10:26 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <3elag4$4r8@stratus.skypoint.net>,
John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> wrote:
>Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
>: >The logical inference is "no", there simply isn't a causal link between
>: >the two premises.
>
>: They're both 'bogus' independently.
>
>It was like pulling teeth, but I think you have now come 'round.  Since they
>are independent, there was no way to infer from one to the other, which was
>my original objection -- and with which you now seem to admit.

     I'll 'admit' that *you* were the only one making that inference as I've
     discussed with you multiple times already.

     I'll simply infer that this is an admission that you have realized that
     you were quite wrong in your interpretation of my observation as a
     syllogism.

     Good work, you've labored mightily and birthed nothing.

>: "There is absolutely, positively no likelyhood."
>
>As a matter of fact, this statement is not necessarily logically flawed.
>It may not be empirically flawed either.  The trouble with it is that
>there is no way determine its veracity.  Even if everyone in the Universe
>believes a thing, they could be either right or wrong. 

     As a matter of fact, the necessity of logical flaws doesn't
     seem to be a real problem in this discussion.  It seems that
     certain parties simply adopt an interpretation that guarantees
     their existence, no matter what the context or elaboration.

     By the way, logic police should be aware that probability arguments
     are quite difficult to defend, regardless of your beliefs, when
     there is no basis for determination of the probability.  Consider for
     a moment what the phrase '50% probability that they are all wrong'
     might mean.  I think we might have to ask Mr. Everett to step in 
     here, but that raises all sorts of nasty questions about the
     sampling.

     I suppose, however, that this is far too subtle a point for those
     who missed the point of my original observation.

                       dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.07 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Griggs, Chaos and QM
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs, Chaos and QM
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 1995 15:24:29 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <USE2PCB861671716@brbbs.brbbs.com>,
MARSHALL DUDLEY <mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com> wrote:
>ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) writes:
> 
>-> Ah, but the dimensionless group that describes the relative effects of
>-> inertia and viscosity is, as Dieter notes, the Reynold's number,
>-> specifically DV<rho>/<mu>, where <rho> is the mass density and <mu> is the
>-> viscosity.  V is the local velocity, and D is a characteristic length of
>-> the phenomenon.  Thus, at very small D, viscous effects dominate and the
>-> process becomes laminar rather than turbulent; the vortices no longer
>-> appear. Of course, this is but theory, and if the necessary D is so small
>-> as to involve single or very few molecules, the theory breaks down.  Still,
>->  doubt we're anywhere near such speeds in the Couette flow you're
>-> describing.
> 
>I agree.  Since chaotic motion is a method by which excess energy is
>dissipated in fluids, viscosity is part of the whole picture.  A valid
>question is at what point, as you approach microscopic dimensions, do the
>macro equations of turbulent flow break down; or do they?  

     Viscosity is the method by which energy is dissipated, and I have
     no idea what 'excess energy' is.

     And, in typical turbulent flow such as in Mr. Griggs watertub,
     continuum equations do not become inapplicable until length scales
     far below the region where the energy spectrum disappears into 
     viscous interactions.  If you're going to get into theoretical 
     turbulence discussions, may I suggest a reading of Yaglom and 
     Monin's "Statistical Fluid Mechanics" Volumes I and II.

     It might be interesting for you to note that one could use
     the argument you appear to be attempting to make to 'show' that
     nothing can fly.
     
>I am attempting to
>contact James Gleick, Harry Swinney or Jerry Golhub to further my understanding
>in this area.  If anyone has an EMAIL address for any of them I would
>appreciate it if you could forward it to me.  Thanks.

     That would be an intruiging set of contacts.

                                dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.07 / Cameron Bass /  Re: ------> The Water Heater <------
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ------> The Water Heater <------
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 1995 15:30:49 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1995Jan7.135408.2874@midway.uchicago.edu>,
Greg Kuperberg <gk00@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:

>In fact, if you read this group for too long, you might forget what it
>was once like even if you were there.  Looking back at the archives, I
>see that I was not misled for one week, as I have been thinking lately,
>nor was I misled for two weeks, as I must have told people for a long
>time.  No, I was a true believer for three full weeks, although my
>doubts were beginning to show then.  I can see now that the science
>reporters were so gullible that they just let people lie through them,
>and that's why I was fooled.

      That is quite an interesting aspect of this group.  Almost everyone
      who posted from the beginning and is still here began 
      posting with a very strong tendency to credit the initial 
      results.  That includes me.

      It is only the passage of time and further information that has
      produced the bifurcation seen today.

>Now your specific question is answered by the full text of the article
>by Joanne Jacobsen-Wells which was posted by Mark Muhlestein a week ago
>here, and which STILL HAS NOT EXPIRED on this news server.  But here it
>is again in case you missed it:
>
>Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
>From: mmm@park.uvsc.edu (Mark Muhlestein)
>Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
>Organization: Utah Valley State College, Orem, Utah
>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.
>
>It's the first scale-up of the University of Utah solid-state fusion
>experiments that jolted scientists worldwide more than three months ago.
>
>It was on March 23 that Pons and his co-researcher Martin Fleischmann, of
>England's Southampton University, announced they had generated large
>amounts of excess heat and signs of nuclear fusion using a simple
>table-top device.
>
>Despite widespread skepticism from naysayers that the process will ever
>become a commercial source of energy, Pons is convinced his scale-up
>demonstration could be developed into a practical application in the near
>future.
>
>``It wouldn't take care of the family's electrical needs, but it certainly
>could provide them with hot water year-round,'' said Pons, who said he's
>always believed that the practical application of cold fusion could happen
>this fast.
>
>``You have to know the dangers involved in scale-up, and that just takes
>time,'' he said.
>
>It also involves risks.
>
>Excess energy, he said, gives rise to increased radiation, which is being
>closely monitored by sophisticated new equipment in the U. fusion
>laboratories.  A more sensitive spectrometer is measuring gamma-ray
>activity, which the U. chemistry professor said is increasingly evident.
>And two independent methods of making calorimetric measurements are being
>used.
>
>Pons and Fleischmann have completed 10 experiments using electrically
>charged palladium and platinum electrodes in a vat of heavy water, whose
>hydrogen has been replaced with deuterium.
>
>Ten new ones, including the innovative large demonstration test, are
>currently running full steam ahead.
>
>According to Pons, the scale-up -- a mini ``boiler'' -- is, in fact, giving
>off 15 to 20 times the amount of energy that is being put into the cell.
>
>Simply put, in its current state it could provide boiling water for a cup
>of tea.
>
>Yet the electrode used in the newest experiment is the same size as those
>in the original tests -- about the size of a finger tip.
>
>The major differences between the experiments are these:  In the test
>tubes, heat is transferred out of the cell into a water bath.
>Essentially, the outside of the cell is kept at a very constant
>temperature, and measurements are made inside the cell.
>
>The new device is a flow-through cell:  As water moves through the jacket,
>the heat is transferred to the outside.  Cold water is put in one end and
>hot water comes out of the other.
>
>``But the heat output can be increased substantially in the new experiment
>because with the jacket, the heat is not boiled away,'' Pons said.  ``The
>scale-up is like a cooling radiator.  If it gets too hot, the water can be
>circulated faster or the temperature dropped.''
>
>If the newest experiment proves safe -- which only time will tell -- Pons
>believes he should turn it over to a second group of researchers who have
>the responsibility of taking fusion out of the lab and putting it into
>practical, money-making devices.
>
>If successful, the devices have the potential to help solve the world's
>energy supply concerns.
>
>***** END OF ARTICLE *****
>
>Accompanying the article is a color photo of Pons with a mesh-covered
>cannister about 30 cm high and about 20 cm in diameter with plastic tubes 
>entering and leaving the top, with what appear to be temperature probes 
>attached to the tubes.
>============================================================
>
>
>weeks.


cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.07 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Does it really matter who believes what?
     
Originally-From: gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does it really matter who believes what?
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 1995 16:38:37 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <B22aIpw.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>Instead of honest competition, we are confronted with power politics and
>corrupt government agencies that have unlimited amounts of money they can
>flush down the toilet.

One might forget that Mallove and Rothwell petitioned Congress to
get a piece of the action.

(And the year before that, so did Pons and Fleischmann.)
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.07 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Does it really matter who believes what?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does it really matter who believes what?
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 95 12:49:20 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Greg Kuperberg <gk00@quads.uchicago.edu> writes:
 
>One might forget that Mallove and Rothwell petitioned Congress to
>get a piece of the action.
 
Yes, I am no fool, I know how to play the game. Since Washingtion is where
all the power and money is, if I think I get a piece of the action there,
I will. We hoped to get $10 million, which is how much the DoE spends
before breakfast every day. That is piddling sum of course, you cannot
possibly develop an industry with that kind of money. Our hope was to force
the DoE to aknowledge that CF is real, by making them do a tiny amount of
research in it. The Representative from a New Jersey tokamak district
torpedoed our effort.
 
Any businessman in any industry has to deal with the cesspool in Washington.
There is so much power and so much money concentrated there, that if you
igore it you are bound to be hurt. It is exactly like doing business in a
third world country in which bribery is the rule. Like it or not, you simply
must pay off the local officials and the police, or you will never be allowed
to conduct business. The U.S. is not as bad as a country like Egypt, but on
the other hand we do have to recognize reality deal with politics as they are,
not as we wish they were. In energy R&D for example, this means that if you
want the Government to force the consumers to buy innefficient, wasteful
ethanol fuel, you do what Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. did: you pay President
Clinton $250,000 and you pay the Republican Congressmen $1.1 million dollars.
Then they write a law forcing people to buy countless billions of dollars of
whatever useless slop you come up with. That is how the energy game is played.
That is how every game in Washington is played. CF has been forced out of the
game completely for lack of money, so our only alternative is to do it the
hard way and sell products.
 
This kind of corruption did not start yesterday, by the way. The people who
built the transcontinental railroads after the Civil War paid fabulous amounts
of money to Congressmen in the form of bribes and stock. I believe it was
$50 million dollars, which is something like $2 billion in today's dollars.
This was paid over the 10 year period it took to build the railways. The
railway builders were doing a good thing for the nation and for themselves.
They had been handed gigantic land grants and subsidies of thousands of dollars
per mile for completed track. But even with all the government largess they
recieved, they found it was necessary to grease the skids with kickback money
to the Congress, in order to keep the subsidies and assistance flowing.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.07 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: What is your opinion?
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What is your opinion?
Date: 7 Jan 1995 18:53:01 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL


Would the two of you please stop squabbling over this?  The statement that
there is no likelihood that all the implicitly cited researchers could be
wrong contains two aspects;  (1) an appeal to authority, which if the
persons referred to are indeed authorities is a valid appeal, and (2) an
argument _ad numerum_, which is not valid.  

Now put it aside get on with the scientific discussions.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.07 /  PaulBreed /  MRA and AC measurments
     
Originally-From: paulbreed@aol.com (PaulBreed)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: MRA and AC measurments
Date: 7 Jan 1995 14:41:10 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In my professional career I have spent a lot of time measuring 
the voltage, current and power levels in high frequency switching 
power supplies. 

Accuratly measuring the power in such an environment is 
very diffcult.

RMS I* RMS V is not equal to true power unless the Load is a 
perfect resistor. This is true because reactive components cause 
the current and voltage to out of phase.

Note: that most wirewound resistors are not Pure resistors and behave 
more like Inductors.

Also note that most power resistors change in value with temperature.

Most handheld multimeters are not very accurate for signals with any
frequency components > 1Khz.

The same issues hold true for rectified AC signals.

There are only two methods to accuratly measure AC power.

1)Multiply the voltage and current continously  and measure the result.
This can be done digitaly (with fast A/D's ) or with an analog 
multiplier. This can be done for signals with a bandwidth of < 500Khz.

2)At RF frequencies one must measure true power thermally. 
Most instrument grade RF power meters
measure the temperature rise in a pair of identical resistors.
One resistor is driver by the RF source and one is driven with DC.
Make the temperatures equal and then measure the DC power.


I am very skeptical about Over unity power measurments done on AC
signals by people who do not directly address these measurment issues
in their results. As a best case they just don't know.

It is not my intent to discredit any ones effort, and I will gladly 
offer free E-Mail consulting services for people trying to do these
experiments. I would like to see the technical Quality of these 
discussions improve. 

In my belief it is rash to discuss the causes of Overunity results
until one can confirm the results. 

The final conclusive experiment will almost have to be a 
self powered device with no external power.

Paul Breed



cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenpaulbreed cudlnPaulBreed cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.07 /  PaulBreed /  Re: Borrowing a scope from U Ga.
     
Originally-From: paulbreed@aol.com (PaulBreed)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Borrowing a scope from U Ga.
Date: 7 Jan 1995 14:42:38 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

It would have to be a Six channel scope to make accurate 3 Phase AC power
measurments.

Phase 1 V,I
Phase 2 V,I
Phase 3 V,I

What is really needed is a comercial power meter, Or trust in the
dynomometer


Paul Breed
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenpaulbreed cudlnPaulBreed cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.07 / William Beaty /  Re: Free Energy Device - leave it out of sci.bio
     
Originally-From: billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.bio,sci.energy,sci.energy.h
drogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.
hysics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device - leave it out of sci.bio
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 1995 20:16:34 GMT
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever

Mohamed Nagi (bhja@Musicb.McGill.Ca) wrote:
: In article <witkowsk.1139558277J@cshl.org>
: witkowsk@cshl.org (j a witkowski) writes:

: > Are there any other biologists out there who feel that this is an
: > inappropriate thread for sci.bio?

: Dear sir,

: I don't agree with you. I beleive this thread is appropriate for any
: science  group. This Thread is not about discussing the particluars of
: the MRA device, as much as it is about discussing the philosophy of
: Scince in general.

<delete>


And for the curious, the actual MRA files are still on
WWW and anonymous ftp:

ftp://ftp.eskimo.com/billb

http://www.eskimo.com/~billb


.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenbillb cudfnWilliam cudlnBeaty cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.07 / John Logajan /  Re: What is your opinion?
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What is your opinion?
Date: 7 Jan 1995 21:07:22 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
:      By the way, logic police should be aware that probability arguments
:      are quite difficult to defend, regardless of your beliefs, when
:      there is no basis for determination of the probability.  Consider for
:      a moment what the phrase '50% probability that they are all wrong'
:      might mean.

Anything related to empirical reality is philosophically difficult to defend.
The potential for human error can never be totally ruled out -- which is why
upstart theories come and go on a regular basis, and why long established
theories crumble now and then.

We are left to pursue the ideal of philosophical purity but with the fore
knowledge that we will never be sure our working hypothesis exactly reflects
the true nature of reality.

This isn't as dim as it sounds.  It just means that categorical statements
about the nature of reality are never to be trusted 100%.  And it means that
reality speaks louder than theorists.

--
 - 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:
cuddy7 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.07 / Chuck Harrison /  Bringing tools (was: Phonophobic Calls Griggs)
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Chuck Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bringing tools (was: Phonophobic Calls Griggs)
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 1995 22:06:41 GMT
Organization: Fitful

In article <3ek87g$nau@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Droege@fnal.fnal.gov says...
>
>This phonophobic finally got around to calling Griggs and 
>setting up a meeting.  
>
[...]
>
>For those of you that have forgotten, I can only achieve a limited
>objective during such a visit.  I remind you, and I have told Griggs,
>that I cannot "prove" or "disprove" his measurements.  I would have
>to live with him for many months to do that.  What I can do is to
>make a general evaluation of his scientific approach.  Again I 
>told him this.
[...]
I do not exactly think that Tom is _wrong_ here, but I disagree with the 
emphasis in his remarks.  I thoroughly agree that a definitive proof or 
disproof of the excess energy claims would require an extended period of 
testing.  Because of the surprising nature of the claims, it would 
probably also call for verification of test-instrument performance and 
calibration far beyond routine scientific or engineering practice.

However, this fact does not mean that it is pointless to make 
measurements during a visit which lasts, say, 3 days.  It is apparent 
that quite a few serious measurement efforts, by Griggs and others, have 
been made on this apparatus.  It would be sensible to coordinate with Mr. 
Griggs to find out whether there are some measurement technologies, as 
yet untried, which would be likely to give insight into the phenomenon.  
A few thoughts which come to mind:
 *  Oscilloscope monitoring (preferably with digital storage) of
    electrical input I and V waveforms
 *  Acoustical monitoring (via microphone, contact accelerometer, and/or
    immersed hydrophone)
 *  Multipoint temperature/pressure/flow datalogging
 *  Determination of mechanical moments of inertia and compliances
 *  Sample extraction for off-line chemical analysis

One thing that intrigues me is taking the raw data and placing it in 
public cyberspace (e.g. available for ftp) and letting interested parties 
analyze it as they see fit.  This is an unconventional approach in modern 
science, where most researchers feel their data is proprietary and wish 
to retain their sole privilege to publish its analysis.  This idea of 
"public science" certainly has its potential pitfalls but I think it 
would be fun to give it a try.

I suspect that some participants (and lurkers) on this group have access 
to some fairly sophisticated equipment (e.g. for isotopic analysis) which 
might be deployed effectively if we can develop a reasonable experimental 
plan.  I encourage anyone who is able to contribute services or to loan 
equipment to contact Tom Droege directly.  A certain amount of equipment 
could also be rented or purchased outright with the money which we have 
collected.

I recognize that the mechanics of setting up instrumentation (even if it 
is done primarily by others, and not by Droege and Griggs themselves) 
could easily distract the focus of the visit which we have signed up for. 
Nonetheless I think that we could successfully return with not only Tom's 
informed opinion of Mr. Griggs' thoroughness, but also some meaningful 
measured data.  I encourage discussion of this here on s.p.f.

-Chuck Harrison

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenharr cudfnChuck cudlnHarrison cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.07 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Koloc's plasmak photos available via www
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Koloc's plasmak photos available via www
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 1995 21:50:22 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3ejqph$lln@stratus.skypoint.net> jlogajan@skypoint.com writes:
>I have a series of three photos (gifs) available to WWW browsers which
>show Paul Koloc's plasmak plasmoids floating hither and tither.
>
>http://www.skypoint.com/subscribers/jlogajan
>
>Paul, can you give me a size estimate of the plasmoid in the picture?
>
>--
> - 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:
cuddy7 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.07 / Dan Clemmensen /  Re: Alien Visitation vs. P&F Cold Fusion:  You Make The
     
Originally-From: dclemmensen@interramp.com (Dan Clemmensen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Alien Visitation vs. P&F Cold Fusion:  You Make The
Call (was Re: Kunich versus
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 1995 17:12:36
Organization: PSI Public Usenet Link

In article <D2094t.Exs@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgini
.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
>Subject: Re: Alien Visitation vs. P&F Cold Fusion:  You Make The
Call (was Re: Kunich versus 
>Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 22:29:16 GMT

>In article <USE2PCB638323482@brbbs.brbbs.com>,
>MARSHALL DUDLEY <mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com> wrote:
>>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>> 
>>->      Same with UFO sightings, crop circles too.
>>->
>>->      It's truly amazing that the sightings of aliens from other worlds
>>->      have basically converged to a single drawing in the last decade
>>->      or so.  Must be because they exist.
>> 
>>You are in the wrong newsgroup for this discussion.

>     Au contraire.  Interdisciplinary work is almost always fruitful.
                                                                               
>                                 dale bass

Interesting word choice: "fruitful".
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudendclemmensen cudfnDan cudlnClemmensen cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.07 / A Plutonium /  Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.ele
tromag,sci.physics,sci.physics.accelerators
Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
Date: 7 Jan 1995 22:33:24 GMT
Organization: Plutonium Atom Foundation

In article <3ea52p$9t4@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

>  I read that a neutrino beam can be created from particle accelerators.
> Does anyone have more information on that other than McGraw-Hill
> Science Encyclopedia?

  I was informed that accelerators can create muon neutrino beams.
True? Has anyone "shined" a muon neutrino beam onto a superconductor
with current in progress? "Shone it" on a superconductor with the
Meissner effect in progress?

  How about creating a e-neutrino beam and performing the same
"shooting" of e-neutrinos into the superconduction apparatuses?
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.07 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Griggs, Chaos and QM
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs, Chaos and QM
Date: Sat, 07 Jan 1995 13:15 -0500 (EST)

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
->      And, in typical turbulent flow such as in Mr. Griggs watertub,
->      continuum equations do not become inapplicable until length scales
->      far below the region where the energy spectrum disappears into
->      viscous interactions.  If you're going to get into theoretical
->      turbulence discussions, may I suggest a reading of Yaglom and
->      Monin's "Statistical Fluid Mechanics" Volumes I and II.
 
I will see if I can find a copy.  Having a gut feeling that a flow composed
of votexes stacked like tires, each spinning in the opposite direction of
it's neighbor would experience much lower frictional loss than a non-structured
turbulance I decided to do some experimentation.  Unfortunately I no longer
have access to any physics equipment, and had to make do with articles close at
hand.
 
Using a very high viscosity material (bread dough) I placed it in a mixer bowl
and tried creating a turbulent flow with one mixer blade in a bowl which I did
not allow to turn.  The mixer strained, almost unable to turn the blade, and I
saw the typical folding which occurs in chaotic motion.  The losses were very
high.
 
I then placed the second blade in the mixer, and freed the bowl so that it
could turn and match the velocity of the outer vortex at the contact point.
 
In this case two counter rotating vortexes appeared, each centered on a mixer
blade. I saw very little folding, and the mixer ran with much lower load,
telling me that the frictional losses were much less.  Each vortex remained
almost like a ball, and the friction appeared to be more like a rolling
friction than viscosity.
 
I agree that this is a far cry from the viscosity and dimensions of the
vortexes in the Griggs device, but it does seem to support my views that
counter rotating vortexes dissapate less energy than non-structured chaotic
flow.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy07 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.08 / Matt Austern /  Re: ------> The Water Heater <------
     
Originally-From: matt@physics7.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ------> The Water Heater <------
Date: 08 Jan 1995 02:05:08 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)

In article <D21KFD.2BI@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgini
.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

>       That is quite an interesting aspect of this group.  Almost everyone
>       who posted from the beginning and is still here began 
>       posting with a very strong tendency to credit the initial 
>       results.  That includes me.

Me too.  When I first heard about the Jones and Pons-Fleishmann
results (I didn't distinguish between the two groups at the time), I
was very excited and I made every effort to learn everything I could
about the experiments.  The claims just seemed so clear, so
unambiguous.  Remember that (in)famous gamma ray peak?  And then there
was the calorimetry: the data were published in a way that made it
appear that this was an effect that was much larger than could
possibly be explained by systematic error.  This whole mess began not
long after the discovery of high-Tc superconductivity, something
almost equally shocking: at the time, I was almost willing to believe
in magic.

Those early papers sounded so conclusive!  I imagined that a few more
groups would replicate those results, and then everything would be
wrapped up except for the plane ticket to Stockholm: it just didn't
occur to me that anyone would publish results like those if there were
even the slightest possibility of a problem.  I know better now.

I still have a credulous streak.  I was willing to believe in the 17
keV neutrino, too, until the experiments a year or so ago finally
ruled it out.  But enough is enough!  The 17 keV neutrino is dead, and
so is cold fusion.
--

                               --matt
cudkeys:
cuddy08 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Jan  8 04:37:04 EST 1995
------------------------------
