1995.01.08 / Bruce Hamilton /  Re: Bringing tools (was: Phonophobic Calls Griggs)
     
Originally-From: B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bringing tools (was: Phonophobic Calls Griggs)
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 1995 04:03:18 GMT
Organization: Industrial Research Limited

In article <harrD222r6.Lwz@netcom.com> 
harr@netcom.com (Chuck Harrison) writes:

>In article <...>, Droege@fnal.fnal.gov says...
>>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.

As much as I hate to say it, I believe Jed is correct on this.
I can't see any way people are going to arrive at a site and
in one day unambiguously identify errors. I believe Tom has
defined the only reasonable objectives for this visit.

>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.  

From Jed's description of the system, I wouldn't expect that 
measurement technologies are an issue.  Besides as Mr Griggs 
is an honest engineer, any ideas on measurement errors he had, 
he propably would have attempted to identify and resolve. 

The system allegedly generates excess heat. So all possible inputs 
have to be monitored cumulatively, along with all possible outputs 
- throughout an "excess heat" run. There may be some merit in
using a couple of instruments to check Mr Grigg's ones, but even
then I suspect results may be inconclusive. To conduct an 
appropriately definitive experiment may take several weeks if
all thermal inputs from ambient back to ambient have to monitored,
which could be the case if no measurement errors are discovered
at the "excess heat" stage.

This is not a trivial exercise where you toss probes/sensors
everywhere and plot the results. I'm occassionally involved 
in assessing alternative fuels. We put instrumented engines on 
the dyno, run it through cycles, obtaining baseline data, and 
alternate runs of the samples and reference fuels. All of which
takes time, not counting the verification of probes and sensors.  
Even then, some errors occur out of sheer cussedness,
requiring repeat runs, and I expect this device to be little different.

Notwithstanding those comments, as regards the following
shopping list, I can offer the following, but this offer in no
indicates my support for *trying* to instrument the device
during Tom's visit. It may be that after his visit we obtain
access to a Griggs Device for some controlled experiments... 

.....
> *  Multipoint temperature/pressure/flow datalogging

I'm sure somebody closer can provide superior equipment, but I do
have access to a National Instruments data acquistion system that
possibly could be lent for a couple of  months. This comprises of a full 
Labview for Windows development  package, !6 Bit AD
( AT-MIO-16X 100 kS/s 16 channel ) with  SCXI 1120 signal conditioning 
modules. The major disadvantage is that it requires a full-sized
486 with 16 megs RAM.  The user would have to be familar with 
Labview and be able to programme in appropriate sensors. 

> *  Sample extraction for off-line chemical analysis

It depends on the analyses required, I'd be fairly happy to analyse
typical species using AAS ( Al, Si, Fe etc.), and ion chromatography 
(Cl,SO4, etc ) and also dissolved gas analysis by GC, but I couldn't
check for H2, He isotopes. I'd require good blank samples so we
could identify differences.
 
>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.

I doubt it. I'd prefer for Tom to visit, make his assessment, report back
with his perceptions, perhaps recommending the next steps. We
could try to arrange for the loan or hire of a Griggs Device for a 
sufficiently long  period (1-2 months?) to fully evaluate it at an appropriate 
site. If Tom/Mr Griggs were happy to have an "observer/recorder" with 
a video some interesting information might be recorded. 

             Bruce Hamilton
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenHamilton cudfnBruce cudlnHamilton cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.08 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: ------> The Water Heater <------
     
Originally-From: gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ------> The Water Heater <------
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 1995 03:28:59 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <MATT.95Jan7180508@physics7.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>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.

Certainly the scientific community had the bad luck of getting
cold fusion on the heels of high-Tc.  But we can now ask why
these screwups who are so sure that they are right haven't accomplished
what the high-Tc people have accomplished.  If we establishment
scientists are so closed-minded, why do we believe high-Tc?

>Those early papers sounded so conclusive!

If you mean the newspapers, then yeah.  But I think that if I had
seen Pons and Fleischmann's preprint at the beginning, I would have
been more skeptical.  That first preprint was a piece of crap.

I can tell you what first planted serious doubts in my mind.  The first
labs to "confirm" cold fusion were all at second-tier research
universities.  And I wondered why none of the top schools were saying
anything.  I thought, well, it could happen, but it merits an
explanation, because top schools don't have their reputation for
nothing.  The responses that I got on the net were totally
unsatifactory: People told me that I was a naive snob and that top
schools DO have their reputation for nothing.  Pons' response, when I
read it, was even worse:  He said flatly that every researcher who got
negative results had to be talentless compared to the brilliants who
got positive results.  He obviously knew nothing about the details of
these negative results, he just issued a knee-jerk response that they
had done it wrong.  And therefore Texas A&M is better than MIT because
Texas A&M said what Pons wanted to hear.  Also chemistry departments
were better at physics than physics departments for the same reason.

This was the first time that I had seen a Pons flim-flam myself.  I
only learned about the rest of his chicanery much later.  Around the
same time my roommate told me that a lab in Japan thought that Pons
and Fleischmann's preprint was unsatifactory as an experimental
write-up.  The two together were it for me.  I was too embarrassed to
admit my mistake for a long time.  Also, when the news first broke, I
had lectured my friend who works in magnetic fusion on how the David of
cold fusion had slain the Goliath of hot fusion.  Geez, at least I can
repent for my arrogance.

>I still have a credulous streak.

I don't know if I do or not.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.08 / Jascha Little /  Re: Calorimetry offer
     
Originally-From: HALO@mail.utexas.edu (Jascha Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Calorimetry offer
Date: 8 Jan 1995 05:14:48 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin

In article <199501071031.VAA19856@oznet02.ozemail.com.au>, rvanspaa@ozem
il.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk) says:
>
>[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>


It certainly would serve my primary purpose to do so.  As I mentioned in my
offer, the world needs to see several labs obtaining the same results on a given 
cold fusion experiment.

I am becoming concerned that I will NOT get any offers to loan me a working
cell (no one has come forth yet). I will repeat my offer weekly to keep it
current in s.p.f.  If any of you have any contacts with people that are doing
cold fusion experimentation, please inform them.  Thank you.



Anyone out there who believes that they have a working cold fusion cell, how
would you like the rest of the world to believe your results?
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenHALO cudfnJascha cudlnLittle cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.08 / Jorge Stolfi /  Re: Borrowing a scope from U Ga.
     
Originally-From: stolfi@stack.dcc.unicamp.br (Jorge Stolfi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Borrowing a scope from U Ga.
Date: 8 Jan 1995 05:16:30 GMT
Organization: DCC - UNICAMP - Campinas, SP, Brazil


    > [Tom Zemanian:] Since the input power seems to be a major source
    > of argument, that'd seem to be one of the most important
    > measurements to make.

Sorry to bother you all, but, once more: 

  The total "excess heat" generated by the Griggs heater is only a
  small fraction of the total heat stored in the device, and it is
  only observed when measurements are taken right after a large drop
  in the input power.

Anyone can check this statement from the data given by Jed Rothwell in
his Fusion Technology paper.  NO data has ever been presented to back
up Jed's claims of continuous excess heat production at customer
sites.  

Thus, I claim that the "stored heat" theory fits all of Jed's
measurements, and all the actual data that we have about the the
Griggs device, including the peculiarities of the "heat producing
regime".

Indeed, I believe that Jed's instruments were working properly,
his measurements were accurate, and the experimental setup
was sound; it is only his conclusions that were wrong.

I know that there are other competing explanations, but I modestly
think that "stored heat" has one great argument going for it: since I
posted my analysis, Jed has carefully avoided the slightest mention to
the "stored heat" issue, and completely ignored all my questions and
reminders about the subject.  Considering that he has been quite
responsive to harsher skeptics than myself, I can only conclude that he
knows where the quicksand pit is, and has no intention of getting
anywhere near it.

Thank you all for your attention, and my best wishes for the
Year 6 of the Cold Fusion Era.

--stolfi

PS. Could any of you scf readers please e-mail an ACK for this note?
Just to be sure the connection is working... Thanks!
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Stolfi | http://www.dcc.unicamp.br/~stolfi | stolfi@dcc.unicamp.br 
Computer Science Dept. (DCC-IMECC)               | Tel +55 (192) 39-8442
Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)      |     +55 (192) 39-3115 
Campinas, SP -- Brazil                           | Fax +55 (192) 39-7470
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not copy this .signature virus into your .signature file!
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.08 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Does it really matter who believes what?
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does it really matter who believes what?
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 1995 07:44:01 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <RC+Z4Jw.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>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.

Hmm, aren't you the one telling us that Toyota is spending millions on
CF research? So, what have they got to show us Rothwell?

Hmm, an "over unity" system that _isn't_ self sustaining. Interesting
idea. If I understand you correctly you are saying that it doesn't work
if you don't put power into it. _BUT_ you get more power out than you
put in. _BUT_ if you take away the input power it doesn't produce ANY
power. Yes, I understand. Really complicated thought train here. Of course
it isn't all that obvious to see that slight little inconsistancy. No
input power, no output power.


cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.08 / 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: 8 Jan 1995 08:31:16 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Thomas S. Zemanian (ts_zemanian@pnl.gov) wrote:
: Would the two of you please stop squabbling over this?

Well, I'll stop discussing it if you will ... :-)

But ...

: (1) an appeal to authority, which if the persons referred to are indeed
: authorities is a valid appeal

I wish you hadn't said that -- since it is a logical fallacy.

Let's take Bockris as an example of a bona fide authority.  Are you prepared
to suggest that his four-bodied nuclear reaction theory is valid based upon
his credentials?

Sorry, but a theory is right or wrong on its own merits and the credentials
of the advocate or detractor are irrelevant.

--
 - 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:
cuddy8 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.09 / Sam Goldwasser /  Re: Borrowing a scope + Grigg's customers.
     
Originally-From: sam@colossus.stdavids.picker.com (Sam Goldwasser)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Borrowing a scope + Grigg's customers.
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 00:01:40 GMT
Organization: Picker International, St. Davids

In article <x056Ilx.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

>stolfi@stack.dcc.unicamp.br (Jorge Stolfi) writes:

>	"Jed has carefully avoided the slightest mention to the 'stored heat'
>	issue, and completely ignored all my questions and reminders about the
>	subject."

>That is incorrect. I have not carefully avoided the slightest mention. I
>pointed out, repeatedly, that I ran the machine for hours and that some units
>run 24 hours a day all year long, producing excess heat the whole time. The
>customer's electric bills show a sharp drop in demand, even though they use as
>much steam as before. I am not carefully avoiding your theory, I am ignoring
>it because it is stupid nonsense. It is a waste of time responding to such
>nonsense; I will not type another word about it.
>- Jed

I have been more or less quietly listening to this debate for months now
and it has always seemed interesting that while Jed repeatedly mentions
satisfied customers with reduced electric bills, he or Griggs are not willing
to provide any of their names.  Normally, if a compony produces a new
and better product, they would be very happy to provide the names of
satisfied customers (with their permission) to prospective new customers,
to the press, to the public, and to researchers who can confirm their claims.
(I apologize if Jed has given us the names of some customers and I have missed
them.  However, I recall at least one response where he simply stated that
Griggs does not release such information.)

So, what gives?

1. Griggs really is just in this for his health and amusement.  Expanding
   his business and increasing his profits are irrelevant.

2. The customers have been told they are saving energy but have not actually
   done the measurements.

3. The Griggs devices somehow fools the electric meter into reading low
   (do to power factor, EMI, or wahtever) and they do not want the electric
   company to catch on.

4. Being a fast response water heater, electric bills are reduced but as
   a result of not requiring a preheat cycle not by overunity heat production.

5. There really are no customers.

6. This is all smoke and mirrors and none of the claims are valid.

I think Tom should visit a customer also.  Trying to set up meaningful
measurements in an unfamilier environment, under pressure, etc. is probably
not going to work out.  If there is indeed long term power savings, then
perhaps a customer site with appropriate records would be a better place
to understand the mechanism and long term behavior.

--- sam

sam@stdavids.picker.com
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudensam cudfnSam cudlnGoldwasser cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.08 / Richard Green /  Re: Free Energy Device - leave it out of sci.bio
     
Originally-From: alpha@unix.infoserve.net (Richard Green)
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: 8 Jan 1995 20:43:13 GMT
Organization: Infoserve Technology Ltd.

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. 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.


I Also must agree with this. Nature does not know where the boundries of 
the scientific disiplines are drawn. The universe incorperates all 
phenomenon under just one heading, "natural phenomenon". If this MRA 
device is fact, then surely it will take  more than physics, chemistry, or 
any ONE disipline to fully understand and explain it. Having an open mind 
is of paramount importance when you are seeking to do real science. If 
what you are confronted with seems unconventional, or too 'flakey', try 
and think of what relativity theory sounded like before Einstien, or how 
silly it seemed that our cells could produce NO. 

As far as I am concerned, nothing but good can come from people sharing 
their discoveries with as many people as possible. The Internet's 
capability of bringing messages like this to all scientific disiplines is 
precicely what it is intended to do. Don't fight it, take pride in it, 
because this capability is going to change the world.
                           
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenalpha cudfnRichard cudlnGreen cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.09 / Michael White /  Re: Antimatter plasma
     
Originally-From: white@menext3.engr.ucdavis.edu. (Michael White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Antimatter plasma
Date: 9 Jan 1995 01:08:10 GMT
Organization: University of California, Davis


You may be interested in the work by professor Clifford M. Surko
at the University of California, San Deigo for more information
on this subject.  They are doing experiments with electron-positron
plasmas (collisionless plasmas).  Some reference papers are:
[Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 901 (1989)], [Hyperfine Interactions 81, 239
(1993)] and [Physics of Plasmas 1, 1439 (1994)]

- Mike White
  white@halfdome.engr.ucdavis.edu

In article <3eekt4$cam@curly.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu  
(John W. Cobb) writes:
> 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:
cuddy9 cudenwhite cudfnMichael cudlnWhite cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.09 / John Logajan /  Re: Does it really matter who believes what?
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does it really matter who believes what?
Date: 9 Jan 1995 03:37:57 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

MARSHALL DUDLEY (mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com) wrote:
: Microwaves cook from the inside out, just like they do in a microwave oven.

This is somewhat of an urban legend.  Most substances placed in a microwave
have sufficient conductivity at the surface at the frequency in question
that they actually cook from the outside in -- just as in normal oven.

Only substances that are somewhat transparent to the microwave frequency
would experience the inside being warmed up as fast as the outside -- but
substances that are somewhat transparent to microwave energy are also not
as efficiently warmed ('cuz a lot of the energy passes on through.)

I believe ice is more transparent to microwave energy than is liquid
water -- which explains the difficulty of using a microwave to thaw
frozen foods.

--
 - 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:
cuddy9 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.09 / Paul Koloc /  cmsg cancel <D221zz.A4J@prometheus.UUCP>
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <D221zz.A4J@prometheus.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 03:56:44 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

This article was probably generated by a buggy news reader.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.09 / 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: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 04:11:23 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?
75 cc

For those having difficulty applying the Virial to the PLASMAK(tm) model,
PMK physical embodiments have internal discontinuity which void its
use.           :-)           Otherwise might take a good stiff drink and
have a til-o-nol and call for dialyisis.      

BTW, John, Please put the following copyright on those gifs, since they
are the color version of B&W copies submitted for proceedings
of a recent fusion symposium.  Text of the paper will be included
there and when published the reference will be noted in this group.  

Copyright 1994 Phaser Corporation 

Permission for hard copy is open for academic purposes, just notify me 
at the sig below.  For other purposes please contact for permission at
the same address.  That should cover any legal snags.  
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>--
> - 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:
cuddy9 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Jan  9 04:37:05 EST 1995
------------------------------
