1995.01.10 /  PaulBreed /  Re: MRA and AC measurments
     
Originally-From: paulbreed@aol.com (PaulBreed)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MRA and AC measurments
Date: 10 Jan 1995 20:20:21 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

>Subject: Re: MRA and AC measurments
>From: Anff@qvwp.demon.co.uk (Anthony)
>Date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 02:44:24 +0000
>Message-ID: <789705864snz@qvwp.demon.co.uk>

>Hi

>They have actually put a small light bulb in the primary circuit and
>one in the secondary, and then tuned the resonance until the input
>bulb goes very dim and the output is very bright. Could this be
>a good test or can this happen somehow? It's supposed to be
>a dead good visual measurement? 

A Simple 2:1 Step up transformer would show this same behavior.
A Bulb on the primary(input) would see X volts and the bulb on the
secondary
would see 2X volts. Assuming the bulb is a constant resistance (it is not)
the bulb on the secondary would see 4 times the power.

Paul Breed
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenpaulbreed cudlnPaulBreed cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.11 / A Plutonium /  Re: NP 9Jan95, Ludwig is asked to revise THE FEYNMAN LECTURES 
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.math,sci.chem
Subject: Re: NP 9Jan95, Ludwig is asked to revise THE FEYNMAN LECTURES 
Date: 11 Jan 1995 01:59:16 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <3euir5$43n@mtha.usc.edu>
bruck@mtha.usc.edu (Ronald Bruck) writes:

> I smell a forgery.  I doubt that Ludwig wrote this; the rest of the article
> reads like a parody of LP's style.

  Nice to see you back Ron. No, sorry to say it is the real McLudwig.
And although I do not like to make fun of any Plutonium Atom Prize
winners. All of us, if we can not laugh at ourselves, we are just not
living right. I am going to poke fun at Feynman a little bit here. But
please notice that I am not acidic or personally attacking Richard. I
am making fun at the "overdoing of awe" towards famous scientists. If
it was someone who was not a PU prizewinner, it would not be for fun
and I do not call Richard a name. I am just having a laugh at the way
the world respects a famous physicist. And, this is where we get our
best laughs-- from serious backgrounds. To poke fun at seriousness is a
bigger laugh than just to join in on a crowd of jokesters.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.11 / Robert Kinney /  BOMB REPORT
     
Originally-From: S1126161@cedarville.edu (Robert Mc Kinney )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: BOMB REPORT
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 03:33:56 GMT
Organization: Cedarville College, Cedarville, OH

I AM DOING A REPORT ON ON HOW EASY IT IS TO MAKE A BOMB AND I AM WONDERING 
IF YOU COULD GIVE ME SOME INFORMATION ON HOW TO PRODUCE ONE AND THE 
SIMPLICITIES OF IT. IF YOU NEED ANY SPECIAL EQUIPMENT TO DO IT. ANY
INFORMATION  WOULD BE APPRECIATED.  THANKS 
ROBERT MCKINNEY
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenS1126161 cudfnRobert cudlnKinney cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.11 / A Plutonium /  Re: Politicians wasting $290million in science sham projects
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.engr,sci.physics.fusi
n,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Politicians wasting $290million in science sham projects
Date: 11 Jan 1995 03:41:12 GMT
Organization: Plutonium Atom Foundation

In article <3ekhk8$jpl@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

> For a multimillion dollar science project to get funding should pass
> two related criteria:
>    (1) useful benefit to society, ie, spinoff technology or engineering
>                  (2) related to (1), and is simply "need to know"

  I propose that if groups go ahead with this 290 million dollar
project and discover again as per Weber, that finding the graviton
fails. Then I think accountability is gravely in order. I recommend a
public trial of the politicians and pushers of this project be put on
trial and required to pay back whatever they can pay.
  The project fails on both criteria above. There is no practical
spinoff as far as I know to this project. In fact, they could get the
290 million dollars, meet in some backroom, divvy it up, which would
arrive at the same end result as if they built the General Relativity
cosmic xylophone.
  I can just see the headlines now-- "The world's most expensive
xylophone bites the dust".
  Surely, we can put scientists to work in Mass MIT and Calif. into
something meaningful such as Genome project, or Superconductivity, or
Cold Fusion. Why throw away $290 million of our tax money. 
  Please post the names of these politicians who are going to spend
(throw away) our hard worked for taxmoney. Throw away-- without giving
decent answers to those two criteria I have listed.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.11 / Jollie MM /  Re: Cold Fusion Day at MIT - January 21,1995
     
Originally-From: jolliemm@aol.com (Jollie MM)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Day at MIT - January 21,1995
Date: 11 Jan 1995 02:59:51 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Glad to see your post and glad to see you giving them hell.
Best wishes, Eugene, and I definitely concur that this is going to be a
very interesting year in the history of science.
Michael Mandeville (I sent you the material about cold radioactivity
alteration)
A Friend...
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjolliemm cudfnJollie cudlnMM cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.11 / William Rowe /  Re: Does it really matter who believes what?
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (William Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does it really matter who believes what?
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 05:23:35 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Jed Rothwell wrote:

>The microwave beam would continue day and night, whereas sunlight is only
>available half the time. I believe the microwave beam would also penetrate
>cloudy weather better.

Actually, the most logical orbit for any space borne microwave power system
would be geosynchronous. Any other orbit would significantly complicate 
tracking and power collection. For any sattelite in geosynchronous orbit it
is not true that it is in sunlight half the time. In fact, it is continually
exposed to sunlight.

>If the collectors on the earth could also be used to concentrate and use
>solar energy, so much the better. You would then have a gigantic "dual
>use" array, that would generate twice as much energy during the day as at
>night. Actually, this would be ideal, because there is more demand for
>electricity during the day. You would have "one sunburn" worth of energy
>at night, and "two sunburn units" of energy during the day.

One of the reasons for considering a space borne system would be to avoid
atmospheric attenutation and cloud coverage. Having said that, clearly one
of the more significan issues is to avoid the same problems when sending the
collected/coverted solar energy to an earth station.

>Still, as I said, it is not a viable technology. Especially compared to CF.

This is a very interesting point of view. It is not obvious to me that a 
serious attempt to develop a space borne microwave power system would lose
to a CF system.

The real point of comparison that needs to be considered is not merely what
can be technically acheived. Any system that collects and transmits solar
energy clearly cannot collect more energy per unit area than available from
the sun. The diffuse nature of solar energy makes it much more suited for a
distributed power system rather than the centralized power plant and 
distribution systems currently in use. Fusion offers several orders of 
magnitude greater power densities, making it very suitable to the type of
power distribution systems currently in place.

-- 
_______________________________________________________________________________
William Rowe                                                   browe@netcom.com
MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbrowe cudfnWilliam cudlnRowe cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.10 / Steve DeGroof /  Re: MRA update 10, free energy device !
     
Originally-From: steve@degroof.raleigh.nc.us (Steve DeGroof)
Newsgroups: alt.energy.renewable,alt.paranet.science,alt.sci.physics.new
theories,cl.energie.alternativen,sci.energy,sci.environment,sci.physics,
ci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MRA update 10, free energy device !
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 95 21:22:03 -0500
Organization: Nightshade Inc., Raleigh NC

I can't tell whether these people are being intentionally obscure or if
they're just sloppy. They post input and output voltages along with a
power gain figure, but they leave out all the details. Just once, I'd
like to see something like this:

Input:      1V RMS, 200ma RMS, 0 degree shift, 100kHz sine wave
Output:     2V RMS, 200ma RMS, 0 degree shift, 100kHz sine wave
Power gain: 2.0

While we're at it, here's a few more things:
-Measure the voltage and current with a scope. Meters won't cut it, 
even the "true RMS" ones.
-Measure the phase shift between current and voltage. You'll need a
dual-trace scope. A good one. (phase=360*delay/period)
-*Really* measure the current. E/R won't work for anything but a purely 
resistive circuit, which you don't have.
-Measure the output under resistive load. No-load will give you garbage 
results.
-RMS=peak*.707 or peak-to-peak*.707/2 This works for pure sine waves
only.
-power=E*I*cos(phase). This equation works for pure sine waves only.
-E*I and E*E/R won't work for power in anything but a purely resistive 
circuit, which you don't have.

If you can't manage this, don't have the equipment or just don't want 
to do the work, then don't post your results. They're meaningless.

SD
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudensteve cudfnSteve cudlnDeGroof cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.11 / Kym Horsell /  Re: NP 9Jan95, Ludwig is asked to revise THE FEYNMAN LECTURES
     
Originally-From: khorsell@ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.math,sci.chem
Subject: Re: NP 9Jan95, Ludwig is asked to revise THE FEYNMAN LECTURES
 IN   PHYSICS and deliver the Messenger Lectures at Cornell
Date: 11 Jan 1995 20:05:30 +1100
Organization: Department of Electronic Engineering, La Trobe University

In article <3eve1k$oh0@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartm
uth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
>I am going to poke fun at Feynman a little bit here. But
>please notice that I am not acidic or personally attacking Richard. I
>am making fun at the "overdoing of awe" towards famous scientists. 

Ahem. Like legally changing one's name? ;-)

-- 
R. Kym Horsell
khorsell@EE.Latrobe.EDU.AU              kym@CS.Binghamton.EDU 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenkhorsell cudfnKym cudlnHorsell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.12 / Richard Blue /  RE: Refuting Reifenschwieler
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Refuting Reifenschwieler
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 01:09:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I probably should put down a few more facts relating to the experiments
in question.

1) The vacuum gauge does not measure the vacuum in the chamber.  It
measures the vacuum in the gauge tube.  One must judge whether those
two quantities are comensurate.  I don't believe they are for the
reasons I cited.  There is a significant restriction in the tubulation
and the titanium itself is "pumping".

2) The observed vacuum conditions, modified in keeping with the above
concern, are not sufficiently good to guarantee compositional stability
of the sample.

3) Although the titanium may getter very well at some temperatures it
can also release the products of gettering at elevated temperatures.
The basis of the experiment is, afterall, a demonstration that something
happens as a function of temperature.

4) Observed variations in the vacuum gauge pressure indicate that something
does change.

To repeat, the experimental design does not allow any determination as
to the underlying cause of the observed variation in detector countrate.
The author has selected an unlikely hypothesis without considering the
alternatives, and has failed to obtain any supporting evidence.  The
experiment has not been replicated by anyone else.  Years of experimentation
aimed at the discovery of similar effects have provided more conclusive
evidence that cannot be ignored.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.11 / Akira Kawasaki /  Re: I Am a Cheap Date!
     
Originally-From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I Am a Cheap Date!
Date: 11 Jan 1995 14:28:03 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3euhc3$2e4@fnnews.fnal.gov> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) 
writes: 

>
>Looks like I am a cheap date.  I just got a $126 air fare
>to Atlanta.  Rental car is $45 a day.  Now for a Red Roof
>Inn!  There should be enough left for dinner and drinks.
>
>Tom Droege
>

Go cheaper yet! Just find buy a copy of the second issue of Cold Fusion 
magazine (June, 1994) $10.00. It covers the Hydrosonic Pump. Written by 
Dr. Eugene Mallove and Mr. Jed Rothwell.

If you can find a person that has a copy that you can read, heck, 
everything would be free!

AK 

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenaki cudfnAkira cudlnKawasaki cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.11 / Harry Conover /  Re: I Am a Cheap Date!
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I Am a Cheap Date!
Date: 11 Jan 1995 15:01:58 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Akira Kawasaki (aki@ix.netcom.com) wrote:

: Go cheaper yet! Just find buy a copy of the second issue of Cold Fusion 
: magazine (June, 1994) $10.00. It covers the Hydrosonic Pump. Written by 
: Dr. Eugene Mallove and Mr. Jed Rothwell.


Wouldn't this be a bit like getting your science facts from the 'National 
Enquirer' or 'World Sun'?

					Harry C.

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.11 / K Jonsson /  Re: MRA update 10, free energy device !
     
Originally-From: kvj@rhi.hi.is (Kristjan Valur Jonsson)
Newsgroups: alt.energy.renewable,alt.paranet.science,alt.sci.physics.new
theories,cl.energie.alternativen,sci.energy,sci.environment,sci.physics,
ci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MRA update 10, free energy device !
Date: 11 Jan 1995 15:05:50 GMT
Organization: University of Iceland

In <LD0EvAzHBh107h@degroof.raleigh.nc.us> steve@degroof.raleigh.nc.us
(Steve DeGroof) writes:
>dual-trace scope. A good one. (phase=360*delay/period)
>-*Really* measure the current. E/R won't work for anything but a purely 
>resistive circuit, which you don't have.

Yes, it gives the current in a serial cirquit, via one of Kirchoff's laws.
Multiply with input rms voltage and you have worst case results,
(i.e. the max input power <= input VAR)
which if good enough, is good enough.

>-Measure the output under resistive load. No-load will give you garbage 
>results.

again this appears to have be done.  Read the notes on the url
(http://www.eskimo.com/~billb if I remember correctly).
Please post informed messages.

Kristjan

-- 
Kristjan Valur Jonsson               |    The individual does not qualify for
Student of mechanical engineering,   |         making decisions regarding the
University of Iceland                |                 activities of the many.
Exclaimer: Yess!                     |                         (Helmut, 1993)
-- 
Kristjan Valur Jonsson               |    The individual does not qualify for
Student of mechanical engineering,   |         making decisions regarding the
University of Iceland                |                 activities of the many.
Exclaimer: Yess!                     |                         (Helmut, 1993)
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenkvj cudfnKristjan cudlnJonsson cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.11 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: Does it really matter who believes what?
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does it really matter who believes what?
Date: 11 Jan 1995 18:00:57 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <tomkD262z1.JB2@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) 
writes: 

snips...
>If you read every CF paper religiously and listen very carefully you 
>will detect neither hide nor hair of a return on that investment, nor a 
>single competent paper from that laboratory.
>
>Is that because the Energy Department is funding hot fusion?
> 
How long did it take the Wright bros. to convince the world that flight 
was possible. The Defense Department took 5 years. Even the NY Times 
still disbelieved them even after an airplane flew passed a train 
carrying a bunch of Times reporters. Face it, science is riddled with 
conspiracies garnered from those who do not understand that which nature 
and the cosmos can provide us with. When those in power do not 
understand or do not wish to understand, generate this improper 
sceptecism, it embodes a loathing and a fear of the unknown. Is this 
what science is all about. Do we live in a perfect world? Do we have not 
only theories but proofs that substantiate the rules of our universe in 
total? According to all the CF sceptics we must. Well, lets send up the 
fireworks and uncork the champagne; the scientists have got it all 
right!!! 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.11 / Dick Jackson /  Re: World-Wide Acceptance of Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: World-Wide Acceptance of Cold Fusion
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 16:12:22 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea

In article <83@milton.win-uk.net> richard@milton.win-uk.net (Richard Milton) writes:
> 
> HALO@mail.utexas.edu (Jascha Little) says:
>
>>In the interest of science I hereby offer, free of charge, the services of my
>>calorimetry lab to anyone who can provide a "working" cold fusion cell (i.e.
>>one that does produce excess heat).
>
>>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.
>
>Scott, did you know that you can _buy_ a commercially
>available cold fusion research cell?
>
>They have been advertised for sale for more than nine
>months in "Cold Fusion" magazine by
>
>E-quest Sciences
>PO Box 60642
<snip>

Interesting.  Would they happen to come with a "money back if not
completely satisfied" guarantee?

Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.11 / Dick Jackson /  Re: Crop Circles: A New Theory
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Crop Circles: A New Theory
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 16:20:42 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea

In article <3ek11c$blm@infa.central.susx.ac.uk> K.Reval@sussex.ac.uk (Kiran) writes:
>
>Has anyone ever thought that the mystery may not come from the outside 
>(plasma vortices, tornados, yes and even UFOs), but from the inside 
>of the earth?

There are three leading theories as to the origin of crop circles:

1. An incredibly complex dynamic interaction between stalks involving
ZPE and hydrinos -- can't summarize here but in essence the surplus
energy is carried away by neutrinos and is hence undetectable,

2. Alien space craft, and

3. Two men who have appeared on television to demonstrate their
technique which involves a stick and a length of stout twine

The really unfortunate thing about this state of affairs is the
hostility shown by adherents of theories 1 & 2 to those believing
in 3. The reverse is somewhat true also.

Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.11 / Lews Therin /  Re: Politicians wasting $290million in science sham projects
     
Originally-From: lewst@teleport.com (Lews Therin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.engr,sci.physics.fusi
n,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Politicians wasting $290million in science sham projects
Date: 11 Jan 1995 11:11:56 -0800
Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016

In our last episode, Archimedes Plutonium (Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
: In article <3ekhk8$jpl@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

: > For a multimillion dollar science project to get funding should pass
: > two related criteria:
: >    (1) useful benefit to society, ie, spinoff technology or engineering
: >                  (2) related to (1), and is simply "need to know"

Quoting yourself? :)

:   I propose that if groups go ahead with this 290 million dollar
: project and discover again as per Weber, that finding the graviton
: fails. Then I think accountability is gravely in order. I recommend a
: public trial of the politicians and pushers of this project be put on
: trial and required to pay back whatever they can pay.
:   The project fails on both criteria above. There is no practical
: spinoff as far as I know to this project. In fact, they could get the
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Maybe they're trying to find one.  After all, I'm sure that Planck and 
Einstein didn't have any "practical" spin-offs in mind when they started 
mucking about with quantizing energy.  Relativity wasn't practical at 
first.  Pushing back the limits of knowledge rarely *is* practical...at 
first.

: 290 million dollars, meet in some backroom, divvy it up, which would
: arrive at the same end result as if they built the General Relativity
: cosmic xylophone.
:   I can just see the headlines now-- "The world's most expensive
: xylophone bites the dust".
:   Surely, we can put scientists to work in Mass MIT and Calif. into
: something meaningful such as Genome project, or Superconductivity, or
: Cold Fusion. Why throw away $290 million of our tax money. 
:   Please post the names of these politicians who are going to spend
: (throw away) our hard worked for taxmoney. Throw away-- without giving
: decent answers to those two criteria I have listed.

I'm curious to find out how you came up with these criteria.  They seem 
to be more consistent with the guidelines laid down by commercial 
interests (in other words, think immediate profit, children -- and screw 
research for knowledge's sake!) than with those appropriate for the true 
spirit of science.

After all, sometimes you can learn as much or more by learning "No" than 
"Yes."  Look at the Michelson-Morley experiment if you don't believe me.


-- 
  -ooo  |            lewst@teleport.com            |    Read  the    |  -ooo
 --oooo |    D. L. "Lews Therin Telamon" Ganger    | "Wheel Of Time" | --oooo
 ----oo | pdx-writers list: majordomo@teleport.com | My opinions are | ----oo
  ---o  | Place "info pdx-writers" in message body | not Teleport's. |  ---o
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenlewst cudfnLews cudlnTherin cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.11 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: MRA and AC measurments
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MRA and AC measurments
Date: 11 Jan 1995 18:13:22 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3evbip$64s@newsbf02.news.aol.com> paulbreed@aol.com (PaulBreed) 
writes: 

>
>Thermal RF power meters can be very accurate.

		The word Can should be underlined.

>
>Linear Tech Makes a single chip thermal meter LT1088 while only good to
>100mW or so it is accurate to 1%
>
>HP makes thermal RF power meters good to 10's or 100's of Watts, also
>about 1% accurate.

The accuracy is only good in a perfect world. If your load can be 
maintained perfectly matched and resistive, then these power meters do 
work quite well. I have yet to see in a load, anything other than a 
carbon power resistor in a gallon of peanut oil to work in that fashion. 
The real world is inductive and capacitive. Once your VSWR heads in 
either of these directions you will get the power moving in both 
directions. The only way to reasonable measure this is with Bird Power 
meters. The accuracy is not 1% but its all implied anyways.

CP
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.11 / Nick Maclaren /  Re: World-Wide Acceptance of Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: World-Wide Acceptance of Cold Fusion
Date: 11 Jan 1995 23:13:15 GMT
Organization: University of Cambridge, England

In article <3f1l6g$f34@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, Parky25 <parky25@aol.com> wrote:
>>>Scott, did you know that you can _buy_ a commercially
>>>available cold fusion research cell?
>>
>>Interesting.  Would they happen to come with a "money back if not
>>completely satisfied" guarantee?
>
>Even more interseting is to buy one and watch it work! And since it works
>why do they need to give a money back guarantee.
>
>disclaimer: I do not work for nor represent E quest. I doubt they would
>set themselves up for fraud in the device that they advertise and sell.

Just because someone advertises something doesn't necessarily mean
that it works!  In the UK, false advertising is legal, but I know
that most of the U.S.A. is less, er, liberal.  An advertiser might be
relying on the fact that the law is so expensive and slow that any
consequences could be evaded by fast footwork.

In the mid-1970s, someone advertised a memory module that stored
1 MB in a cigarette-sized box, and saved its contents during power
outages "in 48 critical registers".  He was touting that thing for
18 MONTHS before he changed his contact address to Brazil :-)

Please note that I am NOT saying that the devices don't work -
merely that the existence of an advertisement proves nothing.


Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QG, England.
Email:  nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk
Tel.:  +44 1223 334761    Fax:  +44 1223 334679
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudennmm1 cudfnNick cudlnMaclaren cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.11 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: BOMB REPORT
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: BOMB REPORT
Date: 11 Jan 95 20:42:04 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Laboratories, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR

In article <S1126161.2.2F1351A4@cedarville.edu> S1126161@cedarville.edu
(Robert Mc Kinney ) writes:
>I AM DOING A REPORT ON ON HOW EASY IT IS TO MAKE A BOMB AND I AM WONDERING 
>IF YOU COULD GIVE ME SOME INFORMATION ON HOW TO PRODUCE ONE AND THE 
>SIMPLICITIES OF IT. IF YOU NEED ANY SPECIAL EQUIPMENT TO DO IT. ANY
>INFORMATION  WOULD BE APPRECIATED.  THANKS 
>ROBERT MCKINNEY


Robert:

Anyone with 20 pounds of plutonium can become quite a nuisance.
Let's hope you never find yourself in that position.


Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.11 / Barry Merriman /  Why do breaking waves glow?
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Why do breaking waves glow?
Date: 11 Jan 1995 20:10:13 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

Now that I live on the beach in San Diego :-), I've been
observing the ocean more carefully. Last night, I noticed that 
the largest waves (but not smaller ones) appear to glow bright 
blue when they break, even when the moon is covered by clouds, and
the only significant ambient light is from low pressure sodium street
lamps (so its yellow light, not white---i.e. no blue content).

Possible explanations would be

(1) sonoluminesence, from cavitation during the break
    ---I favor this one

(2) luminescent bacteria/plankton that emit light when strained
    ---these do exist

(3) scattering of ambient blue light
    ---possible, but the moon was covered, the local street lights
    are sodium yellow, and there are few houses in the local cove area.
    Also, it was often too dark to see the break itself, but
    the blue light was very visible.

(4) CF :-)
    ---all I need to do is enclose the cove in a calorimeter....:-)

Anyway, this is a pretty obvious effet on a dark night, so the
phenomena is probably known...if not, I guess I'll just don a wet
suit an wade out 20 yards to where the action is.



--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Jan 12 04:37:05 EST 1995
------------------------------
