1995.01.23 / Alan M /  Re: Water heater sales
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Water heater sales
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 16:24:43 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <3fo8vp$hco@agate.berkeley.edu>  schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu
(Richard Schultz) writes:
> 
> In article <ZW06xx6.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
> >Richard Schultz <schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu> writes:
>  
> >>On casual reading, it looks like you are saying that a gas or oil fired 
> >>boiler produces *more* than 30% excess heat.
>  
> >No, I meant that electrically fired boilers waste two-thirds of the fuel,
> >whereas gas or oil fired boilers waste only 3 to 5%.
> 
> Right.  Now I see what you meant.  Kind of reminds me of the time that I
> moved from an apartment with electric baseboard heaters to one with a
> gas furnace and watched my heating bills brop precipitously for the 
> obvious reason.  Thanks.

It might now be _clear_ what Jed is saying, but characteristically
he's got it completely arse over 
tit again.

Electrically heated boilers waste almost _none_ of the electricity
they consume. There's nowhere 
else for the heat to go but into the surrounding water. Gas- and
oil-fired boilers on the other 
hand push hot gas up the flue and so help to warm the outside environment.

It's true that old-fashioned coal- or oil-fired power generation
plant may operate at around 33% 
efficiency - for everu BThU-equivalent of electricity they push
out they burn about 3BThU of fossil 
fuel - but modern combined-cycle gas-fired units get up to about
70% efficiency, and of course for 
nuclear and hydro power generation there's no real concept of 'efficienc
' at all - just achievable 
capacity.

These considerations only impact the end-user, if at all, in so
far as electricity prices are 
allowed to recover the cost of generation fuels and the low efficiency
of the generation process.

What you saw in your flat, Richard, was the normal operation of
market forces, which places a much 
higher value on delivered BThUs of electricity - because of convenience,
flexibility and end-use 
efficiency - than on a similar quantity of energy delivered in gaseous form.
-- 
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:
cuddy23 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.23 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Questions for the Griggs visit .....
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Questions for the Griggs visit .....
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 95 21:19:21 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Let me clarify that comment, before people come down on me like a ton of
bricks:
 
In one hour you can verify that the in-house power meter is right to within
one percent, and you can verify that the thermocouples and flowmeter are
functioning. During one of trips I took out there I determined that the
thermocouples were *not* working, after about an hour. The DIP switches
in the newly installed interface board were set wrong. I went back a week
later and determined they were hunky dory. It is simple to test thermocouples;
just set them in ice slush to calibrate for 0 deg C and then in a pot of
boiling water for 100 deg C (close to 100 deg C, anyway; check the elevation
for greater accuracy.)
 
In other words, you can do an awful lot of checking in an hour or two if you
roll up your sleeves and get to work. You may not be able to convince yourself
that the GG is over unity, and you *certainly* will not learn about its
performance in any detail. I was out there every day for a week before I
began to get a handle on that. But you can verify the basic parameters, and
you can compile a large chunk of data which you can take back and poke at
later on. Take your own data on a clipboard and take some computer data too,
to compare.
 
Remember: this is an industrial heater, not a delicate laboratory experiment.
It is not like you have any difficulty seeing what it is doing. Take, for
example, the flow rate. If this was McKubre's experiment you would find it
impossible to see whether the flow rate was actually 60 ml per minute; it could
be 65 ml or 58 ml; you could not easily tell by looking. With the GG, you just
turn on the hose, set the flow for four or five gallons a minute, click your
stopwatch, collect 5 gallons, weigh it, and see if the computer flowmeter is
right. You'll see it is smack on the nose, with both hot or cold water, at any
pressure you like, to within a half-pound (one-sixteenth of a U.S. gallon).
It's a piece of cake! Actually, the flowmeter is a lot better than the manual
half pound verification. Hook up a scope and see how the flowmeter works, if
you are really curious.
 
Of course, an experienced person could evaluate the machine in an hour with
certainty. As I said a dozen times, if the readers of this forum want a
professional evaluation of the GG, they should grab an Atlanta Yellow Pages,
look up a boiler or HVAC consulting engineer, and send him out there with his
truck. He will give you an answer in 15 minutes flat. (Seriously, I talked to
two who did.) There is no way any experienced person could miss seeing such
gigantic excess heat.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.23 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Fusion Digest 3204
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Digest 3204
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 95 21:23:09 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au> writes:
 
>The test model that you mention above, is that made by Jim, or one of 
>the other sources that you mention? If other, then would you be 
>prepared to say who?
 
Oh, I think I'll keep that information confidential a little longer, as a
favor to them. I expect they will show up at ICCF5 with the goods in hand.
They have not given me as much in-depth information as I asked for yet, so
I guess they are still getting it ready. Let's give them a few more months,
eh? I am sure they got the measurements right to within their stated error
limits (+/- 2%).
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.24 /  vnoninski@fscv /  CF at MIT
     
Originally-From: vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CF at MIT
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 09:24:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dear Colleagues,

I thought it might be interesting for some of you to hear one more impression 
regarding the MIT "cold fusion" day. Probably, I should start at once with 
stating that, although it was quite enjoyable a day and Gene did a great job, 
organizing it, this seminar had almost no scientific merit. In most of its 
part this gathering resembled a promotion fair. As any such fair, guided by 
salesmanship rather than objectivity, there was an obvious bias towards 
what was promoted as positive results and any criticism in such a forum 
appeared out of place. Unfortunately, I remained with the impression that most 
of the participants do not understand that the problems this field is 
facing (if this constitutes a field at all) are scientific and not 
technological. I must admit that I was quite impressed by the Griggs' 
presentation mainly probably because I saw a serious man of action -- a 
perfect example of an enterpreneur. As such, however, he was obviously 
acting as just a salesman, even proudly announcing that science is what he 
cares the least about. It appears he does not realize 
that in such a way he himself 
is shutting the door before his own prosperity (the primary goal of any 
businessman). I tried to explain this in a language which he would 
presumably understand best. Now when the claimed unusual 
features of his machine are 
recognized by almost noone (the sales he is making now are not due to the 
claimed over-unity) he is scraping the barrel to realize 
miserable (for the claimed value of the product) sales of some several 
hundred thousand dollars. Imagine that he abandons his fear of science and 
finds a way to convince the scientific community that the effect his 
machine is based on is real. There can hardly be any doubt that this 
would make a whole lot of difference for his business. In such a case his 
sales will be measured in billions and even one Ross Perot may begin to 
feel envy. Instead of undertaking this cheap, logical and profitable approach, 
however, it was revealed at the meeting that (not only in Griggs case) the 
enterpreneurs investing in this kind of business are expecting the enormous 
profits to come somehow directly from the consumers voting with their 
dollars. In this way the evil reactionary scientific community will be 
ignored and a brave new world will be established. I wish them luck. Since 
progress is what ultimately matters, if this is the approach that would help 
the progress then let it be. Unfortunately, to me it now seems the least likely 
path. So far I see quite a disastrous outcome from the mentioned voting. 
I cannot afford also to not notice people like Fred Jaeger of ENECO preying 
on the poor inventors, trying to buy them for peanuts. It is always 
amusing to hear his frank exposure of the policies of his company. One has 
to be really quite desperate (like these guys from Russia -- the permanent 
target of ENECO) or not in his right mind to get into the deal offered by 
ENECO. One other enterpreneur I probably should mention was a fellow from 
Hawaii presenting an elaborate scheme of constant magnets coupled with an 
electric motor or generator. Again (as some posters say -- yawn) the same 
pattern of self-promotion over and over again. A video in which the "inventor" 
claims the ultimate. The energy problems of the world are solved at that 
with a polution-free technology. Don't ask questions, don't have any doubts, 
pay and be happy. I do not deny that there are intriguing moments in all 
these proposed technologies but there is always something preventing the 
"inventors" to demonstrate the device. And in the case of the Hawaiian guy 
the demonstration and proof of reality of the phenomenon would have been 
even easier than in the Griggs case. 

One of the problems, as I see it, is 
that while these enterpreneurs are denouncing the role of science at the 
same time they are using meetings at places such as MIT to legitimize 
their product before potential investors as being discussed at 
"scientific meetings" at "major universities". This approach does not seem
very fair to me. If we are to rely on the voting dollars of consumers for 
determining the qualities of the product it is only the product's qualities 
that matter. Why then confuse and manipulate the consumer's confidence by 
muddling it with discussions at "evil and reactionary" places such as Universi-
ties. In this respect I do not understand why one Griggs would bother to 
attend such a meeting.

Probably I should mention something concerning the presented theoretical 
work. One talk I enjoyed was Peter Hagelstein's. He now is proposing basically 
two approaches to the problem. One is very similar to the way Raman effect or 
laser action is explained. He now speaks about a phonon laser effect that can 
explain the experimental data. The other approach very much resembles 
Mossbauer effect type of an explanation. Unfortunately, the first approach 
seems to me more lika a speculation using the machinery of quantum mechanics. 
Quantum mechanics is a such a kind of a discipline which allows for quite 
unusual and paradoxical conclusions even if applied properly (one latest 
example is the speculations around zero-point energy). The second approach -- 
Mossbauer effect -- was discussed extensively at this forum. Unfortunately, 
I missed many of the postings and would appreciate it if Dick Blue or 
Richard Shultz could kindly send me (maybe privately) a copy of this 
discussion if they happen to have preserved one. As far as I could see 
Peter's explanation involving Mossbauer type of phenomena cannot explain 
excess heat since violations of principles of thermodynamics have to be 
invoked. In this respect this theory seems to suffer of the same problems as 
that of Keith Johnson. Keith Johnson was strongly criticized last year for 
his theory in view of the fact that if excess heat is to be explained by 
it violation of thermodynamic laws has to occur. This year Keith Johnson 
presented a carbon copy of his last year's talk, however, admitting that 
the theory does not explain excess heat. If this is so I do not understand 
what was the point of him appearing at this forum. The material he presented 
is trivial and can hardly be of any interest. There was also an amusing part 
in his speach concerning his dabbling in the movie business. I guess this 
part will be of no interest for our community, therefore, I will not get into 
detail.   
  

 

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenvnoninski cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.23 /  jprater@mecn.m /  Re: Water heater sales
     
Originally-From: jprater@mecn.mass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Water heater sales
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 19:24:22 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Education Computer Network


    Does anyone know off-hand how current water heaters are designed
    and by what means is the energy transferred from electricity to 
    the water.  This is not a dumb question, I am basically asking 
    are current models using direct resistive elements or somekind of
    indirect heat exchanging method.  Those knowledgeable please give me more
    detail.  Is there a more efficient way of heating water with electricity?

    Thanks

    James
    jprater@mecn.mass.edu

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjprater cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.23 / I Johnston /  Re: Water heater sales
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Water heater sales
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 18:10:32 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

parsec@worf.infonet.net wrote:
: In article <p+7aqEO.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

: <text deleted>

: >A test model has sustained 300% excess for
: >weeks at a time. 

: An extravagant claim.  Care to favor us with some details?

No! Because that's commercially sensitive! 
Real companies would NEVER give justification for any of their claims.
Why in't the water heater on the open market? Because if it was, people
might find out how it worked. No, these things are getting better by the
day - Griggs regularly and easily gets 500% c.o.p - so the obvious thing
to do is to play with them in the privacy of one's own laboratory!

Ian

PS Serious question for Jed or anyone else who knows Griggs well: 

If I buy a Griggs Gadget, will the company guarantee in writing the
over-unity performance of the device, with 
a) a full refund if over unity performance is not achieved and 
b) substantial contractual financial penalties if the over-unity performance
   fails to meet the written specification. 
It goes without saying - but not without writing - that over-unity performance
must be in a steady state - that is, for a period of t1 hours commencing t2
hours after the start of heat production.

So Jed, or whoever:

**********************************************************************
* What written guarantee did Hydrosonics give all those carpet mills *
* and police stations. What c.o.p.? What t1? What t2?                *        
**********************************************************************

PPS Why are the best engineers in Georgia - remember, the ones who
validated the device - so damn quiet about witnessing one of the great
scientific breakthroughs of the century?
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.23 / Steven Morra /  Re: Free Energy MPEG movies online now !
     
Originally-From: slmorra@aud.alcatel.com (Steven L. Morra)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Free Energy MPEG movies online now !
Date: 23 Jan 1995 20:03:47 GMT
Organization: Alcatel Network Systems Inc.

It took me almost an hour to download these movies (@19200 baud).
I was not impressed AT ALL with these movies.  .GIF or .JPEG files
would have been sufficient.  IMO, these movies are a waste of time
for usenetters.  Again IMO, I would recommend that the originators
post the text contents of the movie and one or two .GIF or .JPEG files.






cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenslmorra cudfnSteven cudlnMorra cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.23 / Harry Conover /  Re: DoE stats on power plant efficiency
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: DoE stats on power plant efficiency
Date: 23 Jan 1995 19:33:28 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: I wrote that electrically fired boilers waste two-thirds of the fuel, whereas
: gas or oil fired boilers waste only 3 to 5%. conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H
: Conover) writes:
:  
:      "Interesting.  I was under the impression that electrically fired
:      boilers converted ALL of the electrical energy to heat (with the
:      possible exception of a small IR loss in the wiring)."
:  
: That is correct. Most of the losses occur at the electric power generation
: plant.
:  

Semantics, Jed.  What kind of fuel does a coal-fired boiler use?  What 
kind of fuel does a gas-fired boiler use?  What kind of fuel does an 
oil-fired boiler use?  

Now, Jed, tell us all loudly and clearly: What kind of fuel does an 
electrically fired boiler use, and how do we compute efficiency?

(Hmmmm... Maybe I better rethink that last part.  Asking for Jed's 
input on efficiency computation may be a bit like soliciting Richard 
Nixon's guidance in matters of truth, or perhaps Charles Mansion on 
serenity and mental health!)


					Harry C.



cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.23 / Bruce Liebert /  Re: Tritium in iso out
     
Originally-From: liebert@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Bruce Liebert)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tritium in iso out
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 18:11:52 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii, College of Engineering

In article <95012113311079@awaiter.com> howard.olson@awaiter.com (Howard Olson) writes:
>->
>    I haven't done any experiments but I am a chemist by undergraduate
>training. My understanding is the rather obvious one that diffusion
>of tritium should be slower than deuterium in a given matrix. Relative
>to Protium (hydrogen-1) D should diffuse at a rate of 1/(2)^0.5 whereas
>T should be diffused at a rate relative to Protium of 1/(3)^0.5. This
>means T should diffuse about 80% slower than D if my assumptions are
>correct.
>                    

T does indeed diffuse slower than D in Pd.  However, D diffuses faster than 
H!  Any guesses why?  

Bruce Liebert


cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenliebert cudfnBruce cudlnLiebert cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.24 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Re: Split the group [was: This forum officially for CF, not HF]
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Split the group [was: This forum officially for CF, not HF]
Date: 24 Jan 95 10:42:27 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi folks, have a nice day :) .......
In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.950120164546.4816C-100000@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>,
Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk> writes:
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> On 19 Jan 1995, James Crotinger wrote:
   Snip! 
>>   IMHO this group should be split into sci.physics.fusion.{hot,cold},
>> but discussions to do so in the past have not shown sufficient
>> support. At 50-100 messages per day, the volume is certainly large
>> enough to justify a split.  I think most hot fusion researchers are
>> turned off by the volume of the cold-fusion, over-unity-device, etc.,
>> discussions, and having a place for hot-fusion discussions would
>> promote more interaction amongst said folks. 
>>   Jim
> 
> Yes, I'm for this. But let the hot people have spf, and'cold fusion'could
> become spf.cold, preferably moderated (I know we've been through all this 
> before!). This way, we cnf-watchers would (maybe) be rid of the neutrino
> stuff, A. Pu etc... certainly if the new group were moderated. Let's go
> for it. 
> -- Dieter Britz  alias  britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yup, I agree that a moderated group is the way to go, as proved by the
amount of quality material exclusively posted to supervised forums by 
people who do not want to read or be associated with postings from the
way out folks. The big problem is finding a worthy moderator. 
Any volunteers?
       					Regards to all,
					Daryl Owen.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudendowen cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.24 / Harry Conover /  Re: DoE stats on power plant efficiency
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: DoE stats on power plant efficiency
Date: 24 Jan 1995 00:41:18 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

:    "Now, Jed, tell us all loudly and clearly: What kind of fuel does an
:    electrically fired boiler use, and how do we compute efficiency?"
:  
: Here in Georgia our electrically fired boilers use a combination of coal
: and fissioning uranium. 

I rest my case.   This, from the same guy that posts claims of 
300% energy efficiency for an electric motor-driven water pump!  


                                           Harry C.



cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.23 / Mark editor /  Free Energy Device
     
Originally-From: blackice@pavilion.co.uk (Mark Bennett - editor)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Free Energy Device
Date: 23 Jan 1995 19:53:31 GMT
Organization: Black Ice magazine

 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenblackice cudfnMark cudlneditor cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.24 /  DanHicks /  Re: Water heater sales
     
Originally-From: danhicks@aol.com (DanHicks)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Water heater sales
Date: 24 Jan 1995 00:07:33 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

>>>
    Does anyone know off-hand how current water heaters are designed
    and by what means is the energy transferred from electricity to 
    the water.  This is not a dumb question, I am basically asking 
    are current models using direct resistive elements or somekind of
    indirect heat exchanging method.  Those knowledgeable please give me
more
    detail.  Is there a more efficient way of heating water with
electricity?
<<<

The classical household water heater uses a "calrod" element that's
essentially the same sort of thing as used for the elements of electric
stoves.  This is a resistance element surrounded by a ceramic insulator. 
Since this element is completely surrounded by water, 99+% of the heat
from resistance heating goes into heating water (with a very small amount
being conducted out through the electrical terminals -- this loss is less
significant than the general heat loss from the water through the sides of
the tank).

A more efficient way to heat water is with a heat pump, which can, as
stated earlier, have >100% efficiency (since it "pumps" heat from some
other source into the water).  These are popular in some environments,
especially places like dairy farm milk houes where the heat may be
"pumped" from a milk cooler.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now I have to go back and confess that I screwed up here and in an earlier
post!  When calculating "efficiency" one has to decide whether to
calculate it in terms of HEAT or ENERGY.  ANY system that produces more
usable energy than it receives as input (here counting fusion, if any, as
an input) is a "perpetual motion" system.  A heat pump doesn't produce
more energy than it receives as input, but rather provides more heat than
can be gotten by "burning" the input energy in resistance or friction. 
It's been over twenty years since took thermo, so I don't recall the
formulas, but there is a theoretical amount of heat that can be gotten by
"consuming" a given amount of energy via friction/resistance.  A heat pump
can produce more heat than this because it doesn't "consume" the input
energy but rather converts it from, say, electrical energy to potential
thermal energy.  The details of this conversion are limited once again by
the Carnot cycle.
Dan Hicks
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudendanhicks cudlnDanHicks cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.24 / Robin Spaandonk /        Re: Neutrino magnetic moment
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:       Re: Neutrino magnetic moment
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 15:50:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

> So, i assumed that if the neutrino has a small mass and is not a
> composite particle, then it should have a magnetic moment close to its
> calculated magneton inversely related to twice its small unique mass.
> If that mass is small, the magnetic moment should be enormous.
> 
> Regards: Tom.
> 
> --
> Thomas N. Lockyer <lockyer@svpal.org>
> 1611 Fallen Leaf Lane
> Los Altos, CA USA 94024-6212
> Tel. (415)967-9550
________________________________________________________________
Perhaps my ignorance is showing here, but surely a particle can only 
have a magnetic moment, if either it, or  at least one of its 
component parts, carries a charge?
If neutrinos are non composite particles, and we already know that 
they themselves do not carry a charge, then how could they have a 
magnetic moment?

Regards,

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

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.24 / Paul Koloc /  Re: DoE stats on power plant efficiency
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: DoE stats on power plant efficiency
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 04:59:30 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <5Az7aSa.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>I wrote that electrically fired boilers waste two-thirds of the fuel, whereas
>gas or oil fired boilers waste only 3 to 5%. conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H
>Conover) writes:
> 
>     "Interesting.  I was under the impression that electrically fired
>     boilers converted ALL of the electrical energy to heat (with the
>     possible exception of a small IR loss in the wiring)."
> 
>That is correct. Most of the losses occur at the electric power generation
>plant.
>     "Based upon your figures, where does the wasted two-thirds of the
>     electrical energy go?"
> 
>Those are not my figures; they come from the DoE. 64% of the energy is lost at
>the power plant; of the remaining energy, another 8% is lost in transmission
>between the power plant and your house. For more information, please see
>Exhibit A.4, "Utility Current Technologies" in:
> 
>     Hydrogen Program Plan FY 1993 - FY 1997
>     U.S. Dept. of Energy, NREL
>     1617 Cole Boulevard
>     Golden, CO 80401-3393
 

The loss is due to the Carnot  `*pronouced* (kharr-know)' efficiency. 
It relates to the ratio of the temperature available at the convertor 
(generator)  and the residual temperature after exiting the convertor.  
The difficulty, is that steam pressure carries the energy and the steam
itself is carried by a steel pipe.  Consequently, one can't go very
high or the temperature would soften the steel or the pressure would
blow the system or a combination of both.  In a PLASMAK(tm) generator
a fusion heated plasma blanket trapped by flux carries the thermal
fusion energy into the inductive transfer chamber where it expansion
cools and compresses the flux into a solendoid.  Consequently, the
intial temperature at the convertor is very  high and energy 
conversion will exceed 90% if the system coils are superconducting.  
which in turn drives current directly.     

This is a BIG plus.. that BTW, a tokamak couldn't dream of.  

>- Jed

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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 *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.24 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Rebuttal to 'Doubting Thomas' Kunich re F&P as 'politicians'
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rebuttal to 'Doubting Thomas' Kunich re F&P as 'politicians'
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 02:45:57 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <3fvidn$dv@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
RobertBass <robertbass@aol.com> wrote:
>On: 95-01-22 15:22:14 EST

>     Thomas H. Kunich sent e-mail to me as follows:

Apparently you aren't aware that e-mail is considered sacrosanct? It
is exceedingly bad form to print other's e-mail without their permission.
You may expect nothing further from me since you aren't looking for
discussion, but, instead, a fight. Very well.

>    Au contraire, Doubting Thomas, F&P have in fact demonstrated 
>their effect because there is no one in the entire world who has 
>made a serious attempt to replicate their epochal experiment and 
>_failed_ to see the effect.

Yes, it appears that everyone can duplicate P&F's experiment except
those silly few who know how to instrument such an experiment properly.

>     Also, at ICCF-4, Fleischmann, in lauding  Dennis  Cravens's 
>garage experiments as the "best experimental paper" pointed  out 
>that anyone at the "premiere labs" who says  that  the  original 
>disclosures  of  F&P  were  inadequate   should   go   to   this 
>community-college instructor and take lessons on  how  to  avoid 
>the pitfalls awaiting the  complacent,  the  overconfident,  the 
>arrogant, and the unwary.

Unfortunately I've had part of my 'education' at community colleges.
Were Mr. Craven's experiment that impressive would he not have several
commercial offers? And wouldn't such alacrity deserve employ at
a more prestigious institution?

>     With all due respect, Dr. Thomas Kunich, I  wonder  whether 
>or not you have made more than a perfunctory effort to learn the 
>facts.

Oh, I made the perfunctory effort. Originally I read the newspaper
accounts of P&F that they chose to use rather than journal publication.
Later I read their paper. Didn't they retract the neutron findings?

Still later I read their second paper and remarked here that the
information was incomplete and that the experiment appeared to
be designed to _avoid_ showing the mechanism that produced their 
reported excess heat.

Still later, after months, then years of obfuscation by they and others
claiming excess heat I finally arrived at the conclusion that this is
all a hoax perpetrated by the misinformed, the inept and the con men.
Which are which remains to be seen.

Why is it that criticism of any complex experiment by the 'positive'
finders brings no correction? In refereed papers isn't it normal to
try and appease the critics? Why is this different for CNF?

>     Where are you coming from, Dr. Kunich?  May I  respectfully 
>request to know your educational & experiential background,  and 
>current  professional  affiliation,  which  qualifies   you   to 
>pontificate negatively with such dogmatic certainty?

I am but a lowly engineer who has worked in the past in high energy
nuclear research and other less applicable areas of endevor. I have
worked with many physicists and consequently do not have a very high
opinion for their experimental technique which, as a rule, seemed to
peak around high school chemistry and shade tree mechanic.

While I have had the fortune of working with some rather brilliant
physicists, I would say that the majority needed their work closely
inspected.

Mind you, that is not a flame against physicists. Every line of
work has it's strengths and weaknesses and it was just that problem
that occurred with Pons and Fleischman, in my opinion. Neutrons indeed.

Five years Mr. Bass! How do you explain 5 years without commercialization
of a field that would rock the world? You say that any competent
community college teacher can duplicate this P&F folderol. If that is
the case why couldn't you yourself, capable as you are of dropping names
faster than a speeding bullet, bring these experiments to the world
as a real working device? BYU is NOT a community college. A professor
of physics from such an institution should be able to duplicate these
experiments, as well as Miles et. al. in his garage using a couple of
old nickels, some army surplus test equipment, an old milk bottle, some
tin foil and a rolled up copy of the London Times.

Here's your chance for glory, Dr. Bass. Prove me wrong. Produce a device.

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.24 / Scott Little /  Re: Water heater sales
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Water heater sales
Date: 24 Jan 1995 06:11:55 GMT
Organization: Earthtech, Intl

In article <1995Jan23.192422.10077@mecn.mass.edu>, jprater@mecn.mass.edu says:
>
>
>    Does anyone know off-hand how current water heaters are designed
>    and by what means is the energy transferred from electricity to 
>    the water.  This is not a dumb question, I am basically asking 
>    are current models using direct resistive elements or somekind of
>    indirect heat exchanging method.  Those knowledgeable please give me more
>    detail.  Is there a more efficient way of heating water with electricity?
>
Typical residential water heaters use immersed heating elements that are
similar to the elements in an electric oven.  A single strand of resistance
wire (the active element) is packed inside an outer protective tube with
a powdered inorganic insulator filling the space between the tube and the wire.
The efficiency with which electrical energy is converted to heat is exactly
100% by definition.  The portion of this heat that ends up raising the
temperature of the water is probably in excess of 95% (a guess) limited only
by the fact that the heating wire must exit the tube that is immersed
in the water and thus some of the heat conducts along the wire and is
lost to the environment.  One could improve this latter efficiency by special
design that featured low-resistance electrical conductors entering the
water chamber,traveling a significant distance thru the water before connecting
to the heating element.  Of course you would always have losses via the 
electrical conductors where they entered the water, aggravated by the fact that
all practical electrical conductors are also good heat conductors (Al, Cu, etc.).

In conclusion, I don't see much to improve about electric water heaters.
delivered to the water is 
virtually 100% limited only by the fact that a small amount of heat
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.24 / Richard Schultz /  Setting matters straight
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Setting matters straight
Date: 24 Jan 1995 11:52:01 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <Jkxa6Wr.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>Heck, I started measuring, photographing and calibrating
>the thing five minutes after I came in the door. . . . .The only
>thing I ever want to hear from anyone ever is hard data.

In an earlier posting, you expressed a desire to "set matters straight."
Here is an opportunity with a question that requires only a one sentence
answer:

What device did you use to measure the length of the GG rotor arm?

--
					Richard Schultz

". . .in short, his post became untenable; and having swallowed his
quantum of tea, he judged it expedient to evacuate."
				Charlotte Bronte, _Shirley_
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.23 /  DanHicks /  Re: Water heater sales
     
Originally-From: danhicks@aol.com (DanHicks)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Water heater sales
Date: 23 Jan 1995 23:48:19 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

>>>
It's true that old-fashioned coal- or oil-fired power generation plant may
operate at around 33% 
efficiency - for everu BThU-equivalent of electricity they push out they
burn about 3BThU of fossil 
fuel - but modern combined-cycle gas-fired units get up to about 70%
efficiency, and of course for 
nuclear and hydro power generation there's no real concept of 'efficiency'
at all - just achievable 
capacity.
<<<

The efficiency of any thermoelectric generator plant (including nuclear)
is limited by elementary thermodynamics.  I don't see how any
"combined-cycle" unit could get 70%, and I suspect that nuclear plants
operate at significantly less than the 33% quoted for fossil fueled
plants, given that the "hot" side of a nuclear plant is probably cooler
than the "hot" side of a fossil fuel plant.

I don't offhand know of a theoretical limit on the efficiency of hydro
plants, but I vaguely recall that most aren't especially efficient -- less
than 50%, I believe.  And the efficiency of a hydro plant is remarkably
easy to calculate, since you are converting gravitational potential energy
into electricity -- both forms of energy being very easy to measure.

Getting back to the "boiler" end, one thing we forgot to discuss in this
context is heat pumps.  A heat pump (like the hypothetical CF device) has
>100% efficiency, if you calcluate efficiency as USABLE heat energy output
divided by PURCHASED energy input.
Dan Hicks
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudendanhicks cudlnDanHicks cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.24 / Bruce Dunn /  New Griggs theory
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: New Griggs theory
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 95 07:26:08 -0800
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

Harry H Conover writes:

> As I originally understood it, the Grigg's device "claim to fame" was
> not the production of "excess energy," but its ability to function well
> with turbid or contaminated water, often a maintenance problems with
> conventional designs.

I previously offered the hypothesis that "excess heat" could be produced if
the Griggs device was oxidizing its aluminum rotor.  A few calculations
produced on the net however indicated that the amount of aluminum which
would have to go missing would be easily seen in Griggs rotors from devices
which had been in operation for long times.  Jed says that rotors from
devices which have been said to be producing excess heat for months show
little or no aluminum loss.
If water entering a Griggs device contains dissolved organic material,
there is another potential source of heat which hasn't been accounted for -
oxidation of the dissolved organic material by dissolved oxygen under the
high temperature conditions of cavitation bubbles.  This leads to a number
of testable hypotheses:

1) The Griggs effect will depend on water purity, and won't generate excess
heat with very clean or distilled water

2) Adding some organic material to the inflowing water will increase heat,
up to the point where all available oxygen dissolved in the water is used.
Things to try might be some sugar or some alcohol (a bottle or beer or two,
or some methanol based windshield washer antifreeze if such is available in
Georgia).

3) Dissolved oxygen will be less in output water than in input water
(measurable with a dissolved oxygen meter from your local fisheries
biologist).  This will require special techniques however to capture and
cool some output water in a manner which prevents it from picking up new
oxygen.

4) The excess heat will shut off if the incoming water is purged of
dissolved oxygen.  This can be done experimentally by bubbling nitrogen
through it.


It should be noted that "wet air oxidation" at elevated temperatures and
pressures (with introduced air) has been used as a method of oxidizing
dissolved organic material in dirty waste water for pollution control
purposes.

--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.24 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Water heater sales
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Water heater sales
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 95 10:35:34 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

DanHicks <danhicks@aol.com> writes:
 
>I don't offhand know of a theoretical limit on the efficiency of hydro
>plants, but I vaguely recall that most aren't especially efficient -- less
>than 50%, I believe.  And the efficiency of a hydro plant is remarkably
>easy to calculate, since you are converting gravitational potential energy
>into electricity -- both forms of energy being very easy to measure.
 
Hydro plant efficiency is surprisingly good: 90%, according to the DoE
book "Hydrogen Program Plan FY 1993 - FY 1997." See Exhibit A.6 Pathways
for Special Situations. I have seen similar figures in other sources, so
I think this 90% is for present-day technology. You are quite right that
both gravitational potential energy and electricity are easy to measure.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.24 / Thomas Lockyer /  Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph
sics.accelerators
Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
Date: 24 Jan 1995 05:46:13 GMT
Organization: Silicon Valley Public Access Link

<3fh5lv$1v4@borg.svpal.org> <1995Jan19.134256.10420@dxcern.cern.ch>:
Distribution: 

Pete McNamara (mcnamara@vxaluw.cern.ch) wrote:

: In article <3fh5lv$1v4@borg.svpal.org>, lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas
: Lockyer) writes:

: >>James A. Carr (jac@scri.fsu.edu)  Writes:
: >> Neutrinos interact by exchanging a vector boson, either a W or Z.
: >
: >James: Thanks for the reply.  I remember the history of the electro-weak 
: >theory, it was the first theory that was ever granted a Nobel before the  
: >theory had been experimentally verified.  This of course meant the Nobel 
: >prize would have to be given to a gigantic experiment designed to try 
: >and detect the W and Z.   (Nominations for the physics prize are by the 
: >previous Nobel laureates). Science by fiat!  
: >
: >If we look at that experimental evidence, it is not very convincing.  
: >First, at high energies, most of the stuff happens at small distances, 
: >out of range of the detector, so one must *indirectly* try to devise a 
: >scenario by extrapolating back into a jumble of other particles.  So, 
: >one must look for an ordinary, isolated high energy electron.  This 
: >requires piling  inference upon inference upon inference, that 
: >stretches  ones credulity.  I am not convinced that nature needs an 
: >intermediate that lasts only 10^-20 seconds or less.  
: >

: At this point, you have definitely entered the land of the crackpot.
: Do you have any reason to suggest that there is no Z boson?  What
: about the very good measurements of these particles which have been
: done at LEP and SLAC?  Your claim that these physicists are somehow
: cheating and making these particles up is not very believable.

: Pete



Pete:  The electroweak theory statements given were based (in part) on 
reported statements from Weinberg after he was awarded the Nobel, to the 
effect that the Nobel committee was taking a big chance.  Then after the 
W and Z were claimed to be found, he reportedly said.  "There is such a 
feeling of confidence now.  It isn't like we were making it up as we went 
along."  Unquote.

Sorry to drop names but to make a point..........

The elecrtroweak theory still needs the Higgs mechanism. The Higgs boson 
is unproven , because there is no way to detect it (assuming that it 
exists).  Without the Higgs, theory basis is in trouble.  

Just cause one is skeptical does not a crackpot make.  Electroweak theory 
is an elaborate theory that requires on to believe spin 1 particles can 
be charged (W- W+) and that a boson (Zo) similar to the photon, exists at 
a definite mass (energy) only.    We must suspend what we know about 
particles in general, to believe these.  And,  isn't it also part of the 
theory that a couple of quarks have appear first before the W?  If the W 
is only supposed to last about 10^-25 sec, how is there time to form  two 
( mixed species) quarks, and then  assemple the  W?  How is it possible 
for quarks to conjugate into the W?  And the Zo is supposed to create a 
pair of electrons or muons just like a regular photon. Why do we need it, 
a regular photon creates  pairs? 

This is definitely thread creep, and I don't pretend to be an electroweak 
expert .  If we continue perhaps a new thead would be in order.

Regards: Tom.



--
Thomas N. Lockyer <lockyer@svpal.org>     
1611 Fallen Leaf Lane
Los Altos, CA USA 94024-6212
Tel. (415)967-9550
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenlockyer cudfnThomas cudlnLockyer cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.24 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Water heater sales
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Water heater sales
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 95 11:29:23 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I Johnston <ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk> writes:
 
     "Griggs regularly and easily gets 500% c.o.p . . ."
 
Johnson regularly and easily repeats this statement, even though I have
repeatedly told him it is not true. He apparently hope the Nazi "big lie"
technique will work; he hopes that if he repeats this kind of crap often
enough, I will get tired of pointing that he is lying, and he will "win" by
default.
 
He adds some new crap, in what he calls "serious questions" addressed to me:
 
     "If I buy a Griggs Gadget, will the company guarantee in writing the
     over-unity performance of the device, with a) a full refund if over
     unity performance is not achieved and b) substantial contractual
     financial penalties if the over-unity performance fails to meet the
     written specification. . . ."
 
And bla, bla, bla. My answer, of course, is that I do not have the foggiest
idea, and even if I knew, I would never in a million years post such
information on the public e-mail networks or give it to loudmouthed
pathological liars like Johnson. Those questions pertain to private contracts
executed between Hydro Dynamics and its customers. I am the last person on
earth who would go poking his nose into such things.
 
For the ordinary reader, let me explain that my role in this affair is sharply
limited. Griggs claimed that his device is over unity. I visited his site. I
tested the machine with my own instruments, I calibrated his instruments, and
I talked to his customers and to others who have tested his machine. I
determined that his claims are correct. I had a chance to learn some of the
technical aspects of the machine applications, but I do not know much about
the in-depth performance characteristics. That is: I have not learned details
like the level of ultrasound generated by different rotor hole configurations.
 
I am sure Johnson is not "serious." He is merely poking around trying to find
grist for his rumor mill. he wants information he can twist, distort, lie
about, and exaggerate -- he needs to make up more garbage like this:
"regularly and easily [gotten] 500% c.o.p." Perhaps some readers really are
serious, and really do want to know about the device. Naturally, they must
contact Hydro Dynamics directly. I do not represent Hydro Dynamics in any way:
I have no business relationship, I am not a customer, owner, employee or
consultant with them.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.23 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Brief Report on MIT IAP Cold Fusion Day
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Brief Report on MIT IAP Cold Fusion Day
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 18:15 -0500 (EST)

76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) writes:
 
-> The Cold Fusion Day IAP meeting at MIT on Saturday, January 21, which I
-> organized, was in my view, a spectacular success. About 150 attendees in rap
-> attention for about 10 hours in the main Physics Lecture Hall (Room 6-120).
-> Several high points came at the end of the day:
->
-> (A) Jim Griggs of Hydrodynamics, Inc. (Rome, Georgia) gave a magnificent
-> presentation with new data on *massive melting* that has occurred on the
-> periphery of his Hydrosonic Pump aluminum rotors on several occasions.
-> ....
-> (B) Bert Werjefelt from PolyTech(USA) in Hawaii spoke about his work on
-> magnetic motors and the theory behind them. He reported that experiments hav
-> seen output powers of 450 watts electric, with only 150 watts electric going
-> in.
 
These sound very interesting, and I am interested in any followups.  However I
am somewhat confused as to why what appears to be free energy devices are
being covered by a conference which is titled as being about cold fusion.
 
Were there any good presentations on cold fusion?
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.24 / Thomas Lockyer /  Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph
sics.accelerators
Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
Date: 24 Jan 1995 06:13:24 GMT
Organization: Silicon Valley Public Access Link

Bob Orr (orr@zilch.physics) wrote:


: 	I stumbled across this conversation on linearly rising cross
: sections, and detection of neutrinos. There really is a LOT of
: evidence for neutrino detection, while I'm thinking of it, let me
: comment on the linear rise of the cross section. ANY scattering cross
: section at a point between point particles will increase with
: energy. It is not difficult to show that the cross section goes as 

: 	2.G**2 M Elab /(hbar.c)**4

: 	Appendix 4 of Perkins Introduction to High Energy Physics goes
: through the calculation in detail. The crux of the matter is really
: that for scattering at a point there is no length to define the
: scale. The cross section is said to be "scale invariant". This linear
: rise is one of the nicest pieces of evidence for pointlike
: quarks. This rise with Energy is not a peculiarity restricted to
: neutrinos. It is also true of Rutherford Scattering! A very nice
: picture of the linear rise is in F. Eisle Rep Prog Phys 49 223 (1986)
: (reproduced in Perkins)

: 	Now, this linear rise would violate unitarity (conservation of
: probability) so it does NOT go on for ever. The cross section is

Yes, the unitarity breaks down at about 300 GeV.

: damped out by the fact that the interaction does NOT occur at a
: point. It occurs via the exchange of a virtual boson. The linear rise
: only occurs in the energy regime where one can assume that the virtual
: boson is infinitely massive. At the HERA electron proton collider we
: have actually observed the turn over. HERA looks at

: 	electron - proton ---> neutrino etc

: This by the way is also a nice layman's  indication of the existence of
: neutrinos. When one looks at these events, you can seen the etc
: recoiling against an "invisible" particle. The only way to disbelieve
: the neutrinos existence is to disbelieve conservation of energy and
: momentum. And if you choose to do that, I am at a bit of a loss 8^)

: 	There are any number observations which shout out that
: neutrinos exist. What about the following? I worked on one experiment

BoB: What ever gave you the idea i did not believe in the neutrino?  Just 
because I don;t think detecton methods work above background.  In fact I 
have a model that gives a definite structure to the electro-neutrino pair 
and the muon-neutrino pair, so i don't have to play "blind mans bluff"!!

: where we had a large tank of scintillating oil. One looked into this
: oil with photomultipliers. It was longitudinally divided in the
: direction of the beam. In fact you can see a picture of it in Cahn and
: Goldhaber page 268. If you look at the light signals coming from the
: muons, you can see that the muons are distributed in time according to
: the radio frequency structure of the accelerator. So somehow these
: muons are correlated in time with the protons in the accelerator. But

How often do you see a muon that you construe as result of a muon 
neutrino?  BTW, i know how the muon neutrino is put together, and i can 
say, for a certainty that it cannot form a muon without an electron an 
another neutrino. These vector models vectors add to form a collapsed 
electron (muon) so that all of its mass operates from the same radius 
giving its magnetic moment to invlove all of its mass, just as it should.  

: we know that they are not coming FROM the accelerator... they would
: range out in the shield, and anyway we would have seen them in the
: front of the detector. So, some "invisible" particle comes from the
: interactions of the protons from the accelerator. These "invisible"
: particles propagate thru the shield with a very feeble
: interaction. Then they disappear, and a muon appears. Sounds like
: Tommy Neutrino ta me! OK, now we look at the angular distribution of
: the muons. This distribution shows that the muons come from the
: interaction of a spin 1/2 particle whose momentum points in its
: direction of motion... ah ha! more evidence. Finally if we plot the
: interaction points of the muons in the detector, they show no
: dependence on distance from the from of it. This is consistent with
: them being produced by a very weakly interacting beam (snip) 

:   OKAY ... now ya gotta belive in DA Neutrino. (snip)

Bob: again let me repeat, i do believe in neutrinos, its just that the 
claims for detecting them can be blamed on background.  
We base our claims on seeing the muon or transmuted atoms that we have to 
rationalize as (once in a blue moon caused by neutrinos) not caused by 
cosmics or accelerator strays.  


: 				Ciao.....Bob

--
Thomas N. Lockyer <lockyer@svpal.org>     
1611 Fallen Leaf Lane
Los Altos, CA USA 94024-6212
Tel. (415)967-9550
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenlockyer cudfnThomas cudlnLockyer cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.24 / Harry Conover /  Re: Water heater sales
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Water heater sales
Date: 24 Jan 1995 00:19:31 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

I Johnston (ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
: parsec@worf.infonet.net wrote:

: : >A test model has sustained 300% excess for
: : >weeks at a time. 

: : An extravagant claim.  Care to favor us with some details?

: No! Because that's commercially sensitive! 
: Real companies would NEVER give justification for any of their claims.
: Why in't the water heater on the open market? Because if it was, people
: might find out how it worked. No, these things are getting better by the
: day - Griggs regularly and easily gets 500% c.o.p - so the obvious thing
: to do is to play with them in the privacy of one's own laboratory!

: Ian

ROFL!!!!!!

This begs the obvious question: Is Griggs in business to sell water 
heaters or investments?  

: PS Serious question for Jed or anyone else who knows Griggs well: 

: If I buy a Griggs Gadget, will the company guarantee in writing the
: over-unity performance of the device, with 
: a) a full refund if over unity performance is not achieved and 
: b) substantial contractual financial penalties if the over-unity performance
:    fails to meet the written specification. 
: It goes without saying - but not without writing - that over-unity performance
: must be in a steady state - that is, for a period of t1 hours commencing t2
: hours after the start of heat production.


Can I add one more question to the list?  Which is, why does a police 
station require industrial quantities of hot water?  

                                      Harry C.


cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.24 / Harry Conover /  Re: Water heater sales
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Water heater sales
Date: 24 Jan 1995 00:31:29 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

jprater@mecn.mass.edu wrote:

:     Does anyone know off-hand how current water heaters are designed
:     and by what means is the energy transferred from electricity to 
:     the water.  This is not a dumb question, I am basically asking 
:     are current models using direct resistive elements or somekind of
:     indirect heat exchanging method.  Those knowledgeable please give me more
:     detail.  Is there a more efficient way of heating water with electricity?

Most of the large industrial electric water heating units that I've 
encountered employ immersion type resistance units of several basic 
design types.  These are regarded as being essentially 100% efficient, 
and the focus seems to be on inert constructions, reliability, and ease 
of maintenance where and when required.

As I originally understood it, the Grigg's device "claim to fame" was
not the production of "excess energy," but its ability to function well
with turbid or contaminated water, often a maintenance problems with 
conventional designs.  Still, it's not immediately obvious to me exactly
why the Grigg's device would be superior in these conditions, or even 
that much demand exists for the heating of turbid water.

Still, being a skeptic, by definition I know nothing!  :-)

				Harry C.


cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.24 / Bruce Dunn /  Re: New Griggs theory
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: New Griggs theory
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 95 11:47:12 -0800
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

I postulated that the Griggs device might be oxidizing organic impurities
in its feed water.  A few messages later prasad wrote:

>
> Interesting titbits.  The Griggs output steam has a bluish tint, no idea
> why.


Smoke?

--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.24 / John Nagle /  Re: Water heater sales
     
Originally-From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Water heater sales
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 06:48:32 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

jprater@mecn.mass.edu writes:
>    Is there a more efficient way of heating water with electricity?

      Sure.  In-line water heaters, which heat water on demand just before
it comes out the tap.  This eliminates heat leakage from the tank and
plumbing.  Of course, you need one at every hot water outlet.  Other
problems include a tendency to produce scalding hot water if the water
flow drops momentarily.  In-line water heaters are often found in
dishwashers, where scalding isn't a problem and extra-hot water is
desirable for sanitation purposes.  In-line water heaters are popular
in Europe, but they've never caught on in the US.

					John Nagle
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudennagle cudfnJohn cudlnNagle cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.24 / John Nagle /  Re: Water heater sales
     
Originally-From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Water heater sales
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 06:43:05 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

jprater@mecn.mass.edu writes:
>    Does anyone know off-hand how current water heaters are designed
>    and by what means is the energy transferred from electricity to 
>    the water.  This is not a dumb question, I am basically asking 
>    are current models using direct resistive elements or somekind of
>    indirect heat exchanging method.  Those knowledgeable please give me more
>    detail.  Is there a more efficient way of heating water with electricity?

       Water heater elements are a lot like electric stove elements.
There's a resistive element inside an electrically insulating but
thermally conductive layer, surrounded by a grounded metal sheath.
Stop by any plumbing repair shop and ask for a failed one if you want 
one to take apart.  

						John Nagle
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudennagle cudfnJohn cudlnNagle cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.24 / Dieter Britz /  Patents update
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Patents update
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 11:51:39 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University


I have just received the special issue of Fusion Technology,
containing a good fraction of ICC4; so I am going to increase the rate
of updating from the once-a-month rate. So here I start the process
with the patents I have stacked up, to get them out of the way.
There is a lot to read, but it'll come, in dribs & drabs. I will not
show the total count for all files every time either. Each time, the
new additions will have gone into the archives.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Patents:     174
^^^^^^^
#
Ishizawa M, Takeno K, Take T, Mino M, Koyashiki T, Masashiro T (Nippon 
Telegraph & Telephone);  Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 06,265,662, 10-Mar-93.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 122:18698 (1995).
"Cold fusion and apparatus for achieving it".
** The title app. involves the following: (1) laminating a thermoelec. 
semiconductor layer with low diffusion coeff. of D and a D-occluded Pd or Ti 
plate, (2) applying current from both sides to cool the interface, and (3)
generating a temp. gradient in the Pd or Ti plate. The thermoelec. 
semiconductor may contain Fe-Si, B4C, or SiC. The method is applied for
achieving fusion at <= 1000 C". (Direct quote from CA).
#..................................................................... Jan-95
Mino M, Koyashiki T, Ishizawa M, Takeno K, Take T, Masashiro T (Nippon
Telegraph & Telephone);    Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo JP 06,256,986, 08-Mar-93.
Cited in Chem. Abstracts 121:310417 (1994).
"Manufacture of hydrogen-storing materials".
** "When hydrogen-generating voltage is applied to an anode and a cathode in
a soln. contg. Pd ions, H ions or D ions, or both H and D ions, Pd in which
H2 or D2 or both H2 and D2 are absorbed is deposited on the cathode. Pd
absorbed with H2 and/or D2 can be prepd. efficiently and when such a Pd is
used for cold nuclear fusion the amt. of heat generated is higher than when
conventional samples are used". (Direct quote from CA).
# .................................................................... Jan-95
Mizuno T (Tanaka Precious Metal Ind);
Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 06,265,663, 15-Mar-93.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 122:18699 (1995).
"Cold fusion and metal material for fusion".
** "Pd with a Li-alloyed surface for electrolysis of Li-contg. electrolyte is 
claimed for the material. The method is characterized by (1) using the metal 
material as a cathode, (2) electrolyzing Li-contg. D2O soln. in a 
catalyst-equipped sealed cell, and (3) recombining generated D2 and O for 
reclamation of formed D2O. H isotope-induced embrittlement of the Pd cathode 
is prevented". (Direct quote from CA).
# .................................................................... Jan-95
Nishioka T, Yamaguchi E (Nippon Telegraph & Telephone);
Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 06,221,689, 21-Jan-93.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 122:18692 (1995).
"Method and apparatus for generating heat by electrolysis".
** "When an electrochem. is formed or after its formation, by making contact 
of a 1st material comprising Pd or Ti with a 2nd material comprising an alloy 
contg. >=50% of Y, Fe, or Ni, a gas comprising H, D, or T or their combination
is absorbed by the cell components. The 1st material is used as an anode and 
the 2nd material is used as a cathode. An elec. current is passed through the
cell, and a temp. gradient is produced in such a way that the temp. at the 1st 
material is higher than the temp. at the 2nd material side. An effective heat 
source can be thus provided". (Direct quote from CA).
# .................................................................... Jan-95
Shiraishi K (Japan Atomic Energy Res Inst);
Jpn Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 06,258,469, 04-Mar-93.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 122:18697 (1995).
"Radiation-induced nuclear fusion in a solid and energy generation".
** "Radiation-induced title fusion is described. The method may involve
electrolysis of D2O, T2O, or their mixt., by occluding generated H isotopes of
in a cathode, and by then irradiating the cathode. The cathode may be Pd or
Ti. The energy is generated from fusion by heat-exchange of the heated
electrolyte". (Direct quote from CA). 
# .................................................................... Jan-95
Takahashi A (Tanaka Precious Metal Ind);
Jpn Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 06,249,982, 25-Feb-93.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 122:18695 (1995).
"Ordinary temperature nuclear fusion".
** "The method involves electrolysis in D2O by using Pd electrodes wound by Pt 
wire electrodes via polyethylene or teflon plates by applying interrupted 
current in the initial step for 1 h and applying pulse current to accelerate 
nuclear reaction and to generate extraordinary heat". (Direct quote from CA).
# .................................................................... Jan-95
Takeno K, Take T, Mino M, Koyashiki T, Ishizawa M, Masashiro T (Nippon 
Telegraph & Telephone);  Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 06,258,468, 03-Mar-93.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 122:18696 (1995).
"Power-generator using cold fusion".
** "The power-generator has a cold fusion unit consisting of a layer of H 
isotope-occluded substance sandwiched with (1) a substance having a low 
diffusion coeff. for H isotopes and (2) a substance which reacts with the
H-occluded substance to form a solid soln. The fusion is accomplished at
< 1500 C". (Direct quote from CA).
# .................................................................... Jan-95



How to retrieve files from the archives:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
1. By ftp to vm1.nodak.edu, log in as anonymous, giving your email address
as password. Cd into fusion. To see only the biblio files, dir fusion.cnf*
and you get a list of the files that you can get. If you are so unwise as
to type in dir, you'll be there for quite a while, as that directory also
has all the Fusion Digests in it...
2. By listserv: you send an email to listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, blank subject,
with the get command. You need to know what you want to get, so you might
start with the command index fusion, which will get you the directory listing.
This has all the file names, and you can then send an email with, e.g.
get fusion.cnf-pap1, or get fusion.94-03379 or whatever you want. It will be
sent to you.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.24 / John Logajan /  Re: DoE stats on power plant efficiency
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: DoE stats on power plant efficiency
Date: 24 Jan 1995 02:53:26 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: I don't know how *you* compute efficiency, but I use the same method as the
: DoE, EPRI and PG&E.

Since the collapse of socialism, most people rely on the price system to
vector the "efficiency" answer.  There are so many informational inputs
and the system is so dynamic, that no one person or agency can acquire
the info at a central source -- the fatal mistake that led to the demise
of command economics.

Think of all the inputs -- coal reserves, union demands, copper prices,
oil cartels, the collapse of oil cartels, pipeline repair, high tension
tower sabotage by irrate farmers, highway costs, anti-nuclear protests,
Three Mile Island costs, etc etc etc, ad infinitum.

Efficiency of any resource or product varies daily.  Today natural gas
watts are less expensive than electric watts in many areas, but that
could all change.

The question can be answered *today*, and that is quite simply by looking
at the market costs of the alternative sources.  But in the long run,
you can always end up betting on the wrong horse and sinking a lot of
captial into a technology that suddenly is no longer the most efficient.

--
 - 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:
cuddy24 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.24 / Stephen Steele /  Physicists...Help a Sociologist!!!
     
Originally-From: PGPF45A@prodigy.com (Stephen Steele)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Physicists...Help a Sociologist!!!
Date: 24 Jan 1995 10:39:04 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

PLEASE help me explore a visionary trip into the year 2025 for a paper I 
will present at the American Sociological Association Meeting in 
Washington, DC in 1995.


"It's 2025,  you are about to deliver a 'state of the art'  Introduction 
to Sociology class to freshman at a public college or university in the 
United States. 

Tell me about the -

Knowledge

Skills

Abilities

Structure

Technology

Process

That this course would have.


In your response, please give me your "snail mail" address and 
affiliation, so I may give you proper credit in the final written version.



Thanks,  Steve Steele, 
Hans O. Mauksch Teaching Award Winner 1993

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenPGPF45A cudfnStephen cudlnSteele cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.24 / Keith Cowing /  House Appropriations Subcommittee Considers Cutting DOE (AIP FYI#10)
     
Originally-From: kcowing@clark.net (Keith L. Cowing)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.research,sci.research.car
ers,sci.research.careers.postdoc,sci.edu,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: House Appropriations Subcommittee Considers Cutting DOE (AIP FYI#10)
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 22:57:58 -0500
Organization: American Institute of Biological Sciences

From the American Institute of Physics

House Appropriations Subcommittee Considers Cutting DOE

FYI No. 10, January 24, 1995

The change-over of power in Congress has both ends of Pennsylvania
Avenue looking for budget cuts and places to pare back government. 
Suggestions have included abolition of entire departments, with the
Department of Energy being a prime target.  Although the
Administration has backed away from such drastic action, President
Clinton has proposed cutting approximately ten percent ($10.6
billion) from DOE's projected budget over the next five years (see
FYI #172, 1994.)

In the House, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Subcommittee, which funds DOE,  held its first hearing on January
18 on the department's programs.  The purpose, said new chairman
John Myers (R-IN), was to "review the government functions within
the Department of Energy that we could do without," and find areas
in which to "make some recissions on funds appropriated for this
year [fiscal year 1995]."  (Recissions cancel funds already
provided by law.)

Among the witnesses, conservative think tanks were represented by
Scott Hodge, a Fellow at the Heritage Foundation; Jerry Taylor,
director of Natural Resource Studies at the CATO Institute, and
Fred Smith, president of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.  The
final witness, Vic Rezendes, is director of Energy Issues at the
General Accounting Office (GAO), which has criticized DOE's "long
history of management problems."  All the witnesses agreed on the
need for reexamining the appropriate role for the federal
government versus state and local governments and private industry.

Hodge and Taylor advocated dismantling DOE entirely.  Suggestions
included giving its research functions to an agency like NSF, its
environmental functions to EPA, its defense activities to the
Defense Department or a non-Cabinet agency, and privatizing its
energy activities and the system of national laboratories.  All
three think tank witnesses agreed that the federal government
should get out of energy policy and research.  Taylor cited the
Synfuels program, the Clinch River Breeder Reactor, and the SSC as
"fiscal fiascoes" that the department should not have been involved
in.  Although Rezendes described a recent GAO query of energy
experts which concluded that DOE should focus more on its core
missions such as energy policy and energy R&D, the other witnesses
found fault with GAO's choice of experts.

Asked whether DOE and its labs have a reason for existence,
Rezendes replied that "it depends on what you want to achieve." 
Noting that most of DOE's functions would be continued elsewhere in
the public sector or by industry, he questioned, "What's the
best...configuration" to achieve them?  He added that closing or
moving programs could increase short-term costs.

Rep. Frank Riggs (R-CA), a new Member of Congress, asked whether he
could take it as a "rule of thumb" that the government should not
be in the R&D business.  Rep. Jim Chapman (D-TX), a veteran
subcommittee member, disagreed, using the SSC as an example. 
Stating that he believed the intended physics research should be
performed, Chapman argued that he could "not imagine private
industry undertaking that effort."

Hodge countered that the vacuum left if government backed out of
funding research would be filled by industries eager to go into
partnerships with universities.  Rezendes reasoned that there might
more of a role for government in funding basic research, such as
high energy physics, while possibly less of a role in applied areas
such as energy R&D.  He also pointed out the need for a federal
role in the nuclear weapons research carried out at the national
labs.  Chapman charged that going to war in the Persian Gulf to
protect oil reserves "puts a different spin" on the federal role in
energy supply R&D, making it partly a national security issue.

Closing the hearing, Chairman Myers agreed that the nation would
not "get advanced physics if we relied on industry," unless the tax
structure were changed to provide incentives.  He added that the
national labs are doing some research "we absolutely have to have." 
"We have to listen to everyone," he cautioned.  It is worth noting
that as the Energy Department is downsized, so is the
subcommittee's jurisdiction.

Chairman of the full House Appropriations Committee, Bob Livingston
(R-LA), announced yesterday that he expects to save $35 to $40
billion between recissions to the fiscal 1995 budget and cuts from
the projected 1996 budget.  However, he noted that cuts to the
current year budget would have to be "modest" to avoid the
President's veto.


###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact:  Audrey T. Leath
fyi@aip.org
(301) 209-3094
##END##########
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenkcowing cudfnKeith cudlnCowing cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.24 /  prasad /  A <<LONG DAY>> at MIT!
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A <<LONG DAY>> at MIT!
Date: 24 Jan 1995 15:32:29 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

The reports so far seem to be from the believers' end, so maybe there
is some point in posting this from a passive observer's vantage.  This
is from my notes, and I may have missed or misunderstood some things.
I couldn't help adding some thoughts of my own.

One point re: a post I've just seen.  Griggs did *NOT* come across as a
don't-care-for-science type.  He came across as a sincere engineer, who
knows when not to claim to be a scientist.  Some of those present were
not so impressive about their clarity.  I must therefore clarify that
I am *not* a physicist.  I don't think I am or want to be anything more
than an organism that managed to communicate this in English.  Don't
take my opinions.  (there, did you detect a Russell paradox?!)


=======================================================================

	The Cold Fusion Day in the middle of January

			-prasad-

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Quick, Julius, seize her!

Oops, it wasn't a warm pretty nosed Cleopatra, but a cold 60:60:1
Aluminium rotor with radial holes and what definitely did not resemble
old fashioned cavitation damage to these still learning eyes.  And
many of us did eventually seize and examine it, too.

Through a long day, mine began at five in the morning with a four
hour drive to Boston and ended a minute or two after midnight, we did
Vidi's (videos), we were dished phonon laser equations and long range
hydrogen-deuterium lattice bond contour maps so the learned among us
could say Vici ("we see"), and there being no skeptics of the biting
kind, the conclusion expressly stated was we would pretty soon Vini.

The notice was short, I was sleepy, I had never been to Boston, and if
your alma mater was Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, back in
late seventies, you just might drive past MIT without noticing it,
drive around in circles and end up asking incredulous cops.  So I
reached late.  Well, the Buckingham's done that to me too, since I was
born in Mysore, India, and had an entirely different notion of what
a palace should look like!  Be warned, therefore, of strange biases,
and of humor unflagged with canned laugh markers.

No less impertinently, I looked for self-sustaining water heaters in
the Coffee Breaks.  This was Boston, strange, thought they had Tea
Parties there.  (Do pinch the Dormouse, he shouldn't be asleep at 5!)
The others had more serious thoughts than Alice, so it was mostly
a glued-to-the-seat day.  My starving student days long gone, I felt
squeezed-in-the-seat, but the acoustics were good and my glasses did
a fair job on the videos but for the censors...

I had not met any of the Compuserve or sci.physics.fusion regulars.
Dr Mallove (Gene) was midway through his introductory talk at quarter
past ten, when I injected myself into the room and found a high perch
at the rear from where I could rule over all I surveyed.  That's as
far as I could steal the show there, so I'm trying that here, with
due apologies to the organizers!

Talking of biases, I am more used to transistors than heat pumps, and
like to denote excess heat as a power gain (beta) rather than as a
coefficient of performance (COP).  Besides, "gain" is not an acronym!

In short, Gene presented his perception of the gamut of over-unity
devices, and since his own involvement has been with what can still
be called Cold Fusion, that's where the emphasis lay.  We started with
Dr Peter Graneau, who described anomalous energies of explosions in
water caused by electrical discharges.  The mechanical energy delivered
to a projectile seems to be much higher than given by the electrical
discharge.  He is writing papers and will be doing more experiments,
so we can but wait with baited breaths, for more definitive results.
It seems unsalted water works even better.  (Diet water plasma??)

I got what I was looking for, a stored energy analogy with the other
over-unity devices, and it seemed to be all there, so for now, I would
concur that Graneau's water plasma explosions belonged here.  Graneau
estimates the energy gain at 20 or more.

Ray Conley, a student, described his approach and experience with
an under $500 CF cell and showed excess heat plots in 3 runs against
15 calibration runs performed with ohmic heating.  Ray hopes to
eventually power spacecraft.  More on this later.  Nothing unusual
about the gain of 1.07.

We had several entree's at the under-2 gain.  Jim Griggs was there,
and had brought a sample rotor to show.  Apparently he had first
noticed the over-unity phenomenon in the late eighties, and had
kept working on it in his garage for four years before commercially
exposing it.  (Does it always have to be a garage, is this a strange
US law?  Do I have to rent one too?)

We finally do have a clarification, if I might speak for us at s.p.f.
While Jim says he had to sidestep over-unity and claim it to be simply
very efficient, his "pumps" at customer sites are definitely o/u,
and at least some customers do appreciate the fact (or measurements if
you will).  Gain factor generally seems to be 1.25 through 1.5, and
the one at the Fire Station seems to be doing 1.36 over the last two
years, if I heard right.  We were also shown photomicrographs (or
microphotographs?) obtained just last week, in which the spot welds
on the Al rotor were distinctive.  Yours truly's no expert on metals,
but there was at least one metallurgist in the audience, and the
interpretation did not appear questioned. 

Griggs showed a video of his setup and the data acquisition system,
with the instruments we have argued so much about in s.p.f.  He also
had flyers giving the system diagram and various parameters.  Tom,
you might want to look at the video and the diagram before you visit,
it might help prepare.

Interesting titbits.  The Griggs output steam has a bluish tint, no
idea why.  Also, a thick space-tech glass window they tried blew a
hole rather quickly, and in minutes, the window had internally shattered
like a windshield.  Nothing dramatic here, though, cavitation is known
to generate very high velocity spot impacts and temperatures, which
might explain some of the rotor effects, since 2000 C is well within
cavitation range.  Not completely though, because the damage is not
spotty like cavitation damage usually is.  Didn't damage my pet theory,
so I wasn't the least alarmed.

Bertil Werjefelt raised the Japanese-alert again, re Sumitomo's dual
of his work this time, and it was easy to confuse and sidetrack this
speaker, so Gene had to step in at least once to bale us back into
physics.  The day had apparently begun late due to initial difficulties
with the video equipment.  Despite the dropout of two scheduled talks,
we were running late at half past five when Bertil began, thanks to
the many questions, two long theoretical presentations that some chose
to sleep through, and of course, comments that kept going astray.

At first I thought Gene had blown it this time, Bertil's long long long
prepared speech seemed to have little to offer beyond Patent concerns
and quite naive beliefs about "magnetic energy".  Or so it seemed until
one by one, the questions began to focus down and filter out the noise.
Shows what a learned prepared audience can do.  Wish Newman had let the
audience do the investigation, he just might have been more successful.
Here at last we really had something more more marvellous than even
Bertil seemed to realize, given his own notion of non-conserved energy.

Here we had in essence the self-sustaining bad-phrase (perpetual motion
machine, in other words).  So, boy, we probed!  The whole talk went on
for over an hour.  Bertil says he has been able to self-sustain for
several minutes at 160 W input, 460 W output range (gain factor 2.85).
Bertil seems to have hit a jackpot, so to speak, by tweaking the load
reaction on the generator side.  The Japanese, his growing concern,
were apparently busy on the motor end, but I'd say no cause for concern
yet, since they were not yet in the perpetual motion market, from what
I gathered.  (Simple business minded folks, these Japanese!)

The Japs were apparently running at gain 1.4 through 1.6, according
to the video of FNN.  Gene read out a transcript first.  My nihongo
is as shot as the Griggs rotor we saw, and the audio went to prove it,
but the watts were in English, and left nothing to the imagination.

The crux of the Werjefelt design seems to be a specially designed
but otherwise unspectacular magnetic bearing somewhat like a stepper
motor.  Bertil's reasoning is difficult to swallow as such, but
especially if you have particularly worked with the thermodynamics
of magnetism, as I have over the past year.  Seems he cancels out the
generator load torque (not his words) by a deft arrangement of the
poles in that bearing (our word again).  This miracle bearing drew
umpteen questions (and you might just want one too!).  It contains
nothing but than permanent magnet poles on a stator and on the shaft,
and involves no power flow other than the shaft's.

Bertil keeps citing prior work by some three Nobel laureates in his
favor, and a 50's paper by Dr Norman Ramsey of Harvard that concluded
that in the negative temperature regime of nuclear spins, a breakdown
of the second law, and an excess-power thermodynamic engine, were
definitely possible.  Though Dr Johnson tried to clarify, I don't
think the clarification got across to the many who seemed to buy it.

I have not read the said paper myself, but if the result they were
alluding to is, as claimed, there in all the books, the Ramsey paper
represents just one of the steps in the formulation of the negative
temperature concept.  Negative temperatures describe a reversal of
energy distribution over a small subset of the total energy of the
body concerned.  The gross object is most certainly at a net positive
temperature, and the hypothetized "excess-power" engine is not at all
a violation of the second law, because its excess power comes from
the other energy states of the system, which are definitely at a
positive temperature.  I'd think the Ramsey paper does not support
Bertil's perpetual motion machine at all.  I can vaguely sense what
Bertil thinks it means, but he needs to put in more formal effort to
clear up his perspective.  Which means, back to the old CF paradox,
excess power readings without an obvious source.

Talking of magnets and such, someone brought up the Newman motor,
and opined it couldn't have produced any torque at all.  Shows how
fallible one can be even with EE experience.  Torque depends on
the *Volume* of the magnet, and while a tiny but strong Nd magnet
that you can get from Radio Shack can barely turn itself, one can
certainly bundle a number of weaker ceramic magnets and obtain enough
torque to operate a load.  The mystery is not the force, it's the
energy, more specifically, the excess thereof.

In the context of >2x gain, Griggs seems to think that a self-sustainer
running a modern turbine off his pump would require a gain of at least 
2.5.  I failed to catch the exact reasoning, because he did mention
that by cycling the same water (in the hot water mode rather than the
steaming mode) through the pump, he could output at about 175 degrees
(350F).  He said something about needing to cool in between, so that
broke the cycle.  I did not understand why he couldn't use TWO like
this:
              ------ [ gg1 ] ------
	------|                   |------
              ------ [ gg2 ] ------

Then all one has left to do is to figure out how to connect the loops
so one can, by switching between the two, get an overall continuous
self-sustaining system.  Jed or someone might know more on this.

That reminds me of another odd observation Griggs mentioned.  One
of his rotors seems to have a scale deposit in the shape of a hole
on the other side of the rotor.  I am not sure I got this right,
and probably can't without a picture.  Did I read about that on the
s.p.f. too?

I have been saving the theoretical stuff to the end.  The trouble with
theoretical papers is that they demand patience, and often fail to
mention the big picture.  Like Ramsey, innocently misleading Bertil
decades later.  I'm no exception to being naive.

Dr Hagelstein's discussion of "energy transfer" possibilities in
"phonon lasing" conditions should probably be interpreted to mean
that said conditions could pack in enough kick for a fusion of lurking
protons (or deuterons) in the lattice.  Peter was good enough to hold
the mike, so I could generally hear him over a snore or two, if not
over my own distracting thoughts, but I strongly suspect he did say
what I was concluding.

Dr Johnson showed an initial part of a Hollywood movie on the topic,
with superman Reeves with Nancy somebody in bed, but he cut it off
before it became too interesting, so the snores soon took over.
Keith forgot about the mike on the table, which further reduced the SNR
in my vicinity, but he seemed to be content with charting energy
contours for long range hydrogen bonding, and I, with merely watching
the overheads.

Looked like a good tool for Peter and other potential theory-crackers
to have, but otherwise I missed the point.  Left me dreaming of Cold
Fusion Powered Microprocessors and Battery-less Medical Microrobots,
since Keith mentioned doing the plots for silicon.  Something to do
with some outer s orbitals.  Superman, if you don't rescue me from
these long range DD-bonds, may Hollywood will fix you in a Kryponite
lattice...

Also, Peter did tell us probably why many who tried failed to reproduce
the F&P results in 1989, including a group in California and one at IBM.
In Peter's view, the CF effects are coincidental with the conditions
favorable for phonon lasing, which are also related to superconductive
modes of the BCS theory.  The desorption of H or D is endothermic
at low loading in many metals, Pd being one.  The endothermic depth
depends on the temperature, etc.  Apparently, the California and IBM
groups did their calorimetry in the just-endothermic range, whereas
F&P did theirs at higher loading, where the desorption goes exo.  In
other words, CF should be a lot more reproducible if you ensure that
your electrodes are sufficiently highly loaded.  See why Gene thinks
the much sought after water heater is just around the corner?  Though
it doesn't yet explain the actual mechanism of the excess power.

I must mention that a team from Clean Energy Technology was supposed
to present something about their first excess energy CF patents,
if I heard that right.  Gene read out a brief summary of their work,
use of microgranular electrodes with light water.

Dr Vesco Noninski, who had negative results to report from nuclear
measurements, and eventually did not speak and ruin the enthusiasm at
the end, brought up the DePalma generator in the Bertil bearing context.
Apparently, the very occurence of emf still confounds many.

I tried to clarify the physics in limited words, but am not sure it
got across.  Anyway, some of the EEs did begin to ask me about the
Tewari machine afterwards.  Reason I mention it is that as far as
I know, where DePalma's machine of 1986 did not produce net o/u yet,
Tewari achieved the net o/u breakeven in late 1988, and has since
published reports of o/u as high as 4x in the 10-20 kW range.  He
has built several machines and has also been generating a.c.

In the Tewari/DePalma generator, the rotating magnet provides an
electric field in addition to the magnetic field.  The net 4-field
needs to be computed by Lorentz transform from the magnet's frame,
in which it is purely B, to the lab frame.  This yields the original
B plus an E field, both with sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) factors.  This is the E
responsible for the output, and is consistent with working in the
magnet's frame, in which the rotating circuit cuts the magnetic field
so an emf is induced in the circuit.  The situation is unusual in
that it is conceptually difficult to work this out from Maxwell's
equations alone, and one needs to use relativity.

Once again, Maxwell's demon gets to one; prior theory prohibits o/u.
The fault however is not in electromagnetism or relativity, which
indeed correctly predict the emf.  The mystery is the excess energy,
or why not all of the load reaction does not apparently pass on to
the prime mover.

We did not discuss much Ray Conley's speculation for CF space power,
but I could not help thinking as follows.  CF cannot address the
propulsion, though Graneau seems to have something in that direction.
For on-board supply, however, the problem is conversion rather than
availability.  I think the SP-100 program was alluded to, which was
dropped in 1993 whereabouts.  One can doubtless carry sufficient
nuclear fuels for deep space manned operations otherwise feasible
today.  The problem is the conversion.  Fuel cells have been in use,
so electrolysis in space might be figured out, but CF produces heat.
A completely solid-state heat engine of 40-60% efficiency looks to me
a more acceptable immediate solution.  But then again maybe Bertil's
no-moving-parts version is just around the corner!  So I worried about
Bertil's bearing all the four hours home.

And the rain turned to snow as I crossed Connecticut, remembering the
Coke bottle and the Bushman in the "Gods Must Be Crazy".  They are
playing with and patenting toys we little understand yet.  But the
attitude, from the early days of modern physics, has only been that
"it works", and the fundamentals seem to be articles of faith rather
than first hand abstraction.  So said Sadi Carnot.  And so say the
quantum theorists.  Don't ask why h-cross.  At least, I'm not used
to *acting* on faith, from my eastern background.  I don't find it
sufficiently ethical or satisfying.

So I feel like Eddie Willers, staring at the betrayal of the hollow
tree trunk.  Still standing, eh?  You're sure it's not hollow?!

Fundamentally, there are no "laws" that nature must obey, but only
abstractions by some men describing only what they thought they saw.
What makes their views perfect, other than our unwillingness to
reexamine and to lie that it is so?  Take the second law: Carnot
cited experience.  Is a finite number of past observations sufficient
guarantee for an infinite future?  I wouldn't buy that on the stock
market without understanding the mechanism.  I don't buy a skeptical
opinion, however qualified, that these toys don't work.  That is
the crux of the Dark Ages, notwithstanding Edison's lamp, or the
sunlight in all those medieval years.  Spare me the faith.

We don't buy the toys yet, either, for the same reason.  What we need
is a fresh abstraction by a mind whose relation to nature is not
second-hand.  Maybe I know what I am talking about.  Maybe that's
why I came to this country...  Who's to say?  Who's John Galt?


The spirit of the day was an Open Results Architecture, as sort of
expressed by Fred Jaeger of ENECO, the sponsor.  That of this report
is annexed below.

=======================================================================

The above report is unofficial and to the best of my understanding
and memory.  I regret any factual or interpretational errors, and
all errors are unintended.  You may obtain an official report or
the videos from the organizers, etc.

In any case, nothing in this report indicates, represents or relates
in any way to my past or present employers, or my employment.

(c) v guruprasad (prasad), 1995.  e-mail: 71155.3116@compuserve.com.

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Jan 25 04:37:04 EST 1995
------------------------------
