1995.01.31 / Jim Carr /  Re: "Hot" Fusion
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Hot" Fusion
Date: 31 Jan 1995 13:22:40 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In response to

|>Since this newsgroup was specifically created for the discussion of
|>cold fusion, any fission of the newsgroup should work the other way
|>round. If you want a separate group for hot fusion topics only, set
|>up a RFD/CFV.

(which is only partly correct)

In article <3gkdb8$3hc@usenet.rpi.edu> 
tuttt@rpi.edu writes, without using any carriage returns:
>
>Actually if this group was created to discuss "cold" fusion, it should have 
>been labeled as such a group from the start (I.E. sci.physics.cold.fusion). 

The following is from a never-completed cold-fusion FAQ:

 ) The newsgroup alt.fusion was created soon after the press conference of 
 ) 23 March 1989 to help divert some of the massive amount of cold-fusion 
 ) related traffic from sci.physics, and discussion of a permanent group
 ) began.  Mailing lists were created so persons without Usenet access
 ) could be involved in the discussion, and an archive of the traffic was 
 ) started on 14 April 1989.  <Historical references to FUSION.yr-00#### 
 ) are to documents in the online archive (vm1.nodak.edu).
 ) 
 ) An official Call-For-Votes was posted on 21 April 1989 (FUSION.89-00006)
 ) by Kevin Scott (kscott@cca.uscf.edu) and the vote in favor announced in 
 ) FUSION.89-00066.  The CFV states the group charter as follows:
 ) 
 )   Sci.physics.fusion is for discussing fusion and fusion related topics.
 )   Technically this is a movement of a newsgroup alt.fusion to an area of
 )   wider distribution.  The goal is to make fusion related articles
 )   available to everyone and to curtail the crossposting to sci.physics.
 )   The group is to be unmoderated.
 ) 
 ) The news group was created on about 4 June 1989. 

So the group includes "fusion-related" topics, which has (since 1989) 
included results which are purported to be cold-fusion without muon 
catalysis.  The newsgroup creation process was fast and informal compared 
to some today, especially since it formalized an alt group that was 
created with a well-defined purpose (just ask Scott Hazen-Mueller?) but 
without a formal charter.  The only thing that clearly connects discussion 
of "cold fusion", a phenomenon which may or may not be due to electro-
chemically-induced nuclear fusion, to this group is the reference to 
alt.fusion, which was *definitely* created for that purpose.

>The fact is, ALL known forms of fusion reactions (proton-proton, carbon-cycle,
>triple-alpha, D-D, D-He, D-T, etc.) occur at temperatures measured in 
>thousands of Kelvins and are therefore "hot" by default. The so-called 
>"cold" fusion is a hypothesis only. It has not been shown to exist. 
>Sorry, guys. 
>
>No hard feelings,but I'm not backing down on this one. 

Well, you had better re-examine your knowledge base.  You seem to be 
neglecting the process of muon-catalyzed fusion first observed by 
Alvarez [PR 105 (1957) 1127] and studied extensively by Jones, who 
coined the name "cold fusion" in his Scientific American article on 
the subject.  The prediction of same by Frank [Nature 160 (1947) 525] 
and theory work by Jackson [PR 106 (1957) 330] might also interest you.  
(Especially if you are a fan of J.D.Jackson's other writings!) 

Don't they teach basic physics like this any more? 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  Tallahassee, where the crime rate 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  is almost twice that in New York 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  City.  Reported crimes, that is.  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  A subtle statistical detail.  
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.01 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Griggs blue mist probably not important
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs blue mist probably not important
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 13:47:27 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes:
 
     "You're overlooking the 5th possibility, and by far the most the most
     likely, that the blue coloration is simply an artifact resulting from
     bad photography."
 
That is not a possibility. We do not have a photograph of this blue steam; we
observed it. We saw it. I am not a bit colorblind -- I am sure it was blue.
As I said before, I do not think it is significant, but you never can tell.
 
Elsewhere, Conover writes:
 
     "From a purely scientific vantage point, if a hydrogen fusion reaction
     is actually taking place, hydrogen depletion of could result.  This is
     equivalent to oxygen enrichment of the steam, and since it is well
     documented fact that liquid oxygen has a blue coloration, this could be
     interpreted to represent a positive confirmation of Cold Fusion taking
     place."
 
This is not written from a purely scientific vantage point. Apparently,
Conover has no earthly idea how much energy fusion reactions liberate. Suppose
you take 20 grams of heavy water. That's 16 grams of oxygen and 4 grams of
deuterium (heavy hydrogen). You transmute the deuterium to get 1 mole of
helium (4 grams). That would yield 2,300,000 megajoules of energy. Of course,
4 grams (0.14 ounces) of helium would still not be enough cause any observable
effects in the steam. There is no way on earth you could detect 4 grams of
helium with this test setup. On the other hand the 2.3 million MJ would be
easily observable. If the Griggs device produced that much energy in a 20
minute test it would disrupt the community and cause quite a commotion. That
is equivalent to burning 53,000 kilograms of gasoline (117,000 lbs; 14,000
gallons, or, if you like, 339 barrels.) During this fusion process, 25
milligrams of mass would be converted into energy; that is, the helium would
weigh 25 mg less than the heavy hydrogen.
 
Conover is off by so many orders of magnitude here that I do not see how this
can be called a "scientific vantage point." I would call this the "ignorant
wild guess six or eight orders of magnitude wrong" point of view. A scientific
hypothesis has to stand up to some level of quantitative analysis.
 
- Jed
 
 
P.S. Does anyone know how many megajoules you get per ton of TNT? TNT does not
hold as much energy per unit of mass as gasoline does, so it is less than 42
MJ/kg.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.01 / Jim Carr /  Re: Real Fusion
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Real Fusion
Date: 1 Feb 1995 09:22:54 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <3go4a3$nd@sundog.tiac.net> 
conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes:
>
>Oh Alex, how delightfully politically correct you must be feeling today!

It has nothing to do with being "politically correct" to object to 
ad hominem argument such as the sexist remark you made.  There were 
some technical oversights in her remarks, but your reply did not 
indicate that *you* knew any more than she did.  Less I would say. 

Stick to physics here. 

>ps.  Question: "What do you say to an athlete dressed in a three-piece suit?"
>     Answer:   "How do you plead?"

If you were in Minnesota, it would by "Yes, your honor".  

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  Tallahassee, where the crime rate 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  is almost twice that in New York 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  City.  Reported crimes, that is.  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  A subtle statistical detail.  
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.01 / Jim Carr /  Re: Moderated group, second (third) thoughts
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Moderated group, second (third) thoughts
Date: 1 Feb 1995 09:33:00 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <JAC.95Jan31154757@gandalf.llnl.gov> 
jac@gandalf.llnl.gov (James Crotinger) writes:
>
>> I propose we call the new group sci.physics.fusion.research
>
>  I guess that depends on the stated charter of the group.  If this
>group is primarily for the discussion of cold fusion research, then
>it should be named appropriately (e.g. s.p.coldfusion). I'd personally
>rather see it split as s.p.fusion.{cold,magnetic,inertial}, or
>something like that.

As the group charter from the CFV that I posted should have made 
clear, this group is for *all* fusion or fusion _related_ discussions. 
With only 20 posts (after my cross-post and A.P. kill file was done) 
this morning, mostly on splitting, it hardly rates a split.  You 
can put out an RFD, but I can't see it getting the votes.  

The time to have complained about that charter was during the RFD, 
but probably none of you at LLNL were on the net then!  The thing 
to do now is take over the group by swamping it with physics 
discussions of the fusion physics you find interesting. 

Elsewhere JAC (username thief!) writes:

>  Although perhaps historically correct, this claim seems silly on the
>face of it. The group's name implies that it is a place to discuss the
>physics of fusion (and being an unmoderated group, it's name is really
>all that matters at this point).     ... 

And "cold" fusion such as muon-catalyzed fusion is certainly fusion. 
Claims that the Griggs device uses fusion is certainly "fusion related". 

But if you want to talk hot or inertial fusion, go to it.  A poor lone 
soul has been posting news updates from TFTR for quite some time now. 
Maglich and Koloc are discussed (Koloc posts here).  Get 80 posts a 
day on hot fusion and cold fusion will either (1) die away, as it 
has been over the last few years, or (2) petition for its own group. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  Tallahassee, where the crime rate 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  is almost twice that in New York 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  City.  Reported crimes, that is.  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  A subtle statistical detail.  
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.01 / Harry Conover /  Re: Real Fusion
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Real Fusion
Date: 1 Feb 1995 14:53:45 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Mark Fernee (fernee@physics.uq.oz.au) wrote:

: I think Harry's reply was completely uncalled for. It smacks of both sexism
: and hubris.

Whatever my comments did contain, sexism was not among it.  Of course 
there are those narrow, perverse individuals carrying a chip on their 
shoulder that see sexism in everthing. These unfortunate souls aren't 
even worth the courtesy a reply...let them spend their wasted lifetimes 
killing paper tigers.
 

: What was that story about the pot and the kettle?

Perhaps when you remember it, you will come back and share it with us 
all.

: PS: Thank God education is free in Australia so we don't have to pay 
any "dues".

Better not let any of my Ozzie friends hear you saying that, mate.  I 
suspect they would view what you said as an insult to both their homeland
and people!

In point of fact, numerous Australians in science and engineering have
indeed "paid their dues."

At the risk of sounding pedantic, let me explain the cryptic 
American notion of "paying ones dues."  (I was under the impression that  
much of Western Europe, Jewish tradition, and many Eastern cultures share 
this novel concept as well.  It's know by some in Australia too!) In 
general, it has nothing to do with education, or paying for education.  
Loosely speaking, it refers to the post educational
contributions and accomplishments that one makes to his/her 
profession, science, or society, e.g., now that civilization has given 
so me to you, what is it that you have done for civilization or 
society?  It also refers in some ways to the cost (to the individual) 
associated with making these contributions. This is "paying one's dues."

I realize that this is somewhat an alien comment to the X-generation, 
who are generally preoccupied with much weightier considerations like 
political correctness, appearances, etc.  None the less, like ethical 
values, the concept of "paying one's dues" once played a key role in 
shaping an individual's character and motivation.
 
Perphaps you would be well advised to strain your embrionic (but 
hopefully developing) cerebral resource sufficiently to achieve at 
least some small, incremental grasp of the thrust of another's 
comments, before responding with a flame.


                                         Harry C.


                               
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.01 /   /  Re: Fusion Digest 3234
     
Originally-From: root@prometheus.UUCP (0000-Admin(0000))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Digest 3234
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 14:25:02 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <199501291243.XAA01254@oznet02.ozemail.com.au> rvanspaa@ozema
l.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk) writes:
>> Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
>> Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
>> Subject: Re: Neutrino magnetic moment
>> Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 05:18:37 GMT
>> Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.
>[SNIP]
>> >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?
>> >Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au>
>> 
>> If so then what about the moment of a neutron??
>> 
>> Here the density of the neutron is so great it distorts the
>> local metric, thus precession plus its spin will produce a magnetic
>> monent.
>_______________________________________________________
>Silly me, and I thought the neutron magnetic moment was caused by the 
>charge on the quarks of which it is composed. (2x-1/3 + +2/3).
>BTW Paul, is there a "Physics according to Paul Koloc" in print 
>anywhere?

Ah!  but just what are quarks..  according to a slightly more 
comprehensive view of this theory, there are distributions which are
arrays of "operator" or "information" and they interact by logic in
quantized time.  That is frame after frame, with the operator/information
array (quarks???)  interacting within each frame.    

For a trivial example:  Consider an operator distribution in space
which exists with fade for 10^-23 sec and generates a distribution
of existence bits or grains at the same location and with the same
general distribution.  Then an anililation operator of same location
and distribution removes these grains from existence (toward the end
of the same time period).   Now if the creation operator is entity
1 and the information distribution created is entity two, then 
logically one might have a rule that entity one generates entity2 
at the location of entity 1.  That means that entity one can't be
separated from entity 2 even by infinite force since it is a logic
connected set.  In summary, my suspicion is that "quarks" ain't 
just a set of smaller billiard balls.  

Now as to putting something into print... well not a bad idea.  It 
could be a collections of selected goodies from the tens of thousands, 
which I "invented" but didn't continue with since they have some flaw 
or other.  However, someone else just could find their way around the 
difficulty or perhaps a clever side step and Voila.. a contribution to 
the understanding of some otherwise seemingly complex aspect of nature.  

Besides some of these problems are difficult, and I say problems in
the sense that although terms are defined, the underlying questions
are still in place.   Example 2:  What is charge? I have an answer,
and that isn't kosher.  

>Regards,
>Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au>
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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:
cuddy1 cudenroot cudln cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.01 /  prasad /  Re: To prasad
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: To prasad
Date: 1 Feb 1995 14:12:35 GMT
Organization: sometimes

In article <3gls06$6dv@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, profusion@aol.com (ProFusion) writes:
|> Dear prasad---
|> 
|>    I've been trying to contact you but email bounces like a superball.
|> Could you give me a buzz at ProFusion@aol.com?

Please use the address below.

I poll it approximately every other day, and it's currently
my only email link to the world.

-- 
// email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.01 / John Cobb /  Re: Gammas & Lightning
     
Originally-From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Gammas & Lightning
Date: 1 Feb 1995 11:04:07 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <USE2PCB336531504@brbbs.brbbs.com>,
MARSHALL DUDLEY <mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com> wrote:
>jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes:
> 
>-> Nah.  Storm clouds can easily generate potentials of millions of volts.
>-> A MeV photon is a gamma ray, right?  There are *some* cosmic rays and
>-> gammas that are beyond earthly mechanisms, but certainly not all.
> 
>True, but it is hard to see how an electron could gain that kind of energy in
>the mean free path of air, even if the cloud is at 10 Million volts.
> 

Do you mean the mean free-path at sea level or at 35 km altitude? If you
mean at sea-level, I agree, but at 35 km and above where the sprites are
seen, I don't know. However, the fast initiation of the discharge suggestts
that there are at least a few electrons that go all the way before
colliding. So maybe it is just as simple as V_{clooud) - V_{ionosphere},
at least for a small minority of the electrons. Then again, maybe not. hmmm


-john .w cobb


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

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.01 / Kevin Tritz /  Re: Pulsed CF
     
Originally-From: tritz@hp-13.cae.wisc.edu (Kevin Lee Tritz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Pulsed CF
Date: 1 Feb 1995 17:54:21 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin, College of Engineering

In article <3gjq9l$4ht@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Archimedes.Plutonium@dart
outh.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
>   To produce an electric field, you change the magnetic field. To
> produce a magnetic field you change an electric field. The electric
> field and magnetic field are phenomena within EM. By the way, pulsing
> is just another word for changing.
What about a constant current solenoid? no magnetic field?

>   Funny, how noone before me ever thought that a changing EM produces
> radioactivity.
They haven't?  I didn't realize you were the one to come up with
Brehmstrahlung (sp).


-- 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Tritz                     |    "Nuke 'em from orbit..."
Nuclear Engineering             |    "it's the only way to be sure."
UW - Madison                    |              -Ripley
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudentritz cudfnKevin cudlnTritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.01 / James Crotinger /  Why NOT split the group? [was: Moderated group, ...]
     
Originally-From: jac@gandalf.llnl.gov (James Crotinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Why NOT split the group? [was: Moderated group, ...]
Date: 01 Feb 1995 19:13:27 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, NCD

In article <3go62s$8re@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:

   As the group charter from the CFV that I posted should have made 
   clear, this group is for *all* fusion or fusion _related_ discussions. 
   With only 20 posts (after my cross-post and A.P. kill file was done) 
   this morning, mostly on splitting, it hardly rates a split.  You 
   can put out an RFD, but I can't see it getting the votes.  

  Thank you for posting the group charter. I think the lack of any
mention of "cold fusion" in said charter pretty much lays to rest
Jed's claim that "this is a cold fusion group, so you other folks
should go away". 

  The group should definitely be split. The group is overwhelming
cold-fusion and other stuff. It often gets 20-50 messages in a single
day (before the splitting stuff started). Most of these are
cold-fusion related, and it is not simple to filter this stuff out
with kill files (most articles don't have subjects beginning with
"COLD FUSION:" or something similar).  

  The fact is, there is enough cold fusion traffic for it to deserve
its own group, and taking that traffic out of sci.physic.fusion (or
splitting it to have s.p.f.{cold,magnetic}, etc) would result in wider
usage of the forum by non-cold-fusion workers that have been turned
off by all the cf traffic here.

   The time to have complained about that charter was during the RFD, 
   but probably none of you at LLNL were on the net then!

But there is nothing wrong with the original charter, in my opinion.
I just feel that the CF discussion is so dominant that it deserves
its own group...

   The thing to do now is take over the group by swamping it with
   physics discussions of the fusion physics you find interesting.

No, the thing to do is split the cold fusion discussion off into
a more appropriately named group.

   Elsewhere JAC (username thief!) writes:

8-)

   >  Although perhaps historically correct, this claim seems silly on the
   >face of it. The group's name implies that it is a place to discuss the
   >physics of fusion (and being an unmoderated group, it's name is really
   >all that matters at this point).     ... 

   And "cold" fusion such as muon-catalyzed fusion is certainly fusion. 

True. But you know what I meant.

   Claims that the Griggs device uses fusion is certainly "fusion related". 

Agreed. I did not say that it was inappropriate to post this stuff
here (although I do think some of the other "overunity" stuff should
not be posted here). I just said that it should be in a CF subgroup...

   But if you want to talk hot or inertial fusion, go to it.  A poor lone 
   soul has been posting news updates from TFTR for quite some time now. 
   Maglich and Koloc are discussed (Koloc posts here).  Get 80 posts a 
   day on hot fusion and cold fusion will either (1) die away, as it 
   has been over the last few years, or (2) petition for its own group. 

The problem is that I've found it extremely difficult to get
colleagues interested in reading this forum because it is swamped with
CF discussions that they don't have to wade through.

  I guess I fail to see what the problem is. Splitting the group seems
like a win-win situation. It saves everybody time, the groups would
have more appropriate names, and both cold and hot fusion researchers
would perceive an increase in the signal-to-noise ratio. Can you give
me a good reason NOT to split the group. In the past the argument was
that the traffic wasn't high enough and that many people liked to keep
abreast of both types of fusion. IMHO, the traffic is high enough now.
And if you want to keep abreast of both types of fusion news, you're
perfectly welcome to subscribe to both groups!

  James A. Crotinger [ username JAC since 1983 8-) ]


-- 
 ------------------------------------------------/\--------------------------
James A. Crotinger     Lawrence Livermore N'Lab // \ The above views are mine
jac@moonshine.llnl.gov P.O. Box 808;  L-630 \\ //---\  and are not neces-
(510) 422-0259         Livermore CA  94550   \\/Amiga\  sarily those of LLNL.
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudenjac cudfnJames cudlnCrotinger cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.01 /  jedrothwell@de /  Pulsed CF
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Pulsed CF
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 13:50:16 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Somewhere in this thread Robin van Spaandonk reminded me that the Canon gadget
is pulsed. Oops! I forgot that. And I also forgot about Randy Mills and
Thermacore, who have used unipolar pulsing (volts never go negative, because
that would mess up the electrochemistry).  If you define "pulsing" as any
waveform that goes up and down over a period as long as an hour, then you will
find lots of others who do that, starting with Takahashi years ago. Some
people swear by the technique while others say it does not help. At ICCF3,
Fleischmann said it worked in Takahashi's case because it raised the
temperature after the sample was fully loaded. Quickly raising the temperature
is a good way to trigger a large CF reaction.
 
Mizuno can use ordinary A/C (not just unipolar AC) because his proton
conductor does not care which direction the deuterons are pushed. He thinks
that this pulsing does enhance the reaction.
 
I was thinking of "pulsing" as in: a fast pulse, lasting a fraction of a
second.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.01 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: "Overunity" is meaninless (was: Griggs questions)
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Overunity" is meaninless (was: Griggs questions)
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 14:01:32 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

For goodness sake Mike, keep your line length at less than 80 charactors.
Your messages go all over the screen. In any case, I think you are a little
thick headed if you do not understand what "over unity" means and what
the implications of a c.o.p. greater than 100% are. Is it possible you
do not understand the difference between the efficiency of a machine taken
by itself and the overall efficiency of a machine in the greater energy
economy? As an essay question, explain to us how much energy automobiles
would use if we had to extract gasoline from, say, oil shale. Taken by
itself, a automobile is only 15% efficient. How efficient woud it be if
most of the original energy was lost in the extraction process? Hmmmm?
 
You see Mike, energy can be a complicated subject.
 
In any case, "over unity" performance can be easily defined, even for someone
as scientifically illiterate as you appear to be. It works like this:
 
     You put X amount of energy in.
 
     You get more than X amount of energy out!
 
Strike a match, you will see an example of that. That is called "stored
chemical energy" and there is quite a lot of it. Thanks to the sun shining
all these millions of years, you can get a 42 megajoules of it from every
kilogram of gasoline. With CF (whatever CF may be) you can get a million
times more than that from a kilogram of water. Neat, huh? Think of what
that is worth! Imagine driving your car 55 million miles on a gallon of
water. It would not cost much, would it?
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.02 / Michael Kenward /  Rothwell knows everything
     
Originally-From: m.kenward@bbcnc.org.uk (Michael Kenward)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Rothwell knows everything
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 15:18:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I thought that denizens of this list might like further evidence of
Rothwell's omnipotence. Anyone trying to pass on background information to
list watcdhers runs the risk of smartass remarks from the great Jeddy. This
is what he sent me, privately of course, after I passed on a brief snippet
from a news wire:

>m.kenward@bbcnc.org.uk (Michael Kenward) asks:
>
>     "Has anyone seen the reports of Arthur C Clarke's espousal of cold
>     fusion?"
>
>Yes, years ago.
>
>
>     "Apparently he said CF was neither cold and probably was not fusion, but
>     that Fleischmann's experiments could be "the tip of an enormous iceberg"
>     to quote the wire story . . ."
>
>That is correct. He said that when Liverpool University awarded him "the first
>satellite degree" a few weeks ago. He spoke to them via a satellite video
>hookup from his house in Sri Lanka.
>
>- Jed
>




Nice chap, don't you think?

Michael Kenward
m.kenward@bbcnc.org.uk

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenkenward cudfnMichael cudlnKenward cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.01 / Mike Griffin /  Re: "Overunity" is meaninless (was: Griggs questions)
     
Originally-From: mgriffin@il.us.swissbank.com (Mike Griffin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Overunity" is meaninless (was: Griggs questions)
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 20:46:39 GMT
Organization: Swiss Bank Corporation CM&T Division

Jed would like everyone to ignore the fact that he is unable or unwilling to state
a single definition of efficiency that applies to conventional energy conversion 
devices as well as his nifty free energy machines.  The fact that he can't do this
suggests a basic confusion or ignorance on his part of the fundamental concepts of
thermodynamics and energy conversion.  I didn't raise the question because I needed
to be enlightened, but to try to pin Jed down on an issue where he is all over the map.

Depending on context, efficiency may mean one of several things to Jed:

1) Aggregate energy input / Aggregate energy output
2) Rate of energy input / Rate of energy output (assuming the device has reached some 
poorly defined steady state)
3) Total energy required to produce the energy input in / total energy out.

Definition 3) is actually a vast array of definitions, because the reference frame
is left vague.

So when Jed uses the term effiency, one needs to ask which of his definitions applies
this time.  And when you hear him talk about "overunity" don't assume you know how he
is using that word without the requisite queries!

It is a simple point, really.

Mike Griffin
(expressing my own opinions)
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmgriffin cudfnMike cudlnGriffin cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.01 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: Real Fusion
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Real Fusion
Date: 1 Feb 1995 18:51:25 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3gne5o$915@dingo.cc.uq.oz.au> fernee@physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee) writes: 

>
>Harry H Conover (conover@max.tiac.net) wrote:
>: Teresa E. Tutt (tuttt@cii3130-22.its.rpi.edu) wrote:
>> I wonder if it would be possible for the cold fusion people to form their own 
>>newsgroup

snip

>: Being a 'tight ass' is not a prerequite, nor even an asset, in pursuing 
>: scientific goals.
>
>: Get a life babe, cause you only live once!
>
>
>:                                       Harry C.
>
>I think Harry's reply was completely uncalled for. It smacks of both sexism
>and hubris.

snip...

>
>PS: Thank God education is free in Australia so we don't have to pay any "dues".
>

Well maybe you might call it sexist but Harry is not the one whining. Whining is 
for Children. If adults, either male or female engage in this crap then Harry is 
right in saying GET A LIFE.

Our society is filled with whiners yet once in a while our society is propt up by 
individuals who listen, wait, formulate and then give something that we all 
marvel at. That is the beauty of science. The Internet, being a relatively new 
thing to science merely shows the noise that exists between the above mentioned 
episodes. If you dont want to listen in on the noise then get a better program 
that allows you to pick and choose the authors by which you wish to read by. 
Killing files is rediculous. I simply wade through the articles. It takes me only 
30 minutes a day and usually I end up reading more than I intended to. My ego 
isnt so packed with crap that I censure any authors. I do know who has the 
quality prose and those who don't. I also notice that those with the long threads 
also are the ones usually that are entertaining to read. I agree that most are in 
left field but so what.

Teresa, grow up.

I also do not think that God had anything to do with your socialist school 
system. And "dues" that are paid for have a higher degree of respect but I do not 
think that that was what Harry was refering to.

CP
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.01 /  prasad /  Re: Moderated group, second (third) thoughts
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Moderated group, second (third) thoughts
Date: 1 Feb 1995 18:31:17 GMT
Organization: sometimes

In article <3go62s$8re@ds8.scri.fsu.edu>, jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
|> Maglich and Koloc are discussed (Koloc posts here).  Get 80 posts a 
|> day on hot fusion and cold fusion will either (1) die away, as it 
|> has been over the last few years, or (2) petition for its own group. 
					^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

According to an earlier post on this subject in this very group,
it *was* cold fusion that created this group.  So the *takeover*
syndrome, having had fun with businesses, now extends its tentacles
to the internet!

:-)

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.01 / Matt Kennel /  Re: True Blue Light
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: True Blue Light
Date: 1 Feb 1995 20:18:00 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) wrote:

: (1)The steam is contaminated by something such as microscopic bits of aluminum.

Burning lubrication oil?

: Dick Blue

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.01 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Fusion Digest 3244
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Digest 3244
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 16:30:27 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

m.kenward@bbcnc.org.uk (Michael Kenward) asks:
 
     "Has anyone seen the reports of Arthur C Clarke's espousal of cold
     fusion?"
 
Yes, years ago.
 
 
     "Apparently he said CF was neither cold and probably was not fusion, but
     that Fleischmann's experiments could be "the tip of an enormous iceberg"
     to quote the wire story . . ."
 
That is correct. He said that when Liverpool University awarded him "the first
satellite degree" a few weeks ago. He spoke to them via a satellite video
hookup from his house in Sri Lanka.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.01 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Why NOT split the group? [was: Moderated group, ...]
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why NOT split the group? [was: Moderated group, ...]
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 16:38:41 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

James Crotinger <jac@gandalf.llnl.gov> writes:
 
>Jed's claim that "this is a cold fusion group, so you other folks
>should go away". 
 
I never said that! I don't care if the hot fusion people continue posting
here. They might as well I suppose. They do not seem to have enough news
to go to the trouble of forming their own group.
 
The only thing I said was that this group was originally formed for cold
fusion. That was in response to someone else who suggested that we should
stop posting CF stuff here.
 
In point of fact, there is now very solid evidence that CF is fusion. That is;
CF transmutes hydrogen isotopes into helium, releasing energy in the form
of heat in amounts commensurate with nuclear fusion. The results from Los
Alamos, the Navy, Rockwellshow this. I do not see how anyone could argue with
the E-Quest data. So whatever else CF is, it is fusion. Given that reality,
it seems to me that if the hot fusion people need their own newsgroup, they
should form one and call it sci.physics.plasma-fusion (or whatever). Their
type of fusion only works under extreme conditions like those in the sun.
Ours is much more general, much easier and cheaper to replicate, and ours
has much greater technological potential. So by any reasonable standard, we
are in the mainstream, and they are on the periphery of science.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.02 / John Logajan /  Re: Ian's stored heat hypothesis
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ian's stored heat hypothesis
Date: 2 Feb 1995 05:09:53 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Jorge Stolfi (stolfi@stack.dcc.unicamp.br) wrote:
:     > JL: Assuming a 12 inch aluminum rotor of width 4 inches
:     > JR: a cylinder about 2 feet in diameter and one foot in length.

Yeah, good point.  There are several variations of Griggs devices.  I should
be more careful about mixing numbers.

: So, your estimate may be off by a factor of 5 or so.

Not necessarily.  The GG device Jed photoed and described in the CFM
article appears to be essentially the physical size I described.  Only
the input HP power was mis-stated by me (20 HP instead of 50HP.)

So instead of 2.5 minutes to store 5MJ, it'd take 6.25 minutes to work
up that much stored heat energy using a 20 HP motor.

It is unlikely that the smaller unit/input power has a higher operating
temperature, so the input power correction would be the only factor that
should be altered in my previous post.

: First, how do you know there was no cooling?  Gene did NOT report the
: temperature, only the computed COP = (heat out)/(power in).  So you
: cannot tell which variable did what.

Well, yes, if there was cooling and a constant COP, then there must
have been another variable changing to compensate for the cooling to
keep the COP constant.  What is the hidden variable?


: after an unspecified "warmup" period, the input power drops suddenly
: by 33%.  Yet machine keeps producing steam/water at about the
: same temperature---so the computed COP increases by 50%, and 
: remains so for the next 10-20 minutes.  

I'm interested to know how the COP can remain constant in the face of your
purported cooling (which ought to follow the normal exponetial curve.)
How can you get a constant out of an exponentially changing primary input?
Seems to me you have to have an equal an opposite exponential co-factor.
What is the hidden variable?

--
 - 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:
cuddy2 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.02 /  jedrothwell@de /  B. Hamilton's fun factory & the GG
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: B. Hamilton's fun factory & the GG
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 95 00:13:46 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

In a message I did not see originally, B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
wrote:
 
     "I work in a building where the standard scientific laboratory has
     overhead travelling cranes, large doors for truck access to all the
     major labs. On this site we also have a engineering workshop that is
     contracted by industry to make precision components ranging from a few
     mm to large enough to test building earthquake bearings . . ."
 
Wow! As Kristjan put it, that sounds like fun. It sounds like the National
Bureau of Standards back when they called it that. I am sure you people could
handle the Griggs Gadget. It would be baby food for you.
 
However -- hold the presses -- such advanced industrial facilities may not be
needed after all. Bill Beaty has been investigating a very interesting new
independent replication of the GG. He mentioned it here briefly. I have not
signed on to that experiment quite yet, I need more data and a better feel for
it. I expect to get a ton of information in the coming weeks. It looks like we
may be in for a pleasant surprise here. Let me explain that in the previous
three incarnations of the GG I investigated, the trend appeared to be towards
bigness. The bigger the machine got, the better it worked. Kind of like hot
fusion, but not on the same nutty scale where it takes several nations to buy
one demo unit. Anyway, it looked like a small GG was not in the cards. Now
this new person has come along with a small, cheap one. Preliminary
indications are that it performs well, with a high c.o.p. that will be a cinch
to detect. Probably better than Griggs. This thing takes only 0.3 HP and he
can fabricate a gadget for approximately $100. So, if it turns out to be real
we have a nice simple, cheap way to verify the effect. Let us wait and see how
that turns out before revving up those overhead cranes.
 
After I said I saw no use for a small GG, some people contacted me and
suggested that it would be good for verification and good for the lab. I now
see the wisdom of that. If this new gadget works, it may be just what the
doctor ordered. I hope to work with the inventor to expedite testing and
building 10 or 20 of them. They will not be any use for any practical purpose,
but they will demonstrate the excess heat effect on a large scale, at a few
hundred watts we hope.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Feb  3 04:37:08 EST 1995
------------------------------
