1995.02.13 / William Beaty /  MRA true believer diatribe!
     
Originally-From: billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: MRA true believer diatribe!
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 19:44:56 GMT
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever

Richard A. Schumacher (schumach@convex.com) wrote:
: In <D3rIyo.C5v@eskimo.com> billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty) writes:

: >So, care to question my scientific knowledge in detail?  No, flame, I 
: >mean this seriously.

: Yes. Explain the engineering concept of "power factor", please,
: and how it pertains to accurate measurements.

Touche'!  Actually, my above request pertained to RMD's assertion that
anyone with scientific/engineering training would laugh at the MRA.  I'm
not laughing, because I assume such things may be possible.  I also assume
that such fields are largely unexplored, since conventional researchers
can't work in them without being suspected of insanity.  And RMD's idea
that everything in simple circuit dynamics is long known and SPICEable is
actually a dangerous idea, since it tends to supress the investigation of
old areas using fresh perspective.  After all, Chaotic Dynamics was hidden
in some presumably well-known little areas of physics (including
circuitry!) Chaotic oscillators were ignored as being uninteresting random
noise effects, and when researchers started taking these little areas
seriously, they were counciled against proceeding by people who thought
they were wasting time or even damaging their careers.  For decades,
wasn't it possible that ANYONE who decided that unruly coupled oscillators
were interesting, would have attained fame as the one who revealed the
basic characteristics of Chaos? 

Being a specialist more in digital than analog systems, my use of Power 
Factor stuff is a little rusty.  However, I'm a visual thinker and 
professional explainer, so let's see how I can do without picking up a book.

Power factor relates to simplified measurements of power, most often of
simple RL or RLC circuits excited by sinewaves, of which Norm's device is
of course not an example. (The MRA is supposed to have other waveforms
riding on the drive wave, as well as having nonlinear components.) In a
simple circuit, measurements of instantaneous power (by multiplying V and
I waveforms) will give a true indication of what is going on, and a value
for true average power can be found by numerically integrating the
instantaneous power over a single cycle, or by looking at the DC value
with an analog meter, as in true power meters.  But out in the real world,
digital scopes with math functions are scarce, power meters are ridicu-
lously expensive, and the widespread presence of sine waveforms make
things simplify-able.  So in a simple system, such as an AC motor, it
becomes possible to measure Vrms, Irms, and Phase angle separately, then
calculate the real power from (Vrms)x(Irms)xCOS(Phase).  Since Power
Factor relates the real power to the Vrms x Irms apparent power, I guess
the definition for simple Power Factor itself must be PF=COS(phase).  Is
this right? 

This can NOT be easily done in systems have multiple frequencies of
sinewave which lack constant phase relationships (which is what Norm
claims the MRA has) or in systems with non-sine waveforms (as someone
pointed out here last month, in regards to the switching power supply
"power factor" concept. 

When the MRA was initially announced, it was repeatedly attacked because
the phase angle of the input power was not quoted in the results.  This
was hilarious, because none of its attackers realized that Vrms x Irms
gives an OVERESTIMATE of input power, and gives an extremely pessimistic
measurement of energy throughput. 

In the mean time, Norm found that the insertion of a resistor or even a
current probe into the input line will spoil the anomalous effects.  Is
this a cop-out, self-deception, or just plain deviousness on Norm's part,
saying that any attempt at measuring the input power will make the "magic"
go away?  Could be.  Or he could be right, since the "magic" (if real) is
not following known principles, so it's not entirely unexpected that 
something like the insertion of a sampling resistor may indeed mess up 
the effect. 

What Puthoff and Little found was that Norm's next method of measuring
input power (by dragging down the output voltage via the MRA's impedance)
was faulty, because the MRA interacted with the inductance of the power
amplifier's output transformer, and the output voltage would then RISE
when the MRA was connected.  Norm should have been measuring power factor,
so he could have found that this effect was not implying overunity.  But
then, he was avoiding attempts to measure drive current, since they seemed
to mess up the effect. I wonder if the amplifier inductance also explains 
how the DC supply could provide less power when the MRA was connected?

It does seem to me that there must be SOME way that input power could be
measured accurately.  Norm DID measure the DC power supplied to the
amplifier stage driving the MRA.  It did go down when the MRA was
connected.  But the skeptical audience then backpedaled, and said that
there must be some effects which reduce the idling supply to the amp stage
while at the same time drawing more real power from the amp stage, which
masquerades as a Free Energy effect.  Someone else attempted to measure
current by using Motorola devices having a Kelvin current-sampling section
built into the silicon, but it turned out that these devices are all
designed for large current applications, and can't be accurately used for
MRA measurements. 

I suppose that nothing will come of the MRA unless one of the groups
working on it can either force it to put out massive, unmistakable amounts
of extra energy (like its predecessor, the Sweet Device was supposed to
have done,) or can close the loop and make it self-acting (which also
requires a significant amount of extra energy.)

So is the MRA dead?  Maybe.  I myself was never able to get the strange
effects to kick in, even when using identical parts to the original.  I
never saw the slow buildup of excess energy over hours. This suggests that
Norm is making a mistake which I am not making.  But it also suggests that
the history of Cold Fusion is being repeated, and when outside groups are
unable to replicate the effect and detect some faulty measurements, they
asssume that the original report is a complete mistake, and that they are
seeing all the effects that the original experimenters saw.  I can't
afford to make a "Pons and Fleichman" pilgrimmage to Norm's workbench to
see exactly what techniques he is using, so I cannot judge whether
ALL his claims are actually conventional effects. 

All of this stuff requires what I've been calling "Provisional Belief." 
If people believe that "Free Energy" devices are disgusting perpetual
motion scams, and if they see any serious investigation as soiling
themselves in the eyes of their peers, then these devices will be
inadvertantly suppressed.  Experimental evidence of gravity/electrical
connections are in the same boat, and are dumped in the dustbin as being
antigravity-UFO-engine crackpottery. 

If the Internet provides a safe forum for the exploration of "crazy"
devices, then it's possible that some incredible but ignored discovery
will finally make it past the barrier of Pathological Skepticism which
presently surrounds professional research.   Stay tuned, things might get 
very interesting very soon!



-- 
....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbillb cudfnWilliam cudlnBeaty cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.13 / mitchell swartz /  Don't buy no untested gadgets!  
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Don't buy no untested gadgets!  
Subject: Don't buy no untested gadgets!
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 19:47:23 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <9502131814.AA25418@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Don't buy no untested gadgets!
Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) writes:

=Look folks!  Anyone can stir water.  When I see the suggestion
=that $500 is a reasonable price to pay for a "miniature Griggs
=device" I begin to wonder if I shouldn't market a kit which
=consists of one Dremmel tool and a tin can.  Are there any
=takers - only $149.95 and I'll pay the shipping.  Seriously,
=what do you think would constitute a legitimate test of
=the Griggs effect?  If my test kit heats water with a C.O.P
=of just 80% what does that prove?  Haven't we been down
=this road before?
=
=Dick Blue

Dick,
  How about a road less travelled?
Why not just do the experiment first?  see what you get.
Post the power and energy ratios you actually obtain.
Your background would probably be invaluable, and
an actual experiment would probably make your criticisms
more believable.    ;-)

     - Mitchell Swartz  (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.13 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Tritium detection
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tritium detection
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 11:16 -0500 (EST)

I had previously posted an item where I was wondering about one of the CF
papers which indicated detection of 3 times the background level of tritium.  I
never got a response to this posting, so I suspect it may have gotten lost
somewhere.

Tritium has about a 12.3 year half-life and is not naturally occuring that I
know of.  Therefore I would expect that the abundance of tritium in the
environment and in materials to be 0.  3 times 0 is still 0.  Does anyone know
where this background tritium could be coming from?

Tritium can be produced in nuclear reactors.  Ie. bombarding Li6 with neutrons
will produce an alpha and tritium.  But a process like this can only occur in
any significant quantity in a man made reactor.  Could this be an artifact left
over from the atomic bomb tests of the 50's and 60's or is there another source
I am overlooking?

                                                                  Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.13 / James Stolin /  Re: Testing for o/u on Griggs hydrosonic pump
     
Originally-From: FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Testing for o/u on Griggs hydrosonic pump
Date: 13 Feb 1995 19:59:36 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) wrote:
..
>3. Start the hydrosonic pump.  Take measurements of the inlet water
>temperature, outlet temperature and pressure, electrical power into the 
main
>pump motor, and power being transmitted through the shaft, and flow rate 
at
>least once a minute.  Have all instruments being monitored between
>measurements to verify there are no deviations with a period less than 
twice
>the measurement period, to avoid aliasing or quantitization errors.
..
>Does anyone see anything I am missing on this first test proposal?
>

Marshall,

  I think taking measurements only once a minute might be a problem.  
I'd suggest monitoring by a computer and logging whenever temperature, 
pressure, etc changes.  This can be on a continuous basis limited by the 
response time of the computer sensors and  whatever measurement 
increments are selected.  The computer won't have a problem monitoring 
many instruments but a human mght have a problem monitoring and logging 
even one if changes are rapid.

  I'd also set up a video camera to resord the process.  The time should 
be superimposed on the video to correlate logged data with observable 
effects such as the blue steam.

-
James B. Stolin  -  Illinois Computer Service  -  FKNF40A@prodigy.com

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.13 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets!
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets!
Date: 13 Feb 1995 20:46:02 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <D3yEyz.BM4@world.std.com>, mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
wrote:

>   In Message-ID: <9502131814.AA25418@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>
> Subject: Don't buy no untested gadgets!
> Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) writes:
> 
> =Look folks!  Anyone can stir water.  When I see the suggestion
> =that $500 is a reasonable price to pay for a "miniature Griggs
> =device" I begin to wonder if I shouldn't market a kit which
> =consists of one Dremmel tool and a tin can.  Are there any
> =takers - only $149.95 and I'll pay the shipping.  Seriously,
> =what do you think would constitute a legitimate test of
> =the Griggs effect?  If my test kit heats water with a C.O.P
> =of just 80% what does that prove?  Haven't we been down
> =this road before?
> =
> =Dick Blue
> 
> Dick,
>   How about a road less travelled?
> Why not just do the experiment first?  see what you get.
> Post the power and energy ratios you actually obtain.
> Your background would probably be invaluable, and
> an actual experiment would probably make your criticisms
> more believable.    ;-)
> 

Thanks, Dick, for a levelheaded approach.  Although I have advocated buying
one of these units for testing, you are right in that we'll be quite the
chumps to spend $500 for a pig in a poke.  So, how about it, Mr. Huffman? 
Are you willing to offer a money-back guarantee of overunity performance?
--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.14 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Ultrasound
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ultrasound
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 18:17:37 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <199502140742.SAA02192@oznet02.ozemail.com.au>,
Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
>[SNIP]
>>     No, the question is why 'we' care about sound that is a
>>     consequence of the cavitation.  Observation that we have
>>     been offered absolutely no energy spectrum just begs the more
>>     fundamental question, to wit, 'Who cares?'
>>
>>     The observation that one can cause localized bubble formation
>>     using appropriately directed ultrasound seems to have no
>>     bearing on Griggs device at all beyond Jed's and others' apparent
>>     misapprehensions.
>>
>>                                 dale bass
>_____________________________________________________________
>There is one other outlandish possibility:
>Sound at various frequecies may be connected to ZPE by forced 
>oscillation of non-linear elements. (Anything from molecules to 
>quarks). So even if the chance is small, I for one would like to 
>know, especially as there is a reasonable chance that "something" is 
>going on.

     Apart from the observation that this speculation nothing to do with 
     what I'm talking about, how does one assign a probability
     to 'something going on'?

                          dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.14 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Testing for o/u on Griggs hydrosonic pump
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Testing for o/u on Griggs hydrosonic pump
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 18:19:38 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <WAF2PCB672729375@brbbs.brbbs.com>,
MARSHALL DUDLEY <mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com> wrote:
>I am trying to work up a schedule of tests to be made on the Griggs unit.  With
>several people there, we should be able to do several things at once.
...
>Therefore I propose the following protocol:
>
>1. Calibrate all thermometers with each other.

     Apparently the verb 'calibrate' has a different meaning here than
     the one usually associated with it.

                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.14 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets!
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets!
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 18:24:06 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <5Ay6rp+.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>Richard A Blue <blue@pilot.msu.edu> writes:
> 
>>Look folks!  Anyone can stir water.  When I see the suggestion
>>that $500 is a reasonable price to pay for a "miniature Griggs
>>device" I begin to wonder if I shouldn't market a kit which
>>consists of one Dremmel tool and a tin can.  Are there any
>>takers - only $149.95 and I'll pay the shipping.  Seriously,
> 
>You're on, Dick! I'll take it. You send me the data showing excess, and
>then you let my designated agent into your lab to do independent testing,
>and if he agrees there is excess heat from your Dremmel-and-can device,
>I will wire transfer you the money.
> 
>That's how the deal works, of course. How else? Do you think anyone would
>be so stupid as to buy a pig in a poke?

     So everyone sends an independent agent to Griggs lab to do independent
     testing on his device?  How costly and disruptive.

     Does Griggs pay the consultant if it turns out that he is sadly mistaken?

                            dale bass



     


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.13 / Dieter Britz /  Biblio update, 13-Feb-95
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Biblio update, 13-Feb-95
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 16:33:37 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

Hello all,
8 more papers from Maui. It looks as if there will be a small heap like this
after every weekend, I don't have the time during the week. By coincidence,
after a bit of discussion of pulsed current, we have a true pulsed current
paper (Celani+) here. If I understand this right, they applied only current
pulses, not steps in current from one value to another. This is interesting
to an electrochemist; in between pulses, you can measure the overpotential,
free from iR error (but there still are pitfalls). Cornog finds Au and Ag on
the surface and attributes these to transmutation; hmm. Dufour et al is one
for the zap-freaks. As with their paper a while ago, I find it a bit hard to
imagine doing accurate calorimetry in such a system, but they reckon they can.
Suspicious, too, is the fact that they get XS heat from just about anything,
but to be fair, when they say "more... than in the controls", they are talking
about 0.03 +- 0.54 going to about 1.6 +- ditto. So although this is only 3
sigmas, they might have called the control value (0.03) close to zero. I have
no problem with stainless steel; Fe does absorb some hydrogen, as corrosion
people know; and it is strange that noone much has used Fe.

Journal papers: Current count: 988
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#
Celani F, Spallone A, Tripodi P, Nuvoli A, Petrocchi A, Di Gioacchino D,
Boutet M, Marini P, Di Stefano V;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 127.
"High power microsecond pulsed electrolysis for high deuterium loading in
Pd plates".
** Experimental, loading, pulsed current electrolysis, calorimetry, res+
** no FPH refs
An electrolytic cell was used, with the Pt anode wire coiled around the
Pd cathode sheet, to minimise current nonuniformities and deuterium leakage
from the sheet edges. A cooling coil calorimeter was used. The evolved gas
was let into a chamber of either 100 cc or 1000 cc and the rise in pressure
was used to infer the D/Pd loading (by the deficit). Short (microsec) current
pulses of up to 100 A were applied to the cell at repetition rates of 100 Hz
to 20 kHz; this was found to increase loading to about 1. Cell voltages were
measured between pulses, about 30 microsec after a pulse to avoid the noise
caused by the pulses. Two kinds of cold-worked Pd were tried, one kind had
an unspecifed impurity (under patent). All reached the loading of 1, confirmed
by weighing (> 0.95). Up to 12% excess heat was found for some time, but not
with a gold cathode used as a control. No effect on excess heat by varying
current pulse rate was found. Excess heat might be correlated with high Pd
hardness and absence of surface cracks.
#..................................................................... Feb-95
Chindarkar AR, Paithankar AS, Baghwat AM, Naik GR, Iyengar SK, Srinivasan M;
Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 197.
"Observation of anomalous emission of high energy (ca. 1 MeV) charged
particles when 5 keV protons impinge on palladium and titanium foils".
** Experimental, ion implantation, protons, Pd, Ti, fractofusion,
** nonequilibrium, no FPH/Jones ref, res+
Pd and Ti (and one Gd) foils were implanted with a 5 keV, 0.1 mA/cm^2 proton
beam in a vacuum chamber for some hours and particle emission measured with a
CR-39 cp film thereafter (i.e. self targeting was avoided). With many foils,
the post-implantation count was higher than the pre-count by factors from 3 to
12. About 30-40% of the particles must have been at > 0.9 MeV, as measured by
various-thickness Al foil filters. Audioradiographs showed that there was a
noted lateral spread of hydrogen in the foils during the ca. 10-15 hours
implantation outside the ca. 1 cm^2 beam area. These results are not
understood but fractoemission may be responsible.
#..................................................................... Feb-95
Chubb SR, Chubb TA;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 414.
"The role of hydrogen ion band states in cold fusion".
** Theory, ion band states, high loading, no FPH/Jones refs, res+
The authors elaborate their ion band state theory. When wave-like ion band
states become occupied, d-d fusion can occur, leading to 4He but not to the
usual high-energy emission, under the right circumstances. Ion band states
avoid the Coulomb barrier; the energy of fusion is spread out into a
relatively large volume and can be absorbed as heat. The model predicts that
a loading of about 1 is needed and cracking should impede fusion, and might
cause high energy emissions upon sudden loss of order. Steady state output
power density should be proportional to (electrolytic) current density. Some
of these predictions come after the experimental observations. There is a
reference to FP-93 but none to the 1989/90 papers.
#..................................................................... Feb-95
Cornog RA;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 13.
"Cheap electric power from fusion?"
** Power generation from cold fusion
The authors describes some thoughts on power generation from fusion, hot and
cold, comparing this with fission. The heat must be converted to usable power
but one must consider input costs etc. In general, output heat must be more
than 10 times the input power to be useful. Cold fusion has the advantage of
heat without radiation and hopefully small cost of raw materials.
#..................................................................... Feb-95
Dash J, Noble G, Diman D;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 299.
"Surface morphology and microcomposition of palladium cathodes after electro-
lysis in acidified light and heavy water: Correlation with excess heat".
** Experimental, electrolysis, acid, excess heat, Pd, SEM, EDS, isotopes,
** no FPG/Jones ref, res+
Two cells were put in series, one with light, the other with heavy water, both
with Pd cathodes (0.35 mm thick), Pt (foil) anodes were used, the water
"acidified" with sulphuric acid (conc not given). SEM and EDS analysis showed
the presence of Au on the Pd surface in both cases, but more in the D2O cell.
This is explained as arising from d-d fusion, releasing neutrons which might
fuse with 196Pd, forming 197Pd, which decays to 197Au. Excess heat production
was also greater in the D2O cell than in the H2O one, consistent with this.
In another cell pair, Ag was found. Although this was initially present in the
Pd, so was Cu and this did not migrate to the surface; thus, the Ag, like the
Au, is from transmutation, this time from n+108Pd --> 109Pd --> 109Ag.  Again,
more excess heat was found in the D2O cell.
#..................................................................... Feb-95
Dufour J, Foos J, Millot JP;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 375.
"Cold fusion by sparking in hydrogen isotopes energy balances and search for
fusion by products".
** Experimental, spark discharge, Pd, Fe, excess heat, res+
Sparks, generated from a car ignition circuit, were repeatedly discharged into
a chamber containing D2 gas and some metals such as Pd or stainless steel
(other metals are mentioned but not specified). The chamber was part of a
calorimeter, calibrated by discharging through a resistor in the chamber
instead of the metal electrodes. With both metals tried and both D2 and H2
gas, excess heat in excess of any chemical process was found; it was greater
(by about 3 sigma) than the excess heat found in control experiments in which
N2 or O2 gas was substituted, or the metal and metal hydride electrodes were
covered by a dielectric barrier. The authors cannot entirely rule out a
systematic error, however, and further runs are needed. The results appear
consistent with the authors' virtual neutron concept, and nuclear products
will be searched for in future.
#..................................................................... Feb-95
Fedorovich GV;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 474.
"Ferroelectrics for cold fusion".
** Theory, fractofusion, ferroelectrics, res+, no FPH/Jones ref.
The author examines the conditions for optimising cold fusion brought about by
domain polarisation reversal in deuterated ferroelectrics, which produces
waves whose interaction with deuterons induces cold fusion, by acceleration of
the deuterons up to 200 eV or so. For this, the ferroelectric must be able to
easily polarise spontaneously, and its structure must allow highly mobile
deuterons. There is a Table of some suitable candidate ferroelectrics.
#..................................................................... Feb-95
Fernandez JF, Cuevas F, Alguero M, Sanchez C;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 307.
"The cubic-tetragonal phase transition in TiDx (x >= 1.7) and its possible
relation to cold fusion reactions".
** Experimental, Ti, gas phase, neutrons, phase transition, res-
Ti was deuterated from the gas phase (6 bar) and allowed to pass through the
transition from cubic to tetragonal, while monitoring for neutrons with three
NE213 detectors. Nothing was detected.
#..................................................................... Feb-95



How to retrieve the archived biblio files:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
1. By ftp from vm1.nodak.edu; log in as anonymous, giving your email
   address as password. Then cd to fusion. There are many files here, so
   do not use dir; if you are after the biblio files only, try
   dir fusion.cnf-*
   and then get or mget what you want.
2. Send an email to listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, blank subject and the message
   get fusion.<whatever you want>. To find out what there is, send
   index fusion
   This gets you an email with the directory of all files there, with which
   you can also match Fusion Digest numbers with file names, before getting
   those files. The index, or files you ask for, will be emailed to you.


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






cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.15 / Josef Frisch /  Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: frisch@hebe.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Josef C. Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph
sics.accelerators
Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 22:39:18 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

If these posts are going to continue to discuss various graphs in a public forum,
could someone please post the graphs in a form others can read. Otherwise we
cannot possibly follow the discussion, and it might be better to take it to
private e-mail. 

--- Joe Frisch ---

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenfrisch cudfnJosef cudlnFrisch cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.15 / Dieter Britz /  Biblio update correction
     
Originally-From: britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Biblio update correction
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 10:16:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hello starry droogs,

It has been pointed out to me that I made a mistake with the Dash paper,
which it seems I didn't read carefully enough. I have corrected this (but
not yet in the archive) and send the corrected abstract here. Previously,
I wrote that the gold was produced by the reaction n + 196Pd; this was in
fact 196Pt, which becomes 197Pt and then decays to 197Au (all according to
Dash; I just report it as it is - sometimes with mistakes). As I also now
write in the abstract, the Pt, not initially present in the Pd, comes from
the Pt anode, which is known to dissolve a bit - others have found Pt on the
cathode after long electrolysis.
Sorry about this, I'll try to take a bit more time to read these papers.
Here the corrected abstract:
#
Dash J, Noble G, Diman D;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 299.
"Surface morphology and microcomposition of palladium cathodes after electro-
lysis in acidified light and heavy water: Correlation with excess heat".
** Experimental, electrolysis, acid, excess heat, Pd, SEM, EDS, isotopes,
** no FPG/Jones ref, res+
Two cells were put in series, one with light, the other with heavy water, both
with Pd cathodes (0.35 mm thick), Pt (foil) anodes were used, the water
"acidified" with sulphuric acid (conc not given). SEM and EDS analysis showed
the presence of Au on the Pd surface in both cases, but more in the D2O cell.
This is explained as arising from d-d fusion, releasing neutrons which might
fuse with 196Pt, forming 197Pt, which decays to 197Au. The Pt comes from the
Pt anode, which does dissolve to some extent. No Au can be coming from the
anode, however. Excess heat production was also greater in the D2O cell than
in the H2O one, consistent with this.  In another cell pair, Ag was found.
Although this was initially present in the Pd, so was Cu and this did not
migrate to the surface; thus, the Ag, like the Au, is from transmutation, this
time from n+108Pd --> 109Pd --> 109Ag.  Again, more excess heat was found in
the D2O cell.
#
-- Dieter Britz  alias  britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.13 /  prasad /  Widely off! was re: Tiny *Griggs Type* Unit
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Widely off! was re: Tiny *Griggs Type* Unit
Date: 13 Feb 1995 21:47:08 GMT
Organization: sometimes

In article <3hmu9h$lh@deadmin.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
|> In article <3hfusd$1d5t@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> c1prasad@watson.ibm.com  
|> (prasad) writes:
|> 
|> > That I believe is the spirit of the
|> > patents law as well (like the hologram display with mag bubbles is
|> > someone else's contribution, but display with *phase* using circular
|> > polarization and reversing it to make a realtime "hologram camera",
|> > is mine (owned) - US pat, 1990).
|> > 
|> 
|> Does it actually work---i.e. have you ever built a prototype?

Nope!  Just couldn't afford it, at least till lately.  One of these days,
I'll try to convince some optics and mag film folks to try it, now that
I'm sitting here in Watson Research writing software!

A bit off the s.p.f. charter, but I'd say there's no reason for it
to not work.  But no one seems to be interested in a hologram *camera*.
The other thing's that all these big types have so burnt their fingers
with wrong approaches, now they can't tell when something's done right!
For example, saw an MIT prof talk about his decade+ projects in holography.
When asked why all the crazy rotating mirror drums, didn't you try a
magnetic bubble, he said, "Someone did suggest it, but since I wasn't
interested in the implementation side, only the compression side, I
didn't bother!"  A little later, I tried again: did he try reducing
the data rate by only using #voxels times 8 bits (or whatever)?  "Nope,
I wasn't interested in the data rates, I was only interested in the
implementation side!"  Having drawn a few dirty stares by then, and
feeling quite overwhelmed by the human side of things, I shut up!  After
all, he said he was funded by every big computer company I could name,
so they must all be right!!

You'd think if they wanted 3D TV etc, they'd someday get around asking
for a hologram camera, instead of only working on the displays...  I've
tried on sci.optics as well, but found even less systems-oriented
approach there.

The method is extremely simple, any kid with an electronics lab can
do it, if he's got some magnetic thin film samples from somewhere.
Since I'm new in the country, and getting old, just let me know if
anyone's interested.  I've even found an interested "venture capitalist",
but he's basically a software type himself, and I feel grossly inadequate
going it on my skills alone, especially because I'm doing some key
work in energy (yup, the $25 and $20 contribs are only indicative of
my growing theoretical iceberg!) and would rather have someone with
a fulltime passion...

The only limitation I know of is that mag bubbles used to be slow
to operate.  But then, those were '67-'76 figures.  Things should have
improved a lot since.

// email: 71155.3116@CompuServe.com

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.13 /  prasad /  Seeking Ray Conley. Re: Excess Heat Replication
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Seeking Ray Conley. Re: Excess Heat Replication
Date: 13 Feb 1995 21:56:34 GMT
Organization: sometimes

I'd replied to Scott Little:

|> Maybe you should talk to the student who showed us his nice little
|> calorimeter and reported o/u over 3 hr runs at the Cold Fusion Day?
|> (got to dig into my report somewhere on this disk...)
|> 
|> warm <no pun> regards.

As I recall from my notes, the name was Ray Conley (sp?).  Wish I'd
taken down his address.  Would anyone know how to reach Ray?  You
might email it to me or to Scott.

Thanks.

-- 
// email: 71155.3116@CompuServe.com.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.13 / Jollie MM /  Re: COLD FUSION CULT
     
Originally-From: jolliemm@aol.com (Jollie MM)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION CULT
Date: 13 Feb 1995 18:17:08 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Everything in the Universe is free.  You did exactly nothing to inherit
it. 
TANSTAAFL is bullshit to keep niggers and the like in line.  The role of
physics discourse is to learn just what the universe is and how we might
tap
it,  Millions, yea tens of millions, yea hundreds of millions have endured
misery that an educated class might emerge to learn how to GIVE an
inheritance to all of humanity's children.  Get on with the dream and
above
all have respect for the toil of your ancestors who gave you the free
lunch of
our current civilization.
A Friend...
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjolliemm cudfnJollie cudlnMM cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.10 /  prasad /  Caution too late! was Re: Excess baggage
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Caution too late! was Re: Excess baggage
Date: 10 Feb 1995 13:48:55 GMT
Organization: sometimes

In article <9502081550.AA19240@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>, blue@pilot.msu.edu
(Richard A Blue) writes:
|> parties.  It is unfortunate that arrangements for the trip
|> had to be made on such a public forum with the result that
|> the whole world knows about it.  I vote for keeping it simple.

Dick, the value of the trip is *because* it got proposed and
sponsored on this public forum.  We already have had people
going privately and reporting what they saw.  That includes Jed.

Your issue really is, anyone who does go and report positively can't
be believed anymore, while anyone who goes and reports negatively
would be believable.  That has nothing to do with how the visit
got sponsored.

The publicity stakes the individual's reputation, and he would
apparently have a choice of being labelled skeptic, gullible,
or useless, depending on whether he reports against, for or
avoids presenting any opinion.  Rather late to caution, Dick.
Tom's got the tightrope going...

Anyone who reports on controversies needs to be adept at the game!
Usually, it's safest to merely report observations, sit back and
watch the readers opine and whine :)

My reason for backing Tom is that it helps keep the data (incl
Tom's views) coming.  Hopefully, the mindless emotions will fight
one another and kill themselves, and the physical mechanisms will 
eventually unfold.

-- 
// email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com.

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.14 / Kim Elms /  Bogle/Chandler and Dalton Info Request Please
     
Originally-From: elms@fit..qut.edu.au (Kim Elms)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bogle/Chandler and Dalton Info Request Please
Date: 14 Feb 1995 04:15:44 GMT
Organization: Queensland University of Technology

Dr Bogle and Dr Chandler were scientists working on Atomic Fast Breeder 
Reactor program during the 1960's in Australia and the United Kingdom.

Any information anybody ahs regarding these two gentleman and or their
work and their mysterious deaths would be most welcome, as I am
researching this topic for a book.

Thanks for your help in advanced.

Kim
elms@fit.qut.eud.au
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenelms cudfnKim cudlnElms cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.15 / Richard Blue /  Where tritium comes from
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Where tritium comes from
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 15:46:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Marshall Dudley assumes that there is no "natural" tritium because
the half life is only 12 years.  The rather short half life does
not preclude there being a "natural" background of tritium available
to screw up cold fusion experiments.  It just adds the requirement
that there must be an ongoing process that creates tritium.  Actually,
the present concentration of tritium in the environment is the
result of natural processes and of nuclear weapons testing.

Whether the source of the background tritium is "natural" or not,
the fact that must be kept in mind when evaluating CF claims for
tritium detection is that tritium is around at detectable levels.
More importantly one simply cannot assume that the tritium
concentration is at some specified handbook value or that it will
stay at that level troughout the course of an experiment.  Observation
of tritium or even of an increase in tritium concentration does not
constitute proof that tritium has been produced by a particular
process under investigation.  It may be an artifact!

When you buy D2O through normal channels you get a product that
has a significantly higher concentration of tritium than ordinary
tap water.  That is a result of the fact that the process used
to concentrate D20 from ordinary water also increases the concentration
of tritium in the water.  Isn't it suggestive that the process,
electrolysis, that is used to concentrate heavy water is the same
one that is supposed to induce cold fusion as indicated by an
increase in the concentration of tritium?

One also should not be blind to the fact that there exist on the
face of the earth some locations where the concentration of tritium
far exceeds the average value.  Just to keep you thinking I will
suggest that the average, normal airplane cockpit is one example
where this is likely true.  Los Alamos national laboratory almost
certainly has some tritium hotspots, just as a certain laboratory
at Texas A&M had a significant tritium hotspot that gained some
attention a few years back.

If you become alarmed at the notion that radioactive tritium may
be transported in large concentrations all around the world, never
fear.  Much of the total inventory of tritium is maintained in a
stable, solid form as tritium hydride.  Among the metals favored for
making tritium hydride in the processing of tritium is Palladium.
Now isn't that a surprise?

When you buy D2O the supplier may tell you what the tritium
content is, if you ask, because it is easy to determine.  However,
when you buy palladium your supplier is unlikely to give you
a specification as to hydrogen content.  Tritium content is
also generally not in the specs.

Next question.  Where does 3He come from?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.15 / Richard Blue /  Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 16:16:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Some of you seen to have missed the point when I offered to
sell you a Griggs Device demonstration kit which was untested.
Jed Rothwell was ready to sign up.  Of course he wanted some
assurance that the thing would actually work.  All I can
guarantee is that it will heat water.  Now it seems that all
Jim Griggs actually guarantees is that his version will heat
water.  Anyone who would recommend that someone pay $10,000
for a GG should be willing to spend $150 just to check out
the physics, right?


I don't know how you spend your money (or time), but I would
assume that in most cases you would spend it where you have
some reasonable expectation of receiving something of value
in return.  If a Mr. Huffman offers to sell a test version
of the Griggs device what do you expect to receive?  In what
way will a Huffman device be better than the version I have
offered?

Now lets get right down to the question.  What constitutes a
legitimate Griggs Device?  Does anything that whirls around
and makes noise in water meet your specifications?  What do
we know to be the essential features of a GG?

What we seem to know most about are several features that
are not essential.  It is not essential, we are told, to
make the rotor of alumiunum and the housing of steel.
Pick you materials. Anything will work, right?  It is
not essential to make the GG in a certain size or shape.
It can be, we are told, scaled to meet your needs.  Must
the rotor be fashioned in a particular way? Must input and
output ports be sized and located with care? Must the
fluid gap meet some carefully calculated specification?
It seems that no matter what you do you will get something
that stands a good chance of working.

I think there is a lesson in all this.  Whenever you know
nothing about the essential underlying principles by which
a gadget operates, you can make an arbitrarily large investment
in the exploration of all the various possible forms of that
gadget.  I don't believe that to be a good way to spend finite
resources.  My bias says that we are better off using a knowledge
of physics to guide further explorations.  If you have no clue
as to  what the essential physics that underlies the operation
of the Griggs device may be, you are just wasting resources when
you blindly sign on to the notion that anything will work;

and "We don't need no theory!"

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.15 /  vnoninski@fscv /  Transmutation ?
     
Originally-From: vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Transmutation ?
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 16:31:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dear Colleagues,

I just want to let you know that for some time I have been doing some work on 
Bockris' et al's claims concerning increased levels of nuclear emissions and 
transmutation due to a chemical process. Some of this work will appear in 
J.Sci. Exploration and elswhere. In a word, the initially observed increases 
in the gamma and beta counts turned out to be due to trivial causes. Trivial 
turned out to ba also the gold signal detected during the netron-activation 
analyses done at the nuclear reactor at one of the nearby Universities.

Truly yours,



Vesselin Noninski

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenvnoninski cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.14 / Anthony Siegman /  Re: Griggs Question
     
Originally-From: siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Question
Date: 14 Feb 1995 05:35:19 GMT
Organization: Leland Stanford Junior University

barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:

>I suggest the most important thing you can get from Griggs
>is a precise description of exactly what he does to compute 
>an over unity performance (for each of the independent ways
>in which he does so)...

>The point hs: the most important thing you can do in your visit is
>probably discover exactly what the _claim_ is....

   Amen!!  The absolutely first and primary task, before you'll even
consider looking at anything else, is to get on record: WHAT does he
claim he can do?  WHEN?  WHERE?  HOW OFTEN?  FOR HOW LONG?

   (And, to complete the What/When/Where sequence, NOT How -- not
interested in theories, just WHAT does he claim he can do.)


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudensiegman cudfnAnthony cudlnSiegman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.15 / Mike Kelsey /  Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: kelsey@jupiter.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Mike Kelsey)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph
sics.accelerators
Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 16:23:30 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <3hrbdk$slm@borg.svpal.org>, lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) writes:
|> 
|> >>Again I asked you ......If you wish to claim that what I have
|> >> on tape (100,000+ events) are NOT neutrino interactions,......
|> 
|> No, I would like to have you explain how so many events have been 
|> recorded.  Neutrinos are supposed to be hard to detect.  How did so many 
|> neutrinos deside to stop in the flash chamber, after 1000 meters of 
|> berm,  two bubble chambers, lab E and the steel of the final bend 
|> magnet,  and get their picture taken?  Boggles the mind!

100,000 events is an incredibly *LOW* rate, actually.  I'm an e+ e- physicist,
not a fixed target grunt (okay, okay, "beam envy"...).  Each spill at Fermilab,
as was discussed many messages ago in this thread, contains approximately
10^12 (that's 1,000,000,000,000) protons.  Given the energies involved,
they should end up with roughly the same number of pions coming down the
pike and decaying into muons and neutrinos.  So, the "neutrino beam" contains
about 10^12 particles _per_spill_.  Now, Mr. Hatcher's experiment (E-733)
ran for 4100 hours (according to the SPIRES Experiment Database, see URL
<http://www.slac.stanford.edu/FIND/experiments?find+exp+FNAL-733>).  That
corresponds to roughly 10^7 spills (I'm assuming one spill per 3 seconds,
with no downtime), or a grand total of or 10^19 neutrinos!  And out of that
they recorded 10^5.  I certainly wouldn't call that "so many", not at a
detection/production ratio of 10^-14 (0.00000000000001).

Mr. Hatcher, if my back-of-the-envelope estimates are off, I'd appreciate it
if you could provide more accurate numbers.

Just my two cents worth.  I've been lucky enough to keep out of the rest
of this, er, discussion...
						-- Mike Kelsey
-- 
[ My opinions are not endorsed by SLAC, Caltech, or the US government ]
 "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.  Attack ships on fire
  off the shoulder of Orion. I've watched C-beams glitter in the dark
  near the Tannhauser Gate.   All these moments will be lost in time,
  like tears in rain."                                    -- Roy Baty
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenkelsey cudfnMike cudlnKelsey cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.13 / Ron Mcfarland /  Current Status?
     
Originally-From: ron.mcfarland@uffda.mn.org (Ron Mcfarland)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Current Status?
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 11:35:00 -0600

Greetings, all.  Just started getting this highly provacative and
interesting newsgroup, but wasn't able to get a re-scan.  I've not
seen much about cold fusion since an electronics mag published a
'try it yourself' project (I didn't, due to cost).

Anyone have the time and inclination to nutshell the current state
of cold fusion for my (and possibly others) curiosity satisfaction?
Many years have gone by since that mag article, and I've not much
of a clue as to why we don't all have reactors in our basements!
Thanks much, in advance, for sharing facts and ideas publicly.

 * SLMR 2.1a * INET E-Mail: ron.mcfarland@uffda.mn.org.


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmcfarland cudfnRon cudlnMcfarland cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.15 / Tom Droege /  Re: Griggs Question
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Question
Date: 15 Feb 1995 17:36:51 GMT
Organization: fermilab

This is pretty much what I plan(see below) to do.  Talk to Griggs,
look at his test proceedure, see how he thinks about experimentation,
look at his log books, see how he takes data, see how he analyzes 
data.  

I do not plan to take a video camera or a tape recorder.  Those tactics
are for the press.  I plan to make a thoughtful, courteous visit. My 
assumption is that Griggs is an honest business man.  I will try to 
determine exactly what he claims.  

Then I will come home.  Such a visit will only take a half day or so
of Mr. Griggs time. Sorry people, this is as long as I expect to be
able to concentrate over the three day travel time.  A day to travel 
and rest up, a day at Griggs, and a day to come home.   

Then the real test of the Griggs device.  Does he show me something
that causes me to attempt duplication?  My pledge to you is that I 
will attempt duplication if my visit convinces me that the Griggs 
device is over unity from whatever cause.  I will also write up my 
observations for this group.  But do not expect a long and detailed
analysis.  You are financing the foot test.  I either attempt duplication
or I walk away.  I am prepared to spend what it takes if I am convinced
of over unity operation.  I believe I can also get venture capatilist 
support if it requires more assets than I have at my disposal.

Tom Droege

In article <3hp076$7a1@deadmin.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) says:
>
>Tom (and others):
>
>I suggest the most important thing you can get from Griggs
>is a precise description of exactly what he does to compute 
>an over unity performance (for each of the independent ways
>in which he does so). Ideally, this would be a logical description
>coupled to a step by step demonstration, from start to finish, from
>setting up the instruments through plugging the final numbers through
>the calculator.
>
>The point his: the most important thing you can do in your visit is
>probably discover exactly what the _claim_ is. Since, in all reality, his
>device does not produce more energy than it puts out, it is all
>an artifact of a specific procedure, and so that procedure---being 
>one of zillions possible---has to be spelled out precisely, preferably beyond
>verbal/logical description, and instead at the operational level: i.e.
>here's exaclty what I do to produce this over unity calculation.
>
>This is something that would be worth recording on video tape, in its 
>entirety, but minimally maybe you could tape record + snap key photos.
>
>As any mathematician knows---the error in the proof is always in the 
>parts that were assumed obvious. You can't really start to guess what 
>those are without seeing the precise procedure, completely.
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>Barry Merriman
>UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
>UCLA Dept. of Math
>merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
>
>
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.14 / Todd Pedlar /  Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: todd@numep4.phys.nwu.edu (Todd K. Pedlar)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph
sics.accelerators
Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
Date: 14 Feb 1995 15:51:31 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University


In article <3hlq10$mra@borg.svpal.org>, lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) writes:
|>> Robert W. Hatcher (hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu) Writes:
|>
|>> (snip)
|>> Huh? I've already shown you, with the plot of the observed energy 
|>> distribution compared with theory that there is NO WAY IN HELL
|>> THAT THE CROSS SECTION IS ENERGY INDEPENDENT OR
|>> DECREASING WITH ENERGY. 
|>
|>Whoa!  Are you referencing to Figure C.1?  There is a *higher* low energy 
|>peak due to pion decays, and a *lower* peak at high energy  due to 
|>kaons.  No linear increase with energy in those plots.
|>
|> I know there are electron type neutrinos and muon type neutrinos, but I 
|>am reasonably sure that those neutrinos do not (cannot) penetrate light 
|>years of lead, have a cross section that *increases* with energy, and 
|>travel at the velocity of light.
|>
|>These three characteristics are mutually exclusive.
|>
|>> I don't see how....care to show us anything more significant than your
|>> blind assertion that they are.
|>
|>Sure.  We know why the photon travels at (c) = 2.99792458 x 10^8 m/s from 
|>Maxwell's equation, giving it a wave particle duality, momentum and 
|>energy.   How can the neutrino travel at (c) and carry energy and escape 
|>the wave particle duality that all known natural entities require? 
|>

Regardless of the speed of the neutrino, it can carry energy, momentum, and
just like every other particle known to man, has wave-particle duality.  Why
do you even question whether it can escape it?

|>Every particle, including the photon, has a cross section that 
|>*decreases* with energy, how is it possible fro the neutrino to violate 
|>this rule?

It does not violate any rule.  Several, nay many, interactions have cross
sections which increase with energy, in addition to the neutrino-nucleon
cross section.  Among these are proton-proton, proton-antiproton, 
proton-neutron, photon-proton, kaon-proton... others show tendencies to do 
so, though it is not entirely conclusive: pion-proton, antiproton-neutron,
etc.  Decrease in cross section with energy is hardly universal.
  
|>
|> Unless these (and other) questions have cogent answers, the neutrino 
|>detection claims are moot.  It is not a question of *disproving* all the 
|>ambiguous experiments.  The basis theory of neutrino actions has to be 
|>justified.  Failing that, it then becomes the experimenters job to find 
|>an escape clause.  
|>
|>Neutrinos exist, but cannot be claimed to have ever been *directly* or 
|>*unambiguously* detected.

Neither have electrons, pions, or anything else but the photons hitting 
your eye as you read this... and even the directness of that can be 
argued with.  Why is this a criterion for your disagreement with the
data??  We cannot see photons using a lead glass calorimeter any more
"directly" than the folks over at the neutrino beamlines detect their
neutrino events.  Ambiguity is something you have to judge for yourself..
I know your position on the matter, but I don't agree nor can I really
see your point.  Cosmic rays can be effectively cancelled out.  Solar
neutrinos are irrelevant.  These experiments are carefully laid out
so that *nothing* coming from the direction which the neutrinos do 
can impact the detection apparatus.  These experiments are difficult to 
do, but not as ambiguous in interpretation as you would have people
believe.

|>
|>The reason particle physics has failed is that models should  start with 
|>energy, then we could tell how energy *knots* up into the several 
|>particles, and we would *know* what characteristics (and particles) are 
|>possible and which are not.
|>
|>See for example "VECTOR PARTICLE PHYSICS" ISBN 0-9631546-1-3  for the 
|>structure of the electron type and muon type neutrinos, knotted from an 
|>energy model.

This shameless plugging of your book is getting tiresome.

|>--
|>Thomas N. Lockyer <lockyer@svpal.org>     
|>1611 Fallen Leaf Lane
|>Los Altos, CA USA 94024-6212
|>Tel. (415)967-9550
|>

______________________________________________________________________________
Todd K. Pedlar                ! "Science walks forward on two feet, namely 
Graduate Student              ! theory and experiment.  Sometimes it is one
High Energy Physics           ! foot which is put forward first, sometimes     
Northwestern University       ! the other, but continuous progress is only 
 -----------------------------! made by the use of both..."
  todd@numep2.phys.nwu.edu    !				      R. Millikan
  toddp@fnalv.fnal.gov        !
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudentodd cudfnTodd cudlnPedlar cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.14 / Scott Little /  Re: Testing for o/u on Griggs hydrosonic pump
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Testing for o/u on Griggs hydrosonic pump
Date: 14 Feb 1995 18:12:15 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

>I am trying to work up a schedule of tests to be made on the Griggs unit.  With
>several people there, we should be able to do several things at once.

Good start, Marshall.  Don't forget to check calibration of in-line
torque sensor.  The readings of this device are every bit as critical to
the final result (i.e. the C.O.P.) as the temperature readings.  

The only thing I guess you can probably take for granted is the scale they]
use to weigh the water with...that technology is supremely mature.

Having said that, I would, of course, check out the scale if everything else
checks out!  

When confronted with history-making observations, one cannot be too careful
in verifying said observations.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Feb 16 04:37:05 EST 1995
------------------------------
