1995.03.01 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Cold Fusion Setup
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Setup
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 17:10:28 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On 25 Feb 1995, Matt Austern wrote:

> In article <D4Iw1J.87F@freenet.carleton.ca> au559@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
(Wojtek Antoszkiewicz) writes:
> 
> > 	I attend St.Paul's High School in Nepean Ontario Canada.
> > I was told that this was the place to post this message.  Our physics
> > departament has allowed me and a group of students conduct a cold fusion
> > experiment.  We have but one problem, we don't have the recipie.
> 
> Why not conduct an N-rays experiment instead?  The materials are
> cheaper.
> --
> 
>                                --matt
 
That's not nice, Matt. There is a lot of physics and chemistry to learn even
from an experiment you know will not give any results, other than (if done
properly) zero +- <something> excess heat. That zero would be worth the
effort. So Wojtek: there are quite a few kinds of 'cold fusion' experiments.
I would not recommend the original Fleischmann, Pons and Hawkins sort, because
your teacher would jack up at the cost of the heavy water itself. Neither
would he/she be happy about Italian style CNF, Ti metal and D2 gas, with
temperature cycling between liquid N2 and ambient. The cheapest is no doubt
the Ni cathode in light water with K2CO3; it will be best to use a Pt anode,
and this is of course expensive. But there might be some Pt wire, or even a Pt
crucible, in the lab.
To get the recipe, if you have access to wais, go into wais at sunsite.unc.edu,
go into the cold fusion data base and look for "Ni " and "light water", or
"Bush", and you'll find the papers that describe this kind of cell. If you
can't do this, email me and I'll look up the papers for you, or at least the
references. This kind of experiment involves electrolysis and calorimetry,
and you'll learn a lot. Some people reckon that this is the scenario which
yields lots of excess heat every time, no trouble.  Have fun.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.01 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Heard any good ultrasound lately?
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heard any good ultrasound lately?
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 1995 11:26 -0500 (EST)

aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki) writes:
 
->  I would not recommend using an air mike or a throat mike to attempt to
-> record any ultrsound. That is, I assume by ultrsound, you mean
-> ultra-high frequency sound. Microphones are generally optimised for
-> voice and music frequencies of 20-20,000 cycles per second. You would be
-> really pushing it in trying to record ultra high frequency sound from
-> them. Particularly bad would be a throat mike which is designed for a
-> very limited voice freuency range (100-3,000 cps). Rather look into
-> sonar related equiptment (military surplus?) or some other
-> transucer-'microphones'.
 
That is a good point.  I have a number of piezo tranducers as well, but for the
most part they have a very strong resonate frequency, and would probably not
work well either unless the ultrasound is the same frequency as the resonance.
I will try and research this and see what I can find.  I would certainly be
willing to purchase whatever transducer would be necessary, as long as it isn't
too expensive.
 
->    Also, using a tape recorder is fine for audio sound but I would
-> suggest using a video camera on macro focus setting to record the
-> oscilloscope display of a transducer output for ultra high frequency
-> sounds (actually any vibrations). The display is correlated with the
-> noted oscilloscope settings to determine the frequency and relative
-> strength of the display, of course.
 
I had planned on taking a video recorder.  After talking to Griggs I am not
sure if I will be permitted to.  I was waiting for the release they are suppose
to be sending me for clarification.  Unfortunately they seem to have delayed
getting it mailed to me.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.02 / Paul Koloc /  Re: economic reviews
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: economic reviews
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 06:12:37 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3ighfv$se7@deadmin.ucsd.edu> barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>In article <1995Feb22.151149.9516@reks.uia.ac.be> aeulaers@zorro.ruca.ua.ac.be  
>(Ali Eulaers) writes:
>> I wondered if some of you have theories about the economic feasability of  
>>fusion energy.
>> .. .
>If you believe that Cost Of Electricity is the prime econ factor
>(this is the cost to produce the electricity at the plant), then
>Tokamak based fusion reactors extrapolated from present devices
>suck. The projected COE is 2--8 times that of current fission reactors, .. 
.. .
>However, the actual cost to consumers includes distribution costs,
>which are about 10 times larger than the cost of producing the electricity.
>Thus in terms of what the end user pays, even if the additional COE
>were passed directly to the consumer ( its an added 0.1--0.4 cents/KWH)
>they would scarcley notice the difference.

> add in the Distribution costs for electricity from tokamk;  ... they 
would scarcely notice the difference???   

***Future energy news byte*** 
The cost of getting electricity from the sole surviving (the one the 
north pole sunk!) operational tokamak covering the South pole has proven
to be more costly than first anticipated.  The cabling under the straits
of ..  


>So, in the latter sense, there is no economic problem---I.e. if we switched to
>fusion, it would not disrupt the economy (but it would disrupt accounting
>at the utilities).

Not for their first interest free and only month of Power-generating 
life. And where do they ship the plutonium it bred to make up a fraction 
of there commercial short-fall?    

>--
>Barry Merriman
>UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
>UCLA Dept. of Math
>merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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:
cuddy2 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.02 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Heard any good ultrasound lately?
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heard any good ultrasound lately?
Date: 2 Mar 1995 03:43:03 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE


Rather than worry about ultrasound---which I don;t see as having
any clear bearing on whether its over unity or not---I would
suggest simply doing a good job of the power in and heat out
measurements, for a room temp to room temp run.

Thus, all one needs is a scope that can accurately integrate
I*V (this will give a triply redundant power in measurement,
when combined with Griggs existing watt meter and torque meter), 
and suitable technique for capturing the thermal
energy of the outgoing steam + water (Jeds approach of capturing
it all in a large water resevoir seems reasonable), and measuring its
temp.

I still don't think that a shotgun approach to measurements is
going to help---you need to know what you are looking for. In this
case, we are looking for a simple power balance measurement, and preferably
one that includes Jed's experiment as a sub-experiment, so that we
can make some comparisons between the two.

If you want to measure other things (ultrasound, N rays, etc), fine,
but not at the expense of any resources (time, effort, money) better
put into the thing we are really looking for.


--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.01 /  Zoot /  Cold Fusion Qestions #1
     
Originally-From: zoot131@aol.com (Zoot 131)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion Qestions #1
Date: 1 Mar 1995 16:24:24 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

        Hello, my name is Keith and I am currently in high school.  For
the last month and a half I have been researching the cold fusion
phenominon.  So far I am all for it, it is extremely interesting!  But I
have come across a few questions. 
  
   1)  Why is it possible for Deuterium to fuse and not regular hydrogen
(even durring extreme temperatures)?  Is it because of the added mass of
the neutron, if so does that mean that the Coulomb Barrier is relative to
each element?

  2) Is the Fracto-fusion scenario possible?  If there have been studies
that prove that Palladium without microcracks produces more heat how could
fracto-fusion work?

  3) Randel Mills had announced a theory in wich the energy is released by
the collapse or shrinkage of the electron shell around the Hydrogen atom. 
How can the electron shell shrink? The only possible way that I could come
up with is to make the element a positive ion, but how would this apply to
hydrogen?

  And lastly if anyone has any information about cold fusion or where to
find additional information it would be greatly appreciated.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenzoot131 cudlnZoot cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.02 / A Plutonium /  Question to Mr. Morrison of CERN, or others
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Originally-From: drom@vxcern.cern.ch
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Question to Mr. Morrison of CERN, or others
Subject: Producing a Neutrino beam in a Particle Accelerator.
Date: 2 Mar 1995 18:18:26 GMT
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 18:22:58 GMT
Organization: Plutonium Atom Foundation
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Below is a repeat of a posting. I ask for what literature or references
exist for this claim.    "Recently there have been a series of postings
about neutrinos. Think it began with a question from Mr. Plutonium
asking if a neutrino beam had been fired at a superconductor? The
answer is yes. Neutrino beams created at CERN and at Fermilab have been
directed at large bubble chambers, some 4 metres in diameter, which
have a magnetic field of some 30 000 gauss created by cryogenic
magnets. No abnormal effects were observed and there were no
differences whether a neutrino or a hadronic beam was used."

That is, journal reports?

Second, you may be 100% correct Mr. Morrison. And I may be 100% wrong
with neutrinos being the mechanism of superconductivity. But I doubt
it. Because only neutrino particles go through matter that can match
the phenomenon of superconductivity. So. I think that this is probably
the case. 

Yes a superconductor was fired at with neutrino beam with no observable
effect. But, what kinds of neutrinos? Was the Meissner effect in place
when the neutrino beam was fired? Was the neutrino beam fired at
different angles-- keep in mind that it may be a interference pattern
that may be discovered. And that the above experiment, Mr. Morrison was
probably not set up to be an experiment to look for abnormalities with
superconductivity and neutrino beams (again what type of neutrinos).

Now, reflect back on physics history. How many years elapsed between
the time humanity had electric currents and the moment when Oersted saw
something abnormal with a compass needle? 

How many years elapsed between Hall discovering the Hall effect and the
quantized Hall effect?

Noone has made the claim that neutrinos are the mechanism of
superconductivity, and so of course, noone has put superconductivity to
detailed experimentation at many angles, different neutrinos, the
Meissner effect. These detailed experiments have yet to be performed.

---- quote was got from this post---
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Originally-From: drom@vxcern.cern.ch
Subject: Producing a Neutrino beam in a Particle Accelerator.
Reply-To: drom@vxcern.cern.ch
Sender: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Message-ID: <9502231803.AA04670@dxmint.cern.ch>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 18:22:58 GMT
Lines: 139
---- end of reference---
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.03 / C Cagle /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: singtech@teleport.com (C. Cagle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 1995 04:09:57 -0800
Organization: Singularity Technologies, Inc.

In article <3ioka0$g72@deadmin.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry
Merriman) wrote:


> No wishes more than I that it would be possible to say "tokamks cannot
> ever produce economically viable power, so there is no point pursuing
> them as energy resources".
> 
> But the reality is this: present projections show rather the opposite: yeah, 
> it looks like it will produce power within the realm of practical 
> economy, but it wont be very elegant, there will be substantial rad waste
> unless you can get good materials, there is much difficult engineering
> to be done, and the plnt captial costs are large, thus requiring 
> governmnet backed loans in ordr for utilities to be interested.
> 

Barry, get real.  Present projections are pack of lies if they even think
they could ever get break even.  And you must know this.  If you don't
then you might consider that you are beyond help.

Princeton has been sucking the taxpayers dry.  It has to stop!  Don't let
them continue to con you.

Regards,

C. Cagle
cudkeys:
cuddy03 cudensingtech cudfnC cudlnCagle cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.28 / dave pierson /  Re: Heard any good ultrasound lately?
     
Originally-From: pierson@cimcad.enet.dec.com (dave pierson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heard any good ultrasound lately?
Date: 28 FEB 95 19:57:41
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

>>Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) wrote:
>>: As far as I am able to recall the evidence for saying that the Griggs
>>: pump produces ultrasound is that Jed Rothwell "heard" it.  Is there
>>: possibly a problem with this data?

	hmmmm.

	Wouldit be practical/desirable to add a portable spectrum analyzer,
	contact pickup, etc, to Tom's travelling kit???


thanks
dave pierson			|the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation	|the opinions, my own.
200 Forest St			|I am the NRA.
Marlboro, Mass 01751		|pierson@msd26.enet.dec.com
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenpierson cudfndave cudlnpierson cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.28 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Heard any good ultrasound lately?
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heard any good ultrasound lately?
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 21:34 -0500 (EST)

pierson@cimcad.enet.dec.com (dave pierson) writes:
 
 
-> >>Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) wrote:
-> >>: As far as I am able to recall the evidence for saying that the Griggs
-> >>: pump produces ultrasound is that Jed Rothwell "heard" it.  Is there
-> >>: possibly a problem with this data?
->
->         hmmmm.
->
->         Wouldit be practical/desirable to add a portable spectrum analyzer,
->         contact pickup, etc, to Tom's travelling kit???
 
I think you are confused here.  Tom is not taking any measurements from what I
can understand.
 
Measurements are going to be taking by our group.  We plan to use a microphone,
both an air mike, and a throat mike, in conjunction with a tape recorder and
Scope to check for ultrasound.  If we can get our hands on one, we hope to put
it through a spectrum analyzer, but it may be necessary to record it, then
analyze it later. Unfortunately, ultrasound could be lost by the recording
process, so that is not really a good solution.
 
I had posted this earlier, but it seems that this one one of the many postings
which never made it out.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.01 / Barry Merriman /  Stored heat hypothesis
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Stored heat hypothesis
Date: 1 Mar 1995 05:20:56 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE


Well, as best as I can tell from the response to my recent
suggestion that that 

Griggs Effect = (stored heat + lower viscosity flow mode)

there is hard evidence to refute this. The short run data
presented by Jed and Mallove ( < 1 hour runs)---combined with
the lack of montioring of the heat stored in the metal before
the run began/after it ended, or (metal - fluid) temperatures 
during their runs---is consistent with such a hypothesis.

Jed mentions others have done longer runs---but it would take a run
of ~ 10 hours to clearly rule out stored heat, and in any case, the details
of these longer runs were not given here.

I think it will be up to Marshall Dudley's team to definitively test 
this idea, since Marshall is going to monitor power in and heat out
during the entire room temp to room temp period, he can readily 
determine if the stored heat is the cause, even in a short (< 1 hour)
experiment.

Also, Tom D. can keep an eye on the housing and rotor masses and 
temps while he's there (plus delve into the rotor melting observations)
and try to gauge whether stored heat is a likely culprit.


--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.01 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Fusion Glossary to be Posted Soon!
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Glossary to be Posted Soon!
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 16:07:13 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Robert, thank you and all those who contributed to this glossary. 

I have a suggestion, as someone who has had to put together technical 
glossaries in a usable form:

There are word processing add-ons out there, such as Doc2Help, which 
allow one to generate Window's help files directly from Word for Windows 
documents.  The nice thing about help files is that they are hypertext 
linked information where all glossary terms, including those found in the 
definitions of other words, are linked to their definitions in the 
glossary via "pop-up" windows.  This is extraordinarily useful for people
who are trying to make sense of a veritable tower of Babel.

Another, related, idea is to put the glossary into a HTML linked form for 
presentation as hypertext on the WWW.  I am in the process of researching 
such automated HTML tools for some clients and if I find anything, I'll 
let you know.  

Does anyone out there know of any HTML generators which will 
automatically go through and do glossary linkages?

-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
                 Change the tools and you change the rules.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.01 / Bruce Liebert /  Re: Heard any good ultrasound lately?
     
Originally-From: liebert@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Bruce E. Liebert)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heard any good ultrasound lately?
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 19:42:35 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii

In article <USE2PCB106367770@brbbs.brbbs.com>, mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com wrote:


>  
> That is a good point.  I have a number of piezo tranducers as well, but
for the
> most part they have a very strong resonate frequency, and would probably not
> work well either unless the ultrasound is the same frequency as the resonance.
> I will try and research this and see what I can find.  I would certainly be
> willing to purchase whatever transducer would be necessary, as long as
it isn't
> too expensive.
>  

Perhaps I am missing something here.  I would suspect that you would NOT
want to operate a transducer near its resonant frequency.  If you did, the
output would be "colored" by the nonconstant gain.  Of course, if you knew
the gain and phase response as a function of frequency, you could correct
the output afterwards, but this would introduce an additional step in the
process.

It seemst to me that you should look for a solid-state transducer whose
resonant frequency is *at least* an order of magnitude higher than the
highest anticipated ultrasonic frequency to ensure a gain that changes
little with frequency.

> ->    Also, using a tape recorder is fine for audio sound but I would
> -> suggest using a video camera on macro focus setting to record the
> -> oscilloscope display of a transducer output for ultra high frequency
> -> sounds (actually any vibrations). The display is correlated with the
> -> noted oscilloscope settings to determine the frequency and relative
> -> strength of the display, of course.
>  
> I had planned on taking a video recorder.  After talking to Griggs I am not
> sure if I will be permitted to.  I was waiting for the release they are
suppose
> to be sending me for clarification.  Unfortunately they seem to have delayed
> getting it mailed to me.


Instead of an oscilloscope and video recorder, why not a PC with a fast
A/D board so you can get the frequency spectrum using an FFT?  National
Instruments makes some very good boards that would be suitable for this
purpose.  In addition, this would allow those lurking bit jockeys to do
their own analysis of the frequency response.

Hope these comments are useful.

Aloha,

Bruce Liebert

-- 
***************************************************************
*        Bruce E. Liebert  liebert@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu      *
*    Materials Research Laboratory    University of Hawaii    *
*  2540 Dole St., Holmes Hall, Rm. 302, Honolulu, HI  96822   *
*       Tel:  (808) 956-6332         Fax:  (808) 956-2373     *
***************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenliebert cudfnBruce cudlnLiebert cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.02 / Robert Horst /  Re: Question for Griggs
     
Originally-From: horst_bob@tandem.com (Robert Horst)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Question for Griggs
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 21:23:03 GMT
Organization: Tandem Computers

In article <3j0c35$7v9@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com (John
Logajan) wrote:

> 
>    Title 35 USC Sec. 154  Contents and term of patent:
>       ... grant to the patentee, his heirs or assigns, for the term of
>       seventeen years, subject to the payment of fees as provided for in
>       this title, of the right to exclude others from making, using, or
>       selling the invention throughout the United States.
> 
> 
> Note that patent law prohibits non-authorized people from *making* or
> *using* (as well as the obvious prohibition against selling) the invention.
> 
> Now perhaps in the real world, no one is ever prosecuted for building their
> own devices for their own uses, but at least in the language of the law,
> it would seem to prohibit that activity.
> 
I do not think that Tom's construction of a Griggs device would constitute
"using" in this context -- unless he built the device and then "used" it
for commercial gain.  The patent laws were written to encourage inventors
to disclose their inventions so that others can then improve upon them. 
Otherwise everything would be kept as a trade secret, and little progress
would be made.  

Tom is free to patent any improvements he makes, and would probably have to
build a device like Griggs' in the process.  However, he may not be able to
sell his own devices without also licensing the Griggs patent.  In order to
patent the improvement, he is first required to reduce it to practice by
either building it or by describing it in enough detail that others could
build it.

By the way, this section of patent law was recently rewritten.  On June 8,
US patents will be good for 20 year from the filing date instead of 17
years from the issue date.

-- Bob Horst
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenhorst_bob cudfnRobert cudlnHorst cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.01 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Stored heat hypothesis
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Stored heat hypothesis
Date: 1 Mar 1995 21:40:38 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3j107o$gi7@deadmin.ucsd.edu> barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry  
Merriman) writes:
> 
> Well, as best as I can tell from the response to my recent
> suggestion that that 
> 
> Griggs Effect = (stored heat + lower viscosity flow mode)
> 
> there is hard evidence to refute this. The short run data

         ^^^---- OOPS, I meant is NO hard evidence to refute this.
I hate when you say the total opposite of what you mean :-)


--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.01 / Charles Lindsey /  Re: RFD: sci.physics.fusion.research moderated, sci.physics.fusion.misc
     
Originally-From: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: RFD: sci.physics.fusion.research moderated, sci.physics.fusion.misc
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 10:01:49 GMT

In <3ilrar$c8s@rodan.UU.NET> Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk> writes:

>Proposal for and call for discussion of the creation of the new moderated group

>sci.physics.fusion.research      spfr
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>and (separate proposal), the simultaneous name change for the existing group

>sci.physics.fusion to sci.physics.fusion.misc
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I disagree. The traffic in the present group is not that large (you should
try wading through uk.misc sometime :-) ). There is indeed much flaming and
peripheral discussion, but not more than could be controlled by sensible use
of a Kill file (there are relatively few threads, although they do seem to
go on and on). And the allegeged 'perpetual motion machine' is actually
rather interesting, because the evidence for it is rather good and the group
has, collectively, taken steps to have it checked out.

The lack of informative postings on cold fusion seems to arise from the fact
that those actually working in the field are keeping their heads low until
such time as their evidence is really convincing, so all we are left with
are the rumours. Nature abhoreth a vacuum, hence all the silly stuff.

On the other hand, speculation about Zero Point Energy and whether fusion
can be achieved by sonoluminescence is actually quite interesting, but would
presumably be off-target in the proposed group.

I say it ain't broke, so don't fix it.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey -------------------------------------------------------------
           At Home, doing my own thing.           Internet: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk
Voice: +44 161 437 4506                           Janet:    chl@uk.ac.man.cs.clw
Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave., CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.   UUCP:     mucs!clerew!chl
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenchl cudfnCharles cudlnLindsey cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.01 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Heard any good ultrasound lately?
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heard any good ultrasound lately?
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 1995 22:12 -0500 (EST)

-> Perhaps I am missing something here.  I would suspect that you would NOT
-> want to operate a transducer near its resonant frequency.  If you did, the
-> output would be "colored" by the nonconstant gain.  Of course, if you knew
-> the gain and phase response as a function of frequency, you could correct
-> the output afterwards, but this would introduce an additional step in the
-> process.

It is not that simple.  What is needed is a tranducer which has a relatively
flat response.  If it has a large resonant peak then you run into at least two
problems.  The first is that it may simply not be sensitive enough when off
the resonance.  A more severe problem is that random noise when filtered by a
band pass filter (ie a resonance) will show a peak on a spectrum analyzer at
that resonance.  Thus the coloring could make the measurements totally wrong.

-> It seemst to me that you should look for a solid-state transducer whose
-> resonant frequency is *at least* an order of magnitude higher than the
-> highest anticipated ultrasonic frequency to ensure a gain that changes
-> little with frequency.

Either that, or one in which resonances are damped to give a relatively flat
response.

-> Instead of an oscilloscope and video recorder, why not a PC with a fast A/D
-> board so you can get the frequency spectrum using an FFT?  National
-> Instruments makes some very good boards that would be suitable for this
-> purpose.  In addition, this would allow those lurking bit jockeys to do
-> their own analysis of the frequency response.

Yes, I am very familiar with National instruments.  I think your ideas are
excellent, and will see what I can do on the acquisition of equipment side.

                                                             Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.01 / Mike Jamison /  Re: cross section to reaction rate
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: cross section to reaction rate
Date: 1 Mar 1995 14:57 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <3ib2tn$3vm@ds8.scri.fsu.edu>, jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes...
>In article <17FEB199512033456@mars.lerc.nasa.gov> 
>edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
>>
>>I've been reading an old Time book, published in about 1965, titled "The
>>Scientist".
> 
>Not a very good source for physics information. 

Agreed - way out of date :-)  However, it attempts to put sophisticated
ideas in layman [layperson?] terms. It's also interesting in that it shows
some of the psychology behind various physicists and other scientists.
> 
>>The electron is described as having a very low density, in comparison to
>>the nucleus.
> 
>This is wrong.  This is a reference to the 'classical' radius of the 
>electron, not its actual size.  The electron acts as a point charge 
>within the rules of QED.  The probability distribution of the electron 
>"cloud" is of very low density, however. 

Right - I should have been more specific.  I take it that the classical
radius has to do with the electron's rest energy, the point charge basically
means that even within the classical radius, the coulomb repulsion increases
[unlike what happens to gravitational force as one burrows towards the center
of the earth] to infinity?
> 
[atoms being mostly empty space deleted]

>That is quite true, but remember that the electromagnetic force is of 
>long range, so the atomic nuclei experience a coulomb repulsion even 
>if they do not get very close.  They do have to get within nuclear 
>radii (a few fm) to undergo nuclear reactions, and in that regard the 
>vast emptiness means there are lots of coulomb scatterings for every 
>fusion -- something that all fusion reactor designs attempt to overcome 
>by one means or another (increasing density and collision rate, etc). 

Righto - I do realize this, and probably should have also made that a bit
more clear, too...  Or I should just admit that I'm not a teacher, and what
I say may lead to more fuzziness :-)
> 
>-- 
> 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.  


Mike Jamison


"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.27 /  prasad /  Re: Question for Griggs
     
Originally-From: prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Question for Griggs
Date: 27 Feb 1995 15:04:52 GMT
Organization: sometimes

In article <3iph7j$89t@boris.eden.com>, little@eden.com (Scott Little) writes:
|> 
|> device.  True, Jed and Gene reported a "onset" phenomena in their original
|> article on the GG but, after seeing Griggs run the thing himself, my feeling
|> was that whatever performance the GG attains occurs promptly upon turning it
[ snip ]

So you *did* go and see for yourself, and still feel it worthwhile to
perform your own lab tests?

regards.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenprasad cudlnprasad cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.02 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Signature of Stored Energy
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Signature of Stored Energy
Date: 2 Mar 1995 02:32:44 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <9503011557.AA36203@pilot1.cl.msu.edu> blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A  
Blue) writes:
> 
> If I were instrumenting this experiment I would like to readout the rotor
> temperature.
> 
> Dick Blue

I agree it would be an interesting thing to monitor---but we should
bear in mind that for over-unity testing, we can sidestep this 
rather delicate measurement (delicate since the rotor is not accessible,
rapidly spinning, and probably not at a uniform temperature), in favor
of a simple energy balance (total energy in - total energy out in 
heated steam/water), which is much easier. Plus, from this
and measurements of the housing temperature (easier to access), we
could also deduce the heat stored in the rotor, if desired.

On the other hand, from an engineering point of view, Griggs should
want to monitor his rotor temp, to see what thermal loads he is
imparting. Since he has already noted rotor melting, it
is clear they are substantial.


--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.02 / Stephen Lajoie /  Re: If you could, how would YOU do a cold fusion experiment?
     
Originally-From: lajoie@eskimo.com (Stephen Lajoie)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: If you could, how would YOU do a cold fusion experiment?
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 03:08:37 GMT
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever

In article <jkondis.793945887@orion.oac.uci.edu>,
John Kondis <jkondis@orion.oac.uci.edu> wrote:
>Michal Tencer <mtencer@bnr.ca> writes:
>>jkondis@orion.oac.uci.edu (John Kondis) wrote:
>[jkondis pulls a boner]
>>> >Why not just use auger spectroscopy to look for helium in the paladium? 
>>>                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> Now that is a good idea.  I am not a cold-fuser myself, but if people 
>>> wanted to check on their results, this is a must-do.  Auger is extremely 
>>> sensitive to surface contaminants, and if fusion is really going on, then 
>>> He should be found...
>
>>Except that helium has no Auger spectrum. You need at least three
>>electrons for this to happen
>
>Thanks for making me look like the ass that I am.  Much appreciated.  :)
>
>...John

Hey! If you look like an ass for agreeing with me, than what kind of 
donkey butt am I?

>    .   |     . |                      .     .   | |             |  .
>___oooooOOOOooooOoooooooo_____________ooooooOOOOOOOOOoo______ooooOOooooo__
>John Kondis        University of California, Irvine        jkondis@uci.edu
>God made the bulk; surfaces were invented by the devil.  -- Wolfgang Pauli


-- 
--
Steve La Joie
lajoie@eskimo.com
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenlajoie cudfnStephen cudlnLajoie cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.02 / John Logajan /  Re: Signature of Stored Energy
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Signature of Stored Energy
Date: 2 Mar 1995 05:00:07 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) wrote:
: If the transfer of heat from the rotor decreases due to softer thermal
: coupling the familiar signature of cool down will not show up so
: clearly.

Yes!  It will be exaggerated!!!!

That is to say that the power out must therefore necessarily decline
(though it will also linger for a longer period.)  This decline in
power out will look like an accelerated decrease in temperature.

A simple analogy is an RC circuit.  You are counting coulombs * potential
* time.  If you increase the interface Resistance in the RC circuit,
the charge on the Capacitor now takes longer to discharge, but simultaneously
the potential it is delivered at is reduced (at the output.)

So anyhow, you can't have a decline in output power caused by an increase
in the thermal resistance without detecting a decline in the measured
COP -- yet the Griggs device showed no such decline in the two posted runs
of data.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.02 /  mwolfe@interse /  USED ACCELERATORS, X-RAY, IMAGING EQUIP.
     
Originally-From: mwolfe@interserv.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: USED ACCELERATORS, X-RAY, IMAGING EQUIP.
Date: 2 Mar 1995 21:36:41 GMT
Organization: InterServ News Service

Forsale used Imaging equipment MRI's, CT Scanner's, X-Ray's, Linear
 Accelerator's, ultrasound's, 
EKG's, Beds

600 IBM, Dell, Tandy 386 computers in stock. Prices start at $199.00

Perfect for import/export.

E-mail, Fax or Phone For any medical equipment need.  

=======================  MATHIS FORSYTE  =========================
----                       Mike Wolfe                         ----
----                 mwolfe@interserv.com                     ----
----  Used computing and medical equipment for import/export  ----
----  Voice: (805) 683-6132              Fax: (805) 683-5791  --

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmwolfe cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.02 / William Rowe /  Re: How does a dynamometer work?
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (William Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How does a dynamometer work?
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 05:01:58 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <3j01sl$b7t@firewall.ihs.com>, alastair@firewall.ihs.com
(Alastair Mayer) wrote:

>Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
>
>:      I don't think it's defensible to suggest that one can properly
>:      calibrate an instrument one does not understand on the basis that
>:      there are instruments that have been calibrated by people
>:      who are completely unaware of the appropriate operating principles.
>
>Ah, the truth is out.  Cameron Ran Dale Bass doesn't think argument
>from fact is defensible.  This may be true of rhetorical discussions,
>where beating the opponent about the head and shoulders with *facts*
>is considered poor sport, but hardly has a place in science.

I think the entire issue of the comment is the definition of "properly".
If by "properly" it is meant the ability to follow the manufacturer's
manual and get data from the instrument, I would agree Dale is wrong.
However, in the context of a scientific experiment, I would define
"properly" as the ability to get data and know the uncertainty of the
instruments measurement as well as aspects of the environment/measurement
that might "fool" the instrument. I don't see how this definition can be
achieved without a solid understanding of the instruments operating
principles.

-- 
_______________________________________________________________________________
William Rowe                                                   browe@netcom.com
MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenbrowe cudfnWilliam cudlnRowe cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.02 / The Staff /  cmsg cancel <ecs.369.01057E34@electrochem.org>
     
Originally-From: ecs@electrochem.org (The Electrochemical Society Staff)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <ecs.369.01057E34@electrochem.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 21:58:12 GMT
Organization: OpenVision Technologies, Inc.

Cancelling spam.  See explanation in news.admin.misc.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenecs cudfnThe cudlnStaff cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.02 /  s060739@aix1.u /  ICCF5 Discussion Group archives on WWW
     
Originally-From: s060739@aix1.uottawa.ca ()
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ICCF5 Discussion Group archives on WWW
Date: 2 Mar 1995 06:00:24 GMT
Organization: University of Ottawa

About two months ago I invited a number of people to join an email
distributed discussion group focused on abstracts submitted to the
Fifth International Conference on Cold Fusion to be held in Monte Carlo,
April 9-13, 1995. There are now over 35 contributors to this group - some
with very strong credentials, some not, some with an experimental orientation
and some with an interest in theory. Membership in the discussion group
is "by invitation only" and the intent is to limit discussion to serious
scientific issues only. I am willing, however, to consider requests and/or
recommendations for new members. 

I have been distributing about 3 or 4 issues (digests) of the group each
week. The most recent one is Issue 27, sent of the 1 March 1995.
Back issues of the discussion group are publically available via WWW
at URL:

  http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~s060739/iccf5.html

Please feel free to browse through this archive.

If you are interested in participating in the discussion group, please
make a request by email to Bill Page at:

  wspage@ncs.dnd.ca

Before joining the group, I usually ask people to send me a brief summary
of their interest in "CF" and an outline of their background. This is 
distribute to the other members with the next issue.

It is currently planned that this discussion group will "disband" a month
or two following the conference - or after the ensuing discussion dies
down. Please note that this group has no formal connection with the
organizers of the conference.

Cheers,

Bill Page

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudens060739 cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Mar  4 04:37:05 EST 1995
------------------------------
