1995.03.22 / Richard Schultz /  Calculating Caloric Content
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Calculating Caloric Content
Date: 22 Mar 1995 16:03:20 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <5e3Z2H0.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>The fact that cold
>fusion device produce *thousands of times* more energy than the best chemical
>fuels proves beyond any shadow of doubt that cold fusion cannot be a chemical
>process.

As I recall, you have said that no chemical reaction can produce more than
18 eV/atom.  You also reported a claim that a cold fusion reaction has
produced (after correction for your unit conversion error) 520 eV/atom.
Stop me if I'm wrong, but my first guess would have been that 520/18 is
less than 2000.

I have also pointed out that it seems only fair that given (a) you made
a factor of 10 error in your unit conversion and (b) you have never shown
any understanding of error analysis, one can reasonably question your
ability to do and understand the significance of the intermediate
calculations that led you to accept the 520 eV/atom claim in the first 
place.

You also have not yet answered my other question, which is that if you
think that empirical observation is so much more important than theory,
why is Coulomb's Law (an empirical observation that has been confirmed
experimentally to something like nin decimal places) not a concern?
--
					Richard Schultz

"_Cro_, the Children's Television Workshop's attempt at a commercially
appealing science cartoon show, will be cancelled in September by
ABC TV. . . . In _Cro_'s time slot will go _Dumb and Dumber_, a cartoon
about two moronic louts, derived from the movie of the same name."
				-- _Science_, 3 March 1995
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 / James Stolin /  Re: Griggs Would Like to be Connected
     
Originally-From: FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Would Like to be Connected
Date: 22 Mar 1995 16:12:52 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) wrote:
>
>I have just talked to Griggs.  He would like to get on the Internet
>but has just not got around to it.  He would appreciate some help.  
>Anyone here from GA or near the north west corner of GA that could
>help Griggs get connected?  He has a Windows computer and a modem.  

Tom,

   A >local< flat rate ISP connection would be more cost effective.  If a 
local ISOP is not available, the easiest method to get Griggs connected 
would be to get an account with either Prodigy or AOL.   On either 
Prodigy or AOL the rates are $9.95 for up to 5 hours and $2.95 per hour 
after that.  For heavy usage, Prodigy also has a plan for $44.90 that 
would give 30 hours on the net and unlimited news and other features.  I 
have both Prodigy and AOL available but use Prodigy since the AOL access 
and EMAIL reliability are somewhat questionable.

-
James B. Stolin  -  FKNF40A@prodigy.com

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 / John Logajan /  Re: Superconductors, OK.  Superresistors?
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Superconductors, OK.  Superresistors?
Date: 22 Mar 1995 16:07:46 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Brad M. Kraft (bmk69346@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_DOMAIN_FILE) wrote:
: Is it possible to somehow achieve a superresistor 
: that resists thermal as well as electrical energy?  I think teflon is the 
: most resistive material known to date.

The fact that they coat frying pans with teflon as a no-stick coating shows
that it doesn't much inhibit the flow of thermal energy.

I believe one of the better thermal energy blockers is a vacuum, and that
still leaks via radiant energy, which is why thermos bottles have mirrored
finishes for radiant heat reflection.

--
 - 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:
cuddy22 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 /  jedrothwell@de /  Super easy way to connect Griggs to the list.
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Super easy way to connect Griggs to the list.
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 95 10:40:14 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Jpmjpmjpm@aol.com introduces a note of sanity amidst the madness here:
 
    "I might as well poke my nose in, you guys are
    making an incredible amount of unnecessary fuss!
    If the dude has a windows PC, just get him America
    Online."
 
Right. Or CompuServe with the WinCim interface. That is exactly what I had
mind. These programs are a cinch to operate. Anyone can figure out how to
connect to internet with them in a few minutes. Certainly Griggs could; he
is an engineer for goodness sake.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 / John Cobb /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: 22 Mar 1995 10:18:07 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <D5tu11.7C3@prometheus.UUCP>,
Paul M. Koloc <pmk@promethe.UUCP> wrote:
>In article <3k23vr$3pk@deadmin.ucsd.edu> barry@starfire.ucsd.edu
(Barry Merriman) writes:

>>I'd bet that even Paul Koloc will admit that tokamaks probably can be 
>>made to produce power in a way that would be interesting to country
>>that would otherwise have *no* high capacity, steady supply of power.
>
>Japan???  They have little or no on site resources but do have a 
>strong alternative concepts program. 

Well, yes Japan does have a strong alternative concepts program. They have
pinches, FRC's, and some really heavy-duty stellerators. In terms of
site resources, though, Paul, I think you're a little mistaken. Have you
seen the LHD site. It is huge. In terms of land area and in terms of the
size of the experimental bays. I think they are probably big enough to
stuff ITER into (maybe) although I don't know if there is a nearby water 
source to use for cooling.

So how do the Japanese do it? I was talking to one person, from LHD I 
believe, who stated that the construction budget alone in the Japanese fusion
program is larger than the entire U.S. program. Do they know something
our congressional leaders don't?

Oh and by the way, Japan also has a tokamak Paul may have forgotten
about, it's called JT-60U. It is on the scale of JET and TFTR, but a
little younger in its life cycle. And man, it has some of the beefiest
neutral beams going. It's big and it is muscular. Look for some good physics
results from there in the next few years

So I guess that Japan has a better balanced program than the U.S. in that
it is a leader both in mainline approaches and in alternates. It is also
a leader in auxilliary technologies like beams. So I guess it really supports
Barry's point about a 50/50 mix. Paul it's time to kick in another dollar
to match the one you already kick in for fusion. Then you will be
happier. At least that is the conclusion if you are looking at Japan as
a good example.

>
>I think not.  The solution then is more like having a reasonable 50/50
>mix between mainline/ITER/tokamaks program and an alternative program
>that should be funded out of a number of centers, if not the States.  
>This should prove out, since alternatives are mighty cheap by comparison. 
>
>This plan has been neither suggested, nor worked out by DoE Germantown 
>or DoE downtown DC.    --    nor will it likely be..

I agree there. Although they do appear to be scrambling to avoid the 0/0
mix that now seems popular based upon house whip-counts of fusion support.


-john .w cobb

-- 
John W. Cobb	Quietly Making Noise, Pissing off the old Kill-Joys
		-Jimmy Buffett

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 / Jeff Driscoll /  ICCF5 hotel room
     
Originally-From: jdris@world.std.com (Jeff J Driscoll)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ICCF5 hotel room
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 23:25:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Does anybody know where to get the cheapest hotel room
in or near Monte Carlo for ICCF5?  Preferably some place that is relatively
close.    I'm not going but there is a freind of mine that is.
He found an airline ticket from Boston to Monte Carlo for
$698.

      thanks

      Jeff

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjdris cudfnJeff cudlnDriscoll cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 / James Betz /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: a024289t@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us (James Betz)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.logic,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physi
s.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 22 Mar 1995 05:08:19 GMT
Organization: SEFLIN Free-Net - Broward
Organization: SEFLIN Free-Net - Broward

References: <3khfgg$jqb@acasun.eckerd.edu>
Organization: SEFLIN Free-Net - Broward
Distribution: 

Anyone truly interested might want to put down their copy of "So Long and 
Thanks for all the Fish" and look into either "The Tao of Physics" or 
"The Dancing Wu-Li Masters".  I prefer the latter, don't have either in 
front of me so I can't give you authors.  It's the school of thought 
linking quantum theory with Hindu/Buddhist theology.  Open your mind to 
the possibility that not only physics, but everything else is a farce.


--

Jennifer Weyant- Betz and
James Betz
a024289t@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us

	
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudena024289t cudfnJames cudlnBetz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment,sci.
nergy,sci.materials
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 11:26 -0500 (EST)

aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki) writes:
 
-> It was a mistake to assume that the article number listed on the
-> Netcom service was universal to Internet.
 
That is correct.  The message id is what you want to use as a reference, it
will be consistant between systems, and will not be duplicated for any other
message.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 / John Power /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: John Power <jp@hep.anl.gov>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.logic,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physi
s.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 22 Mar 1995 17:09:19 GMT
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory

a024289t@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us (James Betz) wrote:
>
> References: <3khfgg$jqb@acasun.eckerd.edu>
> Organization: SEFLIN Free-Net - Broward
> Distribution: 
> 
> Anyone truly interested might want to put down their copy of "So Long and 
> Thanks for all the Fish" and look into either "The Tao of Physics" or 
> "The Dancing Wu-Li Masters".  I prefer the latter, don't have either in 
> front of me so I can't give you authors.  It's the school of thought 
> linking quantum theory with Hindu/Buddhist theology.  Open your mind to 
> the possibility that not only physics, but everything else is a farce.
> 


I take it you are NOT a physicist.

So if everything is a farce, then you are also a farce and so is you're
statement that everything is a farce. Well, I guess you are right about
somethings.

----John Power
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjp cudfnJohn cudlnPower cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: N.Lewis' calorimetric results
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: N.Lewis' calorimetric results
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 95 12:12:38 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

cary@svl.trw.com (Cary Jamison) writes:
 
    "So, you are saying the calorimetry cannot be trusted, yet the data
    suggests that excess heat was produced?  I think the total value of this
    information is 0.  We cannot add Lewis to the positive list, or the
    negative list, just another bad experiment."
 
I think that is an unfair assessment. Lewis did a better job than this
suggests. His calibration method was deeply flawed and he made a bad mistake
in his analysis, but on the other hand his experimental technique was good and
his instruments were first-rate. He prevented contamination, and he took the
kind of precautions that are vital to a successful CF experiment. His power
levels and current density were too low, but on the other hand his instruments
were relatively free of noise.
 
I say we can add Lewis to the positive list, because when the data is properly
analyzed, the excess heat is pronounced and significant. The S/N ratio is
high.
 
The other formerly negative experiment that can definitely be moved to the
positive column is the work at Harwell. This is shown in the papers by Melich
and Hansen.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 / Toby Koosman /  New WWW server for University of Tennessee Nuclear Engineering
     
Originally-From: koosman@martha.utcc.utk.edu (Toby Koosman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.engr,sci.physics.fusion,bit.listserv.fusion,sci.med.radiology
Subject: New WWW server for University of Tennessee Nuclear Engineering
Date: 22 Mar 1995 12:11:40 -0500
Organization: University of Tennessee, Knoxville

The University of Tennessee Nuclear Engineering Department 
announces our presense on the World Wide Web at:

http://www.engr.utk.edu/dept/nuclear/

offering information about faculty, undergraduate and graduate studies, 
links to related sites and conference and short course information.

Of special interest is our server offering comprehensive information 
about Tennessee Industries Week short courses in process engineering, 
radiological/nuclear engineering, and intelligent information systems, at

http://www.engr.utk.edu/dept/nuclear/TIW.html

and a related page listing all WWW sites known to me providing 
information about engineering short courses, at

http://www.engr.utk.edu/dept/nuclear/TIW/engshort.html

If anyone else out there has short course information on a server I'd be 
happy to include a link.  


-- 
Toby Koosman                                koosman@utkvx.utk.edu
University of Tennessee                                  
Knoxville, TN  USA       
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenkoosman cudfnToby cudlnKoosman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 /  Jpmjpmjpm /  Re: Griggs Would Like to be Connected
     
Originally-From: jpmjpmjpm@aol.com (Jpmjpmjpm)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Would Like to be Connected
Date: 22 Mar 1995 12:21:58 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

James sed -

>I have both Prodigy and AOL available but use Prodigy since the AOL
>access and EMAIL reliability are somewhat questionable.

That's intriguing, Ive never known anyone to find Prodi. more reliable
than aol.  Whatever.  At any rate ..

Jed ses -
>he can find a consultant in the Yellow Pages

A person would need a consultant to join prodidgy?
........................................................
INT. OFFICE NITE
A guy sitting at a computer

                      JP May
               Who the hell are you?
........................................................
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjpmjpmjpm cudlnJpmjpmjpm cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.20 / Dean Edmonds /  Re: Edmonds suggests Griggs should claim o-u
     
Originally-From: deane@excalibur.net5c.io.org (Dean Edmonds)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Edmonds suggests Griggs should claim o-u
Date: 20 Mar 1995 04:58:09 -0500
Organization: Teleride Sage Ltd.

In article <ZWw4unj.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
> Dean Edmonds wrote:
>
>     "Surely as a smart businessman Mr. Griggs is aware that his sales
>     potential will be vastly increased if he can publicly advertise
>     over-unity performance."
> 
>That is incorrect. A smart businessman who is aware of the history of cold
>fusion will realize that if he publicly advertises over-unity performance he
>will likely end up bankrupt or in exile. That would be exactly like
>advertising that you are a communist at the height of the cold war McCarthy
>era, in 1952.

I had intended my comment to be taken in the context of Mr. Griggs having
first confirmed the o/u effect to the general satisfaction of the scientific
community. (Yes, I know, you do not believe that that will ever be possible.)
Within that context, Mr. Griggs would become a very rich man indeed. My point
is that this provides him with enormous incentive to convince the powers that
be of his claims.

Thus the potential gain is high.

You argue that the potential of this gain is lessened by various cabals and
conspiracies and that it is overshadowed by the potential losses. It is
your argument about losses that I do not understand.

Hydrodynamics makes water heaters.

Are you saying that if Mr. Griggs claims that he has a device with o/u
performance and is ridiculed by the scientific community, then people will
stop buying his water heaters?

By that logic, you could argue that if Sprint's venture into cable TV fails
then people will stop using Sprint's long distance network for telephone calls.

I just don't see that happening. From all that I've seen here in s.p.f,
Mr. Griggs is not a research scientist who is dependent upon government
grants and peer reviews for his livelihood. If the scientific Star Chamber
ridicules him he can simply shrug his shoulders and go back to designing
ever more efficient water heaters.

Thus the potential loss is low.

>The U.S. scientific community will *never* voluntarily back *any* over unity
>claim, no matter how solid, no matter how well replicated, no matter how
>widely it is replicated.

Clearly you are exaggerating here. I am sure that I can get the U.S. scientific
community's backing for simple combustion, which is an `over unity' process.

However, I assume, from your other posts, that what you mean is an o/u effect
`beyond chemistry'.

[wrt. my speculations on Pons & Fleischmann...]
>Please do not attempt to rewrite history or make it up as you go alone.

It is more ignorance than any desire to `rewrite history'. I've not followed
CF very closely and what little I do know of it has come mostly from the
popular press - not known as paragons of technical accuracy. I'd hoped to
learn more by following this group, but I've seen precious little on CF
here over the past 3 months.

Thank you for the correction, and my apologies to the group as a whole if
I have misrepresented the facts.


There is one other point that you can clarify for me. I had interpreted your
earlier post as implying that you felt Mr. Griggs would not be interested
in taking part in discussions of his device here in s.p.f. Is that correct,
or are you simply saying that he is not willing to claim o/u?

If the latter, given your greater familiarity with the man, do you think
that he would be interested joining s.p.f or would we just be wasting our
time trying to get him hooked up?

Thanx.

=========================================================================
  - deane
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudendeane cudfnDean cudlnEdmonds cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.20 / John Cobb /  Re: Electrostatic Confinement (Hot) Fusion Status?
     
Originally-From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Electrostatic Confinement (Hot) Fusion Status?
Date: 20 Mar 1995 09:11:55 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <USE2PCB874121986@brbbs.brbbs.com>,
MARSHALL DUDLEY <mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com> wrote:
>I don't understand how electrostatic confinement could work.  If you start with
>a sphere and apply charge to the sphere, there is absolutely no electric field
>inside the sphere.
> 
>Is there a point in the center kept somehow negative?  And if so, what keeps
>the plasma from rushing to that point and destroying it?
> 
>                                                                Marshall

Think of an analogy of a bucket of water. The sides of the bucket are high
and keep the water in. nothing keeps the water from rushing into the
middle either, but the bucket does keep the water from sloshing out the sides.
This is the case with electrostatic confinement, except the bucket is 3D.

-john .w cobb



-- 
John W. Cobb	Quietly Making Noise, Pissing off the old Kill-Joys
		-Jimmy Buffett

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.19 / Jorge Stolfi /  Tom's trip: what to do with the remaining $700
     
Originally-From: stolfi@atibaia.dcc.unicamp.br (Jorge Stolfi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tom's trip: what to do with the remaining $700
Date: 19 Mar 1995 18:14:24 GMT
Organization: DCC - UNICAMP - Campinas, SP, Brazil


    > [Paul Breed:] As another member of the funding effort, I have a
    > suggestion for the remaining $700.  Why don't we buy Griggs an
    > internet connection.  A modem and a 1 year AOL account would
    > only be $200 or so.
    > 
    > [Tom Droege:] I think this is the best suggestion yet for the
    > money.  ..  How about a vote on this from the contributors?
    
My vote is a loud NO.  

I haven't seen any real effort from Mr. Griggs part (or from his PR
men on the net) to look for experimental artifacts, test alternative
explanations, or find out what is really happening inside the device.

The only aim of their experiments seems to be to find the protocol
that gives the highest COP.  That of course may be the protocol that
maximizes the experimental error, but they do not seem to worry about it.

Let's not forget that they have never published any data showing
sustained over-unity COP; and they have systematically dodged or
ignored all our requests for such data.  It is now clear that such
data simply does not exist.

Hydrosonics apparently thinks it is OK to boost their sales with
claims of over-unity operation, while carefully avoiding any legal
responsibility for such claims.  I suppose that is normal business
practice, but science ought to have higher standards.  

    > After all, the money was collected to settle the Griggs
    > question.  I have only started the process.  So it makes sense
    > to me to put Griggs on line.

I don't see any sign that Hydrosonics is interested in settling the
question.

If they are, they surely can get an Internet connection without our
help.  A company that invested $1,000,000 to develop a $50,000 product
might well use $200 of their advertisement money to reach a few million
potential customers worldwide.

Tom, I am quite satisfied with your report, and I do not wish to see
another cent of my money benefitting Mr. Griggs in any way.  The lunch
you paid for is already more than they deserve.

Please spend my part of the $700 on something of real scientific
value, such as a pizza, a sushi platter, a double serving of pot
stickers.

--stolfi

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Stolfi | http://www.dcc.unicamp.br/~stolfi | stolfi@dcc.unicamp.br 
Computer Science Dept. (DCC-IMECC)               | Tel +55 (192) 39-8442
Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)      |     +55 (192) 39-3115 
Campinas, SP -- Brazil                           | Fax +55 (192) 39-7470
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 /  prasad /  Shrinking vs Law[2] Re: Cold Fusion Qestions #1
     
Originally-From: prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Shrinking vs Law[2] Re: Cold Fusion Qestions #1
Date: 17 Mar 1995 13:04:38 GMT
Organization: sometimes

In article <USE2PCB777456698@brbbs.brbbs.com>, mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com
(MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes:
|>  
|> Here is an idea I threw out about a year ago, but got no response to.  Lets
|> assume that the "Mills" shrunken atom can exist and be generated (an assumption
|> I am not convinced of yet).  Now, would we expect this atom to act the same way
....
|> presumably be in very very close proximity with each other.  Perhaps close
|> enough for a tunneling effect to take place in a reasonable length of time. If
|> this were to happen then we would have a fusion reaction, but not an h/h or
|> d/d, but rather a h/pt or d/pd.
....

The thing that bothers me about a shrunken atom is this.

Presumably, the energy from shrinking alone would soon be exhausted,
unless you continually replaced them with fresh, shrinkable atoms.
Say you have this continuous supply of shrinkworthy candidates
pipelined into a CF cell, continually extract the energy, and get
rid of the shrunk ones elsewhere (some place in Jersey!).

Now either we face an eventual shrunken atom pollution problem, or
we face a violation of the second law, because if the shrunken atoms
ever get back to normal size, other than by fissing or fusing, they
would need to absorb energy from the surrounding.  In the latter case,
presto, we grab them and recirculate them through our CF cells and
have indefinite collection of energy into our cells.

Since the second law is evidently more absolute than 55 mph, we must
be facing a shrunken atom pollution, because they cannot be allowed
to absorb ambient energy even slowly.  If they did at any pace at all,
it would still be possible to make a perpetual collector of ambient
energy using some minimal quantity of these atoms.  That means the
shrunken orbits must be the real and stable ground states.

If so, why haven't we seen shrunken atoms, other than allegedly in
CF cells, before?  Why weren't they automatically formed in the
natural order of things, when the atoms we know condensed from
primordial radiation?

Possibly, the shrinking orbits are only possible within the Pd
lattice.  But then, the perpetual motion possibility looms large
once again.  Above some minimum size of the lattice, ie. with
sufficient but finite quantity of Pd, the shrunken orbits can be
allowed to rest till they start reabsorbing energy from thermal
activity and return to the ground states we otherwise knew.  If
the shrinking possibility is due to the lattice, I'd assign a
non-zero probability for re-absorption of heat to return to
normal state.  So if it is rates of emission and absorption we
are dealing with, it looks like one can certainly work around
the second law.  Eg, do the CF on a small amount of the Pd, but
rapidly extract the heat, meanwhile allow a bulk amount of the
shrunk Pd-D system to reabsorb heat from the ambient.  So you
see why the shrinking theory makes me rather jumpy!

Does the shrinking atom theory address these questions?

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenprasad cudlnprasad cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.20 / Tom Droege /  Re: Thermocouple positioning
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermocouple positioning
Date: 20 Mar 1995 17:05:50 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <67099-795561053@mindlink.bc.ca>, Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) says:
>
>Tom Droege writes:
>
>>
>>     There is a flow meter and they weigh the water to check it.  There
>> are
>>     six (6) count em thermocouples on the input and six on the output.
>>     There is at least one more dial thermometer on the output.
>
>
>        Can you please clarify "on the output".  Do you mean that the
>thermocouples are taped, glued or otherwise fixed to a pipe, or are they
>thermocouples which screw into a pipe fitting and project into the water
>flow inside the pipe?
>        I am worried about possible non-homogeneous flow, in which due to
>the action of the rotor and the associated outflow port and piping, parts
>of a cross section of the water flow are at a higher temperature than other
>parts.  If the flow in the output pipe is laminar and non uniform in
>temperature over a cross section, putting the thermocouples in the hot part
>of the flow could give apparent excess energy.  Such a mechanism would
>probably not be able to account for results when the apparatus is run in
>steam generating mode (where the whole output is injected into a barrel
>with enough force to cause good mixing).
>
>        If the thermocouples are external to the pipe, are they shielded
>from radiant heat from other parts of the apparatus?
>
>
>--
>Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca

A good point.  Marshall Dudley put this one on your lise.  I think they
were stuck into the flow.  Now if I were keeping a log book on these 
tests, there would be a nice little sketch on where each thermocouple
was positioned.  Looks like a tough problem.  Once you have them 
positioned across the flow, how do you weigh each reading?  No mention
was made that they considered any of this.  That is why keeping a long 
book is so importand.  At the time you do it, one normally worries about
a lot of things like this.  So when you write the paper, it is helpful
to go back and look at the log book and review what was considered and
what was overlooked.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 /  GeorgeRW /  Re: "Cold Fusion" #8 arrives
     
Originally-From: georgerw@aol.com (GeorgeRW)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Cold Fusion" #8 arrives
Date: 22 Mar 1995 12:27:35 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Just got my copy of "Colf Fusion" #8 and read the book reviewe starting on
page 2, Chris Illert's book "Alchemy Today II".
 There is an address for ordering the book which is no longer valid.

 New address is: David Harcher Childress
                         Adventures Unlimited
                         PO Box 74
                         Kempton Il 60946-0074

                         815-253-6390

Book costs $45.00 plus $3.50 priority mail or $2.00 regular mail.

I don't think anyone should call the Jemmerson number listed in the
article, when I called I got a guy who said, "wrong number", and hung up.


George
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudengeorgerw cudlnGeorgeRW cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 / Tom Droege /  Jed Rothwell and Griggs on Line
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jed Rothwell and Griggs on Line
Date: 22 Mar 1995 17:57:57 GMT
Organization: fermilab

I am really surprised about Jed's attitude about helping get Griggs
on line.  From my conversation with Griggs, he would like to get connected.
It is not all that easy.  I just spent a weekend getting a modem working.
I had a bad modem.  Actually a slightly bad one.  I think its problem is
that I have too many phone extensitons hooked up and I had to rearrange
them to make it all work even with the second modem.  The phone company
tries to protect you from this by having you report the ringer current 
when you hook up a new phone.  But I think they have even given up on
this.  So it is possible to muck around quit a bit to get things working.
Then there is the problem of the stop bit and all that stuff.  So yes,
sometimes you can just plug things in and they work.  Other times they
don't and a little experteze helps.

The consensus seems to be to get AOL.  I will contact the volunteer who
can have them mail out a package.  

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 / Tom Droege /  Griggs Connection
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs Connection
Date: 22 Mar 1995 18:04:31 GMT
Organization: fermilab

The vote is about 10 to 2 so far in favor of paying to get Griggs on
line.  The "no" voters seemed to have strong feelings.  Please contact
me as to whether you are willing to go along with the majority, or 
whether you do still not want to have part of your money go to putting
Griggs on line.  In that case, I will pick up your share of the costs.

We seem to be matching the rest of this democracy in going to the polls.

I intend to call Griggs today and tell him we will pick up his first 
three months bill, not to exceed $300.  If anyone objects violently, I 
will just pay the cost myself.  

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 / James Stolin /  Re: Griggs Would Like to be Connected
     
Originally-From: FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Would Like to be Connected
Date: 22 Mar 1995 18:01:28 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin) wrote:
> <snip>

  I have received some EMAIL that expressed a concern about my connection 
with Prodigy.  I am ***NOT*** an employee of Prodigy, AOL, CompuServe, 
Delphi or any other online service though I have accounts on all of the 
above. I own my own consulting/VAR business, Illinois Comnputer Service.  
I am a Special Contributor/Mentor on Prodigy.  An SC/Mentor is a member 
volunteer who assists other members.  Though we are compensated, we are 
not employees nor are we paid.  You may call 914-448-8000 if you wish 
further info on SC/Mentors. 

   I sincerely hope that everyone noticed that I pointed out that a flat 
rate >local< ISP would be the best net connection for Griggs.  Then I 
mentioned the Prodigy and AOL alternatives.  I would choose Prodigy over 
AOL due to the EMAIL and capacity problems on AOL.  AOL also does not 
have a WWW browser though that is supposed to be available REAL SOON NOW 
<G>.  I also pointed out that for the first five hours that the rates for 
Prodigy and AOL would be the same, $9.95 per hour for five hours.  
Prodigy has a $44.90 rate for 30 hours for heavy usage and AOL has none 
that I'm aware of.  If anyone is aware of another AOL plan, please post 
the details so Griggs will have the info.

-
James B. Stolin  -  FKNF40A@prodigy.com

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 / Jim Carr /  Re: Griggs Visit (the mysterious computing loop)
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Visit (the mysterious computing loop)
Date: 22 Mar 1995 13:25:20 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <xAxb+dp.jedrothwell@delphi.com> 
jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> 
>You do not know what the hell you are talking about. The system is set up
>to allow any collection speed you like. It is under windows; you just point
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That is not what Tom's report or Griggs comments suggest.  Anyway, if 
you do not understand the inherent contradiction between the two things 
I underlined above (Windows was not developed for real-time data 
acquisition) then it is no wonder you take violent exception to things 
that seem eminently sensible to physicists. 

>and click. If you feel like it, you can take data points a hundred times a
>minute, or 200 times. 

A few times a second?  I thought you said any rate?  Why not 1 MHz, 
averaging to get a mean and standard deviation (perhaps even a slope) 
ever milli-second, with the data logged to disk and a graph showing 
a curve from each sensor displayed on the screen? 

>                    However, the numbers do not fluctuate over these short
>time scales, because there is a massive amount of water flowing through and
>it acts as a giant heat sink (fluctuation dampener) and because the effect
>is inherantly stable. 

You cannot know any of the above unless you check.  It is clear from 
Tom's report that these things have not been checked.  For example, 
that massive flow is experiencing massive turbulence as it goes 
through the device, so what you see coming out of the pipe may not 
be indicative of what is going on in the manifold.  Are pressures 
measured throughout the system? 

>                              ...                       We have looked at
>it with 'scopes which are a lot faster than the computer. There is no
>fluctuation on any scale faster than a minute that makes any significant
>difference. If you collect any faster than 2 times a minute, you end up with
>a gigantic disk file of identical numbers signifying nothing.

That is not consistent with what Tom reported concerning the demonstration 
he observed.  But if such tests have been done, why have the numbers not 
been reported?  It seems clear that there is no record of a standard 
deviation being computed in any of the runs. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  Tallahassee, where the crime rate 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  is almost twice that in New York 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  City.  Reported crimes, that is.  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  A subtle statistical detail.  
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 / Tom Droege /  I May Have Been Premature
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: I May Have Been Premature
Date: 22 Mar 1995 18:27:57 GMT
Organization: fermilab

OK, I may have been premature in proposing AOL to Griggs.
So all of you can send your favorite literature pack to:

Jim Griggs
Hydro Dynamics Inc.
8 Redmond Court
Rome, GA  30165

I (hope) someone I contacted has sent the AOL pack.  The
rest of you can get in there and sell your system.  

I will report who he picks, and we can all assess his brains
or the lack therof based on his choice.  

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 / Alastair Mayer /  Re: Superconductors, OK.  Superresistors?
     
Originally-From: alastair@firewall.ihs.com (Alastair Mayer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Superconductors, OK.  Superresistors?
Date: 22 Mar 1995 11:35:49 -0700
Organization: Information Handling Services

Brad M. Kraft (bmk69346@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_DOMAIN_FILE) wrote:
: By lowering the temperature of a niobium wire to 4 Kelvin, you achieve 
: superconductivity.  Is it possible to somehow achieve a superresistor 
: that resists thermal as well as electrical energy?  I think teflon is the 
: most resistive material known to date.  By coating, say an engine with 

I don't know about electrical resistance (Teflon is certainly electrically
resistive), but if it were thermally resistat, Teflon frying pans wouldn't
work very well, would they?

: teflon and atach turbochargers to it, would it somehow be possible to 
: create a near "perfect engine" by converting all of its thermal energy 
: into mechanical energy?


: Brad Kraft   bmk69346@marauder.millersv.edu
: Undergrad. at Millersville University

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenalastair cudfnAlastair cudlnMayer cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 / Alastair Mayer /  Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously
     
Originally-From: alastair@firewall.ihs.com (Alastair Mayer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously
Date: 22 Mar 1995 11:50:49 -0700
Organization: Information Handling Services

Richard Schultz (schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu) wrote:
: In article <Bmx4GJj.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

: >You are mistaken. The literature on the limits of chemistry goes back much
: >farther than the literature on nuclear fusion. It goes back thousands of
: >years, in fact. Any cavemen would have know that match will not burn for a
: >week.

: I suppose you are aware that this was exactly the agrument made in the
: 1920's that no chemical fuel could possiby release enough energy on
: combustion to take a rocket to the moon?  I have seen the calculation:
: the most powerful chemical can only put out x calories/g, it takes 
: y calories/g to get something to the moon, and y > x, Q.E.D.  So your

The fundamental flaw in this conclusion is that you're not carrying
all your fuel all the way to the Moon with you, so it's just fine for
y to be greater than x, you just use more fuel than the mass you want
on the Moon.  Which is exactly how they did it.

This is totally irrelevant to Jed's argument, which is based on the
fact that they're running calorimetry on a closed system as far as
mass is concerned.  A Saturn V launching for the Moon is spewing hot
gas out the back as fast as it can; a calorimetry experment is trying
to keep all that stuff contained.

Try to use arguments that are at least relevant, eh?

[remainder snipped]

: 					Richard Schultz

: "I seem to smell a peculiar and a fishlike smell."

Smells (er, odors) don't transmit well over the net -- anyone else around where
you're sitting?  :-)
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenalastair cudfnAlastair cudlnMayer cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 / James Stolin /  Re: I May Have Been Premature
     
Originally-From: FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I May Have Been Premature
Date: 22 Mar 1995 20:06:57 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

Tom,

   Though I'd suggest an ISP if possible, I'll send startup packs for AOL 
and Prodigy.  Griggs will get ten free hours on each service.  Then he 
can make his decision.  I gain nothing no matter which service he joins 
though there are others who would gain free hours if they sent startup 
kits from either AOL or Prodigy.  However, let's hope there aren't any 
$300 bills as another poster mentioned.  That's spending too much time 
downloading from alt.binaries.erotica.blonds. <VBG>
-
James B. Stolin  -  Illinois Computer Service  -  fknf40a@prodigy.com

Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) wrote:
>
>OK, I may have been premature in proposing AOL to Griggs.
>So all of you can send your favorite literature pack to:
>
>Jim Griggs
>Hydro Dynamics Inc.
>8 Redmond Court
>Rome, GA  30165
>
>I (hope) someone I contacted has sent the AOL pack.  The
>rest of you can get in there and sell your system.  
>
>I will report who he picks, and we can all assess his brains
>or the lack therof based on his choice.  
>
>Tom Droege


cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 / Doug Shade /  [GG] Thinking out loud...
     
Originally-From: rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com (Doug Shade)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: [GG] Thinking out loud...
Date: 22 Mar 1995 20:00:20 GMT
Organization: Motorola LICD

Thanks to Tom Droege for the trip / report
Thanks to Jimm Carr for forwarding me a copy of that report

Well from the report it seems clear that Griggs is trying to optimize
the effect with different rotor configurations... ultrasound being the
supposed driving mechanism(?).

It suggests some other experiments...

1)add ultrasound to water and look for inordinate heat rise (though
this is surely being done in SL and SBSL labs now)

2)add ultrasound to STEAM and look for inordinate pressure (or heat)
rise
(I'm supposing that 'the effect' does not kick in on a GG until the
rotor / chamber is able to produce some steam.)

Neither of these would require a 50HP motor.... 

I wish the Hydrodynamics guys were able to read some of this stuff...

Doug Shade
rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenrxjf20 cudfnDoug cudlnShade cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 / Tom Droege /  Re: Thermocouple positioning
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermocouple positioning
Date: 22 Mar 1995 20:22:20 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <harrD5tp6E.n1o@netcom.com>, harr@netcom.com (Chuck Harrison) says:
>
>In article <3kkcle$889@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Droege@fnal.fnal.gov says...
>[...thermocouple positioning...]
>>A good point.
>
>Here is a slightly counterintuitive practice that can help in acquiring
>accurate temperature data on turbulent flows: use a *massive* thermowell.
>
>The idea is twofold:  A large heat capacity in the thermowell smooths
>out the rapid small-scale fluctuations that are endemic to turbulent
>flows.  Then you can quit worrying about Nyquist limits and having your
>sample rate beat against some darned driving frequency in the apparatus.
>
>Second, it is often possible to design the oversize thermowell to have
>excellent well-mixed heat transfer to the full flow stream.  Fins and
>static-mixer tubes can be used by the truly dedicated.  As long as
>your goal is accurate measurement of a steady-state condition, extra
>mass in the flow stream helps you rather than hinders.
>
>My money says this is gilding the lily on the GG, though.
>
>In any case, if you've got many thermocouples distributed judiciously
>across the flow you can make an excellent error estimate as well.

Yes, but they did not seem to be computing the obvious things.  Like the
sigma of each thermocouple and the sigma of the six taken as a set.  We 
can all think of even more sophisticated schemes.

Tom Droege
>
>Cheers,
>  -Chuck
>
>
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.21 / Jim Carr /  Re: Griggs Visit Report
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Visit Report
Date: 21 Mar 1995 18:48:32 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

Wonderful report, Tom. 

In article <3kcsrm$snk@fnnews.fnal.gov> 
Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
>
>    REPORT OF A TRIP TO HYDRO DYNAMICS INC. TO STUDY THE GRIGGS PUMP

From Part 2 of 5:
-----------------

>      ...      There was a long manifold on the input side of the pump with
>    six (count em) 6 thermocouples installed.  There was a similar manifold
>    on the output with again 6 thermocouples and in addition a dial
>    thermometer.  A small feed pump fed water from a tank that was arranged
>    so that they could measure the water used, and forced it through the
>    pump.

Two things concern me here.  One is that the nature of the flow in the 
two manifolds must be quite different and this can affect the readings, 
especially if the manifold itself is at a different temperature than 
the water inside.  Second, it is that the water must be forced through 
the device -- which is obvious in retrospect given the huge amount of 
turbulence inside associated with the ultrasound production and heating. 
This must be measured, since the amount of turbulent resistance to flow 
will change very much between control runs and various experiments. 

From Part 3 of 5:
-----------------

>    8)Error Study Procedure
>
>    How well do they study their errors?
>
>    They do not seem to compute sigma of anything.  They compute the mean
>    of a large number of readings on their thermocouples.  The noise level
>    could be quite high.  

Of all the criticisms of the experiment, this is the one that would 
be easiest to fix and, in the process, shed a great deal of light on 
the possible sources of error in the experiment.  Without sigma, it 
is not possible to compare curves or propogate errors through later 
steps in processing the data into a COP. 

It might be interesting to interchange the location of the thermocouples, 
to be sure there are no systematic errors that come in that way.  A good 
cross check with some other instrument inserted into the flow as part of 
the regular runs (and logged along with what the sensors show at a 
particular stage of the experiment) would allow one to look at the 
temperature profile in the flow as well as an independent check. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  Tallahassee, where the crime rate 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  is almost twice that in New York 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  City.  Reported crimes, that is.  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  A subtle statistical detail.  
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 / C Harrison /  Periodic Post: Cold Fusion online at sunsite.unc.edu
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Periodic Post: Cold Fusion online at sunsite.unc.edu
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 01:45:25 GMT
Organization: Fitful

This message is posted periodically to inform readers about on-line
data sources related to "cold fusion" which are located at the 
University of North Carolina SunSITE server.

Two public WAIS (Wide Area Information Server) sources are online:
(1) Dieter Britz's Bibliography (periodically updated), and
(2) A sci.physics.fusion archive (1989 to present).
WAIS provides for multiple keyword searches in these databases.  It
does _not_ support boolean logic in the searching :-(.

1.  If you are directly connected to Internet, you can log onto a public
    WAIS server at the University of North Carolina:
    %telnet sunsite.unc.edu
    ...
    login: swais
    ...
    TERM = (unknown) vt100
    It takes a minute to load ...

    <use ? for online help>
    <use /cold to locate the cold-fusion "Source" - the Britz biblio>
    < or use /fusion to locate the fusion-digest source>
    <follow the prompts to select the source and enter your keywords
     for searching>

2.  If you have a "gopher" client, you can use it for WAIS access.  Many 
    university campuses provide gopher as a public information service.
2a. On most systems, you first select an option labeled "Other Systems",
    then from that menu select "WAIS based information".  Since each
    gopher site creates its own menus, I can't tell you exactly where to
    go from there.
2b. If you can gopher to SunSITE, at UNC, navigate the menus down thru
    SunSITE archives..All archives..Academic..Physics..Cold-fusion.
    You will find the searchable databases (typically marked <?>), as
    well as the primary-literature files discussed below.
2c. If you can 'telnet' but not 'gopher', you may telnet to
    sunsite.unc.edu and login as 'gopher'.  Then follow 2a or 2b above.

3.  If you have World Wide Web (WWW) browser, such as Mosaic, Cello, or
    Lynx, you may use the following URL's:
     wais://sunsite.unc.edu/cold-fusion       Britz bibliography
     wais://sunsite.unc.edu/fusion-digest     newsgroup archive
     gopher://sunsite.unc.edu/11/../.pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion

4.  If you have a WAIS client on your system (the most common ones are
    "swais" -- character-based, and "xwais" -- for X-Windows), use it.  The
    Britz source is called "cold-fusion" and it is listed in the 
    directory-of-servers.

    If you _want_ a WAIS client program to run on your system, several are
    available in the public domain.  Try ftp-ing to one of these sites:
      sunsite.unc.edu
      think.com

There are several additional files archived at sunsite (e.g. Bollinger's
Twist of Ribbon, preprints of the Fleischmann&Pons 1989 paper), which
are accessible by anonymous ftp.
    %ftp sunsite.unc.edu
    . . .
    >cd pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion
    >dir
The collection (mostly primary papers) maintained by vince cate has been
copied over to pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion/vince-cate.

Additional contributions are welcome; e-mail cfh@sunsite.unc.edu.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.21 / Cary Jamison /  Re: N.Lewis' calorimetric results
     
Originally-From: cary@svl.trw.com (Cary Jamison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: N.Lewis' calorimetric results
Date: 21 Mar 1995 20:39:16 GMT
Organization: TRW ASG

In article <0098D812.3891A620.66@FSCVAX.FSC.MASS.EDU>,
vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> This letter is in connection with the question someone asked 
> about N.Lewis' calorimetric results published in Nature and 
> in Science. As we have shown in Fusion Technology, 23, 474 (1993) 
> the calorimetric method used by N.Lewis et al is inappropriate. 
> Nevertheless, a more thorough analysis of the data presented by 
> N.Lewis et al (if one is to believe the numbers published therein) reveals that 
> the analysis made by these authors of their own results is flawed. 
[...]
> 
> Sincerely yours,
> 
> 
> Vesselin Noninski 

So, you are saying the calorimetry cannot be trusted, yet the data suggests
that excess heat was produced?  I think the total value of this information
is 0.  We cannot add Lewis to the positive list, or the negative list, just
another bad experiment.

-- 
Cary Jamison
cary@svl.trw.com
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudencary cudfnCary cudlnJamison cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 / Chuck Harrison /  Re: Thermocouple positioning
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Chuck Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermocouple positioning
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 03:47:01 GMT
Organization: Fitful

In article <3kkcle$889@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Droege@fnal.fnal.gov says...
[...thermocouple positioning...]
>A good point.

Here is a slightly counterintuitive practice that can help in acquiring
accurate temperature data on turbulent flows: use a *massive* thermowell.

The idea is twofold:  A large heat capacity in the thermowell smooths
out the rapid small-scale fluctuations that are endemic to turbulent
flows.  Then you can quit worrying about Nyquist limits and having your
sample rate beat against some darned driving frequency in the apparatus.

Second, it is often possible to design the oversize thermowell to have
excellent well-mixed heat transfer to the full flow stream.  Fins and
static-mixer tubes can be used by the truly dedicated.  As long as
your goal is accurate measurement of a steady-state condition, extra
mass in the flow stream helps you rather than hinders.

My money says this is gilding the lily on the GG, though.

In any case, if you've got many thermocouples distributed judiciously
across the flow you can make an excellent error estimate as well.

Cheers,
  -Chuck


cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenharr cudfnChuck cudlnHarrison cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.21 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Griggs Connection to the Internet
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Connection to the Internet
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 95 23:37:48 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Tom Droege <Droege@fnal.fnal.gov> writes:
 
>Can anyone imagine why Jed does not want to help?
 
I told you the reason why! Because it is none of my damn business. If he wants
to get on Internet that's his private affair. I have nothing to do with it, no
say in the matter, and I sure would not take a damn vote on telling someone
else how to run their business! That's the craziest thing I have ever heard of.
Why don't we get together, take a vote, and tell Griggs what to eat for lunch?
He would have no trouble establishing a connection if he wanted to, and if he
did have trouble he can find a consultant in the Yellow Pages.
 
Really, this is the most childish nonsense I have ever seen on Internet.
Imagine adults seriously discussing how they plan to poke their nose into
someone's private business and tell him who he should be getting advice from!
I would not dream of taking part in such foolishness.
 
In any case, Griggs does not need any advice from the likes of you bozos!
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Griggs Report
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Report
Date: 22 Mar 1995 04:04:00 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3kioor$ogu@msunews.cl.msu.edu> schamber@egr.msu.edu (Alter )  
writes:

> For the sake of doing some calculation we assume that the input water
> started at a temperature = T1 = 74degF = 296.48K. Then a 100degF rise
> = T1+100degF = T2 = 174degF = 352.04K.
> 

> (1) Using constant specific heat.
> H2-H1 = 232.24444 J
> 
> (2) Using exact specific heats.
> H2-H1 = 237.947501 J
> 
> (3) Using an H2O enthalpy table and linear (manual) interpolation.
> H2 - H1 = 364.4058 J
> 

Those are nice calculations, though its not clear to me why the
latter gives such a big difference from the first two, when it is 
simply the properly integrated version of Cp*DeltaT.

> If we assume that either method 3 or method 1 is correct, the absoulte
> error is the same. Using the most erroneous assumptions the error is:
> 
> error = (364.4058 - 232.24444)/232.24444 = .569 = 56.9% !!!!
> 
> So the use of constant specific heats would yield over unity
> energy far more than 8%!

Uh---its not clear what you are calculating here. It seems to me
that the numbers you provide above suggest Jed _underestimated_ the
efficiency of the device---Jed used Mehtod 1, but
method 3 is most accurate, and that says the given mass of
hot water produced had even more energy in it than
Jed thought. Using your numbers, Jed's experiments would yield
well over 200 % efficiency.


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

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Griggs Report
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Report
Date: 22 Mar 1995 04:05:19 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3kioor$ogu@msunews.cl.msu.edu> schamber@egr.msu.edu (Alter )  
writes:

> For the sake of doing some calculation we assume that the input water
> started at a temperature = T1 = 74degF = 296.48K. Then a 100degF rise
> = T1+100degF = T2 = 174degF = 352.04K.
> 

> (1) Using constant specific heat.
> H2-H1 = 232.24444 J
> 
> (2) Using exact specific heats.
> H2-H1 = 237.947501 J
> 
> (3) Using an H2O enthalpy table and linear (manual) interpolation.
> H2 - H1 = 364.4058 J
> 

Those are nice calculations, though its not clear to me why the
latter gives such a big difference from the first two, when it is 
simply the properly integrated version of Cp*DeltaT.

> If we assume that either method 3 or method 1 is correct, the absoulte
> error is the same. Using the most erroneous assumptions the error is:
> 
> error = (364.4058 - 232.24444)/232.24444 = .569 = 56.9% !!!!
> 
> So the use of constant specific heats would yield over unity
> energy far more than 8%!

Uh---its not clear what you are calculating here. It seems to me
that the numbers you provide above suggest Jed _underestimated_ the
efficiency of the device---Jed used Mehtod 1, but
method 3 is most accurate, and that says the given mass of
hot water produced had even more energy in it than
Jed thought. Using your numbers, Jed's experiments could yield
well over 200 % efficiency.


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

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 / John Logajan /  on-line Griggs Visit Report
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: on-line Griggs Visit Report
Date: 22 Mar 1995 05:35:34 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Copies of Tom Droege's report on his visit to Griggs are available
via www or ftp:

www   http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan

ftp   mirage.skypoint.com    /pub/members/jlogajan/griggs.txt

--
 - 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:
cuddy22 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 / John Logajan /  "Cold Fusion" #8 arrives
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "Cold Fusion" #8 arrives
Date: 22 Mar 1995 05:56:36 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Issue #8 of "Cold Fusion" arrived today.  Only two pages of the 32 were
public domain stuff this time, and that was Scott Little's report on
his experiments involving Ogle's "Double-Nickel" claims.

The bulk of this issue deals with various theoretical aspects.

A short mention that Dennis Cravens has reproduced the Patterson Power
Cell (TM) claims of 200% excess in multiple light-water runs.

Scott Little, any chance you will get ahold of a PPC to test?


Finally, a note from Focardi says that they have two experiements producing
about 20 watts for the last four months, or, as I figure, about 200MJ.
He says the will *not* submit papers to ICCF5.

--
 - 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:
cuddy22 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.20 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Rothwell is an expert on Tokamaks?  NOT
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell is an expert on Tokamaks?  NOT
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 08:17:12 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3k49fp$tbo@curly.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu
(John W. Cobb) writes:
>In article <3k33ku$iuk@deadmin.ucsd.edu>,
>Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> wrote:
>>In article <3k2iq6$cmt@newsbf02.news.aol.com> johmann@aol.com (Johmann) writes:
>:>> 
>:>> From the standpoint of the Harold Furth's of the world, it is probably
>:>> the case that the *last* thing they want to see is a working and usable
>:>> fusion reactor: such a success would end the need for further research;
>:>> so it is better, from a selfish standpoint, to pick a sure loser, like
>:>> the tokamak, and ride that loser forever. 

H. Paul? F. was the first to generate modest sized USA tokamak results. 
Then he generated a Spheromak shortly after Goldenbaum made the first, 
both with diagnostics (myself being the first but w/o diags ).  I thought 
that since HP converted a C Stellarator to a tokamak, it might explain 
why his Spheromak was really a sort of half Spheromak/tokamak due to the 
vertical (turned horizontal in S1) field coils of a tokamak rather than 
the normally used conducting shell (LASL CTX or similar machine at LLNL).    
Anyway, he had guts and used them, and he drove the program as he saw it 
and used bully tactics whenever it could be utilized.  That probably 
effected his heart and the late botched operation with the sub-level 
of oxygen needed by his brain for a critical period.  Anyway-There are
far more evil men, and if his drive got away from him once in a while
it's an understandable thing, and a thing that in anyone's book is now 
now well paid for by many times.  

The fellows at DoE headquarters that should be managing this program
obviously have little or no skill in such operations matters, and it 
is they that in my mind are the real screw ups.   

>:>Hmm...you seem to be under the impression that the folks working on
>:>fusion couldn't do anything else, and so need to cling to the program 
>:>for precisous job security. Uh, I've got news for you: most of  .. .

>On the other hand, I did leave fusion research. My income jumped by a
>factor of 4 (although that was due more to personal career advancement
>                               .. . .          However, I do
>still try to publish some in fusion, but it is not in my job description
>anymore.

Yep it's true.. it's like the sea salt sailors absorb into thier blood.  
                Some just need the D  others perhaps the Li  and
                                      for me it's the H and B .. but
                                               it's there, nonetheless.  
Slaves are we all. 
>-john .w cobb
>
>-- 
>John W. Cobb	Quietly Making Noise, Pissing off the old Kill-Joys
>		-Jimmy Buffett
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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:
cuddy20 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.20 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 07:47:16 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <AWC.95Mar14163540@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> awc@slcawc
aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TOK  ) writes:
>In article <D5AuDt.CxB@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul
>M. Koloc) writes:
>
>> In article <1995Mar4.154832.421@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter
><rfheeter@princeton.edu> writes:
>
>> > ...  TFTR is already at 28% of breakeven
>> >(Fusion power out = 28% of heating power in).  It's not that hard to
>> >extrapolate to a machine that will achieve breakeven.  Actually,
>> >JET, in England, is expected to achieve breakeven either next year,
>> >or in 1997.
 
>> Robert,  Please don't be so vague.  Scientific Breakeven, isn't that
>> what you are referring too?  Engineers could get the wrong idea and
>> think that perhaps tokamaks have nearly solved the commercial fusion
>> problem.   

>There is nothing vague about saying "Fusion power out = 28% of heating
>power in". Q=1, where the power gain Q is the fusion power out over
>the heating power in, is the *only* definition of breakeven among
>plasma physicists. 

But Art, most of the people that will be concerned with the future
of the tokamak or internationally funded fusion are not plasma 
physicists, and they won't see that definition as making much sense.  

So, is it Fusion power out of the machine vs heating (energy) consumed
by the machine  .. .  
          OR 
Is it Fusion out of the plasma   versus the small fraction of heat
that remains after machine losses to it all the way into the plasma.  

>                .. .   . .   I think it is best to let each group
>speak its own language and not try to introduce new expressions like
>"engineering breakeven" or "commercial breakeven".

Actually they are "old" expressions and were used from the outset of
the tokamaks presentation for funding as a viable developable 
commercial candidate.  

>> I suppose if one measured the difference in power out from a gasoline
>> engine trying to burn water with one that burns gasoline, the same
>> improvement might be seen.  Should this be the basis for claims of 
>> improvement??  I think not.  Seems rather chicanerous.  

>                                .. . .   [ Most ]
>physicists would agree, the best measure of progress is the triple
>product of density, temperature, and energy confinement time. (I can
>explain the technical reasons for this choice if there is interest.)
>Can you tell us, Robert, how much this parameter has improved in the
>last 25 years. I think the numbers will still be impressive but won't
>be open to the kind of attacks that Koloc makes. As to where we are
>now, the TFTR triple product must be improved upon by a factor of not
>quite 20 to reach the Q values needed in a reactor.

I certainly agree, as long as the measurements are made simultaneously
from the same "shot" and aren't collected from the product of the best 
of individual records collected from many shots or even many experiments
(even different machines).    Still I'm interested in what the achieved
power output per cc is and over what pulse length it was averaged.  

>> Guts, ingenuity, and committment.   
>
>That's how we all see ourselves.

Certainly more of an "even playing field" than before. 

>-- 
>To study, to finish, to publish. -- Benjamin Franklin
>Dr. Arthur Carlson
>Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
>Garching, Germany
>carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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:
cuddy20 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.20 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Rothwell is an expert on Tokamaks?  NOT
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell is an expert on Tokamaks?  NOT
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 08:25:23 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3k33ku$iuk@deadmin.ucsd.edu> barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>they simply want to work on fusion because its important. Speaking
>for myself, I could easily get various university professor jobs,
>at various prestigious universities, and up my pay by _50%_ as 
>well---the only reason I don't is because I'd rather work on fusion full time.

What! only full time???        ;-)

>--
>Barry Merriman
>UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
>UCLA Dept. of Math
>bmerriman@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:
cuddy20 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.20 /  MalfaX /  God doesn't dice
     
Originally-From: qua1390@cdc835.cdc.polimi.it (MalfaX)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: God doesn't dice
Date: 20 Mar 1995 09:03:46 GMT
Organization: Centro di Calcolo del Politecnico di Milano


                February  7-1995        Milan (Italy)

For the first time in Internet, a new unitary physical theory called: 
The Waving Theory of the Field. 
 
In this new unitary theory, changing the actual starting hipothesis on 
the continuous space-time nature, we can imagine a discontinuous 
space-time, that may becomes, the agent and, at same time, the 
background of physical phenomena. 
In this modular space-time, organized like a discrete lattice, can 
occour states of geometric perturbations of this discrete lattice that 
move along the relativistic geodetics, identified by integral Lorentz 
transformations.
These perturbations are spherical waves' surfaces that move its own 
discrete spherical surface's parts, in the discrete lattice, like 
bidimensional planes. 
We make the hipothesis that the subatomic particles are the elementary 
sources of these spherical waves that, in complex, constitute all fields 
ascribing to the particles. 
On this basis, we make a new physics that, starting from existence of a 
discrete space-time, obeys to laws of a discrete space-time geometry, 
that connect the microphysics to macrophysics. 
Through it we comprehend and connect Quantum Mechanics at General 
Relativity, and Mechanics at Cosmology in one global design. 
On the same basis, we can understand: gravitational interactions,  
electromagnetic interactions and a new model for nuclear interactions.  
We discover a waving model of elementary particles, adapts to describe 
all microphysics' phenomena, that, obeing one's simmetry' principle, 
leave out the nigthmare of the singularity, allowing an understanding, 
mere causal, able to justify all the passages, apparently indeterministic, 
inherited from Quantum Mechanics.
This model, showing that the electrical interactions are absent in the 
space of nuclear interactions (at distance of 1 Fermi), describes a new 
coherent theoretical justification for experimental phenomena of the 
Cold Fusion, describing at the same time the composition of a waving 
structurate model of the particles' family and all its decays.  

The new waving model of interactions produces a waving explication for the 
bodies' inertia, conducing the Clein-Gordon formula to a complete physical 
comprehension, and freeing Relativity from the assumption of identity 
between inertial forces and gravitational forces, deriving a causal 
explication of a new Waving Quantum Gravity.
It follows a generalization that conduces to a combination from gravity 
and an antigravitational Fifth Waving Interaction, derived from the 
relativistic limitation of the ligth velocity, that regulates the 
composition and behaviour of macrobodies in the Universe. 
We can draw a new way for the rationalization of the controversal 
astronomical observations that interest the actions of the cosmological 
masses.
 
The Compton effect carries a waving explication, derived from an extending 
of General Relativity, that interests the Quantum Mechanics and 
permits, to come to a description of all interactions of micromechanics. 
A natural extension of the same Compton effect drives to a waving 
electron's model, and to all subatomic particles, placing a valid causal 
basis for the waving explications of the Lorentz force, and producing a 
model of electromagnetic interactions, that brings to a consequent 
perception of meaning of the electric charge's nature.  
We rediscover a coherent atom's model in which a causality chain, 
purely waving, permits to follow the development, step by step, of the 
waving actions on the photoelectric fenomena, revealing the really waving 
nature of the fine structure constant, connected to a light emission's 
mechanism, merely causal.

The Waving Theory of the Field has been already published in Italy, 
from the author  Walter  E. R.  Cassani, in october 1984 on a book 
entitled: Il Campo Unificato (The Unified Field), distributed from 
author to the IV National Congress of the General Relativity and 
Physics of the Gravitation, in Florence (Italy). 
No reaction from the physicists and astrophysicists.

A next evolution was published in the same way in 1989 with title:
La Teoria Ondulatoria del Campo (The Waving Teory of the Field).
(This is actually translated in english, and showed in Internet) 
No reaction from the official universitary circuit.

A third book entitled: Albert Aveva Ragione - Dio non gioca a dadi,
( Albert Was Rigth - God doesn't play dice ) is published in Milan
in january 1994, and personally distributed from the author in
300 book-shops.
The first edition (5000 copies) selled.

Many hentusiastic letters from students, chemists, engineers, ecc.
A first conference in the Aula Magna of  the Physical Dep. of
Bologna University. 
250 students, 1 Relativity Prof, 1 Dep. Cheef.
3 hours of conference, full hentusiasm from the rest 200 students.

No reactions from the physicists.
No reaction from the scientific journalists, in many ways requested. 
  
Is here and now possible to begin in Internet a new international
scientific revolution, that involves physics foundations and assists 
the appearing of a new paradigma ?

Perhaps Internet is born for this.  
 
>From you, it must come the stimulation to falsify it in the Popper's
spirit or, eventually, promove it.

* To whom it may concern, a brief exposition (     bytes) is located in:  
  linux.infosquare.it :pub\theory
* Please mail your question to:
  cassani@linux.infosquare.it

Or come in Aula Magna dip.of ficica of university of Bologna
via Irmerio #46
The 16th March 1995,17.00 pm.
Organized by Purquois pas (students group)
For any other information just send a e-mail.



cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenqua1390 cudlnMalfaX cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 05:31:48 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3k23vr$3pk@deadmin.ucsd.edu> barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.950311175327.25163F-100000@gladstone> Ed Matthews  
><ewm@gladstone.uoregon.edu> writes:
>> 
>> On 9 Mar 1995, Barry Merriman wrote:
>> > 
>> > Well, lets see---the entire Fusion Energy Budget is about
>> > $350 million/year, so thats about $3.50 per taxpayer per year.
>> > Of that, at most $1 went to princeton.


Is that all ... must have been a few cuts!  Still tokamak got it all.  

>Yes, and what is the principle? The principle is, $1 a year is not much
>to have a team of scientists working on a major experiment in support
>of developing the future energy resources for the US/world.

Well, maybe team"S" (plural) of scientists working on a wider range of
things that are funded from a number of centers if not the states 
themselves (Texas has its own AEC).   

>So, you must feel that the chances of a tokamak class reactor
>producing useful power are so incredibly small that it does not
>even merit $1 dollar per year from you. You are a brilliant mind
>to see so clearly into the distant future.

Well at least there is a mind at work here.  I'm not certain this is 
that much of a test for IQ; a statement not meant to be derogatory 
except possibly for the engineering possibilitites of the named machine. 

>I'd bet that even Paul Koloc will admit that tokamaks probably can be 
>made to produce power in a way that would be interesting to country
>that would otherwise have *no* high capacity, steady supply of power.

Japan???  They have little or no on site resources but do have a 
strong alternative concepts program. 

>The real problem is not the $1 per year that you pay for tokamaks.

Tokamaks.... you mean PPPL tokamak
Toks suck harder than that, Barry. 

>Its that you should be paying at least another $1 per year on other
>alternatives, and you aren't. Complain to your congressmen, don't
>haggle with the scientists that are working on _solving the problem_.

Do you honestly think "scientists" work on the fusion concept of
their choice???  I don't think so.  As far as haggling, these days
and past few years several have ended up out on their butts for 
attitude.  Do you think the labs are free to work on anything other
than tokamak????  Come on ... Blink and take another look here.  

Should Bureaucrats deflect all the funds into one "egg"?? 

I think not.  The solution then is more like having a reasonable 50/50
mix between mainline/ITER/tokamaks program and an alternative program
that should be funded out of a number of centers, if not the States.  
This should prove out, since alternatives are mighty cheap by comparison. 

This plan has been neither suggested, nor worked out by DoE Germantown 
or DoE downtown DC.    --    nor will it likely be..

>Geez, some people show no gratitude :-) 

I'm certain that CA board of regents wouldn't forget you.  
>--
>Barry Merriman
>UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
>UCLA Dept. of Math
>bmerriman@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:
cuddy22 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 / Akira Kawasaki /  Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
     
Originally-From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment,sci.
nergy,sci.materials
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
Date: 22 Mar 1995 09:11:59 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3kn7lg$7bv@gap.cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J 
Lydick) writes: 
>
>In article <3kdouo$i82@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira 
Kawasaki) writes:
>=In <3kc9to$hrd@server.st.usm.edu> lrmead@whale.st.usm.edu (Lawrence R. 
>=Mead) writes: 
>=       
>=>How about the ratio of *repeatable results* confirmed/ public 
dollars?
>=>
>=Articles 19022 and 19023 posted here on the Internet 
>=sci.physics.fusion newsgroup makes for interesting responses to your 
>=question. Of course there are others but it is not in my capacity to 
>=rattle them off readily. Perhaps your perusal of any number of cold 
>=fusion publications available may convince you of repeatability of 
>=excess heat beyond chemical heat, internationally. And the question 
that 
>=arises are, if beyond chemical heat, where is it coming from except by 
>=nuclear processes and by what mechanism in a solid state enviroment?  
>
>Gee.  Akira's pretty incompetent when it comes to Usenet, too.  The 
article
>numbers he posts are useless to anybody except someone using the same 
nntp
>server he is.  If he wants to refer to particular posts, he should do 
so by:
>	1)  Subject: line;
>	2)  From: line; and
>	3)  Message-ID: line (for example, the message ID of the item to 
>           which I'm responding is <3kdouo$i82@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>).
   Thank you for your information. Actually I received a private E-mail 
hinting at the same mistake (without any gratuitous opinions). I was 
being a little lazy since there seemed to be no mechanism of giving 
automatic references to other subject articles related to the question 
raised. It was a mistake to assume that the article number listed on the 
Netcom service was universal to Internet.
   Article # 19022 is:
   1. Newsgroup: sci.physics.fusion
   2. From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
   3. Subject: Caltech experiments were positive (?)
   4. Date: 17 Mar 1995 23:20:13 GMT
   5. <3kd5fd$@deadmia.ucd.edu>
   Article # 19023 is:
   1. Newsgroup: sci.physics.fusion
   2. From: vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu
   3. Subject: Re: N. Lewis' calorimatric results
   4. Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 22:10:52 GMT
   5. From: <0098D812.389A620.66@FSCVAX.FSC.MASS.EDU>
Subsequent to these two postings, there are:
   Article # 19036 (on Netcom)
   1. Newsgroup: sci.physics.fusion
   2. From jedrothwell@delphi.com
   3. Subject: 1989 CalTech work was *positive*
   4. Date: Fri, 17 Mar 95 16:46:21 -0500
   5. <5s+4+vN.jedrothwell@delphi.com>
   Article # 19053 (on Netcom)
   1. Newgroup: sci.physics.fusion
   2. From jedrothwell@delphi.com
   3. Subject: Merriman's comments on Lewis
   4. Date: Sat, 17 Mar 95 17:08:18 -0500
   5. <pk7ZuhS.jedrothwell@delphi.com>
   Article # 19060 (on Netcom)
   1. Newsgroup: sci.physics.fusion
   2. From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
   3. Subject: Re: N. Lewis' calorimetric results
   4. Date: 18 Mar 95 23:59:33 GMT

   By the way, the original article which I reponded to appeared under 
multiple newsgroups. The referred to articles appeared under only one 
newsgroup so this has been noted. The date and time listing should be 
helpful in nailing the exact article.
   The subject matter discussed refers to some cold fusion experiment(s) 
and (mis)analysis done by N. Lewis in the same school you are using the 
on-line service.     
   Good search!
-AK-
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenaki cudfnAkira cudlnKawasaki cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 / Dave DAVIES /  Re: Fusion Digest 3479
     
Originally-From: daved@nimbus.anu.edu.au (Dave DAVIES)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Digest 3479
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 16:23:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

> Dave,
> john Maddox the editor of Nature is giving a talk tonight at
5:00pm at the Robertson theatre RSBS. Are you lible to go?
> Allan
> 

What is he talking on?

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudendaved cudfnDave cudlnDAVIES cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 /  Jpmjpmjpm@aol. /  Macroeconomics
     
Originally-From: Jpmjpmjpm@aol.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Macroeconomics
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 16:27:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Matt declaims -
>there are quite a few major industries in
>this country that wouldn't exist if the general 
>public had more
>scientific sophistication.

Matt, I'm not asking sarcastically, but what are these?

Incidentally, you know those 'emoticon' things?
(ie,   (:   <-:    <;   and so on), if anyone reading
this list wants 2buy a nifty tshirt with one on it, email 
my pal Mark at netwear@aol.com.   <:    - JP

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenJpmjpmjpm cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 / Scott Mueller /  What to do with the extra trip fund?
     
Originally-From: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What to do with the extra trip fund?
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 20:19:12 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA

I must admit, I haven't been really crazy over the options presented so far
for the excess trip fund.  I'd like to propose that we use the remainder of
the fund in line with the original purpose, to fund ventures of interest to
the contributors, and to report back on the group.  Just because there is
nothing on the horizon does not mean that there won't be in the future.

Suggested ventures:

  1) Fund someone to bring their working cell(s) to Steve Jones' or Scott
     Little's lab to search for signature radiation.

  2) Fund SJ or SL to visit a lab for the same search.

If Tom doesn't want to hold and disburse the funds, I am willing to step back
into the treasurer role.  In that case I would like someone else to step to
the front and preside over vote-taking among the contributors.  I can't
promise to keep the funds in a high-yield account, unfortunately.

If folks agree that this is a good plan, but want someone else to hold the
funds, I am amenable.

I think that if we identify and fund an additional mission, we could consider
making this a standing arrangement.

           \scott

-- 
Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (tandem|ub-gate)!zorch!scott
Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests.


cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 / JORDI CASALS /  A simple question
     
Originally-From: JORDIR@LAMBDA.UPC.ES (JORDI ROVIRA, CASALS          )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A simple question
Date: 22 Mar 1995 15:29:05 GMT
Organization: CAMPUS DE TERRASSA - UPC. SPAIN

In your opinion, I will be possible in long term future a reactor able to burn
only higrogenum (not deuterium nor tritium).

(I am thinking in a hypotetical giant spaceship to get others stars)


cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenJORDIR cudfnJORDI cudlnCASALS cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 /  jedrothwell@de /  Richard Schultz: not a Rocket Scientist
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Richard Schultz: not a Rocket Scientist
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 95 10:45:32 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

In a bid to clinch the 1995 Muddled Thinking Award,
schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) writes:
 
   "I suppose you are aware that this was exactly the argument made in the
   1920's that no chemical fuel could possibly release enough energy on
   combustion to take a rocket to the moon? I have seen the calculation:
   the most powerful chemical can only put out x calories/g, it takes
   y calories/g to get something to the moon, and y > x, Q.E.D."
 
Yes, of course. I suppose you are aware that the argument is correct: no
chemical fuel can *take itself* to the moon, or even reach escape velocity
from earth. Surely you do not believe the scientists in the 1920s did not
know the caloric content of fuel!?! Those scientists made a logical error.
They forgot that in all cases, the rocket goes but the fuel stays behind.
Arthur C. Clarke described this in his analysis of the 1926 paper by Prof.
A. W. Bickerton:
 
   "His first error lies in the sentence: 'The energy of our most violent
   explosive -- nitroglycerine . . ." One would have thought it obvious that
   *energy*, not violence, is the what we want from rocket fuel; and as a
   matter of fact nitroglycerin and similar explosives contain much less
   energy, weight for weight, than such mixtures as kerosene and liquid
   oxygen. This had been carefully pointed out by Tsiolkovksy and Goddard
   years before.
 
   Bickerton's second error is much more culpable. What of it, if
   nitroglycerine has only a tenth of the energy necessary to escape from
   earth? That merely means that you have to use at least ten pounds of
   nitroglycerine to launch a single pound of payload.
 
   *For the fuel itself* has not got to escape earth; it can all be burned
   quite close to our planet, and as long as it imparts its energy to the
   payload, that is all that matters."
 
   (from "Profiles of the Future," 1963. For lots more information, see
   Clarke's book "Interplanetary Flight" -- highly recommended!)
 
 
Schultz adds even more mind boggling confusion:
 
   "So your 'thousands of years' is really only about 70, i.e. not that much
   more than nuclear theory."
 
Umm. . . the caloric content of fuels has been know with great precision for a
longer than 70 years. More like 150. But more important, people have
intuitively known the approximate limits since prehistoric times. Everyone
knows that a small amount of fuel -- wood, grass, coal, or anything else --
will burn for a short while and then go out. That is why in biblical times
when the story arose that small oil fed candles had burned for several days,
people considered it a miracle, which they celebrate to this day in the
festival of Hanukkah. Everyone knows that a hundred grams of oil
cannot burn with a macroscopic, visible flame for nine days. People have
known that fact since prehistoric times when the first animal fat and oil
burning flames were used. In the last 30,000 years no fuel has ever been
developed that produces more than three times the energy per gram of ancient
animal fat lamps, and no fuel ever will exceed 11 times that amount. We
reached the limits of chemistry eons ago, and everyone with an ounce of
common sense knows approximately where those limits lie. The fact that cold
fusion device produce *thousands of times* more energy than the best chemical
fuels proves beyond any shadow of doubt that cold fusion cannot be a chemical
process.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 / Willy Moss /  Re: A simple question
     
Originally-From: Willy Moss <wmoss@llnl.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A simple question
Date: 22 Mar 1995 15:59:00 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, NCD

You're better off trying dilithium
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenwmoss cudfnWilly cudlnMoss cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.20 / Gary Steckly /  Re: GG report?
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@clark.dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG report?
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 95 15:34:59 GMT
Organization: Industry Canada

In article <19950317121945.niemirab@safir.bpp.msu.edu> niemirab@student.
su.edu  (Brendan A. Niemira) writes:
>From: niemirab@student.msu.edu  (Brendan A. Niemira)
>Subject: GG report?
>Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995  12:19 est

>Tom Droege's Griggs trip report is supposed to come out later today [March 17,
>St. Patrick's Day].
>May I safely presume that if my verdammnt news system deletes Tom D.'s GG
>report over the weekend [before I get a chance to see it on Monday], someone
>will have a copy I could get via e.mail?  Or from Tom directly?
>.............

It appears that my news server was out of commission all weekend, and I have 
not yet seen any repports or discussion filter through this morning.  Did Tom 
post on Friday evening as planned?  Could someone email me a copy as well?

Tom, perhaps  you could email all the contributors a copy?

thanks

Gary
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.20 /  JohnatAcadInt /  Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
     
Originally-From: JohnatAcadInt <ah63@solo.pipex.com>
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment,sci.
nergy,sci.materials
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
Date: 20 Mar 1995 18:57:48 GMT
Organization: PIPEX news server (posting doesn't reflect the views of PIPEX)

sarfatti@ix.netcom.com (Jack Sarfatti) wrote:
>
> In <3kdouo$i82@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki) 
> writes: 
> 
> >
> >In <3kc9to$hrd@server.st.usm.edu> lrmead@whale.st.usm.edu (Lawrence R. 
> >Mead) writes: 

      
> >... if beyond chemical heat, where is it coming from except by 
> >nuclear processes and by what mechanism in a solid state 
>> enviroment? 
 
I am not a chemist, but is it not more likely that experimental
error may be greater than the results? The energy must come from 
if you have, effectively, an H-bomb going bacwards. If this were
easy to be done - or a likely natural occurrence - we should have 
heard about it by now ... more likely heard it! And then - nothing.
Rememeber even in physics, cash is King, and unless you can lay 
your hands on the readies you are dead in the water - though if 
you'd probably be dead in the water, anyway (Little bangs mean
a lot! For Tipler's sake, darlin, be careful - this is not a 
cigarette lighter). There are no breaks - and, maybe, no brakes, 
which makes me suspiciousm (giggle). The giggle is because a huge
but delicate fabric has been erected on a very slender footing. I don't
happen to believe it quite, but would it be any more surprising 
than the Baring's Bank affair, if thinking only of their careers
(what else now?) and looking always for funding, scientists had 
"allowed themselves to believe". Do Scientists cook the books? 
Is science the word of god - or a Derivitive? The German for a body
of knowledge is wissenschaft: therefore, when you "know", let me know.
Kind rgds - John Murphy. (It would be contradictory to say that my
opinions are not those of my employer.) 

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenah63 cudlnJohnatAcadInt cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.20 /  JohnatAcadInt /  Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
     
Originally-From: JohnatAcadInt <ah63@solo.pipex.com>
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment,sci.
nergy,sci.materials
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
Date: 20 Mar 1995 18:57:54 GMT
Organization: PIPEX news server (posting doesn't reflect the views of PIPEX)

sarfatti@ix.netcom.com (Jack Sarfatti) wrote:
>
> In <3kdouo$i82@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki) 
> writes: 
> 
> >
> >In <3kc9to$hrd@server.st.usm.edu> lrmead@whale.st.usm.edu (Lawrence R. 
> >Mead) writes: 

      
> >... if beyond chemical heat, where is it coming from except by 
> >nuclear processes and by what mechanism in a solid state 
>> enviroment? 
 
I am not a chemist, but is it not more likely that experimental
error may be greater than the results? The energy must come from 
if you have, effectively, an H-bomb going bacwards. If this were
easy to be done - or a likely natural occurrence - we should have 
heard about it by now ... more likely heard it! And then - nothing.
Rememeber even in physics, cash is King, and unless you can lay 
your hands on the readies you are dead in the water - though if 
you'd probably be dead in the water, anyway (Little bangs mean
a lot! For Tipler's sake, darlin, be careful - this is not a 
cigarette lighter). There are no breaks - and, maybe, no brakes, 
which makes me suspiciousm (giggle). The giggle is because a huge
but delicate fabric has been erected on a very slender footing. I don't
happen to believe it quite, but would it be any more surprising 
than the Baring's Bank affair, if thinking only of their careers
(what else now?) and looking always for funding, scientists had 
"allowed themselves to believe". Do Scientists cook the books? 
Is science the word of god - or a Derivitive? The German for a body
of knowledge is wissenschaft: therefore, when you "know", let me know.
Kind rgds - John Murphy. (It would be contradictory to say that my
opinions are not those of my employer.) 

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenah63 cudlnJohnatAcadInt cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.20 / Hugh Lippincott /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: hughl@news.an.hp.com (Hugh Lippincott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: 20 Mar 1995 18:14:18 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company

 a0014246@unicorn.it.wsu.edu (mark fuller) writes:
|> Hugh Lippincott (hughl@news.an.hp.com) wrote:
|> 
|> <discussion about PV vs. Biomass deleted>
|> 
|> : Comparing biomass to solar electricity is apples to oranges w/r/t:
|> :   energy storage and transportation!
|> 
|> : Solar cells output electricity that must be:
|> :  transformed to usable voltages and 
|> 
|> No problem on this one, Bonneville Power Administration has been
|> doing this for years with the DC inter-tie to transport power
|> from the northwest US to California.
|> 
|> :  transmitted to where it is used IMMEDIATELY
|> : 	eg how do we use solar energy at midnight? 
|> : 	   12,500 mile transmission OR 
|> : 	   conversion from chemical energy storage
|> 
|> There ARE other ways to store energy.  A hydro project here in Washington state 
|> (Grand Coulee Dam, you might have heard of it :-) ) uses excess power to run 
|> pumps that lift water from the reservoir behind the dam a few hundred feet up
|> to a secondary reservoir (Banks Lake).  These pumps can do double duty as
|> generators to fill peak demand.  Banks Lake is also the water source for
|> the Colombia basin irrigation project (about 500,000 acres or so, was 
|> designed for twice that).
|> The main drawback in storing energy this way is pumping losses one way
|> and generating losses the other.

named: Pumped Storage
now get everyone in the US to allow enough pumped storage for a significant
amount of energy!  Either the level of the lake has to go up and down a lot
~10 - 20 meters, or the lake has to be huge (a great lake?) 
NIMBY bait :-)

|> Another method of energy storage that has been receiving some interest
|> is super-conducting storage rings, since a current circulating in such a
|> ring will continue indefinitely, this method shows some promise.  Some
|> engineering studies have been done, I think EPRI might have been involved.

Yes, but: the forces are huge, the magnetic fields very strong, ...
ie. Not demonstrated YET!? 

|> : biomass is chemically STORED energy
|> :  it must be converted to the appropriate form of useful energy
|> 
|> : The cost of solar electricity must include allowance for storage or
|> : replacement power for when solar cannot be used.
|> 
|> True, but if we got off our duffs and put mining colonies on the moon,
|> constructed solar farms in orbit with those materials, and beam the power
|> down with microwaves, we wouldn't HAVE to worry about the storage problem. ;-)
|> 
|> Mark Fuller
|> TANSTAAFL
|> 	Robert A. Heinlein
|> (There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch)

I like PowerSat s etc, but they are also very effective weapons / source
of accidents.  If one got pointed at a city for any significant period 
of time we would have effects ranging from cateracts to "cooked" people
never mind the havoc with anything connected to wires that act as antenni
-- 
	Hugh Lippincott 	    hughl@an.hp.com


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenhughl cudfnHugh cudlnLippincott cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.20 / Tom Droege /  Re: Good work, Tom!
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Good work, Tom!
Date: 20 Mar 1995 19:42:44 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <Bg+bWxq.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com says:
>
>Tom Droege <Droege@fnal.fnal.gov> writes:
> 
>>I think this is the best suggestion yet for the money.  I give it
>>my 100% endorsement.  Jed, you are local, how about making a visit
>>and helping him get on line?  That would be an outstanding contribution
>>on your part.  I would endorse spending all the $700 if that is what
>>it takes.  
> 
>Griggs is an electrical engineer, he would not need any help from the likes
>of me! I am sure he could set up an e-mail account easily. But I expect he
>is much too busy for that, and I am quite positive he will never publicly
>say anything more than he already said in his reply to you. He is much too
>smart for that. As he said in the reply to you, he has seen what happens to
>people who make claims like this, and he does not intend to let that happen
>to him. He would never publish a paper or make any claims on Internet. I think
>he would have to be a first class idiot if he did! He does not need to make
>any claims. The machine speaks for itself. Anyone can get a power meter and
>a thermometer, visit him, and find out for certain that the machine
>produces massive excess energy. There is no call for a debate or public
>declaration when you can show anyone physical proof anytime you like. If he
>got tangled up in a debate here, or if newspaper reporters and people from
>"New Scientist" magazine showed up at his door he would soon get in hot water
>and endless time wasting nonsense.
> 
>Griggs deals with businessmen and plant engineers, not scientists. That's
>because businessmen have money and they buy his product. It is also because
>businessmen have their heads screwed on straight and they are infinitely more
>practical and sensible than scientists.
> 
>- Jed

I read this that you will not help.  Pity.  Just being an electrical 
engineer does not help make sense out of the internet, or what software
to buy or who to get the connection from.  You are obviously competent 
in this area.  I just don't understand why you do not want to help.  I
think Griggs could learn a few things from reading these posts.  He does
not have to spend a lot of time or read them all.  It would give him 
a place to ask questions, and get good help.  

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.20 / Robert Virzi /  Re: Good work, Tom!
     
Originally-From: rv01@harvey.gte.com (Robert Virzi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Good work, Tom!
Date: 20 Mar 1995 19:31:05 GMT
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Waltham, MA

In article <3kek5c$96s@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
PaulBreed <paulbreed@aol.com> wrote:
>As another member of the funding effort, I would like
>to thank Tom for his fine work.
>I was impressed with his professional maner.
>I was also impressed with Griggs response.
>I have a suggestion for the remaining $700.
>
>Why don't we buy Griggs an internet connection.
>A modem and a 1 year AOL account would only be $200 or so.
>
>Paul Breed

Ditto on both counts, Paul!  A fine report produced by Tom, and
I would like to see the remainder of my contribution go to getting
Griggs or someone else from his team on the internet.

Bob Virzi


-- 

  rvirzi@gte.com            Just another ascii character...
  +1(617)466-2881           

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenrv01 cudfnRobert cudlnVirzi cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.20 / Tom Droege /  Re: Griggs Report
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Report
Date: 20 Mar 1995 19:48:43 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3kgnie$ctc@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) says:
>
>Tom Droege (Droege@fnal.fnal.gov) wrote:
>: Hay!  Who said their is any claim to prove?  Not Griggs.  He says he
>: does not claim over unity operation.  See his letter.  So what are 
>: we all debating about?
>
>This reminds me that several months back, Fermi Lab wasn't really
>claiming discovery of the Top(??) Quark.  But, yet, on the other hand,
>they really were.  Griggs sounds like he is doing the same thing for
>the same reason -- he clearly thinks it is over-unity, but he doesn't
>want to make the formal claim.

OK, a good point.  But Fermilab has now confirmed their earlier result. 
Thousands, and thousands of hours have been spent examaning the various
sources of errors in the experiment. You will find lots of plots of 
everything against everything in order to understand the error sources.
Everything have been very carefully studied by the accepted scientific
proceedures.  If Griggs had done this type of work, we would take him
much more seriously.

Tom Droege

>
>--
> - 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:
cuddy20 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.20 / Tom Droege /  Re: Griggs Report
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Report
Date: 20 Mar 1995 19:56:24 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3kioor$ogu@msunews.cl.msu.edu>, schamber@egr.msu.edu (Alter ) says:
>
>Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
(snip)

>H2 = m*4.1966*352.038 = 1477.3664 J
>H2-H1 = 237.947501 J
>
>(3) Using an H2O enthalpy table and linear (manual) interpolation.
>H1(T1) = 1324.5158 J
>H2(T2) = 1688.9216 J
>H2 - H1 = 364.4058 J
>
>If we assume that either method 3 or method 1 is correct, the absoulte
>error is the same. Using the most erroneous assumptions the error is:
>
>error = (364.4058 - 232.24444)/232.24444 = .569 = 56.9% !!!!
>
>So the use of constant specific heats would yield over unity
>energy far more than 8%!

Thanks for the nice analysis and for pointing out how it should be
done.  Note that I did not see anything like this in Rome.  In fact
I had to point out that they were not computing sigma of anything.  So
they do not have the slightest idea what their error is.

Some of my comments were tongue in cheek.  I am not always 
a serious person.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.20 / Tom Droege /  Re: Griggs Visit Report Part 2 of 5
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Visit Report Part 2 of 5
Date: 20 Mar 1995 17:12:22 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <USE2PCB859900692@brbbs.brbbs.com>, mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com
(MARSHALL DUDLEY) says:
>
>matt@physics7.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:
> 
> 
>-> In article <3kcsmn$snk@fnnews.fnal.gov> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) wr
>->
>-> >     effective presentation.  The only strange thing was the speed of
>-> >     operation.  It took a half minute or so between data points.  This
>-> >     reading only 12 thermocouples the torque meter and a few other things.
>-> >     Parker said that the computation part of the loop took all the time.
>-> >     Somehow unfolding the thermocouple curves took time.  I suppose some
>-> >     inverse functions in some instrumentation language could take time.
>-> >     Sigh! A 486 should be able to go at blinding speed for this
>-> >     application.  But this is not a criticism, the system is adequate, thi
>-> >     is just a comment of curiosity.
>->
>-> I disagree.  I think this is a criticism, and a serious one; in fact,
>-> I thought it was the most extraordinary comment in the whole article.
>->
>-> What we know now is that the data acquisition system is doing some
>-> highly nontrivial computations; it isn't just reading numbers from an
>-> I/O port and storing them in a file.  Half a minute of numerical
>-> computation on a 486 is some serious number crunching.
> 
>I am not convienced this is the case.  There is another possibility.  If you
>assume that the a/d is on a 32 channel board, and that the a/d is a 20 bit
>(6 digit) unit with a 1 Megahertz clock, then you would get only about 1
>conversions per second.  This refresh time is quite typical of a lot of hand
>held digital volt meters which use a less accurate a/d and a slower clock.
>With 16 or 32 channels, each would end up getting read only every 16 or 32
>seconds. If I recall correctly a dual slope unit would be half as fast again
>for any specific clock rate.
> 
>The amount of math necessary to account for this time is beyond what I could
>call reasonable.  I think it  more likely a effect of the a/d.  Also, on any
>data taking, you want the data points equally spaced.  Relying on the time
>necessary to crunch data between measurements to define this time would be
>unwise since it would vary with the data.  Normally you use the a/d time, if it
>is perodic, or you set a timer up to trigger conversion at a set period.  The
>latter is another possibility, and could indicate that the operator knows very
>little about his acquisition system.
> 
>                                                                Marshall
> 

They said that the time was spent doing the math.  I think they were 
triying to impress me with the complexity of the math.  They specifically 
said it was not the data collection part of the process.  I don't think
this is significant as I said in the report.  I just was amused that their
program succeeded in keeping the 486 so busy.  Probably some multi-level
interpretative instrumentation program.  A nice simple display though.
Something to look at Marshall.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.20 / Tom Droege /  Re: Griggs Visit (the mysterious computing loop)
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Visit (the mysterious computing loop)
Date: 20 Mar 1995 17:26:57 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <950319170638_54345688@aol.com>, Jpmjpmjpm@aol.com says:
>
>Matt keenly observes -
>
>  "What we know now is that the data acquisition 
>  system is doing some highly nontrivial computations; 
>  it isn't just reading numbers from an I/O port and storing 
>  them in a file.  Half a minute of numerical computation 
>  on a 486 is some serious number crunching."
>
>Matt, what you're saying is totally correct, but don't you 
>think it's  FAR !!! more likely that the system  is just shittily 
>set up?  (In spite of the fact that "Parker said that the 
>computation  part of the loop took all the time'".)  They're 
>probably doing  it all 'in Basic' or something.

Hey!  Don't slam Basic.  I run large programs in Basic and it has blinding
speed compared to this operation.  I am presently running a CCD telescope
that reads in and processes 2000 ea 16 bit measurements.  All the time
is spent in wait loops waiting for the ADC to be done.   
>
>Think about it, lets say the computation WAS running
>efficiently: there's just nothing that would take that long.  
>I bet 20 bucks they're doing something lame with the i/o or 
>the drives or the lookup tables or more prosaically they have 
>the monitor set to the wrong number of colors or something.  
>Any programmer or for that matter any kid that knows DOS 
>could probably eliminate whatever their error is.

No, not likely the problem.  But look at things like "LabView".  These
are programs designed to look pretty and to put up piping diagrams and
to run from a picture set up.  I.e. you draw a picture of your 
apparatus and the program implements a set of differential equations
which it solves to get answers.  I wrote a program like this (an MS 
thesis at MIT) in 1958.  Probably the first "SPICE" like program 
written.  
>
>At any rate, that's a minor point, here's the real point.
>Any (computer literate) 5-yr old would have the idea of
>simply COLLECTING THE DOTS IN REAL TIME, and LATER, 
>running whatever fancy calculation you want.  (I'm sure
>it's NOT a fancy calculation, I'm just being hypothetical.) 
>
>Why would you possibly try to do it in real time?  I worked
>at, say, the BMW-Rolls Royce aero engine R&D plant whilst
>in Europe, they collect rather a lot of data when they stick
>a new build on the test rig, say, 100 channels of thermocup
>info to begin with.  I've never heard of anyone trying to
>stuff the data through the equations in REAL TIME while
>the experiment's running.  Like ..  why?
>
>This alone tells us that they don't have the slightest clue 
>(PC wise), so almost certainly, Matt, don't you reckon it's 
>far, FAR more likely they're doing something LAME, than that 
>there's a real kick-ass (multi-d Monte Carlo integrate or 
>something?  Even that wouldn't take that long) calc. going on?
>
>Tom, you mentioned it's a 486 -  do you mean it's a 486
>PC clone, or did Parker actually (- I don't see why he would 
>possibly do this, if you're only dealing with a handful of
>channels there are dozens of standard, cheap, data 
>collection boards, setups, and standalones -) build some
>sort of set up from scratch himself?

Looked like a standard "Clone" 486 and standard thermocouple 
interface and cold junction box to me.  Don't beat up on Parker.
I think he did a great job for the price I heard mentioned.  I 
only mentioned the speed as a curiosity.  I really don't think
it is significant.  Perhaps Jed can make another visit, or look
at the software when he helps get them on line.  

>
>If I'm wrong, I then agree completely with Matt.  And I know
>what's happening during those thirty seconds, too ...  the NSA,
>the S.R.C., the Masons, and the producers of the 'X-files' and 
>'Sightings' are hooked into Griggs' compaq by ZPE-resonance 
>device aboard a captured UFO in a nearby dimension -  and 
>THEY'RE doing the calculations on their new 3/SSS s.  The
>only reason it takes so long is JFK and Elvis have to review
>each result.
>
><;  Best, JP
>
>
>PS -  'adjudicated' or 'peer-reviewed' lists really, really, really
>really, really, really suck.  Even if you HATE nutcases on the 
>lists you read, I ENCOURAGE those who are whining and wanting
>an adjuducated list sci-physics list, to RECONSIDER.  I've NOTICED 
>that in every field of interest on the net, whether 4x4 suspension 
>discussion or chinese politics or technical or petit-point, 
>adjudicated lists are simply NEVER popular.  They START with a
>flurry of, oh, 10 like-minded people feeling they are really
>DOING SOMETHING community-wise, and a couple of months later
>they are down to one comment a week!  That is ALWAYS the case.
>It's just a fact that there is NOT ONE successful reviewed list.   
>They are ALWAYS boring and if you think about it, utterly opposed 
>to the spirit and physical makeup of the internet.  They NEVER work 
>successfully and heartily.  Just an observation -  think about it! <:
>
An exception to this seems to be Bill Page's study group which seems to
have lots of interest.  

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.20 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Griggs Report
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Report
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 95 13:01:53 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

schamber@egr.msu.edu (Alter ) used three different methods of computing the
enthalpy for a temperature rise of 100 deg F. He starts off with what I
believe is an incorrect assumption:
 
     "For the sake of doing some calculation we assume that the input water
     started at a temperature = T1 = 74degF = 296.48K . . ."
 
They usually use tap water, which is 55 deg F, not 75. That would bring the
maximum temperature down 10 deg C, which makes a big difference. A simple
fixed specific heat does not work when the water gets hot. The change in
specific heat is not linear, it increases dramatically when the water
temperature goes over the temperature of a cup of coffee (about 80 deg C).
 
 
     ". . . Then a 100degF rise = T1+100degF = T2 = 174degF = 352.04K."
 
Droege reported a 100 deg F temperature rise (56 deg C) but in the flow tests
with which I am familiar they tried to keep the temperature difference much
lower than that, by increasing the flow rate. It was usually 60 to 70 deg F
(30 to 35 deg K). They keep it down in order to avoid the inaccuracies Alter
describes.
 
Alter computes enthalpy with three different methods: a fixed (constant)
specific heat; exact specific heats for the low and high temperatures; and
enthalpy table look up. His results, for one liter of water:
 
     "(1) Using constant specific heat. . . . H2-H1 = 232.24444 J"
 
     (2) Using exact specific heats. . . . H2-H1 = 237.947501 J"
 
     (3) Using an H2O enthalpy table and linear (manual) interpolation. . . .
     H2 - H1 = 364.4058 J"
 
That is quite a difference! I myself always use the first method, because it
is the most conservative. Griggs gets a slightly higher answer than I do, with
a slightly more sophisticated look up table method, built into a spreadsheet.
In most positive excess heat runs, I get between 8% and 30%. Alter has shown
here that if we were to use a more exact method of looking up the results in
Keenan, Keyes, et al, we would get much better answers showing much more
excess heat. That is a comfort to know, but honestly, I don't care. I'll stick
with the most conservative, lowest reasonable estimate I can make. Alter
writes:
 
     "error = (364.4058 - 232.24444)/232.24444 = .569 = 56.9% !!!!"
 
Since that error is my favor, it is fine with me. There are a great many other
far-too-conservative errors in the computations. The most glaring one is that
the machine leaks heat like a sieve. We know this is true because when you run
the machine, the housing and pipes gets far too hot to touch. Even when you
flush the output hot water directly down the drain, the whole cavernous room
soon gets uncomfortably hot, even in winter, unless you leave the loading dock
doors open. So obviously, a great deal of the energy delivered to the device
is coming right out again in the form of waste heat. Many kilowatts leak out;
as much as you get from small space heating furnace. The heat lost from the
device itself is not measured in the flow computations (although the heat lost
from the pipes beyond the thermocouples is accounted for). In the tests I did
a great deal of additional heat is lost from the pipes and the barrel. The
blank runs also prove this is the case.
 
Alter has shown that a careful, in-depth, scientific approach might
demonstrate far more excess heat than we compute. I doubt it would be as good
as he estimates: 57%. I think the 100 deg F Delta T reported by Droege may be
far too high and the starting and ending points in the lookup table are also
too high (by about 10 deg K, because Griggs starts with tap water). However,
even if Alter can only add another 20% or so, that would be all gravy. We know
that a layer of insulation on the pump would also beef up the results
substantially. No doubt there are many other ways to prove we have much better
results than we say, but frankly, the I only look for problems that might
*decrease* our results and show an error *in the wrong direction*. Neither
Griggs nor I care how high the C.O.P. is, as long as it exceeds 100%.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.20 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Griggs Report
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Report
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 95 13:15:04 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Alter <schamber@egr.msu.edu> writes:
 
>I don't think we really need to worry why it was slow, except to gripe,
>nitpick, and urge to frobnicate.  
 
You do not need to worry, or gripe, or wonder. You can ask. I know exactly
why it is set to collect twice a minute. There are serveral reasons, all
common sense and simple:
 
1. You can set it to any data collection speed you like. The software is
written in Windows; you just point and click. You can collect hundreds of
times a minute if you like. I fooled around with it. It is fun.
 
2. It does not affect the results at all. Make it once a minute if you like
by throwing away half the data points. It hardly affects the answer at all.
That is because there is a giant flow of water through and a very stable,
predictable flow of heat. It hardly fluctuates at all on any scale you
select. It is massive heat sink, after all. It is 20 liters a minute flow!
 
3. If you set it for a real fast data collection speed, you start filling up
the disk with lots of identical numbers, one after the other. The readings
hardly change from minute to minute, and if you put them every 0.002 minutes
they hardly change on that scale either. Since some experiments go for hours,
you would soon collect a gigantic file of nearly identical numbers. Come
back from lunch and you would find the whole disk filled with them. What is
the point? We know that it is phyically impossible for the water temperature
to suddenly change in a fraction of a second by a large amount. Most of the
input energy comes from ordinary friction heating after all; that is a very
stable, well understood, easily controlled source of heat. The excess does
tend to bop up and down a bit, but the timescale for macroscopic changes is
slow. It may be that the actual events causing the heat are extremely
violent on a microscopic scale, but with this equipment there is no way you
could detect individual events anyway. All you can measure is the overall
average level of excess heat on a macroscopic scale, and you can set the
speed of collection to any scale you like and verify that the effect does not
fluctuate quickly.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.20 / Doug Shade /  Re: And furthermore .. Sonoluminescence
     
Originally-From: rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com (Doug Shade)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: And furthermore .. Sonoluminescence
Date: 20 Mar 1995 18:02:57 GMT
Organization: Motorola LICD

Steve Jones (under the hills of Provo) recently posted prelimnary
results of his work here.  He has not seen any evidence of fusion in
SBSL experiments... though it seemed like he was still looking.

Doug Shade
rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenrxjf20 cudfnDoug cudlnShade cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.20 / Craig Harmon /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: charmon@skid.ps.uci.edu (Craig Harmon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: 20 Mar 1995 18:22:52 GMT
Organization: High Energy Physics cluster, UC Irvine

In article <3k72kv$c1q@curly.cc.utexas.edu>,
John W. Cobb <johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>local library. Let me suggest that you take a little time to do some reading
>before posting again because, well, honestly, you are really embarassing 
>yourself in public. I don't mean to be overly critical, but I'm just not sure 
>you are aware of it.

This from a guy that called a neutron an elementary particle a few posts 
back?  Some people who work in the real world don't have the luxury to sit 
back and leisurely read textbooks at taxpayer expense.  If you don't want 
to explain it to him, just give the reference and leave out the snide 
remarks.

>>But of course that wasn't
>>plain enough in the sentence. So, you are saying that there are no shortages
>>in the theoretical nutrino flux coming from the sun and stars?

Well, there is a deficit in the flux.  In the flux I'm most familiar 
with, the boron 8 flux, the deficit could be accounted for with a very 
minor increase in the core temperature of the sun.  The theory shows that 
the boron 8 flux is proportional to the core temperature as T^18.  So a 
very slight temperature modification is all that would be needed for this 
flux, but I think that slight increase would have other noticeable effects
that solar astronomers could detect on the sun's surface, so it is not 
something that you change on a whim.  Basically, if you start dicking 
around with the temperature, you will affect the reaction rates as the 
cross sections are sensitive to the temperature.
Of course if the recent neutrino oscillation 
experiment holds up, that would have direct consequences for the solar 
neutrino deficit as the MSW theory predicts electron neutrinos can  
oscillate into muon neutrinos which most of the solar neutrino 
detectors are not very sensitive to.  The Kamiokande experiment detects 
neutrino scattering off electrons through both the neutral (Z) and charged
(W boson) interactions.  The muon neutrinos would still contribute a 
neutral weak scattering (cross section reduced by about 1/6) but the 
charged weak current from the muon neutrino would not be seen.
I think the Kamiokande experiment also put out limits on the /\m^2 and
sin^2(20) values for oscillations.  It would be interesting to see if 
they agree with the recent results.

At any rate, I wouldn't be too concerned with this deficit proving a 
lack of knowledge about nuclear physics.  

>Actually, I think that it is more a consequence of people who don't
>really understand the issues or the science. It seems that it is
>common to then try to reduce everything to human behavior. Some people 
>don't understand why it is such a hard problem or  how so much progress
>can have been made and yet the goal is still 30 years away. So when they

I think the problem is with physicists who either lie or distorting the 
truth to get money.  They are the ones the taxpayers have but their 
trust in to explain the issues and science truthfully and they have, in 
the past, given them carte blanche to spend their money.  It isn't 
unreasonable for them to ask 30 years after they began spending money on 
a promised 30 to 50 year program for some direct signs of progress.  
Same thing with the SSC and all the BS about technological spin-offs.  
They should have just tried to sell it on it's own merits.  These stupid 
old codger physicists are going to destroy the public trust, so when my 
generation gets older, becomes PI's and starts asking for money for 
experiments, there won't be any trust left.

Craig
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudencharmon cudfnCraig cudlnHarmon cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.20 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Griggs Visit (the mysterious computing loop)
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Visit (the mysterious computing loop)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 95 13:32:41 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

<Jpmjpmjpm@aol.com> writes:
 
>Matt, what you're saying is totally correct, but don't you 
>think it's  FAR !!! more likely that the system  is just shittily 
>set up?  (In spite of the fact that "Parker said that the 
 
You do not know what the hell you are talking about. The system is set up
to allow any collection speed you like. It is under windows; you just point
and click. If you feel like it, you can take data points a hundred times a
minute, or 200 times. However, the numbers do not fluctuate over these short
time scales, because there is a massive amount of water flowing through and
it acts as a giant heat sink (fluctuation dampener) and because the effect
is inherantly stable. Make the collection as fast as the instruments go and
you see no significant difference in the results. You can tell this is true
easily by the following method: Collect, say, 200 data points for three
minutes and then collect 10 data points for another 10 minutes. Compute the
C.O.P. from the first set, and the second set, and then go back and throw
away 190 of the data points from the first three minutes and compute the
C.O.P. from the remaining points. You will get the same answer in all three
cases. You could bump it up to 1000 points per minute (if the computer will
handle that; I think it will), and run the computation again for all 1000.
You get the same answer as before.
 
Since Griggs and I and a bunch of other people have been sitting around
collecting data at many different speeds in many different tests for a couple
of years now, we understand the performance of the device and we know that
there is no point in setting a faster collection speed. We have looked at
it with 'scopes which are a lot faster than the computer. There is no
fluctuation on any scale faster than a minute that makes any significant
difference. If you collect any faster than 2 times a minute, you end up with
a gigantic disk file of identical numbers signifying nothing.
 
Furthermore, you idiot, let me point that if Tom Droege felt there was
anything the least bit wrong with the data collection speed, he could have
sat down, moved the mouse around a tad, and bumped it up by a factor of ten.
He was there! The computer was right in front of him. If you get permission
to observe the experiment you can set the instruments anyway you like. If
Droege chose not to fiddle with parameters I guess that means he was happy
with them. Who are you to differ? Where were you? Why don't you go there and
set the damn numbers yourself? You will see exactly what I have described.
Droege went there and did *nothing* to the insturments -- he did not even
ask to see a test and he did not record or report a single number. I guess
that means he saw nothing wrong. I don't know what to make of if. Any
reasonable, rational person would have checked by changing the data collection
speed around (which I did in the first minute I was there), but since Droege
did not, I guess he intuitively felt it was okay. I myself am a lot more
careful; I would not accept it, I would *always* check every detail myself
by trying different collection speeds.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.20 / Jeff Greason /  Re: Grigg visit: Droege found no error
     
Originally-From: greason@ptdcs2.intel.com (Jeff Greason)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Grigg visit: Droege found no error
Date: 20 Mar 1995 16:32:41 GMT
Organization: Intel PTD, Aloha, OR

In article <ZM6aOlR.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>Let me make something 100% clear. *I* tested for these problems. I described
>my tests right here in this forum. I described my observations time after
>time. Both Griggs and I made absolutely certain that these problems cannot be
>occurring. Droege did not perform any tests to check these ideas but *I did*,
>and I reported my results right here. None of the objections raised by Droege
>in his report has any technical merit -- not one. For the record, I will
>repeat what I did to ensure that these two factors cannot be affecting the
>test results:

I've lurked on this thread as long as I can.

To the believers in the "Griggs effect" -- look, if you're *really* right,
and there's *really* a reliable way to produce more power out than you
put in, then relax a bit; you'll eventually be proven right.  In the
meantime, shouting about it won't help.

If you can *really* produce more heat out than you put in as power, then
hook up a generator, powered by the heat, drive the initial device off
the power, and sell the excess.  In a few years, you'll be rich, and
you'll have shown all the doubters (myself included).

In the meantime, you're unlikely to convince anyone of these stubborn
conservatives blind to the true light (myself included), who are clinging
to that outmoded "conservation of energy" theory.  But why do you need
to convince us, anyway?  As I said, if you're right, scale it up and
make money, and the recognition you're apparently seeking will follow.
And if what you need is investment capital, you're probably trying to
convince the wrong people here.

I'd also pay a bit more attention to papers in a peer-reviewed, respected
journal than to posts on USENET, but that will certainly be difficult, as
they tend to be even more skeptical of "excess energy" papers after the era 
of Pons, et. al.  So just go ahead to practical applications.

Disclaimer: While I am an Intel employee, all opinions expressed are my own,
     and do not reflect the position of Intel, NETCOM, or Zippy the Pinhead.  
============================================================================
Jeff Greason                 "We choose to go to the Moon in this decade,
  <greason@ptdcs2.intel.com>  and do the other things, not because they 
  <greason@ix.netcom.com>     are easy, but because they are hard." -- JFK 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudengreason cudfnJeff cudlnGreason cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.20 / Alan M /  Re: Announcing: INFINITE ENERGY
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Announcing: INFINITE ENERGY
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 07:29:10 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <950320031945_76570.2270_HHB61-2@CompuServe.COM>  76570.2270
compuserve.com (Eugene 
Mallove) writes:
> The affordable subscription price of this six-issues/year publication of 
> general and technical interest is $29.95 for residents of the U.S. and Canada.
> (To cover first-class air mail for other countries, the annual foreign 
> subscription price is $49.95.) The magazine will initially have limited 
> distribution on select newsstands and will be subscription-driven via a 
> national ad campaign.
> 

Are you guaranteeing subscription refunds when it folds after two issues?

-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.20 / Tom Droege /  Re: Griggs Visit Report Part 2 of 5
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Visit Report Part 2 of 5
Date: 20 Mar 1995 20:03:00 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <MATT.95Mar18163235@physics7.berkeley.edu>, matt@physics7.ber
eley.edu (Matt Austern) says:
inverse functions in some instrumentation language could take time.
>>     Sigh! A 486 should be able to go at blinding speed for this
>>     application.  But this is not a criticism, the system is adequate, this
>>     is just a comment of curiosity.  
>
>I disagree.  I think this is a criticism, and a serious one; in fact,
>I thought it was the most extraordinary comment in the whole article.
>
>What we know now is that the data acquisition system is doing some
>highly nontrivial computations; it isn't just reading numbers from an
>I/O port and storing them in a file.  Half a minute of numerical
>computation on a 486 is some serious number crunching.
>
>In other words: the calculation isn't simply dividing an output
>measurement by an input, but involves something far fancier than that.
>This then leads to three questions:
>        (1) What are they actually calculating?  [Not just a division;
>            divisions don't take 30 seconds.]
>        (2) Is the mathematics they're using for the calculation
>            correct?  Is it based on correct physical principles?
>        (3) Has the mathematics been implemented correctly in
>            software?  Writing good numerical code is hard!
>
>When I publish a result that depends on heavy-duty numerical
>computation, I spend a lot of time making sure that the computation is
>correct.  How certain is that in this case?

I think Jed has just spilled the beans in another post.  They apparently
have put all the data into a spread sheet program and are recalculating
the spread sheet.  I suppose this will do the job, but not where I would
do any significant computation.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.20 / Tom Droege /  Re: GG report?
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG report?
Date: 20 Mar 1995 20:04:40 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <gsteckly.103.000AB5CE@clark.dgim.doc.ca>, gsteckly@clark.dgi
.doc.ca (Gary Steckly) says:
>
>In article <19950317121945.niemirab@safir.bpp.msu.edu> niemirab@student
msu.edu  (Brendan A. Niemira) writes:
>>From: niemirab@student.msu.edu  (Brendan A. Niemira)
>>Subject: GG report?
>>Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995  12:19 est
>
>>Tom Droege's Griggs trip report is supposed to come out later today [March 17,
>>St. Patrick's Day].
>>May I safely presume that if my verdammnt news system deletes Tom D.'s GG
>>report over the weekend [before I get a chance to see it on Monday], someone
>>will have a copy I could get via e.mail?  Or from Tom directly?
>>.............
>
>It appears that my news server was out of commission all weekend, and I have 
>not yet seen any repports or discussion filter through this morning.  Did Tom 
>post on Friday evening as planned?  Could someone email me a copy as well?
>
>Tom, perhaps  you could email all the contributors a copy?
>
>thanks
>
>Gary

I am not competent to do this.  Some of you can do it without much effort.  I 
think I will wait a couple of days and then post it again.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.20 / Tom Droege /  Re: Griggs Visit Report Part 2 of 5
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Visit Report Part 2 of 5
Date: 20 Mar 1995 20:08:28 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <tomkD5q85q.2DK@netcom.com>, tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) says:
>
>In article <MATT.95Mar18163235@physics7.berkeley.edu>,
>Matt Austern <matt@physics.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
>>What we know now is that the data acquisition system is doing some
>>highly nontrivial computations; it isn't just reading numbers from an
>>I/O port and storing them in a file.  Half a minute of numerical
>>computation on a 486 is some serious number crunching.
>
>We _know_ nothing of the kind. What language was the program written in?
>30 seconds of tight assembly language is pretty significant, but the same
>time written in some bloated instrumentation languages (it is quite
>possible that the whole thing was written in Lotus 1-2-3 macros as described
>by Mezei in several of his books on the subject) may be nothing at all

except overhead.
>
>>In other words: the calculation isn't simply dividing an output
>>measurement by an input, but involves something far fancier than that.
>>This then leads to three questions:
>>       (1) What are they actually calculating?  [Not just a division;
>>           divisions don't take 30 seconds.]
>>       (2) Is the mathematics they're using for the calculation
>>           correct?  Is it based on correct physical principles?
>>       (3) Has the mathematics been implemented correctly in
>>           software?  Writing good numerical code is hard!
>
>The man may be doign some fancy graphics displays in a language not

I wish he was.  There was no graphics display.  I would have at least 
plotted the COP computed vs time.

>designed for such things. What if he is generating the absolute temperature
>by a lookup table on a stored curve?

I think this is exactly what he is doing.

>
>In short, thirty seconds doesn't suprise me at all. I'ver seen far worse
>by people that are probably more expensive to hire as consultants.
>
>
I have too.  I think he got a good job for his money.  But it is probably
doing some trivial calculation using a tool that is not designed for it.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.20 / Tom Droege /  Vote on Griggs Connection to the Internet
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Vote on Griggs Connection to the Internet
Date: 20 Mar 1995 20:21:44 GMT
Organization: fermilab

Can everyone who paid into the kitty send me a direct mail 
message as to their vote on using the left over money to 
get Griggs on the internet?  I have very primitive ability 
to move things around so it is hard for me to scan spf and 
keep a count.  I have a number of yes votes and one strong
no.  

How about it Jed, won't you help Jim get connected?  You are
withing driving distance, and could help him a lot.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.20 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: 20 Mar 1995 21:08:52 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3kkh5s$gj0@news.service.uci.edu> charmon@skid.ps.uci.edu (Craig  
Harmon) writes:

> These stupid 
> old codger physicists are going to destroy the public trust, so when my 
> generation gets older, becomes PI's and starts asking for money for 
> experiments, there won't be any trust left.
> 
> Craig

Let me get this straight---these ``old codgers'' destroy the
public trust by getting large amounts of money to work on
something trivial, like the future world energy supply. They
thereby ruin it for you, who needs large amounts of money to
do something really important, like find the Higgs boson.

Is that right?




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


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.20 / Craig Harmon /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: charmon@skid.ps.uci.edu (Craig Harmon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: 20 Mar 1995 22:59:04 GMT
Organization: High Energy Physics cluster, UC Irvine

In article <3kkqt4$clp@deadmin.ucsd.edu>,
Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> wrote:
>Let me get this straight---these ``old codgers'' destroy the
>public trust by getting large amounts of money to work on
>something trivial, like the future world energy supply. They
>thereby ruin it for you, who needs large amounts of money to
>do something really important, like find the Higgs boson.

>Is that right?


No.

How someone could read my little 'rade against the SSC and the used 
car salesmen (read physicists) who were trying to sell it to an unwilling 
public with promises of technological spin-offs, as support for the SSC is 
beyond me. 

Craig
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudencharmon cudfnCraig cudlnHarmon cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.20 / Tom Droege /  Re: N.Lewis' calorimetric results
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: N.Lewis' calorimetric results
Date: 20 Mar 1995 23:17:46 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3kfs55$j2b@deadmin.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) says:

(snip)

>This is very interesting----I'd like to hear from Tom Droege and
>Steve Jones, both of whom tried very hard for years, and were unable
>to get the ``effect'' (and moreover, found various traps one could
>fall into along the way).
>

After I got better at it, I had no result that indicated a net release
of heat.  This in long tests where I kept an integral from the start 
and attempted to keep track of everything.  This in a calorimeter with 
of order 7 mw rms error.  (but better than this in the later runs)

There were, however, some spectacular heat pulses.  At least 300 joules
with a delta t = 0 within my resolution.  I never quite understood 
why they did not blow the lid off the calorimeter.  

Tom Droege
>
>--
>Barry Merriman
>UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
>UCLA Dept. of Math
>bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
>
>
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.20 / Ed Matthews /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: Ed Matthews <ewm@gladstone.uoregon.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 15:15:59 -0800
Organization: University of Oregon


On Sun, 19 Mar 1995, MARSHALL DUDLEY wrote:

>  
>They did not have income tax then.  If I remember my American history correctly
>they taxed some goods, most notably tea.  Most Americans at that time having
>come from England, had to have their daily tea.  A 2% overall tax rate (if that
>is what it was) applied to tea (and a few other goods) would have brought the
>tea up to an absurdly high price.  This resulted in what is commonly called the
>Boston Tea party, and is responsible to this day for Americans drinking much
>more coffee than tea, which is quite the opposite of our English friends who's
>traditions more nearly reflect those of the US prior to this "party".
>  
>                                                                 Marshall
>  
> 
> 
Why should the tax on tea _then_ have an effect now?  I bet (without even 
looking at the actual numbers) that we now pay a higher tax on coffee 
than they paid on tea back then.  We also pay a higher rate on just about 
everything, which gets back to my original point.

Freedom is talked about as if it were a luxury, to be given up whenever 
something "more important" comes along.  Look at the arguments for 
anti-trust laws, environmental regulations, and so on, and you will find 
moral arguments to the effect that people will act ultimately to destroy 
themselves or others if the government does not step in.  But to 
paraphrase Frederic Bastiat, the regulators are themselves human, so if 
all men _by their nature_ are unable to fend for themselves in the long 
run, then the regulators and government officials are also unable to do so.

Patrick Henry had it right:"Give me liberty or give me death."  The 
choice is either-or.  Reason is man's basic means of survival, but to 
apply his knowledge, he must be left free.  A man in chains cannot build 
a fire, let alone a steam enigne, car, airplane or fusion generator.

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                            | Cum principia negante non est disputandum. |
|       Ed Matthews          |--------------------------------------------|
|                            |  Logically, it is impossible to conduct a  |
| ewm@gladstone.uoregon.edu  |     debate unless there is a consensus     |
|			     |       regarding the basic premisses.       |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------



cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenewm cudfnEd cudlnMatthews cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.21 / James Stolin /  Re: Uses for the remaining $700 Droege fund
     
Originally-From: FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Uses for the remaining $700 Droege fund
Date: 21 Mar 1995 00:38:03 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad) wrote:
>
>In article <3k9ulq$hia@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom 
Droege) writes:
>|> I like the idea of offering it as a prize.  Just look what a 
relatively
>|> small prize did for human powered flight.  
>
>Could you hold that contest open till, say, xmas'95?
>Me thinks me needs time to measure the heat, and it is certainly small
>enough to induce a turn-of-the-century physics event :)

   Hmmm.  Hold the prize open as long as you wish.  If a protocol for 
clean >USABLE< heat production is forthcoming, the $700 prize will soon 
be dwarfed by $700,000 licensing fees.

  It would be a turn-of-the century physics event, but don't overlook the 
social, eceoomic, political, etc upheaval such a development would bring. 
 I'd probably sell my computer business the day of the announcement and 
"wing it" from there. 

-
James B. Stolin  -  FKNF40A@prodigy.com

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.20 / Doug Shade /  Re: Griggs Visit Report Part 2 of 5
     
Originally-From: rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com (Doug Shade)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Visit Report Part 2 of 5
Date: 20 Mar 1995 15:03:12 GMT
Organization: Motorola LICD

Speed of acquisition depends alot on the software as well.  I'm using a
National Instruments box to collect/drive date, on a 486 using visual
basic.  The Visual Basic really slows things down to a crawl... zippy
computer not withstanding... 

Doug Shade
rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenrxjf20 cudfnDoug cudlnShade cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.21 /  Jpmjpmjpm@aol. /  Re: sorry Jed
     
Originally-From: Jpmjpmjpm@aol.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: sorry Jed
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 05:17:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Regarding the mysterious computer loop Jed ses ..

= <Jpmjpmjpm@aol.com> writes:
= 
= > Matt, what you're saying is totally correct, but don't you
= > think it's  FAR !!! more likely that the system  is just 
= > shittily
= > set up?  (In spite of the fact that "Parker said that the
=
= You do not know what the hell you are talking about. The 
= system is set up {etc.}

Jed is perfectly correct here.  Jed has now explained the 
situation, it is a matter of CHOICE about the number of dots 
being collected.  Everything I and the others said was pointless
(pun!).

Jed, you can see that from Tom's report, there is absolutely
no inkling of what you have now explained.  

If you, Jed, have a look at Tom's report, (including the mention
of the comupting loop blah blah), and disergard what you 
know personally, you'll see why I and others posted these sort 
of posts - !!

Jed also ses -
> Furthermore, you idiot, let me point that if Tom Droege 
> felt there was

I'm not an idiot, I'm far more intelligent than anyone reading 
this list.

jed also ses -
> he could have sat down, moved the mouse around a tad, and 
> bumped it up by {etc etc}

As I say, there is absolutely no inkling of this in Tom's report,
Jed.   Tom, can you confirm what Jed is saying about the ease
of changing the collection rate, etc?

- JP !

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenJpmjpmjpm cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.21 / Chuck Harrison /  GGOL (Griggs Gadget On Line) -- Was:Re: Good work, Tom!
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Chuck Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: GGOL (Griggs Gadget On Line) -- Was:Re: Good work, Tom!
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 03:59:30 GMT
Organization: Fitful

In article <3kfa16$leb@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Droege@fnal.fnal.gov says...
[...]
>>Why don't we buy Griggs an internet connection.
>>A modem and a 1 year AOL account would only be $200 or so.
>>
>>Paul Breed
>
>I think this is the best suggestion yet for the money.  I give it
>my 100% endorsement.

Agreed (as a non-voting observer; I didn't contribute).  If this comes 
to pass, I urge that the account be set up with a provider who allows
subscribers to offer anonymous ftp files.  Then, in the event that
Griggs wishes to exhibit a dataset for discussion, or post a picture,
he can do so without flooding Usenet.

I believe that CRL and netcom provide such service some places in
Georgia (but I don't know about telephone expenses from Rome).

If his computer/instrumentation consultant is up for it, get him a
SLIP/PPP account...surf's up! ;-)

-Chuck

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenharr cudfnChuck cudlnHarrison cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.21 / Chuck Harrison /  Re: Griggs Report
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Chuck Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Report
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 03:36:27 GMT
Organization: Fitful

In article <3kioor$ogu@msunews.cl.msu.edu>, schamber@egr.msu.edu says...
[...]
>For the sake of doing some calculation we assume that the input water
>started at a temperature = T1 = 74degF = 296.48K. Then a 100degF rise
>= T1+100degF = T2 = 174degF = 352.04K.
[...]

You will not receive credit for this assignment until you resumbit it
with *all* necessary corrections. ;-) ;-)

Chuck

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenharr cudfnChuck cudlnHarrison cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.21 / Brad Kraft /  Superconductors, OK.  Superresistors?
     
Originally-From: bmk69346@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_DOMAIN_FILE (Brad M. Kraft)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Superconductors, OK.  Superresistors?
Date: 21 Mar 1995 05:32:31 GMT
Organization: East Stroudsburg University, Pennsylvania

By lowering the temperature of a niobium wire to 4 Kelvin, you achieve 
superconductivity.  Is it possible to somehow achieve a superresistor 
that resists thermal as well as electrical energy?  I think teflon is the 
most resistive material known to date.  By coating, say an engine with 
teflon and atach turbochargers to it, would it somehow be possible to 
create a near "perfect engine" by converting all of its thermal energy 
into mechanical energy?


Brad Kraft   bmk69346@marauder.millersv.edu
Undergrad. at Millersville University

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenbmk69346 cudfnBrad cudlnKraft cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.21 / Rick Wesson /  URL's seen in sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: rick@ar.com (Rick H. Wesson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: URL's seen in sci.physics.fusion
Date: 21 Mar 1995 04:57:46 GMT
Organization: Alice's Restraunt



		G R E E N    E G G S    R E P O R T
				by
	    	        mailto:rick@ar.com


	The Green Eggs Report is a monthy post of URLs
	spotted within news:sci.physics.fusion


D versus T                         	wais://sunsite.unc.edu/cold-fusion
                                   	file://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/academic/
hysics/Cold-fusion/TiBib.txt
Solar -VS- Fusion                  	http://w3.pppl.gov:80/~rfheeter/
Summer University for Plasma Physic	http://www.ipp-garching.mpg.de/ipp/home_eng.html



================================================================================
Alice's Restraunt   |  GC2.1 d--- H s-:- g++ p? au-- a- w+++ v* C+++ U[A-z]+++$  
rick@ar.com        |  P+++ L+++ 3- E? N+++  K-- !W M V++ po Y++ M !t !5 !j R- G
http://ibd.ar.com/ |  !tv b !D B- e+++ u+ h+ f r n-- y+

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenrick cudfnRick cudlnWesson cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.20 / Alan M /  Re: Griggs Visit (the mysterious computing loop)
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Visit (the mysterious computing loop)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 21:20:16 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <xAxb+dp.jedrothwell@delphi.com>  jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

> You do not know what the hell you are talking about. The system is set up
> to allow any collection speed you like. It is under windows; you just point
> and click. If you feel like it, you can take data points a hundred times a
> minute, or 200 times. However, the numbers do not fluctuate over these short
> time scales, because there is a massive amount of water flowing through and
> it acts as a giant heat sink (fluctuation dampener) and because the effect
> is inherantly stable. Make the collection as fast as the instruments go and
> you see no significant difference in the results. You can tell this is true
> easily by the following method: Collect, say, 200 data points for three
> minutes and then collect 10 data points for another 10 minutes. Compute the
> C.O.P. from the first set, and the second set, and then go back and throw
> away 190 of the data points from the first three minutes and compute the
> C.O.P. from the remaining points. You will get the same answer in all three
> cases. You could bump it up to 1000 points per minute (if the computer will
> handle that; I think it will), and run the computation again for all 1000.
> You get the same answer as before.
>  
> Since Griggs and I and a bunch of other people have been sitting around
> collecting data at many different speeds in many different tests for a couple
> of years now, we understand the performance of the device and we know that
> there is no point in setting a faster collection speed. We have looked at
> it with 'scopes which are a lot faster than the computer. There is no
> fluctuation on any scale faster than a minute that makes any significant
> difference. If you collect any faster than 2 times a minute, you end up with
> a gigantic disk file of identical numbers signifying nothing.
>  
> Furthermore, you idiot, let me point that if Tom Droege felt there was
> anything the least bit wrong with the data collection speed, he could have
> sat down, moved the mouse around a tad, and bumped it up by a factor of ten.
> He was there! The computer was right in front of him. If you get permission
> to observe the experiment you can set the instruments anyway you like. If
> Droege chose not to fiddle with parameters I guess that means he was happy
> with them. Who are you to differ? Where were you? Why don't you go there and
> set the damn numbers yourself? You will see exactly what I have described.
> Droege went there and did *nothing* to the insturments -- he did not even
> ask to see a test and he did not record or report a single number. I guess
> that means he saw nothing wrong. I don't know what to make of if. Any
> reasonable, rational person would have checked by changing the data collection
> speed around (which I did in the first minute I was there), but since Droege
> did not, I guess he intuitively felt it was okay. I myself am a lot more
> careful; I would not accept it, I would *always* check every detail myself
> by trying different collection speeds.

Oh Jed - Why don't you read what others write. Or were _you_ there
so that you can now confidently 
contradict Tom?

>> From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
>> Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
>> Subject: Re: Griggs Visit Report Part 2 of 5

>> They said that the time was spent doing the math.  I think they were 
>> triying to impress me with the complexity of the math.  They specifically 
>> said it was not the data collection part of the process.  I don't think
>> this is significant as I said in the report.  I just was amused that their
>> program succeeded in keeping the 486 so busy.  Probably some multi-level
>> interpretative instrumentation program.  A nice simple display though.
>> Something to look at Marshall.

>> Tom Droege


>  
> - Jed
> 
> 
-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.20 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Grigg visit: Droege found no error
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Grigg visit: Droege found no error
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 95 23:10:38 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

greason@ptdcs2.intel.com (Jeff Greason) writes:
 
   "If you can *really* produce more heat out than you put in as power, then
   hook up a generator, powered by the heat, drive the initial device off
   the power, and sell the excess.  In a few years, you'll be rich, and
   you'll have shown all the doubters (myself included)."
 
That is impossible. The excess rarely goes above 30% It would have to 500%
or so. When you "hook up a generator powered by the heat" that generator is
not perfectly efficient. It loses a large fraction of the energy in friction
and waste heat. Therefore you have to have far more excess than input.
 
Also, by the way, you would not need to "use the heat." The output is steam.
It can drive a turbine directly. Not in this configuration, but in a much
more heavy duty machine it might, if the excess was large enough.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.20 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Thermocouple positioning
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermocouple positioning
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 95 23:17:42 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Bruce Dunn <Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca> writes:
 
>        Can you please clarify "on the output".  Do you mean that the
>thermocouples are taped, glued or otherwise fixed to a pipe, or are they
>thermocouples which screw into a pipe fitting and project into the water
>flow inside the pipe?
 
The ones in the flow screw into pipe fittings and project into the water.
So do the dial thermometers. There are additional thermocouples mounted
in various places; for example there are three at different heights mounted
in holes drilled through the side of the steel drum (with stoppers to
prevent leaks I mean).
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.20 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Thermocouple positioning
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermocouple positioning
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 95 23:26:13 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Tom Droege <Droege@fnal.fnal.gov> writes:
 
>were stuck into the flow.  Now if I were keeping a log book on these 
>tests, there would be a nice little sketch on where each thermocouple
>was positioned.  Looks like a tough problem.  Once you have them 
 
Or, if you had enough sense to bring a camera and a video camera, for
crying out loud. I cannot *believe* that anyone would go all that way to
look at a machine and not take photographs, not get a schematic, nor even
a price list! I find it incredible that you would skip such essentials.
Here you are talking on and on about the need for a log book -- of all things
-- and you yourself did not even bother to take proper photographs of the
equipment. What on earth would possess a person in the last decade of the
twentieth century not to record things properly? You could have borrowed
a camera, or bought one for a couple of bucks at any store. It is the
most elementary and essential tool to any field trip that I can think of.
Griggs may not have a traditional lookbook, but he does at least have
megabytes of data. You don't even have a damn photo! How can you remember
anything without photos and schematics? I took a hundred pictures and two
hours of video.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.20 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Vote on Griggs Connection to the Internet
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Vote on Griggs Connection to the Internet
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 95 23:30:53 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Tom Droege <Droege@fnal.fnal.gov> writes:
 
>How about it Jed, won't you help Jim get connected?  You are
>withing driving distance, and could help him a lot.
 
What on earth would he need me for? He could do it five minutes. He's got
five computers - two more than me, even. If he feels like doing e-mail
he could do it anytime he likes. And what is it to me? I don't care
whether he communicates by e-mail or not. It makes no difference to me.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.21 / Adriana Rossi /  gas analysis
     
Originally-From: Adriana.Rossi@jet.uk (Adriana Rossi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: gas analysis
Date: 21 Mar 1995 10:50:25 GMT
Organization: JET Joint Undertaking

==================================================================== 
For direct E-Mail please respond to Adriana.Rossi@jet.uk 

I am looking for a lab that carries out gas analysis (mass spectrometry,
Raman spectroscopy, gas chromatography, of mixtures of Hydrogen,
Deuterium, 
Helium, Hydrocarbons and few other substances.) possibly on England.
Does anybody know af such a place?

Thank you very much

Adriana Rossi

===============================================================================
    The above article is the personal view of the poster and should not be
       considered as an official comment from the JET Joint Undertaking
===============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenRossi cudfnAdriana cudlnRossi cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.19 / Bryan Wallace /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: wallace@acasun.eckerd.edu (Bryan Wallace)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.logic,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physi
s.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 19 Mar 1995 09:36:00 -0500
Organization: Eckerd College, St. Petersburg, Florida


   There is an interesting article by Robert Matthews starting on page 30 of
the Volume 145 Number 1966 25 February 1995 issue of NEW SCIENTIST titled
"Nothing like a VACUUM."  The article starts with the following arguments:

  IT is all around you, yet you cannot feel it.  Its effects may have lit up
  the Universe in the big bang but today just light up your office.  It is
  the source of everything, yet is nothing.
     Such are the paradoxical features of one of the hottest topics in
  contemporary physics--the vacuum.   It is proving to be a wonderland of
  magical effects: force fields that emerge from nowhere, particles popping
  in and out of existence and energetic jitterings with no apparent power
  source.
     Many researchers see the vacuum as a central ingredient of 21st-century
  physics.  "We now know that the vacuum can have all sorts of wonderful
  effects over an enormous range of scales, from the microscopic to the
  cosmic," says Peter Milonni of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New
  Mexico.  Some even contemplate the prospect of harnessing the vacuum's
  bizarre properties to provide an apparently limitless supply of energy.
  ...
  Such an image is worryingly reminiscent of the ether--a discredited idea
  that bedeviled physics until the beginning of this century.  But Einstein's
  special theory of relativity showed that physics works perfectly well
  without this peculiar, all-pervasive fluid, which was supposed to be the
  medium through which light and other interactions travelled from place to
  place. ...

In contradiction to the arguments of contemporary physics, I report in Chapter
3 of my book "The Farce of Physics" the following argument Einstein made in
his 1920 inaugural address on aether and relativity theory for his special
chair in Leiden:

  The aether of the general theory of relativity is a medium without
  mechanical and kinematic properties, but which codetermines mechanical and
  electromagnetic events.

On page 265 of the Vol. 12, No. 3 March 1982 issue of FOUNDATIONS OF PHYSICS,
D. G. Torr and P. Kolen in an article titled "Misconceptions in Recent Papers
on Special Relativity and Absolute Space Theories" make the following
statements in their abstract:

  ... We establish, contrary to popular belief, that the classical Lorentz
  ether theory accounts for all the experimental evidence which supports the
  special theory of relativity.  We demonstrate that the ether theory
  predicts the null results obtained from pulsar timing and Mossbauer
  experiments.  We conclude that a measurement of the one-way velocity of
  light has physical meaning within the context of the Lorentz theory, and
  argue that an adequately designed experiment to measure the one-way
  velocity of light should be attempted.

If the Einstein Lorentz ether and contemporary physics vacuum arguments were
true, and light was a wave in the ether/vacuum, we would expect that there
would be very large differences in the transit time of one-way light signals
from spacecraft moving relative to the ether/vacuum.  As I explain in Chapter
4 of my book, at the December 1974 American Astronomical Society Dynamical
Astronomy Meeting, E. M. Standish Jr. of NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab reported
that significant unexplained systematic variations existed in all the
interplanetary data, and that they were forced to use empirical correction
factors that had no theoretical foundation.  He made a very dramatic plea for
help on this matter, and after he was finished I talked with him and found
that they had received very little cooperation from Irwin I. Shapiro's Lincoln
Lab MIT group.  I explained to him my own analysis of Shapiro's published 1961
radar data on Venus that found the velocity of light was consistent with
Newton's particle model and not Einstein's wave in ether model.(B. G. Wallace,
SPECTROSCOPY LETTERS, 2(12), 361 - 1969)  I could see from his reaction that
he realized that this was the answer he was looking for, and he thanked me
profusely.  In the same Chapter of my book, I explain that Theodore D. Moyer
of JPL had published a paper that used "Newtonian light time" calculations for
the transit of one-way radio signals from spacecraft.  Moyer's paper also
referenced a paper published by E. M. Standish, Jr.(T. D. Moyer, Celestial
Mechanics, 23, 33 - 1981)

   Richard Feynman was one of a relatively small number of modern physicists
with the intelligence and courage to challenge the current sacred relativity
doctrine.  On page 14 of Feynman's 1985 book "QED, The Strange Theory of Light
and Matter" we find the following statement:

  ...Thus light is something like raindrops--each little lump of light is
  called a photon--and if the light is all one color, all the "rain-drops"
  are the same size.

On page 15 of his book he states:

     I want to emphasize that light comes in this form--particles.  It is
  very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for
  those of you who have gone to school, where you were probably told
  something about light behaving like waves.  I'm telling you the way it does
  behave--like particles.

On page 37 he argues:

  ...Quantum electrodynamics "resolves" this wave-particle duality by saying
  that light is made of particles (as Newton originally thought), but the
  price of this great advancement of science is a retreat by physics to the
  position of being able to calculate only the probability that a photon will
  hit a detector, without offering a good model of how it actually happens.

On page 119 he writes:

  ...We must accept some very bizarre behavior: the amplification and
  suppression of probabilities, light reflecting from all parts of a mirror,
  light travelling in paths other than a straight line, photons going faster
  or slower than the conventional speed of light...

   My book is now archived in many Internet libraries and can be found by
using Gopher and World Wide Web and will be available from Project Gutenberg
archives and on their CDROM's.  The free standard 311KB ASCII version can be
obtained by anonymous ftp from ftp.germany.eu.net in the directory
/pub/books/wallace by using "get farce.txt".  The file in the directory is in
a compressed form and called farce.txt.gz but if you leave off the .gz the
system will send you the uncompressed text.  Unix computer systems have a
command called "gunzip" that will uncompress the .gz format.  The
HTML/World-Wide Web Hypertext version of the book is available via

URL:http://www.Germany.EU.net/books/farce/farce.html

If one prefers to obtain a copy of the ASCII version by email they can send
the request to my wallace@eckerd.edu address, and if their system has a size
limit for email I can send the book in segments, with the largest being 55KB
for Chapter 3.

Bryan



cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenwallace cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.21 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously
Date: 21 Mar 1995 14:15:45 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <Bmx4GJj.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>You are mistaken. The literature on the limits of chemistry goes back much
>farther than the literature on nuclear fusion. It goes back thousands of
>years, in fact. Any cavemen would have know that match will not burn for a
>week.

I suppose you are aware that this was exactly the agrument made in the
1920's that no chemical fuel could possiby release enough energy on
combustion to take a rocket to the moon?  I have seen the calculation:
the most powerful chemical can only put out x calories/g, it takes 
y calories/g to get something to the moon, and y > x, Q.E.D.  So your
"thousands of years" is really only about 70, i.e. not that much
more than nuclear theory.

>In the modern era, theories describing chemical electron bonds were
>perfected long before physicists began to suspect you could not trigger a
>nuclear reaction at room temperature (except by slamming U isotopes
>together).
 
I suspect that Steven Jones would be really surprised to find out that you
can't trigger a nuclear reaction at room temperature.  Although comparing
the dates is a matter of some dispute (after all, H. G. Wells wrote about
atom bombs even before Einstein derived E=mc^2), current theories of
chemical bonding are really not that much older than those of nuclear
physics.  And in fact, the primary theoretical objection to fusing two
nuclei at low energy, namely, Coulomb's Law, is *much* older than
quantium mechanics.

>As I said before, if you think it is chemistry, the ball is in your court.
>Tell us what chemical reaction can produce, say, 350 MJ from 16 grams of
>matter with absolutely no macroscopic changes to the material. Go ahead!

As I have already shown that you can't be trusted to do a unit conversion,
why should I trust *any* calculation that you make, especially since all
you give is the final result and not how you achieved it.  And especially
especially since you have no clue about even the conept of "error 
analysis."

>While you are at it, tell us what chemical reaction can convert deuterium
>into tritium and hydrogen. Claytor, at Los Alamos, has been producing tritium
>for years in his CF experiments. Do you call that chemistry? 

Since boiling water will increase the tritium concentration, you have yet
to give me any result that even needs chemistry.

>How do you explain Claytor's work?
>Ah, that is a silly question! I should know better. Obviously you will
>respond by saying that you have never heard of Claytor, you have never even
>heard of Los Alamos, and even if he has been doing the experiments for years
>you don't believe it, and you will never ever bother to read any of
>literature and find out about it. Right? That's what "skeptics" always say.

You're so cute when you foam at the mouth.
--
					Richard Schultz

"I seem to smell a peculiar and a fishlike smell."
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.21 /  Ed /  Re: Superconductors, OK.  Superresistors?
     
Originally-From: (Ed)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Superconductors, OK.  Superresistors?
Date: 21 Mar 1995 14:16:15 GMT
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center -- Greenbelt, Maryland USA

In message <3klodf$qkv@jake.esu.edu>, bmk69346@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_DOMAIN_FILE 
(Brad M. Kraft) writes:

>By lowering the temperature of a niobium wire to 4 Kelvin, you achieve 
>superconductivity.  Is it possible to somehow achieve a superresistor 
>that resists thermal as well as electrical energy?

You are talking about ceramics.  This is the reason the Porsche 944
Turbo has a ceramic-lined turbo.  Ceramics are very good electrical
and thermal insulators.

>I think teflon is the 
>most resistive material known to date.  By coating, say an engine with 
>teflon and atach turbochargers to it, would it somehow be possible to 
>create a near "perfect engine" by converting all of its thermal energy 
>into mechanical energy?

The energy lost to mechanical friction is not half the problems of the
internal combustion engines.  The combustion of octane is not parti-
cularly efficient, but a cost-effective (not environmentally sound) form
of propulsion.  There are motor oil additives (Slick 50) which contain
teflon that purportedly lines the inner surface of the engine.  This re-
duces friction, but does not improve the energy efficiency of the
reaction.


Edward L. Patrick

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudlnEd cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.21 /  Ed /  Re: gas analysis
     
Originally-From: (Ed)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: gas analysis
Date: 21 Mar 1995 14:44:04 GMT
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center -- Greenbelt, Maryland USA

In message <3kmb1h$r1n@postman.jet.uk>, Adriana.Rossi@jet.uk (Adriana Rossi) 
writes:

>I am looking for a lab that carries out gas analysis (mass spectrometry, Raman 
>spectroscopy, gas chromatography, of mixtures of Hydrogen, Deuterium, 
>Helium, Hydrocarbons and few other substances.) possibly on England.
>Does anybody know af such a place?

My biggest reason for monitoring the newsgroups is to learn what is going
on in the rest of the world regarding mass spectrometry techniques.  I would
like to know more about your efforts, and what techniques and equipment
you are using.

Our Atmospheric Experiment Branch is producing two mass spectrometers
for space flight aboard the Cassini/Huygens mission to Saturn.  Scheduled
launch is October, 1997.

Our instrument aboard the Cassini orbiter is the Ion and Neutral Mass 
Spectrometer (INMS) and will probe the upper atmosphere of Titan as well
as the local Saturn environment.

Our instrument aboard the Huygens probe is the Gas Chromatograph/Mass
Spectrometer (GCMS) which will analyze the atmosphere of Titan as the
probe makes its way to the surface.

We will be analyzing mixtures with hydrogen as the carrier gas.  The
primary components of the Titan atmosphere are nitrogen and methane.
Consequently, we have constructed ground support equipment to aid
in the characterization/calibration of these instruments, including beam
machines and ultra-clean, totally-dry, UHV systems.

Presently, we are deluged with work.  If there is a specific question
you need answered, I may be able to get the information you need,
or direct you to someone who can.

You might also try Matheson.  They have a UK facility.  Their U.S.
phone number for international accounts is 201-867-4100.  It is a
New Jersey phone number.  I have also purchased isotopically-pure
gas and laser mixtures from Isotec, Inc., a subsidiary of Matheson
in Miamisburg, Ohio.  They perform detailed analysis on their gas
mixtures for Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.  Isotec is one of the
world's largest supplier of isotopically-pure and isotopically-labeled
gasses and mixtures.  Their U.S. number is 800-448-9760.

I believe there may be an Isotec facility in France.


Ed

Titan or BUST!!!
*****************************************************************
Edward L. Patrick               <patrick@paf.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Hughes STX, Code 915
Laboratory for Atmospheres
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Greenbelt, MD  20771  USA
****************************************************************
The opinions expressed are those of the author.

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudlnEd cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.21 / mitchell swartz /  Take Cold Fusion Seriously   -
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Take Cold Fusion Seriously   -
Subject: Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 14:48:30 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <3kmn2h$3dl@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously
Richard Schultz (schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu) wrote:

  >You are mistaken. The literature on the limits of chemistry goes back much
  >farther than the literature on nuclear fusion. It goes back thousands of
  >years, in fact. Any cavemen would have know that match will not burn for a
  >week.
= I suppose you are aware that this was exactly the agrument made in the
= 1920's that no chemical fuel could possiby release enough energy on
= combustion to take a rocket to the moon?  I have seen the calculation:
= the most powerful chemical can only put out x calories/g, it takes 
= y calories/g to get something to the moon, and y > x, Q.E.D.  So your
= "thousands of years" is really only about 70, i.e. not that much
= more than nuclear theory.


  what exactly were y and x in what you "have seen"?


  >While you are at it, tell us what chemical reaction can convert deuterium
  >into tritium and hydrogen. Claytor, at Los Alamos, has been producing tritium
  >for years in his CF experiments. Do you call that chemistry? 
= Since boiling water will increase the tritium concentration, you have yet
= to give me any result that even needs chemistry.
 
  Would seem to depend upon the amount of tritium increase, eh?
What if the total quantity exceeded the amount contained in the
preboiled water?

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.21 /  ElliotKenl /  Re: Grigg visit: Droege found no error
     
Originally-From: elliotkenl@aol.com (ElliotKenl)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Grigg visit: Droege found no error
Date: 21 Mar 1995 10:15:54 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Dear Jeff:
     If you can't stand Jed's postings, don't read them.  However, some of
us are interested in what he has to say. 

Best regards,
Elliot Kennel
Yellow Springs OH
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenelliotkenl cudlnElliotKenl cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.21 / Bruce Dunn /  Re: Thermocouple positioning
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermocouple positioning
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 95 07:50:02 -0800
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

Regarding output thermocouple positioning, Jed writes:

> The ones in the flow screw into pipe fittings and project into the water.
> So do the dial thermometers.

Thanks, Jed, for clarifying this.  If the temperature measuring devices all
project the same amount into the water flow, then measuring the temperature
of the output water depends on the hidden assumption that the temperature
is uniform across the cross-section of the pipe.  If the flow is not
turbulent, there is no guarantee that this is true.  This should be checked
by Griggs.  I could suggest:

1)  Calculating whether the flow in the pipe is likely to be turbulent or
laminar from the known flow rate, the diameter of the pipe, and the
properties of water at the output temperature.  This should be quite
standard chemical engineering stuff (probably one of the fusion group
readers could do this if given the relevant data).

2)  Using several thermocouples with different penetration depths to check
the uniformity assumption.

3) Introducing a mixing device upstream of the thermocouples capable of
"homogenizing" the output flow, and showing that it doesn't affect the
output temperature.

--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.21 /  Jpmjpmjpm@aol. /  Re: Superconductors, OK.  Superresistors?
     
Originally-From: Jpmjpmjpm@aol.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Superconductors, OK.  Superresistors?
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 17:24:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Ed says -
>You are talking about ceramics.  This is the reason the 
>Porsche 944 Turbo has a ceramic-lined turbo.  Ceramics are 
>very good electrical and thermal insulators.

Yeah, but they still corner like dogs.

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenJpmjpmjpm cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.21 / Cliff Frost /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: cliff@ack.berkeley.edu (Cliff Frost)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: 21 Mar 1995 16:26:39 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.950320150253.18746C-100000@gladstone.uoregon.edu>,
Ed Matthews  <ewm@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote:
...
>...  Logically, it is impossible to conduct a  |
>...     debate unless there is a consensus     |
>...       regarding the basic premisses.       |

Logically, of course!  For example, consensus on little basic things
like how to spell.

	Cliff
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudencliff cudfnCliff cudlnFrost cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.21 / Tom Droege /  Re: sorry Jed
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: sorry Jed
Date: 21 Mar 1995 17:16:19 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <950320215958_55757201@aol.com>, Jpmjpmjpm@aol.com says:

>As I say, there is absolutely no inkling of this in Tom's report,
>Jed.   Tom, can you confirm what Jed is saying about the ease
>of changing the collection rate, etc?
>
>- JP !
>

Based on what Jed said, and also a vague memory of what was said at
the visit, I now think they are computing by spreadsheet.  This would
explain the speed.  If this is the case I doubt they could speed it 
up much.  I saw no speed control, and in fact when I asked about the 
speed they did not say they had a speed control button but rather talked 
about the computations in the loop.  

All of this is of no importance.  Even if they do use a spreadsheet 
to compute the results it is fast enough.  Again, it was just a comment
about how differently they were doing things than how those I work with
do things.  But as I stated, a perfectly satisfactory way to do it.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.21 / Harry Conover /  Re: Grigg visit: Droege found no error
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Grigg visit: Droege found no error
Date: 21 Mar 1995 17:17:09 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

ElliotKenl (elliotkenl@aol.com) wrote:
: Dear Jeff:
:      If you can't stand Jed's postings, don't read them.  However, some of
: us are interested in what he has to say. 

: Best regards,
: Elliot Kennel
: Yellow Springs OH


Agree.  They're good for a smile once in a while, plus you don't have to 
agree with someone to enjoy reading what they have to say.

Jed's quaint and colorful posts expose us all to a scientific 
naivete almost Victorian in essence and largely unknown in this 
century.  In some ways, they come across as conveying an almost 
child-like innocence, with beliefs that appear to rest more on faith and 
wish than fact.

All in all, Jed's contributions are (even if sometimes 
seemingly unscientific)well written and refreshing, and most certainly 
enthusiastic.  

Keep 'em coming, Jed!


                                    Harry C.

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.21 / Tom Droege /  Re: Thermocouple positioning
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermocouple positioning
Date: 21 Mar 1995 17:20:41 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <67280-795801002@mindlink.bc.ca>, Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) says:
>
>Regarding output thermocouple positioning, Jed writes:
>
>> The ones in the flow screw into pipe fittings and project into the water.
>> So do the dial thermometers.
>
>Thanks, Jed, for clarifying this.  If the temperature measuring devices all
>project the same amount into the water flow, then measuring the temperature
>of the output water depends on the hidden assumption that the temperature
>is uniform across the cross-section of the pipe.  If the flow is not
>turbulent, there is no guarantee that this is true.  This should be checked
>by Griggs.  I could suggest:
>
>1)  Calculating whether the flow in the pipe is likely to be turbulent or
>laminar from the known flow rate, the diameter of the pipe, and the
>properties of water at the output temperature.  This should be quite
>standard chemical engineering stuff (probably one of the fusion group
>readers could do this if given the relevant data).
>
>2)  Using several thermocouples with different penetration depths to check
>the uniformity assumption.
>
>3) Introducing a mixing device upstream of the thermocouples capable of
>"homogenizing" the output flow, and showing that it doesn't affect the
>output temperature.
>
>--
>Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca

For those thinking about this, read the McKubre paper from ICCF-2.  If
Griggs had written as much in his "paper" about this as McKubre did in
the ICCF-4 paper then he would have a lot more credibility with me.  
This is clearly a serious problem for "flow" calorimetry.  I don't
think you can do it to 8% in the Griggs set up.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.21 / Tom Droege /  Griggs Connection to the Internet
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs Connection to the Internet
Date: 21 Mar 1995 17:27:38 GMT
Organization: fermilab

The vote is currently 8 to 1.  I would like to hear from a few more
of you.  Too bad Jed won't participate.  It is a pain to get connected,
even for someone like me that has been working with computers for 37
years.  If I didn't have the guy with the pointed hat (Tom Wesson in
my case) I would be helpless.  I do not know what a slip connection is
or what program has to be running on each end etc..  I doubt that 
Jim Griggs knows either.  Will someone else volunteer to help Griggs
after I make the initial contact?  Someone has already volunteered to
provide the connection.  But what is possibly needed is someone to 
hold his hand to get him started.

Can anyone imagine why Jed does not want to help?

Please, a few more votes.  

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.21 / Tom Droege /  Griggs Would Like to be Connected
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs Would Like to be Connected
Date: 21 Mar 1995 18:04:13 GMT
Organization: fermilab

I have just talked to Griggs.  He would like to get on the Internet
but has just not got around to it.  He would appreciate some help.  
Anyone here from GA or near the north west corner of GA that could
help Griggs get connected?  He has a Windows computer and a modem.  

We discussed the thermocouples.  He has worried about laminar flow and
has the six thermocouples positioned across the pipe.  He says he has
experimented with various angles and with screens in the pipe to mix
the flow.  

Anyone willing to help Griggs send me a message and I will sort out
the best offer and put you in touch.  

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.21 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Thermocouple positioning
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermocouple positioning
Date: 21 Mar 1995 18:03:54 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <67280-795801002@mindlink.bc.ca>, Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
(Bruce Dunn) wrote:

> Regarding output thermocouple positioning, Jed writes:
> 
> > The ones in the flow screw into pipe fittings and project into the water.
> > So do the dial thermometers.
> 
> Thanks, Jed, for clarifying this.  If the temperature measuring devices all
> project the same amount into the water flow, then measuring the temperature
> of the output water depends on the hidden assumption that the temperature
> is uniform across the cross-section of the pipe.  If the flow is not
> turbulent, there is no guarantee that this is true.  This should be checked
> by Griggs.  I could suggest:
> 
> 1)  Calculating whether the flow in the pipe is likely to be turbulent or
> laminar from the known flow rate, the diameter of the pipe, and the
> properties of water at the output temperature.  This should be quite
> standard chemical engineering stuff (probably one of the fusion group
> readers could do this if given the relevant data).
> 

Piece o' cake.  All that's required is the ID of the pipe (schedule 40,
perhaps?), the flowrate, and the temperature.  From the temperature we look
up the density and viscosity (I've got the steam tables right here at my
desk, so no problem there) and compute the velocity of the flow from the ID
of the pipe and the flowrate specified.  Construct a Reynold's number:

                   Re = D v <rho> / <mu>

where D is the pipe ID, v is the velocity, <rho> is the density, and <mu>
is the viscosity.  Then,

Re << 1600 implies laminar flow
Re >> 1600 implies turbulence
Re ~~ 1600 implies transition region.  This flow could be laminar,
turbulent, or highly
                convoluted laminar flow.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.21 / Tom Droege /  Re: Thermocouple positioning
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermocouple positioning
Date: 21 Mar 1995 18:30:10 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <JC3ZOL1.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com says:
>
>Tom Droege <Droege@fnal.fnal.gov> writes:
> 
>>were stuck into the flow.  Now if I were keeping a log book on these 
>>tests, there would be a nice little sketch on where each thermocouple
>>was positioned.  Looks like a tough problem.  Once you have them 
> 
>Or, if you had enough sense to bring a camera and a video camera, for
>crying out loud. I cannot *believe* that anyone would go all that way to
>look at a machine and not take photographs, not get a schematic, nor even
>a price list! I find it incredible that you would skip such essentials.
>Here you are talking on and on about the need for a log book -- of all things
>-- and you yourself did not even bother to take proper photographs of the
>equipment. What on earth would possess a person in the last decade of the
>twentieth century not to record things properly? You could have borrowed
>a camera, or bought one for a couple of bucks at any store. It is the
>most elementary and essential tool to any field trip that I can think of.
>Griggs may not have a traditional lookbook, but he does at least have
>megabytes of data. You don't even have a damn photo! How can you remember
>anything without photos and schematics? I took a hundred pictures and two
>hours of video.
> 
>- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.21 / Tom Droege /  Re: Thermocouple positioning
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermocouple positioning
Date: 21 Mar 1995 18:43:02 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <JC3ZOL1.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com says:
>
>Tom Droege <Droege@fnal.fnal.gov> writes:
> 
>>were stuck into the flow.  Now if I were keeping a log book on these 
>>tests, there would be a nice little sketch on where each thermocouple
>>was positioned.  Looks like a tough problem.  Once you have them 
> 
>Or, if you had enough sense to bring a camera and a video camera, for
>crying out loud. I cannot *believe* that anyone would go all that way to
>look at a machine and not take photographs, not get a schematic, nor even
>a price list! I find it incredible that you would skip such essentials.

It depends on what you went to measure Jed.  I went to measure the people.
You take a different set of tools.  I now know what I would need to take 
if I were going to make real measurements.  But as I have often said, the
only place to do a replication is in your own laboratory.  I know enough
to do that should I care to. 

>Here you are talking on and on about the need for a log book -- of all things
>-- and you yourself did not even bother to take proper photographs of the
>equipment. What on earth would possess a person in the last decade of the

Gosh, I did not even take photographs of the people and that is what I went
to measure.  How do you take a picture of someone's experimental 
technique Jed?

>twentieth century not to record things properly? You could have borrowed
>a camera, or bought one for a couple of bucks at any store. It is the
>most elementary and essential tool to any field trip that I can think of.

Hmmm!  I vote for a well crafted question.  Like "Do you measure the standard
deviation of the thermocouple readings?", "Do you plot the electrical power
against the torque power."

>Griggs may not have a traditional lookbook, but he does at least have
>megabytes of data. You don't even have a damn photo! How can you remember

Remember the confidentiality agreement was written in such a way that they 
would own the pictures.  I did not want to restrict my investigation because
I might have photographed something I wanted to comment on.  Whith their rights
to the photographs they could censor me by claiming I got my observation from
the photograph.

>anything without photos and schematics? I took a hundred pictures and two
>hours of video.

But what did you learn from them Jed?

> 
>- Jed

Sorry about the blank post.  Sometimes my mind just goes blank about what
to do next.  The Gray cells are going one by one.  

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.21 / Carl Lydick /  Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
     
Originally-From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment,sci.
nergy,sci.materials
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
Date: 21 Mar 1995 18:58:56 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera

In article <3kdouo$i82@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki) writes:
=In <3kc9to$hrd@server.st.usm.edu> lrmead@whale.st.usm.edu (Lawrence R. 
=Mead) writes: 
=       
=>How about the ratio of *repeatable results* confirmed/ public dollars?
=>
=Articles 19022 and 19023 posted here on the Internet 
=sci.physics.fusion newsgroup makes for interesting responses to your 
=question. Of course there are others but it is not in my capacity to 
=rattle them off readily. Perhaps your perusal of any number of cold 
=fusion publications available may convince you of repeatability of 
=excess heat beyond chemical heat, internationally. And the question that 
=arises are, if beyond chemical heat, where is it coming from except by 
=nuclear processes and by what mechanism in a solid state enviroment?  

Gee.  Akira's pretty incompetent when it comes to Usenet, too.  The article
numbers he posts are useless to anybody except someone using the same nntp
server he is.  If he wants to refer to particular posts, he should do so by:
	1)  Subject: line;
	2)  From: line; and
	3)  Message-ID: line (for example, the message ID of the item to which
	    I'm responding is <3kdouo$i82@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>).
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudencarl cudfnCarl cudlnLydick cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.21 / Matt Austern /  Re: Grigg visit: Droege found no error
     
Originally-From: matt@physics10.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Grigg visit: Droege found no error
Date: 21 Mar 1995 19:20:14 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)

In article <3kn1ml$1vh@sundog.tiac.net> conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes:

> Jed's quaint and colorful posts expose us all to a scientific 
> naivete almost Victorian in essence and largely unknown in this 
> century.

You might be unpleasantly surprised at the general level of scientific
naivete in this century: there are quite a few major industries in
this country that wouldn't exist if the general public had more
scientific sophistication.

As H. L. Menken once said, nobody ever went broke by underestimating
the taste or intelligence of the American public.
--

                               --matt
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.20 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Reward offer:  Extend to X-rays
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reward offer:  Extend to X-rays
Date: 20 Mar 95 17:14:36 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <USE2PCB473172736@brbbs.brbbs.com>, 
mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes:
> jonesse@physc2.byu.edu writes:
>  
> -> Suggestion:  let's offer the $700 remaining from Tom's trip as a reward for
> -> anyone who can produce 700 neutrons (in a day) in the state-of-the-art neutr
> -> detector, deep underground in Provo Canyon.
> ->
> -> A reward of $700 (a local company has told me they will add $1000 to that)
> -> for the first 700 neutrons from cold fusion, in these sensitive detectors,
> -> will serve to emphasize that claims of cold fusion remain unproven.
> -> This could also be advertised at ICCF-5.
>  
> Dr. Jones.  I take issue with this approach for the following reason.
>  
> The object I believe is to produce an energy source which is clean and requires
> inexpensive fuel.  Neutrons and generation of radioactive isotopes is a
> negative and should be avoided if possible.  We are wanting to produce energy,
> not breed nasty radioactive isotopes.
>  
> Now, looking at the CF phenominia it becomes apparent that IF something exotic
> is happening, it must be different than normal D-D fusion.  The lack of
> neutrons tells us that.  Basically we have several possibilities, but taking
> the two most obvious ones for me, we could generate energy with a D-D reaction
> which produces neutrons, and hazardous nuclear waste.  Or we could have
> something else happening, such as I outlined (badly) yesterday in which the
> metal is actually being fused with the D or H producing another stable
> element and then may or may not be spitting out an alpha particle, which of
> course would become He4.
>  
> Between the two options, the latter would be the desirable one.  Thus I think
> it unwise, even counterproductive, to offer a reward for people making progress
> on a dirty method, as opposed to a clean method.
>  
> I would liken it to someone long ago offering a reward for anyone finding a
> replacement for wood fuel, and not allowing natural gas as a contender as
> it produces no smoke.  The smoke is irrelevent at best, and undesireable at
> worst.
>  
>                                                                 Marshall
>  

Marshall, you seem to be missing a crucial point:

Neutron production has been _claimed_ by P&F as accompanying excess heat
production, along with Mel Miles, Arata, A. Takahashi, Yamaguchi and a
number of others of lesser "fame."  So it it not a matter of what we "want"
from cold fusion, is it?  

The reward proposal is to invite these claiming neutron production to come
forth and demonstrate their neutrons in a state-of-the-art, underground
detector.  This proposal also follows the indication of the ERAB committee
(DOE, 1989) which suggested that for cf claims to be taken seriously, 
claimants would be advised to take their cells to a laboratory where other
(preferably skeptical) scientists could scrutinize the putative effects with
state-of-the-art detectors.
as seen in his postings here)

You mention "spitting out an alpha particle, which of course would become
He4."  This seems to be the current favorite of CF "true believers," since
neutron and tritium generation seem to have fallen out of favor.  Whatever the
reaction, IF it is nuclear in origin, there must be charged particles, like
your 'favored' He4, being produced -- this follows from conservation of charge
during rearrangement of nucleons.  (I guess nucleon number conservation must
also be invoked.  Pretty basic.)  

Now alphas won't travel far in palladium.  But they will generate secondary
x-rays copiously due to ionization of Pd atoms during the slow-down process.
And the x-rays *are* relatively easy to detect.  In fact, at the request of
EPRI people during CF's heyday, we built a portable x-ray spectrometer that can
be taken to various labs, and used to look for the characteristic x-rays which
must accompany slowing down of He4 (or whatever charged products of whatever
nuclear reaction may be involved).  This is a crucial test -- that's why EPRI
asked us to build the x-ray spectrometer.

Now, you personally may not *want* x-rays.  
Doesn't matter.  CF claimants like Mel Miles and Mike McKubre, using x-ray film
(very unreliable compared to a good x-ray spectrometer, of course) have indeed
claimed x-ray production.  Of course, with x-ray film, they could not know if
the x-rays were characteristic of Pd-excitation.  But with an x-ray
spectrometer like ours, one could ascertain quickly if 21 keV k-alpha x-rays
were present due to excitations of Pd.  Whatever the (nuclear) reaction.
Note that one of the ways we calibrate our x-ray spectrometer is to place a
palladium foil in front of it with an alpha-emitter behind the foil.  The
alphas excite the Pd and we see clearly the 21 keV line -- as a calibration
line.  Indeed, room background is sufficient to excite enough of this line to
be detectable in a few hours.  (One must therefore have a sufficient signal
from the cell to be well above background.  Again, x-ray dental film used by
Miles is woefully inadequate.)

I must agree that x-rays provide a broad test of claims that nuclear reactions
are occuring in electrolytic cells (a la P&F) and therefore should be included
in the reward proposal.  

To be specific, then, I propose that we use the $700 left over from Droege's
trip as a reward for any person who can demonstrate either:
  700 neutrons in 24 hours in the BYU underground detector; or
  700 x-rays in 24 hours in the BYU x-ray spectrometer.

Other labs are doubtless capable of the x-ray test; but we are willing to do
this here also, plus the $1000 reward offered by a local company will be added
to the reward if the demonstration is conducted here.  Why not?

And I agree with Tom that the reward money could be put into an
interest-bearing account so that one can see how large it grows before being
claimed.  Then, if P&F or Miles or Yamaguchi or Arata or Takahashi (etc.)
continue to claim fusion or some unknown NUCLEAR reaction in their cells, one
can insist that these be tested and the reward claimed as proof of their
claims.  This may help alleviate the press-conference/salesman approach so
often taken by claimants, without independent verification at another lab.

Have them put up or shut up.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.21 / Brendan Niemira /  Re: Griggs Connection to the Internet
     
Originally-From: niemirab@student.msu.edu  (Brendan A. Niemira)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Connection to the Internet
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995  15:33 est
Organization: Michigan State University

In Article <3kn2aa$m7q@fnnews.fnal.gov> "Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)" says:
> The vote is currently 8 to 1.  I would like to hear from a few more
> of you.  Too bad Jed won't participate.  It is a pain to get connected,
> even for someone like me that has been working with computers for 37
	[snip]
> Please, a few more votes.  
> Tom Droege
As someone who didn't chip in any money, I guess that I can only comment, not
vote.  If Griggs is serious about wanting to improve things, get his effect
maximized, take advantage of new ideas, etc., I think that he would benefit
from participating in the discussions about some of the picaune details of
his set-up.  The possibility of inhomogeneous flow disrupting his thermocouple
readings is just one example.  If his 486 is churning because he's using
1-2-3 when he should be using a leaner data collection program, then I'd bet
there are a few people who could point him in the direction of appropriate
software that might be better for his needs... again, just an example.
 
The idea was raised that as a busy man with a company to run, he can't afford
to waste time slogging through the crap in sci.physics.fusion.  I would think
that if what he needs is ideas and insight, it would be well worth his time to
sift through the various threads.  Discussing ideas with colleagues is pretty
essential for the advancement of science; since Griggs is straddling the line
between science and engineering, I think he'd find it useful.  Besides, most
of the time he could just lurk, anyway, and he'd still be the hottest topic
of dicussion going.
 
p.s. My six-pack bet still isn't decided one way or the other.  I say
measurement error, my boss says new phenomenon.
..............

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Brendan A. Niemira           |   "You know your Shelley, Bertie."             
Dept. Botany and Plant Path  |   "Oh, am I?"
Michigan State University    |       P.G. Wodehouse
niemirab@student.msu.edu     |       *The Code of the Woosters*
        All opinions expressed are entirely my own.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenniemirab cudfnBrendan cudlnNiemira cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.21 / Mike Griffin /  Re: Griggs Connection to the Internet
     
Originally-From: mgriffin@il.us.swissbank.com (Mike Griffin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Connection to the Internet
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 20:49:04 GMT
Organization: Swiss Bank Corporation CM&T Division

In article <3kn2aa$m7q@fnnews.fnal.gov> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
> The vote is currently 8 to 1.  I would like to hear from a few more
> of you.  Too bad Jed won't participate.  

> (deletions)

> Can anyone imagine why Jed does not want to help?

Only Jed can give the definitive answer to that one, but I'm willing
to speculate.

Jed is very fond of speaking for Griggs: just look at the extensive
characterizations he made of the Griggs device, to which Griggs is much less
devoted himself.  Another example is Jed's assertion that Griggs
would not be interested in being on the internet, for specific reasons
which Jed asserted.  Oddly enough, Tom got the opposite impression.

I think Jed doesn't want Griggs participating in the discussion, speaking
for himself and saying things that maybe Jed doesn't want him to say.
My guess: it's a control thing.

Jed, care to give us the definitive answer?

Mike Griffin
(Speaking strictly for me.)
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmgriffin cudfnMike cudlnGriffin cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.21 /  jedrothwell@de /  Thermocouple positioning and op. aux. D.M.D.
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Thermocouple positioning and op. aux. D.M.D.
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 95 16:26:51 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:
 
     "If the temperature measuring devices all project the same amount into
     the water flow, then measuring the temperature of the output water
     depends on the hidden assumption that the temperature is uniform across
     the cross-section of the pipe.  If the flow is not turbulent, there is
     no guarantee that this is true.  This should be checked by Griggs."
 
This is not a problem for two reasons:
 
1. The devices do not all project the same distance into the flow. The dial
thermometers have a different kind of mounting. (Dial thermometers are the old
fashioned round dial bimetallic analog ones.)
 
2. The water is collected in a barrel or bucket and the temperature is
measured with a thermistor, thermocouples and a thermometer. It agrees with
the other thermocouples to within a fraction of a degree Fahrenheit. During
runs lasting many hours sample bucketfuls can be taken from time to time. But,
in any case, there is no sign of any inaccuracy greater than 1 deg F, and that
level of accuracy is good enough to prove the effect is real, beyond question.
 
 
Dunn has a good suggestion, which we implemented long ago:
 
     "Introducing a mixing device upstream of the thermocouples capable of
     "homogenizing" the output flow, and showing that it doesn't affect the
     output temperature."
 
I used two downstream mixing device (D.M.D) that I can certify are effective:
a detached mop handle (Ace Hardware Co.) and four foot two-by-four (Home Depot
Lumber). The procedure is as follows:
 
1. Collect 10 gallons of hot water in two minutes.
 
2. Take water temperature.
 
3. Stir vigourously with mop handle. Additional stirring with auxilliary
two-by-four D.M.D. is optional and does not appear to have a significant
effect.
 
4. Take temperature of water, which is swirling and may have splinters and
other debris from primary D.M.D. or optional auxilliary D.M.D. You will see
that the temperature is within 1 deg F of the value recorded in step 2, above.
 
Don't forget that we are dealing here with a 5 gallon per minute flow, and
50 to 100 deg F temperature Delta T's. Droege reported a 100 deg F Delta T
with 8% excess heat. That means the excess heat must produce a temperature
rise roughly 8 deg F hotter than unity, or roughly 13 deg F hotter than a
blank run. It is quite impossible to miss a temperature difference like that
in a barrel of water.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.21 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 15:43 -0500 (EST)

schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) writes:
 
-> I suppose you are aware that this was exactly the agrument made in the
-> 1920's that no chemical fuel could possiby release enough energy on
-> combustion to take a rocket to the moon?  I have seen the calculation:
-> the most powerful chemical can only put out x calories/g, it takes
-> y calories/g to get something to the moon, and y > x, Q.E.D.  So your
-> "thousands of years" is really only about 70, i.e. not that much
-> more than nuclear theory.
 
Strange that they would figure on taking all their spent fuel on the trip to
the moon with them.  It doesn't sound like a very intelligent argument to me.
 
Now the bumblee, that one was easier to understand.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.21 / Dick Jackson /  Did He Publish? Help Please
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Did He Publish? Help Please
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 22:00:45 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea

I think I am seeing second level and even three deep comments on
Tom's report, but I missed the report itself (perhaps over the weekend
since our feed is way behind and files get aged off too quickly).

If Tom did put his report out here, could someone email me a copy,
or maybe it could be reposted since it *is* probably the only
significant post that will appear this year and might therefore be
worth a repeat.

Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.21 / Doug Shade /  Re: GG report?
     
Originally-From: rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com (Doug Shade)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG report?
Date: 21 Mar 1995 15:45:31 GMT
Organization: Motorola LICD

In article <3kkn4o$nl4@fnnews.fnal.gov>
Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:

> Some of you can do it without much effort.  I 
> think I will wait a couple of days and then post it again.
> 
> Tom Droege
Yes, please do... I have not seen the report either.  Please don't post
up on a Friday... I think stuff gets flushed after a couple of days...
so on Monday... nothing (again).

Can someone please repost the report/rebuttal?  Please?!?

Doug Shade
rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenrxjf20 cudfnDoug cudlnShade cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 /  Jpmjpmjpm@aol. /  Super easy way to connect Griggs to the list.
     
Originally-From: Jpmjpmjpm@aol.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Super easy way to connect Griggs to the list.
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 03:58:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>I have just talked to Griggs.  He would like 
>to get on the Internet
>but has just not got around to it.  He 
>would appreciate some help.
>Anyone here from GA or near the north 
>west corner of GA that could
>help Griggs get connected?  He has a 
>Windows computer and a modem.

>Anyone willing to help Griggs send me a 
>message and I will sort out
>the best offer and put you in touch.

etc etc

**

Super easy way to connect Griggs to the net:


I might as well poke my nose in, you guys are
making an incredible amount of unnecessary fuss!  
If the dude has a windows PC, just get him America 
Online.

America Online is one of the three large commercial
services.  It is the easiest to use.  It is
infantile.

It has excellent access to all on the 
net, except www which is coming in a month.

If you think the commercial services don't have
"real man's" net access, you're probably just out 
of date. 

I have about 4 different 
raw cuts to the internet, but it's a fact that the 
only thing I bother using from day to day is just 
AOL on a mac.

Reading this list for example is an absolute
doddle, I just have the dig. mailed to me each
day.    I suppose It will even automatically call up
and get your mail daily (or whatever), if you wish.

AOL (America Online) runs 19-2 on sprintnet etc,
so no worries.

If griggs needs a modem, 90% of PC & mac modems
sold now have an AOL disk inside.  I suggest the modem
for sale at WalMart for $24.95, which is 9600.  (I
forget the brand.)

If he HAS a modem, any AOL member can press a
button and have a free disk sent to him.  (I'll do it
if you want.)

This would avoid having to walk to the
corner and find an AOL disk, say on the cover
of a computing magazine, so you save another 3
or 4 dollars from your $700 !  It is so easy to use
it is inconceivable anyone would have to go 'set
him up'.   Once you put the disk in the PC and hit 
'install' you have to do _nothing_.  Someone might 
have to call and give the guy a few tips, so there's
a long distance call to add to your expenses.  
(Cheaper if he's in your calling circle.)

AOL costs a couple of bucks a month. ($7, $9 ?) 
The tel. call is local (free) regardless of your 
location.

To join this list, email listserv@listserv.net
sub fusion John T. Griggs
set fusion dig rep

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenJpmjpmjpm cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.21 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Tom's trip: what to do with the remaining $700
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tom's trip: what to do with the remaining $700
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 21:00:53 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <STOLFI.95Mar19151424@atibaia.dcc.unicamp.br>,
Jorge Stolfi <stolfi@dcc.unicamp.br> wrote:

>The only aim of their experiments seems to be to find the protocol
>that gives the highest COP.  That of course may be the protocol that
>maximizes the experimental error, but they do not seem to worry about it.

Hey, let's give credit where it is due. Griggs may make off-the-cuff
claims of over unity, but he is selling a water heater and COP is
what thje customer is buying. If he wants to write a scientific paper
on his device then by all means criticise the paper to yoru hearts
content, but don't slam Griggs for paying attention to his business
instead of our curiosity.

>Let's not forget that they have never published any data showing
>sustained over-unity COP; and they have systematically dodged or
>ignored all our requests for such data.  It is now clear that such
>data simply does not exist.
>
>Hydrosonics apparently thinks it is OK to boost their sales with
>claims of over-unity operation, while carefully avoiding any legal
>responsibility for such claims.  I suppose that is normal business
>practice, but science ought to have higher standards.  

I am bothered that he would make such claims in a marketing
arena.


cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.21 /  DFig /  Re: Superconductors, OK.  Superresistors?
     
Originally-From: dfig@aol.com (DFig)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Superconductors, OK.  Superresistors?
Date: 21 Mar 1995 18:01:03 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

The question might be confusing two different things: thermal insulation
and friction reduction. 

Friction is a source of energy loss in internal combustion engines, but
the major loss is thermal. Teflon coatings can be used to lower friction,
which does slightly improve overall efficiency.

Unfortnately, providing more heat insulation does not address the
fundamental problem. 

Heat engines are fundamentally limited in their efficiency by the
temperature difference between the high temperature heat source
(combustion chamber) and the low temperature heat sink (environment). The
only way to achieve 100% theoretical energy conversion is to operate the
high temp source at infinite temperature or the low temp source at zero
temperature: both of these conditions are extremely difficult to obtain,
and practical heat engine efficiencies are in the 30% to 40% range,
largely because of material limitations on the upper temperature.

Davy Figaro (dfig@aol.com)
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudendfig cudlnDFig cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.21 / Tom Droege /  Re: Did He Publish? Help Please
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Did He Publish? Help Please
Date: 21 Mar 1995 23:14:54 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <1995Mar21.220045.2743@ttinews.tti.com>, jackson@soldev.tti.c
m (Dick Jackson) says:
>
>I think I am seeing second level and even three deep comments on
>Tom's report, but I missed the report itself (perhaps over the weekend
>since our feed is way behind and files get aged off too quickly).
>
>If Tom did put his report out here, could someone email me a copy,
>or maybe it could be reposted since it *is* probably the only
>significant post that will appear this year and might therefore be
>worth a repeat.
>
>Dick Jackson

OK, I have a few requests like this.  I will post it again tomorrow
about 11 AM CST.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.21 / Tom Droege /  Re: Tom's trip: what to do with the remaining $700
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tom's trip: what to do with the remaining $700
Date: 21 Mar 1995 23:46:53 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <tomkD5t6DH.8LI@netcom.com>, tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) says:
>
>In article <STOLFI.95Mar19151424@atibaia.dcc.unicamp.br>,
>Jorge Stolfi <stolfi@dcc.unicamp.br> wrote:
>
>>The only aim of their experiments seems to be to find the protocol
>>that gives the highest COP.  That of course may be the protocol that
>>maximizes the experimental error, but they do not seem to worry about it.
>
>Hey, let's give credit where it is due. Griggs may make off-the-cuff
>claims of over unity, but he is selling a water heater and COP is
>what thje customer is buying. If he wants to write a scientific paper
>on his device then by all means criticise the paper to yoru hearts
>content, but don't slam Griggs for paying attention to his business
>instead of our curiosity.
>
>>Let's not forget that they have never published any data showing
>>sustained over-unity COP; and they have systematically dodged or
>>ignored all our requests for such data.  It is now clear that such
>>data simply does not exist.
>>
>>Hydrosonics apparently thinks it is OK to boost their sales with
>>claims of over-unity operation, while carefully avoiding any legal
>>responsibility for such claims.  I suppose that is normal business
>>practice, but science ought to have higher standards.  
>
>I am bothered that he would make such claims in a marketing
>arena.
>
>

I have what is apparantly "the" Griggs literature.  It does not claim
"over unity" heat production.  But it seems to claim 100% electrical
to steam conversion.  But I would have to work through the numbers 
again to say for sure.  This is a little high considering there is
a motor involved.  

Mostly the literature sticks to their real selling points - no separate
boiler room needed.  No special maintenance required.  So you don't 
have to hire a full time boiler room operator from another union etc. 

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Mar 23 04:37:10 EST 1995
------------------------------
