1995.03.28 / John White /  A Zillion eV per atom of Pd is meaningless
     
Originally-From: jnw@jazzmin.vnet.net (John N. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A Zillion eV per atom of Pd is meaningless
Date: 28 Mar 1995 23:13:35 -0500
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> Please tell us which chemical reaction fits this profile:
> 
> 1. It produces 520 eV/atom.

520 eV/atom is nothing. Deuterium peroxide can produce 4MJ/liter.
That corresponds to millions of eV per atom of Pd, for a small
electrode.

> 2. It produces no detectable smoke, ash, color change or other evidence of
> gross chemical change.

The "ash" from decomposing peroxide is water.

> 2. It works with only Pd, water, and tiny trace of lithium in a closed cell.

Peroxide is made from water.
-- 
jnw@vnet.net
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.28 / John White /  Stability of Peroxide
     
Originally-From: jnw@jazzmin.vnet.net (John N. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Stability of Peroxide
Date: 28 Mar 1995 23:16:50 -0500
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

moberg@nosc.mil (Vic Moberg) writes:
> As someone who used to play around with amateur rocketry involving highly
> concentrated H2O2, I would note that the stuff is very difficult to keep
> from breaking down

Pons' cells would only need to be a bit over half peroxide to explain the
boiloff and "heat after death". Peroxide is much easier to handle at
that concentration than when highly concentrated.

Also, D2O2 is more stable than H2O2. (But the alkali electrolyte would
reduce stability, so that sort of cancels out.)

> Perhaps ultra-clean conditions in a P&F cell might avoid spontaneous
> reaction until a large concentration could build up, but having handled
> the stuff I wouldn't bet on it.

And I wouldn't bet against it, especially if the alternative explanation
is an exotic nuclear process.

> The descriptions of P&F cells after charging don't fit my idea of
> ultra-clean either,

It depends on whether what's in the cell is hostile to peroxide.
Also, note that peroxide could be decomposing at a fairly high
rate, yet still accumulate if it is being generated even faster.

-- 
jnw@vnet.net
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.28 / John White /  A Pt anode doesn't decompose Peroxide
     
Originally-From: jnw@jazzmin.vnet.net (John N. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A Pt anode doesn't decompose Peroxide
Date: 28 Mar 1995 23:18:52 -0500
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes: 
> It has been experimentally demonstrated that H2O2 decomposes spontaneously
> in the presence of Pt, all the way from 0C to 100C.  Tests were conducted
> using standard 3% grade H2O2.  Decomposition rates increase with temperature.

I have tested Pt which has been used as an anode and found that it
does not cause H2O2 to decompose. Presumably this is due to a
thin layer that formed on the Pt during electrolysis.

Pons is rumored to add small amounts of various "secret ingredients"
to his cells, so there is no telling what his electrodes will do.
-- 
jnw@vnet.net
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.28 / John White /  A hypothesis need not explain all experiments
     
Originally-From: jnw@jazzmin.vnet.net (John N. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A hypothesis need not explain all experiments
Date: 28 Mar 1995 23:09:31 -0500
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

jnw@vnet.net (John N. White) writes:
[discussion of peroxide storage of 4 MegaJoules per liter of electrolyte]

Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
> Well, if cold fusion "bursts" were limited to roughly 4 MJ per liter, this
> might have some relevance to the discussion. However many continuous bursts
> are hundreds of times larger than this, and some are on the order of 10,000
> times larger. So your hypothesis fails to explain the data. It is off by 3 to
> 5 orders of magnitude. A hypothesis that fails to this extent is useless.

You are assuming that one source of error must explain everything. You
are claiming that my hypothesis is useless because there are some results
that it can't explain. In fact, it is the other way around. If an experiment
can be explained by some combination of errors and mundane effects, then
that experiment is useless for proving something exotic is happening. The
fact that those errors and mundane effects don't explain some other
experiment is completely irrelevant.

There are a number of experiments that produce bursts that are many times
the I*V input power. These are interesting because they are unlikely to
be due to calorimetry errors. Unfortunately, they always seem to require
a long startup (during which energy could be stored) and they never seem
to produce more than 4MJ/liter. Pons' boiling cells, for example, would
only need to be a bit over half peroxide to boil "dry". Once the cathode
is dry, the peroxide in the residual liquid could continue to decompose
and produce the famous "heat after death" effect.

Experiments where modest levels of excess heat are generated for arbitrarily
long periods of time are a separate phenomenon.
-- 
jnw@vnet.net
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.28 /  jonesse@vanlab /  News on cf in March 20 C&EN
     
Originally-From: jonesse@vanlab.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: News on cf in March 20 C&EN
Date: 28 Mar 95 13:00:39 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

There is an interesting news article in C&EN for 20 March 1995, "Latest
research on cold fusion to be presented at Anaheim ACS meeting."  Header:
"Proponents of the controversial research sought symposium and press
conference but got a poster session instead."

sniplets:

[Gustave] "Kohn admits he told the [cf] researchers he approached that they
would be presenting oral papers.  The assignment of the papers to the poster
session was a surprise and 'has had something of a disastrous effect,' Kohn
tells C&EN"  ... "According to ACS officials, three papers have been officially
withdrawn, including one from Pons and Fleischmann"

"Her only option, [Patricia] Baisden says, was to assign all 23 papers to a
poster session. 'I treated everybody who contributed an unsolicited paper in
exactly the same way,' she points out."

"Publicity, in fact, is what the cold fusion proponents crave.  They approached
the ACS News Service, hoping it would organize a press briefing on cold fusion
at the meeting.  But after careful consideration, the news service declined."

--Steve Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 / John Logajan /  Re: Griggs Report
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Report
Date: 29 Mar 1995 05:56:48 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Tom Droege (Droege@fnal.fnal.gov) wrote:
: >Give me numbers, data, measurements -- save the wordplay for the
: >poetry newsgroups.

: But that was the point of my report.  Griggs' own measurements do not
: support a claim.  This is just not the kind of work that supports a 
: sceintific claim.  No logbook!  No error analysis.  No science.

Well, the precision of the points being argued here 'bouts keep fluctuating.

Are we speaking of a total lack of claims?
A lack of sufficient support for the claims?
A lack of any support for the claims?

My point was that there were indeed over-unity claims made -- though I
am quick to agree that one must eliminate all possible sources of error
before accepting those claims as proven.

I objected to as "wordplay" the notion that since there were no claims,
there is no reason to acknowledge the existence of the Griggs observations.

There *are* published claims and there are published observations, and I
object to sweeping them under the rug on so specious a basis.

That is, however, lightyears away from suggesting that the claims are as
yet demonstrated to be proven.  I certainly am not yet prepared to suggest
such a thing.  And surely the burden will always rest on the claimant.

My point is one of epistemological purity; which, by the way, has to be
of higher import than the current conventions of the scientific method.
Current conventions regarding the scientific method are at best derivative
of epistemological correctness -- a systematized attempt to approach
the ideal.

In other words, I think you are focusing here primarily on the form,
whereas epistemology would necessarily require that substance always
trumps form.

--
 - 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:
cuddy29 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 / Scott Little /  $700 prize not effective...changes needed
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: $700 prize not effective...changes needed
Date: 29 Mar 1995 07:27:27 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

A $700 prize is not a significant incentive to pursue a successful
"alternative" energy device.  $700 will be a single molecule in the 
bucket for the successful inventor, right?

It is entirely possible, however, that $700 would be extremely useful
to an energetic but destitute investigator.

What we need to do, I say, is come up with a way to award the $700 to
someone BEFORE they perform their experiment so they can use the money
to buy stuff like Pd, D2O, etc.

Perhaps, we should let interested parties submit proposals for experiments
with detailed protocols, rationales, etc.  We could then vote on the "most
likely to succeed" and give that person the prize.

If this doesn't fly then perhaps we should get serious about this prize
and do some extensive fund raising to get it up into the >$10,000 range.
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 / I Johnston /  Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 12:00:25 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
:  
:  
:      "McKubre did have some interesting looking results, but as time went on
:      and he worked the errors out of his calorimetry, his excess heat shrank
:      to a mere 2%.
:  
: This is nonsense. He never retracted *any* of his more powerful results. His
: earlier results never "shrank." It is true that some of his later results were
: at lower power levels, but not 2%. That is an average, which signifies
: nothing. In any case, he reported his most powerful burst at ICCF4, in 1993.

Are you seriously suggesting that an average excess of 2% - ie roughly
as much 'failure' as 'success' is insignificant? Are you suggesting that
a reputable scientist would publish only one good result and ignore any
others? When 10 samples of a material are tested for fracture toughness,
do you believe that only the highest number should be reported and that
the rest 'signify nothing'?

Does McKubre know of the near libellous assertions you are making about
his competence, integrity and honesty, Jed?

Ian
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 / Alan M /  Re: Griggs Report
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Report
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 06:11:32 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <3l8asp$aa1@stratus.skypoint.net>  jlogajan@skypoint.com
(John Logajan) writes:
> These claims are based upon measurements made by independent
> investigators (Rothwell and Mallove.)

ROFL!

-- 
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:
cuddy29 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 / Lee Griggs /  GRIGGS
     
Originally-From: lgriggs@scsn.net (Lee Griggs)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: GRIGGS
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 08:06:47
Organization: South Carolina SuperNet, Inc.

I would appreciate anyone's help in obtaining Mr. Griggs address and phone 
number so that I may contact him directly.  Thanks ahead of time for anyone's 
help.  I can be reached thru E-Mail here or through scribblerg@aol.com or by 
fax at 803-424-0450.
Lee Griggs
Camden, SC
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenlgriggs cudfnLee cudlnGriggs cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Richard Schultz flip flops on Lewis?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Richard Schultz flip flops on Lewis?
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 95 08:18:01 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) writes:
 
    "Why would a macroscopic distortion affect a microscopic reaction such as
    the putative fusion events?  This would imply a field of some sort, I
    would think."
 
I believe there is a more prosaic reason: bent cathodes have cracks, and
cracks leak out all the deuterium. You can see that happen. Load up a cathode,
turn off the power, and if it has cracks or scratches, the bubbles of
escaping gas all concentrate at those cracks, in a pronounced fashion. A good
metal sample will be evenly coated with small bubbles, a poor sample will
have lines of large bubbles in some places, and no bubbles elsewhere.
 
You can learn a great deal more about this from the papers by Cravens and
Storms.
 
 
    "Or perhaps Jed meant that Pd samples which distort microscopically are
    clearly of inferior quality (presumably they are chemically tainted)."
 
Yes, that too. Impurities, discontinuities, microscopic cracks and other
blemishes make the metal easier to bend, swell and crack. It is very difficult
to control these things because not enough is known about which impurities are
harmful, to what extent. Of course there is tons of literature on it today
where 5 years ago there was nothing, but there is still a lot to learned.
 
I should add that most of this literature is in Japanese and virtually all
of it is over my head. I can see from the abstract what they are getting at,
and what the purpose of the research is, and people describe to me the
progress they have made, but I do not know enough to evaluate the papers.
 
 
    "I'm not sure what the uneven loading might do."
 
It prevents hyper-loading. Without hyper-loading you get no CF. Why that is
true, I have no idea. It is a fact established from observations, not theory.
 
There are lots of other ways to prevent high loading. The big three are: dirty
electrolyte; an uneven electric field; and low current density. There are lots
of others. People have found dozens of ways to do the experiment wrong. This
is well documented in the literature.
 
 
    "Certainly that's correctable."
 
It is correctable, but not easily. I expect that most of the research money
in mainstream Pd CF goes into metallurgy. The literature describes things
like silver alloys, which increase the strength of the metal. Finding the
right metal with the right alloys and trace dopants in it is what makes Pd
CF so difficult.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Griggs Report
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Report
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 01:29:04 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <3l8asp$aa1@stratus.skypoint.net>,
John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> wrote:
>Dieter Britz (britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk) wrote:
>:  Cameron Randale Bass wrote:
>: > Tom Droege <Droege@fnal.fnal.gov> wrote:
>: > >Who said their is any claim to prove?  Not Griggs.  He says he
>: > >does not claim over unity operation.
>: > 
>: >      I agree.  If he is not even willing to make such a claim,
>: >      why should we infer any such claim?
>:
>: I don't care about a good water heater, at least here.
>: Case closed, please?
>
>There seems to be a group form of amnesia going on here 'bouts.
>
>There are, in fact, published claims of over-unity for the Griggs
>device.  These claims are based upon measurements made by independent
>investigators (Rothwell and Mallove.)

    Rothwell hardly counts as an qualified 'observer', no experimental
    background, no apparent expertise in such measurements.

>Now Griggs knows of nothing wrong with his own over-unity measurements,
>but he claims caution on claiming over-unity on the basis that something
>might appear in the future to explain it all away.  Yet there is nothing
>offered to suggest that Griggs does not support his own measurements,
>and nothing Griggs can currently say to reflect on the independent
>measurements of others who had test access to his machine.
>
>Not even Griggs can wave away independent observations without offering
>some reason to doubt them.

     This is an odd point of view.  Why should we give more credit
     than Griggs himself is willing to offer?

>Give me numbers, data, measurements -- save the wordplay for the
>poetry newsgroups.

     'Numbers' are only as good as the experiment and experimenter that
     supports them.  As Griggs is apparently not sure enough 
     of his own numbers to make the explicit claim,
     I see no objective reason to independently upgrade his
     claim.

                       dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 / Thomas Selby /  Re: Now what to do with $700
     
Originally-From: HWHN61A@prodigy.com (Thomas Selby)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Now what to do with $700
Date: 29 Mar 1995 14:00:08 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) wrote:
>stuff about $100,000 prize or more trips

Sounds like an even better idea if it can be done.  I assume you mean 
going to someone like Lloyds for the insurance.  My only caution is that 
setting up something like this can be more work than you might think, and 
may even require the services of a lawyer (any volunteers?).  You may 
also want to tap someone with connections into the financial community. 
As you probably know there are a number of expatriate physicists working 
there these days, some of whom I am sure follow this group.   If the 
prize idea gets too complicated the idea of sending talent to smoke out 
claims also is very attractive.  If nothing else this has been cheap 
entertainment, and it would be good if it continues.  

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenHWHN61A cudfnThomas cudlnSelby cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.28 / 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: 28 Mar 1995 16:27:42 -0500
Organization: Eckerd College, St. Petersburg, Florida

References: <3l4elq$lvt@acasun.eckerd.edu> <1995Mar27.163818.24479@leeds.ac.uk>
Distribution: 

S Rees (men5sr@sun.leeds.ac.uk) wrote:
: In article <3l4elq$lvt@acasun.eckerd.edu> wallace@acasun.eckerd.edu
(Bryan Wallace) writes:
: >
: [lots of interesting stuff deleted]
: >   In Chapter 4 of my book I give an example of the open arrogance and lack of
: >objectivity and integrity of the modern physics politicians that tend to
: >resist change to more realistic theories, I quote from the published
: >retirement address of the particle physicist Robert R. Wilson, the 1985
: >president of the American Physical Society:
: >
: >    Just suppose, even though it is probably a logical impossibility, some
: >  smart aleck came up with a simple, self-evident, closed theory of
: >  everything.  I--and so many others--have had a perfectly wonderful life
: >  pursuing the will-o'-the-wisp of unification.  I have dreamed of my
: >  children, their children and their children's children all having this
: >  same beautiful experience.
: >    All that would end.
: >    APS membership would drop precipitously.  Fellow members, could we
: >  afford this catastrophe?  We must prepare a crisis-management plan for
: >  this eventuality, however remote.  First we must voice a hearty denial. 
: >  Then we should ostracize the culprit and hold up for years any
: >  publication by the use of our well-practiced referees.[28 p.30]
: >
: >
: Americans are known throught the world for their curious lack of a sense
: of irony.  It is strange that a rare attempt by one of their number to use
: it should be so completely misunderstood by another.  The above quote is
: clearly an ironical commentary about how discovering the holy grail of
: physics will destroy the discipline itself; it is a humoruos aside,
: A JOKE.

: Apart from that, thanks for an interesting post.  Theoretical physics
: is now getting so far beyond the comprehension of the layman books
: that attempt to clarify the subject are invaluable.

: Simon

If it was a joke, it was in poor taste because that sort of thing has
actually happened to me many times over the years.

Bryan


cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenwallace cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 / I Johnston /  cancel <D67GLK.FFz@festival.ed.ac.uk>
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <D67GLK.FFz@festival.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 14:38:25 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

Article cancelled from within tin [v1.1 PL8]
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 / David Ramage /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: dramage@lamar.colostate.edu (David Ramage)
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: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 08:40:54 -0700
Organization: Colorado State University

In article <3l9v0e$di8@acasun.eckerd.edu>, wallace@acasun.eckerd.edu
(Bryan Wallace) wrote:

> References: <3l4elq$lvt@acasun.eckerd.edu>
<1995Mar27.163818.24479@leeds.ac.uk>
> Distribution: 
> 
> S Rees (men5sr@sun.leeds.ac.uk) wrote:
> : In article <3l4elq$lvt@acasun.eckerd.edu> wallace@acasun.eckerd.edu
(Bryan Wallace) writes:
> : >
> : [lots of interesting stuff deleted]
> : >   In Chapter 4 of my book I give an example of the open arrogance
and lack of
> : >objectivity and integrity of the modern physics politicians that tend to
> : >resist change to more realistic theories, I quote from the published
> : >retirement address of the particle physicist Robert R. Wilson, the 1985
> : >president of the American Physical Society:
> : >
> : >    Just suppose, even though it is probably a logical impossibility, some
> : >  smart aleck came up with a simple, self-evident, closed theory of
> : >  everything.  I--and so many others--have had a perfectly wonderful life
> : >  pursuing the will-o'-the-wisp of unification.  I have dreamed of my
> : >  children, their children and their children's children all having this
> : >  same beautiful experience.
> : >    All that would end.
> : >    APS membership would drop precipitously.  Fellow members, could we
> : >  afford this catastrophe?  We must prepare a crisis-management plan for
> : >  this eventuality, however remote.  First we must voice a hearty denial. 
> : >  Then we should ostracize the culprit and hold up for years any
> : >  publication by the use of our well-practiced referees.[28 p.30]
> : >
> : >
> : Americans are known throught the world for their curious lack of a sense
> : of irony.  It is strange that a rare attempt by one of their number to use
> : it should be so completely misunderstood by another.  The above quote is
> : clearly an ironical commentary about how discovering the holy grail of
> : physics will destroy the discipline itself; it is a humoruos aside,
> : A JOKE.
> 

> 
> If it was a joke, it was in poor taste because that sort of thing has
> actually happened to me many times over the years.
> 
> Bryan

I don't know if I would call Wilson's address a joke. It seems to me he is
seriously addressing the issue and is using humor to make his point.  BTW,
I recently skimmed an interesting study (book) of the peer review process
at the chemical journal "Angewandte Chemie".  It addressed this issue
along with related ones.  I don't have the title (it was a colleague's
personal copy), but it was reviewed in a very recent (last 2 or 3 I think)
"Angewandte Chemie, International Edition in English"

David Ramage
Chemistry Department
Colorado State University
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudendramage cudfnDavid cudlnRamage cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 / Scott Little /  Re: GRIGGS
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GRIGGS
Date: 29 Mar 1995 15:33:49 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

In article <lgriggs.35.00081D2E@scsn.net>, lgriggs@scsn.net (Lee Griggs) says:
>
>I would appreciate anyone's help in obtaining Mr. Griggs address and phone 
>number 

Hydro Dynamics, Inc.
8 Redmond Court
Rome GA 30165
706-234-4111

Are you a long-lost cousin?  :-)
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 / mitchell swartz /  News on cf in March 20 C&EN
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy
Subject: News on cf in March 20 C&EN
Subject: News on cf in March 20 C&EN
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 16:06:40 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <1995Mar28.130039.2153@vanlab.byu.edu>
Subject: News on cf in March 20 C&EN
Steve Jones [jonesse@vanlab.byu.edu] wrote:

=There is an interesting news article in C&EN for 20 March 1995, "Latest
=research on cold fusion to be presented at Anaheim ACS meeting."  Header:
="Proponents of the controversial research sought symposium and press
=conference but got a poster session instead."
=sniplets:
=[Gustave] "Kohn admits he told the [cf] researchers he approached that they
=would be presenting oral papers.  The assignment of the papers to the poster
=session was a surprise and 'has had something of a disastrous effect,' Kohn
=tells C&EN"  ... "According to ACS officials, three papers have been officially
=withdrawn, including one from Pons and Fleischmann"

  thanks for posting that further evidence of obstruction to information
dissemination in this chemical/solid-state/nuclear field.
  Imagine if only the ACS had followed what they
apparently previously indicated that they would do.
The speakers would have been given the normal courtesy, and everyone
would have learned something.    ------    



cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Richard Schultz flip flops on Lewis?
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Richard Schultz flip flops on Lewis?
Date: 29 Mar 1995 16:34:02 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

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

> ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) writes:
>  
>     "Why would a macroscopic distortion affect a microscopic reaction such as
>     the putative fusion events?  This would imply a field of some sort, I
>     would think."
>  
> I believe there is a more prosaic reason: bent cathodes have cracks, and
> cracks leak out all the deuterium. You can see that happen. Load up a cathode,
> turn off the power, and if it has cracks or scratches, the bubbles of
> escaping gas all concentrate at those cracks, in a pronounced fashion. A good
> metal sample will be evenly coated with small bubbles, a poor sample will
> have lines of large bubbles in some places, and no bubbles elsewhere.
>  

Okay, so there's a nucleation effect.  That's interesting.  It somewhat
supports the peroxide conjecture.

> You can learn a great deal more about this from the papers by Cravens and
> Storms.
>  

I'll try to find some time to search for them.

[deletia]
>  
>     "I'm not sure what the uneven loading might do."
>  
> It prevents hyper-loading. Without hyper-loading you get no CF. Why that is
> true, I have no idea. It is a fact established from observations, not theory.
>  
> There are lots of other ways to prevent high loading. The big three are: dirty
> electrolyte; an uneven electric field; and low current density. There are lots
> of others. People have found dozens of ways to do the experiment wrong. This
> is well documented in the literature.

This sounds more and more like a supersaturated solution being given the
opportunity to rapidly release the gas, by nucleation.  I wonder what the
heat evolved from such a breakdown of a metastable state would be.  I doubt
it'd be anywhere near the reported excess, but it's interesting
nonetheless.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 / Scott Little /  Is Piantelli making progress?  replication?
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Is Piantelli making progress?  replication?
Date: 29 Mar 1995 16:33:47 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

Focardi, Habel, & Piantelli published a paper entitled
"Anomalous Heat Production in Ni-F Systems" in Jan 1994 in
IL NUOVO CIMENTO Vol 107A N. 1

It describes an excess heat experiment in which a Ni rod was simply
heated in a H atmosphere.  They saw substantial excess heat (50w excess 
above a 100w input).

Has there been any further word from these guys?

Does anyone know of a replication attempt?

Thanks.
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 /  Kennel /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: mbk@jt3ws1.etd.ornl.gov (Kennel)
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: 29 Mar 1995 16:29:55 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN

References: <3l9v0e$di8@acasun.eckerd.edu> <dramage-2903950840540001@sli
144x.slip.colostate.edu>
Reply-To: kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov
Distribution: 

> > : >resist change to more realistic theories, I quote from the published
> > : >retirement address of the particle physicist Robert R. Wilson, the 1985
> > : >president of the American Physical Society:
> > : >
> > : >    Just suppose, even though it is probably a logical impossibility, some
> > : >  smart aleck came up with a simple, self-evident, closed theory of
> > : >  everything.  I--and so many others--have had a perfectly wonderful life
> > : >  pursuing the will-o'-the-wisp of unification.  I have dreamed of my
> > : >  children, their children and their children's children all having this
> > : >  same beautiful experience.
> > : >    All that would end.
> > : >    APS membership would drop precipitously.  Fellow members, could we
> > : >  afford this catastrophe?  We must prepare a crisis-management plan for
> > : >  this eventuality, however remote.  First we must voice a hearty denial. 
> > : >  Then we should ostracize the culprit and hold up for years any
> > : >  publication by the use of our well-practiced referees.[28 p.30]

#1 I'm sure this R.R.W is being sarcasting.

#2 And most importantly, physics would *NOT* stop once we had a "theory
of everything."

That's an arrogant presumption by some small subset of physicists that
the kind of work that they do is "everything" and that once they
get their "theory of everything" that's it.

About 90% of physics research would keep on tooling along as before.  With
new insight, yes, but with plenty more work ahead for the future.

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmbk cudlnKennel cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 / Richard Schultz /  Re: News on cf in March 20 C&EN
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: News on cf in March 20 C&EN
Date: 29 Mar 1995 17:38:50 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <D67M34.LpI@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

>=[Gustave] "Kohn admits he told the [cf] researchers he approached that they
>=would be presenting oral papers.  The assignment of the papers to the poster
>=session was a surprise and 'has had something of a disastrous effect,' Kohn
>=tells C&EN"  ... "According to ACS officials, three papers have been 
>=officially withdrawn, including one from Pons and Fleischmann"
>
>  thanks for posting that further evidence of obstruction to information
>dissemination in this chemical/solid-state/nuclear field.
>  Imagine if only the ACS had followed what they
apparently previously indicated that they would do.
>The speakers would have been given the normal courtesy, and everyone
>would have learned something.    ------    

Thanks for posting further evidence that you are totally without a clue.
Kohn (who was trying to organize the session) told people they would
be giving oral presentations *beofre* he checked with the Program
Chairperson to find out if it was okay.  In fact, allowing the 
poster sessions was a fairly gracious move on her part.  Most
sessions for ACS meetings are arranged over a year in advance.  For
example, the Inorganic Division is already calling for papers
for specific symposia to be given at the August 1996 meeting.  Kohn's
bright idea was to have the CF types make their presentations, but
he neglected to go through the procedure for organizing a symposium
with anything like the requisite lead time, approaching the program
chairperson in September and presenting her with the papers on 15 November,
which is not nearly enough time for an April meeting.  

As the article puts it,

	According to [Patricia A.] Baisden [the program chairperson
	for the Nuclear Chemistry division of the ACS], Kohn
	misrepresented his intentions, at first saying that he wanted
	to submit only one or two papers.  At the same time, she
	says, he requested additional abstract forms.  Kohn also
	called her repeatedly, Baisden says, insisting on meeting
	with her, presumably to sell her on the idea of a cold fusion
	session.
	Kohn sees it differently, claiming that he never tried to
	mislead Baisden.
	In any case, *without any authorization or even encouragement
	from Baisden* [emphasis added], Kohn and Passell contacted
	cold fusion researchers and generated enough contributions
	to fill a full-day symposium.  On Nov. 15, the two chemists
	presented Baisden with 12 papers, with a couple more arriving
	later.
	`We can't accomodate a full-day symposium at the last minute,'
	Baisden says. . . . Typically, the symposium program is set
	in stone at least a year before the meeting.
	When Kohn and Passell approached her, Baisden says, `my 
	program was already set.  I only had a half-day session
	available for unsolicited contributed papers.' . . . But
	she had 14 cold fusion papers, plus nine other contributed 
	papers unrelated to cold fusion.  Her only option, Baisden says,
	was to assign all 23 papers to a poster session.  `I treated
	everybody who contributed an unsolicited paper in exactly
	the same way,' she points out.

I realize that you get a lot of pleasure out of imagining yourself to
be a martyr.  You might find that knowing what you are talking about
can be just as much fun -- you really ought to try it sometime.
--
					Richard Schultz

"The palladium based systems are a useless dead end. Who cares about them?"
			--Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 10 Dec 1992
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 / Tom Droege /  Re: GRIGGS
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GRIGGS
Date: 29 Mar 1995 17:46:31 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <lgriggs.35.00081D2E@scsn.net>, lgriggs@scsn.net (Lee Griggs) says:
>
>I would appreciate anyone's help in obtaining Mr. Griggs address and phone 
>number so that I may contact him directly.  Thanks ahead of time for anyone's 
>help.  I can be reached thru E-Mail here or through scribblerg@aol.com or by 
>fax at 803-424-0450.
>Lee Griggs
>Camden, SC

Phone number is:  706-234-4111

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 / Tom Droege /  Re: $700 prize not effective...changes needed
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: $700 prize not effective...changes needed
Date: 29 Mar 1995 17:48:03 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3lb24v$66t@boris.eden.com>, little@eden.com (Scott Little) says:
>
>A $700 prize is not a significant incentive to pursue a successful
>"alternative" energy device.  $700 will be a single molecule in the 
>bucket for the successful inventor, right?
>
>It is entirely possible, however, that $700 would be extremely useful
>to an energetic but destitute investigator.
>
>What we need to do, I say, is come up with a way to award the $700 to
>someone BEFORE they perform their experiment so they can use the money
>to buy stuff like Pd, D2O, etc.
>
>Perhaps, we should let interested parties submit proposals for experiments
>with detailed protocols, rationales, etc.  We could then vote on the "most
>likely to succeed" and give that person the prize.
>
>If this doesn't fly then perhaps we should get serious about this prize
>and do some extensive fund raising to get it up into the >$10,000 range.

It is not the size of the prize but the winning of it!

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 / Gary Steckly /  Re: Now what to do with $700
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@clark.dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Now what to do with $700
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 95 16:13:50 GMT
Organization: Industry Canada

In article <1995Mar27.134914.2152@plasma.byu.edu> jonesse@plasma.byu.edu writes:
>Subject: Re: Now what to do with $700
>From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
>Date: 27 Mar 95 13:49:14 -0700
(Deletia of Bill Page's fine suggestions)

>We seem to be approaching a consensus here -- any strong dissenters among
>those who contributed to the contribution pot?
>Suggest we let Bill go ahead and advertise this prize at ICCF5.  (Note, I
>will not be going, and I don't think Tom Droege will either.)

>I also like Dean Edmonds recent suggestion #2, that is, that we "limit the
>vote [following Tom Droege's posted suggestion] to those who contributed to the
>prize. ...it might encourage others (such as myself) to contribute thereby
>making the prize even more attractive.  (Some minimum contribution level should
>be established.)"
>
>Suggest we follow this idea, too -- with a minimum of $15, to be sent to
>Tom Droege to add to the collection pot.  (This is close to the minimum for
>the original collection, as I recall.)

>How 'bout it?
>--Steve Jones

As a contributor to the fund, I would just like to express my agreement with 
these suggestions with one qualification. I still prefer the previous 
suggestion to purchase/rent the Huffman "table-top version" of this pump and 
give it to Scott Little to test. Was that option firmly laid to rest? Granted, 
it's not a Griggs pump, but it is similar and Huffman is making similar 
over-unity claims, and this fund was created to test this phenomenon, was it 
not?

regards

Gary



cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 / Gary Steckly /  Re: $700 prize not effective...changes needed
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@clark.dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: $700 prize not effective...changes needed
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 95 16:29:03 GMT
Organization: Industry Canada

In article <3lb24v$66t@boris.eden.com> little@eden.com (Scott Little) writes:
>From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
>Subject: $700 prize not effective...changes needed
>Date: 29 Mar 1995 07:27:27 GMT

>A $700 prize is not a significant incentive to pursue a successful
>"alternative" energy device.  $700 will be a single molecule in the 
>bucket for the successful inventor, right?

>It is entirely possible, however, that $700 would be extremely useful
>to an energetic but destitute investigator.

>What we need to do, I say, is come up with a way to award the $700 to
>someone BEFORE they perform their experiment so they can use the money
>to buy stuff like Pd, D2O, etc.

>Perhaps, we should let interested parties submit proposals for experiments
>with detailed protocols, rationales, etc.  We could then vote on the "most
>likely to succeed" and give that person the prize.

>If this doesn't fly then perhaps we should get serious about this prize
>and do some extensive fund raising to get it up into the >$10,000 range.

I agree entirely.  Although I indicated tentative agreement to the prize idea 
earlier, I would prefer a more active option as you suggest here.  

Scott, I recall that on several occasions you indicated your willingness to 
participate with an offer of your services and facilities.  What ever happened 
to the suggestion that someone test the Griggs-like scale model built by Mr. 
Huffman?  Would you like to give it a go?  Any interest with this idea?  Could 
we not rent or purchase this device for 700 bucks?  I believe Huffmans price 
was around 150 for materials.  Comments?

Gary   
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 / John Cobb /  Re: POLL: How long till power plants?
     
Originally-From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: POLL: How long till power plants?
Date: 29 Mar 1995 11:54:59 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <3l9ucc$iu@spool.cs.wisc.edu>,
Michael Brumm <brumm@cs.wisc.edu> wrote:
>  I'm about to do something scarey in a newsgroup: take a poll.
>

Okay, I'll bite

>    When will the first hot fusion power plant come on-line?

Year: 2062 *(see note below)

>    What type will it be?

An advanced magnetic confinement device. Features:
	basically toroidal confinement field
	smallish size (~400 MW, L~5 meters)
	steady-state
	simple coil geometry, not linked with plasma
	superconducting coils
	high beta, 40-80%
	diverted
	reduced transport
	active control of plasma position, mhd stability, and
	  even turbulent fluctuations
	external heating via neutral beams and RF antennas, but
	  a high level of internal heating (ignition) and 
          self-sustained current (mostly from diamagnetic current,
          but also including bootstrap current)
	main burn phase using advanced D-3He fuel. Path to high
          operating temps giving by a startup D-T burning phase.
	3He breeder by using a neutron multiplication blanket to
	  breed tritium and then waiting for it to decay into 3He
	Advanced materials utilization including materials able to
	  withstand high thermal and mechanical stresses as well as
	  low neutron activiation. Ideally the materials will also
	  have high thermal conductivity. First wall components will
	  be low Z and low sputtering.

>    Where will it be?

Japan(?)

>    What is the basis for your prediction(s)? (required)

As with anyone who replies, the basis is a personal opinion based on a
personal point of view. This includes accumulated information from
professional work in the area as well as personal preferences and
personality quirks. That said, let me try to explain why I answered as
I did.

1) 2062. By "power plant" I mean the first plant built to produce
commercial power on a for profit basis, not an ignition experiment,
DEMO plant, or even a utility proof-of-principle test. Rather it is a
plant built to make money from selling energy.

2062 assumes that the first commercial devices if a magnetic
confinemt concept. Although there are other alternatives, from where I
sit they are much more speculative. While they may hold the ultimate
key, I am not yet confident enough to predict an "end run" where a new
idea has a better chance to sweep around conventional magnetic schemes.
This may change. Also, while the first commercial device may be MFE, that
doesn't necessarily preclude other concepts dominating in the future. I
hedge my bets here by saying that I really am not familiar with ICF enough
to say it won't beat MFE. My reading of the consensus is that it won't.

Given that, the ultimate development of fusion requires the building of 
certain key experiments in a timely fashion. Additionally, a healthy, 
diverse base program must be maintained. They key experiments are:

ignition experiment (ITER-physics). This experiment will allow the first
exploration of the physics effects from a burning plasma, including transport
and stability (MHD and micro-). This experiment cost ~10G$ and requires
about 10 more years of planning/construction before first plasma. It
also requires ~3-5 years experimental campaign to answer these questions.
This device will also alloy deployment and testing of full sized auxilliary
systems such as neutral beams, RF antennas, feuling schemes, etc.

concept improvement (TPX, DIII-D, JT60-SU, LHD, W7x, other alts.) This
is a series of experiments that either seek to optimize the tokamak
concept or replace it by a superior approach that has better transport,
stability, beta, and/or smaller size. These experiments can be simultaneous
with the materials testing facility and the ignition facility

materials testing: There is a need to develop a high flux 14 MeV neutron
source to use for materials testing. Power plants will need advanced 
materials that can withstand HUGE amounts of neutron flux without failing.
This is IMO the toughest engineering problem associated with fusion. It
may be possible to build a separate device to do this testing such as 
proposals for VNS, etc. However, the simplest way to do it would be to use
the final ears of the ignition experiment as a neutron source to do
materials testing (I.E. ITER-engineering and materials phase). However, 
in so doing, the ignition experiment will not have the benefit of the
result of the materials studies. Therefore the ignition experiment may have
a shorter life and it may create more waste.

DEMO plant. results for the ignition experiment, concept improvement, and
materials testing, when all three have been substantially accomplished, will
be integrated into a DEMO project whose purpose is to optimize cost and
performance features with the goal of obtaining s design with an attractive 
COE (cost of electricity) figure. IMO DEMO will require 15 years of planning/
construction after completion of prerequisites. It will cost > 10G$, but may
be partially offset by utility contributions. If it is successful, then the
program could proceed to commercialization. However, the DEMO and other
steps may need to be iterated upon.

Now simple math says that if we got our act together today, the following 
approximate timeline would follow (assuming using ignition experiment as
materials facility).
1995-2005 build ignition experiment
2005-2008 ignition physics
2008-2018 materials testing
1995-2018 concept improvement
2018-2033 design/build demo
2033-2035 DEMO proof-of-principle
2035-2045 commercial plant planning construction.

--> 2045 first commerical power production

Now this assumes that we are diligent in the effort. In fact, what will more
than likely happen is that we will have progress in fits and starts based
on funding limits internationally. Therefore we should add about 15 years
of extra wasted time for lack of planning and vision and resources at the
national decision-making levels. THAT IS, THE FIRST PRODUCTION OF COMMERIIAL
FUSION POWER IS QUESTION NOT OF TIME, BUT OF MONEY. When the total investment
in the program is sufficient to complete the vital milestones listed above,
the program will achieve its goals. This investment is the NET investment
after subtracting out the required support of the base program (which is
necessary, because without the base, the jewel experiments cannot function).
At the current U.S. funding level, the amount of investment above the base
is very minor, and decreasing. Given that funding pattern, fusion in the
U.S. will never be achieved. At some point in the future, funding must
increase to the level to build the required large experiments (ignition,
materials, concept improvement, and DEMO). Because of funding limitations,
we have made very little progress on this timeline in the last decade. Our
only imporvement has been in the concept improvement area. However,
construction decisions on various ignition experiments (the next logical
step) have been delayed or denied repeatedly (CIT, Ignitex, BPX, ...).
We are not making progress on that part of the program that is precisely the
time critical path. Neither have we been macking progress on the materials
test facility, which will soon become a time bottleneck as well. In summary,
I give a 15 year waste figure for these lapses in collective judgement.
that gets us to 2060. Then I add 2 years so that the number doesn't come
out round and the goobers out there think that this is some  super-precise
estimate good withing 6 months :>.

In terms of the type question: Most reflect required concept improvements
that must be made in order to achieve (IMO) economic feasibility. Currently,
people are looking for these as incremental improvement to the Tokamak.
IMO that won't happen (although I may be wrong). These improvements are
possible with alternate concepts, but they have questions of their own to
address (especially confinement).

In terms of Japan. I think the answer to this question is very unknown. I
said Japan, because they are the only country at this time that seems willing
to make a long-term funding commitment that goes significantly beyond 
maintenance of a base program. If funding trends in the U.S., Europe, and
Russia continue as is, they will NEVER meet the goal.

-just my take on the issue to get the discussion ball rolling


-john .w cobb


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

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 / Larry Crane /  Re: Now what to do with $700
     
Originally-From: lac@microware.com (Larry Crane)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Now what to do with $700
Date: 29 Mar 1995 18:17:16 GMT
Organization: Microware Systems Corp., Des Moines, Iowa

In article <3kv4s8$fqu@fnnews.fnal.gov> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
>Lets then try to formulate rules for an excess heat experiment:
   . . .
>5)  When there have been at least three replications, two posted, a vote 
>will be taken on s.p.f. Voting will be limited to those who have 
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>actually made a post to s.p.f since it originated.  Sorry lurkers. 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Let's require an 80% yes vote.

What is the point of the above constraint?  I can understand wanting to
have voters who can accurately determine if the original experiment was
described in a manner that it could be replicated, if the replications
actually are replications, and if the results and analyses of the results
all agree to an appropriate level.  Obviously, posting here has little
to do with those qualifications.

If the point is simply to increase participation in this group, it may
increase the traffic, but the S/N ratio?  Well, maybe.  It would be great
if it did.

Anyway, I guess I am now qualified to vote.  But I am still curious
why Tom suggested that constraint.


Larry Crane
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenlac cudfnLarry cudlnCrane cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 / Tom Droege /  Re: Now what to do with $700
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Now what to do with $700
Date: 29 Mar 1995 18:27:10 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3la99q$ak4@deadmin.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) says:
>
>In article <3l94bp$are@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com> HWHN61A@prodigy.com (Thomas  
>Selby) writes:
>> As an original contributor I support this idea, and am willing to sweeten 
>> the pot.
>
>I really don't think holding the $700 dollars in escrow as a prize
>is a very productive use of the money, for two reasons:
>
>(1) a $1000 prize can easily be covered should the (unlikely) need 
>    arise---no need to keep the money itself in escrow. 
>
>    For example, I myself have several outstanding $1 bets at 100:1
>    odds that P&F style CF does not exist, and I would certainaly cover
>    them if I'm wrong. (In fact, I have gratiously not yet tried
>    to call them in, even though it is past the original 2 year deadline
>    and P & F have not demonstrated to the satisfaction of the scientific
>    community that their effects are ``real''---I'll leave the jury out
>    until the situation clears up, tho time is on my side).
>
>(2) Look at how much productive use we got out of using just $300 to send
>    Tom to Georgia---that is good bang for the buck. There is enough left
>    for two similar sized bangs. That sounds much better than sticking
>    it in a savings account. (E.g. using the dough to put Griggs on
>    the internet, or assist Marshal Dudley---which are real things
>    that could haoppen now and have a real impact on the discourse---seems
>    so much more interesting).
>
>BUT, If we really want to have a Cold Fusion Prize, the proper way to 
>do it is this: 
>    
>    (i)  get a human proponent who's name carries some 
>    media weight, and who is willing to personally associate themselves
>    with the debate---Steve Jones is the ideal choice. This is needed
>    to generate the initial media interest, and get folks to take note
>    (Joe Schmoe's CF prize is not so interesting;  Steve Jones's is, both 
>     to the Science news mags and the scientists involved).
>
>    (ii) Take the $1000 dollars to an insurance company, and use it to 
>    take out a roughly $100,000 policy, for some limited time, 
>    say 5 years (if no one can claim it in 5 years, CF is dead anyway).
>    There are companies that would do this sort of thing, especially 
>    with an Expert like Steve Jones to tell them the odds of it really
>    being true are << 100:1,  and he is mainly doing this as a stunt
>    to try and goad the secretive CF researchers into opening up
>    their experiments.
>
>In general, $1000 dollars will buy a $100,000 policy for some number of
>years, N. As long as N >= 1, I think this would be the best way to 
>offer a prize. I like $100,000 because it gets attention, and because
>if claimed, it would actually fund a large amount of someones
>CF research, so there is some real financial incentive to claim it. 
>The criteria of the policy need to be firm, and Jones 1000 nutrons
>or 1000-rays in a day in his or other comparable, calibrated, detectors is
>probably a workable basis.
>
>In summary, $1000 is not much--no matter what, it must be leveraged.
>Either levergage it by tapping into someone elses knowledge 
>(as we did with TD) or by useing it as an option on a much larger
>amount of money, and wielding that dough.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>Barry Merriman
>UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
>UCLA Dept. of Math
>bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
>
>

The problem with this is figuring out conditions for awarding the 
prize.  How does the insurance company know when to award it?  My
rules just required a vote of of the participants.  With an insurance
company sucker enough to give 100/1 odds, I would set such a thing 
up and just take a positive vote, and divide up the money.  

An insurance company is even less able to determine "truth" than we
are.  

Someone said that we shoud get a "big name" behind this.  Well 
sci.physics.fusion I think will be a bigger name than any one 
person.  Wearing my "futureist" hat, I see this as the wave of the
future.  The time is not far away when news groups will be big names.
We can help in that process by offering this prize.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 / Paul McCombes /  Re: Griggs Visit (the mysterious computing loop)
     
Originally-From: paul@mccombes.demon.co.uk (Paul McCombes)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Visit (the mysterious computing loop)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 18:26:49 +0000
Organization: Myorganisation

In article: <5C04HAl.jedrothwell@delphi.com>  jedrothwell@delphi.com 
writes:
> 
> Windows is every bit as good at collecting data as standard DOS is. 

Wrong. And this is the first sentence.
--
Paul McCombes
  "Where there is the will to convict, the evidence shall be found."

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenpaul cudfnPaul cudlnMcCombes cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 / Paul Karol /  Re: News on cf in March 20 C&EN
     
Originally-From: Paul Karol <pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: News on cf in March 20 C&EN
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 13:38:34 -0500
Organization: Chemistry, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.sci.physics.fusion: 29-Mar-95 News on cf in March
20 C&EN by mitchell swartz@world.st 
> =There is an interesting news article in C&EN for 20 March 1995, "Latest
> =research on cold fusion to be presented at Anaheim ACS meeting."  Header:
> ="Proponents of the controversial research sought symposium and press
> =conference but got a poster session instead."
> =sniplets:
> =[Gustave] "Kohn admits he told the [cf] researchers he approached that they
> =would be presenting oral papers.  The assignment of the papers to the poster
> =session was a surprise and 'has had something of a disastrous effect,' Kohn
> =tells C&EN"  ... "According to ACS officials, three papers have been
official
> ly
> =withdrawn, including one from Pons and Fleischmann"
>  
>   thanks for posting that further evidence of obstruction to information
> dissemination in this chemical/solid-state/nuclear field.
>   Imagine if only the ACS had followed what they
> apparently previously indicated that they would do.
> The speakers would have been given the normal courtesy, and everyone
> would have learned something.    ------    

What ARE you talking about?  My understanding is that there were to be
two papers submitted on "cold fusion".  The Nuclear Division's Symposia
(like those of all Divisions) are set up roughly two years in advance as
are the requirements for rooms and time assignments.  The Nuclear
Division saves one general slot titled something like "Other Aspects of
Nuclear Science".  The article in C&EN noted that after there was an
AGREEMENT on accepting the two "cnf" papers, something on the order of
another dozen appeared along with what amounted to a demand for a
symposium by the cnf constituency.  Not only can a symposium not be
bootstrapped into the schedule, but now the number of papers outside the
pre-organized symposia exceeded the capacity of the "general" symposium.
 The suggestion was made that rather than restricting the number of
papers accepted, something we DID NOT think was in the interest of
disemination of information, that the poster session, with its large
capacity and much bigger audience draw, be used.  So cut out your
paranoic interpretation of what was actually a very accommodating,
reasonable and positive action on the part of the ACS Division of
Nuclear Chemistry and Technology.  I, for one, look forward to visiting
those remaining poster presentations and regret the stuffy reneging by a
few unjustifiably disgruntled cnfers.

Paul J. Karol
Vice Chairman, DNCT
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudfnPaul cudlnKarol cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: A Zillion eV per atom of Pd is meaningless
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Zillion eV per atom of Pd is meaningless
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 95 13:49:40 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

jnw@jazzmin.vnet.net (John N. White) writes:
 
   "520 eV/atom is nothing. Deuterium peroxide can produce 4MJ/liter.
   That corresponds to millions of eV per atom of Pd, for a small
   electrode."
 
You thesis would only work if a cells producing 4 MJ had, say, a liter of
water. Cells have much less water than this. Most have 50 ml or so, and many
have no water at all -- only deuterium or hydrogen gas. Cells undergoing heat
after death cells have only a tiny bit of water vapor.
 
Oriani's 520 eV/atom computation applies to the cathode, as you say, but if
you run a similar computation for water molecules in other cells, you also
come up with energy balances far above the limits of chemistry *for the
electrolyte*. I do not know how much water there was in Oriani's cell, but I
do know of some other cells with only milligrams of water (or gas) in them
which produced many megajoules of energy. These examples disprove your thesis.
 
 
Elsewhere, White writes:
 
    "There are a number of experiments that produce bursts that are many times
    the I*V input power. These are interesting because they are unlikely to
    be due to calorimetry errors. Unfortunately, they always seem to require
    a long startup (during which energy could be stored) and they never seem
    to produce more than 4MJ/liter."
 
That is incorrect. Most cells do *not* require long start up periods, and
many have produced thousands of times more than 4MJ/liter of electrolyte.
E-Quest, for example, starts up in 0.07 seconds (I believe it was), and they
can produce as many megajoules as you like. Mizuno starts up in less than
one hour, and his cells contain only deutrium gas, no water. Many
electrochemical cells now start up in a day or two, with properly treated
metal. Arata's cells produced massive, easily detected, continuous heat for
3,000 hours, adding up to more than 200 MJ. That is *much* more than 4MJ per
liter of electrolyte, and the cell started up after a loading period of 10.4
days. Since the heat generation was continuous during the next three months,
it follows that if the energy was being stored up in the water (in the form
of peroxide) before the startup, you would have to store the entire 200 MJ
during that 10 day period. Remember: the energy balance is highly positive
for the entire 3,000 hour heat release; at no time does it dip below the
zero to allow additional energy to be stored. Therefore, the entire 200 MJ
would have to be loaded in 10 days, which would show up as a gigantic energy
deficit of 800 KJ per hour. The cell would have to swallow energy at a rate
of 222 watts. Since it was only charged at 100 watts, it would have to form
peroxide at a rate that would consume twice as much energy as was input during
the 10 day charging period. I suppose it would get pretty cold! The other
problem is that since you only get 4 MJ per liter, you would require 50 liters
of water. The volume of that water would exceed the entire size of the
machine many times over.
 
There are many other logical, practial and scientific objections to your
thesis, but that covers the main ones I think.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Now what to do with $700
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Now what to do with $700
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 16:33:14 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <D65vGv.Ez2@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG>,
Scott Hazen Mueller <scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> wrote:
>In article <1995Mar27.134914.2152@plasma.byu.edu>,
> <jonesse@plasma.byu.edu> wrote:
>>We seem to be approaching a consensus here -- any strong dissenters among
>>those who contributed to the contribution pot?
>
>I hardly think we have a consenus.  There were about 40 people who chipped
>in to the original fund, and we've heard from perhaps 1/4 of those.
>
>I haven't heard Dieter express an opinion on the disposition, and he was a
>contributor.  Perhaps he would collect a tally?  I'd prefer to have someone
>publically neutral do so even though I don't really think anyone here would
>do anything underhanded.  It's just that I'd like to avoid even the possible
>implication of that.
>
>Choices expressed thus far:
>
>  (1) Fund a prize for detection of [neutrons, X rays, excess heat, mutated
>      children of CNF researchers]?
>
>  (2) Fund another trip.
>
>  (3) Give the money to a deserving participant of s.p.f.  [e.g. Tom]
>
>  (4) Return pro-rata shares to the contributors.

      Give it to charity, I think the prize is pointless, and returning
      the money is likely more pointless.  And the trip..  Well, perhaps
      Tom should take a vacation somewhere more pleasant than the last
      place we sent him.

                                dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 / Mark Hittinger /  Re: $700 prize not effective...changes needed
     
Originally-From: bugs@news.win.net (Mark Hittinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: $700 prize not effective...changes needed
Date: 29 Mar 1995 14:25:04 -0500
Organization: Win.Net Communications, Inc.

Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
>In article <3lb24v$66t@boris.eden.com>, little@eden.com (Scott Little) says:
>>A $700 prize is not a significant incentive to pursue a successful
>>"alternative" energy device.
>Tom Droege writes:
>It is not the size of the prize but the winning of it!

Just as a reality check here - potential billions and realistic millions
haven't done the trick either :-).

Regards,

Mark Hittinger
bugs@win.net
-- 
"This is going to cause more confusion than a mouse in a burlesque show." -
							Foghorn Leghorn.
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenbugs cudfnMark cudlnHittinger cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 /  Johmann /  Is this question forbidden?
     
Originally-From: johmann@aol.com (Johmann)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Is this question forbidden?
Date: 29 Mar 1995 14:21:40 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

This endless discussion of the Griggs water heater seems to be ignoring
the
possibility of deliberate deception. Note that I have no knowledge that
such
is taking place, and I have seen no evidence for such in anything I have
read on the subject, including this newsgroup; however, I do recall
reading
about how some of the perpetual-motion-machine inventors earlier in this
century concealed hidden power sources and/or wires that delivered power
to
their machines.

Did Jed check for hidden wires: supplying power, for example, to a
resistance heater hidden somewhere along the flow path?

As an analogy, suppose after 5+ years of the original P&F announcement,
P&F
were still claiming results that only appeared when measured at their
laboratory?

Of course, that is not the case now, as duplication is world-wide in
independent laboratories. So we can, at this time, rule out deliberate
deception as a possible cause of CF effects. But not so, as of yet, it
seems, with the Griggs water heater.

If I am missing information about outside confirmation of over-unity
performance, then what are the facts?

Has Griggs offered to loan one of his water heaters to one or more of the
national labs, university labs, or industry labs? If not, then why not?


Kurt Johmann
--
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjohmann cudlnJohmann cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 / John Logajan /  Re: A Pt anode doesn't decompose Peroxide
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Pt anode doesn't decompose Peroxide
Date: 29 Mar 1995 19:41:00 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

John N. White (jnw@jazzmin.vnet.net) wrote:
: I have tested Pt which has been used as an anode and found that it
: does not cause H2O2 to decompose. Presumably this is due to a
: thin layer that formed on the Pt during electrolysis.

Well, I'm not one to stand in the way of experimental evidence, so I'll
have to retract my position on this.

--
 - 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:
cuddy29 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 / Tom Droege /  Re: Is this question forbidden?
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is this question forbidden?
Date: 29 Mar 1995 21:33:38 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3lcc04$r4r@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, johmann@aol.com (Johmann) says:
>
>This endless discussion of the Griggs water heater seems to be ignoring
>the
>possibility of deliberate deception. Note that I have no knowledge that
>such
>is taking place, and I have seen no evidence for such in anything I have
>read on the subject, including this newsgroup; however, I do recall
>reading
>about how some of the perpetual-motion-machine inventors earlier in this
>century concealed hidden power sources and/or wires that delivered power
>to
>their machines.
>
>Did Jed check for hidden wires: supplying power, for example, to a
>resistance heater hidden somewhere along the flow path?
>
>As an analogy, suppose after 5+ years of the original P&F announcement,
>P&F
>were still claiming results that only appeared when measured at their
>laboratory?
>
>Of course, that is not the case now, as duplication is world-wide in
>independent laboratories. So we can, at this time, rule out deliberate
>deception as a possible cause of CF effects. But not so, as of yet, it
>seems, with the Griggs water heater.
>
>If I am missing information about outside confirmation of over-unity
>performance, then what are the facts?
>
>Has Griggs offered to loan one of his water heaters to one or more of the
>national labs, university labs, or industry labs? If not, then why not?
>
>
>Kurt Johmann
>--

This is why I have always stressed replication.  Griggs tells us how 
to do it.  Someone else follows the instructions and does it.  Then 
we have real science. 

Could Griggs have concealed something from me?  Sure.  It could be
as simple as a factor of 1.08 somewhere in his computer program.  Did
he?  I have no idea.  If someone wants to cheat on his home turf he
can always do it.  The chance of detection is small for any deceivor
who is a smart as the deceivee. 

So the three most improtant rulse of science - replication, replication,
replication.

Tom Droege 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 / Tom Droege /  Should I do the Prize work
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Should I do the Prize work
Date: 29 Mar 1995 21:48:07 GMT
Organization: fermilab

I think it would be a good idea to offer a prize with the remaining
money and another round of collection.  I think it would put this 
news group on the map.  It would also do something useful in publicising
how science really works.  But I have seen a lot of cirticism of this
idea.  It will take a lot of work to write up a formal proposal for a 
vote by the contributors.  Please encourage me one way or the other by
private e-mail.  Droege@storm.fnal.gov

This has some urgency.  Bill Page would like to announce it at !CCF5.  He
will need to know in a few days.  It will take some fast foot work and
a quick trip to the lawyer to do it right.  

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 / JORDI CASALS /  Re: A simple question
     
Originally-From: JORDIR@LAMBDA.UPC.ES (JORDI ROVIRA, CASALS          )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A simple question
Date: 29 Mar 1995 15:39:54 GMT
Organization: CAMPUS DE TERRASSA - UPC. SPAIN

In <1995Mar25.183111.6885@Princeton.EDU> rfheeter@princeton.edu writes:

> 
> Maybe in several hundred years.  Right now it takes a whole star to 
> make appreciable amounts of fusion energy via proton reactions.
> If plasma confinement (density * temperature * energy confinement
> time) capabilities continue to improve at the current rate of one order 
> of magnitude per 5 years of research (the historical average from 1955 to
> 1990 or so), then we might be able to get fusion with protons only
> in about 120 years or so (24 orders of magnitude x 5 years per order
> of magnitude = 120 years).  Interesting speculation!

Protons only? I read time ago about cathalised reactions, the cicle CNO. 
When you say 24 orders of magnitude, refers to a nude H-H reaction? Or to a
cathalised one? 

=========================
Jordi Rovira Casals
jordir@euot.upc.es
Barcelona (Spain)
=========================

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenJORDIR cudfnJORDI cudlnCASALS cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 / Tom Droege /  Re: Now what to do with $700
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Now what to do with $700
Date: 29 Mar 1995 22:55:19 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3lc87c$q76@mcrware.microware.com>, lac@microware.com (Larry Crane) says:
>
>In article <3kv4s8$fqu@fnnews.fnal.gov> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
>>Lets then try to formulate rules for an excess heat experiment:
>   . . .
>>5)  When there have been at least three replications, two posted, a vote 
>>will be taken on s.p.f. Voting will be limited to those who have 
>                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>actually made a post to s.p.f since it originated.  Sorry lurkers. 
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Let's require an 80% yes vote.
>
>What is the point of the above constraint?  I can understand wanting to
>have voters who can accurately determine if the original experiment was
>described in a manner that it could be replicated, if the replications
>actually are replications, and if the results and analyses of the results
>all agree to an appropriate level.  Obviously, posting here has little
>to do with those qualifications.
>
>If the point is simply to increase participation in this group, it may
>increase the traffic, but the S/N ratio?  Well, maybe.  It would be great
>if it did.
>
>Anyway, I guess I am now qualified to vote.  But I am still curious
>why Tom suggested that constraint.
>
>
>Larry Crane

I was looking for a scheme to prevent one group or the other from doing
what Waite Hoyt - the Cincinnati Reds broadcaster - once did for the 
all star game.  He got the entire Cincinnati team elected.  I am presently
proposing that voting be restricted to those who contributed - in 
proportion to the contribution.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 / Tom Droege /  Re: Ahem. Aren't we a little crazy? was Re: Griggs Report & responses
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ahem. Aren't we a little crazy? was Re: Griggs Report & responses
Date: 29 Mar 1995 22:59:58 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <1995Mar29.002236.17894@ttinews.tti.com>, jackson@soldev.tti.
om (Dick Jackson) says:
>
>Take 100 calorimetry style experiments with reasonably complex internal
>processes.  In 93 cases the results are going to confirm the "null
>hypothesis" that the laws of thermodynamics are still operative within the
>experimental errors.  In 3 cases some hard to track down systematic error
>will produce an apparent loss of energy.  In these cases the experimenters
>will in all likelyhood not publish these results for fear of ridicule.
>
>However in the other 3 cases there will be an apparent gain of energy
>(because of elusive systematic errors). Here there will be a temptation
>to report the results as significant and indicating some "new physics".
>Most of us a) try to be open minded, and b) would kind of *like* to
>see something new pop up, so we tolerate such claims, and therefore
>probably suspend disbelief much too readily.
>
>I have tried to be open minded about cold fusion, but I'm about ready to
>join the hard skeptics.  I *firmly* believe the Griggs effect is in the
>class of the 3 false positives as described above, and would deplore
>showering him with largesse. (Mind you I did not contribute to the fund so
>ignore me if you like).
>
>Dick Jackson

I have read this three times looking for case #100.  Let's see, 
93+3+3 is 99.  Just what did you have in mind for the other case
Dick?  Were you afraid to say?  Is your inner self holding back one
case that you really want to believe in?

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 / Robert Virzi /  Re: Now what to do with $700
     
Originally-From: rv01@harvey.gte.com (Robert Virzi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Now what to do with $700
Date: 29 Mar 1995 16:29:20 GMT
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Waltham, MA

In article <D65vGv.Ez2@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> Scott writes:
>Choices expressed thus far:
>
>  (1) Fund a prize for detection of [neutrons, X rays, excess heat, mutated
>      children of CNF researchers]?
>
>  (2) Fund another trip.
>
>  (3) Give the money to a deserving participant of s.p.f.  [e.g. Tom]
>
>  (4) Return pro-rata shares to the contributors.

Scott & All-
I vote for a quick disposition of the money.  Either (2), the one I
prefer, or (3).  Let's subsidize a student or anyone going to ICCFn
in return for a report.  Or a side trip to P&F labs from ICCF5.  I
don't know if $700 is enough, but I would suspect we could get add-
itional funding if we could get a report from someone >neutral<
visiting P&Fs lab in Nice.

I am opposed to a prize because: (a) it is a pain to administer; (b)
is difficult to set criteria for; (c) will cost more to set up than
we have in the pot; and (d) may not be awarded in my lifetime.

Let's put the money to good use now!

-Bob Virzi (a contributor)
-- 

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

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenrv01 cudfnRobert cudlnVirzi cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 / Scott Little /  Re: $700 prize not effective...changes needed
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: $700 prize not effective...changes needed
Date: 29 Mar 1995 23:48:23 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l


Tom, you are of course right about the "winning of it"...it's just that I
naively wish that the $700 could be actually USED positively somehow.

In article <gsteckly.106.000BAE01@clark.dgim.doc.ca>, gsteckly@clark.dgi
.doc.ca (Gary Steckly) says:

>Scott, I recall that on several occasions you indicated your willingness to 
>participate with an offer of your services and facilities.  What ever happened 
>to the suggestion that someone test the Griggs-like scale model built by Mr. 
>Huffman?  Would you like to give it a go?  Any interest with this idea?  Could 
>we not rent or purchase this device for 700 bucks?  I believe Huffmans price 
>was around 150 for materials.  Comments?

I am definitely interested in and willing to perform energy measurement
replication on any device that someone else has measured to be over-unity.
At the moment, I have quite a bit of my own research going on so I'm trying
to limit this offer to devices already built and measured by someone else.
My organization, EarthTech International will be formally extending this
offer in the near future in some of the alternative energy publications.
Depending upon the nature of the device, I am willing to go to great lengths
to make these measurements.  We have a pretty complete lab here and a 
machine shop that I can use to make unusual test apparatus (e.g. 
dynamometers, special calorimeter chambers, etc.) quickly.

I have been in communication with Huffman and he is building a new version
of his device which I hope to get my hands on after he's done some
preliminary testing.
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 / Robert Virzi /  Re: Now what to do with $700
     
Originally-From: rv01@harvey.gte.com (Robert Virzi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Now what to do with $700
Date: 29 Mar 1995 17:26:42 GMT
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Waltham, MA

In article <3la0lr$dai@fnnews.fnal.gov>,
Tom Droege <Droege@fnal.fnal.gov> wrote:
>I have received a lot of private opinions that have not yet
>appeared here. I think almost everyone would go for a prize.

I'd like to see a count of the votes.  Didn't we get over
30 contributors?

>
>Here is another  try for some rules:
>
 . . .  Rules Deleted . . .

I didn't see anything that would award the prize to a person
or team that produces a definitive >negative< result. I under-
stand the difficulty of proving a negative result.  Yet, don't
the rules seem to assume a replicable >effect<?  Is everyone
convinced there is an effect?

I'm not convinced, but would love to see convincing evidence
one way or the other.  I'd also like to see the money used in
my lifetime.

Bob Virzi 
-- 

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

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenrv01 cudfnRobert cudlnVirzi cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 / Scott Little /  Re: Is this question forbidden?
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is this question forbidden?
Date: 29 Mar 1995 23:53:13 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l


>So the three most improtant rulse of science - replication, replication,
>replication.
>
>Tom Droege 


Tom, I like the sound of that, sorta has a rap beat to it...:-)

Perhaps I'm not the world's greatest character judge but, when I met
Griggs, all suspicion of the possibility of deception vanished
without a trace!
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.30 / Tom Droege /  Re: Now what to do with $700
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Now what to do with $700
Date: 30 Mar 1995 00:43:38 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3lc58j$114@ceylon.gte.com>, rv01@harvey.gte.com (Robert Virzi) says:
>
>In article <3la0lr$dai@fnnews.fnal.gov>,
>Tom Droege <Droege@fnal.fnal.gov> wrote:
>>I have received a lot of private opinions that have not yet
>>appeared here. I think almost everyone would go for a prize.
>
>I'd like to see a count of the votes.  Didn't we get over
>30 contributors?
>
>>
>>Here is another  try for some rules:
>>
> . . .  Rules Deleted . . .
>
>I didn't see anything that would award the prize to a person
>or team that produces a definitive >negative< result. I under-
>stand the difficulty of proving a negative result.  Yet, don't
>the rules seem to assume a replicable >effect<?  Is everyone
>convinced there is an effect?
>
>I'm not convinced, but would love to see convincing evidence
>one way or the other.  I'd also like to see the money used in
>my lifetime.

jAh! but there is the fun!

Tom Droege
>
>Bob Virzi 
>-- 
>
>  rvirzi@gte.com            Just another ascii character...
>  +1(617)466-2881           
>
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 / Scott Grand /  Re: News on cf in March 20 C&EN
     
Originally-From: legrand@tesla.mbi.ucla.edu (Scott Le Grand)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: News on cf in March 20 C&EN
Date: 29 Mar 1995 22:42:03 GMT
Organization: 1-900-PRO-FOLD

In article <D67M34.LpI@world.std.com>, mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>   In Message-ID: <1995Mar28.130039.2153@vanlab.byu.edu>
> Subject: News on cf in March 20 C&EN
> Steve Jones [jonesse@vanlab.byu.edu] wrote:
> 
> =There is an interesting news article in C&EN for 20 March 1995, "Latest
> =research on cold fusion to be presented at Anaheim ACS meeting."  Header:
> ="Proponents of the controversial research sought symposium and press
> =conference but got a poster session instead."
> =sniplets:
> =[Gustave] "Kohn admits he told the [cf] researchers he approached that they
> =would be presenting oral papers.  The assignment of the papers to the poster
> =session was a surprise and 'has had something of a disastrous effect,' Kohn
> =tells C&EN"  ... "According to ACS officials, three papers have been officially
> =withdrawn, including one from Pons and Fleischmann"
> 
>   thanks for posting that further evidence of obstruction to information
> dissemination in this chemical/solid-state/nuclear field.
>   Imagine if only the ACS had followed what they
> apparently previously indicated that they would do.
> The speakers would have been given the normal courtesy, and everyone
> would have learned something.    ------    

So let's assume the ACS is a bunch of bad guys, working with our friends in
Area 51 no doubt, who conspired to limit the cold-fusion researchers to a poster 
rather than lecture session...

Now I know that's not true from follow-ups to this thread, and that there's a 
very logical explanation for it all involving missed deadlines for submitting 
abstracts, yes these deadlines are real (and a pain for procrastinators like
myself), but let's play devil's advocate and assume that there is a conspiracy 
in the ACS to cover up the evidence for cold fusion...

What exactly is lost by changing one's presentation to a poster from
a lecture?  For reference, I've given ~5 talks at scientific conferences, and 
I've done ~8 posters as well.  I'm even giving a talk at the April meeting of the
ACS (not cold-fusion related in any way), and my abstract was submitted about
a year ago although I don't remember the exact date, damned missing time. 

A talk consists of giving a lecture for 25 minutes and then taking 5 minutes 
of (usually simple) questions.  In contrast, a poster session consists of taking 
the figures from your talk and adding some descriptive text so that anyone can 
understand your research (ideally) just by reading your poster.  In addition, the
presenter is supposed to stand by their poster for several hours describing it 
to all who are interested and field lengthy, detailed questions...

IMO during a lecture you have to pick one or two simple points and drive
them home to as many people in the audience as you can while in a poster
session, you use the poster to drive home the same points, but then you
can have heated discussions with your peers and either convince them that
you are right, or a raving lunatic...

The only reason I can think of that someone would fear a poster session is if 
intense scrutiny of their research would indicate it is flawed, as instead
of presenting your methods and data on a 30 second slide or overhead, you
have to put it out for all to see for the duration of the session.

Now if the ACS had not let them present their ideas in any way, shape, or
form, then you'd have a point...

But there's no cover-up here...  No men in black...  No secretive government
agencies...  Anyone with clinching evidence for cold fusion can present it
as well, if not better, with a poster...  Anyone whose evidence will
distintegrate in the daylight like a vampire is in for a rough ride...

Scott
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenlegrand cudfnScott cudlnGrand cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Mar 30 04:37:04 EST 1995
------------------------------
