1995.04.20 / Nathan McKnight /  WALLACE IS ANNOYING!!!
     
Originally-From: Nathan McKnight <bellomy.2@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: WALLACE IS ANNOYING!!!
Date: 20 Apr 1995 20:55:07 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University

I WISH THIS GUY WOULD STAY IN THE CRACKPOT NEWSGROUPS WHERE HE 
BELONGS AND STOP WASTING THE TIME OF PEOPLE INTERESTED IN REAL
SCIENCE.  
                        NATHAN McKNIGHT
        P.S.  SINCE I'VE CROSS-POSTED THIS TO SO MANY GROUPS,
              I SHOULD SAY THAT I'LL KEEP TO MYSELF MY FEELINGS
              ABOUT WHICH NEWSGROUPS CONSTITUTE "CRACKPOTS" AND
              WHICH REAL SCIENCE.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cuden2 cudfnNathan cudlnMcKnight cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.20 / C Douthwaite /  Re: CFV: sci.physics.fusion reorganization
     
Originally-From: Colin_Douthwaite@equinox.gen.nz (Colin Douthwaite)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CFV: sci.physics.fusion reorganization
Date: 20 Apr 1995 20:09:29 GMT
Organization: Southern InterNet Services

Russ Allbery (rra@Xenon.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: Colin Douthwaite <Colin_Douthwaite@equinox.gen.nz> writes:
: >
: >Sci.physics.fusion is not one of my newsgroups but I hope that the 
: >regular readers of the group vote NO to this renaming - it is 
: >unjustified and unnecessary.  


> The regular readers of the group should also be aware that Mr.  
> Douthwaite has an obsession with this particular subject, one 
> which he has never backed up with anything more substantial than 
> what you have just seen.  

That is your opinion, not fact.


> You should, of course, consider and discuss the issue and decide 
> for yourself, 

Agreed.


> but it's best to take what he says on the issue with a grain of salt.  

The same comment can be applied to your own viewpoints :-)

Actually your purpose might have been better served by addressing 
the rationale for renaming instead of making personal comments.

Bye,
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenColin_Douthwaite cudfnColin cudlnDouthwaite cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.19 /  jonesse@plasma /  First comments on ICCF-5, from Bill Page
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: First comments on ICCF-5, from Bill Page
Date: 19 Apr 95 15:10:46 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

I would like to pass along some observations from Bill Page, who
attended the ICCF-5 CF conference in Monaco last week.  These notes were
sent out via e-mail to me and several others, and I think these will
be of interest to many of you.  Hope Bill will post here further reflections!
I will quote a few items that struck me, and keep this brief:

"Notably absent from the main conference proceedings was Stanley Pons.
It was explained that Pons was suffering from a serious flu. ...
Martin Fleischmann, however, was very much in evidence during the four
days of the conference...  Unfortunately, all that he said can be summed
up basically as   'no news is good news'.  He did  not  discuss  any
new results..."

"The theory papers were in general rather poor.  No significantly new theories
were presented and there was too much 'weird science', in my opinion.
It makes me wonder why Pons and Fleischmann are so willing to surround 
themselves by 'far-out' theorists.  The opening talk was given by Dr.
Julian Preparata, who seems to think of himself as a sort of 'new-age'
physics guru, whose message is being either ignored or suppressed by the
conventional physics community.  ...

"This year, J.P. Vigier did not present any further developments of this 'tight
Bohr orbits' theory, nor was anyone talking about the Mills shrunked hydrogen
theory, but there were, however, some intriguing reports of strange results on
Nickel cathodes (Srinivasin, DuFour) which relate directly to this line of
thinking.

"There were 31 other theory papers presented as posters, of which mine was one.
... I am not at all sure that I liked the company of so many 'weird science'
theorists.  Of course, I don't view my paper as being in this category, but
perhaps other people did.  This seems unfortunate to me."

"In short, the lack of a credible theory contiues to show 'CF' in a negative
light..."

"An apparently 300%... excess heat demonstration was operated by Dennis Cravens
and Clean Energy Technologies, Inc. (CETI). ... 
The demonstration cell used  light  water ... and a cathode consisting of thin
Nickel / Palladium / Nickel / Copper layers on several thousand small plastic
polymer beads."

"During what was suposed to be a summary talk entitled 'Charting the Way
Forward'  Tom Passell of EPRI presented Kevin Wolf's 'un-published' anomalous
characteristic gamma-ray spectrum - apparently without the author's approval as
revealed by a question from Douglas Morrison.  Tom Passell's position wat that
discussing these results at the conference did not constitute 'publication' --
certainly a fine point.  ...
there apparently has been no replication of Kevin Wolf's result and all that
remains is a still somewhat radioactive Palladium cathode and a mystery."

Thanks, Bill, for the advance information!
--Steve Jones

 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjonesse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.20 / James McGowan /  Re: WALLACE IS ANNOYING!!!
     
Originally-From: James@sarsen.demon.co.uk (James McGowan)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: WALLACE IS ANNOYING!!!
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 22:13:44 +0000
Organization: Planet Thaarg

Never heard of him

James
 
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 ...THe ViBe oF THe Neu aGe...LoSe YouRSeLF iN TeCHNo-NiRVaNa...PHoReVeR...
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 * * * CyBeRSuiCiDe ** CoNSeRVe ouR PLaNeTS ReSouRCeS ** CyBeRSuiCiDe * * *
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
     james@sarsen.demon.co.uk           mcgowan_j_james@bt-web.bt.co.uk
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenJames cudfnJames cudlnMcGowan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.21 / John Logajan /  cmsg cancel <3n709k$20e@stratus.skypoint.net>
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <3n709k$20e@stratus.skypoint.net>
Date: 21 Apr 1995 01:04:33 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Article cancelled from within tin [v1.2 PL2]
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.21 / Russ Allbery /  Re: CFV: sci.physics.fusion reorganization
     
Originally-From: rra@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Russ Allbery)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CFV: sci.physics.fusion reorganization
Date: 21 Apr 1995 04:20:01 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.

Colin Douthwaite <Colin_Douthwaite@equinox.gen.nz> writes:
>
>> The regular readers of the group should also be aware that Mr.  
>> Douthwaite has an obsession with this particular subject, one 
>> which he has never backed up with anything more substantial than 
>> what you have just seen.  
>
>That is your opinion, not fact.

It stands as fact until you present some backing for your position.  You
have never done so, except for the assertion that traffic and readership in
a group renamed to *.misc drops.  That assertion has been proven, by a
number of sources and examples, to be incorrect.

>Actually your purpose might have been better served by addressing 
>the rationale for renaming instead of making personal comments.

You present no arguments to address, just irrational hysteria.  Rationales
have been presented many times before, including a desire to put groups at
the same level rather than making the .misc group (without the .misc
extension) the *first* group a reader finds (since it's generally preferred
postings be made to groups other than misc if they are appropriate), ease of
wildcard expressions for hierarchies in the news control files, and problems
with some news presentation mechanisms which would cause articles and
newsgroups to be shown at the same level if the misc group isn't renamed to
misc.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@cs.stanford.edu)     http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~rra/
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenrra cudfnRuss cudlnAllbery cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.21 / Emory Bunn /  Re: WALLACE IS ANNOYING!!!
     
Originally-From: ted@physics2.berkeley.edu (Emory F. Bunn)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: WALLACE IS ANNOYING!!!
Date: 21 Apr 1995 06:33:51 GMT
Organization: Physics Department, U.C. Berkeley

In article <3n6hnb$eic@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
Nathan McKnight  <bellomy.2@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
:I WISH THIS GUY WOULD STAY IN THE CRACKPOT NEWSGROUPS WHERE HE 
:BELONGS AND STOP WASTING THE TIME OF PEOPLE INTERESTED IN REAL
:SCIENCE.  
:                        NATHAN McKNIGHT
:        P.S.  SINCE I'VE CROSS-POSTED THIS TO SO MANY GROUPS,
:              I SHOULD SAY THAT I'LL KEEP TO MYSELF MY FEELINGS
:              ABOUT WHICH NEWSGROUPS CONSTITUTE "CRACKPOTS" AND
:              WHICH REAL SCIENCE.

So is your irony meter completely busted?  Do you not see that
by posting a pointless rant such as this you are behaving in
*exactly* the manner that you're complaining about?

-Ted
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudented cudfnEmory cudlnBunn cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.21 / Dieter Britz /  Patents update
     
Originally-From: britz@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Patents update
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 14:00:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hello all,

Here are three patents. I note that the British one stipulates
"adsorption", which I thought was a Japanese misunderstanding. Aspen
risks not getting filthy rich, due to this crucial slip. Ah well.

Patents: Current count 185
^^^^^^^
#
Aspen H; Brit. UK Pat. Appl. GB 2,278,491, May-93.
Cited in Chem. Abstracts 122:172413 (1995).
"Hydrogen-activated heat generation apparatus".
** "To research the generation of heat by promoting the fusion of protons or
deuterons adsorbed by a host metal, the app. provides a structural
configuration by which the direction of heat flow through the metal is
transverse to the direction of an applied magnetic field. Thermal priming
means, which may include precooling on the heat output side or elec. heating
of the host metal, provide the initial temp. gradient triggering fusion. A.C.
activation of the magnetic field, the intensity of which may be enhanced by
using Ni as the host metal, combined with a non-uniformity of the magnetic
field, and/or heat flow through the metal, assure the abnormal presence of a
residual neg. electron population in the metal. Such charge nucleates the
merger of pos. charge and enhances the fusion process". (Direct quote from CA).
# .................................................................... Apr-95
Gryzinski M (Institut Problemow Jad.) POL PL 159,831, Nov-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstracts 122:172407 (1995).
"Method of generating soft x-rays by cold nuclear fusion in palladium".
** "A method is described for generating soft x-rays for medical and diagnostic
raadiog. The method is based on cold nuclear fusion in a Pd electrode
(fabricated from a single crystal) in a heavy-water electrolysis system. D is
introduced during electrolysis perpendicularly to the plane-centered Pd crystal
side surface. Elec. current is supplied to the back side of the cathode and
anode". (Direct quote from CA).
# .................................................................... Apr-95
Gryzinski M (Institut Problemow Jad.) POL PL 159,832, Nov-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstracts 122:172406 (1995).
"Method for carrying out nuclear cold fusion in palladium".
** "Nuclear cold fusion in a Pd electrode using a heavy-water electrolysis
system can be used as a controlled energy  release source. The Pd electrode is
neg. polarized and has a single-crystal structure. The plane surface of the
electrode coincides with the plane-centered crystal lattice surface and is
positioned in a parallel way to the anode surface. Elec. current is supplied
centrally to the back side of both electrodes". (Direct quote from CA).
# .................................................................... Apr-95



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

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

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.21 / Arthur TOK /  Re: Synchrotron Radiation in Tokamak's
     
Originally-From: awc@spelsf.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TOK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Synchrotron Radiation in Tokamak's
Date: 21 Apr 1995 07:47:04 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <3n65bd$hi8@amber.ora.com> scott@ora.com writes:

> When charged particles accelerate, they radiate their energy spontaneously
> as photons.  My understanding is that this is referred to as "synchrotron
> radiation (due to this being a significant affect in synchtrotrons
> where particles fly around at relativistic velocities). 
> 
> Now, why is it that a plasma in a Tokamak reactor doesn't bleed off all it's 
> heat as photons due to being accelerated around a circular path in the 
> reactor core?  
> 
> Is the actual velocity of the average plasma flow around the core just 
> plain low?  Or is it that such radiation due to acceleration in general 
> only makes up a small fraction of the kinetic energy of the particle on 
> the time scale of how long it typically takes a particle to become part
> of a reaction?  
> 
> Just curious if this is a significant factor in Tokamaks compared to linear 
> reactor designs.  

An excellent question. The full answer is very complex (or unknown),
but I can give you a quick rundown. First, the radiation depends on
the speed of the particles and the radius of curvature. That means,
first, that the important motion is not the "average plasma flow" but
the random thermal motion, which is usually thousands (or at least
tens) of times bigger. Second, the important direction is not the big
path around the torus but the small radius gyration around the
magnetic field. Finally, on both counts (higher speed and tighter
orbit) the radiation of the electrons is much more important than that
of the ions. You can also see that linear devices are not
automatically free of this problem.

Now to the question of significance. For the standard tokamak reactor
concept (much criticized in this group), synchrotron radiation losses
can be neglected. However, if you want to go to alternate fuels, you
have to go to higher temperatures, where it can be a serious
problem. The most popular proposal to get around this is to
simultaneously go to very high beta: If the plasma pressure is
sufficiently high, the magnetic field within the plasma is low, so you
have less gyro-motion and less synchrotron radiation. Higher beta also
gives you a higher power density, hence a cheaper machine for a given
power level. This, of course, is easier said than done. Another route
would be to reflect the radiation back into the plasma, but this does
not seem to be feasible.  (Paul Koloc will give you a different
opinion on both these points.)  The calculations would be relatively
straightforward, except that a reactor plasma is typically optically
thick to synchrotron radiation, so you need to take density and
temperature profiles into account.

After that, it starts getting technical.

--Art Carlson--

-- 
To study, to finish, to publish. -- Benjamin Franklin

Dr. Arthur Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTOK cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.21 / Dieter Britz /  Re: What's wrong with E-QUEST results?
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's wrong with E-QUEST results?
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 09:20:01 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On 13 Apr 1995, Tom Droege wrote:

[...]
> I should remind you all that I posted results of this type of experiment 
> here several years ago.  There are very large calorimetry problems.  There
> is a very large background to be subtracted.  The ultrasonic transducer 
> puts a lot of energy into the water.  That is what it is designed to do.  
> The problem is that there is no good way to measure how much energy is 
> being put into the water from the transducer.  This is a big mass of metal
> at resonance.  Here is a clue.  The type of device that I bought, then
> shipped off to Steve Jones has a tuning knob.  Each time you use it you
> tune it up to todays conditions.  I remember that the device was rated
> at 300 watts or so.  On a good day you might get 150 watts or so into 
> the water. But a slight change in tuning and it might go to 30 watts.  

The conservative scientist would assume that all of the power driving the
ultrasonic device goes into the water as heat, unless he/she has solid
evidence for the details of a different situation. Then, if the result is
excess heat over and above that, there is a solid case for excess, or
anomalous whatever. Otherwise, nothing at all.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.21 / Vertner Vergon /  Re: WALLACE IS ANNOYING!!!
     
Originally-From: vergon@netcom.com (Vertner Vergon)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: WALLACE IS ANNOYING!!!
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 08:01:51 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <3n6hnb$eic@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
Nathan McKnight  <bellomy.2@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>I WISH THIS GUY WOULD STAY IN THE CRACKPOT NEWSGROUPS WHERE HE 
>BELONGS AND STOP WASTING THE TIME OF PEOPLE INTERESTED IN REAL
>SCIENCE.  
>                        NATHAN McKNIGHT
>        P.S.  SINCE I'VE CROSS-POSTED THIS TO SO MANY GROUPS,
>              I SHOULD SAY THAT I'LL KEEP TO MYSELF MY FEELINGS
>              ABOUT WHICH NEWSGROUPS CONSTITUTE "CRACKPOTS" AND
>              WHICH REAL SCIENCE.


Who died and left you God?

I almost went to Ohio State. If you're what they are turning out there,
I'm glad I missed it.


V.V.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenvergon cudfnVertner cudlnVergon cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.21 / Ieromnimon F /  Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
     
Originally-From: ierof@csc2.essex.ac.uk (Ieromnimon F)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.accelerators,sci.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.med
sci.research,rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
Date: 21 Apr 1995 10:17:33 GMT
Organization: University of Essex, Colchester, UK

In article <jonesn.19.2F8AB1CD@orph01.phy.ornl.gov> jonesn@orph01.phy.or
l.gov (Nathan Jones) writes:
>In article <holcomb.797565311@stripe.Colorado.EDU> holcomb@stripe.Color
do.EDU (HOLCOMB MICHAEL D) writes:
>>From: holcomb@stripe.Colorado.EDU (HOLCOMB MICHAEL D)
>>Subject: Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
>>Date: 11 Apr 95 01:55:11 GMT
>
>>Jeremy Johnson <jjohnson@puc.edu> writes:
>
>>>On Sun, 9 Apr 1995, Wendy Wolk wrote:
>
>>>> I am currently writing a screenplay and need the following info:
>>>> 
>>>> 1. What are the effects of the ingestion of deuterium (i.e. in heavy
>>>> water) on the human body. In what doses
>>>> 2. the possibility of Heavy Water existing on mars.
>>>> 
>
>>>I can't answer the first, but as far as our best information there is 
>>>absolutely no water on Mars at all so the chances of there being any 
>>>heavy water are rather small.
>
>>This is a nice bit of comlementarity!  I know nothing at all about the second
>>question, but I can give a pretty good answer to the first.  Chemically, heavy
>>water is just water.  It is still H2O, but the hydrogen atoms have an extra
>>neutron, which makes the nuclei deuterons.  Deuterium is not an independent
>>element.  Since deuterons are stable, i.e. not radioactive, there are no
>>radiation effects either.  Heavy water is just, well, heavier.  A heavy water
>>molecule will weigh about 16/14 = 1.143 times as much as a normal water atom.
>>Questions about "dosage" become questions like "what are the ill effects of
>>drinking XXX gallons of water in a day?"
>
>Although not an expert in the field, I would say that this is the appropriate
>answer. Deuterium (heavy hydrogen) is just an isotope of hydrogen. Now, if you
>want to make it a nasty boy you can make it tritiated ....

Definitely not an appropriate answer. For the second time in a month, and after
a few other people gave more detailed accounts as to why:

		Heavy Water Is Toxic

You don't have to be an expert in the field to be able to read, say, an
encyclopaidia. It doesn't have to be radioactive to be bad for you...

>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Nathan Jones                     The opinions expressed here are
>Accelerator Atomic Physics       obviously my own, as my employer
>Oak Ridge National Laboratory    would have used several megs and
>jonesn@orph01.phy.ornl.gov       eight lawyers to express theirs.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Frank Ieromnimon,
ierof@essex.ac.uk.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenierof cudfnIeromnimon cudlnF cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.21 / John Alexander /  Re: Sonoluminescence,ColdFusion, Griggs Generator
     
Originally-From: joi@ozemail.com.au (John Alexander)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonoluminescence,ColdFusion, Griggs Generator
Date: 21 Apr 1995 09:45:42 GMT
Organization: Future Perfect Pty Ltd

>effect.  The drop only occurrs in the steam mode, not the hot water 
>mode. 

If the drop in torque occurs at 100C then it may be due to the latent heat of
of vaporisation in some way reducing the viscosity or the turbulence in the
water. Nearly boiling water might absorb mechanical energy to 'send it
over the top' into steam, reducing turbulence, which could reduce required
torque for a given RPM. Alternatively, water containing many steam bubbles
may well be less viscous.

Regards JA
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjoi cudfnJohn cudlnAlexander cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.21 /  N /  Re: WALLACE IS ANNOYING!!!
     
Originally-From: "N.McKnight" <postbox@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: WALLACE IS ANNOYING!!!
Date: 21 Apr 1995 12:15:15 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University

ted@physics2.berkeley.edu (Emory F. Bunn) wrote:
>
> In article <3n6hnb$eic@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
> Nathan McKnight  
> :I WISH THIS GUY WOULD STAY IN THE CRACKPOT NEWSGROUPS WHERE HE 
> :BELONGS AND STOP WASTING THE TIME OF PEOPLE INTERESTED IN REAL
> :SCIENCE.  
> So is your irony meter completely busted?  Do you not see that
> by posting a pointless rant such as this you are behaving in
> *exactly* the manner that you're complaining about?
> 
> -Ted

I'm just sick of trying read about real science and having to scroll
for an hour through one of his threads.  Arguing about wheather 
all of physics is a great big hoax is not in the interest of the
scientific community, and don't belong on newsgroups dedicated to 
science.  The fact that we have such newsgroups as sci.physics, 
demonstrates that we already accept that physics is not a farce,
so why argue the point endlessly?  Am I the only one who feels this
way?  
Besides, my rants are not so long and this is my last on this subject.
I'd like to hear those words from Mr. Wallace. 
                                        Nathan
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenpostbox cudlnN cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.21 / Walter Italiano /  Re: WALLACE IS ANNOYING!!!
     
Originally-From: walter@canberra.DIALix.oz.au (Walter Italiano)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: WALLACE IS ANNOYING!!!
Date: 21 Apr 1995 23:07:46 +1000
Organization: DIALix Services, Canberra, Australia.

*I* Am not.

Wallace Twonk, esq.

(aka Walter D. Twonk) 


cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenwalter cudfnWalter cudlnItaliano cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.21 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Bill Page's Highlights of ICCF5 report
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bill Page's Highlights of ICCF5 report
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 10:23 -0500 (EST)

jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes:
 
-> There was an interesting paper by T. V. Prevenslik rather mysteriously
-> titled "Biological Effects of Ultrasonic Cavitation" but really a
-> refutation of the notion that sonoluminescence necessarily implies high
-> temperatures. Prevenslik points out that the mean free path of gas/water
-> vapour molecules within a bubble easily exceeds the dimensions of the
-> bubbles considered by Putterman, et. al. and argues, therefore that the
-> energy of the collapsing bubble can not be transferred to thermal energy.
-> Instead, he calculates that the Doppler driven energy shift of infrared
-> photons reflected within the collapsing cavity provide the luminescence
-> specturm observed by Putternam, et. al.
 
Somehow I don't see this.  What does the mean free path have to do with
anything?  If I take a tennis ball that is bouncing around a room, and
suddenly shrink the room, the ball will gain energy every time it hits the
wall while the walls are moving in.  Whether there are other tennis balls for
it to interact with seems to me to be irrelavent.
 
I have never heard any evidence or theories which indicate that Boyles law
does not apply for small volumes (or rarefied gases in larger volumes).  Any
idea on what such a hypothesis is based?
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.21 / John Logajan /  Re: Bill Page's Highlights of ICCF5 report
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bill Page's Highlights of ICCF5 report
Date: 21 Apr 1995 15:39:04 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) wrote:

: closely enough to verify that the current and voltage measurements were
: being taken by the "four point" method, eliminating the concern about
: lead resistance which seemed to be a possible flaw in the Notoya
: demonstration unit at ICCF-3 in Nagoya, Japan.

The "four point" method is good, but I think that wasn't the concern with
Notoya.  Wasn't the problem with Notoya that her reference cell had a
possibly too thin input wire which was allegedly developing heat outside
the device and hence resulting in the reference cell running cooler
than it should have, thus making the experimental cell seem hotter
in comparison?

Since the Patterson Power Cell experiment doesn't seem to have a
contemporaneous reference cell running, the "thin wire" problem would
only appear during calibration with the reference heater resistor.
So that would be be place to look for the "Notoya syndrome."

--
 - 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:
cuddy21 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.21 /  Jefham /  Lokking for Email address
     
Originally-From: jefham@aol.com (Jefham)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Lokking for Email address
Date: 21 Apr 1995 12:35:14 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I am looking for the email address of physicist Rowan Hamilton.  He was in
a doctoral program at Harvard a few years ago, and I have lost contact
with him.  Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Jeff Hamilton
hamilton@pacific.net
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjefham cudlnJefham cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.21 /  jedrothwell@de /  Highlights of the Fifth International Conference on Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Highlights of the Fifth International Conference on Cold Fusion
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 95 13:13:25 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE FIFTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COLD FUSION
 
Jed Rothwell
Cold Fusion Research Advocates
2060 Peachtree Industrial Court, Suite 313
Chamblee, Georgia 30341
 
Tel: 404-451-9890
Fax: 404-458-2404
Home: 404-458-8107
E-Mail: CompuServe 72240,1256
 
Copyright 1995 Jed Rothwell and Cold Fusion Technology. April 21, 1995
version. Please do not copy, reprint or repost this document without
permission. Before posting, please contact Jed Rothwell to receive the most
recent version.
 
 
     ABSTRACT: Highlights of the Fifth International Conference on Cold
     Fusion (ICCF5) are reviewed. A live demonstration system from Clean
     Energy Technologies Inc. showed 300% to 1000% excess energy.
     Wide-ranging positive results in both excess heat and nuclear products
     were reported from E-Quest, U. Milan, Osaka National U., Mitsubishi
     Heavy Industries, NTT, the Japanese National Laboratory for High Energy
     Physics (KEK), Los Alamos, BARC, Amoco Production Company, Shell Oil,
     Harwell and others. An electrical engineer from Bechtel Corporation gave
     a superb talk on the economic and technical aspects of the commercial
     development of cold fusion energy.
 
 
This is a brief report of my impressions of the Fifth International Conference
on Cold Fusion (ICCF5), April 9-13, 1995, Monte-Carlo, Monaco. These are
things which I thought were significant. Other people would describe the
elephant differently. Any conference or trade show is a mixed bag: a few great
papers, a lot of ordinary stuff, some disappointments, and many boring papers
that are over my head. As I said in my review of ICCF4, I have no background
in nuclear physics, and I do not make comments about subjects beyond my level
of expertise. I can grasp the hands-on details of experimental setups but I
have no knowledge or interest in theory.
 
First, a word about media: the Book Of Abstracts is about 150 pages. It is
well organized for once. Abstracts are numbered in a coherent scheme. Gene
Mallove now has a scanner and OCR program, and he plans to scan and upload
some of the outstanding abstracts. Akira Kawasaki brought a professional
broadcast quality video camera with a remote microphone and he recorded every
lecture. Gene brought a smaller video camera, and they will be teaming up to
offer for sale videos of the major lectures. Contact:
 
     Dr. Eugene Mallove
     Cold Fusion Technology
     PO BOX 2816
     Concord, NH 03302-2816
 
     76570.2270@compuserve.com
 
Some of the talks were so good they call for long individual analyses. I have
barely touched upon them here: Storms [1], Cravens [2], Klein [3], and
Srinivasan [4 and 5], and the upcoming Piantelli patent, which was discussed
informally during the conference.
 
The first lecture was the Critical Overview by Storms [1]. It was one of the
best. Storms is essential reading for anyone who wants to understand this
field. He distributed preprints of his upcoming Fusion Technology paper "A
Critical Review of the 'Cold Fusion' Effect" which I highly recommend. I am
going to have to sit down with the video of this lecture and spell out all the
important points.
 
Patterson's company, Clean Energy Technology (CETI), got together with Dennis
Cravens and brought to the conference a demonstration cell in a flow
calorimeter. It worked spectacularly well. Cravens [2] discussed it on the
first day. The device output 3 to 5 times input energy, ignoring energy lost
to electrolysis gases, and as much as 10 times input if you include various
factors like electrolysis gases and the heat lost from the cell container. I
will describe it in detail in a later communication. Briefly, input was
usually held at about 0.4 watts I*V, although on the last day it was raised to
0.8 watts for a while. The flow rate was 10 ml per minute. When the machine
was first rolled into position and turned on in the morning, there was no
excess for 10 or 20 minutes, and the temperature Delta T fluctuated around 0.2
deg C, indicating about 0.14 watts output. The rest was lost to known heat
leaks from the cell container and to the effluent gasses from electrolysis,
which were measured in a gas flowmeter. As the reaction turned on, the Delta T
gradually rose to about 2 deg C, and sometimes rose as high as 4 deg C,
indicating 20 to 40 calories per minute, or 1.4 to 2.8 watts.
 
Patterson's device is described in U.S. Patents 5,036,031 and 4,943,355. It is
a thin film light water system. It incorporates plastic beads coated with Cu,
Ni, Pd, and another layer of Ni. CETI has agreed in principle to work with
some of my contacts at major institutions, especially Japanese National
Laboratories and Universities. They asked me to make arrangements, which I am
hustling to do. CETI is very cooperative and open. I have been following their
work for about a year. Few other scientists seem to be as willing to share
information, and no other scientists think as quickly or solve problems with
such dispatch. A few months ago they had problems with high temperatures and
pressures destroying the beads and melting the plastic cell containers. They
designed new beads with an extra outer layer of nickel, and they found new,
temperature resistant cell materials. They are oriented toward fixing
engineering problems and building practical, commercially useful systems. That
is what the field most needs.
 
The CETI demo system is fairly predictable, well controlled, and well behaved,
although it did get a bit quirky in the harsh conditions of the ICCF5 hallway.
During breaks, the hotel coffee pots kept tripping the circuit breakers. This
sent jolts of power through the transformer, which crashed the experiment. The
CF reaction started up again every time, usually in about 10 minutes. The high
precision flowmeter unfortunately did not survive the beating, the batteries
and power supplies in it burned up. Fortunately, the low precision flowmeter
-- a 10-ml lab supply graduated glass cylinder plus stopwatch -- cannot be
affected by power outages and excess voltage. The experiment was subjected to
other abuses: the cart holding the experiment was wheeled up to a hotel room
every night, carried on elevators, and pushed around. Cravens even lifted the
cell from its container to show it to people while it was running! Yet in
spite of this, the reaction started up in the morning after 10 or 20 minutes
of electrolysis, although on the last day it took about a half hour, and the
power was turned up higher than before. The fact that the cell survived this
treatment at all demonstrates that this is one of the most robust and
practical electrochemical CF systems yet developed. By the last day, the
batteries in the differential electronic thermometer got weak and a minor 0.2
deg C bias appeared between them, which could be observed by switching the
leads to the input and output thermistors. This was not significant, because
the Delta T ranged from 2 to 4 deg C when the reaction was on, and it was less
than 0.4 deg C when there was no excess heat.
 
I asked a number of the leading CF people what they thought of the demo and
the Cravens talk. Some of them were enthusiastic. Peter Hagelstein spent a
long time with Cravens going over the instrumentation and results step by
step, in his ultra-careful, thoughtful fashion. But when I asked other leading
CF scientists what they thought, they evaded me or expressed open hostility.
The excuses and nonsense they gave me would be worthy of the most pathological
"skeptic." I believe they are jealous. They cannot bring themselves to admit
they have been trumped by the light water approach. The most pathological
skeptic on earth himself, Morrison, said that he could not judge the
experiment and he would have to have Droege look at it before reaching any
conclusion. That was, at least, a lot funnier than the responses of the CF
scientists who oppose light water.
 
Sapogin [6] described Russian ultrasound cavitation machines that are related
to the Griggs device, only far more efficient. These are designed by a
materials scientist, Yu S. Potapov, in Kishinev, Moldavia. The device inputs 4
kilowatts of electric power into its turbopump, and it outputs 12 kilowatts
thermal. So far, Potapov has produced four models, with increasingly better
performance. The earliest, least effective model gave excess heat with a
C.O.P. ranging from 130 to 150%. Reportedly, Potapov has set up a corporation
with four factories, and they have already sold thousands of these units. I am
trying to arrange to purchase some units. Several of my contacts at
well-qualified laboratories have agreed to test them.
 
The Potapov device may or may not tap the same source of energy as the
electrochemical CF cells and the E-Quest device. I have no idea whether it
does or not. One startling piece of evidence seems to indicate that it may
not. Sapogin reports that the device was run for many months in a closed
circuit yet it did not generate any significant level of helium, tritium or
other nuclear ash. Sapogin thinks he can explain this with his unitary quantum
theory which he published in Il Nuovo Cimento. [7] I am glad it is not my job
to explain it. This baffling result appears to contradict results from E-Quest,
the Naval Weapons Center and others who have found helium commensurate
with a nuclear reaction. Perhaps there are two different, unrelated processes
at work. From the standpoint of business and technology, it does not matter if
there are two processes or two hundred.
 
Griggs [7] gave a surprisingly well received talk about his ultrasound device.
He described instrumentation, results, and his efforts to have the machine
verified by scientists. He said that more than 40 scientists have visited him
over the last few years and not one of them has found a mistake. Strictly
speaking, that is not true. I found a glaring error and so did a good
scientist I know who visited Griggs a year ago, but those were errors with
newly installed test equipment that were soon corrected. Nobody has found any
error in the overall conclusions. During the past few years, as all of these
scientists visited, Griggs listened to their suggestions and improved the
experiment in many ways. His biggest improvement was to add a dynamometer -- a
"Lebow" brand Eaton torque sensor model 1805-5K. This gives him a second,
independent method of measuring input. He has found that the mechanical power
from the motor closely matches the manufacturer's performance specifications.
Recently, after he modified the rotor, Griggs began experiencing problems with
cavitation damage and with massive plating out of copper from an unidentified
source. He has been working with experts from Georgia Tech and NASA to resolve
these difficulties. They plan to use transducers, high speed cameras and other
high tech tools to learn more about what is happening inside the machine.
 
Stringham and George, of E-Quest [9] talked about their spectacular results in
greater detail than they have been willing to share previously, but still not
in enough detail to satisfy me. They are getting massive helium, isotope
shifts, heat and so on. Last summer they ran experiments at Los Alamos. At
ICCF4, J. Huizenga insisted that he would only accept helium analysis results
from Rockwell International, which is widely viewed as the best laboratory on
earth for this type of work. So, E-Quest shipped samples of gas from the Los
Alamos experiment in stainless steel collection bottles to Rockwell's facility
in Canoga Park, CA, where they were analyzed by B. Oliver. The Rockwell tests
revealed definitive proof that the excess heat comes from a nuclear reaction.
Experiments that did not generate excess heat showed 0.4 ppm helium.
Experiments that did generate excess heat yielded helium far above that
background level, at levels as high as 552 ppm, 100 times atmospheric
concentration. Rockwell also looked at the ratio of 3He to 4He as well as 22Ne
to 4He in the samples and found the isotopic ratios prove the helium could not
possibly have come from contamination from normal terrestrial helium. During
the talk, George mentioned that an extensive SIMS analysis performed by him at
Lawrence Berkeley Labs showed dramatic isotope shifts in some of the high Z
trace metals, especially titanium. I find the E-Quest work tantalizing but
frustrating. I do not have details, patents, or any way of getting a gadget to
test myself. That would not matter if this was yet another "me too" milliwatt
level, intermittent reaction, but it is one of the most important experiments
in the field, so it deserves wider replication and exposure.
 
Other leading experiments are also being kept too secret for my taste,
especially Arata, and Pons and Fleischmann. Detailed technical information
about cold fusion devices must be shared if the field is ever to be
commercialized, and the best mechanism for sharing it is the patent. E-Quest
and many other CF workers in the U.S. have applied for patents, but they have
all been blocked, except Patterson's. The patent system is a splendid
institution; it allows us to share information, preserve property rights, and
to foster progress. The slow progress in cold fusion demonstrates how vital
the patent system is, and how much effort is wasted when the government fails
to do its job. The Japanese and the Italian governments have granted many
patents for cold fusion, the continued intransigence of the U.S. government
may hurt U.S. competitiveness in the future.
 
Piantelli did not attend the conference, but his friend Bill Collis was there,
and he gave us an informal update on the work. (Collis is British; he lives in
Italy and speaks fluent Italian. Piantelli said that he does not understand
English well enough to make it worth his while to attend the conference, but
he sent his regards). Piantelli has been granted a patent which will come out
in July, they hope. He is publishing a new paper in Il Nuovo Cimento, and he
was chairman of a recent important CF conference in Italy. Up until now he has
kept secret many key aspects of the experiment, but now that he has been
granted a patent he discusses all details. Collis described three aspects of
the experiment that have been kept confidential:
 
1.   The nickel should be prepared with special surface treatments that will
     be described in detail. I do not know the details of this particular
     preparation, but I expect it is similar to the ones described by Storms,
     McKubre and many others. They involve cleaning the surface, removing
     impurities, checking for and in some cases eliminating cracks and other
     deformities by sanding, etching or scaling the surface, or simply by
     rejecting damaged metal. This is an important aspect of all CF
     experiments.
 
2.   The metal sample is placed in a magnetic field of several kilogauss.
     This greatly enhances the absorption of hydrogen in nickel at high
     temperatures. A permanent magnet will do the job, but Piantelli finds it
     more convenient to use an electromagnet. When the magnet is turned off,
     the sample degasses and after a while the reaction stops. This is
     excellent news; it means the reaction can be controlled.
 
3.   To trigger the reaction, Piantelli discharges a capacitor into the
     heating coil, giving it a brief jolt of energy. This sort of technique
     is widely used with other types of CF. A shock of thermal or magnetic
     energy will often trigger a reaction that is sufficiently loaded and
     ready to begin reacting in other respects. Any form of disequilibrium
     might help, even a vibration, like a gentle tap on the cell. These
     "triggers" have also been known to interrupt a reaction.
 
I will describe additional details about the Piantelli experiment in a later
communication after I read the Il Nuovo Cimento article.
 
Arata [10] described his double structured cathode palladium black experiments
in considerably more detail than his two most recent papers. He reported "the
chemical reaction energy of 0.1 mole Pd-black used is only 4 kJ, but more than
200 MJ of excess energy was continuously produced for over 3,000 hours at an
average rate of 50-100 kJ/hr [14 to 28 watts]" Arata's English is poor and the
lecture was difficult to follow, but I learned a lot from the poster. Kawasaki
and I have done a rough translation of his May 31, 1994 paper into English. I
should finish it up and incorporate more of the information from the poster.
Arata also described a model that he believes explains the reaction, and
accounts for the good performance of palladium black in pure deuterium gas.
 
A number of Japanese corporations showed up with mainstream CF results that I
would have described as "spectacular" a few years ago, including large heat
bursts, boil-offs, and the like. None of them holds a candle to people like
Patterson or Patopov. Iwamura [11], from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, reported
X-rays, neutron emissions and possible transmutations, and concluded,
"Although we cannot identify where these Pd atoms came from (contamination or
generation), we can say that anomalous nuclear reactions must occur in the
electrochemical cells at room temperature." Itoh [12], also from Mitsubishi,
reported on vacuum chamber gas release experiments somewhat similar to the NTT
thin film work reported at ICCF3 and elsewhere. Shikano [13] of NTT reported
continuing progress with those experiments.
 
Isagawa [14], with the Japanese National Laboratory for High Energy Physics
(KEK), got a number of spectacular results, including three boiling events and
an "enormous" heat burst. "Under constant current conditions, the cell voltage
and the cell temperature were increased gradually and all of a sudden sharply
increased to boiling. . . . It was just during the calm period about 6 hours
after the first boiling that the enormous heat release was observed. The
temperature of the cell of about 100 ml in volume increase by 7.5 K (from 83.4
deg C to 90.9 deg C) in 13 minutes. The cell voltage showed a dip
correspondingly. The excess heat can be estimated to be 6.8 W, about 110% with
respect to the input electrical power. . . . Boiling occurred 3 times, the
last episode continuing for about 16 hours, in the former period violent but
in the prolonged later period rather gentle; the cell was driven almost to
dryness." KEK has superb instrumentation so nobody can deny the results are
real and beyond chemistry. This is not be-all, end-all performance compared to
the Big Guns in the field like Patterson, but it is good for public relations.
A few years ago a number of leading "skeptics" including Morrison touted the
KEK laboratory. For example, in his Cold Fusion Update # 7 (Dec. 1992)
Morrison wrote:
 
     "On the other hand the most complete experiment in Japan according to
     the book of Abstracts, has been carried out over three years by Isagawa
     et al. at the National Laboratory for High Energy Physics, KEK - it was
     not chosen for presentation and was not mentioned - their evidence on
     excess heat, neutrons and tritium was against Cold Fusion although they
     found many artifacts which at first had appeared as real effects. . . .
     In Japan the two most careful experiments have both given strong
     evidence that Cold Fusion will not give excess heat. They are the KEK
     experiment which was rather complete, and the Kamiokande experiment."
 
Now that KEK has found definitive evidence of heat beyond chemistry, I expect
Morrison will declare that they know nothing about physics and their
experiment is flawed for mysterious reasons he cannot describe. He showed no
sign of believing any of the data. He repeated verbatim his statements from
previous conferences.
 
Claytor's abstract [15] reports continued progress at Los Alamos. "Over the
past year we have been able to demonstrate that a plasma loading method
produces an exciting and unexpected amount of tritium. In contrast to
electrochemical [methods], this method yields a reproducible tritium
generation rate . . . We will show tritium generation rates for
deuterium-palladium foreground runs that are up to 25 times larger than
hydrogen-palladium control experiments using materials from the same batch.
The reproducibility of the technique and the large signal to noise ratio over
background has allowed us to vary parameters that have been difficult to
investigate with previous methods." Unfortunately, Claytor and his colleagues
Tuggle and Jackson were not able to attend the conference. I hope they can
submit a paper to the Proceedings anyway, even though that might not be
strictly in accordance with physics conference traditions.
 
On the last day, Klein [2], of Bechtel Corporation, gave a superb talk on the
economics and ABCs of developing cold fusion into a practical form of energy.
This is required reading for anyone interested in that subject. Since this is
my main concern, I am happy to report that his talk held no surprises for me,
but he did a superb job in summarizing the key issues in business and
technology. He pointed out, for example, that solar photovoltaic cells use
zero cost energy, but they still cannot compete with conventional sources
because the fuel cost is not the only economic factor. He said that a cold
fusion power reactor might be economical at the large scale, like today's coal
or fission; or it might be economical at the substation level; or it might
even be economical in home generator units operating at 10 or 20 kilowatts, in
which case people will gradually unplug from the power distribution network.
This is bold speculation, and Klein is to be commended for talking about it,
because his corporation's main line of work is in large scale energy
installations like oil refineries and power stations, so he is speculating
about something that may put him out of business. He did not describe a
logical conclusion to this train of thought. There is no reason to suppose
that miniaturization will stop at the level of a 20-kilowatt home reactor.
Washing machines, coffee pots, children's toys, earphones and pacemakers may
someday have built-in CF power.
 
Klein discussed many technical requirements for a practical source of energy,
such as the need for a method of throttling the energy. It would be nice if we
could turn on the flow of energy, turn it up, down, and then quench it. I
would like to add a comment: while this is generally true, there are
conventional sources of energy that cannot be quenched, and that can only be
throttled to a certain extent. The best example is a ton of burning coal: once
you light it, you have to let it burn. That is why coal is relatively
inflexible and limited to large scale applications where continuous energy is
needed and instantaneous, fine control over the reaction rate is not required.
 
A scientist might think that the issues Klein discussed are premature, but
they are not. If everyone in this field would move these issues to the top of
his agenda, progress would be swift, and the field would be inundated with
funding. Many scientists think that Klein and I put the cart before the horse.
They believe a theory must be developed before the reaction can be controlled,
and that discussions of engineering problems and commercial development
schemes are premature. Events have proved these scientists wrong. Patterson
has already shown a proof-of-principle demonstration device. Ultrasound excess
heat devices are already being sold in large numbers at a profit. Cold fusion
(or some form of energy similar to it) *has already* been successfully
commercialized, so this discussion is not premature, it is starting two years
late. The history of modern technology includes many examples of commercial
products that were developed and sold before a comprehensive theory explained
them, including such things as Marconi's long distance radio, airplanes,
antibiotics, high temperature superconductors and aspirin. The latter two are
not fully understood even today.
 
Many of the papers were disappointing, because many workers are stuck in the
rut of trying to replicate the 1989 simple palladium - heavy water
electrolysis method. This requires high loading and other conditions which are
nearly impossible to achieve. Why anyone would still be trying to use this
method so many years after better methods have been invented is a mystery to
me. Over the years many excellent alternatives to pure palladium have emerged:
thin film [3], palladium black [10], light water [3, 16, 17], ultrasound [7,
8, 9], proton conductors [18]. Other methods, like sparking [19] and glow
discharge [20, 26], have not been as widely replicated, but they show promise.
Yet the majority of scientists in the field ignore these promising approaches
and continue using only palladium. Instead of selecting the easiest and most
successful methods, they insist on using the oldest, least effective, and most
frustrating technology, as if they were computer scientists who insisted on
building a vacuum tube machine in the age of transistors. Many papers
describing the heartbreaking difficulties these people face: the high loading,
surface treatments, problems with cleanliness, and the many heroic techniques
they are forced to employ. Kunimatsu [21] and others continue to search for
ways to improve loading in palladium with electrolysis, instead of using other
methods in which loading does not matter. Scientists who use pure palladium
must wait 30 days or longer for a tiny, marginal, excess heat reaction to
flicker on -- a reaction which often abruptly dies. Contrast this with the
E-Quest device, which turns on in a fraction of a second and produces a 300%
excess, or the Patterson CETI cells, which turn on in 20 minutes and produce
up to 1000% excess. The Pd D2O reactions seldom produce enough nuclear
products to be detected with any real certainty. Okamoto [22] reported that
the NEDO Icarus program, for example, saw only two excess heat reactions
during the entire year, peaking at 16% excess. Six years of low level results
have failed to convince mainstream scientists that CF is real. Six more years
will not convince anyone either. I was disappointed to hear about these puny
results, but on the bright side, I asked Okamoto about the Icarus results, and
he said their calorimetry is excellent, so they have no doubt that the 16%
excess is real. (Okamoto is at the Tokyo Inst. of Technology, not in the
Icarus project.)
 
As I expected, Pons and Fleischmann [23] did not reveal any details about
their recent work. They have not revealed much since 1992, even though they
have achieved some spectacular successes since then, including long boiling
events. Pons was suffering from a cold during the conference and did not
attend most sessions, so Fleischmann gave two lectures. In my opinion, the
major important point he made is that heat promotes the CF reaction. This is
very important and it has been overlooked by many people in the field even
though Fleischmann, Ikegami [24] and other mainstream leaders have pointed it
out many times over the years.
 
In 1994, Srinivasan was forced to retract many of his excess heat claims for
the nickel - light water cells. He told me that he found that many were due to
recombination, but not all of them, and he does not retract the tritium
findings. Apparently, the nickel cells, like palladium ones, can produce
tritium with little or no heat. That was disappointing, but on the other hand
Srinivasan reported a number of other extraordinary experiments from various
labs at BARC that range from weird to extremely promising. He acts as a
representative from India, because not many Indian scientists are able to
attend these international conferences. He gave two lectures to cover the work
of many other groups. [4, 5] His dynamic and fascinating talks move at such a
rapid pace and touch on so many amazing topics, they leave your head spinning.
I will have to watch the video and summarize what he said in a later
communication.
 
There was an interesting contrast between Kennel, Hagelstein and Smullin [25]
on one hand and Karabut [26]. In 1992, Karabut et al. first reported excess
heat and gamma rays from a glow discharge experiment. Hagelstein has been
working hard for the past few years to replicate this experiment, but he has
achieved little success. Kennel et al. "call attention to various means by
which false positive signals can be observed in x-ray and gamma spectroscopy."
They cast doubt upon Karabut's findings: "The authors wonder if other
researchers presenting data on gamma and x-ray emission from cold fusion
experiments may have fallen prey to similar phenomena. However, it is most
expressly not the intention of this paper to make the claim that all positive
results are due to detector artifacts and faulty estimates of statistical
significance. . . ." Kennel has not been able to replicate Karabut's gamma
measurements, so naturally he has doubts about them. Yet at the same time,
Karabut has improved the heat measurements with a single flow calorimeter,
instead of three static calorimeters for each of the three main components.
This puts the excess heat on much firmer ground. So perhaps the excess heat is
real but the gamma rays are an artifact? I cannot judge gamma detection
schemes. I have heard a great deal of sincere debate about detecting gammas,
low level neutrons and other nuclear signatures, and I have seen serious
questions about various techniques raised by supporters and opponents of CF
alike, including, of course, Kennel and Hagelstein. On the other hand, I have
never seen a single reason to doubt that flow calorimetry *always detects*
multiwatt excess heat levels. Problems can arise at milliwatt levels, but
never between 1 and 100 watts. The "skeptics" have offered various reasons to
doubt flow calorimetry, but their ideas have no scientific merit. Although I
know nothing about detecting gammas, I conclude that it must be easier to
measure heat with 19th century techniques than it is to measure low level
gammas with modern equipment. No serious scientist will dispute that flow
calorimetry always detects multiwatt levels of heat, whereas many serious
scientists like Kennel have shown how errors might creep into gamma detection.
 
DuFour, at Shell Research, [19] made the same improvement as Karabut, with
equally good results. He combined several separate calorimeters for different
component into one unified flow calorimeter, which accounts for all inputs and
output. He continues to detect up to 7 watts of excess heat. It is good to see
that the oil companies are seriously pursuing this form of energy.
 
Another oil company finally came of the woodwork. Amoco reported some old but
extremely important early results. Eisner [27], of the University of Houston,
described the 1989 experiments that he and Lautzenhiser and Phelps of the
Amoco Production Company performed. According to Amoco's 1989 report [28], the
first experiment "yielded a 30% energy gain over the life of the experiment
(two months). In June 1989, the experiment was modified and a second run also
yielded "about 30% excess energy until the catalyst become waterlogged." Other
successful runs were performed. Their conclusion: "The calorimetry
conclusively shows excess energy was produced within the electrolytic cell
over the period of the experiment. This amount, 50 kilojoules, is such that
any chemical reaction would have been in near molar amounts to have produced
the energy. Chemical analysis shows that no such chemical reactions occurred.
The tritium results show that some form of nuclear reactions occurred during
the experiment." Amoco has superb closed flow calorimeters, their signal to
noise ratio is exceptionally high. They are world class experts in this type
of work. They got excess heat far beyond the limits of chemistry and nuclear
products in these early experiments. It is a shame they did not talk about it
back in 1989, but at least they have set the record straight today. It is not
clear to me whether they are still working on cold fusion or not.
 
As a humorous aside, let me add that when we showed the Amoco results to
Morrison at ICCF4 in 1994, after the closing ceremony, he turned pale as a
ghost and took off like a shot. This is one of the many nightmare results that
"skeptics" wish they could forget, along with KEK, Mitsubishi, NTT, Los
Alamos, E-Quest, SRI, Canon, etc., etc.
 
Hansen [29] described more about his detailed analysis of the 1989 Harwell
data, which he previously discussed at ICCF3 and ICCF4. The Harwell
experiments were performed in the summer of 1989 by inexperienced junior
scientists, who mistakenly concluded that there was no excess heat. Hansen has
more experience with electrochemistry and calorimetry than the Harwell
researchers, and he was given full access to their data. The Harwell
researchers relied upon hardware which they did not fully understand, and upon
a sophisticated analysis which turned out to be unnecessarily complex.
Hansen's linear regression "is much simpler and faster" than Harwell's
technique. By using better algorithms with the same data, he achieved an order
of magnitude better precision than they did. You might call this a triumph of
software over hardware. The Harwell experiments are not intrinsically
important. Much better results have been achieved since 1989, and far better
techniques have been discovered, so there is no technological imperative to
look back at these early results. But for political reasons it is important to
show that the conclusions published by Harwell were incorrect. In 1989
Harwell, Cal Tech, and MIT were held to be the "Big Three" that proved cold
fusion does not exist. All three were later shown to be positive results. The
best discussion of this is the 1994 Journal of Physical Chemistry paper by M.
Miles. [30] No "skeptic" has ever published a scientific paper demonstrating
that any major positive cold fusion excess heat results were wrong, but the
big three negative results from 1989 evaporated long ago. For years, the
"skeptics" have predicted that cold fusion would fade away, but their data and
their conclusions faded away instead.
 
Fleischmann [31] talked about Harwell in his second lecture, titled, The
Experimenter's Regress. As he put it, "the judgement of whether or not a given
result is 'negative' or 'positive' is frequently dependent upon the methods of
data analysis used. . . . We present here a comparison of a number of
'historically interesting' data sets and show that the conclusions reached
have frequently not been justified." This is an important piece of scientific
history, and it should be explored someday. But I think that now is not the
time to look back at old data. We should concentrate on present results
instead. The old data from Harwell, MIT and Cal Tech do show convincing excess
heat, but it is not as convincing as the Patterson demonstration cell, so if
our goal is to bring mainstream scientists into the field I think we should
emphasize the strongest data from the most recent experiments, rather than
looking back at old data. Fleischmann's other point was that there is a lot to
be learned by looking at old data.
 
There was a lot of good news at this conference. There were many fascinating
breakthroughs. I was happy to see increased attendance this year by serious
corporations and investors. Many Japanese corporate scientists were there,
looking and learning, and not saying much. I would not expect them to say
anything, but they came from companies that have already been granted patents,
so I was glad to see that their quiet involvement in the field is continuing.
 
Yet, for all the good "vibes," I felt an undercurrent of pessimism and a sense
that something is wrong with this field. McKubre voiced consternation that the
field lingers on in a kind of twilight zone in the U.S. I think I know why.
The political opposition is the main problem of course, but the other problem
is that the focus of the research is wrong. There is too much emphasis on
theory and basic science, and not enough on technology. Many of the inventors,
businessmen and entrepreneurs at the conference agreed with me about this. An
inventor friend of mine, who worked at Bell Labs on the first transistors,
expressed the same frustrations I feel. He thinks researchers should try one
approach, try another, build on experience, and aim for practical, near term
R&D goals, letting the science take care of itself later. He said the CF
scientists have to get out of this rut of repeating the same old experiments
with old techniques year after year, long after better techniques have been
discovered. "Why are these people so obsessed with loading?!? Why don't they
try a method where loading doesn't matter!" He, and I, and other people
oriented toward business R&D feel that some of the scientists misunderstand
history. We think they are putting the cart before the horse. The scientists
say that the mechanism of CF must be discovered and the theory must be
completed before CF can be scaled up. History shows that technology evolves
the other way around. Scientific theory follows in the footsteps of successful
innovation and serendipitous discovery. Marconi first proved he could send
radio signals across the ocean, then he began building an industry with the
wrong technology (high power, long wave radio) and then finally years later
the scientists caught up. They found out about the ionosphere and discovered
that short wave radio works much better. The Wrights invented the airplane,
and 15 years later a theory to explain wing lift emerged. Bell Labs developed
a transistor in 1948 based on a faulty, incomplete theory. Four years later
they developed a much better theory, and years after that people began making
computers with transistors. Innovation comes first, theory and refinements
follow. The devices from Patterson, E-Quest, Griggs, and Potapov prove that I
am right about this. An effective demonstration system *can* be built now,
even before a theory emerges.
 
I do not mean that a theory is unimportant! Theories are vital. The radio, the
airplane, the transistor, good software development techniques and most other
modern technology depends upon theories, but these innovations had to come
first before theory could follow. Later, the two grew together in a
synergistic feedback loop. That is the natural order of things.
 
When I talk about the need to put aside the palladium heavy water approach and
try other methods instead, scientists often misunderstand me. One wrote to me
in a plaintive tone: "There are good reasons to study the Pd system: it works,
there is a lot of data on it, it gets high current density, many people have
had an opportunity to scrub the data, etc. Please don't advocate quitting any
particular avenue yet!" My friend missed the point. I am not advocating that
we "quit" that avenue. I say we need to drop it temporarily, and to
concentrate instead on what works spectacularly well today. We must build 20
kilowatt light water reactors so we can convince the world that cold fusion is
real. That will bring in rivers of money -- oceans of money. There will be
plenty of funding to go back and finish up the palladium system. The Wrights
built a pusher propeller canard airplane (with the elevator in front), but
that did not spell the end of tractor propeller designs with elevators astern.
Once the industry begins in earnest, scientists will be able to back and
explore any number of avenues, and develop any number of theories.
 
I expect the Potapov device will be verified. In that case, it is the most
important, most practical, and most promising excess heat device yet invented.
Given that fact, if it was up to me, I would schedule three days of discussion
about the ultrasound, light water and other practical devices, and devote only
a half day to electrochemical heavy water - palladium CF and other marginal
techniques. The focus of a conference should be on methods that work, not
methods which happened to be discovered first. We do not devote semiconductor
conferences to discussions of point contact devices, even though Bell Labs
invented them first. The purpose of this research should be to invent
practical, profitable machines to improve people's lives and reduce pollution,
not to explore esoteric aspects of metal hydrides. If the academic side of CF
is emphasized, the field will wither away. Few young people are involved and
there is still enormous opposition from academia. I believe that the only hope
is to demonstrate working devices to industrial corporations, and to get more
patents. Fleischmann and I talked about this briefly, and he strongly
disagrees with me. He feels that the academic approach is good for the field.
 
 
                           Footnotes
 
(The ICCF5 paper numbers listed here are from the Book of Abstracts.)
 
1. E. Storms, "A Critical Overview of Cold Fusion," ICCF5 paper # 101
 
2. B. Klein, "Cold Fusion Economics," ICCF5 paper # 613
 
3. D. Cravens, "Flow Calorimetry and the Patterson Power Cell (TM) Design,"
ICCF5 paper # 208
 
4. T. K. Sankaranarayanan et al., "Evidence For Tritium Generation in
Self-Heated Nickel Wires Subjected to Hydrogen Gas," ICCF5 paper # 307
 
5. M. Srinivasan, "Experiments with Plasma Focus Devices: the Past, Present
and Future," ICCF5 paper # 605
 
6. L. G. Sapogin, "On One of Energy Generation Mechanism in Unitary Quantum
Theory," unnumbered ICCF5 paper
 
7. L. G. Sapogin, "On Unitary Quantum Mechanics," Il Nuovo Cimento, vol. 53A
No. 2, p. 251 (1979)
 
8. J. Griggs, "Sonoluminescence, Excess Energy and the Hydrosonic Pump," ICCF5
paper # 607
 
9. R. George, "Cavitation Induced Micro-Fusion as Evidenced by the Production
of Heat, 3He, and 4He," ICCF5 paper # 324
 
10. Y. Arata, "Utilization of 'Spillover-Deuterium' in Double Structure (DS)
Palladium Cathodes," ICCF5 paper # 601
 
11. Y. Iwamura et al., "Characteristic X-Ray and Neutron Emissions from
Electrochemically Deuterated Palladium," ICCF5 paper # 312
 
12. T. Itoh, "Observations of Nuclear Products Under Vacuum Condition from
Deuterated Palladium with High Loading Ratio," ICCF5 paper # 311
 
13. K. Shikano, "D2 Release Process From Deuterated Palladium in a Vacuum,"
ICCF5 paper # 332
 
14. S. Isagawa, "Heat Production and Trial to Detect Nuclear Products from
Palladium-Deuterium Electrolysis Cells," ICCF5 paper # 220
 
15. T. Claytor, "Tritium Production From a Low Voltage Deuterium Discharge on
Palladium and Other Metals," ICCF5 paper # 306
 
16. R. Notoya, "Nuclear Products of Cold Fusion Caused by Electrolysis in
Alkali Metallic Ions Solutions," ICCF5 paper # 609
 
17. R. Bush, "A Demonstrator For The Light Water Excess Heat Effect," ICCF5
paper # 617
 
18. J. P. Biberian, "Excess Heat Measurement in AILaO3 Doped With Deuterium,"
ICCF5 paper # 205. See also Mizuno, Proc. ICCF4
 
19. J. DuFour, "Interaction Palladium/Hydrogen Isotopes Cold Fusion By
Sparking In Hydrogen Isotopes," ICCF5 paper # 604
 
20. I. B. Savvatimova, "Nuclear Reaction Product Registration on the Cathode
after Glow Discharge," ICCF5 paper # 318
 
21. K. Kunimatsu, "Materials/Surface Aspects of Hydrogen/Deuterium Loading
into Pd Cathodes," ICCF5 paper # 501
 
22. M. Okamoto, "The Present Status and the Scope of the Japan Basic Research
Project of New Hydrogen Energy," ICCF5 paper # 211
 
23. S. Pons and M. Fleischmann, "More about Boiling," ICCF5 paper # 204
 
24. H. Ikegemi, "The Next Steps In Cold Fusion Research," Oyou Butsuri, Vol
62, No. 7, July 1993, p. 717
 
25. E. Kennel et al., "Gamma and X-Ray Measurements in Electrochemically
Active Systems," ICCF5 paper # 330
 
26. A. B. Karabut, "Excess Heat Measurements in Glow Discharge Using Flow
Calorimeter," ICCF5 paper # 319
 
27. M. Eisner, "The Serendipitous Design and Execution of an Early Experiment
which confirmed Heat in the Fleischmann-Pons Effect," ICCF5 paper # 212
 
28. T. Lautzenhiser, D. Phelps, "Cold Fusion: Report on a Recent Amoco
Experiment," Amoco Production Company, Report T-90-E-02, 90081ART0082, 19
March 1990
 
29. W. Hansen, "A Statistical Approach to Electrochemical Calorimetric
Analysis," ICCF5 paper # 213
 
30. M. H. Miles (Naval Air Weapons Center), B. F. Bush (SRI), D. E. Stillwell
(CAES), "Calorimetric Principles and Problems in Measurements of Excess Power
during Pd-D2O Electrolysis," J. Phys. Chem. 1994, 98, p. 1948-1952
 
31. M. Fleischmann, S. Pons, "The Experimenter's Regress," ICCF5 paper # 215
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjedrothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Apr 22 04:37:04 EDT 1995
------------------------------
