1995.06.26 / Barry Merriman /  Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
Date: 26 Jun 1995 06:11:16 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <21cenlogic-2406951502160001@austin-1-2.i-link.net>  
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:


> 
> ***{Why sweat it, John-boy? It's only a teeny weeny 37 % cut! Far better,
> in my view, would be a 100 % cut! After all, you guys have been riding on
> the backs of the people for decades, and haven't produced squat. Did you
> think the music would go on forever? And by the way, in answer to your
> challenge: the cold fusion program wasn't cut. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 

Mitchell: could you remind me of the demonstrated
accomplishments of the cold fusion program...they have slipped 
my mind.


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


cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 / r friedmann /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: robbie friedmann <robbie@mail.utexas.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: The Farce of Physics
Date: 26 Jun 1995 07:30:24 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

fdd


cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenrobbie cudfnrobbie cudlnfriedmann cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Potapov device test discussion
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Potapov device test discussion
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 12:08:44 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On 25 Jun 1995, Scott Little wrote:

> 
> OK SPFers, here's your chance to interact with the testing
> of the Potapov device. I posted the preliminary report
> (after only three tests) mainly to give y'all a chance to
> get involved. I'm definitely not finished testing this
> thing.
> 
> Tom, hold on the $700 until the group decides I've earned it.
> 
> Feel free to post questions about any aspect of the tests I
> have done.  I will endeavor to answer all inquiries.
> 
> Feel free to propose alternative test procedures (especially
> ones that might dramatically alter the results!).  If
> practical, I will make the suggested modifications, conduct
> the new tests and publish additional reports.
> 
> 
> 
> Permission is hereby granted to reproduce our Potapov test
> report(s) freely.
> 

Tom. DON'T hold on to those $700, it was voted that Scott should have them.
If he hasn't earned them yet, he will; I am sure there will be suggestions.
I am very glad that you got the device, Scott, though I didn't think it 
would be so easy, after my dealings with my source.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 / Robin Spaandonk /  Re: Implications of Miles result
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles result
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 10:16:03 GMT
Organization: Improving

On Sat, 24 Jun 1995 23:00:22 GMT, blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
wrote:

>Mitchell Swartz once again wrongfully accuses me of considering
>only "impact-induced" fusion.  I made no reference to impact
>experiments!  I said nothing about the conditions that initiate
>the reaction.

>Are we not talking about a process that releases energy per event
>that is "beyond chemistry"?  That was the only qualifier I intended
>to place on the fusion under consideration.  Then, of course, the
>Miles result does indicate the 4He is the reaction product, right?

>In addressing the question of the undetectable process you seem to
>indicate that no one has ever looked for the intermediates.  I
>have to say you are simply wrong on that point.  What do you think
>all these investigations have been directed toward if it were not
>an attempt to demonstate the decay of some intermediate state?

>The purpose for trying to detect neutrons, charged particles, gammas,
>or X-rays is to demostrate the existance of the intermediate state!
>You seem to be inventing the concept of an intermediate state that
>cannot be detected.  That is my point.  It makes no sense to invent
>something that cannot, by definition, be detected.  If you engage
>in such flights of fancy you are oblidged to suggest how this new
>sort of intermediate can be detected.

>I must take issue with your "few events" statement.  Again you must
>be wrong.  The event rate is billions per second, is it not?

>I do agree with your "short lifetime" statement, however.  That has been
>an essential part of my argument from square one.  It does leave hanging
>the question as to how one can generate phonons that fast.  Perhaps you
>will clue us in on that little secret.  Why would an excited intermediate
>(lets call it 4He*) prefer to warm the lattice than to emit a single
>gamma ray and be done with it?  You do aggree that the rate for the
>latter is known?

>Dick Blue

How this for a wild suggestion:

Two deuterium nuclei by chance come close enough so that they are just
at the point where the attraction due to nuclear forces balances the
repulsion due to electrical forces, combined with the centrifugal
force as a result of their "orbiting" around their common centre of
gravity. It is highly unlikely that such a system will long survive.
Either it flies apart, or it collapses. If we just look at the cases
in which it collapses, then I suspect that the time needed for
collapse would be related to the angular momentum of the particles. In
a collapsing system, the particles are accelerated in an electrical
field, and should radiate photons as they collapse. Perhaps a set of
conditions can be found wherein by the time the collapse is complete,
allmost all of the energy derived from the nuclear attractive forces,
has been radiated away as many low energy photons. 
(Each at a different frequency, and following a nice progression).
Alternatively, but also analogously, consider a situation in which two
particles collide, with sufficient energy to "bounce" off one another,
but not sufficient to reach "escape velocity". They will continue to
bounce in ever smaller "bounces" as they radiate photons away,
eventually merging.
Since QM has never been my strong point, please let me know if such
scenarios are automatically excluded.

I do realize that this may not quite be what everyone is expecting,
however it might provide a mechanism that fits the "observations".

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@netspace.net.au>






cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.25 / John Campbell /  Re: 2ND COLD FUSION PATENT?
     
Originally-From: soup@penrij.kd3bj.ampr.org (John R. Campbell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 2ND COLD FUSION PATENT?
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 21:32:53 GMT
Organization: The Other "Woman" of the House

ddeak@nyc.pipeline.com (Dr. David Deak) writes:

>       Even stranger, it was invented by a person that doesn't even believe
>in the theory connected with his invention, for he has stated in past that
>it (CF) is nothing more than latent heat of water. 

Well, better latent than never.

-- 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 John R. Campbell, Speaker to Machines            | Grace is sufficient;
 email: soup%penrij@kd3bj.ampr.org                | Joy is now unemployed.
 snail: 1438 SchoolHouse Road, Perkasie, PA 18944 |      - Heather Campbell
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudensoup cudfnJohn cudlnCampbell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 / Richard Schultz /  Re: comments on the Cravens demo
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: comments on the Cravens demo
Date: 26 Jun 1995 11:58:47 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <DAr9wn.5oH@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

>"If you are going to play this game, which in my opinion [zip]"
>					Richard Schultz"
>
>  It is becoming quite apparent that you have problems,
> Mr. Schultz.

You will note that not only did Mr. Swartz refuse to answer the question
I had asked him (which, as I said, predates his most recent list of
"unanswered questions" by months), he deleted the question too.

I had originally made that rather flip response because I assumed that 
Mr. Swartz's little game would be obvious by now.  But because in the
end it touches on a more important issue, I think maybe a more detailed
discussion is in order.

1.  Mr. Swartz has a long history in sci.physics.fusion of refusing to
answer any question asked of him, no matter how relevant nor how politely
asked.  For example, he recently listed among the factors that contribute
to the product distribution in CF "coherence length."  It was not clear to
me (nor to Dick Blue, who asked the same question independently) what 
he meant by that, so I asked him to explain what he meant by the term
"coherence length" in the context of cold fustion.  It seems to me that
if what Mr. Swartz were after were an actual exchange of information and
an actual exchange of views, rather than Mitchell Swartz Explains the World
(or more precisely, tries to bamboozle people with fancy-sounding 
techno-speak) to People Not Fortunate Enough to Have Attended MIT, one
would think that he would have gladly used the opportunity to explain
what he meant so that we could understand it.  No such luck.  And I
am still waiting for him to tell me what experience he has in programming
of science conferences, a question that has remained open far longer than
any of his most recent round of questions, or to send me a copy of his
publication list.

2.  Another reason that Mr. Swartz's questions tend to go unanswered is
his unwillingness (or inability, it's hard to tell which) to answer the
issues raised by responses to him, or to acknowledge that difficulties
with his proposals exist.  For instance, it has been explained to him at
length and in detail why the Moessbauer effect is irrelevant to the 
question of how the putative He* nucleus can decay to He without producing
significant amounts of high-energy radiation.  Has he tried to show that
there is some fallacy in those arguments?  Has he acknowledged that the
Moessbauer effect is irrelevant to the discussion?  Of course not -- he
just repeats with the regularity of a stuck record that the Moessbauer
Effect shows nuclear/lattice coupling, therefore He* can couple to the 
lattice too.  This makes responding to other issues he raises seem rather
a waste of time, since there is no evidence that he will ever take into
account the possibility that he might be wrong about something.

3.  Add to this his (let us say) less than polite style of argument.
As far as I can tell, the best reason that he has given that I should
answer his latest series of questions is that it is a means of my
proving my manhood.  I'm not sure why he thinks that, or why he thinks
I should think that, but it's hardly a rhetorical style that is particularly
suited for rational exchange of ideas.  Although I have to admit that it's
hard to resist pointing out the irony that someone who doesn't even have
the guts to tell me what he does for a living (which I asked so that I
could figure out which M.E. Swartz he was in the various on-line 
listings of journal articles) should complain about my supposed lack
of courage to answer his questions.

4.  Finally, we come to what I think is the most significant issue.  One
point that consistently seems to have escaped Mr. Swartz is that the
situation between the so-called "True Believers" and the so-called 
"Skeptics" is not symmetrical.  Mr. Swartz is the one claiming that 
we have to rewrite the laws of physics (or that the laws of physics actually
include the possibility of phenomena that at least *seem* to 
violate them).  As I have quoted before, extraordinary claims demand 
extraoridnary evidence.  And as I have explained at length, "what else
could it be?" is not a proof that your explanation is correct any more 
than it is when a UFO nut asks it.  It is for the people who think there
is such a thing as "Cold Fusion" to provide the acceptable proofs, and it
is perfectly within the rights of the skeptics to insist on such proofs,
to point out weaknesses of the evidence brought, and indeed to ask probing
and difficult questions.  It is not for the believers to ask questions 
that more or less translate into "what else could it be?"  or (see #3
above) "nyaah nyaah".
--
					Richard Schultz

"A fly, sir, may sting a stately horse, and make him wince; but one is but an
insect, and the other is a horse still." -- Samuel Johnson
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 / Richard Schultz /  Re: A ZPF Primer
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A ZPF Primer
Date: 26 Jun 1995 12:07:19 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <3sldov$r00@huxley.anu.edu.au>,
David R Davies <drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au> wrote:

>It is not clear thet you have the slightest idea
>of what the issue is here.

Actually, it is you who seem to have missed the entire point.  You made
a claim, namely, that quantum mechanics as it is usually formulated 
assumes the stability of the hydrogen atom.  I responded by presenting
the postulates of the mathematical system of quantum mechanics, none 
of which are "and the hydrogen atom is stable."  I said that if your 
assertion were correct, it should be possible to demonstrate that the
postulates I presented, from which the stability of the hydrogen atom
can be *derived*, were mathematically equivalent to assuming the stability
of the hydrogen atom.  When I said "put up or shut up" (quoting you), I
meant that you should either do what you said (prove that the stability
of the hydrogen atom is a postulate rather than a derived result of
standard QM), i.e. "put up," or admit that you cannot, i.e. "shut up."
--
					Richard Schultz

"It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean.  Do you have to salt your
truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?"
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 / Alan M /  Re: Potapov device test (preliminary)
     
Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" <Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Potapov device test (preliminary)
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 13:18:17
Organization: Home

In article: <3sjvb8$pgq@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>  little@eden.com (Scott Little) writes:
> Results
>                       Test 1     Test 2    Test 3 
> 
> starting water temp   25.60      29.60     25.95
> ending water temp     29.95      33.90     27.90
> 

Scott:

I assume you have a schedule of future tests to carry out, both as regards
getting to much higher temperatures and (pace Jed's infamous 'weeks and weeks
at a time' claim) running it through well into steady state?
-- 
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:
cuddy26 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 / mitchell swartz /  Re: comments on the Cravens demo
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: comments on the Cravens demo
Subject: Re: comments on the Cravens demo
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 13:06:35 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

                         June 26, 1995
Dear colleagues:

     In Message-ID: <3sm7dn$d31@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: comments on the Cravens demo
schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) emotes
that many here do neither appreciate, nor respond to,
his continuous "brick-toss" tactics.   However,
unlike Mr. Schultz's grossly unsupported claims of no
responses, there have been many questions answered here. 

  One possible conclusion is that there appears 
to be some sort of impedance mismatch
between him and several posters to the net.
If he is unable to read, or to have read, the responses -- 
however, it may be his own problem.
  [A course in "Hooked on Phonics"
was recommended to him by one poster, but sadly to date, he
has apparently ignored the sound advice.]

  Furthermore, some of the scientific questions have been answered 
in the appropriate peer-reviewed manner of scientific 
publications, or such publication is pending.
And this is probably not the correct forum to preview such
publications (although some of the TB-skeptics routinely do such
for its propaganda value).

  In summary,  Mr. Schultz ought do his own homework -- does not --
and instead continues his obfuscatory deceptions.   Why?
Mr. Schultz's little game is quite obvious by now to many.
We agree that one possibility is that it is "he" who seems to have missed 
the entire point of many of the scientific issues. 

   "It is not clear that you (Mr. Schultz) have the slightest idea of what 
     the issue is here."
            [David R Davies  26 Jun 1995]

        ========================================

 Finally, the question arises of why Mr. Schultz prefers to be
spoon-fed rather than reading the literature and then intelligently 
commenting upon it.    For example consider the following from his post:

-rs    "For instance, it has been explained to him at
-rs  length and in detail why the Moessbauer effect is irrelevant to the 
-rs  question of how the putative He* nucleus can decay to He without producing
-rs  significant amounts of high-energy radiation.  Has he tried to show that
-rs  there is some fallacy in those arguments?"

  Yes. Spent too much time doing it previously here (circa 1992 and 1993)
and will absolutely not repeat it again.
   [Such comments should have been submitted to
the appropriate journal rather than submitting to the entropy of
sci.physics.fusion.]    

   But note.  Has Mr. Schultz even acknowledged the responses?  
Of course not -- he merely repeats his statements with the regularity of a 
'stuck needle in an old-fashioned record', as he touts that the Moessbauer
Effect "can't work" even though it was shown as an example of 
lattice-nuclear coupling through the S-orbitals. 
  Handwaving appears good enough for Mr. Schultz [and his employers]. 
And that is what makes responding to him a proven waste of time.

   Best wishes,
    Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)

  ===============================================

"I think you're thinking of Wyoming, where the men are men, 
the women are men, and the sheep are scared."
         [Richard Schultz, 22 Jun 1995; 
          <3scoir$m73@agate.berkeley.edu>]



cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 / Michel PGB /  plant metabolisme et principe de Carnot
     
Originally-From: gauthier@ifremer.fr (Michel Gauthier, Ifremer Paris PGB, 46.48.22.15)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: plant metabolisme et principe de Carnot
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 95 12:38:08 GMT
Organization: Ifremer
Organization: ifremer

En maintenant une difference de temperature entre la partie aerienne
d'un fraisier (tige et feuilles a Temp de 30  °C par exemple) et
ses parties sousterraines (racines a 10°C par exemple) aura-t-il
tendance a stocker de l'energie sous forme de sucre ?
Je fais ici allusion a des experiences aux USA. Y a t il un ingenieur
agro interesse  pour en savoir plus ?
Organization: ifremer
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.5

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudengauthier cudfnMichel cudlnPGB cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 / Richard Schultz /  Re: comments on the Cravens demo
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: comments on the Cravens demo
Date: 26 Jun 1995 14:02:18 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <DAs72z.6pu@world.std.com>,

>   "It is not clear that you (Mr. Schultz) have the slightest idea of what 
>     the issue is here."
>            [David R Davies  26 Jun 1995]

I notice you ignored my response -- in which I explained exactly
what issue I was responding to, and how it was actually David
Davies who was avoiding it.

> Finally, the question arises of why Mr. Schultz prefers to be
>spoon-fed rather than reading the literature and then intelligently 
>commenting upon it.

>  Handwaving appears good enough for Mr. Schultz [and his employers]. 
>And that is what makes responding to him a proven waste of time.

So when are you going to tell us who *your* employers are?  
And, just out of curiosity, who are my employer[s], pray tell?
(Your use of the plural implies that you don't know the correct answer
to the second question.)  Assuming for the moment that you do know who my
employer[s] are, can you give an example of when handwaving appears good
enough for (him/her/them)?
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 / John Cobb /  Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
     
Originally-From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
Date: 26 Jun 1995 09:18:18 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <DAns37.8B1@prometheus.UUCP>,
Paul M. Koloc <pmk@promethe.UUCP> wrote:
>In article <3saoen$bud@cnn.Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@ph
enix.princeton.edu> writes:
>
>>There's no way in hell you can attribute the national debt
>>to scientific research, in any case.  Cutting research funding
>>to try to balance the budget is like giving yourself a lobotomy
>>to try to lose weight.  There's not much weight to be lost, and
>>you pay a pretty huge price for it in the long run.

Now, that's a line that I like. Mind if I steal it shamelessly?

>Ahh! ... who cares who does it as long as it gets done.  I think 
>the kind of support for excellence that circumstance, costs, 
>best approach, materials, etc. etc.  can carry the day as fast or
>faster when private industry takes up the cause.  Also, I certain that
>some academic funds will be piped in for fusion engineering, chemistry
>and physics graduate programs.    

But Paul, this is exactly the opposite of what is occurring. Try to go to NSF
with a proposal to study fundamental plasma physics and you have a snowball's
chance. They state quite explicitly that they feel that plasma physics should
be funded out of DOE at the office of Fusion Energy, even if it is plasma
physics that is not fusion oriented. I am only aware of one NSF plasma
physics project, EVER. (There is a VERY small effort at NASA as a small part
of their small space-science effort). Now you suggestt that in an off-hand
manner that someone will pick up the slack, but it doesn't seem likely.
Last year NSF's Neal Lane was told pointedly that NSF should expect 20% cuts
in the future. There's no way he'll be able to pick up the slack. I don't
see anyone who will, unless you take a big chunk of what DOE-OFE spends
now and re-allocate somewhere to someone-else to do the same thing.

The tired old line "let private industry do it" is a straw-man as well.
We have worked with many private groups. They are interested, they are
agile, and they are efficient, but they are anything but far-sighted. They
state quite explicitly that unless the federal government continues their
efforts to support basic sciences, like plasma science. basic science
will be increasingly marginalized. They fear this as much as the "welfare
queens in white coats" because they know this spells long-term disaster
for their firms.

Even if DOE isn't gutted (or OFE obliterated) we should give some very 
serious consideration to finding a way to support fundamental plasma science
outside of DOE-OFE. For example, some of our work on advanced plasma
manufacturing has no fusion application, so DOE is reluctant to fund it.
It risks falling through the cracks, expecially when CRADA's become an
ideologically tainted term.

>>> So, Bob, you are not supposed to be doing "science" but to be "using"
>>> science to be doing engineering work to create a workable fusion
>>reactor.  
>>> The National Science Foundation does "Science" and the DoE isn't needed
>>> to do "Science" so .. ... why not cut out that huge expense that
>>> hasn't been doing what congress intended?  We can't afford TWO science
>>> agencies.   
>
>>Maybe you missed out on the line items in the DOE budget that
>>say things like "Basic Energy Sciences".  
>
>So what .. I don't think Congress put that language there and even
>so it did it would have be small potatoes not intended as large boon 
>doogles of fusion energy, which seems to be the current situation.  

So I guess this means that we can count on you Paul to be knocking down
doors at NSF demanding that they allocate some of their Basic Science
research to the study of basic plasma science, right?


-john .w cobb

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

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 / Richard Blue /  Re: Implications of Miles results
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles results
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 14:55:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

For Mitchell Swartz:
When you suggest "Take the postulated event rate, divide by
Avogadro's number ...."  in my assertions concerning detectability
I certainly have considered all factors between the event rate and
the detection rate.  The detection rate is still very large by my
standards.  Detection of a nuclear decay at the rates commensurate
with the production of even one watt of excess heat cannot be
limited by the signal rate unless the experimental design is
incredibly poor.  I concede that by determined effort your typical
CF investigator could screw it up, however.

I will turn your argument around to point out that given the rates
and the time scale there can be only one isolated decay occuring
at a time.  I believe that has implications concerning collective
effects that are generally not recognized by CF believers.

As for my making rate calculations, I see no need to make the
estimates.  I refer to the established experimental values.  You
are the one claiming that those experimental values are dramatically
altered by some unspecified interaction.  I can not possibly make
a meaningful estimate to fit your hypothesis, because you have never
stated what it is you a proposing.  As for CO2 solvation rates, are
you really so desparate that you have to resort to such obvious
attempts at misdirection?  I am not aware that CO2 solvation is
involved in the cold fusion process, or that the rate calculation
you suggest has any bearing on this discussion.

Each time I ask for the required nuclear-lattice coupling you suggest
that the Mossbauer effect demonstrates that such a coupling exists.
Mere existance of such coupling is not at issue.  I concede that couplings
do exist!  Now can we move beyond that to make a quantitative statement?
Can you relate the strength of the coupling involved in the Mossbauer
effect to that required for cold fusion?

Let's start with a really simple problem, Mitchell.  Consider the familiar
14 keV Mossbauer transition and calculate, if you will, the energy transfered
to the lattice for each Mossbauer transtion and then repeat the calculation
for a non-Mossbauer transition.

After you have done the above calculations please give an estimate of the rate
for such decay events that is needed to provide one watt of heating of the
lattice.  Would you say that it easier to detect the decay by direct nuclear
techniques or by calorimetry?  Would it be possible to determine the Mossbauer
fraction by calorimetric means?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Request: Griggs mailing address/Fax number
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Request: Griggs mailing address/Fax number
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 95 10:33:09 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Mr. James Griggs
Hydro Dynamics
8 Redmond Court
Rome, GA 30165
 
Tel: 706-234-4111
Fax: 706-234-0702
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Potapov device test (preliminary)
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Potapov device test (preliminary)
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 95 10:34:13 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

little@eden.com (Scott Little) writes:
 
     "Our test conditions closely matched the manufacturer's recommended
     operating conditions for the YUSMAR-2."
 
That is incorrect. The manufacture's specifications show a completely
different configuration (with radiators attached), at much greater pressure
and much higher temperatures. Performance curves from the manufacturer and
others show that the effect will never be seen in the regime tested by Little.
 
Before performing additional tests on this unit, I recommend that Little read
the documentation more carefully and consult with the manufacturer. This may
be difficult, because the material is in Russian, but it has to be done. I see
no point in doing the test blindly, with incorrect operating parameters.
 
Naturally, it would be a lot easier for Little if he had the entire
manufactured device from Vizor, rather than just the reaction chamber. He has
to build the other components, and I gather he is trying to do that "by feel"
without reference to the documentation. Given the immense amount of time and
effort Potapov put into perfecting this machine, my guess is that Little will
find it impossible to guess how the other components should be arranged. I
myself would never attempt such a difficult project!
 
 
     "We can find no explanation for the failure of this Potapov device to
     perform as reported (300% over-unity)."
 
The literature explains the problems.
 
 
     "It is possible that we have failed to meet some operating condition
     that is critical for the over-unity performance."
 
It is certain that Little has failed to meet virtually all of the critical
operating parameters. I must admit, it took me a little while to realize this
after I read his report. I had to go back and look at the Vizor documentation.
I myself am still not sure what the full set of correct operating parameters
should be, so I am not in a position to recommend any test procedures or
parameters to Little. If he cannot read the original documentation or consult
with Vizor, than I recommend he wait a few months, at which point I may be
able to assist him.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 / Dieter Britz /  Re: plant metabolisme et principe de Carnot
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: plant metabolisme et principe de Carnot
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 16:44:07 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On Mon, 26 Jun 1995 gauthier@ifremer.fr wrote:

> En maintenant une difference de temperature entre la partie aerienne d'un=
 fraisier (tige et feuilles a Temp de 30  =B0C par exemple) et ses parties =
sousterraines (racines a 10=B0C par exemple) aura-t-il tendance a stocker d=
e l'energie sous forme de sucre ?
> Je fais ici allusion a des experiences aux USA. Y a t il un ingenieur agr=
o interesse  pour en savoir plus ?
> Organization: ifremer
> X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.5
>=20

Que ha cette a faire con la fusion froide? Pardon moi Francaise!

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

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 /  jedrothwell@de /  Merriman wrong about Semmelweis
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Merriman wrong about Semmelweis
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 95 11:06:17 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Frank Manning wrote:
 
    "In 1847, Ignaz Semmelweis got the idea that the washing of hands . . .
    Even so, his theory aroused fierce opposition from entrenched authority,
    and his career suffered badly."
 
 
barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
 
    "..for awhile. As I recall, it caught on quite soon enough---because
    it was so easy to demonstrate the effectiveness---and he lived to be
    a recognized hero."
 
You recall wrong, Barry. I suggest you do your homework. Semmelweis was
driven out of Vienna in disgrace. He was never granted a license to practice
medicine. He died a few years later from an infection following a medical
proceedure. The doctors who attacked him went on murdering their patients for
another generation or two (20 to 40 years). I am amazed you are so ignorant of
history! Have you never read anything about the American Civil War? Don't you
realize that in 1865 sterilization and antiseptics were still unknown? By
1865, the U.S. Union Armies had the best medical treatment facilities in
the world, but alas, Semmelweis had been long forgotten. I suggest you read
any account of the Civil War, or of life in that era, or any encyclopedia
account of the history of medicine.
 
Merriman, like most "skeptics" frequently makes offhand remarks about CF that
are astounding incorrect and ignorant. Now we see that he is grossly
ignorant about other subjects as well. He does not even remember the dates of
the U.S. Civil War. Or he has never thought about the implications of what
everyone in the U.S. learns as a schoolchild, and in books and movies galore.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 / Bernd Paysan /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: paysan@informatik.tu-muenchen.de (Bernd Paysan)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: 26 Jun 1995 14:48:04 GMT
Organization: Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Germany


In article <DAosCE.Enp@eskimo.com>, billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty) writes:
>
>Ronald Kunne (KUNNE@frcpn11.in2p3.fr) wrote:
>: In article <3sdia6$os8@newsbf02.news.aol.com> drbeezar@aol.com writes:
>:  
>: >The most interesting thing about crackpot theories is that when the next
>: >great breakthrough in physics occurs, it will look EXACTLY like the most
>: >crackpot idea anyone can come up with.

Even worse. Most crackpot ideas have some obvious misunderstandings. 
Great breakthroughs don't have, but they do the same as crackpot ideas:
they seem to attack founded science. And because nothing is really wrong
with breakthroughs, they induct anger. The review person isn't able to
understand what's going on (it is something new to her/him), and isn't
able to explain what seems to be wrong. One important argument is then,
that the theory isn't "complete". Not that any theory around there is
complete, or was complete when it was proposed the first time, or that
the journal ever would publish a complete theory. Another position is to
attack the proposer of the new theory: the contradictions between
observation and theory or between one and the other theory aren't really
contradictions, or it doesn't really matter.

>: Not so.
>: The difference between a crackpot-idea and new-theory (valid or not), is
>: that the latter:
>:  - takes into account all previous observations
>:  - makes predictions that can be falsified
>:  - explain something that hasn't been explained before

Who is up to falsify a crackpot idea? Experiments aren't cheap. If you
can't do the most important experiments yourself, or if they haven't been
done "by accident", a "crackpot" won't get them done. Even if she gets
them done herself, this isn't a proove. Only a repeated experiment is a
proove. And who is willing to repeat (ok, the cold fusion was repeated)?

Mostly ideas are attacked as crackpot idea, if they come from unknown
people. Such an idea has to pass with a sort of stealth cape. SR did,
because Einstein's papers mainly were assumed to be some detail work on
the Lorentz transformation (which is only related to the theory of
Maxwell, an authority).

>Quotes from the article: 
>"It's like religion.  Heresy is thought of as a bad thing, whereas in
>science it should be just the opposite" 
>
>and
>
>"...there are always going to be Newtons coming along whose ideas are so
>foreign and outrageous as to be beyond the ken of the experts." 

Yes, yes. I've a nice definition of an expert:

An expert reads a new theory and the response is:

"I did only understand parts of it. All I understand was old hat and not
an innovation (mostly in the first part of the article, in the section
"Current Knowledge"). The rest I didn't understand (mostly because it was
new to me and I hadn't time to read it carefully). I don't accept papers
which presents old hats on the one half and not understandable crackpot
on the other half. Please submit the paper to your trashcan."

BTW Galilei was sued by the Pope, because he could proove by observation
what Kepler had discovered. Kelper couldn't proove that, because he was
half blind, he had to rely on Brahe's observations. And Kepler was too
far away to be sued by the Pope :-).

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"Late answers are wrong answers!"
http://www.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/cgi-bin/nph-gateway/hphalle2/~paysan/
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenpaysan cudfnBernd cudlnPaysan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Implications of Miles results
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles results
Date: 26 Jun 1995 15:19:54 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <9506261452.AA25687@pilot03.cl.msu.edu>,
Richard A Blue <blue@pilot.msu.edu> wrote:

>Let's start with a really simple problem, Mitchell.  Consider the familiar
>14 keV Mossbauer transition and calculate, if you will, the energy transfered
>to the lattice for each Mossbauer transtion and then repeat the calculation
>for a non-Mossbauer transition.

Another relevant calculation that might be worthwhile done in conjunction
with that one might be:  Consider the familiar 14 keV Moessbauer transition.
To what extent does the excited state lifetime depend on the lattice?  How
does this dependence extrapolate to the 24 MeV He* -> He transition in
a lattice?  This will put an upper bound on the amount of time the He*
has to give up its energy to the phonons of the lattice.

Another point worth considering:  consider the familiar 14 keV Moessbauer
transition.  How much of the energy goes into the gamma ray, and how much
into the lattice?  
--
					Richard Schultz

"P&F are getting so much heat that you hardly need any calorimetry at all."
			--Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 19 Jul 1992
"The palladium based systems are a useless dead end. Who cares about them?"
			--Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 10 Dec 1992
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 / mitchell swartz /  Re: comments on the Cravens demo
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: comments on the Cravens demo
Subject: Re: comments on the Cravens demo
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 15:20:50 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <3smela$fjp@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: comments on the Cravens demo
schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz),
a Philosopher of the Dangerous Maybe writes:

  > "It is not clear that you (Mr. Schultz) have the slightest idea of what 
  >   the issue is here."
  >          [David R Davies  26 Jun 1995]
-rs  "I notice you ignored my response -- in which I explained exactly
-rs  what issue I was responding to, and how it was actually David
-rs  Davies who was avoiding it."

     Right.   ;-)  X           (   "Pot.  Kettle.  Black."   )
  ========================================
"I think you're thinking of Wyoming, where the men are men, 
the women are men, and the sheep are scared."
[Richard Schultz, 22 Jun 1995; 
          <3scoir$m73@agate.berkeley.edu>]




  
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Barry Merriman is irrational and unscientific
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Barry Merriman is irrational and unscientific
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 10:27:46 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <3saphc$kts@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry
Merriman) wrote:

> In article <21cenlogic-2006950053370001@199.172.8.129> 21cenlogic@i-link.net  
> (Mitchell Jones) writes:
> 
> > > 
> > Barry, I have been thinking 
> 
> Well, thats a good start.
> 
> (Its a joke! :-)
> 
> >about your theory and I am beginning to have logical problems with
> > it. 
> 
> I hope you didn't get into one of those infinite loops like
> on the old Star Trek, where your head starts smoking, and the
> pitch of your voice keeps escalating.
> 
> (Its another joke! Isn't it fun to be able to selectively
> edit what other people say! Now I know what motivates all those
> TV reporters. :-)
> 
> Okay, now down to business:
> 
> > 
> > In other
> > words, since the temperature of the rotor cannot decline without dropping
> > the pump out of the "steam phase," and since the rotor temperature has to
> > drop if it is to dump stored heat, it follows that it can't dump stored
> > heat while operating in the steam phase. But your whole theory rests on
> > the premise that the rotor can dump stored heat while operating in the
> > steam phase. Therefore, if my analysis is correct, your argument must be
> > wrong. 
> > 
> 
> Basically, to turn you analysis around, I could say all you prove is 
> that the  simple picture _you proposed_ for what is going on inside the
Griggs 
> device is not true.

***{Barry, I was not trying to paint a detailed picture of the device. I
was trying to selectively focus on one aspect of its operation. The key
intellectual task here is to visualize what happens as the rotor
temperature rises.

 For the rotor, thermal equilibrium means that heat flowing into the rotor
equals heat flowing out. The most significant component of heat in arises
due to the frictional drag of the fluid on the rotor surface, which
obviously drops whenever the water contacting the rotor begins to flash to
steam. In the case where the temperature of the rotor rises at constant
r.p.m., heat out (due to radiation, conduction, and convection) rises,
while heat in is relatively stable *unless a state change occurs in the
fluid*--which means: unless the rotor passes the flash point temperature.
If no state change occurs, heat out will eventually become large enough to
equal heat in, and equilibrium will result. However, if the r.p.m is large
enough, the flash point temperature *will* be reached, and the frictional
drag on the rotor surface will sustain a huge drop when that happens. This
means heat in will sustain a huge drop, and the rotor will begin to dump
stored heat, and its temperature will fall. Result: to restore thermal
equilibrium, the r.p.m must be boosted *way* up in order to return the
frictional heating to the level necessary so that heat in is equal to heat
out.  

Nothing in this analysis implies that what is going on isn't complex. In
truth, the various differentially small areas on the rotor's surface are
going to reach the flash temperature at varying, though interrelated,
times. I would expect the effect to begin at the midline of the cylinder,
work out toward the ends, and then down toward the axis of rotation. This
implies that some regions will be experiencing turbulent flow while others
are experiencing laminar flow, and still others are below the flash
temperature. But through all of that complexity, one constant will remain:
there is simply no plausible way for the average temperature of the rotor
to decline after it reaches equilibrium *unless the r.p.m. also
declines.*  So here is the only reasonable way for the "stored heat"
scenario to play itself out: 

(1) In the warmup phase, Griggs raises the r.p.m. *way* above the minimum
necessary to maintain the steam phase, thereby raising the rotor
temperature close to its melting point, and achieves thermal equilibrium
at that level. The vast amount of heat stored in the rotor by such a
procedure will, of course, not be measured, because no measurements are
taken during this phase of the experiment. 

(2) As soon as the experimental phase of the experiment begins, Griggs
causes the r.p.m. of the rotor to gradually drop. When this happens,
frictional drag on the rotor surface drops, and heat out of the rotor
begins to exceed heat in--which means: the rotor begins dumping stored
heat into the fluid stream. By this method, heat stored in the rotor
during the warmup phase (and, thus, unmeasured heat) is dumped back into
the fluid stream.

It is interesting that, in Jed's data, there is no plot of rotor r.p.m. 
--Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> In your proposed picture, there is simply a steam layer that forms near
> the rotor when the rotor reaches the flash point temperature. Allow 
> me to remind you that, if this be the case, you, being a CF believer

***{You have no evidence that I am a CF believer, Barry. It happens that I
hold a theory of physics that is compatible with these types of excess
energy results, but that theory does *not* say: "The Griggs Hydrosonic
Pump is a bona fide excess energy device." Thus, even though my theory
leaves me open to such possibilities, specific claims must be proven, and
I hold a very high standard of proof. At the present time, I am not
convinced that *any* of the present devices discussed in this newsgroup
are excess energy devices, though I am in fact open to being convinced.
--Mitchell Jones}***
,
> must believe that CF occurs when one creates a layer of steam next to 
> an aluminum surface. I have a hard time with that logic :-)

***{Even as a joke, this is simply a silly thing to say. The collapse of
cavitation bubbles in the Hydrosonic pump produces huge overpressures.
Granted, by the precepts of contemporary physics, those overpressures
could not possibly produce excess energy; but, if those precepts are
wrong, the conclusion drawn from them could also be wrong. In any case,
nobody ever implied that the excess energy, if it exists, arises due to
the exposure of an aluminum surface to steam. --Mitchell Jones}***   
> 
> Now, in fact, I assume that you really think it takes more to get CF than
> just a layer of steam near an aluminum surface, otherwise you would
> be at home doing calorimetry experiments on your kitchen stove.
> So, the point is, you yourself must belive there is _more going on_ 
> inside the Griggs device than simply the formation of a steam layer
> when the rotor temperature reaches the flashpoint.

***{Right as rain. --MJ}***
> 
> How does this allow me to shield my ``theory'' (its not much of 
> a theory, as I try to make minimal assumption about what is going 
> on) from your analysis? Well, I simply invoke the idea that there
> is more going on than what you proposed. Here is one of
> _many_ possibilities: the formation of the steam layer is not
> _uniform_ over the rotor surface, due to the effects of variable rotor
> temperature, turbulent flow, cavitiation (and all other fluctuation
> inducing factors). During the warm up phase, small regions of
> steam layer are forming and vanishing all over the rotor. Any little
> patch that forms tens to reattach due to srrounding fluctuations.
> Then, once the temperature gets very hot, there is a phase change: 
> when a critical fraction of the rotor area is simulatenously
> in a steam layer, there are not enough fluctuations to reattach it,
> and it bifurcates into an all detached mode.

***{Irrelevant. You need to focus on the issue, which is: (a) why would
the r.p.m be boosted above the minimum level necessary to keep the device
in the steam phase; and (b) even if it were, how could the rotor dump its
excess heat in the steam phase if the r.p.m. were not falling? --Mitchell
Jones}***
> 
> So, in short: your analysis is based on the assumption of a very uniform,
> laminar flow situation in the rotor. 

***{Wrong. See above. --MJ}***

The reality is that it is
> a turbulent, strongly cavitating, multiphase flow. 

***{Absolutely. --MJ}***

I could easy imagine
> such a system bifurcating to its low drag ``detached'' state 
> at a temperature far in excess of the normal flash point, just as turbulent
> flow past a sphere stays attached to the surface far beyond the point
> where a laminar flow separates.

***{Irrelevant. To repeat: the question is: (a) why would the r.p.m be
boosted above the minimum level necessary to keep the device in the steam
phase; and (b) even if it were, how could the rotor dump its excess heat
in the steam phase if the r.p.m. were not falling? --MJ}*** 
> 
> For further inspiration, look at the different flow modes of a 
> Taylor-Couette cyclinder some time (this is essentially a griggs
> geometry rotor, but run at low speeds). Depending on its
> adjustable parameter (which is rotor speed in that case), it falls
> into one of _many_ complex flow patterns. It doesn't take much imagination
> to think that the flow inside the griggs device could behave very 
> differently from the simple picture you suggest.

***{To repeat, I am not suggesting a simple picture: I am focusing on the
relevant aspect of a complex picture. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> Because of that, that is why I don't suggest burning too many
> brain cells on trying to analyze a precise scenario for the
> rotor-stored-heat+reduced-drag-flow-mode hypothesis. The rotor
> clearly is _capable_ of storing enough heat for a ~1 hour run

***{It is, indeed, *if* its r.p.m is raised *far* above the minimum
necessary to keep it in the steam phase. But even if that were to occur,
it could not dump that stored heat unless the r.p.m. of the rotor were
then reduced. The crucial question, therefore, is this: is there anything
in the experimental setup that, in the second phase of the run, could
bring about a gradual reduction of rotor r.p.m? And, as it happens, the
answer is yes! If you will review Jed's description of the run, you will
note that the effluent from the pump passes through a rubber hose into a
55 gallon drum. To collect heat that may be trapped in steam, the hose is
held at the very bottom of the drum as the fluid accumulates in the drum.
Result: as the water level rises in the drum, the backpressure rises and,
logically, the r.p.m. of the rotor gradually declines. Which means: the
rotor gradually declines in temperature and dumps its stored heat into the
fluid stream! Bottom line: this experimental design is badly flawed, and,
in all likelihood, the Hydrosonic Pump is *not* an excess energy device! 
--Mitchell Jones}***

, 
> and its clear that a reduced drag mode _does_ occur. But figuring out
> the nature of this reduced drag mode could be quite chanllenging.
> It is much less challenging to simple DO AN EXPERIMENT WHICH 
> MEASURES OR BOUNDS THE HEAT STORED IN THE DEVICE PRIOR TO 
> EXCESS HEAT STEAM MODE OPERATION.

***{Barry, you gave up too soon on the analytical process. What you should
have done was continue your attempts to visualize what was going on inside
the device. That would have enabled you to identify the flaw in the
design, and validate your position. Instead, you were apparently worried
that such a process might produce the wrong conclusion, and you backed
off, leaving the fun to me! As for further experimentation with the Griggs
device, I really don't see the point. Now that the design flaw has been
clearly identified, there is no mystery to be investigated. Of course, if
further runs are done, I suppose it will be instructive to analyze them as
well. One thing is very clear: if Griggs modifies his experimental design,
the new design must measure rotor r.p.m., and must hold it constant during
phase two. One way would be to hold the effluent level constant in the
outflow tank by installing an overflow pipe and a second reservoir.
--Mitchell Jones}***
> --
> Barry Merriman
> UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
> UCLA Dept. of Math
> bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Implications of Miles results
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles results
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles results
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 15:57:49 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


  In Message-ID: <9506261452.AA25687@pilot03.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles results
blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) continues his
scientific comments.

-"When you suggest "Take the postulated event rate, divide by
-Avogadro's number ...."  in my assertions concerning detectability
-I certainly have considered all factors between the event rate and
-the detection rate.  The detection rate is still very large by my
-standards.  Detection of a nuclear decay at the rates commensurate
-with the production of even one watt of excess heat cannot be
-limited by the signal rate unless the experimental design is
-incredibly poor. "

   Detection is also limited if there is non-ionizing radiation emitted,
and/or if the absorption is such that the emitted radiation will not penetrate
to the detector(s).

         ==================================

-"I will turn your argument around to point out that given the rates
-and the time scale there can be only one isolated decay occuring
-at a time.  I believe that has implications concerning collective
-effects that are generally not recognized by CF believers."

  Could you elaborate on that with proof.  It would have 
implications if you could prove that.

         ==================================

-"As for my making rate calculations, I see no need to make the
-estimates." 

  OK.  Then why ask others to do so, Dick?

         ==================================

-"Each time I ask for the required nuclear-lattice coupling you suggest
-that the Mossbauer effect demonstrates that such a coupling exists.
-Mere existance of such coupling is not at issue.  I concede that couplings
-do exist!"
 
  Now there is progress.  Since the coupling can exist, there is
a precedent in material science to explain the CF phenomena.

         ==================================

- "Now can we move beyond that to make a quantitative statement?
-Can you relate the strength of the coupling involved in the Mossbauer
-effect to that required for cold fusion?"

  Good questions, Dick.  However, Mossbauer is but an example and
may not itself play a role.  Your comments are very interesting and
when sufficient time becomes available, will consider them closely.
Thanks again for continuing our discussion.  Best wishes.

   Mitchell Swartz


cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 / Bill Page /  Re: Potapov device test discussion
     
Originally-From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Potapov device test discussion
Date: 26 Jun 1995 16:12:33 GMT
Organization: Daneliuk & Page

In article <3sjvdt$pgq@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, little@eden.com (Scott Little) says:
>
>
>OK SPFers, here's your chance to interact with the testing
>of the Potapov device. I posted the preliminary report
>(after only three tests) mainly to give y'all a chance to
>get involved. I'm definitely not finished testing this
>thing.
>
>Tom, hold on the $700 until the group decides I've earned it.
>
>Feel free to post questions about any aspect of the tests I
>have done.  I will endeavor to answer all inquiries.
>
>Feel free to propose alternative test procedures (especially
>ones that might dramatically alter the results!).  If
>practical, I will make the suggested modifications, conduct
>the new tests and publish additional reports.

Scott,

Thanks for the test report. Good work as usual. One thing that
occurred to me while reading your report was the following:

  If this device is supposedly used for heating buildings,
  then the temperature range that you are using is much too
  low. A realistic temperature for a hot water building heating
  system would be at least 70 deg C. or more (non-pressurized).

Of course, I do not, however have any theoretical reason for
assuming that the "Potapov effect" is temperature dependent
(Sapogin's theory doesn't seem to allow one to deduce any
such dependence).

Higher temperatures would increase your error estimates, but
I imagine your procedure would still be adequate to characterize
300% over unity performance.

However, I would suggest using a servo (thermostatic) controlled
auxillary resistive water heater element in the tank and an
iso-thermal "null-balance" power input measurement technique
to increase accuracy.  You could try the following:

  1) Pre-heat the water to a pre-set temperature, say 80 deg. C.
     Measure the electrical input to the heater required to maintain
     this temperature in equilibrium with the lab ambient temp. You
     might want to remove some of the tank insulation to get a
     reasonable power input level.

  2) Operate the Potapov device as you did in the previous tests,
     but continue to heat the water with the thermostatically
     controlled resistive heater. Measure the *change* in the
     power input to the resistive heater while the Potapov device
     is operating due to the negative temperature feedback.

  3) Compare the change in electrical power input to the resistive
     heater to the electrical power input to the pump.


Cheers,
Bill Page.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenwspage cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Attn: Bryan Wallace
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Attn: Bryan Wallace
Date: 26 Jun 1995 16:27:32 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <3s89rd$m8m@natasha.rmii.com>, tliehe@rainbow.rmii.com (Tom
Liehe) wrote:

> Scott Little (little@eden.com) wrote:
> 
> : New proposal:
> 
> : I have read a number of your recent posts and decided that your book
> : is wonderful, and that everyone should have access to it.  By now, your
> : name is well known across a wide number of Usenet groups.  It only seems
> : fair now, in view of your accomplishments, to start a new newsgroup
> : specifically for you.  Perhaps it could be called sci.physics.wallace or
> : sci.physics.farce.  
> 
> I like this idea a lot!  In fact, lets expand on it a bit.  How about
> sci.physics.fusion.rothwell-rant for starters?
> 

Well, I suspect the above was written tongue in cheek, but I feel
compelled to reply anyway:

_Absolutely_Not_!!!!!!!!

While I find the Farce postings annoying, and can in good conscience ask
Mr. Wallace to please trim the Newsgroups line, the notion of creating
special groups dedicated to people we don't wish to hear from is
offensive.  If the advocates of CF, cool tempered or otherwise, were
segregated to their own privatre discussion, this group would rapidly die
of anemia.  Honestly, any discussion requires a difference of opinion;
should we put those of opposing views in separate rooms, lest we ever meet
anyone who doesn't agree with us?

Okay, that was a bit melodramatic, but the point is clear.  Although Jed
sometimes makes me a bit hot under the collar, I'd miss him a lot if he
went away.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 / Richard Schultz /  Are there two Mitchell Swartzes?
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Are there two Mitchell Swartzes?
Date: 26 Jun 1995 17:24:48 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <DAsDAq.89w@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
>  In Message-ID: <3smela$fjp@agate.berkeley.edu>
>schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz),
>a Philosopher of the Dangerous Maybe writes:
>
>-rs  "I notice you ignored my response -- in which I explained exactly
>-rs  what issue I was responding to, and how it was actually David
>-rs  Davies who was avoiding it."
>
>     Right.   ;-)  X           (   "Pot.  Kettle.  Black."   )

I am a bit puzzled.  Normally, the Usenet phrase "PKB" is used by
people who are themselves not guilty of the offense they are pointing
out in others.  Now, Mr. Swartz has consistently refused to answer any
serious objections to points he raises -- just today he took at least
two of my posts and edited out all of the relevant points in order to
tell me that (e.g.) I have problems, but not actually answering any
of the questions that I pointed out have been standing unanswered for
months.  In fact, a quick check of the s.p.f. archives reveals that his
claim to have answered all of the objections to his Moessbauer hypothesis
is simply untrue; he in fact answered none of them.  It strikes me as
a bit strange that such a person would say "PKB" to another person who
accuses him of ignoring responses.  (Especially since I took the trouble
earlier today to explain at great length why I "ignore" Swartz when he
starts whining about unanswered questions -- a post to which a relevant
response was apparently beyond Mr. Swartz's powers.)  

Of course, I now have yet another question that Mr. Swartz is extremely
unlikely to ever answer, especially since he knows that his answer is
unlikely to be correct:  for whom does he think I work?

In case anyone was wondering what the quotation from me he keeps 
quoting was all about, I wrote it in response to someone else's 
making a comment about Idaho, and I responded with a quip that I heard
when I lived in Utah.  Why Swartz thinks this quote is so interesting
is beyond me -- somebody should ask him, not that an answer is likely
to be forthcoming.  After all, that statement about Wyoming is neither
as ironic nor as just plain funny as the quotes from Jed Rothwell that
I like to tag on to my posts here.
--
					Richard Schultz

". . .in short, his post became untenable; and having swallowed his
quantum of tea, he judged it expedient to evacuate."
				Charlotte Bronte, _Shirley_
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 / Barry Merriman /  Correcting Mitchell Jones's Ignorance
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Correcting Mitchell Jones's Ignorance
Date: 26 Jun 1995 17:22:08 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <21cenlogic-2406951508080001@austin-1-2.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:

> they have flushed 40 years and roughly $100
> billion (looted from taxpayers, of course!) down an apparently bottomless
> rathole, without a scintilla of success. My own opinion, for what it's
> worth, is that this dog won't hunt. 
> 
> --Mitchell Jones

Allow me to correct the gross ignorance you are spreading around,
with a brief & approximate budgetary history.

Fusion was first proposed as the sun's energy
source circa 1928. Fusion reactions were first
demonstrated in the lab by Rutherford in 1932, via
his beam & target experiments. 

(At the time, Rutherford
said it was ``moonshine'' to consider producing
energy this way (and indeed, his beam fusion cannot
produce more energy than it consumes).)

Not much happened til after the WWII, 1946, when secret 
fusion experiments were commenced, probably primarily
with the goal of using fusion neutrons to breed plutonium
for weapons.

The US and other national fusion programs were declassified
circa 1958, and public, non-military funding of magnetic
confinement fusion began. The total US expeditures for magnetic
confinement fusion go something like this:

1958--1969   ~ $0.4 Billion    ( flat budget and 
                                 low level reflects limited progress 
                                 of early attempts at fusion )

1970--1979   ~ $1.5 Billion    (increasing budget reflects the early
                                success of the Tokamak concept,
                                and also the Energy Crisis of
                                the late 70's)

1980--1989  ~  $4.0 Billion    (flat, heavy expenditure reflects construction
                                costs of several major experimental 
                                reactors (TFTR, MFTF) )

1990--1995 ~   $1.8 Billion    (budget slowly declining, partly due to no
                                major new construction)

Total:         $7.7 Billion    ( probabaly less than $6 Billion of this went
                                 into the tokamak concept )

Adjusted for inflation, this number in 1995 dollars would 
be less than $15 Billion dollars.

So, Mitchell, generously speaking, your estimate is off by a factor 
of 7. Even if you summed up the entire _world_ expenditures
on magnetic confinement fusion, you would only get about 4 x 
this amount, or $60 Billion in todays dollars.

As for your claim that ``without a scintilla of success'': could
you please tell us what criterion you are using to measure success?
All the meaningful fusion parameters have increased by many orders
of magnitude since the program started. 

Perhaps you mean that it hasn't reached breakeven? Well, TFTR as
originally billed was supposed to reach breakeven in 1989, if fully
funded. It wasn't really fully funded as desired, and instead it
has reached 30% of breakeven in 1995. Something of a let down, but
hardly disasterous and certainly a major improvement over what
was possible when TFTR was designed. 

It you really want breakeven, JET should reach it next year.

Further, the program has historically killed research directions
that were not making progress: after sinking ~ 1 Billion of the
7.7 mentioned above into mirror concepts, including $300 M into
a major facility, DOE cut the mirror program because it became
clear that it would not be likely to go much beyond 
breakeven (not enough to make a viable power plant).

So, I think this demonstrates that your assertions are totally
at odds with reality. 

By the way, there are valid criticisms one could make about 
magnetic fusion. Primarily, one could say that: extrapolating from
what we _know now_, a tokamak based power plant would be at best 
marginally economically attractive in 2050. 

A reasonable person _could_ conclude from that the Tokamak program 
should be cut back/redirected. (They could also conclude the opposite).

HOWEVER: a reasonable person must not arbitrarily cut back the tokamak
program without simultaneously spelling otu some future energy strategy
for the US and world.

So, Mitch: given that you want fusion research killed, why don't
you spell out for us your long term world energy strategy?








       


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


cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 / Richard Schultz /  cmsg cancel <3smqh0$l34@agate.berkeley.edu>
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <3smqh0$l34@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 26 Jun 1995 17:34:07 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

<3smqh0$l34@agate.berkeley.edu> was cancelled from within trn.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Are there two Mitchell Swartzes?
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Are there two Mitchell Swartzes?
Date: 26 Jun 1995 17:38:45 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

(An earlier version of this somehow slipped out without the second
paragraph of my response.  I cancelled the post, but if your site
gets two nearly the same versions of this posting, one of which doesn't
explain the subject line, now you know why.)

In article <DAsDAq.89w@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
>  In Message-ID: <3smela$fjp@agate.berkeley.edu>
>schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz),
>a Philosopher of the Dangerous Maybe writes:
>
>-rs  "I notice you ignored my response -- in which I explained exactly
>-rs  what issue I was responding to, and how it was actually David
>-rs  Davies who was avoiding it."
>
>     Right.   ;-)  X           (   "Pot.  Kettle.  Black."   )

I am a bit puzzled.  Normally, the Usenet phrase "PKB" is used by
people who are themselves not guilty of the offense they are pointing
out in others.  Now, Mr. Swartz has consistently refused to answer any
serious objections to points he raises -- just today he took at least
two of my posts and edited out all of the relevant points in order to
tell me that (e.g.) I have problems, but not actually answering any
of the questions that I pointed out have been standing unanswered for
months.  In fact, a quick check of the s.p.f. archives reveals that his
claim to have answered all of the objections to his Moessbauer hypothesis
is simply untrue; he in fact answered none of them.  It strikes me as
a bit strange that such a person would say "PKB" to another person who
accuses him of ignoring responses.  (Especially since I took the trouble
earlier today to explain at great length why I "ignore" Swartz when he
starts whining about unanswered questions -- a post to which a relevant
response was apparently beyond Mr. Swartz's powers.)  

This leads me to conclude that there are perhaps two Mitchell Swartzes,
one of whom makes a hobby of ducking issues, and another one who only
pops up occasionally, completely unaware that his posts about other
peoples' mendacity makes the first one (who is invariably guilty of
the offenses that the second one lists) look like a buffoon.

Of course, I now have yet another question that Mr. Swartz is extremely
unlikely to ever answer, especially since he knows that his answer is
unlikely to be correct:  for whom does he think I work?

In case anyone was wondering what the quotation from me he keeps 
quoting was all about, I wrote it in response to someone else's 
making a comment about Idaho, and I responded with a quip that I heard
when I lived in Utah.  Why Swartz thinks this quote is so interesting
is beyond me -- somebody should ask him, not that an answer is likely
to be forthcoming.  After all, that statement about Wyoming is neither
as ironic nor as just plain funny as the quotes from Jed Rothwell that
I like to tag on to my posts here.
--
					Richard Schultz

". . .in short, his post became untenable; and having swallowed his
quantum of tea, he judged it expedient to evacuate."
				Charlotte Bronte, _Shirley_
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Merriman wrong about Semmelweis
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong about Semmelweis
Date: 26 Jun 1995 17:37:02 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <RE68m35.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> Frank Manning wrote:
>  
>     "In 1847, Ignaz Semmelweis got the idea that the washing of hands . . .
>     Even so, his theory aroused fierce opposition from entrenched authority,
>     and his career suffered badly."
>  
>  
> barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
>  
>     "..for awhile. As I recall, it caught on quite soon enough---because
>     it was so easy to demonstrate the effectiveness---and he lived to be
>     a recognized hero."
>  
> You recall wrong, Barry. I suggest you do your homework. Semmelweis was
> driven out of Vienna in disgrace. He was never granted a license to practice
> medicine. He died a few years later from an infection following a medical
> proceedure. The doctors who attacked him went on murdering their patients for
> another generation or two (20 to 40 years). I am amazed you are so ignorant  
of
> history! Have you never read anything about the American Civil War? Don't you
> realize that in 1865 sterilization and antiseptics were still unknown? By
> 1865, the U.S. Union Armies had the best medical treatment facilities in
> the world, but alas, Semmelweis had been long forgotten. I suggest you read
> any account of the Civil War, or of life in that era, or any encyclopedia
> account of the history of medicine.
>  
> Merriman, like most "skeptics" frequently makes offhand remarks about CF that
> are astounding incorrect and ignorant. Now we see that he is grossly
> ignorant about other subjects as well. He does not even remember the dates of
> the U.S. Civil War. Or he has never thought about the implications of what
> everyone in the U.S. learns as a schoolchild, and in books and movies galore.
>  
> - Jed

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


cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Implications of Miles results
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles results
Date: 26 Jun 1995 17:47:09 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <DAsF0D.41q@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

>-"As for my making rate calculations, I see no need to make the
>-estimates." 
>
>  OK.  Then why ask others to do so, Dick?

Sigh.  Just out of curiosity -- how many times do you need to have
this explained to you?  Actually, it's more than simple curiosity.  If
you would just tell me the number, I could use my editor to make that
many copies of the explanation all at once, and save myself some time
typing.  The reason that he asked you to do the calculation is that
*you* are the one making the claim that your hypothesis is relevant.
Therefore it is for *you* to demonstrate their relevance by doing the
requisite calculations.  (Once again, I note that you edited out the
part of his post where he explained a simple calculation you ought to
do and why.)

Do you understand yet, or do I have to explain it again?

>  Good questions, Dick.  However, Mossbauer is but an example and
>may not itself play a role.  Your comments are very interesting and
>when sufficient time becomes available, will consider them closely.

Moessabuer is an example of what?  An example of something you learned
in P-Chem?  As an example of "nuclear -- lattice interactions" it really
stinks, for reasons that have been explained to you by Dale Bass, Steven
Jones, Dick Blue, and me.  If it doesn't play a role (which is about the
most sensible thing you have said so far), then why bring it up at all?
If you cannot make some quantitative claim for its relevance, then you
are really much better off not invoking it, since to most people who
know what it is, your claiming that it has any relevance to "Solid-State
Fusion" is just plain silly.
--
					Richard Schultz

"What is this whacko attitude you people out here in Fusion Digest have?
What is the matter with you?  This place is a Goddamn Pirahna pool! Let's
have some patience, and some manners."
			--Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 14 Jan 1993
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Merriman wrong about Semmelweis
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong about Semmelweis
Date: 26 Jun 1995 17:44:56 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

(oops, ignor that previous post that included no extra text---finger
slipped)

In article <RE68m35.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> Frank Manning wrote:
>  
>     "In 1847, Ignaz Semmelweis got the idea that the washing of hands . . .
>     Even so, his theory aroused fierce opposition from entrenched authority,
>     and his career suffered badly."
>  
>  
> barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
>  
>     "..for awhile. As I recall, it caught on quite soon enough---because
>     it was so easy to demonstrate the effectiveness---and he lived to be
>     a recognized hero."
>  
> You recall wrong, Barry. I suggest you do your homework. Semmelweis was
> driven out of Vienna in disgrace. 

I could well be wrong at the specific individual, Semmelweis. However,
I was not too many months ago reading a history of medicine, and I 
recall the fellow described therein, credited with popularizing the
concept of cleanliness in hospitals, did win out in the long run.
While he indeed met intense resistance at first, He trimuphed in
the long run. 

> I am amazed you are so ignorant of
> history! 

I will look up the fellow I am thinking of.

>  
> Merriman, like most "skeptics" frequently makes offhand remarks about CF that
> are astounding incorrect and ignorant. Now we see that he is grossly
> ignorant about other subjects as well. He does not even remember the dates of
> the U.S. Civil War. 

You got me there. All I know is it was in the mid 1800's.

> everyone in the U.S. learns as a schoolchild, and in books and movies galore.
>  
> - Jed

That probabaly explains it: I dropped out of school in 9th grade, 
and I don't watch TV.


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


cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 / Bonnie Nestor /  Re: Merriman wrong about Semmelweis
     
Originally-From: mnj@ornl.gov (Bonnie Nestor)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong about Semmelweis
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 13:55:12 -0400
Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory

In article <RE68m35.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

> Frank Manning wrote:
>     "In 1847, Ignaz Semmelweis got the idea that the washing of hands . . .
>     Even so, his theory aroused fierce opposition from entrenched authority,
>     and his career suffered badly."
>  
> barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) 
>     "..for awhile. As I recall, it caught on quite soon enough---because
>     it was so easy to demonstrate the effectiveness---and he lived to be
>     a recognized hero."
>  
> You recall wrong, Barry. I suggest you do your homework. Semmelweis was
> driven out of Vienna in disgrace. He was never granted a license to practice
> medicine. He died a few years later from an infection following a medical
> proceedure. The doctors who attacked him went on murdering their patients for
> another generation or two (20 to 40 years). 

Asimov's Biographical Encyclopedia of Science and Technology (2nd rev.
ed., 1982) contains the following information:

"The incidence of childbed fever went down drastically following
Semmelweis's ruling [that doctors working under him must wash their hands
before touching a patient]; but when Hungary revolted (unsuccessfully)
against Austria in 1849, the Viennese doctors were able to call patriotism
to the aid of folly and forced their Hungarian annoyer out....Semmelweis
retired to a hospital in Budapest where he instituted his antiseptic
measures and there the incidence of childbed fever dropped to almost zero.
In July 1865 Semmelweis suffered a nervouse breakdown and after a trip to
Vienna was committed to a mental hospital there. Two weeks later he was
dead of an infection he had been subjected to when he had accidentally
wounded himself while working with a sick patient. Thus he died of
childbed fever himself, just a little too soon to see the principle of
antisepsis rise triumphant first in England under Lister (who freely
acknowledged Semmelweis's precedence), then in France under Pasteur, and
finally even among the foolish doctors of Vienna."

Lister began using carbolic acid during surgical procedures in 1867 and
was made a baronet in 1883. Pasteur, during the Franco-Prussian war (1868
or so), "brought all his prestige to bear on doctors (which was difficult
to do, for he had no medical degree and therefore no union card in their
business), forcing them to boil their instruments and steam their bandages
in order to kill germs...."

Asimov also notes, in the entry on Pasteur: "This 'germ theory of disease"
of Pasteur's was probably the greatest single medical discovery of all
time....men such as Henle had had the same notion but without the
necessary backing of observation and experiment. Others, such as
Semmelweis, fought disease successfully by chemical disinfection but did
not realize that the reason for the success was that dangerous germs were
being destroyed. For that reason their advances were abortive."

One of those others was Oliver Wendell Holmes (best known today as an
essayist and poet, and father of the Supreme Court justice of the same
name), about whom Asimov says: "In 1842... he discovered the
contagiousness of childbed fever, taking up much the same position that
Semmelweis was to take a few years later. Holmes had to withstand much
abuse for this, as Semmelweis would have to do, but Holmes was far more
fortunate for he lived to see himself justified."

Bonnie Nestor
mnj@ornl.gov
DISCLAIMER: I work at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, for Lockheed
Martin Energy Systems, which is under contract to the U.S. Department
of Energy -- but I don't speak for any of them, and they return
the favor.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmnj cudfnBonnie cudlnNestor cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 / Scott Little /  Re: Potapov device test discussion
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Potapov device test discussion
Date: 26 Jun 1995 18:26:24 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

In article <3smm9h$daf@netfs.dnd.ca>, wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) says:
>

>  If this device is supposedly used for heating buildings,
>  then the temperature range that you are using is much too
>  low. A realistic temperature for a hot water building heating
>  system would be at least 70 deg C. or more (non-pressurized).

Bill, I'm definitely going to take it up into that region.

>However, I would suggest using a servo (thermostatic) controlled
>auxillary resistive water heater element in the tank and an
>iso-thermal "null-balance" power input measurement technique
>to increase accuracy.  You could try the following:

One complication to this good suggestion is the fact that running the
P device requires the water to be circulated thru the pumping loop which
ALONE would greatly change the auxillary heater power required to maintain
constant temp.

I suppose I could remove the P device from the circuit, perform the
control run, then insert the P device and perform the active run and note
the aux heater power difference.  It might be hard to get the flow and
pressure to be identical between the two runs...and it would be necessary
since those two params significantly affect the energy delivered to the 
water by the pump.

I think I'll just press on with my present system looking mainly for 
unusual CHANGES in the measured efficiency which should occur if I 
manage to coax this thing into the reported excess energy regime.

Regarding Jed's comments about my tests thus far, It's true that I
didn't read the whole literature package but I did read the recommended
pressure and flow rate specifications for the Yusmar-2 and they are as
I stated in the preliminary report.  In essence I have a radiator in my
system and one thing I'm going to experiment with is a restriction in the
outlet line as if the P device were feeding a long piping system.

I'm also planning to try bubbling Ar gas, air, and possibly He into the
suction line to explore some SL phenomena parameters. I'll also try cold
water in which SL is reportedly increased greatly.

I will also study the rest of the literature to see what Jed's talking
about.  Thanks Jed.


cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 /  matt@godzilla. /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: matt@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: 26 Jun 1995 18:55:09 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley

In article <singtech-2506951301330001@ip-salem2-17.teleport.com>
singtech@teleport.com (C. Cagle) writes:


> In article <MATT.95Jun24134840@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU>,
> matt@physics.berkeley.edu wrote:

> > Nothing could be further from the truth than to say that relativity
> > was slowly and reluctantly accepted.
> > --
> > Matt Austern                                  matt@physics.berkeley.edu
> > http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt
> 
> Matt you are so expert at building straw men that you ought to go into the
> doll making business.  Maybe it all phased through in a few short years
> because it came upon some ground wherein nothing else was growing.  

Maybe so.  Or maybe it was accepted so quickly because it was a
coherent theory, it was correct, and physicists realized very quickly
that it was correct.  I know more about physics than about agriculture,
so I think I'll not comment on analogies about ground and plant growth;
I don't quite understand what those analogies mean.

I'm also not quite sure what the point of the "straw man" accusation
is.  Normally, in rhetoric, I understand a "straw man" to be an attack
on an argument that nobody actually made.  That's not what's going on
here, though.  As you can clearly see by reading the articles in the
References field, I was responding to someone who claimed that
relativity was initially ridiculed and was only grudgingly accepted.
How is it a "straw man" to show the historical evidence that this was
false?  Relativity was not ridiculed by the scientific establishment:
it was accepted extraordinarily quickly and its discoverer was given a
number of unprecedented honors.

Have there ever been any discoveries that were initially ridiculed by
the scientific community and were later recognized to be
breakthroughs?  Maybe.  If there are any, though, they're a lot rarer
than most non-scientists think.  I'm not familiar with any in my own
field (physics), but maybe there are some.  In geology, plate
tectonics might be a valid example.
--
Matt Austern				      matt@physics.berkeley.edu
http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmatt cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 / mitchell swartz /  There is only ONE Richard Schultz
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: There is only ONE Richard Schultz
Subject: Re: Are there two Mitchell Swartzes?
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 18:55:39 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <3smrb5$lb1@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Are there two Mitchell Swartzes?
schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
from University of California, Berkeley continues his
frenetic vaporcomments.  No wonder serious people
working in this field tend to ignore Schultz.

 In his latest post, he notes that any post made in response to
his own "mendacity" makes one "look like a buffoon."

 ---- >  after Websters
     mendacious   --   given to deception or falsehood,
                       dishonest

 Perhaps. 
 But at least the record is kept somewhat clean of Schultz's
near-perpetual mendaciousness.  

 - rs  "In case anyone was wondering what the quotation from me
 - rs  he keeps quoting was all about, I wrote it in response to
 - rs  someone else's making a comment about Idaho, and I
 - rs  responded with a quip that I heard when I lived in Utah."

  Schultz' sexism, and fawning over sheep, appears to be as
inappropriate as many of his "comments" are to science. 
The quote is just another example of his truly unique behavior
and a window into his "mind".

  ==========================================
"I think you're thinking of Wyoming, where the men are men, 
the women are men, and the sheep are scared."
      [Richard Schultz, 22 Jun 1995; 
          <3scoir$m73@agate.berkeley.edu>]


cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 / Aaron Prunkard /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: shaman@gatecoms.gatecom.com (Aaron Prunkard)
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: The Farce of Physics
Date: 26 Jun 1995 19:22:53 GMT
Organization: Gateway Communications Inc.

Conrad (conrad@skid.ps.uci.edu) wrote:
: wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace) writes:

: [snip]
: >   Most physicists agree that there is a wave particle problem with 
: >regard to light.

: What do you mean?  Real subatomic particles have measured point-like and
: wave-like properties that are well described by quantum mechanics.  This
: is often referred to as the wave/particle duality, but I do not know of
: any physicist who considers this to be a "problem".

: >To date my 1969 Venus radar paper is the only published 
: >objective comparative analysis of the data regarding both models.  I was 
: >forced to use the sparse published 1961 Venus radar data and as my book 
: >shows, I was never able to get a more complete set of data from Shapiro 
: >or anyone else.  The early data was reported to be accurate to around 1.5 
: >km while the current one way signal transit time data from orbiting 
: >spacecraft is reported to be accurate to around 1.5 m and the velocities 
: >involved are much higher and in the case of the Venus Magellan graft have 
: >periods of around 90 min. as opposed to 24 hrs.  In the case of the 
: >early radar data the differences in the 2 theories was around 200 km 
: >while in the case of the Magellan craft it would be about 3500 km.  The 
: >wrong model would show the craft to be in an impossible elliptical orbit 
: >while the correct one would show it in its proper nearly circular orbit 
: >as determined by its surface radar data.  The one way signal transit 
: >times would also make it possible to determine the Earth's motion through 
: >the solid vacuum/space/ether if it existed.  

: JPL does the navigation for all interplanetary spacecraft including
: Magellan.  They use algorithms based on general relativity, they have
: reported no discrepancies, and they are generating beautiful maps of
: Venus with the Magellan data.  How could they possibly achieve this,
: if their determination of Magellan's position was 3500 km in error?!?

: >I have a simple test to 
: >determine if a physicist is a legitimate scientist.  If they call for NASA 
: >to make a complete objective analysis with regard to both models, I 
: >consider them to be true scientists.  If they don't they are  
: >pathological scientists or politicians.  Until this test is done, modern 
: >physics will remain a farce and does not deserve to be funded by the 
: >Federal Government!

: I have not been able to find your 1969 paper, but I suspect that your
: calculation of the "standard" interpretation of the data does not rely
: on GR.  If your interpretation of "standard" physics is incorrect, why
: should I support your call to compare your two models?
: --
:  //===============================\\
: ||  Conrad, conrad@hepxvt.uci.edu  ||
: ||   You have to decide to live.   ||
:  \\===============================//


   Har har har.  The F.G. will only fund something if they're sure that 
it will produce the answer it wants.  If there is to be advances in 
physics or any other field, it won't come from a gov't-funded program 
(unless of course, Uncle Sam feels that we're "ready" for a change).  If 
the gov't were to support research and not have very strict rules about 
how the research turned out, someone might stumble upon something that 
threatens the static reality that's been set up for us.


cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenshaman cudfnAaron cudlnPrunkard cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: 26 Jun 1995 19:56:59 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <MATT.95Jun26115509@godzilla.eecs.berkeley.edu>,
 <matt@physics.berkeley.edu> wrote:

>Relativity was not ridiculed by the scientific establishment:
>it was accepted extraordinarily quickly and its discoverer was given a
>number of unprecedented honors.

Don't forget that General Relativity was accepted within a couple of
years of its first publication because it had a much greater explanatory
power than Newtonian gravitation.  Also because it was more "aesthetically"
pleasing (e.g. equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass).  As
I recall, the first "proof" of General Relativity (bending of light
around the sun) actually isn't as good a proof as was claimed at the time,
that the true uncertainty of the experiment allowed for the Newtonian 
prediction to be correct.  Amusingly enough (considering a thread that
one would have though would be unrelated to this one) one of the more 
interesting examples of experimental evidence for General Relativity 
involves Moessabauer spectroscopy.  Consult Mitchell Swartz for the 
details.
--
					Richard Schultz
             "an optimist is a guy
              that has never had
              much experience"
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.25 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Potapov device test discussion
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Potapov device test discussion
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 18:55 -0500 (EST)

little@eden.com (Scott Little) writes:
 
-> Feel free to post questions about any aspect of the tests I
-> have done.  I will endeavor to answer all inquiries.
 
Is the pump running at the normal speed?  I believe that Russia uses 50 Hz and
of course we use 60Hz, so I would expect the pump to be running 20% faster
than normal in your setup.  If we are looking at a resonance condition, or a
condition where reduced water pressure and increased RPM would cause the water
to decouple from the rotor due to centrifical force, this could cause a
significant shift in the operation.
 
                                                        Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 / Mahipal Virdy /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: virdy@pogo.den.mmc.com (Mahipal Singh Virdy)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 19:25:13 GMT
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics

In article <singtech-2506951314030001@ip-salem2-17.teleport.com>,
C. Cagle <singtech@teleport.com> wrote:
>In article <3si7pu$clg@martha.utk.edu>, mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew
>Kennel) wrote:
>
>> Is there an insufficiency with the current state of knowledge? 
>
>That question there says it all.  
>
>To even ask it automatically identifies you not as part of the solution,
>but as part of the problem.
>
>-- 
>C. Cagle
>CTO
>Singularity Technologies, Inc.
>singtech@teleport.com
>
>"It is dangerous to be right in
> matters on which the established
> authorities are wrong."
>
>Voltaire

It's moments like this that makes surfing sci.physics deLIGHTful... ;-)

Mahipal,
|meforce>

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenvirdy cudfnMahipal cudlnVirdy cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 / Cary Jamison /  Re: Potapov device test discussion
     
Originally-From: cary@svl.trw.com (Cary Jamison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Potapov device test discussion
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 13:46:59 +0900
Organization: TRW ASG

In article <3sjvdt$pgq@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, little@eden.com (Scott
Little) wrote:

> 
> OK SPFers, here's your chance to interact with the testing
> of the Potapov device. I posted the preliminary report
> (after only three tests) mainly to give y'all a chance to
> get involved. I'm definitely not finished testing this
> thing.

Wow, surprise!  One minute I'm reading Dieter's post about not being able
to contact Potapov to obtain a device for Scott, and the next minute I'm
reading Scott's post about already testing it!  Obviously Scott had some
better contacts than Dieter.

Keep up the good work!

BTW - was there a reason you didn't conduct your initial test at the
requested 71 PSI?  That's the obvious first place to look.

-- 
Cary Jamison
cary@svl.trw.com
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudencary cudfnCary cudlnJamison cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 / Richard Schultz /  If he only had a brain
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: If he only had a brain
Date: 26 Jun 1995 21:24:06 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <DAsn8r.9n6@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
>  In Message-ID: <3smrb5$lb1@agate.berkeley.edu>
>Subject: Re: Are there two Mitchell Swartzes?
>schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
>from University of California, Berkeley continues his
>frenetic vaporcomments.  No wonder serious people
>working in this field tend to ignore Schultz.

You know, if you would just once -- just once include a comment of
substance, we might actually get somewhere.  To encourage you to do
so, I will repeat a serious question that has been asked of you
at least four times.  In a previous post, you listed among the factors
that influence CF reaction products "coherence length."  I am not
familiar with the term "coherence length" in this context.  Could you
please explain what it means when one is talking about Cold Fusion?
Thank you.  

>  Schultz' sexism, and fawning over sheep, appears to be as
>inappropriate as many of his "comments" are to science. 

So tell me, is challenging another poster's manhood, as in asking
"are you man enough to answer these questions", appropriate
to science?  If so, how?  If not, why not?

Let me rephrase:  if it is appropriate, then perhaps you can tell
us why *you* are not man enough to send me either a copy of
your publication list or enough information so that I can find it
myself?  Or are you afraid that your claims about its content will
turn out to be, let us say, inflated?  If it's not appropriate, then
replace the words "are not man enough" with "refuse".

>The quote is just another example of his truly unique behavior
>and a window into his "mind".

Instead of finding examples of my so-called unique behavior, why
don't you simply address any of the substantive issues I have
raised, either the recent ones, or the ones from several months ago,
or the ones from several years ago?  It would probably be a better
use of your time.

For instance:  how many conferences have you been involved with 
programming?  That can't take too long to calculate.

Or how about this:  how much energy is deposited to the lattice in
a Moessbauer transition?  How much goes to the gamma ray?

Or how about this:  what influence upon the *lifetime* of the Fe*
excited state does the lattice have in Moessbauer spectroscopy, and
how does this extrapolate to setting an upper limit on the lifetime
of the He* state in a putative "Moessbauer like" CF process?

Or how about this:  Radioactive decays in lattices such as those of
U and Th are MeV processes that are invariably accompanied by MeV
energetic particles or photons or both.  What mechanism would suppress
such emissions in the case of (and *only* in the case of) He* in a
Pd lattice?

Or how about this:  what is the difference between a "virtual photon"
and a "real photon"?

Just to point out where those last four came from.  Earlier, Swartz claimed
that he had already answered all of the issues about his Moessbauer
Hypothesis.  I had disagreed.  To check out who war correct, I went
to the s.p.f. archive at sunsite.unc.edu, which I recommend highly for
people who want cheap entertainment.  I looked for keywords "Mossbauer"
(Swartz's preferred spelling) and "Moessbauer" (my preferred spelling).
Swartz's memory of when this discussion took place was fuzzy, but close
enough:  it was toward the end of 1993, continuing until March 1994.
Sartz's last posts on the subject date from March and April 1994.  All
of the above four issues were raised (mostly by Dale Bass and Steven Jones).
And Swartz did not provide a coherent response to any of them.  He
did try to address Jones's point about limitations on the dissipation of
energy imposed by the requirments of special relativity, and demonstrated
an utter failure to understand what Jones was talking about.  True to
form, though, he did take one statement of Jones out of context and
try to use it to prove that Jones doesn't know anything about physics.
Funny that.  In any case, Swartz did not refute a single one of these
serious objections to his hypothesis, as anyone who looks through the
archive can easily determine.

He has the opportunity to do so now, and I would hope that he would
avail himself of it.  After all, he (or his Doppelgaenger) wouldn't
want to appear (dare I say it) mendacious.
--
					Richard Schultz

"French bread makes very good skis" 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: Implications of Miles result
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles result
Date: 26 Jun 1995 19:27:45 GMT
Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here.

Robin van Spaandonk (rvanspaa@netspace.net.au) wrote:

: How this for a wild suggestion:

: Two deuterium nuclei by chance come close enough so that they are just
: at the point where the attraction due to nuclear forces balances the
: repulsion due to electrical forces, combined with the centrifugal
: force as a result of their "orbiting" around their common centre of
: gravity. It is highly unlikely that such a system will long survive.
: Either it flies apart, or it collapses. If we just look at the cases
: in which it collapses, then I suspect that the time needed for
: collapse would be related to the angular momentum of the particles.

Yes indeed that is correct; the details of nuclear reactions depend
on intrinsic spin and relative angular momentum of the reacting particles,
but considered in the quantum sense. 

:  In
: a collapsing system, the particles are accelerated in an electrical
: field, and should radiate photons as they collapse. Perhaps a set of
: conditions can be found wherein by the time the collapse is complete,
: allmost all of the energy derived from the nuclear attractive forces,
: has been radiated away as many low energy photons. 

That doesn't work.  To radiate "low energy photons", they have to be low
frequency of course. You have to *slowly* move electrical charges around.
But the nuclear reactions happen very very fast; that means the kind of
photons you will emit are high frequency ones.  

I know this is a classical notion; not quite correct for quanta but
the general physical principle applies:  fast means high frequency.

: (Each at a different frequency, and following a nice progression).
: Alternatively, but also analogously, consider a situation in which two
: particles collide, with sufficient energy to "bounce" off one another,
: but not sufficient to reach "escape velocity". They will continue to
: bounce in ever smaller "bounces" as they radiate photons away,
: eventually merging.
: Since QM has never been my strong point, please let me know if such
: scenarios are automatically excluded.

Well they are excluded really because experiments show that once the
interacting nucleons get close enough the strong force takes over, rearranges
quarks really fast, and generates reaction products that have far too much
energy to remain bound to the system.  Once the strong force gets its
claws in to the particles you can't hold it back.

: I do realize that this may not quite be what everyone is expecting,
: however it might provide a mechanism that fits the "observations".

: Regards,

: Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@netspace.net.au>

cheers
Matt
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 / Bill Page /  Re: Potapov device test discussion
     
Originally-From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Potapov device test discussion
Date: 26 Jun 1995 21:37:15 GMT
Organization: Daneliuk & Page

In article <3smu4g$n0d@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, little@eden.com (Scott Little) says:
>
>In article <3smm9h$daf@netfs.dnd.ca>, wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) says:
>>
>>However, I would suggest using a servo (thermostatic) controlled
>>auxillary resistive water heater element in the tank and an
>>iso-thermal "null-balance" power input measurement technique
>>to increase accuracy.  You could try the following:
>
>One complication to this good suggestion is the fact that running the
>P device requires the water to be circulated thru the pumping loop which
>ALONE would greatly change the auxillary heater power required to maintain
>constant temp.
>

You are certainly right about this complication in your current design. 
But may I make a further suggestion? For this reason and also several
others, I think it might be desirable to separate the "working fluid"
of the system from the heat reservoir. In other words, why not use
a fairly short closed loop from the output of the Potapov device
back to the pump. Run the entire closed loop (including the pump and
the Potapov device) inside the heat reservoir (barrel) to exchange the
heat, but not the fluid. Like this:


   |       water level        |
   |--------------------------|
   |                          |
   |  P.device <----- Pump<---|---------- pump
   |     |             /|\    |           power (Pp)
   |     |              |     |
   |     |   constant   |     |
   |     |    water     |     |  thermostat
   |     |    temp.     |   T-|---------
   |     |              |     |         |
   |     |              |     |         |
   |      \/\/\/\/\/\/\/      |        \|/
   |         ========---------|------ heater
   |     \-----stir-----\     |       power (delta Ph)
    ---------------------------

                       delta Ph > Pp ?


The heat generated by the pump as well as the Potapov device are
both added to the reservoir, so you don't have to worry about the
mechanical efficiency of the pump motor. Of course, you would
probably want to instrument the temperature and pressure of the
working fluid in the loop.

Now you should be able to use the resistive heater and thermostat
to maintain a constant temperature and not expect any significant
change in operating mode when the P.device is running.

By operating the device in a closed loop, you can have better control
over the pressure and temperature of the working fluid. You can also
use less total working fluid, so you can take greater care in
controlling the purity of the water (e.g. use distilled water, or
even heavy water ($$)) and any special additives (anti-oxidants etc.)
that you might want to add. In spite of what may have been claimed by
the manufactures of the device, it is hard to believe that *if* this
device does produce does excess heat, that unknown contaminants in the
water might not have a big influence on the magnitude of the effect.

Also, the Potapov device, as you've described it, seems as if it may
be intended to produce extreme turbulence in the fluid flow. Many
turbulent effects depend critically on fluid flow rates, so I think
you should be more careful to duplicate the manufacturer's specification
for pressure and flow rates as exactly as possible.

I was very surprized to see that the Potapov device is a completely
"passive" device, depending on its energy input only from the force of
the water from the pump. It is claimed by the manufactures, I presume,
that it *is* the device which generates the excess heat - not the heat
added to the water by the pump? This is in direct contrast to the Griggs
device which actively "agitates" the fluid by a specially designed
rotor, quite independently of the low power pump which circulates
the water through the unit.

Note that Griggs claims (or perhaps it was Jed) the effect that he
measures "turns on" only at very specific flow rates and working
conditions and that you can tell by the "sound" and the motor torque
when the effect "kicks in". Do the manufacturers of the Potapov device
give you any similar clues or rules of thumb to tell you when
their device is working?

This raises a question for you: When the device is operating, is there
any indication of "sonic" effects, i.e. does it make a loud noise?
Griggs seems to think that his device depends on ultrasonic stimulation
of the working fluid. Is there any similar claim for the Potapov
device? Is that why you say you are interested in possible sono-
luminescence "paramters"?

Cheers,
Bill Page.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenwspage cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 / Edward Lewis /  Tornadoes
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tornadoes
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 22:48:28 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago


Dec. 7, 1993
posted on Oct. 28, 1994

Luminous Tornadoes and Other Plasmoids

	During the past 1 3/4 years I've been posting articles about
ball lightning, plasmoids, EVs, and cold fusion on sci.physics.fusion
newsgroup. This is a version of one that I posted last winter.  Does
anyone have any reports about anomalous atmospheric phenomena?

        People have often seen bright or luminous tornadoes.
According to prior research, a large percentage of tornadoes are
bright or glowing, and people have experienced that some are quite hot.
(see B. Vonnegut and J. R. Weyer, "Luminous Phenomena Accompanying
Tornadoes," WEATHERWISE, 19-2 (Apr. 1966), 66-68. and B. Vonnegut and
J. R. Weyer, "Luminous Phenomena in Nocturnal Tornadoes, SCIENCE,
(1966), 1213-1220.)

        Storms on the Earth are probably an atmospheric manifestation
of earth plasmoid activity, according to Tesla's experience of
electricity in the ground that accompanied a storm.  Even clouds may
be such a manifestation.  Clouds seem to be plasmoid phenomena.  And
clouds may convert to ball lightning.  People have seen clouds which
contained a glowing spot, and in one case it is fairly documented that
a cloud with a glowing spot produced a tornado.

        Tornadoes are a locus for the conversion of substance
to light and electricity.  The power of tornadoes is anomalously high.
People have seen lightning from a large area converge to the area of a
cyclone, but this seems to only be part of the reason for the power.
People have seen tornadoes that had parts that were so bright that
they described the phenomena as being too bright to look at though the
tornadoes were quite a ways away; one person described tornadoes that
lit up the surroundings so that it was as if the direct sun was
shining during a period of time.  In one case, a thermometer measured
that the temperature of the air increased by about 20 degrees during
the passage of a tornado.

        I would say that tornadoes and ball lightning are the same
type of phenomena, though ball lightning is smaller.  I classify both
ball lightning and tornadoes, storms, clouds, and other phenomena as
kinds of a phenomena that I call plasmoid phenomena.  Galaxies and
atoms are other types of this kind of phenomena, according to my
theory.

        I would say that the cold fusion phenomena is a plasmoid
phenomena.  People have produced many types of phenomena including
traces and holes and tunnels that are similar to those produced by
plasmoid phenomena.  I would say that tiny plasmoids like ball
lightning are being produced. At the ICCF4, Matsumoto reported about
tiny ball lightning in his CF apparatus.  I suggest that people read
his articles in FUSION TECHNOLOGY.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Merriman wrong about Semmelweis
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong about Semmelweis
Date: 26 Jun 1995 23:49:16 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <mnj-2606951355120001@mnj.cmo.ornl.gov> mnj@ornl.gov (Bonnie Nestor)  
writes:
> In article <RE68m35.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
> 
> >  
> > You recall wrong, Barry. I suggest you do your homework. Semmelweis was
> > driven out of Vienna in disgrace. He was never granted a license to  
practice
> > medicine. He died a few years later from an infection following a medical
> > proceedure. The doctors who attacked him went on murdering their patients  
for
> > another generation or two (20 to 40 years). 
> 
> Asimov's Biographical Encyclopedia of Science and Technology (2nd rev.
> ed., 1982) contains the following information:
> 
> "The incidence of childbed fever went down drastically following
> Semmelweis's ruling [that doctors working under him must wash their hands
> before touching a patient]; 

Thanks, Bonnie, for providing a little counter-information to quell
Jed's typical beligerant attack. I was probably thinking of Lister. 

To cut to the chase: the real point here is: yes, some folks with 
correct ideas were thwarted by the resistance of their times, but
in the end the correct ideas triumphed, because they did indeed work
quite well.

The message relevant to cold fusion is that CF will not be 
crushed by conventional scientific resistance if there is
really anything to it. Far from it, I think it is being pursued
rather vigorously at the moment (By the end of the japanese
funcing from MITI, it will probably have recieved > $50 million
in funding input, worldwide. Is that not enough for a supposed table
top experiment??)






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


cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.27 / Dick Jackson /  Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares?
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares?
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 00:26:16 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea

In article <5+y-WDD.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>Dick Jackson <jackson@soldev.tti.com> writes:
>>
>>Prediction: it will turn out that these "companies" (reputed to be
>>selling hudreds or thousands of energy gain machines) are somehow
>>unreachable or, if reachable, cannot actually supply a named party
>>with such a machine.
... deleted
>As it happens, the guess is wrong. I have had no trouble contacting these
>companies. They are quite reachable. Hydrodynamics is in Rome, Georgia not
>far from where I live. Vizor is in Moldavia. I will grant it is difficult
>to reach by phone, but other methods work fine, and they have been quite
>responsive and helpful so far. I cannot yet confirm that the machine works
>the way they claim, however.

Good. So far. Would you please post or mail me details about how to
contact Hydro and Vizor. My apologies if you have posted already -
I must have missed it if so.

Sorry about slowness of response, our net feed is a week behind.

Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Potapov device test (preliminary)
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Potapov device test (preliminary)
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 95 20:43:04 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Another problem here is that you got yourself a power company billing meter.
That's fine, but it shows apparent power. You need to know the power factor
to compute real power. I'll bet if you use a better meter to measure PF, you
will see that you are a tad over unity already. Maybe 10 or 20%. That's
no big deal compared to what the Yusmar will give you when you set it up
right.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.27 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Merriman wrong about Semmelweis
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong about Semmelweis
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong about Semmelweis
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 00:52:57 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


 In Message-ID: <3snh1s$9r3@soenews.ucsd.edu>
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong about Semmelweis
barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:

> "The incidence of childbed fever went down drastically following
> Semmelweis's ruling [that doctors working under him must wash their hands
> before touching a patient]; 
    [@mnj.cmo.ornl.gov> mnj@ornl.gov (Bonnie Nestor) ]

= "Thanks, Bonnie, for providing a little counter-information to quell
=Jed's typical beligerant attack. I was probably thinking of Lister."

There are two important issues here.
First,  Ignaz Semmelweis (1818-1865) identified these methods of aseptic
technique using statistics.  On the obstetric wards,
the mortality per year where med students were was 10-20%,
mainly due to puerperal fever.  Where there were midwives
this was only 3%.  The students came directly from the autopsy rooms.
The students did not wash their hands.

Semmelweis had the students scrum hands with soap and water, and
chlorinated lime solution after each exam.  The death rates fell
to 1.2%!    His statistical analysis had detected the origin of sepsis.

Second, in return for his discovery,
the chief of staff condemned him, lowered his rank, and limited his
privileges.  His paper was reported to the Medical Society in 
Vienna where he then received virulent attacks (see "Medicine"
 by A. Lyon, for example of the secondary attacks.)

    Ten years after his discovery he completed his text
on this matter, but the fact is that the medical world remained indifferent
and oblivious to his discovery even then.  Ironically,
he died in an asylum, in 1865 of a blood infection identical to
those he prevented.

   Best wishes.
   Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)




cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.27 / A Plutonium /  10 billion spent on hot fusion? Instead divide it three ways
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: 10 billion spent on hot fusion? Instead divide it three ways
Date: 27 Jun 1995 00:07:46 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

   A prudent person would review the govt. money allocated for physics
fusion. How much govt money was spent on plasma hot fusion last year?
How much govt money was spent on inertial confinement fusion last year?
How much govt money was spent on cold fusion last year?

   It is worldwide proof that sonoluminescence exists. Is
sonoluminescence cold fusion? Is sonoluminescence inertial confinement
of  a collapsing sound wave? Is Cold Fusion merely sonoluminescence
replaced by a collapsing electrical wave? Highly likely. If so then
most reasonably the govt allocation of money spent on fusion should
thus go this way. BTW how much was spent altogether for 1994?

  1/4 of the allocation spent on plasma hot fusion, because we should
not abandon it until we have a clear cut winner, and even if we do have
a clear cut winner say cold fusion then it is wise to keep it until a
fusion reactor by the victor is operational.

  1/4 spent on inertial confinement type of fusion, be it lasers
(shiva) or others

  1/4 spent on sonoluminescence to understand this science more fully

  1/4 spent on cold fusion under the assumption that it is probably
sonoluminescence by electric waves and is inertial confinement.


  This is a very good allocation because the thrust is that 3/4 of the
moneys are spent on inertial confinement. This makes logical sense
also, because the bugaboo of fusion is to *control* the science.
Inertial confinement is control all along the way. Whereas plasma hot
fusion is a wishing for control and not even theory can guarantee
control. 
  So then, what I have outlined above is how the govt moneys should be
spent in the quest for fusion. Obviously hot plasma fusion has taken
the lion's share of the funds. This is wasteful and dopish. Fusion is a
science for *control* and to try to engineer both control and fusion is
a two fold gamble. Inertial confinement on the other hand has the
control already built into it, and all that inertial confinement needs
to win is to engineer the fusion itself.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.27 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Barry Merriman is irrational and unscientific
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Barry Merriman is irrational and unscientific
Date: 27 Jun 1995 01:13:20 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <21cenlogic-2606951027460001@199.172.8.177> 21cenlogic@i-link.net  
(Mitchell Jones) writes:
> In article <3saphc$kts@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry
> Merriman) wrote:

> > ...figuring out
> > the nature of this reduced drag mode could be quite chanllenging.
> > It is much less challenging to simple DO AN EXPERIMENT WHICH 
> > MEASURES OR BOUNDS THE HEAT STORED IN THE DEVICE PRIOR TO 
> > EXCESS HEAT STEAM MODE OPERATION.
> 

> As for further experimentation with the Griggs
> device, I really don't see the point. Now that the design flaw has been
> clearly identified, there is no mystery to be investigated. Of course, if
> further runs are done, I suppose it will be instructive to analyze them as
> well. One thing is very clear: if Griggs modifies his experimental design,
> the new design must measure rotor r.p.m., and must hold it constant during
> phase two.--Mitchell Jones}***


Ok, I appreciate your recent points, and I agree you provide a
reasonably compelling scenario by which the Griggs device could be
made to store heat in warmup phase 1 and release it in measurement
phase 2.

However, one still does not need to abandon further experiments or
monitor rotor speed to correct these defects in the initial 
experimental design---it is still entirely sufficient to simply
measure the electrical power put in by the motor (trivial, since
the equipment is already in place) and the power that comes out
in the hot steam (also trivial, since this is like phase 2) during the
warmpu phase 1, to provide a reasonably tight bound on the heat
stored in the device. Regardless of what the rotor is doing, this
will close the hole in the energy balance and allow a determination 
of whether excess energy is produced...No?

Anyway, I stand by my own hesitation about making much of a theory
about the way in which heat is stored/released from the 
rotor, and the drag is reduced/increased. HOWEVER, I agree that
if one wants to make a conjecture about it, yours is reasonable, and
so at least provides a simple plasusability argument. (But if it
were found that rotor speed did not vary, I would still not
say that rules out stored heat...)









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


cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 / Mike Jamison /  Re: Fusion through electron-beam inertial confinement???
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion through electron-beam inertial confinement???
Date: 26 Jun 1995 22:54 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <3sfv94$nim@martha.utk.edu>, mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu
(Matthew Kennel) writes...
>Arthur H Kerschen (ahk@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu) wrote:

[snipped e-beam fusion discussion]
> 
>THe only advantage to using e-beams vs lasers is that they might
>be more energy efficient compared to the precise but inefficient (2%) lasers.

I think those lasers are maybe 0.2% efficient, Matt - or maybe they're even
worse than that.

Remember, CO2 lasers are about 10% to possibly 20% efficient, He-Ne lasers
are lousy, etc.  About the only thing close to a CO2 laser is the solid state
diode laser, but they're low power, relatively speaking.

Maybe Dr. Seigman can shed more light on this...
> 
>That means your plant will cost less and you'll be closer to breakeven from
>the get-go.

Sounds right - and electrons are pretty easy to accelerate to near light
speed.  Presumably easier to manipulate, too.

> 
>I guess that fast high-Z nuclei would be much more efficient at depositing
>energy than e-beams.
> 
If you're just worried about making X-Rays, I'm not so sure about this.

>cheers
>Matt


Mike Jamison


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

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.27 / Bill Rowe /  Re: Potapov device test discussion
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Potapov device test discussion
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 04:09:18 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

It seems to me the efficiency Scott computed is the overall system
efficiency not the efficiency of the Popov device.

First, it could be assumed the pump adds no thermal energy to the system.
Then the mechanical energy for both test 1 and test 2 is 2.01 MJ and .80
MJ for test 3. Here I have computed the mechanical energy as pressure
times volume. I used Scott's stated pressure of 60 psi. For test 1 and 2,
I computed the volume as 106 gallons/minute times 727 seconds. I assumed
the same pump speed for test 3 and estimated the time as (40/100)*727 =
290.8 seconds. This results in the following
estimates                       

               Test 1  Test 2  Test 3
pump input      3.89    3.89    1.56  MJ
device input    2.01    2.01    0.80  MJ
total ouput     3.03    2.99    1.27  MJ

Efficiencies                                
pump            52%     52%      52%
system          78%     77%      82%
device         151%    149%     158%

This results in an overunity estimate for the Popov device and a much
lower pump efficiency than specified. Also, since this assumes no heating
of the water by the pump it should be an upper bound for the efficiency of
the Popov device

The alternate assumption is the pump efficiency is 85% as specified and
the pump also heats the water. This would result in the following

               Test 1  Test 2  Test 3
pump input      5.35    5.35    5.35  KW
pump output     4.55    4.55    4.55  KW
sytem ouput     4.17    4.11    4.37  KW
pump mech out   2.77    2.77    2.77  KW
pump heating    1.78    1.78    1.78  KW
device heating  2.39    2.33    2.59  KW
pump delta T      64      64      64  mK
device delta T    85      83      92  mK

Efficiencies                                
sytem            78%     77%      82%                 
device           86%     84%      94%                 

I converted the numbers to KW in order to facilitate an estimate of the
temperature difference between input and output of the device and pump
(delta T) in milliKelvins.

I think there are a couple of interesting aspects to the second estimate.
First, it appears the pump adds nearly as much heat to the water as the
Popov device. Second, I would have thought a manufacturer's efficiency
rating for a pump would be computed as the total mechanical energy out
divided by the total energy consumed. However, this doesn't seem to be the
case given Scott's reported data.
-- 
William Rowe                                                   browe@netcom.com
MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.27 / Scott Little /  Re: Potapov device test discussion
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Potapov device test discussion
Date: 27 Jun 1995 04:40:03 GMT
Organization: EarthTech International

In article <3sn9ab$ni1@netfs.dnd.ca>, wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) says:

<snip a lot of good stuff>

>By operating the device in a closed loop, you can have better control
>over the pressure and temperature of the working fluid. 

Bill, you're right on track with these suggestions, and it may come down
to something like this in the end.  For starters, however, I'm going to try
a bunch more tests with my present rig because I think I can detect evidence
of anomalous behaviour well enough.  For example, today I performed back-to-
back runs until my water reservoir was at nearly 65 degrees C.  The results
showed a steadily declining efficiency, consistent with ordinary heating of
the water and the increasing losses that would naturally accompany the higher
delta-T between my fluid and ambient.

I am also experimenting with flow and pressure using restrictions in the P
device outlet. I'm trying to get to 71 psi, which is plainly printed in my
copy of the literature as the correct pressure (although Jed says I am WAY
too low on pressure!).

The device does make noise when it is operating...sort of a glitchy noise 
that I assume is the cavitation inside the vortex chamber.  Yes, Bill, I'm
thinking that, if it does "work", the energy producing phenomena will have to
do with sonoluminescence and the Casimir collapse of bubbles with resulting
extraction of energy from the ZPF.

Jed also said that my power meter measures only apparent power, not correcting
for phase angle.  Jed, that is incorrect.  The standard watthour meter in
common usage throughout the world measures watthours not VAhours.  If you
don't believe me, ask your local electric utility.

>Note that Griggs claims (or perhaps it was Jed) the effect that he
>measures "turns on" only at very specific flow rates and working
>conditions and that you can tell by the "sound" and the motor torque
>when the effect "kicks in".

When I saw the Griggs device at his facility, I did not observe this
"turn-on" threshold and Griggs did not mention it to me.  I did note that,
when he reduces the feed so that the device produces steam, there is a noisy
transition from completely-full-of-water to partly-water/partly-steam which
one would, of course, expect.

>Do the manufacturers of the Potapov device
>give you any similar clues or rules of thumb to tell you when
>their device is working?

Good question.  I'm having a detailed xlation of the instructions done right
away.  I only gleaned out the recommended pressure and flow and Jed seems to
think that I missed a bunch of stuff.  I'll let you know.

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.27 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 08:57:45 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On 26 Jun 1995 matt@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU wrote:

[...] 
> Have there ever been any discoveries that were initially ridiculed by
> the scientific community and were later recognized to be
> breakthroughs?  Maybe.  If there are any, though, they're a lot rarer
> than most non-scientists think.  I'm not familiar with any in my own
> field (physics), but maybe there are some.  In geology, plate
> tectonics might be a valid example.

Surely You're Joking, Mr. Austern? Indeed, plate tectonics is an example,
in fact one of many. How about Darwin, Einstein, etc? I don't want to use
up working time thinking up examples. My friend and former teacher H.H. Bauer
has written several papers on his idea of the resistance of scientists to
new ideas. There is, for any fairly radical new idea, a spectrum from mild
annoyance to open aggressive refusal to accept. Often, there is good reason
to hold back. SJ Gould likes to point out that in the framework of the time
of such new ideas, opposition is often reasonable. E.g. plate tectonics was
not very well supported when first suggested. There are other examples.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.27 / Mark Mallory /  Re: Potapov device test (preliminary)
     
Originally-From: mmallory@netcom.com (Mark Mallory)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Potapov device test (preliminary)
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 06:38:21 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: Another problem here is that you got yourself a power company billing meter.
: That's fine, but it shows apparent power. You need to know the power factor
: to compute real power. I'll bet if you use a better meter to measure PF, you
: will see that you are a tad over unity already. Maybe 10 or 20%. That's
: no big deal compared to what the Yusmar will give you when you set it up
: right.
:  
: - Jed

This is baloney.  Jed obviously knows nothing about electrical 
instrumentation.  Virtually all "power company billing meters" (watthour 
meters - what the power companies use to determine our electric bill) take 
power factor into account.

	Large industrial users are often provided with "demand" metering, 
which records the *peak* apparent power consumed by the user.  This is 
logical, since transmission losses are proportional to apparent power, 
and the user is charged a penalty if the demand for his particular 
service is exceeded.  However, demand is measured with a thermocouple
device which is totally separate from the watthour measurement, which 
counts the rotations of a disc.  The mechanism by which the disc 
rotates is proportional to real power.  A reactive load (PF = 0) would 
result in zero rotation.  Furthermore, if one were to install a generator
in one's home and feed power back to the power company, the disc would
rotate backwards.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenmmallory cudfnMark cudlnMallory cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Jun 27 04:37:08 EDT 1995
------------------------------
