1995.08.05 / A Plutonium /  Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electrom
g,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
Date: 5 Aug 1995 03:16:16 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <DCp1FF.8s3@world.std.com>
bappleby@world.std.com (Bruce W Appleby) writes:

> Does freedom of speech allow this?  Sadly it does.
> 
> Lest anyone think that there is any fact behind Archie's shameful and 
> abusive attack on a "certain religion" there is a piece on the subject of 
> who gets credit for Special Relativity in the Winter 1995 issue (Volume 
> 17 Number 1) of The Mathematical Intelligencer.  It is written by Jeremy 
> Gray in the "Years Ago" column (page 65).
> 
> I have generally avoided posting to Archie's threads, but was driven by 
> two motives: first, to go on record in the strongest possible terms 
> against the psychotic insinuation of race into this newsgroup; second to 
> provide a thoughtful reference to the underlying priority dispute for 
> those who might otherwise think that where there's smoke, there's fire.
> 
> BTB Gray's article is pretty convincing by itself and is backed up by 
> references, not that Archie will believe anything from the "math 
> establishment".
> 
> Bruce Appleby
> bappleby@world.std.com

  You are wrong Mr. Appleby, even the series THE MECHANICAL UNIVERSE
notes the historical soft-steal from the discoverers Poincare and
Lorentz.

  The very best place to get a level-headed view of this soft-steal is
the FEYNMAN LECTURES on physics. There Richard notes that Poincare told
Lorentz that the laws of motion should be invariant and should take the
Maxwell Equations invariance. That is the key to Special Relativity,
Maxwell Equations invariance and that was published by Poincare I
believe in 1898

Lorentz worked for years on the Special Relativity principle as given
by Poincare and did essentially all the math to provide the Lorentz
transformation equations, he published it in 1904

All that Einstein did was accept both Poincare and Lorentz and to say
that Lorentz's work is equivalent to assuming that the speed of light
is held constant

  The history is very clear and on all of this. But because Einstein
had such a terrific press behind him, not that he himself intended it,
but just the way the world social order went, Special Relativity is
synonymous with Einstein

  I don't cast aspersions on any one religion. I just want the truth.
And it is not easy to fight the whole world just to see the record
straight on two dead men, Poincare and Lorentz. 

  We in the game of physics see as our biggest carrot the lure to
physics fame. Should somehow science discoveries in the future be all
credited not to their discoveries but to say a communism of people or
credit given to society as a whole then the lure to the field of
science will fall off. So many people are in science for the fame of
achievement or discovery. Most discoveries have been credited to their
rightful owners. In the case of Special Relativity, due to a large
press behind Einstein, that SR has been stolen from Poincare. See
Feynman Lectures, for Richard saw quite well also that this was  the
case 

  I am not racist on this issue, and I could care less if it were
another religion, it is not proper to steal a science from its true
discoverers no matter how many newspapers or books flood the world 

  Read Feynman Lectures on Special Relativity discovery, without a
doubt Poincare
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.06 /   /  Re: CF Update
     
Originally-From: mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF Update
Date: 6 Aug 1995 20:19:40 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Thanks for the excellent bibliography, Jed. I'll be reading some of the
entries with great interest.

Mark Richardson
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmrichar353 cudln cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.07 / Bill Snyder /  Re: Silly nonsense from Robert Heeter
     
Originally-From: bsnyder@iadfw.net (Bill Snyder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Silly nonsense from Robert Heeter
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 1995 02:05:53 GMT
Organization: Internet America

In message <ZfADKoh.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com
wrote:

>Bill Snyder <bsnyder@iadfw.net> writes:
> 
>>Note that the Griggs device is said to vibrate like crazy.  You are
> 
>It does not vibrate like crazy. I cannot imagine where you got that from.
> 

My mistake, Jed; I should know by now not to believe anything you tell
us.


--
  -- Bill Snyder            [ This space unintentionally left blank. ]

cudkeys:
cuddy07 cudenbsnyder cudfnBill cudlnSnyder cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.07 / Bill Snyder /  Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
     
Originally-From: bsnyder@iadfw.net (Bill Snyder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 1995 02:09:12 GMT
Organization: Internet America

In message <Z-BC6wi.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com
wrote:

>Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> writes:
> 
>>I am going to settle for nothing less than replication at independent,
>>reputable lab with a history of performing sensitive measurments. 
>>NIST would be ideal. Once that occurs, I'll be willing to beleive 
>>its true. Until them, I primarily advocate looking for more
>>loopholes in the protocol.
> 
>Why settle for that, Barry? You should demand that the thing be tested by the
>Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Oval Office of the White House. Also, you should
>specify that the Joint Chiefs must report their results in Nature Magazine,
>and they must hold a press conference buck naked, and they must present their
>experimental data set to rap music.
> 
>As long as you are going to set impossible goals, set 'em high.
> 

So it is your public position that replication of the reported
phenomenon is impossible?  How very interesting...

--
  -- Bill Snyder            [ This space unintentionally left blank. ]

cudkeys:
cuddy07 cudenbsnyder cudfnBill cudlnSnyder cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.07 / David Naugler /  Heavy Metal Deuterides
     
Originally-From: David Naugler <dnaugler@sfu.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Heavy Metal Deuterides
Date: 7 Aug 1995 05:18:02 GMT
Organization: Simon Fraser University

I think this is the appropriate forum to draw attention to a remark made
by J. Robert Oppenheimer in a letter to George E. Uhlenbeck. The remark
is quoted by Philip Morrison in this months Scientific American.

Philip Morrison quotes J. Robert Oppenheimer: "So I think it really not
too improbable that a ten centimeter cube of uranium deuteride (11.4 Kg)
. might very well blow itself to hell."

This forum has been most actively interested in discussion of the
enhanced nuclear interaction of palladium deuteride. Given the recent CF
patent awarded to MIT, which uses language like, "It has been shown that
such wavefunction overlap may be achieved via specific molecular orbital
degeneracy conditions", significant credibility is given to the
possibility that heavy metal deuterides from palladium all the way up
the periodic table to uranium may possess the property envisioned by J.
Robert Oppenheimer.

Do we need to be vigilant on this matter? Uranium (or at least depleted
uranium) is common enough, being used in certain kinds of bullets and is
found scattered around a recent desert battle scene. Deuterium is a
common enough element; I have a bottle of deuterium oxide on my desk.

Today is Hiroshima day. In closing I would like to quote an article
published in October, 1944 by Dr. Saul Dushman, Assistant Director,
Research Laboratory, General Electric Company in the General Electric
Review entitled MASS-ENERGY RELATION,

    "What all this signifies for the future is a problem of greatest
importance to the future of the human race itself. Will man utilize this
new knowledge for peace and progress beyond the dreams of even the most
daring optimist? Or will this be the harbinger of a Frankenstein that
will destroy its own creator? Will the human race profit from past
experience?"


David Naugler
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy Laboratory
Institute of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry
Simon Fraser University


cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudendnaugler cudfnDavid cudlnNaugler cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.07 / David Naugler /  Heavy Metal Deuterides
     
Originally-From: David Naugler <dnaugler@sfu.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Heavy Metal Deuterides
Date: 7 Aug 1995 05:18:05 GMT
Organization: Simon Fraser University

I think this is the appropriate forum to draw attention to a remark made
by J. Robert Oppenheimer in a letter to George E. Uhlenbeck. The remark
is quoted by Philip Morrison in this months Scientific American.

Philip Morrison quotes J. Robert Oppenheimer: "So I think it really not
too improbable that a ten centimeter cube of uranium deuteride (11.4 Kg)
. might very well blow itself to hell."

This forum has been most actively interested in discussion of the
enhanced nuclear interaction of palladium deuteride. Given the recent CF
patent awarded to MIT, which uses language like, "It has been shown that
such wavefunction overlap may be achieved via specific molecular orbital
degeneracy conditions", significant credibility is given to the
possibility that heavy metal deuterides from palladium all the way up
the periodic table to uranium may possess the property envisioned by J.
Robert Oppenheimer.

Do we need to be vigilant on this matter? Uranium (or at least depleted
uranium) is common enough, being used in certain kinds of bullets and is
found scattered around a recent desert battle scene. Deuterium is a
common enough element; I have a bottle of deuterium oxide on my desk.

Today is Hiroshima day. In closing I would like to quote an article
published in October, 1944 by Dr. Saul Dushman, Assistant Director,
Research Laboratory, General Electric Company in the General Electric
Review entitled MASS-ENERGY RELATION,

    "What all this signifies for the future is a problem of greatest
importance to the future of the human race itself. Will man utilize this
new knowledge for peace and progress beyond the dreams of even the most
daring optimist? Or will this be the harbinger of a Frankenstein that
will destroy its own creator? Will the human race profit from past
experience?"


David Naugler
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy Laboratory
Institute of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry
Simon Fraser University


cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudendnaugler cudfnDavid cudlnNaugler cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.07 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: Silly nonsense from Robert Heeter
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Silly nonsense from Robert Heeter
Date: 7 Aug 1995 01:17:40 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Marshall is right about the H sharing the electron, but we also know that
the water molecule is electrically polarized, the two Hydrogen stick out
as local positive charges. This means that the shared electrons spend more
time around the O ion leaving the H unshielded part of the time.

 I wonder if the Griggs experiment has been tried with heavy water (not
hard to come by) and wheather X-ray film has been tried to see if it fogs
next to it. Are there any gammas detected at all? I also think distilled
water should be tried, then various additives should be tried such as
Lithium, Sodium etc.

Can we reach Griggs online?

Zoltan Szakaly
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.07 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Date: 7 Aug 1995 07:35:00 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <Z-BC6wi.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> writes:
>  
> >I am going to settle for nothing less than replication at independent,
> >reputable lab with a history of performing sensitive measurments. 
> >NIST would be ideal. Once that occurs, I'll be willing to beleive 
>  
> Why settle for that, Barry? You should demand that the thing be tested by the
> Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Oval Office of the White House. Also, you should
> specify that the Joint Chiefs must report their results in Nature Magazine,
> and they must hold a press conference buck naked, and they must present their
> experimental data set to rap music.
>  

Hmmm...thats a good idea. My sister-in-law is meeting with the joint
chiefs of staff in a few weeks. I'll have here suggest it to them. :-)


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


cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.07 / Ben Bullock /  cmsg cancel <3vcg4p$797@keknews.kek.jp>
     
Originally-From: ben@theory4.kek.jp (Ben Bullock)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion,sci
physics.electromag
Subject: cmsg cancel <3vcg4p$797@keknews.kek.jp>
Date: 7 Aug 1995 07:15:24 GMT
Organization: KEK , Tsukuba , Japan

Article cancelled from within tin v1.1 PL6
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenben cudfnBen cudlnBullock cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.07 / Ben Bullock /  cmsg cancel <3vf134$d9a@keknews.kek.jp>
     
Originally-From: ben@theory5.kek.jp (Ben Bullock)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: cmsg cancel <3vf134$d9a@keknews.kek.jp>
Date: 7 Aug 1995 07:17:17 GMT
Organization: KEK , Tsukuba , Japan

Article cancelled from within tin v1.1 PL6
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenben cudfnBen cudlnBullock cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.07 / Ben Bullock /  cmsg cancel <3vfpdc$eog@keknews.kek.jp>
     
Originally-From: ben@theory5.kek.jp (Ben Bullock)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: cmsg cancel <3vfpdc$eog@keknews.kek.jp>
Date: 7 Aug 1995 07:17:21 GMT
Organization: KEK , Tsukuba , Japan

Article cancelled from within tin v1.1 PL6
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenben cudfnBen cudlnBullock cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.07 / Michael Tauson /  Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
     
Originally-From: mtauson@nauticom.net (Michael Tauson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 04:21:57 GMT
Organization: Nauticom! Internet Access Provider

In article <3vg12r$c0e@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
   tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter ) wrote:
->>In summary, I request that you complain about *facts*.  Do not
->>complain on the basis of *unsupported* *speculations*, however likely
->>they may be.
->Somehow, when I read this post, 
->I get an image of Captain Queeg < sp? > playing with his balls.

	Um ... would you care to re-phrase that just a little bit?  <G>

Michael (who lurks mostly)
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenmtauson cudfnMichael cudlnTauson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.07 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: Nuclear reaction time scales
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear reaction time scales
Date: 7 Aug 1995 13:08:00 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <40281h$etm@otis.netspace.net.au>, rvanspaa@netspace.net.au
(Robin van Spaandonk) writes:

>If in the above most of the 2.47 MeV were to be carried off by the
>antineutrino, then almost no radiation would be detected, providing
>that the He4* then managed to get rid of the remainder of its energy
>in the form of phonons.

It is an excellent observation, if the antineutrino carries off part of
the energy we would not detect it. 

I looked at the spectrum of electrons emitted in beta decay and noticed
that:

1. The spectrum is continouos, allowing the electron to carry off all or
part of the available energy. I don't know if this means that the electron
spectrum in our case would extend all the 20 MeV or so. I don't know what
fraction of the reactions would leave a still excited He4* behind and to
what extent this He4* would be excited. I imagine that the electron and
antineutrino will carry off some portion of the available energy, a
different portion in each case. 

2. I noticed that there is a process "internal conversion" in which an
excited nucleus can deexcite by ejecting an electron from one of those in
the shells orbiting it. There are lines in the spectrum corresponding to
the different shells from where the electron is ejected. This may be
interesting for us since it is an example of such a coupling from the
excited nucleus to the electrons surrounding it. This reaction supposedly
happens by transferring a virtual photon from the nucleus to the electron.

Zoltan Szakaly 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.05 / Robert Heeter /  Re: OFF-CHARTER POSTS:  Another Netiquette lesson.
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: OFF-CHARTER POSTS:  Another Netiquette lesson.
Date: 5 Aug 1995 17:51:17 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

It looks like Mitchell Jones would benefit from another
netiquette lesson.

In article <21cenlogic-3107951244190001@austin-1-12.i-link.net> Mitchell
Jones, 21cenlogic@i-link.net writes:
>In article <3vdg9q$irk@cnn.Princeton.EDU>, Robert F. Heeter
><rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:

>***{Bob, you miss the point. Discussions about a newsgroup charter are
>certainly appropriate to the forum to which the charter applies, but
>demands that others conform to your intuitive view of what is relevant to
>the charter are *never* appropriate. And that is precisely what you did:
>you posted a gripe that was based on your intuitive judgment that
>gravitational theory is irrelevant to CF. 

Actually, no.  I simply pointed out that the "GR sucks" thread was
not being discussed with any reference to fusion.  This has nothing
to do with intuitive judgments and everything to do with the
structure of USENET.  USENET was not set up so that every article
of every thread would be posted to every newsgroup to which
it might conceivably be relevant.  The idea of USENET is that
*initial* articles are crossposted, and then *subsequent*
discussion is sent to a *single* followup-to newsgroup.
That way discussions are not inflicted on groups for which 
they are not clearly and obviously relevant.  

While GR, or even Tom Potter's new theory, *might conceivably*
be relevant to fusion, the actual discussion of the theory
has very little to do with fusion, and a lot to do with, say,
general physics, new physical theories, or maybe the 
philosophy of science.  After the initial article, the 
discussion should be localized to those groups.  Those who 
read sci.physics.fusion and see the initial article can easily 
follow the discussion over there.

Netiquette (as I posted) requires that after the initial article,
subsequent articles in a particular thread be sent to a *single*
group to which the discussion is *most* relevant.  Anyone reading
the initial article (and the author should say where followups
should go) should then start reading the thread in the appropriate
followups group.

>You simply assume that everybody
>else agrees with your intuitive judgment, and that, therefore, those who
>post to the gravitational thread are malevolent, deliberately disruptive,
>and deserving of condemnation. 

Continued unnecessary crossposting *is* disruptive.  But 
I don't think it's malevolent, deliberate, or deserving 
of condemnation.  What I think it deserves is a little
more Netiquette education.  If you want to see condemnation,
read news.newusers.questions and look at Emily Postnews.
This is a satire of precisely the sort of behavior that
is going on with the "GR sucks" thread.  I'm not trying
to be vicious, I'm just trying to get everyone to play
by the rules that the rest of USENET uses.

Unnecessary and unrelenting crossposting is generally
referred to as spamming and can be dealt with very
harshly by the USENET authorities.

>But that is wrong. They think their
>material is relevant based on their intuition/judgment. 

A hint of possible relevance is insufficient justification for 
continued crossposting of a thread into a newsgroup.  They 
should determine which *single* group is *most* relevant, 
and go there.

>There is no reason
>for you to conclude that they are malevolent in their intent, which is
>what you imply when you declare, ipse dixit, that they are "off charter."

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how a complaint that something is
"off charter" indicates malevolent intent on anyone's part.
Please do not infer anything unjustified by what I actually said.

Personally I think it reflects a certain naivete about USENET
etiquette, but I don't think it represents a deliberate attempt
to be malevolent or disruptive.  Which is why I'm simply trying
to explain USENET etiquette here and not to have people's news
privileges revoked or anything obnoxious like that.

>It is this implication which threatens to provoke a "flame war," not the
>formal tone of your post. 

If that is the case then the flame war will be due to your own
apparent paranoia, since I didn't really mean to imply what
you claim I did.

>And now you are trying to stir it all up again. But why? Do you really
>think that you are smarter than all the other guys who tried to argue this
>case before, and that you can win the argument which they lost? Do you
>really want to paint a target on yourself and step in front of this
>particular firing line? Think about it. 

Yes, I do.  Fire away.  I have a different angle on the 
whole thing, and a very easy solution based on USENET netiquette 
standards.  It's very simple:  

     CROSSPOSTING NETIQUETTE: 
     If you want to post an article which is only marginally
     related to a particular group's charter, you may do so 
     once for a particular thread, but you should direct 
     followup articles to a single, most-appropriate newsgroup.

>You have not a shred of a basis for concluding that he is not
>posting in good faith, and you should simply skip his posts and move on.

On the contrary, I have an enormous amount of evidence that 
those participating in these heavily-crossposted threads are
ignorant of usenet netiquette, and I think it is time
people thought a little more about how to make this group
work more smoothly, and a little less about shouting their
ideas to every newsgroup in existence.

>When is this nonsense going to end? Why can't you guys
>let this go, and simply practice tolerance? 

It's a lot easier to be tolerant of a single posting than an
endless thread of marginal relevance.  That's a key justification
for the netiquette standard I mentioned.

>The answer, in my view, if obvious: you guys are, fundamentally,
>censorious, intolerant, controlling, and authoritarian. 

Actually, I think that's a bit of a fantasy on your part.
Me, I'm just trying to get people with diverse perpectives,
opinions, and ideas to talk to each other in a way that 
won't piss anyone off unnecessarily.  It's much easier
to misinterpret what people write, because you don't
have the same audible and visual cues to what they
really mean that you do when you talk face-to-face.
Netiquette is a way of compensating for that a little.

 -----------------------------------------------------
Bob Heeter
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu / rfheeter@pppl.gov
http://www.princeton.edu/~rfheeter
Of course I do not speak for anyone else in any of the above.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.07 /   /  Yoshiaka Arata
     
Originally-From: <100437.530@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Yoshiaka Arata
Date: 7 Aug 1995 13:29:42 GMT
Organization: CompuServe Incorporated


In the Summer 1995 issue of 21st Century Science and Technology Editor 
Carol White has given a "Look at the Life of Yoshiaka Arata". It seems that
this extraordinary man started research in the days when war-torn Japan had
no scientific equipment to speak of. To cut along story short he has used 
his considerable engineering/scientific experience  in Hot Fusion to build
a device which uses electrolysis to load deuterium into finely ground 
palladium at the cathode, a Cold Fusion device.

His device has run for as much as 3000 hours and produced 200 
megajoules of excess energy, of which only 4 kilojoules can have been
produced as chemical energy, at a rate of between 50 and 100 kilojoules 
per hour. Surely the time has come for "official" science to stop discussing
whether the effect is "real "and start comissioning some in-depth studies
as to the explanations for such phenomena. The world needs safe energy
production badly enough. For how long will the scientific establishment
continue to fail the tesr?

Ramon Prasad  <internet:100437.530@compuserve.com>

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cuden530 cudln cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.07 / Tom Potter /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter )
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,
ci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: 7 Aug 1995 17:44:57 GMT
Organization: Netcom

This article is in response to the people who have asked me
to demonstrate my cycle theory on actual data.

Note that this article is over 100 columns wide as it contains
the printout of a spreadsheet of Solar system data.

The tangents used herein are dimensionless numbers which are
functions of mass and time. As a point of reference, the tangent
associated with the electron is called the "fine structure constant".

1. TIME(X) = an external reference cycle count / the cycle count of X

2. Two bodies interact about a common point, in a common time.

   a. The common time is the natural period of the system.
      ( The number of counts ( Cycles ) of an external reference
        for each cycle of the system. )

   b. Interaction time is the number of counts ( Cycles )
      between when a change is observed in a body, and when
      a causal change is observed in the system.

3. TANGENT(X) = INTERACTION TIME(X) / COMMON TIME / ( 2 pi )
   As COMMON TIME ( PERIOD ) is commonly measured in cycles
   whereas most other properties are measured in radians, it
   is convenient to divided the period by ( 2 * pi ) in
   order to express all properties in the same units.

ALL PROPERTIES ARE IN METERS, KILOGRAMS, SECONDS

C = 2.99792458E+8 - Universal space per time constant
G = 6.6720000E-11 - Universal gravitation constant

The TANGENTS listed below are averaged over one orbit.

                        MERCURY        VENUS          EARTH   
      MARS           JUPITER        SATURN
            TANGENT(A)   8.72442047E-7  8.72442047E-7  1.57433954E-6
 1.43350774E-6  5.52528775E-7  4.29180508E-6
            TANGENT(B)   1.59681487E-4  1.59681487E-4  1.16814496E-4
 9.93494959E-5  8.04853761E-5  4.35626956E-5
            TIME(C)      1.20966471E+6  3.08985780E+6  5.02263604E+6
 9.44664898E+6  5.95778017E+7  1.47947695E+8

The properties below are computed using the TANGENT(A), TANGENT(B), TIME(C)
associated with the planets listed, using the equation:

PROPERTY(X) = TANGENT(A)^L * TANGENT(B)^M * TIME(C)^N * C^(L+M) / G^O

Note, that if "C" and "G" are set equal to one, all properties have
the dimension of TIME(C)^N

L,M,N,O     PROPERTY(X)  MERCURY        VENUS          EARTH  
       MARS           JUPITER        SATURN
1,0,0,0     DISTANCE(A)  2.61551546E+2  4.71975121E+2  4.29754810E+2
 1.65643960E+2  1.28665079E+3  6.35606650E+2
0,1,0,0     DISTANCE(B)  4.78713054E+4  3.50201049E+4  2.97842296E+4
 2.41289087E+4  1.30597676E+4  9.64408151E+3
1,0,1,0     VELOCITY(A)  2.61551546E+2  4.71975121E+2  4.29754810E+2
 1.65643960E+2  1.28665079E+3  6.35606650E+2
0,1,1,0     VELOCITY(B)  4.78713054E+4  3.50201049E+4  2.97842296E+4
 2.41289087E+4  1.30597676E+4  9.64408151E+3
3,0,1,1     MASS(B)      3.2440000E+23  4.8690000E+24  5.9750000E+24
 6.4350000E+23  1.9020000E+27  5.6940000E+26
0,3,1,1     MASS(A)      1.9890000E+30  1.9890000E+30  1.9890000E+30
 1.9890000E+30  1.9890000E+30  1.9890000E+30
3,2,1,1     ENERGY(B)*2  7.4341511E+32  5.9713793E+33  5.3004245E+33
 3.7464843E+32  3.2440042E+35  5.2958931E+34
2,3,1,1     ENERGY(A)*2  1.3606592E+35  4.4307066E+35  3.6734681E+35
 5.4574026E+34  3.2927304E+36  8.0354767E+35
3,3,1,1     PRECESSION   3.5588252E+37  2.0911833E+38  1.5786906E+38
 9.0398577E+36  4.2365941E+39  5.1074024E+38
MASS(A)*VELOCITY(A)^3    3.5588252E+37  2.0911833E+38  1.5786906E+38
 9.0398577E+36  4.2365941E+39  5.1074024E+38
MASS(B)*VELOCITY(B)^3    3.5588252E+37  2.0911833E+38  1.5786906E+38
 9.0398577E+36  4.2365941E+39  5.1074024E+38

Note the following:
1. O = 1 for properties defined in terms of mass. ( Energy, power, etc. )
2. MASS(X) * VELOCITY(X)^3 is more fundamental and symmetrical than ENERGY.
3. Note that DISTANCE(B) is approximately equal to the RADIUS.
4. Although an external CYCLE reference is used as a time reference,
   TIME(C) is unique to each system, and is not affected by a reference.
   In other words, time is introduced, as an external reference,
   in order to compare the period time and the interaction times
   of a system. It does not enter into the dynamics of the system.
5. Conventional physics tends ot focus on one party to an interaction,
   usually the least massive body.
6. It is more efficient, and convenient, to perform all calculations
   in terms of tangents and time, and to convert to conventional
   units, after the calculations are complete. In fact, it is best to
   dispense with "C", "G" and conventional units, altogether.
7. Time and inverse time are considered to be continuous properties,
   whereas cycles are quantum properties, and thus more compatible with
   quantum mechanics. At the most fundamental level, a fraction of a
   cycle cannot be perceived or measured. The fundamental unit of
   information ( BIT ) is the cycle associated with the electron.
8. The PRECESSION values listed are actually PRECESSION * C^6 / G

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.07 / Joseph Raulet /  Cold fusion!?
     
Originally-From: Joseph Raulet <raulet@jrv.qc.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion!?
Date: 7 Aug 1995 19:16:34 GMT
Organization: RAULET  Informatique

I have heard that many laboratories around the world
have obtained positives results in cold fusion experiments
that cannot be explained by exotical chimical reaction.
Is it true?

If it is true, why the hot fusion community still
discredit the work of cold fusionners.

Are they more emotional than logical???


See http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/rei/CFdir/CFhome.html

And tel me what you think about it!

J.Raulet
raulet@jrv.qc.ca

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenraulet cudfnJoseph cudlnRaulet cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.03 / Martin Sevior /  MIT Patent.
     
Originally-From: Martin Sevior <msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: MIT Patent.
Date: 3 Aug 1995 02:57:09 GMT
Organization: School of Physics, University of Melbourne.

Thanks to Marshall Dudley for distributing the MIT patent to the newsgroup.

It's fascinating reading. It provides a plausible Quantum Mechanical scenario
that dramatically decreases the seperation between hydrogen nuclei in a
metal lattice under the influence of electrolysis. This answers Barry 
Merrimans question about QM ways to decrease the seperation between hydrogen 
nuclei. Since Barry is mathematically inclined I hope he will utilize his
expertise and provide a critique for us.

They skirt the issue of exact nuclear reaction mechanism citing very low
energies, (this contradicts the fact that muon catilyzed fusion fusion occurs 
at these energies much like regular fusion), and many body nuclear reactions. 
Well this latter is a first. They have no way of changing the nuclear branching
ratios or for that matter saying how they get energy out of bringing protons
together.

Their mechanism is a surface effect and they
describe ways to enhance the "interaction" rate by producing surface
distortions on the cathode. There are some very detailed descriptions of
methods
to do this via scoring with diamond tips, Molecular deposition, CVD deposition
and more. They also claim the effect is enhanced by depositing metal layers
on polystyrene. Is this how Patterson works?


Their very detailed desciptions indicate they've actually done a lot of this
work. Since they've gone to the expense of filing a patent I presume they've
seen a positive effects. Their descriptions of schemes to increase the heat
flow indicate they see a lot heat. Hopefully publications describing this
work will follow.

Anyway there's planty of meat for interesting controversy here. Barry has a
problem in his own sphere of expertise, the nuclear physicists can worry about
why there's no ionizing radiation, their academic work shows the importance of
having a theory to Jed (it allows them to intelligently maximize the effect),
the ZPE guys can explain it all once they get their protons close together
and their location, Boston Mass., provides a data point that contradicts 
Morrison's regionalization theory. Finally many will point out that it's all
premature since they don't show any results and so how can we judge anyway.

Planty of fun for all!

Martin Sevior

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmsevior cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.07 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Combustion - New Energy Source
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Combustion - New Energy Source
Date: 07 Aug 1995 21:40:52 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <199508031855.NAA00777@shark> Paul Dietz <dietz@stc.comm.mot.com> writes:

  > This is false.  Uranium by itself, used in breeder reactors, is
  > sufficient to last on the order of a billion years at today's rate of
  > primary energy demand.  The uranium dissolved in the oceans will last
  > on the rough order of a million years.

  Okay, but I don't know how to extract it efficiently...  Part of the
message you deleted referred to molten salt reactors which were built
and run with thorium as the primary fuel.  (I believe all the MSR's
built were initially fueled with Th232 and enriched uranium.  But I
believe several were refueled during operation with a Th232/U233 mix.)
It is demonstrated technology.  Mineral extraction from seawater has
only been economically successful for light elements, in particular
lithium and magnesium.

  > Your figure likely just involves known resources, which are available
  > at a cost suitable for use in burner reactors.  Breeders could
  > tolerate uranium at costs 1000x the price of uranium today.

    Hmmm.  We can argue semantics here, but you are not going to get
more than about 150x burner efficiency with Uranium breeders, and the
numbers are closer to 70-90x.  (Some of the U238 gets turned into
Pu240, which is nuclear waste in the truest sense of the word.)

     However, since thorium is on the order of one hundred times as
abundant as Uranium why not use it?  (Unless you are in the bomb
making business of course...Th232 breeds U233 which has never been
considered usable in weapons.  Fewer neutrons than U235, and too many
of them are delayed.)

  > Or perhaps you were assuming unabated exponential growth in energy
  > demand (in which case you fry the Earth from the waste heat long
  > before the uranium runs out.)

  Some growth in energy usage, but not exponential forever.  Of
course, given the other discussion here you could design the power
plants to be a lot more efficient, and to dump waste heat to space.
But that will only get you a factor of three or four...

  > There are reasons for using thorium, but this isn't one of them.

    No, economics IS the primary reason for using thorium.
Proliferation seems to be the primary reason for not using it.  If
non-proliferation, and nuclear weapons destruction was wanted, every
country with plutonium stockpiles would be using the stockpiles to
start up thorium based breeders.

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy07 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.07 / Robert Eachus /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: 07 Aug 1995 22:06:12 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <DCxsrE.Dr2@festival.ed.ac.uk> ajc@reaxp01.roe.ac.uk (Andrew Cooke) writes:

  >  come again?  our sun is variable?  do you want to be a 
  >  co-author - i think we have a real breakthrough on our hands
  >  here...

   Paul had it right.  (btw, it's the Maunder sunspot minimum which
corresponded to the "mini-Ice Age" a couple hundred years ago.)  The
best evidence for variations in the solar constant are the O16/O18
ratios in ice cores from the Greenland Ice cap.  But if you go to
Greece you can see barnacle encrusted and sea worm eaten buildings
that were underwater during the period.  The Mediterranean Sea has a
higher evaportation rate than is replaced by inflowing rivers. When
the weather gets colder evaporation slows, and the Med rises. The
effect is more pronounced in the eastern Med.


--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy07 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.06 /  Julian /  Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
     
Originally-From: Julian <julian@ratbag.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electrom
g,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 95 23:44:43 GMT
Organization: Cliche City, Arizona

In article <3vk1g8$7tj@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
           Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu "Archimedes Plutonium" writes:

> On the auto plates of this state it says "LIVE FREE, OR DIE". I guess
> that is this states motto.

That must be really encouraging for prisoners... 8-)

 --------------------------------------------------
Julian Hayward            julian@ratbag.demon.co.uk
'Booles' on FIBS                    +44-1344-640656
 --------------------------------------------------
"Questions are a burden to others,
     Answers are a prison for oneself."
                                  - Village proverb
 --------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy06 cudenjulian cudlnJulian cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.07 / Andrew Cooke /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: ajc@reaxp01.roe.ac.uk (Andrew Cooke)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 10:50:00 GMT
Organization: Institute for Astronomy, Royal Observatory Edinburgh


	come again?  our sun is variable?  do you want to be a 
	co-author - i think we have a real breakthrough on our hands
	here...

	andrew

In article <DCMDvw.1qI@prometheus.UUCP>,
Paul M. Koloc <pmk@promethe.UUCP> wrote:
>I don't think so.  Few people are aware that the solar constant isn't.  
>There have been periods extending for several hundred years when
>the orb has either underpreformed or over performed, with quite 
>serious effects to man's economy and well being.  

-- 
  A.Cooke@roe.ac.uk  work phone 0131 668 8357  home phone/fax 0131 667 0208
    institute for astronomy, royal observatory, blackford hill, edinburgh
                     http://www.roe.ac.uk/ajcwww
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenajc cudfnAndrew cudlnCooke cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.05 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: Nuclear reaction time scales
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear reaction time scales
Date: 5 Aug 1995 11:06:31 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <3vukce$cbf@seymour.sfu.ca>, David Naugler <dnaugler@sfu.ca>
writes:

>
>Pd + D + D -> Pd + He + 22 Mev
>
>is physically correct. Written as such, microscopic reversibility is also
>satisfied. 
>
>Am I wrong?
>
>                                                            David Naugler

You are not wrong in a strict mathematical sense, we are just looking for
a more detailed explanation, trying to understand what is going on in deep
detail. The Pd atom is a large and complex system and we would have a hard
time explaining a direct interaction mechanism with the Ds although trying
to understand the interactions may be futile. We were thinking of the
electron being caught in the middle of the Ds and taking part in the
reaction in known ways. (Electron capture and emission by beta).

Zoltan Szakaly

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.07 / Tom Potter /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter )
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,
ci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: 7 Aug 1995 12:19:32 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3vni4s$4bm@hawk.le.ac.uk> mdo4@le.ac.uk (M.D. O'Leary) writes: 
>
>Tom:
>>>As several people have informed me by email that they missed
>>>my original posts on "cycles", and several others have asked me
>>>to elaborate on my "theory", I am reposting some of this
information.
>
>Dick:
>>How does one represent a scream of despair in ASCII?
>
>I beleive it goes:
>
>*Kerplunk* Welcome to my killfile
>
>M. (wishing my name were Harry)

Just curious, why did you waste the time and data capacity of people
all over the world by posting the childish flame?

It is my perception that flaming does not cure pimples.
Maybe you had another reason?
Perhaps, dipping into your uncles LSD stash?


cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.07 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Silly nonsense from Robert Heeter
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Silly nonsense from Robert Heeter
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 95 10:29:04 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Bill Snyder <bsnyder@iadfw.net> writes:
 
>>It does not vibrate like crazy. I cannot imagine where you got that from.
>> 
>
>My mistake, Jed; I should know by now not to believe anything you tell
 
B.S. I never told you any such thing. You make up this crap and then you
claim I said it! Absurd. The GG does not vibrate in excess heat mode any
more than it vibrates in a null run. And it does not vibrate any more or
less than any other 60 HP motor driven machine. Compared to a lot of the
auto engines I have owned, it hardly vibrates at all. (Particularly compared
to an old VW.)
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjedrothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.07 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Silly nonsense from Robert Heeter
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Silly nonsense from Robert Heeter
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 1995 09:57:47 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <3vun3b$bif@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, zoltanccc@aol.com
(ZoltanCCC) wrote:

> I feel that on one hand fusion should be possible in water, on the other
> hand experimental error should be ruled out very carefully if temperature
> measurements are used as proof of nuclear reactions. To start with fusion
> first:
> 
> We have spent a lot of time discussing various possible mechanisms for
> fusion reactions in a Palladium lattice pumped full of hydrogen or
> Deuterium. These discussions under the thread of "Marshall Dudley
> hypothesis" and "nuclear reaction time scales" have lead me to believe
> that fusion reactions might happen when hydrogen is embedded in the
> Palladium ion's outer electron shell. These reactions may be due to the
> shielding effect of the electron's negative charge in between two hydrogen
> nuclei. Even when we were discussing this I thought of water as a
> structure where two hydrogen ions are embedded in the outside shell of
> oxygen. Fusion might happen with the mechanisms we discussed there. The
> expected results would manifest in excess heat as well as thermal neutrons
> (hard to detect) and energetic electrons that are absorbed or slowed down
> by the lattice (or water in this case) resulting in photons possibly also
> absorbed and converted to heat at least partially. The difference in water
> is that I would not expect the photons to be absorbed as easily because we
> don't have all the freely roaming electrons to absorb them. If the water
> has fusion reactions we should see gamma radiation or photons of some
> wavelength. We should try to prove existance of the photons or energetic
> electrons to prove that fusion is happening. Heat alone is not enough
> proof of anything, especially not a few percents of heat excess. 
> 
> Regarding experimental error I can imagine a million sources of it,

***{Here we have a clear example of rhetorical excess. --Mitchell Jones}***

the
> apparatus would have to be rebuilt with high tech instrumentation. For
> example it was not mentioned how torque measurements were made, I suspect
> the torque may be one significant source of error. The torque should be
> measured by mounting the motor housing on multiple silicon strain gages (I
> am an expert on that kind of force measurements), the motor rpm should be
> measured by a rotating optical encoder with a precise time base and pulse
> counter. 

***{Griggs paid a lot of money to purchase a dynamometer setup, so that he
could answer skeptics who doubted the validity of his original
experimental design. Do you think that his torque and r.p.m. measurements
have not been calibrated by comparison to setups of the sort to which you
refer? Why would that be? How could a company that sold uncalibrated
dynamometers stay in business? --Mitchell Jones}***

The motor should be driven by Direct Current filtered properly to
> smooth out the fluctuations of the voltage. With a three phase motor there
> is no telling how the phases of the current and voltage relate to each
> other and there is no telling how the sinusoidal waveform deviates from
> actual sine wave. 

***{Yes there is: you double-check your power measurements by using a
properly calibrated dynamometer setup, like Griggs is doing. --Mitchell
Jones}***

With DC we can precisely measure the power going into
> the motor. It seems sloppy to me that someone in a previous posting said
> that the power meter registered the same HP reading as the torque
> measurement. 

***{Zoltan, you are very polite, since you know full well that the
"someone" was me! And you are right: it was sloppy. Gulp! Gulp! Gulp!
(That's the sound of me eating my words!) Seriously: I assume that the
number in question refers to expected power at the shaft, as determined by
multiplying the efficiency rating of the motor times the measured power
consumption. --Mitchell Jones}***

  The motor can't possibly have a better efficiency than 90
> percent, I believe most motors measure in at 60 to 80 percent. The
> electric power meter must show more power by 20-30 percent because of
> that. Some heat from the motor will be transferred to the water through
> the shaft, that heat will show up as excess because the motor heat is not
> included in the shaft torque/rpm.

***{True, but remember that the purpose of installing the dynamometer was
to double check the power measurements, which themselves showed excess
heat. If, for example, the rated efficiency of the motor is 60% and the
measured power consumption is 81 KW, then the expected power to the shaft
is 81 times .6, which gives 48.6 KW. If this matches the calculated
result, using torque and r.p.m. measurements taken by the dynamometer, and
you get excess heat both ways, then where is the problem? Heat that is
transferred to the water through the shaft may not be included when the
percentage COP is calculated based on the shaft torque and r.p.m., but it
is included when total power is used and the heat lost from the motor is
included in the output heat. Thus if both methods show excess, heat
transfer through the shaft cannot be the explanation. 

Do they both show excess? Let's run the numbers to see. I remember reading
in one of Jed's writeups that the efficiency of Griggs' motor is about
60%, and so the numbers given above would be correct: measured power
consumption would have to be 81 KW to yield 48.6 KW at the shaft. This
means 32.4 KW must be added to the total heat produced. Converted to
B.T.U.'s, that is 3417 times 32.4 equals 110,711 additional B.T.U.'s per
hour. Adding that to our adjusted total of heat produced (see my second
reply to Robert Heeter, above), which is 182,189 BTUšs per hour, we get a
new rate of heat output of 292,900 B.T.U.'s per hour. When we convert the
81 KW input to B.T.U.'s (again multiplying by 3417), we get a new input
rate of 276,777 B.T.U.'s per hour. Result: we now have a percentage COP of
292,900 divided by 276,777, times 100, which gives 105.8%, and is still
well over 100%. Importantly, this result *still* does not take into
account the large heat loss from the uninsulated rotor housing to the
external environment. --Mitchell Jones}***  
> 
> I could probably build a proper setup for around 50k if somebody is
> interested.
> 
> Zoltan Szakaly

***{As I have noted elsewhere, enough is enough. Griggs purchased his
dynamometer to try to address the concerns of "skeptics" who objected to
the fact that he was computing the percentage COP by adjusting input power
consumption to the rated efficiency of the motor. Result: now the skeptics
are dissatisfied with the percentage COP which Griggs calculates using
their experimental design, and they are dissatisfied with the dynamometer
which he purchased on their advice! 

In summary, I can only repeat what I have said already: (1) There is no
reason to assume that Griggs purchased an uncalibrated dynamometer, or
even that a company exists which sells uncalibrated dynamometers. (Who
would want one?) (2) The Hydrosonic pump shows significant excess heat
even when the possibility of heat feeding down the shaft is taken into
account. (3) Since a very large source of unaccounted output heat is known
to exist (i.e., heat lost from the pump housing), it is simply not
reasonable to suppose that the existing test bed contains errors that are
large enough to invalidate the result. 

Bottom line: the calculated percentage COP is lower than the true value,
not higher, *and there aren't any ifs, ands, or buts about it.* --Mitchell
Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy07 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.07 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 95 12:43:43 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Scott Little <little@eden.com> writes:
 
     "Jed, just what is impossible about Barry's suggestion?  It is, in fact,
     the most direct way to get "everyone" to accept the Griggs effect. Don't
     you think an independent reputable lab would be interested in confirming
     the first working example of a device that obtains energy from
     'somewhere else'?"
 
Oh, come now Scott. You can't be serious. In the present climate of hysterical
opposition to this research, you could never get a reputable independent lab
like NIST to look at the GG. It is out of the question. The labs I have spoken
to about it have said:
 
1. We will not do it under any circumstances. Most of them say this.
 
2. We will test it but we guarantee the results in advance; there will be no
excess.
 
3. We will test it if you pay us giant pile of money.
 
(Most people in group 2 also demand money.) I would not bother dealing with
group #2, because I expect they would lie. One prof with that attitude looked
at the thing, took data, left a copy of the data with Griggs, and a few months
later turned in a report with a revised set of data erasing the excess. As for
number 3, nobody I know will pay to have the machine tested. Certainly not me,
and Griggs has no motivation to do it. He does not care whether people believe
the machine is o-u. That is not a selling point. He does not advertise it,
because that would just cause controversy and trouble. From a business point
of view, the o-u performance a liability. If the C.O.P. was 300% that would be
a different story.
 
I was hoping to get a chance to test the thing myself again this summer, along
with Marshall, but it has not been available. Jim has been too busy with other
things. Testing it is a low priority with him; he is only letting us do it as
a favor. The test rig was at a trade show for a while, and now that it
is back they have the GG hooked up to an internal combustion engine for a
series of tests unrelated to the o-u. Marshall and I could test it in that
configuration, because they do have the dynamometer in the series, but it is
far better to test it hooked up to an electric motor, so we are going to wait
until Jim gets a chance to put the electric motor back. He was hoping to get
around to it this month, but I do not think he will be able to.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjedrothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.07 /   /  Yoshiaka Arata
     
Originally-From: <100437.530@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Yoshiaka Arata
Date: 7 Aug 1995 13:01:25 GMT
Organization: CompuServe Incorporated



cudkeys:
cuddy7 cuden530 cudln cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Aug  8 04:37:05 EDT 1995
------------------------------
