1995.10.20 / R McElwaine /  FREE-ENERGY Technologies
     
Originally-From: Robert McElwaine <rem5@sawdust.cvfn.org>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FREE-ENERGY Technologies
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 03:27:11 +0100

          
            
                           FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES
                      by Robert E. McElwaine, Physicist
          
               At the beginning of the twentieth century, everybody 
          "knew" that a heavier-than-air machine could not possibly 
          fly.  It would violate the "laws" of physics.  All of the 
          "experts" and "authorities" said so. 
          
               For example, Simon Newcomb declared in 1901:  "The 
          demonstration that no possible combination of known 
          substances, known forms of machinery and known forms of 
          force, can be united in a practical machine by which man 
          shall fly long distances through the air, seems to the writer 
          as complete as it is possible for the demonstration of any 
          physical fact to be." 
          
               Fortunately, a few SMART people such as the Wright 
          Brothers did NOT accept such pronouncements as the final 
          word.  Now we take airplanes for granted, (except when they 
          crash). 
          
               Today, orthodox physicists and other "scientists" are 
          saying similar things against several kinds of 'Free Energy' 
          Technologies, using negative terms such as "pseudo-science" 
          and "perpetual motion", and citing so-called "laws" which 
          assert that "energy cannot be created or destroyed" ("1st law 
          of thermodynamics") and "there is always a decrease in useful 
          energy" ("2nd law of thermodynamics").  The physicists do not 
          know how to do certain things, so they ARROGANTLY declare 
          that those things cannot be done.  Such PRINCIPLES OF 
          IMPOTENCE are COMMON in orthodox modern physics and help to 
          cover up INCONSISTENCIES and CONTRADICTIONS in orthodox 
          modern theories. 
          
               The "laws" of "thermodynamics" and "conservation of 
          energy" ASSUME that the physical universe that we see around 
          us is a "CLOSED SYSTEM".  It is NOT.

               Free Energy Inventions are devices which can tap a 
          seemingly UNLIMITED supply of energy from the universe, or 
          from hyper-dimensional sources, with-OUT burning any kind of 
          fuel, making them the PERFECT SOLUTION to the world-wide 
          energy crisis and its associated pollution, degradation, and 
          depletion of the environment. 
          
               Most Free Energy Devices probably do not create energy, 
          but rather tap into EXISTING natural or hyper-dimensional 
          energy sources by various forms of induction.  UNLIKE solar 
          or wind devices, they need little or no energy storage 
          capacity, because they can tap as much energy as needed WHEN 
          needed.  Solar energy has the DIS-advantage that the sun is 
          often blocked by clouds, trees, buildings, or the earth 
          itself, or is reduced by haze or smog or by thick atmosphere 
          at low altitudes and high latitudes.  Likewise, wind speed is 
          WIDELY VARIABLE and often non-existent.  Neither solar nor 
          wind power are suitable to directly power cars and airplanes.  
          Properly designed Free Energy Devices do NOT have such 
          limitations. 
          
               For example, at least three U.S. patents (#3,811,058, 
          #3,879,622, and #4,151,431) have so far been awarded for 
          motors that run EXCLUSIVELY on permanent MAGNETS, seemingly 
          tapping into energy circulating through the earth's magnetic 
          field, or from some hyper-dimensional source.  The first two 
          require a feedback network in order to be self-running.  The 
          third one, as described in detail in "Science & Mechanics" 
          magazine, Spring 1980, ("Amazing Magnet-Powered Motor", by 
          Jorma Hyypia, pages 45-48, 114-117, and front cover), 
          requires critical sizes, shapes, orientations, and spacings 
          of magnets, but NO feedback.  Such a motor could drive an 
          electric generator or reversible heatpump in one's home, YEAR 
          ROUND, FOR FREE. 
          [Complete descriptive copies of U.S. patents are $3.00 each 
          from the U.S. Patent Office, 2021 Jefferson Davis Hwy., 
          Arlington, VA  22202; correct 7-digit patent numbers 
          required.  Or try getting copies of BOTH the article AND the 
          Patents via your local public or university library's inter-
          library loan dept..] 
          
               A second type of free-energy device, such as the 'Gray 
          Motor' (U.S. Patent #3,890,548), the 'Tesla Coil', and the 
          motor of inventor Joseph Newman [see SCIENCE, 2-10-84, pages 
          571-2.], taps ELECTRO-MAGNETIC energy by INDUCTION from 
          'EARTH RESONANCE' (about 12 cycles per second and harmonics).  
          They typically have a 'SPARK GAP' in the circuit which serves 
          to SYNCHRONIZE the energy in the coils with the energy being 
          tapped.  It is important that the total 'inductance' and 
          'capacitance' of the Device combine to 'RESONATE' at the same 
          frequency as 'EARTH RESONANCE' in order to maximize the power 
          output.  This output can also be increased by centering the 
          SPARK GAP at the 'NEUTRAL CENTER' of a strong U-shaped 
          permanent magnet.  In the case of a Tesla Coil, slipping a 
          'TOROID CHOKE COIL' around and about halfway down the 
          secondary coil will enhance output power.  ["Earth Energy: 
          Fuelless Propulsion & Power Systems", by John Bigelow, 1976, 
          Health Research, P.O. Box 70, Mokelumne Hill, CA  95245.] 
          
               During the 1930's, an Austrian civil engineer named 
          Viktor Schauberger invented and partially developed an 
          'IMPLOSION TURBINE' (German name, 'ZOKWENDLE'), after 
          analyzing erosion, and lack of erosion, in differently shaped 
          waterways, and developing sophisticated mathematical 
          equations to explain it.  As described in the book "A 
          Breakthrough to New Free-Energy Sources", by Dan A. Davidson, 
          1977, water is pumped by an IMPELLER pump through a 
          LOGARITHMIC-SPIRAL-shaped coil of tubing until it reaches a 
          CRITICAL VELOCITY.  The water then IMPLODES, no longer 
          touching the inside walls of the tubing, and drives the pump, 
          which then converts the pump's motor into an ELECTRIC 
          GENERATOR.  The device seems to be tapping energy from that 
          of the earth's rotation, via the 'Coriolis effect', LIKE A 
          TORNADO; or perhaps the energy source is again HYPER-
          DIMENSIONAL.  [ It can also NEUTRALIZE GRAVITY! ] 
          
               A fourth type of Free Energy Device is the 'McClintock 
          Air Motor' (U.S. Patent #2,982,261), which is a cross between 
          a diesel engine (it has three cylinders with a compression 
          ratio of 27 to 1) and a rotary engine (with solar and 
          planetary gears).  It burns NO FUEL, but becomes self-running 
          by driving its own air compressor.  This engine also 
          generates a lot of heat, which could be used to heat 
          buildings; and its very HIGH TORQUE makes it ideal for large 
          trucks, preventing their slowing down when climbing hills.  
          
               Crystals may someday be used to supply energy, as shown 
          in the Star Trek shows, perhaps by inserting each one between 
          metal capacitor plates, bombarding it with a beam of 
          particles from a small radioactive source like that used in a 
          common household smoke detector, and repeatedly drawing off 
          the charge on the plates after very short time intervals. 
          
               One other energy source should be mentioned here, 
          despite the fact that it does not fit the definition of Free 
          Energy.  A Bulgarian-born American Physicist named Joseph 
          Maglich has invented and partially developed an atomic FUSION 
          reactor which he calls 'Migma', which uses NON-radioactive 
          deuterium as a fuel [available in nearly UN-LIMITED 
          quantities from sea water], does NOT produce radioactive 
          waste, can be converted DIRECTLY into electricity (with-OUT 
          energy-wasting steam turbines), and can be constructed small 
          enough to power a house or large enough to power a city.  And 
          UNLIKE the "Tokamaks" and laser fusion MONSTROSITIES that we 
          read about, Migma WORKS, already producing at least three 
          watts of power for every watt put in.  ["New Times" (U.S. 
          version), 6-26-78, pages 32-40.] 
          
               And then there are the 'cold fusion' experiments that 
          were in the news a couple of years ago, originally conducted 
          by University of Utah researchers B. Stanley Pons and Martin 
          Fleischmann.  Some U.S. Navy researchers at the China Lake 
          Naval Weapons Center in California, under the direction of 
          chemist Melvin Miles, finally took the trouble to collect the 
          bubbles coming from such an apparatus, had them analyzed with 
          mass-spectrometry techniques, and found HELIUM 4, which 
          PROVES that atomic FUSION did indeed take place, and enough 
          of it to explain the excess heat generated. 
          
               There are GOOD INDICATIONS that the so-called "laws" of 
          thermodynamics are NOT so "absolute".  For example, the late 
          Physicist Dewey B. Larson developed a comprehensive GENERAL 
          UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe, which he called the 
          'Reciprocal System', (which he describes in detail in several 
          books such as "Nothing But Motion" (1979) and "The Universe 
          of Motion" (1984)), in which the physical universe has TWO 
          DISTINCT HALVES, the material half and an anti-matter half, 
          with a CONTINUOUS CYCLE of matter and energy passing between 
          them, with-OUT the "heat death" predicted by thermodynamic 
          "laws".  His Theory explains the physical universe MUCH 
          BETTER than modern orthodox theories, including phenomena 
          that orthodox physicists and astronomers are still scratching 
          their heads about, and is SELF-CONSISTENT in every way.  Some 
          Free Energy Devices might be tapping into that energy flow, 
          seemingly converting "low-quality energy" into "high-quality 
          energy". 
          
               Also, certain religious organizations such as 'Eckankar' 
          [1-800-568-3463] and 'Sant Mat' teach their Initiates that 
          the physical universe is only the LOWEST of at least a DOZEN 
          major levels of existence, like parallel universes, or 
          analogous to TV channels, as described in books like "The 
          Path of the Masters", by Dr. Julian Johnson, 1939, and 
          "Eckankar: The Key to Secret Worlds", by Sri Paul Twitchell, 
          1969.  For example, the next level up from the physical 
          universe is commonly called the 'Astral Plane'.  Also, each 
          major level or 'plane', possibly even the physical plane, is 
          SUB-DIVIDED into NUMEROUS SUB-planes.  Long-time Initiates of 
          these groups have learned to 'Soul Travel' into these higher 
          worlds and report on conditions there.  It seems plausible 
          that energy could flow down from these higher levels into our 
          physical universe, or be created at the boundary between 
          them, given the right configurations and motions of matter to 
          channel it.  This is supported by many successful laboratory-
          controlled experiments in PSYCHO-KINESIS throughout the 
          world, such as those described in the book "Psychic 
          Discoveries Behind the Iron Curtain". 
          
               In terms of economics, the market has FAILED.  Inventors 
          do not have enough money and other resources to fully develop 
          and mass-produce Free Energy Equipment, and the conventional 
          energy producer$ have no desire to do so because of their 
          VE$TED INTERE$T$.  The government is needed to intervene.  If 
          the government does not intervene, then the total supply of 
          energy resources from the earth will continue to decline and 
          will soon run out, prices for energy will increase, and 
          pollution and its harmful effects (including the 'GREENHOUSE 
          EFFECT', acid rain, smog, radioactive contamination, oil 
          spills, rape of the land by strip mining, etc.) will continue 
          to increase. 
          
               The government should SUBSIDIZE research and development 
          of Free Energy by Inventors and universities, subsidize 
          private production (until the producers can make it on their 
          own), and subsidize consumption by low-income consumers of 
          Free Energy Hardware. 
          
          
               For more information, answers to your questions, etc., 
          please consult my CITED SOURCES (patents, articles, books). 

          
               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this 
          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED, especially to COMPUTER 
          BULLETIN BOARDS. 
          
                                   Robert E. McElwaine
                                   B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC

          P.S.:
                     FARADAY'S DISC and DePALMA'S N-MACHINE

               "The 'N-machine.'

               "This device is an offshoot of a 150-year-old mystery in 
          physics initially discovered by Michael Faraday in England in 
          1831, that has remained unexplained for well over a century 
          and a half.  The mystery is this: that a ROTATING MAGNETIC 
          FIELD, relative to A CONDUCTOR ROTATING AT THE SAME SPEED 
          (which means the field is STATIONARY relative to the rotating 
          conducting elements), can ALSO create an electric current! 

               "About twenty years ago, another physicist, Dr. Bruce 
          DePalma, formerly of MIT, began a series of basic mechanical 
          experiments with 'rotating frames'--culminating in a device 
          he termed the 'N-Machine', which above a critical RPM 
          [27,000?] (revolutions per minute), APPEARS TO GENERATE MORE 
          ELECTRICAL CURRENT OUT OF A SPINNING 'FARADAY DISC' THAN THE 
          INPUT ENERGY REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN ITS MECHANICAL ROTATION! 

               "It is our growing belief that Dr. DePalma's 'N-
          machine'--if it IS successfully producing more energy than 
          required for its input--MUST be operating according to the 
          Cydonia 'hyperdimensional physics' we have been so graciously 
          'bequeathed'...by someone." 

               The paragraphs above are quoted from pages 371-2 of the 
          1992 EDITION of "THE MONUMENTS OF MARS: A CITY ON THE EDGE OF 
          FOREVER", by Richard C. Hoagland. 

               Richard C. Hoagland's research organization is THE MARS 
          MISSION, 122 Dodd St., Weehawken, NJ  07087. 


          


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenrem5 cudfnRobert cudlnMcElwaine cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.19 / Bill Rowe /  Re: Rowe describes Jed's logic incorrectly
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rowe describes Jed's logic incorrectly
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 17:36:58 -0700
Organization: AltNet - http://www.alt.net

In article <Z-PGQSv.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

>browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) write:
> 
>     "Let repeat what your logic seems to be
> 
>     1) more energy than observed from any known chemistry
>     2) no possibility of any significant error
>     3) can't imagine anyway to explain it with chemistry
>     4) no evidence of fusion other than heat
> 
>     Therefore the process is not chemistry but fusion."
> 
>This is incorrect. I have NEVER asserted that the process is fusion. I have
>always said that fusion appears to be the best working hypothesis, but perhaps
>it is something else, like zero point energy. I have repeated time after time
>that I do not know what it is, and I don't care either. I am sure it is not
>chemistry. I am sure it causes no gross pollution or danger, and I know that
>it can produce high temperatures and high power density, so I think it will
>become a useful source of energy.

No, I assert from what you have posted your logic SEEMS to be what I have
indicated above. I agree you have not definitely asserted the process is
fusion. However, you do keep refering to the process as fusion. This
certainly makes it appear as if you are saying the process is fusion.

>1. CF cannot be a mistake because the effect is so large and so widely
>replicated. In particular, it cannot be "subtle" mistake, because subtle
>mistake don't cause gigantic effects.

Nor have I asserted CF is a mistake. I do seriously question whether the
process is fusion or not.
 
>2. It cannot be chemistry because a match cannot burn for a week.

Agreed. But what has burning a match have to do with CF.
 
>3. It must be something that produces far more energy than chemistry. Fusion?
>Perhaps. Zero point energy? Something else, completely unknown to science? I
>have no idea. That is no concern of mine.

Why can't it be explained by chemistry? What process are you assuming?

Consider the numbers you posted for the SOFE demostration, i.e. a flow
rate of 14.28 ml/min with an output power of 4-5 Watts. Given the density
of water as 1 g/cc and 18 g/mole for water, these numbers equate to 378
J/mole. From Logajan's web page I note the following

H+H ==> H2 giving 436,000 J/mole
0+0 ==> O2 giving 498,000 J/mole
H2+O2 ==> H2O giving 285,800 J/mole

All of these reactions are clearly outputing several times the 378 J/mole
needed.

I will stipulate this isn't a complete or accurate explaination.

Not all of the water can be involved in the reaction so the 378 J/mole
figure is low. I don't know by how much or have enough data to estimate by
how much.

Also, I can't explain how enough H2 and O2 are created given the 20mA into
the cell to get 378 J/mole.

The point I am trying to make is wheter you see this as explained by
chemistry or not depends on the assumed reaction. I do not dispute the
values you posted. I assert they are not sufficient to show a fusion
process as occured.

>Rowe also writes:
> 
>     "Of course there is no possibility you have overlooked something
>     or not considered something of importance."
> 
>Not me -- you. You have not overlooked anything, or failed to consider
>anything of importance. For six long years you skeptics have been attempting
>to find an error in the cold fusion experimental work. You have not found any
>yet, and you never will. The statute of limitations has run out. If there was
>an experimental error in the calorimetry of McKubre, or Bockris, Oriani,
>Kunimatsu, Cravens, CETI, Amoco Production, Shell Oil or any of the others you
>would have found it by now. You would have gleefully come down on them like a
>ton of bricks! But that has not happened. There are no "skeptical" critiques
>of any of these experiments. You have looked for errors and found NOTHING.
>Nothing, that is, unless you count the blather and nonsense from people like
>Steve Jones, who claims the CETI heat comes from recombination even though he
>knows that would only reduce the excess from 5 watts to 4.97 watts.

Again, I am not arguing with the calorimetery or claiming an error has
been made. Neither am I willing to make a blanket claim for all of the
experiments you are mentioning in passing above. I have not done a
critical review of each of them.

However, from what you have posted it is not clear the SOFE demo is a
demonstration of a fusion process or cannot be explained by chemistry.
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.20 / Dieter Britz /  New fusion list?
     
Originally-From: britz@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: New fusion list?
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 09:35:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

A week or so ago, Richard Schroeppel announced that he now has a
fusion list running. Has anyone had luck with subscribing to it? I
tried it in the usual way, sending the 'subscribe' message to
listserv@...  but that didn't work. Richard himself, whom I emailed
about it, seems to have vanished.

What does one do? Richard?

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


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.19 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: 7Li(n,2n)6LI driven fusion (was: Farce of Physics)
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Originally-From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 7Li(n,2n)6LI driven fusion (was: Farce of Physics)
Subject: Re: 7Li(n,2n)6LI driven fusion (was: Farce of Physics)
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 19:38:16 -0500
Date: 18 Oct 1995 17:35:45 GMT
Organization: 21st Century Logic
Organization: Daneliuk & Page

Path:
bird3.i-link.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!ub!netfs.dnd.ca!usenet
Originally-From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 7Li(n,2n)6LI driven fusion (was: Farce of Physics)
Date: 18 Oct 1995 17:35:45 GMT
Organization: Daneliuk & Page
Lines: 7
Message-ID: <463dth$aps@netfs.dnd.ca>
References: <45tobe$g06@netfs.dnd.ca>
<21cenlogic-1710950953290001@austin-1-2.i-link.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.6+

In article <21cenlogic-1710950953290001@austin-1-2.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) says:

>        As for your attempt to reclassify this topic under a different
>name, why do you insult Mr. Wallace in this way?

Jeez, get off my back why don't you! You are the only one who is
being insulting here...

***{Horseapples.Your stated justification for moving this material out of
the Wallace thread was as follows:

"I had begun to habitually bypass any posting with the subject line of
"Farce of Physics" because for so long it seemed to have nothing to do
with fusion - hot or cold. But here I find this thread going on under the
"Farce... " subject heading which really does have something to do with
fusion! Why hide it in this way?"

The implication of your remarks is that if the Wallace thread happens, at
a given moment, to contain something that isn't off topic, that material
should be moved to a different thread! That, in my view, is grotesque. The
guy was roundly criticized, for months and months, for being allegedly off
topic. And now, when he is unarguably on topic, you immediately move the
discussion out of his thread! There is just no way the guy can win, is
there? And you don't think it is insulting to treat someone in this way!
Ha! --Mitchell Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.20 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Return to Rome
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Return to Rome
Date: 20 Oct 1995 00:56:49 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <465uu5$aip@fnnews.fnal.gov> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)  
writes:
> 
> I can only take Jim Griggs at his word that they have not yet bought a 
> log book.  Jim, any bound book will do. 

Actually, these days a portable PC might be better. On that
note, does Scott Little have an email address? I would love
to aske some specific questions about their experimental setups.


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


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.19 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: 7Li(n,2n)6LI driven fusion (was: Farce of Physics)
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 7Li(n,2n)6LI driven fusion (was: Farce of Physics)
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 20:45:58 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <462uk2$lto@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, zoltanccc@aol.com
(ZoltanCCC) wrote:

> I don't remember the possibility of sustained reactions being refuted. The
> number of reactions that could happen in a complex system as this is
> large, and possibly we don't know about all of them yet. Some that come to
> mind are:
> 
> n* + Li7 ---> Li6 + n + n                                (1)
> 
> This is our original reaction, where I denoted the fast neutron with a *
> for simplicity.
> 
> n  + Li7 ---> Li8 (life is 0.844 secs)                 (2)
> 
> In this (2) the neutron is slow.
> 
> Li8  --->  e  +  Be8 (life is 0.067 femtosecs)     (3)
> 
> Be8  --->  He4  +  He4                                   (4)
> 
> The consecutive (3) and (4) yield a whopping 16 MeV of energy taken away
> by the electron mostly (I think). 

***{In the Cravens demo, if memory serves, the electrolyte contained
lithium sulfate, and it is possible that lithium plated out on the cathode
during the demo runs. Since 92.5% of naturally occurring lithium is Li7,
that would be the case for the plated lithium as well. It would
immediately form lithium oxide in water, which, I believe, is insoluble.
Would it remain on the cathode? If it did, this reaction would become a
very real possibility as a surface effect. The thinness of the film would
relegate it to a minor contributor to the total energy, but it is very
interesting. It might be worthwhile to try a lithium-palladium alloy as a
cathode material, if that would be possible. Or perhaps CETI could deposit
alternating layers of palladium and lithium on their beads. If the top
layer were palladium, the lithium would be protected from oxidation, and
things might get really interesting from the standpoint of energy
production! (The breakdown of Be8 would be cold fission!) --Mitchell
Jones}***

We also have the following:
> 
> n  +  Li6  --->  T  +  He4                                 (5)
> 
> This yields some energy (I think about 4 MeV)
> 
> Of course so far we have nothing producing fast neutrons. Perhaps these
> reactions can be used to build a reactor which is operated by an external
> fast neutron source.
> 
> Of course we have the deuterium to think of, so we have:
> 
> n  +  d  --->   T
> 
> or the fast T from the (5) will collide with other nuclei present in the
> system possibly causing fission/fusion and thereby replenishing our fast
> neutron supply. One example:
> 
> T  +  d  --->  He4  +  n*
> 
> This reaction can complete a circle of positive feedback to make the
> system supercritical, because our original fast neutron has been
> replenished and we have lots of heat producing reactions. 
> 
> This whole system can be used to build a "dirty" nuclear reactor. Perhaps
> it can be constructed sub-critical and run by the external neutron source
> (gas discharge tube) or maybe it can be moderated. 
> 
> This whole thing has been discused under the "Farce of physics".  
> 
> 
> 
> Zoltan Szakaly

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.20 / Michael Wiet /  breeder reactor
     
Originally-From: GYDZ19A@prodigy.com (Michael Wiet)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: breeder reactor
Date: 20 Oct 1995 02:24:42 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

if you know anything about it i would like to know what you know for a 
project that i am doing. if there is anything also related to a 
"materializer" from star trek, which is the thing you talk to and the 
object appears.


                                                               
-
  MICHAEL WIET  GYDZ19A@prodigy.com


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenGYDZ19A cudfnMichael cudlnWiet cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.20 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Rowe describes Jed's logic incorrectly
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rowe describes Jed's logic incorrectly
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 95 00:51:41 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

O-boy, o-boy. We have a problem here. Bill Rowe <browe@netcom.com> writes:
 
    "Consider the numbers you posted for the SOFE demostration, i.e. a flow
    rate of 14.28 ml/min with an output power of 4-5 Watts. Given the density
    of water as 1 g/cc and 18 g/mole for water, these numbers equate to 378
    J/mole. From Logajan's web page I note the following
 
    H+H ==> H2 giving 436,000 J/mole
    0+0 ==> O2 giving 498,000 J/mole
    H2+O2 ==> H2O giving 285,800 J/mole
 
    All of these reactions are clearly outputing several times the 378 J/mole
    needed."
 
Bill, I hate to say this, but you are very, very mixed up about some
scientific fundamentals. I honestly think you should take some time to review
a textbook. You have mixed up power and energy, and you do not seem to
understand the difference between water and free hydrogen & oxygen gas. Let me
correct a few mistakes here. Perhaps someone else can do this more gently than
me, but I'll do my best:
 
What does the number of joules per mole for one minute have to do with
anything? The cell did not stop after one minute. You cannot integrate total
energy (joules) from power (watts) until you know how long the reaction ran.
This particular reaction ran for several days, nonstop. After 4 days that
came to 1.7 megajoules. The number of moles of water that were pumped through
the cell during that period makes no difference whatsoever. Are you forgetting
that it was the same water, pumped round and round and round? There are only
a few hundred milliliters of water in the reservoir and cell, say 11 moles.
That comes 157,000 joules/mole, but that happens to be a perfectly meaningless
number, because this cell previously ran for 7 weeks nonstop producing four
times more excess power (20 watts). That comes to 85 MJ, or 7.7 MJ/mole. If
you ran the thing for a year, you would get up to 54 MJ/mole. If you ran it
for 2 years, you would get 100 MJ/mole. There is no evidence that a CF cell
of this size run will last only two years before exhausting the fuel. (For
that matter, this cell run in a static calorimeter would have only a few
milliliters of water, but it would still produce 85 megajoules. Gas loaded
cells have even less hydrogen. They have produced thousands of megajoules per
mole of hydrogen.)
 
This equation "H2+O2 ==> H2O giving 285,800 J/mole" shows how much energy you
get when you burn free hydrogen and oxygen. This water is already water; H2O.
You cannot burn it; it is already in the ground state. That is why water is so
good for putting out fires. Now, if you disassociate the water,
electrolytically breaking it into free hydrogen and oxygen, that process
*swallows up* 285,800 joules per mole. Since the cell does undergo
electrolysis a small amount of energy is lost to this very source. That's a
loss, not a gain. The free gas is pushed through the gas flowmeter, and out
into the air in the conference hall, where it eventually recombines (burns) on
its own. There is no way this process could add any energy to a cell. It could
store energy in a closed cell, but it cannot produce a net positive, because
you start with water, break it into gas which takes energy, and then you get
the energy back when it recombines. Net result: zero.
 
You write:
 
    "Also, I can't explain how enough H2 and O2 are created given the 20mA
    into the cell to get 378 J/mole."
 
Of course you can't! Nobody can. That is physically impossible, by a very wide
margin. It would take hundreds of times more current than that to disassociate
so much water by electrolysis. In fact, at a bare minimum, no matter what
process you use, it would take at least 5 watts! That is one of the
fundamental laws of science: conservation of energy. You cannot put in 0.06
watts, create a chemical reaction, reverse that same reaction, and get back 5
watts. You can NEVER get more than 0.06 watts back. You can never get even
that much.
 
The only way you can get more energy out the cell than you put in is to
release stored-up chemical energy, or initiate a nuclear reaction. There
cannot be more than a few joules of stored-up chemical energy in this system,
and we get 85 million joules out of the cell every few months.
 
 
   "Why can't it [85 MJ reaction] be explained by chemistry? What process are
   you assuming?"
 
I'll assume any process you like. Get a chemistry book, start looking up
processes. Find the most energetic chemical process known to man. (I believe
the heat of combustion of a diamond yields the most energy per mole. The heat
of combustion for octane gives the highest energy per unit of mass.) You will
see no chemical reaction comes close to 7.7 MJ/mole, or 100 MJ, or thousands
of megajoules per mole. In the textbook you will also find that all chemical
reactions produce macroscopic chemical ash, which is easily observed. The
materials that undergo a reaction are grossly altered; they change color, or
they are vaporized. A burned match does not look a bit like a unburned match.
If the materials in a cell were to undergo a chemical reaction, they would
produce *at most* a tiny fraction of the energy seen during CF, and when you
opened the cell, you would find the insides have burned up. Yet after a cell
produces megajoule after megajoule of CF energy, there is *no chemical change
whatsoever* inside the cell. No smoke, no ash, no color change, no nothing.
Therefore, whatever CF may be it is definitely not chemistry.
 
Of course, when you look in that chemistry book and you limit yourself the set
of chemical reactions that can occur with H2O, a little plastic, and 40 mg of
metal, you will find that this cell can release only 2 or 3 joules of chemical
energy. So we are talking about the difference between 2 or 3 and 85,000,000.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.20 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 95 01:17:57 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Matthew Kennel <mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu> writes:
 
>OK Jed, let's make this really simple and '19th-century'. ;-) 
>
>Can the whatever cells consistently and continuously *boil* initally
>room-temperature water at the same 20 times heat out/power in?
 
Well, if they do that, then the water all goes away after a while. The
cells do not hold much, and you would not want to boil the water with
a flow calorimeter (it would wreck the components). They run pressurized
cells at over 100 deg C. They are pressurized in order to prevent boiling,
of course.
 
You realize, I hope, that I do not set up these experiments. I am just
reporting on them. I can make suggestions of course. . . but I honestly
do not see why you think the heat of vaporization is more convincing than
the specific heat of water. Why is boiling water more convincing than a
flow calorimeter? Has anyone found any inherant fault in flow calorimetry?
 
>Since you know thermodynamics I presume you can see why this is important.
 
Well, I know enough to realize you can't put in 0.06 watts into a chemical
reaction, reverse it, and get out 5 watts continously. But I do not see why
vaporizing liquid is a better way to measure heat than just heating up
liquid. In some experiments vaporizing is more convenient, but I myself
have no doubt whatsoever that 1 calorie = 4.2 joules. Do you question that?
Do you honestly, really, sincerely think that flow calorimetry can show
5 watts where there are really only 0.03 watts?!? How could this happen?
Name an error or collection of errors that would add up to something this
great. I cannot begin to imagine how such a thing could happen. Especially
not in five different labs, using five different calorimeters, run by five
different groups of scientists.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.20 /  jedrothwell@de /  Lines rearranged per Droege's request
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Lines rearranged per Droege's request
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 95 01:18:47 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) objected to my use of elipsis:
 
    "Those who care about such things might want to look at my original post
    and see how Jed has edited it.  While the . . . are there to indicate
    deletions, I think that Jed's editing job has significantly changed the
    flavor of what I said.  Good craftmanship Jed!  That is, if that is what
    you want to be good at."
 
Ooo! I am sorry. How awful of me. I will revise it at once. Here:
 
    "It is a little worrisome to me that I am the only one Griggs seems to
    trust."
 
This is garbage. Nobody in his right mind would trust Tom Doege, because he
routinely goes on Internet and posts stupid lies like this:
 
     "All the evidence was that Griggs is no longer trying to do any science
     at all.
 
And this:
 
     "So I think they have canned Scott Smith and are no longer trying to do
     anything serious about a measurement program."
 
. . . which is not only a lie, it is a malicious fabricated rumor that some
guy has lost his job. I wonder how Tom Droege would feel if some bozo got on
Internet and posted messages saying "I went to Fermilab but I did not see
Droege, so I guess they canned him." I'll bet he would be plenty pissed off
at that! He would probably demand the bozo apologize. Yup.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.20 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: 20 Oct 1995 06:02:52 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <466j65$m74@gaia.ns.utk.edu> mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew  
Kennel) writes:
> Martin Sevior (msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au) wrote:
> : Thanks very much for the news Jed. The Patterson Cell seems to be going  
from
> : strength to strength. By my count there are now 5 independent verifications
> : of excess heat production 

No, there are not. Miley's group at UofI _has not made any claim
of excess heat production_. If I'm wrong, please correct me.



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


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.20 / I Johnston /  Re: CF demo at SOFE
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF demo at SOFE
Date: 20 Oct 1995 08:53:27 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

Tom Droege (Droege@fnal.fnal.gov) wrote:

: I have two cats and a radiation counter.  The red cat is clean, the
: grey cat won't let me get close enough to make a measurement.  What 
: is she hiding?  

And the reflected light theory is nonsense. Their eyes _do_ glow in the
dark. I have to take one of mine to the vet soon. With the vet's
standard temperature measurement and an assumption that the food starts
at room temperature I may be able to do some flow calorimetry ...

Ian

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.20 / Lawrence E /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: "Lawrence E. Wharton" <Wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: 20 Oct 1995 13:09:02 GMT
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center -- Greenbelt, Maryland USA

I thing it should be made clear that this class of "recombination" 
critics are invoking a problem with past experiments which no longer is 
relevant.  Some past failed experiments used the bogus calculation of 
the gain factor given by:

gain = 2 * (heat out) / (energy in)

instead of:

gain = 2 * (heat out) / ((energy in) * (1 + recombination fraction))

If some of the hydrogen and oxygen was recombining then an incorrect 
excess could be obtained with an upper limit of 2.  The CETI gain factor 
being used is:

gain = (heat out) / (energy in)

and underestimates the gain by neglecting the energy out from the 
hydrogen.  The gain is so large that the previous trick which was used 
to add on an extra 10% or so is ancient history.  Its gone and the 
"recombination" critics need to think of something else.


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenWharton cudfnLawrence cudlnE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.20 / Bill Page /  Re: 7Li(n,2n)6LI driven fusion (was: Farce of Physics)
     
Originally-From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 7Li(n,2n)6LI driven fusion (was: Farce of Physics)
Date: 20 Oct 1995 13:43:28 GMT
Organization: Daneliuk & Page

In article <21cenlogic-1910951938160001@austin-2-8.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) says:
>***{Horseapples.Your stated justification for moving this material out of
>the Wallace thread was as follows:
>
>"I had begun to habitually bypass any posting with the subject line of
>"Farce of Physics" because for so long it seemed to have nothing to do
>with fusion - hot or cold. But here I find this thread going on under the
>"Farce... " subject heading which really does have something to do with
>fusion! Why hide it in this way?"
>
>The implication of your remarks is that if the Wallace thread happens, at
>a given moment, to contain something that isn't off topic, that material
>should be moved to a different thread! That, in my view, is grotesque.

In what way? Don't you think the "subject" line should describe the subject.
Do I really need to repeat that all I meant by my above comment was that
I was disappointed that I missed the subject that Wallace had initiated
because I had incorrectly assumed that it was of no interest to me.
>                                                                    The
>guy was roundly criticized, for months and months, for being allegedly off
>topic.

As I recall, the only issue was whether he should be cross-posting messages
to so many different groups. At the time and to some extent still,
sci.physics. fusion remains littered with much irrelevant material. This
just detracts from its stated purpose.

>    And now, when he is unarguably on topic, you immediately move the
>discussion out of his thread! There is just no way the guy can win, is
>there? And you don't think it is insulting to treat someone in this way!
>Ha! --Mitchell Jones}***

No, I definitely do not believe that any one in their right mind would
consider this an insult. It is absolutely no comment what so ever about
Wallace's ideas one way or the other. In fact, my intent was to increase
the number of people reading about this particular idea by introducing a
more descriptive subject line. I don't see why you seem to have the
weird idea that posters somehow "own" the threads they initiate in a
unmoderated public forum.

More than enough said.

Cheers,
Bill Page.

>
>===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenwspage cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.18 /  lforbes /  Re: CF demo at SOFE
     
Originally-From: lforbes@nucleus.com (lforbes)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF demo at SOFE
Date: 18 Oct 1995 18:05:23 GMT
Organization: Nucleus Inc [Calgary, AB, Canada]


: In article <J-KFgkZ.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: >Richard A Blue <blue@pilot.msu.edu> writes:
: > 
: >>One of the strange responses by Jed Rothwell to questions concerning this
: >>device is that the effect has also been observed in a static calorimeter
: >>without the flowing electrolyte.  Could you fill us in on the details
: >>regarding that experiment, Jed?  ..............
: > 
: >That is a stupid question. A very stupid question, ............
: > 
: >This is patently obvious. It is so utterly simple and so easy to understand
: >for anyone who is familiar with calorimeters, that only a complete fool like
: >Dick Blue would wonder about it. The fact that he did not instantly
: >understand it when I explained the first time proves that he does not have
: >the foggiest idea what we are talking about here, and he does not understand
: >the fundamentals of calorimetry, or thermodynamics, or grade schools physics
: >for that matter.
: > 
: >- Jed

All together now ....

  Come listen to my story 'bout a man named Jed,

  A cold fusionier, his common sense has fled,

  And then one day, he was in a surly mo-o-o-d,

  And out of his pen came a bubble'n crude,

  Comments that is, pistosh and cod wallop.


  The next thing you know, ol' Jeds a doctrinaire,

  The net folks said ................. etc. etc.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenlforbes cudlnlforbes cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.19 / A Plutonium /  15th Experiments proving HYASYS; Stability of helium3
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 15th Experiments proving HYASYS; Stability of helium3
Date: 19 Oct 1995 22:13:23 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

1@0  1.00866492     1/1=1       B- 10.3 m    .78235 MEV

1@1  1.007825032   99.985% stable
2@1  2.014101778  2/1=2    .015% stable
3@1  3.01604927   3/2=1.5     B- 12.32 y   .01859 MEV

 3@2  3.01602931  3/1 =3   1.37 x 10^-4 % stable
 4@2  4.00260325  4/2 =2   ~100% stable
5@2 5.01222  5/3 =1.666..    n,A  7.6x10^-22 s  
 6@2  6.01888  6/4 =1.5      .807 sec  B- 3.508 MEV
7@2 7.02803  7/5 =1.4        n  3x10^-21 s
 8@2  8.03392  8/6 =1.33..   .119 sec B- 10.65 MEV
 9@2 9.0438  9/7 =1.285..     n
10@2        10/8 =1.25       2n
  .                   .
  .                   .
  .                   .
  .                   .
 5@3 5.01254   5/2 =2.5    3x10^-22 s
 6@3 6.015122  6/3 =2     7.5%  stable
 7@3 7.016004  6/3 =2     92.5%  stable
  8@3 8.022486   8/5 =1.6     B- .84 s  16.004 MEV
  9@3 9.026789  9/6 =1.5        B-  .178 s  13.606 MEV
 10@3 10.03590   10/7 =1.428..    B-  4x10^-22 s  20.84 MEV
 11@3 11.04379  11/8 =1.375       B-  8.7 ms     20.6 MEV
  .                   .
  .                   .

  A neutron has 1 nuclear electron and 1 nuclear proton and so Hyasys
would say that is unstable because what need is there for a nuclear
electron to hold together a single proton? None?

  Now look at all the other isotopes and see which has the highest
ratio of nuclear protons to electrons for this isotope is especially
significant. Of course most readers would know immediately that it was
helium3 which has 3 nuclear protons yet only 1 nuclear electron.  What
is the size correlation of 3 hadrons for a nucleus as per Mr. Karl Hahn
correlation of MEV to a nuclear size? I take it that CERN and other
outfits have these data all on computer? If not then they are behind
the learning curve.

  Thus, helium3 is stable with 3 nuclear protons held together by only
1 nuclear electron. There should be some experimental setup that proves
HYASYS from the difference of stable helium3 compared to stable helium4
having 2 nuclear electrons.

  If HYASYS is correct then helium3 atoms should accept an additional
neutron. Any experiments showing that a batch of helium3 absorbs
neutrons and becomes helium4?

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.19 / A Plutonium /  16th Experiments proving HYASYS; correlating identical ratios.
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 16th Experiments proving HYASYS; correlating identical ratios.
Date: 19 Oct 1995 22:28:41 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College


   Now go through the list of all isotopes and the nuclei of isotopes
whose ratio of nuclear protons to nuclear electrons are identical
should show some nuclear experiments that shows where two nuclear
isotopes of the same ratio of nuclear protons to nuclear electrons
results in 'similar behavior'. For example both helium4 and lithium6
have the same ratio of 2.

 3@2  3.01602931  3/1 =3   1.37 x 10^-4 % stable
 4@2  4.00260325  4/2 =2   ~100% stable

 6@3 6.015122  6/3 =2     7.5%  stable 

  Thus, experiments set up which uses just the nuclei of these two
isotopes ought to be able to find congruence of nuclear behavior
relating to the fact that their ratio is identical. If HYASYS were
incorrect then there should be absolutely no correlation between these
cross elements. Such a deciding experiment may consider shooting
protons into the nuclei of these ionized atoms and look for similarity
of behavior.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.19 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: H dissolved Pd bead in molten Li fusion reactor?
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: H dissolved Pd bead in molten Li fusion reactor?
Date: 19 Oct 1995 22:16:39 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Univ. Tenn.

Torin Walker (torin@numetrix.com) wrote:
: This may (or may not) be of particular interest to those involved in the
: conventional fusion area, specifically those who are working on the molten
: Lithium fusion reactors.

: My brother and I were discussing, among other things, hot (and cold) fusion,
: fuel cells, general chemistry, etc. when he came up with a very interesting
: idea. Here it is:

: Instead of using little glass spheres containing Deuterium gas, use Palladium
: beads of the same size. Pressurize Deuterium gas in a containment system and
: insert a palladium bead (same size as the ones made with glass). The palladium
: will dissolve many volumes of the gas compared to what could be contained within
: the same sized glass bead.

: Put the Pd bead into the reactor target zone and fire upon it as if it were a
: regular target.


: We thought this might provide two useful features:

: 1) More Deuterium per unit volume for higher energy output (more fuel, more
: ooompf!) thus resulting in a greater potential for a sustained reaction. 

The fusion fuel used in ICF experiments is already cryogenically solidified
deuterium. 

Palladium might decrease the cost, but you'd need an even higher generator
flux.  

It's not clear what adding Pd would exactly do to the dynamics; it would
be complicated.

: Torin...
: -- 
: Torin Walker - Made from 100% pure nerd.                  Voice: (416) 979-6797
: Network Administrator, Technical Support                               Ext. 101
: Numetrix, Ltd., Toronto, Canada.                            Fax: (416) 979-7559
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.19 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: 19 Oct 1995 22:37:35 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Univ. Tenn.

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: Dick Jackson <jackson@soldev.tti.com> writes:
:  
: >So what is the nominal power of the pump? Is it comparable to the
: >measured heat/sec gain of the water flow? If its way less, we should
: >forget it.
:  
: I don't know what the nominal power of the pump is, but I sure do know
: that we should forget it. Let me explain:
:  
: Most of the waste heat from any pump goes into the air, not into the fluid
: the pump is pushing. That is to say; most of the electrical energy consumed
: by the pump is lost to mechanical innefficiency at the pump motor. This is
: particularly true of small pumps.
:  
: In this particular case, I do not know how much energy the pump adds to the
: water, but I do know that it is too small to measure with these instruments.
: Please read this carefully, because I have said it many times and I do not
: think you got the message: They *calibrated carefully*. They made null runs.
: They saw no heat from the pump. Nobody ever does see the heat from the pump
: with this kind of flow calorimeter.

Jed is right here, parasitic heat transfer from the pump mechanism to the
calorimeter would be picked up by bonehead calibration and could easily
be eliminated by moving the pump further away.

It's very unlikely the pressure drop could cause significant heat delivery 
either: the numbers are too far off.

I don't know quite what other calibration runs they performed, but keep
in mind that there's another heat source; the power supply for the 
electrical delivery into the cell.  

I presume they do calibration runs like:

	1)  X watts of electricity in the standard setup going into
	    "mis-manufacturered balls of things that just sit there"

vs.
	2)  The real McCoy's in exactly the same setup. 

If they see any change, then there is some thing particular about the
manufactured devices that does *something*.

Assuming they did that correctly that leaves

	1)  A very complicated and unusual heat pump (through chemical
	    or phase changes?)

	2)  new physics.

In either case, it would be scientifically interesting, though #2 is clearly
more exciting to physicists.  

Keep in mind novel physics for heat pumps might still turn out to be
economically important.

The definitive experiment to rule out heat pumps is "it produces
excess electrical work for as long as you want".  I have not heard of
any reports of such results. 

: - Jed

cheers
Matt
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.19 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: CF demo at SOFE
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF demo at SOFE
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 19:05:34 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <462ujq$ltk@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, zoltanccc@aol.com
(ZoltanCCC) wrote:

> From what I have come to understand about cold fusion, electron capture
> must be happening. This converts protons to neutrons and explains why we
> can get element transmutations. It also explains why we can get nuclear
> reactions with light water. In the lightwater cold fusion cell I assume
> the following reactions:
> 
> e + p  --->  n  -  0.782 MeV                   (1)
> 
> The resulting thermal neutron will either collide with another proton or
> with a Palladium 
> nucleus.
> 
> n + p  --->  d  +  2.22 MeV                    (2) 

***{This "electron capture" notion doesn't work, Zoltan. First, it
proposes no mechanism to prevent these huge gammas from flying out of the
cathode and killing the experimenters. Second, it proposes no mechanism to
prevent the thermal neutrons from escaping from the cathode before being
absorbed. The halflife of a thermal neutron is on the order of 12 minutes,
and it moves with an average velocity of 2200 meter/sec. It is obvious
that it has to be captured virtually instantaneously at those velocities,
or else it will find its way out of the cathode, into the electrolyte, and
thence out of the experimental apparatus and into the lab. Unfortunately,
the capture cross sections are small both for H and Pd (.33 and 6.9 barns,
respectively), and the resulting random scattering paths before capture
are centimeters in length (14.72 cm. and 2.11 cm. respectively). When
rogue neutrons of this kind are eventually captured, the result will be
unshielded gammas that will fry the experimenters. 

One way out of this difficulty is supplied by the protoneutron theory.
Instead of p + e + .7825 Mev --> n, as you propose, the reaction becomes p
+ e --> pn. The difference is huge. First, the protoneutron is wildly
unstable and is destroyed virtually instantly by thermalization. This
means it cannot withstand the collisions that will boost its kinetic
energy up to the average for particles in the lattice. If it is knocked
out into the electrolyte, for example, it will "pop" into a neutral
hydrogen atom. A neutron knocked into the electrolyte, on the other hand,
remains a neutron and, as a result, becomes a threat to the experimenters.


Of course, the reaction pn +.7825 Mev --> n does eventually occur under my
scenario, but the difference between it and p + e + .7825 Mev --> n is
that the resulting neutron is a cold neutron with a huge capture cross
section in the former case, and a thermal neutron with a low capture cross
section in the second. Result: the cold neutron would be absorbed by the
first nucleus it approached, and would not get out of the lattice, much
less out of the experimental apparatus. The thermal neutron, on the other
hand, normally would escape from the cathode, and frequently would escape
from the apparatus, before being absorbed. Result: unshielded gammas that
would fry the experimenters. Since the actual experimenters who have run
"cold fusion" cells aren't dead, your approach does not work. --Mitchell
Jones}***

> 
> n + Pd(106)  ---> Pd(107)                      (3)
> 
>  Where (3) is just an example because at least 4 isotopes of Palladium are
> common. The newly created isotopes decay with minimal energy radiation.

***{You fail to mention that, before they decay, the excited nuclei of
these newly created isotopes drop to ground state by emitting huge gammas.
How, then, do you explain the fact that the experimenters are not all
dead?  --Mitchell Jones}***
  
> The (3) or similar reactions may not happen as often as the (2) because
> the electron capture occurs outside of the Pd ion, in space inhabited by
> protons and electrons. The heat produced by (2) is more than enough to
> offset the energy loss of (1). Actually (1) and (2) may happen almost
> simultaneously in a three body reaction where the electron mediates close
> approach of the two protons. See my postings under "The electron capture
> hypothesis" and also earlier messages under "Marshall Dudley hypothesis"
> 
> Zoltan Szakaly

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.20 / I Johnston /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: 20 Oct 1995 13:56:33 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

Lawrence E. Wharton (Wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov) wrote:

: excess could be obtained with an upper limit of 2.  The CETI gain factor 
: being used is:

: gain = (heat out) / (energy in)

Where "energy in" means "electrical energy in only" and studiously
ignores the other energy going in to the system, and "heat out" ignores
the possibility of hot spots caused by localised recombination
(nucleated by the presence of thermometers).

I thought they were self deluding until I saw how vehemently Jed
supported them - so now I suppose we have to consider the "deliberate
con-men" theory as well.

Ian


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.20 / Bruce TOK /  Re: Fusion Rocket Question ( Koloc ?)
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Rocket Question ( Koloc ?)
Date: 20 Oct 1995 14:09:36 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

Sea Witch (pn30@columbia.edu) wrote:
: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) wrote:

: >I was curious as to the exact basis for the fusion >> fission
: >result. Reason: if it were DT fusion, most of the energy comes
: >out as neutrons, and so you seem no better off than fission 
: >in that regard (neutrons cannot be directed to creat thrust...they
: >will need to have their energy converted to heat, and go through
: >some standard thermal thrust production process).

: 	But most proposals for fusion-powered space craft don't use DT - they
: use D-3He, which is aneutronic.

D-He3 is not aneutronic, because there will also be some D-D fusion, and
one of the products of _that_ is tritium, T, which gives rise to the 14
MeV neutrino through the D+T reaction.  In addition, there will be the
3+ MeV neutrinos from the half of the D+D reactions which produce
another He3 instead of a T.

: 	Yes, but the general idea is not to use a tokamak. The proposals I've
: seen have either used inertial confinement (with relativistic electron
: beams) or magnetic mirrors. Not a tokamak at all.

Lots of luck.  Magnetic mirrors are even worse than tokamaks.

: 	As I said, that's one of the ideas. The other main one is to use
: inertial confinement and a magnetic nozzle, with aneutronic fuel. It
: is sometimes referred to as fusion micro-explosion propulsion. It is a
: key part of the Daedalus proposal.

For this part a mirror is not so bad: just aim the end through which you
are losing particles like mad towards the back, and away you go :-)

But the only _really_ aneutronic fuel I know of is p + B11.

--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott                                The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTOK cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.20 / R Schroeppel /  New Moderated Fusion List
     
Originally-From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: New Moderated Fusion List
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 21:36:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I have set up the new moderated fusion list.  #1 has been mailed out.
Subscription requests and contributions may be sent to fusion@cs.arizona.edu.

Rich Schroeppel   rcs@cs.arizona.edu

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenrcs cudfnRichard cudlnSchroeppel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.20 / Tom Droege /  Re: Return to Rome
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Return to Rome
Date: 20 Oct 1995 16:36:56 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <466s4h$bum@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) says:
>
>In article <465uu5$aip@fnnews.fnal.gov> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)  
>writes:
>> 
>> I can only take Jim Griggs at his word that they have not yet bought a 
>> log book.  Jim, any bound book will do. 
>
>Actually, these days a portable PC might be better. On that
>note, does Scott Little have an email address? I would love
>to aske some specific questions about their experimental setups.

Sorry, I take great exception to this.  You need log books to index
all that stuff in the computer and to provide the time history of
the experiments.  True, you could keep a time log on the computer.
But I note that the experiments here at Fermilab still keep log books
and they are much used during the data analysis phase to sort out 
what was actually done.  

Computers are still not good enough to perform as log books.  It is
hard (still) to insert sketches of the apparatus in a computer text.
Also there is the polaroid photo that you want to staple in the log.
My "cold fusion" logs have things like the receipt for the PD bar 
that contains the lot number, a used cathode or two.  Samples of 
the tubing used, exposed film, etc.. 

While all this sort of thing might some day be possible in a computer,
I think the time is not yet here.

Tom Droege

>
>
>--
>Barry Merriman
>UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
>UCLA Dept. of Math
>bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
>
>
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.20 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 95 08:36:03 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> writes:
 
>No, there are not. Miley's group at UofI _has not made any claim
>of excess heat production_. If I'm wrong, please correct me.
 
They sure have! They made it to me, right on the telephone. I asked,
"are you guys getting heat from your beads too?" and they said "sure!"
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.20 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 95 16:42:05 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Matthew Kennel <mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu> writes:
 
>Can the whatever cells consistently and continuously *boil* initally
>room-temperature water at the same 20 times heat out/power in?
>
>This would be convincing to me and many others that there was a legitimate
>effect even in the absence of any indication of a mechanism. 
>
>Since you know thermodynamics I presume you can see why this is important.
 
Rethinking your posting here, perhaps you mean it is important from the
point of view of practical applications, because high temperatures give
better Carnot efficiency. Yes, definitely. And like most CF cells, the
CETI ones work better at high temperatures, so we are in luck.
 
I still do not understand why continous boiling would be convincing to you
but a continous 5 deg C Delta T is not convincing. Why shouldn't it be?
The temperature would be 0.03 if there was no excess. How can you doubt
U. Ill.'s ability to tell the difference between 5 C and 0.03 C?
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.21 /  Tstolper@aol.c /  Return to Rome; Focardi, Habel & Piantelli
     
Originally-From: Tstolper@aol.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Return to Rome; Focardi, Habel & Piantelli
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 1995 02:03:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Tom,

The big story in Italy is the work of Focardi, Habel & Piantelli, even though
they have been rather secretive about it.

Will one of the three major segments of the projected EQUINOX program be
about the work of Focardi, Habel & Piantelli?

Wasn't there supposed to be a seminar in Italy last month starring Focardi,
Habel & Piantelli?  

Was the seminar ever held?  If so, do you know anything about it?

Do we have any members of the College of Sci.Physics.Fusion in Italy?  Does
any member have contact with the Focardi, Habel & Piantelli group, or know
anyone who does?  Would they be willing to enlighten us a bit further about
their work?

Tom Stolper

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenTstolper cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.20 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis)
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis)
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 16:51:53 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <468u1u$26q@gaia.ns.utk.edu>, mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu
(Matthew Kennel) wrote:

> Bill Rowe (browe@netcom.com) wrote:
> : I understand your logic and why resistance decreases in a cavitation
> : channel. I am not convinced of your extrapolation. In essence, you are
> : saying at higher rotation speeds the cavitation channel behaves like a
> : solid preventing diffusion of material into it. I need to see some numbers
> : before I would be convinced. Frankly, I don't find this explaination any
> : more satisfying than the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.
> 
> As far as I was aware cavitation in liquids has gas phase bubbles, not
> vacuum bubbles. 
> 
> Think about it; if there were no gas inside, then what is providing the
> pressure?

***{These types of questions have been discussed previously. The answer
depends on the specifics of the situation. In the case of cavitation
produced by a rotating propeller, the "pressure" is provided by the
propeller blades spinning inside the cavity. (Vapor particles that intrude
are struck by the blades and knocked out .) In the case of cavitation
voids that form in fluid vortexes, the cavity results from the centrifugal
forces as they overcome the cohesive forces in the fluid, ripping it
apart. In such cases it is centrifugal force, not vapor pressure, that
maintains the void. --Mitchell Jones}***   
> 
> : -- 
> : "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.20 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: 7Li(n,2n)6LI driven fusion (was: Farce of Physics)
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 7Li(n,2n)6LI driven fusion (was: Farce of Physics)
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 12:40:32 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <468921$gsj@netfs.dnd.ca>, wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) wrote:

> In article <21cenlogic-1910951938160001@austin-2-8.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) says:
> >***{Horseapples.Your stated justification for moving this material out of
> >the Wallace thread was as follows:
> >
> >"I had begun to habitually bypass any posting with the subject line of
> >"Farce of Physics" because for so long it seemed to have nothing to do
> >with fusion - hot or cold. But here I find this thread going on under the
> >"Farce... " subject heading which really does have something to do with
> >fusion! Why hide it in this way?"
> >
> >The implication of your remarks is that if the Wallace thread happens, at
> >a given moment, to contain something that isn't off topic, that material
> >should be moved to a different thread! That, in my view, is grotesque.
> 
> In what way? Don't you think the "subject" line should describe the subject.
> Do I really need to repeat that all I meant by my above comment was that
> I was disappointed that I missed the subject that Wallace had initiated
> because I had incorrectly assumed that it was of no interest to me.
> >                                                                    The
> >guy was roundly criticized, for months and months, for being allegedly off
> >topic.
> 
> As I recall, the only issue was whether he should be cross-posting messages
> to so many different groups. 

***{Then you recall incorrectly. --Mitchell Jones}***

 At the time and to some extent still,
> sci.physics. fusion remains littered with much irrelevant material. This
> just detracts from its stated purpose.
> 
> >    And now, when he is unarguably on topic, you immediately move the
> >discussion out of his thread! There is just no way the guy can win, is
> >there? And you don't think it is insulting to treat someone in this way!
> >Ha! --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> No, I definitely do not believe that any one in their right mind would
> consider this an insult. It is absolutely no comment what so ever about
> Wallace's ideas one way or the other. In fact, my intent was to increase
> the number of people reading about this particular idea by introducing a
> more descriptive subject line. I don't see why you seem to have the
> weird idea that posters somehow "own" the threads they initiate in a
> unmoderated public forum.
> 
> More than enough said.
> 
> Cheers,
> Bill Page.

***{OK, Bill, you say no insult to Wallace was intended, and I guess I
will take you at your word. Nevertheless, I must point out that if, 
whenever Wallace's "Farce of Physics" thread contains an "on-topic"
discussion, someone immediately moves that discussion to a separate
thread, *the effect is to ensure that the Farce thread remains off topic.*
Thus the "off topic" accusation becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy! If you
see no incongruity in that, then I am frankly amazed. --Mitchell Jones}***

> 
> >
> >===========================================================

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.20 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: 20 Oct 1995 18:41:25 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <hVPHY6z.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> writes:
>  
> >No, there are not. Miley's group at UofI _has not made any claim
> >of excess heat production_. If I'm wrong, please correct me.
>  
> They sure have! They made it to me, right on the telephone. I asked,
> "are you guys getting heat from your beads too?" and they said "sure!"
>  
> - Jed

Jed, I agree totally with that---rather imbiguous---statement. Sure,
they are getting heat from their beads. My understanding, though, is that 
they have not yet verified that they are getting true net energy
production over the lifetime of a run. As I understand it, they 
are still completely open to the possibility that some non-energy producing 
phenomena is at work.

I think we will have to wait til they make some sort of detailed
presentation of their finding to judge. Hearsay is not sufficient
for judging such revolutionary developments.

 

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


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.20 / Barry Merriman /  Re:  new moderated fusion list
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  new moderated fusion list
Date: 20 Oct 1995 18:46:11 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <DGppww.9oA@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)  
writes:
> 
> So we should rename the group sci.physics.confusion???
>                                           ^  ^

I thought CF stood for ConFusion :-)

Or maybe Con Fusion?

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


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.20 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis)
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis)
Date: 20 Oct 1995 19:41:50 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Univ. Tenn.

Bill Rowe (browe@netcom.com) wrote:
: I understand your logic and why resistance decreases in a cavitation
: channel. I am not convinced of your extrapolation. In essence, you are
: saying at higher rotation speeds the cavitation channel behaves like a
: solid preventing diffusion of material into it. I need to see some numbers
: before I would be convinced. Frankly, I don't find this explaination any
: more satisfying than the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.

As far as I was aware cavitation in liquids has gas phase bubbles, not
vacuum bubbles. 

Think about it; if there were no gas inside, then what is providing the
pressure? 

: -- 
: "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.20 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: 20 Oct 1995 19:57:49 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Univ. Tenn.

I Johnston (ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
: Lawrence E. Wharton (Wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov) wrote:

: : excess could be obtained with an upper limit of 2.  The CETI gain factor 
: : being used is:

: : gain = (heat out) / (energy in)

: Where "energy in" means "electrical energy in only" and studiously
: ignores the other energy going in to the system, and "heat out" ignores
: the possibility of hot spots caused by localised recombination
: (nucleated by the presence of thermometers).

This is why an excess work null test, or at minimum a "boil water" test
is important. 

: Ian


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.20 / Anthony J /  1996 Summer Computer Simulation Conference
     
Originally-From: "Anthony J. Duben" <C867BUC@SEMOVM.SEMO.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.space.science,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.ph
sics.computational.fluid-dynamics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.polymers,sci.me
.physics,sci.mech.fluids,sci.materials,sci.geo.fluids,sci.geo.hydrology,
ci.geo.meteorology
Subject: 1996 Summer Computer Simulation Conference
Date: 20 OCT 95 14:02:54 CST
Organization: Southeast Missouri State University

Call for Papers -- 1996 Summer Computer Simulation Conference

        "Simulation, The Path through the Forest"

                        July 21 - 25, 1996

                        Portland Hilton
                        Portland OR

sponsored by the Society for Computer Simulation

You are cordially invited to participate in the 1996
Summer Computer Simulation Conference.  SCSC '96 will
feature contributions in all aspects of simulation and
modeling related to discrete, continuous, and combined
systems.  Sessions will be organized to discuss current
modeling and simulation practice, innovative approaches
and research results.  There will be contributed articles,
state of the art reviews, tutorials, especially on
simulation languages and environments, panels, professional
development seminars, and a variety of exhibits by software
vendors and publishers.

SCSC '96 areas of interest include:

Foundations of Simulation
    AI based simulation
    Computational Intelligence
    Distributed / Parallel Simulation
    Machine Learning
    Multimedia
    Object-Oriented Simulation
    Optimization
    Simulation Languages, Environments, and Methodologies
    Verification, Validation, and Accreditation
    Visualization and Virtual Reality

Applications of Simulation
    Aerospace
    Land Vehicles
    Autonomous Systems and Robotics
    Computer Architecture
    Computer Systems and Networks
    Defense Systems
    Distributed Systems
    Environmental Applications
    Manufacturing Applications
    Physical and Chemical Sciences
    Engineering Applications
    Process Control
    Education and Training Applications
    Telecommunications
    Transportation Systems

Submit four (4) copies of double-spaced abstracts or papers with a
cover letter stating the name, address (postal and electronic),
and phone and fax numbers of each author as well as the designated
contact author to

Society for Computer Simulation (SCSC '96)
4848 Ronson Court
Suite L
San Diego CA  92111-1810

Timetable: Dec 1, 1995, Two page Abstract due
           Feb 2, 1996, Notice of acceptance
           Apr 26, 1996, Camera ready manuscripts due.

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenC867BUC cudfnAnthony cudlnJ cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.20 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 09:29 -0500 (EST)

mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel) writes:
 
-> Can the whatever cells consistently and continuously *boil* initally
-> room-temperature water at the same 20 times heat out/power in?
 
Being familiar with fission reactors, I might mention that boiling water
directly off the beads might not be practical, or could have problems similar
to those of a boiling water reactor.  Once water goes to a vapor phase around a
bead, the bead becomes insulated from cooling, and would experience a sudden
surge in temperature.  This sudden surge could melt the plastic bead, cause
delamination of the metallic layers or other undesirable mechanical, electrical
or chemical changes.  It could even risk an explosion (hydrogen + oxygen,
water or oxygen and red hot palladium, etc.)
 
A better solution might well be to duplicate the arrangement of a pressurized
water reactor.  In that case you do not let the water boil around the beads,
but you keep it under pressure so that it does not boil.  Then you use that
water to boil water in a secondary circuit through a heat exchanger.  I think
that arrangement would be much safer and more reliable.  In addition the amount
of steam produced (or water lost in the secondary loop) would give quite good
numbers on how much energy was produced.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.20 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 14:13 -0500 (EST)

jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
 
 
-> Matthew Kennel <mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu> writes:
-> >Can the whatever cells consistently and continuously *boil* initally
-> >room-temperature water at the same 20 times heat out/power in?
->
-> Well, if they do that, then the water all goes away after a while. The
-> cells do not hold much, and you would not want to boil the water with
-> a flow calorimeter (it would wreck the components). They run pressurized
-> cells at over 100 deg C. They are pressurized in order to prevent boiling,
-> of course.
->
-> You realize, I hope, that I do not set up these experiments. I am just
-> reporting on them. I can make suggestions of course. . . but I honestly
-> do not see why you think the heat of vaporization is more convincing than
-> the specific heat of water. Why is boiling water more convincing than a
-> flow calorimeter? Has anyone found any inherant fault in flow calorimetry?
->
-> >Since you know thermodynamics I presume you can see why this is important.
->
-> Well, I know enough to realize you can't put in 0.06 watts into a chemical
-> reaction, reverse it, and get out 5 watts continously. But I do not see why
-> vaporizing liquid is a better way to measure heat than just heating up
-> liquid. In some experiments vaporizing is more convenient, but I myself
-> have no doubt whatsoever that 1 calorie = 4.2 joules. Do you question that?
-> Do you honestly, really, sincerely think that flow calorimetry can show
-> 5 watts where there are really only 0.03 watts?!? How could this happen?
-> Name an error or collection of errors that would add up to something this
-> great. I cannot begin to imagine how such a thing could happen. Especially
-> not in five different labs, using five different calorimeters, run by five
-> different groups of scientists.
 
Jed,
 
I don't think he is asking about being able to boil water in respect to
measurement capabilities, but is looking at how useful this source of heat can
be.  Basically I believe he is saying that if it can boil water, then one can
extract high grade energy (kinetic motion and electricity) from it, but if it
cannot reach these temperatures, then it can only provide low grade energy, ie.
heat homes, water and so forth.
 
However, this is not really correct.  Temperatures less than the boiling point
of water can also be converted to kinetic and electrical energy, but of
course at reduced efficiencies.  Techniques exist for doing this, such as
reduced pressure boiling (or using liquids which boil at reduced temperatures),
thermopiles and carnot engines.
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.20 / Albert Cau /  Net test
     
Originally-From: Albert Cau <art@imaginet.fr>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Net test
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 22:09:10 -0700
Organization: ImagiNET

Censure !!!
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenart cudfnAlbert cudlnCau cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Oct 21 04:37:04 EDT 1995
------------------------------
