1995.10.22 / John White /  Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
     
Originally-From: jnw@lys.vnet.net (John N. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
Date: 22 Oct 1995 21:08:54 -0500
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes:
> John N. White (jnw@lys.vnet.net) wrote:
> : Results from the flawed flowing-electrolyte "calorimeters" will
> : never be convincing.
>
> I think you are presuming the conclusion.  You've suggested the
> flowing electrolyte calorimetry is flawed, but you've done so on
> the basis of a heretofore unknown salt.

No, I stated that it was flawed, then supported that statement by
giving an example of the sort of ordinary chemistry that could fool
the calorimeter and give the reported results.

I would be "presuming the conclusion" if I used the assumption that
it was flawed in my example, which I did not do.

> The properties of this unknown salt are that when it flows near a pump it
> picks up 20 non-thermal joules per cc of solution and then in the presence 
> of a electrolysis current and only in the presence of an electrolysis
> current, it releases 20 joules per cc of solution.

No, you have it all mixed up. When the electrolyte containing the salt
crystals is warmed by the pump, then the crystals dissolve, absorbing
heat. A small shift in temperature can cause a large shift in solubility.
This is normal behavior for heavily hydrated salts such as Glauber's
salt (Na2SO4.10H2O). (A solution of Glauber's salt can pick up over
250 joules per cc at 32.4 degC. Note the similarity between Na2SO4 and
the Li2SO4 used in the electrolyte.) I am assuming that the pump chamber
is warmer than the cell, but I think that is probably the case since
the electrolyte flows from the cell into the pump, and in my experience
pumps add heat to what they are pumping.

Many types of crystals (including Glauber's salt) require nucleation to
form. It is not the electrolysis current that nucleates the formation of
new salt crystals, it is the surface of the nickel cathode when there is
an overpotential present. That is a very reactive environment. As long
as there is enough current to maintain the overpotential, the crystals
can form. That is why it was so easy to reduce input power into the cell
and get huge ratios of heat to input. The flowing of current is just
a parasitic loss that can be minimized.

> Sorry, but I'm not ready to leap to the conclusion of "flawed" calorimetry
> based on this level of arm waving.

Would you prefer to leap to the conclusion that the calorimetry is not
flawed, and so something like light water fusion must be happening?
After all, by "flawed" I don't mean "definitely wrong", I mean that
it could easily be wrong, and thus is much more likely to be wrong
than to be evidence for something that is highly improbable. It
doesn't matter whether or not my example is correct. The fact a
salt with very common chemical properties could fool a flowing-
electrolyte calorimeter into giving the observed results shows that
such a calorimeter is flawed.
-- 
jnw@vnet.net
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.22 / John White /  Re: Jed Rothwell & the TBs double count
     
Originally-From: jnw@lys.vnet.net (John N. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell & the TBs double count
Date: 22 Oct 1995 21:11:20 -0500
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes:
> As I mentioned in a previous post, neither the patent figures nor the
> Klein/Cravens visit to CETI produced results which were terribly convincing.
...
> However, this was all laid to rest when Cravens took the device home and
> boosted the thermal recovery efficiency to over 90% and got gas uncorrected
> heat in excess of input energy.  Recombination became a non-issue after
> that point.

I think that you are missing a very important point. Until Cravens came
along there was no evidence that CETI had anything beyond recombination
and the usual errors. Then Cravens tried somewhat different conditions
and suddenly began getting wonderful beyond-recombination results.
In other words, there is no evidence that the Cravens effect had
ever been seen before Cravens saw it, or that it has ever occurred
anywhere other than a flowing-electrolyte calorimeter, or at any
temperature other than the narrow range that Cravens has used.

That means a proposed explanation only has to work in a flowing-electrolyte
calorimeter and under a narrow range of temperature. These are the
only conditions where the beyond-recombination Cravens effect is
known to have occurred.
-- 
jnw@vnet.net
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.23 / Walter R /  WAY NOT TO DESROY THIS EXPLICATION FOR C.F.
     
Originally-From: "Walter E. R. Cassani" <cassani@linux.infosquare.it>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: WAY NOT TO DESROY THIS EXPLICATION FOR C.F.
Date: 23 Oct 1995 02:57:31 GMT
Organization: Comm 2000 - Milan, Italy


It seems impossible, but anybody wants ..... to destroy this theory.

In this theory the nuclear force is not so stron force.

This is: The Wave Theory of the Field.
It is available in  <<  http://www.inet.it/cassani/index.html  >>
The INDEX of  "The Wave Theory of the Field" is:

LETTER
The Letter contains the provocatory announce that : " a new, unitary
Wave Theory, for justification of masses and fields, is born ".
The original idea coming from : "Il Campo Unificato" -Robota srl-.
(The Unified Field) published 10/09/84 in Milan -Italy-

ABSTRACT
It contains arguments of the book translation, published
in Italy in 1989, entitled " La Teoria Ondulatoria del Campo ",
more widely treated in the next book in 1994:
"Albert Aveva Ragione - DIO NON GIOCA A DADI"
"Albert Was Right - GOD DOSN'T PLAY DICE".

INTRODUCTION
It shows the concept of space-time, that qualify the actual model
of space-time continuum, to clarify the idea that everybody
form about it, in order to define new ideas to create a " discrete "
model of space-time.

PERTURBATION OF SCHILD'S DISCRETE SPACE-TIME
It shows the nature and properties of a Schild's discrete space-time,
that can be interpreted like waves of perturbations of its own metrical
structure, and can be read like perturbations of a new, plausible,
discrete, metrical " Ether ".

WAVE HYPOTHESIS OF THE MASS FIELDS
Starting from equality of two energies: Einstein's energy  E =3D m c^2
and  Planck's energy  E =3D h v, we make the hypothesis that all
subatomic particles are elementary sources of spherical waves that,
in complex, constitute all spherical fields ascribing to particles.

WAVE MOMENTUM
With this elementary waves we discover a new law for elementary
interaction light - particle that involve a simple symmetry principle.

ENERGY AND ITS VARIATIONS
Where we discover the real variation's nature of Photon, and the
relation between elementary waves and De Broglie waves.

THE RELATIVE SYMMETRY PRINCIPLE
This simple and elementary symmetry principle constitutes the
unique law that regulates the four interactions, that unify, under a
omnicomprensive vision, Quantum Mechanics and all other
physical dynamics.

THE INERTIA'S WAVE NATURE
We discover that, the wave nature of masses, and the variation's
nature of Relative Symmetry Principle, conduces to consider
the Inertia like natural and " local " consequence bodies' wave
structure.

THE WAVE NATURE OF QUANTUM GRAVITY
It appens that, the same model of the variation's nature of the
Relative Symmetry Principle, applied to Inertia, results an extraordinary
consequent model to describe a Wave Quantum Gravity interaction.

TERMINAL VELOCITIES FOR MASSES
The exclusive wave nature of bodies, and the space-time
quantization, displays the impossibility for masses to surpass
the velocity of own waves, that move at light velocity, and to reduce
its wavelength, for Doppler effect, under the "discrete" length.

THE FIFTH INTERACTION
Because impossibility to return at continuum space-time concept,
we can comprehend impossibility to reduce a wavelength, that
describes bodies' mass, to infinitesimal. And consequently,
we can understand existence of a Fifth Repulsive Interaction
that acts with more evidence in cosmological field, between
the maxi-bodies, and prevents any indiscriminate increase of masses.

WAVE INTERPRETATION OF GENERAL RELATIVITY
An unexpected, simple completion of General Relativity discovers
an inevitable, causal connection with Quantum Mechanics, realizing
the dream so long time pursued from Albert Einstein.

WAVE DESCRIPTION OF THE COMPTON EFFECT
With the wave interpretation of experimental data, derived from Compton
effect, we immediately show possibilities, verifying the
Relative Symmetry Principle's capacities, applying the new
unification between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity.

WAVE MODEL OF ELECTRON AND PROTON
A new extrapolation of Compton effect, conduces to discover an
extraordinary resonance's wave mechanism, that allows to verify the
possible existence of a creative wave's system,
so far called : " particle ".

WAVE CREATION OF PAIRS
The generalization of the same extraordinary resonance's wave mechanism
allows to justify the phenomenon of creation of pairs.

WAVE INTERPRETATION OF THE LORENTZ FORCE
The application of a dynamical orientation, for the same wave mechanism
that we identify with particle, shows that happens wen it is submitted
to magnetic field, showing that the Lorentz force is a consequence of
Doppler relativistic effect of particle's oriented wave system.

THE WAVE NATURE OF ELECTRIC CHARGE
The geometrical analysis, of the "discrete", shows that particle's wave
structure presents the characteristics, that we have so far justified and
quantified with the electrical charge concept.

THE VECTORIAL DESCRIPTION OF PARTICLES
The specularity of the pairs' creation allows to consider the opposition
particle - antiparticle, that conduces to justify the electromagnetic
interactions like violations of characteristic " chirality's properties "
of the wave mechanism - particles.

THE PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVE ISOTROPY
From the vectorial description of the wave mechanism - particle
we can justify existence of one Principle of Relative Isotropy
that comprehends in a generalization the Relative Symmetry Principle.

STATISTICAL POSSIBILITIES FOR CREATION
OF SINGLES PARTICLES
We can deduce from quantification of statistical possibilities, inherent
in geometrical wave structures, to overlap particle-antiparticle,
in annihilation phenomena, from which we can concept
a causal wave chain to create matter in elementary particles.

MASS DEFECT AND WAVE NUCLEAR FORCE
The comparation, to nuclear distances, of two Protons-wave model
show that at 1 Fermi distance the electromagnetic interactions are
absent, because are absent the specific waves that characterize 
electrical
interactions. This implies a different point of view for the forces in 
act.
From this different view we can support an original explication
of Cold Fusion.

THE NEUTRON WAVE MODEL
The different wave structures and interactions between the nucleons
conduces to consider a new possibility for a Neutron wave model.

BETA DECAY IN WAVE MODEL
The new wave model shows a causal chain that justify, better that
actual way, the entire process of Beta Decay and, consequently,
allows the wave nature of Neutrinos.

THE MUON AND PION WAVE MODEL
From wave model of Beta Decay process we can deduce all masses,
charges, energies, spins, and decays of all particles' family.

THE WAVE ATOM
The atom's quantum energy's levels can now be interpreted, like wave
resonance's organizations, of the wave source-electron in resonance's
orbits, that contain and describe integer numbers of Doppler
wavelength on the specific orbit.

THE WAVE CONSTANT OF FINE STRUCTURE
The complete, causal comprehension to wave nature,
of  Fine Structure Constant, concludes from presence of  two
relativistic Doppler wavelength of two waves that move in
opposite directions on the same resonance orbit, that obey
to more parameters conditioning their wave resonance states.

LIGHT LIKE WAVE'S VARIATION
The final consequence, of existence of resonant orbits and
non resonant orbits for the wave source-electron, that jump between
two different states of resonance, concludes itself with a directional
wave emission, of a modulation of frequency, that we call : " Photon ".

Good reading, and...... please to destroy it, if you are able.
Thanks:

             Walter E. R. Cassani
**************************************************************
                   cassani@linux.infosquare.it
Walter E. R. Cassan i--Via Bellini 6--CORMANO (MI) ITALY
Ph. ++39 2 6151692   Fax ++39 2 89401197
 For the Wave Theory in W W W, with formulas and images:
      <<   http://www.inet.it/cassani/index.html  >>
******************************************=7F********************



--




-- 



cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudencassani cudfnWalter cudlnR cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.23 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: Jed Rothwell & the TBs double count
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell & the TBs double count
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 95 02:25:00 GMT

In article <46etk8$5mj@lys.vnet.net>, jnw@lys.vnet.net (John N. White) wrote:
>jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes:
>> As I mentioned in a previous post, neither the patent figures nor the
>> Klein/Cravens visit to CETI produced results which were terribly 
convincing.
>....
>> However, this was all laid to rest when Cravens took the device home and
>> boosted the thermal recovery efficiency to over 90% and got gas uncorrected
>> heat in excess of input energy.  Recombination became a non-issue after
>> that point.
>
>I think that you are missing a very important point. Until Cravens came
>along there was no evidence that CETI had anything beyond recombination
>and the usual errors. Then Cravens tried somewhat different conditions
>and suddenly began getting wonderful beyond-recombination results.
>In other words, there is no evidence that the Cravens effect had
>ever been seen before Cravens saw it, or that it has ever occurred
>anywhere other than a flowing-electrolyte calorimeter, or at any
>temperature other than the narrow range that Cravens has used.
>
>That means a proposed explanation only has to work in a flowing-electrolyte
>calorimeter and under a narrow range of temperature. These are the
>only conditions where the beyond-recombination Cravens effect is
>known to have occurred.

I know about the TB conventional wisdom. I think you will find that there are 
a still few people who believe that Cravens' work is not beyond inquiry. He 
has admitted to problems with his earlier analyses that call those results 
into doubt.

The concerns about recombination errors could be resolved easily as I 
indicated in earlier posts. I think I'll wait and see what happens before I 
sell my children to buy into the bonanza.

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.22 / Bob Sullivan /  Jed Rothwell & the TBs double count
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jed Rothwell & the TBs double count
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 95 08:21:34 GMT

In article <pXFFghJ.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
>bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan) writes:
> 
>    "Add to that a report, from someone with hands on experience with a
>    Patterson cell and a sharp eye, which indicates (contrary to reports from
>    less reliable observers) that the cell did not seem to be producing 
gases."
> 
>Oh, right. Sure. Except for the bubbles in the tubes and the gas flowmeter
>that shows the expected amount of gas leaving the cell.
> 

Jed, I am telling you what was observed during runs of a Patterson cell which 
was producing "excess heat" according to CETI's heat balance.  There was no 
observable gas evolution. You tell me which, if any, of the Patterson cell 
demos actually used the gas flowmeters.

> 
>    "Most likely, the explanation for the Patternson cell is not cold fusion,
>    not inaccurate measurements (of which there are plenty) but, instead,
>    double counting in the heat balance as Steven and Matt suspect."
> 
>Double counting?!? You would have to count it EIGHTY TIMES! Can't you do
>simple physics? The total input is 60 milliwatts. Total recombination would
>give you 60 milliwatts. Output is 5 watts. Can you tell the difference
>between 0.06 and 5.00? No, of course you can't. Sorry I asked.
> 
>Yes, it looks like Steve Jones has caught yet another fool who does not
>know what "recombination" means.
> 
>"Double counting" he says. That's rich! I give you 3 cents. You count it 
twice.
>You tell me that equals 5 dollars. Right? What the hell is that supposed to
>mean? Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
> 
>- Jed
>

Earth to Jed, Earth to Jed, you are all mixed up again. YOU are the one doing 
the double counting, not me. When you remove the double counting, the "excess 
heat" disappears.

Instead of spewing your usual venom, why don't you just do as I suggested. 
Download the data, get out your crayons, and do the calculations. If you do 
that you will get the results in the table below. The numbers in the first 
column represent the cell efficiency (measured input/measured output) for the 
resistor calibration runs. The second column represents a similar calculation 
using measured input and output for the claimed "excess heat" runs.  You 
should be totally familiar with the calculation procedure. It uses the 
Rothwell protocol.

                   Resistor                     Raw Data
                Calibration                "Excess Heat"
                 Efficiency                   Efficiency
                -----------                -------------
Attachment 4         34.0%                         31.9%     
Attachment 5         34.0%                         28.0%     
Attachment 6         30.1%                         26.6%     
Attachmnet 7         21.7%                         23.5%     

I bet that even you can see that the raw data does not show excess heat 
production by any stretch of the imagination. The "excess heat" is an artifact 
of the double counting, yes, double counting, in the "adjusted" heat balance. 
Run the numbers and see for yourself. I'm sure Steven Jones will be glad to 
explain the double counting mechanism for you. He knows how to find it.

Remember, you can sometimes make money by fooling other people, but you can't 
make money by fooling yourself.

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.22 / Euejin Jeong /  Dipole Gravity 5
     
Originally-From: ejeong@bga.com (Euejin Jeong)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Dipole Gravity 5
Date: 22 Oct 1995 15:18:32 GMT
Organization: Real/Time Communications - Bob Gustwick and Associates

To understand the dipole gravity further in relation to the 
electromagnetic phenomena, note that the definition of the center of mass 
contains a term length times mass which is identical in form to the 
definition of the electric dipole moment. Since a spinning hemisphere 
seemingly at rest looking from a distance has in fact the center of mass 
different from that of an identical object without spin, one may view the 
spinning hemisphere as having developed the "dual center of mass", the 
source of the gravitational dipole moment. Restorable energy is required 
to separate the opposite electric charges from the neutral state to 
produce the electric dipole moment. Restorable energy is also required to 
produce the "dual center of mass" to create the gravitational dipole 
moment. The fact that there doesn't exist negative mass (negative energy 
density) in the universe has contributed to the notion that there is no 
gravitational dipole moment. However, gravity can have its own scheme of 
creating dipole moment in a totally different way. Perhaps this could 
have been anticipated since there is no centrifugal force for rotating 
electric charges which must exist if one insist that there should be 
exact one to one correspondence between these two long range forces, 
which is of course absurd as much as asking for the existence of negative 
mass for dipole gravity. It is noted that the repulsive pole of the 
gravitational dipole moment gives the same effect of defocusing a beam of 
light passing through it as the negative mass (exotic matter) would. The 
physics for this gravitational dipole moment happens to be the same as if 
there were negative mass at the position RCM and the usual mass at NCM of 
equal absolute amount, only if one does not attempt to derive the total 
monopole mass from this analogy. To avoid this confusion, this negative 
mass may aptly be named as the "negative image mass" which doesn't really 
have the mass except its effect. In this analogous system, it is defined 
that the negative mass repels normal mass while the same kind of mass 
attracts each other in contrast to the case of electrostatic charges.

A critical argument for dipole gravity. 
So much for a day's digestion. There's more. Hang on.

Euejin


cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenejeong cudfnEuejin cudlnJeong cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.22 / John Logajan /  Re: Jed Rothwell & the TBs double count
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell & the TBs double count
Date: 22 Oct 1995 16:20:41 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Bob Sullivan (bsulliva@sky.net) wrote:
: You tell me which, if any, of the Patterson cell demos actually used the
: gas flowmeters.

I have Cravens' ICCF5 handouts (transcribed by Bill Page) on my web page
(URL below).  A gas flowmeter is shown in the schematic diagram.

However, there was heat in excess of total input energy at Cravens' lab
and at the ICCF5 demo, so the readings from the gas flowmeter were not
even needed, since the conservative calculations without them showed
over-unity.  Taking into account the actual gas creation would have only
served to increase the over-unity calculation.

: When you remove the double counting, the "excess heat" disappears.

This is simply not the case in the Cravens' lab or ICCF5 demo or appantly
from the Miley SOFE demo.  Total heat output exceeded total electrical
input without correcting for gas loss -- the more conservative estimation.


:                    Resistor                     Raw Data
:                 Calibration                "Excess Heat"
:                  Efficiency                   Efficiency
:                 -----------                -------------
: Attachment 4         34.0%                         31.9%     
: Attachment 5         34.0%                         28.0%     
: Attachment 6         30.1%                         26.6%     
: Attachmnet 7         21.7%                         23.5%     

As I mentioned in a previous post, neither the patent figures nor the
Klein/Cravens visit to CETI produced results which were terribly convincing.
[My initial reaction early thi year upon seeing the patent and its listed
variablility of thermal efficiency was that nothing could be determined
from the numbers -- they were mostly useless.]

However, this was all laid to rest when Cravens took the device home and
boosted the thermal recovery efficiency to over 90% and got gas uncorrected
heat in excess of input energy.  Recombination became a non-issue after
that point.  Output heat was in excess of possible (100%) recombination
and was in excess of that explainable by recover efficiency.

If there is a conventional explanation it is *not* recombination and it is
not calorimetry efficiency.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.22 / Bill Rowe /  Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 1995 11:29:52 -0700
Organization: AltNet - http://www.alt.net

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

> 
>browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) wins the 1995 Chemistry Award for not knowing the
>difference between water (H2O) and free hydrogen and oxygen gas. He writes,
>and writes, and writes again:
> 
>     "In fact, if the entire source of the energy were the reaction H2+02 ==>
>     H20 producing the observed flow rate the resulting power would be far
>     greater than 5W."
> 
>Yes indeed! If we pump in free gas, and get out 14 ml of water per minute,
>that would produce a lot more than 5W. However, there is *water* flowing into
>the cell, and *water* flowing out. Water is not free hydrogen and oxygen.
>There are no canisters of gas attached to the cell. Water, as I pointed out,
>is ash. YOU CANNOT BURN IT, because it is already as burned as anything can
>be.

If the effect is fusion, it seems obvious water is being decomposed due to
electrolysis and the deutrium is being fused. So, in effect, water is
being burned. I realize you stated this demo used light water. Presumably
it would contain about .015% heavy water given the natural occurance of
deutrium. Let me re-emphasize the word "if" which starts this paragraph.
That seems to be a word you ignore.

As far as the award, I thank you. It is nice to be considered in the same
company as Steve Jones and Berry Merrimen.
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.22 / Robert Holloway /  short courses in radiation safety
     
Originally-From: nta@ix.netcom.com (Robert Holloway)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: short courses in radiation safety
Date: 22 Oct 1995 19:18:20 GMT
Organization: Netcom


Anyone interested in short technical courses in radiation safety,
radiochemistry, health physics and related areas can obtain a course
schedule at the following web site:  http://ntanet.net/


                                             R. Holloway
                                             702-564-2798
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudennta cudfnRobert cudlnHolloway cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.22 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: Jed Rothwell & the TBs double count
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell & the TBs double count
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 95 19:23:32 GMT

In article <46dr0p$e79@stratus.skypoint.net>,
   jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) wrote:
>Bob Sullivan (bsulliva@sky.net) wrote:
>: You tell me which, if any, of the Patterson cell demos actually used the
>: gas flowmeters.
>
>I have Cravens' ICCF5 handouts (transcribed by Bill Page) on my web page
>(URL below).  A gas flowmeter is shown in the schematic diagram.


Sorry, but that response does not address the question. Perhaps you can be 
more specific.


>However, there was heat in excess of total input energy at Cravens' lab
>and at the ICCF5 demo, so the readings from the gas flowmeter were not
>even needed, since the conservative calculations without them showed
>over-unity.  Taking into account the actual gas creation would have only
>served to increase the over-unity calculation.
>
>: When you remove the double counting, the "excess heat" disappears.
>
>This is simply not the case in the Cravens' lab or ICCF5 demo or appantly
>from the Miley SOFE demo.  Total heat output exceeded total electrical
>input without correcting for gas loss -- the more conservative estimation.
>


It would be a simple matter to put this information up on the web for us all 
to see. Lacking that, the reports have to be considered suspect. The 
conventional wisdom of the TBs has no credibility. The days of believing the 
TBs' "trust me it's been done" are long gone. There has been to much smoke and 
mirrors.

You've still got to deal with things like the crosstalk between the 
thermocouples and the cell voltage, the accuracy of the measurements, etc.


>
>:                    Resistor                     Raw Data
>:                 Calibration                "Excess Heat"
>:                  Efficiency                   Efficiency
>:                 -----------                -------------
>: Attachment 4         34.0%                         31.9%     
>: Attachment 5         34.0%                         28.0%     
>: Attachment 6         30.1%                         26.6%     
>: Attachmnet 7         21.7%                         23.5%     
>
>As I mentioned in a previous post, neither the patent figures nor the
>Klein/Cravens visit to CETI produced results which were terribly convincing.
>[My initial reaction early thi year upon seeing the patent and its listed
>variablility of thermal efficiency was that nothing could be determined
>from the numbers -- they were mostly useless.]
>
>However, this was all laid to rest when Cravens took the device home and
>boosted the thermal recovery efficiency to over 90% and got gas uncorrected
>heat in excess of input energy.  Recombination became a non-issue after
>that point.  Output heat was in excess of possible (100%) recombination
>and was in excess of that explainable by recover efficiency.
>
>If there is a conventional explanation it is *not* recombination and it is
>not calorimetry efficiency.
>

A long as you can't demonstrate over unity without "corrections" to the raw 
numbers and as long as there are platinum screens in the gadget, internal 
recombination has to be an open issue.  Recombination would be easy enough to 
disprove, e.g., see my earlier suggestions in the original thread. However, it 
would have to be done by a competent, disinterested observer to have any 
credibility.

By the way, going to lower and lower input energies doesn't do much to support 
the claims. It looks like a way to amplify systematic error.

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.22 / John White /  Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
     
Originally-From: jnw@lys.vnet.net (John N. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
Date: 22 Oct 1995 00:01:37 -0500
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
| jnw@katie.vnet.net (John N. White) gets the Science Fiction award for
| inventing the most number of unobserved "facts" and improbable reactions in an
| experiment about which he knows nothing:
| 
|     "The CETI calorimeter uses the extremely dubious method of running the
|     active electrolyte outside the cell and through the pump. Here is a
|     specific mundane explanation of what might be happening."
| 
| "Mundane" he calls it! Ha! If one-tenth of his confabulations were true, he
| would win the Nobel Prize for originality.

Thank you for the Science Fiction award, and for the nomination for the
Nobel Prize. I am deeply honored. Unfortunately, I am unlikely to win this
prize, as there is nothing very original about my proposal. The properties
that I am assuming for the Hydrate are all very commonplace and ordinary.

| He begins by inventing a new magical salt, and then he makes a
| few micrograms of this lithium salt perform amazing wonders, in defiance of
| Thermodynamics and A Lot Else:

I suppose the salt may seem new and magical to one who is unfamiliar with
chemistry, but all the assumed properties are old hat to chemists.

But "a few micrograms of this lithium salt"? The ICCF5 Demo is said to
have used 1M Lithium Sulphate. That's fairly concentrated. Sodium Sulphate
likes to form a decahydrate (Glauber's salt). If my proposed salt is
also a decahydrate then close to a fifth of the electrolyte could convert
to this form. That is far more than is needed to explain the observed heat.

(BTW, a solution of Glauber's salt has been proposed as a way to store
heat from a solar collector because of the large amount of energy it
can store at around 32degC. In fact, this is what gave me the idea for
my proposal.)
 
What concentration did the SOFE demo use?

|     "First I assume that there is a Lithium Sulphate Hydrate salt that is
|     not currently known. The reason it is not known is that it is very
|     difficult to nucleate its formation, and its surface assumes a state
|     that is hostile to further growth.
| 
|     In the CETI cell, however, when the concentrated Lithium Sulphate
|     electrolyte comes in contact with the nickel surface and overpotential
|     at the cathode, nucleation of the Hydrate occurs easily. The surface
|     area of the cathode is very large, so large amounts of the Hydrate will
|     form . . ."
| 
| A few micrograms of lithium are going to carry energy and catalyze very large
| amounts of Hydrate!?! What will they think up next?

Again, there is a lot more than a "few micrograms of lithium" involved
(see above). And it is the nickel cathode that catalyzes the nucleation
of the hydrate.
 
|     "When the sol is pulled from the cell and enters the warm pump, the
|     Hydrate crystals will dissolve back into solution, removing heat from
|     the pump in the process. Then the electrolyte re-enters the cell,
|     repeating the cycle.
| 
| How amazing!!! And it works even though the pump is not a bit warm. In fact,
| the part of the pump that comes in contact with the solution is room
| temperature.

Are there any actual measurements to back this up?
Pumps that I am familiar with do warm what flows through them.

| You can put your finger on it (it is a thin, transparent plastic
| chamber), ...

That is not a very accurate method, especially as the plastic won't
conduct heat to your finger very well.

| ... or you can put a thermocouple just downstream from it while
| circulating pure water through the loop, as they did during calibration.

What does "just downstream" mean here? did they have another thermocouple
in the flow just before the pump? They used pure water during calibration?
Why didn't they just do it right and use pure water for the run, separated
from the electrolyte by some sort of heat exchanger? That would avoid all
these problems.

|     "The above is just one of many such explanations of what may be
|     happening in the CETI calorimeter, given their extremely dubious
|     practice of running the active electrolyte out of the cell and through
|     the pump."
| 
| One of many!?! I cannot imagine what the others must be like.

Nature is not limited by your imagination.

| Ah, but like so many "skeptics" White has forgotten that CETI and others
| have run these cells in a static configuration, with no pump, no circulation,
| no Magical Microscopic Dilithium Energy Crystals capable of transporting
| impossibly large burdens of chemical energy.

All the static runs that I am aware of gave only low levels of excess heat,
easily explained by recombination. There were no wonderful results with
many times total I*V input. I (and others) have asked for details of the
static runs you keep mentioning, but I haven't seen a reply.
 
|     "Doing this makes the pump part of the system, and so the electrical
|     energy used by the pump must be considered as part of the energy put
|     into the system (and it's large compared to the "excess heat")."
| 
| How amazing! Call the Nobel Committee at once! White has found a way to make
| waste heat from a pump motor jump around to the other side of the pump,
| concentrate itself, enter the chamber that moves the water, and hop right into
| his 'Magic Power Crystals'

Thanks for the second nomination, but it is normal for most of the energy
wasted by a pump to end up as heat in the fluid.

Results from the flawed flowing-electrolyte "calorimeters" will
never be convincing. As improbable as you think my proposal is,
it, and others like it, are many orders of magnitude more probable
than radiationless light water fusion or "zero point energy".
-- 
jnw@vnet.net
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.22 / John Logajan /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: 22 Oct 1995 05:53:46 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Bob Sullivan (bsulliva@sky.net) wrote:
: Both points are well taken. Given the construction of the Patterson cell, the 
: weight of the evidence points to recombination of oxygen and hydrogen within 
: the cell.

Neither of the demos (ICCF5 and SOFE) needed to use corrections for losses
due to dissociation and so the actual heat output was indeed greater in
absolute uncorrected terms than energy input.

: ... Bruce Klein's raw experimental results (via Victor Lapuszynski, associate
: editor "Cold Fusion") from a Patterson cell along with the "excess heat"
: calculations.

Bruce Klein's data was gathered early this year when he and Dennis Cravens
visited the CETI labs and did a preliminary series of tests to verify the
patent claims.

Unfortunately the thermal efficiency of the calorimetry was very low in
those tests (varying around 35% and occasionally as low as 17%.)  The
data is also taken with gas corrections and none of the Pd/Ni tests
exceed the absolute input power minus gas correction.  Only the Ni/Pd/Ni
test in attachement seven exceeds the absolute power.

Better tests were run later when Cravens took the device to his own
lab and boosted the thermal efficiency of the calorimetry into the
95% region.  He was able thereafter to bring the demo unit to ICCF5
in France.  In these later Cravens' tests and in the demo at ICCF5
the uncorrected input power was exceeded by the output power -- thus
eliminating recombination as the explanation.

The Miley demo increased the margin of excess to about 80-160 times
that explainable by recombination.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.22 / John Logajan /  Re: Data
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Data
Date: 22 Oct 1995 06:11:07 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Robin van Spaandonk (rvanspaa@netspace.net.au) wrote:
: ... asking someone like Cravens, if he would be prepared to allow you
: to post the data from one of his earlier experiments to the net?

Unfortunately Dennis Cravens has an extremely low opinion of the spf
group.  I spoke with him early this spring and his displeasure with
spf was obvious.  Ironically I don't think he's ever logged on to
the internet, so what he knows about spf must have come from tales told
to him by others.

By the way, I believe Cravens work on the CETI devices is in part financed
by ENECO.  Cravens was approached by ENECO to test the CETI devices based
upon Cravens reputation as a skillful experimenter.  ENECO is, of course,
the company that has gone around buying up all the cold fusion patents
and patent applications it can get in hopes that one or more of them will
payoff someday.  So it is in ENECO's interest to get a true account of
the potential of their own and other's patents in the field.


--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.22 / John Logajan /  Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
Date: 22 Oct 1995 06:21:15 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

John N. White (jnw@lys.vnet.net) wrote:
: Results from the flawed flowing-electrolyte "calorimeters" will
: never be convincing.

I think you are presuming the conclusion.  You've suggested the
flowing electrolyte calorimetry is flawed, but you've done so on
the basis of a heretofore unknown salt.

The properties of this unknown salt are that when it flows near a pump it
picks up 20 non-thermal joules per cc of solution and then in the presence 
of a electrolysis current and only in the presence of an electrolysis
current, it releases 20 joules per cc of solution.

Sorry, but I'm not ready to leap to the conclusion of "flawed" calorimetry
based on this level of arm waving.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.22 / John Logajan /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: 22 Oct 1995 06:41:18 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Bob Sullivan (bsulliva@sky.net) wrote:
: (Nor do I have much confidence with implausible precision: 14.28 ml/min.)

I believe it is a target number.

It takes 75J to heat one mole of pure H2O one degree C.
There are 18.08 ml of H2O per mole.
So to heat one ml of H2O one degree C takes 75J/18.08 = 4.148J.
Or it takes 1J to heat 1/4.148 = 0.241 ml water one degree C.
Over sixty seconds, that would be 60*0.241 = 14.46 ml/min -- pretty close.

What this does for you is to simplify the demo because now a one degree
rise in temperature equates to one watt of thermal energy.  Thus you try
to adjust the flow rate to 14.46 (for pure H2O) to get the nice easy
conversion factor.

By the way, the specific heat of the electrolyte is, I believe, 0.95,
so the flow rate should really be 14.46/0.95 = 15.22 ml/min.

In the end, though, take the measured flow rate and calculate the results.
It should be pretty close to the nice conversion factor, but one can deal
with it even if it doesn't fall out so neatly.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.22 / 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: 22 Oct 1995 23:11:08 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Univ. Tenn.

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: 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.

Yes, it's OK if the water boils after it leaves the reaction chamber;
what needs to be shown is that the net device--as a black box--can boil
as much water as desired for as long as desired with 1/20th the conventional
energy input required. 

: 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?

It is a whole bunch more convincing because:

	1) A calorimeter works well *if* indeed it turns out to be measuring
	   what you think it is, which is the case in *normal* circumstances.

	   Because of the very unusual nature and lack of mechanism for
	   these reactions it's crucial, in the initial stages, to rule out
	   weird interactions.   If it's proven to be 'real' and show up
           by conventional calorimetry then "standard practice" can use
	   the "standard protocol" after wide spread experience has been
	   gained. 

	2) Boiling at 20 times heat_out/power_in is really really hard to
	   fake or mislead yourself.  The proof of major effect
	   only requires physics, not accounting.   Errors in input 
	   power measurment or output power measurement will not invalidate
	   the conclusion. 

	3) My intuition is that such a level of performance is
           well above the threshold of any possible heat-pump effect.

	4) It would provide the first evidence that any "anomalous heat
	   device" could generate thermodynamically useful *work*. 

A good experimental physicist wants a "null test". 

:  
: >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?

I have no hypothesis besides some heat pump of unknown form.  (it's
just as fair to hypothesize that as nuclear reactions of unknown character.)

5 watts of 'excess heat' that raised temperatures only by a few degrees
is not thermodynamically impressive. 

: 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.

One could make the same argument about the lack of nuclear effects. 

If they get *quantitatively* consistent results at presumably similar
reaction conditions with different calorimeters of different design that
is a good sign of a real effect.  The labs should try to coordinate data
collection to try to provide this interlocking result.  

If you want to convincingly demonstrate the effect arises from some unknown
interaction in the cell you'd like to make the conditions of the beads
---which presumably engender the reaction---the same for various
experiments, but otherwise use very different types of measuring protocols
and ancillary equipment in different experiments.   


:  
: - Jed

cheers
Matt
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.22 / 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: Sun, 22 Oct 1995 17:58:53 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <46c565$eea@otis.netspace.net.au>, rvanspaa@netspace.net.au
(Robin van Spaandonk) wrote:

> In article <21cenlogic-1910952045580001@austin-2-8.i-link.net>,
> Mitchell Jones wrote :
> 
> >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,
> 
> To the best of my knowledge alkali metal salts are used in these
> experiments, precisely because they don't plate  out, the alkali
> metals being much more reactive than hydrogen, which preferentially
> accepts an electron from the cathode. I.e. it is the hydrogen in the
> water that "plates out".

***{You are clearly correct about this, as I should have recognized if I
had thought carefully about the matter. I knew that lithium decomposes
water to produce LiOH. Therefore, clearly, any lithium that plated out
would immediately decompose the water next to it, producing LiOH. And, of
course, LiOH dissociates in solution, giving Li+ + OH- Bottom line: if it
plated out, it would immediately unplate! --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> >that would be the case for the plated lithium as well. It would
> >immediately form lithium oxide in water, which, I believe, is insoluble.
> 
> If lithium oxide is insoluble in water, then how do you explain the
> use of LiOD in other experiments? In other words, if Li2O were
> insoluble, then one would expect the following chemical reaction to
> occur 
> 
> 2*LiOD --> Li2O (precipitate) + D2O

***{You are right again! According to Comprehensive Chemistry, by John
Hicks, pg. 349, "lithium oxide dissolves slowly in water." --Mitchell
Jones}***
> 
> 
> >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:
> [snip]
> Regards,
> 
> Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@netspace.net.au>
> -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
> Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything,
> Learns all his life,
> And leaves knowing nothing.
> -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

***{From the above, it would appear that depositing a layer of lithium on
a CETI bead might not be as simple as, at first, it seemed. Nevertheless,
the energy payback from such beads might be worth some trouble. "Cold
fission" looks to me like a pathway that should be explored, if the energy
payback from neutron absorption by Li7 is as large as Zoltan claimed in
his post. (Sixteen Mev per neutron absorbed is simply huge!) Indeed, I
wonder if there are any lattices that are capacious enough so that they
could be loaded with lithium! Or maybe with lithium hydroxide? Somehow,
the lithium needs to be placed where the action is taking place, so that
it can pick up some of the neutrons. --Mitchell Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.22 / 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: 22 Oct 1995 23:17:20 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Univ. Tenn.

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: 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.

Do they give high temperature *boosts*?  that's what's most important! 

: 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?

Using a calorimeter to infer radical new physics you have to believe

1) your input power measurements

2) Your output heat measurments (really you are getting some numbers off
   thermocouples or other transducers which presumably measure the effect that
   the temperature locally next to the transducers
   has on some specially designed physical device
   such as a semiconductor or mercury in a tube)

3) You don't have a heat pump.

4) You don't have energy storage somewhere.

I know, there isn't any *obvious* way that these things could be going wrong,
but it isn't good enough given the fact that there is an experimental protocol
that would smash through all these potential problems:

	generate net excess electrical work (nearly) indefinitely. 

If they can get high temperature boosts at high pressures and
temperatures, it doesn't sound so far off. 

: - Jed

cheers
Matt
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.22 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: 7Li(n,2n)6LI driven fusion (was: Farce of Physics)
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 7Li(n,2n)6LI driven fusion (was: Farce of Physics)
Date: 22 Oct 1995 20:02:58 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I agree with you Mitchell about the validity of some aspects of your
protoneutron theory. In particular we need some mechanism to explain why
lots of radiation is not emitted and why the nuclear reactions happen i.e.
what breaks down the coulomb barrier. On the other hand I cannot just toss
out quantum mechanics because it has been proven by experimental evidence.
Instead of throwing out QM I proposed the electron capture hypothesis. 

I propose to explain the lack of radiation by the mechanism of electron
capture and subsequent beta decay during which energetic neutrinos are
emitted. Perhaps what I propose would result in high energy electron
emissions, but perhaps such electrons are absorbed in the electrolyt or
the lattice. I haven't done calculations about the electron's mean free
path but perhaps some day when I have a little time I will. 

Zoltan Szakaly
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.22 / Chuck Pell /  Trinity A-Bomb blast.
     
Originally-From: Chuck Pell <chuck@larson.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Trinity A-Bomb blast.
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 1995 17:45:32 -0700

Question, does anyone know how long Radioactive Trinitite stayed hot, 
that is how long after the blast would one have to wait before the green 
glass could be safely handled by man. The reason I am asking the question 
is that I had a collection of the Trinitie rocks when I was a kid back 
the the mid fifties. The rocks were collected at the Trinity proving 
ground during the cleanup of the site. Most of the rocks were trucked 
away and buried although some of them survived to end up on shelves of 
rockhound stores and Assayer's offices. I was lucky enough(sic) to have 
received some of them from a local Assayer, I didn't know any better 
back then because I was only seven or eight years old at the time. He 
gave them out to quite a few of the kids in the neighborhood. Sounds like 
a sinister plot, eh? Oh well, all I want to know is if the rocks could 
have still been hot ten years after the first blast. I hear that if you 
are on a tour of the Trinity site today you are told not to pick up the 
green glass rocks because they are still moderately radioactive. That is 
what set me on a path to find out a little more about this issue.

Thank you.





[ chuck ] Chuck Pell
====================

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnPell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Oct 23 04:37:04 EDT 1995
------------------------------
