1995.10.24 / Mark Burbidge /  Re: 15th Experiments proving HYASYS; Stability of helium3
     
Originally-From: Mark@monark.ftech.co.uk (Mark Burbidge)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 15th Experiments proving HYASYS; Stability of helium3
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 10:10:57 GMT
Organization: Frontier Internet Services

Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:

>Until the canceller of my posts and cancells of other people of
>alt.sci.physics.plutonium-- ceases and desists-- I have no choice but
>just repost all and every one of them so as to keep my train of
>thought.

Fine . . . but to SIX newsgroups??

>>   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?

This statement "If HYASYS is correct . . ." is true - but NOT a bonus
point for HYASYS, as  helium -3 should absorb a neuton anyway to
become helium 4 - HYASYS doesn't predict new things. Anyway - is
Helium 3 stable?  

HYASYS has been criticised by many people - e.g. beta +, probs of
infinite regress etc, and you have chosen to post many, many "proving"
threads, rather than just reply to criticisms within the thread - is
this because you cannot reply, and must post like this so that people
get tired of reading and thus you have the dubious satisfaction of
"winning" by default?

I'd wish you'd rename these posts to "verify" rather than "prove", as
anyone who has any sci knowledge should understand  - you fcan never
prove a hypothesis - only disprove it.

MB
M. Burbidge. Mark@Monark.ftech.co.uk
For PGP key, Send Email with subject GET KEY
Reply should come within the day.
Fingerprint: 5F F8 CB D1 A8 A5 66 FE F1 D0 18 07 13 7B CD 6B

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenMark cudfnMark cudlnBurbidge cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.24 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
     
Originally-From: mbk@I_should_put_my_domain_in_etc_NNTP_INEWS_DOMAIN (Matthew B. Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
Date: 24 Oct 1995 18:06:36 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee, Knoxville

John Logajan (jlogajan@skypoint.com) wrote:

: So apparently if the pump is storing energy in the electrolyte, it is 
: managing to do so without raising the temperature at all.  That means a
: nearly 100% conversion to non-thermal storage mechanisms if your theory
: is to hold up.

Or there are other thermal losses after leaving the pump counterbalancing it. 

: --
:  - 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:
cuddy24 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.24 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 13:17:01 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

If I am following the discussion in this thread, White is proposing that
Li2SO4 behaves like Glauber's salt, Na2SO4, in that, when heated slightly,
it dissolves, absorbing lots of heat from the flow. Since the SOFE demo
used Li2SO4 in the electrolyte, and since the pump imparts a (slight)
amount of heat to the flow, White's idea is that the imparted heat is just
enough to trigger the dissolving of the Li2SO4 crystals. Thus a slush of
Li2SO4 crystals, by this theory, enters the pump, and a smoothly flowing
fluid leaves the pump. That fluid then moves on downstream until it
reaches the Patterson power cell, where due to catalysis at the nickel
beads, it dumps its stored heat, becoming a crystal slush again. Thus when
the temperature readings of thermocouples just before and just after the
cell are compared, a 5 degree increase is detected. This, according to
White, is due to the dumping of the stored heat from the dissolved
crystals, not to "cold fusion." 

I see two basic problems with this scenario:

(1) Since the measured heat output of this setup is 80 times the measured
input, it seems clear that the heat picked up at the pump is far in excess
of what can be supplied by the pump itself. Therefore, it must be picked
up from the surroundings. This means that thermocouples placed before and
after the pump would show a large temperature decrease, not an increase.
However, if memory serves, I believe I read in one of Jed's postings that
the measured change was negligible. This, of itself, seems sufficient to
refute the theory. 

(2) The theory is internally self-contradictory. White stated that the
dissolving of the crystals is triggered by a temperature *rise* at the
pump. However, as just noted, there isn't enough heat supplied by the pump
to account for the experimental result, so if these alleged crystals are
to have enough heat to dump, further downstream, to account for the
result, it follows that they must *drop* the temperature at the pump to
get it! But, if they *drop* the temperature at the pump, and if they
require a temperature *increase* to dissolve, then it follows that they
would immediately re-crystallize at the pump as soon as they began to
form! They would prevent their own formation! This internal contradiction
also seems sufficient to refute the theory.

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.24 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Trinity A-Bomb blast.
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Trinity A-Bomb blast.
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 14:34:52 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <Pine.SCO.3.91.951022173128.5901B-100000@ltiblu.larson.com>,
Chuck Pell <chuck@larson.com> wrote:

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

Chuck, I think you are worrying about nothing. You can't believe the
government's numbers. They are based on bureaucratic ass-covering, rather
than on reasoned considerations of safety. Here is the way it works: if a
bureaucrat issues a safety guideline that permits too much exposure, and
somebody gets hurt, all hell breaks loose; whereas if the guideline is too
low, a huge number of people get inconvenienced, but they are mostly too
dumb to complain about it. Result: the exposure levels get set too low *by
orders of magnitude.* Hell, about a month ago my wife came home from the
grocery in a rage because firemen had cordoned off about a third of the
parking lot and were running around in space suits doing a "hazmat"
cleanup. Why? It seems a customer had dropped a gallon of antifreeze and a
few ounces had leaked out on the tarmac! Bottom line: stop worrying about
your childhood "exposure." The U.S. government was fairly sane in the
50's. Today, however, it is stark, raving mad, and its "safety" numbers
are utterly meaningless! 

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.23 / Cindy Lundgren /  Re: Proposed explaination of CETI effect
     
Originally-From: lundgrca@esvax.dnet.dupont.com (Cindy Lundgren)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Proposed explaination of CETI effect
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 20:19:40 GMT
Organization: DuPont all opinions my own

In article <469t31$hn6@katie.vnet.net>, jnw@katie.vnet.net (John N. White)
wrote:

> 
> 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, releasing a considerable amount of heat of crystallization
> (easily enough to explain the observed temperature rise).
> 
> The Hydrate crystals resist further growth due to the nature of their
> surface. They also are negatively charged and so repel each other.
> Thus the cell will contain what is known as a colloidal dispersion,
> or sol. If the particles in a sol are especially small and intrinsically
> clear (both true here) the sol will appear clear and give no visual
> hint that a large fraction of it is a solid. Note that all this
> is very ordinary chemistry.
> 

> -- 
> jnw@vnet.net

	In this case the resistence of the solution would be increasing and one
would notice a change in voltage if running at constant current or a
decrease in current if running at constant voltage. Large enough to
observe.

Cindy Lundgren
All opinions my own
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenlundgrca cudfnCindy cudlnLundgren cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.24 / 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: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 18:24:03 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <46gmvo$bti@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry
Merriman) wrote:

> > In article <21cenlogic-1910951340010001@austin-2-6.i-link.net>,
> > 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:
> > 
> 
> > >Result: an
> > >electron orbiting in a cavitation channel does no work, loses no energy,
> > >and thus cannot possibly radiate. It's simple! --Mitchell Jones}***
> > 
> 
> MJ: normally, charges radiate when they are accelerated---they need
> not be doing any obvious ``work''. You apparently want to throw
> out the standard theory of E&M along with QM. Answer this question:
> now that your electron has a clear channel, and is moving freely in
> an acclerated circular orbit, why does it not radiate away power
> by standard radiation from an accelerated charge?

***{For the same reason that a satellite in high earth orbit doesn't
radiate away power, Barry: it is above the atmosphere, and is encountering
negligible resistance to its motion. Likewise, the electron in a stable
cavitation channel is encountering negligible resistance to its motion,
and so it doesn't radiate, either. 

Your question makes it sound like you are disturbed by the violation of
the man-made rule of thumb which says that an accelerated charge must
radiate. The proper rule, however, is that when a charge is accelerated
*in the ether*, it must radiate. Your version of the rule was formulated
long before the discovery of the atom or of individual particles called
electrons. The cases which had been studied at that time involved massive
flows consisting of many millions of electrons under conditions where it
would be unreasonable to expect cavitation channels to have formed. Thus
those flows always took place in the ether (i.e., in E1), and could be
expected to produce radiation of power. It was only later, when attempts
were made to study atomic systems, that cases emerged in which ether
cavitation became a factor. I see no reason why the old rule, formulated
under radically different circumstances, should be expected to still
apply. If you think there is some reason why it should, please explain.
(And while you are at it, explain why a circular current flow in a
superconductor doesn't radiate away power, either! My version of the rule
works for superconductors. Yours does not.) --Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
> 
> --
> Barry Merriman
> UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
> UCLA Dept. of Math
> bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.24 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
Date: 24 Oct 1995 18:43:49 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <ZVLGgbM.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> There has been a lot of hilarious "skeptical" handwaving here
>  
> Moving right along, we have Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> writing,
> and writing, and writing again:
>  
>      "Miley's group at UofI _has not made any claim of excess heat
>      production_. If I'm wrong, please correct me."
>  
> Naturally, I did correct him. He could have corrected himself by calling them
> or by reading their previous publications. Naturally, he repeats this
> confabulation again ... Stick to it! Keep
> repeating this lie. 

Well, Jed, I will. Because it is straight from the horses mouth, as
it were. I don't claim to know what they tell you when you talk to 
them. I talked to them, and that was what I was told. They are not
at this time claiming that it produces net energy over the lifetime
of the run.



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


cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.23 / 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: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 18:17:53 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <21cenlogic-2310951642520001@austin-2-13.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:

> In article <46em3i$965@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, zoltanccc@aol.com
> (ZoltanCCC) wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> ***{As I have said repeatedly, the curve fitted mathematics falsely
> claimed by "quantum mechanics" fits the experimental data points because
> it has been explicitly designed for that purpose. The process by which
> that fit has been achieved has nothing to do with physical understanding.
> Designing a mathematical construct to fit a set of experimentally measured
> data points depends solely on mathematical skills. The "quantum
> postulate"--i.e., the notion that motion in the microcosm is
> discontinuous--is not required to create such constructs, or to use them.
> Therefore, what do you mean when you say that "quantum mechanics" has been
> "proven by experimental evidence?" What evidence proves, or could prove,
> the "quantum postulate?" --Mitchell Jones}***
>  
> > 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. 
> 
> ***{This is non-responsive. The specific reaction that you proposed was p
> + e --> n, with subsequent capture of the neutron by other nuclei that are
> present, such as hydrogen, palladium, etc. The issue that I raised had
> nothing to do with beta emission, and is not resolvable by beta emission.
> The problem is that these types of neutron captures produce excited
> nuclei, which immediately drop to ground state by emitting *huge* gammas.
> For example, p + n --> d + 2.22 Mev gamma. The question is, why don't
> these gammas kill the experimenters? Talking on about beta decay and
> energetic neutrinos does nothing to answer this question. As I have noted,
> the only theory which explains why the experimenters aren't all dead is
> the protoneutron theory. Neutrons could easily escape from the lattice,
> wander about, and trigger unshielded gammas. Protoneutrons, on the other
> hand, can't: they are wildly unstable, are destroyed by thermal motion,
> and can endure only in the nodes of the lattice wave. This means that the
> gamma emissions are going to be surrounded by protoneutrons, and will be
> absorbed. This is why, as I pointed out in an earlier post, the kind of
> energy that protoneutrons produce is as benign and non-threatening as
> flowers on a sunny day. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> Perhaps what I propose would result in high energy electron
> > emissions, but perhaps such electrons are absorbed in the electrolyte or
> > the lattice.
> 
> ***{To repeat: what you propose would result in high energy gamma
> emissions, and would kill the experimenters. It doesn't work, Zoltan!
> --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
>  I haven't done calculations about the electron's mean free
> > path but perhaps some day when I have a little time I will.
> 
> ***{Wrong word: you mean neutron, not electron. And it isn't exactly a
> mean free path. The scatter cross section is much higher than the
> absorption cross section, so a thermal neutron will be scattered many
> times before it makes a centered hit on a nucleus and is absorbed. Thus
> the mean path before absorption will not be a straight line, but a random
> walk. Such path lengths are easy to estimate by simply multiplying the
> number of target nuclei per cubic centimeter times the capture cross
> section in square centimeters, and taking the reciprocal of the result.
> Thus, for example, you would multiply the number of hydrogen nuclei per cc
> in a loaded palladium lattice (2.058E+23) times the thermal neutron
> capture cross section of those nuclei (.33E-24 cm2), and take the
> reciprocal, which gives 14.72 centimeters as the average distance traveled
> by a neutron in a loaded lattice before being absorbed by a hydrogen
> nucleus. (Note: 1 barn equals 1E-24 cm2.)  Similarly, you would multiply
> the number of palladium nuclei per cc in the lattice (.06861E+24) times
> the thermal neutron capture cross section of those nuclei (6.9E-24), and
> take the reciprocal, which gives 2.11 cm as the average distance traveled
> by a neutron in the loaded lattice before being absorbed by a palladium
> nucleus. Or, if you want the average distance traveled before absorption
> by either type of nucleus, simply add the reciprocal of 2.11 to the
> reciprocal of 14.72, and take the reciprocal of the result: 1.84 cm. 
> 
> The theoretical basis for this procedure is very simple. Assume a particle
> of radius r1 flying through a field of particles of radius r2 at velocity
> V. Whenever the center of the moving particle comes within a distance r1 +
> r2 of the center of one of the other particles, a collision will occur.
> Thus, as an expedient formalism, we can treat the radius of the moving
> particle as r1 + r2 = R, and can see that its collision cross section, b,
> is simply 2¼R. 

***{Wrong! Try ¼R^2. Jeez,  I have known the formula for the area of a
circle since the 4th grade, so when am I going to stop falling prey to
silly glitches like this? Anyway, substitute ¼R^2 everywhere you see 2¼R,
and everything works. --Mitchell Jones}***

Treating the other particles as mathematical points, we can
> see that in time t, our moving particle will sweep out a volume of 2¼RVt.
> If there are N point particles per unit volume, then total collisions
> during that time interval will be 2¼RNVt. Distance traveled is Vt, so
> average distance traveled per collision is Vt/2¼RNVt = 1/2¼RN = 1/bN, as
> used in the calculations given above. (This is OK because the same
> reasoning also applies when the interaction to be determined involves an
> absorption rather than a collision.) This is a simplified approach but it
> is good enough for our purposes, since it makes it crystal clear that your
> scenario would allow the neutrons to wander off of the reservation, so to
> speak, and that they would yield unshielded gammas that would fry the
> experimenters. --Mitchell Jones}***  
> > 
> > Zoltan Szakaly
> 
> ===========================================================

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.23 / John White /  Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
     
Originally-From: jnw@katie.vnet.net (John N. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
Date: 23 Oct 1995 22:25:51 -0500
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes:
> Well we know in the Miley demonstration that the electrolyte was 5C warmer
> coming out than going in, so one would presume that if a small shift
> in temperature can cause a large shift in solubility that the "nucleated"
> crystals would promptly dissolve upon passing this active nickle matrix --
> reabsorbing a great deal of the just released heat.

No, the cell is cool enough for the crystals to exist, but the pump chamber
is warmer than the cell causing the crystals to dissolve.

> By the way, in Cravens' system diagram he shows T0 approximately equal to
> T1 (+/- 0.5 C).
>
> T0 is the measured temperature of the reservoir before the pump, and T1
> is the cell inlet temperature after the pump.

This tells us absolutely nothing whatever about the temperature in the
pump. The electrolyte can easily cool off between the pump and the
cell inlet. (Didn't the SOFE demo have a filter assembly in that part
of the loop?)

I turned a faucet to a slow drip and measured the flow rate.
A flow of 14ml/min corresponded to about one drip per second.
It is very easy to shift the temperature of such a slow flow
a couple of degrees one way or the other, and that is all my
proposed explanation needs.

Also, we need to keep track of which experiment we are talking about.
The SOFE demo gave 5W, but we currently know very little about it.
We know more about the ICCF5 demo, but it only produced about 1W.
It would be a logical fallacy to use information about the ICCF5 demo
to say an effect can't explain the excess heat seen with the SOFE demo.

It is also a mistake to assume that some piece of generic information
applies to a particular experiment. Things like gas flow and pump
chamber temperature have to be measured for that experiment or else
they cannot be assumed to support an exotic claim.
-- 
jnw@vnet.net
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.23 / John White /  Re: Jed Rothwell & the TBs double count
     
Originally-From: jnw@katie.vnet.net (John N. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell & the TBs double count
Date: 23 Oct 1995 22:28:04 -0500
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes:
> You seem to be implying that Patterson (i.e. CETI) didn't utilize
> flowing-electorlyte calorimetry.  But it is right there in Fig 1A of
> the Patterson patent #5,372,688 which predates Cravens' involvment.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that. I was implying that the
way-beyond-recombination results that Cravens got with some of
his near room temperature runs is an effect that occurs only
at near room temperature in a flowing-electrolyte calorimeter.
Other results -- such as Patterson's high temperature runs --
can be explained in other ways -- such as recombination.
-- 
jnw@vnet.net
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.23 / John White /  Re: Proposed explanation of CETI effect
     
Originally-From: jnw@katie.vnet.net (John N. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Proposed explanation of CETI effect
Date: 23 Oct 1995 22:30:21 -0500
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

Martin Sevior <msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au> writes:
> jnw@vnet.net (John N. White) wrote:
> >[proposed explanation of CETI effect]
>
> This is a heat pump hypothesis.

No it isn't. I am proposing that the pump chamber is warmer than the
cell, and that ordinary chemistry can explain heat flow from the
warmer pump chamber to the cooler cell even though the thermometer
at the cell inlet reads a lower temperature than either. Heat
naturally flows from a hot body to a cold body so there is no need
to "pump" it.

With a heat pump, high grade energy is used to pump heat from a cold body
to a hot body. That is a completely different thing.
-- 
jnw@vnet.net
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.23 / John White /  Re: Jed Rothwell & the TBs double count
     
Originally-From: jnw@katie.vnet.net (John N. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell & the TBs double count
Date: 23 Oct 1995 22:32:35 -0500
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> That is nonsense. Patterson's early results were far beyond recombination.
> His calorimetry was messy, but it did prove the point. The numbers from his
> patent did not prove anything, but he got much better numbers after he
> filed.

"he got much better numbers after he filed" is rather vague. What was
the total I*V cell input and the heat output? How long did he get this
heat and what was the startup time? What temperature did the
cell run at? What type and concentration of electrolyte did he use?
What type of calorimeter was he using when he got this result?
-- 
jnw@vnet.net
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.23 / John White /  Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
     
Originally-From: jnw@katie.vnet.net (John N. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
Date: 23 Oct 1995 22:34:29 -0500
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes:
> I think good scientific form would suggest to us that each and every
> positive assertion stand or fall on its own merits. 

When an exotic explanation is claimed for an experimental result, others
will suggest trivial explanations for that result. The person claiming
the exotic explanation must now show that the trivial explanations
don't work. This often means doing more experiments. As long as there
is a trivial explanation that has not been eliminated, the exotic
explanation will not be accepted. There is no burden of proof on
the person suggesting the trivial explanation; the burden of proof
is on the person making the exotic claim to show that the trivial
explanation is not correct. This is how good science is generally done.
-- 
jnw@vnet.net
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.24 / 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: 24 Oct 1995 06:21:55 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

John N. White (jnw@katie.vnet.net) wrote:
: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes:
: > I think good scientific form would suggest to us that each and every
: > positive assertion stand or fall on its own merits. 

: When an exotic explanation is claimed for an experimental result, others
: will suggest trivial explanations for that result. The person claiming
: the exotic explanation must now show that the trivial explanations
: don't work.

Your explanation is not trival as it presumes facts not in evidence.

--
 - 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:
cuddy24 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Oct 25 04:37:05 EDT 1995
------------------------------
