1995.10.30 / 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: 30 Oct 1995 21:49:06 -0500
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> If you can find a way to extract energy from the pump, you will cool the
> pump down. It does not matter how you do it -- it will always get cold.

Except that a lot more electrical energy is going into the pump than
is being extracted as heat.

> Bead samples have been tested by five other laboratories at universities
> and corporation. Every test has been successful. Five different calorimeters
> have been used. Many different types of thermomoeters and flowmeters have
> been used.

This says that there is a real effect, but it does not say that the effect
is anything other than an artifact of flowing-electrolyte calorimetry.
To the best of my knowledge, all attempts to replicate the effect in some
other type of calorimeter have failed. Note that by "replicate" I mean
showing the same unique characteristics that the flowing-electrolyte
calorimetry showed. In particular, the excess heat of many times total I*V
input, and the long run-time with quick start-up.

> The beads are only one implementation of CF devices. Other CF devices have
> demonstrated excess heat in flow calorimeters, static and thermoelectric
> calorimeters.

I suspect you are referring to the motley collection of odd results found
by various persons who worked vary hard to tweak their calorimeters into
giving odd results. What I want is a system that can stand up to investigation
like a real effect. The CETI system comes close, but as I said above, it
needs to be replicated in some type of calorimeter other than the flowing-
electrolyte kind. 

> Japanese corporations had repeatedly claimed they observe both excess heat
> and nuclear effects, they have been granted patents and they have made public
> statements to this effect. There is, in short, and overwhelming body of

Japanese corporations are also actively investigating ESP, but they haven't
come out with any products using that either.

I understand Toyota has cut losses with cold fusion, though. In fact, even
before ICCF5 they had reassigned Pons to something else. That was why
the expected tour of his CF lab never happened, and why he had no results
to report. There was no CF lab to tour or to produce results.

> You are forgetting that science must be based upon experiment, and that
> the only standard of truth in science is experimental evidence.

An example of science being based on experimental evidence is that no
scientist would accept a TB's subjective impression that a pump is cool.
TB's have been known to walk on glowing coals and claim they are cool.
A scientist would want to shove a thermometer up the pumps output tube
and actually measure the temperature while the calorimeter is running
and showing excess heat.

> If you choose not to believe what the evidence proves then you are no longer
> doing science.

Exactly. So if you get a wonderful result in various flowing-electrolyte
calorimeters, but all efforts to get the same result in any other type of
calorimeter are failures, then the evidence proves that the result is an
artifact of this type of calorimeter. If you choose not to believe the
evidence then you are no longer doing science.

Note that by "wonderful result" I am referring to the CETI excess heat
result that is many times the total I*V input, and that runs for a long
time after a quick start-up. I understand that this has never been seen
in anything but a flowing-electrolyte calorimeter, despite much effort.
If you know of such a result, then please tell us the details. What type
of calorimeter was used? What was the I*V input and the heat output?
How long did it produce this heat, and after what start-up time?
-- 
jnw@vnet.net
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.30 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Steven Janowsky's Magic Martian Refrigerator
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Steven Janowsky's Magic Martian Refrigerator
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 23:30:24 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <4731st$s2r@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
janowsky@gaston.ma.utexas.edu (Steven Janowsky) wrote:
> 
> jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
> :
> : We also know that
> : during calibration runs the pump does not get hot. It never changes
> : measurably at all, so there is no heat flowing into it or out of it.
>
> I guess I'm wrong--I was assuming that there was a source of heat in the
> motor and pump.  But this experiment has a 100% efficient magic martian
> pump.  Let's forget about cold fusion and sell these pumps.
> 
[Order of above remarks reversed in the interests of clarity. --MJ]

***{Steve, I think you missed Jed's point. When I read his above quoted
remarks, it seemed obvious that he was saying that *if* we assume that the
pump is the source of the 5 joules/sec of measured output during the
experimental runs, then those very same 5 joules/sec would, during the
calibration runs, show up as heat at the pump. The alternative would be
magic: that the pump somehow knows whether it is performing an
experimental run or a calibration run and, very conveniently, decides to
only emit the 5 joules/sec during the experimental runs!  --Mitchell
Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.30 / Bill Rowe /  Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 19:53:12 -0800
Organization: AltNet

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

>Bill Rowe <browe@netcom.com> writes:
> 
>>As far as the existence of tritium depending on surface effects, this is
>>simply handwaving on your part. In fact, assuming CF is a nuclear effect
>>resulting in tritium production, I very much doubt surface effects will
>>determine tritium production.
> 
>No, this is not handwaving on my part. This is a carefully considered
>hypothesis proposed by Bockris with additional supporting evidence from
>Storms. It is not from me at all, and I cannot judge the scientific
>merits of their arguments. As for you, you have *absolutely no business*
>judging or doubting that surface effect determine tritium production because
>you have not read any of the literature on CF and you know nothing about the
>experiments this hypothesis is based upon.

I have as much right to my opinion as you do to yours. You do not know
what I have read or not read. You are making assumptions about my
qualifications of which you have no knowledge.

>You were not even aware that
>Bockris proposed the idea (you thought I did!). 

Jed when you post an explanation without attributing it to someone else,
it is reasonable to expect it to be an explanation you accept. It really
doesn't matter that someone else proposed it also.

>You remind me of Steve Jones,
>who first pontificates that nuclear reactions in metals can never happen, and
>who then proceeds to lay down the law and tell us how these reactions must
>occur when they do happen. You cannot have it both ways. Either you can
>explain the tritium evidence and you know why Los Alamos usually gets tritium
>and CETI never has, or you cannot explain it. You cannot just arbitrarilly
>"doubt" the Bockris hypothesis. You know nothing about it! You don't even know
>what kinds of CF experiments are most likely to produce tritium.

I cannot explain why one lab gets tritium and why one doesn't. You are
welcome to your opinion that my doubt is "arbitrary"  or whatever. It
seems unlikely surface states will mediate nuclear reactions. The energy
scales are vastly different. Note this is not the same as saying surface
conditions do not play a role in CF even assuming it is a fusion reaction.
It may be that some set of surface conditions must exist to absorb/adsorb
hydrogen isotopes to get the fusion to happen in the first place.

The hypopthesis that surface states determine the fusion by products
appears to be an extension of chemical thinking where surface conditions
can play a major role in the coarse of the reaction. Again, I very much
doubt this type of thinking is applicable to a fusion process given the
difference in energy scales.
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.30 / Bill Rowe /  Re: Incredibly stupid comments from Jones & Sullivan
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Incredibly stupid comments from Jones & Sullivan
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 20:13:54 -0800
Organization: AltNet

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

>browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) writes:
> 
>    "It would be nice to know the total energy in, including that for the pump
>    and that for any pre-conditioning. This could be compared to the total
>    energy out."
> 
>Why would it be nice? There is no way this total energy could come close
>to 85 MJ. What does the pump have to do with it? Many experiments have been
>run without pumps, and anyone can get a lab pump and prove that pumps never
>add any measurable levels of energy to the water. Simple physics prove that
>the pump must be irrelevant. If you are going to throw in the energy used by
>the pump, why not also include energy consumed by the electronics for the
>precision liquid and gas flowmeters? Why not include the AC power consumed by
>the DC power supplies and lost as waste heat? Why not add in the energy used
>to melt the glass when the cell glassware was manufactured? For that matter,
>why not include the energy from the exploding supernova that transmuted
>hydrogen into the nickel and lithium in the cell? Throwing in the energy
>consumed by the pump is absurd. There is no scientific justification for this
>anymore than there would be for including the heat from the glassware furnace
>back at the Corning factory. Anyone can test a pump and prove that *it adds no
>significant energy to the flow.* Anyone can see the calibration curves from
>these experiments prove the same thing. You might as well try to measure the
>energy added by the gravitational perturbations from the moon.

Let me put in straight business terms. If I am running a CF setup I must
pay for all the energy I use including that which I use to drive the pump.
If the total energy I get from the setup is less I will lose money quickly
unless I find someone foolish enough to pay me more for energy than what I
pay for energy.

The energy supplied by the pump may not be contributing to the cell
temperature in any significant way. If the output energy is significantly
greater than the total input including the pump, it makes it very clear
the CF is an energy source and not some sort of "battery"
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.31 / John Logajan /  Re: Serious flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95 demo)
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Serious flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95 demo)
Date: 31 Oct 1995 05:09:07 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

jonesse@plasma.byu.edu wrote:
: I stick by my hypothesis that much or all of the "excess heat" claimed by
: Patterson Power Cell advocates is simply due to recombination of H2 and O2,
: dissolved in the flowing electrolyte.

Your post (dated Friday) only just arrived here on Monday, so I don't know
if you've seen the later corrections.

But we've determined that H2O cannot transport more than about 3 milliwatts
per milliliter per minute of dissolved (and then recombined) H2, if the
CRC is correct about the solubility of H2 in H2O.

Since the flow rate of the SOFE device was 14 ml/min, that's about 40 milli-
watts by my calculation and 30 milliwatts by Martin Sevior's latest 
recalculation.

The ICCF5 demo used 10 ml/min so that is 30 and 20 milliwatts respectively
(JL or MS.)


: Martin Sevior does a nice calculation showing that 200 ml (the cell volume)
: of electrolyte can only hold 428 cc of H2 dissolved in the water, which

Martin misread the CRC the first time (has since corrected his computations.)
He overstated the solubility of H2 in H2O by a factor of 100.

: Martin's analysis ignores the volume of electrolyte outside the cell, in
: the circulation of the electrolyte.  The diagram in Hal Fox's "Fusion Facts"
: article shows an extra volume where "gases escape" (it is not clear whether
: this is into free air, or whether the volume is closed so that H2 can
: re-dissolve into the fluid later) and a volume for the pump
: and flow meter.

We've shown that the bottleneck is not the external storage, but the
solubility which limits the 14 ml/min to only providing enough maximally
dissolved H2 for about 30-40 milliwatts -- not 5 watts.


: George Miley told me (as I recall) that the best his
: students could get out of a cell was a factor of about 10 in the thermal
: *power* over (small) electrical current -- I understand this was 
: 2-hundredths of an ampere, at 2.98 volts, or 60 milliwatts input.  That
: means a maximum output at the SOFE demo of about 0.6 watts thermal out

600 milliwatts is still over 10x - 20x larger than the 30 - 40 milliwatts
available via the solubility limit of H2 in H2O at the given flow rate.

--
 - 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:
cuddy31 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.30 / Harry Conover /  Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
Date: 30 Oct 1995 21:51:59 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Mitchell Jones (21cenlogic@i-link.net) wrote:

: ***{Why not? A professor of physics, in most cases, is just an airhead who
: remembers without understanding. Like other types of professors, their
: minds are full of symbolic statements and rules for their manipulation,
: and devoid of the visual models which define what the statements *mean.*
: They obtained their advanced degrees by regurgitating on cue the "correct"
: words of yet other airheads like themselves, in an "educational" context
: that had been deliberately structured to penalize those who did the hard
: mental work necessary to produce visual models and, hence, understanding.
: They are lifelong parasites, employed by the parasitic state or by
: organizations which it controls, and certified "competent" by it. Their
: job is to defend the status quo and the elite of bloodsuckers who ride on
: our backs. Since none but the brain dead fail to see the monstrous
: immorality of state parasitism, it is no surprise that most apologists for
: that system are stupid as posts, and have a hard time grasping just about
: anything. --Mitchell Jones}***

Unfortunately, Mitch, your theory has one 'minor' hole in it.  These 
'parasites' have been directly responsible for every significant 
scientific breakthrough in our current century, from atomic energy to
semiconductors, lasers and NMR (pardon me, in politically correct
language MRI).

Yep, scientists are just a bunch of deadheads!

: ***{Marshall, you are dropping the context of the discussion. The subject
: here is not some vague non-chemical process in which "recombination" is
: somehow involved. The subject, instead, is the very specific and very
: crudely idiotic theory of recombination proposed by Steve Jones, which
: wildly and by many orders of magnitude fails to account for the facts of
: the SOFE demo which it originally purported to explain. --Mitchell
: Jones}***

Mitch, what facts?  Where are the facts?  The people that performed the
SOFE demo are, themselves, unsure of the facts.  As with the Griggs
Device, no one here has been able or willing to post an experimental error 
analysis revealing that excess heat even exists. Jed rants continuously
about what a wonderful breakthrough this is and, as with the Griggs
thing, he (or others) are unable to mount a rationale or convincing 
argument that excess heat or energy even exists.

Seriously, if you guys really believe in the existence of this effect,
I'd think that you'd be 'Hell bent for election' to collect and post the 
actual numbers, and uncertainties, rather than all this pointless bickering
and pontification.  

   o  How much electrical energy was fed into the cell?

   o  What is the uncertainty of this measurement?

   o  How much energy was consumed by the pump?

   o  Where did this energy go?

   o  What is the uncertainty of this measurement/estimate?

   o  How much heat resulted?

   o  What is the uncertainty of this measurement?

   o  What was the resultant excess heat?

   o  What is the uncertainty of this measurement?

   o  What is the cumulative uncertainty of the energy input?

   o  Taking into account all of the cumulative error, how
      much excess heat must be observed to positively exceed
      the total experimental error computed?

   o  Was heat in excess of experimental uncertainty actually observed?


Until someone can quantitatively answer all of the above, there
is no remarkable pheonomenon to even discuss, let alone postulate
explanitory theories. 

This approach has a name -- It's called science.

                                        Harry C.

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.30 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Steven Janowsky's Magic Martian Refrigerator
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Steven Janowsky's Magic Martian Refrigerator
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 95 17:19:14 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Steven Janowsky <janowsky@gaston.ma.utexas.edu> writes:
 
     "Your experiment has 2 sources of energy -- electrolysis current and
     motor current.
 
It does not. You TB skeptics wish that the pump motor current was a
significant source of energy, but it isn't. Anyone who tests a pump will see
you are wrong. Sorry, the overhead lights don't make the pump hot either. That
display you see on the flowmeter control box -- that doesn't make the pump
hot. The body heat from the people standing around looking at it does not
register either. Nothing makes the pump hot. IT ISN'T HOT. IT IS AT ROOM
TEMPERATURE. You can gab and handwave until the cows come home, but you cannot
change that fact.
 
 
     "A heat pump only needs a colder-than-ambient region if there isn't a
     hotter-than-ambient temperature reservoir.  Since there is a
     hotter-than-ambient reservoir (the pump, the electrical input of which
     is NOT included in the energy `conservation' computations), no cold
     region is needed."
 
B.S. The waste heat from pump motor electrical input does NOT go to the water.
It goes to the air. You wish that is does, you have persuaded yourself that it
does, but wishing hand waving and delusions cannot change reality. Common
sense, my observations on site at ICCF5 and the calibrations all prove there
is no measurable input from the pump. If the pump surface had been at 40
degree C I would have noticed that fact.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.30 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Serious flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95 demo)
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Serious flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95 demo)
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 95 17:22:28 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

jonesse@plasma.byu.edu cannot get even the simplest facts right. He claims:
 
     "Hal does give the dimensions of the cell, which works out to about 200
     ml -- for the cell alone.  The volume outside the cell would be nice to
     know; Martin ignores this."
 
The inside dimensions of the cell are about 5 ml. The entire volume of water
in the cell, reservoir and pipes is 200 ml. Hal Fox does not give the
dimensions of the cell but the patents, photographs and papers published by
CETI and others do.
 
 
     "The diagram in Hal Fox's "Fusion Facts" article shows an extra volume
     where "gases escape" (it is not clear whether this is into free air, or
     whether the volume is closed so that H2 can re-dissolve into the fluid
     later)"
 
What the hell is this supposed to mean? What would anyone say "the gas
escapes" if he means "the gas does not escape, it goes back into the water?"
And how would you accomplish that magic without blowing up the calorimeter
from the pressure? The diagram very clearly shows the gas escaping from an
open container. That is a simplification as can be seen in my diagram of
the gas splitter in "Infinite Energy." The same type of splitter was used
at SOFE.
 
 
     "Then there seems to be some confusion about the operation of the Cell
     at SOFE as opposed to other places.  George Miley told me (as I recall)
     that the best his students could get out of a cell was a factor of about
     10 in the thermal *power* over (small) electrical current -- I
     understand this was 2-hundredths of an ampere, at 2.98 volts, or 60
     milliwatts input.   That means a maximum output at the SOFE demo of
     about 0.6 watts thermal out -- not 4.5 W."
 
That was with Miley's beads at his laboratory, not CETI's beads during SOFE.
There is no confusion, just misinformation deliberately introduced by people
like Jones, in order to confuse the discussion and delude people.
 
 
     "Even if the output at SOFE reached a maximum of 4.5 W as Martin now
     says, was this maintained for 8 hours?  I doubt it, based on what Miley
     told me over the phone."
 
On the other hand, during the SOFE conference Cold Fusion Panel discussion
Cravens said that the cell had been producing 4 to 6 watts for 10 hours that
day. I have the video of that. I did not see whether George was in the room
but I know that Storms and others in the room has observed the cell that day,
and nobody spoke up to contradict him. So Steve's "doubts" have no basis in
fact.
 
 
     "Martin Sevior does a nice calculation showing that 200 ml (the cell
     volume) of electrolyte can only hold 428 cc of H2 dissolved in the
     water, which amounts to "2.85*10**5 Joules" of stored energy (via
     recombination on the catalyst bed).  He then goes on to suggest that the
     cell at the SOFE demo produced 4.5 watts for eight full hours, or 24
     times as much heat."
 
Martin's calculation was two orders of magnitude off, and he forgot about the
oxygen.
 
 
     "But using Martin's analysis, modified by a factor to include the volume
     in circulating electrolyte, and a another factor for the  power output
     over time, gets us close enough to the energy content of the electrolyte
     to make my recombination hypothesis worth consideration, I think.  If
     the cell-system is pressurized, then the stored chemical energy goes up,
     of course."
 
Yeah, right and if there was a tractor trailer truck full of water standing
by that will help too. It would only take 10 liters per minute for two months
in their longest experiment to date. Yeah, you can introduce all kinds of
factors with that magic work "if". Unfortunately for Jones, Martin's analysis
is wrong, his magic addition for the volume in circulating electrolyte is
wrong, and the cell system is not pressurized. A pity. If this, if that, and
if the other style handwaving is not science. It means nothing. If they
circulated 4 kg of gasoline with oxygen dissolved in it instead of 200 ml of
water we could explain the heat too. If there was a chunk of plutonium
dioxide in the cell that would explain the heat. There wasn't.
 
 
Jones quotes me:
 
     "Okay, we charge the cell for 20 minutes at 60 milliwatts.  That's a
     total of 72 joules. Half of that is lost to joule heating... So we have
     this mighty 36 joules sitting in this gigantic ocean of electrolyte (200
     ml; a coffee cup full)."
 
And then he blithely ignores what I wrote and what Hal Fox published and what
Cravens and CETI published, and he writes:
 
     "We need to know the charging current and time and electrolyte volume in
     order to accurately determine the amount of stored chemical energy in
     the Patterson battery."
 
Hello?!? Have we got a line? Earth to Jones. Earth to Jones! We just told you
the charging time the electrolyte volume and the total charging power. Listen
up, idiot: CHARGING TIME IS TWENTY MINUTES. ELECTROLYTE VOLUME IS TWO HUNDRED
MILLILITERS. THE CURRENT IS 0.02 AMPS AT 3 VOLTS. Like I said a million times
before. Did you get it? Of course not! Professor Jones will be back next week
saying "we need to know the current. Nobody has told us how much electrolyte
there is." He figures that if he repeats this lie enough times, people will
begin to believe him. He might even begin to believe it himself.
 
 
     "This is why I suggested that Miley take his operating cell (after
     charging then reducing the current) . . .
 
As Hal Fox points out, he charges and then *increases* the current. Not only
does Jones fabricate statements that Fox never made about the dimensions of
cell, but he ignores the statements that Fox did make.
 
     " . . . and remove the dissolved H2 and O2 from the electrolyte.  If I
     am correct, the excess power should drop precipitously as this is done.
     This is a straightforward test, which neither Martin nor Jed have argued
     against."
 
Right. Except when I pointed out that this a sure way to clobber the reaction
and destroy the cell. We have no objections other than that!
 
     "Alternatively, one could charge the electrolyte by bubbling H2 and O2
     gases from gas cylinders, into the electrolyte."
 
That's even better! Nothing like a dose of O2 gas in an electrolysis cell. It
is nice reactive stuff, perfect for leaving black gunk everywhere and sealing
off the surface of the cathode. Made to order.
 
 
     "Note (to Dieter especially):  adding or removing gases can be done in
     the circulating stream of the electrolyte, rather than in the cell, to
     avoid arguments by TB's that the *act* of removing stored H2 from the
     electrolyte in the cell environment somehow reduces the putative nuclear
     reactions."
 
Yes, well, an easier way to do this is to use freshly mixed electrolyte before
beginning the experiment. That, of course, is what they do at the beginning of
every run, including the ones at ICCF5 and SOFE. They dissolve lithium in
distilled water. That's water, not water with 5 kg of dissolved H2 and O2 gas
magically dissolved in it.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.30 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 17:24 -0500 (EST)

mbk@I_should_put_my_domain_in_etc_NNTP_INEWS_DOMAIN (Matthew B. Kennel) writes:
 
-> Using fairly naive approximations such as assuming there was a constant
-> pressure equal to the weight divided by the blade area, we found that
-> the delivered energy upon sinking a physically realistic amount
-> was much too small to explain melting of ice due to any presumed
-> energy delivered that way.
 
That is naive all right.  The ice does not melt because of any energy input.
It melts because the melting point of ice is lower when it is under pressure.
In fact when you apply pressure, the ice not only melts, but the water is
somewhat colder than the ice was before applying pressure since ice absorbs
heat when it melts, and no heat was supplied.  This is similar to when you add
salt, the ice melts, and gets colder.
 
If this was done in a physics class and the professor made such a claim, your
school needs to get another professor who knows what the heck is going on.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.30 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 95 20:00:52 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> writes:
 
>to Jones, me and everyone else. The issue is whether experiments really
>meet one of these three exemptions. In order to tell, the experimental 
>report has to be sufficiently detailed, and independent replication would
 
If you read the literature you will see that dozens of experiments have
been described in sufficient detail, and these experiments have been run
hundreds of time. Note in particular the SRI work. You are wrong about
Jones. He has not acknowledged this work. He pretends that it does not
exist. It totally defeats his hypothesis, so he pretends it never happened.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.31 / Martin Sevior /  "Serious Flaws" fatally flawed.
     
Originally-From: msevior@axnd02.cern.ch (Martin Sevior)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "Serious Flaws" fatally flawed.
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 01:42:49 GMT
Organization: CERN European Lab for Particle Physics

I think that as Steve Jones has suggested we bombard Prof. Miley with requests
that he perform irrelevent experiments he should comment on the following
explanation as to why his recombination hypothesis cannot explain the  SOFE
demo.

It is clear that the power gain is so large
(a factor of 80), that is (heat output)/(I*V), that STEADY STATE
recombination could not come close to accounting for the effect.
Professor Jones instead suggests that the heat comes from pre-existing
hydrogen dissolved in the electrolyte.

Clearly if the total content of dissolved H2 is less than the amount required
to provide 5 watts of heat for at least 8 hours, the hypothesis must be
rejected. In addition one must check to see if the solubility of hydrogen
is sufficient to allow a continous 5 watts of power output. The
point is that the flow rate through the cell is only 14 ml/minute. One
must therefore check to see if enough hydrogen can pass through the cell
per second to provide 5 watts of heat. The hypothesis must also be rejected
if it cannot do this. John Logajan pointed out that this must also be taken
into account.

The solubility of hydrogen in water (CRC handbook of Chemistry
and Physics) is a maximum of 2.14 cc of Hydrogen/(100cc of water).
Thankyou John Logajan for correcting me yet again!
The volume of the electrolyte is 200 ml so that means we can have up to
4.28 cc of Hydrogen dissolved in the water. This gives us
4.28/22400 = 0.00019 mole of Hydrogen dissolved in the water.

John Logajan's handy thermodynamic scorecard lists the energy released per
mole of Hydrogen in the formation of H2O as 2.85*10**5 Joules.

So the amount of heat that could possibly be produced though recombination
by hydrogen dissolved in 200 ml of water is 0.00019*2.85*10**5 = 54 joules.

The mount of energy released in 8 hours of operation of the SOFE demonstration
is:

4.5*60*60*8 = 1.3*10**5, a factor of 2400 times higher.

ie. If the electrolyte was saturated with hydrogen it could only supply the 5
watts of heat for 10.8 seconds.

Now lets look at the power output.

The flow rate of electrolyte through the cell is 14 ml/minute = 0.233 cc/sec.
The solubility of hydrogen allows at most 2.14/(100*22400) = 9.5*10**-7
mole per cc. Thus the maximum power that disolved hydrogen can deliver
is:

0.233*9.5*10**-7*1.3*10**-5 = 0.029 watts.

So no matter how much electrolyte is in the cell, dissolved hydrogen can
only supply a tiny fraction (less than 1/100 th) of the observed heat output.

So the Fatal Flaw in Steve Jones argument is the tiny solubility of hydrogen
in water. His experiments were performed at far lower power levels where
saturation effects were much less significant.


Martin Sevior


cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenmsevior cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.30 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
Date: 30 Oct 1995 13:29:56 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <JjGkpcm.jedrothwell@delphi.com> , jedrothwell@delphi.com
persists
in not getting the point:
>Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>>>Or do you think that it is possible to extract energy from the surroundings
>>>without changing the temperature?
>>
>>I sure do!  Haven't you ever boiled water or melted ice?  I can transfer a
>>huge amount of energy without changing the temperature of either
> 
>If there is a phase change without a temperature change outside the pump,
>then it must occur in some material surrounding the pump and touching it.

False!  As long as there's a source of energy to the pump, the pump can
stay at a constant temperature!  Electrical power goes into the pump.
Normally this would heat it, but in John White's theory the pump puts
energy into the fluid to melt the microcrystals.  The pump doesn't need to
get much warmer than the fluid; the fluid doesn't need to heat up.

>The heat energy has to start *somewhere*. 

That's right!  It starts out as electrical input to the pump.  The pump 
does work on the fluid, which in addition to physically forcing the
fluid to move also melts the microcrystals.

>The material in contact with the
>pump is air: a-i-r. You cannot extract energy from air without lowering
>its temperature. Air is not ice. There are no phase changes with air at
>room temperature that can prevent a change in air temperature.

You should track the little black cord that usually runs out the back 
of a pump and think about where it goes and what it means.

Air is completely irrelevant for this hypothesis.  You could do
the whole thing in a vacuum if you wanted.

 -----------------------------------------------------
Bob Heeter
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu / rfheeter@pppl.gov
http://www.princeton.edu/~rfheeter
Of course I do not speak for anyone else in any of the above.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.31 / A Plutonium /  Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, Dr. Hill is the wiser, Dr.   
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.particle,sci.
hysics.fusion,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, Dr. Hill is the wiser, Dr.   
Date: 31 Oct 1995 01:28:00 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <DH9xCH.399@news.cern.ch>
rostad@cam.ov.com (Bernt Rostad) writes:

> Sorry, I just tried to show that even particles with rest mass 0 have
> energy - which isn't obvious if you just look at E=m*c^2 
> 
> For the photons the mass must be zero yes, but there is no real need 
> for neutrinos to be massless ... why should they travel at the exact
> speed of light ?  If they travel at 99.99% the speed of light (which
> is mighty fast) the Gamma factor would only be 70 so that the energy
> of the neutrino would be finite: 70*Mo*c^2  where Mo is the small
> "rest mass". No experiments today (as far as I know) have excluded
> the possibility of a finite neutrino rest mass.
> 
> Infact there's a lot of research going on about possible neutrino
> mixing, where a muon neutrino can change into an electron neutrino,
> just like for a neutral kaon and its antiparticle which is known 
> to mix (CP violation) but at a small rate.
> 
> According to the Standard Model; mixing between families is only possible
> if the members are massive. So for neutrinos to mix they must have a finite
> mass. Nobody have seen evidence for netrino mixing yet but we cannot
> exclude it either, currently the upper limit for the mass of the electron
> neutrino is about 10 eV or 10^(-35) Kg or 0.02 permille of the electron 
> rest mass.
> 
> But neutrino mixing could explain the solar neutrino problem (i.e. why
> we only see 1/3 of the expected neutrinos from the solar fusion reactions)
> and it would also make the protons unstable (though the lifetime is known
> to be more than 10^(30) years) and maybe some of the "dark matter" in
> cosmology could be explained if the neutrinos proves to be massive.

  Would someone mind summarizing why most textbooks and encyclopedias
state that the neutrinos go the speed of light and thus have 0 rest
mass? Was it from W. Pauli who said conserve energy on neutron decay
and Beta decays? What were those calculations specifically and who did
them? I should think someone is keeping a historical record of who
published the characteristics of the neutrino that we have maintained
it to have the speed of light and zero rest mass.

  And, is it these two problems (1) "missing mass cosmology" problem 
and (2) 2/3 missing count of neutrinos from Sun which is
spurring-the-drive to check out the neutrino for rest mass?

  Bernt says there is room for the neutrino to have rest mass if its
speed was 99.99% of the photon. But I kind of think that if something
were that close to the speed of light that the 'Great Design' made it
the speed of light. It is just an appreciation of beauty in physics
that if something is that close to the speed of light it probably is c.
Bernt says he knows of no experiments that theoretically decide for
that the neutrino is c. I on the other hand think there is. I do not
think there is any room in the neutron decay and the Beta decay to
allow neutrinos anything but the speed of light. Would someone mind
posting that historical data. I have the feeling that radioactive decay
of neutrinos would be 'messy' unless the neutrino had the exact same
speed as the photon.
  Can there be an experimental set-up in which speeds are measured
against one another say in vacuum and in a denser medium and if the
photon versus the neutrino of say a not-vacuum where a photon is
99.999% speed, yet the neutrinos win the race. In other words, do not
look for masses but compare speeds.

  I believe the following will be found true

(1) Photons decompose into neutrinos, and that would negate a finite
rest mass for neutrinos. I cannot see how a part can be more massive
than its whole

(2) Neutrino count from the Sun is 2/3 off not because of neutrino
switching but rather instead neutrinos combining to form photons or
gravitons. Thus the Standard Model is malarkey.

  
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.31 / A Plutonium /  Re: 14th Experiments proving HYASYS; Correlations of nuclear 
     
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: Re: 14th Experiments proving HYASYS; Correlations of nuclear 
Date: 31 Oct 1995 01:48:46 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <470iui$5vq@zippy.cais.net>
alchemst@pacificnet.net (John Milligan) writes:

> I would assume that the neutron has been measured fairly accurately.  The 
> muon, however, has such a short lifetime that any "measurements" of its radius 
> are probably estimates. 
> 
> The value that A.P. has quoted here is the Bohr radius.  It is not the radius 
> of the nucleus but of the 1s orbital in the hydrogen atom.  An atom with 30 
> nucleons would have the radius of say phosphorus which actually has 31 
> nucleons in its most abundant isotope.  Phosphorus has an atomic radius of 
> 0.93 angstroms in one allotrope and 1.15 angstroms in the other.  This is 
> about 30% larger than the atomic radius of hydrogen which is measured to be 
> 0.78 angstroms.  And this is again about 50% larger than the value quoted by 
> A.P.  
> 
> If the nucleus of an atom with 30 nucleons, like P, had a radius of 0.528 
> angstroms, the atomic radius would be on the order of 5 microns, since the 
> atomic radius is fairly accurately measured to be about 5 orders of magnitude 
> larger than the nuclear radius.  This atoms would be visible in a simple light 
> microscope.  Thus another blow has been struck against HYASYS, which is a 
> stupid name anyway.  

  It is a beautiful name, a fantastically beautiful name and was meant
to be. In fact it will be around as long as the name 'quantum' is
around. Who was that early scientist who said all things ultimately
were made up of water? Was it Thales? Water is hydr and where we get
the name hydrogen. HYASYS is the abbreviation for Hydrogen Atom
Systems. And HYASYS is the strong nuclear force. Hydrogen thus in
effect builds the entire universe from the lowly proton and electron of
hydrogen. HYASYS builds all atoms and it is the reason of the Strong
Nuclear force.  A beautiful name indeed for it has some of the heritage
and history of science inbodied within it.
  Every time I see Hyasys I am reminded of the beautiful and gorgeous
hyacinth flower and that family of flowers.  It is your name John
Milligan which is an eye sore to me and many others.
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.30 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: "Serious Flaws" fatally flawed.
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Serious Flaws" fatally flawed.
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 95 21:56:13 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Martin Sevior <msevior@axnd02.cern.ch> writes:
 
>The solubility of hydrogen in water (CRC handbook of Chemistry
>and Physics) is a maximum of 2.14 cc of Hydrogen/(100cc of water).
 
Thank you for describing this so clearly. By the way, does the handbook
list the solubility of oxygen as well? As I mentioned earlier, you need
both, because there is no free oxygen in the cell.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.31 / John Logajan /  Re: "Serious Flaws" fatally flawed.
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Serious Flaws" fatally flawed.
Date: 31 Oct 1995 06:24:40 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Martin Sevior (msevior@axnd02.cern.ch) wrote:
: John Logajan's handy thermodynamic scorecard lists the energy released per
: mole of Hydrogen in the formation of H2O as 2.85*10**5 Joules.

In case anybody wants to verify this (or other numbers in my scorecard
available on my web page), the info is available in different units in
the CRC.  It is listed in the CRC section entitled, "Selected Values
of Chemcial Thermodynamic Properties."  Compounds are listed under the
element name they are usually associated with.  H2O, for instance,
is listed under Hydrogen, but not under Oxygen.

Anyhow, finding H2O listed under Hydrogen, we see several variations
and several columns.  Our H2O is being formed (allegedly) in recombination
in a sea of liquid H2O, so we assume it won't escape the system as steam.
Thus we select the row that lists the values of H2O creation to the
liquid (liq) state.  Note that deuterium values are also listed, as 2^H.
We don't want those in this instance.

So now we look under the column labeled (delta)Hf^o (25 C group.)
There we find that -68.315 kcal/mol is liberated (the negative sign means
the energy is liberated on creation, positive values mean that it takes that
much energy input to create the compound.)

68.315 kcal = 68315 calories.  To convert from calories to joules we
multiply by 4.184.  So 4.184 * 68315 calories = 285,830 Joules per mole.

Now we have to be very careful here, because this number assumes the
starting compounds.  We have to look back in the tables to find the
starting compounds.  For instance under Hydrogen we find that H2 is
listed with the (delta)Hf^o value of 0.  So we know the H2O figure
assumed we were starting from H2.  Similarly we find that O2 is also
listed as O under the (delta)Hf^o column in the Oxygen group.  So
O2 was the other starting compound.

Therefore we know that creation of a mole of liquid H2O from H2 and O2
will liberate 285,830 Joules.  Simple.  In other cases, you might have
to subtract or add energies from various intermediate chemical steps
if your actual starting compounds are not the ones assumed by the
CRC table.  (Conservation of energy says you can mix and match these
even if the route you take back to the basic elemental compounds is
not the same route your complex compounds took in real life.)

We also know from chemical principles that to create a mole of H2O
requires a mole of H2 and half a mole of O2.  The CRC table lists the
the mole of resultant, and not the mole(s) of starting compounds.

By the way, a mole is 6.0221E+23 objects. 

It's a strange number, but a mole of hydrogen has a mass of 1 gram,
and a mole of oxygen has a mass of 16 grams.  Not coincidentally,
hydrogen has one proton, and oxygen has 8 protons and 8 neutrons.

So you could say that a mole of protons (or a mole of neutrons) weighs
one gram.  Or conversely one proton weighs 1/6.0221E+23 grams.

Finally, gasses in our habitable temperature range tend to behave as
so-called "ideal gasses."  That is, they all tend to occupy the same
volume at the same pressure and temperature.  So one mole of one gas
occupies that same volume at the same pressure and temperature as
one mole of another gas at the same volume, pressure and temperature.

Martin listed this figure at 22400 cc/mole.  I believe this is at 0C.
I have 24500 cc/mole listed, and that is at 25C.  This is because
gasses expand upon heating and so it takes more volume to contain the
mole at the same pressure (usually atmospheric.)

It's hard to weigh gasses, so that is why this conversion factor and
the behavior of nearly ideal gasses is so helpful in these chemical
equations.  It is a lot easier to measure their volume at one atmosphere
and at room temperature than to weigh them. Yet both numbers tell us
how many moles of substance we have.

--
 - 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:
cuddy31 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.31 / John Logajan /  Re: "Serious Flaws" fatally flawed.
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Serious Flaws" fatally flawed.
Date: 31 Oct 1995 07:44:17 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: Martin Sevior <msevior@axnd02.cern.ch> writes:
:  
: >The solubility of hydrogen in water (CRC handbook of Chemistry
: >and Physics) is a maximum of 2.14 cc of Hydrogen/(100cc of water).
:  
: Thank you for describing this so clearly. By the way, does the handbook
: list the solubility of oxygen as well? As I mentioned earlier, you need
: both, because there is no free oxygen in the cell.

The solubility of O2 in H2O is 4.89 cc per 100 cc H2O at 0C, and 2.46 cc
per 100 cc of H2O at 50C.

For comparison, CO2 solubility is 171.3 cc per 100 cc H2O at 0C and 90.1 cc
per 100 cc H2O at 20C.


--
 - 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:
cuddy31 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.31 / Kelly McDonald /  Tokamak
     
Originally-From: Kelly McDonald <ksmcdona@acs.ucalgary.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tokamak
Date: 31 Oct 1995 07:58:45 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary

Just wondering if anyone could post a good schematic of a Tokamak
fusion reactor. 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenksmcdona cudfnKelly cudlnMcDonald cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.31 / Hagglund Robert /  Flowing Cell, Acct'ng For Pump Energy
     
Originally-From: Robert@Hagglund.Net (Hagglund, Robert)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Flowing Cell, Acct'ng For Pump Energy
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 23:47:07 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Here's a brief exerpt from the history of the discussion regarding the 
potential heat transfer from an electrically powered pump used to circulate 
electrolyte through a test cell...

Jed Rothwell (jedrothwell@delphi.com) wrote:
"If you can find a way to extract energy from the pump, you will cool the 
pump down. It does not matter how you do it -- it will always get cold."

John White (jnw@lys.vnet.net) replied:
"Except that a lot more electrical energy is going into the pump than
is being extracted as heat."

...Go ahead and make certain that all of the heat from the pump does get 
dumped into the cell as a part of the standard procedure. Include it within 
the cell itself if possible. Measure the energy into the cell's 
electrolyte. Measure the energy into the cell's pump. Add the two together 
and use that as the total energy into the cell. Then do your calorimetry, 
fight over how to interpret it, and put the pump issue to rest.

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenRobert cudfnHagglund cudlnRobert cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.31 /  VCockeram /  Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: vcockeram@aol.com (VCockeram)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
Date: 31 Oct 1995 04:42:10 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <JDEnB6n.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com
writes:

>MARSHALL DUDLEY <mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com> writes:
> 
>>I think that Jones could be correct that the excess energy in the SOFE
'95
>>cell could be from recombination. But I think those who are arguing he
is
>wrong
>>are barking up the wrong tree. The problems that Jed and others have
pointed
>>out with his argument are so obvious, I can't believe that is what he
was
>>trying to say.  As Jed says .06 and 5 are no where near the same
magnitude
>and
>>I cannot believe a physics professor could have that hard a time
grasping
>>magnitudes.
> 

I also carefully read Dr. Jones's post and I too am amazed at the apparent
disregard
of the published numbers of Ein to Eout. You do not have to be a rocket
scientist to realize that the heat output is _far_ more than can be
explained by recombination.
I am glad to see that these latest experiments have at last disregarded
the loss of electrolysis and published the most conservative numbers of
Eout. 

lurking in las vegas,                         Vince
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenvcockeram cudlnVCockeram cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.31 /  VCockeram /  Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
     
Originally-From: vcockeram@aol.com (VCockeram)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
Date: 31 Oct 1995 04:49:46 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <472k0k$ggu@cnn.Princeton.EDU>, Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:

>
>You should track the little black cord that usually runs out the back 
>of a pump and think about where it goes and what it means.
>
>Air is completely irrelevant for this hypothesis.  You could do
>the whole thing in a vacuum if you wanted.
>
>-

Robert, I'm somewhat confused. Maybe you can clear up a question I have:
How does the power input to the pump, which ends up as heat in the pump
motor get across to the fluid (the eloctrolyte) that is being pumped?
Thanks.

lurking in las vegas                          Vince
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenvcockeram cudlnVCockeram cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.31 /  VCockeram /  Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
     
Originally-From: vcockeram@aol.com (VCockeram)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
Date: 31 Oct 1995 04:50:05 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <USE2PCB827068696@brbbs.brbbs.com>, mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com
(MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes:

>mbk@I_should_put_my_domain_in_etc_NNTP_INEWS_DOMAIN (Matthew B. Kennel)
>writes:
> 
>-> Using fairly naive approximations such as assuming there was a
constant
>-> pressure equal to the weight divided by the blade area, we found that
>-> the delivered energy upon sinking a physically realistic amount
>-> was much too small to explain melting of ice due to any presumed
>-> energy delivered that way.

Suspend an ice cube by it's ends, tie two 8 ounce +- .3 ounce weights to a
12 inch
+- .1 inch piece of heavy duty sewing thread. Now drape the thread over
the suspended ice cube. Voila! The thread melts it's way completey through
the ice cube leaving the solid ice cube behind. The pressure of the string
on the ice lowers the freezing point of the ice under the string and the
string moves down.When the string moves down the pressure is removed
directly above the string and the water melt re-freezes.
This was demonstrated in my seventh grade earth science class at P.S. 38
in Queens
New York City a long time ago. 
As another aside, ice skaters _do not_ skate on ice, they skate on the
_water_ melted by the pressure of the skate blades on the ice. If you've
ever tried ice skating outdoors when the temperature of the ice is below 0
F. you'll find it's very hard because the skate blades dont melt the ice
very well at very low temperatures.

lurking in las vegas                          Vince
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenvcockeram cudlnVCockeram cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Nov  1 04:37:03 EST 1995
------------------------------
