1995.11.01 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 1995 14:10:33 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <473hdv$nc2@sundog.tiac.net>, conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H
Conover) wrote:

> 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).

***{Baloney. First, the statements that I made were in reference to
*professors*, not *scientists*, as you will note if you will re-read the
quoted material. Moreover, the statements were carefully qualified. I did
not apply the statements to *all* professors. I said "in most cases," as
you again may verify by re-reading the quoted material. The fact is that
most scientists are in private industry, not in government, and there
does, in fact, exist a minority of professors against whom my criticisms
were not intended to apply, as indicated by the explicit qualifications
that accompanied my comments. I would suggest that, in the future, you
read a bit more carefully before you post. 

As for your remarks about the group that I described as "parasites" (i.e.,
most professors, particularly those in state universities) being the
source of "every significant breakthrough in our current century, I say
baloney and double baloney. The most significant advances of this century
were in electronics and genetic engineering, and were driven almost
entirely by researchers in the private sector. The norm in the academic
world is one of stifling conformity, in which innovators are penalized for
daring to deviate from the established orthodoxy. This occurs because the
opinions of professors determine who gets published in academic journals
and who doesn't, who receives advanced degrees and who doesn't, who gets
prestigious awards (e.g., Nobel Prizes) and who doesn't. They also
determine which research proposals are sufficiently "credible" to merit
public funding, and, worst of all, professors, when it's all said and
done, write the history of science. Result: it is not a surprise that, in
the orthodox accounts of technological advancement, academic researchers
play the most prominent role. Academic historians talk about "the
scientists behind the inventors" rather than about "the inventors behind
the scientists" because it is in their interest to do so. In most cases,
(a) the academic researchers depended in crucial ways upon advances in the
private sector for their success, and (b) the specific academic
researchers who make important contributions are typically marginalized
and obstructed by their peers, sometimes for decades, before they finally
succeed in being recognized. Such facts, however, are conveniently glossed
over in the mainstream academic accounts. That is why, in the academic
histories of the development of "cold fusion" that will be written in the
future, you can count on little attention being paid to the fact that
Pon's and Fleischmann's treatment by their academic peers was scurrilous
and totally reprehensible, that their research was funded out of their own
pockets, and that they were essentially driven out of academic life and
out of their native countries as a reward for their achievements. In
future academic histories, they will be described as two prestigious
professors who, by dint of innovative thinking and hard work, managed to
bring about a technological revolution. The fact that their immediate
reward for their achievement was, in essence, to be tarred and feathered
and run out of town on a rail, will be conveniently forgotten. --Mitchell
Jones}***      
> 
> Yep, scientists are just a bunch of deadheads!

***{You said it, not I. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> : ***{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 is always the case, all facts relating to an experimental design
are not available to outsiders. With the passage of time, more and more
filter out, through publication and public debates, presentations, etc. At
the moment, vis-a-vis the SOFE demo, we are at a fairly early point in the
process. Nevertheless, enough facts are currently available to utterly
demolish each and every attempt that has been made, thus far, to
invalidate the "excess heat" reported from the experiment. The theories
that the extra energy was stored in the electrolyte as pressure from the
pump, or that it was stored as heat of dissolution in Li2SO4, or that it
was stored in the form of dissolved H2 and O2, have been conclusively and
devastatingly refuted by means of arguments published in this newsgroup,
and nobody save the ignorant or the terminally close-minded still give
serious credence to any of those attempted explanations. *This is simply a
fact*. --Mitchell Jones}***

  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. 

***{Every single argument that was posted attempting to explain away the
Griggs result was devastatingly refuted. If you disagree with this, I
challenge you to post an argument against that result which has not been
refuted. Otherwise, your post is pure horse manure and a waste of
bandwidth.  --Mitchell Jones}***

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.

***{To repeat: every argument attempting to invalidate the Griggs result
was smashed to smithereens. If you disagree, it is time for you to put up
or shut up. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> 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?

***{60 milliwatts, as determined by multiplying I times E, as measured by
a standard, commercially available D.C. multimeter. --MJ}***
> 
>    o  What is the uncertainty of this measurement?

***{Who cares? The output was 5 watts. A commercially available D.C.
multimeter which had enough uncertainty to invalidate this kind of result
would be unmarketable. --Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
>    o  How much energy was consumed by the pump?

***{If you are talking about *the pump mechanism itself* (i.e., the part
that actually contacted the fluid stream), the pressure jump across the
mechanism was too small to measure in the calibration runs--i.e.,
effectively zero. Since a jump of 207 atmospheres would have been required
in order for the pump mechanism to consume 5 watts, it follows that all
theories that the pump mechanism somehow supplied 5 watts to the fluid
stream are refuted, regardless of whether those theories involve the
pressure being absorbed by dissolving salts, or by electrolytic separation
of hydrogen from oxygen, or by any other means. --Mitchell Jones}***      
> 
>    o  Where did this energy go?

***{It doesn't matter, because there wasn't enough of it to invalidate the
result. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
>    o  What is the uncertainty of this measurement/estimate?

***{It doesn't matter, because there is *no way* any company stays in
business selling pressure guages that fail to distinguish reliably between
0 psi and 207 atmospheres. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
>    o  How much heat resulted?

***{Since heat is a form of energy, the answer is the same as above: not
enough to invalidate the result. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
>    o  What is the uncertainty of this measurement?

***{See above. --Mitchell Jones}***

> 
>    o  What was the resultant excess heat?

***{The excess heat could not possibly have resulted from the action of
the pump, so the answer is: zero. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
>    o  What is the uncertainty of this measurement?

***{Zero. --MJ}***
> 
>    o  What is the cumulative uncertainty of the energy input?

***{Blatantly, obviously, crudely: *not enough to matter*. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
>    o  Taking into account all of the cumulative error, how
>       much excess heat must be observed to positively exceed
>       the total experimental error computed?

***{It is not necessary to explicitly quantify errors that have been
demonstrated to be *orders of magnitude* less than what would be required
to overturn the result. You might as well demand I prove that I don't have
an elephant in my shirt pocket by calculating the size of the largest
object that could be concealed in my pocket! --Mitchell Jones}***   
> 
>    o  Was heat in excess of experimental uncertainty actually observed?

***{Duh, gee, let's see: can we measure the difference between a fraction
of a watt (for the pump mechanism) plus 60 milliwatts (input to the cell)
and 5 watts (the output from the cell)? What do you think? Can YOU tell
the difference? --Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
> 
> 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.

***{AAAUGH!!! --Mitchell Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.01 / Chris Kostanick /  Re: Energy In <> Energy Out???
     
Originally-From: chrisk@gomez.stortek.com (Chris Kostanick)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energy In <> Energy Out???
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 21:47:23 GMT
Organization: Storage Technology Corporation

Robert Tilley <tilleyrw@digital.net> writes:

>  Whatever the excess energy is, it exists.  FACT.  Now we need to 
>develop it.

How much of your money have you invested in CF?

Chris Kostanick
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenchrisk cudfnChris cudlnKostanick cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.01 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: More Chemistry in the CETI cell?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More Chemistry in the CETI cell?
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 95 15:48:17 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Sorry, I typed that sentence too quickly. I mean to say the thermocouples are
placed in stainless steel jackets which are in turn wrapped in plastic. This
shows why you should read original sources before commenting instead of
depending on me to supply the details. From the ICCF5 paper:
 
     "The thermocouples were moved to stainless steel wells and insulated
     with Teflon tape and heat sink compound."
 
(I think that Teflon stuff is shrink wrap. Mine is, anyway.)
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.01 / A Plutonium /  Neutrino has a tiny rest mass, experimental set-up 
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.particle,sci.
hysics.fusion,sci.astro
Subject: Neutrino has a tiny rest mass, experimental set-up 
Date: 1 Nov 1995 19:01:46 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

I remember where you put the polarized filters at angles to the light
beam and no light gets through. I remember Feynman discussing this
experimental set-up. 

In article <47563t$kra@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

>   I offer this set-up. Forget about measuring masses. Too prone to
> error. Measure speed of neutrinos versus speed of photons. Put photons
> through a denser medium to cut down photon speeds to say 99.97% then to
> 99.999% and see if the neutrino out-races the photons.
> Accurate, very very accurately can such experimental set-ups determine
> whether a neutrino does or does not have rest mass.

  Polarizers are a good enough medium. I have switched sides, and I am
now for a neutrino having rest mass in order to be spliced together to
form photons.

  Remember the strange polarizers which block out all light. Well,
set-up neutrino detection counters. I have a suspicion that light
polarizers are merely a mechanical means of unravelling or reassembling
neutrinos into photons and the reverse. Should there be extra neutrinos
around light polarizers indicates that photons are composed of
neutrinos.

  Anyone know of neutrino beams having a sort of 'unknown extra
lighting effect' ? That is, where neutrino beams are, there seems to be
more brilliant of a light, or light flashes occur? Because, if photons
are composed of neutrinos then a neutrino beam would have a slight
tendency of manufacturing into photons. Call it neutrino luminescence.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.01 / A Plutonium /  Re: Neutrino has a tiny rest mass, experimental set-up  
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.particle,sci.
hysics.fusion,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Neutrino has a tiny rest mass, experimental set-up  
Date: 1 Nov 1995 19:43:13 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <478g6q$hfv@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

> I remember where you put the polarized filters at angles to the light
> beam and no light gets through. I remember Feynman discussing this
> experimental set-up. 

You remember the experimental set-up of a polarizer then another at 90
degree angle to it and no light gets through. Then you sandwich a third
polarizer at 45 degrees and some gets through.

Is there a sort of reverse of that set-up where polarizers are
configured such that light 'appears' ? Any polarizing experiment where
it seems that there is more light than what is expected?

Anyone set-up neutrino detectors near light polarizers?

What does the distance between polarizers have on the experiment? What
does the medium between polarizers have on the experiment.

What I am thinking is that light polarizers can be manufactured that
disassemble and reassemble light beams into neutrino beams. That the
math of these set-ups can be so configured as to grind out what the
neutrino rest mass is which makes it recompose into photons or makes it
decompose into neutrinos. What would the other neutrinos recombine
into? Tau neutrino and muon neutrino

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.01 / A Plutonium /  Debroglie; Kronig & Jordan; Pryce; photon = 2 neutrinos
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.particle,sci.
hysics.fusion,sci.astro
Subject: Debroglie; Kronig & Jordan; Pryce; photon = 2 neutrinos
Date: 1 Nov 1995 19:55:57 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

I am still unsettled as yet whether it is just 2 neutrinos which equals
a photon. I could be wrong, and it may be that 3 or more or an
unspecified number greater than 2 compose a photon.

I think the history of 2 neutrinos = 1 photon starts with Debroglie of
1932 with the French journal Comptes Rendus

Then Messrs. Kronig and P. Jordan around 1935-1936 in Swedish journal
Helvetica Physica Acta

Then Pryce in 1938 threw a monkey wrench into it in some publication of
Proceedings of Royal Society. I do not think Pryce ever suggested that
the neutrino may have a tiny rest mass. His argument against neutrino
composition into a photon was purely of spin.

  Anyone care to be specific about all of this?
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.01 /  Johmann /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: johmann@aol.com (Johmann)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: 1 Nov 1995 14:42:11 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Regarding Steve Jones' endless efforts to debunk CF (I've been reading
his persistent efforts for several years now), a question comes to
mind: Why is Steve Jones such a persistent crank in these efforts?
Here is my analysis:

The facts:

1) Jones insists on recombination as the explanation of the Patterson
Power Cell. But better (or more honest) minds than his (John Logajan)
bust his fallacies with ease, showing Jones' explanation to fail by
two orders of magnitude.

2) In spite of such repeated corrections, Jones stands firm (like a
true crank).

Some additional facts that may be relevant:

3) Jones is a physics professor at Brigham Young University in Utah,
and his sole claim to fame is his early connection with the CF
announcement by Pons and Fleischmann. At the time, Jones claimed to
have done a similar experiment that showed cold fusion effects, but at
much lower power levels than P&F were claiming.

4) In his recent book (I forget the title) Gary Taubes documented as
fact a charge that has plagued Jones from the beginning of his
entrance into the public spotlight: Jones had stolen the CF
electrolysis idea from a P&F funding-request proposal which he had
read several years before. (Jones, of course, has always denied this
charge; but when I read Gary Taubes' material on it, I thought Steve
Jones looked about as innocent as O.J. Simpson: unless Jones can get
people to believe that Mark Furhman (or some equivalent) framed him,
he's probably guilty.)

Now, let's put two and two together and form a possible psychological
explanation for Jones' CF debunking mania:

Jones realizes (in this hypothetical explanation of his motivation)
that the public charge against him of intellectual theft is true.
Therefore, Jones reasons that the best way to free his name of this
stigma is if CF disappears. Thus, Jones does what he can to make CF
disappear.

If CF could be defeated with valid arguments, Jones would certainly
use them, because he is a physics professor and not the usual
run-of-the-mill crank. However, if CF can only be stopped by foul
reason and argument (because truth is on the CF side), then, as we see
him doing, Jones will do that.

All this is just my opinion, of course, and I may be wrong. You can
read the Taubes book on Steve Jones and form your own conclusions.


Kurt Johmann
--
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjohmann cudlnJohmann cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.02 / Karl Hahn /  Re: 14th Experiments proving HYASYS; Correlations of nuclear   sizes  with MEVs
     
Originally-From: hahn@newshost  (Karl Hahn)
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   sizes  with MEVs
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 01:15:11 GMT
Organization: Loral Data Systems

In article <46ucvr$8mn@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartm
uth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

>   In article <951025122559@are107.lds.loral.com>
>   hahn@newshost  (Karl Hahn) writes:
>   
>   > >   >   The above shows that isotopes containing 30 hadrons should have a
>   > >   > radius of 0.528e-10 meters assuming all neutrons are of the same size
>   > >   > of 1e-15 meters.
>   > 
>   > Where do you arrive at this?  Experiments of nuclear scattering of electrons
>   > and protons have yielded the following formula for the size of a nucleus:
>   > 
>   >     r = k * A^(1/3)
>   > 
>   > or equvalently:
>   > 
>   >     A = (r/k)^3
>   > 
>   > where r is the radius, A is the atomic mass number (i.e. the sum of the
>   > number of neutrons and protons), and k is on the order of 1e-15 meters.
>   > You can find this in _Elementary Modern Physics_ by Weidner & Sells.
>   > So a nucleus of 30 nucleons would have a size of about 3e-15 meters.
>   > To get a nuclear radius of 0.528e-10 meters you would need 1.5e14 nucleons.
>   > I have yet to see evidence of nucleus over 300 nucleons.
>   
>     How accurate is that formula Karl? How accurately has the radius of
>   the neutron and muon been measured?

The library at Dartmouth ought to have a copy of Weidner & Sells.  It is
quite a popular textbook.  I don't have my copy with me, but here's what
I recollect from the discussion of this.  That the measurements were made
with several different projectile particles (i.e. electrons and protons).
The 1/3 power rule worked out to within 10% or better.  The value of k
varied slightly among the different projectile particles -- with a variation
of about +/-20%.

All the forumula really says is that the volume of the nucleus is the
sum of the volumes of its constituents.

As far as the radius of a bare neutron -- that is a more difficult experiment.
It's hard to assemble a large array of bare neutrons to use as targets.
So I don't know if it has been measured.

The muon is a lepton, and therefore ought to behave like an electron, which
is to say that it is a point source of charge.

--
|         (V)              |  "Tiger gotta hunt.  Bird gotta fly.
|   (^    (`>              |   Man gotta sit and wonder why, why, why.
|  ((\\__/ )               |   Tiger gotta sleep.  Bird gotta land.
|  (\\<   )   der Nethahn  |   Man gotta tell himself he understand."
|    \<  )                 |  
|     ( /                  |                Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
|      |                   |  
|      ^           hahn@lds.loral.com          my opinions need not be Loral's



cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenhahn cudfnKarl cudlnHahn cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.02 / Dieter Britz /  A TB smear
     
Originally-From: britz@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A TB smear
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 18:35:03 GMT
Date: 1 Nov 1995 14:42:11 -0500
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Originally-From: johmann@aol.com (Johmann) in FD 4571
Date: 1 Nov 1995 14:42:11 -0500

I don't any longer normally respond to stuff posted to this group, which
has fallen apart rather badly; but this is a bit under the belt and requires
a response from someone other than Steve Jones.

Kurt Johmann joins the chorus of TB's, who with some cleverness with words,
manage to turn the skeptics' arguments back on the skeptics; a clever
device, maybe, but merely semantic. So we skeptics become "TB skeptics" and
now, even "cranks", for refusing to believe patently unsound pseudoscience.

>Regarding Steve Jones' endless efforts to debunk CF (I've been reading
>his persistent efforts for several years now), a question comes to
>mind: Why is Steve Jones such a persistent crank in these efforts?
>Here is my analysis:

>The facts:

>1) Jones insists on recombination as the explanation of the Patterson
>Power Cell. But better (or more honest) minds than his (John Logajan)
>bust his fallacies with ease, showing Jones' explanation to fail by
>two orders of magnitude.

>2) In spite of such repeated corrections, Jones stands firm (like a
>true crank).

Perhaps Steve Jones is persistent in this because his name is linked with it
and he cares about science. His recombination argument doesn't fail; it fails
only in those cases where the total excess power claimed does indeed exceed
the total input power. Many excess power claims use a definition of it that
make Steve Jones' argument very relevant. And he has thrown a spanner in the
works of Mills type open cells, by showing that when you bubble an inert gas
through it, the apparent excess heat goes away. I am aware that there are
arguments to counter this, within the "anomalous heat" framework, but the
point requires notice and an experimental response, not jeers. The only
thing one can charge Steve Jones with, in connection with his recombination
argument, is that he is rather too silent on those cases where it fails. On
the whole, recombination should be included in experimenters' list of suspect
causes of error, not simply dismissed with clever abuse. I remind, once again,
of Paneth and Peters, who themselves looked for their own error (causing an
apparent generation of helium) and found it, instead of leaving it up to
others to find it. That is how a scientist ought to work, not by staunchly
insisting that his/her result must be correct and abusing skeptics.

>Some additional facts that may be relevant:

>3) Jones is a physics professor at Brigham Young University in Utah,
>and his sole claim to fame is his early connection with the CF
>announcement by Pons and Fleischmann. At the time, Jones claimed to
>have done a similar experiment that showed cold fusion effects, but at
>much lower power levels than P&F were claiming.

What do you, Kurt Johmann, know about Steve Jones' claims to fame? This is
pure rhetoric. I could equally say that you have no claims to fame, because
I have never heard of you at all. You are overlooking Steve Jones' work on
muon catalysed fusion (the real cold fusion, verified and repeatable), for
which he is well enough known, I am sure. But: does he need to be famous to
be credible? If so, what about Kurt Johmann?

>4) In his recent book (I forget the title) Gary Taubes documented as
>fact a charge that has plagued Jones from the beginning of his
>entrance into the public spotlight: Jones had stolen the CF
>electrolysis idea from a P&F funding-request proposal which he had
>read several years before. (Jones, of course, has always denied this
>charge; but when I read Gary Taubes' material on it, I thought Steve
>Jones looked about as innocent as O.J. Simpson: unless Jones can get
>people to believe that Mark Furhman (or some equivalent) framed him,
>he's probably guilty.)

This is interesting. Taubes' book has been reviled by the 'cold fusion' TB's
as a travesty of a book, a smear of all honest 'cold fusion' workers, etc.
Here, however, he has written something our TB likes, and it is taken up with
glee. So how about it: is Taubes credible, or is he not? Or is he, quite by
chance, credible only in those bits where he lays into skeptics of 'cold
fusion'? What do the other books say? And have you not read what Steve Jones
has said and posted on this subject? This is really quite underhand. Steve
Jones is perhaps a little overzealous in his persuit of 'cold fusion' claims
and in his public dissociation from the subject; but he has always behaved
honorably throughout the affair and he has usefully cleared up several
problems, including the role of recombination, and especially the pitfalls
in low-intensity neutron measurement, where he has invalidated all neutron
claims - including his own (shades of Paneth and Peters).

[... Pschological profile of Steve Jones omitted ...]

>All this is just my opinion, of course, and I may be wrong. You can
>read the Taubes book on Steve Jones and form your own conclusions.

Yes, you are wrong; you can read the other books, like those of Close,
Huizenga, Mallove, and get quite a different picture of the man.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.01 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Heat pumps cannot explain the SOFE demo.
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat pumps cannot explain the SOFE demo.
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 95 17:26:21 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Martin Sevior <msevior@axnd02.cern.ch> takes us back to first principles with
a nice classic analysis of thermodynamics. I wish I could have done it! I read
Martin's note carefully and compared it step by step with the exposition in
the book "Heat Engines" by J. F. Sandfort (Anchor: 1962), chapter 5. I have a
nitpicking question relating to Carnot efficiency. I want to see if I have
this right. Looking at this equation:
 
     "work = Heat*(1 - (T2/T1))
 
     where T2 = ambient temperature 30 C = 303 Kelvin
 
           T1 = High temperature 35 C = 308 Kelvin
 
     so work = 5 * (1 - (303/308)) = 0.080 watts"
 
This equation is independent of the volume of fluid, needless to say. It seems
to me that T1 should be higher. It should be the temperature of the beads
themselves. I am not sure what that temperature is, but it must be higher than
the water because the mass of the beads is much smaller (40 mg of metal plus a
little plastic, compared to 14.2 grams of water) and the specific heat of most
metals is about one-forth of water. This can be seen when we slow the flow
down. The temperature of the water goes up. If the flow is reduced to 7 ml per
minute, the temperature of the fluid coming out would be 10 C hotter than the
input. This was shown in an ICCF5 viewgraph. It seems to me that we should use
the highest temperature in the system, which is the temperature at the beads.
The heat, you might say, is diluted or spread out in all that mass of water,
but the highest theoretical Carnot efficiency could be achieved by taking the
5 watts of thermal energy concentrated at the temperature difference of the
beads. I am not sure what that is, but it must be pretty high.
 
You cannot keep reducing the flow and increasing the temperature forever. I
suppose that when you reduce the thermal mass of water (mass taking into
account the specific heat) to the same as that of the beads then the water
would reach the same temperature as the beads, and it cannot get any hotter
than that. In real life, as you reduce the flow the glass cell itself gets
hotter and hotter, losing more heat by radiation. It does not double the
temperature as you reduce the flow in half. When you cut the flow to nearly
nothing (1 ml per minute), you have effectively converted it to a static
calorimeter. Actually, what happens is the water boils. You need to pressurize
before doing this experiment.
 
What I am saying here (trying to say!) is the equivalent of the statement that
a heat pump works best when it moves heat across a small temperature range.
A heat pump that can make 14 ml of water go up 5 C in temperature with X
amount of work would have to do a lot more than X to make 1 ml of water go up
70 deg C. The CETI gadget-as-heat-pump would have to be moving the heat across
the temperature range seen in the beads, not the water. We *measure* the heat
after it is diluted in the larger thermal mass of water, for convenience.
Looking at it from the other side, a heat engine (a heat pump operating in
reverse) with a higher operating temperatures has better Carnot efficiency.
 
One interesting conclusion we can draw from Martin's analysis is that the CETI
gadget could theoretically run itself. We knew that, but it is nice to see a
rigorous first-principle proof. It would have to be scaled up to be practical,
because small pumps are terribly inefficient and for a variety of other
reasons. It would not have to be scaled up much.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Nov  3 04:37:05 EST 1995
------------------------------
