1995.11.03 /  jjones@ebs330. /  Re: A TB smear
     
Originally-From: jjones@ebs330.eb.uah.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A TB smear
Date: 3 Nov 1995 00:50:22 GMT
Organization: UAH--Propulsion Research Center

britz@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) wrote:
>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 

A lot  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
>


I didn't read Kurt Johmann's original post and am glad I didn't judging 
from the quality of what Dieter quotes.  It is amazing to me that so many 
of the TB have such a complete picture of Steve Jones having never worked 
with him.

I have worked with him so I believe I can shed some light.  Dr. Jones is 
a very careful, quite man.  I am sometimes amazed at the forcefullness of 
his writing.  He has always had a high interest in innovative concepts 
and ideas.  He was one of the few Professors I have worked with who truly 
tried to help students become involved in active areas of research.  Many 
professors want students to help them with their pet projects, but few 
have taken the time to set up a framework where students can bring their 
ideas up and explore them.  Dr. Jones holds a meeting once a week for 
this purpose.  

Dr. Jones has never sought to take the credit for work that his students 
or any one else have performed.  

In helping students understand the scientific approach Dr. Jones always 
applied a healthy does of skeptism to new findings.  The fundamental laws 
of conservation of energy and momentum were a couple of the first things 
he taught us to check.  Often we would discuss and set up experiments to 
verify the results claimed by others.  It was a disapointment each time 
these experiments came back with a negative result.  Dr. Jones perhaps 
more than any of us students wanted to verify that "cold fusion" 
exsisted.  We never did.  Infact we uncovered some errors in our own work 
that led to our first reports of "cold fusion", so those results were 
with drawn.

I know Dr. Jones would still like to see "cold fusion".  He once offered 
an award to the first person who could verify 1000 neutron events in 
BYU's detectors.  I believe this is why you see Dr. Jones still 
participate in this group(which keeps going down hill).  He studies each 
new claim of "cold fusion", and applies the knowledge he has gained to 
explain the results.  I am amazed that he has to keep using the same 
arguments.  Perhaps someday everyone will start checking fundamental laws 
before claiming "cold fusion", so Dr. Jones won't have to do it for them.

When Dr. Jones says that "cold fusion" exsist, I would sit up and pay 
attention, after all he has seen it work with muon catalyzed fusion.

Sincerely,


Jonathan E. Jones



cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjjones cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.03 /  Rocoil@sesame. /  MEASURING ELECTRIC CURRENTS: ROGOWSKI COILS FOR ALL APPLICATIONS
     
Originally-From: Rocoil@sesame.demon.co.uk
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: MEASURING ELECTRIC CURRENTS: ROGOWSKI COILS FOR ALL APPLICATIONS
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 23:01:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

MEASURING ELECTRIC CURRENTS: ROGOWSKI COILS FOR ALL APPLICATIONS

I would be interested to know of list members who have found problems with
measuring currents where the conventional current-measurement technology is a
weak link in the overall system. This message has also been posted to other
relevant lists: my apologies in advance to any who have already received it.

My particular interest is in developing techniques for using Rogowski coils
to measure alternating electric current in a wide range of situations.
I originally used them as a tool for trouble-shooting in power stations,
but I have since found applications in many other fields such as monitoring
railway signalling currents, system protection, energy management, and
transient measurements such as in pulse-power applications.

Rogowski coils sense the current using a toroidal 'air' cored coil. The
signal from the coil is conditioned electronically to give an output voltage
which reproduces the current waveform. This results in an exceptionally
versatile and flexible transducer, which has many advantages over other types
of sensors, such as current transformers, which are traditionally associated
with some of these applications.

A Rogowski coil transducer is highly linear and I have designed systems that
accurately measure currents from less than an amp as well as up to millions
of amps. Measurement frequencies can range from under 1Hz to several hundred
kHz. Measurements of a few hundred amps at frequencies up to hundreds of MHz
are also possible. The transducers are extremely lightweight and are capable
of measuring currents in physically large conductors,

I have developed the design capability for both flexible and solid Rogowski
coils, as well as the associated electronics, and have a manufacturing
facility for producing prototypes and doing small production runs.

I feel that this is a seriously under-used method of measuring electric
current. This may be because there is not much literature on the subject,
and without the right expertise the coils are difficult to make. It is not
unusual to receive enquiries from people who have heard of Rogowski coils but
cannot get any useful information about them.

If you (and/or other potential users that you may like to forward this to)
would like further information, please simply reply to
Rocoil_Technical@sesame.demon.co.uk with this message:

GET ROCOIL.INF

Although this resembles a listserver command, Rocoil@sesame.demon.co.uk is
NOT a listserver which only responds to a limited number of preset commands.
A human being is at the other end, which means that you can simply reply
using the GET ROCOIL.INF command (upper or lower case) AND/OR send normal
email correspondence/queries etc., which will receive a human reply.


--
D.A. Ward (Technical Director)          email: Rocoil@sesame.demon.co.uk
Rocoil Ltd., 5 Almsford Avenue          tel/fax: +44 (0) 1423 871 792
Harrogate, HG2 8HD, United Kingdom

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenRocoil cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.03 / Barry Merriman /  Re: "Serious Flaws" fatally flawed.
     
Originally-From: barry@abel.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Serious Flaws" fatally flawed.
Date: 3 Nov 1995 02:43:37 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In article <JTDlR+1.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> writes:
>  
> >Can you clarify exactly from what source you got the 
> >``5 Watt production for 8 hours'' figure? And I presume 
> >as well that you have detailed figures on the charge up time,
> >too...
>  
> He got that from me. Where do you think? Nobody else on earth has published
> it yet, it just happened. I published it right here, time after time after
> time.
>  

Thats all I wanted to know.

>  
> If you don't trust me or my reports, that's a-okay. That's peachy, just say
> "I think Jed is making this stuff up." 

I don't think you are making stuff up---I'm well sure that you report
things as best you can based on your observations and what other folks
tell you. However, such journalist-style reporting simply doesn't cut
it at figuring out what might really be going on.

Sure, if we accept everything you say as correct, and everything you
don;t say as unimportant, there would be no other conclusion than 
that the cell was generating excess heat. But to me, that suggests a very
strong possibility that the things you say are in fact not correct
(through no fault of your own, perhaps) or you are omitting something
(again through no fault of your own) that could be a crucial detail.

In any case, I appreciate your reporting what you do report---but but
you should not be shocked that it generates mainly more quaestions,
rather than belief.




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



--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet)  (NeXTMail OK) 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.03 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Re: "Serious Flaws" fatally flawed.
     
Originally-From: barry@abel.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Re: "Serious Flaws" fatally flawed.
Date: 3 Nov 1995 02:54:51 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research


In article <479cil$ilr@news.unimelb.EDU.AU> Martin Sevior <msevior@physi
s.unimelb.edu.au> writes:
> > 
> >>Can you clarify exactly from what source you got the 
> >>``5 Watt production for 8 hours'' figure? 


> 
> Not entirely. The 8 hours was my presumption that the demo ran for
> at least 9- 5 during the days of the conference. 

That is quite a presumption, no? Basically presuming what you want
to prove, as we mathematicians would say...

> 
> Barry, did your friend at UCSD bring back any numbers from the conference?
> 
> Martin Sevior

No, none of the 4 or so that attended did. They didn't
think too much of the demo, in that its hard to figure
what might be going on just from viewing a little water
heating demo like that for a few minutes. They all realize it
will take a detailed experimental investigation to determine
whether its really doing anything useful.

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


--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet)  (NeXTMail OK) 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.03 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Energy In <> Energy Out???
     
Originally-From: barry@abel.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energy In <> Energy Out???
Date: 3 Nov 1995 03:19:11 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research



In article <4730qk$77c@ddi2.digital.net> Robert Tilley <tilleyrw@digital.net> writes:
>   The skeptics are at it again.  "But what about another source of input 
> energy that wasn't accounter for?  What about...subspace teleportation 
> of energy from the alien base on the moon?"
> 
>   Whatever the excess energy is, it exists.  FACT.  Now we need to 
> develop it.
> 
> tilleyrw@digital.net
> 
> P.S.  Just my fed-uppedness with pathological skeptics.
> 

Then why don;t you go invest your life saving in CETI? You
are assured thousand fold returns on investment, no? 

I would say the FACT is that experiments with odd results exist
robustly. By all means we should figure out what is really going
on. But you truly put the energy cart before the science horse.


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


--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet)  (NeXTMail OK) 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.03 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Serious flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95 demo)
     
Originally-From: barry@abel.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Serious flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95 demo)
Date: 3 Nov 1995 03:34:41 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In article <ZJCHpS6.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

> Just out of curiousity, where did you think the information came from?
> Do you think they wrote a scientific paper and published it in two weeks?
> The SOFE conference just happened.
>  

I would presume that one would only be giving public demos after
one had privately fully characterized the experiment, lest one 
risk wasting the time of the spectators and being made to look like an idiot in 
the near future, and lose future credibility.

I sort of assumed the SOFE demo was not _the_ experiment, but rather 
a deomstration of an already completed experimental study. 


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



--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet)  (NeXTMail OK) 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.03 / John Logajan /  Re: I am curious
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I am curious
Date: 3 Nov 1995 03:25:41 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Ted Craven (ted@taec.com) wrote:
: Finally, we cannot estimate the amount of stored hydrogen in the cell without
: knowing the exact volume and composition of the beads. For example, palladium
: can reportedly store up to 900 times its own volume of hydrogen at STP. And 
: many other materials can also store very large volumes of hydrogen. The beads 
: might be made of one of these materials. For that matter, they might also be 
: made of one of the many materials which react exothermically with water.

The beads are made of a flash coating of copper on a polystrene or other
plastic 0.9 mm bead.  Then a 1 micron coating of Ni, a 1 micron coating
of Pd, and a final 1 micron coating of Ni.  It is estimated that the mass
of metal in a demo unit cell is on the order of 40 milligrams.

We know from published reports that a loading ratio of 1:1 Pd:H is quite
high.  So if we assume that the metals are of the lightest of the three
(atomic mass of 59 for Ni) and a 1:1 loading of metal atom to H atom,
then we get 0.040/59 = 0.00068 grams of H2.  Let's say 0.001 grams of H2.

That's 500 micromoles of H2.  Burned with 250 micromoles of O2 at 285,200J
per mole H2O produced, that's enough H2 for 143J.  At 5J/second (5 watts)
that'd last about 28 seconds.

In reality it is unlikely that Ni is such a good H storage.  So our
real numbers would be about 1/3rd the above, or about 10 seconds worth.

However, there is no Oxygen storage present other than the dissovled
O2, and in pure H2O given our earlier estimate for H2 dissolve storage,
we can only expect enough O2 delivered at 14ml/min for about 80 milliwatts.

So this "cigarette lighter" effect is quenched severely for the same reason
real cigarette lighters are quenched in water -- insufficient oxygen.

--
 - 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:
cuddy3 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.01 /  jonesse@plasma /  "CF" = "Crying wolF"
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "CF" = "Crying wolF"
Date: 1 Nov 95 13:39:14 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Due to problems with our system, I have not received here any s.p.f. items
since 27 Oct.  I'm sure there are more comments on the demo of a light-
water CF cell at the SOFE '95 meeting.  The "Power Amplification
Factor" data on this cell given by Hal Fox suggest the possibility of
chemical energy storage during higher-current charging, followed by
low-current (0.02 A at SOFE) measurement of the PAF so that "excess power"
appears to be present.  I explained this in some detail in my post 
"Serious Flaws in Patterson Cell..." last week.

However, I now think that due to the low solubility of hydrogen in water, 
H2+O2 recombination alone is not sufficient to account for
all the putative thermal heating, unless the system is pressurized.
As Paul Dietz has pointed out, it is possible that other chemical species
have been produced in the electrolyte during the initial charging period,
such as peroxosulfate ions or hydrogen peroxide.  He computes that
"a temperature rise of 3 degrees corresponds to decomposition of peroxide
comprising less than 1% of the mass of the electrolyte."  So the chemical
energy storage hypothesis needs to be looked at, and tested for carefully.

Kirk Shanahan agrees with me that placing copper-constantan thermocouples
directly in the electrolyte is poor practice; he says:  "their installation
dirrectly in the electrolyte stram may be a fatal flaw."  He notes that
operation in an oxygen-rich environment may cause the copper to corrode
and "gross errors of 30% or more in the emf could be observed before
catastrophic failure destroyed the junction."

Kirk also warns that the *nickel* in the constantan may lead to changes in the
surface composition, such that the nickel becomes an active recombination
catalyst.  "That in turn could make the thermocouple a hot spot", leading
to spurious calculation of "excess heat" production.

Look, these are tests that need to be done before anyone takes the "Patterson
Power Cell" seriously as an energy source.  The data as they stand (which
are fragmentary at best) do not provide compelling evidence for "cold fusion"
or indeed *any* nuclear reaction, nor for net energy production from any 
source.  No nuclear products or by-products such
as x-rays are reported at all.  There are no adequate controls.  Merriman (I
think it was) called Miley and learned that he does not even say that there was
net energy produced by the cell.

We should encourage George Miley (and others) to do the tests outlined and
then publish data so that we can scrutinize the data for ourselves.  Until
then, we should be wary of hyped-up claims.  When will we learn not to run to
each new device, shrouded in secrecy, with no controls, and no direct evidence
for nuclear reactions?  

Unclear does not equal nuclear.  

"CF" is becoming synonomous with "Crying wolF".

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjonesse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.02 / Martin Sevior /  Re: "Serious Flaws" fatally flawed.
     
Originally-From: Martin Sevior <msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Serious Flaws" fatally flawed.
Date: 2 Nov 1995 03:05:57 GMT
Organization: School of Physics, University of Melbourne.

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
>Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> writes:
> 
>>Can you clarify exactly from what source you got the 
>>``5 Watt production for 8 hours'' figure? And I presume 
>>as well that you have detailed figures on the charge up time,
>>too...


> 
>He got that from me. Where do you think? Nobody else on earth has published
>it yet, it just happened. I published it right here, time after time after
>time.
>

Not entirely. The 8 hours was my presumption that the demo ran for
at least 9- 5 during the days of the conference. In any case the Jones
hypothesis fails if the demo ran for less than a second. 
In addition there is a corroborating report listed in John Logajan's home
page. Unfortunately the report doesn't give many numbers but the ones
given match Jed's.

It has been my experience that Jed has accurately reported the facts as known
about CF experiments in the past. He puts his own spin on them but the facts
have stood up.

Barry, did your friend at UCSD bring back any numbers from the conference?

Martin Sevior

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmsevior cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.01 / Bill Rowe /  Re: John N. White: GET A PUMP!!!
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: John N. White: GET A PUMP!!!
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 1995 20:40:23 -0800
Organization: AltNet

In article <ZrCGB28.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

>Joshua Levy <joshua@intrinsa.com> writes:
> 
>>This is untrue, Jed.  There have been several threads in rec.aquaria about
>>tanks heating up when water pumps are added.  No one on that group who has
>>measured the tempurature of an unheated tank before and after the pump has 
>>failed to find it measurably warmer.
> 
>Only with submersible pumps. I have never observed any temperature
>increase with external pumps. Of course, I was not looking too closely
>with precision thermometers, I use very small aquarium pumps. A pump that
>moves several hundred ml per minute might add measurable levels of heat.
>I have a submersible utility pump for the outdoor ponds that raises the
>water temperature about 0.2 deg C by the time the water gushes out the
>hose, but that flow rate is hundreds of times higher than the one we are
>discussing here.

From personal experience, I can assure you if you choose too large of a
pump you can get significant heating in aquaria even when using external
pumps. At one point I had set up a salt water tank and thought I would
"improve" things by installing a larger pump and getting better
circulation in the tank. The next morining I found several rather
expensive dead fish as a result of not anticipating the heating effect
correctly.
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.01 / 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: Wed, 01 Nov 1995 21:15:45 -0800
Organization: AltNet

In article <DHCJEw.88H@iglou.com>, wayneb@iglou.com (Wayne Blackburn) wrote:

>browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) wrote:
>
>>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.
>>> 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"
>
>        You lost me here, pal. First of all, how long do you think your pump,
>and, for that matter, all your other energy-consuming support
>functions would have to run to use up the 85 MJ of power Jed mentioned
>in his article? 

I am certain Jed did not cite 85MJ of power since joules are energy.

>Second, you seem to have ignored the fact that he also
>mentioned that there have been experiments run completely without
>pumps. Which statement is supported by the fact that anyone who takes
>a few seconds to consider it can set up a system where all the impetus
>needed for fluid circulation can be provided by the heat generated at
>the electrode.

The point I was trying to make is if the output energy (not power) is a
large multiple of the total input energy there can be no doubt that the
cell is an energy source instead of an elaborate method of storing energy
or whatever it might be. I am not attempting to claim the cell is anything
by making the above comment. Simply, measurement of output energy vs total
input energy eliminates lots of unproductive discussion assuming the
output energy is sufficiently large.

>        Oh, by the way, getting people to pay you more for energy than you pay
>for the same energy is exactly how power companies operate.

Big sigh. Yes, you are correct and are totally missing the point. Power
companies achieve this since their product, electricity, is much more
convenient than their input energy. In the case of CF cells, it seems the
input is electricity and output is heat. Since, heat can't drive things
like computers directly it is not nearly as useful as the electricity you
started with. Consequently, the only way to make money on this exchange is
to create more heat from the same amount of electricity than some other
method.

The real reason for pointing this out is Jed as repeatly stated he doesn't
care anything about the physics of CF as long as he can make money from a
business standpoint. So when Jed asks about the point of the energy
supplied to the pump I am pointing out you have to pay for that energy so
it ought to be counted whether or not it directly contributes to the
output product.

Jed as well as several others here have made comments about how
ineffective tokamaks are. Perhaps you don't share their opinions. However,
I am sure if I can ignore the support energy costs such as the energy for
the containment coils, the tokamak should be considered a wild sucess.
Shall we apply this same standard to tokamak research? I don't think so.
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.02 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: Pumping Heat (Re: Proposed explaination of CETI effect)
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pumping Heat (Re: Proposed explaination of CETI effect)
Date: 2 Nov 1995 03:51:41 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I am just wondering, if the water was heated by 5 degrees, somewhere in
the loop it had to cool back down to its original temperature. Where did
this happen?

Zoltan Szakaly
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.02 /  Tony /  Re: I apologize to Dr. White, I place my bet that the neutrino has rest mass
     
Originally-From: Tony <Tony>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.particle,sci.
hysics.fusion,sci.astro
Subject: Re: I apologize to Dr. White, I place my bet that the neutrino has rest mass
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 1995 10:07:36 GMT

What is all this believing and betting - where 
have all the scientists gone.
Tony


cudkeys:
cuddy02 cudlnTony cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.02 / Mountain Man /  Re: Beta decay WITHOUT neutrino
     
Originally-From: Mountain Man <prfbrown@magna.com.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.accelerator
Subject: Re: Beta decay WITHOUT neutrino
Date: 2 Nov 1995 11:06:40 GMT
Organization: Mountain Man Graphics, Australia

Supporters of the AutoDynamics Theory will be interested in this.


cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenprfbrown cudfnMountain cudlnMan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.02 / Kirk L /  Re: More Chemistry in the CETI cell?
     
Originally-From: "Kirk L. Shanahan" <kirk.shanahan@srs.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More Chemistry in the CETI cell?
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 15:04:00 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

Based on Jed's description of the thermocouple mounting, the corrosion of 
the copper wire would seem to be a spurious consideration.  However, the 
possibility raised by the Grant, et. al. publication is still an open point, 
as is the recombination hotspot proposal.  Stainless steel could serve as a 
recombination site as easily as a constantan wire.  

Ain't chemistry grand?

---
Kirk L. Shanahan              | Like the man said...
                              | Don't get too serious about Life,
(My opinions...noone else's)  | You ain't gonna make it out alive anyway...
                              |                         - Bugs Bunny



cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenshanahan cudfnKirk cudlnL cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.02 / 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: Thu, 02 Nov 1995 10:30:35 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <475a54$a94@sundog.tiac.net>, conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H
Conover) wrote:

> VCockeram (vcockeram@aol.com) wrote:
> 
> : 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.
> 
> Can I suggest the existence of at least three very real mechanisms:
> 
> 1.  Heat transfer via the motor/pump shaft to the fluid being pumped.
> 
> 2.  Heat transfer via conduction from the motor to the pump body, and
>     from the pump body to the fluid being pumped.
> 
> 3.  Direct kinetic heating of the fluid being pumped by the pump
>     rotor (you cannot pump water without heating it).
>     (Just like the Griggs water heater, but on a smaller
>     scale.)
> 
>                                            Harry C.

***{Harry, this has all been discussed exhaustively in prior posts, and
refuted. In brief: even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that an
inappropriate device is being used that transfers 5 joules/sec to the
fluid stream via the pump mechanism, the 5 joules/sec *cannot* be carried
downstream in the form of heat. Why not? Because the input temperature
probe is downstream from the pump, at the entrance to the Patterson Power
Cell. The temperature change is measured between the input and the output
of the cell, not between the input to the pump and the output of the cell.
Result: if we assume, falsely, that the pump is dumping 5 joules/sec into
the fluid stream, *we know it must be in some form other than heat.* Three
mechanisms have been proposed for the non-heat storage of 5 joules/sec:
pressure storage, storage as energy of dissolution of Li2SO4, and storage
via decomposition of water into dissolved H2 and O2. The pressure storage
idea was preposterous: it required the pressure difference across the pump
to be 207 atmospheres when, in fact, it was measured to be less than 1
psi. And the energy of dissolution idea also fell apart: it turns out that
the solubility of Li2SO4 decreases as the temperature rises, which is
exactly the opposite of what this proposed mechanism requires! As for the
recombination theory, it collapsed when it was conclusively demonstrated
that it is physically impossible to dissolve enough H2 and O2 in the fluid
stream (which, remember, is a mere 14 ml/sec) to carry more than a tiny
fraction of 5 joules/sec. Bottom line: you are trying to ride a dead
horse, Harry. You need to read the old posts that demolished these various
theories, analyze them, understand them, and then come up with something
new if you want to have a chance of refuting this result. --Mitchell
Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy02 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.02 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 1995 10:51 -0500 (EST)

21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:
 
-> 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.
 
I must agree with you here.  My daughter was attending University of Tennessee
a few years ago, and since I had been in industry for decades, I told her to
get some courses on computer programming.  I advised her to get Pascal or C, as
these are two of the most important languages in industry.  Guess what.  UT did
not offer those courses.  All they offered was Fortran, a language which is
virtually extinct except in some big government installations.  Why? Because
that is all these professors knew, and teaching it is the only way they can use
what they knew since industry no longer uses Fortran significantly.  So they
are turning out computer students that only know a language in which the prime
use is to teach to others, and not offering what is needed to get a job outside
of education.  Pathetic.
 
Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy02 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.02 / 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: Thu, 02 Nov 1995 12:46:57 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <473dji$5gl@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry
Merriman) wrote:

> In article <21cenlogic-2710951444220001@austin-2-9.i-link.net>  
> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:
> > In article <46ogtm$gdg@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry
> > Merriman) wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Now, if the dust that is thrown off is called "energy," then we have
> > fashioned, in a very rough way, an image of how it may be that cavitation
> > channel characteristics can be instrumental in determining whether an
> > orbiting electron does or does not radiate, and how the quantity of such
> > radiation may be related to charge acceleration rather than to the sorts
> > of things you mentioned: velocity, distance traversed, etc. 
> > 
> 
> Of course, this dust is not conserved---because the electron can be
> a source of arbitrarily much of this dust...i.e. there is no limit
> to how many photons an electron can throw off. 

***{I don't know where you got this idea, Barry, but it is pure nonsense.
An electron can throw off photons only until its mass is exhausted.
Otherwise, conservation of energy is violated. Your statement does not
merely violate my dust-ball analogy; it also violates conventional
physics. --Mitchell Jones}***

So, if you take this 
> point of view, you have to explain how the kinetic energy of the 
> electron is-really/can-be converted to dust particles. I doubt you are
> going to get a simple mechanical picture for velocity == accrued
> dust particles.

***{Kinetic energy is obviously not the same thing as velocity, so your
doubts are correct. As for the model itself, the problem is *conveying*
the picture, not coming up with it. It is difficult to describe, in a few
words and without recourse to visual aids. In addition, massive
simplifications are required in order to render an introductory treatment
understandable. If I manage to come up with a satisfactory presentation, I
will post it; otherwise, if I ever find the time, I will write a book on
the subject. --Mitchell Jones}*** 

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

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy02 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.03 / Dieter Britz /  Biblio updates
     
Originally-From: britz@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Biblio updates
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 16:31:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Journal Papers: Current count = 1007
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#
Grant PM, Whipple, Bazan F, Brunk JL, Wong KM, Russo RE, Andresen BD;
J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 193 (1995) 165.
"Search for evidence of nuclear involvement in the fatal explosion of a "cold
fusion" experiment".
** Postmortem analysis, explosion, radiowaste.
The forensic team asked to investigate the fatal explosion at the SRI lab, in
which Riley was killed, report on their main measurements in the J. Forensic
Sci.). They also searched for emissions due to nuclear processes and report
the results here. The measurements were delayed until 3.5 months after the
explosion, so short-lived products would have been missed but there is a Table
of isotopes that could have been produced by neutron activation, and that
would survive for this length of time. The samples were placed in a gamma ray
detector for several days while counting.  No evidence of any such activated
isotope species was found.
#...................................................................... Oct-95 
Kalinin VB;  Inorg. Mater. 31 (1995) 558.
"Dipole ordering, ionic conductivity, and cold nuclear fusion: three types of
cation mobility in the orthophosphates KTiOPO4, Na3M2(PO4)3 (M = Sc, Fe, Cr),
NaTh2(PO4)3, KD2PO4, and related compounds".
** Discussion of ionic conductors, ferroelectrics, fractofusion, res+,
Lengthy theoretical discussion of a class of ionic conductors, tying in with
earlier Russian work on ferroelectrics and fractofusion. Phase transitions and
repolarisation in such compounds might give rise to cold fusion. Four compound
structure types that share cation position splitting are discussed, as in the
title. Only one of these, KD2PO4, has been tried out with CNF in mind. There
are 44 references.  May-94/May-95
#...................................................................... Oct-95 
Zhang Q, Gou Q, Zhu Z, Luo J, Liu F, Sun J, Miao B, Ye A, Cheng X;
Chin. J. Atom. Mol. Phys. 12(2) (1995) 165.
"The excess heat experiments on cold fusion in titanium lattice".
** Experimental, electrolysis, Ti rod, heavy water, excess heat, res+
Electrolysis experiment, using 0.1 M NaOD (or NaOH) in heavy and light water,
and a Ti rod, 2 mm diameter (length not stated but apparently several cm) as
cathode. Two thermocouples monitored the Ti rod's temp., two more that in the
electrolyte. 250 mA/cm^2 was run through the cell, and the electrolyte was
topped up with 1 ml D2O every 2 h. After 10 days in a mix of 10% H2O, 90% D2O,
the temperatures were steady. After cutting up the Ti rod, it was found to
have absorbed much more hydrogen than deuterium. The same experiment in pure
D2O showed a remarkable temperature rise of the Ti rod, a larger rod (12 mm
diameter, described earlier by Gou, Zhu & Zhang 1990) much more (24 C) than
the 2 mm rod (1.5 C). Surface sweep electron microscopy of the Ti afterward
showed that the Ti had become brittle. Also, surface hardness increased after
the excess heat events, due to temp. increase. From x-ray diffraction, the
authors are sure that the Ti surface structure changed due to excess heat, but
more work is really needed.
#...................................................................... Oct-95 
Zhang Z, Sun X, Zhou W, Zhang L, Li B, Wang M, Yan B, Tan F;
J. Thermal Anal. 45 (1995) 99.
"Precision calorimetric studies of H2O electrolysis".
** Experimental, calorimetry, Pd, light water, res0.
The authors ask the questions: does excess heat exist, or is it perhaps a
fabrication? They report a calorimetry experiment, using a Pd cathode in NaOH
in light water, using a Calvet type calorimeter, with both open and closed
cells. Current densities (cd) up to about 40 mA/cm^2 were used. For the closed
system, ratio of output to input power was close to unity (about 5% error),
while the open system showed ratios > 1 consistently, greater at smaller cd.
However, using heavy water, the ratio increased (up to 12.4) with cd. The
authors conclude that excess heat is a nonlinear function of cd. 
#...................................................................... Oct-95 

Patents: Current count = 196
^^^^^^^
#
Samgin AL, Baraboshkin AN, Andreyev VS, Murigin IV, Gorelov VP, Vakarin SV,
Tsvetkov SA (Eneco, Inc.); PCT Int. Appl. WO 95 15,563, 03-Dec-93.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 123:181584 (1995).
"Methods and apparatus for producing neutrons from proton-conductive solids".
** "App. and methods for producing neutrons at relatively low temps. from a
heterostructure based upon solid electrolytes are described. The methods
involve selecting a solid proton-conducting electrolyte material which under
predet. conditions exhibits a phenomenon of nonlinear transport and
distribution of diffused hydrogen isotopes. Generally, one of the conditions
involves raising the material in the form of a solid electrolyte mass to a
predet. temp. where nuclear reactions take place under predictable situations.
The methods and app. also involve applying a voltage across the solid
electrolyte mass by means of an anode and a cathode disposed across opposite
faces of the solid electrolyte mass to construct a reactor element. At least
the anode and facing of mass assocd. with the anode are made to be permeable
to the flow of isotopic hydrogen. The reactor element is disposed in a vacuum
chamber which is serviced by a vacuum pump and source of hydrogen isotope. A
thermo-heater is used to control the operating temp. of the mass, and a power
supply is connected across an anode and cathode to provide the desired voltage
and current". (Direct quote from CA).
#...................................................................... Oct-95

Peripherals: Current count = 99
^^^^^^^^^^^
#
Ichimaru S, Kitamura H;  J. Phys. Soc. Jpn 64(7) (1995) 2270.
"Enhanced pycnonuclear reactions in ultrahigh-pressure metals".
** Theoretical look at the possibility of fusion by ultracompression of a 
solid metal - "pycnonuclear" reaction. High pressure might enhance the
electron screening of nuclei from each other. A dense binary-ionic substance
is considered. The authors suggest realistic parameters that might yield
measureable fusion rates. The paper was written in the context of stellar
processes.
#..................................................................... Oct-95





These updates are now all archived.

How to retrieve the archived biblio files:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
1. By ftp from vm1.nodak.edu; log in as anonymous, giving your email
   address as password. Then cd to fusion. There are many files here, so
   do not use dir; if you are after the biblio files only, try
   dir fusion.cnf-*
   and then get or mget what you want.
2. Send an email to listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, blank subject and the message
   get fusion.<whatever you want>. To find out what there is, send
   index fusion
   This gets you an email with the directory of all files there, with which
   you can also match Fusion Digest numbers with file names, before getting
   those files. The index, or files you ask for, will be emailed to you.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.02 / 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: 2 Nov 1995 20:36:53 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee, Knoxville

MARSHALL DUDLEY (mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com) wrote:
: 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.

No of course he didn't make such a claim;. The point of that problem
was to show it was not true (though it is sometimes put forth as explanation
offhand in undergraduate textbooks). 

My memory is fuzzy but I thought that also considering the pressure
in the same way did not do the trick either. 

:  
:                                                                 Marshall
:  
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.02 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: A TB smear
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A TB smear
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 95 16:12:52 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk> writes:
 
>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
 
Stop evading the issue. Do you think that Steve's "recombination hypothesis"
applies to the CETI demonstration at SOFE '95? Yes or no? Steve Jones says
it does. He is wrong; the effect is 80 times too large for that. Yet he
refuses to admit he is wrong. He is acting like a crackpot, repeating
himself over and over and over again, refusing to acknowledge that his
argument fails. Where do *you* stand anyway? Do you think the CETI
results might be recombination?
 
Steve Jones also applied his "recombination" fetish/theory to results from
SRI and Amoco, which use closed cells with recombiners. If that is not
crackpot science I do not know what is.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.03 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: barry@abel.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: 3 Nov 1995 03:16:09 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research



In article <478iij$739@newsbf02.news.aol.com> johmann@aol.com (Johmann) writes:
> 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:

Allow me to readily refute your analysis :-)

> 
> The facts:
> 
> 1) Jones insists on recombination as the explanation of the Patterson
> Power Cell. 

I don;t think he _insists_. I think  he suggested it as a primary candidate.
Also, you will note that now that he has seen the relevant numbers, he 
no longer holds it up as a likely candidate, assuming the data at
hand are reasonably correct.

> 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.

And as one might suspect, Jones was reaily able to appreciate these arguments.

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

No, he does not. He has acknowledged that recombination alone
cannot explain the apparent result, due to the apparent 
inability to run enough H2 and O2 through the cell by any obvious
means---as one would expect from any physicist.

> 
> 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. 

No, Jones was actually pretty famous before that (in the scientific 
community) for his work on cold fusion---i.e. muon catalyzed fusion.
I knew who he was long before the P&F stuff, from his lectures
on muonic fusion and his big article in Scientific American on
the subject.

> 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.

Jones didn't ``claim''---he did do a similar experiment. And he
didn;t look for power *at all*, as he was not expecting to see
any (as any right-thinking physicist would expect...only a chemist
would expect to get macro power out :-). Jones was looking for 
extremely small amounts of fusion reaction.

> 
> 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.

I have no idea of whether jones got ideas from the P&F grant 
proposal---for all I know he might have. However, one things Jones
did not get from them was his motivation: he proposed and searched
for solid state fusion to explain anomalous amount sof tritium
observed in volcano eruptions, and possibly anomalous heating 
of large planets like Jupiter. Those rather cvlever ideas were clearly not
stolen from P&F.

> 
> 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.

Why? He is one of the creators of the field of cold fusion, broadly
interpreted as fusion in other than thermocuclear settings. Why should
he try a squach a field he helped originate? I don;t doubt that Jones
is somewhat pissed at P&F for their behaviour in this affair, and that
he would get a measure of joy from debunking their CF results, but to
suggest he would lie and try to make some CF coverup is rather rediculous...
its not the sort of thing that ones mans criticisms could lay to rest,
even if he wanted to.


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


--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet)  (NeXTMail OK) 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.03 / A Plutonium /  Pluton will spend more time now with www than with Internet
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci
chem,sci.bio.misc,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.
article
Subject: Pluton will spend more time now with www than with Internet
Date: 3 Nov 1995 00:12:46 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

 I have found a new playground and well, my days on Usenet will now
start to decline. The WWW, and I will devote more time now with
constructing web sites. My postings will now diminish to whatever
theory I am working on and the daily prayers. Some Usenet regulars may
have already noticed my drop-off in postings. I am building and
revising my web sites. Those Web sites are more important to me now and
so will devote time there. If anyone has a web site to hold my autobio
of 2,000 pages text and pictures and my book on playing the stock
market 200 pages and my text Plutonium Atom Totality Whole Theory 400
pages, I welcome that extra www space.

Archimedes Plutonium
http://nucleus.ibg.uu.se/elektromagnum/physics/LudwigPlutonium/
http://coos.dartmouth.edu/~elnitsky/AP.html
http://mmm.dartmouth.edu/pages/user/plutonium/
http://www.ibg.uu.se/elektromagnum/web/index.html
http://nucleus.ibg.uu.se/elektromagnum/
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.03 / Horace Heffner /  Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis)
     
Originally-From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis)
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 21:37:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

[much snipping throughout]

[sorry for the bad form, but the news service I subscribe to is disabled.
This is an alternate route to this group.  Since you are reading this, I
guess it worked.]


>> In article <21cenlogic-2710951444220001@austin-2-9.i-link.net>
>> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:
>> > In article <46ogtm$gdg@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry
>> > Merriman) wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Now, if the dust that is thrown off is called "energy," then we have
>> > fashioned, in a very rough way, an image of how it may be that cavitation
>> > channel characteristics can be instrumental in determining whether an
>> > orbiting electron does or does not radiate, and how the quantity of such
>> > radiation may be related to charge acceleration rather than to the sorts
>> > of things you mentioned: velocity, distance traversed, etc.
>> >
>>
>> Of course, this dust is not conserved---because the electron can be
>> a source of arbitrarily much of this dust...i.e. there is no limit
>> to how many photons an electron can throw off.
>
>***{I don't know where you got this idea, Barry, but it is pure nonsense.
>An electron can throw off photons only until its mass is exhausted.
>Otherwise, conservation of energy is violated. Your statement does not
>merely violate my dust-ball analogy; it also violates conventional
>physics. --Mitchell Jones}***
>

I am very curious about this. Is there a simple explanation in the QED
model of exactly when an accelerating free electron emits a photon? I know
in the "wigglers" of star wars use electrons are "wiggled" by passing
through many static magnetic fields of alternating polarity to emit photons
tangentially (i.e. in the general direction of the electron beam).
Question: does the kinetic energy of the electrons supply the energy for
the photon generation, i.e. are they slowed down when going through the
wigglers?  Would an electrostatic field wiggler work also?


Regards,                          <hheffner@matsu.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820


cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.01 / Dave Oldridge /  Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
     
Originally-From: doldridg@ra.isisnet.com (Dave Oldridge)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 1995 15:13:55 -0400
Organization: Coastal Watch Information Services Ltd., Halifax, NS, Canada

In article <4742r2$1g1@lys.vnet.net>, jnw@lys.vnet.net (John N. White) wrote:
> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

> 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.

As I understand it, this has been done.

> 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.

Not quite.  It TENDS to show that the effect (whatever it is) is
probably dependent on something that only happens when you use flowing
electrolyte, but it may, in fact, NOT be a false indication of excess
heat but rather a clue as to the nature of the effect itself.

I would be much more confident of commercial success if someone could
invent a method of boiling water continuously under pressure with almost
no energy input (take your pick as to hydrogen isotopes required), but,
in the meantime, these experiments look quite promising.  Certainly much
more research is needed to pin down just what conditions permit the
effect and to find out exactly what is happening.  So far, what I see is
a lot of theoretical guesswork on BOTH sides of the debate.  Jed thinks
it's fusion because of the sheer quantity of energy.  The skeptics think
it's something else and keep coming up with rather unsatisfactory
explanations of just what that something else is.

I tend to think that, if the quantities of excess energy out over energy
in being reported are real that the process is nuclear.  Not necessarily
fusion of hydrogen atoms, but something nuclear just the same.  The
questions are: What is it?  Why is it happening?  Can it be used
commercially?

Understanding the first two are going to be very helpful in answering
the last, I think.
 --
 Dave Oldridge
 doldridg@ra.isisnet.com
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudendoldridg cudfnDave cudlnOldridge cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.01 / Dave Oldridge /  Re: Incredibly stupid comments from Jones & Sullivan
     
Originally-From: doldridg@ra.isisnet.com (Dave Oldridge)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Incredibly stupid comments from Jones & Sullivan
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 1995 15:15:15 -0400
Organization: Coastal Watch Information Services Ltd., Halifax, NS, Canada

In article <browe-3010952014320001@10.0.2.15>,
browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) wrote:

> 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.

This is true, although you should keep in mind that the needs of an
experimental setup are quite different from those of a commercial power
plant.

 --
 Dave Oldridge
 doldridg@ra.isisnet.com
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudendoldridg cudfnDave cudlnOldridge cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Nov  4 04:37:19 EST 1995
------------------------------
