1995.11.03 / Lihong Yao /  Re: Beta decay WITHOUT neutrino
     
Originally-From: yao@ncc1701.eng.McMaster.CA (Lihong Yao)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.accelerator
Subject: Re: Beta decay WITHOUT neutrino
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 14:58:54 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario.

Joerg Colberg (jgc) wrote:
: Herve Le Cornec <Herve.Le.Cornec@afuu.fr> wrote:
: >Hello World,
: >
: >I found an other "coincidence", about the beta decay this time :
: >
: >The beta decay is the production of an hydrogen atom and energy
: >from a neutron : n -----> p + e + dE.
: >The energy forcasted by Einstein's formula is : dE = dM c^2 (I) 
: >where dM is the difference of mass between the n and (p + e).
: >
: >We know that the experiment does not agree with Einstein's
: >formula. The amount of energy forcasted is the maximum energy 
: >observed experimentaly, but mainly the beta decay releases
: >less energy than what is forcasted.
: >Consequently W. Pauli invented the neutrino in order to
: >equilibrate the reaction equation. 
: >
: >     Number 
: >     of decays
: >    ^ 
: >    |
: >    |           *  *
: >    |        *        *
: >    |      *           *
: >    |    *              *
: >    |  *                 *
: >    |*--------------------*---->
: >                          ^     measured
: >                          |      energy
: >       maximum measured __|
: >       energy equivalent to
: >       the forcast of (I) 
: >
: >I am now going to propose an alternative in which we do not
: >need any neutrino to explain the released energy.
: >
: >Applying some thermodynamics results, it is possible to
: >forecast that the beta decay shall follow an other equation 
: >than (I) :
: >                dE = (Ma.V^2).ln(Mb/Ma)       (II)
: >
: >where Ma is the mass of the initial reagent
: >      Mb is the mass of the final product
: >      V  is the incident velocity of the initial reagent.
: >
: >Let us take V = c, the velocity is therefore at its maximum.
: >In this condition (II) shall forcasts the same maximum of 
: >released energy as (I). Here are some beta decays, among others, 
: >that follow eq. (II) :
: >----------------------------------------------------------------
: >Reaction                       max dE (MeV)       max dE (MeV)
: >                               given by (II)      measured                 
: >----------------------------------------------------------------
: >n --> p + e                    0.7825             0.7825
: >...............................................................
: >1     7           4
: >  H +  Li  --> 2   He          17.3732            17.37    
: >1     3           2
: >...............................................................
: >   3         4        1
: >2   He  -->   He + 2   H       12.879             12.8
: >   2         2        1
: >...............................................................
: >32        32
: >   P -->     S                 1.7112             1.710
: >15        16
: >...............................................................
: >137         137
: >    Cs -->      Ba             1.1746             1.17
: > 55          56
: >...............................................................
: >64         64
: >   Cu -->     Zn               0.5775             0.578
: >29         30
: >...............................................................
: >59         59
: >   Fe -->     Co               1.5648             1.565
: >26         27
: >...............................................................
: >(* experimental datas from "Handbook of Chemistry & Physics", 
: >   CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1986)
: >
: >
: >Einstein's formula is unable to forcast the "bump" of the 
: >experimental curve. At the contrary eq. (II) is able to do so
: >because all neutrons do not have the same incident velocity.
: >Therefore the "bump" is only related to the statistical 
: >distribution of velocity for the reagent neutrons, if we
: >accept eq. (II) of course.
: > 
: >     Number 
: >     of decays
: >    ^ 
: >    |
: >    |           * | *
: >    |        *    |    *
: >    |      *      |     *
: >    |    *        |      *
: >    |  *          |       *
: >    |*------------|--------*---->
: >                  ^        ^      measured
: >energy corresponding       |      energy
: >to the maximum             |
: >statistical velocity       |
: >of incident neutrons       |
: >                           |
: >       maximum measured  __|
: >       energy equivalent to
: >       the forcast of (I) and
: >       to the forecast of (II) when
: >       the neutron incident velocity 
: >       is maximum (V=c).
: >
: >
: >This proposal then helps to explain the beta decay without
: >any need of neutrino. We may even calculate the velocity
: >of incident neutrons.
: >
: >So, what do you think of this ?

: .. and what about lepton number conservation???

The calculation is a good try. But you missed one important thing: without
the antineutrino or neutrino on the right hand side of the beta-decay 
equations, angular momentum cannot be conserved, since a possible orbital
angular momentum of the electron relative to the proton must have integer
quantum number. Another argument of cause is about the conservation of the
lepton number, without the antineutrino or neutrino, beta-decay will 
violate this law.

Lihong Yao
WWW:"http://intrepid.eng.mcmaster.ca/~yao/"

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenyao cudfnLihong cudlnYao cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.03 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: "Serious Flaws" fatally flawed.
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Serious Flaws" fatally flawed.
Date: 3 Nov 1995 15:26:10 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

To put in my ten cents, I happen to think that nuclear reactions are going
on. 

In spite of this I feel no anymosity towards people who think that there
may be some other explanation. Men like prof. Jones are entitled to their
oppinions and should not be ridiculed just because they don't believe in
electrolytic cold fusion. From what I know of Dr. Jones, he is a decent
scholar who has significant experience in cold as well as muon catalized
fusion. I think he is wrong in his explanation of the excess heat but I
also think that we should equally embrace everyone into this group
regardless of their standing on an issue. Doing otherwise would suppress
free speach.

Any personal attacks on anyone are simply a waste of bandwidth and my time
and I don't appretiate them.

Zoltan Szakaly
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.02 /  VCockeram /  Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: vcockeram@aol.com (VCockeram)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
Date: 2 Nov 1995 22:23:40 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <MATT.95Oct31103626@cyclops5.berkeley.edu>,
matt@cyclops5.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:

>In article <474r1i$6au@newsbf02.news.aol.com> vcockeram@aol.com
(VCockeram)
>writes:
>
>> I also carefully read Dr. Jones's post and I too am amazed at the
apparent
>> disregard
>> of the published numbers of Ein to Eout. 
>
>Have there actually been any such published numbers?  I've heard a lot
>of talk about P_in and P_out, but that's not at all the same thing.
>In fact, Steve Jones's objection can be summarized very succinctly:
>energy and power aren't the same.  Unexplained excess energy might be
>interesting, but unexplained excess power is not.
>
>

 Yes, Jed published that the startup time was 20 minutes at somewhat less
than 
.06 watts input and after that 20 minute period elapsed the power was
increased to .06
watts input and they were getting around 5 watts output. The temperature
was measured at the inlet to the cell and the outlet of the cell. If the
pump was supplying
any heat to the electrolyte it would be seen at the inlet thermister. 
I don't have a schematic of the demo handy so perhaps Jed could see fit to
post a 
rough one here in this forum. Something like:
                                                                          
 ^
------>PUMP------->Filter------->Tin->CELL->Tout----->GAS------>  and so
on.  Jed?

It would sure be appreciated by others and myself. Thanks.

lurking in las vegas                           Vince
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenvcockeram cudlnVCockeram cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.03 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: Heat pumps cannot explain the SOFE demo.
     
Originally-From: mbk@I_should_put_my_domain_in_etc_NNTP_INEWS_DOMAIN (Matthew B. Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat pumps cannot explain the SOFE demo.
Date: 3 Nov 1995 06:04:25 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Martin Sevior (msevior@axnd02.cern.ch) wrote:
: There has been some discussion that a heat pump effect could explain the
: SOFE demo results. I want to show that this is impossible with the caveat
: that I have to make "reasonable" assumptions for the pressure drop across the
: pump that drives the fluid.

: Perhaps the best way to explain this is to show that the heat pump hypothesis
: leads to a situation where more energy is generated by the SOFE demo than is
: consumed in getting the heat pump going. A heat pump requires mechanical
: energy to setup a temperature differential and heat flow (as in a
: refrigerator). In the case of the SOFE demo this mechanical energy could come
: from the pump pushing the electrolyte around the system.

: We start by calculating how much MECHANICAL energy could be generated by the
: parameters of the SOFE demo. Namely, 5 watts of heat and 5 degree C temperature
: rise. A perfect heat engine operating on a Carnot cycle could generate:

: 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

: So the SOFE demo could generate 80 Milliwatts of mechanical energy.

: Now we assume a pressure drop accross the pump of 1 PSI = 1/14 Atmosphere's
: pressure = 10**5/14 Newtons/meter-squared = 7.1*10**3

: The flow rate = 14 ml/minute = 0.233 cc/sec = 2.33*10**-7 meters**3/sec

: So the mechanical energy required to drive the electrolyte flow =
: 2.33*10**-7 * 7.1*10**3 = 1.65 * 10**-3 = 1.65 Milliwatts.

: This is way less than the energy available from a heat engine operating
: on the SOFE temperature differential and heat flow. 

: Thus if the SOFE demo was a heat pump, it could be be driven by it's own
: heat through a heat engine with a lot of energy left over. This is a
: contradiction so the heat pump hypothesis violates the laws of thermodynamics.

: We have to conclude that no heat pump can explain the SOFE demo.

But what about the electrical power that was put in?  That was
generally O(0.08 watts) if I vaguely remember. 

Let's remember this equation:

	Work = Heat* (1 - T2/T1);

It's important to get the left hand side really big, (like factors of 20
over electrical power in).

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.02 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 95 02:36:06 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Corporation

In article <4760cc$ac0@stratus.skypoint.net>,
   jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) wrote:
>Matt Austern (matt@cyclops5.berkeley.edu) wrote:
>: we do not have enough information to know what E_in and E_out
>: are.  Steve Jones isn't disregarding those numbers; they don't exist.
>
>We actually know quite a bit.  However, Steve Jones postulated something
>that can be estimated by reference to the CRC handbook. That is the
>solubility of H2 in H2O can only deliver enough H2 for 3 milliwatts
>per ml/min.  That's about 40 milliwatts for the SOFE demo.  So the
>Jones' hypothesis falls short of explaining 5 watts by two orders of
>magnitude.
>

Hand waving won't make it go away John. Try internal recombination if you 
don't like recombination from the external circuit. The CETI "adjustment" for 
"no recombination" amounts to about 2.2 Watts in the Bruce Klein Patterson 
cell calculations on your homepage. The Cravens demo uses the same calculation 
procedure to account for "no recombination."  We haven't seen the calculations 
to "support" the claims for the SOFE demo. At this point, the SOFE numbers are 
unsupported rumors -- certainly insufficient for proving anything.

cudkeys:
cuddy02 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.03 /  jedrothwell@de /  Shanahan wrong again: it is not steel
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Shanahan wrong again: it is not steel
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 95 09:51:22 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Kirk Shanahan" <kirk.shanahan@srs.gov> writes:
 
     "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."
 
This is wildly incorrect for a number of reasons:
 
1. As I pointed out here, three times, the stainless steel is not exposed to
the electrolyte. It is covered with Teflon tape and heat sink compound.
 
2. In some tests, a mercury thermometer was installed *below the gas trap*,
and the thermometer showed the expected temperature elevation. How could the
gas be recombining on the mercury thermometer when it has already left the
cell?
 
3. In some tests a thermocouple, a thermistor and a thermometer (below the gas
trap) was used. The gas cannot magically split itself into three stream, hop
past the gas trap, and recombine on the surface of *all three* instruments in
exactly the right proportions to show the same level of heat. Anyone who
believes that can happen will also believe in the tooth fairy.
 
4. The gas flowmeter shows that there is no measurable recombination going on,
so this whole discussion is a canard.
 
This is getting annoying. I posted three message here about the Teflon tape,
and I copied them to Shanahan by direct e-mail. Why does he return again and
again to a hypothesis that is decisively disproved by the paper? This
discussion is a waste of time.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.02 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 95 03:15:49 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Corporation

In article <472m2c$bh8@netfs.dnd.ca>, wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) wrote:
>In article <46p0lc$710_001@ip062.sky.net>, bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan) 
says:
><< ...
> Everyone seems to agree that water is dissociated in the cell. The TBs say 
> that the energy to dissociate the water escapes in the form of gases. They 
> argue that it is inappropriate to consider this as part of the input, so 
they 
> reduce the measured input to reflect the presumed loss:
> 
>         (measured output) * (a cell constant)
>         --------------------------------------
>         (measured input) - (dissociation loss)
> 
> As the presumed dissociation loss approaches the measured input the ratio 
can 
> become very, very large.
>>>
>
>This is not true of the CETI measurements.


I am not sure what your comment refers to.  If you are refering to the 
statement about the ratio becoming very, very large, the equation supports 
that conclusion.

If, instead, you are saying the CETI calculations do not reflect the equation, 
the facts don't support your claim. I have in my hand at this very minute, a 
photocopy on the CETI letterhead bearing the signature of one of the CETI 
officials stating: 

	"CETI has presented the enclosed data adjusting for both a 	
	hydrogen-oxygen recombination (1.5 V) and a hydrogen-ozone 	
	recombination (1.7 V)."

The calculations on the attachments show that what the official calls an 
adjustment for recombination is actually an adjustment assuming energy lost 
through no recombination of the gases. His imprecise language may be the 
source of much of the confusion about no recombination/recombination. The heat 
balance ASSUMPTIONS are clear: some of the electric energy input goes to 
produce hydrogen and oxygen (ozone) which escapes from the cell without 
recombining. In calculating the cell gain, energy assumed to be associated 
with the lost gases is deducted from the measured input. [I might note that 
this particular calculation uses the _reciprocal_ of the cell constant as a 
multiplier in the denominator rather than showing the cell constant as 
a multiplier in the numerator. This has no effect on the gain calculation.]

This same type of adjustment for "recombination" adjustment is applied in the 
Cravens demo and the Klein demo. I can see that calling an adjustment for "no 
recombination" a "recombination" adjustment can be confusing if you haven't 
worked through the calculations to see what was actually done.  That's why we 
need to look at the calculations before accepting qualitative explanations 
(with or without numerical claims).

cudkeys:
cuddy02 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.02 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 95 03:19:26 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Corporation

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).
>
>Yep, scientists are just a bunch of deadheads!
>
>: ***{Marshall, you are dropping the context of the discussion. The subject
>: here is not some vague non-chemical process in which "recombination" is
>: somehow involved. The subject, instead, is the very specific and very
>: crudely idiotic theory of recombination proposed by Steve Jones, which
>: wildly and by many orders of magnitude fails to account for the facts of
>: the SOFE demo which it originally purported to explain. --Mitchell
>: Jones}***
>
>Mitch, what facts?  Where are the facts?  The people that performed the
>SOFE demo are, themselves, unsure of the facts.  As with the Griggs
>Device, no one here has been able or willing to post an experimental error 
>analysis revealing that excess heat even exists. Jed rants continuously
>about what a wonderful breakthrough this is and, as with the Griggs
>thing, he (or others) are unable to mount a rationale or convincing 
>argument that excess heat or energy even exists.
>
>Seriously, if you guys really believe in the existence of this effect,
>I'd think that you'd be 'Hell bent for election' to collect and post the 
>actual numbers, and uncertainties, rather than all this pointless bickering
>and pontification.  
>
>   o  How much electrical energy was fed into the cell?
>
>   o  What is the uncertainty of this measurement?
>
>   o  How much energy was consumed by the pump?
>
>   o  Where did this energy go?
>
>   o  What is the uncertainty of this measurement/estimate?
>
>   o  How much heat resulted?
>
>   o  What is the uncertainty of this measurement?
>
>   o  What was the resultant excess heat?
>
>   o  What is the uncertainty of this measurement?
>
>   o  What is the cumulative uncertainty of the energy input?
>
>   o  Taking into account all of the cumulative error, how
>      much excess heat must be observed to positively exceed
>      the total experimental error computed?
>
>   o  Was heat in excess of experimental uncertainty actually observed?
>
>
>Until someone can quantitatively answer all of the above, there
>is no remarkable pheonomenon to even discuss, let alone postulate
>explanitory theories. 
>
>This approach has a name -- It's called science.
>
>                                        Harry C.
>

And most importantly, SHOW YOUR CALCULATIONS!
cudkeys:
cuddy02 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.02 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 95 03:30:40 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Corporation


Jed Rothwell, pretending that Steven Jones does not exist, wrote:

>Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> writes:
> 
>>to Jones, me and everyone else. The issue is whether experiments really
>>meet one of these three exemptions. In order to tell, the experimental 
>>report has to be sufficiently detailed, and independent replication would
> 
>If you read the literature you will see that dozens of experiments have
>been described in sufficient detail, and these experiments have been run
>hundreds of time. Note in particular the SRI work. You are wrong about
>Jones. He has not acknowledged this work. He pretends that it does not
>exist. It totally defeats his hypothesis, so he pretends it never happened.
> 
>- Jed

I don't think the facts support your allegations -- again. I have found Steven 
Jones posts to be well thought out and insightful. You may not like what he 
has to say, but your opinion in no way diminishes the quality of his posts. 
cudkeys:
cuddy02 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.02 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 95 03:42:55 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Corporation

In article <47588a$r4e@info.uah.edu>,
   "Jonathan E. Jones" <jjones@ebs330.eb.uah.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>>I've got some problems understanding how the purging could be done within 
the 
>>cell without adding or removing heat. I wouldn't be concerned about nitogen 
>>poisoning the reaction, because the cell is exposed to plenty of nitrogen 
from 
>>the atmosphere.
>>
>
>You can't.  We spent along time preparing calibration runs to quantify 
>the amount of heat added/removed from the cell while purging was taking 
>place.  I believe (it's been a while) that we ran the cell with no power 
>while purging and used that as a baseline.  I remember I made a 
>calibration curve for our system for different flow rates of the purging 
>gas.  It was not a simple process.  
>

Thanks for that clarification. I can see that it would be a difficult process 
and that it would probably not be immune to complaint from the TBs. Perhaps, 
substituting plain old glass beads for the magic beads might be the definitive 
test. If the platinum screens produced the apparent "excess heat" without the 
magic beads, that should be fairly conclusive proof that the heat comes from 
the equations.
cudkeys:
cuddy02 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.02 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: Pumping Heat (Re: Proposed explaination of CETI effect)
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pumping Heat (Re: Proposed explaination of CETI effect)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 95 04:02:26 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Corporation

In article <475vg5$abp@stratus.skypoint.net>,
   jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) wrote:
>Joshua Levy (joshua@intrinsa.com) wrote:
>: All you need to do is to ignore the power for the pump,
>: exactly as the CETI demo did!
>
>The CETI demo measured cell inlet and outlet temperature.  Thus the
>thermal inefficiency of the pump was negated.
>
>Here's a CETI FSE (frequently stated explanations.)
>
>1.) Pump adds heat.   (nulled out by inlet/outlet temperature measurements)
>
>2.) Pump pressure and flow rate adds heat.  (Yes, but the magnitude is
>    far too small to explain the excess heat seen.)
>
>3.) Dissolved H2 and O2 stored previously recombine.  (3 milliwatts per
>    ml per minute -- too small.)
>
>4.) Direct recombination.  (Irrelevent, 100% recombination assumed.)


Wrong! The heat balance calculations assume exactly the opposite -- unless 
your words have magically acquired new meanings. (The new meanings hypothesis 
may not be all wrong.)

Quote from Bill Page's writeup of the Cravens ICCF5 demo:

Pg = 1.48*I             gas production (assumption of no recombination
                        confirmed by fg)

End quote.

Using a both "fact" and its negation as "evidence" is a privilege reserved 
only to a select few on s.p.f.  Sorry, neither you nor I qualify.


>5.) Partially dissolved salt theory (John White).  (The known salts
>    used (lithium sulfate) do not undergo a substantial solubility
>    change over the liquid temperature range of water 0-100 C,
>    about 13%, hence about a 0.6% change over 5C.)
>


Obviously, the frequently stated explanations could stand some scrutiny -- 
and some elaboration.  The "excess heat" is an probably an artifact of the 
heat balance calculations.
cudkeys:
cuddy02 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.04 / John Logajan /  Re: Pumping Heat (Re: Proposed explaination of CETI effect)
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pumping Heat (Re: Proposed explaination of CETI effect)
Date: 4 Nov 1995 07:58:35 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Bob Sullivan (bsulliva@sky.net) wrote:
: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) wrote:
: > 4.) Direct recombination.  (Irrelevent, 100% recombination assumed.)


: Wrong! The heat balance calculations assume exactly the opposite -- unless 
: your words have magically acquired new meanings. (The new meanings hypothesis 
: may not be all wrong.)
:
: Quote from Bill Page's writeup of the Cravens ICCF5 demo:
:
: Pg = 1.48*I             gas production (assumption of no recombination
:                         confirmed by fg)
: End quote.


If you read further in that same writeup you will see three heat production
formulas.  I quote:

    HEAT YIELDS

    Ph/Pin          -- Conservative
    (Ph+Pl)/Pin     -- Heat Loss Correction
    (Ph+Pl+Pg)/Pin  -- Gas Correction

Note that the Pg (1.48*I) term is only used in the least conservative
formula.  The ICCF5 demo produces heat in exess of raw input using the
first and most conservative formula in which 100% recombination is assumed.
 
--
 - 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:
cuddy4 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.03 /  jedrothwell@de /  Steve Jones cries wolf
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Steve Jones cries wolf
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 95 09:52:43 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Steve Jones often accuses his opponents of faults and character defects that
he himself suffers from more than anyone else. It is a classic case of the pot
calling the kettle black. Jones routinely jumps to unsupported conclusions and
cries wolf. He refuses to read the literature, and he gets his facts
hopelessly scrambled. He says he read the Fox paper, and then he cited the
volume of the cell from the paper (which was not listed!), and the start up
procedures (which he got backwards). Jones often proposes hysterical crackpot
theories which fail by 2, or 3 or even 5 orders of magnitude. Many people
correct him, but as Johmann pointed out, "in spite of such repeated
corrections, Jones stands firm (like a true crank)." He stands firm again in
his latest message, which is a compendium stupid, lazy and idiotic mistakes in
basic science that would embarrass a junior high school student.
 
First, he repeats this blunder in which gets the Fox article exactly opposite
and wrong, and he ignores the fact that you cannot store 85 megajoules in 200
ml of water:
 
     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) . . .   I explained
     this in some detail in my post "Serious Flaws in Patterson Cell..." last
     week."
 
 
Then he says:
 
     "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 . . .So
     the chemical energy storage hypothesis needs to be looked at, and tested
     for carefully.
 
No, it does not to be tested for carefully. It can be dismissed instantly. All
you have to do is confirm that the pump does not add 20 watts of power to the
water flow. You can do that in a few seconds by putting your hand on the pump
surface and the plastic tube that leaves the pump. You can do that during
calibration or during a live run. If this energy-from-the-pump hypothesis was
true, the pump surface and pipes would be at least 155 deg F (80 deg C). They
are not. They are room temperature. No significant, measurable level of energy
is transferred into the flow by the pump. In fact, no lab pump anywhere ever
transfers any measurable level of energy into the flow. This Dietz - Jones
hypothesis is a blatant violation of the conservation of energy.
 
 
     "Kirk Shanahan agrees with me that placing copper-constantan
     thermocouples directly in the electrolyte is poor practice; he says:
     "their installation directly in the electrolyte steam 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."
 
This proves beyond any doubt that both Shanahan and Jones have not read the
papers written by Cravens, and that they will jump to a totally unwarranted
conclusion without bothering to check any facts. As I pointed out here in this
forum several times before Shanahan posted his message, and three times again
after he posted it, the thermocouples are *not* placed directly in the
electrolyte. They are placed in stainless steel holders, which are wrapped in
Teflon and then coated with heat sink compound. Again, Jones has made a
blatant error because he is too lazy to read the literature. No doubt he will
repeat this error again, and again and again, even though I have corrected him
here, and even though I will e-mail him a copy of this message directly. Once
he makes up a convenient "fact" to fit his absurd hypotheses, Jones will
repeat that "fact" endlessly, even when dozens of people explain to him that
it is wrong.
 
 
     "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."
 
As I pointed out in another message, this is preposterous and impossible.
Jones and Shanahan apparently believe that the gas can magically split itself
into three stream, hop past the gas trap, and recombine on the surface of
three different instruments in exactly the right proportions to show the same
level of heat. More crackpot science!
 
 
     "When will we learn not to run to each new device, shrouded in secrecy,
     with no controls . . ."
 
Shrouded in secrecy?!? What nonsense! This is yet another absurd, backwards
claim. His messages are full of mistakes about simple matters of fact, like
the steel and Teflon shielding around the thermocouples. This proves that he
has not bothered to read the patents and papers written by Patterson, Cravens,
Klein, and myself. How can he know what is secret? I have a video of Cravens
standing before the audience at SOFE '95 and offering to allow *any scientist
or engineer at the meeting* full access to the test rig. He said:
 
     "If you want to come by tomorrow and bring your own voltmeter, ammeter,
     feel free to do it. We have got K-type thermocouples, with millivolt
     readings. You can measure it. We would happy to know if you find an
     artifact, just let us know what it is."
 
He made the same offer at ICCF5, and several people took him up on it. Yet
Jones has the chutzpa to say this work is "shrouded in secrecy." I have never
heard of any series of experiment conducted in a more open, free, and
accessible manner. Jones says that *we are "crying wolf" but that is one of
*his* many character faults, not ours. He is the crackpot, not us.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.03 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 95 10:03:11 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

VCockeram <vcockeram@aol.com> writes:
 
>I don't have a schematic of the demo handy so perhaps Jed could see fit to
>post a
>rough one here in this forum. Something like:
>
> ^
>------>PUMP------->Filter------->Tin->CELL->Tout----->GAS------>  and so
>on.  Jed?
 
That looks pretty good. Honestly, I can't stand doing "ASCII Art" diagrams.
It drives me crazy! John Logajan has (had?) a photograph of the ICCF5
test rig in his home page which I scanned and e-mailed to him. I could
scan and e-mail the actual schematic from the paper if you would like.
 
The only thing you should add is a reservior at the beginning (or the end,
depending on how you look at it).
 
One thing I would point out. The "---->" in your diagram represents plastic
tubes. They are not insulated. The water passsing "Tout" (thermocouple)
moved sluggishly alone carrying bubbles until it hits "GAS" (gas trap).
That's maybe, oh, 20 cm of thin tube. By the time the water gets to
GAS it has cooled back down to room temperature. If you were to add, say,
50 watts thermal to the stream of water at PUMP, by the time it got past
Filter to Tin I'll bet it would be cooled back down to room temperature.
The heater in the reservior has to add a lot more than that in order to
raise the temperture at Tin when they want to test high temperature
performance.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.03 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 95 10:14:11 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Barry Merriman <barry@abel.math.ucla.edu> writes:
 
>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.
 
Bull. He will make the claim again in a week or two. Just you wait! As soon
as he thinks he can bamboozle a new set of readers, he will be back waving
his arms saying "I proved the CETI cell is all recombination." He has been
doing that for years! He says the Mills results are recombination even though
they are 20 * I * V. He says McKubre's results are recombination even though
McKubre has a closed cell with a recombiner. He would say that the gas
loading results are recombination if he thought he could get away with it.
 
The Jones recombination fetish is exactly like the Morrison-Jones
"cigarrette lighter" hypothesis. Anyone can see at a glance that it is 5 or
6 orders of magnitude wrong. Everyone knows that Morrison and Jones themselves
do not believe that kind of crap. But they go on repeating this absurd idea
on Internet and in the mass media, because they do not have anything else
to say. They know they don't have a leg to stand on; they have no valid,
sane scientific rguments to disprove CF calorimetry, so they use stupid
impossible arguments instead. They figure they will fool enough brain dead
idiots to keep the opposition against CF alive. They are playing politics,
not doing science. This is a cynical (and so far successful) gambit to
drown out serious scientific discussion by burying it under a truckload of
propaganda, lies, and absurdities. Jones is doing this deliberately. I
expect you are too, but it may be that you are so stupid you actually buy
stuff like the "recombination theory" and the cigarrette lighter.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.03 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Steve Jones cries wolf
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Steve Jones cries wolf
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 95 10:38:20 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I made an arithmetic error in the last message. It should have been:
 
   "If this energy-from-the-pump hypothesis was true, the pump surface and
   pipes would be at least 115 deg F (40 deg C)."
 
I meant that the pump and pipes would have to be 20 deg C above room
temperature (75 deg F, 20 deg C) during the high heat runs.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.03 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: John N. White: GET A PUMP!!!
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: John N. White: GET A PUMP!!!
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 1995 11:24:58 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <browe-0111952041020001@10.0.2.15>, browe@netcom.com (Bill
Rowe) wrote:

> 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"

***{As we have already explored exhaustively, if you use a pump with a
large enough pressure jump and flow rate, you can produce significant
heating. Thus your comments are *theoretically* possible. However, they
are practically impossible, assuming that you are not a total incompetent
where raising of tropical fish is concerned. I doubt very seriously that
you installed a pump in violation of the instructions, in an aquarium that
was too small, and I doubt that you installed a pump designed for
non-aquarium use (e.g., to pump well water) in an aquarium. Making those
reasonable assumptions, I would suggest that your fish died of some other
cause--probably because of a protozoan bloom kicked off by increased
oxygenation in a dirty tank. In fact, as a person who has maintained
aquaria for most of my life (I am sitting next to a 125 gallon tank as I
type this), I can think of several causes that could kill two or three
fish which are far more likely than pump heating of the water. --Mitchell
Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy03 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.03 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: I am curious
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I am curious
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 95 13:37:18 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Ted Craven <ted@taec.com> writes:
 
>So it seems that there must be a substantial temperature drop across the
>the pump. In fact, it would have to be at least equal to the temperature 
>rise through the cell in order to prevent the electrolyte from eventually
 
The fluid cools down in the plastic tube outside the cell, long before it
gets back to the reservoir or the pump. The plastic pipes, reservior and
pump are all at room temperature.
 
>I am also curious about how the absolute temperature (not the
>temperature difference) of the electrolyte varies with time. And what
 
The electrolyte outside the cell is at ambient temperature, except when
they heat it up to test performance at high temperature. They have a large
joule heater (aquarium heater) in the reservoir for that purpose.
 
>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 
 
The beads contain ~40 mg of Ni and Pd. You cannot store enough hydrogen in
them to maintain the reaction at 5 watts for more than a few seconds.
 
>Same thing goes for the cell itself. And we need to know the exact composition
>of the electrolyte in order to rule out these electrolyte reactions. 
 
No, we do not. These electrolyte reaction that have been proposed are all
gross violations of the conservation of energy. We can rule them out on
that basis alone. You cannot get thousands of time more chemical energy out
of a cell than the energy you put in, when the cell contains only water and
a tiny bit of metal.
 
>Anything else in it besides deionized light water and unenriched lithium 
>sulfate?
 
No.
 
Strictly speaking, it is not light water, it is regular water, 1/6000th D2O.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.04 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: 4 Nov 1995 09:25:22 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <x7NnZ7D.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

> This [various CF criticisms] is a cynical (and so far successful) gambit to
> drown out serious scientific discussion by burying it under a truckload of
> propaganda, lies, and absurdities. Jones is doing this deliberately. I
> expect you are too, but it may be that you are so stupid you actually buy
> stuff like the "recombination theory" and the cigarrette lighter.
>  

Why are you upset then? You should be overjoyed---by having Jones, myself
and other skeptics confusing the issues for the vast majority of scientitst,
that leaves all of CF open for yourself and your select group of
associates. You should all soon be billionaires, and no need to share the
wealth. You shouldn't be lambasting us---you should be actively funding
us to run interference for you.


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


cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.04 / Horace Heffner /  Re: 7Li(n,2n)6LI driven fusion (was: Farce of Physics)
     
Originally-From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 7Li(n,2n)6LI driven fusion (was: Farce of Physics)
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 1995 23:25:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In article <462uk2$lto@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, zoltanccc@aol.com
(ZoltanCCC) wrote:

> I don't remember the possibility of sustained reactions being refuted. The
> number of reactions that could happen in a complex system as this is
> large, and possibly we don't know about all of them yet. Some that come to
> mind are:
>
> n* + Li7 ---> Li6 + n + n                                (1)
>
> This is our original reaction, where I denoted the fast neutron with a *
> for simplicity.
>
> n  + Li7 ---> Li8 (life is 0.844 secs)                 (2)
>
> In this (2) the neutron is slow.
>
> Li8  --->  e  +  Be8 (life is 0.067 femtosecs)     (3)
>
> Be8  --->  He4  +  He4                                   (4)
>
> The consecutive (3) and (4) yield a whopping 16 MeV of energy taken away
> by the electron mostly (I think). We also have the following:
>
> n  +  Li6  --->  T  +  He4                                 (5)
>
> This yields some energy (I think about 4 MeV)
>
> Of course so far we have nothing producing fast neutrons. Perhaps these
> reactions can be used to build a reactor which is operated by an external
> fast neutron source.
>
> Of course we have the deuterium to think of, so we have:
>
> n  +  d  --->   T
>
> or the fast T from the (5) will collide with other nuclei present in the
> system possibly causing fission/fusion and thereby replenishing our fast
> neutron supply. One example:
>
> T  +  d  --->  He4  +  n*
>
> This reaction can complete a circle of positive feedback to make the
> system supercritical, because our original fast neutron has been
> replenished and we have lots of heat producing reactions.
>
> This whole system can be used to build a "dirty" nuclear reactor. Perhaps
> it can be constructed sub-critical and run by the external neutron source
> (gas discharge tube) or maybe it can be moderated.
>
> This whole thing has been discused under the "Farce of physics".
>
>
> Zoltan Szakaly

Sorry it took me so long to respond. The fiber cable to Alaska broke over
a week ago, and the news server I subscribe to stopped being useable. I
attempted to send this some time ago, but it did not get posted.

You still have not shown how to achieve a mix ingredients that sustains a
neutron multiplication factor >= 1.  You show lots of energy creating
reactions, but it appears there is no way to sustain the neutron flux to
make net energy from your costly input neutron beam.  Your mix can not
simultaneously be mostly Li7 and mostly d and partly T and partly He4 all
at the same time, even cross section wise, can it?  You need to show the
numbers for some mix that can sustain neutron flux, and you have not done
that.  One problem, for example, is the reaction T  +  d  --->  He4  +  n*
does not produce any appreciable neutron multiplication factor in a cold
environment.  Even if a pure beam of T nuclei are accelerated toward a LiD
target in an accelerator, so few of the collisions are "head on" enough to
create fusion that almost all the T nuclei remain T nuclei after
dissipating their energy in numerous collisions. This reaction can only be
expected to maintain neutron flux in a hot masssive environment like the
sun, where neither the T nor the neutrons escape before reacting in the
sustained thermal energy environment.

A separate issue: even though the reactions you cite create energy, they do not
seem to approach anywhere near a COP to offset the inefficiency of
generating an input neutron beam.  You have not shown that it is
feasible to create a positive COP, that if you put in 10,000 KW you could
get 10,001 KW heat out.


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


cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.04 /  Tstolper@aol.c /  Publication of SOFE Demo?
     
Originally-From: Tstolper@aol.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Publication of SOFE Demo?
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 1995 23:26:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The successful demonstration of a Patterson cell at SOFE '95 was a landmark
event.

Are there any plans to publish the experiment in a peer-reviewed journal?

Tom Stolper

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenTstolper cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.03 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
Date: 3 Nov 1995 21:54:00 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <RrMmxkU.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> "Jonathan E. Jones" <jjones@ebs330.eb.uah.edu> writes:
>  
> By the way, when you and Steve and the True Believers in the cult of
> 6 = 500 get together, do you have some kind of rituals? Do you dance or
> hold animal sacrifices? Please send me a snapshot if you do.
>  

Actually, we shake our magic beads and holy water in an attempt to summon 
the spirit of free energy...but it never works :-)

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


cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.04 / Matt Austern /  Re: John N. White: GET A PUMP!!!
     
Originally-From: matt@cyclops5.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: John N. White: GET A PUMP!!!
Date: 04 Nov 1995 09:16:34 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley (computational neuroscience)

In article <browe-0311952224390001@10.0.2.15> browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) writes:

> This is getting a bit off topic and at the time I installed the pump I
> might have deserved the lable "incompetent" as an aquarist. As far as
> installation of the pump in violation of instructions, you are correct I
> did not violate instructions as there were none. The pump in question was
> not specifically designed for an aquarium. I am certain it was temperature
> that killed the fish as indicated by the aquarium thermometer. One of the
> problems with the installation was the tank was too small for the pump
> chosen. Later installation of the same pump with a much larger tank proved
> quite sucessful.

How do you know that you weren't observing cold fusion in your
aquarium?  You were, after all, seeing more heat than you would
ordinarily expect from your experimental configuration.

(And the reason that you didn't see cold fusion again when you
installed the pump in a different tank was, of course, that the
essential catalyst was one of your original fish.)
-- 
  Matt Austern                             He showed his lower teeth.  "We 
  matt@physics.berkeley.edu                all have flaws," he said, "and 
  http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt             mine is being wicked."
cudkeys:
cuddy04 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.03 / Steve Potter /  cmsg cancel <spotterDHGLtw.16H@netcom.com>
     
Originally-From: spotter@netcom.com (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <spotterDHGLtw.16H@netcom.com>
Date: 3 Nov 1995 22:20:28 GMT

Spam cancelled by clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenspotter cudfnSteve cudlnPotter cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.03 / Mark Burbidge /  Re: Pluton will spend more time now with www than with Internet
     
Originally-From: Mark@monark.ftech.co.uk (Mark Burbidge)
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: Re: Pluton will spend more time now with www than with Internet
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 1995 20:16:38 GMT
Organization: Frontier Internet Services

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

> I have found a new playground and well, my days on Usenet will now
>start to decline.
Aww, I'm sorry to hear that . . . .

> My postings will now diminish to whatever
>theory I am working on and the daily prayers.
Please feel free to devote ALL your time to your web adventures, I for
one will not be offended by this.

Have fun in web space - goodbye.

MB


M. Burbidge. Mark@Monark.ftech.co.uk  
For PGP key, Send Email with subject GET KEY
Reply should come within the day.
Fingerprint: 5F F8 CB D1 A8 A5 66 FE F1 D0 18 07 13 7B CD 6B
(If you've received this by email - it could be a courtesy copy
of a post to one of your posts. It could also be a private reply)

cudkeys:
cuddy03 cudenMark cudfnMark cudlnBurbidge cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.04 / Brian Jones /  Re: Pluton will spend more time now with www than with Internet
     
Originally-From: bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian D. Jones )
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: Re: Pluton will spend more time now with www than with Internet
Date: 4 Nov 1995 06:01:49 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <47bmpu$cr0@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes: 
>
> 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.

<chip>

>
>Archimedes Plutonium
>
<chop>



Pity those poor Web Browsers
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenbjon cudfnBrian cudlnJones cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.03 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: More Chemistry in the CETI cell?
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More Chemistry in the CETI cell?
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 1995 20:03:52 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <xFDGxC5.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

> 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

***{I would note that to speak of "insulating" with teflon tape and heat
sink compound is a virtual contradiction in terms. To "insulate" means to
block the transfer of heat, whereas heat sink compound is used explicitly
to facilitate the transfer of heat, and teflon tape (which, after all, is
used to coat the surfaces of frying pans) does likewise. Not knowing this,
some readers of this group may take the quoted statement to mean that the
*external* connections to the thermocouple were covered with teflon tape
and heat sink compound, while leaving the constantan surface in contact
with the electrolyte. (After all, it would be desirable to insulate the
thermocouple from the outside, to prevent the lower temperature of the
external environment from depressing the readings, whereas it would *not*
be desirable to insulate the thermocouple from contact with the fluid
stream.) In anticipation of this response, suffice it to say that the word
"insulate" was ill chosen in the quoted sentence, because teflon tape and
heat sink compound could not reasonably be used here unless the purpose
was to coat the internal surface of the probe to prevent corrosion of the
Cu-Ni alloy surface, exactly as you assumed. By the way, I vaguely recall
your saying at one point that redundant temperature measurements were
taken, using other types of temperature probes. Is this true? Or are we
relying entirely on the readings of the copper constantan probes?
--Mitchell Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy03 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.03 /  u7f01bf@sun2.l /  Re: Beta decay WITHOUT neutrino
     
Originally-From: u7f01bf@sun2.lrz-muenchen.de ()
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.accelerator
Subject: Re: Beta decay WITHOUT neutrino
Date: 3 Nov 1995 13:42:11 GMT
Organization: Leibniz-Rechenzentrum, Muenchen (Germany)



I like the title of your post very much, because I don't think
neutrinos are a very beautiful concept in theoretical physics
(that's where the inflation of particles started out), but may be
a necessary one.

>Applying some thermodynamics results, it is possible to
>forecast that the beta decay shall follow an other equation than (I) :
>                dE = (Ma.V^2).ln(Mb/Ma)       (II)

I would like this to be pointed out in more details

>Einstein's formula is unable to forcast the "bump" of the 
>experimental curve. 

What do you mean with that?
The electron and the neutrino divide their energy as two photons
would do, yielding a symmetric distribution in first approximation.
The asymmetric component is due to radiation damping.

>Therefore the "bump" is only related to the statistical 
>distribution of velocity for the reagent neutrons.

NO!

You should be aware  that it has been experimentally
demonstrated  by calorimetric methods that there are no 
secondary processes involved that could account for the missing 
energy (Meitner and Ortmann, 1927, and others).

The only possibility to avoid neutrinos is to postulate a PHOTON

n -----> p + e + gamma,

but this predicts a *continous* gamma-spectrum, what has NOT
been observed in the experiments cited above.
(By the way, I would really like to hear about a more recent
experiment that excludes the continous gamma-spectrum).

Best regards,

Alexander Unzicker

Institute for Medical Psychology
University of Munich, Germany

sascha@space.imp.med.uni-muenchen.de
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenu7f01bf cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.03 / 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: Fri, 03 Nov 1995 11:45:00 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <21cenlogic-0211951030350001@austin-1-9.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:

[snip]

> ***{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) 

***{Uh-oh, another glitch! That's 14 ml/min, not 14 ml/sec! --Mitchell Jones}***

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:
cuddy03 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.30 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 95 01:10:11 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Corporation

In article <46v75v$8gm@stratus.skypoint.net>,
   jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) wrote:
>Bob Sullivan (bsulliva@sky.net) wrote:
>: >: You are missing a critical point. The "efficiency" calculations for the 
>: >: Patterson cell involve adjustments to REDUCE the measured input and 
>: >: INCREASE  the measured output. 
>: >
>:JL >I'm not sure why you keep repeating this, but it simply is not true.  
The
>:JL >ICCF5 demo (and apparently the SOFE demo) did not use any gas loss 
>:JL >correctiont term, so this recombination explanation does not apply.
>
>
>: John. I'm going to have to call you on this statement, because I think the 
>: facts show otherwise. The source that I am using is Bill Page's writeup of
>: the Cravens ICCF5 demo which can be found on your web page. 
>
>Cravens gives three formulas.  One assumes 100% recombination and 100%
>thermal recovery (the most conservative.)  Another corrects for the
>known thermal loss (thermal efficiency.)  And yet another corrects for the
>gas loss (0% recombination.)
>
>However, we are only interested here in the most conservative formula
>which assumes 100% recombination and 100% thermal recovery.  Cravens'
>still got excess heat at about 4 times raw input power assuming these
>conservative values.


John, Let's deal for the moment with reports that occurred after the ICCF5 
demo. Nothing coming out of ICCF5 gave any indication of raw thermal output 
exceeding raw electrical input by any amount. If that had been the case, there 
would be no need to even get involved with the a debate about the level of 
recombination. Could it be that Cravens didn't seem to feel it was important 
to mention it or that ALL the observers at the conference failed to hear it. I 
find it much more plausible to believe that the graphs of Craven's demo in 
Bill Page's writeup are based on the "adjusted" calculations. Also, consider 
that a significant part of the Cravens writeup is devoted to the calibration 
procedures -- not really necessary if you're going to make the greatest report 
the in the history of the world.

Hal Fox's September issue of Fusion Facts where he claims "...this year of 
1995 is the year of commercialization of cold fusion" had this to say about 
the Cravens' ICCF5 demo: "The demonstration cell proved to be quite robust and 
was operational within a few minutes after setting up and turning on. 
Attendees could make their own measurements and calculate the excess heat 
produced. The excess heat ranged from two to eight times input electrical 
power, all without substantial emmission of neutrons."  That's all he he had 
to say about the demo.  Hal never misses a change to see cold fusion in any 
over-unity claim, so I don't see how he could have overlooked something as 
monumental as raw output exceeding raw input.

Even Jed has been fooled (for whatever evidentiary value that might have). In 
a recent e-mail to me, he said:  "There is no need to include the gas flow 
numbers in the computations; they are already included. They are covered in 
the subtraction for electrolysis."

>As Cravens' states in the Infinite Energy and Cold Fusion magazine articles,
>"The thermal power production exceeds the electrical input power even
>without the addition of the gas production or heat loss terms."


The question becomes at what levels of input were these results obtained? The 
high "efficiencies" seem to be tied to very small input values, and the 
adjusted "efficiencies" nosedive with increasing input. If the "heat after 
death" reports have any validity then all that would be necessary to get high 
ratios is to reduce the input and let Steven Jones "battery" effect take over. 
Fantastic ratios are possible in a disequilibrium situation. Could your quote 
have been taken out of context?


>Since example raw data is given in the article, anyone can redo the
>calculation with or without the correction factors.  The numerical
>results are then as I have just stated.


The cold fusion folklore is long on claims but short on verification. 
(Remember the Mizuno report of an output/input power ratio of 70,000.) 
However, feel free to post the numbers along with the heat balance 
calculations. The fair-use doctrine for critical analyses of written work 
covers short quotations.


>: Steven Jones argument is very compelling because it gives a plausible 
>: explanation of the "heat after death" claims, and it also provides an 
>: explanation for the relatively constant absolute level of "excess heat." 
The 
>: gas carryover at saturation will provide will provide a constant level of 
gas 
>: imput for recombination.
>
>Well, we've put a numerical limit on the recombination power.  Assuming
>the electrolyte can dissolve as much H2 as pure water, we now know that
>even at 100% recombination you can only deliver about 3 milliwatts per
>milliliter of electrolyte flow per minute.  The ICCF5 demo used about
>10 ml/min and the SOFE demo used 14.2 ml/min.  So that is 30 and 40mW
>respectively.  In one ICCF5 demo example listed in the article, there
>was 1.3 watts excess.  At SOFE we have 4-5 watts excess.  So recombination
>of stored H2 is off the mark by a factor of 43 for ICCF5 and 100 for SOFE.


I'll leave until later discussions of whether the 4-5 watts represents "excess 
output" or total output, and whether output means raw output or "adjusted" 
output -- there seems to be a lot of confusion in the TB community about the 
very important differences between these terms. 

I'll also leave until later discussions about whether the high heat output and 
the high "over unity" measurements were made under the same experimental 
conditions. There seems to be a propensity to combine the results of 
experiments in inappropriate ways. Let's say run A produced high heat and run 
B (with a different setup) produced high "efficiency." There's been a tendency 
to say the experiments yielded "high heat AND high efficiency" when "high heat 
OR high efficiency" would better describe what was measured.

I received a message not too long ago claiming that the problems with the 
temperature measurements involving crosstalk between the cell voltage and the 
thermocouples has just been solved. I am guessing that this did not occur in 
time for SOFE. What about the reports that the SOFE demo was done by an 
unsupervised group of students? 

Gee whiz, there seem to be all sorts of unresolved questions about the SOFE 
demo. It may prudent to clear some of them up before we declare victory for 
the Patterson cell.

Getting back to your point about the solubility of hydrogen in pure water, 
you've only addressed recombination from gases flowing through the exterior 
loop. You've not addressed recombination of gases generated and recombined 
within the cell without passing through the external loop.

I'll leave it to others to address whether the solubility of hydrogen and 
oxygen in lithium sulfate is different from the solubility in pure water or 
whether there is some catalytic reaction involving lithium sulfate that could 
provide an additional "battery" effect.

Jed recent added some interesting comments that may have some bearing on the 
recombination issue:

	During the SOFE panel discussion Dennis Cravens said that during
	high power tests he has to replenish at the rate of about 10 ml per
	week with pure distilled water. You do not have to add salts (lithium) 
	again. 10 ml is not much compared to the 200 ml reservior, so the 
	lithum concentration does not change much and resistance stays about 
	the same.

I know the 10 milliliter per week figure is current dependent, but with the 
range of currents under discussion, how does this tip the scales in the 
recombination discussion?
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.02 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 95 02:20:34 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Corporation

In article <474r1i$6au@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
   vcockeram@aol.com (VCockeram) wrote:
>In article <JDEnB6n.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com
>writes:
>
>>MARSHALL DUDLEY <mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com> writes:
>> 
>>>I think that Jones could be correct that the excess energy in the SOFE
>'95
>>>cell could be from recombination. But I think those who are arguing he
>is
>>wrong
>>>are barking up the wrong tree. The problems that Jed and others have
>pointed
>>>out with his argument are so obvious, I can't believe that is what he
>was
>>>trying to say.  As Jed says .06 and 5 are no where near the same
>magnitude
>>and
>>>I cannot believe a physics professor could have that hard a time
>grasping
>>>magnitudes.
>> 
>
>I also carefully read Dr. Jones's post and I too am amazed at the apparent
>disregard
>of the published numbers of Ein to Eout. You do not have to be a rocket
>scientist to realize that the heat output is _far_ more than can be
>explained by recombination.
>I am glad to see that these latest experiments have at last disregarded
>the loss of electrolysis and published the most conservative numbers of
>Eout. 
>
>lurking in las vegas,                         Vince


Go to John Logajan's homepage

http://www.skypoint.com:80/members/jlogajan/

and download the Bruce Klein analysis of the Patterson cell. Work through the 
calculations. Calculate the cell running (i.e., producing "excess heat") 
efficiencies _without_adjustment_ (~30%) and compare them the efficiencies of 
the calibration run (~30%). 1.0 Watt in --> 0.3 Watts out. Now tell us if you 
still believe the published Ein and Eout numbers represent what they purport 
to represent.
cudkeys:
cuddy02 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Nov  5 04:37:07 EST 1995
------------------------------
