1995.11.04 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 1995 10:44:09 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <475r3f$c2a@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry
Merriman) wrote:

> In article <473hdv$nc2@sundog.tiac.net> conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H
Conover)  
> writes:
> > 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}***
> > 
> 
> Gee, Mitch, you wouldn't have happened to have had a negative educational
> experience, now, would you?
> 
> 
> --
> Barry Merriman
> UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
> UCLA Dept. of Math
> bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)

Barry, so long as the state is involved in education, negative experiences
will continue to be the norm. When the state is involved, consumer
feedback is absent: you don't get to take your money elsewhere, when an
institution is tax funded. Result: they don't give a damn whether the
customer is satisfied with the product or not. Instead, the product is
designed to serve the interests of the state and the elite of parasites
who control it. This means "education" becomes an instrument of
propaganda, in which the primary objective in all areas is to indoctrinate
those with pliable minds and to discredit and marginalize those who do not
have pliable minds. To this end, one central instrumentality is absolutely
necessary: the students must *not* have time to think about, analyze, and
criticize the material. The reason: the "material" is, in important ways,
a tissue of lies that is intended to serve the interests of those who ride
on the backs of the people. As such, it cannot withstand critical
scrutiny. Result: professors, virtually without exception, embrace the
expedient of overwhelming their victims with a flood tide of material, so
that it becomes literally impossible, in the time allotted, for anyone to
retain all or most of it with understanding. The results are twofold: (1)
superficial rote memorizers, who learn without understanding and believe
whatever they are told to believe, earn top marks, receive advanced
degrees, and move into high paying and influential positions from which
they can effectively serve the interests of the parasitic elite; and (2)
those who cannot, or will not, absorb information which they do not
understand earn mediocre grades, or "flunk out," and are relegated to a
marginalized, disempowered "working class" where they are forced to spend
their lives producing goods for the benefit and enjoyment of the ruling
classes. 

There are, of course, exceptions to this basic logical paradigm. There are
still a few private schools where students have time to think critically
about the material and develop deep understanding and real competencies.
And there are a few professors, even at the state schools, who resist the
pressures to propagandize and indoctrinate. And there are a few students
who, by various techniques, manage to acquire real competencies and avoid
the indoctrination. But these exceptions do not define the system:
instead, they harken back to the way the system used to be, before the
advent of state funding, and point the way forward to the way things ought
to be, and can be again. Unfortunately, the lesson of history is that
parasitic systems do not end via peaceful reform: they end by collapse.
Parasitic elites respond to attempts at reform by sabotage. They use every
means available to deceive the population and, since the population will
be thoroughly "dumbed down" by the time the system enters its terminal
crisis, meaningful reform never seems to take place. Instead, virtually
without exception, reform efforts are vitiated by compromise, and the
parasitism continues until the formerly rich and free society is pushed
over the brink into social disintegration and economic collapse. This
result has repeated itself so many times that it appears to be a virtual
law of history, and the ongoing barrage of blather without substantive
action from the current crop of self-styled "reformers" in Washington
shows no evidence that it will fail to repeat itself here. The windbags
will talk on, while doing nothing important, until the system's resources
are exhausted and a collapse occurs. Those who expect any other outcome
are living in a dream world.     

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy04 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.04 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Heat pumps cannot explain the SOFE demo.
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat pumps cannot explain the SOFE demo.
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 1995 11:13:36 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <478egg$h1i@news.iadfw.net>, bsnyder@iadfw.net wrote:

> In message <DHD2x4.6MJ@news.cern.ch>, msevior@axnd02.cern.ch (Martin
> Sevior) wrote:
> 
> 
> [calculations snipped]
> 
> >We have to conclude that no heat pump can explain the SOFE demo.
> 
> >Note that this is a robust result. If the pressure drop across the
> >pump was 1 ATM (to drive 1 drop of water per second!), the heat pump
> >hypthesis would fail by about a factor of 5.
> >If for the some reason we have to count the 60 milliwatt current through
> >the cell as energy for the heat pump, the hypothesis still fails.
> 
> I wouldn't be too sure about that if I were you.  All this computation
> of the "pump input power" from the pressure differential and flow
> really looks like a red herring.  If this is a peristaltic pump (as
> several people have stated

***{Baloney. Nobody stated any such thing. John White raised the
*possibility* that a peristaltic pump was being used, in a contrived
attempt to sustain a ridiculous thesis. I pointed out the absurdity of
such a supposition, and Jed then settled the matter by noting that the
pump connections were such that the fluid stream came into direct contact
with the pump mechanism--which means: a peristaltic pump was *not* used.
--Mitchell Jones}***

), you must also take into account that the
> tubing is being repeatedly flexed.  I suspect that
> "mechanical/thermal" input from the pump dwarfs "pressure/thermal."

***{As has already been pointed out, peristaltic pumps are primarily used
to pump fluids into and out of human beings, in a medical context. They
would be unuseable if they significantly increased the temperatures of the
fluids they pump. (Blood components are destroyed by relatively small
increases in temperature.) --Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
> --
>   -- Bill Snyder       [ This space unintentionally left blank. ]

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy04 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.05 / Harry Conover /  Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
Date: 5 Nov 1995 15:41:02 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

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

Mitch, I'd suggest you re-read the question that I responded to -- It
asked only about the mechanisms through which energy fed to the pump
motor is transferred to the fluid stream.  Quite obviously, the 
heat transfer mechanisms I've listed do exist.

These may, or may not be, relevent to the claimed effect.  My post
made no effort to address this possibility however, it should be
clear to anyone with even a small degree of technical skill that
before 'excess' output can be declared, ALL of the energy input to
the system must be accounted for.  This has not been accomplished.

Remember, at the SYSTEM level, 5+Watts is being input, and 5W output
is being observed.  Until ALL of the energy is accounted for, any 
claims for an excess must be regarded as simply empty speculation.
Also, please remember that in science, a measurement means BOTH the
observed value and its EXPERIMENTAL UNCERTAINTY.  Without BOTH
parameters, an experiment reveals absolutely nothing!

Mitch, read the thread more carefully next time, before you proceed
to again answer the wrong question.

                                    Harry C.



 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.05 / Bill Snyder /  Re: Heat pumps cannot explain the SOFE demo.
     
Originally-From: bsnyder@iadfw.net (Bill Snyder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat pumps cannot explain the SOFE demo.
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 1995 04:51:05 GMT
Organization: Internet America

In message <21cenlogic-0411951113360001@austin-1-3.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:


>***{Baloney. Nobody stated any such thing. John White raised the
>*possibility* that a peristaltic pump was being used, in a contrived
>attempt to sustain a ridiculous thesis. I pointed out the absurdity of
>such a supposition, and Jed then settled the matter by noting that the
>pump connections were such that the fluid stream came into direct contact
>with the pump mechanism--which means: a peristaltic pump was *not* used.
>--Mitchell Jones}***

Tsk, you tempt me to say something a bit stronger than just "baloney."
I'm afraid your "deny anything a skeptic says" mechanism is running
away from you.  Let me point out that 1) Jed Rothwell has said that
some of the Cravens/Patterson runs use medical pumps; 2) He has
further said -- with the usual vagueness -- that some less-expensive
pump is sometimes used, but has identified it as still being of the
positive-displacement variety.  Now, the positive-displacement designs
that this dumb engineer knows of, other than the peristaltic type, all
have sliding seals.  In plain language, Mr. Jones, that means they can
be expected to generate  *more* internal heat due to mechanical
inefficiency than a peristaltic pump.

I was hoping to get a rise out of  at least one of the TB's with this,
but I must admit you exceeded my wildest dreams.  Do you write fiction
outside this newsgroup as well?

>***{As has already been pointed out, peristaltic pumps are primarily used
>to pump fluids into and out of human beings, in a medical context. They
>would be unuseable if they significantly increased the temperatures of the
>fluids they pump. (Blood components are destroyed by relatively small
>increases in temperature.) --Mitchell Jones}*** 

Yes indeedy, I have often noticed that every time I run a fever, my
blood turns to powder.  Perhaps you'd like to be just a *little* more
specific about  what "significantly increased" and "relatively small
increases" might be?  Moreover, you seem to be claiming that  the
fluid is always heated to 98.6 or higher before it goes through the
pump, for otherwise a rise in temperature might bring it *nearer* to
normal body temp.  Like to make a small wager on whether that is in
fact the case?

Nice try at obfuscation, Mr. Jones, but I'm afraid we're all out of
cigars at the moment.  Better luck next time.

--
  -- Bill Snyder       [ This space unintentionally left blank. ]

cudkeys:
cuddy05 cudenbsnyder cudfnBill cudlnSnyder cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.04 / David Gaskill /  Re: Steve Jones cries wolf
     
Originally-From: david@cgaski.u-net.com (David Gaskill)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Steve Jones cries wolf
Date: 4 Nov 1995 23:30:12 GMT
Organization: u-net limited


I have been following this news group for some months now with great interest 
not least because of the high standard of invective. As a mere engineer whose 
total knowledge of cold fusion comes from reading the group and its references 
I have hesitated  to throw in my three penny worth. However, even  at the risk 
of getting flamed to a cinder, I cannot resist contributing to the discussion on 
the SOFE demonstration.   
  
It seems to me on the basis of the figures presented that Mr. Rothwell's, 
(forgive me if I have the title wrong), rejection of the recombination 
hypothesis cannot  be disputed . I am less certain, due to lack of data which I 
may well have missed, about the destination of the energy input from the pump 
most of which, it seems to me would end up in being converted to heat as the 
electrolite passes  through the beads.   
  
Be that as it may, there seems to be a simple test that could disprove, once 
and for all the contention that the excess heat is produced by either 
recombination or mechanical input.   
  
Turn of the (very small) current flowing through the cell.   
 
If the temperature differential measured across the cell falls rapidly than the 
excess energy must have been been generated by a hitherto unknown process. If 
it doesn't...   
  
Or am I missing something? 


David

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudendavid cudfnDavid cudlnGaskill cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.05 / Martin Sevior /  Re: Heat pumps cannot explain the SOFE demo.
     
Originally-From: msevior@axnd02.cern.ch (Martin Sevior)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat pumps cannot explain the SOFE demo.
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 03:35:02 GMT
Organization: CERN European Lab for Particle Physics

bsnyder@iadfw.net (Bill Snyder) writes:

>In message <DHD2x4.6MJ@news.cern.ch>, msevior@axnd02.cern.ch (Martin
>Sevior) wrote:



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

>>Note that this is a robust result. If the pressure drop across the
>>pump was 1 ATM (to drive 1 drop of water per second!), the heat pump
>>hypthesis would fail by about a factor of 5.
>>If for the some reason we have to count the 60 milliwatt current through
>>the cell as energy for the heat pump, the hypothesis still fails.

>I wouldn't be too sure about that if I were you.  All this computation
>of the "pump input power" from the pressure differential and flow
>really looks like a red herring.  If this is a peristaltic pump (as
>several people have stated), you must also take into account that the
>tubing is being repeatedly flexed.  I suspect that
>"mechanical/thermal" input from the pump dwarfs "pressure/thermal."

>--
>  -- Bill Snyder       [ This space unintentionally left blank. ]

An interesting point. If indeed there was mechanical energy expended to
compress the electrolyte, that would have to counted in the energy input.
However, given the incompressibility of water, my GUESS is that this
is quite small since work = Force * distance. The distance allowed by
the water's compressibility is very small, thus limiting this source
of energy input. Feel free to quantify this.
I'll also try to put numbers on this possible energy input after I get
my hands on the old CRC.  

Martin Sevior
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenmsevior cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.04 / 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: Sat, 04 Nov 1995 11:36:01 -0800
Organization: AltNet

In article <47fbc4$paq@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, vcockeram@aol.com
(VCockeram) wrote:

>In article <browe-0311952224390001@10.0.2.15>, browe@netcom.com (Bill
>Rowe) writes:
>
>>
>>The point is, it is more than theorectically possible to heat water a few
>>degrees with a pump. This doesn't mean this is the explanation for the
>>SOFE demo
>
>Right!!!  At last!!!   Because all the readers of this forum should know
>by now 
>that the temperature in the cell inlet would have shown _any_ heat added
>to the 
>system by the pump.  I'm glad that ones finally been put to rest.

Actually, I have put nothing to rest here. The fact that I can get a
temperature increase with a pump installed in an aquarium says nothing
about what did happen with the SOFE demo. The SOFE demo is clearly
uncorrelated with any pump I installed in my aquarium.
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"
cudkeys:
cuddy04 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.05 / David Taylor /  Re: Serious flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95 demo)
     
Originally-From: dct@vii.com (David C. Taylor)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Serious flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95 demo)
Date: 5 Nov 1995 17:59:29 GMT
Organization: Vyzynz

What about integrating the power in and power out measurements over the 
life of the cell?  Of course, you would have to continue the 
measurements after the cell was deactivated until the gas content of 
the liquid in the cell was identical to the start point.

dct (a confused, if not very long term lurker)

BTW, is Paul Koloc still around?  I haven't been in the group for about 
a year.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudendct cudfnDavid cudlnTaylor cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.04 / 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: Sat, 04 Nov 1995 11:56:33 -0800
Organization: AltNet

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

>Bill Rowe <browe@netcom.com> writes:
> 
>>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 input is not exactly electricity per se. It is the electrochemical force
>caused by electricity which pushes the hydrogen into the metal.

I think you are picking a nit here. The point is the 20mA flowing in the
cell is electricity for which you paid the power company. Also, if this is
ever going to be successful commercially you will have to consider the
entire energy bill whether or not that energy directly contributes to your
output. Hence, it is useful to know how much is needed for the pump which
was the original point.
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"
cudkeys:
cuddy04 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.04 / 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: Sat, 04 Nov 1995 11:39:59 -0800
Organization: AltNet

In article <MATT.95Nov4011634@cyclops5.berkeley.edu>,
matt@physics.berkeley.edu wrote:

>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.)

Damn. Missed my chance at fame and fortune again. I am going to have to
remember not to accept the obvious explanation and discard useful data. Oh
well.
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"
cudkeys:
cuddy04 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.04 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: A TB smear
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A TB smear
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 1995 16:23:32 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <9511021814.AA32039@kemi.aau.dk>, 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

***{Translated: the "cold fusion" skeptics have been outgunned, and are
headed for the tall grass. It's real sad! --Mitchell Jones}***

; but this is a bit under the belt and requires
> a response from someone other than Steve Jones.
> 
> Kurt Johmann joins the chorus of TB's, who with some cleverness with words,
> manage to turn the skeptics' arguments back on the skeptics; a clever
> device, maybe, but merely semantic. So we skeptics become "TB skeptics" and
> now, even "cranks", for refusing to believe patently unsound pseudoscience.

***{Dieter, I regret that the situation has deteriorated to the point
where motives and intellectual honesty are being openly questioned.
However, I suggest that you guys (i.e., so called CF "skeptics") have only
yourselves to blame. The reason: by exhibiting block headed
unreasonableness, you have forced your opponents to seek non-rational
explanations for your behavior. After all, the rational--and moral--thing
to do when your arguments collapse, is to abandon  your position. And,
granted, a few of you have done that. (But, of course, those guys aren't
"skeptics" any longer!) However, for those of you who still cling
stubbornly to your untenable position and refer to your opponents as
adherents to "patently unsound pseudoscience," a strong dose of moral
criticism is in order! Concerning the specifics of Kurt Johmann's post, I
would add that all he has done is state openly what a lot of us were
already thinking in the privacy of our own minds. --Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
> >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?

***{Referring to Steve Jones as a crank in this context is wonderful! You
guys have been referring to proponents of "cold fusion" as cranks for
years, and it is high time you were on the receiving end of the sorts of
criticisms you have wantonly directed at others! Believe me, guys: it's
going to get worse! Your attempts to maintain the barricades against this
new energy source have collapsed, and the longer you continue to deny the
obvious, the more people are going to begin to see the deceit, the vested
interests, and the irrationality behind your masks of scientific
objectivity. --Mitchell Jones}***
 
> >Here is my analysis:
> 
> >The facts:
> 
> >1) Jones insists on recombination as the explanation of the Patterson
> >Power Cell. But better (or more honest) minds than his (John Logajan)
> >bust his fallacies with ease, showing Jones' explanation to fail by
> >two orders of magnitude.
> 
> >2) In spite of such repeated corrections, Jones stands firm (like a
> >true crank).
> 
> Perhaps Steve Jones is persistent in this because his name is linked with it
> and he cares about science. His recombination argument doesn't fail; it fails
> only in those cases where the total excess power claimed does indeed exceed
> the total input power. Many excess power claims use a definition of it that
> make Steve Jones' argument very relevant. 

***{Irrelevant. Jones got himself into deep doodoo because he continued,
far past the point of reasonableness, to claim that recombination could
explain the SOFE and Cravens results. In a recent post, which raises as
many new questions as it answers, he has backed off--sort of. However,
there remains too much ambiguity, and too much backing and filling, to
excuse his behavior. He is going to have to publicly and unambiguously
admit to his errors before most of us will again be willing to pay much
attention to his opinions. --Mitchell Jones}***

 And he has thrown a spanner in the
> works of Mills type open cells, by showing that when you bubble an inert gas
> through it, the apparent excess heat goes away. I am aware that there are
> arguments to counter this, within the "anomalous heat" framework, but the
> point requires notice and an experimental response, not jeers. 

***{To repeat: the jeers are coming in response to the public exhibition,
by Jones and other skeptics, of obtuse, blockheaded, and wildly
unreasonable behavior, and it is going to get worse for each and every
skeptic who continues to pretend that the arguments against "cold fusion"
are not in ruins. And this applies to you, too, Dieter: the days are over
when you can sit back with impunity and refer to these results as
"patently unsound pseudoscience." Your position is in ruins, old buddy!
It's time to wake up and smell the coffee! --Mitchell Jones}***

The only
> thing one can charge Steve Jones with, in connection with his recombination
> argument, is that he is rather too silent on those cases where it fails. 

***{Too silent! Ha! The problem is that, until very recently, he has
proclaimed from the rooftops its applicability to precisely those cases!
Result: it would be unreasonable to say that he has egg on his face, for
the plain truth is that he is covered with egg from head to foot!
--Mitchell Jones}***

On
> the whole, recombination should be included in experimenters' list of suspect
> causes of error, not simply dismissed with clever abuse. I remind, once again,
> of Paneth and Peters, who themselves looked for their own error (causing an
> apparent generation of helium) and found it, instead of leaving it up to
> others to find it. That is how a scientist ought to work, not by staunchly
> insisting that his/her result must be correct and abusing skeptics.

***{True enough. To avoid looking like a jackass, the ticket is to accept
the truth and admit to it, even if you don't like it. It is good advice
for you, for Steve Jones, and for all the other CF skeptics. You guys may
think it is a crying shame, but there are no guaranteed winners when you
argue. Sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes the bear eats you!
--Mitchell Jones}***  
> 
> >Some additional facts that may be relevant:
> 
> >3) Jones is a physics professor at Brigham Young University in Utah,
> >and his sole claim to fame is his early connection with the CF
> >announcement by Pons and Fleischmann. At the time, Jones claimed to
> >have done a similar experiment that showed cold fusion effects, but at
> >much lower power levels than P&F were claiming.
> 
> What do you, Kurt Johmann, know about Steve Jones' claims to fame? This is
> pure rhetoric. I could equally say that you have no claims to fame, because
> I have never heard of you at all. You are overlooking Steve Jones' work on
> muon catalysed fusion (the real cold fusion, verified and repeatable), for
> which he is well enough known, I am sure. But: does he need to be famous to
> be credible? If so, what about Kurt Johmann?

***{Kurt's statement sounds reasonable to me. "Fame" refers to widespread
name recognition, which came to Jones because of his early connection to
the CF announcement, not from his work on muon catalyzed fusion. And Kurt
didn't say that Jones needed to be famous to be credible. All Jones needs
to do, to begin to restore his credibility, is to unambiguously back away
from claims that have been proven to be false. Based on his track record
so far, however, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to happen.
--Mitchell Jones}***  
> 
> >4) In his recent book (I forget the title) Gary Taubes documented as
> >fact a charge that has plagued Jones from the beginning of his
> >entrance into the public spotlight: Jones had stolen the CF
> >electrolysis idea from a P&F funding-request proposal which he had
> >read several years before. (Jones, of course, has always denied this
> >charge; but when I read Gary Taubes' material on it, I thought Steve
> >Jones looked about as innocent as O.J. Simpson: unless Jones can get
> >people to believe that Mark Furhman (or some equivalent) framed him,
> >he's probably guilty.)
> 
> This is interesting. Taubes' book has been reviled by the 'cold fusion' TB's
> as a travesty of a book, a smear of all honest 'cold fusion' workers, etc.
> Here, however, he has written something our TB likes, and it is taken up with
> glee. So how about it: is Taubes credible, or is he not? Or is he, quite by
> chance, credible only in those bits where he lays into skeptics of 'cold
> fusion'? 

***{Dieter, you are being ridiculous! By the standard of evidence you are
applying, no piece of information could ever be used to support a
conclusion unless the source of that information were an absolutely
perfect human being in every way. This is, in fact, precisely the standard
of proof that is routinely and blatantly employed by those who deny the
Holocaust. It doesn't matter to them how many volumes are filled with
eyewitness testimony, because each eyewitness is a fallable human being,
and invariably makes a misstatement somewhere. The dedicated denier just
searches until he finds such a misstatement, shouts "Aha!" and then tosses
all of the man's testimony out! Reasonable people, on the other hand, are
willing to sort through testimony and use logic to accept some parts and
reject others. Bottom line: it isn't a simple question of whether Taubes
is or isn't credible. The world is more complicated than that. (By the
way, Dieter: do you, perchance, deny the Holocaust? Just curious.)
--Mitchell Jones}***

What do the other books say? And have you not read what Steve Jones
> has said and posted on this subject? This is really quite underhand. Steve
> Jones is perhaps a little overzealous in his persuit of 'cold fusion' claims
> and in his public dissociation from the subject; but he has always behaved
> honorably throughout the affair and he has usefully cleared up several
> problems, including the role of recombination, and especially the pitfalls
> in low-intensity neutron measurement, where he has invalidated all neutron
> claims - including his own (shades of Paneth and Peters).

***{I agree that Steve Jones' posts are useful, if only for their utility
in exposing the myth of academic competence. It would be a shame if he and
other professorial bubbleheads were to stop posting in this group. The
world needs to know what they are, and no better route to that end exists
than for them to attempt to defend, in public, the arrant nonsense that
they are teaching to our children. --Mitchell Jones}***

> 
> [... Pschological profile of Steve Jones omitted ...]
> 
> >All this is just my opinion, of course, and I may be wrong. You can
> >read the Taubes book on Steve Jones and form your own conclusions.
> 
> Yes, you are wrong; you can read the other books, like those of Close,
> Huizenga, Mallove, and get quite a different picture of the man.
> 
> -- Dieter Britz  alias  britz@kemi.aau.dk

***{Nice try, Dieter, but you don't get a cigar. --Mitchell Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy04 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.04 /  Filip Wolanski /  Need books ...
     
Originally-From: Filip Wolanski
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Need books ...
Date: 4 Nov 1995 21:45:15 GMT
Organization: McGill University Computing Centre

Dear Reader;
	Can anyone list me some great books on fusion for an kid that has just graduated 
high school.
						Thank you for your time,
							Filip Wolanski
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.04 / Serge L /  Re: Tokamak
     
Originally-From: "Serge L Voronov" <voronov@nrsun.jinr.dubna.su>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tokamak
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 95 14:15:39 +0300
Organization: FLNR, JINR


ksmcdona@acs.ucalgary.ca writes:
>Just wondering if anyone could post a good schematic of a Tokamak
>fusion reactor. 
>

The scheme of transformer.
rgds,
Serge Voronov.

cudkeys:
cuddy04 cudenvoronov cudfnSerge cudlnL cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.03 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Incredibly stupid comments from Jones & Sullivan
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Incredibly stupid comments from Jones & Sullivan
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 95 21:23:50 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Bill Rowe <browe@netcom.com> writes:
 
>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 input is not exactly electricity per se. It is the electrochemical force
caused by electricity which pushes the hydrogen into the metal. You can
use some other method of loading the metal, like gas loading, or ultrasound
loading. (Of course, with gas loading the pumps are run by electricity but
I suppose theoretically you could use a manual pump!) My point is that there
is no simple one-to-one relationship between the electricity and the heat
output. A CF device does not act as an amplifier in any sense. Because of that
fact, there is no reason to think we cannot achieve extremely high overall
input to output ratios. Indeed, Mizuno has demonstrated 1:50,000. Pons and
Fleischmann and others have demonstrated infinitely high ratios; no input,
lots of output, in heat after death.
 
As for converting the heat back into electricity, in a scaled up device that
is a trivial engineering problem.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.03 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Pumping Heat (Re: Proposed explaination of CETI effect)
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pumping Heat (Re: Proposed explaination of CETI effect)
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 95 21:25:37 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

ZoltanCCC <zoltanccc@aol.com> writes:
 
>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?
 
Right outside the cell, in the uninsulated plastic pipes. The water cools
down even before it gets back to the reservoir.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.03 / Ann Tekatch /  Cold Fusion: Energy dissipation by high energy spin coupling?
     
Originally-From: Ann Tekatch <a7503934@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion: Energy dissipation by high energy spin coupling?
Date: 3 Nov 1995 04:03:54 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)

FROM: Bill Tekatch <a7503934@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca>

Some radioactive isotopes decay by isomeric transition
from upper to a lower isomeric state.  This gave me
the idea that perhaps the energy released by the fusion
that may take place in the cold fusion process, is
initially held in a single particle of unusually high
spin.  I have never heard of anything like a super-spin
electron.  If such a strange particle were to form,
would it not quickly dissipate its excess energy
by coupling of its strong magnetic field into the
surrounding medium?  Such coupling may occur so that
no gamma or other particles are formed. I suspect
that a super-spin proton is more likely because
the high energy electron may generate electron-positron
pairs and cause annihilation radiation which has never
been reported.

Sincerely,
Bill Tekatch 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudena7503934 cudfnAnn cudlnTekatch cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.04 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Pons/Fleischmann Patent to Be Granted in Eur.
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pons/Fleischmann Patent to Be Granted in Eur.
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 1995 17:28:02 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Could you or someone please post the patent to a WWW site when it goes 
public?
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
                 Change the tools and you change the rules.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.03 / 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: Fri, 03 Nov 1995 22:23:59 -0800
Organization: AltNet

In article <21cenlogic-0311951124580001@austin-1-12.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:

>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.
>
>***{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}***

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.

The point is, it is more than theorectically possible to heat water a few
degrees with a pump. This doesn't mean this is the explanation for the
SOFE demo. Jed's comments about not getting heating with external pumps in
aquaria may well reflect his experience. However, it is possible to get
heating with the pump and does happen.
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"
cudkeys:
cuddy03 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.04 /  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: 4 Nov 1995 01:56:50 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <4799ti$b4c_001@ip046.sky.net>, bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
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. 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.
>
>

Well Bob, .06 watt in and about 5 out uncorrected seems like excess to me.

lurking in las vegas                         Vince
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenvcockeram cudlnVCockeram cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.04 /  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: 4 Nov 1995 01:56:50 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <x5MG5vH.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com
writes:

>>------>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.
> 
>- 
OK  I'll give this a try Jed, but I'm working from your discriptions of
the SOFE demo
and this art is only my interpetation so cut me some slack if I'm wrong.
Thanks.



|        
|<------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------<|
|         |                                                               
                           |
|   R    |                                                                
                          |
|         |                                                               
                           |
|_____|--->{PUMP}--->{FILTER}---X--->Tin-{CELL}-Tout--->{GASTRAP}--|
     
     R=ELECTROLYTE RESEVOUR                                  
     X=FLOWMETER
     GASTRAP. Effluent gasses are measured
     TOTAL  LIQUID VOLUME OF DEMO=200 ml  in resevour,pump,
             filter,flowmeter,cell,gastrap and tubing.
     FLOW RATE=14.2 ml/minute
     POWER IN=.06 watts
     POWER OUT=5 watts + -.5 watt
     Tin  and  Tout= Temperature measurement devices.
I hope I've got this right people. Please excuse the spelling errors.

lurking in las vegas                          Vince                       
     
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenvcockeram cudlnVCockeram cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.03 / Steve Potter /  809-474-7607 ! Local Voice Personals/Live Chat! Code1329
     
Originally-From: spotter@netcom.com (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 809-474-7607 ! Local Voice Personals/Live Chat! Code1329
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 14:49:41 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

You must be 18 years of age or older.  As low as $0.23/min

Available 24 hours a day!

ALL LIFESTYLES welcome


sci.physics.fusion
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenspotter cudfnSteve cudlnPotter cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.05 / Gregory Bishop /  Come on guys, CF is dead.  Get a life.
     
Originally-From: gregfish@ix.netcom.com (Gregory Bishop )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Come on guys, CF is dead.  Get a life.
Date: 5 Nov 1995 01:49:58 GMT
Organization: Netcom

How much did P&F steal when they skipped the country anyway?

There never was CF.  It's a joke, don't you get it yet?

-Greg

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudengregfish cudfnGregory cudlnBishop cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.04 /  VCockeram /  Re: John N. White: GET A PUMP!!!
     
Originally-From: vcockeram@aol.com (VCockeram)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: John N. White: GET A PUMP!!!
Date: 4 Nov 1995 04:22:12 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

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

>
>The point is, it is more than theorectically possible to heat water a few
>degrees with a pump. This doesn't mean this is the explanation for the
>SOFE demo

Right!!!  At last!!!   Because all the readers of this forum should know
by now 
that the temperature in the cell inlet would have shown _any_ heat added
to the 
system by the pump.  I'm glad that ones finally been put to rest.

lurking in las vegas                          Vince
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenvcockeram cudlnVCockeram cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.04 /  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: 4 Nov 1995 04:22:55 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <47f2ri$l0d@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, vcockeram@aol.com
(VCockeram) writes:

>
>
>
>|        
>|<-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>---------------<|
>|         |                                                              

>                           |
>|   R    |                                                               

>                          |
>|         |                                                              

>                           |
>|_____|--->{PUMP}--->{FILTER}---X--->Tin-{CELL}-Tout--->{GASTRAP}--|
>     
>     R=ELECTROLYTE RESEVOUR                                  
>     X=FLOWMETER
>     GASTRAP. Effluent gasses are measured
>     TOTAL  LIQUID VOLUME OF DEMO=200 ml  in resevour,pump,
>             filter,flowmeter,cell,gastrap and tubing.
>     FLOW RATE=14.2 ml/minute
>     POWER IN=.06 watts
>     POWER OUT=5 watts + -.5 watt
>     Tin  and  Tout= Temperature measurement devices.
>I hope I've got this right people. Please excuse the spelling errors.
>
>lurking in las vegas                          Vince                      

>     
>
>
>

Oh jeez. My (art) came back looking like...well I wont say it, but it's
BAD!! 
Let me try to correct it....one more try.

        
|        
|<------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------|
|   R    |                                                                
                 |
|         |                                                               
                   |
|_____|->{PUMP}->{FILTER}--X-->Tin-{CELL}-Tout->{GASTRAP}--|
     
    R=ELECTROLYTE RESEVOUR                                  
    X=FLOWMETER
    GASTRAP. Effluent gasses are measured
    TOTAL  LIQUID VOLUME OF DEMO=200 ml  in resevour,pump,
             filter,flowmeter,cell,gastrap and tubing.
     FLOW RATE=14.2 ml/minute
     POWER IN=.06 watts
     POWER OUT=5 watts + -.5 watt
     Tin  and  Tout= Temperature measurement devices.

I see what you mean about ASCII drawing being a pain in the butt.probably
my last.
I hope this one werks.

lurking in las vegas                          Vince
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenvcockeram cudlnVCockeram cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.04 /  VCockeram /  Re: A TB smear
     
Originally-From: vcockeram@aol.com (VCockeram)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A TB smear
Date: 4 Nov 1995 19:33:50 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <21cenlogic-0411951623320001@austin-2-7.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:

>***{Nice try, Dieter, but you don't get a cigar. --Mitchell Jones}***
>
>

    I think one of the most unfortunate things in this entire debate is
the term
"Cold Fusion". This was taken by many (including me!) in the beginning
back
in 1989 to mean that there was "nuclear fusion" occurring in the
experiments.
If conventionally accepted nuclear fusion was happening then products of
fusion
would be seen. For the most part, this isn't seen. But the term "Cold
Fusion" stuck.
The skeptics have to and must realize that "Fusion" in the context of
describing
excess heat producing experiments is _just a name_, not a supposed nuclear
process. I have no idea at this stage of the game just what it _really
is_. But
it's gotta be something new and to me, quite exciting. To me, cold fusion
is just
a label, a tag that a couple of guys stuck on a bubbling cell in Utah
because
they had no idea what was going on. They saw heat beyond the limits of
chemistry and that _must_ be nuclear and so the process was branded
"fusion".
Fusion it may be but if it is, it is an entirely process without the known
products.
So, Professor Jones, please _ignore_ the "fusion" label and look at this
as a
"something" that produces excess heat over input power, beyond chemistry,
beyond recombination and try investigating what is going on. 

lurking in las vegas since 1989         Vince

P.S. Personally, I liked the Mills-Farrell et al  explaination that was
posted
Monday 11, November 1991 at 20:25:59 GMT to sci.physics.fusion.
Hello Professor Farrell, any progress?             Vince












cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenvcockeram cudlnVCockeram cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.04 / A Plutonium /  Re: Pluton will spend more time now with www than with 
     
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: Re: Pluton will spend more time now with www than with 
Date: 4 Nov 1995 22:41:20 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <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. 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/

  I take my word back since so many people by email have voiced cheer
that I am decreasing my posts. I will continue "as normal" other than
the fact that my first priority is www and not Internet. What that
means is that I will not make a conscious effort to decrease the number
of my posts, and I will not worry about the number of my posts.
However, I will spend a lot of my time constructing and improving my
WWW sites and that will have a tendency to 'naturally' decrease the
number of my posts. I just have no time for any posts of a less than
100% serious business post. Most posts to the Internet are merely "Hi,
How are you?" malarkey, unlike mine which will last for thousands of
years.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.04 / Steve Potter /  cmsg cancel <spotterDHH2It.76z@netcom.com>
     
Originally-From: spotter@netcom.com (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <spotterDHH2It.76z@netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 1995 20:54:04 KST
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)


cudkeys:
cuddy04 cudenspotter cudfnSteve cudlnPotter cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.03 / Carmen Toledo /  Re: Pluton will spend more time now with www than with Internet
     
Originally-From: daakers@ix.netcom.com (Carmen Toledo )
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: 3 Nov 1995 22:33:02 GMT
Organization: Netcom

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

..[snip]


    You can find a blackhole to fall into for all we care.



cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudendaakers cudfnCarmen cudlnToledo cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.04 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Incredibly stupid comments from Jones & Sullivan
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Incredibly stupid comments from Jones & Sullivan
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 1995 12:14 -0500 (EST)

doldridg@ra.isisnet.com (Dave Oldridge) writes:
 
-> 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.
 
Uh, this is done all the time.  In fact every power plant in the World works
that way.  They buy X amount of energy as coal, oil, Uranium and so forth,
throw away between 50% and 75% of it and resell what they have left as
electricity for 10 or so times as much as they originally paid for the energy.
I buy electricity from TVA, but don't consider myself foolish for doing so.
 
Of course if the form of energy is the same going in and coming out, I would
agree with you.  However in a CF cell you have electricity going in, and heat
coming out at the present time.  Lets put it in realistic terms.  Say you have
a hot water heater that is running on CF.  Then what is important is whether
the water gets hotter quicker with X amount of electricity going into a
resistance coil, or into a CF cell.  The pump that delivers the water to your
house is immaterial, in fact its contribution falls out of the equation, since
you need the pump regardless of which technology you are using to heat the
water. It is a non-issue.  What you are saying is like computing the
efficiency of a light bulb, and  figuring the losses of the coal fire power
plant into the final answer.  That is not the way it is done.
 
Energy going into the pump is important only in that it must not show up in the
final analysis.  That is easy, turn off the current to the CF cell and use the
measurements as a basline for pump contribution, or measure the temperature
after the pump but before the CF cell.  In the real world the pump would not be
part of the device (say in a water heater), or would be needed for your device
independent of the technology used (say for a radiator space heater).  In
neither case would the pump power be an issue.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy04 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.04 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  A TB smear
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A TB smear
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 1995 12:39 -0500 (EST)

britz@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) 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 fail
-> only in those cases where the total excess power claimed does indeed exceed
-> the total input power.
 
I agree.  That is why all the discussion lately has been centered on cells
which fall into that catagory.  No other cell is worthy of discussion, and
thankfully it seems that they are not being discussed any more here, except by
people like Jones.
 
-> Many excess power claims use a definition of it that make Steve Jones'
-> argument very relevant.
 
I have only seen such claims from Steve Jones and his supporters.  Which cell
which is presently being discussed falls into this catagory?
 
-> And he has thrown a spanner in the works of Mills type open cells, by
-> showing that when you bubble an inert gas through it, the apparent excess
-> heat goes away.
 
This is interesting.  Which cell, which is presently under discussion here, was
this done with?  Who did the experiment and what was the result?  This is very
important information I have not see presented here.  Of course if the
experiment was done on some other cell that is not being discussed, that would
be a bit of scientific dishonesty to use that experimental evidence to make
claims about the cells presently being under discussion here.
 
-> On the whole, recombination should be included in experimenters' list of
-> suspect causes of error, not simply dismissed with clever abuse.
 
I am totally confused by this statement.  If you assume 100% recombination,
even if gas is escaping, is that not the absolute most conservative approach
possible?  That is what my understanding of the way the analysis of the SOFE
cell was done.  Would not accounting for recombination, or the lack of it,
instead of assuming 100% give an even higher excess energy.  Should one not
look for errors which would explain the excess, not for errors that would show
it to be even higher than thought?  Or are you one of the people who agree with
Jones' arguement that you can get more energy out of recombination than you
put in it?  I think it best to try and not deviate from the laws of nature, one
of which is that you cannot create or destroy energy (observing E=MC2 of
course).  Normal science would argue that you cannot split water with 60 mW of
electricity and get 5W when you recombine it even if Jones seems to think
so.  If you know how this could be done, I would love to hear the theory.
Apparently the Meyers results showing this possible are not presently
considered accurate.
 
                                                        Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy04 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Nov  6 04:37:05 EST 1995
------------------------------
