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 18:06:02 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

John Logajan (jlogajan@skypoint.com) wrote:
: Harry H Conover (conover@max.tiac.net) wrote:
: : 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.

: The Patterson cell demo at ICCF5 measured the temperature of the
: electrolyte at the input to the cell and then measured the temperature
: of the electrolyte at the output of the cell.  This is known as the
: temperature rise across the cell, or delta T.
 
Sadly, no one has qualified the experimental uncertainty of these 
measurements.  At very low flow and temperature differentials, these
qualifications are particularly important and, without these, the
potential impact of heat transfer from the pump cannot safely
be ignored.

Let me cite an example, just so you know where I am coming from.
I'll give an extreme example to illustrate
this point.  Suppose (for example) that the cell input temperature
measurement is 20-degrees (+/- 10%), that the cell output temperature
is 28-degrees (+/- 10%), and that the flow is 5-ml/s (+/- 30%).
Now, suppose the imput temperature measurement errs on the high side,
and the output measurement errs on the low side, and also that the
flow also errs on the low side (hopefully, the worst case).  Have
we or have we not observed an 'excess' of the energy input (whose
accuracy of measurement has not yet been discussed.)

First, lets take a look at the input temperature parameter.
At 20-degrees (C), absolute input temperature is 293-deg. K, and
the margin of error at 10% is 29.3-degrees.  If we assume the
low side error, our measured input temperature could be as high as
302.3-degrees K.  On the other hand, using the same accuracy
assumptions, the output side temperature could actually be as low as 
270.9-degrees K.  In fact, base on these measurement (granted, 
hypothetical) our heat source could be in fact a refrigerator!

This is why I keep hammering on the need to combine measurement
values with experimental uncertainty.  If physicists cannot make
an evaluation of experimental outcome without knowledge of the
experimental uncertainty, it is unlikely that chemists or laymen
can do so.  I have exagerated in the above example, but the 
principle remains the same.  Without the numbers AND the uncertainties
implicit in the numbers, we know absolutely nothing!
   
: Therefore the ambient temperature of the electrolyte (raised or lowered
: to that temperature by whatever means) is irrelevant.

Agree, no argument.  IF, you actually know the measurements and their
accuracy limits.  This is the rub, and likely one of the major errors
that contribute to many claims for excess heat or energy.  In fact,
it is extremely easy for ANYONE to jump to erroneous experimental 
conclusions when experimental error and measurement uncertainty are not
fully taken into account.

: If the mechanical action of the pump added 5 watts of thermal energy to
: the 14.3 ml/minute flow rate, the temperature would have risen 5C before
: entering the cell.  Since deltaT = Tout-Tin, the 5C would have been
: subtracted from the absolute result and only the rise in temperature
: experienced in the cell would be relevant.

Yes, but if...and only if... we know the absolute accuracy of the input
temperature measurement.

: So direct thermal heating of the electrolyte by 
: the action of the pump
: is a non-issue in the PPC ICCF5 demo (and I believe the same is true
: of the SOFE demo.)

It could be a non-issue, but until the measurement precision and 
absolute accuracy is known, the pump remains suspect.  Actually, 
until better information is forthcoming, all of the measurements
remain suspect.

This calls to mind that old Sherlock Holmes quote: (more or less)
"Eliminate the probable, then pursue the improbable."   Sadly,
all information presented to date has, analytically, failed to 
'eliminate the probable.' 

Best wishes...

                                      Harry C.

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.05 /  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: 5 Nov 1995 12:47:00 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <browe-0411951136400001@10.0.2.15>, browe@netcom.com (Bill
Rowe) writes:

>
>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"
>
>

This is  true for your aquarium pump. But any aquarium pumps I have used
moved somewhat more than 14 ml of water per minute. In fact one pump I
used on a 75 gallon tank pumped over 2 gallons per minute. It was an 
external pump powered by a 25 watt induction motor. The motor was 
coupled to the pump by a rubber flexable coupling. The pump body and
rotor was plastic. Very little heat was coupled from the motor to the
water.
Point here is any heat added to the electrolyte by the pump would be seen
by the cell inlet thermometer. You do see this don't you? No heat added by
the pump is seen in calibration runs.

lurking in las vegas                          Vince
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenvcockeram cudlnVCockeram cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.05 /  VCockeram /  Re: Steve Jones cries wolf
     
Originally-From: vcockeram@aol.com (VCockeram)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Steve Jones cries wolf
Date: 5 Nov 1995 12:47:32 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <47gt24$cbl@oveja.u-net.net>, david@cgaski.u-net.com (David
Gaskill) writes:

>  
>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
>
>
>

This was done in calibration runs with no current flowing in the cell and
the 
pump running. It was also done with the cell configured with gold plated
beads,
cell current on, electrolysis ocurring. No excess heat seen in either of
these
cases. In any case, supposed heat added by a pump is irreveliant as the 
excess heat is computed by the difference between cell inlet (T-in) and
cell outlet T-out) temperatures. The pump is upstream from T-in so any
heat
added by the pump would be seen there (at T-in). 
Main point is you _cannot_ get out more energy than is input assuming
100 percent recombination. And this experiment _does_ assume 100
percent recombination in it's most conservative explaination. I personally
was a skeptic until I saw numbers from these experiments that far exceeded
the I*V input. When I saw that I started thinking, 'move over big oil'.

lurking in las vegas                           Vince
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenvcockeram cudlnVCockeram cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.05 / Filip Wolanski /  Any books on fusion for 17 year old . . .
     
Originally-From: Filip Wolanski <wolanski@power.ee.mcgill.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Any books on fusion for 17 year old . . .
Date: 5 Nov 1995 19:13:45 GMT
Organization: McGill University Computing Centre

Dear Reader;
	I would like to know if there are any good books on fusion for a 17 year old. I would 
very much appreciate any help you can offer me.
						Thank you for your time,
							Filip Wolanski
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenwolanski cudfnFilip cudlnWolanski cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.05 / 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: Sun, 05 Nov 1995 12:41:36 -0800
Organization: AltNet

In article <USE2PCB39324686@brbbs.brbbs.com>, mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com wrote:

>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.

Minor correction. The above is quoted from one of my posts not Dave
Oldridge. He may or may not want to be associated with my comments.

>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.

Yes, this is true and I don't claim someone is foolish for buying energy
from the power company. However, it really doesn't address the point of
the post.

>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.

This also wasn't the point of the post.

>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.

There are a couple of points in knowing the energy going into the pump.
First, it the energy output from the CF cell is much greater than the
energy into the pump it puts to bed arguements the effect is due to not
accounting for the energy put into the pump. Secondly, the cost of the
pump energy is something that would need to be taken into consideration
for a commercial setup.

The analogy you have drawn comparing the CF pump to losses of a coal fired
power plant isn't the right analogy. A closer analogy would be the a
comparison of the pump energy to the energy supplied to the magnetic coils
in a tokamak. In both cases, the energy doesn't directly feed the
reaction. Rather it feeds support equipment. 

Of course these comments assume the pump energy isn't directly involved in
the CF effect. This is a rather major assumption given the physics of CF
haven't been established yet. This leads full circle to one of the reasons
for wanting to know how much energy is used by the pump.
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"
cudkeys:
cuddy05 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.05 / 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: Sun, 05 Nov 1995 12:07:59 -0800
Organization: AltNet

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

>Point here is any heat added to the electrolyte by the pump would be seen
>by the cell inlet thermometer. You do see this don't you? No heat added by
>the pump is seen in calibration runs.

Yes, any heat added to the electrolyte will be seen by the inlet
thermometer. However, this doesn't necessarily imply a change of reading
of the inlet thermometer. A reading change will depend on the amount of
heat, the resolution of the thermometer and the sensitivity of the
thermometer. These are also undoubtely a function of the electrolyte flow
rate, thermal mass and thermal capacity as well as the thermometer thermal
mass and thermal capacity. There are probably other variables I haven't
thought of.

The point is no change in thermometer reading doesn't imply no heat is
added. It simply bounds the maximum heat that could have been added. It
may well be the amount of heat added is insignificant.

One of the things that is missing from the discussion is an estimate of
the uncertainty in the various numbers. The assumption is the uncertainty
is too small to be of significance. The problem is that it is an
assumption.
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"
cudkeys:
cuddy05 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.05 / John Logajan /  Patterson demo data from ICCF5
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Patterson demo data from ICCF5
Date: 5 Nov 1995 08:07:33 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.


Since at least one person continues to claim vociferously that the Patterson
demo device run by Dennis Cravens at ICCF5 required gas correction in order
to show excess heat, I have reproduced here (and on my www page) the
table in the report Cravens had published in both "Cold Fusion" magazine
and "Infinite Energy" magazine.

These are the numbers as they appeared in CF #11.  The equations in the
addendum are mine based upon the descriptions in the accompanying text.
I verified the mathematical correctness of all these results.  My values
agreed to within a percent or two of these published results.  The small
difference is likely due to the 4.1629 factor I used, which is the number
of Joules it takes to warm a milliliter of H2O one degree Celsius -- at or
near 25 C.  

As can be clearly seen, the conservative column (a) includes no correction
for gas loss or thermal loss -- contrary to the claims of Bob Sullivan.
Therefore recombination cannot be the correct explanation.



                Patterson Power Cell Demonstration
            Data taken by conference attendees at ICCF5
                         April 9-12, 1995
(As reported by Dennis Cravens in issue #11 of "Cold Fusion" magazine.)

                                          %Heat  %Heat     %Heat
                             Flow         Yield  Yield     Yield
                             Rate         Raw    Corrct'd  Corrct'd
Date   Time  Voltage  Amp   mL/min  dT C  (a)    (b)       (c)
----  -----  -------  ---   ------  ----  -----  --------  --------
4/9   21:10   3.29    .07   10.28   1.1    326     379       688
4/9    9:45   3.80    .12   10.08   2.6    381     443       726
4/10  14:38   3.80    .12   10.04   3.5    511     594       973
4/10  14:45   3.80    .12   10.11   3.6    529     615      1008
4/10  15:15   3.80    .13   10.01   3.3    443     516       844
4/11  12:28   3.74    .15   10.00   2.4    294     330       546
4/11  14:05   3.74    .13   10.00   2.5    341     396       656
4/11  18:30   3.43    .10    9.38   2.5    453     527       927
4/11  18:50   3.43    .09   10.00   2.4    516     599      1054
4/12  12:00   4.15    .21   10.00   3.0    228     265       413
4/12  14:10   4.15    .21   10.00   3.2    243     283       440
4/12  16:20   4.15    .21   10.00   3.4    259     301       468

Notes: Yield calculations assume specific heat of electrolyte of 0.95.
  (a) Raw heat yields without gas or thermal heat loss corrections.
  (b) Heat yields with thermal heat loss correction (cell is 86% thermally
      efficient).
  (c) Heat yields with thermal heat loss correction and gas correction
      (1.48*I); assuming no recombination.



JML Note -- To obtain raw heat yield percent (a), use:

   Raw Heat Yield (%) = F/60 * 4.1629 * dT * 0.95 / (V*I) * 100 

      Where:
        F = mL/minute
        4.1629 = Joules/mL/C  (Value for ranges near 25C)
        dT = delta temperature (Tout - Tin, C)
        0.95 = specific heat of electrolyte (Pure H2O = 1.0)
        V = raw voltage input
        I = raw current input

Summary of formula:
(a) Raw Heat Yield (%) = F/60 * 4.1629 * dT * 0.95 / (V*I) * 100 
(b) Corrected (%) = F/60 * 4.1629 * dT * 0.95 / (V*I) * / 0.86 * 100 
(c) Corrected (%) = F/60 * 4.1629 * dT * 0.95 / ((V-1.48)*I) * / 0.86 * 100 


--
 - 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:
cuddy5 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.05 / Brian Jones /  Re: Pluton will spend more time now with www than with
     
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
Date: 5 Nov 1995 06:07:53 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <47gq6g$5ch@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes: 
>
>In article <47bmpu$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.

<<chip,snip>>
>> 
>> 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. 


<<<<snip-a-roo>>>>


You can't beat THAT for dead-on, solid logic.
If you aren't wanted, just stay.  Makes perfect
sense.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenbjon cudfnBrian cudlnJones cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.06 / Dieter Britz /  RE: A TB smear
     
Originally-From: britz@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: A TB smear
Subject: Re: A TB smear
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 18:31:59 GMT
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 1995 16:23:32 -0500
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: A TB smear
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 1995 16:23:32 -0500

[...]
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}***

Er, no, Mitch, I do not. Now, may I know why you ask? I must say I don't
like the possible implications of the question; please reassure me on
this.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.05 / Bill Rowe /  Re: A TB smear
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A TB smear
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 1995 16:23:31 -0800
Organization: AltNet

In article <47jh34$qdl@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com wrote:

>Bill Rowe (browe@netcom.com) wrote:
>: I can with ordinary chemistry and recombination get 5W from 60mW.
>: What I cannot do, is do this contiously for a long period of time.
>
>The devil is in the details.
>
>Given the appropriate details, I'm game for a little wager.
>
>You get to run a thought experiment (i.e. formulas and known physical
>constants will suffice in lieu of a lab experiment) in which you show
>how you can get 5W for longer than a short time, and shorter than a
>long time. :-)

I am not sure how to interpret "longer than a short time, and shorter than
a long time". 

>
>So if we can pick an agreeable intermediate time, and given the known
>components and geometry of the SOFE or ICCF5 PPC demos, show how 5W
>can be delivered fitting known chemistry.

I don't know how to do this and make no claim that I can. This is
distintly different than the claim made above which you quoted.

A simple thought experiment to support the claim made would be to set up a
standard electolysis cell. Wait until you have say .01 mole of gasses.
Allow them to combine and apply a spark. I am certain you will agree that
this isn't a wise or safe thing to do but the output power will be much
larger than 5W. I will stipulate this has little to do with the SOFE
demonstration.

>It certainly would be interesting to come up with a simple explanation
>for this using known processes.

Agreed, wholeheartedly.
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"
cudkeys:
cuddy05 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.06 / John Logajan /  Re: John N. White: GET A PUMP!!!
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: John N. White: GET A PUMP!!!
Date: 6 Nov 1995 05:39:59 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Bill Rowe (browe@netcom.com) wrote:
: I agree with Harry Conover's posts, i.e., without some reasonable
: estimates of the uncertainty there isn't any reason to be confident of a
: new process.

Thermal recovery of the ICCF5 demo was 88% +/- 2%, based upon calibration
runs with a resistive heater.

Voltage and current measurements were +/- 0.01V (voltage drop across a
current shunt.)

Electrolyte flow rate measurement was +/- 0.1 ml/minute.

Temperature sensor measurements were +/- 0.2C absolute (i.e. accuracy.
Precision is not mentioned in the writeup, but would typically be much
better than the 0.2C.)

Calibration was run with pure water, and with 1.0 molar lithium sulfate.
Output heat derived from calibration curves agreed with estimates using
first principles to within 15%.

So the output heat was a minimum of 10 times larger than the largest
known error (the 15% between curves and direct computation) and as
great at 60 times the largest known error in the less conservative
assumptions.


--
 - 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:
cuddy6 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.05 / Harry Conover /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: 5 Nov 1995 18:35:23 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

: They know they don't have a leg to stand on; they have no valid,
: sane scientific rguments to disprove CF calorimetry..

Whoa, what CF calorimetry?  I have yet to see anyone post any quantitative
CF calorimetry whatever!  Calorimetry results include both a measurement
and the experimetal uncertainty or experimental error implicit in that 
measurement.

Without knowledge of the error implicit in a measurement or computation,
you have no measurement -- you have no conclusion.

Evidently the CF calorimetry people are either intellecutally incapable of 
grasping and addressing the significance and analysis of experimental error 
and measurement uncertainty, or that it possibly serves their purpose to 
feign such ignorance.  Are these guys simply incompetent, or frauds?

Jed, which is it?

                                           Harry C.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.05 / Harry Conover /  Re: Pumping Heat (Re: Proposed explaination of CETI effect)
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pumping Heat (Re: Proposed explaination of CETI effect)
Date: 5 Nov 1995 18:40:36 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
:  
: There is a pre-heater in the reservoir, but it was not used during the
: demonstration run. It is used to raise the electrolyte temperature to
: explore the performance of the cell at higher working temperatures. During
: the demo, the preheater was left off, and the electrolyte entering the
: cell was at ambient room temperature.

Are we to conclude that the head produced by the cell is itself
incapable of adding enough temperture to "explore the performance of the
cell at higher working temperatures?"

Doesn't sound like a very convincing demonstration to me!

                                     Harry C.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.05 / John Logajan /  Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
Date: 5 Nov 1995 16:52:37 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Harry H Conover (conover@max.tiac.net) wrote:
: 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.

The Patterson cell demo at ICCF5 measured the temperature of the
electrolyte at the input to the cell and then measured the temperature
of the electrolyte at the output of the cell.  This is known as the
temperature rise across the cell, or delta T.

Therefore the ambient temperature of the electrolyte (raised or lowered
to that temperature by whatever means) is irrelevant.

If the mechanical action of the pump added 5 watts of thermal energy to
the 14.3 ml/minute flow rate, the temperature would have risen 5C before
entering the cell.  Since deltaT = Tout-Tin, the 5C would have been
subtracted from the absolute result and only the rise in temperature
experienced in the cell would be relevant.

So direct thermal heating of the electrolyte by the action of the pump
is a non-issue in the PPC ICCF5 demo (and I believe the same is true
of the SOFE demo.)

--
 - 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:
cuddy5 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.05 /  VCockeram /  Re: Come on guys, CF is dead.  Get a life.
     
Originally-From: vcockeram@aol.com (VCockeram)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Come on guys, CF is dead.  Get a life.
Date: 5 Nov 1995 13:19:59 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <47h586$2kh@ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>, gregfish@ix.netcom.com
(Gregory Bishop ) writes:

>
>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
>
>

I see now the skeptics have adopted complete denial head in the sand 
attitude. Keep it up skeptics, it's getting really funny to read.

a former skeptic
lurking in las vegas.                         Vince
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenvcockeram cudlnVCockeram cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.05 /  VCockeram /  Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
     
Originally-From: vcockeram@aol.com (VCockeram)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
Date: 5 Nov 1995 13:20:26 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <47ilue$42u@sundog.tiac.net>, conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H
Conover) writes:

>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.
>
>

Harry, any _heat_ added by the pump must be seen at cell inlet! So heat
input
to the system by the pump _is_ accounted for. The heat added to the system

by the pump would be seen at the inlet thermometer _decreasing_ the
difference
of the cell inlet to cell output delta T. Don't you see this? It's this
delta T that 
shows more energy out than in (.06 watt in, ~5 watts out). The pump adds
heat unaccounted for fails completly.

lurking in las vegas.                         Vince
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenvcockeram cudlnVCockeram cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Nov  7 04:37:03 EST 1995
------------------------------
