1995.12.31 /  DaveHatunen /  Re: Second "law" is dead ! Success !
     
Originally-From: hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane
.science,cl.energie.alternativen,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.envir
nment,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Second "law" is dead ! Success !
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 1995 06:25:09 GMT
Organization: Next week we've just got to get organized

In article <4c3qqm$8dp@spectator.cris.com>,
Mr. Anthony R. Cox <arteast@pop3.cris.com> wrote:
-
[...]
-
>What I am saying is that axioms are axioms, not only because they
>are self evident, 
-
Axioms need not be self-evident at all.
-
[...]
-
>The real problem with axioms, is that they can be disproven
>by only ONE exception to them.

You misunderstand the nature of axioms. They can never be "disproven"
because they are only the basis of an intellectually constructed system
of logic. Everything derived from them remains "true" because they are
logically derivable from the axioms.
-
It happens, rather fortuitously, that observations made in the universe
appear to show that there is a homomorphology between the intellectual
construct and the observations. For instance, for millenia it was
assumed that Euclids axioms represented a physical "truth" because one
could do very nice surveying and such. But ti turned out it was not so:
one of the axioms could be rejected and a consistent logical system
could still be constructed. Furthermore, obvservations of the universe
indicated taht Euclid's parallel postulate was not cosnstent with the
"real world". But this did not make the parallel postulate disproven.
-
>  Any possible exceptions must
>therefore be trampled on, ignored, or treated as nonsense.
>This type of attitude towards science, reduces it to a
>religion where anyone who questions current thinking must be
>dammed as a nut.  This is why I am even nice to Vertner.
>No matter how much I disagree with him, I can look at his
>viewpoint and learn something from it.
-
The problem with your argument is that it simply isn't true. Perhaps
you could supply a few examples of this "trampled on, ignored, or
treated as nonsense."
-
>The really good scientist points out his axioms in advance
>and indicates that these axioms are workable in his theory
>or project, and that any possible exceptions to those axioms
>will not affect the outcome.
-
Very few scientists work at a level at which axioms are involved. With
the exception of certain rare and celebrated cases, most scientists are
just extending the body of knowledge a little bit more.
-

-- 


    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *               Daly City California                  *
    *   Between San Francisco and South San Francisco     *
    *******************************************************

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenhatunen cudlnDaveHatunen cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.12.31 /  DaveHatunen /  Re: Second "law" is dead ! Success !
     
Originally-From: hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane
.science,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Second "law" is dead ! Success !
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 1995 06:29:32 GMT
Organization: Next week we've just got to get organized

In article <4c46co$eo9@spectator.cris.com>, Anthony Cox
<arteast@pop3.cris.com> wrote: 
- 
[...] 
 
>No, but nobody likes me mentioning my 13 SEER heat pump which has a
>thermal efficiency of well over 200% in winter and over 300% in
>summer. 
- 
They're probably too embarrassed to point out that you obviously don't
know the difference between "thermal efficincy" and "co-efficient of
performance".


-- 


    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *               Daly City California                  *
    *   Between San Francisco and South San Francisco     *
    *******************************************************

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenhatunen cudlnDaveHatunen cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.12.31 / John Logajan /  Power factor
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Power factor
Date: 31 Dec 1995 15:08:38 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

The other day in my little experiment I measured the AC voltage and current
of my rated 4 watt fish-tank water pump.  The V*I product equaled 10.4 watts.
I speculated that the difference was due to power factor error.

Sure enough, upon simultaneously displaying the applied voltage on the
o-scope along with the voltage drop across the ammeter shunt, I verified
that the current lagged the voltage by 1.8 divisions out of 10 full wave.
That is roughly 65 degrees.  I believe power factor is the cosine of the
phase lag, so that is a power factor of 0.42, or 42 percent. 

The measured V*I=10.4 times 0.42 equals 4.37 watts, pretty close to the
listed value.

Next I measured the power factor of my rated 9 watt muffin fan.  I found
it had a power factor of 73%. 

Finally, I found a universal "battery eliminator" similar to the type
used by CETI at PowerGen.  I put a 2W load on it.

As expected the current flowed primarily during the center portion of the
sine wave, off before and after, with smooth on/off transitions.  However,
there was some sort of reactive rebound in the current after each half
cycle where the current would again locally peak as the voltage crossed
through zero.  The waveform was thus too complex to apply the simple
cosine power factor conversion to it.  But it was obvious that current flow
during zero voltage conditions implied the need for a power factor like
correction.

Thus in all cases, pump, fan, DC power supply, the devices were over-
reporting their true power inputs if one merely judged them on the basis
of the aggregate V*I product.

--
 - 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:
cuddy31 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1996.01.01 / Eugene Mallove /  Cold Fusion/New Energy Symposium -1/20/96
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion/New Energy Symposium -1/20/96
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 1996 07:11:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

THE CORRECT DATE FOR THE *1996* COLD FUSION/NEW ENERGY SYMPOSIUM IS SATURDAY 
JANUARY 20, 1996. LOCATION: THE CAMBRIDGE MARRIOTT HOTEL. 

(I have not been following postings here in detail, but it was brought to my 
attention that the announcement of last year's cold fusion gathering in 
Cambridge was being posted --causing much confusion. - E. Mallove)

THE FOLLOWING IS THE CORRECT ANNOUNCEMENT:




******************************************************************************


                *** COLD FUSION / NEW ENERGY SYMPOSIUM  ***
                           Saturday, January 20, 1996
                                8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m
.
                           LOCATION: Cambridge Marriott Hotel
                              Cambridge, Massachusetts 

INFINITE ENERGY Magazine of Concord, New Hampshire will sponsor an all-day 
Cold Fusion/New Energy Symposium on January 20, 1996 at the Cambridge Marriott
Hotel in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The meeting will feature speakers, video 
presentations, and discussions about the science, technology, and commercial 
developments in the rapidly growing cold fusion and new energy field.

A complete list of speakers will be available shortly before the symposium.

The meeting is open to the general public -- scientists, engineers, business 
developers, potential investors, students, journalists, and concerned 
environmentalists.

One of the many high points of the gathering will be presentation of the 
latest findings on the Clean Energy Technologies, Inc. (CETI) Patterson Power 
Cell, which recently achieved record excess power production levels for a cold
fusion process -- in one test greater than 1,300 watts thermal output for 
about 1.4 watts DC input electrical power.

Registration will begin at 8:00 a.m. and the talks will start promptly at 9:00
a.m. on January 20th. The room arrangements currently permit about 200 
attendees. Seating will be on a first come, first served basis, so please RSVP
your intention to attend as soon as possible. The nominal registration fee for
the symposium is only $15.00, payable to Cold Fusion Technology, in advance or
at the door. 

Note: The Cambridge Marriott hotel (2 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA) is near
MIT at the Kendall Square "Red Line" MTA station, easily accessible (15 
minutes) from Boston's Logan International Airport.

We know that this will be an extremely informative and rewarding symposium for
all who attend.  We hope to see you on January 20th.


Eugene F. Mallove, Sc.D., Editor-in-Chief and Publisher
INFINITE ENERGY: Cold Fusion
     and New Energy Technology
Cold Fusion Technology
P.O. Box 2816
Concord, NH 03302-2816

Fax:   603-224-5975
e-mail: 76570.2270@compuserve.com
Phone: 603-228-4516 
        (If you call, please leave your name, phone number, 
        and address with the automated answering service.) 

******************************************************************************

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1995.12.31 / David Gaskill /  Re: CETI Cell Configuration
     
Originally-From: david@cgaski.u-net.com (David Gaskill)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI Cell Configuration
Date: 31 Dec 1995 18:45:29 GMT
Organization: u-net limited

In message <4bs018$83j@stratus.skypoint.net> - jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Loga
jan) writes:

>We also know from early CETI cells that they adjusted the cell resistance 
>by compression screws which compacted the bead bed.


I was not aware of this and I must confess it causes me some 
concern, not because of the electrical consequences, but because of the 
possible effect on electrolyte flow rate. Sufficient compression of the 
bead bed would render it virtually impermiable.   
  
If the following circumstances  are considered in conjunction with the 
above there are grounds for concern.   
  
(1) The flow was only measured with the bead bed 'out of circuit'. As 
I understand it from the pictures on your Web page and the description 
of the procedure, the inflow pipe to the cell was disconnected to enable 
the flow to be measured.   
  
(2) The electrolyte temperature and construction of the apparatus do not 
seem to be consistent with a dissipation  of 1.3 kW.   
  
(3) The control cell was showing  an anomalous temperature 
differential. (I am aware that it was said to be "plugged" or "clogged" 
but the same effect would have been observed if the bead bed had been 
sufficiently compressed.   
  
(4) The pump used was not of the constant displacement variety. It 
might not have been capable of producing sufficient pressure to cause 
any significant flow rate through the bead bed.   
  
If only a peristaltic or other type of constant displacement pump had 
been used then no doubts could be raised as to the flow rate. Does 
anybody know why such a pump was not used; it seems such a simple 
thing to do? 

David

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudendavid cudfnDavid cudlnGaskill cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.12.31 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: Power factor
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Power factor
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 95 18:55:48 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

In article <4c691m$733@stratus.skypoint.net>,
   jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) wrote:

[. . .]

->Thus in all cases, pump, fan, DC power supply, the devices were over-
->reporting their true power inputs if one merely judged them on the basis
->of the aggregate V*I product.

Good job, John. It's great that someone knows the difference between Watts and 
Volt-Amps, since the 'experts' CETI obviously don't. I think someone 
here on s.p.f touched on this point earlier from a qualitative standpoint, but 
you're the first to do any quantitative work.  

You've identified the 'excess' in the input power. Now, how about setting to 
work on identifying the error in the excess "excess heat" on the output side. 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.12.31 / Steven Robiner /  Re: REAL proof of of CF ?
     
Originally-From: srobiner@pollux.usc.edu (Steven Robiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: REAL proof of of CF ?
Date: 31 Dec 1995 12:01:20 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

In article <4bkjvd$710_003@ip40.sky.net> bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
writes:
>In article <4bkg0m$7fu@pollux.usc.edu>,
>   srobiner@pollux.usc.edu (Steven Robiner) wrote:
>
>The reason we are not generating electricity with CF is because we don't
even
>know if CF works at all. We have yet to get beyond questionable
measurements
>and bad heat balance calculations.

Aha, my point exactly - if it doesn't work well enough to make electricity,
it is not a practical power source.

>>understand my point.  If the goal of generating this heat is to *make
>>electricity*, as you have said, why is no one doing this with a CF cell?
>
>
>==> B E C A U S E  T H E Y  D O N ' T  K N O W  H O W ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Well that's a wonderful answer, I wonder why you didn't just say that in
the first place.

>>Hook the thing up to a turbine or transducer and measure the electricty
out
>>vs. the electricity in.  If it doesn't stack up this way, then the deivce
>>may still 'work' but not for any practical purpose like generating power
>>in the form of electricity which everybody needs.
>
>This would be a good job for someone with your obvious brilliance. No need
for
>CF.  Just make a delta T of a couple of degrees above ambient and use it
to
>generate electricity. Then if we ever get to the point where we can be
sure CF
>can make that delta T you can share in the riches. Go for it!

Your obvious obnoxious nature will accomplish nothing but the loss of
other's respect for you.  My question was about the near-future possibility
of CF being a practical power source.  I guess your answer then is "no."

>
>>>I N  A  V E R Y  R E A L  S E N S E,  Y O U R  C O M P U T E R  I S  R U
N
>>>B Y  H E A T.
>>
>>Wrong. My computer is no more run by heat, than your brain is run by
>>photosynthesis.
>
>R  E  M  O  V  E     T  H  E    H  E  A  T    F  R  O  M     T  H  E
>B  O  I  L  E  R  S    T  H  A  T     M  A  K  E    T  H  E     S  T  E  A
M
>T  H  A  T     D  R  I  V  E     T  H  E    T  U  R  B  I  N  E  S
>T  H  A  T    T  U  R  N    T  H  E    G  E  N  E  R  A  T  O  R  S     T
O
>M  A  K  E    T  H  E    E  L  E  C  T  R  I  C  I  T  Y .     W  H  A  T
>H  A  P  P  E  N  S     T  O     T  H  E    L  I  G  H  T  S,    T  H  E
>C  O  M  P  U  T  E  R  S,    T  H  E    T  E  L  E  V  I  S  I  O  N  S,
>E  T  C.

Wrong again.  My computer is run *directly* on electricity.  If you must
know the ultimate source - a silly concept, it comes from the
photovoltaic cells on my roof which convert sunlight (which comes from
nuclear fusion, matter into energy) directly into electricity which is 
stored in batteries and converted to AC for use in my home.  No heat involved.

But, by your theory, your brain runs on photosynthesis, so all I need do is
remove photosynthesis, the food chain collapses, you starve, and your brain
stops running.  Same analogy, both ridiculous ways to look at an energy
source or energy delivery system.

All energy comes from some source, either another form of energy or
conversion from matter.

We are talking about the delivery system for the useful, practical
transportation of power, not the root source.  Electricity, as you've said,
is essential for our society, so if CF is ever going to be practical, it's
power will have to be converted to electricity.

Everyone knows heat is used to make most electricity, so why this can't be
done with CF is a fair question.

=Steven=
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudensrobiner cudfnSteven cudlnRobiner cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.12.31 / Steven Robiner /  Re: REAL proof of of CF ?
     
Originally-From: srobiner@pollux.usc.edu (Steven Robiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: REAL proof of of CF ?
Date: 31 Dec 1995 12:18:27 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

In article <4bmq83$krf@newsbf02.news.aol.com> vcockeram@aol.com (VCockeram) writes:
>In article <4bkg0m$7fu@pollux.usc.edu>, srobiner@pollux.usc.edu (Steven
>Robiner) writes:
>>Wrong.  My computer is no more run by heat than your brain is run by
>>photosynthesis.  Then again, maybe there's something to your theory...
>>
>>=Steven=
>>
>You do eat food to nourish your body (brain) do you not?  Where do you
>think
>that food comes from?  Try this: Sun  (heat)-->photosynthesis-->plants-
>-->animals eat-->your food.  So you do run on heat. If you can't see
>that you are beyond hope.
>
>Regards, Vince

You are beyond hope.  The concept of reduction to absurdity gets you
nowhere.  I was talking about a practical power delivery system anyway.

But if you must reduce it: the sun get's it heat from pressure, and get's
it's pressure from it's gravity, and it's gravity comes from it's mass.

So therefore, by your theory, people run on mass.  Don't be ridiculous, all
energy in the universe comes from some other form of energy or matter, so
saying anything runs on it's ancestrial power source ultimately gets you
to the big bang or everyday matter.



=Steven=
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudensrobiner cudfnSteven cudlnRobiner cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.12.31 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: Experimental evidence rules out 1300 watts from CETI demo
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Experimental evidence rules out 1300 watts from CETI demo
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 95 20:31:56 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

In article <4c5b5g$8u9@stratus.skypoint.net>,
   jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) wrote:
->Bob Sullivan (bsulliva@sky.net) wrote:
->: It sure looks like we're rapidly converging on a conclusion.
->
->Yeah, that the system is too complex to meaningfully speculate about.  
Adding
->rudimentry airflow and evaporation changed the thermal loss rate by nearly 
an
->order of magnitude.  A coiled geometry is certainly more favorable still, so
->there are additional unknowns.
->
->And we have the "signatures", or more correctly, the missing signatures
->that the proponents of blocked flow seem to continually avoid discussing.
->


Time for a reality check. We have three 'subsystems': 1) the plastic tubing 
from the cell, 2) the 'cooling tower', and 3) the reservoir.  We have four 
possible heat transfer mechanisms: 1) conduction, 2) convection, 3) radiation, 
and 4) phase transition.  Why, I bet 93% of the s.p.f participants can count 
up the possibilities without removing their shoes and socks. What part are you 
having trouble with? Just ask and you will get lots of help -- about 17% of it 
useful.

Maybe you're trying to come up with a 'beyond chemistry' explanation. Here's 
one you can think about.  A Maxwell's demon that sequesters the 'excess' 
excess heat in an unmeasured part of the system and then releases it when 
nobody is looking.  This would go along well with a system that only produces 
excess heat when nobody is looking.  Personally, I don't think this has much 
of a chance -- but you never can tell.
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.12.31 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: REAL proof of of CF ?
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: REAL proof of of CF ?
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 95 20:32:26 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

In article <4c6q6g$3pt@pollux.usc.edu>,
   srobiner@pollux.usc.edu (Steven Robiner) wrote:

[. . .]

->We are talking about the delivery system for the useful, practical
->transportation of power, not the root source.  Electricity, as you've said,
->is essential for our society, so if CF is ever going to be practical, it's
->power will have to be converted to electricity.


Steve, I understand that imaginative thinking is diffult for you but do give 
it a try.  Most of the end-use energy consumed in the US is in forms other 
than electricity. A low grade source of heat would be useful even if it could 
not be turned into electricity. I use natural gas to heat my home and make hot 
water. I could use heat to warm a water bed. I could use heat to warm a green 
house. Now you try a few.
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.12.31 / KURIAN THARAKAN /  Relative Energy
     
Originally-From: KURIAN M. THARAKAN <71332.574@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Relative Energy
Date: 31 Dec 1995 21:04:29 GMT
Organization: MSI MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES INC.

Can anyone explain the following to me:

the Newtonian system allowed us to tap 0.00l per cent of the energy 
in a glass of water; 19th Century thermodynamics showed us how tap 
0.0l per cent of that energy; we can now tap 1.0 per cent.

By what processes were we able to do each of these things?

KMT
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cuden574 cudfnKURIAN cudlnTHARAKAN cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.12.31 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: CETI Cell Configuration
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI Cell Configuration
Date: Sun, 31 DEC 95 20:12:55 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

David Gaskill <david@cgaski.u-net.com> writes:
 
>(1) The flow was only measured with the bead bed 'out of circuit'. As 
>I understand it from the pictures on your Web page and the description 
>of the procedure, the inflow pipe to the cell was disconnected to enable 
>the flow to be measured.   
 
That's wrong. That's also impossible. How the heck would that work anyway?
Look, it is real simple: ordinarily the water returns to reservoir. When
you want to measure flow, you divert it into a cup instead (a graduated
cylinder). Then you open the top and pour it back into the reservoir.
When you do that you will notice that the water is still coming through
at a high rate; a liter per minute, not a milliliter, even when the control
side is shut off an disconnected. It is quite easy to see that the flow
rate is not 1 ml per minute.
 
>(2) The electrolyte temperature and construction of the apparatus do not 
>seem to be consistent with a dissipation  of 1.3 kW.   
 
That is completely wrong.
 
>(3) The control cell was showing  an anomalous temperature 
>differential. (I am aware that it was said to be "plugged" or "clogged" 
>but the same effect would have been observed if the bead bed had been 
>sufficiently compressed.   
 
The beads are not compressed much. The control was definitely blocked.
 
>(4) The pump used was not of the constant displacement variety. It 
>might not have been capable of producing sufficient pressure to cause 
>any significant flow rate through the bead bed.   
 
The pump is easily capable of causing a flow of one or two liters. FOR
CRYING OUT LOUD! Climb down out of your damn ivory tower for a moment and
think about it:
 
1. Any fool can see the water flowing through; you can see bubbles moving
rapidly along, you can see and hear the water pouring back into the
reservoir. THERE IS NO QUESITION ABOUT IT. The flow is not 1 ml, it is not
one-quarter ml, and that is what it would have to be for us to mistake
1000 watts for 1 watt, or 450 watts for 0.1 watt.
 
2. People have been measuring flow by diverting the stream of water into
a measuring cup since at 15th century, and probably before that. The method
works.
 
3. CETI and many others have done this experiment with flowmeters. In fact
they have used multiple flow meters, and manual checking (diverting the flow).
 
4. The temperature of the reservoir was 10 to 20 degrees above ambient.
When you run the pump alone, which puts only ~25 watts into the water, the
reservoir temperature does not rise measurably at all -- not even 0.1 degree.
 
 
All of these handwaving messages here that try to prove you cannot measure
flow with a measuring cup and a watch are an idotic waste of time. You should
shut up and try doing it. You will see that it works.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1996.01.01 / Dennis Yelle /  Re: Cold Fusion Day at MIT
     
Originally-From: dennis@netcom.com (Dennis Yelle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Day at MIT
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 1996 01:15:04 GMT
Organization: Very little

In article <4c2o5l$3m2@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> elston@prairienet.org (John M. Elston) writes:
>Craig Haynie (ccHaynie@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
>: ************************  COLD FUSION DAY  ************************
>:                               at MIT

[...]

>: * It is probable that the company in charge of the first U.S. Patent granted 
>: for cold fusion, the Patterson patent, 5,318,675, will be
>: there to show a video tape of its cells' operation. Also, an actual cell should 
>: be there too.
>
>If it is an announcement for 1996, will any of the TB Skeptics in this group
>stoop to attend, perhaps with their own meters and such?

Notice that it does not say that the actual cell that "should be there"
will be in operation, like the one in the video tape.

-- 
dennis@netcom.com (Dennis Yelle)
"You must do the thing you think you cannot do." -- Eleanor Roosevelt
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudendennis cudfnDennis cudlnYelle cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.01 / Harry Conover /  Re: CETI Cell Configuration
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI Cell Configuration
Date: 1 Jan 1996 07:46:36 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

: The pump is easily capable of causing a flow of one or two liters. FOR
: CRYING OUT LOUD! Climb down out of your damn ivory tower for a moment and
: think about it:

Ahem.  A magnetically coupled aquarium pump?  Sure, its capable of a 
significant flow rate in the absence of any head.  Given a bit of head,
its performance is FAR LESS.  How much FAR LESS remains to be determined.
   
: 1. Any fool can see the water flowing through; you can see bubbles moving
: rapidly along, you can see and hear the water pouring back into the
: reservoir. THERE IS NO QUESITION ABOUT IT. The flow is not 1 ml, it is not
: one-quarter ml, and that is what it would have to be for us to mistake
: 1000 watts for 1 watt, or 450 watts for 0.1 watt.

Sure, but exactly what is the CLOSED LOOP flow rate.  This parameter
apppears to be a bit of a mystery.

: 2. People have been measuring flow by diverting the stream of water into
: a measuring cup since at 15th century, and probably before that. The method
: works.

The method does not work with a closed loop system, when open vessel
flow rate is not constrained to closed loop flow rate, particularly when
there is no flow meter to establish that closed loop flow is equal to
open loop (calibration) flow.
  
: 3. CETI and many others have done this experiment with flowmeters. In fact
: they have used multiple flow meters, and manual checking (diverting the flow).

In this instance, it appears they didn't.
  
: 4. The temperature of the reservoir was 10 to 20 degrees above ambient.
: When you run the pump alone, which puts only ~25 watts into the water, the
: reservoir temperature does not rise measurably at all -- not even 0.1 degree.

Meaningless gibberish, without accurate flow measurement.  

: All of these handwaving messages here that try to prove you cannot measure
: flow with a measuring cup and a watch are an idotic waste of time. You should
: shut up and try doing it. You will see that it works.

Fine, then why switch between open-loop and closed-loop (directe 
vs. indriect) measurements. Repeat the demonstration with all cell output 
going into volume (flow) measurement containers so that we'll have a true 
measurement of flow throughout the demonstration.  At the flow rates 
described, this should not be difficult, time consuming, cor costly to 
accomplish.

                                        Harry C.

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1995.12.27 / Kirk Shanahan /  Re: First hand report of the Anaheim CETI demo
     
Originally-From: shanahan@groupz.net (Kirk L. Shanahan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: First hand report of the Anaheim CETI demo
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 18:55:41 EST
Organization: SunBelt.Net INTERNET Access

In article <xtHE9vn.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

  {{snip}}

>                                                   Their power supplies,
>which cost maybe $5, cannot possibly deliver 1300 watts; they are rated
>9 volts, 700 milliamps tops. It is physically impossible for them to deliver
>even 100 watts or even 30 watts. 

Ah ha! I was waiting for this to appear so I could publically acknowledge that 
the 'power supply' used in the PowerGen demo could not support a 1300W drain.  
I expect it would vaporize during the first high resistance spike caused by 
one of my 'bubbles'.  

However, that is not to say that the basic physical processes I postulated in 
the interelectrode region do not occur.  I still believe that to be true.  It 
is just that the equipment used does not support the hypothesis that power is 
being drawn through the cell electrolysis power supply.  

Stay tuned for "Bubbles III' (I hope...:-) )

{{snip}}

[email to kirk.shanahan@srs.gov please...]
----
Kirk Shanahan

Happy Holidays!


cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenshanahan cudfnKirk cudlnShanahan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1996.01.01 / ken collins /  Re: First hand report of the Anaheim CETI demo
     
Originally-From: ken collins <collinsk@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: First hand report of the Anaheim CETI demo
Date: 1 Jan 1996 10:05:04 GMT
Organization: Netcom

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
>The opposition to cold fusion does not come from scientists, it
>comes from a crazed cult of crackpots.
> 
>- Jed

From my perspective, it seems that "the opposition to cold fusion" that will be of 
most consequence, Jed, comes from within the "CF" community itself. k. p. collins

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudencollinsk cudfnken cudlncollins cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1995.12.28 / Kirk Shanahan /  Re: Experimental evidence rules out 1300 watts from CETI demo
     
Originally-From: shanahan@groupz.net (Kirk L. Shanahan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Experimental evidence rules out 1300 watts from CETI demo
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 19:39:25 EST
Organization: SunBelt.Net INTERNET Access

In article <BdLnWqX.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>Path: news1.sunbelt.net!news.sprintlink.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in
.uu.net!news-feed.mci.newscorp.com!news.delphi.com!usenet
>From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
>Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
>Subject: Re: Experimental evidence rules out 1300 watts from CETI demo
>Date: Thu, 28 DEC 95 10:54:15 -0500
>Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)
>Lines: 8
>Message-ID: <BdLnWqX.jedrothwell@delphi.com>
>Message-ID: <BdLnWqX.jedrothwell@delphi.com>
>m>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: bos1f.delphi.com
>X-To: Craig Stangland <cstangl>


>Craig Stangland <cstangl> writes:
> 
>>I should think thermal photography might be of interest for viewing.  Any
>>comments Jed?
> 
>Would that work well through water and glass? I don't know.
> 
>- Jed

No, it won't.  Water and glass are not transparent to IR, very few things are.

---
Kirk Shanahan
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenshanahan cudfnKirk cudlnShanahan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.12.28 / Kirk Shanahan /  Re: Experimental evidence rules out 1300 watts from CETI demo
     
Originally-From: shanahan@groupz.net (Kirk L. Shanahan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Experimental evidence rules out 1300 watts from CETI demo
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 19:47:16 EST
Organization: SunBelt.Net INTERNET Access

In article <4bv2ii$cmo_001@ip40.sky.net> bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan) writes:
>Path: news1.sunbelt.net!news.sprintlink.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in
.uu.net!winternet.com!alpha.sky.net!ip40
>From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
>Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
>Subject: Re: Experimental evidence rules out 1300 watts from CETI demo
>Date: Thu, 28 Dec 95 21:35:14 GMT
>Organization: SkyNET Online
>Lines: 42
>Distribution: world
>Message-ID: <4bv2ii$cmo_001@ip40.sky.net>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: ip140.sky.net
>X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4


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

>[. . .]

>-***{I object to the assumption that I described in the material which you
>-quoted: that the cooling coils and the fan chosen by Cravens to get rid of
>-the 16 degrees C picked up at the cell are inadequate to accomplish that
>-task. What more can I say? Craven's obviously placed the fan and the coils
>-in the external portion of the fluid loop to serve the purpose of a
>-radiator--i.e., to dump the heat picked up from the cell. 


>His intentions (or your perceptions thereof) aren't worth a hill of beans, 
>Mitchell.  The only things that matter are the facts.  If you think that a toy 
>fan fan and a few loops of plastic (read insulating) tubing can make a 
>"cooling tower" capable of rejecting energy at the rate of 1,344 Watts, I've 
>got a bridge you might be interested in. 

>Jed tells us that the electrolyte reservoir walls, not the so-called cooling 
>tower, are the site of the perceived heat rejection.  The reported "facts" 
>just don't measure up to 1,344 Watts rejected.


>-You, and the
>-other "skeptics" posting in this thread have simply assumed, without a
>-shred of evidence, that Craven's jerry-built radiator doesn't work. But
>-why? What kind of "argument" assumes that which is to be proven? What you
>-need are hard facts: the true cfm of the fan used, the diameter and length
>-of tubing in the external portion of the loop, the air temperature in the
>-room, etc. With such facts, you could do a meaningful calculation of the
>-cooling capacity of the external portion of the fluid loop and, if it were
>-too low, you would have a real argument. Right now, however, all you have
>-is wishful thinking. --Mitchell Jones}***


>Well, we have Jed's reports which, as usual, seem to jump around a lot, but 
>his most expansive numbers don't support a conclusion of 1,344 Watts. We have 
>the picture of the apparatus on John Logajan's home page (courtesy of Jed) 
>where we can get a good idea of the scale of the apparatus.  Plus, I have a 
>reliable report from someone who has seen the gismo.  The facts to 
>support 1,344 Watts aren't there.  No boiling, no blisters means no 1,344 
>Watts.

One of the assumptions implicit in the PowerGen numbers is the flow rate.  It 
was never measured in situ, but only in an altered configuration.  If the heat 
losses estimated so far can't add up to 1300W, then maybe the flow rates were 
wrong, and the heat calculation is off...  For ex, in the 30 min run, I 
estimate a flow rate of about 200 ml/min (down 5x from the 'measured' 1000 
ml/min value) will balance out the power input measured on the AC line.  The 
factor on the 2 hr. run is a 20X drop to about 70 ml/min, but reecall that the 
control cell was plugging up (and showing 'excess heat').  Why wasn't the 
experimental cell plugging also?  We need good thermal and flow measurements.  
The demo isn't good enough to make a call, pro or con.

---
Kirk Shanahan                           Happy Holidays!

{{email to kirk.shanahan@srs.gov please}}
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenshanahan cudfnKirk cudlnShanahan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.12.28 / Kirk Shanahan /  Re: Experimental evidence rules out 1300 watts from CETI demo
     
Originally-From: shanahan@groupz.net (Kirk L. Shanahan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Experimental evidence rules out 1300 watts from CETI demo
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 19:50:53 EST
Organization: SunBelt.Net INTERNET Access

In article <4bv2mo$cmo_002@ip40.sky.net> bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan) writes:
>Path: news1.sunbelt.net!news.sprintlink.net!alpha.sky.net!ip40
>From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
>Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
>Subject: Re: Experimental evidence rules out 1300 watts from CETI demo
>Date: Thu, 28 Dec 95 21:37:28 GMT
>Organization: SkyNET Online
>Lines: 36
>Distribution: world
>Message-ID: <4bv2mo$cmo_002@ip40.sky.net>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: ip140.sky.net
>X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4


>Mitchell Jones <21cenlogic@i-link.net> writes:

>-***{What you say here is true, but I think that this is not germane to the
>-present issue. The "skeptics," at this point, seem to be arguing that *if*
>-the cell were producing 1300 watts, *then* the water in the external
>-portion of the loop would be boiling. Since it isn't boiling, they argue
>-that the delta temperature measurement must be erroneous. It isn't that
>-they are claiming the heat is coming from the pump. Instead, they seem to
>-be claiming that the behavior of the external part of the fluid loop
>-contradicts the observed delta T for the cell. [I know this seems
>-ridiculous (it *is* ridiculous!), but I do think it is what they are
>-saying.] --Mitchell Jones}***


>I haven't speculated about the source of the error (delta T or otherwise), so 
>far, but it might be fun to do so.

>Let's assume that the 2.5 Liters and the two hours are "good" numbers.  Now 
>let's do something really dumb. Assume that the delta T was not measured 
>continuously, but, instead, they measured temperatures at the start and end of 
>the two hour period and found this difference to be 16 degrees C (28.8F). It 
>would take 158.4 Btu (28.8 * 5.5 lbs) net to get this temperature rise. This 
>amounts to 79.2 Btu per hour. This, in turn, could be produced by 23.2 Watts 
>(79.2/3414). 

>Now, this is about the amount of power you might get from the pump through 
>pumping turbulence, the actual energy added to the liquid to pump it around 
>the loop many times, and from heat conduction from the pump motor through the 
>vessel walls to the liquid. If the claims of about 50 Watts input to the pump 
>are correct, then it would certainly be conceivable that the source of the 
>heat was the pump.

>Is this the kind of blunder you would expect from expert electro-chemists? No, 
>it isn't, but we aren't dealing with expert electro-chemists in this case. 
>Turning 23.2 Watts into 1,344 Watts is, however, the sort of claim that you 
>might expect from an unscruplous salesman.


I believe Jed Rithwell claims to have mesured temps many times in several 
different runs...  Personally, I vote for a flow rate problem instead...

----
Kirk Shanahan                    Happy Holidays!

{{email to kirk.shanahan@srs.gov please}}
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenshanahan cudfnKirk cudlnShanahan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1996.01.01 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Power factor
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Power factor
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 1996 12:54 -0500 (EST)

bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan) writes:
 
-> In article <4c691m$733@stratus.skypoint.net>,
->    jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) wrote:
->
-> [. . .]
->
-> ->Thus in all cases, pump, fan, DC power supply, the devices were over-
-> ->reporting their true power inputs if one merely judged them on the basis
-> ->of the aggregate V*I product.
->
-> Good job, John. It's great that someone knows the difference between Watts a
-> Volt-Amps, since the 'experts' CETI obviously don't. I think someone
-> here on s.p.f touched on this point earlier from a qualitative standpoint, b
-> you're the first to do any quantitative work.
->
-> You've identified the 'excess' in the input power. Now, how about setting to
-> work on identifying the error in the excess "excess heat" on the output side
 
Uh, John I think you need to read that again!  Lack of PF correction results in
an OVER estimate of input power, not UNDER estimate.  That can never be a
source of excess, by instead will result in an underestimate of any excess.
 
This means that if the CETI results did not take PF into effect then the
excesses they reported are lower than they should have been.  I suggest you
pick up a book on elementary electronics and brush up on the subject.  I am
sure the people at CETI do understand this, and by not adjusting for the PF
they were taking the most conservative approach possible in the analysis.  I
think that is wise. It appears however that you are the one that needs to do
the brushing up on electronic theory.
 
The obvious reason no one has pursued this is that most here are looking for
ways to reduce the excess, not increase it.
 
Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Jan  2 04:37:11 EST 1996
------------------------------
