1996.01.02 / Kevin Quitt /  Re: Second "law" is dead ! Success !
     
Originally-From: kdq@emoryi.jpl.nasa.gov (Kevin Quitt)
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: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 20:51:11 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory

On 28 Dec 1995 20:56:46 GMT, tcox@raleigh.ibm.com wrote:
>You do not use any axioms in physics?  ROTFL, you are joking, right?

Then you'll have no problem quoting one, right?


>Repeated failures
>to disprove something do not prove something, if that were true nothing
>would ever be invented.

The part before the comma is true.  That's why he put the word "Lasw" in
quotes.  There are no Laws (in the mathematical sense) in physics--only things
that are useful (i.e., correct) at making predictions, and for which there
have been no demonstrated inaccuracies or contradictions.

Your sentence as a whole is meaningless; at best incorrect.  It doesn't matter
how many times you fail to disporve something; you still haven't "proven" that
it's true.  At best you've provided non-conclusive evidence that it is; at
worst you've demonstrated your inferior testing techniques.


>>: If mass and energy cannot be created, then
>>: it follows that they have been in existance forever.  Given an infinite amount
>>: of time, the universe must have completely run down by now.  Guess what, it hasn't.

Except that the universe hasn't been around an infinite amount of time, so it
hasn't run down yet.  Therefore your argument is incorrect.


>>: Then we also have the problem of explaining where energy goes and
>>: returns during wave interferrence of light.  Nobody has successfully
>>: explained that yet.  Any ideas?

Yes, it's trivially explained by any high-school physics book.  The energy
doesn't "go" anywhere.  It's still there in the separate waves.  The aggregate
wave has higher peaks and null regions which exactly add up to the sum of the
energies in the constituent waves.


>I have heard many justifications for what happens in wave
>interference from many so called experts.  I still have
>not heard anything logical to explain it

Think of the cancellation of the wave on a slinky that's attached to the wall.
The wave consists of deflection in the perpendicular direction from the
length-wise axis of the slinky.  Where two waves coincide, their motion is
added and the slinky deflects twice as far.  Where the two waves cancel, the
motions are equal and opposite so the slinky doesn't move.  The energy of the
two waves hasn't disappeared, they just cancel out each other's deflection.
The actual energy of the two waves (i.e. acceleration away from the axis) is
still there in each of the waves.


>I have a quarter that says you can't do it.

You owe me a quarter.

-- 
#include <standard.disclaimer>                   http://emoryi.jpl.nasa.gov/
 _
Kevin D Quitt  USA 91351-4454           96.37% of all statistics are made up
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenkdq cudfnKevin cudlnQuitt cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.02 /  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: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 23:40:35 GMT
Organization: Next week we've just got to get organized

In article <30e997c4.12298256@llyene.jpl.nasa.gov>,
Kevin Quitt <kdq@emoryi.jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>On 28 Dec 1995 20:56:46 GMT, tcox@raleigh.ibm.com wrote:
>>You do not use any axioms in physics?  ROTFL, you are joking, right?
>
>Then you'll have no problem quoting one, right?

The speed of light will be measured as the same value by all observors
in all inertial frames of reference. And, yes, it is an axiom.

I believe F = dp/dt would also be an axiom.

[...]

-- 


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

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenhatunen cudlnDaveHatunen cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.02 / 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: 2 Jan 1996 17:59:51 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

In article <4c6s0q$710_003@ip63.sky.net> bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan) writes:
>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 

No more difficult than obfuscation and irrelvant blather is for you.

Read my statement again, and understand my point.

>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 

How do you know?   Almost every modern appliance, every modern communication
device, every computer, every televsion, stereo, etc, runs directly on 
electricty.  Sure lots of people use gas, but I'd venture to say the vast
majority of end-used power in the US is electricity.  Just look at all
those electric utility companies making a fortune.

>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.

I do the same thing for free *today*, with a lot less invested in equipment
and precious metals. Its called solar panels.  What makes you think purchasing 
a CF reactor with expensive loaded Palladium cells and heavy water is more
practical?  

Besides, the end use doesn't matter much anyway, if the equipment everyone
already owns is made to run directly on electricity or gas.  So, even if
you do spend thousands of dollars on a CF reactor (the precious metals
alone will be that much) you still need to spend all kinds of money
refitting all your devices and machines to run on hot water.  No one will
do that - it is inefficient an NOT practical.  People need electricity.

=Steven=
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudensrobiner cudfnSteven cudlnRobiner cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.03 / James Stolin /  Re: Diverting hose makes a mess
     
Originally-From: FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Diverting hose makes a mess
Date: 3 Jan 1996 04:21:53 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

>FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin) writes:
> 
>   "I'd suggest CETI simplify things on their demonstration setup. 
Rather
>   than have stopcocks in the 'plumbing', just move the return hose from 
the
>   reservoir to a graduated cylinder then return it.  No questions 
about
>   different flow paths, restrictions, head, etc."
> 
>We did that too. At a flow rate of a liter per minute, it is too messy.
>The water gets everywhere by the time you plug the hose back into the
>reservior, through the loose fitting at the top. That is how they dumped 
the
>water back into bottles before moving the display.

   Use the KISS principle.  If more than a few drops of solution got 
spilled transfering the hose at a liter per minute flow, they probably 
had a complicated fitting or they are related to the little old lady who 
spilled coffee on her crotch. <g>  This sounds like the case considering 
they used two stopcocks to divert flow.  Open the top of the reservoir 
and dangle the hose in. The lid goes on AFTER the hose is in.  Should be 
able to switch back and forth in less than 1/10 second while holding end 
of graduated cylinder over reservoir for no solution spilled.

   Hmmm, better yet, get a graduated cylinder with a large stopcock 
"drain" at the bottom.  The cylinder gets left inline during the entire 
run.  The "drain" is normally open.  To take a measurement, close the 
"drain" and time how long it takes to fill.  Open the drain when finished.


>There is enough lithium in the water to make it a moderate health hazard.
 You
>would not want to drink the stuff, and you want to avoid spilling it 
too
>much.

   Unless I can get the coffee Lady's lawyer to convince a juruy it's 
worth 3 million, I have no desire to lap up the few drops that might get 
spilled with a >SIMPLE< reservoir.  Anyone have the MSDS for Lithium 
sulfate?  I believe that's what was used.

-
Jim Stolin - Illinois Computer Service - jbstolin@prodigy.com
http://pages.prodigy.com/jbstolin - PWP/HTML and more

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.03 / 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: Wed, 03 Jan 96 05:42:35 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

In article <4ccnun$k4j@pollux.usc.edu>,
   srobiner@pollux.usc.edu (Steven Robiner) wrote:

[. . .]

->How do you know?   Almost every modern appliance, every modern communication
->device, every computer, every televsion, stereo, etc, runs directly on 
->electricty.  Sure lots of people use gas, but I'd venture to say the vast
->majority of end-used power in the US is electricity.  Just look at all
->those electric utility companies making a fortune.


WRONG!!!! Next time before you post, I suggest you do a little basic research.


[. . .]

->I do the same thing for free *today*, with a lot less invested in equipment
->and precious metals. Its called solar panels.  What makes you think 
purchasing 
->a CF reactor with expensive loaded Palladium cells and heavy water is more
->practical?  


Steve, Steve, Steve, if you would just pay attention, you would know that I 
never said CF would be cheaper than alternatives.  I never even said CF has 
been demonstrated to work. I never even said that that I thought CF would ever 
work.

This discussion started when you asked why everyone one excited about the 
possibility of a new heat source, and I tried to explain that to you. 
Apparently, you are incapable of understanding in your present condition.


->Besides, the end use doesn't matter much anyway, if the equipment everyone
->already owns is made to run directly on electricity or gas.  So, even if
->you do spend thousands of dollars on a CF reactor (the precious metals
->alone will be that much) you still need to spend all kinds of money
->refitting all your devices and machines to run on hot water.  No one will
->do that - it is inefficient an NOT practical.  People need electricity.


Steve, do yourself a favor and go to your doctor to get your medication 
adjusted. Good luck, I hope your condition improves soon.
cudkeys:
cuddy03 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.03 / John Logajan /  Re: CETI Cell Configuration
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI Cell Configuration
Date: 3 Jan 1996 06:33:05 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Harry H Conover (conover@max.tiac.net) wrote:
: Magnetically coupled aquarium pumps employ a motor to rotate a ceramic
: magnet external to the fluid container and pump impeller housing.  Another
: ceramic magnet is attached to the pump impeller inside the fluid container,
: and rotates under the influence of the external spinning magnet.

Are you sure this was the case.  I just bought a 4W aquarium water-pump and
the rotor was in direct contact with the water.  The rotor was removable
for cleaning, and sat in a little plastic well.  The plastic well protected
the outer poles and coils from getting wet.

These pumps generally expect to have to pump water through filters which
slowly clog up with debris.  They have some range of backpressure over
which they will pump.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.03 /  chuck@utdallas /  Re: REAL proof of of CF ?
     
Originally-From: chuck@utdallas.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: REAL proof of of CF ?
Date: 3 Jan 1996 00:21:24 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas at Dallas

WARNING...this message is a little on the long side.


MARSHALL DUDLEY (mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com) wrote:
> Coal fired plants burn coal for the heat.  

Yes...which is applied to a working fluid to induce a phase change and 
run a turbine, usually.

> Nuclear plants "burn" uranium for the fuel.  

Yes, though "burn" is not the best term.

> Hydroelectric plants run on the heat from the fusion in the sun using a 
> water cycle.  

Yes...also correct.

> Gas fired plants run on the heat produced from gas.  

Yes, same as coal and oil plants.

> Your car engine runs on the heat produced from burning gasoline.  

NO!  An internal combustion engine runs doe to the expanding gases 
produced from the burning of gas.  This is one of my pet peeves...unless 
you're running a Stirling cycle engine (or similar) you are not utilizing 
the heat.

> The geothermal plants run on the heat from hot springs or pumped water. 

Usually...though it is *possible* to use the high-pressure water and 
steam to run the turbines directly.

> There are NO significant sources of electricity that do not run on heat.

Ever heard of photovoltaics?  Direct conversion of radiant energy to 
electricity...except for the Cadmium Telluride cells, these do not react 
primarily to the infrared range of the spectrum.

Now, let's turn your statement around..."Most sources of heat do not run 
on electricity."

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with many of your points in your message.  However, heat is a 
fundamental necessity in most areas...and it's generated by any number of 
methods, including electrical resistance, gas, heat pump, geothermal 
energy, coal, oil, and even burning wood.  

Electricity is not the only way to generate heat...and it is not even 
the most efficient way.  Personally, I would think that a nice system 
using a parabolic mirror to generate huge amounts of concentrated heat, 
and then stored in a thermal mass, not unlike a central masonry fireplace 
in some of the older homes, would be a good system.  And, it has an 
almost negligible impact on the environment, in the process.  (The 
thermal mass stores and slowly reradiates the heat energy during the 
nighttime hours.  YES, I know it's not the best setup for every climate, 
but it's pretty good in the southern US, where I live.  Hopefully I'll 
build this type of setup someday.)

     -- Chuck Knight
-- 
-
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenchuck cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Jan  4 04:37:03 EST 1996
------------------------------
