1996.01.03 / James Logajan /  Re: Second "law" is dead ! Success !
     
Originally-From: jamesl@netcom.com (James Logajan)
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: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 04:42:43 GMT
Organization: Lugoj Incorporated

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?

While you did not direct that query at me, I should point out that physics
does have some axioms. It is just that they are so pervasive that they
often are overlooked. Here a some (copied from "Instant Physics" by 
Tony Rothman. A quick little read with a rather humorous topical style):

1) Reductionism: The world is made up of a few underlying principles.

2) Mechanism: The world operated like a machine. Supernatural causes have
no place in science.

3) The Tetractys Doctrine: The fact that mathematics describes the real
world so well cannot be coincidental. Mathematics is the correct language
of physics.

4) Quantification: You don't know anything unless you've measured it and
assigned a number to it.

And I would add:

5) Universality: The underlying principles are the same anywhere in the
universe and at any time in history.

Whether all these axioms (or doctrines) are entirely true is questionable. They
are however the basis for science as we know it. 

Have a nice new year!
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjamesl cudfnJames cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.03 /  Nick /  Re: Experimental evidence rules out 1300 watts from CETI demo
     
Originally-From: lineplex@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Nick Horgan")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Experimental evidence rules out 1300 watts from CETI demo
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 09:19:52 GMT
Organization: LinePlex Ltd

Hear, hear.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenlineplex cudlnNick cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.03 /  ramon@negia.ne /  FREE Chinese/Mandarin Class Announcement - announce.txt [01/01]
     
Originally-From: ramon@negia.net
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FREE Chinese/Mandarin Class Announcement - announce.txt [01/01]
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 96 03:30:42 GMT
Organization: Northeast GA Internet Access, Inc.

BEGIN -- Cut Here -- cut here
==========================================================================
                    FREE MANDARIN CLASS ANNOUNCEMENT
                                 from
                        Ramon Mandarin Services
               (http://www.negia.net/~ramon/classes.html)
==========================================================================

  Ramon Mandarin Services is a non-profit organization which promotes the
learning and using of the standard Chinese (Mandarin) language. We are 
developing a series of classes which will be eventually offered 
FREE OF CHARGE to anyone who is interested.

  The first of this series, Gateway to Chinese, is an introductory course
which includes 20 lessons covering basic conversations for some daily
situations. The class material is of multimedia design and will have audio
clips in addition to written information. This interactive mechanism will
ensure that first-time learners will easily get on to the right tracks. And
best of all, this course is FREE of charge. Anyone with a direct Internet
connection (capable of accessing WWW or FTP) may participate in the class. 
For those who do not, please send a message to ramon@negia.net. We will
see if other arrangement can be worked out.

  Participation in the classes offered by RMS is totally voluntary and may 
be canceled at any time. However, due to the limited resource available, 
you do have to preregister with us in order for the whole course to be 
delivered in a well organized manner. To preregister, point your WWW browser 
to the URL given in the header of this notice.

  You may also preregister by email. Please include the following information
about yourself and the computer you are using. All items are required.

  - Full name (first, middle, last)
  - Mailing address
  - E-Mail address (Be sure to get it right!)
  - Your native language
  - Operating system you are using (Windows 95, Windows 3.x, MacOS)
  - Is your computer sound enabled?
  - Any Chinese Character system installed in your computer?
  - Any prior experience of Mandarin learning?

  Preregistration will include you in our regular mailing list so that we 
can keep you informed of the time when the class actually begins as well as
other latest development at RMS. 

  Thank you for your interest and have a successful, challenging 1996!

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Note: Please distribute this announcement to friends and colleagues who
  may be interested in learning Chinese. This notice may be freely posted
  on local bulletin boards, newsgroups, and reprinted in newsletters and
  other publications.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
END -- Cut Here -- cut here
cudkeys:
cuddy03 cudenramon cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.04 / Richard Blue /  Re: Kettle experiment
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kettle experiment
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 15:11:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan's discussion of thermal time constants presents an important
tool for understanding the data provided by the CETI demonstrations.  However,
I wonder whether John is using his analysis to the full extent possible.

The question I would raise is whether the thermal behavior that is described
for the CETI device is consistent with there being a 1300 watt heat source
in the system.  Everything that has been said seems to point to the output
temperature being quite stable.  All the perturbations associated with
measurements of flow, etc. seem to have no effect  on the temperatures that
are considered worth mentioning.  How can that be?

Of course we are handicapped by the total ignorance (And they are proud of
it!) of the physical process that produces the heat.  By all accounts the
rate of heat production is totally independent of every variable in the
system.  The stability of the system is indeed remarkable.  We are told
changes in electrolysis current have little effect and that the fluid
flow rate determines the temperature differential in a completely linear
manner consistent with there being not effect on the reaction rate.

>From the description of the plumbing it seems rather unlikely that the
fluid flow rate would be rock solid steady so should we not expect to
see changes in the temperatures as electrolyte is drawn off to measure
that flow rate?

Isn't there some sort of tradeoff in the design of this calorimeter
involving temperature stability versus sensitivity?  If the temperature
is very stable is that not a clue that perhaps the device does not
respond very well to power inputs at the kilowatt level?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.03 / John Logajan /  Re: Power factor
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Power factor
Date: 3 Jan 1996 15:24:03 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

MARSHALL DUDLEY (mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com) wrote:
: 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.
: ->
: -> You've identified the 'excess' in the input power.
:
: 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.

I hope you meant Bob.  Yes, I know that over-reporting of the input power
serves to *reduce* the reported output gain.

There are several "conservative" factors in the CETI results reported by
Jed (and one factor he should have included but didn't.)

1.) assumed 100% recovery of cell heat (could be on the order of 20%)
2.) no correction for recombination losses (minor in this case)
3.) power factor (25%?)
4.) assumed 100% coupling of AC power into cell deltaT as worst case scenario

The factor Jed forgot to include is the specific heat of the electrolyte,
which is 0.95 compared to 1.0 for plain water.  Therefore Jed's reported
powers should by knocked down by 5%.  Actually, this isn't just conservative,
it is a requirement, since there is no reason to believe that the specific
heat is higher than 0.95.

--
 - 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 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Power factor
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Power factor
Date: 3 Jan 1996 16:19:48 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <4c691m$733@stratus.skypoint.net> jlogajan@skypoint.com writes:
>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.
...
...
..
>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.

Power factor is a meaningful concept for sinusoidal voltages and currents.
Had you used an average responding meter, calibrated to read RMS, in measuring
the non-sinusoidal currents or voltages, those readings would have been lower
than the true RMS values of the waveforms - so the generalization you are
attempting to draw is incorrect.

Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
 -------------------------------------------------------
Any ideas or opinions expressed here do not necessarily
reflect the ideas or opinions of my employer.
 -------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.03 / Matthew Scott /  Re: Second "law" is dead ! Success !
     
Originally-From: scott@informatik.hu-berlin.de (Matthew Scott)
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: 3 Jan 1996 16:54:44 GMT
Organization: Humboldt University Berlin, Department of Computer Science

ken collins <collinsk@ix.netcom.com> writes:

>>
>>***{I would add that if we work with a *reasonably* defined "entropy"
>>concept, there is also no contradiction between the first and second law.
>>The first law implies that the universe always existed and, granting that,
>>the second law implies that the universe is infinite in space. If it were
>>not--if the universe were a finite cloud of matter and energy at the
>>center of an infinite void--then by the second law energy would have been
>>flowing outward from that center for an infinite time, as Anthony Cox
>>noted, and the universe would have run down by now. [...]
>> 
>>>--Mitchell Jones}***

>(My apologies to those whose inputs are not adequately referenced above. kpc)

>Mr, Jones, your statement, "the universe would have run down by now" is not 
>necessarily correct because, if "energy" flows so as to expand "space", then, since 
>that flow would possess inertia, it would be carried on beyond an inversion "point", 
>diminish, "halt", and then reverse to flow into the "void" that was produced during 
>the post-inversion"point" flow.

>In this view, the Universe as a whole would be in a harmonic "state", and what's 
>described by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics would have 2 phases: expansion-dominant 
>and contraction-dominant. (In the 2nd of these, it would be "impossible" to 
>construct any machine which didn't produce more "energy" than it consumed. 


Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought he meant to say that the second law and the
first contradict eachother.  It seems to me that your harmonic universe makes
use of an anti-second law.  That seems like a pretty good contradiction to the
second law, so I don't see how you've made much progress.  Furthermore, I have 
heard of no experimental evidence for this theory.  People have only imagined
that this might be so, and looked for evidence that they couldn't find.  So,
although this theory might be correct, I don't believe it.  I'd be interested
in hearing a few more ideas, though.  Perhaps the universe is capable of 
reproducing itsself, or is produced by a larger, more stable frame of existance.
Perhaps the big bang is what happens when causality is added to a non-causal
frame....i.e.   A non causal frame would consist of white noise in whatever
available variable realms (complete independance of all variables. because they
have no causality by which they can affect eachother)  Add a drop of causality
to that and boom!!!!  (I'm talking about real white noise here, not the pale
approximations with limited bandwidth and amplitude that we generate and test
our loudspeakers with)

come on, there's got to be an explaination that we can believe in.

Scott@informatik.hu-berlin.de
  

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenscott cudfnMatthew cudlnScott cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.03 / 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: 3 Jan 1996 17:22:21 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

John Logajan (jlogajan@skypoint.com) wrote:
: 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.

If the motor shaft penetrates into the area containing water, it is
direct coupled rather than magnetically coupled.  Both types are
available, however, the direct coupled types tend to be short lived
as they frequently develop leaks at the shaft seal.

My comments were directed at the magnetically coupled variety (most
of todays aquarieum pumps priced above $25 appear to be this 
configuration). 

: 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.

Most of the filter pumps I've encountered flow water into the filter
with a syphon, gravity forces the water down through the water and
back up the tube to the surface level of the acquarium water, and
the pump supplies only enough energy to flow the water back into 
the aquarium.  In this configuration, it pumps against a invariant
gravity head of zero, and only has to overcome the friction of the
return tube.

If you try to reconfigure one of these so that it must pump the water
to a higher level than equilibrium (say 6" or so), flow drops very
rapidly to zero.

Obviously, this mechanism alone will not account for excess heat
observations in the order of 1300-Watts.  I am simply pointing
out that it represents remakably poor technical judgement in
selecting a pump for this critical application, and thus says
something about the qualifications or practical knowledge of those
conducting this demonstration.  

Combine this with other areas of weakness in the CETI reports
and a general picture of the limited credibility of this work
begins to form.  I consider it unfortunate that no one with
strong credentials in experimental physics witnessed the 
demo to provide a truly objective description of what took
place.  Given Zoltan's report, this was likely not accidental.

                               Harry C.



cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.03 / Richard Austin /  Re: Second "law" is dead ! Success !
     
Originally-From: richard@rt66.com (Richard Austin)
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: Wed, 03 Jan 1996 12:14:41 -0600
Organization: Institute for Planetary Renewal

In article <4c9s79$b1c@odo.PEAK.ORG>, billn@PEAK.ORG (Bill Nelson) wrote:

>Anthony Cox (arteast@pop3.cris.com) wrote:
>: ses2@po.CWRU.Edu (S. E. Stansfield) wrote:
>
>: >Does anyone have a journal reference for this alleged perpetual motion
>: >machine that is mentioned in this thread?
>
>: 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.
>
>Why wouldn't they like it? It is immaterial to the discussion. There is
>a large difference between heat transfer efficiency (whichis what your
>SEER rating is) and energy efficiency.
>
>If you add up the energy absorbed from the ground/air by the heat coila
>and the electrical energy used by the heat pump itself - then compare it
>to the heat output from the radiator - you will find that the energy
>transfer is far below 100%.

Not True. The energy out is much greater than the energy in. Not because
it is creating more energy than expended, but because it is collecting
solar energy. It is pumping solar energy into the house. If this were not
true then resistance heating would be just as good as a heat pump.

>
>If that were not the case, then you could place the radiator coils in
>the ground along with the absorbing coils, and have a perpetual motion
>machine.

In fact, you CAN make a perpetual motion machine with low temperature
phase change (heat pumps). They are as perpetual as the sun (not actually
perpetual because they will quit when the sun quits in a few billion
years). They are just efficient solar collectors (use the heat to run heat
engines). They will run indefinitely night and day as long as the Sun is
near the earth and still hot.

For more information see the article "Tesla's Self Acting Engine" in the
3rd Qtr issue of Borderlands magazine.

>
>Bill

-- 
  Richard Austin -- richard@rt66.com
   Institute for Planetary Renewal
    http://www.rt66.com/~richard/
cudkeys:
cuddy03 cudenrichard cudfnRichard cudlnAustin cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.03 / Mark Mallory /  Re: REAL proof of of CF ?
     
Originally-From: mmallory@netcom.com (Mark Mallory)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: REAL proof of of CF ?
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 20:45:42 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

chuck@utdallas.edu wrote:

: > 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.


It's the HEAT that makes the gases EXPAND, you knucklehead!  An Otto Cycle 
engine is just as much a *heat engine* as is a Stirling Cycle engine.









cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmmallory cudfnMark cudlnMallory cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.03 / Larry Wharton /  Re: Diverting hose makes a mess
     
Originally-From: Larry Wharton <Wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Diverting hose makes a mess
Date: 3 Jan 1996 21:39:29 GMT
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center -- Greenbelt, Maryland USA

Jim,

Your suggestion of:

   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.

is exactly how it is described in the article "How to do flow 
calorimetry right" by Jed Rothwell in Infinite Energy magazine.  The 
intent of that article was to praise the very high quality of the CETI 
experimental setup.  Now we see the "How to do flow calorimetry wrong" 
technique of the dual path flow in which the vast majority of the flow 
goes through a path for which there is no flow measurement.  One must 
rely on the senses of a hand picked group of TB's to determine that the 
flow rate does not change when the flow paths are changed.  Jed has used 
his hearing powers to deduce that the flow rate does not change.  So 
here we have the new technique of audio flow rate measurment in which a 
TB listens to the noise a flow makes and from that determines the flow 
rate.  The argument that the observers would have noticed a delta T drop 
during flow measurments is not convincing.  The volume of the flow into 
the graduated cylinder must exceed the volume of electrolyte in the cell 
in order for the colder water to reach the exit temperature sensors and 
that looks like it is not the case.  Then the effect of the increased 
input of the colder water would be averaged out over many minutes and I 
would not want to rely on the great observational powers of a few TB's 
to detect and report on this effect.

Lawrence E. Wharton   wharton@climate.gsfc.nasn.gov
NASA/GSFC code 913, Greenbelt MD 20771
work (301) 286-3486,    home (301) 595-5038


cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenWharton cudfnLarry cudlnWharton cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1995.12.29 / Craig Stangland /  Re: Experimental evidence rules out 1300 watts from CETI demo
     
Originally-From: Craig Stangland <cstangl>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Experimental evidence rules out 1300 watts from CETI demo
Date: 29 Dec 1995 21:21:41 GMT
Organization: NODE-TO-NODE SURVEILLANCE

I just had a couple addition comments.  Thermal photography can be accomplished
with video also, which would add an additional dimension to your research.
Also, you might was to consider Kirlean Photography, which identifies a
different type of energy.  Again, this would require very specialized
photographers.

Craig

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudfnCraig cudlnStangland cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1996.01.04 / Martin Sevior /  Trip to New Mexico cancelled.
     
Originally-From: Martin Sevior <msevior>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Trip to New Mexico cancelled.
Date: 4 Jan 1996 00:41:38 GMT
Organization: The University of British Columbia

As some of you may remember I planned to visit Dennis Cravens lab in New
Mexico in early January. Circumstances have changed sufficiently for me to
decide to cancel the trip. Let me add that at no stage did Dennis Cravens
say "you're not welcome, don't come".

Martin Sevior

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.04 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: Power factor
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Power factor
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 96 00:34:46 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

In article <4ce72j$8eh@stratus.skypoint.net>,
   jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) wrote:
->MARSHALL DUDLEY (mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com) wrote:
->: 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.
->: ->
->: -> You've identified the 'excess' in the input power.
->:
->: 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.
->
->I hope you meant Bob.  Yes, I know that over-reporting of the input power
->serves to *reduce* the reported output gain.


I don't know exactly what Marshall meant, because I, too, understand the 
effects of the input miscalculation. 


->There are several "conservative" factors in the CETI results reported by
->Jed (and one factor he should have included but didn't.)
->
->1.) assumed 100% recovery of cell heat (could be on the order of 20%)


?????? 5 x 1,344 = 6,720 Watts ?????? Surely, you jest.


->2.) no correction for recombination losses (minor in this case)


Is this a supposition? We haven't seen the complete calculations, and CETI, et 
al, routinely make the adjustment whether justified or not.


->3.) power factor (25%?)


I don't think we have any idea of the power factor of the actual setup since 
it was not measured. If the power supply contained filter capacitors, the 
power factor could have been much, much different from your assumption.


->4.) assumed 100% coupling of AC power into cell deltaT as worst case 
scenario


This assumption was NOT made in calculating the claimed cell gain.


->The factor Jed forgot to include is the specific heat of the electrolyte,
->which is 0.95 compared to 1.0 for plain water.  Therefore Jed's reported
->powers should by knocked down by 5%.  Actually, this isn't just 
conservative,
->it is a requirement, since there is no reason to believe that the specific
->heat is higher than 0.95.


Then too, to be really conservative, there is no reason to believe the 
specific heat is not lower than 0.95.

Query John: Since when is CETI ignorance passed off as conservatism? We can't 
assume that any of the reported measurements bear any relation to reality.

Of course, we can push an input Watt around here and an input Watt around 
there, but nothing on the input side can offset the colossal mistakes (yes, 
the evidence points to multiple mistakes) in the output calculation.
cudkeys:
cuddy04 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.04 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Trip to New Mexico cancelled.
     
Originally-From: barry@abel.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Trip to New Mexico cancelled.
Date: 4 Jan 1996 01:57:41 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In article <4cf7o2$c4s@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> Martin Sevior <msevior> writes:
>As some of you may remember I planned to visit Dennis Cravens lab in New
>Mexico in early January. Circumstances have changed sufficiently for me to
>decide to cancel the trip. 

Circumstances means you are no longer interested in checking
it out, or it means that your own schedule changed so as
to make it too inconvenient?  Or maybe you are interested, but
not $700 worth :-)


--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet)  (NeXTMail OK) 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.04 / John Logajan /  Re: Power factor
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Power factor
Date: 4 Jan 1996 04:05:33 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Arnie Frisch (arnief@wu.cse.tek.com) 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.

: Power factor is a meaningful concept for sinusoidal voltages and currents.
: Had you used an average responding meter, calibrated to read RMS, in measuring
: the non-sinusoidal currents or voltages, those readings would have been lower
: than the true RMS values of the waveforms - so the generalization you are
: attempting to draw is incorrect.

Well, the voltage waveform from the power company is sinusoidal, unless
you are really goosing the system. :-) (But I verified it with an 0-scope
anyway.)

That leaves us to consider the current waveform.  Again by O-scope it
was sinusoidal for the 4W water pump, but just slighltly more triangular
for the 9W fan -- more sinusoidal than triangular, let me add.

Now the DC powersupply was the most interesting case.  As expected the
current conducted more during the center portion of the voltage peak.
The waveform skew rate was sinusoidal-like away from zero.  Near zero
there was an extended plateau.  But there was this current rebound as
the voltage crossed zero.  That was purely reactive and therefore would
have overstated the actual power consumed if just considering the
V*I product -- regardless of the form factor peculiarities of the
meter.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Jan  5 04:37:03 EST 1996
------------------------------
