1996.01.06 / John Logajan /  Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
Date: 6 Jan 1996 04:20:47 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Harry H Conover (conover@max.tiac.net) wrote:
: Bradley K. Sherman (bks@netcom.com) wrote:
: : Why is Jed Rothwell the one person
: : in five billion to present the data on both Griggs and Cravens?
: : That may not strain your credulity, but it does mine.

: I find nothing strange in this.  After all, history show that
: people who claim to have had first hand contact with a UFO 
: generally report repeated encounters.  Theory is
: that if you have the special talent to see things that no one
: else does, you'll see these things often...just as Jed does with
: over-unity devices.  This appears to be a general characteristic
: all pseudo-sciences. 

An alternative explanation is that Jed is co-founder, co-editor, and
one of the principle reporters for a magazine devoted to the topic.

But let me not interfer in your snipe hunt.  Carry on.

--
 - 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 cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.06 / John Logajan /  Re: Kettle experiment
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kettle experiment
Date: 6 Jan 1996 04:32:48 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Martin Sevior (msevior) wrote:
: An interesting analogy John. Given the distance you've walked with real
: measurements, do you plan to take the next step and put a length of hose
: from your kettle to a pump with a heating element external to the kettle?

No. It would only be meaningful if I had the original equipment or a very
close duplicate.  The parameter range is so broad that even minor details
could substantially alter the comparison.

: By the way John White, do you know why your results don't match
: John Logajan's? 

I covered and sealed the pot with tinfoil to prevent evaporation and
my results then agreed with John White's prediction.  So it was evaporation
that was carrying away large amounts of energy.

--
 - 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 cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.05 / Bill Snyder /  Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
     
Originally-From: bsnyder@iadfw.net (Bill Snyder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 1996 19:43:19 GMT
Organization: customer of Internet America

In message <4cik4v$psf@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>, Martin Sevior <msevior>
wrote:

>I certainly wouldn't have been convinced by two "events". On the other hand
>why aren't you convinced by a delta-T of 17 C at a flow rate of 1200 milli
>-litres per minute for 8 hours straight?

If simple arithmetic told me that a) Even using the most wildly
favorable assumptions ("favorable" to the TB's, I mean) which do not
require junking the 2nd law of thermodynamics outright, the unit can't
dump anywhere near 1420W to ambient, and b) The residual power would
either evaporate or boil away two or three liters of electrolyte long
before the run had proceeded for 8 hours, then I would indeed be
convinced by such a claim.  Specifically, I would be convinced that
the claim was spurious, the product of incompetence or fraud.


> Do you choose not to believe what Jed reports?

Taken up trolling as a hobby, Martin?

Well, lessee, I didn't believe Rothwell when he told me Takahashi's
100W resistance heater was outputting 5KW.  I didn't believe him when
he made a spectacular botch of his "tabletop calorimetry" exercise,
and claimed accuracy that was at least half an order of magnitude too
high.  I wasn't highly impressed with his reliability as a source when
he took a power figure for the Griggsomagic that was reported in KW,
and proceeded to apply a power factor correction to it.  (This from
the famous GE/Dranetz monitor, which knows about real vs. apparent
power, and reports each in the appropriate units.)  I was even less
pleased when his "explanation" for this amounted to, "I asked Griggs
about it, and he says that's not a mistake. Trust us, it's OK."

Do you choose to *believe* what Jed reports in the current case?  Even
when it contradicts not just nuclear physics, but the most basic
thermodynamics as well?  Even when it self-contradicts? (paraphrased:
"There can't be recombination at the temp sensors, because we see no
bubbles..." and more recently, "We know the flow isn't shut off
because we can watch the bubbles moving through the tubing...")  If
so, why?

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

cudkeys:
cuddy05 cudenbsnyder cudfnBill cudlnSnyder cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.06 / John Logajan /  Re: Diverting hose makes a mess
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Diverting hose makes a mess
Date: 6 Jan 1996 05:24:07 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

gherman@delphi.com wrote:
: Is it possible that the heat stored in the beads and the rest of the
: apparatus heat the incoming 250ml of water sufficiently so that a
: temperature drop is not noticed with this amount of water?

First, lets get a size estimate.  Jed said the cell was about 10cm long,
and about 2.5cm diameter (4"x1") roughly.  volume=length*pi*radius^2
So I put the volume of the cell at 50cc, roughly.

Jed estimated 40cc of beads. That leaves about 5cc on each end for
special business.

My rough calculations also show that on a volume basis, nickle has
roughly the thermal capacity of water, about 4J/degreeC/cc.  If it
used quartz for the cell wall, that'd be about 2J/degreeC/cc.  If the cell
wall was plastic, I would guess even less thermal storage capacity,
but I don't have numbers handy for typical plastics.

The volume of the cell wall material would be a fraction of the total
mass.  The beads compromise 76% of the inner volume and the between
bead volume (water) is about 24% (estimate for uniform bead size.)

So if the beads were solid Ni, then it would take 10cc to displace
the original water.  Thereafter, each 30cc passing the Ni beads would
soak up half the available thermal energy.  So after 30cc pass by,
the bead bed temperature would drop from, say, 16C to 8C.  The next
30cc would drop the bead bed from 8C to 4C.

Let me put it in a running table:

 1.)   0cc  16C
 2.)  30cc   8C  (and 10cc at 16C)
 3.)  60cc   4C
 4.)  90cc   2C
 5.) 120cc   1C
 6.) 150cc   .5C
 7.) 180cc   .25C
 8.) 210cc   .125C
 9.) 240cc   .0625C
10.) 270cc   .03125C
11.) 300cc   .015625C

I get an average sample temperature of about 1.75C if the sample is 300cc.
And the cell deltaT has dropped to about 1/64th of a degree C.

Both of these effects would be readily apparent.  They were not
reported as being observed.

And don't forget that the beads are likely mostly plastic and not
solid Ni.  That'd make the aggregate sample temperature even smaller
and the final deltaT closer to zero.

--
 - 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 cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.06 / Martin Sevior /  Re: neutron decomposition
     
Originally-From: Martin Sevior <msevior>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: neutron decomposition
Date: 6 Jan 1996 05:18:38 GMT
Organization: The University of British Columbia

Actually the neutron has it's own anti-particle the anti-neutron. This has been
observed in nature.

Martin Sevior

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.06 / John Elston /  Re: REAL proof of of CF ?
     
Originally-From: elston@prairienet.org (John M. Elston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: REAL proof of of CF ?
Date: 6 Jan 1996 06:06:12 GMT
Organization: Prairienet, the East-Central Illinois Free-Net

Steven Robiner (srobiner@pollux.usc.edu) wrote:

: 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.

The Patterson Power Cell being discussed here runs on regular light water
with a little lithium electrolyte, and Nickel as the bulk metal electrode.  
The reaction works without Palladium (albeit, perhaps, not as efficiently).  
Nickel is cheap.

--
John M. Elston                   (217) 352-6908
Elston Computer Consulting       elston@prairienet.org 
2708 Santa Ana Rd
Champaign, IL   61821-2339       Coins & Computers & Cards, Oh My! 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenelston cudfnJohn cudlnElston cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.06 / John White /  Re: Kettle experiment
     
Originally-From: jnw@lys.vnet.net (John N. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kettle experiment
Date: 6 Jan 1996 07:34:57 -0500
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

Martin Sevior <msevior> writes:
> By the way John White, do you know why your results don't match
> John Logajan's?

Actually, our results matched beautifully. My result was that 25 watts
would keep a 2qt covered pot at 60 degC. John Logajan used a 3qt pot.
Adjusting for the larger surface area, my 25 watts should be equivalent
to 33 watts with his pot. He tried this and posted the following:

| I re-did it.  33 watts, top covered with aluminum foil to prevent
| evaporation.  4 watt (listed) fish-tank water pump immersed for stirring.
| Books stood on end around the pot, as in a picket fence, to minimize drafts.
| Pot on a 1/2" styrofoam block.  It warmed to 140F (60C) and was still rising,
| so I shut it down (some of the things have hot-glue holding them together,
| didn't want them to melt.)

So 33 watts was more than enough to keep his pot at 60 degC. His pot was
on a styrofoam block, however, which would be a much better insulator
than the thin potholder that I used. Also, I was trying to be careful
not to understate the amount of heat that my pot could dissipate.
Thus, our results are completely consistent.

John Logajan also did experiments where he tried to maximize the
amount of heat dissipated by having a fan blow directly against
the pot, and even allowing evaporation. Naturally, this greatly
increased the amount of heat that could be dissipated. But no matter
what he did, he could not dissipate more than a small fraction of
the 1300 watts that the CETI demo is claimed to have been generating.
-- 
jnw@vnet.net
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.07 / Horace Heffner /  Re: Suppose the CETI cell works.
     
Originally-From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Suppose the CETI cell works.
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 1996 18:18:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


>  I would like to see some more thought about what are the implications
>of the CETI cell actually working.  One thought I had concerns the
>implication of the cell extracting some energy (like the zero point
>energy) from empty space.  If this energy is out there then the maximum
>energy density, e, is related to the power density, p, by
>
> e = p / c
>
>with c the speed of light.  Using e = m*c*c and making some reasonable
>estimates of the power density one may calculate the energy density of
>empty space.  The result is about a billion times too high.  The
>Schwartzchild radius of the universe would only be about 10,000 light
>years or smaller than the size of the galaxy.  I would guess that the
>only explination could be that cold fusion is actually going on.
>
>Lawrence E. Wharton   wharton@climate.gsfc.nasn.gov
>NASA/GSFC code 913, Greenbelt MD 20771
>work (301) 286-3486,    home (301) 595-5038
>

That e is related to c does not necessarily follow.  If the energy is the
result of a QM effect, it may be the result of "action at a distance", as
demanded by Bell's inequality. True?


Regards,                          <hheffner@matsu.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820


cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.06 / Harry Conover /  Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
Date: 6 Jan 1996 21:52:39 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

John Logajan (jlogajan@skypoint.com) wrote:
: Harry H Conover (conover@max.tiac.net) wrote:
: : Bradley K. Sherman (bks@netcom.com) wrote:
: : : Why is Jed Rothwell the one person
: : : in five billion to present the data on both Griggs and Cravens?
: : : That may not strain your credulity, but it does mine.

: : I find nothing strange in this.  After all, history show that
: : people who claim to have had first hand contact with a UFO 
: : generally report repeated encounters.  Theory is
: : that if you have the special talent to see things that no one
: : else does, you'll see these things often...just as Jed does with
: : over-unity devices.  This appears to be a general characteristic
: : all pseudo-sciences. 

: An alternative explanation is that Jed is co-founder, co-editor, and
: one of the principle reporters for a magazine devoted to the topic.

Which, of course, suggests that if all of these reports turn out to
be either utter incompetence or 'snake oil,'  Jed comes out looking
like either a total fool or charlatan.

Thanks.  That helps me put an appropriate filter on Jed's inputs
to this newsgroup!  (Not that anyone that has lurked around this
newsgroup for any reasonable amount of time hasn't already.)

                                   Harry C.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.06 / Harry Conover /  Re: neutron decomposition
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: neutron decomposition
Date: 6 Jan 1996 22:18:27 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Gabriel Biberian (dagab@uclink4.berkeley.edu) wrote:
: This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

A personal request...

Please, please... Never post to Usenet newsgroups using MIME
format.

Like the old joke: "Please don't throw your cigarettes in the
urinal...It makes them soggy and difficult to smoke."

For those of us using conventional Usenet newsreaders (tin, trn, nn,
etc.), mime format results in us receiving pages and pages of garbage
data, which often eclipses your message content.  In this case, I have
no clue about the content of your post, since MIME managed to take
control of my newsreader,  scroll pages and pages of superfulous
data across the screen, ignore abort attempts, and finally result 
in me logging out and re-dialing my access server simply to get
out of the loop.

As a result, when many of us encounter the message "This is a 
MIME encapsulated multi-part messege, decode Y/N, our answer
is an automatic NO!

                                   Harry C.


ps.  Can someone tell me what MIME is all about?  My experiences
     to date suggest, simply, MIME is a problem, ^C out of it if
     possible.  Is it, perhaps, some kind of an Apple/Mac
     protocol?


cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.06 / J Youles /  Re: neutron decomposition
     
Originally-From: J B Youles <john.youles@dial.pipex.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: neutron decomposition
Date: 6 Jan 1996 23:37:59 GMT
Organization: Chaotic

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

>
>ps.  Can someone tell me what MIME is all about?  My experiences
>     to date suggest, simply, MIME is a problem, ^C out of it if
>     possible.  Is it, perhaps, some kind of an Apple/Mac
>     protocol?

I use Netscape under Windows 3.11 and I can attach files such as graphics 
(gif and jpg) to Usenet postings.  These are attached in MIME format and 
can be decoded by Netscape.

Mamy mail reafers are MIME compatible these days.

-- 
John Youles 
 -----------------------------------------------------------
"If the weather we are having is a result of the greenhouse
 effect, then someone must have taken out all the glass."
 -----------------------------------------------------------


cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenyoules cudfnJ cudlnYoules cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.06 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Diverting hose makes a mess
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Diverting hose makes a mess
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 96 21:05:44 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> writes:
 
>And don't forget that the beads are likely mostly plastic and not
>solid Ni.  That'd make the aggregate sample temperature even smaller
>and the final deltaT closer to zero.
 
They are definitely not solid Ni. As in the previously reported experiments
they have a plastic core covered by a thin film metal layer.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.07 / David Fuchs /  Muon's and their generation
     
Originally-From: dfuchs@walrus.com (David Fuchs)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Muon's and their generation
Date: 7 Jan 1996 02:13:58 GMT
Organization: Q co


Could some one send me list of articles on how muons are
generated. Also I would like a list of articles that
explain the energy requirements of muon generation.

Thank you 

  Dave
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudendfuchs cudfnDavid cudlnFuchs cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.06 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Diverting hose makes a mess
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Diverting hose makes a mess
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 96 21:11:41 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Bob Sullivan <bsulliva@sky.net> writes:
 
>There was no heater *in the cell*, but there was the ubiquitous *preheater*.
>
>The possibilities abound.
 
A pre-heater placed before the inlet can only cause a negative Delta T.
That is, it can heat up the water before it enters the cell, and as the
water cools down the outlet temperature is slightly lower than the inlet.
This is exactly what I observed with the control cell.
 
What other possibilities abound? Please explain how a person can make
a spurious Delta T appear by heating the water *outside the cell*. Also
please explain how any outside heater can be of any relevance when the
cell itself was the hottest object in the room, by far. If, as you say,
the possibilites abound, why don't you list two or three of them, and
demonstrate the physics that would allow fraud or error based on these
abounding possibilities.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.07 / Martin Sevior /  Re: Kettle experiment
     
Originally-From: Martin Sevior <msevior>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kettle experiment
Date: 7 Jan 1996 03:07:38 GMT
Organization: The University of British Columbia

jnw@lys.vnet.net (John N. White) wrote:
>
>Actually, our results matched beautifully. My result was that 25 watts
>would keep a 2qt covered pot at 60 degC. John Logajan used a 3qt pot.
>Adjusting for the larger surface area, my 25 watts should be equivalent
>to 33 watts with his pot. 
[snip]


Just to let you know. When I was planning to investigate the POWERGEN
cell I was influenced by your measurements and I planned to measure the
temperature in the reservoir as as well as the temperature of the electrolyte
along the tube after the cell and particularly, just before it reached the
reservoir. You made me realize that the temperature of the reservoir was
another partially independent test of the heat production of the POWERGEN cell.

Martin Sevior

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.07 / Martin Sevior /  Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
     
Originally-From: Martin Sevior <msevior>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
Date: 7 Jan 1996 03:11:12 GMT
Organization: The University of British Columbia

jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) wrote:
>An alternative explanation is that Jed is co-founder, co-editor, and
>one of the principle reporters for a magazine devoted to the topic.
>

Another is that he has a thick enough skin to post here.

Martin Sevior

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.07 / Martin Sevior /  Re: Suppose the CETI cell works.
     
Originally-From: Martin Sevior <msevior>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Suppose the CETI cell works.
Date: 7 Jan 1996 03:26:16 GMT
Organization: The University of British Columbia

Larry Wharton <Wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>I think it is getting harder for the skeptics to explain away the latest 
>CETI demo results.  
>

No it isn't. You just say "I don't believe the numbers posted."

[snip]

>  I would like to see some more thought about what are the implications 
>of the CETI cell actually working.  One thought I had concerns the 
>implication of the cell extracting some energy (like the zero point 
>energy) from empty space.  If this energy is out there then the maximum 
>energy density, e, is related to the power density, p, by
>
> e = p / c
>
>with c the speed of light.  Using e = m*c*c and making some reasonable 
>estimates of the power density one may calculate the energy density of 
>empty space.  The result is about a billion times too high.  The 
>Schwartzchild radius of the universe would only be about 10,000 light 
>years or smaller than the size of the galaxy.  I would guess that the 
>only explination could be that cold fusion is actually going on.
>

This is a very interesting line of thought and one that is basically swept
under
the rug by particle physics theorists who claim we're "on the verge of a
theory of everything" via superstrings or some other theory that extrapolates
17 orders of magnitude or more in energy from what we've presently measured.

This relates to the "Cosomological Constant" or mass-density of the vaccuum.
As far as anyone can measure the Cosomological Constant is zero. "Naturalness"
arguments, particularly the fact that Universal Higgs field, required for
Electroweak spontanous symmetry breaking, has a non-zero expectation value in
the vacuum, would indicate a local mass density FIFTY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE 
larger.

Don't throw away this idea. There is a lot more to the vacuum than we presently
understand.

Martin Sevior

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.06 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: Diverting hose makes a mess
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Diverting hose makes a mess
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 96 16:18:47 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

In article <4ck2v5$21n@post.gsfc.nasa.gov>,
   Larry Wharton <Wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote:
->Jed,
->
->  I assumed that there was a heater in the Power Gen 95 cell because 
->there was a heater in previous cells which was used for calibration. I 
->was guessing and now it appears I was wrong.  It does look as you say 
->that there is no possiblity of fraud. At least I can't think of anything 
->now.
->
->Lawrence E. Wharton   wharton@climate.gsfc.nasn.gov
->NASA/GSFC code 913, Greenbelt MD 20771
->work (301) 286-3486,    home (301) 595-5038
->
->

There was no heater *in the cell*, but there was the ubiquitous *preheater*.

The possibilities abound.
cudkeys:
cuddy06 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.07 / A Plutonium /  Higgs physicists crackpots Ken McLean; will the shrimps do 
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.particle,soc.culture.british,alt.com
dy.british,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Higgs physicists crackpots Ken McLean; will the shrimps do 
Date: 7 Jan 1996 01:20:02 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <4cikij$scd@lnsnews.lns.cornell.edu>
mclean@lns598.lns.cornell.edu (Ken McLean) writes:

> Doesn't Dartmouth have some policy on people using its government subsidized
> resources for openly malicious and racist postings like those produced by 
> Plutonium recently?
> 
> If it continues providing AP with facilities, this is presumably an endorsement
> of his views, so presumably Dartmouth opens itself up to liability if Bullock
> chose to sue for defamation or libel?
> 
> Perhaps Ben should talk to Lawrence Godfrey about this...

  PRESENT-DAY-SHRIMPS-OF-SCIENCE
   These are the little folk of science who go chasing pell mell for
fame, not science truth. They want fame, limelight. They are
advantageously "placed" within the social structure that wants them to
report the data which even though false, the social momentum will make
the general public nod approval. The publicity pages of magazines like
"Nature" or "The New York Times" are their instruments of propaganda.
In
their quest for fame they have already lost most science objectivity,
and logic to think clearly and to think straight. A perfect arena to
observe this going on right now at this very moment, this "socialized
physics or communistic physics" is the quest for the Higgs Particle.
   Another example of false science seeking fame more than truth was
the Pons & Fleischmann report of cold fusion in 1989 and yet after 5
years still no engineered operational power producing device. The
reporting of the Higgs Particle will be another Sensationalist News
Hype a la Pons & Fleischmann. They will claim a Higgs particle
discovered, yet, the real truth is that no Higgs Particle exists.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.07 / Martin Sevior /  Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
     
Originally-From: Martin Sevior <msevior>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
Date: 7 Jan 1996 04:16:29 GMT
Organization: The University of British Columbia

bsnyder@iadfw.net (Bill Snyder) wrote:

>Do you choose to *believe* what Jed reports in the current case?  Even
>when it contradicts not just nuclear physics, but the most basic
>thermodynamics as well?  Even when it self-contradicts? (paraphrased:
>"There can't be recombination at the temp sensors, because we see no
>bubbles..." and more recently, "We know the flow isn't shut off
>because we can watch the bubbles moving through the tubing...")  If
>so, why?
>

Well let me start by saying "believing what Jed reports" doesn't neccessarily
mean I believe it is an overunity device or that it was putting out in excess
of 1 kilowatt of heat, though it may well have. I could easily buy a good
argument that showed it was really a factor of 2 smaller. 

BUT the measurements are so simple. Measure the flow rate, measure the water 
temperature in the reservoir, measure the water temperature after it leaves
the cell. Jed did this by sticking a thermometer in a cup of the diverted
water. In any case you'd only have to touch the tubing to know
it's hotter downstream of the cell. Not only Jed reported this. 

I have other evidence that I'm not at liberty to discuss that many other people
saw similar effects and were mightily impressed. Big bucks are involved. 

Whatever happens watching CETI will be an entertaining thing to do for the next
while.

Martin Sevior

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.07 / Barry Merriman /  Products from CETI
     
Originally-From: Barry Merriman <barry>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Products from CETI
Date: 7 Jan 1996 04:27:08 GMT
Organization: University of California, Los Angeles

In Jed's article on the PowerGen Demo on J.L.'s web page,
he mentions that CETI is moving rapidly to produce consumer
products:

"CETI plans to follow up on this with demonstrations of prototype consumer
products, including larger cells for space heating and heat engines. They are
working to develop these devices as rapidly as they can. They estimate that it
will take six months to one year to make suitable prototypes."

In the mean time, will they sell small quantites of their beads so that 
independent experiments can be carried out?  Based on Jed's recent comments,
it sounds like they may be going into a non-cooperative mode for the 
foreseeable future...

-- 
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet)  (NeXTMail OK)

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.07 / John Logajan /  Re: Power factor
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Power factor
Date: 7 Jan 1996 05:24:22 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Harry H Conover (conover@max.tiac.net) wrote:
: : I was talking about the input side of the transformer -- the "primary
: : winding," as they call it.


: Why?  It's not clear to my why you would care about the input power to
: the power supply, unless it too is chucking its dissipated heat into the 
: 'calorimetry.'

The topic was "power factor."  You don't measure power factor at the
output of a filtered DC power supply.

--
 - 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:
cuddy7 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.07 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Products from CETI
     
Originally-From: Barry Merriman <barry>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Products from CETI
Date: 7 Jan 1996 06:35:11 GMT
Organization: University of California, Los Angeles

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

> 
>>"CETI plans to follow up on this with demonstrations of prototype consumer
>>products...They estimate that it
>>will take six months to one year to make suitable prototypes."
>>

>The non-cooperative mode will definitely not be "for the foreseeable future."
>I did not say that. In fact, I said just the opposite in the section of
>text Merriman quoted. I wonder if he read it? I said that they hope to
>produced prototypes in six months or so. 

Well, you say that they plan to produce _prototypes_ in 6 months. That
doesn't mean they plan to release anything for public availability then.
I would presume a small company like CETI would produce the prototype
to show to a larger company, and that they would undertake some joint
venture to do the manufacturing and distribution.

So, in short I assume their prototypes will be for internal consumption
only, rather than heralding the availability of something an independent
scientist could play with. Even in the best case, it could be well over
a year before anything was made publically available.

Of course, I guess anyone is free to fabricate their own beads based
on the patents, and play with those, but that is something of an 
annoyance.

On the other hand, maybe their process is so rubust that one could
simply use some nickel beads + Li2SO4 and still get an effect (though
I hate the game of trying to reproduce anomalous effects without 
starting from the true configuration---too much room for deviations
in results and conclusions).


-- 
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet)  (NeXTMail OK)

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.07 / Barry Merriman /  Re: CETI Products
     
Originally-From: Barry Merriman <barry>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI Products
Date: 7 Jan 1996 07:10:55 GMT
Organization: University of California, Los Angeles

As noted, Jed says that CETI is on a rapid
consumer product development cycle, on the < 1
year timescale (for the prototype hot water
heater at least).

However, it seems to me inconceivable that they
will be allowed to---or would want to!---market such a device
if it generates energy of a heretofore unknown nature.

Given the history of things like X-rays, silicone breast
implants, the
extremely tight controls of government safety 
bodies like the FDA, and the existence
of succeful consumer advocate groups (as well as 
reactionary groups that oppose radical technologies like
genetic engineering), I think it would not be too
difficult to get a court order to prevent CETI + 
friends from mass marketing this technology until 
the soruce and byproducts of their ``reaction''
are thoroughly documented and shown to not be
a significant biological hazard.

So, even if CETI chose not to engage in open scientific
investigation of the process embodied in their device, I think
it is probably possible to legally force them to present extensive
evidence that their reaction produces no harmful byproducts priot 
to them actually being able to sell anything, and in so
doing force them to engage into independent research that will definitively 
determine the nature of the reaction.

Any one up for forming the Citizens Group For The Full Disclosure
of Colf Fusion Reaction Byproducts, and taking CETI to court? :-) 

After all, for all we know they are tapping the ZPE, and widespread
use of their device will precipitate the collapse of the universe :-)


-- 
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet)  (NeXTMail OK)

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.07 / Bill Snyder /  Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
     
Originally-From: bsnyder@iadfw.net (Bill Snyder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 1996 07:17:46 GMT
Organization: customer of Internet America

In message <4cnhet$c6v@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>, Martin Sevior <msevior>
wrote:

>Well let me start by saying "believing what Jed reports" doesn't neccessarily
>mean I believe it is an overunity device or that it was putting out in excess
>of 1 kilowatt of heat, though it may well have. I could easily buy a good
>argument that showed it was really a factor of 2 smaller. 

Doesn't sound like an impossible requirement -- *if* the relevant data
is available.  Was the apparatus for this 8-hour run you referenced
identical to the demo, and if not, what are the differences?  How does
the argument for evaporation hold up in the light of the actual amount
of replacement electrolyte required?


 [snippage]
>Whatever happens watching CETI will be an entertaining thing to do for the next
>while.

Um, yes, I rather expect you are right about that, at least.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy07 cudenbsnyder cudfnBill cudlnSnyder cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.07 / Martin Sevior /  Re: Muon's and their generation
     
Originally-From: Martin Sevior <msevior>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Muon's and their generation
Date: 7 Jan 1996 07:29:54 GMT
Organization: The University of British Columbia

dfuchs@walrus.com (David Fuchs) wrote:
>
>Could some one send me list of articles on how muons are
>generated. Also I would like a list of articles that
>explain the energy requirements of muon generation.
>

I don't have any references to hand but their production
is very simple. 

1. Slam high protons (greater than about 350 MeV) into a chunk
of matter and create short lived sub-atmic particle called
pions and kaons.

2. These particles decay with a lifetime of 26 and 12 billionths of
a second respectively via the the decays

pion => muon + neutrino
kaon => muon + neutrino

so the muons come from pion and kaon decay which are in turn created
by very energic collisions between protons and ordinary matter.

Martin Sevior

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.07 / Martin Sevior /  Re: CETI Products
     
Originally-From: Martin Sevior <msevior>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI Products
Date: 7 Jan 1996 07:34:42 GMT
Organization: The University of British Columbia

Barry Merriman <barry> wrote:

[snip]

>
>Any one up for forming the Citizens Group For The Full Disclosure
>of Colf Fusion Reaction Byproducts, and taking CETI to court? :-) 
>
>After all, for all we know they are tapping the ZPE [snip]


If it did this we might also draw the atention of the Klingons before
we're ready for them in 3 centuries time :-) !

Martin Sevior

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.07 /  VCockeram /  Re: Diverting hose makes a mess
     
Originally-From: vcockeram@aol.com (VCockeram)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Diverting hose makes a mess
Date: 7 Jan 1996 07:14:56 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <4cm7d7$710_001@ip143.sky.net>, bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
writes:

>
>There was no heater *in the cell*, but there was the ubiquitous
*preheater*.
>
>The possibilities abound.
>
>
>

How quickly (and conviently) we forget the excess heat is computed
by the delta T (Tin-Tout) _across_ only the cell. I thought this was
put to rest weeks ago...But maybe you have something new here.
Just what "posssibilities abound"?  How does the temperature of 
the external flow loop (outside the cell) cause excess to appear
in the cell delta T?

Vince 












cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenvcockeram cudlnVCockeram cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.07 / John Logajan /  Re: CETI Products
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI Products
Date: 7 Jan 1996 15:29:11 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Barry Merriman (barry) wrote:
: So, even if CETI chose not to engage in open scientific
: investigation of the process embodied in their device, I think
: it is probably possible to legally force them to present extensive
: evidence that their reaction produces no harmful byproducts priot 
: to them actually being able to sell anything, and in so
: doing force them to engage into independent research that will definitively 
: determine the nature of the reaction.

The official position is currently that CF effects do not exist, therefore
there is no current standing to prevent sale of such products.  It would
require judicial acceptance of CF and that implies official acceptence
of CF for any of these regulator agencies to intervene.

So we will all believe in CF before the regulatory agencies get into the
act.  And by that time it would be too late for the agencies' actions
to hinder the avalanche of independent research.  The gold rush would
be on.

--
 - 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:
cuddy7 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.07 / Harry Conover /  Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
Date: 7 Jan 1996 16:00:49 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Martin Sevior (msevior) wrote:

: I have other evidence that I'm not at liberty to discuss that many 
: other people saw similar effects and were mightily impressed. Big bucks 
: are involved. 

Caveat Emptor!

Ever notice how, unlike real scientific breakthroughs, pseudo-scientific 
discoveries *always* involve esoterica and a potential for big bucks, yet
never produce a marketable product or earn a single buck?  

Also, notice the extreme attention devoted to maintaining a relatively 
low public profile and the focus on attracting only private investment,
thus avoiding unwanted Securities and Exchange Commission scrutiny
on these dubious transactions.

Interesting thing U.S. securities law - It protects public but not 
private investment.  However, it has very sharp teeth and often the 
line distinguishing a private offering from a public offering is very
indistinct.  As an experienced businessman, Jed is likely quite
familiar with the legal hazards associated with the conduction of
highly speculative securities offerings, enough at least to keep
himself at arm's length from legal risk.  Based on what I read here, I 
can't help but wonder if the 'techie' principals in these enterprises 
are well equally informed on applicable securities law.

Perhaps my opening warning should be 
revised to: 'let the seller beware.'

                                        Harry C.

p.s. "Bad boys, Bad boys... Whatcha gonna do when they come for you..."

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.07 / Harry Conover /  Re: Conover wrong; experts observed demo
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Conover wrong; experts observed demo
Date: 7 Jan 1996 16:26:59 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes:
:  
:      "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."
:  
: This is wrong on several counts:
:  
: 1.   CETI has not made any reports. Cravens and I published papers about
:      their work in Infinite Energy, CETI has said nothing.

I hadn't claimed CETI had published any reports and seriously doubt if
they have...simply because of the strong possibility of reports 
claiming excess aheat coming back to bite them as evidence in a court 
proceeding.  The "CETI reports" I mentioned were the reports on CETI 
posted by you and others. 

  
: 2.   Many people with strong credentials in experimental physics witnessed
:      the demo, including people from the University of Illinois, EPRI and
:      elsewhere. I was there with them. I asked for, and got, their comments,
:      in confidence of course. 

How about some names and credentials then?

:      One person who was not there was Harry H.
:      Conover. Since he did not attend he has no business posting messages
:      pretending he knows what happened and who observed it.

I pretend nothing, and only comment on the scientific credibility (or
incredibility) of reports published by others, including yourself. If
attendance at the CETI demonstration were a prerequisite to posting in
this newsgroup, you and Zoltan would have the only posts, and the entire
subject of CETI would be long forgotten...at this juncture, likely 
something you wish had already happened!  

: 3.   Zoltan did not observe the demo so he is not in any position to report
:      anything. He came in the morning and left before the demonstrations
:      started up again in the afternoon. Before the conference, right here in
:      s.p.f. I warned Zoltan and all others that a demonstration like this is
:      difficult and complicated, and that if you come to observe it you must
:      be patient. If you are not willing to sit and wait all day for
:      preparations, you cannot do science, and you have no business judging a
:      prototype product.
:  

Zoltan was present for the demo and, as he reported here, CETI moved the
demo to another time and location.  More evidence in support of my
claim that CETI could only perform successful demonstrations to an 
audience of true believes or those so technically naive that success and 
failure were indistinguishable!

                                           Harry C.


cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.07 / Harry Conover /  Re: Rothwell distances self from CETI
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell distances self from CETI
Date: 7 Jan 1996 16:53:53 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

It's interesting to observe how, as the preposterous 1300-Watt CETI
demo excess energy claim continues to collapse and attract ridicule,
Jed is trying to carefully and strategically distance himself from
CETI.

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

: I must say that in the past CETI has been fairly cooperative and open, but
: lately they have been clamming up and giving me a bad time. At Power-Gen they
: were reluctant at first to let me take temperature readings. 

But Jed, you didn't previously surface this in your report.  Why? 
Wasn't this alone enough to set 'your caution flag' and alert you to the 
fact that all was not quite kosher?

: I told them that
: it was essential I verify the three parameters: power in, flow, and
: temperature. Otherwise I would report that I cannot tell if the gadget is
: working or not. With this relatively crude calorimeter, unless I can verify
: essential parameters externally and independently, I can draw no firm
: conclusion. 

Certainly a reasonable precaution to take.  However, why hadn't you
previously posted the fact that CETI was resistant to independent 
operating parameter measurements?

: Since I *was* able to independently test it, I am satisfied it was
: massively over-unity, but they did not make it any easier. 

What exactly does this mean?  Did CETI obstruct your conduction of 
measurements, or any any way compromise these measurements?  Is it
not possible that by "not make it any easier" you're leaving the 
door open to an upcoming revelation that the CETI folks may have
'mislead' or 'corrupted' your measurements, leading you to reach
an inaccurate or even incorrect conclusion?  

Jed, it certainly sounds to me that you did try your best, but, 
somehow the CETI folk managed to pull the wool over your eyes --
clearly through no fault of your own.  Is this what you're now
telling us?

: CETI has taken a
: new, less-cooperative stance because they are negotiating with and working
: with large corporations that have asked them to take a low profile. While I
: understand that, and I appreciate the need for business-like control over
: corporate information, I still think this stance is counterproductive. They
: are overdoing it. Frankly I think they are shooting themselves in the feet. In
: computer lingo I would say they have reset their cooperation bit; they should
: re-enable the feature.

Jed, this is really illuminating.  Imagine, that CETI attempted to take
advantage of you, arguably their greatest supporter on this newsgroup.
I now see how you must have felt when you realized that (as you 
previously reported here) CETI had intentionally misrepresented their
excess energy demo apparatus by intentionally choosing inappropriate
equipment and instrumentation.  By now you must feel, at least to
a degree, that you've been taken advantage of and made to appear a
fool by CETI.  I don't blame you for trying to distance yourself
from this enterprise!

                                     Harry C.

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.07 / David Fuchs /  Muon's and their generation ... more questions
     
Originally-From: dfuchs@walrus.com (David Fuchs)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Muon's and their generation ... more questions
Date: 7 Jan 1996 17:37:00 GMT
Organization: Q co


Is there any way to generate them by just slamming electrons together?
Are there any other paths to muon generation.

In article <4cnspi$d8p@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>, Martin Sevior <msevior> says:
>
>dfuchs@walrus.com (David Fuchs) wrote:
>>
>>Could some one send me list of articles on how muons are
>>generated. Also I would like a list of articles that
>>explain the energy requirements of muon generation.
>>
>
>I don't have any references to hand but their production
>is very simple. 
>
>1. Slam high protons (greater than about 350 MeV) into a chunk
>of matter and create short lived sub-atmic particle called
>pions and kaons.
>
>2. These particles decay with a lifetime of 26 and 12 billionths of
>a second respectively via the the decays
>
>pion => muon + neutrino
>kaon => muon + neutrino
>
>so the muons come from pion and kaon decay which are in turn created
>by very energic collisions between protons and ordinary matter.
>
>Martin Sevior
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudendfuchs cudfnDavid cudlnFuchs cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.07 / Harry Conover /  Re: neutron decomposition
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: neutron decomposition
Date: 7 Jan 1996 18:13:03 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Chris Bidmead (bidmead@cix.compulink.co.uk) wrote:
: Just because Netscape does it doesn't mean it's a standard.  Netscape 
: Communications seems to be staging a desperate commercial grab of the 
: Internet by quite unnecessarily upping the ante on formats and features.  
: Please don't subscribe to this creeping featurism; all it does it stuff 
: this newsgroup with garbage.

Agree, especially if it implies covertly stuffing a text newgroup with
binary image data.  There is a very good reason for excluding binary
data from text newsgroups, and if MIME corrupts this distinction, it
is a dis-service to all!

Take a look at the bandwith-wasting content of a MIME posting and 
it becomes immediately obvious why MIME deserves to be regarded as a
pernicious and unacceptable posting format.

If it originates, as reported, from Microsoft, I'm somehow not surprised!
Sadly, Microsoft, and Netscape as well, have both demonstrated that they
have 'no clue' regarding the improtance of conserving bandwidth resources.
Sadly, Microsoft's philosophy of monumentally inefficient, layered software
justifying the need for quantum leaps in hardware performance has no
parallel justification in the network environment, where 56-kilobaud
telco backbone links will likely remain the norm for some years to come.

As the net slows down under the load of increasing traffic, bandwith
wasting formats and protocols both MIME and WWW Home Pages 
will continue to be regarded as something less than 'good drivers'
on the 'Information Superhighway.'

                                     Harry C.

                                     
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.07 / John Logajan /  Re: neutron decomposition
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: neutron decomposition
Date: 7 Jan 1996 19:54:58 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Harry H Conover (conover@max.tiac.net) wrote:
: Sadly, Microsoft, and Netscape as well, have both demonstrated that they
: have 'no clue' regarding the improtance of conserving bandwidth resources.

Nah.  The rapidity with which bandwidth capability will increase is in direct
proportion to the demand.   

Don't look at the telcos as the forever deliverymen of datacomm bandwidth.
Check out your cable TV systems -- they are already starting to deliver
bidirectional fractional T1 to ethernet data rates.

For instance, I'm on the datacomm team at ADC Telecommunications, and we
have already announced a product to run over the cable system that will
deliver 512kb/s bidirectional to each subscriber house.  Customers can also
get telephone service as well as the whole cable TV lineup of movie channels,
etc.

The telcos will be playing catchup (most likely by buying up cable TV
systems.)

And lookout for wireless ...

--
 - 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:
cuddy7 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.07 / J Youles /  Re: neutron decomposition
     
Originally-From: J B Youles <john.youles@dial.pipex.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: neutron decomposition
Date: 7 Jan 1996 20:18:17 GMT
Organization: Chaotic

bidmead@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Chris Bidmead") wrote:
>Just because Netscape does it doesn't mean it's a standard.  Netscape 
>Communications seems to be staging a desperate commercial grab of the 
>Internet by quite unnecessarily upping the ante on formats and features. >
>Please don't subscribe to this creeping featurism; all it does it stuff 
>this newsgroup with garbage.
>

I was just responding to a request for information. Is that allowed ?  



-- 
John Youles 
 -----------------------------------------------------------
"If the weather we are having is a result of the greenhouse
 effect, then someone must have taken out all the glass."
 -----------------------------------------------------------


cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenyoules cudfnJ cudlnYoules cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.07 / Harry Conover /  Re: Suppose the CETI cell works.
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Suppose the CETI cell works.
Date: 7 Jan 1996 20:19:27 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Horace Heffner (hheffner@anc.ak.net) wrote:

: >  I would like to see some more thought about what are the implications
: >of the CETI cell actually working.  One thought I had concerns the
: >implication of the cell extracting some energy (like the zero point
: >energy) from empty space.  If this energy is out there then the maximum
: >energy density, e, is related to the power density, p, by
: >
: > e = p / c
: >
: >with c the speed of light.  Using e = m*c*c and making some reasonable
: >estimates of the power density one may calculate the energy density of
: >empty space.  The result is about a billion times too high.  The
: >Schwartzchild radius of the universe would only be about 10,000 light
: >years or smaller than the size of the galaxy.  I would guess that the
: >only explination could be that cold fusion is actually going on.
: >
: >Lawrence E. Wharton   wharton@climate.gsfc.nasn.gov
: >NASA/GSFC code 913, Greenbelt MD 20771
: >work (301) 286-3486,    home (301) 595-5038
: >

: That e is related to c does not necessarily follow.  If the energy is the
: result of a QM effect, it may be the result of "action at a distance", as
: demanded by Bell's inequality. True?

Yes!  You're absolutely correct.

Someone has been reading advanced speculation, without a complete
understanding of established physics fundamentals.  The end product is 
the posting utter nonsense.  (Please forgive my bluntness.)

The goal of pop advanced science writings is encouragement of the
study of the basic sciences.  Unfortunately, lacking the basic vocabulary
and concepts of science, many lay readers interpret the writings of advanced
popular writers in terms of 'their' familiar constructs. These often
differ substantially from physical models the author has in mind, often 
leading to the development of bizarre reader concepts.

Had the original poster any grasp of basic 'unit checks,' I doubt that
he would have originated this post.

                                  Harry C.

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.07 / Harry Conover /  Re: neutron decomposition
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: neutron decomposition
Date: 7 Jan 1996 23:45:33 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

John Logajan (jlogajan@skypoint.com) wrote:
: Harry H Conover (conover@max.tiac.net) wrote:
: : Sadly, Microsoft, and Netscape as well, have both demonstrated that they
: : have 'no clue' regarding the improtance of conserving bandwidth resources.

: Nah.  The rapidity with which bandwidth capability will increase is in direct
: proportion to the demand.   

: Don't look at the telcos as the forever deliverymen of datacomm bandwidth.
: Check out your cable TV systems -- they are already starting to deliver
: bidirectional fractional T1 to ethernet data rates.

: For instance, I'm on the datacomm team at ADC Telecommunications, and we
: have already announced a product to run over the cable system that will
: deliver 512kb/s bidirectional to each subscriber house.  Customers can also
: get telephone service as well as the whole cable TV lineup of movie channels,
: etc.

: The telcos will be playing catchup (most likely by buying up cable TV
: systems.)

: And lookout for wireless ...


Hope you're right John, but in the meantime there are those of
use on the right coast that don't yet have ISDN availability,
whose cable companies are content with 50 analog channels,
and whose telcos still use analog switches.

This is why I remain critical of bandwith intensive formats
that require 4 Mbytes just for an AOL subscriber to post
"Me Too!"

I've been tracking the Orlando experiment for a number of
years now (Time Warner Cable, Silicon Graphics, Scientific
Atlanta, et al), still after 3-years and mucho megabucks,
it's not operational.  At this rate, I won't be a true
believer until somebody trots a single-mode fiber cable
up to my front door, but I suspect that won't be for a
while yet!

My real world here (suburban Boston) is 2400-bps, with forward error 
correction and data compression pushing it up to, maybe, 14.4 Kbaud, but
only when the sun is shining.  :-)  Still, like CF, hope springs
eternal. 

However, to get this post back on topic, I believe it likely that
I'll experience 500-1,000 Kbaud at my front door long before I see
and real results from CF!  (Sorry John, being me I just couldn't
resist!)  Technology is on the drawing boards and in the labs
that will get us to those data rates, however, the same cannot
be said about CF.

                                Harry C.

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.07 / mitchell swartz /  CETI products
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CETI products
Subject: Re: CETI Products
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 1996 14:12:26 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <4cnrlv$1244@saba.info.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: CETI Products
Barry Merriman, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
and UCLA Dept. of Math  writes:

 bm "However, it seems to me inconceivable that they
 bm will be allowed to---or would want to!---market such a device
 bm if it generates energy of a heretofore unknown nature.
 bm Given the history of things like X-rays, silicone breast
 bm implants, the
 bm extremely tight controls of government safety 
 bm bodies like the FDA, and the existence
 bm of succeful consumer advocate groups (as well as 
 bm reactionary groups that oppose radical technologies like
 bm genetic engineering), I think it would not be too
 bm difficult to get a court order to prevent CETI + 
 bm friends from mass marketing this technology until 
 bm the soruce and byproducts of their ``reaction''
 bm are thoroughly documented and shown to not be
 bm a significant biological hazard."

  Really? How provocative.

   Do you mean safe and "not a significant biological
hazard"  like ....  a hot fusion reactor, or the walls around that
reactor? 

  Do you really suggest and imply by this that the putative output- and 
by-products  of hot fusion  are cleaner and safer than helium-4?

  If not, exactly whom do you hope to fool by this ?   Congress? the public? 
 or, in the alternative,  is this simply just one further conspiratorial
action originating from a US-taxpayer-funded office of the hot fusion
program, made solely to obstruct this new material and energy science?

     Mitchell Swartz  (mica@world.std.com)

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.07 /  Chris /  Re: neutron decomposition
     
Originally-From: bidmead@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Chris Bidmead")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: neutron decomposition
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 1996 17:06:27 GMT
Organization: Unknown Organization

Just because Netscape does it doesn't mean it's a standard.  Netscape 
Communications seems to be staging a desperate commercial grab of the 
Internet by quite unnecessarily upping the ante on formats and features.  
Please don't subscribe to this creeping featurism; all it does it stuff 
this newsgroup with garbage.

el bid
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenbidmead cudlnChris cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.07 / Alan M /  Re: neutron decomposition
     
Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" <alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: neutron decomposition
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 1996 08:23:22 +0000
Organization: The Levitating Pig

In article <4cmsfj$g68@sundog.tiac.net>, Harry H Conover
<conover@max.tiac.net> writes
>ps.  Can someone tell me what MIME is all about?  My experiences
>     to date suggest, simply, MIME is a problem, ^C out of it if
>     possible.  Is it, perhaps, some kind of an Apple/Mac
>     protocol?

No. I believe it's a cross-platform tool, which allows 'Net messages and
e-mail to carry graphical information (colours, fonts, diagrams, etc.)
which can be viewed by users who have MIME-compliant readers. It's
certainly becoming more widely available in Windows-based software, and
I think may even be the 'default' in messages originating from <shudder>
Microsoft's MSN.

Think of it as 'uuencode on speed' <g>.
-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenalan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.07 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 1996 11:51 -0500 (EST)

bks@netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
 
-> Nonsense, the reason that most people read this newsgroup is
-> for evidence.  There's been precious little of that.  If
-> Tom Droege had had two anomalous ``events'' during his on-line
-> experiment, that would have been sufficient evidence for most
-> here to move toward TB status.
 
You are saying that people who are unconvinced by repeatable experiments done
by many groups that are getting huge amounts of excess would be convinced by
two non-repeatable anomolous events reported by an experimenter in his
basement? This has to be a joke. I certainly would not be convinced by such a
claim.
 
Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy07 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.07 / Bradley Sherman /  Re: Products from CETI
     
Originally-From: bks@netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Products from CETI
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 1996 14:41:45 GMT
Organization: Remote Fusion Reactor Reverse Entropy Associates

In article <hlKmutx.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
...
>No, they will not sell small quantities of beads. I wish they would, but
>they have decided not to. They are setting joint R&D programs with a
>carefully selected group of industrial corporations. They want to keep
>this group limited to four or five labs, and they do not want others
>to participate. I have described this policy here on several occassions.
>The policy has not changed since I first described it last April.
...

Didn't Mallove make a post in December implying that we could
license the Cravens technology?

Is Miley's lab sworn to silence?  (Martin Sevior, have you called
Miley's graduate students to ask them about their independent
verification?  A lot cheaper than flying to Arizona.)

Aren't the backers of P&F worried that Cravens is about to
beat them to market?  According to Jed, Griggs already had
beaten Cravens and P&F to market.  A strange marketplace
it is that is not beating a path to the door of those
with off-the-shelf power-from-the-vacuum devices.

    --bks

p.s. Note that Jed is now clearing the way for the next
rabbit to be pulled from the hat.  I doubt that we shall
need to wait the full six months before Dr. X appears
on stage with Device Y based on Technology Z producing
oodles of excess heat, thus obliterating memories of
CETI for most of the readership.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenbks cudfnBradley cudlnSherman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.07 / Alan M /  Re: CETI Products
     
Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" <alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI Products
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 1996 08:28:08 +0000
Organization: The Levitating Pig

In article <4cnrlv$1244@saba.info.ucla.edu>, Barry Merriman <barry@?>
writes
>Any one up for forming the Citizens Group For The Full Disclosure
>of Colf Fusion Reaction Byproducts, and taking CETI to court? :-) 
>
>After all, for all we know they are tapping the ZPE, and widespread
>use of their device will precipitate the collapse of the universe :-)
>
There is absolutely no danger of this, since all that they will be
generating will be snake-oil and hot air.

And since the first law of thermodynamics will have to be obeyed, this
creation will have to be balanced by the simultaneous disappearance of
large sums from their investors' accounts.

-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenalan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.07 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Products from CETI
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Products from CETI
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 96 00:32:25 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Barry Merriman <barry> writes:
 
>In Jed's article on the PowerGen Demo on J.L.'s web page,
 
I published that here, too.
 
>"CETI plans to follow up on this with demonstrations of prototype consumer
>products, including larger cells for space heating and heat engines. They are
>working to develop these devices as rapidly as they can. They estimate that it
>will take six months to one year to make suitable prototypes."
>
>In the mean time, will they sell small quantites of their beads so that 
>independent experiments can be carried out?  Based on Jed's recent comments,
>it sounds like they may be going into a non-cooperative mode for the 
>foreseeable future...
 
No, they will not sell small quantities of beads. I wish they would, but
they have decided not to. They are setting joint R&D programs with a
carefully selected group of industrial corporations. They want to keep
this group limited to four or five labs, and they do not want others
to participate. I have described this policy here on several occassions.
The policy has not changed since I first described it last April. I
myself feel that this is poor strategy from the business point of view, but
I am not running CETI and I have no say in the matter.
 
The non-cooperative mode will definitely not be "for the foreseeable future."
I did not say that. In fact, I said just the opposite in the section of
text Merriman quoted. I wonder if he read it? I said that they hope to
produced prototypes in six months or so. I do not expect any more
demonstrations or public news from CETI for another two months. They are
extremely busy with a pre-arranged schedule.
 
They said they hoped to have products in six months to a year. So far, for
the past two years that I have been communicating with them and observing
them, they have been ahead of schedule every time. CETI is the only CF
R&D company I can say that about; all of the others have slipped far behind
their hoped-for schedules. This is no great surprise. In my experience, all
cutting edge R&D takes more time and more money than the original estimates.
I am surprised that the efforts to control and scale up the CETI cells have
gone so smoothly so far. I look forward to the next milestones being
achieved on time. I think they have already done the hard part, but I cannot
be sure of that, because this is R&D after all, not paint-by-the-numbers.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.07 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Rothwell distances self from CETI
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell distances self from CETI
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 96 13:11:07 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Harry H Conover <conover@max.tiac.net> writes:
 
>It's interesting to observe how, as the preposterous 1300-Watt CETI
>demo excess energy claim continues to collapse and attract ridicule,
 
The claims have not collaped. This is wishful thinking on your part, or
a gross delusion. The arguments raised to disprove the results are all
without scientific merit. People have claimed that the temperature
measurements might have been wrong, but I verified them with thermistors,
thermocouples and a mercury thermometer. People claim the flow might have
changed from a liter per minute to fraction of a milliliter, but it did
not. Anyone could look and see such a change. People claim that the 25
watts from the motor alone might have raised the reservoir tempature to
35 C, but anyone who has ever used an aquarium pump knows that idea is
ridiculous: all aquarium pumps would always kill all of the fish if that
was true. The arguments that have been posted here to disprove my report
of the 1300 watt cell have all been absurd nonsense and ignorant
handwaving. No amount of bluster can cover up that fact. I have not retreated
one inch from my assertions. Since Conover and his ilk know they cannot
dispute the science, they attack me personally, and they insinuate that
CETI and I are involved in criminal fraud. These hysterical attacks and
lies are signs of weakness. Conover et al. have scrapped the bottom of the
barrel, and come up with *nothing* to disprove my assertions, so they
desparately try to change the subject, or win by ad homenium attacks.
Anyone can see they are making fools of themselves.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Jan  8 04:37:03 EST 1996
------------------------------
