1996.01.08 / 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: 8 Jan 1996 02:48:19 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: 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.

Actually Jed, there is no science to dispute regarding CETI.  The
only first hand information posted here from those in attendance 
at the CETI demonstration came from you and Zoltan.

Zoltan posted a report saying that the scheduled CETI demonstration
was precipitously cancelled, with the apparatus moved to another
location removed from the hotel.  

You posted information stating that a demonstration was in fact 
held, that it resulted in circa 1300-Watts of excess heat, and 
number of unsubstantiated operating parameters that you claimed 
to have measured.  In fact, so far as I can now tell, the only
basis for a claim of the CETI demo producing excess heat are 
the statements and purported measurements of one Jed Rothwell.

This raises (as an attorney would put it) several substantial
questions of fact that require resolution as a prerequisite to
any scientific consideration:

1)  Whether a demonstration actually took place.  (Zoltan reports
    no, but Jed reports yes.)

2)  If in fact a demonstration did take place, whether Jed Rothwell's 
    measurements were, in fact, competent to support any claims for the 
    production of excess heat.  (Jed reports that he is a businessman,
    without in-depth experimental physics or science qualifications.)

3)  Whether Jed Rothwells reports posted in this newsgroups, details
    of which fluctuate widely with posting date, represent credible
    information or fantasy (e.g., as in first hand reports by
    UFO contactees).  (Jed has a multitude of accounts of the
    CETI demo, facts and details of which appear to contradict
    one another.)

Folks, so far we have no credible evidence that the CETI demo even 
took place, let alone produced 1300-Watts excess heat.  We have no
documentation of evidence supporting the excess heat figure, 
except that posted by Jed (for which there is nothing to 
distinguish it from total fantasy or fabrication).  Finally,
CETI themselves have produced no credible apparatus, no
technical reports, and have published no claims of excess heat.

All we have here is a number of competent and well meaning individuals
attempting to validate or invalidate experimental results that, 
so far as anyone can tell, have no more substantial origin than
the depths of Jed's fertile and possibly overactive imagination!

It's actually fun!

                                        Harry C.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.07 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Kettle experiment
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kettle experiment
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 96 21:02:01 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> writes:
 
>I got up to near 250W, which is a goodly fraction of 1300W.  Therefore
>it is likely that the PowerGen demo device could dissipate significantly
>more -- this is well into the over-unity range (anything above about 90W.)
>
>So I don't yet see a show-stopper problem with the heat capacity of
>the CETI cell.  In any case, either the flow rate would have had to
 
There is another aspect of this which I have not described here often, but
which I would like to repeat once more: I do not know how long the cell ran
at over 1000 watts. When Cravens saw it was that hot, he immediately turned
down the input in order to reduce output. I do not know if it had reached
the terminal temperature or not. I did not observe the first day run
closely (I was 20 feet away).
 
In subsequent days ouput was held below 500 watts. I think the terminal
temperature in the reservior settled at about 35 C but I did not observe it
closely, and it might have been slowly climbing. The important thing, as
I have noted here many times before, is that with only the pump and tenth-watt
cell input, the temperature in the reservoir should not have risen measurably
at all. That can be demonstrated by anyone with an aquarium pump. Therefore,
any significant temperature rise in the reservoir proves there was massive
excess heat.
 
Measuring the reservoir temperature is a lousy way to do calorimetry with this
set up. This was designed to be a flow calorimeter, not a static calorimeter.
There are far too many variables and unknowns to make this a reasonable
static calorimeter. But, as a simple "yes or no" presence or absence test,
the reservoir temperature does work. It proves there was excess heat. The
flow temperature proves it much more elegantly, with far greater precision.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM 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 20:51:36 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Barry Merriman <barry> writes:
 
>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
 
You misunderstand, and you presume too much. CETI is not building the
prototypes, the large companies are. CETI told me they have no interest
in selling to the general public, or in selling to scientists. I presume
the large companies will, based on brief conversations with them.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.08 / Barry Merriman /  Re: CETI products
     
Originally-From: barry@boole.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI products
Date: 8 Jan 1996 04:41:41 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In article <DKtE4q.3Ky@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>  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 ...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''
>
>  Really? How provocative.
>
>   Do you mean safe and "not a significant biological
>hazard"  like ....  a hot fusion reactor, or the walls around that
>reactor? 
>
No body proposes putting hot fusion reactors in peoples
basements. More to the point, we know what the byproducts
are, the proposed plants are isolated, shielded and monitored
as appropriate. 

>  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?
>

there are potential hot fusion reactions that produce nothing
but He4---and huge amounts of X-rays and gamma rays that you
might not want emanating from you heating pad or coffee maker.

Moreover, where is one iota of direct evidence that 
(a) He4 is the/a material byproduct of the CETI cell
(b) there are no forms of known EM radiation (UV, X, gamma) emitted
(c) there are no unkown new forms of energy emitted which
    could be a biohazard.

>  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?
>

The intent on my part is to find out what is really going on
physically...however, I'm sure there would be many groups interesting
in putting the brakes on CETI purely from a public health standpoint.


--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet)  (NeXTMail OK) 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.08 / Martin Sevior /  Re: Kettle experiment
     
Originally-From: Martin Sevior <msevior>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kettle experiment
Date: 8 Jan 1996 05:57:04 GMT
Organization: The University of British Columbia

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
> 
>There is another aspect of this which I have not described here often, but
>which I would like to repeat once more: I do not know how long the cell ran
>at over 1000 watts. When Cravens saw it was that hot, he immediately turned
>down the input in order to reduce output. I do not know if it had reached
>the terminal temperature or not. I did not observe the first day run
>closely (I was 20 feet away).
>
 
[snip]


Dennis Cravens said that it ran at 1300 watts for about 15 minutes. 

Martin Sevior

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.08 / 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: 8 Jan 1996 06:02:21 GMT
Organization: The University of British Columbia

bsnyder@iadfw.net (Bill Snyder) wrote:
>In message <4cnhet$c6v@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>, Martin Sevior <msevior>
>wrote:
>
>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?
>

[snip]

I was wrong about the 8 hours. Dennis Cravens said it ran at 1300 watts for
15 minutes. The nominal operating output was apparently around 500 watts as
reported for the second day's running.


Martin Sevior

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.08 / John Logajan /  Re: Rothwell distances self from CETI
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell distances self from CETI
Date: 8 Jan 1996 06:06:46 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Harry H Conover (conover@max.tiac.net) wrote:
: Folks, so far we have no credible evidence that the CETI demo even 
: took place

Hmm, I have photos on my web page taken by Akira Kawasaki.  So the
conspiracy grows.  And I have a report on my web page by Frank Znidarsic,
and the conspriacy grows larger.  And a report by Robert W Bass, and
the conspiracy grows larger still.  And we have names of some in
attendance -- Hal Fox, Richard Hellen, Thomas Passell, George Miley.

And of course the boys for CETI, Patterson, Redding, Cravens and Voorhies.

And Jager of ENENCO.

That's over a dozen witnesses including Jed and not counting Zoltan, more
than half unaffiliated with CETI.  One from EPRI, one from a power company
in England, another from the UofIll.

Nah, Harry, you've spun too far out on this one.  

--
 - 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:
cuddy8 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.08 / John Logajan /  Re: Kettle experiment
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kettle experiment
Date: 8 Jan 1996 06:18:28 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: In subsequent days ouput was held below 500 watts. I think the terminal
: temperature in the reservior settled at about 35 C but I did not observe it
: closely, and it might have been slowly climbing.

Possibly.  My experiments are always done using a computer to log results,
because I am likely to terminate a manual experiment if the temperature takes
longer than five minutes to go up a 1/10 of a degree -- yet as my computer
results show, at that rate it could be quite a distance still from thermal
equilibrium.



--
 - 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:
cuddy8 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.08 / John Elston /  CETI Question
     
Originally-From: elston@prairienet.org (John M. Elston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CETI Question
Date: 8 Jan 1996 07:51:08 GMT
Organization: Prairienet, the East-Central Illinois Free-Net

It was mentioned in at least one report that excess heat was found in
cells using beads with only Nickel (no Palladium).  Did Cravens mention
whether these runs were comprable (heat-wise) to runs with the Ni-Pd beads?

Have they done runs with solid Ni beads?  If so, how do they compare?

As a point of information, one of the photos from PowerGen showed the 
delta T as 8+ degrees, which would be in the 500w ball park if the flow
rate was as stated.

--
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:
cuddy8 cudenelston cudfnJohn cudlnElston cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Jan  9 04:37:03 EST 1996
------------------------------
