1996.01.09 / 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: 9 Jan 1996 00:09:30 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Arnie Frisch (arnief@wu.cse.tek.com) wrote:
: What bothers me is that Jed has reported, in connection with this particular
: aparatus, large overunity gains in a control device that was defective and
: HE DIDN'T EVEN REALIZE THAT THERE WAS ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE FACT THAT HE
: DID.

: Given this level of incompetence, nothing would surprise me from Rothwell.

Would incompetence include misidentifying the source of your info? :-)

It was Robert Bass who posted the control cell parameters, not Jed.

--
 - 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:
cuddy9 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.08 / Jim Carr /  Re: Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion
Date: 8 Jan 1996 19:21:27 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <4c200p$o72@news2.realtime.net> ejeong@bga.com (Euejin Jeong) writes:
>
>The total number of reactions per second is given by the penetration 
>probability times the number of collisions per second. At low energies, 
>the closest distance maybe quite large. That doesn't mean the probability 
>is zero. The shear number of collisions makes the number of actual reactions 
>not ignorable. 

This is all true, and has been accounted for in the calculations made by 
Jackson, Zel'dovich and Gershtein, van Siclen and Jones, and Koonin 
to name only a few.  They predict a small but non-zero rate, and it 
was this fact that motivated Jones to do his first electrolysis 
experiments.  What you need to do is post a specific criticism of the 
*numbers* obtained in those papers. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  If you haven't been to Two Egg, 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  you haven't been to Florida.  
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  | 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |      -- Holder of Past Knowledge 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.09 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Rothwell distances self from CETI
     
Originally-From: barry@fourier.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell distances self from CETI
Date: 9 Jan 1996 00:37:21 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In article <bksDKvvH4.I1x@netcom.com> bks@netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
>In article <hlGnHQC.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>...
>>up photographs like that. While you are at it, why don't you explain why
>>the Ministry of International Trade and Industry has recently put another
>>$100 million dollars into this technology. No doubt you will explain that
>>this is all part of a CIA conspiracy.
>...
>
>I just checked the (English language) MITI WWW pages at
>    http://www.miti.go.jp/index-e.html
>and found no mention of this.  Can you give a better reference
>for this $100,000,000 investment?
>
>    --bks
>

I'm not sure, but as I recall MITI was officially investing the
multi M$ into hydrogen energy research. I suspect this means fuel
cells and hydrogen energy storage and the like, mostly, with probably
a much smaller amount being put into cold fusion research. Of course,
I have never seen a breakdown...thats just my impression from seeing
bits and pieces of it mentioned......

Given that CETI/P&F likes cells only cost a few thousand dollars
to construct and instrument, it would actually be difficult to 
spend $100,000,000 on such research...there would have to be many
hundreds of researchers working fulltime on it.




--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet)  (NeXTMail OK) 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.09 / Ross Tessien /  Incredibly ignorant statements parroted by Archimedes Plutonium
     
Originally-From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.particle,soc.culture.british,alt.com
dy.british,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Incredibly ignorant statements parroted by Archimedes Plutonium
Date: 9 Jan 1996 07:23:51 GMT
Organization: Impulse Engineering, Inc.

In article <4cn742$suo@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, 
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu says...
>
> 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.

I don't know that I want to get into the mud slinging here, but if you 
are going to attack, I cannot stand by as you throw insults in the 
direction of Pons and Fleischmann.  The reason is because there is more 
than ample proof available now that they were correct.  They didn't seek 
fame, they sought funding and were coerced into making public their 
research in order to do so.  The media blew their work all out of 
proportion and here you continue that travesty.

There is repeatable, testable evidence of beta decay and helium 4 
production at over 10 times atmospheric as tested at Rocketdyne of 
Rockwell International and collected in stainless steel vessels to 
meticulously avoid contamination.  There are numerous experiments using 
low energy particles ie 4 KeV striking thin foils of Ti and Pd loaded 
with D or not and yielding protons, alpha, and tritons with energies as 
high as 7 MeV and many particles over 2 MeV.  These are not artifacts, 
and blind samples do not produce either the He4 or the high energy 
particles in certain tests.

Beta decay is persistent for weeks, and isotopes have been documented in 
controlled experiments for which the chance of accidental contamination 
is on the order of 1 in E44.

Now I do not know about the Higgs particle one iota, but I know plenty 
about Cold Fusion and related physical mechanisms.  The fact of the 
matter is that it was comments like these where people jumped on the band 
wagon and ridiculed them for trying to develop an important technology 
and just because the answer wasn't simple, we literally ostracized them 
from the country.  

The best devices now produce from 500 to 2,000 watts of energy but they 
are not in the least economical to operate as they burn up expensive Pd 
targets to produce heat.  These are net heat values on inputs less than 
the values and chemical cannot explain the heat in several apparatus.  
Patents are have been getting granted in other countries but not in the 
US if you claim anything to do with CF so you end up with a watered down 
patent at best.  Second, the mechanism is still not nailed down.  

That the mechanism is not understood absolutely does not mean that it 
does not exist and one cannot explain away the results of dozens of 
researchers results meticulously carried out from around the world.  
Sure, many people thought they had results and were mistaken, that is the 
nature of research.  But who was it the stomped on the parade?  The same 
groups that would have lost hot fusion research funding had it been real. 
 Further, these were teams who in two months "proved" that what took 
years to get to work as well as it did, was wrong.  How do a couple of 
researchers who work on a problem for a couple of months declare that 
"This can not possibly work"?  Don't you or they understand that it is 
impossible to PROVE a negative.  All you can say is "We could not make it 
work".  At that time, no one understood that loading the structure with D 
first was important and so they did not do this.  

This year, for the first time since 1989, the American Chemical Society 
daned to let some papers be presented on the progress.  They were shocked 
and asked "How have results of this magnitude not been made public?"

This, and your comments above, irregardless of your intentions to right a 
wrong as I perceive your intent are careless.  And what is the result?

The result is that Pons and Fleischmann were ostrasized from the United 
States of America due to all of the ridicule.  And why do they get 
ignorant comments like yours in a country that prides itself on freedom 
of speach when all they did was to announce some results of work they had 
been performing.  They didn't even want to do it but were forced into it. 
 And then it was the media that blew it all out of proportion like 
spoiled kids when the work got tough.  So, what did we do America?

We sent our own researchers off to work for a consortium of Japanese 
corporations who are trying in earnest to develop this technology.  They 
have expended well over 100 million dollars over the past several years. 
 Now do you think for a minute that they are not getting results that 
justify the expenditure?  Absolutely not.  And why do you suppose you do 
not hear about this?  Because the value of the technology is 1.5 trillion 
dollars per year in energy revenue if it can be made economical.  

American publications are gun shy and will not publish these articles 
because of the prejiduce demonstrated above.  Did you know that 
Scientific American HAS published articles on the progress of Cold 
Fusion?  IN THEIR JAPANESE ISSUE, NOT THE AMERICAN ONE.  THIS IS BS.
And second, what organization in their right mind would announce their 
results before the device was SALEABLE?  You just don't do it because you 
invite competition.  I know, because I am not even supposed to be writing 
anything like this but I cannot stand the perpetuation of this myth that 
CF does not work.  There is simply too much evidence for those who don't 
mind opening their eyes and acknowledging that things are going on that 
are not chemical in origin and that about uses up my bandwidth on my 
patent consious choke chain.


Wake up America and get off your sleeping ignorant butts on this issue.  
I have designs but cannot even get Westinghouse or GE to take this issue 
seriously.  We are seeking private funding and due to all of the comments 
floating around like this one, investors are shy too.  The result is 
going to likely be that we will before long begin sending our oil dollar 
checks to Japan instead of the Middle East, and the tragedy is that it is 
one more American made technology that we were too arogant and literally 
STUPID to see that it was worth some funding for an extended period of 
time EVEN IF NO RESULTS WERE EVER FOUND BECAUSE THAT IS THE PRUDENT THING 
TO DO WITH SOMETHING THIS EXTREMELY VALUABLE.

I don't know about the rest  of your comments or why you wrote them and 
do not care.  This is simply wrong and it must be stopped and this is my 
part toward reversing that momentum built up in ignorance of all of the 
results going on behind the scenes.  The ignorance is a result of these 
comments because it is these comments that are continuing to keep 
Americans responsible for the journals ignorant of the results from 
current devices.  They have a deaf ear on the issue.

Ross Tessien, pissed off engineer

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudentessien cudfnRoss cudlnTessien cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.09 / I Johnston /  Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
Date: 9 Jan 1996 09:20:44 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: I Johnston <ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk> writes:
:  
: >Is that the run which Cravens switched off at once because it was
: >overheating?
:  
: He did not switch it off, he lowered the input power level, which
: quenches the reaction somewhat. He let it run for the rest of the
: meeting, which went on for an hour or two. I had to leave midway through
: to go to bed, because I was on east coast time and this was in the
: evening.

So when was the 1300W run which you observed for many hours?

Ian
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.09 / I Johnston /  Re: Rothwell distances self from CETI
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell distances self from CETI
Date: 9 Jan 1996 09:25:39 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

Bradley K. Sherman (bks@netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <hlGnHQC.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
: ...
: >up photographs like that. While you are at it, why don't you explain why
: >the Ministry of International Trade and Industry has recently put another
: >$100 million dollars into this technology. No doubt you will explain that
: >this is all part of a CIA conspiracy.
: ...

: I just checked the (English language) MITI WWW pages at
:     http://www.miti.go.jp/index-e.html
: and found no mention of this.  Can you give a better reference
: for this $100,000,000 investment?

Remember Jed years ago posting that MITI had put O($100,000,000) into CF
a la F&P? It turned out that they had actually put $16 million into a
feasibility study - which had concluded that it wasn't worth spending
any more.

Ian

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.09 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: Muon's and their generation
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Muon's and their generation
Date: 9 Jan 1996 05:10:43 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

If I remember right, prof. Jones wrote in a posting here that muons cost
about 2000 MeV energy to generate. This compared to their about 100 MeV
mass seems like a 5 percent efficiency with current methods.

Zoltan Szakaly
Zoltan@ccyber.com
http://www.ccyber.com/ccc/
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.08 /  Chris /  Re: neutron decomposition
     
Originally-From: bidmead@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Chris Bidmead")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: neutron decomposition
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 1996 12:44:05 GMT
Organization: Unknown Organization

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

>-- 
>John Youles 



My plea not to "subscribe to this creeping featurism" was intended to 
general, not particularly directed at you, John.  

And to respond to some other points in this thread, this isn't ultimately 
about the bandwidth of the Internet, which really isn't going to be a 
problem.  It's about the appropriateness and convenience of sticking to 
ASCII text in a conference like this so that it can be read on all 
platforms with an enormous selection of readers and stored for retrieval 
on local drives without unnecessary bloat.

el bid
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenbidmead cudlnChris cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.09 / Richard Blue /  Doing CETI's R&D
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Doing CETI's R&D
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 1996 05:32:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

If CETI is serious about having a marketable consumer product ready to go
in less than a year, I would say they are going to need plenty of help.  Now
let's all be good sports and give them the support they are clearly going to
be needing.

In response to my questions about what is determining the power output level
of a CETI device John Logajan kindly provides some data along with the
suggestion that, "You can see there is high variability in system parameters."
Yes, I see that now, but what does it all mean?

Let me see if I can pull that information together in a way that makes more
sense.  As I understand the numbers John gives the data is something like
the following:

Cell Current  Cell Impedence  Power Gain  Power Input  Power Output
  Amps            Ohms                      Watts        Watts
0.18              44           960          1.8         1700
0.02             195          4690          0.08         380
0.023            398          3041          0.2          600

The first three columns are supplied by John while the last two are my rough
calculated values.  Now what do these indicate?

There are obvious questions as to why the cell impedence varies by a factor of
ten.  Is this a dependent variable, a random number, or an adjusted
experimental parameter?  Is it just a coincidence that an increase in cell
impedence by factors of 5 or 10 go with a factor of 10 drop in cell current?
Did someone diddle the voltage knob on the power supply just for the heck of
it?

If I were doing R&D on a device that operates in a highly reproducible manner
without any difficulties I would be producing tons of data to answer some
basic questions such as those above, but CETI does not seem to have caught on
to how you find out what makes this device tick.  They need help!

However, this data is enough to convince me that this is truly a CF device.
You see, like many other devices that have gone before it has this CF
signature that high power gain is achieved at the expense of power output.
It reminds me of an engine running on the Carnot cycle.  In that case the
gain is maximum but the power output is zero.  Try selling that as a lawnmower
engine.

This brings me to ask why there is so much emphasis on increases in power gain
as if that really is important.  I should think that increasing the power
output would be the goal if CETI is to compete successfully with Jim Griggs.
After all the power source is not supposed to be the AC wall plug.  It's
the magic undetectable reaction that consumes nothing and produces nothing.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.07 / John Logajan /  Re: Kettle experiment
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kettle experiment
Date: 7 Jan 1996 14:40:53 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

John N. White (jnw@lys.vnet.net) wrote:
: 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.

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
have been mis-reported or the delta-T mis-reported.  There are really
no other potential effects of the required magnitude to explain the
results.  And both flow-rate and delta-T irregularities have other
signature effects which were not observed.

--
 - 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 
------------------------------
1996.01.08 / J Youles /  Re: neutron decomposition
     
Originally-From: J B Youles <john.youles@dial.pipex.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: neutron decomposition
Date: 8 Jan 1996 15:59:38 GMT
Organization: Chaotic

bidmead@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Chris Bidmead") wrote:
>
>
>My plea not to "subscribe to this creeping featurism" was intended to 
>general, not particularly directed at you, John.  
>
>And to respond to some other points in this thread, this isn't ultimately 
>about the bandwidth of the Internet, which really isn't going to be a 
>problem.  It's about the appropriateness and convenience of sticking to 
>ASCII text in a conference like this so that it can be read on all 
>platforms with an enormous selection of readers and stored for retrieval 
>on local drives without unnecessary bloat.

I take your pint although my guess is that it a couple of years MIME will 
be accepted as standard.  Remember VHS v. Betamax ?

As a matter of interest the original poster whose article sparked 
off this thread seems to have attached a copy of the listing of the 
newsgroups articles, so it looks as though it was probably a mistake !

-- 
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:
cuddy8 cudenyoules cudfnJ cudlnYoules cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.08 / Torin Walker /  Thermal Resonance of ionizing particles in Lithium
     
Originally-From: Torin Walker <torin@numetrix.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Thermal Resonance of ionizing particles in Lithium
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 1996 11:19:25 -0500
Organization: Numetrix Ltd.

As I understand it, the energy from neutrons can be converted to thermal
engery by channelling the neutrons through a substance with a high
cross-section (e.g. D20, Lithium or Salts of Lithium, etc.)

From a U235 fission, the neutron takes ~100-110 collisions before it
goes below 1/40eV and radiates thermally. 

How many collisions does an alpha particle make before resonating at
thermal temperatures? Does it radiate thermally at all?


Torin...
-- 
         Made from 100% fresh, never frozen, unadulterated nerd
    Torin Walker, Networking Dude - Numetrix Ltd., Toronto, Ontario
    V 4169796797x101  F 4169799504  E torin@  W www  D numetrix.com
cudkeys:
cuddy08 cudentorin cudfnTorin cudlnWalker cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.08 / I Johnston /  Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
Date: 8 Jan 1996 19:05:41 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

Barry Merriman (barry@fourier.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
: In article <4cik4v$psf@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> Martin Sevior <msevior> writes:
: >
: >On the other hand why aren't you convinced by a delta-T of 17 C at 
: >a flow rate of 1200 millilitres per minute for 8 hours straight? 
: >Do you choose not to believe what Jed reports?

: I don't recall such an 8 hour run being reported...I thought it
: was ~2 hours.

Is that the run which Cravens switched off at once because it was
overheating?

Ian
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
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 21:00:17 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: Harry H Conover <conover@max.tiac.net> writes:
:  
: >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.)
:  
: John Logajan published photographs of the meters and thermocouple meters.
: These photographs have a date on them. They were not taken by me, they
: were taken by Kawasaki. The meters show excess heat.

What credible, competent neutral observer is willint to post here
authenticating the accuracy of the photograph, and the parameters
show on the instrumentation.  Until this happens, these photos have
no more credibility than the many, many bogus UFO photos of past eras.
:  
: Now, if you want to argue that I am capapable of fabricating this kind of
: evidence, go right ahead. That would be no more stupid, farfetched or
: paranoid than any of your other claims.

Sure you are Jed, in fact you don't give yourself enough credit.  Besides,
the information and evidence posted to date has so many holes in it than
it could just as well have been fabricated by disturbed highschool student.

: Your do science the way Oliver
: Stone does history anyway, so you might as well go all the way, and claim
: that I am masterminding a sophisticated scheme where I can actually dummy
: up photographs like that.


I'd certainly hope that you are capable of doing a better job of faking
data.  

: While you are at it, why don't you explain why
: the Ministry of International Trade and Industry has recently put another
: $100 million dollars into this technology. No doubt you will explain that
: this is all part of a CIA conspiracy.

Please identify what the 'Ministry of International Trade and Industry'
is, exactly, and where they are located.  I'd love to confirm the 
accuracy of this incredible claim!

:  
: It has been fun, but I think I'll stop responding to your paraniod nonsense
: now. I encourage you to keep posting this kind of message. It shows the
: whole world what kind of twisted thinking you so-called (badly misnamed)
: "skeptics" engage in. Your thinking is anything but skeptical in the real
: sense of the world, since you will believe absolutely any nonsense, at the
: drop of a hat, so long as it conformes with your own preconieved nutty ideas
: about reality.

Ah yes, scientists are twisted, perverted people.  Unlike a true believer
they require evidence and credible, verificable fact authentication 
before accepting the reality of an incredible, unsubstantiated fairy
tale that, in every way, contradicts mans vast base of existing 
scientific knowledge.

Evidently, based on your empty, arm-waving repsonses posted to date,
you are incapable of providing even the least amount of verifiable 
backup to support these ridiculous claims...Not even the name of 
one competent, qualified and impartial observer had been produced
to substantiate any claim...nor have any credible and 
confirmable industrial sources of major funding been identified.

In short, you have posted nothing but beliefs -- your beliefs --
which history demonstrates have little foundation beyond wishful
thinking and hot air...and hot air is not excess heat, no matter the 
quantity!

Please continue to have fun Jed, but don't expect to be taken 
seriously by anyone with physical science skills exceeding those
of a junior highschool student, until you can produce something that 
more closely resembles 'evidence' than your 'hat tricks' of the 
past.

                             Harry C.



cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.08 / John Elston /  Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
     
Originally-From: elston@prairienet.org (John M. Elston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
Date: 8 Jan 1996 22:08:58 GMT
Organization: Prairienet, the East-Central Illinois Free-Net

I Johnston (ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
: Barry Merriman (barry@fourier.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
: : In article <4cik4v$psf@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> Martin Sevior <msevior> writes:
: : >
: : >On the other hand why aren't you convinced by a delta-T of 17 C at 
: : >a flow rate of 1200 millilitres per minute for 8 hours straight? 
: : >Do you choose not to believe what Jed reports?

: : I don't recall such an 8 hour run being reported...I thought it
: : was ~2 hours.

: Is that the run which Cravens switched off at once because it was
: overheating?

Perhaps you are thinking of the control cell which was turned off when it
was found to be running hot.  

: Ian

--
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 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.08 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
Date: 8 Jan 1996 22:46:34 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <4cnhet$c6v@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> Martin Sevior <msevior> writes:
>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
....
....
...
>
>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. 

What bothers me is that Jed has reported, in connection with this particular
aparatus, large overunity gains in a control device that was defective and
HE DIDN'T EVEN REALIZE THAT THERE WAS ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE FACT THAT HE
DID.

Given this level of incompetence, nothing would surprise me from Rothwell.

Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
 -------------------------------------------------------
Any ideas or opinions expressed here do not necessarily
reflect the ideas or opinions of my employer.
 -------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.09 /  RMCarrell /  Progress, believe it or not
     
Originally-From: rmcarrell@aol.com (RMCarrell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Progress, believe it or not
Date: 9 Jan 1996 07:51:49 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Only a few months ago the critical attack was on measurements of 
reaction byproducts, and the competence of observers, while ignoring the
excess energy. At SOFE, Prof. Miley  of the U. of Illinois reported that
his students had duplicated the Patterson Cell, working from the patent
info,
and had found excess energy. This is independent verification by a 
competent observer, and should have settled the matter there. That he
chose to demonstrate a CETI cell, which worked better, is less
significant.

Now the attack shifts to the CETI/Anaheim demonstraton, where absent
critics
search for conceivable flaws. These critics often make major technical 
blunders of their own, while attacking the competence and integrity of 
CETI and other observers, including Jed Rothwell, who was there, stayed
and looked and measured, and has provided honest reporting and patient 
responses to irresponsible personal attacks. If he has made mistakes, so 
have many of the critics posting here. If we are not to shoot the bearer 
of bad news, let us not cruicify the bearer of good news. 

I have a compact (.16 cu. ft.) forced air electric heater that will put
out 1500 watts without incandescence or boiling; surely, gentlemen, you
have seen the like and could reason that the CETI/Anaheim heat exchanger
could do as well, without a flurry assumptions and calculations. And 
humans dissipate about 100 watts, not 1000 (which is 1.3 horespower), 
as claimed by another.

Now that the existence of the CETI demonstration is undeniable, we find
that it is of no importance because it isn't self-sustaining and doesn't
boil water or run a car or make toast. Better yet, it's probably dangerous
because no-one has a full theory yet. That's what Edison said about Tesla
and alternating current. 

This is real progress, strange as it may seem. There are many lurkers 
here, like me, and possibly a recording angel who will log some of the 
comments here to be used as amusing footnotes when some future paradigm
shift 
threatens established ideas. 

The show's not over, and the CETI demonstration isn't the only game in 
town by any means. It will be a very ineresting new year and new century.

Mike Carrell (Consultant, no affiliation)
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenrmcarrell cudlnRMCarrell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.08 / Karl Kluge /  Re: Products from CETI
     
Originally-From: kckluge@krusty.eecs.umich.edu (Karl Kluge)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Products from CETI
Date: 08 Jan 1996 15:53:57 -0500
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI

In article <4cni2s$124g@saba.info.ucla.edu> Barry Merriman <barry> writes:

   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."

I wonder if it will beat the P & F water heater to market...
cudkeys:
cuddy08 cudenkckluge cudfnKarl cudlnKluge cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.09 / Alan M /  Re: Conover asks: what is MITI?
     
Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" <alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Conover asks: what is MITI?
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 1996 11:43:01 +0000
Organization: The Levitating Pig

In article <xvDF-AG.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com
writes
>Harry H Conover <conover@max.tiac.net> decided to break the monotony here, and
>introduce some humor -- some belly laughs! -- to the exchange. He writes:
> 
>     "Please identify what the 'Ministry of International Trade and Industry'
>     is, exactly, and where they are located.  I'd love to confirm the
>     accuracy of this incredible claim!"
> 
>Ha, ha ha ha hahahah! That is one of most hilarious comments I have seen in
>weeks. Stuff like this makes Internet a treat. Ah, me!

I've been searching all over this NewsGroup for the posting in which
Harry asked this question. Doesn't seem to have come through on my wave-
length. Could you tell me which thread it's in, and whether indeed it is
given to ordinary mortals to see it. Or do you have to be tuned up
specially, like being able to read 'over-unity' results for a control
cell?
-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenalan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.08 / Bradley Sherman /  Re: Rothwell distances self from CETI
     
Originally-From: bks@netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell distances self from CETI
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 1996 22:22:16 GMT
Organization: Remote Fusion Reactor Reverse Entropy Associates

In article <hlGnHQC.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
...
>up photographs like that. While you are at it, why don't you explain why
>the Ministry of International Trade and Industry has recently put another
>$100 million dollars into this technology. No doubt you will explain that
>this is all part of a CIA conspiracy.
...

I just checked the (English language) MITI WWW pages at
    http://www.miti.go.jp/index-e.html
and found no mention of this.  Can you give a better reference
for this $100,000,000 investment?

    --bks

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenbks cudfnBradley cudlnSherman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.08 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: CETI Question
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI Question
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 96 16:42:56 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

John M. Elston <elston@prairienet.org> writes:
 
>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?
 
I do not think that Cravens ever worked with the Ni-only beads. That was
a while ago. They have been using beads with multiple levels of thin
film for a while now. They work better. It is not clear what role the
Pd level plays.
 
CETI has done only thin film devices, not solid metal of any kind. I do not
think that solid metal beads would work well. I think a non conducting
core and carefully engineered highly absorbent thin film metal are
essential.
 
>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.
 
That is correct. In most tests the power was between 450 and 600 watts.
It had gotten too high on the first day when we observed it was 1300 watts.
In subsequent runs, Cravens was careful to keep it lower. This prototype
was not designed to work at higher temperatures. It was damaged by the
higher heat.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.08 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 96 16:31:25 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I Johnston <ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk> writes:
 
>Is that the run which Cravens switched off at once because it was
>overheating?
 
He did not switch it off, he lowered the input power level, which
quenches the reaction somewhat. He let it run for the rest of the
meeting, which went on for an hour or two. I had to leave midway through
to go to bed, because I was on east coast time and this was in the
evening.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.08 /  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: Mon, 8 Jan 96 13:33:22 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Harry H Conover <conover@max.tiac.net> writes:
 
>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.)
 
John Logajan published photographs of the meters and thermocouple meters.
These photographs have a date on them. They were not taken by me, they
were taken by Kawasaki. The meters show excess heat.
 
Now, if you want to argue that I am capapable of fabricating this kind of
evidence, go right ahead. That would be no more stupid, farfetched or
paranoid than any of your other claims. Your do science the way Oliver
Stone does history anyway, so you might as well go all the way, and claim
that I am masterminding a sophisticated scheme where I can actually dummy
up photographs like that. While you are at it, why don't you explain why
the Ministry of International Trade and Industry has recently put another
$100 million dollars into this technology. No doubt you will explain that
this is all part of a CIA conspiracy.
 
It has been fun, but I think I'll stop responding to your paraniod nonsense
now. I encourage you to keep posting this kind of message. It shows the
whole world what kind of twisted thinking you so-called (badly misnamed)
"skeptics" engage in. Your thinking is anything but skeptical in the real
sense of the world, since you will believe absolutely any nonsense, at the
drop of a hat, so long as it conformes with your own preconieved nutty ideas
about reality.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.08 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 96 16:28:14 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Martin Sevior <msevior> writes:
 
>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.
 
Yes, that's what he told me last time we discussed it. I thought it had
been running at the higher power for longer than that, but apparently
it had crept up to that power level shortly before I came into the room
on the first day. As I said here several times, as soon as he realized
it was that hot, he turned it down. He designed the thing for a ~500 watt
reaction.
 
Turning the CETI reaction up or down is no problem. It can be controlled
by altering the input electrolysis power. It takes a while to respond.
After you turn it up or down there is a delayed reaction. If you set it
at high power, it sometimes gradually creeps up and up. Cut the power
way down and it gradually fades away. You might say that you can set
the direction of the trend, and you can keep it at one level by nudging
it first one way, then the other. What you cannot do is set the input
at one level and expect the output to go to a specific point and stay
there.
 
The fact that it did not stay at high power for long makes it impossible
to determine what the reservoir temperature should have been. We know
from the reservoir temperature that there must have been massive excess
heat, because that pump run all by itself will not heat up the
reservoir at all, and it was plenty hot. But we do not know what the
terminal reservior temperature is for 1300 watts. I expect it was still
heating up rapidly when he cut back the power and reduced the reaction
rate. I do not know though, because I was not able to make detailed
observations on the first day.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.08 /  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: Mon, 8 Jan 96 16:37:09 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> writes:
 
>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.  
 
I think he is kidding. He *must* be kidding, because in his next
message, he asks me what is the Ministry of International Trade and
Industry, and where is it located.
 
Sometimes it is a little difficult to know where the serious discussions
have ended, and the joking and joshing have begun. I admit, I thought
for a second that Harry was being serious, but I sorta suspected he
wasn't when I suggested this is an Oliver Stone style conspiracy theory
he is peddling. I suspect Stone is not serious either. I hope he isn't!
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.09 / 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: Tue, 9 Jan 1996 04:20:10 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

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

: C'mon, give us a break, if you want to keep tracing energy sources you'll
: either end up with the big bang or matter itself.

: The point was, what a device runs *directly* on.  In the case of an enigine,
: it's pressure from expanding gases.

So what does a Stirling Cycle engine run on?

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmmallory cudfnMark cudlnMallory cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.09 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: REAL proof of of CF ?
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: REAL proof of of CF ?
Date: 9 Jan 1996 04:34:42 GMT
Organization: Battelle Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

In article <4csosk$68n@pollux.usc.edu>, srobiner@pollux.usc.edu (Steven
Robiner) wrote:

> In article <mmalloryDKMHo6.Fsy@netcom.com> mmallory@netcom.com (Mark
Mallory) writes:
> >chuck@utdallas.edu wrote:
> >
[...]
> >: 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.
> >
> 
> The point was, what a device runs *directly* on.  In the case of an enigine,
> it's pressure from expanding gases.
> 

Mr. Mallory is correct.  Both Otto and Diesel cycles are heat engine
cycles.  The analyses of them as such can be found in most any decent
thermodynamics textbook.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Jan 11 04:37:04 EST 1996
------------------------------
