1996.01.10 / Horace Heffner /  Re: Rothwell distances self from CETI
     
Originally-From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell distances self from CETI
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 15:32:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


>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
>
[snip]
>
>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.
>--------------------


At long last we have finally arrived at the ... does not exist argument.
This is an almost sure sign that something new to talk about is ready to
surface.  But if not, and this discourse must continue, perhaps it is
worthwhile to take Descartes lead and start with fundamentals.  How about:
Harry C. posts, therefore he is.  Jed posts, ...


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


cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.08 / a hennessey /  cmsg cancel <4crljd$578@lemon.easynet.co.uk>
     
Originally-From: pegasus@easynet.co.uk (andrew hennessey)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <4crljd$578@lemon.easynet.co.uk>
Date: 8 Jan 1996 16:44:33 EST

EMP/ECP (aka SPAM) cancelled by clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca.

See news.admin.net-abuse.announce, report 19960108.04 for further details
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenpegasus cudfnandrew cudlnhennessey 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 09:51:23 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

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

: : 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?  

I wonder what cop Jed got for the control cell which the faulty CETI
instrumentation reported as producing excess heat. Obviously a scientist
of Jed's calibre would have shown clearly that it was under unity, but
it would be useful to have the figures.

Ian
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.08 / Steven Robiner /  Re: REAL proof of of CF ?
     
Originally-From: srobiner@pollux.usc.edu (Steven Robiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: REAL proof of of CF ?
Date: 8 Jan 1996 19:53:56 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

In article <mmalloryDKMHo6.Fsy@netcom.com> mmallory@netcom.com (Mark Mallory) writes:
>chuck@utdallas.edu wrote:
>
>: > Your car engine runs on the heat produced from burning gasoline.  
>
>: NO!  An internal combustion engine runs doe to the expanding gases 
>: produced from the burning of gas.  This is one of my pet peeves...unless 
>: you're running a Stirling cycle engine (or similar) you are not utilizing 
>: the heat.
>
>
>It's the HEAT that makes the gases EXPAND, you knucklehead!  An Otto Cycle 
>engine is just as much a *heat engine* as is a Stirling Cycle engine.
>

No, it's the CHEMICAL REACTION that makes the HEAT that makes the gases expand. 
No, no wait, its the SPARK that makes the chemical reaction, no lets see,
it's the BATTERY that makes the ELECTRICTY that makes the spark....

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.

=Steven=
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudensrobiner cudfnSteven cudlnRobiner cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.08 / Steven Robiner /  Re: REAL proof of of CF ?
     
Originally-From: srobiner@pollux.usc.edu (Steven Robiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: REAL proof of of CF ?
Date: 8 Jan 1996 19:45:56 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

In article <4cd50b$718_001@ip34.sky.net> bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan) writes:
>In article <4ccnun$k4j@pollux.usc.edu>,
>   srobiner@pollux.usc.edu (Steven Robiner) wrote:
>
>[. . .]
>
>->How do you know?   Almost every modern appliance, every modern communication
>->device, every computer, every televsion, stereo, etc, runs directly on 
>->electricty.  Sure lots of people use gas, but I'd venture to say the vast
>->majority of end-used power in the US is electricity.  Just look at all
>->those electric utility companies making a fortune.
>
>
>WRONG!!!! Next time before you post, I suggest you do a little basic research.

OK - where's your research?  Are you saying that  every modern communication
device, every computer, every televsion, stereo, etc, *DOESN't* run directly on
electricty?

Or are you saying electric utilities don't make money?

>
>
>[. . .]
>
>->I do the same thing for free *today*, with a lot less invested in equipment
>->and precious metals. Its called solar panels.  What makes you think 
>purchasing 
>->a CF reactor with expensive loaded Palladium cells and heavy water is more
>->practical?  
>
>
>Steve, Steve, Steve, if you would just pay attention, you would know that I 
>never said CF would be cheaper than alternatives.  I never even said CF has 

(backpedle, backpedle...)

>been demonstrated to work. I never even said that that I thought CF would ever 
>work.

(Keep going, your making my point for me now!)

>
>This discussion started when you asked why everyone one excited about the 
>possibility of a new heat source, and I tried to explain that to you. 

Wrong again.  I did not ask why people were excited about heat, I asked why
no one is converting this supposed excess heat into electricity, which as
I've noted before, and you have finally admitted above, is necessary for an
deliverable, *practical* power source.

>Apparently, you are incapable of understanding in your present condition.

Obviously you are incapable of recognizing my point even after you've made
the same point yourself, irregardless of your condition. 
>
>
>Steve, do yourself a favor and go to your doctor to get your medication 
>adjusted. Good luck, I hope your condition improves soon.

Now there's some solid evidence that you haven't been taking yours at all.





=Steven=
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudensrobiner cudfnSteven cudlnRobiner cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.09 /  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: Tue, 9 Jan 96 00:31:29 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Barry Merriman <barry@fourier.math.ucla.edu> writes:
 
>cells and hydrogen energy storage and the like, mostly, with probably
>a much smaller amount being put into cold fusion research. Of course,
 
I do not think that the MITI NEDO cold fusion program has anything to do
with their fuel cell research. Of course, MITI is hudge, so it might.
NEDO, with is a semi-private corporation under MITI had a $2.1 billion
dollar budget a few years ago.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.09 /  jedrothwell@de /  Conover asks: what is MITI?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Conover asks: what is MITI?
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 96 00:33:10 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

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!
 
What can I say? I cannot think of any answer as witty as the question, but
I'll do my best. Let's see . . . The Ministry of International Trade and
Industry, otherwise known as MITI, is in Japan. Japan is a droll little island
country in Asia. To get there, do like Columbus and Go West. You can't miss
it! (Columbus did, but that's another story.) You will find everything in
Japan is backwards. It is the mirror image of the U.S. They drive on the wrong
side of the road; they write from top to bottom, left to right; verbs at the
end of sentences they do put; and when you call them on the phone you find
that they sleep when we are awake and vice versa. Their beliefs are also
upside down. They assert, for example, that evidence beats theory ("ron yori
shouko") and they think that scientists are paid to produce useful, practical
results and to contribute to society.
 
Now, <ahem> Conover wants to "confirm the accuracy" of my assertion that MITI
has increased the budget for their CF program. It is a little difficult for me
to imagine any proof that would satisfy a man who is not convinced of amperage
by a mere photograph of an ammeter showing a value. I suppose I could point
out that is what MITI announced after the recent cold fusion conference
sponsored by Fiat, during the press conference, but I fear that Conover will
simply raise the ante (as it were) and demand proof that Fiat held the
conference. I could also point out that MITI runs the Agency of Natural
Resources and Energy, and ANRE in turn runs the New Energy and Industrial
Technology Development Organization (NEDO), at a budget of $2.1 billion
dollars per year, making it only a small part of MITI. NEDO, in turn, runs the
Institute for Applied Energy (IAE), with offices in Tokyo and Hokkaido, and --
here's where we get to the point! -- the IAE is dedicated to cold fusion
research. Ah, but Conover will demand proof of all this! After all, I might
have made it all up, or the CIA may have planted the idea -- it might be A
Conspiracy. (To a person like Conover, *anything* might be a conspiracy.)
Well . . . NEDO and the IAE will be sponsoring the Sixth International
Conference on Cold Fusion, on October 13-18, 1996, at the Hotel Apex Toya, in
Hokkaido, Japan. Perhaps Conover should attend. He can take his own
photographs, and upload them in his own home page. He can then explain to the
world how Jed Rothwell tried to trick him into believing it was a real physics
conference sponsored by real Japanese government agencies, but he saw through
it! He knows darn well those were American actors pretending to be Japanese
scientists, chattering in pretend Japanese, and that airplane did not actually
fly to Hokkaido. It was staged. It was a trick, masterminded by Fu Manchu,
Jed, and the CIA. Why? Nobody knows! Only the shadow knows. And you can't
trust anyone. And fluoridation -- that's part of a brainwashing conspiracy.
And you know those fake NASA moon landings? HA! They didn't kid Conover, no
sirree. Just don't ask Conover about UFOs. People like him will *never* shut
up, once they start nattering on about conspiracies to hide the truth. Don't
ask him about that computer chip the CIA implanted in his buttocks! You will
never hear the end of it.
 
Now let us return to our regularly scheduled program, as we wave Sayonara!
Saraba! to our Far Eastern Friends and fruitcake conspiracy freak Conover. It
has been fun, but we must return the world of dull, ordinary reality.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.09 / Craig Haynie /  Re: Doing CETI's R&D
     
Originally-From: Craig Haynie <ccHaynie@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Doing CETI's R&D
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 1996 22:22:48 -0600
Organization: Netcom

Hello.

Jed Rothwell might be best able to answer this question:

Will Dr. George Miley publish a report of his work with the CETI power 
cell? If so, when do you anticipate this report will be available?

Craig Haynie
ccHaynie@ix.netcom.com
cudkeys:
cuddy09 cudenccHaynie cudfnCraig cudlnHaynie cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.09 / Taryn Wood /  Help two science students with Mass vs. Velocity.
     
Originally-From: twood@sisnet.ssku.k12.ca.us (Taryn Wood)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Help two science students with Mass vs. Velocity.
Date: 9 Jan 1996 16:36:22 GMT
Organization: Mt. Shasta High School

We are high School students from Mt. Shasta High school (in California)
and we're doing a project in our Science Class.  The project we're dealing
with is "Do heavier or lighter Masses achieve faster velocities as they
are allowed to accelerate down a plane?".  
We found from earlier research that this has to do with Mass, Friction,
Velocity, Acceleration, and Motion.  We haven't been able to find how
weight ties into this project? Can you help?  We Know mass has something
to do with it but not enough knowledge to carry through with it .
Thanks for taking your time to help us.  Your input will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,  twood and rcarney
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudentwood cudfnTaryn cudlnWood 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 14:45:38 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

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,
:  

: ... 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.

So, Jed, the measurements you took showed that the faulty control cell
was not producing excess heat, did they? After all, CETI's
instrumentation was completely fooled by it, so it would be nice to know
that you weren't.

Also, when was this 1300W long run you used to go on about. For eight
hours, wasn't it? Now it was either "fifteen minutes" or "until Cravens
noticed". How did you manage to get the power, or time readings so
completely wrong.

As you are an honest and unbiassed observer I know you will be keen to answer
these questions.

Ian
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.10 / Mitchell Jones /  Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 06:37:38 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

I haven't been posting very much to this group lately, due to various
distractions. I have also been mulling over the claim by skeptics that the
flow loop of the Power Gen demo lacked the capacity to dissipate the 1300
watts which it was claimed that it was producing. My first reaction to
this argument was that it assumed facts not in evidence. Still, the
argument was beguiling, and it was based on real physics, so I attempted
to find a way to evaluate it. Finally I did a calculation based on
Fourier's law of heat conduction (q = k*A*dT/dx) which convinced me that
far more plastic tubing would have been needed in the system, even under
ideal conditions, than could reasonably have been assumed to have been
available. This convinced me that something very odd was going on at Power
Gen and so I went back an re-read Jed's original post on the topic, to see
what kind of pump the Power Gen demo had used. In that post, Jed said that
Cravens had been using a Magnum 220 aquarium pump, and so I went down to a
local "Aquarium Superstore" and checked it out. Here are some facts about
the Magnum 220: reservoir inner diameter: 15 cm; height from bottom to top
of reservoir: 20 cm; height from bottom of reservoir to fill line: 15 cm;
thickness of reservoir walls: 3 mm. The polyethylene tubing for that model
has an outer diameter of 17 mm and a wall thickness of 2 mm. The pump
motor is situated beneath the reservoir, and rotates the impeller via a
magnetic coupling through the walls of the plastic cylinder. The impeller
is situated within a housing that has an opening at the center of rotation
to permit entry of water, and an outlet at the side through a tube that
rises to the top of the reservoir. It is a standard centrifugal pump
mechanism. There are fittings for two hose connections on the top of the
reservoir. One carries the outflow; the other carries the return flow back
into the reservoir. A larger version of the same design, the Magnum 350,
was also on sale at the store. The Magnum 350 is designed to pump 350
gallons per hour, and has a motor rated at 35 watts, whereas the smaller
Magnum 220 (used by Cravens at Power Gen) is designed to pump 220 gallons
per hour. The hoses are smaller on the 220, as are the hose fittings and
the impeller system. The 220 cost $79.95 and the 350 cost $89.95, which
further supports my belief that the 220 has a smaller motor. [I mention
this because the 50 watt rating for the 220 which has been bandied about
in this group seems virtually certain to be too large. (It may be that the
50 watt rating was calculated by multiplying 120 volts times .42 amps and
ignoring the power factor. By that procedure, the 350 would be 120 volts
times .65 amps, or 78 watts. However, because the power factor is only
45%, the motor of the 350 is rated at 35 watts. If the power factor of the
220 is also 45% then it would, by this rationale, be rated at 23 watts.)] 

After examining both models, I purchased a Magnum 350 aquarium pump with
the idea of setting up a fluid loop and doing some experiments. For
starters, I wanted to see what kind of heat dissipation I got through the
walls of the plastic reservoir. My idea was to install a 1500 watt water
heater element in the control cell position, and see what kind of
equilibrium temperature I get when I set the flow rate to 1.2 liters per
minute. However, when I told Jed about this plan via e-mail, he urged me
to do a run in which I merely pumped fluid in a circle, without a cell in
the loop, to see if such a procedure would produce noticeable heating.
That seemed easy enough, and so I did it last night. Since I was not yet
set up to throttle the flow back to 1.2 liters/minute as in the Power Gen
runs, I ran it full throttle, using 10 feet of 5/8ths inch poly tubing
connected directly from the pump inlet to the pump outlet. Here are the
results:

Air temperature and starting water temperature: 12.78 degrees C.
Ending water temperature: 22.78 degrees C
Ending air temperature: 12.78 degrees C.
Elapsed time: 3 hours and 5 minutes.
Measured water flow rate: 25 liters/minute.
Volume of water in system: 2.2 liters.

As you can see,  I did get some elevation in the temperature of the fluid.
However, the flow rate was more than an order of magnitude greater than
that used at Power Gen. The obvious conclusion to be drawn from this
result is that when you pump fluid in a circle at a high rate of speed,
you get significant frictional heating in the flow loop! Of course, the
flow rate in this experiment was 25 liters/min, whereas at Power Gen it
was only 1.2 liters/min, which is roughly 1/20th as much. One would thus
be tempted to conclude that the temperature increase at Power Gen due to
frictional heating would be roughly 1/20th of 10 degrees C, or .5 degree
C. However, I don't believe that this is valid. Suppose, for example, that
I were to place a stopcock valve in my closed loop, with temperature
probes just before and just after it in the flow, and repeat my experiment
again. With the valve wide open, I would obviously get the same result as
I got without the valve, and the two temperature probes would have the
same readings: 12.78 degrees C at the beginning of the 3 hour run, and
22.78 degrees C at the end of the run. But what if I closed the valve half
way? In that case, two things would happen: (1) the flow rate in the loop
would drop to 12.5 liters per minute; and (2) the flow velocity *through
the valve*, due to Bernoulli's effect, would greatly increase. Result: the
frictional heating would greatly increase *within the valve itself* and
would greatly decrease everywhere else in the loop. Result: the
temperature probe before the valve would begin to show a lower reading
than the one after the valve, and we would begin to show a positive delta
T at the valve! And, as we choked the flow down further and further, the
process would continue until an optimum aperture size was achieved within
the valve, which would maximize the delta T. Result: a false reading of
"excess heat" in a simple stopcock valve! 

This theory implies significant frictional heating at each and every choke
point in the flow, whatever the cause of the obstruction. Since the bead
bed in the Power Gen demo constituted an obstruction to the flow, this
theory implies that significant frictional heating would have been
concentrated there. Since the Magnum 220 pumps 220 gallons/hour, or 13.86
liters/min through unobstructed tubing, and since it was choked down to a
flow of 1.2 liters/min at Power Gen, would we not expect significant
frictional heating to be concentrated in the bead bed, precisely where it
would register on the temperature probes as "excess heat?" How's that for
an intriguing possibility? Wow!

Frankly, I don't know whether this theory will hold up or not, but it is
interesting enough to post. Let's see what, if anything, is wrong with it!

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.10 / Steven Robiner /  Re: REAL proof of of CF ?
     
Originally-From: srobiner@pollux.usc.edu (Steven Robiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: REAL proof of of CF ?
Date: 10 Jan 1996 21:11:32 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

In article <mmalloryDKwC1o.Bt9@netcom.com> mmallory@netcom.com (Mark Mallory) writes:
>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?

It is one of the few devices that actually runs *directly* on heat.

But it is not used in cars, which was the question.  Gasoline engines run 
directly on expanding gases. The indirect chain of energy transfers which 
lead up to this expansion are the nature of gasoline & oxygen, electricity, 
and a chemical reaction, leading to increases in heat and pressure.

An internal combustion engine no more runs on heat, than on electricity.

=Steven=
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudensrobiner cudfnSteven cudlnRobiner cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.10 /  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: Wed, 10 Jan 96 09:05:02 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I Johnston <ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk> writes:
 
>But they only looked at it, did they not, because a control cell cannot
>produce heat? And the best argument they can come up with to convince us
>that the flow through the test cell was not choked is that it looked ok.
 
This statement makes no sense. They measured the flow to ascertain what
was happening. They also measured the flow on the test cell, repeatedly,
also to find out what was happening. It is very simple: we measure the
flow the same way people have been doing it for hundreds of years; we
divert the stream into a graduated cylinder for a fixed period of time.
This method works perfectly. There is no significant flow resistance
between the stopcocks and the reservoir, and we can see the fluid
continues to move rapidly when the flow is redirected back to the
reservoir. Therefore we are certain the flow was ~1 liter at all times
between measurements. In order for this to be an artifact of the flow, it
would have to be reduced to a fraction of 1 milliliter: a drop of water
versus a bottle of water.
 
The argument is not "that it looked ok" -- the argument is that *it measured
ok*, repeatedly, in test after test, and furthermore that anyone can look
at a transparent plastic tube with electrolysis bubbles moving through
it and ascertain that the flow is continuing. You are arguing that a
person cannot measure flow with a cylinder and a stopwatch, yet this
method was used by Galileo and countless other scientists, and nobody
knows any reason why it should not work. Neither do you.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.10 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Doing CETI's R&D
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Doing CETI's R&D
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 96 09:05:55 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Craig Haynie <ccHaynie@ix.netcom.com> writes:
 
>Jed Rothwell might be best able to answer this question:
>
>Will Dr. George Miley publish a report of his work with the CETI power 
>cell? If so, when do you anticipate this report will be available?
 
No, I cannot answer that question. You would have to ask Prof. Miley.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.10 / Mark Wong /  a low temperature?
     
Originally-From: mawong@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Wong)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: a low temperature?
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 96 13:56:20 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments

low tech column meter
123457890123457890123457890123457890123457890123457890123457890123457890

Why are almost all of the fusion experiments two or three orders of 
magnitude below the temperature (around 20 kev) necessary for 
sustained fusion?  I used a little sophmore physics to get a mean 
energy around 3.5 Mev for deuteron fusion.  Using quantum tunneling, 
I was able to get the number around 200,000 ev.  Since I am not in 
the fusion field on a daily basis, I am wondering if there was a 
breakthrough on the magnetohydrodynamic equations that allowed the 
lower temperatures.  If no breakthrough, then why are we looking at 
such low energy regimes? Is it plasma stability only? Not wanting to 
"dirty up" the machines with a high neutron flux? Please help.

By the way, Congress killed a little tokamak in Texas that was 
looking for the Higgs boson with two or three orders of maginitude 
too little energy:)

Mark Wong
Texas Instruments     
mawong@m2.dseg.ti.com

(When will electrochemists learn that phase change heat of fusion 
is NOT NUCLEAR fusion?)
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmawong cudfnMark cudlnWong cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.10 / John Logajan /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: 10 Jan 1996 15:24:28 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Mitchell Jones (21cenlogic@i-link.net) wrote:
: This theory implies significant frictional heating at each and every choke
: point in the flow, whatever the cause of the obstruction. Since the bead
: bed in the Power Gen demo constituted an obstruction to the flow, this
: theory implies that significant frictional heating would have been
: concentrated there. Since the Magnum 220 pumps 220 gallons/hour, or 13.86
: liters/min through unobstructed tubing, and since it was choked down to a
: flow of 1.2 liters/min at Power Gen, would we not expect significant
: frictional heating to be concentrated in the bead bed, precisely where it
: would register on the temperature probes as "excess heat?" How's that for
: an intriguing possibility? Wow!

Yes, in fact we know that the heating magnitude is related by the formula:

watts=pascals*cubicmeters/second.

Here pascals represent the pressure drop at the "choke point" of interest,
and cubic meters per second is the flow rate through the choke point.
(There are roughly 100,000 pascals per atmosphere of pressure.)

So we can construct a nice formula for the 1.2 liters/minute case.

It is simply, 2watts per atmosphere of pressure drop (at the choke
point) @ 1.2 l/min.

1200 ml/min is 20 ml/second.  Therefore since it takes about 4.2J to
raise 1.0 ml one degree C, we have another nice formula:

A temperature rise to the flow of 0.024C per atmosphere of pressure
drop (at a choke point) @ 1.2 l/min.


Therefore to get a 16C delta-T at 1.2 l/min would require 666 atmospheres
of pressure, or about 9800 PSI.


--
 - 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:
cuddy10 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.09 / Bradley Sherman /  Re: Progress, believe it or not
     
Originally-From: bks@netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Progress, believe it or not
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 1996 14:57:44 GMT
Organization: Remote Fusion Reactor Reverse Entropy Associates

In article <4ctod5$qod@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
RMCarrell <rmcarrell@aol.com> wrote:
...
>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 
...

You have a device that you plug into the wall and you 
claim it produces 1500 watts.  Cravens has a device
that he plugs into the wall and claims it puts out
1300 watts (now reduced to 500 in the official story).

The difference is that you're ready to produce your
device on demand to back up your statement.

    --bks

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenbks cudfnBradley cudlnSherman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.09 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Progress, believe it or not
     
Originally-From: barry@fourier.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Progress, believe it or not
Date: 9 Jan 1996 19:26:26 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In article <4ctod5$qod@newsbf02.news.aol.com> rmcarrell@aol.com (RMCarrell) writes:
>Better yet, it's probably dangerous
>because no-one has a full theory yet. That's what Edison said about Tesla
>and alternating current. 
>

No, what I actually said is since there is no *experimental* 
determination of what the byproducts are, and since it 
operates by unkown and apparently quite unusual principles
(assuming it ``works'') it presents an unknown hazard, and such
a device is not likely to be marketable without clarifying
these points first.

In the case of Edison vs. Tesla, while AC generators were a new
invention, they operated in accordance with standard theory and
experiment of the day---it will still just current moving 
around. And, even in that case, we have 100 years later a frenzy 
of studies to determine whether AC powerlines are a biohazard.
(answer from the latest results I've seen, in the past few
monhts, is no...). Edison was specifically trying to give 
AC a bad name of course.

This is unlike the case of the CETI cell, I would say.
--
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 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Conover asks: what is MITI?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Conover asks: what is MITI?
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 96 14:31:19 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

"Alan M. Dunsmuir" <alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk> writes:
 
>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
 
It's a real gem, so I will e-mail you your own private copy.
 
Some of these Internet forum message probagate funny. Some never make it
to all nodes.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.09 /  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: Tue, 9 Jan 96 14:34:30 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I Johnston <ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk> writes:
 
>So, Jed, the measurements you took showed that the faulty control cell
>was not producing excess heat, did they? After all, CETI's
>instrumentation was completely fooled by it, so it would be nice to know
>that you weren't.
 
I did not take any measurments of it, I went to bed. It was the middle of
the night Atlanta time. CETI's instrumentation was not fooled by it.
As soon as they looked they saw the flow was choked off. Nobody was
fooled by it, and nobody is fooled by the nonsensical claims in your
messages either.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.09 /  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: Tue, 9 Jan 96 14:36:39 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I Johnston <ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk> writes:
 
>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.
 
Uh, huh. Sure. In that case, why are they sponsoring the upcoming Sixth
International Conference on Cold Fusion?
 
"It turned out" that way did it? What turned out? You mean "I just decided
to say . . ." You just make up this garbage and expect people to believe
it! Amazing.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.09 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Doing CETI's R&D
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Doing CETI's R&D
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 96 14:37:44 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Richard A Blue <blue@pilot.msu.edu> writes:
 
>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
 
They don't need help from idiots like you.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.11 / Richard Blue /  Re: Distance between Rothwell and CETI
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Distance between Rothwell and CETI
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 15:12:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

How long has Jed Rothwell been trumpetting the "1300 watt" performance
of the CETI device before we finally learn that this level of output
lasted for only 15 minutes?  We are then told the steady state output
was more like 500 watts.  However John Logajan posts some numbers
indicating perhaps only 250 watts.

Do we see the 1300 watt claim slowly vanishing before our very eyes?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.09 /  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: Tue, 9 Jan 96 14:44:07 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Arnie Frisch <arnief@wu.cse.tek.com> writes:
 
>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.
 
You are confusing me with someone else. My first report and all subsequent
reports emphasized that the control cell was defective. I did not, at
first, know why it was defective, for the very good reason that I was
asleep when the problem was diagnosed and fixed.
 
In every version of my Power-Gen report, the sixth paragraph begins, quote,
"The first test was marred by a malfunction in the control cell . . ."
So obviously I did realize there was something wrong. It is YOU who does
not realize that you are making a mistake!
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.09 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: CETI products
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI products
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 96 15:47:13 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Barry Merriman <barry@boole.math.ucla.edu> writes:
 
>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.
 
Oh, yeah. Sure. So we can go back to using safer, cleaner sources of
energy like coal and oil. Yes, public health is well served by the
glop they call "air" in Los Angeles and Mexico City.
 
I think you are right. I am sure that many "groups" will try to prevent
CF by claiming that it might be a theat to people's health. The fact that
our present day energy sources are *definitely* a direct threat to
people's health will cut no ice with these "groups." I expect that most
of these groups will be fronts for vested interests, oil companies,
and the hot fusion welfare theives. You will probably join their ranks.
I can see you are revving up already, preparing your fall back position,
and trying to think of the next delaying tactic you will use to hang
on to your job. Forget it! It won't work. You have had your run. You
have already ripped off the taxpayers for billions of dollars, and
delayed the introduction of real solutions to the phony "energy crisis."
More delaying tactics will not win you anything in the end.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.09 / Barry Merriman /  Re: CETI products
     
Originally-From: barry@bolzano.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI products
Date: 9 Jan 1996 22:18:16 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In article <RDHGPgZ.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>Barry Merriman <barry@boole.math.ucla.edu> writes:
> 
>>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.
> 
> 
>I expect that most
>of these groups will be fronts for vested interests

Possibly so, but are you saying there is no legimate question
as to whether there is a biohazard assoicated with CETI cells?
Asuming they work, all that can be said is that close proximity
exposure to hundreds of watt-hours seems to produce no obvious
health defects, and that there are no obvious toxic byproducts.

However, since there is a reaction of some sort occuring, and since
there has been no thorough effort to look for potentialy
hazardous byproducts, and since proposed exposure levels would far
exceed those experienced so far, I'd say that no matter what your stance on
the issues, you'd have to admit there is a legimit question here
that should be addressed prior to mass dissemination.

>, oil companies,
>and the hot fusion welfare theives. 

I don't see how obstructionists in either camp could significantly
further their own agendas by obstructing CETI, if the defice works
at all as well as you have said. The patents are in place, it
doesn;t require the development of a new manufacturing capability,
etc, etc. It would be difficult to put a lid on the commercialization
for any length of time. As for hot fusion camp---the mere
demonstration that the CETI cell works as claimed (say by NIST)
would pull the rug out from under hot fusion power reactor
funding, and I don't see how we could possibly conspire to
prevent such a *demonstration* (CETI is the one not pushing for it...).



>You will probably join their ranks.
>I can see you are revving up already, preparing your fall back position,
>and trying to think of the next delaying tactic you will use to hang
>on to your job. Forget it! It won't work. 

Sorry, wrong on that account. I'm on leave of absence from my hot
fusion research positon, working on the many other projects I'm
involved in (at a 20% raise in salary...). If my hot fusion job
dissapears while I am gone, I would just have to stay in my present
position, though I do want to continue working on fusion energy in
the future. Of course, that would even include cold fusion, if it really
were fusion (or at least an energy source).

>You have had your run. You
>have already ripped off the taxpayers for billions of dollars

Hey, how did you find out about my swiss bank account....:-)

--
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 
------------------------------
1996.01.10 / Monkey King /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: monkey@engin.umich.edu (Monkey King)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: 10 Jan 1996 16:28:48 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <21cenlogic-1001960637380001@austin-1-2.i-link.net>,
Mitchell Jones <21cenlogic@i-link.net> wrote:

>flow rate in this experiment was 25 liters/min, whereas at Power Gen it
>was only 1.2 liters/min, which is roughly 1/20th as much. One would thus
>be tempted to conclude that the temperature increase at Power Gen due to
>frictional heating would be roughly 1/20th of 10 degrees C, or .5 degree
>C. However, I don't believe that this is valid. Suppose, for example, that

Good work.  However, when the flow rate is reduced to 1/20th, I wouldn't
expect that the frictional heating would also be reduced to 1/20th.  If the
flow rate is reduced by turning down the pump's power, then this should be
the case.  However, if the flow rate is reduced by introducing a stopcock
while the input power to the pump remains the same, I wouldn't expect the
rotation speed of the impeller to be rdeuced to 1/20th.  The impeller speed
may be reduced somewhat, but not to 1/20th, and it just isn't pumping so
much water.  The frictional heating at the impeller may be actually
increasing. 
-- 
Monkey King                 | This message printed with 
monkey@engin.umich.edu      | recycled electrons.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmonkey cudfnMonkey cudlnKing cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.10 / Harry Conover /  Re: Conover asks: what is MITI?
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Conover asks: what is MITI?
Date: 10 Jan 1996 17:00:37 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company


>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!
 
Glad to help, Jed.  I'm certainly glad that you enjoyed my post and found
it humorous, just others find humor in your bizarre perception of fact.

> What can I say? I cannot think of any answer as witty as the question, but
> I'll do my best. Let's see . . . The Ministry of International Trade and
> Industry, otherwise known as MITI, is in Japan. Japan is a droll little island
> country in Asia. 

Jed, how can this be.  MITI has not funded CF to the tune of $100,000,000,
as you posted that the Ministry of International Trade and Industry had
done.  The Japanese are known to take a 'flier' on long-shot speculative
topics once in a great while, however, they ain't crazy!  

I've given you the benefit of the doubt, however, and no matter 
how patently ridiculous and incredible your allegation is, it 
must have some foundation.  So, given that MITI is not
making the investment you mention, curious young minds
want to know who is?  What country is home to *the*
Ministry of International Trade and Industry *that is*
making a $100,000,000 investment in CF (given that 
everyone alrady knows it isn't Japan's MITI)?


                                  Harry C.

 

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.10 / mitchell swartz /  Cold Fusion - 1996 status, information
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion - 1996 status, information
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 17:57:47 GMT
Organization: COLD FUSION TIMES

Information of a scientific and material nature on cold fusion, 
are available on the COLD FUSION TIMES' home page.

  The URL of the COLD FUSION TIMES' web page site

           http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html

Additional details are provided at that site, along with other info, 
refs, diagrams, definitions, and URL-pointers to the
COLD FUSION TIMES Delphi Fusion Survey, and other fusion
resources that include this solid state field.

        =====================================
           
          The truth is out there

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.10 / K Ostridge /  Re: Incredibly ignorant statements parroted by Archimedes Plutonium
     
Originally-From: birdie@netcom.com (Kathleen Ostridge)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.particle,soc.culture.british,alt.com
dy.british,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Incredibly ignorant statements parroted by Archimedes Plutonium
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 05:51:47 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Ross Tessien (tessien@oro.net) wrote:
: 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.

Um...and now back to our programme "Fools Rush Inn" Two mad scientists in 
Lab coats settle down for a nice cuppa and some small talk...

: 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.  

One could, I suppose, get ostrasized from the Brit Comedy board as well
for posting very long mad chest thumping messages about science/politics.

: 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.  

I cannot argue against this, their lab coats as a result really are much 
whiter and brighter. Last I looked in the Japanese Lab, one required 
sunglasses. Now, that's results! One can just see where all the $$ went.

: American publications are gun shy and will not publish these articles 
: because of the prejiduce demonstrated above.

Right, so they have been allotted to newsgroups such as British Comedy.  


: 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.  

Uh..oh..this is truly embarrassing....

: Ross Tessien, pissed off engineer

Well, obviously Ross, your in the right place...

If you stick around you may hopefully acuire a sense of humour!

Birdie
-- 
"A few more trips around the sun & my face will look like a fault map!" 
                                                  
                                                  - birdie@netcom.com
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenbirdie cudfnKathleen cudlnOstridge cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.10 / Bradley Sherman /  Re: Cold Fusion - 1996 status, information
     
Originally-From: bks@netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion - 1996 status, information
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 18:23:59 GMT
Organization: Remote Fusion Reactor Reverse Entropy Associates

In article <DKz8KB.8I7@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
>           http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html


How odd! The Cold Fusion Times homepage mentions
neither Griggs nor Cravens.

    --bks

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenbks cudfnBradley cudlnSherman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.10 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: barry@cauchy.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: 10 Jan 1996 18:50:48 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In article <21cenlogic-1001960637380001@austin-1-2.i-link.net>
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:
>
>This theory implies significant frictional heating at each and every choke
>point in the flow, whatever the cause of the obstruction. Since the bead
>bed in the Power Gen demo constituted an obstruction to the flow, this
>theory implies that significant frictional heating would have been
>concentrated there. Since the Magnum 220 pumps 220 gallons/hour, or 13.86
>liters/min through unobstructed tubing, and since it was choked down to a
>flow of 1.2 liters/min at Power Gen, would we not expect significant
>frictional heating to be concentrated in the bead bed, precisely where it
>would register on the temperature probes as "excess heat?" How's that for
>an intriguing possibility? Wow!
>
>Frankly, I don't know whether this theory will hold up or not, but it is
>interesting enough to post. Let's see what, if anything, is wrong with it!
>

Well, the most obvious flaw with this theory is that the maximum
possible amount of frictional heating is less than the power draw
of the pump---so if the pump is using < 100 W and the system is
registering > 1000 W this cannot possibly be frictional heating. That
is what makes the runs at the PowerGen demo particularly intriging:
pump effects are ruled out by gross energy balance consideration.

Of course, a simple way to experimentally measure this effect would
be to put pressure sensors before and after the bead bed---there
would have to be a large pressure drop across the bed if there
were a large frictional force there. With both pressure and T probes 
before/after the bed, one could detect the signature of this
sort of effect.
--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet)  (NeXTMail OK) 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.10 / 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: Thu, 10 Jan 1996 12:52 -0500 (EST)

arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch) writes:
 
-> 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.
 
Excuse me, but Jed never reported large overunity gains in a control device.  I
suggest you go back and check the messages.  He reported that the control cell
was stopped up and they turned it off. Apparently he was correct in that
statement. If Jed screwed up on his reporting, fine, but lets not claim he said
something, or claimed something that he did not.  It does not appear that any
incompetence exhibited in your statement is Jed's.
 
Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.10 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Conover asks: what is MITI?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Conover asks: what is MITI?
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 96 14:25:38 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Harry H Conover <conover@max.tiac.net> writes:
 
>Jed, how can this be.  MITI has not funded CF to the tune of $100,000,000,
>as you posted that the Ministry of International Trade and Industry had
>done.  The Japanese are known to take a 'flier' on long-shot speculative
>topics once in a great while, however, they ain't crazy!
 
No, of course not. You are right. They are not. They have funded it for
a lot more than that over the years.
 
Okay, okay. You caught me. I admit it! It is all a conspiracy. I made
the whole think up. I have built a vast fake version of MITI and another
exact duplicate of NEDO, and together we are putting on a fake conference
in October. Why don't you come? The people from Jed's pretend MITI and
NEDO will be there. At the last two conferences they handed out
copies of their budgets, and they described their work. You can come
and get your own copy this time. Then, as I said, you can come back
to the U.S. and post crackpot messages describing how Jed engineered
a pretend physics conference where fake Japanese actors pretended they
were from MITI, and they handed out fake budget and organization charts.
 
By the way, lots of other people will claim they got these green
invitations for the conference from NEDO. Maybe some of the readers of
this forum will! They will even tell you that this must be a real
Japanese invitation because they cannot spell "February." (They write
"Feburaly 1996.") This is a BIG, widespread conspiracy! I am masterminding
it -- me and Fu Manchu. Yes, you have exposed us. You caught us fair and
square. But I have hundreds of cohorts and minions all over the world
who are working for me, and they will all tell you that the conference
is real. So if you think you are going to expose my little game, you
will be sadly disappointed. You are not James Bond; you cannot topple
my organization overnight. In fact, you may not realize it, but you are
playing right into my hands. My agents are in control of your mind.
We force you to post crackpot messages on Internet! It's that computer chip
we implanted in your butt . . .
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.10 / Frank Nichols /  Re: Rothwell distances self from CETI
     
Originally-From: frank_nichols-contractor@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Frank Nichols)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell distances self from CETI
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 12:39:25 -0700
Organization: U S WEST Marketing Resources

In article <v01530502ad184ebc0248@[204.57.193.66]>, hheffner@anc.ak.net
(Horace Heffner) wrote:

> At long last we have finally arrived at the ... does not exist argument.
> This is an almost sure sign that something new to talk about is ready to
> surface.  But if not, and this discourse must continue, perhaps it is
> worthwhile to take Descartes lead and start with fundamentals.  How about:
> Harry C. posts, therefore he is.  Jed posts, ...
> 

This reminds me of the story - 

Descartes is said to have wandered into a resturant one day. The waiter
approached and asked "Who you like coffee, sir?"

Descartes responded " I think not..." and promptly disappeared!


Frank N

-- 
Frank Nichols
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudencontractor cudfnFrank cudlnNichols cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.09 / Bryan Wallace /  Re: Rothwell distances self from CETI
     
Originally-From: wallaceb@gate.net (Bryan G. Wallace)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell distances self from CETI
Date: 9 Jan 1996 11:06:33 -0500
Organization: CyberGate, Inc.

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

   You have a very distorted view as to how science works in the real 
world.  You need to read my free electronic book "The Farce of Physics" 
that contains 156 references to the published literature with extensive 
quotations of arguments from many prominent people.  You can ftp the book 
from ftp.gate.net in the directory /pub/users/wallaceb and the file you 
want is named farce.txt.

Bryan


cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.10 / Bill Snyder /  Re: Doing CETI's R&D
     
Originally-From: bsnyder@iadfw.net (Bill Snyder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Doing CETI's R&D
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 00:07:32 GMT
Organization: customer of Internet America

In message <B-GFvcQ.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com
wrote:

>Richard A Blue <blue@pilot.msu.edu> writes:
> 
>>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
> 
>They don't need help from idiots like you.
                                                       ^^^^^

As always, Jed, you misspelled "non-suckers."

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

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenbsnyder cudfnBill cudlnSnyder cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.10 / Harry Conover /  Re: Doing CETI's R&D
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Doing CETI's R&D
Date: 10 Jan 1996 03:51:33 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: Richard A Blue <blue@pilot.msu.edu> writes:
:  
: >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
:  
: They don't need help from idiots like you.
:  
: - Jed


Yep...They clearly have enough *idiots* helping them already!

                                   Harry C.

                                        
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.10 /  JCMCOM /  nine year old with fusion theories
     
Originally-From: jcmcom@aol.com (JCMCOM)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: nine year old with fusion theories
Date: 10 Jan 1996 00:03:53 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

My son is a nine year old in 4th grade.  His new years resolution is to
invent fusion. For a 4th grader he knows alot. Any experts out there he
can talk with online about his theories. 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjcmcom cudlnJCMCOM cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.09 / Joe Quellen /  Re: Second "law" is dead ! Success !
     
Originally-From: quellen@azstarnet.com (Joe Quellen)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane
.science,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Second "law" is dead ! Success !
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 1996 22:09:55 LOCAL
Organization: Arizona Daily Star - AZSTARNET

In article <jameslDKL937.KpB@netcom.com> jamesl@netcom.com (James Logajan) writes:

>Kevin Quitt (kdq@emoryi.jpl.nasa.gov) wrote:
>: >You do not use any axioms in physics?  ROTFL, you are joking, right?

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

>While you did not direct that query at me, I should point out that physics
>does have some axioms. It is just that they are so pervasive that they
>often are overlooked.

If one considers an axiom as equivalent to a principle, physics is nothing but.

There is no physicist who doesn't believe in positive definite quantities that 
obey the continuity equation, better known as *substance*.  And they usually 
believe in the existence of conservation laws regarding the behavior of these 
substances, at least as regards the observation of the behavior.


		- JQ :)

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenquellen cudfnJoe cudlnQuellen cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.09 / Alan M /  Re: Progress, believe it or not
     
Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" <alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Progress, believe it or not
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 1996 18:16:00 +0000
Organization: The Levitating Pig

In article <4ctod5$qod@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, RMCarrell
<rmcarrell@aol.com> writes
>Now that the existence of the CETI demonstration is undeniable

Just what planet fo you live on? For God's sake read all the
contradictory postings here from 'observers' and try to form a rational
view on exactly what if anything *was* 'demonstrated' at Anaheim.
-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenalan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.10 / 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: 10 Jan 1996 10:03:50 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: I Johnston <ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk> writes:
:  
: >So, Jed, the measurements you took showed that the faulty control cell
: >was not producing excess heat, did they? After all, CETI's
: >instrumentation was completely fooled by it, so it would be nice to know
: >that you weren't.
:  
: I did not take any measurments of it, I went to bed. It was the middle of
: the night Atlanta time. CETI's instrumentation was not fooled by it.
: As soon as they looked they saw the flow was choked off. Nobody was
: fooled by it, and nobody is fooled by the nonsensical claims in your
: messages either.

But they only looked at it, did they not, because a control cell cannot 
produce heat? And the best argument they can come up with to convince us
that the flow through the test cell was not choked is that it looked ok.
Because they "couldn't get a flowmeter in time."

If their instrumentation was acceptable the control cell would have been
shown to be under unity. If it showed over unity for the control there
is absolutely no reason to belive in over unity in the test cell.

Have you decided whether the 1300W run was eight hours (as you claimed
to have observed) or 15 minutes (as CETI claim) yet? 

On the bright side Jed, it's CETI who look like crooks. For once, you're
only coming across as stupid.

Ian
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.10 / I Johnston /  Re: Doing CETI's R&D
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Doing CETI's R&D
Date: 10 Jan 1996 10:05:47 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: Richard A Blue <blue@pilot.msu.edu> writes:
:  
: >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
:  
: They don't need help from idiots like you.

Yes, the F&P water heater, the Griggs Gadget and the Potapov Device have
all shown how rapidly a ground breaking scientific discovery can be
turned into a commercial product.

Ian
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.10 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 96 15:18:34 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Mitchell Jones <21cenlogic@i-link.net> ran a test with a Magnum 220 aquarium
pump, and got a lot more heat than I thought he would! Cravens has a fan,
a cooling loop, and openings in the top. He reports no significant temperature
rise during calibration runs. Yet Mitchell comments:
 
    "Finally I did a calculation based on Fourier's law of heat conduction
    (q = k*A*dT/dx) which convinced me that far more plastic tubing would
    have been needed in the system, even under ideal conditions, than could
    reasonably have been assumed to have been available."
 
In response to Mitchell's enquiry, I looked at photos and estimated
that the cell has roughly 4 to 5 meters of plastic tubing. Mitchell estimates
that about twice that much would be needed.
 
So, Mitchell, how big is the loop you are running through? And are you sure
about that heat conduction formula?
 
 
    "[I mention this because the 50 watt rating for the 220 which has been
    bandied about in this group seems virtually certain to be too large. (It
    may be that the 50 watt rating was calculated by multiplying 120 volts
    times .42 amps and ignoring the power factor. . . . If the power factor
    of the 220 is also 45% then it would, by this rationale, be rated at 23
    watts.)]"
 
Yup. My mistake. It should probably be 23 watts, unless Dennis has a
replacement motor in there. Not sure about that.
 
 
    "Of course, the flow rate in this experiment was 25 liters/min, whereas
    at Power Gen it was only 1.2 liters/min, which is roughly 1/20th as much.
    One would thus be tempted to conclude that the temperature increase at
    Power Gen due to frictional heating would be roughly 1/20th of 10 degrees
    C, or .5 degree C.
 
That depends on whether the pump inside the container does less work when you
reduce the flow rate, or whether it does the same amount of work and the heat
is all lost in flow resistance (friction).  It has a magnetically driven
impellor. I do not know how that would work.
 
 
    "This theory implies significant frictional heating at each and every choke
    point in the flow, whatever the cause of the obstruction. Since the bead
    bed in the Power Gen demo constituted an obstruction to the flow, this
    theory implies that significant frictional heating would have been
    concentrated there."
 
No, not there. The bead bed is not the major choke point. That is about
a half-meter back, at the point where the valve that regulates the flow.
Compared to that the beads present little flow resistance. If you open the
valve the flow rate increases considerably.
 
 
    "Since the Magnum 220 pumps 220 gallons/hour, or 13.86 liters/min through
    unobstructed tubing, and since it was choked down to a flow of 1.2
    liters/min at Power Gen, would we not expect significant frictional
    heating to be concentrated in the bead bed, precisely where it would
    register on the temperature probes as "excess heat?" How's that for an
    intriguing possibility? Wow!"
 
Most of the heat would appear elsewhere. In another response John Logajan
computed that a 16 deg C Delta T would require 9800 PSI.
 
I believe Mitchell ran with the top of the pump firmly closed. He better!
At that flow rate, he will splash water everywhere otherwise. The Power-Gen
reservoir had a lot of air holes in the top and even at the 1 l/min flow
rate a lot of fluid splashed out or condensed.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.11 / Harry Conover /  Re: Conover asks: what is MITI?
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Conover asks: what is MITI?
Date: 11 Jan 1996 03:13:13 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: Harry H Conover <conover@max.tiac.net> writes:
:  
: >Jed, how can this be.  MITI has not funded CF to the tune of $100,000,000,
: >as you posted that the Ministry of International Trade and Industry had
: >done.  The Japanese are known to take a 'flier' on long-shot speculative
: >topics once in a great while, however, they ain't crazy!
:  
: No, of course not. You are right. They are not. They have funded it for
: a lot more than that over the years.
:  
: Okay, okay. You caught me. I admit it! It is all a conspiracy. I made
: the whole think up. I have built a vast fake version of MITI and another
: exact duplicate of NEDO, and together we are putting on a fake conference
: in October. Why don't you come? The people from Jed's pretend MITI and
: NEDO will be there. At the last two conferences they handed out
: copies of their budgets, and they described their work. You can come
: and get your own copy this time. Then, as I said, you can come back
: to the U.S. and post crackpot messages describing how Jed engineered
: a pretend physics conference where fake Japanese actors pretended they
: were from MITI, and they handed out fake budget and organization charts.
:  
: By the way, lots of other people will claim they got these green
: invitations for the conference from NEDO. Maybe some of the readers of
: this forum will! They will even tell you that this must be a real
: Japanese invitation because they cannot spell "February." (They write
: "Feburaly 1996.") This is a BIG, widespread conspiracy! I am masterminding
: it -- me and Fu Manchu. Yes, you have exposed us. You caught us fair and
: square. But I have hundreds of cohorts and minions all over the world
: who are working for me, and they will all tell you that the conference
: is real. So if you think you are going to expose my little game, you
: will be sadly disappointed. You are not James Bond; you cannot topple
: my organization overnight. In fact, you may not realize it, but you are
: playing right into my hands. My agents are in control of your mind.
: We force you to post crackpot messages on Internet! It's that computer chip
: we implanted in your butt . . .

Fortunately with MITI involved in this conference, if you run out of
virtual CF breakthroughs to amaze the world media, you can always shift 
the discussion to the amazing breakthroughs and market success achieved 
by MITI's partners in HDTV.

And yes, Jed, I'd love to attend this conference, if only for a few
laughs.  Unfortunately, most real researchers (unlike CF dilettantes)
budget their limited funding with a focus on advancing science and
technology, leaving nothing to fund lavish getaways to exotic remote 
vacation spots. 

Notwithstanding, I hope that you enjoy the conference and return 
with an entire notebook (oops, so sorry to use a term that is
probably quite sensitive to you) of new tales.  Hopefully, some
of the stories you post on your return may even eclipse the 
humorous moments provided by P&F, Griggs, and even CETI (although
CETI 1300-Watt reports, excess heat control cells, aquarium pump
heaters, and Radio Shack instrumentation will be a tough act to
follow)!

                                   Harry C.

p.s. Has Griggs considered bringing a case against CETI for 
     infringing on his use of a pump to heat water?  After
     all, it is looking more and more that the only difference
     between the Griggs device and CETI's is the size of
     pump!
 


cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.10 /  RMCarrell /  Progress, believe it or not
     
Originally-From: rmcarrell@aol.com (RMCarrell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Progress, believe it or not
Date: 10 Jan 1996 15:54:57 -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 excess power from CETI demonstration is
undeniable, we find haggling over the magnitude, 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 some 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 examples 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:
cuddy10 cudenrmcarrell cudlnRMCarrell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.10 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 96 16:49:47 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Mitchell,
 
I have been puzzling over the question you raised about the pump. What happens
you choke back the flow of water from 12 liters to 1 liter per minute with a
valve? Does the pump do 12 times less work, or does it do the same amount of
work, and expend more energy as waste heat at the valve? This question is
complicated by the fact that the motor is magnetically coupled to the
impeller, so the motor could spin faster than the impeller. I presume it would
"cog" the way a badly designed electric motor does.
 
I do not know enough physics to answer this question. I would not trust a
physics textbook answer anyway. My instinct is to try it and find out. I
suppose you will be doing that in the coming weeks. You can measure the
temperature rise to find out.
 
While I don't know the answer, something just occurred to me. This
magnetically coupled system is similar to a manual shift transmission, with a
clutch. That's the kind I favor. When the clutch slips, the motor does not
deliver as much power, and the car has trouble getting up the hill. The motor
spins faster and it heats up the clutch plate, but overall it does not do as
much work as it would with a full load. Perhaps something similar happens
when you impede the load on a magnetically coupled pump. I don't know. I'll
bet the problem is complicated. Moving magnetic fields are complicated!
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.10 /  Stephen /  Cold Fusion Times
     
Originally-From: sgriffiths@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Stephen Griffiths")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion Times
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 22:01:31 GMT
Organization: Compulink Information eXchange

        Hi there,
                I'm a TV Director / Producer, and am researching for a 
possible documentary on cold fusion. I am aware that a documentary was 
made in Britain early 1994, and will only pursue making a new documentary 
if there has been some sizeable progress in the field since.
        I have heard there is a web magazine called Cold Fusion Times, 
and am wondering what the address was for this.         I am aware that 
this newsgroup is very scientific and technical, and would appreciate it 
if people could let me know if there has been any cutting edge 
breakthroughs, or a leap between early 1994 and now, to gauge how worthy 
a subject it is to cover ATM.   I understand from my American friends 
that there is unlikely to be any media coverage of cold fusion in the 
states, due to it upsetting the authorities who have a vested financial 
and political interest in the current energy resources. It is so 
important that the public here and understand what is possible, and to 
pressurize government from the bottom up, and force them to re-evaluate 
their position on fossil fuels and nuclear energy, for our environment.
        Any help would be greatly appreciated.
        
Cheers, Steve (London)
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudensgriffiths cudlnStephen cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Jan 12 04:37:04 EST 1996
------------------------------
