1996.01.11 / Arthur TOK /  Re: a low temperature?
     
Originally-From: awc@s20lang.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur Carlson TOK )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: a low temperature?
Date: 11 Jan 1996 08:36:40 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <mawong.1171669820A@tilde.csc.ti.com> mawong@m2.dseg.ti.com
(Mark Wong) writes:

> Why are almost all of the fusion experiments two or three orders of 
> magnitude below the temperature (around 20 kev) necessary for 
> sustained fusion?
Who told you that? I believe the record in a tokamak is around 35
keV. Even small tokamaks typically run with a couple keV, i.e., only
one order of magnitude below reactor relevant temperatures. This is
enough that the plasma is fully ionized and nearly collisionless. It
is also hot enough that even mid-size tokamaks like ASDEX Upgrade have
to worry about the radiation from the D-D fusion (1.5 m concrete walls,
restricted access after high power shots).

> 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.
Good job.
-- 
To study, to finish, to publish. -- Benjamin Franklin

Dr. Arthur Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~awc/home.html
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTOK cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.11 /  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: Thu, 11 Jan 96 10:08:51 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Harry H Conover <conover@max.tiac.net> writes:
 
>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. 
 
Exotic and remote? Hokkaido? That's where NEDO's main CF laboratory
is located! It is not remote, it is in their own back yard! That is kind
of like saying the University of Georgia at Athens is exotic and remote.
The meeting is an hour and a half by train from Sapporo. Japanese trains
are not lavish. Clean, on-time, with great coffee and ice cream, but not
lavish.
 
"Exotic" is a state of mind anyway. Japan is not exotic if you live there.
They find us exotic! It all depends on what you are used to I guess.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.11 / Larry Wharton /  Re: Suppose the CETI cell works.
     
Originally-From: Larry Wharton <Wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Suppose the CETI cell works.
Date: 11 Jan 1996 17:03:04 GMT
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center -- Greenbelt, Maryland USA

It looks like Harry Conover has no knowledge in basic physics. In my 
posting I said:

>implication of the cell extracting some energy (like the zero point
>energy) from empty space.  If this energy is out there then the maximum
>energy density, e, is related to the power density, p, by
>
> e = p / c
>
>with c the speed of light.  Using e = m*c*c and making some reasonable
>estimates of the power density one may calculate the energy density of

this is a simple misstatement and I ment to say p is the energy flux.  
The relation

p = e * v

with v the velocity of transport, is well known to anyone with a basic 
knowledge in physics.  The flux is the density times the velocity of 
transport and the fastest possible transport velocity is the speed of 
light so I used c in the formula to obtain a lower bound on the energy 
density.  Only one with no knowledge of basic physics would fail to 
recognize the trivial relation between energy density and energy flux 
and the misstatement I made.

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


cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenWharton cudfnLarry cudlnWharton cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.11 / Torin Walker /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: Torin Walker <torin@numetrix.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 12:02:46 -0500
Organization: Numetrix Ltd.

The magnetic coupling in one of these motors can be stopped by hand
while the motor continues to spin. If you reduce the flow, you would
most likely get most of the heat dissipated in the motor windings, not
in the water.

I think a better way to conduct the 1/12 flow rate would be to change
the duty cycle of the power to the motor (if it's a DC motor, otherwise
limit the current if it's AC.)


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:
cuddy11 cudentorin cudfnTorin cudlnWalker cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.11 /  kurtz@imap2.as /  Re: Rothwell distances self from CETI
     
Originally-From: kurtz@imap2.asu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell distances self from CETI
Date: 11 Jan 1996 17:06:43 GMT
Organization: Arizona State University

VCockeram (vcockeram@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <4cs0l2$6l0@sundog.tiac.net>, conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H
: Conover) writes:

: >Ah yes, scientists are twisted, perverted people.

: I have seen you describe yourself as a 'scientist' in this
: forum Harry. 

: Vince

Vince, I suggested to you once before to go look up the word "sarcasm" in 
the dictionary. Now please go do your assignment...

Lynn

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenkurtz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.11 / Mark Olson /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: molson@apollo.tricord.com (Mark Olson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: 11 Jan 1996 11:44:34 -0600
Organization: Tricord Systems, Inc.

Mitchell Jones (21cenlogic@i-link.net) wrote:
-- snip --

: 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!

The impeller in the pump still has the same amount of torque applied to it
whether the flow is throttled or not, so in the case of reducing the flow
to 1.2 l/m, there would be a *lot* of "slippage" at the impeller.  I would
expect there to be a lot of heating going on inside the pump in this case.

I have one of these pumps and the impeller design is very simple - it is 
a plastic hub with several (4 or 6, i believe) plastic vanes attached to
it.  The impeller chamber is rather loose and allows the impeller to spin
whether there is water flow or not.

Thus, I would expect that frictional heat from the pump (and thermal conduction
from the pump motor) would dominate in a system throttled down to 1/2 l/m. 

mark olson
: 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

: ===========================================================
-- 

Mark Olson
Manager, Performance/Characterization Lab
Tricord Systems, Inc.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmolson cudfnMark cudlnOlson cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.11 / 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: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 19:03:27 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

I Johnston (ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
: Mark Mallory (mmallory@netcom.com) wrote:
: : Steven Robiner (srobiner@pollux.usc.edu) wrote:

: : : >
: : : >So what does a Stirling Cycle engine run on?

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

: :  ***WRONG***  It runs *directly* on pressure from expanding gases, you idiot.

: Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Stirling Cycle, Otto Cycle, Diesel Cycle,
: Rankine Cycle. They all run on heat. They all run as a result of
: expanding gases. With the exception of the Rankine Cycle (which needs a
: working fluid which undergoes a phase change) the only differences
: between the cycles is the condition of the fluid as heat is put in or
: out.

You are exactly right.  I was only trying to make a point (with tongue 
firmly in cheek).  Like the saying goes, "never argue with a fool, people 
might not know the difference."

Also I apologize for the personal insult.  Been reading too many Rothwell 
posts, I guess.










cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmmallory cudfnMark cudlnMallory cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.11 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 96 15:04:16 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Mark Olson <molson@apollo.tricord.com> writes:
 
>The impeller in the pump still has the same amount of torque applied to it
>whether the flow is throttled or not, so in the case of reducing the flow
>to 1.2 l/m, there would be a *lot* of "slippage" at the impeller.  I would
>expect there to be a lot of heating going on inside the pump in this case.
 
Ah, but would this "slippage" cause heat on the pump impeller side, or
outside where the magnet and motor is, or on both sides? I don't know.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.11 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Distance between Rothwell and CETI
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Distance between Rothwell and CETI
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 96 15:11:51 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Richard A Blue <blue@pilot.msu.edu> writes:
 
>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
 
How long? Until one day after I learned that it only went on for 15
minutes. However, let me point out that there was no chemical fuel in
the cell, and it had been running for hours at 500 watts, so it should
never have achieved the 1300 performance for even a second. Furthermore
1500 watts for 15 minutes equals 1.4 MJ. Add to that the 500 watts for
the other few hours and you get roughly as much energy as the PPPL
Tokamak produced during the biggest, longest, most impressive hot fusion
experiment in history, for a billion times less money.
 
>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?
 
Where are these numbers? Has John Logajan discovered that the specific
heat of water is not 4.2? It is only 1.2?!? Nothing is vanishing here but
the last, poor excuses of the pathological skeptics. The Delta T was 15 to
17 degrees C. The flow rate was 1300 ml per minute. The excess was 1300
watts. No ifs, ands, or buts. NOTHING is slowly vanishing, and nothing
that Logajan or anyone else has said has cast any doubt over measurments.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.11 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: CF: It is so sad - The opposing sides
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF: It is so sad - The opposing sides
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 96 15:13:29 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

"C:WINSOCKKA9QSPOOLMAIL" <Lossy@fpsplc.demon.co.uk> writes:
 
>sci.physics.cf.reseach 	-	For people that do the work and do not
>				enter into bitter disputes
 
The people who do the work do not post message on Internet. Most of them
do not even speak English. If you want to hear from them you have to
attend the conferences. The closest thing to what you are looking for is
the Vortex-L discussion group.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.11 / Tom Droege /  Re: nine year old with fusion theories
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: nine year old with fusion theories
Date: 11 Jan 1996 21:23:55 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <4cvhbp$hdr@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, jcmcom@aol.com (JCMCOM) says:
>
>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. 

A serious answer. 

This is an open forum, and if he can state a good question he will 
get an answer from someone.  Then he will really start to learn.  The
answer may be correct or it may be pure garbage.  He will have to learn
to sort it out.  9 is not too early to learn this basic survival 
technique.  Are you ready for his exposure to garbage?  Who cares 
about dirty pictures, there are dirty ideas here.  Far more dangerous.

Tom Droege  
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.11 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Rothwell distances self from CETI
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell distances self from CETI
Date: 11 Jan 1996 21:22:23 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <4cqc9m$sk6@stratus.skypoint.net> jlogajan@skypoint.com writes:
>Harry H Conover (conover@max.tiac.net) wrote:
>: Folks, so far we have no credible evidence that the CETI demo even 
>: took place
>
>Hmm, I have photos on my web page taken by Akira Kawasaki.  So the
>conspiracy grows.  And I have a report on my web page by Frank Znidarsic,
>and the conspriacy grows larger.  And a report by Robert W Bass, and
>the conspiracy grows larger still.  And we have names of some in
>attendance -- Hal Fox, Richard Hellen, Thomas Passell, George Miley.


I agree that something happened.  I agree that a lot of people saw
something happen.  But after reading all the stuff posted here, I am
sure that I don't know WHAT IT WAS THAT HAPPENED.

And I'm getting to the point that I'm pretty convinced that none of those
who saw it, know what happened either.

Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
 -------------------------------------------------------
Any ideas or opinions expressed here do not necessarily
reflect the ideas or opinions of my employer.
 -------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.11 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 17:09:07 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <4d0lnc$4h9@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com wrote:

> 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    -

John, what I am doing here is groping for a solution to a disturbing set
of facts vis-a-vis the Power Gen demo. My problem is that I can't see how
the system could dissipate the 1344 watts that it has been claimed to be
producing. This situation didn't bother me at first, because I could see
that it would have been easy for Cravens to design a cooling tower that
would dissipate that amount of heat, and in the absence of facts to the
contrary, I was willing to assume that he had done so. There were, as I
had explicitly stated in this group, no answers available to questions
about how many feet of plastic tubing were in the fluid loop, how thick
the walls of the tubing were, what the true cfm of the cooling fan was,
whether or not distilled water was being added to the electrolyte to make
up for evaporative losses, how much thermally conductive material such as
glassware or metal was present in the fluid loop, etc. In the absence of
such information, I was prepared to give Cravens the benefit of the doubt
and move on. However, in recent days, answers to a number of these
questions have emerged, and they are disturbing, to say the least. Jed, in
response to my queries and his own curiosity, analyzed the Power Gen
photos and concluded that there is a maximum of 18 feet of 3/8ths inch
diameter plastic tubing in the loop, and that there is no glassware or
metal other than the cell itself. Cravens did drill a hole in the plastic
lid of the reservoir to permit H2 and O2 gases to escape, but Jed did not
report seeing any water being added to compensate for evaporation, and so
I am forced to assume that evaporative cooling was not a significant
factor. Result: I am in a position to calculate an idealized (maximal)
heat dissipation capacity for the flow loop based on Fourier's law of heat
conduction, and the answer that I have gotten suggests that much, much
more tubing would be needed in the loop, under the best of circumstances,
to dissipate the heat that has been claimed, and as a consequence I find
myself casting about for some way to explain away the result.

As for the specifics of your reasoning, I am very familiar with it and, as
you know, I have used the same sorts of calculations several times myself,
in this very group, to refute various heat-from-the-pump proposals that
have been advanced. While I will freely admit that there were portions of
the post to which you responded that could reasonably have been taken as
denying such reasoning, there was no such intent. Let me, therefore,
attempt a clarification. 

Basically, what I am hypothesizing is that when the run began at Power
Gen, fluid friction in the bead bed caused heat conduction into the walls
of the cell and thence into the outlet thermocouple, causing it to read 16
degrees higher than the actual temperature of the electrolyte. After the
pump was in operation for awhile, the electrolyte temperature came to be
elevated by 16 degrees, but the actual increment to the temperature of the
fluid on one pass through the cell was much less--say 1 degree, for
example. In that case, 16 passes through the cell would be required to
elevate the temperature of the electrolyte by 16 degrees (assuming no heat
loss), and at the end of the process the temperature of the fluid in the
loop would have risen to equal that of the cell walls and, hence, of the
outlet thermocouple. 

Naturally, this scenario requires that the inlet thermocouple reading be
wrong--that it be too low by 16 degrees C--and that Jed's attempt to
verify that reading using his own instruments should also be wrong. How
did Jed attempt to verify it? Well, he said that he "confirmed the cold
fusion inlet temperature by turning off the control side joule heater and
taking a 250 ml sample from the control outlet pipe." In other words, Jed
did *not* independently confirm the inlet temperature of the experimental
cell. Instead, he assumed that the control cell would not be producing
excess heat and, thus, that the temperature immediately downstream from
the control cell would be the same as the temperature immediately upstream
from the experimental cell. Result: he took his sample from the control
cell outlet tube rather than from the experimental cell inlet tube.
However, since the control cell was "plugged up and shorted out," it seems
possible to me that a stagnant pool of cold water existed at that point in
the flow--a pool of water that had not been subjected to the effects of
the frictional heating. In that case, Jed's inlet temperature reading
could be wrong. Of course, CETI's thermocouples presumably were calibrated
using a heat source of known temperature before they were inserted into
the apparatus. Thus the fact that Jed's measurement matched theirs renders
this scenario somewhat implausible, and I freely admit that. But did he
ever really verify that the fluid flowing into the experimental cell was
cooler than the fluid flowing out of it? Did he, for example, hold the
hose leading into the cell with one hand and the hose leading out with the
other, thereby confirming that there was a real and significant difference
in the temperatures? Or are we really in the position of trusting the CETI
inlet thermocouple, with no backup?  

If Jed did a hands on test such as the above, I am prepared to toss out
the frictional heating theory, but the riddle will remain. I will continue
to find myself casting about for some way to explain away the Power Gen
demo's reading of 1344 watts of heat output until I can see how 18 feet of
3/8ths inch diameter plastic tubing and a cylindrical plastic reservoir 15
cm in diameter and 22 cm high could dissipate that much heat without (a)
rapid evaporative loss from the reservoir or (b) significant amounts of
glassware or metal in the flow loop. The thermal conductivity of plastic
is simply too low to permit the dumping of this amount of heat in the
manner described, as far as I can see. Confirmation of this belief came
when I ran my Magnum 350 pump is a simple configuration in which it merely
pumped water in a circle, and discovered that this elevated the fluid
temperature to an equilibrium point 10 degrees C above ambient. This seems
to justify my suspicion that there is *no way* an apparatus as thermally
insulated as this could successfully dump an additional 1344 watts without
overheating. Perhaps the best way for me to convey this point is to simply
post my calculations. However, the necessary explanation of those
calculations will take awhile to write up, and I am pressed for time at
the moment, so it may be a few days. In the meanwhile, why don't you
tinker with Fourier's formula (q = k*A*dT/dx) and see if you can get it to
fit the facts of the Power Gen demo as they have been reported? Thus far,
I have failed to obtain a believable answer, despite a concerted effort.
Maybe you will see something I missed, and have better luck. If someone
can show me how the damned thing can dissipate the claimed amount of heat,
I will be perfectly happy to  embrace it and give it a big kiss. Until
then, I will continue to doubt that the CETI effect is as robust as that
claimed at Power Gen, though I do not yet see any basis for doubting the
SOFE result or that claimed at ICCF-5. The Power Gen demo, however, no
longer strikes me as convincing. 

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.11 / Mark Wong /  a low temperature?
     
Originally-From: mawong@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Wong)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: a low temperature?
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 96 21:33:19 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments

low tech column meter
123457890123457890123457890123457890123457890123457890123457890123457890

Corrected placement of the parenthetical (around 20 kev) and order 
magnitude, sorry.

Why are almost all of the fusion experiments (around 20 kev) one or two 
orders of magnitude below the temperature 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? Is it 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 magnitude 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:
cuddy11 cudenmawong cudfnMark cudlnWong cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.11 / 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: 11 Jan 1996 23:46:08 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <USE2PCB186125364@brbbs.brbbs.com> mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com writes:
>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
> 



This is an example of very poor (shameful?) practice in this
newsgroup!

Marshall mailed this nonsense to me; he got an answer, and then he
posted this to the newsgroup WITHOUT THE ANSWER.  So, for those of you
who are listening - here's the answer that I already gave him:

	Answer that Marshall already got (but apparently didn't like):

You are the one who needs to go back and look at what Jed said.  In fact, there
was an ongoing thread that villified your hero for his REPEATED reports of a
power gain in excess of 700 in the SHORTED control device.

Go look before you bullshit me anymore.

Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
 -------------------------------------------------------
Any ideas or opinions expressed here do not necessarily
reflect the ideas or opinions of my employer.
 -------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.11 /  VCockeram /  Re: Rothwell distances self from CETI
     
Originally-From: vcockeram@aol.com (VCockeram)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell distances self from CETI
Date: 11 Jan 1996 06:22:00 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <4cs0l2$6l0@sundog.tiac.net>, conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H
Conover) 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!
>
>

If you read this forum you would already know that.  Do your
own friggin homework.

Vince
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenvcockeram cudlnVCockeram cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.11 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Conover asks: what is MITI?
     
Originally-From: barry@moebius.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Conover asks: what is MITI?
Date: 11 Jan 1996 04:00:27 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In article <4d1v89$2ou@sundog.tiac.net> conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes:
>
>I hope that you [Jed] 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.
>

Harry: perhaps you can interrupt you ongoing back and forth with
Jed to explain something: you make fun of the CETI demos, but
you fail to provide any actual reason for dismissing the results.

Now, I generally dismiss over-unity claims myself as well, 
and I have traditionally been skeptical of CF claims, but
what makes the CETI cell intriguing is that (a) it is
relatively simple in design (b) they have given several public demos
at mainstream conferences, and (c) it seems that others can
achieve similar effects independently (at least in the case of Miley).

(Note: this is rather unlike the Griggs device: there were
obvious gaps in the reported experiments here, leaving open a stored
thermal energy possibility).

This suggests there is something going on besides gross 
incompetence or fraud. I have no idea what, and it may all
turn out to be some sort of error, but I don;t think this can
be decided while seated at a computer terminal. I.e., there are
real experimental questions that need to be addressed here.

You seem to be arguing that gross incompetence and or fraud
underlie these results, but I really see no good reason for that.
While radio-shack meters and aquarium pumps are not state of
the art lab equipment, there is also no reason that they cannot
perform adequatley in the experiment at hand.

And the excess heat from the control cell was only reproted 
as such by an independent observer, Bob Bass. Everything I've seen
suggests the official status was simply a failed control cell.

So, perhaps you can detail your logic for ruling out the 
CETI cell as an experimentally interesting device?
If not, you may as well quit trying to rile Jed---He's
riled enough normally anyway :-)





--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet)  (NeXTMail OK) 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.10 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Doing CETI's R&D
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Doing CETI's R&D
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 1996 15:37 -0500 (EST)

blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes:
 
-> 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
-> 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 the apparent impedance did not vary significantly that would bring the
experiment into question.  The variations are fully expected.  If I remeber
right an electrolytic cell can be approximately modeled as 3 silicon diodes in
series with a constant current source (grounded gate FET) that has a resistor
in parallel with it.
 
 
                     CURRENT FLOW -------->
                ----|>|---|>|---|>|-----O|-----------
                                    |-resistor-|
 
That is the best I can do with ascii, the |>| is a PN diode and the O| is a
constant current diode which has a resistor in parallel with it.
 
The first 3 diodes approximate the forward voltage you must apply to the
electrolytic cell before significant current begins flowing.  Once you exceed
this voltage (approximately 1.5 volts) the current increases sharply with
voltage.  However at some point the current which is carried by drifting ions
reaches the saturation level of the ions, so that additional voltage has little
effect on the current.  This is set by the ion density and the ion diffusion
speed.  This part is simulated by the constant current diode with a resistor
across it.  An elecment of this nature is very non-linear, and it is not
normally advisable to try and ascribe a resistance to it.  The apparent
resistance will vary with current, and the AC impedence will vary significantly
from the computed DC impedance of V/I.  At voltages of around 2 to 3 volts the
AC impedance will be much lower than the computed DC impedance, and at the
limiting current the AC impedance will be much greater than the simple
computed DC impedance.
 
Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.10 / John Vetrano /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: js_vetrano@pnl.gov (John Vetrano)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 16:15:56 -0700
Organization: PNNL

In article <x5PGHWb.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
  
> 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

Actually, maybe I have the wrong picture of a magnetically coupled system
but I believe it is more like an AUTOMATIC transmission (which is a
hydraulically coupled system).  The transmission slips all the time,
especially under heavy loads which is why you need a transmission cooler
when towing or going up steep grades with an automatic and not a manual.

I hope I'm not way off base on this!

Cheers,

JV

-- 
What is a .sig anyway?
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjs_vetrano cudfnJohn cudlnVetrano cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.10 / Jim Hahn /  Re: nine year old with fusion theories
     
Originally-From: hahn@scd.teradyne.com (Jim Hahn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: nine year old with fusion theories
Date: 10 Jan 1996 18:45:41 GMT
Organization: Teradyne, Inc. Boston MA

Boy, is he in the right newsgroup!

In article <4cvhbp$hdr@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, jcmcom@aol.com (JCMCOM) writes:
> 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 cudenhahn cudfnJim cudlnHahn cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.11 / Barry Merriman /  Re: nine year old with fusion theories
     
Originally-From: barry@moebius.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: nine year old with fusion theories
Date: 11 Jan 1996 02:18:44 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

>
>In article <4cvhbp$hdr@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, jcmcom@aol.com (JCMCOM) writes:
>> 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. 

He has timed it just right though---your son will be able
to graduate from college right about the time ITER comes
on line.

:-)



--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet)  (NeXTMail OK) 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.11 / John Logajan /  Re: Doing CETI's R&D
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Doing CETI's R&D
Date: 11 Jan 1996 06:15:56 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) wrote:
: 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

: There are obvious questions as to why the cell impedence varies by a factor
: of ten.

I keep wondering that too.  As I have stated before, it is unlikely the
geometry of the cell changes, nor that the conductivity of the electrolyte
changes, nor that the bead metal film conductivity changes.  The only thing
I can think of that can change resistance would be the bead-to-bead
contact.  There could be some sort of chemcial build-up that inhibits
direct metal to metal contact.  Then mechanical pressure could cause
variations in cell impedance.  Or, shaking the cell could cause a realignment
that might have higher or lower resistance.


: Is this a dependent variable, a random number, or an adjusted
: experimental parameter?

In the pre-PowerGen cells, they had adjustable screw tension which
varied the compression force on the beads.  I do believe the patent
talks about adjusting for such and such a resistance.


: 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?

I believe the power supply was a "battery eliminator" in which a slide
switch selects from the standard battery voltages.  I didn't open up
my equivalent version, but I suspect it selects different tap points
on the xformer winding -- though it may use a voltage regulator and
vary the reference to achieve output voltage selection.

--
 - 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:
cuddy11 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.11 / 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: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 07:02:42 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

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

: >
: >So what does a Stirling Cycle engine run on?

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

 ***WRONG***  It runs *directly* on pressure from expanding gases, you idiot.











cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmmallory cudfnMark cudlnMallory cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.11 / Ray Randon /  microscope "ME 2E"
     
Originally-From: rrandon@bol.net (Ray A. Randon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: microscope "ME 2E"
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 96 00:43:59 -0800
Organization: Online Internet Services Corporation


For sale A Universal camera microscope "ME F2" optical bench-table (wired)
This is an unusual set of equipment purchased from an technical Institution.
It is an older model, but in perfect working condition, with all eye pieces
and other attachments in wooden cases. This equipment is of the highest
quality and workmanship.
	The unit consists of a small multi-voltage (electrically) wired table that
also functions as an optical bench and a complete and operating "ME F2"
Universal Camera Microscope. There are also easy to read and follow
instruction manuals and operating instructions. The equipment for microscopy
and photomicrography is capable of up to 2000 X magnification.
	The microscope portion of the unit can be easily removed and the unit changed
over from a functioning unit for microscopy to one for photography, the so
called "photomicrography".

HISTORY:
The Universal Camera Microscope was used by world renown workers/ authorities
in the field of practical metallography ( ie. metallography laboratories) in
America and Europe (specifically Germany & France).

INSTRUCTION MANUALS:
	-Practical microscopical metallography
	-The principles of Metallographic laboratory specimens
	-Methods of preparation of metallographic specimens
	-photomicrography
	-Symposium on metallography in color.
	-Metallographers handbook on etching

FEATURES:
Certain components of this unusual set of equipment and accessories deserve
special mention.
	-Regulating transformers for alternating power sources - currents.
	-Resistance regulator
	-Low voltage quartz iodine lamp.
	-Multi voltage (110, 125, 150, 220, 250 v) function.
	-Camera with focussing telescope
	-Binocular viewing eye piece
	-Micrometer for making measurements
	-Projection of image to a screen
	-Focusing magnifier
	-determining exposure time
	-photomicrographic magnification
	-Magnetic specimen holder
	-Polarizers and other equipment for polarizing light.
	-Lenses- polar and non-polar lenses
	-Filters-(color, polar, and non polar filters and other filtering eqip.
	-Condensers -(polarizing condensers and multi-lens condensers)
	-Magnifiers (from 5X to 2000X magnifications)
	-Deflecting prism
	-Other attachments

This unit could be used for gem appraisals / evaluations, forensic
investigations, specimen photography for museums, publications, and art
displays  in lobbies of metal mining company  head offices, metal fabricators,
mineralogical firms  metallurgy and petroleum firms and many more
applications.

This fine piece of equipment can be purchased for  approximately  10 % of its
initial value.

For more information call Ray Randon at 446-0518 



--


cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenrrandon cudfnRay cudlnRandon cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.12 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: barry@moebius.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: 12 Jan 1996 01:23:51 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In article <21cenlogic-1101961709070001@austin-2-11.i-link.net>
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:
>
>John, what I am doing here is groping for a solution to a disturbing set
>of facts vis-a-vis the Power Gen demo. 

>The Power Gen demo, longer strikes me as convincing. 
>

But, again, I point out that it was an isolated demo, 
not an experiment. Its probably not worth burning your
brain out over it, because there is incomplete and unreliable
information about exactly what took place. 

Without further cooperation from the principle investigator, it
is unlikely that you can resolve one way or the other what likely
happened: suppose you find a scenario in which the power could
dissipate as needed---well, you don't know thats what really happened,
so thats far from conclusive. Similalrly, the absence of such a
mechanism is also not conclusive, since you may not be considering the
proper configuration.

While there is ceratinly no harm in doing the experiments you are
doing, they will ultimately be of little value for determining what 
may or may not have occured during the demo.

This all boils down to the idea that what is needed are repeated 
experiments open to criticism and iterative improvement, not isolated
demos. While the information reproted here by Jed is intriguing, it
is good to bear in mind that Jed is essentially an observer, not the
principle experimenter...so what he provides has to be considered
second hand observations about a public demonstration. As such, I 
would not get too bent out of shape over it pro or con. Its not
surprising that such reporting, regarding an anomalous device,
propduces more questions than answers.

--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet)  (NeXTMail OK) 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.12 / Barry Merriman /  Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
     
Originally-From: barry@moebius.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
Date: 12 Jan 1996 01:42:13 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In article <4d47g0$e3d@tekadm1.cse.tek.com> arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch) writes:
>
>You are the one who needs to go back and look at what Jed said.  In fact, there
>was an ongoing thread that villified your hero for his REPEATED reports of a
>power gain in excess of 700 in the SHORTED control device.
>
>Go look before you bullshit me anymore.
>

I would say bottom line that it doesn;t much matter whether 
Jed reported the control cell as having a gain or not---it 
all got sorted out in time, i.e. that it was deemed malfunctioning.

Jed is essentially a reporter. Reporters make mistakes, and their
information must be taken with a grain of salt. They are not the
priciples. Further, he's reporting about a demo in this context,
which is also prone to giving glitchy results.

The validity or lack there off of the CETI device can simply not
be determined one way or the other by what Jed reports here or
what happens at public demos.

My only point in brinign this out is that too much is made of
what Jed did or didn't say, and when, 
and other such things that have limited relevance to the
fundamental question at hand of whether the device produces heat.

All it says to me is that second hand and after the fact analysis
of a public demo of an anamalous device can make for many additional,
unaswerable questions.
--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet)  (NeXTMail OK) 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.11 /  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: Thu, 11 Jan 96 20:40:06 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Barry Merriman <barry@moebius.math.ucla.edu> writes:
 
>This suggests there is something going on besides gross 
>incompetence or fraud. I have no idea what, and it may all
>turn out to be some sort of error, but I don;t think this can
>be decided while seated at a computer terminal. I.e., there are
>real experimental questions that need to be addressed here.
>
>You seem to be arguing that gross incompetence and or fraud
>underlie these results, but I really see no good reason for that.
 
I am pleased to see your interest in the field, but I am deeply mystified by
something.
 
Years ago, people like McKubre, Storms, Miles and Kunimatsu published peer
reviewed replications of the Pons-Fleischmann effect in palladium. Their
equipment was far, *far* more accurate and precise than this crude trade show
demo calorimeter. The reported excess power is much smaller of course,
typically a few watts, but because their calorimeters are as much as three
orders of magnitude more sensitive, the signal to noise ratio is roughly
equivalent. The publications describe excess energy orders of magnitude beyond
the limits of chemistry. They include copious details and error bars. The
papers are presented in a cleaner, more orderly, professional and coventional
format than my brief reports on Power-Gen. They are published in readily
accessable journals and conference proceedings. Extensive documentation is
available describing the SRI work from EPRI, including dozens of pages on
microfiche showing the patent applications. In my report I described only
three runs. SRI and others have reported hundreds of runs, including dozens
that showed excess heat.
 
My question is, why have you been ignoring all this other evidence all these
years? What on earth is there about a trade show demo that would excite your
interest? Why should you find this trade show demo more convincing or more
compelling than the staid, by the numbers, multi-million dollar experiments by
SRI? It seems to me that as a scientist, you should find the SRI work more
convincing, even though the power levels are not a high and the success rate
is lower. The CETI device has much greater near-term technological potential,
but the work at SRI, Los Alamos, KEK, Amoco and all the others who replicated
Pons and Fleischmann was just as convincing scientifically, and the
implications for physics was just as astounding. So why didn't these
replications excite you?
 
Perhaps scientists are just like anyone else. What really impresses them is
high heat and near-term practicality, not scientific implications.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.12 / James Stolin /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: 12 Jan 1996 01:47:27 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

molson@apollo.tricord.com (Mark Olson) wrote:

>The impeller in the pump still has the same amount of torque applied to 
it
>whether the flow is throttled or not, so in the case of reducing the 
flow
>to 1.2 l/m, there would be a *lot* of "slippage" at the impeller.  I 
would
>expect there to be a lot of heating going on inside the pump in this 
case.
>
>I have one of these pumps and the impeller design is very simple - it is 

>a plastic hub with several (4 or 6, i believe) plastic vanes attached 
to
>it.  The impeller chamber is rather loose and allows the impeller to 
spin
>whether there is water flow or not.
>
>Thus, I would expect that frictional heat from the pump (and thermal 
conduction
>from the pump motor) would dominate in a system throttled down to 1/2 
l/m. 


Mark (and others),

   One thing that has been overlooked is the behavior of centrifugal 
pumps.  As you restrict the outlet, the pump does less work.  At 100% 
restriction, the impeller is just spinning the water in the pump housing. 
 If the drive motor RPM is not regulated, the motor will speed up when 
the outlet is restricted or blocked.
-
Jim Stolin - Illinois Computer Service - jbstolin@prodigy.com
http://pages.prodigy.com/jbstolin - PWP/HTML and more

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.12 / James Stolin /  Re: Distance between Rothwell and CETI
     
Originally-From: FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Distance between Rothwell and CETI
Date: 12 Jan 1996 02:10:09 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
<snip> 
>Where are these numbers? Has John Logajan discovered that the specific
>heat of water is not 4.2? It is only 1.2?!? 
<snip> 

Jed,

   Before further calculations get screwed up, the specific heat of water 
is 1.0 not 1.2.  Was 1.2 the specific heat of the electrolyte solution?

-
Jim Stolin - Illinois Computer Service - jbstolin@prodigy.com
http://pages.prodigy.com/jbstolin - PWP/HTML and more

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.11 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 1996 17:20 -0500 (EST)

jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
 
 
-> Mitchell,
->
-> I have been puzzling over the question you raised about the pump. What happe
-> 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 wou
-> "cog" the way a badly designed electric motor does.
 
It depends on the type of pump you have.  There are positive displacement pumps
(like gear pumps, vane pumps and piston pumps) which are basically constant
flow pumps, and centrifugal pumps, which are constant pressure pumps.  From
your discription it sounds like you have a centrifugal pump.  When you throttle
back this type of pump the motor off-loads, just like a vacuum cleaner whose
motor will speed up when you stop up the hose.  If you try to throttle back a
positive displacement pump the pressure will go way up, into the thousands of
PSI, and you have to use a relief valve to bypass the pump output back to the
input.
 
If you are using a centrifugal pump, then throttling the output will vary the
amount of dissipated energy from the flow by the amount of the flow.  That is
if you throttle the flow back by 50% then the energy dissipated by the flow
will drop by 50%.  This includes the loss in the throttle and the tubing and
cell following the throttle.  Here is an example:
 
Pump output = 10 psi.  Good approximation is to assume constant over range of
                flow.
Flow 1 = 2 in^3/sec.  PSI on output of throttle input of cell = 1 PSI.
Flow 2 = 1 in^3/sec.
 
Flow one will have 20 inch-pounds of energy per second dissipated in throttle
and tubing.  18 inch-pounds/sec will be dissipated in the throttle, and 2 in
the tubing and cell for a total of 20 inch-pounds/sec. of power being
dissipated.
 
Flow two will have approximately .5 PSI on it's output because of the 50% drop
in flow.  The tubing and cell in it will dissipate .5 inch-pounds/second (1
in^3/sec*.5lb/in^2) which varies with the square of the flow.  The throttle
will dissipate 9.5 in-pounds/sec, and the total dissipated will be 10
in-lbs/sec.
 
Please note that these numbers have nothing to do with the CETI demonstration,
but are simply being used to show how this works.
 
Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.11 / Matt Austern /  Re: Incredibly ignorant statements parroted by Archimedes Plutonium
     
Originally-From: austern@well.com (Matt Austern)
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: 11 Jan 1996 09:10:26 GMT
Organization: none

In article <birdieDKyAyB.Lys@netcom.com>, birdie@netcom.com says...

>: 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.

But are they as white and bright as Alec Guinness's white suit?  If Pons
and Fleischmann could come up with a suit like that (or at least a movie
as funny as that one), then I'd finally concede that they'd done something
useful.

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenaustern cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.11 / Robin Spaandonk /  Re: Diverting hose makes a mess
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Diverting hose makes a mess
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 10:29:05 GMT
Organization: Improving

In article <4cfn2v$5up@stratus.skypoint.net>, John Logajan wrote :
[snip]
>Jed reports he measured flow rates by drawing 300 ml over a period of
>15 seconds.
>
>The volume of the beads is about 40ml, with uniform packing density,
>the interstice volume is about 24%, or about 10 ml.  So to draw 300ml
>through the cell would replace the volume nearly 29 times.
>
>Jed reports he verified the output temperature sensor reading by
>drawing 250 ml and measuring its temperature.  This is 24 replacement
>volumes.
>
>So what is your basis for claiming that the colder water did not
>reach the output temperature sensor?
>
>--
> - 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    -

According to John Logajan's calculation of the thermal capacity of the
cell, it was unable to maintain a delta T of 16 deg. C using stored
heat alone. This means that at the very least, the cell has proven
itself capable of generating 1300 watts during the 15 second interval
of the flow measurement.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@netspace.net.au>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything,
Learns all his life,
And leaves knowing nothing.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.11 / Robin Spaandonk /  Re: Suppose the CETI cell works.
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Suppose the CETI cell works.
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 10:29:09 GMT
Organization: Improving

In article <4cnego$bvf@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>, Martin Sevior wrote :
[snip]
>This relates to the "Cosomological Constant" or mass-density of the vaccuum.
>As far as anyone can measure the Cosomological Constant is zero. "Naturalness"
>arguments, particularly the fact that Universal Higgs field, required for
>Electroweak spontanous symmetry breaking, has a non-zero expectation value in
>the vacuum, would indicate a local mass density FIFTY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE 
>larger.
>
>Don't throw away this idea. There is a lot more to the vacuum than we presently
>understand.
>
>Martin Sevior
>
The mass density of the vacuum is fifty orders of magnitude larger,
but only within the confines of individual particles. This is the seat
of the ZPE. The "mass" of matter itself. Between the particles, "dere
aint nuttin much".

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@netspace.net.au>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything,
Learns all his life,
And leaves knowing nothing.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.11 / I Johnston /  Re: REAL proof of of CF ?
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: REAL proof of of CF ?
Date: 11 Jan 1996 10:25:44 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

Mark Mallory (mmallory@netcom.com) wrote:
: Steven Robiner (srobiner@pollux.usc.edu) wrote:

: : >
: : >So what does a Stirling Cycle engine run on?

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

:  ***WRONG***  It runs *directly* on pressure from expanding gases, you idiot.

Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Stirling Cycle, Otto Cycle, Diesel Cycle,
Rankine Cycle. They all run on heat. They all run as a result of
expanding gases. With the exception of the Rankine Cycle (which needs a
working fluid which undergoes a phase change) the only differences
between the cycles is the condition of the fluid as heat is put in or
out.

I suspect what the original poster meant was "Stirling cycle engines are
external combustion - they run as a result of heat being applied (and
elsewhere removed from) the outside of the apparatus. Otto and Diesel
Cycles are generally implemented by internal combustion: the working
fluid is induced to undergo a chemical change to produce heat".

And if you have a source of heat, like a cheerfully bubbling CF cell,
using a Stirling Cycle engine is a pretty fair way of using it. Hence
all these little Stirling Cycle gas engines used to run office fans.

Unfortunately there are practical difficulties in implementing the cycle
which tend to result in a very low efficiency - unless you use exotic
fluids at high pressure.

Ian










cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.11 /  VCockeram /  Re: Rothwell distances self from CETI
     
Originally-From: vcockeram@aol.com (VCockeram)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell distances self from CETI
Date: 11 Jan 1996 06:20:05 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <4cs0l2$6l0@sundog.tiac.net>, conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H
Conover) writes:

>: 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.
>:

Harry, Kawasaki I consider a neutral observer. What is your problem?
Do you require the US Supreme Court to take the photos?  These are
not photos of a UFO, or since you bring that up, do you think they are?
I'll say this: No matter who took/scanned/published ANY photo you
would find SOME fault with it. Right?  Thought so!! 
You are are the one who really needs credible, competent neutral help
as the way I see it, you deny everything that doesn't agree with your
tiny little comfortable world view. A totally closed mind. A real pity.
I really feel sorry for you. A sad case.

Hope you recover soon,  Vince
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenvcockeram cudlnVCockeram cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.11 /  VCockeram /  Re: Rothwell distances self from CETI
     
Originally-From: vcockeram@aol.com (VCockeram)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell distances self from CETI
Date: 11 Jan 1996 06:21:02 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <4cs0l2$6l0@sundog.tiac.net>, conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H
Conover) writes:

>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.
>
>:

Well Harry, come on please post DETAILS of all these holes.

Vince
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenvcockeram cudlnVCockeram cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.11 /  VCockeram /  Re: Rothwell distances self from CETI
     
Originally-From: vcockeram@aol.com (VCockeram)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell distances self from CETI
Date: 11 Jan 1996 06:21:21 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <4cs0l2$6l0@sundog.tiac.net>, conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H
Conover) writes:

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

So Harry, faked data huh? You are saying fraud? Is that right?
Come on Harry. EXACTLY HOW?  DETAILS PLEASE.  Not the 
mindless bullshit you usually spew, REAL DETAILS.
Hmmm.  Gets hard doesn't it Harry?
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenvcockeram cudlnVCockeram cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.11 /  VCockeram /  Re: Rothwell distances self from CETI
     
Originally-From: vcockeram@aol.com (VCockeram)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell distances self from CETI
Date: 11 Jan 1996 06:22:30 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <4cs0l2$6l0@sundog.tiac.net>, conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H
Conover) writes:

>Ah yes, scientists are twisted, perverted people.

I have seen you describe yourself as a 'scientist' in this
forum Harry. 

Vince
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenvcockeram cudlnVCockeram cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.11 /  VCockeram /  Re: Rothwell distances self from CETI
     
Originally-From: vcockeram@aol.com (VCockeram)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell distances self from CETI
Date: 11 Jan 1996 06:23:13 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <4cs0l2$6l0@sundog.tiac.net>, conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H
Conover) writes:

>.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.

Harry, you dont read much do you?

Vince
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenvcockeram cudlnVCockeram cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.11 /  VCockeram /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: vcockeram@aol.com (VCockeram)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: 11 Jan 1996 06:23:43 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <4d0pg0$hvc@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>, monkey@engin.umich.edu
(Monkey King) writes:

>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.
>
>

Wouldn't matter how much the water is heated at the impeller King, as
the excess heat was computed by the delta-T across only the cell.
Tout minus Tin equals Delta.

Regards, Vince
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenvcockeram cudlnVCockeram cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.11 /   /  CF: It is so sad - The opposing sides
     
Originally-From: "C:WINSOCKKA9QSPOOLMAIL" <Lossy@fpsplc.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CF: It is so sad - The opposing sides
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 11:23:23 GMT
Organization: None


The two opposing sides make this news group a nightmare to navigate.
Could we set up news groups for:

sci.physics.cf.for	-	For people who beleive 
sci.physics.cf.against	-	For people who do not
sci.physics.cf.personal -	For the people who just want to offened
				each other
sci.physics.cf.reseach 	-	For people that do the work and do not
				enter into bitter disputes

I know this is not possible, but it would make reading between the 
lines a lot easier

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

My views are my own and not the views of my employer.


lossy@fpsplc.demon.co.uk	Lossy Lossnitzer	
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenLossy cudln cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.11 /  RMCarrell /  Progress, believe it or not
     
Originally-From: rmcarrell@aol.com (RMCarrell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Progress, believe it or not
Date: 11 Jan 1996 06:59:08 -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 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:
cuddy11 cudenrmcarrell cudlnRMCarrell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.12 / Rick Eaton /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: rkeaton@ix.netcom.com (Rick Eaton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 03:48:06 GMT
Organization: Netcom

21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:

>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

>===========================================================
Almost all of the heating occurs at the pump, not at restrictions in flow.  In
order for there to be significant heating across a restriction the enthalpy
change of the water from the upstream pressure to the downstream pressure would
have to be significant.  This is darn close to zero for water since it is very
incompressible.  To make matters worse, water has a high heat capacity so it
would take more enthalpy change per degree than many other fluids.  A good steam
table will reveal this.

As for heatiing at different flow rates, for any centrifugal pump this will be
greatest at max flow and least at low flow, though as you point out it will not
fall to zero since the pump efficiency declines when it has to put up more head.
I would think the manufacturer could supply a curve or you could make a few
amperage readings for various flows and construct your own heat input curve.

I do love your idea for putting in a known wattage heating element and observing
the results.  My bet is you get much hotter water than CETI observed.  

I hope I'm wrong and these guys have really found something.  However their
insistence on controlling the access of outside observers, lack of sophisticated
instrumentation, reluctance to look for products or develop a decent theory
makes the whole thing look more like Madam Zorba doing mind reading at the
carnival than real science.

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrkeaton cudfnRick cudlnEaton cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.12 / Rick Eaton /  Re: Magnum 350 Run (corrected reply)
     
Originally-From: rkeaton@ix.netcom.com (Rick Eaton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run (corrected reply)
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 04:35:54 GMT
Organization: Netcom

21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:

>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

>===========================================================
Almost all of the heating occurs at the pump, not at restrictions in flow.  In
order for there to be significant heating across a restriction the temperature
change of the water from the upstream pressure to the downstream pressure would
have to be significant at constant enthalpy. (I said the previous sentence wrong
in my original reply - sorry) This is darn close to zero for water since it is
very incompressible.    A good steam table will reveal this.

As for heatiing at different flow rates, for any centrifugal pump this will be
greatest at max flow and least at low flow, though as you point out it will not
fall to zero since the pump efficiency declines when it has to put up more head.
I would think the manufacturer could supply a curve or you could make a few
amperage readings for various flows and construct your own heat input curve.

I do love your idea for putting in a known wattage heating element and observing
the results.  My bet is you get much hotter water than CETI observed.  

I hope I'm wrong and these CETI guys have really found something.  However their
insistence on controlling the access of outside observers, lack of sophisticated
instrumentation, reluctance to look for products or develop a decent theory
makes the whole thing look more like Madam Zorba doing mind reading at the
carnival than real science.

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrkeaton cudfnRick cudlnEaton cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.12 / Ross Tessien /  Re: 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: Re: Incredibly ignorant statements parroted by Archimedes Plutonium
Date: 12 Jan 1996 04:56:00 GMT
Organization: Impulse Engineering, Inc.

In article <4d2k62$1pr@nkosi.well.com>, austern@well.com says...
>
>In article <birdieDKyAyB.Lys@netcom.com>, birdie@netcom.com says...
>
>>: 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.
>
>But are they as white and bright as Alec Guinness's white suit?  If Pons
>and Fleischmann could come up with a suit like that (or at least a movie
>as funny as that one), then I'd finally concede that they'd done 
something
>useful.
>

Well, let me ask both of you a couple of questions.

1)  Do you think that Rockedyne International is not capable of 
identifying 10x atmospheric helium 4 when they receive a sample with it 
in it?  Ad if not, do you think that it could be produced via chemical 
means?

2)  I am very curious if there is a chemical mechanism to cause a metal 
to be x-ray active.  Do you know of one?  As many teams observe this 
effect, I am curious as to what the chemical process might be.

3)  Can you tell me again what chemical, or kinetic particle ricochet 
might result from 4 KeV incident protons or deuterons to result in the 
observation of 7 MeV ejecta?

If you have not read the papers from multiple international teams, then 
you might just want to wonder if you have as well been duped by the 
media.  You are quite smug with your responses, and I am just an ignorant 
individual who has read over a hundred technical papers on these 
experiments.  I would not bite on all of them in as much as the tests for 
many were difficult to do.  But a few with the above cited results seem 
to me to be credible.  This is especially the case in as much as 
organizations such as the Electric Power Research Institute which has no 
prejudice in the outcome, but funded the research nonetheless has also 
cited their summary citing that it is apparent that these reactions are 
not chemical in origin.

I would hope you could give me some information on palladium or titanium 
reactions which are capable of producing the above results.  In as much 
as the lab set ups are repeatable, and have been repeated by many teams, 
you assistance in enlightening me as to what chemical processes are at 
work would be greately appreciated so that I might jump back on the band 
wagon I fell off after reading the actual reports.

It seems that the American Chemical Society has finally started to remove 
a modicum of the taboo about talking about Cold Fusion in a positive 
light.

Please, I do not need any more smart quips.  All I want is a simple yes 
or no.  If the above observations are not forged, is there any chance 
they are chemical rather than nuclear?  I am not aware of any chemical 
reactions that cause beta decay, and if there are other chemical 
reactions that could cause a metal to expose x-ray film over a period of 
several weeks, I would very much like to hear about it.

So, you got your smarty pants answers in, I will welcome more if you can 
answer these questions with mechanisms for the observations that are not 
atomic in origin.

Sincerely, still pissed off and waiting for a reason not to be.

Ross Tessien

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudentessien cudfnRoss cudlnTessien cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.12 / John Logajan /  Re: Distance between Rothwell and CETI
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Distance between Rothwell and CETI
Date: 12 Jan 1996 05:16:06 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: Richard A Blue <blue@pilot.msu.edu> writes:
: >was more like 500 watts.  However John Logajan posts some numbers
: >indicating perhaps only 250 watts.
:  
: Where are these numbers? Has John Logajan discovered that the specific
: heat of water is not 4.2? It is only 1.2?!? Nothing is vanishing here but
: the last, poor excuses of the pathological skeptics. The Delta T was 15 to
: 17 degrees C. The flow rate was 1300 ml per minute. The excess was 1300
: watts. No ifs, ands, or buts. NOTHING is slowly vanishing, and nothing
: that Logajan or anyone else has said has cast any doubt over measurments.

Hey, all I said was that my three quart kettle with a small fan and
the lid off can dissipate about 250 watts in the general temperature
range of the PowerGen demo.  I suspect the CETI device could do much
better since is is designed more in tune with standard "radiator"
practice.

--
 - 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:
cuddy12 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Jan 13 04:37:05 EST 1996
------------------------------
