1996.02.04 / A Plutonium /  USA PATENT 29JUL91 USA 07/737,170 and 08/304,118 Art Unit 2204
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: USA PATENT 29JUL91 USA 07/737,170 and 08/304,118 Art Unit 2204
Date: 4 Feb 1996 01:51:09 GMT
Organization: PLutonium Atom Foundation, patent 07/737,170 and 08/304,

Serial No. 08/304,118  Art Unit 2204, pages 1-11

1. An examination of this application reveals that applicant is
unfamiliar with patent prosecuting procedure. While an inventor may
prosecute the application, lack of skill in this field usually acts as
a liability in affording the maximum protection for the invention
disclosed. Applicant is advised to secure the services of a registered
patent attorney or agent to prosecute the application, since the value
of a patent is largely dependent upon skillful preparation and
prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting an attorney or agent.
   Applicant is advised of the availability of the publication
"Attorneys and Agents Registered to Practice Before the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office." This publication is for sale by the Superintendent
of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.

2. Applicant is advised as to how to arrange the content of the
specification.
  (a) Title of the Invention.
.......[instructions deleted but very useful to me in future
applications]

3. Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an Abstract of the
Disclosure.

   A patent abstract is a ...... [instructions deleted but very useful
to me in future applications]

   Correction of the abstract is required.

4. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
#112:

   The specification shall contain a written description of the
invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in
such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person
skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most
nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best
mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.

   The specification is objected to under 35 U.S.C. #112, first
paragraph, as failing to provide an adequate written description of the
invention and as failing to adequately teach how to make and/or use the
invention, i.e. failing to provide an enabling disclosure.

   There is no adequate description nor enabling disclosure of how
neutron materialization can actually be operatively obtained with the
disclosed and claimed invention.
   A disclosure in an application, to be complete, must contain such
description and details as to enable any person skilled in the art or
science to which the invention pertains, to make and use the invention
as of its filing date, In re Glass, 181 USPQ 31.
   Specific operative embodiments or examples of the invention must be
set forth. Examples and description should be of sufficient scope as to
justify the scope of the claims. See MPEP 608.01(p).
   For example, there is no example of the size, shape and composition
of the fuel mass and; of the pulsating voltage and of the pulsating
electric current from the power sources, necessary to (not only)
actually operatively cause spontaneous neutron materialization out of
nowhere, but also, to actually cause the production of enough neutrons
such that the device will be a net producer of excess energy (see claim
1 for example).
   Note in this respect that Williams et al and Lewis et al illustrate
the application of a pulsed electric current to the electrodes and
electrolyte in an electrolytic cell (note page 525 of Lewis et al and
pages 378, 380 of Williams et al). The electrodes can contain metals
and hydrogen isotopes. Williams et al on page 378 indicate the
electrode can contain a radioactive material such as uranium.
   If the mere application of a pulsed electric current to any chemical
element(s), compounds of molecules, etc., will actually result in
"spontaneous neutrons materialization" (as indicated for example by
page 14 of applicants specification) then clearly, neutrons must also
have been obtained in Lewis et al and Williams et al because these two
references clearly teach applicants concept of applying an electric
current to a material.
   However, Lewis et al and Williams et al each found that such systems
were not neutron producers.
   It is not seen wherein the specification discloses any particular
structure, parameter, etc., which is unique to applicants system and
which would make applicants system operative for the production of
neutrons whereas the systems disclosed in Lewis et al and in Williams
et al, were not operative for the production of neutrons.
   There is no adequate description nor enabling disclosure of how and
in what manner, the materialized neutrons transform hydrogen atoms into
helium atoms as indicated for example in specification.
   Applicants specification appears replete with assumptions and
speculation as to how and in what manner, his invention will operate.
However, no reputable evidence has been presented to support applicants
assumptions and speculation (including the assumption and speculation
that positive "cold fusion" results can be obtained with a pulsating
(or changing) current and voltage).
   Even applicants own specification indicates that the scientific
community in general does to consider "cold fusion" systems of the type
set forth by Fleischmann and Pons, as actually being operative for the
production of neutrons, etc.
   Indeed, applicant in his specification even admits that his
invention of radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization violates
the law of conservation of energy-mass. In the 7/12/91 issue of "The
Dartmouth", applicant states that his plutonium atom theory" is so
revolutionary, so controversial that most physicists will either not
comment on it, or reject it, because it goes against a lot of physics,
such as relative theory".
   Without reputable evidence to the contrary, the presently accepted
scientific laws and theories must be presumed correct and applicants'
theory which is contrary thereto, is presumed to be incorrect, and the
disclosure of applicants invention is hence insufficient and
non-enabling.
   No reputable evidence has been presented to support the allegation
in the specification that muons in pure iron or pure mercury, will
result in "neutron materialization".
   No reputable evidence has been presented to support the allegation
in the specification that an increase in temperature in certain
substance causes "neutron materialization".
   Accordingly, it is considered that the Examiner (for the reasons set
forth above) has set forth a reasonable and sufficient basis for
challenging the adequacy of the disclosure. The statute requires the
application itself to inform, not to direct others to find out for
themselves, In re Gardner et al, 166 USPQ 138, In re Scarbrough, 182
USPQ 298. Note that the disclosure must enable a person skilled in the
art to practice the invention without having to design structure not
shown to be readily available in the art, In re Hirsch, 131 USPQ 198.

5.  Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. # 112, first paragraph,
for the reasons set forth in the objection to the specification.

6.  35 U.S.C. # 101 reads as follows:

   "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter or any new and useful improvement
thereof, may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and
requirements of this title".

7.   Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. # 101 because the
invention as disclosed is inoperative and therefore lacks utility.
   The reasons why the disclosed invention is inoperative are the same
as the reasons why the specification is objected to (see the section
numbered 4 above) and said reasons are accordingly incorporated herein.
   Applicant at best, may have set forth what could be considered a
concept or an object of scientific research. However, it has been held
such that does not present a utility within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. #
101. See Brenner v. Manson, 148 U.S.P.Q. 689.
   Additionally, it is well established that where as here, the utility
of the claimed invention is based upon allegations that border on the
incredible or allegations that would not be readily accepted by a
substantial portion of the scientific community, sufficient
substantiating evidence of operability must be submitted by applicant.
Note In re Houghton, 167 USPQ 687 (CCPA 1970); In re Ferens, 163 USPQ
609 (CCPA 1969); Puharich v. Brenner, 162 USPQ 136 (CA DC 1969); In re
Pottier, 153 USPQ 407 (CCPA 1967); In re Ruskin, 148 USPQ 221 (CCPA
1966); In re Citron, 139 USPQ 516 (CCPA 1963); and In re Novak, 134
USPQ 335 (CCPA 1962).

8.   Claims 1 and 2 are rejected as failing to define the invention in
the manner required by 35 U.S.C. #112, second paragraph.
   The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite and
functional or operational language. The structure which goes to make up
the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must
be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete
operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note
the format of the claims in the patent cited.
   Further, claim 1 appears to recite functions or results but no
specific means to carry out the indicated function or result. Note in
this respect, that claims which only recite a function or result, are
vague and indefinite and they are properly rejectable under 35 USC 112
second paragraph (See MPEP 706.03(c) and In re Fuller, 1929 C.D. 172).
   Note also that statements about intended uses, capabilities or
structure which may result upon the performance of future acts, are not
positive structural limitations and in this sense fail to comply with
the requirements of the statute in failing to distinctly claim the
actual invention; In re Collier, 158 USPQ 266.
   Claim 2 is vague, indefinite and incomplete as to what all is meant
by and is encompassed by the term "fuel mass".

9.  The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35
U.S.C. #102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section
made in this Office action:

   A person shall be entitled to a patent unless--
   (a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or
patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign
country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
   (b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication
in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this
country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent
in the United States.

   The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. # 103 which forms the
basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:

   A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically
disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if
the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and
the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have
been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the
invention was made.

   Subject matter developed by another person, which qualifies as prior
art only under subsection (f) or (g) of section 102 of this title,
shall not preclude patentability under this section where the subject
matter and the claimed invention were, at the time the invention was
made, owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of
assignment to the same person.

10.  Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. # 102(a) as being
clearly anticipated by applicants own admission of prior art on page 6
of the specification.

11. Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. # 102(b) as being
clearly anticipated by any of Takahashi et al, Dufour, Belton, Aspden,
Yamazaki et al or Lyons, Jr.
   The references each illustrate the application of a changing or
pulsed current and a changing or pulsed voltage, to  material. This is
all that applicants claims require.
   Since the structure and method of operation of each of the
references, is the same as that recited in the claims, the references,
must each inherently function in the same manner, to produce the same
result as that of applicant.
   As to limitations which are considered to be inherent in a
reference, note the case law of In re Ludtke, 169 USPQ 563, In re
Swinehart, 169 USPQ 226, In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594, In re Best et
al, 195 USPQ 430, and In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685, 688.

12.  The other references cited each show the application of an
electric current to a material.

13. Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Mr.
Behrend at telephone number --- --- ----.

Behrend/gj-9
12-22-95
                           Harvey E. Behrend
                           Primary Examiner
                           Group 2200

______________
Inventors comments:

It is well known that few "cold fusion" patent applications are
approved in the USA. This is extreme prejudice.

I had applied for Neutron Materialization in 1991 and was rejected by
the USA Patent Office. Then Canon received a European patent on
essentially the same "technique". 

        PATENTS CITED
{1} My patent application  29 July 1991 USA 07/737,170 
         and rejected by patent office 1993
{2} Canon's patent (EP 568 118) 1994

Thus, this second patent attempt of my 1991 application as per
 Filing Date: August 31, 1994.

Why did Mr. Behrend not cite the Canon patent. Essentially what was
rejected in my patent must be rejected in Canon's patent. But of
course, Canon was issued a patent. Yet my claims are Canon's claim in
part. My patent application was 1991, yet Canon's was 1994.

If my patent application of 1991 and 1994 are rejected and yet Canon's
copying of my "pulsing" is granted in Europe, indicates to me further
that there is extreme bias and prejudice here in the USA.

As Mr. Behrend pointed out in (1) that a lawyer may help, apparently I
must in the future hire such a lawyer to straighten out this mess.

Why, oh why, did you not mention the Canon patent Mr. Behrend? I
mentioned the Canon patent many many times in my second application.

Thank you for clarifying how to compose a patent application. I will
take that advice to heed in my future applications.

Please do not quote a newsreporter who mispells Relativity theory as
"relative theory", just trying to make me look bad.

Although my application of 1991 had many shortcomings, I had
anticipated the Canon patent by more than 2 years. I am patenting a
technique, the pulsing.
The Canon patent was granted and in Europe. Again, I ask, why is the
same material granted in Europe and not the USA?

History can not be ignored. I had pulsing in 1991 in USA, and Canon had
pulsing in a patent granted in 1994. Mr. Behrend often refers to
Williams and the other NATURE magazine study by Lewis, both negative to
cold fusion. Why are Williams and Lewis held against me, yet not the
Canon patentors? It appears that the Williams and Lewis publications
are useful as a killfile for all patents related to cold fusion and not
just to prejudice and bias Archimedes Plutonium patents.

Mr. Behrend cites many pulsing patents, but all of those are not with
"cold fusion" are they? I was the first to apply the technique of
pulsing to cold fusion and then Canon, 2 years later copyed my
technique and lifted my patent application of 1991. If that technique
pans out as yielding a nuclear reactor of a device of commercial use,
then a patent lawyer will be hired.

So, pray-tell, how many cold fusion patents have been applied for in
USA and in Europe and what statistic of granting has been accorded for
the years time since the Williams and Lewis publication of late 1990?

Please do not mistake me. I am grateful to Mr. Behrend's rejection.
Because a granting would have been far worse. A granting has only 17
year uselife. A rejection remains "open". And so, when radioactive
spontaneous neutron materialization (rsnm) becomes commonplace or Canon
builds a reactor using rsnm then me or my successors of Plutonium Atom
Foundation will hire the patent lawyers.

Mr. Behrend says in (7) "   Applicant at best, may have set forth what
could be considered a concept or an object of scientific research." not
true. In philosophy class they talk about a car locomotive power coming
from squirrels on conveyor belts under the trunk. But when lifted no
squirrels are present so then the philosophers say that the squirrels
are inside the metal block and so on. Present day physicists have not
discovered what cold fusion phenomenon really is, and that is why it is
not repeatable. When it is discovered that these positive signs of some
unknown phenomenon occurring in electrolytic cells is really rsnm. Then
the PLutonium Atom Foundation (PAF) step in and collect its just
rewards. Whichever comes first, Canon patent yielding a reactor on
line, or rsnm confirmed will PAF reap its just reward.

Thanks Harvey Behrend for an open time utility.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.04 / Alan M /  Re: Please halp me catch up!
     
Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" <alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Please halp me catch up!
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 1996 08:09:17 +0000
Organization: The Levitating Pig

In article <3112CF33.5E0C@whytel.com>, "Ryan V. Bissell"
<synaptik@whytel.com> writes
>Would someone please update me on what was decided was the cause of the 
>heat that was being generated by the device that churned water?

I believe it's called 'frictional heat', and arrives as a result of a
general increase in entropy within the churner.

At least, nobody has offered any alternative explanation one hundredth
part as plausible as this.
-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenalan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.01 / Carlton Haynie /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: Carlton Haynie <ccHaynie@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 1996 19:47:46 -0800
Organization: Netcom

Mitchell Jones wrote:
> 
> ***{Vince, I appreciate the feedback. For those who are more shy, I would
> like to encourage any and all suggestions. 

Mitch. If you could replicate the observations from the Power-Gen demo 
fairly closely, with your home experiment, then we might be well on our way 
to understanding more closely what happened there. From what you're 
suggesting so far, it looks as if the flow rate was lower, resulting in a 
cooler reservoir temperature, and a lower power measurement for 8 deg C delta 
T.

Craig Haynie
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudenccHaynie cudfnCarlton cudlnHaynie cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.04 / Bill Snyder /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: bsnyder@iadfw.net (Bill Snyder)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 1996 13:18:14 GMT
Organization: customer of Internet America

In message <medved.823276346@access5>, medved@access5.digex.net (Ted
Holden) wrote:

>Bill Snyder and his pals, the so-called talk.origins howler-monkeys, or
>bandar-log, specialize in calling others liars.

Just for the record, I don't read talk.origins.  Your mental
masturbation and the consequent objectionable dribble usually offend
my eyes when you cross-post to sci.skeptic; in this case I first
encountered it on sci.physics.fusion.

>  [circa 325 more lines snipped]

Thank you, Teddums.  That should clear up your status to the complete
satisfaction of all concerned.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy04 cudenbsnyder cudfnBill cudlnSnyder cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.03 /  djsmith@peaka. /  Re: All particles with charge have rest mass; my proving it
     
Originally-From: djsmith@peaka.net
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: All particles with charge have rest mass; my proving it
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 1996 21:20:26 GMT
Organization: Zippo

In <4dpapc$rtj@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.ed
 (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
>In article <4djovr$i2j@sulawesi.lerc.nasa.gov>
>Geoffrey A. Landis <GLANDIS@lerc.nasa.gov> writes:
>
>> Actually, according to general relativity, charge *does* deflect a light
>> beam.  The deflection is negative (away from the charge), and depends on
>> the square of the charge 
>> 
>> > >   According to my intuition. If the above ionization is built up to a
>> > > high enough peak there will be a deflection of the photon beam towards
>> > > or away from the ionized mass depending on whether the ionization is
>> > > positive or negative.
>> 
>> That is different than GR, then.  GR predicts that deflection is
>> independent of whether the sign of the charge is positive or negative,
>> since the minus sign cancels out.
>
>  You are probably right charge distorts space as well as spin. And
>that is why I made the claim that my experiment should show opposite
>deflection a repulsive deflection as well as a attracting deflection
>depending on whether the field is positive or negative. It is in the
>repulsive deflection that I prove GR is a sham.


Actually, according to general relativity, charge *does* deflect a light
>> beam.  The deflection is negative (away from the charge), and depends on
>> the square of the charge 


Where in general relativity does it even talk about quantum effects? Maybe your
referring to Quantum Electro Dynamics (QED), (and you should say so). 
Relativity only talks about the ramifications of curved space on the trajectory 
of light beams. Einstein didn't believe in quantum mechanics.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudendjsmith cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.03 /  djsmith@peaka. /  Re: Is electric field = negative charge; magnetic field = 
     
Originally-From: djsmith@peaka.net
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.fusion,sci.bio.misc,sci.geo.geology
Subject: Re: Is electric field = negative charge; magnetic field = 
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 1996 21:23:25 GMT
Organization: Zippo

In <4ec60v$kl0@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.ed
 (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
>In article <4e7qsb$v1i@janus.cqu.edu.au>
>Lance Ryan <cs013@cq-pan.cqu.edu.au> writes:
>
>> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) 
>> wrote:
>> >In article <4dtbun$t81@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>> >Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
>> > the electron component of the photon.
>> >
>> > The neutron and proton are about    930 MEV
>> >
>> > The electron                           .5 MEV
>> >
>> > The neutrino energy is approx.      1.7 X 10^-5 MEV
>> >the photon
>> >has either a positron plus a -neutrino or the photon is a electron plus
>> >a +neutrino wherein the rest mass of the photon will correspond with
>> >the ratio of approx  10^-5 MEV. The second view is of the wave
natu>-neutrino but as it becomes more energetic or picks up energy
from its
>> >surroundings then the photon, one of the neutrinos builds up into
>> >either a positron or electron.
>> >   These views are supported by known experiments, where in the fact
>> >energetic photons revert into electrons. Once a photon, now an electron.
>> 
>> Does this infer that photons are the primary link on the energy 
>> chain? ie photon -> electron -> proton _ext,ext. each increase 
>> in order is equivalent to increase in charge magnitude. So 
>> without light we would eventually break down the source of ZPE 
>> itself thus the universe would return to singularity?
>> Lance
>
> No, atoms are the start and the end. In an Atom Totality, atoms are
>all things and the only things. Thus regardless of what you want to
>consider as ground, or base, or primitive, it is atoms which is the
>starting point.
>
>Here is a scheme which I am confident in. Atoms -> 2neutrinos ->
>1photon -> many photons -> neutron ->neutrino + electron + proton ->
>atom
>
>This helps in biology. We consider the DNA as the endpoint of biology.
>But that boundary is artificial. For it is the Atoms which are alive.
>Biology will never be solved unless it reaches down into the atom. The
>gap between the first DNA and organic compounds is far far far too much
>of a gap. Thus, I am confident that the neutrino and the photon are
>"perfected strands of DNA". Hence the first life came from photons or
>neutrinos or electricity. New life is created all the time when a
>photon rest mass comes to rest and the perfect DNA, provided there is
>enough energy can turn this 'stopped' photon into a living organism. A
>cosmic ray was measured at 10^16 MEV which is enough energy to create a
>whole entire virus, bacteria, even a small plant from scratch. This is
>how AIDS virus came to Earth. When we get into outerspace, we will be
>able to inspect lifeless containers which all of a sudden contain life
>due to a cosmic ray of a energetic proton or electron stopped and its
>photon DNA turned into a 'new life form'.


Sounds like your understanding of the universe has evolved a life of it's own.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudendjsmith cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.04 / mitchell swartz /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 1996 14:25:23 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <4f0pe5$ru6@sundog.tiac.net>
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes:

     John Skingley (john@circlesw.demon.co.uk) wrote:
 : All I can say is that I know where your energy is comming from, do you know
 : where CF energy comes from. If you do, please speak up!
=hc  "Possibly from the same source that propels other perpetual motion
=hc devices -- man's imagination!
=hc If and when CF research is shown to produce *any* energy, your question
=hc will become valid. This has not yet occurred and, in spite of a rash 
=hc of unsubstantiated claims by garage experimenters, crackpots and others, 
=hc it appears increasingly less likely with each passing month.
=hc                                    Harry C.

  Actually, John Skingley is right.   Cold fusion produces much excess heat and
the origins have not been fully clarified.

  What appears increasingly less likely with each passing month, is that the
TB-skeptics will visit a single library and actually read a few dozen papers
in the subject.  Instead they apparently will continue to "con" the public 
to try to lead them away from this interesting subject, as does Mr. Conover.

        
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.04 / Harry Conover /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: 4 Feb 1996 15:42:48 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

John Skingley (john@circlesw.demon.co.uk) wrote:

: And I wonder how reproducible Marconi's first 'wireless' experiments were?
: No doubt the 'scientists' of the day said that couldn't work, as there was no
: known way it could!

Evidently you're unfamiliar with the names Hertz, Maxwell and 
others that fully documented electromagnetic waves prior to Marconi's
work on the commercial exploitation of an already *well understood* 
area of physics.

Did it occur to you that there is a valid historic reason why 
the unit of frequency is the 'Hertz' and not the 'Marconi?'

Like many readers here, you're confusing technology with science --
and there is a very significant difference between the two.  In fact,
technology rarely exists without a substantial foundation of knowledge
first existing in basic science.  Exceptions sometimes exist, but when
they do they're more likely to be termed an 'art' or 'craft' rather 
than a technology -- historic medicine (healing) being one such example.

From my personal perspective, today's CF reports represent the futile
attempts to develop a technology without first developing a basic 
science foundation.  In this case the result is a series of unguided,
blind experimental efforts with little sense of direction or purpose.
The experimenters are, therefore, ill-equipped to identify their
experimental goals, properly design their experiment, or even to 
adequately assess the significance of their experimental results.

                                     Harry C.



cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.04 / Harry Conover /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: 4 Feb 1996 16:40:00 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

mitchell swartz (mica@world.std.com) wrote:
:   In Message-ID: <4f0pe5$ru6@sundog.tiac.net>
: Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes:

:      John Skingley (john@circlesw.demon.co.uk) wrote:
:  : All I can say is that I know where your energy is comming from, do you know
:  : where CF energy comes from. If you do, please speak up!
: =hc  "Possibly from the same source that propels other perpetual motion
: =hc devices -- man's imagination!
: =hc If and when CF research is shown to produce *any* energy, your question
: =hc will become valid. This has not yet occurred and, in spite of a rash 
: =hc of unsubstantiated claims by garage experimenters, crackpots and others, 
: =hc it appears increasingly less likely with each passing month.
: =hc                                    Harry C.

:   Actually, John Skingley is right.   Cold fusion produces much excess heat and
: the origins have not been fully clarified.

Evidently the entire scientific community is 'sleeping at the switch' thing,
since legitimate journals have totally failed to report this 'excess heat!'

Of course, Mitchell, their criteria for establishing the credibility of 
an incredible observation is likely substantially different from your
own.

:   What appears increasingly less likely with each passing month, is that the
: TB-skeptics will visit a single library and actually read a few dozen papers
: in the subject.  Instead they apparently will continue to "con" the public 
: to try to lead them away from this interesting subject, as does Mr. Conover.

Ah yes, Mitchell, *those papers*.  Please report the names of recognized,
peer-reviewed, physics journals (since the claims report accomplishments
in physics) in which these were published.  After all, credibility
of a paper is only as good as the professional peer-review process which
it underwent.

While you're at it, why not tell us how many of these papers identify
their experimental error and quantify their reported results in terms
of these error margins?  How many of these have employed anything
even remotely close to recognized statistical research methodology
to establish their signal-to-noise ratios?  How many utilized a
'double-blind' experimental protocol to establish what they were
seeing was not simply what they wanted to see?  How many of these
papers report involment of a experienced research physicist
competent to evaluate the conduction and results of such a 
physics experiment?

Lots of papers alright, but most of such poor professional quality
that they wouldn't be considered for publication by any
recognized physics journal -- not because of some mystical conspiracy,
but because they represent science of such abyssmal low quality
that they were unfit for publication.

The sad fact is that you can always have a paper published if you
can locate a publication with low enough professional standards.  In
point of fact, many (if not most of these papers) represent such
dribble!

When Physical Review (Nature, or a similiar quality journal) publishes 
papers documenting a replicated experiment producing statistically 
significant excess heat, the accomplishment will be recognized as
factual.  Until then, your expression of belief in the reality of
CF represents only your personal religious conviction on the 
subject.

When someone actually produces energy via use of a CF protocol, 
I will be among the first to cheer.  Unfortunately at this juncture
I seriously doubt that this will happen (belief).  It hasn't
happened yet (fact), and I see no useful purpose served by
warping my knowledge and senses in order to believe that it has.

                                        Harry C.





cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.04 / Bradley Sherman /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: bks@netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 1996 16:24:16 GMT
Organization: Remote Fusion Reactor Reverse Entropy Associates

In article <DM99EC.6L9@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
...
>  What appears increasingly less likely with each passing month, is that the
>TB-skeptics will visit a single library and actually read a few dozen papers
>in the subject.  Instead they apparently will continue to "con" the public 
>to try to lead them away from this interesting subject, as does Mr. Conover.
...

The bizarre behavior of the palladium protagonists is much more
the reason for the public being led away.  Conover and the rest
of the skeptics could be swept away like yesterday's cracker
crumbs by two consecutive demonstrations of the same device,
with neutral instrumentation.

Even TB-leaners like Martin Sevior and Mitchell Jones are having
trouble sustaining their faith in the face of the CETI sublimation.

    --bks

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenbks cudfnBradley cudlnSherman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.04 / John Skingley /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: John Skingley <john@circlesw.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 1996 16:52:44 +0000 (GMT)

In article <4f0pe5$ru6@sundog.tiac.net>, Harry H Conover
<mailto:conover@max.tiac.net> wrote:
> 
> John Skingley (john@circlesw.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> 
> : All I can say is that I know where your energy is coming from, do you know
> : where CF energy comes from. If you do, please speak up!
> 
> Possibly from the same source that propels other perpetual motion
> devices -- man's imagination!
> 
> If and when CF research is shown to produce *any* energy, your question
> will become valid. This has not yet occurred and, in spite of a rash 
> of unsubstantiated claims by garage experimenters, crackpots and others, 
> it appears increasingly less likely with each passing month.
> 
>                                    Harry C.

I am sorry to have to say it, but the above is just more of the same, irrational
twaddle I have been reading here for months. Let's examine it.

> Possibly from the same source that propels other perpetual motion
> devices -- man's imagination!

  You say 'OTHER perpetual motion devices'. Who said anything about a perpetual 
  motion device. Nobody has claimed to have invented one, unless I've missed
  something.  

  What you are clearly doing is calling the claims 'perpetual motion' so that
  you can then justify attacking them. You can also justify an attack on the 
  claimant, implying that he must be stupid if he believes in perpetual motion.

  This is nothing but a cheap trick, and hardly worthy of a scientist.

  And since this message is in direct reply to my posting, I take it the insult
  is also aimed at me.  Well Mr Conover, while I shall not loose any sleep over
  it, my estimation of you, and therefore the things you say, continues to fall.

> If and when CF research is shown to produce *any* energy, ...

  Your reaction, and that of all the other detractors who post here, to a
  a claim that CF has been demonstrated, seems to be something like - "This
  cannot be!  You cannot have fusion at room temperature.  It throws over too
  much established science.  It's impossible!"

  The conclusion is that it hasn't been demonstrated, no matter what anyone
  says to the contrary.  You simply don't believe it.

  Well, you are of course welcome to that view, provided you don't go around
  insulting those who have other views.  To do so is simply not acceptable
  behaviour, even from non-scientists.

  All I can say to this is that it is hardly a good example of the scientific 
  approach to life. If a fellow scientist claims a certain experimental result
  then the reaction should be one of interest. When others start to make similar
  claims it's time to take them seriously, not laugh and insult them! 

> ...in spite of a rash of unsubstantiated claims by garage experimenters, 
> crackpots and others, ...

  Do you not see what you are doing here?  As soon as there are supporting claims
  by others, you simply call them names as well. They are garage experimenters
  and crackpots.  How Mr Conover, are the claims of CF ever going to be 
  substantiated to your satisfaction, if those that claim to do so are immediately 
  labelled crackpots, and therefore unreliable.  I suppose this 'catch 22' 
  situation makes you feel nice and safe in your own world.

  In the real world, most scientists are only too willing to admit that the more
  they learn, the more they realise how little they know.

 --------------------------
Regards,  John.
P.O. Box 36, BODMIN, PL30 4YY, U.K. Tel/Fax: +44 1208 850790


cudkeys:
cuddy04 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnSkingley cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.04 / John Logajan /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: 4 Feb 1996 18:12:55 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Bradley K. Sherman (bks@netcom.com) wrote:
: Even TB-leaners like Martin Sevior

I think that is a very uncalled for characterization.

I find Martin to be an enlightened skeptic -- meaning he demands valid
data but does not bury his head in the sand.  If I wasn't nearly perfect
myself, I'd use Martin as a role model. :-)



--
 - 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:
cuddy4 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.04 / Harry Conover /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: 4 Feb 1996 20:22:18 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

John Skingley (john@circlesw.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <4f0pe5$ru6@sundog.tiac.net>, Harry H Conover
: <mailto:conover@max.tiac.net> wrote:
: > 
: > John Skingley (john@circlesw.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: > 
: > : All I can say is that I know where your energy is coming from, do you know
: > : where CF energy comes from. If you do, please speak up!
: > 
: > Possibly from the same source that propels other perpetual motion
: > devices -- man's imagination!
: > 
: > If and when CF research is shown to produce *any* energy, your question
: > will become valid. This has not yet occurred and, in spite of a rash 
: > of unsubstantiated claims by garage experimenters, crackpots and others, 
: > it appears increasingly less likely with each passing month.
: > 
: >                                    Harry C.

: I am sorry to have to say it, but the above is just more of the same, irrational
: twaddle I have been reading here for months. Let's examine it.

If you consider a requirement for verifiable evidence to be twaddle, 
this says far more about you than me.

: > Possibly from the same source that propels other perpetual motion
: > devices -- man's imagination!

:   You say 'OTHER perpetual motion devices'. Who said anything about a perpetual 
:   motion device. Nobody has claimed to have invented one, unless I've missed
:   something.  

Then you must have missed something.  A perpetual motion machine is a
device that extracts sufficient energy from nothing to perpetuate 
its functioning.  Isn't this exactly what CF claims purport to do --
excess heat is produced from nothing (at least this is what is reported
by Jed and others on this newsgroup).  When you produce energy output
without any requirement for energy (potential energy, kinetic energy,
chemical energy, nuclear energy, or whatever) you are claiming to have
a 'perpetual motion' type device.  This, to borrow your elegant terminology
is twaddle, not science.

:   What you are clearly doing is calling the claims 'perpetual motion' so that
:   you can then justify attacking them. You can also justify an attack on the 
:   claimant, implying that he must be stupid if he believes in perpetual motion.

Nonsense.  When someone claims that they are producing energy from 
nothing yet fail to produce solid evidence to support such a fantastic
claim, they quality themselves as something other than scientists.

:   This is nothing but a cheap trick, and hardly worthy of a scientist.

Yes, I realize demands for substantial evidence and experimental 
reproducibility are somewhat draconic, but this is how science functions.
What, if I may ask, is your criteria for separating real scientific
breakthroughs from pure fantasy and crackpot nonsense?  Again, when
you attack a scientist for demanding evidence, you say more about
yourself than...oh, forget it!

:   And since this message is in direct reply to my posting, I take it the insult
:   is also aimed at me.  Well Mr Conover, while I shall not loose any sleep over
:   it, my estimation of you, and therefore the things you say, continues to fall.

What can I say other than: believe whatever turns you on. 

: > If and when CF research is shown to produce *any* energy, ...

:   Your reaction, and that of all the other detractors who post here, to a
:   a claim that CF has been demonstrated, seems to be something like - "This
:   cannot be!  You cannot have fusion at room temperature.  It throws over too
:   much established science.  It's impossible!"

:   The conclusion is that it hasn't been demonstrated, no matter what anyone
:   says to the contrary.  You simply don't believe it.

You're missing the point entirely.  What someone says establishes neither 
science nor fact.  It is the evidence they produce in support of 
their observations and its experimental replication that is significant.  
Sadly, CF has produced nothing significant in the way of hard evidence and
therefore, has been pretty much dismissed by the scientific community.  
This is not to say that the scientific community is not watching what is 
currently ongoing, just that what is currently being reported has
insufficient content to be of significant interest.

We're left with claims from a group now largely populated with crackpots, 
charlatans and incompetents in experimental physics.  Please note that 
*none* of the excess energy claims originate from experienced experimental 
physicists -- those whose training and experience makes them the most 
competent conduct experiments in the field to correctly analyze and 
interpret experimental results.

:   Well, you are of course welcome to that view, provided you don't go around
:   insulting those who have other views.  To do so is simply not acceptable
:   behaviour, even from non-scientists.

I find your notion of 'acceptable behavior' somewhat hypocritical in view of
the wording of your post.  

:   All I can say to this is that it is hardly a good example of the scientific 
:   approach to life. If a fellow scientist claims a certain experimental result
:   then the reaction should be one of interest. When others start to make similar
:   claims it's time to take them seriously, not laugh and insult them! 

You voiced a question that was, in view of the speculative or questionable
existence status of CF, quite premature.  I commented accordingly, with 
no insult intended or delivered.  If you find my comments out of line, I
would hate to see your reaction when a journal moderator transmits peer
comments to a paper you have submitted!  

: > ...in spite of a rash of unsubstantiated claims by garage experimenters, 
: > crackpots and others, ...

:   Do you not see what you are doing here?  As soon as there are supporting claims
:   by others, you simply call them names as well. They are garage experimenters
:   and crackpots.  How Mr Conover, are the claims of CF ever going to be 
:   substantiated to your satisfaction, if those that claim to do so are immediately 
:   labelled crackpots, and therefore unreliable.  I suppose this 'catch 22' 
:   situation makes you feel nice and safe in your own world.

Substantiation of CF excess energy observations will be quite straight
forward, once a valid observation is accomplished.  First, the researcher
will present evidence in substantiation of the observation (claim is a very
unusual term to be used by a scientist in connection with the reporting
of experimental observations).  Second, other researcher will document 
independent replication of the experiment and observations.   

With valid results, this isn't difficult to accomplish.  Science has 
historically proven that physical effects, once observed, are 
remarkably easy for other competent researchers to replicate and 
expand upon.  As a matter of fact, it is the utter lack of this 
basic characteristic of scientific research in CF that makes 'claims'  
so incredible.

:   In the real world, most scientists are only too willing to admit that the more
:   they learn, the more they realise how little they know.

I can't argue with this. Unfortunately CF has to date, unlike real
research, provided painfully little new knowledge and far too many
unsubstantiated claims.

                                        Harry C.



cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.04 / Bradley Sherman /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: bks@netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 1996 19:13:53 GMT
Organization: Remote Fusion Reactor Reverse Entropy Associates

In article <4f2sv7$lqa@stratus.skypoint.net>,
John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> wrote:
>Bradley K. Sherman (bks@netcom.com) wrote:
>: Even TB-leaners like Martin Sevior
...
>I think that is a very uncalled for characterization.
...

I am second to none in my admiration for Martin Sevior.

I *was* trying to convey his agnosticism by using the
"-leaner" suffix.  The egregious "agnostic-leaner" would
not have occupied the same semantic space.

I would argue that Dr. Sevior's willingness to spend
time and money on the CETI quest, though admirable,
moves him a hair to the TB side from dead-center
agnosticism.  This is, I tautologically concede,
arguable.

If someone was offended *in a religious sense*
about the analogies in my message: for that I apologize.

    --bks

  Whatever sceptic could inquire for,
  For every why he had a wherefore.  --Samuel Butler

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenbks cudfnBradley cudlnSherman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.04 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 96 12:39:14 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Harry H Conover <conover@max.tiac.net> writes:
 
>Evidently you're unfamiliar with the names Hertz, Maxwell and 
>others that fully documented electromagnetic waves prior to Marconi's
>work on the commercial exploitation of an already *well understood* 
>area of physics.
 
That is incorrect. Before Marconi, nobody knew that radio signals could
be sent around the curvature of the earth. The ionosphere had not been
discovered.
 
Any history of radio or biography of Marconi describes this.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.04 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Please halp me catch up!
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Please halp me catch up!
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 96 12:36:56 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

"Alan M. Dunsmuir" <alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk> writes:
 
>I believe it's called 'frictional heat', and arrives as a result of a
>general increase in entropy within the churner.
>
>At least, nobody has offered any alternative explanation one hundredth
>part as plausible as this.
 
No, that is incorrect. If the heat generated by the Griggs device was from
friction, it would not be excess heat. The total output enthalpy from the
device would be less than input in that case. This is demonstrated by
using a null rotor, with no holes that generates no ultrasound. The null
rotor produces 80 to 90% of input, whereas the rotor with holes produces
110 to 160% excess, for extended periods (sometimes continuously for
months). So your theory is ruled out by the facts and by the control
experiments. You theory is not a bit plausible, I do not understand why
you think it is.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.04 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Please halp me catch up!
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Please halp me catch up!
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 96 12:32:57 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

"Ryan V. Bissell" <synaptik@whytel.com> writes:
 
>Over a year ago, I was an avid, yet silent observer in this newsgroup.  
>I have since then fallen out of the loop, so to speak.
>
>Would someone please update me on what was decided was the cause of the 
>heat that was being generated by the device that churned water?
 
You are talking about the Griggs device, manufactured by Hydrodynamics of
Rome, Georgia. In tests performed over the last year, the excess heat
was confirmed by Georgia Tech, Georgia Power and NASA. The cause of the
excess heat remains a mystery. Additional research is now underway at
NASA.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.04 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: The Amazing Jed seeks the truth. NOT
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Amazing Jed seeks the truth. NOT
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 96 12:47:15 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Bob Sullivan <bsulliva@sky.net> writes:
 
>Test 1, December 4, two hours
>
>INPUT POWER
>Measured AC: 0.7 A * 120 V = 84 W
>Electrolysis: 0.18 A * 8 V = 1.4 W
>
>OUTPUT POWER
>Flow rate 1200 ml/minute (300 ml/15 seconds)
>Delta T Temperature 16 to 17 deg C
>1200 ml * 16 deg C * 4.2 = 80,640 j/min = 1,344 W
 
This should be ammended: the 1300 watt level was only maintained for about
a quarter-hour. The rest of the December 4 run was at about 500 watts, the
same as on subsequent days. As noted above in the report I made no direct
direct measurements or observations of the cell on the first day, but I did
make them on subsequent days.
 
This is a copy of my initial report, which I ammended slightly with information
provided to me by Cravens. The pathological skeptics have gone into orgiastic
extasy (or terminal conniptions) because I made one minor error in reporting
the duration of the first run. This is typical of them. They themselves have
made six years of utterly crazy, upside-down and backwards mistakes, and their
every pronouncement is a profound violation of elementary physics, but they
never notice mistakes in their own camp. They subject my reports to
microscopic analysis, but they never notice their own egregious errors.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.04 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: The Amazing Jed seeks the truth. NOT
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Amazing Jed seeks the truth. NOT
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 96 22:27:27 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

In article <RLNK5oj.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
->Bob Sullivan <bsulliva@sky.net> writes:
-> 
->>Test 1, December 4, two hours
->>
->>INPUT POWER
->>Measured AC: 0.7 A * 120 V = 84 W
->>Electrolysis: 0.18 A * 8 V = 1.4 W
->>
->>OUTPUT POWER
->>Flow rate 1200 ml/minute (300 ml/15 seconds)
->>Delta T Temperature 16 to 17 deg C
->>1200 ml * 16 deg C * 4.2 = 80,640 j/min = 1,344 W
-> 
->This should be ammended: the 1300 watt level was only maintained for about
->a quarter-hour. The rest of the December 4 run was at about 500 watts, the
->same as on subsequent days. As noted above in the report I made no direct
->direct measurements or observations of the cell on the first day, but I did
->make them on subsequent days.
-> 
->This is a copy of my initial report, which I ammended slightly with 
information
->provided to me by Cravens. The pathological skeptics have gone into orgiastic
->extasy (or terminal conniptions) because I made one minor error in reporting
->the duration of the first run. This is typical of them. They themselves have
->made six years of utterly crazy, upside-down and backwards mistakes, and their
->every pronouncement is a profound violation of elementary physics, but they
->never notice mistakes in their own camp. They subject my reports to
->microscopic analysis, but they never notice their own egregious errors.
-> 
->- Jed

Jed, it's too late to try to cover up your tracks. You posted it on the 'net. 
You wrote an article for 'Con' Fusion Facts where it was reviewed by the ENECO 
High Mucky-Mucks. You believed it. Hal Fox believed it. Dennis Cravens believed 
it. It was the ENECO Party Line until it was demonstrated to be a physical 
impossibility.

It wasn't a minor error, Jed. It was a COLOSSAL COMBINATION OF ERRORS -- errors 
beyond explanation.  By the way, in case you missed it, Mitchell Jones has 
already conclusively demonstrated the impossiblity of the 'fifteen-minute' and 
the '500 Watt' fall-back claims. You can run, but you can't hide.

The CETI/ENECO claims provide their own refutation: for ICCF5, for SOFE, and for 
the PowerGen non-demo. Bad protocols, bad temperature measurements, bad heat 
balance calculations, incompetent implementations, and on and on. As the 
CETI/ENECO crowd tries to defend the PowerGen non-demo, more people come to 
recognize it for what it is -- pathological science well beyond rehabilitation 
by arm waving and invective. 

The PowerGen non-demo will go down as a footnote in the annals of comedy.
cudkeys:
cuddy04 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.04 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 1996 17:30:46 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic


*******************
Magnum 350 Run #12

In the last run that I posted to this group, I stated two different flow
rates, one measured at the beginning of the run, and the other at the end.
The reason for giving two values is that I have noted a tendency for flow
rate to gradually decline as a run progresses. What seemed to be happening
was that the 20 feet of return tubing from the heat cell gradually
accumulated a population of tiny bubbles attached to its walls, and this
increased the resistance of the tubing to the flow. Result: the inflow to
the reservoir slowed down, while the outflow did not, causing the level of
water in the reservoir to drop. As the level dropped closer to the lip of
the impeller intake, the outflow picked up more bubbles and less water,
slowing it down to match the rate of the inflow. However, because there
were more bubbles being transported from the reservoir to the heat cell,
now the siphon in the cell began to suck up more bubbles. Result: more
bubbles accumulated in the cooling coils, causing the inflow to the
reservoir to slow even further, and the process repeated itself all over
again. Bottom line: it is possible that the operation of this type of
feedback loop brings about a gradual lowering of the water level in the
reservoir and a buildup of bubbles lining the cooling coils. In any case,
whatever the details of the causation, it is a fact that (a) with repeated
runs there eventually are vast numbers of tiny bubbles lining the walls of
the return tubing, and (b) the return flow to the reservoir eventually
becomes so slow that the water level falls below the lip of the impeller
intake, and the outflow ceases entirely. This has happened to me several
times. 

Naturally, the buildup of millions of tiny bubbles lining the tubing
reduces its thermal conductivity. This occurs both due to the presence of
the bubbles themselves, and also to the fact that water flow next to the
tubing walls is slowed to virtually zero, causing a boundary layer of
stagnant water to build up on the inner walls of the tubing. This boundary
layer is cooler than the average of the flow and, like the bubbles, has
insulating properties. A possible result would be the observed runaway
temperature increase in the system. And, of course, this might not have
occurred at Power Gen, due to the tendency of the bead bed to filter out
the bubbles. To test this theory, I simply put a cannister filter in my
heat cell (i.e., the Gran Pappy deep fryer) and placed my siphon hose
inside it. The idea was that the filter would screen out the bubbles,
preventing them from building up in my cooling coils. The results of the
run were as follows:

Starting air, reservoir, and cell outlet temperature: 48 degrees F
Starting flow rate: 1 liter/min
Ending air temperature: 48 degrees F
Ending reservoir temperature: 124 degrees F
Ending cell outlet temperature: 144 degrees F
Ending flow rate: .9 liters/min
Average flow rate: .95 liters/min
Elapsed time: 48 min
Fluid volume: about 4 liters

As you can see, it didn't work. The buildup of tiny bubbles occurred in
spite of my attempt to filter out bubbles coming from the inflow to the
heat cell. This suggests to me that the bubble buildup is due to the
rising temperature of the water, rather than to the picking up of already
formed bubbles at the siphon intake. This is plausible, because as water
temperature rises, its capacity to dissolve gases decreases. (This, of
course, is the opposite of what happens for solids.) Since the Magnum pump
is a very efficient aerator, it keeps the water saturated with dissolved
gases. Result: as the temperature rises, a population of tiny, insulating
bubbles builds up on the inside of the tubing, thereby impairing the
ability of my cooling coils to dissipate heat. Why didn't this happen to
Cravens? The only reason I can think of is this: by dissolving lithium
sulfate at the 1 molar level in his water, he may have significantly
impaired the ability of the water to dissolve gases. In that case, as the
temperature rose, the quantity of dissolved gases that would be forced out
of solution would be less, and as a consequence the bubble population
would be reduced or even absent entirely. If so, the thermal conductivity
of his tubing would be greater than mine because the population of
thermally insulating bubbles lining his tubing would be less than mine.
Which means: I have found one more reason to do a run with 1 molar lithium
sulfate. Perhaps that is, in truth, a crucial difference that made
Craven's setup more efficient than mine at dissipating heat. 

On the other hand, maybe not.

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy04 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.04 / Jonathan Point /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: jonp@wormald.com.au (Jonathan Point)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 1996 22:59:02 GMT
Organization: Wormald Technology, Sydney, Australia

John Skingley (john@circlesw.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <310fd433.100605440@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>, Kevin Quitt
: <mailto:kdq@emoryi.jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
: > 
: > So how long do these beads last, and how much energy went into making them?  I
: > have a box that puts out power with ZERO power in, and it hasn't given up yet.
: > When I patent it, I'm going to call it "BATTERY".
: > 
Whadda ya mean ZERO power in?? Ever seen how much energy it takes to make a 
battery???? Bloody NASA.... now they think they invented the battery first!!! 
Nah, sorry guys, the Ruskies even had batteries in space before you did!!

: Now how can someone working for NASA be such a twit!

No, please.... call them jerks! 

: All I can say is that I know where your energy is comming from, do you know
: where CF energy comes from. If you do, please speak up!

Jonathan D. Point				      Email:jonp@wormald.com.au

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjonp cudfnJonathan cudlnPoint cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Feb  5 04:37:05 EST 1996
------------------------------
