1996.02.05 / Gil Andrade /  Where is Cold Fusion theory
     
Originally-From: ANDRADE@devlpr.enet.dec.com (Gil Andrade)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Where is Cold Fusion theory
Date: 5 Feb 1996 17:39:34 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - Marlboro, MA


One of the things I expected to see in this news group is news
about Cold Fusion theorical advances ...

Instead there are zillions of discutions about methods, and
honesty and what not.

I for one, am willing to accept that the experimenters know what
they are doing...so rather then brow-beat them about that, could
we concentrate on trying to explain why/how they are getting 
their results both positive and negative.

That is what experiments are for right, to demonstrate things,
and narrow down possibilities.

For example, the finding of hellium ash, where there was none
before. Is proof enough for me that a nuclear reaction occured
(how is the question, is anyone gotten any closer to finding
 it out ?)

For example in regular fusion cyclotrons are used to contain
and heat the hydrogen. Is it possible that there are molecular 
level cyclotrons inside the metal in Cold Fusion ? Does the
molecular symetry allow for this ...

etc, I heard many theories, but the most likelly explanations
involve both the deuterium density inside the paladium and 
the paladium molecular matrix (with or without catalyst impurities)
somehow working together to cause fusion...

The impresion I get is that chemists are running the experiments,
when what is needed is physics people!!! for the momemt heating 
of the water prooves that something is happening but is secondary
to the study of the process (WHAT ELSE is happening ?)

Nobody seems to know or care !!!

Gil
andrade@devlpr.enet.dec.com
  

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenANDRADE cudfnGil cudlnAndrade cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.05 / james dolan /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: jdolan@math.ucr.edu (james dolan)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: 5 Feb 1996 09:04:54 -0800
Organization: fair play for neptune committee

dave oldridge writes:

-In article <Pine.HPP.3.91.960131174319.259A-100000@banting.candu.aecl.ca>,
-Eric Carruthers <carruthe@candu.aecl.ca> wrote:
-
->> :   in some way with the metals, with an effect akin to cold fusion.
-><snip>
->
->This sounds an awful lot like a chemical reaction.  What makes you think 
->there is any fusion going on?  Seen any high energy neutrons flying around?
-
-If the reported energy values for input and output are anywhere within
-an order of magnitude of their real values, then it's hard to see where
-a purely chemical phenomenon could produce them without also producing a
-LOT of chemical ash.



it's already been admitted that initial reports of the ceti demo at
anaheim mis-reported an energy output by more than an order of
magnitude (by reporting an eight-hour duration for an event that
actually lasted perhaps fifteen minutes at best).

i wouldn't bet too heavily against the possibility of another few
orders of magnitude worth of so far unacknowledged reporting errors.

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjdolan cudfnjames cudlndolan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.05 / Ted Holden /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: medved@access5.digex.net (Ted Holden)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: 5 Feb 1996 14:03:30 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA

71634.50@compuserve.com (Charles Bragg) writes:

>	
>but Teddy adds:

>>The heaviest hitters I keep up with in these areas are all telling me 
>>that cold fusion is for real, and that there is no reason why we should 
>>not shortly be driving cars which you fill with water every other year or 
>>so.   Imagine the reaction from OPEC, MOBIL, EXXON.....

>	Right. What drool. "Liar" is too kind a term.

>	You're a pimp for ignorance. 

Remember that, when you're driving the last gasoline-powered car in
your neighborhood at $20/gallon, and your neighbors are all whizzing
by you in their Ponz-Fleischman-mobiles.  


Ted Holden
medved@digex.com

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenmedved cudfnTed cudlnHolden cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.05 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: 5 Feb 1996 20:56:18 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <4er17a$5cf@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> prosim@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM
(Julian Brown) writes:
>In article <Pine.HPP.3.91.960131174319.259A-100000@banting.candu.aecl.ca>,
>Eric Carruthers  <carruthe@candu.aecl.ca> wrote:
>>On 30 Jan 1996, Publius (copied his own post)wrote:
>>> Publius (publius@gate.net) wrote:
>><snip>
>>> :  
>.....................  I think the jury is still
>out, the only thing that has been proven is that excess energy is present,
>but not what the process is..


You assume way too much.  Nobody has proven that excess energy is present.
Many people have proven that they are poor experimenters, and poor observers.
And there have been a lot of moving targets.  But proof of excess energy?
Give me a break!

Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
 -------------------------------------------------------
Any ideas or opinions expressed here do not necessarily
reflect the ideas or opinions of my employer.
 -------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.05 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Reconciling Magnum and PowerGen data
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reconciling Magnum and PowerGen data
Date: 5 Feb 1996 21:07:55 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <horst_bob-040296201812@horst_bob.mis.tandem.com> horst_bob@t
ndem.com (Robert Horst) writes:
>In reading about Mitchell Jones' Magnum experiments, it struck me that it
>is not impossible for both his results and the CETI PowerGen measurements
>to be correct.  Here is a possible explanation (maybe "farfetch" would be a
>better term) of how the two results could be reconciled. 
.....
...
..
>Assume that the CETI cell produces a phase change in a portion of the water
>in the output flow.  The water in this phase would be at a *lower* energy
>level than standard water.
............
.........
......
...
..


I have three possible explanations that are much simpler and more likely.

	1.  Fraud.
	2.  Incompetence.
	3.  Gullible observers.

Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
 -------------------------------------------------------
Any ideas or opinions expressed here do not necessarily
reflect the ideas or opinions of my employer.
 -------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.06 / A Plutonium /  David Schramm chimpanzee master John Chunko of Case Western 
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.fusion,sci.astro
Subject: David Schramm chimpanzee master John Chunko of Case Western 
Date: 6 Feb 1996 02:47:51 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <31143993.2D17@po.cwru.edu>
John Chunko <jdc14@po.cwru.edu> writes:

> Now while your chimpanzee master may at times give you tasks to 
> perform, such as running to the market for more bananas or learning
your ABC's, it is not in my interest to go running about

It used to be where CWRU did great science such as the Michelson
Interferometer.

Now we discuss the hideous false science of George Smoot who cannot
realize that he found no fluctuations. He only reached the limits of
the precision of his measuring devices. If I go out to measure the
length of a atom with a meter stick, obviouly there is no precision
there. Is there.

    SCHRAMM,  David Schramm

From SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, Oct 1994
--- quoting SA ---
Schramm is Louis Block Professor in the physical sciences department at
the University of Chicago. When he is not directing the Board on
Physics and Astronomy of the National Research Council, he can be found
flying his 1967 King Air.
--- end quoting ---

The first time I had read of Mr. Schramm was in Scientific American
much earlier than this article above. It was an SA article with a
picture of Mr. Hawking in his wheelchair over in Europe and how
everyone was deeply concerned that the Big Bang was kaput, a flop and
in danger because the Microwave Background Radiation was so uniform
that it disproves the Big Bang. And I remember from that article that
Mr. Schramm was making these very dumb comments words to the effect "we
can not give up the big bang because there is nothing else of a theory
to take its place." And the article went on and on of Mr. Schramm the
loyalist defender of the faith of the Big Bang.

Such a closed mind, a defender to the last of a sinking ship. This is
one of the worst character traits to have in order to be a good
scientist. Even if a mountain of evidence piles up against the Big
Bang, from Mr. Schramm's comments in that SA, I am confident that Mr.
Schramm will still proclaim dumb things such as for instance, the Big
Bang is in the best shape ever.

Now I know that Mr. George Smoot is well off because another article
said he plays the Stock Market, but why is Mr. Smoot making a crusade
over his pseudoscience? And was Mr. Schramm's pay allowing of him to
have a public airplane or was it his own private airplane and why is
not a Mercedes good enough? I know textbooks are moneyspinners,
regardless if the book is needed by the science world or not.

                 Author:  Riordan, Michael.
                    Title:  The shadows of creation : dark matter and
the structure of the universe / Michael
                               Riordan and David N. Schramm.

And it seems that Mr. Schramm is a frequent flyer in the major science
journals and in the common newspapers. It seems that Mr. Schramm is on
The New York Times index cards as one to consult for opinion. So that
we are never that far from another David Schramm opinion on science.

Ah, the uncreative, unoriginal, no new important science ideas, but
rather the defenders of the old, mindset in concrete, defend the ship
even as it is sinking.

There is a better theory than the Big Bang, David, it is called the One
Atom Totality Whole Universe. The universe is just one atom, and of
course it has atoms inside itself. Thus the cosmic microwave background
radiation was the alpha decay of the Uranium Atom Whole decayed into
our present Plutonium Atom Totality Universe. But you David, your mind
is so closed, you will never even listen to this. Eh?
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.06 / Horace Heffner /  Re: A Bose Condesate hypothesis for CF
     
Originally-From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Bose Condesate hypothesis for CF
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 05:52:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


>
>Originally-From: kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov (Matt Kennel)
[snip]
>
>We've gotten right to the crux of the misunderstanding about
>"overlapping" wavefunctions.
>
>The answer is:
>
>        Yes, all the 'overlapping thingons' have the same probability density
>        function in space, BUT THIS DOES NOT MEAN THEY OVERLAP!!
>
>        Why?  Because they're not in the same place AT THE SAME TIME.
>        The ground state will find their positions anticorrelated: if particle
>        A is "on the left" then particle B will be more likely to be "on
>        the right" if there is a repulsive interaction between them.
>
>        so rho(x) can be equal to rho(y) but still rho(x,y) can be
>        ZERO for ||x - y|| < R.
>
>
[snip]


Yes, I have seen this before.  This is just more of the wave-particle
interpretation.  Suppose for a moment that there exists no point like
particles.  The above statements then begin to look like just some kind of
dogma.  In most scenarios the calculations might end up the same from a
wavefunction collapse point of view, but the vocabulary and mental models,
the interpretation, and the derivation, might end up being different, and
the results might be different in special circumstances.

Most importantly, it appears you have automatically dismissed the notion
that at a sufficiently low temperature the waveforms can phase lock,
producing a single particle which will tend to collapse at a single point
when perturbed.  You offer no evidence to the contrary, either experimental
or theoretical.

Since the Weiman-Cornell experiment was conducted on an apparatus costing
less than $50,000 (an engineering miracle in it's own right IMHO), it seems
to me a worthwhile experiment to bombard a massive Bose condensate with a
particle beam to find the true answer.  If only one of the many QM
interpretations could be eliminated, it would be worthwhile.

Graduate students take note!


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


cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.05 / bert hubert /  Re: Rest mass of photon = neutrino MEV/ neutron MEV
     
Originally-From: ahu@bigtower.et.tudelft.nl (bert hubert)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rest mass of photon = neutrino MEV/ neutron MEV
Date: 5 Feb 1996 22:46:31 +0100
Organization: DarkStreet 9a

Archimedes Plutonium (Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:

: pulsars yet noone knows what pulsars are. So I wanted to do better. If
: the photon has a  rest mass, and I am confident it does, then there

For all *practical* purposes, an electron has mass. m=hf/c^2. This gives
correct results for its momentum, and its energy, according to E=mc^2.
However, according to SR, this is nonsense, E!=mc^2.

--
Phone: +31-15-(2)133685 / Donkerstraat 9a, 2611TE, Delft, The Netherlands
 
legal notice: Microsoft Network is prohibited from redistributing this work
in any form, in whole or in part without a license. License to distribute
this work is available to Microsoft at $499. Transmission without permission
constitutes an agreement to these terms.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenahu cudfnbert cudlnhubert cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.06 / Bradley Sherman /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: bks@netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 06:06:38 GMT
Organization: Remote Fusion Reactor Reverse Entropy Associates

In article <ZFNLBcz.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>       ... The said the same thing when B. Marshall showed that stomach
>ulcers are caused by bacteria, so ulcers can be cured in a few weeks with
>simple antibiotics. It took the establishment 15 years to believe that,
>even though Marshall presented irrefutable evidence 15 years ago. Look
...

Marshall's work was published in _Lancet_, June 16, 1984.
My guess is that it was the pharmaceutical companies, not
the scientific establishment, that prevented his work from
being more widely accepted.  At any rate, experiments
regarding chronic diseases in humans take years to complete
by their very nature.

    --bks

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenbks cudfnBradley cudlnSherman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.06 / John Logajan /  Re: Please halp me catch up!
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Please halp me catch up!
Date: 6 Feb 1996 06:49:34 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

MARSHALL DUDLEY (mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com) wrote:
: "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?
:  
: As far as I know the issue is still unresolved.  For the most part discussions
: of the Griggs device have been abandoned here since most participants are more
: interested in discussing (for or against) the CETI device being reported as
: generating up to 400,000% excess, compared with the Griggs 10 to 40% excess.

Two independent groups are allegedly still looking at the Griggs device,
NASA and Georgia Tech.  I say allegedly because I haven't confirmed this
information.


--
 - 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:
cuddy6 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.06 / Bradley Sherman /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: bks@netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 06:46:34 GMT
Organization: Remote Fusion Reactor Reverse Entropy Associates

In article <bksDMCB32.I5A@netcom.com>,
Bradley K. Sherman <bks@netcom.com> wrote:
...
>Six years from crackpot to celebrity.  And I think that crackpot
>might be overstating it in light of the foundation laid by Hertz.
...

And James Clerk Maxwell, of course.  I also forgot to mention
that Marconi received a Nobel in 1909, only 15 years after
his first home experiment --John Logajan and Mitchell Jones, 
take heart!

    --bks

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenbks cudfnBradley cudlnSherman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.06 / Bradley Sherman /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: bks@netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 05:54:38 GMT
Organization: Remote Fusion Reactor Reverse Entropy Associates

In article <ZFNLBcz.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
...
>You should read the history of the events. The skeptical ones all did say
>that Marconi was a crackpot. They went on saying it for years. They
...

Marconi was born in 1874 and died in 1937.  He was strongly
influenced by the electromagnetic wave experiments of H. Hertz.
He began experimenting with his obsession, wireless telegraphy,
in 1894.  He offered his work to the Italian government in
1894 or 1895 and was refused.  He moved to London in 1896 where
he got financial backing and was granted a patent.  His system
was in widespread use by 1900.  He completely won the day in
1901 with his most famous experiment, receiving a signal
sent from Cornwall, England in St. John's, Newfoundland.

Six years from crackpot to celebrity.  And I think that crackpot
might be overstating it in light of the foundation laid by Hertz.

    --bks

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenbks cudfnBradley cudlnSherman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.06 /  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: Tue, 6 Feb 96 00:05:15 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

John Skingley <john@circlesw.demon.co.uk> writes:
 
>There may have been sufficient physics already known to make the inference 
>that there must be a conducting layer in the atmosphere, but supposing there
>hadn't been. The sceptical ones would presumably have said that Marconi was
>a crackpot.
 
You should read the history of the events. The skeptical ones all did say
that Marconi was a crackpot. They went on saying it for years. They
always do. The said the same thing when B. Marshall showed that stomach
ulcers are caused by bacteria, so ulcers can be cured in a few weeks with
simple antibiotics. It took the establishment 15 years to believe that,
even though Marshall presented irrefutable evidence 15 years ago. Look
at the history of any controversial breakthrough in science or technology.
Whenever any vested interest is threatened, the "skeptics" come out in
force, attack the discovery and claim that the discoverer is a crackpot.
Marconi threatened the undersea cable companies; Marshall threatens the
drug companies, so they must be attacked. Cold fusion, of course,
threatens nearly everyone, starting with the hot fusion program. That is
why these hysterical attacks against it will continue until the last
hot fusion scientist is flat broke and cannot pay his e-mail bill.
 
By the way, the fellow who predicted the ionosphere was O. Heaviside. He
*was* a crackpot by any normal standard. A genius too.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.06 / Stacy Prowell /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: sprowell@cs.utk.edu (Stacy Prowell)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: 06 Feb 1996 07:26:28 GMT
Organization: Software Quality Research Laboratory

In article <4eqoac$27ji@news.gate.net> publius@gate.net (Publius) writes:
[...]
>   What do you call the "hot fusion" project - other than
>   a boondoggle.  PUBLIUS

Oh, I know this one!  Let me see... ah... research!  Who should pay
the bill for this research is an entirely different matter.

--

-- Stacy J. Prowell
   http://www.cs.utk.edu/~sprowell

"No, I have no desire for riches.  Honest poverty and a
 conscience torpid through virtuous inaction are more to
 me than corner lots and praise." - Mark Twain
                                    "A Cat-Tale"
cudkeys:
cuddy06 cudensprowell cudfnStacy cudlnProwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.05 / Robert Horst /  Re: Horst Report on CF Day '96
     
Originally-From: horst_bob@tandem.com (Robert Horst)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Horst Report on CF Day '96
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 1996 23:04:46 +0100
Organization: Tandem Computers

In article <960205113143_214557723@mail02.mail.aol.com>, Tstolper@aol.com
wrote:
 
> I attended the 1995 event, which was well worth the trip from Connecticut to
> Cambridge, Mass., and am sorry to have missed the 1996 event, which sounds
> even more interesting.  I was looking forward to reading reports from those
> who did attend.  
> 
> Last year, several people posted reports within a week of the event.  So far
> this year, you are the only one to post a report on the 1996 event.  Do you
> know of anyone else who would be willing to post a report, or send it by
> email?
 
I imagine that there will be reports in Infinite Energy and Fusion facts. 
Maybe your message will inspire others to post.  There were many s.p.f'ers
there.

> Was Cold Fusion Day 1996 held at the Marriott on Kendall Square, or was the
> venue changed?

It was at the Mariott.  But they did not call it Cold Fusion Day this time.
 It was the Cold Fusion/New Energy Symposium.  (In case the excess heat
turns out to be unrelated to fusion?)
 
> The list of speakers was excellent, every one knowledgeable about the field,
> or their part of it, as in the case of Griggs.  Do you know why the list of
> speakers wasn't posted beforehand on sci.physics.fusion?
 
I think the agenda was changing up until the last minute.  Jed or Gene
could tell you for sure.

> Mitchell Swartz, one of the speakers, is a leading independent
> experimentalist in the field.  What did he have to say?
 
Sorry but I did not get many notes on his talk.  Much of his talk was
tutorial in nature. 

> Christopher Tinsley is one of the leading reporters in the field.  Did he
> report any conclusions about the Potapov device, which he has investigated.

He still has no final conclusion about Potapov, but clearly is not
optimistic about it.  He showed video from his Russian trip that showed how
difficult it would have been to get conclusive results under those
conditions.

> Did Jed Rothwell add to his postings here about the Patterson cell?

He showed photos of used beads, and talked some more about their business
practices which he does not like.  They used to be quite open, but have
turned very uncooperative now that they have corporate backing. He did not
present too much that has not been discussed here.

> Did Shkedi or any of the other skeptics at Bose attend?
 
I did not speak with anyone that seemed to be (or admit to being) a skeptic
(in the s.p.f sense).  There were many who were skeptical of theories, over
unity motors, etc., but no one who thought CETI was some grand conspiracy. 
In general, questions were polite and there was little controversy.

> Did Keith Johnson say anything about experimental work by the people he
> knows?

His talk was mostly about his theory, and he did not discuss much
experimental work.  He also showed clips of the new CF movie "Excess Heat"
that will be out next summer.  His goal in working on the movie was both to
educate the public about CF and to entertain.  I can't wait to see it.
 
> Did anyone associated with CETI attend?  (Last year, Jim Reding himself was
> there.)

Unfortunately, no one from CETI was there.  But they showed a movie of
Cravens at SOFE and a CETI video.  They were both very interesting and
convincing.
 
-- Bob Horst
cudkeys:
cuddy05 cudenhorst_bob cudfnRobert cudlnHorst cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.06 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 02:49:13 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <ant021100f7fKksR@circlesw.demon.co.uk>, John Skingley
<john@circlesw.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <21cenlogic-0102961420120001@austin-2-8.i-link.net>, Mitchell Jones
> <mailto:21cenlogic@i-link.net> wrote:
> > 
> >  ******************
> >  Magnum 350 Run #11
> > 
> > The question is: should I now call an end to this, and declare the Power
> > Gen demo a washout, or not? The answer depends on whether I can think of
> > any other reasonable things to try. In other words, of the various
> > differences that admittedly still remain between my experimental setup and
> > that at Power Gen, are there any that are likely to be significant? Well,
> > I could get rid of my 60 watt box fan, and replace it with a 3.5 watt
> > muffin fan like that used by Cravens at Power Gen. However, that seems
> > silly, because what I am looking for here is a change that will
> > simultaneously make my system more like Craven's *and* increase the heat
> > dissipation capacity of my system. Going to a smaller fan, obviously, will
> > *decrease* the heat dissipation capacity of my system. 
> 
> Surely this is wrong. The heat from your fan, 60 watts worth, is being blown
> at your tubing. i.e. the fan is warming the air which is doing the cooling.
> A 3.5 watt fan is heating the air much less.  Try it!

***{John, you are certainly correct in thinking that the entire 60 watts
consumed by the fan is converted to heat in the air. However, very little
of that heat is transferred to the fluid and, more importantly, *even if
we were to falsely assume that every bit of it is imparted to the fluid,
it would come nowhere near accounting for the result*. Remember: at Power
Gen, it was reported that when the cell imparted 469 watts of heat to the
fluid at a 1 liter/min flow rate, the resulting equilibrium temperature of
the reservoir was a mere 16 degrees C above ambient. In my runs, with the
heat cell imparting 458 watts to the fluid and the same flow rate, I am
getting equilibrium temperatures that are almost 3 times as high. I really
don't think it is possible to explain that by pointing to the tiny amount
of heat imparted to the fluid by my fan. --Mitchell Jones}***
 
> 
> ---------------------------
> Regards,  John.
> P.O. Box 36, BODMIN, PL30 4YY, U.K. Tel/Fax: +44 1208 850790

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy06 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.06 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 03:15:03 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <4et10r$nlt@nuntius.u-net.net>, david@cgaski.u-net.com (David
Gaskill) wrote:

> In message <21cenlogic-0102961420120001@austin-2-8.i-link.net> -
21cenlogic@i-l
> ink.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:
> 
>  ******************
>  Magnum 350 Run #11
> 
> <large snip to save bandwidth>
> 
> >--perhaps the buildup of lithium sulfate (or some reaction product
therefrom) acted
> >as a conductivity modifier, thereby leading to the Power Gen result.
> >However far-fetched this possibility my seem to those who are eager to
> >dismiss the Power Gen result, I find it plausible enough to investigate.
> >This is far too important a matter to cavalierly toss aside. 
> 
> I admire your tenacity  and look forward to reading  the results with 
> lithium sulphate. Maybe you would agree that if this causes the necessary 
> dramatic modification of the thermal conductivity of the Tygon it would 
> be nearly as difficult  to explain as CF itself.

***{Perhaps not. As I noted in another post, in my runs with distilled
water and tap water, a population of millions of tiny bubbles can be seen
to build up on the inner walls of the plastic tubing as the run
progresses. These bubbles are not much bigger than salt grains, and they
clearly have an insulating effect on the inside of the tubing--which
means: they reduce its thermal conductivity. I haven't yet investigated
the solubility of Li2SO4 in distilled water, but it is possible that a one
molar solution of the stuff would markedly reduce the solubility of air in
the water. If so, then the amount of air forced out of the solution as the
temperature rises would also be reduced, perhaps drastically, and the
impairment of the thermal conductivity of the tubing by the bubbles would
be less. This effect has the potential to explain the Power Gen results. I
will not know whether it does, of course, until I test it. --Mitchell
Jones}***
   
>   
> As I posted earlier there is another possible explanation of the original 
> results.
> 
>   I do not know to this day how the magician  made the girl 
>   disappear from the cabinet after I had, at his invitation, 
>   carefully inspected the whole setup. I would simply comment 
>   that this would seem to be a great deal more difficult to 
>   achieve than causing a quantity of water to appear 
>   warmer than conventional physics might lead you to believe it 
>   should be. 
>  
> In the light of your work it might be thought that this is looking 
> increasingly worthy of consideration.

***{Eventually, it may become appropraiate to discuss such
interpretations. At the moment, however, I am considerably more reluctant
to focus on such things than I was at the beginning, because the more I
learn about this equipment, the more nuances I discover. Testing the Power
Gen claims is not, by any means, as simple as it appears from an
outsider's perspective. Jed has repeatedly claimed that CF results can
only be achieved by persons "skilled in the art," and as I have worked
with this equipment, I have come to appreciate in a very direct and
personal way exactly what that means. Every time I decide I have laid this
issue to rest, other possibilities arise, and they frequently are far more
plausible than those I thought of in my initial state of ignorance. Bottom
line: I don't know when, if ever, it will become appropriate to focus the
discussion on possibilities of fraud, but we most certainly haven't
reached that point yet. --Mitchell Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy06 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.05 / Joe Champion /  PRECIOUS METALS NOW BEING PRODUCED SYNTHETICALLY!
     
Originally-From: discpub@netzone.com (Joe Champion)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: PRECIOUS METALS NOW BEING PRODUCED SYNTHETICALLY!
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 20:56:47 MST
Organization: Netzone

PRECIOUS METALS NOW BEING PRODUCED SYNTHETICALLY!

Yes it's true.   For additional information come to:

	http://www.netzone.com/~discpub

Tradational mining will soon become a thing of the past.

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudendiscpub cudfnJoe cudlnChampion cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.05 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Please halp me catch up!
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Please halp me catch up!
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 1996 15:36 -0500 (EST)

"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?
 
As far as I know the issue is still unresolved.  For the most part discussions
of the Griggs device have been abandoned here since most participants are more
interested in discussing (for or against) the CETI device being reported as
generating up to 400,000% excess, compared with the Griggs 10 to 40% excess.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy05 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.06 / Richard Schultz /  Re: The Amazing Jed seeks the truth. NOT
     
Originally-From: schultr@ashur.cc.biu.ac.il (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Amazing Jed seeks the truth. NOT
Date: 6 Feb 1996 12:06:55 GMT
Organization: Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel.

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

: 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. 

No, the skeptics, who tend to watch all of your antics with amusement,
note that the report that claimed 1300 watts for two hours, which appears
under your name, is still available -- unchanged -- as of this writing
(6 Feb 1996) at the "Cold Fusion Technology Homepage."

(Interested parties can check this out at 
http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/rei/CFdir/break01.html).

One would think that if you had any sort of commitment to honesty, this
page would have been amended or removed as soon as the error was brought
to your attention.

-----
Richard Schultz                              schultr@ashur.cc.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry                      tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel       fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"P&F are getting so much heat that you hardly need any calorimetry at all."
               --Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 19 Jul 1992
"The palladium based systems are a useless dead end. Who cares about them?"
               --Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 10 Dec 1992
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenschultr cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.06 / John Logajan /  Re: The Amazing Jed seeks the truth. NOT
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Amazing Jed seeks the truth. NOT
Date: 6 Feb 1996 18:51:54 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Richard Schultz (schultr@ashur.cc.biu.ac.il) wrote:
: One would think that if you had any sort of commitment to honesty, this
: page would have been amended or removed as soon as the error was brought
: to your attention.

By this logic, then, Jed is commited to honesty because he has indeed
previously asked me to update his report on my web page -- I just haven't
gotten around to it.

--
 - 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:
cuddy6 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.06 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 1996 15:02 -0500 (EST)

sprowell@cs.utk.edu (Stacy Prowell) writes:
 
-> Oh, I know this one!  Let me see... ah... research!  Who should pay
-> the bill for this research is an entirely different matter.
 
That is a very good point.  Who pays for research should be who will benefit
from the research.  For hot fusion, the devices must be large, built at a cost
of millions of dollars.  The benefituaries of this, if they ever get it to
work, would be the utilities.  Thus the utilities should be who foot the bills.
 
On the other hand, cold fusion devices, if they ever get them to a commercial
stage, will be small and inexpensive.  The group that would benefit from this
is the consumer, or basically everyone.  Thus this research should be funded by
the government, and of course any energy companies that want to still be in
business if it becomes a commercial success.
 
That the government is funding research that will help big business and
attempting to halt research (ie. no funding, and no patents issued) that would
benefit the average man says a lot.
 
Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy06 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.06 / David Gaskill /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: David Gaskill <david@cgaski.u-net.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 12:17:02 GMT
Organization: U-NET limited

 
 
> > I admire your tenacity  and look forward to reading  the results with   
> > lithium sulphate. Maybe you would agree that if this causes the   
necessary   
> > dramatic modification of the thermal conductivity of the Tygon it would   
> > be nearly as difficult  to explain as CF itself.  
>    
> ***{Perhaps not. As I noted in another post, in my runs with distilled  
> water and tap water, a population of millions of tiny bubbles can be seen  
> to build up on the inner walls of the plastic tubing as the run  
> progresses. These bubbles are not much bigger than salt grains, and they  
> clearly have an insulating effect on the inside of the tubing--which  
> means: they reduce its thermal conductivity. I haven't yet investigated  
> the solubility of Li2SO4 in distilled water, but it is possible that a   
one  
> molar solution of the stuff would markedly reduce the solubility of air   
in  
> the water. If so, then the amount of air forced out of the solution as   
the  
> temperature rises would also be reduced, perhaps drastically, and the  
> impairment of the thermal conductivity of the tubing by the bubbles would  
> be less. This effect has the potential to explain the Power Gen results.   
I  
> will not know whether it does, of course, until I test it. --Mitchell  
> Jones}*** 
 
While I am aware that dissolving many salts  in concentrations of about 1   
molar does not significantly reduce the solubility of oxygen or nitrogen in   
the resulting solution it is of course possible that lithiumium sulphate   
does have this property. It would however seem to be very serendipitous if   
the same salt that mediates the energy production process also reduces the   
solubility of gasses.   
  
I am sure however that in these circumstances an ounce of experiment is   
worth a ton of theory and I am very pleased that you are undertaking the   
necessary work and very much look forward to reading your further results.  
 
> Testing the Power  
> Gen claims is not, by any means, as simple as it appears from an  
> outsider's perspective. Jed has repeatedly claimed that CF results can  
> only be achieved by persons "skilled in the art," and as I have worked  
> with this equipment, I have come to appreciate in a very direct and  
> personal way exactly what that means. Every time I decide I have laid   
this  
> issue to rest, other possibilities arise, and they frequently are far   
more  
> plausible than those I thought of in my initial state of ignorance. 
 
If, as is appearing increasingly likely, you are unable to replicate the   
apparent power dissipation capability of the CETI demonstration after all   
possibilities have been explored, it seems to me that we are left with two   
possibilities.   
  
(1) The CETI cell causes a transitory modification of the specific heat of   
water.   
  
(2) Things were not as they appeared to be at the demonstration.   
  
There does seem to be circumstancial  evidence supporting the latter   
conclusion. For example:   
  
(1) There is no peer reviewed publication of verification of the CETI   
claims by a reputable body.   
  
(2) The only published work by a properly funded and reputable organisation   
which attempted to replicate the results was entirely negative.   
  
(3) Public demonstrations, using "Heath Robinson" apparatus and claims that   
these demonstrations constituted a "smoke screen".   
  
(4) Your work so far.   
  
 
David 


cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudendavid cudfnDavid cudlnGaskill cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.06 / Horace Heffner /  Do 1450 MeV protons produce neutrons?
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Do 1450 MeV protons produce neutrons?
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 11:36:31 -0900
Organization: none

Professor Elio Conte's Theory of Biquaternion Quantum Mechanics predicts a
bound state resulting from a 1 fm apprach of an 800 KeV electron to a
stationary proton.  It seems to me, since all motion is relative, a
similar event should occur if a stationary electron is approched by a
proton with the same velocity as an 800 KeV electron.  Since the ratio of
Mp/Me is constant, even when the two masses are adjusted for relativistic
effects at a specific velocity, the proton at an 800 KeV electron's
velocity would have an energy of 1470 MeV.

Is anyone aware of any solid tagets bombarded with 1470 MeV protons
producing neutrons or any other anomalous effects possibly attributable to
such a binding in a peak near 1470 MeV?

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

cudkeys:
cuddy06 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.06 / John Skingley /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: John Skingley <john@circlesw.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 19:12:53 +0000 (GMT)

In article <bksDMCBn2.J7H@netcom.com>, Bradley K. Sherman
<mailto:bks@netcom.com> wrote:
> 
> In article <ZFNLBcz.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
> >       ... The said the same thing when B. Marshall showed that stomach
> >ulcers are caused by bacteria, so ulcers can be cured in a few weeks with
> >simple antibiotics. It took the establishment 15 years to believe that,
> >even though Marshall presented irrefutable evidence 15 years ago. Look
> ....
> 
> Marshall's work was published in _Lancet_, June 16, 1984.
> My guess is that it was the pharmaceutical companies, not
> the scientific establishment, that prevented his work from
> being more widely accepted.  
[snip]
>     --bks

OK, only about 12 years!

I would have thought that the pharmaceutical companies would have been
only too pleased to sell the antibiotics!

The point is still valid however you argue it.
 --------------------------
Regards,  John.
P.O. Box 36, BODMIN, PL30 4YY, U.K. Tel/Fax: +44 1208 850790

cudkeys:
cuddy06 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnSkingley cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.06 / John Skingley /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: John Skingley <john@circlesw.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 17:39:23 +0000 (GMT)

In article <21cenlogic-0602960249130001@austin-1-6.i-link.net>, Mitchell Jones
<mailto:21cenlogic@i-link.net> wrote:
> 
> In article <ant021100f7fKksR@circlesw.demon.co.uk>, John Skingley
> <john@circlesw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> > In article <21cenlogic-0102961420120001@austin-2-8.i-link.net>, Mitchell Jones
> > <mailto:21cenlogic@i-link.net> wrote:
> > > 
> > >  ******************
> > >  Magnum 350 Run #11
> > > 
> > > The question is: should I now call an end to this, and declare the Power
> > > Gen demo a washout, or not? 
[snip]
> > > I could get rid of my 60 watt box fan, and replace it with a 3.5 watt
> > > muffin fan like that used by Cravens at Power Gen.
[snip] 
> > Surely this is wrong. The heat from your fan, 60 watts worth, is being blown
> > at your tubing. i.e. the fan is warming the air which is doing the cooling.
> > A 3.5 watt fan is heating the air much less.  Try it!
> 
> ***{John, you are certainly correct in thinking that the entire 60 watts
> consumed by the fan is converted to heat in the air. However, very little
> of that heat is transferred to the fluid and, more importantly, *even if
> we were to falsely assume that every bit of it is imparted to the fluid,
> it would come nowhere near accounting for the result*. Remember: at Power
> Gen, it was reported that when the cell imparted 469 watts of heat to the
> fluid at a 1 liter/min flow rate, the resulting equilibrium temperature of
> the reservoir was a mere 16 degrees C above ambient. In my runs, with the
> heat cell imparting 458 watts to the fluid and the same flow rate, I am
> getting equilibrium temperatures that are almost 3 times as high. I really
> don't think it is possible to explain that by pointing to the tiny amount
> of heat imparted to the fluid by my fan. --Mitchell Jones}***
>  
Thanks for replying Mitchell, I have been following your experiments with 
interest.

OK, I hear what you say, we are talking about a very worse case change of ~10%
of the energy. but I'm not sure that this analysis is correct.

The cooling effect of the fan on the tubing will depend on conduction through
the plastic wall. This will be proportional to the temperature difference
across it, i.e. the difference between the water and the air temperatures.
Heat flowing through the wall will heat up the air, reducing the temperature
differnce and slow the heat flow. So we blow the air away to keep the outside
temperature low.

But the fan only has to heat the air a little to reduce this temperature
difference a lot. If it raised it 8 degs, when the water was at 16 above
ambient (al la P.D. demo), it would halve the cooling effect!  

And there is no connection between the power in the cell, and the power of the 
motor as far as their heating effects are concerned. The cell is heating water
at one flow rate, the fan is heating air at another.

I think you need to measure the temperature of the air just before it passes 
over the tubing, and see what arrangment keeps this the coolest. It is this
temperature which is effectively your ambient, as far as the cell is concerned.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy06 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnSkingley cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.06 / John Skingley /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: John Skingley <john@circlesw.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 19:16:40 +0000 (GMT)

In article <ZFNLBcz.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, mailto:jedrothwell@delphi.com
wrote:
> 
> John Skingley <john@circlesw.demon.co.uk> writes:
>  
> >There may have been sufficient physics already known to make the inference 
> >that there must be a conducting layer in the atmosphere, but supposing there
> >hadn't been. The sceptical ones would presumably have said that Marconi was
> >a crackpot.
>  
> You should read the history of the events. The skeptical ones all did say
> that Marconi was a crackpot. They went on saying it for years. They
> always do. The said the same thing when B. Marshall showed that stomach
> ulcers are caused by bacteria, so ulcers can be cured in a few weeks with
> simple antibiotics. It took the establishment 15 years to believe that,
> even though Marshall presented irrefutable evidence 15 years ago. Look
> at the history of any controversial breakthrough in science or technology.
> Whenever any vested interest is threatened, the "skeptics" come out in
> force, attack the discovery and claim that the discoverer is a crackpot.
> Marconi threatened the undersea cable companies; Marshall threatens the
> drug companies, so they must be attacked. Cold fusion, of course,
> threatens nearly everyone, starting with the hot fusion program. That is
> why these hysterical attacks against it will continue until the last
> hot fusion scientist is flat broke and cannot pay his e-mail bill.
>  
> By the way, the fellow who predicted the ionosphere was O. Heaviside. He
> *was* a crackpot by any normal standard. A genius too.
>  
> - Jed

You put it so much better than I could!  Thanks for your support Jed.
Perhaps we should all wear the tag 'crackpot' with pride!
 --------------------------
Regards,  John.
P.O. Box 36, BODMIN, PL30 4YY, U.K. Tel/Fax: +44 1208 850790

cudkeys:
cuddy06 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnSkingley cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.06 / 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: Tue, 06 Feb 96 23:33:29 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

In article <4f880a$rd@stratus.skypoint.net>,
   jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) wrote:
->Richard Schultz (schultr@ashur.cc.biu.ac.il) wrote:
->: One would think that if you had any sort of commitment to honesty, this
->: page would have been amended or removed as soon as the error was brought
->: to your attention.
->
->By this logic, then, Jed is commited to honesty because he has indeed
->previously asked me to update his report on my web page -- I just haven't
->gotten around to it.
->

Using the words Jed and honesty in the same sentence is an oxymoron. Remember 
that Jed swore that he never reported anything that he did not personally 
verify. So much for honesty. Jed is beyond rehabilitation.
cudkeys:
cuddy06 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.06 / John Skingley /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: John Skingley <john@circlesw.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 19:22:39 +0000 (GMT)

In article <bksDMCB32.I5A@netcom.com>, Bradley K. Sherman
<mailto:bks@netcom.com> wrote:
> 
> In article <ZFNLBcz.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
> ....
> >You should read the history of the events. The skeptical ones all did say
> >that Marconi was a crackpot. They went on saying it for years. They
> ....
> 
> Marconi was born in 1874 and died in 1937.  He was strongly
> influenced by the electromagnetic wave experiments of H. Hertz.
> He began experimenting with his obsession, wireless telegraphy,
> in 1894.  He offered his work to the Italian government in
> 1894 or 1895 and was refused.  He moved to London in 1896 where
> he got financial backing and was granted a patent.  His system
> was in widespread use by 1900.  He completely won the day in
> 1901 with his most famous experiment, receiving a signal
> sent from Cornwall, England in St. John's, Newfoundland.
> 
> Six years from crackpot to celebrity.  And I think that crackpot
> might be overstating it in light of the foundation laid by Hertz.
> 
>     --bks

We've always been more open minded here in England, and I think our
inventive history has been the better for it.
(Sorry, couldn't resist that one! :-)
 --------------------------

John Skingley.
Bodmin
CORNWALL
England.

cudkeys:
cuddy06 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnSkingley cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.06 / John Skingley /  Re: Reconciling Magnum and PowerGen data
     
Originally-From: John Skingley <john@circlesw.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reconciling Magnum and PowerGen data
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 19:27:49 +0000 (GMT)

In article <4f5rjb$6hb@tekadm1.cse.tek.com>, Arnie Frisch
<mailto:arnief@wu.cse.tek.com> wrote:
> 
> In article <horst_bob-040296201812@horst_bob.mis.tandem.com> horst_bob@tandem.com (Rob
> ert Horst) writes:
> >In reading about Mitchell Jones' Magnum experiments, it struck me that it
> >is not impossible for both his results and the CETI PowerGen measurements
> >to be correct.  Here is a possible explanation (maybe "farfetch" would be a
> >better term) of how the two results could be reconciled. 
> ......
> >Assume that the CETI cell produces a phase change in a portion of the water
> >in the output flow.  The water in this phase would be at a *lower* energy
> >level than standard water.
> .............
> I have three possible explanations that are much simpler and more likely.
> 
> 1.  Fraud.
> 2.  Incompetence.
> 3.  Gullible observers.

Surely 1 and 3 are the same.

And if someone can produce excess heat by in competence, I wonder what they could
do if they knew what they were doing?  ;-)

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

Probably just as well!     ;-)
 --------------------------
Regards,  John.
P.O. Box 36, BODMIN, PL30 4YY, U.K. Tel/Fax: +44 1208 850790

cudkeys:
cuddy06 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnSkingley cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.06 / MICKEY SCHMIDT /  Jupiter Low Helium Content
     
Originally-From: SCHMIDTMD%CWISP@pcmail.usafa.af.mil (MICKEY D. SCHMIDT)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jupiter Low Helium Content
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 23:32:40 GMT
Organization: United States Air Force Academy

Now that the Galileo probe results (preliminary) have indicated that Jupiter 
has less Helium than was believed. Will this fact cause a reestimation of 
the age of the sun?  Or will we now have to assume that Jupiter cooled 
faster than we thought so that helium is now "condensing" and flowing 
toward the core?  

If I recall correctly we used to compare the amount of Helium in the Sun 
spectrum to the amount of Helium we suspected in the Jovian atmosphere as a 
test of how long fusion has been going on in the sun. We think we know how 
fast the sun produces energy and the helium by-product. Thus by looking for 
the "excess" helium in the sun we get the suns age.

On the otherhand, if Jupiter's helium is now falling to the center of the 
planet in a last stage of differentiation how did it cool so fast?  

I will appreciate any discussion on this topic.

Mickey D. Schmidt   [Zowie!!! Look at that E-mail address!]
E-mail address: schmidtmd%34edg%usafa@34trwmail.usafa.af.mil
        #################################################
        # This content in no way relfects the opinions, #
        #  standards or policies of the United States   #
        #    Air Force, The Air Force Acdemy or the     #
        #           United States Govenment.            #
        #################################################                   
                   ...
                .//    .              Phone (719) 472-2779
               .///     .             FAX   (719) 472-4281
        _______.////____._______      Snail Mail:
       /    =================   \       34 ES/CEMM
     /       ======   ======      \     2120 Cadet Drive
   /_______======   ======__________\   USAF Academy, CO
   CENTER FOR EDUCATIONAL MULTIMEDIA                 80840
        USAF ACADEMY PLANETARIUM
   
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenCWISP cudfnMICKEY cudlnSCHMIDT cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.06 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Please halp me catch up!
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Please halp me catch up!
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 1996 15:21 -0500 (EST)

jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
 
-> 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.
 
Are there any papers published by any of these three agencies confirming the
excess?
 
Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy06 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.06 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 1996 15:15 -0500 (EST)

71634.50@compuserve.com (Charles Bragg) writes:
 
->         Publius is a lesson to us all. There will always be people who buy
-> gold mines over the phone.
 
So?  I bought some gold mine stock in the late 80's over the phone, and made
several thousand dollars on it.  I wish I had held on to it, as it is worth
more than ever now.  Is this suppose to be bad?
 
-> There will always be people who see blue
-> helmets and black helicopters. There isn't much one can do for them.
 
I beg you a pardon?  What on earth are you talking about?  My son has a blue
bicycle helmet, and I can see it, and I have seen, and in fact videotaped and
photographed, black helicopters many, many times.  I have even seen them parked
at the airport. They are military aircraft. Are you saying that there is a
segment of the population that is unable to see ordinary everyday objects?  If
so, I would say they are the ones that need help.
 
Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy06 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Feb  7 04:37:03 EST 1996
------------------------------
