1996.02.09 / 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: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 00:54:30 GMT
Organization: U-NET limited

Thanks for your reasoned and courteous response. I shall try and follow   
your example. 
 
> 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.  
>    
> ***{Probability: zero. --MJ}***  
>      
> >     
> > (2) Things were not as they appeared to be at the demonstration.  
>    
> ***{By this, I assume that you refer to your earlier "magic tricks"  
> allusion. 
 
 Yes, but I also intended it to include some of the alternative   
explanations for the apparent discrepancy between the measured power   
generation and the dissipation  capability of the apparatus.  
 
> Well, my failure to get  
> the reported heat dissipation could be due to errors that I have made 
 
I very much doubt it. It would seem that you are carrying out what is   
essentially a simple heat transfer experiment with a care and attention to   
detail which was quite probably lacking in the original CETI demonstration.   
In any case the discrepancy, barring effects from the lithium sulphate, is   
just too large to be due to experimental error on your part. 
 
To quote from your follow up posting:  
 
>For example, my understanding is that the flow from 
>the pump outlet was split into two branches, A and B,that the sequence of 
>devices on each branch was: control valve, cell, stopcock, and that the 
>two branches were then merged back together. The merged flow then 
>proceeded through the cooling coils and returned to the pump reservoir. To 
>measure the flow rate through the experimental cell, Jed opened the 
>stopcock downstream from it and measured the time required for the flow to 
>fill a beaker. The obvious problem with such a procedure is that 
>electrolyte would not merely flow from the experimental cell, but would 
>also flow from the control cell, past the merge point, and backwards to 
>the stopcock and into the beaker. As a consequence, the beaker would fill 
>faster than would have been the case if only flow through the experimental 
>cell were measured. In addition, the drop in backpressure which would 
>result from opening the stopcock would also speed up the flow. Result: the 
>measured flow rate would be higher than the actual flow rate through the 
>experimental cell, and the calculated power production would be higher 
 
It is my understanding that this point has already been raised and that Jed   
has asserted that he took precautions to prevent this type of error. I have   
searched unsuccessfully in my archive for the reference. Perhaps Jed would   
like to confirm or refute my recollection.  
 
> > (1) There is no peer reviewed publication of verification of the CETI     
> > claims by a reputable body.  
>    
> ***{Peer review, all too often, is a disguised form of censorship. Be  
> thankful that innovators still have ways to get around it. --Mitchell  
> Jones}*** 
 
I agree it has happened. But in the vast majority of cases the procedure   
acts to prevent the publication of repetitive, incompetent or poorly     
constructed research projects. A better method has not yet been devised of   
preserving the reputation and integrity of leading journals and preventing   
them being swamped by worthless papers.  
 
> > (2) The only published work by a properly funded and reputable   
organisation     
> > which attempted to replicate the results was entirely negative.  
>    
> ***{I am not sure what you mean by "properly funded and reputable," but  
> all too often such words are used to describe mainstream,  
> establishmentarian groups which are obsessed with fitting in. If so, then  
> I can only note that such groups will be the very last to pronounce  
> favorably on this technology, even if it is sound. 
 
I don't see why such groups organisations would wish to "rubbish" a process   
that they have just spent considerable time and money investigating. I know   
there is always the conspiracy theory but experience has shown that it is   
both difficult and risky for a Corporation of any size to indulge in such   
practices. It's just too difficult, when many individuals have been   
involved in the work, to ensure that nobody "blows the whistle".. 
 
To quote again from your follow up posting: 
 
>In addition, my 
>understanding is that this cell was put together by the Miley group at the 
>University of Illinois, which makes fraud less likely, and that it has 
>been independently replicated by three other cells put together at the 
>University of Missouri, all of which produced "excess heat." 
 
Yes, but why oh why have these results not been published in the usual   
manner?  
 
> As I have already  
> noted, the physics is very complicated--much more complicated than is  
> apparent to those who are looking at this from an outsider's perspective. 
 
 If heat is indeed being produced the physics may indeed be very complex;   
but the calorimetry to prove that heat really is being produced isn't   
really that complex. As I have observed before, any reasonably equipped   
laboratory would have no difficulty in carrying out the necessary   
calorimetry.  
 
Back to your follow up posting:  
 
>The problem is that if the reported power output of 469 watts is assumed   
>to be wrong,                                                     ^^^^^^^ 
 
 Your work has very nearly reached the point where "assumed" should be   
replaced with "demonstrated".  
 
>then a measurement error is indicated either in the flow rate or in the 
>temperatures, with the flow rate being the likely candidate. This means 
>that all of the Power Gen data is rendered useless, and goes in the 
>dumper. 
 
Exactly.  
 
>Such an outcome doesn't imply fraud, or incompetence, and it 
>doesn't imply that the Patterson cell doesn't work  (or that it does 
>work). It simply suggests that mistakes were made, and that this 
>technology will have to be judged on the basis of other information. 
 
I would be happier if the word "necessarily" was placed in front of   
"imply"; but yes I agree. But at the very least it would indicate that any   
further  information produced by the organisation should be treated with   
healthy scepticism.  
 
>And it has also been suggested that transitions from laminar flow to   
>turbulent flow may somehow be influencing my heat dissipation results.   
>This seemed implausible at first glance 
 
And I would suggest at second. The discrepancy is just too large.  
 
>In any case, I see no evidence of fraud in the Power Gen report 
 
Agreed. But it can't be ruled out as an explanation of the discrepancy   
revealed by your work.   
  
David 

David
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudendavid cudfnDavid cudlnGaskill cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.08 / Doug Shade /  CETI on Nightline, Tape for Rent?
     
Originally-From: rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com (Doug Shade)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CETI on Nightline, Tape for Rent?
Date: 8 Feb 1996 16:00:18 GMT
Organization: Motorola LICD

Oh... I missed it, would anyone out there like to rent me their
tape of the episode?

This is getting to be history one way or the other.  Big hoax, or new
science... either way, I'm interested.

Doug Shade
rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenrxjf20 cudfnDoug cudlnShade cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.09 / Karim Alim /  Re: ABC-TV Nightline reports on CETI
     
Originally-From: kalim@us.net (Karim Alim)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ABC-TV Nightline reports on CETI
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 1996 02:13:31 GMT
Organization: InternetMCI

bks@netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:

>Where was Cravens?  I suppose that it's not improper to call
>lithium sulfate dissolved in water "salt water", but it seems
>a tad cavalier.

ABC had some focus groups that showed if you use phrases like "lithium
sulfate electrolyte" on national TV it immediately causes a channel
change reflex in 92.5 percent of the population.  :^)  We're not
talking about PBS demographics here...
-k.

cudkeys:
cuddy09 cudenkalim cudfnKarim cudlnAlim cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.09 / Karim Alim /  Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
     
Originally-From: kalim@us.net (Karim Alim)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 1996 02:31:24 GMT
Organization: InternetMCI

bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan) wrote:

>I guess you've missed the recent discussions. The problem is that the ENECO/CETI 
>cell can't boil a cup of soup, therefore . . .

Okay, so the meeting at Motorola should have gone like this:

Engineer 1: "Our team has verified excess power in the Patterson
Cells.  We think this is one of the major scientific breakthroughs of
the 20th century.  We have enough documentation of the excess to
authorize corporate funding of one million dollars to CETI, we're
licensing the technology, and I hear Motorola HQ are trying to buy him
out."

Engineer 2: "Haven't you heard?  The Patterson Cells have been totally
dissed on the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup.  The consensus there is
that they're bogus."

Engineer 1: "Oh my God!  Really???  That can't be!  We were so sure of
the results!!!  We must have made a terrible mistake -- those Internet
people are SO much smarter than WE are!!!  Damn it, I told them that
the red wire was ground and the black wire was positive, but noooooo,
they wouldn't listen to me... God... I have to call HQ and tell them
to put a stop payment on that million dollar check... I sure hope
Patterson hasn't cashed it yet...."
-k.

cudkeys:
cuddy09 cudenkalim cudfnKarim cudlnAlim cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.09 / John Logajan /  Re: ABC-TV Nightline reports on CETI
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ABC-TV Nightline reports on CETI
Date: 9 Feb 1996 00:31:12 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Tom Droege (Droege@fnal.fnal.gov) wrote:
: Since Miley has a reputation to worry about, he did not say how much
: excess heat he saw, or what the errors were.  I have already seen 
: Miley report "excess heat" that I would have called noise. 

Tom, I thought you were gone. :-)

Yeah, it is important to get the magnitude of the replications,
else we might be assuming that they are equivalent to CETI's
and thus well out of the range of recombination error.

I know many others have been fooled by light water system recombination
at low power gain ratios.  So it would be reassuring to hear what
sort of raw ratios Miley and Bowles have seen/are seeing.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.07 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Reconciling Magnum and PowerGen data
     
Originally-From: schultr@ashur.cc.biu.ac.il (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reconciling Magnum and PowerGen data
Date: 7 Feb 1996 15:08:54 GMT
Organization: Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel.

Robert Horst (horst_bob@tandem.com) wrote:
: In article <4f5rjb$6hb@tekadm1.cse.tek.com>, arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie
: Frisch) wrote:
: (concerning alternate explanations for the CETI results)
 
:: I have three possible explanations that are much simpler and more likely.
:: 	1.  Fraud.
:: 	2.  Incompetence.
:: 	3.  Gullible observers.
 
: Arnold Frisch has just accused some fine scientists of fraud in a public
: Internet newsgroup where thousands of people may read it.  This is a very
: serious charge and should have correspondingly serious proof.  What is your
: proof?  I have seen nothing to give even the slightest hint of fraud.

For the literacy-impaired:  he said *possible* explanations.  That is, they
*might* explain the results -- not that they necessarily *do*.  What
part of the word "possible" do you not understand?  All he said that
fraud was *more* likely (what part of "more likely" do you not understand?)
than the CETI device being a useful new energy source.  If the possibility
of fraud is one in a million, and the possibility of the results being
correct are one in a billion, then what Frisch has said is true, and he
isn't accusing anybody of anything.


-----
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
-----
"You don't even have a clue as to which clue you're missing." -- Miss Manners
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenschultr cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.09 / Richard Blue /  Re: Merriman is wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman is wrong, there is a protocol
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 15:20:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Youles says:

<< Some people. . . appear to take the line that there is no >>
<< excess heat because the theory does not support it.       >>

You are overlooking something, John.  The data do not support it!
What data?  Just as in the case of the dog that did not bark in
the night the absence of data can be very informative.  In the
case of cold fusion, in general, and the CETI device in particular
there is a signifcant lack of data relating to the source reaction
for the claimed power output.

Now, unless you believe that something and nothing are equivalent
concepts the weakness for the argument for cold fusion is more than
just a small matter of lack of a supporting "theory."  Until there
has been a demonstrated alteration in the state of the matter in
the CETI cell we must assume that nothing is being changed by
the operation of the device.  Indeed there are plenty of reports
to support that assumption.  That is evidence just as surely as
the readings of two thermometers is evidence.

When there is no power source there likely is no power output.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.09 / Paul Karol /  Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
     
Originally-From: Paul Karol <pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
Date: Fri,  9 Feb 1996 00:38:28 -0500
Organization: Chemistry, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.sci.physics.fusion: 9-Feb-96 Re: CETI's Power Cell
on ABC! by Bob Sullivan@sky.net 
> It doesn't take anything but rudimentary science knowledge to understand how 
> mistaken assumptions about Faraday efficiency (recombination) have caused 
> supposedly competent analysts to have fantasies about free energy. I 

But what about McKubre's confident statements that recombination is
absolutely not an issue?

PJK

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudfnPaul cudlnKarol cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.09 / Richard Blue /  Re: ABC-TV reports on CETI
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ABC-TV reports on CETI
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 15:30:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

It is revealing to form a sequence from the numbers claimed
for the performance of the CETI device in the various reports
that have appeared with time.

Initial reported output:  1300 watts
Modified report:           500 watts
ABC-TV report:             200 watts

Shall we extrapolate further?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.09 / Richard Blue /  Griggs and NASA
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs and NASA
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 15:40:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Lawrence Wharton is to be congratulated for shedding some light
in an area where Jed Rothwell has been generating smoke.

Jed has proclaimed that NASA is investigating the Griggs over-
unity claims.  Are we to believe that this may lend credibility
to the Griggs claims?  Well, not when you learn just a little
more than Jed was telling us.

The facts are that NASA is interested in the Griggs device for
a very specific application - an application where the efficiency
of energy conversion is certainly not of prime importance.  So
NASA's testing of the Griggs device has no bearing whatsoever on
any claims for over-unity operation.

Jed Rothwell, in his role as mind-reader, says that Griggs and
NASA aren't talking about over-unity claims because the subject
is so controversial.  It is more likely NASA just does not care!

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.09 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Plasma
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Plasma
Subject: Re: Plasma
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 04:41:12 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <singtech-0402962208260001@ip-salem1-13.teleport.com>
Subject: Re: Plasma
Charles Cagle (singtech@teleport.com) wrote:

  > Hi, I am trying to find out what plasma is, I am a student at George 
  > Washingto High School and none of the teachers know and It is not even 
  > mentioned in the science books.  Is there any way some one can mail to me 
  > a breif descripton of plasma and mabey a picture of some?
  >                                         Thanks
=cc "Dear Michael,
=cc 
=cc Now this really grieves me.  You do have chemistry and physics teachers in
=cc Denver at your school, don't you?  It can't be true that they don't know. 
=cc But pick up a dictionary and look for yourself. (see below).
=cc 
=cc  plasma      n.
=cc       1. the fluid part of blood or lymph, as distinguished from the 
=cc       cellular components. 
=cc       2.  PROTOPLASM. 
=cc       3. a green, faintly translucent chalcedony. 
=cc       4. a highly ionized gas containing an approximately equal 
=cc       number of positive ions and electrons. Also, plasm  (plaz]+m)  
=cc       (for defs. 1-3) .
=cc       [1705-15; < LL < Gk pl+sma something molded or formed, 
=cc       akin to pl+ssein to form, mold. Cf. PLASTIC]
=cc  
=cc Definition number four would relate to nuclear fusion. It is also called
=cc the 4th state of matter.  It is also called an excited gas state.

  Thanks for the clarification  ;-)X

  Suggest definition update, perhaps, dare an improvement on Websters':

  First, to some, the fluid portion of blood is serum and not plasma.
Fibrinogen is a component extruded from the cells (platlets),
and must be removed to form the serum which remains
fluid.     Plasma still has the fibrinogen in it..

  Second, IMHO plasmas are wholly ionized gases
at extremely high temperatures.  
  Perhaps, the issues of charge neutrality (expected after the
dielectric relaxation time) and rapid temperature loss
 should not be part of the definition since they vary from system to system.

   So how about:

       1. the fluid part of blood or lymph, as distinguished from the 
       cellular components, also containing fibrinogen

      4. a wholly ionized gas at extremely high temperature.

  Best wishes.
  
   Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.09 / mitchell swartz /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,sci.energy
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 04:49:39 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <4f2nh0$djt@sundog.tiac.net>
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes:

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

  Au contraire.    Increasing numbers report what occurs and has happened.
You, and a few pompous others who appear to be above reading or actually
conducting an experiment or two, may state otherwise but there is a large
real scientific field here.  Real papers.   Real studies, and not all are
"negative".    


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

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

   A little innocuous ad hominem swipe, Mr. Conover?

Some of the orthodox, censored, 'press' to which you refer
published the rubbish which does compose some "negative" papers. 

 These papers -- which make mockery of what is purported to
pass as or to be "peer review" --
recently have been unable to even have dimensionally correct equations
as cited in the text, or in the past to
 have used analytically correct algorithms
which were tested beforehand to see if the algorithms
would even be sensitive to any putative excess heat.


   IMHO it is  preferable to see hypotheses tested,
with tougher criteria of what actually constitutes excess heat.  


For example, it should be a sine qua non that in all experiments both
power and energy be reported as well as the levels prior to the experiment
for a significant amount of time.   
 That is what should be done for all purported over-unity
devices, including hot fusion.


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

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

   Do a few iota of your own work and research.
   The science you get out of your "efforts" will be equal
to the shoe-leather you expend.


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

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

   If it will not strain your eyes and feet too badly, you might actually try 
reading some of the papers for yourself.  Jeff Rothwell, John Logajan,
myself and others have laboriously posted references to them for years.  

  A few URLs have been listed with pointers to references and 
more. ----->  How many have you actually read?  Which?  


Electronic harpies such as you tend to be
 have pushed most of the 
serious people - and what would have been their discussion - 
off sci.physics.fusion.   

   It is unfortunate that individuals such as yourself can knock down the
work of many, Mr. Conover,  because your
methods appear to have involved no research, no serious
investigation and merely brick-toss tactics; proving again
that destruction is easier than building.


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

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

   Several of the so-called "negative" papers against cold fusion, 
   and some of the
ones which have gotten out recently, were also unfit for publication and
of low quality. 

    It takes a spectrum.
     ...  and not just your shovel, Mr. Conover.

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

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

  HA HA! ;-)X           You are projecting again. 

 Some quality journals routinely do not even send
submitted manuscripts to their reviewers. 
Heavywatergate is presently activated across the United States and
UK.

Your refusal to recognize the growing number of publications and
reports in the field and your inability to even search out a few
years of Fusion Technology or other publication, your inability
to read a single Proceedings (say 1994 or 1995) and to continue
to spout your hot air, Mr. Conover, is itself a type of religious conviction
manifest in its denial and lack of knowledge.


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

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

  One person, such as yourself, can always tear down what ten others 
attempt to build with your stream of unsupported unfounded
invective and ad hominem.    
  That negative action also has no useful purpose
unless it is directed to the papers, experiments, with specificity.


    Best wishes.
     Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)







cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.07 /  jedrothwell@de /  Cold Fusion on ABC
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion on ABC
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 96 15:34:49 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

ABC news is reporting on cold fusion today, February 7, 1996. Good Morning
America featured a 6-minute segment about the thin film Ni H2O cold fusion
device from Clean Energy Technology Inc. (CETI). ABC's top science reporter
Michael Guillen interviewed Prof. George Miley, University of Illinois,
Prof. C. Quinton Bowles, University of Missouri, and Dr. James Patterson,
who holds three U.S. patents for the CETI device. There will be additional
coverage of cold fusion in the evening Nightline news report. An article
about this device appeared in the Wall Street Journal on January 29, 1996.
 
I described the CETI device in this forum previously, and in Infinite Energy
magazine. In April 1995 at the Fifth International Conference on Cold Fusion
I observed a demonstration with 0.5 watts input and 2.5 watts output. In
December 1995, I observed demonstration runs of a scaled up device. It
usually runs with 0.1 - 0.5 watts input and 400 to 500 watts output. During a
high power run lasting about a quarter hour input was 1.4 watts and output
was 1,300 watts. The devices have been independently replicated by Miley et
al. at the University of Illinois, and independently tested and verified by
several groups, including the University of Illinois, the University of
Missouri, and Motorola.
 
- Jed Rothwell
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.09 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 96 04:28:02 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

In article <pLKJhfN.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
->Bob Sullivan <bsulliva@sky.net> writes:
-> 
->>Too bad ABC, George Miley, Quinton Bowles, and Motorola don't read s.p.f. 
They 
->>could have saved themselves a great deal of unnecessary professional 
->>embarrassment.
-> 
->Are you seriously suggesting that you know more about calorimetry than
->Miley, Bowles and Motorola? Or is that supposed to be a joke? If that
->is your idea of humor you are suffering from terminal weirdness.
-> 
->- Jed

Jed, it's not necessary to know anything beyond 'stove-top' calorimetry to see 
that the CETI/ENECO PowerGen claims, both the botched original report and the 
botched revisions, are absurd -- even allowing for the poor quality of the 
reporting.

It doesn't require any knowledge of calorimetry to know that there is probably 
something wrong with the temperature measurements when the principal 
investigator (Cravens) admits to the problems -- ICCF5 and SOFE.

It doesn't take anything but rudimentary science knowledge to understand how 
mistaken assumptions about Faraday efficiency (recombination) have caused 
supposedly competent analysts to have fantasies about free energy. I suggest you 
follow your own often-stated advice and review the literature starting with the 
letter from Zvi Shkedi of the Bose Corporation published in 'Con' Fusion Facts.
cudkeys:
cuddy09 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.09 / Horace Heffner /  Re: ABC-TV Nightline reports on CETI
     
Originally-From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ABC-TV Nightline reports on CETI
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 18:45:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


>Originally-From: kalim@us.net (Karim Alim)
>Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
>Subject: Re: ABC-TV Nightline reports on CETI
>Date: Fri, 09 Feb 1996 02:13:31 GMT
>Organization: InternetMCI
>
>bks@netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:
>
>>Where was Cravens?  I suppose that it's not improper to call
>>lithium sulfate dissolved in water "salt water", but it seems
>>a tad cavalier.
>
>ABC had some focus groups that showed if you use phrases like "lithium
>sulfate electrolyte" on national TV it immediately causes a channel
>change reflex in 92.5 percent of the population.  :^)  We're not
>talking about PBS demographics here...
>-k.
>


It is interresting that the Patterson patent, 5,318,675, abstract begins:

"An electrolytic cell and method of electrolysizing and heating water
containing a conductive salt in solution."

Nowhere does the abstract mention lithium sulphate, though it describes
palladium coated beads. Maybe the ABC people focused on "saltwater" by
reading the patent abstract.


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


cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.08 / John Logajan /  ABC-TV Nightline reports on CETI
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ABC-TV Nightline reports on CETI
Date: 8 Feb 1996 07:11:36 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.


The ABC-TV Nightline program was a balanced look at the recent CETI claims
with brief references to past cold fusion claims.

Michael Guillen PhD, the Science Editor for ABC-TV, presented the documentary
portion, which was an expanded version of that show earlier in the day
on the ABC-TV Good Morning America show.

Forrest Sawyer then conducted a debate between John Huizenga and Mike
McKubre.

In the Guillen presentation, the skeptics were represented by Howard
Bernbaum (sp?) and Herman Fenchbach (pronunciation?  spelling??).

Patterson, Reding and their patent attourney Charles Prescott represented
CETI.

George Miley (UofIll) speaking of his self-made Patterson Powercell said:

     GM: "We consistently measured an excess energy coming out of it."

     MG: "Does it always put out more energy than it takes in?"

     GM: "Yes."

     MG: "Does that surprise you?"

     GM: "Absolutely.  That's why we're so excited about trying to 
          understand what's going on."

Quinton Bowles (UofMissouri, funded by Kansus City Power and Light)
discussed the three cells they have operated over the last nine months,
saying: "It's fair to say that all three of them appeared to be producing
excess heat.... It works and we don't know why."

Guillen said that Patterson had told him that Motorola had tested a cell
and offered to buy Patterson out.

Sawyer's Huizenga/McKubre debate was a familiar rehash of standard form.
One misstep by Huizenga was to admit to a Sawyer question that he hadn't
reviewed the Patterson work carefully, but then a few sentences later
Huizenga was asserting that these cells all use open calorimetry and
fail to account for such things as recombination.  Clearly since Huizenga
had not studied the Patterson work, he was not in a position to categorize
the calorimetry (especially since he was wrong about it.)  McKubre
attempted to correct Huizenga's false claim.

So in summary, the two major interesting bits, in my opinion, were that
Miley at the UofIll and Bowles at the UofMissouri said in their own
words that they had independently seen excess power in Patterson cells
under their own control.  Guillen said they are reviewing the results
before they attempt to publish in the standard periodicals.


--
 - 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:
cuddy8 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.08 /  singtech@telep /  cmsg cancel <singtech-0802960134430001@ip-salem1-06.teleport.com>
     
Originally-From: singtech@teleport.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <singtech-0802960134430001@ip-salem1-06.teleport.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 1996 18:55:53 -0800
Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016

cancel <singtech-0802960134430001@ip-salem1-06.teleport.com>
cudkeys:
cuddy08 cudensingtech cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.09 / James Stolin /  Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
     
Originally-From: FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
Date: 9 Feb 1996 18:09:56 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan) wrote:

>It doesn't take anything but rudimentary science knowledge to
> understand how mistaken assumptions about Faraday efficiency
> (recombination) have caused supposedly competent analysts to
> have fantasies about free energy. I suggest you follow your own 
>often-stated advice and review the literature starting with the
>letter from Zvi Shkedi of the Bose Corporation published in 'Con'
> Fusion Facts.

Bob,

   I'm missing the reasoning in all the discussions of Faraday efficiency.
  If you put in "E" amount of energy and get out E times something, how 
does the Faraday efficiency enter into the equation except to INCREASE 
the power gain of whatever reaction is taking place?  For instance, if 
you see a 4X gain and Faraday efficiency is 50%, only half of your input 
E was used so the actual reaction gain would be 8X.  I'm not claiming 
"cold fusion" is taking place.  I don't know if there is cold fusion, 
there are actual energy gains or if all the experiments are botched.  
However, I think my reasoning applies to any reaction.  Could you please 
explain?  Thanks.

-
Jim Stolin - Illinois Computer Service - jbstolin@prodigy.com
http://pages.prodigy.com/jbstolin

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.08 /  AndersonBD /  Re: ABC-TV Nightline reports on CETI
     
Originally-From: andersonbd@aol.com (AndersonBD)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ABC-TV Nightline reports on CETI
Date: 8 Feb 1996 21:47:12 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Well, lithium is chemically a "salt", is it not?  Its not a lie, just a
simplification to keep the dull masses awake.

               - AndersonBD@aol.com
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenandersonbd cudlnAndersonBD cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.09 / Glen Kuban /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: paleo@ix.netcom.com(Glen J. Kuban )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,sci.energy
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: 9 Feb 1996 08:00:23 GMT
Organization: Netcom


>You, and a few pompous others who appear to be above reading or
actually
>conducting an experiment or two, may state otherwise but there is a
large
>real scientific field here.  Real papers.   Real studies, and not all
are
>er criteria of what actually constitutes excess heat.  
> Best wishes.
> Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
>

REFERENCES please!
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenpaleo cudfnGlen cudlnKuban cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.09 / D Perret-Gallix /  CALL FOR PAPERS AIHENP'96
     
Originally-From: perretg@hpl3lap2.cern.ch (Denis Perret-Gallix)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: CALL FOR PAPERS AIHENP'96
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 18:18:25 GMT
Organization: CERN, European Laboratory for Particle Physics

               FIFTH INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON NEW COMPUTING
                       TECHNIQUES IN PHYSICS RESEARCH
 
           SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, NEURAL NETS, GENETIC ALGORITHMS,
          EXPERT SYSTEMS, SYMBOLIC ALGEBRA, AUTOMATIC CALCULATIONS
 
                              #################
                              #               #
                              #   AIHENP'96   #
                              #               #
                              # EPFL Lausanne #
                              #################

                         EPFL Lausanne (Switzerland)
                            2 - 6 September, 1996
 
                       --------- FIRST MAILING ----------
                            --- Call for Papers---
 
DEAR COLLEAGUES,
 
This is the First Mailing for the 1996 edition of the AIHENP workshop series.
The workshop will be held in EPFL (Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne)
in Switzerland on 2-6 September 1996. It is co-organized with EPFL and IPNL.
More information can be found on the WEB:
 
       http:/lapphp0.in2p3.fr/aihep/aihep.html
 
IF you have received this mail using a list service called "majordomo", you
may manage the up-coming mailing, by sending a mail to :
                      Majordomo@listbox.cern.ch
and typing in the body of the message, either:
                  ----
subscribe aihep [<address>]
 To subscribe yourself (or <address> if specified) to the named aihep list
or :
 
unsubscribe aihep [<address>]
 To unsubscribe yourself (or <address> if specified) from the named aihep list
 
 
                                ABOUT AIHENP
                                ------------
 
The AIHENP series was originally intended for scientists working in fields 
related to High Energy and Nuclear Physics; however, since the first workshop 
in 1990, the real driving force behind the workshops was to open a forum where 
experts from various scientific origins could communicate with each other; 
where they could present both conceptual advances on artificial intelligence 
and real-life applications; where they could describe specific problems and 
generic solutions. Many disciplines were involved, from software engineering, 
computer language and artificial intelligence research to telecommunication, 
space and industrial applications, together with the standard HENP 
developments.
This pluri-disciplinary aspect of the series has lead to the opening of the 
domain of the workshops to all aspects of physics research, where common 
problems may have common solutions and to pave the way for possible future 
collaborations.
These workshops address many of the practical problems encountered in the 
running and data analysis of large experiments, including: monitoring and 
fault diagnosis of large numbers of detector channels; software management of 
sometimes millions of lines of code, written by hundreds of scientists 
scattered around the world; control of accelerators, ion sources, reactors, 
tokomaks, satellites and space probes; data selection and pattern recognition 
for complex events and physical phenomena; and the computation of lengthy 
theoretical calculation to a high degree of precision.
 
Those of you who have attended previous editions will remember that the series
began in Lyon, France, in March 1990, and has subsequently been sited in La
Londe les Maures, France, in January 1992, in Oberammergau, Germany, in
October 1993,and, most recently, in Pisa, Italy (April 1995).
 
Computer technologies evolve rapidly. Even on the time scale of our workshop
series the scene has changed remarkably, and physicists must update their 
knowledge periodically in order to work effectively.  Thus it is necessary to 
bring together on a regular basis not only the physicists, but also computer 
scientists, electrical engineers, and experts from industry, in order to keep 
abreast of developments which may be useful to us for future endeavours. On 
the HENP front, this includes such projects as LEPII, LHC, NLC, the new 
B-Factories, the CEBAF and RHIC machines, as well as the ongoing work at HERA 
and the planned upgrades of the CDF and D0 experiments at Fermilab. On the 
space/remote sensing front, such new projects as (AMS, ALLEGRO, space station 
ALPHA, IBIZA) are beginning to put constraints on software development and 
data analysis. Condensed matter, solid state, plasma physics, telecommunication
and astro-physics, are all evolving toward more sophisticated computing  
activities to handle the exponentially growing amount of data and to fulfil the 
requirement of an increasing level of measurement or calculational accuracy.
Dealing with artificial intelligence methods or techniques, the workshop
will also be covering Neuro-science developments leading to application in
physics researches.

The AIHENP series workshops have always been less formal than full conferences,
stressing new results, and with sufficient time allowed for spontaneous
discussions to develop. Incentives for creating working groups on specific 
issues like standardization are very strong.
As in the past, the 1996 workshop will consist of plenary sessions and three 
parallel sessions covering our three subgroups,
 
  A) SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
  B) ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, NEURAL NETS, GENETIC ALGORITHMS, EXPERT SYSTEMS
  C) SYMBOLIC MANIPULATION, AUTOMATIC CALCULATION
 
along with tutorials and demonstrations, poster sessions, industrial booths,
and a final round-table style discussion within each subgroup.  We have also
invited a few experts from other fields to come and give keynote talks
which should give us some new perspectives.
 
We give below a list of some of the subjects covered in the three subgroups:
 
(A)  Group: SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
 
     1) Subgroup: Languages and Systems
 
        - Conventional languages, Fortran, C, ...
        - Object Oriented Languages, C++, Eiffel, ADA 95, SmallTalk, ...
        - Mixed languages environment.
        - Operating systems HEPIX, ...
        - Parallel computing
        - Network wide application software maintenance.
        - Porting packages between languages and OS.
        - Data Base maintenance (updating, access protection).
        - Persistent object manager.
        - Data description and representation.
 
 
     2) Subgroup: CASE Tools for Developing, Maintaining and Designing
                  Software Projects.
 
        - Intelligent editors.
        - Maintenance of multi-version application: CMZ, Historian, CVS...
        - On-line documentation (HTML and the WEB), ...
        - Symbolic debuggers.
        - Data representation.
        - Software design and simulation.
        - System simulation for real-time application.
        -
 
     3) Subgroup: Interactive Analysis
 
        - Event server.
        - Graphical user interface.
        - Interactive analysis packages PAW, Reason, IDAL, ...
        - Virtual Reality techniques for visualisation.
        -
 
     4) Subgroup:  Software Engineering in Lattice Gauge Theory
 
 (B)  Group: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND NEURAL NETS

     1) Subgroup: "Traditional AI"

         Languages, Systems:
        - AI languages.
        - Mixing AI languages, OOL and conventional languages in
          applications.

         Expert Systems:
        - Off-line support/On-line assistance
        - Hardware testing and maintenance.
        - Real-time expert systems.
        - Embedding E.S. support in detectors or systems.

     2) Subgroup: "Adaptive Methods"

         Artificial Neural Networks:
        - Applications to offline data analysis.
        - Online applications:
                   Triggers for high energy physics
                   Filtering for remote sensing and space applications
        - Neural Nets for Control:
                  Accelerators, ion sources, reactors, tokomaks
                  Satellites, space probes
                  Industrial Processes

         Fuzzy Systems:
        - Hardware and software applications

        - Evolutionary and genetic algorithms.
        - Boolean Networks.
        - Learning algorithms.
        - High speed massively parallel hardware.
        - Decision tree methods.
        - Multivariate statistical techniques.
        - Handling systematic errors in multidimensional analyses.
 
 
(C)  Group: SYMBOLIC MANIPULATION TECHNIQUES
 
     1) Subgroup: Languages and Tools
 
        - News about general purpose systems (Schoonschip, Form, Reduce,
          Maple, Mathematica, Axiom-Scratchpad II, GAL, ...).
        - Graphical interface (diagrams display, multi-dimensional
          function visualisation, ...).
        - Databases in symbolic calculations (physical data and structures,
          intermediate results, formulae for loop integrals, sub-diagrams, ..)
        -
 
     2) Subgroup: Automation of Feynman Diagrams Computation
 
        - Full automation systems and projects, advanced packages
          (GRACE/CHANEL/BASES/SPRING, CompHEP, FeynArt/FeynCalc,
           ESP project, Physica, HIP, ...).
        - Multiloop diagram generation.
        - Symbolic-numeric interface (problem of code optimisation,
          analysis of numerical instability sources, ...).
        - Phase space integration and event generators.
        - Standardization problems and interfaces between systems and packages.
        -
 
     3) Subgroup: Advanced Feynman Diagrams Computation
 
        - Methods and algorithms for the evaluation of high order radiative
          corrections and N-loop Feynman diagrams.
        - High order corrections to the anomalous magnetic moments.
        - Fast evaluation of 1-loop integrals and problem of automation of
          1-loop correction calculation.
        - Particular problems in specific processes and calculations.
        -
 
     4) Subgroup: Quantum Field Theory and Super-Algebra and other Fields
 
        - Main computational problems and applications of computer algebra
          in Quantum Field Theory.
        - Calculations with effective electroweak and QCD Hamiltonians.
        - Programming of Dirac Algebra and gamma5 in Dimensional
          Regularization.
        - Calculations in SUSY models.
        - Calculations in Supergravity and SuperString theories (problems
          of programming for differential algebra and geometry and other
          modern mathematics).
        -
 
                            SUBMISSION OF ABSTRACTS
                            -----------------------
                       Preliminary DEAD-LINE  MAY 1, 1996
 
Applications should preferably be sent by electronic mail.  Fax and postal
submissions will also be accepted.  Applications should include an abstract
describing the work done, a title and a list of authors which indicates which
one is the contact person.  The contact person should include his postal
address, electronic mail address, and telephone and fax numbers.  THE ABSTRACT
PLUS ALL ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION SHOULD FIT ON ONE PAGE.  An abstract booklet
will be prepared from these submissions so reasonable care should be taken in
preparing them (late submissions may not be included in the abstract booklet).
Please follows the template given hereafter (PLAIN ASCII TEXT IS MANDATORY).
Approved E-mail abstracts will be available on the WEB.
 
The application should contain an indication of the subgroup which most 
closely matches the topic of the paper (i.e., 1-Software Engineering, 
2-Artificial Intelligence, 3-Symbolic Manipulation). Papers which the author 
believes are suitable for the workshop but which do not fit precisely into 
any of the three subgroups will also be considered.
 
All applicants will receive an initial confirmation of receipt, which does
not necessarily indicate acceptance.  Final notification of acceptance will be
done after the papers have been reviewed.
 
Past experience has shown that we will probably not be able to fit in
all accepted papers for oral presentation.  If so, we will try to retain
those papers with the broadest general interest for oral presentation, and
encourage authors of papers of more specific interest to consider presentation
in the poster sessions.  Applications directly to the poster sessions can
also be made.  Presentations of a tutorial or review nature are also possible.
 
All papers accepted for oral or poster presentation will be published
in the workshop proceedings, which, as in past workshops,
will be a hard-cover edition with the workshop logo in colour on the cover.
Qualifying papers will probably be published in a special edition of a
renowned Journal.
 
                           Template for Abstracts:
 
Workshop session: Soft. Eng., Art. Int., Symb. Manip., ...
 
 
                                ABSTRACT TITLE
 
 
              Author(1), Author(2), ......................, Author(n)
 
Speaker info.
Name, Firstname:
Mail address   :
Institute      :
Country        :
Tel.           :
Fax            :
e-mail         :
 
 < Abstract Text (less than one page (total)) >
 
 
 
                          Addresses for Submission
                          ------------------------
 
     Electronic Submission (preferred):
 
           aihenp96@lapp.in2p3.fr
 
     Fax Submission:
 
           (41) (21) 692 3605 in care of M. Werlen
 
     Submission by Post:
 
           Monique Werlen - AIHENP96
           Uni-Lausanne
           IPN
           BSP Dorigny
           CH-1015 Lausanne
           Switzerland
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenperretg cudfnDenis cudlnPerret-Gallix cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.09 / J Youles /  Re: Merriman is wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: J B Youles <john.youles@dial.pipex.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman is wrong, there is a protocol
Date: 9 Feb 1996 18:42:29 GMT
Organization: Chaotic

blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) wrote:
>
>You are overlooking something, John.  The data do not support it!
>What data?  Just as in the case of the dog that did not bark in
>the night the absence of data can be very informative.  In the
>case of cold fusion, in general, and the CETI device in particular
>there is a signifcant lack of data relating to the source reaction
>for the claimed power output.
>

I think you are missing my point.  If a person says that the theory is 
wrong BECAUSE the data do not demonstrate it, that is one thing, but to 
regard data as invalid BECAUSE it would invalidate the theory, is 
another ("Don't cofuse me with facts, I've made up my mind !").  
Unfortunately some of the people who post to this group seem to be in the 
latter category.

As I have said before, this so-called CF phenomenon is either a 
remarkable discovery, or a giant delusion / hoax; I have no idea which.



-- 
John Youles 
 -----------------------------------------------------------
"If the weather we are having is a result of the greenhouse
 effect, then someone must have taken out all the glass."
 -----------------------------------------------------------


cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenyoules cudfnJ cudlnYoules cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.09 /   /  ABC...
     
Originally-From: <IO00656@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ABC...
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 13:37:54 EST
Organization: University of Maine System

     Isn't this the same network who interviewed "Buckwheat" even though the
actor had been dead for a decade?
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenIO00656 cudln cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.09 /  HSK /  Re: ABC-TV Nightline reports on CETI
     
Originally-From: hsk@microplex.com  (HSK)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ABC-TV Nightline reports on CETI
Date: 9 Feb 1996 21:00:30 GMT
Organization: Online at Wimsey


In article <4fe4kg$nip@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com
(John Logajan) writes:
>
>I know many others have been fooled by light water system recombination
>at low power gain ratios.  So it would be reassuring to hear what
>sort of raw ratios Miley and Bowles have seen/are seeing.

What exactly is "light water system recombination" and how does it work?  

Thanks.

 -hsk

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenhsk cudlnHSK cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.09 / Randall Burns /  Re: ABC-TV reports on CETI
     
Originally-From: rburns@netcom.com (Randall J. Burns)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ABC-TV reports on CETI
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 19:14:41 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <jaboweryDMIvKB.1tG@netcom.com>,
Jim Bowery <jabowery@netcom.com> wrote:
>Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) wrote:
>: It is revealing to form a sequence from the numbers claimed
>: for the performance of the CETI device in the various reports
>: that have appeared with time.
>
>: Initial reported output:  1300 watts
>: Modified report:           500 watts
>: ABC-TV report:             200 watts
>
>: Shall we extrapolate further?
>
>Reminds me of the projections for the Tokamak and Space Station Freedom, 
>except on a MUCH smaller scale.
And with _much_ less cost to the taxpayers!

RJB

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenrburns cudfnRandall cudlnBurns cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.09 / I Johnston /  Re: The Amazing Jed seeks the truth. NOT
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Amazing Jed seeks the truth. NOT
Date: 9 Feb 1996 13:14:23 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
:  
: Why do you skeptics get so het up about these two statements? You must know
: nothing about technology or business. I can list several million devices
: that we all know exist which are useless dead ends. How about ...

: the slide rule,

Still in constant use in the aviation world, mainly in the circular
form. Unbeatable for speed and reliability.

: the Wright Model A Flyer,

Many aspects applicable to modern ultralight design.

: a wood fired steamboat,

Biomass is an excellent possibility for energy production

and

You're almost certainly going to end up converting your excess heat into
electrical energy using a Rankine cycle.

: the 4 K RAM chip.

Technology still perfectly relevant - it's just that they make em bigger
now. The principles haven't changed.


: There is NO CONTRADICTION between these two statements. None at all! In 1992,
: P&F were getting so much heat you did not need any calorimetry to determine
: there was an excess. Visual observations of the cell alone proved the issue.

Then why do you spent so much time telling us how good all CF
experimenters are at calorimetry? Apart, of course, from the ones who do
flow calorimetry without flow meters and with stopwatches which disagree
about whether runs last 15 minutes or two hours.

Jed, you're amazing. And we want to keep you that way.

Ian
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.08 / Bradley Sherman /  Re: ABC-TV Nightline reports on CETI
     
Originally-From: bks@netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ABC-TV Nightline reports on CETI
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 08:50:57 GMT
Organization: Remote Fusion Reactor Reverse Entropy Associates

In article <4fc7n8$10m@stratus.skypoint.net>,
John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> wrote:
...
>So in summary, the two major interesting bits, in my opinion, were that
>Miley at the UofIll and Bowles at the UofMissouri said in their own
>words that they had independently seen excess power in Patterson cells
>under their own control.  Guillen said they are reviewing the results
>before they attempt to publish in the standard periodicals.
...

This Nightline was obviously the source of the recent WSJ article.

Anyone who thinks that this is a battle of young Turks vs.
the Science establishment has not calculated the average
age of the Patterson Cell aficionados.  Patterson, Miley
and Bowles are all past 50.

The show ended with Patterson saying that he wasn't in it for
the money.  Okay, so then why not make it easy for people like
Sevior & Little to test the device?

There was a gratuitous blackboard sequence with Patterson and Reding
poring over E=mc2 --what was that all about?

Neither Miley nor Bowles quantified their results nor did they
offer any insights.  They did, as John Logajan points out, affirm
that they had seen more power out than in, when asked.  But they
seemed so disinterested in this phenomenal result!  To my mind it
just didn't ring true, but I admit this may be due to my bias built
up playing the sceptic here the past few months.

I think most contributors to s.p.f. could do a better job as
Nightline Science Editor then Guillen.  This had to be about
as empty an effort in science journalism as could be conceived.
Where was Cravens?  I suppose that it's not improper to call
lithium sulfate dissolved in water "salt water", but it seems
a tad cavalier.

    --bks


cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenbks cudfnBradley cudlnSherman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.09 / Jim Bowery /  Re: fascinating  future study
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fascinating  future study
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 18:38:33 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Tom Droege (Droege@fnal.fnal.gov) wrote:
: In article <000020bd+00001774@msn.com>, KROENIG@msn.com (JOSEPH BENINCASA) says:
: >
: >When the history of 'cold fusion' is finally written, the archives of 
: >sci.physics.fusion should be a goldmine for some ambitious 
: >psychologist, and a must-read for anyone wishing to evaluate expert 
: >opinion.

: We have at least two historians doing just that.

Just so they know they will be held to account:

Every single message posted to this groups is replicated at multiple 
external sites and it is relatively easy to cross-check these days -- 
getting easier all the time.
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
                 Change the tools and you change the rules.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.08 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Cold Fusion on ABC
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion on ABC
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 17:40:30 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

AndersonBD (andersonbd@aol.com) wrote:
: I assume that you verified that the voltmeters and ammeters used to
: measure the power input were not rigged.  

George Miley has his own fusion axe to grind with electrostatic 
confinement, and he has a reputation to protect since that is how he gets 
his funding.

He is un unlikely coconspirator.
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
                 Change the tools and you change the rules.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.09 /  soltis@server. /  invest?
     
Originally-From: soltis@server.uwindsor.ca
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: invest?
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 21:25:35 GMT
Organization: elec engg

Some thoughts:> Data Missing
> 
> This document resulted from a POST operation and has expired from
> the cache. If you wish you can repost the form data to recreate the
> document by pressing the reload button.
 I will not invest in CETI:
     It takes say 12 hours to prime the raw beads for
studies of heat generation.All discussions seem to be power
related instead of energy accounting.Just as I can pump-up a
capacitor thru a resistor for a long period and discharge it
at my will, power gain is unimportant.It's energy that counts.
Although I'm not a materials scientist or metallugist , it's clear
that there are EXOTHERMIC reactions related to metals( formation of 
alloys)  and also
similar exothermics related to metal-phase changes.Unless this
energy accounting is done properly I have to assume that CETI
should be studying how to create exotic alloys (replace palladium
with titanium for example, and see if they should go into that
business).I hope I'm wrong and there is something new here, 
      The standard rebuff is that the amount of metal is
very small in the CETI setup , but unless I get an ENERGY
,not power, accounting I'm leaning towards chemical explanations.

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudensoltis cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.09 / Akira Kawasaki /  Re: No Griggs results from NASA
     
Originally-From: aki@ix.netcom.com(Akira Kawasaki )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No Griggs results from NASA
Date: 9 Feb 1996 21:15:23 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <USE2PCB520751885@brbbs.brbbs.com> mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL
DUDLEY) writes: 
>
>jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>-> Griggs and NASA are both being a little disengenuous about this. I
>->have                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>                                            
>I don't know if this is a typo, or a word that I don't know.  I can't
>find it in the dictionary either.  Thus I am not sure what you are
>trying to say that they are being.

If I may contribute: the word is DISINGENUOUS --- not ingenuous,lacking
in frankness, candor, or sincerity; insincere --- to quote a
dictionary.

-AK-
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenaki cudfnAkira cudlnKawasaki cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.09 / Robert Horst /  Re: Griggs and NASA
     
Originally-From: horst_bob@tandem.com (Robert Horst)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs and NASA
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 1996 22:28:09 +0100
Organization: Tandem Computers

In article <199602091538.KAA101815@pilot01.cl.msu.edu>, blue@pilot.msu.edu
(Richard A Blue) wrote:

> Lawrence Wharton is to be congratulated for shedding some light
> in an area where Jed Rothwell has been generating smoke.
> 
> Jed has proclaimed that NASA is investigating the Griggs over-
> unity claims.  
> 
> Jed Rothwell, in his role as mind-reader, ...
> 
> So NASA's testing of the Griggs device has no bearing whatsoever on
> any claims for over-unity operation.

I was also at the symposium where Griggs said that his contract with NASA
specifically requires NASA to report the energy balance (although that was
not the main purpose of the contract).  He expects to get data on the
energy balance within 6-9 months.  This will have much bearing on claims of
over-unity operation.

Dick, I do not recall seeing you at the symposium in Cambridge where Griggs
talked about this.  So who exactly is playing the role of mind reader?

-- Bob Horst
cudkeys:
cuddy09 cudenhorst_bob cudfnRobert cudlnHorst cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.10 / Arild Eide /  URLīs on Chernobyl-disaster
     
Originally-From: arieid01@mimer.no (Arild Eide)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: URLīs on Chernobyl-disaster
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 06:07:38 GMT
Organization: Molde College, Department of Computer Science

Can anone give me good URLīs on the Chernobyl-disaster?

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenarieid01 cudfnArild cudlnEide cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.09 /  soltis@server. /  invest?
     
Originally-From: soltis@server.uwindsor.ca
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: invest?
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 21:24:01 GMT
Organization: elec engg

Some thoughts:> Data Missing
> 
> This document resulted from a POST operation and has expired from
> the cache. If you wish you can repost the form data to recreate the
> document by pressing the reload button.
 I will not invest in CETI:
     It takes say 12 hours to prime the raw beads for
studies of heat generation.All discussions seem to be power
related instead of energy accounting.Just as I can pump-up a
capacitor thru a resistor for a long period and discharge it
at my will, power gain is unimportant.It's energy that counts.
Although I'm not a materials scientist or metallugist , it's clear
that there are EXOTHERMIC reactions related to metals( formation of 
alloys)  and also
similar exothermics related to metal-phase changes.Unless this
energy accounting is done properly I have to assume that CETI
should be studying how to create exotic alloys (replace palladium
with titanium for example, and see if they should go into that
business).I hope I'm wrong and there is something new here, 
      The standard rebuff is that the amount of metal is
very small in the CETI setup , but unless I get an ENERGY
,not power, accounting I'm leaning towards chemical explanations.

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudensoltis cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Feb 10 04:37:04 EST 1996
------------------------------
