1996.02.09 / bert hubert /  Re: Reconciling Magnum and PowerGen data
     
Originally-From: ahu@bigtower.et.tudelft.nl (bert hubert)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reconciling Magnum and PowerGen data
Date: 9 Feb 1996 22:16:11 +0100
Organization: DarkStreet 9a

Robert Horst (horst_bob@tandem.com) wrote:
: > 	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.

One thing I'm certain of - this is not fusion. The power production they
claim would produce a lethal amount of neutrons if you come too close.

--
Phone: +31-15-2133685 / 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:
cuddy9 cudenahu cudfnbert cudlnhubert cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.08 / Walter Raisanen /  Re: ABC-TV Nightline reports on CETI
     
Originally-From: azi@crl.com (Walter Raisanen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ABC-TV Nightline reports on CETI
Date: 8 Feb 1996 13:22:05 -0800
Organization: Arizona Instrument

Akira Kawasaki (aki@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <bksDMG8Kx.Ev0@netcom.com> bks@netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman)
: writes: 
: >snip
: >
Has anyone tried to demonstrate the energy balance for this thing?
Since it seems to violate the conservation of energy, I would
think this is a crucial issue to resolve.
If a plausible explanation is forthcoming, a lot of the 
acrimonious debate will disappear.
If it is not forthcoming, we can all go on to something more
plausible, and put these folks in the same bag as Randi.
-- 
<Image>
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenazi cudfnWalter cudlnRaisanen cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.09 / 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: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 22:59:37 GMT
Organization: Remote Fusion Reactor Reverse Entropy Associates

In article <h9ELx1d.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>Bradley K. Sherman <bks@netcom.com> writes:
> 
>>This Nightline was obviously the source of the recent WSJ article.
> 
>That is incorrect. The two journalists worked independently. Besides,
>the WSJ article came first, so how could the Nightline program be its
>source?

Because the Nightline program consisted mostly of tape (*all* tape
on the West Coast).

Both reports omit any mention of Cravens.  Both reports use
Birnbaum as the skeptic.  Could be coincidence or it could
be that Bishop and Guillen both work for major news outlets
in NYC and talk to one another.  The one new element in both
stories is Quinton Bowles.


Speaking of coincidences, Jed, you got very huffy when
I asked about the conflation of CETI and _Infinite Energy_,
but when I checked the new CETI web pages, I see that there
is a scanned cover of _Infinite Energy_ , both a thumbnail
and a larger version.

(Note to CETI webmaster: you might want to change the sentence
that reads "Additional details ... can be seen tonight on
``Nightline''...")

    --bks
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenbks cudfnBradley cudlnSherman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.09 /  soltis@server. /  invest?
     
Originally-From: soltis@server.uwindsor.ca
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: invest?
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 21:18:55 GMT
Organization: elec engg

Some thoughts: 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 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 21:20:55 GMT
Organization: elec engg

Some thoughts: 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 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.08 / Alan M /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" <alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 16:49:09 +0000
Organization: The Levitating Pig

In article <ant081150868KksR@circlesw.demon.co.uk>, John Skingley
<john@circlesw.demon.co.uk> writes
>And, as I said in my original post, many qualified doctors practice
>hoeopathy as well as 'conventional' medicine, are they ALL deluded 
>crackpots? (You didn't answer this point).

Sorry. They are all deluded, certainly. But I would never wish to term
anybody a crackpot, solely because of his religious beliefs.

Which, in spite of your meagre and totally unconvincing attempts to
argue the contrary, have nothing at all to do with science, which stands
or falls entirely on objective truth, rather than subjective belief.
-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenalan cudfnAlan cudlnM 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 21:22:17 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 / Alan M /  Re: No Griggs results from NASA
     
Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" <alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No Griggs results from NASA
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 18:37:45 +0000
Organization: The Levitating Pig

In article <USE2PCB520751885@brbbs.brbbs.com>, MARSHALL DUDLEY
<mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com> 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.
> 
>Marshall
> 
I am sure that Jed meant to type 'disingenuous', but proved as accurate
with his typing as he has earlier proved to be with his observations of
'demonstrations'. The OED has:

disingenuous a.
[dis- 10.]
The opposite of ingenuous; lacking in candour or frankness, insincere,
morally fraudulent. (Said of persons and their actions.)

All in all, I'm only surprised he restricted this judgement to Griggs
and NASA. There are other parties tied up the CF scam who are much more
qualified to be so described.

-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenalan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.08 /  ppm /  Radiation Detecting Wristwatch
     
Originally-From: ppm <ppm@getnet.com>
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,sci.engr.biomed,sci.engr.safety,s
i.med.dentistry,sci.med.deseases.cancer,sci.med.immunology,sci.med.occup
tional,sci.med.,radiology,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.fusion,sc
.physics.particle,sci.space.tech,sci.physics,sci.med,
Subject: Radiation Detecting Wristwatch
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 1996 19:43:16 -0800
Organization: GetNet, International, Inc.

Introduction of the first wristwatch that measures, detects, and counts 
radioactive radiation and x-rays. Instant Alarm when treshold surpassed; 
Dose Rate in mrem/h and cumulative Dose in mrem recorded over last 12
months. For details:

http://gn2.getnet.com/~ppm/

Scientific feed-back appreciated.
cudkeys:
cuddy08 cudenppm cudlnppm cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.10 / 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: Sat, 10 Feb 96 02:15:55 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

In article <ZrMIJjc.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
->lforbes <lforbes@nucleus.com> writes:
-> 
->>: "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
->>
->>
->>**Excellent**  How about more famous quotations from Chairman Jed?
-> 

[. . .]

->There is NO CONTRADICTION between these two statements. None at all!


Atta boy, Jed, I knew you wouldn't let us dowm.  Your factual inconsistencies 
and pig-headed refusal to admit mistakes are two things we can depend on in an 
uncertain world. Keep up the good work!


[. . .]


cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.09 / Peter Cash /  Re: ABC-TV Nightline reports on CETI
     
Originally-From: cash@news.eng.convex.com (Peter Cash)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ABC-TV Nightline reports on CETI
Date: 9 Feb 1996 16:43:01 -0600
Organization: The Instrumentality

Hmm, so the cold fusion thing isn't dead after all? I kinda lost faith when
Pons & Fleishman threatened to sue their detractors...

Anyway, I don't understand why, if this new "cell" is so great, the
inventor doesn't do a rather simple demonstration: figure out some way to
turn the "excess heat" into an electric current, then use said current to
both power the cell and, say, a 100 watt light bulb. I think that would be
pretty convincing. But all these guys ever do is say, "hey, it's warm!"

(Hmmm. How _would_ you turn a 200 watt heat output into electricity? A
thermocouple is probably too inefficient. )
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudencash cudfnPeter cudlnCash cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.09 / Jim Bowery /  Re: ABC-TV reports on CETI
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ABC-TV reports on CETI
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 19:02:35 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

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.
-- 
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 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.10 / 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: Sat, 10 Feb 96 03:24:56 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

In article <4fe15l$mub@news.internetmci.com>, kalim@us.net (Karim Alim) wrote:
->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.
->

Have you been having these fantasies for very long? It's the first sign of the 
Rothwell syndrome. In the next stage, your brain will turn to cottage cheese.

As I understand it, a couple of people from Motorola sat in on a "private" demo 
of the Patterson cell. I can't tell you whether these people were engineers or 
accountants. It makes little difference. The demo occurred after the ENECO/CETI 
self-humiliation at PowerGen, and no mention was made of 1,344 Watts. As usual, 
the cell refused to work when outsiders were present. Dennis Cravens claimed to 
detect heat production by touching the cell, but other observers, obviously less 
talented, could detect no heat. In case you were wondering, this was not the 
non-functional "big" cell. 

The only thing that distinguishes Motorola from a lengthy list of other 
companies that have investigated the Patternson cell is that we have not 
received word of the Motorola rejection -- yet. As I understand it, ENECO/CETI 
considers anyone who doesn't laugh in their face to be a 'hot' prospect. 

The Motorola rumors have been bouncing about for some time -- certainly long 
enough for them to wrap up a deal to shut out possible competitors if they truly 
believe.  More likely, they will be joining the growing list of those who have 
rejected the claims.

As to qualifications, the annals of cold fusion are filled with incompetent 
chemists, physicists, and engineers. A couple more incompentents at a 'big 
name' company would hardly be noticed. Anyway, Jed, the High Arbiter of Cold 
Fusion, tells us that only a select and highly qualified group of 
electrochemists are competent to judge the workings of the cell. They only see 
excess heat when no one else is looking, and when they assume 100% Faraday 
efficiency. And they still haven't boiled your cup of soup.

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.10 / 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: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 02:38:59 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 In Message-ID: <4feuun$8g@reader2.ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
paleo@ix.netcom.com(Glen J. Kuban) writes: 

  "REFERENCES please!"

  Glen, point your URL to 
   http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html

 There are some references, and pointers to quite a few
more, at that location.   There is plenty of science.

  Best wishes.

    Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)

  ================================

     The truth is out there.



cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.10 / David Scott /  IT IS TIME
     
Originally-From: an096@yfn.ysu.edu (David A. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: IT IS TIME
Date: 10 Feb 1996 02:43:50 GMT
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH

real build a small working model that runs a closed steam
engine type of motor that runs a generator that once it is
started creates enough electricity to run the whole thing
and some lights with the excess power. These small steam
like engines will run on less than water boiling temperature
have every thing enclosed make sure condenser not in a lower
ambient temperature area. Have several people independently
but things together and run them for weeks or enough so start
up energy not what is being stored and used. If it works
it would not make a damn bit of difference if it was fusion
or something else. I would want one! I don't even know the
chemicals in oil but that doesn't stop us from using oil.
-- 
 David A. Scott for PGP key get from MIT server
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenan096 cudfnDavid cudlnScott cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.09 / John Elston /  Re: ABC-TV reports on CETI
     
Originally-From: elston@prairienet.org (John M. Elston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ABC-TV reports on CETI
Date: 9 Feb 1996 19:55:14 GMT
Organization: Prairienet, the East-Central Illinois Free-Net

Randall J. Burns (rburns@netcom.com) wrote:
: 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!

Also, it wasn't that these levels were not attained or observed.  The 1300
figure was observed.  It was reduced to the 500 watt level because the
demo cooling setup could not support that level for extended lengths of
time.  The 200 watt level was given as a conservative figure for the cell
being discussed on ABC.  So, all three values were observed at various times
by various people.  It isn't a matter of saying "1300 was really 200 or 
less" as you are implying.  

: RJB


--
John M. Elston                   (217) 352-6908
Elston Computer Consulting       elston@prairienet.org 
2708 Santa Ana Rd
Champaign, IL   61821-2339       Coins & Computers & Cards, Oh My! 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenelston cudfnJohn cudlnElston cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.09 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: CETI web page
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI web page
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 96 01:50:05 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> writes:
 
>Thanks to the heads up by Frank Znidarsic, you can now find CETI's
>own web page at:  http://www.onramp.net/~ceti
 
Ah, they finally got it working, did they? Good!
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.09 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: The Amazing Jed seeks the truth. NOT
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Amazing Jed seeks the truth. NOT
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 96 01:48:52 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

lforbes <lforbes@nucleus.com> writes:
 
>: "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
>
>
>**Excellent**  How about more famous quotations from Chairman Jed?
 
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 buggy whip,
the slide rule, the Wright Model A Flyer, a wood fired steamboat, the 4 K RAM
chip.
 
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.
Informed observations, that is: you had to notice how thin the lead wires were,
and you had to see that no electrolysis was occurring (no bubbles on anode).
At the same time, the pure-Pd D2O approach that they were working on at that
time was technological dead end. Useless for any practical purpose. It was
obsolete then and it is even more obsolete now. Just like the 4-K RAM chip.
Yes, we all know they exist. No, there would be no point in manufacturing
them today. It would be insane to start up a production line of circa 1975
computer memory chips.
 
The fact that the skeptics get such a thrill from the supposed contradiction
here proves that they know nothing about technology, business, or practical
matters.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.10 / John Elston /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: elston@prairienet.org (John M. Elston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: 10 Feb 1996 05:57:00 GMT
Organization: Prairienet, the East-Central Illinois Free-Net

Two things I would be curious about if you haven't already checked them.

What is an average delta T across your heating source at a 1 l/min flow rate?
This may not be easy for you to check or it may be simple.  In any case,
it would be interesting to know how close to 7 to 9 deg C your value is.

If you set up a divided flow, that is two parallel streams after the 
reduction valve and bring them back together before the reservoir,  Do 
a flow rate test similar to Jed's on one leg after verifying a 2 l/min 
flow rate on the combined flow after the streams are joined again.  Do 
you see a flow of 1 l/min in the parallel branch or do you get closer
to the total 2 l/min flow or somewhere in between.  This would give a
rough idea of how good or how far off the flow measurement might have
been in the two branch system.

--
John M. Elston                   (217) 352-6908
Elston Computer Consulting       elston@prairienet.org 
2708 Santa Ana Rd
Champaign, IL   61821-2339       Coins & Computers & Cards, Oh My! 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenelston cudfnJohn cudlnElston cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.09 /  jedrothwell@de /  The usual garbage from Bob Sullivan
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The usual garbage from Bob Sullivan
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 96 23:02:59 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan) repeats a lie first published here by Steve
Jones. I cannot possibly correct all of the lies, distortions and nonsense
here, but I thought I would take a moment to post the truth. Sullivan writes:
 
  "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."
 
No, the cells produce up to 4,000 times more energy than total I*V input,
so recombination is ruled out. This is not a lie, it is just preposterous
nonsense. I respond only because there may be new readers out there who
do not realize what "recombination" means. Sullivan thinks it is a form
of magic that allows a chemical cell to overrule the conservation of energy,
and produce thousands of times more energy out than you put in.
 
 
  "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."
 
This is a lie, although it originated with Jones, not Sullivan. Cravens said
that the most problematic aspect of the experiment is measuring temperature.
He went on to say that because of this, he confirmed the temperature with
thermocouples, thermistors and mercury thermometers, and they all agreed.
I confirmed the ICCF5 instruments with one of my thermistors too, and at
Power-Gen I used two thermistors and a thermometer.
 
By any rational, reasonable, sane scientific standard the issue would be
closed. Any fool knows that ordinary thermometers can reliably measure
temperature differences ranging from 4 to 17 deg C. Anyone knows that when
you use six different thermometers, and they all show the same answer, the
likelihood of a mistake is astronomically small. Only a confirmed idiot like
Sullivan could doubt such a thing, and only a conniving liar like Steve
Jones would go around sowing confusion and misinformation in order to delude
weak minded fools like Sullivan into thinking that thermometers don't work.
Sensible people realize that six thermometers cannot all be wrong. Cravens'
point was that because this is the most trouble-prone aspect of the experiment
he took extra special precautions to make sure it was right. By selectively
cutting and pasting Cravens' text and leaving out the key parts, Jones has
managed to turn Cravens' meaning on its head.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.09 / John Logajan /  Re: invest?
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: invest?
Date: 9 Feb 1996 23:32:28 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

soltis@server.uwindsor.ca wrote:
:      It takes say 12 hours to prime the raw beads for
: studies of heat generation.

Of the protocols I am aware of, these "charge ups" are done at
lower power, gnerally a fraction of a watt raw input.

So if you have 200 watts excess for an hour, then you would have
needed to put in one watt, say,  for 200 hours -- if it was just a 
storage battery.

So the storage battery explanation doesn't really fit with the
known protocols.

--
 - 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 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.09 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: A Bose Condesate hypothesis for CF
     
Originally-From: mbk@I_should_put_my_domain_in_etc_NNTP_INEWS_DOMAIN (Matthew B. Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Bose Condesate hypothesis for CF
Date: 9 Feb 1996 20:51:22 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee, Knoxville

singtech@teleport.com wrote:
: > >Originally-From: kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov (Matt Kennel)
: > >        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.

: That's part of the point.  Coulomb's Law is a special case and only
: applies to particles which have significant relative motion. 

Now this is an unusual assertion.  Coulomb's law appears to work
OK in accurately predicting the mutual capacitance of macroscopic conductors
at rest. 

What does "significant relative motion entail"?  Does the thermal
motion of charges in conductors count as being 'significant enough'?
If so, does your theory thus predict a change in capacitance as a function
of temperature?

Do you have a specific alternate formulation of the force law in mind? 

Presumably, it must be a modification of the Lorentz force law, 

	F = qE + v/c x B

: The only
: time that nuclear fusion can occur between interacting nuclei is when
: their de Broglie wavelengths are equal to or greater than their
: interparticle distance (measured center to center).  Get the ionized
: fusion fuel nuclei (deuterons) into the same rest frame and give them
: proximity on the order of the mean free path and they will strongly
: attractively interact and fuse.

What is the source of the attractive interaction?

: C. Cagle

: -- 


: "He who finishes physics, finishes religion and philosophy at the same time"
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel 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 22:10:19 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

HSK (hsk@microplex.com) wrote:
: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes:
: >I know many others have been fooled by light water system recombination
: >at low power gain ratios.  

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

Recombination isn't supposed to happen, which is why some people get into
trouble in their calculations by assuming it hasn't happened.  Unfortuneately,
recombination *does* happen in some light water systems -- it has been
independently seen by me, Tom Droege, Dr. Jones' students, Dr. Scrinivasan
(sp?) and others.

In an electrolytic system, O2 and H2 are generated and bubble out.  Since
it takes energy to split the H2O, and if your "anomalous" heat is small
in comparison, you may want to correct for the energy loss associated with
the dissociation by assuming 100% faraday efficiency -- meaning that
you take current times 1.48 volts to get the loss associated with the act
of splitting H2O into H2 and O2.

Look at it this way, if you ran 10 watts in to a resistive heater you'd 
get 10 watts of heat.  But if you run 10 watts into an electrolytic
cell you might only get 5 watts of heat and lose 5 watts to H2 and O2 gasses.
If you burned the H2 and O2 you'd get back the 5 watts.  Otherwise they
escape and your cell runs cooler and it is hard to tell how much
anomalous heat you are getting if it is less than 5 watts itself.

So some people riskily assume that none of the H2 or O2 recombine (releasing
heat) in the cell.  They subtract the loss (say 5 watts) then if they
see more than 5 watts coming out, they subtraict the 5 watts input and
the remainder is "anomalous" heat.

But if you were getting 25% recombination unknowingly, you'd then falsely
calculate about 1.25 watts anomalous.  You were fooled.

In the CETI case, they are well beyond recombination because their output
is greater than their total uncorrected input.  I just haven't heard
if those confirming replication are also seeing heat well beyond raw
total input.

--
 - 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 
------------------------------
1996.02.08 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 1996 11:40:42 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

This is a follow-up to my previous reply to David Gaskill. I would like to
elaborate a bit concerning why I consider it inappropriate to speculate
about the possibility of fraud in the Power Gen demo. 

First, I would note that numerous investigators scattered around the world
have gotten these types of "excess heat" results, using many variants of
the basic "cold fusion" idea originated by Pons and Fleischmann. This
fact, of and by itself, suggests that some real effect exists. 

Second, the earlier demos of the Patterson cell, at the ICCF-5 conference
and at SOFE, were extensively discussed in this group, and no
discrepancies were discovered. The SOFE design, in particular, was as
close to bulletproof as anything I have seen. 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." Taken
together, these facts suggest strongly that the Patterson variant of the
"cold fusion" scenario is for real. 

Given the context established by the above, the Power Gen results simply
do not lend themselves to speculations about fraud. The specific numbers
reported may very well turn out to be physically impossible, given the
heat dissipation capacity of the materials used. However, that outcome,
given the context, suggests nothing more to me than measuring error. The
indicated interpretation is simply that the Power Gen demo was cobbled
together in haste, in the face of a quickly approaching deadline, and that
by its nature it did not lend itself to the types of measurements that Jed
insisted on taking. 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
than the real power production. Note, however, that nothing in this
scenario implies fraud, and *nothing in it implies that the Power Gen demo
was not producing excess heat*. All it does it destroy the evidentiary
value of the Power Gen results.

To attempt to extract some useful information out of the Power Gen data, I
have considered various "reconstructive" techniques. One idea, which has
also been suggested to me via e-mail on several occasions, is to identify
the heat input that would produce an equilibrium reservoir temperature 16
degrees C above ambient, at a flow rate of 1 liter/min. The problem with
this, however, is that I don't think the flow rate measurement can be
trusted. Thus if I set my heat source to produce, say, 200 watts (as was
suggested to me yesterday), I might be able to tinker with the flow rate
until I obtain the desired equilibrium reservoir temperature, but I could
also do that with the heat source set at other values, e.g. 100 watts, or
whatever. Thus such a procedure will tell me nothing about the amount of
heat that the Power Gen demo was in fact producing. The problem is that if
the reported power output of 469 watts is assumed to be wrong, 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. 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. 

Of course, I am not yet willing to toss out these results. There are still
several tests I can do which still might validate Jed's reports. The run
with lithium sulfate, for example, needs to be done. (I have 500 grams of
the stuff on order, and should receive it any day.) 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, but I am continuing to think about it, and it is an idea
that becomes more plausible with reflection. I will probably do a test of
that idea as well.

In any case, I see no evidence of fraud in the Power Gen report, and I see
no evidence indicating that the Patterson cell does not work. The worst
case scenario here, in my view, is simply that this information has no
evidentiary value whatsoever.

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy08 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.09 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 1996 20:23:31 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

******************
Magnum 350 Run #13

I finally received the 500 grams of Li2SO4 that I ordered. The variant
that I received was Li2SO4-H20 (lithium sulfate monohydrate), and so the
effective molecular weight is (2 x 7) + 32 + (4 x 16) + 2 + 16 = 128. A 1
molar solution, therefore, would contain 1 gram molecular weight of this
substance per liter. Since a gallon contains 3.78 liters, I would need to
dissolve 3.78 x 128 = 484 grams of these crystals in a gallon of distilled
water, and so that's what I did. The results of the run were as follows:

Heat cell power setting: 458 watts
Starting air and solution temperature: 60 degrees F
Starting flow rate: 1 liter/min
Ending air temperature: 60 degrees F
Ending reservoir temperature: 138 degrees F
Ending flow rate: 1 liter/min
Elapsed time: 45 minutes

Bottom line: the use of the lithium sulfate made no significant difference
in the outcome. As in all of my other runs at this flow rate and level of
input power, the system failed to dissipate as much heat--or anywhere near
as much--as was claimed for the Power Gen demo. The inescapable conclusion
is that the Power Gen demo wasn't producing as much heat as was claimed in
the low power runs. Why not? Probably because the flow measurements were
too high. If, for example, the true flow rate was half as much as claimed,
then the power production would also be half as much. My next series of
runs, therefore, will aim to replicate the temperatures reported by Jed at
a lower flow rates and power settings, and see if I can place a lower
limit on the power production. If I can't, then I will have no choice but
to conclude that the Power Gen demo was a total washout, and proved
nothing whatsoever. If that is the outcome--and it's what I expect--then I
am next going to manufacture some beads, build a cell, and test the CETI
concept myself.   

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy09 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.09 / Barry Merriman /  Re: CETI on Nightline, Tape for Rent?
     
Originally-From: Barry Merriman <barry>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI on Nightline, Tape for Rent?
Date: 9 Feb 1996 21:45:16 GMT
Organization: University of California, Los Angeles

Order a video from ABC: 1-800-913-3434 is their number given
at the end of the show.


-- 
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet)  (NeXTMail OK)

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.09 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: ABC-TV reports on CETI
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ABC-TV reports on CETI
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 96 16:42:12 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Richard A Blue <blue@pilot.msu.edu> writes:
 
>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?
 
Hello? Earth to Dick Blue! Come in please! <Ahem> That was a *different
cell*, running at a *different time*. A CETI cell can run at any power
between zero and the maxiumum that cell can produce. They do not all
always run at exactly the same power level.
 
Here, let me give you an example that even you might understand. Think
HARD, listen up. Suppose you drive your car at 60 miles per hour on the
highway in the morning, and at 20 miles an hour in the afternoon. Does
that mean you must have two different cars? Or does it mean the first
time your speedometer was broken. No! It means that the *same car* can
go at *different speeds* operating at *different power levels*. Isn't
that amazing! My goodness, science is so hard. But if we put on our
thinking caps and we try rea-a-a-a-l hard, we can understand.
 
Also, by the way, your statement about that being a "modified report" is
a damn lie, as you well know. The only modification was the duration
of the 1300 watt run. I know you are a stupid liar, but even you must
realize that people who can read will see that you made that up. But
don't let that stop you! Please! Continue spreading your idiotic
lies, misunderstands, and deliberate distortions. You are so awful that
if you did not exist, Dick, we would have to invent you.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.09 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: fascinating  future study
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fascinating  future study
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 1996 16:31:23 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <4fdvc3$c97@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
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.
> 
> Tom Droege

***{As a matter of interest, there was another fellow by the name of "Tom
Droege" who used to post here from time to time. About a month ago,
however, he indicated that this group was a waste of time, and said that
he would not be reading it or posting here again. Any relation? --Mitchell
Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy09 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.09 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: ABC-TV Nightline reports on CETI
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ABC-TV Nightline reports on CETI
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 96 16:44:29 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Bradley K. Sherman <bks@netcom.com> writes:
 
>This Nightline was obviously the source of the recent WSJ article.
 
That is incorrect. The two journalists worked independently. Besides,
the WSJ article came first, so how could the Nightline program be its
source?
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.10 / John Logajan /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: 10 Feb 1996 10:12:19 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Mitchell Jones (21cenlogic@i-link.net) wrote:
: Magnum 350 Run #13
: Heat cell power setting: 458 watts
: Starting air and solution temperature: 60 degrees F
: Starting flow rate: 1 liter/min
: Ending air temperature: 60 degrees F
: Ending reservoir temperature: 138 degrees F
: Ending flow rate: 1 liter/min
: Elapsed time: 45 minutes

Extrapolating from these numbers seems to suggest that the CETI device
was indeed capable of running in the several hundred watt range without
boiling off.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.10 / Alan M /  Re: ABC-TV Nightline reports on CETI
     
Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" <alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ABC-TV Nightline reports on CETI
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 10:32:18 +0000
Organization: The Levitating Pig

In article <4fgill$deg@icarus.convex.com>, Peter Cash
<cash@news.eng.convex.com> writes
>Anyway, I don't understand why, if this new "cell" is so great, the
>inventor doesn't do a rather simple demonstration: figure out some way to
>turn the "excess heat" into an electric current, then use said current to
>both power the cell and, say, a 100 watt light bulb. I think that would be
>pretty convincing. But all these guys ever do is say, "hey, it's warm!"
>
Could it be because they a greater debt to Barnum than to Faraday?
-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenalan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.10 / Ziad Rahayel /  How to keep ice/water in it's solid state at 40degrees celcius? Help
     
Originally-From: Ziad Rahayel <z_rahay@alcor.concordia.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: How to keep ice/water in it's solid state at 40degrees celcius? Help
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 10:51:51 -0500
Organization: Concordia University, Montreal, Canada

Hello everybody,

I am not sure I am posting to the right group for this! 
I am looking for a way to keep ice/water in it's solid state at
temperatures up to 40degrees celcius.  Any means to do this is welcome,
thermodynamics, chemical...  Whatever. 

Thank you very much
Ziad Rahayel


cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenz_rahay cudfnZiad cudlnRahayel cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.10 / Robert Tilley /  ABC TV?  Where???
     
Originally-From: tilleyrw@digital.net (Robert Tilley)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ABC TV?  Where???
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 10:00:07 -0500
Organization: Seekers of Truth

  I received Eugene Mallove's message on the morning of 2/7/96 telling the
the "freenrg" mailing list that there would be a segment on that day on
ABC detailing the status of the Patterson Power Cell.

  I did not have the oppurtunity to view the morning news which was the
first airing of the material he said.  However, he also stated that the
same segment would be shown during that evening's edition of "Nightline".

  I stayed up late to watch it...and it was not shown!  As far as I'm
concerned at the moment, there never was a segment about the Patterson
cell and the only source of information about it is Infinite Energy and
the other alternative-energy magazines.

  And if there was, I am surprised that it would have been allowed into
the mass-media.  I am very aware of the supression concerning any new
energy technology, and this would surely spell doom to the oil industry. 
(Albeit a slow death...)

  Can anyone provide some information regarding when this material was 
broadcast so that I may order myself a copy of it from the studio?

-- 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
| "Always listen to experts. Theyıll tell you what canıt be done,   |
|  and why. Then do it." -- Lazarus Long                            |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Robert Tilley  *  tilleyrw@digital.net  *  "Once upon a time..."  |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
| **************** http://ddi.digital.net/~tilleyrw *************** |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudentilleyrw cudfnRobert cudlnTilley cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.10 / 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: 10 Feb 1996 16:01:26 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Bradley K. Sherman (bks@netcom.com) wrote:
: There was a gratuitous blackboard sequence with Patterson and Reding
: poring over E=mc2 --what was that all about?

What was the clip of Patterson fishing about?  An allegory for fish tales? :-)

: 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.

One would have to know their typical behavior to judge whether they were
in a heightened state of excitement or not -- they should, after all,
be emotionally cautious if they are still in the process of re-verifying
their findings. So I think their demeanor was of an appropriate level.
It is all subjective, of course.

: 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.

I have no doubt Guillen could have produced a more scientific less mass
appeal type piece, but I suspect that is not what they are paying him
to do.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.10 /  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: 10 Feb 1996 10:14:52 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I don't even matter, really, if they CAN turn the power cell's heat into
electricity.  The implications for home heating, water heating, etc. would
save huge amounts of energy a year.  Actually, they can definitely turn
this heat into electricity, but I don't know how efficiently.  Using a
Peltier device and keeping one of its ends cooler than the heated end
generates electricity, and vice versa, running electric current through
this device heats one end of it and cools the other ( they already sell
mini-refrigerators working on this principle ).

               - Brad Anderson
                AndersonBD@aol.com
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenandersonbd cudlnAndersonBD cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.08 / John Logajan /  CETI web page
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CETI web page
Date: 8 Feb 1996 22:05:40 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Thanks to the heads up by Frank Znidarsic, you can now find CETI's
own web page at:  http://www.onramp.net/~ceti


--
 - 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 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.10 / Alan M /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" <alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 17:44:45 +0000
Organization: The Levitating Pig

In article <ant101526d07KksR@circlesw.demon.co.uk>, John Skingley
<john@circlesw.demon.co.uk> writes
>My dictionary defines-
>Objective: adj. existing in the real world outside the human mind.
>
>The problem is of course that we experience all things through the human
>mind, which can be very easily fooled. Your objective truth is the world
>that YOU perceive, filtered by your personal 'belief system'.
>
>Anyway, so called objective science has to be based on axiomatic 'truths'.
>Things which are held to be self evident, but which are not proven. This
>has to be, since you can only 'prove' something in terms of something else.
>
>You *believe* you are now reading text on a VDU screen. This is subjective
>belief, not objective fact. You accept what your senses tell you, or
>rather how your brain interprets the signals from those senses, as fact.
>This is an axiom which cannot be proved.
>
>No one can PROVE that there is a world outside the human mind.

Yeh, right. (Who *is* this cookie?)

As I was saying, homeopathy, like CF, is a load of bollocks.
-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenalan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.10 / David Gaskill /  Re: How to keep ice/water in it's solid state at 40degrees celcius? Help
     
Originally-From: david@cgaski.u-net.com (David Gaskill)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How to keep ice/water in it's solid state at 40degrees celcius? Help
Date: 10 Feb 1996 22:14:33 GMT
Organization: U-NET limited

In message <Pine.OSF.3.91.960210105039.6322C-100000@alcor.concordia.ca> - Ziad 
Rahayel <z_rahay@alcor.concordia.ca> writes:

Hello everybody,

I am not sure I am posting to the right group for this! 
I am looking for a way to keep ice/water in it's solid state at
temperatures up to 40degrees celcius.  Any means to do this is welcome,
thermodynamics, chemical...  Whatever. 


Supposing we reversed the direction of flow through a Patterson cell.... now
there's a thought...  

 

(Ziad, sorry, that's a sort of SPF joke. There are some contributors to 
this Newsgroup who can do several impossible things before breakfast but 
I don't think maintaining water in a solid state at 40 degrees is one of 
them.) 


David

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudendavid cudfnDavid cudlnGaskill cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.10 / Harry Conover /  Re: Reconciling Magnum and PowerGen data
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reconciling Magnum and PowerGen data
Date: 10 Feb 1996 22:56:02 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

John Skingley (john@circlesw.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <horst_bob-060296203654@horst_bob.mis.tandem.com>, Robert Horst
: <mailto: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 likel=
: y.
: > > 
: > > =091.  Fraud.
: > > =092.  Incompetence.
: > > =093.  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 yo=
: ur
: > proof?  I have seen nothing to give even the slightest hint of fraud.
: > 
: [snip] 
: > -- Bob Horst  

: That's an interesting point. Libel is saying things in public which may dam=
: age
: a persons reputation. This news group is a public place. I wonder when the
: first Libel case will be brought as a result of a news group posting.

To prove libel, you must first substantiate that statements made by the
poster are untrue.  

You may wish to review the court's decision in the case of Geller vs.
The Amazing Randi.  It would appear to be applicable here.

                                   Harry C.

  
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.09 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: ABC-TV reports on CETI
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ABC-TV reports on CETI
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 96 16:50:13 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

John M. Elston <elston@prairienet.org> writes:
 
>time.  The 200 watt level was given as a conservative figure for the cell
>being discussed on ABC.  So, all three values were observed at various times
>by various people.  It isn't a matter of saying "1300 was really 200 or 
>less" as you are implying.  
 
That particular cell at that particular moment was running at 200 watts.
I saw the Power-Gen cell running at 0 watts excess too, during the warm-up
period. Gradually, over about a half-hour, it worked up to 500 watts where
they held it. You can hold a cell at any power level you like.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Feb 11 04:37:03 EST 1996
------------------------------
