1996.02.10 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 96 16:20:42 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Mitchell Jones <21cenlogic@i-link.net> writes:
 
>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
 
No, that is impossible. If that had been the case, the temperature would
have fallen as soon as we took the 250 ml samples. That did not happen.
 
I do not find this conclusion of your inescapable. It is easily escaped.
Obviously, your heat exchanger does not work as well as the one Cravens
made. I don't know why, but I am sure that must be the case because I
observed warm air coming from his exchanger when the fluid was at moderate
temperature, therefore it must have been working. At that air flow rate
it would not have taken much of a temperature rise to account for all 500 to
1300 watts.
 
Since your device is so different from his, I think you are comparing apples
to oranges. It is your experiment, so you should do whatever you please with
it but if it was mine, I would photograph the whole thing, write up a detailed
report, and shoot it off to Cravens. I'll bet he can give you some pointers.
He might even give you the air cooled heat exchanger. I think back at the
lab he uses water cooling, which is a lot more efficient. (But you would
not want to drag it to a trade show.) Anyway, we measured the heat using
flow calorimetry, we are sure of the temperature and flow and power input,
so there is not question about the results. You must remember that many
other calorimeters have been used to observe this effect at high power
levels for extended periods. Yes, they all have flowmeters, and I expect
they all use standard water cooled heat exchangers.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.09 / Horace Heffner /  Re: A Bose Condesate hypothesis for CF
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Bose Condesate hypothesis for CF
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 1996 16:32:50 -0900
Organization: none

In article <4f8r5k$cpo@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov>, kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov (Matt
Kennel) wrote:

> Horace Heffner (hheffner@anc.ak.net) wrote:
> 
> > >
> > >Originally-From: kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov (Matt Kennel)
> > [snip]
> > >
> > >We've gotten right to the crux of the misunderstanding about
> > >"overlapping" wavefunctions.
> > >
> > >The answer is:
> > >
> > >        Yes, all the 'overlapping thingons' have the same probability
density
> > >        function in space, BUT THIS DOES NOT MEAN THEY OVERLAP!!
> > >
> > >        Why?  Because they're not in the same place AT THE SAME TIME.
> > >        The ground state will find their positions anticorrelated: if
particle
> > >        A is "on the left" then particle B will be more likely to be "on
> > >        the right" if there is a repulsive interaction between them.
> > >
> > >        so rho(x) can be equal to rho(y) but still rho(x,y) can be
> > >        ZERO for ||x - y|| < R.
> > >
> > >
> > [snip]
> 
> 
> > Yes, I have seen this before.  This is just more of the wave-particle
> > interpretation.  
> 
> Indeed it is; it's called "quantum mechanics".  
> 
> > Suppose for a moment that there exists no point like
> > particles.  The above statements then begin to look like just some kind of
> > dogma.  In most scenarios the calculations might end up the same from a
> > wavefunction collapse point of view, but the vocabulary and mental models,
> > the interpretation, and the derivation, might end up being different, and
> > the results might be different in special circumstances.
> 
> There exists "no point like particles"?  Well yes, protons are known to
> have internal structure, but such a thing is utterly irrelevant at 
> room-temperature energies: they are very very tightly  bound and very very
> small.
> 
> > Most importantly, it appears you have automatically dismissed the notion
> > that at a sufficiently low temperature the waveforms can phase lock,
> > producing a single particle which will tend to collapse at a single point
> > when perturbed.  You offer no evidence to the contrary, either experimental
> > or theoretical.
> 
> Nu?  "waveforms will phase lock which will collapse at a single point"?
> That's ''star trek'' physics.   How do they "collapse at a single point"
> with a repulsive interaction??


That is a bizarre paraphrase, but I thank you for reposting the original
statement.  A better way to simplistically paraphrase what I am saying is
this: to the degree you have a single waveform you should expect a single
waveform collapse.  The 3,000 rubidium atoms of the Weiman-Cornell
experiment merge into a single waveform at 20 nanokelvins.  The wavelength
is 500,000 A.  That's one big mess of mass soup.  If you hit it with
something high velocity, some very interresting stuff might happen.  

I think single point was an unfortunate choice of words on my part, though
it does fairly well portray what happens when a photon that has expanded
to a quantum wavelength of meters ejects an electron from a single atom in
a photomultiplyer tube.  A better choice of words might be "collapses to a
smaller waveform corresponding in size to the momentum resulting from the
collision".

If all matter is wavelike, and charge is distributed in the waveforms, and
the wavelength corresponds to momentum, do you not see that repulsive
interaction will vanish for particles (waveforms) that are nearly
co-centered at nearly the same relative velovity?  Furthermore, the
condensate can consist of +,-, and neutral particles, as the condensate of
the Weimann-Cornell experiment does.  If the charges are balanced,
distributed, and approximately centered (relative to wavelength), there is
little or no electrostatic repulsion.  Small magnetic effects and/or the
strong force can maintain the proximity.

The waveform collapse, I think, is brought about by the pardox that
momentum is a *relative* thing.  The size of a quantum waveform changes
depending on the relative velocity of the particles interacting.  The huge
500,000 A condensate will look like a small condensate to a particle
moving near the speed of light, and the impacting particle will have a
wavelength depending on it's momentum relative to the condensate. In
addition, there is a continuum of possible oberver velocities, and
therefore apparant wavelengths of both the impacting particle and the
condensate.  So what determines the wavelength?  Transformations make a
lot of sense when talking about time shifts and field interactions, an
apparant locations, but no sense when talking about binding, which either
occurs or does not.  Nature must resolve the paradox of "what is the
wavelength?", and I propose does so via waveform collapse.  If the
impacting particle has sufficent velocity, the resulting wavelength could
be in the fm range, causing a nuclear reaction.



> 
> The picture that I'm supporting supposedly "without evidence" is orthodox
> quantum mechanics, which has a definite recipe and answer to this issue:
> 
>         You solve for the ground state wave function using the right
>         Hamiltonian.  
> 
> Bose condensation or palladium or a solid matrix doesn't change the 
> interaction Hamiltonian between two protons femtometers apart. 

It appears you are not considering the effect of the third particle, and
the possibility of the involvement of an electron or two in the
condensate.

> 
> There is lots and lots of evidence supporting 
> quantum mechanics in excellent detail. 


Agreed.  However there are some still some unanswered questions.  What I
suggest may answer a couple of them.

> 
> > Since the Weiman-Cornell experiment was conducted on an apparatus costing
> > less than $50,000 (an engineering miracle in it's own right IMHO), it seems
> > to me a worthwhile experiment to bombard a massive Bose condensate with a
> > particle beam to find the true answer.  If only one of the many QM
> > interpretations could be eliminated, it would be worthwhile.
> 
> This particular problem isn't an issue in any of those "interpretations" of
> quantum mechanics. {I agree there might still be new physics to learn in
> the hairy depths}  You're confusing Bose condensation with 'correlated
> wave function collapses' which seem to imply locality violations.  The second
> is the squirrely part of QM, not the first. 


I don't think I am confusing condensations with collapses. However, you
are right in that I did accidently use the word condense when I meant
collapse at one point in the original posting. I thought it was a fairly
obvious mistake so did not repost it.



> 
> This problem is an ordinary "shut up and calculate" problem for 
> which all "interpretations" of QM will give the same answer.  I.e. "what
> is the ground state energy" and "what is the spatial correlation function 
> between particles in the ground state." 
> 
> Quantum mechanics has been experimentally verified for many-body
> wavefunctions in addition to just single-body in a potential. 
> 
> The recent experimental demonstration of Bose condensation is a stunning
> VERIFICATION of standard many body quantum mechanics in quantitative detail.
> 
> It condensed just the way that theory said it would.  What alternate
> theory do you have in mind?

It is not the condensation that is in question. The question is about the
nature of a condensate waveform collapse precipitated by an impacting
particle.


> 
> > Graduate students take note!
> 
> 
> > Regards,                          <hheffner@matsu.ak.net>
> >                                   PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
      907-746-0820

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

cudkeys:
cuddy09 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL 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 22:14:29 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 / A Plutonium /  final explanation of 2nd law of thermodynamics; entropy sham
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.chem,sci.astro,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: final explanation of 2nd law of thermodynamics; entropy sham
Date: 10 Feb 1996 21:15:53 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

	Now a more basic idea or explanation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics
is obtained and derived from One Atom Universe.  I assert that the 2nd
law is radioactive decay without factoring in radioactive growth. 
 
Experiments that prove entropy is a fake concept, a sham.
  Take a large block of 100% uranium of only one particular isotope of
uranium. When first measured it will be 100% of the isotope and then
remeasured, the block will have mostly radioactively decayed into lead
isotopes and neon isotopes. This description of radioactive decay is a
description of the 2nd law, described as an ordered state (a state
where the element is of a high atomic number) changed to a state of
lesser order (lower atomic number elements).  Thus radioactive decay is
the more fundamental principle over the 2nd law of thermodynamics,
since the 2nd law does not even account for the small number of
neptunium and plutonium atoms coming from radioactive growth in the
original uranium block.  Starting with a 100% block of only one isotope
of uranium then by time t2 most of the uranium isotopes will decay into
lower atomic number elements, explaining what the 2nd law of
thermodynamics is at a more fundamental level, but also, this 100%
block will have some radioactive growth for a small number of the
uranium isotopes will transmutate by electron emission decay where a
neutron in the nucleus is transformed into a proton increasing the
atomic number Z by 1 into a neptunium atom and then a fewer yet of
these neptunium atoms will transmutate by electron emission decay into
a plutonium atom, and then there is a possibility of double electron
emission decay of a very small number of the uranium isotopes decaying
forming plutonium directly from uranium. Thus after time t2, a few
atoms will materialize that have more order than the original uranium
atoms.

 The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics before my teachings was a not too well
understood law. As stated in all textbooks before my teachings it was
not a law but a half-cooked idea. The concept of entropy is a complete
sham and fakery. Unless you want to call entropy as that of radioactive
growth. Of course the pinstriped suited professors of physics could
never really understand the 2nd Law, and never teach it correctly. Of
course they could never teach it correctly because they never
understood it. Making half-baked references to why life can exist when
entropy increases. Making fruitcake references to entropy being
connected to time. Ask those pinstripe suited professors of physics to
take a bucket and scoop up some entropy and bring it to class. In fact
ask them regardless of what they wear, for that exercise clearly puts
them on the spot and puts the realization that their entropy was
nothing but baloney, just as the ether was baloney.

  I on the other hand can scoop up the 2nd law of thermodynamics in a
bucket. I will bring you a pure as pure can be lump of uranium and
after a given time that uranium will contain more and more and more
lead but also of neptunium and plutonium than was in the original lump.
There, there is the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the fakery of entropy
all wrapped up.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.10 / Harry Conover /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: 10 Feb 1996 22:23:43 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: Harry H Conover <conover@max.tiac.net> writes:
:  
: >Evidently you're unfamiliar with the names Hertz, Maxwell and 
: >others that fully documented electromagnetic waves prior to Marconi's
: >work on the commercial exploitation of an already *well understood* 
: >area of physics.
:  
: That is incorrect. Before Marconi, nobody knew that radio signals could
: be sent around the curvature of the earth. The ionosphere had not been
: discovered.

Considering the fact that the frequencies with which Marconi worked
propagate primarily as 'ground waves,' the ionosphere was not required.
Enough power to overcome inverse square law losses was all that was
required. (And yes, ground wave propagation follows the curvature 
of the Earth!)

This science (in fact technology) well known and documented long 
before Marconi and described in every radio propagation textbook.

:  
: Any history of radio or biography of Marconi describes this.

If they do, they were written by scientific illiterates!

Marconi worked at frequencies at or below today's U.S. am broadcast
band (550-1600 KHz).  A quick check of any radio engineering text will 
quickly reveal that at such frequencies, propagation is almost entirely
accomplished by ground waves, and range is limited entirely by
inverse square law considerations (given enough power, any range
is possible).

In fact, this is one of the reasons that such frequencies were
originally chosen for broadcasting.  Low frequency reliance on 
ground wave propagation is preferable for robust communications
channels since there is NO dependence on ionospheric skip for
reliable communication.  Hertz knew this, Maxwell knew this,
and Marconi read about it!

If Marconi suspected ionosperic skip as a possible trans-Atlantic
communications path, he would have chosen to employ a much higher
band of frequencies than he did.  His choice of frequency, alone,
strongly suggests that he has attempting to commercially exploit 
the scientific observations and previous discoveries of others.

There is nothing in itself wrong with this.  But please, give
credit for discovery where credit is due.  Marconi advanced
the 'business' of radio communications, but contributed little
to man's scientific knowledge other than the design of a style
of radio antenna that even today remains named after him.

                                   Harry C.

ps.  I waited for over a week to allow someone else to take note
     of this obvious flaw in Jed's argument.  Since none have
     come forward, I decided to post 'the rest of the story.'




cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.10 / Harry Conover /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: 10 Feb 1996 22:30:09 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company


@circlesw.demon.co.uk>
Distribution: 

John Skingley (john@circlesw.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <4f3ul4$d82@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov>, Matt Kennel
: <mailto:kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov> wrote:
: > 
: > jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: > > Harry H Conover <conover@max.tiac.net> writes:
: > >  
: > > >Evidently you're unfamiliar with the names Hertz, Maxwell and 
: > > >others that fully documented electromagnetic waves prior to Marconi's
: > > >work on the commercial exploitation of an already *well understood* 
: > > >area of physics.
: > >  
: > > That is incorrect. Before Marconi, nobody knew that radio signals could
: > > be sent around the curvature of the earth. The ionosphere had not been
: > > discovered.
: > 
: > Sure, but the *existence* of radio waves as electromagnetic
: > oscillation was not in doubt.  And there was thus already sufficient 
: > physics
: > already known to make the inference that there must be a conducting
: > layer in the atmosphere.
: > 
: > > - Jed

: Right.  That wasn't quite the point I was making, but it will do. AT THE TIME
: sending radio signals around the curvature of the earth was thought to be 
: impossible.  Early experiments to repeat it MUST have been variable (they are
: today!) The observed experimental results were subsequently explained by the
: discovery of the ionosphere.

: There may have been sufficient physics already known to make the inference 
: that there must be a conducting layer in the atmosphere, but supposing there
: hadn't been. The sceptical ones would presumably have said that Marconi was
: a crackpot.

That inference was not required since it was already well established that
ground waves followed the Earth's curvature.  Only at higher frequencies
(largely vhf and uhf) do line of sight considerations apply. These 
higher frequencies were largely unknown in Marconi's era, so there is
no basis to suppose a popular belief that radio was limited to line-
of-sight ranges.

                                     Harry C.

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.11 /  dubosky /  Re: ABC TV?  Where???
     
Originally-From: dubosky@mail.netline.net (dubosky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ABC TV?  Where???
Date: 11 Feb 1996 01:50:28 GMT
Organization: Netline Communications, Inc.

In article <tilleyrw-1002961000070001@pm2_27.digital.net>, tilleyrw@digi
al.net (Robert Tilley) says:
>
>  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.
>
>  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 *************** |
>---------------------------------------------------------------------

The Nightline program on the Patterson Power Cell was on Thursday, Feb. 8th.

Dan
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudendubosky cudlndubosky cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.10 /  jedrothwell@de /  [HEven more nonsense from Sullivan!
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: [HEven more nonsense from Sullivan!
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 96 17:37:54 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan), who has a vivid imagination, writes:
 
    "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 . . ."
 
Needless to say, Sullivan understands nothing, he made up that nonsense out
of thin air. He managed to cram four bold faced lies into this short segment,
which may be a new record. There is no point in trying to correct the Niagara
of nonsense on Internet, but perhaps it is worthwhile listing the errors in
this part of the message:
 
   Motorola tested the cells in their own labs.
 
   Engineers & scientists worked on the project, not accountants.
 
   Their tests occurred before Power-Gen.
 
   ENECO has nothing to do with it, and no connection with CETI.
 
The rest of his message is also bunk, ending with his trademark assertion
which is a gross violation of the conservation of energy regarding "100%
Faraday efficiency" which Sullivan believes is a magic force that allows
you to get 4,000 times more energy out than you put in. Sullivan's
ignorance of basic physics is so complete that you would think even his
fellow "skeptics" would point out his mistake to him, but that is not how
"skeptics" work. They never, ever critisize one of their own, no matter how
stupid he is. They have a code of silence, in which anything that a fellow
skeptic says must automatically be accepted as Truth.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.10 / Harry Conover /  Re: Where is Cold Fusion theory
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Where is Cold Fusion theory
Date: 10 Feb 1996 22:49:02 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Gil Andrade (ANDRADE@devlpr.enet.dec.com) wrote:

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

[snip]

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

In a nutshell, when physics people reviewed the work of the 
electrochemists, they found no evidence of either excess heat
or fusion products. 

: Nobody seems to know or care !!!

Is there something in CF to care about?

Seriously, if a scientifically verifiable discovery of true excess
energy ever surfaces, there will be a great deal of interest by the
physics community.  Most physicists consider this an unlikely
scenario.

                                   Harry C.

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.09 / John Skingley /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: John Skingley <john@circlesw.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 1996 10:49:26 +0000 (GMT)

In article <4fd799$k55@soap.news.pipex.net>, J B Youles
<mailto:john.youles@dial.pipex.com> wrote:

In reply to John Skingley <john@circlesw.demon.co.uk>:

> My point was to distinguish between rejecting something because of lack 
> of evidence, and rejecting something because it does not fit into the 
> belief system, despite the evidence.

One problem is that people reject the evidence because it does not fit into
their belief system, so both of these options can be the same thing!

> I don't know whether there is excess heat or not, but it seems to me that 
> this can be ascertained independently of any theory of the mechanism.

Of course.  This is the usual course of scientific discovery.

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

Well, I suppose it can be said the CURRENT theory does not support it,
but then that's life!  We have to constantly change theories to accomodate
new discoveries.

Believing that your current belief system is inviolate is a dead end.

I think we are basically in agreement. :-)
 --------------------------
Regards,  John.
P.O. Box 36, BODMIN, PL30 4YY, U.K. Tel/Fax: +44 1208 850790

cudkeys:
cuddy09 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnSkingley cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.09 /  jedrothwell@de /  ABC's video & transcript order number
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ABC's video & transcript order number
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 96 08:41:04 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Videos of ABC's news broadcasts can be purchased by dialing 1-800-913-3434.
Transcripts are available from 1-800-255-6397. They can be delivered by e-mail
for $10 per copy. The recent program about cold fusion was "Nightline (ABC)
#3838."
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.11 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 96 00:18:22 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

<jedrothwell@delphi.com> writes:
 
>so there is not question about the results. You must remember that many
>other calorimeters have been used to observe this effect at high power
>levels for extended periods. Yes, they all have flowmeters, and I expect
>they all use standard water cooled heat exchangers.
 
. . . by that I mean they dump the circulating fluid into a constant
temperature cooler. Or in the case of the CETI gadget where they
circulate electrolyte, they dump the coiled return tube into a constant
temperature water bath. When he lived in Texas Cravens used to use his
deep well water turned on to a constant flow as his water bath. Typical
of him!
 
Obviously a water bath is better than an air cooling system, because it
is so effective and because with a proper lab cooler you can make the bath
a little warmer than ambient, which is highly recommended. Mitchell might
find it fun to experiment with a water bath. Wet, messy fun.
 
Another interesting parameter that wants investigation is the effect of
evaporation. Don't forget that!
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.10 / 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: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 14:14:56 GMT
Organization: U-NET limited

 
 
> 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. 
 
As you say, inescapable. 
 
> 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. 
 
I don't see the point of this. There are obviously an infinite number of   
combinations of flow rate and input power which will produce the   
temperature differential which Jed observed. I think that your results   
already allow you to conclude that: 
 
> the Power Gen demo was a total washout, and proved  
> nothing whatsoever 
 
> then I  
> am next going to manufacture some beads, build a cell, and test the CETI  
> concept myself. 
 
That is excellent news. If I didn't live on the other side of the Atlantic   
I would come and help. How are you proposing to manufacture the beads? Do   
you have the facilities to carry out the apparently quite complex   
electrochemical deposition process yourself?   
  
If you succeed in recording significant excess heat I, and I think many   
others,will accept the possibility that CETI has, at the least, got a very   
commercially significant process on their hands.   
  
It on the other hand your work does not demonstrate significant power   
generation I fear  that many of those currently involved in the project   
will simply say that you didn't do  it the right way...such is the   
consequence of the fact that  you can't prove a negative.  
 
  

David
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudendavid cudfnDavid cudlnGaskill cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.11 / 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: Sun, 11 Feb 96 06:54:53 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

In article <Il6hrI200WB7It6ZEt@andrew.cmu.edu>,
   Paul Karol <pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
->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

I haven't seen the whole McKubre report -- only pieces of it, but for the of 
others who have not seen it at all, here's what I know about it.

1) McKubre used a closed calorimeter rather than a flow calorimeter.

2) McKubre's analysis used heavy water (D2O) rather than plain water.

3) McKubre used concentric palladium cathodes and anodes rather the bead 
arrangement.

4) McKubre's input currents ranged up to 7,000 milliamps rather than the few 
milliamps usually discussed here.

5) McKubre's "excess" power measurements appear to be two Watts or less.

6) McKubre's excess power measurements tended to correlate positively with input 
current levels.

7) McKubre included a 'large area' platinum catalyst in the head space of the 
cell to force the recombination of the deuterium and oxygen within the cell.

Now to answer your question: Recombination should not be a problem in McKubre's 
calorimetry. The energy used to produce deuterium and oxygen is recovered 
internally as heat in the forced-recombination process. 

	(2D20 + (energy) -> 2D2 + O2 + (Pt) -> 2D20 + (heat))

There is no need to make 'adjustments' to the heat balance for energy lost in 
producing the gasses. The platinum catalyst solved the recombination problem for 
McKubre, because his heat balance calculations were correct for the cell 
configuration.  

[Now here's the general disclaimer for those inclined to jump to conclusions: 
The statement above does not apply to the ENECO/CETI cell where Faraday 
efficiency (recombination) is a BIG problem in the low-power runs. The problems 
with the high-power runs have not been completely enumerated.]

By way of comparison, the effects of the platinum catalyst in the Patterson cell 
are not treated correctly. What the ENECO/CETI crowd calls a 'recombination 
adjustment' is actually an adjustment that assumes *no* recombination.

I continue to find the McKubre results to be 'interesting.' In my mind, the 
ENECO/CETI debacle does nothing to impair the McKubre results.  However, I 
suspect that another shoe dropped on the the McKubre study and we did not hear 
about it. (I'm not talking about conspiracies.)

EPRI funded the original studies, but then with seemingly positive results, they 
choose not to fund further studies. Why? The science behind the McKubre studies 
appears to be several orders of magnitude better than behind the ENECO/CETI 
fiasco but then the claims are much less grand.

Does anybody have any insights into what happened to the McKubre line of 
research? (Please don't clutter up s.p.f with conspiracy speculation -- that dog 
doesn't hunt.)
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.10 / Joe Champion /  MASS SPECTROSCOPY VALIDATION OF TRANSMUTATION
     
Originally-From: discpub@netzone.com (Joe Champion)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: MASS SPECTROSCOPY VALIDATION OF TRANSMUTATION
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 21:23:02 MST
Organization: NetZone, Inc.  (602) 991-4NET

MASS SPECTROSCOPY VALIDATION OF TRANSMUTATION



It can be found at: http://www.netzone.com/~discpub/valid.html

For the skeptics in the mist, the data in this report was generated
by the technical staff of Perkin Elmer Corporation in San Jose,
California.   The tests were performed in a demonstration of their
Elan-6000 mass spectrometer

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudendiscpub cudfnJoe cudlnChampion cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.11 / Bob Sullivan /  Jed's got the heebie-jeebies
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jed's got the heebie-jeebies
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 96 06:57:58 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

In article <R1Lr5Zq.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
->bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan), who has a vivid imagination, writes:
-> 
->    "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 . . ."
-> 
->Needless to say, Sullivan understands nothing, he made up that nonsense out
->of thin air. He managed to cram four bold faced lies into this short segment,
->which may be a new record. There is no point in trying to correct the Niagara
->of nonsense on Internet, but perhaps it is worthwhile listing the errors in
->this part of the message:
-> 
->   Motorola tested the cells in their own labs.
-> 
->   Engineers & scientists worked on the project, not accountants.
-> 
->   Their tests occurred before Power-Gen.
-> 
->   ENECO has nothing to do with it, and no connection with CETI.


I guess you haven't been told about the meeting, Jed, or if you were told 
about it, you got the facts confused -- again. The private non-demo for 
Motorola, et al, occurred after PowerGen and it was hosted at the Miley site. 
Patterson, Redding, and Cravens were all there.  I'm sure they'll tell you about 
the meeting if you only ask since you're privy to all the insider stuff. 

Another interesting bit of information was disclosed at the meeting.  The 
supposedly smooth and uniform coating of the Patterson looks like the mountains 
of the moon when viewed through an electron microscope.  Smoooooth beads are an 
absolute requirement for the proper functioning of the P-cell -- or so they want 
us to believe. Look at it as another opportunity for the revisionists. The beads 
prepared by Miley's group are as smooth as a baby's bottom in comparison.
 
->The rest of his message is also bunk, ending with his trademark assertion
->which is a gross violation of the conservation of energy regarding "100%
->Faraday efficiency" which Sullivan believes is a magic force that allows
->you to get 4,000 times more energy out than you put in. Sullivan's
->ignorance of basic physics is so complete that you would think even his
->fellow "skeptics" would point out his mistake to him, but that is not how
->"skeptics" work. They never, ever critisize one of their own, no matter how
->stupid he is. They have a code of silence, in which anything that a fellow
->skeptic says must automatically be accepted as Truth.
-> 
->- Jed


Silly goose, you need to get a score card to keep the players straight -- it's 
you who believes in magic. 

I don't believe in "a magic force that allows you to get 4,000 times more energy 
out than you put in."  I don't believe in magic at all. The claims of 1,000 
times input have been thoroughly refuted. That's why I don't believe your 
blather about 4,000 times input. No magic required -- just a few facts and a 
little arithmetic. 

By the way, I understand that some of members of the 'gang that couldn't shoot 
straight' are heavily into the international commodities markets (palladium?).  
Is the current frenetic media blitz part of an attempt to swing commodity 
prices? I've been told that the Feds take a dim view of shenanigans like that.

Pssst Jed, don't look behind you right now, but it appears that somebody's 
following you. It might be some of the evil TB skeptics trying to get the goods 
on you.  Oh, never mind, it's probably just the Feds -- nothing to worry about 
compared to the TB skeptics.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.11 / James Vanmeter /  Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
     
Originally-From: nazrael@cats.ucsc.edu (James Vanmeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
Date: 11 Feb 1996 10:06:27 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan) wrote:

>In article <Il6hrI200WB7It6ZEt@andrew.cmu.edu>,
>   Paul Karol <pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>->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
>
>I haven't seen the whole McKubre report -- only pieces of it, but for the of 
>others who have not seen it at all, here's what I know about it.
[snip]

Actually, I think Paul Karol was referring to McKubre's debate with John
Huizenga on Nightline regarding the CETI cell.  A sample excerpt:

Huizenga: "They're not taking into account recombination."

McKubre: "That's completely incorrect."

There was a slight bit more along these lines but the moderator stopped
McKubre before he could discuss in detail the issue of recombinaton in the
CETI cell, apparently out of fear of losing the scientifically impaired 
viewing audience.


cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudennazrael cudfnJames cudlnVanmeter cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.11 / John Logajan /  Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
Date: 11 Feb 1996 11:48:43 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Bob Sullivan (bsulliva@sky.net) wrote:
: 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.

If the list is lengthy, could you list some?

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.09 / John Skingley /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: John Skingley <john@circlesw.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 1996 10:32:47 +0000 (GMT)

In article <21cenlogic-0802961709270001@austin-1-11.i-link.net>,
Mitchell Jones <mailto:21cenlogic@i-link.net> wrote:
> 
> In article <ant061723d07KksR@circlesw.demon.co.uk>, John Skingley
> <john@circlesw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > I think you need to measure the temperature of the air just before it passes 
> > over the tubing, and see what arrangment keeps this the coolest. It is this
> > temperature which is effectively your ambient, as far as the cell is
> concerned.
> 
> ***{I checked out the heating effect of my fan by simply measuring the
> temperature of still air in my workshop (which was 58 degrees F), then
> placing the thermometer in front of my fan and turning the fan on. Result:
> after 30 minutes, the thermometer still registered 58 degrees F. Of
> course, there must have been *some* heating effect. That is logically
> necessary. However, it was apparently too slight to register on my
> thermometer--which means: less than half a degree F (and probably *far*
> less). Bottom line: I think we can safely discount this particular
> explanation for my inability to dissipate heat as rapidly as was claimed
> at Power Gen. --Mitchell Jones}*** 

Did you place the thermometer in front of the fan in free air, or inside
your cooling thingy. This could make a big difference as the air flow is
restricted and confined.

If you did, fine, no need to reply!
 --------------------------
Regards,  John.
P.O. Box 36, BODMIN, PL30 4YY, U.K. Tel/Fax: +44 1208 850790

cudkeys:
cuddy09 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnSkingley cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.10 / Jim Bowery /  Re: ABC TV?  Where???
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ABC TV?  Where???
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 17:16:41 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Robert Tilley (tilleyrw@digital.net) wrote:
:   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...)

You are giving the parasites too little credit.  They had to put things 
off until after boomer fertility faded.  Its ok now.  We can have the 
stuff necessary to make families again -- starting with a positive-sum 
world view.

The thumb-screws are being loosened.
-- 
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:
cuddy10 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.10 / Jim Bowery /  Re: ABC-TV Nightline reports on CETI
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ABC-TV Nightline reports on CETI
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 17:24:42 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

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?

The point?  "Without Einstein, none of this would have happened."  I guess.
-- 
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:
cuddy10 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.11 /  DGoncz /  Re: How to keep ice/water in it's solid state at 40degrees celcius? Help
     
Originally-From: dgoncz@aol.com (DGoncz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How to keep ice/water in it's solid state at 40degrees celcius? Help
Date: 11 Feb 1996 10:16:01 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

You could add a gelling agent like that used in seed starting pot kits.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudendgoncz cudlnDGoncz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.09 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: No Griggs results from NASA
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No Griggs results from NASA
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 1996 11:13 -0500 (EST)

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
 
cudkeys:
cuddy09 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.10 / Patrick Esch /  Re: How to keep ice/water in it's solid state at 40degrees celcius? Help
     
Originally-From: vanesch@jamaica.desy.de (Patrick van Esch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How to keep ice/water in it's solid state at 40degrees celcius? Help
Date: 10 Feb 1996 18:04:21 GMT
Organization: DESY

Ziad Rahayel (z_rahay@alcor.concordia.ca) wrote:
: 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. 

I don't think it is possible, at least not in a stable state.
The problem is that water expands as it freezes, so pressure
is not a way to go.  
Maybe (I'm not competent there) in minimal quantities, at a surface
of one or the other solid state.  But as bulk ice, nope...

cheers,
Patrick.


--
Patrick Van Esch
http://www.iihe.ac.be/hep/pp/vanesch
mail:   vanesch@dice2.desy.de
for PGP public key: finger vanesch@dice2.desy.de
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenvanesch cudfnPatrick cudlnEsch cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.11 / Richard Schultz /  Re: The usual garbage from Bob Sullivan
     
Originally-From: schultr@ashur.cc.biu.ac.il (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The usual garbage from Bob Sullivan
Date: 11 Feb 1996 15:27:12 GMT
Organization: Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel.

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: I cannot possibly correct all of the lies, distortions and nonsense
: here, but I thought I would take a moment to post the truth.

How about you take a moment to correct the, umm, extremely misleading
report of yours at the Cold Fusion Web Site?  You know, the one about
the 1-Kilowatt CETI device.

-----
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 just make this crap up and publish it without thinking. . . You did not
have the foggiest, vaguest idea what the man was doing. . . Did you ever
think, for even a second, what might happen to you if these people turn
out to be right?" -- Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 6 January 1993
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenschultr cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.11 / John Logajan /  Re: Jed's got the heebie-jeebies
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed's got the heebie-jeebies
Date: 11 Feb 1996 20:34:23 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Bob Sullivan (bsulliva@sky.net) wrote:
: Another interesting bit of information was disclosed at the meeting.  The 
: supposedly smooth and uniform coating of the Patterson looks like the
: mountains of the moon when viewed through an electron microscope.  Smoooooth
: beads are an absolute requirement for the proper functioning of the P-cell
: -- or so they want us to believe. Look at it as another opportunity for the
: revisionists.

I am aware that the Patterson patent claims the need for uniformity to
prevent hot spots.

Recall that there are only two macro inputs immediately available to control
reaction rates (and lets us assume it is only a chemical reaction.)  You
can increase or decrease the electrolysis current, or you can increase or
decrease the electrolyte flow rate.

As with all manufactured articles, there is a statistical variation in the
size of the beads, in the thickness of their various coatings, and in
the smoothness.

With macro control and individual variability, you would like to have
as narrow a variability as practical, otherwise optimum conditions for
the average bead would put a large fraction of others outside the
useful range (too cold and thus wasting volume, or too hot and thus
self-destructing.)

Now Bob here claims that irregularities at the microscopic level contradict
the patent claims for a need for uniformity.  I think Bob would have to
give us a range of diminishing returns to support his claim. 

It is entirely possible that optimum performance would be a balance between
a certain level of roughness versus a large scale uniformity to prevent
too many bead failures under macro control.

So Bob, can you shed any more light on this data -- since you seem to imply
that you have connections to an insider.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.11 /  RMCarrell /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: rmcarrell@aol.com (RMCarrell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: 11 Feb 1996 11:27:08 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

This is a tangled thread indeed and I will try to unkink it. Hertz
performed his experiments with spark gap oscillators and detectors,
lacking anything better. The wavelengths generated are defined by the
associated resonators, and in Hertz's case they would have been in the
centimeter region, where refraction and reflection were easily observable,
and distance transmission limited to line-of-sight. 

Many exprimenters followed Hertz's lead, since the materials and
techniques were easily available. There was much fumbling and uncertain
results. Marconi was only one of many who tried for increased distances,
using spark gap generators. Tesla was the first to fully define the
requirements for distance radio transmission, which was finally recognized
by the US Patent office only a few decades ago. 

Medium wave transmission is primarily ground wave, which does conform to
the earth's curvature, but long distance skip does occur in the AM band at
night. The wavelengths of 30 meters and less were relegated to amateurs as
worthless and unreliable. It was they who discovered and utilized the skip
effects to communicate around the world with a few watts and directional
antennas. It was only later that it was realized that ionospheric
reflection was the source of the skip. And it was still later that hams
found that the ionization trails left by meteors could be used as
reflectors for over-the-horizon burst communication at very high
frequencies. 

The Navy planted the antennas for Extremely Low Frequency transmission in
the earth because the purpose was to signal submerged nuclear submarines.
The earth and salt water being both conductors, only frequencies in the
audo range get through. 

DeForest invented the Audion, the vacuum tube amplifier, in 1906. He
didn't really understand how it worked, as the structure of the atom, and
electrons as the carriers of electricity, was not elucidated until later.
Hundreds of amateurs and professionals tinkered with circuits and DeForest
tried to claim a piece of every action. At one point DeForest was sued for
fraud for claiming that his device would lead to transatlantic voice
communication. It remained for Armstrong to introduce a series of circuits
(regenerative detector, superheterodyne, FM radio) that defined the path
of the radio industry. 

The moral here is that the phenomenon preceeds theory, discoveries precede
protocols, and careful exprimental protocols are suitable for refining
understanding of a discovery. An experimentalist needs to meticulously
document his work so that others can replicate it and theorists build on
it, but that does not prevent useful devices from being made.  

As far as the CF arena is concerned, P&F might correspond to DeForest and
Patterson to Armstrong, but it is much too early and we can leave that to
the historians. 

Jed has taken CETI to task for not freely selling beads to experimenters.
He has a valid point. In the early days of electronics, people made their
own equipment until specialized things like radio tubes and other
components were supplied by commercial firms. After WW2, RCA introduced a
30 tube television set when most radios had 3 to 5 tubes. Recognizing that
RCA alone could not create an industry, the technology was licensed to one
an all, help was given in design, and RCA built sets for other brand names
until competitors could get their own plants going. 

I submit, however, it will be a while before NE (New Energy) devices are
ready for the consumer market. Fuel is a small part of the ownership cost
of an automobile, or of your electric bill. It is an important part of the
cost of operating a utility. This does not minimize the importance of the
discoveries we are witnessing. 

The spirited exchange of views (to put it politely) here if spf is an echo
of the invective between the competitve pioneers of electronics and
earlier technologies. 

Mike Carrell





cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenrmcarrell cudlnRMCarrell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.11 / Jeff Candy /  Re: ABC-TV reports on CETI
     
Originally-From: Jeff.Candy@jet.uk (Jeff Candy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ABC-TV reports on CETI
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 96 16:50:02 GMT
Organization: JET Joint Undertaking

jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) 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

>Reminds me of the projections for the Tokamak

Well, quite the opposite with a tokamak.  We measure neutron
flux in a tokamak.  We know what fusion reaction it is, and
indeed that it *is* fusion.  What we don't do is claim that
we've solved once-and-for-all the problem of controlled fusion.



Jeff Candy                    ... man -- every man -- is an end
Analytic Theory Group         in himself, not the means to the
JET Joint Undertaking         ends of others ...
                                                   --- Ayn Rand


===============================================================================
    The above article is the personal view of the poster and should not be
       considered as an official comment from the JET Joint Undertaking
===============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenCandy cudfnJeff cudlnCandy cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.11 / Craig Haynie /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: Craig Haynie <ccHaynie@ix.netcom.com>
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 10:28:24 -0600
Organization: Netcom

I'm going ahead and reposting this since the date in the header
showed up as Feb 4 when I posted it 
originally last night, Feb 10.

Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
> ... 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

Hello Mitchell!

I'm forwarding information from another fellow who's doing the
same thing. I hope this helps:

 ---------------------[Begin Forwarded Message]-----------------------

Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)

We have found a company that specializes in metal-coated glass beads.  They
have agreed to make beads similar to the Patterson beads for what seems to
be a very reasonable price.

Present specifications are:

bare beads:                        1 - 1.5 mm dia soda lime glass
activation:                        monolayer of Sn/Pd
electroless deposition layer 1:    1 +/- .5 micron Ni
electroless deposition layer 2:    1 +/- .5 micron Pd
electroless deposition layer 3:    1 +/- .5 micron Ni

Note that these beads are glass, not plastic.  Hopefully, this will not
affect their performance and, in fact, will allow higher operating temperatures.

We are willing to sell small batches (e.g. 1-10 cubic centimeters) of these
beads to interested parties.

The price is $50 per cubic centimeter of beads.  Judging from this
attractive price, I'd say that my speech about the exciting commercial
potential of these beads had some positive effect on the supplier.

Delivery has been quoted at 4-6 weeks after receipt of order.

I will wait a couple of days to gauge the level of interest in these beads
and then place an appropriate order.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenccHaynie cudfnCraig cudlnHaynie cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.11 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  How to keep ice/water in it's solid state at 40degrees celcius? Help
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: How to keep ice/water in it's solid state at 40degrees celcius? Help
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 1996 11:16 -0500 (EST)

Ziad Rahayel <z_rahay@alcor.concordia.ca> writes:
 
-> I am not sure I am posting to the right group for this!
 
You are not.  Sci.physics and sci.chem would be better choices.
 
-> 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.
 
This cannot be done with pure water.  The highest melting point of water occurs
a small fraction of a degree above 0 C.  Pressures necessary to accomplish this
would be out of the question.  You state that you can use chemical means.
There are a number of chemicals that can make the solution of water and the
chemical solid at 40 C.  Gelatin is one that comes to mind immediately that
would allow you to take it to about 20 C.  Other similar chemicals, such as
agar agar I believe will go to higher temperatures.
 
Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Feb 12 04:37:03 EST 1996
------------------------------
