1996.02.11 / Seth W /  Re: Cold Fusion on ABC
     
Originally-From: sethw@access5.digex.net (Seth W.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion on ABC
Date: 11 Feb 1996 01:03:06 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: I described the CETI device in this forum previously, and in Infinite Energy
: magazine. In April 1995 at the Fifth International Conference on Cold Fusion
: I observed a demonstration with 0.5 watts input and 2.5 watts output. In
: December 1995, I observed demonstration runs of a scaled up device. It
: usually runs with 0.1 - 0.5 watts input and 400 to 500 watts output. During a
: high power run lasting about a quarter hour input was 1.4 watts and output
: was 1,300 watts. The devices have been independently replicated by Miley et
: al. at the University of Illinois, and independently tested and verified by
: several groups, including the University of Illinois, the University of
: Missouri, and Motorola.
:  
: - Jed Rothwell

Why did the "high power run" last 15 minutes?  Why not an hour?  Or a day?

sethw@access.digex.net
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudensethw cudfnSeth cudlnW cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.11 / Seth W /  Re: ABC-TV reports on CETI
     
Originally-From: sethw@access5.digex.net (Seth W.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ABC-TV reports on CETI
Date: 11 Feb 1996 00:47:11 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA

John M. Elston (elston@prairienet.org) wrote:
:
: 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

Just how long can this Patterson cell run?  What is the longest sustained
period of excess heat production that has been documented?  (I'd also like
to know WHERE it was documented, if you would.)

sethw@access.digex.net
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudensethw cudfnSeth cudlnW cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.11 /  DavesRadio /  Patterson Power Cell
     
Originally-From: davesradio@aol.com (DavesRadio)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Patterson Power Cell
Date: 11 Feb 1996 15:51:42 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Greetings all,

I have just returned from the CETI Web Site and I will be building a
Patterson Cell.  I have the necessary support compnents, I just need some
beads.  I have contacted Mr. Reding and Mr. Patterson regarding obtaining
a quantity of the beads,  which I await a reply to.

Anyone knowing of existing sources of these beads that I am not yet aware
of, please e-mail me at the listings below.

I also have seen an "ad" for some "ersatz" beads of glass construction. 
Has anyone yet attempted a device employing these?

I will post all results of my experiment to this list as well as
forwarding to CETI for their evaluation, if they are interested.

In addition, I intend to replace my existing baseboard hot-water home
heating system with these cells!  "Be the first kid on the block to have
this new futuristic hydrogen energy conversion heating system in YOUR
home..."  :=)

Please address e-mail to david.copeland@cor.dowjones.com

Serious telephone inquiries, especially offers of donations of test beads,
may be directed to (413) 267-9518.  Faxes to this number as well (dial 
1  1  (That's two "ones") from your touch-tone phone if you get my
answering machine instead of my fax...)

Regular mailing may be directed to PO Box 170, Wilbraham, MA 01095-0170.

Thanks & regards,

David N. Copeland





cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudendavesradio cudlnDavesRadio cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.10 / A Plutonium /  final explanation of Special Relativity; 4-d a 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,sci.math
Subject: final explanation of Special Relativity; 4-d a sham
Date: 10 Feb 1996 23:21:04 GMT
Organization: PLutonium College

In article <4fj1u9$upn@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes a post
titled "final explanation of 2nd law of thermodynamics; entropy sham":

>         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.

   The One Atom Universe Totality also explains all the other Quantum
Mechanics principles, but I will not explain them here and now. I will
make a attempt here to explain Special Relativity in light of the 231PU
theory. Here I will explain Special Relativity that everyone can
understand it, everyone including those who never studied SR. And my
explanation, like my explanation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics will
end the confuse as to what those are. 

  End the confusion like what I remember at UC when I was a student
there and remember one student who raised his arms and said words to
the effect " I have taken this course again for the 3rd year in hopes
of finally understanding SR, the twin paradox and other paradoxes".
Apparently he taking the course over again did not relieve his
confusion. But, here, in my explanation, his confusion and all other
novices or beginners of SR will be relieved.

  No textbook has ever explained SR so well or as easy as this. Even
so-called physicists like John Baez can finally understand what SR
really is and hopefully embark unto better physics with their newfound
understanding. So let me not beat around the bush any longer and
explain what SR is. Explain it so that there are no paradoxes or
dilemmas or counterintuitiveness or against commonsense. Here it is.

Final Explanation of Special Relativity

  All electrons require 3 dimensional space for the Schroedinger
Equation to work. Our space that we gaze into in the night sky is 3
dimensional flat Euclidean. Euclidean geometry is 3-d flat space. Atoms
are round space but not 3-d, they are 2-d, such as the surface of a
ball or the surface of a football. How can 3-d flat space be made to be
the same as 2-d round space? Answer is easy, the Lorentz
transformations which is embodied within the Maxwell Equations.

  For those who still have troubles understanding the above, here it is
in plain language. Imagine a room empty except for a orange in the
middle of the room. This orange and the room itself is the space of an
electron, because the electron has two geometries simultaneously, the
3d for the electron space and the 2d for the atom space. What can be
done to make it so the room and the orange appear as one and the same
thing, so that we cannot see a room and a orange separate from each
other? The answer is to make all information, all vision,  all things
seen by light as moving in one speed-- the speed of light. By keeping
the speed of light constant no matter how fast the observer is moving
allows for the 3-dimensional flat space to be the same as the
2-dimensional round space (surface of a orange). To make 2-d round
geometry into 3 dimensional Riemannian geometry is to take all the
points of 3d Euclidean flat space and make them all have equal distance
from the center. The reason SR is a science at all, is because it is a
reconciliation of the fact that we live in a atom and the electron
space is two spaces in one. There, that is Special Relativity
conquered.

  The 4-d time-space continuum of General Relativity is nothing but a
sham. The Schroedinger equation does not accomodate 4-d for a electron.
Time, in an Atom Universe is a secondary feature of the universe. Time
is the arrangement and then rearrangement of all the atoms inside the
Atom Whole. Remembering that some atoms are newly created, and thus
affect the rearrangement.

  Today is the first time that I wanted to relate this idea. The first
time I wanted to get it out of my mind for the world public to see. I
am not as satisfied with my final explanation of SR above, as I am
wholly satisfied with my explanation of the 2nd law. I will come back
in the future to simplify or even change some aspects of the above
explanation. My goal is to point out that all science principles, such
as the 4 quantum principles are all explained and reduced to simplicity
in a One Atom Totality theory.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.11 / 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: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 17:33:19 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Peter Cash (cash@news.eng.convex.com) wrote:
: Hmm, so the cold fusion thing isn't dead after all? I kinda lost faith when
: Pons & Fleishman threatened to sue their detractors...

Great!  All you have to do to get people to lose faith in someone is 
slander them!

Slander -- its the wave of the future!
-- 
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:
cuddy11 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.10 /  WaltMLopez /  Patterson Power Cell microspheres
     
Originally-From: waltmlopez@aol.com (WaltMLopez)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Patterson Power Cell microspheres
Date: 10 Feb 1996 23:21:08 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

        Has anyone built a Patterson Power Cell (PPC) to scale using just
one of the palladium and nickel coated microspheres in order to determine
the ratio of power output to input for a single sphere?  This value could
help explain the wide power output to input ratios for the PPC's so far
demonstrated.  (The demonstration units were not all built by Mr.
Patterson and possibly contained different numbers of spheres.)  
        Also, the number and arrangement of the spheres in a cell could be
another factor in the output to input ratios.  (The total output may be
greater or less than the sum of individual outputs).  An experiment should
be carried out in order to test each variable individually.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenwaltmlopez cudlnWaltMLopez cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.11 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 19:25:31 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <4fi95r$k0m@nuntius.u-net.net>, David Gaskill
<david@cgaski.u-net.com> wrote:

>  
>  
> > 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.

***{Not quite. The system is highly non linear in its behavior, and when
the requirement of achieving a 6.7 degree C delta-T across the heat cell
is factored in, it becomes clear that the infinitude of possible data
points must fit on a curve with a clearly defined power minimum which is
greater than zero watts. (A cell producing zero watts clearly cannot
produce a cell delta-T of 6.7 degrees C!) Thus the effort to characterize
the power curve more closely seems worthwhile. --Mitchell Jones}*** 
>  
> > 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?

***{Electroplating is 19th century technology. Anyone can do it, safely
and at little cost. Read up on it, and you will agree. This means that CF
is ideally suited to do-it-yourself experimentation, and the field is
almost totally unexplored. Moreover, the odds are good that the CETI
approach to CF is *not* the best approach. Because we are still in an
early stage of the game, vast fortunes are going to be made by those who
find a better way, or who improve on the CETI way. --Mitchell Jones}***
     
>   
> 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.

***{I would put it differently: we, all of us, have a very significant
process on our hands. If this is real, it is something that nobody can
take away from us. It simply cannot be overemphasized: this is extremely
low-tech stuff than anybody can do, given the necessary willingness to
invest time and effort, and learn from others. If this is real, therefore,
it can't be stopped, and it is going to transform the world. --Mitchell
Jones}***
   
>   
> If 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.

***{Frankly, I don't think the reality of the excess heat is still an
issue. The evidence that has accumulated around the world in the last 8
years is simply too massive for that. Certainly, none of the results that
I have obtained in these various Magnum runs bear on that question. The
most I can conclude from my results is that a number of mistakes were made
in the design of the Power Gen demo, and in the reporting of its
performance. While that assessment may be unsatisfying to those who want
to dismiss the CF effect, I nevertheless believe that it is what is
logically indicated by the evidence. Bottom line: if, at first, I fail to
demonstrate significant power generation in my own runs, those who have
gotten excess heat in their runs will insist that I didn't do it the right
way, *and I will be strongly inclined to assume that they are correct*. I
will expect to not succeed easily or quickly, and I will not be deterred
if these expectations are fulfilled. --Mitchell Jones}***
 
>  
>   
> 
> David

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.11 / Paul Karol /  Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
     
Originally-From: Paul Karol <pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 18:53:20 -0500
Organization: Chemistry, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.sci.physics.fusion: 11-Feb-96 Re: CETI's Power
Cell on ABC! by James Vanmeter@cats.ucsc 
> 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."

The above reply was exactly what I was referring to.  Bob Sullivan's
reply to my query may have answered substantially.

PJK
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudfnPaul cudlnKarol cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.11 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 18:41:01 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <4fhc3c$40s@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, elston@prairienet.org (John M.
Elston) wrote:

> 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.

***{I haven't done any careful measurements of the cell delta-T, because I
was focused on trying to dissipate the claimed amounts of heat. Thus my
primary temperature measurement was taken inside the reservoir. However,
next week I will be carefully measuring the cell delta-T with a goal of
trying to place a lower limit on the power production of the cell. I
expect that as I vary the flow between 0 and 1 liter/min and the power
between 1 and 467 watts, I will only get the claimed 6.7 degree C delta-T
for power outputs above some minimum level. (Zero power input, for
example, would clearly *not* produce a 6.7 degree cell delta-T!) Thus
there must be some minimum power input that will produce such a result,
and whatever that value is, I think we can safely assume that the low
power run at Power Gen was operating at least at that level. Will that be
a level which implies the production of "excess heat?" I think so, but we
will see. --Mitchell Jones}***

> 
> 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.

***{I consider the split flow system used at Power Gen to have been a bad
idea, and do not want to waste my time replicating it. When I am done with
these tests, I want to have a system which I can use to do accurate
calorimetry for actual CF cells such as those used by Patterson, or cells
based on other approaches--including some ideas that I have come up with
on my own. Thus I think I will attempt to characterize the lower limit of
the cell power at Power Gen via the method sketched out above, and then
move on to attempt to fabricate my own beads and do my own tests.
--Mitchell Jones}***
 
> 
> --
> 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:
cuddy11 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.11 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 18:49:08 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <4fhr23$f9r@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com wrote:

> 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.

***{Absolutely correct. The above run, plus several other similar runs,
prove that. However, they also prove that the specific numbers reported
from Power Gen were physically impossible given the equipment. The flow
rate, in my view, was almost certainly far lower than reported, and the
calculated power production would have to be lower in the same proportion.
I will be attempting to characterize a lower limit for that power
production in the next few days. --Mitchell Jones}***

> 
> --
>  - 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 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.12 / 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: Mon, 12 Feb 96 00:52:38 GMT
Organization: NYIQ Internet Services http://www.nyiq.net

In article <4fkf33$2en@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>,
   nazrael@cats.ucsc.edu (James Vanmeter) wrote:


->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.


In the strictest sense, the statements of both Huizenga and McKubre are 
incorrect. Cravens/ENECO/CETI make a 'recombination' adjustment, but it is 
incorrect for the factual situation.  If we slightly narrow down the Huizenga 
statement by including the word 'correctly' then the facts support Huizenga.

Cravens/ENECO/CETI claim that recombination does not occur within the cell. 
However, The Patterson cell has platinum screens which perform the 
forced-recombination function McKubre used to avoid the Faraday efficiency 
problem in his studies.  Since Cravens assumes no recombination, he recreates 
the problem in his heat balance calculations by making an 'adjustment' that 
assumes that no recombination occurs. It's called double counting.  To make any 
assessment, you have to look at both the apparatus and the calculations. 

The confusion is understandable. It's been my experience that you have to look 
at what they (Cravens/ENECO/CETI) actually do before giving any weight to what 
they say they do. The Patterson crowd calls their adjustment for escaping gases 
(i.e., no recombination) a 'recombination' adjustment -- just exactly the 
opposite of what they are doing.

To complicate matters, Cravens has had continuing problems with temperature 
measurements, so I am not sure that we have even gotten to the stage of wringing 
out the problems with Faraday efficiencies.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Feb 13 04:37:03 EST 1996
------------------------------
