1996.02.14 / Doug Shade /  Basic CETI Questions?
     
Originally-From: rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com (Doug Shade)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Basic CETI Questions?
Date: 14 Feb 1996 23:01:09 GMT
Organization: Motorola LICD

Do the beads eventually wear out?

Does the electrolyte eventually wear out?

Once started, can the process/reaction continue without end?

Or...did CETI just build a new kind of battery?

This is a basic line of questioning... for which I have not yet seen
any
hint of an answer in the TV/CETI Home Page/or Wall Street Journal. 
CETI's
www page suggest a new type of hydrogen based power source.  Does that
mean
that Hydrogen is being turned into heat? (The electrolyte is wearing
out, but
so what... we have lots of water laying around.)

Not intended to start any flaming...

Doug Shade
rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenrxjf20 cudfnDoug cudlnShade cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.13 / I Johnston /  Re: Ceti confession
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ceti confession
Date: 13 Feb 1996 08:38:52 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
:  
: I measured the energy using flow calorimetery. The heat exchanger
: performance has *nothing* to do with this method. ...

Flow calorimetry normally involves measuring the flow, not the strange
mixture of guesswork and assertion used by and on CETI. After all, flow
calorimetry proved that the control cell was producing excess heat.

By the way, did you measure the energy for many hours, as you originally
claimed, or for fifteen minutes, as was physically possible? Why exectly
should we trust you?

Ian
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.13 / 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: 13 Feb 1996 22:01:32 +0100
Organization: DarkStreet 9a

Arnie Frisch (arnief@wu.cse.tek.com) wrote:
: >: 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.


: I resent people who quote me out of context in such a way as to change the
: intent of what I actually said.  My original post referred to one

For clarity's sake: This message was meant not in reply to *your*
contribution but as a general message to all readers here. In the future I
will indicate this.  

This message is intended for everybody, to clarify what I wrote.

--
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:
cuddy13 cudenahu cudfnbert cudlnhubert cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.13 /  jonesse@plasma /  Re: Jed is wrong and libelous
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed is wrong and libelous
Subject: Re: Jed is wrong and libelous
Date: 13 Feb 96 12:49:36 -0700
Date: 13 Feb 96 12:44:17 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University
Organization: Brigham Young University

Path: plasma!jonesse
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed is wrong and libelous
Message-ID: <1996Feb13.124417@plasma>
Date: 13 Feb 96 12:44:17 -0700
References: <1996Feb12.133111@plasma> <xTHqB70.jedrothwell@delphi.com>
Distribution: world
Organization: Brigham Young University
Lines: 68

In article <xTHqB70.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> <jonesse@plasma> writes:
>  
>>postings demonstrate otherwise.  Your poor name calling tells us more about
>>you than about him.  Nor did I lie about Dennis Cravens'
>>admission that there was probably something wrong with his temperature
>>measurements taken with thermocouples.  
>  
> You are indeed a connoving liar because ONCE AGAIN you fail to mention
> the other thing Cravens told you, and what he wrote, and what I told you:
>  
> HE DID NOT RELY UPON THERMOCOUPLES ONLY
>  
> HE ALSO USED THERMISTORS
>  
> HE *ALSO* USED MERCURY THERMOMETERS
>  
> The thermistors and the mercury thermometers proved there was nothing wrong
> with the temperature measurements taken with the thermocouples. I performed
> that same test at ICCF5 and again at Power-Gen, with my own thermistors.

Yes, thermistors were used along with thermocouples.  In my last post,
I *did* mention this, contrary to Rothwell's assertion.  One is surprised
that Mr. Rothwell insists that I "fail to mention" this.  He is either
a poor reader or a bad liar, evidently.

But Dennis Cravens told me of a test in which the thermistors gave *different*
 temperature
readings from what the thermocouples gave.  This was explained in the post
from which Mr. Rothwell quotes only a brief portion.   

> Your statement that "something was wrong" is bunk. It is a deliberate,
> reapeated lie, just like your statements about recombination causing
> 4000 times more energy than I*V.

I never made a statement "about recombination causing 4000 times more energy
than I*V."  Jed's statement is therefore seen to be a deliberate lie.
Nor do I believe that recombination can cause 4000 times more energy than
I*V.  But I do believe that recombination can lead to spurious claims of
"excess heat" production in some cases -- as explained in detail in a 
*published* paper bearing my name (and colleagues' names):

J.E. Jones et al., J. Physical Chemistry, 99 (1995) 6973- 6979.

>  
> I do not slander Steve Jones; he slanders himself. He keeps repeateing and
> repeating these nonsenical assertions, showing that whole world that he
> cares nothing for the truth.
>  
> - Jed

Let's revisit what Dennis Cravens said in a posting which appeared on s.p.f.
in November 1995, to see who is lying about the thermocouple problem:

"I will freely admit those areas where there may be problems.
Jones mentions the problems with the temperature measurements...  I feel and
have freely admitted that if there is a real problem it is there.... 
Yes, you can sometimes get into trouble with thermocouples in electrolytic
cells."  -- Dennis Cravens, Nov. 1995 post

That should settle the matter.  I am not lying, but represented what Dennis
Cravens said by post and by phone.  Incidentally, BYU Professor Lee Hansen
pointed out to Dr. Akito Takahashi that the use of thermocouples in Takahashi's
electrolytic cell (in Japan) could give spurious temperature readings --
at the time of the cold fusion conference in Nagoya in Oct. 1992.  So I
have been aware of this potential problem for some time. 

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.15 / 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: 15 Feb 1996 07:06:12 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

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


Actually, this is the formula used and it assumes 100% recombination.
So you seem to be in error.


   Raw Heat Yield (%) = F/60 * 4.1629 * dT * 0.95 / (V*I) * 100 

      Where:
        F = mL/minute
        4.1629 = Joules/mL/C  (Value for ranges near 25C)
        dT = delta temperature (Tout - Tin, C)
        0.95 = specific heat of electrolyte (Pure H2O = 1.0)
        V = raw voltage input
        I = raw current 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:
cuddy15 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.15 / 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: 15 Feb 1996 07:14:47 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?
: ->

: I know of three, and I believe that you are aware of, at least, two of the 
: three plus the rumored contacts that haven't been identified yet.

I can't recall hearing the names of any companies that have demoed the
Patterson cell and then rejected the claims.  It would be interesting
to follow up on such cases, that is why I asked if you'd be so kind
as to list a couple of them.

I believe I've heard of at least one company that rejected the idea of
investigating CETI claims because the topic was deemed outside their
corporate focus. Is that what you meant?

--
 - 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:
cuddy15 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.15 / m com /  want info on anti-matter
     
Originally-From: morpheus@camalott.com (morpheus@camalott.com)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: want info on anti-matter
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 08:57:01 GMT
Organization: Internet Network Corporation

	heard not too long ago about the replication of anti-matter. can
someone tell me where i might be able to find some information on that
subject and event.

greetings from texas.
Morpheus


cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmorpheus cudfnmorpheus@camalott cudlncom cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.15 / m com /  want info on anti-matter
     
Originally-From: morpheus@camalott.com (morpheus@camalott.com)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: want info on anti-matter
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 08:58:22 GMT
Organization: Internet Network Corporation

	heard not too long ago about the replication of anti-matter. can
someone tell me where i might be able to find some information on that
subject and event.

greetings from texas.
Morpheus


cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmorpheus cudfnmorpheus@camalott cudlncom cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.15 / 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: 15 Feb 1996 07:32:10 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Bob Sullivan (bsulliva@sky.net) wrote:
: ->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. 
: ->
: ->So Bob, can you shed any more light on this data -- since you seem to imply
: ->that you have connections to an insider.

: I've told you what I know.  Patterson claims that the secret is in the 
: uniformity of the beads and that that they are, therefore, difficult to
: prepare. 

I have the patent and it only mentions uniformity in relation to "hot
spots."  Since uniformity is mentioned in the patent as an "object of
the invention" it doesn't really seem to be secret.

If you can point me to where Patterson makes claims of secrets (which
would invalidate his patents, by the way, since then they wouldn't be
full disclosure and thus wouldn't give patent protection) essential for
the generation of anomalous heat, I'd again appreciate it.


: Miley's crew can prepare beads of greater uniformity with little difficulty. 

You said the uniformity difference was at the microscopic level.  You claim
to have seen or been told of comparisons between microscopic analysis of
Miley and Patterson beads.  I presume these were of newly plated beads
and not beads that were run under electrolysis, which could alter the
surface features.

Does your source know if Miley used the methods of plating described in
Patterson's patent?

--
 - 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:
cuddy15 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.15 / Robin Spaandonk /  Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 08:23:47 GMT
Organization: Improving

In article <4fqi50$7am@eri1.erinet.com>, Ken Seto wrote :
[snip]
>I watched the nightline program on the Patterson Power Cell. They
>implied that the process is not nuclear. If that's the case, then it
[snip]
I would love to know just which measurements have been done to prove
that it is not nuclear.


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@netspace.net.au>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything,
Learns all his life,
And leaves knowing nothing.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.13 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Reconciling Magnum and PowerGen data
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reconciling Magnum and PowerGen data
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 96 21:39:03 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Bob Lyle <madrabit@metronet.com> writes:
 
>By the way, I am sickened by the personal attacks ans narrow-mindedness 
>on this group.  Is there an alternative?
 
Yes, the Vortex-L discussion group. All science -- no flames.
 
(Well, not quite all science, a modicum of horseplay is allowed.)
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.13 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Jed is wrong and libelous
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed is wrong and libelous
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 96 21:36:36 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

<jonesse@plasma> writes:
 
>I never made a statement "about recombination causing 4000 times more energy
>than I*V."  Jed's statement is therefore seen to be a deliberate lie.
 
No, you never did. You just keep writing that recombination can explain
away the CETI results. Since CETI has gotten 4000 times I*V, the logical
conclusion of your "recombination" theory is that recombination can cause
4000 times input. Ah, but you are clever enough not to state that in so
many words. You have also said that recombination can explain McKubre'
results, ignoring the fact that he uses a closed cell. Every few months
you say that again.
 
>"I will freely admit those areas where there may be problems.
>Jones mentions the problems with the temperature measurements...  I feel and
>have freely admitted that if there is a real problem it is there.... 
>Yes, you can sometimes get into trouble with thermocouples in electrolytic
>cells."  -- Dennis Cravens, Nov. 1995 post
 
How very clever! You quote part of his post, out of context, without explaining
that he also explained how he overcame this potential problem by using
thermistors and thermometers to verify the excess heat. Yes, that paragraph
alone certainly does give the reader the false impression that Cravens may
have a problem. And if we stre-e-e-tch our imaginations a little we can
even believe that U. Illinios, U. Missouri and Motorola also have this
imaginary problem. Yup, pretty soon we can write off all of the independent
tests of the CETI cells.
 
The trouble is, in real life there is no problem, and there never was. Cravens
was expressing himself in his usual ultra-cautious scientist mode of speech,
but any person with an ounce of sense knows that when you double and triple
check a 3 C Delta T with three different types of thermometers, and all three
show the difference, it has to be real. That is also true of the 8 and 17 deg C
differences I observed. If we play games and quote people out of context
enough we can always make things look doubtful. That's a fun game, but it
isn't science.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.13 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Ceti confession
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ceti confession
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 96 22:01:21 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I Johnston <ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk> writes:
 
>Flow calorimetry normally involves measuring the flow, not the strange
>mixture of guesswork and assertion used by and on CETI. After all, flow
>calorimetry proved that the control cell was producing excess heat.
 
No, it is just the opposite. Flow calorimetery proved the control was
producing no excess; output equaled input. You seem remarkably confused about
this. You have repeated this absurd mistake several times, and I have
corrected you several times, yet here you are repeating it again. Perhaps
you should see a doctor. You may be suffering from a memory loss.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.14 / Doug Yanega /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: dyanega@denr1.igis.uiuc.edu (Doug Yanega)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: 14 Feb 1996 22:58:32 GMT
Organization: Illinois Natural History Survey

In article <4ftaj9$lnl@tilde.csc.ti.com>, Steve Terrell
<steve@hfab1.sc.ti.com> wrote:

> kenseto@erinet.com (Ken Seto) wrote:
> >I watched the nightline program on the Patterson Power Cell. They
> >implied that the process is not nuclear. If that's the case, then it
> >must be chemical--perhaps the coated metal surface of the beads were
> >reacting with the salts in the water to generate  the excess energy
> >observed. If it is a chemical reaction the reaction process will cease
> >when all the reactants are consumed and at that point, no more excess
> >energy will be generated. This means that newly coated beads will have
> >to put into the cell to renew the excess energy generation. This then
> >is a cyclical process. The question is: Does the total excess energy
> >generated during each cycle more than equal to the combine energy
> >expanded  to process the various ores to the various metals .the
> >coating processes of the beads, the electric current through the cell
> >and the electric current running the water pump?
> >kenseto@erinet.com
> ><http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html>
> 
> Even if it does turn out to take more energy to prepare the materials than the
> output energy, it could still be a usefull device.  You could take it camping,
> it could be used in the field by soldiers, anywhere that a lightweight power
> generator could be used, so could this thing.  I am anxious to find out if it
> is for real or not.

If one of these power cells costs $1500 or more (platinum ain't cheap) and
works for only 30 minutes, wouldn't you be better off bringing a REAL
portable generator?
-- 
Doug Yanega     (dyanega@mail.inhs.uiuc.edu)
Illinois Natural History Survey, 607 E. Peabody Dr. 
Champaign, IL 61820  USA  (217) 244-6817 fax:(217) 333-4949
affiliate, University of Illinois Dept. of Entomology
"There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness is
    the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudendyanega cudfnDoug cudlnYanega cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.14 / John Michener /  Re: cold fusion theory (simple)
     
Originally-From: John Michener <michener@injersey.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: cold fusion theory (simple)
Date: 14 Feb 1996 22:05:40 GMT
Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site

I would like to note a few supplemental facts that may be relevant to this 
issue.  It may not be really relevant to consider the size of the hydrogen 
ions.  If the ions dissassociate upon solution into the Palladium, there 
is no inner electron shell to define the atomic size, just the nucleus, 
which is rather small in terms of interatomic spacings.  Thus it might be 
possible to argue that it is possible to dissolve an enormous volume of 
hydrogen into the Palladium.  In fact, at one seminar I attended where the 
issue was discussed, a theoritician claimed that it was should be easy to 
dissolve ~ 16 hydrogen atoms per Palladium atom.  Fortunately, this is an 
area with extensive experimental data, just look up the phase diagram of 
hydrogen and Palladium as a function of temperature and pressure.  It is 
clear that no such ratio is acheivable.  Even if solution of hydrogen in 
Palladium at low temperature enhanced the fusion rate, it is clear that 
the resulting temperature rise would reduce the hydrogen concentration.

Even if you could dissolve large amounts of hydrogen in Palladium, the 
presence of the metal lattice would do little to aid in supression of the 
Coulomb barrier, which is much more local than the interatomic potentials. 
 The presence of the interatomic potentials and their effect upon on the 
effective electron mass only affects the delocalized electrons that are 
interacting with the lattice.  Once electrons become locallized enough to 
effect the ionic potential, they are interacting with their own mass 
rather than their effective mass.

There was an interesting review on fusion reactions as a function of 
temperature and density in Reviews of Modern Physics that discussed the 
cold fusion effect.  It appears that the densities associated with 
hydrogen solution in metals may enhance the fusion reaction rate, but not 
enough to be of any engineering significance (perhaps 1 reaction per cc 
per year?).

Incidentally, one of the researchers looking into cold fusion was 
interested in it as a potential source of energy in planetary cores, where 
much higher pressures are available and much lower reaction rates are of 
interest.

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmichener cudfnJohn cudlnMichener cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.15 / Richard Blue /  Re: CETI's power cell on ABC
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI's power cell on ABC
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 16:15:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Something Bob Sullivan said in his remarks on recombination, etc.
really grabbed my attention.  I don't think this should be let
slip by.

-bs- "I find one aspect of the 'protocol' questionable.  When they
-bs-  make the 'gain' calculation they reduce the electric input
-bs-  until they get the highest ratio of output to input."

Questionable?  I would say this borders on outright scientific fraud.
In this sort of climate there is little point in quibbling over
whether and how recombination, Faraday efficiency, etc. are handled.
The numbers Cravens et al. have been feeding us are totally bogus.
They set up a demo that depends on some quasistationary mode of operation
to give meaningful data, and then they diddle the knobs just as they
are making the key measurements.  That says alot about what kind of
science is being peddled here!

On a related matter, the Magnum 35 investigations by Mitchell Jones
have turned up another questionable aspect of the CETI demo, and
Jed Rothwell just doen't get it.  All he can say is that Cravens'
heat exchanger must work better than the Jones heat exchanger.  That
does not cut it, Jed.  You haven't provided any data that supports
that because you weren't smart enough to realize that the performance
of the heat exchanger could be evaluated with a few simple measurements.
Simply put, as the heat being delivered to that heat exchanger increases
the temperature differential between the electrolyte and the air has
to rise and the exhausted air temperature has to rise as well.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.14 /  theurgy /  Re: Jed is wrong and libelous
     
Originally-From: trx140@xmission.xmission.com (theurgy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed is wrong and libelous
Date: 14 Feb 1996 13:41:00 -0700
Organization: XMission Internet (801 539 0900)

jonesse@plasma writes:

>Jed again steps over the line of decency and fact.  A problem with spf
>is that such libelous, untrue statements are allowed to be written
>and disseminated.

...elisions...

>I'm surprised you guys put up with such behavior on spf -- I saw no comments
>from anyone else on this.  Would you allow Mr. Rothwell to call *you* a
>conniving liar?  There seems to be a lack of decency here that ought to be
>checked.

Jed has neither credibility nor sense, and his ravings have long since
lost any impact. The man rants, he practically foams at the mouth, and if he
were to proclaim that the sun were to rise tomorrow morning I'd expect a
prolonged solar eclipse. Anyone whose opinions you'd value probably
ignores Jed, so I wouldn't worry about him. Sure, it's annoying to be the
target of his invective, but that is the price we must pay for a freely
accessible internet. 

Felicitations,
              M.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudentrx140 cudlntheurgy cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.13 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 96 08:48:45 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Mitchell Jones <21cenlogic@i-link.net> writes:
 
>I would also note that in his Nightline interview, James Patterson pointed
>to a cell which appeared to be identical to the one used at Power Gen, and
>told the reporter that the input was 1 watt and the output was 200 watts.
>Since someone--you, I think--posted to this group some time ago that the
>Power Gen cell was now at Patterson's lab in Florida, the chances are good
>that the cell in question was, in fact, the Power Gen cell. This would
 
This is perfectly irrelivant. I have seen power cells with 1.4 watts input
and zero watts output. It all depends on when you look. When they first
start up you can turn the input power up to the max and you get no output.
Later on, when they are cooking away at a thousand watts you can turn the
power right off for a while and the cell goes right on cooking. There is
no one-for-one relationship between input and output. My guess is that if
he left that cell at 1 watt for a while, it would gradually ramp up above
200 watts, but that depends on the operating temperature of the water,
the cleanliness and condition of the beads and many other factors.
 
I do not think that cell was the same one as seen at Power-Gen. There are
several of them.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.15 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Ceti confession
     
Originally-From: schultr@ashur.cc.biu.ac.il (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ceti confession
Date: 15 Feb 1996 07:28:40 GMT
Organization: Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel.

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: I Johnston <ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk> writes:
:  
: >Flow calorimetry normally involves measuring the flow, not the strange
: >mixture of guesswork and assertion used by and on CETI. After all, flow
: >calorimetry proved that the control cell was producing excess heat.
:  
: No, it is just the opposite. Flow calorimetery proved the control was
: producing no excess; output equaled input. You seem remarkably confused about
: this. You have repeated this absurd mistake several times, and I have
: corrected you several times, yet here you are repeating it again. Perhaps
: you should see a doctor. You may be suffering from a memory loss.


> http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/rei/CFdir/break01.html
> One Kilowatt Cold Fusion Reactor Demonstrated
> by Jed Rothwell, Contributing Editor, Infinite Energy Magazine

> The first test was marred by a mysterious malfunction in the control
> cell. The control cell consisted of tin plated steel shot beads,
> arranged as an electrochemical cathode, in the same configuration as
> the smaller CETI thin beads. During tests at the lab, this produced
> no excess heat, as expected. However, during the first test at one
> point it appeared to be producing a Delta T temperature as high as
> 2.6 deg C. Assuming the flow rate and input power were stable, this
> would indicate a 216 watt excess.

Tell me, Mr. Rothwell, does your right hand know what your left hand is
doing?

And since the press release at the above web site (which I just got
a moment ago) still continues to claim that the 1344 W demonstration
lasted two hours, don't you feel a little silly continuing to claim here
that it only lasted 15 minutes?  For that matter, in the press release,
the 1344 W test is described as "test 1".  Does that mean that it was
the one marred by a "mysterious malfunction in the control cell"?

-----
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:
cuddy15 cudenschultr cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.15 / Seth W /  Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
     
Originally-From: sethw@access5.digex.net (Seth W.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
Date: 15 Feb 1996 17:14:06 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA

Bob Sullivan (bsulliva@sky.net) wrote:
: Here's how recombination affects the (heat output)/(electric input) ratio 
: calculation in a simple (without CF) cell using the Cravens heat balance:
: 
: output    (ohmic heating) + (heat energy from recombination)
: -----  =  --------------------------------------------------
: input     (electric energy input) - (energy from gas loss)

Would using hydrogen gas instead of electrolysis to produce hydrogen "solve"
the recombination problem?

: Now, the recombination problems are real, but I'm not sure that we have gott
: to that level yet. It's been common knowledge that Cravens has had problems
: his temperature measurements. After reading his description of some of tho
: problems on the CETI web page, and with the understanding that the bubbleg
: patch applied to fix them didn't work, I'm not sure that any of the measure
: can be taken at face value.  

Do you think that IF the measurements were taken at face value, they would
represent a gain that was too large to explain solely by recombination?

: In addition to the measurement concerns, I find one aspect of the 'protocol' 
: questionable. When they make a 'gain' calculation they reduce the electric i
: until they get the highest ratio of output to input. It's not unreasonable t
: expect some thermal 'inertia' to hold up the output as the input is reduced
: looks to much like driving your car down the road at sixty mph and then bri
: turning off the ignition while you measure the instantaneous gas consumptio

That's true, and it's part of the reason I've been asking all over these
newsgroups why the experiments end--whether they are shut down by those
running the experiments or they shut themselves down.  Your car will only
coast so far before it starts to slow down.

sethw@access.digex.net
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudensethw cudfnSeth cudlnW cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.13 /   /  Re: WHAT THE CETI REACTION REALLY IS! (WAS Re: Reding backs off from cold fusion
     
Originally-From: ejeong@pinet.aip.org (euejin_jeong)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: WHAT THE CETI REACTION REALLY IS! (WAS Re: Reding backs off from cold fusion
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 15:22:21 GMT
Organization: AIP


Forget your theory. Find the facts.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenejeong cudln cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.14 /  jonesse@plasma /  Disclaimer from Bockris//Thanks
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Disclaimer from Bockris//Thanks
Date: 14 Feb 96 14:36:23 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

1.  An interesting notice appears in the "International Cal. Mining Journal"
of January 1996:
"DISCLAIMER
"Work in 1992 at Texas Z&M University, using a technique suggested by a
visitor, seemed to show that nuclear synthesis of new noble materials in the
100 ppm range was possible.   Subsequesnt testing could  not  reproduce
the same result and support for the process was withdrawn in February 1993.
Our knowledge of efforts made since 1992 to synthesize nobel [sic] metals
gives no support to the idea that a commercially viable process in in sight.
   John O'M. Bockris"
(Thanks to Kelvin Lynn for calling this to my attention.)

2.  My thanks to those who commented on the recent squabble with Mr. Rothwell,
Tom Droege, Arnie Frisch, David Spain and others.

--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.15 / John Skingley /  Re: CETI's power cell on ABC
     
Originally-From: John Skingley <john@circlesw.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI's power cell on ABC
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 17:41:35 +0000 (GMT)

I had told myself that I wouldn't respond to any more postings here,
as very few people seem to be interested in sensible discussion, only
in slanging each other off.  However, I really cannot let this one go...

In article <199602151610.LAA37324@pilot16.cl.msu.edu>, Richard A Blue
<mailto:blue@pilot.msu.edu> wrote:
> 
> Something Bob Sullivan said in his remarks on recombination, etc.
> really grabbed my attention.  I don't think this should be let
> slip by.
> 
> -bs- "I find one aspect of the 'protocol' questionable.  When they
> -bs-  make the 'gain' calculation they reduce the electric input
> -bs-  until they get the highest ratio of output to input."
> 
> Questionable?  I would say this borders on outright scientific fraud.
> In this sort of climate there is little point in quibbling over
> whether and how recombination, Faraday efficiency, etc. are handled.
> The numbers Cravens et al. have been feeding us are totally bogus.
> They set up a demo that depends on some quasistationary mode of operation
> to give meaningful data, and then they diddle the knobs just as they
> are making the key measurements.  That says alot about what kind of
> science is being peddled here!

Look, nobody said anything about the time scales during this exercise,
did they!  Since the experimenters were interested in steady state
conditions, don't you think they would have let the equipment come to
equilibrium before taking any measurments?  Your assumption of fraud
is simply illogical, given the data you are using, i.e. the quotation
you give.

> On a related matter, the Magnum 35 investigations by Mitchell Jones
> have turned up another questionable aspect of the CETI demo, and
> Jed Rothwell just doen't get it.  All he can say is that Cravens'
> heat exchanger must work better than the Jones heat exchanger.  That
> does not cut it, Jed.  You haven't provided any data that supports
> that because you weren't smart enough to realize that the performance
> of the heat exchanger could be evaluated with a few simple measurements.
> Simply put, as the heat being delivered to that heat exchanger increases
> the temperature differential between the electrolyte and the air has
> to rise and the exhausted air temperature has to rise as well.
> 
> Dick Blue

If two people make experiments, with completely different apparatus,
as is the case here, and they get differing results, by what twisted logic
do you assume that a particular one of them must be a fraud?  All you can 
possibly say is that the two pieces of equipment behaved differently.

If they are both disipating the same power, and one gets hotter than the 
other, then the logical conclusion is that one is more efficient than the 
other at dissipating heat. No other conclusion seems possible, given the 
facts.

It is clear from your assumption that Jed is wrong and Mitchell is right
that you are applying bias in reaching your conclusion. If their equipment 
and protocol were identical, which they weren't, then you could have 
concluded that one of them was guilty of fraud or error, but you could not 
even then have said which one.

And while I'm on the subject, and Faraday efficiency has been mentioned,
there is something else I'd like to point out, which has been said before,
but which seems to be getting ignored during all sorts of complex arguments.

If you put 'i' amps at 'v' volts d.c. into a black box, then you are putting
in 'vi' watts of power. If the heat output corresponds to more than this, 
as measured by the temperature rise of a given flow of water, then
you have over unity power gain. If you do not allow for recombination, you 
will get a LOWER power gain figure, because you have output power hidden in
the gasses, which you havn't counted.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnSkingley cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.15 / Seth W /  Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
     
Originally-From: sethw@access5.digex.net (Seth W.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
Date: 15 Feb 1996 17:22:04 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA

John Sargeant (johns@cs.man.ac.uk) wrote:
: the Believers, it's ZPE (whatever that is) or something, or it doesn't
: matter what it is provided it works.

That's really all I care about at this point.  If the energy output of the
Patterson Cell can be scaled up--which is another question nobody seems
to want to answer--then I really don't care WHY it works, so long as it 
keeps working.  Of course, that's the other question I can't get answered--
why it stops working.

: 
: So why are people (Jed in particular) still using the term "Cold Fusion"??
: 
:   John (puzzled lurker).

I agree.  I'm not sure "Something Else" is going to win them over, but it
beats "cold fusion" in my book.

sethw@access.digex.net
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudensethw cudfnSeth cudlnW cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Feb 16 04:37:03 EST 1996
------------------------------
