1996.02.16 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: 16 Feb 1996 23:51:11 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <4frrrd$nj4@canb.cin.gov.au> Wesley Ian Bruce <wesleyb@cin.gov.au> writes:
>  How long will it take to reach the point where they are 
>taught that the Cold Fusion reactions are a-neutronic and do 
>not produce dangerous radiation....

Right!  And so far as can be conclusively demonstrated, they haven't
produced anything else either.  Not heat.  Not helium.  Not Tritium.  Not ........

I take that back!  They have produced a lot of hot air.

Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
 -------------------------------------------------------
Any ideas or opinions expressed here do not necessarily
reflect the ideas or opinions of my employer.
 -------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.14 / Larry Wharton /  Ice maker CF experiment
     
Originally-From: Larry Wharton <Wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ice maker CF experiment
Date: 14 Feb 1996 15:09:35 GMT
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center -- Greenbelt, Maryland USA

I propose to do an experiment to see if an ice maker can produce excess 
heat by CF or zpe or whatever. I propose to obtain an ice maker that 
will continiously produce and eject ice. I will put this ice maker in a 
vat of water with a flow of water that would carry away the ice.  The 
outflow water would be heated up by the electrical power input to the 
ice maker plus the latent heat of fusion of the water crystals.  If you 
ignore the ice in the outflow then every ice maker will give apparent 
o-u heat production - guaranteed.  Also no part of the flow need be 
cold.  Some parts would be hot and would cool off to a temperature above 
ambient as the ice melts.  This experiment would produce excess heat 
using the same flow calorimerty technique that is used for the Patterson 
cell.  The error, of course, is in neglecting the ice in the water 
outflow but this is the same as CETI and supporters ignoring the 
possiblity of salt crystals in the cell outflow.

Lawrence E. Wharton   wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov
NASA/GSFC code 913, Greenbelt MD 20771
work (301) 286-3486,    home (301) 595-5038


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenWharton cudfnLarry cudlnWharton cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.17 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: Jed's got the heebie-jeebies
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed's got the heebie-jeebies
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 96 03:47:59 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

In article <4frq73$1bou@news.unimelb.EDU.AU>,
   Martin Sevior <msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
->bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan) wrote:
->>
->>Consider the possibility that ENECO/CETI is claiming 'endorsements' that 
don't 
->>exist.  
->>
->>As a hypothetical, let's say I were given (remember this is a hypothetical) a 
->>fully assembled Patterson cell including thermocouples. I connect the anode 
and 
->>cathode to a DC supply and pump some lithium sulfate solution through the 
cell. 
->>If I twiddle the knobs like the instructions say I should, take the 
->>measurements, and run them through Cravens heat balance calculation, I'll 
->>probably get the same kind of results Cravens gets.
->>
->>Does that mean I have confirmed the claims?  No!  Does that mean that I have 
to 
->>believe Cravens over-unity claims?  No!  If I tell a reporter just exactly 
what 
->>I did, does that constitute an endorsement?  Not in my book. Your mileage may 
->>vary.
->>
->>You don't have to believe that the woman actually gets cut in half to find 
the 
->>magician's act 'interesting.'
->
->The difference being that a magician doesn't let you wander around his trick,
->examine it inside and out and watch it happen for several days on end. If I
->had the PowerGen apperatus for several days I'm pretty sure I'd know whether
->it was massively overunity.
->
->If this hypothetical event occured it would explain why Miley is taking 
->this incredible chance with his reputation.
->
->Martin Sevior
->

Wandering around and peering at doesn't carry much scientific weight. A real 
test of a ENECO/CETI cell would be to send a copies to Steven Jones, the Bose 
Corporation, and Martin, too, for investigation.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.17 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: Patterson Cell==Hair Dryer?????
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Patterson Cell==Hair Dryer?????
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 96 04:07:10 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

In article 
<c=US%a=_%p=Hagglund.Net%l=NETSERVER960214195039AE004B00@netserver.hagglund.net>
,
   Robert.Hagglund@Hagglund.Net (Robert Hagglund) wrote:
->Bob Sullivan, bsulliva@sky.net, writes:
->
->[snipped establishing discussion regarding electric heaters]
->
->"... don't let Jed hornswoggle you. It's been demonstrated conclusively that 
->the PowerGen non-demo didn't put out the claimed 1,344 Watts -- not even for 
->fifteen minutes."
->
->Bob, I have my questions about power output claims in general but I haven't 
->seen anything posted here that demonstrates conclusively the negative case. 
->If you can cite specific documentation it would be helpful to post the 
->reference information here to back up your claim. References to impartial 
->sources would be helpful.
->
->[Robert.Hagglund@Hagglund.Net]
->
->

Mitchell Jones posted the results of a series of tests that he performed in an 
attempt to verify that the so-called PowerGen Cell could produce kilowatt levels 
of heat and still stay within the reported temperature parameters. All of his 
tests showed out-of-range temperatures. He has since expressed regrets and 
reservations about his analyses, but they speak for themselves.

You might be able to find the posts in the newsgroup archives at 
http://www.dejanews.com or http://altavista.digital.com.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.15 / Seth W /  Re: Ice maker CF experiment
     
Originally-From: sethw@access5.digex.net (Seth W.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ice maker CF experiment
Date: 15 Feb 1996 23:09:19 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA

DavesRadio (davesradio@aol.com) wrote:
: Hello all
 
: While I REALLY want the latest Patterson cell to be THE ONE, my own
: experiments of late with "null" cells do point up what is being refered to
: in the preceding post, namely I have observed that the process does in
: fact force the formation of salt crystals in the outflow.  I have not yet
: completed a patterson cell due to lack of beads...  I will be testing for
: the preceeding effect when I build my device.
 
: Dave Copeland
: davesradio@aol.com

Were you using the lithium sulfate (I believe I read somewhere) that is
being used with the Patterson cell experiments?

sethw@access.digex.net
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudensethw cudfnSeth cudlnW cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.14 / Travis Stone /  Re: Jed is wrong and libelous
     
Originally-From: stone@cwis.unomaha.edu (Travis Stone)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed is wrong and libelous
Date: 14 Feb 1996 19:26:34 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha (Faculty/Staff CWIS)

John Logajan (jlogajan@skypoint.com) wrote:
> I expect the feuds to continue unabated, but I believe that if a sufficient
> number of us meted out distain *on both sides* to those who engage in
> this behavior, we might improve the climate here some time in advance
> of hell freezing over.

Now you know where all that excess heat is coming from.  ;-)

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenstone cudfnTravis cudlnStone cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.14 / Seth W /  Re: Patterson Cell==Hair Dryer?????
     
Originally-From: sethw@access5.digex.net (Seth W.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Patterson Cell==Hair Dryer?????
Date: 14 Feb 1996 21:46:33 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA

Bob Sullivan (bsulliva@sky.net) wrote:
: In article <xVIKpV5.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: ->PaulBreed <paulbreed@aol.com> writes:
: -> 
: ->>1300 watts is also the aproximate heat from a plug in electric heater.
: ->>Was the patterson heat output comparable to one of these portable electric
: ->>heaters?
: -> 
: ->Yes, it was in the same ballpark. I did not get a chance to measure it
: ->but I compared it later to a 1500 heater in my office and the warm air
: ->temperature is roughly the same. Also, a colleague of mine has recently
: ->built an air flow calorimeter (for an unrelated project). He reports
: ->moderate but quite palpable Delta T temperature for these power ranges,
: ->using a very similar computer cooling fan.
: -> 
: ->- Jed
: 
: Paul, don't let Jed hornswoggle you. It's been demonstrated conclusively that 
: the PowerGen non-demo didn't put out the claimed 1,344 Watts -- not even for 
: fifteen minutes.

Where?

sethw@access.digex.net
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudensethw cudfnSeth cudlnW cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.14 /  DavesRadio /  Re: Ice maker CF experiment
     
Originally-From: davesradio@aol.com (DavesRadio)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ice maker CF experiment
Date: 14 Feb 1996 18:55:31 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Hello all

I probably am too ignorant to even be listened  to here, but making an ass
of myself was always easy for me, so...

While I REALLY want the latest Patterson cell to be THE ONE, my own
experiments of late with "null" cells do point up what is being refered to
in the preceding post, namely I have observed that the process does in
fact force the formation of salt crystals in the outflow.  I have not yet
completed a patterson cell due to lack of beads...  I will be testing for
the preceeding effect when I build my device.

Thanks for hearing a bonehead.

Dave Copeland
davesradio@aol.com

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudendavesradio cudlnDavesRadio cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.17 /  dietz@cin.net
 /  Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
     
Originally-From: dietz@cin.net
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 08:13:53 -0600
Organization: Computerese Information Network (CIN)

John Sargeant wrote:

> So why are people (Jed in particular) still using the term
> "Cold Fusion"??

Because it is less embarrassing than the term "Experimental Artifacts."

	Paul
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudendietz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.12 / Adrian Rose /  Re: Radiation Detecting Wristwatch
     
Originally-From: Adrian Rose <adrose@gate.net>
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,sci.engr.biomed,sci.engr.safety,s
i.med.dentistry,sci.med.deseases.cancer,sci.med.immunology,sci.med.occup
tional,sci.med.,radiology,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.fusion,sc
.physics.particle,sci.physics,sci.med,sci.space.policy
Subject: Re: Radiation Detecting Wristwatch
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 07:12:03 -0500
Organization: CyberGate, Inc.

Its $2300.

Why do I need this?

Adrian Rose,Boca Raton,Fl(Home of.........fill in blank)

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenadrose cudfnAdrian cudlnRose cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.15 / Seth W /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: sethw@access5.digex.net (Seth W.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: 15 Feb 1996 23:27:44 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
   
: 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.

Why would a nuclear reaction depend on the operating temperature of the
water?  Apart from that, to what is the delay between power input and
power output attributed?

sethw@access.digex.net
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudensethw cudfnSeth cudlnW cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.16 / Al Grund /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: agrund@biotechresources.com (Al Grund)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 23:47:18 -0600
Organization: MYOB

In article <4g359f$hkh@tekadm1.cse.tek.com>, arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie
Frisch) wrote:

> In article <4frrrd$nj4@canb.cin.gov.au> Wesley Ian Bruce
<wesleyb@cin.gov.au> writes:
> >  How long will it take to reach the point where they are 
> >taught that the Cold Fusion reactions are a-neutronic and do 
> >not produce dangerous radiation....
> 
> Right!  And so far as can be conclusively demonstrated, they haven't
> produced anything else either.  Not heat.  Not helium.  Not Tritium. 
Not ........
> 
> I take that back!  They have produced a lot of hot air.
> 
> Arnold Frisch
> Tektronix Laboratories
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Any ideas or opinions expressed here do not necessarily
> reflect the ideas or opinions of my employer.
> --------------------------------------------------------

To all but a few crackpots and the State of Utah, the cold fusion
adventure is over.

-- 
Alan D. Grund
agrund@biotechresources.com

"Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof".
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenagrund cudfnAl cudlnGrund cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.16 /  patrick /  Future nuclear testing in Nevada?
     
Originally-From: patrick <patrick.suhrbier@colorado.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skepticsci.energy
Subject: Future nuclear testing in Nevada?
Date: 16 Feb 1996 21:47:52 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder

 I was informed by a couple different people of future nuclear testing at the 
Nevada test site scheduled for this summer, but nobody was able to give me any 
definite information to the nature of these tests or specific dates that they would 
be set for.  If anybody has any information about these tests and their dates, or 
knows where I might be able to obtain this information, I would greatly 
appreciate your help.  If possible, please send a reply via my e-mail.

					Thanks in advance for your help,
																																															
																																																															Patrick


cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudensuhrbier cudlnpatrick cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Feb 18 04:37:04 EST 1996
------------------------------
