1996.02.16 / Larry Wharton /  Re: CETI's power cell on ABC
     
Originally-From: Larry Wharton <Wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI's power cell on ABC
Date: 16 Feb 1996 15:59:54 GMT
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center -- Greenbelt, Maryland USA

In the following posting John says:

"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. "

The two experiments are probably not dissipating the same power.  The 
CETI experiment is acting exactly as is expected if there were salt 
crystals mixed in with the cell outflow.  The flow calorimetry numbers 
would give a bogus high power value from the error of neglecting the 
heat of fusion of the salt crystals and then much less heat would be 
rejected in the rest of the system as most of the heat goes into melting 
the salt crystals instead being rejected into the air.


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


cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenWharton cudfnLarry cudlnWharton cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.18 /  Tstolper@aol.c /  5000 Issues of Scott Hazen Mueller's Fusion Digest
     
Originally-From: Tstolper@aol.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 5000 Issues of Scott Hazen Mueller's Fusion Digest
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 06:14:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Scott, 

Sorry about the typo in my electronic greeting card.

Let's try that again:

Congratulations on the appearance of the 5000th issue of *Fusion Digest*.

*Fusion Digest* has been a great help in following developments in CF and
will be an important source in the future for those interested in the field.

Tom Stolper

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenTstolper cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.18 /  Tstolper@aol.c /  Bockris Disclaimer
     
Originally-From: Tstolper@aol.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bockris Disclaimer
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 06:14:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

For Steve Jones:  do you have a more complete citation of Bockris'
disclaimer?  

Do you know why the disclaimer appeared in *International Cal. Mining
Journal*?  (By the way, does "Cal." stand for California?)  

Did Bockris or his unnamed visitor publish something on transmutations into
noble metals in that journal?

It's good to see a man of Bockris' stature disavowing that stuff.

Thanks for the information.

Tom Stolper

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenTstolper cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.18 /  Tstolper@aol.c /  Reviews of Modern Physics re Loading?
     
Originally-From: Tstolper@aol.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reviews of Modern Physics re Loading?
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 06:14:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

For John Michener:

In your posting dated 14 Feb 1996 22:05:40 GMT, you said

"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?)."  

Do you have the author, title, year, volume, page numbers for that article?

Thanks for the citation, or any part of it,  if it's there.

Tom Stolper



cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenTstolper cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.18 / Robert Hagglund /  Re: Patterson Cell==Hair Dryer?????
     
Originally-From: Robert.Hagglund@Hagglund.Net (Robert Hagglund)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Patterson Cell==Hair Dryer?????
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 16:33:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Bob Sullivan (bsulliva@sky.net) replied to my inquiry:

"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."

Thank you for the information. I'll follow those leads and see what they 
yield. For what it's worth, I don't plan to invest in Pd futures but I will 
keep a relatively open mind when it comes to reproducible results.

[Robert.Hagglund@Hagglund.Net]


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenHagglund cudfnRobert cudlnHagglund cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.16 / Thomas Miller /  Re: ABC-TV Nightline reports on CETI
     
Originally-From: tmiller@umabnet.ab.umd.edu (Thomas H Miller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ABC-TV Nightline reports on CETI
Date: 16 Feb 1996 18:32:19 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland at Baltimore

From a computer far far away Matt Kennel (kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov) wrote:
: AndersonBD (andersonbd@aol.com) wrote:
: > I don't even matter, really, if they CAN turn the power cell's heat into
: > electricity.  The implications for home heating, water heating, etc. would
: > save huge amounts of energy a year. 

: Well good commercially available heat pumps can make 3 or 4x "excess heat"
: compared to electricity in.

: This isn't rocket science any more.

And heat pumps don't _make_ heat! They only move it.

It is "rocket science" to you :).


--
*************** Will Rogers never met Bill Clinton ****************
          ** Tom Miller **        |"No man should be criticized for  
E-mail tmiller@umabnet.ab.umd.edu | defending his rights"
Chief of Engineering, Md EMS Comm | Justice Robert G. Gillepsie 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudentmiller cudfnThomas cudlnMiller cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.16 /  DavesRadio /  Re: Ice maker CF experiment
     
Originally-From: davesradio@aol.com (DavesRadio)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ice maker CF experiment
Date: 16 Feb 1996 15:31:33 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Yes, 1M Lithium Sulfate solution (1/3 saturation)
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudendavesradio cudlnDavesRadio cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.16 /  DavesRadio /  Somebody send me beads!  Seriously!
     
Originally-From: davesradio@aol.com (DavesRadio)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Somebody send me beads!  Seriously!
Date: 16 Feb 1996 15:31:33 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Sometimes you get what you ask for in this world.

I, the ignorant and humble, have constructed 3 different cells, and,
heeding the expert advise of one E.K., I've made them all of Pyrex glass. 
My procedures for validation or debunking would, I'm sure, have numerous
holes shot in them by the least of you, fortunately, I'm in a position
where the only thing at stake is my enjoyment of trying to make something
work with my own two hands, determination, luck, and whatever comes my
way.

While I cannot generate the, as estimated by some, $10,000 needed to
"properly" construct and test these cells, I have built remarkably
sucessful projects before, ranging from computers to Nd:YAG lasers, for
tremendously small fractions of what they "should" have cost if "done
right".  I measure success by results, not methods of achieving results. 
Since no one in the world would listen to me if I am successful in my
patterson cell experiments, I have nothing to lose or gain through my
endeavors.

If you are reading this still, and have not already clicked by thinking
I'm another one who shouldn't be on this newsgroup, then I ask something
simple:  I need beads for my cells.  CETI has thus far not responded to
any of my e-mail.  I know of the glass beads out there, but at $50.00 per
cc for untested, unknown beads, with each cell needing 4cc of beads, I
cannot justify that expense.  

When I built my first Ruby laser, someone gave me the rod.  Same for my
Nd:YAG laser.  I Built all the support items & made sure they worked. 
Then I found some philanthropic individuals who made it all come true for
me.  Their payment came in the satisfaction that they had a hand in
fostering an interest in someone in a field that was their own personal
interest as well.  Now my interests have moved from zapping pinholes in
razor blades to trying to build what *may*   (***MAY***) be something that
if it is somehow real, will change the world as much, if not more than,
the discovery of electricity.

So, here I am again.  Another project, ready to roll...hungering for the
one part that can  make the magic happen.  I know there's beads out there;
are there still folks out there who can help support someone's interest, 
even though they don't have a PhD?

A few tablespoons of beads...

David Copeland
PO Box 170
Wilbraham, MA 01095-0170



"....after a few more flashes in the pan, we shall hear very little more
of Edison or his electric lamp.  Every claim he makes has been tested and
proved impracticable."- New York Times, January 16, 1880

Sound familiar?

(seen in Cold Fusion Times Web page)

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudendavesradio cudlnDavesRadio cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.16 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: CETI's power cell on ABC
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI's power cell on ABC
Date: 16 Feb 1996 20:43:25 GMT
Organization: Battelle Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

In article <USE2PCB357894962@brbbs.brbbs.com>, mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com wrote:

> blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes:
>  
> -> -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.
>  
> And why is that?  That is the way most utilities run their plants.  They find
> the operating point where they get the highest output vs input, or in other
> words highest efficiency.  To do otherwise would be foolish, but they do often
> do run above the maximum efficiency point when necessary due to excessive
> demand.
>  
> As far as testing the Patterson cell, then it makes sense to maximize
> efficiency.  Doing so minimizes the possibility that a slight error in a
> measurement does not have a significant effect on the final analysis.  Quite
> the contrary to your statement that it is scientific fraud, it is instead
> scientifically justified, in fact demanded, if you want to do it right.  Any
> time you are studying an effect, it is prudent to try and maximize the effect.
>  

I think the implication was that the cell is run at higher power, allowing
it to heat up, and then the input power turned down for the gain
measurement, thereby counting the heat built up during the preceding
period as output for the low power session.  IOW, the steady state
condition is being circumvented.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.14 /  M. Chun
 /  Need research material on the Tokamak
     
Originally-From: M. Chun
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Need research material on the Tokamak
Date: 14 Feb 1996 06:57:50 GMT
Organization: UC Davis, Physics

I'm a first year physics student at UCD.  I'm very much interested in
fusion reactors and their historical and applied progression.

Can anyone provide me with some web sites that would contain the 
information I need.  Thanks in advance.

Miya Chun 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS 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 03:26:20 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

In article <hDGoyiD.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
->Bob Sullivan <bsulliva@sky.net> writes:
-> 
->>Consider the possibility that ENECO/CETI is claiming 'endorsements' that 
don't 
->>exist.  
-> 
->I realize you have permanent delusions about many things, like your notion
->that recomination can create 4,000 times more energy out than total I*V
->input. I can see why you cling to this bit of nonsense; it is all you have
->left. However I cannot see why you insist on writing ENECO/CETI all the
->time. As I have explained three times, ENECO has nothing to do with CETI,
->they are separate and distinct corporations, with no affiliation as far as
->I know. 


I have seen Cravens called the 'Chief Scientist' for CETI. Whether he formally 
carries that title matters not, because his presence at all CETI demos confirms 
that he is the de facto science mouthpiece. It has been reported here on s.p.f 
by a reliable (given the circumstances) source that Cravens is a stockholder in 
ENECO. As a matter of fact, ENECO seems to have a finger in a lot of CF pies.


->Why do you deliberately confuse things but telling people they are
->one and the same? What is the point? I know that you are looking for every
->possible reason to attack cold fusion, but what does this have to do with
->attacking it? All you are doing is mixing up people's addresses.
-> 
->Regarding Motorola, they will neither confirm nor deny their connection
->to CETI. They will not talk about the tests they have performed. However,
->reports of their involvement have now been printed in the Wall Street
->Journal and broadcast on ABC. 


Oh, my goodness, Jed, you have finally presented incontrovertable SCIENTIFIC 
evidence. How could I have ever been so wrong. If ABC and the WSJ say it, it 
must be true.


->They have had plenty of time to deny everything,
->and if they had no connection with CETI you can be darn sure they *would
->have* denied it! ABC would have issued a retraction. So, by the twisted
->logic of Business Page reporting, the connection is verified. In point of
->fact many people have known about it and about Motorola's tests for
->months, including me. Since you claim to have the inside track with
->Motorola I am sure you have seen their test results too. Very interesting,
->aren't they?
-> 
->- Jed


It won't work, Jed. I don't have any track (inside or otherwise) with Motorola. 
I have no beans to spill.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Feb 19 04:37:04 EST 1996
------------------------------
