1996.02.18 / Bradley Sherman /  Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
     
Originally-From: bks@netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 14:24:16 GMT
Organization: Remote Fusion Reactor Reverse Entropy Associates

In article <4g6ttm$1af@stratus.skypoint.net>,
John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> wrote:
>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.
...
>You better get it off your chest and list them all and give us particulars
>so we can judge for ourselves.  You say you only have two others, so it
>should only take a couple of seconds to type them in.
...

While we're on the subject of hyperbole, the CETI home page does
much the same thing with the assertion:
    These exciting results have been replicated
    and verified by several independent parties.
where the word "verified" is a hyperlink to a page which contains
only a mention of Craven's (unrefereed?) 95 paper and nothing
else.

    --bks

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbks cudfnBradley cudlnSherman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.18 / mitchell swartz /  WATER 
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.energy,alt.fan.publius
Subject: WATER 
Subject: WATER
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 14:24:16 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <4g63ps$1gnu@news.gate.net>
Subject: WATER
publius@gate.net (Publius) writes:

     "Water - a liquid oxide of hydrogen (H2O) - essential component
  of all living matter - etc. etc. . . . 
     So what else is new?  Plenty."

  This used to be true.  Used to claim it myself at lectures on the
dielectric and structural properties of water.
 No more.  Take a look at tardigrades.

1.     Try "Respiration of Tardigrada", Pigon.A, Weglarska,B,
 Bull.Acad Polon. Sci., Cl.II, 69-73 ('53) or
2. "Anhydrobiosis: An unsolved problem", Crowe,J., Amer. Naturalis
 105: 563-574 (1971), or
3. "Anhydrobiosis", Ed. J. Crowe, J. Clegg, Dowden Inc. 
  Stroudsburg, PA '73

  Best wishes.
    Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.18 / mitchell swartz /  Update & intro (newbie) info on cold fusion at web-site
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.energy,sci.materials
Subject: Update & intro (newbie) info on cold fusion at web-site
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 14:28:47 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


Information of a scientific, and material science and physics
nature on cold fusion and related solid-state phenomena, 
are available on the COLD FUSION TIMES' home page.

  The URL of the COLD FUSION TIMES' web page site is

          http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html

Additional details are provided at that site, along with other info, 
refs, definitions, and even some URL-pointers to the
COLD FUSION TIMES Delphi Fusion Survey, and other fusion
resources that include this solid state field.

         =====================================
                 The truth is out there
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.18 / J Youles /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: J B Youles <john.youles@dial.pipex.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: 18 Feb 1996 14:38:45 GMT
Organization: Chaotic

vanesch@jamaica.desy.de (Patrick van Esch) wrote:
>>
>There is a difference.  homeopathy is a "technique".  It isn't a
>discovered phenomenon.  If the theory behind a technique is wrong,
>chances are big that the technique doesn't work.

The phlogiston theory of burning was wrong - therefore you couldn't set 
light to anything ?

>If I tell you it is possible to fly if you close your eyes and
>say "wobble wobble" because that invokes a resonance in the 17th
>sphere  as explained in my Ringing-Bell Universe theory 
>and as thus will lift you because of the postulate in this theory
>that all resonances lift their sources, it probably won't work.

Quite - but there is evidence that homeopathic techniques DO work, 
including on animals who cannot be convinced by suggestion as they do not 
understand human languages.

>Still if I do my best, I'll convince a lot of people that it will
>work and you'll see some testimonies of people that have crossed
>the Atlantic doing a "wobble wobble" flight.

Well you've obviously made up your mind, like Lavoisier.

>--
>Patrick Van Esch
>http://www.iihe.ac.be/hep/pp/vanesch
>mail:   vanesch@dice2.desy.de
>for PGP public key: finger vanesch@dice2.desy.de


-- 
John Youles 
 -----------------------------------------------------------
"If the weather we are having is a result of the greenhouse
 effect, then someone must have taken out all the glass."
 -----------------------------------------------------------


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenyoules cudfnJ cudlnYoules cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.18 / Patrick Esch /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: vanesch@jamaica.desy.de (Patrick van Esch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: 18 Feb 1996 13:55:05 GMT
Organization: DESY

J B Youles (john.youles@dial.pipex.com) wrote:
: vanesch@jamaica.desy.de (Patrick van Esch) wrote:
: >
: >Nor is Homeopathy.  It is 200 years old.  If you read the story of
: >the guy who invented this technique you know already that it is
: >a hoax.

: Another example of rejecting results because of an apparently absurd 
: theory.  In the 18th century Lavoisier said that there were no such 
: things as stones falling from the sky, because there were no stones in 
: the sky - but today we accept the existence of meteorites. "Don't confuse 
: me with facts, I've made up my mind!".

There is a difference.  homeopathy is a "technique".  It isn't a
discovered phenomenon.  If the theory behind a technique is wrong,
chances are big that the technique doesn't work.
If I tell you it is possible to fly if you close your eyes and
say "wobble wobble" because that invokes a resonance in the 17th
sphere  as explained in my Ringing-Bell Universe theory 
and as thus will lift you because of the postulate in this theory
that all resonances lift their sources, it probably won't work.
Still if I do my best, I'll convince a lot of people that it will
work and you'll see some testimonies of people that have crossed
the Atlantic doing a "wobble wobble" flight.

cheers.
Patrick.

--
Patrick Van Esch
http://www.iihe.ac.be/hep/pp/vanesch
mail:   vanesch@dice2.desy.de
for PGP public key: finger vanesch@dice2.desy.de
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenvanesch cudfnPatrick cudlnEsch cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.17 / J Youles /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: J B Youles <john.youles@dial.pipex.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: 17 Feb 1996 10:47:42 GMT
Organization: Chaotic

John Ritson <john@jritson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <ant1610090b0KksR@circlesw.demon.co.uk>, John Skingley

>>And I've seen a herd of cows treated for (can't remember the name, some
>>common problem with cows) using diluted solutions, and that worked. I
>>don't see how that could be explained by mental effects!
>
>It could if the judgement on whether the animals are better, much the
>same or worse is made by humans who expect an improvement in animals
>which have been treated. 

I think this was mastitis which had been very common in this herd with 
conventional treatment but almost disappeared with homeopathic treatment 
- moreover, whereas conventional drugs tainted the milk, there was no 
such side-effect with homeopathy.


-- 
John Youles 
 -----------------------------------------------------------
"If the weather we are having is a result of the greenhouse
 effect, then someone must have taken out all the glass."
 -----------------------------------------------------------


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenyoules cudfnJ cudlnYoules cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.18 / Harry Conover /  Why no Japanese interest in CETI?
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Why no Japanese interest in CETI?
Date: 18 Feb 1996 16:33:23 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

For years now, Jed has claimed intense Japanese interest and
investment in CF exists, and that MITI and others have supplied
hundreds of millions of research funding.

I find it stange that, in light of the remarkable achievement
claims of Patterson and CETI, there has been no mention of 
any Japanese interest whatever in these events.

Can it be that the Japanese have learned from their past
mistakes?

                                     Harry C.


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.17 / 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: 17 Feb 1996 15:59:03 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Matt Kennel (kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov) wrote:
: the area of the beads is quite small, then by elementary ...
: thermodynamics the temperature right on the beads
: MUST be significantly higher.   There should indeed be some spots right
: in the middle of the cell that are damn hot if there is some unknown 
: heat-producing reaction in the beads.  That, after all, is the hypothesis,
: right? 

You have a metal/water contact.  Metal is a good thermal conductor and
water is a good thermal dump.  Therefore it is unlikely that the macro
bead surface is significantly warmer than the water at that cross-sectional
point.  There probably is a vertical gradient (water enters below and
exits out top.)  Beads near the bottom input run cooler than beads near
the top exit.

The original beads (as described in the patent) are metalized styrene
plastic, so they could not withstand high macro heats without deforming
or decomposing.

At a micro level there indeed could be *extremely* high equivalent
temperatures -- but that would be speculative and presuming a cause.

--
 - 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:
cuddy17 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.19 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: Basic CETI Questions?
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Basic CETI Questions?
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 96 06:11:50 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

In article <4g84mo$5fh@shell.monmouth.com>,
   George.Eberhardt@StarPower.Com (George Eberhardt) wrote:
->In article <4ftpjl$iu9@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com 
->says...
->>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. 
->
->I may have the wrong www address for CETI.  Could you repeat it for me
->
->George
->

http://www.onramp.net/~ceti/
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.19 / 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, 19 Feb 96 06:28:07 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

In article <4g8d2p$3pt@sundog.tiac.net>,
   conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) wrote:
->: : Here's a quote from a James Reding (President of CETI) letter:
->: :
->: : 	CETI has presented the enclosed data adjusting for both a 
->: : 	hydrogen-oxygen recombination (1.5 V) and a hydrogen-ozone
->: : 	recombination (1.7 V). The ozone adjustment increases the yield
->: : 	produced by the cell to over 1100%.
->
->Is the man serious?


Well, he is obviously serious about something. It could be science, or it could 
be marketing.


->Did he sign his name to this letter?


The signature is largely illegible except for initial caps, but the typed name 
below the signature is James W. Reding. 


->Can you explain what he is talking about?  


No.


->How does ozone enter the picture?


It gives a higher 'yield.'


->Confusing, possibly even bizarre science, but interesting.
->
->
->                                     Harry C.
->
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.16 / G Castellano /  Re: cold fusion theory (simple)
     
Originally-From: gvc@ocsystems.com (G. Vincent Castellano)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: cold fusion theory (simple)
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 21:59:42 GMT
Organization: OC Systems, Inc.

Matt Kennel (kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov) wrote:

: (IMHO, the discovery of nuclear fission was the most astonishingly 
:  unexpected experimental discovery of this century..) 

I dunno, I would vote for Hubbel's discovery of the red shift
(expansion of the universe) for that title, especially
when you consider general relativity predicted it and Einstein
then fudged the theory because he couldn't believe the result 
was correct.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 -    G. Vincent Castellano, Sr. Software Engineer, OC Systems Inc     -
 -      gvc@ocsystems.com 703.359.8166 http://www.ocsystems.com/       -
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 - "If virtual memory did not exist, it would                          -
 -   have become necessary for us to invent it."                       -
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudengvc cudfnG cudlnCastellano cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.15 / Wayne Johnson /  Re: Patterson Power Cell
     
Originally-From: wjohnson@baton.com (Wayne Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Patterson Power Cell
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 14:31:44 GMT
Organization: j%nki~w€RJ3M-26XPLZ8L-BFGD44CT-1EA6BC82

On 12 Feb 96 17:27:57 CST, cd@birch119.cray.com (Chris Dickson) wrote:

>
>In article <4flksu$c8u@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, davesradio@aol.com (DavesRadio) writes:
>> Greetings all,
>> 
>> 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..."  :=)
>> 
>This guy is going to get two cold showers at the same time. Brrrrr! 
>>  
>-- 

Shouldn't that be "cold-fusion showers"?

Wayne Johnson
Sudbury, Ontario
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenwjohnson cudfnWayne cudlnJohnson cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.18 /  ppm /  Measure Radiation with your watch
     
Originally-From: ppm <ppm@getnet.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Measure Radiation with your watch
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 12:04:54 -0800
Organization: GetNet, International, Inc.

Introduction of the first wristwatch that measures, detects, and counts
radioactivity and x-rays. See for details:

http://gn2.getnet.com/~ppm/

Professional feed-back appreciated.
Thank you,
Hans Kuerner
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenppm cudlnppm cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.18 /  ppm /  Measure Radiation with your watch
     
Originally-From: ppm <ppm@getnet.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Measure Radiation with your watch
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 12:05:11 -0800
Organization: GetNet, International, Inc.

Introduction of the first wristwatch that measures, detects, and counts
radioactivity and x-rays. See for details:

http://gn2.getnet.com/~ppm/

Professional feed-back appreciated.
Thank you,
Hans Kuerner
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenppm cudlnppm cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.19 / Erik Francis /  Re: final explanation of 2nd law of thermodynamics; entropy
     
Originally-From: Erik Max Francis <max@alcyone.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.chem,sci.astro,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: final explanation of 2nd law of thermodynamics; entropy
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 12:35:41 -0800
Organization: &tSftDotIotE

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

>   If the old 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was a correct law. Then the
> purest of pure slabs of uranium should upon inspection contain no, or
> none neptunium or plutonium.

Hey, that's a pretty convincing testament to that you have no idea what you're
talking about.

-- 
Erik Max Francis, &tSftDotIotE. && max@alcyone.darkside.com || max@alcyone.com
San Jose, California, U.S.A. && 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W && the 4th R is respect
H.3`S,3,P,3$S,#$Q,C`Q,3,P,3$S,#$Q,3`Q,3,P,C$Q,#(Q.#`-"C`- && 1love && folasade
Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt. && GIGO Omega Psi && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
"Out from his breast/his soul went to seek/the doom of the just." -- _Beowulf_
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmax cudfnErik cudlnFrancis cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.14 / M Simon /  Re: How to keep ice/water in it's solid state at 40degrees celcius? Help
     
Originally-From: msimon@rworld.com (M Simon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How to keep ice/water in it's solid state at 40degrees celcius? Help
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 14:21:15 GMT
Organization: Space-Time Productions

Ziad Rahayel <z_rahay@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:

>Hello everybody,

>I am not sure I am posting to the right group for this! 
>I am looking for a way to keep ice/water in it's solid state at
>temperatures up to 40degrees celcius.  Any means to do this is welcome,
>thermodynamics, chemical...  Whatever. 

>Thank you very much
>Ziad Rahayel

Do what I usually do under such circumstances. I put the ice in
a refrigerator. Works for me. 

Or get a bigger icecube.

PS. A refrigerator is a thermodynamic pump.

M. Simon



========

I heartily accept the motto, - "That government is best which 
governs least;" and I should like to see it acted up to more 
rapidly and systematically.  Carried out, it finally amounts to 
this, which I also believe, - "That government is best which 
governs not at all;" and when men are prepared for it, that 
will be the kind of government which they will have. 
   
      --Henry David Thoreau 
      "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience"  
 
 
Some writers have so confounded society with government, 
as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas 
they are not only different, but have different origins ... 
Society is in every state a blessing, but Government, even in 
its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an 
intolerable one. 
 
      --Thomas Paine 
      _Common Sense_  
 


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmsimon cudfnM cudlnSimon cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.15 / John Sargeant /  Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
     
Originally-From: johns@cs.man.ac.uk (John Sargeant)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
Date: 15 Feb 1996 15:32:51 GMT
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, University of Manchester, U.K.


In article <3122cde6.28527111@news.netspace.net.au>, rvanspaa@netspace.net.au
(Robin van Spaandonk) writes:
|> I would love to know just which measurements have been done to prove
|> that it is not nuclear.

As I understand it, a measurement of Jed's pulse is sufficient. If he
still has one, it's not nuclear :-)

It seems to me, that exactly two things have been established beyond reasonable
doubt these 7 years:

- It's not fusion. Any fusion reaction would produce large amounts of
  radiation - lethal amounts for outputs of 100s of watts. Dozens of
  reactions have been suggested, and they would all have neutrons, gammas
  etc. pinging around.
- Its not chemical. There aren't enough reactants.

Hence, whatever it is, it's Something Else. According to the Skeptics,
the Something Else is mismeasurement or maybe even fraud. According to
the Believers, it's ZPE (whatever that is) or something, or it doesn't
matter what it is provided it works.

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

  John (puzzled lurker).
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjohns cudfnJohn cudlnSargeant cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.15 /  AndersonBD /  There, I wrote Dr. Miley about the PPCell.
     
Originally-From: andersonbd@aol.com (AndersonBD)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: There, I wrote Dr. Miley about the PPCell.
Date: 15 Feb 1996 12:50:15 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Well, I wrote Dr. Miley, who supposedly tested the Patterson power cell,
and asked questions about its reactant consumption rate, neutron emission
status, and its current research status at other educational institutions.
 Also, I asked whether or not a straight deuterium + deuterium = helium 4
reaction   ( without neutron emissions ) is impossible, as suggested by
some subscribed to this newsgroup.   Hopefully he will give us a
response... 

                   - AndersonBD@aol.com
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenandersonbd cudlnAndersonBD cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.15 / D Caprette /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: au455@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Douglas S. Caprette)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: 15 Feb 1996 19:39:19 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


In a previous article, prosim@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (Julian Brown) says:

>In article <Pine.HPP.3.91.960131174319.259A-100000@banting.candu.aecl.ca>,
>Eric Carruthers  <carruthe@candu.aecl.ca> wrote:
>>On 30 Jan 1996, Publius (copied his own post)wrote:
>>> Publius (publius@gate.net) wrote:
>><snip>
>>> :  
>>> :   1500 watts.  Whatever happens, it does involve the breakdown of
>>> :   the water into hydrogen and oxygen, with the hydrogen interacting
>>> :   in some way with the metals, with an effect akin to cold fusion.
>><snip>
>>
>>This sounds an awful lot like a chemical reaction.  What makes you think 
>>there is any fusion going on?  Seen any high energy neutrons flying around?
>>
>>Just what fusion reaction do you suppose could be happening?
>>Some sort of (p,n) reaction?
>>
>>Where should I send all of the money I wish to invest?
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Eric Carruthers' views.  carruthe@candu.aecl.ca  
>>AECL-Candu, Sheridan Park, Ontario, Canada, Earth.
>>What is man without the beasts?...All things are connected.Chief Seattle.
>>
>
>I think the name "Cold Fusion" is really the problem with this process.
>It has never been proven by the supporters of CF that is really is Fusion.
>There may be a truly nuclear reaction going on here, some have suggested
>"quantum tunneling" but until some one can prove the presence of excess
>helium (and/or it's isotopes) and/or can explain the process in quantum
>or nuclear terms exactly what is happening.  I think the jury is still
>out, the only thing that has been proven is that excess energy is present,
>but not what the process is..
>

Until the Patterson cell has been run against an inert control we don't
know that excess energy is present either.


It seems clear that the cell electrolyses water, if it also stores
hydrogen on a palladium catalyst is such a way that it can be
economically recovered for use in a fuel cell of some such then the
Patterson cell might be useful for loading a hydrogen storage medium.

This doesn't _produce_ any excess energy, but it might be useful simply
for storing energy.

-- 
--
DS Caprette
"There's a little truth in all jive, and a little jive in all truth."
                                  -- Leonard Q. Barnes
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenau455 cudfnDouglas cudlnCaprette cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.15 / Seth W /  Re: Jed is wrong and libelous
     
Originally-From: sethw@access5.digex.net (Seth W.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed is wrong and libelous
Date: 15 Feb 1996 23:22:00 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA

jonesse@plasma wrote:
  
: There's a lot left to do to verify a real effect in the Patterson cell.  
: 
: --Steven Jones

Wouldn't a really big cell putting out lots of "excess energy" for 
everybody do the trick?  Why not just make a BIG one?

Or, like I keep asking, just hook it up to a big bottle of hydrogen?

No sulfates or sulfites or whatever, no peroxides, no flow.  Is there 
something in the "cold fusion theory" that says this cell NEEDS hydrogen
from water?  Hydrogen is hydrogen.

sethw@access.digex.net

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudensethw cudfnSeth cudlnW cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.16 / J Mainwaring /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: mainwarj@boreal.owlnet.rice.edu (Jonah Paul Mainwaring)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: 16 Feb 1996 06:40:12 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <4g0ujh$t6q@news.gate.net>, publius@gate.net (Publius) writes:
|> AndersonBD (andersonbd@aol.com) wrote:
|> : The thing about your hydrogen/oxygen electrochemical dismissal of the
|> : "Patterson power cell" phenomenon is that this cannot POSSIBLY be the
|> : explanation, given accurate power measurement equipment.  The fact is,
|> : whatever energy you ADD to the cell to LIBERATE oxygen and hydrogen, you
|> : cannot POSSIBLY gain more energy when chemically burning that same
|> : hydrogen and oxygen back into water.  Assuming that the "law" of energy
|> : conservation is valid.    My own theory, assuming that the damn cell
|> : actually works, is that maybe these palladium/nickel beads which are the
|> : basis of the Patterson cell can CATALYZE helium from the small amount of
|> : heavy hydrogen present in all water.  After all, platinum is a great
|> : catalyst for air pollutants, and palladium is in the same family. 
|> : However, I doubt that my conclusions are correct.
|> :                                             - Brad Anderson
|> :
|>                                                 AndersonBD@aol.com
|>   What makes me feel good about these experiments
|>   is that serious people are working on a solution
|>   to the problem of so-called "Cold Fusion".
|>   I be lieve the focus must be on plain water a
|>   potent combination of Hydrogen and Oxygen
|>   Someone will eventually figure out how to break up
|>   water into its components at little or no energy investment.
|>   You;ll never catch me belittling any effort in that direction
|>   because they are focused on the right target.  PUBLIUS
|> 
|>   

Someone will figure how to break H2O into its components with little or 
no energy cost?  Only by disproving the second law of Thermodynamics.  
Sorry Publius, but it requires serious energy to break those bonds, and 
it will require that energy regardless of the method you use.  

-- 
Jonah Mainwaring
"I think that I am a verb."  - Fuller
http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~mainwarj
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmainwarj cudfnJonah cudlnMainwaring cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.16 / I Johnston /  Re: Reconciling Magnum and PowerGen data
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reconciling Magnum and PowerGen data
Date: 16 Feb 1996 13:03:17 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

Mark Meyer (mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com) wrote:

: 	Already happened.  The plaintiff was one Laurence Godfrey, who
: is often seen hanging around soc.culture.thai and other newsgroups.  I
: didn't see the post that triggered the lawsuit, but as I recall
: Godfrey won the case in a British court.  Sorry my memory's so fuzzy. 

He didn't win. The defendant backed down at the last moment and paid
agreed but secret damages and costs. In the past the sums involved for
damages in such cases have been from 300 pounds to half a million.

Ian
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.18 / John Ritson /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: John Ritson <john@jritson.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 09:48:51 +0000
Organization: John Ritson

In article <4g5u0o$p2m@tube.news.pipex.net>, J B Youles
<john.youles@dial.pipex.com> writes
>vanesch@jamaica.desy.de (Patrick van Esch) wrote:
>>
>>Nor is Homeopathy.  It is 200 years old.  If you read the story of
>>the guy who invented this technique you know already that it is
>>a hoax.
>
>Another example of rejecting results because of an apparently absurd 
>theory.  In the 18th century Lavoisier said that there were no such 
>things as stones falling from the sky, because there were no stones in 
>the sky - but today we accept the existence of meteorites. "Don't confuse 
>me with facts, I've made up my mind!".
And don't forget all the impressive results claimed by the proponents of 
"N-Rays" and "polywater".

John
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnRitson cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.18 / Harry Conover /  Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
Date: 18 Feb 1996 16:23:54 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Bradley K. Sherman (bks@netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <4g6ttm$1af@stratus.skypoint.net>,
: John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> wrote:
: >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.
: ...
: >You better get it off your chest and list them all and give us particulars
: >so we can judge for ourselves.  You say you only have two others, so it
: >should only take a couple of seconds to type them in.
: ...

: While we're on the subject of hyperbole, the CETI home page does
: much the same thing with the assertion:
:     These exciting results have been replicated
:     and verified by several independent parties.
: where the word "verified" is a hyperlink to a page which contains
: only a mention of Craven's (unrefereed?) 95 paper and nothing
: else.

Brad, get used to this.  This is what the CF true believers accept
as being independent replication and verification -- you'll find
this kind of evidence for CF is about as good as it gets.

                                   Harry C.

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.19 / 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: 19 Feb 1996 02:56:19 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA

Bob Sullivan (bsulliva@sky.net) wrote:
: Here's a quote from a James Reding (President of CETI) letter:
: 
: 	CETI has presented the enclosed data adjusting for both a 
: 	hydrogen-oxygen recombination (1.5 V) and a hydrogen-ozone
: 	recombination (1.7 V). The ozone adjustment increases the yield
: 	produced by the cell to over 1100%.
: 
: From that language alone you should be able to recognize that they were maki 
: an adjustment for NO recombination of the liberated gasses. As a matter of f 
: the accompanying calculations showed that they were assuming NO recombinatio 
: You have to look at what they actually do rather than listen to what they sa

Why would an increase in the recombination adjustment increase the yield
of the cell?  If this energy is supposed to be subtracted from the energy
output, the yield should go down, not up.

sethw@access.digex.net
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudensethw cudfnSeth cudlnW cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.19 / 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: 19 Feb 1996 03:22:06 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA

Harry H Conover (conover@max.tiac.net) wrote:
: Brad, get used to this.  This is what the CF true believers accept
: as being independent replication and verification -- you'll find
: this kind of evidence for CF is about as good as it gets.
: 
:                                    Harry C.

OK, you really like to slam "cold fusion", and the people who are interested
in pursuing it.  Would you like to explain why you piped up here in response
to a CETI claim?  Since, after all, CETI does not claim to be using "cold
fusion" to produce the results observed with the Patterson cell?

For starters, would you tell me of another "cold fusion" experiment of which
you are aware which has used "light water" and has been proven false? 

sethw@access.digex.net

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudensethw cudfnSeth cudlnW cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.17 / Seth W /  Re: Plans to test the Patterson cell
     
Originally-From: sethw@access5.digex.net (Seth W.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Plans to test the Patterson cell
Date: 17 Feb 1996 00:51:49 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA

jonesse@plasma wrote:
  
: Based on the little that has been reported so far, along with pictures from
: video tape from the Nightline broadcast, we will soon begin actual tests
: here.  Note that nothing has been published in a peer-reviewed scientific 
: journal so far.

You know, I'm just so happy to have somebody finally answer a question
about the cell instead of bashing Jed Rothwell, I'm not sure I can go on
from here!  Oh, but I'll try.

More power to you and your peers in reviewing the CETI claims.  I hope you
find something you can't explain!  Wouldn't that be FUN?  I think so.

: Our procedures therefore are reminiscent of what scientists had to do in 
: 1989 when
: P&F reported their results via news media, and scientific analysis often had
: to be based on TV pictures.

Hopefully, CETI will be more forthcoming.  If their process is real, it can
only be to their benefit to have that demonstrated as soon as possible.

: Yes, we have some ideas of what may be going on in the Patterson cell.
: We do not believe that there is any proton-proton fusion, or proton-induced
: fission, etc.  We think the observation of "excess heat" in the blank cell
: filled with shot at the PowerGen demonstration (supposed to be a control!) 
: gives a strong clue as to what is really happening -- and it's not nuclear!
: This is telling, along with the report of much higher electrical resistance in
: the cell than one would expect from the geometry and electrolyte used.
: 
: But now I think it best to let us do our replication of Patterson/CETI as
: well as we can, then we will report our results. 

Will you give us updates along the way?  I'd like to see how people approach
this "problem".  Would it be possible to operate the cell off of pure
hydrogen instead of using electrolysis?

: I will say that it would be foolish for investors to invest money in the
: Patterson/CETI cell at the present time, IMHO.

If I were an investor, or had I any money to invest, I'd certainly heed
your advice!  As it is, I'm just curious to know what's really going on.

: > Would it be fair
: > to say that recombination could not account for all of the excess heat
: > if the power in and power out have been recorded accurately?
: > 
: > I'm speaking only of the Patterson Cell, not any other "cold fusion" 
: > experiments out there.
: > 
: > sethw@access.digex.net
: 
: Yes, this would be fair to say.
: --Steven Jones

Thanks again for an answer.  

I do have a few questions that have been swimming around in my head the
past few days.  One question I have concerns the hydrogen within the
metal lattice--are the protons as free to move around within the lattice
as I've read the electrons are?  Another question is whether or not there
is any "evidence" which might indicate that the observed effect might be
a surface effect.  If the effect which produces excess heat is a surface
effect, then would the Patterson cell's "magic beads" represent a new
approach to previous experiments in . . . the field I would like to see
called "the field previously known as 'cold fusion'"?

Do let us know of your progress!

sethw@access.digex.net

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudensethw cudfnSeth cudlnW cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.17 / 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: Sat, 17 Feb 96 02:46:28 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

In article <4fum14$bsq@stratus.skypoint.net>,
   jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) wrote:
->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
->
->

Here's a quote from a James Reding (President of CETI) letter:

	CETI has presented the enclosed data adjusting for both a 
	hydrogen-oxygen recombination (1.5 V) and a hydrogen-ozone
	recombination (1.7 V). The ozone adjustment increases the yield
	produced by the cell to over 1100%.

From that language alone you should be able to recognize that they were making 
an adjustment for NO recombination of the liberated gasses. As a matter of fact, 
the accompanying calculations showed that they were assuming NO recombination. 
You have to look at what they actually do rather than listen to what they say.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.17 / John Logajan /  Re: Plans to test the Patterson cell
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Plans to test the Patterson cell
Date: 17 Feb 1996 15:46:19 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

jonesse@plasma wrote:
: Based on the little that has been reported so far, along with pictures from
: video tape from the Nightline broadcast, we will soon begin actual tests
: here.  Note that nothing has been published in a peer-reviewed scientific 
: journal so far.
: Our procedures therefore are reminiscent of what scientists had to do in 
: 1989 when P&F reported their results via news media, and scientific analysis
: often had to be based on TV pictures.

Get the Patterson patents, 5,372,688 and 5,036,031.  That's more than just
TV pictures.

--
 - 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:
cuddy17 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.17 /  AndersonBD /  Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
     
Originally-From: andersonbd@aol.com (AndersonBD)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
Date: 17 Feb 1996 16:08:12 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Your analysis of the power cell also helps explain another question as
well.  One of the guys in this newsgroup was stating, "why can't the
experiment work with the beads in hydrogen or deuterium gas instead of
water?"  If fusion is occurring, the water is likely necessary to keep the
beads from melting / burning from the supposed heat generated within. 
Also, even if the beads did work in hydrogen gas, it is a lot safer to use
water than to work with a large volume of explosive gas.

          - AndersonBD@aol.com
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenandersonbd cudlnAndersonBD cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.17 / Patrick Esch /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: vanesch@jamaica.desy.de (Patrick van Esch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: 17 Feb 1996 21:22:50 GMT
Organization: DESY

John Skingley (john@circlesw.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <4fvuig$a3l@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov>, Matt Kennel

: your views, otherwise...  And by the way, Astrology isn't exactly new!

Nor is Homeopathy.  It is 200 years old.  If you read the story of
the guy who invented this technique you know already that it is
a hoax.

cheers,
Patrick.


--
Patrick Van Esch
http://www.iihe.ac.be/hep/pp/vanesch
mail:   vanesch@dice2.desy.de
for PGP public key: finger vanesch@dice2.desy.de
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenvanesch cudfnPatrick cudlnEsch cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.17 / Patrick Esch /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: vanesch@jamaica.desy.de (Patrick van Esch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: 17 Feb 1996 21:26:52 GMT
Organization: DESY


J B Youles (john.youles@dial.pipex.com) wrote:
: no
: such side-effect with homeopathy.

that's the best part of homeopathy: you never have side 
effects (except if you have an allergy for pure water  :)

cheers,
Patrick.

--
Patrick Van Esch
http://www.iihe.ac.be/hep/pp/vanesch
mail:   vanesch@dice2.desy.de
for PGP public key: finger vanesch@dice2.desy.de
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenvanesch cudfnPatrick cudlnEsch cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.18 / 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: 18 Feb 1996 10:09:58 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 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?
:
: That was reported on vortex-l. The interpretation of the 'reason' is left
: to the beholder:

Ah, well then it doesn't fit your initial criteria because they refused
to investigate the Patterson cell.  The internal guy urging them to
investigate was gung-ho on Patterson.

So you have greatly mis-stated the events if you are counting that example.
Clearly you had implied that they *had* investigated experimentally and
the experiments failed.

Now I'm curious about the other two "rumors" of rejection you refer to.
You've put me in doubt about your interpretation based upon the above
specific example.

You better get it off your chest and list them all and give us particulars
so we can judge for ourselves.  You say you only have two others, so it
should only take a couple of seconds to type them in.

--
 - 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:
cuddy18 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.18 / 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: 18 Feb 1996 20:50:39 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Bob Sullivan (bsulliva@sky.net) wrote:
: ->Actually, this is the formula used and it assumes 100% recombination.
: ->
: ->   Raw Heat Yield (%) = F/60 * 4.1629 * dT * 0.95 / (V*I) * 100 
: ->        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
: ->
: ->

: Here's a quote from a James Reding (President of CETI) letter:
:
: 	CETI has presented the enclosed data adjusting for both a 
: 	hydrogen-oxygen recombination (1.5 V) and a hydrogen-ozone
: 	recombination (1.7 V). The ozone adjustment increases the yield
: 	produced by the cell to over 1100%.
:
: From that language alone you should be able to recognize that they were
: making an adjustment for NO recombination of the liberated gasses. As a
: matter of fact, the accompanying calculations showed that they were
: assuming NO recombination. You have to look at what they actually do
: rather than listen to what they say.


I ran the raw numbers (I, V, flow rate) from the published tables of the
ICCF5 demo through the above formula and found the results to be in
agreement with their calculated results.  This verified they actually
used the above formula as stated.

They also provided figures assuming no recombination.  But clearly if
the assumed 100% recombination case is over-unity, the less conservative
assumed 0% recombination case will be also over-unity.

It would be misleading to say that because they include the 0% recombination
case that they don't include the 100% recombination case.  As an experimenter
(a couple of years ago) myself who saw about 23% recombination in a light
water cell (Mills type) I am keen on spotting in reports whether 0%
recombination was assumed.  I wouldn't trust such an assumption.

CETI's published ICCF5 numbers agree with the assumed 100% recombination
case and are still well over-unity.  Therefore recombination is not the
explanation.

By the way, the published ICCF5 numbers are on my web page.

--
 - 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:
cuddy18 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.18 / G Eberhardt /  Re: Basic CETI Questions?
     
Originally-From: George.Eberhardt@StarPower.Com (George Eberhardt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Basic CETI Questions?
Date: 18 Feb 1996 21:11:52 GMT
Organization: Computer Innovations, Inc

In article <4ftpjl$iu9@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com 
says...
>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. 

I may have the wrong www address for CETI.  Could you repeat it for me

George

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenEberhardt cudfnGeorge cudlnEberhardt cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.18 / Psycho Dave /  Re: WATER
     
Originally-From: Psycho Dave <psycho@xensei.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,al
.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: WATER
Date: 18 Feb 1996 22:31:40 GMT
Organization: Professional Smartass Association

publius@gate.net (Publius) wrote:
>Summary:                   
>Keywords: 
> 
>     Water - a liquid oxide of hydrogen (H2O) - essential component
>  of all living matter - etc. etc. . . . 
>     So what else is new?  Plenty.
>     The new burst of experiments - the Patterson Cell,for one -
>  erroneously labeled "Cold Fusion" experiments, that are probing
>  the pent-up energy potential of Water - (it IS Hydrogen and 
>  Oxygen) - will, I am convinced, either break down Water into its
>  components without a great expenditure of energy 

That is the process known as electolosis. You hook 2 wires to the
different leads of a battery, place each wire in a test-tube full
of water, then submerge the two test-tubes, upside down, in a
beaker. One test-tube will be full of hydrogen, and the other
test-tube will be full of oxygen. The process can be seen 
occuring as tiny bubbles at the end of each wire, rising from
the wire and replacing the water in the test-tube. 
 
This is not cold fusion, and the first cold fusion experiments
were just that -- which is why cold fusion was laughed at. 

>  or will dis-
>  cover an electro-catalytic process that will harness the atomic
>  energy of Hydrogen contained in plain Water.  I favor the latter.

Then you obviously know nothing about physics or science to derive
that conclusion from the data at hand. You are easily duped by 
scientific-sounding claims.

>     Whatever the inevitable discovery, our children will laugh
>  at us for being blind to what was so obvious, as we laugh and
>  wonder why our predecessors were so long in figuring out some-
>  thing as simple as the steam engine and a lot of what followed.
>  PUBLIUS at <alt.fan.publius>

Dream on. Only science fiction is more interesting than the
psuedoscience that turns you on. After all -- you believe in
creation-science, which is the biggest oxymoron ever. 

-- 
|________  ___       __       ___ | Email: psycho@xensei.com |        
|   /___/ /__  \  / /   /__/ /  / |                          |
|  /     ___/   \/ /__ /  / /__/  | Visit Psycho Dave's Dark |
| /_____________/___D__A__V__E__  |     And Scary Place      |        
|   http://www.xensei.com/users/psycho/DARK/default.htm      |


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenpsycho cudfnPsycho cudlnDave cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.19 / J Mainwaring /  Re: WATER
     
Originally-From: mainwarj@boreal.owlnet.rice.edu (Jonah Paul Mainwaring)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,al
.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: WATER
Date: 19 Feb 1996 00:22:08 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <4g63ps$1gnu@news.gate.net>, publius@gate.net (Publius) writes:
|> Summary:                   
|> Keywords: 
|>  
|>      Water - a liquid oxide of hydrogen (H2O) - essential component
|>   of all living matter - etc. etc. . . . 
|>      So what else is new?  Plenty.
|>      The new burst of experiments - the Patterson Cell,for one -
|>   erroneously labeled "Cold Fusion" experiments, that are probing
|>   the pent-up energy potential of Water - (it IS Hydrogen and 
|>   Oxygen) - will, I am convinced, either break down Water into its
|>   components without a great expenditure of energy or will dis-
|>   cover an electro-catalytic process that will harness the atomic
|>   energy of Hydrogen contained in plain Water.  I favor the latter.
|>      Whatever the inevitable discovery, our children will laugh
|>   at us for being blind to what was so obvious, as we laugh and
|>   wonder why our predecessors were so long in figuring out some-
|>   thing as simple as the steam engine and a lot of what followed.
|>   PUBLIUS at <alt.fan.publius>
|> 

	Publius, chemistry isnt' your field, is it.  Yes, there is 
energy in the combination of H and O.  That energy is released in the 
exothermic reaction 2H2 + O2 -> H2O.  The same amount of energy is 
needed to separate them.  Period.  The potential energy exists when
they are in elemental form, and is released into kinetic energy when 
they are combined.  It requires as much power to separate H2O into its
components as is released when they are combined, by the law of conservation
of energy.  The 2nd law of thermodynamics tells us that it actually
takes more energy to separate them than is released when you combine them.  
The only way to use water as a power source is if we can use its components
in a fusion reaction, which would release far more energy than was consumed in the 
spearation of the components, due to the larger mass-energy transition.  
H20 does _not_ contain significant chemical potential energy.  

-- 
Jonah Mainwaring
"I think that I am a verb."  - Fuller
http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~mainwarj
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmainwarj cudfnJonah cudlnMainwaring cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.18 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 96 22:25:04 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

In article <4fvtua$a3l@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov>,
   kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov (Matt Kennel) wrote:

[. . .]

->So, the beads MUST BE HOT if they're the thing that's making heat.


I don't agree with your assumption that large amounts of heat are produced. The 
facts do not support this conclusion. Mitchell Jones drove the nail in that 
coffin.


->If not, I suspect systematic calorimeter error and mistaken heat balance
->calculations. 


Agreed. The facts support this.


->Do people agree with this?


What is the antecedent of 'this'. See above.


[. . .]
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.18 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 96 22:52:25 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

In article <4g6ttm$1af@stratus.skypoint.net>,
   jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) wrote:

[.  .  .]

->So you have greatly mis-stated the events if you are counting that example.
->Clearly you had implied that they *had* investigated experimentally and
->the experiments failed.


No, John, you inferred that.  Lot's of claims. Plenty of time. No takers.


->Now I'm curious about the other two "rumors" of rejection you refer to.
->You've put me in doubt about your interpretation based upon the above
->specific example.


I'll say it again: You read the same things that I read.  You have access to the 
sources, because you correspond with them regularly. I post here exclusively, 
but I read several sources.


->You better get it off your chest and list them all and give us particulars
->so we can judge for ourselves.  You say you only have two others, so it
->should only take a couple of seconds to type them in.


I suggest that it would be productive to exercise equal vigilance in questioning 
the ENECO/CETI claims of 'support'. It could be that you are mistaking 
representations from 'gung ho' individuals (internal and external) for 
institutional support.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.18 / Harry Conover /  Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
Date: 18 Feb 1996 23:34:49 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

: : Here's a quote from a James Reding (President of CETI) letter:
: :
: : 	CETI has presented the enclosed data adjusting for both a 
: : 	hydrogen-oxygen recombination (1.5 V) and a hydrogen-ozone
: : 	recombination (1.7 V). The ozone adjustment increases the yield
: : 	produced by the cell to over 1100%.

Is the man serious?  Did he sign his name to this letter?

Can you explain what he is talking about?  

How does ozone enter the picture?


Confusing, possibly even bizarre science, but interesting.


                                     Harry C.

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.19 / 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: 19 Feb 1996 01:02:42 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Bob Sullivan (bsulliva@sky.net) wrote:
: ->Clearly you had implied that they *had* investigated experimentally and
: ->the experiments failed.

: No, John, you inferred that.

Okay, I think that settles the issue.  There are no known groups that
have investigated experimentaly the CETI device and rejected it.  That
would have been interesting info if true.  The subset that includes
all groups that have not investigated experimentally is quite large.
Rejecting something without investigating it is not especially
interesting.

--
 - 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:
cuddy19 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.19 / 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: 19 Feb 1996 02:51:05 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA

Bob Sullivan (bsulliva@sky.net) wrote:
: ->Would using hydrogen gas instead of electrolysis to produce hydrogen "solve"
: ->the recombination problem?
: 
: You're talking about a different, largely unspecified experiment. Without 
: details all I can tell you is I don't know.

All of the "recombination" talk with regards to the Patterson cell involves
hydrogen and oxygen, right?  What would hydrogen gas "recombine" into?
The "details" of the experiment as I see it are:  a Patterson cell on a bottle
of hydrogen gas.  All of the "something else" theory I've seen says that the
players are hydrogen, palladium or nickel.  The electrolysis has been used as
an easy way to load up the metals with hydrogen.  But apparently, it 
complicates heat measurement to no end.  So why bother with water?  It may
be useful if any practical application of the Patterson cell comes about,
but right now it just seems to me that it is a needless complication.

That is, until somebody explains to me why it is "better" to use water for
this sort of thing.  

In "ancient" times, people were after the duterium in "heavy" water.  But 
this cell is supposedly using plain old hydrogen.  There's plenty of 
hydrogen in hydrogen gas.

: ->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?
: 
: I can only tell you what my grandmother used to say when I asked similar kin 
: of questions: If wishes were horses, we'd all take a ride.

I wasn't asking you to make a wish.  I was asking if recombination could
account for the "excess heat" measured in the experiments.  Since you didn't
like that question, I will try another way:  what is the most energy that
could be produced in any of the experiments involved in the Patterson cell?
Pick whichever one you want to discuss.

: What I have read points to a conclusion that they have all been shut down by 
: those running the experiments including demos where claims of heat-after-dea  
: are made. I haven't seen anything that would point to heat-after-death being 
: anything more than a transient phenomenon -- or bad measurements.

I've heard lengths of times for experiments running from 15 minutes to two
hours to two months.  I'll give 15 minutes of "thermal coasting".  Two hours
might be a bit much, depending on the circumstances.  Two months seems 
completely out of the question.  So what I don't understand is why they 
just don't fire up one of these cells and let it run for a LONG time to 
address this sort of criticism.

sethw@access.digex.net
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudensethw cudfnSeth cudlnW cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.19 / 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: 19 Feb 1996 03:09:21 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA

AndersonBD (andersonbd@aol.com) wrote:
: Your analysis of the power cell also helps explain another question as
: well.  One of the guys in this newsgroup was stating, "why can't the

That would be me . . . . 

: experiment work with the beads in hydrogen or deuterium gas instead of
: water?"  If fusion is occurring, the water is likely necessary to keep the
: beads from melting / burning from the supposed heat generated within. 

Well, melted beads would also impress me, if no chemist could provide me
the reaction between hydrogen and palladium (or nickel).

: Also, even if the beads did work in hydrogen gas, it is a lot safer to use
: water than to work with a large volume of explosive gas.

Come on, these guys are looking for fusion in a garage.  If they had REALLY
found it, they'd probably wish they were in a hydrogen explosion.  Even so,
I'm sure the gas could be handled safely.  

sethw@access.digex.net
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudensethw cudfnSeth cudlnW cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.19 / Seth W /  Re: invest?
     
Originally-From: sethw@access5.digex.net (Seth W.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: invest?
Date: 19 Feb 1996 03:44:56 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA

soltis@server.uwindsor.ca wrote:
:       The standard rebuff is that the amount of metal is
: very small in the CETI setup , but unless I get an ENERGY
: ,not power, accounting I'm leaning towards chemical explanations.

That's why I keep harping about running an experiment for a long time.  Just
keep it running until everybody is out of explanations.

If they can.

sethw@access.digex.net
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudensethw cudfnSeth cudlnW cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.19 / 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, 19 Feb 96 07:17:42 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

In article <4g83ev$db2@stratus.skypoint.net>,
   jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) wrote:
->Bob Sullivan (bsulliva@sky.net) wrote:
->: ->Actually, this is the formula used and it assumes 100% recombination.
->: ->
->: ->   Raw Heat Yield (%) = F/60 * 4.1629 * dT * 0.95 / (V*I) * 100 
->: ->        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
->: ->
->: ->
->
->: Here's a quote from a James Reding (President of CETI) letter:
->:
->: 	CETI has presented the enclosed data adjusting for both a 
->: 	hydrogen-oxygen recombination (1.5 V) and a hydrogen-ozone
->: 	recombination (1.7 V). The ozone adjustment increases the yield
->: 	produced by the cell to over 1100%.
->:
->: From that language alone you should be able to recognize that they were
->: making an adjustment for NO recombination of the liberated gasses. As a
->: matter of fact, the accompanying calculations showed that they were
->: assuming NO recombination. You have to look at what they actually do
->: rather than listen to what they say.
->
->
->I ran the raw numbers (I, V, flow rate) from the published tables of the
->ICCF5 demo through the above formula and found the results to be in
->agreement with their calculated results.  This verified they actually
->used the above formula as stated.
->
->They also provided figures assuming no recombination.  But clearly if
->the assumed 100% recombination case is over-unity, the less conservative
->assumed 0% recombination case will be also over-unity.
->
->It would be misleading to say that because they include the 0% recombination
->case that they don't include the 100% recombination case.  As an experimenter
->(a couple of years ago) myself who saw about 23% recombination in a light
->water cell (Mills type) I am keen on spotting in reports whether 0%
->recombination was assumed.  I wouldn't trust such an assumption.


Well John, I don't know what to tell you. Here's the quote from the Cravens 
paper on the CETI web page:

	The gas flow is monitored only to verify that no appreciable 
	recombination occurs. This was found to be true to the limits of 
	measurements, +/- 0.5 ml/min.

That's what he said, but I don't believe for a moment that he made instantaneous 
gas flow measurements.  I really doubt that he made gas flow measurements of any 
kind _in_connection_with_the_runs_under_discussion_ given that the 
no-recombination assumption is an article of faith in the CETI religion.  

They may have made gas flow measurements somewhere, at some time, under some 
conditions, but I doubt that they have done so with the Patterson cell.  The 
claims just don't fit the facts.


->CETI's published ICCF5 numbers agree with the assumed 100% recombination
->case and are still well over-unity.  Therefore recombination is not the
->explanation.


Of course, recombination is one piece of the puzzle, along with bad temperature 
measurements, bad flow measurements, mixing and matching numbers from different 
runs, out of equilibrium measurements, and on and on.

I understand that you are telling me what Cravens said. 

I hope you understand that you need to go beyond the assertions to see if they 
(the assertions) are supported by the facts.  For instance, the PowerGen claims 
are easily refutable and so cast the biggest shadow over the assertions.  In 
PowerGen, the question of recombination never comes up because that effect is 
swamped by other errors.


->By the way, the published ICCF5 numbers are on my web page.

They are also on the CETI web site: http://www.onramp.net/~ceti/paper1.html

By the way kids, don't try building your own Patterson cell from the diagram on 
that page. It could cause injuries.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.19 / Bob Sullivan /  Therocouple web page
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Therocouple web page
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 96 07:58:31 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

Here's a pointer to a nice background presentation on thermocouples:

	http://www.batnet.com/srsys/630note.html
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.19 /  Publius /  Re: WATER
     
Originally-From: publius@gate.net (Publius)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,al
.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: WATER
Date: 19 Feb 1996 17:34:25 GMT
Organization: CyberGate, Inc.

Jonah Paul Mainwaring (mainwarj@boreal.owlnet.rice.edu) wrote:
: In article <4g63ps$1gnu@news.gate.net>, publius@gate.net (Publius) writes:
: |> Summary:                   
: |> Keywords: 
: |>  
: |>      Water - a liquid oxide of hydrogen (H2O) - essential component
: |>   of all living matter - etc. etc. . . . 
: |>      So what else is new?  Plenty.
: |>      The new burst of experiments - the Patterson Cell,for one -
: |>   erroneously labeled "Cold Fusion" experiments, that are probing
: |>   the pent-up energy potential of Water - (it IS Hydrogen and 
: |>   Oxygen) - will, I am convinced, either break down Water into its
: |>   components without a great expenditure of energy or will dis-
: |>   cover an electro-catalytic process that will harness the atomic
: |>   energy of Hydrogen contained in plain Water.  I favor the latter.
: |>      Whatever the inevitable discovery, our children will laugh
: |>   at us for being blind to what was so obvious, as we laugh and
: |>   wonder why our predecessors were so long in figuring out some-
: |>   thing as simple as the steam engine and a lot of what followed.
: |>   PUBLIUS at <alt.fan.publius>
: |> 
: 
: 	Publius, chemistry isnt' your field, is it.  Yes, there is 
: energy in the combination of H and O.  That energy is released in the 
: exothermic reaction 2H2 + O2 -> H2O.  The same amount of energy is 
: needed to separate them.  Period.  The potential energy exists when
: they are in elemental form, and is released into kinetic energy when 
: they are combined.  It requires as much power to separate H2O into its
: components as is released when they are combined, by the law of conservation
: of energy.  The 2nd law of thermodynamics tells us that it actually
: takes more energy to separate them than is released when you combine them.  
: The only way to use water as a power source is if we can use its components
: in a fusion reaction, which would release far more energy than was consumed in the 
: spearation of the components, due to the larger mass-energy transition.  
: H20 does _not_ contain significant chemical potential energy.  
: 
: -- 
: Jonah Mainwaring

 I know evough chemistry to agree with what you sa but - just as there
 is the atomic reaction way of using water - I like to believe
 there is some other elegantly simple way of harnessing the energy
 potential of water. PUBLIUS
  
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenpublius cudlnPublius cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.19 / Ken Seto /  Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
     
Originally-From: kenseto@erinet.com (Ken Seto)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 17:34:47 GMT
Organization: KHS Publications

sethw@access5.digex.net (Seth W.) wrote:

>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.

In all of the postings nobody seem to be able to give the length of
time the cell is producing the excess heat and the quantity of beads
used vs the amount of excess heat produced. Is this a cyclical
process? If it is why? Is it because the coating wearing out? Also, if
it is a cyclical process is the cost of replacing the beads each cycle
making the excess heat produced uneconomical?


cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenkenseto cudfnKen cudlnSeto cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.19 / George Paine /  Re: Radiation Detecting Wristwatch
     
Originally-From: George Paine <george.paine@intelsat.int>
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: 19 Feb 1996 19:04:16 GMT
Organization: INTELSAT

to protect yourself from spam

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenpaine cudfnGeorge cudlnPaine cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.20 / Mikko Karttunen /  ANNOUNCE: The Internet Pilot To Physics
     
Originally-From: karttune@luthien.physics.mcgill.ca (Mikko Karttunen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.cond-matter
sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physi
s.computational.fluid-dynamics,sci.med.physics,sci.nonlinear,sci.optics,
ci.materials,sci.astro,bionet.biophysics,fj.sci.physics,fj.sci.astro
Subject: ANNOUNCE: The Internet Pilot To Physics
Date: 20 Feb 1996 03:55:57 GMT
Organization: Center for the Physics of Materials


We are pleased to inform you about a new physics service called
'The Internet Pilot To Physics', or simply TIPTOP.
TIPTOP is a collaboration between several institutes, and it
includes the widely popular 'Physics Around the World' -service,
and it will soon include also 'The Net Advance of Physics' -service.

TIPTOP is an international effort to create a unified resource for physics 
and natural sciences on the internet. We wish to promote physics not only 
to scientists but also to the industry, schools, students and the general 
public. 

At the moment TIPTOP is in alpha testing phase. This means that while
the most important features are fully functional, the final release will
contain much more than what you'll see right now. For more information,
please see the TIPTOP home page, URL at the end of this message. Those
interested participating should mail to tiptop-sys@tph.tuwien.ac.at

At the moment some of the highlights are:

 * The Living Encyclopedia of Physics.
	This is an effort to build and interactive electronic
	encyclopedia of physics. You can participate too!
 * Conference bulletin board
	This is the right place to announce your conferences,
	workshops and summer schools
 * Physics Jobs On-Line bulletin board
	Your job/postdoc announcement here will certainly reach
	a lot of physicists 
 * Internet Market place for Scientists
	All these lists are always up-to-date. Old entries are removed
	automatically when a conference etc. is over. You can submit,
	edit and delete your own entries. Please, announce your
	conferences, new jobs etc!
 * Physics Calendar
	Summarizes the conference and jobn application deadlines
	that are inside one week from the moment you open the
	Calendar home page. It also lists what happened in the history
	of physics at that date.

In the beta release, a major emphasis will be put on 'Virtual Laboratory' 
that contains on line interactive experiments and demos will be opened. 
This is a major effort to develop interactive educational tools for 
different levels of students. If you are interested in taking part in this,
please don't hesitate to contact us. Email: tiptop-sys@tph.tuwien.ac.at 

The beta release will also contain a special student forum, physics 
book reviews, enhansed search facilities, more complete lists of research
groups around the world, etc. etc.

Why should you be interested in TIPTOP?
=======================================

We would like to point out the this is really a place where physicists will
find your announcements. 'The Physics Around the World' -service alone
has attracted almost 20 000 accesses monthly, and those users will be
directed into TIPTOP. In addition, in the near future 'Net Advance of 
Physics' will be integrated into TIPTOP. This is really an effort to
unify physics resources on the internet. Also you can help us to create 
a better resource by sending us feedback and/or writing entries to the
encyclopedia, taking part in the educational project etc. There are a 
lot of things to do! This task is clearly too large for any individual but
by combining our efforts we can create a resource that is truly comprehensive
and useful.


How do the bulletin boards work:
===============================================

To submit an announcement you have to register first, the link for that can
be found on each page. The reason why you have to register is that this way
you'll be able to edit your announcements/entries if you wish. The service 
itself is absloutely free for all users!

After you have registered, you'll receive an email (in about 2 minuts)
that gives you your password. You can change the password if you wish.

  When you add an entry:
  ----------------------------------
  - Select 'Submit Your Announcement'/'Add Your Entry'
  - Fill in the required fields
  - If you are announcing a conference or a job, 
    you'll be asked the important dates like the application deadlines. 
    It is important to give them correctly since the server removes the
    entry automatically when the conference is over. This way
    the lists remain always up-to-date.   

  - If the conference does not have an email address, just type
    '--' in the box

  - After you have completed and submitted the form your entry appears
    in the list. You can edit the entry by selecting 'edit'. You can
    only edit your own entries.

   - That's it!

Please circulate this information to your collagues and students.


URL of the Physics Forum that contains the bulletin boards: 

http://www.tp.umu.se/TIPTOP/FORUM/


The home page of the Internet Pilot to Physics is at

URL: http://www.tp.umu.se/TIPTOP/


On behalf of the TIPTOP Team,
    	                       Mikko Karttunen  (McGill University, Canada)

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
               THE INTERNET PILOT TO PHYSICS

Email: 	tiptop-sys@tph.tuwien.ac.at
URL: 	http://www.tp.umu.se/TIPTOP/

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
















cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenkarttune cudfnMikko cudlnKarttunen cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.19 / A Plutonium /  Re: final explanation of 2nd law of thermodynamics; entropy
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.chem,sci.astro,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: final explanation of 2nd law of thermodynamics; entropy
Date: 19 Feb 1996 12:35:13 GMT
Organization: PLutonium College

In article <4g6tro$lu5@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
regnirps@aol.com (Regnirps) writes:

> I ask:
> Correct me if I am wrong, (that would make twice this year) but are you
> saying you have discovered that statistical mechanics can not predict the
> outcome of a quantum mechanical experiment?  I'm going to have to get
> Rutherford and some of the boys together and check this out!

  Yes, there is an added term in the 2nd Law which heretofore was
neglected.

  If I am correct then the 2nd Law needs an Addition Term, call it
growth. Entropy is the Negative term and the most predominant term,
call it entropy.
As in my experimental proof that I am correct, a purest of pure slab of
uranium will go down, will entropy into 99% or more lead. But there is
a growth of 1% or less into neptunium plus plutonium.

  If the old 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was a correct law. Then the
purest of pure slabs of uranium should upon inspection contain no, or
none neptunium or plutonium.

   As simple as tnat
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.19 /  Nick /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: lineplex@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Nick Horgan")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 14:16:41 GMT
Organization: LinePlex Ltd

Men landing on the moon was about technology, transistor theory was well 
accepted at the time and, again wa sabout technology. Flight (birds etc.) 
has been obvious as long as man has been around.

I need an invention/discovery that challenged the basics of science.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenlineplex cudlnNick cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.20 / J Mainwaring /  Re: WATER
     
Originally-From: mainwarj@boreal.owlnet.rice.edu (Jonah Paul Mainwaring)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,al
.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: WATER
Date: 20 Feb 1996 04:36:49 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <4gacb1$tdo@news.gate.net>, publius@gate.net (Publius) writes:
|> Jonah Paul Mainwaring (mainwarj@boreal.owlnet.rice.edu) wrote:

|> : 	Publius, chemistry isnt' your field, is it.  Yes, there is 
|> : energy in the combination of H and O.  That energy is released in the 
|> : exothermic reaction 2H2 + O2 -> H2O.  The same amount of energy is 
|> : needed to separate them.  Period.  The potential energy exists when
|> : they are in elemental form, and is released into kinetic energy when 
|> : they are combined.  It requires as much power to separate H2O into its
|> : components as is released when they are combined, by the law of conservation
|> : of energy.  The 2nd law of thermodynamics tells us that it actually
|> : takes more energy to separate them than is released when you combine them.  
|> : The only way to use water as a power source is if we can use its components
|> : in a fusion reaction, which would release far more energy than was consumed in the 
|> : spearation of the components, due to the larger mass-energy transition.  
|> : H20 does _not_ contain significant chemical potential energy.  
|> : 
|> : -- 
|> : Jonah Mainwaring
|> 
|>  I know evough chemistry to agree with what you sa but - just as there
|>  is the atomic reaction way of using water - I like to believe
|>  there is some other elegantly simple way of harnessing the energy
|>  potential of water. PUBLIUS
|>   

There is atomic potential in the fusion of the hydrogen, true.  That is about the only
energy potential there, unless you are looking at the heat released when it returns to
solid form.  

-- 
Jonah Mainwaring
"I think that I am a verb."  - Fuller
http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~mainwarj
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmainwarj cudfnJonah cudlnMainwaring cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.16 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: CETI's power cell on ABC
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI's power cell on ABC
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 1996 11:50 -0500 (EST)

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.
 
Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.16 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Where is Cold Fusion theory
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Where is Cold Fusion theory
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 1996 11:39 -0500 (EST)

ANDRADE@devlpr.enet.dec.com (Gil Andrade) writes:
 
-> Electron quantum tunnelling is well understood, and used in many
-> devices...   is it possible that Cold Fusion has something to do
-> with proton or neutron or even electron quantum tunelling effects ?
 
You may want to check the archives.  There was quite a bit of discussion on
tunneling theories some time back here.  It was part of my "porposing proton"
theory as well.
 
Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.15 / Dave Oldridge /  Re: Ceti confession
     
Originally-From: doldridg@ra.isisnet.com (Dave Oldridge)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ceti confession
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 04:45:10 -0400
Organization: Coastal Watch Information Services Ltd., Halifax, NS, Canada

In article <4fq687$ajo@post.gsfc.nasa.gov>,
Larry Wharton <Wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote:

>the water outflow the flow calorimetry numbers are worthless.  One 
>simple check would be to insert an inline filter in the flow comming out 
>of the cell.  Then one could measure the temperature in the flow after 
>the filter where there would be very little salt crystals present.

You know, my basic reaction to all these flow calorimetry problems would
be to simply sidestep them.  Build a cell in a plastic or nylon net (or
glass container with holes in it) and immerse it in a huge vat of
electrolyte and just use static calorimetry to figure the output.  You
wouldn't need a pump (there go all the pump arguments and speculations);
convection would move the liquid enough.

Given the small electrolytic currents vs. claimed output of these
devices, you could, I think, for all intents and purposes just ASSUME
total recombination and then forget about it.

All you would need would be a few thermometers in the liquid to ensure
that the temperature was maintained somewhere near uniform.

 --
 Dave Oldridge
 doldridg@ra.isisnet.com
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudendoldridg cudfnDave cudlnOldridge cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.16 / John Skingley /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: John Skingley <john@circlesw.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 10:35:09 +0000 (GMT)

In article <4g0ajp$a3l@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov>, Matt Kennel
<mailto:kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov> wrote:
This isn't the place to be discussing Homeopathy, but...
 
> What do you mean by Homeopathy?  Do you mean placebo effect or effect of
> mental functioning on disease?  That's been quite strongly determined to be
> real.

Agreed, but this isn't homeopathy.

It's nice to see that you can accept that somethings are 'real' which are
unexplainable. Yes, a persons mental attitude can and does affect their 
health, but how is this possible? There are theories of course, but no
known mechanism can explain it.

Surely this is the current state of 'CF'. People are getting results for
which there are theories, such as catalysed fusion, but there is, as yet,
no known mechanism to explain it.

> If you mean "two vials of water in which are diluted at most one molecule
> of plant A vs plant B" have statistically and clinically significant
> distinct results, I've never heard of any evidence that it's true. 

The evidence is all around. Everytime someone uses such a cure and it works.
And I've seen a herd of cows treated for (can't remember the name, some
common problem with cows) using diluted solutions, and that worked. I
don't see how that could be explained by mental effects!

I think all this makes a valid point. Some scientists, particularly those
engaged in what we might describe as exact science, like physics, expect
an experiment to be exactly repeatable, otherwise the whole thing is
suspect.

In medicine however, which I'm sure is accepted by most people to be a
science, statistical results are all you can expect. It is expected that
a cure will not work with some people. With others it can actually do
harm! (Penicillin, for example).

And most importantly, all the various drugs that are accepted as useful
are 'discovered' by informed guesswork and trial and error. Very few
trials yield a useful drug, which is why the whole process is so
expensive.  We do not know WHY most of them work, but we accept them.

Yet some people reject the whole idea of 'CF' just because we cannot
explain how it might work.  This seems to be flying in the face of
reason, and common scientific practice.
 --------------------------
Regards,  John.
P.O. Box 36, BODMIN, PL30 4YY, U.K. Tel/Fax: +44 1208 850790

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnSkingley cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.16 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: ABC-TV Nightline reports on CETI
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ABC-TV Nightline reports on CETI
Date: 16 Feb 1996 20:56:02 GMT
Organization: Battelle Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

In article <4g2ijj$1dal@trout.ab.umd.edu>, tmiller@umabnet.ab.umd.edu
(Thomas H Miller) wrote:

> 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 :).
> 

Careful there!  The term "heat" is used in quite a few different ways. 
Classically, heat only exists as energy in motion due to a thermal
gradient.  With this definition, heat pumps most definitely *do* make
heat... they make it out of ambient energy.

"Sensible heat" is internal energy, which need not be in motion, and is
sometimes referred to as "heat" in casual usage, but strictly speaking
"heat" only refers to thermal energy in motion.

--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 
------------------------------
1996.02.20 / Anthony Potts /  Re: COLD FUSION 
     
Originally-From: Anthony Potts <potts@afsmail.cern.ch>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION 
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 15:11:15 GMT
Organization: CERN European Lab for Particle Physics



On 14 Feb 1996, Steve Terrell wrote:

> 
> 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.
> 
> Chow,
> 	Steve
> 
> 
> 
We already have devices which can do this they are made by various 
companies over here. Perhaps you do not have them yet but over here they 
are called batteries.

Very useful they are too, but not particularly revolutionary.

Anthony Potts
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenpotts cudfnAnthony cudlnPotts cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.20 /  jonesse@plasma /  Re: Bockris Disclaimer
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bockris Disclaimer
Date: 20 Feb 96 12:41:32 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <960217125523_224510452@emout05.mail.aol.com>, Tstolper@aol.com writes:
> For Steve Jones:  do you have a more complete citation of Bockris'
> disclaimer?  

I quoted the entire disclaimer message as it was published in _International
California Mining Journal_ of January 1996.

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

An interesting question, but, no, I don't know why it appeared there.
Yes, Cal. stands for California.

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

I don't know -- do you want to check it out for us?
> 
> It's good to see a man of Bockris' stature disavowing that stuff.
> 

Agreed!

> Thanks for the information.
> 
> Tom Stolper
> 

You're welcome.  
Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.20 / John Logajan /  Re: Basic CETI Questions?
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Basic CETI Questions?
Date: 20 Feb 1996 04:25:48 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

George Eberhardt (George.Eberhardt@StarPower.Com) wrote:
: I may have the wrong www address for CETI.  Could you repeat it for me

http://www.onramp.net/~ceti

--
 - 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:
cuddy20 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.20 /  jonesse@plasma /  Re: Jed is wrong and libelous/Jones and Recombination
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed is wrong and libelous/Jones and Recombination
Date: 20 Feb 96 12:49:56 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

While my wife and I were taking a short vacation, Barry Merriman replied
already to queries from Marshall Dudley.  There is no need for me to
reiterate in detail Barry's substantially correct recollection of the matter.
Again, I do not think that recombination alone can account for the 
excess heat claimed in the Patterson power cell (TM)  -- although I
think that a careful scientist would measure the output gases and assess
the Faraday efficiency during the actual runs, for completeness.
And, yes, I still think that recombination may occur locally at the
"output" temperature probe well, leading to spurious conclusions.
But I think there is something else going on -- which we are about
to test.  If we are correct, then it is understandable why the so-called
"control" cell at the PowerGen demo gave "excess heat", and why the
effect is totally uninteresting as an energy source!

--Steven Jones
PS-- Thanks, Barry, for your reply (below).

In article <4gb9t1$k0e@saba.info.ucla.edu>, Barry Merriman <barry> writes:
> mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) wrote:
>>jonesse@plasma writes:
>> 
>>-> I do not think that recombination alone can explain the CETI results.
>>-> Please stop putting words in my mouth.
>> 
>>I distinctly remember that you claimed that recombination alone explains the
>>CETI results.  I added you to my crackpot list at that time...
>>I do remember that at that time you were claiming that recombination 
>>could account for approximately 80 times I*V; that is you were claiming 
>>that it is not unexpected to obtain an energy
>>out from recombination 80 times the energy used to generate it.
>> 
> 
> Marshall, you are really being silly here. Do you really think that Steve
> Jones, undeniably a well educated professional physicists, thinks that 
> the energy released by recombination can be 80 x greater than the energy
> used to dissociate the molecule in the first place? If so, why isn't
> he pursuing this novel means of generating energy ? :-)
> 
> I myself remember the discussion back then as well, which transpired
> largely after the SOFE 95 CETI cell demo. Yes, Steve Jones was suggesting
> recombination as one contributing effect. However, I think this 
> needs to be taken in the context that it was suggested; I recall
> that the complete suggestion was not simply recombination acting alone, 
> but "recombination + X'' acting to produce measurement artifacts, 
> in particular
> 
> (1) the idea that recombination on the surface of the T_out probe 
>     could boost the temperature reading and give a spurious T increase
> 
> (2) the idea that H2 and O2 gases could be absorbed from the air into
>     the liquid, and catalytically recombined on the bead surfaces, again
>     producing an apparent excess heat measurement.
> 
> In the ensuing discussion, (2) was ruled out by the solublity of these
> gases in water and the flow rate, and (1) is probably ruled out by 
> the variety of temperature measurement techniques that were applied.
> 
> I recall that as soon as Jones _obtained_ the conclusions of this discussion
> (there was a time lag of several days since this was an asynchronous internet
> discussion, not real time) he agreed that recombintation was not likely 
> to play a significant role.
> 
> Perhaps in the future when you see someone who _should_ know what
> they are talking about make---what sounds to you---a ridiculous 
> statement, instead of writing them off as a crackpot you should
> simply assume there is a mis-communication going on. Unless a
> detailed discussion one-on-one establishes that there is no miss-communication,
> that is by far the most likely scenario.
> 
> But, for now, why not simply drop all these assertions about
> what Jones said/meant---or more precisely your interpretation of your
> recollection of what you read in an ongoing, asynchronous, rather disjointed
> Internet discussion---he's telling you now what he said/meant...you trust your
> own vague recollections over the horses mouth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Barry Merriman
> UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
> UCLA Dept. of Math
> merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet)  (NeXTMail OK)
> 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.20 / 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: 20 Feb 1996 16:20:14 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Bob Sullivan (bsulliva@sky.net) wrote:
: Well John, I don't know what to tell you. Here's the quote from the Cravens 
: paper on the CETI web page:
: 	The gas flow is monitored only to verify that no appreciable 
: 	recombination occurs. This was found to be true to the limits of 
: 	measurements, +/- 0.5 ml/min.
: That's what he said, but I don't believe for a moment that he made
: instantaneous  gas flow measurements.

There is no need to measure the gas output if you are assuming 100%
recombination which, as I have repeatedly pointed out, Cravens did in
the ICCF5, SOFE, and PowerGen demos.

You can measure the gas output and then apply the correction (if less than
100% recombination) to get even greater apparent anomalous heat.  But
even with the 100% recombination assumption, the effect is apparently
well over-unity, so there is not much point in applying these corrections
to increase the result -- and they are small in comparison in these
demos anyway.

: flow measurements of any kind _in_connection_with_the_runs_under_discussion_
: given that the  no-recombination assumption is an article of faith in the
: CETI religion.  

Clearly since the result is apparently over-unity assuming 100% recombination,
there is no basis for your claims of no-recombination as an article of faith.

Cravens assumed worst case and you insist on claiming he assumed best
case.  The numbers posted support Cravens claim (at least as to the 
mathematical formula applied.) 

--
 - 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:
cuddy20 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.20 / Serge L /  Gas reducer needed
     
Originally-From: "Serge L Voronov" <voronov@nrsun.jinr.dubna.su>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Gas reducer needed
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 96 11:48:16 +0300
Organization: Flerov Lab of Nucl.React., JINR


Hi,
We want to install a gas reducer at our gas-feeding system:
   1) absolute input gas pressure:  3 ... 5 atm
                                    ~~~~~~~~~~~
   2) absolute output gas pressure: 0.1 - 0.3 atm
                                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ranges of gas pressure could be a bit different then written above,
but we need ABSOLUTE output gas pressure below atmospheric, anyhow.
Could someone kindly inform us about manufacturer of such a unit?

Thanks in advance for your assistance,
Sincerely yours,

Sergei Voronov.

Please, respond directly to my home address: voronov@nrsun.jinr.dubna.su
Thank you.


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenvoronov cudfnSerge cudlnL cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.20 / Horace Heffner /  Re: How to keep ice/water in it's solid state at 40degrees celcius? Help
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How to keep ice/water in it's solid state at 40degrees celcius? Help
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 05:26:16 -0900
Organization: none

In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.960210105039.6322C-100000@alcor.concordia.ca>,
Ziad Rahayel <z_rahay@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:

> Hello everybody,
> 
> I am not sure I am posting to the right group for this! 
> I am looking for a way to keep ice/water in it's solid state at
> temperatures up to 40degrees celcius.  Any means to do this is welcome,
> thermodynamics, chemical...  Whatever. 
> 
> Thank you very much
> Ziad Rahayel

I thought someone would mention the following, but since not:

If you don't mind some major impurities you might use water in the form of
water of crystallization. A handy cheap source is Epsom Salt (MgSO4*7H20),
available at your local pharmacy for a little over $1/pound.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.20 / Larry Wharton /  Fool's heat for CF output
     
Originally-From: Larry Wharton <Wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fool's heat for CF output
Date: 20 Feb 1996 14:21:02 GMT
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center -- Greenbelt, Maryland USA

In analogy with fool's gold I think the Patterson cell output should be 
called fool's heat.  There is some apparent heat there that some fools 
think is real heat but if they would do some simple checks they would 
find out there is no real heat there.  At this stage I would conclude 
that the measurements are basically correct.  Too many groups have 
verified the excess apparent heat.  So what do we have?  We have heat 
energy in, electrical energy in, and heat power out which exceeds the 
two inputs.  Since the sources of chemical energy are too small and 
there is no evidence of nuclear energy production then one can assume 
that there is no energy source.  Then any non-fool could simply apply 
the law of conservation of energy and conclude that the output contains 
heat energy plus a negative potential energy with the negative energy 
sufficient to cancel out the apparent heat excess.  I would guess that 
this negative energy is in the form of salt crystals but it could be in 
the form of chemicals such as the peroxide sulfates that Steve Jones has 
suggested.
   Then, what are the properties of fool's heat?  The most important 
property is that when one attempts to extract the apparent heat energy 
he can't actually get it.  There are three simple tests to detect this:

1.  One can insert a heater in the cell and generate the apparent heat 
output of the cell with the cell turned off.  This has actually been 
done with some of the CETI cells but only to test the flow calorimetry 
which checked out OK.  This test proved that that the flow calorimetry 
was being done correctly but no check for fool's heat was done.  The 
investigators could have simply waited a while for the entire system to 
approach thermal equilibrium, with the heater on, and see that the final 
temperature of the entire loop was much hotter than the case with the 
cell doing the supposed heating.  Mitchell Jones tested the heat 
dissipation of the PowerGen 95 demo with his Magnum 350 mockup of the 
system and proved the the CETI demo could not have possibly been 
generating the heat claimed.

2.  One can insert a filter in line with the cell outflow.  This filter 
will likely get plugged up with salt crystals or accumulate them untill 
the crystals melt at the inflow rate and achieve an equilibrium.  In 
this latter case the outflow from the filter may be measured and the 
apparent heat excess should vanish.

3.  One could divert the cell outflow into an insulated container and 
allow enough time for the salt crystals to melt.  Then the temperature 
could be measured and it should be much lower.  This experiment has been 
done in a sense.  The cell outflow has been diverted into a graduated 
container for the purpose of an independent verification of the flow 
rate.  Once again everything checked out - the flow rate was correct.  
But the interesting thing was that the temperature of the water was much 
lower than could have been explained by  simple conduction of heat to 
the container surfaces.  So here a simple test was done which proved the 
existance of fool's heat and the proponents just ignored it.  Imagine 
how simple this test is.  One of the distinguished CETI scientists, or 
one of the independent confirming groups, could simply take a Thermos 
bottle,  divert the cell outflow into it, put the cover on, let it sit 
around for a while and mabey slosh it around a bit, and then measure the 
temperature.  If the temperature does not decrease very much it proves 
the heat was real.  If the temperature decreases a lot, enough to 
explain the apparent excess heat, then it proves the existance of fool's 
heat.

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


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenWharton cudfnLarry cudlnWharton cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.21 / 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: Wed, 21 Feb 96 03:53:54 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

In article <4gcsbu$kn9@stratus.skypoint.net>,
   jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) wrote:
->Bob Sullivan (bsulliva@sky.net) wrote:
->: Well John, I don't know what to tell you. Here's the quote from the Cravens 
->: paper on the CETI web page:
->: 	The gas flow is monitored only to verify that no appreciable 
->: 	recombination occurs. This was found to be true to the limits of 
->: 	measurements, +/- 0.5 ml/min.
->: That's what he said, but I don't believe for a moment that he made
->: instantaneous  gas flow measurements.
->
->There is no need to measure the gas output if you are assuming 100%
->recombination which, as I have repeatedly pointed out, Cravens did in
->the ICCF5, SOFE, and PowerGen demos.
->
->You can measure the gas output and then apply the correction (if less than
->100% recombination) to get even greater apparent anomalous heat.  But
->even with the 100% recombination assumption, the effect is apparently
->well over-unity, so there is not much point in applying these corrections
->to increase the result -- and they are small in comparison in these
->demos anyway.
->
->: flow measurements of any kind _in_connection_with_the_runs_under_discussion_
->: given that the  no-recombination assumption is an article of faith in the
->: CETI religion.  
->
->Clearly since the result is apparently over-unity assuming 100% recombination,
->there is no basis for your claims of no-recombination as an article of faith.
->
->Cravens assumed worst case and you insist on claiming he assumed best
->case.  The numbers posted support Cravens claim (at least as to the 
->mathematical formula applied.) 
->

John, again, I don't know what to tell you. 

Cravens and Reding, both, say that recombination does not occur in the cell.  
Cravens admits that his temperature measurements were and are faulty, so you 
can't use his numbers to rule out recombination as a problem.  Just a few days 
ago _you_ pointed out that recombination is a problem in low output tests.

What is your point?
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Feb 21 04:37:04 EST 1996
------------------------------
