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 04:12:29 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

In article <4g8i7i$1s8@stratus.skypoint.net>,
   jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) wrote:
->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.


As a master logician, I'm sure you'll realize your conclusion does not follow 
from anything said in the present thread.  In your earlier post, you changed the 
thrust of the discussion from my 'many investigated and rejected' to your 'many 
investigated experimentally and rejected'. When I pointed out you were making an 
inference (many and experimentally) that was not implied in the original 
statement, you now make the unjustified leap to 'no one who investigated 
experimentally rejected the CETI cell.'  

As things unfold, I think you will find that your last leap will be shown to be 
untrue if only by continued silence.  Stepping into a squishy cow patty is not 
ordinarily the kind of thing you announce to the world in a loud voice.


->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.


You are over-looking the not insubstantial set of those who investigated the 
existing evidence, or more appropriately, the lack thereof, for over-unity 
operation in the Patterson cell and found it wanting.  The burden of proof 
rests, as it always does, on the proponents (CETI) to prove their case.  

If you want something really 'interesting' to ponder consider this: CETI 
unknowingly provided the experimental evidence to disprove its own claims. 
Self-immolation, while distasteful, does provide a certain crowd-attracting 
'interest'. 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.20 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Jed is wrong and libelous/Jones and Recombination
     
Originally-From: Barry Merriman <barry>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed is wrong and libelous/Jones and Recombination
Date: 20 Feb 1996 01:58:57 GMT
Organization: University of California, Los Angeles

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 cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.19 / Jim Carr /  Re: Future nuclear testing in Nevada?
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skepticsci.energy
Subject: Re: Future nuclear testing in Nevada?
Date: 19 Feb 1996 19:04:32 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

Emmett Jordan <wpcc88a@prodigy.com> writes:
>
>The resumption of nuclear tests in Nevada is made more likely due
>to the ban on French South Pacific tests if test data is being shared.

Yeah, sure.  The US is going to do tests for the French.  Not likely, 
since (1) test data is not shared between France and the US, one of 
the reasons France has done its own testing for decades, going back 
to when it created its own nuclear forces, independent of NATO, and 
(2) there is no "ban" on French tests - the French started and ended 
them unilaterally.  

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  Rave On!  Check out "Rave Boy" at 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  the Tallahassee Democrat Online: 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  | 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |      http://www.tdo.com/   
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.20 / Bradley Sherman /  A message from Bowles
     
Originally-From: bks@netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A message from Bowles
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 00:31:04 GMT
Organization: Remote Fusion Reactor Reverse Entropy Associates


I have received this response from Quinton Bowles.  
Ordinarily I would not post email to the USENET, but
I did ask Dean Bowles if he had a comment about the
CETI device "for the record."  (For the truly paranoid,
I admit that I have done nothing to verify that this
email actually came from Q. Bowles)

Some mail header lines are deleted as are some portions
of my interrogatory.  Dr. Bowles response is in full.
Note that any line prefixed with a greater-than sign
(i.e. '>') was written by me, not by Bowles.  Please
be careful with excerpts!

| From qbowles@cctr.umkc.edu Mon Feb 19 11:21:04 1996
| To: bks@netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman)
| From: Quinton Bowles <qbowles@cctr.umkc.edu>
| Subject: Re: WSJ article linking you with CETI
...
| >Your name has been bandied about (by others) as someone
| >who has either replicated the work of Cravens at CETI,
| >or someone who has spent some time vetting his results/
| >protocols.
| >
| >Part of my real job is to contact molecular geneticists and
| >ask them about their current research.  Usually scientists
| >are very happy to talk about their work.  So I have made
| >it a habit to send a short letter to researchers whose
| >names have come up in CF discussions on the USENET, not
| >to argue the physics, which I'm not qualified to do,
| >but just to see if they're being misrepresented --often
| >the case.
| >
| >Personally, the behavior of CETI has seemed a bit 
| >bizarre, not characteristic of either scientist
| >or businessman, and I [am] somewhat familiar with both
| >groups and the hybrids, having worked in commercial
| >settings, research settings and applied science
| >startups.
| >
| >I guess all that I'm asking is if you have an
| >opinion, for the record, about the CETI device.
...
| 
| Dear Dr. Sherman:
| 
| Sorry it has taken so long to get back to you.  I also didn't intend to be
| so short.  However, as you might guess, I have received so many crank calls,
| messages and e-mails that I have quit trying to answer them.  Finally, on
| 2/1/96 I officially became Assoc. Dean of the Univ of Missouri College of
| Engineering.
| 
| Now on to your questions.  I'm not as happy as I could be with our
| temperature measurements.  As a result we have made some
| investment to be able to make reliable temp measurements around 40 deg C
| with about 0.1 deg accuracy.  I will then be much more
| sure about our results.  Nevertheless, it does appear that there is excess
| energy output.  We intend to prompt gamma-ray spectroscopy analysis to try
| to detect any isotope ratio change
| between "virgin" and "used" beads.  We also have some plans for 
| going to the bureau of mines labs where they have a mass spec especially set
| up for detecting helium. If we don't find any evidence of nuclear reactions
| after that, it will be "drop back and punt" time.  We have also done some
| preliminary tests for chemical reactions and found none.  After all that
| there still "seems to be" excess heat. I am working for Kansas City Power
| and Light Company and not CETI.  I personally think CETI is doing all the
| wrong things.  However they just want to make money and get out I think.
| Hope this has been of some help to you.
|                         Yours truly
|                              Quinton Bowles>
| 


    Hope this helps,
    --bks

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbks cudfnBradley cudlnSherman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.20 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: schultr@ashur.cc.biu.ac.il (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: 20 Feb 1996 06:41:34 GMT
Organization: Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel.

Patrick van Esch (vanesch@jamaica.desy.de) 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.

This is not a good argument for homeopathy (or for that matter, any
medical technique).  While it is a *necessary* condition for a medical
technique that people who use it get better, that is not *sufficient*
to prove that it "works."  This is because most people recover from their
illnesses (which is how the species managed to survive before the 
development of medicine) and even terminal illnesses can have remissions
or periods in which the patient's decline ceases or even reverses.

The issue is not "do homeopathic treatments 'work'"?  The issue is "do
homeopathic treatments work *better* for a given illness than standard
methods?"  As far as I know, the answer to the second question is a
resounding "no."  I recommend _Fads and Fallacies in the Name of
Science_ by Martin Gardner to anyone interested in the general subject
of pseudoscience.  


-----
Richard Schultz                              schultr@ashur.cc.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry                      tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel       fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"I don't know why you are wrong, but my data shows you are completely off."
               --Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 21 Jul 1992
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenschultr cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.20 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: mbk@I_should_put_my_domain_in_etc_NNTP_INEWS_DOMAIN (Matthew B. Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: 20 Feb 1996 00:36:51 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Nick Horgan (lineplex@cix.compulink.co.uk) wrote:
: 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.

As far as "challenging", there are a few basic ones.  As far as "science
says it's totally impossible", I can't think of any yet.

* Galileo & the moons of Jupiter. 

Of course, one could, with good justification, argue that before Galileo
there was no science. 

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.21 / A Plutonium /  Link between 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and Conservation Laws
     
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: Link between 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and Conservation Laws
Date: 21 Feb 1996 04:56:57 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <4g5j58$l68@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

>   The whole thing about the 2nd law of thermodynamics and entropy is
> that the world failed and neglected to realize that there was a Missing
> Term. Maxwell's fame is based mostly on the synthesizing of the laws of
> Electromagnetism and uncovering the Missing Term in order to synthesize
> the Equations.
>    Here, like Maxwell, I am saying that there was a missing term in the
> 2nd law. There is entropy, but there is another physical term in the
> 2nd law, not as obvious not as easy to grasp. There is a term in the
> 2nd Law which had been missed by all the great physicists before me. It
> is a term which I will call the Ordered Progression and it is for that
> term which created life on Earth. You see, in all physical processes,
> by and large, most are entropic, but that only takes say 95 or 99
> percent of the 'happenings'. For 95% entropy there is a 5% Ordered
> Progression, an advance, a more ordered state created than what was
> given up in entropic disorder.

  In the next few days I should come up with a brand new theory.
Linking the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics of old with the sham, bogus
Conservation Laws. It will take me that much time because the only
known Conservation law that is known to be bogus is the mirror symmetry
of left and right (Lee and Yang?). Anyway, nature should not have any
preference for right and left to the laws of physics, at least that is
what was thought before Lee and Yang came on the scene. And there seems
to be not real rhyme or reason in a Big Bang Totalitarian universe as
to a preference of right or left.

  There is a preference in a Atom Totality Universe, for envision a log
spiral is open ended and it is either a right or a left. Discuss this
in a different post.

  Now then the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics should be able to either agree
or disagree with left and right parity. As all readers who have
followed me with the Atom Universe, knows that I believe all the
Conservation Laws are old grand daddy fuddy duddy fakes. The short and
simple argument I have against all Conservation Laws is that they --
all or even one-- straightjacket the universe. To have a universe of
maximum change possible entails a universe that has no Conservation
laws. A universe which allows the maximum possibility for change is one
which has no conservation law. Not even my, what used to be most
favorite conservation law, the strongest one in terms of esthetic and
beauty pleasing-- Conservation of Charge. I even hold that Conservation
of Charge is a fake.

  Here I must connect the old 2nd Law of Thermodynamics-- the one which
has a  missing term of growth with Conservation of Parity. I must work
with parity because it is the only Conservation Law recognized by the
current physics community as being a fake. What I hope to do in the
next days is to post a crude "thought experiment" that indicates that
if the old 2nd Law were true then the Conservation of Parity is true.
And since we know parity is false, then the old 2nd Law is false. False
until you add the missing term of growth to entropy. 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.21 / Richard Blue /  /Reply to Marshall Dudley's question
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: /Reply to Marshall Dudley's question
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 15:55:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In response to my suggestion that the CETI protocol may be somewhat
less than honest, Marshall asked how their practice of turning down
the electrolysis current after "cooking" at higher current was different
from standard practice of optimizing a power plant, for example.

It has to do with the time scale over which the tweaking is done, doesn't
it?  We have been fed various sets of numbers that are said to apply to
the operation of the CETI device, but information about the timing of
various measurements and the length of the operating period seem to be
rather vague and somewhat garbled.

Since nobody claims to know what reaction processes are responsible for
the appearance that there is heat being produced in this system there is
no way for anyone to know how the system responds to changes in the
operating parameters.  It is only after you make some assumptions about
the nature of the process that you can judge whether the protocol is
at all reasonable.

The flow calorimetry, for example, involves the simultaneous measurement
of temperatures at two points in the system.  It should be obvious that
the circulating fluid that passes the intake thermometer is not the same
stuff that is passing the output thermometer at that same instant, but
the calorimetry really assumes that they are "equivalent" in every respect
except for the rise in temperature.

Just suppose the "cooking" of the cell that preceeds the tuning for optimum
efficiency ratio involves some alteration in the chemical composition of
the electrolyte such as the build up in the concentration of some unsuspected
chemical species.  Then during the measurement phase the cell can coast
on the energy that has been stored in chemical form.

As I have said before my ignorance of chemistry allows me to dream up some
far-fetched chemical process to account for cold fusion just as surely as
those who are ignorant of nuclear reactions are free to dream up their
own versions of nuclear processes.

At the very least CETI needs to provide a complete data set, including
temperatures taken as a function of time throughout the entire run from
turn on to turn off.  Then we could better judge their protocol, if they
have one.  If Mitcheal Jones is right about the heat disipation problem
we possibly could even see that in the time dependence of the temperatures.
But by feeding the public only selected bits of information CETI may be
glossing over the logical inconsistancies of their claims.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.19 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: mbk@I_should_put_my_domain_in_etc_NNTP_INEWS_DOMAIN (Matthew B. Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: 19 Feb 1996 21:29:35 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Seth W. (sethw@access5.digex.net) wrote:
: Nick Horgan (lineplex@cix.compulink.co.uk) wrote:
: : In 20421 John suggests that there are many things that we accept for 
: : which we have no explanation.
: : 
: : I can't think of anything that I use/interact with that I or someone else 
: : can't explain and that can't be reliably and frequently demonstrated.
: : 
: : It would be interesting to know of an advance/invention in the last 50 
: : years, that is now in common use, that was ridiculed by the establishment 
: : when it was first announced as totally impossible.  

: How about man landing on the moon?  Of course, it's not quite in "common
: use".  The transistor is probably another good example, but I don't know
: if it was ever "ridiculed".  I'd say airplanes pretty much fit the bill, 
: but that would be more like 100 years ago.  So, don't you think we're 
: about due?

As far as I can tell I don't think any of these were ever ridiculed.

Re airplanes.  There was a PBS documentary on the Wright brothers. 
Unlike popular mythology, they were not bumbling idiots who happened
to stumble on an airplane while fixing bicycles. 

They were smart and accomplished scientists and they took the time
to learn all of the existing literature and scientific work on the subject.
They corresponded with European experts and attended meetings of engineering
societies.

The fact that there even *were* "European experts" and many engineers devoted
to working on the problem of flight was an indication that "the mainstream"
saw powered controlled flight as a reasonable, and perhaps even inevitable
invention.

: sethw@access.digex.net

The closest thing to an "originally impossible" breakthrough was the
hydrogen bomb. 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.21 / Richard Blue /  Patterson beads as heat source
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Patterson beads as heat source
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 16:55:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan is probably correct when he says that the plastic
beads in the Patterson cell won't stand elevated temperatures.
The obvious question then is whether they could be transfering
a kilowatt to the electrolyte without getting hot enough to
be damaged.

John assumes that the heat transfer from bead to water presents
no problems.  My experience makes me just a little skeptical about
that.  Hay I have burned enough stuff on the stove to know that
just having lots of water in the pan doesn't keep all the beans
cool.

Suppose the beads are coated with bubbles as a result of the electrolysis.
Now how good is the heat transfer from bead to water?  Is anyone
up to doing a back-of-the envelope estimate to see if we are in
the ball park or off the wall on this question?  Of course some
real data would hurt.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.20 /  Bruno /  Re: WATER
     
Originally-From: (Bruno)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,al
.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: WATER
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 20:57:38 GMT
Organization: EUnet-GB distributed news service, +44 227 266466


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

 
>|> : 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. 

Try telling that to Stanley Meyer!

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudlnBruno cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.20 /   /  Re: Radiation Detecting Wristwatch
     
Originally-From: agmiller@ee.cuhk.hk (Miller_Alan_George)
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.space.pocicy,sci.physics,sci.med
Subject: Re: Radiation Detecting Wristwatch
Date: 20 Feb 1996 17:23:26 GMT
Organization: Engineering Faculty CUHK

Anthony Potts (potts@afsmail.cern.ch) wrote:


: On Thu, 8 Feb 1996, ppm wrote:

: > Introduction of the first wristwatch that measures, detects, and counts 
: > radioactive radiation and x-rays. Instant Alarm when treshold surpassed; 
: > Dose Rate in mrem/h and cumulative Dose in mrem recorded over last 12
: > months. For details:
: > 
: > http://gn2.getnet.com/~ppm/
: > 
: > Scientific feed-back appreciated.
: > 
: > 
: I can give you some feed-back.

: This product is absolutely worthless. If you are working in an 
: environment with sources of ionising radiation ,then you will be given a 
: dose meter (usually a film badge) to wear. If you are not working in such 
: an environment then you do not need something to measure the dose that yo 
: are getting.

I would totally agree that this is a worthless item since what is
important is radiation dose to the thorax (mediastinum is more sensitive
than your wrist to exposure).
Film badges are worn on the thorax for this reason and all dosage
calculations assume dose to thorax or body trunk. You can not colate
exposure readings from the wrist with actual dosage to whole body or
thorax.
I doubt that many medical physicists or any government agency would
accept this item since it does not actually do what they want. They want
to know exposure to radiation on trunk (thorax) not the wrist...

******************************************************************
*      Le gach deagh-dhurachd, (with every good wish [Gaelic] )  *
*      Alan Miller. Chinese University of Hong Kong              * 
*                                                                *
*     Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit (Virgil)             *
*    "The time may come when we will look back on these days     *
*     and laugh" (Well probably cry actually!)                   *
*                                                                *
******************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenagmiller cudln cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.20 /  Regnirps /  Re: final explanation of 2nd law of thermodynamics; entropy
     
Originally-From: regnirps@aol.com (Regnirps)
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: 20 Feb 1996 21:16:46 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Irony fails.  Where do I go from here?

(Of course stat-mech doesn't predict QM!  What did you expect?  You are a
couple of under-grads enjoying how easy it is to goad reactions out of the
internet ellite aren't you.  Go ahead, admit it.)
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenregnirps cudlnRegnirps cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.21 / Mountain Man /  Re: WATER
     
Originally-From: Mountain Man <prfbrown@magna.com.au>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,al
.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: WATER
Date: 21 Feb 1996 01:45:27 GMT
Organization: Mountain Man Graphics, Australia

vanesch@jamaica.desy.de (Patrick van Esch) wrote:

>How many times can you burn a candle ?
>http://www.iihe.ac.be/hep/pp/vanesch

How many times can a raindrop fall?



Pete Brown
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
 BoomerangOutPost:       Mountain Man Graphics, Newport Beach, {OZ}
 Webulous Coordinates:   http://magna.com.au/~prfbrown/welcome.html

 QuoteForTheDay:        "As unto the bow the cord is,
                         So unto man is woman,
                         Though she bends him she obeys him,
                         Though she draws him, yet she follows,
                         Useless each without the other!"
                         Thus the youthful Hiawatha
                         Said within himself and pondered ..."

                                                 - Longfellow  (1855)
 --------------------------------------------------------------------


cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenprfbrown cudfnMountain cudlnMan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.19 / Jim Carr /  Re: Future nuclear testing in Nevada?
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skepticsci.energy
Subject: Re: Future nuclear testing in Nevada?
Date: 19 Feb 1996 18:56:08 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

patrick <patrick.suhrbier@colorado.edu> writes:
>
> I was informed by a couple different people of future nuclear testing at the 
>Nevada test site scheduled for this summer, 

Highly unlikely, since the President has committed the US to voluntary 
compliance with a mutual comprehensive test ban agreement with the fUSSR 
states.  The DOE ran off its last test series a year or so ago. 

>                                            but nobody was able to give me any 
>definite information to the nature of these tests 

This has always been true. 

>                                            or specific dates that they would 
>be set for.  If anybody has any information about these tests and their dates, or 
>knows where I might be able to obtain this information,  ... 

Test dates have been announced publicly for some time now as part of 
various agreements with the fUSSR states.  You could all of recent 
series info from the relevant DOE office I suppose. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  Rave On!  Check out "Rave Boy" at 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  the Tallahassee Democrat Online: 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  | 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |      http://www.tdo.com/   
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.20 / Seth W /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: sethw@access5.digex.net (Seth W.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: 20 Feb 1996 05:57:58 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA

Matthew B. Kennel (mbk@I_should_put_my_domain_in_etc_NNTP_INEWS_DOMAIN) wrote:
: Seth W. (sethw@access5.digex.net) wrote:
: 
: : How about man landing on the moon?  Of course, it's not quite in "common
: : use".  The transistor is probably another good example, but I don't know
: : if it was ever "ridiculed".  I'd say airplanes pretty much fit the bill, 
: : but that would be more like 100 years ago.  So, don't you think we're 
: : about due?
: 
: As far as I can tell I don't think any of these were ever ridiculed.
: 
: Re airplanes.  There was a PBS documentary on the Wright brothers. 
: Unlike popular mythology, they were not bumbling idiots who happened
: to stumble on an airplane while fixing bicycles. 
: 
: The closest thing to an "originally impossible" breakthrough was the
: hydrogen bomb. 

Who ridiculed the hydrogen bomb?

Anyway, back up say, ten years before the Wright brothers lifted off.
Controlled flight didn't seem possible.  In the brief history I just looked
up, people had been trying to fly for what? something like 30 or 40 years.
In your documentary, did they mention it took the Wright brothers something
like 5 years to attract attention from people other than inventors working
on similar projects?  Did the documentary report that their original flights
weren't even reported in their local paper?

I don't know how long this hydrogen and metal lattice thing has been around,
but I doubt it has been around for 40 years.  I'm sure there were people
around who ridiculed the Wright brothers, saying things like, "People have
been trying to fly for years, and nobody can make it work--what a complete
waste of time."  It probably didn't help any that they were bicycle
mechanics.  

Nobody cares about the "ridicule".  I certainly don't.  Maybe there's 
some practical use to all of this, maybe not.  Maybe it's new science,
maybe it's not.  If all of this were experimental error, it wouldn't be
the first time, and it wouldn't be the last.  If the experiments turn out
to be nothing, no one will remember those who ridiculed the experiments.  
If the experiments turn out to be significant, no one will remember those
who ridiculed the experiments.  No one cares about those who say "you
can't"; they care about the people who say "you can".  Maybe that's why
history is written about those who do rather than those who doubt!

sethw@access.digex.net
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudensethw cudfnSeth cudlnW cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.20 / Kirk Shanahan /  Kawasaki Kinks
     
Originally-From: shanahan@csra.net (Kirk L. Shanahan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Kawasaki Kinks
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 23:50:25 EST

What!  Noone has noticed the kinks in the photos by Mr. Kawasaki on John 
Logajan's web page?  I kinda thought they shot down the PowerGen demo pretty 
well...

Kirk Shanahan

{{email to kirk.shanahan@srs.gov if you want replies please...}}

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenshanahan cudfnKirk cudlnShanahan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.19 / Jim Carr /  Re: cold fusion theory (simple)
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: cold fusion theory (simple)
Date: 19 Feb 1996 18:42:32 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

mawong@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Wong) writes:
>
>    ....              Wild speculation by some non scientists heard of Coulomb
>screening.  A red herring of course, since we are talking about nuclear fusion.
>But quantum mechanical tunneling would give us a lower bound on the energy
>required.

No, it tells you the rate.  After all, even fusion in the sun proceeds 
via tunneling through the coulomb barrier.  None of which is relevant 
to the main discussion except for scientific accuracy.  

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  Rave On!  Check out "Rave Boy" at 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  the Tallahassee Democrat Online: 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  | 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |      http://www.tdo.com/   
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.19 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Plans to test the Patterson cell
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Plans to test the Patterson cell
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 1996 15:35 -0500 (EST)

sethw@access5.digex.net (Seth W.) writes:
 
-> 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'"?
 
Let me see if I can clarify this, as well as some previous questions on why
hydrogen gas cannot be used instead of using electrolysis of water.
 
When you use electrolysis, an electric field at the cathode's surface causes
the hydrogen to be pulled inside the metal.  I forget what the conversion is,
but it seemed that we are talking about a million psi per volt or some such
incredible pressure from a quite moderate voltage.  So, if you want to
duplicate the effect of hydrogen packing in the metal lattice using a couple
of volts, you would need to use extremely high pressures of hydrogen.  I
believe this is impractical, especially compared to using the simpler
electrolysis. Now there are other methods, some of which have been discussed
here, such as ultrasonics, to pump the hydrogen into the metal lattice.
 
You ask if this is a surface effect.  I believe it has to be a surface effect
in the Patterson cell, since there is no bulk of metal, it is a very thin layer
of metal on the surface of plastic beads.  As to why the Patterson thin layer
works better than bulk material, I think the explaination is quite simple.
Under electrolysis high pressures of hydrogen are generated at the surface of
the metal. Then the hydrogen diffuses to areas which have lower pressure.  If
you have a defect in the metal, or an area which is not under the voltage
gradient, then the hydrogen diffuses to that point, and then bubbles out of the
metal. This "leak" will prevent you from reaching the high levels of
loading necessary for the effect.  Thus it is very important that you have a
defect free piece of metal, and that you surround it with a constant voltage
and electrolyte. This is extremely difficult, and I believe the problems people
have had trying to duplicate the original P&F expermient validate that view.
 
However, if you use a thin layer on a bead you get around these problems.
First, most of the beads will not have any defects at all, since they are so
small and vapor deposition is a very exact science.  In addition, it only takes
a minute or so to saturate the metal on the surface of a bead, but could take
days to months to get the level up in bulk metal.  This allows the cell to turn
on in a matter of minutes, instead of weeks.  Lastly, if there is a defect,
then the "resistance" to diffusion to that defect will be quite high due to the
length/cross-section of the metal will be orders of magnitude higher than that
of bulk material. I believe all of these factors play together to enhance the
P&F effect, and avoid the pitfalls.
 
Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.19 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Jed is wrong and libelous
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed is wrong and libelous
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 1996 15:59 -0500 (EST)

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, sometime around
July of 1995 I believe.   Unfortunately my archives do not go back that far, so
I am unable to pull your original quotes on this subject.  I do remember that
there was a bit of discussion about the absurdity of this claim, and the
ensuing discussion convinced me that you did not have any idea what
recombination means, or how it is used, or the physical limits of how much
hydrogen you can get by electrolysis per watt.  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.
 
Is is my understanding that you are now denying these previous statements?
 
I will see if I can find a better source of archives, and look up exactly what
your statements were then.
 
Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.19 / 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: Tue, 19 Feb 1996 16:01 -0500 (EST)

ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) writes:
 
-> I think the implication was that the cell is run at higher power, allowing
-> it to heat up, and then the input power turned down for the gain
-> measurement, thereby counting the heat built up during the preceding
-> period as output for the low power session.  IOW, the steady state
-> condition is being circumvented.
 
If that is the case, then I will have to agree with Dick Blue.
 
Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Feb 22 04:37:05 EST 1996
------------------------------
