1996.02.22 / Mark Wong /  Re: cold fusion theory (simple)
     
Originally-From: mawong@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Wong)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: cold fusion theory (simple)
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 96 20:47:09 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments

Richard Schultz writes:
>Cohen-Tannoudji is only one person; that is, the first author of the
>book is Claude Cohen-Tannoudji.  With a hyphenated last name.

>"I don't know why you are wrong, but my data shows you are completely off."
>               --Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 21 Jul 1992

Thanks for the bibliographic correction. Memory starts to lapse when you
get old.
Mark A. Wong                       /             \
Texas Instruments                 /      /|\      \
mawong@m2.dseg.ti.com        ---(.)----<(_+_)>----(.)---
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmawong cudfnMark cudlnWong cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.22 / Kent Thuresson /  Tokamak
     
Originally-From: Kent Thuresson <kent.thuresson@pop.landskrona.se>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tokamak
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 01:20:58 +0100

Does anyone know where I can get hold on information about the 
construction of tokamaks or anything else regarding fusion/plasma?

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenthuresson cudfnKent cudlnThuresson cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.15 / Jack Love /  Re: How to keep ice/water in it's solid state at 40degrees celcius? Help
     
Originally-From: jackl@nwlink.com (Jack Love)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How to keep ice/water in it's solid state at 40degrees celcius? Help
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 20:32:00 GMT
Organization: Northwest Link

On 10 Feb 1996 22:14:33 GMT, david@cgaski.u-net.com (David Gaskill)
wrote:

>In message <Pine.OSF.3.91.960210105039.6322C-100000@alcor.concordia.ca> - Ziad 
>Rahayel <z_rahay@alcor.concordia.ca> writes:
>
>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. 
>

I think this is a joke question;  "How do you supply ice water to
sinners in hell?"

>
>Supposing we reversed the direction of flow through a Patterson cell.... now
>there's a thought...  
>
> 
>
>(Ziad, sorry, that's a sort of SPF joke. There are some contributors to 
>this Newsgroup who can do several impossible things before breakfast but 
>I don't think maintaining water in a solid state at 40 degrees is one of 
>them.) 
>
>
>David
>

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjackl cudfnJack cudlnLove cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.23 /  R /  Re: final explanation of 2nd law of thermodynamics; entropy
     
Originally-From: "R.  Sherwood" <eagle@mail.sky.net>
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: 23 Feb 1996 02:43:07 GMT
Organization: EKSC

It seems this might be saying there is different probabilities depending 
on where you look.  If the probability for events of certain character 
increases in one location then the probabilty for that same event in a 
different location could be lower.  After all we really have no "closed 
systems" and we do not know that the statistic may be uniformly applied. 
(No error of genaeralization)  Only that the statistic is true as 
an AVERAGE value for the system.  A specific local may be subject to a 
local value.

RS

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudeneagle cudlnR cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.22 /  DavesRadio /  Re: Plans to test the Patterson cell
     
Originally-From: davesradio@aol.com (DavesRadio)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Plans to test the Patterson cell
Date: 22 Feb 1996 13:14:12 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Hello!

You asked, "Do you believe a plate with thin layers of nickel and
palladium deposited onto it would be just as effective as the beads?"

I believe there has been testing done on this already and there were many
problems with the plating bubbling and peeling off.  May have been a
manufacturing process problem, but I'm sure you'll be seeing people trying
every conceivable way to get the same or better results with something
other than the CETI beads.  I'll let you know if I hear anything on these
lines.

Dave Copeland


People Happen
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudendavesradio cudlnDavesRadio cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.21 / Kevin Donnelly /  Re: final explanation of 2nd law of thermodynamics; entropy
     
Originally-From: Kevin Donnelly <esmonde@ww.co.nz>
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: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 10:51:31 +1200
Organization: Web World

Erik Max Francis wrote:
> 
> 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_
Cooperation can create a more ordered state.
Healing is an example of co-operation.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenesmonde cudfnKevin cudlnDonnelly cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.23 / A Plutonium /  Old 2nd Law of Thermodynamics proves Lee and Yang experiment 
     
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: Old 2nd Law of Thermodynamics proves Lee and Yang experiment 
Date: 23 Feb 1996 02:03:56 GMT
Organization: PLutonium College

In article <4ge8mp$ot7@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

>   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. 


  I am close to a major linking of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics with
the Conservation Laws of physics.

  It means that all of the Conservation Laws are fakes. And that the
old 2nd Law was only a partial law.

  Even the Conservation of Charge was a fake. There is no 0 charged
particle but that every particle has at least a tiny surface charge.
Such as the neutron and even the photon.

  The old 2nd Law is a Dispersal law, that heat flows always from a hot
body to a cold body, a Diffusion Law. But the old law did not account
for life, or radioactive decay of uranium going to neptunium and
plutonium. The old law had the much of the equation but was missing the
most important term. That term of growth.

  If the 2nd Law, either the old or new, are correct implies that in
the Lee and Yang experiment, there would not be a preference for
lefthanded or righthanded.

  The math of the old 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, when brought around
into the Lee and Yang experiment would indicate Conservation Parity. It
is the fact that the old law says Heat ALWAYS flows from hot bodies to
cold. That is not true.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.23 /  R /  Re: Sorry for the crosspost only wanted EM
     
Originally-From: "R.  Sherwood" <eagle@mail.sky.net>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.chem,sci.astro,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sorry for the crosspost only wanted EM
Date: 23 Feb 1996 02:45:58 GMT
Organization: EKSC

Sorry for crosspost, my error using reader.

RS

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudeneagle cudlnR cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.22 /  DavesRadio /  CETI News
     
Originally-From: davesradio@aol.com (DavesRadio)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CETI News
Date: 22 Feb 1996 13:41:53 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Hello all spf'ers!

I had the pleasure this morning of speaking with Mr. Jim Reding of CETI
for about 10 minutes on the phone.  He was quite personable, and it was
downright respectable of him to take the time he did to call me back.

I'm not sure of how much of what we discussed I can put up publically, but
I can say that there are some interesting prospects that will become
available "by June of this year", including production of cells for
experimentation, and licensing agreements for "garage" experimenters, and
possibly sourcing of beads for researchers & experimenters, so long as an
agreement exists in writing between CETI and the purchaser of the beads
regarding any plans for product development and/or marketing.

Beyond that, time will tell...

My three cells are completed, awaiting beads.  I keep turning the thing on
in it's beadless state (noting that there is no excess heat without the
beads, even though I have a platinum screen anode AND cathode, running
Li2SO4 through it...  If it were just salt crystals forming causing the
"fool's heat", wouldn't I get them under any electrolysis conditions?)

Anyway, I'll post anything else I hear, along with my results once I get
hold of some BEADS!!!    SOMEBODY SEND ME SOME BEADS!!!!!!!!    :=)

Best regards to all, whatever side of the CF fence you may be on. 
Remember that we may have different ideas & hopes, but despite that, we're
all working to the same end, and we will all be affected by the outcome of
the testing and research on this stuff.  I just personally hope it's real,
because I'd sure like to see this planet get off of the fossil fuel habit!

Dave Copeland

davesradio@aol.com


People Happen
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudendavesradio cudlnDavesRadio cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.22 / Mike Baker /  Re: Radiation Detecting Wristwatch
     
Originally-From: baker@nucst11.neep.wisc.edu (Mike Baker)
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.,,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
particle,
Subject: Re: Radiation Detecting Wristwatch
Date: 22 Feb 1996 15:07:10 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison; College of Engineering

In article <ant2121481cbEmcX@j3bkjjm.xs4all.nl> "Fam.Borm-Mulder"
<j3bkjjm@xs4all.nl> writes:
>
>In Holland, and to the best of my knowledge in the whole of
>Europe, separate measurements of the hand or finger dose are
>required for the few heavilly exposed workers.
>
>In Holland we mostly use TLD's instead of filmbadges these days,
>for both versions are available as hand- or finger-dosimeters.
>
>So a wristwatch type of dosimeter may have some applications.
>BTW how long does it take to get a readout from film-badge 
>or TLD device ??
>

	A TLD can be read out in a matter of minutes once 
	it has been collected by the health physics folks.

	I contacted these watch people for more information 
	and the biggest problem is that the watch costs
	$2300 to $2500 (US dollars) depending on what model
	you want.  I think there would only be rare instances 
	where this cost is justified.

	You also asked about its accuracy, the spec sheet they sent
	me says 10% at the calibration point but didn't specify
	much else.
	
	The only reason I can think of that these would be turned
	down by a regulatory body would be that they don't 	
	provide an exposure record for long term storage.  Film
	badges and TLD "glow curves" can be used to meet that 
	function.


-- 
===============================================================================
		Michael Baker ... baker@nucst11.neep.wisc.edu
===============================================================================

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenbaker cudfnMike cudlnBaker cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.23 / Akira Kawasaki /  Re: January issue of IE?
     
Originally-From: aki@ix.netcom.com(Akira Kawasaki )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: January issue of IE?
Date: 23 Feb 1996 01:27:25 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <4gint5$ff1@newsbf02.news.aol.com> georgerw@aol.com (GeorgeRW)
writes: 
>
>Does anyone know whatever happened to the Jan. issue of Infinite
Energy?
>Last I heard It was supposed to be out mid-January. 
>
>I at least have never received it? Anyone know what is going on?
>
As I understand it IE is going ahead with a double issue to come out in
March. The staff was overloaded with material to publish.

-AK-
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenaki cudfnAkira cudlnKawasaki cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.23 / A Plutonium /  spin direction of 231PU when discovered
     
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: spin direction of 231PU when discovered
Date: 23 Feb 1996 01:50:05 GMT
Organization: PLutonium College

In article <4ge95m$ot7@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

> Lee and Yang
> experiments to have given that outcome. In plain language, if the
> preferred parity was "rightwards" it is because 231PU is rightwards.

Hauke pointed to a Korean Periodic Chart of the Elements

There was an isotope of 231PU entry based on theory

Was the Lee and Yang preference to the right or left of a marker

Correlate that with the 231PU
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.23 / 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: 23 Feb 1996 05:49:33 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Bob Sullivan (bsulliva@sky.net) wrote:
: 	We don't know of any groups that have run experiments on the CETI
: 	cell and thereby have rejected it.
:
: However, it may well be an incomplete statement of the facts. It simply 
: describes a shared state of knowledge that appears to apply to s.p.f in
: general but which doesn't preclude individuals from having knowledge of
: experiments and rejections.

Of course.


--
 - 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:
cuddy23 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.23 / Richard Blue /  Re: Question for Dr. Wharton
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Question for Dr. Wharton
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 15:35:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell let slip another tidbit of information relating to
the operation of the CETI device.  Let's just see where this leads
us.

What Jed tells us is that the reservoir temperature as seen in the
ABC video is 41 C.  If Paterson's stated 200 watt power level is also
in effect at the time we can then make a crude estimate of operating
temperature for a 1300 watt power level in the same device.

Let's say the ambient air is at 20 C so the heat exchange with air
is across a delta T of 21 C for 200 watt operation.  Now when the
power level is jacked up to 1300 watts Newton's law of cooling would
say the delta T may rise to 136 C for a reservoir temperature of
156 C.  Now that is interesting!

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.21 /  Fam /  Re: Radiation Detecting Wristwatch
     
Originally-From: "Fam.Borm-Mulder" <j3bkjjm@xs4all.nl>
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.,,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
particle,
Subject: Re: Radiation Detecting Wristwatch
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 21:26:48 +0000 (GMT)
Organization: XS4ALL, networking for the masses

In article <4gd02e$a8j@eng_ser1.erg.cuhk.hk>, Miller_Alan_George
<mailto:agmiller@ee.cuhk.hk> wrote:
> 
> 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...
> 

I cannot judge the quality of the device, but for some jobs it is
important to know the actual doserate  to the hands / fingers.
I.e. In a radiopharmacy unit for a nuclear medicine department, when
your job is filling & measuring syringes with beta-emitters or
low-energy gamma-emitters, it does matter to know your dose
on your fingers. Separate dose limits apply for these circumstances.

In Holland, and to the best of my knowledge in the whole of
Europe, separate measurements of the hand or finger dose are
required for the few heavilly exposed workers.

In Holland we mostly use TLD's instead of filmbadges these days,
for both versions are available as hand- or finger-dosimeters.

So a wristwatch type of dosimeter may have some applications.
BTW how long does it take to get a readout from film-badge 
or TLD device ??

If you are in the business of treating cancer patients with high
dosages of 131-I (say 7.5 GigaBecquerel) and you have to wash and
bathe them or change diapers, the doserate may be sufficiently high
to justify the use of a integrating meter with continuous display of 
the dose rate. 
I can, for example, remember an instance when an intravenous
infusion pump malfunctioned in the middle of the transfusion of 5.5 
GigaBecquerel of 131I-MIBG. 
I had to do some close range manipulations to get it to work
properly again and I caught 67 microSieverts in just a few minutes.
Under such circumstances it is very difficult to predict exposure 
rates and may vary strongly for different parts of the body.

BTW the dose rate to the thorax may be important legally, but 
depending on the situation and the type of exposure, other locations
do matter. Just two examples: -1- the lens of the eye is much more
vulnerable for radiation effects than the thorax and should
be protected. You may get cataract from legally permitted thorax doses.
-2- I know at least one person that had got an incurable eczema of the 
fingertips by handling syringes with 131-I for years without protection.
She never received more than one-tenth of the legally thorax dose,
but she suffers from the effects of high dosages on her fingertips.


So what is absolutely worthless [or true] at CERN may be quite usefull
[or complete nonsense] to others (and vice versa). So please respond
to mailings like the one that started this thread in a SCIENTIFIC
manner and don't make judgements beyond your competence. I am quite
willing to believe that the device is quite useless in a lab
working with high-energy particles and lots of bremssstrahlung.


If the device does what it claims according to this mailing, then,
provided that reliability and accuracy are established, I see no reason
why the authorities would not permit their [appropriate] use.


Anyway, I will look further in these matters.


Judocus Borm, M.D. and radiation protection officer of a 
large radiopharmacy


 
-- 
Judocus J.J.Borm
Email: j3bkjjm@xs4all.nl

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenj3bkjjm cudlnFam cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.23 / Richard Blue /  What does Hal Fox know?
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What does Hal Fox know?
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 16:05:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To explain why the output of the CETI cell does not track the
input Jed Rothwell refers to Hal Fox saying:

"He (Hal Fox) then attributes this effect to protons 'loaded"
into the surface platings of the spheres continuing to supply
_nuclear_reactions_ even after the current applied reaches
zero."

Firstly I would ask whether Hal Fox, or anyone else, has any
data that would support this notion?  If you compare the CETI
version of the Infinite Energy Machine with earlier models one
new feature of the CETI device is that it uses relatively little
metal hydride as its 'furnace'.  Now we already have it on the
highest authorities (Jed Rothwell and Ed Storms) that cold fusion
can not work unless The Special Condition of Matter has been
achieved.  When you claim much more power out from a much smaller
reactor that is putting a much tighter constraint on this
Special Condition business.

Let's say you are claiming a 100-fold increase in power output with
a 1000-fold reduction in potential location for the Special Stuff.
That sort of says that the CETI beads are like five orders of magnitude
more SPECIAL.  Wow!

Now I would like all you solid state buffs who had so much enthusiasm for
the notion that a crystal lattice is really very special when it comes
to nuclear reaction to stick your neck out to explain why the Paterson
plastic beads are so SUPER SPECIAL.  What little I know about plating
on plastic beads would lead me in the direction of saying those beads
are a pretty rotten place for any real magic.

Hal Fox surely must know something the rest of us don't!

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.22 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: 22 Feb 1996 19:49:38 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN

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

Perhaps I exaggerated but about '48 or '49 they ran into really major
problems; it looked like there was no way to make it work.  Teller & Ulam
(and Sakharov) had to come up with a radical design.

> 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." 

Dorks, but not mainstream "engineers working on powered flight".  After all
the internal combustion engine was just barely getting to be reasonably
standard technology by 1905, and that's what you need for powered flight;
a good enough thrust to mass ratio. 

Modern high performance military jets have so much power that their engines
could make a dining room table fly, so in many ways the first airplane
was one of the hardest. 

>  It probably didn't help any that they were bicycle
> mechanics.  

The show said how they communicated with professors in europe, who quickly
realized that they were on the cutting edge of the science and technology. 
It certainly did help that they were bicycle mechanics, as they had a good
machine shop and money to buy good tools. 

The stability problem was a major issue with early flight, but the Wright
bros' experience with cause and problems with stability in bicycling
provided good intuition for flight.  (the stability of bicycling doesn't
have to do with the rotational inertia of the wheels, contrary to what
some freshman physics classes say.  Its more due to the angle of the fork
and the feedback that people automatically put on the bars.  A bicycle
with a straight vertical front fork is very hard to control.  The
breakthrough of the wright flyer was the wing warping control scheme. )

> sethw@access.digex.net

mbk
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenkennel cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.23 / 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: 23 Feb 1996 15:12:04 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

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

Seth, being new here you're probably unaware that the devices being discussed,
including CETI's, are lumped into the generic category of CF engines
(preferable to Free Energy, ZPE, or Perpetual Motion devices). This
categorization began about a year ago, when nuclear events were pretty
much found lacking in the CF 'evidence' whereupon Jed Rothwell proclaimed 
that CF is independent of the producing mechanism.  Most other participants
in this newsgroup have gone along with this, although it is more than a 
little misleading.

: 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? 

For extraordinary claims that violate the entirety of man's accumulated 
knowledge, the burden for evidence or proof falls upon the claimant.  To 
date, no one in CF has successfully built a case for excess heat
or excess energy that has been able to withstand close critical
examination and analysis, or to support professional replication.

                                     Harry C.


cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.23 / John Logajan /  Re: What's the secret?
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's the secret?
Date: 23 Feb 1996 05:54:36 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Larry Wharton (Wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov) wrote:
: I do know that while Dr. Jones was advocating his 
: recombination theory I was advocating my internal heat pump theory and I 
: did not see anything from him on this later subject.

Refresh my memory on the timeline.  I seem to recall that John White
offered a salt phase change hypothesis last fall.  Somehow I didn't
associate your name with it.  Do I have a memory parity error?

--
 - 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:
cuddy23 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.23 / Larry Wharton /  Re: Question for Dr. Wharton
     
Originally-From: Larry Wharton <Wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Question for Dr. Wharton
Date: 23 Feb 1996 14:59:22 GMT
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center -- Greenbelt, Maryland USA

Jed,
   The entire loop is warmer than the ambient because energy is being 
input to the system from the pump and the electrolyte power.  My 
internal heat pump theory does not require any part of the system to be 
cold.  Of course the water cools off as it goes around the loop.  It 
must cool off in order to prepare for the massive apparent heat input 
from the CETI cell.  As you know, most of the cooling occures in the 
water reservoir.  This is as expected because the filter is after the 
reservoir.  The filter would trap the salt particles and the flow would 
be cooled as the salt is dissolved in the filter.  It is important that 
you have noted that the reservoir was at 41 C.  The input to the cell is 
not that hot.  You have carefully checked the temperature from the 
filter to the pump and to the cell in order to check the theory that the 
pump was inputing energy. You found little temperature change here.  
That leaves only the filter as the main cooling device.  Don't you find 
that a little strange?  Normal heat should pass through the filter 
unchanged but fool's heat or CETI heat or whatever you wish to call it 
would be stopped dead by a filter.  Remember the three tests for fool's 
heat:

1.  Shake test - fill a jug with CETI heated water, shake and take the 
temperature.

2.  Whole loop test - check the heat rejection of the entire loop.

3.  Filter test - Run CETI heated water through a filter and take the 
temperature after the filter.

All three tests have been done and indicate the presence of fool's heat.  
It is good you mentioned the high reservoir temperature as that shows 
that the filter test (filter is right after the water reservoir) has 
been done and proves that CETI heat is 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:
cuddy23 cudenWharton cudfnLarry cudlnWharton cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.23 /  jjones@ebs330. /  Re: Cold Fusion DOES occur in dueterium loaded palladium!
     
Originally-From: jjones@ebs330.eb.uah.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion DOES occur in dueterium loaded palladium!
Date: 23 Feb 1996 15:45:55 GMT
Organization: The University of Alabama in Huntsville

I believe follow up work on these finding showed nothing.  The source of 
the tritium generation proved to be contamination.  I'm sure Dr. Jones 
will address this.  He has posted before that BYU as recalled all claims 
of "cold fusion", except muon cat. fusion.   

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjjones cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.21 / Antoni Gozdz /  surface microstructure and specific surface area of P(St-DVB) beads
     
Originally-From: tony2@nyquist.bellcore.com (Antoni S. Gozdz 21621)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: surface microstructure and specific surface area of P(St-DVB) beads
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 17:42:12 GMT
Organization: Bellcore

I have looked at the CETI Web page, but couldn't find anything on the
(micro)porosity and the specific surface area of the starting material
(beads) for the Patterson catalyst (perhaps I haven't looked hard
enough...). Does anyone know (somebody who read the original patent
documents, not just the first page) if the beads are solid (gel-like in
the case of P(St-DVB)) or micro/macroporous?  If the latter is the
case, what's the specific surface area of the substrate material
(before plating)?

I used to work (in the 70s...) on the synthesis and various
modifications of such suspension polymers (beads having the diameter
from several tenths of a microns to almost 1 mm); they're fantastic
adsorbents and catalyst substrates for some reactions in both aqueous
and organic media (ion exchangers, adsorbents, Merrifield catalysts for
polypeptide synthesis, etc).  It is thus important to know their ave.
diameter, SSA and pore-size distribution in any (potentially) catalytic
reaction, such as those that may be taking place in the Patterson cell.

Tony
 --------------------
Antoni S. Gozdz    PWr '72                 'Atoms are not things'
tony2@bellcore.com                                 W. Heisenberg
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudentony2 cudfnAntoni cudlnGozdz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.23 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Patterson beads as heat source
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Patterson beads as heat source
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 1996 10:55 -0500 (EST)

jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes:
 
-> I think you could get hot spots when bubbles stick (as they are apt
-> to.)  So points of damage could occur (don't know if they do, don't
-> even know if anything is generating heat. :-)
 
By the same token, if you have an attached bubble, it would quite likely
present an escape route for the hydrogen, and unloading would occur at that
point.  If so then one would expect that that point would not produce any
energy.  Hopefully this is what would happen, as it would help prevent
premature failure due to spot overheating.
 
Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.23 /  singtech@telep /  cmsg cancel <singtech-1602960320330001@ip-salem3-23.teleport.com>
     
Originally-From: singtech@teleport.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <singtech-1602960320330001@ip-salem3-23.teleport.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 03:02:00 -0800
Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016

cancel <singtech-1602960320330001@ip-salem3-23.teleport.com>
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudensingtech cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.23 / Meric Ozcan /  Re: Old 2nd Law of Thermodynamics proves Lee and Yang experiment  false
     
Originally-From: meric@harris.Stanford.EDU (Meric Ozcan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.chem,sci.astro,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Old 2nd Law of Thermodynamics proves Lee and Yang experiment  false
Date: 23 Feb 1996 06:50:35 GMT
Organization: Stanford University

In article <4gj7ac$biv@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartm
uth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
>In article <4ge8mp$ot7@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>> 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. 
>

As if there is not enough lunatics around we have to deal with this
too?
Come on man, spit it out, tell us the missing term and let's get over
it.

Meric
meric@feynman.arc.nasa.gov

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmeric cudfnMeric cudlnOzcan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.23 / A Plutonium /  cmsg cancel <4ge8mp$ot7@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
     
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: cmsg cancel <4ge8mp$ot7@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Date: 23 Feb 1996 08:24:09 GMT

Cancelled by jem@xpat.com.  825063849
Plutonium
Cancel of Archimedes Plutonium newsgroup bombing via reposts
of private email to various Usenet newsgroups.

Original Subject was: Link between 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and Conservation Laws
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.23 / A Plutonium /  cmsg cancel <4ge95m$ot7@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
     
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: cmsg cancel <4ge95m$ot7@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Date: 23 Feb 1996 08:24:11 GMT

Cancelled by jem@xpat.com.  825063851
Plutonium
Cancel of Archimedes Plutonium newsgroup bombing via reposts
of private email to various Usenet newsgroups.

Original Subject was: Anyone predict spin direction of 231PU ?
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.22 /  VCockeram /  Re: The end of the CETI saga draws near
     
Originally-From: vcockeram@aol.com (VCockeram)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The end of the CETI saga draws near
Date: 22 Feb 1996 06:19:28 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <4gfdpj$f6c@post.gsfc.nasa.gov>, Larry Wharton
<Wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov> writes:

>  My 
>candidate for this negative potential energy is salt crystals.  This is 
>very simple to test.  One has only to divert the output flow into a 
>container, seal it, shake it up a bit so that salt crystals disolve, and 
>then measure the temperature.

Just a second here Larry. What salt crystals are you talking about?
I don't recall that the cell outflow had salt crystals in it.
Where/when/who posted this information? References please.

Thanks in advance

Vince, Lost Wages, Nevada
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenvcockeram cudlnVCockeram cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.22 / Larry Wharton /  Re: Ice maker CF experiment
     
Originally-From: Larry Wharton <Wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ice maker CF experiment
Date: 22 Feb 1996 14:27:03 GMT
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center -- Greenbelt, Maryland USA

Mitchel,
  I don't see any sign error in my posting unless you define the latent 
heat of fusion as a negative quantity.  Take a look at the heat 
exchanger on your freezer when it is running.  It is hot.  If I ran 
water over it, the water would get hot not cold.  If I took ice from the 
freezer at the rate the ice was being produced and put it in this hot 
water the water would still be hot untill the ice was melted.  In my 
suggested experiment the ice maker was totally emersed in the water.  
All the heat produced in the heat exchanger of the freezer is input into 
the water.  The CETI cell takes the role of the ice maker and the salt 
crystals of the lithium sulfate take the role of the ice in my theory.  
If this is the case then the apparent heat output of the Paterson cell 
may be much greater than unity and is only limited by the Carnot cycle 
efficiency.
   I would love to see this thing work and I have been supporting it in 
the sense that everything else seems OK and I have clearly stated that.  
The flow calorimetry is fine, I don't see any significant error in the 
temperature measurment, the power from the pump is not a significant 
input to the cell.  The one thing that remains to be done is to reject 
the heat pump hypothesis.  Since no part of the device is cold, the heat 
may only be pumped into some phase change or chemical product that will 
be contained in the flow output in anaology with my ice maker 
hypothesis.  When the flow goes arount the loop and is ready for the 
input this chemical or phase change would be undone.  All the water does 
in the loop is slosh around a bit and go through a filter.  It is so 
simple to test for this.  You run the cell outflow through a filter and 
take the temperature after the filter.  Or you take the outflow and fill 
up an insulated container and shake it up a bit and then take the 
temperature.  These two tests simulate the two main effects in the loop 
that could undo the phase change or chemical output product.  If you 
still have this excess heat after these trivial tests then the cell 
works. I have no doubt about that.

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


cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenWharton cudfnLarry cudlnWharton cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.22 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Cold Fusion DOES occur in dueterium loaded palladium!
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion DOES occur in dueterium loaded palladium!
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 1996 15:39 -0500 (EST)

It is interesting that excess energy measurements from CF experiments are
dismissed as impossible because there are no significant neutrons generated.

However as it turns out, experiments with deuterium and palladium have proven
that cold fusion takes place, without generating significant neutrons.  These
experiments have been done at Los Alamos Labs, and Bringham Young University,
and have yielded in excess of 75 nCi of tritium per hour of operation.

For those who are interested in verifying this, check out the following 3
papers, research of which was performed under DOE contract:

"Tritium Production From a Low Voltage Deuterium Discharge on Palladium and
Other Metals". [1995] Claytor, T.N., Jackson, D.D., Tuggle, D. G.  [Los Alamos
National Lab] DOE contract #W7405ENG36

"Tritium Evolution from Various Morphologies of Palladium." [1994] Taylor,
S.F., [Bringham Young University and Los Alamos Lab.] same DOE contract #.

"Search for Neutrons from Deuterated Palladium Subject to High Electrical
Currents." Taylor, S.F., [Los Alamos Lab. & Bringham Yound University],
Clayton, T.N. [LAL], and Jones, J.E. [Bringham Young University]. Same DOE
contract number.


To access summeries of these papers go to http://www.osti.gov and select
"Department of Energy Reports Bibliography Data Base"

Then select:
"Search the DOE Reports Bibliographics Database"

Then in the search field enter: COLD_FUSION

All 3 papers will show up in the search and you can select and read the
summeries.

Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.23 / 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: Fri, 23 Feb 96 23:11:07 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

In article <4gijmc$men@news4.digex.net>,
   sethw@access5.digex.net (Seth W.) wrote:
->Bob Sullivan (bsulliva@sky.net) wrote:
->: 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'. 
->
->Where did they provide this information?
->
->sethw@access.digex.net

The PowerGen non-demo.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.22 / Larry Wharton /  No evidence that Steve Jones has stolen ideas
     
Originally-From: Larry Wharton <Wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: No evidence that Steve Jones has stolen ideas
Date: 22 Feb 1996 23:18:44 GMT
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center -- Greenbelt, Maryland USA

I don't believe that there is any evidence that Steve Jones has stolen 
any ideas.  That is why in a previous posting I tried to use wording 
that avoided actually making this claim as I knew that it was 
unsupportable.  I appologize to Dr. Jones for any misinterpertation of 
my remarks.

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


cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenWharton cudfnLarry cudlnWharton cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.23 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: Question for Dr. Wharton
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Question for Dr. Wharton
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 96 23:48:13 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

In article <199602231531.KAA29137@pilot14.cl.msu.edu>,
   blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) wrote:
->Jed Rothwell let slip another tidbit of information relating to
->the operation of the CETI device.  Let's just see where this leads
->us.
->
->What Jed tells us is that the reservoir temperature as seen in the
->ABC video is 41 C.  If Paterson's stated 200 watt power level is also
->in effect at the time we can then make a crude estimate of operating
->temperature for a 1300 watt power level in the same device.
->
->Let's say the ambient air is at 20 C so the heat exchange with air
->is across a delta T of 21 C for 200 watt operation.  Now when the
->power level is jacked up to 1300 watts Newton's law of cooling would
->say the delta T may rise to 136 C for a reservoir temperature of
->156 C.  Now that is interesting!
->
->Dick Blue
->

But we have no way of knowing whether the heat (if there was any heat) came from 
the external resistance heater.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.23 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: Cold Fusion DOES occur in dueterium loaded palladium!
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion DOES occur in dueterium loaded palladium!
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 96 23:58:25 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

In article <4gknfj$hfc@info.uah.edu>, jjones@ebs330.eb.uah.edu wrote:
->I believe follow up work on these finding showed nothing.  The source of 
->the tritium generation proved to be contamination.  I'm sure Dr. Jones 
->will address this.  He has posted before that BYU as recalled all claims 
->of "cold fusion", except muon cat. fusion.   
->

The first of the cited references does, in fact, deal with muon-catalyzed 
fusion.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.23 /  jonesse@plasma /  Re: What's the secret?
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's the secret?
Date: 23 Feb 96 14:52:09 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <4gjb0u$710_003@ip147.sky.net>, 
bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan) writes:
> In article <4gek82$bea@stratus.skypoint.net>,
>    jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) wrote:
> ->jonesse@plasma wrote:
> ->: 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!
> ->
> ->Well, if you clue us in, maybe we spf'ers can bat it around and see what
> ->we come up with?
> 
> 
> I'll go with the tried and true 'bad temperature measurements.' The PowerGen 
> 'demo' probably took this to a higher level with the new voltages applied to the 
> control cell -- more opportunities for 'crosstalk' to the thermocouples. 

There are a number of probable problems in the CETI/Patterson light-water cell.
I think that most of the ones we are now planning to look at have been raised
here, such as the 'bad temperature measurements' issue -- I think I raised this
one back in about Oct. 1995, then Dennis Cravens admitted there may be a
problem there.  Glad to see that Bob remembers that one and agrees it is a
relevant issue.

But there are others, raised by Kirk Shanahan, Mitchell Jones, Larry Wharton,
John White, Dick Blue -- not all have had much response by Logajan or Rothwell
(or others) here.  In particular, I think Kirk Shanahan (of Savannah River
Labs) raised some very cogent objections which were overlooked or simply
ignored by CF advocates.   No need (or time) to repeat all the arguments!  
We'll do some  experiments then let you know.
I'm now getting ready for a conference talk in March, so don't expect anything
before that.

There are tests of Patterson elsewhere that I know of as well.  I expect we'll
be able to dismiss this [totally] as a practical power source soon.
That's my prediction, as this is just the latest in a series of claims vented
via the media rather than through peer-reviewed journals.  Indeed,
circumventing the normal peer-review process of the scientific method seems
to characterize these claims generally.  Past claims
have proven to be "Crying wolF"  -- that's what CF stands for, isn't it?
But we'll see.  Another round of experiments is coming.

--Steven Jones
P.S. -- Larry Wharton: explanation accepted. Thanks.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.23 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Somebody send me beads!  Seriously!
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Somebody send me beads!  Seriously!
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 1996 16:10 -0500 (EST)

davesradio@aol.com (DavesRadio) writes:
 
-> simple:  I need beads for my cells.  CETI has thus far not responded to
-> any of my e-mail.
 
I know how you feel.  I am not sure what CETI is doing, but they don't seem to
be very good business people.  Last December I had the project of proposing 3
possible new business ventures for a startup in Oak Ridge.  There was possible
venture capital funding for the one which got selected.  All three I worked on
were new ideas, patented or pantentable, with markets in excess of
$1,000,000,000 per year.  I was doing the business plan for the three
proposals, including engineering costs, licensing costs, manufacturing costs,
profit margin, market segment analysis, market size analysis, market
penetration analysis, production methods, 3 year sales and marketing plan and
so forth.  Basically the three proposals were to be reviewed and one of them
selected for the new company to pursue.
 
One of the three I was working up was the manufacture of hot water heaters
using the CETI technology.  I figured that being in Oak Ridge, we would have a
lot of talent available if we ran into any glitches.  However when I got to the
licensing costs, and a proof of principle demonstration, I found that CETI was
uncooperative.  I made quite a few calls to them and got an answering machine
each time.  I left messages to call me back but they never did.  I had a
deadline of Jan. 1, and without ever being able to contact them, I finally
ended up having to drop the proposal.
 
Marshall Dudley
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.23 / Larry Wharton /  John N. White first with salt theory
     
Originally-From: Larry Wharton <Wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: John N. White first with salt theory
Date: 23 Feb 1996 22:31:57 GMT
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center -- Greenbelt, Maryland USA

  Some people think that I am overlooking the salt theory that John N. 
White came up with a few months age.  I am well aware of it and I think 
it is important to mention it.  John had purposed that the water pump 
was the source of energy.  The pump would dissolve salt crystals and put 
energy into the electrolyte stream.  Then the CETI cell would cause salt 
crystals to form and release heat.  His arguments were refuted and the 
theory was discarded.  The main problem was that the pump probably was 
not inputing enough energy in this form.  Jed Rothwell called John's 
crystals "magic crystals" in view of the strange properties they would 
have.  If my crystals need some "magic" property I hope someone will 
point this out.  In my theory I decided to do away with the role of the 
pump and simply have the cell forcing salt crystal formation. The heat 
pumped by the cell would only be limited by the Carnot cycle efficiency 
and thus much larger amounts of heat could be output compared to the 
electrolysis power in.  Some excellent analysis was done at the time on 
John's theory and it is worthwhile to read back over some of this.
  For my part, I will now try to do a proper entropy flux analysis with 
all the actual numbers put in.  I hope to have this ready soon.

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


cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenWharton cudfnLarry cudlnWharton cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.23 /  Fam /  Re: Radiation Detecting Wristwatch
     
Originally-From: "Fam.Borm-Mulder" <j3bkjjm@xs4all.nl>
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.,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.
article
Subject: Re: Radiation Detecting Wristwatch
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 20:17:22 +0000 (GMT)
Organization: XS4ALL, networking for the masses

In article <4gk16b$t76@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, Jman050
<mailto:jman050@aol.com> wrote:
> 
> Is this wristwatch more useful or convienient than the film type dosage
> detectors? If not, than I think the development of this product was a
> waste of time, money, and knowledge.
> 
> -Jake Mannion, 14
> 
> jmannion@choate.edu

Results are immediately available ! This may in certain medical situations,
i.e. when treating very small children with high dosages of 131-I-MIBG,
be quite important. That way you can make critical choices in situations
where you need both your hands free without any unnecessary exposure.

I already know of at least one mother, nursing here own baby, while it
underwent 131-I treatment in another hospital, that got decreased function
of her thyroid gland  due to over exposure to 131-I, both as external radiation
and as internal contamination (from our estimates both contributed about
equally to the dose to the thyroid gland). That hospital had a policy
of not measuring & controlling exposer to parents under these conditions.

For more see my earlier posting to this group.

-- 
Judocus J.J.Borm
Email: j3bkjjm@xs4all.nl

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenj3bkjjm cudlnFam cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.23 /  Fam /  Re: Radiation Detecting Wristwatch
     
Originally-From: "Fam.Borm-Mulder" <j3bkjjm@xs4all.nl>
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.,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.
article
Subject: Re: Radiation Detecting Wristwatch
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 20:20:27 +0000 (GMT)
Organization: XS4ALL, networking for the masses

In article <4gi0qu$2sou@news.doit.wisc.edu>, Mike Baker
<mailto:baker@nucst11.neep.wisc.edu> wrote:
> 
> In article <ant2121481cbEmcX@j3bkjjm.xs4all.nl> "Fam.Borm-Mulder" <j3bkjj=
m@xs4all.nl> 
> writes:
> >
> >In Holland, and to the best of my knowledge in the whole of
> >Europe, separate measurements of the hand or finger dose are
> >required for the few heavilly exposed workers.
> >
> >In Holland we mostly use TLD's instead of filmbadges these days,
> >for both versions are available as hand- or finger-dosimeters.
> >
> >So a wristwatch type of dosimeter may have some applications.
> >BTW how long does it take to get a readout from film-badge 
> >or TLD device ??
> >
> 
> =09A TLD can be read out in a matter of minutes once 
> =09it has been collected by the health physics folks.
> 
> =09I contacted these watch people for more information 
> =09and the biggest problem is that the watch costs
> =09$2300 to $2500 (US dollars) depending on what model
> =09you want.  I think there would only be rare instances 
> =09where this cost is justified.
> 
> =09You also asked about its accuracy, the spec sheet they sent
> =09me says 10% at the calibration point but didn't specify
> =09much else.
> =09
> =09The only reason I can think of that these would be turned
> =09down by a regulatory body would be that they don't =09
> =09provide an exposure record for long term storage.  Film
> =09badges and TLD "glow curves" can be used to meet that 
> =09function.
> 
> 
Our hospital has no TLD read out equipment and I can buy a lot
of these watches for the price of one TLD readout unit.
Also TLD equipment (especially at low to moderate dose rates)
are not so accurate.
In Holland a single organization does the reading of > 65% of
all TLD's in use. It takes >> 1 week to get results.

-- 
Judocus J.J.Borm
Email: j3bkjjm@xs4all.nl

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenj3bkjjm cudlnFam cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.23 /  Fam /  Re: Radiation Detecting Wristwatch
     
Originally-From: "Fam.Borm-Mulder" <j3bkjjm@xs4all.nl>
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.,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.
article
Subject: Re: Radiation Detecting Wristwatch
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 20:17:32 +0000 (GMT)
Organization: XS4ALL, networking for the masses

In article <4gk16b$t76@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, Jman050
<mailto:jman050@aol.com> wrote:
> 
> Is this wristwatch more useful or convienient than the film type dosage
> detectors? If not, than I think the development of this product was a
> waste of time, money, and knowledge.
> 
> -Jake Mannion, 14
> 
> jmannion@choate.edu

-- 
Judocus J.J.Borm
Email: j3bkjjm@xs4all.nl

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenj3bkjjm cudlnFam cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Feb 24 04:37:03 EST 1996
------------------------------
