1995.01.09 / David Seghers /  Re: Phonophobic Calls Griggs
     
Originally-From: seghers_david/hp5000_zp@openmail2.corp.hp.com (David Seghers)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Phonophobic Calls Griggs
Date: 9 Jan 1995 16:19:45 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard

In article <3ek87g$nau@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) says:
>
>This phonophobic finally got around to calling Griggs and 
>setting up a meeting.  

Congrats! 
>
[snip]
>Another matter is the press.  A member has asked to join the
>visit.  What do you all think?  My general feeling is that the
>press is dangerous to scientific inquiry.  They are interested 
>in controversy which sells papers.  Some of us are interested in
>discovering truth.  

My first take was %$@% no!
My second take was, tell the press to read the net like the rest of us.
My third take was to trust Tom's judgement.  If the pressperson was
known to Tom as an objective observer, someone who has a solid history
of science reporting (is there someone like that?), then perhaps.  From
your post, Tom, it seems as if you aren't thrilled about this particular
press-critter.
>
>Pleas discuss this.
>
[caveat snipped]
>
>If when I return, I start building a "Griggs" machine, then I believe
>his measurements to be valid.  If I do not, then ...
>

Shall we make bets on whether/when Tom starts building one? :-)}

>I think there will be money left over even after we generate 
>suitable certificates of participation.  

Certificates would be nice!  I've always wanted to be certified....  Actually,
it's nice to be in on a new type of investigative science!

>I understand that Tod Green
>will be in Europe during ICCF5.  How about him as a representative?
>What about it Todd?
>
>Tom Droege

If he's up for it, fine.

David Seghers (seghers@hpcc01.HP.COM) 415-691-3730
************************************************************************
Solipsist Society, Founding Member  (I think, therefore you are.)
Charter member of the "I HATE vi!" Club.
************************************************************************
The statements and opinions above are my own, entirely my own, and no one
else's.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenhp5000_zp cudfnDavid cudlnSeghers cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.09 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Does it really matter
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Does it really matter
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 1995 11:12 -0500 (EST)

artki@kbbs.com writes:
 
->   Microwaves, like plain old heat, cook from the outside in.  Don't
-> think so?  Take a frozen dinner that would normally take 7 minutes
-> to cook and cook it for only 2 or 3 minutes.  If what you say is true
-> then the middle of the food should be warm or hot while the
-> outside is frozen.  In fact, the opposite is true.
 
It is not a myth.  I said cook, not thaw.  If you are thawing, the outside
heats up faster.  If you start at room temperature the inside heats up
faster.  Think about it. The outside is exposed to air, which is cool, and the
inside is insulated from the outside temerature, so it heats up further, while
the outside has the heat conducted away by the air. In your example the outside
is warmer than the surface (which is frozen) so heat flow from the ambient is
the opposite direction, and the surface will heat up faster than the inside.
The heating throughout the food is uniform to some extent (if not too thick),
but the air is cool around the surface, so the surface temperature tends to
always offset toward air temperature from the temperatures reached inside. That
is why a microwave will not brown without additional "helpers".
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy09 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.09 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Crop Circles: A New Theory
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Crop Circles: A New Theory
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 1995 11:52 -0500 (EST)

-> Peter Gosden <ppxpjg@ppn1.physics.nottingham.ac.uk> writes:
->
-> >There was a guy interviewed on British TV who said that it was
-> >him and his mates having a laugh on Friday nights when their wives
-> >thought they were in the pub. Apparently the whole thing took off
-> >when they confessed to their wives, and the whole lot of them would
-> >take off around the country any time in the week (which they did for
-> >several years).
 
As it turns out I did a scientific study of this in 1992.  Turns out the
hoaxers (Doug and Dave) were a hoax so to speak.  As you say, they made their
haoxes on Friday nights, but less than 10% of the circles "happened" on Friday
nights. A very easy corrolation to check, but one that the news media decided
to ignore when reporting.
 
If you like I can forward you the scintific statistical analysis on this.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy09 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.09 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Borrowing a scope + Grigg's customers.
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Borrowing a scope + Grigg's customers.
Date: 9 Jan 1995 16:48:50 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <SAM.95Jan8190140@colossus.stdavids.picker.com>,
sam@colossus.stdavids.picker.com (Sam Goldwasser) wrote:

[_magna_ deletia]

> 
> I think Tom should visit a customer also.  Trying to set up meaningful
> measurements in an unfamilier environment, under pressure, etc. is probably
> not going to work out.  If there is indeed long term power savings, then
> perhaps a customer site with appropriate records would be a better place
> to understand the mechanism and long term behavior.
> 

Whoa, hold on there!  Tom's not our lackey to send whither our whims
dictate.  He's being awfully accomodating to do this one trip for us, let's
be appreciative of that.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.09 / Chris Strevens /  Re: Cold Fusion Day at MIT - January 21,1995
     
Originally-From: te_s227@king.ac.uk (Chris Strevens)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Day at MIT - January 21,1995
Date: 9 Jan 1995 16:21:56 GMT
Organization: Kingston University

In article <950101180637_76570.2270_HHB56-1@CompuServe.COM>, 76570.2270@
ompuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) says:
>
>************************  COLD FUSION DAY  ************************
>                              at MIT
>
>
>                         COLD FUSION
>          A Massachusetts Institute of Technology
>                        IAP  Program 
>              Video-Lecture-Demonstration Program
>
>_______________________________________________________
>January 21, 1995, Saturday 9AM-5PM 
>Room 10-105 (Bush Room)
>First floor, main building of MIT, under the Great Dome
>________________________________________________________
>
>
The best of luck to your venture - I hope some accurate and good news of
success comes from it.

Have there been any tests of a simple H2 gas - palladium reaction?

Chris.S.

C.Strevens@kingston.ac.uk
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudente_s227 cudfnChris cudlnStrevens cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.09 / Josef Frisch /  Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: frisch@hebe.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Josef C. Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.ele
tromag,sci.physics,sci.physics.accelerators
Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 17:07:39 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <3en4rk$k81@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Archimedes.Plutonium@dart
outh.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
|> In article <3ea52p$9t4@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
|> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
|> 
|> >  I read that a neutrino beam can be created from particle accelerators.
|> > Does anyone have more information on that other than McGraw-Hill
|> > Science Encyclopedia?
|> 
|>   I was informed that accelerators can create muon neutrino beams.
|> True? Has anyone "shined" a muon neutrino beam onto a superconductor
|> with current in progress? "Shone it" on a superconductor with the
|> Meissner effect in progress?
|> 
|>   How about creating a e-neutrino beam and performing the same
|> "shooting" of e-neutrinos into the superconduction apparatuses?

Neutrinos interact VERY VERY weakly. At the intensities that can be generated, I
would not expect any noticeable effect on a superconductor. Remember, the earth
receives a substantial constant flux of neutrinos from the sun. 

Neutino beams can be generated by smashing high energy electrons into a target to
generate muons. The muons decay into neutrinos and electrons or positrons. If the
initial energy is high enough, the neutrinos will tend to travel in the same
direction as the initial beam. 

--- Joe Frisch ---

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenfrisch cudfnJosef cudlnFrisch cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.09 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Does it really matter
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does it really matter
Date: 9 Jan 1995 17:36:36 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <USE2PCB168299276@brbbs.brbbs.com>, mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com
(MARSHALL DUDLEY) wrote:

> artki@kbbs.com writes:
>  
> ->   Microwaves, like plain old heat, cook from the outside in.  Don't
> -> think so?  Take a frozen dinner that would normally take 7 minutes
> -> to cook and cook it for only 2 or 3 minutes.  If what you say is true
> -> then the middle of the food should be warm or hot while the
> -> outside is frozen.  In fact, the opposite is true.
>  
> It is not a myth.  I said cook, not thaw.  If you are thawing, the outside
> heats up faster.  If you start at room temperature the inside heats up
> faster.  Think about it. The outside is exposed to air, which is cool, and the
> inside is insulated from the outside temerature, so it heats up further, while
> the outside has the heat conducted away by the air. In your example the outside
> is warmer than the surface (which is frozen) so heat flow from the ambient is
> the opposite direction, and the surface will heat up faster than the inside.
> The heating throughout the food is uniform to some extent (if not too thick),
> but the air is cool around the surface, so the surface temperature tends to
> always offset toward air temperature from the temperatures reached inside. That
> is why a microwave will not brown without additional "helpers".
>                                                                 Marshall

I think this would only be true in the case of an oven so powerful that the
absorption of microwave energy by the outer portions would not
significantly detract from the energy reaching the core.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.09 / Tom Droege /  Going Alone?
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Going Alone?
Date: 9 Jan 1995 19:47:41 GMT
Organization: fermilab

At this point, I am leaning toward visiting Griggs alone.  I 
discussed spending only a half day or so with Griggs.  I would
plan to go down the nignt before, then spend an afternoon and
return.  Just started looking at air-fares.  A one day trip 
is not the way to save money. 

Someone raised the question of a confidentiality agreement.  
I will sign such an agreement as I think Jim Griggs is entitled
to protection of his ideas.  But I will not go if it is so 
restrictive as to prevent a proper report here.

My suggestion to the press will be to interview myself and 
Griggs after the meeting.  I will certainly e-mail the report
here to anyone who asks for it.  

Thank you all for the discussion.  I read every item and am 
influenced by what you say.  Sorry, but I just don't have the
time to comment on every suggestion.

Tom Droege   
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.09 / Frank Cannon /  Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: nagy@fndcd.fnal.gov (Frank J. Nagy:VAX Wizard&Loose Cannon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph
sics.accelerators
Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
Date: 9 Jan 95 13:57:16 -0600
Organization: Fermilab Computing Division

In article <D25E8s.7qr@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU>, frisch@hebe.SLAC.Stan
ord.EDU (Josef C. Frisch) writes:
> In article <3en4rk$k81@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Archimedes.Plutonium@da
tmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> |> In article <3ea52p$9t4@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
...
> |>   I was informed that accelerators can create muon neutrino beams.
> |> True? Has anyone "shined" a muon neutrino beam onto a superconductor
> |> with current in progress? "Shone it" on a superconductor with the
> |> Meissner effect in progress?
> |> 
> |>   How about creating a e-neutrino beam and performing the same
> |> "shooting" of e-neutrinos into the superconduction apparatuses?
...
> Neutino beams can be generated by smashing high energy electrons into a target to
> generate muons. The muons decay into neutrinos and electrons or positrons. If the
> initial energy is high enough, the neutrinos will tend to travel in the same
> direction as the initial beam. 

The neutrinos come from the decay of pions and kaons created by targetting
high energy proton beams on fixed targets.  The muons are swept away with
magnets and attenuated by *large* piles of shielding (usually steel and
dirt).  The resulting beam contains a mix of muon and electron neutrinos.
The neutrino energy spectrum can either be widely spread (broad-band)
or, by focusing and collomating the secondary pion and kaon beams before
the decay region, be di-chromatic with two relatively broad but mostly
separated peaks in the energy spectrum (one peak from pion decays
and one from kaon decays).
-- 
= Dr. Frank J. Nagy   "VMS Wizard, Loose Cannon, Info RoadKill"
= Fermilab Computing Division/Operating Systems Support Dept
= VMS Systems Support group leader and OSS Associate Dept. Head
= Internet: NAGY@FNAL.GOV  -or-  NAGY@FNDCD.FNAL.GOV
= USnail: Fermilab POB 500 MS/369 Batavia, IL 60510
= ICBM: 41d 50m 14s N, 88d 15m 48s W, 741 ft ASL
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudennagy cudfnFrank cudlnCannon cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.08 /  artki@kbbs.com /  Does it really matter
     
Originally-From: artki@kbbs.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Does it really matter
Date: Sun, 08 Jan 95 21:36:29 EST
Organization: KBBS - Internet & Files via Satellite   


 * Quote from INTERNET: mdudley@brbbs.b to ** ALL ** dated 01-08-95.

]Secondly, if you are thinking of the proposal I think you are, they were to
]send the energy to earth via microwave.   Microwaves cook from the inside out,
]just like they do in a microwave oven.  By the time you see a "sunburn" show
]up you are thoroughly cooked inside.
]                                                                Marshall

  Myth!
  Microwaves, like plain old heat, cook from the outside in.  Don't
think so?  Take a frozen dinner that would normally take 7 minutes
to cook and cook it for only 2 or 3 minutes.  If what you say is true
then the middle of the food should be warm or hot while the
outside is frozen.  In fact, the opposite is true.

  Ref the microwave transmission of energy, what the other guy said
is true enough.  The energy density of the microwaves transmitted
to the rectenna would not be high enough to hurt anyone.  The land
could even be slated for dual use - grazing cattle under the rectenna
for example.  Since a rectenna is pretty much a grid of wires the
prescence of one wouldn't block sunlight.

   Arthur in >---(oo)---> Hollywood             (ArtKi@KBBS.COM)
   Written 1/8/95 - Who knows when it will show up...
---
 ~ SPEED 1.40 #2164 ~


--
    [*]   Message Origin:  KBBS Los Angeles!  74 Access Lines   [*]
    [*]   (818) 886-0872 or Telnet 204.96.25.7  info@kbbs.com   [*]



cudkeys:
cuddy08 cudenartki cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.09 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Griggs, Chaos and QM
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs, Chaos and QM
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 11:42:57 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On Fri, 6 Jan 1995, MARSHALL DUDLEY wrote:

> Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk> writes:
>  
> -> You are describing turbulent flow, a much studied phenomenon. Couette-Taylor
> -> flow has also been much studied. Why do you think the water molecules
> -> must be spinning, rather than just whizzing about? Turbulent fluids,
> -> including water, have been observed for a long time, at Reynolds
> -> numbers rather higher, I am sure, than are achieved in the Griggs device.
> -> Why has noone seen free-lunch energy before, I wonder? Dare I suggest
> -> that it is because there isn't any?
>  
> Because that is the nature of fractuals, as you magnify more and more, you keep
> seeing the same pattern ever smaller.  That part is not in dispute, it has been
> proven many times by chaos experiments, and is supported by theory and math.
> Large swirls are seen, thus by chaos theory you should expect to find an ever
> decreasing size of whirls, as the bifurcations split and multiply the whirls.
>  

You have two problems here. One is the fact that as you decrease the scale,
turbulent intensity also decreases (the famous -5/3 power law in log-log
plots of the power spectrum of a turbulent flow), so at very small scales,
the intensity is very small. The other problem is below a certain scale,
turbulence stops and viscosity takes over. Below this scale, the motion of
fluid elements, on local scales, is presumably dominated by thermal, 
diffusional effects. So your idea of ever smaller eddies, rotating ever 
faster, is wrong. The only remotely feasible mechanism to explain the Griggs
machine I have seen is cavitation, akin to what Steve Jones is now studying.
This would of course be micro-hot fusion, and at the excess heat rates 
claimed, everybody would be dead from radiation. I think we can discount as
quite ridiculous such exotic drag-ins as ZPE. Invoking ZPE is no different
from invoking magic; both are scientifically unproductive. As with 
Benveniste's claims for homeopathy, or Geller's spoon bending, my 
attitude to over-unity devices is that they are either hoaxes or errors.

-- Dieter Britz  alias  britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.09 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Griggs, Chaos and QM
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs, Chaos and QM
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 12:26:50 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On Sat, 7 Jan 1995, MARSHALL DUDLEY wrote:

[...]  
> Using a very high viscosity material (bread dough) I placed it in a mixer bowl
> and tried creating a turbulent flow with one mixer blade in a bowl which I did
> not allow to turn.  The mixer strained, almost unable to turn the blade, and I
> saw the typical folding which occurs in chaotic motion.  The losses were very
> high.
>  
> I then placed the second blade in the mixer, and freed the bowl so that it
> could turn and match the velocity of the outer vortex at the contact point.
>  
> In this case two counter rotating vortexes appeared, each centered on a mixer
> blade. I saw very little folding, and the mixer ran with much lower load,
> telling me that the frictional losses were much less.  Each vortex remained
> almost like a ball, and the friction appeared to be more like a rolling
> friction than viscosity.
>  

Did you monitor for radiation with a Geiger counter?

-- Dieter Britz  alias  britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.09 / The polymath /  Re: Free Energy Device - leave it out of sci.bio
     
Originally-From: russ@m-net.arbornet.org (The polymath)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.bio,sci.energy,sci.energy.h
drogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.
hysics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device - leave it out of sci.bio
Date: 9 Jan 1995 12:22:43 GMT
Organization: M-Net, America's First Public Access Unix BBS

In article <3epip1$c1v@news.infoserve.net>,
Richard Green <alpha@unix.infoserve.net> wrote:
>I Also must agree with this. Nature does not know where the boundries of 
>the scientific disiplines are drawn.  The universe incorperates all 
>phenomenon under just one heading, "natural phenomenon". 

But that is not how humans categorize their interests and organize
their time, which is limited.  Have some respect for that.

>If this MRA 
>device is fact, then surely it will take  more than physics, chemistry, or 
>any ONE disipline to fully understand and explain it.

Assuming that there is anything to explain.  This has yet to be
demonstrated convincingly.

>As far as I am concerned, nothing but good can come from people sharing 
>their discoveries with as many people as possible.

As far as *I* am concerned, nothing but ill can come from littering
newsgroups devoted to completely unrelated subjects with "news" of
"discoveries" of no interest to the vast majority of the readers of
those newsgroups.  If the readers are interested and have the time,
_t_h_e_y will find _y_o_u.

Pursuing people across newsgroups with this stuff is much closer to
religious proselytizing in a mall full of shoppers than scientific
discourse.  Have some respect for the other people on the net and
trim the Newsgroups: line to only those which are relevant.

I've radically pruned the follow-ups.  Good bye.
--
Russ Cage		| Forewarned is half an octopus
russ@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us, russ%rsi.uucp@destroyer.rs.itd.umich.edu
	Engineer for hire.  Inquire at this address.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenruss cudfnThe cudlnpolymath cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.09 / Peter Gosden /  Re: Crop Circles: A New Theory
     
Originally-From: Peter Gosden <ppxpjg@ppn1.physics.nottingham.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Crop Circles: A New Theory
Date: 9 Jan 1995 13:08:28 GMT
Organization: Cripps Computing Centre, The University of Nottingham

> In article <3ek11c$blm@infa.central.susx.ac.uk>,
> Kiran <K.Reval@sussex.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> >Has anyone ever thought that the mystery may not come from the outside 
> >(plasma vortices, tornados, yes and even UFOs), but from the inside 
> >of the earth?
> >
> >Any (serious) ideas, additions, refutations on this? 
 
> Please tell me this a subtle dig at some of the more
> ridiculuous discussions going on in this newsgroup.
 
> Please.
> 
> You *do* know what actually causes crop circles, don't you?

There was a guy interviewed on British TV who said that it was
him and his mates having a laugh on Friday nights when their wives
thought they were in the pub. Apparently the whole thing took off
when they confessed to their wives, and the whole lot of them would
take off around the country any time in the week (which they did for
several years). 

All you need is a hefty stick with a pair of handles attached and a
good sense of geometry (the time lapse sequence was quite impressive).
The length of your stick keeps the circles perfect, and voila! daft
discussions about plasma vortices in sci.physics.fusion!  :-)

Pete
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenppxpjg cudfnPeter cudlnGosden cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.09 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Crop Circles: A New Theory
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Crop Circles: A New Theory
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 95 09:01:04 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Peter Gosden <ppxpjg@ppn1.physics.nottingham.ac.uk> writes:
 
>There was a guy interviewed on British TV who said that it was
>him and his mates having a laugh on Friday nights when their wives
>thought they were in the pub. Apparently the whole thing took off
>when they confessed to their wives, and the whole lot of them would
>take off around the country any time in the week (which they did for
>several years). 
 
These people may or may not have created some crop circles by hand. I cannot
judge. It may be that all crop circles are made by hand; again, I do not
know, I do not have enough information. But one thing is certain: the people
who "confessed" to making crop circles on British TV could not possibly
have made all crop circles that have ever ben see. Two reasons: there
are reliable reports from the 18th and 19th centuries; and on many occasions
crop circles have appeared at widely separated geographical areas
simultaneously, in England and on the continent. So, if crop circles are
all made by hand then different people must be making them and they must have
been doing it for centuries, perhaps as part of an underground religeous
cult or something like that. (Who knows? People are capable of anything.)
 
I myself have no idea what might cause crop circles, and I am not particularly
interested in finding out. It is inherently difficult to find the cause or
random events in uncontrolled conditions outside the laboratory.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.09 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Borrowing a scope + Grigg's customers.
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Borrowing a scope + Grigg's customers.
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 95 09:01:51 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

sam@colossus.stdavids.picker.com (Sam Goldwasser) writes:
 
     ". . .while Jed repeatedly mentions satisfied customers with reduced
     electric bills, he or Griggs are not willing to provide any of their
     names."
 
Griggs is quite willing to provide names, I am not.
 
 
     "I apologize if Jed has given us the names of some customers and I have
     missed them.
 
Apology accepted. I discussed data from the County Police Department which has
a GG at their headquarters.
 
 
     "However, I recall at least one response where he simply stated that
     Griggs does not release such information."
 
A vivid imagination at work! Nobody, anywhere ever stated that. It is not
true. Griggs does give out names of customers, but I do not because it is none
of my business. I never post messages irrelevant to science about private
business matters. If you want information about Griggs beyond what I post, you
should contact him directly.
 
 
     "So, what gives? . . .  2. The customers have been told they are saving
     energy but have not actually done the measurements."
 
This is preposterous.
 
 
     "5. There really are no customers. . . . 6. This is all smoke and
     mirrors and none of the claims are valid."
 
This is libelous.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.10 / Richard Blue /  Re: measuring that lever
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: measuring that lever
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 01:15:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Have I been "grasping at straws"?  I don't thinks.  I have finally
gotten Jed Rothwell to put it in writing!

<< I can hold a yardstick on a metal arm (as I did) and probably >>
<< measure from the center of the shaft to the end to within a   >>
<< fraction of an inch even without a micrometer.                >>

Now it is perfectly clear that all the talk about micrometers and
the skills of Jed's grandfather were just more smoke.  When you get
right down to the facts, Jed held a yardstick on the lever and
eyeballed the end points "to within a fraction of an inch."  I gave
an estimate of that fraction as being roughly 0.5 inches.  Jed
thinks he did better.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.10 / Richard Blue /  Strange feature of Griggs data?
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Strange feature of Griggs data?
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 01:16:15 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Having never seen a sample of the data on the Griggs device, I can nevertheless
construct a picture of what I think it looks like.  This is my current
thinking:

When the GG is cold and water is first admitted, the viscosity is at its
maximum, and the power drawn by the motor is at its maximum.  This
is confirmed by the reading of the dynamometer.

Then the onset of cavitation occurs, the device gets noisier, the
water gets hotter, and the load on the motor goes down - moving
to an operating point of lower electrical efficiency.  Measurements
of the heat output (hot water only) indicate a possible modest
excess.

As a result of continued running the GG temperature is further elevated
until watering entering the pump quickly boils and exits as steam.
Under these conditions there is somekind of two-phase froth in the
pump chamber and the effective rate of energy transfer from the mechanical
motion to heat is further reduced.  The load on the motor is now
minimum, and its electrical operating point is one of reduced efficiency.
The dynamometer confirms the reduced power transfer.

The pump is now said to be operating at maximum efficiency - over unity
in fact.  However, I am not sure we have ever heard whether the output power
actually rises at any point during the startup process.  There is, of
course, the question of stored energy to be dealt with.

If there is, in fact, some point at which some unknown process begins to
contribute to the power output what signature would you look for in the
data?  How can you tell when the GG is working?  Is the only evidence
indicating over-unity operation associated with a reduction of
the input power rather than a rise in the output?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
when? / Dan Schwarcz /      
Originally-From: Dan_Schwarcz@ccmail.gsfc.nasa.gov (Dan Schwarcz)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.energy,sci.energy.hydrogen,
ci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.

Subject: Re: Free Energy Device - leave it out of sci.bio
Date: 9 Jan 1995 19:59:58 GMT
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center -- Greenbelt, Maryland USA

In article <3epip1$c1v@news.infoserve.net>, alpha@unix.infoserve.net
(Richard Green) says:
>
>Mohamed Nagi (bhja@Musicb.McGill.Ca) wrote:
>: In article <witkowsk.1139558277J@cshl.org>
>: witkowsk@cshl.org (j a witkowski) writes:
>
>: > Are there any other biologists out there who feel that this is an
>: > inappropriate thread for sci.bio?
>
>: Dear sir,
>
>: I don't agree with you. I beleive this thread is appropriate for any
>: science  group. 

In other words, how dare we try to break up into discussion groups on subjects
that interest us, and object to some jerk crossposting his rantings to anyone
and everyone?

>: This Thread is not about discussing the particluars of
>: the MRA device, as much as it is about discussing the philosophy of
>: Scince in general. 

Only because a few people who know how ridiculously stupid and inapropriate
this idiotic MRA scam is tried to explain it to the rest of the group;  the
effort clearly failed, and the nonsense continues to be shoved down our
throats by those who are perpetrating the scam and those gullible enough
to consider it something other than a scam.

>: In fact, being a scientist in trainning, I enjoy
>: reading this thread very much (albeit not in all times) because it
>: brings out various issues , e.g., skeptisism, open mindness, arrogance
>: , ignorance, stubborness etc. These isuues pertains to all scientific
>: investigations in virtually any investigative field. 

If you are interested in this type of thread, there are groups such as .skeptics
and alt.energy specifically devoted to this type of discussion.  It does NOT
belong in the groups devoted to such subjects as materials science or biology,
any more than it belongs in cooking or skiing newsgroups.


>: this thread will just die by itself after a while when it
>: will no longer be informative to read.

It was not informative from the first!!!   Any examination of the supposed 
memos discussing this invention clearly demonstrate that this is a stupid joke
being carried on far too long.  Ramblings about superconductivity in house
wiring caused by "virtual particles" building up and popping 60 watt bulbs...
Zippy The Pinhead couldn't have written non-sequitors more mindless and 
idiotic.  That anyone takes this seriously speaks poorly for their understanding
of the very basics of science, and that they can then try to lecture real
scientists about being "open minded" regarding this idiocy shows an arrogance
that matches their ignorance.  But none of that belongs in groups that are
not interested in discussing perpetual motion machines or proposals to 
rewrite all of mankind's accumulated knowledge.  Sci.materials is about 
materials science, and there's enough real stuff to talk about in that 
subject without adding irrelevant and unrelated perpetual motion fantasy shit.

>I Also must agree with this. Nature does not know where the boundries of 
>the scientific disiplines are drawn. The universe incorperates all 
>phenomenon under just one heading, "natural phenomenon". 

The Internet does not.  I don't want to read about geology, and geologists don't
necessarily want to read about C++ programming.  What part of this don't you
understand?

>If this MRA 
>device is fact, then surely it will take  more than physics, chemistry, or 
>any ONE disipline to fully understand and explain it. 

If pigs could fly, we'd have to clean pigshit off our windshields.  And it 
would take more than one discipline to fully understand or explain it.  I 
suggest you spend more time worrying about pigs flying than the relatively
less likely prospect that this MRA device is "fact."

>Having an open mind 
>is of paramount importance when you are seeking to do real science. 

It's pretty clear that if you read the previous discussion on this, you didn't
internalize it.  Real science is *not* about keeping an open mind to any and
all crackpot ravings that contradict all experimental and theoretical
knowledge.  Real science is about being skeptical but willing to be convinced
by proof and reproduceability.  An open mind is not the same as an empty mind.

>think of what relativity theory sounded like before Einstien, 

This too has been discussed ad nauseum in this thread, and your point 
disproved again and again.  Please reread the thread you insist is so
educational and informative - if even the few historical and scientific
facts in the thread eluded you, how informative could it have been?

>As far as I am concerned, nothing but good can come from people sharing 
>their discoveries with as many people as possible. The Internet's 
>capability of bringing messages like this to all scientific disiplines is 
>precicely what it is intended to do. 

Ah, information glut and having to plow through 50 articles to find one
or two on the subject of the newsgroup is what you think is "nothing but
good"?  Friend, you have a lot of time on your hands.

Dan Schwarcz
Losing patience.
cudkeys:
cudenDan_Schwarcz cudfnDan cudlnSchwarcz cudszL 
------------------------------
1995.01.09 /  federico /  New Quantum Theory
     
Originally-From: federico@onr.com (federico)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: New Quantum Theory
Date: 9 Jan 1995 20:13:05 GMT
Organization: Onramp Access, Inc.



Dear Physic Enthusiasts,

As a marketing company we were approached by an individual in Austin,
Texas who has been pursuing high level physic research for many years.  John
R. Barnes is approximately 70 years of age and asked that our company make
his research finding available to those on the Internet.

We have scanned in 10 pages in Compuserve GIF format that can be
downloaded from the FTP site at onr.com in the bin\etc\federico subdirectory,
file name barnes.zip.  Mr. Barnes would like to correspond by letters to those
who find his research findings of interest.  He can only be contacted via snail
mail, so electronic mail is not possible.  

Jack R Barnes
Post Office Box 1135
Georgetown, Texas 78627

If you know of any other individuals in the high-level physics field that would
be interested, feel free for them to write to Mr. Barnes directly for a printed
version of his research findings.  I have included below, part of the cover letter
for those on the Internet.

Regards,

Federico Brown


Internet Interactive Marketing
5910 Courtyard Drive
Suite 150
Austin, Texas 78731

January 5, 1994

 ------------------------------cut here--------------------------------------------------


To All Searchers for Cosmic Truth:


For several years I have researched the nature of cosmic existence and my
work is now essentially complete.  Enclosed is a very concise account of my
conclusions. You will note that the mathematical content is essentially nil.  The
fundamental nature of the cosmos is exceedingly simple and profusely
interconnected.  To obtain brevity many conclusions are omitted.

Numbers quantifying the fundamental cosmic constant are quantized and
interrelated by quantum number-base 10.  These quantum numbers are exact
and may be extended to c-4 (10-42) digits.  For example, quantum h may be
exactly quantified in terms of quantum number c.  This is permitted by the fact
that c2h2 = 10 and that c2 exactly equals 8.98755 17945 09739 00000 --- x
10-20c m2/s2. The location of the decimal point must be hand inserted to fit
man-made dimensions.

Very clearly the Universe is a system of elaborate design by an infinite
intelligence beyond human concept.  This intelligence is embedded within the
singular nonlocal holographic Quantum and is instantaneously accessible to
each subatomic particle within the Cosmos.

The singular nonlocal Quantum appears in a variety of differing aspects that
comprise the whole of existence.  Cosmic space-time and all matter contained
within, continually fluctuates synchronistically at the maximum frequency c4
(10-42Hz) from primary Quantum state to secondary Physical state. This
fluctuation generates nonlocal Quantum energy-time which is the absolute
source of all cosmic mass and energy.  Quantum energy-time is nothing but
that inscrutable attribute that we designate as "consciousness." The mysteries
of existence are totally revealed by the nature of the nonlocal Quantum and its
physical counterpart, the Photon. The Quantum-Photon and its retinue of
particles and fields completely define and constitute the nature of the cosmic
whole.  The universal process is consciousness.  The Quantum is the quantum
of consciences.  The animate brains has evolved to interact with and to utilize
the cosmic field of consciousness to advance all civilizations of the Universe.

Nature has provided sufficient clues to permit an exact quantification of the
Universe and each fundamental subdivision from the Quantum to the Unified
Field. Quarks within the proton are simply Quantum-Photon-Electron+.  Please
note that the fine structure constant alpha and its reciprocal 1/@ have been
exactly quantified by cosmic numbers substantiated by six fundamental
attributes. This cosmic concurrence lends an absolute validity to the
correctness and precision of the quantification.  Your review and comments are
appreciated.

Sincerely,

Jack R. Barnes

 ------------------------------cut here--------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenfederico cudlnfederico cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.09 / Richard Schultz /  Re: New Quantum Theory
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: New Quantum Theory
Date: 9 Jan 1995 20:30:00 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <3es5ch$qm6@sierra.onr.com>, federico <federico@onr.com> wrote:

>Your review and comments are appreciated.
>
>Jack R. Barnes

I think that a discussion between Mr. Barnes and Archimedes Plutonium
would be most illuminating, especially if it were moderated by Jack
Sarfatti.
--
					Richard Schultz

"How many boards would the Mongols hoard if the Mongol hordes got bored?"
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.09 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Does it really matter who believes what?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does it really matter who believes what?
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 95 16:58:12 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

MARSHALL DUDLEY <mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com> writes:
 
>This doesn't really belong in fusion, but since you brought it up let me point
>out some discrepencies in your argument.  First, if the energy levels at ground
>level were only high enough to cause a sunburn, then the energy levels would be
>no higher than plain old sunlight, which can itself cause a sunburn.  If this
>were true, there would be no advantage for the space stuff at all.
 
Well, that is not quite right either. I do not think the space based
technology will ever be cost effective, but I think this reasoning is
technically wrong. If the energy levels of a microwave beam only carried
enough energy to cause a sunburn (let us suppose) the technology might
still be viable for the following reasons:
 
The technology to convert microwaves to electricity might be more efficient
or much cheaper than photoelectric chips. I do not recall if it is cheaper
or not.
 
The microwave beam would continue day and night, whereas sunlight is only
available half the time. I believe the microwave beam would also penetrate
cloudy weather better.
 
If the collectors on the earth could also be used to concentrate and use
solar energy, so much the better. You would then have a gigantic "dual
use" array, that would generate twice as much energy during the day as at
night. Actually, this would be ideal, because there is more demand for
electricity during the day. You would have "one sunburn" worth of energy
at night, and "two sunburn units" of energy during the day.
 
Still, as I said, it is not a viable technology. Especially compared to CF.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.09 / John Logajan /  Re: Going Alone?
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Going Alone?
Date: 9 Jan 1995 23:04:40 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Tom Droege (Droege@fnal.fnal.gov) wrote:
: Someone raised the question of a confidentiality agreement.  
: I will sign such an agreement as I think Jim Griggs is entitled
: to protection of his ideas.  But I will not go if it is so 
: restrictive as to prevent a proper report here.

To the best of my knowledge, this is a non-issue.  Griggs already holds the
patent on his device (the text of which and photos of which are available at
the WWW url in my sig below.) 

As far as I am aware, the Griggs device has been fully described in Jed's
article in the issue of "Cold Fusion" Magazine -- there are no secrets.
The device is pretty simple and straight-forward.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 - WWW URL =  http://www.skypoint.com/subscribers/jlogajan -
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.09 /  PrinceMike /  Nuclear Engineering or Nuclear Physics or Physics?
     
Originally-From: princemike@aol.com (PrinceMike)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nuclear Engineering or Nuclear Physics or Physics?
Date: 9 Jan 1995 18:07:03 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

     I'm looking for some advice pertaining to my major in college.  I've
completed the first two years of an engineering curriculum and now must
decide on a major before I transfer to a four-year school.
    My current line of thought goes like this:  If I get an nuclear
engineering degree I could probably work in industry(nuclear power plants)
or research just the same.    I am kind of drawn to doing fusion research,
not neccessarily cold fusion though.  The work currently being done at
Princeton seems very intersesting.  But would a degree in physics or
nuclear physics be more beneficial there?  My fear is that if I get one of
these academic type degrees than I'll be less attractive to industry and
be stuck doing research even if I find out I don't enjoy it ten years down
the road.  This question is made harder given the decreased financial
support of research and the proprosed elimination of the Energy Department
all together by the new Congress.
     I should note that I am a graduate of the Navy's Nuclear Propulsion
program so I do have some background in the engineering line of work.
     Any advice?
                                                      Mike H.
                                                      PrinceMike@aol.com
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenprincemike cudlnPrinceMike cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Jan 10 04:37:04 EST 1995
------------------------------
