1995.01.15 / jedrothwell@de / Re: The Wright Bros. & the "skeptics" Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: The Wright Bros. & the "skeptics" Date: Sun, 15 Jan 95 18:15:27 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) I wrote that I do not know about the early N.Y. Times articles on CF and that I don't pay much attention to newspapers. Jim Carr , who apparently pays more attention to newspapers than to peer reviewed scientific literature, writes: "I guess that is what makes you such an expert on them." You have missed the point, Jim. I am *not* an expert on newspapers. I don't pay much attention to them. You "skeptics" often refer to newspaper accounts of CF as if the newspapers were a valid source of scientific information. You are wrong about that: the newspapers are full of malarky. Pure bunk. I don't know much about newspaper science reports, but I do know that whenever you compare the actual scientific papers to the newspaper version, you see that the newspaper version is a gross oversimplification, altogether lacking in detailed technical information, and usually flat out wrong about the few details that are mentioned. The descriptions of experiments that I have compared to the real thing have been so distorted and truncated that I long ago decided I should never rely on newspapers for any important information. Richard was kind enough to post the N.Y. Times descriptions of the Wrights from 1903 and 1907. That was a perfect example of bosh, nonsense, distortion, and half-assed, uninformed reporting. Anyone who has read a book on the Wrights can find a half dozen gross errors in those columns. That means, of course, that the Times reporter back in '07 was too lazy to contact the Wrights to get the straight dope. Instead of doing his homework (or "legwork" as reporters called it back then) he decided to print half-baked rumors instead. Now, as I said, I do not know much about newspapers or reporters, and I seldom pay attention to them. On the other hand I used to hang around the press offices in Japan and I do know a lot of people including journalists. Plus I have talked to many so-called "science journalists" in the U.S. I am no expert, but my impression is that they are as lazy and uninformed today as they were back in 1907. Some of them are very, very sharp people -- and excellent scientists. But most of them will print a stupid rumor or a garbled account of an experiment as if was the truth, because they cannot judge the difference. They are busy, they don't have time to learn the details or try the experiments themselves. They talk to these spin doctors and propaganda agents like Morrison and Huizenga, and they print up whatever line of bullshit those people feed them. That is exactly what they did back in 1907. They would go out and talk to some fruitcake scientist who had "mathematically proved" you cannot fly, and then they printed this nonsensical statement up as if it was the truth. That is why the N.Y. Times concluded that it would take a million mathemeticians a million years to build an airplane. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy15 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.13 / Mark Fernee / Re: The Wright Bros. & the "skeptics" Originally-From: fernee@physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: The Wright Bros. & the "skeptics" Date: 13 Jan 1995 00:45:41 GMT Organization: University of Queensland jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote: : : bothered to check. That was not the only evidence they ignored! The U.S. : "skeptics" of that era continued to assert that airplanes were impossible for : years after that. On August 8, 1908 Wilbur Wright flew near Paris, France, and : Using the Wright Bros. as an example of mindless skepticism is just a ploy to give CF credibility. The Wrights may have been the first to build an man made flying machine, but then birds had been flying for millions of years. So the word "impossible" is hardly credible given the abundance of evidence to the contrary. I think you are ignoring the differences in skeptical arguement. The people here seldom use blatant assertion, but logical and scientific arguement. Some of the people here have worked in CF and have found negative results. You say they are incompetent and they inturn say that the other reports are either logically or experimentally flawed. In due time, the "truth" will be known. The field may be a dead end or maybe not, that is the nature of research. Even a null result can be a good result. Mark. cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenfernee cudfnMark cudlnFernee cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.13 / Mark Fernee / Re: Warning to Mark Fernee Originally-From: fernee@physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Warning to Mark Fernee Date: 13 Jan 1995 03:48:17 GMT Organization: University of Queensland Eugene Mallove (76570.2270@compuserve.com) wrote: : Mark Fernee of the University of Queensland posted this garbage about me: [ my unwarranted sleight to Eugene's good name deleted] : Check your facts first, Bozo, before you vomit "idyll speculation" onto this : forum. : For any in this audience who may have been influenced by the drivel from : Fernee: I have a doctorate in engineering (Sc.D.) from Harvard University : (Harvard School of Public Health). From 1971 through 1975 I studied at the : Harvard School of Public Health, working on air pollution control engineering : in the Dept. of Environmental Health Sciences. My Sc.D. thesis was: "Aerosol : Measurement by Combined Light Scattering and Centrifugation." This was a : highly successful experimental/theoretcial effort to measure particle size : distributions *in situ* in a rotating sedimentation chamber of my own : invention, which employed light scattering and data inversion algorithms to : reveal particle size distributions. The work was subsequently published in the : peer-reviewed scientific literature: Mallove, E.F. and Hinds, W.C., "Aerosol : Measurement by Combined Light Scattering and Centrifugation," Journal of : Aerosol Science, 1976, Vol.7, 409-423. : I also have two engineering degrees from MIT, S.B (1969) Dept. of Aeronautics : and Astronautics and S.M. (1970) same department. Masters thesis was : experimental work too: "A Cyclone Containment Model of the Liquid Core Nuclear : Rocket." : In short, Mark Fernee is the Crackpot, not Gene Mallove. Q.E.D. I am sorry that you took offence, Eugene. I thank you for straightening my facts on this point. I'll not straighten your facts as to whether I am a crackpot or not, because that is a matter of personal opinion, the truth being rather subjective. You do have a bad temper, Eugene. This explains your observed propensity to visciously attack both the reputations and accomplishments of other people in this forum, who, to their credit, usually refrain from retributive replies. Pathological belief is as bad as pathological skepticism. Let the process of scientific endevour pass judgement on CF. No one in this forum has the ability to either absolutely establish or absolutely refute CF. It will stand or fall on its own merit. I'd like to think that scientists like Steve Jones would gladly eat their hats if CF were to be established beyond reasonable doubt. That is the nature of scientific objectivism. Mark. PS I am honoured that you have taken the time to level your sights on li'l ol' me. cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenfernee cudfnMark cudlnFernee cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.15 / RobertBass / Re: Free Energy Device Originally-From: robertbass@aol.com (RobertBass) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Free Energy Device Date: 15 Jan 1995 20:43:47 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) My derivation of Planck's constant provides the "exact" known value of the former, multiplied by uncertainty factors equivalent to the uncertainties in our knowledge of the mean density of the universe, in terms of which the value of Hubble's constant is usually stated (as in Peeble's book). What is remarkable is to have proved that one gets the right order of magnitude for the Planck constant from the current cosmological data. I should have stated my result better: the _exact_ value of Planck's constant, as measured by microphysics, lies within the interval which is prescribed by my use of cosmological data, as measured by astronomers. Bob Bass (Dr. Robert W. Bass), former Prof. of Physics, of Aerospace, of EE, & of Systems Engineering; now Registered Patent Agent 29,130. P.O. Box 6337, Thousand Oaks, CA 91359-6337 Voicemail: (818) 377-4471 E-mail: robertbass@aol.com cudkeys: cuddy15 cudenrobertbass cudlnRobertBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.15 / RobertBass / Re: Hot fusion Originally-From: robertbass@aol.com (RobertBass) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Hot fusion Date: 15 Jan 1995 21:28:44 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) There are excellent books available which provide what you seek. Two relatively recent books available in pb are Tom Dolan's "Fusion Research" (1982) and Reece Roth's "Intr. to Fusion Energy" (1986). Bob Bass (Dr. Robert W. Bass), former Prof. of Physics, of Aerospace, of EE, & of Systems Engineering; now Registered Patent Agent 29,130. P.O. Box 6337, Thousand Oaks, CA 91359-6337 Voicemail: (818) 377-4471 E-mail: robertbass@aol.com cudkeys: cuddy15 cudenrobertbass cudlnRobertBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.16 / an176059@anon. / Re: ideas & copyrights (Was ... A. Pu) Originally-From: an176059@anon.penet.fi Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: ideas & copyrights (Was ... A. Pu) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 03:23:16 UTC Organization: Anonymous contact service In article <3f4mmf$3c4@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes: > I strongly believe I have to give this warning of copyright >infringements. Dear Sir: A copyright infringement occurs only when the actual words are copied; *ideas* are absolutely *not* subject to any form of copyright protection; that is what patents are for. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi. Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized, and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned. Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi. cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenan176059 cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.15 / artki@kbbs.com / Cold Fusion Project... Please Help Originally-From: artki@kbbs.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Cold Fusion Project... Please Help Date: Sun, 15 Jan 95 15:02:36 EST Organization: KBBS - Internet & Files via Satellite ] Hello. I'm a high school student from Colonel By S.S., Ottawa ]Canada ] and I am doing a project on cold fusion. ]Derf of Ottawa, Canada. Five out of three people have ]E-mail: trouble with fractions. ]as969@freenet.carleton.ca Before you worry about acquiring palladium or heavy water I would suggest you read the book, "Bad Science" by G Taubes (I might remember the name wrong). Arthur in >---(oo)---> Hollywood (ArtKi@KBBS.COM) Written 1/15/95 - 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: cuddy15 cudenartki cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.16 / Thomas Kunich / Re: The Wright Bros. & the "skeptics" Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: The Wright Bros. & the "skeptics" Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 06:13:45 GMT Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) In article , wrote: >Thomas H. Kunich writes: > >>OK Jed! Then tell us where that water heater is! > >Hydro Dynamics, Inc., Rome, Georgia. > >- Jed This is the thermos bottle sized water heater that anyone could put in their house and would supply their entire hot water needs for pennies? Or are you telling us about a unit that _you_ say supplies excess energy in great quantities as long as you are supplying it with input energy? When is this Griggs machine going to run without input power? cudkeys: cuddy16 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.16 / Thomas Kunich / Re: The Wright Bros. & the "skeptics" Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: The Wright Bros. & the "skeptics" Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 06:17:22 GMT Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) In article , wrote: >You have missed the point, Jim. I am *not* an expert on newspapers. I don't >pay much attention to them. You "skeptics" often refer to newspaper accounts >of CF as if the newspapers were a valid source of scientific information. >You are wrong about that: the newspapers are full of malarky. Pure bunk. Yet Fleischman and Pons decided to produce scientific history by press release instead of by scientific research paper. And after five years they still haven't put anything more compelling into a paper than they did with their press releases. cudkeys: cuddy16 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.16 / Thomas Lockyer / Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator Originally-From: lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph sics.accelerators Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator Date: 16 Jan 1995 07:48:49 GMT Organization: Silicon Valley Public Access Link Frank J. Nagy:VAX Wizard&Loose Cannon (nagy@fndcd.fnal.gov) wrote: : In article <12JAN95.16252048@sbnslj.physics.sunysb.edu>, widmer@sbnslj physics.sunysb.edu (Mark Widmer) writes: : > It is amazing just how weak that interaction is, and how appropriate the : > actual term "weak interaction" is. I have read that a beam of neutrinos : > could go through something like a light-year thickness of lead before that : > beam had reached 1/2 of it's initial intensity. It boggles the mind that : > present-day detectors, which use water and are the size of a large room, : > detect them at all. For every neutrino detected, there must be very large number here> more that are not seen. : The reason is that the neutrino cross section goes up as E**2 (energy : of the neutrino) - assuming that my memory is still working. The statement : about "light-year thickness of lead" is true for low energy neutrinos : like those coming from beta decays of nuclei. Particle accelerators : (and Fermilab in particular) product very high energy neutrino beams, : something on the order of 10**4 or 10**5 greater energy - the cross : section is now larger by 10**8 to 10**10 so a neutrino experiment : can see a reasonable event rate from the secondary beam. Note that : the number of neutrinos in the beam is quite small - by comparison : to the number emitted by the Sun (or supposedly emitted by the Sun) : and that the detectors typically have several thousand tons of : steel, scintillator and/or water. How can the cross section increase with energy. I suspect what is happening is that more stray gammas and neutrons get through the shield, at higher and higher energy to give the delusion of increased cross section. : On the other hand, the existance of neutrinos was verified by : their detection from an operating nuclear reactor. The cross : section was low (low energy remember), the detector was small : by comparison, but the reactor pumps out a *lot* of neutrinos : per second. Well, they got about as many *events* with and without the reactor on. Then when you shield the detector in deep mines you see nothing that could not have been background. The claimed neutrino events are likely background from cosmic rays or contamination from the accelerators. If it wasn't for the muon and muon decay into electrons, deep detectors would not see anything. The *so called* 51CR intense source for neutrinos to calibrate the Gallex experiment is mostly gammas, so that could give false positives, during calibration. The neutrinos exist, but the claims for their detection are all suspect, because the *events* can be background. No known particle can have a cross section that *increases* with energy. Particles feel surroundings by their DeBroglie wavelengths, and wavelengths always get smaller with energy so the crossections *decrease* with eneergy. Particle theory is out of control, it seems to me, if we can believe that cross sections for the neutrino *increase* with energy. What is the mechanism? Regards: Tom. -- Thomas N. Lockyer 1611 Fallen Leaf Lane Los Altos, CA USA 94024-6212 Tel. (415)967-9550 cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenlockyer cudfnThomas cudlnLockyer cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ when? / Van / Originally-From: vanjac@netcom.com (Van) Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.energy,sci.energy.hydrogen, ci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics. Subject: cancel Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 08:07:14 GMT Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) was cancelled from within trn. -- Van - Internet address - vanjac@netcom.com cudkeys: cudenvanjac cudlnVan cudszS ------------------------------ 1995.01.16 / Dieter Britz / Re: Cold Fusion Project... Please Help Originally-From: Dieter Britz Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Project... Please Help Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 10:01:20 +0100 Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University On Sun, 15 Jan 1995 artki@kbbs.com wrote: > > ] Hello. I'm a high school student from Colonel By S.S., Ottawa > ]Canada > ] and I am doing a project on cold fusion. > > ]Derf of Ottawa, Canada. Five out of three people have > ]E-mail: trouble with fractions. > ]as969@freenet.carleton.ca > > Before you worry about acquiring palladium or heavy water I would > suggest you read the book, "Bad Science" by G Taubes (I might remember > the name wrong). No, don't discourage the bloke. By all means, read the book, and the other books about CNF by Huizenga, Close and - yes - Mallove. But why not do the experiment? You don't need expensive materials if you choose the light water nickel scenario, as good as any other. To get the recipe, read, e.g., the paper by Mills and Kneizys in Fusion Technology Vol 20, 1991, p 65- "Excess heat production...". The calorimetry might be hard but all in all you will learn a lot just by trying the experiment. You are right on with Ni, as you see; it is indeed able to absorb hydrogen (or deuterium), although not as fast. If you or your teacher can't get that paper, email me. On second thought, you might still need a Pt anode, so you'll still be gulping; sorry. Maybe you can borrow one. Is there maybe a Pt crucible in the lab? -- Dieter Britz alias britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.16 / Jeffrey Templon / Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator Originally-From: templon@paramount.nikhefk.nikhef.nl (Jeffrey Templon) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph sics.accelerators Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 10:02:42 GMT Organization: NIKHEFK Thomas Lockyer writes: > The neutrinos exist, but the claims for their detection are all suspect, > because the *events* can be background. No known particle can have a > cross section that *increases* with energy. Particles feel surroundings > by their DeBroglie wavelengths, and wavelengths always get smaller with > energy so the crossections *decrease* with eneergy. Particle theory is > out of control, it seems to me, if we can believe that cross sections for > the neutrino *increase* with energy. What is the mechanism? You've got it half right. The DeBroglie wavelength gets smaller, so cross sections decrease because of that. However, a cross section contains something called a phase-space factor, which usually *increases* with energy. Furthermore, as energy increases, the number of various reaction channels increases, and each new channel adds to the cross section, tending to increase it. I'm not a high-energy theorist; one of those may be able to give you yet another reason why the neutrino cross section increases with energy. I'll give you an example case for which I know something about: proton-scattering cross sections. At low proton incident energies, the scattering is dominated by resonance effects. This means that at some proton energies, the total energy of the proton + target nucleus is very close to that of an unbound state in the (A+1,Z+1) system (the nucleus you'd get by adding one proton to the target nucleus.) For these states you often see a sharp peak in the cross section. At energies in between these "resonance" energies, you see a much smaller cross section. Thus the cross section fluctuates wildly versus energy at these energies. Low proton energy here means in the range 0-8 MeV. At energies above this (say 8-200 MeV), the cross section pretty much smoothly decreases with energy. The resonance effects are pretty much gone by the time you reach 20 MeV. However, as you increase the energy, more and more processes are available (inelastic scattering, pion production, proton knockout) and at about 200 MeV, the cross section begins to increase again. This is all very well-documented, and in proton scattering you do not have the problem of separating "background" events from "real" events - it's very difficult to have background events all collect together to produce peaks in your spectrometer exactly where you'd expect them to be on the basis of elementary kinematics calculations, and also for them to fool your particle-identification detectors into thinking that they are all protons. You'd expect that sometimes, at least, these events would collect into other peaks that had the wrong energy, or maybe even not collect into peaks at all (this *does* sometimes happen.) Take a look at Satchler's book, "Introduction to Nuclear Reactions", for more information. JT cudkeys: cuddy16 cudentemplon cudfnJeffrey cudlnTemplon cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.16 / Dieter Britz / Biblio update 13-Jan; repost. Originally-From: Dieter Britz Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Biblio update 13-Jan; repost. Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 11:48:45 +0100 Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University (I inadvertently had a full stop as first character on a line and so the posting didn't make it in one piece. Here we go again, all of it this time. Sorry about this). Hello all, another blabbliography update (I hope I spelled that right, Eugene). This was supposed to come at the end of December but I wasn't here; then, having moved to this other machine, I had to work out how to do it, and struck a bug in the f77 compiler that took me a week to get around (I use a proggie to merge the new items with the big lists), but it's all straightened out now. I guess there will be a heap of papers to abstract soon, when I get hold of that special CNF issue of Fusion Technol, with the survivors of the refereeing process from ICCF-4; but other than that, they are thin on the ground now. I guess they are all busy writing patents. The Frolov et al connects with reports here in this group, a year or two ago, where someone had used gamma rays to tickle PdD into doing its stuff. Handel reckons that the Peltier effect, or something like it, which I have dismissed myself for being too small, can explain excess heat after all. I don't know. I couldn't do much with the Jiang et al paper, all in Chinese, except to reproduce the abstract. The Russian one advocates - as many have done - nonequilibrium, a real buzzword, in the form of thermal cycling; as usual for Russian papers, it stays within the fracto- framework. There is a Danish comment, in a magazine we get at home, perpetuating the myth that cnf is physicists vs chemists. Wrong; wrong also on some other counts. This is a popular science mag, usually quite good. As Tom and others have mentioned, this group got into New Scientist, with our collection to send Tom to Georgia. No photo of Tom. There are comments on SL, and an older one by Scaramuzzi, not saying very much, in Italian. Patents is where the action is now, it seems, we have 5 new ones, all Japanese. All these new items have been inserted into the blabblio files which will have been archived at vm1.nodak.edu by the time you read this (see below for how to retrieve archived files). Journal papers: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ # Frolov AM, Smith VH Jr; Phys. Lett. A 196 (1994) 217. "On stimulated nuclear fusion in the cold generalized DT hydrides of fissionable elements". ** Following suggestions made by others, that cold fusion is possible in compounds of the composition M(x)D(y)T(y), where M is a fissionable element and x << y, the authors theorise on this process. A simple model might e.g. be a DT gas containing a single nucleus of, say, 239Pu or 251Cf, which fissions. The two fast fission fragments (90 an 70 MeV, modelled both as 80) then collide with many DT's, producing shock waves etc. Calculations seem to indicate that for sufficiently high DT densities, some fusion might occur. Its probability would however be negligible for D2 gas. The authors do not comment on implications for 'cold fusion'. Oct-94/Dec-94 #..................................................................... Jan-95 Handel PH; Z. Phys. B 95 (1994) 489. "Thermoelectric excess heat effect in electrolytic cells". ** This is an attempt to explain the excess heat claimed by F&P and others, in terms of unequal Peltier heats at the junctions between the external leads and the two (different) electrodes in the electrolytic cells, i.e. normally a Pd cathode and a Pt anode. Power would be dissipated at these junctions. Normally these effects are small but Handel speculates on cases where they are large enough to mimick excess heat as observed. For a Ni/Pt system and an open cell, he estimates up to 26% "excess heat" as this artifact. In closed cells the error is smaller but in any case, he concludes that the effect should be corrected for before making excess heat claims. Jun-93/Sep-94 #..................................................................... Dec-94 Jiang S, Yang G, Wang S; Lanzhou Daxue Xuebao, Ziran Kexueban [J. Lanzhou Univ. (Nat. Sci) 29(2) (1993) 70. (In Chinese, Engl. abstr). "Coulomb screening effect of deuterium-ion in metal - numerical solution of nonlinear Poisson equation". ** The nonlinear Poisson equation, describing the potential field within Pd deuteride, is here solved numerically for various temperatures and loading densities of deuterium. The abtract says that, based on the results, Coulomb screening and its significance in low-temp. nuclear fusion, are discussed, but does not tell what conclusions are drawn. #..................................................................... Jan-95 Vysotskii VI, Kuz'min RN; Tech. Phys. 39(7) (1994) 663. Russian original in Zh. Tekh. Fiz. 64 (1994) 56. "Nonequilibrium Fermi condensate of deuterium atoms in microvoids of crystals and the problem of barrier-free cold nuclear fusion". ** A new mechanism for 'cold fusion' is described here. It is based on the suppression of all forms of local electromagnetic interaction in a Fermi condensate of deuterium atoms in microvoids in a metal deuteride. One outcome of the theory is that thermal cycling is a requirement for fusion; this has not been understood before. The presence of microchannels and -cracks or -cavities make all this possible, as evidencd by the Kamiokande results with deuterated concrete and some Russian results. Oct-93/Jul-94 #..................................................................... Dec-94 Comments: ^^^^^^^^ # Anon.; Illustreret Videnskab no. 12 1994, p.62 (in Danish). "That's why cold fusion became a research farce". ** A short 1-page item, telling nothing new; it has a very brief resume of the cnf affair. The author states (erroneously) that physicists were on the skeptical side, while chemists believed in cnf; also that after a few months there were only a handful of believers left; and finally, that F&P now work in France for an anonymous Japanese company. The title statement is not in fact explained, i.e. why it became a farce. #..................................................................... Dec-94 Chown M; New Scientist 144 (1956) (17-Dec-1994) 11. "Net backs probe into cold fusion". ** Reports that 'physicists' have pooled to send Tom Droege to Atlanta to examine the Griggs machine, supposed to generate more heat than the power put into it. This arose from discussions in the Usenet group 'Sci.Physics.Fusion'. More than $1000 has been raised, Douglas Morrison is quoted as saying. #..................................................................... Dec-94 Pool R; Science 266 (1994) (16. Dec) 1804. "Can sound drive fusion in a bubble?" ** Report of recent work on sonoluminescence, where indirect evidence indicates temperatures between 10^5 and 10^6 K, just 2-3 orders of magnitude below that required for deuterium fusion to achieve interesting rates. The workers hope to fine-tune the setup to reach these levels. They take care to distance themselves from 'cold fusion'; if fusion is achieved here, it will be hot. #..................................................................... Dec-94 Scaramuzzi F; Chim. Ind. (Milan) 75(5) (1993) 425 (in Italian). "Cold fusion four years later". ** Written in 1993, this is a round-up of the 'cold fusion' scene after four years in the field. The author comments on the two main types of evidence: excess heat from electrolysis cells and radiation (neutrons) from metal/gas systems. The problems are mentioned, and the theory of Preparata to account for the evidence. S concludes that it is difficult today to reject 'cold fusion' as a real phenomenon, whatever its cause. #..................................................................... Jan-95 Patents: ^^^^^^^ # Arata Y, Cho G; Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 06,222,173, 01-Dec-92. Cited in Chem. Abstr. 121:288411 (1994). "Apparatus for nuclear fusion at room temperature". ** "The title device comprises a pressure-resistant metal vessel contg. a metal powder having a high absorbtivity for D, a means of feeding D2 gas with high-pressure in the vessel, and a means to heat the vessel to an adequate temp. with the metal powder absorbing a sufficient amt. of D2. The D2 does not permeate the vessel. The vessel contg. the D2-absorbing metal powder is used as the cathode and an anode is provided, as well as an electrolyte soln." (Direct quote from CA). #..................................................................... Dec-94 Takahashi A, Ikegami H (Tanaka Precious Metal Ind); Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 06,186,363, 18-Dec-92. Cited in Chem. Abstracts 121:266206 (1994). "Method for generating anomalous heat". ** "Heavy hydrogen is injected into a Pd cathode plate by electrolysis of heavy water and/or light water soln. A low-c.d. electrolysis and a high-c.d. electrolysis were alternately carried out to inject D ions uniformly from both sides of a Pd cathode plate with D2 gas shielding membranes on both sides of the cathode plate (which shield D2 gas but are permeable toward D ions so that only D ions are absorbed) to conc. the D2 in the lattice of the Pd metal. Thereby anomalous heat is generated. The method can be used for open or closed electrolytic cells, and the reproducibility of the generation of the anomalous heat is good". (Direct quote from CA). #..................................................................... Dec-94 Yabuno R, Terasawa T, Ooi T (Tekunoba Kk); Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 06,207,993, 20-Nov-92. Cited in Chem. Abstracts 121:266209 (1994). "Excess heat-generating materials, manuf. of electrodes and app. for electrolysis of heavy water, apparatus for measuring and utilizing the excess heat". ** "The excess heat-generating material is Pd or a Pd base alloy having fine pores within it. The electrode is made of Pd or Pd alloy having uniform pores running from the outer surface of the electrode to a finite length within it. When the Pd or Pd alloy is melted to cast it into a definite shape, voids are formed and the formed metal is subjected to plastic forming to manuf. the electrode. App. for electrolysis of heavy water comprises (1) a vessel contg. a heavy water electrolyte soln., an anode, and a cathode made from Pd or a Pd alloy having a d. of 11.5-11.9 g/cm^3. The app. can generate excess heat and serve as an elec. power source to apply elec. current to the electrodes. The app. for measuring the excess heat contains a heater for calibration, a temp. sensor inserted in the electrolyte soln, and a calculator to calc. the excess heat generated by the cathode from the output of the temp. sensor, based on the heat coeff. The app. for utilizing the excess heat contains a heat-utilizing app. in the cathode. Excess heat which is more than what was input can be generated, cracking of the electrodes can be suppressed, and the excess heat can be measured accurately". (Direct quote from CA). #..................................................................... Dec-94 Yonezawa H, Ishii Y (Nippon Telegraph & Telephone); Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 06,214,068, 18-Jan-93. Cited in Chem. Abstracts 121:266208 (1994). "Method and apparatus and method for nuclear fusion of hydrogen". ** "More than two kinds of metal (1 of which is Pd) having different capacity for absorbing H or its isotopes are laminated, and the H or an isotope of H is absorbed by each metal. The sample is heated to transfer the H or its isotope to the metal having the higher absorption capacity to enrich it in the metal for nuclear fusion (<= 1000C). The probability of nuclear fusion can be improved by this simple procedure". (Direct quote from CA). #..................................................................... Dec-94 Yonezawa H, Kano K, Shigematsu T, Yamaguchi E (Nippon Telegraph & Telephone); Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 06,214,069, 20-Jan-93. Cited in Chem. Abstracts 121:266207 (1994). "Apparatus and method for verification of nuclear fusion of hydrogen at < 1000C" ** "In the app. comprising a vacuum chamber, a D-satd. metal sample, and a heater to heat the sample, the periphery of the vacuum chamber is shielded with a metal, >=1 window for transmitting gamma-rays in the vacuum chamber, and >=1 gamma-ray detector in the outside vicinity of the windows. The occurrence of nuclear fusion can be detected effectively and easily". (Direct quote from CA). #..................................................................... Dec-94 Peripherals: ^^^^^^^^^^^ # Szpak S, Mosier-Boss PA, Smith JJ; J. Electroanal. Chem. 379 (1994) 121. "Deuterium uptake during Pd-D codeposition". ** A fundamental study, using the trademark of this team, Pd deposition along with deuterium evolution. Electrode kinetics and mechanismms, as well as the structure of the interphase, are looked at. #...................................................................... Jan-95 Tsirlina GA, Rusanova MYu, Petrii OA; Elektrokhimiya 29 (1993) 469 (in Russian). "Comparative studies of the sorption of deuterons and protons by palladium from acid solution". ** No doubt prompted by reports of 'cold fusion', this paper is nevertheless a fundamental electrochemical study of hydrogen behaviour at Pd, by current interruption and cyclic voltammetry. Hydrogen and deuterium differ in their behaviour. #...................................................................... Dec-94 How to retrieve files from the archives: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 1. By ftp to vm1.nodak.edu, log in as anonymous, giving your email address as password. Cd into fusion. To see only the biblio files, dir fusion.cnf* and you get a list of the files that you can get. If you are so unwise as to type in dir, you'll be there for quite a while, as that directory also has all the Fusion Digests in it... 2. By listserv: you send an email to listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, blank subject, with the get command. You need to know what you want to get, so you might start with the command index fusion, which will get you the directory listing. This has all the file names, and you can then send an email with, e.g. get fusion.cnf-pap1, or get fusion.94-03379 or whatever you want. It will be sent to you. --- Dieter Britz alias britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.16 / I Johnston / Re: Rothwell's Wrights vs. The New York Times: an s.p.f. Meta-issue Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Rothwell's Wrights vs. The New York Times: an s.p.f. Meta-issue Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 10:51:45 GMT Organization: Edinburgh University (I know it's off topic a bit, but what the hell) 1) The Wright brothers were like many other pioneers in areas of technology thought 'impossible' (so perhaps a bit like cf?). There contribution was not so much _how_ they did it but _that_ they did it. In fact, many of their design details were wrong, or sub-optimal - canard elevator, pusher propellors, wing-warping for example - but once the principle had been established others were able to pick up the ball and run with it. Much like Baird and television, too. Or the IBM researchers who indicated that High Tc superconductors were possible, leaving it to hack chemists (no disrespect - contract chemists hired with a particular job to do) to come up with the working recipe. And just for the record, almost everything important to aerodyne design was known many years prior to the Wright brother, including the importance of camber, dihedral, stability and the tailplane. What the Wrights had, basically, was a better engine than anyone else. 2) The terms of the loan of the Wright Flyer to the Smithsonian include a requirement that the Smithsonian shall never even allude to the existence of other claims to being the first to fly, let alone give them any credence. Non disclosure agreements ain't new. I don't want to decry the Wrights achievement, but the view that they alone developed aerodynes from nowhere into full modern aeroplanes just isn't right. I'll leave it to the reader to draw the obvious parallels with the work of F&P and Griggs... Ian cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.16 / I Johnston / Re: Warning to Mark Fernee Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Warning to Mark Fernee Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 10:53:40 GMT Organization: Edinburgh University Perhaps the fact that Mallove PhD and research experience appears to be in air-conditioning explain why Jed so frequently cites air conditioning technicians as the most competent people to evalute Griggs' machine? Ian cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.16 / Richard Schultz / Re: The Wright Bros. & the "skeptics" Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: The Wright Bros. & the "skeptics" Date: 16 Jan 1995 11:47:12 GMT Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe In article , wrote: >That is why the N.Y. Times concluded that it would >take a million mathemeticians a million years to build an airplane. Once again I ask: when precisely did this statement appear in the New York Times? None of the articles that I read about aeronautics that appeared there from 1903-1908 said anything of the sort. Quite the contrary, they reported without skepticism the claims of a working airplane. And as I have pointed out before, in an editorial of 10 December 1903, they criticized Langley not because powered heavier-than-air flight was not possible, but because his designs were endangering the test pilots. -- Richard Schultz "It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean. Do you have to salt your truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?" cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.16 / Richard Schultz / Re: Warning to Mark Fernee Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Warning to Mark Fernee Date: 16 Jan 1995 11:50:05 GMT Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe In article <950112180814_76570.2270_HHB69-1@compuserve.com>, Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> wrote: >For any in this audience who may have been influenced by the drivel from >Fernee: I have a doctorate in engineering (Sc.D.) from Harvard University >(Harvard School of Public Health). . . . Thus demonstrating once again the utility of the maxim, "You can always tell a Harvard man, but you can't tell him much." -- Richard Schultz "How many boards would the Mongols hoard if the Mongol hordes got bored?" cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.16 / R.Boscarelli@a / In article: SUPERCONDUCTIVITY CORRECT THEORY Originally-From: R.Boscarelli@agora.stm.it Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: In article: SUPERCONDUCTIVITY CORRECT THEORY Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 14:46:11 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway dated 30 Dec 1994 Archimedes Plutonium writes: >The first organic superconductor was discovered in 1979 with >tetramethyltetraselenafulvalenePF6, a salt,-- (TMTSF)2PF6 with >a Tc at 0.9K etc. Are there stereo ordered polymers in the list of superconducting organic compounds? In a straight tube a mouse runs faster than in a maze. Say hello to Euclides. [Ah Faustus, now hast thou than one bare hour to live...] Riccardo Boscarelli cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenBoscarelli cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.16 / prasad / Re: Phonophobic Calls Griggs Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Phonophobic Calls Griggs Date: 16 Jan 1995 13:38:40 GMT Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center Dear Phonophobic, Looking over a griggs.txt file Jed had posted last year, I notice that Jed notes that Griggs usually collects the stored heat+steam after stopping the system. Now in that set of measurements, Jed notes it was about 3 lb of water and made 4-5 degrees difference to the collected hot water. I figure it should amount to at least 25 kJ. I would much appreciate if you could note down how much ENERGY remains stored this way in the pump you get to examine. I'd like to correlate, the ratios Pout / Ustored for a set of Griggs pumps at the onset of the special effects, if possible. This ratio should work as a system time constant, like R/L in an RL circuit, and should relate to the cavitation relaxation time in the fluid. I dare venture at this stage that this ratio may be somewhat independent of the pump dimensions and parameters, but dependent only the fluid, like a Reynolds number. I'd like to verify this hypothesis. If it works... Thanks. PS: I think Jorge Stolfi might also find that data interesting. cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.16 / prasad / Re: 13 Jan update, Griggs theories Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: 13 Jan update, Griggs theories Date: 16 Jan 1995 13:44:38 GMT Organization: IBM Watson In article , mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes: |> I would like to thank those who have sent me EMAIL pointing out errors in my |> previously posted list of Griggs device theories. I have made the corrections |> and here is the revised list. |> |> THEORY CONTRIBUTED BY |> |> Experiment or measurement error Dale Bass |> Stored Energy Jorge Stolfi * |> Chemical Reaction (oxidation of Al) Bruce Dunn * |> Heat pump Dick Blue Haven't you READ Dick Blue's post and mine? He specificially denies credit for proposing the heat pump. I don't know who started the heat pump theory, though I remember adding a diagram to it myself, which eventually had Jed invoking the second law to banish the thread. cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.16 / prasad / Min sizes Re: GG size limitations Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Min sizes Re: GG size limitations Date: 16 Jan 1995 13:50:06 GMT Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center In article , tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes: |> In article , |> Thomas S. Zemanian wrote: |> > |> >Jed, why can't the GG be scaled down? Is there a "critical mass" of water, |> >or something? One would think that the same local shear could be |> >reproduced on a bench scale rather straightforwardly. Airplanes, to use |> >your analogy, work _better_ on a smaller scale (I can fold a glider out of |> >paper!) Methinks something smells rotten in the state of Georgia. |> |> Well, one problem is that when you make the thing small enough it becomes |> a cinch to instrument properly and then the 'effect' goes away. :-) Quite the other way around. It's a cinch to measure several kilowatts, but a real pain to try measuring a 1 W excess power storm in a 10 J teacup. Scaling DOWN works with airplanes because they are otherwise too big. The GG is already small enough for practical power measurements (!). It really is a bench scale already - look up the earlier posts. If you make it smaller, say 1 W throughput and 0.4 W excess, you'd again have to do 3-month calorimetry like CF to measure anything at all. And then of course there would be more room for unknowns and low level neutrons...! cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.16 / jedrothwell@de / Re: Rothwell's Wrights vs. The New York Times: an s.p.f. Meta-is Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Rothwell's Wrights vs. The New York Times: an s.p.f. Meta-is Date: Mon, 16 Jan 95 11:08:45 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) has many unique ideas about history. He writes: "Well Jim, unlike Mr. Rothwell, you have indeed done your homework. Thank you for bringing the name Langley into the discussion. . . Evidently Mr. Rothwell's research did not go deep enough into the history of the Wright invention, otherwise he would have surely pointed out that it was Langley (and through him, the Smithsonian) that were the Wright's detractors, not the New York Times and the media!" Conover suggests that Langley led the attacks against the Wrights in 1908. That is a very surprising interpretation of history, in view of the fact that Langley died in 1906. He must have been amazingly influential. Conover, Carr, Schultz & Co. are the ones who have not done their homework. Not only do they make up physics as they go along, but we now see they make up history. It is jolly good fun to invent facts to fit whatever idea pops into your head, but that method lacks academic rigor. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.16 / A Plutonium / Re: ideas & copyrights (Was ... A. Pu) Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium Subject: Re: ideas & copyrights (Was ... A. Pu) Date: 16 Jan 1995 16:33:56 GMT Organization: Plutonium Atom Foundation In article <033304Z16011995@anon.penet.fi> an176059@anon.penet.fi writes: > > In article <3f4mmf$3c4@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> > Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes: > > > I strongly believe I have to give this warning of copyright > >infringements. > > Dear Sir: > > A copyright infringement occurs only when the actual words are > copied; *ideas* are absolutely *not* subject to any form of copyright > protection; that is what patents are for. I have both. Both a copyright and a patent on RADIOACTIVE SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION = VIOLATION OF ENERGY/MASS CONSERVATION = COLD FUSION EXPERIMENTS. I am the first to patent that, and to publish it. Let me ask you a similar question. Schroedinger Equation. According to your implications. It is not the first who publishes, not the first who holds a copyright proof of publication, but rather a fluke of circumstances that Schroedinger put forth his equation and others accepted it as being Schroedinger's original contribution. Even Feynman raised doubts about how Schroedinger came up with his equation, because Feynman derived it cleaner than what Schroedinger derived it. So, are you saying that all scientific knowledge contributions are to be awarded willy-nilly? This is very important, and perhaps the greatest motivation of anyone in hard-core science. For if we do not give fair credit where fair credit is due, then the sciences suffer tremendously. What I am saying is that I have noticed Nature, New Scientist, Scientific American and others print items which were discussed long and hard here on the Internet. And I know it is easy for those magazines to make a "soft steal" write about cold fusion as violation of energy/mass without giving due credit. That is the reason for my warning. That anyone who hints of my original idea which is patent pending plus copyrighted, anyone discussing this idea RADIOACTIVE SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION = VIOLATION OF ENERGY/MASS CONSERVATION = COLD FUSION EXPERIMENT, without referring to Archimedes Plutonium, or a footnote listing my name, will be challenged. Schroedinger when his equation was published would have been appalled if the newpapers and Nature printed his equation and never mentioned his name. I have the added concern that editors WILL NOT WANT TO PRINT MY NAME because I am the discoverer of the PU ATOM TOTALITY theory, which has every religion shaking in their bones. They want all my true ideas except for the Atom Whole, without printing my name. But I laugh at these editors, for I will force them, I now have the true theory of how cold fusion works and how superconductivity works. I laugh at Nature, and New Scientist, they have to print me, yet they do not want to print me. I laugh at the Nobel Foundation, they have to give me a Nobel prize or they go into oblivion, yet they will not want to give me a Nobel prize, I laugh all day and all night, I laugh hard. cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.16 / Richard Schultz / Re: Rothwell's Wrights vs. The New York Times: an s.p.f. Meta-is Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Rothwell's Wrights vs. The New York Times: an s.p.f. Meta-is Date: 16 Jan 1995 17:00:13 GMT Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe In article , wrote: >Conover, Carr, Schultz & Co. are the ones who have not done their homework. >Not only do they make up physics as they go along, but we now see they make up >history. It is jolly good fun to invent facts to fit whatever idea pops into >your head, but that method lacks academic rigor. What homework have I failed to do? All I ever wanted was the quotes from the New York Times that you claimed (and continue to claim) said that powered heavier-than-air flight was impossible. You never provided those quotes, so I found quotes that say the exact opposite. That's all I was interested in, and it seems that I have done my homework in that area a bit better than you since I ended up obtaining the requisite information on my own. If you have a reference to the New York Times article that said it would take a million men a million years to build an airplane, I'd love to see it. Or could it be that it's my tendency to ignore your namecalling that bothers you so much? -- Richard Schultz "How many boards would the Mongols hoard if the Mongol hordes got bored?" cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.16 / Thomas Zemanian / Re: Griggs Theories Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Griggs Theories Date: 16 Jan 1995 17:24:36 GMT Organization: Battelle PNL In article , jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote: > Chuck Harrison writes: > > >Here I disagree. I think more accurate results are likely to be obtained > >by allowing the system to reach equilibrium (say 24hrs). Steady-state > > It reaches equilibrium in 10 or 15 minutes. Roughly the same amount of time > it takes a large automobile engine to reach optimum operating temperature. > It is a large mass of metal but it is not insulated, and it is designed for > rapid throughput, so it does not take long for it all to get as hot as it > is going to get. If you let it run for several hours, you see that the > temperature of all components is very steady. [deletia] Chuck has objected to my suggestion that we integrate from cold start to cold stop, preferring instead to perform steady state calorimetry. I must agree; that would be a better method. However, to address Jorge Stolfi's concerns about stored heat, I suggest the gadget be run up to temperature, operated in the overunity mode for an hour or so (thereby ensuring equilibrium), and _then_ starting the flow calorimetry. --Tom -- The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone. Keep your filthy hands off 'em! cudkeys: cuddy16 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.16 / Jim Carr / Re: The Wright Bros. & the "skeptics" Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: The Wright Bros. & the "skeptics" Date: 16 Jan 1995 14:14:25 -0500 Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute In article jedrothwell@delphi.com writes: > >You have missed the point, Jim. I am *not* an expert on newspapers. I don't >pay much attention to them. You "skeptics" often refer to newspaper accounts >of CF as if the newspapers were a valid source of scientific information. >You are wrong about that: the newspapers are full of malarky. Pure bunk. Jed, in the span of four sentences you say that you do not pay much attention to newspapers and are not and expert on them, and then proceed to assert that everything they contain is wrong. You have yet to explain how you can be an expert on something you are ignorant about. More importantly, I recently posted some text from the original NYTimes article about the P&F news conference almost 6 years ago. I have yet to see a response to it pointing out where the NYTimes made the factual errors you assert pervade their reporting on cold fusion. Put up or shut up. Personally, I only quote newspaper reports for a written record of what people said at press conferences, and the literature for scientific detail. However, it is sometimes interesting to compare what is on videotape in a scientists public presentation to what they say in a refereed publication (and its errata). That helps separate hype from fact. You know better than to say that I get my info from the newspapers. I have file folders full of journal articles on the subject. To me, the single most interesting detail in the recent history of cold fusion is that Pons and Fleischman, in their Physics Letter last year, do not cite their initial reports in JEC. Scientifically, that says they do not view their current work as an extension of the work done originally at Utah. -- James A. Carr | Tallahassee, where the crime rate http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac | is almost twice that in New York Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | City. Reported crimes, that is. Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | A subtle statistical detail. cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.16 / Matt Austern / Re: Rothwell's Wrights vs. The New York Times: an s.p.f. Meta-is Originally-From: matt@physics7.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Rothwell's Wrights vs. The New York Times: an s.p.f. Meta-is Date: 16 Jan 1995 19:32:16 GMT Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group) In article <3fe8mt$js9@agate.berkeley.edu> schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) writes: > What homework have I failed to do? All I ever wanted was the quotes from > the New York Times that you claimed (and continue to claim) said that > powered heavier-than-air flight was impossible. You know, I suddenly realized: I think I know what Rothwell is talking about. I think he's mixing up what the New York Times said about airplanes with what they said about rockets. The Times never said that airplanes were impossible, of course, and they never said that the Wrights were frauds; he's wrong about that. They did, though, say that rockets were impossible. More specifically, they said that it would be impossible to send a rocket-powered vehicle outside of the Earth's atmosphere. They wrote a very snooty and stupid editorial attacking Goddard, and they issued a formal apology, years later, after the Apollo missions had succeeded. -- --matt cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.16 / Tom Coradeschi / Re: Warning:Nature, New Scientist, CF = violation conservation Originally-From: tcora@pica.army.mil (Tom Coradeschi) Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Warning:Nature, New Scientist, CF = violation conservation Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 15:44:47 GMT Organization: Electric Armts Div, US Army ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes: >tcora@pica.army.mil (Tom Coradeschi) writes: > >> Perhaps your understanding of coyprights is about at the same level as >> your understanding of the physical sciences. You can copyright a document. >> You cannot copyright an idea or a concept. Nice try, though. > > What time-zone-of-mind are you in? Tom Coradeschi, that you do not >even understand the meaning of my words. You do not know what copyright >means. Beg pardon? > Under your pea brain, noone should be credited with the Uncertainty >principle (Heisenberg). Noone should be credited with the Exclusion >principle (Pauli). Bohr should not have his name attached to the >Complementary principle according to you, because that is an idea. And >those ideas were copyrighted. Really? References, please. Having one's name attached to an idea is quite different from copyrighting something. >those ideas were copyrighted. The same as what I have done for >Spontaneous Neutron Materialization which is = to Violation of >Conservation of Energy/Mass. > Why don't you think Tom, before you post such dumb things. I see you >are in the military. The military has a good standard reply when a >member is caught short. That reply is "I do not know, sir, but I will >find out". And above all, the military is very polite, usually. Your >impoliteness Tom, forced me to be impolite back. By all means, Tom, >relearn those two military ways of behavior. Speaking of "dumb things" makes me wonder why you think I'm in the military. But let's ignore that issue for now and get to the crux of the matter: cop-y-right (kop' ee riit') n. 1. the exclusive right, granted by law for a certain number of years, to make and dispose of copies of a literary, musical or artistic work. v.t. 2. to secure a copyright on. Does this make things a bit more clear? -- tom coradeschi <+> tcora@pica.army.mil http://k-whiner.pica.army.mil/ cudkeys: cuddy16 cudentcora cudfnTom cudlnCoradeschi cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.16 / Carl Ijames / Re: Sonolumies in Scientific American Originally-From: ijames@codon.nih.gov (Carl F. Ijames) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Sonolumies in Scientific American Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 21:07:48 GMT Organization: National Institutes of Health In article <3f7ilc$lmf@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com wrote: > The February 1995 issue of Scientific American has an article by Putterman > on sonoluminescence. There was also a one page article in Science in Dec. 94 (or maybe Nov. :-)). Brief description; also mention a research group that is looking for neutrons from fusion (not S. Jones). Carl Ijames ijames@codon.nih.gov cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenijames cudfnCarl cudlnIjames cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.16 / Jim Carr / Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph sics.accelerators Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator Date: 16 Jan 1995 18:25:07 -0500 Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute In article <3fd8d1$qqh@borg.svpal.org> lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) writes: > >How can the cross section increase with energy. Neutrinos interact by exchanging a vector boson, either a W or Z. At low energies, the effects of this exchange are not noticed since the mass is so heavy, but if you get 'near' the mass of the particle you feel this as a stronger coupling. At very high energies, the 'weak' force is no longer weak -- that is what is meant by unification of the electro-weak force at high energies in a simplistic argument. > ... Particles feel surroundings >by their DeBroglie wavelengths, and wavelengths always get smaller with >energy so the crossections *decrease* with eneergy. True *if* all things stay the same, but consider how pion-nucleon cross sections increase by a huge factor as you go up in energy toward the Delta resonance. Indeed, the very fact that the cross sections behave as they do tells you about the underlying physics. That is how we have learned what we know about the 'elementary' particles. You cannot change the data because it does not fit your model. -- James A. Carr | Tallahassee, where the crime rate http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac | is almost twice that in New York Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | City. Reported crimes, that is. Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | A subtle statistical detail. cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.15 / sdrumm@umr.edu / Fusion Fundamentals Question Originally-From: sdrumm@umr.edu@umr.edu Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Fusion Fundamentals Question Date: 15 Jan 1995 23:26:16 GMT Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla (NewsReader/2 for OS/2) I am an MS Student in Nuclear Engineering, and am currently taking a course in Fusion Fundamentals. The following question was given to my class as a homework assignment under the provision that we could use any resource to locate the answer. The energy released from fission is on the order of 200MeV, the majority of which (approx. 160MeV) is due to the kinetic energy of the fission fragments. Hence, the energy released from the fission process is distributed proportionally to the mass of the products. In the case of fusion, however, exactly the opposite is true: the energy released is distributed inversely proportional to the mass of the products. For a classic D-T reaction: D + T ----> He + n + 17.6MeV Approximately 14.1MeV is contained in the neutron, while only 3.5MeV is contained in the alpha (Helium) particle. Why does this occur? Any help or directions to reference material would be appreciated. Thanx for the assist. /----------------------------\/--------------------------------------------\ | US NAVY: FULL SPEED AHEAD | OS/2 v3.0 - Warp | | sdrumm@saucer.cc.umr.edu | Isn't it time to expect more from | | sdrumm@albert.nuc.umr.edu | your operating system? | \----------------------------/\--------------------------------------------/ -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6 mQCNAy77IHoAAAEEALYk690QdoGgkqB7ocVmK3txmAns9e1G5N4Osm+G7sg+UGeq DZsmkG1tPcFrfYZJG5EnGhrLo7UnAktaajWCD8rwAjAiwNWLcMnpG/rRFXOwPSfR 0U5/ovqtX7P8pxn3Z8Z0yB+4l1J1QU4EOtE5oRE6zqV4wCI+mXvsBan6w9vZAAUR tCpTY290dCBXLiBEcnVtbSA8c2RydW1tQGFsYmVydC5udWMudW1yLmVkdT4= =g0jL -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- cudkeys: cuddy15 cudensdrumm cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.16 / John Logajan / GG vs SL Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: GG vs SL Date: 16 Jan 1995 22:43:43 GMT Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. In order of magnitude terms: The Griggs device and the current round of sonoluminesence laboratory experiments exist in about the same relative volume of water -- but the Griggs device is subjecting it to on the order of 200 times higher energy density. -- - 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: cuddy16 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Jan 17 04:37:05 EST 1995 ------------------------------