1995.01.24 / Patrick Labelle /  Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: Patrick Labelle <labelle@/users/labelle>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph
sics.accelerators
Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 12:55:09 -0500 (EST)
Organization: McGill University Computing Centre

> 
> The elecrtroweak theory still needs the Higgs mechanism. The Higgs boson 
> is unproven , because there is no way to detect it (assuming that it 
> exists).  Without the Higgs, theory basis is in trouble.  
> 
> Just cause one is skeptical does not a crackpot make.  Electroweak theory 
> is an elaborate theory that requires on to believe spin 1 particles can 
> be charged (W- W+) and that a boson (Zo) similar to the photon, exists at 
> a definite mass (energy) only.    We must suspend what we know about 
> particles in general, to believe these.  And,  isn't it also part of the 

Stuff deleted
 j> for quarks to conjugate into the W?  And the Zo is supposed to create a 
> pair of electrons or muons just like a regular photon. Why do we need it, 
> a regular photon creates  pairs? 
> 

Hold it!!! 
1) The Higgs has not been detected yet but it would certainly be 
observable if were to exist!! Why do you say it could not be detected?
It's just a particle like another (there are theoretical reasons for not 
believing in a fundamental scalar particle, but that's another issue)
2) Why do you say we have to suspend what we know about particles to
believe these?? That's not true!
3) The Z_0 HAS been observed and does exists. It's true that it does
have similarities with the photon because it is uncharged, but
without it, cross sections for e- e+ -> e- e+ would not be
correctly predicted by the theory. The Z_0 is necessary to
explain many observables.

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenlabelle cudfnPatrick cudlnLabelle cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.24 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Water heater sales
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Water heater sales
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 95 10:29:37 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir") writes
 
     "It's true that old-fashioned coal- or oil-fired power generation plant
     may operate at around 33% efficiency - for everu BThU-equivalent of
     electricity they push out they burn  about 3BThU of fossil fuel - but
     modern combined-cycle gas-fired units get up to about 70% efficiency..."
 
Where did you get this 70% from, Alan? Did you make that up, pull it out of a
hat, or read in the tabloid press? Just for laughs, why don't you tell us
where it came from.
 
People who are interested in facts instead of Alan's wild imaginary number can
turn to EPRI or the DOE, where you will find that the best intercooled steam
injected gas turbine generators achieve 47% efficiency. I recommend this
article: W. Fulkerson (Oak Ridge), R. Judkins (Oak Ridge), M. Saghvi (Amoco),
"Energy from Fossil Fuels," Scientific American (Sept. 1990), 129 - 135.
 
BTW, for people like Mr. Conover who keep asking me what efficiency means, let
me quote Fulkerson et al.'s table on page 133: "EFFICIENCY (percent of stored
energy converted to electricity.)" I cannot imagine what else "efficiency"
could mean, but people do keep asking, so there it is. That, as I mentioned,
is how the DoE, EPRI, Amoco, PG&E and Jed define it.
 
 
     ". . . and of course for nuclear and hydro power generation there's no
     real concept of 'efficiency' at all - just achievable capacity."
 
And of course, here in the real world, there are not enough waterfalls to
generate more a fraction of the energy we need, and politics & economics
prevent more widespread use of fission power. In a ideal dream world Alan's
statement would be of some relevance, but alas, here in the real world, most
of our electricity comes from fossil fuels and two thirds of the energy from
these plants is lost. By the year the 2020, EPRI hopes to increase the
efficiency of the central baseload fossil plant from 36% up to 42%. Some
advanced fuel cell generators operating with natural gas might achieve 55%
efficiency. But Alan's 70% figure will never be achieved, and no expert has
ever claimed it is possible. Perhaps he is talking about the mechanical
efficiency of the turbine alone, without reference to petty details like the
generator. Who knows what he might be talking about.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.24 / Villy Madsen /  Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: villym@cus.cul.ca (Villy Madsen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion
Date: 24 Jan 1995 22:29:53 GMT
Organization: CU Services - Systems Integration

Is there an FTP site that contains abstracts of current work
in cold fusion ????



Villy G. Madsen ISP,
Systems Consultant, Systems Integration
Canadian Utilities Ltd, Edmonton, Alberta Canada T5J 2V6
voice 403-420-5093
fax   403-420-3737


cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenvillym cudfnVilly cudlnMadsen cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.24 / JOHN BAHM /  GG device test
     
Originally-From: bahm@hilbert.cl.uh.edu (JOHN B BAHM)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: GG device test
Date: 24 Jan 1995 20:01:40 GMT
Organization: University of Houston

It seems to me that that if a GG device were attached to a stationary
diesel engine, all of the important energy inputs and outputs could be
measured accurately to within the margin of error in question.

Temperature and flow of cooling water in and out,
Temperature and flow of intake air and exhaust,
Temperature and flow of water in and out of the GG device,
A fixed quantity of laboratory certified diesel fuel.
Because the intake air and exhaust have been accounted for, the engine
itself could be operated in a sealed space and the before and after
temperature of the air in the space measured for convection heat loss.

The laboratory certification would provide the chemical energy content in
a given liter of diesel. upon burning the liter of diesel in said engine,
most of the energy could be accounted for.  If the number of joules in the
liter of diesel is less than the number of joules measured from the total  
of all the outputs, Then that's a water heater anyone would like to have.

p.s. the engine could be weighed before and after to make sure no
lubrication oil was being burned.

If excess energy production is being observed in the above setup, the
waste heat from the exhaust and the cooling system could be used to
preheat the water going to the GG device. This approach could yield a more 
efficient method of steam production than can currently be obtained from
fuel fired systems, I.E. very large markets.

This is just a comment  John Bahm
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenbahm cudfnJOHN cudlnBAHM cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.26 / Richard Blue /  Re: Rothwellian thermodynamics
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwellian thermodynamics
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 01:47:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Several readers are obviously confused by Jed Rothwell's use of the
word "efficiency."  In the domain of Rothwellian Thermodaynamics there
are two different meanings to be used as follows:

When describing a device or process which you wish to present in the
most favorable possible light, "efficiency" involves a ratio between
the maximum output that anyone could possibly ever claim and an
energy input that has previously been corrected for known and unknown
losses to minimize the denominator.  Thus the power input that Jed
uses in his evaluation of the Griggs pump is not measured by the
amount of coal used to fire the boilers at Georgia Power and Light,
nor is it even the power that shows up on Mr. Griggs' electric bill.
It is the electric power corrected for the losses in the motor.

When describing the performance of an alternative device, such as an
electric boiler with a Calrod resistive heater the denominator to be
used in the calculation of "efficiency" is maximized by including
as part of the input every loss that can conceivably be linked with
the power production process including the boiler inefficiency back
at GP&L and all generation and transmission losses up to the water
heater.  There are, of course, the losses involved in the mining and
transport of coal and the relatively inefficient process of converting
sunlight to biomass and then to fossil fuel.  And the biggest loss
factor of all should not be overlooked.  Most of the sun's radiant
energy misses Earth entirely, and is just radiated off into space.

If two definitions for "efficiency" as used in the evaluation of the
Griggs device are not sufficiently confusing, consider further that
the efficiency claimed by Mr. Griggs and that claimed on his behalf
by Jed Rothwell are seldom in agreement.

I hope this clarifies all questions relating to efficiency as it relates
to Rothwellian Thermodynamics.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.24 / John Logajan /  Griggs Questions
     
Originally-From: logajan@cray.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs Questions
Date: 24 Jan 95 11:24:45 CST

I agree with Jed that this trip seems somewhat pointless since Tom has
declined in the limited time available to make any verification measurements.

However, since the trip seems like it is going to take place, we might as
well attempt to make the best of it.

So my "question" would be for Tom to find out how the two principle input
power measuring devices really work -- the ins and outs of their operation.

1.) How exactly does the electrical power meter accomplish it's feat? 
    Describe in detail the inner workings of the device.

2.) How exactly does the dynometer do its job?  Again, describe in detail
    the inner workings of the device.

There has been plenty of speculation that these two devices can be fooled.
If we understood the nuts and bolts of their operation, this speculation
could either be validated or invalidated.

--
 - John Logajan   F6111  --  logajan@cray.com  --  612-683-5426 -
 - Cray Research, Inc. 655F Lone Oak Drive, Eagan MN 55121-9957 -
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.24 / Bruce Hamilton /  Re: Questions for the Griggs visit .....
     
Originally-From: B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Questions for the Griggs visit .....
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 23:48:51 GMT
Organization: Industrial Research Limited

In article <Jkxa6Wr.jedrothwell@delphi.com>
 jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

>Tom Droege <Droege@fnal.fnal.gov> writes: 
>  "Please do not ask me to make particular measurements.  I do not 
>   intend to make measurements. . . ."
 
>What?!? What is the point of going all the way to Rome, Georgia if you
>are not going to take measurments?!? That's ridiculous. Bring a meter,
>a bucket, and a thermometer and you can take all the measurements you
>like; it is a cinch to take measurements.

No. Tom is correct. You are correct.

Anybody can take measurements, the trick is to take accurate
and meaningful measurements. If I recall correctly you were
highly sceptical that Tom could make meaningful measurements
in one day. Tom agreed to go for a look, no more. If there are
errors, they will be subtle. The issue is, is the Griggs Device
( no matter how efficient it it ) using unusual processes, such
as Cold Fusion, to obtain extra energy?. Tom is there to make
an assessment of Griggs, his resources, his approach, and
his device. 
 
>Honestly, this makes zero sense to me. I cannot for the life of me
>imagine why anyone would plan to go all that way on an airplane and not
>take any measurments. Heck, I started measuring, photographing and calibrating
>the thing five minutes after I came in the door. That's the whole purpose
>of a site visit! If all you want to do is ask Griggs a bunch of questions,
>just write 'em up, fax 'em and ask over the phone. (I do that all the time.)

That's your style. You are happy with that. Tom is there to assess
the overall picture. Softly, softly, catchee....We prefer his style, that's 
why he is funded. We expect a report, which may then help us determine:-

1. whether further research is warranted, if so, what?.
2. whether we can perform appropriate research with our resources
     ( as individuals or collectively ).
3. whether we can design an experiment to verify Griggs' claims
     and results.
4. whether we can perform the above experiment to unambiguously
    confirm/repudiate Griggs' claims.

All four are easy to write, all are difficult to determine, and if the
experimental programme is decided, careful, rigorous testing
would be required. It may be that the Griggs device is efficient,
but not producing excess energy. 
   
>This is nuts. Stop in at Leasametric or GE, get yourself a power meter, and
>you can verify the machine in one hour flat. Just asking questions is only
>going to add to the confusion. We have had enough damn talk here already. We
>need people who Go and Do and Report Back the instrument readings. The only
>thing I ever want to hear from anyone ever is hard data.

Jed, this group is more than you. Some of us are curious,
that's why we asked Tom to go. All *I* ever want to hear from
anyone ever is *correct* data. Far, far too often I have to
tell people to repeat work because their *hard data* is
not consistent with previous data. So far, the vast majority
have turned out to be wrong - for myriad reasons. 

Life is a learning experience, we pay more for skills because
those people have made their mistakes earlier...
I would be very surprised if Tom, with all his skills, finds
explanations for the anomalous Griggs device heat output. 
It may be that Griggs has explored all the avenues that Tom
can suggest, then again, it may not be.

Incidently as Eugene Mallove has a video of the Griggs talk,
would it be worthwhile purchasing a copy with the communal
funds, in part as preparation for the visit?.

               Bruce Hamilton  
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenHamilton cudfnBruce cudlnHamilton cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.25 / S Sirotinin /  >>>>>NEW PHYSICS BOOKS FOR SALE<<<<<UPDATED LIST<<<<<<
     
Originally-From: swsst4+@pitt.edu (Sergey W Sirotinin)
Newsgroups: pa.forsale,misc.forsale,sci.med.physics,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: >>>>>NEW PHYSICS BOOKS FOR SALE<<<<<UPDATED LIST<<<<<<
Date: 25 Jan 1995 02:25:34 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

1. Principles of Physical Cosmology, second edition
                 By Philip J.E. Peebles, Princeton Univ. Press
   New book, hardcover.          Price $20.00   List $59.50

2. The Meaning of Quantum Theory, 
   A guide for students of chemistry and physics 
                 By Jim Baggott, Oxford Univ. Press
   New book, softcover.             Price $10.00   List $25.00

3. Electricity and Magnetism
                 By W.J. Duffin 
   New book, hardcover.             Price $20.00   List $50.00

4. Contemporary College Physics
                 By Donald E. Tilley
   New book, Hardcover.             Price $15.00   List $45.00

5. Dreams of a final theory
                 By Steven Weinberg
   New book,  hardcover.            Price $16.00    List $28.00

6. Quantum  Mechanics and Experience
   Student edition
                 By David Z. Albert, Harvard University Press
                                    Price $15.00   List $29.95

7. The Conscious Universe, Part and Whole in Modern Physical Theory
   
                 By Menas Kafatos, Robert Nadeau
   New book, softcover.             Price $8.00   List $15.95

All prices are shown. Make an offer on what you think the books are worth.
E-mail directly to my account if there is any interest.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudfnSergey cudlnSirotinin cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.24 /  JohnMacCT /  Re: Water heater sales
     
Originally-From: johnmacct@aol.com (JohnMacCT)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Water heater sales
Date: 24 Jan 1995 21:36:03 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

>>>> But Alan's 70% figure will never be achieved, and no expert has
ever claimed it is possible. <<<<<

The 70% figure is often quoted for combined cycle plants.  An example is a
natural gas fired gas generator with the power turbine connected to an
electric generator with the gas generator exhaust used to heat a steam
turbine to run another electrical generator.  
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjohnmacct cudlnJohnMacCT cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.24 /  ProFusion /  Re: Brief Report on MIT IAP Cold Fusion Day
     
Originally-From: profusion@aol.com (ProFusion)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Brief Report on MIT IAP Cold Fusion Day
Date: 24 Jan 1995 13:01:49 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Dr. Mallove wrote:
****[A recent posting by Victor Lapuszynski of "Cold Fusion" at WGI
contained 
an egregious error: Piantelli has NOT seen "50 *MeV* gammas"! He has
observed 
50 KeV gammas, and will be publishing a paper soon. And so there is
absolutely
NO CONFUSION here: There is no longer any connection whatsoever between
Wayne 
Green's "Cold Fusion" newsletter and Cold Fusion Technology in Concord,
New 
Hampshire. An indication of the "quality" of the present editorial
direction 
at "Cold Fusion" at WGI: Mr. Lapuszynski left the sessions after repeated 
announcements that two extremely important presentations on experiments
were 
to be made.]****
 -----------------------------

Thank you for the correction, Gene. I wanted to get my impressions down
quickly and gave the caveat that I would not vouch for 100% accuracy. As
for leaving early, that could not be helped. But thank you very much for
an enjoyable and informative occasion.

   ---Vic
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenprofusion cudlnProFusion cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.25 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Questions for the Griggs visit .....
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Questions for the Griggs visit .....
Date: 25 Jan 1995 14:27:06 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <Bm+Zauh.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>In other words, you can do an awful lot of checking in an hour or two if you
>roll up your sleeves and get to work. 

For the second time:  what instrument or implement did you use to measure
the length of the rotor arm?
--
					Richard Schultz

". . .in short, his post became untenable; and having swallowed his
quantum of tea, he judged it expedient to evacuate."
				Charlotte Bronte, _Shirley_
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.25 / Jed Rothwell /  Re: DoE stats on power plant efficiency
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: DoE stats on power plant efficiency
Date: 25 Jan 1995 15:22:13 GMT
Organization: CFRA

I wrote that I compute efficiency by same method as the DoE, EPRI and PG&E.
jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) responded:
 
     "Since the collapse of socialism, most people rely on the price system
     to vector the "efficiency" answer.  There are so many informational
     inputs and the system is so dynamic . . ."
 
Oops, we are talking about two different things here! Sorry I did not make it
clear. Honestly, I thought everyone but Mr. Conover understood. I mean
physical efficiency, not cost efficiency. I mean:
 
     KWH from electric plant / BTU content of the fuel * conversion factor
 
(The conversion factor for BTU -> KWH is 0.0002928.)
 
Logajan is talking about economic cost efficiency, which is a much more
complex subject. It is an important and worthwhile topic, but I think it is
beyond the scope of this forum.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.25 /  PNellesen /  Taking the GRE
     
Originally-From: pnellesen@aol.com (PNellesen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Taking the GRE
Date: 25 Jan 1995 10:33:53 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I plan on taking the Physics GRE this year and I was looking for some
advice, info, or impressions anyone might have of this test (areas of
emphasis, time it took to take, etc.).  Any replies appreciated.

Thanks,

Pat Nellesen
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenpnellesen cudlnPNellesen cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.24 / John Logajan /  Re: Brief Report on MIT IAP Cold Fusion Day
     
Originally-From: logajan@cray.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Brief Report on MIT IAP Cold Fusion Day
Date: 24 Jan 95 12:26:44 CST

Eugene Mallove (76570.2270@compuserve.com) wrote:
: It is expected that several working self-sustaining units will be brought to 
: ICCF5.

If this were true it would hearld an unprecedented upheaval in the physcial
sciences. 

What I fear is that your projection is based upon the proximity to success
suggested by an extrapolation of physical evidence under the interpretation
of a theoretical framework.

The trouble with "accepted" theories is that they are often incomplete and
cannot of themselves always pinpoint where new incompatible theories are
wrong.  The new theory might explain all other existing phenomena, but
in the end, its ultimate predictions may never materialize.

So what I am suggesting is that while many "over-unity" theories cannot
be absolutely discounted on the basis of existing theoretical knowledge,
that doesn't guarantee they will accurately predict new phenomena.  They
present tenuous limbs out upon which to climb.

But I have no special loyalty to the old theories, so I'll accept the
mandate of any hard evidence anyone can demonstrate.  Perhaps I've only
three short months to wait. :-) 

--
 - John Logajan   F6111  --  logajan@cray.com  --  612-683-5426 -
 - Cray Research, Inc. 655F Lone Oak Drive, Eagan MN 55121-9957 -
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.25 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Brief Report on MIT IAP Cold Fusion Day
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Brief Report on MIT IAP Cold Fusion Day
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 11:19 -0500 (EST)

logajan@cray.com (John Logajan) writes:
 
-> Eugene Mallove (76570.2270@compuserve.com) wrote:
-> : It is expected that several working self-sustaining units will be brought
-> : ICCF5.
->
-> If this were true it would hearld an unprecedented upheaval in the physcial
-> sciences.
 
I doubt that, it never has in the past.  Self sustaining claimed o/u devices
have been demonstrated at meetings several times in the past few years, and
basically nothing seems to have come of it.  Problem is, without completely
letting the people in the meeting tear down the unit, and examine every part,
plus what is under the table and so forth, one cannot ever be sure they are not
seeing something running on a hidden internal battery or being powered by an
external source, such as an oscillating magnetic field.  All that happens is
that the believers come away more sure of themselves and the non-believers are
not impressed.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.25 / Alan M /  Re: DoE stats on power plant efficiency
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: DoE stats on power plant efficiency
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 05:29:24 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <5Az7aSa.jedrothwell@delphi.com>  jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> I wrote that electrically fired boilers waste two-thirds of the fuel, whereas
> gas or oil fired boilers waste only 3 to 5%. conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H
> Conover) writes:
>  
>      "Interesting.  I was under the impression that electrically fired
>      boilers converted ALL of the electrical energy to heat (with the
>      possible exception of a small IR loss in the wiring)."
>  
> That is correct. Most of the losses occur at the electric power generation
> plant.
> 
Why don't you go learn something about energy technology and economics
before trying to teach 
others here, Jed? I realise that would be a radical break with
tradition, but it might even do 
yourself some good.

You could start by learning the concepts of - primary energy; delivered
energy; useful energy. Then 
move on to learn which of these is the most appropriate form to consider when discussing 
residential or indsutrial use boilers.

-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.25 / Alan M /  Re: Dunsmuir needs a nap
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dunsmuir needs a nap
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 05:24:57 +0000
Organization: Home

That's OK, Jed. I fully realise that, when somebody lies and is 
immediately told that they are lying, it can be very irritating. Just 
stop lying here and on CompuServe and I'll stop announcing the fact.

-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.25 / Antoine Medecin /  Help me : I search data about nickel fusion
     
Originally-From: amedecin@turing.imag.fr (Antoine Medecin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Help me : I search data about nickel fusion
Date: 25 Jan 1995 13:33:32 GMT
Organization: ufrima

	I 'm  looking for :
		- thermic conductivity
		- or thermic diffusivity
	of liquid phase nickel
		- or fusion enthalpy of nickel

	or where can I find these data ?
	
	tx it would be helpful for me :)

-- 

	Antoine.Medecin@ufrima.imag.fr
						tout est en un (?)
						tout est economique (Karl Marx)
						tout est sexuel (Sigmund freud)
	      					tout est relatif (Albert Enstein)
    						tout est noetherien (moi)
	   
	.HI! I'm a .signature virus, copy me into yours and join the fun...
			
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenamedecin cudfnAntoine cudlnMedecin cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.25 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Questions for the Griggs visit .....
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Questions for the Griggs visit .....
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 95 14:04:25 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Bruce Hamilton <B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz> writes:
 
     "I would be very surprised if Tom, with all his skills, finds
     explanations for the anomalous Griggs device heat output."
 
Nobody should ask Tom to find an explanation. It is utterly impossible for him
to find one; he cannot capture tritium or helium with that experimental test
rig. The only thing Tom or anyone else could do is verify the calorimetry. If
he is not capable of doing that in one day, he should stay two days. If he
cannot do it in two days he should stay a week, the way I did. If you sent a
qualified HVAC engineer instead of Tom, you would get a Yes or No answer in
one hour. People who do large scale HVAC calorimetry for a living can do it
quickly and with unfailing certainty.
 
 
     "It may be that Griggs has explored all the avenues that Tom can
     suggest, then again, it may not be."
 
There are no avenues to explore. The techniques used to measure heat have been
in the textbooks for the last 150 years, unchanged. It is a gigantic flow
calorimeter. Unless you think 4.2 joules does not equal a calorie, or one BTU
is not a pound of water raised one deg F, there are no open scientific
questions to discuss vis a vis calorimetry. All open scientific questions
relate to the mechanism of the reaction, and no instruments on site that can
help anyone determine that. All you can with that test rig is measure the
heat.
 
 
     "Incidently as Eugene Mallove has a video of the Griggs talk, would it
     be worthwhile purchasing a copy with the communal funds, in part as
     preparation for the visit?"
 
Of course! Good Grief, if I was going on an airplane trip to verify a machine,
I would read every scrap of information and see every video and photo I could
get my hands on. I was not at MIT and I have not seen the video yet, but I
have seen Jim Griggs do other sales presentations and I am sure he did a bang
up job. Before I drove up to see him the first time, I saw his patent, photos,
an earlier video he made, and data from his customers. Going on a trip without
doing your homework first is a waste of time. It is worse than that: it makes
you look like a fool. It is like going out on a sales call without knowing
what the customer wants. Always review all data and operating procedures
before you touch the hardware. The GG is heavy duty industrial equipment. If
you start fooling around with it without knowing what you doing, you might
electrocute yourself, get severely scalded, or get caught by a whirling 200 HP
motor. Fiddle around with this machine the wrong way and it will make you
quite dead for a long time.
 
Hamilton would like Tom to help resolve this question:
 
     "3. Whether we can design an experiment to verify Griggs' claims and
     results."
 
Does this mean "could a bunch of ordinary scientists build a GG, or test one?"
If so, the answer is: No. Not unless you have the equipment and the ability to
do things like overhaul a large pickup truck engine, and you can arrange for a
local machine shop to produce custom cast aluminum and steel parts. Carrying
out an experiment like this requires overhead cranes, welding equipment and
other heavy duty tools. No ordinary scientific laboratory could replicate the
Griggs device. You could not even fit the thing through the door, and if you
got it into a lab, the floor would collapse. The U. of Osaka, NASA or a power
company machine shop could fabricate one, but it would be a lot cheaper and
faster to buy one ready-made from Griggs. You might have to wait, he has been
selling them like hotcakes lately.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.25 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Re: Questions for the Griggs visit .....
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Questions for the Griggs visit .....
Date: 25 Jan 95 21:58:18 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi folks, have a nice day .........
In article <B.Hamilton.329.2F2591E2@irl.cri.nz>, B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz
(Bruce Hamilton) writes:
 --------------------------------------------------------------
> In article <Jkxa6Wr.jedrothwell@delphi.com>
>  jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:> 
>>Tom Droege <Droege@fnal.fnal.gov> writes: 
>>  "Please do not ask me to make particular measurements.  I do not 
>>   intend to make measurements. . . ."  
>>What?!? What is the point of going all the way to Rome, Georgia if you
>>are not going to take measurments?
 snip, snip...... 
> Incidently as Eugene Mallove has a video of the Griggs talk,
> would it be worthwhile purchasing a copy with the communal
> funds, in part as preparation for the visit?.
> 
>                Bruce Hamilton  
 -------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to post some questions concerning the Griggs device,
but feel that a summary of the Griggs talk would answer many of them.
Could some one who attended the talk or has seen the video please, please
post a summary. Its most frustrating living on the other side of the
planet to that where all the action is.
					Regards to all,
					Daryl Owen.

 

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudendowen cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.25 / Harry Conover /  Re: Report on "Cold Fusion Day" at MIT
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Report on "Cold Fusion Day" at MIT
Date: 25 Jan 1995 14:25:35 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

John Logajan (logajan@cray.com) wrote:

: My only point in bringing this up is that I was surprized that the water
: was able to transport the energy of the shockwave sufficiently to cause
: breakage of the plastic pill bottle.

John, a variant on what you described is used today (in a little more 
controlled form) in medicine to "shatter" kidney stones with focused 
shock waves (right through the flesh!).  Sounds painful, but as I 
understand it isn't.  As described by my doctor, you are placed into a 
tub of liquid (water?), carefully positioned, and ...pop...pop...pop...
the brittle kidney stones are shattered into small pieces by either the 
shock wave or acoustic energy...then pass harmlessly from the body.

Doesn't sound like a lot of fun, but evidently much more fun than surgery.

                                     Harry C.


cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.25 / Tom Droege /  Re: Griggs Questions
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Questions
Date: 25 Jan 1995 16:46:43 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <1995Jan24.112445.14313@driftwood.cray.com>, logajan@cray.com
(John Logajan) says:
>
>I agree with Jed that this trip seems somewhat pointless since Tom has
>declined in the limited time available to make any verification measurements.
>
>However, since the trip seems like it is going to take place, we might as
>well attempt to make the best of it.
>
>So my "question" would be for Tom to find out how the two principle input
>power measuring devices really work -- the ins and outs of their operation.
>
>1.) How exactly does the electrical power meter accomplish it's feat? 
>    Describe in detail the inner workings of the device.
>
>2.) How exactly does the dynometer do its job?  Again, describe in detail
>    the inner workings of the device.
>
>There has been plenty of speculation that these two devices can be fooled.
>If we understood the nuts and bolts of their operation, this speculation
>could either be validated or invalidated.
>
>--
> - John Logajan   F6111  --  logajan@cray.com  --  612-683-5426 -
> - Cray Research, Inc. 655F Lone Oak Drive, Eagan MN 55121-9957 -

Looks like John is the only one in the group capable of following 
instructions.  I asked you all to use the standard "Griggs Questions"
heading for questions to be considered during the Griggs visit.  Come
on, everybody, load me up with clever thoughts.  If you use the standard
heading I am more likely to find them.  

Jed seems worried that I am not going to try to take measurements.  This 
leads me to believe that I am on the right track.  It would be very easy
to take a few measurements.  It is also very likely that some of them
would be wrong.  Some of you young whipper snapers might be faster, but
I find it takes weeks and weeks to get even a simple measurement right. 
I guess I am not as skilled as Jed who just sticks his thermocouple in
ice and boiling water.  Jed knows one problem with boiling water, I know
a lot about ice.  I have never been able to do better that a couple of
degrees with ice.

So if I take a few measurements, and some of them are wrong, there is a 
real chance that I would not find heat if it is there, or I would find 
heat that was not there.  

In my opinion, the most likely result of taking some measurements is that
I would come to a false conclusion.  This does not mean I will not measure
anything.  I will try to check anything that looks suspicious to me.

I actually have a couple of ideas of what to look for.  But I don't want
to make them public as then Griggs will be prepared.  Some of you might 
have other ideas to check and may want to send them privately.  But in
general I prefer the open forum here.  

Tom Droege   Droege@storm.fnal.gov

  
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.25 / W Weingarten /  Re: Griggs Questions
     
Originally-From: woweinga@mtu.edu (Warren Weingarten)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Questions
Date: 25 Jan 1995 15:36:19 GMT
Organization: Michigan Tech. University

In article <1995Jan24.112445.14313@driftwood.cray.com>, logajan@cray.com
(John Logajan) wrote:
> 
> I agree with Jed that this trip seems somewhat pointless since Tom has
> declined in the limited time available to make any verification measurements.
> 
> However, since the trip seems like it is going to take place, we might as
> well attempt to make the best of it.
> 
> So my "question" would be for Tom to find out how the two principle input
> power measuring devices really work -- the ins and outs of their operation.
> 
> 1.) How exactly does the electrical power meter accomplish it's feat? 
>     Describe in detail the inner workings of the device.
> 
> 2.) How exactly does the dynometer do its job?  Again, describe in detail
>     the inner workings of the device.
> 
> There has been plenty of speculation that these two devices can be fooled.
> If we understood the nuts and bolts of their operation, this speculation
> could either be validated or invalidated.
> 
> --
>  - John Logajan   F6111  --  logajan@cray.com  --  612-683-5426 -
>  - Cray Research, Inc. 655F Lone Oak Drive, Eagan MN 55121-9957 -
I agree with John on these two items but I would like to add that:
Some of the speculations on fooling the power meters could be related to
the frequency response of these meters. I have read specuations that maybe
related to high frequency torque oscillations which could possibly cause
high frequency current components in the power line.  Would it be possible
to put a current transformer on one of the three phase lines and then check
with an oscilloscope for high frequency components of the current?  I
realize Tom does not want to make extensive measurements but this check
might rule out (or in) this type of error.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenwoweinga cudfnWarren cudlnWeingarten cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.25 / Harry Conover /  Re: Help me : I search data about nickel fusion
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Help me : I search data about nickel fusion
Date: 25 Jan 1995 14:43:08 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Antoine Medecin (amedecin@turing.imag.fr) wrote:
: 	I 'm  looking for :
: 		- thermic conductivity
: 		- or thermic diffusivity
: 	of liquid phase nickel
: 		- or fusion enthalpy of nickel

: 	or where can I find these data ?
: 	


Check your library for a copy of 'The International Critical Tables'.... 


cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.24 / John Logajan /  Re: Report on "Cold Fusion Day" at MIT
     
Originally-From: logajan@cray.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Report on "Cold Fusion Day" at MIT
Date: 24 Jan 95 15:00:31 CST

ProFusion (profusion@aol.com) wrote:
:    Dr. Peter Graneau spoke on "Anomalous Forces in Water
: Explosions." High-voltage, low-capacitance discharges in water,
: lasting 65 microseconds, produced explosive pressures of 20,000
: atmospheres, yet no steam nor any significant heating of the water
: was produced. One difficulty of the experimentation was that
: apparatus tended to be destroyed.
:    He showed a photograph of a metal plate used as a distance
: marker for a measurement of water projected from a tube by a
: discharge. A hole such as that made by a punch press was neatly
: punched in it.
:    Dr. Graneau went through electrodynamic math to show that
: values that should have been .5 were instead around 6000.

When the Meyer business came up about a year or so ago, I whipped up a little
experiment in which I seperated the bowls of two stainless steel soup spoons
by about 1/16 inch using double-sided sticky foam tape.  My surplus 20KV
DC voltage source had internal capacitors of unknown value.  I also added
a three liter pop bottle as Leyden jar (water as inside conductor, foil
outside).

Using a plastic stick, I connected the charged DC supply wire to the handles
of the spoons, which were immersed in distilled water in an old plastic
pill bottle.

After a few loud reports from within the spoon/water thing, I noticed that
the pill bottle was now cracked and leaking water.  Obviously the shock
waves from the underwater sparks had been of sufficient energy to crack the
plastic.

I applied several more shocks and then disassebled the spoons to find that
the two facing surfaces had tiny pock marks, indicating that the discharge
energy concentrated (not unexpectedly) in small areas during breakdown.
The distribution of the pock marks suggested that the geometry didn't favor
a specific site for the breakdown.  My guess is that it had to do more with
variations of concentrations of impurities (or bubbles?) floating in the water.

My only point in bringing this up is that I was surprized that the water
was able to transport the energy of the shockwave sufficiently to cause
breakage of the plastic pill bottle.

--
 - John Logajan   F6111  --  logajan@cray.com  --  612-683-5426 -
 - Cray Research, Inc. 655F Lone Oak Drive, Eagan MN 55121-9957 -
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Jan 26 04:37:03 EST 1995
------------------------------
