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 12:54:53 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Bruce Hamilton writes: >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 Yes, I said that, but I surely did not mean that he should take *no measurments at all*! None?!? That is absurd. That is exactly like going to an art gallery and not looking at any of the pictures. It is true that you cannot take in the full impact of every painting at the Freer Gallery in one day, but you can see quite a lot. Tom proposes to go all the way to the gallery, walk in the front door, look at the coat rack room, turn around and leave town. This other statement of yours is incorrect: "If there are errors, they will be subtle." If there are errors, they must be giantic, by definition. A subtle error will produce a suble effect. It takes a gigantic, obvious, macroscopic error to fool a person into thinking that 10 KW is 13 KW or 110 is 140 KW. If Griggs thought he was observing a 0.04% excess than you could prove he is wrong by showing a subtle error. A subtle mistake cannot make an entire 50 gallon barrel of steaming hot water seem to be 20 deg F hotter than it really is. I think that Tom's approach is designed to confuse the issue and prevent a resolution of this absurd s.p.f. "debate." I think he plans to go there, find some cockamamie reason not to believe it, and report that reason back here. He does not have the guts to actually prove what he says, by bringing in an instrument and showing a mistake. He will pretend there is a mistake and he will weasle out of having to prove it by saying "I did not take any measurements." A person who really believed he could find a mistake -- or not find a mistake and verify it -- would do the job and get it over with. I say put up or shut up; disprove it if you can. Tom does not dare try, so he will take no measurements. He will describe the equipment he says. Big deal! So what? I listed all the equipment months ago. Anyone who wants more information on the instruments can contact GE or Eaton. Going to Rome to get information you can get by fax just as easily is a waste of time. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.25 / Tom Droege / Re: A <> at MIT! Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: A <> at MIT! Date: 25 Jan 1995 17:04:52 GMT Organization: fermilab In article <3g36id$hu0@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>, c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad) says: > >The reports so far seem to be from the believers' end, so maybe there Thanks for the nice report. Tom Droege cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege 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 15:32:10 GMT Organization: CFRA conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) asked: "Now, Jed, tell us all loudly and clearly: What kind of fuel does an electrically fired boiler use, and how do we compute efficiency?" And I responded that here in Georgia, electrically fired boilers run on coal and fission. We get some hydroelectricity too, I should add. Harry writes: "I rest my case. This, from the same guy that posts claims of 300% energy efficiency for an electric motor-driven water pump!" What case do you rest, Harry? What is your theory? Do you think electricity shows up at your door for nothing? Didn't anyone ever tell you that it is generated in coal burning electric power plants. Go stand next to a railway some day, and you will see great long trains passing by carrying millions of tons of coal. Where do you think they are going? What do you think they are doing with the stuff? Seriously, what is the point of writing these inane comments. I am quite sure that even Harry Conover knows what the hell I mean when I say it takes a lot of fuel to heat up water with a resistance electric heater. It takes about three times more fuel than it would if you heat it up with gas. That's why gas heating is so much more economical. Any fool knows that. Electric heat pumps are a different story. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy25 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.25 / Tom Droege / Re: MRA independently tested Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: MRA independently tested Date: 25 Jan 1995 23:05:30 GMT Organization: fermilab In article <3g65jm$31l@boris.eden.com>, Scott Little says: > >Evaluation of Magnetic Resonance Amplifier (MRA) >Institute for Advanced Studies / EarthTech International, Inc. >4030 Braker Lane, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 >H. E. Puthoff and Scott Little > >20 January 1995 > >Abstract: > >An MRA device provided by Joel McClain and Norman Wooten was >tested for power efficiency. The MRA is essentially a power >converter, driven by an audio frequency AC voltage and producing all the good stuff deleted. OK, everybody, this is how it's done!! Anyone trained in science can look at this paper and see that it has the proper form. Not only that, reading it one sees that it has the proper content to be believed. Too bad that none of the cold fusion papers are as well written. Possibly one paper by McKubre and a few others follow this form. None of the P&F papers follow this pretty standard form for a paper of this type. So congratulations to Scott Little for a beautifully written little paper. This is the kind of presentation that would really get my interest if it were a positive paper. Too bad it is negative. Thank you Scott for presenting it here. See everyone, you can do great work and present it right here in s.p.f. No wait for refereed journals. Instant gratification. Tom Droege cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.25 / Gary Steckly / Hello Dr. Robert Bass? Originally-From: gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Hello Dr. Robert Bass? Date: Wed, 25 Jan 95 17:21:03 GMT Organization: Communications Canada Hi Bob I received your email that you sent on Saturday evening, but I have been unable to respond via the aol mail gateway. I sent a reply twice, but it came back in each case within a day with a message that the AOL mail system could not find RobertBass@aol.com Have you experienced similar problems before? Perhaps you should check with aol? regards Gary cudkeys: cuddy25 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.25 / jedrothwell@de / Re: GG device test Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: GG device test Date: Wed, 25 Jan 95 14:12:51 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) JOHN B BAHM writes: >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. Yup. He has done that. The diesel engine he uses is sitting right there in the shop. He drove that rig down to the ocean at Savannah and ran sea water through the GG just to see if the machine could handle it. It worked fine. But as for calorimetry, it is much, much easier and more accurate to use an electric motor and a dynamometer. >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 Yes, right. That is why he hooks it up to the diesel in some apps. It is a good sideline. But the electric motor driven version has some big plusses as well. It can be used inside a building with no special ventilation, just like an electric resistance heater. Also, electric motors are cleaner and cheaper to maintain than big diesels run over long periods of time. - jed cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.25 / John Nagle / Re: New Griggs theory Originally-From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: New Griggs theory Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 17:46:52 GMT Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes: >I previously offered the hypothesis that "excess heat" could be produced if >the Griggs device was oxidizing its aluminum rotor. A few calculations >produced on the net however indicated that the amount of aluminum which >would have to go missing would be easily seen in Griggs rotors from devices >which had been in operation for long times. Jed says that rotors from >devices which have been said to be producing excess heat for months show >little or no aluminum loss. This sounds like the Frenette Friction Furnace. Are they related? John Nagle cudkeys: cuddy25 cudennagle cudfnJohn cudlnNagle cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.25 / Mike Griffin / Re: Questions for the Griggs visit ..... Originally-From: mgriffin@il.us.swissbank.com (Mike Griffin) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Questions for the Griggs visit ..... Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 19:34:47 GMT Organization: Swiss Bank Corporation CM&T Division In article jedrothwell@delphi.com writes: > Bruce Hamilton writes: > > >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 > > Yes, I said that, but I surely did not mean that he should take *no > measurments at all*! None?!? That is absurd. That is exactly like going > to an art gallery and not looking at any of the pictures. (snip) > I think that Tom's approach is designed to confuse the issue and prevent a > resolution of this absurd s.p.f. "debate." I think he plans to go there, find > some cockamamie reason not to believe it, and report that reason back here. > He does not have the guts to actually prove what he says, by bringing in > an instrument and showing a mistake. He will pretend there is a mistake and > he will weasle out of having to prove it by saying "I did not take any > measurements." (snip) This post make Mr. Rothwell transparent to anyone who cares to look. Jed has set it up so that he can attack any negative finding that might be returned as a result of this exercise. First, he argues that no meaningful measuremen s can be made in the time alloted, hence no measurement-based critique can hold water. Then he takes the other side, asserting that there can only be measurements, there is no other point to undertaking the inquiry, hence no critique that *doesn't* involve measurements can be trusted, either. The whole scheme is revealed quite clearly by his allegation, in advance, that the investigator is determined to find something wrong no matter what! Jed is attempting to poison the well, and his approach to this, while intellectually dishonest, is somewhat clever. (It reminds one of the distinction between ignorance and stupidity -- Jed is definitely not stupid!) Fortunately, we will all be able to judge the quality of Tom's investigation and report for ourselves. Jed, how about just letting us do that, OK? Mike Griffin (expressed opionions are my own.) cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenmgriffin cudfnMike cudlnGriffin cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.25 / Scott Little / MRA independently tested Originally-From: Scott Little Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: MRA independently tested Date: 25 Jan 1995 18:34:30 GMT Organization: Adhesive Media, Inc. Evaluation of Magnetic Resonance Amplifier (MRA) Institute for Advanced Studies / EarthTech International, Inc. 4030 Braker Lane, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 H. E. Puthoff and Scott Little 20 January 1995 Abstract: An MRA device provided by Joel McClain and Norman Wooten was tested for power efficiency. The MRA is essentially a power converter, driven by an audio frequency AC voltage and producing a DC output. Our tests included meter measurements, made in the manner employed by McClain and Wooten, and digital oscilloscope measurements, which provided high-resolution recording of input voltage and current traces. Our meter measurements duplicated the results reported by McClain and Wooten which would appear to indicate over-unity (>100% efficiency) performance at certain frequencies, but only because the reactive behavior of the system is not properly taken into account by this measurement procedure. The digital oscilloscope measurements, which correctly account for the effects of circuit reactance, yielded a nearly constant 50% efficiency at all frequencies. Introduction: The MRA device we tested consisted of a piezoelectric transducer connected in series with the primary of a specially-constructed, hand-wound transformer. The transformer has a ferrite core and the secondary is connected to a full-wave bridge whose output is connected to a load. McClain and Wooten computed AC input power by determining an equivalent resistance R of the MRA, and then substituting that value R, and the closed-circuit MRA input voltage V, into V^2/R to calculate an input power. They determined this equivalent resistance by substituting a decade resistance box in place of the MRA to find the resistance that would yield the same connected-circuit driving voltage. (Such a procedure is appropriate for purely resistive loads.) In their most recent tests McClain and Wooten used a small DC motor as a load for the MRA. We used the motor initially to confirm proper operation of our MRA testbed, but replaced it with a 130 ohm resistor to eliminate commutation noise for the tests described below. We also attached a 30,000 microfarad filter capacitor across the load resistor to smooth out the DC to ensure accurate measurement with common digital meters. We used two Micronta 22-185A meters, one in series with the load to measure current, and one connected across the load and the other meter to measure total voltage delivered to the load and current meter. Total output power is the product of these two quantities. To generate the 34 kHz signal needed to drive the MRA we used a TEK FG504 Signal Generator amplified with a Pioneer H100, a modern solid-state 160-watt audio power amplifier without output transformers. To duplicate the performance of McClain and Wooten's Radio Shack MPA-45, 35-watt amplifier, we had to add series L (34 microhenries) and R (11.68 ohms) to our amplifier. Without the series R we only observed a 0.10 volt droop when driving the MRA at resonance (McClain and Wooten's amplifier exhibited a 1.58 volt droop under this loading). Without the series L the anomalous effects were still present but substantially lower in magnitude than those observed by McClain and Wooten. With our amplifier thus modified by the addition of these elements, we have duplicated the McClain-Wooten driver amplifier setup precisely. We used a LeCroy ScopeStation 140 100MHz digital oscilloscope with simultaneous sampling on 2 channels to measure MRA input voltage and current. Current was sensed as the voltage drop across the 11.68 ohm resistor placed in series with the amplifier output. This resistor was made by placing two 22 ohm, 2 watt carbon comp resistors in parallel to provide the desired resistance with a minimal inductance. Procedure: We conducted a series of measurements at different frequencies. At all times the MRA was connected to the 130 ohm load resistor. At each frequency we made the following measurements with the MRA connected to the AC signal source: f source frequency (measured with a Fluke 87) VinMRA voltage across the source terminals with the MRA connected (Fluke 87) Vout DC voltage across the 130 ohm load resistor and current meter (Micronta) Iout DC current through the 130 ohm load resistor (Micronta) Vin digital recording of the input voltage trace covering about 4 cycles (LeCroy) Iin digital recording of the input current trace simultaneous with Vin (LeCroy) At each frequency we also disconnected the MRA and measured: Vopen the open circuit voltage of the source (Fluke 87) We then connected a decade resistance box across the source terminals and by trial-and-error determined: Requiv the resistance required to produce the same driving voltage as with the MRA connected Results: The following table shows these measured quantities for four different frequencies, beginning at resonance and then decreasing. f (kHz) VinMRA Vopen Requiv Vout Iout 33.84 21.06 23.36 140 18.68 .1324 33.56 23.84 24.04 1900 15.02 .1068 33.34 24.20 24.10 negative 9.75 .0696 32.47 24.58 24.26 negative 5.28 .0377 The first entry in the table is at resonance and is characterized by the highest Vout value. The second entry has Vout at approximately 85% of the maximum value as suggested by McClain and Wooten. The digital data for Vin and Iin are not presented in this table in the interest of brevity. The several pages of digital data generated for each line in this table are, however, available upon request. The next table shows the results of the power calculations, both by the V^2/Requiv method used by McClain and Wooten, and by the averaging of Vin times Iin using the digitized data. Also tabulated are efficiency figures for each method (i.e., output power divided by input power). f DC output V^2/Requiv avg Vin*Iin Mc-W eff Vin*Iin eff 33.84 2.473 3.168 4.566 .78 .54 33.56 1.604 .299 3.265 5.36 .49 33.34 .679 negative 1.467 negative .46 32.47 .199 negative .401 negative .50 The figures in columns 2 - 4 are in watts. The last two columns contain ratios. The column labeled "Mc-W eff" is the power efficiency calculated by dividing the DC output by the McClain- Wooten input power V^2/Requiv. Discussion: The second row in the table shows the condition that McClain and Wooten interpreted as over-unity performance (e.g., an efficiency of 5.36). The problem lies in the value of 1900 ohms for Requiv. This value was obtained because of the small voltage change between open- and closed-circuit conditions (24.04 to 23.84) measured at that frequency. Note that at even lower frequencies, the source voltage was observed to actually increase above the open circuit voltage when the MRA was connected...a condition that McClain and Wooten also observed but did not attempt to analyze. At first glance this could be interpreted as evidence that the MRA was now feeding power to the source. However, this behavior is exactly what is predicted by classical AC circuit analysis when a load with a net capacitive reactance is driven by a source that has a net inductive reactance. Since the MRA is essentially a series LC circuit, at frequencies below resonance it will exhibit a net capacitive reactance. The audio amplifier used by McClain and Wooten has an output transformer which, at the MRA operating frequency (substantially higher than the middle of the audio range), will exhibit a noticeable inductive reactance in its output impedance. With such a combination of reactances one cannot, using only the magnitudes of voltage and current, determine the actual power being transferred to the MRA device. In particular, the Requiv method fails as one detunes from resonance because it ignores the effect of reactance. Such reactance creates a phase shift between voltage and current, a fact well-known in the electric power industry as "power factor." For example, if both voltage and current are sinusoids, true power is given by V*I*cos(A) where A is the phase angle between the voltage and current waveforms. An equivalent method, which is more general because it is applicable to any waveform, is to average the product of the voltage and current waveforms over an integer number of cycles. This is the method we used to obtain the values in the second table in the column "avg Vin*Iin". Conclusion Based on the results of our experimentation and analysis we find that the MRA device provided by McClain and Wooten does not produce over-unity-efficiency results. The MRA circuit behaves instead as one would expect of a loaded transformer with a series capacitor in the primary circuit. When the MRA is detuned from resonance to frequencies slightly below resonance, the observed changes may give the impression that the MRA then draws unusually little power from the source while nonetheless maintaining a healthy output. This impression is false. True power measurements show that the MRA continues to draw about twice as much power from the source as it delivers to the load. cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.25 / Klaus Woerle / Summer University on Plasma Physics Originally-From: Klaus Woerle Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Summer University on Plasma Physics Date: 25 Jan 1995 15:52:17 GMT Organization: Planetarium - Forum der Technik, Munich, Germany Summer University for Plasma Physics: 25 - 29 Sept. 1995 The Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik (IPP) in Garching near Munich is organizing a Summer University for Plasma Physics: 25 - 29 Sept. 1995. The course will cover the main aspects of plasma physics with emphasis on nuclear fusion. It is being held for European physics students who have passed their basic courses and have not yet started a doctoral (PhD) thesis. The lectures will be presented in English and scripts will be provided to all students selected. Cost of accomodation and boarding will be covered. Limited funds are available for travel expenses for foreign students. The following lectures will be offered: basic plasma physics - particle trajectories - kinetic theory, MHD - equilibrium, stability and transport in tokamaks - plasma heating - experimental results on tokamaks - stellarators - computer simulation of plasmas - plasma-wall interaction - plasma diagnostics - inertial fusion - fusion technology, safety and environmetal aspects - plasma technology. The course will include visits to the large plasma experiments, ASDEX Upgrade (tokamak) and WENDELSTEIN 7-AS (stellarator). Information on the optimized stellarator WENDELSTEIN 7-X to be built in Greifswald (Germany) will be provided. The Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik is host to an international design team for the next step fusion experiment, ITER, the status of which will be reported. Another goal of the Summer University is to promote an exchange of views among the coming generation of European scientists. An opportunity for discussions with lecturers and the other students will be provided in evening sessions. Applications with high school leaving certificate and evidence of basic physics study should be sent by 31 May 1995 to Mrs. Ch. Stahlberg Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik Boltzmannstr. 2 D-85748 Garching b. Muenchen Germany phone: Germany / 89 / 3299 - 2232 fax: Germany /89 / 3299 - 1001 cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenwoerlek cudfnKlaus cudlnWoerle cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.25 / John Logajan / Re: DoE stats on power plant efficiency Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: DoE stats on power plant efficiency Date: 25 Jan 1995 19:59:07 GMT Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. Jed Rothwell (72240.1256@CompuServe.COM) wrote: : Oops, we are talking about two different things here! Sorry I did not make it : clear.... I mean physical efficiency, not cost efficiency. I mean: My comments weren't intended to contradict anybody, but merely to expand upon the ongoing discussion. However, I disagree that physical efficiency and cost efficiency are unrelated, or unimportantly related. The importance of a Griggs device is inherently tied to its cost efficiency, just as is a fission-steam-cycle electrical power generation plant, etc. The discussion had already got to the point of incorporating transmission line losses, turbine efficiencies, etc. The bottom line on all this *is* the cost efficiency -- and that takes so many dynamics into account that no single central entity can calculate the answers we seek. Instead we rely on the price system as a massively parallel discovery mechanism -- with feedback and feedforward paths that we can scarely imagine, let alone predict. -- - 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: cuddy25 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.25 / Gary Steckly / Re: New Griggs theory Originally-From: gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: New Griggs theory Date: Wed, 25 Jan 95 19:15:36 GMT Organization: Communications Canada Bruce Dunn (Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca) wrote: : I postulated that the Griggs device might be oxidizing organic impurities : in its feed water. A few messages later prasad wrote: : > : > Interesting titbits. The Griggs output steam has a bluish tint, no idea : > why. : Smoke? : -- : Bruce Dunn Vancouver, Canada Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca Does it glow in the dark? Gary cudkeys: cuddy25 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.26 / John Nix / Re: New Griggs theory Originally-From: GGRV13A@prodigy.com (John Nix jr) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: New Griggs theory Date: 26 Jan 1995 03:52:55 GMT Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY Hmmm.... Let's see if this could explain slight increases under "normal" circumstances. If a non-anomolous rotor has 40 hp input and runs at 90% efficiency then we have something like 6.4 Kcal per second of heat. In order for the efficiency to appear to be 100%, we need to burn 0.7 Kcal per second. I understand a typical flow rate for heating water is something like 5 gallons per minute, or 315 mL per second. Gasoline contains approximately 10 Kcal per gram. Thus, we need approximately 70 mg of gasoline disolved in 315 mL of water. If the organic is something other than gasoline, we will probably need more of it. I recall that it is fairly easy to detect dissolved organics in water from taste and smell, and the above numbers should be easily detected. However, who knows what's in the Rome water supply. Perhaps this is a new way to clean septic tanks :-) John cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenGGRV13A cudfnJohn cudlnNix cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.25 / Matt Austern / Re: Griggs Questions Originally-From: matt@physics10.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Griggs Questions Date: 25 Jan 1995 21:36:58 GMT Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group) In article <3g5v9k$4ib@fnnews.fnal.gov> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes: > 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. OK, here are the question I'm most curious about. Basically the motivation for all of them is that we've heard a lot of claims about Griggs's boiler from Rothwell, and the question about just how many of those claims are really Griggs's and how many of them are Rothwell's has always been somewhat murky. (1) Does Griggs actually claim that his gadget produces more energy that what is input? Precisely how much more (and what is the claimed precision of that number) and under what circumstances? (2) Do customers believe that this gadget is producing more heat than can be accounted for by their input energy? Have the customers even heard the claims about excess heat? (3) Does Griggs claim that this has anything to do with "cold fusion" or any other nuclear process? [This one really puzzles me; I have no idea why this gadget is even in this newsgroup at all.] (4) If he does claim that he's got a nuclear device, then why does he think so? Has he looked for any nuclear byproducts?? These are all very basic questions, I admit. Still, I'd really like to know exactly what Griggs is claiming before deciding whether or not I believe his claims. -- --matt cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.25 / jedrothwell@de / Re: Griggs Questions Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Griggs Questions Date: Wed, 25 Jan 95 23:18:14 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) logajan@cray.com (John Logajan) writes: "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." I think these are good questions, well worth pursuing. I honestly do not know anything about the nuts and bolts of either device. However, let me suggest, in all seriousness, that there is no point to flying to Rome, Georgia to find the answers to these questions. Just contact GE and Eaton, and get them to send you the specs and operator manuals. I expect they are available: I just purchased a complete specs for an ancient HP wave form generator, long obsolete. (I must say, HP is an amazingly responsive company.) Furthermore, if you want to verify that these are the instruments in use, just watch one of the videos Griggs provides. I believe he pans in on the equipment. If he doesn't, just call him and ask him to make another video when he gets a chance. He is very accommodating. Even if you go there, you cannot take apart the instruments much. The GE Dranetz is user maintainable, but the dynamometer is a factory sealed unit. You cannot see inside it. For that matter, what can anyone tell by opening up a sophisticated power meter for an hour or two? Unless you are a real expert in power meters and you have all the technical documentation right in front of you, you could not possibly learn the "inner workings" just by looking. Quite frankly, I cannot imagine why Tom Droege would be in such a rush to get in and get out again. Why not spend a few days there? It is beautiful country, the motels are real cheap, and the food is pretty darn good too. Why not spend two or three days and do the job right? Just let the thing run all afternoon one day and measure at your leisure. I myself always like to watch a machine perform at a steady pace for an extended period. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.25 / Tom Droege / The Griggs Test Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: The Griggs Test Date: 25 Jan 1995 23:18:35 GMT Organization: fermilab Reading some of Jed's stuff, I feel obliged to remind everyone the real test of the GG. The Droege Foot Test: Having seen the device and having heard Griggs' presentation, do I return home and start building one? If I do, it is a positive assessment. If I do not, it is negative. There is no other meaningful test. I assure everyone that I have sufficient resources and contacts to do what is required. Note that P&F cold fusion has presently failed the foot test. I have walked away from the work. Mills and Yang have also failed among others. But I have been bitten several times and am subject to the disease. Tom Droege cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.26 / John Vetrano / Re: Brief Report on MIT IAP Cold Fusion Day Originally-From: js_vetrano@pnl.gov (John S Vetrano) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Brief Report on MIT IAP Cold Fusion Day Date: 26 Jan 1995 00:39:47 GMT Organization: Battelle PNL In article <950123134714_76570.2270_HHB28-1@CompuServe.COM>, 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) wrote: > *Brief* Memo on IAP Cold Fusion Day at MIT > by Eugene F. Mallove, Sc.D., meeting organizer > *About 150 attendees in rapt > attention* for about 10 hours --This must be a different room that the one prasad was in where many were snoring! :-) > > (A) Jim Griggs of Hydrodynamics, Inc. (Rome, Georgia) gave a magnificent > presentation with new data on *massive melting* that has occurred on the > periphery of his Hydrosonic Pump aluminum rotors on several occasions. He also > described re-welding of melted material to the rotor surface -- an even > higher-temperature effect, he said. He had one such rotor unit there and you > could see and feel it. Fantastically high temerpatures would be required to > do that and this is NOT ordinary cavitation. Dr. Mallove, I'm not sure what you mean by fantastically high temperatures. I can melt an aluminum can in my campfire. Also, melting and welding of a given metal both require the same temperature. Unless of course the extra metal is steel. Did he have an analysis of the type of metal that was re-welded to the rotor? Where did it come from? This interests me very much, as do the "images" on the rotor that were mentioned in this forum some months ago. Much attention has been paid to the chemistry and heat content of the water/steam that comes out, but it goes through quickly whereas the rotors are in there for a long time. I might mention that it is possible to dissolve gases in aluminum. Also on air were two members of the "Flat Earth Society" -- Gary > Taubes, author of "Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion" > and Professor David Goodstein of Caltech, neither of whom obviously knew what > they were talking about in the matter of cold fusion.*** Neither have been seen > at any cold fusion conferences in recent years***, but that did not stop them > from calling cold fusion research "lousy science." The fact that they have not been at any CF conferences is not a suprise, since judging from the postings of a month ago or so the invitation list is very exclusive. Just for the record, were conference announcement flyers mailed to these two? > Sincerely, > > Eugene F. Mallove, Sc.D. > > Cold Fusion Technology > P.O. Box 2816 > Concord, NH 03302-2816 > Fax: 603-224-5975 > Phone: 603-228-4516 > > Just as Sincerely, John Vetrano js_vetrano@pnl.gov -- The above opinions are mine, all mine. cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenjs_vetrano cudfnJohn cudlnVetrano cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.25 / jedrothwell@de / Re: Griggs Questions Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Griggs Questions Date: Wed, 25 Jan 95 23:26:38 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Tom Droege writes: >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. Come off it Tom, you are not fooling anyone. The Delta T temperature from the excess heat is 20 degrees in 20 minutes with the barrel test. If you want to hang around, or deal with hotter water, you can make it 30 deg F. "A couple of degrees" would not make any significant difference. Furthermore, if you have any damn sense, you will bring one or two of your own thermometers which you know are correct +/- 1 deg F. Then all you have to do is put your two thermometers plus a couple of the Griggs thermocouples into the ice slush and you can compare all four devices. You will not find even 1 deg F difference between them if you stir the slush a bit. You are pretending that the Griggs device requires ultra-precise measurements to the nearest miliwatt or to +/- 0.01%. It does not! You have gigantic leeway, you can make very safe, very conservative measurements discounting every concievable source of error; that is: you can subract absolutely everything you think might possibly cause a problem, and you can ignore the 5% extra that you know must be lost to radiation from the pump. Even after all that, you will still find a large, easily measured excess. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.25 / jedrothwell@de / Re: Griggs Questions Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Griggs Questions Date: Wed, 25 Jan 95 23:30:19 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Matt Austern writes: >OK, here are the question I'm most curious about. Basically the >motivation for all of them is that we've heard a lot of claims about >Griggs's boiler from Rothwell, and the question about just how many of >those claims are really Griggs's and how many of them are Rothwell's >has always been somewhat murky. > >(1) Does Griggs actually claim that his gadget produces more energy >that what is input? Precisely how much more (and what is the claimed >precision of that number) and under what circumstances? and bla, bla, bla. Hey listen, if you are so curious about that, why the hell haven't you contacted Griggs directly to ask him? What is with you anyway? Are you paralyzed and unable to dial a phone? Do you depend upon me to spoon feed all information about all things in life? That gives me a real sense of power! I can tell you anything I like, I know that you are incapable of finding out anything on your own. Sheesh!!! - Jed cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.26 / Robin Spaandonk / Excess heat Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Excess heat Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 15:18:51 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway I wonder how many of the CF experiments that report excess heat, do NOT use pulsed current? (Dieter perhaps you would have the best chance of answering this?) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.26 / Bill Page / Re: MRA device independently tested Originally-From: 060739@acadvm1.uottawa.ca (Bill Page) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: MRA device independently tested Subject: MRA independently tested Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 15:21:19 GMT Date: 25 Jan 1995 18:34:30 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway Scott Little wrote: << Subject: MRA independently tested Date: 25 Jan 1995 18:34:30 GMT ... Evaluation of Magnetic Resonance Amplifier (MRA) Institute for Advanced Studies / EarthTech International, Inc. 4030 Braker Lane, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 H. E. Puthoff and Scott Little 20 January 1995 Abstract: An MRA device provided by Joel McClain and Norman Wooten was tested for power efficiency. The MRA is essentially a power converter, driven by an audio frequency AC voltage and producing a DC output. Our tests included meter measurements, made in the manner employed by McClain and Wooten, and digital oscilloscope ... >> Thank you for a very well done and clearly explained analysis of the "MRA" claims. To echo what Tom Droege has said: I think this report stands as an excellent example of the way scientific results should be reported on the Internet. What else can one say but thanks again to H.E. Puthoff and Scott Little! Cheers, Bill Page cudkeys: cuddy26 cuden060739 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.26 / Robert Heeter / Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 1/3 (Overview) Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics,sci.environment,sc .answers,news.answers Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 1/3 (Overview) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 04:20:09 GMT Organization: Princeton University Archive-name: fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview Last-modified: 25-Jan-1995 Posting-frequency: More-or-less-biweekly Disclaimer: While this section is still evolving, it should be useful to many people, and I encourage you to distribute it to anyone who might be interested (and willing to help!!!). ---------------------------------------------------------------- ### Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Fusion Research ---------------------------------------------------------------- # Written/Edited by: Robert F. Heeter Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory # Last Revised January 25, 1995 ---------------------------------------------------------------- *** A. Welcome to the Conventional Fusion FAQ! ---------------------------------------------------------------- * 1) Contents This file is intended to indicate (A) that this FAQ exists, (B) what it discusses, (C) how to find it on the Internet, and (D) the status of the Fusion FAQ project * 2) What is the Conventional Fusion FAQ? The Conventional Fusion FAQ is a comprehensive, relatively nontechnical set of answers to many of the frequently asked questions about fusion science, fusion energy, and fusion research. Additionally, there is a Glossary of Frequently Used Terms (in plasma physics and fusion energy) which explains much of the jargon of the field. The Conventional Fusion FAQ originated as an attempt to provide answers to many of the typical, basic, or introductory questions about fusion research, and to provide a listing of references and other resources for those interested in learning more. The Glossary section containing Frequently Used Terms (FUT) also seeks to facilitate communication regarding fusion by providing brief explanations of the language of the field. * 3) Scope of the Conventional Fusion FAQ: Note that this FAQ discusses only the conventional forms of fusion (primarily magnetic confinement, but also inertial and muon-catalyzed), and not new/unconventional forms ("cold fusion", sonoluminescence-induced fusion, or ball-lightning fusion). I have tried to make this FAQ as uncontroversial and comprehensive as possible, while still covering everything I felt was important / standard fare on the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup. * 4) How to Use the FAQ: This is a rather large FAQ, and to make it easier to find what you want, I have outlined each section (including which questions are answered) in Section 0, Part 2 (posted separately). Hopefully it will not be too hard to use. Web versions are also being assembled. * 5) Claims and Disclaimers: This is an evolving document, not a completed work. As such, it may not be correct or up-to-date in all respects. This document should not be distributed for profit without my permission. Individual sections may have additional restrictions. In no case should my name, the revision date, or this paragraph be removed. - Robert F. Heeter ------------------------------------------------------------------- *** B. Contents (Section Listing) of the Conventional Fusion FAQ ------------------------------------------------------------------- ***************************************************************** What This FAQ Discusses ***************************************************************** (Each of these sections is posted periodically on sci.physics.fusion. Each listed part is posted as a separate file.) Section 0 - Introduction Part 1/3 - Title Page Table of Contents How to Find the FAQ Current Status of the FAQ project Part 2/3 - Detailed Outline with List of Questions Part 3/3 - Revision History Section 1 - Fusion as a Physical Phenomenon Section 2 - Fusion as an Energy Source Part 1/5 - Technical Characteristics Part 2/5 - Environmental Characteristics Part 3/5 - Safety Characteristics Part 4/5 - Economic Characteristics Part 5/5 - Fusion for Space-Based Power Section 3 - Fusion as a Scientific Research Program Part 1/3 - Chronology of Events and Ideas Part 2/3 - Major Institutes and Policy Actors Part 3/3 - History of Achievements and Funding Section 4 - Methods of Containment / Approaches to Fusion Part 1/2 - Toroidal Magnetic Confinement Approaches Part 2/2 - Other Approaches (ICF, muon-catalyzed, etc.) Section 5 - Status of and Plans for Present Devices Section 6 - Recent Results Section 7 - Educational Opportunities Section 8 - Internet Resources Section 9 - Future Plans Section 10 - Annotated Bibliography / Reading List Section 11 - Citations and Acknowledgements Glossary of Frequently Used Terms (FUT) in Fusion: Part 0/7 - Intro Part 1/7 - A-B Part 2/7 - C-D Part 3/7 - E-F Part 4/7 - G-J Part 5/7 - K-M Part 6/7 - N-R Part 7/7 - S-Z -------------------------------------------------------------- *** C. How to find the Conventional Fusion FAQ on the 'Net: -------------------------------------------------------------- ***************************************************************** ### The FAQ about the FAQ: ### How can I obtain a copy of a part of the Fusion FAQ? ***************************************************************** * 1) Obtaining the Fusion FAQ from Newsgroups Those of you reading this on news.answers, sci.answers, sci.energy, sci.physics, or sci.environment will be able to find the numerous sections of the full FAQ by reading sci.physics.fusion periodically. (Please note that not all sections are completed yet.) Because the FAQ is quite large, most sections are posted less-than-monthly to avoid unnecessary consumption of bandwidth. All sections of the FAQ which are ready for "official" distribution are posted to sci.physics.fusion, sci.answers, and news.answers, so you can get them from these groups by waiting long enough. * 2) World-Wide-Web (Mosaic, Netscape, Lynx, etc.): Several primitive Web versions now exist. The "official" one is currently at We hope to have a version on the "official" PPPL Web server () soon. There are other sites which have made "unofficial" Web versions from the newsgroup postings. I haven't hunted all of these down yet, but I know a major one is at this address: Note that the "official" one will include a number of features which cannot be found on the "unofficial" ones created by automated software from the newsgroup postings. In particular we hope to have links through the outline directly to questions, and between vocabulary words and their entries in the Glossary, so that readers unfamiliar with the terminology can get help fast. (Special acknowledgements to John Wright at PPPL, who is handling much of the WWW development.) * 3) FAQ Archives at FTP Sites (Anonymous FTP) - Intro All completed sections can also be obtained by anonymous FTP from various FAQ archive sites, such as rtfm.mit.edu. The address for this archive is: Please note that sections which are listed above as having multiple parts (such as the glossary, and section 2) are stored in subdirectories, where each part has its own filename; e.g., /fusion-faq/glossary/part0-intro. There are a large number of additional FAQ archive sites, many of which carry the fusion FAQ. These are listed below. * 4) Additional FAQ archives worldwide (partial list) There are other FAQ archive sites around the world which one can try if rtfm is busy; a list is appended at the bottom of this file. * 5) Additional Note / Disclaimer: Not all sections of the FAQ have been written yet, nor have they all been "officially" posted. Thus, you may not find what you're looking for right away. Sections which are still being drafted are only posted to sci.physics.fusion. If there's a section you can't find, send me email and I'll let you know what's up with it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- *** D. Status of the Conventional Fusion FAQ Project ---------------------------------------------------------------------- * 1) Written FAQ Sections: Most sections have been at least drafted, but many sections are still being written. Sections 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, and 9 remain to be completed. Those sections which have been written could use revising and improving. I am trying to obtain more information, especially on devices and confinement approaches; I'm also looking for more information on international fusion research, especially in Japan & Russia. *** I'd love any help you might be able to provide!! *** * 2) Building a Web Version A primitive version exists now. Would like to add graphics and cross-references to the Glossary, between FAQ sections, and to other internet resources (like laboratory Web pages). * 3) Nuts & Bolts - I'm looking for ways to enhance the distribution of the FAQ, and to get additional volunteer help for maintenance and updates. * 4) Status of the Glossary: # Contains roughly 1000 entries, including acronyms, math terms, jargon, etc. # Currently incorporating the 1985 OSTI Glossary of Fusion Energy, and even more additional terminology. (I'm up to the letter M on the revisions, as of 25-Jan-95.) # Also working to improve technical quality of entries (more formal.) # Primitive World Wide Web version exists, hope to cross-reference to FAQ. # Could be officially published (through OSETI?) # Hope to distribute to students, policymakers, journalists, scientists, i.e., to anyone who needs a quick reference to figure out what we're really trying to say, or to decipher all the "alphabet soup." Scientists need to remember that not everyone knows those "trivial" words we use every day. The glossary and FAQ should be useful in preparing for talks to lay audiences. --------------------------------------------------------------------- *** E. Appendix: List of Additional FAQ Archive Sites Worldwide --------------------------------------------------------------------- (The following information was excerpted from the "Introduction to the *.answers newsgroups" posting on news.answers, from Sept. 9, 1994.) Other news.answers/FAQ archives (which carry some or all of the FAQs in the rtfm.mit.edu archive), sorted by country, are: [ Note that the connection type is on the left. I can't vouch for the fusion FAQ being on many of these, but it should be on some. - Bob Heeter ] Belgium ------- gopher cc1.kuleuven.ac.be port 70 anonymous FTP cc1.kuleuven.ac.be:/anonymous.202 mail-server listserv@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be get avail faqs Canada ------ gopher jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca port 70 Finland ------- anonymous ftp ftp.funet.fi/pub/doc/rtfm France ------ anonymous FTP grasp1.insa-lyon.fr:/pub/faq grasp1.insa-lyon.fr:/pub/faq-by-newsgroup gopher gopher.insa-lyon.fr, port 70 mail server listserver@grasp1.univ-lyon1.fr Germany ------- anonymous ftp ftp.Germany.EU.net:/pub/newsarchive/news.answers ftp.informatik.uni-muenchen.de:/pub/comp/usenet/news.answers ftp.uni-paderborn.de:/doc/FAQ ftp.saar.de:/pub/usenet/news.answers (local access only) gopher gopher.Germany.EU.net, port 70. gopher.uni-paderborn.de mail server archive-server@Germany.EU.net ftp-mailer@informatik.tu-muenchen.de ftp-mail@uni-paderborn.de World Wide Web http://www.Germany.EU.net:80/ FSP ftp.Germany.EU.net, port 2001 gopher index gopher://gopher.Germany.EU.net:70/1.archive gopher://gopher.uni-paderborn.de:70/0/Service/FTP Korea ----- anonymous ftp hwarang.postech.ac.kr:/pub/usenet/news.answers Mexico ------ anonymous ftp mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx:/pub/usenet/news.answers The Netherlands --------------- anonymous ftp ftp.cs.ruu.nl:/pub/NEWS.ANSWERS gopher gopher.win.tue.nl, port 70 mail server mail-server@cs.ruu.nl Sweden ------ anonymous ftp ftp.sunet.se:/pub/usenet Switzerland ----------- anonymous ftp ftp.switch.ch:/info_service/usenet/periodic-postings anonymous UUCP chx400:ftp/info_service/Usenet/periodic-postings mail server archiver-server@nic.switch.ch telnet nic.switch.ch, log in as "info" Taiwan ------ anonymous ftp ftp.edu.tw:/USENET/FAQ mail server ftpmail@ftp.edu.tw United Kingdon -------------- anonymous ftp src.doc.ic.ac.uk:/usenet/news-faqs/ FSP src.doc.ic.ac.uk port 21 gopher src.doc.ic.ac.uk port 70. mail server ftpmail@doc.ic.ac.uk telnet src.doc.ic.ac.uk login as sources World Wide Web http://src.doc.ic.ac.uk/usenet/news-faqs/ United States ------------- anonymous ftp ftp.uu.net:/usenet World Wide Web http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu:80/hypertext/faq/usenet/top.html cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.26 / Dieter Britz / ICCF4 biblio: comments Originally-From: Dieter Britz Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: ICCF4 biblio: comments Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 13:33:27 +0100 Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University Hello all, here we go with the ICCF4 issue of FT. I start with the comments, and I include one by Matsumoto from an earlier issue. His letter to the editor is not a paper, even though it has a sort of a reference in it (as usual, to himself). The others I thought were pertinent to that special issue; i.e. were the papers in it refereed or not? As I think I have said, my feeling is that Miley himself did the refereeing, but by my own rules, these papers are papers and belong in the blabbliography. If you have seen that issue and wonder why Schwinger's note is not among the comments below, this is because I take that item to be a paper; it makes more points than some papers I have seen, and summarises the man's ideas on 'cold fusion'. There were, as you see, three commentaries devoted to Schwinger's memory. Comments: the count is 232 ^^^^^^^^ # Hagelstein PL; Fusion Technol. 26 (4T) (1994), xi. "In memory of Julian Schwinger". ** One of three dedication pieces on the occasion of the death of Julian Schwinger, Nobel Prize winning physicist, who before his death strongly supported 'cold fusion' on theoretical grounds. #..................................................................... Jan-95 Matsumoto T; Fusion Technol. 26 (1994) 1337. (Letter to the Editor) "Two proposals concerning cold fusion". ** Matsumoto, a frequent author in FT, states that up to now, 'cold fusion' papers have enjoyed special status in FT, not being reviewed as strictly as other papers. This status has now been removed by the editor and Matsumoto agrees. However, now he would like to submit papers on ball lightning, in which he claims 'cold fusion' takes place, and proposes that such papers should enjoy that special leniency. His other proposal is to set up an international bench marking project on nuclear emulsions exposed to 'cold fusion' environments, and urges interested parties to contact him. #..................................................................... Jan-95 Miley G; Fusion Technol. 26 (4T) (1994), vii. Editorial. ** The editor of FT here explains this special issue, containing 65 (by my count) papers delivered at ICCF-4, Maui, 1993. He mentions a review process, taking more time than expected; thus we can take it that these papers were reviewed. #..................................................................... Jan-95 Miley G; Fusion Technol. 26 (4T) (1994), viii. "Dedication to Julian Schwinger". ** One of three dedication pieces on the occasion of the death of Julian Schwinger, Nobel Prize winning physicist, who before his death strongly supported 'cold fusion' on theoretical grounds. #..................................................................... Jan-95 Passel TO; Fusion Technol. 26 (4T) (1994), xxii. Preface. Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion. ** T.O. Passel, of EPRI, who was instrumental in shaping this special issue of FT, here prefaces it with a few remarks. Like the editor, G. Miley, he establishes that the papers were reviewed and that many did not make it through this process, or were not submitted to it. He comments that this could be a comment on the reviewing process as much as on the papers. There is a Shakespeare quote. #..................................................................... Jan-95 Rabinowitz M; Fusion Technol. 26 (4T) (1994), ix. "In memory of Julian Schwinger". ** One of three dedication pieces on the occasion of the death of Julian Schwinger, Nobel Prize winning physicist, who before his death strongly supported 'cold fusion' on theoretical grounds. There is a list at the end, of JS's 8 papers on 'cold fusion', the last of them being also published in the same issue of FT. #..................................................................... Jan-95 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: cuddy26 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.26 / prasad / Errata, and also Re: Brief Report, MIT Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Errata, and also Re: Brief Report, MIT Date: 26 Jan 1995 13:18:35 GMT Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center Re: my report, posted a couple of days ago. John Vestrano has privately clarified to me that when they said "sixty sixty one" at the conference, they meant 6061, not 60:60:1, as I had thought. =========================== In article , js_vetrano@ nl.gov (John S Vetrano) writes: |> In article <950123134714_76570.2270_HHB28-1@CompuServe.COM>, |> 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) wrote: |> |> *About 150 attendees in rapt attention* for about 10 hours |> |> --This must be a different room that the one prasad was in where many were |> snoring! :-) Well, not many were, actually, but standard classroom phenomenon during theory classes. Everyone was very much awake for the rest of the time! [ then maybe I lost my bearings and went to a different "free energy" day ;-] |> > .... *massive melting* Yes, though I'd have said *extensive*. Definitely not scratches or abrasion as you'd expect from particles between rotors and the casing. But the *welds* are only distinguishable in the photomicrographs. But then I'm no metallurgist, and these are opinions discussed over there that made sense to me as a lay person. |> and welding of a given metal both require the same temperature. Unless of |> course the extra metal is steel. Did he have an analysis of the type of |> metal that was re-welded to the rotor? Where did it come from? This Al itself. Like little humps and overhangs and bridges. But I wasn't too surprised at the temperatures alone. Perfectly normal for the spot temperatures in cavitation. Then again, I'd think that it is really unfair to compare with cavitation damage in marine propeller blades. Marine propellers are probably not operated at 60 Hz (3600 rpm) for extended durations, and even if they are, they don't have a tight casing around them. Would make a lot of difference to the boundary layer flow and the nature of cavitation, and might be totally responsible for the distinct nature of the damage. Then again, who knows, if you install a cylindrical casing around the propellers, like in a turbofan, you just might get steam at 130% efficiency instead of propulsion ;-) cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.26 / Dieter Britz / Moderated group, second (third) thoughts Originally-From: Dieter Britz Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Moderated group, second (third) thoughts Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 10:05:15 +0100 Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University Darryl Owen now supports the idea of a moderated offshoot group, and there are others. I have thought about this and concluded that the motive for such a group is in fact not to separate hot fusion from cold, but to set up a group that deals with the science, rather than the money or the propaganda or the snake oil, of fusion. So I now think we might be served well with a group like spf.research (just a suggestion, following the sp.research lead), that would include both hot and cold fusion.I have nothing against the occasional postings by Bob Heeter etc. I do have a lot against all the hype, the Plutonium postings and the epidemic of irrelevant cross postings that have filled this group. Even skipping this stuff takes up valuable time. We need a moderator. Any volunteers? When we have one, what is the next step? Whom does one approach with a new-group suggestion? Before the whingers start their knee-jerk whinges (if you can do that), let me once again point out that this group will of course remain, you hype artists and snake oil merchants will be able to keep doing your act. And if the more serious posters all move to the new group, well, everyone can of course READ such a group. I would, for example, post my blabblio updates to that new group, rather than here. -- Dieter Britz alias britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.26 / Mike Griffin / Re: Rothwellian thermodynamics, question for Jed Originally-From: mgriffin@il.us.swissbank.com (Mike Griffin) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Rothwellian thermodynamics, question for Jed Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 16:28:44 GMT Organization: Swiss Bank Corporation CM&T Division I know this is asking a lot, but ... Jed, Could you please define, in plain English, what you mean by the word "efficiency"? And (here's the hard part) do it without flaming someone or their grandmother? I think this might help clarify the discussion. Thanks, Mike Griffin (expressed and implied opinions are my own) cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenmgriffin cudfnMike cudlnGriffin cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.26 / prasad / Re: New Griggs theory Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: New Griggs theory Date: 26 Jan 1995 12:47:08 GMT Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center In article <1995Jan25.191536.29524@clark.dgim.doc.ca>, gsteckly@dgim.doc ca (Gary Steckly) writes: (me:) |> : > |> : > Interesting titbits. The Griggs output steam has a bluish tint, no idea |> : > why. |> |> Does it glow in the dark? Donno if it does that too. What Griggs showed was a photograph of the steam outlet. From the size of the droplet forming, I'd think it was a 1/4" dia pipe. The steam did appear bluish (like a welding torch flame). cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.26 / John Logajan / Re: MRA independently tested Originally-From: logajan@cray.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: MRA independently tested Date: 26 Jan 95 12:48:53 CST Scott Little (little@eden.com) wrote: : Evaluation of Magnetic Resonance Amplifier (MRA) : Institute for Advanced Studies / EarthTech International, Inc. : 4030 Braker Lane, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 : H. E. Puthoff and Scott Little : Abstract: : The digital oscilloscope measurements, which correctly account : for the effects of circuit reactance, yielded a nearly constant : 50% efficiency at all frequencies. Excellent report. Thanks for the effort. I'd also like to view this as a good learning experience and remember that the original investigators (McClain and Wooten?) simply made an interpretive mistake and that anyone of us could (and probably already) have. So let's not have any of that "I told ya so!" Science should be about getting answers, and not about getting clubs with which to pound on others' egos. -- - John Logajan F6111 -- logajan@cray.com -- 612-683-5426 - - Cray Research, Inc. 655F Lone Oak Drive, Eagan MN 55121-9957 - cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.26 / 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: Thu, 26 Jan 95 09:05:06 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) mgriffin@il.us.swissbank.com (Mike Griffin) writes: "This post make Mr. Rothwell transparent to anyone who cares to look. ... Jed has set it up so that he can attack any negative finding that might be returned as a result of this exercise. First, he argues that no meaningful measurements can be made in the time allotted, hence no measurement-based critique can hold water." Nonsense! I never said that "no meaningful measurements" can be made in one day. That's absurd. You can make lots of good measurements in six or eight hours: you can confirm the input electric power with your own meter, the flow rate, and the temperature. Those are essentially all the numbers you need. What I said was that a person starting from scratch cannot calibrate every single instrument or try every variation of the experiment. You would not have time to do an extended run with flow calorimetry as opposed to the 'barrel test'. It takes 15 or 20 minutes to set up a run. You would not have time to replace the rotor with the 'blank' rotor with no holes for a null run. In one day you may not get enough of a feel for the experiment to judge the situation with complete confidence. You may not have time to check every detail you feel needs checking. There is a learning curve for a person who has not done a lot of large scale HVAC calorimetry. But that does not mean you cannot do any meaningful measurements! That is an absurd exaggeration. Again let me point out that a person who does this sort of work day in and day out will have a van full of meters, thermometers and other tools. A skilled engineer would know exactly how to measure large scale electricity and heat, with no learning curve. "Then he takes the other side, asserting that there can only be measurements, there is no other point to undertaking the inquiry, hence no critique that *doesn't* involve measurements can be trusted, either." Yes. That is how science works. Verbiage and hot air count for nothing. Data is the only thing that ever proves the point. I never trust people or their reports, I trust only instruments. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.26 / an176059@anon. / Med warning: Was Re: Report on "Cold Fusion Day" at MIT Originally-From: an176059@anon.penet.fi Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Med warning: Was Re: Report on "Cold Fusion Day" at MIT Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 02:06:22 UTC Organization: Anonymous contact service In article <3g5n0v$jat@sundog.tiac.net> conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes: >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. For anyone considering the treatment, there is now some evidence suggesting the process can cause kidney damage. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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: cuddy26 cudenan176059 cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.25 / 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: 25 Jan 1995 23:54:39 GMT Organization: Silicon Valley Public Access Link ,<3fubvk$1rm@borg.svpal.org> <3g0rco$gru@msunews.cl.msu.edu>: Distribution: >Robert W. Hatcher (hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu) Writes: > (snip) > Again, I notice that you simply dismiss the question of the energy/angle > distributions of events as "unimportant"...... Robert: i don't recall simply dismissing angle/energy distributions. What i questioned, at your insistence, was the claim to have seen 100000 neutral current events. I want to know if it is likely for so many events. Aren't there other neutrals that can explain the same signatures? If we are getting more "event candidates" than cross section theory says we should expect, then questions are valid. Most are working from the premise that the neutrino acts a certain way, I that the neutrino does not. We both agree, i believe, and most correspondents agree that background can fake these records. Those who are trying to prove theory, must rationalize which are false and which they can construe as proving the theory. The problem with particle physics, as presently framed, is that it is free to propose any force or any particle, needed to make the theory plausible. Then to silence the critics, will claim experimental evidence that "proves" the theory. But, if one reviews the experiments, the conclusions are very, very, "far fetched". > Trust me, we'd see any incoming tracks in this detector......just > as in the first picture in the postscript file I've referred you to twice > already, one can make out the remnants of an old cosmic ray muon > entering from the top. Yes, that is the evidence I would like to have seen that the first detectors were active. That certainly is what would definitely show a neutral particle caused the event! However, that does not exclude other neutrals than the neutrino, in my view. Another test is if the neutral event occurs any where along the detector volume. If the record always starts at about the same place, it definitely would indicate trigger timing effect. > Besides, other experiments have a near 0% dead time system....and > they too see no incoming tracks. Yes, see Cahn and Goldhaber, p.379 about the first claim to see the neutral current. Very clearly Gargamelle is contaminated with neutrons and gamma rays, both of which can fake out what is trying to be proved. To discount these they imagine a reason to exclude neutrons or other neutral particles. But see how biased the statements are made, it presupposes that neutrino beams exist, and neutrinos react in the shield to produce the neutrons. Now i believe in neutrinos, i just question how the literature begs the acceptance that neutrinos can penetrate without reaction, then have the neutrinos react within a small volume detector almost on command, creating a jet of particles. > Or are you claiming that KII failed to notice incoming muons that just > happened to mimic the signal of the neutrino...... Kamiokande II claimed to have seen, over a two second period, 9 electrons of energies, 20, 14, 8, 9, 13, 6, 35, 21, and 20 MeV. Only three of these are the right energy (10 MeV) and only two "events" pointed in the right direction!!! I believe in neutrinos, but have trouble believing that neutrinos traveled the 50 kiloparsec distance from SN87A and created in a small tank of water in a minor planet. Neutrinos exist but this boggles the mind. >You never addressed........how..all managed to measure a linear > dependence of cross section with neutrino energy. Come on, Robert, the reason that the cross section increases is because when energy of the accelerator is raised you create more particles, and neutrals that can produce more false positives. Sure they all rationalize these away, but the fact remains that the remaining events blamed on the neutrino, may also have an alternate explanation. Neutrino "events" if we believe theory, seldom happen, yet the literature would have us believe that the neutrino characteristics have been measured with precision and certainty. Sure neutrinois exist, but they do not act the way they have been theorized, in my view. Lets stop arguing who shot John and discuss just; What the neutrino has that allows it to do all the wonderful things it is supposed to do? If we get into that mode we will find that the standard model is the loaded with unprecedented and crackpot ideas. If these sci.physics groups just want sweetheart letters, as you claim, it will do nothing but reinforce their specious ideas. I reserve the privilege of politely disagreeing with any topic. P.S. Let me remind you of the definition of libel. "Any false and malicious written or printed statement, tending to expose a person to public ridicule, hatred, or contempt or to injure his reputation in any way." Take care. Regards: Tom. -- Thomas N. Lockyer 1611 Fallen Leaf Lane Los Altos, CA USA 94024-6212 Tel. (415)967-9550 cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenlockyer cudfnThomas cudlnLockyer cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.25 / jedrothwell@de / Re: CF at MIT Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: CF at MIT Date: Wed, 25 Jan 95 23:40:03 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) writes: "It appears he [Griggs] does not realize that in such a way he himself is shutting the door before his own prosperity (the primary goal of any businessman). I tried to explain this in a language which he would presumably understand best." Ha, ha, ha, ha!!! That is hilarious Vesco. Really funny! However, I think you should stick to physics and not audition here for a comedy act. Just in case this message of yours is serious, let me suggest something. Before you try to explain anything to Griggs in a language he would understand best, you better do the following: 1. Invent something. 2. Start your own company. 3. Sell a quarter-million bucks worth of product in one month. You go ahead and do that and maybe people like Griggs will take you seriously. Until then, don't try to teach your grandma how to suck eggs. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.25 / jedrothwell@de / More garbage from Dick Blue Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: More garbage from Dick Blue Date: Wed, 25 Jan 95 23:40:55 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes: "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." This is pure, 100%, unadulterated horse shit. I have REPEATEDLY explained here that the GG is less efficient than a gas or oil fired boiler. I have made that fact ABUNDANTLY CLEAR in message after message after message. Richard Blue, who is dumber than a fence post, has apparently never noticed that I wrote that. Now he accuses me of deliberately using different standards in order to obscure the issues. When the issue of overall efficiency in the larger marketplace of energy equipment is brought up I *always mention* the fact that a CF based heater must have a c.o.p. of 300% or better to compete with oil or gas. In the context of a physics experiment to prove there is excess heat, any c.o.p. over the blank experiment (95%) will do. This is third grade level arithmetic! Any fool can see what I mean. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.26 / A Plutonium / Re: In article dated 5th Jan, Archimedes Plutonium writes Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium Subject: Re: In article dated 5th Jan, Archimedes Plutonium writes Date: 26 Jan 1995 02:02:38 GMT Organization: Plutonium Atom Foundation In article <9501232213.aa18160@agora.stm.it> R.Boscarelli@agora.stm.it writes: > about Reifenschweiler: > > ".... a mixture of titanium and radioactive tritium. He also > discovered that as the mixture was heated, its radioactivity declined > sharply. No process known to physics could account for such a baffling > phenomenon: radioactivity should be unaffected by heat. > Nevertheless, as the temperature increased from 115 degrees C to > 160 degrees C, the emission of beta particles fell by 28 per cent." > > > In chemistry, the idea of a catalyst as a substance which favours > a reaction and can be found intact after the reaction is completed, > is absolutely normal. For ex: palladium favours de-hydrogenation of > hydro-aromatics. > A catalyst, as it is well known, lowers the energy of activation > of the reaction (surface absorption is usually involved). > I was thinking of the idea of a nuclear catalyst, which could work > the same way, by lowering the energy of activation of nuclear reactions. > Some form of nuclear interaction is needed, and since nuclei are > shielded by electrons, how could that be? But at the surface of > a solid...? Your suggestion is interesting. At the surface of the solid. My thinking of the unexplained Reifenschweiler radiation is this. The Reifenschweiler radiation is spontaneous neutron materialization devices, just another form of electrochemical cold fusion experiments. And many elements can be Reifenschweiler-ed. cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.25 / DanHicks / Re: New Griggs theory Originally-From: danhicks@aol.com (DanHicks) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: New Griggs theory Date: 25 Jan 1995 23:33:21 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) >>> 3) Dissolved oxygen will be less in output water than in input water (measurable with a dissolved oxygen meter from your local fisheries biologist). <<< Note that heating water tends to drive out dissolved gasses. Unless some scheme is used to "capture" the gases that "boil out", then this scheme will always read less oxygen out than in. I don't think a fisheries meter will hack it. Dan Hicks cudkeys: cuddy25 cudendanhicks cudlnDanHicks cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.26 / Matt Austern / Re: Griggs Questions Originally-From: matt@physics7.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Griggs Questions Date: 26 Jan 1995 10:23:31 GMT Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group) In article jedrothwell@delphi.com writes: > and bla, bla, bla. Hey listen, if you are so curious about that, why the > hell haven't you contacted Griggs directly to ask him? That's simple! I'm not "so curious". I'm just barely curious enough about this so that I'll post about it on the Net, but I don't take it seriously enough so that it's worth the trouble for me to do anything that even begins to approach a real investigation or literature search. Water boilers in Georgia just aren't a very important part of my life. > I can tell you anything I like, I know that you are > incapable of finding out anything on your own. Sheesh!!! Well yes; of course Rothwell can tell me anything at all that he likes. I don't have to believe it, though. Nor do I have to believe that it's interesting enough for me to spend much time tracking down the details. -- --matt cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Jan 27 04:37:05 EST 1995 ------------------------------