1995.01.27 / 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: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 16:32:11 GMT
Organization: Swiss Bank Corporation CM&T Division

In article <Rw6ZSxB.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

>  
> When you compare a CF device to commercially available heating equipment, you
> have to consider both types of efficiency. If a joule of energy delivered in
> the form of electricity is more expensive than a joule delivered from burning
> gas then you have to take that fact into account in order to determine the
> economic viability of CF, in a cost-benefit analysis. It gets even more
> complicated when you look at power plant construction. See: R. A. Cornig,
> "Cheap Electric Power From Fusion?," Trans. of Fusion Technology, Vol. 26
> (Dec. 1994), p. 13.
>  
In other words, there is not a *single* definition of efficiency that can be used to  
compare these nifty free energy devices with conventional technology. You have one  
definition for the one, another for the other.

NB: I was asking for a definition of efficiency, in a narrow sense fo the word, not the  
full-blown cost benefit analysis which takes account of the cost of oil vs. solar, wind  
velocities in CA, global politics, or whatever.  I just wanted
one yardstick that can be  
used with two devices to decide whether they are "over-unity", but that seems not to be  
available.

Too bad, because now when you talk about efficiency or any associated concepts like  
"over-unity" we won't know which of the many definitions you have in mind at the time!   
Ah, for a common language...

Mike Griffin
(expressing and implying my *own* opinions.)
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenmgriffin cudfnMike cudlnGriffin cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.27 /  prasad /  Re: CF at MIT
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF at MIT
Date: 27 Jan 1995 16:52:43 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <Z645aK7.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
|> <vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu> writes:
|>  ...
|> 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.
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hmm, Jed, you're asking for more trouble, I can see...
Wait till Vesco uses his physics on you!!

-------------------

#ifdef KOEN

My Zen master taught me to keep
Privacy for all my thought,
The mind, not body, being where
All battles fought are lost.

He's been teaching me the art by example
Of invisibility for many years,
So well, to date, I've seen him not,
Though he's helped with all my fears.

#endif

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.27 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Rothwellian thermodynamics, question for Jed
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwellian thermodynamics, question for Jed
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 95 10:05:21 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

mgriffin@il.us.swissbank.com (Mike Griffin) asks:
 
     "I know this is asking a lot, but ... 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.
 
Power plant efficiency is: output in KWH / BTU content of fuel * conversion
factor. You will find that the energy content of common fuels is listed in
BTUs per ton, so you have to use the conversion factor for American Standard
Units. Where metric units are used remember that 1 calorie = 4.2 joules.
 
When we talk about a CF device or the GG or any other over unity gadget,
efficiency is the "c.o.p." (coefficient of production): output in heat /
electrical energy input, expressed as a percent. Where 100 KWH are input and
the device produces 125 KWH, that is a c.o.p. of 125% or, as some people say,
a 25% excess. Actually, with the GG it is more like 30% excess, because the
blank rotor tests show that the GG leaks at least 5% into the ambient air
around the pump, be we ignore that fact and we use the more conservative
number. Electric energy input is measured in KWH with large devices or joules
with small ones. Arata converts input to kilocalories.
 
When you compare a CF device to commercially available heating equipment, you
have to consider both types of efficiency. If a joule of energy delivered in
the form of electricity is more expensive than a joule delivered from burning
gas then you have to take that fact into account in order to determine the
economic viability of CF, in a cost-benefit analysis. It gets even more
complicated when you look at power plant construction. See: R. A. Cornig,
"Cheap Electric Power From Fusion?," Trans. of Fusion Technology, Vol. 26
(Dec. 1994), p. 13.
 
I know this is asking a lot but, could you please read any one of the
references I have posted? Or any good encyclopedia article about energy? That
way you will know what I am talking about without having to ask me to define
my terms every two minutes. These questions of yours are so elementary that I
find it annoying having to address them. It is the feeling one gets in a
classroom full of people who never bother to do their homework. I strongly
recommend:
 
     Scientific American, Sept. 1990 issue; a special issue on energy
 
     Hydrogen Program Plan FY 1993 - FY 1997, which you can get for free
     from:
 
     U.S. Dept. of Energy, NREL
     1617 Cole Boulevard
     Golden, CO 80401-3393
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.26 / Teresa Tutt /  Real Fusion
     
Originally-From: tuttt@cii3130-22.its.rpi.edu (Teresa E. Tutt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Real Fusion
Date: 26 Jan 1995 18:27:05 GMT
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.

I wonder if it would be possible for the cold fusion people to
form their own newsgroup (i.e. sci.physics.coldfusion) and therefore
keep this newsgroup limited to discussions of more serious fusion
topics (such as Tokamaks, ICF, D-He3 vs D-T, and related issues).
I've hit the 'global kill' so many times this session that my finger's
about to fall off. As an engineering physics student & research
intern at LLNL, I'm more interested in hearing about TFTR, NOVA,
DIII-D, UR direct-drive, ITER, & NIF; rather than the pseudo-scientific
crap I have to wade through on this newsgroup now.

Oh well I've vented my frustration enough.
______________________________________________________________________________

Teresa E Tutt                   |
tuttt@rpi.edu  (Sept-May)    /\ | /\
                            (  >X<  )	       "There are none so desperate
                             \/	| \/		 as those who need someone
                               	|	  	 to tell them what to do"
                                |				-Dostoevski
tutt1@llnl.gov (June-Aug)       |
______________________________________________________________________________

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudentuttt cudfnTeresa cudlnTutt cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.27 /  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: Fri, 27 Jan 95 10:16:04 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Harry H Conover <conover@max.tiac.net> writes:
 
>Jed, 4.18 Joules = 1 calorie, not 4.2.  This is an error of nearly .5%.  
 
You are wrong; it is not 4.18, it is 4.186. If you are going to quote only
two digits, you should round up the third digit to make it 4.19.
 
In any case, please explain how an error of nearly 0.5% could invalidate
an excess of 30%.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.27 /  jedrothwell@de /  Ian's stored heat hypothesis
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ian's stored heat hypothesis
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 95 10:17:10 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) writes:
 
     "Remember, gang, how vehemently Jed has assured us that the gadget must
     be in thermal equilibrium, and that stored heat is a ridiculous theory
     because the rotor cannot possibly be hotter than the fluid around it. .
     . ."
 
You have it backwards Ian. I said I thought the steel housing was hotter than
the steam. I thought there was dis-equilibrium. (I did not make any claims
about the rotor either way, because I do not have any instrument readings for
it.) John Logajan reminded me to be sure I was measuring the steam temperature
on the inside of the GG pressure valve. I am not sure if I did that or not; I
will have to look more closely at the position of the thermocouples nearest
the GG outlet pipe.
 
John also computed how much energy you can store by heating up aluminum. Not
much. Not enough to account for a year of excess heat with nearly continuous
operation of a 100 HP GG. You could heat the Al as hot as the plasma in the
sun and you would not store that much energy!
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.27 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: The Griggs Test
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Griggs Test
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 95 10:19:28 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I Johnston <ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk> writes:
 
>And despite the fact that they regularly and easily achieve cop's of
>500%, they don't sell them as over unity devices. Hmm, sounds as if they
>maybe have a little bit more work to do.
 
Who are you talking about Ian? Who gets 500%? When will you stop repeating
this absurd lie? You are not fooling anyone except your fellow idiot
"skeptics."
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.27 / I Johnston /  Re: The Griggs Test
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Griggs Test
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 10:56:13 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

:                                                             It took Griggs
: and the others who have built these machines many years to make them work
: on the large scale. 

And despite the fact that they regularly and easily achieve cop's of
500%, they don't sell them as over unity devices. Hmm, sounds as if they
maybe have a little bit more work to do.

Ian

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.27 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Tritium in iso out
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tritium in iso out
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 04:59:07 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <D2vEJs.787@news.hawaii.edu> liebert@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu
(Bruce Liebert) writes:
>In article <95012113311079@awaiter.com> howard.olson@awaiter.com (Howard Olson) writes:
>>->
>>    I haven't done any experiments but I am a chemist by undergraduate
>>training. My understanding is the rather obvious one that diffusion
>>of tritium should be slower than deuterium in a given matrix. Relative
>>to Protium (hydrogen-1) D should diffuse at a rate of 1/(2)^0.5 whereas
>>T should be diffused at a rate relative to Protium of 1/(3)^0.5. This
>>means T should diffuse about 80% slower than D if my assumptions are
>>correct.
>>                    
>
>T does indeed diffuse slower than D in Pd.  However, D diffuses faster than 
>H!  Any guesses why?  

Nucleons have spin and generate a mag field.  If the spin is an up/spin 
down arrangement of a neutron-proton pair constituting a deuteron [this 
includes nuclei with paired integral numbers of neutron-proton pairs 
(deuteron-like) such as helium4, lithium, etc.]  then the spins add to 
zero (technically 1) and mag fields cancel).  Thus these relatively 
unmagnetized particles are free to zip through the lattice of aligned 
electric domains without being influenced (much) by the magnetic 
interaction term of the Lorentz force.  This Lorentz term's effect is 
to cause the more strongly magnetized particle to move in a curved 
orbit or path, thus increasing collision frequency with the lattice 
"walls" bounding the aligned (straight) "Lattice channels".   

Note that He4 has an added advantage of being quite spherical (actually
a better nulling of the dipole field (spin also), and won't "logjam" 
as easy as it would if it were a more cylindrical object as an Li6
nucleus.

This is to be taken as a narrative or hand waving explanation.  

>Bruce Liebert
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.27 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Neutrino magnetic moment
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Neutrino magnetic moment
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 05:18:37 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <199501241213.XAA09815@oznet02.ozemail.com.au> rvanspaa@ozema
l.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk) writes:
>> So, i assumed that if the neutrino has a small mass and is not a
>> composite particle, then it should have a magnetic moment close to its
>> calculated magneton inversely related to twice its small unique mass.
>> If that mass is small, the magnetic moment should be enormous.
>> Thomas N. Lockyer <lockyer@svpal.org>
>> 1611 Fallen Leaf Lane
>> Los Altos, CA USA 94024-6212
>> Tel. (415)967-9550
>________________________________________________________________
>Perhaps my ignorance is showing here, but surely a particle can only 
>have a magnetic moment, if either it, or  at least one of its 
>component parts, carries a charge?
>If neutrinos are non composite particles, and we already know that 
>they themselves do not carry a charge, then how could they have a 
>magnetic moment?
>Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au>

If so then what about the moment of a neutron?? 

Here the density of the neutron is so great it distorts the 
local metric, thus precession plus its spin will produce a magnetic
monent.  This effect is not seen in neutral matter such as spinning
tops since their average density or size is not adequate to distort
the local metric.  However, the Earth is large enough and consequently
there is a driving EMF which generates the earths field sinosoidally 
with a period of twice its precession rate.  The ferromagnetic material
and conductivity within the earth retard and generate some hysteresis. 
Still resitivity what it si, the period should hang fairly close to 
25kyears for each half cycle.         

Where the effect is really ferocious is in super rapidly spinning and
precessing neutron stars (big as earth and dense beyond belief).  Here 
half of the potential energy can be magnetic, and "that ain't minuscule", 
humans.    
 
Physics of the geomagnetic field currently is some jumbled up theory 
related to old engineering fables of bootstrapped currents ..  .. .. 
blah bla ...  and if you believe that then the earth is "REAL" YOUNG.  

These teachings  are  of the type: "  Only   Paul M.  Koloc says .. . "
Don't expect to find them any other place.  
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+


cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.27 / Josef Frisch /  Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: frisch@hebe.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Josef C. Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph
sics.accelerators
Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 01:11:42 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In many many previous posts:

>bla bla bla bal.....

One thing to keep in mind about physics: The basic idea is a follows:
1. Form a theory (eg neutrinos exist and they react thus and such) - Its ok to
use previous data to form this theory. 
2. Do an  experiment. As long as the experiment does no contradict the theory,
the theory may be true. If the theory has predictive power, it is a usefull
theory. 

Note, high energy physics experiments are usually VERY complex. At some level you
need to trust the people performing the experiment to not make many mistakes. If
mistakes are made, they will eventually be found when some other group performs
other experiments which give inconsistant data. In the SLAC polarization
asymmetry experiments, for example, there are a great may places where false
asymmetries could occur. We go to great efforts to prevent these problems. We
think we have done things correctly, but it would be difficult to PROOVE to
someone not familiar with the experiment that there are no remaining
experimental errors. 



The standard electro-weak theory is consistant with all experiments - remember
you don't proove a theory, you disprove it. The theory has predictive power. It
may not be right, but at the moment its the best we have. 

The electro-weak theory is still being tested - at this moment, SLAC is measuring
Z0 production with polarized electrons. Last year's measurement gave a hint
that there might be a disagreement with the standard model. This year we will
have about 4X as much data - and that should settle the question. 

If someone has an alternate theory, which is consistant with all observed
experiments - AND which predicts a different result for a new experiment - it may
be interesting. If this is a case, suggest an experiment and a predicted result. 

--- Joe Frisch ---



Opinions do not represent SLAC or the US government. 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenfrisch cudfnJosef cudlnFrisch cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.27 / Richard Schultz /  "Careful" [sic] measurements (was Re: The Griggs Test)
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "Careful" [sic] measurements (was Re: The Griggs Test)
Date: 27 Jan 1995 18:24:19 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <RY2YCtO.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>You must make honest, careful, independent measurements of the key 
>experimental parameters with your own instruments. If you fail to do that, 
>you will only add to the confusion, and muddy the waters. 

Okay, then.  Since you believe in honest and careful measurments, maybe
you could take a few minutes from your busy schedule (composing 100-line
rants is, I assume, a reasonably time-consuming procedure, which is why
I am phrasing this question such that a one-sentenct answer would suffice)
and answer the following simple question.

What instrument did you use to measure the length of the rotor arm of the
Griggs device?
--
					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:
cuddy27 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.27 /  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: Fri, 27 Jan 95 10:30:55 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Thomas S. Zemanian <ts_zemanian@pnl.gov> writes:
 
>Jed, I appreciate your efforts in bringing matters of interest before this
>forum, and I respect your honesty about the data you present, but we often
>disagree on interpretation.  This, however, is a bit much.  I don't recall
>seeing your name on the list of sponsors for this trip, so who are you to
>be raising such a ruckus over the planned events for the trip?  In short,
>who asked ya?
 
Nobody asked me. But I think I have good cause to object. As I said months
ago, you could send Tom Droege to Rome Georgia, or you could send him to
Hell; either way he will report back that he cannot detect any excess heat.
Now we see that he is such a coward he will not even try! Let us not kid
ourselves about the political motivations here, and the ulterior motives at
work. Tom has promised he will go to Rome and do nothing. He has declared in
advance that he will *not* take measurements. The only way any rational
person could reach any scientific conclusion about the GG is take measurments.
So why is he going? And why did New Scientist and Morrison play up this
absurd trip? Because Tom is a hatchet man who is going out there to
discredit Griggs and me. He is going out there to find what he calls a
"suspicious" aspect to the experiment, and he says he will only measure
something he considers "suspicious." He could just as easily bring a
thermometer, a scope and a stopwatch and measure everything, but he will not
do that; he will only measure the "suspicious" parts.
 
A friend of mine recently wrote to me about another person named Tom who went
off on a hatchet-job errand almost exactly the same. This is hilarious, but
I am sure future generations will see Tom's mission as equally hilarious.
My friend wrote:
 
 
"St Thomas "There was no Image" The Pure
 
I have been told that in the time of Galileo, the Pope sent an emissary, a
learned priest named Thomas the Pure, to inquire into this "strange new device
called the telescope whereby a man has claimed to find the created heavens
imperfect and filled with new worlds."  Summoned to the Vatican on the eve of
the visit, Fr Thomas assured the Holy Father that he only intended to look at
the instrument; he certainly had no time, desire, or need to look through it.
The usual suspects and sycophants were there assembled and roundly applauded Fr
Thomas on his wisdom and simple foresight.
 
The visit went as expected (. . . preordained?)."
 
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.27 / Tom Droege /  Scott Little's MRA Measurements
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Scott Little's MRA Measurements
Date: 27 Jan 1995 17:00:45 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In private correspondence, Chuck Harrison points out that Scott Little's
paper on the MRA device did not include error bars or much about error 
estimates.  I blush that I did not notice the missing error estimates.

How about it Scott?  How about a revised version where you place a limit
on your errors?  

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.27 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: New Griggs theory
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: New Griggs theory
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 11:09 -0500 (EST)

c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad) writes:
 
-> 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).
 
This bluish steam seems like a heck of a clue as to what may be happening.  Is
the water bluish after condensing the steam?  Is it blue again if you boil the
condensed water?  Is there any gas left over after condensing the water?  Would
it be possible to get a spectrograph of the steam.  Does the steam stay blue,
or does it go away after a few seconds?  Is the blue a glow (lights off test)
or a coloration (reflection test) or absorption (backlit test)?  Is it blue
only when o/u? I think the answers to these questions could yield some very
useful information and am surprised if no one has followed up on any of this.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.27 / Bruce Hamilton /  cmsg cancel <B.Hamilton.258.2F29326B@irl.cri.nz>
     
Originally-From: B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <B.Hamilton.258.2F29326B@irl.cri.nz>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 17:52:47 GMT
Organization: Industrial Research Limited

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenHamilton cudfnBruce cudlnHamilton cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.27 / Scott Little /  Independent replication of CF results
     
Originally-From: Scott Little <little@eden.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Independent replication of CF results
Date: 27 Jan 1995 21:26:14 GMT
Organization: Adhesive Media, Inc.

Independant replication of excess-heat measurements is a prerequisite
for acceptance of the cold fusion phenomena by the world scientific
community.  As long as we only have each successful CF researcher
reporting  excess heat on their own experiments, a majority of
scientists will be  unable to accept the results.

1. Can anyone refer me to published (or publishable) reports of such
replications? 

2. I am an experimental physicist with considerable experience in
calorimetry. I have built a number of calorimeters of widely varying
design ranging in scale from milliwatts to kilowatts.  I presently
have running a computer-based differential calorimeter which is quite
suitable for cold fusion work.  It is an integrating calorimeter (both
electrical input and  heat output) which is necessary for measuring
experiments that are not particularly stable. The experiment chamber
is readily adjustable to accomodate different sized devices.

In the interest of science I hereby offer, free of charge, the
services of my calorimetry lab to anyone who can provide a "working"
cold fusion cell (i.e. one that does produce excess heat).

If you will make the cell available at my lab for a period of one
month, I will perform an extensive series of measurements and provide
a publication-quality report.  You get the cell back...no strings
attached.

Interested parties should eMail me or call me at 512-346-3848.

Scott Little, EarthTech Intl., Austin TX 78759, FAX 512-346-3017.

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.27 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Wrong again, Jed.
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wrong again, Jed.
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 95 17:13:05 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Well my numbers came from an old book of conversion factors probably 20
years out of date. But I just quibbling for fun, honestly. Let us get
back to the real point though, how would a 0.5% error wreck 30% excess?
 
In real life you know, I use a spreadsheet and I plug in as many digits as
I can find. 4.2 is a handy number to remember though. It's right! You have
to admit, rounding up to one digit after the decimal gives you 4.2. Look
it up in NBS handbook, you will see.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.27 / David Brewer /  Sonoluminescence
     
Originally-From: David Brewer <davebr@novell.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sonoluminescence
Date: 27 Jan 1995 19:34:38 GMT
Organization: volcane

I was intrigued with the experimental results of Dr. Putterman
and his colleagues published in the February issue of Scientific
American.  I've seen postings in this forum before regarding 
sonoluminescence, and I'm not encouraging debate on whether the
phenomenon is fusion or not.  However, I find some interesting facts 
that come out of his research:

Light output increases dramatically (200-fold) as the temperature
of the water drops from 35 to 0 degrees celsius.  I assume (naively
perhaps) that this is due to the fact that the shock wave front will
more uniformity at low temperatures.

Degassing the water and trying bubbles with nitrogen and oxygen
didn't work well.  Adding a slight (1%) doping of Argon or some
other noble gas made significant improvements to light output.

The spectrum of the light output in the ultraviolet suggests an
interior temperature of at least 100,000 Kelvins.  But if the shock
wave survives down to 20 nanometers, the temperature would get up to
1 million Kelvins, enough to produce soft X-Rays (and, as some have
suggested here, cause fusion).  Unfortunately, water doesn't
convey x-rays, so there is no present method of finding out.

Dr. Putterman and others suggest that the photon emmission is due to
recombination of broken molecules within the bubble.  I would be 
interested in any commentary on their hypothesis.  Given the potential
for heat and pressure within the adiabatic process of the imploding
bubble, one wonders if conditions exist for classical fusion to take
place.  However, I would assume that there are methods for detecting
such fusion by its byproducts.  I also wonder if there is some
innovative way for detecting soft x-rays (i.e. a special probe, using
a different solution with an air-water vapor mixture bubble, etc.) if
they indeed are generated.  Further, is there any late breaking solid
data to suggest the cause for the generation of photons?

Regards,

Dave Brewer
Director, Advanced Technologies
Novell, Inc.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudendavebr cudfnDavid cudlnBrewer cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.27 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Questions for the Griggs visit .....
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Questions for the Griggs visit .....
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 15:12 -0500 (EST)

conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes:
 
-> Jed, 4.18 Joules = 1 calorie, not 4.2.  This is an error of nearly .5%.
-> If the balance of your measurements are off by as much, I can
-> understand why you mistakenly believe you have "excess energy" and why I
-> repeatedly keep asking for your error analysis.
 
Err, the .5% error you point out would mean that the Griggs device is operating
at a .5% better COF than Jed claims if applied to input power.  If you want to
dispute his measurements I would think it would make more sense to find errors
in the other direction.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.27 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Questions for the Griggs visit .....
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Questions for the Griggs visit .....
Date: 27 Jan 1995 17:53:23 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <Ry1batH.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

> Thomas S. Zemanian <ts_zemanian@pnl.gov> writes:
>  
> >Jed, I appreciate your efforts in bringing matters of interest before this
> >forum, and I respect your honesty about the data you present, but we often
> >disagree on interpretation.  This, however, is a bit much.  I don't recall
> >seeing your name on the list of sponsors for this trip, so who are you to
> >be raising such a ruckus over the planned events for the trip?  In short,
> >who asked ya?
>  
> Nobody asked me. But I think I have good cause to object. 

And I think you don't.  You've already made your opinions about Tom's
qualifications and integrity well known.  Obviously others disagree, or
we'd not be sponsoring this trip.  If we want Tom to go have a look at this
thing and report back, rather than rely solely upon your descriptions,
what's it to you?  

And please don't tell me I should go instead myself.  The point of sending
an emissary is to obviate the necessity of everyone visiting for
themselves.  Perhaps you don't trust the person chosen.  I do.  Live with
it.

[uncomplimentary predictions and irrelevant history deleted]

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.27 / 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: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 18:49:26 GMT
Organization: Industrial Research Limited


Tom, there are no questions in this post, you can stop here :-)

In article <BU9YSW5.jedrothwell@delphi.com>
jedrothwell@delphi.com writes: 
[ In his usual style :-) ]  

>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."
...
>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.

Jed, it seems to me that you never consider that *your* measurements
don't convince others.  Those of us paid by others to perform 
measurements for them, are very aware that we have to perform
accurate and well-defined measurements to convince the buyer. This
doesn't just include traceability, or manufacturers' verification of 
instruments, it includes correlation schemes, assessment of repeatability
( same measurer ) and reproducibility ( different measurer, usually at 
another location ), the ability of the operator to detect anomalous 
behaviour, etc. etc. I've a little experience in calorimetry ( measuring 
the Heat of Combustion of Liquid Fuels ), and have been involved in 
an international correlation scheme, and even with a highly 
standardised instrument and well defined procedures, a slight variation
in procedure or sample has profound effects on the results.  A person
with the best instruments in the world can still get the wrong answers.

It would take weeks to perform accurate calorimetry on a device that 
operates like the Griggs device. Turning up with a full data acquistion
system, appropriate sensors, appropriate references, sampling systems,
balances, and then performing the experimental runs. The samples then 
have to be analysed, etc.  That was never feasible for Tom, that is not
what we are asking him to provide.

Compelling evidence that the Griggs device does actually produce more
output ( heat ) energy than is input ( electrical ) is still absent. There is
no dispute that the device may be an efficient source of heat, the dispute
is *how* much heat compared to the energy used.  
 
>     "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. 

This is gross abuse of the term "calorimeter". A calorimeter quantifies
heat, his device does not. Simple really.

>Unless you think 4.2 joules does not equal a  calorie, ...
> there are no open scientific questions to discuss vis a vis calorimetry. 

Which I know is not true.  The fact that you believe it, does not bode well 
for anybody purchasing measurements from you.  You seem to have a
 _very strange_ definition of "calorimetry".

>All open scientific questions  relate to the mechanism of the reaction,

I hope you are sitting down when you read this, because it seems like
it may come as a shock. Jed, I don't believe your measurements are
sufficiently accurate to determine anything about the energy flows
of the Griggs device. I believe all the "open scientific questions" are
related to unambiguous confirmation that excess energy is produced.
I also don't believe that you, Jed Rothwell, can decide for me which 
scientific questions  are open or closed. 

[ good advice about preparations deleted..]

>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. 

Jed, I work in a building where the standard scientific laboratory has overhead
travelling cranes, large doors for truck access to all the major labs. On this
site we also have a engineering workshop that is contracted by industry to
make precision components ranging from a few mm to large enough to
test building earthquake bearings ( the first test rig was based around a
D8 Caterpillar ). This bulding also houses a thermal lab that has furnaces
for pyrometallurgical work, and full casting facilities.  Often it is cheaper
to make the moulds and go down the road and have the aluminium castings
produced at a foundry, especially if we require a reasonable number of
large castings. We have materials science areas  that specialise in
metallurgy and corrosion research for industry and aviation. 

We also have a range of fixed and mobile  dynos for testing 
devices from fractional HP electric motors to tank engines ( while in 
the tank ). We have designed and built a computer-controlled portable dyno 
that can be handled by two people, fits on the back of a pickup, only requires
a household garden hose and household single phase electrical outlet,
any yet is capable of controlling, measuring and plotting the output of
any engine up to tank engines in-situ. We investigate alternative fuels, 
so we have a lot of experience measuring energy and mass balances. 

I don't pretend that we are an "ordinary scientific laboratory"
but this "bunch of ordinary scientists" could build a GG and test it 
sufficiently accurately to resolve many of the questions. We conduct
scientific research on devices far more substantial than the GG. 
We charge customers a lot of money for our skills, and in return they
get quality research. 

Sure, it may be cheaper  ( and desirable),  to buy a Griggs device from 
him, but there are many other laboratories like ours around the world,
and until his device has been fully tested by such a laboratory, and
the full report is available, I continue to doubt any claims of excess
energy from his device.

                  Bruce Hamilton  

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenHamilton cudfnBruce cudlnHamilton cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.27 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: The Griggs Test
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Griggs Test
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 95 12:50:38 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
 
     "As I said before, 'I have sufficient resources and contacts to do what
     is required.'  Who are you Jed, to say I do not?
 
You do not have sufficient resources and contacts! That cannot be. You say you
cannot even bring a thermometer and an oscilloscope to Georgia to perform some
simple measurements. You do not even time to stay for a few days and do the
job right. You claim you are not even capable of making sure that a
thermocouple in a barrel of hot water registers the right temperature to
within 20 degrees Fahrenheit, even if you have all day to do the job. A person
who cannot measure the difference between a barrel of water at 80 def F and
100 deg F cannot be capable of building a nine-thousand pound industrial
machine in his basement.
 
If you *do* have sufficient resources to do what is required to build such a
machine, then I trust you will also do what is required in Georgia. You must
make honest, careful, independent measurements of the key experimental
parameters with your own instruments. If you fail to do that, you will only
add to the confusion, and muddy the waters. I think you want to muddy the
waters; I think that has been your intention all along. I confess, previously
I secretly hoped that you might make an honest effort to investigate the thing
properly.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.27 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Excess heat
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Excess heat
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 95 12:54:03 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au> writes:
 
>I wonder how many of the CF experiments that report excess heat, do 
>NOT use pulsed current?
 
Answer: all of them. That is to say: I do not know of any CF experiments
that DO use pulsed current, unless you count Mizuno, who uses A/C at 1 Hertz.
 
Do you know of any CF experiments that use pulsed current? Did they work?
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.27 / Richard Schultz /  Wrong again, Jed.
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Wrong again, Jed.
Date: 27 Jan 1995 18:18:54 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <RQz7yRM.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>You are wrong; it is not 4.18, it is 4.186. If you are going to quote only
>two digits, you should round up the third digit to make it 4.19.

I have never seen any scientist use any conversion factor other than
4.184 for calories -> joules.  A quick check through my pile of
various chemistry textbooks confirms this.  My decade-old CRC Handbook
does have several different definitions of calorie, for which the 
conversion factor is either 4.19002, 4.1858, or 4.1819, but includes 
a footnote that the NBS has defined the calorie to equal 4.184 joules.
If you are using one of the variant definitions of calorie, then you
probably should say so, as I believe that anyone who read your posts
would assume that you meant the standard definition.
--
					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:
cuddy27 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.27 / C Harrison /  Periodic Post: Cold Fusion online at sunsite.unc.edu
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Periodic Post: Cold Fusion online at sunsite.unc.edu
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 18:28:40 GMT
Organization: Fitful

This message is posted periodically to inform readers about on-line
data sources related to "cold fusion" which are located at the 
University of North Carolina SunSITE server.

Two public WAIS (Wide Area Information Server) sources are online:
(1) Dieter Britz's Bibliography (periodically updated), and
(2) A sci.physics.fusion archive (1989 to present).
WAIS provides for multiple keyword searches in these databases.  It
does _not_ support boolean logic in the searching :-(.

1.  If you are directly connected to Internet, you can log onto a public
    WAIS server at the University of North Carolina:
    %telnet sunsite.unc.edu
    ...
    login: swais
    ...
    TERM = (unknown) vt100
    It takes a minute to load ...

    <use ? for online help>
    <use /cold to locate the cold-fusion "Source" - the Britz biblio>
    < or use /fusion to locate the fusion-digest source>
    <follow the prompts to select the source and enter your keywords
     for searching>

2.  If you have a "gopher" client, you can use it for WAIS access.  Many 
    university campuses provide gopher as a public information service.
2a. On most systems, you first select an option labeled "Other Systems",
    then from that menu select "WAIS based information".  Since each
    gopher site creates its own menus, I can't tell you exactly where to
    go from there.
2b. If you can gopher to SunSITE, at UNC, navigate the menus down thru
    SunSITE archives..All archives..Academic..Physics..Cold-fusion.
    You will find the searchable databases (typically marked <?>), as
    well as the primary-literature files discussed below.
2c. If you can 'telnet' but not 'gopher', you may telnet to
    sunsite.unc.edu and login as 'gopher'.  Then follow 2a or 2b above.

3.  If you have World Wide Web (WWW) browser, such as Mosaic, Cello, or
    Lynx, you may use the following URL's:
     wais://sunsite.unc.edu/cold-fusion       Britz bibliography
     wais://sunsite.unc.edu/fusion-digest     newsgroup archive
     gopher://sunsite.unc.edu/11/../.pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion

4.  If you have a WAIS client on your system (the most common ones are
    "swais" -- character-based, and "xwais" -- for X-Windows), use it.  The
    Britz source is called "cold-fusion" and it is listed in the 
    directory-of-servers.

    If you _want_ a WAIS client program to run on your system, several are
    available in the public domain.  Try ftp-ing to one of these sites:
      sunsite.unc.edu
      think.com

There are several additional files archived at sunsite (e.g. Bollinger's
Twist of Ribbon, preprints of the Fleischmann&Pons 1989 paper), which
are accessible by anonymous ftp.
    %ftp sunsite.unc.edu
    . . .
    >cd pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion
    >dir
The collection (mostly primary papers) maintained by vince cate has been
copied over to pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion/vince-cate.

Additional contributions are welcome; e-mail cfh@sunsite.unc.edu.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.28 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Griggs questions
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs questions
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 95 01:08:03 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Richard A Blue <blue@pilot.msu.edu> writes:
 
>"My assertion is that the Griggs excess heat claim has not been
>corroborated by outside sources on a device located at an independent
>lab.  Griggs did not contradict this."
>
>As I read this, Griggs does not claim that excess heat has been confirmed
>at user's installations as has been reported by Jed Rothwell.
 
You read it wrong, as usual. I never said the user installations were
"independent labs" -- I said the thing is installed in factories. It has
been independently verified in the factories. I do not know of any
laboratory that has ever expressed any interest in seeing one. I have tried
to call a few and interest them, and from time to time people from Georgia
Tech have been out to the factory, but as far as I know there has been no
laboratory tests. Frankly, I would not trust them half as much as I trust
a factory engineer's analysis.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.27 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Rothwellian thermodynamics, question for Jed
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwellian thermodynamics, question for Jed
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 18:47:45 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <Rw6ZSxB.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
> 
>I know this is asking a lot but, could you please read any one of the
>references I have posted? Or any good encyclopedia article about energy? That
>way you will know what I am talking about without having to ask me to define
>my terms every two minutes. These questions of yours are so elementary that I
>find it annoying having to address them. It is the feeling one gets in a
>classroom full of people who never bother to do their homework. 

     That's okay.  I often get the feeling around here that the inmates 
     think they've taken over the asylum.  Unfortunately for them, that
     is a delusion.  You and Mr. Mallove will still be wrong in 
     twenty years, but I suspect you will still not care to know it.
  
     In any case, your knowledge of engineering has always been rather
     underwhelming.  It's pretty clear that you missed the point, that is,
     what is *your* understanding (or misunderstanding) of terms you 
     often misuse through apparent ignorance.

     As to why did the poster bother?  I'm not quite sure, especially 
     since revealing the ignorance of the acolytes of cold fusion does 
     not seem to make any difference.

                                dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.29 / Michael Kenward /  Warming to hot fusion
     
Originally-From: m.kenward@bbcnc.org.uk (Michael Kenward)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Warming to hot fusion
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 1995 01:35:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

A head of steam is building up for a non-cold fusion list. Jed Rothwell will
probably jump in and insult everyone who agrees on the grounds that the list
was designed for CF, and in any case the other sort is a myth. I don't mind
being abused. Sp let me add my name to the demand by Teresa E Tutt for a
list dedicated to real fusion.

Michael Kenward OBE                     |  Grange Cottage, Staplefield
                                        |  West Sussex, RH17 6EL, England
Science Writer & Editorial Consultant   |  Phone: 01444 400568 
m.kenward@bbcnc.org.uk                  |  Fax: 01444 401064

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenkenward cudfnMichael cudlnKenward cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.29 / Scott Mueller /  Moderated group, candidate's statement
     
Originally-From: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Moderated group, candidate's statement
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 1995 01:52:53 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA

>Meanwhile, we did get a willing moderator, in the person of Scott Hazen
>Mueller, who has volunteered. He would do it semiautomatically. I propose
>we call the new group sci.physics.fusion.research [...]

I post this for those who have no idea who I am.

I am the original proposer of sci.physics.fusion's predecessor group,
alt.fusion.  The original group, and this one, were chartered for discussions
of nuclear fusion, especially "cold" fusion.  I have been running a gateway
between the fusion newsgroups and email since approximately article 100 of
alt.fusion, now almost 6 years ago.

I have no publicized position on the validity of any of the cold fusion
claims.  I have no stake in hot fusion.  My interest in the topic area is
purely in terms of the use of the original sci.physics.fusion forum for a
form of collaborative research.

I have volunteered for the position out of a sense of obligation to the
group.  As the original founder, I feel it is incumbent upon me to follow
this as far as it goes.

I do not intend to close the new group to either the cold or hot fusion
topics.  I would prefer to automate as much of the moderation process as
possible, in order to manage the time it would take to moderate the group,
thus keeping the turnaround time for submissions as low as possible.

In keeping with that, I would start the group with a completely open list of
potential submitters.  As discussion developed, I would develop a sense of
which people can keep their postings on-topic without reminders, and which
people will take more coaxing.  As I have always stood for the free and open
exchange of information in this forum, I would be inclined to try to keep the
moderation process from being intrusive.

Since there would be a related unmoderated group, I would direct elementary
inquiries and frequently asked questions to the unmoderated group.

If the policy outline I have sketched out here is unpalatable to the group
as a whole, I am willing to step aside and let someone else moderate the
group.  I have no personal stake in moderating this group; I already have
five others to deal with.

-- 
Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (tandem|ub-gate)!zorch!scott
Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests.

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.27 / Paul Schauble /  Griggs questions
     
Originally-From: pls@ramp.com (Paul Schauble)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs questions
Date: 27 Jan 1995 15:58:31 -0700
Organization: OnRamp Incorporated.

Sure.

I want to see observations and data for a run several hours long. It 
should be easy enough to disproved the stored heat hypothesis.

    ++PLS

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenpls cudfnPaul cudlnSchauble cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Jan 29 04:37:04 EST 1995
------------------------------
