1995.01.28 / A Plutonium /  Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph
sics.accelerators,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
Date: 28 Jan 1995 01:15:34 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <D31HzJ.MHL@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU>
frisch@hebe.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Josef C. Frisch) writes:

> 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 ---

  The electroweak theory is wrong. And it was experimentally proven
wrong by the nonexistance of the Higgs particle. Current physics
community hides behind a facade that the Higgs is too heavy and that
you need the energy of unbuildable accelerators to see the Higgs
particle. Physics community is dreadfully conservative, and like a fish
school since most swim in that direction that is the only reason they
think this theory has any value.
  The experiments that will destroy the Glashow, Salam, Weinberg 
(GLAWS) model are now being conducted around the world. Even if no
contrary evidence ever came to remove GLAWS, it would disappear because
it has no practical implications, it predicts nothing and it is in a
corner scratching for survival because its only hope is to build a
multibillion dollar extravaganza. Glaws has reached the deadend in the
road.
  The experiments that will prove GLAWS wrong are the violation of
conservation of energy/mass, plus the experiments that will show
superconductivity is photons decomposed into 2 neutrino signalers. The
cold fusion experiments when mature will show that radioactivity,
previously known as the weak interaction, can never be equal or
equivalent or incorporated into the electromagnetic interaction. That
spontaneous neutron materialization is a form of radioactivity. That
before 1991, the physics community did not even know the full extent of
the weak interaction, so, it was preposterous for anyone to claim to
have unified the weak interaction with the electromagnetic interaction.
  The trouble with GLAWS is that it assumes that interactions or forces
can be  equal or equivalent or incorporated, and when put under certain
conditions, the equality or equivalence or incorporation so desired can
be made to come true. But this can never happen because the quantum
interactions, or call them forces, are not combinable. Messr. Glashow,
Salam, Weinberg never thought commonsense wise from step one. They
never asked themselves first foundational questions. They never saw
that particle and wave are never equal, never equivalent, never
incorporatable as one. No, Messr. Glashow, Salam, and Weinberg blithely
ran into this physics arena, assuming right off the bat, like a bat out
of hell, that a particle is equal to a wave.
  Radioactivities is never equal to Electromagnetism, is never
incorporatable as one interaction. The two exist independently as
duals, as quantum duals. Sometimes you see  the Radioactivities force
over the unmeasurability of the Electromagnetic force, just as in any
one experiment you can never see both particle and wave characteristics
simultaneously. The GLAWS theory or model was never meant to be, and it
is a sad case of physics history of how so many physics people can be
sucked right into a suckers drain. The one consolation though is that
the suckers can waste their time and energy, and the people who do have
physics intuition and instinct will make progress.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.28 / Scott Little /  Re: Scott Little's MRA Measurements
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Scott Little's MRA Measurements
Date: 28 Jan 1995 07:17:33 GMT
Organization: Earthtech, Intl


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


What was I thinking?  Look for it in a couple of days....thanks.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.28 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: Griggs questions
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs questions
Date: 28 Jan 1995 08:11:21 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <5G86y5L.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes: 

>
>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."

snip

> Frankly, I would not trust them half as much as I trust
>a factory engineer's analysis.
> 
>- Jed
>

Right on. 

I have spec'd this unit out for some freinds of mine that run a steam driven 
mill. All the numbers suggest that this unit is far more efficient than any gas 
or oil driven boiler. Griggs company even sent me a referall which backs up his 
specs. 

All this dribble seems to come from folks who are either idiots or simply are 
those that want to argue. If they are so intent on this kind of crap, I suggest 
they call HydroDynamics and ask for a referance of someone who uses it in their 
factory or school or whatever and ask these folks point blank if there energy 
bill has gone up, stayed the same or gone down. Its simple but the factories that 
are using Griggs's device are no slouches and there interest is to lower costs. 
Why in Gods name would any well thinking individual invest 12 to 20 k in a system 
that cant live up to its claims. The reason is is that the system does work. 
Griggs once told me over the phone that he does not understand the phenomena only 
that it reduces energy costs as related to conventional systems. For me, thats 
good enough!

CP
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.28 / Karl Kluge /  Re: Real Fusion
     
Originally-From: kckluge@krusty.eecs.umich.edu (Karl Kluge)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Real Fusion
Date: 28 Jan 1995 04:08:06 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI


Since this newsgroup was specifically created for the discussion of
cold fusion, any fission of the newsgroup should work the other way
round. If you want a separate group for hot fusion topics only, set
up a RFD/CFV.

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenkckluge cudfnKarl cudlnKluge cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.28 / Gary Steckly /  Re: New Griggs theory
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: New Griggs theory
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 95 01:35:05 GMT
Organization: Communications Canada

MARSHALL DUDLEY (mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com) wrote:
: 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.
:  

me too Marshall.  It seems pretty coincidental that the emission spectra 
from SL in the blue range, and now this little revalation from prasad 
about the steam tint.

As a contributing member to the expedition, I move we ask Tom to turn 
out the lights and see if this blue tint is due to an emission or absorption 
effect.

Seconders?

:                                                 

Gary 

p.s. still no update on the 21cm radiation from the compressed snow.  
Still not cold enough.
      

         Marshall
:  
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.28 /  alexs@cyberque /  MIGMA reactor: Who Remembers...
     
Originally-From: alexs@cyberquest.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: MIGMA reactor: Who Remembers...
Date: 28 Jan 1995 06:52:14 GMT
Organization: CyberQuest BBS

There was an article some years back about
a non-neutronic (if that's a good term) form
of fusion, wherein some variety of stripped
nuclei were circulated ever-inward in flower-
petal paths, fusing and generating heavier
elements and free electrons directly.

Or something like that.

It was called MIGMA, was invented by a south
Slavic inventor (no, not Tesla), and seemed
to have been dismissed by the Department of
Plutonium because it couldn't be made to
go BOOM!

It was theoretically capable of operating
on the good side of break-even, generated no
free neutrons to embrittle containment and
generate radioactive crap (unlike hot or
cold fusion as generally described), and just
seemed generally cool.

What happened to the inventor?  Where is MIGMA?

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenalexs cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.28 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Thanks to Jed .......................
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Thanks to Jed .......................
Date: 28 Jan 95 23:08:50 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi folks, have a nice day :) ........
I would like to thank Jed for his long and continuing effort in sharing
with us the latest revelations in cold fusion. He has been doing this
for many years now and in aggregate, this has required an enormous amount
of his time.
 Jed has, like everyone, many faults but it should be remembered that
if Jed had not initially aroused the interest of this group's members,
then there probably would not have been any proposal for a trip to check
out the Griggs device.
			       		Regards to all,
					Daryl Owen.

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudendowen cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.28 / John Logajan /  Aneutronic, Maglich, Migma
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Aneutronic, Maglich, Migma
Date: 28 Jan 1995 16:59:05 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Reference to Dr. Bogdan C. Maglich and his Migma concept of controlled
(hot) fusion have been made here.  "Migma" means "mixing" and is a technique
where accelerated beams of particles are trapped in a magnetic field which
forces them to intersect and collide in the center of a "spirograph" or
flower like precession of orbits.  Since near misses overwhelm fusion
producing direct collisions, the strength of the Migma process is supposedly
its ability to redirect perturbed orbits back to the center again.

As far as I am aware, each scaling up of the experimental Migma densities
equaled or exceeded its predictions -- leading the critics to revise their
doom scenarioes to the "next" higher density.

The latest info I have about Maglich is from about nine months ago.

At that time he was the Chief Scientist for Advanced Physics Corporation
(4199 Campus Drive, Suite 680, Irvine CA 92715-2698)  APC was a member of
S.A.F.E. (System for Aneutronic Fusion Energy), a consortium of 12 member
organizations including UofC at Irvine, Advanced Reactor Group of MIT,
GE R+D Schenectady NY, and six Russian institutions involving 138 scientists.

So you can see that (at least as recently as nine months ago) Maglich
continues to press forward on his Migma concepts.


--
 - 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:
cuddy28 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.28 / Bruce Dunn /  Griggs questions
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs questions
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 95 07:30:26 -0800
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

What temperature is the sensing element of the dynometer when it is
calibrated?

What temperature is the sensing element when it is being used to measure
input power into the Griggs device (remember the discussions about hot
shafts)?

Assuming different temperatures are involved, what does the manufacturer of
the dynometer say about calibrating the sensor at one temperature, and
making measurements at a different temperature?

If the manufacturer doesn't give explicit data indicating the the observed
temperature spread is acceptable, are there any experimental results from
Griggs which would indicate how the output of the sensor varies with
temperature?





--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.28 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Thanks to Jed .......................
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thanks to Jed .......................
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 95 09:09:44 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

<dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> writes:
 
> Jed has, like everyone, many faults but it should be remembered that
>if Jed had not initially aroused the interest of this group's members,
>then there probably would not have been any proposal for a trip to check
>out the Griggs device.
 
Thanks.
 
I wish that you people who have gathered to support Tom's trip would now
band together to ask him nicely to *measure the input power*. Without a
doubt, that remains the weakest link in the experiment. It is easy to
measure output enthalpy with confidence. The only serious questions that
have been raised here about the measurements are on the input side. After
all these weeks of debate, I was under the impression that a scope (perhaps
a high speed scope) would resolve the remaining doubts about the input power,
and show whether or not the power meter is working correctly. I am deeply
disappointed and sincerly chagrined to hear that Tom will not bring
instruments to independently verify this. I am glad I did not chip in to
send him. I suggest that those of you who did should ask him to please
reconsider.
 
There are other aspects of the experiment that a person could devote time to
confirming, but the input power is the key parameter that wants checking.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.29 / Harry Conover /  Re: New Griggs theory
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: New Griggs theory
Date: 29 Jan 1995 06:32:16 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Gary Steckly (gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca) wrote:
: MARSHALL DUDLEY (mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com) wrote:
: : 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?  

Did Griggs confirm that the steam is 'bluish' when viewed in person?  
What you see as blue in a color photograph may be little more than poor 
color balance or bad processing, or even an artifact from the flash.

					Harry C.

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.28 / Alan M /  Re: Dunsmuir needs a nap
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dunsmuir needs a nap
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1995 14:25:05 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <3g8mos$da0$1@mhadg.production.compuserve.com>  Jed Rothwell 
<72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> writes:
> And how about yourself, idiot? You pick a number out of a hat, waltz in here,
> and tell us that electric power plants are 70% efficient. Anyone who bothers
> to check a handbook on energy or an encyclopedia can see you don't know what
> you are talking about. You make up nonsense numbers because you are too lazy
> to read a book. You expect us to believe anything you dream up. And you tell
> me I have a credibility problem?!? Gimmeabreak.
> 

Oh dear. The tatters are beginning to show. As the entire world
(other than Jed Rothwell) knows, 
modern designs of combined cycle gas-fired power generation plant
regularly achieve, in normal 
operational use, from 65% up to 70% conversion efficiency. Which
is what - along with the 
relatively low price of natural gas - has powered the 'dash for
gas' by the UK's electricity 
generating and distribution companies. 

33-36% efficiency levels are _only_ appropriate for old coal- and oil-fired plant.

I think it's time you invested in some new encyclopaedias, Jed.

I suggest you look, for example, at the tables in the 'Basic Energy
Statistics for the Countries of 
the OECD', published annually by the International Energy Agency
in Paris. The edition with the 
data for calendar year 1993 is due out in April, or they will sell
you the 1992 data today. 
(Better still - invest in a set of their diskettes. The data there
is presented in even more 
detail than in the book.) There you will see that the data for
those countries running perceptable 
amounts of gas-fired generation plant are showing, for these, efficienci
s in the 65-70% levels.

Are all the areas you pontificate about as well researched by you
as is indicated by your knowledge 
of energy technology and economics, Jed?
-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

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

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.28 / Alan M /  Re: Brief Report, MIT
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Brief Report, MIT
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1995 14:32:06 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <3g87fb$1d15@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>  c1prasad@watson.ibm.c
m (prasad) writes:
> |> 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. 

But the Aluminium _can't_ have melted! Jed Rothewell has repeatedly
assured us here that the rotor 
gets no warmer than the casing, and that that is only 'uncomfortably
hot to the touch'. Doesn't 
aluminium melt at a temperature which causes massive contact damage to human flesh?

Or - perish the thought - has Jed yet again been caught out reporting
an assumption (or a wish) as 
a fact?
-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

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

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.28 / J WINTERFLOOD /  Re: New Griggs theory
     
Originally-From: jwinter@galileo.pi.infn.it (John WINTERFLOOD)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: New Griggs theory
Date: 28 Jan 1995 15:44:29 GMT
Organization: Universita' di Pisa

c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad) wrote:

> 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).

MARSHALL DUDLEY (mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com) wrote:
 
:This bluish steam seems like a heck of a clue as to what may be happening.
: <snip>

I wouldn't rely too heavily on the accuracy of the colour rendition
in a standard photograph. I was told a long time ago that the developing
machines tend to colour balance for neutral overall. If so, and if the
rest of the photo has a lot of red/green/orange in it, then a slight
blue tint to a normally white patch of steam may not be real. Maybe
someone that knows a bit more about photography can comment on this.
I wouldn't think much of it unless Griggs had actually admitted that
the steam did actually look strangely blue as the photograph indicates.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjwinter cudfnJohn cudlnWINTERFLOOD cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.28 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: MRA independently tested
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MRA independently tested
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1995 11:19 -0500 (EST)

harr@netcom.com (Chuck Harrison) writes:
 
-> You, like most of us here, are uncomfortable with similarly-developed
-> data on the GG.  It's not because Puthoff & Little exhibit Droege-like
-> attention to experimental error (e.g. they seem to be aware of the
-> power lost in the ammeter but not in the voltmeter).  The difference
-> is that the GG hypothesis (over-unity) is unconventional, and the
-> mechanism is quite speculative.
->
-> This, also is pretty normal.  Under Bayesian probability theory, the
-> effect of particular evidence on your estimate of likelihood depends
-> on whether you thought it was probable in the first place.
->
-> It's easy to convince a man-in-the-street engineer or scientist that
-> the Puthoff/Little measurements were correctly made, because they
-> gave the result we expect.  It's hard to convince the same engineer-
-> in-the-street that Griggs' measurements were correctly made because
-> the results are so unusual.
 
I think you are being simplistic here.  If you go back and look at the tests
and the results you will see the o/u tests were done with RMS volt meters and
the results were usually multiplied by .707 resulting in a 50% error even if
the waveforms were sine and in phase, which most likely they were not.  The
likelyhood of such a measurement being correct was essentially 0.  In fact they
warned that if you did the measurements right with a scope, then you would get
incorrect results and think the device was not o/u.  Anyone who had experience
in electronics would have known that the scope measurements were closer to
correct.
 
Finally someone does the test using the correct procedures and equiptment and
finds that the results are exactly what should be expected.  I don't think you
need error bars for that.  If the original tests had been done by techniques
that were correctly using the proper test equipment, then the both should have
had error bars.  But the fact is the is last report is the only one I have seen
that has done any tests properly.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.28 / A Plutonium /  Re: Warning:Nature, New Scientist, CF = violation conservation
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Warning:Nature, New Scientist, CF = violation conservation
Date: 28 Jan 1995 19:18:45 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <tcora-1701951046290001@k-whiner.pica.army.mil>
tcora@pica.army.mil (Tom Coradeschi) writes:

> one. The legal obligation arises should I attempt to redistribute your
> works without attribution or compensation.
> 
> If you can cite case law to the contrary, I'd be very interested in
> knowing about it.

  With your previous sentence you answered your next sentence. Should
NATURE or NEW SCIENTIST print the idea Spontaneous Neutron
Materialization is the mechanism of cold fusion experiments without
giving credit to Archimedes Plutonium, then, they have redistributed my
works without attribution or compensation.
  I believe your confusion Mr. Tom Coradeschi is one of thinking that
laws are black and white. This is a natural confusion which most people
live and grow-up with. Little do they understand, nor appreciate, the
reality that the law comes into being everytime a courtroom comes into
being. Thus, should Nature and New Scientist do improper and injustice
acts of attempting to steal my work, unlike 99.999 percent of the
people who have not the energy to put Nature and New Scientist into
their pre-injustice place, I for one will not let them get away with
their act of thievery. No, I will take them to court, if they take any
of my ideas without reference. They have done wrong, and that wrongness
will be decided in court.
  I believe you have a naive view of copyright laws Mr. Tom Coradeschi.
You have not met a strong-willed person, such as I, who has ever armed
themselves with the copyright law. You see thousands who commit
infractions on the copyright law, and only because there is no money to
gain from court are those infractions ignored. In my case, it is not
the money I am concerned about, it is the theft of intellectual
property. And I know Nature and New Scientist have a better handle on
the copyright laws than what your general opinion of those laws are Mr.
Tom Coradeschi.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.28 / Ršlf Quam /  Re: Ion Beam Fusion
     
Originally-From: rlquam@rain.org (Ršlf L. Quam)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ion Beam Fusion
Date: 28 Jan 1995 20:49:36 GMT
Organization: Miramar Systems

In article <D31E7G.4Fv@news.cis.umn.edu>
hans0174@gold.tc.umn.edu (Gregory L Hansen) writes:

> 
> Hello.  I'm interested in fusion by shooting an ion beam at a target.  
> Seems to me it should be much easier and cheaper than 80 million kelvin 
> and immense pressures inside a tokamak.  But I've been having trouble 
> hunting down references.
> 
> Can anyone give references to ion beam fusion, high current energy 
> efficient accelerators, that sort of thing?  
> 
Yes, I am also interested in same. I would like cross-section
information on metallic state deuterium and tritium. If you've heard
anything, let me know. 

    rlquam@rain.org
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenrlquam cudfnRšlf cudlnQuam cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.28 / William Beaty /  Re: MRA independently tested
     
Originally-From: billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MRA independently tested
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1995 20:48:31 GMT
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever

: 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.

As usual, the inventor's response to the report is on my WWW and ftp
pages, under UPDATE16 I believe.  The MRA history seems like a "cold
fusion"  history in miniature, and the negative MRA reports are being
received in just the same way. 

My, but some of the responses to this episode have been instructive.  I 
don't mean the ones about skill level, measurement errors, etc.  I mean 
things like (paraphrased):

  How dare you write about such things.  You must be sick.

  No Amateurs have made important discoveries, so any who try must 
  be crazy.

  Such devices are always perpetual motion scams (Never measurement errors, 
  wishful thinking, or even genuine observation of anomalies) and the 
  inventors should be arrested.

  The device is obviously a perpetual motion machine (not mass conversion, 
  ZPE tap, etc.,) it violates thermodynamic rules, and therfore should be 
  ridiculed.

  Science only proceeds by small incremental expansion, never by upheavals, 
  so a discovery as overwhelming as a working MRA device cannot happen.

  Physics has discovered most everything, so anyone reporting a major
  anomaly is obviously mistaken.

And the hatred and revulsion apparent in many of the messages is something
that everyone on BOTH sides of the CF issue should experience, just to
forever remove the idea that it only existed in early science history. 
Indeed, "rocks" still "fall from the sky," and reports of such things are
not just ignored, but are instead attacked with ridicule, and a desire to
suppress them. 

I fear that within a few decades some great discoveries will have been
made, science will be nearly unrecognizable, and those future people will
look on us with contempt.  They will see the seeds of those discoveries
existing in our present, and will see them being extinguished by
pathological behaviors hiding under the banner of "skepticism."  The Royal
Astronomical Society might be forgiven for their opinion of meteors,
since they did not have such good examples from which to learn.  I don't
think the same can be said for many modern skeptics. 

Pathological Science?  I believe it makes much more sense to guard against
"Pathological Skepticism."  History shows the consequences of both, and I 
much prefer the former!
-- 
....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenbillb cudfnWilliam cudlnBeaty cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.28 / Brian Greiner /  Re: MIGMA reactor: Who Remembers...
     
Originally-From: bgreiner@inforamp.net (Brian Greiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MIGMA reactor: Who Remembers...
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1995 16:23:22
Organization: InfoRamp Inc.


>There was an article some years back about
>a non-neutronic (if that's a good term) form
>of fusion, wherein some variety of stripped
>nuclei were circulated ever-inward in flower-
>petal paths, fusing and generating heavier
>elements and free electrons directly.

>It was called MIGMA, was invented by a south
>Slavic inventor (no, not Tesla), and seemed
>to have been dismissed by the Department of
>Plutonium because it couldn't be made to
>go BOOM!

>It was theoretically capable of operating
>on the good side of break-even, generated no
>free neutrons to embrittle containment and
>generate radioactive crap (unlike hot or
>cold fusion as generally described), and just
>seemed generally cool.

>What happened to the inventor?  Where is MIGMA?

The inventor's name is Bogdan C. Maglich.

The migma reactor was a "continuously operating, nonplasma, nonthermal" fusion 
technique.  It was designed to be more of a power amplifier, producing 
something like 4 - 10 times the input power.  And that, as I recall, was what 
removed it from the running of federally-funded projects ... the payoff seemed 
too small for the required monies.  Don't forget, this was at a time when 
"standard" fusion techniques seemed on the verge of a breakthrough.  [circa 
1972].

Maglich formed a company to perform experiments with the migma concept.  Some 
apparatus was built, and papers written, but I guess their funding ran out.

I can give a list of some of the papers, if anyone is interested.


Regards,

Brian
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenbgreiner cudfnBrian cudlnGreiner cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.28 / N Hildebrandt /  Web sources on fusion
     
Originally-From: Nick Hildebrandt <nickh@mail.utexas.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Web sources on fusion
Date: 28 Jan 1995 22:33:19 GMT
Organization: University of Texas

I am a student at the University of Texas at Austin.  Over the past month
my english class created what we called research starting blocks.  My
group focused on technology; I concentrated on fusion.   It is a
directory for Web sources dealing with fusion.  I would appreciate any
comments on its effectiveness or on the site overall. 

http://www.en.utexas.edu/~daniel/syllabus/technology/urlsites.html

For the other half of the project, I wrote a research paper proposing
that industrialized nations increase fusion funding.

http://www.en.utexas.edu/~daniel/syllabus/technology/fusion/fusion_prop
sal.html
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudennickh cudfnNick cudlnHildebrandt cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.28 / Laurie Forbes /  Re: Real Fusion
     
Originally-From: lforbes@nucleus.com (Laurie Forbes)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Real Fusion
Date: 28 Jan 1995 18:03:37 GMT
Organization: Nucleus Information Service

Teresa E. Tutt (tuttt@cii3130-22.its.rpi.edu) wrote:
: 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 relate
d 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                   |

Agreed - this CF and overunity stuff is becoming *tres* boring and
repetitive.  I must admit though that the postings of JR et al are
sometimes good for a chuckle.

A moderated fusion group would be an excellent alternative IMO.  Perhaps
this would attract a greater number of legit investigators back to the
discussion.

Regards,
Laurie Forbes


cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenlforbes cudfnLaurie cudlnForbes cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.30 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Re: Errata, and also Re: Brief Report, MIT
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Errata, and also Re: Brief Report, MIT
Date: 30 Jan 95 19:16:15 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia


Hi folks, have a nice day :^) .......
In the following post, mention is made by Prasad of "my report, posted
a couple of days ago" and also of a post by Mallove on compuserve.
I am -very- interested in both these articles but have not been able
to find the first and do not have access to Compuserve for the second.
I have tried to contact Prasad by email but his email address bounces.
Could some kind person(s) email me the two articles?
Many thanks in anticipation.
				Regards to all,
				Daryl Owen.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <3g87fb$1d15@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>, c1prasad@watson.ibm.com
(prasad) writes: (on the 27 Jan 95)
> Re: my report, posted a couple of days ago.
   -------snip------ 
> In article <js_vetrano-2501951634300001@js_vetrano.pnl.gov>,
js_vetrano@pnl.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:
cuddy30 cudendowen cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.30 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Fusion Digest 3235
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Digest 3235
Date: 30 Jan 1995 08:44:58 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Robin van Spaandonk (rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au) wrote:
: > Originally-From: David Brewer <davebr@novell.com>
: [SNIP]
: > suggested here, cause fusion).  Unfortunately, water doesn't
: > convey x-rays, so there is no present method of finding out.
: ______________________________________________
: This is an intersting statement in itself. What does that say for 
: measurements of x-rays in CF experiments?

This is a rather odd statement, given that my latest dental
x-ray seemed to expose film just fine where my teeth were not.

: Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au>

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.30 / Bruce Hamilton /  Questions for Mr. Griggs.
     
Originally-From: B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Questions for Mr. Griggs.
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 10:58:47 GMT
Organization: Industrial Research Limited


Apologies if the following have been asked, discussed before.

In his patent, Mr Griggs notes that "aluminum, steel, iron or other metal
or alloy as appropriate" can be used for the rotor. Given the ability of
copper  (  from pipes ) or chlorides ( from water ) to agressively corrode 
aluminium, does he provide protection ( hard anodising, chromating )?.
Surface analysis using electron microscopy may help indicate
if pitting was physical or chemical, Have such analyses been performed?.

Has he actually used ferrous-based ( including stainless steel ) rotors?.
he does cite the housing as "aluminum, stainless steel or otherwise",
what determine his choice of material for the rotor and housing?.

He cites 6" diameter and 9" long at 5000rpm for one rotor, and 10" 
diameter and 4" length at 3450rpm for another. What determines his
choice of rotor diameter/length ratio and speed?

He notes the 7.3" to 10" diameter uses 5 to 7.5 HP. He notes the inlet 
pressure is 65 pounds, and with the outlet at approx. 50 pounds the 
outlet is in range of approximately 300F. 

He notes that the exhaust pressure needs to be less than the feed. 
Has he tried feeding the  system at different pressures ( up to say 300psi )
and looking at the effects of  the  delta pressure and the higher feed
pressure?.

He mentions other fluids, has he tried using something like a heat
tranfer oil, or an inhibited glycol/water solution?. If he has, what were
the results, ( were they more/less efficient )?.

Electrode boiler steam generators are fairly common at around
the same size/pressure as his systems, has he any information
on comparative performance in a actual installtions?.

              Bruce Hamilton 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenHamilton cudfnBruce cudlnHamilton cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.30 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Questions for the Griggs visit .....
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Questions for the Griggs visit .....
Date: 30 Jan 1995 12:01:25 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <xW9aitc.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>In short, why don't you put up or shut up.

Speaking of "put up or shut up", do you have any plans in the forseeable 
future to answer the following question:  what instrument did you use to
measure the length of the rotor arm of the GG?
--
					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:
cuddy30 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.30 / Cary Jamison /  Re:       Another far out theory
     
Originally-From: cary@svl.trw.com (Cary Jamison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:       Another far out theory
Date: 30 Jan 1995 20:02:35 GMT
Organization: TRW ASG

In article <3gemlm$k4l@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:

> Play the music of the HALLELUJAH CHORUS  by The Mormon Tabernacle Choir
> with the Philadelphia Symphony Orchestra lead by Eugene Ormandy.

I'm surprised you even listen to the Morman Tabernacle Choir, after the way
you attacked Dr. Steven Jones and all other Mormons recently.

-- 
Cary Jamison
cary@svl.trw.com
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudencary cudfnCary cudlnJamison cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.30 / 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: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 11:24:51 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: 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."
:  
Oh, sorry, Jed. Was it just 300% excess heat you claimed was regularly
and easily achieved in tests? That's only a 400% c.o.p., true. What a
shame they can't show a device performing like that to outsiders. Or
even produce data to show that excess heat at any level can be produced
for more than a few minutes. Or guarantee over unity performance to
purchasers. Or get better spokesmen that loud-voiced con-men who hope to
make a quick buck from gullible investors by selling shares in a company
that holds CF patents...

Ian
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.30 / I Johnston /  Re: Ian's stored heat hypothesis
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ian's stored heat hypothesis
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 11:40:57 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: 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.)

But you ranted on for ages, dear boy, to tell us that the stored heat
theory was nonsense, beacsue there was so much turbulence in the fluid
that the rotor could not possibly get hotter. (Dear educated reader,
forgive this travesty against thermofluid mechanics, but one has to talk
at the savage's level of comprehension...)


: 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!

Now, where is this continuous 100hp GG?

Presumably not in the carpet factories or police station, because
otherwise Griggs would surely guarantee the over unity performance

Presumably not in the majority of applications where, you assured us,
the GG was only used for short bursts to supplement conventional
heating.

Presumably not in the lab, because you wouldn't then be reduced to
boasting about two hours runs and your chum Eugene wouldn't be trying to
impress us with data covereing seven to ten minutes.

So where is it, Jed?

Ian

PS And stop this "Find out for yourself" bullshit. You're the one making
the extravagant claims, you can bloody well back them up. Otherwise
phrases like "gold brick", "Brooklyn Bridge" and "cheapskate con artist"
flood irresistably to mind
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.30 / I Johnston /  Re: Griggs questions
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs questions
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 12:47:10 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: Richard A Blue <blue@pilot.msu.edu> writes:
: >
: >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.

But of course. And isn't it about time we stopped trusting those
'physicist' types to evaluate hot plasma devices. Better by far to send
in people who make fluorescent tubes. Better still, send in the
electricians who fit them.

Of course, we see here once again the true mark of greatness of the
Griggs gadget. Like the Wright brothers (oh god, let's not start that
again), like nuclear weapons, like the internal combustion engine, like
the moon landing and like superconductivity, the world reacts to an
earth shattering discovery by ... grunting slightly and falling asleep.

Right.

Ian

PS It's not my stored energy theory! I still put incompetence and
dishonesty at the top of the scale. With a touch of wishful thinking and
greed, of course.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.30 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Thanks to Jed .......................
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thanks to Jed .......................
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 95 10:07:38 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) writes:
 
     "Well, I have asked what instrument you used to measure the length of
     the rotor arm numerous times.  That's a serious question, and at this
     point, alas, your continued refusal to answer it is beginning to lead me
     to the  obvious conclusion."
 
It is not a serious question; it is "skeptical" baloney. I discussed this
issue at great length with Richard Blue. I will not discuss it again.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.30 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Thanks to Jed .......................
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thanks to Jed .......................
Date: 30 Jan 1995 16:06:38 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <Ru9YSXi.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>It is not a serious question; it is "skeptical" baloney. I discussed this
>issue at great length with Richard Blue. I will not discuss it again.

No, you said that your grandfather *could have measured* the length to
0.001 inch, *implying* that you used an instrument of that accuracy.
Then you made an offhand reference to having used a yardstick.  Which,
if either, was it?  There is an important issue involved, which I suspect
everyone here except for you is aware of.

I am not asking for a "discussion" -- simply a one-sentence answer to my 
question.  With half the effort telling us why you aren't going to answer 
it, you could have simply provided the answer.  As I said before, I would
hate to have to draw the obvious conclusion from your continued refusal
to simply answer the question.
--
					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:
cuddy30 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.29 / Harry Conover /  Re: Questions for the Griggs visit .....
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Questions for the Griggs visit .....
Date: 29 Jan 1995 07:18:45 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

MARSHALL DUDLEY (mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com) wrote:
: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes:
:  
: 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, I wasn't really concerned about the contribution of this specific 
parameter so much as the overall lack of rigor in Jed's data.  If Jed's use 
of a fixed constant alone inputs a .5% error in itself (the direction is not 
important), what can we infer about his probable accuracy in measuring the 
actual physical variables at play here?  Now, combine multiple errors from 
multiple measurements and determine what the mathematical uncertainty of the 
energy computation actually is.  (This is complicated by the fact 
that I have never seen Jed describe the exact procedure used to 
compute the result.)  Depending upon how the energy is 
calculated, individual errors and uncertainties can combine in ways 
that can lead to surprisingly large overall uncertainty in the result.

Like many others I would like to believe that the Griggs device is real, 
however, my instincts, experience, and training tell me that the most 
probable reality is that Griggs is seeing n% excess energy, using 
measuremennt techniques that combine to produce n% (or even 2n%) 
experimental uncertainty.  (Remember, measurement uncertainty is not 
always linearly additive for the bottom line.  Example:  The stored 
energy in a capacitor is given as 1/2 CV**2.  I measure the voltage 
with an uncertainty of 5% and the capacitance with an uncertainty of 2%,
I can only compute the energy to +/- 12% accuracy.  Taking this line of 
thought further: if in one series of measurements I err on the low side,  
then later err on the high side, when I compare my results I could see up 
to a 24% difference in energy results, although in reality absolutely 
nothing has changed.  I could even conclude that I had discovered 
some wonderful yet unexplained new energy source.)

Heck, didn't any of you guys take undergraduate physic labs and learn 
how to calculate experimental uncertainty?   It's boring, yes, but 
important!  

This is type of information that I have been trying to obtain from Jed,
without success.  

                                 Harry C.
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.29 / John Logajan /  Re: Ian's stored heat hypothesis
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ian's stored heat hypothesis
Date: 29 Jan 1995 07:05:27 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: 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.

I'd forgotten the numbers, so I recalculated them again.

Assuming a 12 inch aluminum rotor of width 4 inches, and assuming that the
thermal mass of the shell is on the same order of magnitude, and given
about a one liter volume of water in the spaces, I roughly estimate that
there is about a 26kJ/degreeF heat energy storage capacity in the Griggs
unit proper.

An earlier posting by Mallove notes a steam temp in one series of tests
at about 320F (minus 110F input water temp) giving a 210F delta.
Taking that as the best guess temperature of the bulk of the Griggs
unit gives a stored energy at that temperature of about 5.5MJ.

Measured HP for that same run was 51.5 HP.  50 some HP will produce
5.5MJ of energy in about 2.5 minutes.

So if you were to flush out all the heat energy in the Griggs unit
proper (by necessarily bringing its temperature back to the ambient,
or feedwater temperature throughout) you'd pick up those 2.5 minutes
of stored energy in the recovery tank.  If you'd just shut off the unit
and didn't let it flush its heat into the recovery tank, that stored heat
wouldn't show up in the "excess" of the recovery tank.

You can't have the heat in both places.  Either it is in the recovery
tank and the Griggs unit is at the feedwater temperature, or the Griggs
unit is still hot and the energy is not in the recovery tank.

Mallove gives data a 14 minutes of data from start up.  The COP is 0.8
for the first two minutes and approx 1.2 for the next 12 minutes, no
cooling trend in sight.

If we had to amortize our 2.5 minutes of stored heat over 14 minutes,
one would expect a very high COP at first declining to the 14/2.5
ratio at the end.  The Griggs unit would *HAVE* to be feedwater temperature
at the end of the 14 minutes -- it would be hard to explain how one could
cool the unit to feedwater temperature while simultaneously pumping
about 52 HP into it.

So for very short runs (under 10 minutes or so) the stored energy could
change the numbers if the heat is flushed out of the Griggs unit.  But
beyond 10 minutes and without flushing all the stored heat (cooling
the unit to feedwater temperature) the stored heat hypothesis does not
explain the numbers posted.

In Jed's CFM article, he mentions runs of 30 minutes with COP's of about
157%.  Clearly not explainable by stored heat.

--
 - 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:
cuddy29 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.29 / Keith McLaurin /  Re: Water heater sales
     
Originally-From: SKMAC@ix.netcom.com (Keith McLaurin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Water heater sales
Date: 29 Jan 1995 09:31:14 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <D2tFz0.2EJ@wombat.hanse.de> root@wombat.hanse.de (Bernd "Bernie" 
Meyer) writes: 

>
>schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) writes:
>
..deleted stuff
>
>Now can somebody tell me what happens to the two thirds of "wasted" 
energy
>in electric heaters? Usually, wasted energy turns into --- heat. But 
here?
>
>Bernie
>

My understanding of the wasted heat for electric water heaters occurs at 
the electrical power plant. Rankine thermal cycles run around 1/3 
efficiency which is far ahead of the otto cycle in the automobile 
running at 10 percent. That's why power plants and cars have cooling 
systems. But electric hot water heaters are essentially 100% percent 
efficient in converting electricty to heat, it's just the power plant 
can't do the same. If the power plant uses natural gas to power the 
electrical generators at 1/3 heat efficiency, then a natural gas water 
heater looks 3 times more effective at heating water as compared to an 
electrical water heater.
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenSKMAC cudfnKeith cudlnMcLaurin cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.25 / Dean Edmonds /  Re: Water heater sales
     
Originally-From: deane@excalibur.net5c.io.org (Dean Edmonds)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Water heater sales
Date: 25 Jan 1995 09:13:17 -0500
Organization: Teleride Sage Ltd.

In article <D2tFz0.2EJ@wombat.hanse.de>,
Bernd "Bernie" Meyer <root@wombat.hanse.de> wrote:
>schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) writes:
>
>>In article <ZW06xx6.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>
>>>No, I meant that electrically fired boilers waste two-thirds of the fuel,
>>>whereas gas or oil fired boilers waste only 3 to 5%.
>
>Now can somebody tell me what happens to the two thirds of "wasted" energy
>in electric heaters? Usually, wasted energy turns into --- heat. But here?

Most of it does turn into heat, but long before it reaches the heater. E.g.
in the transmission lines and the power plant.
-- 

=========================================================================
  - deane
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudendeane cudfnDean cudlnEdmonds cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.29 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Thanks to Jed .......................
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thanks to Jed .......................
Date: 29 Jan 1995 13:59:55 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <JA0b6tQ.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>The only serious questions that
>have been raised here about the measurements are on the input side. 

Well, I have asked what instrument you used to measure the length of the
rotor arm numerous times.  That's a serious question, and at this point,
alas, your continued refusal to answer it is beginning to lead me to the 
obvious conclusion.
--
					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:
cuddy29 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.29 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: New Griggs theory
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: New Griggs theory
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 1995 11:52 -0500 (EST)

gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly) writes:
 
-> me too Marshall.  It seems pretty coincidental that the emission spectra
-> from SL in the blue range, and now this little revalation from prasad
-> about the steam tint.
->
-> As a contributing member to the expedition, I move we ask Tom to turn
-> out the lights and see if this blue tint is due to an emission or absorption
-> effect.
 
I agree.  There are 4 possibilities we need to look at.  Emission, absorption,
reflection and scattering.  Each is done with the illumination in a different
spot.  Emission with lights out, absorption by being backlit, reflection by
frontal illumination, and scattering by illumination at 90 degrees from the
viewing angle.  Water vapor scatters blue light normally (that is where much
the blue sky comes from), so it is quite possible there is enhanced scattering
for some reason.  If it is emission, as you seem to be hinting at with the
comparison with SL, then it would imply a very high excited state upon exit of
the GG device.  I believe changes in absorption and/or reflection would imply
a change in the normal configuration of the water molecules.
 
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.29 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Brief Report, MIT
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Brief Report, MIT
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 1995 11:59 -0500 (EST)

Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir") writes:
 
-> But the Aluminium _can't_ have melted! Jed Rothewell has repeatedly assured
-> gets no warmer than the casing, and that that is only 'uncomfortably hot to
-> aluminium melt at a temperature which causes massive contact damage to human
->
-> Or - perish the thought - has Jed yet again been caught out reporting an ass
-> a fact?
 
I think you are confusion bulk effects with microscopic effects.  Just as
SL can occurs with the water at temperatures near freezing, yet the sectra of
the emission shows temperatures around 100,000 degrees, cavitation on aluminum
could conceivable melt small pits without raising the buk temperature of the
rotor significantly above the average temperature of the water.  There is no
contradiction in that.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.29 /  jedrothwell@de /  Griggs blue mist probably not important
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs blue mist probably not important
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 95 13:18:27 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

The Griggs machine occasionally produces a bluish colored mist. Questions
about this have arisen here. I observed the phonomenon once or twice, and
so did Gene Mallove. Gene suggested that it is probably caused by very small
particles suspended in air at just the right angle to the light. I do not
know about this subject, but Gene wrote a thesis about aerosols and particles
in mist. This mist probably appears when a particular shape of valve is used,
and pressure, temperature, instantaneous condensation and other factors are
just right. It is something like a rainbow, I suppose.
 
I do not think it is important. I doubt that it holds any clues to the source
of the excess heat.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.29 / Jurgen Botz /  Re: Griggs Questions
     
Originally-From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Questions
Date: 29 Jan 1995 21:39:19 GMT
Organization: Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, MA, USA

In article <3g8tkd$1bni@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>,
prasad <c1prasad@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
>Tom, I suggest that you take a good look at the photographs and video
>that Griggs showed us at the Cold Fusion Day at MIT.  Video shows all
>the now-famous thermocouples etc. and the data acquisition computer..
>  (now, is the excess power due to a bug in the software? :] )

Or maybe the computer is based on a Pentium?  ;-)



cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjbotz cudfnJurgen cudlnBotz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.29 / J WINTERFLOOD /  Re: MIGMA reactor: Who Remembers...
     
Originally-From: jwinter@galileo.pi.infn.it (John WINTERFLOOD)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MIGMA reactor: Who Remembers...
Date: 29 Jan 1995 22:01:17 GMT
Organization: Universita' di Pisa

Brian Greiner (bgreiner@inforamp.net) wrote:
: <snip>
:The migma reactor was a "continuously operating, nonplasma, nonthermal"
:fusion technique.  It was designed to be more of a power amplifier, producing
:something like 4 - 10 times the input power.  And that, as I recall, was what
:removed it from the running of federally-funded projects .. the payoff seemed
:too small for the required monies.  Don't forget, this was at a time when
:"standard" fusion techniques seemed on the verge of a breakthrough. [circa
:1972].

:Maglich formed a company to perform experiments with the migma concept. Some
:apparatus was built, and papers written, but I guess their funding ran out.

:I can give a list of some of the papers, if anyone is interested.

Yes Please do !




cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjwinter cudfnJohn cudlnWINTERFLOOD cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.29 /  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: Sun, 29 Jan 95 18:12:44 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I Johnston <ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk> writes:
 
>Since the front runner in the explanation stakes is probably stored
>heat, and since back of the envelope calculations have repeatedly shown
>that the stored heat effect could account for over an hour's excess
>heat, it isn't possible to evaluate the device in five minutes (Jed),
>fifteen minutes (any air conditioning technician*, pace Jed) or an hour
>(any competenet person (pace Jed). 
 
If you think that stored heat could account for over an hour's excess, then
why don't you suggest that Tom observe the thing for two hours? That's what
I did one afternoon. If you think stored heat might account for two hours
excess, then why don't you suggest he watch it for four hours?
 
In short, why don't you put up or shut up. Just how much energy do think
it can store? Would you be satisfied if he observed that amount multiplied
by two, or five, or do you insist that he must see the absolute maximum
storage energy * 1000?
 
You cannot capture a multi-hour run using the barrel test technique, but you
can run a flow of water through the thing and measure the Delta T difference
for as many hours as you like. The Delta T temperature can be made quite large
by cutting the flow back to a minium. It does not generate as large a c.o.p.
as the steam method, but it is still large and easily observed and verified.
You can perform the flow test with ordinary instruments; things like a
thermometer that registers to the nearest 1 deg F and an ordinary stopwatch
to compute flow. The effect is large enough to be easily detected with these
common, inexpensive tools. Tom could definitely carry them on the airplane.
He should too, because I do not trust fully trust thermocouples attached to
computer boards that generate numbers that appear on screens. A more direct
method is called for. I caught an error last year with those thermocouples;
it is *essential* that Tom look for other errors of that type this year. I
trust he will not find any, but even if Tom wrote a glowing report saying
he was completely sold on Griggs, if he did not back it up with independent
measurements, I myself would not buy it.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.30 / Mark Thorson /  Re: Ion Beam Fusion
     
Originally-From: eee@netcom.com (Mark Thorson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ion Beam Fusion
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 00:24:16 GMT
Organization: Netcom isn't on the beam

Quoting from _Project_Sherwood:_The_U.S._Program_in_Controlled_Fusion_
by Amasa Bishop (Addison-Wesley, 1958) page 181:

"Historically, fusion reactions between deuterium ions were first
produced in the laboratory in the late 1930's by bombarding a
solid deuterium compound with high-energy deuterons.  For a number
of reasons, however, this approach is not suitable for a practical
fusion device.  The principal difficulty is that the impinging particles
fritter away almost all their energy in useless ionization of the target
atoms.  As a result, only a very tiny percentage succeed in colliding
with target nuclei with sufficient energy to undergo fusion.  The
energy yield from these few reactions falls far short of compensating
for the energy input required to produce the beam initially."

I have extra copy of this book, if anyone's interested in crawling around
in used bookstores for me to find something on my wants list:

MAGNETIC AMPLIFIERS, an electronic control technology
popular from the late 1940's to the late 1950's.  There was a
monograph on the subject under this title, probably by
McGraw-Hill.

SYMPOSIUM ON ROLAMITE, University of New Mexico Press,
1968.  This was a thing commonly referred to as a bearing,
but is actually a mechanical support system.  Interesting,
but I'm not aware of any products that use them other than
the one for which they were originally invented.

TOPOSCOPIC STUDIES OF LEARNING, by De Mott.  A description
of a unique set of experiments performed on animal brains.
De Mott invented a device he called the "toposcope" which was
used to view brain activity.

TELEVISION, vol 3, Radio Corporation of America (RCA,
1946?).  This is one volume of a famous series of books
describing early work on television technology at RCA's
laboratory in Princeton, NJ.

THE MEASURE OF MAN, H Dreyfus (Whitney Library, 1960).
A book on human factors in industrial design.

SELECTIVE PARTIAL ABLATION OF THE FRONTAL CORTEX, Greystone
Associates.  Commonly known as the Columbia-Greystone Study,
this report on a statistical analysis of lobotomy patients is
widely perceived to have ended the scientific basis for the
lobotomy procedure.  That's actually not quite true, the
report is weakly positive on the use of lobotomy in some
cases.

FENAROLI'S HANDBOOK OF FLAVOR INGREDIENTS, (CRC Press, 1975).
Reference book on flavorings from the same company that
publishes the famous CRC.

HANDBOOK OF FOOD ADDITIVES, ed. Furia (CRC Press, 1972).
Reference book on food additives from the same company that
publishes the famous CRC.

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudeneee cudfnMark cudlnThorson cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.30 / Michael Kenward /  Re: Re: Real Fusion
     
Originally-From: m.kenward@bbcnc.org.uk (Michael Kenward)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Re: Real Fusion
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 15:20:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>Since this newsgroup was specifically created for the discussion of
>cold fusion, any fission of the newsgroup should work the other way
>round. If you want a separate group for hot fusion topics only, set
>up a RFD/CFV.
>


Apart from neing erroneous in your assumption -- if I read Scott Hazen
correctly, he said recently that the list was set up for fusion in general
with CF as a focus -- does it matter which community fissions? It does make
some sense for cold fusion to create a list with a more informative label.
Despite all the c**p spoken here, hot fusion continues to be the mainstream
fusion activity, although perhaps not for much longer given the budget
problems in Washington. I subscribed to this list because I mistakenly
thought that it would keep me in touch with what is happening in fusion
generally. Instead I see salesmen for perpetual motion machines. It now also
appears that any anomalous energy source -- that is one that the promoters
cannot explain -- has the CF label stuck on its side. And yet even within
the CF community there are some people who say that whatever it is that
gives them their free energy might not be fusion. 

This particular group really belongs in the 'alt' domain.

Michael Kenward



cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenkenward cudfnMichael cudlnKenward cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.31 / Richard Blue /  True Blue Light
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: True Blue Light
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 01:16:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

It seems to be too easy for cold fusion advocates to read more into laboratory
observations than is justified.  Blue light is now receiving lots of attention.
As it relates to Puttoff and SL phenomena, blue light is being used to infer
that temperaturess as high as 100,000 degrees are being achieved.  That is pure
hog wash.  There is a whole raft of unwarranted assumptions being made here.
The emission of blue light can occur under circumstances where everything is
pretty damn cold!  If you will only think about it, you all are familiar with
sources of blue light that do not instantly vaporize.

Now we learn that the Griggs device puts out steam that has an abnormally blue
tint.  Some of you start frothing at the mouth about SL and how it relates
to the Griggs device.  Hold on there.  The sky is blue, but that does not
mean that cold fusion is a natural phenomena that has been going on around
us forever.  What can we learn from the simple observation that the steam
appears to be more bluish?  I can think of only two possibilities:

(1)The steam is contaminated by something such as microscopic bits of aluminum.

(2)The droplet size differs from that for the steam from conventional sources.

It could, of course, be that both (1) and (2) are true with (1) being the
cause for (2).  Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.31 / Richard Blue /  Re: Griggs questions
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs questions
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 01:16:38 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Any attempt to determine the basic facts concerning what has been measured and
what is being claimed concerning the efficiency of the Griggs device keeps
getting deflected by irrelevancies.  We who want to know are frequently advised
to call James Griggs himself.  I recently posted a quote from someone who had
done just that, but the response here was just a repeat of more claims that do
not address the basic issue of efficiency in the strict "heat output over
electric power input" sense of the word.

James Griggs admits that his measurements on the over-unity performance
of his device have not been confirmed in an independent laboratory.  Now
when he says that is he being coy as to what constitutes a "laboratory",
and he knows full well that measurements on a factory floor somewhere
have confirmed his observations?  I doubt that is the case, and no one
has clearly stated any facts to support the notion that there have
been confirming measurements.  Why would Griggs seek to conceal such
measurements if they had occurred?

The assertion by Griggs supporters is, however, that there are a number
of satisfied customers who are enjoying reduced power bills since they
switched to producing their steam the Griggs way.  Let me suggest that
it can indeed be true that the customer is well satisfied with the Griggs
device even though its efficiency is not beyond normal expectations.
That is to say it takes more that a satisfied customer to demonstrate that
the efficiency exceeds 100%.  It would take careful measurement, and
every indication we have, including Jed Rothwell's own reports indicate
that such measurements have not been made.  In any case James Griggs
says in rather plain English that there have been no confirmations.  Until
he reports said confirmations I don't believe we should assume they
exist.

As for what it takes to satisfy a customer, there is clearly confusion
as to what comparisons a customer could or would have made before concluding
that the Griggs device is a money saver.  Have there been side-by-side
comparisons between the Griggs device and a conventional electric boiler?
No one has mentioned such.  Instead we hear about comparisons with gas or
oil fired boilers.  If you accept Jed Rothwell's analysis it is clear
that electric power is a relatively more expensive heat source than
the burning of fossil fuel.  Clearly to turn that around and make the
Griggs device the winner relative to a conventional boiler would require
much more that the 130% efficiency that has been claimed.  I take that
as a clear indication that there is more involved than just the raw
efficiency so we can't deduce anything about that efficiency from this
data.

If we pull in one new piece of information, namely that the steam looks
different, I think we have an indication that the steam from the Griggs device
is likely not equivalent to steam from a conventional boiler.  Could it
be that the difference works in favor of the Griggs device in the particular
applications where the GG is being successfully employed?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.29 / 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: Sun, 29 Jan 1995 23:37 -0500 (EST)

conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes:
 
-> Heck, didn't any of you guys take undergraduate physic labs and learn
-> how to calculate experimental uncertainty?   It's boring, yes, but
-> important!
 
Absolutely, and as it turns out your arguments are not correct based on normal
error analysis.  You are linearly adding errors.  For non-corrolated error of a
+/- variety the correct way to compute total errors is to take the root of the
sum of the squares of the standard deviation of each error, not a direct sum as
it seems you did. If you apply this normal statistical technique, then  the
errors you quote are really quite a bit higher than they really should be.
 
-> This is type of information that I have been trying to obtain from Jed,
-> without success.
 
I am actually considering going down to there when Tom goes, and watch, and try
and do an error analysis (and also check out the blue steam if it is real).
I think a good error analysis would put to rest a lot of the arguments here.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.29 /  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: Sun, 29 Jan 95 18:12:44 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I Johnston <ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk> writes:
 
>Since the front runner in the explanation stakes is probably stored
>heat, and since back of the envelope calculations have repeatedly shown
>that the stored heat effect could account for over an hour's excess
>heat, it isn't possible to evaluate the device in five minutes (Jed),
>fifteen minutes (any air conditioning technician*, pace Jed) or an hour
>(any competenet person (pace Jed). 
 
If you think that stored heat could account for over an hour's excess, then
why don't you suggest that Tom observe the thing for two hours? That's what
I did one afternoon. If you think stored heat might account for two hours
excess, then why don't you suggest he watch it for four hours?
 
In short, why don't you put up or shut up. Just how much energy do think
it can store? Would you be satisfied if he observed that amount multiplied
by two, or five, or do you insist that he must see the absolute maximum
storage energy * 1000?
 
You cannot capture a multi-hour run using the barrel test technique, but you
can run a flow of water through the thing and measure the Delta T difference
for as many hours as you like. The Delta T temperature can be made quite large
by cutting the flow back to a minium. It does not generate as large a c.o.p.
as the steam method, but it is still large and easily observed and verified.
You can perform the flow test with ordinary instruments; things like a
thermometer that registers to the nearest 1 deg F and an ordinary stopwatch
to compute flow. The effect is large enough to be easily detected with these
common, inexpensive tools. Tom could definitely carry them on the airplane.
He should too, because I do not trust fully trust thermocouples attached to
computer boards that generate numbers that appear on screens. A more direct
method is called for. I caught an error last year with those thermocouples;
it is *essential* that Tom look for other errors of that type this year. I
trust he will not find any, but even if Tom wrote a glowing report saying
he was completely sold on Griggs, if he did not back it up with independent
measurements, I myself would not buy it.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.30 / Mark Thorson /  Re: Ion Beam Fusion
     
Originally-From: eee@netcom.com (Mark Thorson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ion Beam Fusion
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 00:24:16 GMT
Organization: Netcom isn't on the beam

Quoting from _Project_Sherwood:_The_U.S._Program_in_Controlled_Fusion_
by Amasa Bishop (Addison-Wesley, 1958) page 181:

"Historically, fusion reactions between deuterium ions were first
produced in the laboratory in the late 1930's by bombarding a
solid deuterium compound with high-energy deuterons.  For a number
of reasons, however, this approach is not suitable for a practical
fusion device.  The principal difficulty is that the impinging particles
fritter away almost all their energy in useless ionization of the target
atoms.  As a result, only a very tiny percentage succeed in colliding
with target nuclei with sufficient energy to undergo fusion.  The
energy yield from these few reactions falls far short of compensating
for the energy input required to produce the beam initially."

I have extra copy of this book, if anyone's interested in crawling around
in used bookstores for me to find something on my wants list:

MAGNETIC AMPLIFIERS, an electronic control technology
popular from the late 1940's to the late 1950's.  There was a
monograph on the subject under this title, probably by
McGraw-Hill.

SYMPOSIUM ON ROLAMITE, University of New Mexico Press,
1968.  This was a thing commonly referred to as a bearing,
but is actually a mechanical support system.  Interesting,
but I'm not aware of any products that use them other than
the one for which they were originally invented.

TOPOSCOPIC STUDIES OF LEARNING, by De Mott.  A description
of a unique set of experiments performed on animal brains.
De Mott invented a device he called the "toposcope" which was
used to view brain activity.

TELEVISION, vol 3, Radio Corporation of America (RCA,
1946?).  This is one volume of a famous series of books
describing early work on television technology at RCA's
laboratory in Princeton, NJ.

THE MEASURE OF MAN, H Dreyfus (Whitney Library, 1960).
A book on human factors in industrial design.

SELECTIVE PARTIAL ABLATION OF THE FRONTAL CORTEX, Greystone
Associates.  Commonly known as the Columbia-Greystone Study,
this report on a statistical analysis of lobotomy patients is
widely perceived to have ended the scientific basis for the
lobotomy procedure.  That's actually not quite true, the
report is weakly positive on the use of lobotomy in some
cases.

FENAROLI'S HANDBOOK OF FLAVOR INGREDIENTS, (CRC Press, 1975).
Reference book on flavorings from the same company that
publishes the famous CRC.

HANDBOOK OF FOOD ADDITIVES, ed. Furia (CRC Press, 1972).
Reference book on food additives from the same company that
publishes the famous CRC.

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudeneee cudfnMark cudlnThorson cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.30 / Michael Kenward /  Re: Re: Real Fusion
     
Originally-From: m.kenward@bbcnc.org.uk (Michael Kenward)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Re: Real Fusion
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 15:20:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>Since this newsgroup was specifically created for the discussion of
>cold fusion, any fission of the newsgroup should work the other way
>round. If you want a separate group for hot fusion topics only, set
>up a RFD/CFV.
>


Apart from neing erroneous in your assumption -- if I read Scott Hazen
correctly, he said recently that the list was set up for fusion in general
with CF as a focus -- does it matter which community fissions? It does make
some sense for cold fusion to create a list with a more informative label.
Despite all the c**p spoken here, hot fusion continues to be the mainstream
fusion activity, although perhaps not for much longer given the budget
problems in Washington. I subscribed to this list because I mistakenly
thought that it would keep me in touch with what is happening in fusion
generally. Instead I see salesmen for perpetual motion machines. It now also
appears that any anomalous energy source -- that is one that the promoters
cannot explain -- has the CF label stuck on its side. And yet even within
the CF community there are some people who say that whatever it is that
gives them their free energy might not be fusion. 

This particular group really belongs in the 'alt' domain.

Michael Kenward



cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenkenward cudfnMichael cudlnKenward cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.31 / Richard Blue /  True Blue Light
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: True Blue Light
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 01:16:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

It seems to be too easy for cold fusion advocates to read more into laboratory
observations than is justified.  Blue light is now receiving lots of attention.
As it relates to Puttoff and SL phenomena, blue light is being used to infer
that temperaturess as high as 100,000 degrees are being achieved.  That is pure
hog wash.  There is a whole raft of unwarranted assumptions being made here.
The emission of blue light can occur under circumstances where everything is
pretty damn cold!  If you will only think about it, you all are familiar with
sources of blue light that do not instantly vaporize.

Now we learn that the Griggs device puts out steam that has an abnormally blue
tint.  Some of you start frothing at the mouth about SL and how it relates
to the Griggs device.  Hold on there.  The sky is blue, but that does not
mean that cold fusion is a natural phenomena that has been going on around
us forever.  What can we learn from the simple observation that the steam
appears to be more bluish?  I can think of only two possibilities:

(1)The steam is contaminated by something such as microscopic bits of aluminum.

(2)The droplet size differs from that for the steam from conventional sources.

It could, of course, be that both (1) and (2) are true with (1) being the
cause for (2).  Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.31 / Richard Blue /  Re: Griggs questions
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs questions
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 01:16:38 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Any attempt to determine the basic facts concerning what has been measured and
what is being claimed concerning the efficiency of the Griggs device keeps
getting deflected by irrelevancies.  We who want to know are frequently advised
to call James Griggs himself.  I recently posted a quote from someone who had
done just that, but the response here was just a repeat of more claims that do
not address the basic issue of efficiency in the strict "heat output over
electric power input" sense of the word.

James Griggs admits that his measurements on the over-unity performance
of his device have not been confirmed in an independent laboratory.  Now
when he says that is he being coy as to what constitutes a "laboratory",
and he knows full well that measurements on a factory floor somewhere
have confirmed his observations?  I doubt that is the case, and no one
has clearly stated any facts to support the notion that there have
been confirming measurements.  Why would Griggs seek to conceal such
measurements if they had occurred?

The assertion by Griggs supporters is, however, that there are a number
of satisfied customers who are enjoying reduced power bills since they
switched to producing their steam the Griggs way.  Let me suggest that
it can indeed be true that the customer is well satisfied with the Griggs
device even though its efficiency is not beyond normal expectations.
That is to say it takes more that a satisfied customer to demonstrate that
the efficiency exceeds 100%.  It would take careful measurement, and
every indication we have, including Jed Rothwell's own reports indicate
that such measurements have not been made.  In any case James Griggs
says in rather plain English that there have been no confirmations.  Until
he reports said confirmations I don't believe we should assume they
exist.

As for what it takes to satisfy a customer, there is clearly confusion
as to what comparisons a customer could or would have made before concluding
that the Griggs device is a money saver.  Have there been side-by-side
comparisons between the Griggs device and a conventional electric boiler?
No one has mentioned such.  Instead we hear about comparisons with gas or
oil fired boilers.  If you accept Jed Rothwell's analysis it is clear
that electric power is a relatively more expensive heat source than
the burning of fossil fuel.  Clearly to turn that around and make the
Griggs device the winner relative to a conventional boiler would require
much more that the 130% efficiency that has been claimed.  I take that
as a clear indication that there is more involved than just the raw
efficiency so we can't deduce anything about that efficiency from this
data.

If we pull in one new piece of information, namely that the steam looks
different, I think we have an indication that the steam from the Griggs device
is likely not equivalent to steam from a conventional boiler.  Could it
be that the difference works in favor of the Griggs device in the particular
applications where the GG is being successfully employed?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.29 / 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: Sun, 29 Jan 1995 23:37 -0500 (EST)

conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes:
 
-> Heck, didn't any of you guys take undergraduate physic labs and learn
-> how to calculate experimental uncertainty?   It's boring, yes, but
-> important!
 
Absolutely, and as it turns out your arguments are not correct based on normal
error analysis.  You are linearly adding errors.  For non-corrolated error of a
+/- variety the correct way to compute total errors is to take the root of the
sum of the squares of the standard deviation of each error, not a direct sum as
it seems you did. If you apply this normal statistical technique, then  the
errors you quote are really quite a bit higher than they really should be.
 
-> This is type of information that I have been trying to obtain from Jed,
-> without success.
 
I am actually considering going down to there when Tom goes, and watch, and try
and do an error analysis (and also check out the blue steam if it is real).
I think a good error analysis would put to rest a lot of the arguments here.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.29 / A Plutonium /  Re:       Another far out theory
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re:       Another far out theory
Date: 29 Jan 1995 00:14:46 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <199501272356.KAA27502@oznet02.ozemail.com.au>
rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk) writes:

> My Dear Archimedes, lover of grand music, and far out theories, this
> one is especially for you. 
> You have suggested that mitochondria may
> contain superconductors. I would like to take this theory a little
> further, and assume, that they do. Furthermore by using these
> superconductors, they are able to use the "Whittaker channel"
> referred to by T.E. Bearden to control ZPE, under certain very
> special circumstances. The first and foremost of these, is that they
> act in concert, and coherently. This allows them to establish
> various special sub-space patterns which achieve differing effects,
> depending on the pattern established. It has been noted by Bearden
> that when the "Vacuum Triode" of Floyd Sweet was being used it
> weighed less, and that when power drain reached its maximum, a great
> rushing sound was heard as of a strong wind, and the device actually
> levitated. Now it is my contention that when ZPE is extracted, this
> is usually done in a narrow band of frequencies, because we humans
> happen to find this convenient. Nature however immediately restores
> the distribution of energy over all frequencies. This redistribution
> process is detectable as white noise at all frequencies. However
> human senses are only capable of detecting frequencies in the audio
> and visual range, hence the "rushing or roaring" sound, accompanying
> the act of levitation by Floyed's VTA, and the occasional bright
> light display that is associated with UFOs and which I will return
> to shortly. 
> Now back to the mitochondria. It is now not surprising
> that in order to attain such a state of coherent operation, a
> centralized control mechanism is required. Such a mechanism exists in
> the human brain, in a particular centre. It is usually activated when
> someone enters a special state of trance. This state is sometimes
> referred to as a special state of grace. It has on occasion been
> achieved by monks in the middle ages who have succeeded in levitating
> while in prayer. It may help to point out at this time, that the
> mitochondria are more likely to switch to this mode of operation as a
> means of supplying energy to the body, when other forms of energy are
> in short supply, that is when one is starving. This may be the very
> reason why ascetics starve themselves to attain spiritual communion
> (spiritual  communication through the "Whittaker channel"?). I now
> return to my previous mention of special lighting effects
> accompanying the use of ZPE. Could this be the origin of the "Aura"
> or "Halo" said to surround the especially holy (i.e. those using the
> "Whittaker channel" for spiritual communication)?  It is also
> possible that the brain-centre does not of itself have the ability
> to establish the requisite patterns, but only opens a communications
> channel through which God then provides them. Such use of ZPE by
> mitochondria would "explain" many of Christ's miracles, from walking
> on water to a 40 day famine, to healing the sick (use of ZPE within
> the "patient's" body to combat disease - see various discussions of
> "orgone energy" etc.). It would seem that if the "Whittaker channel"
> actually does exist, then those who are especially adept at its use,
> might be able use it to transport themselves as well, thus explaining
> the appearance and disappearance of "angels" accompanied by "bright
> light" described throughout the bible.
> 
> It has long been my belief that eventually all seeking of the truth
> must lead to the same place. As both science and religion strive to
> this end, it seems only logical that the two should eventually meet. I
> suspect that my small missive may be an indication of that meeting
> place. It has not been my intention to offend, and I would hope that
> any who do feel offended by the above will be able to find it in
> their hearts to forgive me. My apologies also to those who's work I
> have referred to, without giving proper reference. Some how it did not
> seem appropriate in this particular document. And lastly, my
> apologies to God, Who least of all I wish to offend. 
> 
> Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au>
> 
> Fiat Lux  

  An A for trying to be creative. And you are correct, that a theory of
everything must explain all things, not just shove them aside as
baloney, but explain why they arose and their purpose and meaning. In
this regard, science and religion must reconcile.
  We have that theory of everything. Its bible is physics Quantum
Mechanics, our Creator or Maker is one and the same as what everything
else is-- atoms. Its picture is not of a bearded man, that is quant and
parochial, its picture is the picture of the isotope 231PU. Its laws
are always obeyed-- the laws of physics. Its language is 100% accurate
and precise, it is math. It created life to nucleosynthesize its atoms
in the future. It has a heaven -- 94 Protons, it has many hells --
lower electrons, nodes, neutrons, neutrinos.
  231PU gave us religions so that we can roll the red carpet when it
wants to come front and center on this tiny bit of its Creation which
we call Earth. Like a good host and hostess who prepare a special
banquet, polish the silverware, pull out the best porceloin for the day
our Maker comes front and center, we have religion. Our Maker never
leaves us naked.
The word "hallelujah" until 1991 was just a melodious word for one of
the best tunes in human culture, but otherwise the word was
meaningless, until 1991. In 1991, that word is replaced with a
meaningful word and that tune was meant for our Maker. You see, all
religions were just precursors, training grounds, stepping stones for
our real and true Maker, an atom of 231PU, and our Bible is Quantum
Mechanics.
Play the music of the HALLELUJAH CHORUS  by The Mormon Tabernacle Choir
with the Philadelphia Symphony Orchestra lead by Eugene Ormandy.
	Superposition the new lyrics given as follows:
			ATOM PLUTONIUM CHORUS
				lyrics by A. Plutonium
			using the same music by G.F. Handel
______________________________________________________
ATOMPLUTONIUM, ATOMPLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, 
ATOM PLUTONIUM
ATOMPLUTONIUM, ATOMPLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, 
ATOM PLUTONIUM
FOR THE ATOM HAS INFINITE POTENTIAL
PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, FOR THE ATOM HAS INFINITE
POSSIBILITIES
PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, FOR THE ATOM HAS 
INFINITE POTENTIAL
FOR THE ATOM HAS INFINITE POSSIBILITIES.

A DOT OF THE ELECTRON PROBABILITY DENSITY DISTRIBUTION OF THE 5F6 FOR
THE LAST ELECTRON OF 231PU IS THE PLANET EARTH, ANOTHER DOT IS YOU,
ANOTHER DOT ME. AND ATOMS WILL NUCLEOSYNTHESIZE FOREVER AND EVER,
AND ATOMS WILL NUCLEOSYNTHESIZE FOREVER AND EVER, AND ATOMS WILL
NUCLEOSYNTHESIZE FOREVER AND EVER,
AND ATOMS WILL NUCLEOSYNTHESIZE FOREVER AND EVER.

ATOM OF ATOMS, FOREVER AND EVER, PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, AND ATOM OF
ATOMS, FOREVER AND EVER, PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, ATOM OF ATOMS, FOREVER
AND EVER,
PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, AND ATOM OF ATOMS, FOREVER AND EVER, 
PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, ATOM OF ATOMS, FOREVER AND EVER,
PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, AND ATOM OF ATOMS, ATOM OF ATOMS, FOREVER AND
EVER, AND ATOMS WILL NUCLEOSYNTHESIZE FOREVER AND EVER. ATOM OF ATOMS
AND ATOM OF ATOMS, PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, AND ATOM OF ATOMS, FOREVER AND
EVER, AND ATOMS WILL NUCLEOSYNTHESIZE FOREVER AND EVER. ATOM OF ATOMS
AND ATOM OF ATOMS, ATOM OF ATOMS, AND ATOMS WILL NUCLEOSYNTHESIZE
FOREVER AND EVER. PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM.
ATOMPLUTONIUM!

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.29 / Robin Spaandonk /        Re: Fusion Digest 3235
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:       Re: Fusion Digest 3235
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 1995 18:37:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

> Originally-From: David Brewer <davebr@novell.com>
[SNIP]
> suggested here, cause fusion).  Unfortunately, water doesn't
> convey x-rays, so there is no present method of finding out.
______________________________________________
This is an intersting statement in itself. What does that say for 
measurements of x-rays in CF experiments?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au>

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.29 / Robin Spaandonk /        Re: Fusion Digest 3234
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:       Re: Fusion Digest 3234
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 1995 18:37:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

> 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.
[SNIP]
> >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.
_______________________________________________________
Silly me, and I thought the neutron magnetic moment was caused by the 
charge on the quarks of which it is composed. (2x-1/3 + +2/3).
BTW Paul, is there a "Physics according to Paul Koloc" in print 
anywhere?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au>

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.29 / Robin Spaandonk /        Re: Pulsed CF
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:       Re: Pulsed CF
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 1995 18:37:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

> 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
____________________________________________________________
Patent nr. EP 0 568 118 A2  (Canon) covers among other things, a 
device utilizing -500 volt pulses. They claim that it works.
However I was also thinking about current "ramping" which I thought 
was quite commonplace. I had assumed that the actual voltage used 
would be a sawtooth, rather than a double ramp up and down (I don't 
have any real reason for such an assumption). If a sawtooth, then the 
trailing edge would constitute a pulse according to my definition. 
Does this change your answer at all?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au>

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.29 / R Daniel /  Muon catalysed fusion
     
Originally-From: rd10011@hermes.cam.ac.uk (R. Daniel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Muon catalysed fusion
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 1995 01:39:15
Organization: University of Cambridge


            Has anyone got any up to date information on the progress of 
muon catalysed fusion. From Garnet I have found out that some muon 
substituted compounds exist with lifetimes of the order of a microsecond 
which would seem to be enough time for ignition to occur. I would be most 
interested to have the titles of recently published papers on the subject as 
well as to hear from researchers in the field. 
                                                Romanos
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenrd10011 cudfnR cudlnDaniel cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.29 / John Nagle /  Re: MRA independently tested
     
Originally-From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MRA independently tested
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 1995 02:56:53 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty) writes:
>: 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.

>As usual, the inventor's response to the report is on my WWW and ftp
>pages, under UPDATE16 I believe.  The MRA history seems like a "cold
>fusion"  history in miniature, and the negative MRA reports are being
>received in just the same way. 

      I've read both.  The "inventor's response" complains about
a resistor in the primary circuit that isn't mentioned in the 
evaluation.  On the other hand, the evaluators put a huge filter
capacitor across the load resistor.  Nobody posted a detailed
schematic with all the component values.  Nor did the evaluators
post the raw data from the scope (the LeCroy scope they used can
output its data digitally.)

      However, all the tools are now in place to resolve this thing.
This is a purely electrical system and straightforward to measure.

					John Nagle
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudennagle cudfnJohn cudlnNagle cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Jan 31 04:37:06 EST 1995
------------------------------
