1995.01.30 / Cameron Bass / Re: Questions for the Griggs visit ..... Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Questions for the Griggs visit ..... Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 15:42:31 GMT Organization: University of Virginia In article , wrote: >absurd trip? Because Tom is a hatchet man who is going out there to >discredit Griggs and me. Don't know about Griggs, but I don't think you have to worry. You seem to do a fine job on your own. dale bass cudkeys: cuddy30 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.31 / Scott Mueller / Re: Re: Real Fusion Originally-From: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Re: Real Fusion Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 05:40:00 GMT Organization: At Home; Salida, CA In article <9501301239.aa05222@auntie.bbcnc.org.uk>, Michael Kenward wrote: >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? No. The newgroup was created by people interested specifically in the P&F Cold Fusion results of 1989. Subsequent discussions among the participants have evolved the charter to allow the inclusion of convention fusion topics as well. -- Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (tandem|ub-gate)!zorch!scott Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests. cudkeys: cuddy31 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.30 / MARSHALL DUDLEY / Griggs blue mist probably not important Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Griggs blue mist probably not important Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 13:01 -0500 (EST) jedrothwell@delphi.com writes: -> 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 am confused here. I thought the reported blue was steam, which should be a colorless gas. If it is a mist then it could be refraction of light into a rainbow of colors, but I would expect other colors to be apparent at other angles from the light source. Marshall cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.30 / Josef Frisch / Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator Originally-From: frisch@hebe.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Josef C. Frisch) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph sics.accelerators,alt.sci.physics.plutonium Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 17:15:31 GMT Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center In article <3gc5rm$75p@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Archimedes.Plutonium@dart outh.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes: |> In article |> 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. Good. As unbiased physicists, we should table the neutrino discussions until these experiments are preformed and the data is in. Which experiment will be done first, where and when? --- Joe Frisch --- Never...... cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenfrisch cudfnJosef cudlnFrisch cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.31 / 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: 31 Jan 1995 03:52:46 GMT Organization: The Internet Access Company MARSHALL DUDLEY (mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com) wrote: : 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. Marshall, you're confusing data errors with instrumentation uncertainty or error. When your measurement system has a built in skew, all the statistics in the world won't help. Statistics simply "de-noise" the data, but can't correct for (perhaps corrolated) measurement error (such as your meter reads 5% too high, etc.) Here, statistical techniquest don't help. So, again, I must ask: Did you take Physics 101 lab, or Atomic Physics lab? Perhaps I should dig out my aged lecture notes and quote them. :-) ....And...thousands cry... "Oh God, no, not that! That's even worse than your lectures on adaptive and Kalman Filters!!!" Harry C. cudkeys: cuddy31 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.30 / MARSHALL DUDLEY / Gammas & Lightning Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion Subject: Gammas & Lightning Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 15:31 -0500 (EST) In today's Knoxville New Sentinel there is a fairly large article on "New Class of lightning found above clouds". Although I don't put much faith in the scientific accuracy of the general news media, there were a couple of things that caught my eye. Apparently about 40 papers on this phenomenia were presented at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union. The article claims that there are "gamma-ray bursts of extraordinary intensity coming from thunderheads". I question the accuracy of this report. Do not gamma rays require energies far in excess of the voltages found in lightning storms? If so, then would not gammas indicate that there are some nuclear processes going on that should not be, such as fusion? I am interested in hearing any additional information on this. Marshall cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.30 / Simon Dobbs / Re: In article: SUPERCONDUCTIVITY CORRECT THEORY Originally-From: STD@revealer.demon.co.uk (Simon Dobbs) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.physics.electromag Subject: Re: In article: SUPERCONDUCTIVITY CORRECT THEORY Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 19:00:59 GMT Organization: Dobbs Research In article <3fs7ke$sbg@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote: >Consider the mitichondria with the oxidative phosphoralation where >electrons transfer along the inside wall very rapidly, with no known >resistance. To affect the reduction of oxygen to get water, release of >energy in the form of ATP. Twaddle. No known resistance! The movement of electrons along the electron transport chain is limited by Ôrespiratory controlÕ. The electron transfer reactions pump protons across the membrane, to generate a charge gradient which limits further expulsion. This gradient is used to synthesize ATP. The charge gradient inhibits further electron movement (directly analogous to current flowing in a circuit to charge a capacitor). Even if the charge gradient is dissipated with uncouplers, the rate of electron movement is slow, limited by, amongst other factors, diffusion of the rather massive proteinaceous electron carriers within the membrane. If there was no known resistance in the mitochondrion, we would be totally unable to do any work (almost anyway, there is some energy conservation outside the mitochondrion). cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenSTD cudfnSimon cudlnDobbs cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.30 / A Plutonium / Re: Pulsed CF Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium Subject: Re: Pulsed CF Date: 30 Jan 1995 22:47:17 GMT Organization: Plutonium Atom Foundation In article <199501291244.XAA01269@oznet02.ozemail.com.au> rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk) writes: > > 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 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 > To produce an electric field, you change the magnetic field. To produce a magnetic field you change an electric field. The electric field and magnetic field are phenomena within EM. By the way, pulsing is just another word for changing. Funny, how noone before me ever thought that a changing EM produces radioactivity. Changing radioactivity produces EM. These are just generalizations of Maxwell's Equations onto the level of forces themselves. We should not stop at the method of changing/varying/pulsing of one term to produce another term. You pulse an electric field to get a magnetic field, and you pulse a magnetic field to get an electric field. You pulse EM to produce radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization. Funny, how I was the first to spot that generalization from laws of electricity and magnetism and generalize upwards to actual forces or interactions themselves. My patent pending goes back earlier than Canon's patent. The above outline was explicit in my patent filings. I pre-date Canon on pulsing. I even posted my work here to the Internet clearly pre-dating Canon's patent. I have offered "for sale" my patent claims on pulsing and spontaneous neutron materialization devices to Canon for shares of stock of Canon. Out of court settlement is usually the more reasonable way, don't you agree, Canon? cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.31 / John Vetrano / Re: Griggs questions Originally-From: js_vetrano@pnl.gov (John S Vetrano) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Griggs questions Date: 31 Jan 1995 01:13:54 GMT Organization: Battelle PNL In article <3gcu79$5jh@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson) wrote: > 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 Maybe I'm setting myself up as an idiot or someone who is arguementative but this post seems to miss the point. Whether the energy bill of a user goes down or not is irrelevant. That does not indicate overunity; perhaps just an inefficient predecessor. The difference in implications between 95% efficiency and 105% (as an example) is tremendous. It seems that the nature of this inquiry is not whether he has an efficient machine to produce steam, but is it overunity and if so, how does it achieve this. Fusion perhaps? That is what some claim, though apparently not Mr. Griggs. His unit may reduce energy costs "as related to conventional systems" and that is great. That may be enough for you, Mr. Griggs and the customers. However as a scientist, it is of interest to know more, namely the mechanism that Mr. Griggs and apparently you don't care about. Isn't that the real thought behind Tom's trip? I have no reason to doubt Jed's numbers, but Tom will undoubtedly look on the unit with an eye trained to see different details than Jed. He will probably ask different questions and try to find out slightly different information than Jed has. Jed, for all his measurements and calculations, still doesn't know why it works. I don't believe that the purpose of Tom's entire trip is to re-do Jed's measurements, but "evaluate" the machine and try to discover what makes it go. Is that an incorrect statement? Tom? (sorry but I didn't pitch in any $ so you don't have to answer my questions :-).) In other words, the trip is not to dispute Jed's claims, but to add to them. Anyway, just my contribution (that wasn't too stupid or arguementative, was it?) John Vetrano js_vetrano@pnl.gov -- The above opinions are mine, all mine. cudkeys: cuddy31 cudenjs_vetrano cudfnJohn cudlnVetrano cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.31 / Harry Conover / Re: Errata, and also Re: Brief Report, MIT Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Errata, and also Re: Brief Report, MIT Date: 31 Jan 1995 04:10:12 GMT Organization: The Internet Access Company prasad (c1prasad@watson.ibm.com) wrote: : Re: my report, posted a couple of days ago. So, based on the reports by prasad and others (including Gene) here, I'd conclude that the overall message of the MIT CF Conference to be: "Well guys, we have three engines out, and one smoking, but don't bail out yet!" Anybody disagree? Harry C. cudkeys: cuddy31 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.01 / Robin Spaandonk / Re: dental x-rays Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: dental x-rays Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 01:13:39 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) [SNIP] >Robin van Spaandonk (rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au) wrote: >: > Originally-From: David Brewer >: [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 > >-- >-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". _____________________________________________________ Ok Matt, I admit that I am now hopelessly lost. Please explain. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.01 / Michael Kenward / Re: Fusion Digest 3244 Originally-From: m.kenward@bbcnc.org.uk (Michael Kenward) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion Digest 3244 Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 01:18:05 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway Has anyone seen the reports of Arthur C Clarke's espousal of cold fusion? I can't post the whole story here for copyright reasons. Apparently he said CF was neither cold and probably was not fusion, but that Fleischmann's experiments could be "the tip of an enormous iceberg" to quote the wire story. (OK, sue me.) Clarke is also reported as saying that the MIT conference on the subject at Massachuchets Institute of Technology had set the Internet buzzing. Just thought you'd like to know. Keep buzzing. Michael Kenward OBE | Grange Cottage, Staplefield | West Sussex, RH17 6EL, England Science Writer & | Phone: 01444 400568 Fax: 01444 401064 Editorial Consultant | m.kenward@bbcnc.org.uk cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenkenward cudfnMichael cudlnKenward cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.31 / John Logajan / Re: Gammas & Lightning Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Gammas & Lightning Date: 31 Jan 1995 06:22:00 GMT Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. MARSHALL DUDLEY (mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com) wrote: : Do not gamma rays require energies far in excess of the voltages found in : lightning storms? Nah. Storm clouds can easily generate potentials of millions of volts. A MeV photon is a gamma ray, right? There are *some* cosmic rays and gammas that are beyond earthly mechanisms, but certainly not all. -- - 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: cuddy31 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.31 / 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: 31 Jan 1995 04:03:42 GMT Organization: The Internet Access Company MARSHALL DUDLEY (mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com) wrote: : 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. You're overlooking the 5th possibility, and by far the most the most likely, that the blue coloration is simply an artifact resulting from bad photography. Sheesh! How is it that I don't find you people with these strange analytical concepts posting in alt.alien.research or alt.kirlean(sp?). photography? :-) Harry C. ps. My scientific orientation is the "bad attitude" that got me kicked out of most of the occult newsgroups! (Just joking.) cudkeys: cuddy31 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.31 / Harry Conover / Re: Griggs blue mist probably not important Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Griggs blue mist probably not important Date: 31 Jan 1995 04:49:52 GMT Organization: The Internet Access Company MARSHALL DUDLEY (mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com) wrote: : jedrothwell@delphi.com writes: : : -> 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 am confused here. I thought the reported blue was steam, which should be : a colorless gas. If it is a mist then it could be refraction of light into a : rainbow of colors, but I would expect other colors to be apparent at other : angles from the light source. : : Marshall : From a purely scientific vantage point, if a hydrogen fusion reaction is actually taking place, hydrogen depletion of could result. This is equivalent to oxygen enrichment of the steam, and since it is well documented fact that liquid oxygen has a blue coloration, this could be interpreted to represent a positive confirmation of Cold Fusion taking place. Harry C. ps. Still, most likely just off-color photography. cudkeys: cuddy31 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.31 / Harry Conover / Re: Real Fusion Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Real Fusion Date: 31 Jan 1995 04:27:58 GMT Organization: The Internet Access Company 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. Hello. Well, pardon me! Teresa, many of us have already paid our dues, as you have yet do to do, and so my dear, I have little sympathy for either your blistered digit or your misplaced, pretentious pomposity. Some of us here are a bit beyond the student status in life, so please pardon us if we indulge ourselves in a bit of frivolity. Perhaps your future contributions to physics would be enhanced by emulating some of the giants in our science, like Feynman, by learning to 'hang loose' at least a little bit. Being a 'tight ass' is not a prerequite, nor even an asset, in pursuing scientific goals. Get a life babe, cause you only live once! Harry C. cudkeys: cuddy31 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.31 / Cameron Bass / Re: Ian's stored heat hypothesis Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Ian's stored heat hypothesis Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 05:55:56 GMT Organization: University of Virginia In article , wrote: > >I said I thought the steel housing was hotter than >the steam. I thought there was dis-equilibrium. (I did not make any claims >about the rotor either way, because I do not have any instrument readings for >it.) John Logajan reminded me to be sure I was measuring the steam temperature >on the inside of the GG pressure valve. I am not sure if I did that or not; I >will have to look more closely at the position of the thermocouples nearest >the GG outlet pipe. Oops. Either way, it seems you made a big mistake as several of us have been saying all along. Once again Jed, your performance justifies the faith I have in it. dale bass cudkeys: cuddy31 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.31 / Harry Conover / Re: Gammas & Lightning Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Gammas & Lightning Date: 31 Jan 1995 05:05:17 GMT Organization: The Internet Access Company MARSHALL DUDLEY (mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com) wrote: [clip...clip] : The article claims that there are "gamma-ray bursts of extraordinary intensity : coming from thunderheads". I question the accuracy of this report. Do not : gamma rays require energies far in excess of the voltages found in lightning : storms? If so, then would not gammas indicate that there are some nuclear : processes going on that should not be, such as fusion? The energy of conventional Gamma Rays overlaps that of X-rays and ranges from about 25-Kv to several MEVs. This is easily within the range of potentials that coexist with lightning, so nuclear processes need not be invoked to explain the existance of this phenomenon. Harry C. cudkeys: cuddy31 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.31 / Matt Kennel / Re: Griggs blue mist probably not important Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Griggs blue mist probably not important Date: 31 Jan 1995 09:36:26 GMT Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD Harry H Conover (conover@max.tiac.net) wrote: : From a purely scientific vantage point, if a hydrogen fusion reaction : is actually taking place, hydrogen depletion of could result. This is : equivalent to oxygen enrichment of the steam, and since it is well : documented fact that liquid oxygen has a blue coloration, this could be : interpreted to represent a positive confirmation of Cold Fusion taking : place. Enough fusing of hydrogen to change macroscopic stochiometry would be positively confirmed by an enormous crater in the deep South. : Harry C. : ps. Still, most likely just off-color photography. -- -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: cuddy31 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.31 / Teresa Tutt / "Hot" Fusion Originally-From: tuttt@cii3116-01.its.rpi.edu (Teresa E. Tutt) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: "Hot" Fusion Date: 31 Jan 1995 04:12:24 GMT Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY. >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. Actually if this group was created to discuss "cold" fusion, it should have been labeled as such a group from the start (I.E. sci.physic .cold.fusion). The fact is, ALL known forms of fusion reactions (proton-proton, carbon-cycle, triple-alpha, D-D, D-He, D-T, etc.) occur at temperatures measured in thousands of Kelvins and are therefore "hot" by default. The so-called "cold" fusion is a hypothesis only. It has not been shown to exist. Sorry, guys. No hard feelings,but I'm not backing down on this one. ______________________________________________________________________________ Teresa E Tutt | tuttt@rpi.edu /\ | /\ EPHY '96 ( >X< ) "Life need not be easy \/ | \/ provided it is not empty" | -Lise Meitner | | ________________________________________________________________________ cudkeys: cuddy31 cudentuttt cudfnTeresa cudlnTutt cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.31 / Matt Kennel / Fusion vs Fission Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Fusion vs Fission Date: 31 Jan 1995 09:43:59 GMT Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD This just occured to me. The P&F cold story broke in what, 1989? It's now 1995. Go back in time 50 years. In '39 Hahn's weird test tube experiment was just explained by Lise Meitner. In January '45 Hanford and Oak Ridge were in production and the most immense technological endeavor of the century was reaching its climax. I wonder what Fermi would have thought about "cold fusion". -- -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: cuddy31 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.31 / Mike Griffin / "Overunity" is meaninless (was: Griggs questions) Originally-From: mgriffin@il.us.swissbank.com (Mike Griffin) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: "Overunity" is meaninless (was: Griggs questions) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 15:41:04 GMT Organization: Swiss Bank Corporation CM&T Division Jed Rothwell is the most ardent proponent of the theory that the Griggs device is perfoming at "overunity," i.e. with an efficiency of more the 100%. But when you ask him what he means by efficiency, he is unable or unwilling to state a clear definition that can be used to judge all the devices we may want to compare. It is one definition for his nifty free energy machines, and another for the ones we use now. (If you missed the article in which Rothwell lays out this dichotomy, I'll be happy to re-post it.) If Rothwell can't give us a clear definition of efficiency, it may well be because he doesn't have one in his own mind. (Why would he withhold one from us?) Ergo, his claims have no meaning! Conclusion: not only is he insulting, condescending and disingenuous, Rothwell is *vapid*! (Now *there's* a surprise! :-) ) Mike Griffin (expressed opinions are my own.) cudkeys: cuddy31 cudenmgriffin cudfnMike cudlnGriffin cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.31 / Robert Betts / Re: MRA tested: equiv. linier circuit Originally-From: Robert_Betts@mindlink.bc.ca (Robert Betts) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: MRA tested: equiv. linier circuit Date: Tue, 31 Jan 95 05:07:10 -0800 Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada With some fiddling on a spread sheet I was able to satisfy myself that the MRA input could be roughly approximated by a simple series linier circuit fed by a sine wave voltage. Unless, we are missing something quite subtle, it does appear to be no more than an interesting exercise. As it is, I am grateful that Little and friends volunteered as much effort as they did. Follows is an attempt at an approximate linier equivalent circuit "seen" by V open, VinMRA: ----------------------------------------------------------- Ro=11.8 ohms, Lo=50 microhenries --///---@@----*-------||----------- | I --> . C=.001103 mfd | | . @ L=.02 henries 8 (V open) VinMRA | | sine ~ . / R=100 ohms | . | --------------*-------------------- equiv. source <----|----> equiv. load (MRA) ----------------------------------------------------------- (Little) (Little) calc. calc. Little's calc. calc. Little's f kHz V open I RMA WattsMRA WattsMRA Z MRA VinMRA VinMRA 33.84* 23.36 0.209 4.366 4.566 100.564 21.012 21.06 33.56 24.04 0.182 3.299 3.265 128.932 23.418 23.84 33.34 24.10 0.142 2.030 1.467 169.935 24.213 24.20 32.47 24.26 0.066 0.430 0.401 376.197 24.682 24.58 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ *Resonance defined by Lo+L, C ---Robert_Betts@mindlink.bc.ca -----Ref.------------------------- From: Scott Little, little@eden.com, Usenet.sci.physics.fusion, Subj: MRA independently tested Evaluation of Magnetic Resonance Amplifier (MRA), 20 January 1995 -------------------------------- cudkeys: cuddy31 cudenRobert_Betts cudfnRobert cudlnBetts cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.31 / Paul Koloc / Re: Real Fusion Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Real Fusion Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 12:17:35 GMT Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd. In article <3ge0tp$1ij@news.nucleus.com> lforbes@nucleus.com (Laurie Forbes) writes: >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. Hmmmm! I thought this was "sub" ing for the creative.sci.fi group. Never mind. As for your other comments, "How is it you developed an interest in paleofusion?" Did it come from a childhood interest in dinosaurs? >: Oh well I've vented my frustration enough. That was too easy. >: ______________________________________________________________________________ > >: 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. I don't think there is much interesting fusion being funded since so many of the advanced concepts groups have been whacked. Tokamaks aren't worth fusion research and certainly not worth "developing further", but they may still have a bit of plasma science left. For limited plasma pressure devices, D-^3He is a dream (it won't happen).. . and D-T is a nightmare. >Regards, >Laurie Forbes +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037 | | mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu FAX (301) 434-6737 | | VOICE (301) 445-1075 ***** Commercial FUSION in the Nineties ***** | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ cudkeys: cuddy31 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.31 / prasad / Griggs Questions, was Re: New Griggs theory Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Griggs Questions, was Re: New Griggs theory Date: 31 Jan 1995 13:30:32 GMT Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center In article <1995Jan28.013505.13915@clark.dgim.doc.ca>, gsteckly@dgim.doc ca (Gary Steckly) writes: |> : 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. To have Tom take notice, all it takes is to change the Subject line to "Griggs Questions". Thus this repost. Mighty curious myself. Would appreciate your turning off the lights, Tom! arigato. cudkeys: cuddy31 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Feb 1 04:37:04 EST 1995 ------------------------------