1995.02.16 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets!
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets!
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 00:24:42 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <5ax7UUG.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>Cameron Randale Bass <crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> writes:
> 
>>     So everyone sends an independent agent to Griggs lab to do independent
>>     testing on his device?  How costly and disruptive.
> 
>No, not everyone. Only people who want to buy the thing should do that.
>Dick Blue and I are talking about people who are considering spending
>money on these devices. Given the extraordinary nature of the claims, any
>prudent person would either go in person or send an agent to the site to
>verify the claims before issuing a check. Alternatively, a person might
>ask for a free trial period before paying.

     Not astonishingly, I don't send anyone to Parker Hydraulics to 
     test their devices before I buy one.  On the other hand a 
     free trial period would be quit nice.  When can I expect to receive
     my 'Grigg's device' for a free trial?

>Dick Blue offered a pretend claim that he has invented an over unity device,
>in an effort to ridicule those of us who take such claims seriously. I pointed
>out to him that people like me always make triple sure of every product and
>every claim, and that Dick could never fool me with a bogus product that does
>not actually produce excess heat.

     Jed, you're really going to have to decide whether this Griggs stuff
     is easy or hard and stick with that line.  

     My guess is that all these mental gymnastics 
     switching from easy to hard to easy to hard to easy to hard must
     be quite wearing.  However, you do seem to be good at it having done
     the same with P&F's work for years.

                        dale bass



cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.17 / Dieter Britz /  Biblio update; 2 patents
     
Originally-From: britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Biblio update; 2 patents
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 15:31:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hello all,

just a couple of patents I found in Chem. Abstr. I'll spare you the archive
retrieval info this time.

Patents: count = 179
^^^^^^^
#
Mizuno T (Mizuno Tadahiko, Araki Masao);
Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 06,299,206, 14-Apr-94.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 122:66670 (1995).
"Manufacture of metal electrodes for nuclear cold fusion from electrolysis of
light or heavy water".
** "The manuf. involves the following steps: (1) shaping a metal powder not
forming hydrides, (2) sintering the compact in a vacuum, and (3) anodically
dissolving the compact in an acid or alkali soln. to remove the inactive
surface film. Alternately, an alloy or a metal forming hydrides is hydrided,
pulverized, and compacted in the above method. Thus, manufd. metal is useful
for an electrode in cold fusion from water". (Direct quote from CA).
# .................................................................... Feb-95
Shin A (Shin Akihiro); Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 06,273,552, 15-Mar-93.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 122:66446 (1995).
"Method for improving the efficiency of cold nuclear fusion".
** "A H-absorbing electrode is placed in a magnetic field, thereby directivity
is imparted to the H atoms in the electrode so that the d. of H atoms is
raised which facilitates cold nuclear fusion". (Direct quote from CA).
# .................................................................... Feb-95


---  Dieter Britz   alias britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.15 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: A Precise Description of the Over Unity Calculation
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Precise Description of the Over Unity Calculation
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 95 20:25:22 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> writes:
 
>This is why we must now couple this algorithm with a 
>live demostration, so we can see what the uncontrolled/un-accounted
>for factors might be.
 
You seem to have missed the point. This program is not a physics experiment,
it is the exact algorythm used by Griggs, with all four parameters. This
is the exact answer to your question.
 
You are correct in saying that in order to verify that this algorythm applies
or not, a person would have to observe the experiment to see whether
extraneous sources of enthalpy are introduced into the heat sink. That, of
course, is dead simple to determine. There are none.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.15 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 95 20:31:00 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Richard A Blue <blue@pilot.msu.edu> writes:
 
>in return.  If a Mr. Huffman offers to sell a test version
>of the Griggs device what do you expect to receive?  In what
>way will a Huffman device be better than the version I have
>offered?
 
His device outputs more energy than you input. Your device does not.
That is a gigantic difference.
 
If you can make one that outputs, say, 5 times more energy than you input
then you will have a better product than Huffman. If he then turns around
and makes one that outputs 10 times more than input, he will have gained
an edge on you. Whoever generates the most excess energy has the best
product. It is really very simple!
 
Since your product does not actually exist, and since it would not produce
any excess even if it did, Huffman beats you by a country mile.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.16 /  hatcher@msupa. /  Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph
sics.accelerators
Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
Date: 16 Feb 1995 01:33:01 GMT
Organization: MSU Dept. of Physics & Astronomy

In article <D42C9J.8vu@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU>, frisch@hebe.SLAC.Stan
ord.EDU (Josef C. Frisch) writes:
>If these posts are going to continue to discuss various graphs in a
>public forum, could someone please post the graphs in a form others can
>read. Otherwise we cannot possibly follow the discussion, and it might be 
>better to take it to private e-mail. 
>
>--- Joe Frisch ---
>
Ask and you shall receive...well, I'm not about to flood this group with
5 Meg or so of postscript files, but I will give a WWW reference where
you can find links to them:

    http://pads1.pa.msu.edu:81/home/hatcher/

You'll find them near the bottom of the page.  These (along with the page
of pictures (also with a link)) I've already snail-mailed to Tom since
he lacks WWW capabilities.  If anyone still reading this thread is
interested *and* can NOT access them in this fashion you should write to me
and for reasonable requests I'll mail you a hardcopy.

-robert

 Robert W. Hatcher      | 256D Physics-Astronomy    | hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu
 Associate Researcher   | Michigan State University | hatcher@msupa   (Bitnet)
 (517) 353-3008,-5180   | East Lansing, MI 48824    | msuhep::hatcher (HEPnet)

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenhatcher cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.17 / Dieter Britz /  Coehn?
     
Originally-From: britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Coehn?
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 15:46:15 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Starry droogs again,

I'll do my fussy pedant act again here. I saw issue #5 of "Cold Fusion" and in
it an item on one of the old papers of Coehn (these are in the biblio under
peripherals). Whoever the author was (I'd like to know, in fact, but this is
not said), goes to some length to say that "Coehn" is, in the original German,
actually written with an Umlaut, i.e. C"ohn. This is pure invention, this
person has apparently not seen the original papers; I have and the name is
printed exactly the way Fleischmann et al have it, Coehn.  I assume the name
is a variant of Cohen or Cohn. In any case, there are quite a few German names
not using the Umlaut, like Mueller etc, it's not that rare. We could expand
here into a history of the Umlaut but we won't.

-- Dieter Britz  alias  britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.17 / Richard Blue /  Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets!
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets!
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 16:01:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I sense that the group has arrived at a consensus!  Even Jed would
expect to seek some assurances that an over-unity device has some
chance of working.  Where we may differ, however, is in regard to
what level of assurance we would require.

If a Mr. Huffman shows up with a miniature GG and tells us that it
"works" I would expect to learn how its over-unity performance has
been tested.  Certainly we should all know by now that making the
required measurements correctly may not be straightforward.

With regard to the real Hydrosonic Pump, should you be considering
such a purchase, the manufacturer's specifications would probably
be the first thing to check.  Right?  If James Griggs does not
market the Hydrosonic Pump as an over-unity device what is he selling?


More importantly, what are you buying?  Jed Rothwell has no doubts
about the fact that his testing showed that the GG is the wonder of
the age.  Furthermore since there are no complications that hinder
the construction and operation of these devices on any scale you
care to consder it is full steam ahead.  But didn't your mother ever
tell you that if it sounds too good to be true it probably isn't?

Even the Wright Brothers (Where have we heard of them?) did not simply
throw together an airplane and set off on a flight around the world.
Are we then to believe that every attempt at stirring water is going
to produce over-unity operation and possibly even cold fusion?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.17 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Trip
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Trip
Date: 17 Feb 1995 01:36:28 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <USE2PCB424938791@brbbs.brbbs.com> mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL  
DUDLEY) writes:

>  No matter what we find, we should get a
> very good paper out of it.
>  
>                                                          

Perosnally, I would probably reject an experimental paper based
on a one time, one day, one shot measurement, with no iteration
between measurement and interpretation, especially when the 
phenomena itself does not demand that and it is done only for
convenience of the particular research team (e.g. if you lived
in the same town, you certainly wouldn't procede that way). You 
are allowing social restrictions to have potentially too great 
an impact on your research.



--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.16 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 05:14:04 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <B6y6kCc.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>Richard A Blue <blue@pilot.msu.edu> writes:
> 
>>in return.  If a Mr. Huffman offers to sell a test version
>>of the Griggs device what do you expect to receive?  In what
>>way will a Huffman device be better than the version I have
>>offered?
> 
>His device outputs more energy than you input. Your device does not.
>That is a gigantic difference.
....
>Since your product does not actually exist, and since it would not produce
>any excess even if it did, Huffman beats you by a country mile.

     Mr. Blue's device will produce just as much excess energy as
     Mr. Griggs' or Mr. Huffman's, and at far lower prices...

                              dale bass


cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.13 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Team to investigate Griggs device.
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Team to investigate Griggs device.
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 13:32 -0500 (EST)

The following is information on the team's first 2 members.  We hope to fill
in some of the gaps in expertise with one or two other members shortly.  No
date has been picked for this investigation so we can be sure and select a
date all team members can make it, and of course that Griggs can accomadate
us.  As it turns out the second team member is experienced in writing peer
reviewed papers as I had previously thought.

Team Member 1.

Education
Received BSEE degree from University of Tennessee, 1969.

Experience

Designed nuclear instrumentation for 23 years.  Employed by Westinghouse
for Nuclear Submarine instrumentation design, Nuclear Chicago/Searle Analytic
for nuclear medical systems design, and by Tennelec Inc. in Oak Ridge as low
background systems and NIM nuclear instrumentation design engineer.  Has
designed several multichannel analyzers for Tennelec Inc.

Was a member of the Argus scientific team which went to England in 1992 to
study anomalous phenominia.

Expertise:

Electronic design, and electrical measurements.
Nuclear physics.
Gamma Spectroscopy.
Statistics.
Low level nuclear measurements.
Error analysis.
Instrumentation.
Monte Carlo simulations.
Signal Processing.
Assembly language, Pascal and Fortran software.
Nuclear detectors, including liquid scintillation, gas flow, Phoswitch,
  Germanium (doped and intrinsic), silicon and sodium iodide scintillation.

Awards:

Westinghouse award for invention on rod position monitoring system for
  Nuclear Submarines.

Dvork's award of Excellence for telecommunications products.

Patents:

Touch (contact) control for lighting systems.

An improved flow detector for low background alpha and beta radiation counting
using a spiral grid for reducing electric field non-linearities.

Team Member 2.

Education:
Ph.D. 1978, Nuclear Engineering [physics minor]
M.E.  1975, Nuclear Engineering, University of Virgina
M.A.  1974, Physics, Kent State
M.S.  1968, Physics, Kent State

Clearance: DOE Q

Experience:

June 1979 to Present - Martin Marietta Energy Systems Inc, Oak Ridge
Laboratory, Senior Research Scientist/Engineer and Principle investigator.

Awards:

Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Special Acheivement Award 1989
Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inventor Award 1985

Patents:

VLSI design for real-time non-linear convolution image processing

A Portable Very Large Volume Intelligent Digital Data Acquisition and Control
System for recording multiple channels operating at different rates.

A very large scale integrated circuit for variable conrtol and merging of
mixed speed data onto a common bus for recording.

Non-intrusive Beam Power Monitor for High Power Pulsed or Continuous Wave
lasers.

Papers:

16 refereed papers published to date.  List available upon request.

Expertise:

Power electronics
Signal processing
Data acquisition systems
Multichannel analyzers
Digital filtering
Signal and image processing
Magnetic suspension systems
Monte Carlo simulations.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.13 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Trip
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Trip
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 13:39 -0500 (EST)

HFC6ASHWOOD@cluster.north-london.ac.uk (", DAVID ASHWOOD ;-) writes:
 
-> I write concerning the preposed trip and some peoples suggestions that the
-> Marshall visit be made on a separate day.  Would it not be better, for futur
-> analysis, for them to witness the *same* experiment?  This helps in several
-> ways:
 
We will be going on a different days.  The two trips will be totally
independent and not related to each other in any way.  I am afraid this is no
longer up for discussion.  I agree that a team would be better than a lone
person (although it seems that the vast majority of people in this newsgroup
feel that one person is better), and that is why our team will hopefully
contain 3 or 4 very competant individuals with a broad range of expertise to
bring to bear on the investigation.  No matter what we find, we should get a
very good paper out of it.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.16 / Scott Hayward /  Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: shayward@unixg.ubc.ca (Scott Hayward)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph
sics.accelerators
Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
Date: 16 Feb 95 19:41:16 GMT
Organization: The University of British Columbia

lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) writes:

>Todd, what you say is correct,  but the neutrino theory violates what we 
>know about particles, in several respects.  

>1) all (non composite) particles with a spin angular momentum of 1/2 h 
>bar also have a mass, charge and magnetic moment.  

[snip]

>So, if the neutrino has a spin of 1/2 then it must have mass.  If a 
>neutrino  has mass then it must have a magnetic moment.  If a neutrino 
>has a magnetic moment and is not composite, then it must have a charge.  

This is not really true. Some non-composite particles with a spin angular
momemtum 1/2 h also have a mass. We know that because we have measured
the mass, magnetic moment and charge of the quarks and charged leptons.
But so say that because the quarks and charged leptons are non-composite
spin 1/2 h particles which have mass and magnetic moments (as we have 
measured), and that therefore the non-composite spin 1/2 h neutrinos
*must* have mass and magnetic moment is simply incorrect. There is 
nothing in the Standard Model that says that they have to (although most
extensions of the Standard Model do), and until we measure otherwise we
can only speculate. 

Besides, what we know about physics is based on measurements, and when 
we make assumptions or analogies, that does not mean that we are correct.
It gives us ideas about what experiments we should do to test those
things, but the ultimate test of whether or not those ideas are correct
is given by experimental evidence, not by our personal bias that because
a non-composite particle has spin 1/2 h it must have mass and a magnetic
moment. To date, people have tried to measure the masses and magnetic
moments of neutrinos and have not seen positive evidence for them. What
the experiments do is set upper limits on them at a certain statistical 
confidence level. The current limits given in the 1994 Particle Properties
Data Booklet are:

Neutrino     Mass    Confidence    Mag. Moment   Confidence

nu_e       < 5.1 eV     95%      < 1.08e-09 mu_B   90%

nu_mu     < 0.27 MeV    90%      < 7.4e-10 mu_B    90%

nu_tau     < 31 MeV     95%      < 5.4e-07 mu_B    90%

My personal belief (and I work on neutrino oscillations) is that neutrinos
probably do have a mass which is lower than those experimental limits. But
until such time as the mass is measured by some experiment, I am only
speculating. And I am not willing to say that they must because that is not
for me to decide.

Scott Hayward.

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenshayward cudfnScott cudlnHayward cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.13 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Testing for o/u on Griggs hydrosonic pump
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Testing for o/u on Griggs hydrosonic pump
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 21:14 -0500 (EST)

FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin) writes:
 
->   I think taking measurements only once a minute might be a problem.
-> I'd suggest monitoring by a computer and logging whenever temperature,
-> pressure, etc changes.  This can be on a continuous basis limited by the
-> response time of the computer sensors and  whatever measurement
-> increments are selected.  The computer won't have a problem monitoring
-> many instruments but a human mght have a problem monitoring and logging
-> even one if changes are rapid.
 
I agree, computer data logging would be ideal.  It would certainly be
preferable if it is available.  I will have to check and see equipment is
available for computer logging.
 
->   I'd also set up a video camera to resord the process.  The time should
-> be superimposed on the video to correlate logged data with observable
-> effects such as the blue steam.
 
Oh, that goes without saying.  I plan on videotaping the entire effort.  Thanks
for reminding me.
 
I also think the entire protocol should be repeated without the pump in mode
2 (the reported o/u mode) as a control.
 
                                                        Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.13 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Testing for o/u on Griggs hydrosonic pump
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Testing for o/u on Griggs hydrosonic pump
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 21:25 -0500 (EST)

barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
 
-> The idea that you can crack this problem with a massive blast of
-> experts seems quite misguided. I seriously doubt you need experts in
-> any  things like chaos, QM, Fluid dynamics, etc.
 
The way to narrow things down is to disprove hypotheses which can then be
thrown out.  Since a number of the hypothesis involve chaotic flow and or ZPE
interactions, someone familiar with these theories would best serve the
purpose of weeding these out.  The fewer hypotheses remaining after the trip
which have not been eliminated, the better.  If there is only one left then ...
no, I better not start quoting a fictional detective. :)
 
-> What seems most likely is you need to do a lot of careful study by 1 or
-> 2 people who understand electrical engineering (esp motors) and mechanical
-> engineerin  (esp. fluid pumping systems) well, who have the attitude that
-> this thing is not really over unity and we are going to tinker with it
-> till we find out why.
 
Well if it is not over unity then there should be no tinkering with it to find
out why, that is the expected result.  Or, I guess you mean why do we think it
is over unity when it really isn't.
 
I don't think one should go into an investigation with his mind already
made up.  I think the first step is to verify it is o/u.  If it isn't then the
job is done.  If you cannot disprove that, then you take the next step.
 
BTW, how would you like to be our "skeptic"?
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.16 / John Logajan /  Re: Did Tom go to Rome?
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Did Tom go to Rome?
Date: 16 Feb 1995 05:11:00 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Gary Steckly (gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca) wrote:
: It has been a week now since the Droege expedition to look at the Griggs 
: gadget was to have happened.  So has anyone heard from Tom?  Did he 
: actually go or did the confusion with Marshall's trip cause him to cancel 
: his trip?  

The last date I recall seeing was March 8th, not Februaru 8th.  Was it
moved up a month?

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.16 / Tim Kelly /  WWW: thermal analysis
     
Originally-From: tkkelly@ball.com (Tim Kelly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: WWW: thermal analysis
Date: 16 Feb 1995 22:26:55 GMT
Organization: Ball

New home page on heat transfer/thermal analysis.

Tips, techniques, thermal data, links to other thermal pages

http://www.csn.net:80/~takinfo/
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudentkkelly cudfnTim cudlnKelly cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.16 / Alan M /  Re: Did Tom go to Rome?
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Did Tom go to Rome?
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 06:19:24 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <1995Feb15.225536.28194@clark.dgim.doc.ca>  gsteckly@dgim.do
.ca (Gary Steckly) writes:
> It has been a week now since the Droege expedition to look at the Griggs 
> gadget was to have happened.  So has anyone heard from Tom?  Did he 
> actually go or did the confusion with Marshall's trip cause him to cancel 
> his trip?

Tom announced it, some considerable time ago, as scheduled for
March. There has, to my knowledge, 
never been any change in date.
  
-- 
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:
cuddy16 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.15 /  hatcher@msupa. /  Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph
sics.accelerators
Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
Date: 15 Feb 1995 18:10:19 GMT
Organization: MSU Dept. of Physics & Astronomy

In article <3hrbdk$slm@borg.svpal.org>, lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) writes:
>Robert: I wanted to cut this off a couple of messages ago because the 
>rhetoric was out of hand.  But I have some questions.  Let this be our 
>last posts so we can regroup, ok?

Yes, I can see how you'd prefer to make baseless charges of fraud and/or
gross incompetence on the part of professionals and then have the
"discussion" cut off before those charges could be rebutted by real
evidence.....

>>> Robert W. Hatcher (hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu) Writes:
>
>>> Huh? You're making No sense here...obviously you don't even
>>> understand the most basics of what you are arguing against.
>
>You may be right, those figures are excerpts on page #240, so I don't 
>have the benefit of the full report. From what I see, the figure shows 
>the pion count at about 80 GeV is 3000 and the kaon count is about 1000 
>at 240 GeV. From this you are trying to show neutrino crossections 
>increase with energy? 

No, I don't.  Not directly at least....and I never claimed otherwise.
Because to simply look at the absolute number of events in those bins
DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR THE *FLUX* OF PARTICLES.  And I said as much in the
post that you're replying to (but you deleted).

So, again for the hard of reading, we have
  #events (as shown in Fig C.1) = flux * cross section

And as I previously wrote, Figure 2.3 shows the _flux_ distribution.
It shows that there are simply more lower energy neutrinos passing through
the detector than high energy ones.  Dramatically more.  But as the solid
line in Fig C.1 shows (the one that agrees with the data _points_) is that
when we convolute the predicted flux with a cross section that rises with
energy (and convolute in the detector resolutions) we get EXCELLENT
agreement.  This agreement would NOT be there if we had used a theory
model that didn't have the cross section rise with energy...As I showed
last time (and you removed, apparently without reading) assuming the two
distributions agreed at the pion (80GeV) peak, they would be off by a
factor of 3 or so at teh kaon (240GeV) peak.

>                        The neutrinos are supposed to (theoretically) pick 
>up kinetic energy from these? 

Pick up "kinetic energy from" _what_?  You're not making any sense.  This
is simple special relativity, two body decay mechanics applied to the
the products of a production model of secondaries (pions/kaons) from 
proton-target interactions.

>                               How does that work? Why didn't the 10 MeV 
>neutrinos in the SN87A * explosion* pick up kinetic energy? Why don't the 
>neutrinos in the sun's violently boiling interior add kinetic energy to 
>those electron type, and muon type neutrinos? Seems rather ad hoc to 
>apply theory of neutrinos picking up energy, just in accelerators.

Ah, because, perhaps in the above cited cases (solar, SN87A) the sources
of those neutrinos (namely the fusion products) are at relative *rest*
with respect to the detector.  While in the case of the pions/kaons that
decay in the accelerator-based beamline decay pipe are *highly*
relativistic (gamma's of over 10-20).  Or are you about to take on special
relativity in your quest to save your "theory"?

>No insults or bullshit please.
>
>>>Again I asked you ......If you wish to claim that what I have
>>> on tape (100,000+ events) are NOT neutrino interactions,......
>
>No, I would like to have you explain how so many events have been 
>recorded.  Neutrinos are supposed to be hard to detect.  How did so many 
>neutrinos deside to stop in the flash chamber, after 1000 meters of 
>berm,  two bubble chambers, lab E and the steel of the final bend 
>magnet,  and get their picture taken?  Boggles the mind!

Not at all.  As I've previously pointed out, oh, at least 5 times:  the
individual _cross_section_ *is* small...and we get the reasonable rate
by (1) increasing the energy (linear factor) (2) increasing the flux
(for each pulse where 1-2 events occurred in the detector, there were
order 10**12 neutrinos that passed through it without interacting).
Now produce such pulses 3 times a minute, and run for 18 months (combined
1985 and 1987/8 runs) 24 hours/day (except a limited amount of downtime).
*THAT* is how you get 100,000+ events....by HARD work.

Cross sections are a _probability_, event rates are cross sections *times*
flux per unit time.  And similar number of events ocurred in the other
detectors in the beam line.  And perhaps several hundred interactions
take place in the berm....maybe even thousands.  But in any case these
small decreases in the flux due to upstream interactions are neglile when
compared to the orignal flux of 10**12 neutrinos.  So what's so hard to
accept?

>Robert:  Please stop trying to make a straw man out of me by claiming I 
>said there  was a great conspiracy by the HEP community.  The strongest 

But you have.  You've claimed that over 100 respectable individuals
are all either incompetent or konspirators.  You made an earlier claim that
there are those in the community that *know* that the standard theory
doesn't hold but aren't making a fuss...now that's a konspiracy.

>word I used was *deluding* themselves.  Now delusion does not imply a 
>conspiracy and does not have the moral implications of actual fraud.  I 

And when asked for this evidence of "delusion" you couldn't come up with
anything other than "it doesn't agree with _my_ personal theory".  I've
answered (repeatedly) each and every one of your objections.  And you
(dishonestly) delete those answers and repeat the objection as if I had
said nothing.

>like to think all are reasonably honest persons and are making honestly 
>mistaken conclusions based on a faulty theory.  I don't expect the young 

A theory that makes *obviously* better predictions than your own.

>turks to make  mentor problems, they would be committing professional 
>suicide, and be blackballed like any industrial whistle blower.   It was 
>CERN that first claimed to have seen a neutral current event, so 
>Europeans accept the theory.

And by that account, these pesky american should have been the first to
show up those evil europeans by proving that there were no such events.
No "professional suicide"/"blackballing" there...two disjoint and competing
groups...  What a quick way to pick up a Nobel prize, increase the status
of the US and make a big name for one's self.  So why didn't someone?
Besides whistle blowers DO exist and occur in real life.  So why not in
this instance?  Surely there must be at least _one_ responsible researcher
willing to put his professional life on the line for the sake of Science?

It's just that your fantasy to believe that some nobody from
suburbia can "disprove" such a well tested theory based on NO data and
a bunch of handwaving "theoretical" (personal) prejudices.

>P.S. E Mail me your nearest Fermilab Fax number and I will send you some 
>information explaining where I am coming from.   

No thank you.  I don't need any kooks sending me junk faxes.  I know "where
[you] are coming from".  You're from the school of "all the experts are
wrong; only *I* have the true insight on the world.  And damnitall if the
data doesn't agree with my theory, then that's wrong too" school of
crackpottism.

-robert
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenhatcher cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.15 / John Logajan /  Re: Tiny *Griggs Type* Unit
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tiny *Griggs Type* Unit
Date: 15 Feb 1995 18:52:23 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Barry Merriman (barry@starfire.ucsd.edu) wrote:
: but: didn't Little say he had a calorimetry lab? I don't see
: that calorimetry has anythign to do with quantifying the griggs
: device. Its seems one has only to measue accurately the electric
: power into the unit, and the temp and volume of the effluent.

He may not need his calorimeter, but he is interested in being an 
independent tester of CF devices (I'm not sure this includes every
o/u device that comes down the pike :-)  He did, after all, build and
test the MRA electronic o/u device and reported those results here.

If someone has the willingness to do the work and is half-way objective,
that meets my criteria. He's an experimental physicist to boot! :-)

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.16 / Thomas Lockyer /  Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph
sics.accelerators
Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
Date: 16 Feb 1995 20:16:33 GMT
Organization: Silicon Valley Public Access Link


Robert:  That was a three page fax I wanted to send with your 
permission.  The first page was to be a diagram that shows only electrons 
and neutrinos structures are possible with the Poynting vector model for 
the energy.  The next two pages were to be a Mathcad program printout 
that clearly shows the vector particles can be combined into a proton and 
neutron , starting with just the fine structure constant.    The models 
all come (coherently) from the energy model, and do parallel nature, by 
agreeing with the experimentally measured fundamental physical 
constants.  

>  Robert W. Hatcher (hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu) Writes:

> Who the fuck cares what the VPP model indicates about processes 
> we cant'/haven't measured.  What we *really* want to know is what 
> it predicts for things we can measure such as:
>  * the cross section as a function of E_nu
>  * the relative cross section for nu vs. anti-nu at fixed energies.

I am dismayed by  such a narrow view.  First the cross section looked 
like it was increasing with energy, so theory was adjusted for that.  
Then the ratio seemed to be three to one on the neutrino, anti-neutrino 
so spin theory was developed for that.  I don't think we need any *me 
too* theories.  

>  Compare this to the standard model ......

What can be commented, about  the standard model theory claims are,  *SO 
WHAT* .  Particle physics is not giving completely  coherent answers, and 
neutrino theory  (to paraphrase your rhetoric) is fucked up.   Neutrino 
theory is fair game.  I would think you would be interested in the VPP 
theory that claims to show how the neutrinos are put together, and 
extends that to the structures of the proton and neutron, as proof of 
concepts.  VPP  does not require any new (undetectable) particles, but 
uses the known ones.  The crackpot standard model requires weird 
undetectable particles and uses labels that clearly have no scientific 
basis.  The VPP model indicates that the neutrino is a much more 
important particle, than previously supposed.  Composite particle models 
prove not  possible without neutrinos.  The crackpot standard model does 
not have a clue as to how nature creates the neutrinos.   

>  No thank you.  I don't need any kooks sending me junk faxes.  

That's why I asked for your FAX number by e-mail rather than open forum.  
I tried calling MSU and they had trouble giving me your address since you 
have been at Fermilab for (years?)   I don't want to address mail to the 
MSU address you gave me if it has to be forwarded!  Too slow, by that 
time the kangaroo court you hold would have convicted me of god knows what!

-Tom:  

  


--
Thomas N. Lockyer <lockyer@svpal.org>     
1611 Fallen Leaf Lane
Los Altos, CA USA 94024-6212
Tel. (415)967-9550
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenlockyer cudfnThomas cudlnLockyer cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.15 / Barry Merriman /  Re: A Precise Description of the Over Unity Calculation
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Precise Description of the Over Unity Calculation
Date: 15 Feb 1995 23:35:41 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <5456EAG.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>  
> 10 INPUT "Dranetz Kilowatt hours reading? ", DRANETZ
> 20 INPUT "          Starting temperature? ", START
> 30 INPUT "             Final temperature? ", FINAL
> 40 INPUT "     Weight of water in pounds? ", POUNDS
> 50 LET DELTAT = FINAL - START
> 60 LET BTU = DELTAT * POUNDS
> 70 LET ENTHALPY = BTU * .0002928
> 80 IF ENTHALPY > DRANETZ THEN PRINT "There is excess heat!"
>  
> Go ahead and debug that! Show us the error.

Thank you, Jed, for providing us with the logical algorithm (in
your usual enaggingly beligerent style :-). 

Since I see no bugs in your program, we have to assume
a garbage-in garbage-out effect is at work.

This is why we must now couple this algorithm with a 
live demostration, so we can see what the uncontrolled/un-accounted
for factors might be.

Since it is so simple, Mr Griggs should have no trouble 
demoing the entire process, from turning on the lab lights
to locking up at night, to Tom Droege. And Tom will come back
and tell us whether he concurrs with your assesment of absolute
simplicity, and where there may be room for any oversights.


 
--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.15 / Gary Steckly /  Did Tom go to Rome?
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Did Tom go to Rome?
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 95 22:55:36 GMT
Organization: Communications Canada

It has been a week now since the Droege expedition to look at the Griggs 
gadget was to have happened.  So has anyone heard from Tom?  Did he 
actually go or did the confusion with Marshall's trip cause him to cancel 
his trip?  

I notice a lot of posts are referring to the trip as if it is still off 
in the future somewhere.  Any news?  Tom? Are you out there?

regards

Gary
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.16 / Cameron Bass /  Re: A Precise Description of the Over Unity Calculation
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Precise Description of the Over Unity Calculation
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 00:19:36 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <5456EAG.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>These statements are all absurd nonsense. 
...
>There is one and only one possible interpretation of the results.

     I agree, absurd nonsense.

     I suspect that Oral Roberts might be in agreement with your
     absurd statement, but otherwise few will agree who understand the word 
     'interpretation' and fewer still who understand the word 'results'.

                       dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.17 /  hatcher@msupa. /  Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph
sics.accelerators
Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
Date: 17 Feb 1995 18:47:51 GMT
Organization: MSU Dept. of Physics & Astronomy

[followups once again set to sci.physics,sci.physics.accelerators as the
 only really appropriate groups]

In article <3i0lvd$4se@borg.svpal.org>, lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) writes:

Why do I get this feeling that I'm talking to a brick wall....Tom, how many
times to I have to repeat the same information before it sinks in?

>> Mike Kelsey (kelsey@jupiter.SLAC.Stanford.EDU) Writes:
>
>>100,00 events is an incredibly *LOW* rate, actually.  ........(snip)
>> Each spill ......contains approximately 10^12 (that's 
>1,000,000,000,000) protons
>> Given the energies involved, they should end up with roughly the 
>> same number of pions coming down the pike and decaying into muons
>> and neutrinos.
>
>Mike, I agree with the numbers but this all presupposes that the 
>neutrinos follow the charged particle beam direction, and acquire energy 
>from the beam's momentum. 

Ah, perhaps because those sort of rules are inherent in Special Relativity?
I mean, really!, it is simple kinematics.  Take a pion with 300 GeV in
the lab frame, convert to the pion's rest frame, perform a two body decay
(to muon + neutrino_mu) with isotropic angular orientation, convert back
to the laboratory frame.  What is the result?  Hint: high energy neutrinos.
 
>                          The pions and muons must range out in the fast 
>spill target and/or the beam dump and berm, before unloading their 
>neutrinos.   

No, silly! The pions and kaon that produce the neutrinos (and muons) decay
*before* the dump and berm...in the, well, appropriately name "decay pipe".
It's the other stuff (muons,protons,undecayed pi/K's) that get ranged out
in the dump and berm.  And we know they get ranged out because we have
other previous experiments (and theories) that tell us what kind of 
dE/dx we should expect from these particle passing through these materials.
Or is your claim that all the world's measurements of dE/dx are grossly
wrong as well?

again with the crude ascii drawings

------>tgt(+focus)--------------------->dump....berm..........  detector
                    decay pipe
protons           pi,K,proton,muon,nu                       ---nu--->


protons enter, they strike the target and produces secondaries (some 
continue on as well), these are focussed into the decay pipe, some of
the pions & kaon decay resulting in neutrinos and muons (all highly
relativistic, so they all continue in the same general direction),
the dump and berm range out (by energy loss mechanisms and absorption)
the hadrons and muons while minimally affecting the neutrinos (a few
get lost, but that's orders (generous guess: 100's-1000's) smaller than
the total (10**12)), the huge pulse of neutrinos passes through the
detector, a few (order 10's) interact within the various detectors and
the rest fly out over West Chicago and into space.


>           Further, the records I have seen of (herky jerky) muon decay 
>shows that the decay electron momentum is not along the path of the 
>incoming muon. 

A non sequitor.  A confused one at that.  Of course the result of a
two or three body decay isn't going to result in _all_ the products
exactly along the parent's direction.  But given a high enough relativistic
boost (simple SR), the transverse components can be quite negligible.
This and the spread due to the secondaries are what provide the spread
in neutrinos over the detector face.

A homework problem:  Assume a pi+ with an energy of 300GeV in the lab
frame moving along the z direction.  The pion ndergoes a two body to 
mu+ and nu_mu decay, with the products travelling perpendicular to the 
z direction in the rest frame (this is the largest transverse kick
possible).  What is the transverse displacement after the products have
travelled 1km along z in the lab frame?

>               Also, if the steering/focus  magnets cause the muon to 
>precess around the field lines (as muons do at CERN when measuring the 
>muon magnetic moment) decay particles come off at angles to muon momentum 
>direction.

Huh?  
  (1) the majority of the neutrinos come from pion/kaon decay not muon decay.

Homework problem:  what is the mean distance travelled by a muon (rest mass
105.6 MeV) of a 150 GeV muon?  Hint: c\tau = 658.654m, and don't forget
the gamma factor.

  (2) the magnet train is, ah hell where was that number, order 30m long
      and the decay space (evacuated pipe) was 536m long.  What fraction
      of the decays occur in the magnet train.  Even assuming that all
      products of such decays are lost are there particles that could
      produce secondaries that point at the detectors?  Actually this
      sort of thing is *IN* the model of the beamline and accounted for.
      In the narrow-band running such decays introduce a small wide-band
      (broad energy spectrum) beam component which must be dealt with,
      and is dealt with, in an appropriate manner.

>          There are the other problems I raised in the (theoretical 
>neutrino beam) divergence, 

Which I already answered once before...and you can answer for yourself
if you were only willing to keep an open mind and not try and attack
as straw-beam.

>                          and how accurately one can *boresite* the beam 
>direction to hit that small (3meter square) flash chamber crossection.    

It's called surveying...I'm sure you've heard of it.  You know those 
men&women you sometimes see by the sides of the road with these funky
tripods and brightly colored sticks peering through what looks like a
little telescope?  And then there are various detectors inside the 
magnet train and in the decay space that measure the position of the
charged particles (which act as tracers for the neutrals).  And with
a tweaking of the magnet strength we can steer the beam over any angle
necessary to account for surveying errors.  Steer, you say?  Of course,
these aren't permanent magnets, but magnets generated by wrapping high
current carrying wires around a iron yolk, by modifying the amount of
current applied we modify the magnetic stength.  Using dipole magnet
pairs one can apply x and y transverse kicks independently.  Hitting
a 3m x 3m target from 1km away is childs' play.  Our biggest problem was
that the earth is curved and so the beam center for our detector and
the center for the other detectors don't correspond to the same elevation.
Alas lifting a 340 ton detector up 10-20cm isn't really practical.

>And of course the theoretical number of supposed neutrinos (if every 
>thing works as theory planned) is not per sq cm, but per 9 sq meter.  And 
>if the beam does not (theoretically) intercept the full volume, that 
>reduces the fiduciary volume and theoretical detector sensitivity.   

Yes, so.  That's accounted for.  Obviously we only measure the interactions
of neutrinos that can possibly strike the detector.  So?  It's all in
the beamline model that produces the flux file.  And when we model the
interactions we only accept neutrinos from the flux file that would
strike the detector.  In fact we even account for the true distribution
across the detector face...that E  vs. radius figure you actually have
in your hand (Figure 2.4) [available on my homepage...URL listed below]

>Boggles the mind!  Mr. Hatcher et. al. have a very tough row to hoe.

Your mind, maybe.  The rest of us...well, aren't so limited.  Yes, the
field has had a tough row to hoe...and has succeeded admirably.  Only
a few remaining crackpots who apparently have only a limited comprehension
of what is actually done and what is actually doable remain confused.
Those of us in the field, rather than simply waving our hands about yelling
"it can't be done", have put our noses to the grindstone, done the
calculations, built the equipment necessary and performed the experiments.

> I'm willing to bet (one cup of decaf) the 100,000 *events* are all along 
>the exact center axis of the flash chamber..    

Then you owe me a cup of coffee.  I know you can't look but others can...
I've added another list of links to figures in my WWW URL 
    http://pads1.pa.msu.edu:81/home/hatcher/
this figure should demonstrate the radius position of the vertex relative
to the beam center.  (Actually I produced the figure over a year and a
half ago, currently the machine I use for running mosaic is locked up
so I can't check that I got the right one in...so it's sort of sight
unseen).  One notices that the distribution goes to zero as one approaches
the beam center (which in this case doesn't correspond to the detector
center), this is to be expected because the annular area goes to zero.
The outer part of a distribution of _all_ events would continue beyond
what is shown in this figure, but because we wish the events to be fully 
reconstructed/measured we restrict the events to a fiducial volume away
from the detector edges.  But in any case it is quite clear that the
the events DO NOT lie all occur at one radius (corresponding to the
distance from the beam center to detector center), but have a wide
spread.

>If so the data is suspect!

And if not?  Come on Tom, you're starting to sound desperate here.  Having
disproven all your other previous objections you start making up fanatical
ones.  Besides, I'm sure we covered this "objection" previously...though
last time you were harping more on the distribution of vertices with
depth in the detector (flat! modulo the understood acceptance issue of
muons entering the spectrometer).  

-robert
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenhatcher cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.17 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Trip
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Trip
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 08:06:56 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <USE2PCB424938791@brbbs.brbbs.com>,
MARSHALL DUDLEY <mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com> wrote:
> 
>We will be going on a different days.  The two trips will be totally
>independent and not related to each other in any way.  I am afraid this is no
>longer up for discussion.  I agree that a team would be better than a lone
>person (although it seems that the vast majority of people in this newsgroup
>feel that one person is better), and that is why our team will hopefully
>contain 3 or 4 very competant individuals with a broad range of expertise to
>bring to bear on the investigation.  No matter what we find, we should get a
>very good paper out of it.

     What peer reviewed journal is going to publish 'We didn't find
     a device that exhibited nonsensical performance characteristics'?

                           dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.17 / Doug Shade /  Re: Griggs?
     
Originally-From: rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com (Doug Shade)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs?
Date: 17 Feb 1995 00:37:58 GMT
Organization: Motorola LICD

In article <3hts4v$8b9@news.htp.com>
Tim Mirabile <tim@mail.htp.com> writes:

> What is this Griggs device?  Does it have anything
> to do with fusion?

Welcome aboard Tim... the following may not be totally accurate, so
hold the
flames please....

The Griggs Gadget (a.k.a.) the GG is a hot water heater.  Water goes
into a chamber that has a large aluminum (were talking feet and 10s of
pounds here) 'rotor' swirls the water around.  The rotor is driven by
an AC motor.  The water gets so swirled up, that it turns to steam.  So
far so good, mechanical energy in, and nice hot steam out.

Griggs sells this as a substitute for more conventional water boilers
(no gas, no exhaust, no resistance heating elements).  He makes no
unconventional claims on the unit.

Jed Rothwell tells us that Jim Griggs has been working like mad for
some time now to characterize the power in vs power out characteristics
of the GG... it seems that under the right conditions, the unit
produces more steam than the energy in allows.  I believe his record is
150% efficiency... though I'm a bit fuzzy on this number.

Many readers have collected some money to send Tom to go see the unit
for himself... sort of a group representative... supporters and
skeptics alike  have pitched in (I did not, though now wish I had. 
This has just been a heck of a good time.)

Why is it discussed in S.P.F?  I don't know... why do you keep
rubberbands in your kitchen drawer?  Everything has to go somewhere,
and the discussion on GG goes right here!  (0ne recurring theme is
ultrasonics in the rotor chamber giving rise to fusion in collapsing
cavitation bubbles...  Sonoluminescence gone wild.)

Doug Shade
rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrxjf20 cudfnDoug cudlnShade cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.17 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets!
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets!
Date: 17 Feb 1995 22:31:30 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <9502171548.AA27782@pilot1.cl.msu.edu> blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A  
Blue) writes:

> Even the Wright Brothers (Where have we heard of them?) did not simply
> throw together an airplane and set off on a flight around the world.
> Are we then to believe that every attempt at stirring water is going
> to produce over-unity operation and possibly even cold fusion?
> 
> Dick Blue

You miss the point: as originally stated, the idea is to buy from Huffman
both a device and a testing procedure that yields over unity measurements.
If the procedure & behavior is similar to Griggs, 
we may assume its a reasonable standin for an authentic GG.

--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Feb 18 04:37:04 EST 1995
------------------------------
