1995.02.20 / Klaus Woerle /  Summer University for Plasma Physics (Repost)
     
Originally-From: woerlek@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Klaus Woerle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Summer University for Plasma Physics (Repost)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 16:57:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


*********************************************************
Summer University for Plasma Physics:  25 - 29 Sept. 1995
*********************************************************


The 'Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik (IPP)' in Garching near Munich
is organizing a Summer University for Plasma Physics: 25 - 29 Sept. 1995.
The course will cover the main aspects of plasma physics with emphasis
on nuclear fusion. It is being held for European physics students who have
passed their basic courses and have not yet started a doctoral (PhD)
thesis. The lectures will be presented in English and scripts will be
provided to all students selected. Cost of accomodation and boarding
will be covered. Limited funds are available for travel expenses for
foreign students.

The following lectures will be offered: basic plasma physics - particle
trajectories - kinetic theory, MHD - equilibrium, stability and transport
in tokamaks - plasma heating - experimental results on tokamaks -
stellarators - computer simulation of plasmas - plasma-wall interaction -
plasma diagnostics - inertial fusion - fusion technology - safety and
environmetal aspects of fusion - plasma technology.

The course will include visits to the large plasma experiments,
ASDEX Upgrade (tokamak) and WENDELSTEIN 7-AS (stellarator).
Information on the optimized stellarator WENDELSTEIN 7-X to be
built in Greifswald (Germany) will be provided. The Max-Planck-Institut
fuer Plasmaphysik is host to an international design team for the next
step fusion experiment, ITER, the status of which will be reported.

Another goal of the Summer University is to promote an exchange of views
among the coming generation of European scientists. An opportunity for
discussions with lecturers and the other students will be provided in
evening sessions.

Applications with high school leaving certificate and evidence of basic
physics study should be sent by

31 May 1995 to

Mrs. Ch. Stahlberg
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik
Boltzmannstrasse 2
D - 85748 Garching
Germany

phone: +49 / 89 / 3299 - 2232
fax:   +49 / 89 / 3299 - 1001




cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenwoerlek cudfnKlaus cudlnWoerle cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.20 / Richard Blue /  Re: tritium hydride NOT!
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: tritium hydride NOT!
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 17:00:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In a recent message dealing with the question of where tritium comes
from I made a serious blunder when I wrote "tritium hydride".  What
I meant to say was that tritium is stored in solid form as a metal tritide.
I believe titanium tritide, zirconium tritide, and uranium tritide are
among the forms that may be used in various situations.  No tritium
hydride is involved.  No refrigeration is required.  Sorry about that!

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.20 / 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: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 17:45:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

We are making some real progress, I believe.  Even Jed Rothwell agrees that
some form of testing is essential before we purchase an over-unity device.
There seem to be two such devices being considered here.

The Huffman device, as I understand it, is a miniature device intended for
laboratory experimentation.  Motive power is supplied by Dremel tool, and
some form of water stirring mechanism is involved.  I believe I missed any
more complete description if one was given.  I also missed any mention of
how the over-unity performance had been determined.  That led me to conclude
the the Huffman device was being offered as "untried", and I proposed to
offer a competitive device.  Now Jed suggests that mine does not even
exist.  I assure you that it does.  I do, however, employ "just in time"
manufacturering practices so the components are still in the hands of my
suppliers.  In any case I would not feel comfortable about the notion that
the Huffman device has demonstrated over-unity performance without further
discussion as to the testing methods employed.

I also feel that, in spite of the large amount of message traffic on the
subject, we still don't have a totally clear picture of what tests have been
performed to determine the performance of the Griggs Device.  It is my
understanding that:  Prior to the introduction of the "barrel calorimeter"
by Jed Rothwell, all determinations of the performance of the Griggs Device
were based on the following:

1)Measurement of the AC power input to the drive motor using a commercial
AC power meter.

2)Correction of that power input for the losses in the motor using an
efficiency curve supplied by the manufacturer of the motor.

3)A determination of the mass flow through the Hydrosonic Pump using an
instrument that I, at least, have never seen described.

4)Measurements of the temperature and pressure of the output steam and
reference to a standard steam table.

As I recall much of the attention to the claims made concerning the Griggs
Device has been directed at points (1) and (4).  In particular it has
recently become clear that (4) - the use of steam tables- is most likely
the source of significant error.  I believe we have seen clear evidence that
the "steam" coming from the Griggs Device has a significant content of
unboiled water.  Under those conditions the steam table results must over
estimate the actual energy output.

In light of the above it would seem that James Griggs went through much of
the development and marketing of the Hydrosonic Pump while relying on faulty
performance data.  I would also suggest that the data obtained from the field
on systems in actually industrial applications may also have the same problems.

We then come to the current state of testing in which a dynamometer has been
installed to determine shaft input power to the device, and there has been
an attempt at calorimetry to determine the true output enthalpy.  In theory
these measurements could correct the problems with the earlier tests.  It
has, however, been difficult to gain a clear understanding as to what
information is derived from barrel calorimetry and what refers back to
non-calorimetric testing.

Even more significant than the lack of clarity concerning the test methods, is
the confusion as to the essential requirements for achieving the claimed
over-unity operation.  If you were considering the purchase of such a device
wouldn't you be at least a little curious as to what is required to make a
seemingly very ordinary machine do something that is well beyond the limits
of anything ordinary.  It is the very simplicity of the Griggs Device that
should raise the greatest suspicions about it doing such wonderful things.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.18 / Mark Hittinger /  Re: "Cold Fusion" #7
     
Originally-From: bugs@news.win.net (Mark Hittinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Cold Fusion" #7
Date: 18 Feb 1995 20:03:03 -0500
Organization: Win.Net Communications, Inc.

logajan@cray.com (John Logajan) writes:
>public domain stuff.  Of course, there is nothing wrong with publishing
>patents, but at $10 an issue for "CF", it's kinda pricey considering
>what the gov will sell you a copy for.

It is interesting to read his editorials - although for $10 it is a
concern!  I am looking forward to what is published after the April
ICCF5 meeting.  

They do indicate that the staff is "all volunteer".  The advertising
seems to have dried up.  Eventually he may be forced to merge the publication
into another one, perhaps have a couple of pages in the middle of
21'st century or something.

Another plan would be to put it up as a world-wide-web internet page and
publish it that way.  It wouldn't be as good a collectors item though.

I hope that Mallove's videos are available prior to ICCF5.

Still mulling over what "heat after death" really means :-)

Cheers,

Mark Hittinger
bugs@win.net
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbugs cudfnMark cudlnHittinger cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.18 / H Anvin /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: hpa@asgard.yggdrasil.com (H. Peter Anvin)
Newsgroups: ,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.parti
le,sci.research,sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 18 Feb 1995 07:40:52 GMT
Organization: Yggdrasil Computing, Inc.

Followup to:  <tqr-1702951403350001@trmac.inel.gov>
By author:    tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti)
In newsgroup: sci.physics.electromag
>
> > Discussion of personnel termination in a public forum is prohibited
> > under Edict 12.  Your actions have jeopardized the organization, and
> > you shall be eliminated.
> 
> Not only that, but the energy output to wipe the memories of all the
> humans who have read this thread is gonna be ENORMOUS. The Over-Commandant
> ain't gonna like it; this'll cut into our profit margins bigtime. Way to
> go, guys.
> 

Damn.  That explains the low line voltage today...

	/hpa
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenhpa cudfnH cudlnAnvin cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.17 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Re JET Labs fusion stuff
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Re JET Labs fusion stuff
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 04:40:07 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <9502091005.ab26839@auntie.bbcnc.org.uk> Michael Kenward,
m.kenward@bbcnc.org.uk writes:
> Unlike TFTR, JET is seen as a research device that isn't trying to set
> records for fusion power produced, although it is a fair bet that put a
> properly balanced DT mixture into JET and it will deliver far more
fusion
> neutrons than TFTR. They don't want to make the machine too 'hot'. It
has
> more work to do before that.

What you've said above is not exactly fair to TFTR, although 
I don't want to get into a huge debate about it, either.  
JET was the first machine to use tritium (1991) to "try to set 
records for fusion power produced."  Jet only did a very few shots
with tritium in the machine, and didn't do an extended campaign to
really try to understand what the physics of a D-T reactor would 
be like.  It's only now that TFTR is about to be shut down (end of this
fiscal year) to be replaced, according to the current plan, by TPX, 
that TFTR is doing D-T work.

The majority of the D-T work on TFTR is *not* "trying to set
records for fusion power produced", but rather trying to understand
how the physics of a fusion reactor changes when you use the actual
fuel you would use in a real power plant.  (For instance, it has been
observed that energy confinement increases in D-T operation compared
to D-D operation, which is a good thing.  The effects of the alpha
particles produced by the D-T fusion are also interesting.)  

The essential difference between JET and TFTR is that the Europeans 
couldn't run D-T extensively because they decided to *upgrade* JET, 
and therefore needed to keep the reactor radioactively "cool" (the 
upgrade is now complete, I believe).  On the other hand, TFTR is 
going to be *replaced*, and can afford to run an extensive D-T campaign,
since the radioactivity of the structure is less critical.  Since JET is 
a larger device, it's reasonable to expect that when it does go 
into D-T operation (in another couple years, I believe) it will get 
better performance than TFTR.  The number I've heard batted around is
20-30 MW of fusion from JET, with comparable power input.  TFTR's 
current record is 10.7 MW out with about 35 MW in.
  
***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not Princeton!
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.18 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Is Griggs device thermally insulated?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Griggs device thermally insulated?
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 95 22:39:18 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> writes:
 
>Is the Griggs device thermally insulated on the outside?
>
>Its seems to me that in order to be an efficient water heater
>it must be---other wise its hot metal casing, exposed to the air,
>would be at the mercy of convective cooling to the air, which could divert
>a considerable amount of heat away from its intended target (the water).
 
No, it is not a bit thermally insulated. It loses a terrific amount of
heat to convective cooling in the air; two or three kilowatts, I once
estimated. If we were to insulate it, or wrap the cooling water input hose
around it, we would pick up a lot of heat and increase the C.O.P. by about
5%, I think.
 
The units installed at customer sites are not insulated either, but that is
not a big problem. They are used in two configurations, as far as I know:
 
1. Where the steam is used immediately. You have a constant multikilowatt
loss at the GG, but it is a lot more compact than a conventional boiler, so I
think overall the losses are no worse than normal.
 
2. Where the steam or hot water is stored in an insulated holding tank. The
steam always goes through a separation tank, which diverts condensed water
back into the input water stream to ensure that only "dry steam" is delivered.
So, the losses are not too bad there.
 
I suppose someone should investigate the advantages of insulating the GG with
a jacket of some sort. You might also get a big improvement if you ran the
cooling water through a jacket around the electric motor. The input stream
would have to go from motor jacket, to GG housing jacket, and finally
inside the GG. Kind of like the reverse of an old fashioned triple expansion
marine steam engine, circa 1917. You would recover a heck of a lot of lost
heat that way and you would boost the C.O.P. I suggested that I might bring
two garden hoses from my house and wrap them around it to act as water
jackets, but Griggs thought they might melt and he does not want to spend the
time fooling around with it. The thing is: he is not trying to prove to anyone
that it is over-unity. He is sure it is, and he does not care about an extra
5% excess. I am curious to find out just how far over unity it is, but Griggs
and his customers do not care about that issue.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.17 / Scott Little /  purely scientific investigation of cold fusion
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: purely scientific investigation of cold fusion
Date: 17 Feb 1995 18:45:30 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

I am interested in contributing to the development of cold fusion.

In view of the intense controversy that still surrounds this subject, I
believe that independant replication of excess-heat measurements is a
primary requirement for acceptance of the cold fusion phenomena by the
world scientific community.  As things stand today, we only have people
on both sides of the fence shouting at each other about calorimetric results.
Until we have several labs obtaining the same results on the same experiment,
there will always be insurmountable doubts in the minds of reasonable 
scientists.

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

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

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

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

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

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.17 / Scott Little /  purely scientific investigation of cold fusion phenomena
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: purely scientific investigation of cold fusion phenomena
Date: 17 Feb 1995 18:46:19 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

I am interested in contributing to the development of cold fusion.

In view of the intense controversy that still surrounds this subject, I
believe that independant replication of excess-heat measurements is a
primary requirement for acceptance of the cold fusion phenomena by the
world scientific community.  As things stand today, we only have people
on both sides of the fence shouting at each other about calorimetric results.
Until we have several labs obtaining the same results on the same experiment,
there will always be insurmountable doubts in the minds of reasonable 
scientists.

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

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

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

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

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

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.18 / 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: Sat, 18 Feb 1995 03:30:12 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <Rg76soh.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>I remarked that I would not even buy an untested product from IBM without a
>trial period (or low down payment, or something like that). Dale Base
>suggested that IBM would laugh in my face if I demanded such terms. That is
>incorrect.

     No, Ted, in the context of the discussion, you'd have to show up 
     at the plant as an engineer armed with testing gear.

     And I don't know about you, but I'd certainly laugh.

>refund. I am sure they honor those terms, which they advertise widely. With a
>small company, even a written unconditional money back guarantee might not be
>sufficient. They might not have the money to return. A partial payment or an
>escrow account might be appropriate.

     Right.  An escrow account for a $10,000 purchase.  Dream on...

                                  dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.18 / 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: Sat, 18 Feb 1995 03:38:58 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <B63a0Iq.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>Cameron Randale Bass <crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> writes:
> 
>>     Besides Jed, $10,000 is beans compared to setting up an engineer
>>     testing $10,000 devices offsite.  Clearly your experience must
>>     be academic...
> 
>No! Not academic. All of my experience is in private industry. That is why
>I do not go around flushing $10,000 down the toilet; the money comes out
>of *my pocket*. You steal your funding from the taxpayers of Virginia, but
>I have to earn mine, so I am much more careful.

     Bzzt.  No, actually I steal all of my funding from other places, including
     commercial sources, but thanks for playing.

     However, don't hesitate to be an ass in the future.  That appears 
     to be the sole ingredient of your 'charm'.

>No doubt you are the type of fool who would pay an engineer $10,000 to
>perform a one-hour teston the Griggs device, but I would never do that.
>I have copies of engineering reports from excellent Atlanta firms that were
>a lot cheaper than ten grand!

     No, only a fool would suggest that a 'one-hour teston' would
     be adequate to assure oneself of the performance of an 
     'free energy' device.

     Again, feel free to invent any 'excellent Atlanta firms' you feel like, 
     but don't expect us to believe that any trained mechanical
     engineer didn't run out after confirming 'over unity' operation
     and start building his own.

     Ted, you're always a treat.

                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.17 / 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: 17 Feb 1995 23:27:33 GMT
Organization: Silicon Valley Public Access Link




> Scott Hayward (shayward@unixg.ubc.ca) Writes:

> This is not really true.  Some non-composite particles 
> with a spin angular momentum 1/2 h also have a mass.

Scott, you say (some) and I said (all).  What you mean, I believe,  is 
that (all but the neutrino have mass), and this is what was my point.   
Every 1/2 h bar particle we can measure has not only mass but magnetic 
moment as well. In fact we know that the magnetic moments of the 
non-composites are all nearly equal to their Bohr magnetons  ( Ub = e h/ 
4pi x mass)  Note that mass is in the denominator, and the fundamental 
charge (e) is in the numerator.  This means that if our neutrino has a 
even a smidgen of mass IT SHOULD HAVE AN ENORMOUS MAGNETIC MOMENT.   

Further, a magnetic moment requires a charge current, and all spin 1/2 
non-composite particles (we can measure) also are charged.

The (composite) neutron has mass and magnetic moment but does not show an 
external charge, this indicates  that the neutron has complex internal 
charge currents in equal positive and negative amounts.

The spin 1/2 non-composite neutrinos  do not have a mass or a magnetic 
moment or a charge.   I think we can agree that  something is paradoxical 
about neutrino theory.

> (snip)
> .....and that therefore the non-composite spin 1/2 neutrinos
>  *must* have mass and magnetic moment is simply incorrect.

Based on the experimental evidence, mass, charge and magnetic moment (of 
non-composites) always occur together, and the neutrino apparently 
violates this, which was the point I was trying to make.

Regards: Tom. 




--
Thomas N. Lockyer <lockyer@svpal.org>     
1611 Fallen Leaf Lane
Los Altos, CA USA 94024-6212
Tel. (415)967-9550
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenlockyer cudfnThomas cudlnLockyer cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.19 / Robin Spaandonk /        Re: Tom's trip
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:       Re: Tom's trip
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 1995 10:15:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Tom,

As I was not a contributor to your trip fund, I have till now kept 
silent on that regard.
However I will now make one small suggestion.
During your visit and while talking to Jim, you will undoubedly form 
an opinion as to  whether or not the GG is an over-unity device.
If you decide that it is not, then it should be relatively easy to 
convince Jim of same. In which case, you might find him prepared to 
issue a statement to that effect. This would absolve you of any 
liability in that regard, and allow us to rapidly get on with 
something else.

Regards,

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

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.18 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Griggs Question
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Question
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 1995 02:25:59 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <3huhuj$72@deadmin.ucsd.edu>,
Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> wrote:

>What exactly does that mean? I sincerely expect that Griggs has a procedure
>which gives him aparent over unity results, and that superficialy
>one can;t spot the problem.

>So, the only realistic reason to attempt duplication is to find out 
>why it _doesn't_ work, not to prove that it does. 

Barry, I expect Tom has the right idea. Griggs designed and built a steam
generator. Whatever the reason he built it, his tests indicated to
him that he was producing more heat energy than he was inputing as electricity.

Fine. It doesn't matter, for our purposes, whether or not he really
believes that he has an over-unity energy source or whether he simply
doesn't much care to pursue the mystery. All that matters is that he is
sincere and isn't trying to camoflage his measurements.

Personally I think that most people have too much to loose to try conning
the scientific community (with the exception of JR of course :-)) and
therefore the question becomes: Did Griggs take all of the obvious
errors into account when taking his measurements?

If he did and his figures truly show an over unity result then it is
surely worth Tom's time to seriously investigate it. If Griggs didn't
take this stuff into account and one could reasonably explain away
excess heat then why even try to duplicate it.

As is said; Extraordinary results demand extraordinary proof.

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.18 / 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: Sat, 18 Feb 1995 03:41:57 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <RE96MIg.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>this fact. Anyone who attempts to replicate Griggs will find that it is
>terribly difficult to make a device that reliably and consistantly produces
>excess heat. 

     'Terribly difficult', he noted dryly.

     Of course, Ted, apparently you've decided that it's hard again.

                                  dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.18 / 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: Sat, 18 Feb 1995 03:47:51 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <Ba+b0Ci.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
> 
>     "Seems to me that buying a device where the needle points to "over unity"
>     is absolutely worthless from a scientific viewpoint.  The idea of
>     science is that someone describes an experiment *and the theory behind
>     the result*."
> 
>Tom has a terribly limited imagination. Let me suggest a scientific use for
>such a device:
> 
>1. Buy the machine.
>2. Figure out how it works; that is, develop your *own* theory.

      Though please don't express any curiosity as to why the inventor
      himself seems disinterested enough not to procure an
      appropriate o-scope for himself.

>3. Publish the theory and win the Nobel Prize.

      This is, in fact, the recipe for snake oil.

      Available from 'cold fusion' specialty shoppes everywhere...

                                 dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.17 / John Logajan /  "Cold Fusion" #7
     
Originally-From: logajan@cray.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "Cold Fusion" #7
Date: 17 Feb 95 22:07:59 CST

The seventh issue of "Cold Fusion" has arrived, rather soon after #6,
so they are seemingly getting on track to a monthly schedule.  Nearly
half of the 32 pages are public domain stuff, however, such as patent
reprints and sci.physic.fusion reprints.  #6 only had one page of
public domain stuff.  Of course, there is nothing wrong with publishing
patents, but at $10 an issue for "CF", it's kinda pricey considering
what the gov will sell you a copy for.

--
 - John Logajan   F6111  --  logajan@cray.com  --  612-683-5426 -
 - Cray Research, Inc. 655F Lone Oak Drive, Eagan MN 55121-9957 -
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Feb 21 04:37:04 EST 1995
------------------------------
