1995.02.18 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Testing for o/u on Griggs hydrosonic pump
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Testing for o/u on Griggs hydrosonic pump
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 95 22:08:50 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes:
 
     "A modification can be made to the Rothwell method (barrel) for running
     extended time tests. . . . In the modified experiment, intermediate
     buckets worth of water are removed, weighed, and their temperature
     checked -- and then the water is discarded.  On the input side,
     additional amounts of cool water are weighed, temp recorded, and added.
     . . . If the barrel water gets too hot to condense all the steam, then
     for each two buckets of hot water removed, a bucket of cool water could
     be added, for example.
 
This is an interesting idea. There may be some problems with it though. First,
it might be a little hectic: you might lose track, and hauling and dumping two
gallon buckets full of steaming hot water would be distracting, and a tad
dangerous. Those are practical issues, but I see a more complicated problem in
the calorimetry as the temperatures rise. I mentioned earlier that the barrel
test is limited in two ways:
 
1. The absolute amount of water you can fit in a 50 gallon steel drum. The
drum has to filled up about two-thirds with cold water at the start, in order
to condense the steam. The water continues to flow in during the experiment
and when it gets near the top, you have to stop. You might go to Home Depot
and see if they have a larger size drum, but that will not get you much
further. Someone suggested alternating barrels (which is similar to John's
idea). That sounds even more hectic and impractical to me. It takes quite a
while to drain a barrel and refill it.
 
2. Temperature. I pointed out that when the water gets over 120 deg F, it gets
downright dangerous to deal with it. There is a bigger problem though, which I
did not mention. Lots of hot water complicates the calorimetry. This calls for
an explanation:
 
The model I am using, expressed in that eight line BASIC program, is
ultra-simple. I completely ignore heat losses. The model is a gross
simplification which works fine at low temperatures, except that it
underestimates the amount of heat by a wide margin. It always *underestimates*
heat, it cannot overestimate. At higher temperatures this model falls apart
drastically. It assumes that when you heat, say, 300 lbs of water, every time
you cram another 300 BTUs in the temperature goes up another 1 degree F, and
you can keep doing that indefinitely. Obviously, that is false! As you get up
into higher temperature, heat loss from the barrel steel surface increases
rapidly, and a great deal of steam begins to escape without condensing,
removing a terrific amount of heat. You can see that easily -- peek into the
barrel and your glasses fog up in no time. Even if you did not have the
problem of newly condensed water overflowing the barrel, if you let the
temperature climb it will eventually reach a steady state where heat loss
equals heat input, just as it does in any conventional static calorimeter.
 
That might be okay, if you are prepared for it. If you spend a few weeks
calibrating the steel drum with known heat sources, you might be able to plot
calibration points for 1 KW, 5 KW, 10 KW, 15 and 20 KW inputs. I do not know
if the points on that graph would fall into a reasonably straight line or not.
I suspect they would not, because it would probably reach boiling soon (212
F), and it will never get any hotter than that! (Obviously.) But if the
calibration points did line up, that would indicate that the barrel is
suitable for ultra-large scale static calorimetry. That calls for a lot more
work and a lot more computation than my method. It would catch much more heat,
and show a better C.O.P. I am sure it would because I am throwing away all
heat losses, and I know that barrel loses quite a bit over a 20 minute test
period. I established this fact by watching the barrel cool down after a test.
(That heat decay curve would be a help in the calibrating the thing as a giant
static calorimeter).
 
The problem with John's proposal -- getting back to the subject here -- is
that if he removes only 2 or perhaps 5 gallons at a time, he may leave the
thing fairly hot throughout the run, in a domain where the heat losses are
large. Maybe if he did it every few minutes and added in many gallons of tap
water, that might work. The problem with that method is that it reduces the
Delta T temperature, and the excess portion of that Delta T might soon be only
a few degrees. That will never convince a skeptic! Even a 20 deg F Delta T
from excess does not convince them. If you change the water that quickly, then
essentially what you have done is to make an odd new kind of flow calorimeter.
If you slow down the water dumping and let it get hot, you will need a new,
more complicated model, to account for heat losses. I think that if you are
going to introduce complications, it is better to stick to the well-understood
complications of ordinary flow calorimetry. It is not all *that* difficult to
measure the flow. Unfortunately, the Griggs Gadget does not work as well in
hot water mode as it does in high temp steam mode.
 
Life is full of trade-offs.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.18 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Testing for o/u on Griggs hydrosonic pump
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Testing for o/u on Griggs hydrosonic pump
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 95 22:18:45 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Cameron Randale Bass <crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> writes:
 
>>Therefore I propose the following protocol:
>>
>>1. Calibrate all thermometers with each other.
>
>     Apparently the verb 'calibrate' has a different meaning here than
>     the one usually associated with it.
 
For once, Dale is right. To calibrate the thermometers, thermistors and
thermometers, hold them in ice slush (which is usually around 1 or 2 C) and
in boiling water (98 or 99 C at this elevation, I believe). If they all show
the same numbers to within a fraction of a degree, then you can be sure they
are all working and they are all calibrated enough to detect, say, a 20 deg
F Delta T temperature.
 
In only one day, a person might not have time to do this. I think that if
you carry one or two thermistors and a mercury thermometer, you can skip this
step. I do not think that any off-the-shelf thermometer manufactured any time
in the last 200 years could be off by as much as 20 deg F and still work at
all. The mercury ones -- which are the best by far -- will show a large,
visible bubble in the mercury if they are that far out of whack. The
electronic ones show garbage or a blank screen. As long as you carry enough
of them, and enough spare batteries, you can measure the temperture with
confidence. Plus/minus 10 degrees F (5 degree C) accuracy would be sufficient.
In the real world, you can depend upon getting +/- 1 deg F (0.5 deg C) with
any instrument capabable of measuring from freezing to boiling.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.18 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: If you could, how would YOU do a cold fusion experiment?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: If you could, how would YOU do a cold fusion experiment?
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 95 22:20:29 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

as969@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Derek Lai) asks:
 
     "If you could get your hands on some heavy water, platinum and
     palladium, how would you do the Cold Fusion experiment?"
 
It is much harder than you might think. First of all "some" palladium is very
unlikely to work. You should perform a whole complex series of treatments and
tests to see if the metal is suitable. These are best described in recent
papers by Cravens and by Storms. You have to treat the cathode with great
care. First of all, do not literally "get your hands on it." Don't touch it;
don't leave it out in the air for long; don't expose it to water vapor. If you
see discoloration you probably need to treat the metal surface. You will see
various recommended methods of pre-treatment in the literature. Many
experiments were performed in 1989 and 1990 by people who did not realize that
these types of elaborate precautions and pre-treatments are needed. That is
why most of the early experiments failed.
 
Some of those early experiments were laughable. I know of a video showing
people handling the cathodes without gloves on. One person who collaborated in
a set of experiments told me he once found a dead fly in the electrolyte!
Expecting success from such "experiments" is kind of like watching a
chimpanzee mixing up eggs, butter and flour, and expecting it to cook a
perfectly formed 12 layer Hungarian dubish torte. If you pick up the first
piece of palladium you come across, and drop it into electrolyte which has not
been kept scrouplously clean, then after electrolysis you will find uneven
blotches of discoloration. The metal might bend as one side is loaded more
than the other. If it twists, bends, cracks or distorts markedly (enough to
see) then loading is hopelessly uneven.
 
There are lots of tricks to making CF work. I could write a dozen pages off
the top of my head and I know only a fraction of what people like Ed Storms
know. One thing above all else is essential: practice. You have to try and try
again, you have to go through dozens of cathodes, and you have to *observe the
results carefully* and learn from them. What color does the cathode turn? What
do the bubbles on it look like? Are they distributed unevenly? When you cut
the current, does it degas rapidly? (Both bad signs.) Measure the outgasing
with the Cravens technique (an array of small test tubes turned upside down).
You have to learn these myriad techniques I have touched upon. You have to
talk to people who have learned to do it correctly over the years. Listen to
them carefully! Unfortunately, most of them are terribly busy and they have
little to time to discuss these issues; while others work for private industry
and are constrained from revealing any detailed information.
 
Quite frankly, I think that Pd D2O based CF is so difficult to do that I
expect other excess heat and excess energy technologies will win out in the
end. Other techniques and materials appear to be easier to replicate and scale
up. That is my guess at the moment, but it has not be proven by a long shot.
There have encouraging improvements in Pd CF during the past year or so,
particularly with double structured cathodes and complex multilayer devices.
These often require specially designed fabrication machines, like thin film
deposition machines, so you cannot replicate them in a high school lab. They
are somewhat like silicon computer chips, high performance high temperature
superconductors, or photovoltaic devices; they require advanced manufacturing
techniques. My guess is that if Pd CF ever succeeds it will be with these
types of cathodes, rather than with pure metal or simple structure cathodes. I
expect they will have to be automatically manufactured and permanently sealed
into gas or electrolyte without ever being exposed to air or contamination.
This is how electrochemical battery cathodes are treated, and the cathodes in
television CRT's. They are "untouched by human hands" -- like it used to say
on Wonder Bread packages.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.21 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Re JET Labs fusion stuff
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Re JET Labs fusion stuff
Date: 21 Feb 1995 01:06:33 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <1995Feb17.044007.24420@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter 
> On the other hand, TFTR is 
> going to be *replaced*, 

Don't bet on that (or don't bet on there being any money
left to pay you if it is) :-).
--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.21 / Barry Merriman /  How does a dynamometer work?
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: How does a dynamometer work?
Date: 21 Feb 1995 01:07:17 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE


Could anyone explain simply how a dynamometer actually
works?


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


cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.17 / Mike Jamison /  Re: cross section to reaction rate
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: cross section to reaction rate
Date: 17 Feb 1995 12:03 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <9502131800.AA26747@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>, blue@pilot.msu.edu
(Richard A Blue) writes...
>If we can divide the deuteron population into "targets" and "projectiles"
>the calculation of a reaction rate goes as follows.  We need the areal
>density of target deuterons as seen by a projectile, and we need the
>projectile current (deuterons per second) entering the target volume.
>Then the reaction rate is just the product of those two numbers multiplied
>by the reaction cross section.  To generalize that to other situations
>makes my head spin just now.
> 
>Dick Blue
> 

I've been reading an old Time book, published in about 1965, titled "The
Scientist".

In it, a typical atom is described as having a nucleus about the size of
a marble, with everything else scaled off of that.  

For hydrogen, the electron has an effective [coulomb?] size of about 50 ft.,
and "orbits" at something like 500 ft. - I'm going from memory, so I'm sure
these dimensions are wrong :-)

The electron is described as having a very low density, in comparison to
the nucleus.

OK, now, I think the problem with smashing a marble into another marble,
with a position accuracy between marbles of something like 1000 ft. in the
plane perpendicular to the direction of travel, starts to explain the 
problem with beam/target fusion.

Kind of like taking something the size of one period (.) on your monitor,
(located *anywhere* on the monitor) and throwing something the size of
another period (.) at the monitor, and hoping the two will, er, fuse.

After the first dot is most likely missed, there's a good chance that something
we'll call an electron that takes up perhaps 1/100 the of the screen that
can steal energy from your dot.

the process keeps repeating...

The problem is simply that H and D and T atoms are something like 99.999%
empty...

Mike Jamison

"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.18 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: (Jed) Question about  Griggs power measurements
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: (Jed) Question about  Griggs power measurements
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 95 23:39:18 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> writes:
 
>At least with an AC watt meter, aside from calibration issues,
>there is the possibility that transient overloads in the 
>(1) voltage or (2) current (which don't show up on the visible gauge, 
 
Yes, yes, yes. But you do not have to worry about any of that stuff. He
is using both the Dranetz *and* the dynamometer. So if there was electrical
noise that spoofed the Dranetz, it could not possibly spoof the dynamometer
to exact same extent and degree at the same moment. He has redunant
instruments, they are based on different physical prinicples, and they
measure different physical forces (electricity and mechanical force).
Since they both show massive excess, and they track one-another perfectly,
that rules out any possibility that the effect is an instrument error
caused by something like undetected transient overloads, noise, or what
have you. An undetected transient overload would most certainly be
detected by the dynamometer, even if the Dranetz missed it.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.18 / John Logajan /  Re: Testing for o/u on Griggs hydrosonic pump
     
Originally-From: logajan@cray.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Testing for o/u on Griggs hydrosonic pump
Date: 18 Feb 95 23:33:27 CST

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: it might be a little hectic: you might lose track, and hauling and dumping two
: gallon buckets full of steaming hot water would be distracting, and a tad
: dangerous.

Visions of Disney's Fantasia :-)

Flow rates for steam tests seem to be on the order of one gallon input
for every three to five minutes of operations.  That would keep one
on his toes (it would help to have assistants.)  But it certainly seems
doable.

: At higher temperatures this model falls apart drastically.

Just add more cold water. :-)

: If you change the water that quickly, then essentially what you have done
: is to make an odd new kind of flow calorimeter.

Exactly!  I first mentally designed it as a steam condensing bypass flow
meter, and then converted it into a bucket brigade.

: Unfortunately, the Griggs Gadget does not work as well in hot water mode
: as it does in high temp steam mode.  Life is full of trade-offs.

If you like flow meters better than the bucket brigade, then my steam
condensing bypass flow meter is just the ticket to measuring extended
steam mode runs!

You have your normal input water source, flow metered and temperature
monitored.

You also have a cold water source, flow metered, temperature monitored 
into which the steam output of the GG is injected and mixed in a condenser
tank.  The flow rate of the cold water bypass is sufficient to condense 
the steam completely.

The condensate/bypass water mix is again flowmetered and temperature
monitored.

You can run forever.

And as far as low delta temperatures not being convincing -- that is a
non-problem.  I was easily measuring delta temps of 1/100 of a degree
with a PC A/D data acquisition card.  If I can do it ...

--
 - John Logajan   F6111  --  logajan@cray.com  --  612-683-5426 -
 - Cray Research, Inc. 655F Lone Oak Drive, Eagan MN 55121-9957 -
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.19 / James Stolin /  Re: How much would a fusion reactor eat?
     
Originally-From: FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How much would a fusion reactor eat?
Date: 19 Feb 1995 17:16:38 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

ben.franchuk@wolfden.com (BEN FRANCHUK) wrote:
>
>  How does a very small reactor, 2.5 MW compare to 1000MW reactor? Can 
>such a reactor be MASS PRODUCED and shippable? Can an super advanced 
>design be taken apart and placed into a space shuttle?

Ben,

   Your post lead me to thoughts about redundancy and cost.

   In my computing field, redundancy is an extremely important factor.  
If eventual fusion power plants are economically scalable,  I'd take 
multiple smaller reactors over a single large one any day.  The present 
power grid could be drastically improved.  Rather than blacking out 
entire cities or regions during a power failure, one could limit problems 
to much smaller areas.  Of course, all this is contingent upon the 
eventual development of fusion reactors with a reasonable cost/power 
factor.

  Size rather than cost factor may be the most important factor in mobile 
applications.  It might be acceptable to pay ten times or more per watt 
if the reactor could be installed on space stations, ships or even 
smaller vehicles such as trains or large trucks.  I'm  not holding out 
hope at present for something small enough to power an auto.

-
James B. Stolin  -  Illinois Computer Service  -  FKNF40A@prodigy.com

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.18 / Josef Frisch /  Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: frisch@hebe.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Josef C. Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph
sics.accelerators
Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 1995 16:44:13 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <3i3bd5$7ls@borg.svpal.org>, lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) writes:
|> 
|> 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.
|> 


1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13 are all prime. Is it paradoxical that 9 is not? The fact that
a rule is followed in a limited number of examples does not make that rule
correct. 

Tom, there is much evidence from many independant experiments that neutrinos have
properties similar to those predicted by the standard model. You have earlier
implied that this might be because experimenters have a bias to report data which
agrees with the standard model. Actually the opposite is true, we would like
nothing more than to show those know it all theorists  :-)  that they are wrong
(and get funding for additional experiments as well). So far, however, the data
matches the standard theory. 

You have started out by following the correct scientific procedure: Form a
hypothesis, do an experiment. The experiment has been done, the hypotheses has
been shown to be incorrect. The correct response is to re-formulate the
hypothesis so that it is consistant with known experiments, and propose a new
experiment. Remember, MOST theories are wrong. The difference between a scientist
and a nut, is that when a scientist's theory is proven wrong, he works on a new
theory, a nut refuses to believe any data, and imagines some vast 
conspiricy or incompetitance on the part of others. Look at your theory again,
maybe a minor adjustment can make it compatable with existing experiments. 

--- Joe Frisch ---

Breaking my own rule
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenfrisch cudfnJosef cudlnFrisch cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.21 / Michael Kenward /  Re: Re JET Labs fusion stuff
     
Originally-From: m.kenward@bbcnc.org.uk (Michael Kenward)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Re JET Labs fusion stuff
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 11:15:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>What you've said above is not exactly fair to TFTR, although 
>

Of course you are right. I was being terribly unfair to TFTR. But I was only
making up a little for the sniping that Princeton got up to in the very
early days.

I first wrote about JET when it was an eight-people team and a pile of
paper. TFTR wasn't much bigger. When the JET design was first unveiled,
various people in the US said it was rubbish and wouldn't work. JET was
certainly a bigger step forward technically than TFTR, but Paul Rebut was a
self-assured visionary (a Frenchman!) who KNEW that he was going to do
better than TFTR.

In the event, he was proved right. And since then the PPPL team has been
less dismissive of JET. They have also worked together in a mood of friendly
competition.

Your assessment of JET's prospects fits in with my understanding. But will
it happen? Unlike the US, Europe has not committed to a post JET machine. We
were very naive. We pinned out hopes on ITER as the follow up. Now we see
that the US is up to its usual tricks, talking of building an interim
machine on its own and running the risk that we will be left out. (This is
reminiscent of other 'collaboration' projects, where the rest of the world
is expected to fit in with the US's plans.) Perhaps JET too will get a life
extension plan. (Yes, the last upgrade has been completed.)

Enough sniping, can you tell us more about the post TFTR plans? What are the
basic machine parameters?

Michael Kenward

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenkenward cudfnMichael cudlnKenward cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.18 / Barry Merriman /  Is Griggs device thermally insulated?
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Is Griggs device thermally insulated?
Date: 18 Feb 1995 23:46:07 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

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). 

On the other hand, Jeds description of measure the casing 
temp with a pyrometer suggests he had access to an exposed casing.

Which is it?


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


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.18 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: (Jed) Question about  Griggs power measurements
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: (Jed) Question about  Griggs power measurements
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 95 21:58:25 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> writes:
 
>I gather you used a Dranetz meter. What exactly is 
>a Dranetz meter and how does it work? Is it the same
>as an AC watt meter?
 
Yes, that is exactly what it is. I suggest you look at the documentation
from General Electric, which is referenced in my paper. Your other questions
are also address in the paper, like the fact that Griggs uses three phase
power. So I think I will zap you a copy of the paper next Monday or Tuesday.
Remind me if I forget.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.18 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Testing for o/u on Griggs hydrosonic pump
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Testing for o/u on Griggs hydrosonic pump
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 95 22:05:42 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Scott Little <little@eden.com> writes:
 
>The only thing I guess you can probably take for granted is the scale they]
>use to weigh the water with...that technology is supremely mature.
>
>Having said that, I would, of course, check out the scale if everything else
>checks out!  
 
I would not take it for granted. It is easy to check out the scale: Stand
on it. I am not kidding, stand on it and have someone slide the weights
over. If you want to get it exactly right, go to a doctor's office and
weigh yourself fully clothed to the nearest half pound before you show up
(and before you eat lunch). Gene Mallove and I also stood on it together.
It goes up to 1000 lbs, not to worry.
 
The people from Georgia Tech did a much more rigorous test, with iron weights
calibrated on their scale in Atlanta. That's good, but you can do a fairly
good "reality check" just by standing on the thing.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Feb 22 04:37:07 EST 1995
------------------------------
