1995.03.18 / Tim Mirabile /  Re: Electrostatic Confinement (Hot) Fusion Status?
     
Originally-From: Tim Mirabile <tim@mail.htp.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Electrostatic Confinement (Hot) Fusion Status?
Date: 18 Mar 1995 03:33:25 GMT
Organization: HTP Services 516-757-0210

johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb) wrote:

[Super-snip]

> That is, Tokamaks work, but they seem ugly (at least in current designs)
> but these ideas are very beuatiful, it is just that they may not work.
 
> So which basket do we put our eggs in? Why not both?

What do we do when we have more baskets than eggs? :-)
 

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudentim cudfnTim cudlnMirabile cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.18 / John Logajan /  Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment,sci.
nergy,sci.materials
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
Date: 18 Mar 1995 05:12:12 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Asmodeus Spudmaster (eximer@netcom.com) wrote:
: LiOD/LiOH as well as any caustic alkali readily absorbs CO2 from
: the atmosphere to form an aqueous carbonate.

Is this proposed as a heat producing theory?  Or an explanation of an
error source in anomalous CF cells?

I don't see how a lot of CO2 can come in contact with the electrolyte
during normal operation, the electrolyte outgassing of electrolytic
byproducts tending to isolate outside atmosphere from making their
way to the electrolyte.

--
 - 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:
cuddy18 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.18 / Paul Koloc /  Re: DOES ANYONE KNOW WHEREABOUTS OF ROBERT GOLKA?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: DOES ANYONE KNOW WHEREABOUTS OF ROBERT GOLKA?
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 1995 06:09:16 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <USE2PCB526453806@brbbs.brbbs.com> mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com writes:
>pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
> 
>->
>-> This is from the official International BL listing (few years old).
>->
>-> R. K. Golka**
>-> 400 Warren Avenue
>-> Brockton, MA 022401
>->
>-> Probably wrong but my last (615)-586-7320
 
>Hmmm, 615 is East Tennessee, not Mass.  As I am in East Tennessee, I called it
>anyway, and that is not his phone number.
 
Opps -- Typo!   should of read 617
                                 ^
                                 |
>                                                        Marshall

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.18 / Paul Koloc /  Re: And finally... ball lightning and weirdness.
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: And finally... ball lightning and weirdness.
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 1995 06:14:49 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3jvjih$qku@sundog.tiac.net> conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes:
>Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP) wrote:
>: In article <daryl.17.00116D5E@weaver.dungeon.com> daryl@weaver.dungeo
.com (Savage Henry) writes:

>: >I've been told that you guys may be able to assist me.
>: >I'm interested in any information regarding the possible links 
>: >between ball lightning and various anomalous phenomena.
>: >Reports of spontaneous human combustion often evidence  .. .

>[snip, snip]

>: >your answers. Andrew Morriss.
>: >daryl@weaver.dungeon.com

>Perhaps a little caution is really justified here, and aluminum-foil hats
>(Reynolds Wrap works best) may be quite effective in protecting against 
>both electromagnetic effects and intential mind control (you never know when
>to expect the evil alien influences to manifest themselves).

>Metalic armor is another reasonable precaution, however, a portable
>Halon system, albeit expensive, is often less restrictive. I often utilize 
.. .  

Just make certain the metal is of the non-ferromagnetic species.  

>:-)
>                                        Harry C.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.18 /  PaulBreed /  Re: Good work, Tom!
     
Originally-From: paulbreed@aol.com (PaulBreed)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Good work, Tom!
Date: 18 Mar 1995 07:37:00 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

As another member of the funding effort, I would like
to thank Tom for his fine work.
I was impressed with his professional maner.
I was also impressed with Griggs response.
I have a suggestion for the remaining $700.

Why don't we buy Griggs an internet connection.
A modem and a 1 year AOL account would only be $200 or so.

Paul Breed
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenpaulbreed cudlnPaulBreed cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.18 /  Alter /  Re: Griggs Report
     
Originally-From: schamber@egr.msu.edu (Alter )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Report
Date: 18 Mar 1995 15:31:21 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University

Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:

>OK, here is a report that will please no one!  Now for the
>discussion.

>Tom Droege

I am a senior in mechanical engineering at Michigan state
University. It would seem quite simple to understand the energy inputs
and system boundries. 

There are three energy inputs and one energy output. The two pumps are
centrifugal pumps? The water itself has some enthalpy, ie a
temperature dependant energy. 

It is important to note that one cannot use the enthalpy formula over
a large temperature range. The Cp changes with temperature. It is more
accurate to use water and steam tables with spline interpolation. I
have written a QBasic program to do that. Matlab can do that kind of
interpolation. Given a large table one can do linear interpolation by
hand with some accuracy. The format of such a table is given: (liquid
vs vapor, air pressure, temperature) yields enthalpy. 

If one uses the formula:
		 h=Cp * T 
where:
	h=enthalpy [kJ/kg]
	Cp=specific heat = 4.184 [kj/(kg K)]
	T = temperature [Kelvin or Centigrade]

one falls victim to the fact that Cp is not constant over a large
temperature range, say more than 10 degrees K.

I mention this because it seems that they might not have looked at the
thermodynamics books in a long time judging from their experimental
technique and in spite of claims of "I am an engineer, dammit!".

So the enthalpy rate of the water mass flow should exactly equal the
mechanical energy input within the error predicted.
 
The problem becomes measuring the mechanical energy input and the
enthalpies of the input and output water. I'll bet I could find the
errors in their calculations if I could look at the raw data. 

Also you TG mentions that no error analysis was done. There is a
mathematical technique (do I have to review it for some readers?) for
predicting the error of the results given the known or expected errors
in the measurable variables. If the predicted error by this technique
was greater than the deviation from COP=1 then the claims of over
unity are invalid. Without this error analysis, there is simply no way
to come to a conclusion. If we did not include the required
mathematical error analysis in the thermodynamics labs we would have
received a 0.0 or told to correct it before it could be accepted. This
analysis is absolutely necessary for evaluation of Griggs' claims. 

My prediction is that if such a mathematical analysis was performed,
that over-unity would be disproven.

later
Larry Schamber




















cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenschamber cudlnAlter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.18 / Pete McNamara /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: mcnamara@vxaluw.cern.ch (Pete McNamara)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.
stro,sci.edu,sci.energy,sci.engr,sci.logic,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.phys
cs.computational.fluid-dynamics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusio
,sci.physics.particle,sci.research
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 1995 15:32:00 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin


In article <vergonD5HGDs.n11@netcom.com>, vergon@netcom.com (Vertner
Vergon) writes:

>This is an interesting thread -- with an interesting twist.
>
>I published a book in 1976 [ modestly :-)  ] entitled Relativity
>Beyond
>Einstein that contained my Dual Velocity Theory of Relativity.
>
>In it I maintained that a better relativity theory could be had by
>generalizing Newtonian mechanics (I termed it "creating a bridge
>between
>NM and relativistic mechanics").
>
>Actually, in the beginning, I thought I was going to come up with 
>something very different than Einstein's SR. As things went along I
>began 
>to see that I was developing a parallel theory. Certain reviewers were
>>telling me that I was saying the same thing in a different way.
>
>But when I finished there were certain differences. For example,
>in SR we have the concept of "relativistic mass" that creates quite 
>a bit of controversy and "un-understanding" -- or *mis*understanding 
>if you please, to wit:
>
>               Momentum is given as P = gamma m, which is often
>written
>   
>                                         mv
>                                    P = ----  
>                                          R
>    (R = Lorentz transformation)           
>
>It is always assumed that R modifies m, creating the unexplainable --
>often 
>causing problems -- 'relativitic mass'.
>
>As an inherent part of my theory R modifies v, not m. This gives us an
>invariant mass.
>

But of course, you must use the normal, unmodified v to calculate
R.  This use of R also does not apply to energy.

Thus, it appears to be nothing but a word game.

Pete
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmcnamara cudfnPete cudlnMcNamara cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.18 /  jedrothwell@de /  Grigg visit: Droege found no error
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Grigg visit: Droege found no error
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 95 10:20:57 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Tom Droege's report on Griggs included only a few specific comments about the
equipment and protocols. He raises a few questions about possible errors. For
example, he wonders whether ultrasound might be affecting the thermocouples:
 
    "What does all that ultrasonic energy do to all those thermocouples?  I
    don't know.  Does anyone?  Did they do an experiment to test?  Not that
    I saw.  But it would just have to shift the curve a little!"
 
And he worries that the auxiliary circulation pump might be causing the excess
heat effect:
 
    "I did not ask and they did not tell me that they take into account the
    energy provided by the feed pump.  For the hot water experiment this
    could be significant, and could easily account for the excess heat
    indicated."
 
He raised one or two other technical objections, which I will not list.
 
Let me make something 100% clear. *I* tested for these problems. I described
my tests right here in this forum. I described my observations time after
time. Both Griggs and I made absolutely certain that these problems cannot be
occurring. Droege did not perform any tests to check these ideas but *I did*,
and I reported my results right here. None of the objections raised by Droege
in his report has any technical merit -- not one. For the record, I will
repeat what I did to ensure that these two factors cannot be affecting the
test results:
 
Potential Problem 1. Ultrasound affecting the thermocouples. I measured the
water temperature with mercury thermometers and thermistors before the machine
was turned on and after it was turned off. The numbers did not change.
Furthermore, when you turn off the machine and the ultrasound stops, the
thermocouple readings do not change. Droege could easily have observed this
himself, if he had watched the computer screen. If ultrasound, mechanical
vibration or anything else from the machine was affecting the thermocouples,
then obviously when the machine is turned off the readings would jump to a new
value.
 
Potential Problem 2. Aux pump adding spurious excess heat. This was tested for
by running the pump alone, and in the blank rotor tests. Droege discussed the
blank tests himself, yet he failed to notice that the aux pump is used in
every case. Furthermore, he failed to notice that the electrical rating of aux
pump is far below the excess power levels I observed. If the thing was running
full out, and it was stone cold -- adding every joule of electrical energy to
the water (which is impossible) -- that would still not be enough to explain
the effect. In point of fact, the pump runs as hot as any other small pump.
Most of the energy delivered to it is dissipated as heat in the air around the
pump housing. When the pump alone is run, it does not add enough energy to the
water to be measured with the techniques employed.
 
If Droege had brought a power meter and mercury thermometer, he would have
seen for himself that the machine produces massive levels of excess energy. If
he had thought a little more carefully about his own observations he would
have realized that what he saw and heard disproves all of his objections. He
could easily have observed the fact that turning off the machine stops the
ultrasound yet it has no effect on the thermocouples. The information he
needed to discount *all* of his objections was right there in front of him.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.18 / M Hayman /  Suggestion for CF testing - buy a Griggs pump
     
Originally-From: hayman@ami1.bwi.wec.com (M. Hayman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Suggestion for CF testing - buy a Griggs pump
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 1995 18:43:04 GMT
Organization: WEC

   Recently I have seen a couple of posts from researchers requesting 
access to a claimed over unity device so that they may run their own 
expert calorimetry measurements on it in their own facilities.  It seems 
like the Griggs pump, which sounds as though it is commercially available 
(price?), would be an excellent choice.  Any takers?  (not affiliated 
with HDI in any way - just an interested S.P.F reader).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
M. Hayman
Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
hayman@ami1.bwi.wec.com

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenhayman cudfnM cudlnHayman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: 1989 CalTech work was *positive*
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 1989 CalTech work was *positive*
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 95 16:46:21 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

[This is in response to Fusion Digest comment that has not appeared in Delphi.
These e-mail forums can be slow and confusing, can't they?]
 
 
I pointed out that the N. Lewis at Cal Tech did, in fact, show excess heat in
1989. Barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) commented:
 
     "Hmm--thats the first time I have heard that."
 
Barry is not keeping up with literature. A number of imporant papers have
described this in detail.
 
 
     "I met with lewis (I forget the occasion) shortly after his big negative
     result, and he seemed quite disgusted with the whole CF affair---really
     wanted to wash his hands of it after so thoroughly debunking it."
 
He did not debunk it. He made a mistake in post experiment analysis, and his
experimental technique was flawed. His result was not a big negative, it was a
muddled positive.
 
 
     "Can you fill us in on the details?"
 
Yes, I can, but it would be much better if you would get the original papers
and read them yourself. You should never depend upon someone else's summary.
The best paper about this is:
 
     M. H. Miles (Naval Air Weapons Center), B. F. Bush (SRI), D. E.
     Stillwell (CAES), "Calorimetric Principles and Problems in Measurements
     of Excess Power during Pd-D2O Electrolysis," J. Phys. Chem. 1994, 98, p.
     1948-1952
 
I will briefly summarize a few points from this paper. To simplify, when Lewis
got excess heat, he thought he was seeing a change in the calibration curve
instead. He reported that his heating coefficient changed from 12.6 deg C per
watt up to 15.9 deg C per watt during the course of the experiment. He did not
give a reason for the change, and as Miles puts it, "this 26% increase in
heating coefficients, based on our experience, is highly unusual." I would say
it is highly impossible. What really happened was that the heating coefficient
remained at 12.6 deg C and there was excess heat. As Miles explains: "Lewis et
al. erroneously defined the heating coefficient as *h* = Delta T / P[T] where
the total power (P[T]) is the sum of the electrolysis power and resistor
power. According to the Newton law of cooling, the temperature difference,
Delta T, defines the total output power from the cell to its surroundings;
thus any excess power (P[X]) must be included in defining *h* would lead to an
increase in the heating coefficient as the excess power increases."
 
As Mallove put it, you don't stand on the bathroom scale while you set it to
zero.
 
Lewis also made the mistake of running at excessively low power levels. The
calibration curves for a typical static calorimeter are nice and linear
starting around a half-watt up to ten watts or so, but below a half-watt they
can suddenly change. At 1 or 2 watts most of the heat is lost from the test
tube walls, but below a half-watt other mechanisms dominate. You begin losing
more heat across the air - water interface and then out of the top of the
cell. It is pretty straightforward. The dramatic change in shown in Figure 5,
"Effect of the power level on the apparent cell constant (K) and heat-transfer
coefficient (h)."
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 / Ed Matthews /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: Ed Matthews <ewm@gladstone.uoregon.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 15:04:02 -0800
Organization: University of Oregon




On 13 Mar 1995, Barry Merriman wrote:

> In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.950311175327.25163F-100000@gladstone> Ed Matthews  
> <ewm@gladstone.uoregon.edu> writes:
> > 
> > On 9 Mar 1995, Barry Merriman wrote:
> > 
> > Geez, I hate comments like this.  It's the _principle_ that matters.  If 
> > it was $1.50, $500, or $0.50, the principle is still what matters.
> > 
> 
> 
> Yes, and what is the principle? The principle is, $1 a year is not much
> to have a team of scientists working on a major experiment in support
> of developing the future energy resources for the US/world.
> 

Why should I support it, regardless of the amount?  Does the value of your 
research supercede my rights?

I'm not debating the quality of the research, but the principles (or lack 
thereof) behind the method of financing.  Research by a private 
enterprise could provide the same type of money.  But the difference is 
that of property rights.  I wasn't asked whether or not I wished to fund 
this or that, but had my money forcibly taken through taxation and spent 
at the whim of unknown bureaucrats.

But this issue is more philosophical than scientific.

FYI, one of the big issues that catalyzed the American revolution was the 
taxation level which they considered to be tyrannical: 2%.  Most people 
today are far more willing to give up their freedom. 

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
          Ed Matthews                   | Modern art is what happens when 
   ewm@gladstone.uoregon.edu            | painters stop looking at girls and 
         Physics major                  | persuade themselves that they have
 Philosophy and Mathematics minor       | a better idea. - John Ciardi
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenewm cudfnEd cudlnMatthews cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 / Barry Merriman /  Caltech experiments were positve (?)
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Caltech experiments were positve (?)
Date: 17 Mar 1995 23:20:13 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

Jed mentioned recently that Lewis's Caltech experiments
were positive. He sent me a reference which I'll look up,
but the gist of it is that Lewis mis-analyzed his data,
and that there really was excess heat with proper analysis.

Fine, that maybe so. But then the curious point is: if
Lewis's experiments were positive, doesn;t that mean its
pretty easy to replicaticate the CF results?

After all, Lewis was set up his cells
shortly after the original P & F announcement, and without
the benefit of any inside knowledge or improved technique from
the intervening 4 years, and he didn;t even have the 
multi-month loading time supposedly needed, etc.

So, how does this jibe with the new world order in which CF
experiments are a delicate art? Lewis's ``positive'' results
should suggest any electro-chemist could set up a positive experiment
based on the original P & F paper, with no undue effort.

Empirical reality is that the latter is not true---which makes
one wonder about the re-analysis of Lewis's data which makes it
_look_ positive. 

If we assume, then, that Lewis's results really are negative, then
the re-analysis would point out the error in their ways of the 
positive CF researchers. Perhaps a lot could be learned about 
defects of positive CF research by reading their re-analysis of
Lewis's experiment.

Here's Jed's reference:

     M. H. Miles (Naval Air Weapons Center), B. F. Bush (SRI), D. E.
     Stillwell (CAES), "Calorimetric Principles and Problems in Measurements
     of Excess Power during Pd-D2O Electrolysis," J. Phys. Chem. 1994, 98, p.
     1948-1952

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


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.18 / John Logajan /  Droege's Visit report now on WWW
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Droege's Visit report now on WWW
Date: 18 Mar 1995 02:21:45 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

I have captured the text of Tom Droege's visit to Griggs and have put it
in my www page (url below in my signature.)  Those of you with www browsers
can check it out.  It is, of course, the same as the report that was just
posted to this newsgroup.

--
 - 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:
cuddy18 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 / Cary Jamison /  Re: Neutron claims:  Retraction and Reward Offer
     
Originally-From: cary@svl.trw.com (Cary Jamison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Neutron claims:  Retraction and Reward Offer
Date: 17 Mar 1995 21:43:41 GMT
Organization: TRW ASG

In article <3kanid$k83@deadmin.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry
Merriman) wrote:

> In article <1995Mar15.143600.2126@physc2.byu.edu>  writes:
> > I cannot let this one pass by without comment:
> 
> > A reward of $700 (a local company has told me they will add $1000 to that)
> > for the first 700 neutrons from cold fusion, in these sensitive detectors,
> > will serve to emphasize that claims of cold fusion remain unproven.  
> > This could also be advertised at ICCF-5.
> > 
> > --Steven Jones
> 
> 
> Hey, thats a great idea. Actually, we don;t need the trip 
> fund as colateral for this---the odds that anyone will collect
> are so slim I'd cover that out of my pocket.
[...]

I think the money would be better used for something else, precisely
because the odds are against anyone ever collecting it from this reward.  I
don't think there are many people left who think there is something of a
normal fusion reaction occuring that would produce neutrons.  Most of the
TBs seem to be pursuing other exotic theories.

-- 
Cary Jamison
cary@svl.trw.com
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudencary cudfnCary cudlnJamison cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 /  ProFusion /  ICCF-5 and "Cold Fusion"
     
Originally-From: profusion@aol.com (ProFusion)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ICCF-5 and "Cold Fusion"
Date: 17 Mar 1995 23:22:52 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)


Any readers of this newsgroup that have papers they might wish to include
in *"Cold Fusion"* #9, send them off to this Internet address by Tuesday
the 21st. Publisher Wayne Green will be at Monaco and intends to
distribute several issues to the participants. So if you have some pet
ideas you would like to get in front of prominent scientists whose names
have become familiar in these postings, send them in.

   ---Victor Lapuszynski   <ProFusion@aol.com>
     "Cold Fusion"
      70 Route 202N
      Peterborough, NH 03458-1107

      (603) 924-0058 x 327
 fax: (603) 588-3205
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenprofusion cudlnProFusion cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 / Mark Muhlestein /  Good work, Tom!
     
Originally-From: mmm@park.uvsc.edu (Mark Muhlestein)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Good work, Tom!
Date: 17 Mar 1995 21:41:41 -0700
Organization: Utah Valley State College, Orem, Utah


Greetings!

I would like to publicly thank Tom Droege for the effort he has
expended in investigating the GG.  I definitely feel that my
contribution was well spent!  I hope you feel the trip was worth your
time and effort.

Also, I appreciate the professional manner in which the entire affair
has been handled by all parties.  If all our exchanges were as collegial
as this, I can't help but think it would improve the overall quality of
s.p.f discussions.

One question I'm sure many are pondering, Tom: are you going to wait
until Griggs publishes, or will you try to replicate the effect yourself?

Again, congratulations!

--
Mark Muhlestein -- mmm@artisoft.com -- mmm@park.uvsc.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmmm cudfnMark cudlnMuhlestein cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.18 / Akira Kawasaki /  Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
     
Originally-From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment,sci.
nergy,sci.materials
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
Date: 18 Mar 1995 04:52:40 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3kc9to$hrd@server.st.usm.edu> lrmead@whale.st.usm.edu (Lawrence R. 
Mead) writes: 
       
>How about the ratio of *repeatable results* confirmed/ public dollars?
>
Articles 19022 and 19023 posted here on the Internet 
sci.physics.fusion newsgroup makes for interesting responses to your 
question. Of course there are others but it is not in my capacity to 
rattle them off readily. Perhaps your perusal of any number of cold 
fusion publications available may convince you of repeatability of 
excess heat beyond chemical heat, internationally. And the question that 
arises are, if beyond chemical heat, where is it coming from except by 
nuclear processes and by what mechanism in a solid state enviroment?  
-AK- 

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenaki cudfnAkira cudlnKawasaki cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.18 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Griggs Visit Report Part 1 of 5
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Visit Report Part 1 of 5
Date: 18 Mar 1995 04:53:41 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3kcsi1$snk@fnnews.fnal.gov> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)  
writes:
> 
>     REPORT OF A TRIP TO HYDRO DYNAMICS INC. TO STUDY THE GRIGGS PUMP
> 

Thanks for the report. Interesting to see how you attitude
differs from JR.

First, some questions:

(1) could you estimate the mass of metal available to store heat
in the device you saw, and the type of metal? Or, better,
the basic dimensions: rotor diam , rotor length, is rotor
solid or hollow, and the general shape and dimensions of the
housing. Any other metal besides rotor and housing that is
thermally coupled to the device?

(2) In the hot water test you saw, how much time passed from
when they turned the machine on to when they started the
monitored window of operation that was ``over unity''.

Second: your report suggests that they have liberal 
standards for experiments, compared to the standard employed in 
academic research labs investigating exotic phenomena---basically, 
they buy plenty of off the shelf diagnostics, and if 
they agree fairly well then don't worry about it; then, run 
a standardixed experiment to check the effect.
That is generally a fine procedure, but as you 
indicate, you can't base a claim of radical new physics 
(like over unity) on such a setup and protocol---both require
more extensive testing.

HOWEVER---as jed has also said, the thermocouples being off
a few degrees, etc, etc would not alter the basic effect
which they see, which is a large, sustainable, power-in drop 
for various operating parameter regimes. Their soft _protocols_
for the experiments may cause them to _misdiagnose_ this observed 
mode (i.e., maybe its not over unity), and their off the
shelf diagnostics may further twist the results a bit, 
but I seriously doubt the fundamental effect is in error. 

The problem with your report is that reading it alone, with no
prior info (such as Jed's report) would mislead one to 
think that there may be nothing at all going on except for
miscalibrated diagnostics and lax experimental protocol. For example,
New Scientist could easily run a headline based on your report
``Fermilab Investigator Suspects Poor Technique Behinds Griggs Results''

The reality seems more like those are _issues_, but the effect itself 
is real, forming a seed site for those other problems
to crystalize around, so to speak.

(Or, don;t throw out the baby with the bathwater, as they say.
I don;t think the baby is over unity, but I do suspect its
a different turbulent mode in the device.)









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


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.16 / Samantha Abad /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: saabad@ouray.cudenver.edu (Samantha Abad)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.
stro,sci.edu,sci.energy,sci.engr,sci.logic,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.phys
cs.computational.fluid-dynamics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusio
,sci.physics.particle,sci.research,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.usenet
kooks,alt.sex.fetish.orientals
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 16 Mar 1995 10:54:04 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado at Denver

Christopher Currie (ccurrie@s.psych.uiuc.edu) wrote:

:     There's a contradiction here, i.e., I find it interesting that 
: irreconcilable contradictions can be resolved.  I think what you mean is

This was Ayn Randroid's revolution in philosophy: no contradictions 
allowed.. wow! Gosh, before Rand philosophers just went around deriving 
anything they wanted from their fundamental assumtion: A = -A...

Question: Do the Randroids know anything about philosophy? 

Answer: No. They don't need to they're not philosophers, they're a cult 
        wackos.

---
Samantha Ang Abad
Newbie, any help is appreciated :) :) :)
My views are not necessarily that of Colorado University.

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudensaabad cudfnSamantha cudlnAbad cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.18 / Tom Droege /  Re: Good work, Tom!
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Good work, Tom!
Date: 18 Mar 1995 18:50:14 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3kek5c$96s@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, paulbreed@aol.com (PaulBreed) says:
>
>As another member of the funding effort, I would like
>to thank Tom for his fine work.
>I was impressed with his professional maner.
>I was also impressed with Griggs response.
>I have a suggestion for the remaining $700.
>
>Why don't we buy Griggs an internet connection.
>A modem and a 1 year AOL account would only be $200 or so.
>
>Paul Breed

I think this is the best suggestion yet for the money.  I give it
my 100% endorsement.  Jed, you are local, how about making a visit
and helping him get on line?  That would be an outstanding contribution
on your part.  I would endorse spending all the $700 if that is what
it takes.  

After all, the money was collected to settle the Griggs question.  I 
have only started the process.  So it makes sense to me to put 
Griggs on line.

How about a vote on this from the contributors?  Send messages to 
me and I will keep a tally.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.18 / Tom Droege /  Re: Griggs Visit Report Part 1 of 5
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Visit Report Part 1 of 5
Date: 18 Mar 1995 19:18:25 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3kdp0l$bva@deadmin.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) says:
>
>In article <3kcsi1$snk@fnnews.fnal.gov> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)  
>writes:
>> 
>>     REPORT OF A TRIP TO HYDRO DYNAMICS INC. TO STUDY THE GRIGGS PUMP
>> 
>
>Thanks for the report. Interesting to see how you attitude
>differs from JR.
>
>First, some questions:
>
>(1) could you estimate the mass of metal available to store heat
>in the device you saw, and the type of metal? Or, better,
>the basic dimensions: rotor diam , rotor length, is rotor
>solid or hollow, and the general shape and dimensions of the
>housing. Any other metal besides rotor and housing that is
>thermally coupled to the device?

Of order a cubic foot of steel for the rotor and the housing.  I think
he has made rotors and housings out of a lot of differnt materials.
Certainly aluminum and nylon and I think steel.  One rotor I looket
at was of order three inches thick and say 10" in diameter.  The holes
are radial.  Mostly a big solid chunk of metal.  The housing was very
heavy.  1" thick plate on the ends.

But I do not think the stored energy theory will hold up.
>

>(2) In the hot water test you saw, how much time passed from
>when they turned the machine on to when they started the
>monitored window of operation that was ``over unity''.

I think in my report I estimated 2 F per second during the first 
part of the turn on transient.  With a delta t of order 100 F you 
can estimate tau.

As near as I can see, it was a steady state effect.  The test must have
been running a half hour or so as we talked.  No evidence that anything
was changing.

>
>Second: your report suggests that they have liberal 
>standards for experiments, compared to the standard employed in 
>academic research labs investigating exotic phenomena---basically, 
>they buy plenty of off the shelf diagnostics, and if 
>they agree fairly well then don't worry about it; then, run 

As Jim Griggs made a strong point, they worry about it.  But I think
they do not have the techniques at hand that are common in the scientific
community.  No graphs to study the effect. (I made this point in the
report and Griggs did not counter with statements that he had graphs, but
rather that he had test forms with lots of notes on them,)  Since there
were no graphs of anything, I could not look at the error bars on the
graphs.  They did not even compute the standard deviation of their 
temperature readings.  There was no visible error analysis.  Without an
error analysis, they do not (In my opinion) have science.

>a standardixed experiment to check the effect.
>That is generally a fine procedure, but as you 
>indicate, you can't base a claim of radical new physics 
>(like over unity) on such a setup and protocol---both require
>more extensive testing.
>
>HOWEVER---as jed has also said, the thermocouples being off
>a few degrees, etc, etc would not alter the basic effect

Sorry, you bet they would.  A few degrees could explain the entire 
effect that I saw.  It was of order 8%.   So to first order it only 
takes an 8% thermometer error.  I agree this sounds like a lot, but 
try it and see.  That is why I did not do a delta T experiment for my
cold fusion work.  It is very difficult.  But they did not present 
step one to me, which is a graph of their 6 thermocouples vs tempreature.
Then one could start estimating the error.

>which they see, which is a large, sustainable, power-in drop 
>for various operating parameter regimes. Their soft _protocols_

Not true for the hot water case.  This is only true for the steam
case.  I specifically asked this question.  But they presented a hot
water test and did not claim there was a drop in input power when
the effect started.  It was just a steady state presentation.

>for the experiments may cause them to _misdiagnose_ this observed 
>mode (i.e., maybe its not over unity), and their off the
>shelf diagnostics may further twist the results a bit, 
>but I seriously doubt the fundamental effect is in error. 

What fundamental effect?

>
>The problem with your report is that reading it alone, with no
>prior info (such as Jed's report) would mislead one to 
>think that there may be nothing at all going on except for
>miscalibrated diagnostics and lax experimental protocol. For example,

Uh?  Did I say something different from this?

>New Scientist could easily run a headline based on your report
>``Fermilab Investigator Suspects Poor Technique Behinds Griggs Results''
>
>The reality seems more like those are _issues_, but the effect itself 
>is real, forming a seed site for those other problems

What evidence do you see that the effect is "real"?  I see a bunch of 
thermocouples and some power measuring devices, and a flow measurement
and *no* calibration log book, and *no* error analysis.  

>to crystalize around, so to speak.
>
>(Or, don;t throw out the baby with the bathwater, as they say.
>I don;t think the baby is over unity, but I do suspect its
>a different turbulent mode in the device.)
>

Who knows.  But I do think that finding out will take a while.  I am not
optimistic that anyone will be able to go in and find the "answer" in 
a day or two.  That is why I did not stay longer.  

My real point.  We should not do Griggs' work for him.  It is up to him
to do convincing measurements and to make a proper presentation of them.
I don't think a good measurement can be made by a "team" going in for a
few days.  This type of energy measurement takes years of effort by 
experimenters trained in error detection.  It took me several years to
get my cold fusion work down to where I understood the errors.  I had
a lot of help from colleagues for whom error analysis is a profession.
Griggs has obviously not had this kind of help.  I say get Griggs on
line here and have him present results for our criticism.  He will then 
be able to improve his technique. 

Tom Droege

>
>--
>Barry Merriman
>UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
>UCLA Dept. of Math
>bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
>
>
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.18 /  ElliotKenl /  Re: Signature of Stored Energy
     
Originally-From: elliotkenl@aol.com (ElliotKenl)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Signature of Stored Energy
Date: 18 Mar 1995 14:37:59 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

PMFBI, but would not the energy of formation of aluminum oxide be
inseparable from the stored energy hypothesis?  Since aluminum can burn in
water, how would you separate chemical energy from sensible heat?

Best regards,
Elliot Kennel
Yellow Springs OH
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenelliotkenl cudlnElliotKenl cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.18 / Tom Droege /  Re: Griggs Report
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Report
Date: 18 Mar 1995 19:39:55 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3keuc9$kg3@msunews.cl.msu.edu>, schamber@egr.msu.edu (Alter ) says:
>
>Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
>
>>OK, here is a report that will please no one!  Now for the
>>discussion.
>
>>Tom Droege
>
>I am a senior in mechanical engineering at Michigan state
>University. It would seem quite simple to understand the energy inputs
>and system boundries. 
>
>There are three energy inputs and one energy output. The two pumps are
>centrifugal pumps? The water itself has some enthalpy, ie a
>temperature dependant energy. 

One of the things missing from the Griggs paper in ICCF4 is any idea 
of how he computes the result.  He did not burden me with his calculation
proceedure either.  We only have the single formula:

     COP   =  energy out/energy in

There is discussion about power meters, weighing water in barrels, etc,,
but nothing that looks like thermodynamics to me.  

>
>It is important to note that one cannot use the enthalpy formula over
>a large temperature range. The Cp changes with temperature. It is more
>accurate to use water and steam tables with spline interpolation. I

They are doing something in their computer that takes a lot of time.
Possibly it is some such calculation.  But to review that proceedure
requires a paper where they describe how they do the computation and 
a long discussion of all the thermodynamic principals that they have 
considered.  There analysis would not get a passing grade in a 
thermodynamics class.  At least not the one in their only available
paper available to me, the ICCF4 paper.  I asked for papers and did 
not get any others.  

>have written a QBasic program to do that. Matlab can do that kind of
>interpolation. Given a large table one can do linear interpolation by

Possibly they are running with something like Matlab.  I only know it
is very slow for the described computation. 

>hand with some accuracy. The format of such a table is given: (liquid
>vs vapor, air pressure, temperature) yields enthalpy. 
>
>If one uses the formula:
>                 h=Cp * T 
>where:
>        h=enthalpy [kJ/kg]
>        Cp=specific heat = 4.184 [kj/(kg K)]
>        T = temperature [Kelvin or Centigrade]
>
>one falls victim to the fact that Cp is not constant over a large
>temperature range, say more than 10 degrees K.

The hot water test showed an 8% excess and about a 100 F rise.  Can 
you explain that on the basis of a constant Cp assumption?  Throw in 
a few percent on the thermometers and can you explain everything?

>
>I mention this because it seems that they might not have looked at the
>thermodynamics books in a long time judging from their experimental
>technique and in spite of claims of "I am an engineer, dammit!".
>
>So the enthalpy rate of the water mass flow should exactly equal the
>mechanical energy input within the error predicted.

"Error limits, we don't need no stinking error limits"

> 
>The problem becomes measuring the mechanical energy input and the
>enthalpies of the input and output water. I'll bet I could find the
>errors in their calculations if I could look at the raw data. 
>
>Also you TG mentions that no error analysis was done. There is a
>mathematical technique (do I have to review it for some readers?) for
>predicting the error of the results given the known or expected errors
>in the measurable variables. If the predicted error by this technique
>was greater than the deviation from COP=1 then the claims of over
>unity are invalid. Without this error analysis, there is simply no way
>to come to a conclusion. If we did not include the required

You would also have to educate me as to the details as I have never 
taken such a course.  I have also never made Mayonaise.  But I know 
both things exist.  And I can recognize good from bad.

>mathematical error analysis in the thermodynamics labs we would have
>received a 0.0 or told to correct it before it could be accepted. This
>analysis is absolutely necessary for evaluation of Griggs' claims. 

Yep.  And you won't find it.  Griggs has to do his home work before he
should even be given consideration.  

>
>My prediction is that if such a mathematical analysis was performed,
>that over-unity would be disproven.

Hay!  Who said their is any claim to prove?  Not Griggs.  He says he
does not claim over unity operation.  See his letter.  So what are 
we all debating about?

Tom Droege
>
>later
>Larry Schamber
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.18 / Tom Droege /  Re: Good work, Tom!
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Good work, Tom!
Date: 18 Mar 1995 19:46:38 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3kdoa5$4c2@park.uvsc.edu>, mmm@park.uvsc.edu (Mark Muhlestein) says:
>
>
>Greetings!
>
>I would like to publicly thank Tom Droege for the effort he has
>expended in investigating the GG.  I definitely feel that my
>contribution was well spent!  I hope you feel the trip was worth your
>time and effort.
>
>Also, I appreciate the professional manner in which the entire affair
>has been handled by all parties.  If all our exchanges were as collegial
>as this, I can't help but think it would improve the overall quality of
>s.p.f discussions.
>

In face to face discussion Griggs stated to me that he does not claim
an over unity device.  This statement is repeated in his letter.  Who 
am I to disaggree with someone who has been doing this work for 5+ 
years?  Perhaps if he publishes a good paper I will reconsider. 

Tom Droege

>One question I'm sure many are pondering, Tom: are you going to wait
>until Griggs publishes, or will you try to replicate the effect yourself?
>
>Again, congratulations!
>
>--
>Mark Muhlestein -- mmm@artisoft.com -- mmm@park.uvsc.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.18 / Tom Droege /  Re: Suggestion for CF testing - buy a Griggs pump
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Suggestion for CF testing - buy a Griggs pump
Date: 18 Mar 1995 19:57:11 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <1995Mar18.184304.9034@tron.bwi.wec.com>, hayman@ami1.bwi.wec
com (M. Hayman) says:
>
>   Recently I have seen a couple of posts from researchers requesting 
>access to a claimed over unity device so that they may run their own 
>expert calorimetry measurements on it in their own facilities.  It seems 
>like the Griggs pump, which sounds as though it is commercially available 
>(price?), would be an excellent choice.  Any takers?  (not affiliated 
>with HDI in any way - just an interested S.P.F reader).

I did not get a clear answer when I asked about price.  There was a 150Hp
unit on the floor being built.  My guess is it is $50,000 +/- $30,000.  I
think he did mention one price but it fell through the recording process.
Then there is the expense of getting 3 Phase power to your building.  

If Griggs would publish a paper with the scientific principal exposed, 
I think it would not be too hard to build a laboratory scale version and
to make precision measurements.  But note that until he publishes a paper
that claims a principal, that this is exposing yourself to a sucker 
punch.  He can just say it is not like my pump.  

Tom Droege

>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>M. Hayman
>Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
>hayman@ami1.bwi.wec.com
>
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.18 / Tom Droege /  Re: Grigg visit: Droege found no error
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Grigg visit: Droege found no error
Date: 18 Mar 1995 20:09:16 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <ZM6aOlR.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com says:

(snip)

>Potential Problem 1. Ultrasound affecting the thermocouples. I measured the
>water temperature with mercury thermometers and thermistors before the machine
>was turned on and after it was turned off. The numbers did not change.
>Furthermore, when you turn off the machine and the ultrasound stops, the
>thermocouple readings do not change. Droege could easily have observed this
>himself, if he had watched the computer screen. If ultrasound, mechanical
>vibration or anything else from the machine was affecting the thermocouples,
>then obviously when the machine is turned off the readings would jump to a new
>value.

This is a good point and a good observation.  But I made clear that I 
did not intend to measure the equipment, I intended to measure the 
people.  At least Jim Griggs now says that he will keep a laboratory
notebook.  I was really surprised that he did not have one.  His patent
attorney should have taught him that.  I would have been much more 
impressed had I asked the question about ultrasound and had been shown
the page in the log book where it was investigated.  

> 
>Potential Problem 2. Aux pump adding spurious excess heat. This was tested for
>by running the pump alone, and in the blank rotor tests. Droege discussed the
>blank tests himself, yet he failed to notice that the aux pump is used in

But because delta t is different this is not a valid test.

>every case. Furthermore, he failed to notice that the electrical rating of aux
(snip)

Tom Droege
 
>- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.18 / Bruce Dunn /  Thermocouple positioning
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Thermocouple positioning
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 95 13:10:53 -0800
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

Tom Droege writes:

>
>     There is a flow meter and they weigh the water to check it.  There
> are
>     six (6) count em thermocouples on the input and six on the output.
>     There is at least one more dial thermometer on the output.


        Can you please clarify "on the output".  Do you mean that the
thermocouples are taped, glued or otherwise fixed to a pipe, or are they
thermocouples which screw into a pipe fitting and project into the water
flow inside the pipe?
        I am worried about possible non-homogeneous flow, in which due to
the action of the rotor and the associated outflow port and piping, parts
of a cross section of the water flow are at a higher temperature than other
parts.  If the flow in the output pipe is laminar and non uniform in
temperature over a cross section, putting the thermocouples in the hot part
of the flow could give apparent excess energy.  Such a mechanism would
probably not be able to account for results when the apparatus is run in
steam generating mode (where the whole output is injected into a barrel
with enough force to cause good mixing).

        If the thermocouples are external to the pipe, are they shielded
from radiant heat from other parts of the apparatus?


--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously - more info sources
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic,alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously - more info sources
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 04:35:17 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <D5KAGx.IA8@world.std.com> mitchell swartz, mica@world.std.com
writes:
AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN, (ahem)
>    Despite the too  often rabid attacks, 
[ ... the above are the cue words for the same old ad for Cold Fusion
Times ... ] 
>  The COLD FUSION TIMES
>  ($120. per year) is entirely dedicated to novel R&D in this field.

... etc...

Mitch, since you're posting this ad repeatedly, perhaps you should
consider disclosing your financial stake in CF Times.  Also, would
you mind reconsidering the reposting of this article every single
time someone mentions the magazine?  This is more than once a 
week, it seems.  Even the FAQ is only posted every two weeks!  
And this (sci.physics.fusion) *is* a science newsgroup, not an 
advertising forum.  Ads don't really belong here, and certainly
not more than once every several months in any case.

Note to Dieter:  Where's that MODERATED group when you need it?

***************************
Robert F. Heeter
Email:  rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Web:  http://w3.pppl.gov/~rfheeter
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not Princeton!
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.18 / Jim Carr /  Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment,sci.
aterials,sci.energy
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
Date: 18 Mar 1995 16:42:38 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute


Note followups set to sci.physics.fusion, which is the group dedicated 
to the discussion of these questions -- which are approaching their 
sixth anniversary!  My, how time flies ....


In article <3k8jo5$2qv@newsbf02.news.aol.com> 
ericpbliss@aol.com (EricPBliss) writes:
>
>I'd love more explanation as I am rather ignorant is this area...
>I continue to ask information from my department, but I am always met with
>the same respone:  that cold fusion is a hoax.  

That is a bit strong.  There may have been some misrepresentations 
bordering on fraud as regards one figure shown in the original P&F 
paper, but the farthest I would go is self-delusion in analogy to the 
N-ray debacle early in this century.  However, there are those who 
continue to claim excess heat, and it could be that a canonical, 
reproducible experiment will be described that we can all go to work on 
understanding -- or we may even get to study the promised water heater. 

Claims of effects "beyond chemistry" continue to be made, but the case 
that this is isomorphic to nuclear fusion remains unproved. 

>                                               I still believe that it is
>all a matter of semantics...cold fusion really has nothing to do with
>fusion as we knew it 10 years ago...

Probably so.  Or the more recently employed reaction process used to 
make superheavy nuclei that is also called cold fusion.  But then 
why do you write the following? 

>I'm sorry for mis-interpreting the physics point of view of fusion of
>subatomic particles, but if these subatomic particles (which I do know of
>from nuclear chemistry) are only catalysts for what we call real fusion,
>I'm pretty sure that is not proven to the scientific community...

To the contrary, it was demonstrated in 1957 by Alvarez.  Muon catalyzed 
fusion is 'real fusion' but it does not take place at high temperature. 
The muon, which acts as a heavy electron, serves to provide a way to 
tunnel the coulomb barrier by virture of its Bohr radius being about 
200 times smaller than that of an electron 'orbitting' hydrogen or its
isotopes.  Steve Jones coined the name "cold fusion" for this process 
in his Scientific American article on the subject. 

This is well known to both physicists and chemists working on atomic 
or nuclear problems.  I was asked about muonic atoms on my comps. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  Tallahassee, where the crime rate 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  is almost twice that in New York 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  City.  Reported crimes, that is.  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  A subtle statistical detail.  
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.18 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Jed's logic
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed's logic
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 95 17:05:30 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Richard A Blue <blue@pilot.msu.edu> writes:
 
>is faulty to begin with.  There is a third possibility C lurking in the
>background that must be considered.  It is possible the CF claims are
>based on something that is neither chemical nor nuclear.
 
Don't be tiresome Dick. And stop trying to fool the readers of this forum.
You know perfectly well that I do not assert CF must be fusion per se.
No doubt fusion is involved at some level, because CF reactions do produce
helium and tritium, but I have always left the door open to some other
cause neither chemical nor nuclear. It might ZPE, it might be something
completely unknown to science. I have repeated that dozens of times --
hundreds of times! -- over the years, and I am sure you are well aware of
my views. So why are you stuffing this irrational "either/or" statement into
my mouth? You know perfectly well what I think.
 
We all know your views too. I am sure that when you talk about possibilities
"lurking in the background" you mean that CF is a fraud or a hoax. Goodness
knows you have asserted that dozens of times. I am sure you believe that, but
you are wrong. You "skeptics" will believe anything -- any damn thing at all
-- rather than accepting the simple truth that CF produces heat beyond
chemistry, and that the effect is real.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.18 /  jedrothwell@de /  Merriman's comments on Lewis
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Merriman's comments on Lewis
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 95 17:08:18 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

[This is another message out of sequence. Sorry to start a new thread. . .]
 
barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
 
     "But then the curious point is: if Lewis's experiments were positive,
     doesn;t that mean its pretty easy to replicaticate the CF results?"
 
No, that would be an absurd conclusion. Lewis got a very slight effect because
he used clean Pd free of cracks, evenly loaded, with reasonable
instrumentation. There are dozens of well-known ways to screw up the
experiment, but he managed to avoid the fatal ones, so he did get a slight
effect. That does not mean it is "pretty easy."
 
 
     "After all, Lewis was set up his cells shortly after the original P & F
     announcement, and without the benefit of any inside knowledge or
     improved technique from the intervening 4 years, and he didn't even have
     the multi-month loading time supposedly needed, etc."
 
There is no need for multi-month loading. No "inside" knowledge is needed to
perform a good CF experiment: the peer-reviewed published literature tells you
everything you to know. A skilled electrochemist who reads the literature and
who works diligently and carefully with the proper equipment will see the
effect. It is true, however, that during the last four years improved
knowledge and vastly better techniques have been discovered. That is why
someone like Arata is able to get 2 to 3 orders of magnitude more power and 6
orders of magnitude more energy than Lewis or even Pons and Fleischmann got in
1989.
 
 
     "Lewis's ``positive'' results should suggest any electro-chemist could
     set up a positive experiment based on the original P & F paper, with no
     undue effort."
 
That's absurd. For one thing, Lewis is a pretty darn good electrochemist, even
though he slipped up badly in this particular experiment. He did not make the
kind of absurd mistakes that many physicists and others have made over the
years. I am sure there were no dead flies in his cell.
 
 
     "Empirical reality is that the latter is not true---which makes one
     wonder about the re-analysis of Lewis's data which makes it _look_
     positive. . . . If we assume, then, that Lewis's results really are
     negative . . ."
 
This is preposterous unscientific nonsense. *Empirical reality* is what we
measure in the laboratory with thermistors and voltmeters. *Empirical reality*
is that a properly done CF experiment produces massive excess energy far
beyond the limits of chemistry. You do not dictate to nature what empirical
reality is and then start drawing conclusions from your version of it! We can
make no "assumption" that Lewis's results really are negative, because they
really are positive. There is no doubt about it. The analysis performed by
Miles is straightforward, conventional and without error. It is based upon
Newton's law of cooling (as Miles says). In science, you cannot arbitrarily
declare that excess heat = no excess heat or 200 = 300. An assumption that
flies in the face of the facts is not science.
Unless Merriman can spot an error in Miles' analysis, he must admit there is
excess heat in the Lewis experiment -- assuming the data is good, of course.
We cannot arbitrarily wave our hands, redefine empirical reality, and rewrite
Newton's law of cooling.
 
I am quite sure that Lewis's data *is* good, because the CF effect has been
widely replicated at S/N ratios hundreds of times better than Lewis saw, in
laboratories all across the world, at power levels and net energy outputs
thousands of times higher than Lewis observed. *That* is empirical reality.
The only reason why Merriman would disagree with me on this is because he has
never bothered to read the literature so he does not even know about these
other experiments, or if he does know he pretends they do not exist. Merriman
has many mistaken and absurd ideas about CF, like the idea that a month's long
loading period is required. That sort of comment shows that he has not read
any papers.
 
 
     ". . . then the re-analysis would point out the error in their ways of
     the positive CF researchers. Perhaps a lot could be learned about
     defects of positive CF research by reading their re-analysis of Lewis's
     experiment. . . ."
 
No, very little can be learned, because the work was marginal, calibration
non-existent, and the technique was sloppy. The error he made is transparent.
To my knowledge, nobody else has made it, and nobody else is likely to. If you
want to learn how to do a proper CF experiment, read McKubre, Pons and
Fleischmann, Miles, Arata, Storms or any of the others. There are hundreds of
good papers in this field, showing how to do the experiments right and how to
get a definitive answer. Why bother with the rotten papers and marginal stuff
from 1989? Lewis inadvertently did prove that the CF effect exists. So did MIT
and Harwell. But their work is sloppy, marginal and their instrumentation is
nowhere near as sensitive as you see in the serious labs today.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 / Doug Shade /  tic-toc-tic-toc-tic-toc...
     
Originally-From: rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com (Doug Shade)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: tic-toc-tic-toc-tic-toc...
Date: 17 Mar 1995 20:34:06 GMT
Organization: Motorola LICD


The suspense is just killing me.

Doug Shade
rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrxjf20 cudfnDoug cudlnShade cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 / Max Karasik /  Re: Electrostatic Confinement (Hot) Fusion Status?
     
Originally-From: mkarasik@ccf.pppl.gov (Max Karasik)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Electrostatic Confinement (Hot) Fusion Status?
Date: 17 Mar 1995 18:23:45 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

	Ray Fonck is doing work in electrostatic confinement at 
University of Wisconsin.  He gave a talk about it recently at PPPL.  He thinks 
there are problems with using it as a fusion reactor because the machines don't
scale up, but that it might be useful as a portable neutron source. 

Max.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmkarasik cudfnMax cudlnKarasik cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.18 / Jim Carr /  Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously
Date: 18 Mar 1995 18:25:35 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

|Jim Carr <jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> writes:
| 
|>If it was that simple, CF would be where superconductors are today. 
|>It was not, and it wallows now as it has for years. 

In article <B844ORK.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> 
>Um, Jim? Where were superconductors 5 years after they were discovered, back
>in 1911? Where were transistors 5 years after work began on them, in 1931?

They were demonstrated in experiments that other people could reproduce 
or examine for themselves.  Ever see the little amplifier box Bardeen 
and Shockley had for that purpose?  Are you aware of the literature on 
superconductivity in those first 5 years, or (the more relevant case 
given today's communication and technical sophistication) of high-Tc 
in the past 5 years.  There is still not theory for high-Tc that is 
agreed on by the community, but the phenomenon is clearly described. 

So stick to these two, Jed, and lets see how your statements stand 
up to scrutiny.  Got any evidence for those assertions above? 

 ... irrelevant examples added to obfuscate the issue ...

>  ...  All of these technologies "wallowed" in difficult R&D phases for
>*decades* after they were first concieved. 

Not conceived, demonstrated.  Reproduced by many other scientists.  The 
technology came later, but the phenomenon was clear an unambiguous. 

But if you want to add a few examples from history, how about something 
revolutionary, as revolutionary as CF is supposed to be.  How about 
X-rays?  That went from science to technology in a matter of months. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  Tallahassee, where the crime rate 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  is almost twice that in New York 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  City.  Reported crimes, that is.  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  A subtle statistical detail.  
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.18 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Good work, Tom!
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Good work, Tom!
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 1995 12:17 -0500 (EST)

paulbreed@aol.com (PaulBreed) writes:
 
-> Why don't we buy Griggs an internet connection.
-> A modem and a 1 year AOL account would only be $200 or so.
 
Buy him a modem if you like.  I would be willing to give him a free Internet
connection here.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.18 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Griggs Visit Report Part 1 of 5
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Visit Report Part 1 of 5
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 1995 14:59 -0500 (EST)

Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
 
-> Sorry, you bet they would.  A few degrees could explain the entire
-> effect that I saw.  It was of order 8%.   So to first order it only
-> takes an 8% thermometer error.
 
This is misleading.  It would take an 8% delta error (ignoring the specific
heat vs temperature curve for water), not an 8% absolute error. The difference
is quite a bit. If they are running at 60F inlet and 160F outlet then the delta
is 100F. If you use the arbitrary Fahrenheit scale (and using the outlet
temperature for a basis) then you would be 60% high. If you use the proper
scale for temperature (Rankine for fahrenheit degrees) then you would be
computing an error 6.2 times the actual error. (160+460 = 620, which is 6.2
times too high).  Differential temperatures are what are important for a first
approximation.  As long as the water stays in the liquid state then errors in
the absolute temperature fall out of the equation except for second order
effects such as S.H. vs temperature non-linearities.
 
One must not forget that the Fahrenheit scale is offset by almost 460 degrees
for absolute.
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.18 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Jed's logic
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed's logic
Date: 18 Mar 1995 23:46:39 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <pExa2ta.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

> You "skeptics" will believe anything -- any damn thing at all
> -- rather than accepting the simple truth that CF produces heat beyond
> chemistry.
>  

Well, not quite---we won't ``believe anything''; instead, we will
_suggest any alternative_ prior to accepting a revolution in physics.

You don't seem to understand the essence of skepticism, which is 
to question claims, and generally to do so in proprortion to 
how incredible those claims are. Rather, you have a fairly 
low threshhold for acceptance---if a few scientists see some sort of 
effect, then you are satisfied (even in the presence of equally
fine scientists like Steve Jones, who, for some reason, can't
for the life of them get the effect.)

Also, you shouldn't confuse skepticism with close-mindedness: ideally,
there are two phases of research: a creative phase in which new ideas
are brought forth, without criticism, and then an investigative phase
which is entirely critical.

The CF idea is out there now, and I think its a great _idea_
(I always did---its been around in a well articulated form
since the 1960's, as least; it just didn't generate so 
much attention until P&F made claims to have actually 
realized it in a very simple system). Now its time for the critical
investigation, and one key component of this is wide spread
replicability of the same experiment. _Once_ that is achieved, then 
there can be detailed investigation of what is goind on there. 

However, as it stands, there is a small number of scientists who
claim to have a variety of positive results, and a similar number
of scientists who have given up and/or found specific problems
that were generating false-positives in their exeperiments. So,
even in most optimistic terms, we are comparing apples and oranges.
The only way to advance now is for the postive CF researchers to 
publish very explicit details, and to actively campaign for
other folks to replicate/collaborate with them to reproduce and
better diagnose their results.

Until that happens, expect skeptics to continue to cast a skewed
glance at CF.

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


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.18 / Barry Merriman /  Re: N.Lewis' calorimetric results
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: N.Lewis' calorimetric results
Date: 18 Mar 1995 23:59:33 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <0098D812.3891A620.66@FSCVAX.FSC.MASS.EDU>  
vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu writes:
> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> This letter is in connection with the question someone asked 
> about N.Lewis' calorimetric results published in Nature and 
> in Science. As we have shown in Fusion Technology, 23, 474 (1993) 
> the calorimetric method used by N.Lewis et al is inappropriate. 

All very interesting---but why didn;t anyone bring this up earlier?
Seems like a rather explosive point, since NL's results were key 
in reducing the interest in CF.

>I wrote 16 letters to 
> each one of the authors of the MIT paper published in J.Fusion Energy; 
> the only technical reply by S.Lockhardt even further confirmed the 
> conclusion that MIT have produced excess heat. 

Who is S. Lockhardt? I know a Stan Luckhardt---is it the same guy?
Jst curious.

> Careful observation of the literature data seems to reveal that, despite 
> the created opinion, the appearance of excess heat is always readily 
> reproducible in all cases 

> 
> Vesselin Noninski 

This is very interesting----I'd like to hear from Tom Droege and
Steve Jones, both of whom tried very hard for years, and were unable
to get the ``effect'' (and moreover, found various traps one could
fall into along the way).


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


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Mar 19 04:37:07 EST 1995
------------------------------
