1995.03.19 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Good work, Tom!
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Good work, Tom!
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 95 10:54:26 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Tom Droege <Droege@fnal.fnal.gov> writes:
 
>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.  
 
Griggs is an electrical engineer, he would not need any help from the likes
of me! I am sure he could set up an e-mail account easily. But I expect he
is much too busy for that, and I am quite positive he will never publicly
say anything more than he already said in his reply to you. He is much too
smart for that. As he said in the reply to you, he has seen what happens to
people who make claims like this, and he does not intend to let that happen
to him. He would never publish a paper or make any claims on Internet. I think
he would have to be a first class idiot if he did! He does not need to make
any claims. The machine speaks for itself. Anyone can get a power meter and
a thermometer, visit him, and find out for certain that the machine
produces massive excess energy. There is no call for a debate or public
declaration when you can show anyone physical proof anytime you like. If he
got tangled up in a debate here, or if newspaper reporters and people from
"New Scientist" magazine showed up at his door he would soon get in hot water
and endless time wasting nonsense.
 
Griggs deals with businessmen and plant engineers, not scientists. That's
because businessmen have money and they buy his product. It is also because
businessmen have their heads screwed on straight and they are infinitely more
practical and sensible than scientists.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.19 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 95 11:14:27 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Richard Schultz <schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu> writes:
 
>Have you read *any* of the relevant literature on nuclear physics?  If you
>had, you might understand that the physicists' objection to deuterium
>fusion without energetic products is at least as well-grounded as your
>claim that no chemical process can get above 18 eV/atom.  What is the
 
You are mistaken. The literature on the limits of chemistry goes back much
farther than the literature on nuclear fusion. It goes back thousands of
years, in fact. Any cavemen would have know that match will not burn for a
week. In the modern era, theories describing chemical electron bonds were
perfected long before physicists began to suspect you could not trigger a
nuclear reaction at room temperature (except by slamming U isotopes
together).
 
In any case, I am not referring to theory. I have no use for theory. I am
talking about actual observations: experimental data. Nobody has ever seen
a chemical reaction that produced more than about 8 eV per atom. Nobody
has ever attempted to make an ultra-high power density rocket fuel with more
than 18 eV per atom. On the other hand, lots and LOTS of people have now done
CF experiments at room temperature, and they have seen heat, tritium, neutrons
charged particles and other unmistakeable evidence of a nuclear reaction.
Therefore, CF is nuclear. Perhaps it is something else too, but it must have
a nuclear component. Not only that, but a casual examination of a cell
shows that CF is *not* chemical. All chemical reactions that produce
macroscopic levels of heat also produce macroscopic changes: smoke, ash,
color change, and other easily observed changes. After a CF has operated for
a few months, and produced, say, 100 megajoules of energy from a mass of a
few grams, you can open up the cell and see that no chemical changes have
occured.
 
As I said before, if you think it is chemistry, the ball is in your court.
Tell us what chemical reaction can produce, say, 350 MJ from 16 grams of
matter with absolutely no macroscopic changes to the material. Go ahead!
Name *one* chemical reaction that can do that, any reaction you like. When
you finish looking through the chemistry textbook you will see that no
chemical reaction can produce even one-ten-thousandth of that much energy.
While you are at it, tell us what chemical reaction can convert deuterium
into tritium and hydrogen. Claytor, at Los Alamos, has been producing tritium
for years in his CF experiments. Do you call that chemistry? What does
chemistry mean, in that case? My understand is that when you start converting
isotopes into other isotopes or other elements, that is not chemistry
anymore. Maybe you have a new definition. How do you explain Claytor's work?
Ah, that is a silly question! I should know better. Obviously you will
respond by saying that you have never heard of Claytor, you have never even
heard of Los Alamos, and even if he has been doing the experiments for years
you don't believe it, and you will never ever bother to read any of
literature and find out about it. Right? That's what "skeptics" always say.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.19 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Electrostatic Confinement (Hot) Fusion Status?
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Electrostatic Confinement (Hot) Fusion Status?
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1995 11:02 -0500 (EST)

mkarasik@ccf.pppl.gov (Max Karasik) writes:
 
->         Ray Fonck is doing work in electrostatic confinement at
-> University of Wisconsin.  He gave a talk about it recently at PPPL.  He thin
-> there are problems with using it as a fusion reactor because the machines do
-> scale up, but that it might be useful as a portable neutron source.
 
I don't understand how electrostatic confinement could work.  If you start with
a sphere and apply charge to the sphere, there is absolutely no electric field
inside the sphere.
 
Is there a point in the center kept somehow negative?  And if so, what keeps
the plasma from rushing to that point and destroying it?
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.19 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Griggs Visit Report Part 2 of 5
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Visit Report Part 2 of 5
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1995 11:20 -0500 (EST)

matt@physics7.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:
 
 
-> In article <3kcsmn$snk@fnnews.fnal.gov> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) wr
->
-> >     effective presentation.  The only strange thing was the speed of
-> >     operation.  It took a half minute or so between data points.  This
-> >     reading only 12 thermocouples the torque meter and a few other things.
-> >     Parker said that the computation part of the loop took all the time.
-> >     Somehow unfolding the thermocouple curves took time.  I suppose some
-> >     inverse functions in some instrumentation language could take time.
-> >     Sigh! A 486 should be able to go at blinding speed for this
-> >     application.  But this is not a criticism, the system is adequate, thi
-> >     is just a comment of curiosity.
->
-> I disagree.  I think this is a criticism, and a serious one; in fact,
-> I thought it was the most extraordinary comment in the whole article.
->
-> What we know now is that the data acquisition system is doing some
-> highly nontrivial computations; it isn't just reading numbers from an
-> I/O port and storing them in a file.  Half a minute of numerical
-> computation on a 486 is some serious number crunching.
 
I am not convienced this is the case.  There is another possibility.  If you
assume that the a/d is on a 32 channel board, and that the a/d is a 20 bit
(6 digit) unit with a 1 Megahertz clock, then you would get only about 1
conversions per second.  This refresh time is quite typical of a lot of hand
held digital volt meters which use a less accurate a/d and a slower clock.
With 16 or 32 channels, each would end up getting read only every 16 or 32
seconds. If I recall correctly a dual slope unit would be half as fast again
for any specific clock rate.
 
The amount of math necessary to account for this time is beyond what I could
call reasonable.  I think it  more likely a effect of the a/d.  Also, on any
data taking, you want the data points equally spaced.  Relying on the time
necessary to crunch data between measurements to define this time would be
unwise since it would vary with the data.  Normally you use the a/d time, if it
is perodic, or you set a timer up to trigger conversion at a set period.  The
latter is another possibility, and could indicate that the operator knows very
little about his acquisition system.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.19 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1995 11:27 -0500 (EST)

barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
 
 
-> In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.950317145345.10861G-100000@gladstone> Ed Matthews
-> <ewm@gladstone.uoregon.edu> writes:
->
-> > FYI, one of the big issues that catalyzed the American revolution was the
-> > taxation level which they considered to be tyrannical: 2%.
->
-> Uh, somehow I find that hard to believe. I seriously doubt anyone would
-> get outraged enough to stage a revolution over a flat 2% personal
-> income tax. I suspect you are taking this figure out of context.
 
They did not have income tax then.  If I remember my American history correctly
they taxed some goods, most notably tea.  Most Americans at that time having
come from England, had to have their daily tea.  A 2% overall tax rate (if that
is what it was) applied to tea (and a few other goods) would have brought the
tea up to an absurdly high price.  This resulted in what is commonly called the
Boston Tea party, and is responsible to this day for Americans drinking much
more coffee than tea, which is quite the opposite of our English friends who's
traditions more nearly reflect those of the US prior to this "party".
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.19 / Alan M /  Re: Grigg visit: Droege found no error
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Grigg visit: Droege found no error
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1995 09:14:35 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <ZM6aOlR.jedrothwell@delphi.com>  jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> 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:

The difference between Tom and you, Jed, is that Tom has peer credibility.
-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.19 / John White /  Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously
     
Originally-From: jnw@elvis.vnet.net (John N. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously
Date: 19 Mar 1995 12:41:15 -0500
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

> jnw@elvis.vnet.net (John N. White) writes:
>                                 ...  Chemistry can easily explain
>      4MJ per liter of electrolyte (from the decomposition of Peroxide).
>      In fact, I am not aware of any burst that is clearly above calorimetry
>      error and which exceeds 4MJ/l."
 
jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> For Crying Out Loud John, read the literature. PLEASE read the literature
> before cluttering the bandwidth with comments like this. Piantelli reported
> 320 MJ from a fraction of a liter!

Piantelli? As I recall, he suspended a Nickel rod in hydrogen and heated it.
He found that it got hotter than a stainless steel rod. After 100 days he
calculated that the Pd rod must have produced 320 MJ of excess heat.

But his calorimetry was sloppy, to say the least. He used only a single
temperature sensor, and he made the extremely dubious assumption that
the thermal conductivity of the Hydrogen gas would be well behaved.
(In fact, the thermal conductivity of Hydrogen is very sensitive to
impurities and details of the convection patterns.)
Piantelli really needs to follow up with some better experiments.

However, I was referring to *electrolytic* cells. Also, I was referring
to bursts that are clearly above calorimetry error, with excess heat
being several times total I*V input during the burst. It is easy to
get huge amounts of "excess heat" with a calorimeter error and a very
long run time.

> Hundreds of other experiments have gone far beyond your standard.

I have seen plenty of results, but none that have gone beyond my standard.

> As early as 1991 McKubre reported 45.1 MJ/mole of cathode material,
> or 450 eV/atom. No chemical process can get above 18 eV/atom.

As has been pointed out many times, it is easy to get any amount of chemical
storage per mole of cathode because the energy is stored in the vastly
greater volume of the electrolyte.
 
McKubre did have some interesting looking results, but as time went on
and he worked the errors out of his calorimetry, his excess heat shrank
to a mere 2%. Then, he suddenly started turning away from excellent
opportunities to present his results. That prompted Tom Droege to
comment something like "For those who like to read the entrails,
this is ominous". Tom was right. I don't know exactly what McKubre
told his sponsors, EPRI, but I understand that they have now terminated
their funding of cold fusion.
-- 
jnw@vnet.net
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.19 /  Jpmjpmjpm@aol. /  And furthermore .. Sonoluminescence
     
Originally-From: Jpmjpmjpm@aol.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: And furthermore .. Sonoluminescence
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1995 19:05:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Is anyone reading this list particularly interested in sonoluminescence?
 I've been in the wilderness a while so may have missed something.  Does
anyone know -

a) are there any net lists or sites focusing on SL ?

b) any remarkable new results the last couple of months ?

Thanks greatly, JP May

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenJpmjpmjpm cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.18 / mark fuller /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: a0014246@unicorn.it.wsu.edu (mark fuller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 1995 23:29:33 GMT
Organization: Washington State University

Hugh Lippincott (hughl@news.an.hp.com) wrote:

<discussion about PV vs. Biomass deleted>

: Comparing biomass to solar electricity is apples to oranges w/r/t:
:   energy storage and transportation!

: Solar cells output electricity that must be:
:  transformed to usable voltages and 

No problem on this one, Bonneville Power Administration has been
doing this for years with the DC inter-tie to transport power
from the northwest US to California.

:  transmitted to where it is used IMMEDIATELY
: 	eg how do we use solar energy at midnight? 
: 	   12,500 mile transmission OR 
: 	   conversion from chemical energy storage

There ARE other ways to store energy.  A hydro project here in Washington state 
(Grand Coulee Dam, you might have heard of it :-) ) uses excess power to run 
pumps that lift water from the reservoir behind the dam a few hundred feet up
to a secondary reservoir (Banks Lake).  These pumps can do double duty as
generators to fill peak demand.  Banks Lake is also the water source for
the Colombia basin irrigation project (about 500,000 acres or so, was 
designed for twice that).
The main drawback in storing energy this way is pumping losses one way
and generating losses the other.
Another method of energy storage that has been receiving some interest
is super-conducting storage rings, since a current circulating in such a
ring will continue indefinitely, this method shows some promise.  Some
engineering studies have been done, I think EPRI might have been involved.
 
: biomass is chemically STORED energy
:  it must be converted to the appropriate form of useful energy

: The cost of solar electricity must include allowance for storage or
: replacement power for when solar cannot be used.

True, but if we got off our duffs and put mining colonies on the moon,
constructed solar farms in orbit with those materials, and beam the power
down with microwaves, we wouldn't HAVE to worry about the storage problem. ;-)



Mark Fuller
TANSTAAFL
	Robert A. Heinlein
(There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch)
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudena0014246 cudfnmark cudlnfuller cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.18 / Jim Carr /  Re: Uses for the remaining $700 Droege fund
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Uses for the remaining $700 Droege fund
Date: 18 Mar 1995 19:14:07 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <3k2epu$j6a@deadmin.ucsd.edu> 
barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>
>(2) allocate the rest to Marshall Dudleys planned expedition,
>which could be viewed as the experimental follup to TD's 
>informational visit. 

Sounds reasonable to me. 

Certainly in the spirit in which the money was raised initially. 

-- 
 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 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.19 / Matt Austern /  Re: Griggs Visit Report Part 2 of 5
     
Originally-From: matt@physics7.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Visit Report Part 2 of 5
Date: 19 Mar 1995 00:32:35 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)

In article <3kcsmn$snk@fnnews.fnal.gov> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:

>     Dave Parker obviously knows the standard instrumentation lore, and has
>     built them a good system for the price I heard mentioned.  Standard
>     thermocouple technique with a cold compensation box.  Thermocouples and
>     other inputs are read differentially.  Parker seemed to understand the
>     advantages of such a system.  It has a 486 CPU with a simple but
>     effective presentation.  The only strange thing was the speed of
>     operation.  It took a half minute or so between data points.  This
>     reading only 12 thermocouples the torque meter and a few other things.
>     Parker said that the computation part of the loop took all the time.
>     Somehow unfolding the thermocouple curves took time.  I suppose some
>     inverse functions in some instrumentation language could take time.
>     Sigh! A 486 should be able to go at blinding speed for this
>     application.  But this is not a criticism, the system is adequate, this
>     is just a comment of curiosity.  

I disagree.  I think this is a criticism, and a serious one; in fact,
I thought it was the most extraordinary comment in the whole article.

What we know now is that the data acquisition system is doing some
highly nontrivial computations; it isn't just reading numbers from an
I/O port and storing them in a file.  Half a minute of numerical
computation on a 486 is some serious number crunching.

In other words: the calculation isn't simply dividing an output
measurement by an input, but involves something far fancier than that.
This then leads to three questions:
	(1) What are they actually calculating?  [Not just a division;
	    divisions don't take 30 seconds.]
	(2) Is the mathematics they're using for the calculation
	    correct?  Is it based on correct physical principles?
	(3) Has the mathematics been implemented correctly in
	    software?  Writing good numerical code is hard!

When I publish a result that depends on heavy-duty numerical
computation, I spend a lot of time making sure that the computation is
correct.  How certain is that in this case?

--

                               --matt
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.18 / R Schumacher /  Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously - more info sources
     
Originally-From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic,alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously - more info sources
Date: 18 Mar 1995 19:26:57 -0600
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, TX USA

Great! But why did you stop publishing the "Polywater Times"
and the "N-Rays Times"? 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenschumach cudfnRichard cudlnSchumacher cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.18 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Caltech experiments were positve (?)
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Caltech experiments were positve (?)
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 95 21:36:40 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Please see response under thread title "Merriman comments on Lewis."
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.19 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: 19 Mar 1995 03:11:30 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.950317145345.10861G-100000@gladstone> Ed Matthews  
<ewm@gladstone.uoregon.edu> writes:
> 
> 
> 

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

Oh, I see---you don't believe in income tax. Thats fine, but
thats a rather more genral issue than the validity of fusion research.

> 
> 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%.  

Uh, somehow I find that hard to believe. I seriously doubt anyone would
get outraged enough to stage a revolution over a flat 2% personal 
income tax. I suspect you are taking this figure out of context.


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


cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.18 /  jedrothwell@de /  Griggs report
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs report
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 95 23:28:49 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

schamber@egr.msu.edu (Alter ) writes:
 
    "It is important to note that one cannot use the enthalpy formula over
    a large temperature range. The Cp changes with temperature. . . .
 
    My prediction is that if such a mathematical analysis was performed,
    that over-unity would be disproven."
 
If that was the case, then why do the blank runs with null rotors show no
excess? The temperatures, pressures and other parameters are in the same
range with blank runs. The temperature Delta T might be 90 deg F with a blank
run, and 100 F with a excess heat run. A blank run with steam will be much
hotter with a much bigger Delta T than an excess heat run with hot water.
 
The water temperatures we refer to here are taken in the feedwater tank and
in the barrel, before the machine is turned on and after it is turned off.
The fact that a different rotor is inside the machine cannot possibly affect
the measurement techniques or the thermodynamic mathematical analysis of water
temperature and mass in barrels when the machine is not running.
 
My point is that the data Droege gave you -- skimpy though it is -- suffices
to disprove your thesis. He told you there are blank runs at roughly the same
power levels, and that fact alone disproves your thesis. In any case, you are
also wrong the Cp. It does change, but not significantly at these
temperatures. I see that Droege is agreeing with you that there might be a
problem here. I find it astounding that he is so blind to such obvious
conclusions that anyone can draw from the information he himself provided.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.19 / mitchell swartz /  Take Cold Fusion Seriously - more info sources
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy,alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Take Cold Fusion Seriously - more info sources
Subject: Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously - more info sources
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1995 07:10:53 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <1995Mar17.043517.564@Princeton.EDU>
Subject: Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously - more info sources
Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@princeton.edu> writes:

  = "Mitch, since you're posting this ad [about CF Times] ...... "

This was not an ad, but an announcement for further information
on the 6th anniversary of the field, and the info
followed repeated requests by individuals about the field, and
frequent misinformation by some TB-skeptics, and some hot
fusioneers.   Robert, if you will include adequate information 
about the cold fusion phenomena in your well-disseminated FAQ
(which is actually quite long compared to my post, right?)
this can be handled easily forthwith.

 The CFTimes was launched because of the antiscientific, and
often self-serving, idiocy often posted on sci.physics.fusion,
sci.skeptic, and other points on Usenet, 
and the absolute paucity of sources for real scientific and
material information of use to scientists and students.
The announcement was to give some folks a chance to learn about the field,
and even support research in the field.  Furthermore, Robert,
-- and not to discourage your scholarly efforts including your 
   magnum opus dictionary ---
as is obvious to anyone who has followed your copious posts,
you have not been above salient advertising and PR for 
your own hot fusion government-funded DOE-insured
(and considered wasteful by some) hot fusion project in Princeton.
   Therefore, grasshopper, for you to bring up this up,
as you did when you chastised the poor student who tried to sell
his books on sci.physics.fusion last month, appears quite ironic.
   Isn't it?


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

 Isn't it interesting that your need for censorship to remove the competition
against your hot fusion project at Princeton is always backed up
by people in the UK, Germany, Denmark, and Canada.  
How nice and ironic for them to use the US-generated Internet and 
yet try to keep Americans from using the Internet.
Glad you posted this on alt.conspiracy, seems quite fitting, doesn't it?
                  
           Best wishes.
      -------------------------------------------------
"In a free and republican government, you cannot restrain the voice of
the multitude.  Every man will speak as he thinks"
[George Washington to Lafayette, 9/1/1778]



cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.19 / mitchell swartz /  Take Cold Fusion Seriously - more info sources
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy,alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Take Cold Fusion Seriously - more info sources
Subject: Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously - more info sources
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1995 07:13:11 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <3kg191$ai7@starman.convex.com>
Subject: Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously - more info sources
Richard A. Schumacher (schumach@convex.com) wrote:

= Great! But why did you stop publishing the "Polywater Times"
= and the "N-Rays Times"? 

  Good joke.  Actually worked on dielectric spectroscopy at the time
polywater surfaced.  Polywater was not real.  Cold fusion is.
Therefore, the joke is upon those who remain uneducated about the field 
(or any other field) when they could have been informed.


 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.19 / John Logajan /  Re: Griggs Report
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Report
Date: 19 Mar 1995 07:47:26 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Tom Droege (Droege@fnal.fnal.gov) wrote:
: 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?

This reminds me that several months back, Fermi Lab wasn't really
claiming discovery of the Top(??) Quark.  But, yet, on the other hand,
they really were.  Griggs sounds like he is doing the same thing for
the same reason -- he clearly thinks it is over-unity, but he doesn't
want to make the formal claim.

--
 - 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:
cuddy19 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.19 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Suggestion for CF testing - buy a Griggs pump
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Suggestion for CF testing - buy a Griggs pump
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 95 09:01:17 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I do not have a current price list, but a few years ago the smallest,
cheapest Hydro Dynamic unit cost $10,000. These are big units designed
for industrial heating applications. Huffman claims to have a smaller
device similar to Griggs'. We are investigating Huffman's claims. His
devices will probably cost $1000 to $2000 I suppose. (He has not put a
price on them yet.)
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.19 /  Jpmjpmjpm@aol. /  Thanks Tom
     
Originally-From: Jpmjpmjpm@aol.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Thanks Tom
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1995 19:10:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Tom,
I am a 'quiet reader' of Fusion Digest (can you believe there is one!?).
 Thanks for the effort, you are a true citizen of the net.  I have been
offline awhile, but I assume 'the list' ended up paying for the trip.  We are
probably all being studied by anthropologists right now.
Well done,
JP May

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenJpmjpmjpm cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.19 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Signature of Stored Energy
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Signature of Stored Energy
Date: 19 Mar 1995 19:43:25 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <3kfcqn$e35@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, elliotkenl@aol.com
(ElliotKenl) wrote:

> 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?
> 

Well, one can't.  However, this was addressed in this forum a few months
ago, and it was found that the amount of aluminum necessary to account for
the excess heat would be a significant fraction of the rotor itself.  In
short, one should notice degradation and destruction of the rotor in short
order.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.19 / Cliff Frost /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: cliff@ack.berkeley.edu (Cliff Frost)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: 19 Mar 1995 20:02:55 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

>-> In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.950317145345.10861G-100000@gladstone> Ed Matthews
>-> <ewm@gladstone.uoregon.edu> writes:
>->
>-> > FYI, one of the big issues that catalyzed the American revolution was the
>-> > taxation level which they considered to be tyrannical: 2%.
>->
>-> Uh, somehow I find that hard to believe. I seriously doubt anyone would
>-> get outraged enough to stage a revolution over a flat 2% personal
>-> income tax. I suspect you are taking this figure out of context.
> 
>They did not have income tax then.  If I remember my American history correctly
>they taxed some goods, most notably tea.  Most Americans at that time having
>come from England, had to have their daily tea.  A 2% overall tax rate (if that

Have people *really* forgotten the famous mantra on this subject?  Ie "no
taxation without representation."  Since this is one of the major
intellectual pillars behind our country's form of government I'd hope
that someone here would know it...

This was considered quite a legitimate complaint by many intellectuals in
England at the time (eg Boswell; although his good Dr. Johnson felt that
the complaint was hypocritical coming from a bunch of people he thought
of as no better than highway robbers for having stolen and plundered from
the indigenous inhabitants of the Americas, as well as for their
abominable habit of keeping slaves.)

	Cheers,
		Cliff Frost
		UC Berkeley
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudencliff cudfnCliff cudlnFrost cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.19 /  Jpmjpmjpm@aol. /  Incidentally ..
     
Originally-From: Jpmjpmjpm@aol.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Incidentally ..
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1995 23:29:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Ed wrote ..

  > FYI, one of the big issues that catalyzed the
  > American revolution was the taxation level which  
  > they considered to be tyrannical: 2%.

And then Barry said ..

  "Uh, somehow I find that hard to believe. I seriously 
  doubt anyone would get outraged enough to stage a 
  revolution over a flat 2% personal income tax. I suspect 
  you are taking this figure out of context."

Barry, for what it is worth, Ed's point was absolutely, 
positively, literally, 100%, mainstream-historically, 
specifically,  NOT exaggerating or out of context in any 
way at all, .. CORRECT !!!

Obviously the FUSION list is not to be cluttered up with
this stuff (God knows there's never any clutter on this
list), but if you want any verifying info feel free to
email me, or I suppose, check any everyday history
text (The book 'Don't know much about history' is good.)

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenJpmjpmjpm cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.19 /  Jpmjpmjpm@aol. /  Re: Griggs Visit (the mysterious computing loop)
     
Originally-From: Jpmjpmjpm@aol.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Visit (the mysterious computing loop)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1995 23:29:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Matt keenly observes -

  "What we know now is that the data acquisition 
  system is doing some highly nontrivial computations; 
  it isn't just reading numbers from an I/O port and storing 
  them in a file.  Half a minute of numerical computation 
  on a 486 is some serious number crunching."

Matt, what you're saying is totally correct, but don't you 
think it's  FAR !!! more likely that the system  is just shittily 
set up?  (In spite of the fact that "Parker said that the 
computation  part of the loop took all the time'".)  They're 
probably doing  it all 'in Basic' or something.

Think about it, lets say the computation WAS running
efficiently: there's just nothing that would take that long.  
I bet 20 bucks they're doing something lame with the i/o or 
the drives or the lookup tables or more prosaically they have 
the monitor set to the wrong number of colors or something.  
Any programmer or for that matter any kid that knows DOS 
could probably eliminate whatever their error is.

At any rate, that's a minor point, here's the real point.
Any (computer literate) 5-yr old would have the idea of
simply COLLECTING THE DOTS IN REAL TIME, and LATER, 
running whatever fancy calculation you want.  (I'm sure
it's NOT a fancy calculation, I'm just being hypothetical.) 

Why would you possibly try to do it in real time?  I worked
at, say, the BMW-Rolls Royce aero engine R&D plant whilst
in Europe, they collect rather a lot of data when they stick
a new build on the test rig, say, 100 channels of thermocup
info to begin with.  I've never heard of anyone trying to
stuff the data through the equations in REAL TIME while
the experiment's running.  Like ..  why?

This alone tells us that they don't have the slightest clue 
(PC wise), so almost certainly, Matt, don't you reckon it's 
far, FAR more likely they're doing something LAME, than that 
there's a real kick-ass (multi-d Monte Carlo integrate or 
something?  Even that wouldn't take that long) calc. going on?

Tom, you mentioned it's a 486 -  do you mean it's a 486
PC clone, or did Parker actually (- I don't see why he would 
possibly do this, if you're only dealing with a handful of
channels there are dozens of standard, cheap, data 
collection boards, setups, and standalones -) build some
sort of set up from scratch himself?

If I'm wrong, I then agree completely with Matt.  And I know
what's happening during those thirty seconds, too ...  the NSA,
the S.R.C., the Masons, and the producers of the 'X-files' and 
'Sightings' are hooked into Griggs' compaq by ZPE-resonance 
device aboard a captured UFO in a nearby dimension -  and 
THEY'RE doing the calculations on their new 3/SSS s.  The
only reason it takes so long is JFK and Elvis have to review
each result.

<;  Best, JP


PS -  'adjudicated' or 'peer-reviewed' lists really, really, really
really, really, really suck.  Even if you HATE nutcases on the 
lists you read, I ENCOURAGE those who are whining and wanting
an adjuducated list sci-physics list, to RECONSIDER.  I've NOTICED 
that in every field of interest on the net, whether 4x4 suspension 
discussion or chinese politics or technical or petit-point, 
adjudicated lists are simply NEVER popular.  They START with a
flurry of, oh, 10 like-minded people feeling they are really
DOING SOMETHING community-wise, and a couple of months later
they are down to one comment a week!  That is ALWAYS the case.
It's just a fact that there is NOT ONE successful reviewed list.   
They are ALWAYS boring and if you think about it, utterly opposed 
to the spirit and physical makeup of the internet.  They NEVER work 
successfully and heartily.  Just an observation -  think about it! <:

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenJpmjpmjpm cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.19 / Dean Edmonds /  Re: Good work, Tom!
     
Originally-From: deane@excalibur.net5c.io.org (Dean Edmonds)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Good work, Tom!
Date: 19 Mar 1995 16:47:29 -0500
Organization: Teleride Sage Ltd.

In article <Bg+bWxq.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
> 
>[...] I am quite positive he will never publicly
>say anything more than he already said in his reply to you. He is much too
>smart for that. As he said in the reply to you, he has seen what happens to
>people who make claims like this, and he does not intend to let that happen
>to him. He would never publish a paper or make any claims on Internet. I think
>he would have to be a first class idiot if he did! He does not need to make
>any claims. The machine speaks for itself. Anyone can get a power meter and
>a thermometer, visit him, and find out for certain that the machine
>produces massive excess energy. There is no call for a debate or public
>declaration when you can show anyone physical proof anytime you like. If he
>got tangled up in a debate here, or if newspaper reporters and people from
>"New Scientist" magazine showed up at his door he would soon get in hot water
>and endless time wasting nonsense.

I have two difficulties with this.

First, your characterisation of Mr. Griggs seems to me to be completely at
odds with his own words, as attached to Tom's report.

In those comments, Mr. Griggs appears to be sufficiently keen to understand
the theoretical principals behind his device so as to hire extra staff (in
the form of Scott Smith) and purchase additional equipment to further those
investigations. Some relevant quotes are:

	I have spent the last eight years trying to understand why and will
	continue to do so until the source is explained as new scientific
	theory, or just plain human error.
and:
	You were also right in my reason for hiring Scott.  It is our [intent]
	to find out exactly what is the cause of our heat source whether over
	unity or not.
and:
	The instrumentation we are using today has been [purchased] as a
	direct result of different people visiting the plant and wanting new
	or different methods of testing.  Be assured that we will pursue your
	recommendations.

Nor does he sound like a man who is unwilling to cooperate with outside
investigators:

	As for the rest of the material those [were] your comments and I
	sincerely appreciate your input.  I will do my best with the
	resources available to us at this time to pursue the recommendation
	you have outlined.

	Once again we really enjoyed your visit and feel free to come back at
	any time.  We always learn from being [around] those such as yourself.


Second, you attest here to Mr. Griggs' intelligence and have in previous
posts portrayed him as a reasonably canny businessman. Surely as a smart
businessman Mr. Griggs is aware that his sales potential will be vastly
increased if he can publicly advertise over-unity performance. Without
the backing of the scientific community he cannot make such a claim publicly
as most prospective clients will believe `the scientific consensus' (whatever
that means) more readily than his lone voice. And only a small percentage of
Mr. Griggs' total potential market will be willing to take the trip to
Rome to see the proof firsthand: most will simply wonder why he refuses to
make his claims public and conclude (rightly or wrongly) that it is a hoax.

On the flip side, the possibility of lost business due to bad publicity
arising from scientific criticism is slight. Most of those who would be
convinced by a pilgrimage to Rome, in spite of the lack of theoretical
backing, will likely continue to be convinced even in the face of public
skepticism. Furthermore, Mr. Griggs is unlikly to attract the level of
abuse accorded, say, Mssrs Pons and Fleischmann, as he is being reasonably
careful not to make claims of over-unity performance. Instead, he is
saying "Here is an interesting effect. Can anyone explain it?" and even
leaves open the possibility that it is an artefact of experimental error
(see earlier quote). Had P&F done the same, their experiments would have
generated much less acrimony.

Thus, Hydrodynamics stands to gain hugely if the over-unity effect can be
demonstrated and explained to the satisfaction of the scientific community,
and loses little if it is not. All that is required is some amount of
investment in exploring the process, which Mr. Griggs has already indicated,
and demonstrated, that he is prepared to do. Any intelligent businessman
would leap at such a "no lose" scenario.

So I cannot see the basis for your assertion that Mr. Griggs would not, and
does not need to, publish his claims or that "he would have to be a first
class idiot if he did!".

Of course, you could always claim that Mr. Griggs was just being polite
(i.e. lying through his teeth) in his response to Tom's report, but I prefer
to put faith in his sincerity and integrity unless given reason to believe
otherwise.

=========================================================================
  - deane
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudendeane cudfnDean cudlnEdmonds cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.19 / Jack Sarfatti /  Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
     
Originally-From: sarfatti@ix.netcom.com (Jack Sarfatti)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment,sci.
nergy,sci.materials
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
Date: 19 Mar 1995 22:40:14 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3kdouo$i82@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki) 
writes: 

>
>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- 
>
It might be some sort of Casimir force process?


cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudensarfatti cudfnJack cudlnSarfatti cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.19 / Jim Bowery /  Re: spline interpolation (steam tables, etc)
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: spline interpolation (steam tables, etc)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1995 23:29:56 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Interestingly, I had a statistical analysis problem with a small sample 
size (a number of prisons where a GED curriculum I had helped develop was 
 being evaluated for efficacy) where we ran head-long into this erroneous 
use of regression fit.

The solution a mathematician and I worked out was to treat each point as 
a bivariate distribution and then pick a plane (orthoganol to the space 
 in which the correlations were being done) that would maximize the sum 
of the area of the slices through all the bivariate probability density 
functions.  We ended up having to solve a fifth order polynomial 
(numerically since there is no closed form solution) to get the linear fit.

I think a lot of scientific work suffers from attempting to do 
regressions on "points" that aren't points.

-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
                 Change the tools and you change the rules.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.19 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1995 15:57 -0500 (EST)

cliff@ack.berkeley.edu (Cliff Frost) writes:
 
-> Have people *really* forgotten the famous mantra on this subject?  Ie "no
-> taxation without representation."  Since this is one of the major
-> intellectual pillars behind our country's form of government I'd hope
-> that someone here would know it...
 
Ah, yes you are right indeed.  I have no idea what the rate was, but the lack
of representation was definitely a major point they had against being taxed.
The point I was trying to make was that they did not have income tax then, but
something closer to today's excise tax.
 
                                                           Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.20 / Tim Mirabile /  Re: tic-toc-tic-toc-tic-toc...
     
Originally-From: Tim Mirabile <tim@mail.htp.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: tic-toc-tic-toc-tic-toc...
Date: 20 Mar 1995 01:13:17 GMT
Organization: HTP Services 516-757-0210

rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com (Doug Shade) wrote:


> The suspense is just killing me.

> Doug Shade
> rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com

I assume you are refering to the Griggs visit.

Do you feel any better now?
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudentim cudfnTim cudlnMirabile cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.19 /   /  Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously - more info sources
     
Originally-From: "Ammons@cris.com" <Ammons@cris.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic,alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously - more info sources
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1995 21:00:58 -0500 (EST)
Organization: Concentric Research Corporation

I saw no proof or evidence presented to convince me to take
cold fusion seriously. All I saw was an advertisement for
expensive subscriptions to cold fusion publications. If
you want me to subscribe then give a litte more reason why
it is credible!
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenAmmons cudln cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.20 / Eugene Mallove /  Announcing: INFINITE ENERGY
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Announcing: INFINITE ENERGY
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 03:25:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

*****************************************************************************
        Announcing the Premier issue of a new magazine --- 

                INFINITE ENERGY
        - Cold Fusion and New Energy Technology

                (ISSN 1081-6372)

        Eugene F. Mallove, Sc.D., Editor-in-Chief

INFINITE ENERGY will premier with the  March/April 1995 issue, which will be 
distributed to the participants of the Fifth International Conference on Cold 
Fusion (ICCF5) to be held in Monte Carlo, Monaco (April 9-13, 1995). 

INFINITE ENERGY is an international technical magazine with outreach to the 
general public as well. It is written at the technical level of Scientific 
American or Science News. To maintain the highest editorial standards, it is 
written and edited by scientists, engineers, and expert journalists.  It is 
aimed at pioneering scientists, engineers, industrialists, and investors who 
are entering an exciting new R&D area. This continues to grow explosively, 
with significant involvement by Japanese corporations and an increasing number
of U.S. companies.  New technology developments and scientific discoveries are
being made monthly and reported in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. 
INFINITE ENERGY reports on the latest information that is now pouring in from 
research centers around the globe. 

The affordable subscription price of this six-issues/year publication of 
general and technical interest is $29.95 for residents of the U.S. and Canada.
(To cover first-class air mail for other countries, the annual foreign 
subscription price is $49.95.) The magazine will initially have limited 
distribution on select newsstands and will be subscription-driven via a 
national ad campaign.

To subscribe to INFINITE ENERGY in 1995, beginning with the premier issue, 
please enclose check or money order to Cold Fusion Technology, or enter Credit
Card information:

Cold Fusion Technology
P.O. Box 2816  Concord, NH 03302-2816  USA

Name: _____________________________________________________________________
Address:____________________________________________________________________
Address:____________________________________________________________________
City:_______________________________State:__________
Postal Code/Zip:____________
Country:___________________________ Phone:__________________ Fax:_____________
If using Credit Card: Check one: Master Card __ VISA__American Express__
Card Number: ____________________________
Expiration Date:_________________________
Signature________________________________ 
Optional: E-Mail address_______________

Editorial contributions are requested and advertising space is available. 

Fax: 603-224-5975; Phone: 603-228-4516
E-mail:  INTERNET:76570.2270@compuserve.com

******************************************************************************

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.20 /  Alter /  Re: Griggs Report
     
Originally-From: schamber@egr.msu.edu (Alter )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Report
Date: 20 Mar 1995 02:20:11 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University

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

Larry Schamber wrote:
>>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

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

Matlab IS slow, even on a 486. It uses the hard drive a lot. That
could be fixed with a ramdrive or other ways. I only have the student
version of Matlab which is less powerful than the professional
version.

I don't think we really need to worry why it was slow, except to gripe,
nitpick, and urge to frobnicate.  

>>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?

For the sake of doing some calculation we assume that the input water
started at a temperature = T1 = 74degF = 296.48K. Then a 100degF rise
= T1+100degF = T2 = 174degF = 352.04K.

To compute the deltaH with specific heat one could use the formula:

deltaH = m*Cp*(T2-T1)			(1)

Where: 
	Cp = the specific heat at T1 [kJ/(kg K)]
	deltaH = the change in enthalpy [kJ]
	m = mass of the water

Or more accurately:

deltaH = m*(Cp2*T2 - Cp1*T1)		(2)

Where:	
	Cp2 = the specific heat at T2
	Cp1 = the specific heat at T1

Finally the best calculation of change in enthalpy based on deltaT:

deltaH = m*(H(T2) - H(T1))		(3)

Where:
	H(T) = the enthalpy looked up in a table based on temperature

Given the temperatures what are the deltaH calculated the 3 ways?
Assume m=1 kg, Pressure = 100kPa = 1 bar

(1) Using constant specific heat.
Cp(at T1) = 4.1804 [kJ/(kg K)]
Cp(at T2) = Cp(at T1)
H1 = m*4.1804*296.483 = 1239.4189 J
H2 = m*4.1804*352.038 = 1471.6633 J
H2-H1 = 232.24444 J

(2) Using exact specific heats.
Cp(at T1) = 4.1804  as before
Cp(at T2) = 4.1966
H1 = 1239.4189 J as before
H2 = m*4.1966*352.038 = 1477.3664 J
H2-H1 = 237.947501 J

(3) Using an H2O enthalpy table and linear (manual) interpolation.
H1(T1) = 1324.5158 J
H2(T2) = 1688.9216 J
H2 - H1 = 364.4058 J

If we assume that either method 3 or method 1 is correct, the absoulte
error is the same. Using the most erroneous assumptions the error is:

error = (364.4058 - 232.24444)/232.24444 = .569 = 56.9% !!!!

So the use of constant specific heats would yield over unity
energy far more than 8%!

Part of the problem, which I did knowing that there might be errors
introduced, for the Cp I used Introduction to Heat transfer, Incropera
and Dewitt, 1990, Wiley, pp A22.

For the enthalpies I used Steam Tables, Keenan, Keyes, et al,
1978. We'll never know which is more truthful unless we do our own
experiments. 

>>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"

>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. 

The mathematical analysis of error is as follows:

You need a complete expression of COP in terms of all the measurable
variables. We call this COP(T1, T2, m, Q1, Q2). Where Q1 is the total
energy input to pump 1, and Q2 is the total energy input to pump
2. Even if there are inefficiencies in the motors and heat is
generated which does not get into the water, all the engineer
cares about is whether the system has a relatively large gross COP
compared to a heated wire in water for example. 

The total experimental error is then calculated:

Err(COP) = abs(err(T1)*(partial(COP)/dT1)) + abs(err(T2)*partial(COP)/dT2) + 
  ...abs(err(m)*partial(COP)/dm) + abs(err(Q1)*(partial(COP)/dQ1) + 
  ...abs(err(Q2)*(partial(COP)/dQ2)

Where: 
	Err(COP) = the plus and minus expected error in the COP
	abs(X) = the absolute value of X
	err(Y) = the experimental uncertainty in Y
	partial(COP)/dT1 = the partial derivative of COP wrt T1

If the sigma of a variable (say T1) is measurable, then one should use
3*sigma as the error so that the exact result is 99% likely within the
error limits. 

If tables were used then the slope of a linear interpolation
function could be used. 

>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

I don't care who made claims of over-unity. It is floating
around as an interesting proposition to be debated. That's the whole
reason that you made the trip, and the whole reason that I just spent
1.5 hours typing this stuff.

>>later
>>Larry Schamber
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenschamber cudlnAlter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.19 / Chuck Harrison /  spline interpolation (steam tables, etc)
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Chuck Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: spline interpolation (steam tables, etc)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1995 13:56:10 GMT
Organization: Fitful

In article <3keuc9$kg3@msunews.cl.msu.edu>, schamber@egr.msu.edu says...
>
[...]
>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.

"Spline interpolation" -- this happens to be a hot button for me due
to certain experiences in the calibration biz.  It is often badly used.

w.r.t. interpolating between measured data points, interpolation
basically assumes that the measured points are perfect and propagates
any errors into the interpolated result.  A curve-fit through many
points (especially if its form is based on underlying physics -- but 
this is not essential) tends to average the random measurement errors
and improve accuracy.

For this reason you will find that most extensive tabulations of
physical properties (e.g. steam tables, NIST thermocouple curves, etc)
are actually evaluations of a "best fit" formula developed by the 
responsible project team.  Look in the fine print.  Then interpolate
by using the same formula.

Cheers,
  -Chuck

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenharr cudfnChuck cudlnHarrison cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.20 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 95 00:40:35 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> writes:
 
>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 am not sure which experiment Spudmaster has in mind, but I would like to
point out that many experiments use closed cells, which cut off contact with
the atmosphere. This eliminates any possibility of absorbing CO2. I believe
this discussion started off centered on Oriani's results, which were from a
closed cell. Other notable workers with closed cells include McKubre, Arata
and the people at Amoco -- and many others.
 
With an open cell, free hydrogen oxygen gas is constantly formed by
electrolysis, and this always pushes up the pressure inside the cell above
ambient atmospheric pressure. A trickle of gas comes out of the cell
constantly (which must be flushed out of the building or ignited). This
guarantees that atmospheric CO2 and other gases never come into the cell.
That is a good thing, because CO2 will clobber a CF reaction. It is good
way to turn one off -- breath on it. Other contamination from the atmosphere
will also play hob with a CF cathode, and probably prevent any reaction.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.20 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 95 00:42:10 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

jnw@elvis.vnet.net (John N. White) writes:
 
     "As has been pointed out many times, it is easy to get any amount of
     chemical storage per mole of cathode because the energy is stored in the
     vastly greater volume of the electrolyte."
 
Please explain how this works. Electrolyte is water with a tiny bit of lithium
salt in it. How do you store chemical energy in water? How do you burn water?
Please tell us what chemical storage would allow you to store more than, say,
10 joules of energy in 100 ml of a typical CF LiOD solution, in a closed cell?
 
Most CF cells contain only 10 to 100 ml of electrolyte, but even if they held
2 liters, there would still be no way to store significant levels of chemical
energy in water. Certainly not anything like the 100 MJ that Arata reported,
or the bursts seen by Oriani, McKubre or the others.
 
 
     "McKubre did have some interesting looking results, but as time went on
     and he worked the errors out of his calorimetry, his excess heat shrank
     to a mere 2%.
 
This is nonsense. He never retracted *any* of his more powerful results. His
earlier results never "shrank." It is true that some of his later results were
at lower power levels, but not 2%. That is an average, which signifies
nothing. In any case, he reported his most powerful burst at ICCF4, in 1993.
 
 
     "Then, he suddenly started turning away from excellent opportunities to
     present his results. . . ."
 
Right. Sure. That is why lectured at MIT and published in the J. Electroanal.
Chem. in 1994 (vol 386, p. 55). He must have figured nobody has ever heard of
those places. It is perfect way to hide from the "skeptics" because they never
read peer reviewed articles in major journals.
 
 
     "I don't know exactly what McKubre told his sponsors, EPRI, but I
     understand that they have now terminated their funding of cold fusion."
 
That is not the full story, fortunately.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.20 /  jedrothwell@de /  Edmonds suggests Griggs should claim o-u
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Edmonds suggests Griggs should claim o-u
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 95 00:47:07 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I said that Jim Griggs wants to keep out of hot water by refusing to claim his
machine is over unity. deane@excalibur.net5c.io.org (Dean Edmonds) wrote:
 
     "First, your characterization of Mr. Griggs seems to me to be completely
     at odds with his own words, as attached to Tom's report."
 
I know the man fairly well and he has told me on many occasions that he wants
to avoid the minefield and not make any explicit claims that he has excess
heat. He tells people he *thinks* he has excess heat, but he always leaves it
to them to decide for themselves. He said that publicly for the record, on
video, during his talk at MIT on Jan. 21, 1995.
 
 
     "In those comments, Mr. Griggs appears to be sufficiently keen to
     understand the theoretical principals behind his device so as to hire
     extra staff (in the form of Scott Smith) and purchase additional
     equipment to further those investigations."
 
Wait a second here! These are completely separate issues. Of course he
believes the device generates excess energy, and of course he recognized the
importance of a scientific investigation of the over unity effect. Naturally,
he is delighted to cooperate with serious scientists who help investigate it.
That is why he went to ICCF4, the Minsk conference, and MIT. He is open and
willing to share data, including the MIT graph that Droege apparently missed.
However, he does not want to come out in public and *say* the machine creates
energy, because if he did, the scientific establishment and many other
powerful and politically well connected people would come down on him like a
ton of bricks. There are two different issues here: what he knows to be the
truth, and what it is politically safe to say in public. We live in a decadent
era. People who tell the truth about science often suffer persecution, loss of
reputation, loss of business and many other problems. Griggs has to make a
living. He does not want to become a martyr to Scientific Honesty. Only a fool
would deliberately audition for that role!
 
 
     "Nor does he sound like a man who is unwilling to cooperate with outside
     investigators . . ."
 
You are quite right, he is perfectly willing to cooperate with outside
investigators, although he is frequently busy.
 
 
     "Surely as a smart businessman Mr. Griggs is aware that his sales
     potential will be vastly increased if he can publicly advertise
     over-unity performance."
 
That is incorrect. A smart businessman who is aware of the history of cold
fusion will realize that if he publicly advertises over-unity performance he
will likely end up bankrupt or in exile. That would be exactly like
advertising that you are a communist at the height of the cold war McCarthy
era, in 1952.
 
 
     "Without the backing of the scientific community he cannot make such a
     claim publicly . . ."
 
The U.S. scientific community will *never* voluntarily back *any* over unity
claim, no matter how solid, no matter how well replicated, no matter how
widely it is replicated. It will eventually be forced to admit these claims
are correct, after commercial products are introduced, and after the
reputations of many leading scientists who have opposed CF are destroyed, and
the DoE is put out of business. The DoE will *never* voluntarily give up power
by admitting that we are right. That would be political suicide. We will win
when Congress guts their funding and closes down the whole damn corrupt
organization. It should have done that decades ago. If it had, the so-called
"energy crisis" would never have happened in the first place. It was caused by
inept Washington bureaucrats & politicians who monkeyed with the free market.
 
 
     "Mr. Griggs is unlikely to attract the level of abuse accorded, say,
     Mssrs Pons and Fleischmann, as he is being reasonably careful not to
     make claims of over-unity performance. Instead, he is saying "Here is an
     interesting effect. Can anyone explain it?" and even leaves open the
     possibility that it is an artifact of experimental error (see earlier
     quote). Had P&F done the same, their experiments would have generated
     much less acrimony."
 
Please do not attempt to rewrite history or make it up as you go alone. I know
the facts, I know Drs. Pons and Fleischmann a lot better than you do, and I
know exactly what they said and what they did. Your characterization of their
actions is completely wrong. P&F did exactly what you suggest they should have
done. The presented their data as an open question in exactly the spirit you
demand, and in the same spirit as Griggs offers his data. They were trashed
because they were right, not because they were assertive or secretive or
anything else. They would have been trashed no matter what they had done.
Anyone who demonstrates that he can put DoE out of business will soon find
himself in deep trouble.
 
 
     "Of course, you could always claim that Mr. Griggs was just being polite
     (i.e. lying through his teeth) in his response to Tom's report . . ."
 
He was being polite, direct, honest and explicit. He said exactly what I said:
 
     "I will continue to test and leave the final explanation up to those of
     you in the scientific field.  After all look what has happened to those
     that have made formal claims."
 
You may not realize it, but people who make such formal claims are stomped on,
trashed, attacked, robbed of their academic freedom, harassed, and driven out
of the country. That is what happens when you challenge entrenched, corrupt,
filthy rich political hacks in Washington DC. Things like that happen from
time to time in any society. No country is perfect.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.20 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Griggs Visit Report Part 2 of 5
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Visit Report Part 2 of 5
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 06:46:38 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <MATT.95Mar18163235@physics7.berkeley.edu>,
Matt Austern <matt@physics.berkeley.edu> wrote:

>What we know now is that the data acquisition system is doing some
>highly nontrivial computations; it isn't just reading numbers from an
>I/O port and storing them in a file.  Half a minute of numerical
>computation on a 486 is some serious number crunching.

We _know_ nothing of the kind. What language was the program written in?
30 seconds of tight assembly language is pretty significant, but the same
time written in some bloated instrumentation languages (it is quite
possible that the whole thing was written in Lotus 1-2-3 macros as described
by Mezei in several of his books on the subject) may be nothing at all
except overhead.

>In other words: the calculation isn't simply dividing an output
>measurement by an input, but involves something far fancier than that.
>This then leads to three questions:
>	(1) What are they actually calculating?  [Not just a division;
>	    divisions don't take 30 seconds.]
>	(2) Is the mathematics they're using for the calculation
>	    correct?  Is it based on correct physical principles?
>	(3) Has the mathematics been implemented correctly in
>	    software?  Writing good numerical code is hard!

The man may be doign some fancy graphics displays in a language not
designed for such things. What if he is generating the absolute temperature
by a lookup table on a stored curve?

In short, thirty seconds doesn't suprise me at all. I'ver seen far worse
by people that are probably more expensive to hire as consultants.


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.20 / Dieter Britz /  Re: RFD: sci.physics.fusion.research moderated, sci.physics.fusion.misc
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.chem.electrochem,sci.energy
Subject: Re: RFD: sci.physics.fusion.research moderated, sci.physics.fusion.misc
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 09:10:21 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On 15 Mar 1995, James Crotinger wrote:

> In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.950310090208.25561B-100000@alpha.kemi.aau.dk
 Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk> writes:
> 
>    No, s.p.f. will  not be eliminated, just renamed. This was suggested to me
>    by David Lawrence, the new newsgroup adviser, and he has some good reasons,
>    which I found convincing. The split is not needed, I reckon; once we're
>    rid of the BS, traffic will be quite reasonable, and I believe hot and cold
>    can coexist peacefully. One fine day 'cold fusion' will die anyway, and then
>    the hots will have the new group all to themselves.
> 
>   But the question is, why not split?  I see NO benefit to keeping the
> groups together, and a lot of benefit from seperating them.  Those
> that want to follow both can subscribe to both. As far as cold fusion
> dying, it has lasted this long and I don't expect it to go away on
> any shorter timescale, so I don't want to have to wade through CF messages
> for the next several years.
> 

"Wade" is a bit over the top. Some people have even said that we don't need
this new proposed group, because - compared to other groups - s.p.f., as is,
does not have much traffic. I happen to disagree. But if we get this moderated
new group, my guess is we'll have around 10-15 items per day, so you won't
have to wade through much. The nice thing will be that there will be no
Archimedes Pu, etc. cluttering up the menu.
It so happens that I have next to no interest in hot fusion. If it should
happen that the new group gets big, then at some later date we could still
go for a split. For the moment, let's get away from the perpetual motion
and snake oil salesmen, eh?

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

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Mar 20 04:37:05 EST 1995
------------------------------
