1995.03.23 / Jim Carr /  Re: Griggs Visit (the mysterious computing loop)
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Visit (the mysterious computing loop)
Date: 23 Mar 1995 15:21:54 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

|Jim Carr <jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> writes:
| 
|>That is not what Tom's report or Griggs comments suggest.  Anyway, if 
|>you do not understand the inherent contradiction between the two things 
|>I underlined above (Windows was not developed for real-time data 
|>acquisition) then it is no wonder you take violent exception to things 
|>that seem eminently sensible to physicists. 

At which point, Jed proceeds to prove that he cannot read what I wrote 
above, thus clarifing that his knee jerks get in the way of comprehension.

In article <h414PQK.jedrothwell@delphi.com> 
jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> 
>This is such BULLSHIT! 

Looks like the pot is calling the kettle black. 

>                       I cannot believe that you scientists sit there
>typing this kind of thing, without ever
>checking any references or asking any vendors anything! It is such
>*nonsense* to declare that Windows cannot be used for real time data collection.

That is not what I wrote.  Read it again.  

I said it was not developed for that purpose, and I assert that Windows 
was developed to provide a GUI for DOS users of spreadsheet and word 
scrambling software, not real-time data acquisition.  Data handling is 
piggy-backed on inputs originally designed for quite different uses. 

Yes, you can even run CAMAC from a PC, but it has serious limitations 
on the data rate and volume it can handle compared to other systems. 
They make great systems for simple problems, but they are not capable 
of "taking data at any rate you desire" as you pontificated earlier.  

-- 
 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:
cuddy23 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.23 /  Jpmjpmjpm /  Re: Griggs Connection
     
Originally-From: jpmjpmjpm@aol.com (Jpmjpmjpm)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Connection
Date: 23 Mar 1995 14:58:59 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Even though I have nothing to do with this group other than the occasional
sarcastic comment, I heartily recommend implementing MARSHALLS INCREDIBLY
GENEROUS OFFER.  If everyone else posts a message like this it will
actually GET DONE QUICKLY.

in this way I can actually start making sarcastic comments DIRECT to
Griggs.

As you official waterboy I am going to, right now, implement the MARSHALL
PLAN.

******************************
VOTE FOR THE MARSHALL PLAN NOW.
******************************

A NEW ERA HAS BEGUN.
..........................................................................
........
INT. OFFICE NITE
A guy sitting at a computer

                      JP May
               Who the hell are you?
..........................................................................
........
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjpmjpmjpm cudlnJpmjpmjpm cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.23 /  Jpmjpmjpm /  SUPPORT  THE  MARSHALL  PLAN
     
Originally-From: jpmjpmjpm@aol.com (Jpmjpmjpm)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SUPPORT  THE  MARSHALL  PLAN
Date: 23 Mar 1995 14:59:08 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

********************************************************
FOR FREE, MARSHALL WILL GET GRIGGS ON THE NET.
GRIGGS *ALREADY* HAS A MODEM.
THERE CAN BE NO BETTER SOLUTION THAN THIS.

IF YOU SUPPORT THE ** MARSHALL PLAN **, 

PLEASE IMEDIATELY REPLY TO THIS THREAD WITH A (PREFARABLY HUMOROUS)
ASSERTION OF YOUR SUPPORT.

IN THIS WAY GRIGGS WILL 
                       Q U I C K L Y
                                       GET ON THIS DAMN LIST.

PLEASE HIT THAT REPLY BUTTON NOW TO SUPPORT THE INCREDIBLE:

     *******************************
          I SUPPORT THE MARSHALL PLAN
     *******************************

.. PLAN TO GET GRIGGS ONLINE.
NOTHING WILL HAPPEN FAST UNLESS YOU ACT NOW!
********************************************************
..........................................................................
........
INT. OFFICE NITE
A guy sitting at a computer

                      JP May
               Who the hell are you?
..........................................................................
........
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjpmjpmjpm cudlnJpmjpmjpm cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.24 / Scott Mueller /  Real Time was Re: Griggs Visit (the mysterious computing loop)
     
Originally-From: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Real Time was Re: Griggs Visit (the mysterious computing loop)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 16:23:29 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA

In article <h414PQK.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>Jim Carr <jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> writes:
 
>>I underlined above (Windows was not developed for real-time data acquisition)
 
>This is such BULLSHIT! [...] It is such *nonsense* to declare that Windows
>cannot be used for real time data collection.

Wrong, Jed.  For one, Jim did not say you can't, he said it wasn't designed
for it.

For another, Real Time OSes make specific guarantees about scheduling
latencies, allow assignment of priorities to processes based on their real-
time requirements, and in general are specifically designed from the bottom-
up to support so-called "hard" real time requirements.  A real-time OS will
guarantee that your application that absolutely must run every .01 seconds
will.  All Windows guarantees is that you might get to run, if Windows itself
is not busy hogging the CPU.

Furthermore, RT OSes are much more robust than Windows.  I'd hate to have my
data monitoring app dead because some poorly-written program scribbled over
someone else's data and Windows went toes-up because of it.  Admittedly, some
RT OSes disable memory protection because it interferes with performance,
but the people who right apps for them make darn sure their apps stay within
bounds.

-- 
Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (tandem|ub-gate)!zorch!scott
Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests.

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.24 / Chuck Harrison /  Re: Thermocouple positioning - mixing
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Chuck Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermocouple positioning - mixing
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 03:01:24 GMT
Organization: Fitful

In article <67280-795801002@mindlink.bc.ca>, Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca says...
>
>Regarding output thermocouple positioning,[...]  I could suggest:
>
>[...]
>3) Introducing a mixing device upstream of the thermocouples capable of
>"homogenizing" the output flow, and showing that it doesn't affect the
>output temperature.

Yes, indeed.  If you look in Thomas Register under Static Mixers (or is
it Mixers: Static?) you will find a number of people making nifty little
devices which are just a length of tube with counter-twisted "butterflies"
down the middle.  I have used some from Konflo (??).  The manufacturers
can probably pick something out from stock if you can tell'em the flow
rate range, how much deltaP you can tolerate, and what degree of
mixing is required.  Not too expensive; I bet you can get a stainless
steel job to do 5 gpm for under $100.

-Chuck

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenharr cudfnChuck cudlnHarrison cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.23 /  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: Thu, 23 Mar 95 17:31:53 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

mbk@jt3ws1.etd.ornl.gov (Kennel)
 
    "If there is no evidence that the device can ever make more than 30%
    excess heat out over power in, there is no evidence that it will ever
    be a net thermodynamical generator of *power* and thus *$$$$*."
 
There is *tons* of evidence that the device can be made to work at over 30%
excess. Similar devices routinely work at 300% (but at poor Carnot efficiency
I believe), and once or twice 500% excesses have been achieved for brief
periods.
 
There is no evidence at all that the device is limited to 30%, and no reason
to think that.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.23 /  Jpmjpmjpm /  Re: Griggs Would Like to be Connected
     
Originally-From: jpmjpmjpm@aol.com (Jpmjpmjpm)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Would Like to be Connected
Date: 23 Mar 1995 17:13:11 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

> However, I have heard from many ex-Prodigy users 
> (and some still using it)
> that Prodigy practices content-based censorship.

thats all true, but forget that, vote FOR THE MARSHALL PLAN!!

SUPPORT THE MARSHALL PLAN !

MARSHALL WILL GET GRIGGS ON THIS LIST FOR FREE!
(GRIG ALREADY HAS A MODEM)

LETS GO FOR FAST ACTION -  VOTE FOR THE MARSHALL PLAN|
AND IT WILL HAPPEN !!!!
..........................................................................
........
INT. OFFICE NITE
A guy sitting at a computer

                      JP May
               Who the hell are you?
..........................................................................
........
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjpmjpmjpm cudlnJpmjpmjpm cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.23 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Richard Schultz: not a Rocket Scientist
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Richard Schultz: not a Rocket Scientist
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 11:49 -0500 (EST)

jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
 
-> They forgot that in all cases, the rocket goes but the fuel stays behind.
-> Arthur C. Clarke described this in his analysis of the 1926 paper by Prof.
-> A. W. Bickerton:
 
Jed,
 
I am continually amazed at how you consistantly come up with applicable
references to any subject brought up here.  You must have a heck of a library
at home.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.23 / Tom Droege /  Re: Griggs Report
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Report
Date: 23 Mar 1995 22:44:10 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <werme.795972427@alingo.zk3.dec.com>, werme@alingo.zk3.dec.co
 (Eric Werme) says:

(snip)

>Of course:
>
>777) Be taken seriously by all readers of s.p.f.
>
>Once he reads some of our dialog, this will probably be lowered to 999).
>-- 

One of the big points I made to Griggs was the cost of doing an 
acceptable level of scientific presentation.  I said I thought it
would take 5 years and cost $1,000,000.  I do not think this is an
understatement.  He would, of course, like someone else to undertake
this expense.  But I figure differently.  He makes the claim, he 
has to do the work to present it.  

Tom Droege

>Eric (Ric) Werme         |  werme@zk3.dec.com
>Digital Equipment Corp.  |  This space intentionally left blank.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.23 / Tom Droege /  Now what to do with $700
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Now what to do with $700
Date: 23 Mar 1995 22:49:38 GMT
Organization: fermilab

Now that Marshall Dudley has offered to put Griggs on line for
free, thank you Marshall, we still have the question of what to
do with the left over money.  Steve Jones has said he could get
an addition to the money as a prize.  I too would add to it if
we can think up something that we can judge and test.  The real
problem is judgeing and testing.  I vote for gamma rays or charged
particle producer as that I know how to test in a way that there 
is not much room for agrument.  What do you all think?  

Remember man powered flight.  A small prize can bring a big 
result!

Tom Droege 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.23 /  Jpmjpmjpm /  Support The Marshall Plan
     
Originally-From: jpmjpmjpm@aol.com (Jpmjpmjpm)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Support The Marshall Plan
Date: 23 Mar 1995 17:22:52 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

*****************************************
                    SUPPORT THE MARSHALL PLAN
*****************************************
Marshall will get Griggs on this list for FREE.
(Griggs already has a modem.)
This is a spectacularly generous offer on Marshall's
part.
What could be better?  Nothing.
Post your (preferably humorous) support of this
plan NOW  !!!!!!
*****************************************
                    SUPPORT THE MARSHALL PLAN
*****************************************
It's the biggest thing since the New Deal.
All it needs to make it happen is a little
enthusiasm!    Hit reply and go for it!
*****************************************
     SUPPORT THE MARSHALL PLAN: HIT REPLY NOW
*****************************************

      signed,   your official waterboy

..........................................................................
........
INT. OFFICE NITE
A guy sitting at a computer

                      JP May
               Who the hell are you?
..........................................................................
........
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjpmjpmjpm cudlnJpmjpmjpm cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.24 / Tim Mirabile /  Re: Reward offer:  Extend to X-rays
     
Originally-From: Tim Mirabile <tim@mail.htp.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reward offer:  Extend to X-rays
Date: 24 Mar 1995 08:11:05 GMT
Organization: HTP Services 516-757-0210

In article <USE2PCB473172736@brbbs.brbbs.com>, 
mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes:

snip, snip

> Now, looking at the CF phenominia it becomes apparent that IF something exotic
> is happening, it must be different than normal D-D fusion.  The lack of
> neutrons tells us that.  Basically we have several possibilities, but taking
> the two most obvious ones for me, we could generate energy with a D-D reaction
> which produces neutrons, and hazardous nuclear waste.  Or we could have
> something else happening, such as I outlined (badly) yesterday in which the
> metal is actually being fused with the D or H producing another stable
> element and then may or may not be spitting out an alpha particle, which of
> course would become He4.
 
> Between the two options, the latter would be the desirable one.  Thus I think
> it unwise, even counterproductive, to offer a reward for people making progress
> on a dirty method, as opposed to a clean method.

That would mean that your Pd (or whatever metal you're using)
is *fuel*.  How long would the world supply of palladium
last if CF were perfected and used as a primary energy 
source around the world?

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudentim cudfnTim cudlnMirabile cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.23 / Scott Little /  Griggs feed pump power calculation
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs feed pump power calculation
Date: 23 Mar 1995 18:09:53 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

I've been lurking during the discussion of Droege's trip report.

One thing that surfaced that I have considered is the power added by
the water feed pump.  This can easily be shown to be negligible.

Power delivered by a flowing fluid is given by P=p*G where P is power,
p is pressure, and G is flow rate.  The units are a mess but if you
take 5 gpm and multiply by 40 psi (typical Griggs parameters), you 
get 87.0 watts.  Since the HS pump is nominally 50hp, this amounts to
about 0.2% of the output.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.23 / Tom Droege /  Re: Questions and Suggesions for Tom Droege
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Questions and Suggesions for Tom Droege
Date: 23 Mar 1995 17:48:05 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3krvdq$hgn@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, cyganski@ee.WPI.EDU (David Cyganski) says:
>
>Tom,
>First let me add my thanks. I too got my money's worth from your
>trip and report.  Nice job, professional job.
>
>I too would vote use of some of the money to give Griggs an Internet
>connection. Let this be the second official grant from the college
>of s.p.f. 
>
>I have a couple of questions, that you might want to answer and a
>suggestion.
>
>Question 1: From your report it is clear that the equipment and experimental
>protocol is not too far off from right. Obviously one might see 10 or
>20 percent error in the results without the carful calibrations that
>you properly suggest. Can you put a round number on the worst case error
>that you think could be taking place?

No, absolutely not.  This would require taking measurements and doing
the calculations that I criticize Griggs for not making.  
 
>
>Question 2: The power input was measured by both the Electrical power
>meter and through torque measurements.  I would expect the Electrical
>input power to be at least 10 to 30 percent higher than the mechanical
>since there should be considerable loss of power in heating of the
>motor that would not be seen as useful mechanical work. Is that how it
>looked to you on inspection of the two power measurements? Obviously it
>would be very suspicious if the two measures were too close.
>

I did not try to take any measurements.  I think the only one I reported
was a rough temperature and COP indication.  I did ask them if they 
had plotted the two power measurements against each other.  They said
"they were the same".  No error limits or mention of how they made them
"the same".  i.e. what corrections did they apply for the motor efficiency
etc..

>Question 3: How did the Thermal output power with your worst case
>estimate of error substracted compare to the mechanical input power
>with worst case error added and least case thermal loss subtracted?
>What I mean be thermal loss is this: The entire case of the pump
>should be quite hot (somewhere between the inlet and exit water
>temperatures) and thus it should be radiating some of the input energy
>directly into the surrounding environment.  Hence, we would expect a
>COP < 1 under standard physics. Would you care to put some round
>numbers on an upper bound for this COP and compare it to that measured
>with the worst case assumptions on the measurement quality.

I have no idea.  This would require a very detailed presentation.  This 
is what is needed, a real technical paper.

>
>I'll understand if you can't answer these given the amount of time and
>effort you were able to put in, but I thought I would ask just in case.
>
>Suggestion 1: It seems that Grigg's group would honestly like to make
>convincing measurements and is only hampered by lack of understanding
>as to what these would be. How about we take on a project on s.p.f or
>Bill Page's group, to erect a reasonable experimental procedure to
>convey to Griggs? I think he would appreciate it, as it would reduce

Yes,  I think first get Griggs on line, then we can help him.

>any frustration dealing with us, and we could satisfy our curiosity in
>a way that would not be frustrated by hit and miss experiments.
>
>Suggestion 2: If you want to buy a Griggs machine, many of us are
>professionals like yourself with deep pockets to match our deep
>curiosity.  I am sure that we could raise the funds much like we did

In case anyone has any doubts, I have voted with my feet.  I am not at
present renting an industrial building with three phase power.  The 
reason for this is that Griggs by his own words does not make a claim
of excess heat.  Therefor, there is nothing to consider until he does.

To get my attention, Griggs must make a good quality scientific 
presentation and must claim a positive result.  I the presentation is
convincing to me, then I will consider replicating it.

In other words, before I expend my time and energy to do a high quality
replication, Griggs must first do a high quality experiment.

Tom Droege

>for the trip.  The only requirement I would make is that the machine
>go to a competent engineer like yourself.  You could make this
>prospect particularly palatable for our funding by asking Griggs how
>much a year's rental would cost.
>
>Thanks again,
>David Cyganski
>
>
>
>
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.23 / Tom Droege /  I will not use funds for Griggs Connection.
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: I will not use funds for Griggs Connection.
Date: 23 Mar 1995 17:54:27 GMT
Organization: fermilab

I do not plan to use the Griggs fund for connecting him to the 
internet.  I have made the offer to him, and will pay for it 
myself it he takes me up on it.  I just want to make sure he 
connects somehow.  Marshall Dudley has made a nice offer.  I will
tell Griggs about it.  Several people are working on this.  I would 
still like to see someone grab the ball and run with it and say 
I will call Griggs and get him connected.  But until someone does,
I will carry the ball.  

The vote has just not been conclusive.  While most have voted in favor,
the cons are very strong.  Besides, with a free connection it will not
be much money.  It would have been nice to give the press the headline
"Internet group pays to give over unity claiment access to discussion"

But I understand.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.23 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Announcing: INFINITE ENERGY
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Announcing: INFINITE ENERGY
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 18:44:56 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On Mon, 20 Mar 1995, Eugene Mallove wrote:

> *****************************************************************************
>         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 
[... etc etc...]

Hey, I like it, this expresses exactly the TB's attitude to science. Also
reminds me of a talk I went to once on Trancendental Meditation; the bloke
spoke in capitals and used "INFINITE ENERGY" a lot. A real scientist. This
further reminds me of ...

          UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this 
          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED. 

I take it Stephan Hartmann is on the editorial board?

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

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.24 / Dieter Britz /  Re: "Cold Fusion" #8 arrives
     
Originally-From: britz@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Cold Fusion" #8 arrives
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 09:15:44 GMT
Date: 22 Mar 1995 12:27:35 -0500
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway



Originally-From: georgerw@aol.com (GeorgeRW)
Date: 22 Mar 1995 12:27:35 -0500

>Just got my copy of "Colf Fusion" #8 and read the book reviewe starting on
>page 2, Chris Illert's book "Alchemy Today II".
> There is an address for ordering the book which is no longer valid.

> New address is: David Harcher Childress
>                         Adventures Unlimited
>                         PO Box 74
>                         Kempton Il 60946-0074
>
>                         815-253-6390

>Book costs $45.00 plus $3.50 priority mail or $2.00 regular mail.

>I don't think anyone should call the Jemmerson number listed in the
>article, when I called I got a guy who said, "wrong number", and hung up.

Assoc. Prof. Chris Illert has written two volumes of "Alchemy Today", and the
Vol.2 has the subtitle "Introduction to Hadronic Circuit Diagrams and the
Secrets of Cold Nuclear Fusion", 172 pp. Extensively illustrated. Some full
color plates (yes, he does write "color"; Australia must be more USAmericanised
than I thought). He sells this for $50 (Aussie) plus $20 postage (send an
international bank cheque) in the soft-cover edition. His fax number is
+61-42-833009; full postal address: Institute for Basic Research, 2/3 Birch
Crescent, East Corrimal, N.S.W 2518, Australia. Sob, sigh, that's only a few km
from where I went to school. I wanted to get this book but the price stopped
me. Vol. 1, "Platonic Geometries in Nuclear Physics" is unfortunately no longer
available but Illert tells me it may be reprinted next year.

Hope this helps

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

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.23 / Dean Edmonds /  Re: Griggs Would Like to be Connected
     
Originally-From: deane@excalibur.net5c.io.org (Dean Edmonds)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Would Like to be Connected
Date: 23 Mar 1995 11:35:24 -0500
Organization: Teleride Sage Ltd.

In article <3kpolo$r3m@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>,
James Stolin <FKNF40A@prodigy.com> wrote:
>
>I would choose Prodigy over 
>AOL due to the EMAIL and capacity problems on AOL.

However, I have heard from many ex-Prodigy users (and some still using it)
that Prodigy practices content-based censorship. Specifically, they cancel
messages on their BBS which are critical of their parent companies, Sears
and IBM (? nor sure about that second one).

I've never heard of them extending this practice to Usenet postings, though.


=========================================================================
  - deane
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudendeane cudfnDean cudlnEdmonds cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.23 / James Stolin /  Re: Griggs Would Like to be Connected
     
Originally-From: FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Would Like to be Connected
Date: 23 Mar 1995 19:13:31 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

deane@excalibur.net5c.io.org (Dean Edmonds) wrote:
>
>In article <3kpolo$r3m@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>,
>James Stolin <FKNF40A@prodigy.com> wrote:
>>
>>I would choose Prodigy over 
>>AOL due to the EMAIL and capacity problems on AOL.
>
>However, I have heard from many ex-Prodigy users (and some still using 
it)
>that Prodigy practices content-based censorship. Specifically, they 
cancel
>messages on their BBS which are critical of their parent companies, 
Sears
>and IBM (? nor sure about that second one).

   BB posts that do not meet guidelines can be pulled.  No four-letter 
words, etc are allowed.  Posts must be on-topic so users aren't spending 
time reading crap unrelated to their interests though this is not 
enforced too closely at times.  The rules vary a bit from BB to BB.  I 
wouldn't blame them if the enforcement of guidelines were stricter when 
they concern Prodigy, IBM or Sears.  It's their ball we are playing with 
and their lot we are playing in.  However, I see posts critical of the 
aforementioned all the time.

>I've never heard of them extending this practice to Usenet postings, 
though.

I've never heard of them restricting Usenet except in the case of 
spamming, advertising, etc.  Though I said "crap" above", I could have 
said "shit". However, I just don't (usually) post like that. <G>

-
James B. Stolin  -  Illinois Computer Service  -  fknf40a@prodigy.com

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.23 / John Cobb /  Re: Griggs Would Like to be Connected
     
Originally-From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Would Like to be Connected
Date: 23 Mar 1995 14:15:33 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <3ksh8r$pek@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>,
James Stolin <FKNF40A@prodigy.com> wrote:
:>deane@excalibur.net5c.io.org (Dean Edmonds) wrote:
:>>
:>>Prodigy practices content-based censorship. Specifically, they 
:>cancel
:>>messages on their BBS which are critical of their parent companies, 
:>Sears
:>>and IBM (? nor sure about that second one).
:>
:>   BB posts that do not meet guidelines can be pulled. ...
:> It's their ball we are playing with 
:>and their lot we are playing in.  However, I see posts critical of the 
:>aforementioned all the time.
:>

Yea. And I never complain when my phone goes dead because I said something
derogatory about the phone company either. I mean, it is their phone lines
you know. Geesh. 

Now what is the purpose of this group anyway. I seem to have lost my way.

-john .w cobb


-- 
John W. Cobb	Quietly Making Noise, Pissing off the old Kill-Joys
		-Jimmy Buffett

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.24 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Good work, Tom!
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Good work, Tom!
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 09:59:58 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On 17 Mar 1995, Mark Muhlestein wrote:

> 
> 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.

I want to second that. Postings seem to be delayed for as much as a week
here, so I didn't read Tom's report until last night. First class, Tom!
In just 4 hours, you found out what we need to know, for the moment at least.
Your slightly apologetic tone is uncalled for, we got our money's worth.
And you need not have been so frugal with it.
Another thing that comes out of the report is that Griggs himself is not
at all a fanatic; he comes across much more reasonable than some of his
propagandists, who I think are not doing him any favours with their shrill
propaganda. 

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

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.24 / John Vetrano /  Re: Now what to do with $700
     
Originally-From: js_vetrano@pnl.gov (John Vetrano)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Now what to do with $700
Date: 24 Mar 1995 00:51:54 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <3kstu2$p6e@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
wrote:

> Now that Marshall Dudley has offered to put Griggs on line for
> free, thank you Marshall, we still have the question of what to
> do with the left over money.  Steve Jones has said he could get
> an addition to the money as a prize.  I too would add to it if
> we can think up something that we can judge and test.  The real
> problem is judgeing and testing.  I vote for gamma rays or charged
> particle producer as that I know how to test in a way that there 
> is not much room for agrument.  What do you all think?  
> 
> Remember man powered flight.  A small prize can bring a big 
> result!
> 
> Tom Droege 

As a suggestion:  The claim is often the production of T and He.  If no
one can think of another way that these elements would be enriched apart
from some exotic reaction that is not currently known, maybe there should
be a prize for some given level of either or both of these two.  I think
all of us would be equally excited if there was something unknown going
on, whether it is fusion or something else.  The production of "excess
heat" seems to be a sticking point, what with calorimetry disputes and
all.  However, excess T (or He) levels should be easy to detect, and would
perhaps be a better "acid test" as to whether or not SOMETHING is going
on.  So, if there are no neutrons, but there IS tritium production, that
should be of interest in itself, eh?  So, maybe a poster could be placed
at ICCF-5 stating the reward for X amount of tritium in a given time frame
produced by one of these cells under rigorous conditions (I know, the idea
needs a fair amount of refinement, but what the heck).  Since it appears
that neutron (and x-ray) production is what the fusioneers want to see to
believe, but the claim by the CFers tends towards other things, let's make
some lemonade (if life gives you lemons...).

Justa thought.

JV
js_vetrano@pnl.gov

-- 
The above opinions are mine, all mine.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjs_vetrano cudfnJohn cudlnVetrano cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.24 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Griggs Would Like to be Connected
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Would Like to be Connected
Date: 24 Mar 1995 01:27:59 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <3ksrpn$bdc@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, jpmjpmjpm@aol.com
(Jpmjpmjpm) wrote:

> > However, I have heard from many ex-Prodigy users 
> > (and some still using it)
> > that Prodigy practices content-based censorship.
> 
> thats all true, but forget that, vote FOR THE MARSHALL PLAN!!
> 
> SUPPORT THE MARSHALL PLAN !
> 
> MARSHALL WILL GET GRIGGS ON THIS LIST FOR FREE!
> (GRIG ALREADY HAS A MODEM)
> 
> LETS GO FOR FAST ACTION -  VOTE FOR THE MARSHALL PLAN|
> AND IT WILL HAPPEN !!!!
> ..........................................................................
> ........


Did someone leave the door open again?

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.24 / Barry Merriman /  Re: [GG] Thinking out loud...
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: [GG] Thinking out loud...
Date: 24 Mar 1995 03:11:44 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3kpvkk$rdn@newsgate.sps.mot.com> rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com (Doug  
Shade) writes:
> Thanks to Tom Droege for the trip / report
> Thanks to Jimm Carr for forwarding me a copy of that report
> 
> Well from the report it seems clear that Griggs is trying to optimize
> the effect with different rotor configurations... ultrasound being the
> supposed driving mechanism(?).
> 
> It suggests some other experiments...
> 
> 1)add ultrasound to water and look for inordinate heat rise (though
> this is surely being done in SL and SBSL labs now)
> 
> 2)add ultrasound to STEAM and look for inordinate pressure (or heat)
> rise
> (I'm supposing that 'the effect' does not kick in on a GG until the
> rotor / chamber is able to produce some steam.)
> 
> Neither of these would require a 50HP motor.... 
> 
> I wish the Hydrodynamics guys were able to read some of this stuff...

No offense, but they would be foolish to try and exptrapolate
from their experiment to these completely different scenarios.

If they were likely observing a real excess heat effect, those
would be natural second step experiments. But before that, they
need to do much more work to diagnose their exisitng setup.
--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.24 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Thermocouple positioning
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermocouple positioning
Date: 24 Mar 1995 03:11:53 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <By3YnCB.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> Thomas S. Zemanian <ts_zemanian@pnl.gov> writes:
>  
> >Piece o' cake.  All that's required is the ID of the pipe (schedule 40,
> >perhaps?), the flowrate, and the temperature.  From the temperature we look
> >up the density and viscosity (I've got the steam tables right here at my
> >desk, so no problem there) and compute the velocity of the flow from the ID
> >of the pipe and the flowrate specified.  Construct a Reynold's number:
>  
> How wonderful! An engineer! What a delight it is to read someone who actually
> knows how to solve real world problems. Ah, I should find out what the
> exact pipe ID is. . . 

Well, this is all pretty superficial---without even doing the calcualtion
its obvious that the outflow is turbulent----its flowing out 
of a 3600 RPM rotor for gosh sake! Unless the outflow pipe 
has the diameter of a human hair, its going to be very turbulent.

The best way to answer these questions is through empirical tests,
not theoretical arguments. For example, jed says he measured
temp in his barrel, stirred, and measured again, and got a similar
temp, and that it further agreed well with the themocouple temps.
If so, that is a fine test.

We should certainly have such checks when Marshall Dudley goes on the scene as
well. Hopefully, Marshall will be looking to get a thorough heat 
balance, while Jed was rather more oriented towards verfiying/checking their
existng experimental protocol.



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


cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.24 / Barry Merriman /  Re: [GG] Thinking out loud...
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: [GG] Thinking out loud...
Date: 24 Mar 1995 03:12:44 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3kpvkk$rdn@newsgate.sps.mot.com> rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com (Doug  
Shade) writes:
> Thanks to Tom Droege for the trip / report
> Thanks to Jimm Carr for forwarding me a copy of that report
> 
> Well from the report it seems clear that Griggs is trying to optimize
> the effect with different rotor configurations... ultrasound being the
> supposed driving mechanism(?).
> 
> It suggests some other experiments...
> 
> 1)add ultrasound to water and look for inordinate heat rise (though
> this is surely being done in SL and SBSL labs now)
> 
> 2)add ultrasound to STEAM and look for inordinate pressure (or heat)
> rise
> (I'm supposing that 'the effect' does not kick in on a GG until the
> rotor / chamber is able to produce some steam.)
> 
> Neither of these would require a 50HP motor.... 
> 
> I wish the Hydrodynamics guys were able to read some of this stuff...

No offense, but they would be foolish to try and exptrapolate
from their experiment to these completely different scenarios.

If they were likely observing a real excess heat effect, those
would be natural second step experiments. But before that, they
need to do much more work to diagnose their exisitng setup.
--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.24 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Thermocouple positioning
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermocouple positioning
Date: 24 Mar 1995 03:13:32 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <By3YnCB.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> Thomas S. Zemanian <ts_zemanian@pnl.gov> writes:
>  
> >Piece o' cake.  All that's required is the ID of the pipe (schedule 40,
> >perhaps?), the flowrate, and the temperature.  From the temperature we look
> >up the density and viscosity (I've got the steam tables right here at my
> >desk, so no problem there) and compute the velocity of the flow from the ID
> >of the pipe and the flowrate specified.  Construct a Reynold's number:
>  
> How wonderful! An engineer! What a delight it is to read someone who actually
> knows how to solve real world problems. Ah, I should find out what the
> exact pipe ID is. . . 

Well, this is all pretty superficial---without even doing the calcualtion
its obvious that the outflow is turbulent----its flowing out 
of a 3600 RPM rotor for gosh sake! Unless the outflow pipe 
has the diameter of a human hair, its going to be very turbulent.

The best way to answer these questions is through empirical tests,
not theoretical arguments. For example, jed says he measured
temp in his barrel, stirred, and measured again, and got a similar
temp, and that it further agreed well with the themocouple temps.
If so, that is a fine test.

We should certainly have such checks when Marshall Dudley goes on the scene as
well. Hopefully, Marshall will be looking to get a thorough heat 
balance, while Jed was rather more oriented towards verfiying/checking their
existng experimental protocol.


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


cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.24 / David Davies /  Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment,sci.
nergy,sci.materials
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
Date: 24 Mar 1995 10:31:35 +1000
Organization: Australian National University

sarfatti@ix.netcom.com (Jack Sarfatti) writes:

>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?


Yes, I agree Jack but it seems impossible to get any acceptance in s.p.f
that any such effects are possible. 

I can see a number of possible ways that Vacuum Fluctuations could be tapped
as energy sources. My favourite is that the deuterium nucleus is kicked up in
energy from the S state to the D state by VF and in the D state, because of the
D states charge distribution, is more readily taken up into the paladium (etc)
lattice. It then preferentially leaves the xtal matrix in the S state and so
leaves the energy difference behind in the lattice as (eventually) phonons.

Alternatively, if we take a more physical interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
in that the wavefunction represents real, physical matter stuff (eg. local space/
time soliton type entities) and allow the charge of a particle to spread out 
according to the wavefunction rather than concentrated at some singularity (what-
ever that might mean physically) then the Casimir force could be directly and
simply applicable.

Duterium nuclei may form band states in the lattice that are lumpy planar sheets.
This as has been suggested by some (pre-CF) workers in the area and I think
references to this are in Chuck Harrison's TiBib database somewhere. (Sorry to be 
so vague but I am writing quickly off the top of my head and haven't thought much
about this topic for a while.)

If this picture is valid then you have the possibility of two closely spaced 
charged plates/sheets that can be forced together by the classic Casimir force 
overcoming the nuclear coulomb barrier. The energy released by the reaction would
also be distributed through the xtal, initially coherently on a wide scale but 
quickly breaking up into smaller spatial units and being lost in the phonon sea
as heat.


dave
dave.davies@anu.edu.au

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.24 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Thermocouple positioning
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermocouple positioning
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 95 10:57:45 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Thomas S. Zemanian <ts_zemanian@pnl.gov> writes:
 
>Assuming you can trust the method of measurement of the temp in the bucket,
>it sounds pretty  convincing to me that the thermocouples are reading the
>pipe temperature correctly, and that the pipe flow is fairly well mixed.
 
I think I can trust it to within 1 deg F. That is our target: one degree.
Since the excess heat produces a Delta T temp of up to 20 deg F, I figure
one degree should do. To measure temperature in the bucket, I use an
electronic thermometer (a thermistor from Radio Shack -- I carry two or three),
and a mercury thermometer, and a cooking thermometer (with 5 deg increments).
The Radio Shack ones only work up to 50 deg C though, so I had to use Griggs'
electronic thermistors above that, plus the non-electronic ones.
 
>How frequently do you perform this test?
 
Every time I go there, at every run, as often as I get around to it. The data
comes in to a computer, and I do not trust a computer as far as I can throw it.
I don't trust any complicated electronic gadgets. I don't know how often Jim
Griggs checks with other instruments. Fairly often I guess.
 
It is a good thing I do always check, because the first time I was there I
found the thermocouple readings were screwy. They were K-Type thermocouples
attached to a fancy new interface box with the interface board DIP switchs
set for some other type of thermocouples. The readings were completely
skewed. That's what happens with electronic gadgets! They should be shot.
That is why I like the experiments of Dennis Cravens more than Mike McKubre's.
Those ultra precise calorimeters can become white elephants. Too much
precision is too much of a good thing. It is better by far to find a way to
boost the signal an order of magnitude up. Massive excess measured with
crude but reliable instruments is *much* more convincing than a tiny excess
measured with ultra-sophisticated finicky instruments, in my opinion.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.24 /  jedrothwell@de /  CO2 contamination in Pd D2O experiments
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CO2 contamination in Pd D2O experiments
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 95 10:41:45 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

jnw@elvis.vnet.net (John N. White) writes:
 
     "When researchers at Texas A&M tested some open cells they found that
     the D2O electrolyte had become about 30% H2O due to exchange with the
     atmosphere. This came as a surprise to the researchers, who had assumed
     that the outflow of gas would prevent any contamination."
 
Yes. Bockris is who told me he thinks CO2 clobbers the reaction, and Takahashi
agreed. I believe, though, that if electrolysis power is relatively high and a
lot of gas comes out of the cell, contaminants and CO2 can be kept down to
acceptable levels. The CO2 question arose in a discussion during which several
people noted that when a cell is replenished with new heavy water during a
run, it will often die for several hours. Some people think that could be
caused be a thermal shock, but others speculate that it is because of exposure
to air and to D2O stocks which have been carelessly handled: kept in half
empty bottles so that they absorb a lot of CO2 and whatnot.
 
I do not know why CO2 might poison the reaction. I recall they said it gets on
the cathode surface. Fortunately, after a few hours of electrolysis it would
likely be purged to a large extent, which would explain why the reaction would
start up again.
 
 
     "The bottom line is that the only way to show that there is no
     contamination from the atmosphere is to test for it. If this is not
     done, then the level of contamination is unknown."
 
Better yet, use a closed cell *and* test for it. And keep the D2O stocks
clean. If you use an open cell that requires replenishing, I think a medical
IV bag with an IV tube and a stopcock is a good way to go. You eliminate the
open air space on top, you do not open or slosh around bottles and cells. The
bag collapses as the water is used up. The Bags and tubes are standard medical
supplies, you can even get them at some large drugstores, I believe.
 
Best yet -- use a double structured cathode. That locks out contamination
right at the cathode on a microscopic level. A gas loaded experiment (with top
quality pure gas) is another good alternative.
 
My guess is that contamination is the main cause of most non-working Pd D2O
experiments. Certainly the successful experimenters I have observed at work
are a couple orders of magnitude more careful than the slop artists of 1989
who unsuccessfully tried to replicate the experiment. But Pd experiments are
so finicky and so problematic that I think people should stop fooling with
them altogether. If you want to figure out the Pons-Fleischmann effect I can
see the point, but if you are looking for a solution to the energy crisis, it
seems to me you would do better to build a Griggs gadget or something like
that.
 
 
     "It is interesting that CO2 will clobber a CF reaction, especially since
     many use potassium carbonate in their electrolyte."
 
I believe those are all Ni experiments. I have never heard of potassium
carbonate with anything but a Mills style Ni cell. The rules for nickel are
quite different from palladium. I have no idea why, but they are. In both
cases though, you must avoid contamination. Keep It Clean! That's the beauty
of the Griggs Gadget and similar devices. You can make it as filthy as you
like yet it always works. People have run all kinds of fluids through the GG,
including: tap water, ocean water, milk, water full of factory waste (dye),
and used antifreeze from automobile and truck engines. You get excess heat in
every case. I don't know if anyone has ever tried a fluid with not water or no
hydrogen in it.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.24 / Bruce Dunn /  Re: Questions and Suggesions for Tom Droege
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Questions and Suggesions for Tom Droege
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 95 09:04:57 -0800
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

David Cyganski writes:

> I would expect the Electrical input power to be at least 10 to 30 percent
> higher than the mechanical since there should be considerable loss of
> power in heating of the motor that would not be seen as useful mechanical
> work.

     The losses of power by heating in the motor could largely be
eliminated by water cooling the motor rather than air cooling it, using the
input water as a coolant (and thus recovering the resistive heating in the
motor as useful heat in the flow).  This could be done even for an air
cooled motor by enclosing the motor in an insulated box, and putting a
flow-through radiator and fan inside the box.  Similar, losses from the hot
pump housing and the hot-side plumbing could be largely elimated by
wrapping everything in fiberglass insulation.  I am surprised that from the
descriptions given by Jed and Tom, such a strategy doesn't seem to be used.
It would seem to be a logical step in developing a commercial water heater
- maybe the test models are a special case.

     However, when testing for overunity in a unit recovering motor heat,
it would be important to note that the dynometer could no longer be used as
the water would not just be heated by mechanical power.  This throws the
whole burden of showing overunity on a comparison between the electrical
input and the heat output.



--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.24 / Bill Page /  Re: Now what to do with $700
     
Originally-From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Now what to do with $700
Date: 24 Mar 1995 17:15:41 GMT
Organization: dsis

In article <3kstu2$p6e@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) says:
>
>Now that Marshall Dudley has offered to put Griggs on line for
>free, thank you Marshall, we still have the question of what to
>do with the left over money.  Steve Jones has said he could get
>an addition to the money as a prize.  I too would add to it if
>we can think up something that we can judge and test.  The real
>problem is judgeing and testing.  I vote for gamma rays or charged
>particle producer as that I know how to test in a way that there 
>is not much room for agrument.  What do you all think?  
>
>Remember man powered flight.  A small prize can bring a big 
>result!
>
>Tom Droege 


I think the idea of a prize is good, but I would vote for your
original suggestion, Tom, of a replicated excess heat experiment.
I think you suggested something like 8 out of 10 attempts to replicate.
We could state how "independent" these attempts should be and what
the uncertainty in the measurements should be, as well as specifying
some minimum standards to the measurement methodology.

I don't like looking for gammas or charged particles because we do
not know that these must be produced by the unknown "CF" process. The
strongest claims have always been for the excess heat measurements.
Almost everything else is still up in the air.

Cheers,

Bill Page.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenwspage cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.24 / Brendan Niemira /  GG: motor heat losses
     
Originally-From: niemirab@student.msu.edu  (Brendan A. Niemira)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: GG: motor heat losses
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995  12:30 est
Organization: Michigan State University

In Article <67471-796064697@mindlink.bc.ca> "Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
(Bruce Dunn)" says:
>      The losses of power by heating in the motor could largely be
> eliminated by water cooling the motor rather than air cooling it, using the
> input water as a coolant (and thus recovering the resistive heating in the
> motor as useful heat in the flow).  This could be done even for an air
> cooled motor by enclosing the motor in an insulated box, and putting a
> flow-through radiator and fan inside the box.  Similar, losses from the hot
> pump housing and the hot-side plumbing could be largely elimated by
> wrapping everything in fiberglass insulation.  I am surprised that from the
> descriptions given by Jed and Tom, such a strategy doesn't seem to be used.
> It would seem to be a logical step in developing a commercial water heater
> - maybe the test models are a special case.
Let's not forget that this is a commercial venture.  It may be that the
increased cost and complexity of additional plumbing, pumps, fans, etc. may 
not be justified by the amount of heat they would recover.  If Griggs is indeed
getting very, very high conversion effeciency, he may not need to really worry
about these losses.
.................

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Brendan A. Niemira           |   "You know your Shelley, Bertie."             
Dept. Botany and Plant Path  |   "Oh, am I?"
Michigan State University    |       P.G. Wodehouse
niemirab@student.msu.edu     |       *The Code of the Woosters*
        All opinions expressed are entirely my own.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenniemirab cudfnBrendan cudlnNiemira cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.25 / Robin Spaandonk /        Re: Palladium fuel
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:       Re: Palladium fuel
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 08:12:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>Originally-From: Tim Mirabile <tim@mail.htp.com>
[snip]
>That would mean that your Pd (or whatever metal you're using)
>is *fuel*.  How long would the world supply of palladium
>last if CF were perfected and used as a primary energy
>source around the world?

It's the principle that counts. Once that is understood, I'm sure 
other fuels would crop up. (e.g. Titanium).
Though not often concentrated, Titanium is fairly abundant in the 
earth's cust.

Regards,

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

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.25 / Robin Spaandonk /        Re: Peroxide hypothesis
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:       Re: Peroxide hypothesis
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 08:12:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
>>jnw@elvis.vnet.net (John N. White) writes:
>>
>>     "Energy can be stored by converting water into peroxide:
>>          2 H2O -> H2O2 + H2 (requires energy from electrode overpotential)
>>
>>     The energy is later released by:
>>          2 H2O2 -> H2O + O2 (releases 4 MegaJoules per liter of peroxide)
>>
>>     The energy would be stored during the long precharge time that always
>>     seems to be needed before a large burst occurs. The energy is then
>>     released during the burst."
>>
>Well, if cold fusion "bursts" were limited to roughly 4 MJ per liter, this
>might have some relevance to the discussion. However many continuous bursts
>are hundreds of times larger than this, and some are on the order of 10,000
>times larger. So your hypothesis fails to explain the data. It is off by 3 to
>5 orders of magnitude. A hypothesis that fails to this extent is useless. You
>might as well suggest that if I get a running start, I might be able to jump
>over the Empire State Building.
>
>- Jed

Jed,

Could you please give a precise reference to one such example?

Regards,

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

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.24 /  timhulse@ibl.b /  Re: Muon-catalyzed Fusion
     
Originally-From: timhulse@ibl.bm
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Muon-catalyzed Fusion
Date: 24 Mar 1995 01:45:41 GMT
Organization: Galactic Patrol

>   zcbag@pitt.pgh.wec.com (B. Alan Guthrie) writes:
  
>    A drawback is that the muon has a halflife of two microseconds, and the
>    production of a muon costs the energy of about 300 to 400 fusion events.
I read an article somewhere about the Casimir effect being used to successfully extend 
the lifetime of unstable particles ('cos some of their decay modes are forbidden in the 
Casimir gap, I think), I wonder if that might come in handy somewhere. 
>>>>
Tim Hulse
timhulse@ibl.bm
"How we have progressed, thanks to the machine..." -E.M.F.

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudentimhulse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.23 / Alastair Mayer /  Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously
     
Originally-From: alastair@firewall.ihs.com (Alastair Mayer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously
Date: 23 Mar 1995 12:59:55 -0700
Organization: Information Handling Services

MARSHALL DUDLEY (mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com) wrote:
: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) writes:
:  
: -> I suppose you are aware that this was exactly the agrument made in the
: -> 1920's that no chemical fuel could possiby release enough energy on
: -> combustion to take a rocket to the moon?  I have seen the calculation:
: -> the most powerful chemical can only put out x calories/g, it takes
: -> y calories/g to get something to the moon, and y > x, Q.E.D.  So your
: -> "thousands of years" is really only about 70, i.e. not that much
: -> more than nuclear theory.
:  
: Strange that they would figure on taking all their spent fuel on the trip to
: the moon with them.  It doesn't sound like a very intelligent argument to me.
:  
: Now the bumblee, that one was easier to understand.

Yeah, they were doing fixed-wing analysis.  And they got it right,
too -- bumblebees don't glide worth a darn.  (Neither do helicopters
if the rotor stops.)

:  
:                                                                 Marshall
:  
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenalastair cudfnAlastair cudlnMayer cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.24 /  Alter /  Re: Griggs Report
     
Originally-From: schamber@egr.msu.edu (Alter )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Report
Date: 24 Mar 1995 15:40:43 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University

The below QBasic program written by Larry Schamber aka Alter 
to demonstrate the errors of computations by numerical 
integration of Cp*dt from T1 to T2, dt = .01 C.
 
The program is in text form that can be read and hopefully 
understood by humans.
 
Given that T1 = 55 F  = 12.77 C
and        T2 = 155 F = 68.33 C
 
the program calculated the enthalpy change (at 1 atm)
 
by cubic interpolation deltaH = 232.35 kj/kg
by integration with Cp deltaH = 243.01 kj/kg
 
error = 4.48%
 
Notice that integration with Cp*dt yields a greater deltaH. 
The enthalpy table lookup will have errors less than 
1/2000 or 0.05%.
 
later
alter
 
 
 
begin 644 hwater.bas
M)U%"87-I8R!P<F]G<F%M('1O(&EN=&5R<&]L871E(&AO="!W871E<B!E;G1Hz
M86QP>2!V<R!T96UP97)A='5R92!T86)L97,-"B=U<VEN9R!A('!S975D;R!Cy
M=6)I8R!S<&QI;F4N#0HG#0HG06QS;R!C;VUP=71E<R!E;G1H86QP>2!D:69Fx
M97)E;F-E(&)Y(&)R=71E(&9O<F-E(&YU;65R:6-A; T*)VEN=&5G<F%T:6]Nw
M('5S:6YG($-P*F14(&9R;VT@5#$@=&\@5#(-"B<-"B=4:&4@:&]T('=A=&5Rv
M('1A8FQE(&QO;VMU<"!I<R!T:&4@8VQO<V5R(&%N<W=E<BX-"B<-"B=7<FETu
M=&5N(&)Y($QA<G)Y(%-C:&%M8F5R(&%K82!!;'1E<@T*)PT*)S(T($UA<F-Ht
M(#$Y.34-"@T*#0H-"D1)32!42#)/*#$@5$\@,C$I($%3($1/54),10T*1$E-s
M($A(,D\H,2!43R R,2D@05,@1$]50DQ%#0I$24T@1B@Q(%1/(#,L(#$@5$\@r
M,C I($%3($1/54),10T*1$E-(%1#4$@R3R@Q(%1/(#<I($%3($1/54),10T*q
M1$E-($-02#)/*#$@5$\@-RD@05,@1$]50DQ%#0I$24T@1R@Q(%1/(#,L(#$@p
M5$\@-BD@05,@1$]50DQ%#0I$24T@6"@Q(%1/(#,L(#$@5$\@,RD@05,@1$]5o
M0DQ%(" G57-E9"!T;R!C86QC(&1E=&5R;6EN86YT<PT*#0I$149$0DP@02U(n
M+"!++5H-"D1%1DE.5"!)+4H-"@T*)U!S975D;R!C=6)I8R!S<&QI;F4@:6YTm
M97)P;VQA=&EO;B!B87-E9"!U<&]N#0HG5&5M<"!A;F0@96YT:&%L<'D@;V8@l
M=V%T97(@870@,3 P:U!A("@Q(&%T;2D-"B=F<F]M(%1H97)M;V1Y;F%M:6-Sk
M+"!#96YG96P@86YD($)O;&5S#0HG5&%B;&4@02TV#0HG5&AE(&QE9G0@8V]Lj
M=6UN(&ES('1E;7!E<F%T=7)E(%M#72!A;F0-"B=T:&4@<FEG:'0@8V]L(&ESi
M(&5N=&AA;'!Y(%MK:F]U;&5S+VMG70T*#0I$051!("XP,2PN,#$-"D1!5$$@h
M-2PR,"XY. T*1$%402 Q,"PT,BXP,0T*1$%402 Q-2PV,BXY.0T*1$%402 Rg
M,"PX,RXY-@T*1$%402 R-2PQ,#0N.#D-"D1!5$$@,S L,3(U+C<Y#0I$051!f
M(#,U+#$T-BXV. T*1$%402 T,"PQ-C<N-3<-"D1!5$$@-#4L,3@X+C0U#0I$e
M051!(#4P+#(P.2XS,PT*1$%402 U-2PR,S N,C,-"D1!5$$@-C L,C4Q+C$Sd
M#0I$051!(#8U+#(W,BXP-@T*1$%402 W,"PR.3(N.3@-"D1!5$$@-S4L,S$Sc
M+CDS#0I$051!(#@P+#,S-"XY,0T*1$%402 X-2PS-34N.3 -"D1!5$$@.3 Lb
M,S<V+CDR#0I$051!(#DU+#,Y-RXY-@T*1$%402 Q,# L-#$Y+C T#0H-"B=0a
M<V5U9&\@8W5B:6,@<W!L:6YE(&EN=&5R<&]L871I;VX@8F%S960@=7!O;@T*z
M)U1E;7 @86YD(&5N=&AA;'!Y(&]F('=A=&5R(&%T(#$P,&M082 H,2!B87(Iy
M#0HG9G)O;2!4:&5R;6]D>6YA;6EC<RP@0V5N9V5L(&%N9"!";VQE<PT*)U1Ax
M8FQE($$M,PT*)U1H92!L969T(&-O;'5M;B!I<R!T96UP97)A='5R92!;0UT@w
M86YD#0HG=&AE(')I9VAT(&-O;"!I<R!S<&5C:69I8R!H96%T(%MK:F]U;&5Sv
M+RAK9RI+*5T-"@T*1$%402 P+#0N,C$W#0I$051!(#8N.#4L-"XQ.3@-"D1!u
M5$$@,C8N.#4L-"XQ-SD-"D1!5$$@-#8N.#4L-"XQ.# -"D1!5$$@-C8N.#4Lt
M-"XQ.#@-"D1!5$$@.#8N.#4L-"XR,#,-"D1!5$$@.3DN.#4L-"XR,3@-"@T*s
M#0I#4$@R3TE.250@/2 P(" @("=7:&5N('IE<F\L(&YE960@=&\@:6YI=&EAr
M;&EZ92!T:&4@0U!(,D\@87)R87ES#0I(,D])3DE4(#T@," @(" G5VAE;B!Zq
M97)O+"!N965D('1O(&EN:71I86QI>F4@=&AE($@R3R!A<G)A>7,-"D-,4PT*p
M4%))3E0@(DEN:71I86QI>FEN9R!T:&4@5V%T97(@16YT:&%L<'D@87)R87ESo
M+BXN(@T*1T]354(@2#)/(" @(" @)TEN:70@=&AE($@R3R!A<G)A>7,-"E!2n
M24Y4("));FET:6%L:7II;F<@=&AE(%=A=&5R(%-P96-I9FEC(&AE870@87)Rm
M87ES+BXN(@T*1T]354(@0U!(,D\@(" @(" G26YI="!T:&4@2#)/('-P96-Il
M9FEC(&AE870@87)R87ES#0H-"@T*#0I30U)%14X@,3(-"E=)3D1/5R H,"P@k
M,"DM*#$P-2P@-#(P*0T*#0I)3E!55" B5VAA="!I<R!4,3\@6T-E;G1I9W)Aj
M9&5=("(L(%0Q#0H-"DE.4%54(")7:&%T(&ES(%0R/R!;0V5N=&EG<F%D95T@i
M(BP@5#(-"@T*5$@R3R ](%0R#0I'3U-50B!(,D\@)TQO;VL@=7 @=&AE(&5Nh
M=&AA;'!Y(&]F($@R3R!A="!42#)//50R#0I(,B ]($A(,D\-"@T*5$@R3R ]g
M(%0Q#0I'3U-50B!(,D\@)TQO;VL@=7 @=&AE(&5N=&AA;'!Y(&]F($@R3R!Af
M="!42#)//50Q#0I(,2 ]($A(,D\-"@T*9&5L=&%(82 ]($@R("T@2#$@(" Ge
M8V%L8R=D(&)Y(&UE=&AO9" B82(-"@T*4%))3E0@(F)Y(&5N=&AA;'!Y('1Ad
M8FQE(&QO;VMU<"P@6VMJ+VMG72(-"E!224Y4(%5324Y'(")D96QT84@@/2 Cc
M(R,N(R,B.R!D96QT84AA#0I04DE.5" Z(%!224Y4#0H-"@T*9&5L=&%(8B ]b
M(# -"F1E;'1A5" ]("XP,0T*#0I&3U(@5$@R3R ](%0Q(%1/(%0R(%-415 @a
M9&5L=&%4#0H-"D=/4U5"($-02#)/(" @("=,;V]K('5P('1H92!S<&5C:69Iz
M8R!H96%T(&%T(%1(,D\-"@T*9&5L=&%(8B ](&1E;'1A2&(@*R!#4$@R3R Jy
M(&1E;'1A5 T*#0I.15A4(%1(,D\-"@T*4%))3E0@(F)Y(&EN=&5G<F%T:6]Nx
M('=I=&@@<W!E8VEF:6,@:&5A="!T86)L92!L;V]K=7 L(%MK:B]K9UTB#0I0w
M4DE.5"!54TE.1R B9&5L=&%((#T@(R,C+B,C(CL@9&5L=&%(8@T*#0I(;65Av
M;B ]("AD96QT84AA("L@9&5L=&%(8BD@+R R#0H-"F5P<R ]("AD96QT84ABu
M("T@9&5L=&%(82D@+R!(;65A;@T*#0I04DE.5"!54TE.1R B4&5R8V5N="!Et
M<G)O<B ](",N(R,B.R!E<',@*B Q,# -"@T*#0I%3D0-"@T*#0H-"B<@=2 ]s
M(&@@+2!25 T*)R!H(#T@=2 K(%!V(#T@=2 K(%)4#0HG(%!V(#T@4E0-"B<-r
M"B=W:&5R93H-"B<@(" @(" @("!2(#T@,"XQ.#@Y(%MK2B]K9TM=#0HG(" @q
M(" @(" @4G4@/2 X+C,Q-"!;:THO:VUO;$M=#0HG(" @(" @(" @=B @/2!;p
M;5XS+VMG72 ](#$O(&1E;G-I='D-"B<-"B=)9B!T:&5R92=S(&%N(&ES96YTo
M<F]P:6,@8V]M<')E<W-I;VX@9G)O;2!S=&%T92 Q('1O('-T871E(#(-"@T*n
M)U!R;W!E<G1I97,@:VYO=VXZ#0HG<W1A=&4@,3H@5#TS,# -"@T*#0H-"D5.m
M1 T*#0I(,D\Z#0H-"B=496UP(&%N9"!E;G1H86QP>2!O9B!(,D\@=VET:"!Al
M(&)A<V4@=&5M<&5R871U<F4@;V8@,S P2PT*)W1H97-E(&YU;6)E<G,@87)Ek
M(&9R;VT@5&AE<FUO9'EN86UI8W,L($-E;F=E;"!A;F0@0F]L97,-"B=486)Lj
M92!!+3(P#0H@#0I)1B!(,D])3DE4(#T@,"!42$5.#0H@(" @($@R3TE.250@i
M/2 Q#0H-"B @(" @1D]2($D@/2 Q(%1/(#(Q#0H-"B @(" @(" @("!214%$h
M(%1)+"!(2#)/20T*(" @(" @(" @(%1(,D\H22D@/2!422 @(" @(" @)T-Og
M;G9E<G0@=&\@2V5L=FEN#0H@(" @(" @(" @(" @(" @(" @(" @(" @(" @f
M(" G4'5T('1H92!T96UP97)A='5R97,@8G)E86MS#0H@(" @(" @(" @(" @e
M(" @(" @(" @(" @(" @(" G:6X@=&AE(%1(,D\H:2D@87)R87DN#0H@(" @d
M(" @(" @2$@R3RA)*2 ]($A(,D])(" @(" G4'5T('1H92!(,D\@96YT:&%Lc
M<'D@:6YT;R!A<G)A>2!(2#)/*&DI#0H-"B @(" @3D585"!)#0H-"B=.965Db
M('1O(&-A;&-U;&%T92!T:&4@8V]E9F9S(&]F('1H92!I;G1E<G!O;&%T:6YGa
M(&9U;F-T:6]N<PT*)PT*)U5S:6YG($A(,D\@/2!&,BI42#)/7C(@*R!&,2I4z
M2#)/7C$@*R!#, T*)PT*)U1H92!C;V5F9G,@0S(L0S$L0S @8V%N(&)E(&-Ay
M;&-U;&%T960@9F]R(&%N>2!L:6YE('-E9VUE;G0@=VET:"!T:')E90T*)VMNx
M;W=N(&1A=&$@<&]I;G1S+"!U<VEN9R!#<F%M97(G<R!R=6QE+@T*)U1H92!Fw
M=6YC=&EO;B!D970H*2!W:6QL(&)E('5S960@97AT96YS:79E;'D-"B=3971Uv
M<"!W:6QL(')E<75I<F4@=&AA="!T:&4@,W@S(&%R<F%Y(%@H+"D@87)R86YGu
M960@87,@9F]L;&]W<SH-"B<-"B<@9&5T6R!8,UXR(%@S(#$@70T*)R @("!;t
M(%@R7C(@6#(@,2!=#0HG(" @(%L@6#%>,B!8,2 Q(%T-"@T*22 ](#$@(" @s
M("=3<&5C:6%L(&-A<V4@=VEL;"!T86ME(&ET<R!T:')E92!D871A('!O:6YTr
M<R!D:69F97)E;G1L>0T*(" @("!'3U-50B!805)205DQ#0H-"B @(" @1T]3q
M54(@1$5415)-24Y!3E0@(" G1&\@=&AE(&1E="!O9B!8*"PI#0H@(" @($0@p
M/2!D970-"@T*(" @("!&3U(@2B ](#$@5$\@,PT*(" @(" @(" @(%@H,2P@o
M2BD@/2!(2#)/*$DI#0H@(" @(" @(" @6"@R+"!**2 ]($A(,D\H22 K(#$In
M#0H@(" @(" @(" @6"@S+"!**2 ]($A(,D\H22 K(#(I#0H@(" @(" @(" @m
M1T]354(@1$5415)-24Y!3E0-"B @(" @(" @("!2(#T@9&5T#0H@(" -"B @l
M(" @(" @("!&*#0@+2!*+"!)*2 ](%(@+R!$#0H@(" @(" @(" @1T]354(@k
M6$%24D%9,0T*(" @("!.15A4($H-"@T*#0I&3U(@22 ](#(@5$\@,C -"@T*j
M(" @("!'3U-50B!805)205D-"@T*(" @("!'3U-50B!$151%4DU)3D%.5" @i
M("=$;R!T:&4@9&5T(&]F(%@H+"D-"B @(" @1" ](&1E= T*#0H@(" @($9/h
M4B!*(#T@,2!43R S#0H@(" @(" @(" @6"@Q+"!**2 ]($A(,D\H22 M(#$Ig
M#0H@(" @(" @(" @6"@R+"!**2 ]($A(,D\H22D-"B @(" @(" @("!8*#,Lf
M($HI(#T@2$@R3RA)("L@,2D-"B @(" @(" @("!'3U-50B!$151%4DU)3D%.e
M5 T*(" @(" @(" @(%(@/2!D970-"B @(" -"B @(" @(" @("!&*#0@+2!*d
M+"!)*2 ](%(@+R!$#0H@(" @(" @(" @1T]354(@6$%24D%9#0H@(" @($Y%c
M6%0@2@T*#0I.15A4($D-"@T*#0I%3%-%#0H@(" @("=&:7)S="!N965D('1Ob
M(&1E=&5R;6EN92!W:&EC:"!*('-E9VUE;G0@=VAE<F4@=&AE('1E;7!E<F%Ta
M=7)E(%1(,D\@:7,-"@T*(" @("!*(#T@,0T*(" @("!&3U(@2B ](#(P(%1/z
M(#$@4U1%4" M,0T*(" @( T*(" @(" @248@5$@R3R ^/2!42#)/*$HI(%1(y
M14X@1T]43R!(,3 P#0H@(" @(" @#0H@(" @($Y%6%0@2@T*(" @("!*(#T@x
M,2 @(" @)TEF(&ET(&=O="!T:&ES(&9A<BP@=&AI<R!W:6QL(&=I=F4@=&AEw
M(&-O<G)E8W0@2@T*(" @( T*2#$P,#H@(" G0V%L8W5L871E(&5N=&AA;'!Yv
M(&)Y(&$@8W5B:6,@<&]L>6YO;6EA;"!U<VEN9R!T:&4@8V]E9F9S(&EN($,Hu
M+$HI#0H@2$@R3R ]($8H,2P@2BD-"B!(2#)/(#T@2$@R3R K($8H,RP@2BD@t
M*B!42#)/(%X@,@T*($A(,D\@/2!(2#)/("L@1B@R+"!**2 J(%1(,D\-"@T*s
M14Y$($E&#0I215154DX-"@T*#0I#4$@R3SH-"@T*)U1E;7 @86YD(&5N=&AAr
M;'!Y(&]F($@R3R!W:71H(&$@8F%S92!T96UP97)A='5R92!O9B S,#!+#0HGq
M=&AE<V4@;G5M8F5R<R!A<F4@9G)O;2!4:&5R;6]D>6YA;6EC<RP@0V5N9V5Lp
M(&%N9"!";VQE<PT*)U1A8FQE($$M,C -"B -"DE&($-02#)/24Y)5" ](# @o
M5$A%3@T*(" @("!#4$@R3TE.250@/2 Q#0H-"B @(" @1D]2($D@/2 Q(%1/n
M(#<-"@T*(" @(" @(" @(%)%040@5$DL($-02#)/20T*(" @(" @(" @(%1#m
M4$@R3RA)*2 ](%1)(" @(" @(" G4'5T('1H92!T96UP97)A='5R97,@8G)El
M86MS#0H@(" @(" @(" @(" @(" @(" @(" @(" @(" @(" @("=I;B!T:&4@k
M5$-02#)/*&DI(&%R<F%Y+@T*(" @(" @(" @($-02#)/*$DI(#T@0U!(,D])j
M(" @(" G4'5T('1H92!(,D\@0W @:6YT;R!A<G)A>2!#4$@R3RAI*0T*#0H@i
M(" @($Y%6%0@20T*#0HG3F5E9"!T;R!C86QC=6QA=&4@=&AE(&-O969F<R!Oh
M9B!T:&4@:6YT97)P;VQA=&EN9R!F=6YC=&EO;G,-"B<-"B=5<VEN9R!#4$@Rg
M3R ]($8R*E1(,D]>,B K($8Q*E1(,D]>,2 K($,P#0HG#0HG5&AE(&-O969Ff
M<R!#,BQ#,2Q#,"!C86X@8F4@8V%L8W5L871E9"!F;W(@86YY(&QI;F4@<V5Ge
M;65N="!W:71H('1H<F5E#0HG:VYO=VX@9&%T82!P;VEN=',L('5S:6YG($-Rd
M86UE<B=S(')U;&4N#0HG5&AE(&9U;F-T:6]N(&1E="@I('=I;&P@8F4@=7-Ec
M9"!E>'1E;G-I=F5L>0T*)U-E='5P('=I;&P@<F5Q=6ER92!T:&%T('1H92 Sb
M>#,@87)R87D@6"@L*2!A<G)A;F=E9"!A<R!F;VQL;W=S.@T*)PT*)R!D971;a
M(%@S7C(@6#,@,2!=#0HG(" @(%L@6#)>,B!8,B Q(%T-"B<@(" @6R!8,5XRz
M(%@Q(#$@70T*#0I)(#T@,2 @(" @)U-P96-I86P@8V%S92!W:6QL('1A:V4@y
M:71S('1H<F5E(&1A=&$@<&]I;G1S(&1I9F9E<F5N=&QY#0H@(" @($=/4U5"x
M(%A!4E)!63$-"@T*(" @("!'3U-50B!$151%4DU)3D%.5" @("=$;R!T:&4@w
M9&5T(&]F(%@H+"D-"B @(" @1" ](&1E= T*#0H@(" @($9/4B!*(#T@,2!4v
M3R S#0H@(" @(" @(" @6"@Q+"!**2 ]($-02#)/*$DI#0H@(" @(" @(" @u
M6"@R+"!**2 ]($-02#)/*$D@*R Q*0T*(" @(" @(" @(%@H,RP@2BD@/2!#t
M4$@R3RA)("L@,BD-"B @(" @(" @("!'3U-50B!$151%4DU)3D%.5 T*(" @s
M(" @(" @(%(@/2!D970-"B @( T*(" @(" @(" @($<H-" M($HL($DI(#T@r
M4B O($0-"B @(" @(" @("!'3U-50B!805)205DQ#0H@(" @($Y%6%0@2@T*q
M#0H-"D9/4B!)(#T@,B!43R V#0H-"B @(" @1T]354(@6$%24D%9,0T*#0H@p
M(" @($=/4U5"($1%5$5234E.04Y4(" @)T1O('1H92!D970@;V8@6"@L*0T*o
M(" @("!$(#T@9&5T#0H-"B @(" @1D]2($H@/2 Q(%1/(#,-"B @(" @(" @n
M("!8*#$L($HI(#T@0U!(,D\H22 M(#$I#0H@(" @(" @(" @6"@R+"!**2 ]m
M($-02#)/*$DI#0H@(" @(" @(" @6"@S+"!**2 ]($-02#)/*$D@*R Q*0T*l
M(" @(" @(" @($=/4U5"($1%5$5234E.04Y4#0H@(" @(" @(" @4B ](&1Ek
M= T*(" @( T*(" @(" @(" @($<H-" M($HL($DI(#T@4B O($0-"B @(" @j
M(" @("!'3U-50B!805)205D-"B @(" @3D585"!*#0H-"DY%6%0@20T*#0H-i
M"D5,4T4-"B @(" @)T9I<G-T(&YE960@=&\@9&5T97)M:6YE('=H:6-H($H@h
M<V5G;65N="!W:&5R92!T:&4@=&5M<&5R871U<F4@5$@R3R!I<PT*#0H@(" @g
M($H@/2 Q#0H@(" @($9/4B!*(#T@-R!43R Q(%-415 @+3$-"B @(" -"B @f
M(" @($E&(%1(,D\@/CT@5$-02#)/*$HI(%1(14X@1T]43R!#4#$P, T*(" @e
M(" @( T*(" @("!.15A4($H-"B @(" @2B ](#$@(" @("=)9B!I="!G;W0@d
M=&AI<R!F87(L('1H:7,@=VEL;"!G:79E('1H92!C;W)R96-T($H-"B @(" -c
M"D-0,3 P.B @("=#86QC=6QA=&4@96YT:&%L<'D@8GD@82!C=6)I8R!P;VQYb
M;F]M:6%L('5S:6YG('1H92!C;V5F9G,@:6X@0R@L2BD-"B!#4$@R3R ]($<Ha
M,2P@2BD-"B!#4$@R3R ]($-02#)/("L@1R@S+"!**2 J(%1(,D\@7B R#0H@z
M0U!(,D\@/2!#4$@R3R K($<H,BP@2BD@*B!42#)/#0H-"D5.1"!)1@T*4D54y
M55).#0H-"@T*1$5415)-24Y!3E0Z(" @("=#86QC('1H92!D971E<FUI;F%Nx
M="!O9B!A<G)A>2!8*"PI#0H@(" @(" @(" @(" @(" @)U!U='1I;F<@=&AEw
M(')E<W5L="!I;G1O(&1E= T*#0ID970@/2!8*#$L(#$I("H@6"@R+" R*2 Jv
M(%@H,RP@,RD-"F1E=" ](&1E=" K(%@H,2P@,RD@*B!8*#(L(#$I("H@6"@Su
M+" R*0T*9&5T(#T@9&5T("L@6"@Q+" R*2 J(%@H,BP@,RD@*B!8*#,L(#$It
M#0ID970@/2!D970@+2!8*#$L(#,I("H@6"@R+" R*2 J(%@H,RP@,2D-"F1Es
M=" ](&1E=" M(%@H,2P@,BD@*B!8*#(L(#$I("H@6"@S+" S*0T*9&5T(#T@r
M9&5T("T@6"@Q+" Q*2 J(%@H,BP@,RD@*B!8*#,L(#(I#0H-"E)%5%523@T*q
M#0I805)205DQ.@T*(" @("!8*#$L(#,I(#T@,0T*(" @("!8*#(L(#,I(#T@p
M,0T*(" @("!8*#,L(#,I(#T@,0T*(" @("!8*#$L(#$I(#T@5$@R3RA)*2!>o
M(#(-"B @(" @6"@R+" Q*2 ](%1(,D\H22 K(#$I(%X@,@T*(" @("!8*#,Ln
M(#$I(#T@5$@R3RA)("L@,BD@7B R#0H@(" @(%@H,2P@,BD@/2!42#)/*$DIm
M#0H@(" @(%@H,BP@,BD@/2!42#)/*$D@*R Q*0T*(" @("!8*#,L(#(I(#T@l
M5$@R3RA)("L@,BD-"E)%5%523@T*#0H-"EA!4E)!63H-"B @(" @6"@Q+" Sk
M*2 ](#$-"B @(" @6"@R+" S*2 ](#$-"B @(" @6"@S+" S*2 ](#$-"B @j
M(" @6"@Q+" Q*2 ](%1(,D\H22 M(#$I(%X@,@T*(" @("!8*#(L(#$I(#T@i
M5$@R3RA)*2!>(#(-"B @(" @6"@S+" Q*2 ](%1(,D\H22 K(#$I(%X@,@T*h
M(" @("!8*#$L(#(I(#T@5$@R3RA)("T@,2D-"B @(" @6"@R+" R*2 ](%1(g
M,D\H22D-"B @(" @6"@S+" R*2 ](%1(,D\H22 K(#$I#0I215154DX-"@T*f
 e
end
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenschamber cudlnAlter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Mar 25 04:37:04 EST 1995
------------------------------
