1995.04.10 / John Logajan /  Re: I need info on heavy water
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I need info on heavy water
Date: 10 Apr 1995 02:59:10 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

wendy wolk (wolk@aludra.usc.edu) wrote:
: could anyone tell me the chem. formula for heavy water and any other
: useful information about it.

Heavy water is about 10% heavier than regular water.

Regular water is, of course, made up of two atoms of hydrogen and
one atom of oxygen, i.e. H2O.

Hydrogen atoms are made up of a single proton and a single electron
in orbit around that proton.  The proton is said to have a mass of
one atomic mass unit.  The electron is about 1/2000 as massive, so
we can pretty much ignore it in weight comparisons between atoms.

Oxygen typically has eight protons and eight neutrons in its nucleus,
and to balance the positive charges on the protons, eight electrons
in orbit around the nucleus.   Neutrons are about the same mass as
the protons, but have no electrical charge.  Protons have a positive
charge, and electrons have a negative charge.  Since we have eight
neutrons and eight protons, the mass of the oxygen atom is 16 atomic
mass units.

Now there are variations in some elements such as hydrogen and
oxygen such that they can have varying numbers of neutrons.  These
are called isotopes.  They have very similar chemical properties,
since chemistry is generally determined by the number of electrons,
and the number of electrons is determined by the number of protons.
So the number of neutral charge neutrons can vary in the nucleus
without changing the chemical behavior.

Heavy water is made up of normal oxygen, but with hydrogen isotopes
with an extra neutron.  So this heavy hydrogen now has a proton
and a neutron, instead of the normal hydrogen which has just a proton.
So the mass is 2 AMU (atomic mass units) rather than 1 AMU.

Normal water would then weigh 1+1+16 = 18 AMU, while heavy water would
weigh 2+2+16 = 20 AMU.

There is a fraction of a percent of naturally occuring heavy water in
regular water.  Very slight chemical differences are exploited to
concentrate the heavy water for collection.

Also, very slight chemical differences are said to effect biological
systems, so drinking concentrated heavy water is not recommended.
It offers no radiation hazard, however, since both the light
hydrogen and the heavy hydrogen are stable against spontaneous
nuclear decay.

--
 - 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:
cuddy10 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.10 / Allan Duncan /  Re: Griggs Report
     
Originally-From: aduncan@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (Allan Duncan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Report
Date: 10 Apr 1995 01:57:31 GMT
Organization: Telecom Research Laboratories, Melbourne, Australia.

I missed the report - is it archived anywhere?

Allan Duncan            Photonics Section
(+613) 253 6708         Telstra (formerly Telecom) Research Labs
Fax    253 6664         Box 249 Rosebank MDC, Clayton, Victoria, 3169
Internet a.duncan@trl.oz.au     Australia
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenaduncan cudfnAllan cudlnDuncan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.09 / Neil Rickert /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 9 Apr 1995 23:23:51 -0500
Organization: Northern Illinois University

In <Pine.SOL.3.91.950409162223.3560D-100000@gladstone.uoregon.edu>
Ed Matthews <ewm@gladstone.uoregon.edu> writes:

>> The plain *fact* of the matter is that special relativity is a self
>> consistent, and therefore irrefutable piece of mathematics.  If the
>> data does not agree with special relativity, then the data is wrong.

>It used to be in the nature of physics to create theory that reflected 
>data (i.e., the facts of reality).  This statement implies the opposite - 
>that data that does not conform to our theory is necessarily invalid.

I hope that is still approximately the case.  But that does not
prevent a scientific theory from having a large component which is
mathematical and irrefutable.  Generally speaking, established
scientific theories are not refuted.  Rather, they are displaced by
new theories which more fully encompass the data.

>As far as Wallace's data is concerned, it may be in error.  But such 
>error cannot be established merely by the inconsistency of it with SR.

The nature of Wallace's data is such that SR would have to be
logically inconsistent for the data to be correct.

>What if the same method were applied to discrepencies between Newtonian 
>gravity and relativity?  We know that certain data contradict Newton's 
>theary, such as in the case of Mercury.

Newtonian theory was never considered to have been refuted by the data.

>                                         But physicists did not throw out 
>the data to save the theory - they adopted a new theory to save the data.

Not quite correct.  They accepted a new theory because it better
accounted for the data.  But if no alternative theory had been
available, they would have continued to use Newton, and would simply
have ascribed the discrepancies to unknown causes.

>This is what is meant by the phrase "primacy of existence".  Reality 
>always comes first, and shapes the theory, not the other way around.

That is a simplistic view.  Under Newtonian physics we measured time
and distance with fixed standards.  Under relativity, we now measure
with portable standards in accordance with the importance of the
inertial frame.  The theory does shape the way we measure reality.

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenrickert cudfnNeil cudlnRickert cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.09 / Neil Rickert /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 9 Apr 1995 23:27:40 -0500
Organization: Northern Illinois University

In <3m9hp1$q1e@tuba.cit.cornell.edu> evg1@crux2.cit.cornell.edu
(Eugenia V Givotovsky) writes:
>rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:

>>Anyone who claims this simply does not understand special relativity.
>>Wallace has been saying this sort of nonsense for some time now.
>>Wallace doesn't understand special relativity.

>>The plain *fact* of the matter is that special relativity is a self
>>consistent, and therefore irrefutable piece of mathematics.  If the
>>data does not agree with special relativity, then the data is wrong.

>This includes the relationship between theory and experiment.  By 
>definition, you can not claim that nothing better than SR can be created. 
>You simply do not know the future.

Well, I quite agree.  SR might be displaced if a better theory becomes
available.  But Wallace is presenting gripes, rather than a better
theory.

>The Wallace's problem is: not understanding SR he can not put a real 
>price on it and can not compare what he is trying to put forward 
>instead SR. 

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenrickert cudfnNeil cudlnRickert cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.09 / Wendy Wolk /  REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
     
Originally-From: wolk@scf.usc.edu (Wendy Wolk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.accelerators,sci.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.med
sci.research,rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
Date: Sun, 09 Apr 1995 21:52:01 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

I am currently writing a screenplay and need the following info:

1. What are the effects of the ingestion of deuterium (i.e. in heavy
water) on the human body. In what doses
2. the possibility of Heavy Water existing on mars.


Thank you for your help
   -wolk@scf.usc.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy09 cudenwolk cudfnWendy cudlnWolk cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.10 / Arthur TOK /  Re: POLL: How long till power plants?
     
Originally-From: awc@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TOK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: POLL: How long till power plants?
Date: 10 Apr 1995 07:51:36 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <JAC.95Apr7233123@gandalf.llnl.gov> jac@gandalf.llnl.gov
(James Crotinger) writes:
> In article <AWC.95Apr5134141@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de>
awc@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson       
TOK  ) writes:

> >                                            ... If you burn D-T, there
> >   is a lower limit on the aspect ratio due to the shielding needed, so
> >   it may be possible to go to lower aspect ratios with D-He.
>   I can see that D-He3 will help the first wall issue. But the blanket
> thickness is determined by the need to shield the superconducting magnets
> from the neutrons. Does this thickness go down linearly with the neutron
> level, or logarithmically? I suspect it is more like the latter - you just
> can't afford to tolerate neutrons getting to the magnets. Thus the blanket
> thickness in a D-He3 reactor may have to be just as thick as in DT.  And
> if this is true, then the advantage of D-He3 is not nearly so clear.

Good point. The benefit in this arena is probably marginal.

> > ..., the size of a tokamak is determined ultimately be transport. 
>   It is also limited by wall loading, assuming DT. So even if your
> transport gets real good and you maneuver past the beta limits, you're
> still constrained to a minimum size by the fact that the first wall
> can only take something like 5 MW/m^2. This, combined with the need to
> shield the toroidal field magnets from the neutrons, makes it pretty
> easy to calculate the minimum volume of the blanket (and thus a
> minimum cost), and the answer is uncomfortably large!

The limit will be in the ball park of 5 MW/m^2 for any fuel. D-T will
be limited by the lifetime fluence of 14 MeV neutrons, and D-He3 will
be limited by the heat load (once you figure out how to spread the
power evenly over the entire first wall). It is a coincidence that
both numbers are about the same. But I need some help on the rest of
this argument. If we assume we can "solve" the transport problem, then
we don't need a big machine just to ignite. If we leave B and beta
constant, then our power density will be constant, and the first wall
loading will *decrease* with size (higher surface to volume
ratio). Divertor energy flux will decrease even faster.
Alternatively, if we raise beta (miracle 2) to maintain a constant
wall loading, the increased power density should translate into a
lower cost of electricity. I have heard the argument that we couldn't
really use better confinement even if we could get it (although no one
would turn down another factor of two), but I think the arguments
center on a minimum size due to neutron absorption length (as you
mentioned) and fast alpha gyroradius(?). In the real world of 1995,
the place improved confinement would help the most is in being able to
build a smaller (cheaper!) ignition experiment.

-- 
To study, to finish, to publish. -- Benjamin Franklin

Dr. Arthur Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTOK cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.10 / Robin Spaandonk /        Re:  Fusion timetable
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:       Re:  Fusion timetable
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 12:43:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
>Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
>Subject: Re:       Re: Fusion timetable
>[snip]
>This is not news---I don't think there is any fusion researcher that wouldn't
>like to see more work done on alternatives. But whether one should do so
>at the expensie of the tokamak program at this point is dubious. Even tho
>we recognize the tokamaks shortcomings, that is partly because we know
>so much about them.
>
>--
>Barry Merriman
>UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
>UCLA Dept. of Math
>bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)

How about the following suggestion:

Take only $50.- million / annum off the Tokamak program, for a period 
of 7 years. Distribute these funds over half a dozen ACs. Those 
people who were working on the Tokamak and being paid with these 
funds could transfer to work on the ACs as well. Result:
1) Imperceptible delay in the overall timetable of the Tok.
2) Development work gets done on ACs.
3) Everyone remains employed.
4) Transferred people gain broader experience.
5) Possibly new ideas will come out of the work on the ACs, which 
could be used in the Tok. program, shortening its ultimate 
realization time.
6) People like me will shut up and stop bothering you.

Regards,

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

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.10 / Scott Mueller /  Zorch s.p.f/FD archive - would anyone care?
     
Originally-From: scott@zorch.sf-bay.org (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Zorch s.p.f/FD archive - would anyone care?
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 13:55:41 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA

It crossed my mind recently that it may be possible to make my archive of
alt.fusion/sci.physics.fusion/Fusion Digest available on the WWW.  It's enough
work that I'll only do it if there's anyone interested in looking at it.  My
collection dates back to article 1 of alt.fusion, which I believe makes it the
longest-running such archive.  Organization is a bit poor, and I don't have
any fancy indexing, though I could implement the latter with some work.

I also have some related materials such as my fusion-related correspondence.
I don't know if the latter merits inclusion.

Please respond via email with your answers to (1) should I put my archive
up; and (2) should I include my correspondence?

-- 
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:
cuddy10 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.10 / Robin Spaandonk /        Re:  Electrolysis as an energy source ??
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:       Re:  Electrolysis as an energy source ??
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 14:13:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>Date:    Sat, 8 Apr 1995 15:22:34 GMT
>From:    Harry H Conover <max.tiac.net!conover@MATH.UCR.EDU>
>Subject: Re: Electrolysis as an energy source ??
>
>Has anyone actually run the numbers for this electrolysis/combustion
>storage concept, at least comparing them with more conventional energy
>methodology such as storage batteries, pumped dams, or the new
>superconducting magnetic energy storage devices?
>
>At first glance, the combined inefficiencies of electrolysis and diesel
>generation (or even fuel cells) plus maintenance, when compared with the
>cost/efficiency of other energy methods, would appear sufficient to doom
>such a storage mechanism to oblivion.  At least, this is my personal
>eyeball judgement -- could be wrong.

Harry,

I haven't run the numbers, but my intuition says, that hydrogen
storage would work out cheaper / stored kWh than either storage
batteries or magnetic energy storage devices. Pumped hydro may not
always be an available option. (i.e. no natural heights locally
available, necessitating expensive high tower construction.) Though
the overall efficiency of hydrogen storage may not be crash hot,
this could probably be more cheaply compensated for by the
installation of extra generating capacity, than by paying for
expensive though efficient storage media. (And the wind is free, so
fuel costs don't come into it.).

Finally  two things on efficiency:

1) I believe that the latest polymer based fuel cells are extremely 
efficient (~90%). (Though also expensive.)

2) There may be a kernel of truth in the high voltage electrolysis
patents registered over the last couple of decades. While not
producing over-unity energy, such systems may well be very
efficient, i.e. succeed in splitting water with little or no heat
production.

In combination these two could make a very interesting
storage system.

Regards,

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

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.10 / Scott Little /  Re: Some comments on cold ufsion source found on the internet.
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some comments on cold ufsion source found on the internet.
Date: 10 Apr 1995 13:58:07 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

In article <D6rw9A.GG3@news.cern.ch>, Martin Sevior <msevior> says:
>There are only 3 ways they could screw up this measurement. 
>
>1. They could have the mechanical input power wrong.
>
>2. They could measure the temperatures before and after the pump incorrectly.
>
>3. They could make an arithmetic mistake in their calculations.
>
>I'll deal with 3 first. They didn't.
>
>For (1) it seems very unlikely as reported by Tom Droege.

Martin, I wouldn't dismiss (1) so casually.  I believe it's the most
difficult measurement they face and the fact that they threw $X,000 at the
problem by buying an in-line strain-gauge torque sensor does not ensure
that they will get the correct answers for mechanical input power.  Such
instruments have to be calibrated and watched carefully...then there's the
problem of the rather severe shaft vibration and its unknown effect on their
torque sensor....

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.10 / Scott Little /  Re: I need info on heavy water
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I need info on heavy water
Date: 10 Apr 1995 14:04:45 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

In article <wolk-0904951503090001@koh-mac49.usc.edu>, wolk@aludra.usc.ed
 (wendy wolk) says:
>
>could anyone tell me the chem. formula for heavy water and any other
>useful information about it. I need this info for a screenplay that I am
>writing.
>      thanks
>         -wendy


Wendy, "heavy" water is D2O as opposed to ordinary water which is H2O.  The
difference being that, in heavy water, the normal hydrogen atoms (which
consist of one electron circling a nuclues of  one proton) are replaced
by the ISOTOPE of hydrogen known as deuterium (one electron circling a
nucleus composed of one proton and one neutron).  deuterium has the symbol
"D" and its weight is approximately 2 (where as normal H's weight is 1).
Thus the molecular weight of D2O is 20 whereas the molecular weight of
H2O is 18 (O is 16 on both cases)  This means that a cc of D2O would weigh
about 1.11 grams instead of the 1.00 grams that H2O weighs.

By the way, D20 occurs naturally and comprises about 150ppm of normal 
water.  So you drink a little of it every day!

Hope this helps.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.10 / Jeremy Johnson /  Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
     
Originally-From: Jeremy Johnson <jjohnson@puc.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.accelerators,sci.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.med
sci.research,rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 09:55:09 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access

On Sun, 9 Apr 1995, Wendy Wolk wrote:

> I am currently writing a screenplay and need the following info:
> 
> 1. What are the effects of the ingestion of deuterium (i.e. in heavy
> water) on the human body. In what doses
> 2. the possibility of Heavy Water existing on mars.
> 

I can't answer the first, but as far as our best information there is 
absolutely no water on Mars at all so the chances of there being any 
heavy water are rather small.

> 
> Thank you for your help
>    -wolk@scf.usc.edu
> 
> 


jeremy
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjjohnson cudfnJeremy cudlnJohnson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.10 / Tom Droege /  Re: Some comments on cold ufsion source found on the internet.
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some comments on cold ufsion source found on the internet.
Date: 10 Apr 1995 18:04:00 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <D6rw9A.GG3@news.cern.ch>, Martin Sevior <msevior> says:
>
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
>---------------------------------176411097316175
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
>I hope this works. I never done this with Netscape.
>
>---------------------------------176411097316175
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Type: text/plain
>
>Hi Fusioners,
>            I've been following this group for a few weeks or so and I've also
>skimmed the World Wide Web to look at various cold fusion references.  It
>seems that people from this group funded a site-visit by Tom Droege where
>he investigated the Griggs over-unity hydro-sonic pump. Having read his
>report and the followup by Griggs it's not obvious that the investigator

Belief is not really the problem.  The problem is in the presentation made
by Griggs of his work.  

>could have come to any stronger conclusion unless he believes what Griggs
>and the people in his company told him. Since he approached the
>investigation with a very methodical "I'll only believe what I see with my
>own eyes" he was bound to produce such an inconclusive report.

I did not have to see a test and make all the calibrations to come to the
conclusion that Griggs was doing good scientific work.  (Note that I do
not use the word believe.)  What I went looking for was evidence that Griggs
was following normal scientific practice.  Did he calibrate everything, did
he keep good records of what he was doing (a log book), did he study his 
possible errors, did he look critically at his results and design new 
experiments to attempt to find possible errors which might explain his 
results.  Unfortunatel, I found none of this type of thinking.  
>
>As far as I can understand things, Griggs and his employees make a very
>simple measurement of temperature rise versus mechanical power input.
>After many measurements they find a repeatable and reproducible excess in
>temperature rise compared to what would be expected from the mechanical
>input power. There are only 3 ways they could screw up this measurement. 
>
>1. They could have the mechanical input power wrong.
>
>2. They could measure the temperatures before and after the pump incorrectly.
>
>3. They could make an arithmetic mistake in their calculations.
>
>I'll deal with 3 first. They didn't.
>
>For (1) it seems very unlikely as reported by Tom Droege.  That leaves

Huh!  How could you interpred what I wrote as making this unlikely?  They
did not present convincing evidence that they had done this correctly.  In
fact all they said was that the tow methods read the same - no error bars,
nothing convincing.

>(2), the temperature readings are incorrect. Thermocouples are very simple
>devices and typically give measurement errors of less than 1 degree when
>used in the manner employed at Hydro Dynamics. The only worrying thing is
>what the ultrasonic energy is doing to the thermocouples.  I cannot think
>of a mechanism that would lead to their incorrect behaviour but on the
>other hand there is no conventional Physics that would explain the excess
>heat.  However, given that there are 6 thermocouples downstream from the
>device, probably placed at different distances from the device, it would
>appear unlikely that all 6 would receive the same amount of ultra-sonic
>energy. Given that all 6 read the same temperature it would take a truly

Who said all the thermocouples read the same?  Not me!  This is one of the
things I wanted to see.  What is the rms value of one thermocouple?  What is
the rms value of the six thermocouples?  Unfortunately, Griggs and company
do not bother with such analysis.

>bizzare effect from the ultrasonic energy to make all 6 read the same
>number. In addition the temperature rise reported by Tom Droege is exactly
>what one would expect from devices correctly reading temperatures.
>Presumably the ultra-sonic energy would commence at turn on and if it did
>affect the thermocouples one would expect a rapid change in their readings
>right after turn on. No such effect was reported. The conclusion is that

Not a valid conclusion.  There were no measurements taken.  There was no such
measurement reported by Griggs.  Your observation is just a guess.  Not very
scientific.

>the 6 thermocouples are all reading the same because that is the
>temperature of the water. 
>
>Griggs goes on to state that they have tried many times to find mistakes
>in their procedures but have not. Really the essence of Tom Droege's
>report is: "I don't know you well enough to believe you and I can't
>believe you until a number of other people have confirmed your result".


Woah!  This is just a wrong interpretation of my report.  Knowing Griggs has 
nothing to do with it.  It is the scientific quality of his presentation that
I judge.  No log book, no calibration, no error analysis, no science.  
 
(snip)

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.10 / Deil Bland /  Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
     
Originally-From: dbland@crl.com (Deil C. Bland)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.accelerators,sci.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.med
sci.research,rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
Date: 10 Apr 1995 11:45:45 -0700
Organization: Adult Day Care Center

In article <wolk-0904952152010001@koh-mac75.usc.edu>,
Wendy Wolk <wolk@scf.usc.edu> wrote:
>I am currently writing a screenplay and need the following info:
>
>1. What are the effects of the ingestion of deuterium (i.e. in heavy
>water) on the human body. In what doses
>2. the possibility of Heavy Water existing on mars.
>
>
>Thank you for your help
>   -wolk@scf.usc.edu

Deuterium Oxide (heavy water) has been highly touted as a hangover remedy
in a branch of the US military which shall go nameless here. Half a cup
of "jolt water" was said to be the proper dose.

I of course do not drink and had no reason to partake of it.

-- 
Deil Bland                          In a dog eat dog world
dbland@crl.com                      You gotta eat some dog!
                 Finger for PGP key
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudendbland cudfnDeil cudlnBland cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.10 / Daniel Norton /  Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
     
Originally-From: deveyn@holly.ACNS.ColoState.EDU (Daniel Norton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.accelerators,sci.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.med
sci.research,rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
Date: 10 Apr 1995 19:13:38 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

Jeremy Johnson (jjohnson@puc.edu) wrote:
: On Sun, 9 Apr 1995, Wendy Wolk wrote:

: > I am currently writing a screenplay and need the following info:
: > 
: > 1. What are the effects of the ingestion of deuterium (i.e. in heavy
: > water) on the human body. In what doses
: > 2. the possibility of Heavy Water existing on mars.
: > 

: I can't answer the first, but as far as our best information there is 
: absolutely no water on Mars at all so the chances of there being any 
: heavy water are rather small.

I know it's been a *long* time since I looked at anything related 
to astronomy, but doesn't Mars have polar ice???


: > 
: > Thank you for your help
: >    -wolk@scf.usc.edu
: > 
: > 


: jeremy
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudendeveyn cudfnDaniel cudlnNorton cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.10 / Martin Sevior /  Re: Some comments on cold ufsion source found on the internet.
     
Originally-From: Martin Sevior <msevior>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some comments on cold ufsion source found on the internet.
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 20:40:51 GMT
Organization: CERN European Lab for Particle Physics

In response to Tom Droege's post on my comments: Let me say that
I did make a number of guesses and false assumptions about what Tom saw
and misinterpreted parts of his report. He was there I was not.
In particular I assumed that he watched the temperatures on thermocouples
rise after turn on and that he saw that all 6 read the same value. 

He did not say he saw this.
 
I also mis-interpretated his statements about the quality
of the two torque meters to mean he trusted their reliablity.

Since the temperature and the input power are the two parameters
that the effect depends upon, it is imperitive to determine the 
uncertainties in these measurements. These uncertainties have
to be established while the pump is in operation. Is there an
effect from the ultrasonic energy that could make a systematic
change from a static calibration?

It is clear that the guys at Hydro Dynamics are Engineers, not 
Scientists. They were unaware of process of making a convincing
demonstration.
 
Given the enormity of their claim and their observed effect
which is appears to be about 10% and which is presented
without an uncertainty, Tom Droege was right to be sceptical.

>
>Belief is not really the problem.  The problem is in the presentation made
>by Griggs of his work.  
>

Does anybody out there know what's wrong with the E-QUEST results?

Martin Sevior

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Apr 11 04:37:03 EDT 1995
------------------------------
