1995.05.14 /  jedrothwell@de /  Water friction in Cravens calorimeter
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Water friction in Cravens calorimeter
Date: Sun, 14 May 95 19:55:33 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) computes the heat added to the water by
the Cravens circulation pump as follows:
 
    "10 ml/minute flow rate
        and
    180 PSI gauge pressure.
 
    I believe the equation of work in joules is:
 
    joules = pascals * cubic meters
 
    So my numbers are:
 
    0.2J = 1.24E6 Pa * 1.67E-07 Cubic Meters  (moved in one second.)
 
    So since it took one second, then it is about 0.2 watts of power
    being developed."
 
I think this is wrong, but I don't have the right answer. Cravens and
Hagelstein worked it out on the back of an envelope when I was standing there;
I should have paid closer attention. As I recall, they came up with roughly
0.01 watts. However, there are several important caveats. Just because the
pump adds X amount of energy to the loop, that does not mean it affects the
calorimetry by X. Let's go over this in detail:
 
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that John's calculation is correct, and 0.2
watts are added. That is 3 calories per minute. Would that raise the
temperature Delta T by 0.3 deg C? Nope! That would only happen of *all* of the
resistance to the flow was in the CF cell, between the two differential
thermistors. That cannot be the case.
 
In fact, we know where most of the flow resistance in the circuit is: it is in
the microfilter between the pump and the cell. When Cravens removes the filter
and "short circuits" the hoses to go directly from pump to cell, overall
pressure drops considerably. This shows that most of the energy used to push
the water through the loop is expended in the microfilter, so if it was 0.2
watts, something like 0.1 watts would be in the filter and 0.1 everywhere
else, including the narrow pipes, the metal connections, and the cell beads.
The cell beads would only be, say, 0.01 watts. In fact, I think flow
resistance at the beads is less than a milliwatt.
 
The equipment Cravens used could never detect such low power levels. This is
easily seen in the calibrations. No detectable Delta T temperature is seen
when the flow is turned on with no power into the cell. Obviously, the heat
added by flow resistance is too small to be detected.
 
Please note that heat added outside the cell (not between the thermistors)
makes no difference to the calorimetry. Cravens has a aquarium heating element
that he submerges in the electrolyte reservoir for high temperature tests.
When the fishtank heater is turned on the cell is not, the circulating
electrolyte gets warmer and warmer, but the cell Delta T remains at zero, of
course.
 
As I said, most of the circuit resistance is in the microfilter. There are two
metal connectors and at least 30 cm of uninsulated plastic hose between the
microfilter and cell input where the first thermocouple is located. Even if
0.1 watts was being added at the microfilter, the water would cool down again
by the time it got to the cell input. I doubt you could detect a temperature
difference even if you had a thermocouple at the microfilter input.
 
 
This is an interesting little topic, but it has no measurable effect on the
calorimetry. That can easily be shown in a test, by running the pump with no
power into the cell. A test is, of course, the best possible way to resolve
the issue, but you can also show that the circulation cannot affect the
calorimetry with a little elementary analysis. This is a negligible stray
factor, like the body heat from people standing near the cell, or the impact
of cosmic rays. Water friction is far too small to measure with this
equipment. It must be several thousand times smaller than the excess heat
effect, which shows up as 2 to 4 deg C Delta T.
 
This issue was first raised by Dick Blue, who has been saying for years that
CF calorimetry might be affected by water friction. He apparently does not
understand that water friction in there calorimeters is 5 to 7 orders of
magnitude too small to explain anything, and that the calibration curves
*always* show water friction is far too small to measure. Again and again
people like Fleischmann and I have pointed out that these "skeptical" ideas
are known to be 5, 7 or even 10 orders of magnitude too small to explain
anything, but again and again the "skeptics" keep proposing the same ideas.
Blue keeps bringing back his water friction, even though anyone with five
minutes experience in flow calorimetry could tell him it must be at least 4
orders of magnitude too small. Morrison keeps bringing up the "cigarette
lighter effect" even though he knows it can only produce 6 nanowatts, whereas
the cell in question produced 150 watts. Jones and others keep insisting that
the helium in the metal might explain the E-Quest results, even though
Rockwell's analysis of the metal samples showed that E-Quest would have to
vaporize billions of metal samples to liberate that much helium. These
"skeptics" appear to have no idea what the term "orders of magnitude" means,
and no ability to do even the simplest quantitative analysis.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.15 /  Anarch /  Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB
     
Originally-From: anarch@cse.ucsc.edu (Anarch)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.engr,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.math
Subject: Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB
Date: 15 May 1995 03:25:44 GMT
Organization: Secular Humanists from Hell

Archimedes Plutonium <Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>In article <3orqam$4kr@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
>anarch@cse.ucsc.edu (Anarch) writes:
>
>> The quotation traditionally ascribed to him is "Eppur si muove," but most
>> regard it as apocryphal.
>
>  What do you mean by apocryphal. Was there some more past history to "
>Eppur si muove " that predates Galileo? If so, cite references please.

The earliest known attributions of the phrase to Galileo are from the
mid-18th century, long after his death.  What the scholarly consensus, if
any, is on whether someone else said it, or he said something similar, or
it was simply pure invention by fanciful biographers, I don't know.  A
biography of Galileo would probably tell more.

anarch@cse.ucsc.edu +-+-+ Just because it's a JOKE doesn't mean it's not TRUE
D I S C L A I M E R :   E V E R Y T H I N G   I   W R I T E   I S   F A L S E
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenanarch cudlnAnarch cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.15 / John Logajan /  Re: Water friction in Cravens calorimeter
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Water friction in Cravens calorimeter
Date: 15 May 1995 04:48:15 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
:     10 ml/minute flow rate : 180 PSI gauge pressure.
:     joules = pascals * cubic meters
:     0.2J = 1.24E6 Pa * 1.67E-07 Cubic Meters  (moved in one second.)
:     since it took one second, about 0.2 watts of power
:  
: Cravens and Hagelstein ... came up with roughly 0.01 watts.

Could be.  As I said, I mixed and matched the high numbers I had seen.
If they were running at 14.7 PSI (as some runs have been done) then that
would indeed work out to about 0.016 watts for a 10 ml/min flow rate.


: most of the circuit resistance is in the microfilter. There are two
: metal connectors and at least 30 cm of uninsulated plastic hose between the
: microfilter and cell input where the first thermocouple is located.

Yes, if the input temperature is measured after any flow resistance
elements, then only the flow resistance between the input and output
temperature measurements will matter. 

Note that my calculations assumed the full 180PSI drop between the
input and output temperature measurements, and that the output
pressure was also therefore zero.  These assumptions give the worst
case internal heating.  Any additional factors reduce the amount
of power being developed and measured inside the cell itself from
this flow resistance factor.


I should note that in the patent application, the only 180PSI runs
mentioned were at a much lower flow rate, about 0.6 ml/min.  That
is about 1/16th the rate mentioned in my calculation, so the patent
application runs really only had about 0.012 watts of flow
resistance.


--
 - 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:
cuddy15 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.15 / Chris Parkinson /  Help with understanding sonoluminence
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Help with understanding sonoluminence
Date: 15 May 1995 05:07:58 GMT
Organization: Netcom

I have some questions in regards to sonoluminence. I am still quite in 
the dark about this phenomena and am not even sure it exists. What ever 
light (no pun intended) you can shed on this subject is greatly 
appreciated.

What frequency does sonoluminence need to initiate (from the transducer) 
and what is the light ouput in watts as compared to the energy that goes 
into it?

What is the light coming out?

Is it in the ultraviolate range or is it still in the visible spectrum? ( 
my sterilization UV bulbs emit a bluish light from the anodes and 
cathodes) 

Lastly, does the water heat up as a consequence of the energy conducted 
into it and if so does a run away condition occur if the heat cannot be 
dissipated?

Thanks in advance,
Parky
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.14 / james dolan /  Re: RESULT: sci.physics.fusion reorganization fails
     
Originally-From: jdolan@math.ucr.edu (james dolan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: RESULT: sci.physics.fusion reorganization fails
Date: 14 May 1995 23:36:35 -0700
Organization: fair play for neptune committee

jed rothwell writes:

-I would like to point out that votes listed with dashes in them indicate
-abstentions. For example, a vote listed at "-N" means the person casting
-it abstained on the first question and voted no on the second question.
- 
-I do not think this was made explicit in the description here.


i'd also like to point out that votes listed as "y" indicate "yes"
votes and votes listed as "n" indicate "no" votes; this also was not
made explicit.

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjdolan cudfnjames cudlndolan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.15 / Dieter Britz /  RESULT: sci.physics.fusion reorganization fails
     
Originally-From: britz@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RESULT: sci.physics.fusion reorganization fails
Subject: RESULT: sci.physics.fusion reorganization fails
Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 06:53:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Subject: RESULT: sci.physics.fusion reorganization fails

 
>                                RESULT
>          sci.physics.fusion reorg results - 158 valid votes
 
> Yes   No : 2/3? >100? : Pass? : Group
>---- ---- : ---- ----- : ----- : -------------------------------------------
> 112   31 :  Yes    No :    No : sci.physics.fusion.research
>  98   50 :   No    No :    No : sci.physics.fusion.misc (replaces sci.physics.fusion)
>   1 invalid vote

So, it failed, you need 100 more YES than NO votes. I blame myself, for
stupidly forgetting this very group in the list of groups the proposal and
call for votes to be sent to.
As if to mock us, at about this time, we are getting an unusual density of
Farce of bla bla, and bloody McElwaine rises from the ashes. I guess this
group is meant to be taken over by the nut fringe completely. As they say in
"Have we Got a Rabbi on Venus!", it could be worse, but I can't for the moment
think how. Oh yeah, we could get another red mercury epidemic, in fact we
probably already have one.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.15 / Richard Blue /  Re: Blue's imaginary problems.
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Blue's imaginary problems.
Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 15:43:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

It has become clear that Jed Rothwell and I are talking about two
different matters.  I am more concerned about the quality of
ongoing measurements being made by Griggs and coworkers and have
questioned the assertion that these measurements are sufficiently
robust that error estimates are not needed.  Jed is refering to
the "barrel calorimetry" that he did.  Just to clear the air
I concede that Jed's thermocouple readouts may not have been
subject to precisely the same conditions as those presently in
use for measurements on the Griggs device.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.15 / Richard Blue /  Re: Cravens pump power
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cravens pump power
Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 15:43:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Many thanks to John Logajan for supplying a calculation of the power
delivered to the Cravens demo setup by the circulating pump.  So
does this tell us that of the 1 watt of "excess heat" we have 0.2 watts
supplied by the pump that was not included in previous accountings?

Now as I understand this calculation it gives us the power dissipated
external to the pump, but is that the total heat input by the pump?
Isn't there the possibility for addition losses within the pump itself
just as there is in the Griggs device?  Certainly in the limit where
the flow through the pump is reduced to zero the fluid will still be
heated by a dissipation of mechanical work.  Furthmore the pump motor
is a heat source which may be thermally coupled to some degree to
the circulating fluid.  I am not sure we have yet properly accounted
for what the pump is doing.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.15 /  BIGGY /  where can i get information of RSNM?
     
Originally-From: u810107@Oz.nthu.edu.tw (BIGGY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: where can i get information of RSNM?
Date: 15 May 1995 14:02:07 GMT
Organization: National Tsing Hua University, HsinChu, Taiwan

   i'm interest in that!cna anyone tell me??
   thanks in advence!!!   
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenu810107 cudlnBIGGY cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.15 / Chris Morriss /  Re: Tiny Ball Lightning have been found!
     
Originally-From: Chris Morriss <CRSM@oroboros.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Tiny Ball Lightning have been found!
Date: 15 May 1995 18:45:03 +0100
Organization: Demon Internet News Service

To give a brief reply to those who asked for more information about
the 'ball lightning' effect that I have seen in RF discharges.
It's a long time ago now, but the frequency would have been in the
region of 1.5MHz to 1.6MHz.  The HF end of the medium wave band.
I don't know what the RF voltage would have been but the RF arcs were only 
short.  I would occasionaly get arcing across the pi-network 
capacitor of the antenna tuning stage.  I guess that the peak RF voltage 
when attempting to tune up a very short length of wire would have been
in the order of 1500V.  The short wire would present an impedance of a
few k-Ohms at that frequency.
The RF power would have been about 50W.  I used to use an 807 as the output
valve  (sorry, tube to you Americans!).  This I used to run with the anode
just glowing.  For an 807 this would be an anode (plate) dissipation of 
around 30W.  I was running the output stage in class C so the figure of
50W of RF would seem to be about right.

I can't remember if the glowing balls seemed to be affected by gravity or
not.  The effect only happened a few times, and in typical teenage
enthusiast fashion, the equipment was strewn over the floor of my bedroom.

I do a fair amount of MIG welding with my interests in car restoration and
kit car building.  This uses a pulsating DC arc of much higher power but
I've never seen the effect with that.  It may be that I wouldn't see it
through the welding mask.

Does anybody know how AC arcs (especially RF ones) differ in characteristics
from DC arcs?
-- 
Chris Morriss
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenCRSM cudfnChris cudlnMorriss cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.15 / Bruce Hamilton /  McElwaine's Back! - was Re: ANOTHER Form of COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: McElwaine's Back! - was Re: ANOTHER Form of COLD FUSION
Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 19:17:01 GMT
Organization: Industrial Research Limited

In article <3os93k$7d0@newsbf02.news.aol.com> 
robertmc5@aol.com (ROBERTMC5) writes:

>                              BIOLOGICAL ALCHEMY
>                        ( ANOTHER Form of COLD FUSION )

>               ( ALTERNATIVE Heavy Element Creation in Universe ) 
>               A very simple experiment can demonstrate (PROVE) the 
>          FACT of "BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS" (reactions like Mg + O 
>          --> Ca, Si + C --> Ca, K + H --> Ca, N2 --> CO, etc.), as 
>          described in the BOOK "Biological Transmutations" by Louis 
>          Kervran, [1972 Edition is BEST.], and in Chapter 17 of the 
>          book "THE SECRET LIFE OF PLANTS" by Peter Tompkins and 
>          Christopher Bird, 1973: 
>               (1) Obtain a good sample of plant seeds, all of the same 
>                   kind.  [Some kinds might work better that others.]
>               (2) Divide the sample into two groups of equal weight 
>                   and number.
>               (3) Sprout one group in distilled water on filter paper 
>                   for three or four weeks.

Important controls are missing here.
Moisten a blank filter paper with the same amount of water.
Ensure all experiments are performed in a dust and insect free area.
Ensure another set of duplicates are prepared for the alternative
wet digestion.

>               (4) Separately incinerate both groups.

Ensure the ashing is complete, and also ensure that if the seeds
contain volatile elements, a suphated ash procedure is used,
although a wet acid digestion is preferable, not all labs have
the facilities.  The anhydrous seed elements may volatilise, whereas
the hydrated elements are more likely to convert to non-volatile
salts. Also if the elements have been mobilised during growth,
the air ashing may convert them into non-volatile oxides, rather 
than remaining as more volatile species that can be lost.

A wet acid digestion ( Nitric/perchloric under reflux  ) is to be prefered 
to ashing, when analysing elements from organic material. The
digestion should be followed by spectroscopic analysis of the
individual elements.  

>               (5) Weigh the residue from each group.  [The residue of 
>                   the sprouted group will usually weigh at least 
>                   SEVERAL PERCENT MORE than the other group.]

Doubt it.

>               (6) Analyze quantitatively the residue of each group for 
>                   mineral content.  [Some of the mineral atoms of the 
>                   sprouted group have been TRANSMUTED into heavier 
>                   mineral elements by FUSING with atoms of oxygen, 
>                   hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, etc..]

More likely the some elements were volatilised
in the drier seeds - asssuming there is a difference. A more
careful char, with sulfuric acid, would be slightly more
conclusive, however the best technique would be a wet
digestion, followed by spectroscopic analysis. Note that
the problems of ashing of plant and animal material are 
extremely well-known in the analytical chemistry community
and I'm only posting this because this group does not seem
over-populated with them. The curious will find details in
Treatise on Analytical Chemistry. I.M. Kolthoff and P.J.Elving
Part 1. Vol 5. 2nd ed. Section F "sample preparation".

>                                   Robert E. McElwaine
>                                   B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC

He's back :-(.
I missed the two CFVs, but assumed it would pass easily.
Ah well, at least the variations in case help identify his posts. 
I'm only responding to this, as it's the first I've seen since his
access was pulled - a sort of "welcome back" present. :-)

                 Bruce Hamilton
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenHamilton cudfnBruce cudlnHamilton cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.15 / Kathleen Webb /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: knip@ix.netcom.com (Kathleen Webb)
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,alt.neo-tech
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 15 May 1995 19:25:59 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3p066u$reo@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> neo-rich@ix.netcom.com (Nicholas
Rich) writes: 
>
>In <3ovkde$11u@xcalibur.IntNet.net> wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan
>Wallace) writes: 
>>
>
>>
>>How about calling it "successful".  I started by only posting to 
>>sci.physics and got only a limited response from my thread regarding 
>>discussion of my  book "The Farce of Physics" and the problems with 
>>modern physics.  Since I added the other newsgroups I've a much
>greater 
>>cross cultural response.  Nothing succeeds like success!
    Dear Nick you seem to be missing the whole point,Nothing succeeds
like a toothless Budgerigar! Thank you. Charles.
>>Bryan
>>
>>
>Mr Wallace
>
>You might want to check out the site in my sig, there is a whole
>section (PT 1) of the online book that deals with problems in today's
>physics.
>
>Enjoy
>
>Nicholas Rich
>~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=

>   Nicholas Rich      |    =!Cool Stuff on the Net!=      |  Neo-Tech
>nicholas@scruznet.com | http://www.neo-tech.com/zonpower/ |      =
>                      | http://199.3.230.2/zonpower/      |
Objectivism
>Zonpower Rulz C-Space |   =!There is no God but you!=     |     Inc
>

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenknip cudfnKathleen cudlnWebb cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.15 / Tom Droege /  Re: Cravens pump power
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cravens pump power
Date: 15 May 1995 20:36:05 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <9505151429.AA50452@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>, blue@pilot.msu.edu
(Richard A Blue) says:
>
>Many thanks to John Logajan for supplying a calculation of the power
>delivered to the Cravens demo setup by the circulating pump.  So
>does this tell us that of the 1 watt of "excess heat" we have 0.2 watts
>supplied by the pump that was not included in previous accountings?
>
>Now as I understand this calculation it gives us the power dissipated
>external to the pump, but is that the total heat input by the pump?
>Isn't there the possibility for addition losses within the pump itself
>just as there is in the Griggs device?  Certainly in the limit where
>the flow through the pump is reduced to zero the fluid will still be
>heated by a dissipation of mechanical work.  Furthmore the pump motor
>is a heat source which may be thermally coupled to some degree to
>the circulating fluid.  I am not sure we have yet properly accounted
>for what the pump is doing.
>
>Dick Blue
>

Uhhh.  I seem to have missed the post that described this "calorimeter".
Can someone forward the appropriate post?  

Tom Droege   droege@fnal.fnal.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.15 / John Logajan /  Re: Cravens pump power
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cravens pump power
Date: 15 May 1995 20:53:27 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) wrote:
: does this tell us that of the 1 watt of "excess heat" we have 0.2 watts
: supplied by the pump that was not included in previous accountings?

Remember that the 0.2 watts (if it really is that much) would also be
developed during the calibration run and would therefore get nulled
out of the net result by reporting as a (false) slightly higher
thermal recovery efficiency.  The best recovery efficiency so far
has been about 93%, with 80-90 being Craven's typical range.  So there
is plenty of room for the small fluid-dynamic heating effect to hide
in there.

So no, this effect would only show up differentially in the anomalous
heat run if the pressure and flow rate product were significantly
higher than during the calibration runs -- in other words, did they
run their calibration runs at lower pressures and/or flow rates?

Of course, accounting correctly for all the inputs makes the best
science, and as Jed tells us, this phenomena was noted by Hagelstein
and Cravens.

: Now as I understand this calculation it gives us the power dissipated
: external to the pump, but is that the total heat input by the pump?
: Isn't there the possibility for addition losses within the pump itself
: just as there is in the Griggs device?  Certainly in the limit where
: the flow through the pump is reduced to zero the fluid will still be
: heated by a dissipation of mechanical work.  Furthmore the pump motor
: is a heat source which may be thermally coupled to some degree to
: the circulating fluid.  I am not sure we have yet properly accounted
: for what the pump is doing.

The efficiency of the pump and any direct heating of the fluid by the pump
is nulled out by reading the fluid temperature at the input to the cell
and at the output of the cell.  We don't really care by what means the
fluid reached its input temperature.  We just look at the delta T.

Fluid temperature in, fluid temperature out, pressure in, pressure out,
and flow rate should gives us all we need to know about the mechanical
heat inputs into the system -- unless you can think of any other?

--
 - 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:
cuddy15 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.16 / John Logajan /  Re: Cravens pump power
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cravens pump power
Date: 16 May 1995 00:28:28 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Tom Droege (Droege@fnal.fnal.gov) wrote:
: Uhhh.  I seem to have missed the post that described this "calorimeter".
: Can someone forward the appropriate post?  

I just sent it to Tom, but if anyone else interested, there is a nice
report by Bill Page on my www home page under the "Cravens's ICCF5
PPC Handouts" link.  It has a nice ASCII-fied schematic of the
Cravens calorimeter.  My URL is below.

--
 - 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:
cuddy16 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.16 / Barry Merriman /  Re: ANOTHER Form of COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ANOTHER Form of COLD FUSION
Date: 16 May 1995 01:15:24 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3os93k$7d0@newsbf02.news.aol.com> robertmc5@aol.com (ROBERTMC5)  
writes:
>           
> 
>                A very simple experiment can demonstrate (PROVE) the 
>           FACT of "BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS" (reactions like Mg + O 
>           --> Ca, Si + C --> Ca, K + H --> Ca, N2 --> CO, etc.), as 
>           described in the BOOK "Biological Transmutations" by Louis 
>           Kervran, [1972 Edition is BEST.], and in Chapter 17 of the 
>           book "THE SECRET LIFE OF PLANTS" by Peter Tompkins and 
>           Christopher Bird, 1973: 
> 

But if these reactions occurred in noticable amounts, they would 
generally release enormous amounts of energy (the nuclear binding
energy)---where does all this go?

So, either these processes occur in infinitesimal amounts---in
which case its hard to see of what value the miniscule amounts
of Ca produced would be to the plants---or the plant in addition
have some magical way of violating conservation of energy as well.




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


cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.16 / Edward Lewis /  Tiny Ball Lightning (plasmoids)
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tiny Ball Lightning (plasmoids)
Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 01:22:42 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago



			Copyright 1995 by Edward Lewis All Rights Reserved

Posted March 30, 1995.

Edward Lewis						March 8, 1995
P. O. Box 13060						Revised, May 8, 1995
Chicago, Illinois  60613

PLASMOID PHENOMENA
	
	Fundamental anomalous phenomena are the contradictions of the
postulates of the premises of people's theories, and the environment.
Those who apprehend a theory and experience according to the theory
may experience the contradictions.  It seems that since the
fundamental postulates of people's premises are few, the kinds of
fundamental anomalies are few.  During the last 20 years, the number
of people who have been experiencing and reporting about the anomalies
of the Q.M. and Relativity theories has been rapidly increasing.  The
last 20 years is that which Thomas Kuhn called a "crisis period," and
there have been crisis periods at about every 80 year interval since
1500(1).  It seems to me that a group of fundamental phenomena of the
current set of phenomena is that of "plasmoid" phenomena.

	In earlier articles, I've written that atoms are plasmoid
phenomena.  Plasmoids seem to be basically an electrical-magnetic
phenomena -- plasmoids have converted to electricity.  The magnetism
is an aspect of the electricity.  I suspect that atoms are like ball
lightning -- if this is so then atoms may often be toroidally shaped,
and may usually not contain inner clumps in the middle.  The magnetism
of atoms is an electrical phenomena similar to the magnetism of the
earth.  People have experienced that the magnetism (people have used
the term "magnetic lines of force") of the earth is electrical
currents.  Light is the same as electricity since it interconverts(2).
Inertia, accretion, and separation of plasmoids is also an
electrical-magnetic phenomena -- as relative motion of plasmoids also
seems to be.

	Almost all or all the phenomena that I know about seem to be
plasmoid phenomena.  Substance seems to be a plasmoid phenomena
because galaxies are plasmoids and substance converts to other kinds
of plasmoid phenomena, light, and electricity(3).  Micrometer-sized
plasmoid phenomena has been reported to be the locus of neutron
emission(45), and ball lightning-like phenomena(6) has been associated
with neutron production also.  Matsumoto has shown traces of plasmoids
that moved on the surface of emulsions while emitting little plasmoids
people might call particles (like the "Superstar" trace in FUS. TECH.,
22, 165 (August, 1992), Fig. 8).  Like other plasmoids, atoms may
clump and divide and dissipate so that new substances, elements and
isotopes, and electricity and light are produced.  It seems that
plasmoid phenomena are the same though the size varies.  For example,
galaxies seem to convert to jets, beams, and electrical currents in
the middle,in that which seems to be a vortex, such as in the galaxies
M87, Cygnus A, and NGC4258, and this seems to be similar to the jets,
beams, and electrical discharges from ball lightning, the beams and
electrical discharges from micrometer-sized plasmoids, the beams from
discharge devices reported by Savvatimova and Karabut et al., and the
beam or jet that a plasmoid emitted on nuclear emulsion that Matsumoto
showed(7).  I think that EVs(5), ball lightning, plasmoids, tornadoes
and galaxies are similar phenomena since they behave similarly(8).

	People have produced plasmoid and BL-like phenomena for a long
time.  W. Bostick produced that which he called plasmoids by
discharging through electrodes(9), and according to A. Peratt(10), he
coined the term.  In this paper, Bostick had already begun to tell
others about his speculation that galaxies and the phenomena he
produced were similar.  He compared the shapes and the travel of these
things.  He also speculated a little about the identity of
"particles."  According to experimental results, many people including
Bostick, Alfven (Nobel Prize, Magneto-hydrodynamics), Peratt(11) and
Lerner(12) have developed similar extensive astrophysical theories
that model the universe as plasmoids; while others, such as
Bostick(13,14,15) developed models of particles as plasmoids.  For
decades, many people have tried to use plasmoids for weapons(16,17)
and for fusion, and it is well known that plasmoids are associated
with element, isotope, and neutron production.

	In the latter part of the 1700s, people were producing ball
lighting-like phenomena by using Leyden jars, a kind of condensor, and
in the late 1800s, Plante and others studied BL-like phenomena
produced by discharge through wires and in plate condensors.  Tesla
also produced such phenomena.  There have been about 8 international
conferences about ball lightning and luminous atmospheric phenomena
during the last 8 years.  In 1992, after reading literature about ball
lightning and reading cold fusion articles, I began to tell(18)
Matsumoto and other people about my idea that tiny ball-lightning
phenomena were produced in "cold fusion" apparatus, and about how the
ball lightning phenomena that were produced by electrolysis "cold
fusion" apparatus produced the many kinds of micrometer sized
anomalous traces in nuclear emulsions that Matsumoto had shown in
several articles in THE JOURNAL OF FUSION TECHNOLOGY.  Since then,
Matsumoto has reported about the observation of tiny ball
lightning-like phenomena in some cold fusion apparatus(19,20,21), and
he has produced many more traces that are better evidence of the
production of things that can be called tiny ball lightning or
plasmoids.  I use the term plasmoid as a general term.
	
	Most if not all other anomalous phenomena that I know about
can be described as plasmoid phenomena.  For example,
superconductivity seems to be similar to the phenomena of ball
lightning traveling though materials such as ceramics and glass
without leaving holes or visible effects, yet ball lightning may
convert to an electrical surge after touching a wire or it may convert
to a bolt of lightning.  Also, sonoluminescence and "cavitation" seems
to be a phenomena of the water and other substances converting to
light and perhaps electricity, and to other atoms and bigger
micrometer-sized plasmoids.  The pits and the localized melting seem
to be plasmoid and discharge effects.  The vortex phenomena
photographed by Stringham and George are plasmoid phenomena.

	I suggest that people use nuclear emulsions and check their
apparatus microscopically to find plasmoids or their effects. Also,
check the electrical grounding of the apparatus and see whether there
are electrical surges.  I suspect that in many apparatus much
substance may convert and leave as plasmoids and/or electricity.
Also, I suggest that people try to check whether things like time
(maybe use atomic clocks(22)), accretion (the clumping of plasmoids,
even very large ones), and magnetism change around their cold fusion
and plasmoid apparatus.  There is much evidence of anomalous changes
of these things around and in plasmoid phenomena such as discharge
phenomena, ball lightning, solar flares, volcanoes and earthquakes.
The changes of the accretion of plasmoid phenomena associated with
plasmoid phenomena is the production of new elements and substances.
For example, a BL-like phenomena landed on a hill near Vladivostok in
Russia called Height 611.  It left residues of rare earths, strange
alloys, and filaments of quartz with filaments of gold 7 micrometers
wide inside(23).  Check for superconductivity, since this is a
plasmoid phenomena.  Also, I suspect that storms on earth greatly
affect at least some CF apparatus.  Hawkins(24) and others(25)
reported that a electrolysis apparatus exhibited heat and gamma-ray
excursions at the times of electrical storms, but not otherwise.  In
this vein, it is interesting that V. A.  Filimonov reports that a
neutron source greatly stimulates CF phenomena(26).  Lightning is
associated with neutron production(27).  I'm speculating that neutrons
are a plasmoid environment, like larger plasmoids.
	
	On one weekly T.V. show(28) about unusual phenomena that is shown
in Chicago, there was a report about people who were in Gulf Breeze,
Florida in the U.S.A. who reported seeing a small light orbiting a
larger luminous orb.  I have read the reports of people who have seen
two BL revolve about a common center and of people who have seen
several BL revolving together.  I suspect that according to the new
set of phenomena, the reason the small BL-like phenomena was orbiting
the bigger orb is the same reason that the planets orbit the Sun.
	
	If I could suggest some experiments, as I suggested in 1992(29),
look for the emission of neutrons and other kinds of plasmoids during
stress of substances other than hydrogen and during stresses other
than electrical discharge, such as by thermal cycling or fracture.
When I was 5 or 6, I produced tiny, unusual BL-like phenomena (sparks)
that flew around, changed colors, and made a noise by fracturing a
certain kind of rock.  Composites or combinations of elements with big
differences of "oxidation state"(29) or electronegativity may prove
useful; this seems superficially similar to Hora, Miley et al.'s(30) idea
of using differences in Fermi level.

-------Footnotes

1) E. Lewis, "The Periodic Production of Rationalized Phenomena and
the Past Periodic Depressions," manuscript article, 1992, 1994, 1995.
2)For example, electron holography provides a means of converting
electrons to light.
3)E. Lewis, "Plasmoids and Cold Fusion," Cold Fusion Times, 2 (no. 1),
4 (Summer, 1994).
4)W. H. Bostick, W. Prior, L. Grunberger, and G. Emmert, "Pair
Production of Plasma Vortices," Physics of Fluids, 9, 2078 (1966).
5)K. Shoulders, "Energy Conversion Using High Charge Density," Patent
Number 5,123,039.
6)G. Dijkhuis and J. Pijpelink, "Performance of a High-Voltage Test
Facility Designed for Investigation of Ball Lightning," Proc. First
International Symposium on Ball Lightning (Fire Ball) -- The Science
of Ball Lightning (Fire Ball) Tokyo, Japan, July 4-6, 1988, World
Scientific Company, Singapore, p. 336.
7)T. Matsumoto, "Searching for Tiny Black Holes During Cold Fusion,"
Fusion Technology, 22, 281 (Sept. 1992); Fig. 2b.
8)E. Lewis, "Luminous Tornadoes and Other Plasmoids," Cold Fusion
Times, 1 (no. 4), 4 (Winter, 1994).
9)W. Bostick, "Plasmoids," SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, 197, 87 (October 1957).
10)A. Peratt, email note, January 27,  1995.
11)A. Peratt, "Evolution of the Plasma Universe: I.  Double Radio
Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets," IEEE Trans. Plasma
Science., vol. PS-14, 385 (1986).  Many other articles as well.
12)Eric Lerner, THE BIG BANG NEVER HAPPENED, New York, 1991.
13)W. Bostick, "The Plasmoid Construction of the Superstring," 21st
Century Science & Technology, p. 58, Winter 1990.
14)W. Bostick, "How Superstrings Form the Basis of Nuclear Matter,"
21st Century Science & Technology, p. 66, Winter 1990.
15)W. Bostick, "Mass, Charge, and Current: The Essence and
Morphology," Physics Essays, 4 (no.5), 45 (1991).  Millenium Twain
sent me this reference in January or Feb. of 1994.
16)J. Tennenbaum, "Behind the Russian SDI Offer: A Scientific,
Technological, and Strategic Revolution," 21st Century Science &
Technology, p. 36, Summer 1993.
17)"USAF Conducts Experiments with Compact Toroids for Future Space
Weapons," Aviation Week & Space Technology, 130, 60 (May 15, 1989).
18)E. Lewis, "A Proposal for the Performance of Four Kinds of
Experiments to Test My Own Hypotheses and a Statement of a Deduction
about Phenomena," manuscript article, October 19, 1992.
19)T. Matsumoto, "Cold Fusion Experiments by Using Electrical
Discharge in Water," distributed at the ICCF4.
20)T. Matsumoto, "Observation of Tiny Ball Lightning During Electrical
Discharge in Water," sub. to FT, Jan. 23, 1994.
21)T. Matsumoto, "Two Proposals Concerning Cold Fusion," Fusion
Technology, 26, 1337 (December 1994).
22)E. Lewis.  There is an abstract in the back of the ICCF3 abstract
booklet about two experiments.
23)SIGHTINGS, Saturday, April 1, 1995, 11:30 P.M.
24)N. Hawkins, "Possible Natural Cold Fusion in the Atmosphere,"
Fusion Technology, 19, 2212 (July, 1991).
25)N. Hawkins, S.-Sh. Yi, X.-Zh. Qi, S. Li, L. Wang, and Q. X. Zu,
"Investigations of Mechanisms and Occurrence of Meteorologically
Triggered Cold Fusion at the Chinese Academy of Sciences," Proc. Conf.
Anomalous Nuclear Effects in Deuterium/Solid Systems, Provo, Utah,
October 22-24, 1990.
26) V. A. Filimonov, "A New Cold Fusion Phenomenon,"
sci.physics.fusion newsgroup (article #16526, from profusion@aol.com),
January 21, 1995.
27) S. Shah, H. Razdan, C. Bhat, and Q. Ali, "Neutron Generation in
Lightning Bolts," NATURE, 313, 773 (1985).
28)SIGHTINGS, Saturday, December 3, 1994, 6:00 P.M.
29)E. Lewis, "A Description of Phenomena According to My Theory and
Experiments to Test My Theory," manuscript article, submitted to
FUSION TECHNOLOGY, December 1992.
30)G. Miley, H. Hora, E. G. Batyrbekov, R. Zich, "Electrolytic Cell
With Multilayer Thin-Film Electrodes," Transactions of Fusion
Technology, 26, 313 (December 1994).







cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue May 16 04:37:03 EDT 1995
------------------------------
