1995.06.17 / Paul Koloc /  Re: science power and religion
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: science power and religion
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 1995 02:27:43 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3rq6eg$n11@soenews.ucsd.edu> barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>
>> In article <3rao7f$5lm@overload.lbl.gov> 
>> Jean-Paul Biberian <jpb@sunspot.ssl.berkeley.edu> writes:
>> >
>> >Science Power and Religion
>> >Another interesting comparison between science and 
>> >religion is their inability to accept changes. 

>Uhh, come again? Lets see, it took the catholic Church 
>400 years to begrudgingly admit they were wrong about 
>Galileo. In the mean time, science had progressed all
>the way to general relativity, inflationary universes, 
>and all manner of exotic theories.

Theories ???  But what about practice??  You know the stuff
of from matter and energy forms of good ole' 3 space?  

>I'd say the time constant to fully accept a fundamental 
>change in scientific thinking is ~ 30 years. For
>religions, it seems to be ~ 1000 years.

Yeah!  For example: 
Hmmm!  let's see.. ah,.. that's about the same time for the DoE 
MFE to evolve from tokamak to a more sensible concept like a 
PLASMAK(tm) generator ... nope!  naw that's to much too expect..  
let's make it a Flag Ship Spheromak.    As an intermediate step
maybe a stab could be made at producing a full blown Spherical 
tokamak about 2400?  

>--
>Barry Merriman
>UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
>UCLA Dept. of Math
>bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.17 / James Stolin /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 17 Jun 1995 05:46:09 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:
>
>I just received an e-mail message telling me that I "flamed everyone"

   Received an EMAIL at what address?  21cenlogic@i-link.net is an 
invalid EMAIL address.  EMAIL sent to or replied to at that address is 
returned saying the address is invalid.

>Excuse me, but what are you talking about? First, if Dieter Britz is so
>muddled in his thinking that he posts a statement which, if interpreted
>sensibly, implies that he used a cancelbot to delete Wallace's posts, 
and
>I make that sensible interpretation, what, precisely, am I guilty of?
>Given the context (in which a deluge of "nastygrams" had apparently 
been
>used to jam Wallace's e-mail access), where is the fault that you
>apparently want me to 'fess up to? 

   The context of Dieter's note is that the header of a post was edited 
to eliminate Wallace's spam cross-posting.  You are the only muddled one 
that interpreted the statement to mean a cancelbot was used.  You are 
either guilty of ignorance or deliberate misinterpretation.

>Perhaps your problem is that you really don't understand what is wrong
>with Britz' sentence. If that is the case, let me try again. here is
>Britz' statement:
> <much snipped>

   what is wrong is taking Dieter's statement out of context and twisting 
the meaning. It appears that you are the only one that did this.

>Frankly, as I have stated in a post to sci.physics.fusion, I now 
believe
>that Dieter Britz is merely guilty of muddled thinking, not of a 
cancelbot
>attack on Wallace.

   Sorry, but it was your thinking that was muddled when you accused hoim 
of using a cancelbot.

>However, if you expect me to apologize for being able
>to rationally interpret his sentence, or to feel bad because my own
>thinking is not muddled, I suggest that you not hold your breath while 
you
>are waiting.

   We won't hold out breath.  People who quote out of context usually 
don't apologize but instead make excuses and obfuscate.

> I am not responsible for what Dieter posted.

   Correct.  You are responsible for what YOU post.  You jumped to a 
conclusion not supported by the evidence.

>If, tomorrow,
>you post a message claiming to be the Green River killer and, upon
>investigation, the FBI concludes that you are not, they will not 
apologize
>to you. The fault will still be yours, even if it is not as large as it
>initially appeared to be.

   This is not a valid comparison.  Dieter did not claim to use a 
cancelbot.  You wrongly claimed he did.  The fault is yours.  You should 
apologize but we won't hold out breaths.


-
Jim Stolin  -  Illinois Computer Service  -  fknf40a@prodigy.com
Opinions are my own ... but could be yours.

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.15 / Travis Stone /  Re: I apologize on behalf of Morrison (and Jones!)
     
Originally-From: stone@cwis.unomaha.edu (Travis Stone)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I apologize on behalf of Morrison (and Jones!)
Date: 15 Jun 1995 15:18:02 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha (Faculty/Staff CWIS)

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

> Steve Jones, in a monumental display of irrationality, apparently wants *me*
> to apologize because Morrison is a slimeball. He writes:

[Snip]

And, further on:
  
> But okay: I hereby
> apologize on Morrison's behalf for polluting the cold fusion debate with
> rumors, nonsense, and racist ideology that would make a vulture throw up. 

And, finally:
  
> I was hoping that at the last moment you might reconsider and act like a
> scientist and a scholar. But no, I see you went ahead with it, so maybe I will
> go ahead and post the truth about you again. I apologize in advance for
> showing the world what a slimeball you are.

Ahhhh....Now THIS is what I've always admired about science and
scientists: Calm, scholarly debate conducted in the best tradition of
gentlemanly discourse.  An environment ruled by reason rather than
passion, where ideas may be freely exchanged without unnecessary resort
to rancor or personal invective!

Hah.

Call me crazy, but why should any of you fusion scientists get so upset
about what this person or that person said/wrote in some paper
somewhere?  Isn't science a game centered solely around facts?  And if
that's the case (which I've perhaps naively always thought it was,) then
wouldn't it be sufficient to just say "Well, time will tell which one of
us is right, the experimental evidence (one way or the other) will out"?

We seem to have two opposing camps here, both of whom seem to think the
other is full of baloney.  Well, if you BOTH have that much faith that
experimentation will bear you out in the end, then why not agree to drop
the mutual antipathy while you await the final results?

Just a crazy idea....

T.R.S.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenstone cudfnTravis cudlnStone cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.17 / John White /  Re: cooling
     
Originally-From: jnw@elvis.vnet.net (John N. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: cooling
Date: 17 Jun 1995 05:35:18 -0500
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes:
> You cannot mix both a high COP and a slow cooling unless the thermal
> mass is even far greater than we have previously estimated.

You seem to be questioning whether enough energy can be stored.
I can't seem to find the relevant posts right now, but as I
recall a 80cm dia 10cm thick rotor was used to heat about 200 liters
of water in a barrel. Some rotors have shown signs of melting
(660 degC), which gives us a bit over 500 degC more than the steam
temperature. The heat capacity of Al is somewhat more than .22cal/g-deg
at these temperatures.

This works out to over 5.5e6 cal of available stored energy, which
can heat the 200 liter barrel about 27 degC (50 degF). As I recall,
this was about twice the heating actually seen. (Remember, this
is excess heating, which is in addition to the heating that would
be expected from the power supplied to the device).

Now, we know that the viscosity shifts abruptly back and forth between
a high and a low value. This has been observed and reported. The
input energy will follow this shift in viscosity. The output energy
is pretty much regulated, as the water flows in at a predefined
rate and the steam comes out at a predefined pressure. This means
that the input energy will be either too high or too low as compared
to the output energy. When the input energy is too high, the rotor
heats up. Eventually, the viscosity flips to the low state, causing
the input power to drop. The output power remains the same (being
regulated) with the cooling rotor making up the difference.

I agree with Barry Merriman; the stored heat hypothesis explains
the observations from the steam runs.
-- 
jnw@vnet.net
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.15 /  jonesse@physc2 /  Re: Morrison's Article.
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc2.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Morrison's Article.
Date: 15 Jun 95 15:39:56 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <h63eF1W.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> Martin Sevior <msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au> writes:
>  
>>Can anyone categorically state that EPRI has stopped funding CNF or that
>>Pons has definitely left the field?
>  
> Those claims of Morrison's are bunk. Completely wrong. EPRI and Pons are
> both still doing CF. Most of Morrison's other claims are also bunk. His
> "informed sources" must be hallucinating. Or maybe he is.
>  
> - Jed

Nate Hoffman, a long-time consultant for EPRI regarding CF issues, told
me recently that EPRI is no longer supporting Mike McKubre's CF work --
that is where the lion's share of EPRI funding was going.  Perhaps
Jed will tell us just what EPRI is supporting -- perhaps a small amount
to check the E-quest claims?
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjonesse cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.15 /  jonesse@physc2 /  Re: I apologize on behalf of Morrison (and Jones!)
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc2.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I apologize on behalf of Morrison (and Jones!)
Date: 15 Jun 95 16:03:55 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <Zez9VL0.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> Steve Jones, in a monumental display of irrationality, apparently wants *me*
> to apologize because Morrison is a slimeball.
[snip--typical frothing attacks by Rothwell]  
>  
> Now that I have apologized for Morrison, maybe I should work on a mea culpa
> for you too, Steve. You apparently launched another one of your patented sneak
> attacks in this latest bogus "paper" that "proves" Miles is wrong. Naturally,
> you did not tell him what you were up to. He was mighty upset when he found
> out you intended to publish without giving him a chance to review the paper or
> respond. He sent me copies of the letters he wrote, and asked me to post them
> on Internet. I find the whole story so sordid that I have avoided posting
> them. I was hoping that at the last moment you might reconsider and act like a
> scientist and a scholar. But no, I see you went ahead with it, so maybe I will
> go ahead and post the truth about you again. I apologize in advance for
> showing the world what a slimeball you are.
>  
> - Jed

More obfuscation from Jed.  To set the record straight:
1.  In June 1993, Miles wrote "I hereby challenge Professor Jones to take his
allegations regarding my work to a refereed scientific journal," in a letter
to BYU President Rex Lee.  I accepted that challenge in writing, so Miles
clearly was well aware that this paper was forthcoming.  
It was not a "sneak attack" as Jed wrongfully alleges.

2.  Miles did not indicate that he wanted to have a co-submitted response
at that time, nearly two years ago.

3.  I have a letter from Miles dated 24 Apr 1995 in which he admits that his
co-worker Dr. Johnson did in fact receive a copy of our paper (from me) on
3 January 1995, and that Dr. Johnson did indeed transmit this paper to Dr.
Miles.  "I did see this version of the paper," he stated.  I then wrote to
Miles on 26 Apr 1995, "It is the feeling of Prof. hansen and myself that this
was sufficiently early for you to respond; you did not.  The paper was
essentially in final form at that time and we anticipated a response --
but this was not forthcoming."

4.  It was not until mid-April, when we had already returned the page-proofs
to the publisher (these were also transmitted to Miles) that he finally
woke up and asked the editor to delay publication while he wrote a response to 
be published simultaneously.  The editor in turn asked us.  We provided
several reasons not to delay, including the facts presented above.  I also
wrote to Miles in response:

"Finally, your papers to which we are responding have already been published
and are already available to the scientific community.  Thus, our paper is
a response to the "first round" of publications."
... "Should you write comments, then we should write a response back-to-back
with yours in the second round of comments.  That would be proper.  In
particular, we will be looking to see whether you are now using an x-ray
spectrometer instead of dental x-ray film, a reliable energy-dispersive
radiation detector instead of a Geiger counter, and so on."


HOpe this clarifies the matter.  Let the reader judge based on the facts,
not vituperative diatribes by Jed Rothwell.  The reader should also read the
paper in question by Jones and Hansen:  "Examination of claims of Miles et al.
in Pons-Fleischmann-type cold fusion experiments," J. Phys. Chem. _95_ (May
1995) 6966-6972.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjonesse cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.17 / John Logajan /  Re: cooling
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: cooling
Date: 17 Jun 1995 14:54:04 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

John N. White (jnw@elvis.vnet.net) wrote:
: Some rotors have shown signs of melting (660 degC), which gives us a bit
: over 500 degC more than the steam temperature.

When I have more time I will work through the numbers again, but for now
this rather unusal high temperature you postulate has caught my eye.

It is certainly a mystery how a low pressure water turbulence system
(80psi or thereabouts) can differentially warm beyond the boiling point
-- let alone vastly beyond the boiling point.  Until Griggs, I've never
heard of a device that allegedly possessed this property.

Let us also recall that there is likely a point of maxium friction in
the geometry of the device, most likely at the outer radius where the
rate of rotation is the fastest.  This means that this postulated
"red heat" would be generated there first -- but that it would have to
spread to the rest of the rotor bulk through the thermal resistance of
the rotor material itself -- resulting in a temperature drop across the
bulk.  

Also recall that the feedwater is side fed off axis.  This puts the
maximum cooling effect away from the outer radius and at the bulk
of the rotor.

These heterogeneous effects make a flip/flopping between steam insulated
and uninsulated states highly unlikely -- even if you could generate
widespread surface 600C using low pressure water friction. 

I think you are postulating one miracle to disprove another.

--
 - 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:
cuddy17 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.17 / Richard Blue /  Re: Blue comments of Cravens demo
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Blue comments of Cravens demo
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 1995 15:35:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Continuing my dialog with Martin Sevior.

Martin, I believe you need to think a bit more about the
pump and the filter.  What would you estimate is the
power input to the pump? 10 watts?  100 watts?  I would
say that it is significantly more than the 1 watt power level
of the experiment.

Where does the pump power go?  It goes to the mechanical work
of driving the fluid circulation, in part.  Some of that gets
dissipated as heat in the filter so the temperature in the
filter need not be at ambient.  Some of it goes directly to
heating the fluid as it passes through the pump so the temperature
of the fluid leaving the pump is certainly elevated above
ambient.  The rest of the power input to the pump goes to heat
the surroundings.

>From the above it should be obvious that there is no single
"ambient" temperature.  In fact there are sound reasons to believe
the fluid circuit passes through a number of different and variable
temperature zones that are not documented.

Now it was not my purpose to suggest that there is a specific, well
known chemical mechanism that should be investigated.  What I was
trying to point out is that it is equally valid to suggest that
there is some unsuspected chemical process involved and it is to
suggest that ther is some unsuspected nuclear process involved.
Nothing about the demonstration would force one to conclude that
there is nuclear reaction occuring.

No violation of the second law by my suggestion has been demonstrated
until both the temperatures and chemical states of the system have
been determined in much greater detail.  You think that I am making
a rather far-out suggestion.  Hey, that has been an accepted part of
the cold fusion debate from the beginning.  It is just that some people
prefer to believe that it is the other guy who is being silly.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.17 /   /  Re: Atomic stability:  ZPF or QM?
     
Originally-From: mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Atomic stability:  ZPF or QM?
Date: 17 Jun 1995 15:55:35 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Hi Scott. I haven't had time to read the papers you suggested; the hours
of the nearby university library are short these days due to summer and
budget cuts. I do intend to read them.

Considering the QM explanation for the stability of atomic matter, it is
rather simple (especially for an engineer).

In QM particles don't have well-defined trajectories as in classical
mechanics. They have a distribution which gives the probability of the
particle being found at any given location. This distribution is called
the wave function; it is a complex-valued function, the absolute square of
which gives the probability density distribution.

This function obeys a wave equation called the schroedinger equation (SE);
that is the solutions are waves. If the physical problem to be solved
includes a confined space, such as the electric field of a proton
(assuming the item of interest is the wave function of an electron with
energy too small to escape), then the solutions to the SE will be
effectively standing waves. In any situation with standing waves there is
what's usually refered to as the fundamental mode of oscillation, the
lowest frequency mode. An example from classical physics is a violin
string, which has many modes of oscillation with different frequencies.

In QM the energy of the state is related to the frequency, and the lowest
frequency state is the lowest energy state. The electron can't go to a
lower energy state because you can't fit a lower frequency wave into the
available space (lower frequency => longer wavelength).

Now these are all very nice words, but they are qualitative just like a
lot of the posts on this newsgroup. The important fact is that QM is a
quantitative theory. When you solve the schroedinger equation for the
hydorgen atom you get energy levels that are in agreement with experiment!
That is what a physical theory is all about.

As (I hope) the above shows, quantum mechanics is not "based on the
assumption that electrons don't spiral in...". Quantum mechanics predicts
this behaviour based on a completely new (well 70 years ago it was new)
description of particle motion. And this description is complete (can in
principle predict the results of any experiment) and quantitative (gives
numbers you can compare, not just vague generalities).

Mark Richardson
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmrichar353 cudln cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.17 / Barry Merriman /  Re: cooling
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: cooling
Date: 17 Jun 1995 23:52:37 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3ruqac$r0m@stratus.skypoint.net> jlogajan@skypoint.com (John  
Logajan) writes:
> 
> It is certainly a mystery how a low pressure water turbulence system
> (80psi or thereabouts) can differentially warm beyond the boiling point
> -- let alone vastly beyond the boiling point.  Until Griggs, I've never
> heard of a device that allegedly possessed this property.
> 

I don't follow your argument. Heat is being generated---i.e. there is
a source---at the rotor surface. Some of this heat is deposited in the 
rotor, and some of it is carried away by the fluid flowing through the
system. I see no obvious limit on how hot (T) the rotor could get in such
a system (obviously the limit is reached when the rate of heat loss
by conduction equals the rate of deposition from the source...), or
on how large a difference there could be between the effluent temperature
and the rotor temperature.

For a simple mechanical analogy, consider using a band saw to make a very
long cut through a sheet of plywood; the difference between the bandsaw blade
temperature and the plywood temperature can get quite large.



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


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.17 / Barry Merriman /  Re: I apologize on behalf of Morrison (and Jones!)
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I apologize on behalf of Morrison (and Jones!)
Date: 17 Jun 1995 23:54:13 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3rpiva$ag4@s-cwis.unomaha.edu> stone@cwis.unomaha.edu (Travis  
Stone) writes:

> We seem to have two opposing camps here, both of whom seem to think the
> other is full of baloney.  Well, if you BOTH have that much faith that
> experimentation will bear you out in the end, then why not agree to drop
> the mutual antipathy while you await the final results?
> 
> Just a crazy idea....
> 


As far as I know, there is no mutual antipathy. It is Jed that 
thinks skpetical scientists are evil incarnate. The scientists
are pretty level headed about it.


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


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.17 / Barry Merriman /  Re: I apologize on behalf of Morrison (and Jones!)
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I apologize on behalf of Morrison (and Jones!)
Date: 17 Jun 1995 23:57:15 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3rpohs$2ru@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

>   Not only me, but other participants in cold fusion probably wonder
> the same thing. Do the skeptics have the market cornered on getting
> their views published? And if this is the case, I wonder if us
> pro-fusioners could force these publishers into "equal time" provided
> we care to. For example, if Jones gets 3 pages in C&EN, then
> pro-fusioners ought to have equal space and pages in the same journal,
> provided we care to.

Mr. Pu: you are not a participant in anything, except in your own deranged
mind. I feel the need to point this out to you, occasionally.


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


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.17 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Merriman's theory shot down in flames!
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman's theory shot down in flames!
Date: 17 Jun 1995 23:59:55 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <21cenlogic-1506951151590001@austin-1-9.i-link.net>  
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:

> Is this incorrect, or do you maintain that the
> dumping of the heat stored in the initial 20 minutes could somehow produce
> excess heat that lasts for hours even at this rate? If the latter, then I
> must say that it mathematically makes no sense to me. Please explain.
> 

Jed's (steam mode, with > 50% excess heat, not hot water mode)
experiments as detailed in his report had about a 20 minute
warmup time and also a 20--30 minute duration. That is all
I base my comments on.


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


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.18 / James Stolin /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 18 Jun 1995 01:19:03 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk> wrote:
>
> One of the things we dislike about the Wallaceposts is that
> everytime someone replies, on any of the groups where he
> posts, the reply also goes to all the groups.

  That is one thing that the Prodigy software prevents.  I CAN'T cross-
post nor do my replies cross-post.  Take a quick jump to sci.physics, alt.
aliens or any other newsgrop afflicted by the Wallace spams.  You 
shouldn't see any replies from me because Prodigy automatically chops all 
newsgroup names except the newsgroup you are replying from.  This may be 
good or bad depending on the situation but if something is important 
enough, it should be worthwhile to visit the individual newsgroups. 

>I have a theory: since noone can be seriously posting stuff like 
Mitchell's,
>Mitchell is having us on, maybe as part of a study of Internet sociology.
 I
>hope he has enough material soon, and stops.

   I have a few theories also and they are nothing similar to yours.  
Mitch Jones appeared in this newsgroup suddenly when Wallace started 
getting critized in this newsgroup.  I don't think it was cooincidence.  
His style is too damned similar to Wallaces rambling missives.  They both 
display a myoptic ignorance of the workings of the newsgroups, netiquette 
and newsgroup charters.  Mitch's Internet address is flakey.  Has anyone 
successfully EMAILed him or replied to his EMAIL?  Mitch might be Wallace 
in disguise or just a misguided fool that Wallace has brainwashed. 

-
Jim Stolin  -  Illinois Computer Service  -  fknf40a@prodigy.com
Opinions are my own ... but could be yours.

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.18 / John Logajan /  Re: cooling
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: cooling
Date: 18 Jun 1995 05:00:11 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Barry Merriman (barry@starfire.ucsd.edu) wrote:
: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes:
: > 
: > It is certainly a mystery how a low pressure water turbulence system
: > (80psi or thereabouts) can differentially warm beyond the boiling point

: I don't follow your argument. Heat is being generated---i.e. there is
: a source---at the rotor surface.

: consider using a band saw to make a very long cut through a sheet of
: plywood; the difference between the bandsaw blade temperature and the
: plywood temperature can get quite large.

Never the less, I've never heard of this occuring in a water system.
Remember that the explanation now is that the rotor is reaching 600C,
nearly six times the boiling point of the surrounding and impinging water.

If the rotor is in contact with the water, it should boil and transfer
its heat.  If the rotor is insulated from the water by a thin layer of
steam, then the rotor/water friction should be reduced so as to not
cause much further heating.

I suspect that in a chaotic system like the outer gap between the
Griggs rotor and the case, that water will be impacting upon the rotor,
in intimate contact -- the alleged steam barrier will be penetrated
by the forceful turbulance.

Try another experiment.  First gently drip water onto a very hot plate
and watch it float on its steam layer.  Now throw drips of water on
the hot plate and hear the accelerated boiling reaction as the force
of the water overcomes the steam barrier.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Jun 18 04:37:03 EDT 1995
------------------------------
