1995.06.18 / Tim Mirabile / Re: The Farce of Physics Originally-From: Tim Mirabile Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics Date: 18 Jun 1995 05:29:36 GMT Organization: HTP Services 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote: >Why did you make this post? I had already responded to your remarks in >detail before you made them. Try reading to the end of the thread before >you post. It does wonders to preserve the "bandwidth" that you guys seem >so concerned about when you criticize Mr Wallace, and seem so indifferent >to when it applies to your own behavior. --Mitchell Jones I guess you don't understand how usenet works. When I made this post, there were no other replies to your message on my system yet. Messages take several days to reach all sites, and in some cases the replies make it to some users before the original does. By the way, I do care about bandwidth. That's why my average post on this Wallace nonsense is about 1/20th the length of your average post. -- Tim cudkeys: cuddy18 cudentim cudfnTim cudlnMirabile cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.18 / BILLC / Re: I apologize on behalf Originally-From: billc@execnet.com (BILLC) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: I apologize on behalf Date: Sun, 18 Jun 95 11:47:00 -0500 Organization: Execnet Information System - 914-667-4567 - 198.232.143.136 AP> Jed, I wonder if you would give us your views as to why it seems so AP>easy for Steve Jones and for Morrison to get their propaganda AP>published. I mean, C&EN is not what I consider a below board AP>publication. I'm a longtime ACS member. I'd guess C&EN ran the article because of the discussion/controversy surronding the proposal for a session at the recent Anaheim nat'l mtg. That's the one downgraded to a poster session.. That brought the matter before the "chemical public" and C&EN was responding to that. I follow my own paraphrase of Polonious's speech from Hamlet. I try, neither a Sceptic or a True Believer to be." I didn't think the article slammed anyone. The whole field could use a few years of careful and quiet lab work. More experiments and less hoopla! I hope CF turns out to be for real for all our sake. --- þ SLMR 2.1a þ Old Chemists never die! They just reach Equilibrium. cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenbillc cudlnBILLC cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.18 / Bryan Wallace / Re: The Farce of Physics Originally-From: wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace) 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: 18 Jun 1995 15:46:55 -0400 Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc. The "The Farce of Physics" thread that I started November 1994 plus several short related threads has now reached a total of 720 posts by 240 people in 14 newsgroups that have shown an interest in it by postings, correspondence, book requests, etc. The thread is devoted to the topics, information, and arguments in my free general interest electronic book by the same name, as well as related current information and arguments discussing the problems in modern physics. My book is now archived in many Internet libraries and can be found by using Gopher and World Wide Web and is also available from Project Gutenberg archives and on their CDROM's. The free standard 311KB ASCII version can be obtained by anonymous ftp from ftp.germany.eu.net in the directory /pub/books/wallace by using "get farce.txt". The file in the directory is in a compressed form and called farce.txt.gz but if you leave off the .gz the system will send you the uncompressed text. If you use a graphics interface to ftp the book, like that used by America Online, you may get a file called farce.txt that is still in a compressed form. You can ftp a software package for the PC called gzip124.zip from ftp.aol.com in the directory /pub/compress/ibmpc that will uncompress the book after you rename it farce.gz. Unix computer systems have a command called "gunzip" that will also uncompress the .gz format. You can also ftp the book in an uncompressed form from my Internet service provider at ftp.intnet.net in the directory /pub/BOOKS/Wallace. The file farce.wp5 is the WordPerfect 5.1 version of the same book, and it contains all the extras like italics and superscripts, etc. The file d.wp5 is a WordPerfect reprint of my 1969 Venus radar paper, and the j.wp5, m.wp5, and p.wp5 files are reprints of my principle dynamic ether published papers, some that include imbedded graphics. The p1.gif file is a picture starting from left to right, of Vladimir Ilich Sekerin, myself(Bryan G. Wallace), and V. N. Bezwerchy after my lecture at the House of Scientists before the First Russian Conference started. The p2.gif file is a picture of me delivering my paper at the First Conference with Svetlana Tolchelnikova- Murri doing the translating. The p3.gif file is a picture taken at the closing ceremony of the Second Russian Conference. With regard to the people mentioned in the book: row 1 number 1 me, n.2 Lee Coe, n.3 Pavel F. Parshin; r.2 n.1 Leonid Maiboroda; r.3 n.5 Petr Beckman; r.4 n.11 Svetlana Tolchelnikova-Murri; r.5 n.5 Vladimir Sekerin, n.8 Alexandra Schpitalnaya; r.6 n.4 V. O. Beklyamishev; r.7 n.4 Konstantin Manuilov. The file readme.txt contains much the same information as this post. If you have email but not ftp I can send a copy of the book by email and if there is a size limit on your system, I can send it in segments with the largest being 55KB for Chapter 3. If you don't have access to the Internet but have a computer with a modem, you can download the book from the Bulletin Board "SIRIUS CONNECTION" in Ontario Canada. The V.32 bis to 14.4K baud data phone lines are 705-737-0728 and 705-737-3030 and you log in as a new user using ANSI or RIP graphics, then log to the BROWSE file library and download the file FARCE.TXT. The stats from EU Net show a peek of 2013 copies sent by ftp November 1994 and I've sent out at least 6000 copies of the book by email over the past few years. There are no restrictions on anyone making electronic or paper copies of my book, and there are thousands of people who have copies, so if you can't get the book by modem or the Internet, you should be able to find someone who will make a computer disk copy or a paper printout of the book. A paperback non- profit version of the book for about $5.95 plus postage and handling should soon be available from the publisher and I will post information on it on this thread when I have it. The current plan is to publish up to one million copies of the first edition if there is enough demand for it. The HTML/World-Wide Web Hypertext version of the book is available via: URL:http://www.Germany.EU.net/books/farce/farce.html Chapter 6 of my book is titled "Relativity Revolution" and is devoted in large measure to my participation in the March 1989 First International Conference "Problem of Space and Time in Natural Science", and the Second Conference in September 1991 in St. Petersburg Russia. Neil Munch was a participant in the Third Conference held May 1994 and is the Western contact for information and application forms for the Forth Conference to be held in the Fall of 1996. You can reach Neil at his email address: 70047.2123@compuserve.com My free electronic book "The Farce of Physics" explores and documents the fact that modern physics has become little more than an elaborate farce. The book is my contribution to the coming scientific revolution and contains 156 references to the published literature with extensive quotations of arguments from many prominent people including Albert Einstein. It is meant for anyone who is interested in this subject, and I have attempted to reduce the technical jargon and mathematics to a minimum in order to reach the widest possible audience. I agree that many of the arguments that are under the label of relativity theory appear to be backed with experimental evidence, but the modern evidence has gone against the original basic postulates. In Chapter 7 of my book I cite Einstein's former research associate's argument that pinned the breakdown of the first postulate principle of relativity to the background radiation and by averaging the observed proper motions of the surrounding galaxies. This is probably the principle reason that near the end of his life, Einstein wrote to his dear friend M. Besso in 1954 (Chapter 3): I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics. Starting in Chapter 4 of my book I start to detail my long struggle to get the physics community to accept the fact that the analysis of signal transit times in the solar system is the ultimate test of Einstein's second postulate of a constant light speed of c in space. I suspect that future science historians will argue that my 1969 published analysis of the published 1961 Venus radar data proved beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt that the second postulate was false. I expect that eventually someone will come up with an objective independent evaluation of the relative speed of light in space based on the more accurate modern space data that will be far more dramatic than my 1969 paper. When this happens physics will undergo a revolution that will be as sensational to science as the fall of the Berlin Wall was to world politics. The term physics was derived from the Greek word "physis" for nature, and the roots of physics lies in the first period of Greek philosophy in the sixth century B.C., where science, philosophy and religion were not separated. The aim of physics is to discover the essential nature of all things, and it lies at the base of all of natural science, religion, and technology. Richard Feynman was one of a relatively small number of modern physicists with the intelligence and courage to challenge the current sacred relativity doctrine that argues that empty space is an invisible solid with infinite mass and energy that can create the universe in a Big Bang. Feynman argued that Isaac Newton was right and that a photon of light is a particle composed of a drop of dynamic ether fluid moving through empty space at the speed of light. My 1969 paper showed that an analysis of the Venus radar data was consistent with the Newtonian particle model of light, and my published computer simulation research of the dynamic ether showed the proper magnitudes for the gravitational, electromagnetic, and nuclear forces using simple reasonable algorithms, and it was also possible to make the heavier particles from positive and negative electrons, just as John Archibald Wheeler suspected. Of the many interesting comments on the book that I've received to date, the most important one was by Wheeler who wrote: "A dynamic ether, a compressible fluid that could move at the speed of light." I am delighted you take such a deep interest in a subject so important. I expect that some time in the future, man will discover some cute technological trick that will upset the balance of the positrons and electrons and mass annihilation will be man's principle energy source, perhaps even leading to space travel at near light speeds. Bryan G. Wallace 7210 12th Ave. No. St. Petersburg, FL 33710 Phone 813-347-9309 Fax 813-864-8382 Email wallaceb@intnet.net cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.18 / John White / Re: cooling Originally-From: jnw@elvis.vnet.net (John N. White) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: cooling Date: 18 Jun 1995 20:58:58 -0500 Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779 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. Here is what I think is happening. The water will be separated from the rotor by a thin layer of steam. This layer will have a low viscosity compared to the water, so that much of the slip occurs in this layer. Thus, much of the energy will be dumped directly into this thin, somewhat insulating layer of steam. So the layer will become extremely hot inside, vastly beyond the boiling point of water. This heat will be dissipated in both directions, with some going into the water and some going into the rotor, which is thus heated to a very high temperature. > 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. An 80cm diameter rotor rotating at 3600 rpm will have a rim velocity of about 150m/s. The acceleration at the rim will be 5,800 times the earths gravity. 80psi corresponds to a water head of less than one centimeter under these conditions. In other words, the water will be flung to the rim, and won't touch the sides of the rotor much. > 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. There is steam insulation in both the high viscosity state and the low viscosity state. The flip/flop between these states has been observed. -- jnw@vnet.net cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.19 / Barry Merriman / Re: Barry Merriman is irrational and unscientific Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Barry Merriman is irrational and unscientific Date: 19 Jun 1995 03:13:32 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE In article <3rt3jc$2uc@stratus.skypoint.net> jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes: > > The coefficient of production was above unity and there was no trend in > the COP that would indicated a cooling effect, as one would expect if > the thermal mass of that size was giving up its stored heat. > > Can't have cooling without seeing evidence of its decay curve in the > measured data. That's why there is, in fact, evidence against a storage/ > cooling effect. > As was recently pointed out: the usual exponential decay of temperature (newton;s law of cooling) assumes there is a constant thermal conductivity between the hot body and its environment. Since, in this case, that conductivity is a function of the multiphase fluid that couples the rotor to the outer housing thermally, it is questionable as to whether it would remain constant. So, its not clear what trend is to be expected in the output temperature. And, to turn your question around: if there were some energy source kicking in, wouldn't we expect to see the effluent heating up over time? How do you reconcile the behavior of the output T with that? -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.18 / Jim Carr / Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares? Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares? Date: 18 Jun 1995 18:39:36 -0400 Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute In article jedrothwell@delphi.com writes: > >Yes? Well . . . so what? Why does it matter whether it is a nuclear reaction >or not? People will pay for it either way. The customer does not care where >the energy comes from. All evidence suggests that, in the United States, the customer cares. When it is not hard to find people who worry about the use of radioactive materials in their smoke detectors, a "nuclear reactor" for the garage could be a hard sell. -- James A. Carr | "My pet light bulb is a year old http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac | today. That is 5.9 trillion miles Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | in light years. Your mileage may Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | vary." -- Heywood Banks cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.19 / John Logajan / Re: cooling Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: cooling Date: 19 Jun 1995 03:31:06 GMT Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. John N. White (jnw@elvis.vnet.net) wrote: : The water will be separated from the rotor by a thin layer of steam. : This layer will have a low viscosity compared to the water, so that much : of the slip occurs in this layer. Thus, much of the energy will be : dumped directly into this thin, somewhat insulating layer of steam. So : the layer will become extremely hot inside, vastly beyond the boiling : point of water. Just as an intuitive guess, I'd suspect that the viscosity of super-heated steam is roughly equivalent to the viscosity of regular air. So just how much heat is generated by a rotor rotating in air? Hint -- I've never seen a rotor of any size heat to red heat under such circumstances. :-) I think if you want heating via turbulence, you are going to have to have direct water/rotor contact -- and you are going to transfer heat during the contact. : This heat will be dissipated in both directions, with some : going into the water and some going into the rotor, which is thus : heated to a very high temperature. If the heat is generated at the outer surface of the rotor, than that heat will spread toward the axis. This implies a non-uniform heat distribution, and therefore a gradiation along the water/rotor sides in which this steam-layer condition will not exist. So you have several problems here. Loss of thermal energy generating viscosity and non-uniform heating leading to thermal energy losses at points away from the rotor outer axial surface. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.19 / John Logajan / cooling Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: cooling Date: 19 Jun 1995 03:47:31 GMT Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. Barry Merriman (barry@starfire.ucsd.edu) wrote: : And, to turn your question around: if there were some energy source : kicking in, wouldn't we expect to see the effluent heating up over time? : How do you reconcile the behavior of the output T with that? It's an interesting question, but since I am not proposing a theory, I don't have to come up with an answer. :-) -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.19 / David Davies / Re: a ZPF primer Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: a ZPF primer Date: 19 Jun 1995 14:13:50 +1000 Organization: Australian National University rschultz@phoenix.princeton.edu (Richard H. Schultz) writes: >In article <3roocc$e0k@huxley.anu.edu.au> drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies) writes: >>In the case of hydrogen he seems to have provided a simple mechanism >>for explaining how an accelkerated electron does not radiate. Surely >>this should interest those who have been puzzled. Is there a better, >>conventional explanation these days or is it still just brushed aside? >Umm, the "conventional explanation" is that an accelerated electron >*does* radiate. I suggest you look up (for example) "Brehmsstrahlung" >in your handy dandy CRC Handbook. And all of those people that use >synchrotron radiation to do all sorts of neat experiments would be >extremely surprised to find out that the electrons weren't radiating! Read again: **In the case of hydrogen** OK? One reason I have virtually abandoned this news group is the pointless nature of the conservative arguments - usually. Just misinterpret your opponent and then attack the straw man you so create. As far as I have seen the volume of posting about Wallace has far exceeded that of his posts. In the mean time my mailer gets clogged up with a spammed 'Beginners Guide to Hot fusion' masquerading as an FAQ. These days nettiquete expects anybody with a huge amount of information or dis-information to put it up on the web or an ftp site and just post pointers to it. that way it doesn't matter a damn if it is a bit off- group. >What QM explains (as others have pointed out, *without* any need to >invoke ZPF) is why the electron in a hydrogen atom doesn't go spinning >into the nucleus, radiating as it goes. This problem was one of the >motivations for Bohr's original quantized hydrogen atom. He simply >postulated that the electron was already in its lowest possible energy >state and was thus prevented from crashing into the nucleus. Later >workers (de Broglie, Heisenberg, Schroedinger, etc.) showed that one >can derive the stability of the hydrogen atom from more fundamental >first principles. >- The only arguments I have seen (other than Puthoff et al) just define the problem away. Putup or shutup. The other irritating habit of the Defenders of the Faith is name-dropping. A quote from de Broglie would be interesting but tricky. He seems to have shifted his ground during the course of his life. Cheers, dave cudkeys: cuddy19 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.16 / 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: 16 Jun 1995 18:40:02 GMT Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote: > >In article <3rnukc$r67@news.htp.com>, Tim Mirabile wrote: >> >> What are you talking about? All he did was edit the newsgroup line when >> making his reply. The post that he replied is still there, on all of the >> crossposted groups, but only someone on s.p.f would see his reply. >> >> -- >> Tim > >Why did you make this post? I had already responded to your remarks in >detail before you made them. Try reading to the end of the thread before >you post. It does wonders to preserve the "bandwidth" that you guys seem >so concerned about when you criticize Mr Wallace, and seem so indifferent >to when it applies to your own behavior. --Mitchell Jones Mitch, Why read the whole thread? Tim was pointing out your ignorance of the net being displayed in your crusade to protect Wallace's spamming. From that we all gain perspective about all your posts. Why are you complaining about a small post such as Tim's effecting bandwidth and ignoring Wallace's multi-hundred spams? BTW, are the answers to your unswerving loyalty to Wallace evident by attempting to reply to EMAIL supposedly sent from your account or is someone trying a bit of spoofing? I tried to reply to an EMAIL sent from 21cenlogic@i-link.com and the message was bounced due to an invalid address. It's awfully strange that Wallace's only supporter has something screwy with his account, isn't it? Maybe it's not cooincidence that Wallace and "Mitch" both tend to ovelry long and rambling posts. Got any answers, Mitch. - Jim Stolin - Illinois Computer Service - fknf40a@prodigy.com Opinions are my own ... but could be yours. cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.16 / 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: 16 Jun 1995 18:48:21 GMT Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY scott@zorch.sf-bay.org (Scott Hazen Mueller) wrote: > >Nearly 6.5 years without a killfile for this group. Guess I'm just getting >old. Scott, I dislike killfiles since even absolute idiots can have something to contribute once in a while. However, there may be more going on here with Wallace and his supporter than is readily apparent. Both show an ignorance of the net. Both tend to long, rambling posts. Mitch Jones is blindly loyal to Bryan Wallace. You can't reply to one's EMAIL. (For instance, the Prodigy software automatically generates reply address and my attempted reply was bounced). Is it merely a cooincidence that a Wallace supporter suddenly appears from nowhere? Anyone with other software that can check this out. I am limited to viewing the header and there are ways of fiddling with that. Thanks. - Jim Stolin - Illinois Computer Service - fknf40a@prodigy.com Opinions are my own ... but could be yours. cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.19 / Barry Merriman / Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares? Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares? Date: 19 Jun 1995 05:21:47 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE In article <3s29v8$bj0@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes: > All evidence suggests that, in the United States, the customer cares. > > When it is not hard to find people who worry about the use of > radioactive materials in their smoke detectors, a "nuclear reactor" > for the garage could be a hard sell. > Ahhh...but this is a _magic_ nuclear reactor, that producies no nuclear byproducts, brought to you by the fighters against The Big Energy Business. Given the state of technological illeteracy in our country, and the tendency for conspiratirial thinking, there should be no problems with public acceptance of that approach. :-) -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.19 / Barry Merriman / Re: cooling Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: cooling Date: 19 Jun 1995 05:37:05 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE In article <3s2s0j$l0e@stratus.skypoint.net> jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes: > Barry Merriman (barry@starfire.ucsd.edu) wrote: > : And, to turn your question around: if there were some energy source > : kicking in, wouldn't we expect to see the effluent heating up over time? > : How do you reconcile the behavior of the output T with that? > > It's an interesting question, but since I am not proposing a theory, I > don't have to come up with an answer. :-) > Well, John the point I really want to make is: given that we know essentially _nothing_ about what is actually going on inside the Griggs device during operation (i.e., what is the temperature distribution, the distribution of liguid vapor and vacuum phases, the distribution of cavition, etc), I'd prefer not to build up too elaborate of a theory. I'm trying to stick with known facts: (1) there is some heat stored in the device before it goes into excess heat steam mode. (2) there is an observed drop in the load on the motor (== drop in viscocity of the working fluid), and thus power in (3) the energy coming out does not drop in concert with the load, so power out/power in seems > 1, for some time (~ 20 minutes). Given that, why are you defending _not_ doing a careful measurement of the heat stored in (1)? It seems like an obvious thing to do, as it is (the only) obvious source of energy to make up the temporarily observed excess. I fully appreciate your point that the output temperature did not seem to decline---that certainly would require my theory to be more complicated than it otherwsie might be, and it equally raises odd questions about the nature of the mystery heat source, whatever it may be---but in any case it does not eliminate the need to measure or at least bound the heat stored in phase (1). My basic hope is that Marshall Dudley will directly address this point in his upcoming experiments with Griggs (although Marshall's latest concern that optical floaters in the eyeball might be a manifestation of orgone energy does make me a bit worried about that... :-) -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Jun 19 04:37:03 EDT 1995 ------------------------------