1995.08.21 / Bill Snyder / Re: Off the deep end Originally-From: bsnyder@iadfw.net (Bill Snyder) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Off the deep end Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 18:10:11 GMT Organization: Internet America In message , mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) wrote: >That is not true. Cold fusion has been replicated by independent labs. Really? Care to name a few? On the understanding that "replication" does not mean "he got funky results, and I got funky results too, so there"; it means that the same apparatus, operated according to the same procedure, produced the same funky results. >Furthermore breakeven has been achieved repeatedly. >The same cannot yet be said of hot fusion. If memory serves, hot fusion managed performance slightly above breakeven around the start of the 1950's. There have since been a few replications by organizations which we might say were "very conspicuously independent" of one another. I believe the French were planning yet another, but it looks like they've cancelled out. Pity. I would have been glad to help buy tickets for you and Mr. Rothwell, and I'm sure gentlemen who speak so positively would themselves have been glad of the opportunity to lounge around Ground Zero, serene in the knowledge that hot fusion will never attain breakeven. -- -- Bill Snyder [ This space unintentionally left blank. ] cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenbsnyder cudfnBill cudlnSnyder cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.22 / jedrothwell@de / Re: Off the deep end Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Off the deep end Date: Tue, 22 Aug 95 14:51:08 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Mario Pain writes: >It depends what you call replicated. There is to my knowledge no CF experiment >which gives THE SAME RESULT independently of the time, place and lab >attempting it. This does not mean CF does not exist. It only means that I suggest you compare the results from McKubre and Kunimatsu. I think the data points are a good fit. Also, please note the Miles paper in J. Phys. Chem. in which he describes the good fit between the 1989 results from Pons & Fleischmann, Miles, and N. Lewis at Cal Tech. (Lewis thought he had a negative result, but he made a mistake in calibration, and he actually got very significant excess heat.) When you take into account the essential controlling parameters like loading, current density, and temperature, you will find that results from different labs match even better. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenjedrothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.22 / Neil Gretsky / lab LASERs for sale Originally-From: gretsky@cinenet.net (Neil E. Gretsky) Newsgroups: sci.techniques.spectroscopy,sci.physics.research,sci.physics fusion,sci.chem.labware,sci.engr,sci.engr.chem,sci.optics,sci.physics,sc .physics.accelerators Subject: lab LASERs for sale Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 18:42:42 GMT Organization: Cinenet Communications, Internet Access, Santa Monica, USA I am posting for a friend, Mike Costello. Please reply by email either to him at Tidywire@aol.com or to this email address (gretsky@cinenet.net). I have two laboratory lasers just pulled from service, complete and in perfect condition. One is a Lumonics T-103-2 tea laser and the other a dye laser. The lumonics is a pulsed (0.05 to 50 micro sec) gas laser with a 15 J/pulse output. Depending on gas used the wavelength is from 0.25 to 11 microns. I am interested in selling them. If you have an interest in either of these or know of a marketplace for such equipment, please email to the address(s) above. Thanks. Mike Costello, Costello Technology Associates (310) 379-0012 or fax (310) 379-6245. cudkeys: cuddy22 cudengretsky cudfnNeil cudlnGretsky cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.22 / Thomas Brown / Theory of Relativity Originally-From: bigtom@adelaide.DIALix.oz.au (Thomas Brown) Newsgroups: sci.physics.acceleration,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.research Subject: Theory of Relativity Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 18:50:41 GMT Organization: DIALix Services, Adelaide, Australia. Can anyone suggest any WWW sites with anything to do with Einstein's theory? I am trying to get info for a year 11 student. Please E-mail any suggestions to bigtom@adelaide.dialix.oz.au Thanks, Tom. -- cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenbigtom cudfnThomas cudlnBrown cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.22 / Mitchell Jones / Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate? Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate? Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 13:56:04 -0500 Organization: 21st Century Logic In article , browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) wrote: > In article <21cenlogic-1708951459450001@austin-2-5.i-link.net>, > 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote: > > >Oddly, after forty years and untold billions looted from the taxpayers, > >hot fusion is nowhere near as close to unity as the Griggs device, and yet > >those very self-same "hard nosed project managers" are eager to fight to > >the death to get it funded! Why do you suppose that is? Here is the > >answer, in case you are interested: it will only take $40-50k to prove, > >once and for all, that the Griggs device is over unity. That's chump > >change for "hard nosed project managers" who are in the habit of looting > >billions. Worse, if the Griggs device is proven, the "hot fusion" cash cow > >will dry up permanently, and be replaced with a technology that is ideally > >suited to tinkerers who do their work in garages and basements. People > >will be doing calorimetry on their kitchen blenders, running outboard > >motors in 55 gallon drums, etc., as a new age of individual > >experimentation begins, all without the involvement of, or need for, > >government funding! *That* is the dirty little secret which explains why > >"hard nosed project managers" (read "bloodsuckers") don't want any work to > >be done on the Griggs device or on anything similar. > > You do like to assume the worst in people don't you? ***{Bill, my opinions aren't influenced by what I like. I examine the arguments pro and con on an issue, and adopt the position which seems to have the strongest arguments. I do not factor social considerations into the decision making process. I don't give a hoot in hell whether, by advocating a specific conclusion, I will curry favor with, or infuriate, others. Nor do I worry about whether I will receive, or be denied, "funding." When I "assume the worst" about people, I don't do it because I want to: I do it because the strongest arguments support that conclusion. It is simply a fact, apparent to anyone who sees with his own eyes and thinks with his own brain, that most people do factor social expediency into their thinking. It is a fact that most "physicists," for example, are paralyzed with terror at the thought of being laughed at by their peers, and will struggle with might and main, far past the point of absurdity, to avoid embracing any conclusion which their peers regard as "crackpot" or impossible. Such is the case here, concerning the Griggs device. It is a fact, apparent to any objective person who has followed the debate in this thread, that neither you nor anyone else has managed to come up with a shred of a basis for rejecting the conclusion that the Griggs device is tapping some energy source other than those accepted by conventional physical theory. And yet, in spite of that, none of you are rushing forward to demand "funding" for an attempted replication of his results. Indeed, you all continue to chant, like priests in some primitive temple, that it is "extremely unlikely" that his machine is in fact over unity. Well, I say it is time for you guys to put up or shut up. The $40 or $50k that is needed to do a replication of the Griggs results is, in fact, chump change to you guys, because you are, in fact, in the habit of looting billions. Don't give me this sob story about the non-availability of the trivial amount of funding this will take, given the spending habits you guys have and your political connections. Nobody with a brain is buying it, Bill! It is obvious that you guys don't want to attempt to replicate the Griggs result because you are scared to death of its implications, and there aren't any ifs, ands, or buts about it! --Mitchell Jones}*** Do you really think a > project manager can aritrarily spend $40-50K on a pet project without > approval? ***{It is done all the time, Bill, but the point is irrelevant. I know damn well that, given the "funding" levels to which you guys are accustomed and your political connections, you could do work on the Griggs device if you really wanted to. Who do you think you are fooling? --Mitchell Jones}*** > > The point of the "hot" fusion program being funded is there are numerous > experiments which have been replicated with considerable theory to support > it. ***{True: for forty years, theories have been put forth before congressional committees that "success is just around the corner," if only a few more billions are looted from the taxpayers. And those theories have been proven to be wrong over and over and over again, and yet the game goes on. The only experiments that have been "replicated," in other words, have been failures. The underlying fact is simply that, so long as the cash cow of "hot fusion" stands there, she is going to be milked. Period. --Mitchell Jones}*** Such simply isn't the case with the Griggs device. ***{How true: not a thin dime has been looted to "fund" Griggs, and the experimental results which have been achieved by his machine have been successes--over unity performance--repeated over and over and over again. And that, in fact, is why you guys can't bear to deal with his machine: the glare of contrast is too much for you to bear. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > If I can only support either current fusion programs or the Griggs device, > I for one would support the current programs. The current programs are > much much more likely to produce a energy source than the Griggs device > IHMO. ***{Of course they are: the energy source is the taxpayers, on whose backs you guys have a proven history of riding. It must be very frightening, when you actually contemplate the possibility of giving up your parasitic lifestyle and dealing with your fellow men on a voluntary basis! --Mitchell Jones}*** > -- > William Rowe browe@netcom.com > MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383 =========================================================== cudkeys: cuddy22 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.22 / prasad / Re: Off the deep end Originally-From: prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Off the deep end Date: 22 Aug 1995 19:04:04 GMT Organization: sometimes In article <9508201315.AA31587@pilot06.cl.msu.edu>, blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes: |> Prasad, you seem to take it for granted that there is such a thing ... Uh, now what have I gone and done? Oh, I see I'm not the only prasad in these parts anymore... :) cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenprasad cudlnprasad cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.22 / James Vanmeter / Re: Hello again / Solar stove Originally-From: nazrael@cats.ucsc.edu (James Vanmeter) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Hello again / Solar stove Date: 22 Aug 1995 19:28:04 GMT Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz jonesse@plasma.byu.edu writes: >4. We are developing a solar stove device for use primarily in 3rd-world >countries. Do you realize that half the world's people cook and heat by >burning biomass (primarily wood and dung)? -- and that this results in some >5 million deaths of children >per year due to respiratory problems? Our goal is a cheap, effective solar >heating unit, for boiling water, frying over, etc. In a similar vein I've always thought that solar-powered refrigerators, to preserve food in remote areas, would be of great benefit to 3rd world peoples. But could such a device be efficient enough to be practical, and could it be mass-produced cheaply? cudkeys: cuddy22 cudennazrael cudfnJames cudlnVanmeter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.22 / meron@cars3.uc / Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program Originally-From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 19:31:57 GMT Organization: CARS, U. of Chicago, Chicago IL 60637 In article <41cd65$gqm@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>, bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK ) writes: >meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >: In article <41af7g$gnv@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>, bds@ipp-garching.mpg de (Bruce Scott TOK ) writes: >: >Doug Merritt (doug@netcom.com) wrote: >: > >: >: However, outside of cities, the Earth doesn't appear to be at all crowded >: >: (been out in the countryside recently???) And cities account for only >: >: a tiny, tiny fraction of world land area. >: > >: >The most important effect of crowding is environmental impact. It is >: >measurable in the US by the fact that the entities conducting the >: >general deforestation cannot put themselves in equilibrium with the >: >natural regeneration. The same goes for water and soil management. The >: >derivatives are in the wrong direction in all cases. I have seen this >: >for myself by travelling to the Northwest forests in the 1970s and again >: >in 1992. The devastation is inescapable. > >: Actually, the total forested area in the US is growing currently and, to the >: best of my knowledge have been growing ofer the last 20-30 years. True, it is >: declining in the NW, but growing elsewhere. As for water and soil management, >: I don't have the data. > >Do the computation again, this time including only mature forests. A >mature forest is defined as one whose morphology is qualitatively >similar to an old-growth forest (to get that you have to leave a large >area alone for over a century, and in a place like the NW it would be >longer). They do exist; I have seen them. But their extent is not >large. Hint: most people have never seen a mature forest. > You may be right on this. The real question is, what is the current ballance between cutting and reseeding. I would add to it a second one which is, what is currently the "life time" of a patch of forest. What I mean by this is, assuming a given forest area is cut and then reseeded, how long before we get to it again for the next cutting. Based on what you wrote above, the desireable situation would be: 1) Reseeding rate = cutting rate. 2) Mean lifetime = few centuries. I don't know what is the real status. Wonder if somebody can provide some numbers. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron@cars3.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenmeron cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.21 / Bill Rowe / Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate? Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate? Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 21:30:24 -0700 Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net In article , mnj@ornl.gov (Bonnie Nestor) wrote: >In article <41aaps$js0@anemone.saclay.cea.fr>, Mario Pain > wrote: > >> What I find fascinating about the debate about cold fusion is the >> little zest of paranoia cold fusioners exhibit at the slightest >> provocation. I can believe that the (nasty) people of the hot >> fusion world will keep quiet about something which could deprive >> them of their livelyhood. But how do you interpret the fact that >> people who stand to win a lot if cold fusion worked, namely, >> corporation who could exploit the patents, do not finance the >> research projects on cold fusion ? > >Precisely my question. Have the unspeakably evil hot fusion people so >intimidated the major corporations of this country that none of them -- >no, not one -- will pony up the "chump change" needed to prove that the >Griggs device is over unity and capitalize on the results? Perhaps the major corporations don't believe investing in the Griggs device is a good investment. Even if the Griggs device is all that Jed has indicated it doesn't seem like it is a useful energy source. Afterall, Jed has repeatedly told us the overall efficiency of the Griggs device isn't sufficient to overcome the loses involved in converting the steam back to electricity. There aren't many things that use steam directly. >And one other thing. All those "untold billions looted from the taxpayers" >have been provided to the wicked welfare queens of hot fusion courtesy of >the U.S. Congress. Either your elected representatives are (1) not smart >enough to figure out that DOE is hoodwinking them or (2) corrupt. Either >way, the public has only itself to blame. Or perhaps there really is something that will come of the current fusion programs despite a variety of detractors. I also note most of the detractors seem to want a share of these funds to pursue thier version of fusion. Might it be possible there is a little self serving bias in some of the detraction? -- William Rowe browe@netcom.com MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383 cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.22 / Robin Spaandonk / Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 03:38:43 GMT Organization: Improving In article <303881b9.56554c43414e@vulcan.xs4all.nl>, Johan Wevers wrote : >Doug Merritt wrote: >>>What about decreasing the number of humans? Earth is much too crowded now >>>anyway. >>This is a popular point of view with radical environmentalists >>(see the book Green Rage), including at its most extreme the Unabomber. >I don't know what the unabomber is all about, but giving all people on earth >the same living standards as are comon in Europe and most parts of the USA >will certainly cause environmental problems. And besides that, till now most As things stand this is true. However, environmental problems at present are the direct result of our mental attitude of exploitation of "resources". The very word itself implies getting something from a "source" or "beginning". In other words, a production process that has a "beginning" "middle" and "end". A linear process. This linearity is the culprit. It must change. _All_ material goods, of _every_ form must be re-cycled. 100%. This is actually impossible. It is impossible because re-cycling requires energy, and the ultimate energy production process is one-way only. However, it is possible to re-cycle everything else. This should yield 99.999%. In fact this is what nature did, before the advent of man. The power source was the Sun. >increased medical care in 3rd world countries has increased the population >density, not increased living standards for individuals. This only remains true, where birth-control measures and education are not widely available. >>However, outside of cities, the Earth doesn't appear to be at all crowded >>(been out in the countryside recently???) >I'm happy to live in a relative uncrowded area. However, most uninhabited >area's are very unfriendly - mountains, deserts, too cold. So that's hardly Once again this depends on energy availability. >a solution. Further you need land to produce the food for all those people, More energy - and consequently water. >and keeping some free nature would also be preferable. I don't say Earth >could not sustain more people, but why would we want more? This isn't exactly planned. :-)}}} >>So I wonder in what vague removed-from-reality armchair sense you >>think Earth is "much too crowded"; I don't see it. >Travel to almost every place in northern Europe and look. >>The Unabomber writes of visiting remote areas in the Sierras, so I >>guess he doesn't actually say "too crowded"; he just dislikes technology >>and pollution, come to think of it. >I do like technology but I prefer not too much pollution. >-- >ir. J.C.A. Wevers || The only nature of reality is physics. >johanw@vulcan.xs4all.nl || http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/index.html >Finger johanw@xs4all.nl for my PGP public key. PGP-KeyID: 0xD42F80B1 Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.21 / Dave Oldridge / Re: Currently accepted formulations of QM Originally-From: doldridg@fox.nstn.ns.ca (Dave Oldridge) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Currently accepted formulations of QM Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 12:35:31 -0300 Organization: Nova Scotia Technology Network In article <9508201412.AA29245@pilot06.cl.msu.edu>, blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) wrote: > Dave Oldridge suggests that cold fusion research proceeds as follows: > > (1)The experimenters forget about accepted theories and just make measurements > totally unbiased by any expectations regarding the outcome their experiments. > > (2)Once they have solid experimental evidence for something like cold fusion > occuring any theory that seems to be in disagreement with these experimental > results is swept away to be replaced by a new theory. That's quite an exaggeration of what I did say. However, little ground will be broken by investigating experiments that continue to confirm our present theories... > is that sets a limit to define "beyond chemistry." If you are going to > reformulate QM it seems likely you could arrive at some new limit that > will accommodate the CF levels of excess heat without any resort to > nuclear reactions. I suspect that you really don't want to do that. You This, of course is entirely possible, in which case we can put to rest all of this "anomalous" data and get on with life. If it's useful for something, then let the engineers figure out what for and how to do it. Look, I don't KNOW if any of it is cold fusion. My whole point was that our current models have a known problem that is staring us in the face. (I allude to the problem between general rel. and stellar evolution). The fact that something else comes along that claims to create a new problem shouldn't be that frightening. > Now if you have an energy source that is "hotter" than chemistry, by > definition, it is potentially disruptive to the atomic structures in which > this energy is to be released. Suppose you set out to design an experiment Agreed. I'd expect to see energy levels around 5 to 6 orders of magnitude higher from nuclear processes than from chemical processes. However, can we be totally sure that this is ALWAYS the case without a complete synthesis between GR and quantum? > I suggest you have just assumed away the essential requirement that there > be a source reaction that is beyond chemistry. How can you have it both > ways? Nope. Haven't ASSUMED anything. Just that large amounts of excess energy in any form need to be traced to their real sources in order for the experiments to be fully explained. If you can do that within conventional theory, fine. If you need new theories of either chemistry or nuclear chemistry, then that's fine too. But in the end, all experiments need to have SOME explanation. It comes back down to the question of whether theory actually matches what we observe in the real world. > experimental data into some context for interpretation. For example, if > you are investigating the fusion of deuterons to form 4He in any excited > state I would suspect you need to know something about that excited state > or states before you continue much further. If you look at what is know Yep...and the peculiar thing is that almost none of the electrolysis experiments, even those that appear to show gobs of excess heat, show any significant signs of 4He production. Which would suggest that the whole model of squeezing a pair of deuterons into a 4He in these experiments is somehow flawed. That doesn't NECESSARILY mean the calorimetry is flawed. It means to me that people are not being really exhaustive in their search for ash, both chemical and nuclear. So, in that respect, you're entirely correct about people concentrating way too much on the calorimetry. Hell, calorimetry is simple physics, if a bit finicky in the lab. I have had more trouble with an old Fletcher's trolley than with any well-measured thermodynamic experiment. And I see two distinct threads of claims here. There are the crystal-lattice/electrolysis claims and there are the ultrasonic claims (which may actually turn out to be regular hot fusion if they are fusion at all). All I know is that if I was handing out grant money for this kind of experimentation, I'd want to see experimental protocols that exhaustively measured the energies involved and that also examined the residues for every possible type of ash, not just 4He, but ANY isotope shifting. We may be dealing with stuff here that does not generate extremely large amounts of energy on a per-atom or per-particle basis. Some things could be happening that release photons in the low x-ray or even UV part of the spectrum, in which case it will be a little harder to catch them in the act (although finding the appropriate end products would certainly "finger" them). -- Dave Oldridge doldridg@fox.nstn.ns.ca cudkeys: cuddy21 cudendoldridg cudfnDave cudlnOldridge cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.21 / Dave Oldridge / Re: Accepted Formulation of QM Originally-From: doldridg@fox.nstn.ns.ca (Dave Oldridge) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Accepted Formulation of QM Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 13:00:03 -0300 Organization: Nova Scotia Technology Network > It seems to me before we can reach your (ii) above, we have to have some > consensus as to what "it" is. This is key. I think it is very clear there > is something of interest occurring. However, it is not at all clear that > what is occuring is fusion. Looking at the articles in here (as I've been doing for several months), it is clear that there are at least two different "it"'s on the CF side of things and a few variations on the conventional hot fusion side. One "it" is the class of electrolytic experiments with clear roots in the original P&F claim. These seem to be edging towards repeatability, but seem to have no unifying theory to encompass all the variations on the theme. It needs to be weeded out, pruned, and investigated where investigation will do the most good (i.e. where repeatability is high). Then there are the water-stirring/sonoluminescent kind of things. From what I've been able to gather about this, nobody has really determined what kinds of actual temperatures/pressures are possible. These experiments need more repeatability in a lab setting and may actually be demonstrating some variant of plasma fusion rather than anything radical. Nor do nuclear reactions need to be fusion in the conventional sense. There are other possibilities that MIGHT explain some of the experimental results and they don't all result in large energy releases on a per-atom basis at all. They would be a lot harder to detect than what you would expect from smashing deuterons together and nobody is looking for the end products anyway. -- Dave Oldridge doldridg@fox.nstn.ns.ca cudkeys: cuddy21 cudendoldridg cudfnDave cudlnOldridge cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.22 / Craig Stangland / Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate? Originally-From: Craig Stangland Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate? Date: 22 Aug 1995 05:37:19 GMT Organization: NODE-TO-NODE SURVEILLANCE Wouldn't it be nice if someone would post a short history of what these various projects are for those of us just joining in on this subject? While I find the issues of interest, I'm not up on what a Griggs Experiment is, or the potential it would bring if completed. Thanks to whomever handles this challenge. Craig cudkeys: cuddy22 cudfnCraig cudlnStangland cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.22 / Ramon Prasad / Re: Yoshiaka Arata Originally-From: <100437.530@compuserve.com (Ramon Prasad)> Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Yoshiaka Arata Date: 22 Aug 1995 02:14:09 GMT Organization: CompuServe Incorporated browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) wrote (amongst other things): >I for one think there needs to be much better data for the CF >phenomena before it is assumed that it doesn't obey quantm >mechanics. Agreed. But the problem is that the experimenters (all honour to them) are just at the stage of being able to reproduce the cold fusion effect. We can calculate how much excess heat. We can detect some nuclear products (sometimes). So what is happening? If it is simply processes like D + D --> He(3) + n (each with energy) or D + D --> T + p (each with energy) then a number of questions require answering. How do the deuterons overcome their mutual Colomb barrier? Where are the protons (not seen)? Are there enough neutrons to tie up with the amount of energy produced? What is the role of the palladium lattice in promoting the reactions and absorbing the energy? The answer to each question seems to contradict something we thought we knew the answer to. This does not contravene quantum mechanics as such, but these processes should not be happening at all at room temperatures. Why and how are they happening? Very Best Wishes, Yours sincerely, Ramon Prasad cudkeys: cuddy22 cuden530 cudfnRamon cudlnPrasad cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.22 / Andrew Cooke / Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program Originally-From: ajc@reaxp01.roe.ac.uk (Andrew Cooke) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program Date: 22 Aug 1995 09:47:58 GMT Organization: Institute for Astronomy, Royal Observatory Edinburgh has the unabomber made public statements? i'm afraid i've only heard of this person via the net and the fbi most wanted page. is there anywhere on the net where i can read them? incidentally, overpopulation is something supported by the extreme (plain silly) on both sides of the debate. while some people want to get rid of cities, other's think those in the poor regions should be left to starve. hopefully most people don't want either option. the `standard' greenish line - at least in the uk - is to campaign for a more equal treatment of the poor, with appropriate technology, and a reduction of crippling debts. a reference in the uk (i doubt it's published in the usa) is `tears of the crocodile' - can't remember the authors - which discusses the recent un meeting in rio. thanks, andrew In article , Doug Merritt wrote: >In article <303501e5.56554c43414e@vulcan.xs4all.nl> johanw@vulcan.xs4al .nl (Johan Wevers) writes: >The Unabomber writes of visiting remote areas in the Sierras, so I >guess he doesn't actually say "too crowded"; he just dislikes technology >and pollution, come to think of it. -- A.Cooke@roe.ac.uk work phone 0131 668 8357 home phone/fax 0131 667 0208 institute for astronomy, royal observatory, blackford hill, edinburgh http://www.roe.ac.uk/ajcwww cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenajc cudfnAndrew cudlnCooke cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.22 / Bruce TOK / Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK ) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program Date: 22 Aug 1995 10:57:09 GMT Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: : In article <41af7g$gnv@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>, bds@ipp-garching.mpg. e (Bruce Scott TOK ) writes: : >Doug Merritt (doug@netcom.com) wrote: : > : >: However, outside of cities, the Earth doesn't appear to be at all crowded : >: (been out in the countryside recently???) And cities account for only : >: a tiny, tiny fraction of world land area. : > : >The most important effect of crowding is environmental impact. It is : >measurable in the US by the fact that the entities conducting the : >general deforestation cannot put themselves in equilibrium with the : >natural regeneration. The same goes for water and soil management. The : >derivatives are in the wrong direction in all cases. I have seen this : >for myself by travelling to the Northwest forests in the 1970s and again : >in 1992. The devastation is inescapable. : Actually, the total forested area in the US is growing currently and, to the : best of my knowledge have been growing ofer the last 20-30 years. True, it is : declining in the NW, but growing elsewhere. As for water and soil management, : I don't have the data. Do the computation again, this time including only mature forests. A mature forest is defined as one whose morphology is qualitatively similar to an old-growth forest (to get that you have to leave a large area alone for over a century, and in a place like the NW it would be longer). They do exist; I have seen them. But their extent is not large. Hint: most people have never seen a mature forest. -- Mach's gut! Bruce Scott The deadliest bullshit is Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik odorless and transparent bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de -- W Gibson cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTOK cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.22 / mitchell swartz / Off the deep end Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Off the deep end Subject: Re: Off the deep end Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 13:44:23 GMT Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA In Message-ID: Subject: Re: Off the deep end browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) wrote: "There is a key difference between conventional (hot) fusion and cold fusion. There are numerous fully replicated experiments by independent labs that fusion does take place in tokamaks as well as other "hot" fusion machines. The same cannot yet be said of cold fusion." That is not true. Cold fusion has been replicated by independent labs. Furthermore breakeven has been achieved repeatedly. The same cannot yet be said of hot fusion. cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.21 / jonesse@plasma / Hello again / Solar stove Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Hello again / Solar stove Date: 21 Aug 95 16:43:45 -0600 Organization: Brigham Young University Dear Colleagues, It has been a long time since I have discussed matters here; I've been out of town much of the past month or so. A few observations may be of interest: 1. A very recent paper in J. Electroanal. Chem. [389 (1995) 92-103] by Todd Green and T. Quickenden is noteworthy as it involved a high-quality, closed calorimeter. Particular effort was made to replicate the experiments of McKubre et al., a mainstay of CF advocates. They report: "However, despite the achievement of D/Pd loading ratios in excess of 0.90, no excess heat was observed in any of the experiments within the estimated experimental error of 1.5%." This is the latest (to my knowledge) in a long series of good experiments using high-quality calorimeters that have failed to detect any excess heat production in Pons-Fleischmann-type electrochemical cells. (I include in that list the experiments at Harwell, Caltech, and BYU as well as Tom Droege's experiments -- all reported NO excess heat in electrochemical cells.) 2. I am intrigued (on the other hand) by a recent paper by J. Kasagi et al. of Tohoku University which shows results from a 150-keV deuteron beam impinging on titanium deuteride. J. Phys. Soc. Japan, 64 (1995) 777-783. Their work is clearly not "cold fusion," since the beam energy is 150-keV. But the results do seem to show anomalous production of protons of energies up to 17 MeV and alphas up to 6.5 MeV. If a few readers (please e-mail fax number) would be interested in reviewing the J. Phys. Soc. Japan paper, I will send copies by fax. I'd appreciate comments as it looks, well, anomalous yet rather convincing. The numbers of high-energy protons and alphas are 10^-6 of the number of p's from d-d-fusion, so this is not an "excess heat" or power producer. But there may be some interesting physics here, I think. 3. The MIT patent on a "cold-fusionlike process" was covered in the Deseret News, SLC, July 22 1995, front page. Keith Johnson, one of the co-inventors is quoted extensively. He says "Now where is the heat coming from? ...our theory indicates that the energy is coming from the latent heat -- the latent heat energy of water. What you have here is an energy conversion device, if properly constructed." "Now this, of course, is not as impressive as people were originally thinking...We're not thinking of powering whole cities here." Johnson emphasizes that the heat is not nuclear in origin, but rather "the latent heat energy of water." The end products are "water and clean energy." When water is frozen, latent heat energy is released, of course -- called heat of fusion (not cold fusion, nor even nuclear!). But this is evidently not what these fellows mean. However, it is not clear from the article what they do mean, or how the processed water will differ from ordinary water, or how this putative "latent energy" was stored in the water in the first place. I certainly would not invest in it until such matters were elucidated! 4. We are developing a solar stove device for use primarily in 3rd-world countries. Do you realize that half the world's people cook and heat by burning biomass (primarily wood and dung)? -- and that this results in some 5 million deaths of children per year due to respiratory problems? Our goal is a cheap, effective solar heating unit, for boiling water, frying over, etc. We have an inflatable mirror made of pre-stressed aluminized polyethylene, covered by clear plastic film, then pressurized with air. By pre-stressing then inflating, a reasonable parabolic mirror can be achieved. A plywood frame is currently used to hold the sheets in place and to allow pre-stressing the plastic. The concentration of sunlight is sufficient to boil water rather quickly at the focal point from a 3-4 foot diameter mirror (1 m). A major concern now is that the concentrated sunlight is sufficient to damage eyesight; how do we keep faces out of the beam? One approach is to install light-weight mesh around the frame supporting the cooking pan. I would appreciate suggestions regarding safety issues, how to develop and deploy the device, etc. My excuse for s.p.f. could be that sunlight derives ultimately from fusion -- but really, I just want to share some ideas and get your feedback. Best wishes, Steven Jones/BYU cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenjonesse cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.21 / jonesse@plasma / cancel <1995Aug21.163227.2365@plasma.byu.edu> Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: cancel <1995Aug21.163227.2365@plasma.byu.edu> Date: 21 Aug 95 16:44:03 -0600 cancel <1995Aug21.163227.2365@plasma.byu.edu> cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenjonesse cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.22 / Bob Haley / Re: alt.my.dick.is.bigger.than.your.dick Originally-From: haley@pt9231.ped.pto.ford.com (Bob Haley) Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro, ci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: alt.my.dick.is.bigger.than.your.dick Date: 22 Aug 1995 19:47:33 GMT Organization: Ford Motor Co., Powertrain Electronics Tom Potter (tdp@ix.netcom.com) wrote: [snip] : The reason that I don't have much to say about physics in these forums : is that no one here seems to care about physics. Most of the posters : here are immature people with ego problems. They are more concerned : with sharpshooting and trying to build up their egos, than they are in : learning about physics, or sharing any knowledge they might possess. : Regarding Ben Joe Bullock's suggestion about renaming sci.physics, : I suggest it be renamed: alt.my.dick.is.bigger.than.your.dick Immature ehh ? How do you explain your 'choice' of new names for for the group. Is this how we should behave ? BTW, the reason you do not say much regarding physics is, most probably, because you do not have much physics to say. Bob Haley NOTE: In no way is my employer responsible for any information I convey. cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenhaley cudfnBob cudlnHaley cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.22 / Doug Merritt / Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program Originally-From: doug@netcom.com (Doug Merritt) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 19:40:56 GMT Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) In article <41cvm6$aqh@martha.utcc.utk.edu> mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel) writes: >Doug Merritt (doug@netcom.com) wrote: >: So I wonder in what [...] sense you >: think Earth is "much too crowded"; I don't see it. (I *do* see various >: problems with current industrial & agricultural practices, but they >: are several abstract and debatable steps removed from "too crowded".) > >Water. Go to bumf*ck nowhere in Colorado and Arizona and look at >the rivers. A big part of that is going to support current human >activities. Sure there's lots of empty space, but who's going to water it? >You don't really do much farming there because there's not enough water. I'm afraid you're missing my point. I already agreed that there are problems with current industrial and agricultural practices, in so many words. What I am objecting to is the description "overcrowded", which you'll note is not *explicitly* connected to industry & agriculture. The link is indirect and debatable. To put it in even more clear terms, if people *mean* "problems with agriculture or industry", they should say so, rather than saying "overcrowded". I've *been* to "bumf*ck nowhere" in Colorado, Arizona, and quite a few other states. In places I see evidence of problems with industrial and agriculture practices. What I *don't* see is overcrowding out there. Crowding (especialy overcrowding) is highly visible in *cities*, not out in the middle of nowhere. >In the East, where there is rain and water, most every part of the land >outside intentionally preserved parks is already devoted to human activities. I'm not sure precisely where hairsplitting would take us on the meaning of "intentionally preserved" versus "devoted to human activities", so skipping that, I'll just point out that there are vast areas that are uncrowded in the East. Granted there's been vast forest reduction over the centuries, but it's *not* crowded. > >In the midwest, aquifers which have near geologic timescales to replenish >(10,000yrs) are being depleted in 150. Here we go back to industrial and agricultural practices again. I agree. >Sure there are places without people, but keep in mind that all the >*best* places for people to live have already been taken. Look at, Even if everyone were to agree with this completely subjective opinion, it *still* doesn't translate to "crowded" when we're looking at the earth overall. >Why? Good places to live like Palo Alto, Monterey, Santa Monica and Berkeley >are already full. Think of where the natives lived before european contact: >they picked out the best places. I live in the Bay Area, and I'm aware that *it* is crowded. The point concerned the entire Earth, however, not city areas. Also you are quite mistaken if you think that every place where native americans lived centuries ago is now the center of a city. Far from it. >Just because more people could potentially *survive* doesn't mean it >would be a good idea. Sometimes your genome isn't acting in your best >interest. I agree on this point too. I didn't say that we'd be better off with e.g. 10 times the current world population. My sole point was (as I made clear in the comment that you quoted!) that saying "crowded" is just plain wrong. Say "bad agricultural practices", say "irrigation ruining previously good soil via salinization", say "aquifers being depleted", say "species dying off", say "destruction of the (rain) forests", even say "malthusian crisis" (although then I'd argue for different reasons :-) But don't say "crowded". Doug -- Doug Merritt doug@netcom.com Professional Wild-eyed Visionary Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow Unicode Novis Cypherpunks Gutenberg Wavelets Conlang Logli Alife Anthro Computational linguistics Fundamental physics Cogsci Egyptology GA TLAs cudkeys: cuddy22 cudendoug cudfnDoug cudlnMerritt cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.22 / Tom Potter / Re: alt.my.dick.is.bigger.than.your.dick Originally-From: tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter ) Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro, ci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: alt.my.dick.is.bigger.than.your.dick Date: 22 Aug 1995 20:55:57 GMT Organization: Netcom In <41dc8l$ba9@pt9201.ped.pto.ford.com> haley@pt9231.ped.pto.ford.com (Bob Haley) writes: > >Tom Potter (tdp@ix.netcom.com) wrote: > >[snip] > >: The reason that I don't have much to say about physics in these forums >: is that no one here seems to care about physics. Most of the posters >: here are immature people with ego problems. They are more concerned >: with sharpshooting and trying to build up their egos, than they are in >: learning about physics, or sharing any knowledge they might possess. > >: Regarding Ben Joe Bullock's suggestion about renaming sci.physics, >: I suggest it be renamed: alt.my.dick.is.bigger.than.your.dick > >Immature ehh ? How do you explain your 'choice' of new names for >for the group. Is this how we should behave ? Apparently, you can't recognize sarcasm. ( Or perhaps I didn't make it clear enough. ) This is they way, we SHOULDN'T behave. >BTW, the reason you do not say much regarding physics is, most >probably, because you do not have much physics to say. As I posted, download my PHYSICST.ZIP hypertext, physics tutorial, and you'll see that I said a lot about physics. >Bob Haley > >NOTE: In no way is my employer responsible for any information I convey. cudkeys: cuddy22 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.22 / / Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate? Originally-From: wolf247698@aol.com (Wolf247698) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate? Date: 22 Aug 1995 20:25:37 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) In article <41bqef$okh@sanews.uswc.uswest.com>, Craig Stangland writes: >Wouldn't it be nice if someone would post a short history of what these >various >projects are for those of us just joining in on this subject? While I find >the >issues of interest, I'm not up on what a Griggs Experiment is, or the >potential >it would bring if completed. > > I second the motion. cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenwolf247698 cudln cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.22 / John White / Dick's theory (was Re: Off the deep end) Originally-From: jnw@lys.vnet.net (John N. White) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Dick's theory (was Re: Off the deep end) Date: 22 Aug 1995 20:44:36 -0500 Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779 jedrothwell@delphi.com writes: > That is not what Dick Blue claims. He says you can store 4 calories in a gram > of water at room temperature and the temperature will not rise at all. Then, > when you run the water through an electrolysis cell, the electrolysis will > magically "release" the energy, and the temperature will rise 4 degrees. > He says you can "grab" the energy from a pump, store it, and release a few > minutes later down the pipeline. That is his explanation of how Craven's > flow calorimeter works. > > My question is: do the other "skeptics" consider this good science, or > crackpot science? It is good science to consider plausible mundane alternatives before assuming that something exotic is happening. One can easily store 4 calories in a gram of water simply by altering its chemistry. I can't think of any way to do this with pure water without generating noticeable amounts of gas, but Craven's device doesn't use pure water. It uses a fairly concentrated sulfate based electrolyte. With such an electrolyte there are ways that the atoms can be rearranged to store far more than 4 calories per gram. There may be cavitation in the pump, which could cause the chemical change, storing energy. The large catalytic surface area of the packed bed cathode could then catalyze the release of the stored energy. This is a plausible theory, and it would explain the experimental results without new physics. But Dick Blue's theory is also good science because it is testable. Currently, the energy going into the pump is large compared to the observed excess heat. If Dick's theory is right, then it has to be that way. But the amount of energy actually needed to circulate the electrolyte is tiny compared to the excess heat. If Dick's theory is wrong, then future results should have greatly improved ratios of excess heat to pump input power. Thus, all we have to do is wait. If the follow-up results fail to exceed the limits set by Dick's theory, then we will have to look elsewhere if we want to find a new energy source. -- jnw@vnet.net cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.23 / mitchell swartz / Off the deep end Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Off the deep end Subject: Re: Off the deep end Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 02:17:15 GMT Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA In Message-ID: <41d0ee$138@anemone.saclay.cea.fr> Subject: Re: Off the deep end Mario Pain wrote: >"There is a key difference between conventional (hot) fusion and cold >fusion. There are numerous fully replicated experiments by independent >labs that fusion does take place in tokamaks as well as other "hot" fusion >machines. The same cannot yet be said of cold fusion." > >That is not true. Cold fusion has been replicated by independent labs. > "It depends what you call replicated. There is to my knowledge no CF experiment which gives THE SAME RESULT independently of the time, place and lab attempting it. This does not mean CF does not exist. It only means that it does not exist as a SCIENTIFIC OBJECT. With more research, CF could became scientific, but only when this experiment is found. Until then, it is just a subject for speculation." Au contraire. Many CF experiments have given the similar results of excess heat. Although fewer have looked, similar autoradiographic and helium results are seen, when meticulously looked for, in active systems. So therefore, upon what is your knowledge based? cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.22 / REALMIKEL / CF Project Originally-From: realmikel@aol.com (REALMIKEL) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: CF Project Date: 22 Aug 1995 22:43:11 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) I am a student doing a project trying to creative positive results with a CF device or theory. Can anyone help or guide me, please email cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenrealmikel cudlnREALMIKEL cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.23 / Robin Spaandonk / Re: Accepted Formulation of QM Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Accepted Formulation of QM Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 02:11:11 GMT Organization: Improving In article , Dave Oldridge wrote : [snip] >Nor do nuclear reactions need to be fusion in the conventional sense. >There are other possibilities that MIGHT explain some of the >experimental results and they don't all result in large energy releases >on a per-atom basis at all. They would be a lot harder to detect than >what you would expect from smashing deuterons together and nobody is >looking for the end products anyway. > -- > Dave Oldridge > doldridg@fox.nstn.ns.ca Dave, You clearly have something specific in mind here. What is it (are they) ? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.22 / Bill Rowe / Re: Off the deep end Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Off the deep end Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 20:46:22 -0700 Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net In article , mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) wrote: > In Message-ID: >Subject: Re: Off the deep end >browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) wrote: > >"There is a key difference between conventional (hot) fusion and cold >fusion. There are numerous fully replicated experiments by independent >labs that fusion does take place in tokamaks as well as other "hot" fusion >machines. The same cannot yet be said of cold fusion." > >That is not true. Cold fusion has been replicated by independent labs. > >Furthermore breakeven has been achieved repeatedly. >The same cannot yet be said of hot fusion. That depends on what is meant by replication. I agree several independent labs have reported results not easily explained. However, it seems few of these labs are doing the same experiment with the same results. Somehow changing things like electrodes from platinum to nickel is not replication to me. I repeat, CF has not achieved the kind of replication of results found in conventional fusion approaches. I would suggest if as few as 10-20% of the experiments were replicated to the same degree as convential fusion experiments there would be discussions of how to scale the experiments rather than discussions of whether CF is really a fusion process. -- William Rowe browe@netcom.com MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383 cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.23 / Mark North / Re: Nuclear Contamination Originally-From: north@nosc.mil (Mark H. North) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics Subject: Re: Nuclear Contamination Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 16:50:10 GMT Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA dview@earthlink.net asks: >I need some practical advice on de-contaminating a *slightly* radioactive >antique. Let me 'splain: >I collect magnetic compasses as a hobby. About a year ago I found a very cool, >WW1 infantrymans marching compass at an antique show. It was pretty advanced >for the time, fluid filled with a sighting magnifier that allowed you to read >directly without refocusing your eye. Anyway, the thing was in pretty bad >shape so I drained what was left of the fluid and disassembled it. Inside, >on either side of the sighting optics, there are two glass ampoules with >something dark pink sealed inside. They reminded me of the Tritium modules >found in modern day mil-spec compasses. After it occured to me that >they didn't have access to tritium back then I figured that I better be safe >and check this thing for radiation. So I borrowed a Geiger counter and sure >enough, It's pretty active. If I've read this instrument correctly it's about >4000 CPM (Curies per min.?) or about 4mR/hr (whatever that is) at a distance >of about 5cm. Unfortunately, most of the other metal parts in this thing >register a fair number of "clicks" as well. >I would like to know the answers to the following: >What would the source most likely be made of? >(By the way, it no longer glows) First off, CPM is probably counts/minute (a Curie is 3.7E10 disintegrations per second and represents a huge amount of radioactivity. The units Curies per minute don't make much sense in any case). Secondly, what you call a Geiger counter is probably a survey meter which integrates over time and is probably calibrated for gamma radiation. If these assumptions are true then the numbers you give are consistent with a gamma source of about 10 micro Curies with energy around 1 Mev. Although that energy is a little high I would guess you have a Radium or Thorium source that was used for its alpha activity. The alphas do not penetrate the glass. Alpha emitters are very bad for you if inhaled. Do not break open the glass. Originally the inside of the glass was probably coated with a fluorescing material which has since disintegrated or degraded. >Is that level of radiation dangerous ? Not particularly but I wouldn't carry it around in my pocket especially if you haven't had a family yet. If you are determined to keep it put it somewhere where it will be several feet away from anybody at all times. >I haven't tried to clean it yet. All of the parts are coated with oxide and >some paint. Is the contamination likely to be into the brass or would it >just be on the surface? >Can it be de-contaminated? >AND >What is the best way to do this? If the glass ampules are intact there should be no contamination to worry about. If they can be removed without risk of damage then do so and use your survey meter on the case. It should not give a reading above background. If it does, you have a problem and I would turn it over to the local HAZMAT people. >I appreciate any advice. (I know that alot of you are going to tell me to toss >it. I don't want to do that if it can be avoided). I have cross posted this to sci.physics in case anybody over there wants to comment on my comments. Mark cudkeys: cuddy23 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.23 / Ramon Prasad / Re: Off the Deep End Originally-From: <100437.530@compuserve.com (Ramon Prasad)> Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Off the Deep End Date: 23 Aug 1995 13:53:50 GMT Organization: CompuServe Incorporated blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard Blue) wrote (amongst other things): >...you take it for granted that there is such a thing as a working >Patterson Power Cell that runs on cold fusion. I assert that you >have no evidence to support that position. Richard, I personally have no evience that atoms or galaxies exist. Learning to be a theoretical physicist over 30 years ago meant also learning to trust experimental physicists when they say that an experiment is replicable and has in fact been replicated many times. I personally cannot re-check every measurement and every calculation, and neither can you. I might just as well say that you have no evidence that there is any laboratory device that produces hot fusion - But I won't. The argument that I wish to pursue is that if experimenters say that they have discovered a new phenomenon, and that it is replicable, and that it produces large quantities of useable energy then academic science must, and will, take it seriously. That means commissioning both theoretical and experimental investigations. If academic science leaves it to the point where there are commercial sales to the public of devices using this discovery, then it has committed itself to another Kuhn-type revolution, whether through conservatism, or through vested interests, or through arrogance of establishment scientists or whatever. In plain language academic science has made a mistake. The best thing to do with mistakes is to rectify them as soon as possible. The longer you take, the worse it gets. Very Best Wishes, Yours sincerely, Ramon Prasad cudkeys: cuddy23 cuden530 cudfnRamon cudlnPrasad cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.23 / Joseph Raulet / Re: Droege's experiments proved nothing Originally-From: Joseph Raulet Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Droege's experiments proved nothing Date: 23 Aug 1995 14:15:51 GMT Organization: RAULET Informatique >Jed is criticizing Droege justifiably, I believe. >As I recall, Droege has admitted to a lack of proper credentials: he has >no Ph.D. >Thus, his experimental efforts were those of an amateur, and he had no >more qualification to do those experiments than my neighborhood garage >mechanic. I don't beilive it. I have never heard such degree of stupidity and intolerance. How dare you denigrate the idea of a person base on what diploma the person have or have not rather than a logical examination of it supositions? You have the privilege to not share the ideas of a person, but trying to denigrate or umiliating a human bean like you have done on a public place is simply a lack of jugement and public-spiritedness. I know peopols like you. They are fast to juge, slow to change. They can easily evaluate a person base on his sex, race or social rank. Einstein was right! The most commun things in the univers are hydrogen and studidity! Joseph Raulet cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenraulet cudfnJoseph cudlnRaulet cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.23 / bearpaw / Re: Off the deep end Originally-From: bearpaw@world.std.com (bearpaw) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Off the deep end Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 18:11:25 GMT Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Mario Pain writes: > >Sorry, but my posting was perhaps not clear enough. A repeatable experiment >means that EVERY time the experiment is tried with the SAME parameters it >gives the SAME result. The fact that "many" experiment have given "similar" >results is not enough. Example: If I throw a ball, and it only falls to >the ground in about 50 % of the cases, I still can say that "many experiments >give similar results". But gravity is a scientific fact since the ball falls >in 100 % of the cases. Unless you "throw" it hard enough to achieve escape velocity. :-> And, depending on the density of the ball, windspeed, angle of throw, etc, etc, it probably won't land in the same place 100% of the time. > ... >every time it is tried you cannot do scientific work. That does not mean you >cannot continue the search for hidden parameters in your experiment so as to >devise THE experiment that could put CF in the scientific field. It only means >that CF is not AS YET scientific. The search for those parameters can also be "scientific". Bearpaw MacDonald +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | Bearpaw MacDonald (bearpaw@world.std.com) | | http://world.std.com/~bearpaw/ | | "May accuracy triumph over victory." - M. Stiegler | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenbearpaw cudlnbearpaw cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.23 / Thomas Zemanian / Re: Off the deep end Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Off the deep end Date: 23 Aug 1995 18:26:30 GMT Organization: Battelle PNL In article <21cenlogic-2308951150590001@austin-1-14.i-link.net>, 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote: > In article , > ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) wrote: > > > In article , jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote: > > > > > Yessir, we should all applaud this genius who believes he can > > > store energy in water without raising the temperature. > > > > Well, at the risk of being an utter pedant... > > > > You can store energy in water without raising the temperature by boiling > > liquid water at 100 deg C or melting frozen water at 0 deg. C. > > ***{Here, you are simply ignoring what Jed obviously meant. In the normal > lexicon, water is the liquid form of H2O, ice is the solid form, and steam > is the gaseous form. Within this framework, ice and steam are not water, > and your quibble fails. Another try would be to note that it is possible > to store energy in water by raising its pressure while holding the > temperature constant. However, in my opinion this try would also fail, by > dropping the context of the original discussion. Bottom line: you guys may > *want* to attack everything Jed says, but you can't do it if you expect to > win. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > Mitchell, did you miss the statement above where I openly warned readers that I would be engaging in pedantry? Also, to whom do you refer with the phrase "you guys"? I can't speak for Jed, but I doubt he'd count me among his detractors. Calm down. Not everyone here is carrying on a holy war Those of you who do, make it an interesting, albeit sometimes irritating, place to hang out. --Tom -- The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone. Keep your filthy hands off 'em! cudkeys: cuddy23 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.23 / jedrothwell@de / Re: Off the deep end Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Off the deep end Date: Wed, 23 Aug 95 16:59:09 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) The data from McKubre and Kunimatsu are scattered in various papers and proceedings. The results are brought together nicely in Fig 1 of the Storms paper "Critical Review of the 'Cold Fusion' Effect" (Fusion Technology, 1995 sometime -- maybe already?). Fig. 1 shows Excess Power Density W/cm^2 versus Current Density, A/cm^2. Data points are from four different experiments: Storms, plate [cathode type; a foil] Kainthla et al., wire McKubre et al., wire (average of many points) Kunimatsu, rod Fig. 2 and 3 are a similar comparison showing how high loading is critical. Below 0.85 loading (as measured by McKubre's resistivity method) there is no effect. As loading increases to 0.93, the excess takes off exponentially. There are a great many data points in this figure, which originally appeared in ICCF3 Proc, p. 16. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenjedrothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.23 / jedrothwell@de / Re: Dick's theory (was Re: Off the deep end) Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Dick's theory (was Re: Off the deep end) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 95 17:01:58 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) John N. White writes: "I can't think of any way to do this with pure water without generating noticeable amounts of gas, but Craven's device doesn't use pure water. It uses a fairly concentrated sulfate based electrolyte." It is 90% water. Do you think that you can change the specific heat of this electrolyte to any level you like? How many calories could we squeeze in before it would begin to heat up? You are saying that Dick's theory is a special case that might only explain the Cravens calorimeter, and not any of the other CF flow calorimeters that use pure water. Dick would like us to spend the next 20 years dreaming up "special case theories" to explain away each and every result. I don't buy it. "There may be cavitation in the pump, which could cause the chemical change..." There could not possibly be. It is a small laboratory pump with a rubber gasket that moves the water by revolving once or twice a second at most. Back at the lab they use medical IV pumps. There is no cavitation in them either. Neither type of pump transfers measurable levels of energy into fluid, except kinetic energy, of course. "But Dick Blue's theory is also good science because it is testable." Yes, and it has already been tested. All you have to do is look at the calibration curves and you see it is nonsense. There are several different calibrations, including one with Au electrolysis. They show no such effects. Also, look at all the other CF experiments. Also, consider the fact that output varies whereas the pumps move at exactly the same speed producing the same flow rate all day long. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenjedrothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.22 / jedrothwell@de / Re: Droege's experiments proved nothing Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Droege's experiments proved nothing Date: Tue, 22 Aug 95 11:23:59 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Scott Little writes: "If you contact Tom, request copies of the two papers he wrote about his calorimeters, and read them . . ." I have Droege's papers describing his calorimeter, plus the one in the ICCF2 Proceedings. In my opinion it is a good calorimeter, but it is not appropriate for these experiments. It is too finicky, too precise and not accurate enough. "Tom Droege is one of those rare engineers that truly understands automatic controls and he used this understanding to create some of the most sophisticated and successful calorimeters I have ever seen." It is sophisticated but it is certainly not successful! When Tom was using it he reported a sad litany of problems like noise, drift and false positives, plus problems with the hypodermic gadget used to measure loading, etc. Other types of calorimeters also have troubles of course, but not as many. I have spoken to many CF scientists and I can confirm this. A few CF workers, including Oriani, have successfully used Seebeck envelope calorimeters like Tom's, but most use traditional water-based flow or static calorimeters. I think that is a much better choice for several reasons: The response time (a.k.a. "settle time") is much too long. Rapid changes in enthalpy are lost, and calibrating the instrument is a nightmare. The scale is completely wrong. Tom's calorimeter is good for measuring milliwatts and fractions of milliwatts. Most CF reactions occur on the watt scale. Using this calorimeter to monitor a CF reaction is like using an electron microscope to identify a daisy. When you do field botany and you identify flowers, you may want to use a magnifying glass, but there is no point in looking at any smaller details than that. If the CF reaction is so small it can only be detected at the milliwatt level, it is much too small to convince anyone. We need robust reactions, at the watt level and above. It is the wrong type of calorimeter for this job. It is an experimental machine that nobody understands well, not even the Droege Brothers. It has many quirks and it requires skilled handling. That is the worst imaginable type for these experiments. What we need for CF is a conventional, uncontroversial, traditional & vanilla calorimeter. The experimental results are very controversial. People refuse to believe them. If we add a controversial, complicated calorimeter design to an experimental result that is already controversial, we multiply the questions and doubts in the minds of the unconvinced observer. We make it harder for him to accept the results. What we need is a calorimeter that anyone, anywhere will accept without reservations. We need tried-and-true designs that have been in use since the beginning of modern science. This design is far too complicated. Not only does it add to people's doubts, but it is a violation one of the most important rules of science: KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid). If you can solve a problem with a pocket knife, do not go to the hardware store and buy a fancy cutting blade. If you can solve a problem with a $10 hardware store gadget, never contract to have a new gadget custom manufactured. That is asking for trouble! Suppose CF reactions always occurred on the milliwatt level, and never above that. Suppose a law of nature limited power density and prevented powerful reactions within a conveniently sized calorimeter, so that if you wanted to see a 2 watt reaction you would need a CF device the size of a house. In that case we would be forced to resort to a complicated, finicky, expensive calorimeters like Tom's. Naturally we would! Fortunately, a good hot CF reaction from a small cathode will often produce 1 or 2 watts, or even 10 or 20. A conventional static or flow calorimeter can easily detect these power levels with confidence. That means we should use a conventional calorimeter. Why should we go to anything else? What is the point? When you have a very high S/N ratio with two digit precision, there scientific justification for adding three more digits beyond the decimal point. You should never use a tool that is more complicated or has more precision than the job requires. When you go to measure a 2 x 4 before cutting it, you use a tape measure marked to the nearest 16th of an inch. You do NOT use a micrometer, and if you did you would not get a "better answer" in any scientific sense. Once you have achieved a high S/N ratio, additional precision does not make the experiment better, and it sometimes makes it worse. A less precise instrument will sometimes generate more convincing data, because less precise instruments often have advantages like simplicity, robustness, ease of use, or a broad range of applicability (a very wide scale). Years ago, when I brought up these points with Tom, he said that we need more digits of precision because the skeptics demand it. The skeptics supposedly do not trust traditional, water-based calorimetry. They think that people like Bockris and Storms made a mistake. I don't buy that argument. I have never seen any skeptic critique the calorimetry of Bockris, Storms, Ikegami, McKubre, Arata, Cravens or the other CF scientists who use conventional calorimeters. Their calorimetry has never been challenged by anyone. Also, as a general rule in life, I think the oldest, simplest tools are best. Never use a high tech solution when a low tech solution works just as well. The older tools are often more elegant, and you can often see the mechanism by which they work. An electronic weight scale with a weak battery will give you a funny answer, and you cannot see how the thing works, so I prefer to use a balance scale if there is no need to for precision better than 100 grams or so. The newer electronic instruments have razzle dazzle features, but they depend upon batteries and computerized components, and I do not trust computers. Computers should be used to record data after more direct, simpler tools have proved the data is accurate, whenever possible. An electronic flowmeter should be checked manually with a liter bottle and a stopwatch. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenjedrothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.22 / Mario Pain / Re: Off the deep end Originally-From: Mario Pain Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Off the deep end Date: 22 Aug 1995 16:25:50 GMT Organization: cea mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) wrote: > In Message-ID: >Subject: Re: Off the deep end >browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) wrote: > >"There is a key difference between conventional (hot) fusion and cold >fusion. There are numerous fully replicated experiments by independent >labs that fusion does take place in tokamaks as well as other "hot" fusion >machines. The same cannot yet be said of cold fusion." > >That is not true. Cold fusion has been replicated by independent labs. > It depends what you call replicated. There is to my knowledge no CF experiment which gives THE SAME RESULT independently of the time, place and lab attempting it. This does not mean CF does not exist. It only means that it does not exist as a SCIENTIFIC OBJECT. With more research, CF could became scientific, but only when this experiment is found. Until then, it is just a subject for speculation. Thanks for listening Mario Pain PS: >Furthermore breakeven has been achieved repeatedly. Repeatedly perhaps, but not repetitively ! cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.22 / Chuck Harrison / Re: Kasagi; D-beam into Ti Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Chuck Harrison) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Kasagi; D-beam into Ti Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 16:22:05 GMT Organization: Fitful In article <1995Aug21.164345.2367@plasma.byu.edu>, jonesse@plasma.byu.edu says... > >2. I am intrigued (on the other hand) by a recent paper by J. Kasagi et al. >of Tohoku University which shows results from a 150-keV deuteron beam >impinging on titanium deuteride. >J. Phys. Soc. Japan, 64 (1995) 777-783. > > Their work is clearly not "cold fusion," >since the beam energy is 150-keV. But the results do seem to show anomalous >production of protons of energies up to 17 MeV and alphas up to 6.5 MeV. >If a few readers (please e-mail fax number) would be interested in reviewing >the J. Phys. Soc. Japan paper, I will send copies by fax. I'd appreciate >comments as it looks, well, anomalous yet rather convincing. The numbers of >high-energy protons and alphas are 10^-6 of the number of p's from d-d-fusion, >so this is not an "excess heat" or power producer. But there may be some >interesting physics here, I think. This may be related to work that was being done at the "Octavian" beam line (Osaka Univ) in late '92. I believe Akito Takahashi's student Iida gave a preliminary paper at ICCF Nagoya; I don't know if it made a journal. As I recall a Si barrier detector showed distinctive anomalous energy peaks when Ti foils *with certain barrier films* were hit with a D beam. I can dig up some contact info for the Osaka group if needed. -Chuck Harrison cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenharr cudfnChuck cudlnHarrison cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.22 / Matthew Kennel / Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program Date: 22 Aug 1995 16:12:54 GMT Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here. Doug Merritt (doug@netcom.com) wrote: : In article <303501e5.56554c43414e@vulcan.xs4all.nl> johanw@vulcan.xs4a l.nl (Johan Wevers) writes: : >Jeffrey A. Dracup wrote: : > : >>If the goal is to increase the net standard of living for our : >>particular species, we will require a) more land and b) more energy. : > : >What about decreasing the number of humans? Earth is much too crowded now : >anyway. : This is a popular point of view with radical environmentalists : (see the book Green Rage), including at its most extreme the Unabomber. : However, outside of cities, the Earth doesn't appear to be at all crowded : (been out in the countryside recently???) And cities account for only : a tiny, tiny fraction of world land area. : So I wonder in what vague removed-from-reality armchair sense you : think Earth is "much too crowded"; I don't see it. (I *do* see various : problems with current industrial & agricultural practices, but they : are several abstract and debatable steps removed from "too crowded".) Water. Go to bumf*ck nowhere in Colorado and Arizona and look at the rivers. A big part of that is going to support current human activities. Sure there's lots of empty space, but who's going to water it? You don't really do much farming there because there's not enough water. They're unpopulated deserts for a reason. In the East, where there is rain and water, most every part of the land outside intentionally preserved parks is already devoted to human activities. In the midwest, aquifers which have near geologic timescales to replenish (10,000yrs) are being depleted in 150. Sure there are places without people, but keep in mind that all the *best* places for people to live have already been taken. Look at, for instance, where all the new condos are going up in California: dusty hot smoggy semi-desert plains east of San Bernadino connected by crowded freeways to insanely expensive city centers. Why? Good places to live like Palo Alto, Monterey, Santa Monica and Berkeley are already full. Think of where the natives lived before european contact: they picked out the best places. Just because more people could potentially *survive* doesn't mean it would be a good idea. Sometimes your genome isn't acting in your best interest. : -- : Doug Merritt doug@netcom.com : Professional Wild-eyed Visionary Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow : Unicode Novis Cypherpunks Gutenberg Wavelets Conlang Logli Alife Anthro : Computational linguistics Fundamental physics Cogsci Egyptology GA TLAs cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.22 / jedrothwell@de / Re: Hello again / Solar stove Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Hello again / Solar stove Date: Tue, 22 Aug 95 13:19:50 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Steve Jones writes: "[The Green & Quickenden paper] is the latest (to my knowledge) in a long series of good experiments using high-quality calorimeters that have failed to detect any excess heat production in Pons-Fleischmann-type electrochemical cells. (I include in that list the experiments at Harwell, Caltech, and BYU as well as Tom Droege's experiments -- all reported NO excess heat in electrochemical cells.)" That is not a long series. In my ICCF5 review I pointed to part of a much, much longer series of good experiments yielding positive results at places like KEK, Shell Oil, Amoco, Hitachi, IMRA Japan, IMRA Europe, SRI, Los Alamos and the Naval Air Weapons Center. They used equally good or better calorimeters. I have several hundred experiments in my column, Steve has five in his. Actually, he has only three, because two of the experiments he lists were positive. Hansen and Melich showed that the Harwell results were actually positive, and Miles, Noninski and many others have proved that Caltech was positive. Droege's experiment was negative because his electrochemical technique was bad. The electrolyte and cathode were severely contaminated. So Steve's list is actually: 2 positives 1 negative for obvious reasons 1 negative for unknown reasons (unknown to me; I do not have sufficient data from BYU) 1 new negative from G&Q, also for reasons unknown It is a good thing for Steve that people still occasionally report negative experiments! He would have nothing to talk about otherwise. He has to pretend that the positive papers -- 99% of the total -- do not exist. Here are the refs for H&M and Miles. These are excellent papers: Wilford N. Hansen (Utah State University, USA) and Michael E. Melich (Naval Postgraduate School, USA), "Some Lessons from 3 Years of Electrochemical Calorimetry," ICCF3 Proc. Michael E. Melich (Naval Postgraduate School, USA), Wilford N. Hansen (Utah State University, USA), "Back to the Future -- The Fleischmann-Pons Effect in 1994," ICCF4 Proc. M. H. Miles (Naval Air Weapons Center), B. F. Bush (SRI), D. E. Stillwell (CAES), "Calorimetric Principles and Problems in Measurements of Excess Power during Pd-D2O Electrolysis," J. Phys. Chem. 1994, 98, p. 1948-1952 - Jed cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenjedrothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.22 / Bill Rowe / Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate? Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate? Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 21:06:42 -0700 Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net I won't respond to your response point by point to conserve bandwidth. My comment about your "assuming the worst" is your assumptions about motivations. I don't disagree with your observations of fact. Your choice of words imply malevolent intent. I strongly suspect that most researchers are not conspiring to "loot the taxpayers". Rather, I think they most likely believe they are honestly pursuing reasonable lines of research. As far as your comments about most scientists not wanting to advance ideas that thier peers consider crackpot, to a large extent you have a point. However, I wouldn't ascribe the motivation as a "fear of being laughed at". Instead, I would ascribe this as the natural caution to be sure of your facts before you jump of the deep end. In fact, the difference I am attempting to describe is perhaps only a matter of degree. Finally, I am curious. When your refer to me as being one of "you guys", what assumptions are you making about me? As far as I know I have not provided anyone here my professional affiliation. Nor I have I included in my .profile file. Are you assuming, based on my post, I have an affiliation with say Princeton or other lab involved in conventional fusion research? -- William Rowe browe@netcom.com MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383 cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.23 / Mitchell Jones / Re: Photo of Pons-Fleischman device ? Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Photo of Pons-Fleischman device ? Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 01:55:06 -0500 Organization: 21st Century Logic In article <40tmli$jcq@rosebud.sdsc.edu>, garyh@sdsc.edu wrote: > Does anyone have a photo of the original Pons-Fleishman device > that started the whole 'cold fusion' furor? > > Thanks > > Gary > > --- > //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// > Gary Hanyzewski | "... There are more things in > Sr. programmer/analyst | heaven and earth than > garyh@sdsc.edut | are dreamt of in your > >> << | philosophy ...." > //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// If you refer to an online photo, I can't help you. But if a hard copy will do, check out the covers of Time and Newsweek for May 8, 1989. --Mitchell Jones =========================================================== cudkeys: cuddy23 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.23 / Mario Pain / Re: Off the deep end Originally-From: Mario Pain Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Off the deep end Date: 23 Aug 1995 07:16:53 GMT Organization: cea jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote: >Mario Pain writes: >I suggest you compare the results from McKubre and Kunimatsu. I think the >data points are a good fit. Also, please note the Miles paper in J. Phys. >Chem. in which he describes the good fit between the 1989 results from >Pons & Fleischmann, Miles, and N. Lewis at Cal Tech. (Lewis thought he >had a negative result, but he made a mistake in calibration, and he >actually got very significant excess heat.) When you take into account >the essential controlling parameters like loading, current density, and >temperature, you will find that results from different labs match even >better. > Could you please give me the references for the papers where the results are published ? Sorry to ask that, but I am not in the CF community and therefore do not know my bibliography as well as you. Thanks Mario Pain cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.23 / Mario Pain / Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate? Originally-From: Mario Pain Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate? Date: 23 Aug 1995 07:26:07 GMT Organization: cea 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote: >Of course they are: the energy source is the taxpayers, on whose backs >you guys have a proven history of riding. It must be very frightening, >when you actually contemplate the possibility of giving up your parasitic >lifestyle and dealing with your fellow men on a voluntary basis! >--Mitchell Jones Well, well, well. That is a nice scientific tone, is it not ?. Can there be a scientific discussion if the two parties think the other are crooks, "frightened" to having to give up "your parasitic lifestyle" ?. I do not think so. Having read the whole posting, I find difficult to separate your scientific conviction that CF will work from your hate of "hot fusioners". Since you feel free to accuse "hot fusioners" of taxpayer-riding, I do not think why I could not suggest that your goal seems less to promote CF than to recover the "billions" spent in hot fusion so you can get to live a "parasitic lifestyle" yourself. So much for science. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. And that works both ways. Thanks for listening Mario Pain cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.23 / Mario Pain / Re: Off the deep end Originally-From: Mario Pain Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Off the deep end Date: 23 Aug 1995 07:37:48 GMT Organization: cea mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) wrote: >Many CF experiments have given the similar results of excess heat. >Although fewer have looked, similar autoradiographic and helium >results are seen, when meticulously looked for, in active systems. > > So therefore, upon what is your knowledge based? > Sorry, but my posting was perhaps not clear enough. A repeatable experiment means that EVERY time the experiment is tried with the SAME parameters it gives the SAME result. The fact that "many" experiment have given "similar" results is not enough. Example: If I throw a ball, and it only falls to the ground in about 50 % of the cases, I still can say that "many experiments give similar results". But gravity is a scientific fact since the ball falls in 100 % of the cases. A theory is scientific when you can devise an experiment whose failure would falsify it (at least if you accept Karl Popper's definition). If the same experiment gives different results (even if the same result may repeat itself) every time it is tried you cannot do scientific work. That does not mean you cannot continue the search for hidden parameters in your experiment so as to devise THE experiment that could put CF in the scientific field. It only means that CF is not AS YET scientific. Thanks for listening, Mario Pain cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.23 / Mario Pain / Re: CF Project Originally-From: Mario Pain Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: CF Project Date: 23 Aug 1995 07:39:41 GMT Organization: cea realmikel@aol.com (REALMIKEL) wrote: >I am a student doing a project trying to creative positive results with a ^^^^^^^^ >CF device or theory. Can anyone help or guide me, please email I can only give you one piece of advice: forget it !!! M. Pain cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.23 / ZoltanCCC / Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate? Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate? Date: 23 Aug 1995 03:42:01 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) For those here that are not up to date in the Griggs device: It is a machine that rotates a cylinder full of holes. The device heats water by working against the hydrodynamic resistance (it stirs the water) and it apparently generates more than ten percent excess heat over the work the pump puts in. It has been replicated a number of times and it produces consistant results. Zoltan Szakaly cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.23 / ZoltanCCC / Re: Yoshiaka Arata Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Yoshiaka Arata Date: 23 Aug 1995 03:42:00 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) In article <41behh$e3e@dub-news-svc-6.compuserve.com>, <100437.530@compuserve.com (Ramon Prasad)> writes: > >How do the deuterons overcome their mutual Colomb barrier? >Where are the protons (not seen)? Are there enough neutrons >to tie up with the amount of energy produced? What is the role >of the palladium lattice in promoting the reactions and absorbing >the energy? The answer to each question seems to contradict >something we thought we knew the answer to. This does not >contravene quantum mechanics as such, but these processes >should not be happening at all at room temperatures. Why and >how are they happening? Perhaps they are happening according to the Marshall Dudley et. al. hypothesis. (see earlier posts here) I don't see anything infeasible about the reactions described there. 1. Electron capture by proton or D resulting in neutrino emission and thermal neutrons 2. Capture of thermal neutron by D or p or even the Palladium nucleus 3. Beta decay of resulting product. These would result in energetic electrons, thermal neutrons, photons as well as (anti)neutrinos. Thermal neutrons are hard to detect, they probably don't leave the lattice, photons are partly absorbed partly they escape and give us radiograms, neutrinos go undetected, the energetic electrons go on to cause more electron capture. This would explain lightwater reactions as well. Zoltan Szakaly cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.23 / Craig Stangland / Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate? Originally-From: Craig Stangland Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate? Date: 23 Aug 1995 08:03:01 GMT Organization: NODE-TO-NODE SURVEILLANCE This Griggs product sounds just like my home dryer? Any similarity? Just kidding. What seems to be the issue re: drawbacks on this technology and it's imminent deployment. Secondly, with so much research going on, can you or someone name the highest probable new energy source that will be coming on line for public consumption and some type of time line (will we still be alive when all this happens?), given that I'm reading on this network about Fusion, CF, Solar, Patents, Griggs, etc. Punt.....Craig cudkeys: cuddy23 cudfnCraig cudlnStangland cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.23 / Mitchell Jones / Re: tornado article Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: tornado article Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 11:27:09 -0500 Organization: 21st Century Logic In article <507765180wnr@almide.demon.co.uk>, sandy@almide.demon.co.uk wrote: > Edward Lewis writes, > > "...I classify both ball lightning and tornadoes, storms, clouds, > and other phenomena as kinds of a phenomena that I call plasmoid > phenomena. Galaxies and atoms are other types of this kind of > phenomena, according to my theory..." > > How strange. > > I classify both raindrops and kittens, tooth-fairies, monday > mornings, and other phenomena as kinds of a phenomena that I call > doobeewahwah phenomena. Universes and tax returns are other types > of this kind of phenomena, according to MY theory. > > We can't BOTH be right, can we? > > > > Sandy > -- > // Alexander Anderson Computer Science Student // > // Home Fone : +44 (0) 171-794-4543 Middlesex University // > // Home Email : sandy@almide.demon.co.uk Bounds Green // > // College Email: alexander9@mdx.ac.uk London // > // UK // Sandy, you have produced a classic post that deserves to be immortalized! Congratulations! (I thought I was going to split my sides laughing!) --Mitchell Jones =========================================================== cudkeys: cuddy23 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.23 / Mitchell Jones / Re: Off the deep end Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Off the deep end Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 11:50:59 -0500 Organization: 21st Century Logic In article , ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) wrote: > In article , jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote: > > > Yessir, we should all applaud this genius who believes he can > > store energy in water without raising the temperature. > > Well, at the risk of being an utter pedant... > > You can store energy in water without raising the temperature by boiling > liquid water at 100 deg C or melting frozen water at 0 deg. C. ***{Here, you are simply ignoring what Jed obviously meant. In the normal lexicon, water is the liquid form of H2O, ice is the solid form, and steam is the gaseous form. Within this framework, ice and steam are not water, and your quibble fails. Another try would be to note that it is possible to store energy in water by raising its pressure while holding the temperature constant. However, in my opinion this try would also fail, by dropping the context of the original discussion. Bottom line: you guys may *want* to attack everything Jed says, but you can't do it if you expect to win. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > --Tom > > -- > The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone. Keep your filthy hands off 'em! =========================================================== cudkeys: cuddy23 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Aug 24 04:37:04 EDT 1995 ------------------------------