1995.10.16 / Horace Heffner / Re: The Farce of Physics Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories, ci.astro,sci.energy,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.particle,sci.rese rch,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 06:24:20 -0900 Organization: none In article <45rq8g$glk@seminole.gate.net>, wallaceb@news.gate.net (Bryan G. Wallace) wrote: > The following is in reply to Kennel's 13 Oct 1995 post and Snell's 14 Oct > post. Lithium7 deuteride ignites in a similar way to chemical fuel since the > neutrons and energy produced act to continue the reaction. The details on the > neutron generators and the x-section for fusion is classified information, but Details on neutron generators are not classified. Try US Patent 5,152,956 for example. A quick keyword patent search will find more. The cross section of the Li7 to fusion is comparatively immaterial isn't it? Maintaining confinement at a temperature which will sustain fusion is the problem. Or maybe you mean the cross section of Li7 to neutrons? Perhaps you missed the discussion of this in September in this thread. The discussion of the reaction n + Li7 -> Li6 + n + n went something like: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - begin quote - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > >Looking superficially at this, we have atomic masses: > > >Li6 = 6.015121 >n = 1.008665 > -------- >+ = 7.023786 >Li7 = 7.016003 >- = 0.007783 > >There is a net gain of mass from the reaction. This is a reaction that >converts fast neutrons in to slow neutrons, and consumes vast amounts of >energy in so doing. It doesn't seem useful for generating energy, but it >sure would "hide" in the form of excess mass a lot of excess energy >generated by other fast neutron producing reactions. Perhaps there is some >similar mechanism where the signature radiation of cold fusion could also >be hidden in mass. > >Regards, > >Horace - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - end quote - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - This is a reaction that is *not* a chain reaction. This is not a secret. Just look at the masses of the reactants and products in the CRC handbook. There is nothing mysterious about it. [snip] Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.16 / Richard Blue / Re: CF demo at SOFE Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: CF demo at SOFE Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 15:15:19 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway Cold fusion advocates are constantly shifting the context within which "proof" of cold fusion is presented. However they often fail to note that some of the arguments that were essential for their old proofs get negated by the new results they are trumpeting. Consider the old argument that the excess heat must be due to cold fusion because it is "too great to be chemistry." Remember that there really has been painfully little data to support claims for any direct observations of nuclear reaction processes so the "too big" argument plays an important role in the making of a case for cold fusion. Now make a slight change in the experimental set-up for a cold fusion demonstration. Let us just say, for example, that the electrolyte is circulated through an external loop rather than just remaining in the reaction cell. What difference can that possibly make? Consider the following little calculation, if you will. Suppose that the transport of a reactant at the rate of 0.01 mole/sec results in the production of 5 watts of heat. That corresponds to only 500 joules/mole of reaction heat. Is that "beyond chemistry"? I don't think so. The Servel gas refrigerator came up recently in this newsgroup. I once owned one because it was the cheapest used refrigerator I could buy. As I recall the thermodynamics involves the latent heat of solution for ammonia in water and/or alcohol. The cycle is driven by a gas flame not much bigger than a pilot light that drives both the fluid circulation and the required separations of the disolved ammonia. The Servel refrigerator is not a cold fusion device! As I understand the SOFE demo the circulating electrolyte also carries the gasses evolved by the electrolysis out of the cell to an external separater where they bubble off into the atmosphere. Does that not tell us that chemically speaking the fluid that exits the cell is not the same as the fluid that returns to the cell? I think that at this point we can safely say that the argument of excess heat "too big to be chemistry" is pretty well shot full of holes. I invite anyone to try to revive the "too big to be chemistry" argument so show how the demonstration at SOFE must involve cold fusion. I will say upfront that I feel no obligation to specify a chemical reaction process because CF advocates have not specified a nuclear process either. It is interesting to note that when I suggested that those operating Patterson cells have given no indication they understand what is happening his reply was something to the effect that they certainly do understand what is happening. You run this fluid through this here cell and it gets warm! Now that is certainly an indication of a profound understanding of the way this thing works! Still the believers are ready to scale up this process to arbitrary temperatures and power levels. But isn't it just a bit strange the the two demonstrations of this effect that have been reported here have involved a scaling down to smaller size? One of the strange responses by Jed Rothwell to questions concerning this device is that the effect has also been observed in a static calorimeter without the flowing electrolyte. Could you fill us in on the details regarding that experiment, Jed? If it is so easy to duplicate this effect in a simple static calorimeter why would anyone bother with the complexity of the set-up with the flowing electrolyte for demonstration purposes? Dick Blue cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.16 / jedrothwell@de / Re: CF demo at SOFE Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: CF demo at SOFE Date: Mon, 16 Oct 95 15:08:57 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Richard A Blue writes: >One of the strange responses by Jed Rothwell to questions concerning this >device is that the effect has also been observed in a static calorimeter >without the flowing electrolyte. Could you fill us in on the details >regarding that experiment, Jed? If it is so easy to duplicate this >effect in a simple static calorimeter why would anyone bother with the >complexity of the set-up with the flowing electrolyte for demonstration >purposes? That is a stupid question. A very stupid question, but as it happens, I answered it in the first message. A static calorimeter requires calibration in advance to determine the heat transfer coefficient (the temperature rise for each watt of power). A flow calorimeter also requires calibration of course, but because it is a first principle device you can come through the door in the middle of the experiment and see that it is working; it is not a case where you *must have* the calibration curve in order to judge the result. Therefore, for the purposes of a public experiment where new observers come and go, a flow calorimeter is easier to understand and more convincing. This is patently obvious. It is so utterly simple and so easy to understand for anyone who is familiar with calorimeters, that only a complete fool like Dick Blue would wonder about it. The fact that he did not instantly understand it when I explained the first time proves that he does not have the foggiest idea what we are talking about here, and he does not understand the fundamentals of calorimetry, or thermodynamics, or grade schools physics for that matter. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.16 / R Schroeppel / new moderated fusion list Originally-From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: new moderated fusion list Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 21:25:43 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway I am creating a moderated fusion mailing list. I expect it to be a light-traffic list. The format will be approximately a once/weekday digest. The Topic will be fusion, both hot & cold. Related topics will be permitted at my disgression - I have a low but nonzero tolerance for other kinds of energy production, and new physical theories. I may edit long messages. Send subscription requests and submissions to fusion@cs.arizona.edu Rich Schroeppel rcs@cs.arizona.edu cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenrcs cudfnRichard cudlnSchroeppel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.16 / John White / Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Originally-From: jnw@katie.vnet.net (John N. White) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Date: 16 Oct 1995 15:06:09 -0500 Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779 jedrothwell@delphi.com writes: > Naturally, CETI has run that configuration too. They have used both static > and flow calorimeters. So have hundreds of other CF workers. Obviously, the > CETI cell shows copious excess heat in a static calorimeter too. Jed, please tell us more about the static CETI runs. Was the excess heat many times larger than the total I*V input power? Was the length of time this heat was seen large compared to the startup time? -- jnw@vnet.net cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.16 / Kennel / Re: 7Li(n,2n)6LI driven fusion (was: Farce of Physics) Originally-From: mbk@jt3ws1.etd.ornl.gov (Kennel) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: 7Li(n,2n)6LI driven fusion (was: Farce of Physics) Date: 16 Oct 1995 20:46:57 GMT Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN Bill Page (wspage@ncs.dnd.ca) wrote: > Is the existence of this "58.5 pound backpack" nuclear explosive an established > fact? Kennel's "classical" interpretation of the components Brian referred to > in the picture seem quite suspect. I cannot conceive of how one could produce > a viable 58.5 pound version of a thermonuclear device with a classical fission > primary - obviously there is no attempt in the backpack device to provide an > initial chemically fueled implosion. I presumed that the chemical explosives were removed for the purported picture. Personally I'm now rather skeptical that this 'mininuke' would bother with any fusion secondary. I bet it's just a small (and thus advanced) fission bomb. > For a few years now (since the ICCF4 meeting in Maui) I have had this re- > curring nightmare that the developments in "cold fusion" might have been > motivated by some sort of leak of classified information from thermo- > nuclear weapons research. It has always seemed much too good to be true that > "CF" devices could produce energy and at the same time be inherently free > from potential use as a weapon. To me, this would be even more miraculous > than any of the other miracles that have been claimed to be required. Since > the materials used in "CF" devices under normal circumstances have no > detectable nuclear signatures, *if* these could be assembled into a large > yield explosive device, *then* we would, of course, have a awful lot to > worry about - terriorism being what it is in the world today. The claim > about the so called "backpack" suggest that we have this to fear, even if > it turns out that the claims of the "CF" researchers were false. cold.> I think this is unlikely. To get Atom-Bomb sized explosions you have to work very very hard--namely you have to arrange for the reaction rate to be so high that it will blow up before the thing disassembles itself. Even with nuclear fission, this is damn hard. > I have repeatedly had the impression on hearing P & F speak (and even in > reading some of their papers) that there is some non-scientific reason that > they have not been entirely open about the origin and the implications of > their research. Although it has been claimed that this is due to the enormous > potential financial implications of their work, I have come to doubt this > as time has passed with no obvious attempts at commercial development. > What else, then could P & F be waiting for? Why was there such a hostile > reaction to their original claims? Because they said they saw fusion, but they made egregious mistakes in nuclear instrumentation and in other ways were shown to have intentionally, and clumsily, fabricated evidence of nuclear reactions. >Could it be that there is still some > classified material awaiting eventual release (40 year limitation?) that > relates directly to their work? Have even P&F had second thoughts about > opening this Pandora's Box? My guess is that their system doesn't work as previously advertised. > If such a device as the "backpack" exists then we can be reasonably sure > that at least some terriorist groups have access to it. Could it be that > even for people with terrorist intent, that fear of the consequences of the > use of such a device, are also the main deterent from their use? This has > apparently proven to be the case in the anachic relations between nations, > why then should we hesitate to suppose this would also be true at a smaller > level of social organization? I doubt that any terrorist group has a 'nuclear backpack' unless it was provided or stolen from the USSR or USA. Probably none of the other nuclear powers has had reason or motivation to develop such forms of weaponry (making bombs which are either smaller or bigger than Hiroshima is difficult!) cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenmbk cudlnKennel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.16 / Martin Sevior / Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well - I was wrong Originally-From: msevior@axnd02.cern.ch (Martin Sevior) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well - I was wrong Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 01:39:42 GMT Organization: CERN European Lab for Particle Physics Martin Sevior writes: >barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) wrote: >> >>I talked to one of our group who was there. He was not overly impressed >>with the demo. More like: OK, but who knows if its really producing >>excess heat. For one trivial example, he was concerned about >>possible power input from the circulation pump. >> >> >Power = Pressure * Flow rate >Flow rate = 14 ml/min = 2.33 * 10**-10 meters cubed per sec. I should have written: Flow rate = 14 ml/min = 2.33 * 10**-7 meters cubed per sec. >Power = 5 watts So it's not: >=> Pressure across the cell = 5/2.33*10-10 = 2*10**10 newtons/meter**2 > = 200000 times atmospheric pressure It is: Pressure across the cell = 5/2.33*10**-7 = 2*10**7 newtons/meter**2 = 200 times atmospheric pressure That is, at the flow rate quoted by Jed, the pressure across the cell would have to be 200 times greater than atmospheric pressure to be responsible for the temperature rise. Not 200000 as I implied in my original post. Sorry. In any case it's obvious that this is not the cause of the temperature rise across the cell. Martin Sevior cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenmsevior cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.16 / Alan M / Re: Slower than light photons, and faster... Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Slower than light photons, and faster... Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 07:26:54 +0100 Organization: Home In article: <21cenlogic-1510952035410001@austin-1-4.i-link.net> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes: > ***{Yup. One day I timed a train entering a one mile tunnel. When I saw it > emerge from the other side of the mountain a minute later, I was tempted > to conclude that it had been going 60 miles per hour, until it occurred to > me that speaking of the speed of a train I cannot see is a stretch! Why, > truth be told, the train may have ceased to exist the very instant that it > entered the tunnel, and may have returned to existence when I saw it again > on the other side! Since it may not have existed in the tunnel, I would > have been very foolish indeed to assume that it was going 60 mph! > --Mitchell Jones}*** > Well, that at least is a clear exposition of your problem with QM, and with atomic physics in general. I'm only surprised that you don't claim that orbital electrons have smaller particles orbiting them, since you can look through a telescope and see moons around Jupiter. -- Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end] (Can't even quote poetry right) I am his Highness' dog at Kew Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you? [Alexander Pope] PGP Public Key available on request. cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.16 / Nick Rouse / Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Originally-From: nrouse@surface.fisons.co.uk (Nick Rouse) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 09:03:04 UNDEFINED Organization: Fisons In article <199510131716.NAA64859@pilot03.cl.msu.edu> blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes: >. Just suppose that >there is an electric current flowing in the electrolyte. Does the >demo rule out that possibility? >Exactly what is occurring in the external fluid circuit? In addition >to the obvious, I have gathered that the products of the electrolysis, >i.e. hydrogen and oxygen, travel in the fluid to an external separation >point. Are these in the form of dissolved gasses or are they bubbles? >If the gas stream is filled with bubbles at the cell exit but the >fluid is degassed before it returns does that have no effect on the >measurements? What are the possibilities for recombination occuring in >ways that can screw up the measurements? >We may jump to the conclusion that the flowing electrolyte serves only >to transport heat simply because that is the only possibility we are >asked to consider. I wonder what would happen if the electrolysis were >pulsed or if the flow rate were pulsed. I would be curious to know >the temperatures at other points in the system. > Since the pump clearly does no >work I would just suggest that it be left out of the circuit. (%-0 To Save Jed some typing, This will not do Dick. If the total electrical energy in is 60mW no process resulting solely from this input can add more than 60mW to the output. and we are looking to explain away 5W. Don't misquote Jed, he didnt say the pump added no energy just that the energy was very small compared with the output energy as shown by the calibration run, He has indeed said it on many occaisions before. I would still count my self a skeptic but we need better thought out responses than this. Nick Rouse cudkeys: cuddy16 cudennrouse cudfnNick cudlnRouse cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.16 / Bruce Simpson / Re: French nuclear test agenda Originally-From: bruce@faxmail.co.nz (Bruce Simpson) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: French nuclear test agenda Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 09:14:39 GMT Organization: FaxMail Technologies Mario Pain wrote: > Last time France relied in its allies to help her it costed us four years >of occupation and un uphill fight to get our "allies" not to administer our >country as a beaten enemy. Can you blame us for it ? Obviously we will have to agree to differ on much of this discussion. Might I change the perspective of the argument for a moment.... In the (unlikely) event that the containment at Mururoa was breached and nuclear polution (despite claims to the contrary) did threaten the nations of the South Pacific, what would you, as a French citizen and advocate of the testing program consider the minimum acceptable action that the French government should take to compensate for these peoples for the damage that would occur? I realise that this *is* highly speculative, but I think despite the fact that the chances of winning a big lottery may be measured in hundreds of millions to one, they *are* won with monotonous regularity. It would be at least some consolation to those (allegedly) placed in jeopardy if they knew that France had some kind of damage control or compensation plan formulated. The *big* worry is that in the event of such an occurence, France would simply unilaterally grant independence to French Polynesia and walk away from the whole mess with threats of cutting export access to EU markets if these nations complained (an underhand tactic which *was* used to blackmail New Zealand after the Rainbow Warrior bombing). Regards Bruce *----[Fixed-price software development over the net ]----* | bsimpson@iprolink.co.nz or bruce@faxmail.co.nz | *--[C/C++, Win, OS/2, POSIX, device-drivers, fax, comms]-* cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenbruce cudfnBruce cudlnSimpson cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.16 / Bruce Simpson / Re: Fusion Rocket Question ( Koloc ?) Originally-From: bruce@faxmail.co.nz (Bruce Simpson) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion Rocket Question ( Koloc ?) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 09:14:41 GMT Organization: FaxMail Technologies tuttt@vccnorth29.its.rpi.edu (Labrys) wrote: >>You might want to look up the Orion Project -- a serious study, done in the >>1960s (or late 50s), that showed the practical advantages of powering a space- >>ship with nuclear bombs! >Even more interesting was the PACER project. A fusion power scheme which >relied on subterranian explosions of thermonuclear bombs. Interestingly >enough, it was shown to be very promising in terms of energy production >and economic feasibility. Politically, of course, it was a nightmare. Well that won't stop the French from building and running it -- but they'll be carefull not to do it in their own back yard of course :-) Sorry Mario -- couldn't resist. *----[Fixed-price software development over the net ]----* | bsimpson@iprolink.co.nz or bruce@faxmail.co.nz | *--[C/C++, Win, OS/2, POSIX, device-drivers, fax, comms]-* cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenbruce cudfnBruce cudlnSimpson cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.16 / Bill Page / 7Li(n,2n)6LI driven fusion (was: Farce of Physics) Originally-From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: 7Li(n,2n)6LI driven fusion (was: Farce of Physics) Date: 16 Oct 1995 13:57:02 GMT Organization: Daneliuk & Page I had begun to habitually bypass any posting with the subject line of "Farce of Physics" because for so long it seemed to have nothing to do with fusion - hot or cold. But here I find this thread going on under the "Farce... " subject heading which really does have something to do with fusion! Why hide it in this way? Brian Wallace wrote: << The following is in reply to Kennel's 13 Oct 1995 post and Snell's 14 Oct post. Lithium7 deuteride ignites in a similar way to chemical fuel since the neutrons and energy produced act to continue the reaction. The details on the neutron generators and the x-section for fusion is classified information, but the color photo of the 58.5 pound nuclear backpack and the information in the book by Rhodes, tends to indicate that it should be possible to make a simple economical electric power generator. As I mentioned in my 11 Oct post, the current Lawrence Livermore Laboratory RTNS-II neutron generator provides two independent 10-mm wide 14-Mev neutron sources, each producing a maximum flux of 10^13 neutrons/sec cm^2. The total output of the generator must be much larger, since it produces a symmetrical output of neutrons. As I mentioned, this output is intense enough to be used for neutron damage studies. In any case the neutron doubling of lithium7 mentioned by Rhodes would tend to create a chain reaction effect so the ignition flux magnitude is not that important. >> Is the existence of this "58.5 pound backpack" nuclear explosive an established fact? Kennel's "classical" interpretation of the components Brian referred to in the picture seem quite suspect. I cannot conceive of how one could produce a viable 58.5 pound version of a thermonuclear device with a classical fission primary - obviously there is no attempt in the backpack device to provide an initial chemically fueled implosion. For a few years now (since the ICCF4 meeting in Maui) I have had this re- curring nightmare that the developments in "cold fusion" might have been motivated by some sort of leak of classified information from thermo- nuclear weapons research. It has always seemed much too good to be true that "CF" devices could produce energy and at the same time be inherently free from potential use as a weapon. To me, this would be even more miraculous than any of the other miracles that have been claimed to be required. Since the materials used in "CF" devices under normal circumstances have no detectable nuclear signatures, *if* these could be assembled into a large yield explosive device, *then* we would, of course, have a awful lot to worry about - terriorism being what it is in the world today. The claim about the so called "backpack" suggest that we have this to fear, even if it turns out that the claims of the "CF" researchers were false. I have repeatedly had the impression on hearing P & F speak (and even in reading some of their papers) that there is some non-scientific reason that they have not been entirely open about the origin and the implications of their research. Although it has been claimed that this is due to the enormous potential financial implications of their work, I have come to doubt this as time has passed with no obvious attempts at commercial development. What else, then could P & F be waiting for? Why was there such a hostile reaction to their original claims? Could it be that there is still some classified material awaiting eventual release (40 year limitation?) that relates directly to their work? Have even P&F had second thoughts about opening this Pandora's Box? In any case, all our fears aside, I do favor an open discussion of all de-classified information about this possibility. If these things *are* true, then the time has clearly passed when secrecy can be any kind of credible protection. Really, this is just the same arguments used by the original developers of nuclear weapons for the wide dissemination of their research. How else could we have avoided another world wide war other than by coming to realize just how horrible even limited use of nuclear weapons could be? And how can we stop terriorism other than by realizing the magnitude of the risks? If such a device as the "backpack" exists then we can be reasonably sure that at least some terriorist groups have access to it. Could it be that even for people with terrorist intent, that fear of the consequences of the use of such a device, are also the main deterent from their use? This has apparently proven to be the case in the anachic relations between nations, why then should we hesitate to suppose this would also be true at a smaller level of social organization? Brian Wallace is pointing out that it there is published evidence that the mechanism which may make the "backpack" possible, would also provide a very simple and even easily controlled fusion energy device. Could it be that fears of the destructive use of such technology have prevented its use for peaceful purposes? Perhaps during much of the interval of secrecy, it seemed that with the development of the fission industry, there would be no need to resort to confronting this deamon. Now with the future of fission energy in jeopardy, would the decision be the same? And how better to confront these fears, than by discussion them openly? Cheers , Bill Page. cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenwspage cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.16 / jedrothwell@de / Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Date: Mon, 16 Oct 95 17:14:35 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) John N. White writes: >Jed, please tell us more about the static CETI runs. Was the excess heat >many times larger than the total I*V input power? Was the length of time >this heat was seen large compared to the startup time? The ones that I know the most about were a couple of years ago. I read about them first in the Japanese newspapers, actually. Not the technical details, but the fact that he was getting 3 times input. They have been doing static tests of the high-gain newer cells too, but I do not have many details yet so I cannot talk about them. The startup time is not affected by the type of calorimeter. What is different, however, is that the cells get much hotter -- obviously! This was a big problem a couple of years ago. The heat would wreck the beads, and also the heating and cooling cycles were destructive. The reason they were doing so many static tests was precisely in order to raise the temperature high and test the results. They also did pressurized cells with an extremely slow flow rate, like 1 ml or a fraction of a ml per minutes. This was effectively static calorimetry because the cell itself gets much hotter than it would with joule heating input only at the same power level. I mean the glass gets too hot to touch, and in one case it cracked. They brought the old, cracked cell to ICCF5. You might say this is a kind of crude but effective form of static calorimetry. The flowing electrolyte is designed to solve many crucial engineering problems with the cells, and it is an effective solution. The main thing it does is remove the heat effectively to prevent overheating of the beads in the center of the mass of beads. This is not essential -- you can run without doing it, but it is a promising method of achieving very high temperature long term stable performance. That is the purpose of the flowing electrolyte design. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.16 / Mitchell Jones / Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well - I was wrong Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well - I was wrong Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 17:42:56 -0500 Organization: 21st Century Logic In article , msevior@axnd02.cern.ch (Martin Sevior) wrote: > Martin Sevior writes: > > >barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) wrote: > >> > >>I talked to one of our group who was there. He was not overly impressed > >>with the demo. More like: OK, but who knows if its really producing > >>excess heat. For one trivial example, he was concerned about > >>possible power input from the circulation pump. > >> > >> > > >Power = Pressure * Flow rate > > >Flow rate = 14 ml/min = 2.33 * 10**-10 meters cubed per sec. > > I should have written: > > > Flow rate = 14 ml/min = 2.33 * 10**-7 meters cubed per sec. > > >Power = 5 watts > > > So it's not: > > >=> Pressure across the cell = 5/2.33*10-10 = 2*10**10 newtons/meter**2 > > = 200000 times atmospheric pressure > > It is: > > Pressure across the cell = 5/2.33*10**-7 = 2*10**7 newtons/meter**2 > = 200 times atmospheric pressure > > > That is, at the flow rate quoted by Jed, the pressure across the > cell would have to be 200 times greater than atmospheric pressure to > be responsible for the temperature rise. Not 200000 as I implied in > my original post. Sorry. ***{Don't feel like the Lone Ranger, Martin! I'm having to send out immediate corrections to virtually everything I post nowadays. As Horace Heffner suggested, maybe it's due to the proximity of Halloween to Friday the 13th! (If any of you guys hear a low noise in the background that sounds like "Gulp, gulp, gulp!" it's probably the sound of me eating my words!) --Mitchell Jones}*** > > In any case it's obvious that this is not the cause of the temperature > rise across the cell. > > Martin Sevior =========================================================== cudkeys: cuddy16 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.17 / Walter R / THIS IS THE LAST THEORY Originally-From: "Walter E. R. Cassani" Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: THIS IS THE LAST THEORY Date: 17 Oct 1995 01:03:42 GMT Organization: Comm 2000 - Milan, Italy It seems impossible, but anybody wants to destroy this theory. This is: The Wave Theory of the Field. It is available in << http://www.inet.it/cassani/index.html >> The INDEX of "The Wave Theory of the Field" is: LETTER The Letter contains the provocatory announce that : " a new, unitary Wave Theory, for justification of masses and fields, is born ". The original idea coming from : "Il Campo Unificato" -Robota srl-. (The Unified Field) published 10/09/84 in Milan -Italy-=7F=7F ABSTRACT It contains arguments of the book translation, published in Italy in 1989, entitled " La Teoria Ondulatoria del Campo ", more widely treated in the next book in 1994: "Albert Aveva Ragione - DIO NON GIOCA A DADI" "Albert Was Right - GOD DON'T PLAY DICE". INTRODUCTION It shows the concept of space-time, that qualify the actual model of space-time continuum, to clarify the idea that everybody form about it, in order to define new ideas to create a " discrete " model of space-time. PERTURBATION OF SCHILD'S DISCRETE SPACE-TIME It shows the nature and properties of a Schild's discrete space-time, that can be interpreted like waves of perturbations of its own metrical structure, and can be read like perturbations of a new, plausible, discrete, metrical " Ether ". WAVE HYPOTHESIS OF THE MASS FIELDS Starting from equality of two energies: Einstein's energy E =3D m c^2 and Planck's energy E =3D h v, we make the hypothesis that all subatomic particles are elementary sources of spherical waves that, in complex, constitute all spherical fields ascribing to particles. WAVE MOMENTUM=7F With this elementary waves we discover a new law for elementary interaction light - particle that involve a simple symmetry principle. ENERGY AND ITS VARIATIONS Where we discover the real variation's nature of Photon, and the relation between elementary waves and De Broglie waves. THE RELATIVE SYMMETRY PRINCIPLE This simple and elementary symmetry principle constitutes the unique law that regulates the four interactions, that unify, under a omnicomprensive vision, Quantum Mechanics and all other physical dynamics. THE INERTIA'S WAVE NATURE We discover that, the wave nature of masses, and the variation's nature of Relative Symmetry Principle, conduces to consider the Inertia like natural and " local " consequence bodies' wave structure. THE WAVE NATURE OF QUANTUM GRAVITY It appens that, the same model of the variation's nature of the Relative Symmetry Principle, applied to Inertia, results an extraordinary consequent model to describe a Wave Quantum Gravity interaction. TERMINAL VELOCITIES FOR MASSES The exclusive wave nature of bodies, and the space-time quantization, displays the impossibility for masses to surpass the velocity of own waves, that move at light velocity, and to reduce its wavelength, for Doppler effect, under the "discrete" length. THE FIFTH INTERACTION Because impossibility to return at continuum space-time concept, we can comprehend impossibility to reduce a wavelength, that describes bodies' mass, to infinitesimal. And consequently, we can understand existence of a Fifth Repulsive Interaction that acts with more evidence in cosmological field, between the maxi-bodies, and prevents any indiscriminate increase of masses. WAVE INTERPRETATION OF GENERAL RELATIVITY An unexpected, simple completion of General Relativity discovers the inevitable, causal connection with Quantum Mechanics, realizing the dream so long time pursued from Albert. WAVE DESCRIPTION OF THE COMPTON EFFECT With the wave interpretation of experimental data, derived from Compton effect, we immediately show possibilities, verifying the Relative Symmetry=7F Principle's capacities, applying the new unification between QM and GR. WAVE MODEL OF ELECTRON AND PROTON A new extrapolation of Compton effect, conduces to discover an extraordinary resonance's wave mechanism, that allows to verify the possible existence of a creative wave's system, so far called : " particle ". WAVE CREATION OF PAIRS The generalization of the same extraordinary resonance's wave mechanism allows to justify the phenomenon of creation of pairs. WAVE INTERPRETATION OF THE LORENTZ FORCE The application of a dynamical orientation, for the same wave mechanism that we identify with particle, shows that happens wen it is submitted to magnetic field, showing that the Lorentz force is a consequence of Doppler relativistic effect of particle's oriented wave system. THE WAVE NATURE OF ELECTRIC CHARGE The geometrical analysis, of the "discrete", shows that particle's wave structure presents the characteristics, that we have so far justified and quantified with the electrical charge concept. THE VECTORIAL DESCRIPTION OF PARTICLES The specularity of the pairs' creation allows to consider the opposition particle - antiparticle, that conduces to justify the electromagnetic interactions like violations of characteristic " chirality's properties " of the wave mechanism - particles. THE PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVE ISOTROPY=7F From the VECTORIAL description of the wave mechanism - particles we can justify existence of one principle of relative isotropy that comprehends in a generalization the Relative Symmetry Principle. STATISTICAL POSSIBILITIES FOR CREATION OF SINGLES PARTICLES We deduce from quantification of statistical possibilities, inherent in geometrical wave structures, to overlap particle-antiparticle, in annihilation phenomena, from which we can concept a causal wave chain to create matter in elementary particles. MASS DEFECT AND WAVE NUCLEAR FORCE The comparation, to nuclear distances, of two Protons-wave model show that at distance 1 Fermi the electromagnetic interactions are absent, because are absent the waves that characterize electrical interactions. This implies a different point of view for the forces in act. From this different view we can support an original explication of Cold Fusion. THE NEUTRON WAVE MODEL The different wave structures and interactions between the nucleons conduces to consider a new possibility for a Neutron wave model. BETA DECAY IN WAVE MODEL The new wave model shows a causal chain that justify, better that actual way, the entire process of Beta Decay and, consequently, allows the wave nature of Neutrinos. THE MUON AND PION WAVE MODEL From wave model of Beta Decay process we can deduce all masses, charges, energies, spins, and decays of all particles' family. THE WAVE ATOM The atom's quantum energy's levels can now be interpreted, like wave resonance's organizations, of the wave source-electron in resonance's orbits, that contain and describe integer numbers of Doppler wavelength on the specific orbit. THE WAVE CONSTANT OF FINE STRUCTURE The complete, causal comprehension to wave nature, of Constant of Fine Structure, conclude from presence of two relativistic Doppler wavelength of two waves that move in opposite directions on the same resonance orbit, that obey to more parameters that condition their wave resonance states. LIGHT LIKE WAVE'S VARIATION The final consequence, of existence of resonant orbits and non resonant orbits for the wave source-electron, that jump between two different states of resonance, concludes itself with a directional wave emission, of a modulation of frequency, that we call : " Photon ". Good reading, and...... please to destroy it, if you be able. ************************************************************ cassani@linux.infosquare.it Walter E> R. Cassani--Via Bellini 6--CORMANO (MI) ITALY For the Theory in W W Web, with formulas and images: << http://www.inet.it/cassani/index.html >> ************************************************************ -- -- cudkeys: cuddy17 cudencassani cudfnWalter cudlnR cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.17 / Bob Sullivan / Re: 7Li(n,2n)6LI driven fusion (was: Farce of Physics) Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: 7Li(n,2n)6LI driven fusion (was: Farce of Physics) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 95 00:14:48 GMT Organization: SkyNET Corporation In article <45tobe$g06@netfs.dnd.ca>, wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) wrote: >I had begun to habitually bypass any posting with the subject line >of "Farce of Physics" because for so long it seemed to have nothing >to do with fusion - hot or cold. But here I find this thread going >on under the "Farce... " subject heading which really does have >something to do with fusion! Why hide it in this way? [. . .] >Cheers , >Bill Page. > Bill -- A few months ago an offhand comment by one of the sometimes s.p.f participants led to a brief e-mail exchange along similar lines. I filed the exchange away and never got back to it until your post jogged my memory. I have sent an e-mail to alert the earlier poster of this current discussion topic in the hopes he will join in. Cheers to you, too Bob Sullivan cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Oct 17 04:37:04 EDT 1995 ------------------------------