1995.10.23 / jedrothwell@de / Re: Jed Rothwell & the TBs double count Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell & the TBs double count Date: Mon, 23 Oct 95 08:23:49 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Bob Sullivan writes: >Jed, I am telling you what was observed during runs of a Patterson cell which >was producing "excess heat" according to CETI's heat balance. There was no >observable gas evolution. You tell me which, if any, of the Patterson cell >demos actually used the gas flowmeters. All of them do. You can see them in the published photos. I have stated here that they use gas flowmeters time after time. >Download the data, get out your crayons, and do the calculations. If you do >that you will get the results in the table below. The numbers in the first >column represent the cell efficiency (measured input/measured output) for the >resistor calibration runs. The second column represents a similar calculation > Resistor Raw Data > Calibration "Excess Heat" > Efficiency Efficiency > ----------- ------------- >Attachment 4 34.0% 31.9% >Attachment 5 34.0% 28.0% That was a different experiment! You are deliberately mixing up data from different experiments performed by different people at different times. What kind of scientist would do a thing like that? It's crazy. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.23 / mitchell swartz / Proposed explaination of CETI effect Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Proposed explaination of CETI effect Subject: Re: Proposed explaination of CETI effect Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 14:42:50 GMT Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA In Message-ID: <46eu9h$ib8@news.unimelb.EDU.AU> Subject: Re: Proposed explaination of CETI effect Martin Sevior wrote jnw@katie.vnet.net (John N. White) wrote: >The CETI calorimeter uses the extremely dubious method of running the >active electrolyte outside the cell and through the pump. Here is a >specific mundane explanation of what might be happening. > >First I assume that there is a Lithium Sulphate Hydrate salt that is >not currently known. The reason it is not known is that it is very >difficult to nucleate its formation, and its surface assumes a state >that is hostile to further growth. > >In the CETI cell, however, when the concentrated Lithium Sulphate >electrolyte comes in contact with the nickel surface and overpotential >at the cathode, nucleation of the Hydrate occurs easily. The surface >area of the cathode is very large, so large amounts of the Hydrate will >form, releasing a considerable amount of heat of crystallization >(easily enough to explain the observed temperature rise). > >The Hydrate crystals resist further growth due to the nature of their >surface. They also are negatively charged and so repel each other. >Thus the cell will contain what is known as a colloidal dispersion, >or sol. If the particles in a sol are especially small and intrinsically >clear (both true here) the sol will appear clear and give no visual >hint that a large fraction of it is a solid. Note that all this >is very ordinary chemistry. > >When the sol is pulled from the cell and enters the warm pump, the >Hydrate crystals will dissolve back into solution, removing heat >from the pump in the process. Then the electrolyte re-enters the >cell, repeating the cycle. > >The above is just one of many such explanations of what may be happening >in the CETI calorimeter, given their extremely dubious practice of >running the active electrolyte out of the cell and through the pump. >Doing this makes the pump part of the system, and so the electrical >energy used by the pump must be considered as part of the energy put >into the system (and it's large compared to the "excess heat"). >-- >jnw@vnet.net = "This is a heat pump hypothesis. In the absence of knowing precisely what the = input power of the pump was, one can guess its upper limit by assuming a = one atmosphere pressure differential across the pump. This seems to be a = reasonable upper limit as the apperatus as described uses ordinary plastic = tubing. = = With that assumption, the mechanical input power = 0.233*10**-6*10**5 = = 0.0233 Watts. = = The second law of thermodynamics allows the most efficient possible heat = pump to have an efficiency of: = = Eff = (T2/T1)/(T2/T1 - 1) = Where Eff = Energy input into the system to setup the temperature differential = T2 = Temperature of "heated" state in degrees Kelvin. = T1 = Temperature of "cooled" state in degrees Kelvin. = = A typical North American hotel room is at about 25 C = 298 Kelvin = T1. The = temperature of the output is 5 degrees C higher so T2 = 303 Kelvin. = = So Eff = (303/298)/(303/298 - 1) = 60.6 = = ie. Only 1/60.6 of measured heat flow need be in the form of extra energy. = Are you certain of your optimistic equation? (Source would be appreciated, thanks in advance) The quasi-static examination of a heat engine's efficiency based upon classical thermodynamics yields a slightly different formula for efficiency. Eff = (T2 - T1) / T2 Substituting yields an efficiency of 1.6% or so. With a temperature of uncertainty of +/- 0.1C this becomes Eff = 1.65 +/ 0.08 % Hope that helps. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.23 / jedrothwell@de / Re: Jed Rothwell & the TBs double count Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell & the TBs double count Date: Mon, 23 Oct 95 11:47:32 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) John N. White writes: >I think that you are missing a very important point. Until Cravens came >along there was no evidence that CETI had anything beyond recombination >and the usual errors. Then Cravens tried somewhat different conditions >and suddenly began getting wonderful beyond-recombination results. That is nonsense. Patterson's early results were far beyond recombination. His calorimetry was messy, but it did prove the point. The numbers from his patent did not prove anything, but he got much better numbers after he filed. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.23 / jedrothwell@de / Re: Jed Rothwell & the TBs double count Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell & the TBs double count Date: Mon, 23 Oct 95 11:56:30 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) John Logajan writes: >You seem to be implying that Patterson (i.e. CETI) didn't utilize >flowing-electorlyte calorimetry. But it is right there in Fig 1A of >the Patterson patent #5,372,688 which predates Cravens' involvment. Yup. But Patterson did it with a lackadasical, laid back attitude, paying little attention to accuracy. Before Cravens got involved, Patterson said to me one day, "well, so what if the heat in the flow calorimetry is only a little more than the input? The cell is so hot you can't touch it! I did not even count that yet." I suggested that he urgently go ahead and count that, even though it was obvious the hot glass put the cell far over unity. I also went back and did some computations based on the approximate glass temperature during his calibration runs. Several other people also strongly suggested that he redo the calorimetry. Patterson never, ever moves with urgency. His hobby is fishing, and he works at the pace of a good fisherman. But he did, eventually, rebuild the calorimeter and he called in Cravens, and they now pull most of the heat out with the flow, rather than letting it radiate from the glass cell. His old results were remarkable, almost convincing, but not compelling. It was just because he had better things to do than worry about calorimetry. He was busy finding ways to keep the heat going, and to make the beads more robust. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.23 / Monkey King / Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well Originally-From: monkey@engin.umich.edu (Monkey King) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well Date: 23 Oct 1995 16:44:28 GMT Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor >Neither of the demos (ICCF5 and SOFE) needed to use corrections for losses >due to dissociation and so the actual heat output was indeed greater in >absolute uncorrected terms than energy input. Was the TOTAL power input, including power consumed in the pump to circulate the eletrolyte, less than power output? -- Monkey King | This message printed on monkey@engin.umich.edu | recycled material. cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenmonkey cudfnMonkey cudlnKing cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.23 / Tom Droege / Re: Return to Rome; Focardi, Habel & Piantelli Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Return to Rome; Focardi, Habel & Piantelli Date: 23 Oct 1995 18:03:07 GMT Organization: fermilab In article <951020122701_128679463@emout06.mail.aol.com>, Tstolper@aol.com says: > > >Tom, > >The big story in Italy is the work of Focardi, Habel & Piantelli, even though >they have been rather secretive about it. > >Will one of the three major segments of the projected EQUINOX program be >about the work of Focardi, Habel & Piantelli? > >Wasn't there supposed to be a seminar in Italy last month starring Focardi, >Habel & Piantelli? > >Was the seminar ever held? If so, do you know anything about it? > >Do we have any members of the College of Sci.Physics.Fusion in Italy? Does >any member have contact with the Focardi, Habel & Piantelli group, or know >anyone who does? Would they be willing to enlighten us a bit further about >their work? > >Tom Stolper > No, I do not recognize this as one of the experiments. Tom Droege cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.23 / Barry Merriman / Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis) Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis) Date: 23 Oct 1995 18:30:16 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE > In article <21cenlogic-1910951340010001@austin-2-6.i-link.net>, > 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote: > > >Result: an > >electron orbiting in a cavitation channel does no work, loses no energy, > >and thus cannot possibly radiate. It's simple! --Mitchell Jones}*** > MJ: normally, charges radiate when they are accelerated---they need not be doing any obvious ``work''. You apparently want to throw out the standard theory of E&M along with QM. Answer this question: now that your electron has a clear channel, and is moving freely in an acclerated circular orbit, why does it not radiate away power by standard radiation from an accelerated charge? -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.23 / Barry Merriman / Re: Merriman's nonsense about Miley Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Merriman's nonsense about Miley Date: 23 Oct 1995 18:33:57 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE In article jedrothwell@delphi.com writes: > barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes: > > > "As I understand it, they are still completely open to the possibility > that some non-energy producing phenomena is at work." > > As you understand nothing. You just made that up! You have no idea what they > claim. You have not even read their previous papers published last year > where they also showed excess heat from thin film devices. > No, I didn't make it up. I spoke with folks very familiar and up to date on the research. Perhaps they tell you different things than they tell me, or perhaps you ask the wrong questions. All I know is that they are as of yet not claiming to me that the device produces any net energy. So, I deduce from that they must not be publicly making that claim. -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.21 / wessling@zippe / Re: 1996 Summer Computer Simulation Conference Originally-From: wessling@zipperling.do.eunet.de Newsgroups: sci.space.science,sci.polymers,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic .cond-matter,sci.physics.computational.fluid-dynamics,sci.physics,sci.me .physics,sci.mech.fluids,sci.materials,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.geo.hydro ogy,sci.geo.fluids Subject: Re: 1996 Summer Computer Simulation Conference Date: Sat, 21 Oct 95 11:04:04 PDT Organization: Customer of EUnet Germany; Info: info@Germany.EU.net I cannot participate, but I would like to discuss with you (I am sorry, but you did not include your e-mail adress) please have a look in my contribution to computer simulation of dissipative structure formation in multiphase polymer systems: http://www.zipperling.de/Research/abstract/simu.html I would be happy to get some comments > Call for Papers -- 1996 Summer Computer Simulation Conference > > "Simulation, The Path through the Forest" > > July 21 - 25, 1996 > > Society for Computer Simulation (SCSC '96) > 4848 Ronson Court > Suite L > San Diego CA 92111-1810 Dr. Bernhard Wessling wessling@zipperling.do.eunet.de http://www.zipperling.de/ cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenwessling cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.23 / Barry Merriman / Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis) Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis) Date: 23 Oct 1995 19:32:09 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE In article <46gmvo$bti@soenews.ucsd.edu> barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes: > > In article <21cenlogic-1910951340010001@austin-2-6.i-link.net>, > > 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote: > > > > > >Result: an > > >electron orbiting in a cavitation channel does no work, loses no energy, > > >and thus cannot possibly radiate. It's simple! --Mitchell Jones}*** > > > > MJ: normally, charges radiate when they are accelerated---they need > not be doing any obvious ``work''. You apparently want to throw > out the standard theory of E&M along with QM. Answer this question: > now that your electron has a clear channel, and is moving freely in > an acclerated circular orbit, why does it not radiate away power > by standard radiation from an accelerated charge? > And, conversely, your ``work against etherons = radiation'' idea suggest that an electron moving at constant seep through the vacumm should radiate, since its having to do work by blowing a clear channel as it proceeds. Really, for your etheron theory to make sense, you must have a pretty diffferent conception about how the world works than the rest of us. -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.23 / Martin Sevior / Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well Originally-From: msevior@axnd02.cern.ch (Martin Sevior) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 04:38:25 GMT Organization: CERN European Lab for Particle Physics mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel) writes: >Using a calorimeter to infer radical new physics you have to believe >1) your input power measurements >2) Your output heat measurments (really you are getting some numbers off > thermocouples or other transducers which presumably measure the effect that > the temperature locally next to the transducers > has on some specially designed physical device > such as a semiconductor or mercury in a tube) >3) You don't have a heat pump. >4) You don't have energy storage somewhere. >but it isn't good enough given the fact that there is an experimental protocol >that would smash through all these potential problems: > generate net excess electrical work (nearly) indefinitely. >If they can get high temperature boosts at high pressures and >temperatures, it doesn't sound so far off. >: - Jed >cheers >Matt Nicely summed up. For what it's worth I would count myself convinced beyond reasonable doubt once a CF system could boil water and run itself via a little steam engine or thermoelectric generator with a bit left over to run say a 4 watt light globe. I agree that the description of the latest CETI device suggests this should be possible soon. Martin Sevior cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenmsevior cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.23 / John Logajan / Re: Jed Rothwell & the TBs double count Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell & the TBs double count Date: 23 Oct 1995 04:39:56 GMT Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. Bob Sullivan (bsulliva@sky.net) wrote: : jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) wrote: : >Bob Sullivan (bsulliva@sky.net) wrote: : >: You tell me which, if any, of the Patterson cell demos actually used the : >: gas flowmeters. : > : >I have Cravens' ICCF5 handouts (transcribed by Bill Page) on my web page : >(URL below). A gas flowmeter is shown in the schematic diagram. : Sorry, but that response does not address the question. Perhaps you can be : more specific. Cravens' article on "Flowing Electrolyte Calorimetry" was published in both "Cold Fusion" magazine and Infinite Energy magazine. In it he states: "There are six primary measurements for each data set: the electrolyte flow, F, the voltage, V, the current, I, the temperatures of the inlet, T1 and the outlet, T2, and the gas production flow, f. The gas flow is monitored only to verify that no appreciable recombination occurs. This was found to be true to the limits of the measurements, +/- 0.5 ml/min. All measurments were taken with two seperate sensor systems and found to be internally consistent. All meters, except the temperature, were calibrated and traceable to national standards." He goes on to give a typical data set: "V=3.8V, I=0.12A, F=10.30 ml/min, T1=24.3 C, T2=26.9 C, f=1.2 ml/min ..." : It would be a simple matter to put this information up on the web for us all : to see. Lacking that, the reports have to be considered suspect. Hmmm, an interesting if unconventional view of the limits of knowledge. :-) : You've still got to deal with things like the crosstalk between the : thermocouples and the cell voltage, the accuracy of the measurements, etc. Indeed. But you were going to prove that recombination was the culprit, so let's kill one demon at a time, shall we? : A long as you can't demonstrate over unity without "corrections" to the raw : numbers and as long as there are platinum screens in the gadget, internal : recombination has to be an open issue. In the above mentioned article Cravens states: "The input power is calculated from total voltage and current supplied to the cell. The voltage was not corrected for gas production." "...the thermal power production exceeds the electrical input power even without addition of the gas production or heat loss terms." "The power ratio of power out to power in is in the range of 1 to 5 when neither gas production, or heat loss are added to the output figures." -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.23 / John Logajan / Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards Date: 23 Oct 1995 04:51:09 GMT Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. John N. White (jnw@lys.vnet.net) wrote: : Would you prefer to leap to the conclusion that the calorimetry is not : flawed, and so something like light water fusion must be happening? I think good scientific form would suggest to us that each and every positive assertion stand or fall on its own merits. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.23 / John Logajan / Re: Jed Rothwell & the TBs double count Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell & the TBs double count Date: 23 Oct 1995 05:03:12 GMT Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. John N. White (jnw@lys.vnet.net) wrote: : jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes: : Then Cravens tried somewhat different conditions : and suddenly began getting wonderful beyond-recombination results. : In other words, there is no evidence that the Cravens effect had : ever been seen before Cravens saw it, or that it has ever occurred : anywhere other than a flowing-electrolyte calorimeter, or at any : temperature other than the narrow range that Cravens has used. You seem to be implying that Patterson (i.e. CETI) didn't utilize flowing-electorlyte calorimetry. But it is right there in Fig 1A of the Patterson patent #5,372,688 which predates Cravens' involvment. Patterson is, of course, a scientist in his own right. But Cravens clearly has the greater experience in calorimetry -- at least so it would seem from Cravens' greater attention to plugging loss mechanisms etc. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.23 / John Logajan / Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards Date: 23 Oct 1995 05:33:37 GMT Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. John N. White (jnw@lys.vnet.net) wrote: : When the electrolyte containing the salt : crystals is warmed by the pump, then the crystals dissolve, absorbing : heat. A small shift in temperature can cause a large shift in solubility. Well we know in the Miley demonstration that the electrolyte was 5C warmer coming out than going in, so one would presume that if a small shift in temperature can cause a large shift in solubility that the "nucleated" crystals would promptly dissolve upon passing this active nickle matrix -- reabsorbing a great deal of the just released heat. By the way, in Cravens' system diagram he shows T0 approximately equal to T1 (+/- 0.5 C). T0 is the measured temperature of the reservoir before the pump, and T1 is the cell inlet temperature after the pump. So apparently if the pump is storing energy in the electrolyte, it is managing to do so without raising the temperature at all. That means a nearly 100% conversion to non-thermal storage mechanisms if your theory is to hold up. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.23 / Robin Spaandonk / Re: CF demo at SOFE Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: CF demo at SOFE Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 04:14:44 GMT Organization: Improving In article <466i04$gl5@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Tom Droege wrote : >In article , pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) says: > >(snip) > >>What neutron flux? How else would they see in the dark. And just >>what makes you think cats don't run on CF? That finicky food >>ritual is just for show. Someone out there have both a cat and a >>radiation counter?? > >I have two cats and a radiation counter. The red cat is clean, the >grey cat won't let me get close enough to make a measurement. What >is she hiding? Kittens? > >Tom Droege 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 cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.23 / Martin Sevior / Re: Proposed explaination of CETI effect Originally-From: Martin Sevior Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Proposed explaination of CETI effect Date: 23 Oct 1995 02:22:41 GMT Organization: School of Physics, University of Melbourne. jnw@katie.vnet.net (John N. White) wrote: >The CETI calorimeter uses the extremely dubious method of running the >active electrolyte outside the cell and through the pump. Here is a >specific mundane explanation of what might be happening. > >First I assume that there is a Lithium Sulphate Hydrate salt that is >not currently known. The reason it is not known is that it is very >difficult to nucleate its formation, and its surface assumes a state >that is hostile to further growth. > >In the CETI cell, however, when the concentrated Lithium Sulphate >electrolyte comes in contact with the nickel surface and overpotential >at the cathode, nucleation of the Hydrate occurs easily. The surface >area of the cathode is very large, so large amounts of the Hydrate will >form, releasing a considerable amount of heat of crystallization >(easily enough to explain the observed temperature rise). > >The Hydrate crystals resist further growth due to the nature of their >surface. They also are negatively charged and so repel each other. >Thus the cell will contain what is known as a colloidal dispersion, >or sol. If the particles in a sol are especially small and intrinsically >clear (both true here) the sol will appear clear and give no visual >hint that a large fraction of it is a solid. Note that all this >is very ordinary chemistry. > >When the sol is pulled from the cell and enters the warm pump, the >Hydrate crystals will dissolve back into solution, removing heat >from the pump in the process. Then the electrolyte re-enters the >cell, repeating the cycle. > >The above is just one of many such explanations of what may be happening >in the CETI calorimeter, given their extremely dubious practice of >running the active electrolyte out of the cell and through the pump. >Doing this makes the pump part of the system, and so the electrical >energy used by the pump must be considered as part of the energy put >into the system (and it's large compared to the "excess heat"). >-- >jnw@vnet.net This is a heat pump hypothesis. In the absence of knowing precisely what the input power of the pump was, one can guess its upper limit by assuming a one atmosphere pressure differential across the pump. This seems to be a reasonable upper limit as the apperatus as described uses ordinary plastic tubing. With that assumption, the mechanical input power = 0.233*10**-6*10**5 = 0.0233 Watts. The second law of thermodynamics allows the most efficient possible heat pump to have an efficiency of: Eff = (T2/T1)/(T2/T1 - 1) Where Eff = Energy input into the system to setup the temperature differential T2 = Temperature of "heated" state in degrees Kelvin. T1 = Temperature of "cooled" state in degrees Kelvin. A typical North American hotel room is at about 25 C = 298 Kelvin = T1. The temperature of the output is 5 degrees C higher so T2 = 303 Kelvin. So Eff = (303/298)/(303/298 - 1) = 60.6 ie. Only 1/60.6 of measured heat flow need be in the form of extra energy. However the input power is so small = 0.0233 Watts that a heat pump could supply at most 0.0233*60.6 = 1.4 Watts of heat heat. So given the above assumptions the most theoretically efficient heat pump could only supply 1.4 watts of the measured 5 Watt heat output. Too small by a factor of 3. I hope that a complete description of the demonstration which includes the pressure differential (or at least an upper limit) along with whatever pre-charge period was used will appear somewhere. I think it is just theoretically possible that enough Hydrogen and Oxygen gas was dissolved in the electrolyte BEFORE the demonstration to account for the heat production over 4 days. In any case John Logain's suggestion of a gravity feed through the calorimeter would remove all doubt of heat pump effects. Martin Sevior (PS I hope I got the numbers right this time. Corrections are welcomed!) cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenmsevior cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.23 / Mckconley / US Patent office reply, need info Originally-From: mckconley@aol.com (Mckconley) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: US Patent office reply, need info Date: 23 Oct 1995 07:32:25 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) I have recently received a communication from the US Patent Office in regards to a pending application. The application is not being allowed because the examiner claims that "There is no reputable evidence of record to support any allegation or claims that the invention involves nuclear reactions nor, that any allegations or claims of 'excess heat' due to nuclear and/or chemical reactions are valid and reproducible, ..." Since the examiner has used as evidence for this conclusion only reports of the failure of cold fusion from the Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and the Washington Post, I am searching for literature references in scientific journals of evidence of excess heat produced in electrochemical cells. I can file a continuation on the application, given that I can supply evidence that the effect is real. Just saying my lab results are evidence is not good enough, I need evidence from peer-reviewed journals or reports from government labs. I would greatly appreciate any suggestions anyone can provide for references to the information I need. -Ray Conley (404) 335-3776 cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenmckconley cudlnMckconley cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.23 / Geoff Foster / Re: Third experiment: Strong Nuclear Force is nuclear Originally-From: fosterg@unconfigured.xvnews.domain (Geoff Foster) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag sci.physics.particle,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Third experiment: Strong Nuclear Force is nuclear Date: 23 Oct 1995 21:17:59 GMT Organization: The unconfigured xvnews people Dry up Pluto cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenfosterg cudfnGeoff cudlnFoster cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.23 / Mitchell Jones / Re: 7Li(n,2n)6LI driven fusion (was: Farce of Physics) Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: 7Li(n,2n)6LI driven fusion (was: Farce of Physics) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 16:42:52 -0500 Organization: 21st Century Logic In article <46em3i$965@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC) wrote: > I agree with you Mitchell about the validity of some aspects of your > protoneutron theory. In particular we need some mechanism to explain why > lots of radiation is not emitted and why the nuclear reactions happen i.e. > what breaks down the coulomb barrier. On the other hand I cannot just toss > out quantum mechanics because it has been proven by experimental evidence. ***{As I have said repeatedly, the curve fitted mathematics falsely claimed by "quantum mechanics" fits the experimental data points because it has been explicitly designed for that purpose. The process by which that fit has been achieved has nothing to do with physical understanding. Designing a mathematical construct to fit a set of experimentally measured data points depends solely on mathematical skills. The "quantum postulate"--i.e., the notion that motion in the microcosm is discontinuous--is not required to create such constructs, or to use them. Therefore, what do you mean when you say that "quantum mechanics" has been "proven by experimental evidence?" What evidence proves, or could prove, the "quantum postulate?" --Mitchell Jones}*** > Instead of throwing out QM I proposed the electron capture hypothesis. > > I propose to explain the lack of radiation by the mechanism of electron > capture and subsequent beta decay during which energetic neutrinos are > emitted. ***{This is non-responsive. The specific reaction that you proposed was p + e --> n, with subsequent capture of the neutron by other nuclei that are present, such as hydrogen, palladium, etc. The issue that I raised had nothing to do with beta emission, and is not resolvable by beta emission. The problem is that these types of neutron captures produce excited nuclei, which immediately drop to ground state by emitting *huge* gammas. For example, p + n --> d + 2.22 Mev gamma. The question is, why don't these gammas kill the experimenters? Talking on about beta decay and energetic neutrinos does nothing to answer this question. As I have noted, the only theory which explains why the experimenters aren't all dead is the protoneutron theory. Neutrons could easily escape from the lattice, wander about, and trigger unshielded gammas. Protoneutrons, on the other hand, can't: they are wildly unstable, are destroyed by thermal motion, and can endure only in the nodes of the lattice wave. This means that the gamma emissions are going to be surrounded by protoneutrons, and will be absorbed. This is why, as I pointed out in an earlier post, the kind of energy that protoneutrons produce is as benign and non-threatening as flowers on a sunny day. --Mitchell Jones}*** Perhaps what I propose would result in high energy electron > emissions, but perhaps such electrons are absorbed in the electrolyte or > the lattice. ***{To repeat: what you propose would result in high energy gamma emissions, and would kill the experimenters. It doesn't work, Zoltan! --Mitchell Jones}*** I haven't done calculations about the electron's mean free > path but perhaps some day when I have a little time I will. ***{Wrong word: you mean neutron, not electron. And it isn't exactly a mean free path. The scatter cross section is much higher than the absorption cross section, so a thermal neutron will be scattered many times before it makes a centered hit on a nucleus and is absorbed. Thus the mean path before absorption will not be a straight line, but a random walk. Such path lengths are easy to estimate by simply multiplying the number of target nuclei per cubic centimeter times the capture cross section in square centimeters, and taking the reciprocal of the result. Thus, for example, you would multiply the number of hydrogen nuclei per cc in a loaded palladium lattice (2.058E+23) times the thermal neutron capture cross section of those nuclei (.33E-24 cm2), and take the reciprocal, which gives 14.72 centimeters as the average distance traveled by a neutron in a loaded lattice before being absorbed by a hydrogen nucleus. (Note: 1 barn equals 1E-24 cm2.) Similarly, you would multiply the number of palladium nuclei per cc in the lattice (.06861E+24) times the thermal neutron capture cross section of those nuclei (6.9E-24), and take the reciprocal, which gives 2.11 cm as the average distance traveled by a neutron in the loaded lattice before being absorbed by a palladium nucleus. Or, if you want the average distance traveled before absorption by either type of nucleus, simply add the reciprocal of 2.11 to the reciprocal of 14.72, and take the reciprocal of the result: 1.84 cm. The theoretical basis for this procedure is very simple. Assume a particle of radius r1 flying through a field of particles of radius r2 at velocity V. Whenever the center of the moving particle comes within a distance r1 + r2 of the center of one of the other particles, a collision will occur. Thus, as an expedient formalism, we can treat the radius of the moving particle as r1 + r2 = R, and can see that its collision cross section, b, is simply 2¼R. Treating the other particles as mathematical points, we can see that in time t, our moving particle will sweep out a volume of 2¼RVt. If there are N point particles per unit volume, then total collisions during that time interval will be 2¼RNVt. Distance traveled is Vt, so average distance traveled per collision is Vt/2¼RNVt = 1/2¼RN = 1/bN, as used in the calculations given above. (This is OK because the same reasoning also applies when the interaction to be determined involves an absorption rather than a collision.) This is a simplified approach but it is good enough for our purposes, since it makes it crystal clear that your scenario would allow the neutrons to wander off of the reservation, so to speak, and that they would yield unshielded gammas that would fry the experimenters. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > Zoltan Szakaly =========================================================== cudkeys: cuddy23 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.23 / Bob Sullivan / Re: Jed Rothwell & the TBs double count Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell & the TBs double count Date: Mon, 23 Oct 95 22:08:27 GMT In article , jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote: >Bob Sullivan writes: > >>Jed, I am telling you what was observed during runs of a Patterson cell which >>was producing "excess heat" according to CETI's heat balance. There was no >>observable gas evolution. You tell me which, if any, of the Patterson cell >>demos actually used the gas flowmeters. > >All of them do. You can see them in the published photos. I have stated >here that they use gas flowmeters time after time. I understand that you have said a lot of things, many of them contradictory. You lack credibility. >>Download the data, get out your crayons, and do the calculations. If you do >>that you will get the results in the table below. The numbers in the first >>column represent the cell efficiency (measured input/measured output) for the >>resistor calibration runs. The second column represents a similar calculation > > >> Resistor Raw Data >> Calibration "Excess Heat" >> Efficiency Efficiency >> ----------- ------------- >>Attachment 4 34.0% 31.9% >>Attachment 5 34.0% 28.0% > >That was a different experiment! You are deliberately mixing up data from >different experiments performed by different people at different times. What >kind of scientist would do a thing like that? It's crazy. > >- Jed > Jed, I don't know what your problem is, but do try to get a hold of your self. I clearly stated the source of the information in an earlier post. I didn't mix data from different experiments performed by different people at different times. All data came from the single stated source. If you have any quarrel with the data, you should take it up with John Logajan, Bruce Klein, or Victor Lapuszynski. You should realize that you could have checked the data before making unfounded accusations. You're making a fool of yourself -- again. cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.23 / Jan Anker / Re: Third experiment: Strong Nuclear Force is nuclear Originally-From: jan.anker@ping.be (Jan Anker) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag sci.physics.particle,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Third experiment: Strong Nuclear Force is nuclear Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 23:43:33 Organization: Anchor Datacomm In article <46h0q7$6p6@ren.fp.co.nz> fosterg@unconfigured.xvnews.domain (Geoff Foster) writes: >From: fosterg@unconfigured.xvnews.domain (Geoff Foster) >Subject: Re: Third experiment: Strong Nuclear Force is nuclear >Date: 23 Oct 1995 21:17:59 GMT >Dry up Pluto Thanks God he has a weekend off! cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenanker cudfnJan cudlnAnker cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.23 / Mark Burbidge / Re: Third experiment: Strong Nuclear Force is nuclear Originally-From: Mark@monark.ftech.co.uk (Mark Burbidge) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag sci.physics.particle,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Third experiment: Strong Nuclear Force is nuclear Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 22:55:23 GMT Organization: Frontier Internet Services > but maybe the loud mouth fool M. Burbidge has >something to say, here. We wait to see what you can add to the >conversation. > Finally, what is the fine-structure constant value for a tau have to >be for its space to match exactly that of the proton? > If you have nothing to contribute to these conversations other than >your hatred, then scram, or I will tell you to go to hell. This is SLIGHTLY out of order AP, all I did was to point out certain areas that needed clarification. If your theory is SO wonderful you'd be able to clarify with ease. (e.g. beta + decay, infinite regress, etc. etc.) As it is, you respond with vitreol. This does not bode well for your own overall confidence in your own ideas. MB M. Burbidge. Mark@Monark.ftech.co.uk For PGP key, Send Email with subject GET KEY Reply should come within the day. Fingerprint: 5F F8 CB D1 A8 A5 66 FE F1 D0 18 07 13 7B CD 6B cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenMark cudfnMark cudlnBurbidge cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Oct 24 04:37:06 EDT 1995 ------------------------------