1995.10.26 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 95 16:47:33 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

"Lawrence E. Wharton" <Wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov> writes:
 
     "I think the recombination (and now recombination/battery effect)
     critics are doing the other objective skeptics a big disservice. . . .
     No observer without some brain disfunction would think that these
     objections are credible."
 
Precisely. Jones does not believe the recombination hypothesis either. He is
hoping he will incite people with brain dysfunctions to hassle George Miley.
 
 
     "The only possible explanation is that there is some heat pump effect or
     energy transferred from the water pump or that the device works."
 
The heat pump hypothesis is ruled out by the Second Law of thermodynamics. In
order for the system to be a heat pump, some component on it would have to be
much colder than the ambient surroundings, like the cooling coils inside a
refrigerator. When the cell is run at high power, 20 watts and above, the
component that acts as a cooling coil would become covered with condensation
and frost. At very high power levels the flow would become blocked with ice.
That would readily apparent to all observers!
 
Let us look at this closer, in a serious frame of mind. The cell itself is
warm to the touch, so heat can only be going out of it, not in. In high power
runs the cell is too hot to touch; the plastic inside it sometimes melts and
in one case the glass cracked. So in order for this system as a whole to be a
heat pump, you must look elsewhere in the loop. In other words, the cell
cannot be a thermoelectric heat pump because that would make the cell itself
much colder than the surroundings, therefore it must be a fluid transport heat
pump, like a refrigerator. In this case, the fluid is not freon but water plus
a little lithium (1 molar solution). In order for this to be a heat pump, you
must find a way to make the water chemically change to carry the heat
extracted from the surroundings to the cell. If the water merely got hot,
instead of storing the energy chemically, then it would be cooling as it
reached the cell (or more likely, it would be completely cooled off). The Delta
T temperatures at the cell would show "anomalous cold" not excess heat. The
water has remain cool until it reaches the cell and then it has to release the
energy. Furthermore, when the cell is run at 20 watts with a flow of 14 ml per
minute, that raises the temperature of the water 20 degrees above room
temperature. It would have to simultaneously *lower* the temperature of the
loop at some other spot by about 20 degrees. You could feel it and you could
see the condensation.
 
Where could the heat be transferred from? Where are the cooling coils in this
refrigerator? Surely not the Dewar electrolyte reservoir or the filter. When
you leave LiOH in a cup or a plastic tube, it does not spontaneously extract
heat from the surroundings, lowering the temperature far below ambient. No
conceivable mechanism that would allow that. To pump heat, you have to do
work; you have to induce a chemical change or a phase change. In a
conventional refrigerator you decompress the gas, which absorbs heat. You
cannot decompress water. In fact, as far as anyone knows, water + lithium
cannot store energy and it cannot be used as a heat pump working fluid no
matter what, but let assume it can by some undiscovered mechanism. Whatever
mechanism that might be, you would have to *do something* to the water, and
you would see the surroundings turn cold. I suppose the only location in the
whole circuit that might allow anything like this would be the pump, which
moves a few tablespoons a minute through the plastic tubing. Let us assume the
heat is transferred at the pump. Let's talk about the pump at ICCF5, which I
am looking at right now in a photograph. (For those who have the copy I
uploaded into John Logajan's home page, I am talking about the gadget on the
right that is labeled in large letters "PUMP.") We know that when the pump is
moving ordinary water in a calibration run, it is at room temperature, or very
close anyway. You can put you finger on it to verify that. Contrary to the
many assertions here, the pump surface is not 20 or 30 degrees hotter than the
surroundings, as it would have to be in order to allow, say, White's
hypothesis. Therefore, in order to satisfy *your* hypothesis, the pump would
have to *fall in temperature*, lower than ambient, when the system operates in
heat-pump mode. The pump motor cannot suddenly start delivering heat at
selected times. The size of the pump component which comes in contact with the
water is even smaller than the CF cell. Since this is a small spot, and
since it would have to absorb as much energy from the surroundings as the cell
puts out, it would grow as cold as the cell grows hot. When the cell surface
temperature got so high the cell threatened to crack, the pump would be far
below zero.
 
 
Wharton also writes:
 
     "Including these effects the pmf (power multiplication factor) is: pmf =
     (Tout - Troom)/Troom * (power out)/(cell + pump power in) The Carnot
     factor at Tout about 5 degrees above a Troom of about 300 degrees is
     1/60 and we have pmf = 5/60 * 1/(.06 + pump power)"
 
Don't forget that these cells have been at temperatures approaching 200
degrees C, under pressure. That calls for a heck of a good heat pump! The flow
is generally set at 10 to 20 ml per minute. Any higher and it will cool the
beads too much and kill the reaction I think. Assume that during the 7 week,
20 watt the flow was set at 14.2 ml/min (a handy flow rate that makes
temperature in degrees C equal watts). Tout - Troom = 20. We can produce just
about any pmf you want, including some that would be impossible to achieve
with ordinary heat pump technology. Also please note that if you slow down
the flow rate to a few ml per minute, the temperature shoots up. If you make
it 7 ml/min the Delta T goes from 5 to 10 deg C. Cravens changed the flow rate
in a methodical fashion to prove this. It is quite a weird heat pump that
pushes the temperature of the heat sink *higher* (and the cold spot lower)
when you do less work on the fluid, and reduce circulation. To summarize, in
order for this to be a heat pump, we have to solve the following problems:
 
*    There is no cold spot anywhere in the loop. If the cold spot is roughly
     the same size as the cell, then the surfaces around it would be at or
     well below zero degrees during high power runs. You'd see it.
 
*    During calibration runs with LiOD or pure water there is no hot spot
     either. No component outside the cell ever adds or subtracts any
     measurable level of heat.
 
*    It is a hard to imagine how water or LiOH can act as the working fluid
     in a heat pump. Frankly, I think that is impossible.
 
*    It is even harder to imagine how a small laboratory pump could induce
     the LiOH to do this. People have been using small pumps with all kinds
     of liquids for a long time. Nobody has ever observed a small pump
     suddenly turn itself into a refrigerator and cloud over with
     condensation.
 
*    There is no known method of storing macroscopic heat levels in
     microscopic quantities of, say, lithium crystals.
 
*    If this *is* a heat pump, it has the most extraordinary operating
     characteristics of any heat pump on record. I have never heard of a
     small heat pump that can raise the temperature of the heat sink so high
     it cracks glass. I have never heard of a pump that raises the
     temperature of the heat sink even higher when you turn the circulation
     down and do less work on the working fluid.
 
I can think of several more reasons that would discredit the heat pump
hypothesis, but I shall spare the reader.
 
 
Wharton concludes:
 
     "This [test] has not been done yet but it may be possible in view of
     some of the claims of experiments other than the SOFE demonstration."
 
That raises an interesting point. This SOFE demonstration is not, of course,
the only CF experiment on record. We must not forget that many other
scientists have run similar cells and seen excess heat. Many of these cells
are in static calorimeters, which cannot be heat pumps, or in flow
calorimeters with pure water as the circulating fluid. I do not think that
LiOH can ever serve as a working fluid in a heat pump, but a few people have
speculated that it might. I trust that nobody thinks pure water will work!
Most of the other CF experiments use Pd + D2O, but there are many credible
reports of Ni + H2O, particularly the work from Mills, who discovered this
form of cold fusion. Mills uses static calorimeters. When you evaluate the
SOFE experiment, you cannot pretend that this is the first or the only
experiment in history that has shown dramatic proof of massive excess heat.
You cannot evaluate the SOFE demonstration in a vacuum, making up some
extraordinary special-case heat pump that by an extreme stretch of the
imagination might barely explain it (if only there was frost and ice on the
pump). What about all the other CF experiments? There has to be some
commonality. You cannot keep inventing ad-hoc heat pumps to explain one
experiment, mysterious and heretofore undreamed of chemistry to explain
another, and used moderator water from a CANDU reactor to explain the third.
 
A large established body of calorimetric experiments prove that hydrogen in
metals will generate excess heat beyond the limits of chemistry. It also
proves that hydrogen in metals sometimes transmutes into helium or tritium.
How could a heat pump do that? We are not just talking about SOFE, or just
SRI, or Mills. You cannot invent a new reason to discredit each and every
experiment, and you will never find one reason -- one common error -- that
will fit them all.
 
Contrary to the assertions of the skeptics, nobody has ever seriously
challenged this body of work, or found credible reasons to doubt it. People
like Steve Jones do not attempt to find errors in the calorimetry of the
leading CF scientists. Instead, they pretend that the work does not exist. Ask
Jones about McKubre, Oriani, Bockris, Isagawa, Arata or Kunimatsu. He will
refuse to answer. If he is forced to respond he will evade the issue by
pretending he has never heard of the work. Explain the work and he will chant
"recombination, recombination," even when there is not the slightest
possibility of that. He tried to pin it on both SRI and Amoco, which
incorporate recombiners in closed cells. His problem is that he has nothing
more to say. He has run out of excuses. He knows that he will never find a
mistake in the work of the mainstream CF scientists. He gave up trying, years
ago. He would like to pretend the SOFE demonstration does not exist, but it
threatens him too much. He is so anxious to discredit the work and attack the
reputations of the scientists that he is forced to chant "recombination,
recombination, recombination" in the vain hope that people will be so deluded
they think recombination can change 6 into 500.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.25 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 95 22:01:28 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Carlton Haynie <cchaynie@ix.netcom.com> writes:
 
>1) By dispersing Nitrogen or Argon through the cell, to rid the
>electrolyte of any excess hydrogen, aren't you defeating the purpose of
>the electrolysis, which is to saturate the electrolyte with excess
>hydrogen to stimulate the 'cold-fusion' process?
 
Yes, of course you will. You will probably wreck the cell permanently. That
is why Jones wants to perform this bogus "test" in the first place. But
listen to what he is *really* telling you. He wants you believe that you
can input a steady 0.06 watts hour after hour, day after day, and that level
of power will generate free O2 and H2 gas, and when you recombine that
gas, you get 5 watts! That's what Jones believes. He has never heard of
the Conservation of Energy.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.25 / John White /  Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
     
Originally-From: jnw@lys.vnet.net (John N. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
Date: 25 Oct 1995 21:22:31 -0500
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:
> ***{John, I don't know where you got this information, but it doesn't make
> any sense. There is *no way* such a pump is going to consume the 5 watts
> it would need to account for this experimental result, even if all of the
> power it consumed were to somehow wind up in the fluid stream as heat.
...
> You couldn't buy a pump like that if you tried. Nobody who manufactured
> such a ridiculously inefficient pump could stay in business for a
> nanosecond. --Mitchell Jones}***  

Actually, many places make such pumps, and some have been in business for
decades. I grabbed a handy catalog to find an example, but most of the
low flow pumps in it don't give any hint as to the power consumption.
Nobody cares how much power they use.

The closest pump I could find to the SOFE pump was the Elmeco E-50
peristaltic pump. This pump is two channel, but it only pumps up
to 10ml/min. It uses 115VAC, 2amps. This gives a V*A of 230 watts.
The actual power usage will be much less than that, because of
the phase factor and such, so it might actually use less than
100 watts. That is still far above the 5 watts seen in the SOFE demo.
-- 
jnw@vnet.net
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.25 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 95 22:05:40 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

"Pentanary miracle"? Boy, I am going to run out of fingers, you better
slow down! :-}
 
In any case, the White Hypothesis is a lot more plausible than the 6 = 500
theory, that Steve Jones just reposted in depth. Talk about pentanary
miracles . . .
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.25 / Jim Carr /  Re: CF demo at SOFE
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF demo at SOFE
Date: 25 Oct 1995 18:57:44 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC) writes:
>
>            ...             In the lightwater cold fusion cell I assume
>the following reactions:
>
>e + p  --->  n  -  0.782 MeV                   (1)
>
>The resulting thermal neutron 

BZZZT.  

You are postulating a relativistic collision between an electron 
and a proton that will never result in scattering that leaves 
some x-rays behind? 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  What a long strange trip it's 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  been.        
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |              Jerry Garcia
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |                1942-1995 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.25 /  Rockbrook /  Trying to contact Peter Matschke
     
Originally-From: rockbrook@aol.com (Rockbrook)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Trying to contact Peter Matschke
Date: 25 Oct 1995 23:56:42 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I am trying to contact a former high school classmate of mine who was an
exchange student from Germany in 1965 in Omaha, Nebraska, USA.  I
understand he is a nuclear physicist.  Any help would be appreciated.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenrockbrook cudlnRockbrook cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.26 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
Date: 26 Oct 1995 02:11:36 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I am trying to be inpartial and I think what you are saying makes a lot of
sense. On the other hand, it seems to me that recombination cannot account
for the excess heat simply because recombination could only give us as
much heat as we put in with the electric current, namely a factor of 70
less than the observed heat output. What you seemed to be implying is that
the o2 and h2 stored in the electrolyt recombines and gives us heat. If we
have 70 times the electric power coming out as heat, that heat producing
reaction would rapidly use up all the h2 and o2 in the electrolyt. 

In your experiment you are saying that bubling a neutral gas through the
cell killed the reaction. This is exactly what I would expect in case of a
nuclear reaction because your gas buble gives the hydrogen a chance to
escape. If the hydrogen can escape it will not go into the metal so any
nuclear reactions will also stop. In fact I have been thinking about how
to design a cell so that the H has no chance of escaping.

From what I heard the cell at SOFE has run for extended periods of time,
so the observed heat could not have come from recombination. As for the
thermocouples having been fooled by electric potentials, it was stated
that the observed heat differential could be felt by hand. 

I do agree that it is pretty hard to imagine a nuclear reaction that has
no gamma byproducts.

Zoltan Szakaly
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.26 / Nick Rouse /  Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
     
Originally-From: nrouse@surface.fisons.co.uk (Nick Rouse)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 11:14:50 UNDEFINED
Organization: Fisons

In article <21cenlogic-2510951704440001@austin-1-11.i-link.net>
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:

>***{Nick, even if for some bizarre reason they used a pump that was
>thousands of times larger than needed, that still wouldn't be sufficient
>to invalidate the result. In addition, you would need the secondary
>miracle of a pump insulated so heavily that all of its energy was dumped
>into the fluid stream as heat, plus the tertiary miracle of lithium
>sulphate having the same properties as sodium sulphate, plus the
>quaternary miracle of the critical slush temperature happening to be just
>above that of the electrolyte, plus the pentanary miracle of the CETI
>beads just happening to catalyze the re-formation of the slush crystals.
>If this scenario does not seem ridiculously implausible to you, then I am
>frankly amazed. I would add that the requirement that the electrolyte
>temperature be just below the critical slush temperature would mandate
>failure of these experiments if run at any other temperatures. Since they
>have been run successfully at many temperatures, the "Magic Salt" idea is
>flatly refuted by the facts. --Mitchell Jones}***

I agree it is wildly implausible, In fact if I understand the situation it 
requires substantial super cooling of the solution to work. As I 
understand the proposal the hydration and crystallisation in the cell
causes the solution to heat up by 5 degrees without causing the 
crystals to re-dissolve. Since super-heating  is not seen in such systems it 
follows that the cell output temperature is below the equilbrium 
crystalisation temperature. This heat is then removed in the calorimeter
to give a temperature in the reservoir within 0.1 degrees of the cell inlet 
temperature. In the pump the electrolyte is heated so that the crystals 
disolve. To do so it must heat them up to at least the cell outlet 
temperature, an input of at least 5 watts, and then supply another 5 watts, 
absorbed iso-thermally to de-hydrate and disolve the crystals, between the 
outlet of the pump and the inlet of the cell the solution must be cooled to 
within 0.1 degree of the  reservoir temperature, at least 5 degrees below the 
equilibrium crystallisation temperature without causing crystallisation. 
This at least reduces the improbability of the beads causing the crystals 
to form, almost anything could do the trick. The improbability is that 
nothing else (Isn't there a filter in there somewhere?) had done it previously
All this is wildly, wildly improbable. It would balance on a knife edge of
temperature stability but does not actually contravene any fundamental
physical laws, Salts do exist with the required hydration and crystalisation
temperature. That is why I wanted to pin the pump input power to below
5W. We would then go from wild impropability to total impossibility.
Peristaltic pumps with built in electronics controls and displays could well
be using this sort of power while delivering negligable mechanical work to
the fluid. I agree you have to dream up some extraordinary way of getting that
heat into the fluid but as I said it would be nice to show it totally 
impossible. I havn't been able to measure or get figures on any  aquarium
pumps but I did feel one and it was slightly warm to the touch while supplying
a very low flow so was consuming at least 1W of electrical power. 
 Nick Rouse       , 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudennrouse cudfnNick cudlnRouse cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.25 / Noah Stewart /  Power resources
     
Originally-From: nstewart@ccia.st-thomas.on.ca (Noah Stewart)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Power resources
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 22:51:24 GMT
Organization: Inter-Com Information Services

Can someone give some resources on or off the internet where I can find
information on sources of energy used.  Finding out information about
older sources is quite easy, but I plan to focus my essay mainly on fusion
as a power source, and finding recent info there is more difficult. 
Thanks.

-- 
Noah Stewart
n.stewart@ccia.st-thomas.on.ca
http://www.ccia.st-thomas.on.ca/~nstewart/
"Pull The Wool Over Your Own Eyes."


cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudennstewart cudfnNoah cudlnStewart cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.26 /  Tstolper@aol.c /  Water Replenishment in Open Cell?
     
Originally-From: Tstolper@aol.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Water Replenishment in Open Cell?
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 16:32:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In Jed's report dated Oct. 9, 1995, and titled "Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95
Worked Well," carried in Scott Hazen Mueller's Fusion Digest No. 4455, dated
Oct. 10, Jed said that the CETI cell demonstrated at SOFE was an open cell
and that half of the input energy was carried off by free hydrogen and
oxygen.

Doesn't one have to add water occasionally in those circumstances?

Tom Stolper

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenTstolper cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.26 /  anonymous /  Hyperdrive?
     
Originally-From: anonymous <lab user in the Department of Computing>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hyperdrive?
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 14:38:16 GMT
Organization: University of Brighton

  Ignoring most of relativity. . .
Since relativity dowes not take into account the quantum effects,
what are the possibilities 
that Einstein missed something major, when he said that *nothing* can exceed c.
  What about this "tachyon" I've heard so much about. . .
Also, let us not forget the Clarke corollary, people.(ie, if you
plot velocity on the x-axis, 
and energy on the y-axis, sure, it rises to infinity & reaches
it at c, but after that it falls 
of,inversely. . .ie, it describes a smooth parabola with it's apex at infinity)
Also, I think the cosmic string theory has possibilities, for doing in this old "myth"?
Or so Hawking once said. . .

Cheers:
       Wayne<wmh1@alpha2.bton.ac.uk>
 

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudlnanonymous cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.26 / Lawrence E /  Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: "Lawrence E. Wharton" <Wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
Date: 26 Oct 1995 15:04:35 GMT
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center -- Greenbelt, Maryland USA

   I think the recombination (and now recombination/battery effect) 
critics are doing the other objective skeptics a big disservice.  Their 
objections are not reasonable.  You can't store up .06 watts for 20 
minutes (the battery effect) and deliver 5 watts for several days and 
you can't take some fraction of .06 watts going into hydrogen and 
oxygen, recombine it (the recombination effect), and produce 5 watts 
output.  No observer without some brain disfunction would think that 
these objections are credable.
  
   The only possible explination is that there is some heat pump effect 
or energy transferred from the water pump or that the device works.  
Including these effects the pmf (power multiplication factor) is:

pmf = (Tout - Troom)/Troom * (power out)/(cell + pump power in)

The Carnot factor at Tout about 5 degrees above a Troom of about 300 
degrees is 1/60 and we have

pmf = 5/60 * 1/(.06 + pump power) 

or

pmf = .083 /(.06 + pump power)

 Note that only a small fraction of the pump power would have to be 
dumped into the system to put the pmf below one.  No reasonable observer 
would give any weight to the recombination / battery effect explanation.  
But it is reasonable to require that

(heat out)/(total electric power in) * Carnot factor > 1

as evidence of a net production of ordered energy.  To achieve this the 
temperature of the output heat must be increased and the pump input 
energy must be decreased.  This has not been done yet but it may be 
possible in view of some of the claims of experiments other than the 
SOFE demonstration.


cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenWharton cudfnLawrence cudlnE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.26 / I Johnston /  Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
Date: 26 Oct 1995 14:59:54 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

John Logajan (jlogajan@skypoint.com) wrote:

: Your explanation is not trival as it presumes facts not in evidence.

Is this test of triviality ever applied to fusion explanations?

Ian
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.26 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: John N. White: GET A PUMP!!!
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: John N. White: GET A PUMP!!!
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 95 12:38:25 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Cliff Frost <cliff@ack.berkeley.edu> writes:
 
>Is modern fishtank technology using water pumps in some way?
 
Not particularly modern. A pump is used to put the water through a cleaning
filter, which removes gunk from the water. I once bought one at Woolworth,
but it did not last long. The flow is usually much greater than 14 ml/minute,
but the water never gets measurably warmer.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.26 / 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: 26 Oct 1995 17:35:50 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <21cenlogic-2410951824030001@austin-2-12.i-link.net>  
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:
> In article <46gmvo$bti@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry
> Merriman) wrote:
> 
> > > 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''. .. why does it not radiate away power
> > by standard radiation from an accelerated charge?
> 
> 
> Your question makes it sound like you are disturbed by the violation of
> the man-made rule of thumb which says that an accelerated charge must
> radiate. The proper rule, however, is that when a charge is accelerated
> *in the ether*, it must radiate. 

So, in your model, radiated power = energy lost to collsions 
with etherons.

Thats conceptually lovely, but does not fit the reality of
E&M radiation:

(1) a charge moving at a constant speed through the vacuum
does not radiate...but it is contantly knocking your etherons 
out of the way. contradition.

(2) radiation from an accelerated charge scales like (accel)^2.
Work done by collsions against a background field of
etherons could not scale that way---it has to scale with velocity or
distance traversed or whateever, but not instantaneous acceleration.


Your etheron model simply does not come close to yileding the known
properties of E&M radiation, especially if you define
radiation as work done by collisons against etherons.

> (And while you are at it, explain why a circular current flow in a
> superconductor doesn't radiate away power, either! My version of the rule
> works for superconductors. Yours does not.) --Mitchell Jones}*** 

I would say they do radiate---but since electrons in a macroscopic
superconduting circular current undergo negligible accelerations,
the radiated power would be incredible small---to get significant
radiated power from a circular orbit, the electron needs to have
speed near c, and the radius needs to be on the order of centimeters 
or less.



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


cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.26 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: John N. White: GET A PUMP!!!
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: John N. White: GET A PUMP!!!
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 13:30 -0500 (EST)

cliff@ack.berkeley.edu (Cliff Frost) writes:
 
-> >can GET A DAMN PUMP AND FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF. Go ahead! Step into any lab,
-> >any fishtank supply store, any hospital equipment room. Pick up a small pum
-> >designed to move water at 14 ml/minute. If you get a faster pump, pinch the
->
-> It's been many years since I had a fishtank, but last I did the pumps used
-> were for pushing air.  The point being that you wanted to make sure
-> the water in the tank had enough oxygen to keep your fish from suffocating,
-> so you bubbled air through it.
->
-> Is modern fishtank technology using water pumps in some way?
 
I actually dropped by a fish supply house yesterday to check on that very
thing.  As it turns out they have both air and water pumps.  The pumps do not
pump to a very high head, so I believe they are simple centrifical pumps.
So the correct answer is yes, fish supply houses do have water pumps.
 
Interestingly the reason I was looking for a pump is that an experiment I am
doing used a gear pump I had on hand and it was warming the fluid up too much
for my experiment to work.  The liquid coming out was about 85 C higher than
the temperature going in.  Of course part of the problem is that the liquid is
going in at -79 C and the pump housing was brass.  Dang cryogenics are a pain.
:(
 
                                                        Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.26 / Craig Stangland /  Re: 6 = 500! Jones, the Master of Malarkey, strikes again!
     
Originally-From: Craig Stangland <cstangl>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 6 = 500! Jones, the Master of Malarkey, strikes again!
Date: 26 Oct 1995 19:00:36 GMT
Organization: NODE-TO-NODE SURVEILLANCE

I like the way you talk.  I'll bet your words are enuf to make blood cells
combine and produce excess heat?

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudfnCraig cudlnStangland cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.26 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 14:06:07 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <46mrd7$c7a@lys.vnet.net>, jnw@lys.vnet.net (John N. White) wrote:

> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:
> > ***{John, I don't know where you got this information, but it doesn't make
> > any sense. There is *no way* such a pump is going to consume the 5 watts
> > it would need to account for this experimental result, even if all of the
> > power it consumed were to somehow wind up in the fluid stream as heat.
> ...
> > You couldn't buy a pump like that if you tried. Nobody who manufactured
> > such a ridiculously inefficient pump could stay in business for a
> > nanosecond. --Mitchell Jones}***  
> 
> Actually, many places make such pumps, and some have been in business for
> decades. I grabbed a handy catalog to find an example, but most of the
> low flow pumps in it don't give any hint as to the power consumption.
> Nobody cares how much power they use.
> 
> The closest pump I could find to the SOFE pump was the Elmeco E-50
> peristaltic pump. This pump is two channel, but it only pumps up
> to 10ml/min. It uses 115VAC, 2amps. This gives a V*A of 230 watts.
> The actual power usage will be much less than that, because of
> the phase factor and such, so it might actually use less than
> 100 watts. That is still far above the 5 watts seen in the SOFE demo.
> -- 
> jnw@vnet.net

***{John, we are talking about a *pump* here, not about a complex
electronic gadget with an onboard computer and a host of temperature and
flow sensors, plus fluid mixing capability, etc. Get real! By your
reasoning, we could call my automobile a "pump!" After all, it does
*contain* a pump (e.g., the fuel pump). Therefore, we could assign all of
the 200 horsepower of the engine to the pump, and could speculate that
perhaps at the SOFE demo they were using that sort of "pump," and that
they had somehow routed the electrolyte flow to pick up the waste heat,
that lithium sulphate behaves like Glauber's salt, that the CETI beads
catalyze the crystal formation, and on and on and on. *But that is
absurd.* And it is equally absurd to suppose any similarly precarious,
tottering pathway to the result, until and unless you have some specific
evidence that deliberate fraud was involved. 

As a matter of interest, before I posted the message in which I claimed
you couldn't buy a pump with the characteristics you needed, I actually
looked at a few pumps. From my pocket notebook, here is an example. The
Penguin 660 (which is just a pump, nothing more) draws .16 amp at 120
volts, and pumps 170 gallons per hour. Assuming a power factor of .75, we
have .75 times 120 times .16 which gives a power consumption of 14.4
watts. Since 1 U.S. gallon is 3785 cc, we have a flow rate of (170 times
3785) divided by 3600, which gives 179 ml/sec. This is 751 times as much
as the SOFE demo. (Thus a pure pump of similar efficiency, suitable to the
SOFE demo, would consume about 14.4/751 = .019 watts. In the same store,
which was an aquarium supplier, there were a number of other, smaller
pumps for which the flow rate was not listed, but which did, in fact,
consume less than 1 watt of power.) Now, of course, it would be simple to
rig the 170 gallon per hour Penguin 660 to run the SOFE demo. The obvious
way would be to use a valve to constrain the flow into the pump to a rate
of 14.28 ml/min. However, if you did so the load and, thus, the power
consumption would drop. You would have an essentially unloaded condition
in which the pump motor was freewheeling and would very likely consume a
fraction of a watt. Result: you would be right back where you started. The
implication is straightforward: *you have to heap one absurdity on top of
another, until the pile towers above the rooftops, to make your theory
work.* Frankly, I have no idea why you continue to cling to this position.
Surely you can see the absurdity of it. Are you, perhaps, a glutton for
punishment? --Mitchell Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.25 /  jonesse@plasma /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: 25 Oct 95 13:06:08 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <46871e$9b4@post.gsfc.nasa.gov>, 
"Lawrence E. Wharton" <Wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov> writes:
> I thing it should be made clear that this class of "recombination" 
> critics are invoking a problem with past experiments which no longer is 
> relevant.  Some past failed experiments used the bogus calculation of 
> the gain factor given by:
> 
> gain = 2 * (heat out) / (energy in)
> 
> instead of:
> 
> gain = 2 * (heat out) / ((energy in) * (1 + recombination fraction))
> 
> If some of the hydrogen and oxygen was recombining then an incorrect 
> excess could be obtained with an upper limit of 2.  The CETI gain factor 
> being used is:
> 
> gain = (heat out) / (energy in)
> 
> and underestimates the gain by neglecting the energy out from the 
> hydrogen.  The gain is so large that the previous trick which was used 
> to add on an extra 10% or so is ancient history.  Its gone and the 
> "recombination" critics need to think of something else.
> 
> 


No, the CETI gain factor is a Power Amplification Factor (P.A.F.), reproduced
as Figure 2 in Hal Fox's review article "Dramatic Cold Fusion Demonstration
Seen by Hot Fusion Scientists" [at SOFE '95], in Fusion Facts, October 1995
issue.  That is, 
  Gain = Power Amplification Factor = thermal POWER out/ electrical POWER in.

By using a ratio involving POWER instead of Energy (as you wrote above),
the cold-fusion advocates are able to use recombination to appear as
excess power.  They say that it takes some time of running at high current
before excess power can be seen.  Then they turn the current way down,
to 0.02 A in the case of the SOFE demonstration, and calculate input POWER
based on this small current.  

Of course, by running at high current for some time, the flowing electrolyte
becomes loaded with dissolved hydrogen and oxygen.  Then as this is passed
over the catalysts bed (Pd/Ni on beads, and the Pt anode), recombination
of H2 and O2 certainly occurs.  This released thermal POWER, which goes in
the numerator, while the (now small) electrical POWER goes in the denominator,
so the "gain" or "power amplification factor" can be made to appear very
large.  The advocates admit that as the electrical current is increased,
the "gain" or "PAF" drops off precipitously (see Fig. 2 in Fox's report) --
which is expected from the fact that the denominator then grows while
the numerator (thermal output power from recombination) stays about the
same.  

In fact, the alleged "gain" or "PAF" can be made to approach infinity simply
by reducing the current to near zero after the electrolyte is charged with
H2 and O2.  This is shown on the same Figure 2 which says that the PAF is
"infinity (at 0 current."  The notes on the Figure state 
"Initial operating conditions, increasing current"  and "Reducing current
after operating."

The Patterson Power Cell is just a crude and expensive (due to Pd and Pt)
battery, in my opinion.  The trick is to charge the battery by loading
H2 and O2 in the flowing electrolyte at high current, then passing the
electrolyte over the catalyst bed (Pd/Ni and Pt) which will cause
recombination resulting in thermal POWER out.  The input current is reduced
to some (arbitrarily) small value, like 0.02 A used at SOFE '95, so that
the ratio of 
  Thermal Power out/ Electrical Power in  =  Power Amplification Factor

can be made large.  Of course, the net *energy* gain over the entire
time of operation is not mentioned  in Hal Fox's report. (Surprise, surprise.)

  By charging a
large quantity of electrolyte with H2 and O2 initially,  (having a flowing
electrolyte makes this possible)   one can keep the
PAF large for a long time -- an hour should be no problem for this battery.
Actually, this charging could be accomplished by bubbling H2 and O2 gases
through a fine frit into the electrolyte initially -- then the PAF would
be large as this solution is passed over the catalyst bed -- right from 
the start of operation.  An electric current is not really needed at all
for this chemical reaction.

Sounds like you're ready to invest in the Patterson Power Cell, Larry?
But you really ought to check out the latest trick of using 
  Power out (thermal) / Power in (electrical, for small current)
instead of Energy out/  Energy in.  Actually, it's an old trick in this
field, but evidently you need a reminder.

--Steve Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjonesse cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.26 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 95 22:04:28 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Corporation

In article <46n8qo$n4j@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
   zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC) wrote:
>I am trying to be inpartial and I think what you are saying makes a lot of
>sense. On the other hand, it seems to me that recombination cannot account
>for the excess heat simply because recombination could only give us as
>much heat as we put in with the electric current, namely a factor of 70
>less than the observed heat output. What you seemed to be implying is that
>the o2 and h2 stored in the electrolyt recombines and gives us heat. If we
>have 70 times the electric power coming out as heat, that heat producing
>reaction would rapidly use up all the h2 and o2 in the electrolyt. 
>
>In your experiment you are saying that bubling a neutral gas through the
>cell killed the reaction. This is exactly what I would expect in case of a
>nuclear reaction because your gas buble gives the hydrogen a chance to
>escape. If the hydrogen can escape it will not go into the metal so any
>nuclear reactions will also stop. In fact I have been thinking about how
>to design a cell so that the H has no chance of escaping.
>
>From what I heard the cell at SOFE has run for extended periods of time,
>so the observed heat could not have come from recombination. As for the
>thermocouples having been fooled by electric potentials, it was stated
>that the observed heat differential could be felt by hand. 
>
>I do agree that it is pretty hard to imagine a nuclear reaction that has
>no gamma byproducts.
>
>Zoltan Szakaly

You are missing a critical point. The "efficiency" calculations for the 
Patterson cell involve adjustments to REDUCE the measured input and INCREASE 
the measured output. 

Everyone seems to agree that water is dissociated in the cell. The TBs say 
that the energy to dissociate the water escapes in the form of gases. They 
argue that it is inappropriate to consider this as part of the input, so they 
reduce the measured input to reflect the presumed loss:

	(measured output) * (a cell constant)
	--------------------------------------
	(measured input) - (dissociation loss)

As the presumed dissociation loss approaches the measured input the ratio can 
become very, very large.

If the gases are, in fact, recombined in the cell, the associated energy 
appears as part of the heat output of the cell, and it is inappropriate to 
make the adjustment to the denominator of the ratio. If that were to be done 
the recombination energy would be counted twice: as a part of the heat output 
and as a reduction to the input. Large numbers from this calcultion don't 
"prove" anything with the possible exception that increasing ratios with 
decreasing input point strongly to systematic error -- like improperly 
accounting for the dissociation energy.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.26 / Steven Janowsky /  Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: janowsky@gaston.ma.utexas.edu (Steven Janowsky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
Date: 26 Oct 1995 23:57:57 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

: The heat pump hypothesis is ruled out by the Second Law of thermodynamics. In
: order for the system to be a heat pump, some component on it would have to be
: much colder than the ambient surroundings, like the cooling coils inside a
: refrigerator. When the cell is run at high power, 20 watts and above, the
: component that acts as a cooling coil would become covered with condensation
: and frost. At very high power levels the flow would become blocked with ice.
: That would readily apparent to all observers!

This is absolute nonsense.

Take an everyday fridge; repackage the motor so that it's inside the
insulated region.  Then most of the fridge gets slightly warm, but the
outside coils get hot.

Nothing needs to get much colder than ambient: portions need to be much
colder than the motor, which isn't all that cold.


Whether this is what happens in the SOFE demo is anyone's guess, but it
certainly isn't ruled out by the Second Law of thermodynamics.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjanowsky cudfnSteven cudlnJanowsky cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.26 / Jim Carr /  Re: Trinity A-Bomb blast.
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Trinity A-Bomb blast.
Date: 26 Oct 1995 19:42:39 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

Chuck Pell <chuck@larson.com> writes:
>
>Question, does anyone know how long Radioactive Trinitite stayed hot, 
>that is how long after the blast would one have to wait before the green 
>glass could be safely handled by man. 

That depends on what you mean by "hot" and what you mean by "safe". 
I can tell you that some Trinitite a friend brought back as a gift 
(I think it was for the tip about how cool site PF looks at night) 
was still radioactive.  The shrink wrap kept out the betas but not 
the gammas.  It was certainly 'hot' but at a level where it was 
safe enough to sell or have laying around.  I don't know what the 
composition is, but it does not look like it would be taken up by 
the body if eaten.  (Right out the other end, I imagine.  Ouch.) 
But it is also not a good idea to take apart your smoke detector 
and eat the Americium source.  

What is not clear is how many tons of rocks you had in your room.  ;-)

If it doubt, find the state rad safety folks and get it checked.  But 
be forewarned they might take all of it on principle.... 

>         ...         Oh well, all I want to know is if the rocks could 
>have still been hot ten years after the first blast. I hear that if you 
>are on a tour of the Trinity site today you are told not to pick up the 
>green glass rocks because they are still moderately radioactive. 

The key word is "moderately".  

I am sure this is a combination of paranoia (the general-public limits 
are pretty conservative, and parents might go nuts and sue if their kid 
ate some and they found out later what it was) and the exploitation of 
paranoia to keep the glass around.  How long would it last if everyone 
took some home?  Since it is a national monument, you probably are 
forbidden from taking it just like you can't pick wildflowers or take 
home a piece of the petrified forest. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  What a long strange trip it's 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  been.        
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |              Jerry Garcia
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |                1942-1995 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.27 / Clinton Smith /  Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, Dr. Hill is the wiser, Dr. White
     
Originally-From: Clinton Smith <smithc@devetwa.edu.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.fusion,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, Dr. Hill is the wiser, Dr. White
Date: 27 Oct 1995 00:31:41 GMT
Organization: Western Australian Department of Training

re : neutrinos

forgive my ignorance as a non-scientist but ,
if E=mc^2
then it can be said that E is proportional to M
in other words with energy you have mass ?

is this not correct or does some other law apply ?

is it also not true that the only things that we can observe are the
movements of mass , ie other particles are undetectable ?

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudensmithc cudfnClinton cudlnSmith cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.27 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 95 01:33:20 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Corporation

In article <ZPJHo94.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
>Carlton Haynie <cchaynie@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> 
>>1) By dispersing Nitrogen or Argon through the cell, to rid the
>>electrolyte of any excess hydrogen, aren't you defeating the purpose of
>>the electrolysis, which is to saturate the electrolyte with excess
>>hydrogen to stimulate the 'cold-fusion' process?
> 
>Yes, of course you will. You will probably wreck the cell permanently. That
>is why Jones wants to perform this bogus "test" in the first place. But
>listen to what he is *really* telling you. He wants you believe that you
>can input a steady 0.06 watts hour after hour, day after day, and that level
>of power will generate free O2 and H2 gas, and when you recombine that
>gas, you get 5 watts! That's what Jones believes. He has never heard of
>the Conservation of Energy.
> 
>- Jed

Pssst, Jed, go to John Logajan's web page, look up the Bruce Klein demo, and 
see how these calculations are actually made. If you don't understand it, just 
say so, and we'll help you out.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Oct 27 04:37:05 EDT 1995
------------------------------
