1995.10.29 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 95 23:22:38 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
 
>>Or do you think that it is possible to extract energy from the surroundings
>>without changing the temperature?
>
>I sure do!  Haven't you ever boiled water or melted ice?  I can transfer a
>huge amount of energy without changing the temperature of either
 
If there is a phase change without a temperature change outside the pump,
then it must occur in some material surrounding the pump and touching it.
The heat energy has to start *somewhere*. The material in contact with the
pump is air: a-i-r. You cannot extract energy from air without lowering
its temperature. Air is not ice. There are no phase changes with air at
room temperature that can prevent a change in air temperature.
 
What is the point of your handwaving example? Surely you must have known as
well as I do that the pump is sitting in a room, surrounded by air. It is not
locked in the polar icecap. Where did you think it was? Surely you must
realize that whatever exotic and improbable process you dream up that might
be occuring *inside the pump* that has no relevance to the overall
thermodynamics of the pump sitting in air in the room which you touch with
your finger. Whatever black magic you invoke that allows water inside the
pump grab thermal energy, the net result *must be* to cool off the surface of
the plastic, because the pump in turn has to make up the deficit somewhere.
Yes, if the pump was sitting in water at zero degrees, this would result in a
phase change and the formation of ice crystals instead of lowered temperatures.
I myself pointed that out. I know that as well as you do. But I know and you
know that the pump is NOT sitting in a bath of water at zero degrees. It is
sitting in air, and both of us know damn well what it must do in those
circumstances.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.30 / John Logajan /  John White's semi-dissolved salts hypothesis
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: John White's semi-dissolved salts hypothesis
Date: 30 Oct 1995 05:31:39 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

John White has suggested that a one molar lithium sulfate (Li2SO4) / water
solution is in a semi-dissolved state and that an increase in local 
temperature or by direct mechanical influence can store energy in the
solution by increasing the amount of crystals dissolved.  This stored
energy is then released by the influence of electrolysis currents as
thermal energy as the solution returns to its preferred semi-dissolved
state.

He suggests and analogy with Glauber's salt (sodium sulfate Na2SO4.)

The CRC lists the solubility of these two salts in "cold" and "hot"
water.

          Grams per  Grams per
           100 cc     100 cc
Compound    Cold         Hot
--------  --------   ------------
Na2SO4    11 (0C)    92.7 (30C)    --- Glauber's salt
 
Li2SO4    26.1 (0C)  23 (100C)     --- Patterson's electrolyte 

NaCl      35.7 (0C)  39.12 (100C)  --- Table salt


We can see that Glauber's salt does have a strong solubility relationship
to temperature.  But the lithium sulfate as used in Patterson's cell
seems to have a small change in solubility over the liquid temperature
range of water -- and solubility tends to decrease as the temperature
increases -- the wrong direction for White's hypothesis.

As an aid in perspective, we see that table salt has slighlty better
solubility than lithium sulfate, but table salt has the more intuitive
increased solubility with increased temperature, but not nearly at the
rate of Glauber's salt.  Table salt has about a +9.6% change over the
temperature range as compared to lithium sulfate's -13.5% change --
contrasted with Glauber's +843% change over 1/3rd the range (don't
know what it is over the full range -- obviously higher.)

Trouble for the White hypothesis.  What say you John White?

--
 - 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:
cuddy30 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.30 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
Date: 30 Oct 1995 07:17:14 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <JDEnB6n.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>  
> The inventor is Meyer. I do not believe his claims. He has never allowed
> anyone to measure the reaction at his lab with their own instruments, he
> has never assisted anyone in a replication, and competant people who have
> attempted to replicate from his patents have failed. My guess is that he is
> faking it. I do not know whether he is or not -- I have no hard evidence --
> but he acts as if he is. People with legitimate claims usually assist others
> with replication, as CETI has done in five locations.
>  
> - Jed

Seems like the same statement should hold with
Meyer -> Pons, No? :-)



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


cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.30 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 02:17:35 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <46p7a5$c0a@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
janowsky@gaston.ma.utexas.edu (Steven Janowsky) wrote:

> 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.

***{Steve, what is the point? Granted, you could put an electric heater
inside a refrigerator, and monkey with the controls until it was outputing
heat at a higher rate than the heat transport capacity of the
refrigerator. Result: the average temperature of the inside of the
refrigerator would rise above the ambient temperature and, if it rose far
enough, it is conceivable that the evaporator coil temperature would also
be above ambient. Thus, technically, if you rip Jed's statement out of the
context in which it was made, you can claim that it is "wrong." However,
if you leave it in context, it is not wrong: it is simply a fact that if
the SOFE demo picks up 5 joules per second at the pump, it can only do so
by pulling the pump temperature below ambient. The reason is simple: there
is no other way for it to get that amount of energy, *given the specifics
of the circumstances under discussion.* Your post drops the context of
those circumstances, and serves only to clog up the channels of discourse.
I would suggest that you restrain your desire to engage in one-upmanship,
and try to post comments that are in some way germane to the issues under
discussion. --Mitchell Jones}***      
> 
> 
> 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:
cuddy30 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.30 /  VCockeram /  Re: 6 = 500! Jones, the Master of Malarkey, strikes again!
     
Originally-From: vcockeram@aol.com (VCockeram)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 6 = 500! Jones, the Master of Malarkey, strikes again!
Date: 30 Oct 1995 04:50:30 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <browe-2910951353130001@10.0.2.15>, browe@netcom.com (Bill
Rowe) writes:

>
>I am willing to believe at some point 60 miliwatts was supplied to the
>cell with an output of 5W. However, this in of itself is not sufficient
to
>demonstrate the observed effect is a fusion effect or that the effect
>cannot be explained using without resort to exotic assumptions.
>-- 
>"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"
>
>

Was it not stated that the experiment at SOFE ran for 4 days with a
continious heat output of around 5 watts with a input of .06 watt?  
This is somewhat more than would be expected with even 100 percent
recombination.

lurking in las vegas                                        Vince
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenvcockeram cudlnVCockeram cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.30 /  VCockeram /  Re: 6 = 500! Jones, the Master of Malarkey, strikes again!
     
Originally-From: vcockeram@aol.com (VCockeram)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 6 = 500! Jones, the Master of Malarkey, strikes again!
Date: 30 Oct 1995 04:50:49 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <browe-2910951353130001@10.0.2.15>, browe@netcom.com (Bill
Rowe) writes:

>Frankly, I am not sure of what set of "facts" to accept. There has been
>much handwaving on both sides. I would like to see a complete description
>of the experiment including things like the volume of the working fluid
>and the rate at which that fluid is replaced.
>
>I

i believe there is  there a write up of this on John Logajan's home page

lurking in las vegas                          Vince
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenvcockeram cudlnVCockeram cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.30 / Herve Cornec /  Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, Dr. Hill is the wiser, Dr. White washes
     
Originally-From: Herve Le Cornec <Herve.Le.Cornec@afuu.fr>
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 washes
Date: 30 Oct 1995 13:10:57 GMT
Organization: Association Francaise des Utilisateurs d'UNIX (AFUU)

I always wonder how physicists could say that something 
with no mass and no charge exists.

So what is the criterion of existence for a PHYSICAL system ?

HCl.

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenCornec cudfnHerve cudlnCornec cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.30 / A Plutonium /  Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, Dr. Hill is the wiser, Dr.  
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.particle,sci.
hysics.fusion,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, Dr. Hill is the wiser, Dr.  
Date: 30 Oct 1995 12:42:58 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <47121t$vbd@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

>   The answer lies with the following formula.
> 
>  Relativistic Energy = mcc/ sqrt(1-(vv/cc))
> 
>   Notice that if the v equals c then you have 1-1 which is zero
> and we know that a 0 denominator is undefined. So what to do and still
> have physical meaning? Well here we have a stickler that is not a happy
> answer. It gets down to saying that either Special Relativity is
> correct or it is not correct. 
> 
>   By theory the photon and neutrino have 0, zero rest mass because the
> way out of the dividing by zero in the denominator is to say that the
> numerator is also 0. That the photon and neutrino have zero rest mass.
> And you have 0/0. Otherwise the energy of the photon and/or neutrino is
> infinite which is obviously wrong.
> 
>   If you do not accept that way out, then you are faced with saying
> that if the photon has a finite small rest mass then there exists some
> frame of reference wherein the photon is "at rest". But that idea
> contradicts SR that light or the photon has the same speed of c in all
> frames of reference. 
> 
>   Boiled down to its essence, the question why does the photon and
> neutrino have zero rest mass *in theory*, and the answer is that we
> either accept Special Relativity or we do not and SR as we know it is a
> crude first approximation, an algorithm to a better theory. 
> 
>   I for one believe 100% that the photon and the neutrino have 0 zero
> rest mass. But I believe that both the theory of Special Relativity and
> more important the Maxwell Equations which are invariant to SR will be
> modified in the future. I believe that the Maxwell Equations can be
> neutrinolized such that the photon is a composite particle of at least
> 2 neutrinos. Would it make sense for a photon to have zero rest mass
> yet be composed of two or three neutrinos which do possess a rest mass?
> Can the part be larger than the whole? Perhaps equal but never larger.

  So, then Dr. White and all the members of his team obviously believe
that the Maxwell Equations and the theory of Special Relativity are
shams are fakes.  Dr. Hill on the other hand is not a goofball like Dr.
White who is ready to hand over the Maxwell Equations just so that he
gets his name limelighted, for what for what?  Ask Dr. White will a 1
millionth of the electron mass close the gap of 99% of the mass of the
universe is missing??
Talk about social physics pressure and these goofballs destroying
Maxwell Equations and Special Relativity. Is your name in Nature yet
Dr. White, you goofball, you white-washer.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.30 /  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: Mon, 30 Oct 95 08:55:37 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> writes:
 
>
>In said paper, Jones et al meticulously demonstrate, through a
>number of interesting experiments, how recombination can mimic excess 
>heat in cold fusion cells. Jones points out there that this effect
 
In SOME cold fusion cells. Not all! Only in cells where total energy
output is less than I*V and the gas correction must be used but gas is
not measured. The Jones recombination theory does not apply to 99.9% of
CF experiments because they fall into one or more of these categories:
 
1. Experiments in closed cells with recombiners.
2. Experiments in which the gas is measured.
3. Experiments in which total power output (and net energy) exceeds I*V
   input.
 
Jones, and you apparently, refuse to aknowledge that his test cover a very
limited set of experiments and that there are hundreds of examples of CF
experiments in the literature which cannot be explained by his hypothesis,
going back to 1989. The CETI experiments fit in categories 2 and 3, so
there is no way his hypothesis can explain them. If you do not understand
that you know nothing about CF, or electrolysis, or basic science.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.29 / A Plutonium /  Re: 14th Experiments proving HYASYS; Correlations of nuclear   
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 14th Experiments proving HYASYS; Correlations of nuclear   
Date: 29 Oct 1995 23:45:14 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <46ucvr$8mn@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

> In article <951025122559@are107.lds.loral.com>
> hahn@newshost  (Karl Hahn) writes:
> 
> > >   >   The above shows that isotopes containing 30 hadrons should have a
> > >   > radius of 0.528e-10 meters assuming all neutrons are of the same size
> > >   > of 1e-15 meters.
> > 
> > Where do you arrive at this?  Experiments of nuclear scattering of electrons
> > and protons have yielded the following formula for the size of a nucleus:
> > 
> >     r = k * A^(1/3)
> > 
> > or equvalently:
> > 
> >     A = (r/k)^3
> > 
> > where r is the radius, A is the atomic mass number (i.e. the sum of the
> > number of neutrons and protons), and k is on the order of 1e-15 meters.
> > You can find this in _Elementary Modern Physics_ by Weidner & Sells.
> > So a nucleus of 30 nucleons would have a size of about 3e-15 meters.
> > To get a nuclear radius of 0.528e-10 meters you would need 1.5e14 nucleons.
> > I have yet to see evidence of nucleus over 300 nucleons.
> 
>   How accurate is that formula Karl? How accurately has the radius of
> the neutron and muon been measured?

  That formula is merely a  volume of sphere x density is proportional
to A. But it assumes nuclei are packed marbles. Any formula of the
nuclear radius must contend with the strong nuclear force. At what
point does the strong nuclear force apply?
  How to define the collapsed nuclear radius? What is the radius of a
neutron where the neutron has no magnetic field? Trouble with these
nuclear measurements is to use the Uncertainty Principle so that it
aids in a successful measurement of the nuclear radii instead of UP
hindering and destroying the measurement. Find some confinement or cage
of the nuclear radii. Take for example the space of an electron
governed by UP then you can confine the radius to saying where 90% of
the probability density distribution is.
  I propose such a confinement or cage of the nucleus. The s orbitals.
Karl, is there a formula for 90% density distribution of the electrons
in s orbitals. I would think that the 7s orbital radius of 90% would be
much larger than the 1s. I would think no nucleus would be larger than
its s orbitals and if it is, for a very brief time.
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.30 /  yoshio@osak.ac /  cmsg cancel <yoshio-3010950658490001@pm1-40.ixc.net>
     
Originally-From: yoshio@osak.ac.jp,agc03445@niftyserv.or.jp,agc03455@nif
yserv.or.jp,abd03395@niftyserv.or.jp,nak@sinnica.edu.tu,chu@aoone.net.au
jt-w@dialicks.co.nz,harry@nitec.ac.jp,leeni@osaka.ac.jp,gar@unee.edu,sen
@pll.my,ox04894@niftyserv.or.jp,er@pl.my,jh@bn.net (Yoshio Koseki)
Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology,sci.med.dentistry,sci.med.diseases.cancer
sci.med.diseases.hepatitis,sci.med.diseases.lyme,sci.med.immunology,sci.
ed.informatics,sci.med.laboratory,sci.med.nursing,sci.med.nutrition,sci.
ed.occupational,sci.med.orthopedics,sci.med.pathology,sci.med.pharmacy,s
i.med.physics,sci.med.prostate.bph,sci.med.prostate.cancer,sci.med.prost
te.prostatitis,sci.med.psychobiology,sci.med.radiology,sci.med.telemedic
ne,sci.med.transcription,sci.med.vision,sci.military,sci.military.modera
ed,sci.military.naval,sci.misc,sci.nanotech,sci.nonlinear,sci.op-researc
,sci.optics,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.physics,sci.phys
cs.accelerators,sci.physics.computational.fluid-dynamics,sci.physics.con
-matter,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle,s
i.physics.plasma,sci.physics.research,sci.polymers,sci.psychology,sci.ps
chology.announce,sci.psychology.consciousness,sci.psychology.digest,sci.
sychology.journals.psyche
Subject: cmsg cancel <yoshio-3010950658490001@pm1-40.ixc.net>
Date: 30 Oct 1995 01:37:33 GMT

Spam cancelled by clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenyoshio cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.30 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
     
Originally-From: mbk@I_should_put_my_domain_in_etc_NNTP_INEWS_DOMAIN (Matthew B. Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
Date: 30 Oct 1995 02:33:10 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Robert F. Heeter (rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu) wrote:
: An example which is more directly relevant is ice skating:
: when I go ice skating, the pressure of the blades melts the upper layer
: of ice; the melting ice absorbs energy but neither the water nor the
: blades
: change temperature.  In fact, the bottom of the blades are the same
: temperature as the ice!  You might consider thinking about how this
: is possible.  The bottom line is that it *is* possible for the pump 
: to melt the postulated salt crystals *without* being at 
: much higher temperature.

Interestingly enough we did this calculation in my stat mech class.

Using fairly naive approximations such as assuming there was a constant
pressure equal to the weight divided by the blade area, we found that
the delivered energy upon sinking a physically realistic amount
was much too small to explain melting of ice due to any presumed 
energy delivered that way.

Thus clearly ice skates can only skate because they melt ice with cold fusion,
because it's far beyond the limits of chemistry and gravity, and no calorimetry
is even needed because the phase change is plainly obvious. 

Sounds like a good "Fermi problem" for generals, huh? ;-) 

: Bob Heeter
: Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.30 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
     
Originally-From: mbk@I_should_put_my_domain_in_etc_NNTP_INEWS_DOMAIN (Matthew B. Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
Date: 30 Oct 1995 02:36:05 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee, Knoxville

John Logajan (jlogajan@skypoint.com) wrote:

: If you can get a 5 degree rise with a gain of 80 from some heat pump
: system, I think you have a winner on your hands.  Seems to me that
: most best heat pumps have gains of 3 or so. 

But they work at much more useful and larger temperature boosts. The
difference in temperature between the cool coils inside your 
A/C and the hot coils on the outside may be 50C in a useful air
conditioner. 

: I think a gain of 80
: must be beyond theoretical limits.

The limit is a function of the temperature drop, the less the drop,
the larger the Carnot limit. 

: --
:  - 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:
cuddy30 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.30 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
Date: 30 Oct 1995 03:43:31 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <BHCERKT.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> writes:
>  
>  
> >Yes, but you miss the point: Steve Jones has clearly demostrated
> >that significant recombination can occur in cold-fusion-like
> >electrolysis cells, that it can mimic excess heat, and that you
> >can shut of _recombination_ with a inert gas purge of the cell.
>  
> He has not! He has clearly demonstrated that he does not know the difference
> between 60 milliwatts and 5 watts. Do *you* know the difference?!?

Jed, stay calm. I am referring to Steve Jones paper in the Journal
of physical chemistry. Since you are always advising others to read the  
literature before opening their mouths, I am sure you must of read this 
paper (as well as the one that precedes it in that journal, also by Jones,
which pokes many holes in Miles's CF experiments).

In said paper, Jones et al meticulously demonstrate, through a
number of interesting experiments, how recombination can mimic excess 
heat in cold fusion cells. Jones points out there that this effect
cannot---without additional errors---invalidate CF experiments where
they truly measure more energy out than was put in. (energy, not power!).

So, if in the CETI cell experiments they can actually measure 
more _energy_ out than was ever put in, Jones's original recombination
explanation would not apply. 

The problem is, we hear claims of a charging time, during which
energy input is apparently not tabulated, and a run time of
uncertain length (you claim it is many hours or days or
weeks, etc---but where is this data?) during which 5 W comes out and 
0.06 W goes in. Also, there is the uncontrolled possibility 
that H2 , O2 are absorbed from the air and recombined in the
cell at some unkown rate.

As you can see, there are some issues that need to be resolved. They
will only be resolved by producing a careful set of measurments
of Energy in and Out for the duration of a run, charging time 
included, with controls to eliminate recombination of
atmospheric gases and calorimetric errors. Presumably, 
Miley will make such measurments. If they 
show that Eout >> Ein, I don't think SJ will claim its recombination.

Your assertion that 6 << 500 only carries the weight you think it
does if it really did occur within the proper context outlined
above. Unfortunately, there has been no official presentation of 
experiments to that effect, that I am aware of. A public demo does
not count as official. Entertaining, but not official.



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


cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.30 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
Date: 30 Oct 1995 03:47:18 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <46v4rm$8gm@stratus.skypoint.net> jlogajan@skypoint.com (John  
Logajan) writes:
> Jonathan E. Jones (jjones@ebs330.eb.uah.edu) wrote:

> there have been several
> experiments now that account for recombination -- in fact they assume
> it is taking place at 100% rate and they still show excess heat beyond
> that.  Such is the case of the Cravens' ICCF5 demo of the Patterson
> cell, and apparently the Miley SOFE demo of a similar Patterson cell.
> 
> Recombination is ruled out in those two experiments.
> 

Unless I'm mistaken, those are two demos, not experiments. There
may be corresponding experiments, of course. But a public demo itself
is usually sufficient to demonstrate anything, as it does not
allow for a proper set of necessary controls, and usually also has
weak points that need further shoring up.


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


cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.29 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Incredibly stupid comments from Jones & Sullivan
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Incredibly stupid comments from Jones & Sullivan
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 95 22:41:39 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) writes:
 
     "I had the distinct impression the prior to the onset of the measurement
     the cell was "charged" with a current higher than 20mA. If so, this is a
     bit misleading."
 
I do not know where you heard that. Not in the literature, surely. Cravens
and others (including me) have written that the best way to do a CF experiment
is to start with a very low current, and to ramp it up only after the CF
excess heat turns on (if ever). Otherwise the cathode metal tends to fracture
or distort. In any case, suppose for the sake of argument that this experiment
started with 100 amps for two weeks. As I have pointed out many times, the cell
& reservoir contain only 40 mg of metal, 200 ml of water, a trace of lithium
and some plastic. There is no way you can store any significant amount of
energy in these materials. Logajan has shown that even if you saturate the
water with as much hydrogen and oxygen as it can hold, that will not allow
more than 40 mw of power, and the total energy storage is less than 100 joules
(as I recall). These cell have generated continuous, uninterrupted energy
output exceeding 85 megajoules. There is no conceivable chemical energy
storage mechanism that would allow you put that much energy in 200 ml of any
chemical fuel. It would take 2 kg of gasoline to store that much energy. The
charging time is and the total energy consumed in charging is irrelevant,
because we know that the charging cannot store even one-millionth of the
energy the system has already released.
 
We also know that the charging power is irrelevant because the calorimeters
show that the charging process is not endothermic. It does not swallow up
any significant, measurable level of energy. I do not think that the
calorimeter used at SOFE was capable of detecting the 60 mw input, but in
previous tests, with less effective cells, much higher charging levels were
needed, which could be measured. *In every case, in every CF experiment
on record*, during the charging period all of the input power came right
out again, immediately, in the form of joule heating or gas. Contrary to the
statements of Jones & Jones, this gas has frequently been measured and it
has never shown recombination, except in the experiments performed by J&J,
in which the power level was 1000 times lower than normal, the geometry
was rearranged to encourage recombination, and oxygen was pumped through the
cell to make it as reactive as possible. This proves that if you deliberately
do everything you can to encourage recombination, you will get it. The other
CF experiments all prove that when you follow sensible, standard
electrochemical procedures, you get no significant recombination.
 
The only endothermic portion of initial charging is the during the formation
of metal hydrides. This deficit can be detected in some experiments with large
Pd cathodes. It is far too small to be detected in the 40 mg CETI cathodes,
which are made mostly of nickel. In all cases we know that this deficit is a
tiny fraction of the total initial charging; 99.99% of the energy that goes in
during charging comes right out again. It is *not* stored. This has been
confirmed in experiment after experiment. Contrary to the assertions of J&J
and others, it was confirmed in all CETI experiments that I am aware of, with
either a gas flowmeter or a simple gas trap: an inverted test tube under
water, which captures the effluent gas for a fixed period of time. This is not
as good as a flowmeter, but it does prove the point. I recommend this
procedure to verify that a gas flowmeter is working properly.
 
 
    "It would be nice to know the total energy in, including that for the pump
    and that for any pre-conditioning. This could be compared to the total
    energy out."
 
Why would it be nice? There is no way this total energy could come close
to 85 MJ. What does the pump have to do with it? Many experiments have been
run without pumps, and anyone can get a lab pump and prove that pumps never
add any measurable levels of energy to the water. Simple physics prove that
the pump must be irrelevant. If you are going to throw in the energy used by
the pump, why not also include energy consumed by the electronics for the
precision liquid and gas flowmeters? Why not include the AC power consumed by
the DC power supplies and lost as waste heat? Why not add in the energy used
to melt the glass when the cell glassware was manufactured? For that matter,
why not include the energy from the exploding supernova that transmuted
hydrogen into the nickel and lithium in the cell? Throwing in the energy
consumed by the pump is absurd. There is no scientific justification for this
anymore than there would be for including the heat from the glassware furnace
back at the Corning factory. Anyone can test a pump and prove that *it adds no
significant energy to the flow.* Anyone can see the calibration curves from
these experiments prove the same thing. You might as well try to measure the
energy added by the gravitational perturbations from the moon.
 
 
     "It does seem there hasn't been a very complete description of the
     experiment made available here."
 
The descriptions are in the scientific literature and in the patents, where
the ought to be -- not in the Internet gabfest. But in point of fact I have
posted many details here, and Logajan and others have WWW home pages with
other details. There is more than enough information out there for you to
avoid making the kinds of mistakes you have made here, where you overlooked
the fact that the charging time is only 20 minutes.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.29 /  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: Sun, 29 Oct 95 22:53:55 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Bill Rowe <browe@netcom.com> writes:
 
>As far as the existence of tritium depending on surface effects, this is
>simply handwaving on your part. In fact, assuming CF is a nuclear effect
>resulting in tritium production, I very much doubt surface effects will
>determine tritium production.
 
No, this is not handwaving on my part. This is a carefully considered
hypothesis proposed by Bockris with additional supporting evidence from
Storms. It is not from me at all, and I cannot judge the scientific
merits of their arguments. As for you, you have *absolutely no business*
judging or doubting that surface effect determine tritium production because
you have not read any of the literature on CF and you know nothing about the
experiments this hypothesis is based upon. You were not even aware that
Bockris proposed the idea (you thought I did!). You remind me of Steve Jones,
who first pontificates that nuclear reactions in metals can never happen, and
who then proceeds to lay down the law and tell us how these reactions must
occur when they do happen. You cannot have it both ways. Either you can
explain the tritium evidence and you know why Los Alamos usually gets tritium
and CETI never has, or you cannot explain it. You cannot just arbitrarilly
"doubt" the Bockris hypothesis. You know nothing about it! You don't even know
what kinds of CF experiments are most likely to produce tritium.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.30 / 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: 30 Oct 1995 04:52:56 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Matthew B. Kennel (mbk@I_should_put_my_domain_in_etc_NNTP_INEWS_DOMAIN) wrote:
: John Logajan (jlogajan@skypoint.com) wrote:
: : If you can get a 5 degree rise with a gain of 80 from some heat pump
: : system, I think you have a winner on your hands.

: The limit is a function of the temperature drop, the less the drop,
: the larger the Carnot limit. 

Okay, assuming it is linear (I'm probably making a fool out of myself
here, I should look this up before posting -- but I'm lazy :-)
then a 10C rise would have a gain of 40, a 100C rise would have a
gain of 4.  It can get to -40C here in Minnesota on the coldest of
days, so I can have a heat pump pumping out nice 60C hot air with
an efficiency of 400%.  Not bad.  :-)

--
 - 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:
cuddy30 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.29 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hilarious 'skeptical' handwaving awards
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 1995 21:36 -0500 (EST)

Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
 
-> An example which is more directly relevant is ice skating:
-> when I go ice skating, the pressure of the blades melts the upper layer
-> of ice; the melting ice absorbs energy but neither the water nor the
-> blades change temperature.
 
That is actually not true.  Water has the unusual property that it expands when
it freezes.  The result is that the freezing point of ice drops when put under
pressure.  The blade of an ice skate applys pressure to the ice and depresses
the melting point.  This causes a thin layer of ice to melt directly under the
blade, and the resulting liquid is COLDER than the original ice was.
Immediately after the pressure is removed, the supercooled water refreezes back
again and the temperature for all practical purposes returns back to the
original temperature.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.29 /  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: Sun, 29 Oct 95 23:07:35 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

MARSHALL DUDLEY <mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com> writes:
 
>I think that Jones could be correct that the excess energy in the SOFE '95
>cell could be from recombination. But I think those who are arguing he is wrong
>are barking up the wrong tree. The problems that Jed and others have pointed
>out with his argument are so obvious, I can't believe that is what he was
>trying to say.  As Jed says .06 and 5 are no where near the same magnitude and
>I cannot believe a physics professor could have that hard a time grasping
>magnitudes.
 
I am sorry to inform you that you are incorrect about Steve Jones. He does
not aknowledge the difference in magnitude between 0.06 and 5. He has
publicly, repeatedly claimed that recombination can explain all CF results,
even when both power and net output energy exceeds input hundreds of times
over. He has claimed that recombination can explain the excess heat seen
at SRI and at Amoco, where closed cells incorporating recombiners were used.
I am sure you are correct that any physics professor would realize that
recombination cannot explain these experiments, but you should realize that
Jones has no intention of explaining anything. He is not engaged in a
scientific debate here. He is only posting these messages in order to
confuse the issue and to decieve scientifically illiterate people into
thinking that recombination might explain the results from CETI, SRI,
Amoco, Toyota, KEK, Toshiba and other labs where anyone can see it has
been ruled out. The messages from Jones (and Morrison too) are propaganda
not science. Both of them are too smart to believe what they write.
 
>But that does not mean that recombination does not play a part in the excess.
>Does not anyone here remember the discussion on a device (the inventor of which
>excapes my memory right now) which when feed high voltage pulses produced
 
The inventor is Meyer. I do not believe his claims. He has never allowed
anyone to measure the reaction at his lab with their own instruments, he
has never assisted anyone in a replication, and competant people who have
attempted to replicate from his patents have failed. My guess is that he is
faking it. I do not know whether he is or not -- I have no hard evidence --
but he acts as if he is. People with legitimate claims usually assist others
with replication, as CETI has done in five locations.
 
I do not believe "super electrolysis" is possible. You cannot get more energy
from burning the effluent gas than you put into electrolysis. All of the
evidence from the legit experiments like CETI's points to one thing and
one thing alone: excess heat from the cathode itself, not from an excess of
gas or anything else. The heat originates in the metal, and there is no
recombination or unnaccounted for gas.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.30 / Bill Page /  Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
Date: 30 Oct 1995 14:05:00 GMT
Organization: Daneliuk & Page

In article <46p0lc$710_001@ip062.sky.net>, bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan) says:
<< ...
 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.
>>

This is not true of the CETI measurements.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenwspage cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.30 / Alan M /  Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" <Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 14:34:18 +0100
Organization: Home

In article: <JDEnB6n.jedrothwell@delphi.com>  jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> The inventor is Meyer. I do not believe his claims. He has never allowed
> anyone to measure the reaction at his lab with their own instruments, he
> has never assisted anyone in a replication, and competant people who have
> attempted to replicate from his patents have failed. My guess is that he 
is
> faking it. I do not know whether he is or not -- I have no hard evidence 
--
> but he acts as if he is. People with legitimate claims usually assist 
others
> with replication, as CETI has done in five locations.
> 

But Jed - HE'S GOT PATENTS ON IT! IT MUST BE TRUE!

Over and over again you've pointed to the fact that companies like Toyota 
and (er, that's all...) have taken out patents on CF, as proof that THEY 
MUST HAVE SOMETHING WORKING IN IT, sine otherwise the patents wouldn't have 
been taken out.

Please don't tell me Meyer has broken the solemn oath of the Captain Scarlet 
fan-club, and taken out a patent when there is nothing worth protecting 
behind it?

My credulity has just hit an all-time low, and you are entirely to blame.

-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.30 / Ira Blum /  Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, Dr. Hill is the wiser, Dr. White washes
     
Originally-From: iblum@utdallas.edu (Ira K Blum)
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 washes
Date: 30 Oct 1995 15:53:31 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Dallas, ACC

In article <472it1$8p7@denfert.afuu.fr>, Herve Le Cornec <Herve.Le.Corne
@afuu.fr> writes:
|> I always wonder how physicists could say that something 
|> with no mass and no charge exists.
|> 

Light has no mass and no charge, does that mean that light does not 
exist?  

|> So what is the criterion of existence for a PHYSICAL system ?
|> 

-- 
Ira
iblum@utdallas.edu
Go Rangers and Phillies (and Cowboys and Mavericks and Speed Racer Go!)
Benji Gil for AL Rookie of the Year!!!
"You might be a Redneck if"
- Jeff Foxworthy
Please direct all flames to /dev/null
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudeniblum cudfnIra cudlnBlum cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.30 / John Seney /  cmsg cancel <john-2810950556270001@wd1v.mv.com>
     
Originally-From: john@wd1v.mv.com (John Seney)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <john-2810950556270001@wd1v.mv.com>
Date: 30 Oct 1995 11:02:46 GMT

EMP/ECP (aka SPAM) cancelled by clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca.

See news.admin.net-abuse.announce, report 19951030.05 for further details
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnSeney cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.31 / Eugene Mallove /  Pons/Fleischmann Patent to Be Granted in Eur.
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Pons/Fleischmann Patent to Be Granted in Eur.
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 03:57:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dr. Eugene F.  Mallove, Editor-in-Chief and Publisher
INFINITE ENERGY
Cold Fusion Technology
P.O. Box 2816
Concord, New Hampshire 03302-2816,  USA
Phone: 603-228-4516, Fax: 603-224-5975


                                                October 30, 1995

Dear Colleagues:

INFINITE ENERGY Magazine has received the following announcement from ENECO of
Salt Lake City. The Magazine will be providing coverage of this and other 
fast-breaking stories in its Issue #4, which will be out by mid-November.

                                        Sincerely,

                                        Eugene F. Mallove


ENECO RECEIVES NOTICE OF INTENT OF PATENT GRANT
FROM EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE ON ORIGINAL
PONS-FLEISCHMANN COLD FUSON INVENTION

Salt Lake City, Utah October  30, l995 -- Fred Jaeger, President of ENECO, 
Inc. today announced, "The European Patent Office has issued a Notice of 
Intent of patent grant on the original Pons-Fleischmann cold fusion patent." 
ENECO acquired the exclusive world-wide license rights to the Pons-Fleischmann
cold fusion technology from the University of Utah in November, 1993, and has 
been pursuing patents in the U.S. and abroad on these technologies.

"The notice of intent of grant of the European patent is a significant 
milestone on ENECO's path of commercializing cold fusion devices," says 
Jaeger. "A significant amount of private and governmental cold fusion research
continues to be aggressively pursued throughout Europe. Once the European 
patents issue, ENECO plans to capitalize on the economic strength of the 
European community through the sale of research and development licenses that 
will evolve into manufacturing licenses. The Pons/Fleischmann patents will be 
the pioneering patents in the cold fusion field."

                                                ####
                                                END


cudkeys:
cuddy31 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.30 / Robert Tilley /  Energy In <> Energy Out???
     
Originally-From: Robert Tilley <tilleyrw@digital.net>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Energy In <> Energy Out???
Date: 30 Oct 1995 17:08:36 GMT
Organization: Seekers of Truth

  The skeptics are at it again.  "But what about another source of input 
energy that wasn't accounter for?  What about...subspace teleportation 
of energy from the alien base on the moon?"

  Whatever the excess energy is, it exists.  FACT.  Now we need to 
develop it.

tilleyrw@digital.net

P.S.  Just my fed-uppedness with pathological skeptics.


cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudentilleyrw cudfnRobert cudlnTilley cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.30 / Steven Janowsky /  Re: Steven Janowsky's Magic Martian Refrigerator
     
Originally-From: janowsky@gaston.ma.utexas.edu (Steven Janowsky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Steven Janowsky's Magic Martian Refrigerator
Date: 30 Oct 1995 17:20:04 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote lots of lies about me, which are excluded here.


Your experiment has 2 sources of energy -- electrolysis current and
motor current.

The electrolysis `system' [perhaps] can act as a heat pump in taking
heat from the motor and moving it to the cell.  This violates no laws of
thermodynamics.

A `real' refrigerator only has one energy source; I was trying to keep
the level of description reasonably short.

So imagine a refrigerator on defrost cycle, with resistance heating
going on.  The refrigerator is a heat pump, pumping heat from the inside
to the outsite.  Heat out > non-resistance-heating electricity in.  Jed
would have you believe that I claimed that Heat out > total energy in; I
did not.

Granted, this is not a normal application for a heat pump.  A heat pump
isn't needed to transfer energy from `hot' to `warm', but you can use
one if you want.



Once again, Jed attacks those making simple points that he can't deal
with.  A heat pump only needs a colder-than-ambient region if there
isn't a hotter-than-ambient temperature reservoir.  Since there is a
hotter-than-ambient reservoir (the pump, the electrical imput of which
is NOT included in the energy `conservation' computations), no cold
region is needed.  Thus claims invoking the 2nd law of thermodynamics do
not rule out this type of heat transfer.

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjanowsky cudfnSteven cudlnJanowsky cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.30 / Steven Janowsky /  Re: Steven Janowsky's Magic Martian Refrigerator
     
Originally-From: janowsky@gaston.ma.utexas.edu (Steven Janowsky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Steven Janowsky's Magic Martian Refrigerator
Date: 30 Oct 1995 17:26:53 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

I guess I'm wrong--I was assuming that there was a source of heat in the
motor and pump.  But this experiment has a 100% efficient magic martian
pump.  Let's forget about cold fusion and sell these pumps.


jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: We also know that
: during calibration runs the pump does not get hot. It never changes
: measurably at all, so there is no heat flowing into it or out of it.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjanowsky cudfnSteven cudlnJanowsky cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.30 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 12:02:38 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <USE2PCB187239427@brbbs.brbbs.com>, mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com wrote:

> I think that Jones could be correct that the excess energy in the SOFE '95
> cell could be from recombination. But I think those who are arguing he
is wrong
> are barking up the wrong tree. The problems that Jed and others have pointed
> out with his argument are so obvious, I can't believe that is what he was
> trying to say.  As Jed says .06 and 5 are no where near the same magnitude and
> I cannot believe a physics professor could have that hard a time grasping
> magnitudes.

***{Why not? A professor of physics, in most cases, is just an airhead who
remembers without understanding. Like other types of professors, their
minds are full of symbolic statements and rules for their manipulation,
and devoid of the visual models which define what the statements *mean.*
They obtained their advanced degrees by regurgitating on cue the "correct"
words of yet other airheads like themselves, in an "educational" context
that had been deliberately structured to penalize those who did the hard
mental work necessary to produce visual models and, hence, understanding.
They are lifelong parasites, employed by the parasitic state or by
organizations which it controls, and certified "competent" by it. Their
job is to defend the status quo and the elite of bloodsuckers who ride on
our backs. Since none but the brain dead fail to see the monstrous
immorality of state parasitism, it is no surprise that most apologists for
that system are stupid as posts, and have a hard time grasping just about
anything. --Mitchell Jones}***

>  
> But that does not mean that recombination does not play a part in the excess.
> Does not anyone here remember the discussion on a device (the inventor
of which
> excapes my memory right now) which when feed high voltage pulses produced
> large amounts of hydrogen and oxygen?  This device was reported to produce
> several times as much hydrogen and oxygen than straight electrolysis should,
> and prior to the discussion dying out, we were discussing taking the hydrogen
> and oxygen and either running an ICE or a fuel cell on it and feeding back
> the energy to create a free energy device.
>  
> If this phenomenon is also taking place in the Patterson cell, it could
account
> for the excess.  Once again we are faced with where the source of this excess
> comes from, nuclear, ZPE or some other exotic source.  But as Jed keeps
saying,
> he doesn't care whether it is nuclear or not, but it is too much to be
> chemical. I think the recombination theory belongs in the same camp, we don't
> know, but it is too much to be chemical if indeed it is real.
>  
>                                                              Marshall
>

***{Marshall, you are dropping the context of the discussion. The subject
here is not some vague non-chemical process in which "recombination" is
somehow involved. The subject, instead, is the very specific and very
crudely idiotic theory of recombination proposed by Steve Jones, which
wildly and by many orders of magnitude fails to account for the facts of
the SOFE demo which it originally purported to explain. --Mitchell
Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.30 / Craig Stangland /  Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: Craig Stangland <cstangl>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
Date: 30 Oct 1995 17:29:19 GMT
Organization: NODE-TO-NODE SURVEILLANCE

FYI, there are patents on "perpertual motion machines", but obviously they were
patented under a different category, since PMM's can't be patented.

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudfnCraig cudlnStangland cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.30 / Bernt Rostad /  Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, Dr. Hill is the wiser, Dr.   White
     
Originally-From: rostad@cam.ov.com (Bernt Rostad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.particle,sci.
hysics.fusion,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, Dr. Hill is the wiser, Dr.   White
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 18:14:40 GMT
Organization: CERN, European Laboratory for Particle Physics


In article <47121t$vbd@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Archimedes.Plutonium@dart
outh.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
|> > 
|> >         E = m * c^2                            (Eq 1)
|> >         E^2 = (P * c)^2 + (Mo * c^2)^2             (Eq 2)
|> > 
|> > Here the momentum P of the particle give a contribution to the
|> > total energy, just as well as the rest mass Mo of the particle.
|> > 
|> > By using (Eq 1) you can rewrite (Eq 2) as:
|> > 
|> >         <==>  m^2 = (P/c)^2 + Mo^2         
|> >         
|> > So, you see that the mass term in (Eq 1) has a dynamic term (P/c)^2
|> > that will keep it from getting zero even if we should be able to
|> > verify that neutrinos have zero rest mass.
|> 
|>    Why macht this so komplikated? 

Sorry, I just tried to show that even particles with rest mass 0 have
energy - which isn't obvious if you just look at E=m*c^2 

|>   By theory the photon and neutrino have 0, zero rest mass because the
|> way out of the dividing by zero in the denominator is to say that the
|> numerator is also 0. That the photon and neutrino have zero rest mass.
|> And you have 0/0. Otherwise the energy of the photon and/or neutrino is
|> infinite which is obviously wrong.

For the photons the mass must be zero yes, but there is no real need 
for neutrinos to be massless ... why should they travel at the exact
speed of light ?  If they travel at 99.99% the speed of light (which
is mighty fast) the Gamma factor would only be 70 so that the energy
of the neutrino would be finite: 70*Mo*c^2  where Mo is the small
"rest mass". No experiments today (as far as I know) have excluded
the possibility of a finite neutrino rest mass.

Infact there's a lot of research going on about possible neutrino
mixing, where a muon neutrino can change into an electron neutrino,
just like for a neutral kaon and its antiparticle which is known 
to mix (CP violation) but at a small rate.

According to the Standard Model; mixing between families is only possible
if the members are massive. So for neutrinos to mix they must have a finite
mass. Nobody have seen evidence for netrino mixing yet but we cannot
exclude it either, currently the upper limit for the mass of the electron
neutrino is about 10 eV or 10^(-35) Kg or 0.02 permille of the electron 
rest mass.

But neutrino mixing could explain the solar neutrino problem (i.e. why
we only see 1/3 of the expected neutrinos from the solar fusion reactions)
and it would also make the protons unstable (though the lifetime is known
to be more than 10^(30) years) and maybe some of the "dark matter" in
cosmology could be explained if the neutrinos proves to be massive.

An interesting field of science indeed :-)


  ############################################################
  Bernt O Rostad @ the DELPHI-experiment @ CERN in Switzerland
  e-mail -> rostad@afsmail.cern.ch   (For reaching me at CERN) 
  e-mail -> bor@fys.uio.no   URL -> http://www.fys.uio.no/~bor
  ############################################################

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenrostad cudfnBernt cudlnRostad cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.30 / Horace Heffner /  Re: 7Li(n,2n)6LI driven fusion (was: Farce of Physics)
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 7Li(n,2n)6LI driven fusion (was: Farce of Physics)
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 11:19:03 -0900
Organization: none

In article <462uk2$lto@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, zoltanccc@aol.com
(ZoltanCCC) wrote:

> I don't remember the possibility of sustained reactions being refuted. The
> number of reactions that could happen in a complex system as this is
> large, and possibly we don't know about all of them yet. Some that come to
> mind are:
> 
> n* + Li7 ---> Li6 + n + n                                (1)
> 
> This is our original reaction, where I denoted the fast neutron with a *
> for simplicity.
> 
> n  + Li7 ---> Li8 (life is 0.844 secs)                 (2)
> 
> In this (2) the neutron is slow.
> 
> Li8  --->  e  +  Be8 (life is 0.067 femtosecs)     (3)
> 
> Be8  --->  He4  +  He4                                   (4)
> 
> The consecutive (3) and (4) yield a whopping 16 MeV of energy taken away
> by the electron mostly (I think). We also have the following:
> 
> n  +  Li6  --->  T  +  He4                                 (5)
> 
> This yields some energy (I think about 4 MeV)
> 
> Of course so far we have nothing producing fast neutrons. Perhaps these
> reactions can be used to build a reactor which is operated by an external
> fast neutron source.
> 
> Of course we have the deuterium to think of, so we have:
> 
> n  +  d  --->   T
> 
> or the fast T from the (5) will collide with other nuclei present in the
> system possibly causing fission/fusion and thereby replenishing our fast
> neutron supply. One example:
> 
> T  +  d  --->  He4  +  n*
> 
> This reaction can complete a circle of positive feedback to make the
> system supercritical, because our original fast neutron has been
> replenished and we have lots of heat producing reactions. 
> 
> This whole system can be used to build a "dirty" nuclear reactor. Perhaps
> it can be constructed sub-critical and run by the external neutron source
> (gas discharge tube) or maybe it can be moderated. 
> 
> This whole thing has been discused under the "Farce of physics".  
> 
> 
> Zoltan Szakaly

Sorry it took me so long to respond. The fiber cable to Alaska broke over
a week ago, and the news server I subscribe to stopped being useable.

You still have not shown how to achieve a mix ingredients that sustains a
neutron multiplication factor >= 1.  You show lots of energy creating
reactions, but it appears there is no way to sustain the neutron flux to
make net energy from your costly input neutron beam.  Your mix can not
simultaneously be mostly Li7 and mostly d and partly T and partly He4 all
at the same time, even cross section wise, can it?  You need to show the
numbers for some mix that can sustain neutron flux, and you have not done
that.  One problem, for example, is the reaction T  +  d  --->  He4  +  n*
does not produce any appreciable neutron multiplication factor in a cold
environment.  Even if a pure beam of T nuclei are accelerated toward a LiD
target in an accelerator, so few of the collisions are "head on" enough to
create fusion that almost all the T nuclei remain T nuclei after
dissipating their energy in numerous collisions. This reaction can only be
expected to maintain neutron flux in a hot masssive environment like the
sun, where neither the T nor the neutrons escape before reacting in the
sustained thermal energy environment.

Further, even though the reactions you cite create energy, they do not
seem to approach anywhere near a COP to offset the inefficiency of
generating an input neutron beam.  You have not even shown that it is
feasible to create a positive COP, that if you put in 10,000 KW you could
get 10,001 KW heat out.

Regards,                          <hheffner@matsu.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.30 / A Plutonium /  Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, Dr. Hill is the wiser, Dr.   
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.particle,sci.
hysics.fusion,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, Dr. Hill is the wiser, Dr.   
Date: 30 Oct 1995 19:19:14 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <472h8i$22a@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

> >   By theory the photon and neutrino have 0, zero rest mass because the
> > way out of the dividing by zero in the denominator is to say that the
> > numerator is also 0. That the photon and neutrino have zero rest mass.
> > And you have 0/0. Otherwise the energy of the photon and/or neutrino is
> > infinite which is obviously wrong.
> > 
> >   If you do not accept that way out, then you are faced with saying
> > that if the photon has a finite small rest mass then there exists some
> > frame of reference wherein the photon is "at rest". But that idea
> > contradicts SR that light or the photon has the same speed of c in all
> > frames of reference. 
> > 
> >   Boiled down to its essence, the question why does the photon and
> > neutrino have zero rest mass *in theory*, and the answer is that we
> > either accept Special Relativity or we do not and SR as we know it is a
> > crude first approximation, an algorithm to a better theory. 
> > 
> >   I for one believe 100% that the photon and the neutrino have 0 zero
> > rest mass. But I believe that both the theory of Special Relativity and
> > more important the Maxwell Equations which are invariant to SR will be
> > modified in the future. I believe that the Maxwell Equations can be
> > neutrinolized such that the photon is a composite particle of at least
> > 2 neutrinos. Would it make sense for a photon to have zero rest mass
> > yet be composed of two or three neutrinos which do possess a rest mass?
> > Can the part be larger than the whole? Perhaps equal but never larger.
> 
>   So, then Dr. White and all the members of his team obviously believe
> that the Maxwell Equations and the theory of Special Relativity are
> shams are fakes.  Dr. Hill on the other hand is not a goofball like Dr.
> White who is ready to hand over the Maxwell Equations just so that he
> gets his name limelighted, for what for what?  Ask Dr. White will a 1
> millionth of the electron mass close the gap of 99% of the mass of the
> universe is missing??
> Talk about social physics pressure and these goofballs destroying
> Maxwell Equations and Special Relativity. Is your name in Nature yet
> Dr. White, you goofball, you white-washer.

  Social physics is a bad conduct of physics. Sloppy as can be. Counter
to existing and accepted theory and bodies of knowledge. What does a
1/1,000,000 of the electron mass do for the fairy tale of the Missing
Mass problem? Nothing but limelight a troop of physics baboons.

  How does the neutrino have zero rest mass. I did not include that
logic above. Well, here it is. When the neutrino was hypothesised as
existing the numbers of it were worked out so as to comply with the
missing energy that came out of Beta decays or neutron decays. The
numbers worked out made that the neutrino or antineutrino in order to
100% conserve energy made it such that the neutrino species had to have
0 rest mass and travel at the speed of light.
   Thus, I guess social physics by Dr. White takes utter disregard for
Special Relativity, for Maxwell Equations which is the most important
of all, and for radioactive decay observations. Social physics and Dr.
White appear to want to throw out all of this body of knowledge. For
what reason? The only reason I can see is that White gets his name
plastered across the physics landscape, . . until real physics people
prove that his experiments were whitewash.  Hey, Dr. White, you running
for President of the USA?
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.31 / Owen Gallagher /  Nuclear Physics help please!!
     
Originally-From: owen@gallagho.demon.co.uk (Owen Gallagher)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nuclear Physics help please!!
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 04:18:49 GMT


Nuclear Physics Question:

Analyse the reaction:     24
                            Mg (proton,alpha) X

a) Determine the nuclide X

b) Determine the Q value

c) Calculate the threshold energy

d) For a projectile kinetic energy in the lab system of 7.5 MeV,
   calculate:
  
  i) the energy in the centre of mass system before the reaction

 ii) the energy in the centre of mass system after the reaction

iii) the minimum and maximum energies of the ejectile and rest
     nucleus in the lab system

e) Find the maximum emission angle for the ejectile in the lab
   system

f) Calculate the minimum kinetic energy for the projectile at which 
   the ejectile is observed at 180 degrees (backscattered) in the 
   laboratory

ALL CALCULATIONS TO BE PERFORMED NON-RELATIVISTICALLY.

Can do a,b,c but not d,e and  f.

Thanks in advance

Owen


cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenowen cudfnOwen cudlnGallagher cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.27 /  jonesse@plasma /  Re: Serious flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95 demo)
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Serious flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95 demo)
Date: 27 Oct 95 16:22:26 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

I stick by my hypothesis that much or all of the "excess heat" claimed by
Patterson Power Cell advocates is simply due to recombination of H2 and O2,
dissolved in the flowing electrolyte.

Martin Sevior does a nice calculation showing that 200 ml (the cell volume)
of electrolyte can only hold 428 cc of H2 dissolved in the water, which amounts
to "2.85*10**5 Joules" of stored energy (via recombination on the catalyst
bed).  He then goes on to suggest that the cell at the SOFE demo produced
4.5 watts for eight full hours, or 24 times as much heat.

Martin's analysis ignores the volume of electrolyte outside the cell, in
the circulation of the electrolyte.  The diagram in Hal Fox's "Fusion Facts"
article shows an extra volume where "gases escape" (it is not clear whether
this is into free air, or whether the volume is closed so that H2 can
re-dissolve into the fluid later) and a volume for the pump
and flow meter.  Hal does give the dimensions of the cell, which works out
to about 200 ml -- for the cell alone.  The volume outside the cell would
be nice to know; Martin ignores this.

Then there seems to be some confusion about the operation of the Cell at
SOFE as opposed to other places.  George Miley told me (as I recall)
that the best his
students could get out of a cell was a factor of about 10 in the thermal
*power* over (small) electrical current -- I understand this was 
2-hundredths of an ampere, at
2.98 volts, or 60 milliwatts input.  That means a maximum output at the
SOFE demo of about 0.6 watts thermal out -- not 4.5 W.  Even if the
output at SOFE reached a maximum of 4.5 W as Martin now says, was this
maintained for 8 hours?  I doubt it, based on what Miley told me over the
phone.  

It would be nice
to have a publication showing charging times and currents (Fox says they
charge at higher current, then turn the electrical current way down for
"excess power" operation), electrolyte volumes and so on.  But using Martin's
analysis, modified by a factor to include the volume in circulating
electrolyte, and a another factor for the  power output over time, gets
us close enough to the energy content of the electrolyte to make my
recombination hypothesis worth consideration, I think.  If the cell-system
is pressurized, then the stored chemical energy goes up, of course.
Going beyond this
will required published numbers, or the tests I urged Miley to perform.


Jed Rothwell (after sorting through the usual barrage of epithets) says:
"Okay, we charge the cell for 20 minutes at 60 milliwatts.  That's a total
of 72 joules. Half of that is lost to joule heating... So we have this mighty
36 joules sitting in this gigantic ocean of electrolyte (200 ml; a coffee cup
full)."

Like Martin, Jed ignores the volume of the electrolyte circulating outside
the cell.  Jed also suggests that the cell was charged for "20 minutes at
60 milliwatts."  He goes on, "Are you completely brain dead or what?  Suppose
we had an ocean of flowing electrolyte.  The total input energy in the first 20
minutes of the experiment is far less than you get our every minute during the
excess heat run, and the excess heat run has gone on for SEVEN WEEKS!!!  Which
is longer, 7 weeks or 7.2 seconds?  Can you tell?  No, of course you can't.
An idiot who thinks 6 = 600 cannot tell the difference between 4,233,600 and 7.
Hey, do they actyually let you teach college courses there at BYU?  Maybe you
should go for some adult education remedial classes. Your local YMCA may offer
something.  They will teach you the difference between 4 million and 7." etc. 

This differs from Martin's 8 hour run at SOFE, and from Hal's description of 
charging at high (but unspecified) current:  
"if the cell has been operated for some time at
high current levels and the current is decreased, the power amplification
factor (PAF) can go to very large values."  We need to know the charging
current and time and electrolyte volume 
in order to accurately determine the amount of stored chemical energy
in the Patterson battery.  Data on the running time and integrated energy
input and energy output would also be needed.    


It is difficult to get one's hands on all the data required to 
prove or to disprove my hypothesis
that recombination of H2 and O2 on the Pd/Ni/Pt catalyst bed is the *chemical*
source of heat ascribed to a "Power Amplification Factor" by Patterson,
Cravens, et al.  This is why I suggested that Miley take his operating cell
(after charging then reducing the current) and remove the dissolved H2 and
O2 from the electrolyte.  If I am correct, the excess power should drop
precipitously as this is done.  This is a straightforward test, which
neither Martin nor Jed have argued against.  

Alternatively, one could charge the electrolyte by bubbling H2 and O2 gases
from gas cylinders, into the electrolyte.  Then determine if the temperature
rise in the cell as the charged electrolyte is flowed over the catalyst bed
(without any current at all) is about 4 degrees.  Recombination will surely
occur on Pd/Ni and Pt in the cell and heat the electrolyte -- it is a
matter of degrees.  Miley should be encouraged to do both tests, since
he has a Patterson cell at his disposal now.  Flow rates, pressures, input
temps., etc.-- except for 0 electrical current -- should be the same as
in the SOFE demonstration.

Note (to Dieter especially):  adding or removing gases can be done in the
circulating stream of the electrolyte, rather than in the cell, to avoid
arguments by TB's that the *act* of removing stored H2 from the electrolyte
in the cell environment
somehow reduces the putative nuclear reactions.  One suspects that
TB's will probably come up with some other way to hide even a real 
chemical effect in the cell.  

The contention that "It doesn't matter
what the reaction is in the cell" is clearly wrong -- for if the reaction
is just recombination, then this is just an expensive, inefficient battery and 
totally uninteresting as a commercial power source. 

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjonesse cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.30 / 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: 30 Oct 1995 20:46:42 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <21cenlogic-2710951444220001@austin-2-9.i-link.net>  
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:
> In article <46ogtm$gdg@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry
> Merriman) wrote:
> 
> 
> Now, if the dust that is thrown off is called "energy," then we have
> fashioned, in a very rough way, an image of how it may be that cavitation
> channel characteristics can be instrumental in determining whether an
> orbiting electron does or does not radiate, and how the quantity of such
> radiation may be related to charge acceleration rather than to the sorts
> of things you mentioned: velocity, distance traversed, etc. 
> 

Of course, this dust is not conserved---because the electron can be
a source of arbitrarily much of this dust...i.e. there is no limit
to how many photons an electron can throw off. So, if you take this 
point of view, you have to explain how the kinetic energy of the 
electron is-really/can-be converted to dust particles. I doubt you are
going to get a simple mechanical picture for velocity == accrued
dust particles.




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


cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.30 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Serious Flaws in Patterson (SOFE '95) Demo on Cold Fusion
Date: 30 Oct 1995 20:58:51 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <ZlBHBmp.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

[Re: Jones paper on recombination heat in CF cells]

> In SOME cold fusion cells. Not all! Only in cells where total energy
> output is less than I*V and the gas correction must be used but gas is
> not measured. The Jones recombination theory does not apply to 99.9% of
> CF experiments because they fall into one or more of these categories:
>  
> 1. Experiments in closed cells with recombiners.
> 2. Experiments in which the gas is measured.
> 3. Experiments in which total power output (and net energy) exceeds I*V
>    input.
>  
> Jones, and you apparently, refuse to aknowledge that his test cover a very
> limited set of experiments 

I think Jones' paper directly acknowledges 1,2,3, and I said as much in
the part of my post you clipped off. Points 1,2,3, are obvious of course,
to Jones, me and everyone else. The issue is whether experiments really
meet one of these three exemptions. In order to tell, the experimental 
report has to be sufficiently detailed, and independent replication would
be desirable to further eliminate errors. I think Jones complaint
in his paper is that this is seldom if ever the case in the CF 
literature....i.e. the number of experiments that satisfy these
quality constraints and one of the above 3 exemptions may be small
or 0.

But, wonderfully, now that should soon be a moot point of debate---the
CETI device is certainly said claimed to satisfy all exeptions, and 
all quality constraints, and more importantly the device seems
very robust, with a strong signal,  and is getting independant investigation
with help from the progenitors. This is truly unique in all of CF,
and no doubt some resolution will be reached soon. E.g., either 
Miley will find something wrong, or he wont, in which case many
other folks will investigate it as well.

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


cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.30 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Steven Janowsky's Magic Martian Refrigerator
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Steven Janowsky's Magic Martian Refrigerator
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 95 15:48:36 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Steven Janowsky <janowsky@gaston.ma.utexas.edu> writes:
 
>I guess I'm wrong--I was assuming that there was a source of heat in the
>motor and pump.  But this experiment has a 100% efficient magic martian
>pump.  Let's forget about cold fusion and sell these pumps.
>
>
>jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
>: We also know that
>: during calibration runs the pump does not get hot. It never changes
>: measurably at all, so there is no heat flowing into it or out of it.
 
Steve cannot read English. I guess speech is not his first language.
I said that the PUMP temperature never changes MEASURABLY. No doubt it
does change by something like 0.00001 deg C, or what have you, but that
is not MEASURABLE with the instruments we use in these experiments, and
it is many orders of magnitude smaller than the 5 deg C and 20 deg C
temperature changes that would be required to explain the CF reaction.
 
Steve also does not appear to know the difference between a pump and a
motor. The motor that drives the pump gets measurably hot. Anyone with
a lab pump or aquarium pump can verify this. Small pump motors are air
cooled. They are *all* air cooled; none of them is designed to dump the
waste heat into the fluid they pump. The pump is not 100% efficient and
I never said that it was. This is just more stupid confusion spread by
someone who has no experience in the real world an no grasp of elementary
thermodynamics.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Oct 31 04:37:06 EST 1995
------------------------------
