1995.11.03 /  jonesse@plasma /  Paper on replication of SRI: No xs heat
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Paper on replication of SRI: No xs heat
Date: 3 Nov 95 16:10:42 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University


This is to provide information regarding the replication of the SRI
experiment by Green and Quickenden for those who missed my posting earlier this
year:

T.A. Green and T.I. Quickenden, "Calorimetric studies of highly loaded
deuterides and hydrides of palladium," Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, 
389 (1995) 91-103.

"It is clear that the excess power levels reported by McKubre and coworkers and
by Hasegawa and coworkers would have been detectable in the present
isoperibolic calorimeter regardless of the manner in which the excess power
scales with cathode size.  Thus it would appear that the null results obtained
in the present experiments cannot be rationalized on the grounds that the
calorimeter used did not possess adequate sensitivity or accuracy."

"Experimental requirements relating to the duration of electrolysis and the
applied current density [ref. to papers by McKubre/SRI] appear to have been met
satisfactorily in the present study.  Typically, calorimetric measurements were
commenced after 300 h, and the total duration of each experiment exceeded 700
h.  These experimental time-scales are comparable with those employed by 
McKubre..."

"The major aim of this study was to attempt to verify the earlier findings of
McKubre and coworkers [at SRI; 4 refs.] and Hasegawa and coworkers [2 refs.,
both from proceedings of cold fusion meetings], 
who have reported reproducible
excess heat production when (amongst other conditions) the D/Pd loading ratio
exceeds a threshold value of about 0.85-0.90.  However, despite the achievement
of D/Pd loading ratios in excess of 0.90 and the satisfaction of other
requirements relating to the experimental duration and current density, 
no evidence for any excess heat production was found in any of the experiments
within the estimated experimental error of +- 1.5%."


I note that Jed keeps protesting that skeptics don't read the literature --
but I do!  Has he read the Green and Quickenden paper?

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjonesse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.06 /  jonesse@plasma /  Tests of Patterson; No tritium found
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tests of Patterson; No tritium found
Date: 6 Nov 95 11:09:44 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

With regard to Mr. Johmann's false accusation in his recent post,
to the effect that I had stolen P&F's electrolysis idea based on
a review of their proposal,
may I also thank Jonathon Jones and Dieter Britz who also replied
to Mr. Johmann, before I received his post.  

On the matter of testing the Patterson cell -- Sullivan, Shanahan,
J. Jones, Merriman and others have raised valid concerns.  These
should be treated as hypotheses to be tested.  It is particularly
significant that Dr. Miley, who has a Patterson cell at U. Illinois
and can perform these tests, has said that he does not claim at this
time that the Patterson cell gives more output energy than input
energy, when the input power and output power are integrated over 
the length of the experiment.  Of course, the cross-talk
between thermocouples and cell voltage in the Patterson cell must
also be avoided as this can lead to spurious indications of excess
heat production.

We could look for neutron production from this cell in our underground
laboratory here; the offer is open to all serious investigators.
(Of course, this is a light-water cell, so neutrons are not expected!)

Finally, I note that Jed Rothwell refers again to tritium production 
when he posts:  "Los Alamos usually gets tritium and CETI never has..."
The Los Alamos effort is led by Tom Claytor, and he has indeed claimed
trace amounts of tritium through the years.  But Claytor worked with
Sid Smith at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C.,
in an effort to replicate the tritium production --
and *no* tritium was found!

--Steven Jones



cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjonesse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.06 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Cold Fusion: Energy dissipation by high energy spin coupling?
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion: Energy dissipation by high energy spin coupling?
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 1995 13:59:50 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <47c4ba$512@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Ann Tekatch
<a7503934@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca> wrote:

> FROM: Bill Tekatch <a7503934@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca>
> 
> Some radioactive isotopes decay by isomeric transition
> from upper to a lower isomeric state.  This gave me
> the idea that perhaps the energy released by the fusion
> that may take place in the cold fusion process, is
> initially held in a single particle of unusually high
> spin.  I have never heard of anything like a super-spin
> electron.  If such a strange particle were to form,
> would it not quickly dissipate its excess energy
> by coupling of its strong magnetic field into the
> surrounding medium? Such coupling may occur so that
> no gamma or other particles are formed. I suspect
> that a super-spin proton is more likely because
> the high energy electron may generate electron-positron
> pairs and cause annihilation radiation which has never
> been reported.

***{A very perceptive post. Your speculation is in the ball park. A
superspin, hypermagnetic particle is, in fact, involved. I call it a
*protoneutron.* Protoneutrons are not, however, the immediate source of
the energy. Rather, they are a population of vampire particles that
precipitate reactions and then suck the resulting energy out of the
system, converting it into kinetic energy and preventing it from being
dissipated in conventional ways. You need to go back into the archive
(sunsite.unc.edu) and read the 200-plus posts dealing with the
protoneutron theory. I think you will find them to be very interesting.
--Mitchell Jones}***

> 
> Sincerely,
> Bill Tekatch

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy06 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.06 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 1995 17:01:33 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <47fbi2$6m9@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry
Merriman) wrote:

> In article <x7NnZ7D.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> 
> > This [various CF criticisms] is a cynical (and so far successful) gambit to
> > drown out serious scientific discussion by burying it under a truckload of
> > propaganda, lies, and absurdities. Jones is doing this deliberately. I
> > expect you are too, but it may be that you are so stupid you actually buy
> > stuff like the "recombination theory" and the cigarrette lighter.
> >  
> 
> Why are you upset then? You should be overjoyed---by having Jones, myself
> and other skeptics confusing the issues for the vast majority of scientitst,
> that leaves all of CF open for yourself and your select group of
> associates. You should all soon be billionaires, and no need to share the
> wealth. You shouldn't be lambasting us---you should be actively funding
> us to run interference for you.

***{Unfortunately, you guys don't just run interference on newsgroups such
as this one: you also run interference when venture capitalists are
evaluating requests for funding. It is simply a fact that most venture
capitalists lack a deep understanding of science. Result: when they
receive a funding request from a person who wants to develop commercial
applications of an energy source, they immediately call in some
establishment "expert" such as yourself or Steve Jones, who then puts the
skids under the deal by blathering on about "absurd pseudoscience,"
"crackpottery," and so on. Bottom line: Jed is lambasting you guys because
he sees you for the obstructionists that you are. --Mitchell Jones}***
  
> 
> 
> --
> Barry Merriman
> UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
> UCLA Dept. of Math
> bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy06 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.07 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Incredibly stupid comments from Jones & Sullivan
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Incredibly stupid comments from Jones & Sullivan
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 1995 20:09:51 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <browe-0511951242140001@10.0.2.15>, browe@netcom.com (Bill
Rowe) wrote:

[Major snip]
>[Marshall Dudley's] comments assume the pump energy isn't directly involved in
> the CF effect. This is a rather major assumption given the physics of CF
> haven't been established yet. This leads full circle to one of the reasons
> for wanting to know how much energy is used by the pump.
> -- 
> "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"

***{Bill, when are you going to stop singing this song? Enough is enough!
Every attempt to demonstrate a path by which 5 joules/sec could make its
way from the pump to the Patterson cell via a flow rate of 14.28 ml/min
has been smashed to smithereens! This means the power consumed by the pump
motor, or by any electronics or other components that may be associated
with it, is *irrelevant* to the question of whether excess heat is being
produced. Why can't you grasp this? THERE HAS TO BE A BELIEVABLE PATHWAY
BY WHICH THE PUMP COULD ROUTE 5 JOULES/SEC TO THE PATTERSON CELL, BILL! DO
YOU UNDERSTAND? 

Do you, perhaps, believe that your inability to demonstrate such a pathway
is unimportant? If so, they why don't you demand to know how much energy
is consumed by a passing automobile, or by metabolic processes in the
experimenters, or by a power saw running in a lumber mill five miles from
the lab? The answer is obvious: the way you distinguish between relevant
power sources and irrelevant power sources is by demonstrating a
believable pathway by which the needed energy could be routed to the
Patterson cell. If such a pathway has been demonstrated, the power source
is relevant, and it is appropriate to investigate it. On the other hand,
if no such pathway has been demonstrated, the power source is irrelevant,
and it is not worthy of investigation.   

Here, then, is my challenge to you: if you think there is a believable
pathway by which the pump could supply 5 joules/sec to the Patterson cell
in the SOFE demo, *please tell me what it is.* We know it isn't supplying
the energy as heat, or as pressure, or as energy of dissolution of magic
crystals, or as energy of recombination. So tell me what's left, Bill!
What possibility has been overlooked? And, of course, if you can't answer
that question (a safe bet if there ever was one!), then explain to me why
I should be concerned about the energy consumption of the pump, but not
about the energy consumption of the lumber mill five miles down the road! 
--Mitchell Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy07 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.07 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Publication of SOFE Demo?
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Publication of SOFE Demo?
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 1995 20:20:16 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <951104092837_97753540@mail06.mail.aol.com>, Tstolper@aol.com wrote:

> The successful demonstration of a Patterson cell at SOFE '95 was a landmark
> event.
> 
> Are there any plans to publish the experiment in a peer-reviewed journal?
> 
> Tom Stolper

***{If you are referring to any of the mainstream academic journals,
forget it! The "peers" who do the "reviews" are crank professors. They
hate heretics with a passion, and would run naked through a bramble patch
and jump into a pool of piranhas before they would recommend such a paper
for publication! --Mitchell Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy07 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.11.07 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Patterson demo data from ICCF5
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Patterson demo data from ICCF5
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 1995 20:32:03 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <47hrc5$lt6@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com wrote:

> Since at least one person continues to claim vociferously that the Patterson
> demo device run by Dennis Cravens at ICCF5 required gas correction in order
> to show excess heat, I have reproduced here (and on my www page) the
> table in the report Cravens had published in both "Cold Fusion" magazine
> and "Infinite Energy" magazine.
> 
[Big snip]

***{Careful, John, you are beginning to threaten Jed's position as "Mr.
Data!" --Mitchell Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy07 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Nov 14 04:37:06 EST 1995
------------------------------
