1995.12.30 / John Logajan / Re: First hand report of the Anaheim CETI demo Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: First hand report of the Anaheim CETI demo Date: 30 Dec 1995 20:36:44 GMT Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. J B Youles (john.youles@dial.pipex.com) wrote: : jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) wrote: : > No amount of negative results will ever convince : >everyone that further investigation is not warranted. : Are you saying that a simple comparative test between a CETI device and : an immersion heater would be unfavourable to CETI ? If so what are you : claiming ? I wish I had that sort of inside information. Alas, I have exactly the same information as everyone else here on this forum. I was speaking more broadly. Since there are unlimited untried possibilities, and since experiments with negative results can only reasonably exclude a few possibilities at a time, there will always remain some untried avenues. Therefore someone somewhere is likely to wonder what would happen if ... As it happens, these types are generally ridiculed when things don't work out, and praised and adored on the rare occasion when their persistence pays off. So we are actually lucky there are a few of those sorts out there to continue their highly improbable quests while suffering the slings and arrows of their detractors. -- - 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 cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.12.30 / James Thomas / Re: First hand report of the Anaheim CETI demo Originally-From: jthomas@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (James Thomas) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: First hand report of the Anaheim CETI demo Date: 30 Dec 1995 16:25:31 -0500 Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. In article , wrote: >When we measured the flow rate, we were careful to ensure that the outlet >tube remained at exactly the same height as it was when the stopcocks >were closed. We also deliberately tried raising it up in the air once >as high as it would go. We saw no measurable difference. I am curious as to why there was (is?) no in line flow measureing device. 'Apolgies if I've missed a previous reference to this aspect. It would surely put paid to a lot of the speculation and argumentation about the power output. A cheap variable area flow gauge would run at less than a hundred $US. The method of diverting the flow into a calibrated container would seem to be better suited to be a check of an in-line direct flow measuring device rather than as a primary measurement of flow and in fact we do something similar here at MNR to check the calibration of our primary flow monitors. -- Jim Thomas McMaster Nuclear Reactor phone 905-5259040 ext 23283 1280 Main St. W. FAX 905-5284339 Hamilton, Ontario, Canada home 905-6280126 cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenjthomas cudfnJames cudlnThomas cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.12.31 / Harry Conover / Re: Second "law" is dead ! Success ! Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane .science,cl.energie.alternativen,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.envir nment,sci.physics Subject: Re: Second "law" is dead ! Success ! Date: 31 Dec 1995 01:36:38 GMT Organization: The Internet Access Company Anthony Cox (arteast@pop3.cris.com) wrote: : I make no claims of being 100% sane or 100% honest. However, I honestly : believe that interferrence of light has not been explained properly, and that : a discussion of it may bring about a better understanding of the : nature of light and electromagnetism. : It is theoretically possible to have the both beams entirely 180 degrees : out of phase. In this case, we would have total darkness, no bright bands Well, not quite! This is exactly what happens when a light beam strikes a conductive surface (typically, a mirror) or, in the case of radio frequencies, when a short-circuit is placed across the end of a transmission line. The explanation and analysis of what occurs is straight-forward. At the location of the 'short-circuit,' the electromagnetic E field vector is constrained to be zero. This implies that a second beam is present, traveling in exactly the opposite direction as the original beam, and precisely 180-degrees out-out-of phase with the original. Scientists and laymen alike call this phenomenon a 'reflection.' This is why mirrors work. They 'short-circuit' the em-wave's E-field at the point of contact. What happens to the energy? It is reflected back to its source! Exactly the same thing happens if you short-circuit an r.f. transmission line, the transmission energy is reflected back to it source -- sometimes resulting in over-voltage damage to the source. Trivia note: This is one of the reasons you are well advised not to place any large metal objects in your microwave oven! The reflections and standing waves created could overstress and damage its magnetron. Is this any clearer? For somewhat more depth on this subject, consult any introductory text on Electromagnetic Fields, Physical Optics, or Optical Electronics, or call your local physicist or EE. :-) Harry C. cudkeys: cuddy31 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.12.31 / Harry Conover / Re: Second "law" is dead ! Success ! Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane .science,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment,sci.physics Subject: Re: Second "law" is dead ! Success ! Date: 31 Dec 1995 01:47:19 GMT Organization: The Internet Access Company Anthony Cox (arteast@pop3.cris.com) wrote: : ... nobody likes me mentioning my 13 SEER heat pump which has a : thermal efficiency of well over 200% in winter and over 300% in summer. So long as they don't confuse thermal efficiency with energy efficiency, there should be no problem. It generally takes far less energy to move heat from one place to another, than to create an equivalent amount of heating from a higher form of energy. Harry C. cudkeys: cuddy31 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.12.31 / Harry Conover / Re: Cold Fusion Day at MIT Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Day at MIT Date: 31 Dec 1995 01:51:23 GMT Organization: The Internet Access Company Alan M. Dunsmuir (Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk) wrote: : It's a subtle trick, which they've picked up from CETI, of doing things : badly purely to confuse their opponents. It must work on some -- At least judging from TB posts. Harry C. cudkeys: cuddy31 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.12.30 / jedrothwell@de / Re: Experimental evidence rules out 1300 watts from CETI demo Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Experimental evidence rules out 1300 watts from CETI demo Date: Sat, 30 DEC 95 21:01:57 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Paul Stowe writes: >Interesting that so much talk AND so little action takes place on this >vein. For detractors and proponents alike the bottom line is ... > >If you are REALLY SERIOUS about resolving the issue Get off you butts >and set up AN EXACT REPLICA of the CETI cell, put in imersion heater >element(s) to replica the 1300 watt input an run the damn thing. Be I agree with your sentiments 100%, but I personally don't have to do that. I spent two days fiddling around with the original CETI calorimeter when I was in Anaheim, and I talked to Cravens about it extensively. I am sure the thing does not get measurably hot when the pump alone is running. Only ~25 watts goes in, and the extensive surface area plus the cooling fan remove the heat at once. There is no way it will heat up 10 or 20 deg C above ambient. Actually, I do not think it is vital to build an EXACT REPLICA of the calorimeter. I would say that something reasonably simliar would do the job. Just get a large aquarium pump with a filter and a 50 watt air cooled motor. Put 2 or 3 liters of water in it, and drive the water around a closed loop. The flow rate does not matter very much; all of the energy that goes into the water will be turned into heat as the water splashes back into the reservoir. This test alone will show whether the input from the motor is sufficient to raise the reservoir temperature 10 or 20 degrees. If it does not even raise the temperature 1 degree that would prove that some other large source of energy must have been attached to the original cell. The major parameter that might vary from one pump to another would be the heat transfer coefficient of the plastic walls of the reservior. This was not particularly heavy or thick plastic. I do not know how to descibe it. I suppose the best thing to do would be to get another pump from the same manufacturer -- whose name I listed in the original report. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.12.30 / jedrothwell@de / Re: First hand report of the Anaheim CETI demo Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: First hand report of the Anaheim CETI demo Date: Sat, 30 DEC 95 21:04:09 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) James Thomas writes: >I am curious as to why there was (is?) no in line flow measureing >device. 'Apolgies if I've missed a previous reference to this aspect. It They doubled the flow rate a few weeks before the conference, in order to keep the water temperature low. They did not have time to buy a new flowmeter (the ones they have go up to 600 ml I think). This is described in my original report which I will e-mail you after the new year, if I remember. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.12.31 / Harry Conover / RONCO to Market CETI Cooker? Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: RONCO to Market CETI Cooker? Date: 31 Dec 1995 02:16:07 GMT Organization: The Internet Access Company Have you heard the rumor that RONCO will be exclusively licensed to produce and market a Camping product based on the quantum-leap CF performance claimed by CETI. I picture Ron Popeil demonstrating the CETI technology powered 'Campers Companion,' an electric Hot Dog boiler powered by 2 'D' batteries and fueled by ordinary Water! An hour long Infomercial could even include cameo appearances by CF celebrities from here and abroad (who shall for now mercifully remain nameless). Featuring 1300-Watts of cooking power, it packs small, cooks fast, and is made of rugged, space-age, easy to clean plastic! And...it produces no ash! Don't laugh... this could obsolete camfires -- Ron may be even willing to bundle a slicer or bread machine into the deal! Break out the mustard... I'll take two. Harry C. cudkeys: cuddy31 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.12.30 / MARSHALL DUDLEY / Re: Second "law" is dead ! Success ! Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane .science,cl.energie.alternativen,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Second "law" is dead ! Success ! Date: Sat, 30 Dec 1995 23:04 -0500 (EST) tcox@raleigh.ibm.com writes: -> >What makes you think that the bright bands are not 4X? -> -> If the bright bands are 4x, then the scientific principle behind wave -> interferrence is not valid. -> -> The principle behind wave interference states that the waves cancel -> each other in the dark bands. If the missing energy were in the bright -> bands, then an even more difficult problem presents itself. That two -> waves that are 180 degrees out of phase do not cancel, they just move -> over. Now we need to figure out what moved them. -> -> Such a revelation would mean that scientific experiments based upon -> wave interference now have a different meaning. Any scientific -> experiments based upon wave interferrence would have to be re-eval- -> uated. The measurement of differences in the speed of light by wave -> interferrence would no longer be accurate. The Michaelson/Morley -> experiment would have a different meaning. -> -> If you can prove that the the bright bands contain that missing energy, -> then you will have my respect and admiration, because you will -> make a marked contribution to modern science by proving that wave -> interferrence is invalid. You can get the result with a simple addition and subtraction of the waves. Energy of the wave is the E field times the H field (and they are proportional to each other) . If the two fields are 180 degrees out of sync, then they cancel (E-E = 0 and H-H = 0). If they are in sync, then they add linearly, that is we have E+E = 2E and H+H = 2H. Does that mean that the intensity is twice as bright? No, as intensity is based on energy which is the product of the E and H fields, thus the intensity will be 4X. But nothing "moved", it is a simple linear addition and cancellation effect. You get exactly the same results if you have two ac batteries (forget that they don't really exist) and hook them in series. If the two are at the same frequency you get 2V or 0V depending on the phase of 0 or 180 degrees. Power into a load will be 4X or 0X since power is V^2/R. If the two batteries are of different frequencies then the result is that the RMS value of the Voltage will be 1.414V, giving you an average power into a resistive load double what only one source would give. The equations between the two are identical and so are the results. Marshall cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.12.31 / Harry Conover / cmsg cancel <4c4rp7$97o@sundog.tiac.net> Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: cmsg cancel <4c4rp7$97o@sundog.tiac.net> Date: 31 Dec 1995 04:39:03 GMT Organization: The Internet Access Company Article cancelled from within tin [v1.2 PL2] cudkeys: cuddy31 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.12.31 / John Logajan / Re: Experimental evidence rules out 1300 watts from CETI demo Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Experimental evidence rules out 1300 watts from CETI demo Date: 31 Dec 1995 06:38:40 GMT Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. Bob Sullivan (bsulliva@sky.net) wrote: : It sure looks like we're rapidly converging on a conclusion. Yeah, that the system is too complex to meaningfully speculate about. Adding rudimentry airflow and evaporation changed the thermal loss rate by nearly an order of magnitude. A coiled geometry is certainly more favorable still, so there are additional unknowns. And we have the "signatures", or more correctly, the missing signatures that the proponents of blocked flow seem to continually avoid discussing. -- - 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: cuddy31 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Jan 1 04:37:04 EST 1996 ------------------------------