1996.01.04 / Bradley Sherman /  Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
     
Originally-From: bks@netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 19:28:36 GMT
Organization: Remote Fusion Reactor Reverse Entropy Associates

In article <xTDFWfQ.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
> ...
>the people at CETI, and I thought we had a nice visit arranged. Now they turn
>around and tell me the equipment will not be available. Dennis has not got
>another cell up and running yet. ...

And so forth, and so forth.  Another CF bunny emerges
into the light of day for a minute and upon being
asked a question or two, scurries back to Wonderland,
muttering,
 "Oh, my ears and whiskers.  I would dearly love to
  converse and tell you the story of the CETI cell,
  but I'm late! I'm late for my meeting with the Queen
  of Commerce."

    --bks

p.s. Off with their heads!

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenbks cudfnBradley cudlnSherman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.04 / Larry Wharton /  Re: Diverting hose makes a mess
     
Originally-From: Larry Wharton <Wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Diverting hose makes a mess
Date: 4 Jan 1996 22:06:49 GMT
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center -- Greenbelt, Maryland USA

Looking at pictures of the CETI cell I would have estimated the total 
volume to be greater than 300 ml but it looks like I was wrong.  With 
only about 10 ml of water between the beads it would not be possible to 
overlook the effects of the 300 ml flow.  An alternative explanation of 
the excess heat is that it comes from the heater in the cell. A cell 
that is alleged to produce excess heat from some strange unknown source 
should not have a heater in it.  That allows too much possiblity for 
fraud.  


Lawrence E. Wharton   wharton@climate.gsfc.nasn.gov
NASA/GSFC code 913, Greenbelt MD 20771
work (301) 286-3486,    home (301) 595-5038


cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenWharton cudfnLarry cudlnWharton cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.04 / John Logajan /  Re: CETI Cell Configuration
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI Cell Configuration
Date: 4 Jan 1996 04:12:59 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Harry H Conover (conover@max.tiac.net) wrote:
: If the motor shaft penetrates into the area containing water, it is
: direct coupled rather than magnetically coupled.  Both types are
: available, however, the direct coupled types tend to be short lived
: as they frequently develop leaks at the shaft seal.

There is no shaft seal in my pump.  The whole of the rotor, bearings
and all, are in the plastic well exposed to water.

--
 - 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:
cuddy4 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.04 / John Logajan /  Re: Diverting hose makes a mess
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Diverting hose makes a mess
Date: 4 Jan 1996 05:03:27 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Larry Wharton (Wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov) wrote:
: The argument that the observers would have noticed a delta T drop 
: during flow measurments is not convincing.  The volume of the flow into 
: the graduated cylinder must exceed the volume of electrolyte in the cell 
: in order for the colder water to reach the exit temperature sensors and 
: that looks like it is not the case.

Jed reports he measured flow rates by drawing 300 ml over a period of
15 seconds.

The volume of the beads is about 40ml, with uniform packing density,
the interstice volume is about 24%, or about 10 ml.  So to draw 300ml
through the cell would replace the volume nearly 29 times.

Jed reports he verified the output temperature sensor reading by
drawing 250 ml and measuring its temperature.  This is 24 replacement
volumes.

So what is your basis for claiming that the colder water did not
reach the output temperature sensor?

--
 - 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:
cuddy4 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.04 / Harry Conover /  Re: CETI Cell Configuration
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI Cell Configuration
Date: 4 Jan 1996 06:04:38 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

<4cfk4b$4vu@stratus.skypoint.net>
Distribution: 

John Logajan (jlogajan@skypoint.com) wrote:
: Harry H Conover (conover@max.tiac.net) wrote:
: : If the motor shaft penetrates into the area containing water, it is
: : direct coupled rather than magnetically coupled.  Both types are
: : available, however, the direct coupled types tend to be short lived
: : as they frequently develop leaks at the shaft seal.

: There is no shaft seal in my pump.  The whole of the rotor, bearings
: and all, are in the plastic well exposed to water.

Egad, a new design!  I've never encountered one quite like this.

Still, this implies a large air (water, platic, non-ferromagnetic)
gap in the magnetic path and, consequently, limited magnetic flux
density with a correspondingly limited torque/head capacity.

                                   Harry C.


cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.04 / Harry Conover /  Re: Power factor
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Power factor
Date: 4 Jan 1996 06:15:49 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

John Logajan (jlogajan@skypoint.com) wrote:

: Now the DC powersupply was the most interesting case.  As expected the
: current conducted more during the center portion of the voltage peak.
: The waveform skew rate was sinusoidal-like away from zero.  Near zero
: there was an extended plateau.  But there was this current rebound as
: the voltage crossed zero.  That was purely reactive and therefore would
: have overstated the actual power consumed if just considering the
: V*I product -- regardless of the form factor peculiarities of the
: meter.

Isn't the power supply filtered and regulated?  Are you suggesting 
that the CETI folks are, in addition to using an aquarium pump for
their water supply, using an unfiltered, battery-charger type power
supply for their d.c. power source?

Gawd, as much of hacks as these guys at CETI appear to be, I can't 
believe that they would do something as knuckle-headed as using
an unfiltered, pulsating source of d.c. for their demo!  

Please tell me I read something wrong.

                                       Harry C.

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.04 / John Logajan /  Re: Power factor
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Power factor
Date: 4 Jan 1996 06:26:46 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Bob Sullivan (bsulliva@sky.net) wrote:
:    jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) wrote:
: ->1.) assumed 100% recovery of cell heat (could be on the order of 20%)

: ?????? 5 x 1,344 = 6,720 Watts ?????? Surely, you jest.

Yeah, I meant 20% loss, i.e. 80%.  Sorry for the confusion.
The CETI cell at ICCF5 had about an 85% thermal recovery rate.


: ->2.) no correction for recombination losses (minor in this case)

: Is this a supposition? We haven't seen the complete calculations

The cell voltage was 8 volts with 0.18 amps.  The electrolysis power
would be 1.48 volts times 0.18 amps = .266 watts, about a 1/4 watt,
which is pretty insignificant compared to the 1.2 watts resistive loss,
compared to the 85 watts AC input, compared to the 1300 watts allegedly
measured at the output.


: ->3.) power factor (25%?)

: I don't think we have any idea of the power factor of the actual setup since 
: it was not measured. If the power supply contained filter capacitors, the 
: power factor could have been much, much different from your assumption.

First, again I meant 25% loss = 75% power factor.  We have an idea of
power factors because I just looked at some examples with my o-scope.
In particular, my "battery eliminator" was of the same general specification
as the one described as used by CETI.  I had a 2 watt resistive load on
it to simulate the cell draw.  I could see that there was a local current
peak as voltage crossed through zero -- an obvious sign of reactance,
and thus a non-unity power factor.


: ->4.) assumed 100% coupling of AC power into cell deltaT as worst case 
: scenario

: This assumption was NOT made in calculating the claimed cell gain.

Sure, 1300watts/85watts = over-unity.


: ->there is no reason to believe that the specific heat is higher than 0.95.

: Then too, to be really conservative, there is no reason to believe the 
: specific heat is not lower than 0.95.

Yes there is reason to believe it is 0.95 -- it was measured by Cravens
to be 0.95.


: We can't assume that any of the reported measurements bear any relation to
: reality.

Why dance around with various scenarios then?   I mean if you don't
believe that Santa delivers Xmas presents, there is no point in trying
to disprove him by laboring over the details of reindeer aerodynamics.

In other words, if you can pick and choose which observations you want
to include or exclude, you can prove anything, claim anything.  What
indeed is the point?

--
 - 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:
cuddy4 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.04 / Peter Weis /  Re: Second "law" is dead ! Success !
     
Originally-From: pweis@Direct.CA (Peter H. Weis)
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: 4 Jan 1996 08:57:55 GMT
Organization: Internet Direct Inc.

In article <4c46co$eo9@spectator.cris.com>, Anthony Cox <arteast@pop3.cris.com> says:
>
>ses2@po.CWRU.Edu (S. E. Stansfield) wrote:
>

>
>No, but 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.
>
   Your heat pump uses local ambient energy - which is a product of the 
immense amount of energy dissipated by our sun. The 2nd law is as in-
violable as ever;
peter;
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenpweis cudfnPeter cudlnWeis cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.04 / Steve Sinclair /  Re: Second "law" is dead ! Success !
     
Originally-From: stesine@actrix.gen.nz (Steve Sinclair)
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: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 10:15:15 GMT
Organization: Actrix Networks -- NZ Internet Service Providers.

scott@informatik.hu-berlin.de (Matthew Scott) wrote:

>ken collins <collinsk@ix.netcom.com> writes:
... stuff deleted ...
>Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought he meant to say that the second law and the
>first contradict eachother.  It seems to me that your harmonic universe makes
>use of an anti-second law.  That seems like a pretty good contradiction to the
>second law, so I don't see how you've made much progress.  Furthermore, I have 
>heard of no experimental evidence for this theory.  People have only imagined

While I don't neccesarily agree with it as a theory one nice thing
that occurs to me is that by definition there wouldn't be any physical
evidence. The second law and the anti-second law could not exist at
the same time. 



Steve Sinclair

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenstesine cudfnSteve cudlnSinclair cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.04 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Power factor
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Power factor
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 96 11:15:32 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> writes:
 
>The factor Jed forgot to include is the specific heat of the electrolyte,
>which is 0.95 compared to 1.0 for plain water.  Therefore Jed's reported
 
Oh, yes. You are quite right on both counts: that is important and I forgot
about it. I will revise the longer report now before I forget. Thanks for
reminding me.
 
(P.S. Dennis did not forget. He talked about that in his previous reports
and at Power-Gen. I am going to replay the audio tape of his Power-Gen
presentation and see what he said.)
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.05 / Martin Sevior /  Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
     
Originally-From: Martin Sevior <msevior>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
Date: 5 Jan 1996 07:31:43 GMT
Organization: The University of British Columbia

bks@netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:
>
>Nonsense, the reason that most people read this newsgroup is
>for evidence.  There's been precious little of that.  If
>Tom Droege had had two anomalous ``events'' during his on-line
>experiment, that would have been sufficient evidence for most
>here to move toward TB status.
>

I certainly wouldn't have been convinced by two "events". On the other hand
why aren't you convinced by a delta-T of 17 C at a flow rate of 1200 milli
-litres per minute for 8 hours straight? Do you choose not to believe what 
Jed reports?

Do you not believe because it's impossible to have that sort of heat 
gain without vast amounts of chemical ash or large amounts of nuclear
radiation?

What would it take to convince you? Would 3 independent measurements of heat
gain in excess of 200 watts with good controls have convinced you? I'm on
record as saying I'd only be REALLY convinced after a cell had been put into
self sustain mode. There's some way to go before that happens. In the meantime
the results just have to be taken as extremely intriuging. 

On the other hand I see no reason to make snide remarks about people 
working their butts off from the comfort of one's own armchair.

>It is possible to have an open mind and yet not be gullible.
>

I hope I have one of those but if I didn't I'd never know right?

Martin Sevior

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.05 / Barry Merriman /  Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
     
Originally-From: barry@fourier.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
Date: 5 Jan 1996 08:36:10 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In article <4cik4v$psf@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> Martin Sevior <msevior> writes:
>
>On the other hand why aren't you convinced by a delta-T of 17 C at 
>a flow rate of 1200 millilitres per minute for 8 hours straight? 
>Do you choose not to believe what Jed reports?

I don't recall such an 8 hour run being reported...I thought it
was ~2 hours.


Anyway, thats besides the point: I am convinced---that there is
something interesting to investigate. But I am not at all convinced of the
conclusion. I personally wouldn't be convinced 
that there is a new energy source by a second hand report of a 
demonstration at a conference.

>
>What would it take to convince you? Would 3 independent measurements of heat
>gain in excess of 200 watts with good controls have convinced you? 

Well, I would be basically convinced if the national bureau of 
standards would do a thorough test and pronounce the device as 
producing more energy than is put in. After all---we pretty much trust
the NBS (well, now its NIST) to define all our standards of
measurement. Of course, repeated, independent replication is the
ultimate test, but one good effort from NIST would put me into the
``yeah, it looks like "CF" works'' category. 

>I'm on
>record as saying I'd only be REALLY convinced after a cell had been put into
>self sustain mode. 

Actually, I don't really think thats necessary. As long as you can 
explicitly capture more energy out than was put in, in a fully 
instrumented experiment, I'll forego the self-sustaining mode,
whatever thet really means. By capture, I mean collect all the heat 
out and do some obvious, incontrovertible work with it, like boil
a quantity of alcohol from one vessel to another, to an extent that 
the work done in such a transfer was far in excess of the power put
into the device. This is one step more rigorous than the current
type of calorimetry that is done, which involves temperature
measurements at isolated points, and subsequent inference of heat
generated. (Not that I think that is unreasonable, but if you
want to get really incotrovertible, I'd vote for capture of
heat out and conversion into evident mechanical work).

>In the meantime
>the results just have to be taken as extremely intriuging. 
>

Certainly...too bad you decided not to visit, I was eagerly
awaiting your observations.
--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet)  (NeXTMail OK) 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.05 / Bradley Sherman /  Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
     
Originally-From: bks@netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 1996 13:48:31 GMT
Organization: Remote Fusion Reactor Reverse Entropy Associates

In article <4cik4v$psf@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>, Martin Sevior  <msevior> wrote:
> ...
>I certainly wouldn't have been convinced by two "events". On the other hand
>why aren't you convinced by a delta-T of 17 C at a flow rate of 1200 milli
>-litres per minute for 8 hours straight? Do you choose not to believe what 
>Jed reports?
> ...

Yes.  That's exactly correct.  Why is Jed Rothwell the one person
in five billion to present the data on both Griggs and Cravens?
That may not strain your credulity, but it does mine.

I work in a molecular biology laboratory, and we get lots of
anomalous results; positive results in controls among them.
When this occurs, the reaction is not to hold a press conference
announcing, say, spontaneous production of DNA in laboratory
reagents, but rather a search for a contaminant or flaw in
a protocol.  Once in a long while these anomalies turn out
to be important results.

I do not pretend to know enough about the universe to know
what is and is not possible.  But I've been cheated and
lied to enough to be wary of geeks bearing over-unity
devices.

    --bks

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenbks cudfnBradley cudlnSherman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.05 / Harry Conover /  Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
Date: 5 Jan 1996 14:47:18 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Bradley K. Sherman (bks@netcom.com) wrote:

: Yes.  That's exactly correct.  Why is Jed Rothwell the one person
: in five billion to present the data on both Griggs and Cravens?
: That may not strain your credulity, but it does mine.

I find nothing strange in this.  After all, history show that
people who claim to have had first hand contact with a UFO 
generally report repeated encounters.  Theory is
that if you have the special talent to see things that no one
else does, you'll see these things often...just as Jed does with
over-unity devices.  This appears to be a general characteristic
all pseudo-sciences. 
  
: I work in a molecular biology laboratory, and we get lots of
: anomalous results; positive results in controls among them.
: When this occurs, the reaction is not to hold a press conference
: announcing, say, spontaneous production of DNA in laboratory
: reagents, but rather a search for a contaminant or flaw in
: a protocol.  Once in a long while these anomalies turn out
: to be important results.

Your comment is clearly off-topic since it relates to real
science.  You scientific guys take all the joy out of
experimentation -- Heck, performing experiments is no fun
unless you can convince yourself that you've made an amazing
discovery at least once a week!

: I do not pretend to know enough about the universe to know
: what is and is not possible.  But I've been cheated and
: lied to enough to be wary of geeks bearing over-unity
: devices.

Party Pooper!

                               Harry C.

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.05 / Harry Conover /  Re: Power factor
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Power factor
Date: 5 Jan 1996 14:59:01 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

John Logajan (jlogajan@skypoint.com) wrote:
: Harry H Conover (conover@max.tiac.net) wrote:
: : John Logajan (jlogajan@skypoint.com) wrote:
: : : Now the DC powersupply was the most interesting case.  As expected the
: : : current conducted more during the center portion of the voltage peak.
: : : The waveform skew rate was sinusoidal-like away from zero.  Near zero
: : : there was an extended plateau.  But there was this current rebound as
: : : the voltage crossed zero.  That was purely reactive and therefore would
: : : have overstated the actual power consumed if just considering the
: : : V*I product -- regardless of the form factor peculiarities of the
: : : meter.

: : Isn't the power supply filtered and regulated?  Are you suggesting 
: : that the CETI folks are, in addition to using an aquarium pump for
: : their water supply, using an unfiltered, battery-charger type power
: : supply for their d.c. power source?

: : Gawd, as much of hacks as these guys at CETI appear to be, I can't 
: : believe that they would do something as knuckle-headed as using
: : an unfiltered, pulsating source of d.c. for their demo!  

: : Please tell me I read something wrong.

: I was talking about the input side of the transformer -- the "primary
: winding," as they call it.


Why?  It's not clear to my why you would care about the input power to
the power supply, unless it too is chucking its dissipated heat into the 
'calorimetry.'

                                          Harry C.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.05 / John Logajan /  Re: Kettle experiment
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kettle experiment
Date: 5 Jan 1996 15:35:45 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) wrote:
: The question I would raise is whether the thermal behavior that is described
: for the CETI device is consistent with there being a 1300 watt heat source
: in the system.

I think several others are walkind down the hill from 1300 watts to see
how low it might really be.  Some others (such as myself) have been
walking up the hill from 1.4 watts.  We have a shorter trek.  We only
have to walk up passed 100 watts or so, while the downward walkers have
to descend all the way from 1300 watts to 1.4 watts.


: By all accounts the rate of heat production is totally independent of
: every variable in the system.

If you look at the two seperate runs Jed posted measurements for and a
third run associated with the pictures on my web page, you can see there
is a high variability in system parameters.  

In one test the cell impedance is 44 ohms.  In the other two runs, the
cell impedance was 195 ohms and 398 ohms.

Power gains were 960, 4690, and 3041 respectively.



: We are told changes in electrolysis current have little effect

This is in direct contradiction to the above posted results.
The respective electrolysis currents were 0.18, 0.02, 0.023 amps.


: and that the fluid
: flow rate determines the temperature differential in a completely linear
: manner consistent with there being not effect on the reaction rate.

Actually I believe Jed said the opposite, that high temperatures accelerate
the reaction rate, ergo, low flow rates allow higher cell temperatures
allow higher (sometimes too high) reaction rates.  I can't confirm or
deny Jed's observations, but I believe you are misstating what has been
claimed.


: From the description of the plumbing it seems rather unlikely that the
: fluid flow rate would be rock solid steady so should we not expect to
: see changes in the temperatures as electrolyte is drawn off to measure
: that flow rate?

The bead bed and the inline stirrers and filters (if any) represent the
major flow resistances, therefore the effect of diverting through one
section of hose or the other are likely to be numerically insignificant.

--
 - 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:
cuddy5 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.05 /  Ariba /  Re: Diverting hose makes a mess
     
Originally-From: "H.Rommelse (Ariba)" <H.C.M.Rommelse@pth.nl>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Diverting hose makes a mess
Date: 5 Jan 1996 15:44:47 GMT
Organization: PTH

I don't say I have any anwers, just a lot of questions.
I send this as a reply to Mr Rothwell but it counts for everyone. That is 
the principle behind newsgroups isn't it?

1. I wonder isn't it possible to use the heat to make the water flow? Put 
the same amount of energy in the fusion cell and in another testdevice 
wich looks the same only this time containing no more than a resistor.The 
flowrate should be near shouldn't it? I was thinking of a endless or 
circular tube if needed with a reservoir.

If the flowrate would not be enough to keep the fusion going maybee it 
would flame for a short period of time anyhow and because the device is 
quit small then a bit of heat must be seen. You can always start the 
proces by using a device like a pump connected parallel to the tube. 
Stop that after a couple of seconds. You can even use gravity for that. 
The ordinairy bucket will do.

Greetings Henri R.

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenRommelse cudlnAriba cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.04 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Diverting hose makes a mess
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Diverting hose makes a mess
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 96 21:10:08 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Larry Wharton <Wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov> writes:
 
>the excess heat is that it comes from the heater in the cell. A cell 
>that is alleged to produce excess heat from some strange unknown source 
>should not have a heater in it.  That allows too much possiblity for 
>fraud.  
 
There is no heater in this cell. There are only two wires going to it,
and they are for electrolysis. They are attached to a power supply that
cannot deliver more than 10 watts or so. There is no possibility of fraud
because the effect has been independently replicated by the University
of Illinois and it has been independently confirmed by four other labs
(and maybe more). Unless you want to postulate that all these universities
and corporations are engaged in a conspiracy to commit fraud, that
hypothesis fails.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.05 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Technical Documentation regarding Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: barry@cauchy.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Technical Documentation regarding Cold Fusion
Date: 5 Jan 1996 02:56:19 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In article <jfortune-0401961130090001@128.173.202.54> jfortune@vt.edu
(John Fortune) writes:
>
>all time favorite:
>
>
>"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
>
>      --Bill Gates, 1981

But I think in this case Gates is referring to his 
hourly wage.




--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet)  (NeXTMail OK) 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.05 / Martin Sevior /  Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
     
Originally-From: Martin Sevior <msevior>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
Date: 5 Jan 1996 02:53:14 GMT
Organization: The University of British Columbia

bks@netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:
> <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>> ...
>>the people at CETI, and I thought we had a nice visit arranged. Now they turn
>>around and tell me the equipment will not be available. Dennis has not got
>>another cell up and running yet. ...
>
>And so forth, and so forth.  Another CF bunny emerges
>into the light of day for a minute and upon being
>asked a question or two, scurries back to Wonderland,
>muttering,
> "Oh, my ears and whiskers.  I would dearly love to
>  converse and tell you the story of the CETI cell,
>  but I'm late! I'm late for my meeting with the Queen
>  of Commerce."
>
>p.s. Off with their heads!







A predictable response but 
Jed has it right about the reasons I'm not going. A pity because
I think I would have done a good job testing them. On the other
hand maybe it would have only been useful to me. Most of the people
in this newsgroup have views so entrenched that no amount of evidence
would make them change their minds.

Whatever Dennis Cravens is he is dammed sure his cells work. He
certainly plans bigger, better, cleverer and USEFUL devices. 

Martin Sevior

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.05 / John Logajan /  Re: Diverting hose makes a mess
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Diverting hose makes a mess
Date: 5 Jan 1996 03:37:24 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Larry Wharton (Wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov) wrote:
: An alternative explanation of the excess heat is that it comes from the
: heater in the cell. A cell that is alleged to produce excess heat from
: some strange unknown source should not have a heater in it.  That allows
: too much possiblity for fraud.  


I'd argue that a calibration resistor is useful in the cell, but that is
a bit moot because I wasn't aware there were resistive heaters in the
PowerGen demo cells.

There were heaters in the reservoir, but they could not produce a
delta-T in the cells (except a negative delta-T by cooling.)

--
 - 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:
cuddy5 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.05 / John Logajan /  Re: Power factor
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Power factor
Date: 5 Jan 1996 04:09:47 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Harry H Conover (conover@max.tiac.net) wrote:
: John Logajan (jlogajan@skypoint.com) wrote:
: : Now the DC powersupply was the most interesting case.  As expected the
: : current conducted more during the center portion of the voltage peak.
: : The waveform skew rate was sinusoidal-like away from zero.  Near zero
: : there was an extended plateau.  But there was this current rebound as
: : the voltage crossed zero.  That was purely reactive and therefore would
: : have overstated the actual power consumed if just considering the
: : V*I product -- regardless of the form factor peculiarities of the
: : meter.

: Isn't the power supply filtered and regulated?  Are you suggesting 
: that the CETI folks are, in addition to using an aquarium pump for
: their water supply, using an unfiltered, battery-charger type power
: supply for their d.c. power source?

: Gawd, as much of hacks as these guys at CETI appear to be, I can't 
: believe that they would do something as knuckle-headed as using
: an unfiltered, pulsating source of d.c. for their demo!  

: Please tell me I read something wrong.

I was talking about the input side of the transformer -- the "primary
winding," as they call it.

Recall that the "secondary winding" of these type of power supplies is
usually connected to a bridge rectifier, which in turn charges an
electrolytic capacitor.  The capacitor is drained by the load, and
recharged when the input voltage exceeds the capacitor voltage (Vc) plus
the forward voltage drop of the diode (Vdf).

Current won't flow in the secondary winding until the voltage reaches
that necessary Vc+Vdf.  When there is no load on the power supply,
the voltage on the capacitor reaches a peak and stays very near to 
the peak (except for leakage losses.)  That means the secondary winding
hardly conducts any current at all, and then only briefly near the peak
of the AC waveform.

Under heavy load, the capacitor voltage drops (since it isn't being
charged at all while the AC waveform voltage is less than Vc+Vdf.)
Thus when the secondary voltage cycles to the point where it again
exceeds the Vc+Vdf level, current starts to flow in the secondary
winding, meaning current starts to flow in the primary winding, meaning
current starts to flow at the generator 50 miles away.

Actually it is more convoluted than that.  The crossing of the Vc+Vdf
threshold is an impedance reduction.  This is reflected back to the
secondary as a voltage droop (at light speed.)  This impedance drop
is then felt through the magnetic flux lines of the xformer core,
and induces a voltage droop in the primary winding.  This reflects
back up the power lines through all the stages until it hits the
generator windings.  This voltage droop reduces the generator's
counter-emf allowing more current to flow while simultaneously
increasing the drag slightly on the rotor, which dissipates some of
its interial momentum.  If the reduction in speed is noticable by
the speed regulator, more steam is applied to the turbine (but
this is eons slower than the microseconds we are still talking
about.)

The increased current flow from the generator propogates down the
power line through all the sub-stations until it makes it to your
transformer primary winding, which induces more powerful magnetic
flux lines in the core which induces greater current in the
secondary winding, which propogates thru the diodes and charges
up the capacitor.  Whew.

So yeah, the primary side of a DC power supply sees the electrical
current start and stop suddenly.  That's one of the reasons why you
have to use slightly bigger xformers for DC power supplies for
an equivalent amount of DC output power compared to an AC power
delivery system.  The DC's xformer isn't conducting through the
whole cycle so that capacity cannot be used.

--
 - 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:
cuddy5 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.04 /  gherman@delphi /  Re: CETI Cell Configuration
     
Originally-From: gherman@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI Cell Configuration
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 96 23:12:04 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I believe that a magnetically coupled pump turns at the same rate as the motor
if the pump gets out of sync with the motor the coupling is essentially "broken"
and no, or at least only very erratic output rpm results. Normally the magnetic
field locks the pump and motor together up to some max torque limit that is not
normally exceed.
.
The thing that makes aquarium pumps very susceptible to the influence of back
pressure is that they are centrifugal pumps and not positive displacement. The
centrifugal element rotates at a speed that is incapable of producing very
much pressure, and flow falls off rapidly as pressure rises even though the
pump is still turning at the same speed.
.
Gerry Herman
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudengherman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.05 / Bradley Sherman /  Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
     
Originally-From: bks@netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 1996 04:10:56 GMT
Organization: Remote Fusion Reactor Reverse Entropy Associates

In article <4ci3qq$nuj@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>, Martin Sevior  <msevior> wrote:
...
>A predictable response but 
>Jed has it right about the reasons I'm not going. A pity because
>I think I would have done a good job testing them. On the other
>hand maybe it would have only been useful to me. Most of the people
>in this newsgroup have views so entrenched that no amount of evidence
>would make them change their minds.
...

Nonsense, the reason that most people read this newsgroup is
for evidence.  There's been precious little of that.  If
Tom Droege had had two anomalous ``events'' during his on-line
experiment, that would have been sufficient evidence for most
here to move toward TB status.

It is possible to have an open mind and yet not be gullible.

    --bks

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenbks cudfnBradley cudlnSherman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.04 /  gherman@delphi /  Re: Diverting hose makes a mess
     
Originally-From: gherman@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Diverting hose makes a mess
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 96 23:26:35 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> writes:
 
>The volume of the beads is about 40ml, with uniform packing density,
>the interstice volume is about 24%, or about 10 ml.  So to draw 300ml
>through the cell would replace the volume nearly 29 times.
>
>Jed reports he verified the output temperature sensor reading by
>drawing 250 ml and measuring its temperature.  This is 24 replacement
>volumes.
>
>So what is your basis for claiming that the colder water did not
>reach the output temperature sensor?
 
Is it possible that the heat stored in the beads and the rest of the apparatus heat
the incoming 250ml of water sufficiently so that a temperature drop is not
noticed with this amount of water? I would do a calculation but I would
need material list and weights. If this heat storage cannot account
for  heating all of the 250ml it could certainly account for heating
a considerable amount of it I would think. Drawing the incoming cold
water over the already hot beads would heat up some amount of water
before cooling off all of the beads. This cooling off process would
start at the cold inlet and progress to the exit while maintaing an
almost constant ouput temperature until the beads closest to the exit
would finally be cooled off. Heat storage devices work on this principle.
.
Gerry Herman
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudengherman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.04 / Bill Rowe /  Re: Experimental evidence rules out 1300 watts from CETI demo
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Experimental evidence rules out 1300 watts from CETI demo
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 1996 21:01:54 -0800
Organization: none apparent

In article <4c3s4t$710_002@ip8.sky.net>, bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan) wrote:

>If 250W is sufficient to hold the temperature about 70F above room ambient, 
>raising the input an additional 1,094W (that's 3,735 Btu per hour) to bring 
>the total to 1,344W should be more than enough to supply the additional 396 
>Btu (net) needed to drive the temperature to the boiling point.
>
>Perhaps John could rerun the experiment and give us a qualitative reading of 
>how hot 140F feels by sticking his finger in the water.  Better yet, we could 
>get a 'quantatitive' reading if he would report how long he can leave his 
>finger in the water -- accompanied, of course, by a report of subsequent 
>finger condition. He should also report which finger he used. <g>

I see the <g> and assume John at least understands the joke. For those
that don't, 140F is much more than "quite warm". In fact, it is quite hot
sufficient to cause serious scalding.
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"
cudkeys:
cuddy04 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.04 / John Fortune /  Technical Documentation regarding Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: jfortune@vt.edu (John Fortune)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Technical Documentation regarding Cold Fusion
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 1996 11:30:09 -0400
Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia

I am curious. 

First, has anyone made requests to the specific persons involved in cold
fusion research for copies of papers, records of experiments, detailed
descriptions and methods for the reproduction of those experiments, i.e. -
detailed scientific documentation.  I believe some patent numbers have
begun to ciruculate.  

Second, have the researchers/developers (especially those that have made
claims of helium ash production , production of radioactive isotopes, and
gamma ray bursts) produced documentation that is readily available to the
scientific community?

I believe that their are many amongst the scientific community that would
spare time for serious scrutiny if such documentation is made readily
available.

And now, some revered qoutes, that you may have seen before:
AS A BRIEF SIDENOTE:  many of these things became accepted or disproven
once sufficient proof existed (with special emphasis on the word proof)


"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
      --Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949



"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
      --Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943


"I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with
 the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that
 won't last out the year."

      --The editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall, 1957


"But what ... is it good for?"

      --Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968,
        commenting on the microchip.


"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."

      --Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment
        Corp., 1977


"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as
 a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us."

      --Western Union internal memo, 1876.


"The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value.  Who would pay
 for a message sent to nobody in particular?"

      --David Sarnoff's associates in response to his urgings for
        investment in the radio in the 1920s.


"The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in order to earn better
 than a 'C,' the idea must be feasible."

      --A Yale University management professor in response to Fred Smith's
        paper proposing reliable overnight delivery service.
        (Smith went on to found Federal Express Corp.)


"Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?"

      --H.M. Warner, Warner Brothers, 1927.


"I'm just glad it'll be Clark Gable who's falling on his face and not
 Gary Cooper."

       --Gary Cooper on his decision not to take the leading role in
        "Gone With The Wind."


"A cookie store is a bad idea.  Besides, the market research reports say
 America likes crispy cookies, not soft and chewy cookies like you make."

      --Response to Debbi Fields' idea of starting Mrs. Fields' Cookies.


"We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out."

      --Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962.


"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."

      --Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.


"If I had thought about it, I wouldn't have done the experiment.
 The literature was full of examples that said you can't do this."

      --Spencer Silver on the work that led to the unique adhesives for
        3-M "Post-It" notepads.


"So we went to Atari and said, 'Hey, we've got this amazing thing, even
 built with some of your parts, and what do you think about funding us? Or
 we'll give it to you.  We just want to do it.  Pay our salary, we'll come
 work for you.'  And they said, 'No.'  So then we went to Hewlett-Packard,
 and they said, 'Hey, we don't need you.  You haven't got through college

 yet.'"

      --Apple Computer Inc. founder Steve Jobs on attempts to get Atari and
        H-P interested in his and Steve Wozniak's personal computer.


"Professor Goddard does not know the relation between action and reaction
 and the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react.

 He seems to lack the basic knowledge ladled out daily in high schools."

      --1921 New York Times editorial about Robert Goddard's revolutionary
        rocket work.


"You want to have consistent and uniform muscle development across all of
 your muscles?  It can't be done.  It's just a fact of life.  You just have
 to accept inconsistent muscle development as an unalterable condition of
 weight training."

      --Response to Arthur Jones, who solved the "unsolvable" problem
        by inventing Nautilus.


"Drill for oil? You mean drill into the ground to try and find oil?
 You're crazy."

      --Drillers who Edwin L. Drake tried to enlist to his project to
        drill for oil in 1859.


"Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau."

      --Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University, 1929.


"Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value."
      --Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure
        de Guerre.

"Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction".

      --Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872


"The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the
 intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon".

      --Sir John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon-
        Extraordinary to Queen Victoria 1873.


"Everything that can be invented has been invented."

      --Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899.


all time favorite:


"640K ought to be enough for anybody."

      --Bill Gates, 1981
cudkeys:
cuddy04 cudenjfortune cudfnJohn cudlnFortune cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.04 /  bearpaw /  Re: Technical Documentation regarding Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: bearpaw@world.std.com (bearpaw)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Technical Documentation regarding Cold Fusion
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 17:32:22 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

jfortune@vt.edu (John Fortune) writes:
>
> [a request for info and many amusing quotes of uncertain relevance]

"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the 
Wright brothers.  But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
    - Carl Sagan

Bearpaw,
nearly 6 years of s.p.f lurking and still a CF Agnostic ...

+----------    Bearpaw MacDonald  bearpaw@world.std.com     ----------+
|                   http://world.std.com/~bearpaw/                    |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   "[B]efore you explode in fury you might look to see if you know   |
\    your facts or if you merely know your phrases." - Z.N. Hurston   /
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenbearpaw cudlnbearpaw cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.04 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Technical Documentation regarding Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Technical Documentation regarding Cold Fusion
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 96 12:25:03 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

John Fortune <jfortune@vt.edu> writes:
 
>First, has anyone made requests to the specific persons involved in cold
>fusion research for copies of papers, records of experiments, detailed
 
Yes there is a ton of stuff out there. Contact Fusion Facts, 801-583-6232,
or Infinite Energy magazine (Gene Mallove, 76570.2270@CompuServe.com).
There are thousands of papers. Not all of them great science, but lots
are good and a few are brilliant.
 
Those are good quotes!
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.04 /  jedrothwell@de /  CETI should set cooperation bit
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CETI should set cooperation bit
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 96 12:26:32 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

After talking to various people I have learned that the big demonstration cell
CETI showed at Power-Gen is not in Dennis Cravens' lab. It is in another
location, being tested by somebody else. That is a big fat disappointment for
me, because I was hoping that Martin Sevior would get a chance to test the
thing. I wanted to quote his findings, positive or negative, in the article I
am writing Infinite Energy, in order to flesh out some details and to show
another perspective. I was hoping that he would get a chance to do some
calibrations I was not able to perform. I recommended Sevior to Dennis and to
the people at CETI, and I thought we had a nice visit arranged. Now they turn
around and tell me the equipment will not be available. Dennis has not got
another cell up and running yet. I think Martin has to leave the States fairly
soon. That's a fine kettle of fish!
 
I must say that in the past CETI has been fairly cooperative and open, but
lately they have been clamming up and giving me a bad time. At Power-Gen they
were reluctant at first to let me take temperature readings. I told them that
it was essential I verify the three parameters: power in, flow, and
temperature. Otherwise I would report that I cannot tell if the gadget is
working or not. With this relatively crude calorimeter, unless I can verify
essential parameters externally and independently, I can draw no firm
conclusion. Since I *was* able to independently test it, I am satisfied it was
massively over-unity, but they did not make it any easier. CETI has taken a
new, less-cooperative stance because they are negotiating with and working
with large corporations that have asked them to take a low profile. While I
understand that, and I appreciate the need for business-like control over
corporate information, I still think this stance is counterproductive. They
are overdoing it. Frankly I think they are shooting themselves in the feet. In
computer lingo I would say they have reset their cooperation bit; they should
re-enable the feature.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.04 /  jedrothwell@de /  Conover wrong; experts observed demo
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Conover wrong; experts observed demo
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 96 12:27:23 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes:
 
     "Combine this with other areas of weakness in the CETI reports and a
     general picture of the limited credibility of this work begins to form.
     I consider it unfortunate that no one with strong credentials in
     experimental physics witnessed the demo to provide a truly objective
     description of what took place.  Given Zoltan's report, this was likely
     not accidental."
 
This is wrong on several counts:
 
1.   CETI has not made any reports. Cravens and I published papers about
     their work in Infinite Energy, CETI has said nothing.
 
2.   Many people with strong credentials in experimental physics witnessed
     the demo, including people from the University of Illinois, EPRI and
     elsewhere. I was there with them. I asked for, and got, their comments,
     in confidence of course. One person who was not there was Harry H.
     Conover. Since he did not attend he has no business posting messages
     pretending he knows what happened and who observed it.
 
3.   Zoltan did not observe the demo so he is not in any position to report
     anything. He came in the morning and left before the demonstrations
     started up again in the afternoon. Before the conference, right here in
     s.p.f. I warned Zoltan and all others that a demonstration like this is
     difficult and complicated, and that if you come to observe it you must
     be patient. If you are not willing to sit and wait all day for
     preparations, you cannot do science, and you have no business judging a
     prototype product.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.04 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: REAL proof of of CF ?
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: REAL proof of of CF ?
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 1996 13:08 -0500 (EST)

chuck@utdallas.edu writes:
 
-> > Your car engine runs on the heat produced from burning gasoline.
->
-> NO!  An internal combustion engine runs doe to the expanding gases
-> produced from the burning of gas.  This is one of my pet peeves...unless
-> you're running a Stirling cycle engine (or similar) you are not utilizing
-> the heat.
 
Actually both are right.  The gases take up more volume than the gasoline, but
the expansion of the volume would only be about 1/4 of what you get in an
engine if the temperature were not 1000 or so degrees.  Both effects are at
work here.
 
-> > The geothermal plants run on the heat from hot springs or pumped water.
-> Usually...though it is *possible* to use the high-pressure water and
-> steam to run the turbines directly.
 
But heat IS what makes the high pressure water/steam.
 
-> > There are NO significant sources of electricity that do not run on heat.
->
-> Ever heard of photovoltaics?  Direct conversion of radiant energy to
-> electricity...except for the Cadmium Telluride cells, these do not react
-> primarily to the infrared range of the spectrum.
 
Of course I have, that is why I said "significant".  If you can show that even
1% of the electricity produced in the US is from photovoltaics, I will retract
that statement.  However even if you do look at that, the light is produced by
heating of the sun gases to such a point they give off photons.  So even that
is derived from heat, only one step back in the process. Now if you used
neutrinos or gammas from the sun, that would bypass the heat part.
 
Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy04 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.04 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Power factor
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Power factor
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 1996 13:15 -0500 (EST)

jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes:
 
-> : Uh, John I think you need to read that again!  Lack of PF correction resul
->       ^^^^
-> : in an OVER estimate of input power, not UNDER estimate.  That can never be
-> : source of excess, by instead will result in an underestimate of any excess
->
-> I hope you meant Bob.  Yes, I know that over-reporting of the input power
-> serves to *reduce* the reported output gain.
 
Double opps.  Yes I did mean Bob. Sorry. :(
 
Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy04 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.04 / Rich Hawryluk /  TFTR Update January 4, 1996
     
Originally-From: rhawryluk@pppl.gov (Rich Hawryluk)
Newsgroups: pppl.tftr.news,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TFTR Update January 4, 1996
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 20:29:35 -0500 (EST)
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

Status January 4, 1996:

Since the last update on September 29th, 1995,  further analysis of data
from the previous run was performed, a campaign to remove tritium from the
vessel was conducted, a run assessment and  planning meeting held, and the
machine and beams were conditioned in preparation for a resumption of high
power experiments.

Highlights of Recent Physics Results:

At the Third International Workshop on Helium Transport and Exhaust
(Charleston, SC) Sept. 25th to 29th, four papers were presented from TFTR.
Ed Synakowski spoke on "Overview of Alpha Particle Studies During D-T
Operation on TFTR" and "Measurements of the Production and Transport of
Helium Ash on the TFTR Tokamak".  Martha Redi spoke on "Effect of TF Ripple
Loss of Alpha Particles on Helium Ash Accumulation in TFTR and ITER" and
also presented Robert Budny's talk on "TRANSP Simulations of Alpha
Parameters in ITER".  In addition George McKee spoke on "Alpha Distribution
Measurements and Transport Behavior in D-T Plasmas on TFTR".

The 37th annual meeting, APS Division of Plasma Physics was held the week
of Nov 6th in Louisville, Kentucky.  TFTR had four invited papers, 14 oral
and about 70 contributed papers at the conference.   Some of the
contributed and invited talks from the meeting are posted on the Web:
http://w3.pppl.gov/tftr/aps95/
This is a sub page of the TFTR Web page which has an increasing amount of
information about TFTR:
http://www.pppl.gov/TFTR.
In this update, it is not possible to summarize the large number of
presentations from the meeting. Only some selected ( and perhaps somewhat
arbitrary) topics will be noted.

Six physicists from TFTR gave talks at the 7th International Toki
Conference on Plasma Physics and Controlled Nuclear Fusion, "Fusion Plasma
Diagnostics" in Japan during the week of 28 November - 1 December.  K.M.
Young gave a keynote talk on "Advanced tokamak diagnostics"; J.D. Strachan
gave a review talk on "Diagnostics for confinement study of DT plasma in
TFTR"; D. Darrow, H. Takahashi and S. von Goeler gave topical talks on
"Alpha Particle Loss Measurement in TFTR", "Interpretability of magnetic
diagnostics in tokamaks- Search for a locked mode in TFTR" and "Measurement
of electron energy distribution from X-ray diagnostics - foil techniques
used with the hard X-ray camera on PBX-M" respectively and A. Janos gave an
oral presentation on "Bursts of electron cyclotron emission during
disruptions of high beta TFTR tokamak discharges".  This was an excellent
meeting, where there was a good chance to share information about tokamak
and stellarator diagnostics.  The generosity of the organizers in funding
the travel of the TFTR participants is greatly appreciated.  Young also
attended an ITER Progress Meeting on Collective Scattering for Alpha
Particle Measurement and the 7th International Symposium on Laser-Aided
Plasma Diagnostics in the following week.

Alpha Physics Results:

S. Zweben reports that further analysis of the alpha ripple loss experiment
(experimental proposal DT-51) is in progress.  There were 43 low-power DT
shots in this experiment, which was designed to test the stochastic TF
ripple diffusion model by measuring alpha loss to a movable midplane alpha
detector for a variety of different q(r) profiles.  The main results of the
analysis to
date are:   (1) the alpha loss to the outer midplane increases with a
broader j(r) profile, as expected (at least qualitatively) from White's
guiding center ORBIT code; and   (2) the alpha loss is strongly affected by
the presence of locked modes, which was not expected.

More recently, an analysis of the other DT shots in this experiment shows
the alpha loss to decrease strongly with decreased TF at a fixed q(a), and
to also decrease with decreasing TF at a fixed plasma current.  Further
work is needed to separate the measured TF ripple loss from the first-orbit
loss, and to compare these results with ORBIT code runs.

Another outcome of this experiment is a very interesting set of data on the
effect of sawteeth on alpha loss.  Many of these low-powered DT shots had
large sawteeth during NBI, and the sawtooth-induced alpha loss varied
considerably verses the q(r) profile, although the total loss due to
sawteeth was always a small fraction of the TF ripple loss.  This
sawtooth-induced alpha loss will also be analyzed using the ORBIT code.

Confinement in D-T Discharges:

Transport analysis of isotope scaling of particle, momentum and energy
confinement in L-mode plasmas continues.  Because the transition from
L-mode to supershot confinement in TFTR is a continuous transition
(strongly correlated with edge influx of hydrogen and carbon), it is
important to establish that the improved confinement observed in the DT
L-mode shots compared to the D-only L-mode shots is not an artifact of
imperfect matching of the plasma edge conditions.  Database analysis by S.
Scott  of the entire dataset collected in the DT19 experiment, which spans
a range of
hydrogenic influx, has demonstrated conclusively that there is an
intrinsic, favorable isotope effect on L-mode energy confinement.

Enhanced Reverse Shear Experiments:

Analysis of turbulent electron density fluctuations by the TFTR correlation
reflectometer by E. Mazzucato has revealed intriguing behavior in enhanced
reversed-shear (ERS) plasmas:  the level of turbulent fluctuations within
the
reversed-shear region is very small.  Qualitatively, this is the result one
would expect if the fluctuations observed by the reflectometer were
responsible for cross-field transport.  The reflectometer also observes an
MHD mode, possibly an infernal mode, which is localized to the region of
minimum q.  The existence of this mode does not appear to be related to the
ERS phenomenon.

In our continuing effort to understand the enhanced reverse shear on TFTR,
E. Synakowski has studied the role of ExB flow shear in reducing the
transport in reversed shear (RS) and enhanced reversed shear (ERS) plasmas.
 According to theory by T.S. Hahm, the important figure of merit should be
the relative sizes of the plasma turbulence growth rates and the ExB flow
shear (=Bpol/Bd/dr(Er/Bpol)).  As a result of the prompt pressure increase
after the transition, the ExB flow shear increases markedly in ERS plasmas
as compared to RS plasmas of similar beam powers.  Prior to the transition,
the ExB shear in RS and ERS plasmas is quite similar, indicating that, if
ExB shear is related to the transition mechanism, the threshold is sharp.

This leads to an outline for a possible mechanism for the transition to the
ERS mode.  A decrease in the calculated linear growth rate (M. Beer) of the
dominant modes accompanies the increase in the plasma pressure after the
onset of high power neutral beam injection.  It is proposed that the
transition to the ERS mode may occur when the growth rate falls below some
critical value relative to the ExB shearing rate.  The enhanced confinement
is maintained through positive feedback between steeping pressure gradient,
which increases the ExB shear, and the further decreasing of the turbulence
growth rates.  Also, the peaking of the density profiles provides decreased
drive of the ITG modes (S. Parker, G. Rewoldt), providing a further
reduction in the plasma turbulence.

Comparisons of TFTR ERS discharges with gyrofluid simulations are underway
and initial results were reported at APS [Beer & Hammett].  Linear
gyrofluid calculations indicate that at the ERS transition, the longer
wavelength microinstabilities are suppressed, but a shorter wavelength
trapped electron mode remains unstable, which may account for the anomalous
electron heat flux after transition.  (If all microinstabilities were
suppressed the heat flux should be neoclassical, with corrections for the
large banana-width.)  Nonlinear gyrofluid simulations show that these
shorter wavelength trapped electron modes produce significantly less
transport than before the transition, by about a factor of 40.  In
addition, gyrofluid calculations find that the stabilization due to
reversed magnetic shear alone is not as dramatic as the stabilization due
to the large Shafranov shift in ERS discharges.  Further analysis of the
TFTR ERS data is underway to try to identify the trigger for the ERS
transition.

MHD Stability:

Analysis was carried out on the experiments examining the scaling of high
beta disruptions with toroidal field, this is an important issue for ITER
disruption physics.  E. Fredrickson reports that an  important result of
these experiments was that the beta limit was found to be significantly
(30%) higher at low toroidal field (2T) than at high field (5T) for
discharges with standard monotonically increasing q-profiles.  Several
initial TRANSP runs have been
finished and analysis of the MSE data for the current profile measurement
has begun.  Studies of MHD activity in these low field plasmas has
identified n=1 fishbone-like activity and sawtooth-like events prior to the
onset of the locked mode which precedes the disruption.  Measurements of
the electron temperature profiles from ECE suggest that during the locked
mode phase a thermal collapse similar to that seen in high density
disruptions on TFTR is occurring.

Dr. L.E. Zakharov from the theory division has been working with the TFTR
MHD group in order to understand the triggering of high beta internal
disruptions in supershots.  He has developed a new Sweeping Equilibrium and
Stability Code (SESC).  This code uses new advanced technique for solving
Grad-Shafranov equation.   It has an interface with PEST and
DCON and provides accuracy in the first derivatives and can automatically
scan experimental databases.  It also facilitates studies of effects of
error bars in data and facilitates implementation of theoretical models.
The code is well suited for massive processing experimental data and
comparing with the theory.
The results from this code which has been applied to TFTR are:  A model for
triggering the internal disruptions revealing the positive feedback between
the m=1 and ballooning modes is found for TFTR supershots.  The two-fluid
model describes well the stability of both the ideal and KBM (or local)
ballooning modes.  The SESC code is being designed as a new, easily
updatable tool for the massive processing of experimental data and
comparing with the theory.  Active control of stability seems to be
possible for high-performance supershots in TFTR as well as for ITER.
Further development of this model of disruption triggering in tokamaks
involves:  Clarification of the role of the m=1 mode, i.e.:  1. evaluation
of ballooning stability in the presence of a finite m=1 perturbation; 2.
theory of the saturated m=1 mode itself; and 3. study the disruptions in
regimes with no q(0)=1 in the critical zone (including reverse shear).
More extensive comparison between the theory and experimental observation
of excitation of local ballooning modes is being carried out on TFTR. Long
term goal is to test this model on other machines and apply it to ITER
profiles.

One experiment which was very recently carried out during the weekend of
Dec. 16 and 17 was an ITER R&D high priority issue, item 1.3 Pre-emptive
disruptions:  Demonstration of impurity pellets for controlled disruptions.
The experiment consisted of injection of krypton doped (< 2%) deuterium
pellets into ohmic and neutral beam heated plasmas.  Measurements of the
krypton spectra were made including fast time dependence.  Good  radiation
bolometric measurements were made of the radiated power.  Various current
quench time were caused with current decay times from 400 msec to about 20
msec. No runaway generation has been identified as yet.  A full report will
be made available to the ITER central team when all the data is analyzed.

Tritium Removal from the Vacuum Vessel:

Several techniques were used to remove tritium from the vacuum vessel:
deuterium glow discharge cleaning, He/O2 glow discharge cleaning, and a
purge of the vessel and beamlines with moist air. The results from this are
still being analyzed.  However, initial results indicate that the tritium
removal rate with deuterium glow discharge cleaning is comparable to He/O2
glow discharge cleaning.  The purge of the vessel indicated that >80% of
the tritium in the vessel is not released during a room temperature vent of
the vessel and for TFTR operating conditions the tritium is tenaciously
held up.  These results demonstrate that it is possible to maintain the
in-vessel inventory in TFTR below regulatory requirements.  Note this
planned vent of the TFTR vessel was the first vent in over two years of
operation.

Run Assessment and Planning Meeting:

On Tuesday and Wednesday November 28 and 29, 1995 the TFTR group had a run
assessment and planning meeting with participation from many outside
collaborators.  Topics discussed were, Run Schedule, Machine Conditioning,
Experimental Proposals, Diagnostic Upgrades, Communication of Scientific
Results, Collaborations, and Programmatic Elements for '96 Run.  R.
Hawryluk opened the discussions with comments on the requirements for
success  which included  1)  Safe D-T operation of TFTR without impacting
the environment. 2) Experimental program which realizes the full potential
of fusion energy and 3) Communication of our results.

J. Hosea summarized the TFTR operational plans that were developed during
this assessment.  TFTR will operate for a 5 weeks run beginning in January
1996 and then have a 3 weeks maintenance period.  The weekly schedule will
be a 4 day run week, Monday - Thursday.  Friday maintenance and planning
will be adopted to allow neutral beam regeneration on Friday followed by
tritium processing over the weekend.  The daily schedule will be 7 a.m. -
11 p.m. operations with shutdown by 12 midnight.  Opening for upgrade
installations will begin in mid- April.

Schedule for TFTR meetings:  Operation coordination meetings will continue
to be held each day at 8:30 a.m. in the control room annex.  The daily
physics meeting will be at 9:00am in B318 and a summary of this Physics
meeting will be put on Internet and E-mail for our collaborators.  A Friday
operational/experimental planning meeting will be held at 1 p.m. to outline
the plans for the next week and to assure support readiness for the
following Monday.  Friday Physics Staff meeting will be held at 2:00 pm to
discuss summary of the weeks results and plans for following the week.  To
facilitate collaborations Cu-SeeMe or MBONE will be available for 2:00 pm
Physics meeting on Fridays in room B318.  This will begin with this
Friday's meeting.

K. McGuire and R. Hawryluk discussed programmatic elements of the '96 run.
With limited run time, we will concentrate on experiments with the highest
potential for major advances.  About half the run time to be devoted to
RS/ERS - the rest of the run time divided between high li, wall coatings,
MCCD and others.

The presentations at the run assessment and planning meeting can be found
on the Web:
 http://www.pppl.gov/TFTR/TFTR_RA95/ .
The viewgraphs were posted and the meeting was transmitted by MBONE and
Cu-SeeME to our collaborators.

Machine Status:

As a result of the reduced funding level during November and December,
operations were performed on Saturday and Sunday to avoid an electrical
demand charge.  The focus of the operations was to recondition the vessel
and beams after their respective vents, check out diagnostics, and perform
ITER R&D experiments.  The machine has undergone bakeout, glow discharge
cleaning, boronization, pulse discharge cleaning and disruptive discharge
cleaning in December. High current operation has been reestablished. The
beams have been reconditioned to about 28 MW.

During the week of Jan 2 1996,  high power TFTR machine and NBI
conditioning is taking place in preparation for the January run campaign.

Future Plans

For the week of the Jan 8th, the plan is to run high li plasmas with q and
current ramps and to start the enhanced reverse shear work the week of Jan.
15th .

R. J. Hawryluk
609-243-3306
e-mail rhawryluk@pppl.gov


P.S.  If you do not wish to receive notices of TFTR status, please contact
me or send a message to postmaster@pppl.gov.  If you are aware of others
who wish to receive notices, please send a message to postmaster@pppl.gov
and do not send a message to tftr_news



_________________________________________________________________________
R. J. Hawryluk
rhawryluk@pppl.gov
PPPL - LOB 325
Phone:  (609) 243-3306
Fax:    (609) 243-3248


cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenrhawryluk cudfnRich cudlnHawryluk cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.05 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 96 11:55:41 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Bradley K. Sherman <bks@netcom.com> writes:
 
     "Yes.  That's exactly correct.  Why is Jed Rothwell the one person in
     five billion to present the data on both Griggs and Cravens?"
 
That is a really, really stupid question. Colossally stupid. First of all, I
am not the only person. Hundreds of people observed the CETI demo at ICCF5,
SOFE and Power-Gen. Dozens of people have independently tested the Griggs
device and found that it works. I am the only person in five billion who has
done careful tests of both and reported my results. Why me? That is like
asking "Why is it that A. I. Root, editor of 'Gleanings in Bee Culture' was
the only person to publish reports of the 1904 - 1905 Wright airplane flights
in Dayton, Ohio?" Answer: because Root drove his car from Medina, Ohio, and he
sat all day at Huffman Prairie waiting for the tests to begin so that he could
observe the flights. Most other reporters and science journalists never
bothered to go, and the few who went saw that the Wrights took hours to get
ready for a flight, so they did not bother to wait. They went home and
reported that the Wrights claims were bogus.
 
Gene Mallove and I observed both Griggs and Cravens because we make the
effort, we go the distance, and we understand that you must be patient with
prototype technology. I drove my car to Griggs place every day for a week, and
I took an airplane flight to Anaheim, and I waited and watched, tested and
tested again. I am always willing to sit and wait all day for the tests to
begin. I will come back the next day, and the next day after that if the
gadget is not working. The reason Zoltan did not see the demo work is because
he gave up and went home. The reason Tom Droege never saw the Griggs gadget
work is because he went all that way to Rome *twice* and both times he refused
to look. He did not measure the water temperature, the mass of water and the
kilowatt hours. If he had, he would have seen undeniable proof that the thing
produces excess heat. Lots of other people have tested it independently and
they say it works. Droege used the technique pioneered by the Catholic Church
to "disprove" Galileo's observations: when you know you are wrong, play it
safe and refuse to look through the telescope.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.05 / Bradley Sherman /  Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
     
Originally-From: bks@netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 1996 18:02:18 GMT
Organization: Remote Fusion Reactor Reverse Entropy Associates

In article <hlInu9l.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
> ...
>the only person to publish reports of the 1904 - 1905 Wright airplane flights
>in Dayton, Ohio?" Answer: because Root drove his car from Medina, Ohio, and he
>sat all day at Huffman Prairie waiting for the tests to begin so that he could
>observe the flights. Most other reporters and science journalists never
>bothered to go, and the few who went saw that the Wrights took hours to get
>ready for a flight, so they did not bother to wait. They went home and
>reported that the Wrights claims were bogus. ...

The difference is that the Wright Brothers went on to give
subsequent demonstrations.

    --bks

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenbks cudfnBradley cudlnSherman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.05 / Larry Wharton /  Re: Diverting hose makes a mess
     
Originally-From: Larry Wharton <Wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Diverting hose makes a mess
Date: 5 Jan 1996 20:50:45 GMT
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center -- Greenbelt, Maryland USA

Jed,

  I assumed that there was a heater in the Power Gen 95 cell because 
there was a heater in previous cells which was used for calibration. I 
was guessing and now it appears I was wrong.  It does look as you say 
that there is no possiblity of fraud. At least I can't think of anything 
now.

Lawrence E. Wharton   wharton@climate.gsfc.nasn.gov
NASA/GSFC code 913, Greenbelt MD 20771
work (301) 286-3486,    home (301) 595-5038


cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenWharton cudfnLarry cudlnWharton cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.05 / Martin Sevior /  Re: Kettle experiment
     
Originally-From: Martin Sevior <msevior>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kettle experiment
Date: 5 Jan 1996 21:47:03 GMT
Organization: The University of British Columbia

jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) wrote:
>
>I think several others are walkind down the hill from 1300 watts to see
>how low it might really be.  Some others (such as myself) have been
>walking up the hill from 1.4 watts.  We have a shorter trek.  We only
>have to walk up passed 100 watts or so, while the downward walkers have
>to descend all the way from 1300 watts to 1.4 watts.
>

An interesting analogy John. Given the distance you've walked with real
measurements, do you plan to take the next step and put a length of hose
from your kettle to a pump with a heating element external to the kettle?

After that you just need the cooling tower....

It's great to see you and John White doing real experiments. Some things
can't be calculated. By the way John White, do you know why your results don't
match John Logajan's? 

Martin Sevior

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.05 / Larry Wharton /  Suppose the CETI cell works.
     
Originally-From: Larry Wharton <Wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Suppose the CETI cell works.
Date: 5 Jan 1996 21:46:34 GMT
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center -- Greenbelt, Maryland USA

I think it is getting harder for the skeptics to explain away the latest 
CETI demo results.  Lets suppose that the CETI people were outright 
frauds and they had the non-measurment path totally stopped up.  Then 
the flow rate would only consist of the measurment flow.  If only two 
measurments of 250 ml were made every hour (the actual frequency of 
measurments was reported to be higher than that), then the flow rate 
would be .5 ml per hour.  When compared to the claimed flow rate of 
about 1 liter per minute the power multiplication factor would be

 pmf = 60 / .5 = 120

but the actual pmf was

 pmf = 1300 / 1.4 = 929

which is still much too high to explain away.  Now it has been disclosed 
that the CETI cell had no resitive calibration heater.  So the only way 
to get power in is through the two electrolyte wires.  Assuming that the 
input power through these two wires was correctly measured (and that 
includes checking for AC power input) then the reasonable conclusion is 
that the cell is actually working as claimed.
  I would like to see some more thought about what are the implications 
of the CETI cell actually working.  One thought I had concerns the 
implication of the cell extracting some energy (like the zero point 
energy) from empty space.  If this energy is out there then the maximum 
energy density, e, is related to the power density, p, by

 e = p / c

with c the speed of light.  Using e = m*c*c and making some reasonable 
estimates of the power density one may calculate the energy density of 
empty space.  The result is about a billion times too high.  The 
Schwartzchild radius of the universe would only be about 10,000 light 
years or smaller than the size of the galaxy.  I would guess that the 
only explination could be that cold fusion is actually going on.

Lawrence E. Wharton   wharton@climate.gsfc.nasn.gov
NASA/GSFC code 913, Greenbelt MD 20771
work (301) 286-3486,    home (301) 595-5038


cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenWharton cudfnLarry cudlnWharton cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.06 / G Biberian /  neutron decomposition
     
Originally-From: Gabriel Biberian <dagab@uclink4.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: neutron decomposition
Date: 6 Jan 1996 03:52:46 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

 --------------------------------25341249263312
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

I am facing a problem in my understanding of the neutron decomposition, 
and may be someone could help me.

It si said that the free neutron is unstable with a life time of about 
10 minutes, and decomposes into a proton and an electron. Fine. However 
as I understand, particle and anti particles are symmetric. Therefore 
the anti proton is the anti particle of the proton and the positron is 
the anti particle of the electron. The neutron being neutral is its own 
anti particle. Therefore I don't quite understand why the neutron could 
not decompose into an anti proton and a positron. 

If this is trrue this can have major consequences in the understanding 
of cold fusion. However I might be totally wrong.

Need help on that.

Jean-Pauk Biberian 

jpb@sunspot.ssl.berkeley.edu


 --------------------------------25341249263312
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html

<BASE HREF=3D"news:sci.physics.fusion">

<BASE HREF=3D"news:">
<A HREF=3D"newspost:sci.physics.fusion"><IMG ALT=3D"" BORDER=3D0 SRC=3D"int=
ernal-news-post"></A><A HREF=3D"newscatchup:sci.physics.fusion"><IMG ALT=3D=
"" BORDER=3D0 SRC=3D"internal-news-catchup-group"></A><A HREF=3D"news:sci.p=
hysics.fusion?ALL"><IMG ALT=3D"" BORDER=3D0 SRC=3D"internal-news-show-all-a=
rticles"></A><A HREF=3D"newsrc://agate.berkeley.edu/?UNSUBSCRIBE=3Dsci.phys=
ics.fusion"><IMG ALT=3D"" BORDER=3D0 SRC=3D"internal-news-unsubscribe"></A>=
<A HREF=3D"newsrc://agate.berkeley.edu/"><IMG ALT=3D"" BORDER=3D0 SRC=3D"in=
ternal-news-go-to-newsrc"></A>
<HR>
<TITLE>Newsgroup: sci.physics.fusion</TITLE>
<H1>Newsgroup: sci.physics.fusion</H1>
<UL>
<FONT SIZE=3D+1>(<A HREF=3D"sci.physics.fusion/25535-25635">Earliest articl=
es</a>...)<BR>
(<A HREF=3D"sci.physics.fusion/26348-26447">Earlier articles</a>...)</FONT>=
<p>
<LI><B> Second "law" is dead ! Success !</B>
<UL><LI><A NAME=3D"hatunenDKFu19.9pq@netcom.com" HREF=3D"hatunenDKFu19.9pq@=
netcom.com">DaveHatunen</A>  (19)
<LI><A NAME=3D"jjirvine-0101961110320001@host08.cyberg8t.com" HREF=3D"jjirv=
ine-0101961110320001@host08.cyberg8t.com">Jerry Irvine</A>  (44)
<LI><A NAME=3D"4c9s79$b1c@odo.PEAK.ORG" HREF=3D"4c9s79$b1c@odo.PEAK.ORG">Bi=
ll Nelson</A>  (23)
<UL><LI><A NAME=3D"richard-0301961214410001@pma23.rt66.com" HREF=3D"richard=
-0301961214410001@pma23.rt66.com">Richard Austin</A>  (47)
</UL><LI><A NAME=3D"4ca3ln$8bn@gap.cco.caltech.edu" HREF=3D"4ca3ln$8bn@gap.=
cco.caltech.edu">Carl J Lydick</A>  (42)
<LI><A NAME=3D"4caulq$kb9@ixnews8.ix.netcom.com" HREF=3D"4caulq$kb9@ixnews8=
=2Eix.netcom.com">ken collins</A>  (48)
<UL><LI><A NAME=3D"4cecck$587@hahn.informatik.hu-berlin.de" HREF=3D"4cecck$=
587@hahn.informatik.hu-berlin.de">Matthew Scott</A>  (50)
<UL><LI><A NAME=3D"DKnGCp.FEB@actrix.gen.nz" HREF=3D"DKnGCp.FEB@actrix.gen.=
nz">Steve Sinclair</A>  (19)
</UL></UL><LI><A NAME=3D"30e997c4.12298256@llyene.jpl.nasa.gov" HREF=3D"30e=
997c4.12298256@llyene.jpl.nasa.gov">Kevin Quitt</A>  (61)
<UL><LI><A NAME=3D"hatunenDKKv3n.HDD@netcom.com" HREF=3D"hatunenDKKv3n.HDD@=
netcom.com">DaveHatunen</A>  (19)
<LI><A NAME=3D"jameslDKL937.KpB@netcom.com" HREF=3D"jameslDKL937.KpB@netcom=
=2Ecom">James Logajan</A>  (32)
</UL><LI><A NAME=3D"4cg4qj$qr@grid.direct.ca" HREF=3D"4cg4qj$qr@grid.direct=
=2Eca">Peter H. Weis</A>  (13)
</UL><LI><A NAME=3D"4c691m$733@stratus.skypoint.net" HREF=3D"4c691m$733@str=
atus.skypoint.net"><B>Power factor</B> - John Logajan</A>  (36)
<UL><LI><A NAME=3D"4c6mbk$710_001@ip63.sky.net" HREF=3D"4c6mbk$710_001@ip63=
=2Esky.net">Bob Sullivan</A>  (16)
<LI><A NAME=3D"4ceab4$8cf@tekadm1.cse.tek.com" HREF=3D"4ceab4$8cf@tekadm1.c=
se.tek.com">Arnie Frisch</A>  (23)
<UL><LI><A NAME=3D"4cfjmd$4gj@stratus.skypoint.net" HREF=3D"4cfjmd$4gj@stra=
tus.skypoint.net">John Logajan</A>  (32)
<UL><LI><A NAME=3D"4cfral$6mp@sundog.tiac.net" HREF=3D"4cfral$6mp@sundog.ti=
ac.net">Harry H Conover</A>  (24)
<UL><LI><A NAME=3D"4ci8ab$se4@stratus.skypoint.net" HREF=3D"4ci8ab$se4@stra=
tus.skypoint.net">John Logajan</A>  (77)
<UL><LI><A NAME=3D"4cjebl$ie3@sundog.tiac.net" HREF=3D"4cjebl$ie3@sundog.ti=
ac.net">Harry H Conover</A>  (32)
</UL></UL></UL></UL></UL><LI><A NAME=3D"4c6lo9$djc@oveja.u-net.net" HREF=3D=
"4c6lo9$djc@oveja.u-net.net"><B>Re: CETI Cell Configuration</B> - David Gas=
kill</A>  (39)
<UL><LI><A NAME=3D"RZPk2C3.jedrothwell@delphi.com" HREF=3D"RZPk2C3.jedrothw=
ell@delphi.com">jedrothwell@delphi.com</A>  (59)
<UL><LI><A NAME=3D"4c83gs$o23@sundog.tiac.net" HREF=3D"4c83gs$o23@sundog.ti=
ac.net">Harry H Conover</A>  (52)
<UL><LI><A NAME=3D"4c98i3$jvg@stratus.skypoint.net" HREF=3D"4c98i3$jvg@stra=
tus.skypoint.net">John Logajan</A>  (12)
<UL><LI><A NAME=3D"4c9u24$j73@sundog.tiac.net" HREF=3D"4c9u24$j73@sundog.ti=
ac.net">Harry H Conover</A>  (51)
<UL><LI><A NAME=3D"4cd7v1$mbs@stratus.skypoint.net" HREF=3D"4cd7v1$mbs@stra=
tus.skypoint.net">John Logajan</A>  (19)
<UL><LI><A NAME=3D"4cee0d$fok@sundog.tiac.net" HREF=3D"4cee0d$fok@sundog.ti=
ac.net">Harry H Conover</A>  (55)
<UL><LI><A NAME=3D"4cfk4b$4vu@stratus.skypoint.net" HREF=3D"4cfk4b$4vu@stra=
tus.skypoint.net">John Logajan</A>  (13)
<LI><A NAME=3D"4cfqlm$6mp@sundog.tiac.net" HREF=3D"4cfqlm$6mp@sundog.tiac.n=
et">Harry H Conover</A>  (22)
<UL><LI><A NAME=3D"BVHm+Ds.gherman@delphi.com" HREF=3D"BVHm+Ds.gherman@delp=
hi.com">gherman@delphi.com</A>  (13)
</UL></UL></UL></UL></UL><LI><A NAME=3D"4cafji$amn@stratus.skypoint.net" HR=
EF=3D"4cafji$amn@stratus.skypoint.net">John Logajan</A>  (41)
</UL></UL><LI><A NAME=3D"4c9ijn$sr4@useneta1.news.prodigy.com" HREF=3D"4c9i=
jn$sr4@useneta1.news.prodigy.com">James Stolin</A>  (13)
</UL><LI><A NAME=3D"4c6q6g$3pt@pollux.usc.edu" HREF=3D"4c6q6g$3pt@pollux.us=
c.edu"><B>Re: REAL proof of of CF ?</B> - Steven Robiner</A>  (83)
<UL><LI><A NAME=3D"4c6s0q$710_003@ip63.sky.net" HREF=3D"4c6s0q$710_003@ip63=
=2Esky.net">Bob Sullivan</A>  (17)
<UL><LI><A NAME=3D"4ccnun$k4j@pollux.usc.edu" HREF=3D"4ccnun$k4j@pollux.usc=
=2Eedu">Steven Robiner</A>  (42)
<UL><LI><A NAME=3D"4cd50b$718_001@ip34.sky.net" HREF=3D"4cd50b$718_001@ip34=
=2Esky.net">Bob Sullivan</A>  (44)
</UL></UL></UL><LI><A NAME=3D"4c6r6j$40g@pollux.usc.edu" HREF=3D"4c6r6j$40g=
@pollux.usc.edu"><B>Re: REAL proof of of CF ?</B> - Steven Robiner</A>  (30=
)
<LI><B> Experimental evidence rules out 1300 watts from CETI demo</B>
<UL><LI><A NAME=3D"4c6rvs$710_002@ip63.sky.net" HREF=3D"4c6rvs$710_002@ip63=
=2Esky.net">Bob Sullivan</A>  (31)
<LI><A NAME=3D"shanahan.19.001682D5@groupz.net" HREF=3D"shanahan.19.001682D=
5@groupz.net">Kirk L. Shanahan</A>  (28)
<LI><A NAME=3D"shanahan.20.001DB452@groupz.net" HREF=3D"shanahan.20.001DB45=
2@groupz.net">Kirk L. Shanahan</A>  (72)
<LI><A NAME=3D"shanahan.21.002101DE@groupz.net" HREF=3D"shanahan.21.002101D=
E@groupz.net">Kirk L. Shanahan</A>  (59)
<UL><LI><A NAME=3D"4c9rfo$72k_001@ip81.sky.net" HREF=3D"4c9rfo$72k_001@ip81=
=2Esky.net">Bob Sullivan</A>  (13)
</UL><LI><A NAME=3D"DKLLx4.57x@cix.compulink.co.uk" HREF=3D"DKLLx4.57x@cix.=
compulink.co.uk">"Nick Horgan"</A>  (1)
<LI><A NAME=3D"4c1m55$4gd@sanews.uswc.uswest.com" HREF=3D"4c1m55$4gd@sanews=
=2Euswc.uswest.com">Craig Stangland</A>  (8)
<LI><A NAME=3D"browe-0401962102310001@10.0.2.15" HREF=3D"browe-040196210231=
0001@10.0.2.15">Bill Rowe</A>  (18)
</UL><LI><A NAME=3D"4c6tst$qge$1@mhafn.production.compuserve.com" HREF=3D"4=
c6tst$qge$1@mhafn.production.compuserve.com"><B>Relative Energy</B> - KURIA=
N M. THARAKAN</A>  (9)
<LI><B> Cold Fusion Day at MIT</B>
<UL><LI><A NAME=3D"dennisDKHA54.8qH@netcom.com" HREF=3D"dennisDKHA54.8qH@ne=
tcom.com">Dennis Yelle</A>  (22)
<LI><A NAME=3D"30E902B9.4848@sfu.ca" HREF=3D"30E902B9.4848@sfu.ca">David Na=
ugler</A>  (6)
</UL><LI><B> First hand report of the Anaheim CETI demo</B>
<UL><LI><A NAME=3D"shanahan.18.0014CC81@groupz.net" HREF=3D"shanahan.18.001=
4CC81@groupz.net">Kirk L. Shanahan</A>  (30)
<LI><A NAME=3D"4c8bkg$qmf@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com" HREF=3D"4c8bkg$qmf@ixnews2=
=2Eix.netcom.com">ken collins</A>  (9)
</UL><LI><A NAME=3D"USE2PCB35195958@brbbs.brbbs.com" HREF=3D"USE2PCB3519595=
8@brbbs.brbbs.com"><B>Re: Power factor</B> - MARSHALL DUDLEY</A>  (36)
<UL><LI><A NAME=3D"4ce72j$8eh@stratus.skypoint.net" HREF=3D"4ce72j$8eh@stra=
tus.skypoint.net">John Logajan</A>  (40)
<UL><LI><A NAME=3D"4cf7b6$710_001@ip168.sky.net" HREF=3D"4cf7b6$710_001@ip1=
68.sky.net">Bob Sullivan</A>  (81)
<UL><LI><A NAME=3D"4cfrv6$7tf@stratus.skypoint.net" HREF=3D"4cfrv6$7tf@stra=
tus.skypoint.net">John Logajan</A>  (68)
</UL><LI><A NAME=3D"xvDE+pc.jedrothwell@delphi.com" HREF=3D"xvDE+pc.jedroth=
well@delphi.com">jedrothwell@delphi.com</A>  (14)
</UL></UL><LI><A NAME=3D"USE2PCB538774587@brbbs.brbbs.com" HREF=3D"USE2PCB5=
38774587@brbbs.brbbs.com"><B>Re: REAL proof of of CF ?</B> - MARSHALL DUDLE=
Y</A>  (16)
<LI><A NAME=3D"USE2PCB72092933@brbbs.brbbs.com" HREF=3D"USE2PCB72092933@brb=
bs.brbbs.com"><B>Re: REAL proof of of CF ?</B> - MARSHALL DUDLEY</A>  (35)
<UL><LI><A NAME=3D"4c9hvb$bas@ixnews8.ix.netcom.com" HREF=3D"4c9hvb$bas@ixn=
ews8.ix.netcom.com">Jon Zalk</A>  (25)
<UL><LI><A NAME=3D"4c9i3t$bf2@ixnews8.ix.netcom.com" HREF=3D"4c9i3t$bf2@ixn=
ews8.ix.netcom.com">Jon Zalk</A>  (33)
</UL><LI><A NAME=3D"4cd794$fr0@utdallas.edu" HREF=3D"4cd794$fr0@utdallas.ed=
u">chuck@utdallas.edu</A>  (64)
<UL><LI><A NAME=3D"mmalloryDKMHo6.Fsy@netcom.com" HREF=3D"mmalloryDKMHo6.Fs=
y@netcom.com">Mark Mallory</A>  (21)
</UL></UL><LI><A NAME=3D"fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview_820538261=
@rtfm.mit.edu" HREF=3D"fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview_820538261@r=
tfm.mit.edu"><B>Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 1/3 (Over=
view)</B> - Robert F. Heeter</A>  (429)
<LI><A NAME=3D"951231124452_76570.2270_FHU44-1@CompuServe.COM" HREF=3D"9512=
31124452_76570.2270_FHU44-1@CompuServe.COM"><B>Cold Fusion/New Energy Sympo=
sium -1/20/96</B> - Eugene Mallove</A>  (70)
<LI><A NAME=3D"4cbhm0$cd5@news.magi.com" HREF=3D"4cbhm0$cd5@news.magi.com">=
<B>The Covariant Theory</B> - John G. Cornfield</A>  (68)
<LI><A NAME=3D"hjFFuhI.jedrothwell@delphi.com" HREF=3D"hjFFuhI.jedrothwell@=
delphi.com"><B>Diverting hose makes a mess</B> - jedrothwell@delphi.com</A>=
  (28)
<UL><LI><A NAME=3D"4cjh1f$ceo@tuegate.tue.nl" HREF=3D"4cjh1f$ceo@tuegate.tu=
e.nl">Ariba</A>  (19)
</UL><LI><A NAME=3D"4cd091$fko@useneta1.news.prodigy.com" HREF=3D"4cd091$fk=
o@useneta1.news.prodigy.com"><B>Re: Diverting hose makes a mess</B> - James=
 Stolin</A>  (48)
<UL><LI><A NAME=3D"4cet2h$j2e@post.gsfc.nasa.gov" HREF=3D"4cet2h$j2e@post.g=
sfc.nasa.gov">Larry Wharton</A>  (35)
<UL><LI><A NAME=3D"4cfn2v$5up@stratus.skypoint.net" HREF=3D"4cfn2v$5up@stra=
tus.skypoint.net">John Logajan</A>  (25)
<UL><LI><A NAME=3D"4chj1p$buh@post.gsfc.nasa.gov" HREF=3D"4chj1p$buh@post.g=
sfc.nasa.gov">Larry Wharton</A>  (15)
<UL><LI><A NAME=3D"BzBGGZo.jedrothwell@delphi.com" HREF=3D"BzBGGZo.jedrothw=
ell@delphi.com">jedrothwell@delphi.com</A>  (17)
<UL><LI><A NAME=3D"4ck2v5$21n@post.gsfc.nasa.gov" HREF=3D"4ck2v5$21n@post.g=
sfc.nasa.gov">Larry Wharton</A>  (13)
</UL><LI><A NAME=3D"4ci6dk$se4@stratus.skypoint.net" HREF=3D"4ci6dk$se4@str=
atus.skypoint.net">John Logajan</A>  (18)
</UL><LI><A NAME=3D"BZJkG3r.gherman@delphi.com" HREF=3D"BZJkG3r.gherman@del=
phi.com">gherman@delphi.com</A>  (26)
</UL></UL></UL><LI><A NAME=3D"4cct4b$iu@peach.negia.net" HREF=3D"4cct4b$iu@=
peach.negia.net"><B>FREE Chinese/Mandarin Class Announcement - announce.txt=
 [01/01]</B> - ramon@negia.net</A>  (54)
<LI><A NAME=3D"4cer8s$46k@news.magi.com" HREF=3D"4cer8s$46k@news.magi.com">=
<B>The Covariant Theory</B> - John G. Cornfield</A>  (68)
<LI><A NAME=3D"4cf7o2$c4s@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca" HREF=3D"4cf7o2$c4s@nntp.ucs.ubc.=
ca"><B>Trip to New Mexico cancelled.</B> - Martin Sevior</A>  (7)
<UL><LI><A NAME=3D"4cfc6l$j1c@saba.info.ucla.edu" HREF=3D"4cfc6l$j1c@saba.i=
nfo.ucla.edu">Barry Merriman</A>  (16)
</UL><LI><A NAME=3D"jfortune-0401961130090001@128.173.202.54" HREF=3D"jfort=
une-0401961130090001@128.173.202.54"><B>Technical Documentation regarding C=
old Fusion</B> - John Fortune</A>  (175)
<UL><LI><A NAME=3D"DKo3Dy.7LH@world.std.com" HREF=3D"DKo3Dy.7LH@world.std.c=
om">bearpaw</A>  (16)
<LI><A NAME=3D"xTLHONf.jedrothwell@delphi.com" HREF=3D"xTLHONf.jedrothwell@=
delphi.com">jedrothwell@delphi.com</A>  (13)
<LI><A NAME=3D"4ci40j$188i@saba.info.ucla.edu" HREF=3D"4ci40j$188i@saba.inf=
o.ucla.edu">Barry Merriman</A>  (20)
</UL><LI><A NAME=3D"xTDFWfQ.jedrothwell@delphi.com" HREF=3D"xTDFWfQ.jedroth=
well@delphi.com"><B>CETI should set cooperation bit</B> - jedrothwell@delph=
i.com</A>  (31)
<UL><LI><A NAME=3D"bksDKo8ro.B9D@netcom.com" HREF=3D"bksDKo8ro.B9D@netcom.c=
om">Bradley K. Sherman</A>  (19)
<UL><LI><A NAME=3D"4ci3qq$nuj@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca" HREF=3D"4ci3qq$nuj@nntp.ucs.=
ubc.ca">Martin Sevior</A>  (36)
<UL><LI><A NAME=3D"bksDKowy8.16M@netcom.com" HREF=3D"bksDKowy8.16M@netcom.c=
om">Bradley K. Sherman</A>  (20)
<UL><LI><A NAME=3D"4cik4v$psf@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca" HREF=3D"4cik4v$psf@nntp.ucs.=
ubc.ca">Martin Sevior</A>  (34)
<UL><LI><A NAME=3D"4cintq$16fs@saba.info.ucla.edu" HREF=3D"4cintq$16fs@saba=
=2Einfo.ucla.edu">Barry Merriman</A>  (57)
<LI><A NAME=3D"bksDKpnov.Buw@netcom.com" HREF=3D"bksDKpnov.Buw@netcom.com">=
Bradley K. Sherman</A>  (27)
<UL><LI><A NAME=3D"4cjdlm$ie3@sundog.tiac.net" HREF=3D"4cjdlm$ie3@sundog.ti=
ac.net">Harry H Conover</A>  (37)
<LI><A NAME=3D"hlInu9l.jedrothwell@delphi.com" HREF=3D"hlInu9l.jedrothwell@=
delphi.com">jedrothwell@delphi.com</A>  (36)
<UL><LI><A NAME=3D"bksDKpzFv.ICD@netcom.com" HREF=3D"bksDKpzFv.ICD@netcom.c=
om">Bradley K. Sherman</A>  (15)
</UL></UL></UL></UL></UL></UL></UL><LI><A NAME=3D"xTLnm1b.jedrothwell@delph=
i.com" HREF=3D"xTLnm1b.jedrothwell@delphi.com"><B>Conover wrong; experts ob=
served demo</B> - jedrothwell@delphi.com</A>  (31)
<LI><A NAME=3D"USE2PCB708906248@brbbs.brbbs.com" HREF=3D"USE2PCB708906248@b=
rbbs.brbbs.com"><B>Re: REAL proof of of CF ?</B> - MARSHALL DUDLEY</A>  (35=
)
<LI><A NAME=3D"USE2PCB302386447@brbbs.brbbs.com" HREF=3D"USE2PCB302386447@b=
rbbs.brbbs.com"><B>Re: Power factor</B> - MARSHALL DUDLEY</A>  (14)
<LI><A NAME=3D"199601050129.UAA08663@pppl.gov" HREF=3D"199601050129.UAA0866=
3@pppl.gov"><B>TFTR Update January 4, 1996</B> - Rich Hawryluk</A>  (299)
<LI><A NAME=3D"199601031536.KAA25422@pilot07.cl.msu.edu" HREF=3D"1996010315=
36.KAA25422@pilot07.cl.msu.edu"><B>Re: Kettle experiment</B> - Richard A Bl=
ue</A>  (31)
<UL><LI><A NAME=3D"4cjggh$ivi@stratus.skypoint.net" HREF=3D"4cjggh$ivi@stra=
tus.skypoint.net">John Logajan</A>  (56)
<UL><LI><A NAME=3D"4ck68n$t7g@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca" HREF=3D"4ck68n$t7g@nntp.ucs.=
ubc.ca">Martin Sevior</A>  (21)
</UL></UL><LI><A NAME=3D"4ck67q$21n@post.gsfc.nasa.gov" HREF=3D"4ck67q$21n@=
post.gsfc.nasa.gov"><B>Suppose the CETI cell works.</B> - Larry Wharton</A>=
  (41)
</UL><HR>
<A HREF=3D"newspost:sci.physics.fusion"><IMG ALT=3D"" BORDER=3D0 SRC=3D"int=
ernal-news-post"></A><A HREF=3D"newscatchup:sci.physics.fusion"><IMG ALT=3D=
"" BORDER=3D0 SRC=3D"internal-news-catchup-group"></A><A HREF=3D"news:sci.p=
hysics.fusion?ALL"><IMG ALT=3D"" BORDER=3D0 SRC=3D"internal-news-show-all-a=
rticles"></A><A HREF=3D"newsrc://agate.berkeley.edu/?UNSUBSCRIBE=3Dsci.phys=
ics.fusion"><IMG ALT=3D"" BORDER=3D0 SRC=3D"internal-news-unsubscribe"></A>=
<A HREF=3D"newsrc://agate.berkeley.edu/"><IMG ALT=3D"" BORDER=3D0 SRC=3D"in=
ternal-news-go-to-newsrc"></A>
 --------------------------------25341249263312--
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudendagab cudfnGabriel cudlnBiberian cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Jan  7 04:37:03 EST 1996
------------------------------
