1996.01.12 / Bill Rowe /  Re: Incredibly ignorant statements parroted by Archimedes Plutonium
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.particle,soc.culture.british,alt.com
dy.british,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Incredibly ignorant statements parroted by Archimedes Plutonium
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 21:15:53 -0800
Organization: none apparent

In article <4d4pl0$v26@hg.oro.net>, tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) wrote:

>1)  Do you think that Rockedyne International is not capable of 
>identifying 10x atmospheric helium 4 when they receive a sample with it 
>in it?  Ad if not, do you think that it could be produced via chemical 
>means?

I am pretty sure it was Rockwell International not Rocketdyne who did the
testing. At the time these results were discussed in this newsgroup, Steve
Jones  amoung others raised what I thought were very substantive issues
regarding this data. You should be able to find those discussions in the
archives.

I am aware Jed Rothwell and perhaps others do not consider Steve Jones
objections valid. However, as far as I have seen no one including Jed
provided much in the way of an answer. Most of Jed's response was to in
effect say Steve Jones was incompetent.

All I know of Steve Jones and others like Dick Blue is what I see posted
here. Judging from what has been posted here it appears both Steve Jones
and Dick Blue have a far greater understanding of basic physics than Jed
will ever have. Consequently, I tend to ignore Jed's rants which imply
incompetence on the part of Steve Jones.

Bottom line is, until I see some valid answers to the issues Steve Jones
and others raised about the helium data I am unwilling to give it much
weight.
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain."
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.12 / Bill Rowe /  Re: Distance between Rothwell and CETI
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Distance between Rothwell and CETI
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 21:22:49 -0800
Organization: none apparent

In article <4d4fu1$1dko@useneta1.news.prodigy.com>, FKNF40A@prodigy.com
(James Stolin) wrote:

>jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
><snip> 
>>Where are these numbers? Has John Logajan discovered that the specific
>>heat of water is not 4.2? It is only 1.2?!? 
><snip> 
>
>Jed,
>
>   Before further calculations get screwed up, the specific heat of water 
>is 1.0 not 1.2.  Was 1.2 the specific heat of the electrolyte solution?

I believe I saw a post to which Jed agreed from John Logajan to the effect
the specific heat of the elecrolyte solution was .95.
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain."
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.13 /  RMCarrell /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: rmcarrell@aol.com (RMCarrell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: 13 Jan 1996 02:00:50 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Before we get another tangled thread about pumps going here, remember that
the total volt-amperes into the system was measured (unlike SOFE, so far
as I
know), and the delta T across the active cell shows a heat release far 
above the input power, and no amount of quibbling will make that go away. 
So discussions of pumps are an interesting academic exercise. 

I don't have the pump at hand, but from descriptions from postings here
and
some ordinary engineering reasoning what we have is a) a centrifugal pump
element coupled to a permanent magent, sealed within the fluid path, b) an
external permanent magnet which is coupled to c) a small induction motor,
which is in air. Elements a) and b) form a salient pole synchronous motor
which develops torque only when the two magnets poles are rotating at the 
same speed and atrracting one another; as the load on a) increases, the 
driven poles on a) will lag in phase behind the driving poles on b) until 
a breakaway torque is reached,whereupon a) will simply stop, for this kind

of motor has no inherent starting torque. The rotor of the induction motor
is driven by a rotating magnetic field (thanks to Tesla, details 
irrelevant). The motor rotor always slips (runs slower than the rotation 
of the field); this slip induces circulating currents in the rotor which 
produce the torque. An induction motor does have a starting torque.(I'm an

EE, I studied this stuff.)

The performance of a centrifugal pump is complex.Take a leaf blower, which
is
the same as our aquarium pump, with different fluid, or a tank vacuum
cleaner. Block the exit or intake, and the motor (also induction) speeds
up,
indicating reduced load. Open the flow, and it slows down, because work is
being done, air moved, and power dissipated. Do not confuse a centrifugal
pump with a positive displacement pump, which has entirely different
characteristics. There are other postings under this heading which have 
complementary information.

If we're being scientific here, the only way to get a handle on the
pump/flow performance is to do a fully instrumented parameter study
of the type which spectators have demanded of CETI. You shouldn't reason 
from a single figure of merit for a system of this type, to its 
performance under other circumstances, unless you get your exercise 
by jumping to conclusions. Meanwhile, you can vacuum your rug and blow 
your leaves.

Now for a sanity check (and I should have my head examined for entering
the
fray). I have a space heater (centrifugal fan blowing air over coils), 
rated at 1500 watts. I measured the wire diameter in the coils, the 
diameter of the coils, number of turns and number of coils and arrived at
a surface area of 45 sq. in. Measuring the input and exit temperatures
(18C
and 90C) gives a delta T of 72C. Input thermometer was stolen from the 
freezer (yes, I let it warm to room temp.)and output was measured with
a candy thermometer from the kitchen. The fan has a impeller 4 in. dia. 
and about 3 in. deep and produces a strong flow to distribute hot air 
into the room. The coils are not incandescent at the 1500 watt setting.

Now Jed estimates 4-5 meters of tubing in the heat exchanger. Taking 4 
meters and a .375 in. OD, I get 182 sq. in. for the surface area. The 
delta T is reported at about 17C. What matters is the surface area of 
the tubing in the heat exchanger, not the wall thickness or its
conductivity, in an equilibrium condition. The 4 meters does not include
tubing leading to and from the heat exchanger, but the delta T across the
cell does reflect the total heat loss to the room. Now:

Area of my heater coils = 45 sq. in. Area of CETI tubing = 182 sq. in. 
Ratio approx. 4:1
My delta T = 72C: CETI delta T = 17C. Ratio approx. 4:1 So the delta 
T's and the heat transfer surfaces are in about the same ratio. It seems
credible, therefore, that the CETI heat exchanger was capable of 
dissipating 1.3 Kw. 

Whether the 1300 watt run was 15 min or two hours is irrelevant. A run at
a 500 watt power 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenrmcarrell cudlnRMCarrell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.13 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Conover asks: what is MITI?
     
Originally-From: barry@moebius.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Conover asks: what is MITI?
Date: 13 Jan 1996 11:12:48 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In article <4d5c7i$2tu@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> Martin Sevior <msevior> writes:
>jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
>>
>
>
>> 
>>My question is, why have you been ignoring all this other evidence all these
>>years? What on earth is there about a trade show demo that would excite your
>>interest? Why should you find this trade show demo more convincing or more
>>compelling than the staid, by the numbers, multi-million dollar experiments by
>>SRI? 


Martin sums up the answer for me as well when he says:

>
>You worry about systematic errors in sophisticated equipment at the best of
>times. You worry about data selection. You worry about why it is that even
>the most expert of CF experimenters can only get a positive efect 50% of the
>time. Why can't it be demonstrated at will? In the end what's most impressive
>are big effects with simple equipment that be replicated by a scientist of
>average ability. Which in this case means near-term practicality.
>
>

In even fewer words: 
Too little replication, Too much scatter of results.

These features may of course be unavoidable, but they 
do make one hesitant to get involved.




--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet)  (NeXTMail OK) 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.13 / I Johnston /  Re: REAL proof of of CF ?
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: REAL proof of of CF ?
Date: 13 Jan 1996 13:36:28 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

Mark Mallory (mmallory@netcom.com) wrote:
: I Johnston (ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
: : Mark Mallory (mmallory@netcom.com) wrote:

: : :  ***WRONG***  It runs *directly* on pressure from expanding gases, you idiot.

: : Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Stirling Cycle, Otto Cycle, Diesel Cycle,
: : Rankine Cycle. They all run on heat. They all run as a result of
: : expanding gases. 

: You are exactly right.  I was only trying to make a point (with tongue 
: firmly in cheek).  Like the saying goes, "never argue with a fool, people 
: might not know the difference."

: Also I apologize for the personal insult.  Been reading too many Rothwell 
: posts, I guess.

My apologies back, sir. Reading too many of Jed's post dull the
credibility receptors, I suppose. Still, if you think our discussion was
fun, look on sci.physics for the chap who thinks you can make an engine
which doesn't run on heat ... by using light as the energy input. "It's
not heat" he says "because it's not infra red". Oddly enough, he isn't
called Jed, or Mitch(ell).

Ian









cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.12 / John Skingley /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: John Skingley <john@circlesw.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 10:05:39 +0000 (GMT)

In article <21cenlogic-1001960637380001@austin-1-2.i-link.net>, Mitchell Jones
<mailto:21cenlogic@i-link.net> wrote:
> 
[snip - stuff about pumps]

> Air temperature and starting water temperature: 12.78 degrees C.
> Ending water temperature: 22.78 degrees C
> Ending air temperature: 12.78 degrees C.
> Elapsed time: 3 hours and 5 minutes.
> Measured water flow rate: 25 liters/minute.
> Volume of water in system: 2.2 liters.

I assume that this is under steady state conditions.

> This theory implies significant frictional heating at each and every choke
> point in the flow, whatever the cause of the obstruction. Since the bead
> bed in the Power Gen demo constituted an obstruction to the flow, this
> theory implies that significant frictional heating would have been
> concentrated there. Since the Magnum 220 pumps 220 gallons/hour, or 13.86
> liters/min through unobstructed tubing, and since it was choked down to a
> flow of 1.2 liters/min at Power Gen, would we not expect significant
> frictional heating to be concentrated in the bead bed, precisely where it
> would register on the temperature probes as "excess heat?" How's that for
> an intriguing possibility? Wow!
> 
> Frankly, I don't know whether this theory will hold up or not, but it is
> interesting enough to post. Let's see what, if anything, is wrong with it!
> 
> --Mitchell Jones
> 
> ===========================================================

You are quite correct in saying that heat will be generated where there is
resistance in the circuit, just like in an electric circuit. However, the
total of such heating cannot be larger than that available from the power 
source, in this case a pump consuming 35 watts from soewhere,, not all of 
which will be passed into the water.

I calculate that 35 watts could heat 2.2 litres of water by 10 degrees
in about 45 mins, if there were no heat losses. This makes your figures
above seem reasonable.

However, since we are talking about 500 watts of heat from an active cell, 
I think we can dismiss this effect.

If you want to be precise, place a dummy cell into the circuit, and
measure the temperature difference across it. I doubt if it will be more
than a few watts worth.

As to the question of whether 500 watts could be dissipated in such a 
system, as queried elsewhere, this is easy to test. Simply place a 500 watt 
heater in a dummy cell, and see what happens!

[I had problems posting this, so hope it didn't get posted twice]
 --------------------------
Regards,  John.
P.O. Box 36, BODMIN, PL30 4YY, U.K. Tel/Fax: +44 1208 850790

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnSkingley cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.15 / Eugene Mallove /  Cold Fusion / New Energy Symposium - 1/20/96
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion / New Energy Symposium - 1/20/96
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 05:50:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

******************************************************************************


                *** COLD FUSION / NEW ENERGY SYMPOSIUM  ***
                           Saturday, January 20, 1996
                                8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m
.
                           LOCATION: Cambridge Marriott Hotel
                              Cambridge, Massachusetts 

INFINITE ENERGY Magazine of Concord, New Hampshire will sponsor an all-day 
Cold Fusion/New Energy Symposium on January 20, 1996 at the Cambridge Marriott
Hotel in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The meeting will feature speakers, video 
presentations, and discussions about the science, technology, and commercial 
developments in the rapidly growing cold fusion and new energy field.

A complete list of speakers will be available shortly before the symposium.

The meeting is open to the general public -- scientists, engineers, business 
developers, potential investors, students, journalists, and concerned 
environmentalists.

One of the many high points of the gathering will be presentation of the 
latest findings on the Clean Energy Technologies, Inc. (CETI) Patterson Power 
Cell, which recently achieved record excess power production levels for a cold
fusion process -- in one test greater than 1,300 watts thermal output for 
about 1.4 watts DC input electrical power.

Registration will begin at 8:00 a.m. and the talks will start promptly at 9:00
a.m. on January 20th. The room arrangements currently permit about 200 
attendees. Seating will be on a first come, first served basis, so please RSVP
your intention to attend as soon as possible (but you do NOT have to RSVP if 
your plans are not firm --just be there Saturday, 1/20/96!). The nominal 
registration fee for the symposium is only $15.00, payable to Cold Fusion 
Technology, in advance or at the door. 

Note: The Cambridge Marriott hotel (2 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA) is near
MIT at the Kendall Square "Red Line" MTA station, easily accessible (15 
minutes) from Boston's Logan International Airport.

We know that this will be an extremely informative and rewarding symposium for
all who attend.  We hope to see you on January 20th.


Eugene F. Mallove, Sc.D., Editor-in-Chief and Publisher
INFINITE ENERGY: Cold Fusion
     and New Energy Technology
Cold Fusion Technology
P.O. Box 2816
Concord, NH 03302-2816

Fax:   603-224-5975
e-mail: 76570.2270@compuserve.com
Phone: 603-228-4516 
        (If you call, please leave your name, phone number, 
        and address with the automated answering service.) 

******************************************************************************

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.13 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 1996 14:03:00 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In my last post yesterday, I noted that I considered it absurd to suppose
that the Gran Pappy deep fryer was consuming power at more than twice the
rate claimed by the manufacturer, as would be required bail out the Power
Gen demo, and I indicated that I would leave the investigation of that
possibility to others. However, upon awakening this morning I found myself
in a different frame of mind, and I went out to my workshop and set up a
test to settle the issue. My idea was simply to measure the rate at which
heat was imparted to the water by the Gran Pappy. I began by removing all
connections from the Magnum 350 to the Gran Pappy, leaving it in stand
alone mode, and poured in 3 liters of water. This time, I used two
thermometers. One had a range (degrees Farenheit) of from -20 to +120, and
the other had a range of from +100 to + 390. I clipped the latter
thermometer to the inside rim of the Gran Pappy, which I then plugged into
the wall outlet, and began using the low temperature thermometer to stir
the water. As soon as the temperature had risen into the zone common to
both thermometers, I compared the readings for calibration purposes, and
found that they were in lockstep: both reached 100, 105, 110, 115, and 120
at *exactly* the same time. Naturally, when the temperature reached 120
degrees, I set the low temperature thermometer aside, so that it would not
be destroyed. The results of the run were as follows:

Starting air temp: 54 degrees F or 12.2 degrees C
Starting water temp: 54 degrees F or 12.2 degrees C
Elapsed time when 120 degrees F or 48.9 degrees C was reached: 7 minutes
Ending air temp: 54 degrees F or 12.2 degrees C
Ending water temp: 150 degrees F or 65.6 degrees C
Elapsed time when 150 degrees F or 65.6 degrees C was reached: 10 minutes

Comments:

The total number of joules of heat imparted to the fluid in raising it
from 12.2 degrees C to 48.9 degrees C was (48.9-12.2)*(3000)*(4.2) =
462,420. The time elapsed was 7 minutes, or 420 seconds, so the power
consumption due to heating the water comes to 462,420/420 = 1101 watts.
This means the Gran Pappy deep fryer was imparting heat to the water at a
*lower* rate than that claimed for the Power Gen demo. Nevertheless, it
produced a runaway temperature increase in the fluid!

The total number of joules imparted to the water in raising it from 12.2
degrees C to 65.6 degrees C comes out to 672,840 and took place in 10
minutes, or 600 seconds, so the power consumption when figured over the
entire interval comes out to 1121.4 watts. This is in excellent agreement
with the above figure. I explain the difference by stating that the times
were read by eyeballing a wall clock, and are not accurate to the second.
As to why the Gran Pappy does not impart a full 1500 watts to the fluid,
that is because it did not merely heat the fluid: it also heated itself,
and to some extent heated the air and its surroundings. I made no attempt
to quantify that heat, but I assume that if I had done so, the total would
have come pretty close to 1500 watts. 

Bottom line: the Power Gen demo has twenty wooden stakes in its heart and
is riddled with silver bullets. I see no way, barring a claim that the
plastic tubing had paper thin walls, that it could possibly come back to
life. If such a claim were to be made, I would want to know the exact
source of the tubing so that I could purchase some and test it out, and I
would want corroboration of the claim that it was used at Power Gen from
an independent source. As I noted earlier, such a scenario is *bloody
unlikely*, to put it mildly.    

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.13 /  RMCarrell /  Heated Discourse About CETI/Anaheim
     
Originally-From: rmcarrell@aol.com (RMCarrell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Heated Discourse About CETI/Anaheim
Date: 13 Jan 1996 14:37:41 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Gentlemen, there is some duplication here with my posting in the Magnum
350 thread, but there is also some comments about Mitchell Jones' reports.
 ---------------------------------------------
It is good fun to pore over reports of demonstrations to extract all
possible information and good exercise to mount modeling experiments as
reality checks where exact information is missing. Early in this saga
there were criticisms of experimenter's calorimitry with warnings of its
complexity and subtlety. The same is true of heat transfer. I won't pose
as an expert, but there are several considerations to be addressed before
proclaiming a "gotcha!". 

Heat transfer proceeds by radiation, conduction and convection. The first
is mediated by delta T^4, so if the heated body is small enough, it
doesn't take much power to produce incandescence, as in the night-lights
for some digital watches. Conduction requres contact area, and in the
examples to be considered we are talking mainly about plastic tubing; the
contact patches are points and lines, so not much will happen. This leaves
convection, which is mediated by circulation and the boundry layers at
surfaces (which is closely related to conduction to the immediately
surrounding air or liquid). The boundry layers are in turn strongly
mediated by the velocity of the transfer medium (air or water).

Referring to Kawasaki's photo of the heat exchanger from John Logajan's
Web page (fig 2), we see that the fan draws air into the cylinder through
what appear to be ten .5 inch holes drilled in the cylinder wall just
below the coiled tubing. (I scaled the phtotgraph, using the reported 14
cm diameter of the cylinder.) From a catalog, the photograph, and
descriptions by Jed, the fan probably has a throat diameter of 3.6 in. and
a flow capacity of 42 cfm. The area of the holes is about 7.6 in^2, and
the fan throat about 10 in^2, so the flow is not substantially obstructed.
Despite the ad hoc appearance of the heat exchanger, this configuration is
the proper and effective use of resources. The incoming air can fully mix
with moderate turbulance, so that effective heat transfer can occur. Check
the airflow in your computers, you will find the same principles used. 

Mitchell Jones reports a modeling experiment using the Magnum 850 pump 20
(or 18) feet of 5/8 plastic tubing, a 1500 watt deep fryer to heat the
water, and an available fan. 
He does not report the disposition or configuration of the plastic tubing,
nor the exact relationship of the fan to the tubing, which are critical
factors. The surface area of the tubing is about 2 in^/in, or 471 in^2. He
made two runs, #2 without the fan and #3 with the fan. His reported data
include:

Run #2 Start temp 56F, end 96F, time 7 min. (Delta T 40F, 5.7
deg./min.)(no fan)
Run #3 Start temp 92F, end 120F, time 5 min. (Delta T 28F, 5.6
deg./min.)(fan on)

The data show that the fan had negligible effect, which suggests that this
configuration is so different from the CETI demonstration that no valid
conclusions can be drawn. The fan in question is apparently a circulating
fan intended for hot weather; while its flow capacity is undoubtedly
greater than the one used by CETI, air velocity at the boundry layer
around the tubing is what is critically important.

I have another model for comparison, a compact room heater with a
centrifugal blower and heating coils, rated at 1500 watts. I measured the
heating wire diameter (.025"), the diameter of the coils (.225"), the
number of turns (103), and the number of coils (8) and calculated a
surface area of 45 in^2. The blower impeller is about 4" dia. and 3" deep.
For a 1500 watt run, I measured the intake temperature at 18C with a
freezer thermometer and the output at 90C with a candy thermometer,
neither calibrated. Delta T is 72C, wire area 45 in^2, no incandescence in
the wires. 

Jed reported 4-5 meters of 3/8" tubing in the CETI setup. In a private
email, reviewing an earlier version of this analysis, he said that ther
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenrmcarrell cudlnRMCarrell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.13 /  berkeley@wco.c /  Employment Opportunity
     
Originally-From: berkeley@wco.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Employment Opportunity
Date: 13 Jan 1996 19:56:03 GMT
Organization: West Coast Online's News Server - Not responsible for content

Berkeley Nucleonics Corp. is searching for a technical sales engineer
to facilitate several marketing channels. BNC is a small manufacturer
in San Rafael, CA.  Primary 
customers include national labs and large universities. EE Degree
preferred. Please send resume to:

David Brown


EMail: 	berkeley@wco.com
	nucleonics@aol.com

Fax: (415) 453-9956
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenberkeley cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.13 / Bill Snyder /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: bsnyder@iadfw.net (Bill Snyder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 1996 19:38:36 GMT
Organization: customer of Internet America

In message <4d58ns$2fo@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>, Martin Sevior <msevior>
wrote:

>barry@moebius.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) wrote:


>>Without further cooperation from the principle investigator, it
>>is unlikely that you can resolve one way or the other what likely
>>happened: suppose you find a scenario in which the power could
>>dissipate as needed---well, you don't know thats what really happened,
>>so thats far from conclusive. Similalrly, the absence of such a
>>mechanism is also not conclusive, since you may not be considering the
>>proper configuration.
>>

>AH.. but a number of people think it is impossible to dissapate the heat in
>the system as described and photographed. Consequently they believe the demo
>without merit at all. A proof in principle demonstration
>that it is possible to do so would be a useful contribution to the debate.
>Of course if Mitch can't do it then one could always argue that he didn't
>have exactly the right configuration of Cravens etc. etc.

I really don't see the point of this.  It's easy to show that the
thing can't come close to dissipating the claimed power *if* we assume
negligible evaporation.  But it's also possible to show that it could
easily dispose of the power claimed; all it takes is to assume a
sufficiently high rate of electrolyte loss/replenishment.

Pointing out discrepancies is bound to be fruitless, so long as the
data furnished is so obiously inadequate that the proponents can
simply say, "Oh we forgot to tell you..." and trot out some new item
of data as an "explanation."

--
  -- Bill Snyder       [ This space unintentionally left blank. ]

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbsnyder cudfnBill cudlnSnyder cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.13 /  jedrothwell@de /  Response to I Johnston
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Response to I Johnston
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 96 16:19:55 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) asks:
 
     "Why - did - the - CETI - instrumentation - show - excess - power - in -
     the - control - cell?"
 
It did not show excess power. It showed a close balance with input.
 
 
     "They - decided - the control - cell - was - faulty - because - it -
     showed - excess - heat. How - do - they - know - the - test - cell -
     isn't - faulty - too?"
 
This is incorrect. The control cell was faulty because the flow was blocked.
When they multiplied the reduced flow per second * Delta T temperature * 4.2,
they found that it equalled input power in watts.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Jan 16 04:37:07 EST 1996
------------------------------
