1996.01.14 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 96 10:05:15 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

In article <4d57am$2fo@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>, Martin Sevior <msevior> wrote:
->The 1300 watt mode was only in operation for 15 minutes. Apparently the
->nominal operating mode was less than 500 watts as reported for the second 
day's
->running. I suggest you spend your time looking to see if 500 Watts can be 
->dissapated by the system in a steady state fashion.
->
->Martin Sevior
->


I guess someone has done tests with a resistance heater and determined that it 
takes a little more than 15 minutes at 1,344W to bring the electrolyte to the 
boiling point and that 500W continuous is the maximum continuous input for no 
boiling. I wouldn't be terribly surprised by such results.

However, we still have to deal with the scalding issue.  Slightly less than 
the boiling point is still mighty hot.  John Logajan's 60C (140F) is a 
scalding temperature.  The reports (before the revisionists took over) were 
that the apparatus was quite warm to the touch. Not quite what you would 
expect from scalding temperatures. Go figure.

What you need to do is determine if ANY level of analomous heat production is 
consistent with the observed maximum temperature of 30-32-35C(?). The evidence 
so far indicates that temperatures of that magnitude can be accounted for by 
the known (non-CF) heat sources.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.14 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 96 10:09:42 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

In article <4d7lb2$bpu@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
   rmcarrell@aol.com (RMCarrell) wrote:
->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. 


Au contraire.  The evidence shows that no amount of quibbling will 
rehabilitate the PowerGen non-demo.  Your following attempts at resusitation 
do nothing to change that conclusion.


[Deleted: Irrelevant digression about motors and starting torques leading up 
to the presentaion of credentials:]

->(I'm an
->EE, I studied this stuff.)

[Deleted: Further irrelevant digression about leaf blowers and vaccuum 
cleaners.]

->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. 


Too bad you didn't follow your own advice. If you had stopped at this point, 
you wouldn't have embarrassed yourself.


[Deleted: The vaccum cleaners and leaf blowers sneak back in again.]

->Now for a sanity check (and I should have my head examined for entering
->the fray).


Another missed opportunity. 


->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.


MY 1,450W electric heater has a coil surface area of about 20 square inches 
and it glows a bright orange. It casts a warm glow throughout a darkened room. 
For later reference, take note that you measured the input and output 
temperatures across the "heat exchanger".


->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.


Bzzzzzzt. Wrong! You should have attended a few more of those Thermo classes. 
You must have missed the ones about heat transfer. It's about area AND wall 
thickness AND conductivity -- AND about mass flow.

The analogy is resistors in series. Increase the number of resistors 
(thickness) or the value of the resistors (decrease the conductiviy) and you 
decrease the current (heat flow). But I shouldn't have to tell you these 
things -- you're an EE.


->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.


Remember above where I noted that your electric heater measurements were made 
across the "heat exchanger"?  Well, the delta T you are using for the 
comparison is the claimed heat gain across the cell not the delta T across 
Cravens' "cooling tower."  We don't really know the delta T across the 
"cooling tower".  The best evidence we have of the delta T across the "cooling 
tower" points to zero as a good approximation.

To make any useful comparison along the lines you've started, you would need 
the air mass-flow through each heat exchanger and the air temperature 
differences across each heat exchanger. But don't expect to find confirmation 
for your speculation.

Bottom line: your analysis is meaningless.

->It seems
->credible, therefore, that the CETI heat exchanger was capable of 
->dissipating 1.3 Kw. 


It's certainly credible that the Cravens cooling tower could reject 1,344W, 
but not at the temperatures under discussion.  Assuming that the plastic 
maintains its integrity at boiling water temperatures, the "cooling tower" 
would function as an escape path for the steam generated by boiling.


->Whether the 1300 watt run was 15 min or two hours is irrelevant. A run at
->a 500 watt power 

[The remainder of the message was truncated on receipt.]


The following comments refer to portions of a largely duplicative message 
posted a different thread.

->FROM: rmcarrell@aol.com (RMCarrell)
->SUBJECT: Heated Discourse About CETI/Anaheim
->DATE: 13 Jan 1996 14:37:41 -0500

[. . .]

->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


Look more closely! Absent any heroic assumptions about the spacing of the 
holes on the back side of the cylinder, eight appears to be a much better 
number.


->.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,


0.5/2 * 0.5/2 * 3.1416 = .196 square inches per hole. Even with 10 holes this 
would be less than 2 square inches. 1.6 square inches for eight holes is a 
better number.

->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. 


"The flow is not substantially obstructed." Can you say that again with a 
straight face?  The Cravens "cooling tower" is a toy. Its only purpose is to 
WOW! the gullible. 

My computer generates less than one-tenth of 1,344W and has over ten times the 
inlet areas of the Cravens "cooling tower."  What priciple should we take away 
from this?


->Mitchell Jones reports a modeling experiment . . .

[. . .]

->The data [Mitchell's] 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 conclusion to be drawn is that Mitchell's cooling strategy is a lot more 
effective than the Cravens "cooling tower" which is for appearances only. The 
Cravens "cooling tower" is non-functional and serves no useful purpose.  Thus, 
Mithcell's analyses are perfectly valid.

[. . .]
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.13 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Some simple calculations assuming 42 CFM.
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some simple calculations assuming 42 CFM.
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 96 23:35:50 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Martin Sevior <msevior> writes:
 
>Now what does a "stream of warm air" mean? Try air elevated 10 C, 15 C and
>20 C above ambient mean?
>
>Here's a little table....
>
>Temperature elevation          10C          15C          20C
>
>Power in the air flow        245 watts     367 watts     490 watts
 
That is an interesting little table! It tells you a lot about the
performance of an air cooled system. I recommend people try out
hair driers to get a sense of these temperatures and power levels. Most
hair driers allow switch selectable settings from about 500 watts up to
around 1200 watts. Most of them have fans that run about the same as
a computer cooling fan, when set on low speed.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.16 / Richard Blue /  Re: Distance between Rothwell and CETI
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Distance between Rothwell and CETI
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 15:21:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I commend Mitchel Jones for his demonstration that there may well be
problems with the CETI demonstration with regard to the heat disipation
capabilities of the "radiator."  What is most clearly being brought out
in subsequent discussions of this matter is that the information that has
been provided is not really adequate to reach any sound conclusions.

Even with regard to the supposed operating power level of the CETI device
the numbers are all over the place.  At first we were fed a claim that
"1300 watts" was clearly demonstrated as if that level had been sustained
and/or replicated for a significant number of hours.  Now that appears
to be contrary to fact.  The 1300 watt operation was some sort of maximum,
and we can't even get a straight answer as to how long that maximum was
observed.

If, as the Jones test indicates, the cooling capacity of the radiator was
likely inadequate for 1300 watts there should have been a clear signature
in the experimental data.  In fact, the performance of the radiator should
have had an effect on the data even if every thing worked perfector could
be judged if just one measurement had been logged!  All we need to know is
the temperature of the fluid leaving the radiator.  Amazingly this temperature
reading has been ignored as not having any particular significance toward
an understanding of the CETI demonstration.

Simply stated, the extraction of more heat from the fluid in the radiator
must imply a rise in the temperature of the fluid exiting the radiator.
It is flow calorimetry in reverse.  When the temperature differential
across the Paterson cell goes up there must also be an increase in the
temperature differential across the radiator-- unless there is something
bogus about the temperature differentials in the first place.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.17 /  bssimon@helix. /  Cold Fusion Symposium
     
Originally-From: bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion Symposium
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 05:44:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Greetings,

I didn't realize the CF symposium was going to be in January this 
year, and since its monday I can't book an inexpensive enough flight 
to Boston for the weekend (two days earlier an I could have had seat 
sale prices, damn!!).  Is there anybody from Toronto or 
environs who is intending to drive to Boston this weekend, and who 
might like to share expenses?

If so contact me at bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu or by phone at 
416-778-4470

cheers,
Bart Simon (bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu)
Science Studies Program - UCSD.

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbssimon cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.14 / mitchell swartz /  Lithium/palladium binary materials (was Cold fusion Demo on ...  MIT 
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Lithium/palladium binary materials (was Cold fusion Demo on ...  MIT 
Subject: Re: Cold  fusion Demo on Jan. 20 near MIT
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 1996 15:26:58 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


  In Message-ID: <4d9pik$cj6@ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Cold  fusion Demo on Jan. 20 near MIT
Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz <uncleal0@ix.netcom.com> writes

"In the meanwhile, look up a phase diagram for palladium/lithium and note 
the extraordinary exotherm and melting point depression of said alloys 
coming together.  Why should the electrolyte in "cold fusion" make any 
difference at all within wide margins?  Perhaps because the observed 
exotherms..."

 Good question.
  Nice to see some material info discussion on the net.   So much
for those who say it could never happen     ;-)X.

  1) Thanks.  
Tried to recheck it out in Constitution of Binary Alloys, Ed. Hansen,
and despite the copious number of binaries covered, that pair
 is missing in the 2nd edition.

  Will head to the Science Lib and get the diagrams to consider the
comments more closely, and semiquantitatively compare that pair to others.

  2) Crossposted this to s.p.f. where it ought go, too.  Perhaps, someone 
there will focus on the materials/nuclear science aspect.

  3)  The electrolyte may play roles in both generation of substrate,
cofactors, and their loading.  It also may determine what proportion of
the electric energy utilized as "input" actually goes toward loading and
other sine qua non reactions required for the desired product(s).

  4) Looking forward to your finishing your thoughts on this matter.

 Best wishes.
     Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)

 

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.14 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Some simple calculations assuming 42 CFM.
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some simple calculations assuming 42 CFM.
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 96 11:08:49 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Bob Sullivan <bsulliva@sky.net> writes:
 
>What Jed said, before the revisionists took over, was that very little heat 
>was rejected through the "cooling tower" -- most was rejected through the 
>vessel walls.
 
No, what Jed said was that he did not measure it and he does not know.
A lot was rejected through the vessel walls, because they were plenty hot.
But without proper testing there is no way of knowing, and Jed would never
guess, handwave and speculate about things he has not measured. Unlike
the "skeptics" . . .
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.14 / John Logajan /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: 14 Jan 1996 16:10:40 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Bob Sullivan (bsulliva@sky.net) wrote:
:    rmcarrell@aol.com (RMCarrell) wrote:
: ->the fan throat about 10 in^2, so the flow is not substantially obstructed.

: "The flow is not substantially obstructed." Can you say that again with a 
: straight face? 

A couple weeks ago I drilled eight half inch diameter holes in a plastic
bottle which was itself about four inches in diameter.  Then I cut a
three inch hole in the end of the bottle and mounted the three inch
"Sprite" fan.

I measured the amount of time it took to fill a rated 30 gallon plastic
garbage bag.  With the fan directly filling the bag, it took about 40 seconds.
With the fan blowing through the eight holes, ala the CETI geometry, it
took the same amount of time, 40 seconds.

Ergo, flow rate was not measurably reduced.

--
 - 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:
cuddy14 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.14 /  RMCarrell /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: rmcarrell@aol.com (RMCarrell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: 14 Jan 1996 11:28:18 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In response to Sullivan's critique of my comments about the CETI/Ananeim
demo. 

The comments about motor and pump characteristics were addressed to those
who were arguing that flow restrictions or the pump were the source of
measured heat.

I stand corrected on the total area of the holes in the side of the CETI
heat exchanger; It looked like 10 total, but eight is a more probable
number, and I erred in the calculation of total area, simple as they are.
The actual air flow was not measured and can't be calculated from
available data. 

In a transient condition, the conductivities, transfer characteristics and
heat capacities of all elements of the system need to be known to
calculate the rate of temperature rise in any element. In electrical
terms, the series resistors would have shunt capacitors. In a steady state
condition (equilibrium) condition which I stated, the 'capacitors' are
charged and no longer affect the outcome. The question at hand is whether
it is reasonable to believe that the CETI heat exchanger had sufficient
air flow and tube surface area to dissipate 1300 watts without other
visible effects, such as boiling. The rate of heat transfer from the
plastic tubing to the air stream is of course a function of the surface
temperature and the air flow. The fan mediates the exchange of heat from
the tubing into the room, which according to Jed's early report, required
the assistance of still another heat exchanger, the facility air
conditioning system. 

Calling the CETI heat exchanger a toy does not change its physical
properties. 

The reason why a 1450 watt space heater glows bright orange is that the
element is cooled by radiant heat, not a fast airstream as in a hair dryer
or the room heater I used as a model. I have another space heater with two
750 watt calrod elements, each of which glows bright orange. The filament
in a flashlight glows white hot with even less power input. Of  course I
measured the temperature rise across the heat exchanger, which happened to
be integrated with the heat source. Again, the key question is the surface
area and delta T, and of course the surface temperature of the wires was
probably much higher than the tubing in the CETI exchanger. 

I used the claimed delta T across the power cell because the basic issue
is this: if the power cell produced the clamed delta T, could the whole
extent of the external tubing, including the heat exchanger in question,
cool the liquid back to the input temperature? If not, then the inlet
temperature to the cell should have continued to rise during the run,
whether 15 min or two hours, and whether the power level was 500 watts or
1300 watts. Jed was there, as were others. I don't recall a report of such
happening. 

This rise occurred during Mitchell Jones experiment, which was always in a
transient conditon, since he terminated it before he damaged his
thermometers. His data show the fan didn't make any difference in the rate
of temperature rise, which is the useful figure of merit available. This
could be because the heat transfer from the 20 feet of tubing in an
(unstated) configuration was so effective that the vigorous fan could add
nothing, or that the fan airstream was so ineffectively deployed that it
added nothing to the cooling. In the CETI case, the heat exchanger is
configured to make maximum use of the airstream created by the fan. 

There remain: measured input volt-amps to the system, rate of fluid flow,
and measured delta T across the power cell. These continue to point to
significant over-unity, along with other confirming experiments. 

I remain unembarassed. -- Mike Carrell


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenrmcarrell cudlnRMCarrell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.15 / Charlotte Geier /  Re: Incredibly ignorant statements parroted by Archimedes Plutonium
     
Originally-From: Char_Ger@ix.netcom.com (Charlotte Geier)
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: Mon, 15 Jan 96 13:14:56 GMT
Organization: netcom

  I have seen the photos of 
>the exposed films myself.  I think that if you through out any other 
>excess heat information and all of the other results of mass 
>spectroscopy, you still have this problem that has been repeatably 
>produced by many research teams.  I do not know of any chemical 
mechanism 
>to explain this one result, do you?
>
I wonder if this is related to an experiment with plasmoids in a vacuum 
tube which apparently altered the stones' coloration of two rings I was 
wearing.  I was merely an "innocent"  bystander, located approximately 10 
feet from the actual setup.  One ring, a smokey topaz, was originally 
nearly black in color, while the other, a dark purple amythist, was 
equally dark.  Following the experiment, the smokey topaz now is a golden 
color with a faintly green tinge, while the amythist is a pale lavendar 
color.  Obviously the change was not due to thermal effects, which is 
about the only other way these stones' colors would have been affected.  
This seems to imply X- or Gamma radiation.  

Would you please comment on this?  

(I cannot personally give you the details of the experimental setup, but 
can refer you to someone who can.)

Charlotte Geier <Char_Ger@ix.netcom.com>
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenChar_Ger cudfnCharlotte cudlnGeier cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.14 / james dolan /  Re: Incredibly ignorant statements parroted by Archimedes Plutonium
     
Originally-From: james dolan <jdolan>
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: 14 Jan 1996 18:31:07 GMT
Organization: fair play for neptune committee

ross tessien writes:

-In article <birdieDKyAyB.Lys@netcom.com>, birdie@netcom.com says...
->
->Ross Tessien (tessien@oro.net) wrote:
->: In article <4cn742$suo@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, 
->: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu says...
->: >
->: > A perfect arena to
->: >observe this going on right now at this very moment, this "socialized
->: >physics or communistic physics" is the quest for the Higgs Particle.
->
->Um...and now back to our programme "Fools Rush Inn" Two mad scientists 
-in 
->Lab coats settle down for a nice cuppa and some small talk...
->
->: This, and your comments above, irregardless of your intentions to 
-right a 
->: wrong as I perceive your intent are careless.  And what is the result?
->
->: The result is that Pons and Fleischmann were ostrasized from the 
-United 
->: States of America due to all of the ridicule.  
->
->One could, I suppose, get ostrasized from the Brit Comedy board as well
->for posting very long mad chest thumping messages about 
-science/politics.
->
->: We sent our own researchers off to work for a consortium of Japanese 
->: corporations who are trying in earnest to develop this technology.  
-They 
->: have expended well over 100 million dollars over the past several 
-years. 
->:  Now do you think for a minute that they are not getting results that 
->: justify the expenditure?  Absolutely not.  
->
->I cannot argue against this, their lab coats as a result really are much 
->whiter and brighter. Last I looked in the Japanese Lab, one required 
->sunglasses. Now, that's results! One can just see where all the $$ went.
->
->: American publications are gun shy and will not publish these articles 
->: because of the prejiduce demonstrated above.
->
->Right, so they have been allotted to newsgroups such as British Comedy. 
- 
->
->
->: Wake up America and get off your sleeping ignorant butts on this 
-issue.  
->: I have designs but cannot even get Westinghouse or GE to take this 
-issue 
->: seriously.  We are seeking private funding and due to all of the 
-comments 
->: floating around like this one, investors are shy too.  
->
->Uh..oh..this is truly embarrassing....
->
->: Ross Tessien, pissed off engineer
->
->Well, obviously Ross, your in the right place...
->
->If you stick around you may hopefully acuire a sense of humour!
->
->Birdie
->-- 
->"A few more trips around the sun & my face will look like a fault map!" 
->                                                  
->                                                  - birdie@netcom.com
-
-I have a great sense of humor when something is funny.  Apparently birdie 
-doesn't want to respond below, so lets see if the cat can get her out of 
-the tree.  Probably not because she obvioulsy has no knowledge of the 
-subject with which to debate, but lets try any way.
-
-Are you familiar with the paper, "Observation of Anomalous Emission of 
-High Energy  (~1Mev) Charged Particles When 5 KeV Protons Impinge on 
-Palladium and Titanium Foils"?  In it you can see for yourself the 
-autoradiographs and decide if you think they took them to their 
-local dentist to expose the film, deliberately forging this 1994 paper.  
-If you didn't read the other post I made below to your compatriot in 
-crime, I was wondering what chemical process might yield these high 
-energy particles, and the beta decay.  Seemed to me that these were only 
-possible if one caused a new isotope ( oops, that nuclear reaction thing) 
-to form.  That team was from India.
-
-Are you familiar with The paper "DEUTERON FUSION EXPERIMENT WITH TI AND 
-PD FOILS IMPLANTED WITH DEUTERON BEAMS II"?  This is another Dec 1994 
-paper in the Transactions on Fusion Technology.  Have you ever personally 
-read any of the work on Cold Fusion that has taken place in the past 
-three years?  Did you know that Oppenheimer found that deuterons were the 
-most valuable isotopic species for creating radio isotopes way back in 
-the thirties when he and Lawrence were first discovering how atoms 
-worked?
-
-Do you know anything about atomic physics that I am not waisting my time, 
-or are you just parroting more ignorant information without any personal 
-investigation regarding what you said above?  If indeed you do think you 
-have investigated the topic, then you must know something that I don't.  
-I was always taught that the production of helium, or the production of 
-any radioisotopes or the production of 3 to 7 MeV particles from KeV 
-level particles all pretty well proved that you made some sort of atomic 
-reactions.
-
-Since you have chosen to speak out above, one would think you know 
-otherwise.  But then, as we all see, you simply lash out and then hide in 
-the shadows.  Are you embarrassed about your comment and wish you hadn't 
-made it since you obviously are another sheep hiding from reality.  If 
-so, why not come out and appologize?
-
-Well, enjoy the flock and hope there aren't too many fleas.



should we tell him?


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudfnjames cudlndolan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.14 / Bill Rowe /  Re: Resp. to M. Jones: How I measured inlet temperature
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Resp. to M. Jones: How I measured inlet temperature
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 1996 11:25:16 -0800
Organization: none apparent

In article <xVOmP0+.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

>Regarding Mitchell's tests with the Magnum 350 pump, I think this is
>interesting work, and I think it shows how complicated the heat transfer from
>these systems can be. It is good advertisement for using flow calorimetry
>rather than static calorimetry with such large heat fluxes. However, I do not
>think that his work disproves Cravens' results or Cravens' reports of his
>calibrations and previous testing. Mitchell will have to build a system much
>closer what Dennis used before I have any serious doubts about it.

I think Mitchell's test does more than show the complexity of heat
transfer. It also illustrates the problems with the data taken. Quite
simply the data is insufficient to be sure what happened.

The more I read of the CETI demo the more I am inclined to agree with the
posting Arnold Freisch (sp?) of Tectronix made, i.e., it is clear
something happened --- I don't know exactly what happened and I am not
convinced those present to do the observation know exactly what happened.
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain."
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.15 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 1996 11:24 -0500 (EST)

arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch) writes:
 
-> In article <USE2PCB186125364@brbbs.brbbs.com> mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com writes
-> >arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch) writes:
-> >
-> >-> What bothers me is that Jed has reported, in connection with this partic
-> >-> aparatus, large overunity gains in a control device that was defective a
-> >-> HE DIDN'T EVEN REALIZE THAT THERE WAS ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE FACT THAT
-> >-> DID.
-> >->
-> >-> Given this level of incompetence, nothing would surprise me from Rothwel
-> >
-> >Excuse me, but Jed never reported large overunity gains in a control device
-> >suggest you go back and check the messages.  He reported that the control c
-> >was stopped up and they turned it off. Apparently he was correct in that
-> >statement. If Jed screwed up on his reporting, fine, but lets not claim he
-> >something, or claimed something that he did not.  It does not appear that a
-> >incompetence exhibited in your statement is Jed's.
-> >
-> >Marshall
-> >
->
-> This is an example of very poor (shameful?) practice in this
-> newsgroup!
->
-> Marshall mailed this nonsense to me; he got an answer, and then he
-> posted this to the newsgroup WITHOUT THE ANSWER.  So, for those of you
-> who are listening - here's the answer that I already gave him:
->
->         Answer that Marshall already got (but apparently didn't like):
->
-> You are the one who needs to go back and look at what Jed said.  In fact, th
-> was an ongoing thread that villified your hero for his REPEATED reports of a
-> power gain in excess of 700 in the SHORTED control device.
->
-> Go look before you bullshit me anymore.
 
What the hell are you talking about?  I think you have gone totally around the
bend.  You posted in the newsgroup, and I replied to the newsgroup and sent you
a copy privately, at the same time.  What is wrong with that??????  You are
now claiming that I waited until I got a reply from you and then posted the
same original message?  It seems you have come up with another example of
your inability to understand or state facts.  Posting and replying
simulatneously to a news item is done all the time by me and others, and you
are the first I have ever seen complain about it. If you don't want your errors
pointed out in a newsgroup, I suggest you stop posting in the newsgroup. Good
grief!
 
BTW, I am still waiting for this posting you claim that Jed made, that I cannot
find in our archives.  Or is this another example of your state of confusion?
Jed gets confused enough here sometimes for all of us, but you seem to be much
worse.
 
Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.16 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Some simple calculations assuming 42 CFM.
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some simple calculations assuming 42 CFM.
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 96 08:25:29 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Martin Sevior <msevior> writes:
 
>3. I can think of another heat transfer mechanism from the reservoir that you
>haven't considered. Evaporation from the fluid and condensation on the  
>plate between the pump and the heat exchanger.
 
The way the fan was positioned, my guess is that evaporation would have
been sucked right out the heat exchanger and blown into the room. The
holes that allow electrolysis effluent gas and evaporation out are right
inside that see-thru cooling tower.
 
Most evaporation, anyway.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.16 /  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: Tue, 16 Jan 96 08:28:57 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> writes:
 
>Never the less, my recollection is that it was not Jed who made or posted
>measurements unknowingly alledging that the control cell was producing
>anomalous heat.  In fact, you can find Robert Bass's article to that
 
That is correct. My report said:
 
     "The first test was marred by a malfunction in the control cell. The
     control cell consisted of tin plated shot, arranged as an
     electrochemical cathode, in the same configuration as the smaller CETI
     thin film beads. During tests at the lab leading up to the conference,
     this produced no excess heat, as expected. However, during the first
     test at one point produced a Delta T temperature as high as 2.6 deg C.
     Cravens suspected that the flow was blocked and the cell short
     circuited. Later that evening he confirmed both suspicions. When he
     opened the cell he found that some of shot had corroded after weeks of
     electrolysis in warm water."
 
Thass' what I said, and that's what I meant.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.16 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Response to I Johnston
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Response to I Johnston
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 96 09:33:05 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Barry Merriman writes:
 
     "I have no idea when the theory of airfoils was related to practical
     flight, but certainly the phenomena of lift in fluid flows (e.g. the
     Magnus effect) was appreciated in the late 1800's. Lamb's classic book
     on fluid dynamics cites work of Kutta, 1902, Jakowski 1906 and Lancaster
     1907 for theoretical derivation of the relation between lift and
     circulation, which is the basis of airfoil theory. Of course, its not
     likely the Wright brothers knew anything about this theoretical
     work . . ."
 
It is impossible that they could have known of it. They did the physics and
the wind tunnel experiments between 1899 to 1903, before building the first
airplane. Most of their wind tunnel data was taken in November and December,
1901. That is why they were able to predict the propeller thrust to within
*one percent* before they cut wood to build the propellers. As for
conventional sources of information about aerodynamics before 1900, they knew
virtually everything worth knowing, from Smeaton on up. There was not much of
value before the Wrights got involved. They invented the field pretty much
from scratch.
 
 
     ". . . . and given the existence of birds, kites, etc, I don't think it
     requires a great deal of theory to relize that flight is possible, and
     could be achieved with some sort of powered device with wings."
 
You have no earthly idea what you are talking about. It took a terrific amount
of theory and computation, and nobody else in the world got even close to
understanding the problems. The Wrights, who were superb physicists, spent
three arduous years working through the theory. They filled notebook after
notebook (published in two volumes by the Library of Congress and McGraw Hill
in 1953) with data, tables of "gliding pressure," "Tangentials, gliding
angles, drag: lift ratios" etc, elaborate quadratic equations, and
observations like the following:
 
     "While at Kitty Hawk we spent much time in measuring the horizontal
     pressure on our unloaded machine at various angles of incidence. We
     found that at 13 degrees the horizontal pressure was about 23 lbs. This
     included not only the drift proper, or horizontal component of the
     pressure on the side of the surface, but also the head resistance of the
     framing as well. The weight of the machine at the time of this test was
     108 lbs. Now, if the pressure had been normal to the chord of the
     surface, the drift proper would have been to the lift (108 pounds) as
     the sine of 13 degrees is to the cosine of 13 degrees, or (.22 x
     108)/.97 = 24+ lbs.; but this slightly exceeds the total pull of 23 lbs.
     on our scales. Therefore, it is evident that the average pressure on the
     surface instead of being normal to the chord was so far inclined toward
     the front that all the head resistance of framing and wires used in the
     construction was more than overcome."
 
     - Wilbur Wright, "Some Aeronautical Experiments," Proc. West Society of
     Engineers, Chicago, Ill, Sept. 18, 1901 (One of his less abstruse
     comments on that occasion)
 
As Combs puts it:
 
     "The calculations, which we would expect to find in the most modern
     aerodynamics laboratory staffed by experienced engineers and scientists,
     and backed by advanced computers and other electronic giants, appeared
     in the pioneering work of the Wrights in 1903."
 
Regarding the development of theory, Crouch writes:
 
     "Engineering was the key. The Wright brothers function as engineers, not
     scientists. Science, the drive to understand the ultimate principles at
     work in the universe, had little to do with the invention of the
     airplane. A scientist would have asked the most basic questions. How
     does the wing of a bird generate lift? What are the physical laws that
     explain the phenomena of flight?
 
          The answers to those questions were not available to Wilbur and
     Orville Wright, or to anyone else at the turn of the century. Airplanes
     would be flying for a full quarter century before physicists and
     mathematicians could explain why wings worked.
 
          How was it possible to build a flying machine without first
     understanding the principles involved? In the late twentieth century, we
     regard the flow of technological marvels from basic scientific research
     as the natural order of things. But this relationship between what one
     scholar, Edwin Layton, has described as the "mirror image twins" of
     science and technology is a relatively new phenomenon. Historically,
     technological advance has more often preceded and even inspired
     scientific understanding."
 
     - T. Crouch, "The Bishop's Boys," (Norton: 1989), page 175
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.16 / I Johnston /  Re: Response to I Johnston
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Response to I Johnston
Date: 16 Jan 1996 15:53:26 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

Jed, the Wrights were astonishingly good pragmatic engineers. However,
you contradict yourself time and time again when you claim, in essence
that

a) they didn't need theory to fly - and the theory wasn't developed foor
years and

b) they only flew because they were masters of the theory.

Making lots of experiments and accurate predictions isn't theory - it's
good experimental science. Can we not agree that

a) the Wright brothers flew without using the circulation theory of lift
but

b) that theory was around at the time - thanks to Lanchester - but was
not to become accepted until Prandtl, much later.

Love,

Ian   
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.16 / John Logajan /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: 16 Jan 1996 06:18:59 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Mitchell Jones (21cenlogic@i-link.net) wrote:
: Magnum 350 Run #2 [without fan]
: Starting air and water temp: 56 degrees F
: Ending water temp: 96 degrees F
: Elapsed time: 7 minutes
: Flow rate: roughly 10 liters/min
: Water volume: 4 liters

: Magnum 350 Run #3 [with fan]
: Starting water temp: 92 degrees F
: Ending water temp: 120 degrees F
: Elapsed time: 5 minutes
: Flow rate: roughly 10 liters/min
: Water volume: 4 liters

Hmmm, case #2 has a 40F rise in 7 minutes, equals 5.7F rise per minute.
      case #3 has a 28F rise in 5 minutes, equals 5.6F rise per minute.

Case 2 average temp was  76F
Case 3 average temp was 106F
       Ambient temp was 56F

My own previous experience cooling bulk stirred water through plastic
(a Nalgene tank) was that placing a low speed 12" fan reduced the
thermal time constant to 1/3rd.

We also know that the rate of cooling ought be faster as the object
temperature increases farther from ambient.

Yet rates of 5.7 and 5.6F/minute are essentially identical, though
experience would suggest the fan cooling case ought to be very different.

Mitch, are you sure your tubes aren't blocked?

--
 - 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:
cuddy16 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.16 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Resp. to M. Jones: How I measured inlet temperature
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Resp. to M. Jones: How I measured inlet temperature
Date: 16 Jan 1996 16:11:30 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <hPIl-5A.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>Bill Rowe <browe@netcom.com> writes:
> 
>>I think Mitchell's test does more than show the complexity of heat
>>transfer. It also illustrates the problems with the data taken. Quite
>>simply the data is insufficient to be sure what happened.

You can say that again!.

.......
.....
...
..
>I cannot charactorize these things, and I would not try to do so without
>data.

Why not?  You've always done so before.


Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
 -------------------------------------------------------
Any ideas or opinions expressed here do not necessarily
reflect the ideas or opinions of my employer.
 -------------------------------------------------------


cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.16 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Cold Fusion Times
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Times
Date: 16 Jan 1996 16:18:49 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <DL34y9.DrI@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>  In Message-ID: <4d64os$fuo@tekadm1.cse.tek.com>
>Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Times
>Arnie Frisch [arnief@wu.cse.tek.com], apparently high in Tektronix, Inc.,
>Beaverton,  OR. writes:

Your posting is not worth responding to except for your attempt to
bring Tektronix into this issue.  My disclaimer specifically removes
Tektronix, Inc. from the discussion, and your attempt to connect them
is totally unjustified.

Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
 -------------------------------------------------------
Any ideas or opinions expressed here do not necessarily
reflect the ideas or opinions of my employer.
 -------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.15 / ERIC RENOUF /  Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, Dr. Hill is the wiser, Dr. White washes
     
Originally-From: 017776r@axe.acadiau.ca (ERIC RENOUF)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.fusion,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, Dr. Hill is the wiser, Dr. White washes
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 21:12:46 GMT
Organization: Acadia University

In article <4d5ibg$edk@marina.cinenet.net> vergon@cinenet.net (Vertner Vergon) writes:
>From: vergon@cinenet.net (Vertner Vergon)
>Subject: Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, Dr. Hill is the wiser, Dr. White washes
>Date: 12 Jan 1996 11:57:35 GMT

>Oz (Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: Anthony Potts <potts@cern.ch> wrote:
>: 
>: >
>: >
>: >On 30 Oct 1995, Herve Le Cornec wrote:
>: >
>: >> I always wonder how physicists could say that something 
>: >> with no mass and no charge exists.
>: >> 
>: >If you always wonder this, you must have a very boring life, how do you 
>: >have time to converse with people or read books? I am (as I have pointed 
>: >out previously) a physicist, and I can tell you that if you are going to 
>: >stick to your intuitive ideas about how the universe should behave , then 
>: >you will have a very hard time taking in modern physics. You would do 
>: >much better to wonder what we can predict about a massless and chargeless 
>: >particle, and how well this fits in with the actual behaviour of neutrinos.
>: >
>: 
>: And its just SO much more fun. Stretch the mind a little and
>: try to imagine it and how it behaves. Don't try to force the
>: universe to follow your beliefs (you lose), force your mind
>: to follow the evidence. Only slightly harder and MUCH more
>: entertaining. NB A neutrino is better than that. It has no
>: mass, but it does have spin,

>Then *what* spins?


>: which is closely related to
>: angular momentum.

>Spin in a neutrino is as closely related to angular momentum  as it is
>in a top. No mass, no top, no angular momentum.

>: Thinking classically will really make this
>: a hooey. 
>: -------------------------------
>: 'Oz     

>The only hooey here is the ridiculous position just expounded.

>I get so tired (and nauseated) listening to that tired old drivel about
>'you must give up your old fashioned outmoded intuitive ideas and enter
>the never never land of modern physics'.

>This is put forth by people who have lost the way, who have bought 
>ridiculous conclusions arrived at through erroneous mathematical
>procedures that lead to reductios ad absurdom.

>The fact is that when you arrive at a reductio ad absurdom, or any
>other type nonviable conclusion, what you say is 'this is a dead end, I
>must go back and redo it until I come up with something that makes sense.

>Physics is *physical* and the physical can be visualized (at least 
>approximately).

>Unfortunately, this type of thinkig became fashionable with the advent
>of SR.

>SR is a mathematical solution to the problems Newtonian dynamics 
>suffered at high velocities. 

>It was the genius of Einstein that he saw a bigger picture and discussed
>the invariance of physical laws between frames in relative motion.

>However, the solution WAS mathematical and the *physical causality* was
>completely negelected.

>Thus was born the philosophy that you cannot look intuitively at the
>universe. 

>NOT SO.

>Human nature being what it is those bying the nonphysical universe
>opened a pandora's box. But they don't have the acumen to perceive
>the folly of their ways.

>Instead they pontificate to those still in control of their senses
>about how they should enter the world of Alice in Wonderland and
>smoke pot.

>It puts me in mind of the lunatic asylum where the cackling paper
>doll cutters inside think the people on the outside are crazy  -- and
>tell them so.

>Stick to your guns, Herve.

There are somethings that we observe that simply cannot be explained using 
the older ways of thinking.  I read your supposed correction to SR, and I 
replied to that.  I don't think that you have replied to my post yet have 
you?  If so, I have missed it, so could you please do so again.

SR aside, how do you visuallize the distortions of the spacetime continuum 
that are predicted, and observed, by GR.  I have never met anyone who can 
actually visuallize that, but it seems to happen.  If you don't give up the 
concept of absolute space, and time, GR and SR are out of your scope, and 
you will find that they don't make sense; however, those who adopt this new 
concept of spacetime will be able to see how well SR and GR describe the 
universe with virtually no problems.  There are no paradoxes in either of 
those theories for those who accept the whole theory.  Problems only arise 
when you hold onto the old concepts of absolute space and time.

Many things in QM are the same, though I'm not as familiar with this as with 
relativity.  These are theories that, test after test, provide correct 
answers that match what we observe.  What reason do you have for not 
accepting what these theories tell us?  Your own intuition?  That isn't 
something that offers you any observable evidence.  In fact, I think that 
you will find that if accurate enough measurements are made, your intuition 
will incorrectly predict the results of any experiment.  Even something as 
simple as the sum of the angles in a triangle will be wrong.  Your intuition 
will probably tell you 180 degrees, but if you make carefull enough 
measurements you will find that the sum of the angles of a tringle is almost 
never 180 degrees.

The reason that we tell you that you have to abandon your old ways of 
thinking if you want to understand modern physics is because that is what 
the universe tells us.  If theory matched observation, then there is a good 
chance that there will be some truth to that theory.

The history of physics is filled with people forcing us to change the way 
that we think of things.  It was once thought that there were only 4 
elements, if that way of thinking had not been abandon we could never have 
progressed even as far as the theory that you cling to.  The universe was 
once thought to go around the earth, then the sun.  Both of those ideas were 
given up, so why is yours one that will never have to be given up?  What is 
so special about the way that you think that makes it eternally correct, 
even in the face of observations that contradict it?

Eric Renouf
017776r@axe.acadiau.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cuden017776r cudfnERIC cudlnRENOUF cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.15 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: 15 Jan 1996 22:26:28 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <4d4scc$777@stratus.skypoint.net> jlogajan@skypoint.com writes:
>Mitchell Jones (21cenlogic@i-link.net) wrote:
>: Basically, what I am hypothesizing is that when the run began at Power
>: Gen, fluid friction in the bead bed caused heat conduction into the walls
>: of the cell and thence into the outlet thermocouple, causing it to read 16
>: degrees higher than the actual temperature of the electrolyte.

>By what magic can the thermocouple come to be 16C higher than the
>surrounding electrolyte?  How can fluid friction heating of the bead
>bed cause the beads to become 16C hotter than the very fluid that
>is in dymanic friction causing contact with the beads?


The magic involved is no more difficult than that which allows 1300
watts to heat the electrolyte by 20 C - when passive models dissipating
1100 watts run away thermally.


Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
 -------------------------------------------------------
Any ideas or opinions expressed here do not necessarily
reflect the ideas or opinions of my employer.
 -------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.15 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
Date: 15 Jan 1996 22:33:51 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <4d4t55$777@stratus.skypoint.net> jlogajan@skypoint.com writes:
>Arnie Frisch (arnief@wu.cse.tek.com) wrote:
>: You are the one who needs to go back and look at what Jed said.  In fact,
>: there was an ongoing thread that villified your hero for his REPEATED 
>: reports of a power gain in excess of 700 in the SHORTED control device.
>
>: Go look before you bullshit me anymore.
>
>There might well have been a thread villifying Jed for allegedly reporting
>such a thing.  However your evidence is irrelevent -- it's "hearsay" as they
>say in court.  We need the original posting by Jed to see what he really
>said, not some interpretation by one of his detractors.

>My recollection is that Robert Bass posted the numbers for the control
>cell, not Jed. 







Give it up!  This thread has been going on for a long time now.  Jed is an
embarrassment to your cause at this point.  His credibility is negative,
TB's would be better off without him.

If you don't believe me, don't.  You're the one who suffers.


Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
 -------------------------------------------------------
Any ideas or opinions expressed here do not necessarily
reflect the ideas or opinions of my employer.
 -------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.16 / A Plutonium /  Re: Neutron having internal charge; charge inverse of spin
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Neutron having internal charge; charge inverse of spin
Date: 16 Jan 1996 00:18:59 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <4dcg3f$4d6@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

> In article <4dc3rh$3ed@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> 
> > How about 3-Space, well we need 8 of those canonical conjugate pairs,
> > four more than listed above and those four would include charge, spin,
> > unknown and unknown.
> 
> I used the word inverse because I see little difference from math and
> physics. We know addition is the inverse of subtraction and vice versa.
> We know from Uncertainty Principle that the energy is the conjugate
> pair of time and same thing with momentum and position. Momentum is
> mass.
> 
> If my intuition guides me well, what I am about to do is to find what
> the 8 necessary and sufficient physics 'concepts' are.
> 
> In math for Eucl 3-Space they are
> add,subt,multi,divid,diff,integrate,exp function and log function. With
> those and only those is Euclidean 3 Space built. Now I am converting
> those math operators to equivalent physics 'concepts' and four of them
> I have of energy-- time and momentum--position. I need 4 more for
> 3-Space. Keep in mind I have not proved the math theorem as yet, I am
> still searching.
> 
> I suspect the spin is angular momentum and bundled within. I suspect
> that charge is the inverse of angular momentum because the big clue
> here is that charge comes in 3 types -1,0,+1 and spin comes in three
> types? -1/2,Integral,+1/2
> 
> I do not yet know what the other two physical concepts are to complete
> 3-Space Physics. Perhaps mass itself is one of the last two and what
> would the inverse of mass be, analogy, differentiation is the inverse
> of integration and all are connected in one way or another.
> 
> The neutron has internal charge because of experiments proving that the
> neutron has a 'surface charge'. My theory of 1995 was that the Strong
> Nuclear Force was Hydrogen Atom Systems, ie, a neutron is composed of a
> hydrogen atom inside it and the nucleus of protons is held together by
> the protons exchanging 'nuclear electrons'. Thus, you can see why a
> neutron would have a surface charge because it has a hydrogen atom
> inside of it and sometimes the nuclear electron gets closer to the
> surface allowing one to measure a imbalance of negative charge and
> other times the proton is closer to the surface of the neutron allowing
> a observer to measure a postive charge.
> 
> Does this mean that 0 charge is a composite charge. By all means yes it
> does.
> 
> Thus, there should be an experiment such as I have outlined which can
> measure the surface internal charge of the photon. Then an equation can
> be made which will direct the experimental physicist to measure what
> the very tiny rest mass of the photon is.
> 
>   In my outline above, it will be a very very tiny rest mass for the
> photon because of all the experiments to date that indicate a photon
> has no rest mass. Thus my experiment has to be engineered with extreme
> precise engineering. The electric field on the left can be made very
> strong and the laser beam of photons will have to be made very intense.
> By both increasing the electric field and the intensity, it is my
> intuition that somewhere in the increase will you see measurable
> deflection of the photon beam. After it is discovered that the photons
> do deflect will mean that the photon has an inside or an internal
> order. The measuring of charge on the photon, I further intuit means
> that that photon has a rest mass. And furthering that logic means that
> really nothing has 0 charge. Zero charge is impossible just as 0 K is
> impossible. A neutron gets close to 0 charge but all of these particles
> are composite charged particles.
> 
>   Discovering that the photon has a tiny slight charge implies that the
> photon has a tiny slight rest mass.

  Perhaps spin is related inversely or is canonical conjugate pair to
charge. I as yet have not been able to fathom a geometry for this.

  I have a crude geometry for the HYASYS of Strong Nuclear Force.
Picture a "hook". The nuclear electrons of the hydrogen atom systems
inside each neutron is like a hook. But I need to see the Couloumb
force as a hook also.

  I can picture a spin but I cannot picture a charge geometrically. So
having a picture of spin what is the inverse geometry of spin? What is
the inverse of spinning geometrically? I think it is planing. Somehow
the linear momentum is planing or Euclid 3 space and the spinning is
angular momentum.

  Magnetism is simply electric charge in motion. So it may be that
electricity and magnetism are primitive concepts and as basic to
physics as add and subtract or multiply and divide are to math.

  Now today I hit upon a really new idea but the experiments to date
seem not to favor it. The idea is that charge is merely electricity and
magnetism itself. Thus positive charge of a proton is merely
electricity and negative charge of an electron is magnetism. So perhaps
charge is some composite phenomenon of physics. Think of say power
function of factorial are not primitive concepts of math for they are
both fancy forms of multiplication where multiplication is basic and
primitive.

  Perhaps what we consider as positive charge and negative charge are
merely electricity and magnetism in a composite state. This would be
nice for my newest idea that 0 charge is really composite bundled
positive and negative charge wherein absolute 0 charge is never
attainable just as absolute 0 K is temperature is never attainable.
Thus the neutron is really a tiny finite charged particle close to 0
but not 0, say .0000001  negative charge. This has already been
experimentally verified that the neutron has a tiny surface charge.

   Today I still go with the idea that the spin is the conjugate (in
math the inverse) of charge. But I need more, much more experiments in
to be able to sort out this mess of what the 8 and only 8 necessary and
sufficient physical parameters (like the 8 and only 8 operators to
complete Eucl 3-Space)

  For sure I have the four-- angular momentum-position and energy-time.
I will need four more to complete physics. Perhaps they are
electricity-magnetism and mass-radioactivity. For math I am sure of
add-subtract and multiply-divide, and less sure of the other four of
differentiate-integrate and exp function- log function. If those are
the 8 for math then they complete all of 3-Space Geometry and supply
the Precise definition (math = precision) for dimension. Thus, no
higher than 3rd dimension exists.
 
  If I am correct on those 8 physical parameters then, (1)angular
momentum (2)position (3)energy (4)time (5)electricity (6)magnetism
(7)mass (8)radioactivity complete all of physics. What I mean complete
is that one needs to study these 8 fundamental concepts and any other
concepts are superfluous, or composite of these 8. These 8 are like the
chemical elements for chemistry and all of physics is created out of
those 8. Just as all math numbers are created out of those 8 math
operators.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.16 / A Plutonium /  All particles with charge have rest mass; my proving it
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: All particles with charge have rest mass; my proving it
Date: 16 Jan 1996 00:47:21 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <4dcdvm$hjp@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

>                          vacuum light tunnel
>  ___________                _____                  ___________
> |  ionized  |              |     |                |           |
> |    matter |              |     |                |  equal    |
> |           |              |     |                |  matter   |
> |___________|              |_____|                |___________|
> _______________________________________________________________
>                              /\
>                             /  \  Balancing Beam
> 
> 
>   The beam is balanced and this experimental set-up is analogous to the
> Cavendish weighing the Earth. But here I am measuring for the rest mass
> of the photon.
> 
>   Now send a photon laser beam through the best vacuum tunnel.
> According to present modern day physics the photons should go straight
> through with never any deflection.
> 
>   According to my intuition. If the above ionization is built up to a
> high enough peak there will be a deflection of the photon beam towards
> or away from the ionized mass depending on whether the ionization is
> positive or negative. And with proper calculations the rest mass of the
> photon should be derived. Some may ask why beam and mass at all?
> Because photons are more effected by their internal 'charge' and not by
> gravity, in fact, there is no gravity at the photon or atomic level.
> Gravity is a statistical feature and it is not a physics law at all,
> just as Ohm's law is not a physics law, both are algorithms and
> superfluid helium is the observable reality that gravity is just a
> algorithm a van der Waals force analogy.

  Well all the particles with 0 or naught in them supposedly had 0
charge. Neutrons, Lambda naught, pi naught, K naught and many other
mesons reportedly and supposedly had no charge whatsoever. But recently
in physics history experiments confirmed that the neutron has a surface
charge. My HYASYS theory explains that surface charge as the hydrogen
atom system floating around inside the neutron. And this is another
beautiful confirmation of the HYASYS theory. Show that neutrons can be
negatively surface charged (the hyasys electron) and switched to
positively surface charge (the proton of hyasys). 

  Before yesterday, before 14Jan1996, noone in the physics world ever
thought that the neutron had a charge. If my theory pans out then no
particle has a 0 charge. Many will come close to 0 charge such as the
neutron but the neutron has a slight tiny charge and I will guess here
that it is .00000001 charge if the proton is charge 1.

  Now the photon should have a smaller charge than the neutron. But
what is also important is that the charge of all particles is connected
or linked to how much rest mass they have. In other words you cannot
have a charge and no rest mass. The neutrino also has a charge and a
rest mass.

  I believe that the physics world already has some experimental
evidence of my new found theory. However, I need to get into the math
of physics to find just where the math can support the idea that all
particles which have charge must have rest mass. Some arena of physics
already has the inner workings that all charged particles must have a
finite rest mass. And I believe the math that will help in this
situation is the math where you must divide by a number but it cannot
be 0. Look for the math of dividing by 0 charge. You see, if it is
impossible to attain 0 charge just as it is impossible to attain 0
Kelvin, then in that math should have a factor of 'rest mass' also.
Anyone privy to the math physics of dividing by 0 charge. Dirac
Equation?

  Once I have the math, still need to perform my experiment above
proving that ionized matter deflects a photon or photon beam proving
the photon has a surface charge. Once proving that experimentally then
the numbers can be plugged into the equation which relates charge with
mass and the rest mass of the photon can be derived.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.15 /  gfp /  MTF-shortcut to DT fusion?
     
Originally-From: gfp@docunet.mv.att.com (gfp)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: MTF-shortcut to DT fusion?
Date: 15 Jan 1996 18:26:08 GMT
Organization: ndg132d00

See HTTP://harry.lanl.gov/PlasmaPhysics/IEEE_abstract.html for an 
interesting approach to DT burning. (Note an Engineering publication 
picked this up, not a Physics Journal!!).

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudengfp cudlngfp cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.15 / Alexander V /  Conference in St.-Petersburg, Russia. Gravitation, time,
     
Originally-From: "Alexander V. Frolov" <alex@frolov.spb.ru>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Conference in St.-Petersburg, Russia. Gravitation, time,
free energy experiments and theories
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 96 21:22:52 +0300
Organization: Private person

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

                     International Conference
                      St.-Petersburg, Russia
Dear Sirs,

Local Organizing Commitee consisting of
Chairman: 
Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences;
Members:
Dr. Anatoly  A.  Efimov,
Russian Academy of Sciences;
Dr. Jaroslav G. Klyushin
Dr. Kirill P. Butusov
Dr. Juri A. Zakoldajev,
for Technics of Exploring;
Ms. Alexandra  A.  Shpitalnaja
Astronomical Observatory, Russian Academy of Sciences;
Mr. Vladimir A. Fogel
Association "SVETLANA";
Mr. Alexander  V.  Frolov,  
Academy of MegaSciences, Institute for Free Energy.

INVITE YOU  to  take  part  in  work of conference that will take
place from 17 to 22 June, 1996, in St.-Petersburg,  Russia.  Next
committees are planed:
                       PHYSICS
1. Modern problems in physics. Theoretical reports.
2. New energetics, practical results.
3. Gravitation and overlapping technologies.
4. Development of Tesla's ideas.
                       GEOLOGY
5-days Seminar "The ecological problems and  geology"  will  take
place in parallel with physics committee.

     Subjects of lectures ( invited 30  Russian  speakers  )  are
devoted  to  next  topics:  electrogravitation,   free    energy,
gyroscopes and anti-gravity reaction, inertial propulsion drives,
control by rate  of  time,  scalar  electromagnetic  interaction,
magnetic    vector    potential    interaction,      longitudinal
electromagnetic wave generation  and  detection,  Mobius  surface
current  effects,  single-wire  power  transmission,  heat  pump,
unipolar  (  homopolar  )  generator,  torsion  field.    Special
reports: Ivan S. Filimonenko, his cold  fusion  experiments  from
1960 to present time; Boris V. Bolotov, transmutation of chemical
elements, Vadim A. Shernobrov, experiments on control of rate  of
time.
       Please, send the name of your report, your name and address
for contacts, fax, email, and abstract by your report (  from  10
to 20 lines ) in FAX-address of organizing committee  or by email
to  <  postmaster@frolov.spb.ru  >  to  prepare  the  programm of
conference. We must make it  before  Febriary 15, 1996.
        Also, please send by  post  in  address:  Dr.  Anatoly  P.
Smirnov, P.O.BOX 25,  195298,  St.-Petersburg,  Russia,  complete
text  of  your  report  (  up  to  10  pages  and  2  Figures  ).
Consideration of reports cannot  be  assured  if  received  after
April 1. We'll print  book  of  all  reports  in  English  before
conference for all speakers to help international discussion.

     The Forum will be held from 17 to  22  June,  1996.  We  are
planing 5-days work, 10 AM - 3  PM  sessions,  workshops  devoted
experimental systems and devices will take place in  the  end  of
every  day.  June  22  is  reserve  day  for  work.  Detailes  on
registration  fee - USD  250  (  book  of  reports  in   English,
simultaneous interpreting for lectures are included  ),  hotel
( single rooms are USD 63 per day ) and all organizing  questions
we'll inform you when we'll receive  text  of  your  report  that
means your desire to take part in Conference as Speaker.


Best regards,

Chairman                             Dr. Anatoly P. Smirnov

          FAX
___________________________________________________________________
--- 
         Alexander V. Frolov
P.O.Box 37, 193024, St.-Petersburg, Russia
         alex@frolov.spb.ru 

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenalex cudfnAlexander cudlnV cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.16 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 1996 11:21 -0500 (EST)

jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
 
-> MARSHALL DUDLEY <mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com> writes:
->
-> >This statement is not in evidence.  If we are talking about a centrifigul p
-> >then the torque goes way down when you throttle it (like stopping up the ho
-> >on a vacuum cleaner).  If we are talking about a positive displacement pump
-> >then the torque goes way, way up when you try to trottle the output.  I am
->
-> Marshall, this is an odd question, but someone in a private e-mail
-> discussion of this said that the performance of a centrifigul pump would
-> be different if you throttle it by blocking the input (stopping up the
-> hose on the vacuum cleaner) versus blocking the output. I don't think that
-> is true. Maybe with air, which is compressible, you might see a difference
-> because the pressure would go up if you blocked the outlet, but with
-> water I would think it would be exactly the same no matter which end you
-> throttle. What do you think?
 
With water you would expect it to be exactly the same (or at least within one's
ability to measure it since water is virtually incompressible).  With air there
might be a slight difference, but not much.  The air would be slightly denser
if you plugged the output due to the increase in pressure, but since it is
simply spinning around with the impeller and not dissipating any significant
energy anyway, the difference will be slight. A good example would be to see if
adding weight to the platter of a record player would increase the amount of
power to keep it spinning.  Once you overcome the initial inertial then for all
pratical purposes it would not.
 
Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.16 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Resp. to M. Jones: How I measured inlet temperature
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Resp. to M. Jones: How I measured inlet temperature
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 1996 11:50 -0500 (EST)

jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
 
-> We have no data about this aspect of the experiment. On the other hand, we
-> can get it, and you can too. People who claim that 1300 watt heater always
-> glow with orange incandescence can get data too. Just turn on your hair
-> drier in a dark room and look inside. Turn it down to 500 watts with a
-> low fan and observe how hot it gets (or use a room heater). You will see
-> that it does not take much hot air to remove 500 watts thermal. Hot air
-> is the problem here. We have far too much hot air from the "skeptics" and
-> from people who jump to unwarrented conclusions with little or no data.
-> At Power-Gen I checked out the flow calorimetry carefully, I took data on
-> it, I used external thermistors and thermometers to verify the data. I did
-> *not* check the performance of the heat exchanger coils or reservoir walls.
-> I cannot charactorize these things, and I would not try to do so without
-> data.
 
Jed, the output temperature of a hair dryer is quite a bit higher temperature
than the temperature of the demo is it not?  To clarify this point I took a
Windmere 1250 hair dryer and ran it on low.  The input power was suppose to be
1250 watts per the nameplate, I did not verify it.  The input air temperature
was 19.5 C and the outlet was 52.5 C for a 33 degree C rise. I checked the
volume by putting a 30 gallon trash bag over the end of the dryer and measuring
how long it took to fill up. The flow was approximately 30 gallons per 8
seconds or about 3.75 gallon per second. This works out to be approximately
1000 in^3 or 16500 CC or ML per second.  This baseline data might be able to
give us a reality check.
 
Another message indicated that temperatures of 60 C water are scalding.  So I
put a pot of water on a burner and heated it up to 60 C.  My interpretation of
what it felt like was, 40 C - lukewarm, 50 C, hot, but not uncomfortable so, 60
C quite hot, uncomfortable but not scalding.  I certainly would not want to
take a bath in it, but I left my hand in there for 10 seconds before it felt
like it might do some damage. Examining my hand 10 minutes later there is no
sign that any damage occurred.  Thus Sullivan's statement that 60 C water is
scalding does not hold up to experimental evidence.  I do not plan on determing
the point at which scalding actually occurs for obvious reasons.
 
Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.15 / A Plutonium /  Re: Hints that the photon has a finite rest mass
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hints that the photon has a finite rest mass
Date: 15 Jan 1996 23:48:32 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <4dcgs1$lk5@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

>   Hence, I really do not need to construct that fancy engineered
> experiment I have outlined above. The measuring of the finite rest mass
> of the photon can be done quite simply. By means of careful measurement
> of the bending of light in denser mediums. Take water for instance and
> have the water positively ionized and then negatively ionized. Will it
> change the bending of the light?
> 
>   You see, the experiments proving that light has a finite rest mass
> was in the bending of light in a denser medium and we have seen those
> experiments all the way back to Newton, Huygens and much earlier.

  The irony of the fact soon to be discovered that the photon has a
tiny charge and that no particle has 0 charge but some finite charge,
is, the irony is that there was some historical observation about light
deflection from the Sun which lauded the new theory of Poincare Special
Relativity (Einstein only modified it). Anyway they observed a bending
of light in a solar eclipse. The irony is that they thought it was
gravity doing the bending whereas the real truth of the matter is that
it was the electric and magnetic fields of the Sun doing the bending of
the tiny charge on the photons. 

  This is what is nice about my experiments to prove the finite rest
mass of the photon is that the photon in the experiment can be
deflected both to the right or the left depending on positive or
negative ionized field created by the left mass. You see, gravity plays
no role in this experiment because gravity has been wiped out by the
balancing beam.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.16 /  cormac@therive /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: cormac@theriver.com ()
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 05:59:09 GMT
Organization: The River Internet Access Co.

>motor is situated beneath the reservoir, and rotates the impeller via a
>magnetic coupling through the walls of the plastic cylinder. The impeller
>is situated within a housing that has an opening at the center of rotation
>to permit entry of water, and an outlet at the side through a tube that
>rises to the top of the reservoir. It is a standard centrifugal pump
>mechanism. There are fittings for two hose connections on the top of the


>22.78 degrees C at the end of the run. But what if I closed the valve half
>way? In that case, two things would happen: (1) the flow rate in the loop
>would drop to 12.5 liters per minute; and (2) the flow velocity *through
>the valve*, due to Bernoulli's effect, would greatly increase. Result: the
>frictional heating would greatly increase *within the valve itself* and
>would greatly decrease everywhere else in the loop. Result: the

3. The magnetic coupling will start "slipping" with the increased
resistance causing less flow without much heating increase

4. The fluid in the body of the centrifugal pump will remain longer
and be "sheared" more than "pushed through" causing heating in the
pump body. ( I know about this as I use plastic bodied 2" transfer
pumps in my business.  A few minutes of dead flow conditions will make
some hot water in the pump body with NO flow.)

>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!

Interesting thoughts.

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudencormac cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.16 / John Logajan /  Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
Date: 16 Jan 1996 05:28:02 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Arnie Frisch (arnief@wu.cse.tek.com) wrote:
: >: there was an ongoing thread that villified your hero for his REPEATED 
: >: reports of a power gain in excess of 700 in the SHORTED control device.
: >
: >: Go look before you bullshit me anymore.
: >
: >There might well have been a thread villifying Jed for allegedly reporting
: >such a thing.  However your evidence is irrelevent -- it's "hearsay" as they
: >say in court.  We need the original posting by Jed to see what he really
: >said, not some interpretation by one of his detractors.

: >My recollection is that Robert Bass posted the numbers for the control
: >cell, not Jed. 

: Give it up!  This thread has been going on for a long time now.  Jed is an
: embarrassment to your cause at this point.  His credibility is negative,
: TB's would be better off without him.
:
: If you don't believe me, don't.  You're the one who suffers.


Never the less, my recollection is that it was not Jed who made or posted
measurements unknowingly alledging that the control cell was producing
anomalous heat.  In fact, you can find Robert Bass's article to that
effect on my web page.

I agree, however, that if you can't cite the direct evidence to back up
your allegation that the matter should be dropped.

--
 - 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:
cuddy16 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.15 / Craig Haynie /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: Craig Haynie <ccHaynie@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 22:12:15 -0600
Organization: Netcom

Hello Mitchell!

Try repeating your experiments with 500 watts of power since it
has been now revealed that the 
Power-Gen Demo was only operating at +1300 watts of power for a
short period of time. The 
equilibrium temperature was reached at about 500 watts.

Craig Haynie
ccHaynie@ix.netcom.com
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenccHaynie cudfnCraig cudlnHaynie cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.16 / A Plutonium /  4th Experiments proving photon has finite rest mass
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 4th Experiments proving photon has finite rest mass
Date: 16 Jan 1996 00:55:54 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <4dcdvm$hjp@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

>                          vacuum light tunnel
>  ___________                _____                  ___________
> |  ionized  |              |     |                |           |
> |    matter |              |     |                |  equal    |
> |           |              |     |                |  matter   |
> |___________|              |_____|                |___________|
> _______________________________________________________________
>                              /\
>                             /  \  Balancing Beam
> 
> 
>   The beam is balanced and this experimental set-up is analogous to the
> Cavendish weighing the Earth. But here I am measuring for the rest mass
> of the photon.
> 
>   Now send a photon laser beam through the best vacuum tunnel.
> According to present modern day physics the photons should go straight
> through with never any deflection.
> 
>   According to my intuition. If the above ionization is built up to a
> high enough peak there will be a deflection of the photon beam towards
> or away from the ionized mass depending on whether the ionization is
> positive or negative. And with proper calculations the rest mass of the
> photon should be derived. Some may ask why beam and mass at all?
> Because photons are more effected by their internal 'charge' and not by
> gravity, in fact, there is no gravity at the photon or atomic level.
> Gravity is a statistical feature and it is not a physics law at all,
> just as Ohm's law is not a physics law, both are algorithms and
> superfluid helium is the observable reality that gravity is just a
> algorithm a van der Waals force analogy.
> 
>   

 The 2nd experiments proving that photons have a finite rest mass was
the measurements of the bending of light in ionized water one
positively ionized and the other negatively ionized to discover the
internal charge of the photon. The tiny charge equivalent to a tiny
finite rest mass for the photon.

 The 3rd experiments to uncover the fact that the photon and the
neutrino also have a finite rest mass is to be garnered from the known
fact that the photon, an energetic photon or energetic neutrino can
decay into finite rest mass particles such as electron positron pairs.
So, before decay of an energetic photon, it was thought the photon had
no charge and no rest mass, but that is bogus because after the decay
we have two products both having a charge and both having a finite rest
mass.

  What I am saying is that my intuition tells me you cannot go from no
charge and no rest mass and build out of pure energy two particles such
as the electron and positron. My intuition tells me that there had to
exist a charge and a rest mass, however tiny they be, but nonetheless
they had to be there in the first place in order to have two decay
products which do have a charge and a rest mass. Like building a car,
you need a frame. And the photon must have a frame or skeleton in order
to decay into a electron and positron pair.

  Thus this 3rd experiment attempts to go at the inner workings of the
decay of a photon into electrons. Somewhere already in physics there
should already be the equations to manipulate the decay of a photon
into a electron and therein allow predictions of what the tiny finite
rest mass of the photon should be. 

  It is my intuition that if the photon had no rest mass, then it would
be impossible for it to ever decay into a particle which does have a
rest mass and has a charge.

  Consider. Ever since the debate got earnest with whether light was a
wave or a particle with Young, Fresnel, Huygens, Newton, Planck,
Einstein, and then Quantum Mechanics solving it by saying light is both
simultaneously. So, why should we be so very very naive as to think
that energy comes 100% pure in a photon. Better to say that the photon
is a quantum particle of energy and rest mass combined. We can outline
experiments for photons which shows all the particle nature of the
photon, eg, photoelectric effect. Then we can setup the experiments to
show only the wave nature of light eg the interference double slit
hiding the particle nature.  

  Up until now we have only seen experiments which displays the energy
of photons and hides the finite rest mass. In these three experiments I
have given today, I hope to show the 'finite rest mass' of the photon
and hide the energy nature of the photon.

Here is the 4th experiment proving the photon has finite rest mass. It
is a remake of the experiments performed proving that the neutron has a
surface charge. Having a surface charge means the neutron does not have
a 0 charge but rather instead a very small finite charge. I do not know
the experimental setup that was used on the neutron. Whatever it was,
it can be readapted to checkout the surface charge of the photon or
photons. Perform those experiments and my intuition says that the
photon has a tiny surface charge. My intuition is counter to present
day beliefs that the photon and all other 0 charge (supposedly)
particles are really 0 charge. I say no particle in all the universe
has 0 charge. I say the charge of a 'neutral' particle is some finite
number but not 0, as heretofore believed.

  So the 4th experiment is a readaption a parallel analogy to the
experimental setup used to discover the surface charge on the neutron.

  Does anyone out there know what the surface charge on the neutron is?
Anyone have journal references to the first experiments proving the
surface charge of the neutron? Where is Karl Hahn when I need him?
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.16 / Monkey King /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: monkey@engin.umich.edu (Monkey King)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: 16 Jan 1996 15:02:47 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor


John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> wrote:

>Hmmm, case #2 has a 40F rise in 7 minutes, equals 5.7F rise per minute.
>      case #3 has a 28F rise in 5 minutes, equals 5.6F rise per minute.
>
>Case 2 average temp was  76F
>Case 3 average temp was 106F
>       Ambient temp was 56F
>
>My own previous experience cooling bulk stirred water through plastic
>(a Nalgene tank) was that placing a low speed 12" fan reduced the
>thermal time constant to 1/3rd.

The simple explanation might be that for case #2, it started from
everything being cold, including the pan.  You'd have to heat up the pan as
well, so it'd take longer time.  For case #3 the pan was already hot, so
you'd just need to heat the water.   To do a real comparison, you'd have to
let it start under the same conditions.






-- 
Monkey King                 | This message printed with 
monkey@engin.umich.edu      | recycled electrons.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmonkey cudfnMonkey cudlnKing cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.15 / mitchell swartz /  Cold Fusion Times
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion Times
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Times
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 15:06:00 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <4dbq4i$9cj@postman.jet.uk>
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Times
 Jeff.Candy@jet.uk (Jeff Candy) writes:

= "About the "reality" of cold fusion:"

= mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) wrote:
= >More than two thousand papers have been published in this
= >field.   More references at http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
= >with pointers to hundreds more.   There is plently of science.

=  "At exactly what point in history did the "science" begin and
= the falsification of data and poor calorimetry end? "
 
The science has been going on quite awhile.
  ----->  Cold fusion is real.

Both side made errors, as you are doing now as when
you purport falsely about this matter, instead of examining
the science.   Furthermore, you might consider, being quite
 careful throwing such a rock from your glass house of cards.



= Many scientists, although skeptical from the first mention of cold
= fusion in the late 1980's, finally dismissed the notion after
= the work of Dr. P. and Dr. F. was unequivocally recognized as
= fraudulent.  

  Wrong. 

1) They made an error about about neutrons, but their
observations of excess enthalpy were correct, and confirmed. 

2) One interpretation is that both you and your organization appear
quite nervous about this technology which has already 
eclipsed your own hoped-for achievements in some parameters.    
  Sour grapes, Mr. Candy?

  Best wishes and good luck.

      Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)



cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.15 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Some simple calculations assuming 42 CFM.
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some simple calculations assuming 42 CFM.
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 96 15:47:30 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

John N. White <jnw@katie.vnet.net> writes:
 
>Ok, let's look at Jed's original post on this subject.
 
. . .
 
>|This guess is wrong. Most of the heat escapes from the walls of the 2.5 liter
>|reservoir below. The plastic walls of the reservoir are quite warm to
 
Woops! You caught me, fair and square. I guessed wrong. Shouldn't have
try to guess at all. I have now learned a lot more about pumps & air
cooled systems, and I take back what I said. I have recently been
experimenting with my Woolworth room heater, which can be set at 500, 1000
and 1500 watts. I note that at 500 watts, the stream of air is barely
warm. Palpable, but just barely so. I cannot measure the air temperature
because it varies a lot from one part of the stream to another.
 
Sorry about that. As the Japanese say, even monkeys fall out of trees.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.15 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Response to I Johnston
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Response to I Johnston
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 96 15:59:58 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I Johnston <ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk> writes:
 
>According to other postings, it was clearly measured as producing excess
>power - probably because of an unwarranted assumption about the flow.
 
Not unwarrented -- incorrect. The flow was measured at 1 liter per minute.
It was not measured again for an hour or two. Sometime during that period,
the cell became blocked up almost completely. Later on, when the flow
was measured again, it was found to be a trickle. That explained why
the temperature went up. Please note that on the active CF side the flow
was measured repeatedly and it was *not* found to be a trickle. It did
not vary measurably.
 
 
>PS If you still think flight was invented before the theory, you might
>like to try reading a biography of Lanchester. (Sorry folks, but this
 
My information comes from two books written by Tom Crouch. He is the chairman
of the department of aeronatuics at the National Air & Space Museum of the
Smithsonian Institution. I previously gave you the page numbers and exact
quotes, I will not repeat them again. Since the Air & Space Museum is the
preeminiant institution in this area, with an extensive collection including
the actual Wright 1903 and 1909 machines, I think it is likely that their
experts know better than this biographer you have uncovered. Of course, the
issue is not black and white. I never claimed that people knew *nothing*
about flight theory before 1920. I repeated the claims of Crouch and many
others that modern theories of airfoil lift were not developed until the
1920s. The Wrights measured and charactorized the effect, but they did not
know the deep, underlying cause of it. For that matter, I gather there is
still some disagreement in this area of physics.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.15 / Elliot Kennel /  Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
     
Originally-From: Elliot Kennel <71756.3025@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
Date: 15 Jan 1996 15:08:44 GMT
Organization: Applied Sciences Inc

Arnold,
	Your use of obscenity does not help you to make the point 
that you are more rational than the persons you are attacking.  
If you need to be obscene, just use E-Mail and not a public 
posting.

Best regards,
Elliot Kennel
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cuden3025 cudfnElliot cudlnKennel cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.15 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 96 16:08:00 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Mitchell Jones <21cenlogic@i-link.net> writes:
 
>my arrangement was perfectly adequate to serve that purpose. Nevertheless,
>if you will send me a description of Craven's cooling tower layout at
>Power Gen, I will be happy to duplicate it and do another run, though I
>feel sure it will do no good. This is a case where a calculation (based on
 
Look at the photograph in John Logajan's home page. If that is not adequate
I can scan and e-mail you a close-up of the heat exchanger.
 
I suggest that if you feel so sure you know the outcome, you are in the
wrong frame of mind to do the experiment. Perhaps you should start by
redoing the calibration run with 1 liter per minute instead of 12 liters,
to see if the temperature does not go up. Then try running at 500 watts
to verify that the Delta T (heat source outlet minus inlet) is seven
degrees. If all else fails you should talk to Cravens. I think you are
getting ahead of yourself.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.16 /  Rob /  Re: Response to I Johnston
     
Originally-From: rmarsdena@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Rob Marsden")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Response to I Johnston
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 15:49:53 GMT
Organization: Compulink Information eXchange

jedrothwell writes:
>You have no earthly idea what you are talking about. It took a terrific 
>amount of theory and computation, and nobody else in the world got even 
>close to understanding the problems. The Wrights, who were superb 

This aeronautics business is a bit off topic but:

Jed, have you ever heard of Caly (spelling?) who preceded the Wright 
bros. by quite a few years. He demonstrated the principles of flight with 
a man carrying glider. He went straight from mathematical theory to first 
time flight without failure. He was first and foremost a scientist of his 
time.

By the way, keep up the good work here. Us hopeful skeptics find it 
invaluable.


Rob in the West Riding
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenrmarsdena cudlnRob cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.14 / Jeff Candy /  Re: Cold Fusion Times
     
Originally-From: Jeff.Candy@jet.uk (Jeff Candy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Times
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 96 20:47:16 GMT
Organization: JET Joint Undertaking

About the "reality" of cold fusion:

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) wrote:
>More than two thousand papers have been published in this
>field.   More references at http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
>with pointers to hundreds more.   There is plently of science.

At exactly what point in history did the "science" begin and
the falsification of data and poor calorimetry end?  Many
scientists, although skeptical from the first mention of cold
fusion in the late 1980's, finally dismissed the notion after
the work of Dr. P. and Dr. F. was unequivocally recognized as
fraudulent.  That work continues along these lines is rather
a curiosity ... like looking for car keys to a car you don't
own.



Jeff Candy                    ... man -- every man -- is an end
Analytic Theory Group         in himself, not the means to the
JET Joint Undertaking         ends of others ...
                                                   --- Ayn Rand


===============================================================================
    The above article is the personal view of the poster and should not be
       considered as an official comment from the JET Joint Undertaking
===============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenCandy cudfnJeff cudlnCandy cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.14 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Resp. to M. Jones: How I measured inlet temperature
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Resp. to M. Jones: How I measured inlet temperature
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 96 16:40:16 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Bill Rowe <browe@netcom.com> writes:
 
>I think Mitchell's test does more than show the complexity of heat
>transfer. It also illustrates the problems with the data taken. Quite
>simply the data is insufficient to be sure what happened.
 
What data taken? I did not take any data relating to the problems we are
discussing here. I did not attempt to measure where and how the heat was
lost from the reservior and tubes. I made a few observations and I
felt the warm stream of air coming from the fan. That's not "data."
 
We have no data about this aspect of the experiment. On the other hand, we
can get it, and you can too. People who claim that 1300 watt heater always
glow with orange incandescence can get data too. Just turn on your hair
drier in a dark room and look inside. Turn it down to 500 watts with a
low fan and observe how hot it gets (or use a room heater). You will see
that it does not take much hot air to remove 500 watts thermal. Hot air
is the problem here. We have far too much hot air from the "skeptics" and
from people who jump to unwarrented conclusions with little or no data.
At Power-Gen I checked out the flow calorimetry carefully, I took data on
it, I used external thermistors and thermometers to verify the data. I did
*not* check the performance of the heat exchanger coils or reservoir walls.
I cannot charactorize these things, and I would not try to do so without
data.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.14 / Harry Conover /  Re: Cold Fusion Times
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Times
Date: 14 Jan 1996 21:48:28 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Arnie Frisch (arnief@wu.cse.tek.com) wrote:
: In article <DKzJuK.Fvv@cix.compulink.co.uk> sgriffiths@cix.compulink.c
.uk ("Stephen Griffiths") writes:
: >        Hi there,
: >                I'm a TV Director / Producer, and am researching for a 
: >possible documentary on cold fusion. I am aware that a documentary was 
: .......   I understand from my American friends 
: >that there is unlikely to be any media coverage of cold fusion in the 
: >states, due to it upsetting the authorities who have a vested financial 
: >and political interest in the current energy resources.
: ....
: ...
: ..

: You have a wierd view of the world!  Cold fusion has the current aura of
: astrology.  No one has scientifically demonstrated anything that works.
: Public demonstrations seem always to have equipment breakdowns that interfere
: with independent verification.  Experiments seem to be designed to hide the
: data that is needed to figure out whether anything is happening.  And you
: seem to be about to launch a conspiracy theory against the establishment, and
: the oil companies, and G-d knows what else.


Please, not too hard on this guy.  Remember, the Brits love a good
hoax which, which if combined with a conspiracy theory, will provide many
hours of cost-effective entertainment.  Given that CF is starting to
look more and more like Crop Circles, it's perfect!

                                      Harry C.
  
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.14 /  jedrothwell@de /  Old heaters glow, new ones don't
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Old heaters glow, new ones don't
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 96 16:48:52 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

There is a lot of silly confusion here about whether electric room heaters
incandesce at 1000 or 1500 watts. The answer is that old fashioned ones
did, and most modern ones that I have seen do not. Modern ones have
larger heating elements and fans to keep the air moving through rapidly.
This is for safety, of course. The old ones caused injuries and fires
when clothes or other objects got inside them. A newer model can cause
a fire too, if you cover it up completely.
 
I find it amazing that people writing serious messages to science forums
would argue about this. Just go get a heater or a hair drier, turn it on,
and look at it yourself.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.15 / John White /  Re: Some simple calculations assuming 42 CFM.
     
Originally-From: jnw@katie.vnet.net (John N. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some simple calculations assuming 42 CFM.
Date: 15 Jan 1996 11:37:32 -0500
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

Bob Sullivan <bsulliva@sky.net> wrote:
>> What Jed said, before the revisionists took over, was that very little heat 
>> was rejected through the "cooling tower" -- most was rejected through the 
>> vessel walls.
 
jedrothwell@delphi.com replied:
> No, what Jed said was that he did not measure it and he does not know.
> A lot was rejected through the vessel walls, because they were plenty hot.
> But without proper testing there is no way of knowing, and Jed would never
> guess, handwave and speculate about things he has not measured. Unlike
> the "skeptics" . . .
> 
> - Jed

Ok, let's look at Jed's original post on this subject.

in article <R9Ck9oW.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jed wrote:
|<gherman@delphi.com> writes:
| 
|>Since natural convection tends to be low and since the rest of the
|>dimensions of the system appear to be rather small my guess is that
|>most of the heat from the system is carried away by the air from the
|>cooling fan.
| 
|This guess is wrong. Most of the heat escapes from the walls of the 2.5 liter
|reservoir below. The plastic walls of the reservoir are quite warm to
|the touch and the air around it is palpably warm. The cooling fan only
|carries off a fraction of the total heat. It also serves to carry off
|effluent gas from electrolysis, as I explained in the report.
| 
|- Jed

-- 
jnw@vnet.net
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.14 / A Plutonium /  Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, Dr. Hill is the wiser, Dr. 
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.fusion,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, Dr. Hill is the wiser, Dr. 
Date: 14 Jan 1996 23:15:01 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In a  separate post I will outline the first experiments to prove the
photon has a rest mass but I want to correct this posting which
surfaced to alt.sci.physics.plutonium of a thread that I started many
months back. When I started that thread I was of the belief that
photons and neutrinos had zero rest mass. In the middle of that thread
Re: Dr. Hill etc. I changed my mind and convinced myself that the
neutrino and the photon both have rest mass. In fact all particles have
rest mass. But I want to do that in a separate thread. 

Let me correct this posting.

In article <4d5ibg$edk@marina.cinenet.net>
vergon@cinenet.net (Vertner Vergon) writes:

> Oz (Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> : Anthony Potts <potts@cern.ch> wrote:
> : 
> : >
> : >
> : >On 30 Oct 1995, Herve Le Cornec wrote:
> : >
> : >> I always wonder how physicists could say that something 
> : >> with no mass and no charge exists.
> : >> 
> : >If you always wonder this, you must have a very boring life, how do you 
> : >have time to converse with people or read books? I am (as I have pointed 
> : >out previously) a physicist, and I can tell you that if you are going to 
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^ 
                     a teacher of physics but not a physicist

> : >stick to your intuitive ideas about how the universe should behave , then 
> : >you will have a very hard time taking in modern physics. You would do 
> : >much better to wonder what we can predict about a massless and chargeless 
> : >particle, and how well this fits in with the actual behaviour of neutrinos.
> : >
> : 
> : And its just SO much more fun. Stretch the mind a little and
> : try to imagine it and how it behaves. Don't try to force the
> : universe to follow your beliefs (you lose), force your mind
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
           soon after little shrimps get a physics degree, invariably
  they begin to look down with condescension upon anyone who is not
listed as 
ranked higher then them in some physics association or comes from a
boondock school, and assume all of them are people who stick their
noses into physics when they should not and should stay clear of
physics altogether

> : to follow the evidence. Only slightly harder and MUCH more
> : entertaining. NB A neutrino is better than that. It has no
                                                        ^^^^^^
> : mass, but it does have spin,
    ^^^^
      No experiments have been set up to give a firm answer. I suspect
the neutrino has a rest mass.
 
> Then *what* spins?
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

   Spin is not our concept of a Newtonian top spinning. Photon has spin
1 yet neutrino has spin 1/2. Both are reputed to have zero rest mass
and travel at c, the speed of light. That implies that if one, say the
photon does have zero rest mass then the neutrino, because of c, must
also have zero rest mass. And if one of them has a tiny finite rest
mass then the other does also.


> : which is closely related to
> : angular momentum.
> 
> Spin in a neutrino is as closely related to angular momentum  as it is
> in a top. No mass, no top, no angular momentum.
> 
> : Thinking classically will really make this
> : a hooey. 
> : -------------------------------
> : 'Oz     
> 
> The only hooey here is the ridiculous position just expounded.
> 
> I get so tired (and nauseated) listening to that tired old drivel about
> 'you must give up your old fashioned outmoded intuitive ideas and enter
> the never never land of modern physics'.

 Well VV, you are not much better than Oz with armchair philosopy.
Anyone with a computer can do what you guys do. Complain about theories
yet never give a experiment to support your claims. And everyone that
works for a living knows what I am talking about for there are those
people who just gripe and complain and there are those that build an
experiment to show what is to be believed. Have you VV ever built an
experiment for rest mass, no. Have you Oz ever built an experiment, no.

> This is put forth by people who have lost the way, who have bought 
> ridiculous conclusions arrived at through erroneous mathematical
> procedures that lead to reductios ad absurdom.
> 
> The fact is that when you arrive at a reductio ad absurdom, or any
> other type nonviable conclusion, what you say is 'this is a dead end, I
> must go back and redo it until I come up with something that makes sense.
> 
> Physics is *physical* and the physical can be visualized (at least 
> approximately).
> 
> Unfortunately, this type of thinkig became fashionable with the advent
> of SR.
> 
> SR is a mathematical solution to the problems Newtonian dynamics 
> suffered at high velocities. 
> 
> It was the genius of Einstein that he saw a bigger picture and discussed
> the invariance of physical laws between frames in relative motion.
> 
> However, the solution WAS mathematical and the *physical causality* was
> completely negelected.
> 
> Thus was born the philosophy that you cannot look intuitively at the
> universe. 
> 
> NOT SO.
> 
> Human nature being what it is those bying the nonphysical universe
> opened a pandora's box. But they don't have the acumen to perceive
> the folly of their ways.
> 
> Instead they pontificate to those still in control of their senses
> about how they should enter the world of Alice in Wonderland and
> smoke pot.
> 
> It puts me in mind of the lunatic asylum where the cackling paper
> doll cutters inside think the people on the outside are crazy  -- and
> tell them so.
> 
> Stick to your guns, Herve.
> 
> VERTNER VERGON -
> 
> Who indisputably re-established the existence of radiant mass.
> Who indisputably corrected two errors in the special theory of relativity.
> Who produced the final solution to the twins paradox.
> And who produced a viable model for QED.
> 
> He also developed a *physical* explanation for SR.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

   Trouble with you guys is that you never worked for a living. Sit
around all day pen pushing or reading books and arguing.  I bet you can
not even "indisputably" fix or diagonize your own car should it
breakdown on the highway. I bet that there is no web page for either VV
or Oz because you want to hide your true identity. VV is too smart to
be a John Baez in disguise, and too aggressive to be a Jack Sarfatti. I
care less who VV is, even himself, but this much I know from the few
posts I have read from you VV. Is that you have not a pinch of genius,
not even a microgram of genius. And the only useful purpose of your
posts is to stir guys like me into action.

  Dear boy, do you not realize that SR is compatible with the photon
having a rest mass. And dear boy, look above at your mottley crew of
"indisputables" above. You have little to no math smarts either for you
do not realize that those 5 contradict each other and that perhaps only
two of those statements are consistent.

  Your purpose on the Internet, VV is to stir me into action. Thanks.
And BTW, if you really had anything good as far as a new idea, I could
probably steal it from you VV, no questions asked. For the thing you
lack most of all and which is the burden of all physicists is that you
have nothing to build from. If you were Schroedinger, you have the
licences to build because he had the Schroedinger Equation, note how
envious Feynman was of Schroedinger and called him the Truman of
physics. Or, if you were a Dirac you are always welcomed to build
because of the Dirac Equation. I on the other hand have the Plutonium
Atom Universe --- which entitles me to step into any discussion and
steal whatever I wish to steal. But from you VV there is nothing to
steal, and when your career is in its august days you will come to say
to yourself-- I should have been an auto mechanic instead. 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.14 / A Plutonium /  Outlines for the experiments to prove photon rest mass & 
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Outlines for the experiments to prove photon rest mass & 
Date: 14 Jan 1996 23:33:05 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In 1995 I was working on the correct definition of dimension. It is
linked to the number of operators of a space which are necessary and
sufficient

For Eucl 2-dim Space 4 operators necess and suff. and they are
add,subtr,mult,divid

For Eucl 3 Space 8 operators are necess and suff and they are
add,subtr,mult,divid,diff,integrate,exp funct, ln funct

In physics it is known that any dimension higher than 3rd dim leads to
the thoroughly wrong physics of Classical Newtonian Physics.

QM is the correct physics. So what operators do we have in 2-dim. Easy,
we have the canonical conjugate (like the inverse math operators) pairs
of momentum and mass and then energy and time in the Uncertainty
Principle.

How about 3-Space, well we need 8 of those canonical conjugate pairs,
four more than listed above and those four would include charge, spin,
unknown and unknown.

It is known that the neutron has a slight surface charge. And the
nought mesons such as the K_0 or Lambda_0 or Pi_0 have 0 charge. But
they all have a surface charge from the EXPERIMENT that on a neutron
discovered when put a neutron beam in a inhomogenous electric field
that a surface charge emerged.

This surface charge on a neutron is the result of HYASYS, hydrogen atom
systems as the strong nuclear force. You see. In a neutron is a
hydrogen atom inside of it and the surface charge measured is that of
the electron or proton when the neutron is exposed to electric fields.

I have to go to a movie in a minute so will resume later in details.

Here is the experiment in brief




     Big mass on a scale on the left of the scale made of highly
ionized matter. Equivalent uncharged big mass on right side of scale.
Scale is balanced and in the center of the scale is a vacuum. Now shoot
a beam of photons into the vacuum. Present day physics will say the
photons go through unscathed. I say the photons have charge and charge
is equivalent to mass. Thus, I predict the photons will be slightly
bent in the direction of the ionized big mass. The curvature will
determine the photons rest mass.

More later, have to see a movie
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.14 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 1996 12:58 -0500 (EST)

-> Arnie Frisch (arnief@wu.cse.tek.com) wrote:
-> : You are the one who needs to go back and look at what Jed said.  In fact,
-> : there was an ongoing thread that villified your hero for his REPEATED
-> : reports of a power gain in excess of 700 in the SHORTED control device.
->
-> : Go look before you bullshit me anymore.
 
Fine, I cannot find any evidence that Jed said such a thing in the archives.
Please repost the relevent message.  I don't think it exists, but since we do
miss postings sometimes here, I cannot be certain.  The ball is in your court.
 
Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.14 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 1996 13:05 -0500 (EST)

molson@apollo.tricord.com (Mark Olson) writes:
 
-> The impeller in the pump still has the same amount of torque applied to it
-> whether the flow is throttled or not, so in the case of reducing the flow
-> to 1.2 l/m, there would be a *lot* of "slippage" at the impeller.  I would
-> expect there to be a lot of heating going on inside the pump in this case.
 
This statement is not in evidence.  If we are talking about a centrifigul pump
then the torque goes way down when you throttle it (like stopping up the hose
on a vacuum cleaner).  If we are talking about a positive displacement pump,
then the torque goes way, way up when you try to trottle the output.  I am
unaware of any pump design in which the torque is constant with a changing head
pressure.  I don't think such a pump exists, the closest approximation is if
you take a positive displacement pump and put a slip clutch on it.  In that
case the dissipated power goes to the slip clutch, not the fluid being pumped.
 
Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.15 / Ross Tessien /  Re: Incredibly ignorant statements parroted by Archimedes Plutonium
     
Originally-From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien)
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: 15 Jan 1996 01:40:10 GMT
Organization: Impulse Engineering, Inc.

In article <browe-1201962115540001@10.0.2.15>, browe@netcom.com says...
>
>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.
>
Rocketdyne is a division of Rockwell International, so, same thing.  I 
have spoken personally with the guys that own E-Quest, and also with the 
responsible people at the Electric Power Research Institute who funded 
the tests.  The samples were collected in stainless steel containers to 
avoid helium infiltration etc, and all of the tests were meticulously 
done.  Further, lets say that that one result was in error.  How do you 
explain the particle accelerator results of MeV level particles coming 
out of the back side of foils hit with low KeV level particles without 
some form of nuclear reactions?  

Also, I have still heard of no chemical mechanism suggested by anyone 
that would produce a foil that would expose, for several weeks following 
normal radioactive decay profiles, x-ray film.  I have seen the photos of 
the exposed films myself.  I think that if you through out any other 
excess heat information and all of the other results of mass 
spectroscopy, you still have this problem that has been repeatably 
produced by many research teams.  I do not know of any chemical mechanism 
to explain this one result, do you?


>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."

I understand you comments above, and they are valid for you to weigh them 
all in and ponder them and wait and see.  That is normal.  All I am 
telling you is that I have read over 200 papers published on this issue 
by teams around the world, and while one can make the above statements 
for each and every report, it seems that at some point one finally needs 
to look at the weight of all of it.  Not just that many people are duped 
and simply wrong, but rather the fact that many people are making 
measurements that if it said anything except that CF works, it would be 
taken at face value.  The fact that the evidence is in support of Cold 
Fusion has created a shift in the burden of proof from a better than 
50/50 chance to something more like 99 percent explained before we will 
listen.  This is not normal in science.  It is the result of unscientific 
prejudice as was evidenced by the original statements that led me to 
start this thread.

Help me out someone.  Is there a way to explain away the beta decay 
observations?  Lets say we cannot establish it as "beta decay".  Now, how 
do we explain via normal metalic behavior, the fact that many samples 
expose x-ray film?

Ross Tessien
	There exist in nature, no attractive forces.





cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudentessien cudfnRoss cudlnTessien cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.15 / Ross Tessien /  Re: Incredibly ignorant statements parroted by Archimedes Plutonium
     
Originally-From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien)
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: 15 Jan 1996 01:48:26 GMT
Organization: Impulse Engineering, Inc.

In article <birdieDL5vnv.3E4@netcom.com>, birdie@netcom.com says...
>
>Ross Tessien (tessien@oro.net) wrote:
>
>: I have a great sense of humor when something is funny.  Apparently 
birdie 
>: doesn't want to respond below, so lets see if the cat can get her out 
of 
>: the tree.  Probably not because she obvioulsy has no knowledge of the 
>: subject with which to debate, but lets try any way.
>
>The debate is whether discussions about physics belong on a newsgroup 
>such as alt.british.comedy or not. Since you did barge into 
>alt.british.comedy crossposting your long debate from sci.physics, 
etc,etc
>you have gotten nothing but an appropriate response from people in the 
>alt.british.comedy newsgroup...in fact, everybody has been quite kind 
>considering you've spammed it with something that *does not* belong 
here.
>
>You get what you ask for...
>
>Birdie

Well Birdie,

	In so much as I see here you are correct, and I was not aware 
this was being posted over there and you probably don't care about this 
subject at all, I apologize.  I posted to sci.physics.particle, or so I 
thought.  Apparently Plutoni enjoys posting to everyone in the world 
about physics comments.

I will try to watch out for this in the future.  However, I still stand 
on my comments about the prejudice about Cold Fusion that is in the way 
of progress in a new field that will eventually prevail and benefit us 
all in the near future.  What is going on is not understood by others, 
yet, but in a couple of years as some not yet public information is 
published, it will.

Future posts will have their cites clipped by me if I notice that the 
previous poster was dumping articles on others not involved in the 
subject.  Thanks for letting me know the source of the comments ie 
British Culture, and/or Comedy.

>
>
>
>-- 
>"A few more trips around the sun & my face will look like a fault map!" 
>                                                  
>                                                  - birdie@netcom.com

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudentessien cudfnRoss cudlnTessien cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.14 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 96 21:46:47 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

MARSHALL DUDLEY <mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com> writes:
 
>This statement is not in evidence.  If we are talking about a centrifigul pump
>then the torque goes way down when you throttle it (like stopping up the hose
>on a vacuum cleaner).  If we are talking about a positive displacement pump,
>then the torque goes way, way up when you try to trottle the output.  I am
 
Marshall, this is an odd question, but someone in a private e-mail
discussion of this said that the performance of a centrifigul pump would
be different if you throttle it by blocking the input (stopping up the
hose on the vacuum cleaner) versus blocking the output. I don't think that
is true. Maybe with air, which is compressible, you might see a difference
because the pressure would go up if you blocked the outlet, but with
water I would think it would be exactly the same no matter which end you
throttle. What do you think?
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.15 / A Plutonium /  Re: Outlines for the experiments to prove photon rest mass &  
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Outlines for the experiments to prove photon rest mass &  
Date: 15 Jan 1996 02:25:58 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <4dc3rh$3ed@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

> I have to go to a movie in a minute so will resume later in details.
> 
> Here is the experiment in brief
> 
> 
> 
> 
>      Big mass on a scale on the left of the scale made of highly
> ionized matter. Equivalent uncharged big mass on right side of scale.
> Scale is balanced and in the center of the scale is a vacuum. Now shoot
> a beam of photons into the vacuum. Present day physics will say the
> photons go through unscathed. I say the photons have charge and charge
> is equivalent to mass. Thus, I predict the photons will be slightly
> bent in the direction of the ionized big mass. The curvature will
> determine the photons rest mass.
> 
> More later, have to see a movie

Depressing movie, Citizen Kane,and I was wrong, I had seen it in part I
believe out West in Grand Tetons. How can a world opinion ever come to
saying this is one of the finest movies. Depressing movie with a
depressing plot. I actually laughed when he forced her teacher to
perserver. I rate this movie like a "blues song". Maybe seeing someone
else in a blues or depression makes us grateful for our own situation.
                         vacuum light tunnel
 ___________                _____                  ___________
|  ionized  |              |     |                |           |
|    matter |              |     |                |  equal    |
|           |              |     |                |  matter   |
|___________|              |_____|                |___________|
_______________________________________________________________
                             /\
                            /  \  Balancing Beam


  The beam is balanced and this experimental set-up is analogous to the
Cavendish weighing the Earth. But here I am measuring for the rest mass
of the photon.

  Now send a photon laser beam through the best vacuum tunnel.
According to present modern day physics the photons should go straight
through with never any deflection.

  According to my intuition. If the above ionization is built up to a
high enough peak there will be a deflection of the photon beam towards
or away from the ionized mass depending on whether the ionization is
positive or negative. And with proper calculations the rest mass of the
photon should be derived. Some may ask why beam and mass at all?
Because photons are more effected by their internal 'charge' and not by
gravity, in fact, there is no gravity at the photon or atomic level.
Gravity is a statistical feature and it is not a physics law at all,
just as Ohm's law is not a physics law, both are algorithms and
superfluid helium is the observable reality that gravity is just a
algorithm a van der Waals force analogy.

  
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.15 / A Plutonium /  Neutron having internal charge; charge inverse of spin
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Neutron having internal charge; charge inverse of spin
Date: 15 Jan 1996 03:02:07 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <4dc3rh$3ed@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

> How about 3-Space, well we need 8 of those canonical conjugate pairs,
> four more than listed above and those four would include charge, spin,
> unknown and unknown.

I used the word inverse because I see little difference from math and
physics. We know addition is the inverse of subtraction and vice versa.
We know from Uncertainty Principle that the energy is the conjugate
pair of time and same thing with momentum and position. Momentum is
mass.

If my intuition guides me well, what I am about to do is to find what
the 8 necessary and sufficient physics 'concepts' are.

In math for Eucl 3-Space they are
add,subt,multi,divid,diff,integrate,exp function and log function. With
those and only those is Euclidean 3 Space built. Now I am converting
those math operators to equivalent physics 'concepts' and four of them
I have of energy-- time and momentum--position. I need 4 more for
3-Space. Keep in mind I have not proved the math theorem as yet, I am
still searching.

I suspect the spin is angular momentum and bundled within. I suspect
that charge is the inverse of angular momentum because the big clue
here is that charge comes in 3 types -1,0,+1 and spin comes in three
types? -1/2,Integral,+1/2

I do not yet know what the other two physical concepts are to complete
3-Space Physics. Perhaps mass itself is one of the last two and what
would the inverse of mass be, analogy, differentiation is the inverse
of integration and all are connected in one way or another.

The neutron has internal charge because of experiments proving that the
neutron has a 'surface charge'. My theory of 1995 was that the Strong
Nuclear Force was Hydrogen Atom Systems, ie, a neutron is composed of a
hydrogen atom inside it and the nucleus of protons is held together by
the protons exchanging 'nuclear electrons'. Thus, you can see why a
neutron would have a surface charge because it has a hydrogen atom
inside of it and sometimes the nuclear electron gets closer to the
surface allowing one to measure a imbalance of negative charge and
other times the proton is closer to the surface of the neutron allowing
a observer to measure a postive charge.

Does this mean that 0 charge is a composite charge. By all means yes it
does.

Thus, there should be an experiment such as I have outlined which can
measure the surface internal charge of the photon. Then an equation can
be made which will direct the experimental physicist to measure what
the very tiny rest mass of the photon is.

  In my outline above, it will be a very very tiny rest mass for the
photon because of all the experiments to date that indicate a photon
has no rest mass. Thus my experiment has to be engineered with extreme
precise engineering. The electric field on the left can be made very
strong and the laser beam of photons will have to be made very intense.
By both increasing the electric field and the intensity, it is my
intuition that somewhere in the increase will you see measurable
deflection of the photon beam. After it is discovered that the photons
do deflect will mean that the photon has an inside or an internal
order. The measuring of charge on the photon, I further intuit means
that that photon has a rest mass. And furthering that logic means that
really nothing has 0 charge. Zero charge is impossible just as 0 K is
impossible. A neutron gets close to 0 charge but all of these particles
are composite charged particles.

  Discovering that the photon has a tiny slight charge implies that the
photon has a tiny slight rest mass.

  

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.15 / A Plutonium /  Hints that the photon has a finite rest mass
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hints that the photon has a finite rest mass
Date: 15 Jan 1996 03:15:13 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <4dcdvm$hjp@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

>                          vacuum light tunnel
>  ___________                _____                  ___________
> |  ionized  |              |     |                |           |
> |    matter |              |     |                |  equal    |
> |           |              |     |                |  matter   |
> |___________|              |_____|                |___________|
> _______________________________________________________________
>                              /\
>                             /  \  Balancing Beam
> 
> 
>   The beam is balanced and this experimental set-up is analogous to the
> Cavendish weighing the Earth. But here I am measuring for the rest mass
> of the photon.
> 
>   Now send a photon laser beam through the best vacuum tunnel.
> According to present modern day physics the photons should go straight
> through with never any deflection.
> 
>   According to my intuition. If the above ionization is built up to a
> high enough peak there will be a deflection of the photon beam towards
> or away from the ionized mass depending on whether the ionization is
> positive or negative. And with proper calculations the rest mass of the
> photon should be derived. Some may ask why beam and mass at all?
> Because photons are more effected by their internal 'charge' and not by
> gravity, in fact, there is no gravity at the photon or atomic level.
> Gravity is a statistical feature and it is not a physics law at all,
> just as Ohm's law is not a physics law, both are algorithms and
> superfluid helium is the observable reality that gravity is just a
> algorithm a van der Waals force analogy.
> 
>   

  What convinced me in 1995 that both the photon and neutrino have a
finite rest mass is just pure math logic reasoning.

  We know that photons travel at the speed c only in a 100% vacuum.
Photons are slowed down in anything other than a vacuum. What does that
mean? Well, since no 100% vacuum exists and since it is impossible to
make a 100% vacuum, it means that no photon ever travels at the speed
c. Nothing in the universe travels at c, not even photons. Thus, c like
0 Kelvin are limits or barriers or impossibilities.

  What does that imply for photons and rest mass? Well, it implies that
from the math of SR that anything travelling at less than the speed c
must have a finite rest mass. Granted that the rest mass of a photon is
very tiny but finite nonetheless.

  Hence, I really do not need to construct that fancy engineered
experiment I have outlined above. The measuring of the finite rest mass
of the photon can be done quite simply. By means of careful measurement
of the bending of light in denser mediums. Take water for instance and
have the water positively ionized and then negatively ionized. Will it
change the bending of the light?

  You see, the experiments proving that light has a finite rest mass
was in the bending of light in a denser medium and we have seen those
experiments all the way back to Newton, Huygens and much earlier.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.15 / A Plutonium /  3rd Experiments proving photon has finite rest mass
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 3rd Experiments proving photon has finite rest mass
Date: 15 Jan 1996 03:36:40 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <4dcdvm$hjp@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

>                          vacuum light tunnel
>  ___________                _____                  ___________
> |  ionized  |              |     |                |           |
> |    matter |              |     |                |  equal    |
> |           |              |     |                |  matter   |
> |___________|              |_____|                |___________|
> _______________________________________________________________
>                              /\
>                             /  \  Balancing Beam
> 
> 
>   The beam is balanced and this experimental set-up is analogous to the
> Cavendish weighing the Earth. But here I am measuring for the rest mass
> of the photon.
> 
>   Now send a photon laser beam through the best vacuum tunnel.
> According to present modern day physics the photons should go straight
> through with never any deflection.
> 
>   According to my intuition. If the above ionization is built up to a
> high enough peak there will be a deflection of the photon beam towards
> or away from the ionized mass depending on whether the ionization is
> positive or negative. And with proper calculations the rest mass of the
> photon should be derived. Some may ask why beam and mass at all?
> Because photons are more effected by their internal 'charge' and not by
> gravity, in fact, there is no gravity at the photon or atomic level.
> Gravity is a statistical feature and it is not a physics law at all,
> just as Ohm's law is not a physics law, both are algorithms and
> superfluid helium is the observable reality that gravity is just a
> algorithm a van der Waals force analogy.
> 
>   

 The 2nd experiments proving that photons have a finite rest mass was
the measurements of the bending of light in ionized water one
positively ionized and the other negatively ionized to discover the
internal charge of the photon. The tiny charge equivalent to a tiny
finite rest mass for the photon.

 The 3rd experiments to uncover the fact that the photon and the
neutrino also have a finite rest mass is to be garnered from the known
fact that the photon, an energetic photon or energetic neutrino can
decay into finite rest mass particles such as electron positron pairs.
So, before decay of an energetic photon, it was thought the photon had
no charge and no rest mass, but that is bogus because after the decay
we have two products both having a charge and both having a finite rest
mass.

  What I am saying is that my intuition tells me you cannot go from no
charge and no rest mass and build out of pure energy two particles such
as the electron and positron. My intuition tells me that there had to
exist a charge and a rest mass, however tiny they be, but nonetheless
they had to be there in the first place in order to have two decay
products which do have a charge and a rest mass. Like building a car,
you need a frame. And the photon must have a frame or skeleton in order
to decay into a electron and positron pair.

  Thus this 3rd experiment attempts to go at the inner workings of the
decay of a photon into electrons. Somewhere already in physics there
should already be the equations to manipulate the decay of a photon
into a electron and therein allow predictions of what the tiny finite
rest mass of the photon should be. 

  It is my intuition that if the photon had no rest mass, then it would
be impossible for it to ever decay into a particle which does have a
rest mass and has a charge.

  Consider. Ever since the debate got earnest with whether light was a
wave or a particle with Young, Fresnel, Huygens, Newton, Planck,
Einstein, and then Quantum Mechanics solving it by saying light is both
simultaneously. So, why should we be so very very naive as to think
that energy comes 100% pure in a photon. Better to say that the photon
is a quantum particle of energy and rest mass combined. We can outline
experiments for photons which shows all the particle nature of the
photon, eg, photoelectric effect. Then we can setup the experiments to
show only the wave nature of light eg the interference double slit
hiding the particle nature.  

  Up until now we have only seen experiments which displays the energy
of photons and hides the finite rest mass. In these three experiments I
have given today, I hope to show the 'finite rest mass' of the photon
and hide the energy nature of the photon.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.15 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: Some simple calculations assuming 42 CFM.
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some simple calculations assuming 42 CFM.
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 96 06:12:39 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

In article <BzAl-rG.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
->Martin Sevior <msevior> writes:
-> 
->>Now what does a "stream of warm air" mean? Try air elevated 10 C, 15 C and
->>20 C above ambient mean?
->>
->>Here's a little table....
->>
->>Temperature elevation          10C          15C          20C
->>
->>Power in the air flow        245 watts     367 watts     490 watts
-> 
->That is an interesting little table! It tells you a lot about the
->performance of an air cooled system. I recommend people try out
->hair driers to get a sense of these temperatures and power levels. Most
->hair driers allow switch selectable settings from about 500 watts up to
->around 1200 watts. Most of them have fans that run about the same as
->a computer cooling fan, when set on low speed.
-> 
->- Jed

It doesn't tell you anything at all about the "performance of an air cooled 
system" -- it simply tells you about the heat capacity of air. To know about 
the performance of an air cooled system you have to know about the ability of 
the system to deliver heat to air -- quite a different thing.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.15 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Some simple calculations assuming 42 CFM.
     
Originally-From: schultr@ashur.cc.biu.ac.il (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some simple calculations assuming 42 CFM.
Date: 15 Jan 1996 06:23:44 GMT
Organization: Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel.

Martin Sevior (msevior) wrote:

: 1 mole of gas = 22.4 litres so...

Actually, 1 mole of an *ideal* gas is 22.4 liters at 0 Celsius and 1
atmosphere pressure.  At 30 C and 1 atmosphere, 1 mole of air (20% O2/
80% N2) is closer to 25 liters (using the van der Waals equation and
stopping at two figures).
-----
                         Richard Schultz
                         Department of Chemistry
                         Bar-Ilan University
-----
"P&F are getting so much heat that you hardly need any calorimetry at all."
               --Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 19 Jul 1992
"The palladium based systems are a useless dead end. Who cares about them?"
               --Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 10 Dec 1992
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenschultr cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.15 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: Some simple calculations assuming 42 CFM.
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some simple calculations assuming 42 CFM.
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 96 06:51:47 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

In article <R7KEXDB.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
->Bob Sullivan <bsulliva@sky.net> writes:
-> 
->>What Jed said, before the revisionists took over, was that very little heat 
->>was rejected through the "cooling tower" -- most was rejected through the 
->>vessel walls.
-> 
->No, what Jed said was that he did not measure it and he does not know.
->A lot was rejected through the vessel walls, because they were plenty hot.


Rather than get into a shouting match of "You said X. -- No I didn't, I said 
Y." If anyone really cares what Jed really said, I suggest a visit to the 
archives.

But back to the topic at hand. First let's observe that the vessel is 
downstream from the "cooling tower."  From the claimed temperature 
measurements at the cell [30-32-35C(?)], the exit temperature could not have 
been much more than "plenty hot."  (Oh, I just love the precision of science.) 
Now let's draw the obvious conclusion that the "cooling tower" is ineffective 
at removing heat since the vessel walls were "plenty hot"?


->But without proper testing there is no way of knowing, and Jed would never
->guess, handwave and speculate about things he has not measured. Unlike
->the "skeptics" . . .
-> 
->- Jed


Jed, you're taking this rather well considering that you have been left 
swinging in the wind by the CETI/ENECO crowd.  Was that 1,344W figure for two 
hours or fifteen minutes or . . .  
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.14 / Bill Snyder /  Re: Some simple calculations assuming 42 CFM.
     
Originally-From: bsnyder@iadfw.net (Bill Snyder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some simple calculations assuming 42 CFM.
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 1996 05:52:35 GMT
Organization: customer of Internet America

In message <4d9k40$g7l@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>, Martin Sevior <msevior>
wrote:


>Temperature elevation          10C          15C          20C

>Power in the air flow        245 watts     367 watts     490 watts

>This assumes no evaporation only air flow. It appears to be in the ballpark of
>a device designed to dissapate 200 - 500 watts of heat.

If you or the original poster can find a 3.5W muffin fan which
delivers 42 CFM, let me know.  Cf. the 6 CFM noted by John Logajan for
his 9W fan.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch... if the reservoir isn't noticeably
above ambient, as Rothwell claims, and if the cell delta-T is about 8
degrees for 500W, as also claimed -- it's a pretty good trick for the
air passing through the exchanger to be heated by 15 or 20 degrees,
don't you think?  Apparently the CF phenomenon has repealed the laws
of thermodynamics as well as those of nuclear physics.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbsnyder cudfnBill cudlnSnyder cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.16 / Vertner Vergon /  Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, Dr. Hill is the wiser, Dr. White washes
     
Originally-From: vergon@cinenet.net (Vertner Vergon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.fusion,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, Dr. Hill is the wiser, Dr. White washes
Date: 16 Jan 1996 08:02:54 GMT
Organization: Cinenet Communications,Internet Access,Los Angeles;310-301-4500

ERIC RENOUF (017776r@axe.acadiau.ca) wrote:
: In article <4d5ibg$edk@marina.cinenet.net> vergon@cinenet.net (Vertner Vergon) writes:
: >From: vergon@cinenet.net (Vertner Vergon)
: >Subject: Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, Dr. Hill is the wiser, Dr. White washes
: >Date: 12 Jan 1996 11:57:35 GMT
: 
: >Oz (Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: >: Anthony Potts <potts@cern.ch> wrote:
: >: 
: >: >
: >: >
: >: >On 30 Oct 1995, Herve Le Cornec wrote:
: >: >
: >: >> I always wonder how physicists could say that something 
: >: >> with no mass and no charge exists.
: >: >> 
: >: >If you always wonder this, you must have a very boring life, how do you 
: >: >have time to converse with people or read books? I am (as I have pointed 
: >: >out previously) a physicist, and I can tell you that if you are going to 
: >: >stick to your intuitive ideas about how the universe should behave , then 
: >: >you will have a very hard time taking in modern physics. You would do 
: >: >much better to wonder what we can predict about a massless and chargeless 
: >: >particle, and how well this fits in with the actual behaviour of neutrinos.
: >: >
: >: 
: >: And its just SO much more fun. Stretch the mind a little and
: >: try to imagine it and how it behaves. Don't try to force the
: >: universe to follow your beliefs (you lose), force your mind
: >: to follow the evidence. Only slightly harder and MUCH more
: >: entertaining. NB A neutrino is better than that. It has no
: >: mass, but it does have spin,
: 
: >Then *what* spins?
: 
: 
: >: which is closely related to
: >: angular momentum.
: 
: >Spin in a neutrino is as closely related to angular momentum  as it is
: >in a top. No mass, no top, no angular momentum.
: 
: >: Thinking classically will really make this
: >: a hooey. 
: >: -------------------------------
: >: 'Oz     
: 
: >The only hooey here is the ridiculous position just expounded.
: 
: >I get so tired (and nauseated) listening to that tired old drivel about
: >'you must give up your old fashioned outmoded intuitive ideas and enter
: >the never never land of modern physics'.
: 
: >This is put forth by people who have lost the way, who have bought 
: >ridiculous conclusions arrived at through erroneous mathematical
: >procedures that lead to reductios ad absurdom.
: 
: >The fact is that when you arrive at a reductio ad absurdom, or any
: >other type nonviable conclusion, what you say is 'this is a dead end, I
: >must go back and redo it until I come up with something that makes sense.
: 
: >Physics is *physical* and the physical can be visualized (at least 
: >approximately).
: 
: >Unfortunately, this type of thinkig became fashionable with the advent
: >of SR.
: 
: >SR is a mathematical solution to the problems Newtonian dynamics 
: >suffered at high velocities. 
: 
: >It was the genius of Einstein that he saw a bigger picture and discussed
: >the invariance of physical laws between frames in relative motion.
: 
: >However, the solution WAS mathematical and the *physical causality* was
: >completely negelected.
: 
: >Thus was born the philosophy that you cannot look intuitively at the
: >universe. 
: 
: >NOT SO.
: 
: >Human nature being what it is those bying the nonphysical universe
: >opened a pandora's box. But they don't have the acumen to perceive
: >the folly of their ways.
: 
: >Instead they pontificate to those still in control of their senses
: >about how they should enter the world of Alice in Wonderland and
: >smoke pot.
: 
: >It puts me in mind of the lunatic asylum where the cackling paper
: >doll cutters inside think the people on the outside are crazy  -- and
: >tell them so.
: 
: >Stick to your guns, Herve.
: 
: There are somethings that we observe that simply cannot be explained using 
: the older ways of thinking.  I read your supposed correction to SR, and I 
: replied to that.  I don't think that you have replied to my post yet have 
: you?  If so, I have missed it, so could you please do so again.

I missed your reply and do not know which correction you are referring to.
(There are two.) Que me in and I'll reply.

 
: SR aside, how do you visuallize the distortions of the spacetime continuum 
: that are predicted, and observed, by GR.  I have never met anyone who can 
: actually visuallize that, but it seems to happen.  If you don't give up the 
: concept of absolute space, and time, GR and SR are out of your scope, and 
: you will find that they don't make sense; however, those who adopt this new 
: concept of spacetime will be able to see how well SR and GR describe the 
: universe with virtually no problems.  There are no paradoxes in either of 
: those theories for those who accept the whole theory.  Problems only arise 
: when you hold onto the old concepts of absolute space and time.

The paradox exists in SR, and the "whole theory" whatever that means,
has nothing to do with it.

 
: Many things in QM are the same, though I'm not as familiar with this as with 
: relativity.  These are theories that, test after test, provide correct 
: answers that match what we observe.  What reason do you have for not 
: accepting what these theories tell us?  Your own intuition?  That isn't 
: something that offers you any observable evidence.  In fact, I think that 
: you will find that if accurate enough measurements are made, your intuition 
: will incorrectly predict the results of any experiment.  Even something as 
: simple as the sum of the angles in a triangle will be wrong.  Your intuition 
: will probably tell you 180 degrees, but if you make carefull enough 
: measurements you will find that the sum of the angles of a tringle is almost 
: never 180 degrees.

You speak of flat plane triangles? I would like to see those "measuremets".


: The reason that we tell you that you have to abandon your old ways of 
: thinking if you want to understand modern physics is because that is what 
: the universe tells us.  If theory matched observation, then there is a good 
: chance that there will be some truth to that theory.

Agreed. So?
 
: The history of physics is filled with people forcing us to change the way 
: that we think of things.  It was once thought that there were only 4 
: elements, if that way of thinking had not been abandon we could never have 
: progressed

Give me a break!  :-)

: even as far as the theory that you cling to.  

WHAT theory would that be?


: The universe was 
: once thought to go around the earth, then the sun.  Both of those ideas were 
: given up, so why is yours one that will never have to be given up?  What is 
: so special about the way that you think that makes it eternally correct,

It would take a chapter to deal with "the way I think".

 
: even in the face of observations that contradict it?

What observations that contradict what?


Here's the main problem. Mathematicians have take over physics and
left it in an Alice in Wonderland condition.

They are willig to let the "explanation" of the universe be a 
mathematical one -- when the truth of the matter is the job is
half done uless there is a derivation of the math that is *physical*.
You call that intuitional. If that's what you want to call it, OK.

The fact remains that settling for the mathematical interpretation is like
calling the scaffolding to erect a building the building itself.


V.V.

: Eric Renouf
: 017776r@axe.acadiau.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenvergon cudfnVertner cudlnVergon cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.16 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Some simple calculations assuming 42 CFM.
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some simple calculations assuming 42 CFM.
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 02:55:22 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <4d9k40$g7l@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>, Martin Sevior <msevior> wrote:

> rmcarrell@aol.com (RMCarrell) wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> >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
> 
> OK all this should be taken with several bags of salt since have no actual
> measurements but anyway...
> 
> Jed reports that the output of the fan produced a "stream of warm air". If
> it also provides a flow rate of 42 cubic feet per minute then it's fun
> to see how much power this actually represents..
> 
> OK convert cubic feet per minute to useful units..
> 
> 1 cubic foot = 30cm * 30cm * 30cm = 27 litres
> 42 cubic feet per minute = 42*27/60 = 18.9 litres per second
> 1 mole of gas = 22.4 litres so...
> 42 cubic feet per minute = 18.9/22.4 = 0.844 mole per second
> 
> Then John Logajan's handy thermodynamic scorecard gives the heat capacity of
> both Oxygen and Nitrogen to be 29 Joules/mole/Kelvin. 
> 
> So 42 CFM gives 29*.844 = 24.5 Joules per degree C per second.
> 
> Now what does a "stream of warm air" mean? Try air elevated 10 C, 15 C and
> 20 C above ambient mean?
> 
> Here's a little table....
> 
> Temperature elevation          10C          15C          20C
> 
> Power in the air flow        245 watts     367 watts     490 watts
> 
> This assumes no evaporation only air flow. It appears to be in the ballpark of
> a device designed to dissapate 200 - 500 watts of heat.
> 
>  
> Martin Sevior

Martin, the problem with the Power Gen demo was not that the airflow could
not dissipate the heat. The problem was that there wasn't enough surface
area of materials (mostly plastic) to deliver the needed 1344 watts to the
air without a runaway temperature increase in the fluid. To see why, let's
do the requisite calculations.

We begin with Fourier's simple differential equation expressing heat
conduction across a barrier:

q = k*A*dT/dx

Here q is the rate of heat transfer (e.g., in calories/sec), k is the
value of thermal conductivity of the material of which the barrier is
composed, A is the cross sectional area of the barrier perpendicular to
the direction of heat flow, dT is the differentially small (and taken here
to be positive) temperature change across a differentially small thickness
dx, with dx being measured parallel to the flow of heat. 

To apply this to our specific situation, we begin by multiplying both
sides by dx/A, giving

q*(dx/A) = k*dT

Taking {lower lim,upper lim} as our symbol for the definite integral, and
integrating both sides, we get:

q{x0,x1}dx/A = k{T0,T1}dT

Expanding the right side and reversing the order we have: 

k(T1-T0) = q{x0,x1}dx/A

Expansion of the right side depends on the specifics of the problem--i.e.,
on whether A varies and how it varies. For the case of hollow cylinders
with hot electrolyte on the inside and air on the outside, A = 2*pi*x*L,
where L is the length of the tubing and x is the radius. Thus we have:

k(T1-T0) = q{x0,x1}dx/(2*pi*x*L)

Rewriting:

k(T1-T0)(2*pi*L)/q = {x0,x1}dx/x

Expanding the right side, we quickly get:

k(T1-T0)(2*pi*L)/q = ln (x2/x1)

Thus, for plastic tubing, we have:

q = k(T1-T0)(2*pi*L)/ln (x2/x1)

If we use Am to represent the logarithmic mean area of the cylindrical
barrier between the electrolyte and the air, this can be rewritten as: 

q = k*Am*[(T1-T0)/x1-x0)]

In cases where the area of the outer surface of the tubing is not greater
than twice as large as the area of the inner surface, we can use the
arithmetic mean [to wit: (Ai + Ao)/2] of the inner and outer surface areas
rather than the logarithmic mean, and thereby simplify our calculation.
Substituting the arithmetic mean into the formula and manipulating, we
soon get:

q = k*(Ai + Ao)*(T1-T0)/[2(x1-x0)]

Everything in the Power Gen setup consisted of hollow cylinders with hot
electrolyte on the inside and air on the outside. The cell itself was a
hollow glass cylinder. The tubing was essentially a hollow plastic
cylinder, and so was the pump reservoir. Since we have been told that the
cell outlet temperature was 36 degrees C and the inlet temperature was 20
degrees C, it is evident that the average temperature of the electrolyte
in the external part of the loop (the part outside of the cell itself) was
about 28 degrees C. Since the external part of the fluid loop is where the
1344 wattswould have been dissipated, we can take 28 degrees C as the
fluid temperature for computational purposes. Since we have assumed
ambient temperature in the room to have been 20 degrees C, that becomes
the temperature of the air outside the cylinders. And, assuming perfect
mixing of the electrolyte inside the cylinders, it follows that the
temperatures of the inside surfaces of the two cylinders (the tubing and
the reservior) would both be 28 degrees C. Similarly, assuming perfect
mixing of the air on the outside of the cylinders, the temperatures of the
outside surfaces would both be 20 degrees C. (Of course, perfect mixing
did not occur and, thus, the real temperature gradient across these
surfaces was less than 8 degrees C. As a consequence, the true heat
conduction rate for the apparatus would be somewhat less than the value we
are about to calculate. Our value will be the theoretical maximum
conduction rate for the system, assuming idealized conditions. If that
idealized maximum capacity is not sufficient to dissipate 1300 watts, you
can rest assured that the actual system could not do it!) Since T1 - T0 =
28 - 8 = 8 degrees C for the external portion of the fluid loop, the
formula becomes:

q = k*(Ai + Ao)*(8)/[2(x1-x0)]= 4k*(Ai + Ao)/(x1-x0)

According to Jed we have a maximum of 18 feet of 3/8th inch ID plastic
tubing in the loop. If it is thin-walled, then it is 1/2 inch OD, and the
corresponding radii will be half of those values. Thus for the tubing, x0
= 3/16 in = .476 cm, and x1 = 1/4 in = .635 cm. Thus the area of the
inside surface of the tubing is Ai = 2*pi*(.476)*18*12*2.54 = 1640 cm^2,
and the area of the outside surface of the tubing is Ao =
2*pi*(.635)*18*12*2.54 = 2189 cm^2. Since Ao is less than twice the value
of Ai, our formula will estimate the conductive capacity of the plastic
tubing to better than 4 percent accuracy. All we need is a conservative
estimate of the thermal conductivity, k, of plastic. In my copy of
*Handbook of Applied Thermal Design*, by Guyer, pg. 6-40, I find that
thermal conductivities for plastics fall in the range from .05 to .2
BTU's/hr-ft-deg F. To be very conservative, let's use the upper limit of
this range for our calculations. Converting to appropriate units, we have
.2 times 4.134E-3 = 8.268E-4 Cal/sec-cm-deg C. Plugging these various
values into the formula given above, we have:

q = 4 times 8.268E-4 times (1640 + 2189) all divided by (.635 - .476), or:

q = 4 times 8.268E-4 times 3829 all divided by .16 = 79 Cal/sec = 332 watts.

That's a hell of a lot less than 1344 watts, now isn't it? And all we have
left in the external portion of the fluid loop is the pump reservoir
itself. In that case, x0 = 7.5 cm and x1 = 7.8 cm, and the height of the
fluid in the reservoir when the pump is running is generally about 10 cm.
Thus Ai =  2*pi*(7.5)*10 = 471 cm^2, and Ao =  2*pi*(7.8)*10 = 490 cm^2.
Again, Ao is less than twice the value of Ai, so our formula will work
just fine. Therefore, we have:

q = 4 times 8.268E-4 times (471 + 490) all divided by (7.8 - 7.5), or:

q = 4 times 8.268E-4 times 961 all divided by .3 = 10.6 Cal/sec = 44.5 watts.

The only surfaces left in the external portion of the fluid loop which
could dissipate some heat would be the top and bottom of the reservoir.
The top is made of thick black plastic and is separated from the water
surface by an air layer that is about 10 cm thick, so its heat dissipation
capacity is trivial--not worth figuring. The bottom of the reservoir is
also not worth figuring, because it rests on top of the thick plastic
motor housing, separated from it by an insulating layer of trapped air.
Some evaporative cooling would also be possible through a small hole that
Cravens drilled in the reservoir lid to permit H2 and O2 gases to escape.
I have tested this experimentally, and found its effect to also be
trivial. 

Conclusions

With the claimed 16 degree C temperature drop in the external portion of
the fluid loop and 18 feet of plastic tubing, the Power Gen demo could
have dissipated no more than about 332 + 44.5 = 376.5 watts, which is far,
far less than the 1344 watts that were calculated based on the
measurements. Worse, 376.5 watts is an idealized maximum figure that
assumes perfect mixing of the fluids on both sides of the barrier. It
would be possible to apply film coefficients and compute the effects of
imperfect mixing on these results, but that would substantially lower the
calculated heat dissipation capacity of the setup. Similarly, my
calculations assume that the thermal conductivities of the plastics used
were at the top of the range of the known thermal conductivities for
plastic. If an average value for the conductivity of plastic had been
used, the potential dissipation would have been 38% less. Based on the
calculations given in the previous sections, we would need *at a bare
minimum* (1344/376.5)*18 = 64.25 feet of plastic tubing in the external
portion of the flow loop to deliver 1344 watts of heat to the air with the
claimed 16 degree C temperature rise! Bottom line: the problem isn't that
the air flow can't carry away the heat; the problem is that the plastic
barrier material can't deliver the heat to the air fast enough to prevent
a runaway temperature increase in the fluid. My theoretical analysis
suggests that with 18 feet of plastic tubing, the temperature would rise
far, far above the claimed equilibrium temperature of 36 degrees C, and
this conclusion is confirmed by my experimental results. 

--Mitchell Jones

P.S. I'm sorry for going into such tedious detail. I did it to encourage
critical feedback. If I have made an error here, or in the experiments
that I detailed in my earlier posts, I want to know about it. I would much
prefer that my car ran on water and got 300,000 miles to the gallon, and I
am eager for someone to prove that it is going to do so in the near
future!

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.15 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 11:46:32 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

*****************
Magnum 350 Run #5

In my last post, I concluded that the only way to resurrect the Power Gen
demo would be to claim that plastic tubing with paper thin walls was used.
I had been using 5/8 inch inner diameter (ID) plastic tubing in my various
runs, because that was what the fittings on the Magnum 350 model called
for, and I also knew that the Magnum 220, which Cravens used at Power Gen,
had fittings that were designed for 1/2 inch ID plastic tubing. In
addition, I knew that, in fact, Cravens had been using 3/8ths inch ID
tubing, which was even smaller. Since plastic tubing comes in thick walled
and thin walled versions, I could have purchased 3/8ths inch thin-walled
tubing (outer diameter: 1/2 inch), forced that onto my fittings, and
tested it. However, that seemed absurd. If I used 20 feet of 3/8ths inch
rather than 20 feet of 5/8ths inch, I would be giving up surface area in
order to use tubing with thinner walls. The reduced surface area would
make it harder to dissipate the heat, while the thinner walls would make
it easier. The net improvement, if any, would be small, and since my
previous experiments had shown a rapid, runaway temperature increase to
levels that weren't even close to the equilibrium temperature reported at
Power Gen, such an experiment seemed pointless. We didn't need a small
improvement to save the Power Gen result: *we needed something huge*. The
Power Gen equilibrium temperature of 36 degrees C after two hours *doesn't
even resemble* the headlong race toward the boiling point that I observed
in my own experiment. 

In my Magnum 350 run #3, for example, I had a lot more fluid in the system
than they had at Power Gen, more tubing exposed to convection, a much,
much larger cooling fan, and a heat source that was only producing about
1100 watts. Yet, despite all those differences which should have slowed
down the temperature rise, my temperature soared to almost 50 degrees C in
a scant 5 minutes and was still climbing rapidly when I was forced to shut
off the pump! Given those facts, there seemed to be little point to
installing 3/8ths inch thin walled plastic tubing and doing another run.
However, Jed has now posted a message claiming to have done a "hands on"
test at Power Gen, in which he observed that the outlet flow from the cell
felt much hotter than the inlet. This suggests the operation of a real
over unity power source and so, despite a feeling of virtual certainty
that it would do no good, I decided to buy some 3/8ths inch thin walled
plastic tubing and do another run. This time, I installed 24 feet of
thin-walled tubing (3/8th in. ID, 1/2 in. OD) in the same configuration as
used in Magnum 350 Run #3. The results were as follows:

Starting air and water temperature: 58 degrees F or 14.4 degrees C
Ending air temperature: 58 degrees F or 14.4 degrees C
Ending water temperature: 120 degrees F or 48.9 degrees C
Elapsed time: 9 minutes
Water volume: 3.84 liters
Flow rate: 4 liters/min

Comments: 

As I expected, the use of thin walled plastic tubing did little good: the
temperature was still rising rapidly when I cut off the heat source, and I
doubt that it would have reached an equilibrium temperature much short of
boiling. Whether it would have reached the boiling point or not, it now
seems *absolutely certain* that the apparatus used at Power Gen could not
have dissipated the amount of heat that it was claimed to be producing.
Such behavior is simply not within the physical capabilities of the
materials.

To Jed Rothwell: Regarding your claim that the geometry of the cooling
tower can somehow give a 3.5 watt muffin fan greater cooling power than a
60 watt box fan, I can only say this: my box fan was aimed at the coils of
plastic tubing that I wanted to cool, and they were arranged to permit
good circulation of air around them. The purpose of a circulating fan is
to prevent the buildup of a boundary layer of hot air adjacent to the
surface that is  being cooled. I know that, and you can rest assured that
my arrangement was perfectly adequate to serve that purpose. Nevertheless,
if you will send me a description of Craven's cooling tower layout at
Power Gen, I will be happy to duplicate it and do another run, though I
feel sure it will do no good. This is a case where a calculation (based on
Fourier's formula for heat conduction) and experiment agree: even under
ideal conditions, these materials could not possibly dissipate the claimed
amount of heat. Bottom line: I don't know what was wrong at Power Gen, but
something was very, very wrong. My wife and I have brainstormed at
considerable length in an attempt to explain how your hands-on test of
heat production could have led you astray, and for a long time it seemed
to be an insoluble riddle. But then she began to talk in terms of the
inlet tube to the cell being "insulated" while the outlet tube was not,
and it immediately occurred to me: the CETI people could have used
thick-walled plastic tubing on the inlet side of the cell, and thin-walled
tubing on the outlet side--a simple magician's trick that would have
created the false perception on the part of every spectator that
substantial heat was being produced in the cell! Is that what happened? I
don't know, but I do know this: you had better be *very* careful in
dealing with these people until you can definitively lay such
possibilities to rest.  

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.16 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Response to I Johnston
     
Originally-From: Barry Merriman <barry>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Response to I Johnston
Date: 16 Jan 1996 09:20:07 GMT
Organization: University of California, Los Angeles

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

>My information comes from two books written by Tom Crouch. He is the chairman
>of the department of aeronatuics at the National Air & Space Museum of the
>Smithsonian Institution. I previously gave you the page numbers and exact
>quotes, I will not repeat them again. Since the Air & Space Museum is the
>preeminiant institution in this area, with an extensive collection including
>the actual Wright 1903 and 1909 machines, I think it is likely that their
>experts know better than this biographer you have uncovered. Of course, the
>issue is not black and white. I never claimed that people knew *nothing*
>about flight theory before 1920. I repeated the claims of Crouch and many
>others that modern theories of airfoil lift were not developed until the
>1920s. The Wrights measured and charactorized the effect, but they did not
>know the deep, underlying cause of it. 

I have no idea when the theory of airfoils was related to practical
flight, but certainly the phenomena of lift in fluid flows 
(e.g. the Magnus effect) was appreciated in the late 1800's. Lamb's
classic book on fluid dynamics cites work of Kutta, 1902, Jakowski 1906
and Lancaster 1907 for theoretical derivation of the relation between 
lift and circulation, which is the basis of airfoil theory. Of
course, its not likely the Wright brothers new anything about this
theoretical work, and given the existence of birds, kites, etc, I
don;t think it requires a great deal of theory to relize that 
flight is possible, and could be achieved with some sort of powered
device with wings.

>For that matter, I gather there is
>still some disagreement in this area of physics.

That is certainly true, and its a sad fact that very few physicists
can give an adequate physical, causal explantion of lift. Common
recourse is to mumble something about Bernoulli's theorem, but that
is simply conservation of energy in a fluid flow, and its a bit 
of a leap to say that conservation of energy implies that a wing
should have lift on it...

Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet)  (NeXTMail OK)

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.16 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Some simple calculations assuming 42 CFM.
     
Originally-From: Barry Merriman <barry>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some simple calculations assuming 42 CFM.
Date: 16 Jan 1996 09:29:58 GMT
Organization: University of California, Los Angeles

21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:

> I would much
>prefer that my car ran on water and got 300,000 miles to the gallon

An intriguing idea---does this mean they would sell cars with a built
in 1 gallon tank, and simply never refuel :-)


-- 
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet)  (NeXTMail OK)

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.15 / I Johnston /  Re: Response to I Johnston
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Response to I Johnston
Date: 15 Jan 1996 16:00:40 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: 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.

According to other postings, it was clearly measured as producing excess
power - probably because of an unwarranted assumption about the flow.
:  
:  
:      "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.

Do you think they might at sometime deign to make an accurate
measurement of flow through the test cell - and "I opened a tap and
collected it and it didn't look as if it changed isn't very impressive"
- and tell us the results? Or do we have to be shareholders in a hotel
room to get the real information.

Ian

PS If you still think flight was invented before the theory, you might
like to try reading a biography of Lanchester. (Sorry folks, but this
hackneyed and inaccurate whinge of Jed's has been getting me down.)
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.16 / Martin Sevior /  Re: Some simple calculations assuming 42 CFM.
     
Originally-From: Martin Sevior <msevior>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some simple calculations assuming 42 CFM.
Date: 16 Jan 1996 10:26:45 GMT
Organization: The University of British Columbia

21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:
>
>P.S. I'm sorry for going into such tedious detail. I did it to encourage
>critical feedback. If I have made an error here, or in the experiments
>that I detailed in my earlier posts, I want to know about it. I would much
>prefer that my car ran on water and got 300,000 miles to the gallon, and I
>am eager for someone to prove that it is going to do so in the near
>future!
>

Mitch, all I did was post very simple calculations of the power in an airflow
of 42 Cubic feet per minute at a variety of temperatures. A 42 CFM fan seems
reasonable since at a 10 degree delta-T the power in the airflow is over 200
watts. Enough to cool most PC's which are what these fans are designed for.

However I have no way of knowing if there really was an airflow
of 42 CFM from the POWERGEN demo or what the average temperature of the airflow
was. The temperature range seemed to jibe with what a "warm airflow" would be
but it's just a guess.

I haven't checked your algebra let alone your arithmetic but I noticed some
questionable assumptions given the evidence to hand.

1. The 1.3 Kilowatt output was for only 15 minutes. Dennis Cravens was quite
emphatic about that and said in no uncertain terms that kilowatt output was
not sustainable. In this regard I again suggest you concentrate on 500 watt
output. 

2. The temperature of reservoir was not 20 C. In fact Jed many times said that
the temperature of the reservoir was quite above room temperature. I think the
500 watt runs had a reservoir temperature of 35 C. The inlet temperature at
the cell for these runs was at about 34 C although I haven't seen that number
explicitly posted. 

3. I can think of another heat transfer mechanism from the reservoir that you
haven't considered. Evaporation from the fluid and condensation on the  
plate between the pump and the heat exchanger.

In any case I would not trust any first principle calculation of the heat
transfer within a factor 4. There are too many variables.

Martin Sevior

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.16 / Ted Craven /  Re: CETI's 1.3kW CF Reactor Demonstrated!
     
Originally-From: Ted Craven <ted>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI's 1.3kW CF Reactor Demonstrated!
Date: 16 Jan 1996 05:31:49 GMT
Organization: Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc.

On 7 Dec 1995 rbrtbass@ix.netcom.com (Robert W. Bass) wrote:
 
>      The much-discussed pump was  circulating  water  through  two
> parallel vertical columns; we twice measured that 300  milliliters
> of water was  being  pumped  through  each  columnar  cell  in  15
> seconds, making 1.2 liters/minute.
>      The control cell was drawing 1.6  Watts  (specifically,  0.33
> Amps at 4.75  Volts)  and  contained  what  was  called  '10-shot'
> metallic beads.  The rise in temperature of the water through  the
> control cell was a paltry 2.6 degrees Centigrade.
 
So at the time Mr. Bass made his measurements, the control cell was
not blocked. Mr. Bass says he twice measured the flow at 1.2 l/min,
the same as the power cell. The control cell voltage was 4.75 volts 
and the current was an unremarkable .33 Amps, so the control cell was 
not shorted then either. The total power into the control cell was 
1.6 watts, only slightly higher than the 1.4 watts being fed into 
the power cell.

On 11 Dec 1995 jedrothwell@delphi.com (Jed Rothwell) wrote:
 
> Oh, we all noticed it was producing apparent anomalous heat! That was
> obvious. A lively discussion ensued. Patterson said, well, I have seen tin
> produce an excess before. Cravens looked at it and said he thought he
> better turn it off because it looked haywire. I don't know who else said
> what because I do not have a video, but it was obvious that the blank was
> not blank.
 
So it appears that the malfunction was only discovered some time after 
Mr. Bass had completed his measurements and left, because Mr. Bass said 
nothing about it in his post and Mr. Rothwell says that everyone present 
when the malfunction was discovered was aware of it. The fact that a 
malfunction was later found in the control cell doesn't invalidate 
Mr. Bass's earlier measurements.
 
It is difficult to believe that the control cell was producing hundreds
of watts. So where could the problem be? I took a look at the photograph
of the thermocouple unit on John Logajan's home page. It is an inverted
plastic tee.  The water enters on the left side, makes a 90 degree turn, 
and exits from the top. The temperature probe fits in the right side of
the tee. The probe itself is not visible because it is wrapped in 
white plastic. 

Since the temperature probe cannot be seen, it is difficult to be sure 
that it is making good thermal contact with the fluid flowing through the
tee. Suppose that the probe were not pushed in far enough, or that bubbles
or something else insulated the probe from the fluid flow. Then the probe
might report a temperature much lower than the real fluid temperature.
 
Let's suppose that the input probe became decoupled in this way, but
that the output probe did not. And further suppose that the actual input 
and output temperature of the cell was 17 degrees above ambient (no energy
production). Then the output probe would correctly register a temperature 
of 17 degrees, but because of the assumed decoupling the input probe might 
only report a temperature of (say) 1 degree above ambient. This would create 
the appearance of a 16 degree C temperature rise through the cell when 
there was actually no rise at all.
 
Because of the white plastic surrounding the probes, it might be very 
difficult to detect such a decoupled condition by visual inspection. 
The 17 degree fluid temperature might be caused by a combination of 
turbulence around the pump rotors, friction from fluid flow through 
the tubing, and the electrical input to the test cells. One of John's 
photos also shows some auxillary pre-heaters (50 and 100 Watts) hanging 
from the reservoir. A small degree of decoupling on the input of the 
control cell would explain Mr. Bass's observations and a large 
degree of input probe decoupling could explain the temperature difference 
across the test cell.

I am not at all wild about the PowerGen demonstration apparatus. I feel
that it is much more complicated than it needs to be. Why not just place 
the power cell in a clear glass container containing some water and let it
boil the water? You could get a lower bound on the heat output of the cell 
by condensing the steam in a standard West condenser and catching the 
condensate in a graduated cylinder. The power output would be computed by 
multiplying the heat of vaporization of water times the amount of water 
collected per unit time. Of course, this would underestimate the heat 
production because the heat lost from the sides of the boiling flask 
and the heat used to raise the water from the starting temperature up 
to 100 C would not be included. But for practical purposes, an 
energy gain of (say) 200 is just about as useful as an energy gain of 
1000.
 
The simplified apparatus eliminates three possible sources of error: the 
pump, the thermocouples, and the fluid flow rate. The entire apparatus 
could probably be made inexpensively out of standard laboratory glassware. 
It could be almost entirely transparent, so that people of a skeptical 
nature (like me!) would not need to worry about "hidden features". And 
it would be easy for people to reproduce the apparatus if they had 
questions about its operating characteristics. 
 
You would probably want to force a small air flow through the boiling 
chamber to prevent hydrogen from accumulating and possibly causing 
an explosion. You might use a small aquarium aerator for this. The air 
could exit through the condenser. 
 
One unrelated point: a couple of people have confused me with CETI's 
Dennis Cravens. So I would like to state we are two different people 
and that I am not associated with CETI in any way. Also, we are not 
related.

Ted Craven
 
(The opinions above are my own personal opinions, and are not necessarily
shared by any other person or institution that I may be associated with.)

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudfnTed cudlnCraven cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.16 / B Vidugiris /  Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, Dr. Hill is the wiser, Dr. White washes
     
Originally-From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.fusion,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, Dr. Hill is the wiser, Dr. White washes
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 00:30:19 GMT
Organization: What - me organized?

In article <4d5ibg$edk@marina.cinenet.net>,
Vertner Vergon <vergon@cinenet.net> wrote:

)Spin in a neutrino is as closely related to angular momentum  as it is
)in a top. No mass, no top, no angular momentum.
)
): Thinking classically will really make this
): a hooey. 
): -------------------------------
): 'Oz     
)
)The only hooey here is the ridiculous position just expounded.
)
)I get so tired (and nauseated) listening to that tired old drivel about
)'you must give up your old fashioned outmoded intuitive ideas and enter
)the never never land of modern physics'.
)
)This is put forth by people who have lost the way, who have bought 
)ridiculous conclusions arrived at through erroneous mathematical
)procedures that lead to reductios ad absurdom.

Unfortunately, the gyromagnetic ratio that QFT gets matches experiment,
unlike the one one gets if one assumes the electron spins like a top.

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenbhv cudfnBronis cudlnVidugiris cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.16 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: 16 Jan 1996 00:41:39 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <4d57am$2fo@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> Martin Sevior <msevior> writes:
>The 1300 watt mode was only in operation for 15 minutes. Apparently the
>nominal operating mode was less than 500 watts as reported for the second day's
>running. I suggest you spend your time looking to see if 500 Watts can be 
>dissapated by the system in a steady state fashion.
>
>Martin Sevior
>



How the numbers change!  A real moving target!  How long did it run at
500 Watts?  Do we know that?  And how hot did it get?  Or was it
qualitatively warm, or is it tepid?  Ah, what superb instrumentation!
What great reportage!

But it doesn't really matter.  If it really ran at 1300 watts for 15
minutes, it would have melted down.

Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
 -------------------------------------------------------
Any ideas or opinions expressed here do not necessarily
reflect the ideas or opinions of my employer.
 -------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.15 /  VCockeram /  Re: Some simple calculations assuming 42 CFM.
     
Originally-From: vcockeram@aol.com (VCockeram)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some simple calculations assuming 42 CFM.
Date: 15 Jan 1996 19:07:12 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <4da68d$k8b@news-f.iadfw.net>, bsnyder@iadfw.net (Bill Snyder)
writes:

>
>If you or the original poster can find a 3.5W muffin fan which
>delivers 42 CFM, let me know.  Cf. the 6 CFM noted by John Logajan for
>his 9W fan.
>
>

Bill, the Mouser Electronics catalog #584  Jan 1996 lists many fans
of the capacity you distrust. Here is just one:

Mouser Stock #5912-4312.  4.7"x4.7"x1.3",  5.0 watts,
  _100_ CFM, price 28.25  on catalog page 204

If you call 1-800-346-6873 they will ship same day, and then you can run
your  own experiment too!!  <grin>
BTW, I am not associated in any way with Mouser Electronics. I have used
them to supply materials for experiments I _have_ run though.
Very satisfied customer.

Bill, you really should check the availability of equipment before
dismissing the possibility of capacities of fans,pumps,ect.

Regards, Vince   ;)
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenvcockeram cudlnVCockeram cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.15 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Some simple calculations assuming 42 CFM.
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some simple calculations assuming 42 CFM.
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 96 13:00:28 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Bill Snyder <bsnyder@iadfw.net> writes:
 
>Meanwhile, back at the ranch... if the reservoir isn't noticeably
>above ambient, as Rothwell claims, and if the cell delta-T is about 8
 
I never claimed that. It is way above ambient. When the cell is turned
off and the water is circulating it does not get measureably warmer than
ambient. Mitchell reported that his pump did. This mystified me for a while,
but after talking to various people who know a lot about centrifugal pumps,
I now know that the amount of energy consumed by the pump is proportional
to the flow. So when Mitchell pumped 12 liters per minute, his pump impeller
consumed 12 times more energy than Dennis's pump impeller. If Mitchell
throttles the flow he will see a very small temperature rise even after
many hours of circulating the water. If he installs a heat exchanger and
opens the top to the reservoir, he will see performance similar to what
Dennis reports: at 500 watts the terminal temperature will be 15 to 30
watts hotter than ambient, depending on how much hose there is in the
radiator, how big the fan is, and other factors.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Jan 18 04:37:04 EST 1996
------------------------------
