1996.01.19 / 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: 19 Jan 1996 02:24:59 GMT Organization: Cinenet Communications,Internet Access,Los Angeles;310-301-4500 et.net> : Distribution: Daniel Berdine (dpb@penn.com) wrote: : > 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. : > : I'm no physisist, or mathematition, but please V.V. tell me, how is it : that you could describe what subatomic particles do in a "physical" sense : like the physics of a pool ball? If this is not what you mean by : "physical" ways of describing things, then please tell me. If it is, then : answer my question please. I haven't taken any formal physics classes, : but from everything that I have read, It is most defintely not possible to : describe subatomic happenings in this way, and I gather that this was : known for a long time. : : -Dan Hi, Dan Read my post on this newsgoup titled ON THE QUANTUM AS A PHYSICAL ENTITY. There you will find the answers. cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenvergon cudfnVertner cudlnVergon cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.18 / Mitchell Jones / Re: Magnum 350 Run Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 22:28:25 -0500 Organization: 21st Century Logic In article , mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com wrote: > jedrothwell@delphi.com writes: > > -> MARSHALL DUDLEY 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. ***{Yes, but the platter is spinning on ball bearings or roller bearings. The air trapped inside an impeller housing is not. Result: a better analogy would be pulling a wooden box on a flat concrete surface. The coefficient of friction will remain constant, but as you add more and more weight to the box, the total frictional force that resists your pulling will increase in direct proportion. Double the perpendicular force, and you double the frictional resistance to your pulling. Similarly, when a trapped air mass is rotated in a chamber from which it cannot escape, the frictional resistance due its contact with the sides of the cavity causes it to heat up, and as it heats up, its pressure increases, thereby increasing the perpendicular force that it exerts against the sides. And, as the perpendicular force increases, the frictional resistance also increases. Under the right circumstances, this state of affairs can produce dangerous overheating. That's why, in cases where I don't know what the details of the circumstances are, I prefer to err on the side of caution. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > Marshall > =========================================================== cudkeys: cuddy18 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.17 / berkeley@wco.c / Employment !!! Originally-From: berkeley@wco.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Employment !!! Date: 17 Jan 1996 23:42:19 GMT Organization: West Coast Online's News Server - Not responsible for content EE's....Berkeley Nucleonics Corporation has job opportunities in sales and engineering. Please fax/E resumes (415-453-9956) to David Brown (nucleonics@aol.com). BNC is located in SUNNY SAN RAFAEL, CA. For 35 years, we offer test electronics to military labs, universities and R&D companies. We specialize in high-speed logic, digital and analog circuits, electro-optics. cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenberkeley cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.18 / Joshua Levy / Re: Magnum 350 Run Originally-From: Joshua Levy Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run Date: 18 Jan 1996 01:45:07 GMT Organization: Intrinsa Corporation Craig Haynie wrote: >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. Why bother? They'll just change it again! You prove that 1300 watts is impossible, they _ex_post_facto_ change it to 500 watts. If you prove that is wrong, they'll just issue some other "correction" saying it was a different wattage, a different length of time, a different phase of the moon, ... Joshua Levy cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenjoshua cudfnJoshua cudlnLevy cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.19 / 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: 19 Jan 1996 16:15:33 GMT Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. In article <4dfelh$3a1@stratus.skypoint.net> jlogajan@skypoint.com writes: >Mitchell Jones (21cenlogic@i-link.net) wrote: >: 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! > >What do you mean? Clearly, if the electrolyte is warmer than the room, one can create the impression of a temperature rise in the cell by doing this - because the thin walled tubing will be warmer on the outside than the thick walled tubing. Very perceptive observation by Mitch. Arnold Frisch Tektronix Laboratories ------------------------------------------------------- Any ideas or opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the ideas or opinions of my employer. ------------------------------------------------------- cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.19 / 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: 19 Jan 1996 16:24:02 GMT Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. In article mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com writes: >arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch) writes: > >-> In article 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. I already posted that I am going to go back and find the original posting and that it would take some time. Further postings by you will not only be ignored, they will be filtered. Good by! Arnold Frisch Tektronix Laboratories ------------------------------------------------------- Any ideas or opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the ideas or opinions of my employer. ------------------------------------------------------- cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.18 / I Johnston / Re: UNSUBSCRIBE Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: UNSUBSCRIBE Date: 18 Jan 1996 12:16:06 GMT Organization: Edinburgh University VNONINSKI@FSC.EDU wrote: : UNSUBSCRIBE VESSELIN NONINSKI Hooray! Incompetent to the last. Ian cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.19 / Arnie Frisch / Re: Rothwell distances self from CETI Originally-From: arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Rothwell distances self from CETI Date: 19 Jan 1996 18:49:03 GMT Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. In article <4ctv2i$b3t@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) writes: >jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote: >: Harry H Conover writes: >: >It's interesting to observe how, as the preposterous 1300-Watt CETI >: >demo excess energy claim continues to collapse and attract ridicule, >: ... People have claimed that the temperature >: measurements might have been wrong, but I verified them with thermistors, >: thermocouples and a mercury thermometer. People claim the flow might have >: changed from a liter per minute to fraction of a milliliter, but it did >: not. >So, Jed, the measurements you took showed that the faulty control cell >was not producing excess heat, did they? After all, CETI's >instrumentation was completely fooled by it, so it would be nice to know >that you weren't. Just so we settle this once and for all, does anyone have a copy of the original posting by Rothwell - or know of an archive site where I can search for it? I tried www.altavista.digital.com, but they cut off before December 10, 1995. Arnold Frisch Tektronix Laboratories ------------------------------------------------------- Any ideas or opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the ideas or opinions of my employer. ------------------------------------------------------- cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.18 / John Logajan / Re: Magnum 350 Run Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run Date: 18 Jan 1996 05:39:35 GMT Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. Monkey King (monkey@engin.umich.edu) wrote: : John Logajan 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. I don't think this is correct. Case #2 started from 50+F and Case #3 started from 90+F. They both then rose 40F and 28F respectively. So in both cases the "pan" was colder at the start and warmer at the finish. : To do a real comparison, you'd have to let it start under the same : conditions. That would be best because the higher operating temperature increases the loss rate to the ambient temperature sink. Mitchell Jone's numbers don't seem to suggest much of any loss, due to the non-effect of the higher operating temp in case #3 and from the non-effect of the increased airflow in case #3. The lack of effect is indeed puzzling -- he seems to have a well insulated system -- one that is immune to major external changes. -- - 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: cuddy18 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.19 / Mitchell Jones / Re: Magnum 350 Run Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run Date: Fri, 19 Jan 1996 17:59:32 -0500 Organization: 21st Century Logic In article <4dkmen$dto@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com wrote: > Monkey King (monkey@engin.umich.edu) wrote: > : John Logajan 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. f***{John, I missed this post. Since I have been checking this group closely, I suspect that it didn't appear on my server for some reason. If there was much more to it than this brief snippet, I would appreciate an e-mail copy, if you still have it. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > : 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. > > I don't think this is correct. Case #2 started from 50+F and Case #3 > started from 90+F. They both then rose 40F and 28F respectively. > So in both cases the "pan" was colder at the start and warmer at the > finish. ***{The most likely explanation for the fact that the temperature rise per minute was as rapid at the high end of the range as at the lower end would be water spillage during the interval between the two runs, plus the inaccuracy of the time measurements. If memory serves, I measured the water volume for those two runs when I filled the system at the beginning--i.e., before the first run--and not at the beginning of the second run, which began at a higher temperature. There may have been a bit of spillage when I shifted over between the two runs, which would mean a slightly lower water volume in the second run. In addition, I used a wall clock for timing purposes, which means each reading for elapsed time could be off by as much as a minute (assuming a 30 sec error in the start time, and a 30 sec error in the end time). If case #2 took 6 minutes rather than 7, the rise per minute would have been 6.7 degrees/min rather than 5.7, and if case #3 took 6 minutes rather than 5, the rise would have been 4.7 degrees/min rather than 5.6. Lower water volume in the 2nd run would also have boosted the rise rate, because the same number of joules/sec would have been absorbed by a lesser volume of water. (If the volume had been the same, the rate of increase would have been lower.) Bottom line: you guys are trying to put too fine a point on all of this. I was trying to decide whether the flow loop could dissipate the claimed amount of heat. To that end, I wanted to discover whether the temperatures reached an equilibrium or kept rising. If they kept rising until I was forced to shut down my apparatus, I wanted to have an idea, within broad limits, of how *rapidly* they were rising. This, I accomplished. I don't claim high accuracy for my measurements, because high accuracy wasn't needed to serve my purpose. (I would add that there was a learning curve effect going on. I am better at the process now, by dint of practice, but I'm still not perfect, and it would probably still be possible to find puzzling anomalies in my measurements, if you ran them through a fine enough sieve.) --Mitchell Jones}*** > > : To do a real comparison, you'd have to let it start under the same > : conditions. > > That would be best because the higher operating temperature increases > the loss rate to the ambient temperature sink. > > Mitchell Jone's numbers don't seem to suggest much of any loss, due to > the non-effect of the higher operating temp in case #3 and from the > non-effect of the increased airflow in case #3. The lack of effect > is indeed puzzling ***{Not when you take into account the fact that all the measuring instruments were of the sort that could be purchased at a grocery store or a hardware store. I used an old fashioned wall clock, a rock candy thermometer, an outdoor thermometer, and a liter measure of a type used by housewives all over America. This is science on the cheap, with off-the-shelf instruments and a commonsensical focus on the goal. The measurements are accurate enough to answer the questions being asked, but no more. The advantage is this: anyone out there who doubts my results can replicate them himself, for a total cost of less than $150. *Nobody has to take any of my conclusions on faith*. For example, if anyone out there thinks he can dissipate 1344 watts through a flow loop constructed like that claimed for the Power Gen demo, with a heat source inlet temperature of 20 degrees C and an outlet temperature of 36 degrees C, I say try it! You will discover that it can't be done. Whether it can be done with the flow loop at a higher equilibrium temperature, as suggested by Martin Sevior, is another matter. I am presently investigating that possibility, and I will post my results shortly. --Mitchell Jones}*** -- he seems to have a well insulated system -- one > that is immune to major external changes. ***{Absolutely correct: the thermal conductivity of plastic is so low that it is virtually an insulator. This is why I am having so much trouble dissipating heat through this system: virtually all of the barrier materials are plastic. If a carefully constructed heat exchanger can't solve the problem--that's what I'm working on at present--I am likely to become as abruptly dismissive of Martin Sevior's high temperature equilibrium theory as I have already been of the low temperature equilibrium theory. Where that path will ultimately lead, I can't say, but I can say this: I am extremely disturbed by the results I have been getting so far. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > -- > - 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: cuddy19 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.18 / Joshua Levy / Jed's truth Originally-From: Joshua Levy Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Jed's truth Date: 18 Jan 1996 01:53:10 GMT Organization: Intrinsa Corporation When the 2nd CETI mess started (the 1300 watt, now 500 watt demo) Jed repeated time after time, that he new something was happening because when they ran the calibration runs, the water did not heat up, but when they ran the experimental runs, it did! Now we know from the Magnum 350 test runs, that a Mangum pump will itself raise the tempurature over 15 degrees, and do it very quickly. So the question to Jed is this: Are the CETI people using thermometers so poor that they can not tell a 15 degree difference? Or, Were you mistaken when you said the tempurature in the calibration runs did not change? The Magnum runs have taken appart the CETI demo from both ends: they have shown that the calibration runs are totally flawed, and they have shown that the real runs could not have generated 500 or 1300 watts of heat. Joshua Levy cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenjoshua cudfnJoshua cudlnLevy cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.19 / 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: 19 Jan 1996 23:28:47 GMT Organization: Plutonium College In article meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes: > Well, yes and no. Negative absolute temperature is hotter than any > positive absolute temperature. It can be obtained only in a system > with a finite number of degrees of freedom, else infinite energies are > involved. Now, strictly speaking, totally isolated systems with a > finite number of degrees of freedom don't exist. What you can have, > though, are systems where few degrees of freedom are sufficiently > decoupled from the rest so that for a finite (rather short, usually) > span of time they can be considered in isolation. Lasers are such > systems and the concept of "negative temperature" is useful over > there. One should be aware, though, that it is really just a > "quasi-temperature" Quasi-temperature is a good term for it. Population inversion of more in a higher quantum state but oh what a cost in energy. I do not know which to accept at this point. That 0 K temperature is impossible but both positive or negative temperatures are possible. Sort of like a hole in the Real Number line, a hole at 0 itself. Or to accept physics as no negative temperature with 0 impossible. I think it best to accept a hole at 0 itself and allow negative as well as positive. When the slightest use enters into physics, it quickly builds up into a flood of use and later seen as fundamental to physics. Most of this is semantics. And analogous to over in math of defining say 0! or 0^0. For physics, we have to decide what is meant by "negative energy". Dirac sea kind of touched on it. But recently with the anti-Hydrogen atom and the Bose Condensate these items of negative energy and negative temperature beg for definition. cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.19 / A Plutonium / Re: 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: Re: All particles with charge have rest mass; my proving it Date: 19 Jan 1996 23:46:14 GMT Organization: Plutonium College In article <4dj8ct$10n@news.acns.nwu.edu> "Todd K. Pedlar" writes: > > Actually, the photon charge has been measured to be less than 2 x 10^(-32). > > See Cocconi, Physics Lett. B 206, 705 (1988). I wonder if that is in absolute units, electro-static units esu it is about 10^-20 or if in Coulombs? Or if in some ratio, charge of photon is less than some fraction of the electron charge? I suppose I should wander over to the physics library and look up that number. Todd, what would the charge of the photon be, if the deflection of the star used in the Sun experiment by Eddington 1919 experiment was all due to the photon charge and the ionization of the Sun's plasma? Would it by a larger number than that reported by Cocconi above? Forgetting all about mass and explaining the deflection as purely electromagnetic phenomenon. If I remember correctly the margin of error in the Eddington deflection measurement was as big or larger than the deflection itself. Sort of like saying the neutrino has rest mass just from the first reporting of it up in Canada many years ago, and they had much less margin of error! If I am correct then in a lab experiment we should set up experiments where the deflection is in the opposite direction because the ionization is positive charge. cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.19 / A Plutonium / Re: All particles with charge have rest mass; my proving it Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: All particles with charge have rest mass; my proving it Date: 19 Jan 1996 23:51:08 GMT Organization: Plutonium College In article <4djovr$i2j@sulawesi.lerc.nasa.gov> Geoffrey A. Landis writes: > Actually, according to general relativity, charge *does* deflect a light > beam. The deflection is negative (away from the charge), and depends on > the square of the charge > > > > 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. > > That is different than GR, then. GR predicts that deflection is > independent of whether the sign of the charge is positive or negative, > since the minus sign cancels out. You are probably right charge distorts space as well as spin. And that is why I made the claim that my experiment should show opposite deflection a repulsive deflection as well as a attracting deflection depending on whether the field is positive or negative. It is in the repulsive deflection that I prove GR is a sham. cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.18 / A Plutonium / Is electric field = negative charge; magnetic field = positive 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: Is electric field = negative charge; magnetic field = positive Date: 18 Jan 1996 06:13:48 GMT Organization: PLutonium College In article <4deqtj$uj2@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes: > 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. Perhaps charge of positive and negative is just a different way of looking at electric field and magnetic field. Thus the photon is a transverse wave of electric field and magnetic field. But that is the wave, what about the particle photon? Well, I think that my tuition is very good here. I think that the particle photon is not a electric field and magnetic field but is a positive charge and negative charge inside of it-- at this point I do not want to say a hydrogen atom but with the possibility that experiments can be set up where a beam of laser light creates new hydrogen atoms out of some of the light waves. Anyone heard of new hydrogen created in say lightning bolts or laser beams? cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.20 / Harry Conover / Re: Unsubscribe Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Unsubscribe Date: 20 Jan 1996 01:28:47 GMT Organization: The Internet Access Company VNONINSKI@FSC.EDU wrote: : Dear Colleagues, I am unsubscribing from the list but I will pursue vigiriously the problem through the peer-reviewed literature. Truly Vesselin Noninski Poor sucker doesn't even realize sci.physics.fusion isn't a list but a newsgroup. Sad. Harry C. cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.20 / Harry Conover / Re: Is electric field = negative charge; magnetic field = positive charge Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Is electric field = negative charge; magnetic field = positive charge Date: 20 Jan 1996 01:31:14 GMT Organization: The Internet Access Company Dave Crouch (ddcrouch@ccgate.hac.com) wrote: : Maybe the photon is just a plutonium atom, Plutonium. Interesting quantum leap in logic. Care to explain? Harry C. cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.19 / jonesse@plasma / Re: Bose Corp. finds NO excess heat in CF cells -- H2O and D2O tried Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Bose Corp. finds NO excess heat in CF cells -- H2O and D2O tried Date: 19 Jan 96 18:03:48 -0700 Organization: Brigham Young University In article <4dmehf$706@tekadm1.cse.tek.com>, arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch) writes: > In article mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes: >> In Message-ID: <1996Jan16.161313@plasma.byu.edu> >>Subject: Bose Corp. finds NO excess heat in CF cells -- H2O and D2O tried >>Steve Jones of Brigham Young University writes: >> >>"Letter from Zvi Shkedi of the Bose Corp. in Massachussetts, who led >>an exhaustive search for excess heat from both light water and heavy water >>electrolytic cells. ..... >> >> The first paragraph of the letter was removed from said post. >>Given the explicit, wide-ranging, and apparently obvious >>and "closed" subject listed in >>the post, it is important to consider further what that paragraph said. >> >>It said: >> >>"The conclusion of the work was NOT that excess heat has not >>been found in the ligh-water cells. On the contrary, excess heat >>WAS FOUND AND MEASURED in all the light-water cells." > > > > As I understand it, the measurement method and calulations showed excess > heat, but further analysis proved that this result was specious. And > furthermore, the reason for the specious result was specified and explained. > And finally, that an energy balance showed that there was NO EXCESS HEAT. > > So you are grasping at straws. Another professional has debunked this nonsense, > and the TB's avoided an opportunity to bring their work to the test. > > > Arnold Frisch > Tektronix Laboratories > -------------------------------------------------------- > Any ideas or opinions expressed here do not necessarily > reflect the ideas or opinions of my employer. > -------------------------------------------------------- Arnold's analysis is correct. --Steven Jones cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.20 / A Plutonium / Re: 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: Re: All particles with charge have rest mass; my proving it Date: 20 Jan 1996 03:41:03 GMT Organization: Plutonium College In article <4dpag6$rtj@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes: > In article <4dj8ct$10n@news.acns.nwu.edu> > "Todd K. Pedlar" writes: > > > > > Actually, the photon charge has been measured to be less than 2 x 10^(-32). > > > > See Cocconi, Physics Lett. B 206, 705 (1988). > > I wonder if that is in absolute units, electro-static units esu it is > about 10^-20 > > or if in Coulombs? Or if in some ratio, charge of photon is less than > some fraction of the electron charge? > > I suppose I should wander over to the physics library and look up that > number. PHYSICS LETTERS B , vol206, page 705 titled UPPER LIMIT FOR THE ELECTRIC CHARGE OF THE PHOTONS FROM THE MILLISECOND PULSAR 1937+21 OBSERVATIONS Giuseppe Cocconi CERN, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland --- start quoting PL in part --- Radio signals of different frequencies emitted simultaneously by a pulsar 16000 ly away, arrive on the Earth within less than 2 (u)s, notwithstanding the galactic magnetic fields encountered along their path. It follows that photons cannot have an electric charge larger than about 10^-32 times the electron charge. ... At 19h37m right ascension and 21 degrees north declination, the pulsar in question is - like our Sun - near the galactic plane, about 60 degrees off the galactic centre; hence, seen from the Earth, it is in a direction not parallel to the spiral arm. Since the galactic magnetic fields, of a few (u)G, run mostly along the spiral arms, the field B normal to the photon trajectory is a fraction of the total field, say B~= 1 (u)G. With f = 2 GHz, S = 5 kpc, t = 10^11.7 s, ^f/f ~= 1/2, ^t/t = 10^-5.6/10^11.7 = 10^-17.3, the above equation gives q/e ~< 2 x 10^-32. To appreciate the significance of this limit, consider the ratio R, independent of distance, between electric and gravitational forces. For electrons this ratio is R_e = e^2/Gm^2_e ~= 4 x 10^42. Since electric forces are so much larger than gravitational ones, only neutral combinations of electrons and protons can feel the gravitational attraction. The situation would be very different in the hypothetical case where the photons have an electric charge just below the limit established here: 10^-32 e. For the most abundant photons in our Universe, those of the 2.7 K background radiation (f = 150 GHz, m_photon = hf/c^2 ~= 10^-9 m_e)m the above ratio would become R_photon = 4 x 10^-4, and the photon electric forces, being so much smaller than their mutual gravitational attraction, would not affect the dynamics of the cosmos. Finally, it is worth noticing that the time difference ^t(2(u)s) discussed previosly cannot be interpreted as a delay due to a finite rest-mass of the photons. This is because the photon group velocity (from which the dispersion measure is derived) is B_group = 1-1/2f^2_p/f^2 (f>>f_p), where f_p, the plasma frequency, is equal to 9 x 10^3N^(1/2)_e Hz, N_e(cm^-3) being the number density of free electrons. This expression is formally equivalent to that of the relativistic velocity of a body of energy E=hf and mass m = E/v (v>>1): B = 1-1/2v^-2. Consequently, the limit on the mass is, as shown by Feinberg m<~ hf_p/c^2 ~= 10^-16m_e Only a precise determination of the free-electron density N_e along the whole trajectory could discriminate, within the dispersion measure, the contribution of a smaller, non-zero rest-mass. --- end quoting PL in part --- I am certainly not alone in the mistrust of numbers in astrophysics as compared to say an experiment done here on Earth measuring the photonic charge and the photonic rest-mass. Just recently the age of the universe came in at 10 billion years which the oldest stars are 20 billion years. It is healthy to mistrust astro data. In astrophysics there are so many assumptions. Why, we are still very unclear as to what pulsars are and what quasars are, even though the above was not about quasars. My point is that it is nice to broadcast the above but I would hold little stock in its merit. As a first-come-first-serve information it is of service, but it along with most astrophysics reports are never high on accuracy or reliability as compared to physics experiments performed on Earth. We need to set-up the equipment and do the experiments looking for photonic charge and rest-mass on Earth in order to eliminate all of those presumptions and assumptions which run rampant in astrophysics. cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.20 / John Logajan / Re: Magnum 350 Run Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run Date: 20 Jan 1996 05:39:08 GMT Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. Arnie Frisch (arnief@wu.cse.tek.com) wrote: : jlogajan@skypoint.com writes: : >Mitchell Jones (21cenlogic@i-link.net) wrote: : >: 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! : > : >What do you mean? : Clearly, if the electrolyte is warmer than the room, one can create the : impression of a temperature rise in the cell by doing this - because : the thin walled tubing will be warmer on the outside than the thick : walled tubing. : Very perceptive observation by Mitch. Hmmm, there seems to be a contradiction here. Mitch gave us numbers that say that virtually no heat is lost through his tubing -- that it was a very good insulator. Now if there is a noticable difference between thick wall and thin wall (enough to feel one to be warm and one to be room temperature) then his tests with the thick wall tubing are shown to be irrelevent. So either there is no difference than can easily be felt, or the tests were irrelevent if the tubing was thicker than Cravens. -- - 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: cuddy20 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.20 / John Logajan / Re: Bose Corp. finds NO excess heat in CF cells -- H2O and D2O tried Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Bose Corp. finds NO excess heat in CF cells -- H2O and D2O tried Date: 20 Jan 1996 05:48:19 GMT Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. Arnie Frisch (arnief@wu.cse.tek.com) wrote: : As I understand it, the measurement method and calulations showed excess : heat, but further analysis proved that this result was specious. And : furthermore, the reason for the specious result was specified and explained. : And finally, that an energy balance showed that there was NO EXCESS HEAT. Hmmm, we've known about the lack of 100% faraday efficiency in Mills type experiments for several years on this newsgroup. Droege saw it, I saw it, Jones' students saw it. Scrinivasan recanted previous claims after seeing it. Even in Mills' case he made early claims of output greater than raw I*V. Certainly CETI claims are far beyond raw I*V. So Bose Corps false positive results (actually null results after accounting for faraday inefficiencies) don't really have much relevence to the big Mills and CETI claims. -- - 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: cuddy20 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.20 / John Logajan / Re: CETI Cell Configuration Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: CETI Cell Configuration Date: 20 Jan 1996 05:52:50 GMT Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. Lilian Zuccolo (lzuccolo@news.sfu.ca) wrote: : Has anybody thought that the coupling may be of the "eddy current" variety? : and the fluid is cooling the very inefficient metalic ring? that drives : the pump,that moves the fluid that shows excess heat? Uh? In any event, the heat would be developed in the wrong spot to show up as delta-T in the cell, and it also could not exceed the power-draw of the pumpmotor. -- - 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: cuddy20 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.20 / A Plutonium / Re: Is electric field = negative charge; magnetic field = 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: Is electric field = negative charge; magnetic field = Date: 20 Jan 1996 06:03:32 GMT Organization: Plutonium College In article ddcrouch@ccgate.hac.com (Dave Crouch) writes: > Maybe the photon is just a plutonium atom, Plutonium. Well, Mr. Crouch you may not have learned much physics details from me, but you sure picked up on how to go off on a limb. An A+ for imagination! cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.18 / MARSHALL DUDLEY / Re: Magnum 350 Run Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run Date: Fri, 18 Jan 1996 11:29 -0500 (EST) 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes: -> Since I made the e-mail statement to which you refer, let me elaborate. In -> the case of a centrifugal air pump, when the output is blocked, the -> pressure rises in the outlet tube from the impeller housing all the way -> back to the inside of the cavity swept by the impeller blades. Result: the -> mass of the air being spun around in a circle by the blades of the -> impeller increases, and the load on the impeller increases. This is contrary to all experience I have had with centrifugal pumps. I suppose one could design a pump such that there was a lot of turbulence when the air or liquid is spinning around with the turbine, but that would be a very poor design. Increasing the mass of the air around the impeller should have little more effect on power consumption than adding weight to a record player platter. What you are saying would be what is expected in a turbine pump, one which is constructed like the turbines in a jet engine. A design that has not been mentioned here before that I am aware of. -> In addition, -> because the same air is being swung around in a circle over and over (with -> the outlet blocked, new air cannot be introduced) it rapidly heats up due -> to friction with the walls of the impeller housing, etc. This heating -> effect may damage some pumps, particularly those which are made of -> inexpensive materials such as plastic. Friction heating by passing air is quite well known in aerodynamics. However I believe if you crank out the numbers you will find that the dissipation capability of the structure (even plastic) is sufficient to prevent excessive heating for air flows below 100 mph (stick your hand out of a fast car, does it feel warm or cold?). And the velocity of the tip of the rotor will be much lower than that. For instance if we have a .5 inch radius impeller spinning at 10,000 rpm, then the tip velocity will be about 2*.5*pi*10,000/60 or about 523 inches per second. This works out to just under 30 mph. Of course if the viscosity of the fluid is significant then this would create a problem with frictional heating. -> When a centrifugal air pump is blocked on the input side (e.g., as with a -> vacuum cleaner), what happens is that the air in the impeller housing is -> mostly hurled out through the outlet tube, with a corresponding drop in -> the air pressure within the housing (because the input is blocked). The -> impeller begins to cavitate--to turn in a vacuum or near vacuum--and the -> power consumption drops to whatever level is necessary to maintain rpm -> with the tiny frictional load that remains. Cavitate? That term only applies to liquids, not gases. I did some testing on vacuum cleaners (used a commercial Sears wetvac model), and if I remember right it only pulled about 5 inches of mercury when totally blocked. That would only be about 1/6 of normal air pressure. I also blocked the flow on the pressure side, and there is no doubt that the motor sped up compared to the non-blocked condition. -> Bottom line: there is a significant difference in effect, depending on -> whether you block the outflow or the inflow, where centrifugal pumps are -> concerned. I don't believe you are correct on this. I have done the experiments about 10 years ago and I don't recall seeing a difference. Unfortunately all I have at my disposal at this time are upright vaccums so I am unable to run the tests again. -> Blocking the outflow increases the fluid pressure in the pump -> housing, while blocking the inflow decreases it. True, but if the effect is that no work is being done on the fluid, all it is doing is spinning around in a circle, then you end up with A*0 is still equal to B*0, no matter what the values of A and B are. That is, the density of the fluid is irrelevent. As I noted above however the viscosity of the fluid is NOT irrelevent. -> The above remarks apply only to air pumps. For water pumps, the -> considerations are similar, but not identical. If you block the outflow of -> an open loop centrifugal water pump, the following effects are possible: -> -> (1) With a high impeller rpm, rapid heating of the water trapped in the -> impeller housing is likely. If the mass of the trapped water in the -> housing is small relative to the power consumption of the pump motor, it -> may flash to steam, producing an explosion that destroys the impeller -> housing. This would not be expected. For water to flash to steam requires the water to be heated to well beyond the normal boiling point of water, then there be a sudden release of pressure. The closest I see you could come would be for the water on the high side of the pump to be at boiling temperature, then if you stopped the pump, it would boil, raising the input side to near what the high side was. Since the high side would only be a couple of psi, this "flash" could only create a couple of psi on the low side, hardly enought to consititute an expolsion. -> (2) If the pump is designed to pull in millions of air bubbles with the -> water through the input tube, complete blockage of the outflow will -> prevent this effect, increasing the mass being spun around in the impeller -> housing and the load on the motor. Once again, mass is important as far as load on the motor only if it is being pumped (that is if you have a flow). If it is just spinning around, you have essentially 0 load either way. Now if the bubbles decrease viscosity, that is another story. -> (4) With outflow blockage, various exotic "water hammer" type effects can -> arise, in which resonant vibrational feedback from the blockage point can -> destroy an impeller. These effects do not arise when the inflow is -> blocked. This is certainly an effect with positive displacement pumps, but for a centrifugal pump to exhibit such characteristics would imply an extremely poor design. -> Since these effects do not appear when the inflow to the pump is blocked, -> there is, again, a difference between blocking the pump outlet and -> blocking the inlet. Again, however, these effects appear only when -> complete blockage, or almost complete blockage, is accomplished. Over the -> normal operating range of a pump, power consumption is proportional to -> flow rate, and it makes no discernable difference whether the inlet or the -> outlet is blocked. To be safe, however, I would always install my flow -> control valve on the inlet side, unless there were very strong reasons for -> placing it on the outlet side, and I would avoid closed loop flow -> configurations where conveniently possible. I would not do so. The reason is if you have dissolved gases in the fluid, they may be pulled out and form small bubbles on the space between the throttle and the pump. Then after the pump they will slowly redissolve, releasing heat. If they were to redissolve after the input thermometer, the heat would show up as an excess. This could complicate interpretation of the results, and leave you open to arguemts that this effect is the source of any excess. Marshall cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.20 / 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: Sat, 20 Jan 1996 15:42:43 GMT Organization: customer of Internet America In message <4dl7aj$7tk@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, vcockeram@aol.com (VCockeram) wrote: >Sorry Bill, I'm not a betting man (a real plus in this town) , >but the only ratings for the 121 different fans listed are >Volts, Bearing type, Current(DC), Watts(AC), CFM @ 0C, Noise(dBa). >But whats the point? There is nothing published (a least here in s.p.f) >about back pressure of a cooling fan in the demo being discussed. You might want to take a look at John N. White's message on airflow when it gets to your server. The point is, basically, that it violates our knowledge of the real world to thnk that because the spec says X cfm, you'll actually get X cfm regardless of how you (mis)use the fan. Fans don't perform well if you restrict their outlet flow; your computer fan, for example, is "pulling" air rather than pushing it, which is the normal usage. A CFM rating that assumes free air at the outlet can be a gross overstatement for a CETI-type setup. -- -- Bill Snyder [ This space unintentionally left blank. ] cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenbsnyder cudfnBill cudlnSnyder cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.20 / Geoffrey Landis / Re: All particles with charge have rest mass; my proving it Originally-From: Geoffrey A. Landis Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: All particles with charge have rest mass; my proving it Date: 20 Jan 1996 17:05:52 GMT Organization: Ohio Aerospace Institute, NASA Lewis Research Center In article <4djovr$i2j@sulawesi.lerc.nasa.gov>, Geoffrey A. Landis wrote: > > Actually, according to general relativity, charge *does* deflect a light > > beam. The deflection is negative (away from the charge), and depends on > > the square of the charge > > ...GR predicts that deflection is > > independent of whether the sign of the charge is positive or negative, > > since the minus sign cancels out. In article <4dpapc$rtj@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Archimedes Plutonium, Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu writes: > You are probably right charge distorts space as well as spin. And > that is why I made the claim that my experiment should show opposite > deflection a repulsive deflection as well as a attracting deflection > depending on whether the field is positive or negative. It is in the > repulsive deflection that I prove GR is a sham. Well, of course that isn't "proved" until an experimental test demonstrates that your theory's predictions are correct, and the prediction of GR is incorrect. However, you have completed the first requirement of a scientific theory, which is that it make specific, verifiable predictions. ____________________________________________ Geoffrey A. Landis, Ohio Aerospace Institute at NASA Lewis Research Center cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenGLANDIS cudfnGeoffrey cudlnLandis cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.20 / Harry Conover / Re: Bose Corp. finds NO excess heat in CF cells -- H2O and D2O tried Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Bose Corp. finds NO excess heat in CF cells -- H2O and D2O tried Date: 20 Jan 1996 18:21:39 GMT Organization: The Internet Access Company John Logajan (jlogajan@skypoint.com) wrote: : Even in Mills' case he made early claims of output greater than raw I*V. : Certainly CETI claims are far beyond raw I*V. So Bose Corps false positive : results (actually null results after accounting for faraday inefficiencies) : don't really have much relevence to the big Mills and CETI claims. Dhuh! John, the relevence is inescapable to most readers. In essence, the Bose report conclusions effecitively null excess heat claims of *all* previous work. This makes Mills and CETI claims effectively singularities, which seem to at best be poorly supported in light of theier sloppy, incompetent experimental techniques evidenced by all reports posted to date. While the hilarious CETI claims can be readily dismissed as simply another example of amateurs getting in over their heads and mistakenly claiming extraordary results, the Bose report drives a wooden stake through the very heart of CF. If weren't before, CF is now firmly categorized as just another pathological science. Harry C. cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.20 / Coulston / Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, Dr. Hill is the wiser, Dr. White washes Originally-From: Coulston 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: Sat, 20 Jan 1996 20:21:37 GMT Organization: DuPont Eric, you wrote: > 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. Where did Euclid go wrong? cudkeys: cuddy20 cudencoulston cudlnCoulston cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.20 / Harry Conover / Re: Bose Corp.: No real excess heat in H2O or D2O cold fusion cells Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Bose Corp.: No real excess heat in H2O or D2O cold fusion cells Date: 20 Jan 1996 23:54:34 GMT Organization: The Internet Access Company Bradley K. Sherman (bks@netcom.com) wrote: : In article <1996Jan18.133617@plasma.byu.edu>, wrote: : >To avoid any confusion, I post here the entire text of the : >Letter from Zvi Shkedi, Ph.D. to Fusion Facts (Dec. 1995 issue). : ... : >"successful" light water experiment, i.e. that the Faraday : >efficiency is unity, was proven to be wrong. : ... : Tyro question: Would someone be kind enough to explain the : concept of Faraday efficiency and why an incorrect assumption : concerning it was widespread among researchers? Possibly because most of the 'researchers' are not adequately trained or competent in the conduction of work in experimental physics. Please note (and this is not a put-down), virtually all of the report of 'excess heat' have been originated from the chemistry discipline -- chemists are relatively untrained in the formality and protocol of physical experimentation. I have the ultimate respect for a chemist's to predict and interpret reactions at the chemical level, however, based upon personal experience their ability to orchestrate and conduct sophisticated measuremnts of physical parameters is limited -- its simply not in either their job description or their training. By contrast, physicists are heavily trained in techniques related to the precise measurement of physical parameters (heat, energy, experimentatl noise, etc.), but have limited qualification re. the prediction and interpretation of chemical reactions. My interpretation of the Bose report is simply this: It underlines my long voiced opinion that the 'excess energy' of CF is simply an artifact resulting from researchers extending their efforts well beyond their respective fields of expertise. As I have posted elsewhere, if the CF claims were already and completely put to rest, the Bose report now drives a stake solidly though the heart of all CF 'excess energy' reports or claims to date. Guys, it's time to put CF to rest and move on. Its sizzle is old news, and there is no steak! Harry C. cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.20 / Aaron Levinson / New web pages on sonoluminescence and cold fusion! Originally-From: Aaron Levinson Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: New web pages on sonoluminescence and cold fusion! Date: Sat, 20 Jan 1996 19:32:16 -0600 Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana I noticed that the Web really lacked any information on sonoluminescence awhile ago, and it would appear that some people link sonoluminescence to cold fusion, and the two have really nothing to do with each other (besides their ties to fusion, which are doubtful, or at least unknown, for both). I heard it mentioned in this newsgroup last summer, and I was intrigued, so I recently read up on it and wrote a homepage dedicated to this interesting new field. It's got some really neat graphics, and I think I've done a pretty good overview of it. You can find it at: http://ne43.ne.uiuc.edu/ans/sonolum.html I also created a page showing the apparatus necessary to create sonoluminescence for less than $100. You can find a link to it from the URL above. Since it suited the needs of the sonoluminescence page and I had wanted to do it before, I htmlized a copy of an article posted here during the summer about cold fusion. If any of you have noticed, pretty much all the pages on cold fusion on the Web have been authored by cold fusion advocates. This is unfortunate, especially since it could give students and other people either new to fusion or just getting into it a hope in a science that doesn't necessarily exist. I know this to be true, because over the summer, I was just starting to get into fusion (I'm currently a sophomore in college), and when I saw all those positive things about cold fusion, I really jumped at the idea. However, after bringing it up to a professor of mine, we had a long talk, and now I'm pretty skeptical. But enough of my personal story--if you'd like to check out the page I created, and it doesn't paint a pretty picture of cold fusion, check it out at http://ne43.ne.uiuc.edu/ans/cold_fusion.html I admit that these pages aren't new (they've been around for about two months), but they may be new to some of you. For more fusion links, you can go to the World of Nuclear Engineering (I will update it and change the name some time soon) at http://ne43.ne.uiuc.edu/ans/ans_links.html Aaron Levinson cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenalevinsn cudfnAaron cudlnLevinson cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.21 / Robert Scott / Re: Why has Jupiter Retained it heat Originally-From: rscott@falcon.ic.net (Robert Scott) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Why has Jupiter Retained it heat Date: 21 Jan 1996 02:34:59 GMT Organization: ICNet ... Your Link to the Internet ... 313-998-0090 J.R. Lee Chin (psjrl@cc.newcastle.edu.au) wrote: : >OK, dumb question, but why is the core of Jupiter still so hot. I can : >understand that as the planet was formed, the pressure increased causing : >the temperature to rise. But, since there is not nuclear fusion at the : >core, why has the heat not radiated away it the billions of years since it : >was formed? This is not a trick question, but one of curiosity. Thanks. : > : Presumably the same reason the earth is still so hot internally: fission of naturally : occuring radioactive elements. Nonsense. The earth and Jupiter are both hot because the rate of heat escaping is so slow that even over the estimated lifespan of these planets they still have as much heat as they do. Surface to volume ratio can do wonders! Run the numbers and see! cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenrscott cudfnRobert cudlnScott cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.21 / John Logajan / Re: Bose Corp. finds NO excess heat in CF cells -- H2O and D2O tried Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Bose Corp. finds NO excess heat in CF cells -- H2O and D2O tried Date: 21 Jan 1996 07:16:24 GMT Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. Harry H Conover (conover@max.tiac.net) wrote: : the Bose report conclusions effecitively null excess heat claims of *all* : previous work. It is simply not new news that open cell calorimetry is unreliable due to these (now long known) faraday inefficiencies. Bose reconfirms this. But it is still old news. Of course, Bose doesn't apply to closed cells (when Bose "closed" their cells, they got null results -- confirming tha closed cells work as expected.) -- - 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: cuddy21 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.21 / John Logajan / Re: Bose Corp.: No real excess heat in H2O or D2O cold fusion cells Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Bose Corp.: No real excess heat in H2O or D2O cold fusion cells Date: 21 Jan 1996 07:27:59 GMT Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. Bradley K. Sherman (bks@netcom.com) wrote: : explain the concept of Faraday efficiency and why an incorrect assumption : concerning it was widespread among researchers? Basically it is a game of electron accounting. For each electron that crosses from cathode to anode (or electron hole) it is assumed that some chemical reaction takes place. One chemical reaction per electron(hole) is 100% faraday efficiency. This has been assumed to mean that in electrolysis of water, there was a fixed relationship between the amount of H2 and O2 produced and the amount of electical current passed through the electrolyte. Since this is recoverable energy (the H2 and O2 can be burned (recombined)), and since it is a large chunk of energy, some researchers assumed it was occuring at 100% efficiency and so they subtracted that input power from the measured output power to get the assumed anomalous gain (which might otherwise be hidden by the relatively large dissociation energy.) However, if this energy was actually not being stored, and therefore not later recoverable, then subtracting it as input power would overstated the output power and bogus anomalous heat would seem to exist. Since many groups have now reported seeing faraday efficiencies less than 100% (including myself seeing 76% efficiency in one case) this "open cell" assumption is unreliable, and now we insist on closed cell calorimetry for gains of the magnitude that could be explained by variations in faraday efficiency (and/or local recombination.) -- - 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: cuddy21 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.24 / Richard Blue / Rothwell claims on Compuserve Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Rothwell claims on Compuserve Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 04:23:28 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway Jed Rothwell, in his reports on the performance of the CETI device, provides a somewhat different perspective on the state of CETI's research efforts on Compuserve than what I have seen here. I got the impression from all that has been said here that CETI has done relatively little research on the functioning of this device beyond the operation of demonstrations at conferences under conditions that would seem to indicate that they were not totally familiar with the characteristics they would encounter with a given set-up. For example, the issue of what power level could be sustained as it has developed would seem to indicate that Dennis Cravens was not aware that his heat exchanger was inadequate for his purpose. How could that be if this device had ever been set up and run under laboratory conditions? Still Jed asserts that many complex issues relating to surface chemistry, hydrogen loading, recombination, thermal mixing, instrument calibrations, etc. have been thoroughly investigated. Does anyone have any confirming information that would indicate where, when, and by whom the operating characteristics of a Patterson cell have been investigated? How was the electrolyte chosen, for example? What has been done to determine that the preparation of the beads is optimized? What analyses have been performed to determine loading? Has the actual Faraday efficiency been determined? Dick Blue cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.21 / A Plutonium / Re: Is electric field = negative charge; magnetic field = 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: Is electric field = negative charge; magnetic field = Date: 21 Jan 1996 16:39:44 GMT Organization: Plutonium College In article <4dtbun$t81@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes: > The best so far is that the photon in waveform is neutrino combined > with antineutrino which is particle form is the electron paired with > the positron. This would make rational sense for the Coulomb force > would then be seen as repulsive when the positron interacts with > protons and attractive when interacts with electrons and vice versa for > the electron component of the photon. The neutron and proton are about 930 MEV The electron .5 MEV The neutrino energy is approx. 1.7 X 10^-5 MEV Now, going with my above scenario, we can look at the photon in two ways. One, the photon is a particle and composed of two particles whose total charge is almost 0 but has a tiny charge, same as the neutron which has a hydrogen atom bouncing aroud inside of it. Here, the photon has either a positron plus a -neutrino or the photon is a electron plus a +neutrino wherein the rest mass of the photon will correspond with the ratio of approx 10^-5 MEV. The second view is of the wave nature and whichever view one wants to make it depends on the type of experimental setup eg photoelectric effect or double slit interference. The second view will also give the rest mass of the photon of a ratio of approx 10^-5 and the photon is a combination of +neutrino and -neutrino but as it becomes more energetic or picks up energy from its surroundings then the photon, one of the neutrinos builds up into either a positron or electron. These views are supported by known experiments, where in the fact energetic photons revert into electrons. Once a photon, now an electron. cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.21 / Aaron Levinson / Re: New web pages on sonoluminescence and cold fusion! Originally-From: Aaron Levinson Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: New web pages on sonoluminescence and cold fusion! Date: Sun, 21 Jan 1996 15:00:52 -0600 Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana > The correct link is > > http://ne43.ne.uiuc.edu/ans/coldfusion.html Oops! I'm sorry if I messed anyone up here. Aaron Levinson cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenalevinsn cudfnAaron cudlnLevinson cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.21 / Daryl Essam / Re: Why has Jupiter Retained it heat Originally-From: daryl@dolphin.cs.adfa.oz.au (Daryl Essam) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Why has Jupiter Retained it heat Date: 21 Jan 1996 21:56:39 GMT Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy In article <4ds8oj$a86@condor.ic.net>, rscott@falcon.ic.net (Robert Scott) writes: |> J.R. Lee Chin (psjrl@cc.newcastle.edu.au) wrote: |> : >OK, dumb question, but why is the core of Jupiter still so hot. I can |> : >understand that as the planet was formed, the pressure increased causing |> : >the temperature to rise. But, since there is not nuclear fusion at the |> : >core, why has the heat not radiated away it the billions of years since it |> : >was formed? This is not a trick question, but one of curiosity. Thanks. |> : > |> |> : Presumably the same reason the earth is still so hot internally: fission of naturally |> : occuring radioactive elements. |> |> Nonsense. The earth and Jupiter are both hot because the rate of |> heat escaping is so slow that even over the estimated lifespan of these |> planets they still have as much heat as they do. Surface to volume |> ratio can do wonders! Run the numbers and see! Its been a while since I did second year astronomy, but from what I remember Jupiter is very slightly shrinking under its own gravity. As potential energy is decreasing, this extra energy is then released as heat. Sorry if some of my terminology is off, I'm 99% sure this principle is correct, however it has been 7 years since I did this course. Daryl Essam cudkeys: cuddy21 cudendaryl cudfnDaryl cudlnEssam cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.20 / William Payne / Re: Hints that the photon has a finite rest mass Originally-From: ohm.dial.pipex.com (William Payne) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Hints that the photon has a finite rest mass Date: Sat, 20 Jan 1996 16:29:26 GMT Organization: UnipalmPIPEX server (post doesn't reflect views of UnipalmPIPEX) Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote: In article <4dcgs1$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. ----------- isn't it the electron in the electron-photon duality that has the charge? 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. ---------------------------------------------------- Does this mean that Black holes have large electric and magnetic fields in proportion to their' gravity? I find this very unlikely as a virtual photon has just as much mass as a real one and would be unable to escape the singularity at all, let alone get to the event horizon, where all the "real" photons are. This wipes out charges and particle exchange, leaving only gravity. You have moving mass of photon. The rest should be simplicity itself to work out. -- William Payne ohm@dial.pipex.com cudkeys: cuddy20 cudfnWilliam cudlnPayne cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.20 / Bradley Sherman / Re: Bose Corp.: No real excess heat in H2O or D2O cold fusion cells Originally-From: bks@netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Bose Corp.: No real excess heat in H2O or D2O cold fusion cells Date: Sat, 20 Jan 1996 15:47:11 GMT Organization: Remote Fusion Reactor Reverse Entropy Associates In article <1996Jan18.133617@plasma.byu.edu>, wrote: >To avoid any confusion, I post here the entire text of the >Letter from Zvi Shkedi, Ph.D. to Fusion Facts (Dec. 1995 issue). ... >"successful" light water experiment, i.e. that the Faraday >efficiency is unity, was proven to be wrong. ... Tyro question: Would someone be kind enough to explain the concept of Faraday efficiency and why an incorrect assumption concerning it was widespread among researchers? --bks cudkeys: cuddy20 cudenbks cudfnBradley cudlnSherman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.22 / 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: 22 Jan 1996 06:35:11 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) In article <4dr34k$paj@news-f.iadfw.net>, bsnyder@iadfw.net (Bill Snyder) writes: > Fans don't perform well if you restrict their outlet flow; >your computer fan, for example, is "pulling" air rather than pushing >it, which is the normal usage. A CFM rating that assumes free air at >the outlet can be a gross overstatement for a CETI-type setup. > >-- > -- Bill Snyder [ This space unintentionally left blank. ] > > You assume much! 1. My computer does not have a fan. . 2. My _guess_ is the fan ratings are measured in free air. 3. I know these must be derated for inlet vacuum/outlet pressure. 4. Demo writups I have seen point to fan _pulling_ air through the "cooling tower". 5. Reading Mitch Jones "560 Magnum Run" has got me wondering about the sustained power levels in the demo. In closing, knowing that Dr. Cravens is a careful experimenter I will withhold judgement until I see a _detailed_ writeup of experiments. I think excess heat is being seen but I want details. Vince cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenvcockeram cudlnVCockeram cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.21 / Kevin Smith / Chernobyl Originally-From: h-bird@ix.netcom.com(Kevin Smith ) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Chernobyl Date: 21 Jan 1996 17:01:55 GMT Organization: Netcom I was wondering if anyone had some info on Chernobyl and it's effects on the environment. I am also looking for a place on the web to find some info on nuclear power plants and their safety features. I am also looking for chemical equations for nuclear fission and chemical equations for the effects of radiation on animals and plants. Thank you big Chem paper. h-bird@ix.netcom.com cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenbird cudfnKevin cudlnSmith cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.21 / / Re: Hints that the photon has a finite rest mass Originally-From: decraig77@aol.com (DECraig77) 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: 21 Jan 1996 04:18:29 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) 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. Ok, your doing differential weighing. > 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. Yes. > 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. So the light would be charged and responing to the Coulomb force. What does this have to do with rest mass? Yes a photon or electromagnetic wave has mass and responses to a force. But you see, that mass is not called the rest mass. It is the total mass. So in this sense you are right the photon has mass. Get it? Is the Archimedes Plutonium name used by many. And are you-all really college students? D.E.Craig cudkeys: cuddy21 cudendecraig77 cudln cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.21 / A Plutonium / Re: Is electric field = negative charge; magnetic field = 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: Is electric field = negative charge; magnetic field = Date: 21 Jan 1996 12:35:35 GMT Organization: Plutonium College In article <4dpgl2$qd8@sundog.tiac.net> conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes: > Dave Crouch (ddcrouch@ccgate.hac.com) wrote: > : Maybe the photon is just a plutonium atom, Plutonium. > > > Interesting quantum leap in logic. Care to explain? The best so far is that the photon in waveform is neutrino combined with antineutrino which is particle form is the electron paired with the positron. This would make rational sense for the Coulomb force would then be seen as repulsive when the positron interacts with protons and attractive when interacts with electrons and vice versa for the electron component of the photon. cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.21 / Bob Sullivan / Re: New web pages on sonoluminescence and cold fusion! Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: New web pages on sonoluminescence and cold fusion! Date: Sun, 21 Jan 96 15:07:04 GMT Organization: SkyNET Online In article , Aaron Levinson wrote: [. . .] ->Since it suited the needs of the sonoluminescence page and I had wanted to ->do it before, I htmlized a copy of an article posted here during the ->summer about cold fusion. If any of you have noticed, pretty much all the ->pages on cold fusion on the Web have been authored by cold fusion ->advocates. This is unfortunate, especially since it could give students ->and other people either new to fusion or just getting into it a hope in a ->science that doesn't necessarily exist. I know this to be true, because ->over the summer, I was just starting to get into fusion (I'm currently a ->sophomore in college), and when I saw all those positive things about cold ->fusion, I really jumped at the idea. However, after bringing it up to a ->professor of mine, we had a long talk, and now I'm pretty skeptical. But ->enough of my personal story--if you'd like to check out the page I ->created, and it doesn't paint a pretty picture of cold fusion, check it ->out at http://ne43.ne.uiuc.edu/ans/cold_fusion.html The correct link is http://ne43.ne.uiuc.edu/ans/coldfusion.html [. . .] cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.22 / Tom Droege / Goodby All Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Goodby All Date: 22 Jan 1996 22:10:25 GMT Organization: fermilab I find that I am no longer reading this group, so it is time to say goodby. I have enjoyed corresponding with all of you, not just the ones that agree with me. My final opinion, somewhat supported by experiment, is that there is nothing to be found. I will shortly un-subscribe from the list. In case any of you wonder what I have found that is more fun than cold fusion, you can follow along as the tass group trys to beat the government to saving us from earth colliding asteroids, and what not. You can read all about it by subscribing to our listserv. To find out how to subscribe, you can look at the home page at: http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~richmond/tass/tass.html Goodby, it's been fun, Tom Droege cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.22 / VCockeram / Re: Bose Corp.: No real excess heat in H2O or D2O cold fusion cells Originally-From: vcockeram@aol.com (VCockeram) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Bose Corp.: No real excess heat in H2O or D2O cold fusion cells Date: 22 Jan 1996 06:38:45 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) In article <4drvbq$pep@sundog.tiac.net>, conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes: >My interpretation of the Bose report is simply this: It underlines >my long voiced opinion that the 'excess energy' of CF is simply >an artifact resulting from researchers extending their efforts well >beyond their respective fields of expertise. > >As I have posted elsewhere, if the CF claims were already and >completely put to rest, the Bose report now drives a stake solidly >though the heart of all CF 'excess energy' reports or claims to date. > >Guys, it's time to put CF to rest and move on. Its sizzle is old >news, and there is no steak! > > Harry C. > > Dont bury it yet Harry, we have yet to see _any_ actual data from these experiments. All we have is a "report". Vince cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenvcockeram cudlnVCockeram cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.22 / Mark North / Re: Why has Jupiter Retained it heat Originally-From: north@ (Mark H. North) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Why has Jupiter Retained it heat Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 17:39:23 GMT Organization: NCCOSC/NRaD In , "David C. Nicholas" writes: >Does anyone have a name of one of the folks ar Rockwell/Rocketdyne who >worked on the detection of cold fusion ash. > B.M. Oliver Rockwell International Rocketdyne Division Canoga Park, CA 91303 other names at Rockwell who may have been involved: H. Farrar D.W. Kneff G. Subbaramman J.R. Szekeres Mark cudkeys: cuddy22 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.23 / Harry Conover / Re: Bose Corp.: No real excess heat in H2O or D2O cold fusion cells Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Bose Corp.: No real excess heat in H2O or D2O cold fusion cells Date: 23 Jan 1996 03:55:50 GMT Organization: The Internet Access Company Paul Stowe (pstowe@ix.netcom.com) wrote: : Hi, : The titled article referenced something called the Faraday Efficiency. : Can someone decribe this? I can find it referenced in any of my : physics or EM books. Look under 'Faraday's Law' in any P-Chem text. (One would believe this stuff to be seminal reading for anyone claiming expertise in 'Electrochemistry' but I guess it isn't! :-) As a start, I'd suggest Glasstone's "Elements of Physical Chemistry." This is undergraduate basic science major course material, but explains the concept quite well. While at it, you may also want to investigate the enigma of the voltage offset associated with an electrolysis cell, something Glasstone covers quit extensively, yet fundamental knowledge that I have yet to see one CF buff even mention. (This is like postualting a new concept for explaining the behaviour of an Ohmic device, while ignoring the existence of Ohms Law. Such is the 'science' that comprised CF, Perpetual Motion, and Alchemy -- Fun stuff to argue about, but lacking sufficient substance to warrant the risk of even one hour's pay. (The Mass Lottery is likely a better investment prospect and, unlike CF, one that has actually known to pay off!) Harry C. cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.23 / Ted Craven / Re: CETI's 1.3kW CF Reactor Demonstrated! Originally-From: Ted Craven Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: CETI's 1.3kW CF Reactor Demonstrated! Date: 23 Jan 1996 05:16:00 GMT Organization: Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. On 17 Jan 1996 John Logajan (jlogajan@skypoint.com) wrote: > So the control cell could have suffered the syndrome you suggest (there > is no way to rule it out.) But the experimental cell seems to have > had independent temperature verification which would rule out the > syndrome you mention -- at least for the later lower power runs. Mr. Rothwell says in his report that in order to verify the demo cell input temperature, it was necessary to turn off the control cell (or later the heater which replaced it) and measure the temperature at the control cell output. For the 1.3kW run this was not possible because the control cell was blocked. Since there was no independent confirmation of the input temperature it seems difficult to rule out the possibility that some or all of the 1.3kW reported output was actually an illusion caused by under-reporting of cell input temperature due to thermal decoupling of the input thermocouple from the fluid stream. Mr. Rothwell says that he did independently check the input and output temperatures in later runs (presumably the 500 watt runs, although his report doesn't explicitly say). But a lot depends on his measurement protocol, which is not described. Did he independently verify the temperatures every time he measured the power? Or did he only verify the temperatures a few times and thereafter assume agreement? Bubbles or other obstacles could easily lodge and dislodge around the thermocouples in a matter of seconds, so verifying a thermocouple one minute doesn't guarantee that it will read correctly the next minute. Note what Zoltan's report says: > The CETI people told me that the cells were turned off, only the pump was > running. The temperature gage was constantly blinking, Jed said this was > because it was on some funny scanning mode. I saw temperature readings > from about 0.5 to 4.5, constantly changing. They told me that they could > not turn on the cells because the control cell was clogged up. and Zoltan also says: > My general impression of the experimental setup was poor. The circulating > liquid had large bubles of gas in it, about two-three inch long sections > of the half inch diameter transparent tubing. I was highly unimpressed by > the thermocouples. There was no way of telling why the reading kept > fluctuating wildly or what the reading meant, like centigrade or > fahrenheit or what. I could not tell what type of pump they had or what > ... What was this scanning mode again? Why were they using it? Is it not possible that the temperature fluctuations Zoltan observed were being caused by bubbles temporarily lodging and dislodging around the thermocouples, causing them to be intermittently insulated from the fluid flow? And why was there any temperature difference at all if the cells were turned off? And by the way, how could the control cell have been clogged up? I thought that they had replaced it with a heater the previous night. Finally, there are questions as to how closely the temperature at the output of the control cell corresponds to the input temperature of the demo cell. What was the geometry again? Was it: pump -> radiator -> throttle valves -> cells -> reservoir -> pump or was it something else? Where do the fluid paths to the cell inputs diverge? And what lies between this point and cell inputs? Ted Craven (All views expressed are entirely my own personal opinions, which are not necessarily shared by any other institutions or individuals.) cudkeys: cuddy23 cudfnTed cudlnCraven cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.23 / Barry Merriman / Re: Goodby All Originally-From: Barry Merriman Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Goodby All Date: 23 Jan 1996 00:43:16 GMT Organization: University of California, Los Angeles Tom: Sorry to see you go---perhaps you'll be back if anything ever turn up. But the TASS project looks pretty cool. By the way, what did you decide to do with the remaining $700 from the CF fund? -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet) (NeXTMail OK) cudkeys: cuddy23 cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.22 / Cary Jamison / Re: Unsubscribe Originally-From: cary@svl.trw.com (Cary Jamison) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Unsubscribe Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 12:39:45 -0700 Organization: TRW SIG In article <4dpggf$qd8@sundog.tiac.net>, conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) wrote: > VNONINSKI@FSC.EDU wrote: > : Dear Colleagues, I am unsubscribing from the list but I will pursue vigiriously the problem through the peer-reviewed literature. Truly Vesselin Noninski > > Poor sucker doesn't even realize sci.physics.fusion isn't a list but > a newsgroup. > > Sad. > > Harry C. Poor sucker doesn't even realize that sci.physics.fusion (any many other newsgroups) is sent out to various mail lists in digest form. -- Cary Jamison cary@svl.trw.com cudkeys: cuddy22 cudencary cudfnCary cudlnJamison cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.22 / 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, 22 Jan 1996 18:37:59 -0500 Organization: 21st Century Logic In recent days I have constructed a "heat exchanger" with the intent of focusing the wind flow from my 60 watt box fan more directly on the plastic tubing that I have been trying to cool. To that end, I purchased a roll of 1/2 inch mesh screen wire, 3 feet in width, and cut off a 65 inch length of it. I then joined the 2 ends to form a cylinder 60 inches in circumference and 3 feet long, and then bent the cylinder into a square, chimney-like structure 15 inches on a side. Next, I wrapped the sides with aluminum foil, and sealed the edges with aluminum tape, leaving the ends open. Then I placed my 60 watt box fan so that it would blow air out of the resulting cooling tower, and taped it tightly into the end of it. Next, I stood the device up on a flat table top, so that the box fan was at the top, pointing up. I then wrapped my plastic tubing around the aluminum foil sides of the cooling tower on the outside, attached it with occasional pieces of aluminum tape, and used a pencil to poke 300 holes in the aluminum at points directly beneath the plastic tubing. The idea was simple: the box fan would create a pressure drop in the cooling tower by blowing air out of it, and as a result, air would flow into it through the holes I had poked in the sides. Result: the flow of cooling air would be focused directly on the tubing and, hopefully, would be more effective in cooling it than my original crude method of simply hanging the tubing in front of the fan had been. When I tried it, however, the temperature of the water moved up from a starting level of 58 degrees F to 150 degree F in a scant 18 minutes, and was still rising when I shut the apparatus down. After getting that result, I was tempted to simply post it and declare the issue closed. However, not wanting to act in haste, I instead thought about the matter overnight, with an eye to finding any flaw that might have prevented the device from functioning properly. Result: it occurred to me that the pressure drop induced by the fan in the cooling tower would be reduced by backflow of air through the corners of the box fan. The fan, after all, is circular, while the housing is rectangular. To correct that potential problem, I covered the front of the fan grille with plastic, and then cut a circular hole over the fan itself, thereby blocking the potential backflow through the corners. When I repeated the run under those conditions, however, it seemed to make little difference: in 22 minutes, the temperature rose from 62 degrees F to 176, and was still rising when I shut everything down. Water volume was about 5 liters. I didn't measure the flow rate in either of these runs, because it is a pain and would serve no purpose. The conclusion to be derived from all of this seems clear: Jed was mistaken when he reported a 2 hour run at 1344 watts. Apparently what happened was that the electrolysis current was bumped up just before Jed took those measurements, and the power output had jumped and the temperature was still rising. That, at any rate, is what I have been told by a fellow who has talked to Cravens about it. My problem with all this is straightforward: I would like to be able to verify at least a portion of these claims myself. When results are reported, here or elsewhere, concerning "excess heat" events, I want to be able to set up a reasonable facsimilie of the apparatus, insert a conventional device that produces the claimed amount of heat, and get the same basic instrument readouts as were reported. I don't like it a bit when I am told that power was produced at some level for two hours at some stable temperature, and I discover that when I insert a conventional heat source of the same magnitude into a facsimilie loop, the temperature runs away in 15 or 20 minutes! Granted, we all make mistakes, including Jed, and it would be absurd to take the position that the reported results must all be perfect or we will toss them out. Nevertheless, it is equally absurd to allow the proponents of off-the-wall, contraintuitive science to respond to criticism by simply changing their reported results. Some post hoc changes must be permitted, to allow for the inevitable human errors that are going to occur. But this fact does not justify simply giving such people a blank check to modify their numbers at will. So what is the mean between these extremes? In my view, Jed has reported a vast amount of information to this group, on a number of topics, and the vastly greater portion of it has held up. Thus I am willing to chalk this particular faux pas up to experience and move on. Before doing so, however, I would like to find at least *one* claim from Power Gen that I can verify. The reason is simple: in the process of doing these various "Magnum 350 Runs," I have become aware of one particular aspect of the calorimeter that was used at Power Gen that I consider to be very strange: its use of *plastic tubing* in the coils of a heat exchanger. My tests confirm the textback fact that plastic is virtually an insulator. While working with it, I have gotten in the habit of casually moving tubing around with my bare hands that is carrying water at temperatures approaching 180 degrees F! So careless have I become, in fact, that this morning I burned my hand when I happened to grab a section of tubing that had been spliced using a two inch length of copper tubing. The difference between the temperature of the 1 inch length of exposed copper and the adjacent plastic was very great--sixty or seventy degrees would be my guess. That experience give strong emphasis to a thought that has been nagging at me lately: why wasn't copper tubing used in the Power Gen heat exchanger? So long as it was electrically isolated by being spliced between two sections of plastic tubing, what problem could it have caused? Were the experimenters worried about forming oxides of copper, perhaps? If so, the inside of the copper tubing could have been sealed with a thin layer of plastic by simply pouring a bit of varithane varnish through it. Bottom line: the Power Gen heat exchanger does not look to me like a serious effort. Maybe I simply don't understand the rationale, but as I see things at the moment, the use of plastic tubing in a heat exchanger seems as ridiculous as putting a coating of insulation on the bottom of a frying pan! It is this seeming absurdity, more than Jed's erroneous data, that contributes to the feeling of disquiet that I have about the Power Gen result. I find myself wondering if everything is above board here, and I want to lay those feelings to rest by verifying at least part of what was reported. To that end, I will now concentrate my efforts on verifying the results of the 30 minute, 467 watt run. This run, I am told, occurred with the cell inlet temperature stabilized at 35 degrees C, and the outlet stabilized at 41.7 degrees C. To test it, I am going to throttle my Gran Pappy deep fryer back to 467 watts (using a 2,000 watt dimmer switch that I bought from Home Depot), and see if I can stabilize the inflow to the Gran Pappy at 35 and the outflow at 41.7 degrees C. I will be careful to use 2.5 liters of water, as reported by Jed, and I hope it works. Some quick calculations suggest to me that it should, but we will see. More later. --Mitchell Jones =========================================================== cudkeys: cuddy22 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.23 / John Logajan / Re: Bose Corp.: No real excess heat in H2O or D2O cold fusion cells Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Bose Corp.: No real excess heat in H2O or D2O cold fusion cells Date: 23 Jan 1996 04:59:06 GMT Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. Harry H Conover (conover@max.tiac.net) wrote: : While at it, you may also want to investigate the enigma : of the voltage offset associated with an electrolysis : cell, something Glasstone covers quit extensively, yet : fundamental knowledge that I have yet to see one CF buff : even mention. Hmmm, I recall discussing the need for such a minimum voltage to conserve energy -- that is, if one electron flows per chemical reaction, then by energy=volts*amps, you need a minimum voltage below which the reaction can't occur -- since otherwise you would end up with energy from nowhere. So yeah, this has been discussed here before. I guess you missed it. -- - 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: cuddy23 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.23 / Matthew Kennel / Re: a low temperature? Originally-From: mbk@I_should_put_my_domain_in_etc_NNTP_INEWS_DOMAIN (Matthew B. Kennel) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: a low temperature? Date: 23 Jan 1996 21:55:26 GMT Organization: University of Tennessee, Knoxville Mark Wong (mawong@m2.dseg.ti.com) wrote: : low tech column meter : 123457890123457890123457890123457890123457890123457890123457890123457890 : Why are almost all of the fusion experiments two or three orders of : magnitude below the temperature (around 20 kev) necessary for : sustained fusion? I used a little sophmore physics to get a mean : energy around 3.5 Mev for deuteron fusion. Using quantum tunneling, : I was able to get the number around 200,000 ev. Since I am not in : the fusion field on a daily basis, I am wondering if there was a : breakthrough on the magnetohydrodynamic equations that allowed the : lower temperatures. If no breakthrough, then why are we looking at : such low energy regimes? Is it plasma stability only? Not wanting to : "dirty up" the machines with a high neutron flux? Please help. If they could make it hotter they would. Higher temperatures mean higher losses, of course. But if you actually got a temperature of 3.5 MeV you'd have a hydrogen bomb, not a power plant, supposing each nucleus were to have a 50-50 shot at fusion for each collision. OK it would be a bad H-bomb as you'd vaporize your confinement apparatus before you could fuse the whole fuel mass. Still, you'd have a doozy of an OSHA report to write. A real H-bomb *compresses* its fusion fuel to nearly Fermi degenerate (white dwarf star) density! : Mark Wong : Texas Instruments : mawong@m2.dseg.ti.com chees Matt cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.23 / Matthew Kennel / Re: Magnum 350 Run Originally-From: mbk@I_should_put_my_domain_in_etc_NNTP_INEWS_DOMAIN (Matthew B. Kennel) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run Date: 23 Jan 1996 22:00:27 GMT Organization: University of Tennessee, Knoxville Blah blah blah. What do you know, the Conclusive Experiment wasn't so. Now do people see the need for a real *null test* instead of relying on 'accounting'? cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.23 / David Spain / Re: Goodby All Originally-From: spain@flipper.nexen.com (David Spain) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Goodby All Date: 23 Jan 1996 18:35:47 -0500 Organization: ascom Nexion, Acton, MA USA Goodby Tom. We'll add your name to those who have come and gone from alt.cold-fusion ... sci.physics.fusion. All-in-all you are in pretty good company with some very interesting people who no longer post much here. I hope no one minds a little name dropping from days gone past: Paul Dietz Terry Bollinger John D. Black Cameron Randall Bass Bill Johnson and those "old-timers" that are still active: Berry Merriman John Logajan James L. Carr Steve Jones Richard Blue -and- Dieter Britz Thanks to all of you for your informative posts in the past. Many of which helped me along in my understanding of the issues being explored and discussed. I am mostly a lurker here now. Being a "lay" software engineer who often drops by to see whats up, this group seems high on controversy and rather low on content these days. I feel the burden of proof still rests with the cf advocates. I haven't seen any convincing proof for the hypothesis. IMHO. But admittedly I cannot engage in informed argument over the evidence either, since its definitely outside my field of expertise. Hence I lurk mostly, ask questions occasionally on only VERY VERY RARELY offer a suggestion. Meteor defense is one of those nutty, crazy and way-out kind of ideas that defy common-sense. One of those "Golden Fleece" topics that a certain US Senator from Wisconsin used to spotlight. Until you need it, of course... :-) :-( :-O ... I'll definitely be checking tass.html out. Good luck Tom and thanks for your contributions! Dave Spain -- David Spain ascom Nexion 289 Great Road, Acton MA. USA 01720-4739 Phone: USA (508)266-4551 FAX: (508)266-2300 Internet: spain@nexen.com cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenspain cudfnDavid cudlnSpain cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.24 / james dolan / Re: Bose Corp.: No real excess heat in H2O or D2O cold fusion cells Originally-From: james dolan Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Bose Corp.: No real excess heat in H2O or D2O cold fusion cells Date: 24 Jan 1996 00:45:17 GMT Organization: fair play for neptune committee john logajan writes: -Harry H Conover (conover@max.tiac.net) wrote: -: While at it, you may also want to investigate the enigma -: of the voltage offset associated with an electrolysis -: cell, something Glasstone covers quit extensively, yet -: fundamental knowledge that I have yet to see one CF buff -: even mention. - -Hmmm, I recall discussing the need for such a minimum voltage to conserve -energy -- that is, if one electron flows per chemical reaction, then -by energy=volts*amps, you need a minimum voltage below which the -reaction can't occur -- since otherwise you would end up with energy -from nowhere. - -So yeah, this has been discussed here before. I guess you missed it. so you're admitting to being a cf buff? cudkeys: cuddy24 cudfnjames cudlndolan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.23 / Mitchell Jones / Re: Magnum 350 Run Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 12:48:25 -0500 Organization: 21st Century Logic In article , mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com wrote: > 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes: > > -> Since I made the e-mail statement to which you refer, let me elaborate. In > -> the case of a centrifugal air pump, when the output is blocked, the > -> pressure rises in the outlet tube from the impeller housing all the way > -> back to the inside of the cavity swept by the impeller blades. Result: the > -> mass of the air being spun around in a circle by the blades of the > -> impeller increases, and the load on the impeller increases. > > This is contrary to all experience I have had with centrifugal pumps. I > suppose one could design a pump such that there was a lot of turbulence when > the air or liquid is spinning around with the turbine, but that would be a very > poor design. ***{Remember, Marshall, that when I used my Magnum 350 to merely pump 4 liters of water in a circle, it produced a temperature increase of 10 degrees C due to fluid friction alone. Most of that was probably produced inside the impeller housing by the stirring action of the impeller blades. If we assume half, then the impeller put an amount of heat into the water equal to .5 times 4000 times 10 = 20,000 calories. The volume of the impeller housing is about 30 cc (eyeball estimate), which means that this amount of heat would raise its contents to a temperature of 20,000/30 = 667 degrees C. Of course, this assumes a specific heat of 1, no heat of vaporization, and no heat loss through the plastic impeller housing or by convection. However, even if such matters were taken into account, it still seems possible, and even likely, that the water in the impeller housing would flash to steam. Result: I am *not* going to test this by running my pump with the outlet completely blocked. Turning to a more general point, I would note that the well-known tendency of power consumption to track flow rate is merely a curve fitted mathematical construct and, as is normal for such things, it works well when applied to those parts of the range that have been thoroughly investigated, and tends to break down at the extremes. Because of that, we should apply common sense and caution when delving into extreme case extrapolations. --Mitchell Jones}*** Increasing the mass of the air around the impeller should have > little more effect on power consumption than adding weight to a record player > platter. ***{Yes, but the platter is spinning on ball bearings or roller bearings. The air trapped inside an impeller housing is not. Result: a better analogy would be pulling a wooden box on a flat concrete surface. The coefficient of friction will remain constant, but as you add more and more weight to the box, the total frictional force that resists your pulling will increase in direct proportion. Double the perpendicular force, and you double the frictional resistance to your pulling. Similarly, when a trapped air mass is rotated in a chamber from which it cannot escape, the frictional resistance due its contact with the sides of the cavity causes it to heat up, and as it heats up, its pressure increases, thereby increasing the perpendicular force that it exerts against the sides. And, as the perpendicular force increases, the frictional resistance also increases. Under the right circumstances, this state of affairs can produce dangerous overheating. That's why, in cases where I don't know what the details of the circumstances are, I prefer to err on the side of caution. --Mitchell Jones}*** What you are saying would be what is expected in a turbine pump, one > which is constructed like the turbines in a jet engine. A design that has not > been mentioned here before that I am aware of. > > -> In addition, > -> because the same air is being swung around in a circle over and over (with > -> the outlet blocked, new air cannot be introduced) it rapidly heats up due > -> to friction with the walls of the impeller housing, etc. This heating > -> effect may damage some pumps, particularly those which are made of > -> inexpensive materials such as plastic. > > Friction heating by passing air is quite well known in aerodynamics. However I > believe if you crank out the numbers you will find that the dissipation > capability of the structure (even plastic) is sufficient to prevent excessive > heating for air flows below 100 mph (stick your hand out of a fast car, does > it feel warm or cold?). And the velocity of the tip of the rotor will be much > lower than that. For instance if we have a .5 inch radius impeller spinning at > 10,000 rpm, then the tip velocity will be about 2*.5*pi*10,000/60 or about 523 > inches per second. This works out to just under 30 mph. Of course if the > viscosity of the fluid is significant then this would create a problem with > frictional heating. ***{As noted above, running the numbers suggests a significant possibility of overheating. If you want experimental verification that a spinning impeller heats water, I suggest that you set up a household blender with a liter of water in it, measure the temperature, and then put the thing on high and let is churn for awhile. When you stick a thermometer in the thing after, say, 15 minutes, I predict that you will get a surprise! --Mitchell Jones}*** > > -> When a centrifugal air pump is blocked on the input side (e.g., as with a > -> vacuum cleaner), what happens is that the air in the impeller housing is > -> mostly hurled out through the outlet tube, with a corresponding drop in > -> the air pressure within the housing (because the input is blocked). The > -> impeller begins to cavitate--to turn in a vacuum or near vacuum--and the > -> power consumption drops to whatever level is necessary to maintain rpm > -> with the tiny frictional load that remains. > > Cavitate? That term only applies to liquids, not gases. ***{Not so. The concept applies to all fluids. Liquids and gases are both considered to be fluids. If you don't believe me, look up the definition of "fluid" in a fluid mechanics textbook. --Mitchell Jones}*** I did some testing on > vacuum cleaners (used a commercial Sears wetvac model), and if I remember right > it only pulled about 5 inches of mercury when totally blocked. That would only > be about 1/6 of normal air pressure. I also blocked the flow on the pressure > side, and there is no doubt that the motor sped up compared to the non-blocked > condition. ***{As I said, the tendency of power consumption to track flow rate is well known, and works throughout the normal range of operation of most pumps, regardless of whether outlet or the inlet is blocked. The reason it works in a vacuum cleaner when the outlet is blocked is that the mass of the trapped air is small and air friction with the wall is small inside the housing. Once the trapped air mass is up to speed, very little power is needed to keep it spinning. Thus blocking the outlet in a vacuum cleaner is not going to produce dangerous overheating. However, to repeat: the potential for overheating exists in the outlet blocked condition, for some pumps, depending on the rpm of the impeller, the materials of which it is composed, and the specifics of the mechanical design. This potential does not exist in the blocked input condition. Thus there is, as I said, a significant distinction to be made between the two situations, and one should be aware of that distinction. Forewarned is forearmed. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > -> Bottom line: there is a significant difference in effect, depending on > -> whether you block the outflow or the inflow, where centrifugal pumps are > -> concerned. > > I don't believe you are correct on this. I have done the experiments about 10 > years ago and I don't recall seeing a difference. Unfortunately all I have at > my disposal at this time are upright vaccums so I am unable to run the tests > again. ***{You are missing my point, Marshall. I never said that the difference is significant in *all* pumps. Here, let me repeat what I said: "In addition, because the same air is being swung around in a circle over and over (with the outlet blocked, new air cannot be introduced) it rapidly heats up due to friction with the walls of the impeller housing, etc. This heating effect may damage some pumps, particularly those which are made of inexpensive materials such as plastic." Note that I said *some* pumps, not *all* pumps. What we are discussing here is a conceptual distinction that should be kept in mind because it is of *potential* significance. This means you should worry about it until you have specific evidence that it isn't going to jump up and bite you in a particular case. The reason you should worry about it is that the physical condition that results from blocking the output (i.e., reduced pressure in the impeller housing rather than increased pressure) is causally distinct from that which results from blocking the input. This leads to different effects and, under the right circumstances, those differences can be significant. In the case of the Magnum 350, my awareness of this distinction causes me to be reluctant to completely block the outlet. I do this not because I see bad consequences as a *certainty*, but because I see them as a *possibility*. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > -> Blocking the outflow increases the fluid pressure in the pump > -> housing, while blocking the inflow decreases it. > > True, but if the effect is that no work is being done on the fluid, all it is > doing is spinning around in a circle, then you end up with A*0 is still equal > to B*0, no matter what the values of A and B are. That is, the density of the > fluid is irrelevent. ***{To repeat: if you doubt that a spinning impeller blade can heat water, do an experiment with a household blender on the high setting. I think you will be surprised at the result. --Mitchell Jones}*** As I noted above however the viscosity of the fluid is > NOT irrelevent. > > -> The above remarks apply only to air pumps. For water pumps, the > -> considerations are similar, but not identical. If you block the outflow of > -> an open loop centrifugal water pump, the following effects are possible: > -> > -> (1) With a high impeller rpm, rapid heating of the water trapped in the > -> impeller housing is likely. If the mass of the trapped water in the > -> housing is small relative to the power consumption of the pump motor, it > -> may flash to steam, producing an explosion that destroys the impeller > -> housing. > > This would not be expected. For water to flash to steam requires the water to > be heated to well beyond the normal boiling point of water, then there be a > sudden release of pressure. The closest I see you could come would be for the > water on the high side of the pump to be at boiling temperature, then if you > stopped the pump, it would boil, raising the input side to near what the high > side was. Since the high side would only be a couple of psi, this "flash" > could only create a couple of psi on the low side, hardly enought to > consititute an expolsion. ***{To repeat: my Magnum 350 raised the temperature of 4 liters of water by 10 degrees C at a flow rate of 25 liters/min, when all I was doing was pumping the water in a circle. If even half of that heating effect had been due to the action of the impeller blades, it could have raised the temperature of the water in the impeller housing well above boiling. Of course, not knowing whether half of it *was* due to the impeller, I cannot say with certainty that this would have occurred. However, as already noted, I am willing to worry about a danger when it is a mere *possibility*. I do not require *certainty* before I take precautions. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > -> (2) If the pump is designed to pull in millions of air bubbles with the > -> water through the input tube, complete blockage of the outflow will > -> prevent this effect, increasing the mass being spun around in the impeller > -> housing and the load on the motor. > > Once again, mass is important as far as load on the motor only if it is being > pumped (that is if you have a flow). If it is just spinning around, you have > essentially 0 load either way. ***{Once again, to repeat: you are focused on the normative case, and I am focused on the causal relationships that can lead to the abnormal case. I do not claim that the physical distinction between blocking the input and blocking the output *normally* causes a significant difference in result, only that it *may* do so. If you owned a Magnum 350 pump, perhaps you would think nothing of blocking the output. Perhaps you would say: "The pump housing probably won't explode. If it does, I will chalk it up to experience and buy another pump." I, on the other hand, would say: "The pump housing probably won't explode, but I see no reason to take the chance, and so I am not going to block the outlet." Perhaps you would consider me to be overly cautious. I, on the other hand, might consider you to be reckless. There is nothing here to argue about, however, unless you are willing to go so far as to claim that the distinction I am making is not real--i.e., that I am wrong in thinking that a blocked outlet raises the pressure in the impeller housing and a blocked inlet reduces it. Do you, in fact, make such a claim? --Mitchell Jones}*** Now if the bubbles decrease viscosity, that is > another story. > > -> (4) With outflow blockage, various exotic "water hammer" type effects can > -> arise, in which resonant vibrational feedback from the blockage point can > -> destroy an impeller. These effects do not arise when the inflow is > -> blocked. > > This is certainly an effect with positive displacement pumps, but for a > centrifugal pump to exhibit such characteristics would imply an extremely poor > design. ***{Perhaps, but that does not obviate the usefulness of the distinction I am making. In fact, it illustrates its usefulness, since an engineer who is aware that he can get into trouble is less likely to do so than one who thinks such effects are impossible. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > -> Since these effects do not appear when the inflow to the pump is blocked, > -> there is, again, a difference between blocking the pump outlet and > -> blocking the inlet. Again, however, these effects appear only when > -> complete blockage, or almost complete blockage, is accomplished. Over the > -> normal operating range of a pump, power consumption is proportional to > -> flow rate, and it makes no discernable difference whether the inlet or the > -> outlet is blocked. To be safe, however, I would always install my flow > -> control valve on the inlet side, unless there were very strong reasons for > -> placing it on the outlet side, and I would avoid closed loop flow > -> configurations where conveniently possible. > > I would not do so. The reason is if you have dissolved gases in the fluid, > they may be pulled out and form small bubbles on the space between the throttle > and the pump. Then after the pump they will slowly redissolve, releasing heat. > If they were to redissolve after the input thermometer, the heat would show up > as an excess. This could complicate interpretation of the results, and leave > you open to arguemts that this effect is the source of any excess. ***{All you seem to be saying is that, in the specific case of the Power Gen demo, there were strong reasons for using a closed loop flow configuration. I am not sure whether those reasons were *strong enough* but, leaving that aside, I would note that you are implicitly conceding the point I have been trying to make. What you are saying here demonstrates that understanding the physical difference between blocked input and blocked output is important for a person who is designing or using pumps. That is the core of what I have been saying. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > Marshall > =========================================================== cudkeys: cuddy23 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 ------------------------------ processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Jan 24 04:37:03 EST 1996 ------------------------------