1996.01.24 / 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: 24 Jan 1996 05:37:59 GMT Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. Harry H Conover (conover@max.tiac.net) wrote: : John Logajan (jlogajan@skypoint.com) wrote: : : 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. : No, John. You might want to read up on it a bit more in the published : literature. The voltage offset in electrolysis has nothing whatever : to do with "a minimum voltage to conserve energy." You might benefit : by referencing a P-Chem text and learn a little more about what is known : (and has been known for over 100 years) about the electrolysis process. Heh heh, okay Harry, there is no minimum voltage needed by the conservation of energy laws. Yep. heh heh -- - 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: cuddy24 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.24 / Barry Merriman / Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol Originally-From: Barry Merriman Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol Date: 24 Jan 1996 22:49:43 GMT Organization: University of California, Los Angeles jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote: >Barry Merriman writes: > > "I think the major weakness is lack of independent replicability of a > single protocol, not an absence of isolated positive results by > credentialed scientists." > >That is incorrect. There is a protocol and it has been independently >replicated by a number of labs, notably SRI, IMRA Japan, IMRA Europe, Ed >Storms in his basement and Dennis Cravens in his garage, years ago. It was >best described in the paper "How to Produce the Pons-Fleischmann Effect" by >Edmund Storms. Here is the Abstract: I would like to get a copy of this paper, but as near as I can tell it never appeared anywhere in its entirity. Do you have handy either a reference or Storms mail/email address? > > "Conditions required for producing excess energy in PdD created in an > electrolytic cell are described and the reasons for their importance is > discussed. This difficult to accept effect can now be produced with a > high probability for success using the described procedures." > >The thing is, the described procedures are very, very >difficult. They require a great deal of skill, knowledge and practice. Well, that would be part of the problem I alluded to---if a protocol is extremely difficult, it does not provide an effective way to demonstrate the reality of the phenomena. Of course, maybe thats just the way the world is. But real/or not, such a situation does greatly impede acceptance and understanding, and certainly also creates the possibility that the complex proposal is itself some sort of recipe for producing artifiacts. (Aside: Bose corp, in their recent letter, claims to have spared no expense in their attempts to get the ``effect'', and indeed they got it, but it turned out to be recombination effects in their case. Yes, you can always just chalk it up to ``well, they didn;t do it right'', but its pretty sad if such a committed effort still cannot replicate the ``protocol''....at best suggests there are serious collaboration/information exchange problems in CF) Back to the point: there seems to be some contradiction here though: the storms protocol as you describe (thanks) does indeed sound formidable, and I could see how folks could screw it up. However, the CETI/Patterson/Cravens protocol is quite simple and robust in comparison (aside, perhaps, from the initial bead manufacturing step). Why? -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet) (NeXTMail OK) cudkeys: cuddy24 cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.24 / 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: 24 Jan 1996 04:12:18 GMT Organization: The Internet Access Company John Logajan (jlogajan@skypoint.com) wrote: : 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. No, John. You might want to read up on it a bit more in the published literature. The voltage offset in electrolysis has nothing whatever to do with "a minimum voltage to conserve energy." You might benefit by referencing a P-Chem text and learn a little more about what is known (and has been known for over 100 years) about the electrolysis process. For that matter, have *any* of the TB's here ever bothered to crack a textbook on Physical Chemistry and find out what *is* known about these processes? After all, it's only the mother science of electrochemistry and might just have some bearing on the subjects being so hotly debated! : So yeah, this has been discussed here before. I guess you missed it. I guess I didn't, since it hasn't. I've never even seen anyone here quote the essence of Faradays Law, or even the value 96,500 (which has some *small* relevence on the subjects being discussed), let alone electrolysis offset voltages. I've never even seen the term Coulomb appear here, without the use of which any discussion of electrolysis processes is more than a bit hollow and pretentious. Please realize that this is not trivia I'm bringing up, but fundamental or basic knowledge. Even the Ampere itself is defined and standardized by an electrochemical process -- just one small hint that such process have not only been studied and relatively well understood (except for voltage offset), but measured to the highest levels of precision and accuracy available to science for over a century. I find it peculiar that, in all this time, no one with real scientific crentials has observed an excess of energy. Stranger still is the contention that 'weekend experimenters' and students employing 'Radio Shack' quality instrumentation and crude, poorly constructed apparatus (with no underlying theoretical basis to guide them where and how to look) claim to have produced extraordinarily high levels of excess energy -- something a century of careful research by professional researchers has failed to even hint at. In my mind this, when coupled with the total lack of reproducible, verifiable positive results in support of recent years' wave of clamies, makes formulation of a credibility opinon about the reality of CF a 'no brainer.' However, continue to believe as you wish. Fantasy games can be fun, so long as no one gets hurt. Keep taking the patient's temperature and arguing over the proper method of measurement -- ignore the fact that the heart has ceased to beat, no brain waves are present and his body temperture has now reached ambient! Translation: CF is now 'dead meat,' the vultures have stopped circling, landed, and are now feasting on the putrid remains. Pathological science at it finest, to the very end! Harry C. cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.25 / G Reichlinger / Significance of Lithium in Electrolytes Originally-From: reichln@ltec.net (Gary Reichlinger) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Significance of Lithium in Electrolytes Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 04:56:52 GMT Organization: Navix: Lincoln Telecom Internet Services I was wondering if non-lithium containing electrolytes have shown the same results in cold fusion cells as those with lithium hydoxide, lithium sulfate, etc. It would be interesting to determine the participation of lithium in any chemical or nuclear reactions involved. cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenreichln cudfnGary cudlnReichlinger cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.22 / Paul Stowe / Re: Bose Corp.: No real excess heat in H2O or D2O cold fusion cells Originally-From: pstowe@ix.netcom.com(Paul Stowe) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Bose Corp.: No real excess heat in H2O or D2O cold fusion cells Date: 22 Jan 1996 15:12:08 GMT Organization: Netcom 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. Thanks, Paul Stowe Nullius in Verba cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenpstowe cudfnPaul cudlnStowe cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.23 / PES Inc / question about neutron detectors Originally-From: pesinc@pluto.njcc.com (PES Inc ) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: question about neutron detectors Date: 23 Jan 1996 17:30:49 GMT Organization: New Jersey Computer Connection, Lawrenceville, NJ Hello, does anyone know what is the best commercial neutron spectrometers, in terms of detection efficiency and energy resolution? is there any review paper? Please reply to zhou@het.brown.edu. Thank you. Junwei Zhou cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenpesinc cudfnPES cudlnInc cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.23 / PES Inc / question about neutron detectors Originally-From: pesinc@pluto.njcc.com (PES Inc ) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: question about neutron detectors Date: 23 Jan 1996 17:35:42 GMT Organization: New Jersey Computer Connection, Lawrenceville, NJ Hello, does anyone know what is the best commercial neutron spectrometers? in terms of detection efficiency and energy resolution. Is there any review paper? Please reply to zhou@het.brown.edu Thank you Junwei Zhou cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenpesinc cudfnPES cudlnInc cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.23 / Matthew Kennel / Re: Hints that the photon has a finite rest mass Originally-From: mbk@I_should_put_my_domain_in_etc_NNTP_INEWS_DOMAIN (Matthew B. Kennel) 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: 23 Jan 1996 22:02:03 GMT Organization: University of Tennessee, Knoxville Archimedes Plutonium (Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote: : 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. bottom line : exp(-U(configuration)/kT) is OK for negative T. cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.22 / mitchell swartz / Re: Bose Corp. finds NO excess heat in CF cells -- H2O and D2O tried Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy Subject: Re: Bose Corp. finds NO excess heat in CF cells -- H2O and D2O tried Subject: Re: Bose Corp. finds NO excess heat in CF cells -- H2O and D2O tried Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 16:16:24 GMT Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA In Message-ID: <4dsp88$29q@stratus.skypoint.net> Subject: Re: Bose Corp. finds NO excess heat in CF cells -- H2O and D2O tried John Logajan [jlogajan@skypoint.com] wrote in response to Steve Jones' spam: =jl It is simply not new news that open cell calorimetry is unreliable due to =jl these (now long known) faraday inefficiencies. Bose reconfirms this. =jl But it is still old news. =jl =jl Of course, Bose doesn't apply to closed cells (when Bose "closed" their =jl cells, they got null results -- confirming tha closed cells work as =jl expected.) - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 - John Logajan is correct. Such result or report is also not relevant when V*I is used as the input. Nor does it apply to open systems if the Faradaic efficiency is utilized in combination with the thermoneutral potential, as the authors suggest researchers do. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.24 / James Stolin / Re: a low temperature? Originally-From: FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: a low temperature? Date: 24 Jan 1996 04:31:34 GMT Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY mbk@I_should_put_my_domain_in_etc_NNTP_INEWS_DOMAIN (Matthew B. Kennel) wrote: >If they could make it hotter they would. > >Higher temperatures mean higher losses, of course. > >But if you actually got a temperature of 3.5 MeV you'd have a hydrogen bomb, >not a power plant, supposing each nucleus were to have a 50-50 shot at fusion >for each collision. > >OK it would be a bad H-bomb as you'd vaporize your confinement apparatus >before you could fuse the whole fuel mass. Still, you'd have a doozy of >an OSHA report to write. Matt, Are you sure about having to write an OSHA report? You'd have the OSHA guys going nuts trying to find someone to fine mega$ while ignoring the human shaped shadow etched into a concrete wall! - Jim Stolin - Illinois Computer Service - jbstolin@prodigy.com http://pages.prodigy.com/jbstolin cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.24 / Scott Mueller / Re: Goodby All Originally-From: scott@zorch.sf-bay.org (Scott Hazen Mueller) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Goodby All Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 16:09:05 GMT Organization: At Home; Salida, CA >Goodby Tom. Farewall, and thanks for the picture. >We'll add your name to those who have come and gone from >alt.cold-fusion ... sci.physics.fusion. For the group's amusement, zorch's alt.fusion #1 is attached. Looks like some things never change. -- Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests. |Path: zorch!vsi1!ames!ucsd!rutgers!att!shuxd!attdso!tim |From: tim@attdso.att.com (Tim J Ihde) |Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.research,alt.fusion |Subject: Re: Noise please stop or use follow ups was Re: Room Temperature fusion |Summary: alt.fusion is there for now, let's use it |Keywords: fusion, confusion |Message-ID: <1584@attdso.att.com> |Date: 1 Apr 89 17:23:00 GMT |References: <3001@eos.UUCP> |Sender: news@attdso.att.com |Reply-To: tim@attdso.att.com (Tim J Ihde) |Followup-To: alt.fusion |Organization: AT&T DSO-HQ, Morristown, NJ |Lines: 23 |Xref: zorch alt.fusion:1 | |In article <3001@eos.UUCP> eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) writes: |>This started as a discussion on room temp fusion (I'm reading in |>sci.research). It has digressed into knit picking about non-fusion |>energy output. No wonder why REAL physicists don't have the time to |>read news. | |>Perhaps we need talk.energy (and talk.mass 8)? This certainly |>isn't science anymore. | |Alt.fusion has now been created; I suggest that this is the place for |most of the unsubstantiated statements, comments, and speculations. New |newsbreaks to misc.headlines, and FACTS in sci.physics. That should cut |the volume down in the sci groups to next to nothing . . . | |Further discussion on THIS topic is directed to alt.fusion. | | tim | |-- |Tim J Ihde INTERNET: tim@attdso.att.com |(201) 898-6687 UUCP: att!attdso!tim |"Blimey - this redistribution of wealth is more complicated than I'd thought!" | - Dennis Moore and various Presidents cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.24 / Barry Merriman / Re: Bose Corp.: No real excess heat in H2O or D2O cold fusion cells Originally-From: Barry Merriman Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Bose Corp.: No real excess heat in H2O or D2O cold fusion cells Date: 24 Jan 1996 09:41:28 GMT Organization: University of California, Los Angeles conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) wrote: >I find it peculiar that, in all this time, no one with real scientific >crentials has observed an excess of energy. Well, that would be an overstatement. Certainly Pons & Fleischman have real scientific credentials, claim to have observed excess energy, and (addressing your other concern) are in fact academic experts in electrochemistry. And there are certainly also a handful of other ``real'' scientists that have seen positive effects. I think the major weakness is lack of independant replicability of a single protocol, not an absence of isolated positive results by credentialed scientists. -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet) (NeXTMail OK) cudkeys: cuddy24 cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.24 / Anthony Potts / Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, Dr. Hill is the wiser, Dr. White washes Originally-From: Anthony Potts 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: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 12:16:48 GMT Organization: CERN European Lab for Particle Physics On Sat, 20 Jan 1996, Coulston wrote: > 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? > > In his assuming that the only possible mathematically consistent space was a flat one. Anthony Potts cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenpotts cudfnAnthony cudlnPotts cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.24 / jedrothwell@de / Responses to T. Craven, M. Jones Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Responses to T. Craven, M. Jones Date: Wed, 24 Jan 96 13:45:47 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Well, I got back from the symposium up at MIT and I see there is more blather in this forum than usual. I cannot wade through all this material, but I noticed a few serious questions mixed in with the blarney which I shall address briefly. If there were any other serious questions addressed to me during my absence, the authors should kindly e-mail them to me directly. Before tackling the serious stuff, I am pleased to note that my prediction was correct. Steve Jones has gone back to banging the recombination drum. Sooner than I thought he would! Don't Worry Folks: he is not serious. He is a professor of physics at an accredited university so he *does* know that recombination cannot create more energy out than the total I*V input, and he knows that recombination is not a factor with a closed cell. He is just kidding. To be precise, he is just trolling for suckers. He is just trying to sell you a bill of goods and a gallon of snake oil. That was hilarious the first 200 times Jones did it, but it is getting boring so I think he should look for a new red herring. As I said in my review of the Hoffman book, Steve Jones and his friends "want to drown out reasoned scientific debate with chaotic nonsense and mind-boggling mistakes. They want to lower the standards of science so that instead of looking at carefully derived data, superb calorimetry, and meticulously worked out theories, we go chasing off after used moderator water and other phantasmagoria." Okay, this next item looks legit. Ted Craven writes: "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." Well, not too necessary. The control added such a small amount that it hardly raised the temperature, but I figured it would be better to leave it off. However, do not forget that we can also measure inlet temperature in the reservoir. The water goes from the reservoir to the cell inlet, cooling down a little along the way (1.1 to 1.4 deg C). I confirmed the thermocouple reading in the reservoir with my thermistors and thermometer. "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." I did describe it! Several times. When we took 250 ml samples to measure the flow, I stirred them up and put the thermistors and thermometer into the graduated cylinder. They came out very close to the outlet thermocouple reading. To measure the reservoir temperature I just opened the top and plunked the thermistor probe in. To measure the inlet, I took a 250 ml sample from the control side, as noted above. "Did he independently verify the temperatures every time he measured the power?" Yup. Every time. "Or did he only verify the temperatures a few times and thereafter assume agreement?" Nope. I take nothing for granted. "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." That's not too likely in my opinion. The cell design prevents it. The filters and in-line mixers would not allow it. Anyway, it is a moot point because I confirmed the temperature in a cup of water on the other side of the room. I did not depend on the thermocouples being right, I checked them. "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." That's a stupid comment from Zoltan. There is nothing "funny" about it. As I noted in my report, that is an Omega Model HH22 Microprocessor Thermometer. You can tell by looking at the photograph how it works. Note the button on the top left: "T1 T2 T1-T2" and the one in the middle: "SENSOR SELECT." You tell the gadget to display the temperature for thermocouple #1, thermocouple #2, or #1 minus #2. You can have it cycle through every few seconds, or you can SELECT and hold it in one mode. The LCD symbols on the left (those itty-bitty boxes) tells you which mode you are looking at. It is real simple. If Zoltan did not understand how it works, why didn't he ask? Heck I would have explained the whole thing, including that funny' button with: "(little circle) F / (little circle) C" on it. That switches between Fahrenheit and Christmas Melody Mode. You tell the gadget to play Jingle Bells. You can even play it like a piano: that's what the "REC" (RECORD) button is for. "and Zoltan also says: > My general impression of the experimental setup was poor. The circulating liquid had large bubbles of gas in it, about two-three inch long sections of the half inch diameter transparent tubing. . . ." Yup. And if he had stuck around for an hour he would have seen how they got rid of those bubbles. "What was this scanning mode again?" . . . as described above. "Why were they using it?" Why not? And if Zoltan didn't like it, why didn't he ask someone if it was okay to change modes? Just press the button. What is the big deal? "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?" Nope, not possible. Before speculating about stuff like this I suggest you read the manual for the Omega gadget, or look at a photo. I should think it would be self explanatory. But then, Zoltan looked straight at it, saw the little boxes on the side of the LCD changing from "T1" to "T2" to "T1-T2" and he couldn't figure it out, so maybe it was not so self explanatory. "And why was there any temperature difference at all if the cells were turned off?" If it was off there was no temperature difference. "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 Nope. Reservoir -> pump -> throttle valves -> cells -> radiator -> reservoir. The inlet temperature for both was dead on, according to the two Omega HH22 units, and very close to the reservoir temperature. For additional info see the nice schematic that Akira Kawasaki drew up. We will have to publish that in Infinite Energy. ------------------------------------------ Regarding the ongoing experiments of Mitchell Jones, as I said before he is not getting the same results as Cravens because he is using different materials in a different configuration with a different flow rate and no effective cooling. He did one previous null experiment with a 12 liter per minute flow that pointed to the solution. If he would take the time to try a 1 liter per minute flow, with the flow impeded on the outlet side, he will be much closer to replicating Cravens and I am sure he will see no significant heating of the reservoir. That will prove once and for all that Cravens was right. I sent Mitchell a note about this last week and again on Monday, but he has not had a chance to respond. Here is part of my Monday note: Let me repeat, I suggest you try to replicate the configuration, materials and performance parameters used by Cravens more closely than you have up until now. Many of the details of your experiment are unclear to me, particularly the calibrations and the coupling between the fan and the cooling coils, but I feel that you are doing a very different kind of experiment, which has little bearing on Cravens' calorimetry. This was brought home to me twice at MIT. During my presentation I discussed the problem you raised. One person commented that a chimney structure has a unique and powerful effect. It will direct far more air to the hoses on all sides. With a powerful fan in open air directed at the coils, most of the air is wasted. When the air is channeled through a chimney with holes in the bottom, almost all of the air comes in contact with the tubes, and all tube surfaces are cooled. Even though the fan power may be one-tenth as much, the overall efficiency might be much higher than an open cooling arrangement. Another person asked, "What kind of tube is Cravens using, Tygon?" I said yes and he nodded and said "that's a good choice. It has good thermal conductivity." For all I know, 2.5 meters of Tygon might work as well as 4 or 5 meters of other tubes. Dennis does not pick materials at random. I strongly suggest you begin with some elementary calibrations, particularly the null calibration I listed earlier: Throttle pump on output to ~1 liter per minute with ~4 meter loop with no heater. I suggest you throttle the pump on the output side. It is essential that you *replicate the configuration used by Cravens* rather than some variant of it. As I said before, if this test destroys the pump as you fear it might, I will reimburse you. If you do not see any significant temperature rise in the reservoir, that proves there was excess heat during Power-Gen. The only questions remaining would be how much heat, and why there is an apparent discrepancy between the flow measurements and the performance of the reservoir as a static calorimeter. That test would settle the matter. I hope he gets around to doing it soon. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.24 / Gregg Economou / Re: Why has Jupiter Retained it heat Originally-From: geest3+@pitt.edu (Gregg E Economou) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Why has Jupiter Retained it heat Date: 24 Jan 1996 21:18:47 GMT Organization: University of Pittsburgh In article <4dk02r$3g9@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au>, >>OK, dumb question, but why is the core of Jupiter still so hot. I can >>understand that as the planet was formed, the pressure increased causing >>the temperature to rise. But, since there is not nuclear fusion at the >>core, why has the heat not radiated away it the billions of years since it >>was formed? This is not a trick question, but one of curiosity. Thanks. > >Presumably the same reason the earth is still so hot internally: fission of naturally >occuring radioactive elements. > oh god... Think of the fact that the earth has 20 miles of ROCK and another 1000 miles of AIR between itself and the cold, and that this exceptional insulation has managed ot keep the heat in??? Jupiter's diameter is far greater than that of Earth. IT is only logical to conclude that there is some degree of insulative ability in its thousands of miles of liquid surface.. Also as space is a vacuum, the space around the planets itself is an excellent insulation. Heat can only escape via radiation, which is not generated in any large way. Common sense: Man's greatest tool, but often lost in the face of science -Lord Isildur cudkeys: cuddy24 cudfnGregg cudlnEconomou cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.24 / Arnie Frisch / Re: Magnum 350 Run Originally-From: arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run Date: 24 Jan 1996 16:17:04 GMT Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. In article <4dpv5s$d8m@stratus.skypoint.net> jlogajan@skypoint.com writes: >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, ... .. >: 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. .... .. .. >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. If you make the walls very thin, then their thermal resistance will fall. In the limit, there will be no temperature gradient across the wall, while a thick walled tube will maintain a temperature gradient. There is no contradiction. Arnold Frisch Tektronix Laboratories ------------------------------------------------------- Any ideas or opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the ideas or opinions of my employer. ------------------------------------------------------- cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Jan 25 04:37:06 EST 1996 ------------------------------