1996.02.07 / Alan M /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" <alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 17:35:05 +0000
Organization: The Levitating Pig

In article <ant071407c72KksR@circlesw.demon.co.uk>, John Skingley
<john@circlesw.demon.co.uk> writes
>Homeopathy is accepted and practiced by millions of people world wide,
>and practiced by many doctors along side their more conventional medicine.
>Are they ALL deluded crackpots?

So are Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Taoism and
atheism; and all are more-or-less mutually exclusive. So no matter what
way you cut it, there are millions of deluded folks out there.

Now none of these things has any discernable contact with science, and
neither does homeopathy - like the others, it is a belief system.

If you want to argue for CF as a religious cult, I wouldn't argue
against that. It attracts zealots in the same way anyway. Just don't
delude yourself into thinking that it might be science.
-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenalan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.08 / Horace Heffner /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 00:36:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mitchell,

You may want to try 200 watts to see how it matches the Anaheim results.
James Patterson was interviewed this morning on Good Morning America in
front of a cell about the dimensions of the Anaheim cell. He said it was 1
watt in and 200 watts heat out.

There may be a follow-up today, Tuesday Feb 7, on ABC Evening News, and
definitely on Nightline.


Regards,                          <hheffner@matsu.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820


cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.07 / John Logajan /  ABC-TV reports on CETI
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ABC-TV reports on CETI
Date: 7 Feb 1996 15:22:17 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

The ABC-TV program "Good Morning America" had a report today (Feb 7, '96)
on the CETI device.  Science Editor Michael Guillem PhD reported that
the UofIll, UofMissouri, and Motorola have independently duplicated
CETI's anomalous heat results.  They had short clips of interviews with
George Miley of UofILL and Quinton Bowles of UofMissouri.  They also had
clips of interviews with CETI people (Patterson and Reding.)

Guillem also said that the evening ABC-TV program "Nightline" will have
additional info on the CETI device.  I know usenet is too slow to get
this info to many of you in time, but it is the best I could do. :-)

--
 - 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:
cuddy7 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.07 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Abduction Fusion Story
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Abduction Fusion Story
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 17:09:42 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

I think the odds of 60 Minutes doing a special on the government coverup 
of UFO phenomena just went up.  It's a race between that and the 
Patterson Cell story.
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
                 Change the tools and you change the rules.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.08 / Karim Alim /  Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
     
Originally-From: kalim@us.net (Karim Alim)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 1996 03:24:04 GMT
Organization: InternetMCI

bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan) wrote:

>Too bad ABC, George Miley, Quinton Bowles, and Motorola don't read s.p.f. They 
>could have saved themselves a great deal of unnecessary professional 
>embarrassment.

So what does this mean, the engineers at Motorola don't know how to
use a fucking voltmeter?  Wait, let me guess, YOU built your own
Patterson Power Cell and can't get it to boil your cup-a-soup,
therefore...
-k.

cudkeys:
cuddy08 cudenkalim cudfnKarim cudlnAlim cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.07 /  okazakia@cc5.c /  RE: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
     
Originally-From: okazakia@cc5.crl.aecl.ca
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 18:46:16 GMT
Organization: AECL Research

23811
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenokazakia cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.08 / J BENINCASA /  fascinating  future study
     
Originally-From: KROENIG@msn.com (JOSEPH BENINCASA)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: fascinating  future study
Date: 8 Feb 96 00:27:35 -0800
Organization: The Microsoft Network (msn.com)

When the history of 'cold fusion' is finally written, the archives of 
sci.physics.fusion should be a goldmine for some ambitious 
psychologist, and a must-read for anyone wishing to evaluate expert 
opinion.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenKROENIG cudfnJOSEPH cudlnBENINCASA cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.07 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 96 23:05:54 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

In article <3118D5A1.388C@ix.netcom.com>,
   Carlton Haynie <ccHaynie@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
->Hello All!
->
->I just watched Good Morning America's report on CETI's Patterson Power Cell. 
->The science investigator for ABC referenced Dr. George Miley at the 
->University of Illinois, Dr. Quinton Bowles at the University of Missouri and 
->Motorola by saying they've built and tested several of these devices, have 
->all indepently verified the results and can't find anything wrong with CETI's 
->claims of excess energy. He went on to say that the devices are extremely 
->robust and that the investigators have a "hard time making them not work".
->
->In addition to the reported gains in energy, the clip also showed a power 
->cell in Mr. Patterson's lab. One watt of power was going into the cell and 
->Mr. Patterson claimed that 200 watts were coming out. The reporter touched 
->the cell and said that it felt hot. 
->
->ABC commented that they will continue to follow this story for the next 
->several months and that the device will be covered on Nightline, tonight (Feb 
->7, 1996).
->
->Craig Haynie
->ccHaynie@ix.netcom.com


Too bad ABC, George Miley, Quinton Bowles, and Motorola don't read s.p.f. They 
could have saved themselves a great deal of unnecessary professional 
embarrassment.

cudkeys:
cuddy07 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.08 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: The Amazing Jed seeks the truth. NOT
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Amazing Jed seeks the truth. NOT
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 96 05:01:59 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

In article <USE2PCB654512146@brbbs.brbbs.com>,
   mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) wrote:
->bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan) writes:
-> 
->-> Using the words Jed and honesty in the same sentence is an oxymoron.
-> 
->Ahh, a self-referencing sentence that is true if it is false, and false if it
->is true.  I love the English language. :)
-> 
->Marshall
-> 

Self-referencing, true, but you have the logical relations reversed. It's a 
simple tautology.

If [(Jed and honesty) == oxymoron] is true then the statement as a whole is 
true.

If [(Jed and honesty) == oxymoron] is false then the statement as a whole is 
false.

Given the known state of the universe, the statement as a whole is true.
cudkeys:
cuddy08 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.08 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 96 05:17:04 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

In article <4fbfsd$anv@news.internetmci.com>, kalim@us.net (Karim Alim) wrote:
->bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan) wrote:
->
->>Too bad ABC, George Miley, Quinton Bowles, and Motorola don't read s.p.f. 
They 
->>could have saved themselves a great deal of unnecessary professional 
->>embarrassment.
->
->So what does this mean, the engineers at Motorola don't know how to
->use a fucking voltmeter?  Wait, let me guess, YOU built your own
->Patterson Power Cell and can't get it to boil your cup-a-soup,
->therefore...
->-k.
->

I guess you've missed the recent discussions. The problem is that the ENECO/CETI 
cell can't boil a cup of soup, therefore . . .

You don't need a voltmeter: No blisters, no boiling means no 1,344 Watts -- no 
kidding. 
cudkeys:
cuddy08 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.07 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: No Griggs results from NASA
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No Griggs results from NASA
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 96 22:17:55 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Larry Wharton <Wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov> writes:
 
>I talked to Jim Griggs about his NASA collaboration and found his 
>refusal to give out any details quite understandable.  NASA is testing 
>his pump as a device to convert cyrogenic fluids into gas.  They are not 
>investigating any o-u claims.  They just want to convert liquids into 
 
Griggs and NASA are both being a little disengenuous about this. I have
seen the contract. He showed it to the audience during the MIT symposium.
It definitely does include a study of the energy balance, which will be
performed soon. Neither party wants to talk about it because excess energy
is so controversial.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.07 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 96 22:20:45 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Bob Sullivan <bsulliva@sky.net> writes:
 
>Too bad ABC, George Miley, Quinton Bowles, and Motorola don't read s.p.f. They 
>could have saved themselves a great deal of unnecessary professional 
>embarrassment.
 
Are you seriously suggesting that you know more about calorimetry than
Miley, Bowles and Motorola? Or is that supposed to be a joke? If that
is your idea of humor you are suffering from terminal weirdness.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.06 / J Youles /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: J B Youles <john.youles@dial.pipex.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: 6 Feb 1996 21:11:15 GMT
Organization: Chaotic

John Skingley <john@circlesw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>You put it so much better than I could!  Thanks for your support Jed.
>Perhaps we should all wear the tag 'crackpot' with pride!


On British TV a few years ago, a well-known doctor (Jonathan Miller) said 
that he could not believe in homeopathy because to do so would need a 
complete revision in the understanding of the laws of science.

But there was much evidence as to the effectiveness of homeopathy, 
nevertheless; presumably he would have not been skeptical had it fitted 
in with his prejudices.

-- 
John Youles 
 -----------------------------------------------------------
"If the weather we are having is a result of the greenhouse
 effect, then someone must have taken out all the glass."
 -----------------------------------------------------------


cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenyoules cudfnJ cudlnYoules cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.07 / Akira Kawasaki /  Patterson Cell and excess energy on ABC's Good Morning America program
     
Originally-From: aki@ix.netcom.com(Akira Kawasaki )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Patterson Cell and excess energy on ABC's Good Morning America program
Date: 7 Feb 1996 17:03:01 GMT
Organization: Netcom

Today is February 7th, 1996 Wednesday,

This morning in the 8:17 to 8:22 segment of ABC's Good Morning
America's two hour program, Dr. James Patterson was interviewed as the
inventor of his beads that CETI has been showing as producing excess
heat.

The segment was produced by Michael Guillan, Phd. Science Editor of
ABC. It includes short statement clips by James Reding, pres. of CETI,
Prof. George MIley of University of Illinois, and Prof. Quinton Bowles
of University of Missouri.

The segment then goes to interview Patterson, a millionaire inventor of
the basic plastic beads while at Dow Chemical, since retired. Patterson
develops the palladium coated beads which in his electrolysis cell
devlops excess heat which has been duplicated in university studies.

The question whether his beads, cell, and the whole process has any
relationship to the Pons & Fleischmann discovery  or cold fusion has
been fudged around to a "wait and see for futher developments" answer.
Also the difference of the multicoated beads versus P&F's Pd chips in
electrolysis and the use of light water versus heavy water was pointed
out as making it different. 

The Science Editor plans on doing a follow-up coverage after a few
months. Clearly, he does not want to go all out and be excited because
of 1989 but the segment content was neutral to positive.

There will be additional coverage of the Patterson cell on Nightline
tonight. Cover it if you can.

-AK-




Dr. Patterson was heard to claim excess heat output of a thousand times
the Michael Guillan Phd., Science editor
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenaki cudfnAkira cudlnKawasaki cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.07 / John Vogel /  Re: Cold Fusion: Wall Street Journal Article Reprinted
     
Originally-From: jvogel@crl.com (John M. Vogel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion: Wall Street Journal Article Reprinted
Date: 7 Feb 1996 21:44:17 -0800
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access	(415) 705-6060  [Login: guest]

Bradley K. Sherman (bks@netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <310DCED9.7DBD@ix.netcom.com>,
: Craig Haynie  <ccHaynie@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: >Here is the Wall Street Journal Article Reprinted:
: ...
: >scientist Howard K. Birnbaum, who saw the cell demonstrated
: >last October. "I didn't buy it then, and I don't buy it
: >now." Dr. Birnbaum, director of the Materials Research
: >Laboratory at the University of Illinois's Urbana campus,
: ...

: i.e. from the same campus as Miley (unmentioned in the report).
: Miley and his students don't seem very enthusiastic about the
: prospects of this line of inquiry.  It was totally unmentioned
: on their homepages last time I checked:
:     http://ne43.ne.uiuc.edu/fsl/p-menu.html

I believe that Nightline's report mentioned Dr. Miley as being 
enthusiastic about the device (I can't be sure of this; I'm a 
nonphysicist and never heard of Miley or Patterson until tonight's 
mention and was just checking the newsgroups to see if I could find out 
anymore about this device).

John
jvogel@crl.com

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjvogel cudfnJohn cudlnVogel cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.08 /  AndersonBD /  Re: Cold Fusion on ABC
     
Originally-From: andersonbd@aol.com (AndersonBD)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion on ABC
Date: 8 Feb 1996 05:17:53 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I assume that you verified that the voltmeters and ammeters used to
measure the power input were not rigged.  After all, if you were simply an
observer and were not part of the setup, how can you be sure of the
experiment's validity?  And for that matter, how long could that level of
power output be maintained?  Nitroglycerine generates quite a bit of
energy for a brief period of time...don't get me wrong though, I do want
to believe that this works.  But for all that you know, a CO2 laser
emitting nonvisible radiation could have been heating the solution!

                                     - Brad Anderson
                                       AndersonBD@aol.com
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenandersonbd cudlnAndersonBD cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.07 / John Skingley /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: John Skingley <john@circlesw.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 1996 14:04:07 +0000 (GMT)

In article <4f8g5j$7kg@soap.news.pipex.net>, J B Youles
<mailto:john.youles@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> 
> John Skingley <john@circlesw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >You put it so much better than I could!  Thanks for your support Jed.
> >Perhaps we should all wear the tag 'crackpot' with pride!
> 
> On British TV a few years ago, a well-known doctor (Jonathan Miller) said 
> that he could not believe in homeopathy because to do so would need a 
> complete revision in the understanding of the laws of science.
> 
> But there was much evidence as to the effectiveness of homeopathy, 
> nevertheless; presumably he would have not been skeptical had it fitted 
> in with his prejudices.
> 
> -- 
> John Youles 

I'm not sure what point you are making. If it is that we have a few 
crackpots in the UK, then I would agree. I havn't said otherwise.

Homeopathy IS now widly accepted, and by a lot of doctors. The fact that
the British Medical Association has not officially accepted it is just
another example of how new things, especially ones that are 'un-explainable'
take a long time to be accepted by those who have a vested interest in
the status quo.

 -------------------------
Regards,  John.
P.O. Box 36, BODMIN, PL30 4YY, U.K. Tel/Fax: +44 1208 850790

cudkeys:
cuddy07 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnSkingley cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.07 / John Skingley /  Re: Reconciling Magnum and PowerGen data
     
Originally-From: John Skingley <john@circlesw.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reconciling Magnum and PowerGen data
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 1996 14:23:42 +0000 (GMT)

In article <horst_bob-060296203654@horst_bob.mis.tandem.com>, Robert Horst
<mailto:horst_bob@tandem.com> wrote:
> 
> In article <4f5rjb$6hb@tekadm1.cse.tek.com>, arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie
> Frisch) wrote:
> 
> (concerning alternate explanations for the CETI results)
> > 
> > I have three possible explanations that are much simpler and more likel=
y.
> > 
> > =091.  Fraud.
> > =092.  Incompetence.
> > =093.  Gullible observers.
> > 
> Arnold Frisch has just accused some fine scientists of fraud in a public
> Internet newsgroup where thousands of people may read it.  This is a very
> serious charge and should have correspondingly serious proof.  What is yo=
ur
> proof?  I have seen nothing to give even the slightest hint of fraud.
> 
[snip] 
> -- Bob Horst  

That's an interesting point. Libel is saying things in public which may dam=
age
a persons reputation. This news group is a public place. I wonder when the
first Libel case will be brought as a result of a news group posting.

Watch this space!

 --------------------------
Regards,  John.
P.O. Box 36, BODMIN, PL30 4YY, U.K. Tel/Fax: +44 1208 850790

cudkeys:
cuddy07 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnSkingley cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.07 /  lforbes /  Re: The Amazing Jed seeks the truth. NOT
     
Originally-From: lforbes@nucleus.com (lforbes)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Amazing Jed seeks the truth. NOT
Date: 7 Feb 1996 18:56:08 GMT
Organization: Nucleus Inc [Calgary, AB, Canada]

Richard Schultz (schultr@ashur.cc.biu.ac.il) wrote:

..............

: "P&F are getting so much heat that you hardly need any calorimetry at all."
:                --Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 19 Jul 1992
: "The palladium based systems are a useless dead end. Who cares about them?"
:                --Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 10 Dec 1992


**Excellent**  How about more famous quotations from Chairman Jed?

Regards,
Laurie Forbes      More light - less excess heat

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenlforbes cudlnlforbes cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.08 /  AndersonBD /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: andersonbd@aol.com (AndersonBD)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: 8 Feb 1996 05:36:28 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

The thing about your hydrogen/oxygen electrochemical dismissal of the
"Patterson power cell" phenomenon is that this cannot POSSIBLY be the
explanation, given accurate power measurement equipment.  The fact is,
whatever energy you ADD to the cell to LIBERATE oxygen and hydrogen, you
cannot POSSIBLY gain more energy when chemically burning that same
hydrogen and oxygen back into water.  Assuming that the "law" of energy
conservation is valid.    My own theory, assuming that the damn cell
actually works, is that maybe these palladium/nickel beads which are the
basis of the Patterson cell can CATALYZE helium from the small amount of
heavy hydrogen present in all water.  After all, platinum is a great
catalyst for air pollutants, and palladium is in the same family. 
However, I doubt that my conclusions are correct.
                                            - Brad Anderson
                                               AndersonBD@aol.com
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenandersonbd cudlnAndersonBD cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.07 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 1996 22:40:34 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <4f7gp3$d7c@nuntius.u-net.net>, David Gaskill
<david@cgaski.u-net.com> wrote:

>  
>  
> > > I admire your tenacity  and look forward to reading  the results with   
> > > lithium sulphate. Maybe you would agree that if this causes the
necessary   
> > > dramatic modification of the thermal conductivity of the Tygon it would   
> > > be nearly as difficult  to explain as CF itself.  
> >    
> > ***{Perhaps not. As I noted in another post, in my runs with distilled  
> > water and tap water, a population of millions of tiny bubbles can be seen  
> > to build up on the inner walls of the plastic tubing as the run  
> > progresses. These bubbles are not much bigger than salt grains, and they  
> > clearly have an insulating effect on the inside of the tubing--which  
> > means: they reduce its thermal conductivity. I haven't yet investigated  
> > the solubility of Li2SO4 in distilled water, but it is possible that
a  one  
> > molar solution of the stuff would markedly reduce the solubility of
air  in  
> > the water. If so, then the amount of air forced out of the solution as the  
> > temperature rises would also be reduced, perhaps drastically, and the  
> > impairment of the thermal conductivity of the tubing by the bubbles would  
> > be less. This effect has the potential to explain the Power Gen results. I  
> > will not know whether it does, of course, until I test it. --Mitchell  
> > Jones}*** 
>  
> While I am aware that dissolving many salts  in concentrations of about 1   
> molar does not significantly reduce the solubility of oxygen or nitrogen in   
> the resulting solution it is of course possible that lithiumium sulphate   
> does have this property. It would however seem to be very serendipitous if   
> the same salt that mediates the energy production process also reduces the   
> solubility of gasses.   
>   
> I am sure however that in these circumstances an ounce of experiment is   
> worth a ton of theory and I am very pleased that you are undertaking the   
> necessary work and very much look forward to reading your further results.  
>  
> > Testing the Power  
> > Gen claims is not, by any means, as simple as it appears from an  
> > outsider's perspective. Jed has repeatedly claimed that CF results can  
> > only be achieved by persons "skilled in the art," and as I have worked  
> > with this equipment, I have come to appreciate in a very direct and  
> > personal way exactly what that means. Every time I decide I have laid this  
> > issue to rest, other possibilities arise, and they frequently are far more  
> > plausible than those I thought of in my initial state of ignorance. 
>  
> If, as is appearing increasingly likely, you are unable to replicate the   
> apparent power dissipation capability of the CETI demonstration after all   
> possibilities have been explored, it seems to me that we are left with two   
> possibilities.   
>   
> (1) The CETI cell causes a transitory modification of the specific heat of   
> water.

***{Probability: zero. --MJ}***
   
>   
> (2) Things were not as they appeared to be at the demonstration.

***{By this, I assume that you refer to your earlier "magic tricks"
allusion. What I have learned from my various runs, however, is that the
physics is complicated when using this type of equipment. Result: we may
not *need* theories of fraud or incompetence to explain my failure to get
the reported results. Simple mistakes by well intentioned people may turn
out to be perfectly satisfactory. Which people? Well, my failure to get
the reported heat dissipation could be due to errors that I have made, or
to measuring errors made by Jed, or to the limitations of the Power Gen
demo setup. For example, my tests with the Magnum pump suggest that its
flow rate is highly responsive to changes in backpressure. This suggests
that, when Jed opened the valve downstream from the experimental cell to
divert water into a cup (in order to measure the flow rate), the
backpressure may have dropped, causing the flow rate to increase. Result:
using an overly high flow rate, he may calculated more heat output that
was actually the case. (If this is what happened, it is not really Jed's
fault: the placement of the valves was not under his control.) On the
other hand, maybe it will turn out that the bubble accumulation in my
tubing is the explanation for my low heat dissipation; or maybe the
lithium sulphate really does modify the conductivity of the Tygon. The
point is that we need to take it easy here. Cravens, Patterson, et. al,
may be men of genius and benefactors of mankind. Let's not label them as
frauds or incompetents until more mundane possibilities have been
thoroughly discounted. --Mitchell Jones}***
    
>   
> There does seem to be circumstancial  evidence supporting the latter   
> conclusion. For example:   
>   
> (1) There is no peer reviewed publication of verification of the CETI   
> claims by a reputable body.

***{Peer review, all too often, is a disguised form of censorship. Be
thankful that innovators still have ways to get around it. --Mitchell
Jones}***
   
>   
> (2) The only published work by a properly funded and reputable organisation   
> which attempted to replicate the results was entirely negative.

***{I am not sure what you mean by "properly funded and reputable," but
all too often such words are used to describe mainstream,
establishmentarian groups which are obsessed with fitting in. If so, then
I can only note that such groups will be the very last to pronounce
favorably on this technology, even if it is sound. As I have already
noted, the physics is very complicated--much more complicated than is
apparent to those who are looking at this from an outsider's perspective.
This complexity allows ample opportunity for biased individuals to reject
the technology. I, for example, could have brushed my hands together,
declared the Power Gen demo to be a fraud, and moved on long ago, if I had
been so inclined. Instead, I choose to be more thorough. If there is an
explanation short of fraud, I will find it. And if I decide that fraud is
the most likely explanation, it will not be because I wanted to reach that
conclusion, or because I reached it in haste. --Mitchell Jones}***
     
>   
> (3) Public demonstrations, using "Heath Robinson" apparatus and claims that   
> these demonstrations constituted a "smoke screen".   
>   
> (4) Your work so far.
>   
>  
> David

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy07 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.07 / Jim Carr /  Patterson cell on ABC's Nightline
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Patterson cell on ABC's Nightline
Date: 7 Feb 1996 09:28:26 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

There was a story about the Patterson Cell and CETI on ABC's "Good 
Morning America" program in the 8:15 (EST) slot.  A pretty balanced 
and factual report by Michael Guillen (sp?), ABC's science reporter. 

Of particular interest to all of you, they stated that tonight's 
(Wednesday) "Nightline" will be devoted to the subject.  (Provided 
it does not get pre-empted by some breaking story, of course.) 

They showed a fair bit of an interview with Patterson and video clips 
of Miley and the guy doing tests at Missouri.  The reports main 
emphasis was to draw some distinctions between the Patterson cell and 
'cold fusion' -- mainly that it does not use heavy water, that it is 
runs reproducibly so others can do experiments with it, and that those 
tests show no radioactivity.  They talk about a factor of 100 in power 
out over in.  "It's warm!" quoth the reporter. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  Rave On!  Check out "Rave Boy" at 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  the Tallahassee Democrat Online: 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  | 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |      http://www.tdo.com/   
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.08 / Chris Gibbings /  Re: fascinating  future study
     
Originally-From: gibbings_c_j@bt-web.bt.co.uk (Chris Gibbings)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fascinating  future study
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 1996 11:45:39 +0000
Organization: BT Laboratories

In article <000020bd+00001774@msn.com>, KROENIG@msn.com (JOSEPH BENINCASA)
wrote:

> When the history of 'cold fusion' is finally written, 

It has been. See 'Too Hot to Handle' by Frank Close. What you're getting
here are the reruns, and the audience figures are going down  :-)


> the archives of 
> sci.physics.fusion should be a goldmine for some ambitious 
> psychologist, and a must-read for anyone wishing to evaluate expert 
> opinion.

   Chris Gibbings
cudkeys:
cuddy08 cudengibbings_c_j cudfnChris cudlnGibbings cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.07 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: The Amazing Jed seeks the truth. NOT
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Amazing Jed seeks the truth. NOT
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 1996 16:18 -0500 (EST)

bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan) writes:
 
-> Using the words Jed and honesty in the same sentence is an oxymoron.
 
Ahh, a self-referencing sentence that is true if it is false, and false if it
is true.  I love the English language. :)
 
Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy07 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.08 / Walter Raisanen /  Re: Patterson cell on ABC's Nightline
     
Originally-From: azi@crl.com (Walter Raisanen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Patterson cell on ABC's Nightline
Date: 8 Feb 1996 08:40:43 -0800
Organization: Arizona Instrument

Jim Carr (jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu) wrote:
: There was a story about the Patterson Cell and CETI on ABC's "Good 
: Morning America" program in the 8:15 (EST) slot.  A pretty balanced 
: and factual report by Michael Guillen (sp?), ABC's science reporter. 
[snip]
: tests show no radioactivity.  They talk about a factor of 100 in power 
: out over in.  "It's warm!" quoth the reporter. 

I came in late.  Can anyone enlighten me as to the supposed physics of the 
Patterson cell?
-- 
<Image>
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenazi cudfnWalter cudlnRaisanen cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.08 / John Logajan /  ABC-TV Nightline reports on CETI
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ABC-TV Nightline reports on CETI
Date: 8 Feb 1996 19:51:24 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

By the way, for new readers here due to the ABC-TV reports, I keep some
reference materials about CETI devices on-line on my web home page at
the URL below. Like all such services it is not 100% available, but if
you have trouble connecting, try again later.

--
 - 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:
cuddy8 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.08 / Akira Kawasaki /  Re: ABC-TV Nightline reports on CETI
     
Originally-From: aki@ix.netcom.com(Akira Kawasaki )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ABC-TV Nightline reports on CETI
Date: 8 Feb 1996 20:48:16 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <bksDMG8Kx.Ev0@netcom.com> bks@netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman)
writes: 
>
>This Nightline was obviously the source of the recent WSJ article.
>
Rather, you might ask what was the source of both of the closely timed
releases after the Power-Gen, after the Jan, 20, '96 Eugene Mallove's
Seminar.
>
>snip
>
>The show ended with Patterson saying that he wasn't in it for
>the money.  Okay, so then why not make it easy for people like
>Sevior & Little to test the device?
>

James Patterson is not in it for the money, he has enough as he has
stated.However, CETI is controlled and run by his 26 year old grandson
whom I heard was once a stock-broker --- a science type?

-AK-
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenaki cudfnAkira cudlnKawasaki cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.08 / 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, 08 Feb 1996 17:09:27 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <ant061723d07KksR@circlesw.demon.co.uk>, John Skingley
<john@circlesw.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <21cenlogic-0602960249130001@austin-1-6.i-link.net>, Mitchell Jones
> <mailto:21cenlogic@i-link.net> wrote:
> > 
> > In article <ant021100f7fKksR@circlesw.demon.co.uk>, John Skingley
> > <john@circlesw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <21cenlogic-0102961420120001@austin-2-8.i-link.net>,
Mitchell Jones
> > > <mailto:21cenlogic@i-link.net> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > >  ******************
> > > >  Magnum 350 Run #11
> > > > 
> > > > The question is: should I now call an end to this, and declare the Power
> > > > Gen demo a washout, or not? 
> [snip]
> > > > I could get rid of my 60 watt box fan, and replace it with a 3.5 watt
> > > > muffin fan like that used by Cravens at Power Gen.
> [snip] 
> > > Surely this is wrong. The heat from your fan, 60 watts worth, is
being blown
> > > at your tubing. i.e. the fan is warming the air which is doing the
cooling.
> > > A 3.5 watt fan is heating the air much less.  Try it!
> > 
> > ***{John, you are certainly correct in thinking that the entire 60 watts
> > consumed by the fan is converted to heat in the air. However, very little
> > of that heat is transferred to the fluid and, more importantly, *even if
> > we were to falsely assume that every bit of it is imparted to the fluid,
> > it would come nowhere near accounting for the result*. Remember: at Power
> > Gen, it was reported that when the cell imparted 469 watts of heat to the
> > fluid at a 1 liter/min flow rate, the resulting equilibrium temperature of
> > the reservoir was a mere 16 degrees C above ambient. In my runs, with the
> > heat cell imparting 458 watts to the fluid and the same flow rate, I am
> > getting equilibrium temperatures that are almost 3 times as high. I really
> > don't think it is possible to explain that by pointing to the tiny amount
> > of heat imparted to the fluid by my fan. --Mitchell Jones}***
> >  
> Thanks for replying Mitchell, I have been following your experiments with 
> interest.
> 
> OK, I hear what you say, we are talking about a very worse case change of ~10%
> of the energy. but I'm not sure that this analysis is correct.
> 
> The cooling effect of the fan on the tubing will depend on conduction through
> the plastic wall. This will be proportional to the temperature difference
> across it, i.e. the difference between the water and the air temperatures.
> Heat flowing through the wall will heat up the air, reducing the temperature
> differnce and slow the heat flow. So we blow the air away to keep the outside
> temperature low.
> 
> But the fan only has to heat the air a little to reduce this temperature
> difference a lot. If it raised it 8 degs, when the water was at 16 above
> ambient (al la P.D. demo), it would halve the cooling effect!  
> 
> And there is no connection between the power in the cell, and the power
of the 
> motor as far as their heating effects are concerned. The cell is heating water
> at one flow rate, the fan is heating air at another.
> 
> I think you need to measure the temperature of the air just before it passes 
> over the tubing, and see what arrangment keeps this the coolest. It is this
> temperature which is effectively your ambient, as far as the cell is
concerned.

***{I checked out the heating effect of my fan by simply measuring the
temperature of still air in my workshop (which was 58 degrees F), then
placing the thermometer in front of my fan and turning the fan on. Result:
after 30 minutes, the thermometer still registered 58 degrees F. Of
course, there must have been *some* heating effect. That is logically
necessary. However, it was apparently too slight to register on my
thermometer--which means: less than half a degree F (and probably *far*
less). Bottom line: I think we can safely discount this particular
explanation for my inability to dissipate heat as rapidly as was claimed
at Power Gen. --Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
> ---------------------------
> Regards,  John.
> P.O. Box 36, BODMIN, PL30 4YY, U.K. Tel/Fax: +44 1208 850790

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy08 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.08 /  singtech@telep /  Re: A Bose Condesate hypothesis for CF
     
Originally-From: singtech@teleport.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Bose Condesate hypothesis for CF
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 1996 01:34:43 -0800
Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016

In article <v01530501ad3c6ab78e22@[204.57.193.76]>, hheffner@anc.ak.net
(Horace Heffner) wrote:

> >
> >Originally-From: kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov (Matt Kennel)
> [snip]
> >
> >We've gotten right to the crux of the misunderstanding about
> >"overlapping" wavefunctions.
> >
> >The answer is:
> >
> >        Yes, all the 'overlapping thingons' have the same probability density
> >        function in space, BUT THIS DOES NOT MEAN THEY OVERLAP!!
> >
> >        Why?  Because they're not in the same place AT THE SAME TIME.
> >        The ground state will find their positions anticorrelated: if
particle
> >        A is "on the left" then particle B will be more likely to be "on
> >        the right" if there is a repulsive interaction between them.

That's part of the point.  Coulomb's Law is a special case and only
applies to particles which have significant relative motion.  The only
time that nuclear fusion can occur between interacting nuclei is when
their de Broglie wavelengths are equal to or greater than their
interparticle distance (measured center to center).  Get the ionized
fusion fuel nuclei (deuterons) into the same rest frame and give them
proximity on the order of the mean free path and they will strongly
attractively interact and fuse.  What else could a nuclear fusion event be
but a Bose-Einstein Condensate event betweeen two ionized nuclei? 
Statistically, this same sort of interaction can occur in chaotic (high
temperature) gases and this is why you can get nuclear fusion events from
such environments.  But there is a limit imposed by the pure statistics of
such interactions which is related to the ionization associated with hot
gases.  Each ion continues to recombine with electrons which fall to lower
energy states and emit photons and then are subsequently stripped away in
the general melee of the milieu.  During the period the nucleus is
recombined no fusion can occur because the electron is continuously
disturbing the quantum state of the nucleus. For an overall neutral plasma
only 50 percent of the fusion fuel nuclei are available to undergo fusion.
No matter what happens in a hot gas (as far as raising its temperature
goes) the ratio of rest frame pairs that are candidates to undergo nuclear
fusion to non-rest frame pairs remains constant.  You can obtain more
fusion reactions per unit of time by raising the temperature but it is
always at the expense of the energy you expended in the process. This
implies that magnetic confinement and intertial confinement schemes to
obtain break even are doomed before they start.

> >
> >        so rho(x) can be equal to rho(y) but still rho(x,y) can be
> >        ZERO for ||x - y|| < R.
> >
> >
> [snip]
> 
> 
> Yes, I have seen this before.  This is just more of the wave-particle
> interpretation.  Suppose for a moment that there exists no point like
> particles.  The above statements then begin to look like just some kind of
> dogma.  

Hammer hits nail on head.  The dead, lying in the coffin being built
around them do not hear.

>In most scenarios the calculations might end up the same from a
> wavefunction collapse point of view, but the vocabulary and mental models,
> the interpretation, and the derivation, might end up being different, and
> the results might be different in special circumstances.
> 
> Most importantly, it appears you have automatically dismissed the notion
> that at a sufficiently low temperature the waveforms can phase lock,
> producing a single particle which will tend to collapse at a single point
> when perturbed.  You offer no evidence to the contrary, either experimental
> or theoretical.
> 
> Since the Weiman-Cornell experiment was conducted on an apparatus costing
> less than $50,000 (an engineering miracle in it's own right IMHO), it seems
> to me a worthwhile experiment to bombard a massive Bose condensate with a
> particle beam to find the true answer.  If only one of the many QM
> interpretations could be eliminated, it would be worthwhile.
> 
> Graduate students take note!

Keep going Horace, you are getting closer.

Best Regards,

C. Cagle

-- 


"He who finishes physics, finishes religion and philosophy at the same time"
cudkeys:
cuddy08 cudensingtech cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.08 / Tom Droege /  Re: fascinating  future study
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fascinating  future study
Date: 8 Feb 1996 23:01:23 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <000020bd+00001774@msn.com>, KROENIG@msn.com (JOSEPH BENINCASA) says:
>
>When the history of 'cold fusion' is finally written, the archives of 
>sci.physics.fusion should be a goldmine for some ambitious 
>psychologist, and a must-read for anyone wishing to evaluate expert 
>opinion.

We have at least two historians doing just that.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.08 / J Youles /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: J B Youles <john.youles@dial.pipex.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: 8 Feb 1996 16:10:17 GMT
Organization: Chaotic

John Skingley <john@circlesw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>I'm not sure what point you are making. If it is that we have a few 
>crackpots in the UK, then I would agree. I havn't said otherwise.

My point was to distinguish between rejecting something because of lack 
of evidence, and rejecting something because it does not fit into the 
belief system, despite the evidence.

I don't know whether there is excess heat or not, but it seems to me that 
this can be ascertained independently of any theory of the mechanism.

Some people on this group however appear to take the line that there is 
no excess heat because the theory does not support it.

-- 
John Youles 
 -----------------------------------------------------------
"If the weather we are having is a result of the greenhouse
 effect, then someone must have taken out all the glass."
 -----------------------------------------------------------


cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenyoules cudfnJ cudlnYoules cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.08 / Tom Droege /  Re: ABC-TV Nightline reports on CETI
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ABC-TV Nightline reports on CETI
Date: 8 Feb 1996 23:08:47 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <4fdpht$2ch@crl13.crl.com>, azi@crl.com (Walter Raisanen) says:
>
>Akira Kawasaki (aki@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: In <bksDMG8Kx.Ev0@netcom.com> bks@netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman)
>: writes: 
>: >snip
>: >
>Has anyone tried to demonstrate the energy balance for this thing?
>Since it seems to violate the conservation of energy, I would
>think this is a crucial issue to resolve.
>If a plausible explanation is forthcoming, a lot of the 
>acrimonious debate will disappear.
>If it is not forthcoming, we can all go on to something more
>plausible, and put these folks in the same bag as Randi.
>-- 
><Image>

Since Miley has a reputation to worry about, he did not say how much
excess heat he saw, or what the errors were.  I have already seen 
Miley report "excess heat" that I would have called noise. 

I wait patiently to see the details of the calorimetry.  I did not
see anything during this report that indicated anyone was trying to
make measurements.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Feb  9 04:37:03 EST 1996
------------------------------
