1996.02.10 / Seth W /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: sethw@access5.digex.net (Seth W.)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: 10 Feb 1996 07:59:23 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA

Publius (publius@gate.net) wrote:
: :      The latest flurry of excitement about the possibility of "cold
: :   fusion" involves the Patterson Power Cell that uses microscopic
: :   plastic beads coated with palladium sandwiched between two
: :   layers of nickel, immersed in plain water.  With about 0.1 to 1.5

It's been awhile since I've subscribed to the Wall Street Journal, so I got
to see this story on Nightline a few days ago.  I looked up CETI's page at
"http://www.onramp.net/~ceti" and read over the information there.  I haven't
finished reading the paper I downloaded from that site yet, though.

What surprised me when I read about the "magic beads" in this Cell was that
the palladium was sandwiched between nickel.  I expected to see the 
palladium on the outside.  If I remember correctly all the discussion about
cold fusion from a few years ago, the reason there was such interest in
palladium was that it "trapped" hydrogen and put atoms of hydrogen
closer together than they might otherwise have inclined to be.  

So, my question is--why nickel?  I don't remember hearing anything about
nickel the last go 'round.  Does the hydrogen go through the nickel or
something?  I mean, why not just little beads coated with nickel instead?

I'd also like to see something that plots energy output versus energy 
input, and energy output versus time.  Why, for example, if this thing
produces so much "extra" energy, does it have to be shut off at all?  Does
it shut itself off?  For that matter, other than maybe the beads, shouldn't
this apparatus be relatively cheap to build?  Why do I hear about only two
of these things being tested?

Those were questions, here's some comments.

I think I would publish well in advance of any fusion experiments conducted
on my tabletop.  I think I'd then get a grad student to do the experiment,
while I got as far away as possible.  Unless, of course, I were the grad
student, in which case I'd try to find an eager undergraduate, and then
still proceed to get as far away as possible.  

I think calling the Patterson Cell another "cold fusion" attempt simply
to criticize it is intellectually dishonest.  And maybe you all hashed this
out before I picked up my Digex account, but I'm not all that comfortable
with using the term "cold fusion" to describe any reaction.  If we 
understand fusion, then "cold fusion" doesn't exist.  If we don't 
understand fusion, then what's the point in labeling a process "cold
fusion"?  I'm not going to dispute that a process might exist that looked
like "cold fusion", but I don't see any reason to link it to fusion.
Except maybe that it beats "cold process-we-really-can't-explain-yet".

Meanwhile, I hope it is something that can't be explained.  I'd like to
see science set on its ear--wouldn't most of you scientists out there?
Nor do I think this would be the first time man has used an energy source
without fully understanding it.  Wouldn't it be nice to rediscover fire?

sethw@access.digex.net
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudensethw cudfnSeth cudlnW cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.12 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Reconciling Magnum and PowerGen data
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reconciling Magnum and PowerGen data
Date: 12 Feb 1996 18:58:41 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <2c609dc2-83@bigtower.et.tudelft.nl> ahu@bigtower.et.tudelft.
l (bert hubert) writes:
>Robert Horst (horst_bob@tandem.com) wrote:
>: > 	1.  Fraud.
>: > 	2.  Incompetence.
>: > 	3.  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 your
>: proof?  I have seen nothing to give even the slightest hint of fraud.
>
>One thing I'm certain of - this is not fusion. The power production they
>claim would produce a lethal amount of neutrons if you come too close.


I resent people who quote me out of context in such a way as to change the
intent of what I actually said.  My original post referred to one
by Horst on what he considered to be a possible explanation for the failure
of Mitch's experiment to correlate with the original data.  In that post, I
explained that I considered his explanation to be less likely than one of the
three cited here.  If this bothers you, I will add the following:  Let the
chips fall where they may.


Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
 -------------------------------------------------------
Any ideas or opinions expressed here do not necessarily
reflect the ideas or opinions of my employer.
 -------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.12 / Baruch Vainas /  Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
     
Originally-From: Baruch Vainas <vainas@ndc.soreq.gov.il>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 96 10:46:40 PDT
Organization: Tel-Aviv University Computation Center



> Bob,
> 
>    I'm missing the reasoning in all the discussions of Faraday efficiency.
>   If you put in "E" amount of energy and get out E times something, how 
> does the Faraday efficiency enter into the equation except to INCREASE 
> the power gain of whatever reaction is taking place?
[snip] 
>  I think my reasoning applies to any reaction.  Could you please 
> explain?  Thanks.
> 
> -
> Jim Stolin - Illinois Computer Service - jbstolin@prodigy.com
> http://pages.prodigy.com/jbstolin
> 
I am puzzled as well. Suppose we electrolyze water in a cell having two 
identical platinum or carbon electrodes that can not change their composition 
as the result of hydrogen insertion (like in Pd or Ti). Then, in a cell like 
this, the electrolysis current efficiency can be close to 100% while 
non-electrolysis efficiency will be ~0%. If the oxygen and hydrogen gases are 
recombined back to water (an exothermic reaction) in a closed cell, the output 
heat power will be just I*V in because there will be no net compositional 
change in the cell. The cell is then equivalent to a resistive load. It is  
just a matter of the first law of thermodynamics applied to a "black box" 
undergoing no net change other than releasing a heat energy equal to the 
electrical energy that was put in. 
Baruch 
e-mail  vainas@ndc.soreq.gov.il   

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenvainas cudfnBaruch cudlnVainas cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.12 / Patrick Esch /  Re: Patterson Power Cell
     
Originally-From: vanesch@jamaica.desy.de (Patrick van Esch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Patterson Power Cell
Date: 12 Feb 1996 09:47:12 GMT
Organization: DESY

DavesRadio (davesradio@aol.com) wrote:

[...]

: In addition, I intend to replace my existing baseboard hot-water home
: heating system with these cells!  "Be the first kid on the block to have
: this new futuristic hydrogen energy conversion heating system in YOUR
: home..."  :=)

I am curious !  Keep us informed...

cheers,
Patrick.


--
Patrick Van Esch
http://www.iihe.ac.be/hep/pp/vanesch
mail:   vanesch@dice2.desy.de
for PGP public key: finger vanesch@dice2.desy.de
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenvanesch cudfnPatrick cudlnEsch cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.13 / 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: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 03:08:13 GMT
Organization: InternetMCI

bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan) wrote:

>Have you been having these fantasies for very long? It's the first sign of the 
>Rothwell syndrome. In the next stage, your brain will turn to cottage cheese.

I'm not sure what you mean by "fantasy."  It's not as if I am running
cottage cheese through an aquarium pump and claiming to see excess
cheese.  (see crosspost in alt.physics.dairy)  ;^)

>The Motorola rumors have been bouncing about for some time -- certainly long 
>enough for them to wrap up a deal to shut out possible competitors if they truly 

Also long enough for Motorola to categorically deny them if they were
false.  In fact, doesn't that make more sense?  It is a lot easier for
a company like Motorola to say "We don't have anything to do with
CETI" than it is for them to announce a deal.  I'm not sure what you
mean by "long enough to wrap up a deal" but my experience has been
that these things proceed at a glacial pace, especially when the
patent holder is convinced he is sitting on a gold mine.

>believe.  More likely, they will be joining the growing list of those who have 
>rejected the claims.

Does the set of people who have rejected the claims intersect the set
of people who have examined the Patterson cells?  I thought they were
disjoint sets (similar to the set of people who believe that the world
is flat vs. the set of those who have walked on the moon).

>As to qualifications, the annals of cold fusion are filled with incompetent 
>chemists, physicists, and engineers. A couple more incompentents at a 'big 
>name' company would hardly be noticed. Anyway, Jed, the High Arbiter of Cold 

Yeah but my main point is: Motorola?  Incompetent?  Come on. 

Earlier you seemed to be saying that Motorola evaluated it and
dismissed it.  Now you seem to be saying that Motorola evaluated it
and showed interest (but only because they are incompetent).  Simply
put, neither point is supported by the available data.

In any event, the CETI folks don't use the phrase "cold fusion" these
days, probably because they want to avoid a kneejerk reaction to
dismiss it out of hand... nice try, huh?  :^)
-k.

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenkalim cudfnKarim cudlnAlim cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.12 /  AndersonBD /  Re: ABC-TV reports on CETI
     
Originally-From: andersonbd@aol.com (AndersonBD)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ABC-TV reports on CETI
Date: 12 Feb 1996 10:46:56 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I was under the impression that a fusion reaction releases no neutrons to
be detected.  Of course, my recollection of physics may be flawed.

                          - Brad Anderson
                            AndersonBD@aol.com
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenandersonbd cudlnAndersonBD cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.12 / Tom Droege /  Re: ABC-TV reports on CETI
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ABC-TV reports on CETI
Date: 12 Feb 1996 18:22:26 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <h9NLRDd.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com says:
(snip)
>I saw the Power-Gen cell running at 0 watts excess 
(snip)
>- Jed
Gosh Jed, just what you used to to do my statements.  I could 
not resist.  ;^)

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.12 / Tom Droege /  Re: fascinating  future study
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fascinating  future study
Date: 12 Feb 1996 18:12:24 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <21cenlogic-0902961631230001@austin-1-2.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) says:

(snip)

>***{As a matter of interest, there was another fellow by the name of "Tom
>Droege" who used to post here from time to time. About a month ago,
>however, he indicated that this group was a waste of time, and said that
>he would not be reading it or posting here again. Any relation? --Mitchell
>Jones}***
>
>===========================================================

Gosh!  What a sorehead!  My post was meant to inform everyone that I
was no longer seriously following this group so that they would know
I would not see their posts.  I still look in from time to time when
there is a news event that might indicate serious activity.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.12 /  jonesse@plasma /  Jed is wrong and libelous
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jed is wrong and libelous
Date: 12 Feb 96 13:31:10 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Jed again steps over the line of decency and fact.  A problem with spf
is that such libelous, untrue statements are allowed to be written
and disseminated.

Bob Sullivan wrote:  "there is probably something wrong with the temperature
measurements when the principal investigator (Cravens) admits to the problems"

Jed replies:
"This is a lie, although it originated with Jones, not Sullivan...
Anyone knows that when you use six different thermometers, and they all show
the same answer, the likelihood of a mistake is astronomically small.  
Only a confirmed idiot like Sullivan could doubt such a thing, and only a
conniving liar like Steve Jones would go around sowing confusion and
misinformation in order to delude weak minded fools like Sullivan into thinking
that thermometers don't work."

Shame on you, Jed!  Bob Sullivan is no "idiot" nor a "weak minded fool" -- his
postings demonstrate otherwise.  Your poor name calling tells us more about
you than about him.  Nor did I lie about Dennis Cravens'
admission that there was probably something wrong with his temperature
measurements taken with thermocouples.  

Months ago, I pointed out that the use of thermocouples in the Patterson
cell (which was reported by Hal Fox in his newsletter) could be misleading
since tens of *micro*volts suffice to *appear* as a degree of temperature,
and since stray voltages could well exist in the cell.  Later, Dennis
was straightforward in admitting this potential problem, in a note posted
here on spf.

On Feb. 8, I spoke to Dennis by phone, and we discussed this question.
I find that Dennis is quite open about his efforts -- or else frank when
he cannot discuss something.  It's good that he is in a key position to
test the Patterson cell.  With regard to the use of thermocouples, again
Dennis told me that this can indeed lead to incorrect temp. measurements,
due to electrical fields in the solution.  And he added that someone had
used thermistors instead, and had found different temperatures in fact,
although apparently still some temperature difference.  So this is indeed
a concern -- and one being addressed now.  

Jed is wrong as well as libelous in calling me a "conniving liar."  I am not.

I'm surprised you guys put up with such behavior on spf -- I saw no comments
from anyone else on this.  Would you allow Mr. Rothwell to call *you* a
conniving liar?  There seems to be a lack of decency here that ought to be
checked.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.12 / Tom Droege /  Re: ABC-TV reports on CETI
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ABC-TV reports on CETI
Date: 12 Feb 1996 18:18:52 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <199602091524.KAA36544@pilot01.cl.msu.edu>, blue@pilot.msu.ed
 (Richard A Blue) says:
>
>It is revealing to form a sequence from the numbers claimed
>for the performance of the CETI device in the various reports
>that have appeared with time.
>
>Initial reported output:  1300 watts
>Modified report:           500 watts
>ABC-TV report:             200 watts
>
>Shall we extrapolate further?
>
>Dick Blue
>

We just need the dates for the above to predict the zero excess heat
date.  But I think I can do it without dates.  ;^)

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.12 / David Gaskill /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: David Gaskill <david@cgaski.u-net.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 21:54:44 GMT
Organization: U-NET limited

 
 
> > I don't see the point of this. There are obviously an infinite number   
of     
> > combinations of flow rate and input power which will produce the     
> > temperature differential which Jed observed. I think that your results     
> > already allow you to conclude that.  
>    
> ***{Not quite. The system is highly non linear in its behavior, and when  
> the requirement of achieving a 6.7 degree C delta-T across the heat cell  
> is factored in, it becomes clear that the infinitude of possible data  
> points must fit on a curve with a clearly defined power minimum which is  
> greater than zero watts. (A cell producing zero watts clearly cannot  
> produce a cell delta-T of 6.7 degrees C!) Thus the effort to characterize  
> the power curve more closely seems worthwhile. --Mitchell Jones}***   
> >    
> > > the Power Gen demo was a total washout, and proved    
> > > nothing whatsoever 
 
Your work has clearly demonstrated that the CETI demonstration apparatus   
was incapable of dissipating the power that the calorimetry indicated that   
the cell was producing. One or more of the calorimeter measurements was   
wrong. You have quite rightly constructed your experiment in such a way   
that its power dissipation capabilities must be in excess of those of the   
demonstration thus enabling you to show convincingly that the indicated   
power could not have been dissipated.   
  
However, to determine the power that the demonstration apparatus might have   
been capable of dissipating  calls for an accurate replication of the   
apparatus. With the limited available information it doesn't seem to me   
that this could be done with sufficient accuracy to produce results which   
would be convincing.   
  
It just doesn't seem worth the effort to try and extract data, in which   
nobody could have much confidence, from an experiment which you have   
already demonstrated was seriously flawed.  
 
> Electroplating is 19th century technology. Anyone can do it, safely  
> and at little cost. Read up on it, and you will agree. 
 
I have some experience of the design of industrial plating  plants and   
while I would agree that, at laboratory scale, it can be done with little   
risk or cost, to produce accurate deposits with uniform properties on a   
consistent basis is no trivial matter.   
  
You will have seen on this Newsgroup that "CETI" beads, albeit on a ceramic   
substrate rather than styrene divinyl benzene, are being offered at a   
reasonable price. Might it not been worth while considering the use of   
these beads for the initial run? If this fails you can set about   
replicating the CETI beads. I do assure you however that the task of   
producing these beads and, just as importantly verify their construction,   
is not to be undertaken lightly. 
 
> This means that CF  
> is ideally suited to do-it-yourself experimentation, and the field is  
> almost totally unexplored. 
 
 I hope you are right but some correspondents have already suggested that   
the construction and method of production of the beads is critical.  
 
> I would put it differently: we, all of us, have a very significant  
> process on our hands. 
 
Once again I hope you are right. I think that the work that you are about   
to undertake could go a long way towards establishing whether or not this   
is indeed the case.  
 
> Frankly, I don't think the reality of the excess heat is still an  
> issue. The evidence that has accumulated around the world in the last 8  
> years is simply too massive for that. 
 
I think you would agree that this is not a generally accepted view. If it   
were CETI would not be asking me to express interest in investing in the   
project by checking a box on their Web page. 
 
> Certainly, none of the results that  
> I have obtained in these various Magnum runs bear on that question. The  
> most I can conclude from my results is that a number of mistakes were   
made  
> in the design of the Power Gen demo, and in the reporting of its  
> performance. While that assessment may be unsatisfying to those who want  
> to dismiss the CF effect, I nevertheless believe that it is what is  
> logically indicated by the evidence. 
 
I agree. For the moment I will accept that they were mistakes. 
 
> Bottom line: if, at first, I fail to  
> demonstrate significant power generation in my own runs, those who have  
> gotten excess heat in their runs will insist that I didn't do it the   
right  
> way, *and I will be strongly inclined to assume that they are correct*. I  
> will expect to not succeed easily or quickly, and I will not be deterred  
> if these expectations are fulfilled. 
 
 Great. You can't say fairer than that. I look forward to reading of your   
progress. 

David
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudendavid cudfnDavid cudlnGaskill cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.12 / Tom Droege /  Re: Jed is wrong and libelous
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed is wrong and libelous
Date: 12 Feb 1996 22:31:05 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <1996Feb12.133111@plasma>, jonesse@plasma says:

>I'm surprised you guys put up with such behavior on spf -- I saw no comments
>from anyone else on this.  Would you allow Mr. Rothwell to call *you* a
>conniving liar?  There seems to be a lack of decency here that ought to be
>checked.

Steve, it is like being in the navy and having a bunk mate that says s___
and m_____ f_____ as every other word.  After a while you filter it out and
don't even notice it.  I am not sure that Jed has called me a "conniving 
liar" but I am sure he has called me worse.  I just treat it as a joke.  Note
that I laugh "at" Mr. Rothwell, not "with" him.  

Tom Droege

>
>--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.13 / Martin Sevior /  Re: Jed's got the heebie-jeebies
     
Originally-From: Martin Sevior <msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed's got the heebie-jeebies
Date: 13 Feb 1996 01:16:03 GMT
Organization: School of Physics, University of Melbourne.

bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan) wrote:
>
>I guess you haven't been told about the meeting, Jed, or if you were told 
>about it, you got the facts confused -- again. The private non-demo for 
>Motorola, et al, occurred after PowerGen and it was hosted at the Miley site. 
>Patterson, Redding, and Cravens were all there.  I'm sure they'll tell you about 
>the meeting if you only ask since you're privy to all the insider stuff. 
>
>Another interesting bit of information was disclosed at the meeting.  The 
>supposedly smooth and uniform coating of the Patterson looks like the mountains 
>of the moon when viewed through an electron microscope.  Smoooooth beads are an 
>absolute requirement for the proper functioning of the P-cell -- or so they want 
>us to believe. Look at it as another opportunity for the revisionists. The beads 
>prepared by Miley's group are as smooth as a baby's bottom in comparison.
> 

You apparently have some inside source of information. Your interpretation of
the information you get seems a bit strange. If Miley and Motorola were not
convinced by this private demo why on earth would they go along and allow their
names to be raked through the mud when the truth emerges? You are incredibly
negative about the PowerGen apperatus, yet these people had it for a week
and after a week they remain extremely interested in the device.

If Motorola had not gotten positive results from their tests I can't believe
they would allow the Nightline people to say they had. 

Martin Sevior

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmsevior cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.13 /  MORRISON /        SCOTTISH FUSION EXPERIMENTS
     
Originally-From: MORRISON@psy.gla.ac.uk (MORRISON)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:       SCOTTISH FUSION EXPERIMENTS
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 17:15:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hello All

Does anyone know of any individuals/institutions doing any kind of
fusion research here in Scotland? I would be interested to converse
and get some in-depth material from such a source.

Thanks in advance for any assistance.

Best Regards

John Morrison
(Glasgow University)
E-mail morrison@psy.gla.ac.uk

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenMORRISON cudlnMORRISON cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.12 / Mark Wong /  cold fusion theory (simple)
     
Originally-From: mawong@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Wong)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cold fusion theory (simple)
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 96 23:11:46 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments

Well, I am going to step out on the limb.  Let's review a little history and
then get to the homework assignments.

around 1987 (let's not quibble on exact dates) Pons and Fleishman (sp) announce
"cold fusion".  A few of us (physicists) were interested and began to think 
about the mechanism.  Wild speculation by some non scientists heard of Coulomb
screening.  A red herring of course, since we are talking about nuclear fusion.
But quantum mechanical tunneling would give us a lower bound on the energy
required.

Get a copy of any introductory quantum mechanics book.
Quantum Mechanics Vol. 1, Cohen and Tanoudji, Academic Press
or equivalent. Look up solutions to transmission, reflection, and
resonant bound states around square well potentials.

Exercise (1) Compute the energy for a proton to tunnel through the coulomb
barrier to within two classical radii of a proton (or an excited helium
nuclei radius).  Get your answer into eV.  You should get something on the
order of
a few hundred thousand electron volts depending on the probability of capture
you set.

We learned that the cells were using a 12 volt battery!!!  Knowing the
result from exercise one, we immediately concluded that whatever phenomena
was causing
the extra heat was definitely NOT NUCLEAR FUSION.

I will skip the next obvious observation, and that is to compute how many
neutrons would be released from enough fusion reaction to account for the
extra heat.  Since the experimenters are not dead, (As noted in the later
released
PBS NOVA "Confusion in a Bottle") this certainly puts a damper on any NUCLEAR
reaction theories.

So the phenomena is NOT NUCLEAR.  Well what is it?  I didn't know much about
what the original experiment was to determine until I heard of the backgrounds
of Pons and Fleishman.  Electrochemists!  Now that I knew they were looking
at electron and possibly hydronium ion transport, and they were playing with
palladium metal in water, this gave me a clue to possible mechanisms for the
extra heat.

Get a copy of Solid State Physics 2nd ed., Kittel.  Look up the lattice
spacing of palladium.  Review any new concepts.

Exercise (2) Calculate how many H2 molecules will fit around a palladium
atom per unit cell. Do the same for H+ ions.  See the FAQ for sci.math on
packing smaller spheres around larger spheres (a classic problem).

Where could the extra energy be coming from, if not from a nuclear
mechanism? Could it already be there?

Get a copy of University Physics, Sears and Zemansky
Physics, Ohanian, etc. Review thermodynamics, entropy, the first and second
law of thermodynamics, kinetic theory of gases.

Exercise (3) Calculate the kinetic energy and entropy of H+ ions in aqueous
solution at room temperature 300K.  Calculate the kinetic energy and entropy
of the configuration of H+ ions in exercise two at 300K, 350K, 400K.

Experiment (1) Go to Wal Mart, in the camping section. Ask for the hand warmers
that you boil.  It will be a plastic package containing a thick clear liquid
and a metal disk.  The liquid is supersaturated sodium acetate.  Flex the
metal disk, noting how much force and how far you moved the disk.  The bag
will heat up as the liquid transforms from liquid to solid. HEAT OF FUSION! 
Lookup in the  CRC Chemistry and Physics handbook for the heat of fusion of
sodium acetate. Measure the total amount of energy from the now solid bag
and compare to the energy you input with your fingers.  Note the order of
magnitude of this energy release.  Plop the bag into boiling water and
repeat until understanding sinks in.  Ask yourself why such a source of
energy with so little input is not shaking the foundations of modern energy
production.  How much energy was put in to transform the solid back to liquid?

Exercise (4) Could the extra energy come from the heat of transformation of
H+ or released H2 from a dissolved gas into a semi-crystalline amalgam of
hydrolyzed palladium metal??? A surface physics phenomena or simple ion
diffusion phenomena?  

Exercise (5) What happens to the energy output if we increase the surface
area of the metal from a large cylinder or sphere to a bunch of tiny
spheres? No surprise here. What is the order of magnitude increase?  Any
comparison to press releases? Should be.

Exercise (6) How much energy does it take to refine palladium? How much energy
to recover pure palladium after the metal "sludge" is extracted from a "CF"
experiment?

Now, if you have followed my train of logic and answered the above questions
you may come to a better understanding of thermodynamics, chemistry, and
introductory physics.  Unfortunately you will not be enlightened on the
subtleties and intricacies of NUCLEAR FUSION.  That is a short course for
next semester.

I will only respond to those who have put pencil to paper and have thought
about other plausible mechanisms.  This does not mean anyone showing up on
the crackpot lists, alien abductees, alien pilots, OJ jurors, or others who
profess to be in some other physical reality.

If you are not getting 10^13 Joules per mole of energy released, I am not really
interested. 

    
Mark A. Wong                       /             \
Texas Instruments                 /      /|\      \
mawong@m2.dseg.ti.com        ---(.)----<(_+_)>----(.)---
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmawong cudfnMark cudlnWong cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.12 / John Logajan /  Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
Date: 12 Feb 1996 14:26:42 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Bob Sullivan (bsulliva@sky.net) wrote:
: Cravens/ENECO/CETI make a 'recombination' adjustment, but it is 
: incorrect for the factual situation.  If we slightly narrow down the Huizenga 
: statement by including the word 'correctly' then the facts support Huizenga.

: Since Cravens assumes no recombination, he recreates 
: the problem in his heat balance calculations by making an 'adjustment' that 
: assumes that no recombination occurs. It's called double counting.

: The Patterson crowd calls their adjustment for escaping gases 
: (i.e., no recombination) a 'recombination' adjustment -- just exactly the 
: opposite of what they are doing.


Umm, nope.

Cravens gives three formulas, the most conservative assumes 100% recombination.
These folllwing formula are from the ICCF5 demo.

(a) Raw Heat Yield (%) = F/60 * 4.1629 * dT * 0.95 / (V*I) * 100 
(b) Corrected (%) = F/60 * 4.1629 * dT * 0.95 / (V*I) / 0.86 * 100 
(c) Corrected (%) = F/60 * 4.1629 * dT * 0.95 / ((V-1.48)*I) / 0.86 * 100 

      Where:
        F = mL/minute
        4.1629 = Joules/mL/C  (Value for ranges near 25C)
        dT = delta temperature (Tout - Tin, C)
        0.95 = specific heat of electrolyte (Pure H2O = 1.0)
        V = raw voltage input
        I = raw current input


  (a) Raw heat yields without gas or thermal heat loss corrections.
  (b) Heat yields with thermal heat loss correction (cell is 86% thermally
      efficient).
  (c) Heat yields with thermal heat loss correction and gas correction
      (1.48*I); assuming no 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:
cuddy12 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.12 / Linda Mulehamn /  Norwegian Physics/Math students visiting U.S.A.
     
Originally-From: smule@fm.unit.no (Linda Mulehamn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Norwegian Physics/Math students visiting U.S.A.
Date: 12 Feb 1996 13:11:15 GMT
Organization: The Norwegian University of Science and Technology


Hello!                                     Trondheim, Feb. 12, 1996

We are a class of third year students at the Norwegian 
University of Science and Technology, at the Department 
of Physics and Mathematics. The 18th of August until 
about the 25th of August this year we're going to visit New York
City and Boston. This excursion is meant to show us 
how mathematics and physics are applied in the "real 
life". 

The purpose of this request is to get in touch with 
any firms, research centers etc. who want us to visit them, 
and who might think they have anything to show us. We are about 
20 mathematics, 20 physics and 5 biophysics students.

If you are interested, don't hesitate to mail me.

Please do _NOT_ post a reply to this article, as I don't read this newsgroup
regularly.

Yours sincerely,

Linda Mulehamn
Elgesetergate 37
7030 Trondheim
Norway

E-mail: smule@fm.unit.no 

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudensmule cudfnLinda cudlnMulehamn cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.12 / Timothy Smith /  Re: final explanation of 2nd law of thermodynamics; entropy sham
     
Originally-From: tps8a@Virginia.EDU (Timothy Paul Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.chem,sci.astro,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: final explanation of 2nd law of thermodynamics; entropy sham
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 21:23:48 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu  writes:
> 	Now a more basic idea or explanation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics
> is obtained and derived from One Atom Universe.  I assert that the 2nd
> law is radioactive decay without factoring in radioactive growth. 
>  
> Experiments that prove entropy is a fake concept, a sham.
>   Take a large block of 100% uranium of only one particular isotope of
> uranium. When first measured it will be 100% of the isotope and then
> remeasured, the block will have mostly radioactively decayed into lead
> isotopes and neon isotopes. This description of radioactive decay is a
> description of the 2nd law, described as an ordered state (a state
> where the element is of a high atomic number) changed to a state of
> lesser order (lower atomic number elements).  Thus radioactive decay is
> the more fundamental principle over the 2nd law of thermodynamics,
> since the 2nd law does not even account for the small number of
> neptunium and plutonium atoms coming from radioactive growth in the
> original uranium block.  Starting with a 100% block of only one isotope
> of uranium then by time t2 most of the uranium isotopes will decay into
> lower atomic number elements, explaining what the 2nd law of
> thermodynamics is at a more fundamental level, but also, this 100%
> block will have some radioactive growth for a small number of the
> uranium isotopes will transmutate by electron emission decay where a
> neutron in the nucleus is transformed into a proton increasing the
> atomic number Z by 1 into a neptunium atom and then a fewer yet of
> these neptunium atoms will transmutate by electron emission decay into
> a plutonium atom, and then there is a possibility of double electron
> emission decay of a very small number of the uranium isotopes decaying
> forming plutonium directly from uranium. Thus after time t2, a few
> atoms will materialize that have more order than the original uranium
> atoms.
> 
>  The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics before my teachings was a not too well
> understood law. As stated in all textbooks before my teachings it was
> not a law but a half-cooked idea. The concept of entropy is a complete
> sham and fakery. Unless you want to call entropy as that of radioactive
> growth. Of course the pinstriped suited professors of physics could
> never really understand the 2nd Law, and never teach it correctly. Of
> course they could never teach it correctly because they never
> understood it. Making half-baked references to why life can exist when
> entropy increases. Making fruitcake references to entropy being
> connected to time. Ask those pinstripe suited professors of physics to
> take a bucket and scoop up some entropy and bring it to class. In fact
> ask them regardless of what they wear, for that exercise clearly puts
> them on the spot and puts the realization that their entropy was
> nothing but baloney, just as the ether was baloney.
> 
>   I on the other hand can scoop up the 2nd law of thermodynamics in a
> bucket. I will bring you a pure as pure can be lump of uranium and
> after a given time that uranium will contain more and more and more
> lead but also of neptunium and plutonium than was in the original lump.
> There, there is the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the fakery of entropy
> all wrapped up.

	Can you state to me your credentials?  One with such
infinite wisdom should have a slew of accomplishments under his
belt.  Einstein won a Nobel Prize, the 2nd Law of
Thermodynamics is accepted by the entire scientific community,
and virtually infallible.  What have you done?  Your audacity
astonishes me.
	I agree with you on the fact concerning the
organization of life in an entropy-driven universe.  I am also
curious about what a real scientist would say about the
breakdown of the second law if the Universe ends in the big
Crunch.  However, your transmutation of uranium into plutonium
and neptunium means nothing.  Granted the electrons form a new
element with the neutron, but that is still an increase in
entropy.  The atom is bigger, has more electrons, and more
microstates.  I would recommend that you return to elementary
chemistry before you go off half-cocked again.
	I know that my knowledge on quantum physics is limited,
but so is yours.  Stop reading sci-fi magazines, do some
research, and gain some common sense.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudentps8a cudfnTimothy cudlnSmith cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.12 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Patterson Cell==Hair Dryer?????
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Patterson Cell==Hair Dryer?????
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 96 23:43:37 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

PaulBreed <paulbreed@aol.com> writes:
 
>1300 watts is also the aproximate heat from a plug in electric heater.
>Was the patterson heat output comparable to one of these portable electric
>heaters?
 
Yes, it was in the same ballpark. I did not get a chance to measure it
but I compared it later to a 1500 heater in my office and the warm air
temperature is roughly the same. Also, a colleague of mine has recently
built an air flow calorimeter (for an unrelated project). He reports
moderate but quite palpable Delta T temperature for these power ranges,
using a very similar computer cooling fan.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.13 / Bradley Sherman /  Re: cold fusion theory (simple)
     
Originally-From: bks@netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: cold fusion theory (simple)
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 02:37:20 GMT
Organization: Remote Fusion Reactor Reverse Entropy Associates

In article <mawong.1174554346A@tilde.csc.ti.com>,
Mark Wong <mawong@m2.dseg.ti.com> wrote:
...
>Experiment (1) Go to Wal Mart, in the camping section. Ask for the hand warmers
>that you boil.  It will be a plastic package containing a thick clear liquid
>and a metal disk.  The liquid is supersaturated sodium acetate.  Flex the
>metal disk, noting how much force and how far you moved the disk.  The bag
...

I've been playing with one of those lately.  What exactly is
that metal disk, and how does flexing it start the reaction?

    --bks

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbks cudfnBradley cudlnSherman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.12 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Ceti confession
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ceti confession
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 96 23:50:25 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Larry Wharton <Wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov> writes:
 
>much greater than one - the question is what is going on.  We know from 
>Mitchel Jones' Magnum 350 test runs that the PowerGen 95 demo cell was 
>producing much less than the claimed 450 watts.  With a delta T of 6.7 C 
 
How the hell do we know that?!? Has Mitchell Jones repealed the laws of
physics? I measured the energy using flow calorimetery. The heat exchanger
performance has *nothing* to do with this method. Mitchell's findings do
not, in any way, invalidate my method. His test runs prove that his
heat exchanger does not work as well as Cravens' heat exchanger. There is
no other logical, physically possible explanation for the difference in
performance. Neither you nor Mitchell can wave your hands and make the
specific heat of water change, or the flow rate go from a liter to 100
ml.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.13 /  VCockeram /  Re: Jed's got the heebie-jeebies
     
Originally-From: vcockeram@aol.com (VCockeram)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed's got the heebie-jeebies
Date: 13 Feb 1996 02:09:23 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <4foooj$loj@news.unimelb.EDU.AU>, Martin Sevior
<msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au> writes:
>>>>>>>In a reply to what Bob Sullivan posted;
>
>You apparently have some inside source of information. Your
interpretation of
>the information you get seems a bit strange. 
                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
VC: Martin, it seem to me that when there is the possibility of something
that
      a person has believed in all his life may be wrong, this person will
      act "a bit strange".  I  think some of these "idiot skeptics" here
are a bit
      like a child who when confronted with something it does not want to
      hear will stuff it's fingers in it's ears, get red in the face and
shout
      something like "naa naa naa naa" over and over to screen out the
      offending data being presented.
      Notice I say "idiot skeptics", not true skeptics like Mitchell
Jones, who
      at his own expense, goes and performs experiments rather than blow
      a lot of very putrid stale air.

MS>If Miley and Motorola were not
>convinced by this private demo why on earth would they go along and allow
>their
>names to be raked through the mud when the truth emerges? You are
incredibly
>negative about the PowerGen apperatus, yet these people had it for a week
>and after a week they remain extremely interested in the device.
>
>If Motorola had not gotten positive results from their tests I can't
believe
>they would allow the Nightline people to say they had. 
>
>Martin Sevior
>

Regards, Vince

Vince, Lost Wages, Nevada
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenvcockeram cudlnVCockeram cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.12 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Jed is wrong and libelous
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed is wrong and libelous
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 96 23:33:08 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

<jonesse@plasma> writes:
 
>postings demonstrate otherwise.  Your poor name calling tells us more about
>you than about him.  Nor did I lie about Dennis Cravens'
>admission that there was probably something wrong with his temperature
>measurements taken with thermocouples.  
 
You are indeed a connoving liar because ONCE AGAIN you fail to mention
the other thing Cravens told you, and what he wrote, and what I told you:
 
HE DID NOT RELY UPON THERMOCOUPLES ONLY
 
HE ALSO USED THERMISTORS
 
HE *ALSO* USED MERCURY THERMOMETERS
 
The thermistors and the mercury thermometers proved there was nothing wrong
with the temperature measurements taken with the thermocouples. I performed
that same test at ICCF5 and again at Power-Gen, with my own thermistors.
Your statement that "something was wrong" is bunk. It is a deliberate,
reapeated lie, just like your statements about recombination causing
4000 times more energy than I*V.
 
I do not slander Steve Jones; he slanders himself. He keeps repeateing and
repeating these nonsenical assertions, showing that whole world that he
cares nothing for the truth.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.12 / Larry Wharton /  Ceti confession
     
Originally-From: Larry Wharton <Wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ceti confession
Date: 12 Feb 1996 15:35:34 GMT
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center -- Greenbelt, Maryland USA

A while ago I calculated the ceti (Carnot energy transfer inclusion) 
factor for the Patterson cell.  The cell could be simply be forcing the 
formation of salt crystals and the output would be water with salt 
crystals embedded in it.  The heat of formation of the salt crystals 
would be trasnfered into the water with the the amount of heat limited 
by the Carnot efficiency.  Then the ceti factor would be:

ceti = (power out/power in)*((Tout - Tin)/Tin)

The SOFE demo had Tout-Tin about  3.5 degrees C, so the modification 
factor was about 3.5/300 = 1/85 which was enough to reduce the power 
gain of about 80 to one to give a ceti factor less than one.  At the 
time I indicated that I would be impressed by a ceti factor greater than 
one. The PowerGen 95 demo had higher temperature differences and higher 
power multiplication factors.  Here a typical ceti factor would be about 
20 or much greater than one.  So I must confess that the ceti factor is 
much greater than one - the question is what is going on.  We know from 
Mitchel Jones' Magnum 350 test runs that the PowerGen 95 demo cell was 
producing much less than the claimed 450 watts.  With a delta T of 6.7 C 
the ceti power limit is

450 * 6.7/300  = 10 watts

and this figure seems more reasonable than the 450 watt number but it is 
still too high as the claimed input is less than 1 watt.  All the CETI 
people would have to do is turn their cell off and insert a heater in 
the cell with power equal to the claimed 450 watts, or the 200 watts 
shown in Nightline, and observe that the whole loop of electrolyte heats 
up to an equilibrium temperature much higher than that observed with the 
cell doing the imagined heating.  In other words the entire experiment, 
with the electrolyte still flowing, can simply be used as a static 
calorimeter.  This would be much more reliable and it is undersatandable 
that the CETI poeple have not done this (or reported on it if it has 
been done) as the claimed power output would be much less.
  The CETI cell production of salt crystals is probably a major effect 
and it is consistant with the much lower power output indicated by the 
Jones Magnum 350 test runs. The observed ceti factor of greater than 10 
still requires some explanation.  Two possible factors are input energy 
from the pump and preferential formation of salt crystals on the 
surfaces at the cell electrolyte outflow area.

Lawrence E. Wharton   wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov
NASA/GSFC code 913, Greenbelt MD 20771
work (301) 286-3486,    home (301) 595-5038


cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenWharton cudfnLarry cudlnWharton cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.12 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: The usual garbage from Bob Sullivan
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The usual garbage from Bob Sullivan
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 96 23:45:56 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

MARSHALL DUDLEY <mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com> writes:
 
>I believe you are talking about John Logajan's Web site.  If so you are messaging
>the wrong person.  I don't think Jed has a Web site does he?
 
Nope. Sure don't. I guess John will get around to updating the report
sooner or later. It is not a big deal.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.13 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Jed is wrong and libelous
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed is wrong and libelous
Date: 13 Feb 1996 17:10:26 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1996Feb12.133111@plasma> jonesse@plasma writes:
>Jed again steps over the line of decency and fact.  A problem with spf
>is that such libelous, untrue statements are allowed to be written
>and disseminated.
>
>Bob Sullivan wrote:  "there is probably something wrong with the temperature
>measurements when the principal investigator (Cravens) admits to the problems"
>
>Jed replies:
>"This is a lie, although it originated with Jones, not Sullivan...
.....
....
...
..
>Jed is wrong as well as libelous in calling me a "conniving liar."  I am not.
>
>I'm surprised you guys put up with such behavior on spf -- I saw no comments
>from anyone else on this.  Would you allow Mr. Rothwell to call *you* a
>conniving liar?  There seems to be a lack of decency here that ought to be
>checked.

Steve knows that I pointed this problem out to him several times in the
past.  Many of us have been libeled by this cretin, but we have not
moved against him.  There are only a couple of solutions to this
problem.  One is to totally ignore anything he says as being unworthy
of your attention.  The second is to sue his pants off and make him pay
the piper for whatever satisfaction he gets in trying to denigrate
anyone who exposes him as the incompetent he is.


Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
 -------------------------------------------------------
Any ideas or opinions expressed here do not necessarily
reflect the ideas or opinions of my employer.
 -------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.12 /  AndersonBD /  Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
     
Originally-From: andersonbd@aol.com (AndersonBD)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
Date: 12 Feb 1996 10:43:29 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I agree with you totally.  All these meanderings in physics and chemistry
sound to me like people who like to hear themselves talk about how much
they know about the sciences.  If you just take the voltage drop and the
current travelling through the cell, you have the power consumption. 
Given that water is chemically very stable, there is no energy within it
that can be released to account for a change in temperature ( that we know
of anyway ).  Then, if one takes the change in water temperature over some
time interval, and simple specific heat information, it should be easily
apparent if what these "scientists" are claiming is true.  Am I right?

               -  Brad Anderson
                   AndersonBD@aol.com 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenandersonbd cudlnAndersonBD cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.12 / Chris Dickson /  Re: Patterson Power Cell
     
Originally-From: cd@birch119.cray.com (Chris Dickson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Patterson Power Cell
Date: 12 Feb 96 17:27:57 CST
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.


In article <4flksu$c8u@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, davesradio@aol.com (DavesRadio) writes:
> Greetings all,
> 
> In addition, I intend to replace my existing baseboard hot-water home
> heating system with these cells!  "Be the first kid on the block to have
> this new futuristic hydrogen energy conversion heating system in YOUR
> home..."  :=)
> 
This guy is going to get two cold showers at the same time. Brrrrr! 
>  
-- 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Dickson	System Performance Analysis, Simulation and Modeling
cd@cray.com					  (+1)(612) 683 5375
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudencd cudfnChris cudlnDickson cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.12 / David Spain /  Re: Jed is wrong and libelous
     
Originally-From: spain@flipper.nexen.com (David Spain)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed is wrong and libelous
Date: 12 Feb 1996 22:40:17 -0500
Organization: ascom Nexion, Acton, MA USA

In article <1996Feb12.133111@plasma> jonesse@plasma writes:
> I'm surprised you guys put up with such behavior on spf -- I saw no comments
> from anyone else on this.  Would you allow Mr. Rothwell to call *you* a
> conniving liar?  There seems to be a lack of decency here that ought to be
> checked.
> 
> --Steven Jones

Steve,

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "checked".  This is an unmoderated
Internet newsgroup and as such there is no way to "check" someone else's
posting for content or style.  Of course you could consider Jed's writing to
be "indecent" and you could try to convice a Federal prosecutor of the same.

Barring further court action on a pending lawsuit and request for a
restraining order, "indecent" speech on the Internet will soon be considered
grounds for criminal prosecution within the US. Including a fine up to
$250,000 and imprisonment for up to 2 years for both Internet providers and
their subscribers who supply the source material.  Thanks to the newly signed
Telecommunications Bill, those of us who live in the USA can all enjoy having
our First Amendment rights trampled on.

Sure I would not like to be called a liar in public, who would?  But would
I want to put Jed in jail because of it?

But let's assume by "check" you mean to publicly argue with Jed. Of course,
everyone is free to do so, including yourself.  But where does this utimately
lead?  Nowhere.  Only to "Did so" / "Did not" contradiction.  Sure Science
is supposed to be objective, but Science don't forget is a branch of
philosophy.  In order to conduct a "dialog" we need a common set of
assumptions to argue from.  Some of these assumptions are in dispute.
You may believe their assumptions to be a misundertanding of scientific
theory (or even law) but it makes not a whit of difference. Constructive
argument will not work under these conditions. Many have tried. Many have
failed. And yet each side can make a case for the logic of their argument.
Only facts can be proved right or wrong.  Assumptions cannot. When facts
are in dispute it usually gets resolved pretty quickly in this newsgroup.
Of course strong factual presentations can sometimes sway assumptions.
I think I'll leave it at that.

I can understand that as a public figure you have a reputation to defend. Feel
free to do so.  But other than that I see little remedy for you.

I am saddened that the level of discourse in this group has sunk so far.  I
wish things could be different. I think you'd agree. I'm glad that those with
recognized scientific credentials (read that as establishment credentials, if
you like) still post to this group.  Were this the print media, I suggest that
established scientists would have long ago abandoned the group.

I can think of five things that could be done:

	1) Create a mailing list whose membership you control and post
	   only to it. (A bad idea IMHO)

	2) Conduct a call for votes for a moderated newsgroup to discuss
	   muon-catalized fusion. Call it sci.physics.fusion.muon if you like.
	   You could create another moderated group for hot fusion call it
	   sci.physics.fusion.plasma for example. And leave this group for
	   good. (Another bad idea IMHO)

	3) Create another newsgroup for "cold fusion".  Like
	   sci.chemistry.electo.anomaly or sci.physics.anomaly and hope the
	   CF folks move to it. Anyone who then posts subjects of a CF nature
	   could be told that its the consensus of this newsgroup that this
	   is NOT a fusion phenomenon, that the post is off-topic and should
	   be redirected to one or both of the group(s) above.
	   (Not a workable solution IMHO)

	4) Appoint an independent third party to keep score.  "A" said this
	   about "B" that was disputed by "B" and vice-versa.  Let people
	   decide for themselve when an FAQ like summary of scores is posted
	   once a month. (Also not a good solution IMHO. Eventually the high
	   scorer is going to claim a bias by the third party).

	5) Publicly state you will ignore further comments from specifically
	   named critics.  And stick to it!  If you feel you need to correct
	   public inaccuracies about things others say you have said or done,
           by all means do so, but DO NOT include any names, nor include any
           snippets of their previous postings in your reply. It should be all
	   in your own words. Then state you will only argue (or Heaven-forbid
           discuss! :-) points raised by the "certain" critic if the question
	   is sponsored by someone else whom YOU will recognize. Newly elected
	   US Senators have NO voice on the floor until their credentials are
	   presented to the Senate president. (Usually by their co-Senator
	   from the same state) Note how effective this approach works for
	   BOTH camps TB Skeptics AND TB Believers! Sort of like having a
	   moderator in an unmoderated group. If you use a news reader that
	   supports kill-article-by-author, well you also have given yourself
	   a powerful filter.

Jed Rothwell calls Steve Jones a liar.  Steve Jones says Jed Rothwell is
libeling him.  I don't dispute either, you both have said that.
What else is there to discuss?

Well, that's my two cents. This has all been hashed through before. I can
remember Dieter Britz making a proposal similar to my point 5 well over, what,
two years ago? And yet the shouting continues. I'm going on record now
to publicly state that this will be my ONLY posting on this topic. Unless
someone has a question about one of my five points above. I could care less if
someone else gets the last word.  The only thing I am going to shout about is
that I am not getting into any shouting matches now or ever!

Although some posters to this group find all this amusing, I find it tiresome.
How 'bout it folks?  Truce? 

Dave
-- 
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:
cuddy12 cudenspain cudfnDavid cudlnSpain cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.12 / Ken Seto /  Re: ABC-TV reports on CETI
     
Originally-From: kenseto@erinet.com (Ken Seto)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ABC-TV reports on CETI
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 22:35:04 GMT
Organization: KHS Publications

I watched the nightline program on the Patterson Power Cell. They
implied that the process is not nuclear. If that's the case, then it
must be chemical--perhaps the coated metal surface of the beads were
reacting with the salts in the water to generate  the excess energy
observed. If it is a chemical reaction the reaction process will cease
when all the reactants are consumed and at that point, no more excess
energy will be generated. This means that newly coated beads will have
to put into the cell to renew the excess energy generation. This then
is a cyclical process. The question is: Does the total excess energy
generated during each cycle more than equal to the combine energy
expanded  to process the various ores to the various metals .the
coating processes of the beads, the electric current through the cell
and the electric current running the water pump?
kenseto@erinet.com

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenkenseto cudfnKen cudlnSeto cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Feb 14 04:37:04 EST 1996
------------------------------
