1996.02.13 / Bob Lyle /  Re: Reconciling Magnum and PowerGen data
     
Originally-From: Bob Lyle <madrabit@metronet.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reconciling Magnum and PowerGen data
Date: 13 Feb 1996 19:29:46 GMT
Organization: Texas Metronet, Inc  (login info (214/488-2590 - 817/571-0400))

ahu@bigtower.et.tudelft.nl (bert hubert) wrote:
>
>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.
>
Perhaps I missed something.  My physics BS is kinda rusty, but I thought 
that not all fusion reactions produced neutrons.  In any case, it seems 
unlikely that the power source (if any) behind "cold fusion" is either 
chemical or fusion . . . too many things just don't fit.

By the way, I am sickened by the personal attacks ans narrow-mindedness 
on this group.  Is there an alternative?

Bob Lyle


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmadrabit cudfnBob cudlnLyle cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.13 /   /  Re: cold fusion theory (simple)
     
Originally-From: ejeong@pinet.aip.org (euejin_jeong)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: cold fusion theory (simple)
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 15:20:29 GMT
Organization: AIP

 Ignorance takes many shapes. And this is one of those.
You seem to think you know something. Actually nothing.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenejeong cudln cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.13 / Elliot Kennel /  Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
     
Originally-From: Elliot Kennel <71756.3025@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
Date: 13 Feb 1996 14:36:31 GMT
Organization: Applied Sciences Inc

Brad,
	Yes, you're right.  This is either a genuine anomaly or 
it is fraud.  There is nothing very complicated about the claimed 
measurement.

Best regards,
Elliot Kennel
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden3025 cudfnElliot cudlnKennel cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.13 / Larry Wharton /  Re: Ceti confession
     
Originally-From: Larry Wharton <Wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ceti confession
Date: 13 Feb 1996 14:12:23 GMT
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center -- Greenbelt, Maryland USA

I think some people are having trouble with the concept of salt crystal 
formation in the CETI cell.  If this is occuring then the water flow 
could carry the salt crystals out of the cell.  There would be salt 
crystals mixed with the water.  The total energy flow rate out would be 
equal to the heat of the water times the water flow rate minus the salt 
flow rate times the heat of formation of the salt crystals.  It is this 
latter term that a TB like Jed Rothwell choses to ignore without even 
checking for the existance of salt crystals in the cell outflow.  
Without a check of fractional phase changes between the water inflow and 
the water outflow the flow calorimetry numbers are worthless.  One 
simple check would be to insert an inline filter in the flow comming out 
of the cell.  Then one could measure the temperature in the flow after 
the filter where there would be very little salt crystals present.

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


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenWharton cudfnLarry cudlnWharton cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.12 / Ken Seto /  Re: Ceti confession
     
Originally-From: kenseto@erinet.com (Ken Seto)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ceti confession
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 23:16:29 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
<http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html>




cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenkenseto cudfnKen cudlnSeto cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.12 /  DavesRadio /  WHAT THE CETI REACTION REALLY IS! (WAS Re: Reding backs off from cold fusion
     
Originally-From: davesradio@aol.com (DavesRadio)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: WHAT THE CETI REACTION REALLY IS! (WAS Re: Reding backs off from cold fusion
Date: 12 Feb 1996 19:08:51 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Hey all you hackers!

Whats the chances that them there little protons (H+ type fellers) is just
being et up by that there palladium, 'n its somehoo 'r other convertin
them little buggers into heat & other energy outputs?  Sorta like digestin
'em, ya know?  It fits the law of conservation of matter 'n energy....  if
we do a test...   How much energy would 1 itty bitty little hydrogen ion
give off if it were converted to energy?  Not by any known means- ie., not
chemical, not nuclear, but by a reaction type that we humans aint as yet
been able to classify cause we aint never observed it before.  Are we to
believe that everthin that happpenz in this universe has to fit in our
teeny weensy little model of what we've been lucky enuf to notice in our
microscopic existence in this little corner of nowhere?  So I propose...
Figure the energy released from a single proton m to E conversioon... 
figure how many protons per second are getting sucked up by the Pd, figure
the heat output, and see if the numbers match.

Also, notice that folks have only been looking for what "should" be there,
according to what we *already* know.  Gadz- we'd still be living in caves
if we kept only looking for what we already knew!  prapps there's energy
being released as well in the form of ultrasonic vibrations, radio waves,
microwaves, light, cosmic rays, who knows?  Anyone checked for this other
energy production?

'course im a idiot, right?

Greycloak7@aol.com

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudendavesradio cudlnDavesRadio cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.14 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: Patterson Cell==Hair Dryer?????
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Patterson Cell==Hair Dryer?????
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 96 01:32:00 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

In article <xVIKpV5.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
->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

Paul, don't let Jed hornswoggle you. It's been demonstrated conclusively that 
the PowerGen non-demo didn't put out the claimed 1,344 Watts -- not even for 
fifteen minutes.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.12 / Ken Seto /  Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
     
Originally-From: kenseto@erinet.com (Ken Seto)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 22:32:57 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 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.12 / Ken Seto /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: kenseto@erinet.com (Ken Seto)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 22:49:49 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
<http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html>


sethw@access5.digex.net (Seth W.) wrote:

>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:
cuddy12 cudenkenseto cudfnKen cudlnSeto cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.12 / Ken Seto /  Re: ABC-TV Nightline reports on CETI
     
Originally-From: kenseto@erinet.com (Ken Seto)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ABC-TV Nightline reports on CETI
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 22:52:41 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
<http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html>


cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenkenseto cudfnKen cudlnSeto cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.12 /  PaulBreed /  Patterson Cell==Hair Dryer?????
     
Originally-From: paulbreed@aol.com (PaulBreed)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Patterson Cell==Hair Dryer?????
Date: 12 Feb 1996 13:11:54 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

1300 watts is the amount of heat generated by
an electric hair dryer. (1K to 1.5K actually).

As the Delta T in the patterson cell  was much less than a hair dryer,
was the volume of air going through the paterson cooling aparatus
much higher?

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?

Paul
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenpaulbreed cudlnPaulBreed cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.12 /  AndersonBD /  Re: Patterson Power Cell
     
Originally-From: andersonbd@aol.com (AndersonBD)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Patterson Power Cell
Date: 12 Feb 1996 10:52:52 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I wish you luck with your experiment.  If only there was someone
independent who came up with the same results as advertised, it would be a
little easier to believe in Patterson's invention.  If you get results,
I'd appreciate an e-mail summary of what you found.  

        - Brad Anderson
         AndersonBD@aol.com


     
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenandersonbd cudlnAndersonBD cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.12 / Jim Carr /  Re: ABC-TV Nightline reports on CETI
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ABC-TV Nightline reports on CETI
Date: 12 Feb 1996 18:29:29 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <4fc7n8$10m@stratus.skypoint.net> jlogajan@skypoint.com writes:
>
>  McKubre attempted to correct Huizenga's false claim.

He also tried to shift the subject to his own D-based experiments.  He 
seemed a bit miffed that no one wanted to talk about *his* work. 

Since I did not tape it, I cannot go back and check, but maybe someone 
else could.  It seemed to me that Huizenga was talking about the McKubre 
experiments when he discussed calorimetry.  Did that remark follow the 
reference to the D experiments? 

It also appeared that Huizenga was up way past his bedtime. 

-- 
 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:
cuddy12 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.14 / 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, 14 Feb 96 00:41:56 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

In article <4fkl2r$11l@stratus.skypoint.net>,
   jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) wrote:
->Bob Sullivan (bsulliva@sky.net) wrote:
->: The only thing that distinguishes Motorola from a lengthy list of other 
->: companies that have investigated the Patternson cell is that we have not 
->: received word of the Motorola rejection -- yet.
->
->If the list is lengthy, could you list some?
->

I know of three, and I believe that you are aware of, at least, two of the 
three plus the rumored contacts that haven't been identified yet.


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.14 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: Jed's got the heebie-jeebies
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed's got the heebie-jeebies
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 96 01:24:09 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

In article <4foooj$loj@news.unimelb.EDU.AU>,
   Martin Sevior <msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
->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
->

Consider the possibility that ENECO/CETI is claiming 'endorsements' that don't 
exist.  

As a hypothetical, let's say I were given (remember this is a hypothetical) a 
fully assembled Patterson cell including thermocouples. I connect the anode and 
cathode to a DC supply and pump some lithium sulfate solution through the cell. 
If I twiddle the knobs like the instructions say I should, take the 
measurements, and run them through Cravens heat balance calculation, I'll 
probably get the same kind of results Cravens gets.

Does that mean I have confirmed the claims?  No!  Does that mean that I have to 
believe Cravens over-unity claims?  No!  If I tell a reporter just exactly what 
I did, does that constitute an endorsement?  Not in my book. Your mileage may 
vary.

You don't have to believe that the woman actually gets cut in half to find the 
magician's act 'interesting.'
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.14 / John Logajan /  Re: Jed is wrong and libelous
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed is wrong and libelous
Date: 14 Feb 1996 04:17:10 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

jonesse@plasma wrote:
: I'm surprised you guys put up with such behavior on spf ... There seems
: to be a lack of decency here that ought to be checked.

It would be pleasureable to the vast majority of spf readers (me thinks) if
both sides would check their tongues (or keyboards.)

Rather than chastizing Dr. Jones for failing to speak up himself when name
calling occurs in the opposite direction (which by an reasonable accounting
is far more prevalent) let me rather call on Dr. Jones and all other voices
to equally chasten those on both sides who continue in this less than
savory practice.

I expect the feuds to continue unabated, but I believe that if a sufficient
number of us meted out distain *on both sides* to those who engage in
this behavior, we might improve the climate here some time in advance
of hell freezing over.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.12 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: The usual garbage from Bob Sullivan
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The usual garbage from Bob Sullivan
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 1996 10:35 -0500 (EST)

schultr@ashur.cc.biu.ac.il (Richard Schultz) writes:
 
-> jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
-> : I cannot possibly correct all of the lies, distortions and nonsense
-> : here, but I thought I would take a moment to post the truth.
->
-> How about you take a moment to correct the, umm, extremely misleading
-> report of yours at the Cold Fusion Web Site?  You know, the one about
-> the 1-Kilowatt CETI device.
 
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?
 
Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.12 / Jim Carr /  Re: Where is Cold Fusion theory
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Where is Cold Fusion theory
Date: 12 Feb 1996 18:24:35 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

ANDRADE@devlpr.enet.dec.com (Gil Andrade) writes:
>
>One of the things I expected to see in this news group is news
>about Cold Fusion theorical advances ...

To have an advance, you have to find a theory that agrees with 
experiment.  There is no shortage of theories that might agree 
with *some* experiment, many discussed here in the distant past, 
many in print.  The problem is that there is a moving target. 

>Instead there are zillions of discutions about methods, and
>honesty and what not.
>
>I for one, am willing to accept that the experimenters know what
>they are doing...

Such naivete' -- must be theorist!  

And one who does not collaborate much with experimental groups. 
Seeing how much "preliminary" data can change as it gets further 
analyzed with background assumptions changed or mistakes fixed 
might change your opinion.  

>That is what experiments are for right, to demonstrate things,
>and narrow down possibilities.

Demonstrate things to the satisfaction of the rest of the 
community, perhaps in such a way that the demonstration can 
be repeated at will by others.  That is why the Patterson Cell 
is so interesting: it seems to work the same way for persons 
other than the original claimants, thus making conclusive 
experiments possible.  Possibilities are not narrowed down when 
one group says D is necessary and another group says it is not. 

>For example, the finding of hellium ash, where there was none
>before. Is proof enough for me that a nuclear reaction occured
>(how is the question, is anyone gotten any closer to finding
> it out ?)

Is it He-3 or He-4 you are expecting to find?  Is it found in 
direct proportion to the heat produced, so that the E=mc^2 on 
the board during the TV interview at CETI comes into play, or 
does the proportion always low and the He sometimes nonexistent 
or consistent with the amounts found normally?  These are well 
defined experimental questions that require a *consistent* 
answer within a class of experiments before one can proceed. 

-- 
 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:
cuddy12 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.13 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Jed's got the heebie-jeebies
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed's got the heebie-jeebies
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 96 22:12:19 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Bob Sullivan <bsulliva@sky.net> writes:
 
>Consider the possibility that ENECO/CETI is claiming 'endorsements' that don't 
>exist.  
 
I realize you have permanent delusions about many things, like your notion
that recomination can create 4,000 times more energy out than total I*V
input. I can see why you cling to this bit of nonsense; it is all you have
left. However I cannot see why you insist on writing ENECO/CETI all the
time. As I have explained three times, ENECO has nothing to do with CETI,
they are separate and distinct corporations, with no affiliation as far as
I know. Why do you deliberately confuse things but telling people they are
one and the same? What is the point? I know that you are looking for every
possible reason to attack cold fusion, but what does this have to do with
attacking it? All you are doing is mixing up people's addresses.
 
Regarding Motorola, they will neither confirm nor deny their connection
to CETI. They will not talk about the tests they have performed. However,
reports of their involvement have now been printed in the Wall Street
Journal and broadcast on ABC. They have had plenty of time to deny everything,
and if they had no connection with CETI you can be darn sure they *would
have* denied it! ABC would have issued a retraction. So, by the twisted
logic of Business Page reporting, the connection is verified. In point of
fact many people have known about it and about Motorola's tests for
months, including me. Since you claim to have the inside track with
Motorola I am sure you have seen their test results too. Very interesting,
aren't they?
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.14 / Wesley Bruce /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: Wesley Ian Bruce <wesleyb@cin.gov.au>
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: 14 Feb 1996 05:27:09 GMT
Organization: Community Information Network

  How long will it take to reach the point where they are 
taught that the Cold Fusion reactions are a-neutronic and do 
not produce dangerous radiation.CF is a new type of nuclear 
reaction different in both form and products from gas plasma 
fusion and laser fusion. An analagy may help in understanding 
the difference. You can burn both wood and gunpowder. But 
burning wood will not produce sulferous smoke. If burning wood 
does not smell like burning gunpowder  does that mean that it 
isn't burning at all. The radiation debate quoted below is  
Five years out of date in cold fusion circles.
 John Skingley <john@circlesw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Jonah Mainwaring says -
>
>  NO, the amount of radiation coming from a 1 KW reaction should 
>  not be harmful.
>
>Mike Loughlin says -
>
>  1KW of of fusion produces 8.5e14 neutrons/sec. If you stood 2m
>  from the source, the dose due to 2.5MeV neutrons would be 2.5e5 rem/hr.
>  Don't try this at home kids.
>
>Implying that it would be very harmful.
>
>Any more offers?
>
>---------------------------
>Regards,  John.
>P.O. Box 36, BODMIN, PL30 4YY, U.K. Tel/Fax: +44 1208 850790
>


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenwesleyb cudfnWesley cudlnBruce cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.14 / Wesley Bruce /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: Wesley Ian Bruce <wesleyb@cin.gov.au>
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: 14 Feb 1996 05:28:49 GMT
Organization: Community Information Network

  How long will it take to reach the point where they are 
taught that the Cold Fusion reactions are a-neutronic and do 
not produce dangerous radiation.CF is a new type of nuclear 
reaction different in both form and products from gas plasma 
fusion and laser fusion. An analagy may help in understanding 
the difference. You can burn both wood and gunpowder. But 
burning wood will not produce sulferous smoke. If burning wood 
does not smell like burning gunpowder  does that mean that it 
isn't burning at all. The radiation debate quoted below is  
Five years out of date in cold fusion circles.
 John Skingley <john@circlesw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Jonah Mainwaring says -
>
>  NO, the amount of radiation coming from a 1 KW reaction should 
>  not be harmful.
>
>Mike Loughlin says -
>
>  1KW of of fusion produces 8.5e14 neutrons/sec. If you stood 2m
>  from the source, the dose due to 2.5MeV neutrons would be 2.5e5 rem/hr.
>  Don't try this at home kids.
>
>Implying that it would be very harmful.
>
>Any more offers?
>
>---------------------------
>Regards,  John.
>P.O. Box 36, BODMIN, PL30 4YY, U.K. Tel/Fax: +44 1208 850790
>


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenwesleyb cudfnWesley cudlnBruce cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.14 / 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, 14 Feb 96 05:03:15 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

In article <4fg2lk$22cs@useneta1.news.prodigy.com>,
   FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin) wrote:
->bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan) wrote:
->
->>It doesn't take anything but rudimentary science knowledge to
->> understand how mistaken assumptions about Faraday efficiency
->> (recombination) have caused supposedly competent analysts to
->> have fantasies about free energy. I suggest you follow your own 
->>often-stated advice and review the literature starting with the
->>letter from Zvi Shkedi of the Bose Corporation published in 'Con'
->> Fusion Facts.
->
->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?  For instance, if 
->you see a 4X gain and Faraday efficiency is 50%, only half of your input 
->E was used so the actual reaction gain would be 8X.  I'm not claiming 
->"cold fusion" is taking place.  I don't know if there is cold fusion, 
->there are actual energy gains or if all the experiments are botched.  
->However, 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
->


John--

Here's how recombination affects the (heat output)/(electric input) ratio 
calculation in a simple (without CF) cell using the Cravens heat balance:

output    (ohmic heating) + (heat energy from recombination)
-----  =  --------------------------------------------------
input     (electric energy input) - (energy from gas loss)

Note that the input is the denominator is reduced by the (energy from gas loss).

At 100% Faraday efficiency all of the gas produced would show up in the (energy 
from gas loss) in the denominator.  In the real world, some of the gases will 
recombine (energy from recombination) and add to the heat in the numerator.

Temperature measurements can't distinguish between the (ohmic heating) and the 
(heat energy from recombination), so the true Faraday efficiency is reflected in 
the numerator.

Those who do flow calorimetry seem to prefer to present their results in terms 
of power rather then energy. This means that they have to take instantaneous 
measurements.

The problem occurs in the denominator. It's difficult to do instantaneous gas 
production measurements particularly when the gas measurement would be displaced 
in space (and hence, in time) from the gas production.  

Since the instantaneous gas loss measurement is difficult, we might substitute a 
calcultaion instead. We know the gas loss should be related to the electric 
current and the Faraday efficiency. If we assume 100% Faraday efficiency when 
the actual efficiency is less than 100% then our cell will appear to be 
producing 'excess heat', because the adjustment in the denominator will be too 
large.

Cravens assumes that he can calculate the (energy from gas loss) to be used in 
the denominator. In doing so, he must make (perhaps implicitly) an assumption 
about the instantaneous Faraday efficiency.  If he makes the right assumption, 
then no harm is done, but the evidence suggests that he has made the wrong 
assumption.  The claim is that no recombination occurs, but the cell 
construction points to just the opposite conclusion.  

In McKubre's studies, a platinum catalyst was used to force the hydrogen and 
oxygen gases to recombine within the cell.  The Patterson cell has fine mesh 
platinum screens at the inlet and outlet.  If that were not enough, Jed's 
favorite CF authority, Steven Jones, has pointed out that both the palladium and 
the nickel can catalyse the recombination.

Now, the recombination problems are real, but I'm not sure that we have gotten 
to that level yet. It's been common knowledge that Cravens has had problems with 
his temperature measurements. After reading his description of some of those 
problems on the CETI web page, and with the understanding that the bubblegum 
patch applied to fix them didn't work, I'm not sure that any of the measurements 
can be taken at face value.  

In addition to the measurement concerns, I find one aspect of the 'protocol' 
questionable. When they make a 'gain' calculation they reduce the electric input 
until they get the highest ratio of output to input. It's not unreasonable to 
expect some thermal 'inertia' to hold up the output as the input is reduced.  It 
looks to much like driving your car down the road at sixty mph and then briefly 
turning off the ignition while you measure the instantaneous gas consumption. 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.13 / Mark North /  Re: No Griggs results from NASA
     
Originally-From: north@  (Mark H. North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No Griggs results from NASA
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 17:40:04 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC/NRaD

In <USE2PCB520751885@brbbs.brbbs.com>, mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes:
>jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> 
>-> Griggs and NASA are both being a little disengenuous about this. I have
>                                            ^^^^^^^^^
> 
>I don't know if this is a typo, or a word that I don't know.  I can't find it
>in the dictionary either.  Thus I am not sure what you are trying to say that
>they are being.

That's "disingenuous." This is something Jed is well qualified to discuss
being an expert himself.

Mark

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.14 / Mark Mallory /  Re: Jed is wrong and libelous
     
Originally-From: mmallory@netcom.com (Mark Mallory)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed is wrong and libelous
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 07:22:44 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

John Logajan (jlogajan@skypoint.com) wrote:

: Rather than chastizing Dr. Jones for failing to speak up himself when name
: calling occurs in the opposite direction (which by an reasonable accounting
: is far more prevalent) let me rather call on Dr. Jones and all other voices
: to equally chasten those on both sides who continue in this less than
: savory practice.

	Should you not mention "Mr. Rothwell" by name as well as "Dr. Jones"?
After all, how often does Jed speak up when name calling occurs in "his" 
opposite direction?

	Your prejudices are coming through loud and clear, John.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmmallory cudfnMark cudlnMallory cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.13 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 03:00:20 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

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

> Mitchell Jones <21cenlogic@i-link.net> writes:
>  
> >as much--as was claimed for the Power Gen demo. The inescapable conclusion
> >is that the Power Gen demo wasn't producing as much heat as was claimed in
> >the low power runs. Why not? Probably because the flow measurements were
> >too high. If, for example, the true flow rate was half as much as claimed,
> >then the power production would also be half as much. My next series of
>  
> No, that is impossible. If that had been the case, the temperature would
> have fallen as soon as we took the 250 ml samples. That did not happen.
>  
> I do not find this conclusion of yours inescapable. It is easily escaped.

***{All right, Jed, let's review the relevant facts. As I understand it,
the layout of the flow loop at Power Gen was as follows: fluid left the
pump reservoir through the outlet fitting, then flowed to a Y-connector
which split the flow into two parallel branches. One branch contained the
experimental cell; the other contained the control cell. In each branch,
the sequence of devices was: control valve, heat cell, stopcock. Next, the
two branches were merged back together via another Y-connector, and the
resulting merged flow then passed through the cooling coils and re-entered
the pump reservoir through the inlet fitting. After passing back into the
reservoir through the inlet fitting, the flow passed through the micron
filter, was sucked down into the impeller housing, then forced up the
outlet tube, and back through the outlet fitting, after which the sequence
was repeated. If this description is incorrect in any important
particular, please so indicate. 

Now, assuming that it is *not* incorrect, then I fail to see how you could
measure the flow without getting readings that were too high. Suppose, for
example, that you open the stopcock downstream from the experimental cell
and let the flow drain into a beaker of known capacity, using a stopwatch
to time how long it takes for the beaker to fill. Let's say that the
capacity of the beaker is 200 ml, and it takes 12 seconds to fill. That
comes to 1 liter/min. However, why do you assume that all of the water
entering the beaker came from the direction of the experimental cell? What
prevents water from flowing through the control cell, past the downstream
Y-connector, thence back toward the experimental cell, and into your
beaker? I have heard no claim by you or anyone else that one-way valves
were in place downstream from the stopcocks to prevent backflow. Were they
in place? If not, then I would contend that the laws of physics mandate
that backflow will occur, and the water that accumulates in your beaker
will consist, in significant portion, of backflow electrolyte rather than
the forward flow you were attempting to measure. Moreover, this effect
would take place even if the rate of flow through the experimental cell
were not significantly increased by the drop in backpressure. Result:
contrary to what you say, the delta-T across the experimental cell would
*not* necessarily have fallen if your measurements were in error. 

Frankly, I have a perfectly open mind on this matter. If this reasoning is
easily escaped, I sincerely invite you to escape it. --Mitchell Jones}***
  
> Obviously, your heat exchanger does not work as well as the one Cravens
> made. I don't know why, but I am sure that must be the case because I
> observed warm air coming from his exchanger when the fluid was at moderate
> temperature, therefore it must have been working. 

***{My heat exchanger has a greater length of identical size Tygon tubing,
with the same solution flowing through it at the same flow rate. It is
coiled inside a wind tunnel served by a cooling fan that is about 20 times
as powerful as the one used by Cravens. By my understanding of the laws of
physics, my heat exchanger should be *more* effective at dissipating heat
than his, not less. Concerning your unquantified subjective impressions of
the amount of heat in the air flow, I can only repeat what I have said
previously: my fan is producing a much stronger air flow. Thus the amount
of heat that is being dissipated is being distributed over a larger volume
of air, and will produce a much smaller temperature change per unit
volume. Thus the fact that my air stream does not feel palpably warm while
Craven's did is likely due to the fact that my system is better than his
rather than the opposite. --Mitchell Jones}***

At that air flow rate
> it would not have taken much of a temperature rise to account for all 500 to
> 1300 watts.

***{As I have noted repeatedly, the problem here does not relate to the
capacity of the air to absorb the heat, but to the capacity of the plastic
tubing to deliver the heat to the air. My experiments seem to indicate
that the Power Gen system *could not* have been dissipating as much heat
as you thought it was dissipating. I have bent over backwards in my
attempts to persuade my system to match your claims, without success. And,
believe me, I wanted it to confirm everything you said, and I felt acute
disappointment every time it failed to do so. But facts are facts. *The
experimental results have stubbornly refused to confirm what you claimed
and what I wanted to believe.* Does this mean that the CF effect isn't
real? No. Does it mean the Power Gen demo wasn't producing excess heat?
No. Does it mean that CETI or Cravens are guilty of fraud? No. Does it
mean that you are incompetent? No. All it means is that the Power Gen demo
was a bit of a fiasco. It was cobbled together in haste to meet a
deadline, and the design was flawed. That's all. It's no big deal, and it
is about time to acknowledge the obvious and move on. --Mitchell Jones}***

>  
> Since your device is so different from his, I think you are comparing apples
> to oranges. It is your experiment, so you should do whatever you please with
> it but if it was mine, I would photograph the whole thing, write up a detailed
> report, and shoot it off to Cravens. I'll bet he can give you some pointers.

***{I'll bet he can too. And perhaps I will do exactly as you suggest,
purely for the learning experience.  --Mitchell Jones}*** 
 
> He might even give you the air cooled heat exchanger. I think back at the
> lab he uses water cooling, which is a lot more efficient. (But you would
> not want to drag it to a trade show.) Anyway, we measured the heat using
> flow calorimetry, we are sure of the temperature and flow and power input,
> so there is no question about the results. 

***{As noted above, it looks to me like there would be backflow when the
stopcock was open, invalidating the flow measurements. If there is some
fact of which I am unaware that would refute this conclusion, please tell
me about it. --Mitchell Jones}***

You must remember that many
> other calorimeters have been used to observe this effect at high power
> levels for extended periods. Yes, they all have flowmeters, and I expect
> they all use standard water cooled heat exchangers.

***{To repeat: I am not claiming that the problems associated with the
Power Gen demo indicate that the CF effect is not real, or that the
Patterson Cell doesn't work, or even that the Power Gen cell wasn't
producing excess heat. My sole point is that the Power Gen demo must have
been producing substantially less power than you thought it was producing.
I would also note that in his Nightline interview, James Patterson pointed
to a cell which appeared to be identical to the one used at Power Gen, and
told the reporter that the input was 1 watt and the output was 200 watts.
Since someone--you, I think--posted to this group some time ago that the
Power Gen cell was now at Patterson's lab in Florida, the chances are good
that the cell in question was, in fact, the Power Gen cell. This would
strongly suggest that even Patterson himself denies your claim that the
cell is capable of producing 469 watts from an input of .1 watts.
--Mitchell Jones}***

>  
> - Jed

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.14 / M Loughlin /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: Michael.Loughlin@jet.uk (Michael Loughlin)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 96 13:29:40 GMT
Organization: JET

Wesley Ian Bruce <wesleyb@cin.gov.au> wrote:
>  How long will it take to reach the point where they are
>taught that the Cold Fusion reactions are a-neutronic and do
>not produce dangerous radiation. CF is a new type of nuclear
>reaction different in both form and products from gas plasma
>fusion and laser fusion.

Well, that's cleared that up! Just a couple of questions to tie
up a few looses ends. What are the reacting nucleons?
What are the reaction products?

Mike L
Abingdon, Oxfordshire. (E-mail: mjl@jet.uk)

===============================================================================
    The above article is the personal view of the poster and should not be
       considered as an official comment from the JET Joint Undertaking
===============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenLoughlin cudfnMichael cudlnLoughlin cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.13 / 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: 13 Feb 1996 12:36:55 GMT
Organization: DESY

Chris Dickson (cd@birch119.cray.com) wrote:

: 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! 
: >  

That's what _cold_ fusion is all about, no ? ;-)
But anyway, I'm curious...

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:
cuddy13 cudenvanesch cudfnPatrick cudlnEsch cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.15 /  Tstolper@aol.c /  5000 Issues of Scott Hazen Mueller's Fusion Digest
     
Originally-From: Tstolper@aol.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 5000 Issues of Scott Hazen Mueller's Fusion Digest
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 03:59:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Scott,

Congratulations on the appearace of the 5000th issue of *Fusion Digest*.

Tom Stolper

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenTstolper cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.15 / Robert Hagglund /  Re: Patterson Cell==Hair Dryer?????
     
Originally-From: Robert.Hagglund@Hagglund.Net (Robert Hagglund)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Patterson Cell==Hair Dryer?????
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 04:00:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Bob Sullivan, bsulliva@sky.net, writes:

[snipped establishing discussion regarding electric heaters]

"... don't let Jed hornswoggle you. It's been demonstrated conclusively that 
the PowerGen non-demo didn't put out the claimed 1,344 Watts -- not even for 
fifteen minutes."

Bob, I have my questions about power output claims in general but I haven't 
seen anything posted here that demonstrates conclusively the negative case. 
If you can cite specific documentation it would be helpful to post the 
reference information here to back up your claim. References to impartial 
sources would be helpful.

[Robert.Hagglund@Hagglund.Net]


cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenHagglund cudfnRobert cudlnHagglund cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.14 / Steve Terrell /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: Steve Terrell <steve@hfab1.sc.ti.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: 14 Feb 1996 18:44:57 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments

kenseto@erinet.com (Ken Seto) wrote:
>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
><http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html>

Even if it does turn out to take more energy to prepare the materials than the
output energy, it could still be a usefull device.  You could take it camping,
it could be used in the field by soldiers, anywhere that a lightweight power
generator could be used, so could this thing.  I am anxious to find out if it
is for real or not.

Chow,
	Steve

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudensteve cudfnSteve cudlnTerrell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.14 / mitchell swartz /  Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
Subject: Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 15:28:29 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <4frb4k$710_001@ip107.sky.net>
Subject: Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan) evades
  John Logajan's direct question.

=bs "In article <4fkl2r$11l@stratus.skypoint.net>,
=bs    jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) wrote:
=bs ->Bob Sullivan (bsulliva@sky.net) wrote:
=bs ->: The only thing that distinguishes Motorola 
             from a lengthy list of other 
=bs ->: companies that have investigated 
              the Patternson cell is that we have not 
=bs ->: received word of the Motorola rejection -- yet.
=bs ->
=bs ->If the list is lengthy, could you list some?
=bs ->
=bs 
=bs "I know of three, and I believe that you are aware of, at least,
      two of the 
=bs three plus the rumored contacts that haven't been identified yet."

  If this is not more BS, would you please supply the"lengthy list"
to which you did refer.  

   Thanks in advance.




cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.13 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 96 08:43:42 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Mitchell Jones <21cenlogic@i-link.net> writes:
 
>capacity of the beaker is 200 ml, and it takes 12 seconds to fill. That
>comes to 1 liter/min. However, why do you assume that all of the water
>entering the beaker came from the direction of the experimental cell? What
 
Simple: we tried doing it while holding the stopcock portion of the tube
higher than the return or the cell (higher than any other component.)
The flow rate did not change measurably.
 
We thought of that!
 
The main thing you have to realize is that the very same results have been
seen in different calorimeters equipped with flowmeters and conventional
water cooled heat exchangers, so *all* hypothesis about errors in flow
measurment or the heat exchanger are ruled out.
 
>tubing to deliver the heat to the air. My experiments seem to indicate
>that the Power Gen system *could not* have been dissipating as much heat
 
No, I think your experiments seem to indicate that your heat exchanger is
not working very well. Either conclusion can be drawn. Since Cravens reported
null calibration runs with significant temperature rise, and you did see
a temperature rise, that also indicates that he has a better heat exchanger
than you. I trust both of you are reporting the data correctly; I have no
reason to doubt either of you.
 
It is very simple, really. You have to account for several things: 1. The
heat I measured using flow calorimetry, 500 to 1300 watts. That heat had to
go *somewhere*. 2. The difference in performance between your heat exchanger
and his during calibration runs. 3. The higher terminal temperature at
roughly the same 500 watt power level. It all adds up to one and only one
possibility: your heat exchanger does not work as well. What else could it
mean? Can you spot any mistake in my flow calorimetry techniques. I will
grant they were extremely crude, perhaps no better than +/- 10% or so,
but *nothing* that you or anyone else has proposed could reduce them by
two-thirds, or three-fourths, or whatever.
 
As to why your heat exchanger does not work, I honestly do cannot say. I do
not know enough about either your gadget or Cravens' to judge. You need to
charactorize yours more carefully, and try to account for things like
evaporation. Then, as I said, you need to examine photos of his gadget and
try to make a much closer replication. The best thing to do -- by far! -- is
to consult directly with Cravens. There is no point to asking me a lot of
questions because I made little effort to examine or charactorize the thing,
and I have no satisfactory answers. I did flow calorimetry, not static
calorimetry based on the reservoir temperature.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.14 / 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: 14 Feb 1996 04:59:15 GMT
Organization: School of Physics, University of Melbourne.

bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan) wrote:
>
>Consider the possibility that ENECO/CETI is claiming 'endorsements' that don't 
>exist.  
>
>As a hypothetical, let's say I were given (remember this is a hypothetical) a 
>fully assembled Patterson cell including thermocouples. I connect the anode and 
>cathode to a DC supply and pump some lithium sulfate solution through the cell. 
>If I twiddle the knobs like the instructions say I should, take the 
>measurements, and run them through Cravens heat balance calculation, I'll 
>probably get the same kind of results Cravens gets.
>
>Does that mean I have confirmed the claims?  No!  Does that mean that I have to 
>believe Cravens over-unity claims?  No!  If I tell a reporter just exactly what 
>I did, does that constitute an endorsement?  Not in my book. Your mileage may 
>vary.
>
>You don't have to believe that the woman actually gets cut in half to find the 
>magician's act 'interesting.'

The difference being that a magician doesn't let you wander around his trick,
examine it inside and out and watch it happen for several days on end. If I
had the PowerGen apperatus for several days I'm pretty sure I'd know whether
it was massively overunity.

If this hypothetical event occured it would explain why Miley is taking 
this incredible chance with his reputation.

Martin Sevior

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmsevior cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.14 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: Jed's got the heebie-jeebies
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed's got the heebie-jeebies
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 96 05:55:19 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

In article <4fljsf$hnd@stratus.skypoint.net>,
   jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) wrote:


[. . .]


->Now Bob here claims that irregularities at the microscopic level contradict
->the patent claims for a need for uniformity.  I think Bob would have to
->give us a range of diminishing returns to support his claim. 
->
->It is entirely possible that optimum performance would be a balance between
->a certain level of roughness versus a large scale uniformity to prevent
->too many bead failures under macro control.
->
->So Bob, can you shed any more light on this data -- since you seem to imply
->that you have connections to an insider.


I've told you what I know.  Patterson claims that the secret is in the 
uniformity of the beads and that that they are, therefore, difficult to prepare. 
Miley's crew can prepare beads of greater uniformity with little difficulty. 
Little, if any, of this is new information. It may not have been reported here, 
but the information was floating about before I got a verification from another 
source. Sometimes, you need to know the answers before you can ask the right 
questions.

At this point, I would regard it as an interesting tidbit of questionable 
relevance. In the Grand Scheme of Things, we should put off worrying about *how* 
it works until after we clear up the clouds surrounding *whether* it works: 
temperature measurements, spurious voltages, calibration curves, heat balance 
calculations, pumping energy, external heaters, phase changes, inaccurate 
reporting, etc.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.13 / John Park /  Re: final explanation of 2nd law of thermodynamics; entropy sham
     
Originally-From: John Park <jpark@cello.gina.calstate.edu>
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: 13 Feb 1996 14:05:02 GMT
Organization: Teacher

And so, another one bites hard on the troll. I'm suprised that A.P.
doesn't include alt.religion.kibology in the list of followups.

Keep up the good work, A.P.

JP

In article <DMoM3o.n0M@Virginia.EDU> Timothy Paul Smith,
tps8a@Virginia.EDU writes:
>	Can you state to me your credentials?  One with such
>infinite wisdom should have a slew of accomplishments under his
>belt.

--snip--

Of course, infinite wisdom means he is God. Hmmmmmm....
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjpark cudfnJohn cudlnPark cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.14 / Frank S /  RE: Reconciling Magnum and PowerGen data
     
Originally-From: Cardstock@msn.com (Frank S.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Reconciling Magnum and PowerGen data
Date: 14 Feb 96 01:00:30 -0800
Organization: The Microsoft Network (msn.com)

Bob,

I applaud your novel thinking.  It is a sort of parallels the quantum 
mechanical fluctuation theories for empty? space.  Keep an open mind 
and don't let the current theories and those that are too tightly 
bound by them,blind you from seeing the next round of new theories.

Frank

Cardstock@MSN.COM 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenCardstock cudfnFrank cudlnS cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.13 /  AndersonBD /  Re: cold fusion theory (simple)
     
Originally-From: andersonbd@aol.com (AndersonBD)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: cold fusion theory (simple)
Date: 13 Feb 1996 11:06:35 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I agree with you that hidden energy may be present in the initial
experimental setup, and is simply released while the experiment is
performed.  However, stating that something will not work because
Physics/Chemistry dogma says so is a rather close-minded way to go ( for
the way-out, unusual claims like this one anyway ).  If big-time
researchers eventually accept the results, wouldn't you be willing to
change your mind?  I believe that 99% of experiments like this are scams,
however, I prefer to remain open-minded as long as legitimate chemists and
physicists are working with it.  100 years ago, no one would ever have
believed that a couple pounds of uranium could produce as much energy as
thousands of tons of dynamite.

            - AndersonBD@aol.com
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenandersonbd cudlnAndersonBD cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.13 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 96 11:55:43 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Mitchell Jones <21cenlogic@i-link.net> writes:
 
>comes to 1 liter/min. However, why do you assume that all of the water
>entering the beaker came from the direction of the experimental cell? What
>prevents water from flowing through the control cell, past the downstream
>Y-connector, thence back toward the experimental cell, and into your
 
What I forgot to type -- what I *meant* to type and completely forgot -- was
that the answer to your question is: Yes, there was a cutoff valve going back
to the reservoir. As I described in the original set of messages, there were
two stopcocks. This can be seen in the photos if you know just where to look.
So in order to get a sample you had to turn both of them simultaneously, one
to cut the flow off to the reservoir, the other to open the tube directed into
the graduated cylinder. This took a fraction of a second which no doubt
contributes to inaccuracy a tad. 8 ml if it takes as long as a half second.
(How long does it take? I suppose you could click a stopwatch and then turn a
small stop cock ten times in a row to find out.)
 
The business about lifting the stopcock & cylinder off the table also
addressed this issue, plus it takes care of the problem of pressure changes
causing measurable variation in the flow. They didn't. I mean lifting the
stopcock & cylinder for 15 seconds gave us 250 ml, the same as leaving it on
the table. No doubt it slowed the flow a little bit, but not enough to
measure with this method.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.14 / Mark Meyer /  Re: Reconciling Magnum and PowerGen data
     
Originally-From: mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reconciling Magnum and PowerGen data
Date: 14 Feb 1996 16:41:22 GMT

>>>>> "JS" == John Skingley <john@circlesw.demon.co.uk> writes:
 JS> That's an interesting point. Libel is saying things in public
 JS> which may dam= age a persons reputation. This news group is a
 JS> public place. I wonder when the first Libel case will be brought
 JS> as a result of a news group posting.

	Already happened.  The plaintiff was one Laurence Godfrey, who
is often seen hanging around soc.culture.thai and other newsgroups.  I
didn't see the post that triggered the lawsuit, but as I recall
Godfrey won the case in a British court.  Sorry my memory's so fuzzy. 

--
Mark Meyer                                           Email   mmeyer@dseg.ti.com
Texas Instruments, Inc.,  Plano, TX                   ICBM      33o3'N  96o43'W
My opinions, which, by definition, are not Brush Lintball's
                                 What if there were no hypothetical situations?
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmmeyer cudfnMark cudlnMeyer cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.13 /  AndersonBD /  Hey MOTOROLA RESEARCHERS!!!
     
Originally-From: andersonbd@aol.com (AndersonBD)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hey MOTOROLA RESEARCHERS!!!
Date: 13 Feb 1996 11:07:46 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

We want to hear from you guys.

                     - AndersonBD@aol.com
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenandersonbd cudlnAndersonBD cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.14 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 06:59:57 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 In Message-ID: <4focs2$sls@nuntius.u-net.net>
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
David Gaskill <david@cgaski.u-net.com> writes:

  (referring to Mitchell Jones)
"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. "

  Although David may be correct, there is another alternative.  <--

  Perhaps the thermometry was reasonable, but the calorimetric
equation applied was wrong, because it was an approximation for
relatively low flow rates in certain cases.   

  In that case, all parties would be bickering, with one group
claiming inadequacy of power dissipation, and with the
other group claiming superlative excess heat levels.

  My hypothesis relates to positional effects of the mass and heat
flows in the Earth's gravitation field.
IMHO this hypothesis might even offer a possible
explanation for the reported
pseudo-excess heat in the "control".

   A manuscript regarding this hypothesis
was passed to a few friends and colleagues at MIT
for critical review, one of whom
(Prof. Keith Johnson) suggested that it be passed along to this group. 

The draft prepublication preprint (with the figure) is located at URL 
       http://world.std.com/~mica/posvar.html

  Comments, criticisms and suggestions of this group
would be appreciated, and will be noted in the paper.

   Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.13 / M Simon /  Re: How to keep ice/water in it's solid state at 40degrees celcius? Help
     
Originally-From: msimon@rworld.com (M Simon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How to keep ice/water in it's solid state at 40degrees celcius? Help
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 16:22:53 GMT
Organization: Space-Time Productions

Ziad Rahayel <z_rahay@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:

>Hello everybody,

>I am not sure I am posting to the right group for this! 
>I am looking for a way to keep ice/water in it's solid state at
>temperatures up to 40degrees celcius.  Any means to do this is welcome,
>thermodynamics, chemical...  Whatever. 

>Thank you very much
>Ziad Rahayel

Do what I usually do under such circumstances. I put the ice in
a refrigerator. Works for me. 

PS. A refrigerator is a thermodynamic pump.

M. Simon


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmsimon cudfnM cudlnSimon cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Feb 15 04:37:04 EST 1996
------------------------------
