1996.02.17 / mark wong /  Re: cold fusion theory (simple)
     
Originally-From: mawong@m2.dseg.ti.com (mark wong)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: cold fusion theory (simple)
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 96 03:47:10 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments

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

I don't know.  I would like someone to give be some pointers on how the
metal catalyses the initial formation of the crystal growth.  I would
suspect, after
looking at my own crystal growing (BaTiO3 for those who are curious), that
crystals start forming at any contamination site.  I would like to know what
happens at the microscopic surface interface that begins seeding the growth.
There is probably a nice theory on critical phenomenon that would be more
accurate than my initial guessing.  Any experts out there?  I think the 
situation is similar to a buckling beam problem.  Something about symetry
breaking.  If I look into it a little more than the two minutes I am spending
right now, I could probably dig up some really nice pedagogic physics and learn
a lot myself.  I would say start looking.  I have.

Learning is forever.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmawong cudfnmark cudlnwong cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.18 / J Youles /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: J B Youles <john.youles@dial.pipex.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: 18 Feb 1996 01:05:28 GMT
Organization: Chaotic

vanesch@jamaica.desy.de (Patrick van Esch) wrote:
>
>Nor is Homeopathy.  It is 200 years old.  If you read the story of
>the guy who invented this technique you know already that it is
>a hoax.

Another example of rejecting results because of an apparently absurd 
theory.  In the 18th century Lavoisier said that there were no such 
things as stones falling from the sky, because there were no stones in 
the sky - but today we accept the existence of meteorites. "Don't confuse 
me with facts, I've made up my mind!".



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


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenyoules cudfnJ cudlnYoules cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.16 / I Johnston /  Re: Radiation Detecting Wristwatch
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,sci.engr.biomed,sci.engr.safety,s
i.med.dentistry,sci.med.deseases.cancer,sci.med.immunology,sci.med.occup
tional,sci.med.,radiology,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.fusion,sc
.physics.particle,sci.space.tech,sci.physics,sci.med,
Subject: Re: Radiation Detecting Wristwatch
Date: 16 Feb 1996 13:01:23 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

ppm (ppm@getnet.com) wrote:
: Introduction of the first wristwatch that measures, detects, and counts 
: radioactive radiation and x-rays. Instant Alarm when treshold surpassed; 
: Dose Rate in mrem/h and cumulative Dose in mrem recorded over last 12
: months. For details:

First? Nonsense. Sean Connery had one in Thunderball (which I watched
last night) and that was thirty years ago.

The name's Johnston. Ian Johnston.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.17 / 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: Sat, 17 Feb 96 02:01:57 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

In article <DMruzH.37x@world.std.com>,
   mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) wrote:
->  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.


Mitchell, you have access to the same 'rumors' and 'sources' on this that I have 
-- and probably more. Ask on vortex-l.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.17 / Robin Spaandonk /  Re: Jed is wrong and libelous
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed is wrong and libelous
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 05:37:30 GMT
Organization: Improving

In article <4frno6$1s0@stratus.skypoint.net>, John Logajan wrote :

>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    -
Well said! And it might even improve the S/N ratio.:-)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@netspace.net.au>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything,
Learns all his life,
And leaves knowing nothing.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.17 / Robin Spaandonk /  Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC!
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 05:37:24 GMT
Organization: Improving

In article <4fvtua$a3l@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov>, Matt Kennel wrote :
[snip]
>Remember.  If we're getting "1300/500/200 watts" out in high volume lukewarm
>water, but the area of the beads is quite small, then by elementary
>rothwell-acceptable thermodynamics the temperature right on the beads
>MUST be significantly higher.   There should indeed be some spots right
>in the middle of the cell that are damn hot if there is some unknown 
>heat-producing reaction in the beads.  That, after all, is the hypothesis,
>right? 
>
>Is there?  What is the area of the beads?  How does it compare to the
>area of the coils of a 1500 watt hair dryer?  The hair dryer coils get
>RED HOT, at least 500C, I'd guess.   That's what you need to transfer enough

Matt, my 1200 watt hairdryer coils do not even begin to glow red, and
I have checked by looking straight into the dryer at night with the
lights out.

>heat to make 1500 watts in a hair dryer. 
>
>So, the beads MUST BE HOT if they're the thing that's making heat.
>
>If not, I suspect systematic calorimeter error and mistaken heat balance
>calculations. 
>
>Do people agree with this?
Not necessarily. If the heat is being generated across a large
percentage of the area of the beads then there is no reason to expect
them to be much hotter than the fluid itself. In fact, as metal is a
good conductor of heat, I would expect the heat to be fairly well
spread out over the surface of the beads.
>
>Of course, they will be hot from ohmic heating already.  And this will
>obviously make temperature gradients in the cell, excess heat or no,
>making the inference of "net heat out" from "measured temperature" not
>entirely trivial.

Given that the temperature of the water is measured at inlet and
outlet of the cell(s), and the measured flow rate, (in other words if
you trust these measurements) there is no way that ohmic heating
produced by the electric power delivered to the cell could account for
the temperature difference.
 
>
>Is it possible to image the water flow by the beads?  At this power level
>there should be plenty of heat to drive convection. It would be interesting
>to compare the convection patterns in a "control cell" (not functional beads)
>at input power P with those in a "working cell" (magic beads) at the same
>input power.  Higher heating ought to drive faster and more chaotic 
>convection.  (a cheap 'one-shot' way to do this it to inject dye at
>local spots in the solution, or perhaps but some marginally buoyant
>tracer particles; a fancier way is imaging the refraction patterns).

Or use infra-red imaging. Interesting no matter how it's done.

>
>And then, compare the convection patterns at the apparent excess heating
>condition, with those made by dud beads but whose input electrical 
>power is boosted to the same level as the apparent excess heat. 
>
>This whole protcol is qualitative testing to make sure that the extra 
>heat observed is really coming from the bead apparatus. 
>
>cheers
>mbk

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@netspace.net.au>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything,
Learns all his life,
And leaves knowing nothing.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.18 / mitchell swartz /  Potential positional effects in flow calorimetry
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Potential positional effects in flow calorimetry
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 07:31:52 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  Want to thank the many people  from s.p.f. and vortex-l
who provided comments and criticism on the above-entitled
paper.

  The revised and expanded preprint is available at
  URL = http://world.std.com/~mica/posvar.html 

  The page includes the new dimensionless parameter which
 is the ratio of heat transfer from thermal-induced bouyancy to
 the heat transfer from convection within a flow calorimeter.  

    Mitchell Swartz        (mica@world.std.com)

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.16 / John Ritson /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: John Ritson <john@jritson.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 19:26:06 +0000
Organization: John Ritson

In article <ant1610090b0KksR@circlesw.demon.co.uk>, John Skingley
<john@circlesw.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <4g0ajp$a3l@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov>, Matt Kennel
><mailto:kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov> wrote:
>This isn't the place to be discussing Homeopathy, but...
[snip]
>
>> If you mean "two vials of water in which are diluted at most one molecule
>> of plant A vs plant B" have statistically and clinically significant
>> distinct results, I've never heard of any evidence that it's true. 
>
>The evidence is all around. Everytime someone uses such a cure and it works.
>And I've seen a herd of cows treated for (can't remember the name, some
>common problem with cows) using diluted solutions, and that worked. I
>don't see how that could be explained by mental effects!

It could if the judgement on whether the animals are better, much the
same or worse is made by humans who expect an improvement in animals
which have been treated. 

John
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnRitson cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.17 / Emmett Jordan /  Re: Future nuclear testing in Nevada?
     
Originally-From: Emmett Jordan <wpcc88a@prodigy.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skepticsci.energy
Subject: Re: Future nuclear testing in Nevada?
Date: 17 Feb 1996 20:29:18 GMT
Organization: Concentric Network

To Patrick et al:
The resumption of nuclear tests in Nevada is made more likely due
to the ban on French South Pacific tests if test data is being shared.

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenwpcc88a cudfnEmmett cudlnJordan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.16 / I Johnston /  Re: Ceti confession
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ceti confession
Date: 16 Feb 1996 13:06:21 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: I Johnston <ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk> writes:
:  
: >Flow calorimetry normally involves measuring the flow, not the strange
: >mixture of guesswork and assertion used by and on CETI. After all, flow
: >calorimetry proved that the control cell was producing excess heat.
:  
: No, it is just the opposite. Flow calorimetery proved the control was
: producing no excess; output equaled input. You seem remarkably confused about
: this. 

So where, oh where, did the results showing excess heat from the control
come from? Doesn't matter if it was "ok" or "faulty" - it shouldn't have
shown excess heat, should it?

Have CETI been able to afford a flowmeter and a working stopwatch yet?

Love, Ian
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.17 / A Plutonium /  Re: final explanation of 2nd law of thermodynamics; entropy 
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
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 
Date: 17 Feb 1996 22:00:08 GMT
Organization: PLutonium College

In article <1996Feb15.174239.2078@es.dupont.com>
diebolmp@esvx19.es.dupont.com writes:

> >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. 
> 
> If they don't understand it, and it is a half cooked idea, then why
> do they bother to teach it at all?  Wouldn't it be easier for them
> to just ignore the whole issue and stick to stuff that they don't
> find confusing?  Why bother to construct a "sham and fakery" when
> you gain nothing, but run the risk of being exposed as a fake?

  Well taken point. You must excuse my writing, I often get carried
away when I talk or reflect on the science community. Some have called
that "ranting". I take my ranting as more comical than logical and I
seldom review it for grammatical or logical mistakes. The Internet has
freedom of speech, but I like my freedom to rant much more. In fact I
esteem the freedom of ranting as a more valuable and more precious
freedom and worthy of fighting over such as the war of 1812 and the
Civil War. And the US government concurs, because we are guilty until
we ourselves prove our innocence to the IRS, but with Freedom of Rant
and Freedom of Speech we are innocent until proven guilty by a grand
jury, or not so grand.

  No, Mr. Diebolm, that was just one of my common rants, I like to rant
about the science community because they are rather protected from
society. Science has its overzealous hero worship and its esteem and
value are so way out of proportion as compared to other communities. I
mean some science people will go so far as to worship scientists, eg,
Feynman, Einstein etc. One good thing about Internet is that it can
refocus some of this hero worship into a better reality of the true
situation.

   As for my comments on the 2nd law which flew completely over the
little mind of Timothy Paul Smith in an earlier follow-up post. 

  The whole thing about the 2nd law of thermodynamics and entropy is
that the world failed and neglected to realize that there was a Missing
Term. Maxwell's fame is based mostly on the synthesizing of the laws of
Electromagnetism and uncovering the Missing Term in order to synthesize
the Equations.
   Here, like Maxwell, I am saying that there was a missing term in the
2nd law. There is entropy, but there is another physical term in the
2nd law, not as obvious not as easy to grasp. There is a term in the
2nd Law which had been missed by all the great physicists before me. It
is a term which I will call the Ordered Progression and it is for that
term which created life on Earth. You see, in all physical processes,
by and large, most are entropic, but that only takes say 95 or 99
percent of the 'happenings'. For 95% entropy there is a 5% Ordered
Progression, an advance, a more ordered state created than what was
given up in entropic disorder.
   You see, Mr. Diebolm, in my final explanation of the 2nd Law of
Thermodynamics I am telling the world that they missed the boat about
the 2nd Law. In the example I gave of the pure Uranium block that 99%
of the atoms will go down in entropy to being lead and lesser atoms,
but a tiny few will go up into being a neptunium or plutonium atoms
within that original block. The old 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is simply
wrong, it is at a loss to explain my thought experiment, and this
thought experiment is easy to do in any laboratory and confirm it to be
the truth.
   The old 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was an incomplete law, and it
needed that extra term. I, like Maxwell who found the Missing Term for
the Maxwell Equations, I found the missing term in the 2nd Law of
Thermodynamics.

  I hope that clarifies things better.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.18 /  Publius /  WATER
     
Originally-From: publius@gate.net (Publius)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,al
.physics.new-theories
Subject: WATER
Date: 18 Feb 1996 02:44:12 GMT
Organization: CyberGate, Inc.

Summary:                   
Keywords: 
 
     Water - a liquid oxide of hydrogen (H2O) - essential component
  of all living matter - etc. etc. . . . 
     So what else is new?  Plenty.
     The new burst of experiments - the Patterson Cell,for one -
  erroneously labeled "Cold Fusion" experiments, that are probing
  the pent-up energy potential of Water - (it IS Hydrogen and 
  Oxygen) - will, I am convinced, either break down Water into its
  components without a great expenditure of energy or will dis-
  cover an electro-catalytic process that will harness the atomic
  energy of Hydrogen contained in plain Water.  I favor the latter.
     Whatever the inevitable discovery, our children will laugh
  at us for being blind to what was so obvious, as we laugh and
  wonder why our predecessors were so long in figuring out some-
  thing as simple as the steam engine and a lot of what followed.
  PUBLIUS at <alt.fan.publius>


       
          
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenpublius cudlnPublius cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.17 / 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: Sat, 17 Feb 96 02:27:15 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

In article <4fvpku$p4@news4.digex.net>, sethw@access5.digex.net (Seth W.) wrote:
->Bob Sullivan (bsulliva@sky.net) wrote:
->: 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)
->
->Would using hydrogen gas instead of electrolysis to produce hydrogen "solve"
->the recombination problem?


You're talking about a different, largely unspecified experiment. Without 
details all I can tell you is I don't know.


->: Now, the recombination problems are real, but I'm not sure that we have gott
->: to that level yet. It's been common knowledge that Cravens has had problems
->: his temperature measurements. After reading his description of some of tho
->: problems on the CETI web page, and with the understanding that the bubbleg
->: patch applied to fix them didn't work, I'm not sure that any of the measure
->: can be taken at face value.  
->
->Do you think that IF the measurements were taken at face value, they would
->represent a gain that was too large to explain solely by recombination?


I can only tell you what my grandmother used to say when I asked similar kinds 
of questions: If wishes were horses, we'd all take a ride.


->: In addition to the measurement concerns, I find one aspect of the 'protocol' 
->: questionable. When they make a 'gain' calculation they reduce the electric i
->: until they get the highest ratio of output to input. It's not unreasonable t
->: expect some thermal 'inertia' to hold up the output as the input is reduced
->: looks to much like driving your car down the road at sixty mph and then bri
->: turning off the ignition while you measure the instantaneous gas consumptio
->
->That's true, and it's part of the reason I've been asking all over these
->newsgroups why the experiments end--whether they are shut down by those
->running the experiments or they shut themselves down.  Your car will only
->coast so far before it starts to slow down.
->
->sethw@access.digex.net


What I have read points to a conclusion that they have all been shut down by 
those running the experiments including demos where claims of heat-after-death  
are made. I haven't seen anything that would point to heat-after-death being 
anything more than a transient phenomenon -- or bad measurements.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.16 / Bradley Sherman /  Why Motorola
     
Originally-From: bks@netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Why Motorola
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 13:00:45 GMT
Organization: Remote Fusion Reactor Reverse Entropy Associates


It makes sense that Kansas City Power & Light might
take a flyer by funding Bowles to look into CETI;
but why Motorola?

Probably because Motorola couldn't care less about
excess power but is in a position to make billions
if there is a new battery technology of appropriate
characteristics here somewhere.

    --bks

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenbks cudfnBradley cudlnSherman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.17 / 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: 17 Feb 1996 16:15:59 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Larry Wharton (Wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov) wrote:
: The CETI experiment is acting exactly as is expected if there were salt 
: crystals mixed in with the cell outflow.  The flow calorimetry numbers 
: would give a bogus high power value from the error of neglecting the 
: heat of fusion of the salt crystals and then much less heat would be 
: rejected in the rest of the system as most of the heat goes into melting 
: the salt crystals instead being rejected into the air.

Larry, I mixed up a batch of Lithum sulfate and the "salt" dissolves into
the liquid at room temperature.  This produced a temperature rise.  I seem
to recall a 4C rise mixing pure water with Li2SO4.H2O crystals into a
1.0 molar solution.  I made a 200ml batch.

If the salt crystals come out of solution, this would require energy
and it would cool the solution.  If the salt crystals are "melting" this
would warm the solution (as it did upon initial mixing.)

So I think you have your theory backwards -- the melting water-icecube
analogy has led you astray.

--
 - 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:
cuddy17 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.17 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 1/3 (Overview)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics,sci.environment,sc
.answers,news.answers
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 1/3 (Overview)
Date: 17 Feb 1996 07:38:47 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Archive-name: fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview
Last-modified: 26-Feb-1995
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-biweekly
Disclaimer:  While this section is still evolving, it should 
     be useful to many people, and I encourage you to distribute 
     it to anyone who might be interested (and willing to help!!!).

 ----------------------------------------------------------------
### Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Fusion Research
 ----------------------------------------------------------------

# Written/Edited by:

     Robert F. Heeter
     <rfheeter@pppl.gov>
     Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

# Last Revised February 26, 1995


 ----------------------------------------------------------------
*** A.  Welcome to the Conventional Fusion FAQ!  
 ----------------------------------------------------------------

* 1) Contents

  This file is intended to indicate 
     (A) that the Conventional Fusion FAQ exists, 
     (B) what it discusses, 
     (C) how to find it on the Internet, and
     (D) the status of the Fusion FAQ project


* 2) What is the Conventional Fusion FAQ?

  The Conventional Fusion FAQ is a comprehensive, relatively
  nontechnical set of answers to many of the frequently asked
  questions about fusion science, fusion energy, and fusion
  research.  Additionally, there is a Glossary of Frequently
  Used Terms In Plasma Physics and Fusion Energy Research, which 
  explains much of the jargon of the field.  The Conventional 
  Fusion FAQ originated as an attempt to provide 
  answers to many of the typical, basic, or introductory questions 
  about fusion research, and to provide a listing of references and 
  other resources for those interested in learning more.  The
  Glossary section containing Frequently Used Terms (FUT) also
  seeks to facilitate communication regarding fusion by providing
  brief explanations of the language of the field.


* 3) Scope of the Conventional Fusion FAQ:

  Note that this FAQ discusses only the conventional forms of fusion
  (primarily magnetic confinement, but also inertial and 
  muon-catalyzed), and not new/unconventional forms ("cold fusion",
  sonoluminescence-induced fusion, or ball-lightning fusion).  I 
  have tried to make this FAQ as uncontroversial and comprehensive
  as possible, while still covering everything I felt was 
  important / standard fare on the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup.


* 4) How to Use the FAQ:

  This is a rather large FAQ, and to make it easier to find what
  you want, I have outlined each section (including which questions
  are answered) in Section 0, Part 2 (posted separately).  Hopefully it 
  will not be too hard to use.  Part (C) below describes how to find
  the other parts of the FAQ via FTP or the World-Wide Web.


* 5) Claims and Disclaimers:  

  This is an evolving document, not a completed work.  As such, 
  it may not be correct or up-to-date in all respects.  
  This document should not be distributed for profit, especially 
  without my permission.  Individual sections may have additional 
  restrictions.  In no case should my name, the revision date, 
  or this paragraph be removed.  
                                             - Robert F. Heeter


 -------------------------------------------------------------------
*** B. Contents (Section Listing) of the Conventional Fusion FAQ
 -------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************************************************************
                What This FAQ Discusses
*****************************************************************

(Each of these sections is posted periodically on sci.physics.fusion.
 Section 0.1 is posted biweekly, the other parts are posted quarterly.
 Each listed part is posted as a separate file.)

Section 0 - Introduction
     Part 1/3 - Title Page
                Table of Contents
                How to Find the FAQ
                Current Status of the FAQ project
     Part 2/3 - Detailed Outline with List of Questions
     Part 3/3 - Revision History

Section 1 - Fusion as a Physical Phenomenon

Section 2 - Fusion as an Energy Source
     Part 1/5 - Technical Characteristics
     Part 2/5 - Environmental Characteristics
     Part 3/5 - Safety Characteristics
     Part 4/5 - Economic Characteristics
     Part 5/5 - Fusion for Space-Based Power

Section 3 - Fusion as a Scientific Research Program
     Part 1/3 - Chronology of Events and Ideas
     Part 2/3 - Major Institutes and Policy Actors
     Part 3/3 - History of Achievements and Funding

Section 4 - Methods of Containment / Approaches to Fusion
     Part 1/2 - Toroidal Magnetic Confinement Approaches
     Part 2/2 - Other Approaches (ICF, muon-catalyzed, etc.)

Section 5 - Status of and Plans for Present Devices

Section 6 - Recent Results

Section 7 - Educational Opportunities

Section 8 - Internet Resources

Section 9 - Future Plans

Section 10 - Annotated Bibliography / Reading List

Section 11 - Citations and Acknowledgements

Glossary of Frequently Used Terms (FUT) in Plasma Physics & Fusion:
  Part 0/26 - Intro
  Part 1/26 - A
  Part 2/26 - B
  [ ... ]
  Part 26/26 - Z


 --------------------------------------------------------------
*** C.  How to find the Conventional Fusion FAQ on the 'Net:
 --------------------------------------------------------------

*****************************************************************
###  The FAQ about the FAQ:
###          How can I obtain a copy of a part of the Fusion FAQ?
*****************************************************************

* 0) Quick Methods (for Experienced Net Users)

   (A) World-Wide Web:  http://lyman.pppl.gov/~rfheeter/fusion-faq.html

   (B) FTP:  rtfm.mit.edu in /pub/usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq


* 1) Obtaining the Fusion FAQ from Newsgroups

  Those of you reading this on news.answers, sci.answers, 
  sci.energy, sci.physics, or sci.environment will be able to 
  find the numerous sections of the full FAQ by reading 
  sci.physics.fusion periodically.  (Please note that not 
  all sections are completed yet.)  Because the FAQ is quite
  large, most sections are posted only every three months, to avoid
  unnecessary consumption of bandwidth.

  All sections of the FAQ which are ready for "official" 
  distribution are posted to sci.physics.fusion, sci.answers, 
  and news.answers, so you can get them from these groups by 
  waiting long enough. 


* 2) World-Wide-Web (Mosaic, Netscape, Lynx, etc.):

   Several Web versions now exist.

   The "official" one is currently at

     <URL:http://lyman.pppl.gov/~rfheeter/fusion-faq.html>

   We hope to have a version on the actual PPPL Web server 
      (<URL:http://www.pppl.gov/>) soon.

   There are other sites which have made "unofficial" Web versions 
   from the newsgroup postings.  I haven't hunted all of these down 
   yet, but I know a major one is at this address:

 <URL:http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu:80/hypertext/faq/usenet/fusion-faq/top.html>

 Note that the "official" one will include a number of features
 which cannot be found on the "unofficial" ones created by
 automated software from the newsgroup postings.  In particular
 we hope to have links through the outline directly to questions,
 and between vocabulary words and their entries in the Glossary, 
 so that readers unfamiliar with the terminology can get help fast.

 (Special acknowledgements to John Wright at PPPL, who is handling
  much of the WWW development.)


* 3) FAQ Archives at FTP Sites (Anonymous FTP) - Intro

  All completed sections can also be obtained by anonymous FTP 
  from various FAQ archive sites, such as rtfm.mit.edu.  The
  address for this archive is:

    <ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq>

  Please note that sections which are listed above as having
  multiple parts (such as the glossary, and section 2) are 
  stored in subdirectories, where each part has its own
  filename; e.g., /fusion-faq/glossary/part0-intro. 

  Please note also that there are other locations in the rtfm
  filespace where fusion FAQ files are stored, but the reference
  given above is the easiest to use.

  There are a large number of additional FAQ archive sites,
  many of which carry the fusion FAQ.  These are listed below.


* 4) Additional FAQ archives worldwide (partial list)

  There are other FAQ archive sites around the world
  which one can try if rtfm is busy; a list is appended
  at the bottom of this file.


* 5) Mail Server

   If you do not have direct access by WWW or FTP, the 
   rtfm.mit.edu site supports "ftp by mail": send a message 
   to mail-server@rtfm.mit.edu with the following 3 lines
   in it (cut-and-paste if you like): 

send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section0-intro/part2-outline
quit

   The mail server will send these two introductory 
   files to you.  You can then use the outline (part2)
   to determine which files you want.  You can receive
   any or all of the remaining files by sending another
   message with the same general format, if you substitute
   the file archive names you wish to receive, in place of the 
   part "fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview", etc. used above.


* 6) Additional Note / Disclaimer: 

  Not all sections of the FAQ have been written
  yet, nor have they all been "officially" posted.

  Thus, you may not find what you're looking for right away.

  Sections which are still being drafted are only
  posted to sci.physics.fusion.  If there's a section 
  you can't find, send me email and I'll let you know 
  what's up with it. 


 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
*** D. Status of the Conventional Fusion FAQ Project
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

* 1) Written FAQ Sections:

  Most sections have been at least drafted, but many sections are still
  being written.  Sections 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, and 9
  remain to be completed.

  Those sections which have been written could use revising and improving.
  I am trying to obtain more information, especially on devices and 
  confinement approaches; I'm also looking for more information on 
  international fusion research, especially in Japan & Russia.

   *** I'd love any help you might be able to provide!! ***


* 2) Building a Web Version
                
  A "primitive" version (which has all the posted data, but isn't
  especially aesthetic) exists now.  Would like to add graphics and 
  cross-references to the Glossary, between FAQ sections, and 
  to other internet resources (like laboratory Web pages).  
 

* 3) Nuts & Bolts - 

  I'm looking for ways to enhance the distribution of the FAQ, and
  to get additional volunteer help for maintenance and updates.
  We are in the process of switching to automated posting via the 
  rtfm.mit.edu faq posting daemon.


* 4) Status of the Glossary:

 # Contains roughly 1000 entries, including acronyms, math terms, jargon, etc.

 # Just finished incorporating terms from the "Glossary of Fusion Energy"
   published in 1985 by the Dept. of Energy's Office of Scientific and
   Technical Information.

 # Also working to improve technical quality of entries (more formal.)

 # World Wide Web version exists, hope to cross-reference to FAQ.

 # Hope to have the Glossary "officially" added to PPPL Web pages.

 # Hope to distribute to students, policymakers, journalists, 
   scientists, i.e., to anyone who needs a quick reference to figure out 
   what we're really trying to say, or to decipher all the "alphabet 
   soup."  Scientists need to remember that not everyone knows those 
   "trivial" words we use every day.  The glossary and FAQ should be 
   useful in preparing for talks to lay audiences.  Students will 
   also find it useful to be able to look up unfamiliar technical jargon.


 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
*** E. Appendix: List of Additional FAQ Archive Sites Worldwide 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

(The following information was excerpted from the "Introduction to 
the *.answers newsgroups" posting on news.answers, from Sept. 9, 1994.)

Other news.answers/FAQ archives (which carry some or all of the FAQs
in the rtfm.mit.edu archive), sorted by country, are:

[ Note that the connection type is on the left.  I can't vouch
for the fusion FAQ being on all of these, but it should be
on some. - Bob Heeter ]


Belgium
-------

  gopher                cc1.kuleuven.ac.be port 70
  anonymous FTP         cc1.kuleuven.ac.be:/anonymous.202
  mail-server           listserv@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be  get avail faqs

Canada
------

  gopher                jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca port 70

Finland
-------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.funet.fi/pub/doc/rtfm

France
------

  anonymous FTP         grasp1.insa-lyon.fr:/pub/faq
                        grasp1.insa-lyon.fr:/pub/faq-by-newsgroup
  gopher                gopher.insa-lyon.fr, port 70
  mail server           listserver@grasp1.univ-lyon1.fr
  
Germany
-------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.Germany.EU.net:/pub/newsarchive/news.answers
                        ftp.informatik.uni-muenchen.de:/pub/comp/usenet/news.answers
                        ftp.uni-paderborn.de:/doc/FAQ
                        ftp.saar.de:/pub/usenet/news.answers (local access only)
  gopher                gopher.Germany.EU.net, port 70.
                        gopher.uni-paderborn.de
  mail server           archive-server@Germany.EU.net
                        ftp-mailer@informatik.tu-muenchen.de
                        ftp-mail@uni-paderborn.de
  World Wide Web        http://www.Germany.EU.net:80/
  FSP                   ftp.Germany.EU.net, port 2001
  gopher index          gopher://gopher.Germany.EU.net:70/1.archive
                        gopher://gopher.uni-paderborn.de:70/0/Service/FTP

Korea
-----

  anonymous ftp         hwarang.postech.ac.kr:/pub/usenet/news.answers

Mexico
------
  anonymous ftp         mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx:/pub/usenet/news.answers

The Netherlands
---------------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.cs.ruu.nl:/pub/NEWS.ANSWERS
  gopher                gopher.win.tue.nl, port 70
  mail server           mail-server@cs.ruu.nl

Sweden
------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.sunet.se:/pub/usenet

Switzerland
-----------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.switch.ch:/info_service/usenet/periodic-postings
  anonymous UUCP        chx400:ftp/info_service/Usenet/periodic-postings
  mail server           archiver-server@nic.switch.ch
  telnet                nic.switch.ch, log in as "info"

Taiwan
------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.edu.tw:/USENET/FAQ
  mail server           ftpmail@ftp.edu.tw

United Kingdon
--------------

  anonymous ftp         src.doc.ic.ac.uk:/usenet/news-faqs/
  FSP                   src.doc.ic.ac.uk port 21
  gopher                src.doc.ic.ac.uk port 70.
  mail server           ftpmail@doc.ic.ac.uk
  telnet                src.doc.ic.ac.uk login as sources
  World Wide Web        http://src.doc.ic.ac.uk/usenet/news-faqs/

United States
-------------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.uu.net:/usenet
  World Wide Web        http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu:80/hypertext/faq/usenet/top.html



cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.18 /  Regnirps /  Re: final explanation of 2nd law of thermodynamics; entropy
     
Originally-From: regnirps@aol.com (Regnirps)
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
Date: 18 Feb 1996 05:08:56 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) said:

"You see, Mr. Diebolm, in my final explanation of the 2nd Law of
Thermodynamics I am telling the world that they missed the boat about
the 2nd Law. In the example I gave of the pure Uranium block that 99%
of the atoms will go down in entropy to being lead and lesser atoms,
but a tiny few will go up into being a neptunium or plutonium atoms
within that original block. The old 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is simply
wrong, it is at a loss to explain my thought experiment, and this
thought experiment is easy to do in any laboratory and confirm it to be
the truth."

I ask:
Correct me if I am wrong, (that would make twice this year) but are you
saying you have discovered that statistical mechanics can not predict the
outcome of a quantum mechanical experiment?  I'm going to have to get
Rutherford and some of the boys together and check this out!
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenregnirps cudlnRegnirps cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.18 / C Harrison /  Periodic Post: Cold Fusion online at sunsite.unc.edu
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Periodic Post: Cold Fusion online at sunsite.unc.edu
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 02:27:18 GMT
Organization: Fitful

This message is posted periodically to inform readers about on-line
data sources related to "cold fusion" which are located at the 
University of North Carolina SunSITE server.

Two public WAIS (Wide Area Information Server) sources are online:
(1) Dieter Britz's Bibliography (periodically updated), and
(2) A sci.physics.fusion archive (1989 to present).
WAIS provides for multiple keyword searches in these databases.  It
does _not_ support boolean logic in the searching :-(.

1.  If you are directly connected to Internet, you can log onto a public
    WAIS server at the University of North Carolina:
    %telnet sunsite.unc.edu
    ...
    login: swais
    ...
    TERM = (unknown) vt100
    It takes a minute to load ...

    <use ? for online help>
    <use /cold to locate the cold-fusion "Source" - the Britz biblio>
    < or use /fusion to locate the fusion-digest source>
    <follow the prompts to select the source and enter your keywords
     for searching>

2.  If you have a "gopher" client, you can use it for WAIS access.  Many 
    university campuses provide gopher as a public information service.
2a. On most systems, you first select an option labeled "Other Systems",
    then from that menu select "WAIS based information".  Since each
    gopher site creates its own menus, I can't tell you exactly where to
    go from there.
2b. If you can gopher to SunSITE, at UNC, navigate the menus down thru
    SunSITE archives..All archives..Academic..Physics..Cold-fusion.
    You will find the searchable databases (typically marked <?>), as
    well as the primary-literature files discussed below.
2c. If you can 'telnet' but not 'gopher', you may telnet to
    sunsite.unc.edu and login as 'gopher'.  Then follow 2a or 2b above.

3.  If you have World Wide Web (WWW) browser, such as Mosaic, Cello, or
    Lynx, you may use the following URL's:
     wais://sunsite.unc.edu/cold-fusion       Britz bibliography
     wais://sunsite.unc.edu/fusion-digest     newsgroup archive
     gopher://sunsite.unc.edu/11/../.pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion

4.  If you have a WAIS client on your system (the most common ones are
    "swais" -- character-based, and "xwais" -- for X-Windows), use it.  The
    Britz source is called "cold-fusion" and it is listed in the 
    directory-of-servers.

    If you _want_ a WAIS client program to run on your system, several are
    available in the public domain.  Try ftp-ing to one of these sites:
      sunsite.unc.edu
      think.com

There are several additional files archived at sunsite (e.g. Bollinger's
Twist of Ribbon, preprints of the Fleischmann&Pons 1989 paper), which
are accessible by anonymous ftp.
    %ftp sunsite.unc.edu
    . . .
    >cd pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion
    >dir
The collection (mostly primary papers) maintained by vince cate has been
copied over to pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion/vince-cate.

Additional contributions are welcome; e-mail cfh@sunsite.unc.edu.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.18 / Patrick Esch /  Re: WATER
     
Originally-From: vanesch@jamaica.desy.de (Patrick van Esch)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,al
.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: WATER
Date: 18 Feb 1996 13:29:26 GMT
Organization: DESY

Publius (publius@gate.net) wrote:
:      So what else is new?  Plenty.
:      The new burst of experiments - the Patterson Cell,for one -
:   erroneously labeled "Cold Fusion" experiments, that are probing
:   the pent-up energy potential of Water - (it IS Hydrogen and 
:   Oxygen) - will, I am convinced, either break down Water into its
:   components without a great expenditure of energy or will dis-
:   cover an electro-catalytic process that will harness the atomic
:   energy of Hydrogen contained in plain Water.  I favor the latter.

Ashes to ashes ? 
How many times can you burn a candle ?

:      Whatever the inevitable discovery, our children will laugh
:   at us for being blind to what was so obvious, as we laugh and
:   wonder why our predecessors were so long in figuring out some-
:   thing as simple as the steam engine and a lot of what followed.

Why do you laugh at "our predecessors " ?  You also laugh at Newton
because it took him 20 years to put classical mechanics on its
foundations ?  

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:
cuddy18 cudenvanesch cudfnPatrick cudlnEsch cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.17 / 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: Sat, 17 Feb 96 02:11:10 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

In article <4fumh7$bsq@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.
->
->I can't recall hearing the names of any companies that have demoed the
->Patterson cell and then rejected the claims.  It would be interesting
->to follow up on such cases, that is why I asked if you'd be so kind
->as to list a couple of them.
->
->I believe I've heard of at least one company that rejected the idea of
->investigating CETI claims because the topic was deemed outside their
->corporate focus. Is that what you meant?
->

That was reported on vortex-l. The interpretation of the 'reason' is left to the 
beholder:

1) We're going to pass up a sure shot at infinite riches, because we would 
rather be in the business of making widgets, or

2) It looks like we can make a lot more money making widgets than chasing 
will-o'-the-wisps.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.17 / Seth W /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: sethw@access5.digex.net (Seth W.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: 17 Feb 1996 01:00:41 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA

Nick Horgan (lineplex@cix.compulink.co.uk) wrote:
: In 20421 John suggests that there are many things that we accept for 
: which we have no explanation.
: 
: I can't think of anything that I use/interact with that I or someone else 
: can't explain and that can't be reliably and frequently demonstrated.
: 
: It would be interesting to know of an advance/invention in the last 50 
: years, that is now in common use, that was ridiculed by the establishment 
: when it was first announced as totally impossible.  

How about man landing on the moon?  Of course, it's not quite in "common
use".  The transistor is probably another good example, but I don't know
if it was ever "ridiculed".  I'd say airplanes pretty much fit the bill, 
but that would be more like 100 years ago.  So, don't you think we're 
about due?

sethw@access.digex.net
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudensethw cudfnSeth cudlnW cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.16 / I Johnston /  Re: Jed is wrong and libelous
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed is wrong and libelous
Date: 16 Feb 1996 13:12:41 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

Arnie Frisch (arnief@wu.cse.tek.com) wrote:


: 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.

On the other hand, Jed's wierd rantings probably do more to expose poor
science and deliberate fraud than any other phenomenon of our time. Let
him rip - as well as a near infallible indicator of the bogus he's great
fun!

How the hearts of snake oil merchants must sink when Jed rings.

Ian
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.15 / Gil Andrade /  Re: Where is Cold Fusion theory
     
Originally-From: ANDRADE@devlpr.enet.dec.com (Gil Andrade)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Where is Cold Fusion theory
Date: 15 Feb 1996 15:51:22 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - Marlboro, MA


Electron quantum tunnelling is well understood, and used in many
devices...   is it possible that Cold Fusion has something to do 
with proton or neutron or even electron quantum tunelling effects ?

Proton quantum tunneling should be  1836  times smaller then 
electron quantum tunneling, but maybe that is big enough to 
produce the cold fusion effect!!! when put together with the 
reduced hydrogen spacing provided by the inter-atomic 
electromagnetic forces of the palladium metal matrix.

I mean Quantum tunneling puts electrons in places that conventional
electromagnetic theory says they could never be. Could something
like that be happening in cold fusion, with proton/neutron/electron
locations ?

I've often tought that the best kind of nuclear energy would be one
where one simply induces a neutron to decay into a proton and an
electron while still in the nucleus. (this does happen naturally
its called beta-decay, the electron is ejected and the proton stays
no neutrons are released at all)

This is not fission or fusion, but it does produce new elements
Hyrogen-2 would produce Hellium-2, Palladium-106 would produce
Silver-106 and so on. 

The rub of-course as with any nuclear reaction is how to make it 
happen... (-: but it would be great if could do it. Maybe Cold 
Fusion people should start looking for Silver (one never knows)...

Gil
andrade@devlpr.enet.dec.com





cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenANDRADE cudfnGil cudlnAndrade cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.16 /  Nick /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: lineplex@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Nick Horgan")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 16:52:55 GMT
Organization: LinePlex Ltd

In 20421 John suggests that there are many things that we accept for 
which we have no explanation.

I can't think of anything that I use/interact with that I or someone else 
can't explain and that can't be reliably and frequently demonstrated.

It would be interesting to know of an advance/invention in the last 50 
years, that is now in common use, that was ridiculed by the establishment 
when it was first announced as totally impossible.  
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenlineplex cudlnNick cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.18 /  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: 18 Feb 1996 08:27:17 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I was wondering what all these supposed geniuses were arguing about
concerning the formation of salt crystals in the Patterson power cell
solution.  I kind of assumed, as you stated, that the exothermic reaction
occurs when the crystals are dissolved, not grown.  Thank you for shedding
some light on this discussion.

                           - Brad Anderson
                             AndersonBD@aol.com
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenandersonbd cudlnAndersonBD cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.18 / Harry Conover /  Re: WATER
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,al
.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: WATER
Date: 18 Feb 1996 14:13:51 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Publius (publius@gate.net) wrote:
: Summary:                   
: Keywords: 
:  
:      Water - a liquid oxide of hydrogen (H2O) - essential component
:   of all living matter - etc. etc. . . . 
:      So what else is new?  Plenty.
:      The new burst of experiments - the Patterson Cell,for one -
:   erroneously labeled "Cold Fusion" experiments, that are probing
:   the pent-up energy potential of Water - (it IS Hydrogen and 
:   Oxygen) - will, I am convinced, either break down Water into its
:   components without a great expenditure of energy or will dis-
:   cover an electro-catalytic process that will harness the atomic
:   energy of Hydrogen contained in plain Water.  I favor the latter.
:      Whatever the inevitable discovery, our children will laugh
:   at us for being blind to what was so obvious, as we laugh and
:   wonder why our predecessors were so long in figuring out some-
:   thing as simple as the steam engine and a lot of what followed.
:   PUBLIUS at <alt.fan.publius>

Please take some introductory science courses and learn why the above 
post is utter nonsense.  Your scientific knowledge is sadly lagging
your computer literacy!

                                 Harry C.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Feb 20 04:37:03 EST 1996
------------------------------
