From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Subject: Even a conventional explanation is trickey
Reply-To: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 04:12:37 GMT

Tom Droege writes:
>Here is a prediction on the Natoya experiment.  When the open experiment is 
>carefully done, with good instrumentation, proper wire size, and the 1.48*I 
>correction for the Nickel cell; excess heat will be seen.  When done in closed 
>form, for a very long time, with the energy balance measured from the start of 
>the experiment, and with equally good instrumentation; the experiment will be 
>null.  

I find the mechanism by which this sequence of events arises to be itself
somewhat fascinating.  I believe this is a restatement of the actual
experimental results Tom Droege got earlier this year in doing a Mills cell.

Excess heat is seen right at the start.  If recombination is responsible,
then gas evolution should be reduced accordingly, right at the start -- the
1.48V*I correction must be wrong from the git-go.

I believe that the claim is that gas quantities are okay at the start, which
leaves us looking for another source of energy.  A cell has nickel, K2CO3,
H2O, O2, N2, possibly Si (from the glass) Pt, trace gases, such as CO2, and
maybe some rubber.  I imagine some of these things could undergo a chemical
energy releasing burn at first.

But after a while, they'd burn out.  I think the Mills cells run long enough
to exclude chemistry as a possibility.  But suppose as the chemical resources
exhaust themselves, that recombination begins to occur at a faster rate.
Then the 1.48V*I correction becomes less and less accurate, and we are more
and more measuring our electrical input power as anomalous heat.  Again gas
production would drop off, and be a good sign of recombination -- if anybody
bothered to measure it after the first few hours or days.

So maybe such a two phase system misleads people to give up their gas measuring
in the first phase when gas production doesn't start to decline until the 
second phase.

(Note, Jed Rothwell mentions Mills gets 900% excess energy.  So it might seem
that even with 100% recombination, the best we could expect is 100% (double)
excess (bogus) energy.  But I think Mills always subtracts 1.48*I first, so, for
instance, if he was really running at 1.58 volts, he'd count his input
energy as 0.1*I.  Thus it would only take 60% recombination to produce a
900% excess heat claim, under these hypothetical conditions.)

>In general, I do not believe that conspiracy is possible.

I think just the opposite is the norm.  Any interaction between humans can
be defined a "conspiracy."  Thus the problem with searching for a particular
conspiracy is not for lack of conspiracies, but rather the masking effect
of the multitudes of others.

Postulating a conspriacy, therefore, is essentially an act of definitionalism.
Since definitions are infinitely plastic, anyone can play the game of "Spin
the conspiracy theory."  The key to success is merely to assert that the
"smoking gun" evidence is being covered up by the conspirators.  So you can
use the lack of corroborating evidence as evidence of a cover-up!

Associations of individuals to commit harm do exist, of course.  And conspriacy
theories are everywhere abundant.  But there is seldom correlation between the
theories and reality -- and hence, no particular motive to accept any given
conspriacy theory as anything more than an over-active imagination.


- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion