Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs Visit Reports
Date: Fri Mar 17 15:48:01 1995


    REPORT OF A TRIP TO HYDRO DYNAMICS INC. TO STUDY THE GRIGGS PUMP

    Thomas F. Droege                                   13 March 1995

    A trip was made to Hydro Dynamics Inc., Rome, GA on 8 March 1995 to
    study a possible over unity device developed there by Jim Griggs.

    PREPARATION

    I prepared for the visit by reading all the various comments on
    sci.physics.fusion and by making a list of the major items that I
    wanted to investigate.  I arrived with a clip board on which I had
    mostly blank pages with headings of my major items.  Note, the items
    may not make sense now, but they are the ones on my clip board along
    with my ideas about what I wanted to see.  As you will see they were
    not all answered.  They were not even all asked.  These included:

    1)History

    How did they get into this work?  What led them to suspect the device
    was over unity and to test for it?

    2)Set Up

    Is the test equipment of sufficient quality to make the claimed
    measurements?

    3)Control Experiment

    Have they done a control experiment(s)?

    4)Calibration

    Have they done a convincing calibration on each of their measuring
    devices?

    5)Log Book Procedure

    Have they kept a good log book?  Can I look at the log book entries and
    trace their thinking through experiment, analysis of results, and re-
    experiment to confirm the results?  Does the log book time sequence
    make sense?  Do they have curves for all their calibration experiments?
    Do the calibrations support the conclusions?

    6)Redundancy

    Is there enough redundancy built into the experiment so that it is not
    dependent on any one device or type of device?

    7)Hypothesis

    When they do an experiment, do they set out to measure a specific thing
    that will confirm or deny their idea of what is happening?

    8)Error Study Procedure

    How well do they study their errors?

    9)Ultrasonic Effects

    Have they considered what all that ultrasonic energy might do to the
    various transducers involved?

    10)Experiment or is it Anecdotal?

    Are they doing experiments or do they just have anecdotal evidence?

    11)Is Experiment Designed to find Errors?

    Have they designed experiments to find errors in other experiments?

    12)Do They Understand the Significance of their Claim?

    Do they understand how much science has been done in this area?

    13)Theory Development

    Have they developed a theory as to what might be going on?

    14)Paper Structure

    Is their paper structured like a normal scientific paper?

    15)Literature Study

    Have they studied the literature in this area?

    As you can see, a lot of information to cover.  I recognize that I no
    longer have great stamina, so I did the best I could during the 4 hour
    visit.  By the end I was pretty tired.  I would not hold up as a OJ
    lawyer.  I always was amazed by Haldeman and Erlichman of the Nixon
    administration.  How could they remember so much and in such detail?  I
    never remember much of anything, and very little detail.



    THE SITE VISIT

    I apologize if I do not have everything in the correct order or if I
    have made minor misquotes.  I chose not to take a tape recorder as I
    felt it would be too intrusive, so I had to scribble notes.  Often the
    conversation did not allow note taking so I had to rely on my memory
    during my self de-briefing.

    A)Introduction

    I arrived at Hydro Dynamics at 10 AM March 8th.  I stayed until 2 PM
    with a short luncheon break.  We met first in Griggs office.  Present
    were Jim Griggs, Kelly Hudson, Scott Smith, Dave Parker and myself.  Jim
    Griggs is the founder and inventor of the machine.  I remember he is an
    electrical engineer with a background in energy conservation.  Kelly
    Hudson is the president and probably does the marketing.  My notes say
    his previous background was as a Baker or Banker - such is the vagary of
    scribbled notes.  Scott Smith was hired by Griggs after meeting him at
    ICCF-4.  I believe he is a mechanical engineer and formerly worked with
    Chukanov.  Dan Parker (a consultant?) built and programmed the data
    collection system.

    At first Kelly Hudson did almost all the talking.  I think he wanted to
    feel me out to see if I was dangerous to them.  Griggs was very quiet
    when Hudson wanted to talk.  Then I presented my addendum to their
    confidentially agreement.  On reading this, Griggs was quick to point
    out that they do not claim an over unity device.  None the less, they
    typed it up that way and it was signed by both of us.

    I then dug out the ICCF-4 paper and looked for the spot where I had
    interpreted a over unity claim.  I could not find it.

    But I can find it now, here is a quote from the CONCLUSION, page 43-10.

    First paragraph:

    "It appears that the label "COLD FUSION" is being applied to all
    research that involves the "excess energy" phenomenon.  Previous
    Hydro Dynamics' tests, including these results, strongly suggest
    the presence of excess energy.  At this stage of our research we
    are not theorizing as to the source of the "excess".

    Last paragraph:

    "During the past there years the test performed at Hydrodynamics
    continue to indicate COP's greater than one.  We believe
    additional research in this area must continue."

    OK, I take this and Jim Griggs' word at face value.  There is no
    "scientific claim" of an over unity device.

    For those that did not see it in the post, here is what I added.  The
    actual agreement is too long for my tired fingers, and was so
    restrictive that I could do nothing but appear in an endorsement for
    their product.
    ______________________________________________________________________
    ADDENDUM TO THE CONFIDENTIALLY AGREEMENT

    The undersigned does not wish to have any confidential information
    disclosed to him.  In the event of accidental disclosure, HDI will
    identify the confidential material and the undersigned will hold it in
    confidence.

    The undersigned is here to review the experimental procedures that have
    led to a claim of excess energy.  The undersigned intends to make
    public a report of this review to the internet News Group
    sci.physics.fusion.  The undersigned also intends to outline procedural
    changes that can lead to acceptance of results by the scientific
    community.
    _______________________________________________________________________

    Hydro Dynamics is properly concerned that something that I might say
    could result in a loss of business.  I agreed to FAX my comments to
    them prior to posting on the internet.  I agreed to then append any
    comments which they might wish to add.


    B)Instrumentation

    Dave Parker obviously knows the standard instrumentation lore, and has
    built them a good system for the price I heard mentioned.  Standard
    thermocouple technique with a cold compensation box.  Thermocouples and
    other inputs are read differentially.  Parker seemed to understand the
    advantages of such a system.  It has a 486 CPU with a simple but
    effective presentation.  The only strange thing was the speed of
    operation.  It took a half minute or so between data points.  This
    reading only 12 thermocouples the torque meter and a few other things.
    Parker said that the computation part of the loop took all the time.
    Somehow unfolding the thermocouple curves took time.  I suppose some
    inverse functions in some instrumentation language could take time.
    Sigh! A 486 should be able to go at blinding speed for this
    application.  But this is not a criticism, the system is adequate, this
    is just a comment of curiosity.  The whole system is built into a
    little enclosure off to one side of the shop floor to keep it away from
    the dust and dirt.  I judge the data acquisition system to be adequate
    for the task at hand.

    Input power is measured by a Dranitz power meter and a LaBoz torque
    meter.  This gives two ways to measure power.  The torque meter was
    rated at 0.01%.  At least that is what the manual said.  It is a strain
    gage type of device.  They had a lever and weight scheme that they
    could use to provide a known torque under static conditions for
    calibration.

    In general all the instrumentation is adequate to perform good
    experiments if they are properly designed and executed.

    C)Test

    While I did not request that they run a test, they seemed to want to
    perform one.  So they fired up a motor-pump combination big enough that
    I was careful to stand off axis of the pump (to avoid flying debris)
    when they turned it on.

    The set up consisted of a large motor and a Griggs pump with a rotor
    that I would guess at 10" diameter.  A wild guess is that it was a 50
    Hp motor.  There was a long manifold on the input side of the pump with
    six (count em) 6 thermocouples installed.  There was a similar manifold
    on the output with again 6 thermocouples and in addition a dial
    thermometer.  A small feed pump fed water from a tank that was arranged
    so that they could measure the water used, and forced it through the
    pump.

    The test done for me was what they called a hot water test.  Here they
    fed enough water so that hot water, not steam was produced.  My notes
    say inlet temperature of 57 F and outlet (after coming to steady state)
    of 142 F.  I watched the small dial thermometer during turn on.  The
    temperature rose about 2 degrees a second.  This is a high power
    system.

    My one concession to measuring anything was to whip a geiger counter
    out of my brief case and hold it next to the rotor after it had
    stabilized.  The reading was much lower than in my basement.  This was
    also true in the motel room.  I don't want to know that my basement is
    full of radon!  My reason for this concession was that in the chance
    that it was a radioactive process, I did now want to be one of the dead
    bodies.

    During operation, the computer monitor displayed the twelve
    thermocouples, a few other things, and the input and the output power
    in (I remember ) Btu/hour.  In any case, one reading of the monitor
    indicated 210 in, 227 out.  Or 8% excess energy.  I asked if they
    computed the sigma of the readings, and they did not.  But they took
    lots of readings and averaged them for each reading displayed.  Two
    successive readings on one thermocouple varied by 0.4 degree.  They
    claimed their readings were good to 1 F.  My observations were
    consistent with this claim as to rms noise.  I have no idea about
    absolute accuracy.  They made no effort to make any claims about
    accuracy.  I think they just use a thermocouple curve from a book.

    D)Lunch

    When we were alone, Dave Parker confided that he had arrived a skeptic,
    but was now convinced that something was going on.  Through all the
    discussions, he seemed to be most aware of the scientific method, and
    possible errors and how to seek them out.

    E)Plant Tour

    A number of units were under construction and an number of tests of
    various kinds were in process.  I consider any further details in this
    area to be proprietary.  During the course of the visit I heard a
    number of things that were really secrets.  In no case did they
    remember to inform me that I had heard a secret as the agreement
    required.  I have done my best not to reveal such material here, and I
    will continue to keep such secrets.

    I saw many different pump rotors during my plant tour.  Many different
    sizes shapes and configurations.  I stuck my finger into the holes in
    their sides.  John 20:25 (My Motel 8 room conveniently had a Gideon
    bible. My name is Thomas.  Does this mean I am a believer?  Yes, but
    in what?)  Well, what I do believe is that Jim Griggs has spent a lot
    of time and a lot of money developing this device.  I readily believe
    his statement that he has spent $1,000,000 and 5 years work.  You could
    see the evidence everywhere.

    This is Edison at work trying 5000 different varieties of bamboo for
    his lamp filament.  There is a smaller amount of evidence of
    experimental work to uncover the principal.  This possibly corresponds
    to the arrival of Scott Smith.  Most of the experimental fixtures seem
    to be recent.  There is now a plastic pump housing so that they can see
    it operating, and there was a previous attempt to put a window in a
    pump.

    This is a lean organization.  The kind I want my venture capitalist to
    give money to.  There was no sign of a plush conference room, or any
    waste that I could see.  Everyone that was supposed to be working
    seemed to be working.

    F)De-briefing

    After making my way back to the motel, I spent several hours going over
    my notes and list of questions, an made further notes on my
    recollections.  Below I repeat the headings from the first section with
    my notes added.

    1)History

    How did they get into this work?  What led them to suspect the device
    was over unity and to test for it?

    I believe that Griggs started this work as just a way to make steam/hot
    water without the problems of a boiler or electric heater.  Griggs said
    his tests just indicated over unity operation.  He started the work
    early in 1989, so possibly Pons and Flieschmann's work came along to
    re-enforce his over unity results.  I found him a little vague on this
    topic, possibly as a patent defense as he may want to claim that he
    started his work before P&F.

    2)Set Up

    Is the test equipment of sufficient quality to make the claimed
    measurements?

    The experimental setup appeared to be made of high quality components.
    I believe the components are of high enough quality that proper
    measurements can be made to give a definitive answer to the "over
    unity" question.

    3)Control Experiment

    Have they done a control experiment(s)?

    They have done an experiment with a blank rotor.  They find that
    efficiency with a blank rotor is 0.96 to 0.98.  This will be discussed
    later.

    4)Calibration

    Have they done a convincing calibration on each of their measuring
    devices?

    I did not detect any calibration experiments.  This was one of the most
    critical items on my list.  I did not find a single plot in the plant.
    I was looking for calibration curves, thermocouple curves, curves of
    efficiency vs load, temperature, anything, etc..  On purpose I did not
    ask for curves.  I wanted to see how their thought process worked.
    They simply do not think in terms of designing an experiment to test
    dependence on some variable and plotting the results.

    OK, they may have some curves.  But they did not shove any in my face
    and say "see here is how a depends on b".

    5)Log Book Procedure

    Have they kept a good log book?  Can I look at the log book entries and
    trace their thinking through experiment, analysis of results, and re-
    experiment to confirm the results?  Does the log book time sequence
    make sense?  Do they have curves for all their calibration experiments?
    Do the calibrations support the conclusions?

    They do not keep a log book.  While I suppose that it is possible to do
    science without a log book, none of my friends seem to do so.  This was
    the most critical item on my list.  I wanted to look at the time
    sequence in the log and see how they thought when they found a positive
    result.  Did they then design an experiment that asked the question
    "why?".  Or did they just accept the result and congratulate
    themselves.

    They do have a form that they use to run a test.  This form is much
    like what would be used for a production test.  Write down all the
    meter readings and the COP (Coefficient of Performance).

    6)Redundancy

    Is there enough redundancy built into the experiment so that it is not
    dependent on any one device or type of device?

    It would appear that they have received the message that their
    measurements should be redundant.  There are two pretty different ways
    to measure power.  This would ordinarily be pretty convincing.  I asked
    for a plot (I remember - but not sure.  This may be the only time I asked
    to see a plot of something.) of one against the other, they were only
    able to say that they read the same.  How much the same I want to know!

    There is a flow meter and they weigh the water to check it.  There are
    six (6) count em thermocouples on the input and six on the output.
    There is at least one more dial thermometer on the output.

    So I think there are enough different ways to measure things to detect
    a problem if the experiment is designed properly and everything is
    properly calibrated.

    7)Hypothesis

    When they do an experiment, do they set out to measure a specific thing
    that will confirm or deny their idea of what is happening?

    I did not detect that they try to measure anything except over unity
    operation.  I think all their tests are pointed in this direction.
    There is some evidence that they have recently started tests to see
    what might be going on in the device.  They have put a glass window in
    one pump -it failed, and have a plastic cased pump on the bench.

    8)Error Study Procedure

    How well do they study their errors?

    They do not seem to compute sigma of anything.  They compute the mean
    of a large number of readings on their thermocouples.  The noise level
    could be quite high.  I watched one thermocouple and it varied 0.4
    F on two successive readings.  Since this was the difference in means
    between two (100 sample?) readings, those of you that are statistically
    inclined can make an estimate.  When I brought this up, Dan Parker
    seemed to understand what I was worried about.  I got glazed looks
    from the rest.

    9)Ultrasonic Effects

    Have they considered what all that ultrasonic energy might do to the
    various transducers involved?

    I was worried that all that ultrasonic energy might be getting into the
    torque meter strain gage and would affect it's reading.  They said that
    they too were worried about this, but that the two power meters read
    the same, and they quit worrying about it.  Me, I would still worry.
    But I must admit, I do not see a mechanism where the ultrasonic energy
    would affect both measurements the same.  Still, they did not produce a
    curve showing what "the same" meant.

    What does all that ultrasonic energy do to all those thermocouples?  I
    don't know.  Does anyone?  Did they do an experiment to test?  Not that
    I saw.  But it would just have to shift the curve a little!  Remember
    it is 50 HP or so of energy.  I could not hear anything.  Seems to me
    they had made some measurements of this - I remember it was in the 18-
    70 KHz range.

    10)Experiment or is it Anecdotal?

    Are they doing experiments or do they just have anecdotal evidence?

    I think sort of in between.  They have folders full of their test
    sheets, but it would appear that they do that which gives them the
    largest result.

    During the course of the discussion I was trying to get across the idea
    that one should try to test the concept by trying an entirely different
    approach which still included the concept.  Suppose it is happening due to
    the ultrasonic effects in the drill holes.  So I suggested that a
    possible test would be to build a similar device using a piston.  They
    said they had tried a piston but that "it didn't work".  No evidence
    that they were really worried about why.

    11)Is Experiment Designed to find Errors?

    Have they designed experiments to find errors in other experiments?

    My notes say "Don't really seem to be aggressively looking for errors."

    12)Do They Understand the Significance of their Claim?
    Do they understand how much science has been done in this area?

    I asked this question directly of Jim Griggs.  He said, yes, it
    violates the second law of thermodynamics.  But I think they have no
    concept of the amount of work that has been done in this area.  I have
    no concept myself.  But I know there has been a lot of very careful
    work.

    13)Theory Development

    Have they developed a theory as to what might be going on?

    They have no theory.

    14)Paper Structure

    Is their paper structured like a normal scientific paper?

    This is here just to make a point of it.  The ICCF-4 paper is more a
    publicity blurb than a scientific paper.

    15)Literature Study

    Have they studied the literature in this area?

    Griggs said that they had really only done the patent search.  There is
    not much literature on this type of device.


    DISCUSSION

    A)The Log Book Problem

    I arrived really wanting to look at a log book.  Without a log book, I
    have no idea how they think or work.  It would not have had to be
    complete or in great detail.  But I wanted to sit with them and look at
    a page and to say "just what are you doing here".  I wanted to see how
    they thought and how their thinking progressed over the five years of
    work.  Sadly, I do not think they have progressed.  They are just
    drilling holes at different angles and at different spacings trying to
    optimize an effect that may or may not exist.

    B)The Missing Curves

    They do not seem to think in terms of plotting anything against
    anything.  I don't know how they grow their understanding without
    making such comparisons.  They also do not seem to have calibration
    curves on anything.  I did not ask, but I suspect that they take their
    calibration curves out of a thermocouple handbook.  If so, then a
    slight error in their thermocouple batch or ultrasonic energy changing
    the curve could explain everything.

    C)Absolute Accuracy of The Thermocouples

    They did not say anything about accuracy, or how the referenced their
    temperature readings back to a NIST standard.  There was a Radio Shack?
    dial thermometer though.  Actually in my experience, not all that bad a
    check.  But I did not see a curve of Radio Shack vs thermocouple.  If I
    had I would have given them credit.  But a claim of over unity is so
    astounding that heroic calibrations must be made.

    D)Feed Pump

    I did not ask and they did not tell me that they take into account the
    energy provided by the feed pump.  For the hot water experiment this
    could be significant, and could easily account for the excess heat
    indicated.

    E)Blank Rotor Experiment

    I was pleased to see that they had done an experiment with a blank
    rotor (no holes to generate ultrasonic energy).  The less than unity
    results that this test indicates are encouraging but are not
    conclusive.  Such an experiment will have a small temperature rise with
    full flow, or low input energy at restricted flow to maintain the
    temperature rise.  It was not clear to me which experiment was run.  If
    the temperature rise is not matched, then it is a delta t experiment
    and dependent on the thermocouple calibration.  If the flow is not
    matched, then the losses will dominate and there will be low accuracy.

    RECOMMENDATIONS

    Griggs should pursue a path designed to produce a convincing
    presentation to the scientific community.  This section makes
    recommendations as to the procedure to be followed.

    The presentation made in the ICCF-4 paper, and the physical set up are
    not of a quality level that the scientific community can consider to be
    a serious disclosure of a claim of "over unity" energy production.  To
    make such a claim, a number of things need to be done.

    1)The Log Book

    They need to start keeping a log book.  This should show how each
    experiment is set up and should be full of calibration experiments.
    When the torque meter is blocked and the lever arm and weights
    attached, there should be data points entered in the log book.  Then
    derive an equation for the computer, compute residuals, etc.. Then
    there is some concept of the error involved in the measurements.

    2)Curves

    They need to start plotting results.  For a start, I would like to see
    the two power measuring devices plotted against each other.  Of course
    thermocouple curves.

    3)Error Limits

    Every experiment should be geared to describing the errors.  There
    should be error limits on everything.  We will be getting down to a
    real experiment when we are arguing about which errors are in
    quadrature.

    4)Killing the Positive Result

    When a positive result is found, every effort should be made to
    explain it in terms of error or known parameters.  Only after an
    exhaustive analysis of possible error sources is made should an over
    unity claim be made.

    5)The Paper

    Here is a sample outline for a paper.  The ICCF-4 paper does not follow
    such an outline.  It is just some stuff and a hint of an over unity
    result.

    i)Introduction
    ii)The Theory
    iii)The Test Hypothesis
    iv)Apparatus Description
    v)Calibration of Individual Measurement Components
    vi)Tests
    vii)Summary of Results
    viii)Discussion - Emphasis on possible error sources.
    ix)Conclusion

    6)Where To Publish

    Those claiming "over unity" devices usually find that the scientific
    community is tired of looking at them.  So it is hard to find a journal
    that will take a paper.  But Mr. Griggs has no such problem.  There is
    a "journal" ready and willing to publish his paper.  It is the journal
    sci.physics.fusion.  I can assure him that he will get a prompt and
    thorough reading.  Probably a more thorough reading than he would get
    in a big name journal.

    7)The Sales Pitch

    The sci.physics.fusion paper is really a sales pitch.  As much as we
    don't like to admit it, there is "marketing" going on in science.  To
    be believed, a result must be replicated.  Preferably in an entirely
    different configuration.  So the paper is really a sales pitch.  It
    needs to sell at least one other person to invest the time, effort, and
    money needed to duplicate the results.  It is up to the originator of
    a device to publish a paper that is so complete, so thorough in its
    analysis of error, and so compelling in the cleverness of the
    experiment that many will rush to replicate.

    8)The Necessity of Replication

    Nothing is believed in science without replication.  I tell you how to
    do it.  You do it.  Now there are two of us.  But some of your friends
    will know you as a careful experimenter and will be persuaded to
    follow.  Only when everyone knows someone that he trusts that has found
    a positive result is a positive result considered likely.

    CONCLUSION

    Griggs does not claim an over unity device.  He merely says that he has
    test results that indicate over unity operation.  He leaves it up to
    his visitors to view tests and to draw their own conclusions.

    I believe that the scientific community should withhold judgement until
    Griggs makes such a claim with a proper scientific presentation.

    Since Griggs does not make a scientific presentation that claims that
    his device is over unity, there is nothing to be considered.


    COMMENTS BY JIM GRIGGS

    The following comments were received from Jim Griggs according to our
    agreement.  I have typed these in by hand, and apologize in advance for
    any typos.  Some minor typos have been corrected during typing, however
    where I judged there was a possible interpretation of the statement, the
    exact wording and spelling was followed.  I appreciate that Jim did not
    have enough time to produce a polished document.  There are some
    differences in line length due to the editor used.

    Out of fairness, I will not reply to any of Griggs' comments here.  I take
    my shot, he takes his.  Later we will discuss it in sci.physics.fusion.  I
    offer to make further posts for Jim if they are sent in machine readable
    form.  I really hope Jim will get on the internet and join in the
    discussion.

    Tom Droege

    (10:40 AM  3-17-95)

    To:  Tom Droege
    Re:  Visit to Hydro Dynamics Inc.

    Tom it was a pleasure to meet and talk with you.  Thank you for the
    opportunity to respond to your comments.

    Let me start off ty saying we here at Hydro do not dispute anything you
    have said.  We are not scientists and have never made such a claim.  We
    are practical applications engineers, but I think we know how to conduct
    an energy audit and compute an energy balance based on the information
    supplied by the instrumentation available.  When this project began it was
    not my objective to invent an over unity device, but in tying to measure
    production capabilities a phenomenon seemed to be taking place.  I have
    spent the last eight years trying to understand why and will continue to
    do so until the source is explained as new scientific theory, or just
    plain human error.  In our opinion at Hydro the jury is still out and our
    door is still open.  In either case as we discussed we have a unique and
    safe device that can do anything from purify water to pasteurize milk.
    All this said, I would like to clarify just a few points.  I will address
    these by reference to your outline.

    A.  The reference to Dan Parker should have been David instead of Dan,
    but I'm sure he has been called a lot of things since he is an electrical
    engineer and a graduate of Georgia Tech.  (Since corrected in report TFD)

    B. The instrumentation we are using today has been pruchased as a direct
    result of different people visiting the plant and wanting new or different
    methods of testing.  Be assured that we will pursue your recommendations.

    C.  We did not feel that we had conducted a test by simply turning on a
    system.  We did this so you could see a pump and the data center operate.

    E.  Thank you for your comments about a lean operation we try very hard to
    run a sound business.

    F.  1. Actually the work began in 1986 with the first working prototype in
    1988 and a full operational model in 1989.

        5.  I think that maybe I missed exactly what kind of information you
    were looking for when you asked for a log book.  You are right I did not
    keep a book, but as I told you I do have hundreds of data files in my
    computer system as to design, system configuration, type of run and
    outcome.  Had you taken the time to thumb through the stacks of forms we
    provide you would would have found that not every design produced positive
    results and that notes were made on the backs of hundreds of the pages.  I
    don't think we have just accepted our results and congratulated ourselves
    if had we would not still be seeking answers.
    HOWEVER I DID GET THE MESSAGE, I WILL BUY A LOG BOOK

       7.  The main purpose of our testing has been to measure production
    capabilities for marketing, since not every pump design shows this excess
    energy we simply want to know where we stand against a common boiler.  You
    were also right in my reason for hiring Scott.  It is our intend to find
    out exactly what is the cause of our heat source whether over unity or
    not.

       9.  I'm still worried too.

       10.  Sorry I did not clarify myself better when you ask about a piston
    type device.  It wasn't that the piston design did not produce over unity,
    it was that the piston type did not produce anything.  It is a fact you
    cannot compress water very well, I broke a lot of material.

       11.  This was the area wher you cut me pretty deep.  How could you say
    we did not seem to look for errors when everything we hav pruchased for
    testing is to find where we have made an error.  I am an engineer.  I know
    how to conduct an energy balance.  I know that then the results appear to
    violate the laws of physics to try to find an error.  I have tried for
    eight long years and I am still trying!

       12.  OH YES!  I fully understand the significance of making such a
    claim and that is why I have pursued the course and actions I have taken.
    I will continue to test and leave the final explanation up to those of you
    in the scientific field.  After all look what has happened to those that
    have made formal claims.

    As for the rest of the material those where your comments and I sincerely
    appreciate your input.  I will do my best with the resources available to
    us at this time to pursue the recommendation you have outlined.

    Once again we really enjoyed your visit and feel free to come back at any
    time.  We always learn from being agound those such as yourself.

    Respectfully:

    (Signed)

    Jim Griggs

    End of report