1995.01.06 / Edward Lewis /  *Teeny Ball Lightning:-)
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: *Teeny Ball Lightning:-)
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 03:20:28 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

(c) 1994 by Edward Lewis All Rights Reserved
December 22, 1994

	I have been posting articles about tiny ball lightning and
plasmoids for a while now.  In the December, 1994 issue of FUSION
TECHNOLOGY, Matsumoto reports about the observation of tiny ball
lightning in several cold fusion experiments, and he suggests that
people use nuclear emulsions.  Sufficient evidence of the production
of things that can be called "plasmoids" or tiny ball lightning is the
many kinds of plasmoid traces that Matsumoto has produced, and the
EB-filament paper by Nardi and Bostick et al.: V. Nardi, W. H.
Bostick, J. Feugeas, and W. Prior, "Internal Structure of
ELectron-Beam Filaments," Physical Review A, 22, no. 5, 2211
(November, 1980).  This is substantial proof, in my opinion.  Some of
the ring traces are very similar, and some of the other traces are
similar too.  I'd also like to suggest that people use nuclear
emulsions awith various kinds of cold fusion and plasmoid experiments.
Many of the plasmoids produced by electrolysis and discharge are the
same.  And people have known for a long time that plasmoids and
discharges are associated with neutron production.



              (c) 1994 by Edward Lewis All Rights Reserved

        I've posted versions of this article several times on this
newsgroup since December of 1993; and I've posted several articles
about plasmoids and cold fusion on this newsgroup since January of
1993.  If anyone wants to reproduce or resend this article, get my
permission first.

                        PLASMOIDS AND COLD FUSION

        W. Bostick produced that which he called plasmoids by
discharging through electrodes.  Bostick wrote a paper that was titled
"Plasmoids" that was published in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN in 1957(1).  He
may have been the first to apply this term to this phenomena.  In this
paper, he had already began to tell others about his speculation that
galaxies and the phenomena he produced were similar.  He compared the
shapes and the travel of these things.  He also speculated a little
about the identity of "particles."  He shows pictures of different
kinds of plasmoid shapes in the article and related these to different
kinds of shapes of galaxies.  Many people including Bostick, Alfven
who is a physics Nobel Prize winner, Peratt and Lerner have developed
similar astronomical theories that model the universe as plasmoids and
that can be said to be derivations or summarizations of the
experimental work of W. Bostick and others.  It has become evident
that atoms can be defined as plasmoids, especially as according to the
phenomena produced by Ken Shoulders.  It seems that there are many
different kinds of plasmoid phenomena.  The EVs that Ken Shoulders
produced and ball lightning may be classified as kinds of this general
phenomena.  There is evidence that both plasmoids and ball lightning
are associated with neutrons, radioactivity, production of elements,
and excess radiation.

                Based on the phenomena that Matsumoto produced, the
traces, the pictures and descriptions of electrodes, the pictures of
stationary BL and corona-like phenomena, the visible BL-like phenomena
that he reports, and the sparks that he observed that left traces like
those produced during electrolysis and discharge, one may categorize
CF phenomena as tiny ball-lightning or plasmoids.  Important evidence
is the holes and trails on and in emulsions and electrodes that
Matsumoto produced by discharging and electrolysis, the holes in
electrodes that Liaw et al. produced, the holes in electrodes that others
produced, the empty areas in electrodes that are shaped liked grains
that Matsumoto and Silver et al. produced and the half-empty grains that
Matsumoto produced, and the holes and tunnels and trails on and in
electrodes that Silver produced.  These tunnels, holes, and trail-like
marks are similar to those that are produced by ball lightning
phenomena, though ball lightning are associated with bigger effects.
These tunnels, holes, and trail-like marks are also similar to those
produced by the EV phenomena that K. Shoulders produced.  Silver and
his co-authors who published a paper in the December issue of FUSION
TECHNOLOGY have reproduced the tunnels, holes, and trail-like markings
in metals that Matsumoto produced.  These tunnels, holes, and
trail-marks are evidence of the conversion and change of materials.
Important evidence that both CF phenomena and substance in general are
plasmoid phenomena is Matsumoto's experience of the production of
electricity by apparatus.  I suspect that plasmoid phenomena such as
electrodes and other materials may convert to be bigger plasmoids and
light and electricity.  EVs and ball lightning are known to convert to
light and electricity.

        I suspect that the round holes in electrodes that Matsumoto
produced and the round holes and tunnels that Silver produced are due
to the boring of BL-like phenomena, and that the grain-shaped holes
that they produced is evidence of the conversion of the grain to light
or electricity or of the production of plasmoids.  Some if not all
plasmoids are apparently able to travel through materials, even if the
plasmoids are very big.  The plasmoids that Matsumoto has produced
does this, and this is major evidence to support my deductions.
Matsumoto has also shown pictures of sectioned electrodes with what
seem to me to be trail-like tracks, as if tiny BL-like phenomena
traveled inside and left tracks.

        Many other anomalous phenomena can be described as plasmoid
phenomena.  For example, superconductivity seem to be similar to the
phenomena of ball lightning traveling though materials such as
ceramics and glass without leaving holes or visible effects, yet ball
lightning may convert to an electrical surge after touching a wire or
it may convert to a bolt of lightning.  Also, sonoluminescence seems
to be a phenomena of the water converting to light and perhaps
electricity.   1)W. Bostick, "Plasmoids," SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, 197, 87 (October 1957).

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 / Dick Jackson /  Who Runs It? (was When is the Nice conference?)
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Who Runs It? (was When is the Nice conference?)
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 01:00:02 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea

In article <3ed2ob$fn8@stratus.skypoint.net> jlogajan@skypoint.com writes:
>Tom Droege (Droege@fnal.fnal.gov) wrote:
>: I would like to ask everyone here who has previously attended any of
>: the cold fusion conferences, did you get the announcement of ICCF5?
>
>I got a flyer on it earlier this summer -- though I can't recall if either
>Jed or Gene sent it to me or if it came with materials from the now
>defunct "Cold Fusion" Magazine.

I may have missed this -- but under whose aegis are the ICCFn
conferences held? Should we expect the organizers to have more than
normal human biases?

Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 /  Anthony /  Re: The true physics behind Cold Fusion: My 1st Patent: RSNM,(part 
     
Originally-From: Anff@qvwp.demon.co.uk (Anthony)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.engr,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: The true physics behind Cold Fusion: My 1st Patent: RSNM,(part 
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 20:44:07 +0000
Organization: A H Worth & Co Ltd

In article <3ehfg1$bh7@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
           Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu "Archimedes Plutonium" writes:

$>  I contend, as so well amplified in my patent application, that cold
$>fusion is spontaneous neutron materialization. This was first

[absolutley loads of autobot drivel deleted]

Everything that ever happens is because of 
'spontaneous neutron materialization'
if you believe this cranky automatic mail generator.

I notice people seem to avoid discussion with it, I assume it's been
wasting bandwidth for a long time now.....

Soon there will be a revelation that the world has been arguing with a
machine!

-- 
Cheers
Anff

--Anthony Sumner -- Mail Anff@qvwp.demon.co.uk
"Knowledge is useless unless it's shared"
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenAnff cudlnAnthony cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 / A Plutonium /  RE:  Dr. Bockris 4-body reaction/further experiments
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: RE:  Dr. Bockris 4-body reaction/further experiments
Date: 6 Jan 1995 04:57:35 GMT
Organization: PLutonium Atom Foundation

In article <USE2PCB252055053@brbbs.brbbs.com>
mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes:

> -> It is simply to measure hadron count before a CF (carbon arc)
> -> experiment and hadron count after a CF (carbon arc) experiment.
>  
> Simple?  Just how do you propose to do a hadron count?  I know of no simple way
> to get a reasonable count, and no way to get a total count accurate to a few
> haydrons.  An object with say 10^18 atoms would require about 16 to 20 digits
> of accuracy depending on the atomic weight of the substance(s).  If you put a
> coumpter to work and it somehow was able to count hadrons at a billion atoms
> worth per second, it would still take over 30 years to get a total. Please fill
> me in on the experimental details.

  Simple theory. But experimental verification or proof is complex
indeed. Perhaps beyond our present technology, but close to being
harnessed on the near future horizon.
  Perhaps accurate chemical analysis and accurate hadron count is a
good gauge on the history of physics, our ability to keep accurate tabs
on both hadronic kind and count.
  I suspect you are correct Marshall that no science lab has the
sophistication to accurately count total hadrons in a sample of matter
no matter how small, much less count it in a Cold Fusion apparatus or
Carbon arc. But we must not give up just because of complexity or
hardness of performing the experiment.
  Simple theory, because, I contend that this -- violation of
conservation of energy/mass -- is the mechanism of cold fusion, carbon
arc, even cosmic gamma ray bursts. I can not think of a simpler theory
(explanation) for cold fusion than that of not fusing atoms, but
spontaneous neutron materialization where conservation laws are
violated.
  I have tried dreaming-up experimental set-ups to accurated count
hadrons in a sample. I have thought of using the new scanning-tunnel
microscope. The one that IBM uses to write letters with atoms. I wonder
if the scanning-tunnel microscope can be configured into a carbon arc
experiment. 
  I have thought of mass spectrometers configured for a Cold Fusion
Electrical cell apparatus, say, Tandberg or the recent Tandberg copiers
of Pons & Fleischmann. Where the apparatus is confirmed to have no
elements beyond atomic mass X before the electric current. The mass
spectrometer on while the electric current is started in the cells and
the spectrometer highly accurately telling if the presence of just one
atom of atomic mass X+1 occurs in the cell.
  What I am describing is an experiment which will change all of
physics as we presently know it. Because, if I am correct about
spontaneous neutron materialization. It means that no conservation law
was ever correct. All conservation laws were mere algorithms which only
had the appearances of being universal laws. All were cute ideas, but
no real truth behind them as to how Nature works. And this makes sense
in a wider scope. We see change all around us. Why should we think that
atoms obey any straightjacketing law such as conservation laws?
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 / William Rowe /  Re: Alien Visitation vs. P&F Cold Fusion:  You Make The
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (William Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Alien Visitation vs. P&F Cold Fusion:  You Make The
Call (was Re: Kunich versus
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 06:00:19 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <USE2PCB638323482@brbbs.brbbs.com>, mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com wrote:

>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
> 
>->      Same with UFO sightings, crop circles too.
>->
>->      It's truly amazing that the sightings of aliens from other worlds
>->      have basically converged to a single drawing in the last decade
>->      or so.  Must be because they exist.
> 
>You are in the wrong newsgroup for this discussion.  I would suggest moving
>your reasoning, whatever it is, over to alt.alien.visitors, alt.paranormal.ufo,
>alt.paranormal, alt.ufo.reports or even alt.psychology and
>alt.psychology.research.  I am sure those will rejoice in any brillient
>insights you can provide, or alternatively set you straight on any stupid ideas
>on the subjects.
> 

This has been taken totally out of context. Jed Rothwell made an agrument
that in essence said the large number of investigators which have bound
anomalous heat can't all be wrong therefore CF must be real. While I would
agree the probability of all these investigators is low it is not zero and
Jed's argument is fallacious. This was the entire point Dale Bass was
trying to make. He chose to to do this by posting the obviously
unbelieveable example above as an example showing a large number of
believers doesn't make something true.

Dale may be a lot of things such as terse and sarcastic in his responses
to Jed. But so far, I have not seen him post off topic or illogically.

-- 
_______________________________________________________________________________
William Rowe                                                   browe@netcom.com
MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenbrowe cudfnWilliam cudlnRowe cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Measuring the lever
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Measuring the lever
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 95 09:46:46 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Richard A Blue <blue@pilot.msu.edu> writes:
 
>After all the verbiage concerning how accurately Jed Rothwell calibrated
>the dynamometer on the Griggs Hydrosonic pump, his latest response hints
>that he, in fact, never made a measurement of the length of that lever.
 
"Hints"hell! What a lot a crap you write, Dick! You are amazing. Of course
I measured it, with a ruler, which was sitting right there. Did I whip out
a bunch of machine tool equipment and measure it to the nearest 0.01 inches?
Nope, I did not have all day to confirm that the manufacturer is capable of
doing what every manufacturer has done since the start of the industrial
revolution.
 
This whole discussion is ridiculous. You keep dreaming up ese implausible
imaginary reasons to doubt things, against all common sense and practical
experience. *IF* there was a discrepancy between the readings of the
dynamometer and the power meter, or *IF* the installer was not authorized, or
*IF* the manufacturer had provided an experimental unit instead of an off-the-
shelf industrial instrument, then maybe you would have some reasonable thread
to hang your doubts on. But you do noInstead of looking for likely
problems that might occur in the real world, or at least unlikely problems
that someone, somewhere, at some time has experienced, you go around beating
the bushes and making up imaginary problems. You dream up "cold mist" that
looks like steam and heats water like steam, but it isn't steam. You make
up fairy tales of manufacturers who are incapable of measuring the diameter
of a steel shaft to the nearest centimeter. You are grasping at straws! This
is all dream world overworked imaginary nonsense. In the real world, it is
very easy to measure a shaft, and in fact, I can hold a yardstick on a metal
arm (as I did) and probably measure from the center of the shaft to the end
to within a fraction of an inch even without a micrometer.
 
I never stated that I stopped the proceedings, removed the shaft, and measured
everything to the nearest 0.01 inches. I said, repeatedly, that it is very
simple to do so and that whoever manufactured that arm must surely have used
standard, off the shelf equipment, which makes it darn near impossible for
them to make a mistake on the scale you assert is likely. But this is such
never-never-land claptrap. If you are so certain it is wrong, why don't you
come to Georgia and prove that Griggs and all of his customers are incapable
of measuring thousands of kilowatts of excess heat?
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 95 09:54:39 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Thomas H. Kunich <tomk@netcom.com> writes:
 
>This is pretty funny stuff Rothwell. Aren't you the one that just a few 
>messages back told us all that to _FORGET_ Fleischman and Pons? That their
>data was insignificant? Then you tell us about how great they are and 
 
You misunderstand (deliberately, I expect). I suggested that YOU FORGET
Fleischmann and Pons, temporarily. That was an exersize for you, for a few
hours. You are hung up on them. You are obsessed by them. You think their
work is not good. So, I suggested that you put them out of your mind for
one afternoon, go to the library, and read papers from other workers, in
order to form a fresh, unbiased view of the field as a whole.
 
Your ideas about Pons and Fleischmann are illusions. Your judgement of them
is flawed by emotion and ignorance. It now appears that you are unwilling
to go read other papers by other scientists, so I guess you are biased and
closed minded about other people as well.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 / AVINASH PATIL /  Suppliers for silicon wafers
     
Originally-From: aup@engr.uark.edu (AVINASH U PATIL)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Suppliers for silicon wafers
Date: 6 Jan 1995 17:13:46 GMT
Organization: University of Arkansas College of Engineering


 
 i am interested to know global suppliers for the silicon wafers used in the pv 
systems. brief technical and other details are as follows.
 
100 MM SILICON WAFERS FOR PHOTOVOLTAICS
 
SINGLE CRYSTALLINE SILICON
 
RESISTIVITY 0.5 TO 3 OHMS
 
THICKNESS 400 MICRONS
 
ANNUAL REQUIREMENT 1.2 MILLION NUMBERS
 
contracts  for three years of orders. Deliveries are to  made  at 
regular intervals to suit our requirements which can be  mutually 
discussed and decided upon. 
 
 
pl.let me know if you are aware of or pl. let me know where i can 
get the sources.
 
Thanks in advance



cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenaup cudfnAVINASH cudlnPATIL cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 / John Logajan /  Koloc's plasmak photos available via www
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Koloc's plasmak photos available via www
Date: 6 Jan 1995 16:23:13 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

I have a series of three photos (gifs) available to WWW browsers which
show Paul Koloc's plasmak plasmoids floating hither and tither.

http://www.skypoint.com/subscribers/jlogajan

Paul, can you give me a size estimate of the plasmoid in the picture?

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 - WWW URL =  http://www.skypoint.com/subscribers/jlogajan -
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 / Ralf Lukner /  Re: The true physics behind Cold Fusion: My 1st Patent: RSNM,(part
     
Originally-From: lukner@che.utexas.edu (Ralf B. Lukner)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.engr,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: The true physics behind Cold Fusion: My 1st Patent: RSNM,(part
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 1995 10:42:34 -0600
Organization: University of Texas at Austin Chemical Engineering

In article <789338647snz@qvwp.demon.co.uk>, Anff@qvwp.demon.co.uk wrote:

> I notice people seem to avoid discussion with it, I assume it's been
> wasting bandwidth for a long time now.....

I think it would be nice if the results could be examined on their own
merit.  Clearly, obtaining a patent on an idea, doesn't mean that the
inventor understands what is going on.  I am not personally convinced that
cold fusion occurs, but I don't think discussion of this idea is a "waste
of bandwidth."  For someone like me who doesn't keep up with the work in
this area, it would be helpful if physicists carefully explained what is
being observed (what is the chemical reaction if one is occuring, etc.). 
Thus far, the explanations I have seen have been as mysterious as the
original propositions.

--Ralf
cudkeys:
cuddy06 cudenlukner cudfnRalf cudlnLukner cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Griggs, Chaos and QM
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs, Chaos and QM
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 1995 11:43 -0500 (EST)

Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk> writes:
 
-> You are describing turbulent flow, a much studied phenomenon. Couette-Taylor
-> flow has also been much studied. Why do you think the water molecules
-> must be spinning, rather than just whizzing about? Turbulent fluids,
-> including water, have been observed for a long time, at Reynolds
-> numbers rather higher, I am sure, than are achieved in the Griggs device.
-> Why has noone seen free-lunch energy before, I wonder? Dare I suggest
-> that it is because there isn't any?
 
Because that is the nature of fractuals, as you magnify more and more, you keep
seeing the same pattern ever smaller.  That part is not in dispute, it has been
proven many times by chaos experiments, and is supported by theory and math.
Large swirls are seen, thus by chaos theory you should expect to find an ever
decreasing size of whirls, as the bifurcations split and multiply the whirls.
 
In normal turbulant flow, the large structures are usually not swirls, thus the
small structures will not be swirls either, since fractuals simple keep
repeating to an ever finer detail.  But who is to say they do not have a small
overunit component from what small swirls there are?  If you looked at say the
water going through a turbine in a dam, who would ever notice if the exit
temperature showed a 1% higher than expected energy input?  Between normal
turbulent flow not having a significant whirl character, and no one considering
making measurements to .0001 degree to look for possible non-conformance, I am
not surprised no one else has seen it.
 
As far as it being an o/u device or not.  I am not going to jump to any
conclusions but will await Tom's report on that.  Science is not done by
assuming something is not possible then refusing to look at it.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy06 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.07 / Richard Milton /  Re: World-Wide Acceptance of Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: richard@milton.win-uk.net (Richard Milton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: World-Wide Acceptance of Cold Fusion
Date: Sat, 07 Jan 1995 01:18:51 GMT

 

>In article <3ehihp$d15@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
 HALO@mail.utexas.edu (Jascha Little) says:


>In the interest of science I hereby offer, free of charge, the services of my
>calorimetry lab to anyone who can provide a "working" cold fusion cell (i.e.
>one that does produce excess heat).

>If you will make the cell available at my lab for a period of one month, I
>will perform an extensive series of measurements and provide a
>publication-quality report.  You get the cell back...no strings attached.


>Scott Little, EarthTech Intl., Austin TX 78759, FAX 512-346-3017.


Scott, did you know that you can _buy_ a commercially
available cold fusion research cell?

They have been advertised for sale for more than nine
months in "Cold Fusion" magazine by

E-quest Sciences
PO Box 60642
Palo Alto , CA 94306
Fax (415) 851 8489
Email 70312.315@compuserve.com

Please share your findings with us.


Richard

P.S. I am not connected with this company -- and no, I'm 
not on sales commmission. 

--
*****************************&********************************
Richard Milton               & 
10 Pembury Road              & "Nothing is too wonderful to be  
Tonbridge, Kent TN9 2HX      &  true if it be consistent with 
United Kingdom               &  the laws of nature."
Tel/Fax: 0732 353427         &
richard@milton.win-uk.net    &             Michael Faraday
============================================================== 

cudkeys:
cuddy07 cudenrichard cudfnRichard cudlnMilton cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: When is the Nice conference?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: When is the Nice conference?
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 95 13:51:07 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Tom Droege <Droege@fnal.fnal.gov> emotes:
 
     "Come on people, wake up!  This meeting is a farce!  One does not hold
     scientific meetings using a list edited according to belief. . . . The
     fundamental concept of science is free and open discussion of ideas."
 
Amen! hallelujah brother! Let the politically correct crusade begin. And while
you are at it Tom, why don't you do the following:
 
*    Call National Geographic and DEMAND they invite the Flat Earth Society
     members to their meetings, to give them a forum.
 
*    Get in contact with NIH and force them to put faith healing on their
     agenda. They should be spending at least half their budget on it!
 
*    Hop over the biologist forums here on internet and DEMAND they invite
     creationists to their conferences.
 
Yes folks, from now on, every flake, every idiot, and every scientific
illiterate will be given engraved invitations to preach superstitious crap at
serious scientific conferences. It is part of the new age politically correct
cultural relativity movement. We no longer pick and choose; we let *everyone*
have their say. People who know nothing about calorimetry; people who post
irresponsible crap about serious scientific work on internet; people who think
you can burn 0.004 moles of hydrogen and get 86,700 joules of energy; even
people who don't know how to operate a VCR -- all will all be invited!
Everyone gets a forum, sponsored by Toyota. We don't mind wasting postage.
 
Oh Brave New World!
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 / A Plutonium /  Politicians wasting $290million in science sham projects
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.engr,sci.physics.fusi
n,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.bio,
Subject: Politicians wasting $290million in science sham projects
Subject: $290 million spent on foolishness--USA should spend on CF,
Date: 6 Jan 1995 22:52:56 GMT
Date: 6 Dec 1994 01:15:10 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College
Organization: Plutonium College

For a multimillion dollar science project to get funding should pass
two related criteria:
   (1) useful benefit to society, ie, spinoff technology or engineering
                 (2) related to (1), and is simply "need to know"

 I am talking about this General Relativity $290 million project slated
to be built. I say this is public money throwing away. Weber did
similar experiments on GR and failed to get results. Now some
limelighted and in my opinion, stupid physics professors want to throw
in another 290 million $ for further research. This research has NO
USEFUL benefit to society, as all GR projects are not beneficial. And,
we have more pressing "need to knows" such as the genome project, the
cold fusion experiments, superconductivity research-- all of which will
repay back humanity and society at large with useful engineering.
  So I ask. Who are the congressmen and senators who will let this 290
million waste of taxpayers money go? Who are the Congressmen of Mass.
--MIT and California who are pushing for this project of dubious
return?
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1994.12.06 / A Plutonium /  $290 million spent on foolishness--USA should spend on CF,
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.bio,
alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: $290 million spent on foolishness--USA should spend on CF,
 superconductor,biotech
Date: 6 Dec 1994 01:15:10 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <3c0duu$h9f@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

  What are the names of the people who appropriated 290 million USA
dollars for such flights of birdbrain science projects below? What
Congressmen gave the go ahead? I realize Mass. and California are big
congressional states. Still, do they need to throw away 290 million
bucks to find out that the graviton does not exist. Is it any wonder
that Germany is ahead of the USA in nucleosynthesis. Germany and Japan
ahead of the USA in superconductivity research. Japan ahead of the USA
in CF research. 
   No wonder, when the USA throws 290 million dollars after impractical
and unuseable GR research.
   The below trend follows on the heels of another money waster of
large magnitude-- Smoot with his fluctuations.

In article <3bgcbc$hja@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

>    This experimental set-up using a centrifuge is much easier. Even the
> math is much easier. In fact, I would not be surprized if graduate
> students at MIT could do the math, set-up the experiment. And have a
> report in a month. Their only real hurdle will be their physics
> professors who have preached GR for years and years, and who have
> connections to the warehouses of books on GR to sell and make their
> quick con artist dollars off of GR. Ever since Einstein gave the world,
> GR, as a science theory, it has been one of the most useless of useless
> theories, except for the con artist bucks collected by requiring
> students to buy books on GR for classrooms.

Here in passages I am going to quote from NEW SCIENTIST 26Nov1994, page
40 titled "Gravity's secret signals"

" Cosmic xylophone
   The project is called LIGO-- the laser interferometer
gravitational-wave observatory-- and two detectors are planned. It is
being carried out by physicists from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT) in Cambridge and Caltech in Pasadena, California.
Scheduled to be operational by the year 2000 at a cost of $290 million,
(continued).."

  WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY. This shows that when physics geniuses or
supergeniuses roam Earth, still, that is not enough to stop birbrain
crackpotishness by wasting 290 million $. Mark my words, the $290
million will go to waste. My experiment above showing that GR is fakery
will preempt this extravaganza of throwing 290 million out the window.

  On page 41 we see a picture of Kip Thorne. This is done so that the
unweary are supposed to think that this man knows alot of physics. I
think they should have shown, on page 41, the Charles Dawson who
delivered the Piltdown Hoax. Shown Dawson in his library with the right
amount of textures and hues of lighting, for the reverence by young
physicists to be "juju totems". 
  Instead of wasting 290 billion to discover no Higgs boson exists.
Instead they will spend 290 million to discover the hard way that no
gravitons exist. Gravitons are merely the superposition of 4 neutrinos.


I quote some more from page 40

 " The quest started in the 1960s, when Joseph Weber, a physicist at
the University of Maryland at College Park, built a detector that
worked rather like a tuning fork.  His equipment consisted of a solid
bar-- an aluminium block about the size of a refrigerator-- which was
designed to resonate when struck by a gravitational wave of a certain
frequency. But such a detector responds only to one frequency. "

  These experiments were unsuccessful. What do you do when science
experiments, based on no-good reasoning, little to no application fail?
You pump more money into it and build huge experiments. Once performed,
you can always say the graviton was discovered, because noone else in
the world has the time or money to build another white elephant.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 /  nachtrieb@max. /  ALCATOR C-MOD WEEKLY HIGHLIGHTS, 19950104
     
Originally-From: nachtrieb@max.pfc.mit.edu
Originally-From: SMTP%"WOLFE@CMOD.PFC.MIT.EDU"
Originally-From: WOLFE@CMOD.PFC.MIT.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ALCATOR C-MOD WEEKLY HIGHLIGHTS, 19950104
Subject: Alcator C-MOD Weekly Highlights
Date: 6 JAN 95 19:49:46 GMT
Date:  3-JAN-1995  17:38:30
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 17:28:20 -0500 (EST)
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER


Originally-From: SMTP%"WOLFE@CMOD.PFC.MIT.EDU"
Date:  3-JAN-1995  17:38:30
Description: Alcator C-MOD Weekly Highlights                         

Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 17:28:20 -0500 (EST)
Originally-From: WOLFE@CMOD.PFC.MIT.EDU
To:   "merlot::parker"@CMOD.PFC.MIT.EDU, "merlot::pstewart"@CMOD.PFC.MIT.EDU,
      "merlot::sigmar"@CMOD.PFC.MIT.EDU, "merlot::dbm"@CMOD.PFC.MIT.EDU,
      Hutch@CMOD.PFC.MIT.EDU, Censabella@CMOD.PFC.MIT.EDU,
      Marmar@CMOD.PFC.MIT.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: @weekly
Message-Id: <950103172820.25e00169@CMOD.PFC.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Alcator C-MOD Weekly Highlights

			Alcator C-MOD Weekly Highlights
				January 3, 1995

This report covers the weeks of December 19, 1994 and December 26, 1994.
Four runs, covering four experiments (Miniproposals), were scheduled for the
week of Dec. 19, including one experiment which had been postponed from the
previous week. All of these were successfully carried out. The week of
December 26 was a scheduled maintenance week. C-MOD operations will resume
this week.

One run was devoted to a study of the effect of the outer gap on RF loading
and divertor characteristics, with the goal of establishing the optimum
configuration for ICRF-heated divertor experiments. This experiment, which
included a scan of outer gap at fixed density, a power scan at fixed gap, and
an RF power scan at the same gap, was successfully completed. The loading
resistance varied as predicted, increasing from about 5 to 10 ohms as the gap
was scanned from 2.1cm to 0.5cm.  Gross parameters in the outer divertor leg
were relatively insensitive to the gap, while some variation was noted on the
inner divertor. This data is being analyzed in more detail. Divertor
detachment was obtained for high density ( >2.e20/m3).

Development of a slot divertor equilibrium for ITER-related divertor studies
was accomplished. The outer divertor leg was moved to miss the outer plate and
terminate on the floor tiles during much of the flattop portion of the shot.
At higher densities there were indications of divertor detachment in this
configuration. The method for achieving this configuration was to feed back on
the strikepoint, allowing the x-point location to move somewhat.

An exploration of the ohmic H-mode threshold behavior was carried out. Both
high and low density thresholds with Ip=0.8MA and Bt=5.3T were determined;
these turn out to be around nebar = 1.2e20/m3 and 8e19/m3 respectively. The
upper threshold is consistent with a power threshold of P/S =  0.2 nebar Bt,
similar to what we had reported previously and about half the ASDEX-UG/DIII-D
value.  The low density limit appears to be a real effect, and the value was
quite reproducible; the reason for this effect is unclear. Operation at lower
current (500 - 650kA) at the low density also showed no evidence of H-mode.
The addition of lithium pellets did not appear to significantly affect the
H-mode threshold or quality at low, intermediate, or high density.

The last run of the week (and of the calendar year) was dedicated to
conditioning and tuning of the E-port ICRF antenna. Good progress was made,
with the power coupled to the plasma from this antenna being raised to over
1MW. The D-port antenna, which was conditioned earlier, is routinely running
at 1.7-1.8MW. The total net power from the two antennas has been increased to
2.7 MW into the plasma.

The week of Dec 26 was scheduled as a maintenance week. A short vacuum break
was carried out on Tuesday, during which the cryo-pump was re-installed with
a new gate valve. In addition, a new periscope, x-ray window, and capacitance
pressure gauge were installed. The break was completed in one day, and bakeout
and discharge cleaning (ECDC) were carried out over the remainder of the week.

An upgrade to the EF4 power supply has been completed, doubling the available
voltage on this coil set during the plasma phase. This should permit higher
EF4 currents early in the flattop, which in turn will provide additional
flexibility in the discharge shaping.

An Argon purge system for the secondary seals on the horizontal ports was
installed and is now operational.

A new stairway from the loading platform to the diagnostic stand was
installed.

A new wide-angle plasma TV view has been installed in A-port.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudennachtrieb cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 / Tom Droege /  Re: Droege's Drivel
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege's Drivel
Date: 6 Jan 1995 19:59:28 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <950106143028_76570.2270_HHB50-1@CompuServe.COM>, 76570.2270@
ompuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) says:

(snip)

>Best news I have heard is that Jones will not attend ICCF5. Next best is that 
>Droege won't be there.  This meeting will not be a farce. You have become a 
>farce, Tom, sorry to say. You and Britz, and Bozo Bass and the rest of you 
>pathological skeptics. It is clear that whatever the ICCF5 mailing situation

(snip)

I think my conduct at ICCF4 was pretty good.  I talked to everyone that would
discuss with me the problems of making these measurements.  I did not call any
one names, I did not ask any nasty questions of the speakers.  In fact I asked
few questions of the speakers since I was so busy taking notes which I reported
here.  I think I stuck to the facts, and tried to pin them down.  Even when Jed 
Rothwell tride to pick a fight between me an Srivanison I just pointed out that
I had problems with his results because of items reported in the paper itself.

 
>-- and I don't presume to judge what the organizers really did, no one could 
>hide such a meeting from you or anyone else. Don't you think maybe the 
>organizers were trying to give you and Jones the not too subtle message that 
>your idiotic pathological skepticism is not appreciated? Especially when you 
>and Jones sandwich the likes of Jerry Bishop of WSJ for hours on end to put 
>down everything that is said -- like you did at ICCF4.

Let's see.  Do you mean put down on paper as record, or put down as to criticize?

In any case, I actually only had a few short discussions with Jerry Bishop.  
Mostly clarifing technical things. 

>
>>The fundamental concept of science is free and open discussion of ideas.  
>>
>>Tom Droege
>
>
>You jerk! Why don't you tell that to Nature and Science magazines, which have 
>been making sure that scientific articles on cold fusion do not appear in 

I think I have criticized them here for not presenting a more balanced view.  It
would allow quicker resolution if the conventional scientific journals would have
accepted more papers.  In fact, as the Phys Letters A paper shows, displaying the
"cold fusion" work next to conventional scientific works shows what the true 
quality level of the P&F work was.  

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 / Bradley Sherman /  Re: Does it really matter who believes what?
     
Originally-From: bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does it really matter who believes what?
Date: 6 Jan 1995 20:07:48 GMT
Organization: Dendrome, A Genome Database for Forest Trees

In article <D1zzC9.H6z@fulcrum.co.uk> igb@fulcrum.co.uk (Ian G Batten) writes:
> ...
>So why do the proponents of Cold Fusion feel the need to argue?  If they
>are right, their work is going to make them richer than the dreams of
>avarice.  Their Cold Fusion water heater, or car, or generator will be
>such a clear economic win that no-one will resist it.  Or do they
>believe that the man in the street will shun fuel economy for lack of
>peer review?
> ...

I heartily agree.  The proponents don't even need to show over unity
production.  A better battery would make them billionaires.  I'm
sure tired of stuffing AA cells at $4/set into my kids's toys for
an hour of operation.  On a larger scale, if there were a clever way
to capture solar energy in space (per Dyson) in a stable transportable
form at 1% efficiency it would fund all the space science research
from now till the year 2500.

No violation of 2nd law required.

   --bks

-- 
Bradley K. Sherman          Institute of Forest Genetics
bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov                       P.O. Box 245
510-559-6437 FAX:510-559-6440     Berkeley, CA 94701 USA
<a href="http://s27w007.pswfs.gov/">Dendrome Project</a>
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenbks cudfnBradley cudlnSherman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Griggs, Chaos and QM
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs, Chaos and QM
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 95 14:01:57 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk> writes:
 
     "Turbulent fluids, including water, have been observed for a long
     time, at Reynolds numbers rather higher, I am sure, than are achieved
     in the Griggs device. Why has noone seen free-lunch energy before, I
     wonder? Dare I suggest that it is because there isn't any?"
 
That is incorrect. At least two groups of people have independently built
devices simiar to the GG, and both of them saw the effect. The latest one
is much more efficient than Griggs' own device. Furthermore, there is
some anecdotal evidence that water driven turbines at hydroelectric dams
and sawmills have produced excess heat. It is not good, clear evidence,
because saw mill equipment is not set up as a giant calorimeter that allows
accurate measurements, but there have been sporadic reports of thermal
anaomalies.
 
The fact is: people *have* seen this type of "free-lunch energy" in the
past, and they *are* seeing it now. The only reason "skeptics" like Britz
do not see it is because they refuse to look.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 / Harry Conover /  Re: Droege's Drivel
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege's Drivel
Date: 6 Jan 1995 17:28:22 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Eugene Mallove (76570.2270@compuserve.com) wrote:

: Best news I have heard is that Jones will not attend ICCF5. Next best is that 
: Droege won't be there.  This meeting will not be a farce. You have become a 
: farce, Tom, sorry to say. You and Britz, and Bozo Bass and the rest of you 
: pathological skeptics. 

Funny!  Eugene, are you joking?   More than Tom, YOU are making this
meeting sound like an annual gathering of the paranormal society, where
the presence of non-believers disrupts the flow of psychic energies.

The attitude you express is hardly what one would expect from an inquiring
mind, and seems more like something I've heard for for years coming from the
mouths of wild-eyed, brain-dead occult yahoos.

Whether CF is real, imaginary, or a total scam, its workers and enthusiasts
should at least attempt to emulate the appearance of it being legitimate
scientific inquiry.  Lack of reproducible positive results can be accepted
for a relatively long period, but the loss of scientific discipline will
and should quickly cause CF to be regarded as just another perpetual
motion machine, alchemy, or religion...just a hobby for eccentric flakes!

Eugene, it's not the comments from Tom or Steve Jones that destroying
any remaining CF credibility, its the expression of emotional, blind
belief, the wild claims, and the rejection of valid criticism that's
doing the harm.  Frankly, the supporters of CF would get a lot more
respect for the subject if they could objectively respond to the 
criticism, rather than simply flaming the critics.  


                                   Harry C.



cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Griggs, Chaos and QM
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs, Chaos and QM
Date: 6 Jan 1995 17:32:58 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <USE2PCB156633899@brbbs.brbbs.com>, mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com
(MARSHALL DUDLEY) wrote:

> Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk> writes:
>  
> -> You are describing turbulent flow, a much studied phenomenon. Couette-Taylor
> -> flow has also been much studied. Why do you think the water molecules
> -> must be spinning, rather than just whizzing about? Turbulent fluids,
> -> including water, have been observed for a long time, at Reynolds
> -> numbers rather higher, I am sure, than are achieved in the Griggs device.
> -> Why has noone seen free-lunch energy before, I wonder? Dare I suggest
> -> that it is because there isn't any?
>  
> Because that is the nature of fractuals, as you magnify more and more, you keep
> seeing the same pattern ever smaller.  

Ah, but the dimensionless group that describes the relative effects of
inertia and viscosity is, as Dieter notes, the Reynold's number,
specifically DV<rho>/<mu>, where <rho> is the mass density and <mu> is the
viscosity.  V is the local velocity, and D is a characteristic length of
the phenomenon.  Thus, at very small D, viscous effects dominate and the
process becomes laminar rather than turbulent; the vortices no longer
appear. Of course, this is but theory, and if the necessary D is so small
as to involve single or very few molecules, the theory breaks down.  Still,
 doubt we're anywhere near such speeds in the Couette flow you're
describing.


[deletia of several interesting points]

> As far as it being an o/u device or not.  I am not going to jump to any
> conclusions but will await Tom's report on that.  Science is not done by
> assuming something is not possible then refusing to look at it.
>  

Well said.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 / Tom Droege /  Re: World-Wide Acceptance of Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: World-Wide Acceptance of Cold Fusion
Date: 6 Jan 1995 19:42:28 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <83@milton.win-uk.net>, richard@milton.win-uk.net (Richard Milton) says:
>
> 
>
>>In article <3ehihp$d15@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
> HALO@mail.utexas.edu (Jascha Little) says:
>
  (snip)

>>Scott Little, EarthTech Intl., Austin TX 78759, FAX 512-346-3017.
>
>
>Scott, did you know that you can _buy_ a commercially
>available cold fusion research cell?
>
>They have been advertised for sale for more than nine
>months in "Cold Fusion" magazine by
>
>E-quest Sciences
>PO Box 60642
>Palo Alto , CA 94306
>Fax (415) 851 8489
>Email 70312.315@compuserve.com

I think I talked to these guys at Maui.  They make nice drawings, but
I do not believe that they have ever built one.  Also, it it probably
only suitable for making measurements on a process which operates at
10Kw up and has a COP of 10 or more.  No sign that it can make precision
measurements.

On the other hand, Scott Little seems to be doing legitimate work, and
someone should encourage him by providing a cell for test.  But again,
good luck Scott! 

Tom Droege
>
>Please share your findings with us.
>
>
>Richard
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 /  Kiran /  Crop Circles: A New Theory
     
Originally-From: K.Reval@sussex.ac.uk (Kiran)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Crop Circles: A New Theory
Date: 6 Jan 1995 18:09:48 GMT
Organization: Sussex University


==================================================================

Has anyone ever thought that the mystery may not come from the outside 
(plasma vortices, tornados, yes and even UFOs), but from the inside 
of the earth?

Thus the earth emits a whirling static field, the effect 
of which is to flatten the corn. It just generates this massive 
static field perhaps as quickly as thunderstorms create those 
stratospheric flashes (observed only recently), and the grain 
is flattend, like paperbits sucked to the plastic ruler.

The effect of millions of stalks sticking into the summer air 
emitting negative charge may play a role. More in support perhaps is, 
that ball lightning, created with static electricity of sufficiently 
high voltages, has been tried to initiate (hot) fusion with. We now 
have heat, electric charges, even radiation remaining. Sounds good. 

Any (serious) ideas, additions, refutations on this? 

KR

=====================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenReval cudlnKiran cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 / fleenor l /  Re: Hope for fission reactors
     
Originally-From: fleenor m l <6mf@cosmail2.ctd.ornl.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hope for fission reactors
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 13:28:17 -0500
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN

I hope that fission will be a part of the solution to meeting our energy 
needs in the future. While there are the technical problems associated 
with spent nuclear fuel and a few brain farts in plant design, nuclear 
fission is still a viable source of energy. Unfortunately the political 
climate and the environmental agenda protecting "mother earth" have been 
successful in squelching the proponents of nuclear power. How often do 
you hear the environmentalists ranting and raving over the adverse 
environmental impact of fossil fuel plants? When one considers the affect 
that coal-fired plants have on our environment every year spewing 
millions of tons of uranium and thorium into our atmosphere then nuclear 
power comparitively is a far better choice. I am not prepared to discuss 
the problems of waste management however I would like to comment on 
nuclear plant operations. TMI is still stuck in our minds as well as other 
accidents and close calls but I would like to make an example of a very 
successful application of nuclear power. Nuclear propulsion- The U.S. 
Navy has a had a very good track record with over forty years of nuclear 
powered vessels in service.Ask someone what a nuclear submarine is- They 
will probally respond to the effect that it is outfitted with nuclear 
armaments while ignorant of its power plant. I can speak first hand about 
the Navy's nuke program, I was a nuclear operator myself so this is from 
experience. Their plant designs are relatively simple and they are built 
with "inherent stability" in mind.( a - Temp. coeff. of Reactivity drives 
power down on a temperature excursion) Operators are also only provided 
with necessary instrumentation - they are not distracted by superfluous 
indications. The plants are also designed on a survivability basis- i.e. 
battle damage. 
 I cannot elaborate enough about the reactor safety aspects incorporated 
into plant design and operation. Their operators are the heart of the 
program. They take high school graduates and turn them into competent 
technicians and operators through an acedemic curriculum which would 
rival most universities.  Attrition rates are high and only the 
finest are allowed to man the fleet's nuke plants and continue the legacy.
It would behove the nuclear industry to take note of Admiral Rickover's 
example.
      
*******************DISCLAIMER*******************************************
***                                                           
                                                              
                                                          
My views are my own and do not represent those of the DOE or my employer.

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cuden6mf cudfnfleenor cudlnl cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 / Ian Batten /  Does it really matter who believes what?
     
Originally-From: igb@fulcrum.co.uk (Ian G Batten)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Does it really matter who believes what?
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 18:57:45 GMT
Organization: Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited


I've been reading this newsgroup, and the alt.cold-fusion or whatever it
was before, since the Pons et al claims were first made.  I've read such
books as have fallen to hand --- Close's, Mallove's, and most recently
John name-I-can't-spell who chaired the DOE commision.  On the one hand,
what little I know about physics and what little I have understood from
High-Energy Physics friends(*) all says the claimed effect is not valid.
The style of discourse of those who believe it to be valid doesn't make
me any more believing.

On the other hand, if the work _were_ valid, it would be A Good Thing,
and as Mr Rothwell so often points out, if the effect is macroscopic
it's not a matter for elegant measuring techniques, it should be
screamingly obvious that the output power is greater than the input
power.

Great power discoveries of the past --- the steam engine, the internal
combustion engine, nuclear fusion --- have been exploited.  Some people
believed that internal combustion engines would never be a success, but
they were shown to be wrong.  Not by elegant measurement, but by actual
cars.  There are power plants making electricity with nuclear power:
France is testament to that.

So why do the proponents of Cold Fusion feel the need to argue?  If they
are right, their work is going to make them richer than the dreams of
avarice.  Their Cold Fusion water heater, or car, or generator will be
such a clear economic win that no-one will resist it.  Or do they
believe that the man in the street will shun fuel economy for lack of
peer review?

Never mind the theory, the experiments, the papers.  Show us a
self-sustaining system.

(*) Experimental hall at CERN, Bottom Quark Project: my wife's only
exposure to physics past age fourteen was a rapid discourse on what the
project was doing.  She didn't follow a whole lot.

ian

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenigb cudfnIan cudlnBatten cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: When is the Nice conference?
     
Originally-From: gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: When is the Nice conference?
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 05:57:08 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <3ei100$1ni@fnnews.fnal.gov> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
>I am surprised that everyone is so calm about this.  I would have expected a 
>thread 50 entries long by now.  Come on people, wake up!  This meeting is
>a farce!  One does not hold scientific meetings using a list edited according
>to belief.  

I'm calm because I'm not the least bit surprised.  If this is news to
you, your judgement has been bad all along.  The True Believers have
already pulled exactly this stunt several times.  I think the first
time was in 1989.  It's one of the main ways that they discredited
themselves among self-respecting scientists.  It created more
skepticism than anyone's standard model, unless you mean a standard
model of scientific conduct.

I think you should put on a Groucho Marx mask, cry "Heat!  Heat!  XS Heat!
Heat means Money!", and see if they will let you in that way.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 07:25:13 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <xyy7wvY.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>Your tactic is obvious: you will forever move the goalpost farther out of
>reach. Long ago we provided "extraordinary proof" of an extraordinary claim,
>but you can just keep raising the standards, far beyond any rational,
>scientifically justified level.

This is pretty funny stuff Rothwell. Aren't you the one that just a few 
messages back told us all that to _FORGET_ Fleischman and Pons? That their
data was insignificant? Then you tell us about how great they are and 
how they're about to become multimillionaires with the income from those
thermos bottle sized home water heaters that were 'working' in 1989,
have been working ever since, and now are improved to the point where no
one can buy one nor any competent scientist test one.

Doesn't it ever occur to you what a fool you sound?

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Griggs, Chaos and QM
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs, Chaos and QM
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 10:31:54 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On Thu, 5 Jan 1995, MARSHALL DUDLEY wrote:

> Has anyone looked at what type of interactions could be happening at the QM
> level assuming chaotic behaviour of the fluid in the Griggs device.
> Unfortunately I am not sufficiently schooled in QM to take it very far myself,
> but here is my line of thought.
> 
> The Griggs device produces chaotic fluid motion in the gap between the moving
> and stationary cylinders.  This type of motion is commonly known as
> Couette-Taylor flow (1).  According to chaos theory (and experiments as well),
> when conditions approach the chaotic region, smooth flow starts oscillating
> between two "quasi-stable" states, then as you continue to approach the
> chaotic, that splits into 4, then 8 and so forth, until there finally appears
> to be almost random movement.  In this case however, the flow initially splits
> into large whirlpools, which then split into similiar but smaller whirlpools,
> and so forth, splitting into more and more, smaller and smaller whirlpools.
> The limit would be (I assume) when the whirlpools are no larger than a water
> molecule.
[...] 

You are describing turbulent flow, a much studied phenomenon. Couette-Taylor
flow has also been much studied. Why do you think the water molecules 
must be spinning, rather than just whizzing about? Turbulent fluids, 
including water, have been observed for a long time, at Reynolds 
numbers rather higher, I am sure, than are achieved in the Griggs device. 
Why has noone seen free-lunch energy before, I wonder? Dare I suggest 
that it is because there isn't any?

-- Dieter Britz  alias  britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Britz Abandons Science - Re-posting
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Britz Abandons Science - Re-posting
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 10:38:16 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

Message received, Gene, both times. I am not such a Fool that I can't read,
you know.

-- Dieter Britz  alias  britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 / Alan M /  Re: Dr. Pons' water heater
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dr. Pons' water heater
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 08:58:32 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <Jqz6Itj.jedrothwell@delphi.com>  jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> I suppose it is a CF machine
> he has got, but I don't know for sure. Whatever it is, it creates energy
> at zero fuel cost.

Since you've posted elsewhere that you understand it operates at about 
130% efficiency, I guess this simply means that he gets his mains power 
free? Or have I missed a posting saying that the Griggs machine now no 
longer needs input power?

Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 / Eugene Mallove /  Droege's Drivel
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Droege's Drivel
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 14:34:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Tom Droege posted this:

>I am surprised that everyone is so calm about this.  I would have expected a 
>thread 50 entries long by now.  Come on people, wake up!  This meeting 
>[ICCF5] is
>a farce!  One does not hold scientific meetings using a list edited according
>to belief.

Best news I have heard is that Jones will not attend ICCF5. Next best is that 
Droege won't be there.  This meeting will not be a farce. You have become a 
farce, Tom, sorry to say. You and Britz, and Bozo Bass and the rest of you 
pathological skeptics. It is clear that whatever the ICCF5 mailing situation 
-- and I don't presume to judge what the organizers really did, no one could 
hide such a meeting from you or anyone else. Don't you think maybe the 
organizers were trying to give you and Jones the not too subtle message that 
your idiotic pathological skepticism is not appreciated? Especially when you 
and Jones sandwich the likes of Jerry Bishop of WSJ for hours on end to put 
down everything that is said -- like you did at ICCF4.

>The fundamental concept of science is free and open discussion of ideas.  
>
>Tom Droege


You jerk! Why don't you tell that to Nature and Science magazines, which have 
been making sure that scientific articles on cold fusion do not appear in 
their pages -- not even science correspondence from scientists finding errors 
with so-called "null" results --like the Caltech work of 1989 or the massaged 
MIT PFC data, which clearly evidenced excess heat?

Eugene Mallove
Cold Fusion Technlogy
Box 2816
Concord, NH 03302-2816 

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 / K Jonsson /  Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
     
Originally-From: kvj@rhi.hi.is (Kristjan Valur Jonsson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
Date: 6 Jan 1995 13:10:15 GMT
Organization: University of Iceland

In <tomkD1z3A2.J5G@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:

>In article <xyy7wvY.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>>Your tactic is obvious: you will forever move the goalpost farther out of
>>reach. Long ago we provided "extraordinary proof" of an extraordinary claim,
>>but you can just keep raising the standards, far beyond any rational,
>>scientifically justified level.

>This is pretty funny stuff Rothwell. Aren't you the one that just a few 
>messages back told us all that to _FORGET_ Fleischman and Pons? That their
>data was insignificant? Then you tell us about how great they are and 
>how they're about to become multimillionaires with the income from those
>thermos bottle sized home water heaters that were 'working' in 1989,

He told us to forget P&F because of our prejudices towards them,
not because they were incompetent.  There were plenty of other
researchers to prove the point.

Just explaining Jed's point, that's all.

Kristjan

-- 
Kristjan Valur Jonsson               |    The individual does not qualify for
Student of mechanical engineering,   |         making decisions regarding the
University of Iceland                |                 activities of the many.
Exclaimer: Yess!                     |                         (Helmut, 1993)
-- 
Kristjan Valur Jonsson               |    The individual does not qualify for
Student of mechanical engineering,   |         making decisions regarding the
University of Iceland                |                 activities of the many.
Exclaimer: Yess!                     |                         (Helmut, 1993)
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenkvj cudfnKristjan cudlnJonsson cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 /  prasad /  Re: What is your opinion?
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What is your opinion?
Date: 6 Jan 1995 13:58:07 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <3egsei$n9q@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com
(John Logajan) writes:
|> Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
|> :      no matter, that's never bothered anyone before.
|> :      First, it's only an 'illogical inference' in Mr. Logogan's 
|> :      illogical interpretation.
|> 
|> Illogical form is not rescued by context.  In fact, it is often helpful
|> to replace all premises with neutral variable names so as to short-circuit
|> our natural biases.
|> ...

John, the apparent Dale Bass bitterness by far outstrips any physics or
engineering arguments he displays.  I'd suggest abandoning discussing reason
with someone who comes strongly as a Jekyll&Hyde dual to LP/AP.  While LP/AP
is more obviously the simpler AI program, this one looks like a very good
neural network designed to project a hate-kind of emotion rather than
mere syntactically ok constructs.  (Though, with due regard to DoD/NSA types
who might have set this one up to confuse the enemy, we'd probably best go
on pretending he's human!)

Let's get back to physics, shall we?

;)

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 /  prasad /  Re: Comparisons between postings here and Chaos
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Comparisons between postings here and Chaos
Date: 6 Jan 1995 13:59:54 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <USE2PCB975573045@brbbs.brbbs.com>, mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com
(MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes:
|> Perhaps it doesn't.  However see my previous post in which I attempt to show a
|> ...

Ah.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Calorimetry easier than Fermat's Last Theorem proof
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Calorimetry easier than Fermat's Last Theorem proof
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 95 09:29:03 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

js_vetrano@pnl.gov (John S Vetrano) asks:
 
     "Could I bother you for a name of someone doing this research at the
     University of Illinois?  I'm assuming you meant fabrication of CF
     cathodes."
 
That is correct. Thin film cathodes. The worker is Dr. George Miley, Fusion
Studies Laboratory, Urbana. It was described at ICCF4 in:
 
     "Heat Production with Multilayer Thin-Film Electrodes," Miley,
     Batyrbakov, Patel, Hora, Tompkins
 
The Abstract describes "a multilayer film 25 mm x 25 mm, coated with
alternating layers of Pd and Ti..." All film layers together are 100 Angstroms
thick. There were six layers which were "deposited by a unique e-beam
evaporation method specifically developed for this purpose." They talked about
problems they experienced with the layers peeling apart because of the heat.
 
Unfortunately, for some reason the full paper did not appear in the
Proceedings. That's a darn shame. I know of at least one other paper which was
submitted to EPRI in time but which somehow did not make it into the books.
Another paper read by Miley is in there, titled "Comments About Nuclear
Reaction Products." (vol. 2, paper 9).
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 1/3 (Overview)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.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)
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 1/3 (Overview)
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 03:34:09 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Archive-name: fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview
Last-modified: 5-Jan-1995
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-monthly
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!!!).

Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 1/3 (Overview)
Archive-name: fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview

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

# Written/Edited by:

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

# Last Revised December 2, 1994


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

* 1) Contents

  This file is intended to indicate 
     (A) that this 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) 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.  Web versions are also being assembled.


* 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 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.
 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 Fusion:
  Part 0/7 - Intro
  Part 1/7 - A-B
  Part 2/7 - C-D
  Part 3/7 - E-F
  Part 4/7 - G-J
  Part 5/7 - K-M
  Part 6/7 - N-R
  Part 7/7 - S-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?
*****************************************************************

* 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 less-than-monthly 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 primitive 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 "official" PPPL Web server 
      (<URL:http://www.pppl.gov/~rfheeter/fusion-faq.html>) 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/t
p.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/news.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. 

  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) 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 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.


* 4) Status of the Glossary:

 # Contains nearly 700 entries, including acronyms, math terms, jargon,
etc.

 # Currently incorporating the 1985 OSTI Glossary of Fusion Energy,
    and even more additional terminology.

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

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

 # Could be officially published (through OSETI?)

 # 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.


 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
*** 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 many 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:
cuddy6 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 23:13:41 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <3ehh32$qo1@serra.unipi.it>,
John WINTERFLOOD <jwinter@galileo.pi.infn.it> wrote:
>Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:

>I agree it would be comforting to have connected up a CRO to see if
>there was anything unexpected about the waveforms and maybe to make an
>order of magnitude estimation. But the order of magnitude is correct,
>and we really expect quite simple sinusoidal waveforms to be appearing
>on a simple squirrel cage AC motor. There should be no chopped up
>waveforms such as you might expect from an SCR controller (which power
>meters are designed to cope with anyway). And I don't believe that
>ultrasonic vibrations could get through the mechanical components so
>as to appear on the waveforms. I see no reason not to trust a power
>meter in the hands of a competent tradesman or engineer.

      The results are the reason.  The stated interpretation
      flies in the face of almost everything we *do* know.

>I think this childish "yes it is" ... "no it isnt" stuff has gone on
>long enough. There are enough of us convinced that the measurements are
>good enough to be worth sponsoring Tom to go and have a look. That fact
>should speak for itself. 

      As I was one who sent a check too, I suspect many of us
      have different motivations.

>I wonder how many would sponsor him to go and
>have a look at an MRA device - I certainly wouldn't from the crazy stuff
>I've read so far! At present I would expect to be able to stumble on
>their problem in ten minutes - but then I am an electronics engineer.

     And I am a mech.  And I'd expect to take a week or so during runs.  It's
     almost unbelievable to expect to stumble on difficulties 
     so quickly.

>:     It would be much simpler to use a scope than to pay all those 
>:     guys to calibrate instrumentation that may be inappropriate for
>:     your application.
>
>This is ridiculous. If you did the job in any semi-manual manner it would
>require much greater competence and painstaking care and in the end would
>be far more inaccurate and open to criticism from skeptics like yourself.

     Everything good requires competence and painstaking care.  On the 
     other hand, it's not me claiming extraordinary results.  I'd
     hope that they'd put a bit of effort into the analysis and
     crosschecking.

>Imagine what a hey-day you could have picking faults with a manual CRO
>method! IMO a power meter is the most appropriate instrument for the job.
>
>Come on Tom, when are you going to go and check it out for us ?

      He'll be there for a short time with no tools and no test
      matrix.  Don't expect too much.

                                dale bass


cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Phonophobic Calls Griggs
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Phonophobic Calls Griggs
Date: 6 Jan 1995 23:24:57 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <3ek87g$nau@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
wrote:

> This phonophobic finally got around to calling Griggs and 
> setting up a meeting.  
> 
[...]
> 
> Another matter is the press.  A member has asked to join the
> visit.  What do you all think?  My general feeling is that the
> press is dangerous to scientific inquiry.  They are interested 
> in controversy which sells papers.  Some of us are interested in
> discovering truth.  
> 
> Pleas discuss this.
> 

If these journalist can keep out of the way, observe quietly, and report on
what was done, then I have no problem with their inclusion.  If they're
looking to report on an expert testing of the device rather than a
noncommital evaluation, then we don't need them along.  That's not the
point of this trip, as I understand it.  Let them fund their own test.

[deletia]

> 
> I think there will be money left over even after we generate 
> suitable certificates of participation.  I understand that Tod Green
> will be in Europe during ICCF5.  How about him as a representative?
> What about it Todd?
> 

Sending a representative seems like a  good idea to me.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 / Cameron Bass /  Re: What is your opinion?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What is your opinion?
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 23:21:04 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <3eji9f$jj1@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>,
prasad <c1prasad@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
>In article <3egsei$n9q@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com
(John Logajan) writes:
>|> Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
>|> :      no matter, that's never bothered anyone before.
>|> :      First, it's only an 'illogical inference' in Mr. Logogan's 
>|> :      illogical interpretation.
>|> 
>|> Illogical form is not rescued by context.  In fact, it is often helpful
>|> to replace all premises with neutral variable names so as to short-circuit
>|> our natural biases.
>|> ...
>
>John, the apparent Dale Bass bitterness by far outstrips any physics or
>engineering arguments he displays.

     Bitterness?  I'm quite jolly, especially about this subject.

     I still hang around here for the laughs.  Close examination of each
     new experiment brings new joy.  And this Griggs stuff...

     Heck, I've used the article in the Fusion Thing That Went Bankrupt
     for class instruction in Thermodynamics.  You can't pay for a 
     better textbook.

                                dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Phonophobic Calls Griggs
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Phonophobic Calls Griggs
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 1995 18:03 -0500 (EST)

Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
 
-> Another matter is the press.  A member has asked to join the
-> visit.  What do you all think?  My general feeling is that the
-> press is dangerous to scientific inquiry.  They are interested
-> in controversy which sells papers.  Some of us are interested in
-> discovering truth.
 
I think it depends on what segment of the press is wanting to tag along.  If it
is the National Enquirer or similar I would definitely say no.  If it is a
strong pro or anti CF, I would say no.  If they appear to be open minded and
willing to report on the trip, regardless of what the final conclusion is, then
I would certainly consider it.  Disallowing press coverage without grounds
could be interpreted as signaling some type of cover-up, or lack of conviction
on the part of the participants.  We certainly don't need any more of that in
this field.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy06 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 / Cameron Bass /  Re: What is your opinion?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What is your opinion?
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 23:42:05 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <3ehecu$s88@stratus.skypoint.net>,
John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> wrote:
>JL> I believe you made the following form of argument:
>JL> X says U 
>JL> Y says V
>JL> Assume V is wrong
>JL>    Therefore U is wrong.    <===  Bogus conclusion
>
>CRB> No.  I made an observation of the form:
>CRB> X and Y make the similar and completely silly statements U;
>CRB> isn't the juxtaposition funny?
>
>
>Here is the original exchange:
>
>JR> There is absolutely, positively no likelihood that every single one of 
>JR> them, at every single university and corporation is wrong. 
>
>CRB> That's the same argument used by people who think UFO's are aliens
>CRB> from other planets.
>
>In my above diagram,
>
>X = Jed
>U = "it is unlikely that they are all wrong"
>Y = ufologists
>V = "it is unlikely that they are all wrong"

     You missed a bit in the phrasing.  I believe Jed's is the more
     mellifluous "is absolutely, positively no likelihood that
     every single one of them ... is wrong".  Similar phrasing
     has been heard from our good friends over in alt.alien.visitors.

     Every logic cop should know that phrasing is everything.

>Now in this case U=V (in structure).

     Obviously.  That's the basis of the humor.

>So if we assume that there are no UFO's, and since U=V, can we conclude
>that CF is bogus?

     Assume anything *you* like, just don't recharacterize my observation.

>The logical inference is "no", there simply isn't a causal link between
>the two premises.

     Other than you, who wanted a causal link?  They're both 'bogus' 
     independently.

     It's funny, though, that certain adherents in both 'fields' 
     use the same justification.

>Indeed, the holy grail of science is replication ("it is unlikely that
>they are all wrong.")

     "There is absolutely, positively no likelyhood."

     Where are those logic police where you need them?

>So now we have uncovered a third flaw in your argument, they are listed:
>
>1.) Linking conclusions on the basis of similar form
>2.) Presuming a negative premise (i.e. presuming the conclusion)
>3.) Throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

     No, there are now three 'flaws' in *your* incorrect reinterpretation
     of my observation.  Any flaws you introduce are yours.

                                dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Griggs, Chaos and QM
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs, Chaos and QM
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 23:50:10 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <WAF2PCB559157285@brbbs.brbbs.com>,
MARSHALL DUDLEY <mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com> wrote:
>
>The Griggs device produces chaotic fluid motion in the gap between the moving
>and stationary cylinders.  This type of motion is commonly known as
>Couette-Taylor flow (1).  According to chaos theory (and experiments as well),
>when conditions approach the chaotic region, smooth flow starts oscillating
>between two "quasi-stable" states, then as you continue to approach the
>chaotic, that splits into 4, then 8 and so forth, until there finally appears
>to be almost random movement.

     Griggs does not have your standard Taylor-Couette flow.  He's
     put pits on the rotor and is extracting flow-through.
  
     Read more on the conditions for such flows.

>  In this case however, the flow initially splits
>into large whirlpools, which then split into similiar but smaller whirlpools,
>and so forth, splitting into more and more, smaller and smaller whirlpools.
>The limit would be (I assume) when the whirlpools are no larger than a water
>molecule.

     Viscosity imposes limits on energy scales.

>Now, if we plug in some numbers we find that these water molecules could be
>spinning at an almost unbelievable rate.

     Don't bother plugging.  What you want to happen doesn't.

                                  dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.07 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Phonophobic Calls Griggs
     
Originally-From: gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Phonophobic Calls Griggs
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 1995 00:17:41 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <3ek87g$nau@fnnews.fnal.gov> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
>Another matter is the press.  A member has asked to join the
>visit.  What do you all think?  

I think that a reporter could blow this out of proportion.  If you
invite a reporter, or even if a reporter invites himself and you agree
to it, you are giving him a signal that this is more important than it
actually is.

>My general feeling is that the
>press is dangerous to scientific inquiry.

That's an overstatement.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.07 / Thomas Zemanian /  Borrowing a scope from U Ga.
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Borrowing a scope from U Ga.
Date: 7 Jan 1995 00:47:59 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <D20B6t.GMu@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) wrote:

> In article <3ehh32$qo1@serra.unipi.it>,
> John WINTERFLOOD <jwinter@galileo.pi.infn.it> wrote:

[major deletions]

> 
> >Imagine what a hey-day you could have picking faults with a manual CRO
> >method! IMO a power meter is the most appropriate instrument for the job.
> >
> >Come on Tom, when are you going to go and check it out for us ?
> 
>       He'll be there for a short time with no tools and no test
>       matrix.  Don't expect too much.
> 

Hi Dale.

Might you (or anyone else on this group) know someone/have a colleague at
Georgia Tech or Univ. Ga., through whom we might arrange to borrow or rent
a storage scope to follow the power input to the GG?  Since the input power
seems to be a major source of argument, that'd seem to be one of the most
important measurements to make.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.07 / David Baraff /  Re: Crop Circles: A New Theory
     
Originally-From: baraff@cs.cmu.edu (David Baraff)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Crop Circles: A New Theory
Date: 7 Jan 1995 01:31:43 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <3ek11c$blm@infa.central.susx.ac.uk>,
Kiran <K.Reval@sussex.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>Has anyone ever thought that the mystery may not come from the outside 
>(plasma vortices, tornados, yes and even UFOs), but from the inside 
>of the earth?
>
...
>Any (serious) ideas, additions, refutations on this? 

That's really funny.

I think.

Please tell me this a subtle dig at some of the more
ridiculuous discussions going on in this newsgroup.

Please.

You *do* know what actually causes crop circles, don't you?
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenbaraff cudfnDavid cudlnBaraff cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.07 / David Baraff /  Re: When is the Nice conference?
     
Originally-From: baraff@cs.cmu.edu (David Baraff)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: When is the Nice conference?
Date: 7 Jan 1995 01:34:32 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <pw94wlr.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>Yes folks, from now on, every flake, every idiot, and every scientific
>illiterate will be given engraved invitations to preach superstitious crap at
>serious scientific conferences.

How ironic...  The pot is calling the kettle black.





cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenbaraff cudfnDavid cudlnBaraff cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 / Tom Droege /  Phonophobic Calls Griggs
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Phonophobic Calls Griggs
Date: 6 Jan 1995 20:12:32 GMT
Organization: fermilab

This phonophobic finally got around to calling Griggs and 
setting up a meeting.  

I found him to be quite reasonable.  We have tenatively set
Wednesday 8 March for the meeting.  For those that have asked
to join me, please get in contact.  I will also work down my
list.  Griggs said it would be OK to bring a couple of other
people.  

Another matter is the press.  A member has asked to join the
visit.  What do you all think?  My general feeling is that the
press is dangerous to scientific inquiry.  They are interested 
in controversy which sells papers.  Some of us are interested in
discovering truth.  

Pleas discuss this.

For those of you that have forgotten, I can only achieve a limited
objective during such a visit.  I remind you, and I have told Griggs,
that I cannot "prove" or "disprove" his measurements.  I would have
to live with him for many months to do that.  What I can do is to
make a general evaluation of his scientific approach.  Again I 
told him this.  I also told him the "acid test" and I remind you 
what it is.  

If when I return, I start building a "Griggs" machine, then I believe
his measurements to be valid.  If I do not, then ...

I think there will be money left over even after we generate 
suitable certificates of participation.  I understand that Tod Green
will be in Europe during ICCF5.  How about him as a representative?
What about it Todd?

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 / Stan Bischof /  Re: The true physics behind Cold Fusion: My 1st Patent: RSNM,(part
     
Originally-From: stanb@sr.hp.com (Stan Bischof)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.engr,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: The true physics behind Cold Fusion: My 1st Patent: RSNM,(part
Date: 6 Jan 1995 20:11:58 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard Sonoma County

Ralf B. Lukner (lukner@che.utexas.edu) wrote:
: In article <789338647snz@qvwp.demon.co.uk>, Anff@qvwp.demon.co.uk wrote:

: > I notice people seem to avoid discussion with it, I assume it's been
: > wasting bandwidth for a long time now.....

: I think it would be nice if the results could be examined on their own
: merit.  Clearly, obtaining a patent on an idea, doesn't mean that the
: inventor understands what is going on.  I am not personally convinced that

Not to mention that you can't patent an _idea_ anyhow!

--
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stan Bischof   Hewlett Packard Company   707-577-3994  stanb@sr.hp.com
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenstanb cudfnStan cudlnBischof cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Droege's Drivel
     
Originally-From: gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege's Drivel
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 20:56:41 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <3ejujm$8hf@sundog.tiac.net> conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes:
>Whether CF is real, imaginary, or a total scam, its workers and enthusiasts
>should at least attempt to emulate the appearance of it being legitimate
>scientific inquiry.

I disagree.  If CF is a total scam, its supporters might as well
make it painfully obvious.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 / Mike Griffin /  Re: When is the Nice conference?
     
Originally-From: mgriffin@il.us.swissbank.com (Mike Griffin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: When is the Nice conference?
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 20:25:57 GMT
Organization: Swiss Bank Corporation

In article <pw94wlr.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>  
> Yes folks, from now on, every flake, every idiot, and every scientific
> illiterate will be given engraved invitations to preach...

Funny, I thought that's how CF meetings already worked!

Mike
(Speaking strictly for me.)
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmgriffin cudfnMike cudlnGriffin cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 /  Anarch /  Plutonium-bot
     
Originally-From: anarch@cse.ucsc.edu (Anarch)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.engr,sci.physics.fusion,sci.ph
sics.electromag,alt.religion.kibology,alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: Plutonium-bot
Date: 6 Jan 1995 21:21:38 GMT
Organization: Secular Humanists from Hell

In article <789338647snz@qvwp.demon.co.uk> Anff@qvwp.demon.co.uk writes:
>In article <3ehfg1$bh7@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>           Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu "Archimedes Plutonium" writes:
>[absolutley loads of autobot drivel deleted]
>
>Everything that ever happens is because of 
>'spontaneous neutron materialization'
>if you believe this cranky automatic mail generator.
>...
>Soon there will be a revelation that the world has been arguing with a
>machine!

No, I doubt it.  I can assure you that Archimedes is a real person...I
have seen him in the flesh many times.  And he has been at this for a
long time, long before he began publishing on Usenet.  My first encounter
was, let's see, late 88-early 89, I think.  Of course, he was only Ludwig
von Ludvig then...perhaps the constantly widening scope and increasing
depth of his innovation, as attested by his assumption of first the title
Ludwig Plutonium and now Archimedes Plutonium, has required him to employ
automated assistance to manage the increasing volume and rate of his
publication and correspondance.  But I doubt it.

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenanarch cudlnAnarch cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 / Ralf Lukner /  Re: The true physics behind Cold Fusion: My 1st Patent: RSNM,(part
     
Originally-From: lukner@che.utexas.edu (Ralf B. Lukner)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.engr,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: The true physics behind Cold Fusion: My 1st Patent: RSNM,(part
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 1995 15:41:25 -0600
Organization: University of Texas at Austin Chemical Engineering

In article <3ek86e$bgv@canyon.sr.hp.com>, stanb@sr.hp.com (Stan Bischof) wrote:

> Not to mention that you can't patent an _idea_ anyhow!

Wrong.  Call it a "design" or "process" if only understand technoid speak.
--Ralf
cudkeys:
cuddy06 cudenlukner cudfnRalf cudlnLukner cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Alien Visitation vs. P&F Cold Fusion:  You Make The
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Alien Visitation vs. P&F Cold Fusion:  You Make The
Call (was Re: Kunich versus 
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 22:29:16 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <USE2PCB638323482@brbbs.brbbs.com>,
MARSHALL DUDLEY <mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com> wrote:
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
> 
>->      Same with UFO sightings, crop circles too.
>->
>->      It's truly amazing that the sightings of aliens from other worlds
>->      have basically converged to a single drawing in the last decade
>->      or so.  Must be because they exist.
> 
>You are in the wrong newsgroup for this discussion.

     Au contraire.  Interdisciplinary work is almost always fruitful.

                                 dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 / Cameron Bass /  Re: What is your opinion?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What is your opinion?
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 22:30:27 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <3eh8og$gmq@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>,
prasad <c1prasad@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
>In article <D1wyCr.85I@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@watt.seas.Virgi
ia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>|> ...
>|>      P&F has been found wanting every time.  However, there is 
>|>      a political aspect to _every_ human endeavour.  Get used to it.
>|> ...
>|>      That's the usual response when cranks mention Galileo.  It works
>|>      fine here too.
>
>How I admire the unfailing Dale Bass ludicity and courtesy.

     Thanks.

                             dale bass


cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Griggs, Chaos and QM
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs, Chaos and QM
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 1995 17:36 -0500 (EST)

ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) writes:
 
-> Ah, but the dimensionless group that describes the relative effects of
-> inertia and viscosity is, as Dieter notes, the Reynold's number,
-> specifically DV<rho>/<mu>, where <rho> is the mass density and <mu> is the
-> viscosity.  V is the local velocity, and D is a characteristic length of
-> the phenomenon.  Thus, at very small D, viscous effects dominate and the
-> process becomes laminar rather than turbulent; the vortices no longer
-> appear. Of course, this is but theory, and if the necessary D is so small
-> as to involve single or very few molecules, the theory breaks down.  Still,
->  doubt we're anywhere near such speeds in the Couette flow you're
-> describing.
 
I agree.  Since chaotic motion is a method by which excess energy is
dissipated in fluids, viscosity is part of the whole picture.  A valid
question is at what point, as you approach microscopic dimensions, do the
macro equations of turbulent flow break down; or do they?  I am attempting to
contact James Gleick, Harry Swinney or Jerry Golhub to further my understanding
in this area.  If anyone has an EMAIL address for any of them I would
appreciate it if you could forward it to me.  Thanks.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy06 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 22:58:53 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <3eh8vo$6ml@eldborg.rhi.hi.is>,
Kristjan Valur Jonsson <kvj@rhi.hi.is> wrote:
>
>I happen to agree with Alistair.  Of course P&F should have monitored their
>input properly (I am not entirely familiar with their work, I am commenting
>only on information received through this newsgroup).

     In constrast, there are those of us who seem more familiar
     with their work who have commented in detail on the paper in 
     question.  Feel free to look up our comments if you do not
     feel competent to examine the original work.

>  But even if they
>didn't  It is fairly obvious that they were not pulling out substantially
>more than 50w from a 0.5A 100V power supply. 

     It's not to me, especially since I have no idea what the power
     supply is.  I'm not willing to make any definitive statement other
     than they have produced one crappy experiment as evidenced by
     facts reported in Phys Lett A and sampling rates reported here
     (but not in the initial paper).

     One must be a marvelous seer to divine their power input given the
     data offered by P&F.  I admire your confidence.

> Of course, by a stroke
>of unluck, they might have hit a bad power supply.  But it is fairly
>unlikely, don't you think?  

     No, I don't.  Think about how they're using it.

>Some observations just are so obvious that they do not necessarily
>need detailed measurements.
>For example, Jed's hand determined that the heat of the GG shaft was
>sub 77 degrees C.  

     I just wonder why he did such a thing, but no matter.

>It is similarly fair to assume that this is within
>the Dynamometer's temparature range if the Dynamometer is indeed
>an industrial unit.  And although you will want to see the exact
>specifications for the Dyno (and Jed should have checked, but one
>can't think of everything) it is very unlikely that the dyno should
>be so badly designed as to fail at this low temparature.

     I suspect that's not the problem anyway.  Input power and 
     the assumptions necessary to connect input power to dynamometer
     reading are the most likely experimental errors here.

>Perhaps Jed would be so kind as to describe the dynamometer for us,
>i.e. it's construction.  The only tynamometer I have used wasn't
>a seperate unit at all, but rather the motor was mounted on
>a pivoted mounting, the reacting torque on which could be measured with
>an arm attatched to a spring.  A fairly simple instument, not subject to
>heat problems.

     I don't know why they bother with a dynamometer anyway.
     Measurements of input power would be sufficient, if done properly.
      
     The fact that they're using a dynamometer reeks of snake oil anyway.
     My response as a mechanical engineer would have been to 
     scope and directly integrate input power.  The fact that they
     do not do that is mildly interesting, but not very interesting since, as
     with everywhere else in universe, swirling water around in 
     Mr. Griggs tubs does not result in more energy out than is
     put in.

                          dale bass

C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 296-7288
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 / John Logajan /  Re: Phonophobic Calls Griggs
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Phonophobic Calls Griggs
Date: 6 Jan 1995 23:06:08 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Tom Droege (Droege@fnal.fnal.gov) wrote:
: Another matter is the press.  A member has asked to join the
: visit.  What do you all think?

Ix-ney on the essprey.

Creatures of the press and too many people in your contingent will turn
the whole thing into a circus.  I wouldn't advise having more than three
in your party TOPS -- and keep Jimmy Olson on ice.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 - WWW URL =  http://www.skypoint.com/subscribers/jlogajan -
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: World-Wide Acceptance of Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: World-Wide Acceptance of Cold Fusion
Date: 6 Jan 95 22:56:44 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Laboratories, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR

In article <3ehihp$d15@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> HALO@mail.utexas.edu
(Jascha Little) writes:
..............
>In the interest of science I hereby offer, free of charge, the services of my
>calorimetry lab to anyone who can provide a "working" cold fusion cell (i.e.
>one that does produce excess heat).


Do you care to take any bets on:

	How many acceptances you get;

	How many "working" cells actually work.


I am willing to make a significant bet that the sum of these numbers
can be represented by one binary digit.

Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Jan  7 04:37:06 EST 1995
------------------------------
