1995.01.21 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Water heater sales
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Water heater sales
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 95 20:50:51 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Richard Schultz <schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu> writes:
 
>Right.  Now I see what you meant.  Kind of reminds me of the time that I
>moved from an apartment with electric baseboard heaters to one with a
>gas furnace and watched my heating bills brop precipitously for the 
>obvious reason.  Thanks.
 
Yup. Although friends of mine who live in the Pacific Northwest say that
the hydroelectric power up there is so cheap that even resistance space
heating is cheap. But it is a waste of high grade energy. Then on the other
hand, it is pretty cold up in Seattle so I don't suppose heat pumps would
work. And there is no fuel wasted, of course -- just water over the dam.
(Under the dam?)
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.21 / Bob Orr /  Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: orr@zilch.physics (Bob Orr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph
sics.accelerators
Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 23:09:24 GMT
Organization: University of Toronto - Dept. of Physics



	I stumbled across this conversation on linearly rising cross
sections, and detection of neutrinos. There really is a LOT of
evidence for neutrino detection, while I'm thinking of it, let me
comment on the linear rise of the cross section. ANY scattering cross
section at a point between point particles will increase with
energy. It is not difficult to show that the cross section goes as 

	2.G**2 M Elab /(hbar.c)**4

	Appendix 4 of Perkins Introduction to High Energy Physics goes
through the calculation in detail. The crux of the matter is really
that for scattering at a point there is no length to define the
scale. The cross section is said to be "scale invariant". This linear
rise is one of the nicest pieces of evidence for pointlike
quarks. This rise with Energy is not a peculiarity restricted to
neutrinos. It is also true of Rutherford Scattering! A very nice
picture of the linear rise is in F. Eisle Rep Prog Phys 49 223 (1986)
(reproduced in Perkins)

	Now, this linear rise would violate unitarity (conservation of
probability) so it does NOT go on for ever. The cross section is
damped out by the fact that the interaction does NOT occur at a
point. It occurs via the exchange of a virtual boson. The linear rise
only occurs in the energy regime where one can assume that the virtual
boson is infinitely massive. At the HERA electron proton collider we
have actually observed the turn over. HERA looks at

	electron - proton ---> neutrino etc

This by the way is also a nice layman's  indication of the existence of
neutrinos. When one looks at these events, you can seen the etc
recoiling against an "invisible" particle. The only way to disbelieve
the neutrinos existence is to disbelieve conservation of energy and
momentum. And if you choose to do that, I am at a bit of a loss 8^)

	There are any number observations which shout out that
neutrinos exist. What about the following? I worked on one experiment
where we had a large tank of scintillating oil. One looked into this
oil with photomultipliers. It was longitudinally divided in the
direction of the beam. In fact you can see a picture of it in Cahn and
Goldhaber page 268. If you look at the light signals coming from the
muons, you can see that the muons are distributed in time according to
the radio frequency structure of the accelerator. So somehow these
muons are correlated in time with the protons in the accelerator. But
we know that they are not coming FROM the accelerator... they would
range out in the shield, and anyway we would have seen them in the
front of the detector. So, some "invisible" particle comes from the
interactions of the protons from the accelerator. These "invisible"
particles propagate thru the shield with a very feeble
interaction. Then they disappear, and a muon appears. Sounds like
Tommy Neutrino ta me! OK, now we look at the angular distribution of
the muons. This distribution shows that the muons come from the
interaction of a spin 1/2 particle whose momentum points in its
direction of motion... ah ha! more evidence. Finally if we plot the
interaction points of the muons in the detector, they show no
dependence on distance from the from of it. This is consistent with
them being produced by a very weakly interacting beam (the beam is not
attenuated). You got it! Neutrinos!

	OKAY ... now ya gotta believe in Da Neutrino. If ya don't
you'll get another nice example tomorrow ... but only if you
completely explain away all the features above (and promise to read
the Appendix F)


				Ciao.....Bob
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenorr cudfnBob cudlnOrr cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.21 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Questions for the Griggs visit .....
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Questions for the Griggs visit .....
Date: 21 Jan 95 14:26:36 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi folks, have a nice day :^) ...........
Tom, will you consider raising questions and ideas from the net at the
Griggs visit on 8th of March?  Maybe you have already compiled a list,
if so ; and if you deem it wise to release it before the visit ; I for 
one would be interested to see it.

Regards to all,
Daryl Owen.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudendowen cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.22 / A Plutonium /  Re: In article: SUPERCONDUCTIVITY CORRECT THEORY
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: In article: SUPERCONDUCTIVITY CORRECT THEORY
Date: 22 Jan 1995 00:07:42 GMT
Organization: Plutonium Atom Foundation

In article <9501152337.aa19198@agora.stm.it>
R.Boscarelli@agora.stm.it writes:

> Are there stereo ordered polymers in the list of superconducting organic
> 
> compounds?
> In a straight tube a mouse runs faster than in a maze.
> Say hello to Euclides.

 Consider the mitichondria with the oxidative phosphoralation where
electrons transfer along the inside wall very rapidly, with no known
resistance. To affect the reduction of oxygen to get water, release of
energy in the form of ATP.
  Since I strongly believe that Nature already has a room temperature
superconductor existing, and awaiting for our discovery. It is logical
to check the mitichondria as a room temperature superconductor. Mr.
R.Boscarelli, I ask you, has anyone inspected mitichondrial tissue for
superconductivity? I ask anyone out there if mitichondria have been
thoroughly experimented with for room temperature superconductivity. I
am nearly 100% confident that a room temperature superconductor already
exists in the BioWorld awaiting for its discovery. Mitichondria would
be a fine first start.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.20 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Does it really matter who believes what?
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does it really matter who believes what?
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 23:42 -0500 (EST)

mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
 
-> Q: When was aluminum first refined in economical industrial
-> quantities?
 
The electrolysis method of reducing aluminum was invented in 1886.  In 1852 the
price was $545 a pound and just before the invention of the Hall-Herouli
refining process in 1886 it had dropped to $11 a pound.  Immediately after 1886
it dropped to $.30 a pound.  Thus aluminum was available for building things at
a not too expensive price prior to 1900.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.21 / A Plutonium /  Re: Warning:Nature, New Scientist, CF = violation conservation
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Warning:Nature, New Scientist, CF = violation conservation
Date: 21 Jan 1995 04:07:00 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <3fodo8$o85@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
fusionfire@aol.com (FUSIONFIRE) writes:

> Don't be a jackass Archimedes.  You are not the first to suggest neutron
> materialization!  Nice try!   You must think you have invented the whole
> world.  Seem's you have some insight, but you are barking up some totally
> wrong trees in many areas.  True, neutrons can be made to materialize but
> they do not violate conservation when they do.  Net energy of the universe
> is zero!  You may be a nice guy but I think you should tone down your own
> importance.  I quote an ancient Arabic saying:  "If you listen carefully
> you may hear the thoughts of another and think them your own."  So if you
> ever heard the thoughts of God (and made some progress towards greater
> insight into physics) just keep in mind that you are not God; you may have
> just heard his thoughts.  Seems there is something out there that wishes
> to destroy you and it is surely having its way at this time.  Settle down
> Archimedes or bob or tom or joe or gene or sam or bill or whoever you may
> be.  Don't hide behind this fakery of a name.

But due to Impoliteness and very bad manners, my computer screen
registered the following In article <3fodo8$o85@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
fusedDog@aol.com (FUSedDog) barked:

> Don't be a dachshund.  I am the first to suggest naked
> muttonheadelization!  Nice try!   You must think you have invented the whole
> dog poop.  Seem's I have some insight, but I am barking up some totally
> wrong trees in many areas.  True, naked dogs can be made to materialize but
> they do not violate soil conservation when they do.  Net energy of the universe
> is chewing zero!  I am  a nice dog but I think I should tone down my own
> importance.  I quote an ancient arrf-bark saying:  "If I listen carefully
> I may hear the thoughts of another and think them a gopher."  So if you
> ever heard the thoughts of dog (and made some progress towards greater
> insight into poodles) just keep in mind that I am dog; I may have
> just heard my thoughts.  Seems there is something out there that wishes
> to shed hair on you and it is surely having its way at this time.  Settle down
> for a dachshund or basset or corgi or shepard or collie whoever I may
> be.  Don't hide behind the couch or sofa.

  Hey FusionDog, good boy, here, go fetch the frisbee.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.21 / John Logajan /  Re: This forum officially for CF, not HF
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: This forum officially for CF, not HF
Date: 21 Jan 1995 05:05:31 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Scott Hazen Mueller (scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG) wrote:
: Sci.physics.fusion was indeed originally created as a forum to contain the
: CNF discussions that were spilling all over the net.  (Actually, alt.fusion
: was, and s.p.f took over from a.f.)

: However, this is the only "fusion" newsgroup on Usenet.  Therefore, as far as
: I (and the other charter members of s.p.f, I'm sure) am concerned, hot fusion
: is just as welcome here as cold.  There may be a hot fusion mailing list, but
: I am not aware of its name and could not direct people there if asked.

Your statement of history parallels my memories of same.  I also believe
that this is as good a place as any for hot fusion reports (though I think
the pony express would have been just as effective for them :-)

I would actually like to see more alternative hot concepts discussed, like
Koloc's Plasmak, Maglich's Migma, etc.  I've got this intuitive feeling
that Koloc is onto something -- I even understand, in a general sort of way,
how his ball-lightning beasties hold their shape and their energy.

--
 - 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:
cuddy21 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.22 / Robin Spaandonk /        Re: Fusion Digest 3193
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:       Re: Fusion Digest 3193
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 1995 21:00:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Am I the only one whose digests are being destroyed by the MRA 
postings from Stefan Hartmann? I mean literally, I receive the digest 
as multiple "bad messages".

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au>

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.21 / William Beaty /  MRA info via WWW and FTP
     
Originally-From: billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty)
Newsgroups: alt.energy.renewable,alt.paranet.science,alt.sci.physics.new
theories,cl.energie.alternativen,sci.energy,sci.environment,sci.physics,
ci.physics.fusion
Subject: MRA info via WWW and FTP
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 16:59:51 GMT
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever

If you don't want to deal with large volumes of newsgroup MRA messages,
you can get it from the original source: Keelynet BBS, at 214-324-3501.

It is also being updated occasionally at http://www.eskimo.com/~billb,
under WEIRD SCIENCE, under MRA.

If you don't have WWW access, it is also at ftp://ftp.eskimo.com/billb.

If you hate this stuff, don't read it!

If you love this stuff, visit the above web page.  There are files
on quite a bit of other Weird Science, and links to other sites,
including mirrors of the library file of the Keelynet BBS.



-- 
....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenbillb cudfnWilliam cudlnBeaty cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.21 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Convincing Experimental Evidence (was Re: Producing a neutrino ...)
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph
sics.accelerators
Subject: Re: Convincing Experimental Evidence (was Re: Producing a neutrino ...)
Date: 21 Jan 1995 18:55:15 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Jeffrey Templon (templon@paramount.nikhefk.nikhef.nl) wrote:
:  As for this being the first, you've
: forgotten about Einstein.  His relativity theories were
: basically accepted as correct before we had the technology to
: detect all the predictions as being correct or not (time dilation,
: gravitational lensing, etc.)  Ah, but you're right, they didn't
: have the guts to give him the prize for relativity in 1905;
: it was for the photoelectric effect.

I.e. quantizing the E&M field and inventing the photon, experimentally
confirmed.

Don't knock al's nobel.

: 						JT

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.21 / John Logajan /  Re: Tritiated water
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tritiated water
Date: 21 Jan 1995 14:52:29 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Thomas S. Zemanian (ts_zemanian@pnl.gov) wrote:
: eee@netcom.com (Mark Thorson) wrote:

: > a liter of pure DHO, it would immediately decompose into 250 ml of D2O,
                    ^^^
: > 500 ml of DHO, and 250 ml of H2O.  If anyone has a reference for this
: > possible fact, I'd appreciate having a pointer to it.



: Er, no.  If it's pure D2O, it'll stay pure D2O.
                        ^^^

I think Mark's original question is interesting.  Any explanations?

--
 - 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:
cuddy21 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.21 / William Beaty /  Ball lgtng NOT fusion?
     
Originally-From: billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ball lgtng NOT fusion?
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 18:45:41 GMT
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever

Is everyone aware of the article by Corum in the 1990
PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL TESLA SOCIETY?

The authors managed to reliably produce lightning balls
using two large tesla coils and carbon.  They suspect
that these balls are some sort of carbon fractal network
(aerogel?) which stores energy.  Their ball lightning
did sometimes explode with a bang, sometimes wink out
silently.

This may not say anything about stable plasma lightning balls,
if there are several mechanisms for their formation.

-- 
....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenbillb cudfnWilliam cudlnBeaty cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.22 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Report on "Cold Fusion Day" at MIT
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Report on "Cold Fusion Day" at MIT
Date: 22 Jan 1995 15:22:26 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <3fsquc$gs2@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
ProFusion <profusion@aol.com> wrote:

>   Dr. Eugene Mallove organized "Cold Fusion Day" at MIT as an
>alumni-sponsored event. Since it's only a two-hour drive to
>Cambridge, I drove down, as did Sherry and Wayne Green, the
>publisher of *"Cold Fusion."*

I happened to come across the following message in alt.current-events.net-abuse
(message-ID <ED.WCP.26.00105CA8@cphillips.pdial.interpath.net>):
---------
   In the ham radio world, there is a gadfly magazine editor who trained at 
some "Scientology/Dianetics Institute" type place under Hubbard in New Jersey 
(I think) in the late forties.  His name is Wayne Green.  In his long and 
roaming editorials in his ham magazine, he has claimed that Hubbard got his 
ideas from a book that he (Ron) picked up in the Micronesia/Polynesia area 
during WWII.  However, (at least to the extent of my readings) he has never 
gone further and listed the name of the book.  I *assumed* that it was a book 
*written* by someone in the South Pacific, but who knows, he may mean a German 
book that Hubbard came across in that area.
---------

Does anyone know if this is the same Wayne Green?
--
					Richard Schultz

". . .in short, his post became untenable; and having swallowed his
quantum of tea, he judged it expedient to evacuate."
				Charlotte Bronte, _Shirley_
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.22 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Jed Rothwell does not understand fusion
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell does not understand fusion
Date: 22 Jan 1995 21:09:13 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

FUSIONFIRE (fusionfire@aol.com) wrote:
: I am positing that the men who build H-Bombs (Fusion weapons) are ignorant
: of the real mechanism behind the fusion portion of the weapon.

For example, nobel prize winner Hans Bethe, who worked on Super and
explained how stars shine because of fusion.

:  Yet they
: still work.  It is very possible to build something that functions without
: actually understanding the mechanisms.

A hydrogen bomb?  No way no how.

: The connection is that the radiation coupling of a fusion weapon doesn't
: cause charged fuel nuclei to overcome the coulomb barrier so that the
: interacting nuclie are then bound by the nuclear strong force.  It just
: doesn't happen that way. 

So....all those cyclotron experiments are wrong?  How else do you
explain all the gadzillion nucleus nucleus scattering experiments?

: But as long as the scientific community believes
: that it works that way then they will continue to pursue this avenue.  But
: believe me, it is a dead end street paved with the purest gold or should I
: say tax money.

What do you mean dead-end?

: Anyway, the success of the fusion weapons has led us astray. And has led
: everyone to believe that if you heat the fuel to a high temperature
: (thereby making the particles smack into one another so that the
: internuclei distance is around 5 x 10-13 cm) so that the nuclear strong
: force can win out over coulomb repulsion). 

Yeah, a megaton would make me a believer too.

PS:  tokamaks make plenty of fusion neutrons, experimentally obseved.

: Singularity Technologies, Inc.  will soon announce a new design for fusion
: reactors that are scalable right down to home sized units.  Clean,
: aneutronic, inexpensive.   I know, I know, you're not likely to believe
: this. 

No.

: However, we have discovered that no fusion reactions occur as a
: result of the energetic collisions afforded by high temperatures. 

Why are all the conclusions from the other experiments wrong then?

: Or singtech@teleport.com  (after 1/22/95)

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.21 / C Harrison /  Reifenschweiler Ti:T - a model
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reifenschweiler Ti:T - a model
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 21:08:59 GMT
Organization: Fitful

O fellow students of s.p.f.:

I have been puzzling over the Reifenschweiler effect [1] for several
months now.  At last I think I discern a light at the end of the
tunnel!

+--------+

Here is a summary of what Reifenschweiler [1,2] found:  Using vacuum
apparatus, R. deposited a thin film of Ti under low pressure argon,
which gave a "sooty" microstructure consisting of many tiny (~15 nm dia)
crystals.  He allowed this preparation to take up a small amount of
tritium (3H) at room temperature, which it did quickly.  He then raised
the temperature of the preparation while monitoring radioactivity.  He
found a marked drop (up to 40%) in the activity above 150C, followed
by its return to the original level at ~350C, followed by decomposition
of the tritide at a slightly higher temperature.

In another series of experiments, R. found that sequential doses of
tritium sorbed by a similar thin-film Ti preparation at room temperature
did not give proportional increases in radioactivity.

Both types of measurement suggest that the nuclear wavefunction of the
triton is being affected by "chemical" conditions -- a puzzle of some
magnitude.

One should note at the outset that R.'s results have been questioned by
some competent observers as quite likely being artifacts of inadequate
experimental design or measurement technique.  However, my approach in
this posting is to assume that the measurements are at least qualita-
tively sound, and see where that leads us.

A final note on R.'s experiments:  they were done under "high vacuum"
rather than "ultra high vacuum", so some amount of atmospheric contami-
nation is almost certain.

+---------+


Quite a bit of experimental work has been done on the chemistry of
the Ti:H system.  Even when experiments were performed with 1H or 2H
only, we can expect the results to be approximately relevant to the
tritium situation.

At room temperature, bulk titanium does not absorb hydrogen readily.
This is apparently due to a high activation-energy barrier between the
dissociated, chemisorbed state of H atoms on the surface and the mobile
dissolved H phase in the bulk lattice [3].  Thus hydrogen becomes
adsorbed as a thin surface layer, occupying a high percentage of the
surface sites, but won't penetrate the solid.

Surface contaminants undoubtedly often play a role in this barrier, but
it seems that clean Ti exhibits a similar surface-trapping effect.  This
is most obvious in vacuum-deposited thin-film experiments [4-6] in which
a very high ratio of surface to volume is obtained.  Measurements of
electrical resistivity show a well-defined phase transition in the lattice,
at which the gamma (fcc) hydride begins to precipitate from the alpha
(hcp) lattice.  This transition is known from several measurements
[7,8] to occur at ~0.12 at% H in Ti.  But the thin-film expts show the
transition occurring with much higher amounts of H sorbed - up to 8 at%.
In a naive model (mine) this result is explained by positing that most of
the sorbed hydrogen is trapped in a surface layer, and that the measured
resistance indicates the same phase behavior as is found in bulk Ti.

Under one of R.'s conditions, 3H:Ti ~ 0.35 at%, I model that the bulk
concentration is only .005 at% and that ~97% of the tritium is present
as adatoms on the surface.  The fractional surface coverage cannot be
computed from the reported data, but I believe that achieving a full
monolayer is correlated with the increase in sorption time at higher
loadings, as reported by R. in other experiments.  A rough guess would
by 10% coverage under the 0.35 at% conditions.

As the experimental temperature is increased, the thermal energy of the
adatoms rises to the point where the surface-to-bulk activation barrier
can be surmounted, and the H becomes equilibrated into solid solution.
As a result, the occupancy of the surface sites drops markedly.  The
thermodynamic potentials are not well enough known to predict whether
the surface occupancy will drop by a factor of 2, 10, or 50.  It is
quite possible that a majority of the H will remain on the surface
after equilibriation.

A confounding factor is that oxygen, which can be presumed to be present
considering the background vacuum of ~1e-5 Torr, will also be interacting
at the surface.  Oxygen will compete with H both for interstitial sites
in the alpha lattice and for surface sites (it does not seem to be
confined to a surface monolayer [9]).  Possibly more to the point,
oxygen can participate in relaxation of the free metal surface, causing
a realignment away from the idealized atom positions predicted on the
basis of a "clean cut" of the host hcp lattice.  A change in the potential
surface, even including different symmetry in the re-formed surface, is
possible.

+------------+

So far the physical chemistry work has indicated that we will find R.'s
tritium adsorbed at the surface, and that his temperature increase will
decrease its concentration there.  Can this affect the nuclear decay?

It turns out that standard QM calculations indicate that adatoms can
become delocalized on a metal surface.  Using an effective-medium
Hamiltonian for nickel, Puska [10] computes the spreading of the proton
wavefunction over the surface and finds satisfactory (if not stunning)
agreement with electron scattering data (LEED and EELS).  Behavior is
discussed for three exposed crystal planes of fcc Ni: (100), (110), and
(111).  The 2-D hexagonal lattice of Ni(001) is closely related to the
Ti(0001) plane which has been reported [11] to predominate in vacuum-
deposited alpha-Ti thin-films.

Puska finds the ground-state energy of the surface proton on Ni(111)
sufficiently high, relative to the "corrugations" in the surface
potential, to imply significant spreading of the wavefunction.  It is
important to note that these computations are in the _low-occupancy_
limit -- at higher fractional occupancy of the surface sites, H-to-H
interaction energy becomes important and the wavefunction (qualitatively)
will become more localized.

It seems plausible to me that changing from a conventional "pointlike"
nuclear wavefunction to a "delocalized" Bloch wavefunction would be
able to have a direct and significant effect on the matrix element for
the decay of a triton.  (However, I confess I am over my head here on
weak-interaction QM.)  Note that we are _not_ talking about the
controversial delocalization-mediated D-D fusion concept of Chubb;
this is a _single-nucleus_ problem in which the two-particle interaction
energy (Coulomb & otherwise) is simply not a concern.  This one looks
simple enough that someone who knows the tools should be able to
crank the math to a genuine estimate.

In order to encourage delocalization, the potential surface must have
low-amplitude "corrugations", or at least smooth-bottomed "troughs"
like Ni(110).  This is trebly true for tritons, whose high mass will
reduce the ground-state energy compared to protons.  Undoubtedly an
effective-medium computation for the potential surfaces on hcp Ti
would be useful.  However I reiterate that the surface potential may
be a far cry from pure hcp(0001) after oxygen or other surface-relaxation
mechanisms have come into play.

+---------+

In summary, we have the beginnings of a model here for a Reifenschweiler
effect:  a 2-dimensionally-confined, low-density quantum gas of tritons
on a Ti surface (possibly perturbed from its standard surface arrangement
by dissolved oxygen).

The model can use some additional spadework and numerical chugging (where
are the grad-student slaves in the college of s.p.f.? ;-) ).  Then it 
might be ready to guide some real experimentation!

Cheers,
  -Chuck Harrison

[1] O. Reifenschweiler, "Reduced radioactivity of
     tritium in small titanium particles", _Phys Lett A_
     184:149-153 (3 Jan 1994).

[2] O. Reifenschweiler, "A more detailed description of our
     experiments with proposals to improve the
     experimental technique", unpublished. (March 1994).
     33p + 12 figs.

[3] CC Brown & RE Buxbaum, "Kinetics of hydrogen absorption in
     alpha titanium", _Metallurg Trans A_ 19A:1425-1427 (1988).

[4] R Suhrmann, A Hermann, G Wedler, "Gesetzmassigkeiten bei
     der elektronischen Wechelwirkung zwischen Wasserstoff und
     aufgedampften Filmen der 3d-Metalle", _Zeits Phys Chem NF_
     35:155-178 (1962).  In German.

[5] G Wedler & H Strothenk, "Elektrische und kalorimetrische
     messungen am system titan/wasserstuff bei 273K",
     _Zeits Phys Chem NF_ 48:86-101 (1966).  In German.

[6] K Kandasamy, NA Surplice, "The effects of hydrogen sorption on the
    resistance and work-function of titanium films at 290 K", _J Phys D_
    17:387-398 (1984).

[7] RS Vitt & K Ono, "Hydrogen solubility in alpha titanium",
     _Metallurg Trans_ 2:608-609 (1971).

[8] SC Ariyatnam, NA Surplice, EH Adem, "Solubility of hydrogen
     in titanium wires and films at 300K", _J Matls Sci
     Let_ 6:1349-1350 (1987).

[9] B Singh, J Mueller, NA Surplice, "Adsorption of oxygen and
     carbon monoxide by evaporated films of titanium and
     erbium:  electrical resistance and surface area measure-
     ments", _Thin Solid Films_ 21:255-265 (1974).

[10] MJ Puska, RM Nieminen, "Hydrogen chemisorbed on nickel
     surfaces: a wave-mechanical treatment of proton motion",
     _Surf Sci_ 157:413-435 (1985).   

[11] K Kandasamy, NA Surplice, "The predominance of a surface plane of
     high work function on Ti films" (letter), _J Phys C_ 14:L61-63
     (1981).

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.21 /  DaveHatunen /  Re: MRA update 11, free energy device !
     
Originally-From: hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen)
Newsgroups: alt.energy.renewable,alt.paranet.science,alt.sci.physics.new
theories,cl.energie.alternativen,sci.energy,sci.environment,sci.physics,
ci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MRA update 11, free energy device !
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 23:17:54 GMT
Organization: As little as you're likely to find anywhere

In article <D2q45w.I3@nntpa.cb.att.com>,
edward.w.mcfarland <ewm@cbnews.cb.att.com> wrote:

[...]

>Many of them acknowlege that they "don't know what they are talking about."
>That is the purpose of posting to the net, to find out from people who DO
>know what they are talking about, if what they appear to observe as an
>excess of power at the output compared to input is real or some fault of 
>their measurement process. 
>
>>A good course in fundamental dynamic electrical theory would straighten
>>these people out in a hurry.
>
>Do you mean that they would find out then, that their measurement method is
>faulty?  
>
>>There's an old saying, "the proof is in the pudding." Well, the pudding
>>here is connecting the output to the input.
>
>I agree.  However, continually harping on their level of sophistication rather
>than pointing out in detail the error of their ways is not the way to 
>"straighten these people out in a hurry."

Over the last couple of months a number of people who do know what
they are talking about have tried to point out the flaws and fallacies
in the posts and the methods of measurement they are using. These
people have been totally ignored, and the MRAers just keep posting
their drivel. When do they correct the self-admitted fact taht they
don't know what they are talking about and do something about it? 

Unfortunately, no one here is going to be able to give them a quickie
course in Calculus-level electrical engineering. They're going to have
to do it themselves. But they obviously are not going to, since they
keep glorying in their ignorance by continuing to put out nonsense.

There is an old saying that the differece between ignorance and
stupidity is that ignorance is curable. These people are beginning to
look uncurable.

God. I'm beginning to sound like Carl Lyddick...

-- 


    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *                Daly City California:                *
    *       where San Francisco meets The Peninsula       *
    *       and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea       *
    *******************************************************

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenhatunen cudlnDaveHatunen cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.22 /  S1122394@cedar /  Re: istherecoldfusion?
     
Originally-From: S1122394@cedarville.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: istherecoldfusion?
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 1995 01:13:21 GMT
Organization: Cedarville College, Cedarville, OH

In article <508249@shoreline.ca> Dilemma <dilemma@shoreline.ca> writes:
> I am desperate to find out if cold
>fusion is possible, or if the whole affair has been a sham. I would be
>very grateful to anybody who could provide me with some current
>information. 

I too, would also like to know more about cold fusion and if there is anything 
to it or not.

       'Sherm'

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenS1122394 cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.21 / Joe Guokas /  MIT CF Day - Any News?
     
Originally-From: joeguokas@aol.com (Joe Guokas)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: MIT CF Day - Any News?
Date: 21 Jan 1995 14:43:52 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

There will be a presentation on cold fusion:

>                         COLD FUSION
>         A Massachusetts Institute of Technology
>                        IAP  Program 
>              Video-Lecture-Demonstration Program

> January 21, 1995, Saturday 9AM-5PM 
> Room 6-120, Physics Lecture Hall
> First floor, main building of MIT.

Was there anything new presented?  Speakers expected included Peter
Graneau, James Griggs, and Peter Hagelstein, so it should be interesting.

Thanks in advance from those of us coastally-impaired.

Joe Guokas
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjoeguokas cudfnJoe cudlnGuokas cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.21 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Warning:Nature, New Scientist, CF = violation conservation
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Warning:Nature, New Scientist, CF = violation conservation
Date: 21 Jan 1995 22:55:14 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3fodo8$o85@newsbf02.news.aol.com> fusionfire@aol.com (FUSIONFIRE)  
writes:
> Don't be a jackass Archimedes.  You are not the first to suggest neutron
> materialization!  Nice try!   ...  FusionFire

In the GNU emacs editor, there is a zippy-the-pinhead 
function, that spouts zippy-isms, and an Eliza program, that spouts 
fake interactive psychoanalysis. Then, there is one command
(Meta-x-psychoanalyze-pinhead) that pairs them off against eachother 
and just lets them run. Very entertaining. For some reason, I'm reminded of
this. :-)

--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.21 / Paul Koloc /  Re: NYTimes and Fusion
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: NYTimes and Fusion
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 22:11:26 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3fmpt2$l1q@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
>Well the New York Times ran an *atrocious* piece about fusion today.
>
>At least it was an opinion piece on the editorial section,
>and not a regular science writer.
>
>Basic premise:  why aren't we working on He3 fusion *instead* of
>hydrogen fusion and going to the moon to get it?
>
>assertions:
>
>  D-T fusion produces neutrons {true}
>  So it will produce huge amounts of waste {3 to 6 orders of magnitude less
>					    than fission, much less harmful}
>  and a reactor might meltdown and we'd be DOOMED! {preposterous}


>The japanese and europeans are spending 10% of their money on
>"helium fusion research instead of hydrogen" and so should we. 

>{Number seems crazy!  There's no real conflict between the two.  

I didn't see the article and I didn't follow the {^..*$} you had
above.  There is a noticeable difference between D ^3He and D-T from 
an engineering point of view.  

>Basic
> reality: it's so much harder to get He3 fusion we have to try for D-T
> first.  

Yes, if one can't provide much compression heating, as is the case
with ITER or tokamaks due to their backwards pressure leverage.  
However, if one can provide lots of compression heating then D-^3He 
is an easier demo commercial burn.  

>But nearly everything you learn from D-T still applies to He3, it's
> all plasma.  A barely running He3 reactor would be an outrageously blazing
> D-T reactor.  

Actually, this would be true in a pressure limited chamber such
as the tokamak.  On the other hand, if one can run pressures to 50
kilobar and leverage them to 150 kilobar, then we could easily 
compression heat tough fuels to their burn temperatures.  Since D-T 
burns at low values, the required compression is trivially low and 
the density doesn't increase significantly.  Since density goes as 
the compression "C" cubed and the burn density goes as density 
squared, then an aneutronic fuel such as you mention will be 
compression heated more and consequently, its burn density will, as 
you so aptly put it, be outrageously blazing by comparison to the 
D-T machine.  And finally, if a D-T reactor would run at high 
densities, the walls would be poisoned and over heated by the hot 
neutrons, which would penetrate the blanket of even an advanced 
PLASMAK(tm) power generator, whereas the power from aneutronic 
reactions would be radiated as gentle photon flux into the liquid 
density blanket where it heats and releases its energy through 
inductive MHD adiabatic expansion to generate 60Hertz electric 
power with a 95% efficiency.    

>So Dr Koloc, if you can ignite p-Be, just how many megatons
> would it blow if Iran bought one and filled it with D-T?  1/2 :-) }

Approximately 5 tons of p-^11B burned through a PLASMAK hyperdrive
propelling a 1 mega kilogram space ship from about 50 kilometers
in space, would generate a crater that would produce considerable
chaos to lifeforms in and around its landing site in Bagdad, assuming 
no retro braking. .. .  more or less (upsol or downsol).  Order
500kkph  ..  Hmmmm!

>We can go to the moon and mine it from there.
>  {that's as hard a problem as getting the fusion reactor to begin with!}

We have the burner, we don't have the capital to build it, since
its required in various makework big science programs and other 
obviously more important "investments".  

>--
>-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
>-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
>-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
>-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.21 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Was NYTimes and Fusion  ... CORRECTION
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Was NYTimes and Fusion  ... CORRECTION
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 22:20:18 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <D2s0B3.KtL@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>In article <3fmpt2$l1q@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
deleted stuff
>>So Dr Koloc, if you can ignite p-Be, just how many megatons
>> would it blow if Iran bought one and filled it with D-T?  1/2 :-) }
>
>Approximately 5 tons of p-^11B burned through a PLASMAK hyperdrive
>propelling a 1 mega kilogram space ship from about 50 kilometers
                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
                    OPPS!!    that's "MEGA" not "kilo"

>in space, would generate a crater that would produce considerable
>chaos to lifeforms in and around its landing site in Bagdad, assuming 
>no retro braking. .. .  more or less (upsol or downsol).  Order
>500kkph  ..  Hmmmm!

delete stuff
>>--
>>-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
>>-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
>>-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
>>-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
>| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
>| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.22 / mitchell swartz /  Review of MIT 1995 CF IAP Seminar
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Review of MIT 1995 CF IAP Seminar
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 1995 00:49:02 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

        1995 MIT IAP COLD FUSION REVIEW   --  January 21, 1995

    They came from Hawaii, New York (Hi Prasad), Connecticut,
Maine, NH, Utah and even James Griggs from Rome (Georgia     
;-).     This seemed like an older, more scientifically
sophisiticated, crowd.   There was less material science and
engineering than there should be (arbitrarily measured by the
number of blackboard-surfaces exhausted per microcentury), but a
good solid continuation of scientific education at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.   Several hundred people
attended the IAP seminar, led this year by Gene Mallove from
9:00 AM to at least 6 PM (when I left).  The attendance was
full, and similar to those IAP seminars in previous years.      

    In the room (6-120) that many of the MIT alumni had taken
physics, the attendees heard James Griggs share some of his
data, as recent as this week, holding part of his bivalved rotor
in hand.   (That gave the IAP attendees some 6 weeks -
reportedly - head start over sci.physics.fusion's well-reported
albeit pending examination through Tom Droege).  Keith Johnson
shared movie updates alternating with his Jahn-Teller animation
showing, and some discussion of, deuteron and hydrogen
anharmonic activity and recombination on nickel surfaces and in
palladium.   Peter Hagelstein discussed his latest updates on
neutron transfer and surveyed the recent understandings of
screening the coulomb potential.  Ray Conley brought his wet
cell, heralding the lack of a laboratory-room camera and a towel
obvious this year.  Vesco Noninski (who sounds as he wants to
visit Rome, Georgia) and several others shared their
perspectives. 

   In summary, there were more videos, data, material science,
theories, magazines, papers, conversations, and people sharing
thoughts and business on cold fusion than sci.physics.fusion's
resident TB-skeptics could probably shake their sticks at, even
with a few reinforcements from CERN and DOE.

          -  [just kidding,  ;-)X     hot and cold fusioneers
should get along and help each other with the important tasks
involved]

    Although there were more purported over-unity devices
discussed than this electrophysicist could bear (leading to the
premature exit), the content of both the cold fusion portion and
the interest that the crowd maintained were quite good, thereby
propelling another ten score alumni and scientists one full
quantum ahead.  

         - Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)





cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.21 / michael moroney /  Re: ideas & copyrights
     
Originally-From: moroney@iii1.iii.net (michael moroney)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: ideas & copyrights
Date: 21 Jan 1995 22:49:44 -0500
Organization: intuitive information, inc.

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

>In article <9501172135.ab28708@auntie.bbcnc.org.uk>
>m.kenward@bbcnc.org.uk (Michael Kenward) writes:

>> Please stop spouting this rubbish. I am a science writer. Have been for 25
>> years. Before that I was a fusion researcher. If I want to write about
>> theories of cold fusion, I am free to do so without mentioning anyone's name. 

>  Wrong Mr. Kenward. You do not realize how strong the copyright laws
>are. Most people take a nonchalance attitude towards them. The law is
>very strong and only when there is alot of money or fame riding on a
>circumstance is the law called into court. Your view of the law sounds
>too wishy washy.

Apparently you don't understand copyrights.  You can't copyright an idea,
you can only copyright a work like a book or article or musical work
or something.  Same with patents, you can patent a device or process.
Because ideas cannot be copyrighted or patented, corporations have to
protect their valuable ideas by trade secrets.

> Let me give you some examples.
>  1) photocopies which are distributed in a classroom.

The original itself is a work that can be copyrighted.

>  2) Tesla vs Marconi for the credit of the radio.

Sounds like a patent dispute.

>  3) Copyrights of songs are very strong.

The musical score or particular performance is what's copyrighted.

>  4) Software is copyrightable.

The program itself is copyrighted.  The algorithm it's based on isn't.
(it could be patented as a process though)

>should you Mr. Kenward write about this idea without giving Archimedes
>Plutonium credit for it since I have copyrighted it and patent pending.
>Then, you Mr. Kenward have opened yourself for a legal copyright suit.

Only if you could prove he copied a copyrighted work of yours beyond that
allowed by the "free use" provision, as only the work is protected, not the
idea.  Such is if he published one of your books without your permission.

>But, the only thing perhaps preventing me from going after you Mr.
>Kenward should you not give me credit, is that you are a small fry not
>worth the legal costs. However, NATURE, NEW SCIENTIST, they are not
>small fries and are well worth the legal court costs.

Of course I have this strange feeling you'll never have to worry about
people using your ideas without (or even with) your permission.

-Mike
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmoroney cudfnmichael cudlnmoroney cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.21 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Water heater sales
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Water heater sales
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 95 21:03:10 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

William Rowe <browe@netcom.com> writes:
 
>Surely, you aren't suggesting a gas or oil burner (chemical sources of heat)
>produce more heat (excess heat) than can be accounted for by chemical means. If
>gas or oil burners are more efficient thant the GG, it seems clear the GG cannot
>be producing more heat than can be accounted for by chemistry. Also, oil and gas
>burners are well known to be less than 100% efficient. If they are more
>efficient than the GG, how can the GG be claimed to have more than 100%
>efficiency?
 
Ummm. . . You are really confused here. We are talking apples and oranges, we
(you, actually) are comparing many disparate things. I really do not have
time to explain everything just now, I think maybe you should consult a
textbook on power generation or thermodynamics. Let me just clarify a few
points:
 
The GG produces more energy in the form of heat than you input in the form
of electricity.
 
Unfortunatly, it takes a terrific amount of fuel to deliver that electricity.
By the time the electricity reaches your coffeepot / lightbulb / computer / GG,
two thirds of the energy have been lost. Most of the losses are at the
generator plant; others are in transmission (high tension power lines).
 
So, overall, the GG takes more fuel than a gas or oil burning furnace. It takes
much less than a conventional electric furnace, but more than a gas furnace.
An electric furnace is terrible way to heat anything! It is a waste of money.
However, there are special situations and applications where you must use
electricity, so there is a limited, specialized market for these heaters.
 
There are no gas or oil burners that exceed the limits of chemistry. On the
other hand, some fuels deliver a lot more energy than others. The BTU content
of coal varies quite a bit, depending on impurities in the coal.
 
The present models of the GG are better than electricity but not as good as
oil. However, upcoming models (some from other sources than Griggs) will
be cheaper than oil or gas. A test model has sustained 300% excess for
weeks at a time. Three hundred percent, more or less, is what you need for
the GG to become competative with oil. Four hundred percent would make it
cheaper than oil -- or anything else.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Jan 23 04:37:04 EST 1995
------------------------------
