1995.01.31 /  prasad /  HF shorting again, huh? Re: MRA independently tested
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: HF shorting again, huh? Re: MRA independently tested
Date: 31 Jan 1995 13:21:42 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <nagleD35C6t.Ksy@netcom.com>,
nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes:
|> billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty) writes:
|> 
|> >As usual, the inventor's response to the report is on my WWW and ftp
|> >pages, under UPDATE16 I believe.  The MRA history seems like a "cold
|> >fusion"  history in miniature,and the negative MRA reports are being
|> >received in just the same way. 
|> 
|>       I've read both.  The "inventor's response" complains about
|> a resistor in the primary circuit that isn't mentioned in the 
|> evaluation.  On the other hand, the evaluators put a huge filter

Ah ha!! Here we go again!

Remember the NBS tested the *electrical* output of the Newman *motor*...
[to the naive(!): motors consume electricity. generators produce it.
and no, they did not attach a mechanical prime mover to reverse operate
it as a generator.]

And how did the NBS do that?  They put an extra resistor somewhere and
proceeded to measure electrical parameters across it.



|> ...
|>       However, all the tools are now in place to resolve this thing.
|> This is a purely electrical system and straightforward to measure.

And not at all straightforward without tacit assumptions.  For example,
how would one estimate the ENERGY in a back-emf spike?   Unless someone
takes the trouble of extensive computations of the collapsing field in
surrounding space and magnetic media, the only way is to *assume* the
conservation of energy.  And even if one chooses a field approach, just
to make sure, measuring the field distributions in the neighboring media
to feed the computations would be a lot more involved and tricky than
dealing with the Griggs pump, in which the turbulence (cavitation if you
must) is quite contained by the pump casing.

It is very easy to work with electricity, but only so long as one is
well within the predictability range.  For example, our workstations
processors have non-zero bit error rates due to noise, but we can work
in sanity only because the technology has been evolved over several
decades to reduce the noise problems (but never quite eliminate them).

In the MRA kind of claims, one is not dealing with an established
stable situation.  The claim is precisely that the stability we become
used to is inapplicable.  In such cases, EM becomes far more difficult
to deal with than fluid mechanics.  [the combination gives the even
more difficult field of MHD.]

Not surprisingly, the NBS had shorted the high frequency spikes (which
were clearly associated with the claimed excess energy) in their
"testing" of the Newman motor.  So Puthoff and Little resorted to the
same trick to restore status quo...

Looks like Puthoff and Little felt mainstream physics needed the help
of props and lies to survive.  Sad, they underestimate it so...

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.31 /  prasad /  Griggs Questions.  was Re: Thanks to Jed ...
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs Questions.  was Re: Thanks to Jed ...
Date: 31 Jan 1995 13:44:13 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <JA0b6tQ.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
|>  
|> I wish that you people who have gathered to support Tom's trip would now
|> band together to ask him nicely to *measure the input power*. Without a
|> doubt, that remains the weakest link in the experiment. It is easy to
|> ...
|> disappointed and sincerly chagrined to hear that Tom will not bring
|> instruments to independently verify this. I am glad I did not chip in to
|> ...
|> confirming, but the input power is the key parameter that wants checking.

Jed, why not ask him "nicely" yourself?!  All it takes to draw Tom's attention
is to change the Subject to "Griggs Questions".

Tom, here's Jed admitting a weak link, so could you possibly think of some
means of verification?

[admit to being something of a cad here, merely passing on one person's
question to another person's shoulder.  but then, this cad runs on a not
infallible fpu...;)]
-- 
// email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com.
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.31 /  prasad /  Re: Errata, and also Re: Brief Report, MIT
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Errata, and also Re: Brief Report, MIT
Date: 31 Jan 1995 14:13:06 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <3gkd74$mkk@sundog.tiac.net>, conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes:
|> prasad (c1prasad@watson.ibm.com) wrote:
|> : Re: my report, posted a couple of days ago.
|> 
|> So, based on the reports by prasad and others (including Gene) here, I'd 
|> conclude that the overall message of the MIT CF Conference to be:
|> 
|> "Well guys, we have three engines out, and one smoking, but don't bail
|> out yet!"

I don't know what you mean by "out", Harry, but if you mean like "busted",
NOPE, that precisely what the conclusion was NOT.  That might be *your*
conclusion from my report, though I fail to see how.

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.31 / John Cobb /  Re: Gammas & Lightning
     
Originally-From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Gammas & Lightning
Date: 31 Jan 1995 09:28:57 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <WAF2PCB543100703@brbbs.brbbs.com>,
MARSHALL DUDLEY <mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com> wrote:
>In today's Knoxville New Sentinel there is a fairly large article on "New Class
>of lightning found above clouds".  Although I don't put much faith in the
>scientific accuracy of the general news media, there were a couple of things
>that caught my eye.  Apparently about 40 papers on this phenomenia were
>presented at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union.
>
>The article claims that there are "gamma-ray bursts of extraordinary intensity
>coming from thunderheads".  I question the accuracy of this report.  Do not
>gamma rays require energies far in excess of the voltages found in lightning
>storms?  If so, then would not gammas indicate that there are some nuclear
>processes going on that should not be, such as fusion?
>
>I am interested in hearing any additional information on this.
>

There was an invited talk at the last APS plasma physics mtg. in
Minneapolis last November ( I didn't attend AGU this year :< ).

It was given by D. D. Sentman from Univ. Alaska, Fairbanks.

What I gleaned from it was that high cloud tops on meso-scale storms
could go high enough and generate enough static potential to
"punch through" the upper atmosphere and have an electrical discharge from
the cloud-top to the ionosphere (which is conductive). These were not
traditional thunderbolts with big large single strikes but had more of
a "spray" pattern and lasted a very short time (or at least started
quickly). In one of the videos, the time from nothing to long jets from
cloud-top to ionosphere was less than a signle frame on their high speed
cameras. There were two kinds of flahses, one red and one blue. They were
given names like "srites". They noted that they tended to come from the
parts of storm fronts where the clouds were charged oppositely from normal
cloud charging (I'll note hazard a guess on the sign b/c my brains had 
parity errors recently). They had nice stills and movies and even ELF/VLF
audio. You could here the events on the radio signals very distinctly
when the pictures were there to synchronize it for you. [sprites, ELF ---
boy wait til some proxmire wanna-be here's about this :> ]

I don't recall any mention at the time about harder radiation than visible
and UV, but high static voltages are certainly possible and the first
discharge particles do seem to travel far fast, so maybe they could generate
some pretty hard radiation --- hmmm, sounds intriguing.

The general reception of the audience was that they were pretty interesting.
Quite a few people were talking about it during the cofee break. Of course,
everyone always likes pretty pictures, but there seems to be some neat
stuff there also. Apparently, they were first discovered as an almost
fortuitous by product of a campaign that was studying another effect, but
that it has generated enough interest that significant effort was being
expended to study them in their own right. So maybe the AGU mtg. had some
newer results and data from some other missions. Would anybody who was there
be willing to comment?

regards,

-john .w cobb

-- 
John W. Cobb	16% of all Perot voters believe that if Dolphins
                are so smart, they should be able to get out of 
		those nets.  --Michael Moore, TV Nation

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.31 /  ProFusion /  To prasad
     
Originally-From: profusion@aol.com (ProFusion)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: To prasad
Date: 31 Jan 1995 12:28:38 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Dear prasad---

   I've been trying to contact you but email bounces like a superball.
Could you give me a buzz at ProFusion@aol.com?

Thanks

Vic
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenprofusion cudlnProFusion cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.31 / Matthew Lowry /  Re: Warming to hot fusion
     
Originally-From: mlowry@gpu2.srv.ualberta.ca (Matthew Lowry)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Warming to hot fusion
Date: 31 Jan 1995 17:58:58 GMT
Organization: University of Alberta

Michael Kenward (m.kenward@bbcnc.org.uk) wrote:
S Sp let me add my name to the demand by Teresa E Tutt for a
: list dedicated to real fusion.

I'm not sure whether cold fusion occurs or not but I would also like to 
be added to a list dedicated to hot fusion.

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenmlowry cudfnMatthew cudlnLowry cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.31 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  True Blue Light
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: True Blue Light
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 11:18 -0500 (EST)

blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes:
 
-> (1)The steam is contaminated by something such as microscopic bits of alumin
->
-> (2)The droplet size differs from that for the steam from conventional source
 
I think I covered both of the possibilities already although in an indirect
sense.  But before spending a lot of time analysing what if's, I think it would
be worthwhile to characterise whether this blue tint is a emission, refraction,
scattering, absorption, UV conversion or reflection.  This should be quite easy
with a direct light source, and black and white backdrops.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.31 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Griggs questions
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs questions
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 11:25 -0500 (EST)

blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes:
 
-> If we pull in one new piece of information, namely that the steam looks
-> different, I think we have an indication that the steam from the Griggs devi
-> is likely not equivalent to steam from a conventional boiler.  Could it
-> be that the difference works in favor of the Griggs device in the particular
-> applications where the GG is being successfully employed?
 
That is a possibility, and one of the reasons I am so interested in the Blue
phenominia (the color not you).  I love solving mysteries, and that is why I
find the GG device so appealing.  Perhaps something is happening to the water
molecules to change them, so that they now take less energy to form steam.
That is only one possibility, but would explain the GG being able to develop
steam with less energy than expected, and might explain the steam table
non-linearities I had referred to earlier.  However, it would not explain
apparently o/u operation in the hot water mode unless it also changed the
specific heat of water as well.  (Yes Jed, I know that would mean that 1
calorie would NOT raise 1 pound of water 1 degree).
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.31 / William Beaty /  Tiny tabletop Hydrosonic Pump
     
Originally-From: billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tiny tabletop Hydrosonic Pump
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 20:32:14 GMT
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever

A local inventor in Seattle is working with prototypes of water heater
devices much like the Griggs' device, only they are constructed from glued
plastic stacks, and are powered from a 1/3HP induction motor.  They are
based on the work done by Schaffer, and by a company called Aquatech.
His rotors have slightly spiraled, very deep holes which reach almost
to the central shaft.

He has not done energy throughput measurements, but has instead been 
optimizing the water heating rates through rotor redesign.

However, he HAS reported an interesting ocurrence.  At one time when
the device was turned on, the motor speed (as measured by ear) began
continuously increasing, and before he had a chance to disconnect power,
the rotor contacted the casing and had a frictional meltdown event.

If the source of energy in the Schaffer/Perkins/Griggs device is 
appearing as mechanical work which aids the turbine rotation, rather
than as excess heat, then it's possible that he saw an instance where
the force became large enough to bring the rotor speed higher than the
somewhat-synchronous speed of the motor.

He also reports that the rotors regularly unscrew themselves from the
metal motor shaft, even though the frictional forces should be in
a direction which tightens the connection.

The main point of this message is to point out that multi-HP motorized
steel machinery might not be required.  Even a quick-and-dirty plastic
version displays anomalous behavior.  Does it produce anomalous heat?  No 
one has yet tested for this.  Why not build one and see? 




-- 
....................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:
cuddy31 cudenbillb cudfnWilliam cudlnBeaty cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.01 / Jorge Stolfi /  Re: Ian's stored heat hypothesis
     
Originally-From: stolfi@stack.dcc.unicamp.br (Jorge Stolfi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ian's stored heat hypothesis
Date: 1 Feb 1995 00:39:06 GMT
Organization: DCC - UNICAMP - Campinas, SP, Brazil


    > [John Logajan:] Assuming a 12 inch aluminum rotor of width 4
    > inches, and assuming that the thermal mass of the shell is on
    > the same order of magnitude, and given about a one liter volume
    > of water in the spaces, I roughly estimate that there is about a
    > 26kJ/degreeF heat energy storage capacity in the Griggs unit
    > proper.

Well, those are not the numbers I got:

    > [Jed:] The GG is a cylinder about 2 feet in diameter and one
    > foot in length.
    
So, your estimate may be off by a factor of 5 or so.  By my
computations, the thermal capacity is somewhat more than 100 kJ/degF,
or about 3 kWh per 100 degF.  (All these numbers were posted
here many times, and Jed himself never contested them.)

Jed's published data never showed more than 2.2 kWh of "excess heat"
per run.  To account for that, we need only a drop of 70 degF
in the average pump temperature.

Incidentally, by Jed's own data, the water/steam coming out of the
machine contained less heat per mass in the two "successful" tests
than in the "control" test.  I admit that is not a conclusive proof
that the pump cools down after going into the "heat producing" regime,
but it certainly consistent with it.

    > An earlier posting by Mallove notes a steam temp in one series
    > of tests at about 320F (minus 110F input water temp) giving a
    > 210F delta.  Taking that as the best guess temperature of the
    > bulk of the Griggs unit gives a stored energy at that
    > temperature of about 5.5MJ.

Wait, "stored heat" is a flaw that's specific to Jed's experiment.
Although stored heat is a non-trivial problem for the "steam table"
experiments the latter have much more serious flaws.

But, just for the fun of it, let's look at Gene's results
from the viewpoint of the "stored heat" theory:

    > Mallove gives data a 14 minutes of data from start up.
    
Note that 14 minutes is even less than Jed's measurement time (20-30
minutes).

    > The COP is 0.8 for the first two minutes and approx 1.2 for the
    > next 12 minutes, no cooling trend in sight.

First, how do you know there was no cooling?  Gene did NOT report the
temperature, only the computed COP = (heat out)/(power in).  So you
cannot tell which variable did what.

Second, Gene only measured the output steam temperature, not the
average rotor/casing temperature---which is what matters for the heat
storage hypothesis. (Indeed, by playing with the parameters one can
easily get the steam temperature to *increase* while the pump as a
whole is cooling off.  Remeber the capacitors?)

Jed said that the pump draws 4 kW when dry. Some fraction of that load
must be due to friction at the bearings.  A significant fraction of
that heat must be flowing into the pump through the axle.  Hence, the
bulk of the rotor could plausibly get a lot hotter than the
steam/water in the gap.

Finally, note that the COP increased 50% in less than one minute.
How could that happen?  The thermal inertia of the pump cannot possibly
allow the output temperature to drop that fast; and anyway the 
heat contents of saturated steam is almost independent of its temperature.
The input temperature can't have changed that much, either.
The output flow rate was apparently taken to be equal to the input 
flow rate, hence constant.  So, the only variable that 
could have changed that fast is the input power.

So here we have again the same pattern we had in Jed's experiment:
after an unspecified "warmup" period, the input power drops suddenly
by 33%.  Yet machine keeps producing steam/water at about the
same temperature---so the computed COP increases by 50%, and 
remains so for the next 10-20 minutes.  

Should I be impressed?

If that is not enough, consider this.  In his sample COP computation
Gene implicitly assumes that the output flow is pure steam.  However,
it is not clear whether this was the case.  From the pump's
description, and from Jed's reports, the output flow can be made to
swing from pure steam to pure water by modest changes in the valve
settings, input flow rate, and (presumably) the flow pattern inside
the machine.

Why does that matter? Well, at the same temperature and pressure, the
heat contents of liquid water is only a small fraction of that of
steam.  So, if the output flow was, say, 20% liquid water, then Gene's
formulas would falsely give a COP of about 1.2.

Jed once referred cryptically to his barrel experiments as avoiding
the "wet steam/dry steam issue".  Looking at the numbers in the
steam tables (such as those in the CRC Handbook), I think
I can guess what that issue is about.

--stolfi

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Stolfi | http://www.dcc.unicamp.br/~stolfi | stolfi@dcc.unicamp.br 
Computer Science Dept. (DCC-IMECC)               | Tel +55 (192) 39-8442
Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)      |     +55 (192) 39-3115 
Campinas, SP -- Brazil                           | Fax +55 (192) 39-7470
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not copy this .signature virus into your .signature file!
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.31 /   /  Very curious non-scientest
     
Originally-From: corb4m@aol.com (CORB4M)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Very curious non-scientest
Date: 31 Jan 1995 20:41:47 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I recently heard some discussion that cold fusion is alive, working, and
actually producing more out than is put in. From looking at the internet,
there seems to be a lot of support that this is true. I am a non technical
person with an avid curiosity about this subject. Is it real, does it work
and will the public see working "machines" in the near future. 
Your thoughts and reply would certianly be appreciated.
Thanks, MikeC.
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudencorb4m cudln cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.01 / Harry Conover /  Re: Real Fusion
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Real Fusion
Date: 1 Feb 1995 14:02:43 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Oh Alex, how delightfully politically correct you must be feeling today!

Unfortunately, the sad thing about this is that Political Correctness is 
proving itself to a more pernicious influence than chauvinism.

Damn, I wish I could take myself as seriously as some of you apparently 
do, however, experience tends to teach us the value of both humility and 
humor.

						Harry C.

ps.  Question: "What do you say to an athlete dressed in a three-piece suit?"
     Answer:   "How do you plead?"

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
alexs@cyberquest.com wrote: : Snip...
: >  Get a life babe, cause you only live once!
: >  
: >  
: >                                        Harry C.
: >  
: >>>>
: And now you see, everybody, why there are so few
: women in science and engineering.  Fatheads like
: this, who are oh so condescending, patronizing and
: sexist, not to mention rude, are more responsible
: than lack of funding for the retarded progress
: being made in the field.

: So bite off, dickhead.  The sooner you're gone,
: the sooner fresh minds can move beyond what your
: obviously limited brain can imagine.

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.01 /  alexs@cyberque /  Re: Real Fusion
     
Originally-From: alexs@cyberquest.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Real Fusion
Date: 1 Feb 1995 06:35:47 GMT
Organization: CyberQuest BBS

Snip...
>  Get a life babe, cause you only live once!
>  
>  
>                                        Harry C.
>  
>>>>
And now you see, everybody, why there are so few
women in science and engineering.  Fatheads like
this, who are oh so condescending, patronizing and
sexist, not to mention rude, are more responsible
than lack of funding for the retarded progress
being made in the field.

So bite off, dickhead.  The sooner you're gone,
the sooner fresh minds can move beyond what your
obviously limited brain can imagine.

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenalexs cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.01 /  hatcher@msupa. /  Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph
sics.accelerators
Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
Date: 1 Feb 1995 06:49:46 GMT
Organization: MSU Dept. of Physics & Astronomy

In article <3gmg80$la2@borg.svpal.org>, lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) writes:
>,<3g6oc0$8m8@borg.svpal.org> <3g8s76$jv0@msunews.cl.msu.edu>:
>>Robert W. Hatcher  (hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu) Writes:
>> (snip)
>> And then down in the lower right corner you'd have seen 3 pictures
>> of events taken when our "test team" was active.  These were charged 
>> particles brought around the berm and into the detector (during well
>> defined time periods, so that can't be the source of the "events")
>
>Say what?  How does that work?  I have seen aerial views of the Fermilab 
>detector buildings, and yes I always wondered what that mysterious pipe 
>was hiding behind the berm!  Are you telling me that that is used to 
>bring charged particles around the berm?  The pipe goes into a building 
>that is not at the end of the berm???

Huh?  What "pipe"....mighty odd aerial photos you must have?  Most (if I
remember right) of the test beam skirts the edge of the berm, but is 
enclosed in cement buildings.  Yes, there are parts that are (or more
correctly, were) simply a large hollow pipe.  Too bad ASCII doesn't
lend itself to drawing.  

            +--------decay pipe--------+--berm------+ 
 ---protons--->>>tgt---secondaries--->>>>dump - - - | - nu - -> detector
     \      +--------------------------+------------+           /
      \                                                        /
       \->>>-testbeam target----------pi/K/proton/mu----------/

So, for calibration reasons we bring a charged particle beam into the
detector (at a 53mrad angle).  Just so you don't get any ideas...there
is NO way that where confusing events from the two sources:  there are
*seconds* between the fast extraction (the neutrino pulses are generated
by a fast extraction of order 10^12 protons in order 10msec) and the
slow spill (order 10^11 protons extracted over 10-15 seconds).  In fact
the extraction methods are quite different.  And there is no way that
neutrals could make the bends in the test beam.  And for safety reasons
(radiation) the test beam magnets are *OFF* outside of the slow spill
time gate.
                                                   
>> (snip)
>> Each of those pulses had order 10^12-13 neutrinos in them......
>
>That's not as much ( sun's theoretical 6.6 x 10^10 neutrinos/ cm^2/sec) 
>as theory would have us believe comes from the sun in a continuos flux!   

Ah, but you're forgetting the orders in magnitude difference in the
energies....and since the total cross section rises linearly with energy
those numbers are quite sufficient to produce a acceptable interaction
rate in the detector.  The accelerator based neutrinos range in energy
10 GeV to 600 GeV (peak flux*E at 150 GeV)....now compare these energies
to those of the 6.6*10^10 * (300 cm)^2 = 7*10^15 that would come in
the detector from the solar flux:

        flux*area  Energy       
  say 5*10^12 * 150,000 MeV * 3pulses/minute = 2.25 * 10^18 beam
  vs  7*10^15 *      10 MeV * 60 sec/minute  = 3    * 10^19 solar

So, okay, maybe one or two of those random little spots we call noise
is due to a solar neutrino (though remember our pulse gate is only
order 10msec).  Do you have any idea how small a deposition 10 MeV
is?  We aren't set up to "see" things that small....

>Integrate the pulses of  theoretical flux from the accelerator and see 
>how it (theoretically) would compare.

Actually, why should I care what the solar flux is ... our detector didn't 
trigger on anything that deposited less than the equivalent of roughly 10
GeV in the detector.  I say "equivalent" since we have what is called a 
"sampling calorimeter":  this consists of active regions where we measure the 
ionization (energy deposition) and passive target/absorber material to
contain the showers to a reasonable size.

>You keep talking about 1000 meters of berm, but what about beam 
>divergence?  That's a small target building.  What would the theoretical 
>flux density be at the detector?

We account for beam divergence....it was designed (by one of our
collaborators who designed the magnet train) to be quite small.  And
when we compare the modelled (predicted) flux as a function of distance
from the beam center (which due to the curvature of the earth and the
necessity of optimizing for 3 different detectors, wasn't the center
of our detector) we get excellent agreement.  The quadrupole triplet
(as in lenses, since the actual train had *four* quads) was designed 
to give point (target) to parallel rays for the mid-range energy
secondaries.  Others, of course, suffered divergences...but not crippling
ones.  This is all accounted for in the (computer) model of the beamline
(TURTLE for those who care).  And yes, for the wideband beam there is
a non-trivial shape to the predicted flux arising from many sources.
And guess what?...the measured energy distribution (E_nu=E_shower+E_mu)
of the charged current events matches that of the predicted flux
distribution * E_nu  convoluted with the detector resolutions.  Well,
maybe, to be honest, the K/pi ratio of the secondaries had to be 
tweaked by ~5% (Not too bad considering it came from extrapolating a 
400 GeV measurement up to 800 GeV).

>Regards: Tom. 

-robert
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenhatcher cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.31 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Questions for the Griggs visit .....
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Questions for the Griggs visit .....
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 14:47 -0500 (EST)

conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes:
 
-> So, again, I must ask:  Did you take Physics 101 lab, or Atomic Physics lab?
-> Perhaps I should dig out my aged lecture notes and quote them. :-)
-> ....And...thousands cry... "Oh God, no, not that!  That's even worse than
-> your lectures on adaptive and Kalman Filters!!!"
 
Yes, I had several years of physics and atomic physics in college.  I spent the
last 20 years up to 1992 working as a nuclear systems design engineer, and I
have done loads of error analysis on the machines I have designed, both from
the standpoint of the electronics (ie. with a 99.9 percent certainty what
voltage must the transistor be rated to make sure it doesn't blow) as well as
the computed errors of the nuclear counting machines themselves which have to
include the deviations (or accuracy if you like) of the timebase, sources,
barometric pressure, temperature, and of course the counting statistics of
the sample and a host of other "deviations".
 
What does an accuracy of 5% mean for a meter?  Is that the expected error,
maximum error (say 3 std. deviations), average error, one sigma error, 2 sigma
error or something else?  First you have to find out just what they mean by
that error, then handle it appropriately.  All these can usually be reduced to
a standard deviation (they approximate a bell curve), and once you do so you
use standard statistics to derive the errors at whatever confidence level you
want. I think for the GG device a 99.9% confidence should be a good starting
point, as that is only 3 standard deviations.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.31 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: New Griggs theory
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: New Griggs theory
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 14:58 -0500 (EST)

conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes:
 
-> You're overlooking the 5th possibility, and by far the most the most likely,
-> that the blue coloration is simply an artifact resulting from bad photograph
 
That was discussed.  Jed indicated it is visually apparent to the unaided eye
sometimes. I don't know myself as I have not seen the device myself, that is
why I am making suggestions of things to check.
 
-> Sheesh!  How is it that I don't find you people with these strange
-> analytical concepts posting in alt.alien.research or alt.kirlean(sp?).
-> photography?   :-)
 
What strange concepts?  I think scattering, reflection, absorption, uv
conversion, refraction and diffraction are pretty mainstream concepts.  Those
are the possibilities I proposed.  As far as bad photography, the UV conversion
would be a likely source if a xenon flash was used.
 
As far as Kirlean photography is concerned, are you implying some extremely
high voltages are involved?  That is what Kirlean photography requires.  That
seems much more off-beat than anything anyone else has proposed.
 
                                                        Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.31 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Gammas & Lightning
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Gammas & Lightning
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 16:48 -0500 (EST)

jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes:
 
-> Nah.  Storm clouds can easily generate potentials of millions of volts.
-> A MeV photon is a gamma ray, right?  There are *some* cosmic rays and
-> gammas that are beyond earthly mechanisms, but certainly not all.
 
True, but it is hard to see how an electron could gain that kind of energy in
the mean free path of air, even if the cloud is at 10 Million volts.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.01 / Mark Fernee /  Re: Real Fusion
     
Originally-From: fernee@physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Real Fusion
Date: 1 Feb 1995 07:44:56 GMT
Organization: University of Queensland

Harry H Conover (conover@max.tiac.net) wrote:
: Teresa E. Tutt (tuttt@cii3130-22.its.rpi.edu) wrote:
: : I wonder if it would be possible for the cold fusion people
to form their own newsgroup (i.e. sci.physics.coldfusion) and therefore
keep this newsgroup limited to discussions of more serious fusion
topics (such as Tokamaks, ICF, D-He3 vs D-T, and relate
: d issues). I've hit the 'global kill' so many times this session
that my finger's about to fall off. As an engineering physics student
& research intern at LLNL, I'm more interested in hearing about
TFTR, NOVA, DIII-D, UR direct-drive, ITER, & NIF; rather
:  than the pseudo-scientific crap I have to wade through on this newsgroup now.


: Hello.   Well, pardon me!

: Teresa, many of us have already paid our dues, as you have yet do to do,
: and so my dear, I have little sympathy for either your blistered digit or 
: your misplaced, pretentious pomposity.

: Some of us here are a bit beyond the student status in life, so 
: please pardon us if we indulge ourselves in a bit of frivolity.

: Perhaps your future  contributions to physics would be enhanced by emulating 
: some of the giants in our science, like Feynman, by learning to 'hang 
: loose' at least a little bit.

: Being a 'tight ass' is not a prerequite, nor even an asset, in pursuing 
: scientific goals.

: Get a life babe, cause you only live once!


:                                       Harry C.

I think Harry's reply was completely uncalled for. It smacks of both sexism
and hubris.

What was that story about the pot and the kettle?

Mark.

PS: Thank God education is free in Australia so we don't have to pay any "dues".


cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenfernee cudfnMark cudlnFernee cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.31 / George Perry /  Re: Fusion vs Fission
     
Originally-From: geoperry@crl.com (George JP Perry)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion vs Fission
Date: 31 Jan 1995 15:48:27 -0800
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access	(415) 705-6060  [Login: guest]

I can neither demonstrate desktop fusion, nor prove it impossible. 

I will, though, criticise arguments by historical analogy.  Fission 
became a practical (if filthy dirty) reality in half a decade, driven by 
America's War-Machine.  Likewise, rocketry -- which spent years as a 
curiosity -- was another "overnight sensation", driven by... ?waddya' 
know... *Germany's* War-Machine...

"War... it brings good things to life." - Dr. Juggler Vain, pH7



Matt Kennel (mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu) wrote:
: This just occured to me.  The P&F cold story broke in what, 1989?
: It's now 1995.

: Go back in time 50 years.  In '39 Hahn's weird test tube experiment was just
: explained by Lise Meitner.

: In January '45 Hanford and Oak Ridge were in production and the most
: immense technological endeavor of the century was reaching its climax.

: I wonder what Fermi would have thought about "cold fusion".


: --
: -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:
cuddy31 cudengeoperry cudfnGeorge cudlnPerry cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.31 / James Crotinger /  Re: Moderated group, second (third) thoughts
     
Originally-From: jac@gandalf.llnl.gov (James Crotinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Moderated group, second (third) thoughts
Date: 31 Jan 1995 23:47:56 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, NCD


> I propose we call the new group sci.physics.fusion.research

  I guess that depends on the stated charter of the group.  If this
group is primarily for the discussion of cold fusion research, then
it should be named appropriately (e.g. s.p.coldfusion). I'd personally
rather see it split as s.p.fusion.{cold,magnetic,inertial}, or
something like that.

  Jim
-- 
 ------------------------------------------------/\--------------------------
James A. Crotinger     Lawrence Livermore N'Lab // \ The above views are mine
jac@moonshine.llnl.gov P.O. Box 808;  L-630 \\ //---\  and are not neces-
(510) 422-0259         Livermore CA  94550   \\/Amiga\  sarily those of LLNL.
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenjac cudfnJames cudlnCrotinger cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.31 / James Crotinger /  Re: Real Fusion
     
Originally-From: jac@gandalf.llnl.gov (James Crotinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Real Fusion
Date: 31 Jan 1995 23:57:03 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, NCD

In article <KCKLUGE.95Jan27230806@krusty.eecs.umich.edu> kckluge@krusty.
ecs.umich.edu (Karl Kluge) writes:
>   Since this newsgroup was specifically created for the discussion of
>   cold fusion, any fission of the newsgroup should work the other way
>   round. If you want a separate group for hot fusion topics only, set
>   up a RFD/CFV.

  Although perhaps historically correct, this claim seems silly on the
face of it. The group's name implies that it is a place to discuss the
physics of fusion (and being an unmoderated group, it's name is really
all that matters at this point). Most physicists (note "physics" in
the group name) would take that to mean "hot fusion". The only
rational thing to do is to split the group in to

   sci.physics.fusion.{cold,magnetic,inertial}

or something like that.

  Why the original creators of the group didn't call it s.p.coldfusion
is completely beyond me.

  Jim

-- 
 ------------------------------------------------/\--------------------------
James A. Crotinger     Lawrence Livermore N'Lab // \ The above views are mine
jac@moonshine.llnl.gov P.O. Box 808;  L-630 \\ //---\  and are not neces-
(510) 422-0259         Livermore CA  94550   \\/Amiga\  sarily those of LLNL.
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenjac cudfnJames cudlnCrotinger cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.01 / James Crotinger /  Re: Moderated group, candidate's statement
     
Originally-From: jac@gandalf.llnl.gov (James Crotinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Moderated group, candidate's statement
Date: 01 Feb 1995 00:07:28 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, NCD


  I have no problem with having a moderated group or groups, but the
cold and hot fusion sides should be separate and their names should reflect
their purposes. There is just too much traffic on the cold fusion side
for non-cold-fusion folks to be expected to sort through it. Furthermore,
there appears to be no connection between the physics of "hot fusion"
and the physics of "cold fusion", with many posters arguing that the
latter may not be "fusion" at all. Thus I see no benefit to having a 
single forum for the discussion of both topics. I would think that
separate groups, with appropriate names, would result in increased
dialog in both groups. 

  Jim
-- 
 ------------------------------------------------/\--------------------------
James A. Crotinger     Lawrence Livermore N'Lab // \ The above views are mine
jac@moonshine.llnl.gov P.O. Box 808;  L-630 \\ //---\  and are not neces-
(510) 422-0259         Livermore CA  94550   \\/Amiga\  sarily those of LLNL.
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudenjac cudfnJames cudlnCrotinger cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.31 / Rich Hawryluk /  TFTR Update January 31, 1995
     
Originally-From: rhawryluk@pppl.gov (Rich Hawryluk)
Newsgroups: pppl.tftr.news,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TFTR Update January 31, 1995
Date: 31 Jan 1995 21:11:39 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

Status  (January 31, 1995)

Operations were resumed on Tuesday, January 3, 1995 after the completion of
an extended maintenance/holiday period which began on December 9, 1994.  All
systems were returned to operational status during the first shift and
the week was devoted to discharge target development with neutral beam
injection and ICRF.

An ICRF D-T experiment  was carried out on Monday Jan. 9th  to
study ICRF-induced changes in the rate of alpha particle loss as a function
of toroidal field current.  There were 8 DT shots.  The ICRF-induced loss
was seen in three out of the four toroidal field cases.

Experiments on mode conversion current drive produced an estimated 100 -
150 kA of noninductively driven current with 2-2.5 MW of applied ICRF
power.  These experiments were performed with a He3-He4 ohmic target
plasma.

The week of Jan. 16th was scheduled as an ICRF run week with some
operations in advanced tokamak regime.   Up to 4 MW of power was coupled
into the plasma at 90 and 270 degree phasings.  A comparison of the plasma
loop voltage with tritium injection during mode conversion current drive
indicates non inductively driven currents on the order of 100 kA were
obtained in mode conversion current drive experiments.  Further analysis of
these experiments is on-going.

Early in the run, H-minority resonance heating was performed in an attempt
to condition the outboard limiters.  Toroidal field currents of 48, 42, and
38 kA were utilized.  The role of TAE instabilities in expelling fast ions
is being further investigated.

A number of D-3He shots during ICRF mode conversion experiments showed
evidence of additional loss of high energy fusion products.  These were
with 180 degree phasing of the antenna.  Two DT shots were taken, also with
180 degree phasing in an ICRF mode conversion experiment, but the loss
appeared to be only normal first orbit loss.  These results are being
analyzed further.

Experiments were started that are aimed at producing a q profile with a
significant region of negative magnetic shear in the plasma core and study
its effects on the local transport.  After conditioning at R=2.60 m, a puff
of helium gas at t= 0.25 seconds helped to control the MHD activity.  After
this, the neutral beam start timing was varied from 2.0, 1.5, to 1.1
seconds.  As the start of neutral beam injection was moved earlier in the
pulse, q(0) rose to 1.8 from 1.4.  Motivated by this success, the startup
was modified to inject as early as 0.6 seconds.  With NBI starting at 1.0
or 0.6 seconds, q(0) was ~2.3 and ~2.5 respectively.  The addition of an Ip
ramp to increase the plasma current from 1.0 -> 1.8 MA resulted in
considerable MHD activity which caused a minor disruption.  Nonetheless,
this startup scenario looks attractive for reversed shear, but needs
further work on ramping the current up to 1.5-2.0 MA.



On Tuesday, 24-Jan-1995 experiments began to examine the differences in the
thermalization of alpha particles as helium ash in sawtoothing and
non-sawtoothing plasmas.  Ash buildup was clearly seen during 2 seconds of
neutral beam injection in the sawtoothing case.  In the next phase of the
experiment, a non-sawtoothing version of an otherwise similar plasma will
be explored.


Future Activities

Maintenance activities are going on this week. Deuterium-tritium
experiments will resume next week.


 P.S.  If you do not wish to receive notices of TFTR status, please contact
me or send a message to postmaster@pppl.gov.  If you are aware of others
who wish to receive notices, please send a message to postmaster@pppl.gov
and do not send a message to tftr_news_info.






_________________________________________________________________________
R. J. Hawryluk
rhawryluk@pppl.gov
PPPL - LOB 325
Phone:  (609) 243-3306
Fax:    (609) 243-3248




cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenrhawryluk cudfnRich cudlnHawryluk cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.01 / K Jonsson /  Re: Questions for the Griggs visit .....
     
Originally-From: kvj@rhi.hi.is (Kristjan Valur Jonsson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Questions for the Griggs visit .....
Date: 1 Feb 1995 09:52:11 GMT
Organization: University of Iceland

In <B.Hamilton.260.2F294036@irl.cri.nz> B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton) writes:


>Jed, I work in a building where the standard scientific laboratory has overhead
>travelling cranes, large doors for truck access to all the major labs. On this
>site we also have a engineering workshop that is contracted by industry to
>make precision components ranging from a few mm to large enough to
>test building earthquake bearings ( the first test rig was based around a
>D8 Caterpillar ). This bulding also houses a thermal lab that has furnaces
>for pyrometallurgical work, and full casting facilities.  Often it is cheaper
>to make the moulds and go down the road and have the aluminium castings
>produced at a foundry, especially if we require a reasonable number of
>large castings. We have materials science areas  that specialise in
>metallurgy and corrosion research for industry and aviation. 

>We also have a range of fixed and mobile  dynos for testing 
>devices from fractional HP electric motors to tank engines ( while in 
>the tank ). We have designed and built a computer-controlled portable dyno 
>that can be handled by two people, fits on the back of a pickup, only requires
>a household garden hose and household single phase electrical outlet,
>any yet is capable of controlling, measuring and plotting the output of
>any engine up to tank engines in-situ. We investigate alternative fuels, 
>so we have a lot of experience measuring energy and mass balances. 

Sounds fun.  Do you have any openings for brand new Mechanical
Engineers? :)

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:
cuddy1 cudenkvj cudfnKristjan cudlnJonsson cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.31 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  "Hot" Fusion
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "Hot" Fusion
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 18:18 -0500 (EST)

tuttt@cii3116-01.its.rpi.edu (Teresa E. Tutt) writes:
 
-> The fact is, ALL known forms of fusion reactions (proton-proton, carbon-cycl
-> triple-alpha, D-D, D-He, D-T, etc.) occur at temperatures measured in
-> thousands of Kelvins and are therefore "hot" by default. The so-called "cold
-> fusion is a hypothesis only. It has not been shown to exist. Sorry, guys.
 
Wrong. Ever heard of muon catalyzed fusion?  It is cold fusion, not hot fusion
and has been proven to exist, and is accepted by virtually everyone in the
know.
 
-> No hard feelings,but I'm not backing down on this one.
 
Pretty arrogant attitude for someone who is wrong.
 
                                                        Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.31 / Thomas Lockyer /  Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph
sics.accelerators
Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
Date: 31 Jan 1995 23:14:08 GMT
Organization: Silicon Valley Public Access Link

,<3g6oc0$8m8@borg.svpal.org> <3g8s76$jv0@msunews.cl.msu.edu>:
Distribution: 


>Robert W. Hatcher  (hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu) Writes:

Our posts are getting very long so i will work with just snippets, if  
comments are deemed necessary..

> (snip)
> And then down in the lower right corner you'd have seen 3 pictures
> of events taken when our "test team" was active.  These were charged 
> particles brought around the berm and into the detector (during well
> defined time periods, so that can't be the source of the "events")

Say what?  How does that work?  I have seen aerial views of the Fermilab 
detector buildings, and yes I always wondered what that mysterious pipe 
was hiding behind the berm!  Are you telling me that that is used to 
bring charged particles around the berm?  The pipe goes into a building 
that is not at the end of the berm???

> .......Want to look again?   Here's the reference:

> http: //pads1.pa.msu.edu:81/home/hatcher/         !my home page
> ......If you can't access this via the WWW then feel free to mention 
that next
> time and I'll be more than happy to mail you the ~1Mbyte file.
> If you have uudecode & unzip I can send a smaller file.

Robert:  I only have a 2400 baud modem and only 1 hour time slots on 
internet, so don't have time to download large files.   I can handle GIF 
images, but postscript may give me some problems.  Yes, if you think I 
can decode the software.  But can you just snail mail me the program 
picture outputs?

> (snip)
> Each of those pulses had order 10^12-13 neutrinos in them......

That's not as much ( sun's theoretical 6.6 x 10^10 neutrinos/ cm^2/sec) 
as theory would have us believe comes from the sun in a continuos flux!   
Integrate the pulses of  theoretical flux from the accelerator and see 
how it (theoretically) would compare.
You keep talking about 1000 meters of berm, but what about beam 
divergence?  That's a small target building.  What would the theoretical 
flux density be at the detector?

Regards: Tom. 




--
Thomas N. Lockyer <lockyer@svpal.org>     
1611 Fallen Leaf Lane
Los Altos, CA USA 94024-6212
Tel. (415)967-9550
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenlockyer cudfnThomas cudlnLockyer cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Feb  2 04:37:05 EST 1995
------------------------------
