1995.02.02 / Mark Fernee /  Re: Real Fusion
     
Originally-From: fernee@physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Real Fusion
Date: 2 Feb 1995 01:07:33 GMT
Organization: University of Queensland

Harry H Conover (conover@max.tiac.net) wrote:
: Mark Fernee (fernee@physics.uq.oz.au) wrote:

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

: Whatever my comments did contain, sexism was not among it.  Of course 
: there are those narrow, perverse individuals carrying a chip on their 
: shoulder that see sexism in everthing. These unfortunate souls aren't 
: even worth the courtesy a reply...let them spend their wasted lifetimes 
: killing paper tigers.
:  
Most women of my acquaintence would most certainly have taken offence to
your condescending, patronising and overtly *sexist* flame. By all means,
attack a post on it's deficiencies, but please refrain from mindless
flaming.

: : What was that story about the pot and the kettle?

: Perhaps when you remember it, you will come back and share it with us 
: all.
Allright, if you insist; your initial flame certainly seemed to be a case
of the pot calling the kettle black.

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

: Better not let any of my Ozzie friends hear you saying that, mate.  I 
: suspect they would view what you said as an insult to both their homeland
: and people!

I pay my taxes, but I see no need to emphasise that point. By your understanding,
many of my colleagues have more than paid there "dues", but I never hear them
using that in defence of either their work or their statements. In fact, paying
ones dues has no place in science. Scientific merit of the work in question being
the only thing of concern. I have never heard of anyone using "paid dues" as a
defence for their work in any conference I have attended. I am not so naive to
believe that a luminous career doesn't add to ones credibility during a presentation,
but bad science cannot shelter behind even the greatest luminary for too long.
:
[much condescending verbage deleted]
  
: Perphaps you would be well advised to strain your embrionic (but 
: hopefully developing) cerebral resource sufficiently to achieve at 
: least some small, incremental grasp of the thrust of another's 
: comments, before responding with a flame.


:                                          Harry C.

I responded *to* a flame. I rarely embark on such a course, but I felt that
you really had overstepped the bounds of taste. In science as well as in martial
arts, it is best not to pick fights, because there is always someone smarter or
more proficient than you are. This is a good case for humility. That is something
that I respect! In contrast, it is my experience that empty vessels make the most 
sound.

I'm sorry to upset you and this will be my last posting on this thread.

Mark.



cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenfernee cudfnMark cudlnFernee cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.02 / Harry Conover /  Re: Real Fusion
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Real Fusion
Date: 2 Feb 1995 02:38:03 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Mark Fernee (fernee@physics.uq.oz.au) wrote:

: Most women of my acquaintence would most certainly have taken offence to
: your condescending, patronising and overtly *sexist* flame. By all means,
: attack a post on it's deficiencies, but please refrain from mindless
: flaming.

Evidently your part of Oz does not share the wonderful British sense of 
humor.  My whimsical comment was intentionally meant to be both 
condescending and patronizing, reflecting the patronizing and overtly 
condescending attitude that the original poster took towards the CF folks.
It's message was, I thought, quite clear, and directed itself to male and 
female readers alike: 'Lighten up a bit, you're all taking yourselves a 
bit too seriously, and don't dump on the CF folks because they have a 
right to be heard too.'  The original posted cited their position of a 
student as though it placed them in a role of authority in determining 
what is proper to discuss and what is not, to which I responded that many 
of those posting here have effectively earned the right to do so ("paid 
their dues").   

If, in all of this, you find anything particularly sexist, please note it 
to me by email.  Sure, I used a female diminutive term, but if I had been 
conversing with a male I would have likely employed a male diminutive term.
That's language, not sexism.  Sarcastic yes, but sexist no. And guy, if you 
are allowing your precious, historic language and communication to be 
censored, reshaped and redefined by any assembly of perverse, special 
interest causes (be they of a sexual, political, ethnic, or racial 
orientation), it is you who become the loser.
 
Strangely, only a few reponded or objected to the real message in my 
post, which addressed lightening up and not taking themselves 
(ourselves) quite so seriously.  Thankfully, some did.

: : bout the pot and the kettle?

: Allright, if you insist; your initial flame certainly seemed to be a case
: of the pot calling the kettle black.

I see.  Evidently then, I am excessively serious, believe that no one 
should post quasi-scientific material here, and have no sense of humor!
Hmmmm...not a description that I would use of myself, however, who was it 
who prayed: "God grant us the ability to see ourselves as others see us?"
Your observation is noted.

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

: : Better not let any of my Ozzie friends hear you saying that, mate.  I 
: : suspect they would view what you said as an insult to both their homeland
: : and people!

Again, that you may understand the context of my original comment (now 
that we have cleared up the meaning of "to pay your dues"), when one 
begins to pontificate and question the posting quality of others (as the 
original poster did), I have every right to question their qualifications 
to do so (not their right to do so, just their qualifications).  In this
context, my statment that "many here have paid their dues" was simply my 
way of subtly (evidently not enough so) pointing out that the credentials 
of many here vastly overshadow the original posters student status, and 
even if some of the post are outright silly, their author's have earned 
themselves a right to post whatever they wish, and their positive 
contributions far and away outweigh the negative.  
  
: I pay my taxes, but I see no need to emphasise that point. 

Mark, using totally non-sexist Internet terminology, you remain "truly 
clueless."

And to the rest of this group, if I have truly offended anyone with 
overtly or implicitly sexist remarks, I appologize sincerely. I had not 
set out to do so. On the other hand, if because contemporary, 
special interest programming has perverted your interpretation of the 
language to an extent that your reading of my words creates an offense not 
intended, then I appologise only for your teachers.

Sarcasm and bad taste....certainly intended.  Sexism is not really worth 
the bother.

And now for you shrub collectors out there, our next speaker will be the 
representative from the Ministry of Silly Walking.

                                   Harry C.

ps.  Any further comments by email only, please.


cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.02 / Mark Fernee /  Re: Griggs blue mist probably not important
     
Originally-From: fernee@physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs blue mist probably not important
Date: 2 Feb 1995 01:17:29 GMT
Organization: University of Queensland

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
:  
: P.S. Does anyone know how many megajoules you get per ton of TNT? TNT does not
: hold as much energy per unit of mass as gasoline does, so it is less than 42
: MJ/kg.

Most HE's of that type have a heat of detonation of about 1000kcal/kg. This is
about 4.2MJ/kg, I believe (if I did the conversion correctly). This is about an
order of magnitude which sounds right. As an aside; the important difference
between a HE and a fuel is the power and brisance of a HE detonation. A FAE is
nowhere near as powerful or brisant, but it does have other advantages. 

Mark.


cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenfernee cudfnMark cudlnFernee cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.02 / Harry Conover /  Re: Griggs blue mist probably not important
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs blue mist probably not important
Date: 2 Feb 1995 02:56:59 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: 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 photography."
:  
: That is not a possibility. We do not have a photograph of this blue steam; we
: observed it. We saw it. I am not a bit colorblind -- I am sure it was blue.
: As I said before, I do not think it is significant, but you never can tell.

Thank you for answering the original question that I had asked, which was:
Has anyone observed the blue coloration in person.  

:  
: Elsewhere, Conover writes:
:  
:      "From a purely scientific vantage point, if a hydrogen fusion reaction
:      is actually taking place, hydrogen depletion of could result.  This is
:      equivalent to oxygen enrichment of the steam, and since it is well
:      documented fact that liquid oxygen has a blue coloration, this could be
:      interpreted to represent a positive confirmation of Cold Fusion taking
:      place."
:  
: This is not written from a purely scientific vantage point. Apparently,
: Conover has no earthly idea how much energy fusion reactions liberate. 

Sorry Jed. Fortunately, many readers here realized the obvious joke 
nature of this post. It wasn't intended as a troll, really.(I even thought I 
had added a little "smiley" at the bottom to clue the clueless, but I may have 
forgotten.)

                                       Harry C.

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.02 / Barry Merriman /  Re: "Overunity" is meaninless (was: Griggs questions)
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Overunity" is meaninless (was: Griggs questions)
Date: 2 Feb 1995 05:23:18 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <xky6Kf0.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

>Imagine driving your car 55 million miles on a gallon of
> water. It would not cost much, would it?

Unfortunatley, all we _can_ do is imagine it. :-)

By the way, what ever happened to the Toyota 20KW CF water heater...its
been almost 2 years since you said it was months away...aren't they
worried they'll get beat out by Griggs in the CF water heater race?

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


cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.02 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Griggs blue mist probably not important
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs blue mist probably not important
Date: 2 Feb 1995 11:58:40 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <5kw4yV-.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>A scientific
>hypothesis has to stand up to some level of quantitative analysis.

Then why won't you tell us what instrument (if any) you used to measure
the length of the GG rotor arm?
--
					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:
cuddy2 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.02 / Matt Kennel /  Re: dental x-rays
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: dental x-rays
Date: 2 Feb 1995 22:25:15 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Robin van Spaandonk (rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au) wrote:
: Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
: [SNIP]

: >Robin van Spaandonk (rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au) wrote:
: >: > Originally-From: David Brewer <davebr@novell.com>
: >: [SNIP]
: >: > suggested here, cause fusion).  Unfortunately, water doesn't
: >: > convey x-rays, so there is no present method of finding out.
: >: ______________________________________________
: >: This is an intersting statement in itself. What does that say for
: >: measurements of x-rays in CF experiments?
: >
: >This is a rather odd statement, given that my latest dental
: >x-ray seemed to expose film just fine where my teeth were not.
: >
: >: Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au>

: Ok Matt, I admit that I am now hopelessly lost. Please explain.

Original implication:  water was opaque to x-rays making sonolminescence
experiments difficult.

Observation:  At least some x-rays can go through flesh, containing
significant amounts of water, without much problem.  Original implication
must be questioned.

Did they mean hard UV?  

: Regards,

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


--
-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:
cuddy2 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.02 / Paul Shanley /  Helium III (3) Bedtime Stories...
     
Originally-From: pshanley@humsci.auburn.edu (Paul Shanley)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Helium III (3) Bedtime Stories...
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 23:01:14 GMT
Organization: Auburn University School of Human Sciences

Dear s.p.f. All,

I am doing a report on Helium III (3) and any published or non-published 
research that has been done on it.  I am also interested in the laymen's 
discussion of mining the Moon and/or using Helium III in the fusion 
process, period.  I am pretty much a novice on the subject and will be 
doing 'due diligence' on the subject, at my magnificant library.  Any 
leads, citations, or bibliographies you can put me onto...would be 
helpful.  Thanks.  please reply directly to my e-mail account, as I am 
not usually a recipient of this newsgroup.  Thanks double!

                     pshanley@humsci.auburn.edu

Sincerely,

Paul-Sylvester
US ARMY Research Fellow
Auburn University, Alabama
"I'm not an Apple rep but I play one on the 'Net."

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenpshanley cudfnPaul cudlnShanley cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.03 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Rothwell knows everything
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell knows everything
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 1995 01:54:19 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <9502020956.aa13302@auntie.bbcnc.org.uk>,
Michael Kenward <m.kenward@bbcnc.org.uk> wrote:
>I thought that denizens of this list might like further evidence of
>Rothwell's omnipotence. Anyone trying to pass on background information to
>list watcdhers runs the risk of smartass remarks from the great Jeddy.

I failed to see anything "smartass" about Jed's remarks.

>This
>is what he sent me, privately of course, after I passed on a brief snippet
>from a news wire:

It is generally thought to be bad form to quote private e-mail without
permission. In this case I expect Jed wouldn't mind since there wasn't
anything in it objectionable.

Apparently you find it irritating that Rothwell already knew about your
information on Arthur C. Clarke. Well, it's a small world and no one has
the copyright on quotes.

Imagine me saying anything even vaguely supportive of Rothwell!

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.03 / Barry Merriman /  Re: dental x-rays
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: dental x-rays
Date: 3 Feb 1995 04:45:09 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3grm4b$cf@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)  
writes:
> 
> Original implication:  water was opaque to x-rays making sonolminescence
> experiments difficult.
> 
> Observation:  At least some x-rays can go through flesh, containing
> significant amounts of water, without much problem.  Original implication
> must be questioned.
> 
> Did they mean hard UV?  
> 


X-rays don't get out of the SL experiments because of the glass/quartz  
containers used to hold the water, not the water itself.

By the way, Matt---we are neighbors now, and I finally stumbled
onto your building by the Price center. Maybe I'll drop by.
(I'm over in Engr. Unit 2).


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


cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.03 / 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: 3 Feb 1995 05:48:43 GMT
Organization: DCC - UNICAMP - Campinas, SP, Brazil


    > [Me:] Your [thermal capacity] estimates may be off by 
    > a factor of 5.
    
    > [John Logajan:] Not necessarily.  The GG device Jed photoed and
    > described in the CFM article appears to be essentially the
    > physical size I described.
    
Is it really? How did you conclude that?  I looked hard at the photos
you posted (thanks, by the way), but could not see any details that
could be used to set the scale.

Besides, Jed himself never questioned the dimensions I quoted from
his own posts, nor the heat capacity I derived from them.

    > [Me:] First, how do you know there was no cooling?  Gene did NOT
    > report the temperature, only the computed Coefficient
    > of Production (COP) = (heat out)/(power in).  So you cannot tell
    > which variable did what.
    > 
    > [John:] Well, yes, if there was cooling and a constant COP, then
    > there must have been another variable changing to compensate for
    > the cooling to keep the COP constant.
    
Not at all.

John, there is one crucial detail about the "steam table" method which
you may not be aware of.  ***The enthalpy (heat contents per mass) of
saturated steam is practically independent of its temperature.*** 
(It doesn't sound right, I know, but go check the tables.)

In other words, the COP as computed by Gene's method depends only on
input power and the mass flow rate, and NOT on the output steam
temperature.  Thus, the fact that the COP was roughly constant after
t=2min does NOT imply that the steam temperature remained constant; 
it might even have dropped all the way down to 212F.

(Besides, as I have tried to explain many times, the output STEAM
temperature and the average PUMP temperature are quite different
things. Its perfectly possible for the steam temperature to remain
constant---or even increase---over tens of minutes, while the bulk of
the pump is cooling down.)

Thus, what can we conclude from Gene's posted data?  

  We *cannot* tell whether the machine was cooling down or not during
  those 14 minutes.

  We *can* tell for sure that the input power dropped by 1/3 right at
  the beginning of the measurement period, because that is the *only*
  variable in Gene's formula that could explain the sudden 50%
  increase in the COP.
  
  If the input power remained constant after that, the COP would
  *have* to stay constant, and over unity, while the pump cooled 
  down.
  
The COP cannot stay over unity forever, of course.  Eventually the
pump will get too cool to vaporize all the water coming in.  Since
liquid water has a much lower enthalpy than steam, the output heat
will drop, bringing the actual COP down to just below 1.  (However, it
is not clear whether Gene was considering this possibility.  He may
have been blindly assuming the output to be steam, in which case his
computed COP would remain over-unity forever...)
  
So I stand by my claim: the over-unity COPs in Gene's posted data 
is perfectly consistent with --- indeed, *predicted* by --- the
"stored heat" hypothesis.

(And let's not forget the "wet steam"/"dry steam" question, which
could easily invalidate all "steam table" experiments.  Hmmm.... those
"blue steam" reports, I wonder...)

--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:
cuddy3 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.03 / Dieter Britz /  Re: "Hot" Fusion
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Hot" Fusion
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 1995 09:24:56 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On 31 Jan 1995, Teresa E. Tutt wrote:

> >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.
> 
> Actually if this group was created to discuss "cold" fusion,
it should have been labeled as such a group from the start (I.E.
sci.physics.cold.fusion). The fact is, ALL known forms of fusion
reactions (proton-proton, carbon-cycle, 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. 
> 
> No hard feelings,but I'm not backing down on this one. 
> ______________________________________________________________________________

That's OK, you stand firm there. But we do have the odd hot fusion posting 
here (Bob Heeter, Paul Koloc etc). The frequency of these postings is so low
though that a group exclusively devoted to it might have very little traffic.
I think that if/when we set up the lightly moderated new group for serious
issues in both hot and cold fusion, your finger will not be abused so much,
hitting KILL. I think that those interested in the science of fusion, hot
and cold, can coexist. If not, well you could start yet another group devoted
to hot fusion, you know...
Whatever happens, this group will soon be a playground for snake oil,
perpetual motion and free-lunch merchants, left to their happy selves.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.03 / Prem Sobel /  Re: Some common (hot) fusion jargon
     
Originally-From: prem@ix.netcom.com (Prem Sobel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some common (hot) fusion jargon
Date: 3 Feb 1995 14:35:25 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3FEB95.14213163@max.pfc.mit.edu> nachtrieb@max.pfc.mit.edu writes: 

>(APS)	American Physical Society 
>(Ar)	argon

You left out:

(APWAT) Archimedes Plutonium Whole Atom Theory :)

Prem
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenprem cudfnPrem cudlnSobel cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.03 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Rothwell knows (almost) everything
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell knows (almost) everything
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 95 10:10:07 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Richard Schultz <schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu> writes:
 
>Yes, but do you know the length of the rotor arm of the GG, and if so,
>what instrument did you use to measure it?
 
Forget it Richard. I will not waste my time with you. Like I said before,
I went over that with Richard Blue and I will not go over it again.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.03 / S Sirotinin /  <<<<<NEW PHYSICS BOOKS FOR SALE<<<<MUST SEE IT<<<<
     
Originally-From: swsst4+@pitt.edu (Sergey W Sirotinin)
Newsgroups: pa.forsale,misc.forsale,sci.med.physics,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: <<<<<NEW PHYSICS BOOKS FOR SALE<<<<MUST SEE IT<<<<
Date: 3 Feb 1995 08:38:16 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

1. Principles of Physical Cosmology, second edition
                 By Philip J.E. Peebles, Princeton Univ. Press
   New book, hardcover.          Price $20.00   List $59.50

2.Electricity and Magnetism
                 By W.J. Duffin 
   New book, hardcover.             Price $20.00   List $50.00

3. Contemporary College Physics
                 By Donald E. Tilley
   New book, Hardcover.             Price $15.00   List $45.00

4. Dreams of a final theory
                 By Steven Weinberg
   New book,  hardcover.            Price $16.00    List $28.00

5. The Conscious Universe, Part and Whole in Modern Physical Theory
   
                 By Menas Kafatos, Robert Nadeau
   New book, softcover.             Price $8.00   List $15.95

All prices are shown. Make an offer on what you think the books are worth.
E-mail directly to my account if there is any interest.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudfnSergey cudlnSirotinin cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.03 / K R /  Hot Fusion: Computer Simulation
     
Originally-From: "K.R.Whight" <whight@prl.philips.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hot Fusion: Computer Simulation
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 1995 09:19:43 GMT
Organization: Philips Research Laboratories, Redhill, UK

I have developed and published a novel algorithm for computing periodic
steady states (limit cycles) in nonlinear dynamical systems. The
algorithim was developed in the area of semiconductor device simulation
and has been extended to electronic circuit simulation.

I have advertised the method in sci.nonlinear and had responses from
researchers in mechanical systtems and was wondering if there could
be any interest in the field of hot fusion simulation.

The algorithim employs a spacetime solution "mesh" that is cylindrical
in time (thus forcing periodicity on the solution) and can be adapted
for autonomous dynamical systems.

If anyone is interested then post a reply or preferably E-mail me at:-

	whight@prl.philips.co.uk

and I will send references-to/copies-of my papers.

Ken Whight
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenwhight cudfnK cudlnR cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.02 / Jim Carr /  Re: Why NOT split the group? [was: Moderated group, ...]
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why NOT split the group? [was: Moderated group, ...]
Date: 2 Feb 1995 11:31:33 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <JAC.95Feb1111327@gandalf.llnl.gov> 
jac@gandalf.llnl.gov (James Crotinger) writes:
>
>  Thank you for posting the group charter. I think the lack of any
>mention of "cold fusion" in said charter pretty much lays to rest
>Jed's claim that "this is a cold fusion group, so you other folks
>should go away". 

Ah, but you missed the bit about it being "technically a renaming 
of alt.fusion" which *was* created to shift the discussion out of 
sci.physics and provide a usenet home for the mailing list discussions 
as well.  That part of the legislative history is important since the 
RFD and CFV did not define fusion or provide any of the detail that 
is so common today.  There is no question that the process I would 
define as 'electrochemically induced cold fusion' -- whether real or 
not -- belongs in here. 

I can understand why someone could walk into this group thinking 
otherwise, since the milieu is quite different today than it was 
5 years and 10 months ago.  But look at the archives and see for 
yourself.  It is all there, megabytes of it. 

>No, the thing to do is split the cold fusion discussion off into
>a more appropriately named group.

Perhaps, but there is no motivation for it.  Traffic here is low.  I 
have seen splits that have failed with higher loads.  And while it is 
true that a split can produce more interest, it is not clear from the 
traffic in s.p.research or here that the demand is present.  The rules 
for a split are pretty strong.  Do you have the votes? 

 ( By the way, my remark about a group splitting off that had 
 ( created the original group is not so far fetched.  The folks 
 ( who actually race automobiles have struggled to get their 
 ( sport subdivision far enough away that boy racers trying to 
 ( beat speeding tickets will take their 'driving' questions 
 ( elsewhere.  Took 3 splits to get to today's situation, which 
 ( is still not optimal, so mailing lists remain the preferred 
 ( mode of communication.  But they had the votes. 

For example, there was more physics posted in the TFTR report than 
in all of the CF posts of the last month.  But not a single followup 
from any of the hot fusion people in this thread.  Why?  When the 
first DT shot happened, there *was* a lot of discussion, but not now. 
Just do it!  

>The problem is that I've found it extremely difficult to get
>colleagues interested in reading this forum because it is swamped with
>CF discussions that they don't have to wade through.

There are simple methods, like a subject line that starts with a keyword, 
that makes thread tracking trivial with any decent newsreader.  Widely 
used in some groups and mailing lists.  There is not much here to wade 
through.  If you don't believe me, look in rec.sport.basketball.college. 
And learn to use a kill file. 

>  James A. Crotinger [ username JAC since 1983 8-) ]
                                           ^^^^       sorry, 1981 ;-)

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  Tallahassee, where the crime rate 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  is almost twice that in New York 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  City.  Reported crimes, that is.  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  A subtle statistical detail.  
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.02 / Scott Little /  MRA test error analysis
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.energy
Subject: MRA test error analysis
Date: 2 Feb 1995 12:59:50 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

--- Addendum ---
Error Analysis of MRA Test Results
presented in report dated 20January 1995
Institute for Advanced Studies / EarthTech International, Inc.
Scott Little and H. E. Puthoff 
 1 February 1995

Introduction:

This analysis refers to MRA test results we presented in a separate
report dated 20 January 1995.  These results were based upon measured
values of voltage, current, frequency and resistance.  In this
addendum, the magnitude of experiment error associated with these
measurements is discussed and quantified.  As will become evident
below, the error analysis does not detract from our original
conclusion, but rather strengthens it.

Data:

The tables below are reprinted from the original report:

f (kHz)    VinMRA   Vopen     Requiv     Vout      Iout
33.84      21.06    23.36     140        18.68    .1324
33.56      23.84    24.04     1900       15.02    .1068
33.34      24.20    24.10    negative     9.75    .0696
32.47      24.58    24.26    negative     5.28    .0377

f      DC output   V2/Requiv    avg Vin*Iin   Mc-W eff   Vin*Iin eff
33.84    2.473      3.168          4.566       .78         .54
33.56    1.604       .299          3.265      5.36         .49
33.34     .679     negative        1.467    negative       .46
32.47     .199     negative         .401    negative       .50

Analysis:

The data in the second line in these tables is of particular interest.
That is the frequency at which the input power determination
suggested by McClain and Wooten yields an efficiency of 536% whereas
our input power measurement yields an efficiency of only 49%.

Let us examine the individual errors that contribute to the total
error in our efficiency measurement (i.e.  the 0.49 value that
appears in the column labeled "Vin*Iin eff" in the second table).
This value is the ratio of the DC output power (1.604 watts) to the AC
input power (3.265 watts in the column labeled "avg Vin*Iin").

The DC output power value was obtained by multiplying Vout by Iout.
Both of these measurements were taken with Micronta 22-185A digital
multimeters.  The Vout meter was connected across both the 130 ohm
load resistor and the current meter so as to include the voltage drop
across the current meter so that the power dissipated in that meter
would be included in the DC output power determination.  It should be
noted that a small amount of power, not included in our original
determination was dissipated in the Vout meter itself.  This meter has
a 10 megohm input resistance and, at the 15 volts present in the 2nd
observation, was dissipating 22 microwatts.  This should be added to
the result of Vout*Iout to obtain the total output power.  For the 2nd
observation, this omission results in a 0.001% underestimation of the
output power, an error that will be seen to be insignificant when
compared to the errors in Vout and Iout which directly affect the DC
output result.

The mfgr's literature on the 22-185A meter indicates that our Vout
measurement accuracy was +/- 0.8%  relative and the Iout measurement
accuracy was +/- 1.5% relative.  These errors are independent so they
add in quadrature to yield a +/- 1.7%  uncertainty in the computed DC
output (Vout*Iout).

The errors in the avg Vin*Iin values are more difficult to
characterize.  The digital scope manufacturer's stated voltage
measurement accuracy does not completely describe the errors that
occur when two different waveforms are recorded by the scope and
multiplied together.  There is a finite amount of non-simultaneity
(i.e. jitter) in the sampling of the two channels.  When the two
traces are multiplied together, the resulting error will be highly
dependent on the actual waveforms being sampled.

Therefore we elected to determine the error in the avg Vin*Iin value
empirically.  Ten sets of current and voltage waveforms were taken
from the MRA device after it had been operating for about an hour to
ensure thermal equilibrium.  The operating conditions were similar to
those in the second line of the data tables. The results of the
Vin*Iin averaging for the ten sets were as follows:

3.26
3.24
3.25
3.20
3.20
3.29
3.16
3.24
3.18
3.27

The observed standard deviation in these values is +/-0.042 watts.
This is 1.3% of the mean value.

Combining (in quadrature) this error with the 1.7% error in the DC
output power, we get a 2.1% relative error expected in our "Vin*Iin
eff" values.  That is, the 0.49 in line 2 should be interpreted as
0.49 +/- 0.01.

Therefore, there is virtually zero chance that the conclusions
presented in the original report were wrong due to experimental
error.  Our measured efficiency is 0.49 +/- 0.01.  The McClain-Wooten
value of 5.36 is 487 standard deviations away from our value.  The
probability of our reading being a chance observation, assuming that
such readings exhibit a normal distribution, is astronomically small.

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.02 / Alex Teo /  Re: Nova
     
Originally-From: act@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Alex Chih-Yao Teo)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nova
Date: 2 Feb 1995 11:08:08 GMT
Organization: Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik, Garching bei Muenchen, Germany

Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) sez:
: In reply to the query regarding fusion reactions in a stellar nova,  the

I'm not sure if it's just my terminology which is different from Dick
Blue's (see below), but as I understand these terms:

NOVA		= a white dwarf/neutron star which accretes mass from a
	companion star in a binary or multi-star system. This "new" matter
	forms a surface on the old star and eventually (gets hot enough??)
	ignites in a large explosion. Not very much in the form of
	particles get spewed out from the exploding star so this process
	does not contribute very much to the metal-enrichment of the galaxy.
	I believe these are relatively common but I might be mistaken.

SUPERNOVA	= a "swollen" star (eg a red giant) whose core hasn't
	sufficient fuel to burn at a fast enough rate to prevent
	gravitational collapse. The core of this star collapses upon itself
	and explodes again, sending out a huge shock wave. When the shock
	front hits the previous outer layers of the star, all sorts of
	nuclear processes occur, many of the endothermic (ie absorb energy).
	This stuff gets brought out into the inter-stellar medium - and
	through this we get our "heavy" metals. This is a much rarer
	occurance than novae.

[Appeals for flamethrowers to be set on "mild"....]
Not being an astrophysicist myself, this is about all I can offer. Anyone
who knows better?

				alex


Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) sez:
: In reply to the query regarding fusion reactions in a stellar nova,  the
: lack of other responses may indicate that the answer is too complex for
: a brief reply.  However, it goes something like this.  After a star has
: converted all its hydrogen to helium it starts a gravitational collapse
: that results in rising temperatures and a whole chain of fusions that
: take whatever is there and make something heavier.  Helium goes to carbon,
: oxygen, neon, magnesium, etc., but at some point the process may become
: unstable and the whole mess blows up.  That is your basic nova.  During
: this explosive phase there is an opportunity to initiate great chains
: of reaction processes that result in the production of everything in
: the chart of nucleides out to extreme limits of instability where things
: decay faster than they can be formed even in nova conditions.  For
: details see a text on Nuclear Astrophysics.  The classic in the
: field is by Fowler.

: Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenact cudfnAlex cudlnTeo cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.02 / Alex Teo /  Hot fusion, anyone? (was: Moderated group, candidate's statement)
     
Originally-From: act@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Alex Chih-Yao Teo)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hot fusion, anyone? (was: Moderated group, candidate's statement)
Date: 2 Feb 1995 10:43:33 GMT
Organization: Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik, Garching bei Muenchen, Germany


	I would like to add my vote to the proposal that a separate group
be set up for the discussion of issues relavent to those involved with
so-called "hot" fusion. I wish to make no public statement about my faith
or lack thereof in so-called "cold" fusion, except to say that it isn't my
field and long-drawn discussions over it do not interest me.

	Although I admit that it is possible to filter out a lot of "noise"
using an appropriate kill-file, the signal/noise ratio (from my
standpoint... :) is extremely poor, and that makes it very discouraging for
me to attempt to bring up issues which of interest to me. Could it be
possible that many posters who might otherwise contribute in a useful
fashion are also put off by this?

	As for the science, since this is the only forum presently in
existance, if I may:

	I am working on the W7-AS stellarator at the Max-Planck-Institut
fuer Plasmaphysik in Garching, Germany. My field of interest is eigenmodes
of the (shear) Alfven wave, both in matters of stability and as a possible
means of diagnostics (eg determining the q- or iota-profile of a plasma).
Of particular interest to me is the use of rf active antennae to couple to
these wave modes.

	I am willing post a brief introduction to this field if anyone's
interested. I shall try as much as possible to use laymans' terms, being at
heart (and knowledge) a layman myself. :)

	Since I am actually just a graduate student (doing my PhD at Sydney
University, Australia) I don't have much feeling for the level of interest
in the world fusion community. The project is a relatively new one here at
W7-AS, and we are just in the process of setting things up. I know of a
similar new-ish project at JET and am trying to get in touch with them. Are
there any other groups in the world still studying these waves modes? [I am
familiar with the older literature from TCA] Any other comments would be
most welcome!

			here's to more real science on spf, Alex Teo
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenact cudfnAlex cudlnTeo cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.02 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Griggs blue mist probably not important
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs blue mist probably not important
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 95 10:48:17 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Mark Fernee <fernee@physics.uq.oz.au> writes:
 
     "Most HE's of that type [TNT] have a heat of detonation of about
     1000kcal/kg. This is about 4.2MJ/kg, I believe (if I did the conversion
     correctly). . . ."
 
No! That should be 4.16 MJ/kg, but we'll let it slide. (Tho' Mr. Conover will
object.) So, anyway, one U.S. ton of TNT must have a heat of detonation of
roughly a million kcal (1,016,000 kcal or 4.2E3 MJ). So a 200 kiloton fusion
bomb produces roughly 8.4E8 MJ of energy, or 8.4E21 ergs. . . And if I am
doing my calculations right, that should convert roughly 1460 grams of
hydrogen into helium and annihilate 9.3 grams of matter. Which shows why
nuclear warheads are so small.
 
 
     "A FAE is nowhere near as powerful or brisant, but it does have other
     advantages."
 
Yup. Just try running you car on dynamite! I should point out though, there
was once a plan to launch rockets with nuclear bombs, and they built a scale
model of the thing powered by conventional explosives. It was called the "Dyna
Soar" project (aptly named). The Coca Cola Company drew on its experience
vending cans and bottles from soft drink machines and advised the project on
how to get nuclear bombs to roll out smoothly and detonate the right distance
behind the rocket. I can just imagine some poor fellow getting halfway to Mars
and finding out he has no more pocket change, so he cannot vend any more
bombs, so he has to go back to earth to get another $20 in change in order to
operate the Dyna Soar motor.
 
<Ahem> Humor Impaired readers and Coca Cola Company representatives will
please note that the preceding was a joke. An H-bomb powered rocket halfway to
Mars would NOT - repeat NOT - be able to come back to earth for more pocket
change, and they did not have those dollar bill reader gadgets back in the
1950s, so the astronauts would be in big trouble. See the movie "Dr.
Strangelove" for more information. For information on the "Dyna Soar" program,
see F. Dyson, "Disturbing the Universe" (Harper, 1979), chapter 10.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.03 / Robin Spaandonk /        GG
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:       GG
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 1995 15:48:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Just a couple of quick questions for Jed. Sorry if this has been 
covered previously.

1) Exactly which operational parameters of the GG does Jim vary in 
order to get the GG to function in its "over-unity" mode?

2) When this happens, how rapid is the change from normal mode to 
"over-unity" mode? i.e. does this take minutes, or a fraction of a 
second? (You may have noticed the change in the input power meter).

3) Also, how does Jim detect the change from normal to "over-unity" 
mode? (Change in pitch perhaps?)

Regards,

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

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.03 / Richard Blue /  research on the Griggs device
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: research on the Griggs device
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 1995 22:49:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Pardon me, if I smile a bit upon hearing about plans to investigate the Griggs
phenomena by trying various rotor designs, etc.  I think it would helf if
would be experimenters state for themselves precisely what they would expect
to observe if absolutely nothing unusual were happening.  That is to say
how will they define a baseline against which the performance of their device
is to be judged?

If we understand that most likely anything that you throw together, no matter
how simple or crude, can be expected to perform at 100% efficiency for heating
water then the first test of your experimental skills is to see if you
can construct a device to serve as a standard.  If you do things right you
should be able to get precisely 100% efficiency.  Once you have a device
that never puts out any excess heat you can begin the process of modification
to imporve its efficiency.  If everything you build proves to be superefficient
it will never be clear that you are demonstrating anything other than the
limitations of your experimental technique.

One indication that there is something basically wrong with the measurements
Jed Rothwell has been reporting is the fact that he has never described a
way in which the GG can be made to operate at reduced efficiency with
equivalent output.  There seems to be no parameter other than operating
temperature that influences the efficiency.   It is just too good to be true.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.31 /  Julian /  Re:       Another far out theory
     
Originally-From: julian@ratbag.demon.co.uk (Julian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re:       Another far out theory
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 22:27:01 +0000
Organization: The Rat Cave

In article <3gemlm$k4l@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
           Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu "Archimedes Plutonium" writes:

> Play the music of the HALLELUJAH CHORUS  by The Mormon Tabernacle Choir
> with the Philadelphia Symphony Orchestra lead by Eugene Ormandy.
>         Superposition the new lyrics given as follows:
>                         ATOM PLUTONIUM CHORUS
>                                 lyrics by A. Plutonium
>                         using the same music by G.F. Handel
> ______________________________________________________
> ATOMPLUTONIUM, ATOMPLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, 
> ATOM PLUTONIUM
> ATOMPLUTONIUM, ATOMPLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, 
> ATOM PLUTONIUM
> FOR THE ATOM HAS INFINITE POTENTIAL
> PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, FOR THE ATOM HAS INFINITE
> POSSIBILITIES
> PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, FOR THE ATOM HAS 
> INFINITE POTENTIAL
> FOR THE ATOM HAS INFINITE POSSIBILITIES.
> 
> A DOT OF THE ELECTRON PROBABILITY DENSITY DISTRIBUTION OF THE 5F6 FOR
> THE LAST ELECTRON OF 231PU IS THE PLANET EARTH, ANOTHER DOT IS YOU,
> ANOTHER DOT ME. AND ATOMS WILL NUCLEOSYNTHESIZE FOREVER AND EVER,
> AND ATOMS WILL NUCLEOSYNTHESIZE FOREVER AND EVER, AND ATOMS WILL
> NUCLEOSYNTHESIZE FOREVER AND EVER,
> AND ATOMS WILL NUCLEOSYNTHESIZE FOREVER AND EVER.
> 
> ATOM OF ATOMS, FOREVER AND EVER, PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, AND ATOM OF
> ATOMS, FOREVER AND EVER, PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, ATOM OF ATOMS, FOREVER
> AND EVER,
> PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, AND ATOM OF ATOMS, FOREVER AND EVER, 
> PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, ATOM OF ATOMS, FOREVER AND EVER,
> PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, AND ATOM OF ATOMS, ATOM OF ATOMS, FOREVER AND
> EVER, AND ATOMS WILL NUCLEOSYNTHESIZE FOREVER AND EVER. ATOM OF ATOMS
> AND ATOM OF ATOMS, PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, AND ATOM OF ATOMS, FOREVER AND
> EVER, AND ATOMS WILL NUCLEOSYNTHESIZE FOREVER AND EVER. ATOM OF ATOMS
> AND ATOM OF ATOMS, ATOM OF ATOMS, AND ATOMS WILL NUCLEOSYNTHESIZE
> FOREVER AND EVER. PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM.
> ATOMPLUTONIUM!
> 

When was/will be the first performance? Have you got the Mormons
rehearsing yet?   8-) 

 --------------------------------------------
Julian Hayward      julian@ratbag.demon.co.uk
 --------------------------------------------
"We spend weeks and hours every day preparing
the Budget..."
                        - Ronald Reagan
 --------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenjulian cudlnJulian cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.03 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Rothwell knows (almost) everything
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell knows (almost) everything
Date: 3 Feb 1995 12:11:12 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <h8-bDCM.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>Second, I do *not* know everything. I am sure I do not.

Yes, but do you know the length of the rotor arm of the GG, and if so,
what instrument did you use to measure it?
--
					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:
cuddy3 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.02 / 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: 2 Feb 1995 22:07:08 GMT
Organization: Silicon Valley Public Access Link

,<3g6oc0$8m8@borg.svpal.org> <3g8s76$jv0@msunews.cl.msu.edu>: 
<D31HzJ.MHL@unixhb.SLAC.Stanford.EDU> Distribution: 



>Joe Frisch (frisch@hebe.SLAC.Stanford.EDU) Writes:

> (SNIP)
> If someone has an alternate theory, which is consistent with all observed
> experiments - AND which predicts a different result for a new 
experiment -
> it maybe interesting.  If this is the case, suggest an experiment and a
> predicted result.

Joe:  There is such a theory.  The book "VECTOR PARTICLE PHYSICS" ISBN 
0-9631546-1-3 is available from the Stanford Campus Bookstore.   As an 
experimenter, this new paradigm approach may suggest experiments to you.  
Please see if you can obtain it and comment.

Regards: Tom.



--
Thomas N. Lockyer <lockyer@svpal.org>     
1611 Fallen Leaf Lane
Los Altos, CA USA 94024-6212
Tel. (415)967-9550
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenlockyer cudfnThomas cudlnLockyer cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.03 / Robert Blazek /  Sonoluminesence & fusion?
     
Originally-From: blazek@server.uwindsor.ca (Robert Blazek)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sonoluminesence & fusion?
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 1995 07:35:37 GMT
Organization: University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada

I've read in the latest Scientific American about the phenomenon
of sonoluminesence.  The authours of the article mentions very
impressive heating rates and compression as vapour bubbles
in water collapse, leading to light emissions.  Has there been
any proposals to use a similar process for a potential fusion
power source.  Please provide info why or why not.  Thanks in
advance.
-- 
----
Kids dream they can fly.  Adults dream they can fly first class.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenblazek cudfnRobert cudlnBlazek cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.02 / John White /  Re: Tiny table top Hydrosonic Pump
     
Originally-From: jnw@elvis.vnet.net (John N. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tiny table top Hydrosonic Pump
Date: 2 Feb 1995 22:49:11 -0500
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty) writes:
> 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.
...
> 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.
...
> 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.

An induction motor wants to run at its rated speed, and it would take
many times the motor's power rating to make it run faster.
I suspect the sound he heard was something else and he misinterpreted it.

Someone once pointed out that having two rotors (motor and device) connected
by a rigid shaft makes a sort of tuning fork. The inventor may have heard
this "tuning fork" vibrating. This would also explain the mechanical
failure and the unscrewings.
-- 
jnw@vnet.net
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.02 / John White /  Griggs Questions
     
Originally-From: jnw@elvis.vnet.net (John N. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs Questions
Date: 2 Feb 1995 22:52:09 -0500
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

I, too, would like to know under exactly what conditions are the power
meter and dynamometer designed to give accurate results, and are they
operating under those conditions.

In particular, someone once pointed out that the two rotors (motor and GG)
connected by a rigid shaft make sort of a tuning fork. If this "tuning fork"
is vibrating, it could be developing torques far greater than the normal
operating torque. This is my prime suspect for jamming the power meter.
It might also affect the dynamometer, but my prime suspect there is
the high shaft temperature. (Especially with all the talk about melted
rotors.  :-)

I once suggested that a clamp-on current meter would not respond to
such jamming in the same way as the power meter, and thus would
provide an easy sanity check. An oscilloscope would be better, of
course. (And you can thread the scopes probe through the current meters
clamp-on thing to make a transformer.  :-)  Has Griggs done any of this?

I understand Griggs has a nice pyrometer. I would think that this would
work just fine on a spinning shaft.

Jed tells us that the power meter and dynamometer track each other exactly
(when taking into account the motors stated efficiency). I would like to
know exactly how exactly they track each other.

Are there any data for longer runs? These could address the "reacting rotor"
and "heat storage" hypotheses.
-- 
jnw@vnet.net
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.03 /  jedrothwell@de /  Rothwell knows everything
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Rothwell knows everything
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 95 00:55:32 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

In a thread titled "Rothwell knows everything," m.kenward@bbcnc.org.uk
(Michael Kenward) writes:
 
     "I thought that denizens of this list might like further evidence of
     Rothwell's omnipotence. Anyone trying to pass on background information
     to list watcdhers runs the risk of smartass remarks from the great
     Jeddy. This is what he sent me, privately of course, after I passed on a
     brief snippet from a news wire:
 
     >m.kenward@bbcnc.org.uk (Michael Kenward) asks:
     >
     >     "Has anyone seen the reports of Arthur C Clarke's espousal of cold
     >     fusion?"
     >
     >Yes, years ago.
     >
     >
     >     "Apparently he said CF was neither cold and probably was...
     >
     >That is correct. He said that when Liverpool University awarded him
     >"the first satellite degree" a few weeks ago. He spoke to them via a
     >satellite video hookup from his house in Sri Lanka.
     >
     >- Jed
 
     Nice chap, don't you think?"
 
First of all, that was not private. The title of my e-mail message was "Copy
of s.p.f. posting" which means that was a duplicate of the message I posted to
this forum.
 
Second, I do *not* know everything. I am sure I do not. I have two daughters
and they tell me that every day.
 
However, I do happen to know about this speech, because Dr. Clarke was kind
enough to call me and tell me about it. He faxed me part of it with hilarious
ad-lib comments penciled in. I wish I could see the full video.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Feb  4 04:37:03 EST 1995
------------------------------
