1995.02.04 / Michael Huffman /  Tiny *Griggs Type* Unit
     
Originally-From: knuke@big.aa.net (Michael Huffman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tiny *Griggs Type* Unit
Date: 4 Feb 1995 19:29:03 -0800
Organization: Alternate Access Inc. - Affordable, Reliable Internet Access


To All Interested Parties:

My name is Michael Huffman.  I've developed a small, tabletop device that
works on some of the same principles that Jim Griggs is developing.  I 
read in here the other day a post from Bill Beaty describing his initial
impression of the machine.  I applied for, and have been granted a US patent
on the technology, which I consider to be an advancement over Griggs' work.
I built three prototypes which are all operational for testing purposes.

To date, no rigorous testing has been done on the machine because of lack
of equipment, time, and money.  Perhaps the most astounding thing about
the machine is that I built it entirely with one tool (a Dremel MotoTool),
which I bought on sale for $59, and that the entire machine can be made
for around $150.  For researchers, experimenters, and educators wishing
to demonstrate various principles of physics, this machine is both 
affordable and usable in a practicle sense.  With some vary small design
changes, the machine could also be a commercially viable product.

Anyone wishing to know more about this device can contact me personally at:

Michael Huffman
1825 Nagle Place #210
Seattle, WA 98122

Tel. 206-325-2461

E-mail: knuke@aa.net
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenknuke cudfnMichael cudlnHuffman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.05 / John Logajan /  Halo-nuclie and the Omegon
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Halo-nuclie and the Omegon
Date: 5 Feb 1995 20:01:29 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, Associate Professor Chris Illert and
Daniela Reverberi of the Institute for Basic Research in East Corrimal,
NSW, Australia, expound on the implications of the existance of halo-nuclie
in two articles in the current issue (#6, vol 1) of "Cold Fusion."

They say that halo-nuclie have been detected, such as 11Li (lifetime 0.0085
seconds) by Klapisch at CERN in the mid 1970's.  Further that Tanihata at
LLL found evidence by 1985 that 11Li was essentially a nucleus of 9Li 
"surrounded by a diffuse halo (tens of fermis thick) formed by a dineutron
orbiting at great distance from the nuclear "core," well beyond the range
of simple [pi] meson exchange."

They also suggest that other halo-nuclei exist, such as 14Be and perhaps 19C.

That halo-nuclie can exist for 8.5mS beyond the range of the normal postulated
strong force is quite illuminating if true.  There must be another longer
range nuclear bond in operation, or the strong nuclear force has properties
not yet fully explained.

Their second article in the same issue is about the "omegon", which among
other things, explains alpha decay in terms of a 1/9th fractional charged
particle -- where they find correlations in the existing experimental data
between alpha particle exit energy and Z (# of protons) of the parent nucleus.

The "omegon" then is a longer range nuclear force than the pi meson (strong
nuclear force) and may have bearing in CF.

Their case is rationally argued, and the manner in which they correlated
their evidence is presented.  Very nice article.  Food for thought.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.05 / Harry Conover /  Re: Research on the Griggs Device
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Research on the Griggs Device
Date: 5 Feb 1995 18:57:59 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

mitchell swartz (mica@world.std.com) wrote:
:   In Message-ID: <3h14fc$4qb@sundog.tiac.net>
: Subject: Re: research on the Griggs device


:   Is that right?  "Just immerse a resistor in a tank of water.  It heats 
: the water with 100% efficiency."

Yes, mitchell, for all practical purposes, it does.  You do understand 
the meaning of "for all practical purposes," I assume.  Some academics 
don't.

: Let's assume that the water volume - post thermal transfer -
:  is perfectly thermally insulated.  No conduction, convection, 
: or radiation.  (Unlikely).        Even with that
: does all the energy go via the Poynting vector to the water as 
: claimed above?

ROFL.  A truly inspired and creative, albeit bizarre, example of 
misapplication of the Poynting Vector.  Thanks, Mitch.

For analytical purposes, once thermal equilibrium is reached, all of the 
energy dissipated by the resistor has transferred to the resistor/water 
system, in which thermal mass of the resistor itself is usually a 
negligible component.  (Example: A 10 gram resistor immersed in 10 Kg of 
water.)  

: 100% implies that there is no electrical dissipation in the wires leading
:  to the resistor?  You must use superconductors, or so
:  much for Kirchoff's law and the simple power rule
:      Pdissipated in the leads  = Rleads * I^2

: 100% implies that there is no thermal conduction back up the wires,
: thereby bypassing the tank of water?

Again, since the resistance of the resistor can and is usually made 
arbitrarily higher than the resistance of outside leads, lead dissipation 
can be safely ignored.  (Example, a 100-K Ohm resistor with 2 milli-Ohm 
leads.) With respect to thermal conduction, small, low-thermal 
conductivity leads are generally used within the adiabatic enclosure, 
their resistance being included as part of the overall resistance. 
Outside the calorimeter, large, low electrical resistance leads 
minimize I^2R loss outside the thermal 
chamber.

: 100% efficiency of heating the water, as you claim,
: implies that there is absolutely no energy in the magnetic field?   

Sure there is energy in the magnetic field, but anyone with a grain of 
analytical common sense can tell you that it's negligible in comparison 
with the I^2R heating of the resistor/water system -- unless one 
conspires to create a somewhat perverse electical duty cycle...lets 
say 1-ms pulses of current, rather than dc. At from dc to 60-Hz, years of 
use have show that this consideration is safe to ignore.  (In fact, most 
thermal type r.f. instrumentation is calibrated using 60-Hz sinewaves.)

: 100% implies that there is no capacitive effects, no polarization
: effects at all?  You must have a perfect electrical  insulator.
: So much for other forms of conduction and polarization.

Again, mitch, I suspect your have been spending too much time with the 
books, and too little time in the lab.  :-)  You are correct in 
theory, but you're ignoring the practical insignificance of many of 
these factors.  Except for a borderline, poorly design experiment, these 
marginal effects are usually safe to ignore (once you put numbers on them).

:    How do you do it Harry?  Several of the above are insignificant,
: but together their superposition may make for less than 100% efficiency
: in heating water as your post does claim.

Agree, if you really get down to the nits, it isn't precisely  100%, as 
few things in life are perfect, however, the point is that this type of 
calibration can be made as close to 100% as is needed, plus, you can 
quantify your error.  In fact, you have to be pretty sloppy to be off 
more than 0.5% with this type of calibration, and that error primarily stems 
from imperfect adiabatic conditions, a factor that you didn't discuss 
much except for thermal conductivity of the leads (which can also be made 
quite negligible).

: Have you really done calorimetry?  And if you did, how did you 
: overcome the above  and exactly how do 

Mitch, please recall that calorimetry is the usual basis for 
measuring the energy content of complex electrical and r.f. waveforms.  
It forms the basis of all thermocouple type electical measuring devices
for voltage, current, and power.  Yes, I've had quite a bit of practical 
experience in these areas and in designing/calibrating such devices.

: you actually define 100% efficiency in your system based 
: upon the power supply variables to get that "100%" which you claim
: proves Jed Rothwell and the other calorimetric contributors
: are incorrect?  Thanks in advance.

I'm not sure that I understand this last comment.  Can you rephrase it a 
little?

What I am saying is that I seriously doubt that Jed, and some of the 
others have even minimally baseline their energy measurement 
instrumentation by the use of fundamental calibration and error 
detection (sanity check) techniques.  However, since the exact 
methodology remains vague, I (of course) cannot state this as absolute
certainty for the Griggs device.  

Kindest regards...

                                     Harry C.



cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.05 /  SPhysiques@aol /  cmsg cancel <950205132426_13591471@aol.com>
     
Originally-From: SPhysiques@aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.spam,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <950205132426_13591471@aol.com>
Date: 05 Feb 1995 19:52:12 GMT
Organization: Imminent Death of Net Predicted.  Film at 11.

This spam has been cancelled.

An explanation of this action has been posted to news.admin.misc.
Please read that message if you have any questions.  Feel free to
contact me at the Reply-To address if you have any further questions.
cudkeys:
cuddy05 cudenSPhysiques cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.05 / 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: 5 Feb 1995 23:55:43 GMT
Organization: DCC - UNICAMP - Campinas, SP, Brazil


    > [John Logajan:] There were additional photos which give
    > sufficient clues to estimate the size [of the Griggs Gadget]
    > to within a few inches.

Well, what can I say.  

So, should we believe your estimates, or Jed's description?

    > Jed replied to this message and said that Gene ran hot water
    > tests.  In reality, Gene posted both hot water and steam
    > results.  There are 14 minutes of results for the steam run at a
    > steady COP of about 1.2, and about 10 minutes of hot water run
    > data at a relatively steady COP of about 1.1.

You are right.  I forgot about that other post.

    > So the saturation explanation doesn't explain the steady COP of
    > the hot water run.

So we are left with only 10% aparent excess heat for ~10 minutes.

Let me just note that the input power in that test was 65 kW,
compared to 14 kW in Jed's tests (both in "heat producing" mode).
It would seem that we are talking about a much bigger machine.  Would
you care to guess its thermal capacity and cooling time?

By the way, quoting from Gene's "hot water" post:

    > Average input water temperature, degrees-F:  80.39
    > Average output water temperature, degrees-F: 148.2
    > ...
    > Note well that this is a *very* conservative number, because no
    > account whatsoever is being made of the thermal radiation and
    > convective air heat transfer from the very hot pump housing to
    > the external environment.

But 148 F = 65 C is hardly "very hot".  Should we conclude that
the housing was actually hotter than the output water?  
(You can see where that would lead, don't you?)

  --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:
cuddy5 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.05 / Frank Pitt /  Re: Real Fusion
     
Originally-From: frankie@mundens.equinox.gen.nz (Frank Pitt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Real Fusion
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 95 16:42:01 GMT
Organization: Munden's Bar

In article <3gpb8l$cok@dingo.cc.uq.oz.au> fernee@physics.uq.oz.au writes:

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

Don't be sorry Mark, the jerk had it coming to him, and you
were far more restrained than I would have been.


Frankie


	    
cudkeys:
cuddy05 cudenfrankie cudfnFrank cudlnPitt cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.05 /   /  Re: WAKE UP YOU SCIENTISTS (was Non-conservation of energy)
     
Originally-From: Sigma9 <aavd@unm.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: WAKE UP YOU SCIENTISTS (was Non-conservation of energy)
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 1995 20:32:47 -0700
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque


I don't think you fully understand what has happened here. The 
destructive interference of the two overlaping beams does not destroy any 
energy. It merely converts the energy into a direct current photon (or 
something very close) What your saying is like saying that a photon at 
its crest has more energy than a photon at mid-wave. That's absurd. Your 
experiment just converts the photons energy into a form of potential 
energy (which is unusually hard to extract, but that's not the point) The 
thing is that the energy has not been destroied. It is still conserved.

The second thing is that fusion is not the attempt to create energy out 
of nothing. Fusion is the attempt to extract the potential energy that is 
stored in the nuclear bonds of atoms by taking two atoms of a high energy 
state and switching things around to create two atoms of a low energy 
state. The energy differental is turned into the kenetic energy of the 
resultant particles. Fusion reseachers to not try to violate 
thermodynamics or conservation of energy. In fact they DEPEND on it or 
else the part about conserving the total energy to predict the ending 
kenetic energy wouldn't make any sense.


It was a nice try, but... no.

The only phenomenon that does anything close to destroing energy would be 
to collide two high energy X-rays to create an electron and its anti (e+ 
and e-) However Einstein tells us that E = mc2 and the energy of the X-ray 
minus the kenetic energy of the result electron always equals the mass of 
an electron times the speed of light squared. Thus energy is STILL conserved.

	(This conservation thing is like a reacuring theme from an Ed 
			Wood flick)


	-Sigma9
	 C.E.O. Digitalis Development
	 Light ion fusion computational experimentalist
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenaavd cudln cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.05 /   /  Re: COLD FUSION CULT
     
Originally-From: Sigma9 <aavd@unm.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION CULT
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 1995 20:46:42 -0700
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

On 5 Feb 1995, ArcTorch wrote:

> Tens of thousands of dollars of our money spent to send a contingent of
> scientists to conferences and not present ONE IOTA of positive results. 
> What a crock!!
> 
> If anyone believes that just because you have a PhD you are
> immune from being hoodwinked by people who claim "knowledge" that most
> others do not know, then you are being very naive.  "I WILL SHOW YOU THE
> WAY TO TRUE SALVATION"     "I WILL SHOW YOU THE WAY TO LIMITLESS ENERGY"

...I don't know what brand of vaccuum cleaner you are using currently, 
but the Hoover cold fusion series 1000...really sucks

> I also
> would request that everyone remember the most fundamental law of life, a
> law that transcends even science itself:  "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A
> FREE LUNCH"
> 

Amen brother. 

'nuff said.

	-Sigma9
	 C.E.O. Digitalis Development
	 Light ion fusion computational experimentalist
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenaavd cudln cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.06 / Harry Conover /  Re: Real Fusion
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Real Fusion
Date: 6 Feb 1995 06:27:17 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Frank Pitt (frankie@mundens.equinox.gen.nz) wrote:
: In article <3gpb8l$cok@dingo.cc.uq.oz.au> fernee@physics.uq.oz.au writes:

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

: Don't be sorry Mark, the jerk had it coming to him, and you
: were far more restrained than I would have been.



Sure, calling people dickheads is restrained!

Good ridance. 

                              Harry C.

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.06 / Harry Conover /  Re: Why NOT split the group? [was: Moderated group, ...]
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why NOT split the group? [was: Moderated group, ...]
Date: 6 Feb 1995 06:40:14 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Michael Kenward (m.kenward@bbcnc.org.uk) wrote:
: >
: >     The relevant point here is that there does not appear to be anywhere
: >     near enough traffic for a group strictly devoted to 
: >     hot fusion.  In any case, it does seem a bit odd to suggest that
: >     the predominant and historically-appropriate traffic go elsewhere.
: >
: >

: Dale

: While many of your other points are valid, the lack of hot-fusion traffic
: here is not because of a lack of interest, but because real scientists have
: run for cover rather than wading through the treacle that pervades this
: group. The signal to noise ratio is too low.

As a "real scientist" of over 30 years standing, I find your conclusions 
to be rather....er...silly!  Come on guys, this environment is not 
exactly a peer reviewed journal, thank God!  If the s/n ration drives the 
"real scientists" away, they ain't much of a scientist to begin with!

As a veteran of Forrestal, C Stellerator et al, my perception is that any 
shortfall of hot fusion discussion here is because realistically slow 
progression of events in the field, and not because of the noise level.

Stop looking for scape goats!

                                      Harry C.

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
: In any case, the sheer weight of traffic here, three or four _digests_ a
: day, could well shrink without running the risk of petering out.

: As to the name, call it what you like, but the label 'fusion' would more
: normally be seen as describing the hot stuff. Boeing is free to start
: calling its big flying things bananas if it wants to, but there might be
: some confusion on the part of travellers. And the people who grow those bent
: yellow things might be a bit miffed.

: Michael Kenward

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.06 / Akira Kawasaki /  Re: COLD FUSION CULT
     
Originally-From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION CULT
Date: 6 Feb 1995 09:33:38 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3h3p4u$173@newsbf02.news.aol.com> arctorch@aol.com (ArcTorch) 
writes: 

>
>I work at  a large federal government laboratory where for the past 
five
>years individuals have attempted to demonstrate the phenomenon of cold
>fusion.  Two groups have been involved, the first being electrochemists
>trying to measure excess heat in a cell similar to P&F and the second
>physicists using highly sophisticated particle detectors to look for 
the
>products of nuclear reactions following the charging of palladium and
>other materials with deuterium.  After these five years and spending 
about
>$2,000,000 of our taxpayer money, they have yet to produce a SINGLE
>scientific paper that has demonstrated anything remotely resembling 
"cold
>fusion."   They also tried to reproduce some Japanese work that claimed
>positive results, but our people came up empty.  The people at our lab
>that have been involved are not skeptics who are trying to disprove 
cold
>fusion.  They are open-minded about it (probably too open-minded) and a
>management official overseeing all of this falls under the category of 
a
>"true believer."   Now, of course, all of these negative results have 
not
>dissuaded many of these people from using taxpayer funds to travel 
around
>the world to go to cold fusion conferences where virtually everyone is 
a
>TB.  Let's see:  there was Italy in 1991, Japan in 1992, a luxury 
resort
>on Maui in 1993, and now the crown jewel of travel, Monte Carlo in 
1995. 
>Tens of thousands of dollars of our money spent to send a contingent of
>scientists to conferences and not present ONE IOTA of positive results. 
>What a crock!!
>
>So regardless of all the hype that is out there that claims that it is
>fairly easy to reproduce positive results, that just isn't the truth.  
I
>suspect that there are many labs, including those financed by us
>taxpayers, that have nothing but negative results to show for their
>efforts but are afraid to publicize that.  
>
>The attacks on those who question the true believers remind me of the
>vitriolic responses of cult leaders who are questioned about their
>practices.  If anyone believes that just because you have a PhD you are
>immune from being hoodwinked by people who claim "knowledge" that most
>others do not know, then you are being very naive.  "I WILL SHOW YOU 
THE
>WAY TO TRUE SALVATION"     "I WILL SHOW YOU THE WAY TO LIMITLESS 
ENERGY"
>There really isn't much difference.   The cult leader (Jim Jones comes 
to
>mind) would always say that their critics were close-minded, unwilling 
to
>accept the new ideas and knowledge that he offered.  And that is just 
what
>the cold fusion "leaders" are saying.  Also, let us not forget that 
many
>cult leaders do hope to get rich quick by persuading their followers to
>"invest" their money in the leader's new knowledge.  
>
>So there you have it.  Expect more vitriol from those who claim to know
>things that most of the rest of us "narrow-minded" people do not.  I 
also
>would request that everyone remember the most fundamental law of life, 
a
>law that transcends even science itself:  "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A
>FREE LUNCH"
>

I would say, please write up you efforts to replicate the cold fuision 
effect, positive or negative. This is the only way your science peers 
(or anybody else) can see where your experiments correctly proved or 
failed to prove cold fusion. This is the only way, by your data from 
accurate detailed experiments can the public ascertain the correctness 
of your judgementa on cold fusion. This is the only way that your peers 
can, if they want, replicate your experiments to confirm for themselves, 
your results. Also plesse include a bibliography of references from 
which you were impelled to do the experiments. Lacking these, your claim 
that cold fusion is a cult, after $2,000.000.00 (or any 
undocumented amounts) cannot be accepted. No reflection on you as a 
person.
--AK--  
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenaki cudfnAkira cudlnKawasaki cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.06 / Akira Kawasaki /  Fusion Power in 1995 Scientific Encyclopedia: Van Nostrand
     
Originally-From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion Power in 1995 Scientific Encyclopedia: Van Nostrand
Date: 6 Feb 1995 10:08:59 GMT
Organization: Netcom

   Went to a technical bookstore to browse. Saw that a new Eighth 
Edition, copyrighted 1995, two voulume reference Scientific Encyclopedia 
by Douglas M. Considine published by Van Nostrand Reinhold was out.
   Out of curiosity, looked into the topic of Cold Fusion, there was 
nothing there. Then looked up Fusion Power. There, the article ran on 
about the work into hot fusion, five pages out of five and a half pages. 
Then in the very last paragraph, Cold Fusion! The paragraph summarized 
the 1989-1990 period controversy and failed experiments. But the last 
sentence of the paragraph reads: "However, to a DWINDLING 
(capitalization mine) degree, the topic remains controversial". 
Interesting.
--AK-- 

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenaki cudfnAkira cudlnKawasaki cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.06 / Alex Teo /  ?AE modes (was: Hot fusion, anyone?)
     
Originally-From: act@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Alex Chih-Yao Teo)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ?AE modes (was: Hot fusion, anyone?)
Date: 6 Feb 1995 10:22:52 GMT
Organization: Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik, Garching bei Muenchen, Germany

Michael Kenward (m.kenward@bbcnc.org.uk) sez:
[...Summary: Alfven wave eigenmodes in stellators...]
: I'd be interested. Does it have any impact on heating methods for tokamaks?

On the way! [Thanks also to all the people who emailed me personally on
this matter.] A brief answer for the time being:

The main reason for the present interest in this field is the fear that
these modes may be driven resonantly unstable by fast particles in the
plasma. Alfvenwave Eigenmodes (usually known by their acronyms: GAE, TAE,
BAE, EAE, ?AE...) have been observed in most large machines - excited
usually by Neutral Beam Injected (NBI) particles. They have also been
observed in TFTR (JET as well?) during D-T shots, excited by fast fusion
products. The stability of these modes may present additional constraints
on ITER and future fusion reactors.

: Why do you need further diagnostic techniques? What does your method tell
: you that other techniques cannot? My expereinec of plasma diagnostics goes
: back to doing the very first laser scattering measurements and I was under
: the impression that there weren't many problems on this front,

The spectrum of ?AE modes depends very sensitively on the q- or iota-
profile of the plasma. Using the spectrum of these modes to work backwards
and therefore deduce these profiles doesn't offer much further information
which you can't get from laser scattering/interferometry/polarimetry;
rather it just offers an independent measurement. As for which "meter" has
a lower measurement uncertainty, I hope to be able to give you that answer
in a couple of years' time...

: unlike cold
: fusion which still doesn't seem to have any satisfactory way of showing what
: the heck is going on.

The temptation to make a political statement is tempting.... :)

: I didn't know that Sydney had fusion research. ANU and Adelaide yes. (I've
: visited both teams.)

<gasp> Monsieur!
In Australia, Sydney is the oldest-established fusion laboratory!

I'll try to send a summary of the work from Sydney Uni when I've finished
with the construction of the ?AE summary. While I'm at it, perhaps also a
flier about W7-AS? W7-X? ASDEX-U? <there go my next few weekends...>

				ciao, Alex Teo
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenact cudfnAlex cudlnTeo cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.05 /  Tingod /  WAKE UP YOU SCIENTISTS (was Non-conservation of energy)
     
Originally-From: me@tingod.demon.co.uk (Tingod)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: WAKE UP YOU SCIENTISTS (was Non-conservation of energy)
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 1995 21:17:31 +0000
Organization: Myorganisation

This is a reposting....ONLY TWO REPLIES RECEIVED:-(  DOES THIS MEAN THAT 
ONLY TWO PEOPLE ARE INTERESTED IN THE DESTRUCTION OF ENERGY? SURELY NOT!

This newsgroup appears to be devoted to systems for the creation
of energy out of nothing.  As a complete change I will shortly
describe an experiment that takes energy and turns it into nothing. 
You may think that there is not likey to be a great call for such a
device and you may be right.  Nevertheless if energy can be shown
to be capable of destruction then it is a relatively small step to
assume that it may also be capable of creation.  There are those
that would insist that to create energy one must first master the
art of destroying it.
It is essential for a clear explanation that I include a diagram of
the apparatus used in the experiment and it's set-up.  This will
enable others to dupicate the effect if they have access to a
simple helium-neon laser.

Here are the instructions for converting the following coded
diagram into normal graphical form.
Obtain uudecode.exe from your local BBS.  Copy this posting renamed net.uue.
Enter uudecode -path-net.uue -path- ed.gif.  Use a graphics view program 
capable of displaying ??.gif files.  Print diagram from program utility 
or by using Print Screen.
Return to this text 
Start of coded diagram
section 1 of uuencode 4.21 of file ED.GIF    by R.E.M.

begin 644 ED.GIF
M1TE&.#=A`````),`````````J@"J``"JJJH``*H`JJI5`*JJJE5550``_P#_
M``#___\``/\`____`/___RP`````@`+@`0,$^_"!2:N]..O-N_]@*(YD:9YH
MJJYLZ[YP+,^T)M5XKN]\[__`H'!(_#V.MZ)RR6PZG]"H=-I*4J_8K';+[7J5
MUJ]X3"Z;SVAA.,UNN]_P.'<MK]OO^+Q^S^_[_X"!@H.$A8:'B(F*BXR-CH^0
MD9*3E)66EYB9FIN<G9Z?H*&BHZ2EIJ>HJ:JKK*VNK["QLK.TM;:WN+FZN[R]
MOK_`P<+#Q,7&Q\C)RLO,S<[/T-'2T]35UM?8V=K;W-W>W^#AXN/DY>;GZ.GJ
MZ^SM[N_P\?+S]/7V]_CY^OO\_?[^``,*'$BPH,&#"!,J7,BPH<.'$"-*G$BQ
M`A(Z%3.B.C*!^Z/&CQLM8`1)DM.:D2536L+H4:7+E1Q:OISI"*5%FS1S_L$I
MDJ?.GW9\7A`*M"@;HD.1&EWZ12D&F4RCGG%JXR)4J5BQ4`VQ-:M7'EVY?AW[
M)*P(LV33KD![EJW:MV>!N(5+=\-<$G?KZNU().]>N'Y+!/X[=K!@PHCC,C&<
M>"F2)HP;_[0:6:SDRQ8[6BU2&;/*))0?J_$L.4QHT49()S[I\;2/SH5.RYY-
MN[;MV[!5K\V`&D!HL*NN=A&NNVQ5UIMSY!Y$?$OSXDML]KZ9?,9S4->U+H<^
M@N=TZA=I;`>4_4IY[JD]?.])&<9YD^/=QZ]6G>\'O_-/$%V?^[2^BOQ]O">%
M@/%882`(^#G7EE"__<<*@5!`^,Z!%)@V76_AQ?2=A3)5YY]U>!'8X&$/`LB"
MA.[X-Y)IF55H5XLN\F:?2*\))N&(EI58!HKMK,@>5`9F:`.,,VJ&FI"^\?="
M5TIJV-Y]K_"XF(G1^!ACD;X1V8&*1-+A90UF-;GEDR]&2>5_9SYC984<=?AC
MCE@^UJ:0'RZ)9IAD#A6+E-&EV4^=4[@E)H)Y9CE*=GR"X>=GRE61*'BB+9H&
MH#?M*&E*D>4UZ(*X=>KIIZ"&*NJH.#9U*:8@+OGH4Z2VZNJKL,9Z:G>SEA38
M8)N&*.NNO/:Z*YQ3HK>EG=:M^YI9KI10RB:P?0H[[(E@&FL?LI4,*J"7&-)Y
M9)),ULJH@SA0&Q.;WN)Q[;B&TAAC2UM)BUB8.H@[)+FSG-L?NT?2N5:YWY(8
M;Z(<UKN?GE>V^"6:SB+H;[Q\(B<P5\G)*4%]^B*<,)2*]2!OP?3*XJY<_+XT
M,,A.L?1QM2&/>3&S,@8A[XHG)YNRABNSK*X:]O(6\R0[@S6SR&4.@:QT/4=2
M-,,U9WQS7^7AM#%V/U>5M-)8"HVH>D<_DG6X4<]$X90H^?3T)UM'.W5W52O*
M$J%=NU&V>&W35.MZ^[V]B*]XTW8VV@,"N>#>$O&+(:UQ`ZY,RI'J:KA#,\MI
M_&/ABQ<3]=AC1TY/UY3;;;DW;6<.^>:^=.XYZ`1USJT)E9.^CNFG/ZXZ0*RW
MKOCK_,0N.^&T[V/[[7_GCL_NO$/\N>]1#L=JNYH3OPSP1J*>O/+(,-^\Z]##
M(_WTLU??H_%V\9BZ]M9<WW'VX*,C_OBXEV\^]V,B/[SZGIQ/G?/OP[^)_/-3
M;_\XD_=._O[A>!Y>TD<^``90@`HCH`(-R+\H4&5T##3'J=Q'OPB>0U+=HJ`%
M)1@=%$!P@^5`(,<**#P0KL]E=ZJ@"2\HEWUI<(42W(Z@O"="&.JB;'/YH`TO
MF"D7Z'"'/)2!IFA8/R"&(D&J>J$1S7>76Q%QB?OL^%ZZDJA"**XN!8;YH15/
MN+`NLJ>*6U3'`[$8MB>&,8I\PV+WE`B9(I[1"T@1U!K!")X63O&-JAC9;HY#
MQR*-YVMX3`6#?#A'_<UK!RP*9'#4XRC^:+%2P%F:(D_A-(V9,2DU>LHD!8DN
MG[$Q;>$ZY"9+$38C7!)2G9'.*$VQ)DM^,CU!6Z4HUD:R/F;R6;(\HB9==DI8
MXC*79",8+U^)2*H!\WZ2-"4Q&V7,8V8"D,.T)3/3Z$Q-@$9MT@03ZJII$E`J
M,YNIVB8WGWE'JRU3B.`:YTHPV$MMIE.=R7+"(]$)+7@R8Y[N(:0]E]?.&"!Q
MG]'K)['D`]!CX/RSGN$LJ#`.^LYB*72A`MUCO!X*#(;JYY84W85%O3C1C&HT
MHA=%X2A;*<IDDF*CS;3D)L-"TCJ:5&L@'2!G5EI2))GL8'%:YSFIR31%MO)K
M7-KE\5S*K1JV<:<V$UH@?PHC0,+L*D[U(R%0^DO(X)&D'NH2([6Z+BWM)*88
MB]!5*7;(J`KUCF95UAZH6E)YJE.M6(/JF[Q)'K!VLF\>+28BV"I,*A@UKU]%
M:EL#!5@S"?:L67!C8;7`5[H.:+$E.JQ7$UL4Q=+'KI/5BE$L2PVV%HZSUP!M
M8@ME"*I^EBFBU0Y<`PO.S)HG*JDU#VEC8]?3PA86I2HM6&U[6\/[(ND0#.5M
M;UV16]J>4[C#;45QIQI1Y"8WLK_5+3&=^]S@S):YKZ1N=?-X7>:T4[O;%61W
M!?%#\(9W(^,-A`[->UY*IK>N+V1O>UGY7M;JZ@;RG2\IVY.W_OKW5>6D+%UB
MZU?^^O?`"`Y54_1"X$`9.,$0CO!LX+B7!O=MM7[PW%]3FA8+.["^&?9>\`C[
M%P]'",0!0A%H-KS5$N,6Q7S86,#\NIH78SC%2G$8B=]EX^CVY:7*$9'.O&7B
M$/98BJI:5BT3.&2QEN;(+';1Q`+,L$$6TJJ7*7(\#96?7'DGRE1VL3X'NDC7
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MU4KS6SRUCM;MH\Z<>S7\SHE/N`-3&&3MDT;Y)H7\IL(S;RYT(_+Y4JE]Q#P]
MK>'_R/M8=F&5D9]\*%MXB)7!-/T+9/\ZX.=H^(5^^G52TZ<@\L$8=U8]^Y=$
M[C<&661\D]=[O@5_2E4L;1:!OK.`Z[9WC`5G8X8^&=A_;9!*[H)V"FA_+_<K
ML#%J-W6"$YB"OG)^;/%4+DA<,`AS@<9S?1:"+^A&^L>!G\=R()@[&MA(#:A9
MH6=\4N(T`HA:(D@&-P6$@0=U<2>!-BB%\2=W1TAW5%B%/'B%6[A]@A>&>;=L
M4VB%RE6`\29\9+AX;.>&RE.$Z-:&B^%!:LAW?7>&7YB&6+AML4>'7B9SI->#
M%+:!>V<M)#2(8$B!_/XD1)*7>I0'>=`CARY$AQ48:'#5))*U>H38@3*H+)N7
M>V/WA*_5>M=%-W9(B5?4B:4X3"HR>OK1A(Y!BH^E-A[B)M$WB;3H9&"S&>R7
MBC7(AY8822?F&C.DBI!%3P5VAW"8C+0P.?K72,Y8"Y\E+8PXC35A*M8HB]@H
M!Z?%@MS8C<2W8'@HB.+(2N18CF]WCJ24CNH8A*\SC)X8B:XE6L@%CLC(04J'
M>R%%CT65AVLXCT,8B_EH9,=S3=F29_ARC38G23;59#;W9VY5B)`(C+3WBP'8
M?--B,$274$L#5+]%<*FG+0RI>F+8C+GH@C@5?$8R>_L(?1'95!0W9/PGP57B
MUX@4B9(6280<J9&3M9*6UI!9%7&@=W$;^9(2-0=EN)-$F)`-1U3_:'&>I&Y"
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M'MB<Z&F;O"A]XMF>_O>>\'F>\@D'8+8<^'B?:CE3GA2?_)F=ERB#`!J@^$DE
M\;&?!AH47;9D[+F@;F-'WV2?$!JA&&6*!5JAD7>#5*E7T42A&OIZQ/BA#QJB
M_-A1YI2A)NIG'IJB(+JB.X*B3,.=!6DK(;F5.AB<03=K)<I-5JEO7L>B[M0G
M-/I05AF2"LF$L-B2+(ES=0B38*.B;W6C0CF35UF/KW:2.'E44CI.6$6E+2EH
MH09\3.IT3[JE7/JB/BI*T'236HB5U+:2?DAF:=JCU?2EF*8E82B1IS,G^5*2
M9EB6=2J=_-[9AUR9H_M6I#!JH8(J3]M8H^>8:0ZFJ(LZ@DEY85U:J5`8I)C(
MH:"FJ?29=8;HJ0`&JL8AA`=(JJ5JJEGXA@RHJJW"JA,IJJD*JZ0BJZW:8I]H
MJZ."JV<:J-W'J[WJJP&Y:L1Z3\!ZK,Y02<K:68S7K-`@DM!:)0TYK=0*D-:J
M)BZ9K=@`J-SZK>`:KI-IK%A*D]@JKN34CP#9INBJ2T+9H1CH34Y)INTZKC%Y
M)4%UD%=ZE.-7KQG&IC))E%655AWIK^114Q4CE0*[L%RFE0;K?V3U;#]JIGKZ
MBP]K30YK=!>[L1S;L1[[L2`;LB([LB1;LB9[LBB;LBJ[LJ0LV[(N^[(P&[,R
M.[,T6[,V>[,XF[,ZN[,\V[,^^[-`&[1".[1$6[1&>[1(F[1*N[1,V[1.^[10
M&[52.[546[56>[58F[5:N[5<V[5>^[5@&[9B.[9D6[9F>[9HF[9JN[9LV[9N
M^[9P&[=R.[=T6[=V>[=XF[=ZN[=\V[=^^[>`&[B".[B$6[B&>[B(F[B*N[B,
5V[B.^[B0&[F2.[F46[F6.PT1```[
`
end
sum -r/size 6850/5571 section (from "begin" to "end")
sum -r/size 23436/4026 entire input file

End of coded diagram

c:  Energy Loss in Cancelling Anti-phase Beams

By careful adjustment of the positions of the two pieces of plate
glass the two beams meeting at point M, 1 and 3, can be made to be
in anti-phase across their whole width.  As a result the net light
reaching the screen is zero.  That is, beam 4 apparently no longer 
exists. The image on the screen projected by the lens is used
to make the said adjustment.  It takes considerable patience to set
up the two pieces of plate glass to achieve this condition.  An
additional piece of thin glass sheet may be positioned in beam 2 and
rotated to aid obtaining the required perfect cancelling condition. 
By perfect I mean that at least 90 percent of the light is
cancelled out. 
Where now is the energy that must be present in the two cancelling
beams?. 
In other experiments it will be found that when two
beams cancel there is a correspond non-cancelling of some other
beams to compensate.  Not in this case!
This question can only be resolved by repeating the experiment
using a powerful laser.  If energy is still reaching the screen,
despite the cancelling of the two beams, then a suitable sensitive
detector should be able to detect it.  These detectors must detect
very minute changes in either momentum or temperature.  A simple
photo-detector only confirms the projected image energy as less 
than 90 percent.
Unfortunately this high-power version of the experiment remains to
be implemented.
If, as seems highly unlikely, no energy is detected the only
remaining conclusion is that the conservation of energy law does
not apply in this case!

D.A.Chalmers

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenme cudlnTingod cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.05 / Matt Austern /  Re: research on the Griggs device
     
Originally-From: matt@physics7.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: research on the Griggs device
Date: 05 Feb 1995 23:36:28 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)

In article <3h14fc$4qb@sundog.tiac.net> conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes:

> Sure it is, Jed.  Just immerse a resistor in a tank of water.  It heats 
> the water with 100% efficiency.  Any calorimic devication from this is a 
> measure of the inaccuracty of your calorimetry or electrical power 
> measurement.

Not precisely; Jed is actually right in saying that the efficiency
will be less than 100%.

Almost all of the heat will go into the water, but some will escape
through the wires that connect the resistor to the power supply.  The
only way to prevent this is to make sure that the power supply is in
the tank along with the resistor---connect the resistor to a battery,
say, waterproof the whole shebang, and toss it underwater.
--

                               --matt
cudkeys:
cuddy05 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.05 / Harry Conover /  Re: research on the Griggs device
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: research on the Griggs device
Date: 5 Feb 1995 23:45:10 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Matt Austern (matt@physics7.berkeley.edu) wrote:

: Not precisely; Jed is actually right in saying that the efficiency
: will be less than 100%.

: Almost all of the heat will go into the water, but some will escape
: through the wires that connect the resistor to the power supply.  The
: only way to prevent this is to make sure that the power supply is in
: the tank along with the resistor---connect the resistor to a battery,
: say, waterproof the whole shebang, and toss it underwater.

True, but, careful design can make the thing damn close (make that 
arbitrarily close) to 100%. 

                                    Harry C.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.05 / Harry Conover /  Re: WAKE UP YOU SCIENTISTS (was Non-conservation of energy)
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: WAKE UP YOU SCIENTISTS (was Non-conservation of energy)
Date: 5 Feb 1995 23:59:56 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Tingod (me@tingod.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: This is a reposting....ONLY TWO REPLIES RECEIVED:-(  DOES THIS MEAN THAT 
: ONLY TWO PEOPLE ARE INTERESTED IN THE DESTRUCTION OF ENERGY? SURELY NOT!

: of energy out of nothing.  As a complete change I will shortly
: describe an experiment that takes energy and turns it into nothing. 
: You may think that there is not likey to be a great call for such a
: device and you may be right.  Nevertheless if energy can be shown
: to be capable of destruction then it is a relatively small step to
: assume that it may also be capable of creation.  

Perhaps if you would explain the hypothesis, rather than conveying the 
subject with a .gif, you might get a more spirited debate.

Given the subject matter, many of those here with scientific training are 
reluctant to invest in the effort to download and interpret a .gif file 
because, if the basis of the hypothesis cannot readily be explained 
adequately in text it, like the MRA device, is likely a the product of 
overactive and under-informed imaginations.  

                                   Harry C.


cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.07 / Richard Blue /  Nova versus SuperNova
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nova versus SuperNova
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 01:44:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In response to a query concerning fusion reactions in a Nova, I posted a
response that was appropriate only for a SuperNova.  Sorry, if that has
caused any confusion.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.07 / Richard Blue /  Re: Jed knows (almost) everything
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed knows (almost) everything
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 01:44:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I can sympathize with Jed's impatiences at having to go over the same
details repeatedly.  It does seem rather difficult at times to get
an issue settled so we can move on.  He did tell me that he measured
the length of the lever arm used to calibrate the dynamometer using
a ruler.  It is just that some other possible instruments that could
have been used got dragged into the discussion, and that led to some
confusion.  There was nothing complicated involved.  He just took
an ordinary ruler and held it against the lever and read off the length.

Now it my turn to be amazed at the response to my suggestion that
it out to be possible to make a GG with just 100% efficiency.  Immediately
we hear how difficult it would be to make the required measurements to
obtain such a result.  I agree!  I guess the only point where I may
differ with those who reacted to this latest suggestion is that I would
say that the difficults also apply to those cases where over unity
performance is being claimed.

This brings us to the question of "blank runs" for the operation of the
Griggs device.  Jed insists that he has described these blank runs in
previous posts, and that I have simply been too lazy to read them.  I am
sorry, but I just don't see how that could be true.  I try very hard to
read everything Jed posts, both here and on Compuserve.  I have even
kept logs on all this stuff.  I suppose I could begin a search through
the archives to find where I missed these key bits of information, but
I probably won't do that anytime soon.

Meanwhile I will just ask Jed to indulge me one more time to review the
"blank runs".  Possibly I need to clarify exactly what I am asking.  I
understand that sometimes the GG is not properly tuned such that it
takes more power to provide a given output.  Then some adjustments are
made and the power input drops sharply.  My questions have to do with
the nature of those adjustments.

If would seem to me that if the rate of input water flow were decreased
to tune the device, that must also change somethings at the output.  I
am right in assuming that mass flow is conserved through the GG am I not?
So is there some data as to what differences are observed when the
mass flow rate through the pump is varied?  The only other parameter I
have heard mention of is the output pressure.  If you leave the water
flow rate constant and adjust the output throttle how do the operating
parameters track?  Can you back up and return to lower operating
efficiency at will?  Which way to things track?  If the throttle is
closed that presumebly means the pump operates at a higher pressure and
higher temperature?  What does that do to the efficiency?  So getting
back to the question of a "blank run", is it actually possible to tune
from say 130% efficiency down to 100% efficiency and to operate that
way for an extended period?

I'm just asking.  If you want to drop the whole subject of the Griggs
pump and never mention it again, I could live with that.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.05 /  GMallory /  Re: Griggs questions
     
Originally-From: gmallory@aol.com (GMallory)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs questions
Date: 5 Feb 1995 19:01:24 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

There might be another source of energy in the Griggs device.  Reports of
pitting
on the aluminium roter make me think that it may be possible that it is
"burning"
aluminum.  The heavy cavitation would be just the thing to clean off the
normal
oxide surface coat and bare aluminium is very reactive. (e.g. Reacts with
iron oxide and make a LOT of heat)  Could even react with water.  
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudengmallory cudlnGMallory cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.06 / Bradley Sherman /  Re: COLD FUSION CULT
     
Originally-From: bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION CULT
Date: 6 Feb 1995 04:25:16 GMT
Organization: Dendrome, A Genome Database for Forest Trees

In article <Pine.A32.3.91.950205203720.209407B-100000@pegasus.unm.edu>
Sigma9 <aavd@unm.edu> writes:
>On 5 Feb 1995, ArcTorch wrote:
>>                                      ...  "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A
>> FREE LUNCH"
>Amen brother. 


Though apparently the innkeeper has forgotten to charge us for
the 6 x 10^24 kg planet, the large fusion reactor 1 AU away,
the supply of fresh water, and the 3 billion years of R&D to 
produce the wheat and beef on our table.

    --bks

-- 
Bradley K. Sherman              Institute of Forest Genetics
bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov                           P.O. Box 245
510-559-6437   FAX:510-559-6440       Berkeley, CA 94701 USA
<a href="http://s27w007.pswfs.gov/~bks">Dendrome Project</a>
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenbks cudfnBradley cudlnSherman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.05 / 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: 5 Feb 1995 23:05:31 GMT
Organization: DCC - UNICAMP - Campinas, SP, Brazil


    > [Jed Rothwell:] Gene reported on a hot water run, 
    > not a steam run.
    
Sorry, Gene definitely used the enthalpy of *steam* in his COP
computations:

    > [Gene:] 
    > Water input flow rate = 0.2818 gallons/minute
    > Energy content of steam = 1134 BTU/pound
    > BTU output in steam  = 162,033 BTU/hour

If it was a hot water run, as you say, he should have used the
enthalpy for liquid water (~250 btu/lb); but then the COP would turn
out to be only 0.2 or so.

Most likely, the output was a mixture of liquid water and steam in
unknown proportions.  So, all we can conclude from Gene's data is that
the COP was between 0.2 and 1.2. 

Case closed?

    > [Jed:] In the steam runs I reported, all enthalpy was captured
    > in the heat sink and converted to a Delta T water temperature
    > change.  Steam tables play no role in our reports.

And I never said they did.  

( However, just to be picky: in your tests the "steam" must have
  included some liquid water, too.  Look at your numbers:

                               Run 1          Run 2         Run 3
                             ("blank")     ("excess")     ("excess")
                            ----------     ----------     ----------
  Output heat captured:     27,000 btu     19,000 btu     27,000 btu
  Mass of condensed "steam":  26.0 lb        32.0 lb        42.0 lb
  Heat contents of "steam":   1038 btu/lb     594 btu/lb     643 btu/lb

  Since the heat contents of saturated steam is about 1100 btu/lb,
  even at 212F, the "steam" coming out of the machine in the "excess
  heat" runs must have been about 50% unboiled water.

  But you are right, this detail is irrelevant for the barrel test; 
  and indeed I have always taken your output heat data as given.
)

Now let me say something, in all seriousness: I wish to compliment
and thank Jed publicly for what is probably the best experimental 
cold fusion report that I have seen so far.

He is quite right when he says that calorimetry on the scale of the
Griggs gadget is much easier and reliable than on a lab-style
apparatus.  Thanks to the volume/area scaling laws, you don't have to
worry much about insulation if your calorimeter is big enough.  And, if you
are measuring kilowatt-hours, you don't have to worry about the effect
of sunlight or magnetic stirring, or subtle chemical reactions.

He also deserves applause for his choice of the barrel test.  Foul
play excluded, any heat added to the barrel water must have come from
the machine.  Given the scale of the experiment, and of the claimed
levels of excess heat, ordinary thermometers and scales are indeed
quite adequate for the job.

I don't think there are any gross errors in Jed's data. It all looks
pretty consistent with standard physics---including a few details that
would not be consistent with "cold fusion" explanations, which
I take as evidence that the data is legit.

Too bad the data does not support the "over unity" claims.

--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:
cuddy5 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.06 / Matt Austern /  Re: research on the Griggs device
     
Originally-From: matt@physics7.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: research on the Griggs device
Date: 06 Feb 1995 00:42:49 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)

In article <3h3nu6$3o7@sundog.tiac.net> conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes:

> : Not precisely; Jed is actually right in saying that the efficiency
> : will be less than 100%.
> 
> : Almost all of the heat will go into the water, but some will escape
> : through the wires that connect the resistor to the power supply.  The
> : only way to prevent this is to make sure that the power supply is in
> : the tank along with the resistor---connect the resistor to a battery,
> : say, waterproof the whole shebang, and toss it underwater.
> 
> True, but, careful design can make the thing damn close (make that 
> arbitrarily close) to 100%. 

Agreed.  Anybody who thinks they can measure the efficiency of as
system using calorimetry ought to first try a null test---measuring
the efficiency of a system that ought to be 100-epsilon% efficient.
Unless you get a number that's less than (but close to) 100%,
then you've learned that you're not good enough at calorimetry.
--

                               --matt
cudkeys:
cuddy06 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.05 /  ArcTorch /  COLD FUSION CULT
     
Originally-From: arctorch@aol.com (ArcTorch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: COLD FUSION CULT
Date: 5 Feb 1995 19:05:50 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I work at  a large federal government laboratory where for the past five
years individuals have attempted to demonstrate the phenomenon of cold
fusion.  Two groups have been involved, the first being electrochemists
trying to measure excess heat in a cell similar to P&F and the second
physicists using highly sophisticated particle detectors to look for the
products of nuclear reactions following the charging of palladium and
other materials with deuterium.  After these five years and spending about
$2,000,000 of our taxpayer money, they have yet to produce a SINGLE
scientific paper that has demonstrated anything remotely resembling "cold
fusion."   They also tried to reproduce some Japanese work that claimed
positive results, but our people came up empty.  The people at our lab
that have been involved are not skeptics who are trying to disprove cold
fusion.  They are open-minded about it (probably too open-minded) and a
management official overseeing all of this falls under the category of a
"true believer."   Now, of course, all of these negative results have not
dissuaded many of these people from using taxpayer funds to travel around
the world to go to cold fusion conferences where virtually everyone is a
TB.  Let's see:  there was Italy in 1991, Japan in 1992, a luxury resort
on Maui in 1993, and now the crown jewel of travel, Monte Carlo in 1995. 
Tens of thousands of dollars of our money spent to send a contingent of
scientists to conferences and not present ONE IOTA of positive results. 
What a crock!!

So regardless of all the hype that is out there that claims that it is
fairly easy to reproduce positive results, that just isn't the truth.  I
suspect that there are many labs, including those financed by us
taxpayers, that have nothing but negative results to show for their
efforts but are afraid to publicize that.  

The attacks on those who question the true believers remind me of the
vitriolic responses of cult leaders who are questioned about their
practices.  If anyone believes that just because you have a PhD you are
immune from being hoodwinked by people who claim "knowledge" that most
others do not know, then you are being very naive.  "I WILL SHOW YOU THE
WAY TO TRUE SALVATION"     "I WILL SHOW YOU THE WAY TO LIMITLESS ENERGY"
There really isn't much difference.   The cult leader (Jim Jones comes to
mind) would always say that their critics were close-minded, unwilling to
accept the new ideas and knowledge that he offered.  And that is just what
the cold fusion "leaders" are saying.  Also, let us not forget that many
cult leaders do hope to get rich quick by persuading their followers to
"invest" their money in the leader's new knowledge.  

So there you have it.  Expect more vitriol from those who claim to know
things that most of the rest of us "narrow-minded" people do not.  I also
would request that everyone remember the most fundamental law of life, a
law that transcends even science itself:  "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A
FREE LUNCH"
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenarctorch cudlnArcTorch cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.06 / C Cagle /  Cold Fusion not real!!! Bull
     
Originally-From: singtech@teleport.com (C. Cagle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion not real!!! Bull
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 1995 01:10:45 -0800
Organization: Singularity Technologies, Inc.

Marshall Dudley wrote that the only real fusiion was hot fusion!  Cold
fusion was not proven.

That is uninformed drivel.

In 1956 it was found that a lightly ionized volume of D2 gas produced a
detectable number of fusion reactions without any of the reactant
Deuterons having sufficient energy to surmount the Coulomb Barrier.  They
wrote it off as "Wave Mechanical Tunneling" or "Barrier Tunneling" or
"Quantum Tunneling".

No one seems to have ever tried to get to the truth.  And the truth is
that all fusion reactions are the same in basic process.  Take your
blinders off everyone and see what is happening.

I'm confident I've seen what the secret is.  It is all in the individual
dynamic relationship between interacting particle pairs. 

Want to know more?  Want to know the truth?

email > singtech@teleport.com

or write:

C. Cagle
Chief Technical Officer
Singularity Technologies, Inc.
1640 Oak Grove Road, N.W.
Salem, OR  97304
(503) 362-7781
cudkeys:
cuddy06 cudensingtech cudfnC cudlnCagle cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.06 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 1/3 (Overview)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics,sci.environment,sc
.answers,news.answers
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 1/3 (Overview)
Date: 6 Feb 1995 11:20:17 GMT
Organization: Princeton University


Archive-name: fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview
Last-modified: 5-Feb-1995
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-biweekly
Disclaimer:  While this section is still evolving, it should 
     be useful to many people, and I encourage you to distribute 
     it to anyone who might be interested (and willing to help!!!).

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

# Written/Edited by:

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

# Last Revised February 5, 1995


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

* 1) Contents

  This file is intended to indicate 
     (A) that the Conventional Fusion FAQ exists, 
     (B) what it discusses, 
     (C) how to find it on the Internet, and
     (D) the status of the Fusion FAQ project


* 2) What is the Conventional Fusion FAQ?

  The Conventional Fusion FAQ is a comprehensive, relatively
  nontechnical set of answers to many of the frequently asked
  questions about fusion science, fusion energy, and fusion
  research.  Additionally, there is a Glossary of Frequently
  Used Terms In Plasma Physics and Fusion Energy Research, which 
  explains much of the jargon of the field.  The Conventional 
  Fusion FAQ originated as an attempt to provide 
  answers to many of the typical, basic, or introductory questions 
  about fusion research, and to provide a listing of references and 
  other resources for those interested in learning more.  The
  Glossary section containing Frequently Used Terms (FUT) also
  seeks to facilitate communication regarding fusion by providing
  brief explanations of the language of the field.


* 3) Scope of the Conventional Fusion FAQ:

  Note that this FAQ discusses only the conventional forms of fusion
  (primarily magnetic confinement, but also inertial and 
  muon-catalyzed), and not new/unconventional forms ("cold fusion",
  sonoluminescence-induced fusion, or ball-lightning fusion).  I 
  have tried to make this FAQ as uncontroversial and comprehensive
  as possible, while still covering everything I felt was 
  important / standard fare on the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup.


* 4) How to Use the FAQ:

  This is a rather large FAQ, and to make it easier to find what
  you want, I have outlined each section (including which questions
  are answered) in Section 0, Part 2 (posted separately).  Hopefully it 
  will not be too hard to use.  Part (C) below describes how to find
  the other parts of the FAQ via FTP or the World-Wide Web.


* 5) Claims and Disclaimers:  

  This is an evolving document, not a completed work.  As such, 
  it may not be correct or up-to-date in all respects.  
  This document should not be distributed for profit, especially 
  without my permission.  Individual sections may have additional 
  restrictions.  In no case should my name, the revision date, 
  or this paragraph be removed.  
                                             - Robert F. Heeter


 -------------------------------------------------------------------
*** B. Contents (Section Listing) of the Conventional Fusion FAQ
 -------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************************************************************
                What This FAQ Discusses
*****************************************************************

(Each of these sections is posted periodically on sci.physics.fusion.
 Each listed part is posted as a separate file.)

Section 0 - Introduction
     Part 1/3 - Title Page
                Table of Contents
                How to Find the FAQ
                Current Status of the FAQ project
     Part 2/3 - Detailed Outline with List of Questions
     Part 3/3 - Revision History

Section 1 - Fusion as a Physical Phenomenon

Section 2 - Fusion as an Energy Source
     Part 1/5 - Technical Characteristics
     Part 2/5 - Environmental Characteristics
     Part 3/5 - Safety Characteristics
     Part 4/5 - Economic Characteristics
     Part 5/5 - Fusion for Space-Based Power

Section 3 - Fusion as a Scientific Research Program
     Part 1/3 - Chronology of Events and Ideas
     Part 2/3 - Major Institutes and Policy Actors
     Part 3/3 - History of Achievements and Funding

Section 4 - Methods of Containment / Approaches to Fusion
     Part 1/2 - Toroidal Magnetic Confinement Approaches
     Part 2/2 - Other Approaches (ICF, muon-catalyzed, etc.)

Section 5 - Status of and Plans for Present Devices

Section 6 - Recent Results

Section 7 - Educational Opportunities

Section 8 - Internet Resources

Section 9 - Future Plans

Section 10 - Annotated Bibliography / Reading List

Section 11 - Citations and Acknowledgements

Glossary of Frequently Used Terms (FUT) in Fusion:
  Part 0/26 - Intro
  Part 1/26 - A
  Part 2/26 - B
  [ ... ]
  Part 26/26 - Z


 --------------------------------------------------------------
*** C.  How to find the Conventional Fusion FAQ on the 'Net:
 --------------------------------------------------------------

*****************************************************************
###  The FAQ about the FAQ:
###          How can I obtain a copy of a part of the Fusion FAQ?
*****************************************************************

* 0) Quick Methods (for Experienced Net Users)

   (A) World-Wide Web:  http://lyman.pppl.gov/~rfheeter/fusion-faq.html

   (B) FTP:  rtfm.mit.edu in /pub/usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq


* 1) Obtaining the Fusion FAQ from Newsgroups

  Those of you reading this on news.answers, sci.answers, 
  sci.energy, sci.physics, or sci.environment will be able to 
  find the numerous sections of the full FAQ by reading 
  sci.physics.fusion periodically.  (Please note that not 
  all sections are completed yet.)  Because the FAQ is quite
  large, most sections are posted only every three months, to avoid
  unnecessary consumption of bandwidth.

  All sections of the FAQ which are ready for "official" 
  distribution are posted to sci.physics.fusion, sci.answers, 
  and news.answers, so you can get them from these groups by 
  waiting long enough. 


* 2) World-Wide-Web (Mosaic, Netscape, Lynx, etc.):

   Several Web versions now exist.

   The "official" one is currently at

     <URL:http://lyman.pppl.gov/~rfheeter/fusion-faq.html>

   We hope to have a version on the actual PPPL Web server 
      (<URL:http://www.pppl.gov/>) soon.

   There are other sites which have made "unofficial" Web versions 
   from the newsgroup postings.  I haven't hunted all of these down 
   yet, but I know a major one is at this address:

 <URL:http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu:80/hypertext/faq/usenet/fusion-faq/top.html>

 Note that the "official" one will include a number of features
 which cannot be found on the "unofficial" ones created by
 automated software from the newsgroup postings.  In particular
 we hope to have links through the outline directly to questions,
 and between vocabulary words and their entries in the Glossary, 
 so that readers unfamiliar with the terminology can get help fast.

 (Special acknowledgements to John Wright at PPPL, who is handling
  much of the WWW development.)


* 3) FAQ Archives at FTP Sites (Anonymous FTP) - Intro

  All completed sections can also be obtained by anonymous FTP 
  from various FAQ archive sites, such as rtfm.mit.edu.  The
  address for this archive is:

    <ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq>

  Please note that sections which are listed above as having
  multiple parts (such as the glossary, and section 2) are 
  stored in subdirectories, where each part has its own
  filename; e.g., /fusion-faq/glossary/part0-intro. 

  Please note also that there are other locations in the rtfm
  filespace where fusion FAQ files are stored, but the reference
  given above is the easiest to use.

  There are a large number of additional FAQ archive sites,
  many of which carry the fusion FAQ.  These are listed below.


* 4) Additional FAQ archives worldwide (partial list)

  There are other FAQ archive sites around the world
  which one can try if rtfm is busy; a list is appended
  at the bottom of this file.


* 5) Additional Note / Disclaimer: 

  Not all sections of the FAQ have been written
  yet, nor have they all been "officially" posted.

  Thus, you may not find what you're looking for right away.

  Sections which are still being drafted are only
  posted to sci.physics.fusion.  If there's a section 
  you can't find, send me email and I'll let you know 
  what's up with it. 


 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
*** D. Status of the Conventional Fusion FAQ Project
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

* 1) Written FAQ Sections:

  Most sections have been at least drafted, but many sections are still
  being written.  Sections 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, and 9
  remain to be completed.

  Those sections which have been written could use revising and improving.
  I am trying to obtain more information, especially on devices and 
  confinement approaches; I'm also looking for more information on 
  international fusion research, especially in Japan & Russia.

   *** I'd love any help you might be able to provide!! ***


* 2) Building a Web Version
		
  A "primitive" version (which has all the posted data, but isn't
  especially aesthetic) exists now.  Would like to add graphics and 
  cross-references to the Glossary, between FAQ sections, and 
  to other internet resources (like laboratory Web pages).  
 

* 3) Nuts & Bolts - 

  I'm looking for ways to enhance the distribution of the FAQ, and
  to get additional volunteer help for maintenance and updates.
  We are in the process of switching to automated posting via the 
  rtfm.mit.edu faq posting daemon.


* 4) Status of the Glossary:

 # Contains roughly 1000 entries, including acronyms, math terms, jargon, etc.

 # Currently incorporating the 1985 OSTI Glossary of Fusion Energy,
    and even more additional terminology.  (I'm up to the letter M on the
    revisions, as of 5-Feb-95.)

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

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

 # Could be officially published (through OSETI?)

 # Hope to distribute to students, policymakers, journalists, 
   scientists, i.e., to anyone who needs a quick reference to figure out 
   what we're really trying to say, or to decipher all the "alphabet 
   soup."  Scientists need to remember that not everyone knows those 
   "trivial" words we use every day.  The glossary and FAQ should be 
   useful in preparing for talks to lay audiences.


 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
*** E. Appendix: List of Additional FAQ Archive Sites Worldwide 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

(The following information was excerpted from the "Introduction to 
the *.answers newsgroups" posting on news.answers, from Sept. 9, 1994.)

Other news.answers/FAQ archives (which carry some or all of the FAQs
in the rtfm.mit.edu archive), sorted by country, are:

[ Note that the connection type is on the left.  I can't vouch
for the fusion FAQ being on all of these, but it should be
on some. - Bob Heeter ]


Belgium
-------

  gopher                cc1.kuleuven.ac.be port 70
  anonymous FTP         cc1.kuleuven.ac.be:/anonymous.202
  mail-server           listserv@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be  get avail faqs

Canada
------

  gopher                jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca port 70

Finland
-------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.funet.fi/pub/doc/rtfm

France
------

  anonymous FTP         grasp1.insa-lyon.fr:/pub/faq
                        grasp1.insa-lyon.fr:/pub/faq-by-newsgroup
  gopher                gopher.insa-lyon.fr, port 70
  mail server           listserver@grasp1.univ-lyon1.fr
  
Germany
-------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.Germany.EU.net:/pub/newsarchive/news.answers
                        ftp.informatik.uni-muenchen.de:/pub/comp/usenet/news.answers
                        ftp.uni-paderborn.de:/doc/FAQ
                        ftp.saar.de:/pub/usenet/news.answers (local access only)
  gopher                gopher.Germany.EU.net, port 70.
                        gopher.uni-paderborn.de
  mail server           archive-server@Germany.EU.net
                        ftp-mailer@informatik.tu-muenchen.de
                        ftp-mail@uni-paderborn.de
  World Wide Web        http://www.Germany.EU.net:80/
  FSP                   ftp.Germany.EU.net, port 2001
  gopher index          gopher://gopher.Germany.EU.net:70/1.archive
                        gopher://gopher.uni-paderborn.de:70/0/Service/FTP

Korea
-----

  anonymous ftp         hwarang.postech.ac.kr:/pub/usenet/news.answers

Mexico
------
  anonymous ftp         mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx:/pub/usenet/news.answers

The Netherlands
---------------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.cs.ruu.nl:/pub/NEWS.ANSWERS
  gopher                gopher.win.tue.nl, port 70
  mail server           mail-server@cs.ruu.nl

Sweden
------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.sunet.se:/pub/usenet

Switzerland
-----------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.switch.ch:/info_service/usenet/periodic-postings
  anonymous UUCP        chx400:ftp/info_service/Usenet/periodic-postings
  mail server           archiver-server@nic.switch.ch
  telnet                nic.switch.ch, log in as "info"

Taiwan
------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.edu.tw:/USENET/FAQ
  mail server           ftpmail@ftp.edu.tw

United Kingdon
--------------

  anonymous ftp         src.doc.ic.ac.uk:/usenet/news-faqs/
  FSP                   src.doc.ic.ac.uk port 21
  gopher                src.doc.ic.ac.uk port 70.
  mail server           ftpmail@doc.ic.ac.uk
  telnet                src.doc.ic.ac.uk login as sources
  World Wide Web        http://src.doc.ic.ac.uk/usenet/news-faqs/

United States
-------------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.uu.net:/usenet
  World Wide Web        http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu:80/hypertext/faq/usenet/top.html

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Feb  7 04:37:04 EST 1995
------------------------------
