1995.02.09 / C Advocates /  cmsg cancel <3hcsaj$ptl@panix.com>
     
Originally-From: ccapc@cyber.sell.com (Consumer Credit Advocates)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <3hcsaj$ptl@panix.com>
Date: 09 Feb 1995 08:35:39 -0500
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC

Panix apologizes to everyone for this abuse of Usenet.

cudkeys:
cuddy09 cudenccapc cudfnConsumer cudlnAdvocates cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.09 / John Logajan /  Re: Halo-nuclie and the Omegon
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Halo-nuclie and the Omegon
Date: 9 Feb 1995 06:42:11 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Jim Carr (jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu) wrote:
: >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."

: Well, this is mostly true.  The 'orbitting' image is just that, however. 
: What one can say is what the rms size of the halo neutron distribution 
: looks like based on somewhat crude measurements using total cross 
: sections.

Yeah, they are using "orbiting" in a loose sense -- more accurately they
say, "larger nuclei are neutron rich with an outer "skin" of neutrons in
constant motion, clustering, dissociating, and clustering again."

: In this case, 
: rather than all of the nucleons having similar removal energies as is 
: the case in most cases you think of, the protons are pretty tightly 
: bound in the Li-9 core (along with many of the neutrons) and two of 
: the neutrons are barely bound.

They suggest a binding energy between the core and the dineutron of
about 0.3MeV.


: The e^{-gamma*r} long range part of 
: Psi(r) is governed by gamma, which scales as the BE, as one learns 
: in elementary QM.  That is why a short-range force can bind the 
: deuteron but leave it with a large radius.  
  ^^^^^^^^

Did you mean to say deuteron or dineutron?

Anyhow, they are suggesting nuclear binding forces extending up to
hundreds of fermis, or as they say, "distance of potentially atomic
dimensions" -- and this is in the existing halo-nuclei.


: Do they explain how it affects BE calculations in mass 2 and 3?  It should 
: have important effects on the deuteron, and there is little room to work 
: around those calculations. 

Not per se in that article that I can find.  They do discuss the Gamow,
Gurney, and Condon "solution" to the polonium ==> lead + alpha fission,
in which a repulsion from touching surface to surface ought to release
23.4MeV based on the "fall" through the coulomb field, but that in reality,
such fissions release only 8.8 MeV.  GG+C claimed that the particles
tunnel apart first and then the "fall" begins 2.65 times farther out.

Illert and Reverberi argue instead that the initial decay event starts with
a 1/3 fractional charge and that a continuous exchange current is going
on during the decay.  Therefore the proto-alpha particle doesn't pick
up its full charge until it is some distance away from the core nucleus,
and so that explains its reduced ultimate energy -- rather than appealing
to a tunneling process that was only invoked to otherwise account for the
energy discrepency.

--
 - 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:
cuddy9 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.10 / Richard Blue /  Heard any good ultrasound lately?
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Heard any good ultrasound lately?
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 16:16:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I find it amazing to see people go on at length concerning the role of
ultrasound in the operation of the Griggs device without any mention
of even the crudest of measurements involving ultrasound.  What is actually
known concerning the ultrasound that is supposed to be produced when
the pump kicks into its "over unity" mode?  My understanding is that
ultrasound at kilowatt power levels can be remarkable destructive yet
we are told that the Griggs pump operates for extended periods with
no significant wear and tear.

As far as I am able to recall the evidence for saying that the Griggs
pump produces ultrasound is that Jed Rothwell "heard" it.  Is there
possibly a problem with this data?

Now I actually have "listened" to ultrasound produced by pumps, motors,
bearings, and fluid flow.  My observations were that at room full of
machinery, pumps, leaky air valves, and switching power supplies is
very noisy above 20 kHz.  If ultrasound is the key to cold fusion one
might guess that cold fusion is occuring accidentally under all sorts
of circumstances.  No wonder it is hard to get reproducable data on
the phenomena!

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.09 / Steve Lake /  Re: JET Labs fusion stuff
     
Originally-From: Steve.Lake@brunel.ac.uk (Steve M Lake)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: JET Labs fusion stuff
Date: 9 Feb 1995 08:34:55 -0000
Organization: Henley Management College, UK

In article <pjc.792236753@gen-off-3>, Peter Card <pjc@jet.uk> wrote:
>
>Yes, that's right. When a plasma disruption occurs, "considerable
>force" is exerted on the structure. The 1984 incident opened a few
>eyes, and a system of vessel supports was retrofitted that keeps the
>vessel rigid and stationary. On the other hand, when heating up /
>cooling the vessel, you have to allow for thermal expansion, so the
>supports are unlocked and the shift techs keep a beady eye on the
>force and displacement plots in case one of the legs gets stuck, which
>would be a Bad Thing.

A Bad Thing... that sounds disturbingly like a quote from Egon on
Ghostbusters *grin* 

Thanks for the info.

Steve


-- 
Steve.lake@brunel.ac.uk-------------------------------+
|      Steve "The Mad Hippo" Lake                     |
|    Sol-3 Silly Sod Society Homepage -               |     
| http://http2.brunel.ac.uk:8080/~hcsrsml/s3sss.html  |
+---------------------------------Stevel@henleymc.ac.uk

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenLake cudfnSteve cudlnLake cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.09 /  jedrothwell@de /  More nonsense from Dick Blue
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More nonsense from Dick Blue
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 95 09:05:26 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes:
 
     "Once again Jorge Stolfi provides a key insight into the problem of
     the operation of the GG.  So Jed has actually delivered up data
     that shows that the "dry steam" output is actually 50% by mass unboiled
     water."
 
Once again Dick Blue provides 100% pure imaginary nonsense. As I stated about
a million times, the dry steam cannot be 50% unboiled water because the
enthalpy measured in the barrel test is the same as the enthalpy shown in
the steam tables for dry steam at that pressure and temperature.
 
I don't know where Stolfi got the idea (perhaps Dick Blue dreamed this up
himself), but in any case, this is nonsense.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.09 / Alan M /  Re: For the Groups Consideration
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: For the Groups Consideration
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 06:38:31 +0000
Organization: Home

With my modest contribution to the expenses, I was assuming that Tom 
would have complete freedom to investigate (to the extent allowed by 
Griggs). I would certainly be unhappy with any arrangement Tom felt 
uncomfortable about.

Marshall and friend - please invite yourselves in on some other day. 
Leave Tom to do his own thing.

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

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

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.09 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Tom Droege's trip to visit Griggs
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tom Droege's trip to visit Griggs
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 95 10:42:02 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Warren Weingarten <woweinga@mtu.edu> writes:
 
>> I, for one, am anxiously waiting for a report of *your* impressions.
>> Please continue to plan the trip as has been agreed here.
 
"Impressions" are the last thing you need. A person's "impressions" are not
worth anything to any one. The only thing Tom could provide of any value
would be observations and measurements. Since he has already declared he
will take no measurements, his trip is a waste of time.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.09 / Scott Little /  Excess Heat Replication in CF cells
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Excess Heat Replication in CF cells
Date: 9 Feb 1995 19:17:29 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

I am interested in contributing to the development of cold fusion.

In view of the intense controversy that still surrounds this subject, I
believe that independant replication of excess-heat measurements is a
primary requirement for acceptance of the cold fusion phenomena by the
world scientific community.  As things stand today, we only have people
on both sides of the fence shouting at each other about calorimetric results.
Until we have several labs obtaining the same results on the same experiment,
there will always be insurmountable doubts in the minds of reasonable 
scientists.

I am an experimental physicist with considerable experience in calorimetry.
I have built a number of calorimeters of widely varying design ranging in
scale from milliwatts to kilowatts.  I presently have running a computer-based
differential calorimeter which is quite suitable for cold fusion work.  It is
an integrating calorimeter which is necessary for measuring experiments that
are not particularly stable. The experiment chamber is readily adjustable to
accomodate different sized devices.

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

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

Interested parties should eMail me or call me at 512-346-3848.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.09 / I Johnston /  Re: Ian's stored heat hypothesis
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ian's stored heat hypothesis
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 11:41:46 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: The Griggs device and its replications cannot be running on stored heat for
: two reasons:
:  
: 1. It continues to generate heat much longer than any stored heat hypothesis
: would allow; ie, it will generate heat continuously for months.

No evidence yet presented on this. Counter evidence "factories mainly
use the GG short term to supplement conventional boilers" has been
given. 

:  
: 2. Blank runs generate no heat. For example, when a rotor with no holes is
: employed, the C.O.P. is well below 100%. If the effect was due to stored heat,
: then it stands to reason that since a rotor with no holes has more mass it
: will store more heat. Unless, that is, you think the heat is stored in the
: holes . . .
:  
Does the blank display both modes of operation ie normal and funny
noise? Is it surprising that changing the shape of the rotor should
change the amount of heat stored?

Ian, still putting incompetence, greed and fraud ahead of stored heat.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.09 /  geof@harold.ph /  Re: Real Fusion
     
Originally-From: geof@harold.phy.umist.ac.uk ()
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Real Fusion
Date: 9 Feb 1995 18:03:20 GMT
Organization: umist

A vote for a `real' fusion group.

I certainly stopped reading this group because of all the snow.

How about `sci.physics.plasma_fusion' as an uncontroversial title?
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudengeof cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.09 / Ad aspera /  Re: Ion Beam Fusion
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ion Beam Fusion
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 1995 11:35:13 -0800
Organization: Purely personal 'pinions

m.kenward@bbcnc.org.uk (Michael Kenward) wrote of CERN's
Large Hadron Collider vis-a-vis the Suspended Super Collider:

> No need to dig up another unspoilt part of the country. 

The tunneling work was surprisingly unobtrusive, performed a
few hundred feet underground by machines of the same general
type that dug the Chunnel. "Cut and fill" (ditch-digging) is 
the approach that leaves big visible scars on the landscape.
This would have been done only for certain large facilities 
such as detectors.  

That particular part of the US, although rural (you have to
stop for cows sometimes on the back roads, and posters
reminded SSC workers to watch out for snakes), has been
settled for a long time and is dotted with evidence of 
human activities.  In fact, within or near the SSC arc 
you can find not only pastures and woods, but also large 
factories, a trainyard, etc., and outer suburbs of Dallas 
are only a few minutes north of there.

In other words, they weren't exactly strip-mining a national
park.  I've got to admit, though, that the tunneling was
very costly, and that the existence of the LEP tunnel has 
been a financial godsend for LHC.

> And a genuine international venture, unlike the "you pay 
> us and we might think of letting you in the front door" 
> approach that the US normally takes in such matters.

No doubt about it, big projects in the US have to be sold to 
a large and fractious Congress, some members of which didn't 
especially like our economic relationship with the Japanese 
(or at least struck that pose because it played well with 
their constituents). But then, all countries are run by 
politicians, who are all conscious of both ideological and 
commercial interests back home... Or do you mean to say that 
no officials of European countries ever look at CERN and ask, 
"What's in it for us?"

Obligatory Bit of Topical Relevance:  I'm actually supposed
to write a descriptive pamphlet about our latest project on
the road to ion-beam fusion, ILSE (Induction Linac Systems
Experiments), which in a partial form called Elise has
finally been approved for funding. In fact, I've been supposed
to write it for about 2 or 3 years now -- every time I was
about to start, either the project changed or my attempt to
drain the proverbial swamp was forgotten in the midst of yet
another alligator attack.  But the project is happening (pace 
budget-cutters) and with luck the results will someday be used
in conjunction with other work -- notably target and reaction-
chamber design -- in a heavy-ion-driven fusion reactor.   

Cheers,
Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
Disclaimer: Even if my employer had a position on the subject,
I probably wouldn't be the one stating it on their behalf.
cudkeys:
cuddy09 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.09 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Ion Beam Fusion
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ion Beam Fusion
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 16:48:54 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

Yes, please, let's discuss some technical issues. This reminds me of a
calculation I tried to make a couple of years ago, "inspired" (if that
is the word) by the fractofusion scenario. If this is a kind of self
targetting, with the deuterons accelerating to, say, a few keV across
the cracks, what might the fusion rate be? I found an equation for the
d-d fusion rate at a given energy but there were some parameters I didn't
know, so I had to have a rate at an energy that had been tried; figures
like these were a bit hard to get. So my question: what is the "cross
section" for d-d fusion, and how does one use it to calculate the rate of
fusion for, say, a beam at some energy and beam current - does one just
multiply the cross section by the number of particles flying about? Or
what does one do? Thanks for any answers. My feeling at the time was that,
yes, you could get a few neutrons from these fractures, provided that the
across-crack voltages don't get short-circuited out too soon. Which they
probably would. What's more, Dick Blue then threw a large spanner into the
works, by mentioning that the free electrons, being much more mobile than
deuterons, would quickly use up that energy. Well this depends on whether
they can leave the crystal as easily as deuterons, so I'd still like the
numbers.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.09 / Jim Carr /  Re: Halo-nuclie and the Omegon
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Halo-nuclie and the Omegon
Date: 9 Feb 1995 23:01:53 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <3hemhk$5bv@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> I wrote:

>In article <3hcdg3$2nh@stratus.skypoint.net> 
>jlogajan@skypoint.com writes:
>>
>>They suggest a binding energy between the core and the dineutron of
>>about 0.3MeV.
>
>Right, and that means a wavefunction that is mostly tail. 

and forgot to add that what makes the physics of Li-11 interesting 
is that there are indications (but no solid proof) that it is not 
a di-neutron around a core, but rather two neutrons on opposite 
sides of the core. 

First indications suggested that what happens is that the mean 
field of the Li-9 core acts to stabilize the otherwise unstable 
di-neutron, an interesting result.  However, this would not be 
reasonable for such widely separated neutrons unless there was a 
long-range force, which is probably what these guys are writing 
about, although conventional calculations seem to work out without 
invoking any new force (which could cause real problems elsewhere). 
Anyway, the nature of the experimental data does not force any 
particular limits on any models just yet. 

What I did not comment on, and should have, is my puzzlement as to 
why this is in a fusion journal.  As an explanation for cold fusion, 
this leaves a lot to be desired -- this is hardly an aneutronic or 
radiation-free explanation.  People would be dead if this were the 
mechanism.  As nuclear physics, however, it raises lots of interesting 
consequences that should be spelled out and checked. 

-- 
 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:
cuddy9 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.07 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  For the Groups Consideration
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: For the Groups Consideration
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 1995 15:43 -0500 (EST)

Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
 
-> After some debate here, I had come to the conclusion that it would be
-> best to make a quiet trip to see what Mr. Griggs had to offer.  I
-> at least made clear that the press was not inviting a member of the
-> press that had asked to come along.  I have no particular need to make
-> this trip.  So I would not object if some other went in my place.  One
-> small problem is that I have already spent of order $150 on a cheap plane
-> ticket and am not sure I can get a refund.
 
I am not following you here.   I think it is important for you to go as this
forum has given you a big vote of confidence.  I see no argument for you not to
go.
 
However, since there are two others of us who are also interested in seeing the
presentation, I don't see any conflict here.  I think it is very kind of Mr
Griggs to set aside a day to demo the unit for you.  I am sure he would do the
same for us as well, but I don't think it would be fair to ask him to throw
away 2 days of work to make the same presentation twice.  Your objectives and
mine are somewhat different.  I plan on making measurements and documentating
whatever I can.  I plan on determining the errors of each and every measurement
and doing an error analysis, something which we are in desperate need of.  I
plan on making photos and video taping, so I will be able to go back and look
for things I did not think of at the time, and to answer questions later.
 
If you feel that our presence would somehow make your trip less useful, I will
see if Griggs will still welcome us another day.  However, as you said, one day
isn't much time to do anything, so it seems that 3 people taking notes and
setting up things to try would make the day a lot more productive than one
person having to do everything.  With 3 people, the power meter, thermometer
and dynameter could all be watched simultaneously.
 
Mind you we are not news media.  There will be no article coming from the trip
other than what I may post here.  We are both educated and degreed in science.
We are both only wanting to know the same thing you are: what the heck is going
on here.
 
As far as money is concerned, I would not personally accept anything, even if
offered.  Sorry, but we already have too many accusations of people involved in
a scam for the money.  Money has nothing to do with an inquiring mind's desire
for knowledge.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy07 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.08 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: A CANTICLE FOR GRIGGS....Unlikely....
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A CANTICLE FOR GRIGGS....Unlikely....
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 1995 10:48 -0500 (EST)

stolfi@stack.dcc.unicamp.br (Jorge Stolfi) writes:
 
-> Note the miraculous coincidence: when the "Griggs effect"
-> kicks in, it not only starts producing 10 kW of extra heat, but
-> also somehow reduces the viscosity of water by just the right amount
-> to cause the motor load to drop by 10 kW.
 
I don't see this as a "mircaulous coincidence", in fact I don't even see it as
a coincidence at all.  I see it as the only way it could be, given the physical
constraints.  If you assume that the flow rate and temperature (or pressure of
the steam) are constant (they are set by valves), then the only variable left
to indicate increased efficiency is the input power, since the output energy
rate is fixed. The drop in input power must be porportional the increase in
efficiency because efficiency = output/input, and output is constant.  That is
simply a function of mathmathics.  This argument is totally seperate from o/u
considerations, the effect would have to obey the laws of mathmatics whether we
are talking about o/u or not.
 
You can see this effect every morning when you start your car.  When you first
turn the starter it pulls large amounts of current.  As soon as the engine
starts powering itself reducing the load, the current drops.  I am sure if you
checked it you would find that the drop in input power to the starter closely
follows the drop in power necessary to turn over the engine.  There is nothing
mysterious about this, it is fully expected.
 
-> Amazing? Wait, there is more --- this miraculous coincidence happens
-> with liquid water at 150F or dry steam at 320F and 80 psi,
-> and with any size of pump and motor.
 
Jed has already said that small pumps do not exhibit this effect.  Where are
you getting the information to the contrary?  I have not seen it posted here.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy08 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.08 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Biblio update; ICCF-4 papers in FT 07-Feb
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Biblio update; ICCF-4 papers in FT 07-Feb
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 1995 11:02 -0500 (EST)

britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
 
-> Tritium, measured from aliquots taken out, rose to three times the original
-> level and stayed there.
 
Could someone explain this to me.  Tritium has a 12.3 year half life.  There is
no natural source for tritium that I am aware of.  Therefore, how can there be
any tritium to start with?  If there is none as I would think should be the
case, then three times 0 is still 0.  Anyone know where background tritium
could come from?
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy08 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.08 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: For the Groups Consideration
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: For the Groups Consideration
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 1995 22:17 -0500 (EST)

stolfi@stack.dcc.unicamp.br (Jorge Stolfi) writes:
 
->
->     > [Tom Droege:] After some debate here, I had come to the
->     > conclusion that it would be best to make a quiet trip to see
->     > what Mr. Griggs had to offer.
->
-> Marshall and Matt, perhaps you could arrange a separate visit?
-> I think that any extra company will make Tom's expedition less effective.
->
-> Think a bit about the social mechanics of a group excursion, I hope
-> you will agree.  For one thing, a big party is more likely to get only
-> the standard guided-tour speech, or a bunch of quick answers to random
-> questions, instead of a coherent two-way dialogue.
 
As I said in the response to this I posted yesterday, I am not sure it would be
fair to Mr Griggs to have him lose 2 days of work instead of one.  I would have
to speak with him about it.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy08 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.09 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Excess baggage on Droege trip
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Excess baggage on Droege trip
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 1995 11:13 -0500 (EST)

blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes:
 
-> As a contributer to the Droege travel fund I wish to express my
-> opinion concerning the trip.  I am in agreement with Tom that
-> what is needed is a minimization of competing and potentially
-> interfering interests as represented by the presence of other
-> parties.  It is unfortunate that arrangements for the trip
-> had to be made on such a public forum with the result that
-> the whole world knows about it.  I vote for keeping it simple.
 
Since the majority of newsgroup contributors who have expresed an opinion here
wish Tom to go alone, I will withdraw any plans to go to Griggs on March 8th.
I still do not understand the "competing" aspect of it though.  I was under the
opinion we were looking for the science behind it, and as such "complementary"
and "aiding" would be much better words to describe the interactions.  Having
been in R/D for many years I know how valuable multiple ideas, and
brainstorming between individuals can be. I also would never consider doing any
R/D alone. A second party to make modifications or changes, and another party
to take notes/observe and monitor is almost a requirement for any complex data
taking.
 
All I can imagine is that there is some type of ego trip here.  Since I do not
have such delusions for myself I neglected to realize the apparent importance
of this emotion for others.
 
I have had a third party who follows this group express an interest in going as
well.  Anyone who is interested in studying the science of this device, and
wishes to come with us is invited as far as I am concerned, as long as the
group does not become too large.  Of course Griggs would have to appove any
additional people, but I don't think there would be a problem with that. Even
though I will feel that I am taking advantage of Griggs's good nature, I will
try to reschedule to another date. I don't know at this time if he would be
willing to entertain a second disruptive day to his business or not.
 
                                                               Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy09 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.09 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Lost postings.
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Lost postings.
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 1995 16:39 -0500 (EST)

It seems that everything I have posted to Usenet in the last week has been
gobbled up somewhere by one of the Internet Hosts.  I am trying to send the old
postings through a different Internet account, so maybe they will show up
shortly.  Apologies if all my postings from the last week all show up at once.
They were written over a several day peroid.

                                                                Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy09 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.10 / Mark Barton /  Re: MRA test clarification
     
Originally-From: mbarton@icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp (Mark Barton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.energy
Subject: Re: MRA test clarification
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 06:22:38 GMT
Organization: Institute for Cosmic Ray Research

In article <D3p0FI.E9z@ioc.co.uk>, acw@ioc.co.uk wrote:

> Pardon me if this is naive, but is your average domestic electricity
meter
> able to pick up the high frequency transients that caused the erroneous

> readings for the MRA? Have Messrs McClain and Wooten invented a new way
of
> committing fraud?

It's not new by any means. The typical domestic power meter makes certain
assumptions about the power factor, waveforms, etc, and can be confused
by loads that violate those assumptions. Thus there are various devices
that you can wire into your domestic supply to take advantage of this.
The power companies are not naive about such things of course and the
devices are normally illegal. I haven't been following this in detail so
I specifically avoid accusing the people in this case of a scam. However
if it did have such an effect, and had been marketed for domestic use,
and had thereby come to the attention of the power companies, they would
have taken a dim view regardless. (For large commercial clients, the
power factor is measured separately, and the scale of charges varies
accordingly.)

> Could this explain the alleged satisfied customers for the Griggs
device, 
> whose power bills have decreased? Just a thought.

I think one good default explanation for satisfied customers of energy
saving schemes is that some people don't check seriously and are beguiled
by a once off statistical fluctuation in their bill. That is, the
electricity bill has a 50% chance of going down the next time round, and
that's incontrovertible proof to some people. A second good one is the
fact that the purchase of the energy saving device and the onset of a
more general passion for energy saving commonly occur at the same time.
That is, the device gets the credit for the customer switching off more
lights or being easier on the pedal. A multiplier for both of these
effects is that dissatisfied customers don't write anti-testimonials.

There is nothing that prevents the customers from being even more
satisfied if the device actually works (albeit at the expense of the
power company). However, because of the psychological factors, you can't
seriously argue from the testimonials, however glowing, to the
effectiveness. 

Cheers,

Mark B.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmbarton cudfnMark cudlnBarton cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.10 / Jorge Stolfi /  Jed's cool steam hypothesis
     
Originally-From: stolfi@stack.dcc.unicamp.br (Jorge Stolfi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jed's cool steam hypothesis
Date: 10 Feb 1995 04:19:32 GMT
Organization: DCC - UNICAMP - Campinas, SP, Brazil


    > Once again Dick Blue provides 100% pure imaginary nonsense. As I
    > stated about a million times, the dry steam cannot be 50%
    > unboiled water because the enthalpy measured in the barrel test
    > is the same as the enthalpy shown in the steam tables for dry
    > steam at that pressure and temperature.

YOUR data, Jed, YOUR barrel tests, YOUR article:

                               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

Would you care to quote the steam table entries that match the 
last two numbers?

    > I don't know where Stolfi got the idea [...]
    > but in any case, this is nonsense.

I "got the idea" by taking your report at face value.  

So maybe it IS nonsense after all.

--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
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.10 /  Bigfoot /  Orbiting satellites
     
Originally-From: bigfoot@pentagon.io.com (Bigfoot)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators
Subject: Orbiting satellites
Date: 10 Feb 1995 02:36:47 -0600
Organization: Illuminati Online

 I have 2 questions :

  1. What is the minimum altitude above the earth, for a satellite to be 
     put in orbit around the earth ? How do you calculate that minimum 
     orbital altitude ?

  2. How do you calculate an ellipse's eccentricity 
     of a given orbit , at altitude x ? 

  Please email me.

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenbigfoot cudlnBigfoot cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.09 / 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: 9 Feb 1995 00:34:00 GMT
Organization: DCC - UNICAMP - Campinas, SP, Brazil


    > [Jed Rothwell:] The Griggs device [...] cannot be running on
    > stored heat for two reasons:
    >  
    > 1. It continues to generate heat much longer than any stored
    > heat hypothesis would allow; ie, it will generate heat
    > continuously for months.

You mean "excess" heat, presumably.  Sorry, but you already admitted
that excess heat production was never actually measured for longer
than 30 minutes.   "It would be too dangerous", you assured us.

Your claims of "continuous excess heat generation for months" are
just second- or third-hand stories, not backed by any solid data.

    > ... and its replications ...
    
...for which you apparently have no data either... 

    > 2. Blank runs generate no heat. For example, when a rotor with
    > no holes is employed, the C.O.P. is well below 100%. If the
    > effect was due to stored heat, then it stands to reason that
    > since a rotor with no holes has more mass it will store more
    > heat.
   
Jed, please stop pretending to be dense.  You know damn well
how the stored heat trick works: just measure the COP
right after a large sudden drop in the input load. 

If there is no input power drop, then there is no excess heat---
with holes or without them.  (You told us so, Jed---remeber?)

It may be true that only pumps with dimpled rotors can switch from
high-friction to low-friction mode.  In fact, one almost expects the
water flow to be more stable around smooth rotors than around the
Swiss Cheese variety.  So?

But thanks anyway for telling us that the C.O.P. is "well below 100%"
when the machine is in steady state.  That confirms the "normal"
C.O.P. of ~0.8 that can be derived from the published data.

So, it seems that the GG would be rather hard to sell, if it wasn't
for the providential "mysterious heat producing process": 
a completely new physical phenomenon that happens to manifest itself
just when and where it is most needed, in just the right amount to boost
the C.O.P. without overheating the output steam, and without any other
byproducts or side effects watsoever.

And yet there are still people who do not believe in Santa Claus....

--stolfi

PS. It would be pointless, of course, to ask Jed what is the
difference in mass between a smooth rotor and one with holes. 

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

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.10 /  prasad /  What's TT anyway? Re: The Tesla Turbine
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What's TT anyway? Re: The Tesla Turbine
Date: 10 Feb 1995 14:33:49 GMT
Organization: sometimes

In article <3039@giga.slc.paramax.com>, p-smith@advtech.slc.paramax.com
(Patrick J. Smith) writes:
|> [snip]
|>     "For years many have been making claims about the incredible Tesla
|>      Turbine that they were unable to backup with a working model...
|>      For the first time since Nikola Tesla worked to develop it,
|>      working Tesla Turbine technology was demonstrated publicly."
|> 
|> My reason for bringing all this up is that it all sound
|> circumstantially like descriptions of the Griggs device.  Further, I
|> recall seeing queries as to what impelled Griggs to this line of
|> investigation in the first place, but don't recall seeing any answers.
|> So, can anyone tell me, in a nutshell, what Tesla Turbines are?  And
|> can the Griggs advocates comment on whether or not this is where Griggs got
|> started?  Just curious.

I'm not really a Griggs advocate!  But having heard Griggs at the Cold
Fusion Day, maybe I can clarify this query.

A long long time ago (late 80s), Griggs thought of putting cavitation
to work in making steam.  He noticed the apparent o/u behavior with the
very first device(s).  Feeling sure he was missing something in the
measurements or something, he kept working on it quietly, until he heard
about cold fusion, and contacted some of the CF advocates to tell them
of his puzzle.

I am equally curious to know what the Tesla turbine was actually supposed
to be.  I am not satisfied with advertisement-like material, especially
when they indulge in controversial issues of this type!  So I'd say,
coincidence if any between a GG and a Tesla turbine would be accidental.

The GG rotor incidentally is not at all like a turbine.  There is no
helical pitch.  However, a "Tiny *Griggs Type* Unit" seems to be more
of a turbine design, with a helical pitch.  So your query might be
jolly well relevant in connecting up with another long-persistent thread
in backwaters research!

I'd like to see a posting giving a *real* description of a Tesla turbine
(TT?), OTHER THAN advertisement material.  We have too much sensationalism
("runs a car with the current from a *single* 1.5V dry cell" - Newman)
in this kind of thing.  Maybe a gif and a brief *technical* description
would be ideal...

-- 
// email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com.

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.10 /  prasad /  Re: Excess Heat Replication in CF cells
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Excess Heat Replication in CF cells
Date: 10 Feb 1995 14:37:29 GMT
Organization: sometimes

In article <3hdpo9$2p8@boris.eden.com>, little@eden.com (Scott Little) writes:
|> [snip]

Maybe you should talk to the student who showed us his nice little
calorimeter and reported o/u over 3 hr runs at the Cold Fusion Day?
(got to dig into my report somewhere on this disk...)

warm <no pun> regards.

-- 
// email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.10 / Harry Conover /  cmsg cancel <3hfvbf$e1n@sundog.tiac.net>
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <3hfvbf$e1n@sundog.tiac.net>
Date: 10 Feb 1995 16:20:52 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Article cancelled from within tin [v1.2 PL2]
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.10 / Harry Conover /  cmsg cancel <3hfvbf$e1n@sundog.tiac.net>
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <3hfvbf$e1n@sundog.tiac.net>
Date: 10 Feb 1995 16:21:25 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Article cancelled from within tin [v1.2 PL2]
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.10 / David Seghers /  Re: Tiny *Griggs Type* Unit
     
Originally-From: seghers_david/hp5000_zp@openmail2.corp.hp.com (David Seghers)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tiny *Griggs Type* Unit
Date: 10 Feb 1995 00:17:46 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard

In article <3h6sop$e8r@deadmin.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) says:
>
>In article <3h5nom$fkj@fnnews.fnal.gov> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)  
>writes:
>> (Michael Huffman) says:
>> >
>> >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.
[snip]
>In this case, I don't think so. Instead, I think it would make the
>best use of everyone's time for the claimer (here, Mike Huffman),
>to simply provide us (say, Tom) with what he considers to be a working
>device, for testing. Since he says _he_ knows how to build them
>for $150, why don;t we use the remainder of the Griggs Trip Fund
>to simply buy a working model from _him_ for testing. Further, he
>should also procide what he considers to be a suitable test protocol.
>
>Then, the tester (say, Tom) can use the designated device in the designated
>test, and see if it measures at over unity.
[snip]

Excellent idea!!  I vote for it, if we are voting that is.  Tom, are you
up for this?

>So: Mr Huffman---would you consider presenting a working device
>to Tom Droege for study, if, say, a suitable fee 
>( ~$500, to cover costs and labor ) were paid for the construction and delivery  
>of the device plus testing instructions?
>
>
Mr. Huffman, are you interested?
>--
>Barry Merriman
>UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
>UCLA Dept. of Math
>merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
>
>

Great idea, and perhaps "we" can close in on this through a
net.collaborration.  Good ideas come from such forums as
spf, so let's not split the group.

My $20 worth... :-)}

David Seghers (seghers@hpcc01.HP.COM) 415-691-3730
************************************************************************
Solipsist Society, Founding Member  (I think, therefore you are.)
Charter member of the "I HATE vi!" Club.
************************************************************************
The statements and opinions above are my own, entirely my own, and no one
else's.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenhp5000_zp cudfnDavid cudlnSeghers cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.10 / David Seghers /  Re: For the Groups Consideration
     
Originally-From: seghers_david/hp5000_zp@openmail2.corp.hp.com (David Seghers)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: For the Groups Consideration
Date: 10 Feb 1995 00:26:30 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard

In article <3h87p9$k8g@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) says:
>
>I recently received the following message:
>
>Date: Mon, 06 Feb 1995 17:49 -0500 (EST)
>From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
>Subject: Re: Tiny *Griggs Type* Unit
>Resent-To: DROEGE@STORM.FNAL.GOV
>To: Droege@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
>Reply-To: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com
>Resent-Message-Id: <01HMQINYBOMC005PD5@FNAL.FNAL.GOV>
>X-Vms-To: IN%"Droege@FNAL.FNAL.GOV"

[snip]

> I have no particular need to make
>this trip.  So I would not object if some other went in my place.  One
>small problem is that I have already spent of order $150 on a cheap plane 
>ticket and am not sure I can get a refund.  
>
>Tom Droege

Go, Tom, Go!!  Actually, having followed your experiments and posts
over the years, I would *much* rather you went.  Let the others make 
whatever arrangements they want, but *you* are the one I would want
there.

David Seghers (seghers@hpcc01.HP.COM) 415-691-3730
************************************************************************
Solipsist Society, Founding Member  (I think, therefore you are.)
Charter member of the "I HATE vi!" Club.
************************************************************************
The statements and opinions above are my own, entirely my own, and no one
else's.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenhp5000_zp cudfnDavid cudlnSeghers cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.10 / David Seghers /  Re: Tom Droege's trip to visit Griggs
     
Originally-From: seghers_david/hp5000_zp@openmail2.corp.hp.com (David Seghers)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tom Droege's trip to visit Griggs
Date: 10 Feb 1995 00:35:17 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard

In article <9502081601.AA08677@suntan.Tandem.com>, 060739@acadvm1.uottaw
.ca (Bill Page) says:
[snip]
>Tom,
>
>As one of the contributors to the "visit Griggs fund" I would greatly
>prefer that *you* visit Griggs quietly and *alone* as it had seemed to have
>been agreed here. I think that we (the contributors) should strongly
>discourage Marshall and his colleagues from visiting Griggs at the same
>time that you had planned to visit.  If they do wish to visit Griggs, it
>should be at a different time.
>
>I, for one, am anxiously waiting for a report of *your* impressions.
>Please continue to plan the trip as has been agreed here.
>
>Sincerely,
>Bill Page
>
Nicely said.  Me too!

David Seghers (seghers@hpcc01.HP.COM) 415-691-3730
************************************************************************
Solipsist Society, Founding Member  (I think, therefore you are.)
Charter member of the "I HATE vi!" Club.
************************************************************************
The statements and opinions above are my own, entirely my own, and no one
else's.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenhp5000_zp cudfnDavid cudlnSeghers cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.09 / Scott Silvey /  How much would a fusion reactor eat?
     
Originally-From: scott@swindle.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Silvey)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: How much would a fusion reactor eat?
Date: 9 Feb 95 17:41:56
Organization: UC Berkeley Experimental Computing Facility (XCF)


Are there any estimates of how much fuel mass a viable fusion reactor
might consume per second?  Let's say a 1GW output (electrical) system?

Also, is there anything like a concensus as to how efficient a fusion
reactor might get (fuel value vs electrical output)?

I checked out the FAQ and noticed that there are estimates that advanced
turbines might get to be as good as 50%, which impressed me.  So if you
only have efficiency estimates for the reactor stage, that would be cool.

I'm just curious... I'm trying to get an intuitive grasp on how capable 
fusion might be in the near future.

Thanks.

Scott
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnSilvey cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.10 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Re: Tiny *Griggs Type* Unit
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tiny *Griggs Type* Unit
Date: 10 Feb 95 12:51:31 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

In article <3he8g4$k3h@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com
 (John Logajan) writes:
> Barry Merriman (barry@starfire.ucsd.edu) wrote:
> : So: Mr Huffman---would you consider presenting a working device to Tom
> : Droege for study, if, say, a suitable fee ~$500, to cover costs and
> : labor ) were paid for the construction and delivery of the device plus
> : testing instructions?
> 
> Count me in for a $20 donation on this.  I'd add the following (friendly)
> terms -- the fee covers a *loan* of the device for a period of unsupervised
> testing, in which the independent tester is allowed to disassemble, 
-----SNIP-----
>  - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi folks, have a nice day :) ..........
I would like to donate too, with the proviso that a much fuller description
of the Huffman device is first posted here, or a competent third party,
(maybe Jed?) can vouch for the fact that the Huffman and Griggs devices
appear to be exhibiting the same (and not just roughly similar) effects.
						Regards to all,
						Daryl Owen.


cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudendowen cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.09 / 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: 9 Feb 1995 21:35:07 GMT
Organization: Silicon Valley Public Access Link

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

> (snip)
> ...... I think I've got a pretty damn convincing demonstration
> that we are *indeed* seeing such events, and furthermore we
> are measuring characteristics of those events, comparing them
> to the theory (the standard model) and finding excellent agreement.

Robert, i have no obvious reason to doubt the events shown in your post.  
It is impossible for me, or even you, to (sight unseen) vouch for the 
efforts of others assisting in the experiments. Everyone, involved,  
fully expected to get positive results, so  claiming positive results is 
expected, but a negative result would raise questions, not with theory, 
but with competence.   

I cannot, first hand, question the experiments, I do, however, question 
the present (standard model) neutrino theory. 

I know there  are electron type neutrinos and muon type neutrinos, but I 
am reasonably sure that those neutrinos do not (cannot) penetrate light 
years of lead, have a cross section that *increases* with energy, and 
travel at the velocity of light.

These three characteristics are mutually exclusive.  

Unless these (and other)  questions have cogent answers, the neutrino 
detection claims are moot, IMHO.

Perhaps we should agree to disagree, unless you want to continue 
discussions at this time.

Regards: Tom.



--
Thomas N. Lockyer <lockyer@svpal.org>     
1611 Fallen Leaf Lane
Los Altos, CA USA 94024-6212
Tel. (415)967-9550
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenlockyer cudfnThomas cudlnLockyer cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.09 / Jim Carr /  Re: Ion Beam Fusion
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Ion Beam Fusion
Date: 9 Feb 1995 22:16:15 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

Cross-post to sci.physics added, with follow-ups there where 
this particular discussion belongs. 

In article <9502081916.ab02878@auntie.bbcnc.org.uk> 
m.kenward@bbcnc.org.uk (Michael Kenward) writes:
>
>>CERN isn't any better than superconducting supercol[l]ider
>
>Just a hell of a lot cheaper. And no need to dig up another unspoilt part of
>the country. And a genuine international venture, unlike the "you pay us and
>we might think of letting you in the front door" approach that the US
>normally takes in such matters. (Whatever became of Spacelab?)

Excellent point, one that Doug Pewitt mentioned in a talk here but 
has not been discussed much at all in Physics Today or other places 
such as the net.  (Pewitt was once an SSC director, and you may 
have seen a long letter from him on management lessons from the 
SSC in Physics Today.)  However, the SSC tunnel no more impacts 
Texas than LEP impacts the area above it. 

I note that this post comes from the UK.  What Doug mentioned, and 
this post alludes to, is that NASA formed some "partnerships" wiht 
Europe and Japan on modules for Spacelab as part of the space station. 
After those people had designed and built prototypes, they learned 
that NASA had changed things by a mm here and a cm there.  Those 
modules are now junk, sitting in storage somewhere.  Not a very nice 
way to treat your "partner".  Doug was of the opinion that this went 
a long way toward explaining the problems the US had with getting 
foreigners to join in on the project.  

-- 
 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:
cuddy9 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.09 / Jim Carr /  Re: Halo-nuclie and the Omegon
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Halo-nuclie and the Omegon
Date: 9 Feb 1995 22:28:52 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <3hcdg3$2nh@stratus.skypoint.net> 
jlogajan@skypoint.com writes:
>
>They suggest a binding energy between the core and the dineutron of
>about 0.3MeV.

Right, and that means a wavefunction that is mostly tail. 

Jim Carr (jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu) wrote:
:
: The e^{-gamma*r} long range part of 
: Psi(r) is governed by gamma, which scales as the BE, as one learns 
: in elementary QM.  That is why a short-range force can bind the 
: deuteron but leave it with a large radius.  
> ^^^^^^^^
>
>Did you mean to say deuteron or dineutron?

Deuteron.  The point is that the deuteron, even with a relatively deep 
binding of 2.2 MeV, has a wavefunction that is mostly tail.  Thus you 
get a radius bigger than the well that binds it.  The less the binding, 
the longer the tail.  You do not need a 100 fm force to explain a 
tail penetrating 100 fm into a region that is (barely) classically 
forbidden.  That is just basic QM. 
 
>Anyhow, they are suggesting nuclear binding forces extending up to
>hundreds of fermis, or as they say, "distance of potentially atomic
>dimensions" -- and this is in the existing halo-nuclei.

gamma (see above) is sqrt{2*mu*BE/hbar^2} so the solution at long 
distances will be roughly 
                            e^{-r/70fm}.

To get this you only have to assume that the nuclear potential 
has gone to zero in the region of interest.  You do not need any 
force to explain this very slow exponential fall-off. 

-- 
 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:
cuddy9 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.09 / W Weingarten /  Re: Tom Droege's trip to visit Griggs
     
Originally-From: woweinga@mtu.edu (Warren Weingarten)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tom Droege's trip to visit Griggs
Date: 9 Feb 1995 14:17:43 GMT
Organization: Michigan Tech. University

In article <9502081601.AA08677@suntan.Tandem.com>,
060739@acadvm1.uottawa.ca (Bill Page) wrote:
> 
> Tom Droege wrote:
> <<
> After some debate here, I had come to the conclusion that it would be
> best to make a quiet trip to see what Mr. Griggs had to offer.  I
> at least made clear that the press was not inviting a member of the
> press that had asked to come along.  I have no particular need to make
> this trip.  So I would not object if some other went in my place.  One
> ...
> >>
> 
> Tom,
> 
> As one of the contributors to the "visit Griggs fund" I would greatly
> prefer that *you* visit Griggs quietly and *alone* as it had seemed to have
> been agreed here. I think that we (the contributors) should strongly
> discourage Marshall and his colleagues from visiting Griggs at the same
> time that you had planned to visit.  If they do wish to visit Griggs, it
> should be at a different time.
> 
> I, for one, am anxiously waiting for a report of *your* impressions.
> Please continue to plan the trip as has been agreed here.
> 
> Sincerely,
> Bill Page
This contributor concurs with Bill
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenwoweinga cudfnWarren cudlnWeingarten cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.09 / Tony Rusi /  Re: JET Labs fusion stuff
     
Originally-From: windski@eskimo.com (Tony Rusi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: JET Labs fusion stuff
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 18:31:22 GMT
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever

Peter Card (pjc@jet.uk) wrote:
: Steve Lake <stevel@henleymc.ac.uk> writes:

: >Hi,

: >I'm interested in something that I vaguely remember seeing on TV about 
: >a year ago. It was on a documentary about the JET nuclear fusion 
: >project here in good ol' England, and the bit I want to know about
: >was some "incident" in 1983(4) when the plasma "do-nut" inside their 
: >reactor twisted and lifted the whole thing 2cm off the ground.

: >Firstly, is it true. Did it really happen ?
: >Secondly, has anyone got any solid details on it.

: >Cheers

: >Steve

: Yes, that's right. When a plasma disruption occurs, "considerable
: force" is exerted on the structure. The 1984 incident opened a few
: eyes, and a system of vessel supports was retrofitted that keeps the
: vessel rigid and stationary. On the other hand, when heating up /
: cooling the vessel, you have to allow for thermal expansion, so the
: supports are unlocked and the shift techs keep a beady eye on the
: force and displacement plots in case one of the legs gets stuck, which
: would be a Bad Thing.
: -- 
: They don't talk for me, except when they say ....

: ===============================================================================
:     The above article is the personal view of the poster and should not be
:        considered as an official comment from the JET Joint Undertaking
: ===============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenwindski cudfnTony cudlnRusi cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.10 /  alexs@cyberque /  Re: Real Fusion: Tired of all this BS
     
Originally-From: alexs@cyberquest.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Real Fusion: Tired of all this BS
Date: 10 Feb 1995 05:11:33 GMT
Organization: CyberQuest BBS

Here are some excerpts from the foregoing diatribe by Mr. C., paraphrased,
abridged, condensed and with third-person, passive case bullshit boiled
away (typos unchanged):

- My ... comment was intentionally meant to be both condescending and patronizing...
- ...I ...have effectively earned the right to [determin(e) what is proper to
- discuss and what is not].
- ...if you are allowing your ... language and communication to be 
- censored, reshaped and redefined by ... perverse, special interest causes,
- it is you who become the loser.
- ...when one begins to pontificate and question the posting quality of others,
- I have every right to question their qualifications to do so ...
- (my) credentials vastly overshadow the original posters student status, and
- ...(my) positive contributions far and away outweigh the negative.  
- Mark,  you remain "truly clueless."
- ...if because contemporary special interest programming has perverted your
- interpretation of the language then I appologise only for your teachers.
- Sarcasm and bad taste....certainly intended.
-
-  ps.  Any further comments by email only, please.
-  
>>>>

Whatsamatter, Harry?  Starting to squirm on your own petard?

In addition to sexist and condescending, how about the following adjectives:
Paranoid...Authoritarian...Pedantic...Sarcastic...Posessing Bad Taste...
Pretentious...Threatened...Insecure...Insulting...Right-Wing-Wacko...Lonely.

I think you piss off people intentionally just for the attention.  Maybe
Paying Your Dues hasn't paid off in enough professional recognition?

You seem to spend entirely too much time irritating people and defending
against appropriate responses to be doing much real physics.  I can only
hope you're doing all this news-posting on your own time, and not on
the public's dime as Big Fusion research subsidies.

Pots and Kettles, indeed.


cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenalexs cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.10 / Matt Austern /  Re: Tiny *Griggs Type* Unit
     
Originally-From: matt@physics7.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tiny *Griggs Type* Unit
Date: 10 Feb 1995 05:49:56 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)

In article <3h6sop$e8r@deadmin.ucsd.edu> barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:

> In this case, I don't think so. Instead, I think it would make the
> best use of everyone's time for the claimer (here, Mike Huffman),
> to simply provide us (say, Tom) with what he considers to be a working
> device, for testing. Since he says _he_ knows how to build them
> for $150, why don;t we use the remainder of the Griggs Trip Fund
> to simply buy a working model from _him_ for testing. Further, he
> should also procide what he considers to be a suitable test protocol.

Has Huffman claimed that his device produces more energy than it's
given?  Maybe I misread his article, but I didn't see any claims from
him that he'd even measured either the input power or the output heat.

If all he claims is that he's built a tabletop device that stirs up
water until it gets hot, then I don't see any reason for spending too
much time or money on testing.
--

                               --matt
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.09 / Doug Shade /  Re: splitting the newsgroup - another option
     
Originally-From: rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com (Doug Shade)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: splitting the newsgroup - another option
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 21:25:24 GMT
Organization: Motorola LICD

In article <199502071841.AA21999@leibniz.cs.arizona.edu>
rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel) writes:

> Another option to splitting the newsgroup:  Make a mailing list.

OR, this has worked elsewhere... Include a category code in the subject
line
[c] GG results for 10/94
[h] Plasma Temps in September

[c] cold
[h] hot

Those wanting to avoid the cold subjects just run a simple KILL on [c]
subjects!


Doug Shade
rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenrxjf20 cudfnDoug cudlnShade cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.10 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Tiny *Griggs Type* Unit
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tiny *Griggs Type* Unit
Date: 10 Feb 1995 00:13:24 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <3he8g4$k3h@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com (John
Logajan) wrote:

> Barry Merriman (barry@starfire.ucsd.edu) wrote:
> : So: Mr Huffman---would you consider presenting a working device to Tom
> : Droege for study, if, say, a suitable fee ~$500, to cover costs and
> : labor ) were paid for the construction and delivery of the device plus
> : testing instructions?
> 
> Count me in for a $20 donation on this.  I'd add the following (friendly)
> terms -- the fee covers a *loan* of the device for a period of unsupervised
> testing, in which the independent tester is allowed to disassemble, yet
> exercise due care not to destroy, said device.  After the independent
> tester completes his testing, the unit is returned in the condition it
> was initially received (with normal wear and tear.)
> 
> Furthermore, the independent tester agrees to keep safe any proprietary
> "secrets" and in revealing the general results of his testings will avoid
> also revealing said secrets, if any.
> 

Heck, no.  I'll pitch in on this, but Mr. Huffman claimed he could make a
tabletop GG with $150 in parts.  I'd think the half a grand would easily
_buy_ the unit lock, stock, and barrel, and then Tom could rip it apart to
his heart's content.

Let's have none of this "no-damage, and we'll return it when we're done"
stuff.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.09 / Dick Jackson /  Re: Griggs questions
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs questions
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 20:22:17 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea

In article <3h13ti$4qb@sundog.tiac.net> conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes:
>Dick Jackson (jackson@soldev.tti.com) wrote:
>
>: So if Tom Droege's investigation *does not* uncover a 30% error
>: mechanism, there is a (how can I put it?) *interesting* situation to
>: be looked at.
>
>Come on now, as much as I respect Tom, lets not put the burden for the 
>future of mankind on his shoulders!  I'm not implying that this is one of 
>them, but some scams have fooled even the best investigators.  That's 
>exactly why we try to include a magician (someone trained in deception) 
>in most serious investigations of psychic phenomena. 

You edited the rest of my post in which I listed "hocus-pocus" as
a possible explanation. I agree that a devious huckster could build
a deliberately deceptive device which would be extremely difficult to
expose. But from all accounts Mr. Griggs is a straight-up guy.

If Tom finds an *inexplicable* +30% (or -30% come to that) difference
between input and output powers, what should the next step be?

Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.09 / Patrick Smith /  The Tesla Turbine
     
Originally-From: p-smith@advtech.slc.paramax.com (Patrick J. Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Tesla Turbine
Date: 9 Feb 95 17:01:53 GMT
Organization: Paramax, Salt Lake City, Utah


Admittedly, this topic is pretty tangential to CNF.  But I see there
is still considerable discussion of the Griggs device, I thought I'd
ask anyway.

I was recently handed a copy of a `Resource Guide' from the
`International Tesla Society'.  It appears to be a Mecca for "Free
Energy" stuff, but, while thumbing through it, my attention was drawn
to something called "Super Steam Technology".  There was a picture of
a Norm Wootan taking some "readings of the Super Steam Technology
during a recent demonstration in Texas.  One of the applications---the
Tesla Turbine---is shown in the foreground..."  In addition, there
were two videos advertised: "Super Steam Workshop" and "Tesla Turbine
Technology Workshop".  The advertisement for the first read:

    "Traditionally, steam power fueled the industrial age.  With steam
     technology, power became portable, but required cumbersome
     equipment, and consumed massive amounts of fuel.  Super steam
     technology eliminates the inefficiencies associated with steam
     and achieves record temperatures.  These advances are the basis
     for a number of new applications that are demonstrated at the
     1994 International Tesla Symposium... of which the Tesla Turbine
     is but one."

The second advertisement reads:

    "For years many have been making claims about the incredible Tesla
     Turbine that they were unable to backup with a working model...
     For the first time since Nikola Tesla worked to develop it,
     working Tesla Turbine technology was demonstrated publicly."

My reason for bringing all this up is that it all sound
circumstantially like descriptions of the Griggs device.  Further, I
recall seeing queries as to what impelled Griggs to this line of
investigation in the first place, but don't recall seeing any answers.
So, can anyone tell me, in a nutshell, what Tesla Turbines are?  And
can the Griggs advocates comment on whether or not this is where Griggs got
started?  Just curious.

-Patrick

PS: I havn't been following this group for a while, so my apologies if
this has already been hashed out.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudensmith cudfnPatrick cudlnSmith cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.09 / C Advocates /  cmsg cancel <3hcsaj$ptl@panix.com>
     
Originally-From: ccapc@cyber.sell.com (Consumer Credit Advocates)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <3hcsaj$ptl@panix.com>
Date: 9 Feb 1995 22:30:00 GMT

Spam cancelled by news@bnr.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenccapc cudfnConsumer cudlnAdvocates cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.09 / John Logajan /  Re: Tiny *Griggs Type* Unit
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tiny *Griggs Type* Unit
Date: 9 Feb 1995 23:29:08 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Barry Merriman (barry@starfire.ucsd.edu) wrote:
: So: Mr Huffman---would you consider presenting a working device to Tom
: Droege for study, if, say, a suitable fee ~$500, to cover costs and
: labor ) were paid for the construction and delivery of the device plus
: testing instructions?

Count me in for a $20 donation on this.  I'd add the following (friendly)
terms -- the fee covers a *loan* of the device for a period of unsupervised
testing, in which the independent tester is allowed to disassemble, yet
exercise due care not to destroy, said device.  After the independent
tester completes his testing, the unit is returned in the condition it
was initially received (with normal wear and tear.)

Furthermore, the independent tester agrees to keep safe any proprietary
"secrets" and in revealing the general results of his testings will avoid
also revealing said secrets, if any.

--
 - 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:
cuddy9 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.10 / John Cobb /  Re: How much would a fusion reactor eat?
     
Originally-From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How much would a fusion reactor eat?
Date: 10 Feb 1995 12:54:14 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <SCOTT.95Feb9174156@swindle.Berkeley.EDU>,
Scott Silvey <scott@swindle.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>
>Are there any estimates of how much fuel mass a viable fusion reactor
>might consume per second?  Let's say a 1GW output (electrical) system?

Please keep in mind that any estimate here is really a big WAG. With that
in mind, I can try to answer some of these issues. The really big error bars 
come from downstream efficiency estimates. That is why you should look at all
the answers given and keep close track of how much detail they retain about
downstream efficiency. For example, the terms "breakeven" and "Q=10" refer to
the operating points where the energy out equals the energy in ( or 10 times
the energy in for Q=10). However, these are "scientific" numbers of merit,
and not directly utility relavant. The way the accouting goes is that they
consider power input to only consist of heating power input in the form of
neutral beams or RF heating. They usually do not count the energy required to
generate the magnetic field, etc. The rationale is that in a real reactor, the
coils will be superconducting, so there will be no "power cost" for the field,
only a 1-time startup cost of building up the current in the SC coils. 
Likewise, the power output number is rather idealized. It is usually considered
as just a sum of the fusion energy released. Since for a Tokamak burning
DT, most of the energy comes out as neutron kinetic energy, one must
inevitably go through some sort of thermodynamic cycle to recover the energy 
in the form of heat. So right there you lose about 1/3 (rough number depending
on who you talk to and how you design your blanket).

So with those caveats, let me try to answer your questions and point out
where I am making simplyfying assumptions and where I am being careful. Your
first question (restated) is how much fuel mass is required for a fusion
reactor that provides 1000 MW to the power grid?

First approximation: Estimate the energy production channels. There are
generally 3 channels, neutron power(mostly  deposited in the blanket),
charged particle energy, and radiation (most synchrotron). For a low
beta-toroidal (< 30%) DT-fueled device like a Tokamak, most of this
(~75% WAG) would be in the form of neutron energy. Assume that there
is no re-capture of energy other than neutron power (this is a conservative
estimate)

Second approximation: How efficient is the system in converting neutron
energy into electricity? There are two issues. First, what portion of the
neutrons get into the blanket as opposed to the magnetic coils or support
structures and second what is the efficiency of energy conversion for
thermal neutron energy deposited in the blanket. I will estimate that
70% of the neutrons interact with the blanket (This is a WAG) and that
they are converted with 66% efficiency (Another WAG). The first estimate
of 70% deposited in the blanket is a very debateable number. I think it is
optmistic based on real world realities that push their way into reactor
designs. Some other (perhaps many) fusioneers would take issue with it
because 1) it is pretty pessimistic and 2) their studies haven't seen it.
In my mind, I think that it is one of a class of problems that fusion will
have to face. There are many difficult technological and engineering problems
that commercial fusion must face that research fusion has been able to
finesse up to this point. This is an example of one of them. In my mind,
one of the main scientific motivations for building ITER is that it will
force the community to deal with these issues. Shoot, many parts of current
research machines don't even have active cooling. Think about that.

My second WAG of 66% conversion efficiency of the thermal neutron power
to electricity is really a WAG that I cannot justify. I use that number
because it sticks in my head what one of my old undergraduate profs.
said about "paying the thermodynamic penalty" of 1/3 of your energy is
lost in heat whenever you have a thermodynamic conversion of energy (Has
anyone bothered to tell this to congressmen Walker before he commits huge
sums of money to a hydrogen fuel program?). Now with fusion reactors, because
the energy of the incoming neutrons is so high, maybe that number can be
improved. Anybody got a better estimate?

Finally, this estimate is also on the conservative side because I have assumed
that none of the neutron energy deposited in the other structures would
be recovered. Of course these structures will have to be actively cooled and
it may be possible to engineer a system where some of this could be recovered.

When you put these numbers together, you get an overall efficiency of
0.8 * 0.7 * 0.66 = 0.3465. so to get a 1000MW reactor, you will need
2886 MW of fusion power.

How many fusions will that require? Each DT reaction releases 17.6 MeV
(14.1 MeV in the neutron and 3.5 in the He4). This means that 3.54E11
fusions / sec will give 1 watt of power. Therefore, the reactor will need
1.02 E 21 reactions/ sec. Since each reaction requires one D and one T,
this means 1.7 milligrams/second of D and T (each) will be required. Over
the course of a year, this comes out to about 54 Kg.

Now make one more WAG. Not every D and T that is put into the reactor is
burned, some is exhausted without burning. What the exact fraction is is
another big question (and another big research problem that ITER will
provide help in answering). But lets take a WAG and suppose that it is as
high as 100 %. This means that the total power plant fuel requirements
will be about 100 Kilo's of D and T. Compare that the mountains of coal that
a coal plant burns a year. Actually, I think this 100% WAG is again
conservative. The reason is that T is radioactive and will therefore need
to be recovered for safety reasons. So even if it is exhausted instead of
being burnt, most will be recovered from the waste stream because it is
precious (expensive) and because it is not wise to release it into the
environment. So the actual Tritium fueling requirements may be as low as
60 Kilos (another WAG -- but this time not conservative).

>
>Also, is there anything like a concensus as to how efficient a fusion
>reactor might get (fuel value vs electrical output)?
>

See above: I estimated it at ~40% (although individual components may be
much higher). As to whether that is a consensus. I would say probably not.
There is, in my experience, a wide variation of opinion. More importantly,
there are many people active in magnetic fusion who have not even considered
these issues in depth. So don't just believe someone because he says he is
a fusioneer. Ask him/her if they are familiar with reactor studies such as
ESECOM and Aries.

>I checked out the FAQ and noticed that there are estimates that advanced
>turbines might get to be as good as 50%, which impressed me.  So if you
>only have efficiency estimates for the reactor stage, that would be cool.
>
>I'm just curious... I'm trying to get an intuitive grasp on how capable 
>fusion might be in the near future.
>

Near future meaning your lifetime, I would bet against it. It is undergoing
some very tough times now. It is a promising concept, but it is expensive
and long-term. There is a good chance that it will die and have to be
resurrected one or more times, before it becomes a commercial reality.
It is definitely scientifically possible. It may even be economical with
today's current designs, although if so, it will only be marginally so.
However, given the way our societies operate, it is very difficult to
impossible to sustain the required level of vigourous and long-term
reserach needed to bring it to fruition.

While I'm on a roll, let me mention one other issue. There are other
magnetic fusion concepts besides the Tokamak, such as the reversed field
pinch, stellerators, heliotrons, spherical tokamaks, spheromaks, and my
favorite, the Field Reversed configuration or FRC. I am partial to FRC's
since they were my dissertation topic. They have some problems but their
big strength comes exactly when you start to look at these reactor
concepts. The Artemis study tried to give answers to the questions you asked
here. However, they tended to try to get the "most accurate" answers rather
than the more conservative estimates I gave above. You can find a summary
of the study in the July 1992 Issue of Fusion Technology p. 2311 (vol 21.,
authors, Momota et. al.)

The reactor advantages of the FRC are quite striking. First, they are fueled
with D and 3He. This means tht the fusion products are 4He and a proton instead
of 4He and a neutron. This makes a big difference because it means most of
the energy is released into the charged particle channel. This makes a
big difference because it can be converted directly to electrical energy
using an electrostatic direct energy convertor for the low energy part and
an inverse linac for the 14 MeV protons. There have been estimates of
energy recovery efficiencies as high as 95% for this Direct Energy Recovery.
Additionally, the geometry is so simple that the sheilding requirements are
lower and there is a natural divertor. In short, by using a superior fusion
concept it finesse's most of the really troublesome reactor technology issues
that confound Tokamak's today. Sadly, like most other alternate concepts, its
funding support has been gobbled up by the increasing demands of the mainline
Tokamak effort and squeezed by the every decreasing level of support for
fusion. So what appears to have the most longterm promise, in my opinion, is
what is being neglected today. Figuratively, the lean times in fusion today is
forcing the fusion community to "eat its seed corn" and this crippple itself
in the future. Quite tragic.

Some of the answers to the questions you ask for the Artemis study were:
for a 1000 MW electrical power reactor
Fusion power  : 1610 MW
Neutron Power : 77 MW <-- compare this to > 2000 MW for a Tokamak. It greatly
                         reduces neutron embrittlement problems
Electric Power: 1052 MW (808 through DEC, 244 through turbines)
Beta-total    : 90%
NBI requirements:
Startup       : 1400 KeV, 100MW D injection, maximum
Steady Burn   : 1000 KeV, 5 MW, D injection
Fueling:
D             : 56.4 kg/yr
3He           : 38.0 Kg/yr


Cost:
Plant Capital    : 1.729 Billion $
Operat. & Maint. : 34.6 Million $ /yr
Fuel Cost        : 8.0 Million $ /yr
Total Cost       : 188.6 Million $ /yr

Cost of Electricity: 0.0287 $ / kWh (assuming 75% average load factor)


Note the plant cost is about 10 times less than a Tokamak for the same
electrical power and the cost of electricty is also smaller. It looks
very attractive. However, FRC's have been less well expolored as compared
to Tokamaks, so the inherent error bars in these numbers are a bit larger.


>Thanks.
>
>Scott


-john .w cobb
-- 
John W. Cobb	Quietly Making Noise, Pissing off the old Kill-Joys
		-Jimmy Buffet

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.10 / Gary Steckly /  Re: Excess baggage on Droege trip
     
Originally-From: Gary Steckly <gsteckly@clark.dgim.doc.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Excess baggage on Droege trip
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 95 17:51:36 GMT
Organization: Communications Canada

blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) wrote:
>
> As a contributer to the Droege travel fund I wish to express my
> opinion concerning the trip.  I am in agreement with Tom that
> what is needed is a minimization of competing and potentially
> interfering interests as represented by the presence of other
> parties.  It is unfortunate that arrangements for the trip
> had to be made on such a public forum with the result that
> the whole world knows about it. 

Unfortunate?!  I thought that was the beauty of this little 
experiment.  A totally public funded, on a global basis, expedition
of scientific inquiry, supposedly unencumbered by preconceived notions
or vested interests.  If one doesn't want the whole world to know 
about something, one shouldn't solicit contributions from the whole
world to fund the trip.  I thought this was going to be an exercise
in scientific democracy, but it seems to have turned into a secretive
little backroom meeting. Gosh, maybe televised courtroom proceedings
_are_ a good thing.

> I vote for keeping it simple.

A little too simple I believe. I fear Jed was right.  If all we get
out of this is one more persons "opinions", this has been a wasted 
effort.

regards

Gary

> 
> Dick Blue
> 

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.11 / Richard Milton /  Re: More Thoughts on the Griggs Device.....
     
Originally-From: richard@milton.win-uk.net (Richard Milton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More Thoughts on the Griggs Device.....
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 04:12:34 GMT

A (probably) barmy idea has just occurred to me relating to
Jim Griggs' device.  It's possible that all or some of the
excess heat is produced electrochemically by the following
mechanism. 

Aluminium (which I understand the rotor is made of) stands
at one end of the "electrochemical series". It will
drive out of aqueous solution any metal ions of metals that
stand higher in the series if there is a suitable electrode
for that metal to be deposited on (such as a ferrous metal
casing). 

Normally, it is difficult to get Aluminium to behave in
this way because the surface oxidises too readily and thus
prevents electrolysis. But it has been suggested here that 
sonoluminescence is responsible for constantly stripping the
surface, continually revealing what has been described as
bright metal.

Could it be that SL is keeping the surface of the
aluminium rotor clean enough for electrolysis to take
place continuously?  The extent of the reaction would depend
on what metallic salts are dissolved in the water and
what metals are available for them to be deposited on. If
for example there is any copper, zinc or noble metals
exposed inside the container, there could be a respectable
current flowing.

Regards

Richard 

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

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenrichard cudfnRichard cudlnMilton cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.10 / Gary Steckly /  Re: For the Groups Consideration
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: For the Groups Consideration
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 95 15:06:08 GMT
Organization: Communications Canada

Tom Droege (Droege@fnal.fnal.gov) wrote:
: I recently received the following message:

: Date: Mon, 06 Feb 1995 17:49 -0500 (EST)
: From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)

(excerpt from private e-mail from m. Dudley deleted)


: After some debate here, I had come to the conclusion that it would be 
: best to make a quiet trip to see what Mr. Griggs had to offer.  I 
: at least made clear that the press was not inviting a member of the
: press that had asked to come along.  I have no particular need to make
: this trip.  So I would not object if some other went in my place.  One
: small problem is that I have already spent of order $150 on a cheap plane 
: ticket and am not sure I can get a refund.  

: Tom Droege


It is nice to see that Marshall resolved the difficulties with his Usenet 
postings and his messages have finally made it out, although it appears 
it was too late.

I find the attitudes that came out of this little "debate" rather 
distressing.  Didn't Tom Droege ask the following question back in January:

> From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
> Subject: Phonophobic Calls Griggs
> Date: 6 Jan 1995 20:12:32 GMT
>
>
> This phonophobic finally got around to calling Griggs and 
> setting up a meeting.  
>
> I  found him to be quite reasonable.  We have tenatively set
> Wednesday 8 March for the meeting.  For those that have asked
> to join me, please get in contact.  I will also work down my
> list.  Griggs said it would be OK to bring a couple of other
> people. 

Wasn't Marshall was only responding to an invitation given by Tom?  I 
don't know why Tom apparently felt it necessarry to take this matter to 
"the group", particulary in the context that he felt he should stay 
home if someone else observed. Tom, I don't believe Marshall's offer to 
assist should have been interpreted as a lack of faith in your abilities or 
integrity.  Quite the contrary, in my correspondence with Marshall, he 
has, in the past, indicated complete faith in your abilities.

On the matter of multiple investigators inhibiting the interview, I 
believe several contributors expressed their opinon that these 
investigations are more productive when there are other minds to bounce 
ideas off of.  I personally agree that brainstorming can be very 
productive. As has been mentioned, there should be at least 3 people to 
simultaneously observe the dynamometer, thermometers and power meter.

Having never met you Tom, I have had no reason to doubt your objectivity in 
this little excercise, and still look forward to seeing the report on 
your interview with Mr. Griggs.  You pay your 25 bucks ($45.00 cdn with 
exchange but I'm not complaining) you take your chances.

But after having witnessed this little debate here, I am even more 
interested in reading the report that Marshall will be making, (if he 
goes and if Mr. Griggs doesn't get tired of the endless inquisition)   

No doubt, Marshall's report will be complete with *measurements* and 
*analysis*.  Marshall, I hope you and your colleague decide to follow 
through with this trip. While others may be content with more 
"impressions"?!, I think at this juncture, what we really need is 
independant *data*.

It really is too bad that people can't work together!

And Tom, really, this unfortunate little controversy could have been 
avoided entirely had you just replied to Marshall's private email via 
private email. I'm sure he would have stayed home if his presence made 
you feel uncomfortable.


Gary   


cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.09 / Philip Snyder /  Re: Ion Beam Fusion
     
Originally-From: pbsnyder@flagstaff.princeton.edu (Philip B. Snyder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ion Beam Fusion
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 20:38:37 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Gregory Hansen writes:
>
>Tokamaks need huge amounts of energy to operate, but the people funding
>the research must think they are the most efficient reactors because
>tokamaks get 90% of the research money.  Why is that?  Are they the best
>possibility because they are the best design, or only because they've had
>the most development?
>

[I'm by no means an authority, but I'll give you my perspective]
[long]

Well, I'm not terribly sure the 90% figure is accurate.  In the US, the
inertial confinement fusion budget is largely in the Dept of Defense
budget rather than the DoE budget, so you might be missing it.
And Japan and Europe are spending quite a good bit on stellerators,
not to mention that much of plasma physics research is at least
somewhat device independent.

That being said it is certainly true that the tokamak currently dominates
the US fusion effort.  This is not simply due to politics (though it is
cetainly partially due to politics) as certain
disgruntled netizens will (and have already) screamed out.

As someone who is going into fusion research (if it continues in the
US), not because I like tokamaks, but because I think we can do
much better, the fact is that there are important things to be
said in favor of tokamaks.

A bit of history:  The US controlled fusion program began after WWII
and started as a classified effort intending to realize fusion
power with the kind of swiftness with which the a-bomb and h-bomb
were realized.  In the early years, a number of different approaches
were tried, including beam-target, beam-beam, z-pinch, theta-pinch,
mirror machines, stellerators, and numerous others.

The results however after 20 years using many different
approaches, were quite disappointing.  The results on the
other side of the iron curtain were similarly frustrating
and both sides decided to give up secrecy and collaborate.

Shortly thereafter (i think), around 1969-70, the Soviets were
claiming to have achieved much better parameters than had been
achieved in the west, using a device they called a tokamak
(meaning torus with current or something like that).  The
west was highly skeptical until a team of British researchers
went to Russia and confirmed the results.  Subsequently,
a number of tokamaks was built in the west with performance
equalling and soon far exceeding that of the earliest
tokamaks.  Along came the oil crunch in the mid 70s, energy
research budgets increased and fairly large tokamaks were
built, with performance largely meeting expectations.

When the oil crunch was over and research budgets contracted, it
was felt that the focus of fusion research had to be narrowed
in the hopes that a single best approach could be pursued fully
with the limited funds available.  Tokamak critics would say
this was because building bigger and bigger tokamaks had 
become too expensive and wasn't accomplishing much.  Others
would say that at this point tokamak performance clearly
exceeded that of all other devices (based on parameters this
is certainly true), and it only made sense to concentrate
our limited resources on this approach.

Hence funding of alternatives to the tokamak was reduced, and
a number of projects were mothballed.  Since then the fusion
budget decreased yet further, and proposals for next
generation tokamaks were repeatedly rejected.  There are no
new (large) tokamaks in the US, and the future of the 
currently planned TPX device is in jeapordy.

Basically the US fusion budget now goes mostly toward running
the major tokamaks (TFTR, DIII-D, Alcator C-Mod) and toward
the design of TPX and ITER, the planned international 
collaboration.

In light of recent tokamak results, it is possible to, with
some confidence, extrapolate to a reactor-sized device which
would produce huge amounts of energy.  However, the device
would be huge, very complex, and very expensive.  Without
improvements, it would not likely be able to produce 
electricity at a cost competetive with current sources.

On the other hand, no other magnetic confinement fusion device
is even close to the point where we could envision how
to scale it into a reactor (Paul Koloc's opinion 
notwithstanding; and stellerators are getting close, but they
have many of the same problems tokamaks have; inertial confinement
is fairly close, but it is usually considered in a separate
category because of its defense applications).  However, it is 
felt that some alternatve approach (perhaps a modification of
something we've tried already, perhaps something entirely new),
might lead to a much more attractive reactor in the long
run.

The choice between trying to further improve the more tried
and true approach, most likely getting us to a reactor,
but not a clearly desirable reactor, or trying other
approaches which may well get us nowhere, but just might
lead to a very attractive reactor is by no means simple.

If anyone tells you it is obvious that we should dump the
tokamak, or that it is obvious that we should pursue only
the tokamak, they clearly have an agenda in mind.

The actual decision is very difficult, and made much moreso
by politics.  Many feel that without tangible, measurable
results in the near term, the fusion program will simply
be abandoned. 

Some might favor the tokamak because they believe it can
lead us to a half decent reactor, and once the half decent
reactors are being built, there will be research money
(and much increased knowledge) available to get us to a
very desirable reactor.

Others believe that along the way we will make discoveries
that will allow tokamaks with some modification to be 
desirable reactors.

Of course others want to eliminate the tokamak entirely, to
allow more money for other approaches.  Of course those
other approaches might have very little time to produce
results before they and/or the whole fusion program
disappeared.

And others are looking for non energy-producing applications
for confined hot plasma devices, to allow for near term
goals to be reached while we gained knowledge moving us
closer to the long term goal of clean, safe, practically
unlimited, and cheap energy.


Anyway, just trying to show that things are quite complicated,
despite the efforts of a few cynics who post here
(and will likely respond to this), to oversimplify.  
Corrections, comments and additions welcomed.

-Phil
grad student in plasma physics at princeton




cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenpbsnyder cudfnPhilip cudlnSnyder cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.09 / Philip Snyder /  Re: Ion Beam Fusion
     
Originally-From: pbsnyder@flagstaff.princeton.edu (Philip B. Snyder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ion Beam Fusion
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 21:04:32 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

I'll see if I can clarify things a bit... be warned that this is 
getting long, and again the arguments I'm using are schematic
to try to convey the idea without getting bogged down

In article <D3LsM5.LoH@news.cis.umn.edu> hans0174@gold.tc.umn.edu
(Gregory L Hansen) writes:
>In article <3gv14o$r6h@lyman.pppl.gov>, Phil Snyder <pbsnyder@pppl.gov> wrote:
>>[I'll try to give an illustration of the general problems
>>of ion beam fusion.  Note that I'm not trying to be
>>precise, just to relate the nature of an important
>>(hot) fusion issue to those that might be unfamiliar.]
>
>Thank you!  This is the most information I've gotten so far.  But I hope 
>you don't mind me asking a few questions...
>

I don't mind, but I certainly don't have all the answers.  Anyone
out there done work with beam target fusion??

>>(Using a solid target rather than two beams does not improve
>>the situation.  Now the incident beam ions will not be 
>>deflected out quickly, but they will lose their energy
>>quickly, primarily through interactions with electrons 
>>in the lattice, and a similarly small fraction of the
>>incident ions will fuse.)
>
>Why is a solid target worse than a plasma?

Well, because ions exert a strong coulomb repulsion on each other,
they can only be pushed close enough together to fuse (with any
reasonable probability) if they come at each other with a
lot of energy (barring cold fusion type magic). For D-T 
reactions an energy of at least ~5 keV
is required for any significant probability of fusion. 
Here are some cross sections for D-T as a function of energy
in the center of mass frame:

Center of Mass
Energy(keV)   	     Cross-Section(barns)
3			0.00001
5			0.0005
10			0.03
20			0.4
50			4.2
65			5.0	(maximum cross section)
100			3.4
200			1.1

(the cross section can be thought of as the relative likelihood
of the given event occuring)

So it seems that if we fired, for example, a beam of 100 keV
deuterons (for a center of mass energy of 60 keV) into a solid 
target containing tritium we might get a significant amount of
fusion.

The problem is that any solid must contain enough electrons so that
it is roughly charge neutral (and of course in a solid these
electrons will in low energy states around the nucleii, or some
will be in band states), and any solid must be extremely cold
relative to the ion beam energy (5 keV corresponds to a 
temperature of 60 million degrees kelvin- speaking loosely).
So, just doing a simple dynamic calculation (or a more complex
quantum calculation) will show that by far the most likely thing
to happen when the 100 keV ion slams into the solid target
is that it will interact with the electrons in the solid and
lose its energy very quickly. 

As I pointed out before, even when the incoming ion does get
close enough to another ion to interact strongly, it is much
more likely to simply bounce off than to fuse.  At ideal
energies around 100 keV, it will be very roughly 1000 times
more likely to just bounce off (again, I'm not using
the standard definition of a coulomb collision here,
but rather including bouncing off by much less than 90
degrees).  When it has slowed down
to an energy of ~20 keV, it will be more like 10000 times
more likely to just bounce off.  Once it's slowed down
to below 5 keV it has effectively no chance of fusing.

Hence, very schematically, what might happen to a 100 keV
deuteron as it slams into a solid target containing a lot
of tritium...

Energy(keV)       Event            	       Chance of fusing
100         slows down on electrons                  0%
90	    first interaction with tritium nucleus   .1%
80          slows down further on electrons          0%
60	    2nd interaction with tritium nucleus    ~.03%
50	    slows down on electrons                  0%
20	    3rd interaction with tritium nucleus    ~.01%
10	    slows down on electrons                  0%
<5         (no further chance of fusion)	     0%

The numbers here are extremely rough, but the idea is right.
Because the impinging deuteron will slow down quickly on
electrons (primarily), it will have few interactions with
tritium nucleii while it is still at a high enough energy
to have a chance of fusing.  Adding these chances up, the
total probablility of the deuteron fusing will be at most
a couple tenths of a percent. (more accurate numbers anyone??)

And because that deuteron cost you 100 keV to produce (including
efficiency of the beam it's real cost is at least 300 keV), and
the fusion releases only 17.6 MeV of energy which must be
converted to electricity at an efficiency of say 40%.

Energy in=100 keV/(1/3 beam eff.)= 300 keV
Energy out=17.6 MeV*(.0002 chance of fusing)*(.4 eff) ~ 2 keV

You're therefore not even close to breakeven.  This does not
mean, however that the number of fusions isn't significant if
your interest is in, say, producing a few 14 MeV neutrons
to test materials, rather than in trying to produce 
electricity.


Why is a plasma better?  Well, a cold plasma isn't much better
(nor is a liquid or a gas), as a similar loss of energy to
electrons would occur (and to a lesser extent energy is lost
in non-fusion collisions with ions).

Things change a lot, however, if you can have an entire system
where the particles all have energies in the fusion range of
interest.  This system must be a plasma, because at the
relevant temperatures of tens of millions of degrees, plasma
is the only form matter can take, at reasonable densities.

Now, if you have a whole system of deuterons and tritons, and
an equal number of electrons, all at a temperature of say
10 keV (~120 million degrees kelvin), and you have 
densities of around 10^20 m^-3, then
you have a hot thermonuclear fusion plasma.
Because the particles are (roughly) in equilibrium at a very
high temperature, when the particles collide with each other
they are equally likely to lose or gain energy.
Hence a deuteron in this system can collide with electron
after electron, and collide with many tritons and deuterons
too, while its average energy over time continues to
be 3/2 kT=15 keV.
If this system could somehow be completely isolated from the
rest of the world, these collisions would continue indefinitely
with the average energy of the ions unchanged, so that
multiple high energy collisions between deuterons and tritons
would continure to occur until they all fused.
You would then get much more energy out than you put in initially.

However, in practice, the system cannot be completely isolated
from the outside world, and the plasma will continuously
lose energy to whatever surrounds it.

Confining it with a solid wall alone won't work because the plasma
will lose energy to the wall, and vaporize the wall.

A magnetic field can be uses to confine the plasma, but its
energy will still escape, albeit much more slowly.
In a tokamak, for example, the plasma loses energy to the walls
(and also radiates away its energy) so fast that it appears to 
be necessary to build quite a large
machine with a huge magnetic field (and a high price tag)
so that the plasma energy is contained well enough to get
net energy production (ie to reach commercial breakeven).

> What kind of energies would 
>we need to reliably make fusion reactions in a solid target?  If 

as above, around 10 keV as a minimum.  Probably optimum at around
100 keV  (for deuterons striking a target containing tritium).

>interactions with electrons are important, does it matter if the target 
>is a metal, semiconductor, or nonconductor?  

not really.  it won't effect the general argument above, though it
may effect the exact numbers somewhat.  Anyone out there know
more precise numbers, or know what kinds of materials work best??

>If the beam vaporizes the 
>target, would the impacting ions have better luck reacting with the gas 
>than with the solid?  

Again not really.  Whether the target vaporizes would depend on
the total energy of the beam and the nature of the target, but
the gas will be much less dense than the solid and it will
have the same problems (incoming deuterons would generally lose 
their energy to the electrons in the gas rather than fusing with 
the nucleii of the gas molecules).  Anyone know the numbers??

>Would neutral particles be more successful?  Or a 
>plasma beam instead of an ion beam?  (I'm not necessarily looking at 
>break-even here, just gathering information.)
>

neutral particles would be worse, and I don't see any reason why using
a plasma beam would help.  Anyone??


-Phil
grad student in plasma physics at princeton








cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenpbsnyder cudfnPhilip cudlnSnyder cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.10 /  hatcher@msupa. /  Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph
sics.accelerators
Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
Date: 10 Feb 1995 17:34:54 GMT
Organization: MSU Dept. of Physics & Astronomy

In article <3he1qc$d5s@borg.svpal.org>, lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) writes:
>> Robert W. Hatcher (hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu) Writes:
>
>> (snip)
>> ...... I think I've got a pretty damn convincing demonstration
>> that we are *indeed* seeing such events, and furthermore we
>> are measuring characteristics of those events, comparing them
>> to the theory (the standard model) and finding excellent agreement.
>
>Robert, i have no obvious reason to doubt the events shown in your post.  
>It is impossible for me, or even you, to (sight unseen) vouch for the 
>efforts of others assisting in the experiments. Everyone, involved,  
>fully expected to get positive results, so  claiming positive results is 
>expected, but a negative result would raise questions, not with theory, 
>but with competence.   

No, you've simply *backhandedly* _implied_ that.  And I for one am getting
awfully tired of your insults.  I for one will vouch for the correctness
of all those plots I mailed you...because (1) I've personally verified
95% of the underlying analysis (2) the other 5% was done by competent
people who I have check other results with in the past (and thus I have
personal knowledge of their abilities).  So if you again wish to make this
claim that I can't vouch for them then you're publicly calling me a liar
and a fraud and I think I'll have no recourse but to make life for you
here on sci.physics a living hell...

Oh, of that 5% that I haven't personally checked...most of that is the
beam line simulation.  Of course if that's wrong then, well, the test
beam wouldn't have worked either...but it did.  And lest you claim that
I've screwed up then you're going to have to claim that several independent
cross checks were all wrong as well.  Is there no one in this field that
you aren't prepared to accuse of gross incompetence?

And it's not just me and my collaboration you're accusing, but all those
other experiments.  That amounts to several hundred individuals....

>I cannot, first hand, question the experiments, I do, however, question 
>the present (standard model) neutrino theory. 

If observation matches theory X better than any other proposed theory
(including Y, which is completely irreconsilable with observation) then
we, as scientists, say X is "right".

>I know there  are electron type neutrinos and muon type neutrinos, but I 
>am reasonably sure that those neutrinos do not (cannot) penetrate light 
>years of lead, have a cross section that *increases* with energy, and 
>travel at the velocity of light.

Huh?  I've already shown you, with the plot of the observed energy
distribution compared to theory that there is NO WAY IN HELL THAT THE
CROSS SECTION IS ENERGY INDEPENDENT OR DECREASING WITH ENERGY.  Otherwise
we'd see a wild discrepancy (for those without plots in hand ... there's
a two humped distribution of event energies over a scale of E_nu = 30 GeV
to 500 GeV.  If in reality the cross section didn't increase, almost
linearly with small corrections, with energy while the theory predicts it
to, then the two curves would be *obviously* incompatible, no matter how 
you normalize the plots).  We've gone over this before...you're just simply
repeating yourself and showing the world the blinders you wear.

As for the "penetrate light years of lead..." well that depends on their
energy.  As has also been pointed out to you.  Just because it contridicts
your own personal "theory" DOES NOT mean that it is wrong.  It's a sloppy
statement anyways since there is some probability that the neutrino will
interact.  It's just a layman level way of saying that the probability is
small.

As for travelling a velocity of light.  That is actually an assumption.
The *correct* statement would concern the limit on the neutrino mass
and translate that into an upper velocity limit for a given energy.
And one that doesn't matter for the types of experiments under
consideration.   Well, not strictly true since others *have* done timing 
experiments and set lower limits on the speed.

>These three characteristics are mutually exclusive.  

I don't see how....care to show us anything more significant than your
blind assertion that they are.  Perhaps some coherent theory with real
predictions.

>Unless these (and other)  questions have cogent answers, the neutrino 
>detection claims are moot, IMHO.

No, that would be "In My Arrogant Opinion".  Again I ask the question of
you: *assuming* you are right and these 100,000 or so events we've
recorded are _not_ neutrino interactions, what are they?  We've ruled
out all the standard alternatives, you can suggest no more that I can't
rule out, these events are in agreement with the standard model theory
(but not your own private untested one).  So "neutrino detection claims"
are NOT moot because then we have an unexplained phenomena...and as good
scientists we need to suggest a working hypothesis to explain these
strange events.  So suggest one.  Or quit making unsupportable claims
about our interpretation of them.

>Perhaps we should agree to disagree, unless you want to continue 
>discussions at this time.

Sheesh, you are a tenacious one.  Certainly not a scientist since you are
unwilling to even look at the *evidence*.  You reject it out of hand
simply based on your own biases and accuse a large community (remember
those 10+ other experiments) of, in essence, a huge konspiracy or
exceptionally gross incompetence.

>Regards: Tom.

Disregards: -robert
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenhatcher cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.10 /  ssnair@linden. /  Do you know Attila from Hungary?
     
Originally-From: ssnair@linden.msvu.ca
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Do you know Attila from Hungary?
Date: 10 Feb 1995 13:44:44 -0400
Organization: Mount Saint Vincent University

I have lost contact with an astro-physicist from Budapest by the name of Attila
Grandpierre.  Please send Email address, snail-mail address, or any other info. 
Thanks.   -Steven Snair
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenssnair cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.10 / Alan M /  Re: For the Groups Consideration
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: For the Groups Consideration
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 17:55:20 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <USE2PCB974917419@brbbs.brbbs.com>  mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com 
(MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes:
> However, since there are two others of us who are also interested in seeing 
the
> presentation, I don't see any conflict here.

Marshall:

Tom has expressed strong reservations about having you and your pal along 
with him when he visits Griggs.

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

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

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.10 / Alan M /  Re: The Tesla Turbine
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Tesla Turbine
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 18:04:01 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <3hftgd$1d5t@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>  c1prasad@watson.ibm.c
m (prasad) writes:
> A long long time ago (late 80s), Griggs thought of putting cavitation
> to work in making steam.  He noticed the apparent o/u behavior with the
> very first device(s).  Feeling sure he was missing something in the
> measurements or something, he kept working on it quietly, until he heard
> about cold fusion, and contacted some of the CF advocates to tell them
> of his puzzle.

Well this is certainly more plausible than the Gospel According
to St Jed, which we were given some 
months ago, and which had Griggs so amazed with his first o/u measuremen
s that he "put the 
apparatus away for six months and did nothing about it".

Thanks for pointing the lie there.
-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

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

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.10 / John Logajan /  Hydrosonic heat in Moscow?
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hydrosonic heat in Moscow?
Date: 10 Feb 1995 18:15:38 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

In "Cold Fusion" #6, Chubb and Chubb report that their colleage, Robert Smith,
visited a site in Moscow running a "cavitation thermal reactor" along the
lines of our own Griggs, with a COP of > 3.0.  Earlier in the article they
made reference to light water work at MADI Technical University in Moscow,
so I will go out on a limb and link them together -- though they might well
refer to seperate Moscow efforts.

--
 - 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:
cuddy10 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.10 / Alan M /  Re: For the Groups Consideration
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: For the Groups Consideration
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 17:58:07 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <USE2PCB893851153@brbbs.brbbs.com>  mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com
(MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes:
> As I said in the response to this I posted yesterday, I am not sure it would be
> fair to Mr Griggs to have him lose 2 days of work instead of one.

And it would certainly not be fair to all the contributors to Tom's
visit who have expressed the 
desire that you stay away, if you ignore Tom's and our pleas.

Please just leave it like that and go some other day. (Or not at
all, if you're worried about the 
effect on Griggs' work.)
-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

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

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.10 / Dieter Britz /  Biblio update: Patents
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Biblio update: Patents
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 16:58:49 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

It's Friday arvo, and I fire off the 3 patent items below before I go home.
No further comment is needed, I think.

Patents: Current count = 177
^^^^^^^
#
Igarashi K, Yamamoto Y, Kajama H, Mitsuya M, Myake T, Ogawa S, Eto K, Ootake I
(Hitachi Ltd.);  Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 06,249,983, 02-Mar-93.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 122:40940 (1995).
"Cold nuclear fusion".
** "In cold nuclear fusion which uses an electrolytic cell, an ion conductor
comprising heavy hydrogen ions (D or T ions) between an anode and a cathode
facing the anode is described. The cathode can be used to store H isotopes.
The isotopic ratio of 7Li in the cathode is >=93%. Cold nuclear fusion can be
conducted efficiently in such an arrangement". (Direct quote from CA).
# .................................................................... Feb-95
Itsuhonmatsu M, Suzuki M, Sogi T (Osaka Gas Co Ltd);
Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 06,293,985, 07-Apr-93.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 122:40948 (1995).
"Manufacture of palladium deuteride by electrolysis".
** "After D is absorbed in Pd at a temp. >= 10C lower than a specified
electrolysis temp. the temp. is raised to the specified temp. The rate of the
rising of the temp. is 10-100C/min. Pd deuteride with a high D/Pd ration can
be obtained even at a high temp., so that cold fusion can be accelerated and
high energy can be obtained". (Direct quote from CA).
# .................................................................... Feb-95
Muraoka Y; Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 06,265,664, 11-Mar-93.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 122:40941 (1995).
"Apparatus and method for cold nuclear fusion".
** "The app. comprises (1) a casing of any shape made of nonelec.conductive
material, (2) 2 water-permeating plates to divide the inside of the casing
into 3 parts, (3) an electrolyte soln. (such as D2O contg. LiOH) in the space
between the 2 water-permeating plates (i.e. center space), (4) anode particles
(such as Pt) filled in 1 of the side spaces formed by the water-permeating
plates, (5) D2-absorbing cathode particles (such as Pd) filled in another side
space, (6) electrode plates (such as Cu-Zr alloy), and (7) an app. for
supplying elec. current to the electrode plates. An app. for producing a
magnetic field can be installed between the inner and the outer walls of the
casing for promoting the cold nuclear fusion. The electrode particles have a
large surface area so that cold nuclear fusion can be carried out rapidly".
(Direct quote from CA).
# .................................................................... Feb-95

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

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.10 /   /  Re: Ion Beam Fusion
     
Originally-From: Sigma9 <aavd@unm.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ion Beam Fusion
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 14:08:10 -0700
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

On Thu, 9 Feb 1995, Philip B. Snyder wrote:
[on the topic of an ion beam penetrating a plasma]

>
> If this system could somehow be completely isolated from the
> rest of the world, these collisions would continue indefinitely
> with the average energy of the ions unchanged, so that
> multiple high energy collisions between deuterons and tritons
> would continure to occur until they all fused.
> You would then get much more energy out than you put in initially.
> 

What do you mean by 'isolated from the rest of the world?' I don't think 
that asking the question 'what would happen if _____ were isolated from 
the rest of the world' makes sense physically. However the ion beam would 
still dissipate (rather quickly). Think about this: the ion beam is 
charged, thus the moving charge creates a current. the current creates an 
electric field in the plasma. the electric field creates a natural 
magnetic field. the magnetic field creates an electric field going the 
other way. this drives a return current of plasma electrons against the 
ion beam. this slows it down considerably. Is it just me or does it seem 
like it would prevent it from continuing indefinitely regardless of the 
'rest of the world.'

	(I hope you liked my rendition of plasma physics to the tune of 
		"Dem' Bones")


	-Sigma9
	 C.E.O. Digitalis Development
	 Light ion fusion computational experimentalist

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenaavd cudln cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.11 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Tiny *Griggs Type* Unit-a proposal
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tiny *Griggs Type* Unit-a proposal
Date: 11 Feb 1995 01:49:49 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

As far as buying and testing one of Huffman's devices
(which he says he can make for $150 worth of parts).

I think a reasonable strategy is this:

(1) Tom D. visits Griggs as palnned ; *if*, after that, he
    decides he's still interested, then

(2) We try and get a consensus from Jed, Griggs,
    and Huffman that the Huffman device is a reasonable
    standin for a true Griggs device---i.e. it produces 
    excess heat by the same means, and the same measurements.
    *If* such a consensus can be reached, then

(3) We use the remainder of the trip fund (since its at > $1000,
    and it sounds like Tom will only use ~$500) to purchase a demo
    unit and test protocol from Huffman, for for Tom to test, 
    (plus , perhaps, any additional equipment needed).

This, I think, would be the quickest way to get to the bottom
of things, given (1) and (2). Since Tom ends up doing the 
buld of the real work, the rest of us could agree to defray expenses
and handle organization, to any extent needed. 







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


cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Feb 12 04:37:05 EST 1995
------------------------------
