1995.02.19 / Cameron Bass /  Re: (Jed) Question about  Griggs power measurements
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: (Jed) Question about  Griggs power measurements
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 1995 19:43:01 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <ZA65EQ+.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> writes:
> 
>>At least with an AC watt meter, aside from calibration issues,
>>there is the possibility that transient overloads in the 
>>(1) voltage or (2) current (which don't show up on the visible gauge, 
> 
>Yes, yes, yes. But you do not have to worry about any of that stuff. He
>is using both the Dranetz *and* the dynamometer. So if there was electrical
>noise that spoofed the Dranetz, it could not possibly spoof the dynamometer
>to exact same extent and degree at the same moment. 

     'You do not have to worry about any of that stuff.'

     Ahhhh, the sound of snakes being oiled.

                          dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.22 / Michael Kenward /  TFTR Update February 22, 1995
     
Originally-From: m.kenward@bbcnc.org.uk (Michael Kenward)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TFTR Update February 22, 1995
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 19:16:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>Subject: TFTR Update February 22, 1995
>Cc: rhawryluk@pppl.gov
>
>Status  (February 21, 1995)
>
>1.      The week of Feb.6th was concerned with completing the fast wave
>current drive with ICRF and completing the alpha ash transport experiments.
>
>2.      On Monday and Tuesday Feb 6th and 7th, Fast Wave Current Drive
>(FWCD) was attempted in a regime that maximizes the single pass absorption
>by the electrons in TFTR. H-minority ICRF heating (1.7 MW at 43 MHz) was
>used to raise Te (0) to 4-5 keV in a He-4 ohmic plasma.  2 MW of 63.6 MHz
>ICRF was launched with +/- 90 degree phasing between straps for co/counter
>current drive.  The magnetic field was 2.7 T on the magnetic axis, so for
>63.6 MHz, the H fundamental resonance is on the high field edge of the
>plasma and the second harmonic H resonance is outside the plasma on the low
>field side.  The difference in loop voltage at the end of the 2.5 sec pulse
>is consistent with ~70 kA of driven co/counter current.  However, due to
>the large sawtoothing in the plasma, the difference in the q profile may be
>small.
>
>3.      On Wednesday and Thursday, Feb. 8th and 9th, continuation of an
>experimental proposal to study the ICRF and alpha particle driven TAE mode
>was performed.It was found that at the same RF power level, the TAE
amplitude in
>DT plasmas is always higher than that in similar DD plasmas.  The RF power
>threshold for TAE instability in DT plasmas is about 20% lower than that in
>DD plasmas, indicating that the alpha particles in the DT plasmas are
>contributing to the excitation of the TAE modes.  This was done with 5
>tritium beams sources and 2 deuterium beam sources combined with 5.2MW of
>RF power at 63.6MHz. With 4 tritium beam sources and 4 deuterium beam
>sources at 5.2MW of RF power, one can maintain the same neutron rate, and
>there is no
>significant change in the TAE amplitude.  This rules out the explanation of
>ion Landau damping effects.
>
>4.      A lithium pellet injected 200ms after neutral beam injection can
>penetrate into the plasma center, and the charge exchange technique was
>used to measure the hydrogen ion temperature in the plasma core.  A value
>of T ~ 380keV in DD plasmas and T ~ 370keV in DT plasmas was obtained.
>This result supports the assumption that the hydrogen ion temperature is
>the same in similar DD and DT plasmas with the same RF power.
>
>5.      By optimizing the neutral beam configuration for MSE q(r)
>measurements, a good set of data on q(r) was obtained, this data is being
>analyzed at present. Ip ramp up (1.3 to 1.8MA) produced a different q(r).
>Preliminary results indicate a higher TAE threshold for these plasmas.  A
>4-channel reflectometer can detect the density oscillation associated with
>the TAE modes inside the plasma. Preliminary data indicate that the mode
>amplitude
>peaks outside the q=1 surface.
>
>6.      On Friday, Feb. 10th, work continued in an effort to look at
>sawtoothing effects on the thermalization of alpha particles and the
>transport of alpha ash.  This work is in support of ITER R&D, high priority
>task  5.4. "Helium ash control".  Deuterium-tritium plasmas with two second
>neutral beam injection were established, and the thermalized alphas were
>measured with charge exchange recombination spectroscopy.  These plasmas
>had sawtooth periods several times the alpha particle slowing down time.
>The alpha particle thermalization and subsequent ash transport will be
>compared to that already measured in plasmas with more rapid sawtooth
>periods.
>
>7.     The week of Feb. 13th was concerned with optimization of the plasma
>confinement of a DT plasma by maximizing the amount of lithium laid down
>just before NBI.  The plan was to inject 4 medium sized pellets into the
>ohmic phase of a supershot plasma in an attempt to lay down as much lithium
>as possible before NBI.  The experiment also called for injecting 4 Li
>pellets into an ohmic discharge immediately preceding the 4-pellet
>supershot attempt.  This would further increase the lithium deposited on
>the wall before NBI in the next discharge.
>
>8.     We are still in the process of analyzing the results from last
>week.  The run was extremely successful and the triple product went up from
>the previous largest value of 5.5 x 1020 m-3 *s* keV on TFTR to 8.3 x 1020
>m-3 *s* keV using tritium only injection.  This result appears to be a record
>for the Lawson triple product, nHyd(0)taueE* Ti(0) where taueE* =W/Ptot.
>
>        Shown below is a comparison of the previous highest performance D
>supershot obtained during the 1992 experimental campaign with the highest
>performance D-T supershot from May 1994 and the tritium shot from Friday's
>run after extensive Li conditioning.   nHyd = nH + nD + nT.  The data from
>Friday's run is preliminary.
>
>                        D               D-T              T
>                        Supershot       Supershot       Supershot
>                        (1992)          (1994)           (1995)
>Ip (MA)                 2.0             2.5             2.3
>Bt (T)                  5.0             5.1              5.5
>PNB (MW)                30.8            33.7             17.2
>nT (0)/[nD(0)+nT(0)]        --           0.50           >0.6
>ne (0) (1019 m-3)       9.6             8.5             8.5
>nHyd (0) (1019 m-3)     6.8             6.3             7.0
>Zeff                    2.6             2.2               1.9
>Te (0) (keV)            11.7            11.5            12.
>Ti (0) (keV)            29.             44.              44.
>W (MJ)                  5.4             6.5             4.7
>dW/dt (MW)              2.1             7.5              2.7
>taueE=W/(Ptot-dW/dt)(s) 0.19            0.24            .33
>taueE* = W/Ptot (s)     0.18            0.20            .27
>Lawson triple product:
>nHyd(0)taueE*Ti (0)     3.6             5.5             8.3(1020m-3 *s*keV)
>
>
>9.     Ion cyclotron emission (ICE) driven by fusion alpha particles has
>been observed in TFTR.  Characteristics of the time dependence and
>dependence on plasma density indicate that the emission is due to
>collective excitation of an edge-localized magneto-acoustic instability by
>the fusion products.  Similar effects were seen during the JET partial
>tritium experiment.
>
>
>
>Future Activities
>
>Deuterium-tritium experiments will continue. The emphasis this week is
>development of current profile modification techniques to increase the
>plasma beta.
>
>
> P.S.  If you do not wish to receive notices of TFTR status, please contact
>me or send a message to postmaster@pppl.gov.  If you are aware of others
>who wish to receive notices, please send a message to postmaster@pppl.gov
>and do not send a message to tftr_news_info.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________________
>R. J. Hawryluk
>rhawryluk@pppl.gov
>PPPL - LOB 325
>Phone:  (609) 243-3306
>Fax:    (609) 243-3248
>
>
>

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenkenward cudfnMichael cudlnKenward cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.18 / Dean Edmonds /  Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets
     
Originally-From: deane@excalibur.net5c.io.org (Dean Edmonds)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets
Date: 18 Feb 1995 19:21:52 -0500
Organization: Teleride Sage Ltd.

In article <3huhgg$spr@deadmin.ucsd.edu>,
Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> wrote:
>
>The whole point is that Huffman tentatively claims that his version 
>of the device also measures out at well over unity.

Perhaps I missed something, but so far I have only seen the one, original
post from Mr. Huffman in this newsgroup. I have just gone back and reread
that message in detail and can find absolutely no references or claims to
over unity performance. All that he says is:

	I've developed a small, tabletop device that works on some of
	the same principles that Jim Griggs is developing.

Mr. Griggs is building water heaters. So all that this says to me is that
Mr. Huffman is offering a compact water heater that works along "the same
principles" as the Griggs device. There is no claim to over-unity performance,
so why all the commotion?

Have you had some subsequent contact with Mr. Huffman or is there some follow-
up message that I missed?

Thanx.

=========================================================================
  - deane
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudendeane cudfnDean cudlnEdmonds cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.19 /  DrMayf /  Cold Fusion Lab Setup
     
Originally-From: drmayf@aol.com (DrMayf)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion Lab Setup
Date: 19 Feb 1995 19:41:47 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Would any of you  out there be kind enough to point me in the direction of
establishing what it takes to put together a lab for the study of cold
fusion? I'l be retiring in a couple of years and want something to do with
my spare time. Please include instrumentation, calibration, chambers,
sheilding, materials, etc. Leave nothing out!

Send to either DrMayf@aol.com or to Mayfieldl@traveller.com

would appreciate it.

mayf
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudendrmayf cudlnDrMayf cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.21 / Tom Droege /  Re: Tom's trip
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tom's trip
Date: 21 Feb 1995 18:48:49 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <199502191000.VAA03776@oznet02.ozemail.com.au>, rvanspaa@ozem
il.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk) says:
>
>Tom,
>
>As I was not a contributor to your trip fund, I have till now kept 
>silent on that regard.
>However I will now make one small suggestion.
>During your visit and while talking to Jim, you will undoubedly form 
>an opinion as to  whether or not the GG is an over-unity device.
>If you decide that it is not, then it should be relatively easy to 
>convince Jim of same. In which case, you might find him prepared to 
>issue a statement to that effect. This would absolve you of any 
>liability in that regard, and allow us to rapidly get on with 
>something else.

Yes, that is one of the purposes of the "quiet" trip.  I want to 
make sure that Griggs fully understands the astounding nature of 
his claim.  So I want to just talk to him.  I don't intend to try 
to talk him out of his calim, but I do want to try to make him 
aware of what the scientific community expects of someone making 
such a claim.  So far on the phone he seems like a reasonable 
person.  So we will talk, and I will look at what he is doing. I 
don't think it is my job to try to convince him of anything though.
He has to do that for himself.   

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.21 / Tom Droege /  Re: Cold Fusion Lab Setup
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Lab Setup
Date: 21 Feb 1995 18:59:22 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3i8ogb$anv@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, drmayf@aol.com (DrMayf) says:
>
>Would any of you  out there be kind enough to point me in the direction of
>establishing what it takes to put together a lab for the study of cold
>fusion? I'l be retiring in a couple of years and want something to do with
>my spare time. Please include instrumentation, calibration, chambers,
>sheilding, materials, etc. Leave nothing out!
>
>Send to either DrMayf@aol.com or to Mayfieldl@traveller.com
>
>would appreciate it.
>
>mayf

I figure I spent about $20,000.  But then I built almost everything
from scratch as instrumentation is my business.  Furthermore, I did
a bad job on the chemistry end.  I should have spent $10,000 more on
chemistry.  There is no way I could be clean (chemically).  

As JP Morgan said, if you have to ask the question, you can't afford
it.  You should be an expert in some area - electrochemistry, 
instrumentation, physics, etc..  I would say you had better be
an electrochemist with a lot of instrumentation experience.  Then you
better plan to learn a lot of physics.  Off the top of my head, I spent
$3000 on Pt wire, $1000 on Pd, $1000 on D2O, $2000 on machining.  $2000
on electronic parts, $1000 on circuit boards, $2000 on power supplies,
plus power, light and 500 sq feet of basement space for 3-4 years (has it
been that long?).

Good luck, but I think you are a little late for the fun.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.21 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 1/3 (Overview)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics,sci.environment,sc
.answers,news.answers
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 1/3 (Overview)
Date: 21 Feb 1995 13:59:42 GMT
Organization: Princeton University


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

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

# Written/Edited by:

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

# Last Revised February 5, 1995


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

* 1) Contents

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


* 2) What is the Conventional Fusion FAQ?

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


* 3) Scope of the Conventional Fusion FAQ:

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


* 4) How to Use the FAQ:

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


* 5) Claims and Disclaimers:  

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


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

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

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

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

Section 1 - Fusion as a Physical Phenomenon

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

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

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

Section 5 - Status of and Plans for Present Devices

Section 6 - Recent Results

Section 7 - Educational Opportunities

Section 8 - Internet Resources

Section 9 - Future Plans

Section 10 - Annotated Bibliography / Reading List

Section 11 - Citations and Acknowledgements

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


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

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

* 0) Quick Methods (for Experienced Net Users)

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

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


* 1) Obtaining the Fusion FAQ from Newsgroups

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

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


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

   Several Web versions now exist.

   The "official" one is currently at

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


* 4) Additional FAQ archives worldwide (partial list)

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


* 5) Additional Note / Disclaimer: 

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

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

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


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

* 1) Written FAQ Sections:

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

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

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


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

* 3) Nuts & Bolts - 

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


* 4) Status of the Glossary:

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

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

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

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

 # Could be officially published (through OSETI?)

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


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

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

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

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


Belgium
-------

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

Canada
------

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

Finland
-------

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

France
------

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

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

Korea
-----

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

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

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

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

Sweden
------

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

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

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

Taiwan
------

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

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

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

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

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

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.22 / Barry Merriman /  A possible explanation for the Griggs  results
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A possible explanation for the Griggs  results
Date: 22 Feb 1995 05:50:30 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE


After reading Jed's recent report on his Grigg's experiments,
I'd like to suggest a plausible explanation. There is not 
information in Jed's report to refute this explanation---but Jed
may be able to provide additional further info to address my points.

(Also, I realize this idea is similar to previous ones posted, but 
lets go through it carefully...)

The basic idea is this: 

OBSERVATION: 
The observed phenomena is a special operating mode for the stirrer, 
in which (1) there is a drop in input power to the motor (20-50%), 
while (2) the power output in the steam/water stream remains steady, for
an observation period of 20--60 minutes. 

EXPLANATION:
This suggests that (1) the effective viscosity of the 
fluid drops (thus the reduced motor load), and (2) the power out in the  
steam/fluid flow is held steady by the stored heat in the metal
mass of the device.


Lets discuss this:

First, let me say from Jed's discription of their experimental
procedure, redundant instumentation, blank runs and observations,
I am reasonably convinced that measurement errors/artifacts
are NOT the cause of the over unity results. They do observe an
apparantly real effect---i.e. the device has two distinct operating
modes (normal heating and "over unity") which have different physical
characteristics. In short, I trust their measurements, but I question their
*interpretation*.

Jed's report makes clear that the 
Griggs device does not really go into a mode of producing 
_more_ output power---instead, the power out remains roughly constant, 
but it has a special mode where the *input power* drawn by the 
motor drops (by 20--50%) .  So, the "over unity" performance does 
not reflect extra energy out of the device, rather reduced consumpiton. 
So, it is a bit misleading to call it an excess energy device---that
conjurs up the idea of some major burst of unexplained heat, 
whereas heat output simply remains constant but power consumption drops. 
A sort of poor man's way of getting over unity :-) (and suspicious).

So, what does this special mode imply?

The most carefully instrumented aspect of it is power to the motor,
and so we should take the reduced load on the motor very seriously.
(the power out is not measured with much time accuracy, so its hard
to say if it stays exactly constant). 
The work done by the motor is essentially the work done against
the viscous friction of the fluid in the rotor. This is only going 
to drop if the effective viscosity of the fluid drops. Thus the reduced
power consumption of 20--50% simply implies the fluid viscosity drops 
by that proportion. It is easy to imagine how the viscosity 
could drop---the flow  is multiphase (steam + liquid + cavitation), 
which will alter the normal H20 viscosity, since not all parts of the 
rotor are in contact with the liquid phase. In this special mode,
all that need occur is that the proportion or spatial 
distribution of these phases is altered from the normal mode.

So, what we observe most prominently is a large drop in fluid viscosity,
while heat output reamains relatively steady.

In my mind, this sort of phenomena is not consistent with going
into a mode where some new energy source is turned on---you would
expect that to alter the energy balance and thus reset the device 
at a new equilibrum where both power in and power out were very different.
(in fact, to first guess you would probably expect the fluid viscosity
to stay about the same, and have the exrta heat show up as increased 
output, at least for awhile, till the added heat could alter the 
effective viscosity).

The fact that you can have large variation in a basic system parameter,
and still get the same power out instead says quite simply the
device has a lot of *inertia*---in this case, thermal inertia, most
likely simply in the form of stored heat in the metal mass.

The first question is whether this is consistent with the experimental 
results. 

Qualitatively, yes: the Griggs device is always 
"warmed up" prior to running the experiments, the metallic parts get very 
hot  and the stored energy of the metal is not well monitored. 
Further, the over unity runs Jed observed were of short duration. 
Thus, conceptually, thermal inertia is a reasonable candidate for
sustaining the heat out of the device.

Now lets get quantitative (and here is where Jed could 
probably provide more info): Assuming an aluminum rotor and
housing, and the following reasonable extimates (here is
where Jed can help out with better data):

Al Heat capcaity: 1 J/gmC  

    (really 0.91 for 20--100 C, but increasing with T)

Mass of rotor + housing: 100 kg

    (jed says its the size of a small car engine block)

T_metal - T_fluid_in_pump = 100 C

    (Jed says the metal is at > 300 F, and the fluid is somewhere
     between the inlet temp of 50 F and steam temp of 200 F, so 
     its around a 200 F difference, or ~ 100 C)

=> the stored heat available to the fluid in the pump is 
on the order of 10 MJ (10^7 Joules), or roughly 3 KWH.

Also, for comparison, the Kinetic energy stored in the rotor
(assuming 1 foot in diamter rotor,  as Jed suggested,  
and 3600 RPM, 100 kg mass, is around 0.1 MJ (10^5 J), 
much smaller and thus not significant).

Thus Griggs device stroes a thermal energy on the order of 3 KWH. 
Now, in the experiments Jed describes show that the unkown heat source
provides in the range of 1--3 KWH, using his _most_ optimitic estimates
of excess heat. 

Thus, they do not really exclude the stored heat effect, based
on the info provided there. If the metal mass or delta T where 
either much less than 100 kg and 100 C, then that would rule out stored
heat, but the report does these things precisely.

To rule out the stored heat effect, you either need to do a run long
enough so that 

(1) (excess heat) > 10 x (stored heat estimate)

or, 

( 2) actively cool the rotor + housing to remove it stored heat
supply. 

or

(3) shorten the warm up period, and monitor how much heat gets 
stored (power in - heat out) during the warmup period---hoepfully
showing that it is small.


The former may be difficult, as it may require a 10 hour experiment,
(3) may also be difficult, as the machine needs to reach equilibrium.

Active cooling is rather simple,
merely keep a stream of cold water from a hose running on the device,
sufficient to keep the housing at room temp (and try and estimate
the max stored heat of the rotor, which hopefully is not enough
to fuel an experiment for 1 hour). But the temp of the rotor remains  
uncontrolled.

Not that Griggs reported rotor melting at the recent cold fusion 
conference. That suggests even higher temps, and thus more possibility for
stored heat, especially in the rotor (which gets both surface heating and 
bulk heating from the holes drilled into it). 


In any case, I feel this stored heat hypothesis is the most promising
superficial explanation.

Comments, Jed?

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


cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.20 / John Logajan /  Patterson Power Cell patent
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Patterson Power Cell patent
Date: 20 Feb 1995 04:57:51 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.


In "Cold Fusion" #7, the Patterson Power Cell (TM) patent (# 5,372,688) is
discussed and published.  The Patterson cell appears to be a electrolytic
cell composed of plated microspheres through which the electrolyte is
pumped.  Several graphs and tables are included in the patent demonstrating
the measured calorimetric results.

The tables show measured voltage, current, flow rate, and delta-temperature
under different regimes (different materials, light/heavy water, pressure,
etc.)

Looking first at Table IV using gold plated microspheres (a blank run?)
in light water/litium sulfate with a constant current power source and
180 PSI pressure, we see the following measured results.

Where Vlt = volts applied
      Amp = amps applied
       FR = flow rate of electrolyte/coolant in ml/minute
        C = delta temperature between input and output coolant
 **    0% = My calculated coolant temperature based upon 0% recombination
 **  100% = My calculated coolant temperature based upon 100% recombination

Vlt   Amp   FR   C   0%  100%
3.5   .05  .55   0  2.6  4.6
3.6   .05  .55   0  2.7  4.7      I [logajan] used the following formulas to
4.2   .10  .55   2  7.1   11      calculate the 0% and 100% temperatures.
5.0   .20  .55   4   18   26
5.3   .30  .55  11   30   42      (0%) Temp = (V - 1.48) * A * 60 / 4.15 / FR
5.6   .40  .55  20   43   59    (100%) Temp = V * A * 60 / 4.15 / FR
5.7   .50  .55  29   54   73    
5.8   .60  .55  36   68   91    Where:
6.2   .70  .55  48   87  114    4.15 = joules to raise one cc H2O one degree C
6.4   .80  .55  58  103  134      60 = seconds to minutes conversion
6.7   .90  .55  69  123  158    1.48 = dissociation potential
7.3  1.00  .55  77  152  191

As can be seen, the temperature output is always much less than the minimum
expected even compared against the no recombination case, which would be
the coolest normal condition.  Therefore the calorimetry of the Patterson
cell as describe in the patent has very high thermal losses sometimes
exceeding 75% of the measured thermal output!

Since that thermal loss is not explained or otherwise quantified, not much
can be ascertained from the rest of the thermal output tables except that
for the most part the other test runs also run nearly as cool and almost
always cooler than the calculated no recombination temperature.

Only one case clearly exceeds the temperature output expected even with
100% recombination, and that particular test was lacking an input voltage
measurement -- their estimate was based upon voltages at similar current
settings.  A high resistance could explain this reading.

Conclusion:  The parameters of the calorimetry described in this patent are
insufficient to allow a calculated analysis of its performance.


--
 - 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:
cuddy20 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.20 / William Rowe /  Re: (Jed) Question about  Griggs power measurements
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (William Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: (Jed) Question about  Griggs power measurements
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 04:21:58 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <ZA65EQ+.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

>Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> writes:
> 
>>At least with an AC watt meter, aside from calibration issues,
>>there is the possibility that transient overloads in the 
>>(1) voltage or (2) current (which don't show up on the visible gauge, 
> 
>Yes, yes, yes. But you do not have to worry about any of that stuff. He
>is using both the Dranetz *and* the dynamometer. So if there was electrical
>noise that spoofed the Dranetz, it could not possibly spoof the dynamometer
>to exact same extent and degree at the same moment. He has redunant
>instruments, they are based on different physical prinicples, and they
>measure different physical forces (electricity and mechanical force).
>Since they both show massive excess, and they track one-another perfectly,
>that rules out any possibility that the effect is an instrument error
>caused by something like undetected transient overloads, noise, or what
>have you. An undetected transient overload would most certainly be
>detected by the dynamometer, even if the Dranetz missed it.
> 
>- Jed


I would expect any mechanical device to have inertia. I would assume the
dynamometer to be designed to keep this at a minimum consistent with the
torques expected to be measured. Based on the design intent of the GG,
i.e. an industrial source of steam, I would expect the dynamometer is
measuring significant torque and has significant mass and therefore
significant inertia. By significant, I am visualizing something that would
not be easily moved/handled with one hand.

Assuming I am right about the inertia, it seems to me the dynamometer
would be less likely to detect a short lived transient than the Dranetz
meter. If there are significant transients that the Dranetz fails to
detect, it doesn't seem reasonable to me to expect the dynamometer to
detect them. In fact, whether or not there are transients, I would be
surprised to see significant disagreement between the Dranetz and
dynamometer. Agreement of these two instruments I don't believe is
sufficient evidence to say there are no transients.

-- 
_______________________________________________________________________________
William Rowe                                                   browe@netcom.com
MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbrowe cudfnWilliam cudlnRowe cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.23 / Tom Droege /  Re: Question for Griggs
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Question for Griggs
Date: 23 Feb 1995 19:08:45 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3ih8pa$2a6@deadmin.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) says:
>
>Tom:
>
>since it seems that stored heat is a likely possibility, 
>you should pay particular attention to how much heat gets
>stored in the rotor and housing before the over unity
>demostration begins (assuming griggs will demonstrate 
>an over unity mode for you).
>
>I know you don't plan to do any measurements yourself,
>but perhaps you could break that rule a bit: how about 
>taking along suitable thermometer(s) to measure the 
>temperature of the steam coming out during the over unity 
>mode, and the temperature of the housing (and if accessible,
>rotor) before the over unity mode starts. Potential fairly
>trivial rough measurements could indicate whether stored
>heat could possibly be a factor. (Plus, thermometers are
>small enough to not be a hassle to take with you/deploy).
>
>
>
>--
>Barry Merriman

Hmmm!  All my thermometers seem to come with a data system attached
and a computer and a program and a PC.  In any case, the confidentiallity
agreement that Griggs has asked me to sign will prevent my taking and
publishing data.  He also claims ownership to any pictures, video tapes
etc..

There is also the problem of calibration on a field trip.  I find that
calibration to the accuracy needed for this type of experiment is a 
learning process taking months.  

I have no quarrel with this.  I expect technical data to be his property.
I will leave it to others to visit Griggs with equipment to take data and
to worry with lawyers as to what they can then say about it.  

Actually the agreement is pretty broad.  Normally I would refuse to sign
it and call off the trip.  But I have prepared for this by the feet 
test.  

You all will know exactly what I think without me saying anything about
my trip to Griggs.  I could give a report on the weather in Georgia 
and you all would get the information.  But I will work this all out
with Griggs when I see him.  I hope to be able to say something that
can be suitable for inclusion on the backer's certificate.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.20 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: How does a dynamometer work?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How does a dynamometer work?
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 95 22:26:05 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> asks:
 
     "Could anyone explain simply how a dynamometer actually works?"
 
I can explain simply how a simple dynamometer works, circa 1900. I have not
got the foggiest idea how the Eaton Torque Sensor installed at Hydro Dynamics
works, because that is a sealed, high performance, high precision unit which
operates on principles I have never heard of. It is better than a garden
variety old fashioned dynamometer in the same sense that a thermistor is
better than mercury thermometer.
 
Anyway, there are different types and if you want to know how that particular
one works, call Eaton. Here is how a simple, old fashioned one works. This is
only suitable for a small-ish motor, as you will see.
 
Rotary power equals torque multiplied by RPMs. (With Standard units you need a
conversion factor, which I do not recall offhand). Torque is distance from the
fulcrum times force. All dynamometer measure torque and RPMs. Sophisticated
dynamometers record these two parameters thousands of times per second. With a
garden variety one you record them as often as you like on clipboard with a
pencil.
 
RPMs can be measured with strobe light or an odometer. That's easy enough, the
tricky thing to measure is torque. You do this by mounting the motor on a
frame or gimbals or something like that which allows the motor itself to turn
for some distance on the same axis as the motor shaft. For example, suppose
you let the motor (mounting and all) swivel through 5 degrees. Imagine the
motor is turned off and you push the mounting half way between the two stops;
2.5 degrees away from each one. Now you turn on the motor to drive a load. It
jerks around and Bang! - it hits a stop. (That is, if it is driving a load it
will. If it is spinning free then it will not exert any torque on anything and
it will not bang up against the stop.)
 
Okay, the motor is exerting exactly as much torque against that stop as it is
against the load, because action equals reaction. The question is, how much is
it pushing against that stop? You could sorta guess if you got hold of it and
twisted it back so that it was again halfway between the stops. You could feel
it pushing against your hand. Ah, but there is a better way! You install a
horizontal arm off the motor mounting. You make sure the arm itself is
carefully counterbalanced, so that it does not itself exert any torque, and
you make sure that when the motor and frame are halfway between the stops (2.5
degrees) the arm is horizontal. Now, when the motor is started and torque is
applied, you hang a weight off the arm and move it back and forth until it
exactly counterbalances the torque, such that the motor and frame are again
positioned halfway between the stops. Yup: distance times force; in this case
the force of gravity on the weight straight down against the fulcrum at the
shaft. Measure how far along the arm the weight is, and that gives you
foot-pounds. Multiply that by RPMs, throw in a conversion factor and voila,
you get watts, BTUs, or whatever measure of power turns you on. To record
energy, you record power at several instances over time and integrate them.
With a well tuned motor and a proper load, power will remain steady enough to
allow a reasonable estimation of energy.
 
As I said, I do not know how the Eaton gadget works, but I know that it
measures these two parameters (all dynamometers do), and I know it measures
them correctly because I used this very same old-fashioned technique to apply
a known torque at zero RPM.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.22 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Concerning Joe Champion
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Concerning Joe Champion
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 06:12:21 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <3ie9rn$e4v@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
Jollie MM <jolliemm@aol.com> wrote:

>which cold fusion is going to create in physics... I believe it because I
>am one of those who have actually succeeded in doing the so-called
>impossible, namely, with simple low-energy chemistry and em techniques I
>have altered the structure of matter.

     Don't know about 'impossible'.  I alter the structure of 
     matter using 'low-energy chemistry' every time I eat pork and beans.

                               dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.23 / CHU CHUNG /  Max Planck Institute: E-mail address
     
Originally-From: chuti@ecf.toronto.edu (CHU  TING CHUNG)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Max Planck Institute: E-mail address
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 18:26:08 GMT
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility

 Does anyone have the e-mail address of the Max-Planck Institute for
Plasma Physics?

Thanks in advance.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenchuti cudfnCHU cudlnCHUNG cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.20 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets!
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets!
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 95 21:23:30 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Cameron Randale Bass <crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> writes:
 
>     No, fool, I told you that no computer manufacturer would set 
>     up an escrow account you 'demanded' for a measly $10,000 purchase.  
>
>     Why don't you call up Gateway and see if you can get them to 
>     set up an escrow account for a single machine.
 
This is such ENDLESS chaotic crap!!! I can't believe how confused you can
get about a simple business proceedure. First of all, as I plainly stated,
there is no need to set up an escrow account with Gateway and Dell because
they are big companies and they can easily afford to honor their written,
advertised no questions asked money back guarantees. As I said, you only need
an escrow when dealing with an itty bitty company which you suspect might
not have the ten grand to pay you back with.
 
Second, who the heck would go to the trouble to ask them to set it up? I can
have one set up for a nominal charge in 15 minutes at any bank in Atlanta.
It is like setting up a wire transfer or any other ordinary business
transaction. If I am buying the thing, I would do that and have the bank
fax them. It is trivial. It is the sort of thing people do every day when
dealing with small companies. It is not necessary with large ones like
Gateway.
 
I cannot judge how much you know about physics or mechanical engineering, but
if your knowledge of these subjects is on par with your knowledge of ordinary,
garden variety business practices you are a walking disaster and a font of
misinformation for sure. I have never seen anyone jump to so many ludicris
and absurd conclusions in so few paragraphs about things which any
accounting clerk or computer magazine reader knows. It is breathtaking!
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.22 / I Johnston /  Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets!
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets!
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 09:39:49 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
: In article <5ax7UUG.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

: >money on these devices. Given the extraordinary nature of the claims, any
: >prudent person would either go in person or send an agent to the site to
: >verify the claims before issuing a check. Alternatively, a person might
: >ask for a free trial period before paying.

:      Not astonishingly, I don't send anyone to Parker Hydraulics to 
:      test their devices before I buy one.  On the other hand a 
:      free trial period would be quit nice.  When can I expect to receive
:      my 'Grigg's device' for a free trial?

Isn't this talk of evaluating expensive equipment on site a bit silly?
After all, if I want to buy a new car from, say, BMW, I don't insist on
going to BMW to evaluate their procedures. If I want to buy a GPS
receiver from Garmin, I don't insist on carrying out a full analysis of
the circuitry before paying. 

I rely on what over here we call a "guarantee" and "manufactures
specifications" - in other words, if it, whatever 'it' is, doesn't do
what the manufacturer agreed or advertised that it would, I get my money
back.

Griggs devices are easy. They have been running for years and years
throughout Georgia. The greatest air-conditioning repairmen in Georgia
have taken one look and staggered away, broken men, convinced they have
seen the revolution.

So why doesn't Griggs give a formal written guarantee of over-unity
performance?

Ian



cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.23 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: A possible explanation for the Griggs  results
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A possible explanation for the Griggs  results
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 95 11:12:34 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Doug Shade <rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com> writes:
 
>An extended run may not be so difficult.  You don't need to empty a
>barrel; you don't need fancy valving.  Plumb several (n) barrels
>together *at their bases*.  Put the input line into one barrel, they
 
I think that John Logajan's suggestion for a mixing tank with flowmeters
is more practical than several open barrels. His idea also sounds more
conventional to me, and I am always in favor of doing things according
to industry standards.
 
Actually, I think the best approach would be to use an industrial condensor
with heat exchanger (or something like that), but it would cost a lot of
money. I am not sure how you would calibrate it.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.23 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: (Jed) Question about Griggs power measurements
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: (Jed) Question about Griggs power measurements
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 95 11:40:55 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Kristjan Valur Jonsson <kvj@rhi.hi.is> writes:
 
>>significant inertia. By significant, I am visualizing something that would
>>not be easily moved/handled with one hand.
 
You cannot easily move it one hand, but that is because of friction, not
inertia. Overall, I estimate the motor + shaft + dynamometer guts + rotor
must weigh several hundred pounds, which makes for quite a lot of inertia,
which guarantees stable rotation (i.e. it cannot stop and start again in
a fraction of a second).
 
>torque somehow.  Perhaps it has the input connected to the output with
>a shaft with well know axial rigidity properties, and measures the torque
>by measuring the twist of the shaft.  This could be done with an optical
>device, with a trigger on the input side and a photometer on the output.
 
Yes, I presume that is how it works. As I said, I could not understand the
brief technical description I read on it, but it has to be something along
those lines, because it is an in-line unit, standing between the motor and
the load.
 
>In any case, a device such as described has no internal inertia (at
>least not any larger thant a straight axle of similar length) but it
>would disrupt any vibrational modes of the system.
 
I belive you are mistaken here. I think Rowe meant the overall inertia of all
the whirling mass (motor + shaft etc.) Anyway that's the inertia that counts.
That acts as a governor over the whole system, preventing rapid changes. The
circitry in the dynamometer which measures torque is digital, which means it
checks the torque several times each second. (Perhaps thousands of times I
suppose; I don't know). It is always possible to slip a transient burst of
energy past a digital detection system BUT the whirling hardware acts as a
continuous, analog system. In other words, a very short burst of energy might
hypothetically slip past the digital detection circuits of the Dranetz power
meter, and that power might give a giant kick to the electric motor. More
likely it would just blow a fuse or heat up the motor, but let us suppose it
gave the motor a big kick and the motor torque increased sharply. That burst
of mechanical energy could not vanish in a millisecond. It would *have to be*
drawn out over time -- smeared out, if you will. If it was enough energy to
explain the excess heat, then it would have to be a tremendous series of
bursts adding up to 20% to 30% more electricity than the Dranetz shows. It
would add a continous kick of torque to the motor, where the dynamometer
could not fail to see it. The dynamometer would show far more mechanical
energy than the power meter, and the mystery would be solved. That is not
what we see. The dyanamometer shows about 15% less energy than the Dranetz,
just as you would expect from the motor specifications. (The difference comes
out as waste heat from the motor.)
 
Transient bursts of electrical power can be hidden from digital circuitry,
but transient bursts of mechanical power *cannot* be hidden from a whirling
analog mechanical source power. Unless, I suppose, the shaft fractured!
 
Please note that a transient power burst might heat up the electric motor
without adding any mechanical power. (A three phase AC motor expert can
verify this; not me). If a hypothetical power burst got past the Dranetz
undetected and then was dissipated as waste heat in the motor -- and not
mechanical power -- then the motor would run hot and we would not know about
it. It would make no difference to this experiment. We are not measuring
waste heat from the motor; we ignore it. If we had a water jacket around the
motor or if we put the whole kit and kaboodle into a giant calorimeter this
could be a problem, but that is not the case. The only energy balance that
matters is the actual mechanical power delivered to the GG versus the enthalpy
out.
 
In reality, I am sure you could not squeeze giant power transients past the
GE Dranetz meter. And even if you could, a fuse would blow or the motor would
burn up. In the real world, this power transient idea is a fantasy.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.18 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets!
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets!
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 95 23:33:19 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Cameron Randale Bass <crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> writes:
 
>     Right.  An escrow account for a $10,000 purchase.  Dream on...
 
Dale, you are amazing! You think you are an expert on every subject under
the sun. First you tell us that computer manufacturers do not offer
unconditional trial periods. Have you not looked at any computer magazine
for the last 10 years, or what? Every major manufacturer offers unconditional,
no-questions-asked returns. You don't like it -- you ship it back; they never
ask for a reason. NOW you tell us that no bank would accept ten thousand
bucks on escrow. My god what an idiot you are Dale! Where do you come up with
these crazy ideas? Why would a bank turn down business? What do you think they
do all day long? You go there, fill in a form, pay a fee and hand them a
check and it's done. They don't care what the amount of the check is.
 
I don't know what your problem is, Dale, but I do know you got a problem.
You make up all this loony-toon stuff about computer manufactures (Dell, IBM
and the others) and then you believe your own horseshit nonsense. Look at
any magazine! Call a computer store! Then -- out of the blue -- you dream up
stuff about how banks work, and you believe it! I don't know but my guess is
that you feel a pathological desire to contradict everything that I say. If
I assert the sun rises in the East, you will come on Internet yelling that
it rises in the West instead. You will make a fool of yourself saying that,
just like you do when you assert this nonsense about computer companies and
banks. Anyone can see that you are just spouting off in opposition to me, and
you have not even paused for a second to see if your ideas make any sense.
That is ten times more true of your statements about science. You are telling
us that it is impossible for G.E. to measure electricity and that no
thermometer can measure temperatures to within 20 degrees F. You keep making
these assertions over and over again. It is all crazy delusions -- just like
this nonsense about computer companies and banks. You should take a deep
breath, calm down, and stop clutter the networks with this kind of nonsense.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.21 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: 21 Feb 1995 01:26:56 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <1995Feb19.164234.42226@cc.usu.edu> slsm4@cc.usu.edu writes:
> 
> 
> 	I am preparing to participate in a debate.  I will argue against 
> fusion, in favor of solar, geothermal, wind, and (sigh) coal.

Well, coal is not a long term viable option. Even ignoring
issues of carbon pollution and destruction of the environment from mining,
it simply wont last much longer than ~300 years.

By the way: the supply of fissile fuel (without breeder reactors)
would only meet the total world energy demand (at present levels)
for ~60 years, and natural gas is projected to only last another
30--40 years; petroleum around 50 years.

Actually, the strongest argument against fusion is probably the 
difficulty in getting the *US utilities* to support it: they don't
want huge power plants ( ~ 3 GW) (due to high capital cost), they
don't want to have licensing hassles/public controversy due to 
rad waste generation, and they don't want anything with a higher 
cost of electricity production than present energy technology allows. 
The only thing they do like is low/no emissions and long term 
viability----but those are rather intangible compared to their risk
of negatives.

As near as I can tell, there is no major barrier to producing 
a fusion power plant that would produce power in such a way that
the electricity cost to end users would be about the 
same as it is now (because most of the costs are distribution costs);
but the utilities are against it because of would raise some of their
internal costs and thus cut into their profit margin, with no significant
offsetting benefits in the issues they are concerned with.







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


cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.22 / Robin Spaandonk /        Re: GG
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:       Re: GG
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 12:01:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

> Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
[SNIP]
> 
> 1. The absolute amount of water you can fit in a 50 gallon steel drum. The
> drum has to filled up about two-thirds with cold water at the start, in order
> to condense the steam. The water continues to flow in during the experiment
> and when it gets near the top, you have to stop. You might go to Home Depot
> and see if they have a larger size drum, but that will not get you much
> further. Someone suggested alternating barrels (which is similar to John's
> idea). That sounds even more hectic and impractical to me. It takes quite a
> while to drain a barrel and refill it.
[SNIP]
_____________________________________________________________
You could also start off with a number of 50 gallon steel drums each 
half full of cold water, and connected by siphon hoses. Each tube 
could consist of about 3 meters of garden hose, and could be filled 
with water from the drums before the experiment begins. With the ends 
under water, and a brick on top to keep them in place (or weights 
tied to the ends) they would neatly connect all the drums, such that 
being communicating vessels, they would all fill at the same time. 
Thus the duration of the test could be extended at will. All the 
messing around would be done before the test started. At completion 
the hoses are removed and emptied into the drums, then the 
temperature of each drum is taken, and then each drum is weighed.
2 or 3 drums should satisfy the stored heat hypothesis once and 
for all.

Regards,

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


 

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.19 /  slsm4@cc.usu.e /  Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: slsm4@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: 19 Feb 95 16:42:34 MDT
Organization: Utah State University



	I am preparing to participate in a debate.  I will argue against 
fusion, in favor of solar, geothermal, wind, and (sigh) coal.  I need opposing
and supporting arguments in preperation of this debate.  Please email me with
general pros/cons of solar etc. -vs- fusion.   I appreciate your time.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenslsm4 cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.19 / James Stolin /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 19 Feb 1995 16:53:08 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) wrote:

>Not only that, but the energy output to wipe the memories of all the
>humans who have read this thread is gonna be ENORMOUS. The Over-
Commandant
>ain't gonna like it; this'll cut into our profit margins bigtime. Way 
to
>go, guys.

Tom,

   You mentioned the Over-Commandant without first mentioning the 
Commandant and the Under-Commandant.  This is a serious violation of the 
666 levels of the chain of command.
  
-
James B. Stolin - Illinois Computer Service -  FKNF40A@prodigy.com


cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.20 / Phil Snyder /  Re: Ion Beam Fusion
     
Originally-From: pbsnyder@pppl.gov (Phil Snyder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ion Beam Fusion
Date: 20 Feb 1995 16:34:27 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University,
Princeton NJ 08540

In article <Pine.A32.3.91.950210134818.74031A-100000@pegasus.unm.edu>,
Sigma9  <aavd@unm.edu> wrote:
>On Thu, 9 Feb 1995, Philip B. Snyder wrote:
>[on the topic of an ion beam penetrating a plasma]

nope, you need to read more carefully...see below
>
>>
>> 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.'
>

You need to read a bit more carefully (or perhaps I should have been
a bit more clear).  I was no longer referring to
a beam-target system, but rather was just talking about a thermal
plasma in equilibrium at fusion temperatures.  The point was to 
contrast the difficulties involved in beam-target fusion with the
difficulties involved in controlled thermonuclear fusion.

Of course it's true that a system can't be perfectly thermally 
isolated, but it's often a useful pedagogical device to consider
such a system (ever take thermodynamics or stat. mech.?).  An
isolated dense plasma at fusion temperatures (>5keV~58 million kelvin)
would fuse in a reasonable period of time producing a great deal
of fusion energy.  The problem then is to confine a hot dense plasma
such that it's energy leaks out at a rate comparable to the rate
at which fusion energy is produced, so that the plasma can be
"ignited", that is the energy to keep the plasma at a constant
temperature is supplied by the portion of the fusion energy
that remains inside the plasma (the energy of the alpha particles
in the case of D-T magnetic fusion). 
(of course any real confinement system requires energy inputs and
numerous constraints must be met for the device to be commercially
viable)


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

I've no idea what you mean by this bit, but
I'd like to think that someone who claims to work in light ion fusion
(a form of inertial confinement fusion in which light ion beams are
used to implode a target, unless "Sigma9" has something more creative
in mind), would know quite a bit about plasma physics and thermonuclear
fusion since that's at the heart of your field...

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

-Phil
speaking only for myself
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenpbsnyder cudfnPhil cudlnSnyder cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.19 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets!
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets!
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 1995 19:40:24 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <Ri5bke-.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>Cameron Randale Bass <crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> writes:
> 
>>     Right.  An escrow account for a $10,000 purchase.  Dream on...
> 
>Dale, you are amazing! You think you are an expert on every subject under
>the sun. First you tell us that computer manufacturers do not offer
>unconditional trial periods. Have you not looked at any computer magazine
>for the last 10 years, or what? Every major manufacturer offers unconditional,
>no-questions-asked returns. You don't like it -- you ship it back; they never
>ask for a reason.

     No, fool, I told you that no computer manufacturer would let you
     bring an engineer and testing equipment into his plant and disrupt
     his operation for a $10,000 purchase. 

     And furthermore, the company on whose behalf you did such a silly
     thing would probably fire you for good cause.

     On the other hand, there are certain charlatans and jesters
     that would have us believe that swirling water around in a pot
     causes fusion.  That, by the way, is the same fool that had
     fusion occuring in the metal housing on the basis of idiotic temperature
     measurements taken with a pyrometer.

> NOW you tell us that no bank would accept ten thousand
>bucks on escrow. My god what an idiot you are Dale! Where do you come up with
>these crazy ideas? Why would a bank turn down business? What do you think they
>do all day long? You go there, fill in a form, pay a fee and hand them a
>check and it's done. They don't care what the amount of the check is.

     No, fool, I told you that no computer manufacturer would set 
     up an escrow account you 'demanded' for a measly $10,000 purchase.  

     Why don't you call up Gateway and see if you can get them to 
     set up an escrow account for a single machine.

>I assert the sun rises in the East, you will come on Internet yelling that
>it rises in the West instead. You will make a fool of yourself saying that,
>just like you do when you assert this nonsense about computer companies and
>banks. 

      Ted, you're an idiot.

>you have not even paused for a second to see if your ideas make any sense.
>That is ten times more true of your statements about science. You are telling
>us that it is impossible for G.E. to measure electricity and that no

     So, you've got GE down there in Griggs' operation measuring 
     electricity.  Is that all the employees or just the buildings?

     On the other hand, all one must do is acquire an appropriate
     scope *rather* than a power meter.  The fact that y'all haven't done this
     means

                 a)  You don't particularly care if your claim 
                      is true or not.
                 b)  You're idiots.
                 c)  All of the above.

     I know which ones I'm betting on.

>thermometer can measure temperatures to within 20 degrees F. You keep making
>these assertions over and over again. It is all crazy delusions -- just like
>this nonsense about computer companies and banks. You should take a deep
>breath, calm down, and stop clutter the networks with this kind of nonsense.

      I say this so many times, oldies but goodies...

      Ted, you're an idiot.

                             dale bass


cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.22 / Rich Hawryluk /  TFTR Update February 22, 1995
     
Originally-From: rhawryluk@pppl.gov (Rich Hawryluk)
Newsgroups: pppl.tftr.news,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TFTR Update February 22, 1995
Date: 22 Feb 1995 11:51:33 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

Status  (February 21, 1995)

1.      The week of Feb.6th was concerned with completing the fast wave
current drive with ICRF and completing the alpha ash transport experiments.

2.      On Monday and Tuesday Feb 6th and 7th, Fast Wave Current Drive
(FWCD) was attempted in a regime that maximizes the single pass absorption
by the electrons in TFTR. H-minority ICRF heating (1.7 MW at 43 MHz) was
used to raise Te (0) to 4-5 keV in a He-4 ohmic plasma.  2 MW of 63.6 MHz
ICRF was launched with +/- 90 degree phasing between straps for co/counter
current drive.  The magnetic field was 2.7 T on the magnetic axis, so for
63.6 MHz, the H fundamental resonance is on the high field edge of the
plasma and the second harmonic H resonance is outside the plasma on the low
field side.  The difference in loop voltage at the end of the 2.5 sec pulse
is consistent with ~70 kA of driven co/counter current.  However, due to
the large sawtoothing in the plasma, the difference in the q profile may be
small.

3.      On Wednesday and Thursday, Feb. 8th and 9th, continuation of an
experimental proposal to study the ICRF and alpha particle driven TAE mode
was performed.It was found that at the same RF power level, the TAE amplitude in
DT plasmas is always higher than that in similar DD plasmas.  The RF power
threshold for TAE instability in DT plasmas is about 20% lower than that in
DD plasmas, indicating that the alpha particles in the DT plasmas are
contributing to the excitation of the TAE modes.  This was done with 5
tritium beams sources and 2 deuterium beam sources combined with 5.2MW of
RF power at 63.6MHz. With 4 tritium beam sources and 4 deuterium beam
sources at 5.2MW of RF power, one can maintain the same neutron rate, and
there is no
significant change in the TAE amplitude.  This rules out the explanation of
ion Landau damping effects.

4.      A lithium pellet injected 200ms after neutral beam injection can
penetrate into the plasma center, and the charge exchange technique was
used to measure the hydrogen ion temperature in the plasma core.  A value
of T ~ 380keV in DD plasmas and T ~ 370keV in DT plasmas was obtained.
This result supports the assumption that the hydrogen ion temperature is
the same in similar DD and DT plasmas with the same RF power.

5.      By optimizing the neutral beam configuration for MSE q(r)
measurements, a good set of data on q(r) was obtained, this data is being
analyzed at present. Ip ramp up (1.3 to 1.8MA) produced a different q(r).
Preliminary results indicate a higher TAE threshold for these plasmas.  A
4-channel reflectometer can detect the density oscillation associated with
the TAE modes inside the plasma. Preliminary data indicate that the mode
amplitude
peaks outside the q=1 surface.

6.      On Friday, Feb. 10th, work continued in an effort to look at
sawtoothing effects on the thermalization of alpha particles and the
transport of alpha ash.  This work is in support of ITER R&D, high priority
task  5.4. "Helium ash control".  Deuterium-tritium plasmas with two second
neutral beam injection were established, and the thermalized alphas were
measured with charge exchange recombination spectroscopy.  These plasmas
had sawtooth periods several times the alpha particle slowing down time.
The alpha particle thermalization and subsequent ash transport will be
compared to that already measured in plasmas with more rapid sawtooth
periods.

7.     The week of Feb. 13th was concerned with optimization of the plasma
confinement of a DT plasma by maximizing the amount of lithium laid down
just before NBI.  The plan was to inject 4 medium sized pellets into the
ohmic phase of a supershot plasma in an attempt to lay down as much lithium
as possible before NBI.  The experiment also called for injecting 4 Li
pellets into an ohmic discharge immediately preceding the 4-pellet
supershot attempt.  This would further increase the lithium deposited on
the wall before NBI in the next discharge.

8.     We are still in the process of analyzing the results from last
week.  The run was extremely successful and the triple product went up from
the previous largest value of 5.5 x 1020 m-3 *s* keV on TFTR to 8.3 x 1020
m-3 *s* keV using tritium only injection.  This result appears to be a record
for the Lawson triple product, nHyd(0)taueE* Ti(0) where taueE* =W/Ptot.

        Shown below is a comparison of the previous highest performance D
supershot obtained during the 1992 experimental campaign with the highest
performance D-T supershot from May 1994 and the tritium shot from Friday's
run after extensive Li conditioning.   nHyd = nH + nD + nT.  The data from
Friday's run is preliminary.

                        D               D-T              T
                        Supershot       Supershot       Supershot
                        (1992)          (1994)           (1995)
Ip (MA)                 2.0             2.5             2.3
Bt (T)                  5.0             5.1              5.5
PNB (MW)                30.8            33.7             17.2
nT (0)/[nD(0)+nT(0)]        --           0.50           >0.6
ne (0) (1019 m-3)       9.6             8.5             8.5
nHyd (0) (1019 m-3)     6.8             6.3             7.0
Zeff                    2.6             2.2               1.9
Te (0) (keV)            11.7            11.5            12.
Ti (0) (keV)            29.             44.              44.
W (MJ)                  5.4             6.5             4.7
dW/dt (MW)              2.1             7.5              2.7
taueE=W/(Ptot-dW/dt)(s) 0.19            0.24            .33
taueE* = W/Ptot (s)     0.18            0.20            .27
Lawson triple product:
nHyd(0)taueE*Ti (0)     3.6             5.5             8.3(1020m-3 *s*keV)


9.     Ion cyclotron emission (ICE) driven by fusion alpha particles has
been observed in TFTR.  Characteristics of the time dependence and
dependence on plasma density indicate that the emission is due to
collective excitation of an edge-localized magneto-acoustic instability by
the fusion products.  Similar effects were seen during the JET partial
tritium experiment.



Future Activities

Deuterium-tritium experiments will continue. The emphasis this week is
development of current profile modification techniques to increase the
plasma beta.


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






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


cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenrhawryluk cudfnRich cudlnHawryluk cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.22 /  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: 22 Feb 1995 18:27:21 GMT
Organization: MSU Dept. of Physics & Astronomy

[followups to sci.physics,sci.physics.accelerators only, again]

In article <3idst5$lia@borg.svpal.org>, lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) writes:
>> Robert W. Hatcher (hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu) Writes:
>
>> Far less than 1/2 because you've neglected the gamma*beta factor....
>> Also suggest you recompute this for the pions/kaons as well.
>
>Yes, classically at (c)  about 1/4 of the beam muons could reach the 
>flash chamber. With time dilation, the whole flux of muons could, 
>conceivably,  reach the flash chamber (neglecting berm straggling, 
>ionization and bremsstrahlung).  The berm modifies the muon energy 

Conceivably?  My point was (1) that neglibable numbers of those secondary
muons decay (the gamma factor!) but (2) being charged particles they
are subject to ionization losses.  Point (2) *IS* the whole purpose of
having 870m of steel and dirt between the beam dump and the detector:
TO RANGE OUT (DUE TO IONIZATION LOSSES) THE MUONS.  The energy loss rate
of muons in materials is known ... by my estimates (not careful
calculations since I'm doing it "back of the envelope" style) there's
enough material there to range out a 200 GeV muon.  Muons above that
energy, and/or created by neutrino interactions within the berm get
vetoed (see below).

>distribution, but muon outliers might reach the vicinity of the flash 
>chamber with little energy loss. Such muon outliers, if they 

No. Mr. Genius, most muons don't experience "little energy loss"...they
experience MAJOR energy loss.  Come on now stop pretending as if the
berm wasn't there.

>bremsstrahlung gammas or knocked on neutrons, would not trip the veto 
>counters, but could mimic the *events*.   What actual flux of muons do 
>you measure at the flash chamber?

How the hell should I know ... we *veto* them all.  And yes they would
be vetoed by the scintillator wall.  These muon don't only experience 
bremsstrahlung or knock-ons (more likely delta-rays (e-) rather than
neutrons), they also experience plain ol' simple de/dx losses.  How can
you NOT imagine them being visible.  These incoming muons are simple muons
just like those outgoing muons shown in the event pictures you have in
front of you.   Those muons are EXTRODINARILY visible ... in fact
impossible to miss.  To claim otherwise is, well, simply self-serving
self-blinded bullshit.  And we've gone over this before.  In the event
picture, accessable to others via my home page: 
   http://pads1.pa.msu.edu:81/home/hatcher/
(look for the link to a ~1Meg postscript file) in the lower right corner
there is a event picture of a muon brought in by the test-beam ... and
it is quite visible (obviously we *don't* veto the test beam ... or we
wouldn't see this).  And if you're going to claim that scintillator
counters can't detect muons (as you do above) then you're going to have
to explain to us how we managed to get the test-beam into the detector
since we use scint paddles to setup the steering (and set the magnet
currents) to get it to us.  Besides we plateau the counters (eg. set
the phototube voltage levels) using cosmic rays (which are largely muons
at sea level) and see about the right rate.

So again: MUON INDUCED INTERACTIONS CAN *NOT* "MIMIC" NEUTRINO EVENTS
BECAUSE THE MUON LEAVES A VISIBLE TRACK UPON ENTERING THE DETECTOR WHILE
THE UNCHARGED NEUTRINO LEAVE NO IONIZATION TRACK.  (Apologies to anyone
else reading this, but Tom seems to be a bit thick-headed on this point).
Actually that muon event referenced above *is* the result of an apparent
bremsstrahlung emission; compare it to the three *neutrino* events shown
in the other corners.

>The pions quickly decay into a muon and a mu_nu, and I presume that the 
>kaons branch into mostly pions, which then decay into muons and mu_nu 
>particles. Rather than have me try to worry through the math, what are 
>the actual numbers you are experiencing in the decay pipe?

Numbers of what.  Neutrinos?  Well, for the wide-band beam we can't
exactly tell since we didn't have absolute calibrated flux measurements.
But for the narrow-band beam before it, the flux of neutrinos was that
predicted by the secondary production model, standard decays and the
standard model interactions.

And for an "expert" on HEP processes, you should review you Particle
Data Group booklet more carefully.  K+ have a 63.5% branching fraction
into mu mu_nu.

>> You can't legitimately argue that since all quarks and all charged 
>leptons 
>> have mass/magnetic moments that all neutrinos *must* also.
>
>Let me rephrase. All particles (except the neutrinos) that have a spin 
>angular momentum of 1/2 h bar, also have a mass and magnetic moment 
>*without exception*. 

Same difference.  You are arguing in circles here.  Your "clarification"
simply hides "all quarks and all charged leptons" in the phrase "All
[spin 1/2] particles (except the neutrinos)".  Obfuscation seems to be your
strongest point (just like the best of the crackpots).

>                      Further, one can argue that spin angular momentum 
>has the dimensions of stored energy (Joule seconds). What percentage of a 
>particles rest mass energy is represented in the spin? Answer. All of a 

Actually I *don't* think one can argue that is the case: check your
dimensional analysis.  Angular momentum is angular momentum, spin or
otherwise...  And angular momentum and energy do NOT have the same
dimensions.
[invalid drivel based upon the above premise removed...]

>> (snip)
>> Why should anyone take you seriously?
>
>Robert, I'm quite surprised that, as an experimenter, working with 
>neutrinos, you are not interested in a theory that promotes an actual 
>structure for those particles. Physics seems to be a *cult of the 
>personality* so it is very difficult to be taken seriously, esp. when you 
>are outside of the specialties.

As an experimenter, as you say, I go where the *DATA* goes.  The data
rules supreme.  It should be the guide to direct the theory, not the
be tossed out simply for disagreeing with someone's pet theory.  And for a 
theory that makes "predictions" (of sorts) that are in such DISAGREEMENT 
with repeated and cross checked observations *invalidates* the THEORY.
That is how science advances; not by stubbornly clinging to a pet theory
simply based on perceived "beauty" while ignoring overwhelming evidence.
There's NO personality involved here (well, I do find you an annoying
hard-headed crackpot personality) that I'm "beholden" to.  Rather, I'm
driven by the observation of the physical processes that I undertake to
study.  That *you* perceive it a some sort of "cult of the personality",
well, is unfortunate ... but never-the-less mistaken.  Sure there are the
noisy ones you see in all the magazines,  huffing-and-puffing and thrusting
their chests out.  But for every one of those there are 100's that simply
do their jobs and are interested in the science more than the publicity
and find that sort of behaviour, well, distracting (and maybe even a bit
damaging) to the field ... if for no other reason than some like you take
it *far* too seriously.  Those of us in the quieter camp aren't going to
quietly let the blowhards sidetrack the field into a dead-end of incorrect
science like you (apparently) think we will.  When the "names" start making
incorrect predictions (ie don't match data) then you'll hear from us.

As for your theory "promot[ing] an actual structure for those particles
[neutrinos]"...well, it is immaterial what your theory "promotes" if it
makes incorrect predictions.  That your "theory" assumes that neutrinos
have internal structure doesn't strike me as particularly useful unless
it makes useful predictions.  So predict the neutrino mass and magnetic
moment, and then experimenters such as myself will go and measure (or
attempt to measure by setting limits) these quantities.  I'll give you
a hint:  some limits are already currently set by experiments so your
"theory" must either agree with those, or you must give GOOD evidence as
to why those measurements are incorrect.  To date you've "attempted" the
latter, but without success because you are woefully ignorant of how
experiments are performed (and, apparently, many of the basic physical
processes that *aren't* amenable to dispute without calling into question
most of the field: eg. muon energy losses).

You "theory" gets no notice because (1) it, from what you've written, is
incoherent and simply a mish-mash of buzzwords stuck together; (2) what
predictions it does make don't agree with the observations; (3) you're
perceived as an bumbling amateur because you are one, having demonstrated
that by (a) incorrectly handling the SR (forgot the gamma factor) (b) discounted
the energy loss of muons in the berm (c) are too lazy to make calculations
_before_ you speak (ie. you only did the pi+ decay problem after claiming
that all the neutrinos would miss the detector). etc. etc....

And I really could care less *how* you perform your "calculations", be
it on a hand held TI SR50 or MathCad or counting on your fingers and toes.
It doesn't impress me.  What _would_ impress me is a prediction of a
process (not explicitly part of your input parameters) that matches data.
To date you have failed to do anything but buzz around with "my model of
X involves [gobbly-gook]".  We've settled on a phyical process in this
thread (neutrino interactions) and all your "predictions" have failed.
It's time for you to move on to a more productive activity.

-robert
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenhatcher cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.24 / Dieter Britz /  Update: a comment and a change
     
Originally-From: britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Update: a comment and a change
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 15:46:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Here is a comment that I lost sight of for a while and I catch up with here.
It concerns the two carbon arc papers in the December '94 issue of Ft.

Then, Joe Guokas (himself an author in the special Maui issue of FT) kindly
pointed out to me that I had made another mistake; in my abstract of Collis'
paper in that issue, I attributed the neutron swapping reaction to Collis.
In fact, as the paper says and Joe points out, Collis quotes Shaheen et al,
as well as a few other ideas, but knocks them all down as inadequate to
explain this strange phenomenon. I have now changed the abstract to the new
form you see below, and it is in the big file like that. It is not yet in the
archive, though. In fact, I am going to update the archives a bit less fre-
quently, something like once a month. I think this is enough. I will, each
time I add a bunch, archive the cnf.new file, so you'll see the last 3 months'
worth of new stuff up to date all the time. It is quite a process to pick the
big file apart into those 7 slices, and to mail them all to the archives.

Comments: Current count = 233
^^^^^^^^
#
Miley G;  Fusion Tehcnol. 26T (1994) iii
"Comments".
GM makes some remarks on two rather different papers published in this issue
of FT, i.e. papers about carbon rod arcing. They are thought by some to have
relevance to 'cold fusion', and GM states that because these papers are
bizarre, four referees were used and they were mostly neutral, not finding
any errors. So GM took them, partly because of their provocative nature.
#..................................................................... Feb-95

The changed paper:
#
Collis WJMF;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 525.
"Oklo isotope anomalies and cold fusion".
** Oklo, comment, neutron swapping, no FPH/Jones ref.
Some believe that at the Oklo site in Gambia, about 1800 million years ago,
there was a natural fission reaction; the evidence is in the form of anomalous
geological isotope distributions there. There is also an anomalous lack of
deuterium in the rock. There are suggestions that deuterium was depleted by a
neutron swapping reaction like D + 238U --> (F1+F2) or (239U) + H + n.
Another possibility is that alpha particles from the decay of uranium enable
the fission of deuterium 2H-->H+n. There are also suggestions involving
meteoritic antimatter but this appears less plausible. Collis discusses these
and concludes only with some open questions.
#


How to retrieve the archived biblio files:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
1. By ftp from vm1.nodak.edu; log in as anonymous, giving your email
   address as password. Then cd to fusion. There are many files here, so
   do not use dir; if you are after the biblio files only, try
   dir fusion.cnf-*
   and then get or mget what you want.
2. Send an email to listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, blank subject and the message
   get fusion.<whatever you want>. To find out what there is, send
   index fusion
   This gets you an email with the directory of all files there, with which
   you can also match Fusion Digest numbers with file names, before getting
   those files. The index, or files you ask for, will be emailed to you.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.17 / Ira Blum /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: iblum@utdallas.edu (Ira K Blum)
Newsgroups: ,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.parti
le,sci.research,sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 17 Feb 1995 19:04:16 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Dallas, ACC

In article <D43orD.Gt9@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU>, kelsey@jupiter.SLAC.S
anford.EDU (Mike Kelsey) writes:
|> In article <D42pB9.GKr@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU>, panetta@finch.SLAC
Stanford.EDU (James H. Panetta) writes:
|> |> In article <3hb5ov$dv5@news.utdallas.edu>, iblum@utdallas.edu (Ira K Blum) writes:
|> |> |> I think its a conspiracy.
|> |> 
|> |> You let them know, Ira.  You will have to be terminated.  
|> |> I'll have Pat do it after he comes back from the meeting.
|> |> 
|> |>      --Jim
|> 
|> Discussion of personnel termination in a public forum is prohibited
|> under Edict 12.  Your actions have jeopardized the organization, and
|> you shall be eliminated.
|> 
|> (LKHQWE(*&#ONDkjaweo8
|> NO CARRIER
|> 

Great, now I'm being threatened by members of my own collaboration!  Help,
maybe I can find refuge with someone at CLEO!   :)


-- 
Ira
iblum@utdallas.edu
Go Rangers and Phillies (and Cowboys and Mavericks and Speed Racer Go!)
'Any fan of the game with any intelligence at all can define
most things that are and are not "in the best interest of baseball"'
Scott R. Susor
Please direct all flames to /dev/null
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudeniblum cudfnIra cudlnBlum cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.22 / CHU CHUNG /  plasma physics summer session
     
Originally-From: chuti@ecf.toronto.edu (CHU  TING CHUNG)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: plasma physics summer session
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 18:18:00 GMT
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility

 Does anyone know if the summer session for students for plasma physics 
is held every year at the Max Planck Institute? Is it held every year
at all?

Thanks for the info.


cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenchuti cudfnCHU cudlnCHUNG cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.21 / CHU CHUNG /  Re: Re JET Labs fusion stuff
     
Originally-From: chuti@ecf.toronto.edu (CHU  TING CHUNG)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Re JET Labs fusion stuff
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 17:25:20 GMT
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility

In article <1995Feb17.044007.24420@Princeton.EDU>,
Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@princeton.edu> wrote:

 I was wondering if you have some info about graduate studies at PPPL. What 
is the tuition fee? Is there a good chance that once finishing PH.D, one 
will be hired as a researcher? I am just about to do my Master's thesis
on sheath wave propagation and I am interested in the plasma wave phenomenon.
Does Princeton have a specific focus on this?

Thanks in advance.

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenchuti cudfnCHU cudlnCHUNG cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.21 / CHU CHUNG /  Re: Summer University for Plasma Physics (Repost)
     
Originally-From: chuti@ecf.toronto.edu (CHU  TING CHUNG)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Summer University for Plasma Physics (Repost)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 17:31:14 GMT
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility

In article <v01510107ab6e02328c1b@[194.59.170.80]>,
Klaus Woerle <woerlek@ipp-garching.mpg.de> wrote:

 How much does it cost for a North American student? Do I need to be a       
Master's student as of now?

Thanks.

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenchuti cudfnCHU cudlnCHUNG cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.21 / Jon Bell /  Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: jtbell@presby.edu (Jon Bell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph
sics.accelerators
Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 18:01:53 GMT
Organization: Presbyterian College, Clinton, South Carolina USA

 Thomas Lockyer <lockyer@svpal.svpal.org> wrote:
> [...]  And yes, I believe that muons can reach the flash 
>chamber before they decay, remember *half life* will allow 1/4 of them to 
>live under time dilation long enough to not decay in flight before going 
>a distance of about 2000 meters. 

Don't forget that rock and steel shield, which is intended to absorb 
most of those muons.

>These strays can possibly cause false positives by knocking on neutrals.

Some neutrons or pi-zeroes or whatever are undoubtedly produced at the 
end of the shield or somewhere else right in front of the detector.  Any 
decent experiment should take them into account.  Either (a) they can be
identified and removed from the data sample, or (b) their number can be 
estimated and subtracted from the final result.

They generally have lower energies than the neutrinos.  Also, they should
produce more events at the front of the detector than at the rear, because
their "interaction length" is fairly short.  Neutrino events, on the other
hand, are evenly distributed throughout the detector.  I remember that
this was noticeable in neutrino experiments which used the fifteen-foot
bubble chamber. 

Finally, the number of extraneous neutrals can be estimated via Monte-Carlo 
simulations of the beam line and/or direct measurements. 

-- 
Jon Bell <jtbell@presby.edu>                        Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science        Clinton, South Carolina USA
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjtbell cudfnJon cudlnBell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.23 / Joseph Davidson /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: jhd@radix.net (Joseph Davidson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: 23 Feb 1995 17:56:59 GMT
Organization: RadixNet Internet Services

The main arguement against fusion (at least the hot-fusion tokamac variety)
is that it is too expensive.  Even the most wild-eyed optimistic projections
of fusion costs do not have it competitive against the present cost of 
wind and solar.

The tokamac program has been plagued with overspending, overpromising
and underperforming from the word go.

--
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Davidson Ph.D.   - General Manager and Trainer
RadixNet Internet Services --  http://www.radix.net
Full Internet Connectivity at All Levels for Washington DC Metro area
We have over 20 years of network and telephone experience
301 567 5200, fax 301 839 0836
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjhd cudfnJoseph cudlnDavidson cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.23 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Concerning Joe Champion
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Concerning Joe Champion
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 10:32:32 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On 21 Feb 1995, Jollie MM wrote:

> I posted a few days ago a message concerning Joe Champion's book about
> transmutation and suggested that he had defrauded Bockris and Keller.  I
> take back that unfortunately remark.  I was relying on information from
> others which appears to be inaccurate.  People who I have great respect
> for and are in a position to know,  believe that Champion has not
> defrauded anyone.
> 
> The phenomenon which Roberto Monti, Joe Champion, Bockris, and Keller are
> and have explored I believe opens the door to an entirely new physics...
> 
> Champion is mailing me a copy of his book and I will post a review of it
> here because I believe that "transmutation" is a part of the paradigm
> which cold fusion is going to create in physics... I believe it because I
> am one of those who have actually succeeded in doing the so-called
> impossible, namely, with simple low-energy chemistry and em techniques I
> have altered the structure of matter.
> 
> Most cold fusion research it focused on altering deuterium, but there are
> many other possible permutations of matter/energy...which people like Joe
> Champion are beginning to clearly demonstrate.  The study of these other
> transmutations may be of great assistance to those who are intent on
> deuterium cold fusion, which is why I have posted this information here.
> 
> Sincerely, MWM   
> A Friend...
 

          UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this 
          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED. 
 

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

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.22 / John Cobb /  Re: economic reviews
     
Originally-From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: economic reviews
Date: 22 Feb 1995 15:37:19 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <1995Feb22.151149.9516@reks.uia.ac.be>,
Ali Eulaers <aeulaers@zorro.ruca.ua.ac.be> wrote:
>Hi 
>
>I wondered if some of you have theories about the economic feasability of fusion energy.
>

There has been quite a lot of good work in this area -- several tens of 
man-years of effort. In fusion, this area of research goes under the name
"reactor studies" or "power plant" studies.

Some of the more recent names that come to my mind are the ARIES series for
Tokamaks, Titan for Reversed Field Pinches (RFP's), and Artemis and Starfire 
for Field Reversed Configurations (FRC's). I have heard of ongoing work in
reactor studies for Spherical Tokamaks and Stellerators. I'm sure that there
are others that I have left out.

The thing to remember is these studies are not the last word. They are the
best estimate of total cost including plant, land, and equipment. Their goal
is to estimate the cost of electricity (COE) that a wholesale utility 
supplier would have to charge to recover the cost of energy production (i.e.
it excludes transmission cost, usually).

Now a good deal of work is done to make these estimates reliable. They
use data from large construction projects for the projections and they
calibrate the projections using data from construction costs of
current fusion experiments. However, there are a lot of
uncertainties. For instance, the exact beta stability limits or
transport scalings are not known exactly and they can affect the
values of critical parameters that will change the total cost. Also,
estimates of the cost of some of the large technology components such
as the superconducting coils, the blanket, remote handling, and the
divertor performance have large uncertainties. In my mind, the
estimate of the duty cycle (fraction of time the machine is up) is
also a big unknown.

Most of these studies end up with an estimate that is around 0.05$ (U.S.)
cost per kilowatt-hour. This is a bit higher than the current electricity
price.

In my opinion, however, these studies most important purpose is NOT the
cost estimates they reach, but rather how their analysis shows what parts
of the plant's design drive the total cost. In my opinion, I would place
order of magnitude error bars on their cost figures. I mean it is really
a tough job to estimate the performance of a power plant that utilizes
half-a-dozen technologies that have not yet been tested commercially.
So, I would say the cost is somewhere between $0.005 and $0.5 (U.S.). 
Unforseen problems and bad scaling can drive up the price. Advances in 
technology can decrease the cost. For example, use of Hi-Tc superconductors
will make the cyrogenic systems much easier to implement and cheaper.

However, some ofthe people who have been personally involved in this
work are lurkers here on s.p.f. So perhaps they will comment. Perhaps
Barry will comment about some of the work being done at UCLA.

>I heard some scepticism about this and wanted to ask you : is
this scepticism justified ?

For Sextus Empiricus, it was always justified. :>

What I've been trying to say is that there is a long history of good work in
trying to answer these questions because they are important, but yes
do not bet the farm on an exact estimate for the COE because it is just
too difficult to know to 3 significant figures at this time. It is a vitally
important question, but it just doesn't have an autoritative answer at this
time. IMO, the studies are pretty good about giving an honest, current, best
guess estimate. The actual cost cost be more, but it could also be less.

-john .w cobb

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

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.22 / Rich Hawryluk /  Clarification on TFTR Update February 21, 1995
     
Originally-From: rhawryluk@pppl.gov (Rich Hawryluk)
Newsgroups: pppl.tftr.news,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Clarification on TFTR Update February 21, 1995
Date: 22 Feb 1995 14:37:20 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

On item #4, the hydrogen temperature was quoted. The hydrogen ions are a
minority species heated by the ICRF which is why the quoted temperature is
so high. The bulk temperature of the deuterium or deuterium-tritium ions
was not 370keV! I hope this clarifies the confusion my message may have
created.
Rich

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


cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenrhawryluk cudfnRich cudlnHawryluk cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.21 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets.
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets.
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 95 10:38:56 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes:
 
    "4)Measurements of the temperature and pressure of the output steam and
    reference to a standard steam table.
 
    As I recall much of the attention to the claims made concerning the Griggs
    Device has been directed at points (1) and (4).  In particular it has
    recently become clear that (4) - the use of steam tables- is most likely
    the source of significant error."
 
Steam tables are not employed. The steam is condensed in cold water, and
the Delta T temperature change of water is used to measure enthalpy.
 
I am SURE YOU KNEW THAT Dick. I have said it a thousand and one times. Don't
try and fool us with this nonsense about "steam tables." You have already
tried that line dozens of times. Please try to dream up some new baloney. I
liked your "cold mist" schtick!
 
- Jed
 
P.S. Steam tables would work fine. They have been working since before the
U.S. Civil War.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.22 / Scott Little /  Re: purely scientific investigation of cold fusion
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: purely scientific investigation of cold fusion
Date: 22 Feb 1995 23:00:06 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l


>But Scott, a month is too short. 


You're probably right, Tom...

In my dreams, I was hoping for a cell that "worked" right away showing,
say, 150% excess heat within minutes of turning it on.  

That cell, I could test and write up in one month.

Let me amend my offer and say that, in a relatively short time, I will
return the cell along with a report of my findings.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.22 / Brendan Niemira /  GG: many drums and siphon hoses
     
Originally-From: niemirab@student.msu.edu  (Brendan A. Niemira)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: GG: many drums and siphon hoses
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995  10:50 est
Organization: Michigan State University

In Article <pgx40RT.jedrothwell@delphi.com> "jedrothwell@delphi.com" says:
> Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au> suggests:
>      "You could also start off with a number of 50 gallon steel drums each
>      half full of cold water, and connected by siphon hoses. . . . Thus the
>      duration of the test could be extended at will. All the messing around
>      would be done before the test started."
> I don't think so. There are several practical problems with this. Even with
> the 30 HP unit the GG makes a heck of a lot of steam (or hot water). I do not
> think you could dump out the water and fill up a barrel again in the time it
> takes to heat up another barrel. The GG would get ahead of you. The big
> problem, though, is that it is dangerous messing with these things. We are
> talking about large, heavy rubber hoses that shoot a plume of steam two
> meters through the air when they are not emersed. You have to handle them with
> heavy gloves and pipe wrenches. You cannot just pluck a steam hose one out of
> a barrel and dunk it into the next, as if it was a garden hose. When the steam
I think there is a misunderstanding here.  The tubes connecting the drums will
siphon regular old water, and will not be moved or touched at all during the 
run.  No steam tubes will be removed and redunked.  However, there is another
option.  I believe that Mr. Rothwell is correct, Home Depot probably won't
carry drums larger than 55 gal.  However, any good farm supply place will have
large animal watering troughs in sizes considerably larger than 55 gal.  Made
of steel or plastic, they already have spigots and are designed to be moved
by forklift.  I believe that something of this nature would hold enough water
to test the stored-heat hypothesis to the satisfaction of those who are not
yet satisfied.  A 55 gal. drum could be placed inside the trough and simply
allowed to overflow, and drain out the bottom of the trough.  When the device
begins its special mode, the drain in the trough is immediately closed, and 
therefore only the condensed steam produced during the special operation mode
will be captured and measured for heat content.
I would guess that a large-capacity trough wouldn't be all that expensive, and
it could also be wrapped in fiberglass insulation to contain the heat during
the extended filling time.  This would allow a better estimate of total heat
content of the water, and therefore of the total heat produced during special
operation mode.
>      "At completion the hoses are removed and emptied into the drums, then
>      the temperature of each drum is taken, and then each drum is weighed."
Perhaps I miss the point of weighing the barrels.  Could the barrels not be
calibrated for volume, and their weight derived from a volume measurement?
Steaming hot water doesn't weigh much less than room temp. water, does it?
..............

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Brendan A. Niemira           |   "You know your Shelley, Bertie."             
Dept. Botany and Plant Path  |   "Oh, am I?"
Michigan State University    |       P.G. Wodehouse
niemirab@student.msu.edu     |       *The Code of the Woosters*
        All opinions expressed are entirely my own.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenniemirab cudfnBrendan cudlnNiemira cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.22 / Barry Merriman /  Re: economic reviews
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: economic reviews
Date: 22 Feb 1995 23:31:11 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <1995Feb22.151149.9516@reks.uia.ac.be> aeulaers@zorro.ruca.ua.ac.be  
(Ali Eulaers) writes:
> Hi 
> 
> I wondered if some of you have theories about the economic feasability of  
fusion energy.
> 
> I heard some scepticism about this and wanted to ask you : is this scepticism  
justified ?
> 

If you believe that Cost Of Electricity is the prime econ factor
(this is the cost to produce the electricity at the plant), then
Tokamak based fusion reactors extrapolated from present devices
suck. The projected COE is 2--8 times that of current fission reactors,
and worse vs coal, gas, hydro. ( fission COE is ~ 0.05 cents/KWH)

However, the actual cost to consumers includes distribution costs,
which are about 10 times larger than the cost of producing the electricity.
Thus in terms of what the end user pays, even if the additional COE
were passed directly to the consumer ( its an added 0.1--0.4 cents/KWH)
they would scarcley notice the difference.

So, in the latter sense, there is no economic problem---I.e. if we switched to
fusion, it would not disrupt the economy (but it would disrupt accounting
at the utilities).



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


cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.22 / Robert Heeter /  Rothwell is an expert on Tokamaks?  NOT
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Rothwell is an expert on Tokamaks?  NOT
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 15:29:08 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Ordinarily I avoid Rothwell's posts, and a Rothwell reply to a
Koloc post is even worse, but this one falls into my field, and 
I felt the urge to reply.  Forgive me if it offends thee.

In article <Rm578FL.jedrothwell@delphi.com> , jedrothwell@delphi.com
writes:
> Paul M. Koloc <pmk@prometheus.UUCP> writes:
>  
>      "Look, if the tokamak concept is so very advanced, it should stand
>      without government support.  I mean there are a lot of hungry
>      Corporations and Utilities out there that would want to fund a
concept
>      which was a true winner for fusion."
>  
> That is correct, they would. So would semi-public organizations like
EPRI. All
> support for Tokamak hot fusion from private industry ended decades ago,
> because Tokamak technology has no commercial potential.

Actually, EPRI *DOES* support tokamak fusion research.  They just don't
see
a need to pay for it, since (a) the actual product is rather far down the
road, and (b) the Federal government is already funding fusion.

I think the lack of private fusion funding has more to do with the large
start-up costs involved and the fact that there are large, generally 
well-financed national (and corporate) labs already doing research in the
field.  There isn't yet a real financial incentive to try to break in.

This is not at all the same as saying that tokamaks have no commercial
potential.  The scientific results from tokamaks continue to be 
significantly better than the alternatives, and IMHO the primary reason 
why other concepts appear attractive by comparison is that they haven't 
been studied as extensively.  I strongly support alternative concepts 
research - the provision for a $30,000,000 alternative-concepts program
is a great idea.  (This was in last year's house authorization 
legislation (which passed, but didn't make it through conference with 
the senate bill before the session ended).)  But I find that anyone
arguing that the tokamak "has no commercial potential" generally
either (a) doesn't understand the situation, (b) has a private agenda,
or (c) is overly pessimistic.  There are a lot of innovative ideas
which have the potential to make the tokamak significantly more
attractive than it is at present, and no one can predict the future.
Sweeping denigrations of the tokamak are premature at best, 
and simply wrong at worst.
  
>      "I think they would find as I have, that it is NOT.
>  
> Paul is not the only person to find that Tokamak technology will not
work. The
> DoE concurs. See: R. A. Krakowski et al (Los Alamos), "Lessons Learned
from
> the Tokamak Advanced Reactor Innovation and Evaluation Study (ARIES)."

(A) Krakowski does not equal DOE.  Jed is up to his usual logical 
fallacies.  (B) I doubt Krakowski would agree with the words Jed
just put in his mouth.  As I understand it, Krakoswki (like other 
rational human beings) doesn't claim that the tokamak "will not work", 
but that the current designs will require significant improvement 
before a tokamak reactor (which *will* work, in the sense of creating 
fusion energy) is likely to be economical in the future energy market.
Because the tokamak is not a sure thing, Krakowski would like to
see additional research into alternative concepts.  The fusion
community has been arguing for this since about 1982, when the
budgets were cut and concepts were dropped.  This is not new.  Nor
is it substantially different from my position, as outlined in the
previous paragraph.

I wouldn't bet on just one horse, but neither would I shoot the best
horse in the stable while it was still in training!

The basic tokamak design was invented over 30 years ago, but today's
tokamaks look very different from the original design, and tomorrow's
machines will evolve even further.  The early trend was towards
larger, more powerful machines; a new trend is evolving towards 
machines that are "better, not bigger".  Claiming that "the tokamak will
not work" based on previous efforts and the recent results from JET
and TFTR (10.7 Megawatts and power-out/power-in ~= 0.27) is something 
like claiming that "airplanes will never fly across the Atlantic" after 
observing the Wright Brothers finally get a plane five feet in the air.
A lot can happen between now and then!


***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@princeton.edu, http://w3.pppl.gov/~rfheeter
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not Princeton!
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.22 / Jeff Greason /  Efficient Muon Production
     
Originally-From: greason@ptdcs2.intel.com (Jeff Greason)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Efficient Muon Production
Date: 22 Feb 1995 21:24:02 GMT
Organization: Intel PTD, Aloha, OR

A question for any actual knowledgeable persons lurking under
the high noise level...

I haven't got the numbers handy, but last time I checked,
it appeared that muon catalyzed fusion was well above
theoretical breakeven -- that is; the fusions catalyzed
by a single muon release more energy than the muon mass.
The problem would then seem to be in more efficient
production of muons (efficient in the sense of high
ratio of energy output in the form of muons/energy in)

Can anyone comment (email would be fine!) on the present
methods of muon production and their efficiency, and in
any work in progress on more efficient schemes for
muon production?

(Numbers I checked were in the "Encyclopedia of Science
and Technology, under "Fusion",  If you want to argue
that my premise is incorrect).

Disclaimer: While I am an Intel employee, all opinions expressed are my own,
     and do not reflect the position of Intel, NETCOM, or Zippy the Pinhead.  
============================================================================
Jeff Greason                 "We choose to go to the Moon in this decade,
  <greason@ptdcs2.intel.com>  and do the other things, not because they 
  <greason@ix.netcom.com>     are easy, but because they are hard." -- JFK 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudengreason cudfnJeff cudlnGreason cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.24 / Arthur Cassel /  Cold Fusion Magazine
     
Originally-From: acassel@linknet.kitsap.lib.wa.us (Arthur Cassel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion Magazine
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 05:03:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In several postings I have seen a reference to a "Cold Fusion" magazine.  
Can any one give me an address (snailmail or email) where I can get more 
information?

Thanks in advance

Arthur Cassel

acassel@linknet.kitsap.lib.wa.us

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenacassel cudfnArthur cudlnCassel cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.21 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 10:05:53 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On 18 Feb 1995, Dean Edmonds wrote:

> In article <3huhgg$spr@deadmin.ucsd.edu>,
> Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> wrote:
> >
> >The whole point is that Huffman tentatively claims that his version 
> >of the device also measures out at well over unity.
> 
> Perhaps I missed something, but so far I have only seen the one, original
> post from Mr. Huffman in this newsgroup. I have just gone back and reread
> that message in detail and can find absolutely no references or claims to
> over unity performance. All that he says is:
> 
> 	I've developed a small, tabletop device that works on some of
> 	the same principles that Jim Griggs is developing.
> 
> Mr. Griggs is building water heaters. So all that this says to me is that
> Mr. Huffman is offering a compact water heater that works along "the same
> principles" as the Griggs device. There is no claim to over-unity performance,
> so why all the commotion?
> 
[...]

... In fact, this one statement from Huffman is one more than the number of
statements here in this group, from Griggs. I have not seen, anywhere, what
Griggs himself claims; could it be he himself claims only that he has a damned
good heater of water? We have not heard from the man. I am indeed willing to
believe that his apparatus might, under certain circumstances, be a good way
to heat water. Anything beyond that we have only from second hand sources.
I hope this subject goes away soon, because water heating has nothing to do
with fusion.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.20 / 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: 20 Feb 1995 06:43:06 GMT
Organization: Silicon Valley Public Access Link

Josef C. Frisch (frisch@hebe.SLAC.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: In article <3i3bd5$7ls@borg.svpal.org>, lockyer@svpal.svpal.org
(Thomas Lockyer) writes:
: |> 
: |> The spin 1/2 non-composite neutrinos  do not have a mass or a magnetic 
: |> moment or a charge.   I think we can agree that  something is paradoxical 
: |> about neutrino theory.
: |> 


: 1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13 are all prime. Is it paradoxical that 9 is not? The fact that
: a rule is followed in a limited number of examples does not make that rule
: correct. 

Joe: The analogy is not apt.  What I said was true.  All particles we 
have measured that are non composite and have a spin angular momentum of 
1/2 h bar also have a mass, charge and magnetic moment.  In fact *ALL* 
spin 1/2 particles have mass and magnetic moments.  If you don't think 
this that the neutrino is paradoxical.  The theory is still being 
adjusted to expain failure of experiments.

: Tom, there is much evidence from many independant experiments that neutrinos have
: properties similar to those predicted by the standard model. You have earlier
: implied that this might be because experimenters have a bias to report data which
: agrees with the standard model. Actually the opposite is true, we would like
: nothing more than to show those know it all theorists  :-)  that they are wrong
: (and get funding for additional experiments as well). So far, however, the data
: matches the standard theory. 

It seems only accelerator workers are happy with the data.  I am 
pragmatic, I must have a mechanism for every action.  I cannot imagine 
how energy could cause neutrinos to have an  increasing crossection.  
Saying that's what is measured is not good enough,  it could be the 
result of more strays at the higher energy. 

: You have started out by following the correct scientific procedure: Form a
: hypothesis, do an experiment. The experiment has been done, the hypotheses has
: been shown to be incorrect. The correct response is to re-formulate the
: hypothesis so that it is consistant with known experiments, and propose a new
: experiment. Remember, MOST theories are wrong. The difference between a scientist
: and a nut, is that when a scientist's theory is proven wrong, he works on a new
: theory, a nut refuses to believe any data, and imagines some vast 
: conspiricy or incompetitance on the part of others. Look at your theory again,
: maybe a minor adjustment can make it compatable with existing experiments. 

Anyone who questions the standard model is vilified.  The model I have 
been working with agrees with the measurements of the related 
fundamental physical constants better than the quark model.  I don't see 
*scientists* abandoning the failed standard model.   You obviously have 
not taken the time to review the Mathcad proof.   


: --- Joe Frisch ---

: Breaking my own rule

Yes, I'm breaking it also. But I try to keep my opinions out of open forum.

Regards: Tom.

--
Thomas N. Lockyer <lockyer@svpal.org>     
1611 Fallen Leaf Lane
Los Altos, CA USA 94024-6212
Tel. (415)967-9550
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenlockyer cudfnThomas cudlnLockyer cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.20 /   /  Re: Not quite muonic fusion
     
Originally-From: root@prometheus.UUCP (0000-Admin(0000))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not quite muonic fusion
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 05:06:21 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1995Feb14.144657.2048@plasma.byu.edu> jonesse@plasma.byu.edu writes:
>Robin, I see no reason to expect that the T to 3He ratio from d-d fusion would
>vary:  once the excited 4He nucleus is formed (from d+d fusion), it will decay
>into T+p and 3He+n about equally -- shouldn't matter how the excited 4He
>got there.

It seems to me that nuclei can have "internal *thermal* energy" and 
consequently be "cold" or "hot" in ratios related to their to the source 
of their arrival as an **^4He**.  Certainly hot fusion would tend to 
produce hotter transient nuclei (**^4He**) states, and cold fusion the 
cooler and less chaotic ones.  To me one should have a more charge even 
split for the cool case.  Consequently, a more quiescent **nuclei** 
would exhibit different branching than a hotter more chaotic one.  

This may be not be the result for which the cool fusion chaps are hoping.  

>Note:  there is commonly tritium in D2O as it is purchased, and this tritium
>can easily be concentrated in an electrochemical cell during its operation.
>This is why P&F withdrew their claims of tritium production in 1989, if I
>recall correctly.

Worth restating. 

>Back to lurking and working.

The truth you spoke.  

>--Steven Jones
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenroot cudln cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.20 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Ion Beam Fusion
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ion Beam Fusion
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 05:19:02 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <Pine.A32.3.91.950207095322.86779A-100000@pegasus.unm.edu>
Sigma9 <aavd@unm.edu> writes:
>On Tue, 7 Feb 1995, Paul M. Koloc wrote:
>
>> 
>> Light ion??? you mean you don't fusion heavy ions with their antimatter
>> twins?   I thought anything was possible in theory... except real stuff.  
>
>What would be the point of fusing antimatter when it takes the same 
>amount of energy to create the antiparticles as you would get out of the 
>reaction. Is it just me or does this seem a little counterproductive?

Well, if your PLASMAK(tm) fusion facilities are on earth or in the
solar system where matter resources avail, then this energy and matter
can be utilized mag bowls of this antimatter, which can then be built
up in reservoirs for a trip to some far off star system.  So it's not
that the energy is being converted from one form to another with
losses along the way, it's that it is converted to a form which has
highest releaseable E-den (mass density) for the flight to the star
system X.   Now unfortunately, antimatter nuclei above charge 1 can't 
exist in this reality driven cosmos.  (has to do with quantized and
vectored time)   So you are right.. it's a bit of counterproductive.  

Besides, we can probably get there with PLASMAK(tm) engines, in any event. 

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

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.21 / 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: 21 Feb 1995 23:27:32 GMT
Organization: Silicon Valley Public Access Link

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

> Far less than 1/2 because you've neglected the gamma*beta factor....
> Also suggest you recompute this for the pions/kaons as well.

Yes, classically at (c)  about 1/4 of the beam muons could reach the 
flash chamber. With time dilation, the whole flux of muons could, 
conceivably,  reach the flash chamber (neglecting berm straggling, 
ionization and bremsstrahlung).  The berm modifies the muon energy 
distribution, but muon outliers might reach the vicinity of the flash 
chamber with little energy loss. Such muon outliers, if they 
bremsstrahlung gammas or knocked on neutrons, would not trip the veto 
counters, but could mimic the *events*.   What actual flux of muons do 
you measure at the flash chamber?

The pions quickly decay into a muon and a mu_nu, and I presume that the 
kaons branch into mostly pions, which then decay into muons and mu_nu 
particles. Rather than have me try to worry through the math, what are 
the actual numbers you are experiencing in the decay pipe?

> You can't legitimately argue that since all quarks and all charged 
leptons 
> have mass/magnetic moments that all neutrinos *must* also.

Let me rephrase. All particles (except the neutrinos) that have a spin 
angular momentum of 1/2 h bar, also have a mass and magnetic moment 
*without exception*. Further, one can argue that spin angular momentum 
has the dimensions of stored energy (Joule seconds). What percentage of a 
particles rest mass energy is represented in the spin? Answer. All of a 
particles rest mass energy is in the spin. Question, how many particles 
with spin of 1/2 (except the neutrino) also have a magnetic moment. 
Answer. All do. The model I have been working with shows that a free 
neutrino does not spin, but only spins when in concert with an electron. 
So I have no problem with the above seeming paradox, the neutrino 
contributes mass when part of a composite, then decouples and stops 
spinning on decay.

> (snip)
> Why should anyone take you seriously?

Robert, I'm quite surprised that, as an experimenter, working with 
neutrinos, you are not interested in a theory that promotes an actual 
structure for those particles. Physics seems to be a *cult of the 
personality* so it is very difficult to be taken seriously, esp. when you 
are outside of the specialties.

> The fact that you've managed to kludge together some kobbled mish-mash
> of Mathcad equations proves nothing but that you can manipulate Mathcad.

The original calculations (20 years ago) were done with a hand held TI 
SR50 scientific calculator with 12 place accuracy. A spread sheet with 
hundreds of calculations (each new calculation requiring the last 
calculation) took six hours to accomplish. Now with a summation 
algorithm, developed from the model, the computer Math software 
calculates in fractions of a second, at double precision. The model's 
methods must be studied to really understand, and to be able to cogently 
criticize.

- Tom.



--
Thomas N. Lockyer <lockyer@svpal.org>     
1611 Fallen Leaf Lane
Los Altos, CA USA 94024-6212
Tel. (415)967-9550
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenlockyer cudfnThomas cudlnLockyer cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.20 / 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: 20 Feb 1995 06:55:08 GMT
Organization: Silicon Valley Public Access Link

Robert; I am aware of the SR kinematics, and have no reason to doubt the 
mathematics relating the theoretical beam dynamics. It is the exact 
nature of the neutrino that bothers me, more on that later.

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

> (snip)
> No, silly! The pions and kaon that produce the neutrinos (and muons)
> decay *before* the dump and berm...in the, well, appropriately named 
"decay pipe".
> It's the other stuff (muons,protons,undecayed pi/K's) that get ranged 
out in the
> dump and berm. And we know they get ranged out because we have pervious
> experiments (and theories) that tell us what kind of de/dx we should 
expect from
> these particles.

The decay pipe is about 400 meters long, at the maximum velocity of 
light, less than half the muons will have decayed. (2.99792458 x 10^8 
m/s) x (half life of 2.19 x 10^-6 s) = 657 meters. In the next 657 meters 
less than half the remaining will have decayed, so it is conceivable that 
one in four muons could penetrate to the flash chamber, from the fast 
spill. If a muon "knocked on" a neutron, that would cause a false positive.

> Homework problem: assume a pi+ with an energy of 300 GeV in the lab frame
> moving in the z direction. The pion ndergoes a two body to mu+ and nu_mu
> decay, with the products traveling perpendicular to the z direction in 
the rest frame
> (this is the largest transverse kick possible). What is the transverse 
displacement
> after travelling 1km along z axis in the lab frame.

Sheese: Let me get out my copy of "Space Time Physics" (1970 edition). A 
pion with a rest mass of 139.567 MeV and a kinetic energy of 300 GeV 
should be travelling at 0.999999891883504 times the velocity of light. 
This gives a half angle of 0.0266533 degrees and a transverse 
displacement cone of about 0.93 meters?

> Homework problem: what is the mean distance traveled by a muon ......

This was answered with a decay pipe  muon at (c) above. Note that the 
*half* life is 2.19 x 10^-6 seconds. This means that it is physically 
possible for 1/4 of the beam muons to reach the flash chamber. And if the 
stray muon knocks on a neutron it won't trip the veto gates, and can give 
a false positive. Cosmic ray muons also are a possibility for knock-ons.

The larger problem is neutrino theory itself. I know how the neutrinos 
are put together vectorially, and I can tell you that neutrinos can only 
spin when in concert with the electron (or positron) making possible the 
structuring of all composite particles.  This vectorial model not only 
gives the difference in mass between the proton and neutron but the 
neutron decay products and their mass directly from the rules of the 
model. The standard model fails at this level.

-Tom.



--
Thomas N. Lockyer <lockyer@svpal.org>     
1611 Fallen Leaf Lane
Los Altos, CA USA 94024-6212
Tel. (415)967-9550
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenlockyer cudfnThomas cudlnLockyer cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.20 / Paul Koloc /  Re:Ion Beam Fusion ===>a tokamak taunt 
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:Ion Beam Fusion ===>a tokamak taunt 
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 06:34:25 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1995Feb9.203837.22292@Princeton.EDU> pbsnyder@flagstaff.prin
eton.edu (Philip B. Snyder) writes:
>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

That wasn't the issue!!  
WHY?   read the question.   Why is it so???

Because, this is the device that beat the other dinosaur (mirror) and
has grown to over take the budget of each and every country, thus the
"INTERNATIONAL effort".  It's wonderful in that it justifies the max
budget, which has grown the fusion bureaucracy to the limit of tolerance
by goverments.  Also, all the old geezers that are on committees know 
about tokamak.. some even remenber the Stellarator and they don't 
know about the modern advanced stuff, so they can only agree on 
tokamak except for "small pockets" of really old geezers like at Oak 
Ridge and Garching, where but a few play with stellarators.  

They are generating a flash card for the "Spherical tokamak of Peng",
however.   (the other PPPL tokamak could get whacked and they NEED
a quick replacement).  

> .. .not to mention that much of plasma physics research is at least
>somewhat device independent.

Not!  If you think so, you don't have much of an understanding of the
range of plasma regimes relating to fusion. Must be the anaerobic 
condition in the vacuum torus.    

>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.

Yep... Yep   ...  That's correct..   30 billion ...  and for something
that can't do .0001 candle power????    radioactivity . waste..   
stuff like that.  They spent more on a John (the lou) in the zig zag 
to TFTR than we have spent on PLASMAK research.     

>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.

Let's see..  they have already burned D-T in the correct fuel ratio, 
and now what more can they do... ah  generate more plasma pressure .. 
no not to speak of ... more temperature...  nope.. not much more 
without losing density and therefore power density.   No, you have 
come up against the proverbial "rock and a hard place".  Not enough 
wiggle room to light a match.   

>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.  
Had to eat a little CROW... huh?? 

Results???  you mean you were able to get a bit of ohmic
heating??   and besides the tokamak came from 1964.   That's 30 
years ago.  If you can't get commercial fusion in 10 years you 
will never get it.   That's a paraphrase of Feynmann " If it
doesn't work after 10 years of effort, it won't ever work".  

>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.

That depends on if you make the parameters machine size dependent
or independent.  It turns out that the ITER won't burn.  It's
BIG .. 9story cube.    Nope you must be able to get plasma pressure
not volume, and making it bigger actually interferes with that
goal.  

>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.

Great!  That improves the chances for commercial fusion right there.   

>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.

And a waste, since the plasma regimes are so far from those
of an efficient burner.  

>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.

That's putting it in an optimistic light..  You mean, it won't
be able to produce electricity above breakeven... (period - ende)

>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.

If a factor of order  1000 is "close?", then we aren't being 
delusional.  However, ..  .  What was the ouput energy density in 
net electric watts/cc of plasma again??  Sure, say as projected 
from ITER hopes! Come on .. grad student?? you can grub that up. 
Right?   .. well?

And.. where is your analysis of the PLASMAK(TM) fusion concept? 
Obviously, you have one, since you made the comparison.  

>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.

But if you "improve it" you evolve it, and that's impossible, since
IF you evolve it, the blankety thing ISN'T FUNDABLE, since it's
not a line item in the budget.  After all, the tokamak is an
evolution of the Stellarator and Spheromak an evolution of the 
tokamak, and the PLASMAK(tm) magnetoplasmoid is an evolution of 
the Spheromak.  So now you are "improved to a a very attractive"
power generator.  One that can burn with high density, burn 
aneutronically, and as with high specific mass.  So it should
fly ... quite literally. But it's not a mind set tokamak.. so
ah???  we are back at square one ... and sinking beneath the
New Jersey clay ...  along with Jimmmy H.     

>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.

Yep.  Waste money or not.. Do fusion research or bottle neck it.  

>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. 

Great!  Government fusion program, as under the Energy RESEARCH 
monopoly of the DoE you mean.  Well..  then real fusion research
will flourish.   One wealthy individual could fund demonstration
burns, if you fund technical approaches that WORK.  But the
never ending pit for investment required by the tokamak will never
bring fusion.  How BiG is the Working Tokamak Commercial
Energy  Producer going to be??   ITER .. 10*ITER.. 100 It.. r??? 

Look, if the tokamak concept is so very advanced, it should 
stand without government support.  I mean there are a lot of hungry
Corporations and Utilities out there that would want to fund a
concept which was a true winner for fusion.  I think they would
find as I have, that it is NOT.  Still let's see which get's funded
first.  Would be be willing to give up gov DoE support for five
years to find out?? 

>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.

"Half way" in the pursuit of fusion isn't even half good enough. 
We need concepts that exceed Lawson by 10, at least.  These are 
Commercial and engineering realities. 

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

Modified???? 
           you mean E V O L V E D .. . Click! ...  
                           Dinosaur ----> mammal
                              or even marsupial would help!  

>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.

They don't need any time.  They could have results before 
congress could run through a year or two of budgeting.  
If you turn them on they are ahead of tokamak.  

>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.

You mean paper weight??  It should be a secure one.  

Knowledge???  let me give you a clue ... Squeeze it strongly,
Star systems seem to make some pretty crappy fuel mixures burn
quite well.  So just figure out how to make that backwards
lever and fulcrum pressure device you call the tokamak generate
intense plasma fuel pressure.   And without my fee for this time.  

>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.

Yep ... welcome to the: real and flatter-managed 
                         right|down-sized world.  
                      Chop your budget to our level 
                       and you will do much better, 
                        something in the fact that 
                        adversity sparks invention.  

>-Phil
>grad student in plasma physics at princeton
tokamak cynic
Paul 
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.20 / 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: 20 Feb 1995 08:27:59 GMT
Organization: Silicon Valley Public Access Link



> Mike Kelsey (kelsey@jupiter.SLAc.Standford.EDU) Writes:

> No they don't. Particles decay in flight.  (snip)

Mike, just got around to reading your message, saw your name in the 
thread but there is no date listed for anyone.  Thought I had already 
responded. Yes, what you say and tell about relativistic kinematics is 
well known.  See my reply to Robert Hatcher where I do similar 
calculations.   

>  For a 1 km decay berm, this means that a nominally collinear neutrino 
beam 
> will have a spread to a maximum of 1.23 meters radius (2.46 meter spot) 

Sounds about right, I got 0.93 meters for a 300GeV pi+ muon decay spread, 
see my note to George.  And yes, I believe that muons can reach the flash 
chamber before they decay, remember *half life* will allow 1/4 of them to 
live under time dilation long enough to not decay in flight before going 
a distance of about 2000 meters. These strays can possibly cause false 
positives by knocking on neutrals.

> (snip) 
> Are you going to claim that standard engineering techniques, as 
outlined 
>  in the Uniform Building Code, are *also* suspect, because when they 
> are applied to physics they violate your pet theory?  Or are you going 
to 
>  claim that (a) special relativity is false because calculations based 
on 
> it violate your pet theory; 

No, calculations do *not* violate my pet theory Mike!  In fact I use 
relativity to show that muons could cause false positives due to time 
dilation!  Gosh, please stop building a straw man out of me.  You and Joe 
and Robert miss my point.  The neutrino is a different animal, yet we 
seem to want to apply certain rules as if it was an ordinary particle.  
If we insist on treating it conventionally, then suspend convention by 
assigning impossible characteristics, it  is like having it both ways.  
Either the neutrino is subject to *all* or none, any thing else is not 
good physics.  

> or (b) that the alleged mass you claim for the neutrino is sufficiently
>  large (on the order of tens of GeV), that my divergence calculation 
> is wrong?  Either way, it is you that have a long crackpotty row to 
> hoe, Mr. Lockyear.

Mike, its Lockyer, the Lockyears came over on the Mayflower, Lockyers 
during the war of 1812.

I do not think the free neutrino has rest mass.  Where did you get that 
idea?  And I agree with your divergence calculations.  The only thing I 
know is that my pet theory works to relate *all* of the fundamental 
physical constants in their proper ratios, because it is geometric and 
adds structures vectorially.  I get rather weary being castigated just 
because my pet theory works better that the standard model in predicting 
particle mass and magnetic moments.   The vector models are the only 
models around that can give, not only the mass difference between the 
proton and neutron, but actually *requires* the neutrons known decay 
electron and neutrino.

Regards: Tom.
  



--
Thomas N. Lockyer <lockyer@svpal.org>     
1611 Fallen Leaf Lane
Los Altos, CA USA 94024-6212
Tel. (415)967-9550
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenlockyer cudfnThomas cudlnLockyer cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.22 / Akira Kawasaki /  Re: The future of the Internet: electronic petition
     
Originally-From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The future of the Internet: electronic petition
Date: 22 Feb 1995 13:18:16 GMT
Organization: Netcom

Saw this long article under the sci.chem newsgroup. Posting it here for 
your consideration. -AK-

In <793395506snz@drmac.demon.co.uk> Duncan@drmac.demon.co.uk ("Duncan R. 
MacMillan") writes: 

>
>*** PROTECT THE INTERNET. READ THIS MESSAGE ***
>
>This document is an electronic Petition Statement to the
>U.S. Congress regarding pending legislation, the
>"Communications Decency Act of 1995" (S. 314) which will
>have, if passed, very serious negative ramifications for
>freedom of expression on Usenet, the Internet, and all
>electronic networks.  The proposed legislation would remove
>guarantees of privacy and free speech on all electronic
>networks, including the Internet, and may even effectively
>close them down as a medium to exchange ideas and
>information.
>
>For an excellent analysis of this Bill by the Center for
>Democracy and Technology (CDT), refer to the Appendix
>attached at the end of this document.  The text to S. 314
>is also included in this Appendix.
>
>This document is somewhat long, but the length is necessary
>to give you sufficient information to make an informed
>decision.  Time is of the essence, we are going to turn
>this petition and the signatures in on 3/16/95, so if you
>are going to sign this please do so ASAP or at least before
>midnight Wednesday, March 15, 1995.
>
>Even if you read this petition after the due date, please
>submit your signature anyway as we expect Congress to
>continue debating these issues in the foreseeable future
>and the more signatures we get, the more influence the
>petition will have on discussion.  And even if Congress
>rejects S. 314 while signatures are being gathered, do
>submit your signature anyway for the same reason.
>
>Please do upload this petition statement as soon as
>possible to any BBS and on-line service in your area.
>If you have access to one of the major national on-line
>services such as CompuServe, Prodigy, AOL, etc., do try
>to upload it there.  We are trying to get at least 5000
>signatures.  Even more signatures are entirely possible
>if we each put in a little effort to inform others, such
>as friends and coworkers, about the importance of this
>petition to electronic freedom of expression.
>
>Here is a brief table of contents:
>
>(1) Introduction (this section)
>(2) The Petition Statement
>(3) Instructions for signing this petition
>(4) Credits
>(Appendix) Analysis and text of S. 314 (LONG but excellent)
>
>
>******(2) The Petition Statement
>
>In united voice, we sign this petition against passage of S. 314 (the
>"Communications Decency Act of 1995") for these reasons:
>
>S. 314 would prohibit not only individual speech that is "obscene, 
lewd,
>lascivious, filthy, or indecent", but would prohibit any provider of
>telecommunications service from carrying such traffic, under threat of
>stiff penalty.  Even aside from the implications for free speech, this
>would cause an undue - and unjust - burden upon operators of the 
various
>telecommunications services.  In a time when the citizenry and their
>lawmakers alike are calling for and passing "no unfunded mandates" laws
>to the benefit of the states, it is unfortunate that Congress might 
seek to
>impose unfunded mandates upon businesses that provide the framework for
>the information age.
>
>An additional and important consideration is the technical feasibility 
of
>requiring the sort of monitoring this bill would necessitate.  The
>financial burden in and of itself - in either manpower or technology to
>handle such monitoring (if even legal under the Electronic 
Communications
>Privacy Act) - would likely cause many smaller providers to go out of
>business, and most larger providers to seriously curtail their 
services.
>
>The threat of such penalty alone would result in a chilling effect in 
the
>telecommunications service community, not only restricting the types of
>speech expressly forbidden by the bill, but creating an environment
>contrary to the Constitutional principles of free speech, press, and
>assembly - principles which entities such as the Internet embody as
>nothing has before.
>
>By comparison, placing the burden for content control upon each 
individual
>user is surprisingly simple in the online and interactive world, and 
there
>is no legitimate reason to shift that burden to providers who carry 
that
>content.  Unlike traditional broadcast media, networked media is
>comparatively easy to screen on the user end - giving the reader, 
viewer,
>or participant unparalleled control over his or her own information
>environment.  All without impacting or restricting what any other user
>wishes to access.  This makes regulation such as that threatened by 
this
>S. 314 simply unnecessary.
>
>In addition, during a period of ever-increasing commercial interest in
>arenas such as the Internet, restriction and regulation of content or 
the
>flow of traffic across the various telecommunications services would 
have
>serious negative economic effects.  The sort of regulation proposed by 
this
>bill would slow the explosive growth the Internet has seen, giving the
>business community reason to doubt the medium's commercial appeal.
>
>We ask that the Senate halt any further progress of this bill.  We ask
>that the Senate be an example to Congress as a whole, and to the nation
>at large - to promote the general welfare as stated in the Preamble to
>the Constitution by protecting the free flow of information and ideas
>across all of our telecommunications services.
>
>
>******(3) Instructions for signing the petition
>
>          ======================================
>          Instructions for Signing This Petition
>          ======================================
>
>It must first be noted that this is a petition, not a
>vote.  By "signing" it you agree with *all* the requests
>made in the petition.  If you do not agree with everything
>in this petition, then your only recourse is to not sign
>it.
>
>In addition, all e-mail signatures will be submitted to
>Congress, the President of the United States, and the
>news media.
>
>Including your full name is optional, but *very highly
>encouraged* as that would add to the effectiveness of the
>petition.  Signing via an anonymous remailer is highly
>discouraged, but not forbidden, as an attempt will be made
>to separately tally signatures from anonymous remailers.
>
>Because this is a Petition to the U.S. Congress, we ask
>that you state, as instructed below, whether or not you
>are a U.S. citizen.  We do encourage non-U.S. citizens to
>sign, but their signatures will be tallied separately.
>
>Signing this petition is not hard, but to make sure your
>signature is not lost or miscounted, please follow these
>directions EXACTLY:
>
>1) Prepare an e-mail message.  In the main body (NOT the
>Subject line) of your e-mail include the ONE-LINE statement:
>
>SIGNED <Internet e-mail address> <Full name> <US Citizen>
>
>You need not include the "<" and ">" characters. 'SIGNED'
>should be capitalized.  As stated above, your full name is
>optional, but highly recommended.  If you do supply your
>name, please don't use a pseudonym or nickname, or your
>first name -- it's better to just leave it blank if it's
>not your full and real name.  If you are a U.S. citizen,
>please include at the end of the signature line a 'YES',
>and if you are not, a 'NO'.  All signatures will be
>tallied whether or not you are a U.S. Citizen
>
>****************************************************
>Example: My e-mail signature would be:
>
>SIGNED dave@kachina.altadena.ca.us Dave C. Hayes YES
>****************************************************
>
>2) Please DON'T include a copy of this petition, nor any
>other text, in your e-mail message.  If you have comments
>to make, send e-mail to me personally, and NOT to the
>special petition e-mail signature address.
>
>3) Send your e-mail message containing your signature to
>the following Internet e-mail address and NOT to me:
>
>              ===========================
>                s314-petition@netcom.com
>              ===========================
>
>4) Within a few days of receipt of your signature, an
>automated acknowledgment will be e-mailed to you for e-mail
>address verification purposes.  You do not need to respond or
>reply to this acknowledgement when you receive it.  We may
>also contact you again in the future should we need more
>information, such as who your House Representative and
>Senators are, which is not asked here as it is unclear
>whether such information is needed.
>
>Thank you for signing this petition!
>
>
>******(4) Credits
>
>The petition statement was written by slowdog
><slowdog@wookie.net>, super.net.freedom.fighter.
>
>The rest of this document mostly collated from the net
>by Dave Hayes, net.freedom.fighter.
>
>Much help came from Jon Noring, INFJ and
>self.proclaimed.net.activist who made a few
>suggestions and will be tallying the signatures.
>
>Thanks to the EFF and CDT for the excellent analysis of
>the bill.
>
>(p.s., send your signature to s314-petition@netcom.com)
>
>
>******(Appendix) Analysis and text of S. 314
>
>[This analysis provided by the Center for Democracy and
>Technology, a non-profit public interest organization.
>CDT's mission is to develop and advocate public policies
>that advance Constitutional civil liberties and democratic
>values in new computer and communications technologies.
>For more information on CDT, ask Jonah Seiger
><jseiger@cdt.org>.]
>
>CDT POLICY POST 2/9/95
>
>SENATOR EXON INTRODUCES ONLINE INDECENCY LEGISLATION
>
>A.  OVERVIEW
>
>Senators Exon (D-NE) and Senator Gorton (R-WA) have
>introduced legislation to expand current FCC regulations
>on obscene and indecent audiotext to cover *all* content
>carried over all forms of electronic communications
>networks.  If enacted, the "Communications Decency Act of
>1995" (S. 314) would place substantial criminal liability
>on telecommunications service providers (including
>telephone networks, commercial online services, the
>Internet, and independent BBS's) if their network is used
>in the transmission of any indecent, lewd, threatening or
>harassing messages.  The legislation is identical to a
>proposal offered by Senator Exon last year which failed
>along with the Senate Telecommunications reform bill (S.
>1822, 103rd Congress, Sections 801 - 804). The text the
>proposed statute, with proposed amendment, is appended at
>the end of this document.
>
>The bill would compel service providers to chose between
>severely restricting the activities of their subscribers
>or completely shutting down their email, Internet access,
>and conferencing services under the threat of criminal
>liability.  Moreover, service providers would be forced to
>closely monitor every private communication, electronic
>mail message, public forum, mailing list, and file archive
>carried by or available on their network, a proposition
>which poses a substantial threat to the freedom of speech
>and privacy rights of all American citizens.
>
>S. 314, if enacted, would represent a tremendous step
>backwards on the path to a free and open National
>Information Infrastructure.  The bill raises fundamental
>questions about the ability of government to control
>content on communications networks, as well as the locus
>of liability for content carried in these new
>communications media.
>
>To address this threat to the First Amendment in digital
>media, CDT is working to organize a broad coalition of
>public interest organizations including the ACLU, People
>For the American Way, and Media Access Project, along with
>representatives from the telecommunications, online
>services, and computer industries to oppose S. 314 and to
>explore alternative policy solutions that preserve the
>free flow of information and freedom of speech in the
>online world.  CDT believes that technological
>alternatives which allow individual subscribers to control
>the content they receive represent a more appropriate
>approach to this issue.
>
>
>B.  SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF S. 314
>
>S. 314 would expand current law restricting indecency and
>harassment on telephone services to all telecommunications
>providers and expand criminal liability to *all* content
>carried by *all* forms of telecommunications networks.
>The bill would amend Section 223 of the Communications Act
>(47 U.S.C. 223), which requires carriers to take steps to
>prevent minors from gaining access to indecent audiotext
>and criminalizes harassment accomplished over interstate
>telephone lines.  This section, commonly known as the
>Helms Amendment (having been championed by Senator Jesse
>Helms), has been the subject of extended Constitutional
>litigation in recent years.
>
>* CARRIERS LIABLE FOR CONDUCT OF ALL USERS ON THEIR
>  NETWORKS
>
>S. 314 would make telecommunication carriers (including
>telephone companies, commercial online services, the
>Internet, and BBS's) liable for every message, file, or
>other content carried on its network -- including the
>private conversations or messages exchanged between two
>consenting individuals.
>
>Under S. 314, anyone who "makes, transmits, or otherwise
>makes available any comment, request, suggestion,
>proposal, image, or other communication" which is
>"obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent" using a
>"telecommunications device" would be subject to a fine of
>$100,000 or two years in prison (Section (2)(a)).
>
>In order to avoid liability under this provision, carriers
>would be forced to pre-screen all messages, files, or
>other content before transmitting it to the intended
>recipient.  Carriers would also be forced to prevent or
>severely restrict their subscribers from communicating
>with individuals and accessing content available on other
>networks.
>
>Electronic communications networks do not contain discrete
>boundaries.  Instead, users of one service can easily
>communicate with and access content available on other
>networks.  Placing the onus, and criminal liability, on
>the carrier as opposed to the originator of the content,
>would make the carrier legally responsible not only for
>the conduct of its own subscribers, but also for content
>generated by subscribers of other services.
>
>This regulatory scheme clearly poses serious threats to
>the free flow of information throughout the online world
>and the free speech and privacy rights of individual
>users.  Forcing carriers to pre-screen content would not
>only be impossible due to the sheer volume of messages, it
>would also violate current legal protections.
>
>* CARRIERS REQUIRED TO ACT AS PRIVATE CENSOR OF ALL
>  PUBLIC FORUMS AND ARCHIVES
>
>S. 314 would also expand current restrictions on access to
>indecent telephone audiotext services by minors under the
>age of 18 to cover similar content carried by
>telecommunications services (such as America Online and
>the Internet).  (Sec (a)(4)).
>
>As amended by this provision, anyone who, "by means of
>telephone or telecommunications device, makes, transmits,
>or otherwise makes available (directly or by recording
>device) any indecent communication for commercial purposes
>which is available to any person under the age of 18 years
>of age or to any other person without that person's
>consent, regardless of whether the maker of such
>communication placed the call or initiated the
>communication" would be subject of a fine of $100,000 or
>two years in prison.
>
>This would force carries to act as private censors of all
>content available in public forums or file archives on
>their networks.  Moreover, because there is no clear
>definition of indecency, carriers would have to restrict
>access to any content that could be possibly construed as
>indecent or obscene under the broadest interpretation of
>the term. Public forums, discussion lists, file archives,
>and content available for commercial purposes would have
>to be meticulously screened and censored in order to avoid
>potential liability for the carrier.
>
>Such a scenario would severely limit the diversity of
>content available on online networks, and limit the
>editorial freedom of independent forum operators.
>
>ADDITIONAL NOTABLE PROVISIONS
>
>* AMENDMENT TO ECPA
>
>Section (6) of the bill would amend the Electronic
>Communications Privacy Act (18 USC 2511) to prevent the
>unauthorized interception and disclosure of "digital
>communications" (Sec. 6).  However, because the term
>"digital communication" is not defined and 18 USC 2511
>currently prevents unauthorized interception and
>disclosure of "electronic communications" (which includes
>electronic mail and other forms of communications in
>digital form), the effect of this provision has no clear
>importance.
>
>* CABLE OPERATORS MAY REFUSE INDECENT PUBLIC ACCESS
>  PROGRAMMING
>
>Finally, section (8) would amend sections 611 and 612 of
>the Communications Act (47 USC 611 - 612) to allow any
>cable operator to refuse to carry any public access or
>leased access programming which contains "obscenity,
>indecency, or nudity".
>
>C.  ALTERNATIVES TO EXON: RECOGNIZE THE UNIQUE USER
>    CONTROL CAPABILITIES OF INTERACTIVE MEDIA
>
>Government regulation of content in the mass media has
>always been considered essential to protect children from
>access to sexually-explicit material, and to prevent
>unwitting listeners/views from being exposed to material
>that might be considered extremely distasteful.  The
>choice to protect children has historically been made at
>the expense of the First Amendment ban on government
>censorship.  As Congress moves to regulate new interactive
>media, it is essential that it understand that interactive
>media is different than mass media.  The power and
>flexibility of interactive media offers a unique
>opportunity to enable parents to control what content
>their kids have access to, and leave the flow of
>information free for those adults who want it.  Government
>control regulation is simply not needed to achieve the
>desired purpose.
>
>Most interactive technology, such as Internet browsers and
>the software used to access online services such as
>America Online and Compuserve, already has the capability
>to limit access to certain types of services and selected
>information.  Moreover, the electronic program guides
>being developed for interactive cable TV networks also
>provide users the capability to screen out certain
>channels or ever certain types of programming.  Moreover,
>in the online world, most content (with the exception of
>private communications initiated by consenting
>individuals) is transmitted by request.  In other words,
>users must seek out the content they receive, whether it
>is by joining a discussion or accessing a file archive.
>By its nature, this technology provides ample control at
>the user level.  Carriers (such as commercial online
>services, Internet service providers) in most cases act
>only as "carriers" of electronic transmissions initiated
>by individual subscribers.
>
>CDT believes that the First Amendment will be better
>served by giving parents and other users the tools to
>select which information they (and their children) should
>have access to.  In the case of criminal content the
>originator of the content, not the carriers, should be
>responsible for their crimes.  And, users (especially
>parents) should be empowered to determine what information
>they and their children have access to.  If all carriers
>of electronic communications are forced restrict content
>in order to avoid criminal liability proposed by S. 314,
>the First Amendment would be threatened and the usefulness
>of digital media for communications and information
>dissemination would be drastically limited.
>
>
>D.  NEXT STEPS
>
>The bill has been introduced and will next move to the
>Senate Commerce Committee, although no Committee action
>has been scheduled.  Last year, a similar proposal by
>Senator Exon was approved by the Senate Commerce committee
>as an amendment to the Senate Telecommunications Bill (S.
>1822, which died at the end of the 103rd Congress).  CDT
>will be working with a wide range of other interest groups
>to assure that Congress does not restrict the free flow of
>information in interactive media.
>
>
>TEXT OF 47 U.S.C. 223 AS AMENDED BY S. 314
>
>**NOTE:         [] = deleted
>                ALL CAPS = additions
>
>47 USC 223 (1992)
>
>Sec. 223.  [Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District
>of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications]
>
>OBSCENE OR HARASSING UTILIZATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS
>DEVICES AND FACILITIES IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OR IN
>INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMUNICATIONS"
>
>   (a) Whoever--
>
>   (1) in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign
>communication by means of [telephone] TELECOMMUNICATIONS
>DEVICE--
>
>   (A) [makes any comment, request, suggestion or proposal]
>MAKES, TRANSMITS, OR OTHERWISE MAKES AVAILABLE ANY COMMENT,REQUEST,
>SUGGESTION, PROPOSAL, IMAGE, OR OTHER COMMUNICATION which is
>obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent;
>
>   [(B) makes a telephone call, whether or not conversation ensues,
>without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse,
>threaten, or harass any person at the called number;]
>
>
>"(B) MAKES A TELEPHONE CALL OR UTILIZES A TELECOMMUNICATIONS
>DEVICE, WHETHER OR NOT CONVERSATION OR COMMUNICATIONS
>ENSUES,WITHOUT DISCLOSING HIS IDENTITY AND WITH INTENT TO ANNOY,
>ABUSE, THREATEN, OR HARASS ANY PERSON AT THE CALLED NUMBER OR WHO
>RECEIVES THE COMMUNICATION;
>
>
>   (C) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or
>continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person at the
>called number; or
>
>   [(D) makes repeated telephone calls, during which conversation
>ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number; or]
>
>(D) MAKES REPEATED TELEPHONE CALLS OR REPEATEDLY INITIATES
>COMMUNICATION WITH A TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICE, DURING WHICH
>CONVERSATION OR COMMUNICATION ENSUES, SOLELY TO HARASS ANY PERSON
>AT THE CALLED NUMBER OR WHO RECEIVES THE COMMUNICATION,
>
>   (2) knowingly permits any [telephone facility]
>TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY under his control to be used
>for any purpose prohibited by this section, shall be fined not more
>than $[50,000]100,000 or imprisoned  not more than [six months] TWO
>YEARS, or both.
>
>   (b)(1) Whoever knowingly--
>
>   (A) within the United States, by means of [telephone]
>TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICCE, makes (directly or by recording device)
>any obscene communication for commercial purposes to any person,
>regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the
>call or INITIATED THE COMMUNICATION; or
>
>  (B) permits any [telephone facility] TELECOMMUNICATIONS
>FACILITY under such person's control to be used for an activity
>prohibited by subparagraph (A), shall be fined in accordance with
>title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than two
>years, or both.
>
>   (2) Whoever knowingly--
>
>   (A) within the United States, [by means of telephone],
>makes BY MEANS OF TELEPHONE OR TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICE, MAKES,
>TRANSMITS, OR MAKES AVAILABLE(directly or by recording device) any
>indecent communication for commercial purposes which is available
>to any person under 18 years of age or to any other person without
>that person's consent, regardless of whether the maker of such
>communication placed the call OR INITIATED THE COMMUNICATION; or
>
>
>   (B) permits any [telephone facility] TELECOMMUNICATIONS
>FACILITY under such person's control to be used for an activity
>prohibited by subparagraph (A), shall be fined not more than
>$[50,000] 100,000 or imprisoned not more than [six months]
>TWO YEARS, or both.
>
>
>   (3) It is a defense to prosecution under paragraph (2) of this
>subsection that the defendant restrict access to the prohibited
>communication to persons 18 years of age or older in accordance
>with subsection (c) of this section and with such procedures as the
>Commission may prescribe by regulation.
>
>   (4) In addition to the penalties under paragraph (1), whoever,
>within the United States, intentionally violates paragraph
>(1) or (2) shall be subject to a fine of not more than $[50,000]
>100,000 for each violation. For purposes of this paragraph, each
>day of violation shall constitute a separate violation.
>
>   (5)(A) In addition to the penalties under paragraphs (1), (2),
>and (5), whoever, within the United States, violates paragraph (1)
>or (2) shall be subject to a civil fine of not more than $[50,000]
>100,000 for each violation. For purposes of this paragraph, each
>day of violation shall constitute a separate violation.
>
>   (B) A fine under this paragraph may be assessed either--
>
>   (i) by a court, pursuant to civil action by the Commission or
>any attorney employed by the Commission who is designated by the
>Commission for such purposes, or
>
>   (ii) by the Commission after appropriate administrative
>proceedings.
>
>   (6) The Attorney General may bring a suit in the appropriate
>district court of the United States to enjoin any act or practice
>which violates paragraph (1) or (2). An injunction may be granted
>in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
>
>   (c)(1) A common carrier within the District of Columbia or
>within any State, or in interstate or foreign commerce, shall not,
>to the extent technically feasible, provide access to a
>communication specified in subsection (b) from the
>telephone of any subscriber who has not previously requested in
>writing the carrier to provide access to such communication if the
>carrier collects from subscribers an identifiable charge for such
>communication that the carrier remits, in whole or in part, to the
>provider of such communication.
>
>   (2) Except as provided in paragraph (3), no cause of action may
>be brought in any court or administrative agency against any common
>carrier, or any of its affiliates, including their officers,
>directors, employees, agents, or authorized representatives on
>account of--
>
>   (A) any action which the carrier demonstrates was taken in good
>faith to restrict access pursuant to paragraph (1) of this
>subsection; or
>
>   (B) any access permitted--
>
>   (i) in good faith reliance upon the lack of any representation
>by a provider of communications that communications provided by
>that provider are communications specified in subsection (b), or
>
>   (ii) because a specific representation by the provider did not
>allow the carrier, acting in good faith, a sufficient period to
>restrict access to communications described in subsection (b).
>
>   (3) Notwithstanding paragraph (2) of this subsection, a provider
>of communications services to which subscribers are denied access
>pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection may bring an action
>for a declaratory judgment or similar action in a court. Any such
>action shall be limited to the question of whether the
>communications which the provider seeks to provide fall within
>the category of communications to which the carrier will provide
>access only to subscribers who have previously requested such
>access.
>
>*********************************************
>
>NOTE: This version of the text shows the actual text of current law as
>it would be changed.  For the bill itself, which consists of unreadable
>text such as:
>
>[...]
>             (1) in subsection (a)(1)--
>                    (A) by striking out `telephone' in the matter above
>                  subparagraph (A) and inserting `telecommunications 
device';
>                    (B) by striking out `makes any comment, request,
>                  suggestion, or proposal' in subparagraph (A) and 
inserting
>                  `makes, transmits, or otherwise makes available any
>                  comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or 
other
>                  communication';
>                    (C) by striking out subparagraph (B) and inserting 
the
>                  following:
>                    `(B) makes a telephone call or utilizes a
>[...]
>
>See:
>
>ftp.eff.org, /pub/EFF/Legislation/Bills_new/s314.bill
>gopher.eff.org, 1/EFF/Legislation/Bills_new, s314.bill
>http://www.eff.org/pub/EFF/Legislation/Bills_new/s314.bill
>
>
>
>
>
>
>- dog
>  http://www.phantom.com/~slowdog
>  Stop the Communications Decency Act!
>
>--
>Mandar Mirashi,             | Std. Disclaimer: All opinions expressed
>Systems Support Programmer, |   belong solely to myself and in no
>Engineering Computer Network|   way reflect those of my employers.
>University of Oklahoma (OU).| mandar@uoknor.edu, Mmmm@undernet.org
>
>
>
>
>-- 
>--------------------------------------------------------  /\  --------- 
--- - 
>Dave Spencer - dspencer@galaxy.calpoly.edu         ___---/  \--___ 
>Computer Science Student, Cal Poly SLO          ~~~ PINK/ ~- \~-====__ 
>ObGreenCardFlame - Canter & Siegel Go Home!      FLOYD  ~~~~~~   ~~=== 
>
>
>matt.....
>__
>--  TWz   i n d u s t r i e s   '95
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-- 
>                         
>      PHL      
>               
>        .         .        
>
>
>-- 
>Duncan R. MacMillan
>


cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenaki cudfnAkira cudlnKawasaki cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.24 / Dieter Britz /  Update, 5 more Maui papers
     
Originally-From: britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Update, 5 more Maui papers
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 16:01:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Starry droogs,

I have been rationing out these Maui papers to myself, one a night, so here
is this week's crop. With this, we have topped the 1000 mark, and you can
either celebrate or mourn this fact, as you like. 
If you are a TB and want to jump on something, jump on the Johnson paper,
a good example of impressive argument missing the point and a non-sequitur.
I believe he has previously argued that tetrahedral occupancy would lead to
fusion; now he argues that it leads to conventional heat release. Whatever
is the cause of 'excess heat', it is not this. Ah well.
I hope I have not misread any of these 5 papers...

#     
Iida T, Fukuhara M, Sunarno, Miyamaru H, Takahashi A;
Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 380.
"Deuteron fusion experiment with Ti and Pd foils implanted with deuteron
beams II".
** Experimental, ion beam not turned off, cp, Ti, Pd foil, blocking layer, res+
Based on the theory that cnf is a three-body reaction, the team carried out
an deuteron ion beam experiment in vacuum, targeting Ti or Pd foils. A charged
particle (cp) detector (Si-SSD) was placed behind the target. Beam energies of
300 keV at 2-10 uA were used. The foils were charged up by the beam and then
some were coated with a 100 nm layer of Al, which was oxidised in air, to trap
the deuterium, in order to enhance fusion. Some unusual energy spectra were
observed, and explained as arising from the three-body fusion reaction,
3D --> 4He(7.9MeV) + D(15.9MeV). More work is needed to confirm this.
#...................................................................... Feb-95
Iwamura Y, Itoh T, Toyoda I;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 160.
"Observation of anomalous nuclear effects in D2-Pd system".
** Experimental, Pd, gas phase, blocking layers, temperature cycling,
** neutrons, gamma, tritium, cp, res+
A gas phase experiment, loading Pd plates (25*25*1 mm^3) to D/Pd = 0.66 (by
weight). Au or Al was then deposited on both plate surfaces to trap the D
within. These samples were put into a vacuum chamber and heated. Neutrons,
gammas and cps were detected (not much detail given); tritium was detected by
mass spectrometry. Upon heating in the vacuum chamber, the pressure increased
greatly at 400 K, then later decreased again; simultaneously with the pressure
peak there were neutron and tritium events. Some cps were found but no gammas.
Reproducibility was poor, more work is needed.
#...................................................................... Feb-95
Johnson KH;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 427.
"Jahn-Teller symmetry breaking and hydrogen energy in gamma-PdD 'cold fusion'
as storage of the 'latent heat' of water".
** Simple-minded theory, atomic hydrogen, superconductivity connection,
** res-, no FPH/Jones ref.
Johnson has previously calculated expected d-d fusion rates in PdD, arriving
at rather small values. Here, he applies Jahn-Teller theory to the PdD lattice
and finds that at high D/Pd ratios, some tetrahedral sites are occupied. Then
deuterons pair up to form dideuterium, D2. This, says Johnson (incorrectly)
releases 9.5 eV, and is equivalent to the evaporation of a large amount of
D2O. The theory then focusses on this evaporation process, and the author
believes that 'cold fusion' is an artifact, being in reality the formation of
dideuterium from its atoms; this explains excess heat, says Johnson. The theory
is connected with that of superconductivity.
#...................................................................... Feb-95
Jones SE, Jones DE, Shelton DS, Taylor SF;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 143.
"Search for neutron, gamma and x-ray emissions from Pd/LiOD electrolytic
cells: A null result".
** Experimental, neutrons, gamma, x-ray, res-.
The Jones lab's last attempt to wring nuclear signals from a cold fusion cell.
They used 6mm and 4mm diameter Pd rods, and somewhat small currents of 40 and
80 mA. "Boron" and "aluminum" were added to the electrolyte at 1 mM to aid the
uptake of deuterium by the Pd cathode.  The nuclear emissions detection
appears to be state of the art; the neutron detector was in 4 quadrants of 4
3He tubes plus plastic scintillators and veto counters; this easily rejected
spurious firings due to noise or cosmic influx (these were found). Gamma
events were searched for post-factum on the Pd rods at LANL, by looking for
radioactive isotopes of Pd, Rh, Ru and Ag; as well, a Ge detector was used
there. A sensitive x-ray spectrometer looked for x-rays. None of these
emissions was found significantly above (very low) background noise. In this
paper, the authors publically retract the previous results of Jones et al '89.
#...................................................................... Feb-95
Kim YE, Yoon J-H, Zubarev AL, Rabinowitz M;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 408.
"Reaction barrier transparency for cold fusion with deuterium and hydrogen".
** Theory, WKB, barrier transparency, no FPH/Jones refs, res+
This extends the Kim-Zubarev parametrization of low-energy fusion cross
sections from known high-energy results. The theory involves the Schroedinger
equation, the WKB approximation and Breit-Wigner resonance formula; the
resulting RBT (reaction barrier transparency) is a refinement of the simple
Gamow factor, and does allow Jones-level cold fusion. The theory is also
consistent with recent Russian results of neutron bursts from high Tc
superconducting materials undergoing phase transitions. (There is no reference
to FPH or Jones, as such, but Jones is mentioned in the text).
#...................................................................... Feb-95



How to retrieve the archived biblio files:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
1. By ftp from vm1.nodak.edu; log in as anonymous, giving your email
   address as password. Then cd to fusion. There are many files here, so
   do not use dir; if you are after the biblio files only, try
   dir fusion.cnf-*
   and then get or mget what you want.
2. Send an email to listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, blank subject and the message
   get fusion.<whatever you want>. To find out what there is, send
   index fusion
   This gets you an email with the directory of all files there, with which
   you can also match Fusion Digest numbers with file names, before getting
   those files. The index, or files you ask for, will be emailed to you.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.24 / Geoff Maddison /  Plasma Physics Summer School
     
Originally-From: geoff.maddison@aea.orgn.uk (Geoff Maddison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Plasma Physics Summer School
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 16:34:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway



      T H E   3 2 n d   C U L H A M   P L A S M A   P H Y S I C S
      ###########################################################

                       S U M M E R   S C H O O L
                       #########################

                   1 0   -   2 1   J U L Y   1 9 9 5

  C u l h a m   S c i e n c e   &   T e c h n o l o g y   C e n t r e,

             A b i n g d o n,   O x f o r d s h i r e,   U K

                 ( EURATOM/UKAEA  Fusion  Association )

 An International Summer School intended  for students near the  start
 of postgraduate courses.  No previous knowledge of plasma physics  is
 assumed.  Since 1985,  the Summer School series  has been attended by
 over 600 students from 48 countries, more than two thirds coming from
 outside the UK.

 Culham is  the joint Euratom/UK centre for plasma physics and nuclear
 fusion research; it  is  located close  to  the  city  of Oxford, and
 shares  a  site with  the world's largest magnetic fusion experiment,
 the  Joint  European  Torus   (JET).


               The School covers a broad curriculum :-

 * Plasma particle dynamics   * Plasma waves  * Kinetic theory   * MHD
 * Computational techniques    * Laser plasmas    * Turbulence & chaos
 * Magnetically confined plasmas    * Solar plasmas   * Poster session
 * Space plasmas   * Laboratory visits  * Diagnostics   * Reconnection

 A copy of the course textbook "Plasma Physics: An Introductory Course"
 (Cambridge University Press, 1993)  is given to each student.


 ACCOMMODATION  WILL BE IN  A  HISTORIC COLLEGE  OF OXFORD UNIVERSITY.


            CLOSING DATE FOR APPLICATIONS :  12th MAY 1995

   (Late applications may be accepted, depending on accommodation.)


 Further details / application forms are available from :-

      Mrs Joan Stimson,
      Summer School,
      UKAEA Culham,
      Abingdon,
      Oxfordshire  OX14 3DB,                       Tel: 44 1235 463293
      UK.                                          FAX: 44 1235 463288

 or e-MAIL enquiries to :-                   joan.stimson@ukaea.org.uk
                     or                    geoff.maddison@ukaea.org.uk

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmaddison cudfnGeoff cudlnMaddison cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.23 / John Logajan /  Putting two and two together
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Putting two and two together
Date: 23 Feb 1995 02:20:18 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

We've heard much of the means to generate sonoluminence and cavitation by
ultrasound and mechanical stirrers.

We've also heard about Dr. Peter Graneau's high-voltage underwater spark
driven shockwaves, and now in "Cold Fusion" #7, the (expired) patent
of Wurmbrand and Doane (#3,669,056) in which they also use high voltage
underwater sparks to generate shockwaves as a means of boat propulsion.

Putting two and two together, one could drive a high power shockwave
with an underwater spark and focus the wavefront as in the sonoluminences
and caviation type experiments.

Wurmbrand and Doane claim that the shockwave power can exceed 100 megawatts!
Graneau claims 20,000 atmospheres of pressure.  My own (accidental)
experiment with underwater sparking cracked a plastic pill bottle.


Also, something I didn't get to in "Cold Fusion" #6, Chubb and Chubb
cite the 21 Nov (94?) Physical Review Letters, p. 2853, "Transient,
High-Pressure Solidification Associated with Cavitation in Water" by
Hickling.  Hickling suggests that 50,000 atm pressures are exceeded for
about 10^-9 seconds, giving rise to "ice VII" a high density form of ice.
[After 1980's movie, Flash Gordon, maybe we can call this "hot hail." :-) ]

--
 - 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:
cuddy23 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.24 / Richard Blue /  What does Griggs Know?
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What does Griggs Know?
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 17:45:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Slowly we are zeroing in on what the evidence is that might support
a claim the Griggs device has demonstrated over-unity performance.
Firstly it seems that neither James Griggs nor his customers have
data beyond that based on steam tables.  The problem with that is
that the GG doesn't output steam.

We then come to Jed Rothwell's barrel calorimetry.  I think Barry
Merryman's analysis of the energy storage problem is right on target.
If that is not enough to leave some doubt in your mind, just read
what Jed Rothwell himself has to say as to how difficult it is to
make the required measurements without getting scalded.  His method
clearly has its limitations.

Finally, to make my contribution to the confusion regarding the
dynamometer, let me summarize what I think we have been told about
the Eaton device.  My understanding is that the Eaton torque transducer
is something installed like a shaft coupling between the drive motor and the
driven device.  I concluded that this coupling unit must be instrumented with
a strain gage bridge to sense the torque transmitted.

Now the hard part!  How is a strain gage mounted on a rotating shaft excited
and readout?  I suppose there could be a slipring assembly of some sort, but
I think I had seen in Jed's description something about a transformer.  This
left me with the impression that the Eaton device excites and reads the
torque sensing bridge via a transformer in which one winding rotates with the
shaft and one is stationary in a housing that surrounds the shaft.

If I am correct up to this point it should be clear that the frequency response
of the sensing circuit is purposely very highly filtered.  One would not expect
to need much bandwidth in this application, and signal-to-noise ratio is
probably hard to get.  However, should there be high power ultrasonic
oscillations reaching the transducer I wouldn't want to bet as to how it would
respond.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.24 / Bart Simon /  ICCF-5
     
Originally-From: bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu (Bart Simon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ICCF-5
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 17:57:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Greetings,

Is anybody on this list going to Monte Carlo in April?  I'm
wondering if anyone has found a cheap solution to the problem of
where to sleep (I believe the hotel is almost triple the price of
the place in Maui).  I'm thinking finding a hotel or B&B room in
Nice and commuting to the conference must be cheaper - but is this
feasible?

cheers,
Bart Simon



 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bart Simon                   |   e-mail: bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu      
Science Studies Program      |   phone: (619) 534-8063
UC, San Diego                |   fax:   (619) 534-3388
9500 Gilman Dr.              |
La Jolla, CA                 |***************************************
92093-0102                   |
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenbssimon cudfnBart cudlnSimon cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.21 / Ad aspera /  Re: Re JET Labs fusion stuff
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Re JET Labs fusion stuff
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 11:47:27 -0800
Organization: Purely personal 'pinions

m.kenward@bbcnc.org.uk (Michael Kenward) wrote:

> We pinned out hopes on ITER as the follow up. Now we see
> that the US is up to its usual tricks, talking of building 
> an interim machine on its own and running the risk that we 
> will be left out. (This is reminiscent of other 'collaboration' 
> projects, where the rest of the world is expected to fit in 
> with the US's plans.) 

"There you go again!"
 -R. Reagan, ca. 1979

Besides possibly drawing conclusions about the US from a
small anecdotal data set as other people have pointed out,
you're ascribing *far* too much intentionality and self-
consistency to our actions.  The Congress contains the full
spectrum of possible opinions on ITER.  Some politicians 
think it's a boondoggle; some think it doesn't doggle enough 
boons in their districts; some are wholeheartedly in favor 
of it.  About all they have in common is that far too few 
pay much routine attention to the Department of Energy at all.

Energy research sometimes attracts attention as a supposed
waste of money, but it's a molehill in an obscure corner of
the vast estate of Federal spending.  Only when some large
project (or its price tag) captures the public imagination,
or when two oil exporting countries start getting nostalgic
for the 1970s, does it really come up outside the committees
that attend to it.  

Nor has the US fusion community ever uniformly and cooperatively 
viewed ITER as the best machine to build, nor that it would
be a good idea to build only one machine.  There honestly were
people who thought we could and should build ITER *and* a new,
more specialized machine, probably at Princeton.  "If wishes
were dollars..."  And considering the long lead time of such a
project, they'd be fools *not* to have something up their sleeve
in case ITER were shot down.  Ironically, the SSC debacle has
intensified rather than diminished this feeling.  Don't put all
your Prisoner's Dilemmas in one basket, or something like that.

I might add that it is disingenuous in the extreme to say that
ours is the only political subtext of ITER.  Each of the 
partners, or constituents thereof, has gone to war against at
at least two of the others in living memory.  Even assuming 
that we've figured out how to get along at that level, it will
be a very good trick to get all those countries, with all their
vested interests at home, their lingering grudges against each
other, and their differing and always-changing levels of
economic vitality, to pay for an expensive joint project that
has to be built in one (1) location.

IMHO,
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:
cuddy21 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.23 / Harry Conover /  Re: Concerning Joe Champion
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Concerning Joe Champion
Date: 23 Feb 1995 04:11:05 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Jollie MM (jolliemm@aol.com) wrote:
: I posted a few days ago a message concerning Joe Champion's book about
: transmutation and suggested that he had defrauded Bockris and Keller.  I
: take back that unfortunately remark.  I was relying on information from
: others which appears to be inaccurate.  People who I have great respect
: for and are in a position to know,  believe that Champion has not
: defrauded anyone.

Are you being serious, or is this a cruel joke at the expenense of our 'New 
Agers?'

                                      Harry C.

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.22 / Jollie MM /  Re: Concerning Joe Champion
     
Originally-From: jolliemm@aol.com (Jollie MM)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Concerning Joe Champion
Date: 22 Feb 1995 23:18:52 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

   Don't know about 'impossible'.  I alter the structure of 
     matter using 'low-energy chemistry' every time I eat pork and beans.

                               dale bass

cute but no cigar.  you know what I intend: the elemental structure of an
atom.
A Friend...
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjolliemm cudfnJollie cudlnMM cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.21 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 95 12:07:11 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk> writes:
 
>.... In fact, this one statement from Huffman is one more than the number of
>statements here in this group, from Griggs. I have not seen, anywhere, what
>Griggs himself claims; could it be he himself claims only that he has a damned
>good heater of water? We have not heard from the man. I am indeed willing to
 
No, it could not be. The reason you have not seen any claims is because
you refuse to look. Griggs published in ICCF4, Vol. 4, paper # 43.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.22 / Ad aspera /  FY96 DOE fusion budget
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FY96 DOE fusion budget
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 12:44:33 -0800
Organization: Purely personal 'pinions

Okay; enough of polemics on whether the USAmericans are trying
to back out of ITER and build their own project instead.  Here's 
selected language and numbers from "FY96 Budget Highlights," handed 
around by the Secretary of Energy and her Chief Financial Officer.  
The numbers refer to the Congressional budget request for FY96, not 
to appropriated or authorized money.  The words are DOE's; the 
selection and any emphasis or commentary is mine.

This presentation does not give details below the Office level
(e.g., individual projects within Office of Fusion Energy).

     Fusion: The Next Steps
     Evidence continues to mount that the next generation 
     U.S. experiment, the Tokamak Physics Experiment (TPX), 
     will result in an optimized design for a fusion-powered 
     plant [sic], and that the International Thermonuclear 
     Experimental Reactor (ITER) will demonstrate the 
     scientific and engineering feasibility of fusion power.  
     Our FY 1996 budget for fusion funds the start of TPX 
     construction and continues U.S. partnership in ITER. [p. 8]

     Four essential elements of the fusion plan are all 
     supported by the FY 1996 budget. {...} The second element 
     is U.S. participation in the engineering design phase of 
     ITER. The third element is to construct an experimental 
     facility to explore the physics of improved power plant 
     concepts...TPX. Funds are included for TPX construction 
     in FY 1996, pending review and recommendations by the 
     President's Council of Advisors on Science and
     Technology. {...} [p. 72]

Now, you can argue (as many people will) about what's between the 
lines, and about the divergence between the verbal commitment
to fusion R&D and the budgetary decline from $368M in the FY 1995
appropriation to $366k in the FY 1996 request (from which you
must further subtract the erosive effect of inflation).  You can
also argue whether a Congress that has just had a great deal of
turnover, which took it in a radically different and much more
tight-pursed ideological direction, will support these ambitions.
You can even argue whether the Congress will be born anew in 1998
to a significant degree -- and from there start examining the 
difficulty of conducting projects that span several 2-year House
terms, 4-year Presidencies, and even 6-year Senate terms in a 
governmental system that might seem to make multiyear commitments
but cannot be held to them. All I can say for sure right now is that 
the latest document of record from the agency that sponsors such 
things portrays TPX as existing alongside ITER, not instead of it.

Cheers and alarums,
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:
cuddy22 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.21 / Tom Droege /  Re: purely scientific investigation of cold fusion
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: purely scientific investigation of cold fusion
Date: 21 Feb 1995 18:37:52 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3i2qsb$93q@boris.eden.com>, little@eden.com (Scott Little) says:
>
>I am interested in contributing to the development of cold fusion.
(snip)

>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).
>

Looks like Scott also has no offers.  I remind all that Peter Hagelstein
took me around to all the principals at Maui and tried to talk them into
sending me a cell.  They didn't take me up on my offer, I doubt that they
will take Scott up on his offer.  

>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.

But Scott, a month is too short.  Read the P&F patent.  Some of their 
runs took of order 100 days to produce a result.  So plan to spend a 
much longer time testing.  The probability of something going wrong in
a 100 day run are very large.  Particularly if you are working with new
stuff like hot caustic solutions.  Takes a few runs before you learn how
to protect everything so it does not fail.  Then there is the problem 
ou uninterrupted power for the whole run.  Seems to me if you take the 
power off even once, then the Pd will unload.  Now maybe that kills the
experiment - maybe it helps to turn the power on and off.  Who knows.  
>
>Interested parties should eMail me or call me at 512-346-3848.
>

Please, someone give Scott a shot at a cell.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.23 /  Hawkins /  Re: Concerning Joe Champion
     
Originally-From: ghawk@eskimo.com (Hawkins)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Concerning Joe Champion
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 09:01:47 GMT
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever

In article <3ih1sp$qr1@sundog.tiac.net>, conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) says:
>
>Jollie MM (jolliemm@aol.com) wrote:
>: I posted a few days ago a message concerning Joe Champion's book about
>: transmutation and suggested that he had defrauded Bockris and Keller.  I
>: take back that unfortunately remark.  I was relying on information from
>: others which appears to be inaccurate.  People who I have great respect
>: for and are in a position to know,  believe that Champion has not
>: defrauded anyone.
>
>Are you being serious, or is this a cruel joke at the expenense of our 'New 
>Agers?'
>
>                                      Harry C.
>
He's serious.  Had to do with high voltage, both AC and DC.
-GH
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenghawk cudlnHawkins cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.23 / Barry Merriman /  Question for Griggs
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Question for Griggs
Date: 23 Feb 1995 06:08:42 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

Tom:

since it seems that stored heat is a likely possibility, 
you should pay particular attention to how much heat gets
stored in the rotor and housing before the over unity
demostration begins (assuming griggs will demonstrate 
an over unity mode for you).

I know you don't plan to do any measurements yourself,
but perhaps you could break that rule a bit: how about 
taking along suitable thermometer(s) to measure the 
temperature of the steam coming out during the over unity 
mode, and the temperature of the housing (and if accessible,
rotor) before the over unity mode starts. Potential fairly
trivial rough measurements could indicate whether stored
heat could possibly be a factor. (Plus, thermometers are
small enough to not be a hassle to take with you/deploy).



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


cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.24 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: 24 Feb 1995 01:02:37 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3iii9b$ik5@news1.radix.net> jhd@radix.net (Joseph Davidson) writes:
> The main arguement against fusion (at least the hot-fusion tokamac variety)
> is that it is too expensive.  Even the most wild-eyed optimistic projections
> of fusion costs do not have it competitive against the present cost of 
> wind and solar.
> 

That is not true. The extimated COE is about the same, and COE itself
is only ~10% of the cost to consumers, so its really 
not accurate to say they don't compete.

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


cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.24 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 95 00:21:51 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> writes:
 
>That is not true. The extimated COE is about the same, and COE itself
>is only ~10% of the cost to consumers, so its really 
>not accurate to say they don't compete.
 
You are wrong. The ARIES Los Alamos report (that I cited several times)
shows that conventional Tokamak designs could never be economical. They
cannot even be made close to economical, it is completely out of the
question.
 
I do not understand the technical details of that report, but the economic
and simple engineering conclusions are very clearly expressed, and there
is no question what they add up to. Selling power from a Tokamak in the
year 2050 would be an absurdly uneconomical proposition. You might just as
well consider setting up 10 million squirrel cages and try selling
hamster generated power. That is not such a far fetched comparison; one of
the big problems with Tokamaks is the fact that the power density is so
low, as Paul Koloc often explains. There are DOZENS of other fatal problems
with the idea. It is engineering nightmare that will never, ever become
workable. It reminds me of these orbiting space power schemes. A marvelous
idea, if we just had reliable spacecraft that cost two or three orders of
magnitude less money to operate than the Shuttle. Since we do not have them,
and there is no immediate prospect of getting them in the next 20 years,
it is a complete waste of time to talk about space power.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.21 /  slsm4@cc.usu.e /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: slsm4@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: 21 Feb 95 21:27:07 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <Zi9acxG.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> <slsm4@cc.usu.edu> writes:
>  
>>	I am preparing to participate in a debate.  I will argue against 
>>fusion, in favor of solar, geothermal, wind, and (sigh) coal.  I need opposing
>  
> Do you mean conventional, hot fusion or cold fusion?
>  
> - Jed


	Actually I guess I need to argue against ALL Nuclear power.  How does
solar, etc.  add up against fission?
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenslsm4 cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.22 / mitchell swartz /  Survey and Info on Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Survey and Info on Cold Fusion
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 05:38:15 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  
  ****    ANNOUNCEMENT:  UPDATE & STATUS OF COLD FUSION   ****
   ***       and a Survey of Attitudes to Cold Fusion     ***

  In March 1989 electrochemically-induced nuclear fusion reactions
were reported.  These were initially very difficult to reproduce.  
Drs. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons initially underemphasized 
that the reactions and materials are very  difficult-to-prepare.
Much early effort has focused upon  the use of alloys, additives, 
and other techniques. 

   By 1995 many experiments demonstrated that anomalous
processes occur in  some palladium samples which have been highly
loaded with deuterium,  as well as other systems.  Although these
began using heavy-water electrolysis with palladium cathodes and 
lithium salts, these methods now include light-water electrolysis 
with nickel cathodes and alkali-metal carbonate and other solutions,
molten salt electrolysis with palladium as the anode, gas-plasma
discharge devices incorporating palladium target cathodes, and
other techniques.

  There have been quite a few flames and misinformation about cold fusion
here.  All perhaps too much emphasis on reactions that have not been
demonstrated to be of these types of reactions.
    But there are other sources of information. 

   The following survey is made to determine if anyone is actually
following any of the literature.
Any and all replies to the survey are welcome..   

  To help increase the response to the survey an offer is made
to those that assist  in this research.
Because of the growing interest in the field, and to celebrate the massive
skepticism here, and to celebrate the six (6th) anniversary of
the field, and to try to get more response to this survey
COLD FUSION TIMES will offer several issues 
at substantial discount.

  Thanks in advance to those that help with the survey.
  Info on the survey will be posted anon.

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

========== Following sections ======
I.  Survey on Cold Fusion
II. Offer to those who complete survey
=====================================
======== The Survey on Cold Fusion ========================
  Your answers to the survey below are requested.
Name and e-mail address OPTIONAL but necessary for survey report info; 
snail-mail address may receive the offer below, or other possible updates.

1) field/background:   chemistry (  )   engineering (  )   fusion (  )
mathematics (  )   metallurgy and material science (  )  Physics (  ) 
Student (  )  Don't Know (  ) irrelevant (  ) 
other _____________________________

2)  Have you followed the literature on cold fusion?  yes(  ) no(  )
   which journals? 
Cold Fusion Times ( )  "Cold Fusion"  ( ) Electrochimica Acta ( )
Fusion Facts ( ) Fusion Technology ( )  J. Fusion energy ( ) 
J. Electroanal. Chem ( ) J. Less-Common Metals ( ) Phys Rev. B ( ) 
Physics Letters A ( ) Popular Science ( ) Technology Review ( ) 
other _____________________________________

3) Have you read any books on cold fusion?    yes  (  )   no  (  )
If yes, which authors:   
Close( )    Fox(  )    Huzeinga( )  ICCF proceedings(any)( )  
Mallove(  ) Mills( )   NCFI Final Report(  )          Peat( )
Taubes ( )  US Committee on Science, Space, Tech (5/5/93) ( ) 
other _____________________________________

4) Do you think fusion -any type- will succeed on a practical
basis within 10 years?  yes(  )   no(  )  
4-1)     within 25 years?  yes(  )   no(  )
4-2)     within 100 years?  yes(  )   no(  )
4-3)   Which type?  hot(  )    cold(  )   muon(  )  none (  )

5)  Will hot fusion ever be practical?    yes(  )   no(   )
      obviously not(  )    maybe(  )    don't know(  )

6) Do you think cold fusion has been successful? 
 yes(  )   no(   )  obviously not(  )    maybe(  ) 
 yes but not in 1989(  )       don't know(  )

7) If #6 is negative, why is there continued interest
 in cold fusion?
 _____________________________________

8) 7) If #6 is positive, why do you think cold fusion has 
taken/is taking so long to develop?
It does not exist(  )  Negative replication attempts have been poor quality(  )
New phenomena take a long time to replicate(  )   don't know(  ) 
Active materials are rare (  )   It is difficult to attain the loading(  )
Many negative experiments looked only for neutrons(  )
Industrial Secrecy(  )     Other _______________________________

9)  Do you do research in the field of cold fusion? yes( ) no( )
    Would like to ( )    Expect to in the next year (  )
     Did and stopped (  )     Other   _____________________ 
or related field? _____________________________________

10.  Other Comments or suggestions for future survey:
        _____________________________________
   

                thank you
================= end of survey on cold fusion ================

=====================================================
II.   --  SPECIAL OFFER for those colleagues who help
with the Short CF Survey  -- 

  On the 4th Anniversary of the Cold Fusion announcement,
a new periodical devoted to this field was launched.  
The COLD FUSION TIMES (ISSN#1072-2874) is entirely dedicated 
to novel research and developments in the field.
On the 7th Anniversary, this short survey and offer are
launched to determine the location of the pendulum in this field.

 Up to four of the back and one present issues are available
for scholars and serious and interested members of this group 
seeking more information.  Those who want more information on 
cold fusion, on the phenomena, and technologies may reply
with either a snail-mail order to the address posted below 
this brief review. The survey can be either included with the
 snail-mail or e-mail for convenience      :-)

Partial contents of the back issues available:
 Vol. 1, number 1 -- additives including aluminum, Dr. Peter 
Hagelstein's review of ICCF-3, earliest one hundred patents and
 the major corporations which have pursued them

 Vol. 1, number 2 -- Dr. Edmund Storms, Dr. Melvin Miles helium
production with excess heat, Arthur C. Clarke  on cold fusion  

 Vol. 1, number 3 -- update by Drs. Fleischmann and Pons, surveys
of the field from parallax views in both Japan and England,  a review 
of platinum group metals in the asteroid  belt, and even an overview 
of the subject by Dr. Eugene Mallove.  

 Vol. 1, number 4 -- Pd-Rh Cathodes in Fuel Cells, Proton Conducting CF
Electrolytes, RF Activation of Cold Fusion, Sonic Induced Cold Fusion,
SrCeO3-Type Proton Conductors, Absorption of Pd, Rh, Pd-Ag, details on UK
Cold Fusion Patent, Glow Discharge experiments, NAVY Helium-4
experiments, Jahn Teller Symmetry,  Light Water Experiments,
ICCF-4 Summaries, business developments

 Volume 2, number 1 --  Tips on materials and factors effecting cold
fusion, helium 4 reactions, cold fusion heats up, challenge to skeptics
Volume 3 number 1 of the COLD FUSION TIMES includes Discussions of
political changes in Washington, of changes in the field, of ICCF-4
(and 5),  proton semiconductors, material preparation,  helium data,
and several Sources of even more information. 

     =====================================================
However, anyone answering the CF survey [above], and returning it by
snail mail to
        COLD FUSION TIMES    
        Dept. Survey
        P.O. Box 81135
        Wellesley Hills, Massachusetts  02181

may request one of the following for their appreciated help with
this survey.  
    1)  volume #3, number #1  - $10   
or 2)  $30 for five (5) issues to celebrate the six (6th) anniversary of
       the field.
     Vol. 3 number 1 and four back issues (Volumes 1 number 2, 3, 4 and 
      Volume 2, number 1) for a savings of ~86%!  *
      [*please, if outside US.  +$5.00S+H , and only US funds]
===============================================
  Thanks to all those who help with the survey.

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.21 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets!
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets!
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 23:09:46 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <hg84UrC.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>Cameron Randale Bass <crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> writes:
> 
>>     No, fool, I told you that no computer manufacturer would set 
>>     up an escrow account you 'demanded' for a measly $10,000 purchase.  
>>
>>     Why don't you call up Gateway and see if you can get them to 
>>     set up an escrow account for a single machine.
> 
>This is such ENDLESS chaotic crap!!! I can't believe how confused you can
>get about a simple business proceedure. First of all, as I plainly stated,
>there is no need to set up an escrow account with Gateway and Dell because
>they are big companies and they can easily afford to honor their written,
>advertised no questions asked money back guarantees. As I said, you only need
>an escrow when dealing with an itty bitty company which you suspect might
>not have the ten grand to pay you back with.

     No, Jed, you're confusing yourself.  Somehow you have acquired the
     idea that Gateway is Griggs simply because the two both start with 'G'.

     And you seem to be confusing 'escrow' with 'fescue'.  It's 'fescue'
     that grows in that manure you're dishing out.

>I cannot judge how much you know about physics or mechanical engineering, but
     
     It would certainly be difficult for you to pass judgement on 
     a professional engineer, not being being qualified yourself in any way.

>if your knowledge of these subjects is on par with your knowledge of ordinary,
>garden variety business practices you are a walking disaster and a font of
>misinformation for sure. I have never seen anyone jump to so many ludicris
>and absurd conclusions in so few paragraphs about things which any
>accounting clerk or computer magazine reader knows. It is breathtaking!

     Typical.  When you know that the blade is dropping, you simply 
     misrepresent things to attempt to change the subject.  

     Why exactly is Griggs not using a scope again?   Could it be that 
     he doesn't want to know his input power?
     
                           dale bass



cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.21 / Cameron Bass /  Re: How does a dynamometer work?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How does a dynamometer work?
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 23:11:24 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <hkza0-N.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> asks:
> 
>     "Could anyone explain simply how a dynamometer actually works?"
> 
>I can explain simply how a simple dynamometer works, circa 1900. I have not
>got the foggiest idea how the Eaton Torque Sensor installed at Hydro Dynamics
>works, because that is a sealed, high performance, high precision unit which
>operates on principles I have never heard of. It is better than a garden

     God fobid anyone ever has to rely on an instrument calibrated by 
     someone who doesn't understand it.

                        dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.24 / Scott Little /  Re: Putting two and two together
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Putting two and two together
Date: 24 Feb 1995 14:49:45 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l


>Putting two and two together, one could drive a high power shockwave
>with an underwater spark and focus the wavefront as in the sonoluminences
>and caviation type experiments.
>

John, if I'm not mistaken, this is exactly how a typical lithotripsy
(spelling?) machine generates acoustic shock waves in water and focuses 
them at the patients kidneys.  As I understand it, the patient sits in an
elliptical tank of water positioned so that his stones are located at one
foci of the ellipse.  At the other foci is are arc discharge electrodes
submerged in the water.  A capacitor bank supplies the energy.

Does anyone else out there know anything about this?  If this is indeed
the case, have the medical folks observed any unusual behavior in these
machines?
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.22 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets!
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets!
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 95 08:11:17 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I Johnston <ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk> writes:
 
>So why doesn't Griggs give a formal written guarantee of over-unity
>performance?
 
For all I know he would do that. I have no business dealings with Griggs, I
do not know what kinds of sales contracts he offers. I would offer that if
I was him.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.25 / Matt Austern /  Re: Cold Fusion Setup
     
Originally-From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Setup
Date: 25 Feb 1995 00:55:23 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)

In article <D4Iw1J.87F@freenet.carleton.ca> au559@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
(Wojtek Antoszkiewicz) writes:

> 	I attend St.Paul's High School in Nepean Ontario Canada.
> I was told that this was the place to post this message.  Our physics
> departament has allowed me and a group of students conduct a cold fusion
> experiment.  We have but one problem, we don't have the recipie.

Why not conduct an N-rays experiment instead?  The materials are
cheaper.
--

                               --matt
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.20 / Dieter Britz /  Biblio update 20-Feb-95, FT papers.
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Biblio update 20-Feb-95, FT papers.
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 14:36:51 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

Here is the next load of FT stuff, including one I seem to have got out of
alphabetical order (the Collis). We are now just under the 1000 mark. Some
of these papers show that they are merely transcripts of, or notes written
for, the talk given at ICCF-4. It is a bit strange to read in a paper that
"We are running out of time"... which occurred twice in this bunch. Ah well,
I won't of course go back on my decision that these are "real" papers,
waffly though some of them are. So here goes:

Papers, file cnf.pap1..7 (current count 998):
^^^^^^
#     
Collis WJMF;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 525.
"Oklo isotope anomalies and cold fusion".
** Oklo, comment, neutron swapping, no FPH/Jones ref.
Some believe that at the Oklo site in Gambia, about 1800 million years ago,
there was a natural fission reaction; the evidence is in the form of anomalous
geological isotope distributions there. There is also an anomalous lack of
deuterium in the rock. Collis suggests that deuterium was depleted by a
neutron swapping reaction like D + 238U --> (F1+F2) or (239U) + H + n.
Another possibility is that alpha particles from the decay of uranium enable
the fission of deuterium 2H-->H+n. There are also suggestions involving
meteoritic antimatter but this appears less plausible.
#...................................................................... Feb-95
Jin S-X, Zhang FX, Liu YZ;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 527.
"Deuterium absorbability and anomalous uclear effect of YBCO high temperature
super-conductor".
** Experimental, superconductivity, HTSC, cp, no FPH/Jones ref, res+
A HTSC material prepared directly from Y2O3, Ba and CuO, such that it is
superconducting at 90K, placed into a vacuum chamber as pellets or powder, and
D2 gas introduced at 1 atm. CR-19 cp detectors in the chamber were examined
after 1-2 days and significant tracks were found. They were not found in
controls using H2. There was a pressure drop during the experiment, indicating
that up to 0.2 moles of D per mole of the HTSC material were absorbed. More
work is needed.
#...................................................................... Feb-95
Filimonov VA;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 455.
"Synergetic activation model: key to intense and reproducible cold fusion".
** Theory, reproducibility, synergetics, phase transition.
Outline of the author's model, based on special conditions within metal
deuteride lattices. These include energy distributions for lattice atoms, less
than exponential and thus overcoming potential barriers; these gentler
distributions arising from shock fronts from phase transitions. Equations for
this are given. Crucial factors arising from this are the crystal structure
(more order, better for fusion), and experimental papers should focus on this.
So, perfect crystals and high loading are desirable.
#...................................................................... Feb-95
Fleischmann M, Pons S, Le Roux M, Roulette J;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 323.
"Calorimetry of the Pd-D2O system: the search for simplicity and accuracy".
** Methodology, calorimetry, data treatment, materials.
After nearly 5 years of CNF, excess heat is the only reliable indicator, and
has not reliably been correlated with any other. Here, the question is
examined of what guiding principles there are for calorimetry. The authors
list the considerations governing their calorimetry, such as cathode material
(for stability etc), means of raising the potential of D+ in the deuteride
(the work of Coehn comes in here) and other state vectors. Equations for the
calorimetry are then given, and it is noted that at high loading, further
loading might well be endothermic, so temperature increases would favour yet
higher loading and more temperature increases; this positive feedback needs to
be watched. Ideas for cheap instrumentation are presented, i.e. the open cell
system used by the authors, combined with sophisticated data treatment.
#...................................................................... Feb-95
Guokas JP;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 44.
"Cold fusion and nuclear proliferation".
** Comment, sociological, neutrons, neutron swapping, chain reactions
** neutron trapping, no FPH/Jones ref (although referred to in the text).
The author asks whether cnf, when a mature technology, will be able to help
the proliferation of nuclear materials; can it, e.g., be used for fissile
isotope breeding? Emission of neutrons, or neutron transfer reactions supposed
to happen, chain reactions (also proposed) might do this. Neutron trapping
might enable a breeder from natural uranium. Then the author ran out of time.
#...................................................................... Feb-95
Hagelstein PL;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 461.
"Lattice-induced atomic and nuclear reactions".
** Theory, neutron transfer, phonon modes, fast electrons, res+
The author, who has made a running series of changes to his theory of cold
fusion, here outlines his latest. It now involves neutron transfer and phonon
mode band gaps, and the role of impurities and vacancies in metal deuteride
crystals and autoionisation. Fermi's Golden Rule is applied. The calculations
predict that d-d fusion can occur but might be eliminated by fast electron
production.
#...................................................................... Feb-95
Hale GM, Talley TL;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 442.
"Deuteron-induced fusion in various environments".
** Theory, R-matrix, branching ratio, no FPH/Jones refs, res+
The authors elaborate their theory of cold fusion, using Wigner's R-matrix,
Green's function and the Bloch operator, etc. This leads to an explanation of
skewed branching ratios (very few neutrons) under some conditions, or no
gamma emission from 4He. Experimentally, photon, electron and x-ray emission
should be looked for. Pursuit of this theory and (difficult) calculations
based on it might resolve the problem of fitting cold fusion into mainstream
physics.
#...................................................................... Feb-95
Hansen WN, Melich ME;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 355.
"Pd/D calorimetry - the key to the F/P effect and a challenge to science".
** Comment, calorimetry, res+
The authors ask whether there is any evidence that excess heat is indeed
produced in cnf cells. The authors closely examined the raw data provided by
F&P and by the Harwell team, with the view to adding to the information
extracted from them. With the F&P silvered cell, accuracy of 0.5 to 1% can be
achieved and heat events stand out. Ony 2-6% is achieved by the Harwell study.
Experiments with silvered cells as used by F&P show that temperature gradients
in the cells are not important. Heat transfer through the top of the cell is
only about 7%; there is no significant cross-talk between cells in the same
thermostat bath. In conclusion, the Harwell data in no way disproves cold
fusion, not being good enough.
#...................................................................... Feb-95
Huggins RA;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 291.
"Materials aspects of the electrochemical insertion of hydrogen and deuterium
into mixed conductors".
** Materials comment, electrochemcial compression, surface effects,
** no FPH/Jones ref.
The author looks at materials aspects of the 'cold fusion' phenomenon in PdD
and the interplay between the interface and bulk thermodynamics. Thermodynamics
of heterogeneous reactions can give very high activities of a substance inside
the solid, even though that substance has a low pressure outside it. Examples
are given from heterogeneous catalysis. High electrolysis overpotentials can
also produce high activity of, e.g. deuterium within PdD. Permeation studies
can provide near-surface deuterium concentrations and are important. Intersti-
tial species can lead to non-uniformly distributed stresses and this bears on
the prehistory of the Pd used (whether cold-rolled, annealed, etc); various
pretreatments affect the loadings achieved. Surface effects by promoters are
discussed.
#...................................................................... Feb-95


How to retrieve the archived biblio files:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
1. By ftp from vm1.nodak.edu; log in as anonymous, giving your email
   address as password. Then cd to fusion. There are many files here, so
   do not use dir; if you are after the biblio files only, try
   dir fusion.cnf-*
   and then get or mget what you want.
2. Send an email to listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, blank subject and the message
   get fusion.<whatever you want>. To find out what there is, send
   index fusion
   This gets you an email with the directory of all files there, with which
   you can also match Fusion Digest numbers with file names, before getting
   those files. The index, or files you ask for, will be emailed to you.


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

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.24 / Dieter Britz /  RFD: sci.physics.fusion.research moderated, sci.physics.fusion.misc
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,sci.chem,sci.chem.electr
chem,sci.energy,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.skeptic,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.
hysics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.plasma
Subject: RFD: sci.physics.fusion.research moderated, sci.physics.fusion.misc
Date: 24 Feb 1995 18:49:47 -0500
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

Proposal for and call for discussion of the creation of the new moderated group

sci.physics.fusion.research      spfr
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

and (separate proposal), the simultaneous name change for the existing group

sci.physics.fusion to sci.physics.fusion.misc
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This section concerns only the proposed new group, spfr:

Rationale: Motivation for the proposed new group is that in the existing group,
          sci.physics.fusion, there is a large volume of postings that are
          not about fusion. There are many cross postings about unrelated
          issues, there is propaganda for what amounts to perpetual motion
          machines under the catch cry of 'cold fusion' and plain crank
          postings. Moderation would reduce this to a smaller number of
          postings that those of us interested in the science of fusion would
          be interested in reading, instead of spending time skipping past
          most messages.

          In order to escape the unrelated postings, a private mailing list
          has been started recently, specifically to discuss a forthcoming
          cold fusion symposium and issues likely to be raised there. That
          mailing list has attracted the sort of argument one would like to
          see in the proposed group and it is our belief that this shows that
          there is a sufficient body of people interested in such discussions,
          given an appropriate group to post to.

Charter:  the scholarly discussion of fusion, including hot and cold, both of
          ongoing actual research and results as well as discussion of
          scientific, science-philosophical or science-sociological issues of
          fusion; reports of advances in fusion science/technology and
          national policies on fusion.

Moderation: Scott Hazen Mueller (zorch@uunet.uu.net) has agreed to moderate
          the proposed group, to some extent automatically; i.e. there will be
          a positive list of posters whose postings will be accepted
          automatically. The list will initially be open to all, but may be
          modified according to posting behaviour; i.e. whether the postings
          are indeed scholarly and express a scientific interest etc as
          outlined in the charter above. Elementary enquiries and FAQ's will
          be passed on to the existing unmoderated group, sci.physics.fusion.
          Scott Hazen Mueller at present collects, mails and archives the
          Fusion Digest, containing all postings to sci.physics.fusion and is
          well respected and generally recognised as a neutral party.

Cross-posting: This request for discussion is cross-posted to the groups
          sci.chem, sci.chem.electrochem, sci.energy, sci.energy.hydrogen,
          sci.physics, sci.physics.research, sci.skeptic, sci.philosophy.tech.

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name change: it is simultaneously proposed that the existing group's name be
          changed to sci.physics.fusion.misc. The main argument for this is
          along the lines that this is a trend, removing some administrative
          problems in the setting up of the new group; it would also prevent
          the presentation of the proposed new group as a subgroup of the old
          one. This proposal would be voted independently of the main one.
          Since this is a name change only, the charter of this 'new' group
          would be that of the existing one, sci.physics.fusion.
-- 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|       Dieter Britz   alias britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk, britz@kemi.aau.dk      |
|        Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.        |
|      Telephone: +45-89423874 (8:30-17:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199      |
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.23 / K Jonsson /  Re: (Jed) Question about Griggs power measurements
     
Originally-From: kvj@rhi.hi.is (Kristjan Valur Jonsson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: (Jed) Question about Griggs power measurements
Date: 23 Feb 1995 14:00:22 GMT
Organization: University of Iceland

In <browe-1902952021580001@192.0.2.1> browe@netcom.com (William Rowe) writes:

>I would expect any mechanical device to have inertia. I would assume the
>dynamometer to be designed to keep this at a minimum consistent with the
>torques expected to be measured. Based on the design intent of the GG,
>i.e. an industrial source of steam, I would expect the dynamometer is
>measuring significant torque and has significant mass and therefore
>significant inertia. By significant, I am visualizing something that would
>not be easily moved/handled with one hand.

We do not even know on what principle the Eaton dyno works! One cannot
make assertions like this.  I understand from the discussion that it
is a passive device with an in/out shaft connector.  It has to measure
torque somehow.  Perhaps it has the input connected to the output with
a shaft with well know axial rigidity properties, and measures the torque
by measuring the twist of the shaft.  This could be done with an optical
device, with a trigger on the input side and a photometer on the output.

Who knows, a piezo could even be used as a torque tranciever (which
might mean that the dyno is supplying magical MRA power).

In any case, a device such as described has no internal inertia (at
least not any larger thant a straight axle of similar length) but it
would disrupt any vibrational modes of the system.

Which prompts another thought:  The presence of strange vibrational transients
can be investigated by altering the vibrational properties of the system.
Theoretically, by correctly positioning additional weights on the
axle, it should be possible to cancel any vibrations to the motor, resulting
in power easily measurable by the fine Dranitz.

Kristjan

-- 
Kristjan Valur Jonsson               |    The individual does not qualify for
Student of mechanical engineering,   |         making decisions regarding the
University of Iceland                |                 activities of the many.
Exclaimer: Yess!                     |                         (Helmut, 1993)
-- 
Kristjan Valur Jonsson               |    The individual does not qualify for
Student of mechanical engineering,   |         making decisions regarding the
University of Iceland                |                 activities of the many.
Exclaimer: Yess!                     |                         (Helmut, 1993)
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenkvj cudfnKristjan cudlnJonsson cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.22 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: GG
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 95 09:24:51 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au> suggests:
 
     "You could also start off with a number of 50 gallon steel drums each
     half full of cold water, and connected by siphon hoses. . . . Thus the
     duration of the test could be extended at will. All the messing around
     would be done before the test started."
 
I don't think so. There are several practical problems with this. Even with
the 30 HP unit the GG makes a heck of a lot of steam (or hot water). I do not
think you could dump out the water and fill up a barrel again in the time it
takes to heat up another barrel. The GG would get ahead of you. The big
problem, though, is that it is dangerous messing with these things. We are
talking about large, heavy rubber hoses that shoot a plume of steam two
meters through the air when they are not emersed. You have to handle them with
heavy gloves and pipe wrenches. You cannot just pluck a steam hose one out of
a barrel and dunk it into the next, as if it was a garden hose. When the steam
is turned on, the barrel vibrates, bangs around, and water splashes violently.
You do not want to move the hoses into or out of the barrel when they are hot,
you have to let them cool down. To vector the steam from one barrel to
another, you would have to construct an elaborate and trouble prone set of
pipes and shut off valves.
 
 
     "At completion the hoses are removed and emptied into the drums, then
     the temperature of each drum is taken, and then each drum is weighed."
 
Again, this is highly impractical. You have to set the barrel on the scale
before you start. I cannot imagine anyone manhandling and lifting a 390 lb
open barrel full of steaming hot water onto the scale, even with the fork
lift. Sooner or later it would topple over make a heck of a mess. You would
end up in the emergency room. In previous tests, before they redesigned the
setup and put a faucet on the barrel, they did manhandle the barrels onto the
fork lift before dumping them outside. That was not easy, but it was a lot
easier than trying to place them square on the scale.
 
I have a brochure here for a Staveley "Weigh Tronix" brand Drum Weigher, which
is designed to work either as part of a conveyer system or in a stand alone
mode. It incorporates a "weigh bar" which is "an aircraft alloy steel bar,
fixed at one end, with strain gauges applied to top and bottom." Capacity is
1000 x 0.2 lb (500 x 0.1 kg). One of these suckers could do the job. It does
not list the price. I bet it costs a fortune!
 
 
     "2 or 3 drums should satisfy the stored heat hypothesis once and for
     all."
 
The "stored heat" hypothesis has been tested countless times, with flow tests.
It was disproved years ago. A flow test does not show such a dramatic C.O.P.
but it is large enough to be beyond question. You can run a flow test all
afternoon or all year if you like. A flow test is much safer, easier, and more
practical than any of these "multi-barrel" ideas floated here.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.22 /  nachtrieb@max. /  ALCATOR C-MOD WEEKLY HIGHLIGHTS, 19950214
     
Originally-From: nachtrieb@max.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ALCATOR C-MOD WEEKLY HIGHLIGHTS, 19950214
Date: 22 FEB 95 14:30:26 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

		   Alcator C-MOD Weekly Highlights
			    Feb. 13, 1995

Alcator C-MOD is continuing regular operation. Four run days were
scheduled and completed this week. Principal experiments included
investigation of H-mode thresholds, in support of International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) Urgent Research task 3.1;
pellet enhanced performance (PEP) mode studies; increased plasma
current; and localized gas puff experiments.

H-mode threshold studies were carried out in a standard lower single
null (SN) discharge with Ip=850kA, Bt=5.3T, kappa~1.65. For different
densities, the radio frequency (RF) power was stepped in small
increments during the pulse to determine the power threshold for the
L-H transition; RF powers up to 2.4 MW were used. Particular attention
was paid to the low density regime, which is of greatest interest to
ITER. We observe a hard lower density limit in the range of 0.8 to
1.0e20/m3, with no L-H transitions observed even for normalized powers
P/(nBS) up to 4 times the threshold observed for moderate
densities. These discharges were sawtoothing and showed no evidence of
locked modes.  Threshold powers were determined with approximately
100kW resolution for densities up to about twice the low-density
limit. These data are being analyzed.

PEP mode studies were carried out using the lithium (Li) pellet
injector. A target plasma density scan was conducted with 2MW of ion
cyclotron radio frequency (ICRF) power at 850kA. Density was scanned
from 1.0 to 2.4e20 m-3. The maximum neutron rate during the PEP phase
was in the range 4e13 to 5e13 per second, and was nearly independent
of density.  On the other hand, the stored energy increase was largest
at intermediate density, nebar=1.7e20 to 2.0e20 m-3, and deteriorated
at higher and lower densities.  Towards the end of the run the current
was raised to 1.1MA at a density of nebar=1.9e20 m-3.  The stored
energy was higher, but the neutron rate was lower compared to 850kA
shots at the same density.  Different pellet sizes and timing were
tried. Further optimization to enhance the PEP performance at high
currents is required.

The standard operational range of the C-MOD tokamak was extended to
plasma currents up to 1.2 MA in a dedicated discharge development run
on Wednesday.  Disruption and halo current behavior were carefully
monitored during this process. Pre-established limits on halo current
magnitudes were not exceeded.  In the course of the PEP mode
experiments on Friday, the flattop time was extended to 0.8 sec, an
increase of 0.25 sec over previous practice; total pulse lengths of up
to 1.7 sec were produced.

An experiment to investigate the effects of fueling from different
poloidal and toroidal locations, using the capillary tube system
(NINJA), obtained less useful data than anticipated, due to technical
difficulties. This experiment will be re-scheduled.

Dr. C.H. Ma of Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) visited MIT to
work on setting up his Faraday rotation diagnostic in conjunction with
our existing carbon dioxide (CO2) interferometer. The dedicated run to
test this new diagnostic system has been scheduled for early March.

Dr. Earl Marmar attended a meeting of the ITER Diagnostics Expert
Group, on the topic of Divertor Diagnostics, at the Joint Work Site in
Naka, Japan. Dr.  Bruce Lipschultz participated in a meeting of the
ITER Divertor Expert Groups at the Garching, Germany, Joint Work Site.

Dr. Martha Krebs, Director of the D.o.E. Office of Energy Research,
visited MIT this week, and took a tour of the Alcator C-MOD facility
conducted by Project Head Prof. Ian Hutchinson and Prof. Miklos
Porkolab, Director of the M.I.T. Plasma Fusion Center.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudennachtrieb cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.22 /  nachtrieb@max. /  ALCATOR C-MOD WEEKLY HIGHLIGHTS, 19950222
     
Originally-From: nachtrieb@max.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ALCATOR C-MOD WEEKLY HIGHLIGHTS, 19950222
Date: 22 FEB 95 14:30:43 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

		   Alcator C-MOD Weekly Highlights
			    Feb. 21, 1995

Plasma operation on Alcator C-MOD continued last week. Four runs were
scheduled and completed. Principal experiments included a study of
H-modes at low-q, L-mode transport studies (with ion cyclotron radio
frequency heating, ICRF), hydrogen/deuterium (H/D) isotope exchange
experiments, and an investigation of impurity transport and screening
with non-recycling impurities. Over 110 plasma shots were produced
during the four run-days.

Ohmic H-modes were studied at reduced toroidal field (B=3.5T) and
plasma currents up to 850kA (q values down to 2.7).  A number of
long-duration edge-localized mode (ELM)-free H-modes were produced,
and several shots exhibited multiple L-H and H-L transitions,
providing a good indication of the "hysteresis" in the power
threshold.  Overall, threshold values of the P/(nBS) coefficient were
in the range of 0.02 to 0.03, which is typical for C-Mod and better
than our previous ELM-free results. At the lower q-values we obtained
ELM-free ohmic H-mode at a density of > 2e20/m3.

Studies of L-mode transport with ICRF were continued. The outer gap
was reduced to 1cm in an attempt to prevent H-mode transitions; this
was partially successful, although the highest power pulses (P_RF=3MW)
did go into H-mode.  Power and density scans at one current (0.85MA)
were carried out during this run.

Thursday was devoted to an isotope exchange experiment (miniproposal
#082). The purposes were to measure the evolution of the isotopic
composition in the plasma both during a discharge and from shot to
shot when the fueling is changed from deuterium to hydrogen and back
again; to compare the molybdenum (Mo) sputter rate in hydrogen and
deuterium; and to obtain confinement data in hydrogen for the
database. These goals were substantially accomplished. The changeover
from D to H took about 20 shots to go from <5% H/(H+D) to >90%
H/(H+D); the reverse changeover from H to D was approximately
symmetric.

The behavior of non-recycling impurities was studied using diatomic
nitrogen (N2) puffing, both from a midplane piezo valve and using the
neutral gas injection array (NINJA) capillary tube system. Short
pulses from the piezo valve confirmed that nitrogen indeed acts as a
non-recycling impurity, as had been observed on ASDEX. Puffing small
amounts of N2 through the capillary system provided data on impurity
screening with respect to impurities arising in the private flux zone,
in the scrape-off layer (SOL) at the inner and outer divertor plates,
and at the inner and outer wall in the main chamber. Larger injected
amounts were used to study the effects of nitrogen radiation on SOL
properties and on divertor detachment. One particularly interesting
observation, from the wide angle charge coupled device (CCD) camera at
A-port, was a plume of visible radiation from the inner wall when we
puffed N2 there.  The plume followed field lines around the inner wall
in one direction only.  This indicates that there is strong plasma
flow towards the divertor dragging the low charge state impurity ions.

The week of February 20 is a scheduled maintenance week. A clean vent
(helium backfill) was performed on Saturday, Feb. 18. The fast
scanning probe was removed for replacement of the probe head. In
addition, new reflectometer windows were installed at A-port, and a
borescope inspection of the inside of the vessel was performed. The
overall condition was found to be good with the following changes
noted. The guard limiters on the antenna showed some erosion of the
boron carbide coating.  The Faraday shields had a faint darkening
across the bottom half that appeared to be added material.  No damage
to the antennas could be seen.  The A-B outside limiter showed no
damage except for some shinny remelt near the center.  The inside
limiter and divertor tiles seem to be unchanged with no missing,
cracked or otherwise damaged tiles. The machine was pumped down and
left under vacuum over the weekend, then brought back up to helium on
Tuesday for re-insertion of the fast scanning probe, and cleaning of
windows on the interferometer and Thomson ports. The machine is now
back under vacuum.

Dr. Bob Granetz participated in an International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor (ITER) Expert Group Meeting at the Garching Joint
Work Site, where he presented recent results from studies of
disruptions and halo currents in Alcator C-MOD.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudennachtrieb cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.24 /  PAUL /  fyi#33 fusion Budget
     
Originally-From: stek@nel.pfc.mit.edu (PAUL)
Originally-From: fyi@aip.org (AIP listserver)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: fyi#33 fusion Budget
Subject: FYI #33 - Fusion Program
Date: 24 FEB 95 16:21:20 GMT
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 95 16:22:55 EST
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

this came up on a bboard in lab. P.stek  Stek@mit.edu

Date: Thu, 23 Feb 95 16:22:55 EST
Originally-From: fyi@aip.org (AIP listserver)
Message-Id: <9502232122.AA07136@aip.org>
To: fyi-mailing@aip.org
Subject: FYI #33 - Fusion Program

Uncertain Future for Department of Energy Fusion Program

FYI No. 33, February 23, 1995

There were strong signals at a February 15 hearing of the House
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment that DOE's fusion energy
program is facing an uncertain future.  Subcommittee chairman Dana
Rohrabacher (R-California) signaled his uneasiness about fusion in
his opening remarks, saying, "We must decide if the modest success
shown for the billions spent is worth billions more required to
continue the program for at least another 30 years."  Rohrabacher
is intent on reducing spending for DOE programs under his
subcommittee's jurisdiction -- both in FY 1996, and in "billions of
dollars in future spending."

First to testify was Dr. Martha Krebs, Director of the DOE Office
of Energy Research.  Krebs highlighted research progress at the Los
Alamos, Fermi, and Princeton labs.  She discussed the $100 million
Science Facilities Initiative, DOE's budgetary response to the
Drell panel's high energy physics program recommendations, and the
shelving of the Advanced Neutron Source (ANS.)

While complimenting Krebs on her moderate budget request and the
ANS decision, Rohrabacher was quick to ask Krebs for her highest
and lowest program priorities.  He said the subcommittee must make
budget decisions now, cautioning "we're going to establish them for
you," if DOE does not prioritize.  Rohrabacher turned to the fusion
energy program, asking Krebs, "Is this still a viable option?"
Krebs replied affirmatively, adding that substantial political will
and money will be necessary.  While committee members' questions
covered other programs, fusion was a common topic.  During one
exchange, Krebs said that if the tokamak program was canceled,
"there are alternatives to explore."

Next to testify were the directors of five DOE laboratories, all of
whom support the Science Facilities Initiative.  There was much
less consensus about where program cuts should be made, one
director saying that arriving at judgements across various fields
was difficult.  Rohrabacher complained that no one wants to say
where reductions should be made.  He commented that while he was
"very favorably" looking at the director's requests, they would be
more likely to get what they want if they offered reduction
recommendations.  "Don't forget the position we are in," he said.

Last to testify were Dr. Robin Roy of the Office of Technology
Assessment and Dr. David Baldwin of Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory.  Roy directed a fusion energy workshop, and presented
an 87-page OTA report on the program (to be summarized in a future
FYI.)  Roy questioned the program's projected costs and focus on
tokamaks, saying about alternatives, "there is merit is examining
them."  Baldwin called the TPX "very important to the country,"
warning that fusion progress would be delayed by a decade without
it.  DOE's focus on tokamaks was based on their record of success,
he explained.

Rohrabacher opened the hearing declaring, "I have not prejudged
individual programs, but, as you can see, some tough choices have
to be made and this subcommittee will make them."  The hearing
closed on a discussion about tokamaks, the chairman saying, "I do
think we should be looking at alternatives."

###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact: Richard M. Jones
fyi@aip.org
(301) 209-3095
##END##########
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenstek cudlnPAUL cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.22 /  ez044766@monet /  Re: If you could, how would YOU do a cold fusion experiment?
     
Originally-From: ez044766@monet.ucdavis.edu ()
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: If you could, how would YOU do a cold fusion experiment?
Date: 22 Feb 1995 22:22:55 GMT
Organization: University of California, Davis

	Well, 
		 There's always the monode fusion reaction described in 
the Journal of Irreproducable results... goes something like this...
	
	Take a tugsten "monode", enclosing it in a glass envelope filled
with noble gasses.
	Apply an alternating current across the monode.  The total energy
put into the system by the current is obviously 0, since all the electrical
energy put into the system is then taken out and then put back in... 
	With this reaction, we obviously have some sort of fusion, since
we are not adding any energy, but energy is being produced, and when the 
glass envelope is opened, fusion by-products are present.

	(if anybody has the article, a repost might shed more light
on this advancement in fusion technology)

	(I know this belongs on sci.humor, but I felt that I had to follow
up to this article.)

	-Kristoff
p.s.  Does anybody out there know the address of JIR?  (some of us have
no lives)
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenez044766 cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.23 / John Cobb /  Re: economic reviews
     
Originally-From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: economic reviews
Date: 23 Feb 1995 09:24:51 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <3ighfv$se7@deadmin.ucsd.edu>,
Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> wrote:
>In article <1995Feb22.151149.9516@reks.uia.ac.be> aeulaers@zorro.ruca.ua.ac.be  
>(Ali Eulaers) writes:
>> Hi 
>> 
>> I wondered if some of you have theories about the economic feasability of  
>fusion energy.
>> 
>
>If you believe that Cost Of Electricity is the prime econ factor
>(this is the cost to produce the electricity at the plant), then
>Tokamak based fusion reactors extrapolated from present devices
>suck. The projected COE is 2--8 times that of current fission reactors,
>and worse vs coal, gas, hydro. ( fission COE is ~ 0.05 cents/KWH)

If I'm not mistaken though, this "high" cost estimate is a direct extrapolation
of current designs without concept advancement (is that what you meant, Barry?)
Now for a plant thity years in the future, it is not unreasonable to expect
breakthroughs and incremental progress in the technological tools required
to build a plant. This could decrease the cost. So if the current designs
are "damned" today because of high cost, it is not eternal damnation, rather
it may be just a purgatory until technical improvements come along. As I
said before, I think this is the most important service that power plants
studies do, in that they can identify what parts of the design drive the
largest cost and therefore where we should focus attempts to find breakthrough
solutions.

-john .w cobb

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

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.25 / Akira Kawasaki /  Tritium, Cold Fusion, and the Military.
     
Originally-From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tritium, Cold Fusion, and the Military.
Date: 25 Feb 1995 16:07:05 GMT
Organization: Netcom

Mr. Frsank Close, in his 'Too Hot To Handle' book of 1991, put out by 
the Princeton University Press, has an interesting section on pages 
49-51 about the tritium stockpile of the United Satates.

  It seems the U.S. has on hand about 100 kilgrams of Tritium 
stockpiled, including what is in the fusion bombs (missiles like 
Poseidon--etc.).And 5-6 kilograms of this Tritium has to be replenished 
each ear due to the half-life of 12.3 years. If nothing is done to 
replenish, you have automatic nuclear disarmament going on.

   The existing nuclear reactors operated by the DOE that supplied the 
Tritium were getting old ( one of them: Savannah River Reactor) and 
being shut down for repairs. By 1989, the search for tritium was 
becoming critical (militarily). Then when the announcement for cold 
fusion came out, DOE (and the military) was looking for the tritium 
production possibility rather than the energy production aspect 
ballyhooed in the press. And since the cold fusion effect was 
aneutronic, dropped it like a 'bomb'. They had other priorities in mind.

-AK-
  
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenaki cudfnAkira cudlnKawasaki cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.22 / Tom Droege /  Re: A possible explanation for the Griggs  results
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A possible explanation for the Griggs  results
Date: 22 Feb 1995 19:05:09 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3iejb6$qke@deadmin.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) says:
>
>
>After reading Jed's recent report on his Grigg's experiments,
>I'd like to suggest a plausible explanation. There is not 
>information in Jed's report to refute this explanation---but Jed
>may be able to provide additional further info to address my points.

(Snip some nice calculations)

Barry brings up a point dear to my heart.  When running cold fusion
experiments, I was always careful to start from a known condition, 
integrate the power in and out during the entire run, then return to the
starting conditions at the end of the run.  For the most part this 
meant balancing the calorimeter, then starting the energy balance,
then turning on the cell current to run the experiment.  At the end of 
the run, the cell current was returned to zero and the energy balance
was continued until the Pd stopped outgassing.  Any other proceedure
would produce positive or negative energy spikes as the heat and 
gas balance changed.  A lot of heat can hide in a small calorimeter, 
a lot more in a large device.  The only way to account for this is to 
start and end the run at exactly the same conditions.  In my case this
meant to 0.001 C.  

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.23 /  drom@vxcern.ce /  Producing a Neutrino beam in a Particle Accelerator.
     
Originally-From: drom@vxcern.cern.ch
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Producing a Neutrino beam in a Particle Accelerator.
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 18:22:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

          PRODUCING A NEUTRINO BEAM IN A PARTICLE ACCELERATOR. 
       Have been rather puzzled by recent postings by Dr. Lockyer on 
the subject of neutrino beams.I posted a note on about the 22nd January 
which I hoped would answer your objections to very reasonable responses  
from people who were performimg experiments with counters. We have been 
doing experiments at CERN and Fermilab with bubble chambers which have 
the advantages that one can "see" the individual interactions and also 
the background - plus we have counters, absorbers etc. around the chamber.
I felt that this answered your questions and doubts, but Dr. Lockyer failed 
to mention the posting or to take into count the facts presented.
     Since then Dr. Lockyer's postings contain some unusual statements. For 
example, this morning found one where it was written "Yes, classically  
at (c) about 1/4 of the beam muons could reach the flash chamber. With time 
dilation, the whole flux of muons could, conceivably, reach the flash chamber 
(neglecting berm straggling, ionization and bremmstrahlung). The berm modifies  
the muon energy distribution, but muon outliers might reach the vicinity of  
the of the flash chambers with little energy loss." There are two points about  
this. Firstly the whole point of building a huge berm is to slow the muons 
down by ionization loss so that they decay long before they reach the 
experiments - and one also avoids any "outliers". Secondly one checks by looking
for muons. In our experiment at Fermilab, we observed some almost straight 
tracks crossing the chamber and we measure them - we know they are muons because
they traverse our downstream absorber and are recorded and their position 
measured in the subsequent counter arrays. We find that they are slightly fanned
out and therefore we can trace back their origin - they are created by neutrinos
in the upstream counter experiment, but are not from the original target a 
kilometre away. This we can confirm nicely as occasionally the distribution 
changes and this corresponds to times when the counter experiment switches off 
their magnetic field or reverses it - it all ties together. So no muons from 
the target.
    There are a number of other things in Dr. Lockyer's postings suggesting 
that he has studied little of physics in the last 20 years. It is very 
well-established that many cross sections rise with increasing energy - the  
early evidence was from the proton-proton cross section from experiments at 
the CERN ISR - you may see plots of this which we supply to the Particle Data 
group. Also he seems unaware that there are three types of neutrinos - this is 
confirmed by LEP's measurements of the number of lepton families - the latest  
value is 2.988 +/- 0.023. And this is in agreement with Big Bang 
Nucleosynthesis.
    In general if a theory does not fit the data, eg not finding that neutrino  
cross section rises with energy, then one either modifies the theory to obtain 
agreement, or one rejects the theory. 
    For convenience, will post again the 22nd January one. 

PRODUCING A NEUTRINO BEAM IN A PARTICLE ACCELERATOR. NOVA. HELIUM-3

   Recently there have been a series of postings about neutrinos. Think it
began with a question from Mr. Plutonium asking if a neutrino beam had
been fired at a superconductor? The answer is yes. Neutrino beams created at
CERN and at Fermilab have been directed at large bubble chambers, some 4 metres
in diameter, which have a magnetic field of some 30 000 gauss created by 
cryogenic magnets. No abnormal effects were observed and there were no
differences whether a neutrino or a hadronic beam was used.
     The second question was whether the evidence that neutrino events had been
observed, was convincing. This is stimulating as thought that very reasonable
answers had been given which would convince anyone prepared to do some
calculations. However statements that there are an enormous amount of
experimental detail all in accordance with the assumption that neutrinos exist
and have expected properties, does not appear to convince someone who does
follow the subject very closely. So what might be the most convincing simple
evidence? Having been working with neutrino beams in large bubble chambers in 
CERN and Fermilab since 1977, and feel that the visual technique of actually 
seeing many events, one by one, may be the most convincing. 
    When a neutrino in a beam hits a hydrogen atom in a hydrogen bubble
chamber, there are sometimes produced events where all the particles are
charged; measuring the momentum and angles, one finds a distinct class of event
which give three constraint fits (energy and momentum conservation give four
equations but the energy of the neutrino is an unknown for which one solves).
These events which are a clear and distinct class, have no other interpretation.
Some papers that you may wish to look at concerning events which give only a 
proton(identified by its bubble density), a pion and a muon(identified by the
downstream counters placed in and after large amounts of absorber that remove
hadrons);
         Allan et al., Nucl. Phys. 176(1980)269
         Allan et al., Nucl. Phys. 264(1986)221
         Jones et al., Z. Phys. C 43(1989)527.
     The question was raised - how do you know that they are not cosmic rays?
There are two arguments. Firstly the three-constraint neutrino events can be 
correlated only with the neutrino beam direction whereas the cosmic rays come
from all directions. Secondly there is the bubble nature of the tracks. The
pressure on the hydrogen liquid is reduced smoothly and then increased again
during some 70 seconds. The beam is introduced just before the bottom of the
pressure cycle and a the flash is fired about one second later, just after the
minimum. The conditions are chosen so that the bubble density is low and
individual bubbles can be identified. Cosmic rays enter at all angles and all
times. Those cosmics that enter before the beam, give bubbles which have had
longer to grow so that the bubbles will be bigger and hence they can be easily
identified. Also since the chamber is not fully expanded, the number of sites
which give bubble nucleation is much fewer so the bubble density is much less.
Thus most cosmic ray tracks can be easily recognised visually  and this
background can be evaluated easily. We have checked this and this background 
has been found to be negligible for three constraint events which may be the 
most dramatic proof of the existence of neutrinos created by a neutrino beam 
from an accelerator. There are many other proofs, but do hope this will satisfy.
    There was a question about the origin of helium three. There are two main
sources, primordial and later.  In the Big Bang picture, after the quarks and
gluons combined to give protons and neutrons, these could then interact to form
the light elements, protons, deuterons, 3He, 4He and 7Li. This is called the
Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, BBN, and the agreement found with observation of
primordial matter, is one of the strong pieces of evidence in favour of the Big
Bang Hypothesis. Detailed calculations were made by Walker et al. (e.g. see 
Ap.J376(1991)51 for a recent review, gave the ratio of these elements and 
also an estimate of the upper limit to the number of neutrino families of 
about four - CERN now finds 2.988 +/- 0.023 from studying millions of decays 
of Z0  produced in LEP. 
   So this primordial 3He was everywhere in the early times, but since 
then there have been many local processes which change the amount. For example 
in our Sun, 3He is both produced and burnt so that there is a maximum 
percentage at a radius of about 0.3 of the Sun's radius.It is not safe to 
assume a constant isotopic ratio of 3He to 4He since the amount of 4He 
varies according the amount of local radioactive decay giving 4He nuclei -
alpha particles.
    There was also a question of fusion reactions in Nova? By novae (not
supernovae), one generally means stars which have burnt out to give white
dwarfs and which have a companion star or stars. The companion transfers matter
to the compact object and this can create a local concentration of matter
which is so dense that a thermonuclear reaction takes place giving the
characteristic bright flash of a nova. The reactions depend on which
elements are available locally, but tend to be the normal fusion reactions.
     In general neutrino experiments are difficult so great credit should be
given to the pioneers, but it has been found as a consequence, that an 
abnormal number of the pioneering experiments gave results that did not stand 
the test of repetition by others. Thus quite a few claims have been made that 
are not generally believed. In particular several claims have made that the 
neutrino has a mass or that oscillations have been observed from one form of 
neutrino into another, but so far no compelling evidence has been found for 
any of them. It is quite possible that neutrinos do have mass and it would not 
violate any basic law though there are certain masses that are excluded 
from astrophysics - which is why the persitent claim of a 17 keV neutrino 
caused such excitement (see Nature 366(1993)29). If neutrinos have mass, 
then it is a reasonable possibility that they can oscillate from one form to 
another (as it has been amply demonstrated for the two types of neutral 
K-mesons). The possibilites of neutrinos having mass and possibly oscillating, 
is so exciting that many experiments continue the search exploring new regions 
of phase space.
     Sorry for taking so long to answer, but am rather busy these days.
                                                         Douglas Morrison.


cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudendrom cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.20 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: (Jed) Question about  Griggs power measurements
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: (Jed) Question about  Griggs power measurements
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 95 11:12:53 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

browe@netcom.com writes:
 
     "Assuming I am right about the inertia, it seems to me the dynamometer
     would be less likely to detect a short lived transient than the Dranetz
     meter."
 
You miss the point here. You are postulating that the transient bursts of
electricity are:
 
1. So fast they cannot be detected by the Dranetz; and,
2. So small that they do not significantly affect the Eaton dynamometer by
adding any measurable torque.
 
In that case, the transients would not add up to a significant level of energy
and they could not account for the 20 to 30% excess enthalpy.
 
Suppose the transients came very frequently; hundreds or thousands of times
per second. Suppose each individual transient pulse is too quick to be
detected by the Dranetz, but overall, they add 20% to the power delivered to
the electric motor. In that case, the electric motor will end up delivering
20% more energy to the dynamometer, which will -- of course -- register that
effect. You would see a gigantic discrepancy between the Dranetz and the
Eaton; the Eaton would show considerably *more energy* than the Dranetz.
Needless to say, that is not the case.
 
In other words, all energy delivered from the power company to the Griggs
Device has to go through the Dynamometer, and there is no way to "slip
through" an extra 20% undetected. Remember it is mechanical power, not
electricity. Imagine that you turn a large wheel by two methods: continually
pushing a hand crank (analogous to steady electricity); or 2. By striking the
crank with a glancing blow from a hammer (analogous to a power transient). If
the latter glancing blow delivers enough energy to move the wheel at all then
you can measure that energy level. The large moment of inertia (that you
describe above) *smooths out* the energy pulses, but it does not make them go
away!
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.20 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Patterson Power Cell patent
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Patterson Power Cell patent
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 95 11:16:35 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> writes:
 
>Conclusion:  The parameters of the calorimetry described in this patent are
>insufficient to allow a calculated analysis of its performance.
 
That is correct. The data in the patent is utterly unconvincing. He says
he has better data, but he has not published it yet. I am getting a little
tired of waiting for him to publish it.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.20 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 95 12:24:07 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Dean Edmonds <deane@excalibur.net5c.io.org> writes:
 
>Mr. Huffman is offering a compact water heater that works along "the same
>principles" as the Griggs device. There is no claim to over-unity performance,
>so why all the commotion?
 
I have had extensive contact with Huffman. He does claim over-unity
performance. His claims have not yet been demonstrated to my satisfaction.
He is working to get additional data and some good third-party testing,
which I hope will help resolve the issue.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.20 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Re:Ion Beam Fusion ===>a tokamak taunt
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Re:Ion Beam Fusion ===>a tokamak taunt
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 95 13:06:19 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Paul M. Koloc <pmk@prometheus.UUCP> writes:
 
     "Look, if the tokamak concept is so very advanced, it should stand
     without government support.  I mean there are a lot of hungry
     Corporations and Utilities out there that would want to fund a concept
     which was a true winner for fusion."
 
That is correct, they would. So would semi-public organizations like EPRI. All
support for Tokamak hot fusion from private industry ended decades ago,
because Tokamak technology has no commercial potential.
 
 
     "I think they would find as I have, that it is NOT.
 
Paul is not the only person to find that Tokamak technology will not work. The
DoE concurs. See: R. A. Krakowski et al (Los Alamos), "Lessons Learned from
the Tokamak Advanced Reactor Innovation and Evaluation Study (ARIES)."
 
 
     "Would you be willing to give up gov DoE support for five years to find
     out??"
 
Ha ha ha ha ha ha! <smirk> Would farmers be delighted to give up their crop
subsidies? Would welfare cheats happily stop collecting extra, unauthorized
payouts? Will military contractors police themselves and never again charge
$600 for a hammer? Nope. People as people. As long as money has value, some
people will cheat and steal.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.20 / 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: 20 Feb 1995 10:58:24 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <8A3854C.0C74000231.uuout@wolfden.com>,
BEN FRANCHUK <ben.franchuk@wolfden.com> wrote:
>
>
>JC<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.
>
>  How does a very small reactor, 2.5 MW compare to 1000MW reactor? Can 
>such a reactor be MASS PRODUCED and shippable? Can an super advanced 
>design be taken apart and placed into a space shuttle?
>
> Fusion and Space travel remind me of computers around the 1970's.
>With the advent of E-MAIL,Home Computers,and a lot of work,somebody
>may come up with a design that will prove to practical, for a 
>few million dollars. Ben.
>

Ben,

This is an excellent line of reasoning. Unfortunately, nature seems to
conspire against it working (although it is not a definite trap).

Let me talk about some very general fusion issues that will apply to any
scheme that intends to use the energy liberated by fusion in order to heat
future material. This is called burning or ignition. A similar process is
at work in a normal fire. The energy of the burning releases heat that is
then used to heat incoming fuel so that it will burn faster. The same happens
with fusion. In the usual DT cycle, the alpha particles that are released
are then used to heat more D and T to fusion temperatures.

So if the alphas are the energy input for heating, what is the loss
mechanism? It is energy transport across the boundary. This is just like a
campfire where the heat that dries out your socks comes from energy that
has escaped the blaze. The exact physical process responsible for the plasma
transport has not been conclusively identified. However, it is widely
accepted that it is diffusive in nature. That is the time and space
relationships that determine the local temperature is similary to the
heat diffusion equation (with the addition of a velocity flow field for
passive convection). The typical diffusion coefficient for large plasma
machines with good confinement is 1-10 M**2 /sec.

Now, for fusion to reach breakeven, or ignition, or whatever figure of
merit that you desire, you mut get the "fusion triple product" to a 
high enough value. This triple product is n * T * tau, where n is the
plasma density, T is the temperature , and tau is the energy confinement
time. The diffusiveness of the plasma will effect tau. 

tau = C * L**2 / D , the confinement time varies inversely with the
diffusion coefficient and with the square of the device size. Now
unfortunately, there are very few ways to change D, the diffusion
coefficient. However, it is a quite simple design change to simply
make the device larger. In that case, if you scale everything just right,
n and T remain constant and tau increases. Then you can get ignition.
However, if you make it smaller you do not simply get a smaller device that
has a lower total power with the same energy gain. Instead, you get a
device that does not ignite. It is a energy sink. This is analogous to
burning wet wood. If you heat it slightly, it doesn't give off excess heat. You
just waste energy. However, if you heat it enough, it will burst into flames
and heat itself and becomes a source of energy.

So nTtau > than a certain level is required for ignition. nT has a maximum
that is set by the beta stability limit of the plasma. Thus D then determines
the size of the reactor. When you work out the numbers, you find that
for a Tokamak to burn, you must build it about 1000 Mw in size. If it is
smaller, it just won't light. Now 1000 MW is a really big sized reactor, but
it is well withing the range of current power plants. For instance, where I
live, TVA provides a lot of the wholesale regional power supply. I think I
heard a number that they had a peak output of 27,000 MW during a recent cold
spell. So that would be 27 tokamak fusion plants equivalent. So issues 
of reduncancy, etc are not such a big deal when you play with the big
utility companies. It does however prenset quite a contrast to many other
prospective energy technologies of the future such as wind and improved
photovoltaics which have a definite "small is beautiful" component in
their favor. Fusion offers to be an excellent source of central
power generating capacity, but, IMO, it is not even a player in the
small scale power production technologies. It is in a category similar
to hydro-plants, and fission plants. In my mind, this is a disadvantage.
If I can pick from two different technologies that provide energy at the same 
cost but one can be deployed in 10 kW chunks while the other is limited
to 1000MW chunks, I'll take the 10 kW modular system every time. The hope
for fusion is that it can provide energy at much lower cost. Only time
will tell if it can live up to its promise.


This question of how small can you build a fusion plant is very important.
I think everyone would want the option to built a smaller plant if it 
could ignite. Some utility customers might want 1000MW plants but others might
want smaller systems. This is a particular problem when it comes to developing
fusion as a power source. The demonstration porto-type cannot then be a
scaled down version. It must be full-size. That is why the cost estimates
for ITER run around 10 G$ (and ITER is not the demonstration prototype,
it is the scientific proof-of-principle experiment).

So if you wanted to optimize the design of a magnetic fusion power concept
to decrease its overal size, how would you do it. Well, there are two
knobs to turn. The first is you could figure out some way to imporve the
transport. That is, to decrease D, the diffusion coefficient. This is the
main reason the fusion community has been so excited by the L to H transition
in recent years. Briefly, "L to H" is an observation by experimentalists
that when they run the devices according to a certain procedures, the
transport properties of the plasma change. Specifically, the anonamlous
diffusion is reduced. They then get a factor of two better confinement.
This is exciting. Only very recently have credible theoretical explanations 
begun to reach a consensus status. As D is decreased, L, the size of the 
device can also be decreased. This will decrease both cost and total power
level.

Another strategy is to change the confinement concept to increase the
maximum stable beta. This will increase the nT part of the triple product.
Thus it will allow tau to be decreased and still reach ignition. Thus even
if D is unchanged, L, the device size can be decreased. This is the logic
behind the so-called "advanced tokamak" ideas such as severe shaping. It
is also one of the motivations behind the FRC concept I talked about 
previously. It is also the basis of many other fusion concepts both
well explored and speculative.

This then gives an idea about the core issues that are involved in plotting
a strategy for a future in fusion. You must design a device that optimizes
these issues. That's the heart of the game. Also keep in mind that when you 
hear some wildly optimistic s.p.f posts, that it is easy to get the impression 
that new ideas are as well explored as more conventional ones. Often they are 
not.

The point is that we know tokamaks pretty well. We can predict with very
good confidence what their operating conditions will be like. The track record
of the last 5 years is very good in that respect. However, when we do
projections based on what the tokamak can/will do, we are often disappointed
by how large, costly, and complex they will be. We then propose other ideas
that might do better, but they are not as well explored. That is why it
is a research field. So when you here somebody grab the microphone and shout
"I have a concept that is 5 times better" ask yourself how confident the
predictions are and have a healthy scepticism. Always remember Nystrom's
law" "The product of knowledge and enthusiasm about a particular idea is
always constant."

BTW, that also applies to the FRC ideas I was mentioning
before. Heaven knows they are not as well explored as tokamaks. There
are fundamental questions about their transport mechanisms, for
example. However, every indication leeds me to believe that they are
very promising and worth exploring.


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

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.20 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 95 12:26:14 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

<slsm4@cc.usu.edu> writes:
 
>	I am preparing to participate in a debate.  I will argue against 
>fusion, in favor of solar, geothermal, wind, and (sigh) coal.  I need opposing
 
Do you mean conventional, hot fusion or cold fusion?
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.22 / H Figueiredo /  ALTERNATE CURRENT ON TOKAMAK DISCHARGES
     
Originally-From: fernando@nw2_router.ist.utl.pt (Humberto Fernando Garcia Figueiredo)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ALTERNATE CURRENT ON TOKAMAK DISCHARGES
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 95 21:01:36 GMT
Organization: CFN

Can anyone send me references on this subject ?
Thanks in advance,

Humberto Figueiredo
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenfernando cudfnHumberto cudlnFigueiredo cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.22 / Ali Eulaers /  economic reviews
     
Originally-From: aeulaers@zorro.ruca.ua.ac.be (Ali Eulaers)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: economic reviews
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 15:11:49 GMT
Organization: U.I.A.

Hi 

I wondered if some of you have theories about the economic feasability of fusion energy.

I heard some scepticism about this and wanted to ask you : is this scepticism justified ?

greetings,
Ali 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenaeulaers cudfnAli cudlnEulaers cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.20 /  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: 20 Feb 1995 19:25:58 GMT
Organization: MSU Dept. of Physics & Astronomy

In article <3i9dlq$d25@borg.svpal.org>, lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) writes:
>Josef C. Frisch (frisch@hebe.SLAC.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
>: In article <3i3bd5$7ls@borg.svpal.org>, lockyer@svpal.svpal.org
(Thomas Lockyer) writes:
>: |> 
>: |> The spin 1/2 non-composite neutrinos  do not have a mass or a magnetic 
>: |> moment or a charge.   I think we can agree that  something is paradoxical 
>: |> about neutrino theory.
>: |> 
>
>
>: 1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13 are all prime. Is it paradoxical that 9 is not? The fact that
>: a rule is followed in a limited number of examples does not make that rule
>: correct. 
>
>Joe: The analogy is not apt.  

You only say that because it would work against your argument.... Simply
claiming it "not apt" because you disagree with it, is, well ...
self-serving.

>                              What I said was true.  All particles we 
>have measured that are non composite and have a spin angular momentum of 
>1/2 h bar also have a mass, charge and magnetic moment.  In fact *ALL* 

You keep saying *ALL*, but that's (1) not true (2) misleading.
Okay, let's *list* all of these non-composite spin 1/2 particles

electron
e_nu
muon
mu_nu
tau
tau_nu
up quark
down quark
strange quark
charm quark
bottom quark
top quark  :-)

>spin 1/2 particles have mass and magnetic moments.  If you don't think 
>this that the neutrino is paradoxical.  The theory is still being 
>adjusted to expain failure of experiments.

Of that list 3 are neutrinos, 3 are their paired leptons, and the
rest are quarks.  You can't legitimately argue that since all quarks and
all charged leptons have mass/magnetic moments that all neutrinos *MUST*.
Because it just doesn't follow.  No more than Joe's "argument" that all
single digit odds are prime.  You are arguing that since all members of a
sub-set {1,3,5,7} are X {prime} then all members of the larger set must
also be X. 

>: Tom, there is much evidence from many independant experiments that neutrinos have
>: properties similar to those predicted by the standard model. You have earlier
>: implied that this might be because experimenters have a bias to report data which
>: agrees with the standard model. Actually the opposite is true, we would like
>: nothing more than to show those know it all theorists  :-)  that they are wrong
>: (and get funding for additional experiments as well). So far, however, the data
>: matches the standard theory. 
>
>It seems only accelerator workers are happy with the data.  I am 

Hmmmmmm.  Gee I guess those astrophysicists I know must be "accelerator
workers".  Bet they'll be suprised.

>pragmatic, I must have a mechanism for every action.  I cannot imagine 

And you don't, apparently, care whether that "mechanism" actually matches
observation.  Fine if it makes you happy, but please don't try to pass
it off as "science".

>how energy could cause neutrinos to have an  increasing crossection.  

As we've repeatedly told you:  increased available phase-space.

>Saying that's what is measured is not good enough,  it could be the 
>result of more strays at the higher energy. 

Again with the harping on "strays"?  Those said "strays" would then have
to exactly compensate (ie. rise linearly with energy minus a constant).
Where do you suppose those strays come from?  What ARE "strays"?  You're
blathering again, waving your hands furiously in the hopes of setting them
on fire and creating a smokescreen.  

>: You have started out by following the correct scientific procedure: Form a
>: hypothesis, do an experiment. The experiment has been done, the hypotheses has
>: been shown to be incorrect. The correct response is to re-formulate the
>: hypothesis so that it is consistant with known experiments, and propose a new
>: experiment. Remember, MOST theories are wrong. The difference between a scientist
>: and a nut, is that when a scientist's theory is proven wrong, he works on a new
>: theory, a nut refuses to believe any data, and imagines some vast 
>: conspiricy or incompetitance on the part of others. Look at your theory again,
>: maybe a minor adjustment can make it compatable with existing experiments. 
>
>Anyone who questions the standard model is vilified.  The model I have 

Anyone who questions it with idiotic claims that *differ* with observation
and are completely irreconcilable AND who is willfully ignorant of what
the standard model says AND who ignores the data simply for self-serving
purposes, does tend to be vilified, yes.  Because they're only pretending
to be scientists, and not acting as scientists.  And thus considered to
be cretins when it comes to discussing science.

>been working with agrees with the measurements of the related 
>fundamental physical constants better than the quark model.  I don't see 
>*scientists* abandoning the failed standard model.   You obviously have 
>not taken the time to review the Mathcad proof.   

Why should anyone take you seriously?  You're clueless about the current
model; you're clueless about current experiments; you're adept at putting
buzzwords together, but not at making them have any coherent meaning....
The fact that you've managed to kludge together some kobbled mish-mash of
Mathcad equations proves nothing but that you can manipulate Mathcad.
I don't want a "theoretical proof" ... I want your prediction at some
physical process that one can measure.  Here I'll suggest two:
   * the total cross-section for neutrals (and their energy distribution)
     producing events in a 340 ton detector downstream of a 870m dirt/steel
     berm following a 500m evacuated pipe with a broad spectrum of pions
     and kaons in it.
   * the ratio of resultant events with/without muons.  The angular
     distribution of those muons relative to the z direction.  The
     ratio of E_hadron/(E_had+E_mu) for such events.

-robert
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenhatcher cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Feb 26 04:37:08 EST 1995
------------------------------
