1995.02.23 / Tuan Ho /  Books 4 Sale
     
Originally-From: tuanho@netway.net (Tuan T. Ho)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Books 4 Sale
Date: 23 Feb 1995 04:35:40 GMT
Organization: Netway 2001


I have the following books for sale :

Please note the book condition:

Brand New = (!)
Excellent = (****)
Good      = (***)
Average   = (**)
Poor      = (*)


- P. G. Bergmann, Introduction to The Theory of Relativity (with a forward
  by Albert Einstein), Prentice Hall, 1942, $19 (***).

- A. A. Maradudin, E. W. Montroll, and G. H. Weiss, Theory of Lattice
  Dynamics in The Harmonic Approximation, Academic Press, 1963, $19 (****).

- S. J. Fonash, Solar Cell Device Physics, Academic Press, 1981, $17 (****).

- H. C. Slider, Petroleum Reservoir Engineering Methods: An Energy
  Conservation Science, Petroleum Publishing Co., 1976, $19 (***).

- R. Abe, Statistical Mechanics, University of Tokyo Press, 1975, $17 (****).

- C. Kittel, Elementary Statistical Physics, John Wiley & Sons, $15 (****).

- G. C. Levy, R. L. Lichter, and G. L. Nelson, Carbon-13 Nuclear Magnetic
  Resonance Spectroscopy, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, 1980, $17 (****). 

- R. B. Marcus, Ed., Measurement of High-Speed Signals in Solid State 
  Devices (Semiconductors and Semimetals Vol.28), Academic Press, 1990,
  $19 (!).

- N. Johnson, S. G. Bishop, and G. D. Watkins, eds., Material Research
  Society Symposium Proceedings, vol.46, Microscopic Identification of
  Electronic Defects in Semiconductors, MRS Material Research Society, 1985,
  $19 (!).

- R. W. Christy and A. Pytte, The Structure of Matter: An Introduction
  to Modern Physics, W. A. Benjamin, Inc., 1965, $18 (****).

- P. C. Shields, Linear Algebra, Addison Wesley, 1964, $19 (***).

- P. M. Anselone, ed., Nonlinear Integral Equations, The University of
  Wisconsin Press, 1964, $23 (****).

- B. H. Arnold, Intuitive Concepts in Elementary Topology, Prentice Hall,
  1962, $25 (!). 

- Sir Maurice Kendall, TIme Series, 2nd ed., Charles Griffin and Co., 1976,
  $19, (***).

- C. R. Nelson, Applied Time Series Analysis for Managerial Forcasting,
  Holden-Day, Inc., 1973, $25 (****).

- E. R. Stabler, An Introduction to Mathematical Thought, Addison Wesley,
  1953, $19 (****).

- C. Sparrow, The Lorenz Equations: Bifurcations, Chaos, and Strange
  Attractors, Springer-Verlag, 1982, $19 (****), soft cover.

- T. Vicsek, Fractal Growth Phenomena, World Scientific Pub. Co., 1989,
  $19 (****), soft cover.

- D. Saracino, Abstract Algebra: A First Course, Addison Wesley, 1980,
  $19 (***).

- A. L. Edwards, Statistical Analysis, Revised edition, Holt Rinehart
  Winston, 1960, $15 (***).

- A. L. Edwards, Statistical Analysis for Students in Psychology and
  Education, Rinehart & So., 1956, $10 (***).

- M. R. Spiegel, Applied Differential Equations, Prentice Hall, 1958,
  $15 (***).

- S. Lang, Algebraic Structures, Addison Wesley, 1967, $19 (****).

- P. R. Halmos, Naive Set Theory, D. Van Nostrand Co., 1964, $19 (****).

- P. W. Zehna and R. L. Johnson, Elements of Set Theory, Allyn and Bacon,
  1962, $25 (****).

- J. Breuer, Introduction to The Theory of Sets, Prentice Hall, 1958,
  $15 (***).

- H. M. Walker and J. Lev, Elementary Statistical Methods, 3rd ed., Holt
  Rinehart Winston, 1969, $12 (****).
- R. L. Shriner, R. C. Fuson, and D. Y. Curtin, The Systematic Identification
  of Organic Compounds: A Laboratory Manual, 5th ed., John Wiley & Sons,
  1964, $15 (***).

- R. L. Shriner, R. C. Fuson, D. Y. Curtin, The Systematic Identification
  of Organic Compounds: A Laboratory Manual, John Wiley & Sons, 1964,
  5th ed., $15 (***).

- S. Glasstone, The Elements of Physical Chemistry, D. Van Nostrand Co., 
  1946, $15 (***).

- C. W. Wilmsen, ed., Physics and Chemistry of III-V Compound Semiconductor
  Interfaces, Plenum Press, 1985, $18 (!).

- A. Hasegawa, Optical Solitons in Fibers, Springer Verlag, 1989, $19 (!).

- J. Callaway, Quantum Theory of The Solid State, Student edition, Academic
  Press, 1974, $19 (soft bound, ****).

- A. Holden, The nature of Solids, Columbia University Press,1965, $17 (***).

- J. M. Cork, Radioactivity and Nuclear Physics, D. Van Nostrand Co., 1950,
  $15 (***).

- R. L. Murray, Introduction to Nuclear Engineering, Prentice Hall, 1957,
  $15 (***).

- R. E. Sonntag and G. J. Van Wylen, Fundamentals of Statistical
  Thermodynamics, R. E. Krieger Pub. Co., 1986, $25 (!).

- M. S. Tyagi, Introduction to Semiconductor Materials and Devices, John 
  Wiley & Sons, 1991, $18 (!).

- S. Glasstone and M. C. Edlund, The Elements of Nuclear Reactor Theory,
  D. Van Nostrand Co., 1952, $15 (***).

- R. S. Shankland, Atomic and Nuclear Physics, The Macmillan Co., 1955,
  $15 (***).

- H. Goldstein, Fundamental Aspects of Reactor Shielding, Addison Wesley,
  1959, $15 (***).

- D. H. Menzel, ed., Fundamental Formulas of Physics, Vol. I & II, Dover,
  1960, $17 (Soft bound, ***).

- D. H. Menzel, ed., Fundamental Formulas of Physics, Prentice Hall, 1955,
  $25 (***, Hardbound).

- Y. M. Shirokov and N. P. Yudin, Nuclear Physics, Vol. 1 & 2, Mir Pub.,
  1982, $28 (****).

- S. H. Crandall and N. C. Dahl, An Introduction to Mechanics of Solids,
  McGraw Hill, 1959, $15 (***).


If interested, Please e-mail me at: tuanho@netway.net
               or Phone me at     : (303) 364-4426

Thanks,

Tuan 


cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudentuanho cudfnTuan cudlnHo cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.24 /  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: Fri, 24 Feb 95 10:38:19 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Alastair Mayer <alastair@firewall.ihs.com> writes:
 
     "Happens all the time.  You've probably trusted your life to same a few
     times.  D'you think the avionics techs that calibrate aircraft
     instrumentation fully understand how they work?  Ask one to explain (in
     detail) GPS to you, or even a gyroscope.  Ditto for medical instruments.
     ("How does it work?" "Well, you push this button here..")"
 
Mayer is correct. We do indeed trust our lives to such methods, and not just a
few times. All of us do, every minute of every day. All U.S. and the Russian
ICBM sites, nuclear attack submarines, and air defense radar sites are run by
people who have extensive hands-on training but who usually do not have any
deep knowledge of physics. They have operated this machinery very successfully
(so far) without knowing much about how it works. They know more than I do
about the Eaton dynamometer, but not much more.
 
Power company generating plants, including nuclear plants, are also run on a
day to day basis by people who do not have in-depth knowledge of the
equipment. Sometimes they do not know enough; that was one of the causes of
the Three Mile Island accident.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.24 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Rothwell is an expert on Tokamaks?  NOT
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell is an expert on Tokamaks?  NOT
Date: 24 Feb 1995 23:45:50 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <5uxZsZh.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

>  
> The title of this thread is: "Rothwell is an expert on Tokamaks?  NOT" The
> answer, of course, is that I know practically nothing about tokamaks, but I
> *do know* about economics, engineering feasibility and cost benefit analysis,
> politics, corruption, money, business, and government boondoggles.

I wish you would get back to my criticisms about your Griggs experiments
which don't control for stored heat.

But, if you insist on this point: You quote from the ARIES study:

  "Economics: All the ARIES designs would not be competitive with respect
     to Advanced Light-Water (fission) Reactors. The ARIES designs are
     uneconomic because...

Yes, they are not economically viable---but do you know what that
means? It means the COE is too high (but still trivial, ~0.2 cents/KWH), 
and the Capital costs large enough to make lenders 
balk at giving you the loan. It does NOT mean that 
it cannot produce low cost energy for the 
populace. 

My definition of economic, which I think the man on the street
shares, is that fusion based power should not cost the end user 
anything additional. And that is true---costs to the elctricity users would
be indistinguishable from current sources, since distribution costs
dominate.

The economic non-viability is a result of the present
utility and banking culture, not intrinsic to the 
energy making abilities of the devices proposed.

As for a more real issue, the rad waste from steel: that is
why they are not considering steel anymore. For the new
DEMO reactor study (to which EPRI is an advisor---so why are
they even getting involved, sending their people down here to 
head committees, ect, if they wrote it all off already), There
is only one special steel alloy being considered (out of 100's
of andidates) that meets the rad waste requirements of the Utilities;
if it turns out to have poor mechanical properties (which we expect it will),
that is it---no more steel in reactor designs. On to Tungsten, Be, etc.


Jed, your criticisms are a lot like the creationists, who 
use disagrements among evolutionary theorists as a platform
for their own wishes to dispose of the whole subject. The
internal conflicts over tokamak design do not generally mean everyone
with brains has already written off the tokamak. Even though folks
who are pessimists (which incules me), see that it essentialy it could
reasonably work; its just not as elegant as we would wish for.

--
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 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.24 / Barry Merriman /  Re: How does a dynamometer work?
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How does a dynamometer work?
Date: 24 Feb 1995 23:55:39 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <D4HM22.zs@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU  
(Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>      On the other hand, I am quite confident that Jed is incapable of 
>      producing a reliable and accurate accounting of the energy 
>      balance in and around Griggs' 'device'.  And, to me, another
>      bit of evidence supporting that position is his self-avowed
>      lack of understanding of the operating principles of the 
>      instruments he is operating.
> 
>      Anyone tending to credit Jed's observations should note this carefully.
>      Any idiot can make enough mistakes to claim rather astounding
>      things.
> 
>                              dale bass
> 

Well, in Jeds defense, I think there is enough redundancy/blank testing/real
effect seen to rule out simple misuse of equipment.

The baisc point is: ingoring calibration---I don;t even care if its
got 100% errors---the attached equipment monitoring the power starts to 
behave very differently for certain operating parameters of the pump.

This is a strong indication that it is sensing some change of state in the 
device---maybe its ultrasonic noise somehow masquarading as power, who
knows. But there is every indication that it is real. I suspect that it
is a fluid dynamic mode of some sort that has a lower effective viscocity,
but who knows.

Given that, its only a small leap to try the idea that equipment is
functioning ok (maybe, maybe not), and ask what is consistent with that
(and conservation of energy :-). So, Since I can see the stored heat
as a real possibility, I'm not going to harp on measurement artifacts.

I just wanted to know how the dyna. worked so that I could know how both
the power in monitors work and what they could be fooled by. I don;tsee  
anything I consider likely, at this time. 


--
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 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.24 / John Cobb /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: 24 Feb 1995 09:21:54 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <hoz6kvv.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>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.

Citing them it OK. Reading them is even better.

> They
>cannot even be made close to economical, it is completely out of the
>question.
>

This statement is flat out wrong. Period. end of discussion. Jed you
do yourself no service when you attribute conclusions to authoritative
studies that are absolutely antithetical to their stated results. Especially,
when there are enough people around to call you on it. I trust Barry's
call on this one, especially since he is daily working around 1/2 of the
guys who were doing the ARIES work.


>I do not understand the technical details of that report, 

No need to apologize for that. There are a lot of things I don't
completely understand myself.

>but the economic
>and simple engineering conclusions are very clearly expressed, and there
>is no question what they add up to. 

Au-Contraire. The things I remember most about reading the reactor studies
economic conclusions were:

1) The COE estimate was slighty (~10%) higher than current prices
2) Every summary report expresses conservatively large error bars on these
   estimates.
3) Almost every report points out that there exist significant opportunities
   that the COE will be lower due to concept enhancement. They also
   caution that unforseen problems could increase the COE as well.

For example, the first one that I could lay my hands on in my files is a copy
of the ESECOM paper presented at the NICE IAEA meeting (12th International
Conference on Plasma Physics and Controlled Nuclear Fusion Research, Nice, 
France, 1988. Proceedings published by IAEA in Vienna, Vol. 3 pp. 325-339.

For those who are not familiar, the IAEA meetings are a series of international
meetings held every two years. It is the premier summary meeting on fusion. It
has a long history of enthusiastic international support and attention from
Europe, the U.S., Japan, U.S.S.R. (and now the former soviet states) as well
as many other members of the IAEA. In short it is THE single most prestigious
fusion conference in the world. So much for credentializing. Anyway, because
the meeting is so important, there is a great deal of competition to get papers
accepted. What often happens is that researchers on difference projects get
lumped together to make a single short summary, so IAEA papers are really good
at being a summary and a list of references. I say that because my point is
that when a conclusion is expressed in an IAEA paper it has been thought about
and discussed widely among those members of the community who are most 
knowledgeable. It represents a consensus opinion. In short it is very 
authoritative. Now that is not to say that it is unquestionable. Rather, my
point is, if one wishes to take issue with the conclusions, one had better
be ready to give cogent persuasive arguments and not just a collection of
perjorative adjectives.

This particular paper had as its authors, Logan, Holdren, Berwald, Budnitz,
Crocker, Delene, endicott, Kazimi, Krakowski, and Schultz. Table VII lists
the estimated COE of various options with conservative, optimistic
and nominal evaluation. All of the figures are between 30 and 60
mills/kWh.

Maybe you are confusing mills with cents? a mill is $1/1000. So a 50 mill
COE is a 5 cent COE.

Let me just quote from their section 3.2 Titled "Technology and
economics"

<begin direct quote>
   The design characteristics offering the most important benefits for
reducing fusion costs are as follows:

(1) Compactness ...

(2) High level of safety assurance ...

(3) Advanced energy conversion systems ...

each of these features has the potential to generate COE reductions in the
range of 20 to 30 %. If two or more of them can be combined in one design,
the resulting COE reduction could be even larger.
   The fusion cost estimates we have derived necessarily embody many uncertain-
ties. The magnitudes of these cost estimates relative to one another are more
informative than their absolute values and serve to indicate promising areas
of research to improve fusion.
<end direct quote>


This consensus quote seems to put Jed's statements to the lie.

>Selling power from a Tokamak in the
>year 2050 would be an absurdly uneconomical proposition....
> [and other perjorative adjectives --- deleted]


To grind my own axe again, note that my previous discussions about the
FRC meets conditions (1) and (3) above and may also help in (2) as well
since 3He is easier to deal with than tritium. So FRC's seem worthy of
support as a power plant concept. 

However, as Dave Baldwin noted last week in congressional hearings,
the Tokamak has received so much study because it is the best known,
and at the time decisions were made they were the most
successful. DOE's focus on the Tokamak was based on its success. And
Baldwin is no Tokamak fanatic. At the hearing he is quoted as saying
"there is merit in examing them" in reference to alternates. His
history is at LLNL where they had historically pursued mirror research
and he is one of the early theorists working in field reversed mirrors
which are very similar to FRC's. It is easy to engage in Tokamak
bashing, I even have a mea culpe there myself. But the bottom line is
a power plant must have the most desirable transport possible.
tokamaks fit the bill there, although some alternates have a
chance. Transport is where the game must be played.

-john .w cobb

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

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.24 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Rothwell is an expert on Tokamaks?  NOT
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell is an expert on Tokamaks?  NOT
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 95 10:23:45 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@princeton.edu> writes:
 
     "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."
 
This is incorrect; Heeter does not know what he is talking about. In testimony
before the House SS&T Energy Subcommittee on May 5, 1993, Dr. Robert Hirsch,
Vice Pres. - Washington Office of EPRI made their position clear. He said:
 
     "The problem is that the best DT tokamak designs appear to be less
     attractive than the Advanced Light Water fission reactor, the ALWR . . .
 
     . . . According to reactor design studies, DT tokamaks using the best
     available steel in their construction will produce more radioactive
     waste than an ALWR. While it can be argued that new structural materials
     could reduce fusion radioactive waste, the development of those
     materials will be both very costly and very time consuming.
 
     Despite my conviction that fusion has great potential, I believe that a
     DT tokamak fusion reactor that follows the current path of development
     will be quite unpromising as compared to the advanced light water
     reactor. That being the case, a multibillion dollar investment in ITER
     may not be prudent.
 
     If not DT fuels in large tokamaks, then what? Fortunately, there are a
     number of other, more favorable fuel cycles to choose from. . ."
 
Those are strong words, especially when you consider that Hirsch has made
important contributions to tokamak technology.
 
 
Heeter writes:
 
     "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."
 
That's ridiculous. The cost of tokamak R&D ($500 million per year) is trivial
compared to expenditures for things like new automobile factories or a new
generation of computer chips. Large industrial corporations like GE or Hitachi
could easily afford to participate in this R&D. If there was any chance that
tokamak reactors might work, they would spend the money. They do not spend
even one dollar on it.
 
 
     "(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 . . ."
 
Again, Heeter does not know what he is talking about. He should read the
report instead of trying to guess what it says. He would find it depressing:
 
     "Economics: All the ARIES designs would not be competitive with respect
     to Advanced Light-Water (fission) Reactors. The ARIES designs are
     uneconomic because: a) they recirculate too much power (i.e. Q[E] is too
     small); and b) the fusion power core is too massive and expensive . . .;
     and c) without direct-energy conversion the *net* thermal conversion
     efficiency can be no better than for conventional fission or fossil
     power plants. Both Q[E] and MPD are controlled largely by tokamak
     physics. The ARIES designs have minimized the current-drive power and
     cost; however, simply too much power is recirculated. Even completely
     eliminating all current-drive power and costs is not sufficient to make
     the ARIES designs economically competitive with advanced fission power
     sources. . . .  Lastly, the ARIES studies have shown that the
     tokamak-based fusion power cannot use enhanced ES&H [environmental,
     safety and health] merits to resolve the economic issue."
 
The title of this thread is: "Rothwell is an expert on Tokamaks?  NOT" The
answer, of course, is that I know practically nothing about tokamaks, but I
*do know* about economics, engineering feasibility and cost benefit analysis,
politics, corruption, money, business, and government boondoggles. Heeter
understands the narrow scientific aspects of tokamaks, but he and his fellow
scientists are blind to the larger problems of engineering and economics. They
are ivory tower academics who do not compete in the real world. If they were
exposed to free market competition, they would realize how impractical these
pipe-dream tokamak constructions are.
 
I am no expert, but I have at least read the testimony and official reports
from the experts at the DoE and EPRI. Heeter has not even seen the reports, so
he does not know anything about the subject. I am a non-expert with some
knowledge, and he is a babe in the woods who does not even know what I am
talking about. He knows a lot about the scientific details of tokamaks, but he
has apparently never read about tokamak economics. His detailed technical
knowledge avails him nothing. He is like a person who knows all about computer
chips and nothing about designing and marketing computers. Any objective
person reading this material will come to the firm conclusion that the
technology has no future, and that projects like ITER are a waste of money. I
think that the Japanese will pull the plug on their support, and that will end
the project once and for all. Morrison, Heeter, the MIT plasma fusion gang and
other propaganda experts must be frantically running around trying to stop
that from happening. Their political influence cannot cover up inept science
and fruitcake engineering forever. Maybe the Republicans will have enough
sense to close down the DOE completely. That would go a long way towards
solving the energy crisis.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.24 / Scott Little /  Re: Question for Griggs
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Question for Griggs
Date: 24 Feb 1995 14:54:52 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

>since it seems that stored heat is a likely possibility, 

At least to first order, stored heat is probably not a problem with Griggs
measurements since his procedure involves first starting the pump, then
waiting a good long while until everything comes up to operating temp.
Then he begins the COP test by diverting the output water stream into
the collection barrel and simulatneously starting a timer and other data
collection instruments.  He ends the test according to the timer, and the
operation of the pump is relatively steady throughout the test.  The cool-
down that occurs after the test, is not part of the data collected.

Thus the COP test is like a "snapshot" of the system performance taken
only after things have reached steady-state.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.24 / Tom Droege /  Check Has Been Deposited
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Check Has Been Deposited
Date: 24 Feb 1995 17:03:15 GMT
Organization: fermilab

Just to let Scott know, I finally deposited his check for 1058.95
today.  Also deposited one other check for 30.00 whose doner will
remain hidden unless he wants a certificate.  I will spend of order
half of the fund.  Possibly we could offer the remainder as a "prize"
for the first reproduceable over unity cold fusion machine.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.24 / 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: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 04:20:18 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <3ih2bc$28c@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
Jollie MM <jolliemm@aol.com> wrote:
>   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...

     I certainly think the electronic distribution counts as 
     'elemental structure' if we're talking about 'atoms'.

     Clarity, my boy, is probably best when attempting a discussion
     of alchemy.

                       Not really even an acquaintance...

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.24 / 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: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 04:34:49 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <3iinbt$a63@firewall.ihs.com>,
Alastair Mayer <alastair@firewall.ihs.com> wrote:
>Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
>
>:      God fobid anyone ever has to rely on an instrument calibrated by 
>:      someone who doesn't understand it.
>
>:                         dale bass
>
>Happens all the time.  You've probably trusted your life to same a
>few times.  D'you think the avionics techs that calibrate aircraft
>instrumentation fully understand how they work?  Ask one to explain
>(in detail) GPS to you, or even a gyroscope.  Ditto for medical
>instruments.  ("How does it work?" "Well, you push this button here..")

     I don't think it's defensible to suggest that one can properly
     calibrate an instrument one does not understand on the basis that
     there are instruments that have been calibrated by people
     who are completely unaware of the appropriate operating principles.

     And frankly, a large number of the techs I've been associated with
     with can explain the systems they're calibrating better than 
     the engineers working on them.

     On the other hand, I am quite confident that Jed is incapable of 
     producing a reliable and accurate accounting of the energy 
     balance in and around Griggs' 'device'.  And, to me, another
     bit of evidence supporting that position is his self-avowed
     lack of understanding of the operating principles of the 
     instruments he is operating.

     Anyone tending to credit Jed's observations should note this carefully.
     Any idiot can make enough mistakes to claim rather astounding
     things.

                             dale bass



cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.24 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 03:57:02 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

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.  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.

Fusion is radioactive.  

Aneutronic energy is a different reaction than either fusion or fission
since unlike the other two it generates no neutrons.  However, some
aneutronically burning fuel mixtures will have side reactions of on
fuel species with itself and that may produce a few neutrons.  For example,
D-^3He with the 2-5% side reaction of D-D.  p-^11B, however, is clean. 
So fusion is dirty, Aneutronic energy is clean or essentially clean.  

One more thing, fusion energy converts to electricity very inefficiently,
where aneutronic energy can convert to electricity very very efficiently. 
This is due to the direct expansion of a dense fusion heated blanket 
against a solenoidal field linked with a transformer, (inductive MHD). 
Heat pollution is not good.  
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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:
cuddy24 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.24 / Tom Droege /  Re: What does Griggs Know?
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What does Griggs Know?
Date: 24 Feb 1995 22:33:19 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <9502241730.AA29979@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>, blue@pilot.msu.edu
(Richard A Blue) says:

(snip)

>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
>

Yep, this has been on my mind too.  Mostly I do not want to enter into
discussions as to what might be wrong with the Griggs experiment as I 
must go there with an open mind if I am to do my job.  But I will 
certainly worry about what the ultrasonic energy might do to the 
instumentation.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.24 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Max Planck Institute: E-mail address
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce D. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Max Planck Institute: E-mail address
Date: 24 Feb 1995 19:19:58 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

CHU  TING CHUNG (chuti@ecf.toronto.edu) wrote:
:  Does anyone have the e-mail address of the Max-Planck Institute for
: Plasma Physics?


The WWW server is at  http://www.ipp-garching.mpg.de/ipp/home_eng.html

If you prefer it in German, drop the _eng in the above.


--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.22 / Joe Guokas /  Re: Biblio update 20-Feb-95, FT papers.
     
Originally-From: joeguokas@aol.com (Joe Guokas)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Biblio update 20-Feb-95, FT papers.
Date: 22 Feb 1995 19:02:03 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I'd like to add a slight correction to this item from Dieter Britz's
latest Bibliography Update:

[quote]>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>[unquote]

It is my understanding that W. Collis is not suggesting the neutron
swapping reaction explains the Oklo anomalies.  Instead, he mentions this
neutron swapping/Oklo theory by Shaheen et al., then proceeds with his own
arguments against the theory.  

Those curious about this neutron swapping/Oklo theory should also look at
the following papers:

M. Shaheen, M. Ragheb, G. H. Miley, H. Hora, and J. Kelly,"Anomalous
Deuteron to Hydrogen Ratio and the Possibility of Deuteron
Disintegration,"
Proceedings of ICCF-2, page 221, 1991.

M. Ragheb and G. H. Miley,"Deuteron Disintegration in Condensed Media,"
Journal of Fusion Energy, Vol. 9, No. 4, page 429 (1990).


I hope this is helpful.
Joe Guokas
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjoeguokas cudfnJoe cudlnGuokas cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.26 /  jacord@academi /  Fusion Aspects of Sonoluminescence
     
Originally-From: jacord@academic.csubak.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion Aspects of Sonoluminescence
Date: 26 Feb 1995 11:05:15 GMT
Organization: California State University, Bakersfield

In the March 1995 issue of Scientific American was an interesting article 
about a phenomenon called sonoluminescence. Sonoluminescence is described as 
the ability of sound waves to cause a bubble of air to implode in a spherical
fashion such that photons (predominantly UV but also visible light) are 
emitted. The implosions are synchronized with the compression cycle of the 
sound wave such that many implosion/expansion cycles occur each second. The 
author indicates that theoretical temperature (and pressure?)
approach that of the interior of the sun! (if you don't believe it, see the 
article).
A relatively inexpensive apparatus with a fairly moderate sonic intensity 
was used to probe this phenomenon, which was described as "robust". 
I speculate that a spherical pressure vessel could be constructed with
focussed computer controlled sonic sources, each pointed toward the center 
of the sphere, where the bubble would be introduced and stabilized. The sonic
intensity could be increased substantially. The vessel should be pressured 
and heated. The bubble could be heated with a laser. Heavy water could be 
used, and/or heavy hydrogen gas for the bubble. A less volatile liquid could 
be substituted for the water, etc. In short, all manner of different 
substances, temperatures, and pressures could be tried in an attempt to
achieve a controlled fusion reaction. 
Even if it doesn't work, I submit that this is good science, really "bread and
butter" physics, and it would be worth it anyway to probe this intriguing 
phenomenon. I wish to invite all manner of discussion and speculation 
regarding the fusion implications of Sonoluminescence.
I respectfully submit this posting in the true spirit of science and basic
human curiosity. yours respectfully, John Acord, Master of Science
at jacord@academic.csubak.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjacord cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.26 / Michael Kenward /  Re: Re JET Labs fusion stuff
     
Originally-From: m.kenward@bbcnc.org.uk (Michael Kenward)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Re JET Labs fusion stuff
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 15:00:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Joe (?) from (?) says:

>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.

You seem to forget something. We may have had a war or two, but Europe
successfully united behind JET. We have yet to see any successful large
project where the US has been a willing equal participant. 

Europe learned loing ago that it cannot rule the world. The US still has a
long way to go in the humility stakes. Japan, on the other hand, still needs
to come out of its shell. The only problems I can foresee in a large
international partnership would come from the different styles of the
partners. I really don't think that it makes any sense to suggest that they
might go to war and fail to complete the project.

Apart from that silly jibe, I take the rest of the message seriously. To sum
it up, the US does not, and cannot, have a coherent collective position on
ITER because so many people are players. This tells me that the rest of the
world should proceed without pinning too many hopes on the US, if it can get
its act together. We can then invite the US to join on our terms. 

Of course, this all depends on whether ITER is the best approach. Like those
in the US who have doubts about it, I worry about any project that is
designed by international committees. You only have to look at JET and TFTR
to see that the US and Europe approach designs in very different ways. Both
are good and successful machines. TFTR is far less imaginative in its
construction. But JET just might have come unstuck, opting as it did for the
D-shaped cross section long before Doublet had shown just how promising it was.

I suspect too that TFTR was better value for money. It certainly consumed a
lot less paint than JET.

Michael Kenward
m.kenward@bbcnc.org.uk

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenkenward cudfnMichael cudlnKenward 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 18:17:27 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <hoz6kvv.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> 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. 

Jed, the people I work with here *did* the ARIES report. If it showed
fusion was economically impossible, why are the same folks now working
on the DEMO report, with the encouragement of EPRI, Utilities,  and DOE?

I haven't read ARIES in detail, but their projected figures for
Cost Of Electricty were 0.080--0.300 Cents/KWHR for ARIES I, which is
an extrapolation of conventional designs. Explain to me how that showed
the non-viability. As for the engineeering nightmare---yes, its tough and
there are unresolved issues, which is what I work on, but there
is no reason to think anything is ruled out this early in the game.




--
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 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.26 / Bradley Sherman /  Re: Question for Griggs
     
Originally-From: bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Question for Griggs
Date: 26 Feb 1995 17:59:49 GMT
Organization: Dendrome, A Genome Database for Forest Trees

In article <1995Feb26.141724.20656@clark.dgim.doc.ca> gsteckly@dgim.doc.
a (Gary Steckly) writes:
>...
>I have to agree with John.  If Mr. Griggs is really imposing these 
>restrictions on publication of Tom's impressions of the GG, I would 
>suspect something is rotten in Rome. You might as well call it off.
>...

This is not the case.  We are sending our intrepid PI to come
back with a one-bit signal.  1 --continue investigation 0 --drop
investigation.  The former case will be recognized by complaints
from Tom Droege about the high cost of welding equipment.

We are certainly placing a high degree of trust in the good, unmet,
doctor, but some of us feel that he's earned it. 

    --bks

-- 
Bradley K. Sherman             | Institute of Forest Genetics
bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov          |                 P.O. Box 245
510-559-6437  FAX:510-559-6440 |       Berkeley, CA 94701 USA
<a href="http://s27w007.pswfs.gov/~bks/">Dendrome Project</a>
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbks cudfnBradley cudlnSherman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.24 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Question for Griggs
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Question for Griggs
Date: 24 Feb 1995 23:27:32 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3ikrvs$n1f@boris.eden.com> little@eden.com (Scott Little) writes:
> >since it seems that stored heat is a likely possibility, 
> 
> At least to first order, stored heat is probably not a problem with Griggs
> measurements since his procedure involves first starting the pump, then
> waiting a good long while until everything comes up to operating temp.
> Then he begins the COP test by diverting the output water stream into
> the collection barrel and simulatneously starting a timer and other data
> collection instruments.  He ends the test according to the timer, and the
> operation of the pump is relatively steady throughout the test.  The cool-
> down that occurs after the test, is not part of the data collected.

This is precisely why stored heat is the problem: he does not keep
track of the initial warm up, and final cool down phases, and so 
has no idea how much heat is stored, and how much is liberated during the 
monitoring time.

> 
> Thus the COP test is like a "snapshot" of the system performance taken
> only after things have reached steady-state.

Yes, and as I said, it is fully consistent with a simple reduction
in the working fluid effective viscocity, and simulataneous liberation
of stored heat. In short, how can you know its a steady state, if
you don't know the dynamics of the heat stored in the device.

You also need to remeber it doesn't produce additonal heat output;
instead, it just doesn;t consume as much input power.

I guess I don't really understand your point as to why stored
heat is not  problem. I agree IF were a steady state effect, 
THEN its not a stored heat effect. But no one has shown this,
and Jeds experiments in his report do not directly address this.





--
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 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.24 / Barry Merriman /  Extending Jed's experiment.
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Extending Jed's experiment.
Date: 24 Feb 1995 18:31:57 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE


So far, Jed has not responded to my last iteration
of comments on his experiments as documented in his report. 
As I said, I see nothing *in his report* to rule out that
the machine simply stores a lot of heat in its casing/rotor
(esp the rotor, which is thermally insulated by the steam layer),
which maintains the constant power out, while the working
fluid  switches into a low viscocity mode which places less load on the 
motor, resulting in an apparent, but not real,  over unity effect.

Marshall Dudley is designing an experiment to compensate for the 
ambiguities in Jed's experiments---namely not tracking the heat
content of the device. Marshall is planning to do some type of 
experiment in which he does a power balance from start up to
shut down, (room temp to room temp for the machine).

Just for the sake of discussion, I'll suggest one approach, which is
nice because it maintains Jed's experiment as a proper sub-experiment:

Do  the barrel test, including the warm up and cool down periods,
but collect the steam from the over unity part
of the run in a different container and compute power
in during that sub-portion of the run as well. Show
that the energy in the water from the sub-part of the run
is over unity, while the energy in the water from that
plus the warmup/cooldown waters is not over unity (presumably).

This would not rigorously show that there is no net excess
heat (since losses to air are ignored), 
but it would show that all Jeds (and similar) experiments
were fundamentally wrong, and since these were the prime basis
for excess heat claims, it would be up to them (Jed, Griggs, etc)
to devise a more careful set of experiments.

A few points:

(1) to actually compute the true power in/power out
ratio MAY BE  difficult (since you need to carefully account
for losses to the air; IF these are significant, it
will be tough to deal with in 1 day; on the other hand,
Jed has shown that it seems not difficult to do this balance over
~20 minute time periods, so apparently losses to the
air during that time are small).

(2) to demostrate that Jed's experiments are flawed
is much easier---all you have to do is break the
experiment into 3 time intervals:

I1 = [t0, t1] = time from power on to start of special mode
I2 = [t1, t2] = start of special mode to end of special mode
           (Jeds experimental monitoring duration; you can
            take I2 = 20--60 minutes, as Jed often does, since
            you want this experiment to have direct bearing
            on his experiments)
I3 = [t2, t3] = end of special mode til machine is room temp again

and for each time interval, collect output water/steam in
separate condensation containers,
and measure the heat energy content (above the ambient water temp) H_out1,  
H_out2, H_out3 and measure total energy input to the device during these times,  
E_in1, E_in2, E_in3.

Then, Jeds computed coefficient is

H_out2/E_in2 > 1

while the more accurate coefficient is

(H_out1 + H_out2 + H_out3)/(E_in1 + E_in2 + E_in3)

(< 1 , presumably).

Since this ignores other (minor) losses of heat, it would not
be a rigorous proof of less than unity, but it would
prove rigorously that Jeds experiments show nothing unusual,
and that there are significant stored heat effects. It
has the beauty of requiring no new instrumentation beyond
what Griggs has used---though you could add your own
redundancy, if you desired.

On the other hand, to is also good if you obsevre over unity
effect---then it would imply that over unity is truly very
robust, and can be studied ignoring losses to air---an
important simplification if true.


--
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 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.24 / Bruce Scott /  Re: plasma physics summer session
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce D. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: plasma physics summer session
Date: 24 Feb 1995 19:17:34 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

CHU  TING CHUNG (chuti@ecf.toronto.edu) wrote:
:  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?


It is in fact held each year, at about the same time.


--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.24 / John Cobb /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: 24 Feb 1995 17:51:01 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <Ji8a8X4.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>John W. Cobb <johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu> writes:
> 
>>This statement is flat out wrong. Period. end of discussion. Jed you
>>do yourself no service when you attribute conclusions to authoritative
>>studies that are absolutely antithetical to their stated results. Especially,
> 
>For crying out loud! You have not even read the darn report! It says right
>here, bold as brass that NONE OF THE ARIES DESIGNS can be made cost
>competetive. 

Careful, the quote doesn't have a period after competitive. As you note
below, the sentence continues "with respect to Advanced Light-Water (fission)
Reactors." This is a whopper of a phrase to leave out. Why, because

1) There are (to my knowledge) no advanced light-water reactors producing
today. and

2) The estimates for COE of ALWR's are significantly lower than current COE's.

Thus your saying ARIES conclusions mean that tokamak fusion can never be 
competitive, no way, no how, never, ... is very different than saying they
are projected to be more expensive than ALWR's. I was objecting to you
stating the first when it is not supportted, especially not by ARIES and
associated studies.

Now if it is a case of us just being sloppy writing and reading posts, well
then, no problem. I guess we have just made it clear that the comparison
is to ALWR's and not to current generating capacity.

>I quoted it right here in this forum several times. Here it
>is again, read it:
> 
>     "Economics: All the ARIES designs would not be competitive with respect
>     to Advanced Light-Water (fission) Reactors. The ARIES designs are
>     uneconomic because: [ list of 3 major problems, on which Jed and I
>     agree, I guess we can read :> ]

>What do you make of that? Can you read plain English? It says ALL THE ARIES
>DESIGNS WOULD NOT BE COMPETATIVE WITH RESPECT TO ALWR. That's *all*, as in:
>every one of them. Got it? Not cost competative means there is no
>economic justification for building them.

Right, if it is not cost-competitive, don't build the fusion plants.
However, there are uncertainties that enter the equation. For example,
ALWR's may not be socially acceptable because of public distrust with
fission (perhaps justified, perhaps not). Magnetic fusion might realize
another breakthrough and decrease costs again. Solar photo-voltaics might
realize mass production breakthroughs of what have been seen in small
batch, laboratory studies. I even don't find it impossible
to think that there might be some missing fact that has been overlooked
that would allow these cold fusion/excess heat ideas to bear fruit. I
don't know how, but I don't appoint to myself the arrogance to make
ironclad pronouncements. And if one notes the things I say about FRC's
are couched in just such language. I think there are ideas worthy of further
exploration. They are worthy because previous results have been encouraging.
But I am quite up front about giving no guarentees about ultimate success.
It looks good to me. Many people feel similarly. But when it comes to
guessing the end game, it is a WAG and I admit it. Intellectual honesty
demands as much. I would like to believe that Jed exercises the same
restraint when he is cheerleading for yesterday's or today's CF idea.
Otherwise we would not give his words much credibility.

still wishing, still hoping, and still holding on to my wallet,

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

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Feb 27 04:37:05 EST 1995
------------------------------
