1995.02.26 / Scott Little /  Re: Question for Griggs
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Question for Griggs
Date: 26 Feb 1995 09:21:55 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l


>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.

OK, you've got a real point here but I do feel that the GG is a steady-state
device.  True, Jed and Gene reported a "onset" phenomena in their original
article on the GG but, after seeing Griggs run the thing himself, my feeling
was that whatever performance the GG attains occurs promptly upon turning it
on and is essentially perfectly steady.  Griggs would run the thing for 10
or 15 minutes before starting the COP data collection and, just watching
the various instruments (e.g. delta-T and kW (Dranetz), it seemed quite
steady.

If your suddenly-reduced-viscosity hypothesis was in fact occuring then
there would be only one relatively short period in which the COP would
measure out to be >1...after that, things would equilibrate again right?
One could test for that pretty easily by collecting several COP data sets
during one running of the GG.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.27 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 95 00:39:48 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> writes:
 
>Jed, its just not that clear. EPRI is supportive of further fusion reactor
>design studies, so regardless of what they say, they are still interested.
>They are simply increasingly demanding and skeptical.
 
That is not what EPRI's Vice President told the United States Congress in
formal testimony. He said don't build ITER because it is losing proposition.
He said other types of fusion are more promising.
 
Are you setting yourself up as an official spokesman for EPRI? Are you saying
that we should believe you and not what their Vice President tells the
Congress? Sorry, buddy, but you don't even work for them, you do not set their
policy, or testify before Congress. I will believe their testimony and not
your unsupported opinions and wishful thinking. I gather you are in the
tokamak game. No doubt you wish EPRI was playing on your side. Too bad for
you, but they are not.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.27 / K Jonsson /  Re: How does a dynamometer work?
     
Originally-From: kvj@rhi.hi.is (Kristjan Valur Jonsson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How does a dynamometer work?
Date: 27 Feb 1995 10:16:39 GMT
Organization: University of Iceland

In <B.Hamilton.387.2F4AD643@irl.cri.nz> B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton) writes:

>In article <hkza0-N.jedrothwell@delphi.com> 
>jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

>>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. 

>The dynos we use here are mainly hydraulic or eddy-current. Unfortunately,
>we have no info on Eaton systems, ours are made by Froude. I'll make a
>leap of imagination and pretend the Eaton is the same as the Froude.

What you are describing is a power extracting dynamometer.  You could
to the same with a paddle wheel in a barrel.  However, the eaton appears
jusy to sit passively, 'observing' the power being delivered, rather
than 'absorbing' it.  In another post I suggested a mechanism which would
do that: A shaft of known torsional stiffness beging monitored for
torsion, either using an optical system or piezoelectricity.  Nothe
that such a system would be subject to the same fallacies as an
elevctrical power meter regarding hight frequency transients.

A more classical dynamometer, again, not power-absorbing, would simply
measure the torque applied to the motor from its harness.  such a device
is purely mechanical, and given enough moment of inertia, would smooth out
all transients.  Equally, one could measure the torque deliverd to the
g.g. housing.

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:
cuddy27 cudenkvj cudfnKristjan cudlnJonsson cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.27 / K Jonsson /  Re: A possible explanation for the Griggs results
     
Originally-From: kvj@rhi.hi.is (Kristjan Valur Jonsson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A possible explanation for the Griggs results
Date: 27 Feb 1995 10:18:41 GMT
Organization: University of Iceland

In <3ifiqq$9p1@newsgate.sps.mot.com> rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com (Doug Shade) writes:

>In article <3iejb6$qke@deadmin.ucsd.edu>
>barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:

>> The former may be difficult, as it may require a 10 hour experiment,

>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
>will all fill up at the same time, "n" times as slow as a single
>barrel.

..Or just connect them using siphon hoses, as someone suggested.

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:
cuddy27 cudenkvj cudfnKristjan cudlnJonsson cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.26 / Stephen Lajoie /  Re: If you could, how would YOU do a cold fusion experiment?
     
Originally-From: lajoie@eskimo.com (Stephen Lajoie)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: If you could, how would YOU do a cold fusion experiment?
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 06:47:54 GMT
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever

Same experiment as P&F except that I wouldn't look for cold fusion heat 
or cold fusion neutrons, I would look for cold fusion ash in the paladium.

Why not just use auger spectroscopy to look for helium in the paladium? 
Or use x-ray diffraction to find helium in the paladium lattice. Check it 
against a control, of course. But if helium is there were it wasn't 
before, it would seem like pretty good evidence.



-- 
--
Steve La Joie
lajoie@eskimo.com
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenlajoie cudfnStephen cudlnLajoie cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.26 / Stephen Lajoie /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: lajoie@eskimo.com (Stephen Lajoie)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 07:05:14 GMT
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever

In article <3iii9b$ik5@news1.radix.net>, Joseph Davidson <jhd@radix.net> wrote:
>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.

I think the real main argument against fusion is that there are more 
promises for tomorrow than are ever realized. So far, fusion projects 
have made promises that practical production of energy is just a few 
years away. 

I remember touring Livermoore labs, and I heard all kinds of promises. 
None of which was ever realized.

Now, SOLAR and wind, on the other hand, are impractical for several 
reasons. In order to get any kind of reliability out of solar and meet 
the energy needs of the U.S., a solar collector the size of the state of 
Colorado would be necessary. That would be no small expense, and it is 
not clear that the equipment would produce enough energy to support 
the production of another solar collector in it's usable lifetime.

I've talked to several power engineers who claim that windmills are a 
pain in the ass. The federal government makes them pay for the 
electricity generated, but it is so sporadic, undependable, and often out 
of phase with the grid that they pay for the energy but don't hook it up 
to the power grid. These technologies seemed to be advanced more by good 
Karma than anything else.
 

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

Yeah, but we could spend our money on less worthy things. At least it's 
physics budget.

>--
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>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
>---------------------------------------------------------------------


-- 
--
Steve La Joie
lajoie@eskimo.com
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenlajoie cudfnStephen cudlnLajoie cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.28 / Timothy Shoppa /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: shoppa@almach.caltech.edu (Timothy D. Shoppa x4256)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: 28 Feb 1995 09:31 PST
Organization: California Institute of Technology

In article <1995Feb21.212708.42524@cc.usu.edu>, slsm4@cc.usu.edu writes...
>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
>>  
>	Actually I guess I need to argue against ALL Nuclear power.  How does
>solar, etc.  add up against fission?

Solar, geothermal, wind, and coal are all nuclear in origin as well.
Solar, wind, and coal power sources are all the result of the great fusion
reactor in the sky, and geothermal energy is (at least partially)
produced by heating from nuclear decays in the earth's core.

I guess you'll have to argue against *all* forms of power.

Tim. (shoppa@altair.krl.caltech.edu)
Kellogg Radiation Lab, Caltech.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenshoppa cudfnTimothy cudlnShoppa cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.27 /  Lawrence /  Heavy elements
     
Originally-From: "Laurent (Lawrence) Levesque" <laurent@ee.umanitoba.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Heavy elements
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 02:48:08 -0600
Organization: The University of Manitoba


Are there any indications of increasing stability in heavy elements ( 
atomic number 105+ ) ?

How is a heavy element like 109 Une 266 produced?  

Any current references on fusion methods and half-lives would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Laurent ( Lawrence ) Levesque 
laurent@ee.umanitoba.ca
http://www.ee.umanitoba.ca/~laurent




cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenlaurent cudlnLawrence cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.27 / Tom Droege /  Re: Super Conductivity Trainer
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Super Conductivity Trainer
Date: 27 Feb 1995 18:10:18 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3irqej$hn1@crl10.crl.com>, thura@crl.com (Thu Ra Tin) says:
>
>I have been contacted by someone from Singapore who wants to buy some
>equipments called "Super Conductivity Trainer" developed by Mr. Squit.
>That is all the information I have currently.  He would like to get it as
>soon as possible.  If anybody can help me find this product please leave
>me an E-mail message or call me at (415) 552-4653.
>
>Sincerely,
>Thu Ra

While this sounds funny, it is probably a real request.  High energy
superconducing magnets have to be "trained".  That is you run them up
till they quench, then do it again and again.  As they are cycled,
they get better and better.  On the other hand, it is easy to learn
about this stuff.  Try the IEEE Transactions on Superconductivity where
I once published a paper.  

On the other hand, it smells of someone trying to buy something that 
they shouldn't buy.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.27 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Rothwell is an expert on Tokamaks?  NOT
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell is an expert on Tokamaks?  NOT
Date: 27 Feb 1995 10:38:25 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University,
Princeton NJ 08540

In article <Rcz78D5.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> writes:
> 
>>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
> 
>Look here: EPRI's V.P. in Washington went before Congress and made a formal
>policy statement. I quoted it right here. He said that hot fusion is not
>economical and he said it would be unwise to proceed with ITER. That is what
>he said, and that is what he meant; his statement is unequivical. Other
>people within EPRI have also said this. Stop trying to read the tea leaves,
>don't tell me about "advisors," look at what EPRI said. When a large
>organization makes formal statement before the Congress of the United States,
>you can be sure they thought about it carefully in advance, and they really,
>truly, definitely mean it. EPRI recommends the ITER program and the current
>approach to hot fusion be scrapped. Period.

Actually, that's entirely *NOT* the case.  EPRI *does* support
ITER and TPX, though it does have concerns (as we all do) about
the economic feasibility of tokamak reactors without further
innovation.  I have obtained copies of several letters sent 
out by EPRI *after* the Hirsch testimony (which was in 1993), 
publicly *disavowing* what he said.  We note also that Hirsch is, 
for some reason I do not know, no longer employed by EPRI.

Let me quote from a letter sent to Rep. George Brown by 
John F. McCann, of Consolidated Edison of New York, who is
a member of the EPRI Fusion Working Group.

(This is dated June 13, 1994)
***** begin quoted text *****
Dear Representative Brown:

	I understand that some people who wish to cut the fusion 
program are reporting that utility groups, particularly the 
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Fusion Working Group,
have called into question the viability and justification of the
tokamak design and in particular the Tokamak Physics Experiment (TPX).
I am a member of that working group.  That group has not in any
way recommended cutting either the fusion program o the Tokamak
Physics Experiment.

	I am very familiar with the fusion energy program and I
believe that fusion holds great promise for future energy production.
Although I am not writing on behalf of the working group, I 
believe that the large majority of the working group strongly
supports continued development of the fusion energy option.

	The tokamak approach is the most fully developed and 
the most promising approach to practical fusion power before us
today.  The utility industry, of course, wants the safest, most
efficient, most economical means of producing electricity.
Although many years of development of fusion remain, there
are good reasons to believe that the fusion program as constituted
is leading toward that goal.

	[ Next two paragraphs describe position of Consolidated Edison
of New York, and importance of ensuring diverse energy mix for the
future.  Not relevant for current discussion.]

				Sincerely

				(signed) John F. McCann

*****************************************************
Note that this is not the only letter I have with these sorts
of thoughts expressed.  		

The fact is that Hirsch was giving his *own* opinions at the 
hearings, and EPRI has definitively stated that he was *not*
being representative of their viewpoint.

Jed, I appreciate your efforts to understand the tokamak 
debates, but in this case, you're simply underinformed.

EPRI DOES SUPPORT THE TOKAMAK CONCEPT, INCLUDING ITER AND TPX.

--------------
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@pppl.gov, http://w3.pppl.gov/~rfheeter
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Author/Editor/Maintainer of Conventional Fusion FAQ & Glossary

All statements above are my *own* opinions and should *NOT*
be construed as official statements from my employer or school.


cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.27 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Question for Griggs
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Question for Griggs
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 95 08:44:57 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

John N. White <jnw@elvis.vnet.net> writes:
 
>So a TB like Jed Rothwell can take all the data he wants, but a real
>expert in calorimetry like Tom Droege is forced to agree not to take data?
 
Nonsense. When I was there I told him I did not want to see anything new or
anything not covered by the patent. That was a year and a half ago. They
must have improved stuff by now, with no patent filed yet. It is standard
operating proceedure in any corporation to keep things like that confidential,
and to ask for a signed agreement before showing them.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.26 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Question for Griggs
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Question for Griggs
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 12:10 -0500 (EST)

gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly) writes:
 
-> John Logajan (jlogajan@skypoint.com) wrote:
-> : Tom Droege (Droege@fnal.fnal.gov) wrote:
-> : : 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..
->
-> : Hello?  Griggs already has a patent.  Pictures have already been published
-> : Data runs have been published in magazines and here on this very forum.
->
-> : What on earth could he possibly desire a confidentiallity agreement for???
-> : There is nothing left to remain confidential.
->
-> : Maybe Griggs has some new "teachings" to patent yet, and then confidential
-> : would be justified -- but confidentiality on the old stuff?  Come on.
->
-> : No measurements, no report  (no lookee, no speakee.)  Tom, under these
-> : conditions, I think you can justify canceling the trip.  I would have give
-> : you a hard time about backing out before, but now I think the backers
-> : of the trip might not get their money's worth.
->
-> 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.
->
-> Marshall, did Mr.Griggs ask you to sign a similar non-disclosure
-> agreement for your trip as well?  If he did, I  suspect that there
-> might be something that he is keeping from us.
 
I have virtually given up posting to newsgroups.  In the last 2 weeks about 30
postings I have made, one of which answered this question already, never shown
up, and I have been double posting all news items to TWO INTERNET SUPPLIERS!!!!
In fact I have posted some postings 5 times, and they still don't show up.
USENET is unbelievilby unreliable. :(
 
Anyway, in answer to your question.  I am answering both you directly and
posting to the newsgroup.  Please my response to the newsgroup as, if nothing
has changed, I doubt these postings will make it.
 
Yes he did say we would have to sign an agreement.  I will EMAIL you the
message I posted last week on this in the next message, and also post it again.
If you would please forward the EMAIL message to sci.physics.fusion as none of
the Internet suppliers I have access to seem to be able to get a news items out
any more.  Label me frustrated in Tennessee.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.26 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Reposting for the 6th time message on Griggs conversation
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reposting for the 6th time message on Griggs conversation
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 12:13 -0500 (EST)

-> Btw, what I myself would like to know is: what does Griggs himself claim? We
-> have never heard from him, only from a certain propagandist, whom I do not
-> regard as highly reliable, to say the least...

Since I have promised a followup to this question in sci.physics.fusion a week
or so ago, I am posting my reply to this question to the newsgroup.

I had faxed Mr. Griggs asking him to elaborate on this.  I never received a fax
back, so I called him today.  From what he told me, he makes no excess energy
claims for his device. Such claims would have to be proven.  Instead he says
that measurements that he and others have made indicate excess energy.  He does
not know where the excess comes from, or if there is some type of measurement
error that no one has found that can account for it.  He is open for anyone to
explain the pheomemon, either as to the source of the excess, or as to the
error everyone is making which makes it appear there is an excess.  He
suggested that I read his paper "A Brief Introduction to the Hydrosonic Pump
and the Associated 'Excess Energy' Pheomenon" published in ICCF4.  He claims
that his stand is quite clear in this paper.  He has indicated they will be
mailing me a copy of this paper tomorrow.

He also indicated we will have to sign an anti-disclosure agreement.  Thus
specifics of the device would not be allowed to be published, and we probably
would not be allowed to incorporate what we find out into a homemade test unit
if we decided to try and do some additional investigating on our own when we
return.  He indicated that any papers we published would have to be approved by
them first.  He assured me that this was only to prevent release of proprietary
information for competative reasons since some specifics of the device have not
been patented yet.  If the results of our tests are negative they would still
allow us to publish that.

It looks like we may be looking at the end of April before they can schedule a
day for us to investigate.


                                                                Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.27 / 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, 27 Feb 1995 18:51:11 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3iail8$926@curly.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu
(John W. Cobb) writes:
>In article <D4A9Fq.A16@prometheus.UUCP>,
>Paul M. Koloc <pmk@promethe.UUCP> wrote:
>
>[ disucssion about anti-matter storge for space travel]
>
>
>>...   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.  
>
>Hunh? Why?, or is this just a balderdash troll?
>-- 
>John W. Cobb	Quietly Making Noise, Pissing off the old Kill-Joys
		-Jimmy Buffet

Probably not.  
Send me an E-mail on this, if it is really of interest. In your first
send, please, tell me what you believe "charge" is. This is the question 
that Jackson doesn't really address.  It is important for this, in as 
much as although most of the physics is unchanged, the interpretation and
in some cases "boundary values" change, so results such as the asymetry
of multicharged nuclei fall out.  Of course, a handful of the counter 
example (multicharged negative nuclei) would suffice to whack this 
hypothesis in the conceptual stage.   
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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:
cuddy27 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.27 / Stephen Lajoie /  Re: If you could, how would YOU do a cold fusion experiment?
     
Originally-From: lajoie@eskimo.com (Stephen Lajoie)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: If you could, how would YOU do a cold fusion experiment?
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 20:11:23 GMT
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever

In article <3isot7$4u@bcrkh13.bnr.ca>, Michal Tencer  <mtencer@bnr.ca> wrote:
>jkondis@orion.oac.uci.edu (John Kondis) wrote:
>>
>
>> >Why not just use auger spectroscopy to look for helium in the paladium? 
>>                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Now that is a good idea.  I am not a cold-fuser myself, but if people 
>> wanted to check on their results, this is a must-do.  Auger is extremely 
>> sensitive to surface contaminants, and if fusion is really going on, then 
>> He should be found...
>
>Except that helium has no Auger spectrum. You need at least three
>electrons for this to happen
>
>M.T.

Opps. I wondered why no one did that. (I'm Looking sheepish over here...)

How about looking for latice defects using x-ray diffraction? The He 
atoms should cause stress in the latice.

Humm, would x-ray florescence detect the Helium?

-- 
--
Steve La Joie
lajoie@eskimo.com
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenlajoie cudfnStephen cudlnLajoie cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.26 / John Kondis /  Re: If you could, how would YOU do a cold fusion experiment?
     
Originally-From: jkondis@orion.oac.uci.edu (John Kondis)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: If you could, how would YOU do a cold fusion experiment?
Date: 26 Feb 95 20:23:27 GMT
Organization: University of California, Irvine

lajoie@eskimo.com (Stephen Lajoie) writes:
>Same experiment as P&F except that I wouldn't look for cold fusion heat 
>or cold fusion neutrons, I would look for cold fusion ash in the paladium.
>Why not just use auger spectroscopy to look for helium in the paladium? 
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Now that is a good idea.  I am not a cold-fuser myself, but if people 
wanted to check on their results, this is a must-do.  Auger is extremely 
sensitive to surface contaminants, and if fusion is really going on, then 
He should be found...

...John Kondis
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjkondis cudfnJohn cudlnKondis cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.23 / Barry Merriman /  Re: A possible explanation for the Griggs  results
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A possible explanation for the Griggs  results
Date: 23 Feb 1995 00:26:30 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <pm56UHU.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> writes:
>  
>      "Further, the over unity runs Jed observed were of short duration."
>  
> That is incorrect. I watched a flow test for a couple of hours, and I have
> data from other people (customers) who ran all afternoon.

Well, this data is not provided in your recent report.Also, "All afternoon"
may not be long enough---the only way to know how long is to bound the
amount of heat that is actually stored in the device when the o/u 
turns on---and then ensure _that specific run_ lasts much longer than could
be sustained by the stored heat. 

>  
>  
> Stolfi and many others have proposed the stored heat hypothesis. 
> I think it is decisively ruled out by many different facts:
>  
> 1. During long duration runs the heat shows no sign of petering out.

That would be decisive---if you can show rigorously they were long enough.
That in turn requires monitoring how much heat actually was stored in the
device since it was turned on. But I gather the experiments are not done
that way.

>  
> 2. In the middle of a run, you can stop the over-unity effect instantly by
> altering the flow rate or pressure. 
> You can flip it on, off, and on again over
> the course of a minute. In some runs it kept flip-flopping on and off itself,
> we could not make it steady. Merriman calls stored heat "thermal inertia,"
> which I think is an apt name. Please note that you cannot turn off inertia.

Ahh---but here you are falling into the "excess heat" 
vs "reduced consumption" symantics trap: the "effect" is not
new heat out---its reduced consumption. As I said, reduced consumption
is simply lower torque on the motor, and that practically means a change 
in the effective viscosity of the multi-phase fluid in the device. 

So: the effect you are turning on and off at will is the change in 
fluid viscocity (and thus input power), and that is quit reasonable.
The heat actually exiting the device REMAINS CONSTANT with all this,
which is entirely conssitent with thermal inertia.

>  
> 3. Blank runs, with things like a rotor without holes, show no excess heat.
> Indeed, they show a C.O.P. at around 95%; a large deficit.  A rotor
> with no holes has more mass, so if anything it should store more heat.

You are missing the point: the EFFECT is a special fluid mode in which 
the viscocity drops by 20--50% (i.e., the torque needed to turn the rotor drops
by that much). All you are saying is that this low viscocity mode does
not occur in blank runs, or runs with no holes in the rotor. This is entirely
as expected: it is a special fluid mode, probably related to  certain
mix of the fluid steam and cavitation (<= need holes for that) phases.

The STORED HEAT is always be present, blank run or not! But you don't
get the over unity calculation unless you get the viscosity drop.

Let me re-propose the scenario: the device is warmed up, so it has
enough stored heat to maintain the steam production; then, for
certain parameter windows, the fluid effective viscocity drops, so
the draw on the motor drops. You perceive this as over unity performance.

Also, let me point out that the rotor may store more heat than 
you might expect from the _housing_ temperature: the rotor is 
*insulated* against heat loss by the steam/water/vacumm layer 
surrounding it, so it could potentially get very hot. This is consistent
with the rotor melting griggs has observed. Perhaps the prep 
for the o/u mode even effectively involves enhancing this insulation
to store more heat in the rotor (not necessesarily, but it could),
by approaching the target parameters through a path of parameters where
the thermal conductivity of the fluid layer is lower. This
"hot rotor" theory could be considered a variation on the basic stored
heat&reduced viscosity theory.








>  
> Overall, I have to say the "stored heat" hypothesis is the an example of the
> worst type of irrational hand waving. It is almost as nutty as Morrison's
> burning hydrogen hypothesis (which is the standard for be-all, end-all, wacky
> physics). It does not even begin to fit the facts. I cannot imagine why  
people
> who call themselves "skeptics" could believe such Looney-Toon Cartoon ideas.
> It seems to me the skeptics take their physics directly from those Road  
Runner
> cartoons. They are a lot of fun -- I *love* the way that coyote runs off a
> cliff, stops dead, and then falls at a constant speed. But that ain't  
physics.
>  
> - Jed

--
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 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.23 / Barry Merriman /  Re: economic reviews
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: economic reviews
Date: 23 Feb 1995 00:41:06 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3igaqf$to7@curly.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W.  
Cobb) writes:

> 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.
> 

> 
> 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.
> 

Well, most of UCLA has moved to UCSD now (since we migrate
when Bob Conn moved to become Engineerng Dean).


However, we are this moment in the soul of a new machine  (study) :-)

This one is DEMO, and its mission is to project the actual demonstration
reactor, which would be the link between an ITER-ish machine and a true
commercial plant. DEMO is meant to be about 75 % of a full size commerical 
fusion plant, and require very litle extraopolation in technology, physics,
construction, maintainance, operations, safety and licensing. The study
started 3 months ago, and runs for 2 more years. We just had a full week
of DEMO/Utility Advisory meetings last week.

First, let me say I am a scientific researcher, without direct involvement
in reactor studies. I just sort of watch them for edification/amusement.

My basic impressions reflect what you said: They work hard on COE, 
becasue that is what Utilities care about (as well as saftey, licensing,
radiation issues), but COE is only a small part of what we pay for electricity
anyway, so I think its importance is over rated. (I said as much in the 
meeting, and was soundly rebuffed---not so much because its not true, but
because the present utility culture could not accept tripling the COE; it
would be block by public utility advisory boards, shareholders and lenders.

Persoanlly, I view the whole reactor studies effort with a combination
of understanding and amusement: I understand why its important as an 
exercise and to guide the program efforts, but the activity itself,
as my wife aptly noted, is precisely like the Wright brothers trying to design
a commercial airliner.








--
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 
------------------------------
1995.02.26 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: 26 Feb 1995 01:08:16 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <RezaEN1.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

> For now though, I do not
> consider it "arrogant" for me to point out that EPRI and ARIES study and all
> of the industrial corporations on earth have labeled hot fusion a waste of
> money and a government boondoggle that should have been scrapped decades ago.
>  

Jed, its just not that clear. EPRI is supportive of further fusion reactor
design studies, so regardless of what they say, they are still interested. 
They are simply increasingly demanding and skeptical.

No wishes more than I that it would be possible to say "tokamks cannot
ever produce economically viable power, so there is no point pursuing
them as energy resources".

But the reality is this: present projections show rather the opposite: yeah, 
it looks like it will produce power within the realm of practical 
economy, but it wont be very elegant, there will be substantial rad waste
unless you can get good materials, there is much difficult engineering
to be done, and the plnt captial costs are large, thus requiring 
governmnet backed loans in ordr for utilities to be interested.

So, it leaves the water muddy: its not the power source of our dreams, 
but if push comes to shove (and it will in ~ 100 years) we could
use this stuff as our primary power soucre and not disrupt the 
social and economic structure of the US.

In the absence of any alternative, it thus makes national security sense
to keep this project going. If you view that way, as defense spending
(which usually buys you things you don't want to use, but do want
to have the option of using), it makes a lot of sense.

Before you start withholding your tax dollars, tell us what you backup 
plan is for energy production in the US 100 years from now. The only
realistic alternative is solar, and that also takes substantial 
political will (which state are we going to cover with solar panels...).



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


cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.26 / John White /  Re: Question for Griggs
     
Originally-From: jnw@elvis.vnet.net (John N. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Question for Griggs
Date: 26 Feb 1995 22:40:58 -0500
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
>                               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..

So a TB like Jed Rothwell can take all the data he wants, but a real
expert in calorimetry like Tom Droege is forced to agree not to take data?

That reminds me of the psychics who perform in front of the gullible,
but when a professional magician is in the audience, suddenly the vibes
aren't right.
-- 
jnw@vnet.net
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.26 / John Logajan /  Re: Question for Griggs
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Question for Griggs
Date: 26 Feb 1995 04:10:17 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Tom Droege (Droege@fnal.fnal.gov) wrote:
: 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..

Hello?  Griggs already has a patent.  Pictures have already been published.
Data runs have been published in magazines and here on this very forum.

What on earth could he possibly desire a confidentiallity agreement for????
There is nothing left to remain confidential.

Maybe Griggs has some new "teachings" to patent yet, and then confidentiality
would be justified -- but confidentiality on the old stuff?  Come on.

No measurements, no report  (no lookee, no speakee.)  Tom, under these
conditions, I think you can justify canceling the trip.  I would have given
you a hard time about backing out before, but now I think the backers
of the trip might not get their money's worth.

--
 - 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:
cuddy26 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.26 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Question for Griggs
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Question for Griggs
Date: 26 Feb 1995 00:54:14 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3inmse$519@stratus.skypoint.net> jlogajan@skypoint.com (John  
Logajan) writes:

> The molar heat capacity of most metals is about 26 J/mole/degree C.
> So let us say we can't detect a 5 deg C change in the noise (10 F.)
> 
> 7,600,000 / (26 * 5) = 58,000 moles of metal, or about 1500kg aluminum.
> 
> So we'd need 1500 kg of aluminum to store 7.6MJ of energy into a 5C
> temperature delta.  More metal for a smaller delta temperature, and
> less metal for a greater delta temperature.  I believe the Griggs
> device does not have 1500 kg of thermal mass.  Therefore one would
> expect to see a substantial temperature decline during the 17 minutes
> of alleged cooling.

A wonderful calculation---it yields results similar to my 
own, of course. You just reach a different conclusion...

The temperature delta is the delta between the metal and the 
mean temp of the working fluid in the device. Who is monitoring
that, _at all_? Especially the delta relative to the rotor temp,
which is a completely unmonitored variable. Add to that that 
Griggs himslef has found examples of rotor *melting*, suggesting 
localized temps ~ 1000C on the rotor.

Assuming the real mass of metal is more like 100kg, we need 50 C temperature
delta's to occur unnoticed to the experimenters. But: since 

(a) they measured
the device housing with a pyrometer (a crude estimate), and moreover
did not monitor it during the experiment, and 

(b) since they have no direct
way to measure the effective temp of the fluid in the device 
(its obviously some average of the inlet fluid temp and outlet fluid temp), 
and 

(c) since the temp of the rotor (which is thermally insulated to some extent
by the rotor-housing gap) is *totally unmonitored* but has shown 
signs of transiently reaching ~ 1000 C  (melting), 

I can easily imagine there could be ~ 50 C delta's during the experiment
that go un noticed.

Q: why do these large uncertainties in the relevant
temperatures give you confidence that the delta temps during a run
are << 50 C.

The suggest to me that such temp variations, unnoticed, are a very
real possibility. The only way around it is to measure the temps
directly, vs time (hard), or do energy accounting from 
room temp to romm temp times (fairly easy).







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


cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.26 /  jacord@academi /  Sonoluminescence and Fusion
     
Originally-From: jacord@academic.csubak.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sonoluminescence and Fusion
Date: 26 Feb 1995 20:46:33 GMT
Organization: California State University, Bakersfield

In the March 1995 issue of Scientific American was a terrific article about 
the phenomenon of sonoluminescence. Sonoluminescence is described as the 
ability of sound waves to cause a tiny bubble of air to implode in a 
spherical fashion such that photons (predominantly UV, but also visible
light) are emitted. The author indicates that theoretical temperatures and 
pressures approach that of the interior of the sun! (if you dont believe it,
see the article). The implosions are synchronized with the compression cycles
of the sound wave such that many implosion/expansion cycles occur each 
second. 
    A relatively inexpensive apparatus with a afirly moderate sonic intensity
was used to probe this phenomenon, which is described as "robust".
Sonoluminescence seems a promising avenue of research for attempting
to sustain a controlled fusion reaction.
    I speculate that a spherical pressure vessel could be constructed
with focussed computer controlled sonic sources, each pointed toward
the center of the
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 could be pressured and
heated. 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 think that this is good science, and it would be worthwhile anyway to 
probe this intrigueing phenomenon. Even to a non-physicist like me, this
avenue of research appears promising. Could someone reply and tell me why
this would not work? If this is way off base, it should be easy for one of
you high-powered physicists to shoot down. In any case, I would really 
appreciate any reply. Please do not disregard this interesting idea.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjacord cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.26 / John Porter /  Re: If you could, how would YOU do a cold fusion experiment?
     
Originally-From: porterj@uclink.berkeley.edu (John Douglas Porter)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: If you could, how would YOU do a cold fusion experiment?
Date: 26 Feb 1995 21:32:51 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

Derek Lai <as969@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:

>...If you could get your hands on some heavy water, platinum and
>palladium, how would you do the Cold Fusion experiment?  What equipment
>would you use?  What would be the dangers of conducting the experiment? 
>I got a hold of Fleissman and Pon's article in the Journal Of Analytical
>Electrochemistry, but the stuff in there is way over my head (I'm still
>in high school).  What would I have to watch out for? 

I am a professional scientist, so I would approach it this way:

First, keep an open mind - don't go into the project with the attitude
that you will reject evidence that doesn't conform to preconceived notions
you may have.  You must subject all evidence to thorough, rigorous
scrutiny - everything worth considering should measure up to the same high
standards applied to all science.  Having an open mind doesn't mean you
can't eventually come to decisions that are based on the evidence you and
others accumulate, however.  You have to be able to defend your
conclusions with rigorous scientific arguments, and you have to be willing
to modify your conclusions as new evidence presents itself.  I'll tell you
what I have concluded at the end of this post.  You can make up your own
mind. 

Second, conduct a thorough and exhaustive search of the scientific and
technical literature to find out what has already been done, what has been
learned, who has done the work, and what important issues remain
unresolved.  There is probably little point to your charging off into
completely uncharted territory. 

Third, come to a decision about what you want to do.  The more focussed
your project, and the smaller its scope, the better are your chances of
performing a successful experiment. i.e. one which either verifies or
negates the hypothesis you proposed when you designed the experiment.  Be
sure to apply the scientific method rigorously to your study - alas, you
will find in your literature search that this practice was and is all too
rare in the cold fusion research community.  And be prepared to accept the
conclusion that you cannot say with certainty one way or the other - this
is disappointing but all scientists are faced with having to improve,
refine and repeat experiments that turn out to be inconclusive. 

If you want to duplicate an experiment then you should get as many
technical details as possible from relevant papers.  You could try talking
with the people who did those experiments to get small (but often
important) details that weren't reported. Or you could explore the
possibility of working with an established scientist. 

Have fun.  And go to the library first.

J.P.

Oh, my opinion:  There is convincing evidence of 'cold' muon-catalyzed
fusion of hydrogen and its isotopes.  All other types of 'cold' fusion
postulated and studied recently are experimental artifacts and/or wishful
thinking on the part of the investigator or are the unwarranted optimistic
interpretation of poorly-designed experiments.  There aren't enough muons
around to explain any of the other false-positive results.  

All experiments that have been well-conceived, well-designed and performed
to high standards have yielded the conclusion that rates of 'cold' fusion
must lie below the lowest detection limit of the experimental method.  And
there have been some very clever and very, very, very sensitive
experiments performed. 

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenporterj cudfnJohn cudlnPorter cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.27 /  Zardoz /  Re: If you could, how would YOU do a cold fusion experiment?
     
Originally-From: pcymak@ccn1.nott.ac.uk (Zardoz)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: If you could, how would YOU do a cold fusion experiment?
Date: 27 Feb 1995 21:31:31 GMT
Organization: The University of Nottingham

How about saturating the palladium with deuterons using an electric
currant in heavy water,
as in the original experiments.
Then take two of the deuteron saturated rods and put them in a bell jar wired up to
either an arc welder or a carbon arc power supply.
strike a high currant arc between them and check for He in the exiting gases.

This way you get the energy involved with the plasma experiments,
but the advantages of having the deuterons packed together in the 
palladium lattice.

      opinions anybody?

note: The university of nottingham has state of the art computers and computer software,

      This means I can't recieve E-Mail. (sigh)
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenpcymak cudlnZardoz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.28 / Richard Milton /  Re: Super Conductivity Trainer
     
Originally-From: richard@milton.win-uk.net (Richard Milton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Super Conductivity Trainer
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 07:52:14 GMT

 
In article <3irqej$hn1@crl10.crl.com>, Thu Ra Tin (thura@crl.com) writes:
>I have been contacted by someone from Singapore who wants to buy some
>equipments called "Super Conductivity Trainer" developed by Mr. Squit.
>That is all the information I have currently.  He would like to get it as
>soon as possible.  If anybody can help me find this product please leave
>me an E-mail message or call me at (415) 552-4653.


I thought of this idea myself some time ago, but rejected
it because the need to carry large quantities of liquid
nitrogen with me while wearing the trainers seemed to
negate all the benefits of having trainers in which an
electric current could circulate permanently.


Regards 

Richard

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

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenrichard cudfnRichard cudlnMilton cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.26 / Robert Heeter /  Fusion Glossary to be Posted Soon!
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion Glossary to be Posted Soon!
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 22:40:08 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

I have recently completed an extensive set of revisions of 
the fusion glossary.  (This is a major component of the 
Conventional Fusion FAQ.)  The Glossary (and some of the other 
FAQ files) are now posted automatically by the faq server at 
rtfm.mit.edu.  I update the files, and it will post the most 
recent update at 90 day intervals from now on.  (Except for
the intro/overview section, which is posted every two weeks.)
Last fall the size of the FAQ prompted a move to reduce the 
posting frequency of the full FAQ from once every 30 days to 
once every 90 days, so the FAQ wouldn't flood the newsgroup 
more than 4 times a year.  

However, _this is one of those times_, when a large chunk of the
FAQ will be posted in a small time interval.  The Glossary 
section runs about 300K, and the FAQ files that are ready to 
be posted this go-round are another 50-100 K or so.  These 
files should be posted within the next few days.  My apologies 
to those of you with slow/non-threaded newsfeeds.  I feel it's 
important that the FAQ be posted occasionally, since not everyone
has access to the archives, but I know it will swamp those of 
you on the low-tech side of the net.  On the other hand, there's
some neat stuff in here, and it's largely different from what
was posted last fall, so hopefully you'll find it interesting.


***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
Author/Editor/Maintainer of the Conventional Fusion FAQ
As always, I represent only myself, and not Princeton!
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Mar  1 04:37:05 EST 1995
------------------------------
