1995.02.27 / Michal Tencer /  Re: If you could, how would YOU do a cold fusion experiment?
     
Originally-From: Michal Tencer <mtencer@bnr.ca>
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 14:51:19 GMT
Organization: Bell Northern Research

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.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenmtencer cudfnMichal cudlnTencer cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS 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 13:20:41 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University,
Princeton NJ 08540

This is a long post.  Summary:  EPRI disavowed Hirsch's testimony,
and does support the tokamak.  The ARIES study (Krakowski article)
indicates that future advanced tokamaks show promise as fusion reactors,
though current designs may not compete with future fission reactors
(should they ever be built).  The tokamak continues to show promise
as the leading fusion energy reactor candidate.  Rothwell believes 
he knows what I do and do not know, which is truly amazing, 
since he's never even met me.  There is no need for any further 
discussion of this topic.

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

Actually, I do know what I'm talking about.  I'm familiar with Hirsch's
testimony, and with EPRI's renunciation of what he said.  I posted
in a separate article a letter from another member of the EPRI fusion
working group indicating that Hirsch's testimony was not representative
of EPRI's position.  I have some other material on this topic.

The fact of the matter is that EPRI DOES SUPPORT TOKAMAK FUSION RESEARCH,
as I stated above.  Hirsch's statements to Congress are nearly 2 years
old; Hirsch no longer works for EPRI; EPRI's recent statements indicate
support for both TPX and ITER, as well as continued research into
the tokamak concept.  End of debate.

Just for fun, let me rebut Hirsch's statements, before we move
on to discussing Jed's misinterpretation of Krakowski's article on
the ARIES results:

>He [Hirsch] said:
> 
>     "The problem is that the best DT tokamak designs appear to be less
>     attractive than the Advanced Light Water fission reactor, the ALWR . . .

Given the lack of *any* new fission plant construction in the U.S.,
and the lack of *any* orders placed for new fission plants in the U.S.,
it's actually questionable whether fusion *needs* to be competitive
with ALWRs.  The perceived proliferation, waste, and accident-safety 
problems with nuclear plants are major strikes against them.
 
>     . . . 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.

No one is even *planning* to build actual DT powerplants with
steel!  It is *always* pointed out that other materials, especially
vanadium, have wonderful radiological and structural properties.
The costs of developing these structural materials are actually
much less than the costs of building and operating the fusion plants,
so Hirsch's statements here are really disingenuous and misleading.
 
Anyway, to continue with replying to Jed's article:

>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.

You missed my point entirely.  You can't compare the cost of currently
running a fusion research program with anything else.  You need to 
compare the START UP COSTS of beginning from scratch.  The costs of
building a serious fusion lab are *much* higher than the costs of 
*operating* the lab.  To build and operate a state-of-the-art tokamak
requires several billion dollars over roughly 10 years, even for a
national lab which already has all the necessary infrastructure.  
Starting from scratch is not a trivial task.  Furthermore, *as I stated*,
there isn't enough *financial incentive* yet for companies to break into
the field.  (There are, however, companies doing fusion R&D with federal
research $$, notably General Atomics in San Diego, which operates the
DIII-D facility.)  It's not that companies couldn't afford it if they
wanted to (which is good, because at some point they *will* need to
take over); the problem is that it's still too early for them to
expect a reasonable profit from getting involved.  This doesn't mean
that there isn't "any chance that tokamak reactors might work"; it's
that there's no reason for the companies to waste their money doing research
at this point, when they can wait until better ideas come out of the
public research that's already being done.
> 
>     "(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. 

Actually, I have read the report, and while you're capable of quoting
it, you obviously didn't assimilate what it said.

>     "Economics: All the ARIES designs would not be competitive with respect
>     to Advanced Light-Water (fission) Reactors. 
[...]

This doesn't say that all tokamaks ever built will be uncompetitive.
It's not even clear that ALWRs are socially and environmentally acceptable,
so tokamaks may not *need* to be competitive with ALWRs in order to be
economically viable.  Rothwell's statements that the tokamak will never
be competitive are not supported even by his own quotation.

Furthermore, the *abstract* of the Krakowski article (which Jed has
certainly read), states clearly that "A general conclusion from this
extensive investigation of the commercial potential of tokamak
power plants is the need for combined, symbiotic advances relative
to present understanding in physics, engineering, and materials before
economic competitiveness with developing advanced energy sources can
be realized.  Advanced tokamak plasmas configured in the 
second-stability regime that achieve both high beta and bootstrap 
[current] fractions near unity through strong profile control 
offer high promise in this regard."  (Krakowski, et. al., 
"Lessons Learned ... ", as published in _Fusion Technology_
vol. 26, Nov. 1994, p. 1111.)  

Let me just translate the technospeak into normal English, for 
those (like Jed) who didn't grasp what the quotation is saying:

Tokamaks as currently understood will not make economical fusion
power plants.  However, advanced tokamaks, which have higher
confined plasma pressure and generate much of the needed plasma
current on their own, are promising candidates for development
into (potentially) economical fusion power plants.

If Jed had bothered to read the other papers in that issue
of Fusion Technology, or even their abstracts, he would have
run across an article by Emmert, et. al, entitled "Improvement
in Fusion Reactor Performance Due to Ion Channeling."  (p. 1158).
Ion channeling involves using plasma waves or other mechanisms to
transfer the power of the alpha particles produced in fusion
reactions directly to the fuel ions (rather than using them
to heat electrons, which then heat ions).  (It happens that this
is a field of research I'm currently involved in, so Jed can't
tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.)  In the abstract for 
this article, we find the following statements:

"Ion channeling is a recent idea for improving the performance
of fusion reactors by increasing the fraction of the fusion power
deposited in the ions.  In this paper we assess the effect of ion
channeling on D-T and D-3He reactors.  The figures of merit used
are the fusion power density and the cost of electricity.  It is
seen that significant ion channeling can lead to about a 50-65%
increase in the fusion power density.  For the Apollo D-3He
reactor concept the reduction in the cost of electricity can be
as large as 30%."

This is reasonably clear English, and it indicates that there are
*new ideas* to *improve* tokamak reactors which will *reduce*
the costs of the fusion energy produced.  In this case, an 
ion-channeled reactor can generate electricity for 30% less
cost.  There is some debate about what the actual numbers will
turn out to be (provided we can get ion channeling to work
in practice), but the general point is that there are a number
of ideas out there, which were not covered in ARIES or the
other design studies performed to date, and which might even 
make the tokamak competitive with the ALWR.  

Reports of the tokamak's demise are greatly exaggerated.

>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.

Funny Jed, but that ARIES study you just quoted was put together by
scientists, who you claim are "blind to the larger problems of engineering
and economics."  Oddly enough, the report isn't blind at all.  Try again.
While many scientists are blind to engineering and economics, many are not.
In particular, the scientists who design fusion reactors to study the
engineering and economic problems generally feed their results back into
the fusion community, so that new ideas can be developed to improve
the concept.  You should learn something about tokamaks and the scientists
who build, design, operate and study them before issuing blanket
condemnations.  If you were exposed to the actual science and understood
the engineering and economics analyses, you would realize that the 
darned thing probably *can* be made practical.  Science is not static,
and as knowledge evolves, it becomes easier and easier to do things
that were once thought impossible.  Tokamak fusion power production 
today is roughly 8 *ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE* greater than it was just
25 years ago.  The number of dollars-spent-per-watt-produced has
also decreased dramatically in that period, by something like 6
orders of magnitude.  The tokamak shows no signs of running out
of gas, though it becomes more challenging to make progress when
there are all these obnoxious people out there claiming you can't
do it, and trying to eliminate the funding for the project.

>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. 

Jed, not only are you not an expert on the tokamak, but you're certainly
not an expert on me.  So please don't tell me what I have and have not
done.  Especially when you're just plain wrong!  I had seen the Hirsch 
testimony long before you posted it, and furthermore I knew that 
EPRI had disavowed it.  The letter I quoted in my other article has 
been sitting on my desk for several months.  I've read the ARIES and 
ESECOM studies (or haven't you looked at the FAQ?).  I do know what 
the reactor design people claim and don't claim.  Next time you pick 
a fight with someone, make sure you know what you're talking about.  
You are just being silly to claim that I don't "know anything about 
the subject."  I suggest you quit before I make you look even more foolish.

>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.

Say what you like, but I clearly do know what I'm talking about.

It's interesting that so many objective people have done what you suggest
(studied the economic issues surrounding tokamaks) and concluded that, 
actually, the tokamak is a pretty good idea, with definite prospects 
for the future.  Churchill once said that democracy was the worst form 
of government - except for all the others.  Well, the tokamak is the 
worst sort of fusion reactor - except for all the others.  It isn't 
perfect, and it's got a long way to go, but it's pretty good, and 
actually it's the best we've got right now.  That doesn't mean we 
shouldn't look for something better, but it does mean we shouldn't
give up on it now.

*********************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@pppl.gov, http://w3.pppl.gov/~rfheeter
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Nothing I say should be construed as an official statement
by Princeton or the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab.


cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.27 / 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: 27 Feb 1995 11:03:18 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <RezaEN1.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>John W. Cobb <johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu> writes:
> 
>>1) There are (to my knowledge) no advanced light-water reactors producing
>>today. and
> 
>There are no hot fusion reactors producing today either. They are not even
>scheduled until 2050! Obviously, all cost comparisons have to be made to
>hypothetical technology that will be available in 50 years -- expert guesses.

And this was exactly the reason I first jumped into this line of discussion.
In one of your previous posts you made a statement to the effect that
fusion is not economically viable and that this is a known fact with 5 sigma
certainty. I'm glad to see that you now admit that we are dealing with topics
that have a high degree of uncertainty. Cost estimates are made, but if the
COE differs by 5% on the bad side, that does not mean "never will be
economically competitive" because the error bars are quite large.

>Actually, the whole idea of trying to make a major technology that will not
>pan out for 50 years is ridiculous. Feynmann and other have pointed out how
>stupid this is. A small scale laboratory experiment is fine; incandescent lights
>took 20 years to develop; transistor research began in 1925; but it is a
>waste of money to do large scale R&D on a technology with as many problems as
>hot fusion.

I wouldn't make statement as strong as what you make here, and I fear that
this is not the true reason for your deep felt vitriol against Tokamaks.
However, sometimes even a red-herring argument has merit. I agree that
if a techology has an incredibly long lead time, then it is only prudent
to require a low level of investment. The payoff is so uncertain that the
financial risk is so high to prevent the large scale long-term financial
commitments. In fact there was an article in Issues in Science and Technology 
2 or 3 years back where a former Domenici staffer made exactly that point.
IMO< that is the fundamental problem with the development of fusion energy.
It requires such a large development expense and a high level of uncertainty
that noone except national governments cana undertake it, but the ability
of national policymakers to stay the course for 30 years is questionable,
even when steady progress above stated goals is being made. Such an effort
will always be vulnerable to small-scale sniping from people with specific
agendas. The culmulative effects of this "pissing in the soup" will be to
strangle the program.

> 
>>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
> 
>I would not make any ironclad pronouncements either, if the hot fusion people
>were not stealing my money for their propellor-head schemes.

So perhaps this is the real reason you dislike Tokamaks so much. It seems that
you feel they are stealing money, limelight and credibility from excess heat
claims. Let me suggest that again, the tax money is more of a red-herring
and that you are more upset by the inability of excess heat claims to gain
credibility. When the history was written, the people who were asked about
the emperor's early "cold fusion" clothers happen to be plasma physicist.
When they said the king was naked, it was embarassing. But don't shoot the
messenger. If Pons and Fleishman had called it a "bio-energy device" and
claimed their excess heat was from biological origins, would you now be
lambasting the National Institute of Health for sending a team of scientists
to investigate the U of U claims. Would you be complaining about NIH
stealing your money at gunpoint?

In terms of your point about spending tax dollars, again it is worthy of
consideration. However, as I stated above, the uncertainty and long-term
nature of Tokamak fusion means that it will either be developed under 
government aegis with government funds, or it will not be developed. The
conventional answer to this point is that because it is so important and
there are so few long-term energy alternatives, then yes this is an
appropriate exception to the general rule. Please note, however, I did
not say that I am convinced by this line of reasoning.

As I have said elsewhere, I think it would be best to find "the third way"
where a concept could be found that did not require such a large capital
cost. I talk about FRC's as one example. However, there is a big difference
between wishing for a smaller, more compact solution and finding one that
actually works. Just wanting it to be so, doesn't make it so.

>If you want to pay my Federal Income Tax bill then I promise I will never make
>another pronouncement about hot fusion again. 

Actually, Jed, I checked with the Internal Revenue Stazi and they said
your tax dollars are being applied to Security and Exchange Commission
enforcement activities and patent examiners salaries at the PTO, so you
can rest easy knowing that none of the money that was "stolen" from you
was given to fusion research. :>

>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.

And I think it is fine that you speak you opinion. Notice I have never
tried to tell you to "shut up and sit down". However, I do think that many
of your statements are unsupported, extremely polemical, and counter-factual.
I have tried to explain why I felt this way and shown the reasoning to
support my conclusions.

Finally, as I look back over the last exchange, it is clear to me that we
are now only talking about politics and ideology and not fusion, or excess heat
devices, or whatever. So perhaps it's time to end this particular line of
discussion before it degenerates into repetition and emotion.

-john .w cobb


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

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.27 / William Rowe /  Re: How does a dynamometer work?
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (William Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How does a dynamometer work?
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 04:54:33 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <pg5ZEtR.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

> 
>Let me reiterate that no matter how sophisticated the machine is, it measures
>the same two parameters, so if you can use a simple one, you can learn to use
>(but not necessarily understand) a complex one.
> 

I agree that you don't need to understand a complex instrument
(dynamometer in this case) to use it an obtain data. However, it is
essential to fully understand it if you hope to understand its limits and
what can fool the instrument (and you).

-- 
_______________________________________________________________________________
William Rowe                                                   browe@netcom.com
MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenbrowe cudfnWilliam cudlnRowe cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.27 / John Logajan /  Re: Question for Griggs
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Question for Griggs
Date: 27 Feb 1995 05:38:24 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Bradley K. Sherman (bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov) wrote:
: 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.

Hmm, a reasonable person demands evidence in order to be convinced of a thing.
Evidence is had by taking measurements.

Tom is not going to be taking measurements, so he cannot collect direct
evidence.  Without direct evidence, a reasonable person will not be convinced
of a thing -- Tom is a reasonable person, so it is 100% predictable that
Tom will come home unconvinced.  The binary value in your "one bit signal"
is preordained by the circumstances -- it is "zero."

--
 - 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:
cuddy27 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS 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 00:41:11 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> writes:
 
     "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."
 
Electricity has no vital connection with "national security" (war). Of course
the Pentagon needs electricity, but it also needs steel, food, antibiotics,
computers, telecommunications and a host of basic industries. There is nothing
special about electricity that makes it particularly important to national
security, and it should not be elevated as a special concern for defense
policy. The only industries and products that deserve special national
security consideration are those directly and solely related to weapons:
things like nuclear bombs and exotic technology with no other market or use
outside the defense establishment. The cold war is over. Waving the "national
security" flag to hide waste and incompetent garbage like the tokamak program
will not work any more.
 
 
     "Before you start withholding your tax dollars, tell us what you backup
     plan is for energy production in the US 100 years from now."
 
I'd be glad to tell you! I have a "backup plan" that I am certain will work.
It works today and it will work in 100 years -- guaranteed. It is called "free
market competition." It is real simple: everyone who wants to make a buck
selling energy is allowed to do so by whatever method they choose. We have a
crazy unplanned free-for-all. Soon cheap, reliable sources of energy appear.
They squeeze the more expensive sources out, and soon we pay less for
electricity, gasoline, and other sources of energy. The government does only
two things: it makes sure nobody pollutes excessively or creates a danger; and
it makes sure nobody forms a cartel to crush competition in violation of the
anti-trust laws. The government does NOT pick sides, subsidize one approach
over the other, invest in propeller-head schemes, or tilt the playing field in
favor of hot fusion or any other approach.
 
If you look around your house and your city, you will note that this open
competition puts the food on your table and the clothes on your back; it gives
you your long distance telephone service, your house, your Internet
connection, your automobile, your computer, and all the other necessities of
life. It is the one and only method that actually works, pace Marx. No rules,
no planning, no crystal balls, no government interference in the free-for-all,
no picking one side over the other, no subsidies. You cannot plan energy any
more than you can plan personal computers or women's fashions. Nobody knows
what is best; the only way to find out is to have unrestricted competition.
Let everyone who is interested in the energy business invest in whatever
scheme they think is best. Some of us will lose our shirts and some of us will
make millions. The customers will benefit more than anyone else.
 
If the tokamak people think they are on to something, let them beat the bushes
and try to interest investors. Let them put *their own money* into the
experiments! Form a company, raise capital! It is free country. Every product
that has every succeeded from lightbulbs to Pentium computer chips has
survived open competition. Energy is no different from underwear or telephone
service or groceries. If the tokamak is such a good idea, people are bound to
invest in it. If the tokamak-ers don't have the guts or the skill to raise
capital or risk their own money, then their idea does not deserve to live. Let
them work on some other idea instead. Let them work in Macdonalds for that
matter -- I don't care what they do for a living, just as long as they keep
their hands out of my pocket. Right now, they are stealing from me. They are
street muggers and welfare cheats who happen to have PhDs. They have an inside
line with a gang of corrupt Washington politicians who subsidize their stupid
scheme. I am trying to compete with them, by doing CF. I am being forced to
pay for unfair subsidized competition against myself!
 
I do not oppose all government sponsored R&D or economic stimulation. I think
the government has done well in the past, starting in the 19th century when it
encouraged and subsidized the building of the first steam ships,
transcontinental railways, and more recently in aeronautics and computers. But
in all of these cases, the government played a passive, disengaged role. It
did not pick and choose winners and losers, it did not chart the way, and it
never got involved in the basic R&D stage. The government simply waited for
private industry to come up with a good products like the DC-3 airplane and
the early computers, and then it subsidized by buying lots of them.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.26 / Thu Tin /  Super Conductivity Trainer
     
Originally-From: thura@crl.com (Thu Ra Tin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Super Conductivity Trainer
Date: 26 Feb 1995 22:11:31 -0800
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access	(415) 705-6060  [Login: guest]

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
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenthura cudfnThu cudlnTin cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.01 / Richard Blue /  Re: Signature of Stored Energy
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Signature of Stored Energy
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 16:01:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The operating cycle of the Griggs Device probably has several signatures
that could be read by clever, knowledgable people.  However, it is
also possible to misread the signs that there is, for example, stored
thermal energy in the rotor.  Before this heat can show itself in the
form of a familiar cool-down curve some special conditions must be in
place.  I would suggest that the conditions may be such as to confuse
the observer.

In most common situations a higher temperature differential leads to a
more rapid energy transfer across the thermal boundary, but that is
not necessarily always the case.  Consider the water droplet dancing
on a hot gridle.  Why does the dancing serve as an indicator that the
gridle is up to proper temperature?

As Barry Merryman has pointed out, the signature of over-unity operation
for the Griggs device is a reduction in the viscous coupling between
rotating and stationary elements inside the pump.  I would suggest that
a reduction in thermal coupling occurs at the same time.  In fact
both signatures can be the result of a single condition, i.e. the rotor
has gotten hot enough to cause water to flash into steam.  The water
is ready to dance on the hot rotor!

If the transfer of heat from the rotor decreases due to softer thermal
coupling the familiar signature of cool down will not show up so
clearly.  Because the process by which mechanical energy is degraded
into heat is also changed it is even conceivable that the rotor may
continue to get hotter for a time.

If I were instrumenting this experiment I would like to readout the rotor
temperature.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.27 / Scott Little /  Re: Closed loop Griggs
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Closed loop Griggs
Date: 27 Feb 1995 19:35:41 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l


>Connect a steam turbine to the output of
>the GG and use it to turn the GG itself.

Very good suggestion but they have a long way to go to get close to this.
The problem lies in the Carnot efficiency of a heat engine, which a steam
turbine is.  To get even 50% overall efficiency, you have to operate
near 1000 degrees F steam temperature.  This is where typical power plant
turbines operate.  AND you need a COP of 2.0 so the 50% efficiency will
yield 1.0 to put back in to the generator again.

Yes, it may be possible but, from what I've heard, Griggs hasn't ever run
his temperatures up that high AND he doesn't get anywhere near 2.0 gain.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.01 / Akira Kawasaki /  Re: Heard any good ultrasound lately?
     
Originally-From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heard any good ultrasound lately?
Date: 1 Mar 1995 10:02:04 GMT
Organization: Netcom

Mr. Dudley writes:
> 
>Measurements are going to be taking by our group.  We plan to use a 
microphone,
>both an air mike, and a throat mike, in conjunction with a tape 
recorder and
>Scope to check for ultrasound.  If we can get our hands on one, we hope 
to put
>it through a spectrum analyzer, but it may be necessary to record it, 
then
>analyze it later. Unfortunately, ultrasound could be lost by the 
recording
>process, so that is not really a good solution.
> 

 I would not recommend using an air mike or a throat mike to attempt to 
record any ultrsound. That is, I assume by ultrsound, you mean 
ultra-high frequency sound. Microphones are generally optimised for 
voice and music frequencies of 20-20,000 cycles per second. You would be 
really pushing it in trying to record ultra high frequency sound from 
them. Particularly bad would be a throat mike which is designed for a 
very limited voice freuency range (100-3,000 cps). Rather look into 
sonar related equiptment (military surplus?) or some other 
transucer-'microphones'. 

   Also, using a tape recorder is fine for audio sound but I would 
suggest using a video camera on macro focus setting to record the 
oscilloscope display of a transducer output for ultra high frequency 
sounds (actually any vibrations). The display is correlated with the 
noted oscilloscope settings to determine the frequency and relative 
strength of the display, of course.

-AK-
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenaki cudfnAkira cudlnKawasaki cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.28 / 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: 28 Feb 95 04:31:27 GMT
Organization: University of California, Irvine

Michal Tencer <mtencer@bnr.ca> writes:
>jkondis@orion.oac.uci.edu (John Kondis) wrote:
[jkondis pulls a boner]
>> >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

Thanks for making me look like the ass that I am.  Much appreciated.  :)

...John

    .   |     . |                      .     .   | |             |  .
___oooooOOOOooooOoooooooo_____________ooooooOOOOOOOOOoo______ooooOOooooo__
John Kondis        University of California, Irvine        jkondis@uci.edu
God made the bulk; surfaces were invented by the devil.  -- Wolfgang Pauli
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjkondis cudfnJohn cudlnKondis cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.28 / A Borghgraef /  Plasmak
     
Originally-From: aborghgr@eduserv.rug.ac.be (Alexander Borghgraef)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Plasmak
Date: 28 Feb 1995 12:55:16 GMT
Organization: University of Ghent, Belgium

Can someone tell me what Plasmak means?
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenaborghgr cudfnAlexander cudlnBorghgraef cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.27 /  m.goehre@diste /  Nieper Ring ?
     
Originally-From: m.goehre@distel.robin.de
Newsgroups: sci.energy,alt.energy.renewable,alt.paranet.science,alt.sci.
hysics.new-theories,cl.energie.alternativen,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusi
n,sci.environment
Subject: Nieper Ring ?
Date: 27 Feb 1995 23:58:00 +0100

Hello, everybody out there...

I just found the following piece of text in one of the older MRA  
messages...can anybody tell me what this Nieper Ring is ?

> Message 10640                                  DATE/TIME: 01/14/95 10:49
> From   : JOEL MCCLAIN
> To     : BILL BEATY
> Subject: PHI and the MRA
> Folder : A, "Public Mail"

*** Some text deleted ***

> In an electronic circuit, semiconductors are made of silicon or
> germanium, both of which are tet lattice structures, and both of
> which will occasionally break into free oscillation, rich in PHI
> based harmonics...that is how the Nieper ring works, because once
> the material has three octaves of resonance, the particle spin is
> virtually stopped...like a timing mark under a strobe...and the effect
> of gravity is suspended.

*** Rest of text deleted ***

Just one thing in advance: Please don't send me long messages in which you  
tell me that I should stay close to realism...I just want to know what  
this is all about. If anyone has the plans for the ring, please send them  
to me, I'd really appreciate it...

One more thing: Has anybody of You tested this circuit ?
Here I would like to hear both of success AND failure...What happened when  
the ring was switched on ? Did anything happen at all ?

Thanks in advance for all of your information.

P.S. Sorry for cross-posting this into areas where it doesn't belong...I  
quoted the original message, and this one was a cross-posting too...can  
anyone tell me how to delete all the areas I don't wont to hit with my  
stuff ? I couldn't find this in the online-help of CrossPoint.


Until we meet again, in this universe or in another one...
Live long and prosper   -   Mike

## CrossPoint v3.02 ##
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudengoehre cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.28 /  rfheeter@pppl. /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 2/3 (Outline)
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@pppl.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.answers,news.answers
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 2/3 (Outline)
Date: 28 Feb 1995 19:47:39 GMT
Organization: none

Archive-name: fusion-faq/section0-intro/part2-outline
Last-modified: 26-Feb-1995
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-quarterly

 ------------------------------------------------------------------
### Outline and List of Questions in the Conventional Fusion FAQ
 ------------------------------------------------------------------

# Written/Edited by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov.

# (Outline subject to change; this list current on February 26, 1995)

*** 1. Fusion as a Physical Phenomenon:
     [Archive-name: fusion-faq/section1-physics]
        A.  What is fusion?
        B.  How does fusion release energy?
        C.  Where does fusion occur in nature?
        D.  Why doesn't fusion occur anywhere else in nature?
        E.  What are the basic fusion reactions?
        F.  Could you tell me more about these different elements?
        G.  Why is the deuterium-tritium (D-T) reaction the easiest?
        H.  What is aneutronic fusion?
        I.  What sort of fusion reactor is the sun? 
        J.  Why is it so hard to create controlled man-made fusion reactions?
        K.  What is plasma physics, and how is it related to fusion?
        L.  Just how hot and confined do these plasmas need to be?
                        (Or, what conditions are needed for controlled fusion?)
        M.  What are the basic approaches used to heat and confine 
                        the plasma?  (Or, what is magnetic confinement?  
                        Inertial confinement?)  

*** 2. Fusion as a Future Energy Source:
 2.1 Technical Characteristics
     [Archive-name: fusion-faq/section2-energy/part1-tech]
        A.  What would a fusion energy plant look like?
        B.  What fuels can a fusion reactor burn?
        C.  What are the different methods for converting fusion energy
                to useful energy?
        D.  What would a D-T fusion reactor look like?
        E.  How do you get the plasma hot enough for fusion to occur?
        F.  What are the materials requirements for fusion?  
        G.  Are any of these materials scarce?
        H.  How large would a fusion reactor be?  Why?
 2.2 Environmental Characteristics
     [Archive-name: fusion-faq/section2-energy/part2-enviro]
        A.  What are fusion's major potential environmental advantages?
        B.  But isn't fusion nuclear?  What about radioactive waste?
        C.  What key technologies are needed to achieve these advantages?
        D.  What are the materials and fuel requirements for fusion?
        E.  What about renewable energy sources?  
               Why do we need fusion at all?  
 2.3 Safety Characteristics Economic Characteristics  
     (Under construction)
 2.4 Economic Characteristics  
     (Under construction)
 2.5 Fusion for Space Applications  
     (Under construction)

*** 3. Fusion as a Scientific Research Program
 3.1 Chronology of Events and Ideas
     (Under construction)
              When did fusion research begin?
              When was fusion research declassified?
       What is the current state of fusion research? 
                   Close / far from achieving practical benefits?
 3.2 Major Institutes and Policy Actors
     (Under construction)
       Who is doing fusion, and where?  (funds distribution?)
              What level of international cooperation is there?
 3.3 History of Achievements and Funding
        (Under construction)
           What is the history of fusion funding (US, FUSSR, EC, Japan)?
              What is the history of achievement of fusion parameters?

*** 4. Methods of Confinement / 
                Approaches to fusion:
 4.1 Toroidal Magnetic Confinement Approaches
     (Under construction)
        A. What is a tokamak / how does it work?
        B. What is a stellarator / " " " " ? 
        C.   "  " reversed-field pinch / " " " " ? 
        D. What is a Field-Reversed Configuration / how does it work?
        E.   "  "  " Plasmak / "   "    "   " ? 
        F. What is a Migma / how does it work?
 4.2 Alternative Confinement Methods / Approaches
     (Under construction)
        A. Gravitational Confinement    
        B. Inertial Confinement
        C. Mirror Confinemen
        D. Muon-catalyzed Fusion
        E. Electrostatic Confinement 
        F. What about the pinch methods?
        G. What are some other confinement approaches?

*** 5. Status of and plans for Present Devices:
     [Archive-name: fusion-faq/section5-devices]
        A.  Flagship Tokamaks
                1.  ITER: (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor)
                2.  JET: (Joint European Torus)  
                3.  JT-60: (Japan Tokamak (?)) 
                4.  TFTR:  (Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor)  
                5.  TPX: (Tokamak Physics Experiment)  
        B.  Medium to Large Tokamaks
                1.  Alcator C-Mod: 
                2.  ASDEX-U:  (Axially Symmetric Divertor EXperiment-Upgrade) 
                3.  DIII-D:  (Doublet III, D-shape)
                4.  FT: (Frascati Tokamak)
                5.  NSTX: (National Spherical Tokamak eXperiment)
                6.  PBX-M:  (Princeton Beta Experiment-Modified)
                7.  TCV: (Variable Configuration Tokamak - in French) 
                8.  TdeV:  (Tokamak de Varenne)
                9.  TEXTOR:  
                10. Tore Supra:  
        C.  Small Tokamaks
                1:  CDX-U (Current Drive eXperiment-Upgrade)
                2.  START:  (Small, Tight-Aspect-Ratio Tokamak)
                3.  TEXT-U: (Texas Experimental Tokamak-Upgrade?)
        D.  Stellarators
                1.  ATF  (Advanced Toroidal Facility)  
                2.  Wendelstein-7AS:  (Advanced Stellarator) 
                3.  Wendelstein-7X
        E.  Inertial Confinement
                1.  NIF:  (National Ignition Facility)
                2.  Nova:
                3.  Omega:
                4.  NIKE:
        F.  Alternative Methods
                1.  Electrostatic Confinement:
                2.  MFTF:  Mirror Fusion Test Facility:  
                3.  Muon-Catalyzed Fusion 
                4.  Plasmak: 
                5.  RFX:  (Reversed-Field eXperiment)

*** 6. Recent Results
     [Archive-name: fusion-faq/section6-results]
        A.  Recent Results on TFTR:
                 (a) What was done?
                 (b) Why does it matter?
        B.  Recent Results from JET
        C.  Recent Results from Inertial Confinement Fusion
        D.  Recent Results from Muon-Catalyzed Fusion
        E.  Recent major results from other experiments, and theoretical work
        F.  Recent Political News
        G.  Appendix on TFTR and JET results

*** 7. Educational Issues and Conferences:
     [Archive-name: fusion-faq/section7-education]
        A.  What opportunities are there for interested students?
        B.  I'm an undergraduate interested in becoming a "fusioneer."  
                What should I study?
        C.  What sorts of experiments are there for high-school students?  
                How can I get the equipment?  Has anyone else done this?
        D.  What about those summer programs you mentioned above?       
        E.  When/where are the major fusion conferences?

*** 8. Internet Resources:
     [Archive-name: fusion-faq/section8-internet]
        A. Newsgroups
        B. WAIS (Wide-Area-Information-Server)
        C. World-Wide Web
        D. Gopher
        E. Anonymous FTP Sites
        F. Listservers
        G. Electronic Bulletins
        H. Individuals Willing to Provide Additional Information

*** 9. Future Plans:
  (Under construction)
        (a) Plans for TPX?
        (b) Plans for ITER?
        (c) Prospects for funding? (US, EC, Japan, FUSSR)
        (d) What problems in designing a fusion powerplant?
                Rad waste, materials choices, device parameters ???
        (e) What are the key research problems/opportunities?

*** 10. Bibliography / Reading List
     [Archive-name: fusion-faq/section10-biblio]
        A. Recent articles in the popular literature.
        B. General References and Histories 
           (suitable for those with minimal background in physics or fusion).
        C. Fusion Research Review Articles & Texts
        D. Plasma Physics - General Texts 
         (focus is on the science of plasmas, rather than engineering reactors)
        E.  Plasma Physics - Device-Specific
                (applications of plasma physics to specific devices)
        F. Fusion Reactor Engineering References
        G. List of Relevant Scientific Journals
        H. Unclassified / Unsummarized works.  (Please help me move
                references out of this section and into sections 1-4 by
                contributing reviews of sources you know about!)

*** 11. Acknowledgements and Citations
     [Archive-name: fusion-faq/section11-acknowledgements]
(I've had a lot of help, so I needed a separate section to list everyone!)

*** Glossary of Frequently Used Terms in Plasma Physics
     and Fusion Energy Research (FUT)
Part 0/26: Introduction to the Glossary / FUT 
     [Archive-name: fusion-faq/glossary/part0-intro]

Parts 1/26, 2/26, ..., 26/26: 
    Glossary terms from A to Z (one file per letter)  
    [ Archive-names: fusion-faq/glossary/a
                     fusion-faq/glossary/b
                     ...
                     fusion-faq/glossary/z ]




cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenrfheeter cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.28 /  rfheeter@pppl. /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 1/11 (Fusion Physics)
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@pppl.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.answers,news.answers
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 1/11 (Fusion Physics)
Date: 28 Feb 1995 19:47:43 GMT
Organization: none

Archive-name: fusion-faq/section1-physics
Last-modified: 7-Aug-1994
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-monthly
Disclaimer:  While this section is still evolving, it should 
     be useful to many people, and I encourage you to distribute 
     it to anyone who might be interested (and willing to help!!!).

 -----------------------------------------------------------------
1. Fusion as a Physical Phenomenon

Last Revised August 7, 1994
Written by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov, unless
otherwise cited.

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

### Please let me know if anything here is unclear. ###

*** A.  What is fusion?

"Fusion" means many things when discussed on the newsgroup.  
Technically, "fusion" is short for "Nuclear Fusion," which describes
the class of reactions where two light nuclei fuse together, forming
a heavier nucleus.  This heavier nucleus is frequently unstable, and
sometimes splits (fissions) into two or more fragments.  "Fusion"
also refers to the type of energy produced, and a "fusion reactor"
describes an energy-producing facility which generates power via
fusion reactors.  Finally, "fusion" can also be used to refer to
the scientific program aimed at harnessing fusion for clean,
safe, and hopefully inexpensive energy production - a collaborative 
international program which has been carried on for the past 40-some 
years.  Each of these three uses - the technical, the energy
source, and the scientific research program - is discussed in
a separate section of this FAQ.  The technical aspects of
fusion are discussed below in this section.


*** B.  How does fusion release energy?

If you add up the masses of the particles which go into a fusion
reaction, and you add up the masses of the particles which come out,
there is frequently a difference.  According to Einstein's famous
law relating energy and mass, E=mc^2, the "mass difference" can
take the form of energy.  Fusion reactions involving nuclei lighter
than iron typically release energy, but fusion reactions involving
nuclei heavier than iron typically absorb energy.  The amount of
energy released depends on the specifics of the reaction; a table
of reactions is given further below to give an idea of the variety 
of fusion reactions.

Another way to look at this is to consider the "binding energy"
of the elements in question.  If the reactants are bound more
weakly than the products, then energy is released in the reaction.
"Binding energy" is the amount of energy you would have to put
into a system in order to pull its components apart; conversely,
in a system with high binding energy, a lot of energy is released
as the components are allowed to bond together.  Suppose you
had two balls connected by a long, thin rubber band, so that they
are not very tightly connected, and the rubber band can be broken
easily.  This is a system with low binding energy.  Now here's an
analogy to what happens in fusion:  imagine the long, thin 
rubber band suddenly being replaced by a short, thick one.  The
short thick one has to be stretched a lot in order to connect
to the two balls, but it wants to bind them more tightly, so it
pulls them together, and energy is released as they move towards
each other.  The low-binding energy, long rubber band system
has been replaced by a high-binding energy, short rubber band
system, and energy is released. 


*** C.  Where does fusion occur in nature?

The conditions needed to induce fusion reactions are extreme; 
so extreme that virtually all natural fusion occurs in stars, 
where gravity compresses the gas, until temperature and pressure 
forces balance the gravitational compression.  If there is enough 
material in the star, pressures and temperatures will grow
large enough as the star contracts that fusion will begin to occur 
(see below for the explanation why); the energy released will then 
sustain the star's temperature against losses from sunlight being 
radiated away.  The minimum mass needed to induce fusion is roughly 
one-tenth the sun's mass; this is why the sun is a star, but 
Jupiter is merely a (large) planet.  (Jupiter is about 1/1000th 
the sun's mass, so if it were roughly 100 times bigger, it
too would generate fusion and be a small, dim star.)

Stellar fusion reactions gradually convert hydrogen into helium.  
When a star runs out of hydrogen fuel, it either stops burning 
(becoming a dwarf star) or, if it is large enough (so that gravity 
compresses the helium strongly) it begins burning the helium into 
heavier elements.  Because fusion reactions cease to release 
energy once elements heavier than iron are involved, the larger 
stars also eventually run out of fuel, but this time they
collapse in a supernova.  Gravity, no longer opposed by the internal
pressure of fusion-heated gases, crushes the core of the star, 
forming things like white dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes
(the bigger the star, the more extreme the result).  (For more 
details, try the sci.astro or sci.space.science newsgroups.)


*** D.  Why doesn't fusion occur anywhere else in nature?

Current scientific knowledge indicates that very little fusion
occurs anywhere else in nature.  The reason is because in order
to get two nuclei to fuse, you first have to get them close together.
(This is because the nuclear forces involved in fusion only act
at short range.)  However, because the two nuclei are both positively
charged, they repel each other electrically.  Nuclei will not fuse
unless either (a) they collide with enough energy to overcome the
electrical repulsion, or (b) they find a "sneaky" way to circumvent
their repulsion (see muon-catalyzed fusion in section 4).  The
energy required for fusion is so high that fusion only occurs in
appreciable amounts once the temperature gets over 10 million
degrees Kelvin, so (a) doesn't happen anywhere outside of stars.
Current knowledge suggests that the sort of processes that would
allow sneaky-fusion as in (b) are very rare, so there just isn't
much fusion in the everyday world.


*** E.  What are the basic fusion reactions?

While it is possible to take any two nuclei and get them to fuse,
it is easiest to get lighter nuclei to fuse, because they are
less highly charged, and therefore easier to squeeze together.
There are complicated quantum-mechanics rules which determine which
products you will get from a given reaction, and in what amounts
("branching ratios").  The probability that two nuclei fuse is
determined by the physics of the collsion, and a property called
the "cross section" (see glossary) which (roughly speaking) 
measures the likelihood of a fusion reaction.  (A simple analogy
for cross-section is to consider a blindfolded person throwing
a dart randomly towards a dartboard on a wall.  The likelihood 
that the dart hits the target depends on the *cross-sectional* 
area of the target facing the dart-thrower.  (Thanks to Rich
Schroeppel for this analogy.))

Below is an annotated list of many fusion reactions discussed 
on the newsgroup.  Note:  D = deuterium, T = tritium, p = proton,
n = neutron; these and the other elements involved are discussed 
in the glossary/FUT.  (FUT = list of Frequently Used Terms; section
10 of the FAQ.)  The numbers in parentheses are the energies
of the reaction products (in Millions of electron-Volts, see
glossary for details).  The percentages indicate the branching 
ratios.  More information on each of the elements is given below.

Table I:  Fusion Reactions Among Various Light Elements

D+D   -> T (1.01 MeV) + p (3.02 MeV) (50%)   
      -> He3 (0.82 MeV) + n (2.45 MeV) (50%)  <- most abundant fuel
      -> He4 + about 20 MeV of gamma rays (about 0.0001%; depends
                                           somewhat on temperature.)
      (most other low-probability branches are omitted below)
D+T   -> He4 (3.5 MeV) + n (14.1 MeV)  <-easiest to achieve
D+He3 -> He4 (3.6 MeV) + p (14.7 MeV)  <-easiest aneutronic reaction
                                     "aneutronic" is explained below.
T+T   -> He4 + 2n + 11.3 MeV
He3+T -> He4 + p + n + 12.1 MeV (51%)
      -> He4 (4.8) + D (9.5) (43%)
      -> He4 (0.5) + n (1.9) + p (11.9) (6%)  <- via He5 decay
                                    
p+Li6 -> He4 (1.7) + He3 (2.3)      <- another aneutronic reaction
p+Li7 -> 2 He4 + 17.3 MeV (20%)
      -> Be7 + n -1.6 MeV (80%)     <- endothermic, not good.
D+Li6 -> 2He4 + 22.4 MeV            <- also aneutronic, but you 
                                              get D-D reactions too.
p+B11 -> 3 He4 + 8.7 MeV <- harder to do, but more energy than p+Li6
n+Li6 -> He4 (2.1) + T (2.7)        <- this can convert n's to T's
n+Li7 -> He4 + T + n - some energy

From the list, you can see that some reactions release neutrons,
many release helium, and different reactions release different
amounts of energy (some even absorb energy, rather than releasing
it).  He-4 is a common product because the nucleus of He-4 is
especially stable, so lots of energy is released in creating it.
(A chemical analogy is the burning of gasoline, which is relatively 
unstable, to form water and carbon dioxide, which are more stable.  
The energy liberated in this combustion is what powers automobiles.)
The reasons for the stability of He4 involve more physics than I
want to go into here.

Some of the more important fusion reactions will be described below.  
These reactions are also described in Section 2 in the context of 
their usefulness for energy-producing fusion reactors.


*** F.  Could you tell me more about these different elements?
(Note: there's more information in the glossary too.)

Hydrogen    (p):  Ordinary hydrogen is everywhere, especially 
                    in water.
Deuterium   (D):  A heavy isotope of hydrogen (has a neutron in
                    addition to the proton).  Occurs naturally at 
                    1 part in 6000; i.e. for every 6000 ordinary 
                    hydrogen atoms in water, etc., there's one D.
Tritium     (T):  Tritium is another isotope of hydrogen, with two 
                    neutrons and a proton.  T is unstable  
                    (radioactive), and decays into Helium-3 with a
                    half-life of 12.3 years.  (Half the T decays
                    every 12.3 years.)  Because of its short 
                    half-life, tritium is almost never found in 
                    nature (natural T is mostly a consequence 
                    of cosmic-ray bombardment).  Supplies have been 
                    manufactured using fission reactors; world 
                    tritium reserves are estimated at a few 
                    kilograms, I believe.  Tritium can be made by 
                    exposing deuterium or lithium to neutrons.
Helium-3  (He3):  Rare light isotope of helium; two protons and a 
                    neutron.  Stable.  There's roughly 13 He-3 atoms 
                    per 10 million He-4 atoms.  He-3 is relatively 
                    abundant on the surface of the moon; this is 
                    believed to be due to particles streaming onto
                    the moon from the solar wind.  He3 can also be
                    made from decaying tritium.
Helium-4  (He4):  Common isotope of helium.  Trace component of the 
                    atmosphere (about 1 part per million?); also 
                    found as a component of "natural gas" in gas 
                    wells.
Lithium-6 (Li6):  Less common isotope of lithium.  3 protons, 3 
                    neutrons.  There are 8 Li-6 atoms for every 100 
                    Li-7 atoms.  Widely distributed in minerals and 
                    seawater.  Very active chemically.
Lithium-7 (Li7):  Common isotope of lithium.  3 protons, 4 neutrons.
                    See above info on abundance.
Boron      (B):   Common form is B-11 (80%).  B-10 20%.  
                    5 protons, 6 neutrons.  Also abundant on earth.

Note:  Separating isotopes of light elements by mass is not 
         particularly difficult.


*** G.  Why is the deuterium-tritium (D-T) reaction the easiest?

Basically speaking, the extra neutrons on the D and T nuclei make
them "larger" and less tightly bound, and the result is
that the cross-section for the D-T reaction is the largest.
Also, because they are only singly-charged hydrogen isotopes,
the electrical repulsion between them is relatively small.
So it is relatively easy to throw them at each other, and it 
is relatively easy to get them to collide and stick.  
Furthermore, the D-T reaction has a relatively high energy yield.

However, the D-T reaction has the disadvantage that it releases
an energetic neutron.  Neutrons can be difficult to handle,
because they will "stick" to other nuclei, causing them to
(frequently) become radioactive, or causing new reactions.
Neutron-management is therefore a big problem with the
D-T fuel cycle.  (While there is disagreement, most fusion
scientists will take the neutron problem and the D-T fuel,
because it is very difficult just to get D-T reactions to go.)

Another difficulty with the D-T reaction is that the tritium
is (weakly) radioactive, with a half-life of 12.3 years, so
that tritium does not occur naturally.  Getting the tritium
for the D-T reaction is therefore another problem.

Fortunately you can kill two birds with one stone, and solve
both the neutron problem and the tritium-supply problem at
the same time, by using the neutron generated in the D-T
fusion in a reaction like n + Li6 -> He4 + T + 4.8 MeV.
This absorbs the neutron, and generates another tritium,
so that you can have basically a D-Li6 fuel cycle, with
the T and n as intermediates.  Fusing D and T, and then
using the n to split the Li6, is easier than simply trying
to fuse the D and the Li6, but releases the same amount of
energy.  And unlike tritium, there is a lot of lithium
available, particularly dissolved in ocean water.

Unfortunately you can't get every single neutron to stick
to a lithium nucleus, because some neutrons stick to other
things in your reactor.  You can still generate as much
T as you use, by using "neutron multipliers" such as
Beryllium, or by getting reactions like
n + Li7 -> He4 + T + n (which propagates the neutron)
to occur.  The neutrons that are lost are still a problem,
because they can induce radioactivity in materials that
absorb them.  This topic is discussed more in Section 2.


*** H.  What is aneutronic fusion?

Some researchers feel the advantages of neutron-free fusion
reactions offset the added difficulties involved in getting
these reactions to occur, and have coined the term
"aneutronic fusion" to describe these reactions.

The best simple answer I've seen so far is this one:
(I've done some proofreading and modified the notation a bit.)
[ Clarifying notes by rfheeter are enclosed in brackets like this.]

>From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
>Risto Kaivola <rkaivola@mits.mdata.fi> wrote:

[[ Sorry I don't have the date or full reference for this anymore;
this article appeared in sci.physics.fusion a few months ago.]]

>>Basically, what is aneutronic fusion?  The term aneutronic
>>confuses me considerably.  Could you give me an example of
>>an aneutronic fusion reaction? How could energy be produced
>>using such a reaction?  Can there be a fusion reaction in which
>>a neutron is never emitted?
>
>Examples:
>
>D + He3 --> He4 + p + 18.1MeV 
>(deuteron + helium-3 --> helium-4 + proton + energy)
>
>p + Li6 --> He4 + He3 + 4.0MeV
>(proton + lithium-6 --> helium-4 + helium-3 + energy)
>
>D + Li6 --> 2 He4 + 22.4MeV
>(deuteron + lithium-6 --> 2 helium-4's + energy)
>
>p + B11 --> 3 He4 + 8.7Mev
>(proton + boron-11 --> 3 helium-4's + energy)
>
>All of these reactions produce no neutrons directly.
[[ Hence "aneutronic." ]] 
>There are also other reactions that have multiple branches possible,
>some of which do not produce neutrons and others that do 
>(e.g., D + D, p + Li7).
>
>The question is how do you get a "reactor" going and not get 
>any neutrons.  There are 2 hurdles here. The first is getting the
>fuel to smack together hard enough and often enough for fusion
>to occur.
>The easiest fusion reaction is D + T --> He4 + n (the D-T fuel 
>cycle). A magnetic reactor can initiate fusion in one of these 
>things at about a temperature of 10keV. 
[1 keV = 1000 eV = 11,000,000 (degrees) kelvin, more or less]. 
>The other reactions require much higher temperatures (for example 
>about 50KeV for the D+He3 reaction). This is a big factor of 5. 
>The second hurdle is neutron production via "trash" (secondary) 
>reactions.  That is, the main reaction may be neutron-free, 
>but there will be pollution reactions that may emit neutrons. 
[ The products of the main reaction, e.g. He3, can be trapped in
your reactor temporarily, and fuse with other ions in the system 
in messy ways. ]
>Even if this is only a few percent, it can lead to big neutron
>emission. For example, the D+He3 reaction will also have some D+D 
>reactions occuring. 
[ Because in your reactor you will have a lot of Ds and He3s, and
the Ds will collide with each other as well as with the He3s. ]
>At 50Kev temperatures, the reaction 
>cross-section for D+D reactions is about 1/2 of the D+He3 
>cross-section, so there will be some generation of neutrons from 
>the 50% branch reaction of D + D-->He3 + n.
>Also, the other 50% goes to T+p, The triton (T) will then undergo 
>a D-T reaction and release another neutron. 
[ Because the cross-section for D-T reactions is much higher.]
>If the reactor is optmized (run in a He3 rich mode) the number 
>of neutrons can be minimized. The neutron power can be as low 
>as about 5% of the total. However, in a 1000 megawatt reactor, 
>5% is 50 MW of neutron power. That is [still] a lot of neutron 
>irradiation. This lower neutron level helps in designing 
>structural elements to withstand neutron bombardment, but it 
>still has radiation consequences.
>
>On the other hand, it is my understanding that the p-B11 reaction 
>is completely neutron free, but of course it is much harder 
>to light.


*** I.  What sort of fusion reactor is the sun?

Fortunately for life on earth, the sun is an aneutronic fusion
reactor, and we are not continually bombarded by fusion neutrons.
Unfortunately, the aneutronic process which the sun uses is 
extremely slow and harder to do on earth than any of the reactions
mentioned above.  The sun long ago burned up the "easy" deuterium
fuel, and is now mostly ordinary hydrogen.  Now hydrogen has a
mass of one (it's a single proton) and helium has a mass of four
(two protons and two neutrons), so it's not hard to imagine sticking
four hydrogens together to make a helium.  There are two major
problems here:  the first is getting four hydrogens to collide 
simultaneously, and the second is converting two of the four protons
into neutrons.  

The sun evades the first problem, and solves the second, by using a 
catalyzed cycle:  rather than fuse 4 protons directly, it fuses a 
proton to an atom of carbon-12, creating nitrogen-13; the N-13 emits 
a neutrino and a positron (an antielectron, that is an electon with
positive instead of negative charge) and becomes carbon-13.  
(Effectively, the Carbon-12 converted the proton to a 
neutron + positron + neutrino, kept the neutron, and became C-13).  
The C-13 eventually fuses with another proton to become N-14.  
N-14 then fuses with a proton to become oxygen-15.  Oxygen-15 decays 
to N-15 (emitting another positron), and N-15 plus another proton 
yields carbon-12 plus a helium-4 nucleus, (aka an alpha particle).  
Thus 4 protons are tacked one by one onto heavier elements, two of 
the protons are converted to neutrons, and the result is production
of helium and two positrons.  (The positrons will undergo 
matter-antimatter annihilation with two electrons, and the result
of the whole process is formation of a helium, two neutrinos, and
a bunch of gamma rays.  The gamma rays get absorbed in the solar 
interior and heat it up, and eventually the energy from all this 
fusion gets emitted as sunlight from the surface of the sun.)

The whole process is known as the carbon cycle; it's catalyzed
because you start with carbon and still have carbon at the end.
The presence of the carbon merely makes it possible to convert
protons to helium.  The process is slow because it's difficult
to fuse protons with carbon and nitrogen, and the positron-emitting
nuclear decays are also slow processes, because they're moderated
by the weak nuclear force.


*** J.  Why is it so hard to create controlled man-made fusion 
reactions?

In order to get two nuclei to fuse, you basically have to get
them to collide energetically.  It turns out that colliding two
beams of particles yields mostly scattering collisions, and few
fusion reactions.  Similarly, blasting a stationary target with
a beam of energetic ions also yields too little fusion.  

The upshot is that one must find some way to confine hot, 
energetic particles so that they can collide many many times,
and finally collide in just the right way, so that fusion occurs.
The temperatures required are upwards of 100 million degrees 
(Kelvin - it would be about 200 million Fahrenheit!).  At these
temperatures, your fusion fuel will melt/evaporate any material
wall.  So the big difficulties in fusion are (a) getting 
the particles hot enough to fuse, and (b) confining them long
enough so that they do fuse.


*** K.  What is plasma physics, and how is it related to fusion?

Plasma physics is the area of physics which studies ionized 
gases and their properties.  In most conventional types of fusion 
(muon-catalyzed fusion being the major exception), one must heat 
the fusion fuel to extremely high temperatures.  At these 
temperatures, the fuel atoms collide so much and so hard that 
many electrons are knocked loose from their atoms.  The result 
is a soup of ionized atoms and free electrons: a plasma.

In order to achieve the conditions required for controlled 
fusion, an understanding of how plasmas behave (and particularly 
how to confine and heat them) is often essential.


*** L.  Just how hot and confined do these plasmas need to be?
(Or, what conditions are needed for controlled fusion?)

Basically, the hotter your plasma, the more fusion you will have,
because the more ions will be flying around fast enough to stick
together.  (Although actually you can go *too* fast, and the atoms
then start to whiz by too quickly, and don't stick together long 
enough to fuse properly.  This limit is not usually achieved in 
practice.)  The more dense your plasma is, the more ions there are
in a small space, and the more collisions you are likely to have.
Finally, the longer you can keep your plasma hot, the more likely
it is that something will fuse, so duration is important too.  More
importantly, the slower your plasma loses energy, the more likely
it is that it will be able to sustain its temperature from internal
fusion reactions, and "ignite."  The ratio of fusion energy
production to plasma energy loss is what really counts here.

Hotness is measured by temperature, and as explained above, the
D-T fuel cycle (the easiest) requires temperatures of about 10 keV,
or 100,000,000 degrees kelvin.  Density is typically measured in 
particles-per-cubic centimeter or particles-per-cubic meter.
The required density depends on the confinement duration.

The Lawson product, defined as (density)*(confinement time) is a 
key measure of plasma confinement, and determines what 
combinations of density and energy confinement will give you 
fusion at a given temperature.  It is important to note that 
what you must confine is the *energy* (thermal energy) stored 
in the plasma, and not necessarily the plasma particles.  

There's a lot of subtlety here; for instance, you want to 
confine your fuel ions as well as their energy, so that they
stick around and fuse, but you *don't* want to confine the 
"ash" from the reactions, because the ash needs to get out 
of the reactor...  But you'd like to get the *energy*
out of the ash to keep your fuel hot so it will fuse better!
(And it gets even more complicated than that!)

Regardless, it's true that for a special value of the Lawson 
product, the fusion power produced in your plasma will just 
balance the energy losses as energy in the plasma becomes 
unconfined, and *ignition* occurs.  That is, as long as 
the plasma fuel stays around, the plasma will keep itself 
hot enough to keep fusing.

A simple analogy here is to an ordinary fire.  The fire won't
burn unless the fuel is hot enough, and it won't keep burning
unless the heat released by burning the fuel is enough to keep
the fuel hot enough.  The flame continually loses heat, but 
usually this loss is slow enough that the fire sustains itself.
You can accelerate the heat loss, however, by pouring water
on the fire to cool it quickly; this puts the fire out.

In fusion, the plasma continually loses heat, much as a fire 
gives off heat, and if the plasma loses heat faster than heat
is produced by fusion, it won't stay hot enough to keep burning.
In fusion reactors today, the plasmas aren't quite confined well
enough to sustain burning on their own (ignition), so we get
them to burn by pumping in energy to keep them hot.  This is sort
of like getting wet wood to burn with a blowtorch (this last analogy 
is usually credited to Harold Furth of PPPL).

For the D-T fuel cycle, the Lawson ignition value for a temperature 
of about 200,000,000 Kelvin is roughly 5E20 seconds-particles/m^3.  
Current fusion reactors such as TFTR have achieved about 1/10th of
this - but 20 years ago they had only achieved 1/100,000th of this!

How can we improve the Lawson value of a plasma further, so we get 
even closer to fusion ignition?  The trick is to keep the heat in the 
plasma for as long as possible.  As an analogy to this problem, 
suppose we had a thermos of coffee which we want to keep hot.  We can 
keep the thermos hotter longer by (a) using a better type of 
insulation, so that the heat flows out more slowly, or (b) using 
thicker insulation, so the heat has farther to go to escape, and
therefore takes longer to get out.

Going back to the fusion reactor, the insulation can be improved by 
studying plasmas and improving their insulating properties by 
reducing heat transport through them.  And the other way to boost
the Lawson value is simply to make larger plasmas, so the energy
takes longer to flow out.  Scientists believe it's technically
feasible to build a power-producing fusion reactor with high
Lawson value *Right Now*, but it would have to be large, so large 
in fact that it would cost too much to be able to make electricity
economically.  So we're studying plasmas and trying to figure out
how to make them trap energy more efficiently.


*** M.  What are the basic approaches used to heat and confine 
the plasma?  (Or, what is magnetic confinement?  
Inertial confinement?)

There are three basic ways to confine a plasma.  The first is 
the method the sun uses:  gravity.  If you have a big enough
ball of plasma, it will stick together by gravity, and be
self-confining.

Unfortunately for fusion researchers, that doesn't work here on
earth.  The second method is that used in nuclear fusion bombs:
you implode a small pellet of fusion fuel.  If you do it quickly
enough, and compress it hard enough, the temperature will go way
up, and so will the density, and you can exceed the Lawson 
ignition value despite the fact that you are only confining your
pellet for nanoseconds.  Because the inertia of the imploding
pellet keeps it momentarily confined, this method is known as
inertial confinement.

The third method uses the fact that charged particles placed in
a magnetic field will gyrate in circles.  If you can arrange the
magnetic field carefully, the particles will be trapped by it.
If you can trap them well enough, the plasma energy will be
confined.  Then you can heat the plasma, and achieve fusion with
more modest particle densities.  This method is known as 
magnetic confinement.  Initial heating is achieved by a 
combination of microwaves, energetic/accelerated particle beams, 
and resistive heating from currents driven through the plasma.
(Once the Lawson ignition value is achieved, the plasma becomes
more-or-less self-heating.)  In magnetic confinement, the plasma 
density is typically about 1E20 particles per cubic meter, and with
a temperature of about 1E8 kelvin, we see that ignition could be
achieved with a confinement time of about 4 seconds.  (All these 
numbers in reality vary by factors of 2 or 3 from the rough values 
I've given.)  Currently, magnetic-confinement reactors are about 
a factor of ten short of the ignition value.  (TFTR has an
energy confinement time of 0.25 seconds during its best shots.)  

More information on these different approaches is given in the
sections that follow.




cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenrfheeter cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.28 /  rfheeter@pppl. /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 8/11 (Internet Resources)
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@pppl.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.answers,news.answers
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 8/11 (Internet Resources)
Date: 28 Feb 1995 19:47:46 GMT
Organization: none

Archive-name: fusion-faq/section8-internet
Last-modified: 26-Feb-1995
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-quarterly
Disclaimer:  While this section is still evolving, it should 
     be useful to many people, and I encourage you to distribute 
     it to anyone who might be interested (and willing to help!!!).

 -------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Internet Information Resources
# This FAQ deals with conventional fusion only, not Cold Fusion. #

Last Revised February 26,1995
Written by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov, unless otherwise cited.

What follows is a listing of many, but not all, of the fusion
energy/research information resources available via the internet.


*** A. Newsgroups:  
     sci.physics.fusion (unmoderated)
     sci.physics.plasma (moderated)  
          - this latter is for plasma science discussions, 
            not for fusion issues.                

     Sci.physics.fusion postings have been archived on a couple 
     of internet sites.  For more information see the sections 
     on WAIS and Anonymous FTP below.


*** B. WAIS (Wide-Area Information Server) Databases

     [ Information on the sunsite.unc.edu WAIS database provided
          by Chuck Harrison, harr@netcom.com ]

     * sunsite.unc.edu has a searchable WAIS archive of all postings
       on sci.physics.fusion (1989-present).  According to Chuck 
       Harrison (harr@netcom.com), "WAIS access means it is 
       *searchable* on free-text keywords, which means alot when 
       you're trying to find old vaguely-recollected postings from 
       the 30MB or so of archive.  I created the thing because I 
       found that hunting through the vm1.nodak.edu [anonymous FTP 
       site, see below ] archives by ftp was prohibitively 
       time-consuming, so I suspect anyone who *wants* to look in 
       the newsgroup history (who knows why? ;-) ) should try 
       the WAIS database first if they have access (e.g. swais, 
       WWW, gopher, or telnet to sunsite)."

     * Accessing the sunsite archives - directions:
       [ The information below is straight from Chuck Harrison ]

       1. If you are directly connected to Internet, you can 
          log onto a public WAIS server at the University of North 
          Carolina:
          
          %telnet sunsite.unc.edu
          ...
          login: swais
          ...
          TERM = (unknown) vt100
          It takes a minute to load ...

          <use ? for online help>
          <use /fusion to locate the fusion-digest source>
          <follow the prompts to select the source and enter your 
           keywords for searching>

       2. If you have a "gopher" client, you can use it for WAIS 
          access.  Many university campuses provide gopher as a 
          public information service.

          2a. On most systems, you first select an option 
              labeled "Other Systems", then from that menu 
              select "WAIS based information".  Since each
              gopher site creates its own menus, I can't tell 
              you exactly where to go from there.

          2b. If you can gopher to SunSITE, at UNC, navigate 
              the menus down thru SunSITE archives..All 
              archives..Academic..Physics..Cold-fusion.
              [ Sometimes conventional fusion comes second! ]

          2c. If you can 'telnet' but not 'gopher', you may telnet 
              to sunsite.unc.edu and login as 'gopher'. Then follow 
              2a or 2b above.

       3. If you have World Wide Web (WWW) browser, such as 
          Mosaic, Cello, or Lynx, you may use the following URL:
          wais://sunsite.unc.edu/fusion-digest (newsgroup archive)

     [ More info on other Gopher and WWW resources is given below. ]

       4. If you have a WAIS client on your system (the most common 
          ones are "swais" -- character-based, and "xwais" -- for 
          X-Windows), use it.


*** C. World-Wide Web:

     * Much of the public-domain fusion info is now available 
       via WWW:  At this time, it appears that most of the 
       major U.S. fusion research labs have information available 
       on the Web, and the amount of available information is 
       growing rapidly.  Available materials include basic 
       fusion information, all sorts of pictures, information 
       about each lab's research projects, and more.

     * Navigating the Web is a little hard to explain, but for fusion,
       the easiest way to start is to go to the Department of Energy's
       Office of Fusion Energy page.  (Address given below.)  From here, 
       you can (I think) move upwards within DOE to the Office of 
       Energy Research, or downwards to many of the fusion labs.  
       Alternatively, once you know the "URL" addresses of a lab's WWW 
       documents, you can open them up directly with the "Open URL" 
       menu command.

     * Address (temporary) for this FAQ:  http://www.pppl.gov/~rfheeter

     * Some of the Principal Fusion / Plasma URL addresses to try:
     
     http://wwwofe.er.doe.gov/                  (Office of Fusion Energy)
     http://www-plasma.umd.edu                  (Plasma Science Home Page)
     http://www.pppl.gov/                         (Princeton Plasma Physics Lab)
     http://demo-www.gat.com/                         (General Atomics / DIII-D)
     http://www-phys.llnl.gov/X_Div/index.html  (Livermore's ICF Group) 
     http://www.jet.uk/                         (Joint European Torus)

     * Additional Web Sites that may be of Interest:
     http://cmfd.univ.trieste.it/cmfd.html      (Trieste, Italy, MHD Site)
     http://cmod2.pfc.mit.edu/                  (MIT Plasma Fusion Center) 
     http://w3fusion.ph.utexas.edu/frc.html     (U. Texas Fusion Res. Center)
     http://www.ornl.gov/divisions/fusion_energy.html (ORNL Fusion Division)
     
     (Apologies to those labs I left off this list; I figured this 
     would give anyone interested a decent start, and then the rest 
     of the labs are easy to get to.)


*** D. Gopher:

     * Garching (Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics): 
          The host is uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Port: 70)
          Or, from the top:  Gopher -> Europe -> Germany 
             -> Information Servers in Germany 
             -> MPI fuer Plasmaphysik Garching-Gopher
             (and, if you like, -> IPP Information)

          According to Art Carlson at Garching:
             "It's probably not very useful, since most of the info, 
             press releases and the like, is in German.  There is 
             other *great stuff* on the computer, like drawings 
             of ASDEX-Upgrade and time schedules, but it's not 
             publicly available (as far as I know)."

     * University of Texas - Austin:
          Gopher -> North America -> USA -> Texas
            -> University of Texas Austin Fusion Studies
                  (Machine name is hagar.ph.utexas.edu)

          This gopher server has a variety of material regarding 
          physics and fusion, including archives of the periodic 
          status reports for TFTR, Alcator C-Mod, and TEXT-U.
          This is also accessible via Mosaic with the URL 
          gopher://hagar.ph.utexas.edu/1, I believe.

     * There are also a large number of Gopher sites which have 
        partial or complete archives of the Fusion FAQ postings.
        A Veronica search on Fri, 2 Dec 1994, yielded a large list.
        I would recommend accessing MIT's gopher server and finding
        rtfm.mit.edu, then looking in /pub/usenet/news.answers/fusion-faq.
        If you aren't able to connect to rtfm, you can certainly find
        the fusion faq via your own Veronica search, too.


*** E. Anonymous FTP Sites:
     sunsite.unc.edu
          Sunsite also collects the fusion digests archiving
          the sci.physics.fusion, in the directory 
           /pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion.
          The recent digest files are in subdirectories whose 
          names begin with "fd," and the older stuff is
          archived by year in files fd89, fd90, etc...
          This material is also available under WAIS (see 8A).

     vm1.nodak.edu (134.129.111.1) 
          This site has the complete archive of
          the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup, from its inception.

          In particular, this FAQ is (will soon be) archived here.

          To log in:  use the username anonymous, type your
          email address as the password, and then type "cd fusion"
          to get to the fusion directory.  Beware: the index is
          large!  To download something enter "get" and then
          the name of the file you want.

     rtfm.mit.edu
          This is the primary archive for the FAQ, at least in 
          the United States.  The latest version of a given
          section FAQ crossposted to sci.answers or news.answers 
          can be found somewhere in either
               /pub/usenet/news.answers/fusion-faq or
               /pub/usenet/sci.answers/fusion-faq
          (Sections with multiple parts have subdirectories.)

     neutrino.nuc.berkeley.edu 
          Here you can find fusion-related GIF images.
          As for vm1.nodak.edu, log in anonymously, then cd to
          the directory /pub/fusion, and "get" what you want.
     
     There are other FTP archive sites for the FAQ as well.
          A list of these is included in Section 0, Part 1 (Intro).


*** F. LISTSERV  ("FTP by email"):
     vm1.nodak.edu also works as a listserver:

          "You get a (large) index of the archives by sending 
          an email to listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, with a blank 
          SUBJECT line, and the "message" 'index fusion'. To get 
          any one of these files, you then send to the same address
          the message, e.g., "get fusion 91-00487", etc, according 
          to what you're after."
            -- quoting Dieter Britz, BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk

   To obtain the FAQ, rtfm.mit.edu also works as a listserver:

   If you do not have direct access by WWW or FTP, the 
   rtfm.mit.edu site supports "ftp by mail": send a message 
   to mail-server@rtfm.mit.edu with the following lines
   in it (cut-and-paste if you like): 

send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section0-intro/part2-outline
quit

   The mail server will send these two introductory 
   files to you.  You can then use the outline (part2)
   to determine which files you want.  You can receive
   any or all of the remaining files by sending another
   message with the relevant lines from the following list:

send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section0-intro/part3-revisions
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section1-physics
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section2-energy/part1-technical
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section2-energy/part2-enviro
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section5-devices
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section6-results
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section7-education
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section8-internet
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section10-biblio
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section11-acknowl
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/intro
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/a
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/b
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/c
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/d
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/e
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/f
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/g
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/h
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/i
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/j
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/k
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/l
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/m
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/n
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/o
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/p
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/q
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/r
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/s
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/t
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/u
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/v
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/w
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/x
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/y
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/z
quit

(Delete those lines which correspond to files you don't want.)

While there are many files, the full FAQ is not more than
a megabyte in size, so it is not excessively huge.
Please note that several files (section9, for instance)
are omitted from the above list; this is because they
are still being written and are not yet available.



*** G. Electronic Bulletins

     * TFTR Updates - published occasionally by Rich Hawryluk,
forwarded automatically to sci.physics.fusion and sci.physics.plasma.
Also distributed via electronic mailing list.

     * Alcator C-Mod Weekly Updates - posted by MIT researchers to
sci.physics.fusion and sci.physics.plasma periodically. 

     * TPX Updates - published occasionally by Rob Goldston,
forwarded automatically to sci.physics.fusion.  Also distributed
via electronic mailing list.


*** H. Individuals Willing to Provide Additional Information

Many of the participants on sci.physics.fusion are conventional/hot
fusion researchers.  Many names and email addresses are to be found 
as sources for various slices of the FAQ, and so on.  (See the 
acknowledgements for a more-or-less complete list of contributors.)

A few people have expressed a willingness to serve as sources for
people seeking additional literature, such as laboratory reports, 
pamphlets, and assorted other documents.  What follows is a short 
listing:

* Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov 
        - Graduate Student at Princeton - 

        I have the FAQ, all sorts of archived postings and additional
        information used to generate the FAQ, a bunch of PPPL literature, 
        a set of quicktime movies made from television coverage of the 
        TFTR D-T runs (and GIFs from the QT movies), and access to just 
        about anyone here at PPPL who would have something I don't have.

* Joe T. Chew, jtchew@lbl.gov
        - Physicist at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory -

        "I've also got a variety of pamphlets put out by this or that 
        lab or agency over the years; feel free to give out my address 
        as a source for photocopies of such things."


cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenrfheeter cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Mar  2 04:37:05 EST 1995
------------------------------
