1995.03.04 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.conspiracy,alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 1995 00:21:23 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <3j36qbINNru0@news.d.umn.edu>,
aaron patula <apatula@ub.d.umn.edu> wrote:

>There are good reasons for skepticism, he acknowledged, but there are 
>also good reasons for genuine interest. "Here is some new kind of nuclear 
>physics, and it is too late to heap ridicule on it," he said.

>Oriani, professor emeritus in the University's Department of Chemical 
>Engineering and Materials Science

>When nuclear reactions release energy, Oriani's explanation of the data 
>began, it is because some part of the mass involved is converted to 
>energy. For example, in one of the reactions theoretically associated 
>with cold fusion, an atom of deuterium combines with an atom of tritium 
>to yield helium, a free neutron, a decrease in mass of 0.0188 atomic mass 
>units (amu), and energy at the rate of 1.49 x 10 raised to the -10 joules 
>per amu (equivalent to 8.97 x 10 raised to the 13 joules per mole).

Yet there haven't been experiments that have shown commensurate nuclear
ash. Only these suggestions that there was *some* ash therefore these
processes must be taking place. Yet every one of these experiments shows
different 'processes' taking place.

>In the five most accurate energy- measurement experiments, the energy 
>output ranged from 106 percent to 170 percent of the energy put into a 
>palladium- deuterium system. For two groups of experimenters, there was a 
>net gain of energy every time they tried the experiment. Oriani's group 
>produced a net gain in two attempts, but thirty subsequent attempts 
>produced no energy. The inconsistent results, said Oriani, seem to depend 
>on the sample of palladium. His third success came after the thirty 
>failures when he obtained a new sample of palladium from a Japanese 
>source. Other groups have measured, in three less accurate experiments, 
>energy production ranging from 5 to 15 times the energy input.

It would seem to be a large blinking red light when the sample of
palladium makes a difference to the experiment. Wouldn't it be time
to have independant analysis of the samples before and after in _every_
case? These experiments are so poorly documented _or_ are so complicated
that real mechanisms are bring hidden in that complexity. Would not the
point be to simplify the experiment until you have the least number
of variables?

>Oriani's second set of reports dealt with observed effects that could 
>only result from nuclear reactions. For example: Fritz Will et. al., 
>electrolyzed heavy water with cathodes made of palladium from two 
>different suppliers. (Heavy water is D (subscript) 2 O, i.e. water 
>containing deuterium rather than common hydrogen. Will was director of 
>the Utah Cold Fusion Institute). One type of palladium yielded no 
>tritium. The other type yielded tritium at 50 times the background level, 
>in four trials out of four. From that second type of palladium, 140 
>samples not subjected to electrolysis were found to contain no tritium.

Without extensive material analysis what is this suppose to mean? If one
edge of a paladium sample is exposed to tritium an subsequently absorbs
tritium will that transport throughout the sample or be trapped in the
exposed edge? Yeh, seems like a rediculous statement, but certainly
a basic question to ask.

>Skepticism and ridicule of cold fusion began in 1989, Oriani remembered, 
>when Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann announced their discovery 
>through publicity rather than peer review. "They described their work so 
>poorly it seems they wanted to keep it obscure," said Oriani.

My opinion exactly. Still, it is up to the reporter of extraordinary
physics to report with extraordinary accuracy. I think we can agree that
that has been typicaly missing from cold fusion debates.

>Since the Pons and Fleischmann debacle, cold fusion experiments have not 
>been adequately published, Oriani argued, because the journals Science 
>and Nature have been "caustic and abusive" toward the work.

Again, when you find something of interest in a field that has been
discredited, you need to offer extraordinary proof of that interest.

This doesn't require standing on your head in Times Square and spitting
nickels into the crowd. It implies _complete_ and accurate reporting
of experiments; it needs reproduceable results. If you can't reproduce
it yourself why should some journal offer your report to a crowded
field begging for research in _many_ fields? Since Cold Fusion is
a bogus (or is at least believed to be a bogus) effect, if you really
have something you had better have some sort of comprehensible theory
of any source energy or else you are just an experimenter.

>Oriani then published in the December 1990 issue of Fusion Technology 
>"I want you to understand my attitude," said Oriani. "A new idea should 
>expect to fight its way to recognition. But in this particular case the 
>fight has been particularly hindered by ridicule. Cold fusioneers have 
>been accused to incompetence, self-delusion, and pathological science. 

Yes, in some cases those accusations have been pretty close to the
mark. In others, experimenters have set themselves up for such redicule
by not doing their homework -- not supplying complete data, not
having a reply for rather obvious questioning about sources of errors, etc.

I agree that it's unfortunate that physicists have to face these sorts
of pressures while doing original research, but that's the way the game
is played today in _every_ field. How would you like to be a politician
today?

>One, "the results are not yet [consistently] reproducible, and we don't 
>know why," he said.

When they are, call me. Else don't ask for my funding.

>Two, no one has satisfactorily explained what is taking place. "There are 
>as many theories and theorists," said Oriani.

Unfortunately this is also the case with much gbad science.

>Three, classical physics says the nuclear reaction supposedly taking 
>place can only take place under tremendous heat and pressure, like inside 
>the Sun.

Classical physics has the advantage of a large base of experimental 
evidence that is completely reproducable, theoretically underpinned
and mathematically sound. Sure makes for a believable phenomenon to me.

>Four, "Cold fusion has attracted a lot of crackpots and mystics," said 
>Oriani.

Many of who are present here upon the net.

>And the reason EPRI and the Japanese are investing in cold fusion? "If 
>cold fusion is real," said Oriani, "it's an inexpensive source of energy."

Where's the energy? After 5 years and more there has yet to be shown
scalable effects.

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.03 / John Vetrano /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion; the Biomass option
     
Originally-From: js_vetrano@pnl.gov (John Vetrano)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion; the Biomass option
Date: 3 Mar 1995 20:53:14 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <1995Mar2.140733.2081@vanlab.byu.edu>, jonesse@vanlab.byu.edu wrote:
> BIOMASS
> The western states hold vast areas of essentially unused land.  The solar
> collector proposed consists of plant matter.  Specifically, a collaboration
> here at BYU (which I helped organize) is looking at Chrysothamnus, also
> sal sola and kochia -- all of which grow hardily in the western deserts
without
> irrigation.  These hardy bushes collect solar energy and can be mowed and the
> vegetative material can be bundled or compressed into pellets for fuel.  Our
> studies suggest that in some areas, Chrysothamnus can be harvested twice per
> year, following judicious initial seeding (by aircraft).  It then grows back,
> unlike sage brush.  This bush is resistant to disease, insects, animals and
> drought.  It tolerates alkaline/salty soils.  It propagates easily.  Its
rubber
> content is comparable to that of Guayule, which adds to its fuel and other
> values.  This source is renewable and does not add to the CO2 inventory of the
> atmosphere.  Radiation problems are completely obviated.  Biomass provides a 
> means to collect and store solar energy, and it
> is designed to do very well despite intermittent sunlight conditions. { 8^) }
> 
> We are prepared at BYU to select fast-growing plants for this purpose, using
> calorimetric techniques pioneered by Prof. Lee Hansen to evaluate plant
> respiration rates.     (The same who 
> demonstrated that apparent "excess heat" in some P&F style electrolytic cells 
> can be traced to recombination {chemical} reactions).
> 
> As Tom Droege says, one can tell where my opinions lie from the direction my
> research is taking:  I am still very interested in power-production problems.
>  And I have made extensive studies of nuclear fusion and fission options...
> 
> I would appreciate any comments.
> 
> --Steven Jones

Steve,
  I am just curious as to the "net gain" that would result from using this
option.  In other words, does one really come out ahead on the energy
in--energy out balance?  It seems that the harvesting and processing of
these plants, which I am assuming are about the same size as sagebrush,
would require substantial energy.  Not to mention that much of the terrain
in the west that is unused is also not particularly flat.  Judging from
your typically rigorous and thorough approach to past problems I assume
that you have done some sort of benefit analysis and I would be curious to
hear the rough numbers.  I also realize that as the energy situation
worsens, the benefits of ANY source will increase!  Thanks in advance.

John Vetrano
js_vetrano@pnl.gov

p.s. Thanks also for the interesting sonoluminescence posting of a day or
so ago.

-- 
The above opinions are mine, all mine.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjs_vetrano cudfnJohn cudlnVetrano cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.03 / John Cobb /  Re: Fusion and Radioactive Waste......?
     
Originally-From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion and Radioactive Waste......?
Date: 3 Mar 1995 12:33:08 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <3j7dtj$f76@news.kth.se>,
Conny H„gstr”m <ie2_06@griffin.got.kth.se> wrote:
>I just wondered if the extremely hot fusion process would be able to 
>destroy small amounts of radioactive material from a Fission Reactor..

Yes, this has been looked at in some detail. The problem is that it is not
the heat that will help get rid of radioactive material from the fission
reactor, but the neutrons. Even fusion power plants are not hot enough to
"melt" nuclei by about a factor of 100-1000. However, the DT fuel cycle
will produce copious neutrons. As a power source we usually see this as
a problem because neutrons can "induce radioactivity" by being captured
by non-radioactive isotopes making them radioactive. However, there is
also the possibility that they can be targeted onto long-lived radioactive
fission products and then be used to either fragment the nuclei or be captured
and form another isotope that has a much shorter half-life and will therefore
decay faster. Thus it might be able to reduce the lifetime of rad waste
and this might be useful. It should be noted that in this system, the fusion
plant is used not because it generates power, but because it transmutes
rad wastes. So issues of breakeven are not the prime consideration, just total
neutron flux.

However, even more promising is the possibility of using a fusion scale
plasma device for chemical waste transmutation. One big problem with a lot of
chemical waste is that it is very stable. Organic compounds that can really
cause some biological havoc in organisms also often have strong covalent
bonds. Now if you set up an industrial plasma source at 10 KeV like TFTR of
DII-D, or an optimized design, then it IS hot enough to dissociate almost
any molecule, no matter how tsrongly bound. Dump in PCB's and out comes
CO2, water, and trace materials. The key here is how many kilowatt-hours
does it cost per gram of waster disposed and how do you deal with a really
dirty reactor (in the sense that it radiates a great deal of light because
of high Z impurities).

-john .w cobb


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

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.03 / Robert Heeter /  Question for Paul Koloc - re: Plasmak
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Question for Paul Koloc - re: Plasmak
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 03:27:41 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Paul - I was looking for information on the Plasmak concept,
so that I could add some references to the FAQ section on it.

However, a search through both the online catalog and the
card catalog here at PPPL failed to turn up a single entry 
with your name on it.  Do you have any publications on the 
Plasmak?  If so, could you give me the references?

Thanks, and sorry to bother.

***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not Princeton!
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.03 / Ben Stutzman /  Re: Fusion and Radioactive Waste......?
     
Originally-From: ben@pccbws.inel.gov (Ben Stutzman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion and Radioactive Waste......?
Date: 3 Mar 1995 18:50:48 GMT
Organization: INEL

In <3j7dtj$f76@news.kth.se>, ie2_06@griffin.got.kth.se (Conny Hgstrm) writes:
>I just wondered if the extremely hot fusion process would be able to 
>destroy small amounts of radioactive material from a Fission Reactor..
>
>Is there anyone that could answer this wuestion...
>
>
>*WPG Mats AAhlberg   ig3_07@griffin.got.kth.se
>*Royal Institute of Higher Technical Education on Gotland.
>
While true it is hot, and heat leads toward a plasma state of matter
(separation of electrons from their orbits), heat is not an influence
on the nuclear process of radioactive decay.  NEUTRONs, on the
other hand, are.  Long lived radionuclides capturing neutrons can
become unstable and accellerate the decomposition process.

This capture will only occur beneficially in a small fraction of
nuclear waste material.   The majority of mixed fission product
waste is not radioactive (mass).  Absorbing a neurtron can "activate"
 stable matter, causing it to become radioactive!

Fusion reactors are not the place to inject long lived highly radioactiv
 material.  It is my opinion that a crapped-up (radioactively contaminat
d) fusion reactor would result in the generation of much more radioactiv
 waste than what could be rendered benign by neutron capture. 

Nice thought, though , don't stop doing that (thinking).

Ben Stutzman, Independent Radiation Safey Assessor, CEES-Idaho
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory   (INEL)
Standard disclaimers
ben@pccbws.inel.gov   
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenben cudfnBen cudlnStutzman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.03 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Fusion Glossary to be Posted Soon!
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Glossary to be Posted Soon!
Date: 3 Mar 1995 18:01:15 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University,
Princeton NJ 08540

In article <jaboweryD4rrG1.DJu@netcom.com>,
Jim Bowery <jabowery@netcom.com> wrote:

>I have a suggestion, as someone who has had to put together technical 
>glossaries in a usable form:
>
>There are word processing add-ons out there, such as Doc2Help, which 
>allow one to generate Window's help files directly from Word for Windows 
>documents.  The nice thing about help files is that they are hypertext 
>linked information where all glossary terms, including those found in the 
>definitions of other words, are linked to their definitions in the 
>glossary via "pop-up" windows.  This is extraordinarily useful for people
>who are trying to make sense of a veritable tower of Babel.

This sounds like a good concept, although the trick is to implement
it in a way that allows the plain text to be extracted separately.
(See further discussion below the rest of your message.)

>Another, related, idea is to put the glossary into a HTML linked form for 
>presentation as hypertext on the WWW.  I am in the process of researching 
>such automated HTML tools for some clients and if I find anything, I'll 
>let you know.  

Actually the Glossary does exist in html form, at
http://www.pppl.gov/~rfheeter/fusion-faq/glossary.html.

We are looking into developing internal links, both
within the glossary and within the FAQ, and between the two.
(I think it would be great if you could read the FAQ, and have
all the icky technical words linked directly to their glossary
entries.)  Your suggestions are great, and I'd love to hear if 
you find any software out there which can do it.  (Conversely,
if we develop something here, it will be made publicly available.)
In this situation, things are complicated somewhat by the need 
to maintain a single "source" file, while having two types of 
output:  the plain text posted to usenet, and the html files 
used in making the Web version.  It's also important that the
source file be easy to edit and build upon.  Ideally there would
be a single program which would take a set of plain-text files
and build the hypertext (Web) version automatically, provided
the Web version satisfied certain formatting constraints.  I've
been working on providing a coherent structure to the FAQ and
glossary files to make this possible.  Meanwhile, we are hoping 
to hire a high school student to help solve this problem this 
summer (since we all have actual research problems to work on), 
but we're also interested in knowing what has already been done 
so we don't need to reinvent the wheel.

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.05 / Robert Bass /  Hot Fusion Power's Future
     
Originally-From: rbrtbass@ix.netcom.com (Robert Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hot Fusion Power's Future
Date: 5 Mar 1995 01:48:20 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <199503040732.SAA11205@oznet02.ozemail.com.au> 
rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk) writes [re _hot_ fusion: 

>While fusion may end up more expensive than other forms of energy in 
>the near future, the almost inexhaustible fuel supply guarantees it a 
>very long life, during which time much will be done in the way of 
>development. Compare early car engines to what we have currently. 
>I suspect that this means that within one to two hundred years we 
>should have what would now be considered very competitive fusion 
>power. For this reason it is advisable to continue with research in 
>this field. Though not necessarily with the Tokamac design.
>In other words, it uses a fuel with a future. As of course do solar 
>and wind.
>Regards,
>Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au>

	I partially agree with this comment, if it is properly 
qualified.
	The politicized ex-scientists who run the DOE fusion program 
have made the tragic mistake of ignoring two options which would make 
hot fusion power important for humanity in _certain_ contexts.
	Their first mistake is to freeze on the Tokamak design, which 
MIT Prof. Lawrence Lidsky characterized in the MIT-edited "Technology 
Review" as analogous to a "project to employee 2,000 Ph.D.'s for 40 
years to design the world's first coal-fired, cast-iron biplane!".  For 
this he was dismissed from his job as Associate Director of the MIT 
Fusion Plasma Lab.
	The intellectual bankruptcy of the DOE program is shown by the 
fact that they cannot stabilize the plasma long enough to go to 
"advanced fusion fuels."  If they had really solved the stability 
problem they would not be so desperate as to employ 50% Tritium, and use 
a fuel cycle in which 80% of the energy is released in the form of a 
neutron flux, ensuring radioactivation of surroundings & embrittlement 
of the container, plus robot handling & a nightmare of other problems.
	Some wiser heads like George Miley have advocated both 
"advanced" (aneutronic) fuel cycles (like boron & protons, or the 
correct mixture of helium-3 & deuterium), which require higher 
temperatures and so a greater mastery of plasma stabilization 
technology.
	Both Miley & his collaborators and, independently, myself & my 
collaborators at BYU (1971-81) have advocated 'remotely sited, pure 
deuterium-fueled, helium-3 breeder reactors', namely near-unity-beta 
pure-deuterium-fueled, steady-state (which Tom Dolan [author of the 
3-volune "Fusion Research"] & I are going to patent in 1996, one year 
before my Topolotron Patent expires), 130 keV _HOT_ fusion reactors, in 
which only 20-30% of the energy released is in the form a neutron flux, 
and besides power, commercial quantities of helium-3 are produced.
	If you contact BYU's physics department & procure a copy of 
Bradely Sermon's M.S. thesis (written under me  --  and which a U of CO 
Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering said 'would have been good enough for a 
doctorate at U CO') you will find 3-man years of work using what was 
then one of the world's only 3 supercomputers [an IBM 7030 'Stretch' 
machine], in which we solved 6 simultaneous nonlinear ODE's for the 
equilibrium ratios of all relevant isotopic species and the 
corresponding Lawson number.  We proved that the optimal temperature for 
such a reactor is 130 keV, at which temperature there are _two_ 
equilibria (one thermally stable, the other thermally unstable!), and at 
which temperature the Lawson Number is less than half of what is stated 
in the literature!
	The obvious proposal is to locate such a 
pure-deuterium-fueled hot fusion reactor in a walled, guarded, remote 
site in the desert (even though it is quantitatively demonstrable to be 
10^5 times less hazardous than a fission reactor), to pacify the 
frightened public, and then export both energy and helium-3; Miley et al 
have demonstrated that one such remote breeder can fuel _five(!)_ 
equal-size [in Megawatts] Satellite Reactors in the middle of cities; 
but the metropolitan helium-3/deuterium fueled hot fusion Satellite 
Reactors would be so non-hazardous that environmentalists would love 
them.
	Actually, I am dead certain that Cold Fusion Reactors will 
supply the bulk of mankind's future energy needs (if not some _other_ 
form of 'tapping the ZPF', proved possible by Puthoff's paper in the 
Physical Review).  You may ask why I refer to Cold Fusion as a form of 
ZPF-tapper?  This is a good question, because in the F&P reaction 
(aneutronic d + d to helium-4) the great amount of the energy comes from 
the familiar Einstein relation E = M.c^2.  However, if "my" (or less 
inaccurately, the Turner-Bush-Bass theory of Resonant Transparency of 
the Coulomb Barrier) theory of CF, to be presented to the ICCF5, becomes 
widely accepted (which seems destined by the fact that it is the only 
known theory which passes through the sieve set up by Rabinowitz, Kim et 
al and through which 173 published theories they reviewed in a 57-page 
paper in the Int.J.Th.Phys. _cannot_ pass --  as well as their 
unmnentioned most stringest test of all  --  the Rabinowitz Acid Test 
[discriminating in its predictions between deuterons and protons in a 
supersaturated palladium lattice, i.e. between heavy water and ordinary 
water in an F&P cell]), then even F&P cold-fusion will be seen to depend 
upon the ZPF!  This is because the most devastating criticism of the 
Turner-Bush theory of CF, independently published by Rabinowitz & 
Jaendel, namely that even though the Coulomb Barrier of a bound deuteron 
is in fact transparent to an excited deuteron if the latter has the 
correct low energy --  less than 20 eV! -- to hundreds & hundreds of 
decimal places of accuracy, if it does not, then it will take 10^10 
years for a 50% probability of occurrence of the tunneling to take 
place!  However, I showed that R&J neglected the ZPF, and that if 
(following the late Nobel Laureate Julian Schwinger) one retained the 
ZPF in the analyis, then the transparency tunneling takes only 8 
femtoseconds!
	In the spring of 1992 there was a Public meeting of the DOE's 
FEAC (Fusion Energy Advisory Committee), at which members of the public 
are allowed occasionally to speak for a few minutes.  When allowed my 
turn, I said: "No one here is more interested in hot fusion than I am 
[cf my record since 1957-59 at PPPL], but I have to tell you, that your 
present course of ignoring cold fusion in the hopes that it will go away 
is _suicidal_!  There are plenty of _legitimate_ national projects (e.g. 
in national defense, or in NASA's peaceful exploration of the solar 
system) wherein either the potential structural compactness of a hot 
fusion reactor or its possible high energy density (Megawatts per cubic 
centimeter) will offer engineering advantages with which cold fusion can 
never compete!  You should welcome cold fusion, as solving the bulk of 
mankind's peaceful energy needs for non-national purposes, and honestly 
advocate continuation of perfection of hot fusion power as simply the 
best technology for certain national projects [e.g. interstellar probes] 
in which it seems to legitimately offer unique advantages!"
	I see _no_ advantage whatever to proving that net power can be 
obtained from a pitifully low-beta Tokamak, _other_ than (and this is 
what the politicized ex-scientist administrators are banking on) as a 
'feasibility' proof with which to extract more money from Congress with 
which to begin the real job of investigating the optimization of 
Alternate Concepts.  (In a "Scientific American" article, former PPPL 
Director Harold Furth has admitted as much.)
	I have defined 'optimality' of a Magnetic Bottle in 8 different 
ways, and then proved 8 separate theorems (annihilating the DOE unless 
they can find a flaw in _all_ 8 theorems) that according to each 
definition there is only one possible answer: my patented kidney-bean 
cross-section unity-beta toroidal-theta-pinch-like Topolotron.  Some 
ITER proposals infringe 2 of the 3 defining features of the Topolotron, 
but the _main_ feature (the presence on the surface of the plasma-vacuum 
interface of only two periodic field lines, while all other field lines, 
in a 'flow' defined by taking arc-lenth as time-like, are asymptotic 
toward or away from the two isolated closed limit-cycles) has not been 
infringed because it is so suble that they don't understand it yet!  You 
can't infringe what you don't understand well enough to perceive the 
value of copying!  They misquote the Poincare-Denjoy theory of flows on 
a torus, and state a _false_ dichotomy, according as the Rotational 
Transform Angle (Poincare winding number) is rational or irrational.  
But there is a third possibility, overlooked until exploited & patented 
by me!  The rotational transform angle can be identically & persistently 
zero, and the Safety Number Q can be infinite, if one understands the 
Pliss[Leningrad]-Peixoto[Brazil] theory of 'structural stability of 
flows on a torus'.
	Harold Furth snubbed my lecture on the (then-titled) 'Ultron' 
concept at PPPL in around 1969 or 1970 (though Martin Kruskal, bless 
him, was very gracious)  --  though I can't blame Furth too much, 
because   ---   although [to keep up the morale of the troops under him] 
he ostentatiously sat in his office reading the Comic Pages of a 
newspaper with the door open to display his indifference while I 
presented my seminar   ---   later he graciously condescended to grant 
me a private audience in his office, at which he informed me that he had 
'already' discovered the kidney-bean configuration years earlier.  But 
the proof he showed me was erroneous: he showed me a helical "Fat Sloth" 
which _of necessity_ has a sharp-edged, crescent-moon-like cross 
section.  This leads inevitably to 'leaks' of the type which have 
limited the prospects of the otherwise nicely MHD-stable class of cusped 
configurations discovered by Harold Grad of NYU in answer to Edward 
Teller's conjecture that universal instability is a consequence of 
'unfavorable' plasma-vacuum interface curvature, such as with the 
Plasmak.
	I have an eye-witness to my discovery of how to obtain 
on-average favorable curvature (in sense of averaging appropriate to MHD 
stability) while ensuring that the bumps on a kidney-bean cross section 
are _ANALYTIC_ ('infinitely smooth').  In 1969 I was explaining the 
Pliss-Peixoto theory in the context of MHD equilibrium to Dr. Robert 
Willett of McDonnell Douglas [who had done a UCLA doctorate in MHD under 
Alfredo Banos] and I showed him how one could go around the bump 
prerving smoothness by changing the sign of a square-root at a point 
where it vanished; he graciously commented "I would never have thought 
of that!!!"
	I hereby challenge the entire plasma physics community (or the 
world, for that matter) to show me one single instance in the 
professional fusion literature where the words "kidney-bean shaped" or 
"kidney shaped" cross section were used prior to my 1971 or 1972 APS 
Abstract!
	The DOE has ignored the Topolotron patent (even though Dr. Reece 
Roth, author of 'Fusion Energy', a 1986 text more widely adopted in 
Europe than the USA) once sent an unsolicited letter to PPPL suggesting 
that 'intellectual honesty' would require them to acknowledge the 
priority of 'the fine work done at BYU', and in his book he described 
the PBX as merely an attempt to scale up the BYU Topolotron, and 
actually references the Issuance Number of my patent).
	If any fusion researcher wants to see _documentary proof_ that 
my 1974 Patent Application (issued in 1980, expires in 1987) was more 
than _ten(!)_ [10] years ahead of the entire world in _several_ 
important matters, I will send him a guide to my 50-page patent, 
pointing out where "Second Stability" was first written down explicitly 
and graphed, by equation & Fig. ref. number, and where the _cure_ for 
the violent disruptive instability (a combination of Stix's magnetic 
braiding & electro-magneto-thermo-fluid-dynamic instabilities of which I 
gave a sixth-order polynomial dispersion relation in the complex 
frequency) was published before others had even _diagnosed_ the disease!
	I can't place my published patent & unpublished analytical 
papers on the Internet because they are full of Greek & math symbols; 
however, if anyone doubts what I am claiming, I will refund the $20.00 
for S&H which should be sent me for a 200-page package of 'proof' if he 
or she can find a substantive theoretical or mathematical error in this 
two-decades of DOE-suppressed & 'fusion-community'-ignored work.
-- 
Dr. Robert W. Bass, Registered Patent Agent 29,130 [ex-prof Physics]
Inventor: Topolotron, Plasmasphere, issued; QRT ColdFusion, pending
P.O. Box 6337, Thousand Oaks, CA 91359-6337
Voice-Mail: (818) 377-4471         e-Mail: rbrtbass@ix.netcom.com
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenrbrtbass cudfnRobert cudlnBass cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.04 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion; the Biomass option
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion; the Biomass option
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 1995 00:39:12 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <1995Mar2.140733.2081@vanlab.byu.edu>,
 <jonesse@vanlab.byu.edu> wrote:

>BIOMASS
>The western states hold vast areas of essentially unused land.  The solar
>collector proposed consists of plant matter.  Specifically, a collaboration
>here at BYU (which I helped organize) is looking at Chrysothamnus, also
>sal sola and kochia -- all of which grow hardily in the western deserts without
>irrigation. 

>I would appreciate any comments.

I think that I calculated that present electricity needs would conservatively
need some 200 square miles of solar cells. This still doesn't cover the
almost equal energy requirements of transportation nor does it cover the
growth in energy demand over the time necessary to convert to _any_ other
energy source. (BTW that's energy needs of the U.S. alone.)

While biomass offers some advanatages certainly the outstanding disadvantage
is the microscopic return on harvest vs. energy costs. Since the actual
production of stored energy/area is so small the harvesting costs would
probably greatly exceed the energy production.

This is one of the advantages of tree farms -- great deals of energy storage
are available in a small easily harvested area. You will recall that even
this was a problem in the old days when sluices were used to move timber
down to rivers which brought the price of wood down to a useable cost.

Water transport of commodities is about 1/1,000th of the cost of moving
such materials via motor vehicles. Harvesting would require an entire
technology of motor vehicles. Pelletization, while understood is also
costly. 

Sooner or later man will need to face the facts that there is a limit to
the amount of humanity that the globe can support. My most profound
regret is that this will no doubt be signaled by some catastrophic
failure in one of our support systems.

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.04 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Rothwell is an expert on Tokamaks?  NOT
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell is an expert on Tokamaks?  NOT
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 1995 03:14:24 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

Robert F. Heeter (rfheeter@princeton.edu) wrote:
: Ordinarily I avoid Rothwell's posts, and a Rothwell reply to a
: Koloc post is even worse, but this one falls into my field, and 
: I felt the urge to reply.  Forgive me if it offends thee.

You are very polite, and most loyal. Such a tragedy to see 
your youthful brain wasted solving poblems that could be avoided 
by clever evolutionary innovations.  Still, I felt it is my perhaps 
not so solitary position to enlighten you with a few considerations 
in light of your present position and observations.  

: In article <Rm578FL.jedrothwell@delphi.com> , jedrothwell@delphi.com
: writes:
: > Paul M. Koloc <pmk@prometheus.UUCP> writes:
: >      "Look, if the tokamak concept is so very advanced, it should stand
: >      without government support.  I mean there are a lot of hungry
: >      Corporations and Utilities out there that would want to fund a
: concept
: >      which was a true winner for fusion."

: > That is correct, they would. So would semi-public organizations like
: EPRI. All
: > support for Tokamak hot fusion from private industry ended decades ago,
: > because Tokamak technology has no commercial potential.

EPRI is an Research Institute (mill?)  that gets paid to do 
research, and it is funded by a percentage of funds from a number 
of subscriber (not all by any means) public untilites.  In that 
sense, it isn't necessarily driven in the manner of a commercial 
corporation to get a new product out.  They, like DoE, have a 
kind of non-competitive monopoly.  So, the fire of a branding iron 
to spur them forward isn't present, as it is not at DoE and its 
client Labs (including yours, Robert).   

: 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.

"Far down the Road" ? ? 

Well, now that's a self serving pronouncement, since it serves you and
your benefactor Agency and their monopolistic program of ad infinitum
research fare.  By the same token such pap drives away the private 
sector from even taking a serious first look.  Gee a double whammy, 
Mammy.

: 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.

You are correct that the costs for start up in the case MONEY ITER 
(J. Davidson) are huge beyond the pale, and it requires WORLD support.  

    (HINT.... it's not working out, congressional trigger persons.)  

But, remember "high costs" for an agency and its foreign cousins 
is sustenance, and they need that justification to SPEND enough 
to make the line item list, and financial security.  That is what 
the tokamak GIFT gives them.. an unending monotonically escalating 
demand for  $bucks$,   $bucks$,   $bucks$,   $bucks$.   

You are dead WRONG that the costs for start up in the case of a 
VIABLE fusion concept are close to the order of tokamak or Mirror 
costs (or even the TIME to develop), and so the REALITY, isn't what 
you purport on that "issue".  

(the word issue is a kind of political or legalistic term for 
"trouble or problem) now oft used by clients of same, such as gov 
fusion physicists.)

Further, we must consider that the application of alternative fusion 
or more accurately, ANEUTRONIC Energy, is PHENOMENAL by comparison 
with a pressureless vacuum fusion machine of immense size and the 
milli candle power capacity of a tokamak.   We are talking megawatts 
per cc, not cubic meter.  Something you can fly, not requiring a huge 
campus of support facilities that would dwarf a  large university.   
So,    
       "NO FINANCIAL INCENTIVE???"
             Ha!!   
                       "Break in??"   
             You mean: 
                        Let's pick it up and Zoom! Up, Up, and Away!  
                                                  (DC Comics)

: This is not at all the same as saying that tokamaks have no commercial
: potential.  The scientific results from tokamaks continue to be 
: significantly better than the alternatives, and IMHO the primary reason 
: why other concepts appear attractive by comparison is that they haven't 
: been studied as extensively.  

Over Study beyond the coroner's pronoucement has nothing to do with 
it.  

You can study, study all you want, but if a concept is unworkable for
profitable commercial fusion, it's dead, dead,  dead..  and it's just
a matter of how much Bull the politicos can stomach before someone 
blows the whistle.  ANY CONCEPT should be up and running within 10 
years of R&D, if it's ultimately going to be workable.  Obviously old 
tok didn't.    

Now, as for the better sci results..  well let's say operating 
parameters.  What is the current density of your meanest tokamak??
What is the total Itor in that device.  My Ball's current density and
total currents (say meter radius-shell or if compressed 10cm) would
easily crush your feeble, beached whale.  Actually, the current density
of my atmospheric air borne balls blast your tokamak number even
when toks operate at highest T field (after ATC).   That's important
because high Iden implies High Bden and Bden squared, which is 
proportional to pressure.  Pressure you say??? Yes, the stuff that 
confines heats, and condenses to fast burn rates; thereby reducing 
size TREMENDOUSLY.  So you choose your "sci" numbers, and I'll match 
them with engineering numbers, then...  within a while ..  or a tad 
more .. or less, 
                        results.  
                              Guess which one counts 
                                     for the real world.  

:I strongly support alternative concepts 
: research - the provision for a $30,000,000 alternative-concepts program
: is a great idea.  

"Strongly"  ? ?

Your word is starkly inappropriate.  Remember, you support alternative 
concepts, conditionally.  The condition???  Well that TPX and ITER are
funded FULLY, then..maybe .. .  with the extra surplus of money.. .
alternative.. concepts should [might,could] be funded if we don't 
think of something else toky  (taking another drag) to do.  Okay, the 
last phrase was perhaps an over statement.                      :-( 

: the senate bill before the session ended).)  But I find that anyone
: arguing that the tokamak "has no commercial potential" generally
: either (a) doesn't understand the situation, (b) has a private 
agenda, : or (c) is overly pessimistic.  

(a) What?.. Of course, I think I understand the situation.  You need 
to keep the tokamak looking like a viable candidate (the only) for 
commercial fusion, and so you (the editorial PPPL and DoE wide 
version) must lie a lot.   Lie means they misrepresent the truth for
their own benefit.. malevolent chaps.. me thinks.   

(b) Private agenda only because the "Gov" one is corrupt and mal-
functional.  The goal is the same, but the success rate is drastically
greater and faster.    

(c) "overly pessimistic."  

Fusion is a tough problem, and as I look out into the universe, I 
don't find any cases of nebulous low pressure (though sustained) 
fusion burns taking place... ANYWHERE. On the Contrary:  I see the 
dispersion of "Mantle covered" high pressure systems throughout my 
observable universe, and that's why, my (microstar like high 
pressure) Plasmak(tm) concept is a winner.  So a wad of physicists 
are following chaps that didn't hear of the word plasma in their 
own early education, say the tokamak is going to work.  Well???   

            Do I beleive them... 
                             NOT    
                               BUT, I will take a look for myself.

looking ... looooookkkiinngg  ... ah!

I find that these idiots plan to put 
    (1)   the hottest material in the universe close to the coldest 
             material in the universe. dumb? or issue?  

    (2)   the highest Z (atomic number) matter in the direct 
             (short path) exposure to fully blasting radiation of 
             particles, X-rays and Bremsstrahlung of a fusioning 
             plasma, which will promote transmission of high Z 
             sputter (gas liquid flakes) unchallenged by the best 
             vacuum they can produce.  Downside is that this stuff 
             will be ionized in the fusioning plasma at its surface 
             causing a surge in radial electron gradiant driven 
             transport, followed by disruptions helped by G-modes.  

    (3)   in a mag confinement system in which the highest 
             engineering pressure lies at the inner surface of 
             the toroidal field coils, and confining poloidal 
             field pressure must remain significantly less than
             one percent of that value. So if they can get           
             a BTor max of one thousand atmos, the plasma 
             pressure will be less than 10 atmos.  That's 
             a terrible pressure transfer efficiency.  

                    Conclusion: the machine is rigged as a
                    Backward "lever and fulcrum" for pressure. 

             OR   They are on the short end of the stick!. 

    (4) in a breedable blanket for producing fissionable fuel 
           for nuclear reactors (thus making it the neighborhood
           environmental model electric generator). Radioactive 
           material will be generated within such a blanket and  
           can escape to the outside (tritium and neutron induced). 

                   *( Wonderful * a Wonderful *  ah  ** * ) *
           Would somebody turn off ah .. .  Da bubble machin.. a?
           This music has been brought to you from the      
           self glowing tokamak ball room.  

Hmmm! ball room .. could we find another word please... 

So it's kind of like dealing with people that, start off on a 
hike by shooting themselves in the foot.  Are they NUTS? 

If so: the tokamak should be preserved at all costs, if for no 
other reason than because it shows the twisted purposes that con 
artists will go to any extreme to turn a buck or a pay check from 
what otherwise was an expensive, but not particularly successful 
scientific research device.  (Of course, since not much other 
research is done in plasma physics, especially in the fusion area, 
it's a bit difficult for the average person to realize the 
comparison to the excellence of other research.  Sort of like 
finding the only tavern in town, is well attended.  It may not be 
once competition starts up.  

: (A) Krakowski does not equal DOE.  .. .

****Krakowski***   EXCEEDS DoE (Gernmnatown) by at least 3 to 
4 orders of magnitude just on his own while sleeping.  

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

What! a 30 year old horse???  Put the slugs in the 12 gauge!  
Do it a favor... Be humane.   KAA  BLAM.  now go out and find 
what riding is really about.   

: The basic tokamak design was invented over 30 years ago, but today's
: tokamaks look very different from the original design, and tomorrow's
: machines will evolve even further.  

Today's tokamaks are WORSE... they don't have conducting shells.  
Wired mags are a definite disadvantage.  

Are you a paradigm-locked member of the tokamak school of fish?  

What do you think the Spheromak is??? or the PLASMAK configuration?  
Think... that's where evolution of tokamak brings you, other than
nothing but wallowing deeper in the NJ mud.  

: The early trend was towards
: larger, more powerful machines; a new trend is evolving towards 
: machines that are "better, not bigger".  

Ha!  you're just saying that, because you think repainting it with
brighter colors will keep the bucks coming.  As you know, (see 
the 3 points above), the basic configuration is LETHALLY FLAWED.  
So, get with the program... Evolve, you prehistoric beast, before 
the big meteor collision (a wild bunch of money conscious voters 
and their congressional agents) effects your (PPPL) demise.  

: Claiming that "the tokamak will
: not work" based on previous efforts and the recent results from JET
: and TFTR (10.7 Megawatts and power-out/power-in ~= 0.27) is something 
: like claiming that "airplanes will never fly across the Atlantic" after 
: observing the Wright Brothers finally get a plane five feet in the air.
: A lot can happen between now and then!

Oh Right!..  fly fusion powered!  Fly tokamak airlines. 

Need a sinker anyone??? 

Blast there with PLASMAK(TM) Hyperdrive... you mean. 
Mars in 2 weeks .. surface to surface.  

Stop wasting your time Heeter.  Get the degree; move up.  
: ***************************
: Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@princeton.edu, http://w3.pppl.gov/~rfheeter
: Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
: As always, I represent only myself, and not Princeton!
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Mar  6 04:37:04 EST 1995
------------------------------
