1995.03.07 / Jollie MM /  Re: Fusion and Radioactive Waste......?
     
Originally-From: jolliemm@aol.com (Jollie MM)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion and Radioactive Waste......?
Date: 7 Mar 1995 20:08:39 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

>>>>Subject: Fusion and Radioactive Waste......?
.From: ie2_06@griffin.got.kth.se (Conny H„gstr”m)
..Date: 3 Mar 1995 15:51:15 GMT
.Message-ID: <3j7dtj$f76@news.kth.se>

.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...

Yes, in fact the techno pathways are being researched and engineered into
serious proposals at Hanford, WA in conjunct with DOE, maybe other places
as well. mwm
A Friend...
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjolliemm cudfnJollie cudlnMM cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.07 / Laurie Forbes /  Re: Sonoluminescence and Fusion
     
Originally-From: lforbes@nucleus.com (Laurie Forbes)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonoluminescence and Fusion
Date: 7 Mar 1995 16:48:03 GMT
Organization: Nucleus Information Service

Just a short note to express thanks for your interesting and informative 
post.  Please keep us up-to-date.

Perhaps other, serious investigators can be encouraged to participate as 
well (which is what this group should be about).

Regards,
Laurie Forbes

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenlforbes cudfnLaurie cudlnForbes cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.08 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 02:10:24 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <JI67NDl.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>I believe Aubrecht is wrong by a couple of orders of magnitude.
>Overall it works out to be 0.005%, which is *much* less efficient than
>technologies like photovoltaics or direct steam from sunlight.

>The cost of harvesting and transporting and processing the fuel was estimated
>at about 8% by F. Ledig of the U.S. Forest Service, and between 6 and 10% in a
>study at Oak Ridge.

>Overall, I think that a return to the biomass energy economy (essentially a
>pre-modern energy source) would be an ecological and economic disaster of the
>first magnitude. But I would have to see a detailed economic analysis to be
>sure.

I would be interested in finding out why you do such a nice analysis of the
facts on this subject, yet ignore most of the hard evidence when considering
CNF.

I suppose everyone has their weak points, but this article made me change
my mind about your capacities. If not your motivations. :-)

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.08 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion; the Biomass option
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion; the Biomass option
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 95 23:28:25 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

<jonesse@physc1.byu.edu> writes:
 
>I appreciate the comments regarding the possible use of biomass for energy
>production by Marshall Dudley, John Vetrano and Tom Kunich.  
 
And how about me, Steve? Here I looked up three references for you! That
took me all of two minutes I admit . . .
 
I think perhaps you do not appreciate my comments, but it would be a good
idea for you to look up my references anyway.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.08 / George Hatch /  startup of "Hyperboloid of Engineer Garin" in Obninsk
     
Originally-From: NIBBLER@ix.netcom.com (George Laurie Hatch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: startup of "Hyperboloid of Engineer Garin" in Obninsk
reported in Ixvestis 1 Feb 1995
Date: 8 Mar 1995 03:36:41 GMT
Organization: Netcom

A very powerful laser , that uses nuclear pumping, is in a startup mode 
in Obninsk.Officially named OKUYAN(optical quantum amplifieer with 
nuclear pumping) at the Institute of Physics and Power Engineering 
(IPPE). Why has there been no public recognition of this fantastic 
development? The article boasts that the equipment occupies one room
as opposed to the enormous big building required by the $1.5 Billion
laser device at Livermore!! 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenNIBBLER cudfnGeorge cudlnHatch cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.07 /  jonesse@physc2 /  RE:  Sonoluminescence and Fusion
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc2.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE:  Sonoluminescence and Fusion
Date: 7 Mar 95 13:14:11 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <3jfauf$que@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, 
rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com (Doug Shade) writes:
> In article <1995Mar2.133216.2080@vanlab.byu.edu>
> jonesse@vanlab.byu.edu writes:
> 
>> Our work continues on searching for
>> neutron emissions associated with bubble cavitation...
> 
> Thanks for the update, but just telling us what you haven't seen is a
> bit of
> a tease... have you seen *anything* interesting?  Was is it difficult
> to get SBSL using D2 (as compared to air)?  Are you monitoring other
> parts of the spectrum?  Thanks again... I'm sure many of us have been
> waiting anxiously for news from Provo.
> 
> 
> Doug Shade
> rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com

It has been *very* difficult to get SBSL using D2, compared to air.
We pulled a vacuum on the clean D2O, while stirring to drive out dissolved
air, then backfilled with D2 gas, still stirring.  We repeated the process
ten times in order to replace air with D2. 

Getting SBSL was then attempted, but very difficult at first.  When we
cooled the entire flask to about 10 C, then we started getting SBSL for
a few seconds at a time.  (We used a photomultiplier tube to view the SBSL
at first; later, we looked in and could see the glowing bubble with the eye
in the darkened lab.  But even then the bubble was faint compared to the
air-bubble SBSL, which can be seen without turning down the lights in the
lab.)

It is noteworthy that after a couple of hours of running, the D2 SBSL became
more stable, lasting for periods up to about 25 minutes for a single levitated
bubble.  In all, we took data for a period of about eight hours with D2 SBSL
before the equipment was dismounted.  We looked just for light (with the PMT)
and neutrons (with our best detector, underground).  We saw the light,
but we saw no neutrons.  

We plan to try again with several improvements.  In particular, we will cool
the region around the flask to maintain a constant low temp., around 5 C,
and we plan to investigate the light spectrum from the D2 SBSL.  The first
round showed that we could do the SBSL in D2, in the sensitive neutron 
detector.  The SBSL apparatus is run by a group from another university.
Give us a few months more on this.

Best Regards,
Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.08 / John Vetrano /  Re: Sonoluminescence and Fusion
     
Originally-From: js_vetrano@pnl.gov (John Vetrano)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonoluminescence and Fusion
Date: 8 Mar 1995 17:20:51 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <1995Mar7.131411.2101@physc2.byu.edu>, jonesse@physc2.byu.edu wrote:

> [snip]
> It is noteworthy that after a couple of hours of running, the D2 SBSL became
> more stable, lasting for periods up to about 25 minutes for a single levitated
> bubble.  In all, we took data for a period of about eight hours with D2 SBSL
> before the equipment was dismounted.  We looked just for light (with the PMT)
> and neutrons (with our best detector, underground).  We saw the light,
> but we saw no neutrons.  
> [snip again]
> 
> Best Regards,
> Steven Jones

This aspect of the experiment seems interesting.  Why would the stability
change with time?  One, admittedly pessimistic, thought is that after a
time your D2 becomes contaminated with air (even the best seals leak to
some extent).  Did you continue to flow D2 into the chamber, or perhaps
keep the chamber at p(D2)>1atm.? (It would be nice if this newsreader had
some sort of subscript capability!)  Not to try and get you to reveal
information ahead of publication, but do you have any working theories on
the increase in stability of the D2 SBSL with time?  I assume that the D2
quickly saturates in the liquid and it is not just an effect of increasing
the concentration with time and stirring.

This is not my field at all but I think it is interesting, so I hope
you'll tolerate my questions!

Cheers,

John Vetrano
js_vetrano@pnl.gov

-- 
The above opinions are mine, all mine.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjs_vetrano cudfnJohn cudlnVetrano cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.09 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 95 02:11:41 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Thomas H. Kunich <tomk@netcom.com> writes:
 
     "I would be interested in finding out why you do such a nice analysis of
     the facts on this subject, yet ignore most of the hard evidence when
     considering CNF."
 
That sounds like a compliment, by gum! I thank you. The answer is worth
thinking about. It comes in two parts:
 
First, it is dead simple to get that "hard evidence" on biomass. That subject
is well understood and beautifully documented in the literature on energy. I
have a bunch of books on energy. I can pick up one or two references, look up
"biomass" in the index, and find the facts laid out nice and pretty. It is a
cinch to do research like that. It is cut and dry. Try comparing that to the
literature on cold fusion! I have TONS of literature on CF, a bibliography of
2,000 other papers, and the phone number of nearly every CF scientist. Is it
organized? Indexed? Cut and dry? Never! It is a mass of confusion, claims,
counter claims, and contradictory chaos. It resembles the raw intelligence
reports that flood into a military headquarters during a battle. A General
directing the battle knows that many of those reports are garbled nonsense,
and some of may even be deliberate lies planted by the enemy, but he has no
magic touchstone of truth that can tell him which report is real and which is
false. CF is new science, and new science always begins with misinformation
and confusion, and gradually yields the truth. For that matter, new
industries, new corporations, and new art forms begin in chaos. The
microcomputer software and hardware business in the early 1980s was pure chaos
-- and wonderful fun at that. You cannot open up some textbook about CF and
pull out neat, clean, answers the way I did about biomass. There are no
textbooks CF yet, there is no "hard evidence." There were no textbooks about
microcomputers in 1978, either. You built your own back then, you learned it
yourself the hard way. That is how you must do CF today.
 
Like the General in the battle, with CF you have depend upon your own
judgment, experience, intuition and wits. There are no authorities to appeal
to, the data is still a mess. You have read and read, ask and ask, and do the
experiments yourself, or you will never learn to sort out the truth. You know
that many of the papers must be wrong, but you cannot tell by appearances
which they are. Some of the quiet, poorly written ones turn out to be gems.
Many of the flashy important looking ones from Distinguished Scientists turn
out to be garbage. You often have to follow up and find out what really
happened during the experiment, and you have to relate this information to the
other experiments and papers. It is no good trying to rely on textbook
theories of staid, well understood things like hot fusion. Whatever else it
does, CF breaks the rules. It transmutes hydrogen into helium without
generating neutron radiation. There is no telling what else it might do.
Theory is no guide, only experiments can tell you anything.
 
So I cannot be "ignoring the hard evidence on CFN" because there is no such
thing. There is a mountain of contradictory evidence, and when you mine that
mountain you find a few hundred splendid gems that prove something strange,
wonderful and inexplicable is going on. I am not ignoring those gems, *you*
are! You are looking for this non-existent "hard evidence" - you expect a cut
and dry answer; a theory of some sort I suppose - and you are overlooking the
data from McKubre, Arata, Pons and Fleischmann, Celani, Storms and a few
hundred others. That data does not contain any "hard answers." It contains
*hard questions* and *hard challenges*. It proves that something causes heat
thousands of times beyond chemistry, a fact which seems to contradict
everything we know about physics and chemistry. You cannot deny that is what
the data proves, because the experiments have been widely replicated (in spite
of terrible difficulties), and because the S/N ratio and the power levels are
so high. You cannot explain it, but you cannot deny it either. You can only
pretend the evidence does not exist; refuse to read the papers; and claim that
McKubre and Arata and the others made unspecified "mistakes."  But you are
wrong. They made no mistakes. The calorimetric data is correct, the effect
exists, the mystery is real.
 
 
The second half of my answer is really about you, not me. You ask why I do
"such a nice analysis" of the facts on one subject, and such a lousy job on
CNF. You have overlooked something: I do the same "nice analysis" on all
subjects. I only post messages about a very narrow range of topics:
calorimetry; the Griggs experiment; and occasionally history, economics, and
early aviation. I happen to know these subjects very well indeed; I could ace
a college level exam in them with ease. I never talk about topics outside my
narrow expertise. I never comment on theories, neutrons, metallurgy, or other
scientific issues over my head. I never stick my neck out with guesses about
papers I have not read. I do not know much, but I am certain of what I do
know, and I know that Arata, McKubre and the others are right, and you are
wrong. It is *you* who are making a dreadful mistake about CF, not me. You
claim there is no heat. You say Arata et al. have made a mistake. I do not
know much, but I sure as hell do understand Arata's calorimetry *in depth* and
I know for a fact it is impeccable, it is undeniable, and you are flat out
wrong to pretend it does not exist.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.06 / Bryan Wallace /  The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: wallace@acasun.eckerd.edu (Bryan Wallace)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.
stro,sci.edu,sci.energy,sci.engr,sci.logic,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.phys
cs.computational.fluid-dynamics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusio
,sci.physics.particle,sci.research
Subject: The Farce of Physics
Date: 6 Mar 1995 19:51:25 -0500
Organization: Eckerd College, St. Petersburg, Florida


This post is in reply to the Steve Carlip carlip@dirac.ucdavis.edu 27 Feb 1995
18:40:02 post in the Thread "The Farce of Physics" in the newsgroup
"sci.physics".

Steve wrote:

>         ... In other words, we may not be able to compute the exact 
>trajectory of a falling apple, but we can calculate the tension in the
>stem that holds it to the tree. ...

Most physicists would argue that Einstein's General Relativity theory is
superior to Newtonian theory, yet it can't compute the trajectory of a falling
apple or the orbit of a spacecraft in the solar system and Newtonian theory
can.  S. Chandrasekhar in his article titled "Einstein and general relativity:
Historical perspectives" (Am.J.Phys.,47(3),212-1979), wrote:

  ... On this account, it would have been entirely sufficient to generalize
  the Newtonian theory to allow for such small departures which may arise
  from the finiteness of the velocity of light since we expect the Newtonian
  theory to be exact if the velocity of light could be considered as
  infinite. ...

R. A. Waldron in his article titled "Gravitational forces"(Speculations Sci.
Technol.,7,177-1984) wrote:

     That the anomaly in the precession of the planet Mercury could be
  accounted for by a modification to Newton's law of gravitation has been
  known for a long time.  Einstein's general theory of relativity can, in
  this respect, be expressed as a factor [1 + (3v^2/c^2)] in the
  gravitational force law [22]. ...

   Before he died, Einstein realized that the fundamental first postulate that
gave the name to his relativity theories, was false.  In an article by I.
Bernard Cohen titled "An Interview with Einstein" that starts on page 69 of
the July 1955 issue of the journal Scientific American, Cohen wrote:

  ... Einstein said, he thought that Newton's greatest achievement was his
  recognition of the role of privileged systems.  He repeated this statement
  several times and with great emphasis.  This is rather puzzling, I thought
  to myself, because today we believe that there are no privileged systems,
  only inertial systems; there is no privileged frame--not even our solar
  system--which we can say is privileged in the sense of being fixed in
  space, or having special physical properties not possible in other systems. 
  Due to Einstein's own work we no longer believe (as Newton did) in concepts
  of absolute space and absolute time, nor in a privileged system at rest or
  in motion with respect to absolute space. ...

   On page 84 of the double-spaced manuscript of my book "The Farce of
Physics" we find that near the end of his life in 1954, Einstein wrote to his
dear friend M. Besso:

  I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field
  concept,i.e., on continuous structures.  In that case, nothing remains of
  my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest
  of modern physics.

   On page 192 of my book, I presented Einstein's former research associate
Peter G. Bergmann's argument with regard to the first postulate:

  In the foregoing, I have pinned the breakdown of the principle of
  relativity to the background radiation: but this is only by way of
  emphasis.  One can construct local frames of rest also by averaging over
  the observed proper motions of the surrounding galaxies; the field of
  direction obtained by this procedure will not deviate grossly from the one
  gained from observing the background radiation.  Either way, permitting
  large-scale samplings to enter, one is led inexorably to the breakdown of
  the principle of relativity.

One must realize that in 1905 when Einstein wrote his first published paper on
relativity, it was long before we knew the true nature of galaxies or had any
evidence of the background radiation.  It was before the age of modern
electronic technology and space flight, and our ability to send light signals
through empty space over large distances from fast moving spacecraft.

   On page 84 of my book we learn that in 1920, after Einstein had become
famous, he made an inaugural address on aether and relativity theory for his
special chair in Leiden.  In the address he states:

  The aether of the general theory of relativity is a medium without
  mechanical and kinematic properties, but which codetermines mechanical and
  electromagnetic events.

If Einstein's ether argument was true, and light was a wave in the ether, we
would expect that there would be very large differences in the transit time of
one way light signals from spacecraft moving relative to the ether.  Because
there is no evidence that modern radio astronomers evaluate their data based
on motion relative to the ether, this must be considered as evidence that
Einstein's ether argument is not true!

  My book "The Farce of Physics" explores and documents the fact that modern
physics is little more than an elaborate farce.  The book contains 156
references to the published literature with extensive quotations of arguments
from many prominent people including Albert Einstein.  It is meant for anyone
who is interested in this subject, and I have attempted to reduce the
technical jargon and mathematics to a minimum in order to reach the widest
possible audience.  The term physics was derived from the Greek word "physis"
for nature, and the roots of physics lies in the first period of Greek
philosophy in the sixth century B.C., where science, philosophy and religion
were not separated.  The aim of physics is to discover the essential nature of
all things, and it lies at the base of all of natural science, religion, and
technology.  Richard Feynman was one of a relatively small number of modern
physicists with the intelligence and courage to challenge the current sacred
relativity doctrine that argues that empty space is an invisible solid with
infinite mass and energy that can create the universe in a Big Bang.  Feynman
argued that Isaac Newton was right and that a photon of light is a particle
composed of a drop of dynamic ether fluid moving through empty space at the
speed of light.  My 1969 paper showed that an analysis of the Venus radar data
was consistent with the Newtonian particle model of light, and my computer
simulation research of the dynamic ether showed the proper magnitudes for the
gravitational, electromagnetic, and nuclear forces using simple reasonable
algorithms, and it was also possible to make the heavier particles from
positive and negative electrons, just as John Archibald Wheeler suspected.  I
expect that some time in the future, man will discover some cute technological
trick that will upset the balance of the positrons and electrons and mass
annihilation will be man's principle energy source, perhaps even leading to
space travel at near light speeds.
   This book is now archived in many Internet libraries and can be found by
using Gopher and World Wide Web and will be available from Project Gutenberg
archives and on their CDROM's.  The free standard 311KB ASCII version can be
obtained by anonymous ftp from ftp.germany.eu.net in the directory
/pub/books/wallace by using "get farce.txt".  The file in the directory is in
a compressed form and called farce.txt.gz but if you leave off the .gz the
system will send you the uncompressed text.  Unix computer systems have a
command called "gunzip" that will uncompress the .gz format.  The
HTML/World-Wide Web Hypertext version of the book is available via

URL:http://www.Germany.EU.net/books/farce/farce.html

If one prefers to obtain a copy of the ASCII version by email they can send
the request to my wallace@eckerd.edu address, and if their system has a size
limit for email I can send the book in segments, with the largest being 55KB
for Chapter 3.

Bryan



cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenwallace cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.07 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: barry@joshua.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: 7 Mar 1995 17:58:13 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In article <535030907wnr@moonrake.demon.co.uk> Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk writes:
>In article: <1995Mar4.154832.421@Princeton.EDU>  Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@princeton.edu> writes:
>> Fusion researchers have made better progress in advancing the key 
>> parameter (fusion power output from the reactor, or even the ratio
>> of fusion power out to heating power in) than the semiconductor
>> industry has in advancing, say, the number of bytes of RAM that
>
>A slight difference, of course, is that chips have been profitable from the start,
>and have been entirely self-financing over that quarter century.
>

This is not true. The first primitive transistors were made circa _1930_, and
not much happened (due in part to lack of good materials and manufactruing
techniques) til a  resurgence in the 1950's, and I doubt they startedcompeted
with discrete components till the late 1950's---so there was a 25 year development
cycle you seem to be mising.30

>Why do you think the same has not been true of fusion research?
>

Simple: the expense of most experimental setups prohibits doing the
desired amount of  concept investigation and/or iterative improvement
of existing concepts. 

-)

--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet)  (NeXTMail OK) 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.08 / Arnie Frisch /  Re:  Sonoluminescence and Fusion
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Sonoluminescence and Fusion
Date: 8 Mar 95 16:50:16 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Laboratories, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR

In article <1995Mar7.131411.2101@physc2.byu.edu> jonesse@physc2.byu.edu writes:
.......
.....
....
...
..
>It has been *very* difficult to get SBSL using D2, compared to air.
>We pulled a vacuum on the clean D2O, while stirring to drive out dissolved
>air, then backfilled with D2 gas, still stirring.  We repeated the process
>ten times in order to replace air with D2. 
>
>Getting SBSL was then attempted, but very difficult at first.  When we
>cooled the entire flask to about 10 C, then we started getting SBSL for
>a few seconds at a time.  (We used a photomultiplier tube to view the SBSL
>at first; later, we looked in and could see the glowing bubble with the eye
>in the darkened lab.  But even then the bubble was faint compared to the
>air-bubble SBSL, which can be seen without turning down the lights in the
>lab.)
>
>It is noteworthy that after a couple of hours of running, the D2 SBSL became
>more stable, lasting for periods up to about 25 minutes for a single levitated
>bubble.  In all, we took data for a period of about eight hours with D2 SBSL
>before the equipment was dismounted.  We looked just for light (with the PMT)
>and neutrons (with our best detector, underground).  We saw the light,
>but we saw no neutrons.  




In the Scientific American article on this subject, it was noted that a
stable, high light level experiment seemed to be dependent on the
presence of trace amounts of inert gas - like the argon in air.  Your
methodology seems to exclude this.


However, there might be some adsorbed gas in your system that comes
into solution after a period of running, or there might be some
diffusing into your apparatus, and that could explain the apparent
improvement after some running time.



Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.08 /  Ed /  Wow!  World's smallest ConFlat BA ionization gauge.
     
Originally-From: (Ed)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Wow!  World's smallest ConFlat BA ionization gauge.
Date: 8 Mar 1995 18:42:05 GMT
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center -- Greenbelt, Maryland USA

To anyone interested:

I've just received a shipment of Bayard-Alpert (BA) ionization
gauges from Granville-Phillips.  They are the new mini-CF
BA gauges.  Only 3" long, flange-face to glass-base.  It is a
tubulated lime-glass wall.  The steel tube is 1.25" long and
the glass tube is a total of 1.5" long.  The glass to metal
transition is only about 0.1" long, unlike the typical Kovar
seal on a 2.75" CF tubulated gauge.  The diameter of the
glass tube is about 0.8".

The tube only has one thoriated iridium filament.  Only four
pins (grid, collector, two for filament), but the press contains
the typical nine -- five have been clipped.  We are checking
to see if a two-filament version is available.

The controller is small (measures 2.5" H, 4" W, 6.75" deep
w/o feet & connectors) and has a green lcd display.  Input
power rated at 25W.  Emission current is supposed to be
2mA or less.

Supposed to measure from below 5e-8 Torr to 5e-3 Torr.

The gauge tube is $155, controller $595, cable $85.

We have constructed our own miniature BA gauges before,
but this off-the-shelf gauge by GP in mini-CF (1.33") saves
us a lot of time and effort.

The model number is 343.  Has anyone else used these
things?

I will post a follow-up after I get them going (hey, reliability
is everything).

Ed

P.S.  Yes, the controllers are RF shielded.


Titan or BUST!!!
*****************************************************************
Edward L. Patrick               <patrick@paf.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Hughes STX, Code 915
Laboratory for Atmospheres
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Greenbelt, MD  20771  USA
*****************************************************************

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudlnEd cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.07 /   /  Re: Plasma Physics Summer School
     
Originally-From: raynor3223@aol.com (RAYNOR3223)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Plasma Physics Summer School
Date: 7 Mar 1995 18:28:07 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Sanjay,

Where can I get information on this Summer School ?

I have a candidate in mind for it.

                                                   Al Messano
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenraynor3223 cudln cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.08 / Scott Little /  Re: Closed loop Griggs
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Closed loop Griggs
Date: 8 Mar 1995 16:49:05 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

>Couldn't some of the wasted heat be recovered by 
>recirculating the waste water/steam coming out of the
>turbine back into the GG's water supply tank so that 
>the GG doesn't have to supply much heat to boil it again.

Yes, and this would improve the efficiency but only approaching
the Carnot efficiency which is given by

			Thot - Tcold
                      ---------------
                           Thot

where Thot is the temperature of the heat source and Tcold is the temp of
the heat dump (typically near ambient).  These temps must be in Kelvin.

For example. if you tried to run a very, very efficient heat engine with
all the heat saving devices you could imagine, using boiling water as the 
heat source and dumping waste heat at room temperature (25 degrees) the 
maximum efficiency would be:

			373 - 298
                       -----------   =  .201   or 20.1%
                           373

You have to get up to around 327 degrees C before the theoretical eff 
reaches 50% and that's only if you can use 25 degrees C as a heat dump
which you can't, except in the winter!  The 2nd law of thermodynamics
sez this Carnot efficiency cannot be exceeded.


>Then there is a question of the pressures of the water and 
>steam: 

>     Does the GG operate as a pump, forcing steam out at
>pressure and drawing water into itself? 

No, you must pump the water thru it.  In fact, it develops around 30 psi
of back pressure when operating.

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.06 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion; the Biomass option
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion; the Biomass option
Date: 6 Mar 95 16:24:51 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

I appreciate the comments regarding the possible use of biomass for energy
production by Marshall Dudley, John Vetrano and Tom Kunich.  
My interest in this approach is such that I have joined a small group looking
at the prospects; we do not yet have a cost analysis.  I agree that it is
likely that energy to harvest will likely eat up the benefit margin, unless
we can think of a clever way to cut energy costs dramatically.  However,
I do not expect we will find an ecological disaster in this instance, since
the plants we are considering are native to the region (unlike kudzu, if I
understand correctly).

One of my main reasons for engaging in this project is to round out my
understanding of alternative energy schemes, as I am working towards developing
a course on energy.

Again, thanks for the comments.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.07 /  jonesse@acoust /  RE: Solar -VS- Fsuion; the Biomass option
     
Originally-From: jonesse@acoust.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Solar -VS- Fsuion; the Biomass option
Date: 7 Mar 95 16:46:13 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Bonnie Nestor provided the following, which answers some of the questions
raised in our discussion of biomass and "solar -vs- fusion."
Note that the sun is the closest thing we have to a working, sustained fusion
reactor.  :-)    Thanks to Bonnie for permission to pass this article along
to those who may find an interest.

Dear Dr. Jones,

I am attaching to this message  [a] general article about biomass. It
appears that DOE's biomass development program, at least, is aimed at
producing plants (both woody and herbaceous) that could be converted to
liquid fuel.

Some technical articles are available through the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory; the World Wide Web address is
  http://nrelinfo.nrel.gov:70/1/information/nrel/publications

You might also want to look at ORNL's World Wide Web server -- try the
Biofuels Information Network at
  http://www.esd.ornl.gov/BFDP/BFDPMOSAIC/binmenu.html

The Energy Crops Forum, Winter 1994 issue, at
  http://www.esd.ornl.gov/BFDP/BFDPMOSAIC/ECFMOS/94winter.html


FROM GAS-POWERED TO GRASS-POWERED: ORNL RESEARCHES PLANTS FOR CONVERSION TO
LIQUID FUEL

OAK RIDGE, Tenn., Aug. 15-- ...

Environmental scientists at the Department of Energy's (DOE) Oak Ridge
National Laboratory (ORNL) are working to develop a fast-growing grass as a
source of liquid fuel. The Biofuels Feedstock Development Program at ORNL
has selected a native species called switchgrass for further studies in
alternative-fuel development.

The research is supported by DOE's Office of Transportation Technologies
through the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program.

Scientists and politicians alike realize the importance of developing
clean, renewable sources of energy. Today, much of the world depends on oil
reserves that are concentrated in a handful of nations. And then there's
the specter of pollution, much of which stems from fossil-fuel use.
Conversion of woody and herbaceous plants into clean-burning fuel offers an
attractive possibility for meeting future demands, researchers say.

Switchgrass is a perennial warm-season grass that grows well in many areas
of the country-even on fairly dry, nutrient-deficient land of marginal
quality-and it has positive environmental attributes.

Its natural range extends from Quebec through Mexico and into Central
America. It has two growth forms. One is a leafy, thick-stemmed variety
common to lowland sites in the Southeast. The second form is short,
fine-bladed and more typical of grass in the western plains. Both were
components of the native prairie found by American pioneers.

The ORNL program emphasizes the need for high-yield crops that can be grown
economically over a wide area and with minimum impact on the environment.
Herbaceous crops, including switchgrass, have high, stable yields,
relatively low production costs, and positive environmental attributes.
This could make them tremendously beneficial to small-farm owners in a
depressed agricultural industry.

"One of the reasons switchgrass was selected as a fuel alternative is
because it is very similar to hay in the way it is raised, which makes it
compatible with traditional agricultural practices," said Sandy McLaughlin,
an ORNL senior research staff member and a task leader in the ORNL biofuels
program. "In fact," he added, "switchgrass can be treated by farmers as a
hay, because the equipment used for harvesting hay can also be used for
switchgrass." This will help lower the front-end cost for farmers who want
to grow switchgrass and sell it to conversion facilities, McLaughlin said.

Research to develop fast-growing grasses and hardwoods for the ORNL program
is paralleled by engineering research at DOE's National Renewable Energy
Laboratory in Golden, Colo., to promote more efficient ways to convert
biomass to liquid and gaseous fuels. By the year 2000, energy crops could
yield five billion gallons of ethanol annually, enough to produce about
650,000 gallons of ethanol every 24 hours.


Research at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University has shown
that deep switchgrass rooting patterns provide a significant capacity to
improve soil quality by increasing soil carbon content. This will help
offset carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere, a significant global
pollution problem. Switchgrass also provides protection against erosion,
has low fertilizer and pesticide requirements, and provides cover for
wildlife.

ORNL, one of the Department of Energy's multiprogram national research and
development facilities, is managed by Martin Marietta Energy Systems, which
also manages the Oak Ridge K-25 Site and the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant.

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Mar 10 04:37:04 EST 1995
------------------------------
