1995.03.10 / Robin Spaandonk /        Re: Stability of SBSL using D2
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:       Re: Stability of SBSL using D2
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 09:46:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>Originally-From: arnief@wu.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
[SNIP]
>In article <1995Mar7.131411.2101@physc2.byu.edu> jonesse@physc2.byu.edu writes
[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.
>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
________________________________________________________________________
Another possibility is contamination with either H2 or O2  (or
even O-- i.e. water with H+'s stripped of) produced by high temperatures
 x-rays, UV or whatever at the surface of the 
bubble, from the water. O2 would seem the most likely, given that the 
effect was much more pronounced when using an air bubble. I mention O-- because it has 
the electron configuration of Neon. Perhaps even H2O molecules, as these have the same 
mass as Neon atoms.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au>

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.08 / Rich Hawryluk /  TFTR Update (March 8, 1995)
     
Originally-From: rhawryluk@pppl.gov (Rich Hawryluk)
Newsgroups: pppl.tftr.news,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TFTR Update (March 8, 1995)
Date: 8 Mar 1995 19:50:35 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

Status  (March 8, 1995)

1.      The weeks of Feb. 20 and 27th were concerned with optimization of
the plasma in the advanced tokamak regime in DD plasmas by modifying the q
profile and obtaining reverse shear.

2.      The goals of the advanced tokamak regime experiments were to
develop a scenario for producing a reversed shear q-profile and study its
confinement and stability properties.  These experiments are done in
collaboration with F. Levinton and S. Batha from Fusion Physics Technology.
The first two days of this experiment were dedicated to developing a
robust and reproducible q-profile with reversed shear.  By the end of the
second day a q-profile with q(0)~2.5-3.0, qmin ~ 2. and Ip=1.6 MA was
obtained.  NBI power up to 16 MW were injected into both a reversed shear
and a standard supershot to compare the performance.  On the third
dedicated day we conditioned the machine with Lithium pellets and injected
up to 25 MW of power to test the stability properties of the reversed shear
q-profile.  The 25 MW shot exhibited an enhanced performance characterized
by a very peaked density profile with ne(0)~1.2 1020 m-3 and a density
peaking factor of 4.1.  The value of beta_N reached 1.7 before disrupting.
Stability and transport analysis are in progress.

3.      Experiments were performed on TFTR last week in collaboration with
the Columbia group to examine the stability of high beta poloidal plasmas
with high q(0) > 2 and high plasma internal inductance, li.  The
experiments were successful in producing plasmas with epsilon*beta_pol > 1,
q(0) > 2 with reversed shear, and li ~ 2 in both D and D-T plasmas.
Preliminary analysis indicates that energy confinement of these plasmas was
similar to that obtained when q(0) ~ 1.  Limiter conditioning with lithium
pellet injection was used to produce plasmas of enhanced confinement.  From
initial analysis, the stability limit due to disruptions was found to be
consistent with a scaling of beta_N proportional to li as found in plasmas
with q(0) ~ 1.  Comprehensive analysis is underway.

4.      An experiment was performed to investigate enhanced fusion product
losses attributed to energy diffusion and pitch angle scattering by
mode-converted ion Bernstein waves.  The mode conversion layer was scanned
across the core of the plasma by varying Bt and the He3 concentration.  The
fusion-product losses were found to maximize when the mode conversion layer
was at the magnetic axis.  Initial analysis of the lost-alpha probe
measurements indicates that the enhanced losses may include particles with
energies both higher and lower than the birth energy.  In plasmas with T
gas puffs, preliminary analysis indicates possible enhanced loss of D-T
alpha particles when the mode conversion layer is moved towards the alpha
cyclotron resonance layer.


Future Activities

This is a scheduled maintenance week on TFTR. Deuterium-tritium experiments
will continue next week with the emphasis on documentation of alpha
particles in non-sawtoothing and sawtoothing discharges.

 P.S.  If you do not wish to receive notices of TFTR status, please contact
me or send a message to postmaster@pppl.gov.  If you are aware of others
who wish to receive notices, please send a message to postmaster@pppl.gov
and do not send a message to tftr_news_info.




_________________________________________________________________________
R. J. Hawryluk
rhawryluk@pppl.gov
PPPL - LOB 325
Phone:  (609) 243-3306
Fax:    (609) 243-3248


cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenrhawryluk cudfnRich cudlnHawryluk cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.09 / Henry LaMuth /  Ball lightning..maybe
     
Originally-From: hlamuth@infinet.com (Henry LaMuth)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ball lightning..maybe
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 95 02:19:42 GMT
Organization: AlphaComm

A recent post on the PLASMAK device got me to thinking about some work I did 
many years ago in graduate school. I worked on pinch geometry plasma devices. 
We observed, during the collapse of a pinch, some toroidal ejecta that were 
vaguely remeniscent of smoke rings. In acoustics, toroidal configurations are 
stable, such as with a smoke ring or, under water, a sound pulse. I think 
these types of configurations get generated quite often and they are very 
stable. Much of the energy goes into the toroidal circulation but some goes 
into the linear translation of the toroid. I even heard of an acoustic gun 
that generated a toroidal pulse that traveled many seconds down an undisturbed 
path, like a hall way, and packed a noticable momentum transfer. My curiosity 
has been piqued as to whether or not ball lightning might be a toroidal 
magneto plasma with the spherical shape a result of a symetrical ionization 
that masks the underlying toroidal motion. Try as I might, I just cannot think 
of any rational boundary for the mhd equations for an uncontained sphere, but 
a circulating toroid, now, that is something different. Pardon me if this has 
been discussed and discarded before, but I would be interested in any thoughts 
on this. 
cudkeys:
cuddy09 cudenhlamuth cudfnHenry cudlnLaMuth cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.09 / Edward Lewis /  tornado
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: tornado
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 1995 02:49:03 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago


Dec. 7, 1993
posted on Oct. 28, 1994

Luminous Tornadoes and Other Plasmoids

	During the past 1 3/4 years I've been posting articles about
ball lightning, plasmoids, EVs, and cold fusion on sci.physics.fusion
newsgroup. This is a version of one that I posted last winter.  Does
anyone have any reports about anomalous atmospheric phenomena?

        People have often seen bright or luminous tornadoes.
According to prior research, a large percentage of tornadoes are
bright or glowing, and people have experienced that some are quite hot.
(see B. Vonnegut and J. R. Weyer, "Luminous Phenomena Accompanying
Tornadoes," WEATHERWISE, 19-2 (Apr. 1966), 66-68. and B. Vonnegut and
J. R. Weyer, "Luminous Phenomena in Nocturnal Tornadoes, SCIENCE,
(1966), 1213-1220.)

        Storms on the Earth are probably an atmospheric manifestation
of earth plasmoid activity, according to Tesla's experience of
electricity in the ground that accompanied a storm.  Even clouds may
be such a manifestation.  Clouds seem to be plasmoid phenomena.  And
clouds may convert to ball lightning.  People have seen clouds which
contained a glowing spot, and in one case it is fairly documented that
a cloud with a glowing spot produced a tornado.

        Tornadoes are a locus for the conversion of substance
to light and electricity.  The power of tornadoes is anomalously high.
People have seen lightning from a large area converge to the area of a
cyclone, but this seems to only be part of the reason for the power.
People have seen tornadoes that had parts that were so bright that
they described the phenomena as being too bright to look at though the
tornadoes were quite a ways away; one person described tornadoes that
lit up the surroundings so that it was as if the direct sun was
shining during a period of time.  In one case, a thermometer measured
that the temperature of the air increased by about 20 degrees during
the passage of a tornado.

        I would say that tornadoes and ball lightning are the same
type of phenomena, though ball lightning is smaller.  I classify both
ball lightning and tornadoes, storms, clouds, and other phenomena as
kinds of a phenomena that I call plasmoid phenomena.  Galaxies and
atoms are other types of this kind of phenomena, according to my
theory.

        I would say that the cold fusion phenomena is a plasmoid
phenomena.  People have produced many types of phenomena including
traces and holes and tunnels that are similar to those produced by
plasmoid phenomena.  I would say that tiny plasmoids like ball
lightning are being produced. At the ICCF4, Matsumoto reported about
tiny ball lightning in his CF apparatus.  I suggest that people read
his articles in FUSION TECHNOLOGY.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.08 / Glenn Lippman /  4
     
Originally-From: gwlpi@csn.net (Glenn Lippman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 4
Date: 8 Mar 1995 17:47:21 GMT
Organization: Colorado Supernet


A local Colorado school district would like to interview a nuclear
physicist by phone on Thursday, March 9th, for a teleconference.  I
believe the subject matter is energy and fusion.  Any takers, send me an
email message at gwlpi@lpitech.com.  Let me know today.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudengwlpi cudfnGlenn cudlnLippman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.09 / 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: 9 Mar 1995 12:21:32 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <1995Mar8.050945.11702@Princeton.EDU>,
Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@princeton.edu> wrote:
>In article <JI67NDl.jedrothwell@delphi.com> , jedrothwell@delphi.com
>writes:
>
>Fusion reactors built on *current* technology (ITER-like) are 
>expected to cost roughly 3 times more than current energy 
>sources.  But fusion is still evolving, and this "3x" figure 
>is nothing more than an *upper limit*.  There are a number 
>of ideas floating around which, if they can be made practicable, 
>would reduce the cost of fusion dramatically.

Careful, IMO you are making a statement that is too strong. There are
conceivable breakthroughs that could reduce cost. However, there are
also conceivable underestimates in the costing scheme. Heaven knows we
have seen this with other large projects. For example, look at how ITER
cost estimates have been moderately increasing as the design gets refined.
And if I am remembering correctly, ITER has been a little less ambitious in
its design margins recently as well. Or for another example look at TPX
estimates. When BPX was killed, SSAT/TPX was envisioned as a 300-400 M$
deal. But now congress thinks it is order 700 M$ and I think others put it
at close to 1G$ (somebody in the "nose" want to comment?). Granted it has been
a moving target in terms of technical objectives as well. It's now a little
more ambitious than in the days just after BPX got tubed. Also some increased
cost estimates are due to delay and stretch-out expenses. All I am saying
is thet the 3X current cost estimate (or whatever it is) is a best estimate.
but it has error bars on both sides. It is not a lower or upper bound.

Bob Heeter is the optimist who sees the bottom of the error bar with its
opportunity for cost decreases.
Jed Rothwell is the pessimist who sees the top of the error bar with its
opportunity for prices increases. Jed also thinks he is looking at a Log
plot.


This is what makes Jed's arguments and exagerrations so believable. He takes
a point that has validity and stretch's it beyond reason and then cites
reputable people who support the original proposition in its proper context
as being supportive of his invalid extrapolation. It is a very persuasive
rhetorical technique. But it does not help in illuminating the truth.

-john .w cobb

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

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.08 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 1/3 (Overview)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics,sci.environment,sc
.answers,news.answers
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 1/3 (Overview)
Date: 8 Mar 1995 19:05:47 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Archive-name: fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview
Last-modified: 26-Feb-1995
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-biweekly
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!!!).

 ----------------------------------------------------------------
### Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Fusion Research
 ----------------------------------------------------------------

# Written/Edited by:

     Robert F. Heeter
     <rfheeter@pppl.gov>
     Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

# Last Revised February 26, 1995


 ----------------------------------------------------------------
*** A.  Welcome to the Conventional Fusion FAQ!  
 ----------------------------------------------------------------

* 1) Contents

  This file is intended to indicate 
     (A) that the Conventional Fusion FAQ exists, 
     (B) what it discusses, 
     (C) how to find it on the Internet, and
     (D) the status of the Fusion FAQ project


* 2) What is the Conventional Fusion FAQ?

  The Conventional Fusion FAQ is a comprehensive, relatively
  nontechnical set of answers to many of the frequently asked
  questions about fusion science, fusion energy, and fusion
  research.  Additionally, there is a Glossary of Frequently
  Used Terms In Plasma Physics and Fusion Energy Research, which 
  explains much of the jargon of the field.  The Conventional 
  Fusion FAQ originated as an attempt to provide 
  answers to many of the typical, basic, or introductory questions 
  about fusion research, and to provide a listing of references and 
  other resources for those interested in learning more.  The
  Glossary section containing Frequently Used Terms (FUT) also
  seeks to facilitate communication regarding fusion by providing
  brief explanations of the language of the field.


* 3) Scope of the Conventional Fusion FAQ:

  Note that this FAQ discusses only the conventional forms of fusion
  (primarily magnetic confinement, but also inertial and 
  muon-catalyzed), and not new/unconventional forms ("cold fusion",
  sonoluminescence-induced fusion, or ball-lightning fusion).  I 
  have tried to make this FAQ as uncontroversial and comprehensive
  as possible, while still covering everything I felt was 
  important / standard fare on the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup.


* 4) How to Use the FAQ:

  This is a rather large FAQ, and to make it easier to find what
  you want, I have outlined each section (including which questions
  are answered) in Section 0, Part 2 (posted separately).  Hopefully it 
  will not be too hard to use.  Part (C) below describes how to find
  the other parts of the FAQ via FTP or the World-Wide Web.


* 5) Claims and Disclaimers:  

  This is an evolving document, not a completed work.  As such, 
  it may not be correct or up-to-date in all respects.  
  This document should not be distributed for profit, especially 
  without my permission.  Individual sections may have additional 
  restrictions.  In no case should my name, the revision date, 
  or this paragraph be removed.  
                                             - Robert F. Heeter


 -------------------------------------------------------------------
*** B. Contents (Section Listing) of the Conventional Fusion FAQ
 -------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************************************************************
                What This FAQ Discusses
*****************************************************************

(Each of these sections is posted periodically on sci.physics.fusion.
 Section 0.1 is posted biweekly, the other parts are posted quarterly.
 Each listed part is posted as a separate file.)

Section 0 - Introduction
     Part 1/3 - Title Page
                Table of Contents
                How to Find the FAQ
                Current Status of the FAQ project
     Part 2/3 - Detailed Outline with List of Questions
     Part 3/3 - Revision History

Section 1 - Fusion as a Physical Phenomenon

Section 2 - Fusion as an Energy Source
     Part 1/5 - Technical Characteristics
     Part 2/5 - Environmental Characteristics
     Part 3/5 - Safety Characteristics
     Part 4/5 - Economic Characteristics
     Part 5/5 - Fusion for Space-Based Power

Section 3 - Fusion as a Scientific Research Program
     Part 1/3 - Chronology of Events and Ideas
     Part 2/3 - Major Institutes and Policy Actors
     Part 3/3 - History of Achievements and Funding

Section 4 - Methods of Containment / Approaches to Fusion
     Part 1/2 - Toroidal Magnetic Confinement Approaches
     Part 2/2 - Other Approaches (ICF, muon-catalyzed, etc.)

Section 5 - Status of and Plans for Present Devices

Section 6 - Recent Results

Section 7 - Educational Opportunities

Section 8 - Internet Resources

Section 9 - Future Plans

Section 10 - Annotated Bibliography / Reading List

Section 11 - Citations and Acknowledgements

Glossary of Frequently Used Terms (FUT) in Plasma Physics & Fusion:
  Part 0/26 - Intro
  Part 1/26 - A
  Part 2/26 - B
  [ ... ]
  Part 26/26 - Z


 --------------------------------------------------------------
*** C.  How to find the Conventional Fusion FAQ on the 'Net:
 --------------------------------------------------------------

*****************************************************************
###  The FAQ about the FAQ:
###          How can I obtain a copy of a part of the Fusion FAQ?
*****************************************************************

* 0) Quick Methods (for Experienced Net Users)

   (A) World-Wide Web:  http://lyman.pppl.gov/~rfheeter/fusion-faq.html

   (B) FTP:  rtfm.mit.edu in /pub/usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq


* 1) Obtaining the Fusion FAQ from Newsgroups

  Those of you reading this on news.answers, sci.answers, 
  sci.energy, sci.physics, or sci.environment will be able to 
  find the numerous sections of the full FAQ by reading 
  sci.physics.fusion periodically.  (Please note that not 
  all sections are completed yet.)  Because the FAQ is quite
  large, most sections are posted only every three months, to avoid
  unnecessary consumption of bandwidth.

  All sections of the FAQ which are ready for "official" 
  distribution are posted to sci.physics.fusion, sci.answers, 
  and news.answers, so you can get them from these groups by 
  waiting long enough. 


* 2) World-Wide-Web (Mosaic, Netscape, Lynx, etc.):

   Several Web versions now exist.

   The "official" one is currently at

     <URL:http://lyman.pppl.gov/~rfheeter/fusion-faq.html>

   We hope to have a version on the actual PPPL Web server 
      (<URL:http://www.pppl.gov/>) soon.

   There are other sites which have made "unofficial" Web versions 
   from the newsgroup postings.  I haven't hunted all of these down 
   yet, but I know a major one is at this address:

 <URL:http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu:80/hypertext/faq/usenet/fusion-faq/top.html>

 Note that the "official" one will include a number of features
 which cannot be found on the "unofficial" ones created by
 automated software from the newsgroup postings.  In particular
 we hope to have links through the outline directly to questions,
 and between vocabulary words and their entries in the Glossary, 
 so that readers unfamiliar with the terminology can get help fast.

 (Special acknowledgements to John Wright at PPPL, who is handling
  much of the WWW development.)


* 3) FAQ Archives at FTP Sites (Anonymous FTP) - Intro

  All completed sections can also be obtained by anonymous FTP 
  from various FAQ archive sites, such as rtfm.mit.edu.  The
  address for this archive is:

    <ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq>

  Please note that sections which are listed above as having
  multiple parts (such as the glossary, and section 2) are 
  stored in subdirectories, where each part has its own
  filename; e.g., /fusion-faq/glossary/part0-intro. 

  Please note also that there are other locations in the rtfm
  filespace where fusion FAQ files are stored, but the reference
  given above is the easiest to use.

  There are a large number of additional FAQ archive sites,
  many of which carry the fusion FAQ.  These are listed below.


* 4) Additional FAQ archives worldwide (partial list)

  There are other FAQ archive sites around the world
  which one can try if rtfm is busy; a list is appended
  at the bottom of this file.


* 5) Mail Server

   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 3 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 same general format, if you substitute
   the file archive names you wish to receive, in place of the 
   part "fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview", etc. used above.


* 6) Additional Note / Disclaimer: 

  Not all sections of the FAQ have been written
  yet, nor have they all been "officially" posted.

  Thus, you may not find what you're looking for right away.

  Sections which are still being drafted are only
  posted to sci.physics.fusion.  If there's a section 
  you can't find, send me email and I'll let you know 
  what's up with it. 


 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
*** D. Status of the Conventional Fusion FAQ Project
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

* 1) Written FAQ Sections:

  Most sections have been at least drafted, but many sections are still
  being written.  Sections 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, and 9
  remain to be completed.

  Those sections which have been written could use revising and improving.
  I am trying to obtain more information, especially on devices and 
  confinement approaches; I'm also looking for more information on 
  international fusion research, especially in Japan & Russia.

   *** I'd love any help you might be able to provide!! ***


* 2) Building a Web Version
                
  A "primitive" version (which has all the posted data, but isn't
  especially aesthetic) exists now.  Would like to add graphics and 
  cross-references to the Glossary, between FAQ sections, and 
  to other internet resources (like laboratory Web pages).  
 

* 3) Nuts & Bolts - 

  I'm looking for ways to enhance the distribution of the FAQ, and
  to get additional volunteer help for maintenance and updates.
  We are in the process of switching to automated posting via the 
  rtfm.mit.edu faq posting daemon.


* 4) Status of the Glossary:

 # Contains roughly 1000 entries, including acronyms, math terms, jargon, etc.

 # Just finished incorporating terms from the "Glossary of Fusion Energy"
   published in 1985 by the Dept. of Energy's Office of Scientific and
   Technical Information.

 # Also working to improve technical quality of entries (more formal.)

 # World Wide Web version exists, hope to cross-reference to FAQ.

 # Hope to have the Glossary "officially" added to PPPL Web pages.

 # Hope to distribute to students, policymakers, journalists, 
   scientists, i.e., to anyone who needs a quick reference to figure out 
   what we're really trying to say, or to decipher all the "alphabet 
   soup."  Scientists need to remember that not everyone knows those 
   "trivial" words we use every day.  The glossary and FAQ should be 
   useful in preparing for talks to lay audiences.  Students will 
   also find it useful to be able to look up unfamiliar technical jargon.


 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
*** E. Appendix: List of Additional FAQ Archive Sites Worldwide 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

(The following information was excerpted from the "Introduction to 
the *.answers newsgroups" posting on news.answers, from Sept. 9, 1994.)

Other news.answers/FAQ archives (which carry some or all of the FAQs
in the rtfm.mit.edu archive), sorted by country, are:

[ Note that the connection type is on the left.  I can't vouch
for the fusion FAQ being on all of these, but it should be
on some. - Bob Heeter ]


Belgium
-------

  gopher                cc1.kuleuven.ac.be port 70
  anonymous FTP         cc1.kuleuven.ac.be:/anonymous.202
  mail-server           listserv@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be  get avail faqs

Canada
------

  gopher                jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca port 70

Finland
-------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.funet.fi/pub/doc/rtfm

France
------

  anonymous FTP         grasp1.insa-lyon.fr:/pub/faq
                        grasp1.insa-lyon.fr:/pub/faq-by-newsgroup
  gopher                gopher.insa-lyon.fr, port 70
  mail server           listserver@grasp1.univ-lyon1.fr
  
Germany
-------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.Germany.EU.net:/pub/newsarchive/news.answers
                        ftp.informatik.uni-muenchen.de:/pub/comp/usenet/news.answers
                        ftp.uni-paderborn.de:/doc/FAQ
                        ftp.saar.de:/pub/usenet/news.answers (local access only)
  gopher                gopher.Germany.EU.net, port 70.
                        gopher.uni-paderborn.de
  mail server           archive-server@Germany.EU.net
                        ftp-mailer@informatik.tu-muenchen.de
                        ftp-mail@uni-paderborn.de
  World Wide Web        http://www.Germany.EU.net:80/
  FSP                   ftp.Germany.EU.net, port 2001
  gopher index          gopher://gopher.Germany.EU.net:70/1.archive
                        gopher://gopher.uni-paderborn.de:70/0/Service/FTP

Korea
-----

  anonymous ftp         hwarang.postech.ac.kr:/pub/usenet/news.answers

Mexico
------
  anonymous ftp         mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx:/pub/usenet/news.answers

The Netherlands
---------------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.cs.ruu.nl:/pub/NEWS.ANSWERS
  gopher                gopher.win.tue.nl, port 70
  mail server           mail-server@cs.ruu.nl

Sweden
------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.sunet.se:/pub/usenet

Switzerland
-----------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.switch.ch:/info_service/usenet/periodic-postings
  anonymous UUCP        chx400:ftp/info_service/Usenet/periodic-postings
  mail server           archiver-server@nic.switch.ch
  telnet                nic.switch.ch, log in as "info"

Taiwan
------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.edu.tw:/USENET/FAQ
  mail server           ftpmail@ftp.edu.tw

United Kingdon
--------------

  anonymous ftp         src.doc.ic.ac.uk:/usenet/news-faqs/
  FSP                   src.doc.ic.ac.uk port 21
  gopher                src.doc.ic.ac.uk port 70.
  mail server           ftpmail@doc.ic.ac.uk
  telnet                src.doc.ic.ac.uk login as sources
  World Wide Web        http://src.doc.ic.ac.uk/usenet/news-faqs/

United States
-------------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.uu.net:/usenet
  World Wide Web        http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu:80/hypertext/faq/usenet/top.html



cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.10 / Dieter Britz /  Biblio update: peripherals
     
Originally-From: britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Biblio update: peripherals
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 17:05:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Just firing off these two peripherals; they have gone into the peri file in
the archives. The Astakhov et al will excite Li fans. Li is thought to do
all sorts of good things.
More FT 26T stuff next week.

Peripherals: present count = 91.
^^^^^^^^^^^
#
Astakhov II, Kazarinov VE, Reznikova LA, Teplitskaya GL;
Russ. J. Electrochem. 30 (1994) 1379.
"Diffusion of hydrogen isotopes in palladium hydride and deuteride in the
presence of lithium".
** In a previous paper by these authors, Li was found to affect the flow of
hydrogen through a Pd membrane. Here they try to find the mechanism of the
effect. It appears that Li, incorporated into Pd, may form traps for hydrogen
isotopes and thereby slow down its transport.
#...................................................................... Mar-95
Kolesnichenko II, Michri AA, Pshenichnikov AG;
Sov. Electrochem. 29 (1993) 622.
"Acceleration of hydrogen transport through palladium membranes".
** Palladium membranes are useful for low temperature electrochemical systems
and fuel cells, and it would be useful to be able to speed up the transport of
hydrogen through them. This paper examines some possibilities. First the
fundamental processes taking place at the interface are outlined; then some
experiments with strongly adhering disperse Pt and Rh layers deposited on the
Pd surface are reported. Up to 20-fold transport increases were achieved.
#...................................................................... Mar-95


How to retrieve the archived biblio files:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
1. By ftp from vm1.nodak.edu; log in as anonymous, giving your email
   address as password. Then cd to fusion. There are many files here, so
   do not use dir; if you are after the biblio files only, try
   dir fusion.cnf-*
   and then get or mget what you want.
2. Send an email to listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, blank subject and the message
   get fusion.<whatever you want>. To find out what there is, send
   index fusion
   This gets you an email with the directory of all files there, with which
   you can also match Fusion Digest numbers with file names, before getting
   those files. The index, or files you ask for, will be emailed to you.

---  Dieter Britz   alias britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.09 / Bradley Sherman /  Re: Solar -VS- Fsuion; the Biomass option
     
Originally-From: bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fsuion; the Biomass option
Date: 9 Mar 1995 06:41:49 GMT
Organization: Dendrome, A Genome Database for Forest Trees


We're way off topic here.  I just wanted to mention
West African Oil Palms (Elaeis guineensis?).  These
are indigenous to Nigeria but were introduced to
Malaysia when synthetic rubber destroyed the
market for the natural substance --the 50's.  They
produce 15 times the long chain hydrocarbons per
hectare that corn does.  Being trees, once they begin
producing oil (derived from the fruit) they continue
to produce it for many years.  In plantations they
are usually cut down when they get too tall to
harvest (15-20 years?).  Harvesting is done with blades
on the end of poles --pruning hooks-- from the ground.
The plants need very little beyond sun and water.
The oils derived are usually used for food and soaps.
Though Malaysia is the main producer now, Indonesia
will pass them soon.

Could these trees be genetically engineered
to produce unleaded premium gasoline?  Crossed
with rubber trees to produce tires that propel
themselves ...  Ludwig only knows.

    --bks

caveat: I'm a computer scientist not a plant
molecular biologist.  Facts in the above 
come from notes, hastily taken, at a seminar
I attended some time ago.  There are no facts
in the second paragraph, however, interested
parties with grant money are welcome to
enquire within.
-- 
Bradley K. Sherman             | Institute of Forest Genetics
bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov          |                 P.O. Box 245
510-559-6437  FAX:510-559-6440 |       Berkeley, CA 94701 USA
<a href="http://s27w007.pswfs.gov/~bks/">Dendrome Project</a>
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenbks cudfnBradley cudlnSherman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.10 / C Cagle /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: singtech@teleport.com (C. Cagle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 02:09:55 -0800
Organization: Singularity Technologies, Inc.

In article <1995Mar4.154832.421@Princeton.EDU>, Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@princeton.edu> wrote:

> In article <singtech-0303950409570001@ip-salem-15.teleport.com>
> C. Cagle, singtech@teleport.com writes:
> 
> > Barry, get real.  Present projections are pack of lies if they even
> > think they could ever get break even.  
> 
> What makes you say this?  TFTR is already at 28% of breakeven
> (Fusion power out = 28% of heating power in).  It's not that hard to
> extrapolate to a machine that will achieve breakeven.  Actually,
> JET, in England, is expected to achieve breakeven either next year,
> or in 1997.
> 
> > And you must know this.  If you don't
> > then you might consider that you are beyond help.
> > 
> > Princeton has been sucking the taxpayers dry.  It has to stop!  Don't
> > let them continue to con you.

Sorry, Robert, if you thought it was a flame.  I rather think its a fact
that inertial or magnetic confinement processess are dead end streets.

Your figures, I am convinced, are at best, a wishful thought, at worst, a
flat fabrication.  If I say they did not extract a dime's worth of useable
energy I would be understating the case.  I've talked to scientists at
Princeton one of which said, "You know, Chuck, we've been at this for
forty years and have had no success, and its likely we'll be at it another
forty years with no promise of success even at that."

In 1989, Robert O. Hunter resigned as director of energy research at DOE. 
He had been mercilessly harangued from the chairman of the House Committee
on Science, Space and Technology, Robert Roe.  Why?  Because after in
depth studies he was convinced that Princeton was raping the taxpayers
with an endless money pit - or should I say donut.  That's the neat thing
about donuts, like circles they have no ends.

The U.S. Fusion Program is a 2000 scientist gov't sponsored welfare program.

But beyond this, Mr. Heeter, it is likely that there is a fundamental flaw
in the current theories associated with the interaction of charged
particles.  While thermonuclear fusion seems to work fine in the weapons
arena, there is some mounting evidence that, while it works it may not
work the way theory supposes it to work.

My research at Singularity Technologies, Inc. seems to point to a hitherto
unsuspected coupling mechanism between like-charged particles and it is
not the 'strong' force.  In fact, my work demonstrates that you can never
reach break even by raising the temperature of the confined fuel gas. 
Fusion works all right, but rather through induced ordered relationships
between interacting fuel nuclei.  A statistically derivable number of
those ordered relationships exist even at low energy levels in ionized
deuterium gas.  Raising the temperature simply increases the number of
ordered relationships per unit of time but the ratio between ordered and
unordered particle pairs is temperature independent.  Consequently, you
cannot reach break even by that method.  A Hydrogen weapon, on the other
hand, provides a huge radiation flux of soft x-rays through the fusion
fuel.  The coupling between the fuel and the radiation, in that unique
case, changes the ratio of ordered pairs by the specific manner in which
the radiation couples with the fuel nuclei.  And it doesn't accomplish
this as a mere aspect of heating. The temperature is certainly at
incredible values but it is actually incidental to the fusion process
itself.  Consider the Chinese who had gunpower for 1000 years, refined it
and brought it to a high art.  Did they know how it worked?  The fact that
it worked was evidence enough that the answer was an assumed "yes"!  But
not according to modern chemistry, they didn't.  The same thing is true
for hydrogen bombs.  Weapons scientists are making accurate predictions
for yields but are missing by four orders of magnitude on particle
production counts.  Why?  The answer is that it works, but they are wrong
about how it works.  How's this effect fusion research?  Easy, your
assumptions are wrong and therefore your methods cannot lead to success.

While I am convinced that the  people who are working on cold fusion are
also wrong I think they are a little bit closer to the reality of the
mechanisms than Princeton will ever be.  At least they are locking the
fuel nuclei into lattice structures so that the degrees of freedom of
motion are restricted.  There is a stronger chance at accomplishing some
reactions.  The trick is to limit the degrees of freedom to just one.

Regards,

-- 
"It is dangerous to be right in
 matters on which the established
 authorities are wrong."

Voltaire
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudensingtech cudfnC cudlnCagle cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.10 / John Logajan /  Re: Signature of Stored Energy
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Signature of Stored Energy
Date: 10 Mar 1995 16:43:56 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Barry Merriman (barry@starfire.ucsd.edu) wrote:
: Hmmm---this seems to suggest the rotor only weighs 28 kg ~ 60 lbs.
: And, you neglect the mass of the housing, which also stores heat.
: Without knowing the precise geometry, I would allow for up towards
: 100 kg of metal mass.

Caution on using mass since heat capacities vary with atomic weight.
Most metals store about 26 joules per mole per degree C.  A mole of
aluminum weighs about half that of a mole of steel, yet they store
about the same amount of heat.  The housing and rotor might be made
out of different materials.  I believe the rotor is stated to be
aluminum, but the housing might be steel or iron.

--
 - 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:
cuddy10 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Mar 11 04:37:05 EST 1995
------------------------------
