1995.03.09 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: 9 Mar 1995 20:41:29 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <singtech-0303950409570001@ip-salem-15.teleport.com>  
singtech@teleport.com (C. Cagle) writes:

> 
> Princeton has been sucking the taxpayers dry.  It has to stop!  Don't let
> them continue to con you.
> 
> C. Cagle

C:

Well, lets see---the entire Fusion Energy Budget is about
$350 million/year, so thats about $3.50 per taxpayer per year.
Of that, at most $1 went to princeton.

Ouch, I know that $1 you gave to PPPL last year really hurt!



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


cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.09 / Barry Merriman /  Waiting for Droege....
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Waiting for Droege....
Date: 9 Mar 1995 20:49:01 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE


Well, Tom, come on---I can't wait for your Griggs report!

Of course, I realize due to contractual restrictions, it
will have to be of the form:

"The fox has left the henhouse. The chicken laid an egg.
One man walks alone. Over."


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


cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.10 / Brendan Niemira /  Re: I Have Returned
     
Originally-From: niemirab@student.msu.edu  (Brendan A. Niemira)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I Have Returned
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995  17:36 est
Organization: Michigan State University

In Article <3jq9ol$ar2@fnnews.fnal.gov> "Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)" says:
> I Have Returned                                     10 March 1995
> 
> Well, I am back.  As part of the negotiation, I agreed to send Griggs
> a copy of my report before I post it.  He does not get to change it, but
> 
> Tom Droege
> 
I've got a six-pack bet on the contents of your report, Tom.  I can't wait to
read it.
..................

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Brendan A. Niemira           |   "You know your Shelley, Bertie."             
Dept. Botany and Plant Path  |   "Oh, am I?"
Michigan State University    |       P.G. Wodehouse
niemirab@student.msu.edu     |       *The Code of the Woosters*
        All opinions expressed are entirely my own.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenniemirab cudfnBrendan cudlnNiemira cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.11 / Eugene Mallove /  Video Tapes of MIT Cold Fusion Day '95
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Video Tapes of MIT Cold Fusion Day '95
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 1995 16:15:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

******************************************************************************

VIDEO TAPES OF THE ** MIT IAP COLD FUSION DAY ** - January 21, 1995
                at Massachusetts Institute of Technology
                        ARE NOW AVAILABLE.

******************************************************************************

Four (4) two-hour VHS video tapes are available as a set, or individually, 
which were only slightly edited from professionally taken video footage of the
day-long IAP Cold Fusion session at MIT on January 21, 1995.

The tapes include the following material:


***** TAPE#1 *****

Dr. Eugene F. Mallove (Cold Fusion Technology, Concord, NH)
        "Cold Fusion and New Energy Technology - An Overview"

Dr. Peter Graneau (Northeastern University Center for
         Electromagnetic Research)      
        "Anomalous Forces in Water Plasma Explosions"


***** TAPE#2 *****

Buford ("Ray") Conley  (MIT, graduate student, Dept. of Aero/Astro Eng.)
        "Light Water Excess Heat Experiments"

Fred Jaeger  (ENECO, Salt Lake City)
        "Patents and Commercialization"

Professor Peter L. Hagelstein (MIT Dept. of EE&CS)      
        "Cold Fusion: What We Know and What We Don't Know"
        

***** TAPE#3 *****

Professor Peter Hagelstein - (CONTINUED from TAPE #2)
        "Cold Fusion: What We Know and What We Don't Know"
Professor Keith Johnson  (MIT Dept. of Materials Science and Eng.)
        "Progress in the Theory of Excess Heat" *and*
        *Excess Heat* - The Movie, now being made by Hollywood!
James L. Griggs (Hydro Dynamics, Inc., Rome, Georgia, USA)
        "The Hydrosonic Pump: Excess Power and Other Effects"


***** TAPE#4 *****

Bertil Werjefelt (PolyTech(USA), Hawaii)
        "Energy from Magnetic Materials and Magnetic Fields"
Dr. Eugene F. Mallove
        Concluding Remarks


The tapes include the speakers' presentations as well as question and answer 
sessions. There is footage of the Hydrosonic Pump under test as well as 
close-up footage of rotor surface melting effects. Bertil Werjefelt shows 
footage of experiments in his own laboratory. There are scenes of Japanese 
researchers from Sumitomo, Hitachi, and other companies and universities now 
involved in their claimed extraction of energy from magnetic materials. These 
efforts are now said by these researchers to be proceding toward 
commercialization. Actual experiments are seen in progress.

***************************************************************************

The tapes are VHS cassettes in NTSC format and range from 120 to 127 mintues 
each.

To Order the *full set* of four, two-hour tapes, please send check or money 
order to Cold Fusion Technology for $79.95 plus $5.00 shipping and packing, 
within U.S. and Canada.

        [For foreign orders, please replace the $5.00 shipping fee with       
 computed postage for a 1.10 kilogram package - specify air or          
surface.]

**********************

To Order *individual tapes*, please specify which tape(s). Please send check 
or money order for $25.00/tape, plus $3.00 shipping and packing if only one 
tape, or $5.00 total if more than one tape.

Tapes are Copyright 1995, Cold Fusion Technology

Please send payments to:

Cold Fusion Technology
P.O. Box 2816
Concord, NH 03302-2816

Fax:   603-224-5975
Phone: 603-228-4516
E-Mail: INTERNET:76570.2270@compuserve.com


NOTE: It is expected that a video tape of the Clean Energy Technologies, Inc. 
(Dallas, Texas) working Pons-Fleischmann-type cell based on James Patterson's 
U.S. patents and experiments will be available in the next several weeks. 
Please note your interest in receiving information about this.

******************************************************************************

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.11 / C Cagle /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: singtech@teleport.com (C. Cagle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 1995 00:37:51 -0800
Organization: Singularity Technologies, Inc.

In article <3jnp5p$11n@deadmin.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry
Merriman) wrote:

> In article <singtech-0303950409570001@ip-salem-15.teleport.com>  
> singtech@teleport.com (C. Cagle) writes:
> 
> > 
> > Princeton has been sucking the taxpayers dry.  It has to stop!  Don't let
> > them continue to con you.
> > 
> > C. Cagle
> 
> C:
> 
> Well, lets see---the entire Fusion Energy Budget is about
> $350 million/year, so thats about $3.50 per taxpayer per year.
> Of that, at most $1 went to princeton.
> 
> Ouch, I know that $1 you gave to PPPL last year really hurt!

Barry, that is an old con's trick called "reducing it to the ridiculous". 
Theft is a moral crime.  Even if it has been made 'legal' it is still
theft.  Should we not worry about a bank robber because his $30,000 haul
only cost us each $.00012? Sure we should and we should put him in
prison.  How the men and women at PPPL can continue to rob us at a rate
that far exceeds that bank robber felon and still look at their reflection
in the morning mirror with a straight face is beyond me.

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

Voltaire
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudensingtech cudfnC cudlnCagle cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.11 / C Cagle /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: singtech@teleport.com (C. Cagle)
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: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 1995 01:23:47 -0800
Organization: Singularity Technologies, Inc.

In article <3jguql$qdn@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, ncrich@ix.netcom.com
(Nicholas Rich) wrote:


> 
> I intend to check out your book.
> 
> I'd also be interested to know if you or anyone else has read the book 
> _The Big Bang Never Happened_, Eric J Lerner, Vintage Books, A Division 
> of Random House.
> 
<snip>
> 
> Finally, it likens todays BB religion to the geocentricism of old. 
> Anyone knowledgeable on the subject have any comments? I'd love to know 
> since I've never heard mention of this book before, and this month's 
> time magazine seems to indicate that the BB notion is more alive than 
> ever. Guess it's hard to change and face reality when you've invested 
> your life's work in a fantasy.

Nicholas you idiot!,

Now you have gone and done it!  You have questioned the status quo!

Why couldn't you have just left everything alone?  Do you have even an
inkling of the damnable journey you have set off on?

No.  Seriously, you have joined the 'damned'.  And a hearty welcome aboard
to anyone who has the courage to question the authority of modern physics.

Pythagoras once wrote:

'Having departed your house, turn not back, for the furies will be your
attendants.'  

Once you have started the journey toward truth you will be tormented if
you attempt to turn back without having learned all.

Modern physics is a farce.  I haven't read Wallace's book yet, only a few
excerpts but some of it appears on point.

Now I have to consider you a friend - and I wasn't looking for friends today.

rsvp to your induction into the "company of the 'damned'" to me at the
email below.

Best Regards,

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

Voltaire
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudensingtech cudfnC cudlnCagle cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.11 / Omar Z /  PROBLEMAS
     
Originally-From: 89-20507@shaddam.usb.ve (Omar Arias Z.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: PROBLEMAS
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 1995 06:44:39 GMT
Organization: Universidad Simon Bolivar, Caracas, Venezuela


WFKGGELP

 ?OMMANQPROPROBLEMA #1:{GU

--

__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/____/
__/   Omar Arias Z.                     __/
__/   Internet:  89-20507@usb.ve       __/
__/   Universidad Simon Bolivar       __/
__/   Caracas - Venezuela            __/
__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cuden20507 cudfnOmar cudlnZ cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.11 / Akira Kawasaki /  Re: Tritium, Cold Fusion, and the Military.
     
Originally-From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tritium, Cold Fusion, and the Military.
Date: 11 Mar 1995 15:20:59 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3jq5se$ce6@stc06.CTD.ORNL.GOV> mbk@.seas.ucla.edu (Kennel) writes:
>
>Why do weapons need T? The fusion part I thought was Li6.
>
   You got me there. I do not have the latest receipe for the fusion 
bomb. Perhaps when it comes on the surplus market, it can be taken 
apart. Or perhaps Mr. Close, other than the Defense Dept., has the 
receipe. :->
-AK-


cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenaki cudfnAkira cudlnKawasaki cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.10 / John Logajan /  Re: Closed loop Griggs
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Closed loop Griggs
Date: 10 Mar 1995 01:25:19 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Scott Little (little@eden.com) wrote:
: >     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.

Under what operating conditions?  In one reported case, the steam temperature
was listed at 320F -- which would imply a steam pressure of at least 80PSI.
A 30 PSI backpressure in that case would imply about 50PSI forward "natural"
pumping pressure (i.e. 80-50=30).

I note from some published photos that water intake and output into the
Griggs rotor is at right angles to the plane of rotation.  The relative
distance differential from the center of rotation to the inlet and outlet
would likely determine the "natural" pumping direction and magnitude
due to the difference in centrifical presures at different radii.

--
 - 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 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.11 / Tom Droege /  Re: I Have Returned
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I Have Returned
Date: 11 Mar 1995 18:07:03 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <gsteckly.102.0015C363@clark.dgim.doc.ca>, gsteckly@clark.dgi
.doc.ca (Gary Steckly) says:
>
>In article <3jq9ol$ar2@fnnews.fnal.gov> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
>>From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
>>Subject: I Have Returned
>>Date: 10 Mar 1995 19:36:52 GMT
>
>>I Have Returned                                     10 March 1995
>
>>Well, I am back.  As part of the negotiation, I agreed to send Griggs
>>a copy of my report before I post it.  He does not get to change it, but
>>I agreed to append his rebuttal to the original post.  This will of course
>>take a little time to process.  I expect it will be late next week before
>>I can get a copy to Griggs and get his reply.  I took 4 or 5 pages of notes
>>there and de-briefed myself for about 10 pages more.  It will take a while
>>to write all this up.
>
>
>well at least give us your one liner in code.  Is the sky really falling or 
>is it all done with mirrors?  A rebuttal infers a negative evaluation.  Is 
>that what you mean to infer?  The suspense is killing us!
>
>regards
>
>Gary 

No code intended.  It is just the agreement we made so that Griggs would
have a chance to comment on whatever I wrote.  Here I am in on a Saturday
writing away.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.11 / Tom Droege /  Re: where is Tom...
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: where is Tom...
Date: 11 Mar 1995 18:08:40 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3jr3sj$8hb@deadmin.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) says:
>
>Hmmm, since Tom Droege has not posted to the internet
>since his trip, I guess that must be his signal 
>that Griggs works---he's too busy working on replication.
>
>Or, does that mean that Griggs doesn't work, and he's totally lost
>interest in it and all of CF?
>
>Or, is Griggs holding him captive in a sub lab dungeon, for fear
>that certain damaging secrets would get out :-)
>
>

Just trying to work the grits out of my system before I start writing.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.10 / John Cobb /  Re: "Aneutronic Energy" is *not* a new type of energy!
     
Originally-From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Aneutronic Energy" is *not* a new type of energy!
Date: 10 Mar 1995 07:59:19 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <1995Mar9.043018.13758@Princeton.EDU>,
Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@princeton.edu> wrote:
>Paul Koloc continues to argue that there is "aneutronic energy" 
>distinct from either fission or fusion.  I don't buy it.

I don't either. He's just posturing for rhetorical advantage. but I do 
have a few nits to pick about some of the RF-Heater's remarks. :>

Paul:
>> Give me a break.  DT requires the far more stringent conditions due
>> to it's radioactivity. 
>

Robert:
>Bzzt!  Wrong.  Sorry, DT requires the lowest temperatures and
>confinement quality of any fusion reaction.  Notice I said that
>D-3He and p-11B require more stringent *plasma* conditions.
>

This is technically correct. The PLASMA conditions are more 
stringent for any reaction other than DT. However, the technological
barriers to commercial energy production may be smaller for some other
feul cycle. That is why aneutronic or reduced neutronicity fuel
cycles may ultimately win. That is, when you take into account issues
of neutron embrittlement, thermal energy conversion, etc. The total
cost may be less for other schemes (or it may be more). However, Robert
is correct in saying that if you look just at the fuel aspects of it,
DT is much-much easier than anything else. However, Paul's position is
(to the extent that I understand it) that he believe's he has an
approach that makes fusion so easy to accomplish that the factors of
10 in increased difficulty in burning D-3He and even P-B11 are easily
overcome. I gather Robert disagrees.

This game is really a search for a shortcut. If it exists, then it will
be of great advantage. If it doesn't, then we will have wasted time
looking for it. Paul's looking for it. Robert's not sure if it is there
or not, but he doesn't appear to be looking for it in any case. 

Robert:
>And if you think the other fuels have less stringent radiation
>engineering conditions, you're just kidding yourself.  D-3He still
>has quintillions of neutrons per second that have to be dealt 
>with.  I realize the machines you work with don't generally make 
>good enough plasmas for significant amounts of fusion to occur, 
>but I just spent a day watching neutron emission signals from 
>TFTR while it was running D-3He, and there were still 10^15 neutrons
>per second coming out.  (From D-D fusion, mostly.)

Yes and no. The D-3He cycle will still have neutrons. From 1-10% as
many as DT. Eventhough p-B11 does not have any neutrons, there will be
induced radioactivity from the multi-MeV alphas that impinge on the
surface of the first wall. While it is much easier to induce radioactivity
with neutrons, knockout reactions from high energy alphas do exist. So my
intuition is that I wouldn't want to be near a p-B11 burner either (from
a radiological hazard point of view). Score one for Robert. However. Robert's
statement "if you think the other fuels have less stringent radiation
engineering conditions, you're just kidding yourself." is incorrect. The
single biggest radiation engineering problem is that high neutron flux levels
will mean that divertor tiles and the first wall will have to be replaced
very often due to neutron embrittlement. This is a consequence of the neutrons
causing lattice dislocations that weaken the strength and thermal properties
of materials over time. This is a question with a big unknown. This is
why the engineering phase of ITER is so important. It will be the first time
that we will get a chance to do some real data collection under near
reactor conditions. This is also the impetus behind the volume neutron
source (VNS) ideas. Now the factor of 10 reduction in neutronicty from a
D-3He fuel cycle means that the first wall components neutron embrittlement
time will be 10 times longer. This could be the difference between a 20% and
a 80% uptime for each reactor. Translated into cents per kilowatt-hour that
is a factor of 4 deacrease in price. The point is that we don't know the
duty cycle estimates very well but that it can make a big difference.
Likewise a p-B11 burner that really works will probably have an even longer
first wall lifetime. So you are in an engineering game now where you have
to estimate what technological restraint is the current limit on performance
and try to improve on it. For the DT tokamak, neutron damage to the first
wall is one the the biggies, if not the single biggest problem.

>
Robert:
>No matter what you build, you're gonna need shielding.

ABSITIVELY AND POSOLUTELY. Don't ever kid yourself that you won't.

Robert:
>least with D-T you can take almost all the neutrons and make
>helium by reacting them with lithium, and you even get additional
>energy out to boot.

Not nearly. The only way you could do that is to have full 4 pi steradian
coverage for your blanket. Now go look around the corner at TFTR and tell
me how much solid angle is taken up by structural support (not to
mention diagnositc access). This means that those electrons don't go to the
thermal energy exchanger/breeder (good neutrons) but rather get absorbed
as damage (bad neutrons). Now look at ITER designs. Same problem. I think
the DEMO boys are looking into this issue, but there's no panacea.


Paul:
>> The plasma conditions for burning D^3He make 
>> it ideal as a first demonstration commercial burn.  
...
Robert:
>Not really.  Plasmas are plasmas, and it's always easier to 
>burn D-T.  Or have you rewritten the laws of physics as well
>as the meaning of "aneutronic reaction"?  

Well, not exactly. What's easier to burn depends on your reactor design
sometimes. In a tokamak it is easier to burn DT than D-3He because the
tokamak beta is so low (<<50%). The higher temps required for advanced
feuls means higher synchrotron radiation. In fact I don't believe that
a Tokamak can burn anything besides DT (although Sugiyama (sp?) and Coppi 
have been arguing that it can be done, with difficulty).

However, from my esperience with FRC's, it is easier to burn D-3He than
DT. Why you ask? Well FRC's have very high total beta (~60-90%). This 
means that synchrotron radiation is less of a problem. burning D-3He
is a big win because it decreases the need to neutron protection. The
possibility of direct energy conversion increases plant efficieny by
~30% by avoiding thermal energy conversion. This helps with commerical
breakeven immensely. However, the biggie is that the FRC needs a lot of
current drive. Since the containment vessel is topologically spherical or
cylindrical, there is no possibility for inductive current drive. Now this
is where D-3He really helps. The fusion process produces 14 MeV protons in
the core of the FRC. A portion of the protons moving in one direction may 
be trapped in the FRC while those moving oppositely are not. Thus selective
trapping can lead to self-generated currents from the fusion products.
Berk, Momota, and Tajima estimated that about 25% of the total current
drive can be obtained this way. BTW, the same effect does occur with the
4 MeV alphas in a DT tokamak. However, the alpha energy is lower, its mass
larger, and the number of rho_i in the device is larger so the trapping
area in phase space is smaller and the generated current is smaller. In
DT tokamaks it is not a candidate for current drive, but it has received
some attention recently. I think I saw a poster by Hinton last year in
Minneapolis where he tried to estimate how large this effect is. So you
see, in FRC's the barrier to burning D-3He is not as high as in Tokamaks
and the reactor advantages in terms of current drive may more than offset
disad's from d-#he burning difficulties.

Now from what I can tell, Paul believes that his Plasmak is strong as
onions and can burn almost anything. So in his thinking, the increase in
difficulty of going from DT to p-11B is easier than adding a lot of neutron
shielding. I guess time will tell if his belief is justified.




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

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.09 /  nachtrieb@max. /  ALCATOR C-MOD WEEKLY HIGHLIGHTS, 19950306
     
Originally-From: nachtrieb@max.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ALCATOR C-MOD WEEKLY HIGHLIGHTS, 19950306
Date: 9 MAR 95 14:17:41 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

		   Alcator C-MOD Weekly Highlights
			    March 6, 1995

Alcator C-MOD plasma operations resumed last week after a scheduled
one-week maintenance period. Four runs were scheduled, but the first,
on Tuesday, had to be cut short due to a computer problem. Experiments
scheduled and completed included a study of heating and confinement in
ion cyclotron radio frequency (ICRF) L-mode plasmas; the C-MOD portion
of a joint investigation with General Atomic (GA) DIII-D on
non-dimensionally identical discharges; and a continuation of the
study of transport and screening of non-recycling impurities, this
time using methane as the injected impurity.

One and a half runs were devoted to getting the C-MOD data for a
direct comparison of Alcator C-MOD and DIII-D running at identical
non-dimensional parameters (rho*, beta, nu*, q, kappa, etc.). For
C-MOD the dimensional parameters chosen for this comparison were R=
67m, a = .22m, kappa = 1.65, Ip=1.02, Bt=5.3T with a SNB equilibrium;
inner and outer gaps were around 1cm.  Power scans were carried out at
two densities, nebar ~ 1.5 and 2.6e20.  Despite some difficulties with
the D-port ICRF transmission line, and some problems associated with
wall conditioning related to the previous week's vent, these
experiments were successfully completed. Dr. Jim DeBoo from DIII-D
participated in these experiments at MIT, and will be directing the
corresponding experiments at GA.

L-mode heating experiments were carried out at several densities up to
3e20 and currents up to 1.2MA. H-mode transitions were observed at
powers above 1MW. Good L-mode power scans to higher power will have to
wait for the reverse field run next month.

Studies of non-recycling impurities were continued, using methane
(CH4) as the injected gas. The goals were (1) to study trace impurity
screening for comparison with diatomic nitrogen (N2), argon (Ar), neon
(Ne); and (2) raise the CH4 levels to try and maximize the impurity
radiation in the scrape-off layer (SOL) relative to that in the core
plasma. Results were similar to earlier experiments using N2. No
immediate carbon signal was observed in the divertor when the methane
was injected at the midplane. For large puffs, divertor detachment was
observed.

Royce Sayer (Oak Ridge National Laboratory) and Steve Jardin
(Princeton Plasma Physics Lab ) visited MIT for discussions related to
their collaboration on halo currents and disruptions. They will be
using the TSC code to model disruption behavior in C-MOD. Sayer
presented the results of several scoping runs based on data from a
typical midplane disruption. Several shots were identified for
analysis during the next stage of the collaboration, including both
midplane disruptions and vertical disruption events (VDEs).

Dr. Rob Pinsker from the DIII-D Group continued his visit, working all
week with the C-MOD ICRF group.

(Poster's note: Plasma Section leader Stephen Wolfe writes the C-MOD
Weekly Highlights.  I merely add definitions to some of the acronyms
and repost to sci.physics.fusion.  However, if you have questions or
comments, please send them to me.)

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudennachtrieb cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.08 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 05:09:45 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <JI67NDl.jedrothwell@delphi.com> , jedrothwell@delphi.com
writes:
> As for hot fusion, nobody has the guts to even estimate how much it
would
> cost, because the numbers are so ridiculous. 

Apparently you read your ARIES reports even less closely than 
I thought.  People have been making estimates of what hot fusion
will cost since the late 1970s; the ARIES paper by Krakowski
that you attempted to quote even makes these estimates.  

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.

I estimate that when fusion becomes commercial, it will
have costs comparable to contemporary energy sources. :)

***************************
Robert F. Heeter
Email:  rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Web:  http://w3.pppl.gov/~rfheeter
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not Princeton!
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.09 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Signature of Stored Energy
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Signature of Stored Energy
Date: 9 Mar 1995 20:34:33 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3jf6a1$8vm@boris.eden.com> little@eden.com (Scott Little) writes:
> Barry Merriman wrote:
> 
> >Not ok---you are still being far too indirect for my taste. You are
> >defining a long run to be ~ 2 hours. What is long is not something to
> >be pulled from a hat---you need to estimate the stored heat in the 
> >rotor and the housing,
> 
> OK:
> 
> dia=12in, thickness=6 in, mat'l=Al. this yields 2.8x10^4 joules/ C for
> the heat capacity of the rotor 

How long is the rotor? 6 in?

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.


Also, you go on to assume 25 degree temperature difference---but
again this number is pulled from the air...what if its really 100C?

In short, yes: optimistic assumptions like the ones you make will
make stored heat look unlikely. But pessimistic assumptions,
like I make, make it seem possible. Only experiments will decide,
but since we are talking about something that seems to violate
known laws of physics and chemistry, it makes sense to err on 
the side of caution in analysing various scenarios, no?



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


cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.10 / Dieter Britz /  Re: RFD: sci.physics.fusion.research moderated, sci.physics.fusion.misc
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: RFD: sci.physics.fusion.research moderated, sci.physics.fusion.misc
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 09:05:38 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On 27 Feb 1995, James Crotinger wrote:

> 
>   As has been discussed before in sci.physics.fusion, many of us feel
> that the hot and cold fusion discussions should be split.  There is
> little overlap in interest between the two groups, and having to sift
> through the other group's postings is time consuming (kill files help,
> but seperate groups is the right solution). Given the magnitude of the
> changes that you are proposing (especially since they include the
> elimination of s.p.f), I think this would be the time to make the
> split as well. Thus, perhaps s.p.f.{cold,hot,misc}?  The cold and hot
> fusion groups could be moderated or not.
> 
>   Jim

No, s.p.f. will  not be eliminated, just renamed. This was suggested to me
by David Lawrence, the new newsgroup adviser, and he has some good reasons,
which I found convincing. The split is not needed, I reckon; once we're
rid of the BS, traffic will be quite reasonable, and I believe hot and cold
can coexist peacefully. One fine day 'cold fusion' will die anyway, and then
the hots will have the new group all to themselves.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.11 / Tony Rusi /  Re:Small soft x-ray laser driven Sono-Fusion
     
Originally-From: windski@eskimo.com (Tony Rusi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:Small soft x-ray laser driven Sono-Fusion
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 1995 19:39:21 GMT
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever

 I saw somewhere something about a small x-ray laser at CSU or the school 
 of mines. This was the size of a small room but with a beam power 
 equivalent to the NOVA laser at LLL. Could this be used with some fluid 
 like mercury and a bubble of He-3 for Sono-Fusion?
 Tony Rusi

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenwindski cudfnTony cudlnRusi cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.11 / Tom Droege /  The Expense Report
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Expense Report
Date: 11 Mar 1995 20:45:09 GMT
Organization: fermilab

First things first, here is my expense report:

Air Fare (Chicago - Atlanta)    $126.00
Limousine (inc. tips)            $80.00
Car Rental                      $124.26
Room (2 nights, Motel 8)         $83.79
Meals (Huddle House, inc. grits) $46.26
Fee for my services               $1.00

Total                           $461.31
My contribution (20%)            $92.26

Net Cost                        $369.05

Looks like I am a cheap date.  Man them Huddle House grits are great!

Meals include lunch with Jim Griggs, Scott Smith, and Dan Parker where
I picked up the tab ($24.28).  I intend to report the whole thing on
my income tax next year and to pay tax on my fee.  Otherwise my
accountant thinks this is a non-taxable event.

Note that I have received $1058.95 from Scott's collection and $30.00
from a separate contribution.  This leaves $719.90 in the kitty.  Some
will be needed by Scott to prepare and mail out the commemorative
certificate.  Y'all (I was born south of the Mason Dixon line -
memories return) will have to figure out what to do with the rest.

My plan is to write a report that is so long and so tedious that the
press will find nothing in it to make sensational.  I have so far
written 300 lines and have not yet started to look at my notes.  It
will not be hard to figure out what I am saying as I have already
written the conclusion.

Those that have made bets on my report should consider the problem of
settlement based on a message from the Oracle at Delphi.

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.10 /  Kennel /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: mbk@.seas.ucla.edu (Kennel)
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: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 10 Mar 1995 18:14:21 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN

Nicholas Rich (ncrich@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> I came across a copy a few days ago and haven't been able to put it 
> down. Though I'm not at all technically proficient, it's written so the 
> layman can understand. Based on the research of Hannes Alfv'en, it 
> points out multitudes of apparently irreconcilable contradictions in the 
> BB theory--which are resolved by postulating fantacies like dark matter 
> (apparently 99% of the universe), cosmic strings, etc.

And what about the redshift, the radiation background (with appropriate
sized fluctuations thanks to COBE) and primordial helium fusion?



> Nick Rich
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmbk cudlnKennel cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.12 / Bob Cadman /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: cadman@ra.ucolick.org (Bob Cadman)
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: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 12 Mar 1995 00:39:51 GMT
Organization: UCO/Lick Observatory, Santa Cruz

[ I apologize for not editing the newsgroup line myself; note the
followup-to line, please!!!! ]

In article <D5AI1A.56I@eskimo.com>,
Fernando Loygorri <fernando@eskimo.com> wrote:
>
>I read the book a couple of years ago, when it came out, I think (I don't
>have access to it, right now) and I found it impressive. I seem to recall
>that his point was that the real picture was far from being as clear cut as
>the "official" story line would want it. For example, I think it was him
>who wrote that when the first radiation background fluctuations were
>measured, they came out several orders of magnitude smaller than predicted.
>Then, the theory had to be modified (in a quasi ad hoc fashion) to match
>the experimental results, rather than even try to re-think the process.
>

It occurs to me to wonder how Lerner's theories are anything more than
ad hoc modifications to the Steady State theory?  Which, for those of
you who don't know, was the "official" story line in 1920, back when no
one had ever heard of the Big Bang.

Another way of asking this might be, why is it that whenever a minor
detail of a theoreoretical prediction turns out to be wrong and the
theory is slightly modified to account for the new experimental
evidence, that theory suddenly becomes "ad hoc" and the entire process
needs to be thrown out?  Would it be correct to say that Einstein's
general relativity is an "ad hoc" correction to Newtonian gravity, and
in fact the idea of gravity should be thrown out and we should think up
a new process to explain the orbits of the planets?

Bob Cadman

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudencadman cudfnBob cudlnCadman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.10 /  Kennel /  Re: Tritium, Cold Fusion, and the Military.
     
Originally-From: mbk@.seas.ucla.edu (Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tritium, Cold Fusion, and the Military.
Date: 10 Mar 1995 18:30:38 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN

Akira Kawasaki (aki@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> Mr. Frsank Close, in his 'Too Hot To Handle' book of 1991, put out by 
> the Princeton University Press, has an interesting section on pages 
> 49-51 about the tritium stockpile of the United Satates.

>   It seems the U.S. has on hand about 100 kilgrams of Tritium 
> stockpiled, including what is in the fusion bombs (missiles like 
> Poseidon--etc.).And 5-6 kilograms of this Tritium has to be replenished 
> each ear due to the half-life of 12.3 years. If nothing is done to 
> replenish, you have automatic nuclear disarmament going on.

Why do weapons need T? The fusion part I thought was Li6.

> -AK-
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmbk cudlnKennel cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.11 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: I Have Returned
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I Have Returned
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 95 20:32:08 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Tom Droege <Droege@fnal.fnal.gov> writes:
 
>Well, I am back.  As part of the negotiation, I agreed to send Griggs
>a copy of my report before I post it.  He does not get to change it, but
>I agreed to append his rebuttal to the original post.  This will of course
 
That is entirely reasonable. I did the same thing. I trust that if Jim
finds some factual error (which is not likely) Tom will correct it.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.10 / Harry Conover /  Re: Waiting for Droege....
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Waiting for Droege....
Date: 10 Mar 1995 14:27:38 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Barry Merriman (barry@starfire.ucsd.edu) wrote:

: Well, Tom, come on---I can't wait for your Griggs report!

: Of course, I realize due to contractual restrictions, it
: will have to be of the form:

: "The fox has left the henhouse. The chicken laid an egg.
: One man walks alone. Over."


How about: 'The fat lady has sung -- many words but no music.'

:-)
                                       Harry C.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.09 / Robert Heeter /  "Aneutronic Energy" is *not* a new type of energy!
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "Aneutronic Energy" is *not* a new type of energy!
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 1995 04:30:18 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Paul Koloc continues to argue that there is "aneutronic energy" 
distinct from either fission or fusion.  I don't buy it.

In article <D52D1s.GKx@prometheus.UUCP> Paul M. Koloc,
pmk@prometheus.UUCP writes:
> >> D-^3He with the 2-5% side reaction of D-D.  p-^11B, however, is
clean. 
> >> So fusion is dirty, Aneutronic energy is clean or essentially clean.
  
> >Earth to Planet Paul:  What sort of reactions occur in your "aneutronic
> >energy"?  Let me answer for you, to save time, since there is only
> >one correct answer:  fusion reactions.  
> Wrong!  it is a fission reaction just as well as a fusion reaction, 
> if you insist on being "Reality Correct".  It is just that the fusion 
> reaction comes first.  Then it fissions into multi-nuclei with no 
> neutrons, (unlike heavy isotope fission).  Hydrogen isotope fusion 
> reactions do NOT split into multi-nuclei. 

What do you call D + D => T + p?  Hate to tell you this, but
there's a hydrogen isotope reaction, commonly labeled a *fusion*
reaction, which *does* split into multiple nuclei.  Try again.

The fact is, almost all reactions known as fusion reactions 
consist of a fusion followed by some sort of fission.  This doesn't
make *any* of them "aneutronic energy".  They're all just fusion
reactions.  The subsequent fission is generally considered 
part of the process.  You know this as well as I do, and I
still say that you're just *inventing* "aneutronic energy" without
a valid reason.
 
> So at the light end we have fusion; a bit heavier -- aneutronic 
> reactions; and at the heavy end -- fission.

Sorry Paul.  The statement above is just plain false.  There are
any number of reactions between intermediate-weight nuclei
which are not aneutronic.  They are, however, considered to
be fusion reactions.  "Aneutronic" is just an adjective applied
to a particular *fusion* (or fission, I suppose) reaction 
which doesn't release neutrons.  For instance, the 
proton-proton chain in the sun is aneutronic, yet in sum it
is nothing more than 4p +> He4.  This is "aneutronic energy"
from the lightest elements in existence!  This idea that
aneutronic energy comes in between fusion and fission 
doesn't seem to be anything more than a baseless fantasy
of yours.
 
> >That's right, p + B11 is a fusion 
> >reaction.  
> 
> Yes, to the indiscriminating. But I accept your usage, as long as you
> realize it was historically applied in the more general sense.  This
> was likely due to the fact that fusion measurements and estimates 
> began with the simpler element, H and its isotopes.  

Discrimination has nothing to do with it.  You could also 
say that the proton "fissions" the B11.  You can even call the
reaction "aneutronic."  It all depends on how you look at it.
But there's no way on earth you can invent a reaction that isn't
some combination of fission and/or fusion.  
 
Like I said before:
> >So is D+3He (which is not really "aneutronic", just reduced in 
> >neutrons relative to D-T).  This idea that you can invent some
entirely 
> >new thing called "aneutronic energy" which is independent of either 
> >fusion or fission just doesn't make physical or semantic sense.
> 
> I didn't say it was independent.. in fact it's a combination!

You claimed fusion and fission are dirty, aneutronic is clean.
That's the same thing as claiming aneutronic is neither fission nor
fusion, but some independent sort of reaction.  You can't claim
fusion or fission are dirty; it all depends on the type of reaction.
You can't claim "aneutronic energy" is some "third type" of reaction,
because it's not.

> Of course, it does make sense.  They are defineably different
categories. 

So what's the definition please?  I say aneutronic reactions are
either fission or fusion reactions which release no neutrons.  
Aneutronic reactions are *not* something other than fission or fusion.

> As it is, I didn't invent aneutronic reactions, I didn't even name it, 
> I'm just describing what already exists and was named by another 
> (Maglich?? or Miley?? or Dawson??).  The fact that I just happen to 
> see discriminating features or details that haven't been called to 
> YOUR attention before, doesn't mean I invented them. 

I never said you invented "aneutronic reactions."  I said you
invented "aneutronic energy" and then claimed it was something
distinct from fission or fusion.  That's simply wrong.  Try again.
Go consult the "aneutronic" discussion in the FAQ or the Glossary,
if you think these features haven't been brought to my attention.
Get a clue.

> >Anyone interested in understanding the distinction Paul is trying
> >to draw between the D-T fusion reaction and D-3He, p-B11, etc,
> >is encouraged to consult Section 1 of the FAQ.  
> 
> Why??  technically speaking it's wrong!     :-)

Tell me where.  (Section 1, mind you.)
 
> > This can be obtained
> >via email, ftp, or WWW; see the Intro posting (Section 0 Part 1)
> >for more details.  The principal problem is that the D-3He and
> >p-11B fuels require *much* *much* more stringent plasma 
> >conditions - higher temperatures and better confinement.
> 
> Give me a break.  DT requires the far more stringent conditions due
> to it's radioactivity. 

Bzzt!  Wrong.  Sorry, DT requires the lowest temperatures and
confinement quality of any fusion reaction.  Notice I said that
D-3He and p-11B require more stringent *plasma* conditions.

And if you think the other fuels have less stringent radiation
engineering conditions, you're just kidding yourself.  D-3He still
has quintillions of neutrons per second that have to be dealt 
with.  I realize the machines you work with don't generally make 
good enough plasmas for significant amounts of fusion to occur, 
but I just spent a day watching neutron emission signals from 
TFTR while it was running D-3He, and there were still 10^15 neutrons
per second coming out.  (From D-D fusion, mostly.)

No matter what you build, you're gonna need shielding.  At
least with D-T you can take almost all the neutrons and make
helium by reacting them with lithium, and you even get additional
energy out to boot.

> The plasma conditions for burning D^3He make 
> it ideal as a first demonstration commercial burn.  

You mean the fact that it must be 3-10 times hotter and must
have many times better energy confinement than a D-T plasma
to get the same reactivity, while still putting out
quintillions of neutrons from D-D and secondary D-T reactions?
Get real!  

> Of course, your
> right, it does depend on within what compressor you are stuck to 
> burn the fuel.

Not really.  Plasmas are plasmas, and it's always easier to 
burn D-T.  Or have you rewritten the laws of physics as well
as the meaning of "aneutronic reaction"?  
 
> >The D-T campaigns on JET and TFTR have shown that fusion
> >can crawl, and hopefully it will be able to walk soon, but barring
> >a few incredible developments (which should be sought for by
> >more reliable funding of advanced-concepts research), Olympic 
> >sprinting is still in the distant future.
> 
> Want to bet?   I think I have found some one to crush our balls. 

Who?  Why would you want someone to crush your balls?  :)
(Pardon the off-color humor.)
 
> Campaigns ... another word borrowed from politics.  

Actually it was borrowed from the military culture, as was the
political use of the term.  Know whereof ye speak.  Campaign
comes from the French word for an open field or military
expedition.  (Given that battles were fought in open fields
in the days of yore, the dual meaning makes sense.)


***************************
Robert F. Heeter
Email:  rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Web:  http://w3.pppl.gov/~rfheeter
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not Princeton!
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.10 / Bruce Hamilton /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion; the Biomass option
     
Originally-From: B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion; the Biomass option
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 16:51:21 GMT
Organization: Industrial Research Limited

In article <1995Mar6.162452.2096@physc1.byu.edu>
 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.  

I actually thought Jed's contribution was the most interesting and
informative, anyway....

Anyway, News is very delayed here, however others might also be interested
in the reference....

"Fuels from Biomass"
Kirk Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology - 4th ed
Volume 12. pages 16-110 (1994 ).

It's an excellent overall review of the topic. Other monographs in
the 4th edition  are "Alcohol Fuels", "Fuel Resources", and "Fuels
from Waste" 

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenHamilton cudfnBruce cudlnHamilton cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.10 / 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: 10 Mar 1995 09:16:17 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <singtech-1003950209550001@ip-salem-13.teleport.com>,
C. Cagle <singtech@teleport.com> wrote:
>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. 

Well, you may be convinced it is physical, but I am not. I think the 
consensus opinion is on Barry's side, by a VERY wide margin.

>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."

Care to give us a name to the quote? Is it an exact quote. Failing that,
I put it into the category of unreliable, unverified information. I've
known first year grad. students who said similar things only to hear them
change their opinion once they learn a little bit.

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

Not any more it isn't. Do a headcount. The number is less than that and
shrinking.

>
>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.

Whoa. Now you're getting into the weird zone. I read what you wrote below,
but honestly, the only idea I found intelligible was a claim that

>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.

What are these relationships?
How do you derive them?
Can you point to a journal publication describing this notion?
Honestly, I'm highly sceptical. Give us a bigger peek.

The big issue of such a dramatic departure from accepted theory (dogma)
is that it should explain observed data. You seem to realize this about
correlating bomb results. How do you explain TFTR's 10-28% of breakeven
results? Does your theory say we can get all the way to breakeven, and
then all hell breaks loose? I just don't see it. I mean modeling fusion as a
2 particle tunnelling reaction is simple and fits every experiment I am
aware of. When a thermal equilibrium is established, the temperature inferred
from neutron counts gives rough agreement with other temp measurements.
(remember: T_neutron depends on the high energy tail of the distribution
function while T from relative intensities of radiation from different
charge states depends more on the lower part of the energy part of the
distribution function)

There are a lot of technological problems with engineering fusion reactors,
yeah. And there are open scientific problems understanding turbulent transport
plasma stability, etc. But fusion cross-sections are pretty solid. There
are not obvious experimental anomalies that I am aware of or that any
other professional I have talked to have concern about.

So show me where an experiment gave an answer different from tunneling.

Or am I missing the whole thrust of your argument? Please flesh it out,
you've piqued my curiosity.

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

Nice quote. Quite apt. But perhaps it should be tempered with:

"There is nothing so dangerous
as a know-it-all who is sometimes correct"
-The Mosquito Coast (movie)

def. zealot - (n) Someone who does what he knows the good lord
would do if the good lord had all the facts -anon

regards,

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

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Mar 12 04:37:09 EST 1995
------------------------------
