1995.03.14 / Scott Little /  Re: Closed loop Griggs
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Closed loop Griggs
Date: 14 Mar 1995 06:15:40 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

(John Logajan) says:

>Under what operating conditions? 

At high flow rates, making only hot water.

>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 believe that the pressure, when making steam, is essentially constant
across the HS pump.  That is is does not resist or pump much.

>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.

Interesting idea...should get a few psi that way...
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.13 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 95 11:12:53 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

jonesse@vanlab.byu.edu writes:
 
     "Note that Aubrecht's number for conversion of solar energy into biomass
     was 2% for sugar cane.  Jed's reply, the number 0.005%, is
     unsubstantiated - it was obviously pulled out of the air.  Yet Tom
     Kunich evidently buys it, as we see below.  Later we will see who is
     correct."
 
My numbers were well substantiated and documented right there in the
paragraph. I wrote:
 
     "NREL's 'Hydrogen Program Plan' shows the efficiency of photosynthesis
     at 0.015%. . . . NREL's numbers originate in "International Journal of
     Hydrogen Energy," Vol 15, No. 11, 1989."
 
I highly recommend the NREL book. The 0.015% figure for efficiency is shown on
page A-18. The book is available at no charge from:
 
     NREL
     U.S. Dept. of Energy
     1617 Cole Boulevard
     Golden, CO 80401-3393
 
 
Aubrecht and NREL are looking at two different measurements. Aubrecht is
probably examining the efficiency of photosynthesis at the level of a single
cell or leaf. J. Monteith reports 2.5% efficiency ("Climate and the efficiency
of crop production in Britain," Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. 281: 277-294), which
works out to be "1.4 grams of dry plant matter per megajoule of total
radiation intercepted by the foliage throughout the growing season." However,
only a fraction of the radiation is intercepted by the foliage, and the
foliage is only a fraction of the total area. It is dark and pleasantly cool
in the woods or under growing corn during the day, but it is not pitch black
at absolute zero. A plant consists of foliage, branch, trunk, and roots. Only
the foliage converts sunlight. With a photoelectric cell or a rooftop water
heater, a much larger fraction of the mass of the machine is directly involved
in conversion, and conversion is much more efficient.
 
This should be intuitively obvious to anyone who has done a little gardening
or lit a bonfire to burn briars or cornstalks. Direct sunlight is roughly one
horsepower per square meter (Arthur Clarke's rule of thumb). Imagine you were
to store 2% of that energy in a field of grass for a six week growing season,
dry the grass and start a prairie fire. Six weeks of summer weather is roughly
1.8 million seconds of sunlight. Multiply that by 745 watts to get roughly
1,341 MJ. I suppose we can reduce that by about a third to account for rain,
morning and evening sunlight (although summer days are longer than 12 hours).
That comes to 893 MJ. 2% of that would be 18 MJ, which is as much energy as
you get from burning 0.43 kg of gasoline or roughly 4.3 kg of coal. If you
were to put 0.43 of gasoline over every square yard of a field -- or spread
coal an inch thick across it -- and you ignited that, you would get a terrific
explosion and sustained energy many orders of magnitude worse than a real
prairie fire. Also bear in mind that a prairie fire consumes fuel piled up
over many growing seasons.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.14 / E Tomlinson /  Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
     
Originally-From: et@dogbert.ugcs.caltech.edu (Ernest S. Tomlinson)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment,sci.
nergy,sci.materials
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
Date: 14 Mar 1995 17:44:34 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

<crap about "Cold Fusion Magazine" deleted>

I asked Dr. Nathan Lewis--who was involved in debunking the Pons-
Fleischmann (sp?) results, Tarim knows he talks about it whenever he
gets a chance--if he had read this laughable "Cold Fusion Magazine"
(it appeared for a brief time in the Caltech bookstore, then disap-
peared without a trace.)  "Yes," he said, rolling his eyes.

Since then I've never seen the magazine again, and am quite sure I'll
never go out of my way to find it.

-eT
-- 
Ernest S. Tomlinson
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Pin-striped crime, Lewis.  Lies, and lawyers."  - Chief Inspector E. Morse
"Inspector Clay is dead, murdered!  And someone's responsible!" - from Plan 9
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenet cudfnErnest cudlnTomlinson cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.13 /  Johmann /  Re: Rothwell is an expert on Tokamaks?  NOT
     
Originally-From: johmann@aol.com (Johmann)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell is an expert on Tokamaks?  NOT
Date: 13 Mar 1995 18:00:22 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP) writes:

>Robert F. Heeter (rfheeter@princeton.edu) wrote:
[snip]
>: the senate bill before the session ended).)  But I find that anyone
>: arguing that the tokamak "has no commercial potential" generally
>: either (a) doesn't understand the situation, (b) has a private agenda,
>: or (c) is overly pessimistic.
>
>(a) What?.. Of course, I think I understand the situation.  You need
>to keep the tokamak looking like a viable candidate (the only) for
>commercial fusion, and so you (the editorial PPPL and DoE wide
>version) must lie a lot.   Lie means they misrepresent the truth for
>their own benefit.. malevolent chaps.. me thinks.

The ongoing PPPL tokamak scam reminds me of how around 1980 I read an
article by Harold Furth (Princeton's then head fusion honcho) in
Scientific American, describing the wonderful future of the Princeton
tokamak program, and how they expected to reach "break even" around 1985.

There is a saying: fool me once, and *you* should be ashamed; fool me
twice, and *I* should be ashamed. Princeton and its Harold Furth fooled
me once, but it won't happen again. I no longer believe anything that
comes from the Princeton crowd -- and Robert Heeter comes across like
someone carrying on in the con-artist tradition of Harold Furth:
exaggerate the current status, and promise the moon down the road.

From the standpoint of the Harold Furth's of the world, it is probably
the case that the *last* thing they want to see is a working and usable
fusion reactor: such a success would end the need for further research;
so it is better, from a selfish standpoint, to pick a sure loser, like
the tokamak, and ride that loser forever. The bureaucrats probably like
this approach too, for the same reason: a program without end.

So, the current problem for Harold-Furth wanabees, like Robert Heeter, is
*not* how to make the impossible happen (such as a working and usable
tokamak), but rather, how can they keep the public suckered and
complacent. Thus, we see a lot of Robert Heeter, busy propagandizing for
the cause: the "cause" being his supper, and a place in line to be
another Harold Furth.


Kurt Johmann

--
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
The Computer Inside You is a new book that proposes in detail an old
idea: that the universe is a virtual reality generated by an underlying
network of computing elements. In particular, the book uses this reality
model to explain the currently unexplained: ESP, afterlife, mind, UFOs
and their occupants, organic development, and such.

WWW ==> http://www.xmission.com/~gastown/the-computer-inside-you
FTP ==> ftp.xmission.com/pub/users/g/gastown/outgoing/t-c-i-y/tciy.txt
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjohmann cudlnJohmann cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.14 /  jedrothwell@de /  Solar -VS- Fusion -VS- WOOPS! NREL: 1.5%
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Solar -VS- Fusion -VS- WOOPS! NREL: 1.5%
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 95 13:22:10 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Whoops! I was reading this Exhibit A.5 wrong. NREL does *not* say efficiency
is 0.015%. They show 241 units of solar energy converts to 3.6 units of
biomass. Then it says "photosynthesis 0.015" but that is the conversion factor
not the percent. So it is 1.5%.
 
Ha! Sorry about that, Steve. You were right. Sort of. Except, as I pointed out
in the extended excerpt from Hall et al., by the time you factor in bugs,
winter, fertilizer and many other things, real efficiency is a fraction of one
percent, and if you talking about electricity (as opposed to space heating)
then biomass is 40 to 120 times less efficient than photovoltaics.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.13 /  EricPBliss /  Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
     
Originally-From: ericpbliss@aol.com (EricPBliss)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment,sci.
nergy,sci.materials
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
Date: 13 Mar 1995 18:18:40 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

KA--

I enjoyed reading your response...it's nice to get one that's professional
and not directed at slamming my psyche, and you did just that--gave me an
educated, well-thought out response.  I sincerely thank you for that.  You
also educated me a little better on what cold fusion is...you're dead on
when I was thinking of the electrochemical cell experiments and their
failure...the muon experiment in Physics I hadn't heard of yet.  That's
great!  As far as the energies I was talking about, I should have
clarified my use of the word as net energies...I do understand that hot
fusion gives up energy, I just know that we put more in than we get
out...I believe the Princeton reactor is near 10 million kilowats now for
output...but they're putting in 25 million, so they're still quite a ways
away.  My source for that was some newspaper article, so it may be a
little off...I think it was in the Huntsville Times, but I'm not sure. 
Maybe I read it in a magazine...I'm sorry I can't remember.  Anyway, thanx
for the tips!

Eric P. Bliss
(PhD student, environmental chemistry)
(MS student, environmental engineering)
University of Tennessee, Knoxville

My thoughts are not necessaryily shared by the institution which I have
the privledge to attend.

"Procrastination is the art of keeping up with yesterday"
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenericpbliss cudlnEricPBliss cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.13 / Jim Carr /  Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.conspiracy,alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously
Date: 13 Mar 1995 18:46:46 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <3j36qbINNru0@news.d.umn.edu> 
apatula@ub.d.umn.edu (aaron patula) writes:
>
>Take Cold Fusion Seriously, Advises University Chemist
>
>Richard Oriani in an Address to IT Alumni

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

Right on that count.  All the ridicule happened years ago. 

>  ...   For example, in one of the reactions theoretically associated 
>with cold fusion, an atom of deuterium combines with an atom of tritium 
>to yield helium, a free neutron ... 

Notice that the article does not say this *is* the reaction seen, or 
even one of them, just one that has been proposed theoretically.  

>Among sound reasons for skepticism regarding cold fusion, Oriani 
>acknowledged several:
>
>One, "the results are not yet [consistently] reproducible, and we don't 
>know why," he said.

Or why not.  Interesting that the writer inserted "consistently" in the 
direct quote from Oriani, isn't it?   Especially since his batting average 
is pretty low (two hits followed by 30 misses, then another hit but without 
any clear idea of what the difference was between the samples used for 
the cathode).  His 'repetition' was not a reproduction of the first 
successful run, since he used a different source for the cathode. 

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

Worse, there are as many experiments as experimenters. 

Note that in this article we have Oriani doing calorimetry but no 
nuclear measurements (and no evidence of radiation exposure to him), 
Fritz doing electrolysis with D2O and seeing tritium, Miles and Bush 
doing something similar but seeing helium instead, Stringham seeing 
helium from cavitation, and Kucherov seeing helium and neutrons from 
a glow discharge.  And he did not even mention Griggs. 

The lack of any agreement amongst the pro-cold-fusion experimental 
community on a particular experimental protocol that characterizes 
the phenomenon is the biggest single problem.  The phenomenon has 
a name but not a definition. 

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

This is not true, as Jones has demonstrated with mu-CF. 

>Four, "Cold fusion has attracted a lot of crackpots and mystics," said 
>Oriani. "You have no idea the letters I receive from people who know cold 
>fusion works because the spirit has told them."

Now there is the grist for a most interesting book! 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  Tallahassee, where the crime rate 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  is almost twice that in New York 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  City.  Reported crimes, that is.  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  A subtle statistical detail.  
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.13 / Akira Kawasaki /  Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
     
Originally-From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment,sci.
nergy,sci.materials
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
Date: 13 Mar 1995 16:14:34 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3k0kjc$3lg@newsbf02.news.aol.com> ericpbliss@aol.com (EricPBliss) 
writes: 

>AK writes:
>
>"If you compare the ratio of results reported by cold fusion 
>researchers to the public dollars spent and the time elapsed, they are 
>doing very well as compared to hot fusion research's billions and 
>billions (dollars--turning into pesos), and multiple decades. And in 
the 
>area of proximity to practical harnessing of the energy, it is far more 
>realistic than hot fusion." 
>-AK- 
>
1. >Your argument is baseless if cold fusion is not a proven means to   
 >produce energy relative to hot fusion.  

Cold fusion and hot fusion are about the same process of causing two 
atoms to fuse together and forming a new heavier atom. In the process, 
energy is released which we convert into a useable form. Hot fusion is 
trying to cause that fusion to occur, on earth, in a near enviroment of 
the sun where the phenomenon was observed. In the effort to emulate the 
effects of the sun on earth, enormous effort has been, and still are 
being expended to cause fusion to occur. And fusion and energy output 
has been obtained. But the cost in pure energy inputted to get the 
energy outputted by the fusion obtained, is far far from practical yet. 
Perhaps it will be one day ("any day now") with new, innovative ways as 
long as public funding continues.
Cold fusion, on the other hand is not trying to emulate the sun in 
obtaining the fusion effect. In fact cold fusion as a phenomenon has 
been accepted generally by the physics community when Steven E. Jones 
announced his report of the muon catalyzed fusion of the Hydrogen 
isotopes. This contrasts with the reception of cold fusion in a 
electrochemical cell. This cold fusion process indicated excess energy 
and nuclear product effects unaccountable by current theories of fusion 
developed primarily through fission and hot fusion work--- therein lies 
the rub.
 
2. >Although hot fusion is decades away from being a reality,       
   >commercially, at least theory tell us that if achievable it will    
   >produce the energy we seek.

Hot fusion is producing energy. The unfortunate thing about it is that 
you are still using far more energy to get it than what you obtain. And 
even when you obtain it, it has not been converted to a useable form. To 
whittle these problems down to a practical level is a long way off. And 
the work continues. I do not think there is a theory that promises hot 
fusion can be reduced to a practical, competitive, commercial level.
     
3. >Cold fusion, to the best of my knowledge, still hasn't been proven  
   >to be a valid theory--the scientific community in large still       
  >rejects it, anyway.

See above. Cold fusion as an effect, has been accepted. To explain how 
it is done is still pending more experiments. The enviroment under which 
cold fusion occurs is very different from those under fusion reactors. 
The research in cold fusion is proceeding under some private and very 
limited public budgeting. But it is making progress despite the economic 
handicaps imposed on the scientists pursuing the phenomenon, 
experimentally and theoritically. Bottom line is: scientists are human 
and they have to live and cannot pursue science without resources to 
carry on that pursuit. 

4. >And if somehow it is doing what it's supposed to be doing, the      
   >energy associated with it is nowhere near that of hot fusion, which 
   >I believe is why it has been rejected.

The energy outputted by cold fusion experiments are far in excess of 
what hot fusion has produced. It has not been rejected. It has not been 
fully understood yet. Without understanding, there is no complete 
acceptance but also, there should be no complete rejection. There are 
many questions to be answered yet.
 
5. >This is why money is being poured into hot fusion research and not  
   >cold fusion.

When it comes to money and its allocation, I will not speculate on the 
human condition. It is another topic.

6. >Of course, I hope I'm wrong on this and that cold fusion turns
   >out to be cheap, efficient, and high in energy...but until the      
   >scientific community agrees on what chemistry is actually going on  
   >in cold fusion, and what the ramifications are, I'll have to stick  
   >with the majority, no matter how closed-minded that may seem.
   >

Please do not become closed minded, particularly in regard to the 
pursuit of science, any science. The issues are still open.

And the cold fusion effect and question are nuclear, the excess energy 
noted and reported are far in excess of any obtainable from possible 
chemical reactions.

The ramifications are varied and sweeping.

-AK-
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenaki cudfnAkira cudlnKawasaki cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.13 / Harry Conover /  Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment,sci.
nergy,sci.materials
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
Date: 13 Mar 1995 15:27:29 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Akira Kawasaki (aki@ix.netcom.com) wrote:

: If you compare the ratio of results reported by cold fusion 
: researchers to the public dollars spent and the time elapsed, they are 
: doing very well as compared to hot fusion research's billions and 
: billions (dollars--turning into pesos), and multiple decades. And in the 
: area of proximity to practical harnessing of the energy, it is far more 
: realistic than hot fusion. 
: -AK- 


I've heard the same basic argument applied to psi research, UFOs, free 
energy machines, anti-gravity devices, and water powered cars.  It 
really doesn't matter how much or how little you put into these
subjects, since you get absolutely nothing in return. Unfortunately, 
until something concrete is uncovered in CF, it will continue to be 
regarded as just another pathological science by most reasonable 
observers.  Only when the rhetoric, wishful thinking and propaganda of 
CF enthusiasts is replaced with authenticated scientific discovery will 
this status change. 

                                                  Harry C.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.13 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Biblio update 6-Mar-95
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Biblio update 6-Mar-95
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 09:26:44 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On Mon, 6 Mar 1995, Dieter Britz wrote:

> Starry droogs,
> 
> here is a new lot. This time, I have refreshed the archives with both
> the pap files (like it, Gene? it's as interesting as blabbl, no?), the
> briefs one and the newies file.
> 
[...]
> See also Belzner et al (both of them)... Ah well. These ICCF-4 papers will not

> spoil my publication statistics, because none of them has a submission date
> and that's the most interesting for me; in addition, I am not putting even
> the publication date on any of these.
> 

I see I mislead a bit here; what I mean is that, of the two dates, that of
submission and that of publication, the former is the more interesting. I do
not mean that the submission date interests me more than anything else.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.13 / Dieter Britz /  RE: RFD: sci.physics.fusion.research
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.chem,sci.chem.electrochem,sci.energy,sci.ene
gy.hydrogen,sci.physics,sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.philosophy.te
h
Subject: RE: RFD: sci.physics.fusion.research
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 08:59:11 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University


On Sun, 26 Feb 1995, Greg Kuperberg wrote:

> This proposal is superfluous and ill-conceived.  Cold fusion is crap
> and it will always invite useless crackpot postings.  For those people
> who want a moderated newsgroup to discuss hot fusion:  You should try
> sci.physics.plasma.  It's a low-volume group and hot fusion is one of
> the main topics.
> 
Greg is what I would call a super-skeptic; he is 100% sure that 'cold fusion'
is crap, as he puts it. There are, however, those of us who, for various
reasons, do find the subject interesting, be it because we are only (100-x)%
sure, x taking various values; or be it because we are fascinated by the
phenomenon of a largish body of scientists marshalling considerable
resources in pursuit of crap. Whatever, there is a goodly number of us who
would like to see this group, and be free from non-CNF postings such as those
of Archimedes Plutonium and others like him who seem to think that anything
kinky must be cold fusion or that people interested in cold fusion must also
be interested in anything else kinky.
I see Greg's posting as evidence for one "no" vote to come. Do it, Greg; but
don't tell us others what we should find interesting or not.

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


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.13 / Akira Kawasaki /  Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
     
Originally-From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment,sci.
nergy,sci.materials
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
Date: 13 Mar 1995 17:13:46 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3k1o91$3t7@sundog.tiac.net> conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) 
writes: 

>I've heard the same basic argument applied to psi research, UFOs, free 
>energy machines, anti-gravity devices, and water powered cars.  It 
>really doesn't matter how much or how little you put into these
>subjects, since you get absolutely nothing in return. Unfortunately, 
>until something concrete is uncovered in CF, it will continue to be 
>regarded as just another pathological science by most reasonable 
>observers.  Only when the rhetoric, wishful thinking and propaganda of 
>CF enthusiasts is replaced with authenticated scientific discovery will 
>this status change. 

At least you left room to be convinced. We need skeptics as well as 
optimists---contructively.
-AK- 


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenaki cudfnAkira cudlnKawasaki cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.13 /  BruceDenny /  Re: Cold Fusion Qestions #1
     
Originally-From: brucedenny@aol.com (BruceDenny)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Qestions #1
Date: 13 Mar 1995 23:38:13 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

3) Randel Mills had announced a theory in wich the energy is released by
: the collapse or shrinkage of the electron shell around the Hydrogen
atom. 
: How can the electron shell shrink? The only possible way that I could
come
: up with is to make the element a positive ion, but how would this apply
to
: hydrogen?

In the normal scheme of things, the electron at its lowest "orbit" is
still a non-zero distance away from the nucleus.  Mills was suggesting
that that "floor", conventionally called the "ground state" or minimum
energy state, is not really a minimum energy state at all.  That it can
fall to heretofore unseen lower orbital levels.  It's quite a suggestion
and it'll require some convincing evidence.

I am a High school junior interested in fusion too.. Could it be said that
electron capture occurs in the hydrogen which then emits a nuetron?
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbrucedenny cudlnBruceDenny cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.14 / John Cobb /  Re: Rothwell is an expert on Tokamaks?  NOT
     
Originally-From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell is an expert on Tokamaks?  NOT
Date: 14 Mar 1995 08:27:21 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <3k2iq6$cmt@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, Johmann <johmann@aol.com> wrote:
:>
:>From the standpoint of the Harold Furth's of the world, it is probably
:>the case that the *last* thing they want to see is a working and usable
:>fusion reactor: such a success would end the need for further research;
:>so it is better, from a selfish standpoint, to pick a sure loser, like
:>the tokamak, and ride that loser forever. The bureaucrats probably like
:>this approach too, for the same reason: a program without end.
:>
:>So, the current problem for Harold-Furth wanabees, like Robert Heeter, is
:>*not* how to make the impossible happen (such as a working and usable
:>tokamak), but rather, how can they keep the public suckered and
:>complacent. Thus, we see a lot of Robert Heeter, busy propagandizing for
:>the cause: the "cause" being his supper, and a place in line to be
:>another Harold Furth.
:>
:>
:>Kurt Johmann

How comforting it must be to be completely wrapped in smug cynicism and
sarcasm. I would not presume to disturb you from your cocoon with facts
or confront you with the consequences of your libelous statements about
honorable men.

-john .w cobb


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

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.14 / John Cobb /  Re: Rothwell is an expert on Tokamaks?  NOT
     
Originally-From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell is an expert on Tokamaks?  NOT
Date: 14 Mar 1995 08:33:29 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <3k33ku$iuk@deadmin.ucsd.edu>,
Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> wrote:
>In article <3k2iq6$cmt@newsbf02.news.aol.com> johmann@aol.com (Johmann) writes:
:>> 
:>> From the standpoint of the Harold Furth's of the world, it is probably
:>> the case that the *last* thing they want to see is a working and usable
:>> fusion reactor: such a success would end the need for further research;
:>> so it is better, from a selfish standpoint, to pick a sure loser, like
:>> the tokamak, and ride that loser forever. 
:>
:>Hmm...you seem to be under the impression that the folks working on
:>fusion couldn't do anything else, and so need to cling to the program 
:>for precisous job security. Uh, I've got news for you: most of them
:>are plenty capable, and could do many other things with their talents;
:>they simply want to work on fusion because its important. Speaking
:>for myself, I could easily get various university professor jobs,
:>at various prestigious universities, and up my pay by _50%_ as 
:>well---the only reason I don't is because I'd rather work on fusion full time.

On the other hand, I did leave fusion research. My income jumped by a
factor of 4 (although that was due more to personal career advancement
than change of area of research). I know how Barry feels about loving the
work and all and being willing to do it for half the pay,
but I had just had enough of being underpaid for a while. However, I do
still try to publish some in fusion, but it is not in my job description
anymore.

-john .w cobb

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

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.13 / Bryan Wallace /  The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: wallace@acasun.eckerd.edu (Bryan Wallace)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.
stro,sci.edu,sci.energy,sci.engr,sci.logic,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.phys
cs.computational.fluid-dynamics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusio
,sci.physics.particle,sci.research
Subject: The Farce of Physics
Date: 13 Mar 1995 09:05:20 -0500
Organization: Eckerd College, St. Petersburg, Florida

This post is in reply to the M. B. Kennel mbk@seas.ucla.edu 10 Mar 1995
13:14:21 post in the Thread "The Farce of Physics" in the newsgroup
"sci.physics".

Kennel wrote:

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

In reply to Kennel, I would like to quote from Eric J. Lerner's new book
titled "The Big Bang Never Happened". (Vintage Books, NY 1992)  On page 428
Lerner states:

     A second set of theories about the Hubble relation assumes that the
  universe is not expanding, but that the redshift is created as light
  travels through space.  According to Paul Marmet and Grote Reber (a co-
  initiator of radio astronomy), quantum mechanics indicates that a photon
  gives up a tiny amount of energy as it collides with an electron, but its
  trajectory does not change.  As the photon travels, its energy declines,
  shifting its frequency to the red.  ...

On page 51 he writes:

     In the fall of 1990, I published an article showing that this is exactly
  what happens.  Galaxies that are equally bright infrared emitters, equally
  "hot," are fainter and fainter radio sources the farther they are from
  earth.  This is clear observational evidence that something is absorbing
  radio waves, including microwaves, as they travel between the galaxies. 
  But even more significant, this shows that the conventional explanation of
  the microwave background must be wrong.  Such absorption would distort the
  black-body spectrum of the background if it really was the faint echo of
  the Big Bang.  Since the spectrum, as COBE showed, is not distorted, the
  radiation must instead come from nearby, from the intergalactic medium
  itself.  In equilibrium, such an absorbing medium would produce just the
  black-body spectrum observed.

On page 267 he wrote:

     But stars with less than this mass will not explode.  These more sedate
  stars will blow off only their outer layers--pure helium--not their inner
  cores, where the heavier elements are trapped.  As these medium-sized
  stars, four to ten times bigger than the sun, form in the dense, inner
  regions of the galaxy, the shock wave will spread through the entire
  thickness of the galaxy.  Consequently, helium production will far outweigh
  that of oxygen and carbon.
     This model predicts the amounts of helium, carbon, and oxygen that a
  variety of galaxies will produce.  The results are in close agreement with
  observation--almost any galaxy would produce about 22 percent helium, 1
  percent oxygen, and .5 percent carbon.  It is only after all these stars
  have burned that density will rise sufficiently for still lighter, longer-
  lived, and dimmer stars like our sun to form (Fig. 6.16).
     Certain rare light isotopes--deuterium, lithium, and boron--cannot have
  been produced in this way, for they burn too easily in stars.  But the
  cosmic rays generated by early stars, colliding with the background plasma,
  will generate these rare substances in the correct amounts as well. (This
  was an idea that scientists such as Jean Adouze in France had independently
  been arguing for.)  There is simply no need for a Big Bang to produce any
  of these elements.

There is an interesting article starting on page 76 of the March 6, 1995 issue
of TIME magazine titled UNRAVELING UNIVERSE.  The following information is
from that article:

  TOD LAUER IS STARTING TO FEEL MORE than a little fed up with his fellow
  astronomers.  Not long ago, Lauer and his close friend and collaborator
  Marc Postman, of the Space Telescope Science Institute, in Baltimore,
  Maryland, announced the results of a telescopic study they had been working
  on for more than a year.  The young scientists reached the astonishing
  conclusion that rather than expanding outward in a stately fashion like the
  rest of the universe, a collection of many thousands of galaxies, including
  our own and spanning a billion light-years or so, may be speeding en masse
  toward a point somewhere in the direction of the constellation Virgo.
     Yet rather than try to assimilate this new finding, most of their
  colleagues are proclaiming that it must be a mistake.  No one can explain
  what Lauer and Postman might have done wrong, despite strenuous efforts to
  do so.  The analysis is incorrect, they say, simply because it doesn't fit
  in with any existing theory of how the cosmos works.  ...
  ... For decades, Sandage's results have suggested that the cosmos is 15
  billion to 20 billion years old or thereabouts.  That fits beautifully with
  cosmological theories--but almost nobody believes him anymore.  Instead
  they're listening t a young whippersnapper named Wendy Freedman, who
  happens to work just down the hall from Sandage at the Carnegie's center in
  Pasadena, California.  Freedman and a group of colleagues have lately used
  the Hubble Space Telescope to peg the age at somewhere between 8 billion
  and 12 billion years--which would make the cosmos 2 billion years younger
  than some of the stars it contains. ...
     But what's happening these days in cosmology--the study of the universe-
  -verges on the bizarre.  Astronomers have come up with one theory-busting
  discovery after another, hinting that a scientific revolution may be close
  at hand. ...
  WEIRD DATA, WEIRD THEORIES:  The bewildering discoveries by Lauer, Postman,
  Freedman and company are only the latest in a barrage of bafflements that
  stargazers have had to absorb lately.  Over the past few years, astronomers
  have uncovered the existence of the Great Wall, a hugh conglomeration of
  galaxies stretching across 500 million light-years of space; the Great
  Attractor, a mysterious concentration of mass hauling much of the local
  universe off in the direction of the constellations Hydra and Centaurus;
  Great Voids, where few galaxies can be found; and galaxies caught in the
  throes of formation a mere billion years after the Big Bang, when they
  should not yet exist.  "If we really trust the data," exclaims Stanford
  astrophysicist Andrei Linde, "then we are in disaster, and we must do
  something absolutely crazy." ...
  ... It hasn't been until the past decade, in fact, that astronomers have
  had powerful telescopes like the Hubble out in space and the Keck atop
  Hawaii's Mauna Kea, ultrafast supercomputers and super-sensitive electronic
  light detectors to give them the data they hunger for.  In a very real
  sense, cosmology has only lately crossed the dividing line from theology
  into true science. ...

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

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

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

Bryan





cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenwallace cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.13 / Chris - /  Re: And finally... ball lightning and weirdness.
     
Originally-From: chrisk@gomez.stortek.com (Chris Kostanick - X6359)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: And finally... ball lightning and weirdness.
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 18:24:01 GMT
Organization: Storage Technology Corporation

conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes:

>Perhaps a little caution is really justified here, and aluminum-foil hats
>(Reynolds Wrap works best) may be quite effective in protecting against 
>both electromagnetic effects and intential mind control (you never know when
>to expect the evil alien influences to manifest themselves).

>Metalic armor is another reasonable precaution, however, a portable
>Halon system, albeit expensive, is often less restrictive. I often utilize 
>such protective measures myself when traveling even though they preclude 
>the possibility of travel by air.

>:-)

Alien Mind Control Defense Helmets (only $29.95, act today) work much
better than aluminum foil at protecting you from the Reptoid's freeze
ray. That plus a large gun (serious operatives prefer the .454 Casull
with tungsten darts to get through the Reptoid's body armor) and a
garage door opener (the radio emission scares 'em) provide a good
degree of protection. The Halon system is quite ingenious but I would
only recommend it for people with a contact potential greater than .74

Have you tried guitar feedback? Jimmy Hendrix albums seem to repel
the large eyed aliens (Greys) extremely well. I have never been
abducted while listening to Jimmy Hendrix, at least not while the
volume was very loud. Tests are currently under way to see if Frank
Zappa albums are as effective.

Chris Kostanick
Jet Car Neutopian - Greys sell me kerosene!
--
Chris Kostanick
chrisk@gomez.stortek.com
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenchrisk cudfnChris cudln- cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.13 / 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: 13 Mar 1995 12:04:13 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <tomkD5D7zG.40w@netcom.com>,
Thomas H. Kunich <tomk@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <3jpqg1$bi8@curly.cc.utexas.edu>,
>John W. Cobb <johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>In article <singtech-1003950209550001@ip-salem-13.teleport.com>,
>
>>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.
>
>John, I would like to point out a rather close conmparison with the
>perpetual motion people on this subject: perpetual motion people, like
>fusion power people always insist that they are just 'this' far away
>from finding the answers.

A totally fallacious comaprison. I challenge you to find ANY place where
I have stated that commercial fusion power is just a few years away. Quite
the contrary. I have been meticulous to point out that power production is
on the order of 30 years away (except, of course for that time in high
school many years ago). I have always said that and I still do. Moreoever,
no serious scientists in the magnetic fusion community has made such promises
in the decade that I have worked in the field. Now 20 or more years ago there
was some overselling, but how long do you require penance? I do not hold you
responsible for your incontinence when you were an infant. It would be 
ludicrous to do so. The same is true of fusion. People of high credibility
and reliability have been in agreement that it is a long process. It will take
decades. Your comparison of magnetic fusion scientists with "perpetual
motion people" is as ludicrous and offensive as my comparison of you with
bedwetters.

>
>The absence of neutrons at theoretical quantities is more than just a simple
>miscalculation, it is a major hole in the theories and needs a lot more
>addressing than it has been receiving.

What absence? Where? I have heard nothing about this. Is there really
a problem or are you just repeating something a friend said about something
his cousin's aquaintance heard from a friend .....

Inquiring minds want to know. Back up your statement with some facts. Honest,
I'm interested to hear about it, but simple conclusions without the facts
to support them carry no weight with me.


>Since you liked Cugle's quote, "Physicist, heal thyself." :-)

Show me an illnes and I'll take a crack at it. The only illness I have
seen of recent times is fundamental misunderstanding of many mixed with
polemical rhetoric of a few who seem to deliberately mislead for personal
ends. I've been trying to help in that one, but honestly, sometimes I'm
quite discouraged.

-john .w cobb


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

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.14 / William Shaw /  Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously
     
Originally-From: wshaw@gate.net (William Shaw)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.conspiracy,alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously
Date: 14 Mar 1995 00:11:23 GMT

Jim Carr (jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu) wrote:
: Now there is the grist for a most interesting book! 

	Or a magazine. Cold Fusion lasted exactly two issues. I have
	mine, and consider it a collector's item.

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenwshaw cudfnWilliam cudlnShaw cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.13 / 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: 13 Mar 1995 12:38:08 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <tomkD5D7D8.2y5@netcom.com>,
Thomas H. Kunich <tomk@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <singtech-1003950209550001@ip-salem-13.teleport.com>,
>C. Cagle <singtech@teleport.com> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>>How's this effect fusion research?  Easy, your
>>assumptions are wrong and therefore your methods cannot lead to success.
>
>It is equally interesting that cosmologists cannot explain why the neutron
>output from the sun is many orders lower than predicted by theory.

Oops, I think you mean neutrinos. You should be informed that neutrons and
neutrinos are not the smae thing. Both are uncharged fundamental particles
but neutrons are stongly interacting hadrons while neutrinos are leptons
that only have weak interactions. 

Moreoever, the absence of solar neutrinos is not "many orders lower than
predicted by theory". The solar neutrino problem, as it is called is one
of a factor of 2 or so.

>
>Surely there is enough evidence gathered now to throw serious
>suspicion on the theories of the interactions of particles at high
>energy?

Only enough for me to seriously question your understanding of physics.

What a lot of people don't seem to understand is that there are open
questions in physics that are the subject of a great deal of activity
and their are questions that have reached a good consensus.

Open questions in include:
what is the neutrino's mass?
What powers active galactic nuclei?
What does the particle spectrum look like in the Higgs sector?
What mechanism is responsible for electron pairing in HiTc supercondutors?

Settled answers include:
The sun's gravity deflects light rays between 1.5 and 2 degrees.
The acceleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface is about
   9.8 meters/sec^2
The binding energy of a hydrogen electron is 13.5 eV


and

The cross section for a 10 KeV Deuterium onto Tritium is 1.3 mBarn
and it produces exactly one neutron.

The fact that I don't know what powers active galactic nuclei does not
lead me to doubt that the acceleration of gravity at the surface of the
earth is 9.8 m/sec^2.

Now settled questions are certainly subject to re-examination, but
not just willy-nilly. There should be some reason to re-open them.
So what reason is there to re-open the 4 I mentioned above?
I don't see any.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.13 / Barry Merriman /  Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
Date: 13 Mar 1995 18:52:27 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <Rw95m6X.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> writes:
>  
> >Drs. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons  underemphasized 
> >that the reactions and materials are quite complex.
>  
> I think it would be fairer to say that they underestimated the difficulties.
> They themselves did not realize just how difficult it is to reproduce the
> effect. It was difficult then, and it still is difficult. People have become
> skilled in the art, but the art has not become any easier.
>  

Ok, but when are they going to demonstrate their newfound skills
to a neutral scientific body, like NIST or the international 
society of electrochemists, etc? (Wasn't Pons a fellow of that
organization?)

I think if they could demostrate CF exists, their work would
be much better recieved, don't you?




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


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.14 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 95 17:33:26 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Jim Carr <jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> writes:
 
>The lack of any agreement amongst the pro-cold-fusion experimental 
>community on a particular experimental protocol that characterizes 
>the phenomenon is the biggest single problem.  The phenomenon has 
>a name but not a definition. 
 
That is incorrect. I suggest you read:
 
E. Storms, "How to Produce the Pons-Fleischmann Effect," (coming soon in)
Fusion Technology
 
You will find an excellent protocal and a good charactorization of the
phenomenon. In any case, I have charactorized the phonomenon countless
times in a succinct definition that works very well and that can be
checked easily: CF is heat beyond chemistry. As Flieschmann said, heat
is the principle signiture of the reaction. I don't see how you can
argue that that definition is not succinct, easy to understand, and dead
simple to test for. You got heat? Does it go on a thousand times longer
than any chemical source would allow? That's it! You have a CF reaction.
What could be simpler?
 
The problem for you skeptics is that it is *too* simple, too recognizable,
and quite impossible to deny. That is why none of you ever dares to talk
about McKubre, Storms, Celani, Arata or Oriani for that matter. None of
you could even begin to disprove their findings, so you pretend the findings
do not exist, instead. What's the point? You are not fooling anyone but
yourselves.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.14 /  EricPBliss /  Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
     
Originally-From: ericpbliss@aol.com (EricPBliss)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment,sci.
aterials,sci.energy
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
Date: 14 Mar 1995 17:51:15 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I was told that cold fusion (in the electrochemical sense) has still not
been accepted by the scientific community.  This seems to have been
verified when I asked around my department if anyone knew what was up.  I
know it's possible for a whole department to be wrong...and I'm sure I'll
get some wise cracks on the fact that I'm in school at Tennessee...but
let's be realistic:  whatever people think this cold fusion is, it does
not reproduce the same RELATIVE amounts of energy as fusion (which seems
to be called hot fusion by everybody supporting cold fusion) does.
I was also told that physicists have developed a twist on cold fusion
centering on the fusion of subatomic particles (ie, muons, etc.)...to
this, which I accept, I must say that it still isn't fusion as we know it,
even though the "fusion" of particles is taking place.  Fusion is still
defined as the coming together of atoms to form new atoms, and its
resultant energy is immense.  Neither version of cold fusion creates even
close to a relatively equal amount of energy released in "hot fusion," so
I'm left asking myself, why all the fuss?
This doesn't mean that cold fusion isn't fact...I'm sure there's something
there that works...but the problem seems to be the name the respective
processes have taken on.  For awhile, radioactivity was viewed as
invisible phosphoresece (read Becquerels original papers), even though
radioactivity and transmutation have nothing to do with phosphoresece.  I
see a similar situation here.  If this is only my opinion, so be it...I
just thought I'd share it.  It is only an opinion.

Eric P. Bliss
(PhD student, environmental chemistry)
(MS student, environmental engineering)
University of Tennessee, Knoxville

My thoughts are not necessaryily shared by the institution which I have
the privledge to attend.

"Procrastination is the art of keeping up with yesterday"
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenericpbliss cudlnEricPBliss cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.13 / H Pierre-Norman /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: houlep@JSP.UMontreal.CA (Houle Pierre-Normand)
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: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 18:55:35 GMT
Organization: Universite de Montreal

Bryan Wallace (wallace@acasun.eckerd.edu) wrote:

: In reply to Kennel, I would like to quote from Eric J. Lerner's new book
: titled "The Big Bang Never Happened". (Vintage Books, NY 1992)  On page 428
: Lerner states:

:      A second set of theories about the Hubble relation assumes that the
:   universe is not expanding, but that the redshift is created as light
:   travels through space.  According to Paul Marmet and Grote Reber (a co-
:   initiator of radio astronomy), quantum mechanics indicates that a photon
:   gives up a tiny amount of energy as it collides with an electron, but its
:   trajectory does not change.  As the photon travels, its energy declines,
:   shifting its frequency to the red.  ...

This is a quite unlikely explanation. Whenever a photon gives up energy,
it must also change momentum. It will thus change direction in most
referential frames. If this were the case, there would be a smearing
out of distant stars images.  

There is a critical discussion of various "tired light" processes in :

Zel'dovich, Ya. B., 1964. "The theory of the expanding universe as
originated by A. A. Friedmann," in Sov. Phys.-Uspekhi. 6, 475-494.


Pierre-Normand


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenhoulep cudfnHoule cudlnPierre-Normand cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.13 / Barry Merriman /  Uses for the remaining $700 Droege fund
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Uses for the remaining $700 Droege fund
Date: 13 Mar 1995 21:51:58 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE


What to do with the remaining $700 + change left over from
Tom D's trip: two obvious candidates

(1) if Tom decides to do further research on the Griggs device,
use the money for start up funds.

(2) allocate the rest to Marshall Dudleys planned expedition,
which could be viewed as the experimental follup to TD's 
informational visit. 

Personally, I vote for (2). I think Marshall's trip, being
experimental in nature, could benefit from being > 1 day long,
at least two days (so you can digest things overnight and
get a second shot). The $700 we be good for defraying the
cost of a multi-day expedition, plus maybe a few extra
thermometers :-).





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


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.13 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: 13 Mar 1995 18:47:23 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.950311175327.25163F-100000@gladstone> Ed Matthews  
<ewm@gladstone.uoregon.edu> writes:
> 
> On 9 Mar 1995, Barry Merriman wrote:
> > 
> > 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!
> > 
> 
> Geez, I hate comments like this.  It's the _principle_ that matters.  If 
> it was $1.50, $500, or $0.50, the principle is still what matters.
> 


Yes, and what is the principle? The principle is, $1 a year is not much
to have a team of scientists working on a major experiment in support
of developing the future energy resources for the US/world.

So, you must feel that the chances of a tokamak class reactor
producing useful power are so incredibly small that it does not
even merit $1 dollar per year from you. You are a brilliant mind
to see so clearly into the distant future.

I'd bet that even Paul Koloc will admit that tokamaks probably can be 
made to produce power in a way that would be interesting to country
that would otherwise have *no* high capacity, steady supply of power.
So, if nothing else, you can look at the program as a safeguard
against getting into that scenario.

The real problem is not the $1 per year that you pay for tokamaks.
Its that you should be paying at least another $1 per year on other
alternatives, and you aren't. Complain to your congressmen, don't
haggle with the scientists that are working on _solving the problem_.

Geez, some people show no gratitude :-) 
--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.13 / Mike Griffin /  Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
     
Originally-From: mgriffin@il.us.swissbank.com (Mike Griffin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 18:51:58 GMT
Organization: Swiss Bank Corporation CM&T Division

In article <Rw95m6X.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> writes:
>  
> >Drs. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons  underemphasized 
> >that the reactions and materials are quite complex.
>  
> I think it would be fairer to say that they underestimated the difficulties.
> They themselves did not realize just how difficult it is to reproduce the
> effect. It was difficult then, and it still is difficult. People have become
> skilled in the art, but the art has not become any easier.
>  
> - Jed

It is worth mentioning that the physics of fusion make it extremely unlikely that
actual fusion is taking place in these experiments.  In fact, the fusion cross-section
at low temperature and atmospheric pressure would need to be 10 orders of magnitude
larger for measureable amounts of heat to be produced.  (Any fusion theorists out
there care to make this more precice?)

This is a difficulty that apparently isn't even understood by the sales guys like Jed,
never mind underestimated.  And it's not expected to go away any time soon!

Mike Griffin
(speaking strictly for myself.)
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmgriffin cudfnMike cudlnGriffin cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.13 / Phil Andrews /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: Phil Andrews <pa0q+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 12:24:10 -0500
Organization: Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

>From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
 
>This should be intuitively obvious to anyone who has done a little gardening
>or lit a bonfire to burn briars or cornstalks. Direct sunlight is roughly one
>horsepower per square meter (Arthur Clarke's rule of thumb). Imagine you were
>to  store 2% of that energy in a field of grass for a six week growing season,
>dry the grass and start a prairie fire. Six weeks of summer weather is roughly
>1.8 million seconds of sunlight. Multiply that by 745 watts to get roughly
>1,341 MJ. I suppose we can reduce that by about a third to account for rain,
>morning and evening sunlight (although summer days are longer than 12 hours).
>That comes to 893 MJ. 2% of that would be 18 MJ, which is as much energy as
>you get from burning 0.43 kg of gasoline or roughly 4.3 kg of coal. If you
>were to put 0.43 of gasoline over every square yard of a field -- or spread
>coal an inch thick across it -- and you ignited that, you would get a terrific
>explosion and sustained energy many orders of magnitude worse than a real
>prairie fire. Also bear in mind that a prairie fire consumes fuel piled up
>over many growing seasons.

It's nice to see someone actually using facts to back up his opinions,
but as a part-time farmer (100 acres mixed crops and animals) there's no
way you would look at grass to figure out energy conversion efficiency.
We use grass to give the land a rest and to acquire  protein via
nitrogenous alfalfa. The energy efficiency of grass is negligible
compared to corn.

An intensive (but by no means record breaking) acre of field corn can
deliver around 300 bushels of ear corn, with each bushel delivering
about 40 pounds of dry shelled-corn. One acre is approximately 4000 m^2
so we're getting about 3Lbs of dry shelled corn per m^2. Thats pretty
much all carbohydrate (some water left, a little roughage), so we're
looking at about 4 Kcal per gram, with 4.2 * 10^3 J per Kcal. We have
(approximately)  3/2.2 Kg, about 1400 grams or 
1.4 * 10^3 * 4 * 4.2 * 10^3 J  = 23.5 MJ per m^2

If you account for longer growing season of Corn (90-110 days, but most
of the growth occurs in the second half of that) we have an efficiency 
very close to the originally quoted 2%, which according to Jed would
deliver 18MJ per m^2 in 6 weeks. Water and roughage would decrease our
figure, but including the bulky stalks (which do have some feed value)
would increase it.

-Phil Andrews (who is not professing any position on Solar v. Fusion,
but likes to see correct numbers used)
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudfnPhil cudlnAndrews cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.14 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 03:01:09 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <1995Mar10.182339.2113@vanlab.byu.edu>,
 <jonesse@vanlab.byu.edu> wrote:
>In article <tomkD53nDC.4Fs@netcom.com>, 

>Facts, Tom?  Jed comes up with an efficiency of conversion of solar to biomass
>of 0.005%, and therefore contends that author of _Energy_, Gordon Aubrecht
>of Ohio State University is "wrong by a couple of orders of magnitude."

I think you have misunderstood me. I found that Jed made a good analysis of
the problem. I didn't say that I agreed with him. Jed has shown on numerous
occassions that he has a very hard time applying facts and figures in a
realistic manner. He had some figures (which we will get to) and he applied
them in an analysis that was, for it's limited use, quite accurate.

>I have done some checking in the library, and I find that Aubrecht is correct;
>Substantiation:  "The maximum achieved photosynthetic yield of carbohydrates
>in the laboratory from red light corresponds to an energy conversion
>efficiency of 27% (10 quanta/mole of carbon dioxide fixed).  Maximum yields
>in agriculture over short periods are, however, only equivalent to about 10% of
>the total visible radiation.  Over the growing season, efficiencies may fall to
>0.9 - 1.6% for temperate crops and up to 5% for tropical crops."
>David Boyles, "Bio-Energy:  Technology, Thermodynamics and Costs." 1984

Please consider these figures Steven. If this is correct, why is it that
deserts have strictly limited vegetation cover? You are misapplying some
figures yourself. The maximum achievable conversion of energy to biomass
is only loosely coupled to the amount of vegetation grown in untended
agriculture.

The availability of water and minerals are another question. The proper
harvesting times are critical for maximum production and maximum production
may not last long on tracts of reclaimed desert that are basically mineral
poor. The natural plant growth in the United States tends to fit the naturally
occuring conditions. Drive across Utah and see what a wonderful area that 
would make for your biomass farms. Yeh, some very good area that are used
for food production and some marginal areas used for cattle and lots and
lots of rock, desert and bad terrain unsuited for agriculture of any sort.

>These numbers, of a few %, agree with Aubrecht, of course, rather than
>with Rothwell's 0.005%.  It is Rothwell who is "wrong by a couple of orders of
>magnitude" on this value.  Yes, harvesting efficiencies need to be included, and
>chemical to electrical energy, and so on.  But the fact remains that Jed's 
>premise is wrong, Tom.  Biomass to energy looks difficult, but not nearly so
>bleak as Jed's erroneous 0.005% solar-to-biomass conversion efficiency makes it
>appear.

But there are still further problems. 1) The 10% cost of harvesting a crop
like grass over large areas is simply absurd. The quantities of the crop
necessary are colosal to say the least. 2) Then conversion of the crop from
it's biological form to some energy dense form or another is poorly
demonstrated. Do you suggest fermenting the plants into alcohol and then
burning the alcohol? Remember, ethanol isn't a very energy dense storage
medium, it is just a _convenient_ energy storage medium. 3) What are the 
costs involved in designing, constructing and maintaining facilities for
absolutely staggering energy requirements? Like the analysis of the 'race
track' version of ICBM hiding method showed that it would take the
entire world's production of cement for 10 years you would probably find
the building the facilties would be a major undertaking.

Then after all this energy is produced it must be reconverted into another
energy form -- mechanical motion of electricity -- and another conversion
loss.

So while you are talking about straight energy conversion of sunlight to
biomass, I suspect that Rothwell's references are looking at total conversion
efficiency and are only a little low.

I am just an engineer and tend to look at problems in a more practical light.
I see projects such as you suggest as possible, but so expensive that it
is unlikely that enough public support could be raised to counteract the
great burden of such a project. I have thought about the energy dependance
of the United States for many years, maybe 20 or more, and I have looked at
the public's support of painful, decisive actions. I don't believe that
they can muster the courage for such a change and I have no confidence that
any other plan will raise it's head.

I would also like to point out that the world cannot support 10% of it's
present population without energy intensive farming methods. So you think
about the future when oil runs out. My response has been to not father any
children.

But who knows? Fusion power isn't absolutely ruled out yet. And we have
energy reserves in the form of natural gas, coal and tar sands to last for 
enough centuries to allow time to develop practically anything possible.

Solar cells have conversion rates of 10% or more and it would be possible
to use land otherwise totally useless agriculturely for solar farms. And
progressively cheaper and cheaper methods of building solar cells are coming
on line every year. Moreover, direct conversion to electricity eliminates
the harvesting, conversion and reconversion limitations of biomass. It
uses far more available resources -- you ought to know that polyamorphous
silicon a few molecules thick is a lot easier to get than water in the 
desert.

PG&E has built a couple of extremely successful steam boilers in the
Mojave desert and they have shown that this is an emminently practical
energy source.

Whatever happens it needs to be achieved in a slowly expanding manner. People
just don't take to change nor do theywant to take excessive chances of
failure. Biomass conversion doesn't lend itself very well to small scale
startups and other methods do. So what do you think will happen?

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.14 / Tom Droege /  Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.conspiracy,alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously
Date: 14 Mar 1995 02:18:52 GMT
Organization: fermilab



In article <3k2lh6$9ga@ds8.scri.fsu.edu>, jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) says:
>
>In article <3j36qbINNru0@news.d.umn.edu> 
>apatula@ub.d.umn.edu (aaron patula) writes:
>>
>>Take Cold Fusion Seriously, Advises University Chemist
>>
>>Richard Oriani in an Address to IT Alumni
>
>>There are good reasons for skepticism, he acknowledged, but there are 
>>also good reasons for genuine interest. "Here is some new kind of nuclear 
>>physics, and it is too late to heap ridicule on it," he said.

(snip)

OK, of all the people in "cold fusion" I take Oriani the most seriously.  
I have talked to him several times on the phone, and met him at ICCF-4.

So I take Oriani seriously.  But he can still be wrong.  But he is doing
good science.  He is also critical of his own results.  He looks for his
errors.  So I do listen to what he says.  Also I still think there is 
something interesting going on.  It is probably just chemistry, but 
interesting.

Tom Droege


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.13 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Uses for the remaining $700 Droege fund
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Uses for the remaining $700 Droege fund
Date: 13 Mar 1995 22:39:37 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <3k2epu$j6a@deadmin.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry
Merriman) wrote:

> 
> What to do with the remaining $700 + change left over from
> Tom D's trip: two obvious candidates
> 
> (1) if Tom decides to do further research on the Griggs device,
> use the money for start up funds.
> 
> (2) allocate the rest to Marshall Dudleys planned expedition,
> which could be viewed as the experimental follup to TD's 
> informational visit. 
> 
> Personally, I vote for (2). I think Marshall's trip, being
> experimental in nature, could benefit from being > 1 day long,
> at least two days (so you can digest things overnight and
> get a second shot). The $700 we be good for defraying the
> cost of a multi-day expedition, plus maybe a few extra
> thermometers :-).
> 

I concur.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Mar 15 04:37:04 EST 1995
------------------------------
