1995.03.14 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Rothwell is an expert on Tokamaks?  NOT
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell is an expert on Tokamaks?  NOT
Date: 14 Mar 1995 03:47:42 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3k2iq6$cmt@newsbf02.news.aol.com> johmann@aol.com (Johmann) writes:
> 
> 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 

Fine---and Bill Gates, circa 1991, said there will be a Windows 4.0
released in 1994. Here it is ~ 2 years (and counting) late 
(on a 4 year prediction), and still no product. So, do you similarly
conclude that there will never be a Windows 4.0? You should henceforth
dismiss all product announcements from Micrsoft as meaningless.

> 
> 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.

So, I would conjecture that you don't really know what you are talking 
about.




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


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.13 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 21:54 -0500 (EST)

Phil Andrews <pa0q+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
 
-> The energy efficiency of grass is negligible compared to corn.
 
Interesting comment.  According to Webster's New World Dictionary Corn is:
A cultivated American cereal plant of the grass family.
 
Thus you are actually comparing grass to grass.  What grass are you comparing
corn to?  Something which grows slow like Zoysia grass or something like
Johnson grass, which grows darn near as fast, and as tall as corn?
 
You are also neglecting the energy contained in the silage.  I would guess that
the energy content of the stem, leaves and cob is close to, if not greater than
that of the corn kernals.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.13 /  jonesse@plasma /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion; the Biomass option
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion; the Biomass option
Date: 13 Mar 95 17:01:24 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

I wrote, quoting energy researcher Gordon Aubrecht of Ohio State University:
"Some algae can conver nearly 10% of available light energy to biomass.  Sugar
cane is about 2% efficient, and corn about 1% efficient."

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

Even though then I quoted from two other original sources that support 
Aubrecht's numbers, 
Jed reiterates his citing of the NREL's Hydrogen Program Plan, and the
Int. J. of Hydrogen Energy.  So I took the time this p.m. to go over to the
library to check the original Journal.  It was informative.

Jed did not cite a page number, but there is indeed one paper that discusses
photosynthetic conversion efficiency, in Vol. 15, No. 11.  
Unfortunately, this paper
deals with photoproduction of HYDROGEN, not production of biomass which was the
topic I quoted Aubrecht about, of course.  The paper is entitled:
"Effect of gas phase on the photoproduction of hydrogen and substrate
conversion efficiency in the photosynthetic bacterium rhodobacter sphaeroides
o.u. 001".

Note also that this deals with photosynthetic bacteria, not plants.
Perhaps the careful Rothwell means another paper, but I could not find it.
This paper is certainly fitting for the "NREL's *Hydrogen* Program Plan which
Jed cited.  However, it is hardly relevant to the discussion of the conversion
efficiency of solar energy to biomass provided by Aubrecht, and the others
I cited.  Note that these researchers did take into account "practical"
conversion factors, as I noted in my previous post.

Now the photoproduction of hydrogen is interesting in its own right.  The
article in question mentions that green algae and cyanobacteria have also been
found to achieve photoproduction of H2.  This bears further scrutiny.

Meanwhile, Aubrecht, and Boyles, and David Hall et al. which I have quoted at 
some length previously remain correct in
measurements that "recoverable plant matter will be [up to] about 2 to 3 
percent [for C4 plants like sugar cane] of
incident sunlight. "  Note that this includes various inefficiencies already;
the theoretical efficiency for plants is "28%." (Hall et al.)

I wish also to add that biomass research can help *avert*  approaching
ecological disasters in various 3rd world countries:  since many people depend
on wood and other forms of biomass for cooking, etc., forests are being rapidly
depleted in some areas (including Africa).  Ref: Raven, Berg and Johnson:
"The FAO estimated ... some areas, such as West Africa, experienced a loss of
forest estimated at greater than 2 percent per year." p. 379
Brazil has benefitted from biomass --> ethanol fuel production.  Several
million biogas digesters are in use in China, and the use of such is expanding
in India. [see p. 244 ff]  Hopefully it is clear that biomass energy research
is not just to benefit the U.S. -- indeed, the main goal is to ultimately serve
all passengers on spaceship-Solar-system, IMHO.  Hence my interest. (Rather
than $.)

A final quote from Raven et al.:  "As mentioned earlier, at least half of the
world's population relies on bimass as its main source of energy. 
Unfortunately, in many areas people burn wood faster than they replant it. 
Intensive use of wood for energy has resulted in severe damage to the
environment, including soil erosion ... and desertification, air pollution and
degradation of water supplies." p. 245

Do you think fusion can do as much as biomass-energy research, to improve
efficiencies, etc., in helping with these problems?  The need is immediate. 
Certain newly-developed wood stoves made from mud save 80-90% of the 
fuel required in open fires,  and have proven well received by Guatemalans
according to BYU's Richard Brimhall. (BYU's Benson Institute is engaged in just
such projects.)
To me, that's exciting. 

--Steve Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.13 /  BruceDenny /  Re: [SF] Can Sonoluminescence Cause Micro-Thermonuclear Fusion?
     
Originally-From: brucedenny@aol.com (BruceDenny)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: [SF] Can Sonoluminescence Cause Micro-Thermonuclear Fusion?
Date: 13 Mar 1995 23:19:11 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I am only a high school junior.. But I am extremely interested in fusion..
I read the recent article in Scientific American on Sonoluminescence, but
I can't understand how large-scale fusion could be attained without
evaporating the liquid.., how much pressure is necessary to prevent this
from happening? Also, have any studies been done on what sort of
contamination the liquid experiences after the flash?
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbrucedenny cudlnBruceDenny cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.14 / Bruce Hamilton /  Re: Uses for the remaining $700 Droege fund
     
Originally-From: B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Uses for the remaining $700 Droege fund
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 05:13:03 GMT
Organization: Industrial Research Limited

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

I have not yet seen any of Tom Droege's posts about
having returned, but any decision on the use of the
funds should surely await considered review of
Tom's report and future research plans.

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

Without intending to give offense ( but undoubtably doing so :-( ),
I'd prefer not to be associated with any experimental expedition 
intending to obtain conclusive answers in the suggested timeframe. 

I prefer to wait for Tom's report before selecting options. I would
recall that somebody suggested using the money to fund a trip to the
5th? Cold Fusion conference.

For me, the investment will be completed when Tom reports,
having play money is a bonus...

             Bruce Hamilton
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenHamilton cudfnBruce cudlnHamilton cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.14 / Chuck Harrison /  Re: D versus T
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Chuck Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: D versus T
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 04:19:15 GMT
Organization: Fitful

You might consider whether "dry" or "Frascati" cold fusion (D2 on Ti,
with temperature cycling) is related to the Reifenschweiler effect
(suppressed decay rate for T on Ti).  This has been intriguing me
recently.  Annotated bibliog avail by anonymous ftp from
  file://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion/TiBib.txt
has Reifenschweiler & some related stuff.

Dieter Britz's bibliog has lots on Ti cold fusion, try
  wais://sunsite.unc.edu/cold-fusion?Ti
Here's one I was looking at recently:

HO Menlove, MM Fowler, E Garcia, MC Miller, MA Paciotti, RR Ryan,
     SE Jones, "Measurement of neutron emission from Ti and Pd in 
     pressurized D2 gas and D2O electrolysis cells", _J Fusion
     Energy_ 9(4):495-506 (1990).

My understanding is that further efforts by these researchers never
lead to definitive reproduction, but that no likely systematic error
was ever proposed, either.

Cheers,
  -Chuck Harrison

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenharr cudfnChuck cudlnHarrison cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.14 / Toby Koosman /  SHORT COURSES: 30th Tennessee Industries Week
     
Originally-From: koosman@martha.utcc.utk.edu (Toby Koosman)
Newsgroups: bionet.info-theory,bionet.neuroscience,sci.physics.fusion,bit.listserv.fusion
Subject: SHORT COURSES: 30th Tennessee Industries Week
Date: 14 Mar 1995 10:05:30 -0500
Organization: University of Tennessee, Knoxville


                              SHORT COURSES
                          FOR THE PRACTITIONER
                     30th TENNESSEE INDUSTRIES WEEK
                           AUGUST 14-18, 1995

Dates      No.  Title
Aug. 14-16   1  Predictive Maintenance Technology
Aug. 14-18   2  Bayesian Reliability Analysis
Aug. 14-18   3  Radiological Assessment
Aug. 14-18   4  Nuclear Criticality Safety
Aug. 14-18   5  Computational Methods in Reactor Analysis and Shielding
Aug. 14-18   6  Intelligent Information Processing Technologies
                for Engineering Applications
Aug. 14-16   7  Contemporary Issues in Nuclear Reactor Safety
Aug. 14-18   8  An Introduction to Fusion Technology for the
                Practicing Engineer

PRICES: 
5-day courses, $1,195 through 7/15/95, $1,295 after 7/15/95
3-day courses, $795 through 7/15/95, $895 after 7/15/95




For information about Tennessee Industries Week:

T.W. Kerlin
The University of Tennessee
315 Pasqua Engineering Building
Knoxville, TN  37996-2300

Phone: (615) 974-2525       Fax: (615) 974-0668
E-mail: Salmon@utkvx.utk.edu

WWW: http://www.engr.utk.edu/dept/nuclear/TIW.html
Gopher:  carnot.engr.utk.edu:70/11/nuclear/TIW

(Or auto-reply to this message)

--------
-- 
Toby Koosman                                koosman@utkvx.utk.edu
University of Tennessee                                  
Knoxville, TN  USA       


-- 
Toby Koosman                                koosman@utkvx.utk.edu
University of Tennessee                                  
Knoxville, TN  USA       
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenkoosman cudfnToby cudlnKoosman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.14 / Carl Lydick /  Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
     
Originally-From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
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 07:05:46 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera

In article <3k0igk$bq0@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki) writes:
=In <3k0b2b$ilm@gap.cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J 
=Lydick) writes: 
=>
=>Let's see now.  Those folks touting cold fusion have been claiming for 
=over two
=>years now that they've actually got reproducible and useful results.  
=Yet
=>somehow, not one of them has brought anything to practice.  I wonder 
=why.
=
=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. 

Using your yardstick, we ought to be pouring all our money into whatever Stefan
Hartmann's most recent crackpot scheme is:  The "free energy" crackpots
*REPORT* results all the time.  Unfortunately, the reports are never verified
by competent independent replication.  Same thing's true for cold fusion.  In
the field of software, there's a name for that sort of thing:  Vaporware.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudencarl cudfnCarl cudlnLydick cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.11 / Vic Moberg /  Re: startup of "Hyperboloid of Engineer Garin" in Obninsk
     
Originally-From: moberg@nosc.mil (Vic Moberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: startup of "Hyperboloid of Engineer Garin" in Obninsk
reported in Ixvestis 1 Feb 1995
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 1995 20:28:36 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

   Without more details on energy level and pulse duration, I'm not sure
if this is a "fantastic development" or not.  The Russians have 
apparently had nuclear pumped lasers for several years, and a couple years
ago were reporting work on a portable, self-contained laser (with isotope
coated cavity) in a tube not much bigger than a flashlight.  I heard 
mention of a US nuclear pumped laser (CO2 I think) many years back.  Quoted
power levels can be very misleading - some of the highest peak power lasers
in the world fit on optical benches not much bigger than a desk.  Not much
energy, though, just extremely short delivery times.
						 Vic Moberg

--
--
Vic Moberg                                NCCOSC RDTE Div. Code 842
moberg@manta.nosc.mil                     53570 Silvergate Ave. 
Phone: 619-553-6140, Fax: -6449           San Diego CA 92152-5276
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmoberg cudfnVic cudlnMoberg cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.15 / John Logajan /  Re: Cold Fusion Qestions #1
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Qestions #1
Date: 15 Mar 1995 03:46:08 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

BruceDenny (brucedenny@aol.com) wrote:

> Could it be said that electron capture occurs in the hydrogen which
> then emits a neutron?

Well, the reverse process occurs when a free neutron decays into an
electron and a proton.  But there is a energy problem going the electron
capture way.

From the CRC Handbook, I find that a free neutron has an atomic mass of
1.008665 atomic mass units.  I also find that a free proton has an
atomic mass of 1.007825.  And I know an electron has an atomic mass
of 0.0005486.

So a proton and an electron weigh 1.007825 + 0.0005486 = 1.0083736
Compare that to the neutron ---------------------------> 1.0086650
                                                      ------------
                                          Difference  = -0.0002914

You can convert atomic mass units (AMU's) to electron volts (eV) by the
conversion 1 AMU = 931.5 MeV.  So 0.0002914 * 931.5 MeV = 270 KeV.

Thus one would have to *add* 270 KeV to an electron and proton to get
them to combine into a neutron -- or a neutron ought to release about
270 KeV when decaying into a proton and electron.

So I don't see how you could get a "Mills" shrunken atom to collapse
into a neutron via electron capture without *adding* energy, rather
it being an energy source.

It is kinda odd that a proton and electron weigh less than a neutron,
but that's the reality.

-- 
 - 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:
cuddy15 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.14 / David Davies /  Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
Date: 14 Mar 1995 11:36:52 +1000
Organization: Australian National University

mgriffin@il.us.swissbank.com (Mike Griffin) writes:

>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!

And the enourmous differences between gas plasmas and quantum behaviour in regular
xtaline arrays in solids is often ignored by over-specialised and/or excessively
arrogant plasma/nuclear physicists.

>Mike Griffin
>(speaking strictly for myself.)

dave 
(speaking loosely)

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.14 / Tom Droege /  FAX on way to Griggs
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FAX on way to Griggs
Date: 14 Mar 1995 02:09:34 GMT
Organization: fermilab

Just put 12 pages of report in the FAX to Griggs.  I will
give him a couple of days to let me know about an addendum
then I will post the report here.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.15 / Mark Jurich /  Re: [SF] Can Sonoluminescence Cause Micro-Thermonuclear Fusion?
     
Originally-From: jurich@almaden.ibm.com (Mark Jurich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: [SF] Can Sonoluminescence Cause Micro-Thermonuclear Fusion?
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 04:03:51 GMT
Organization: IBM Almaden Research Center, San Jose, CA

      In article <19950228.163722.636@almaden.ibm.com>,
       on Wed, 01 Mar 1995 00:37:22 GMT,
       Mark Jurich <jurich@almaden.ibm.com> writes:

     >On Friday, March 3, 1995 (10:30AM PST), William Moss of the
     >Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) will present a 1-hour
     >colloquium at the IBM Almaden Research Center, San Jose, CA
     >entitled "Can Sonoluminescence Cause Micro-Thermonuclear Fusion?"
     >The talk will be geared towards a scientific/technical audience
     >that has little or no previous knowledge of sonoluminescence (SL).
     >
     >If you have any questions for Willy concerning single bubble
     >sonoluminescence (SBSL) and the possibility of sonofusion (SF),
     >e-mail them to me.  This will help reduce the traffic to spf
     >(sci.physics.fusion).  I'll collect the questions and add their
     >answers to a talk summary, which I'll post to spf.

Talk Summary [1][2][3][4]
------------

  [This is my interpretation, not IBM's or LLNL's.  It is based
   on my initial perception and I regret anything that may be
   incorrect...  I'm addressing this summary to a scientific/
   technical audience with knowledge of SBSL and SF research.
   For those that have trouble following this, I would like
   to suggest reading the Scientific American article (Feb '95)
   on sonoluminescence, as well as the references sited here and
   in this newsgroup's past, which will provide an introduction
   to sonoluminescence research and the possibility of sonofusion.]

--

William Moss gave an excellent presentation.  Although the audience
was a mix of scientists who were informed and uninformed about SL,
Willy did a wonderful job of satisfying both groups.  LLNL's John
White also attended and provided interesting/colorful explanations
to some of the questions.  The talk was humorous at times, which
made it flow quite well.  I would say the attendance was about 75.

Moss first presented a very good review and explanation of shock
physics, then led into the calculations/experiments of interest.
Gradually, the talk approached the latest calculations of the energy
available for possible deuterium-deuterium (DD) fusion using synchronous
SBSL.  The measurement process has only just begun.  Deuterium gas (D2)
SBSL is now experimentally established and techniques are being used to
hopefully detect and enhance SF (by neutron detection).  At this time,
NO positive neutron measurements have been made.

Here is a rough outline of the areas Willy covered:
- air SBSL calculations
- D2 [acoustically spiked] SBSL calculations & experiments
- DD [deuterium-tritium (DT)] acoustically spiked SF calculations
- start of DD acoustically spiked SF experimentation

The latest calculations (using hydrodynamic codes running on maximum
available supercomputer time) indicate a time-history of energy/
temperature (among other parameters) during a bubble collapse.  The SBSL
shock wave theory is evolving into a rational guide to experimentation.
Whether it holds up, probably rests with correct predictions of
subsequent experiments.

Many assumptions are made in this theory, but fewer than before[4].
The importance of heat conduction and radiation are de-emphasized,
but such things as deuterium gas+water vapor bubble composition
and the effect of acoustic signal spiking are now included[2].
(Acoustic signal spiking is the application of a sharp signal
to the acoustic wave[3],[2].)

Unspiked energies as large as 5 eV (in deuterium+vapor) were mentioned,
and spiking the acoustic signal (while not disturbing it too much, since
it's responsible for the "clock-like" synchronization of the SBSL signal)
can theoretically enhance the peak energy attained[2].  The peak unspiked
energy value (5 eV) was certainly lower than I had expected.

The account of where the generated shock energy actually goes is
something that most people may not appreciate...  When a single
sonoluminescent air bubble collapses, a certain amount of that energy
goes into dissociation and ionization, which can unfortunately increase
the specific heat of the gas, thus lowering the temperature (at fixed
energies/densities)[4].   With D2 (as opposed to air), less energy is
consumed on dissociation/ionization, hopefully leaving more energy for
overcoming the Coulomb barrier potential and initiating fusion.

The culminating foil revealed a 1 neutron/hour ESTIMATE for
spiked DD SF under hopefully attainable conditions. (For those that
may not understand, this is a very LOW fusion energy release rate.)
The fundamental question is, can this be measured???  A typical
background rate may appear problematic, but LLNL's implementation of
["gated" temporal/energy] discrimination should aid the measurements[2].
What does this mean?  Guided by SBSL shock theory and the DD fusion
process, it's not hard to imagine that one would expect monoenergetic
neutrons at a very specific time during the bubble collapse.  Hence,
much of the background rate can be gated out of the measurement,
allowing detection of lower neutron production rates.

Some post-talk questions
 -----------------------
One of the main objections to the calculations was the bubble spherality
assumption[4]...  Can one really rely on this being true???
Someone asked what would be "the ultimate liquid" for SF work...
Part of the answer went like this: A liquid that was acoustically
matched to the container/epoxy/transducer system???  Another question
asked about the possibility of using lasers/beams to "aid" in SF
attainment; Could this be more of a complication to the experiments
than an aid???

Some pre-questions from spf readers
 ----------------------------------
   Here are your entertaining/inquisitive questions, answered by
   William Moss himself:

1Q Can you speculate on what effect a brine solution might have on
   sonoluminescence, given the fact that increasing the density of
   the water would effectively increase the inertia and resulting
   energy of the collapsing bubble?
1A As far as I know, SBSL doesn't work with salt water.  However,
   the density effect is counterintuitive.  Increasing the density
   tends to slow the bubble wall, so it's harder to shock the gas.

2Q What effect, if any, might a vacuum have on sonoluminescence?
2A If you have a vacuum, then there is nothing that can glow??
   Or did I miss something?

3Q What other liquids, if any, have been tried?
3A Water and water+glycerin are the only liquids that support SBSL,
   I think.

4Q Do you envision this line of research becoming a "race" to achieve
   controlled fusion among many of the labs in the country, with each
   trying to outdo the other, similar to the high temperature
   superconductor research?
4A I don't know.

5Q Has anyone figured out yet why the periodicity of SBSL is many
   orders of magnitude more stable than the sound source driving it?
5A The answer maybe came up during the talk.  It's probably a resonance
   effect in the flask.

6Q What is the [peak energy/neutron rate] that your calculations
   estimate?  How much improvement in estimated [peak energy/
   neutron rate] is obtained by "spiking" the acoustic drive signal?
6A Without the spike, it's probably hopeless.  You really have to
   kick the bubble hard.  Expect at least 1/hour.

Conclusion
----------
Sonofusion may not be as unusual as you/I might imagine.
Willy (in his talk), has made this thought clear by providing us with
something to ponder[1].

Some of us realize that fusion can occur in an ordinary glass of
water at room temperature (maybe 1 event every couple of centuries???).
And now, with the possibility of SF, 1 event/hr???  Or, maybe the
conditions in these bubbles are such that there are 0.1 events/hr???
0.01 events/hr???  0.001 events/hr???  0.000000001 events/hr???
Nevertheless, there is SOME probability of sonofusion!

When does the fusion rate become interesting? (Surely we can't
expect the heat/energy produced from very low fusion rates to be
practical???)  Is 1 event/sec good enough?  Will some limit be
reached, below any practical fusion rate?  Are there as yet,
unknown ways to increase sonofusion and make it more than just
a scientific curiosity???

[1] W. Moss talk at the IBM Almaden Research Center, entitled
    "Can Sonoluminescence Cause Micro-Thermonuclear Fusion?",
    March 3, 1995 (M. Jurich interpretation)
[2] William C. Moss, Douglas B. Clarke, John W. White, and David A. Young
    LLNL document UCRL-MI-114748, 11/94.
[3] Robert Pool, "Can Sound Drive Fusion in a Bubble?"
    SCIENCE  VOL. 266  16 DECEMBER 1994  p1804
[4] William C. Moss, Douglas B. Clarke, John W. White, and David A. Young
            "Hydrodynamic simulations of bubble collapse
                  and picosecond sonoluminescence"
    Phys. Fluids 6 (9), September 1994  pp2979-2984

Mark Jurich                     jurich@almaden.ibm.com
IBM Almaden Research Center     http://www-i.almaden.ibm.com/almaden/
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjurich cudfnMark cudlnJurich cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.14 / John Logajan /  Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.conspiracy,alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously
Date: 14 Mar 1995 15:05:36 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

William Shaw (wshaw@gate.net) wrote:
:Or a magazine. Cold Fusion lasted exactly two issues.
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^

Well, there were really *three* issues in the one format, and now the rest
are in a different format and continue to be published.  Doesn't really
fit the word "exactly" too well.

--
 - 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:
cuddy14 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.14 / mitchell swartz /  COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment,sci.
aterials,sci.energy
Subject: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 13:03:21 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <3k3f8a$2rn@gap.cco.caltech.edu>
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
Carl J Lydick (carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU) 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. 
="Using your yardstick, we ought to be pouring all our money into whatever Stefan
=Hartmann's most recent crackpot scheme is:  The "free energy" crackpots
=*REPORT* results all the time.  Unfortunately, the reports are never verified
=by competent independent replication. Same thing's true for cold fusion. In
=the field of software, there's a name for that sort of thing:  Vaporware
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
=Carl J Lydick 

  Does the HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera group fail to read the
literature as much as you?   The reports were verified, and expanded.
Where are your serious scientific comments?  Did you read any of
the articles posted?   Your comments, at odds with a vast literature,
are closer to "vaporcriticism" without a substantiated or scientific basis.

  Best wishes.     Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.14 / Arthur TOK /  Re: RFD: sci.physics.fusion.research moderated, sci.physics.fusion.misc
     
Originally-From: awc@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TOK  )
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: RFD: sci.physics.fusion.research moderated, sci.physics.fusion.misc
Date: 14 Mar 1995 14:46:29 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

Yes, I'd like some help separating the wheat from the chaff. I'm quick
with a kill file, but, after tidying up a bit, I count 5 authors, 44
general subjects (plus several minor spelling variations), and 4
specific subjects (set to expire, so they don't accumulate) in my kill
file. And people constantly find new ways of not letting me determine
from the subject that I'm not interested (of which misspelling is the
simplest). A moderated group would get rid of specific crackpots as
well as all perpetual motion machines, which would be a good start. It
would probably help me more if the group were split along the lines of
hot vs. cold and/or crank, but I'll take what I can get.

-- 
To study, to finish, to publish. -- Benjamin Franklin

Dr. Arthur Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTOK cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.14 / Arthur TOK /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion; the Biomass option
     
Originally-From: awc@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TOK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion; the Biomass option
Date: 14 Mar 1995 15:00:46 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <1995Mar13.170124.2118@plasma.byu.edu> jonesse@plasma.byu.edu writes:

> Do you think fusion can do as much as biomass-energy research, to improve
> efficiencies, etc., in helping with these problems?  The need is immediate. 

As a supporter of (hot) fusion energy research, I'd like to go on
record that fusion research should never be used as an excuse to *not*
grapple with our energy problems by other means. We have a serious
mid-term (10-50 years) problem for which fusion can provide no
relief. For the long term it should be viewed as one of the few
serious contenders, but not the favorite. (On a good day I might give
fusion a 50% chance of contributing the the supply mix 100 years from
now--don't ask me about the bad days.) Considering the stakes
involved, it is worth spending a few hundred million dollars per year
on fusion research, but also considerable sums on energy efficiency,
wind, photovoltaics, biomass, solar thermal, geothermal, etc.

-- 
To study, to finish, to publish. -- Benjamin Franklin

Dr. Arthur Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTOK cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.15 / Richard Blue /  Characterizing Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Characterizing Cold Fusion
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 15:31:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell tells us that cold fusion is defined as anything producing heat
"beyond chemistry."  Boy, that really pins it down!  In fact it opens the
door to any nut who can't do simple calorimetery correctly.  The worse the
experimental technique employed gets the more spectacular the possible
results.  That sounds like a winner to me!  There is even room for the
hucksters selling homemade precious metals.  Why stop with cheap stuff such
as platinum.  Why isn't Joe Champion making some really expensive materials?

So Jed has defined cold fusion in a way that makes it the most difficult
to disprove.  Isn't this an ideal subject to investigate?  There is almost
no way that anyhone can argue that any given experimental result in
inconsistant with any established facts.  If we say that fusion of deuterium
should produce neutrons the faithfull can simply reply, "No, not THIS KIND
of FUSION."  It's super neat.  You get the picture.

I do still see a small weakness in the pro-CF position, however.  That has to
do with the distinction between Cold Fusion and ordinary old Hot Fusion.
Using temperature to discriminate between these two classes of phenomena
leaves the boundary between them a little fuzzy.  Since "temperature"
by definition involves some form of statistical ensemble, how do we tell
whether a given fusion is to be "cold" or "hot"?

For some time now we have been told that cold fusion requires a
"Special Condition of Matter", usually to be found only in the PdD system
at high loading.  Jed's new characterization of cold fusion clearly
relaxes that condition.  You can get CF by pumping ultrasound into a
water balloon or by vigourously stirring Georgia swamp water.  Anything
goes!

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.14 / Arthur TOK /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: awc@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TOK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: 14 Mar 1995 15:35:40 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <D5AuDt.CxB@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul
M. Koloc) writes:

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

> > ...  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.
> 
> Robert,  Please don't be so vague.  Scientific Breakeven, isn't that
> what you are referring too?  Engineers could get the wrong idea and
> think that perhaps tokamaks have nearly solved the commercial fusion
> problem.   

There is nothing vague about saying "Fusion power out = 28% of heating
power in". Q=1, where the power gain Q is the fusion power out over
the heating power in, is the *only* definition of breakeven among
plasma physicists. Q is the language of physicists and is important
because it must be high (in the range of 12 to 15) if "recirculating
power fraction" is to be low. This is the language of engineers and is
important because it must be sufficiently low (in the range of 10 to
20%) or it will drive up the "cost of electricity". This, in turn, is
the language of the business people that would like to make money with
fusion, and it is important because it the a fairly direct way to
compare one option with another.  I think it is best to let each group
speak its own language and not try to introduce new expressions like
"engineering breakeven" or "commercial breakeven".

> >Fusion researchers have made better progress in advancing the key 
> >parameter (fusion power output from the reactor, or even the ratio
> >of fusion power out to heating power in) than the semiconductor
> >industry has in advancing, say, the number of bytes of RAM that
> >can be stored on a single chip.  (Fusion power production has
> >increased by roughly 8 orders of magnitude in the last 25 years.
> >Chips have increased by maybe 6 orders of magnitude.)
> 
> I suppose if one measured the difference in power out from a gasoline
> engine trying to burn water with one that burns gasoline, the same
> improvement might be seen.  Should this be the basis for claims of 
> improvement??  I think not.  Seems rather chicanerous.  

Fusion power output is one way to measure progress, Q is better,
"equivalent Q" (the Q you would get if you substituted the right
mixture of D and T and left everything else the same) is better still,
but all these measures tend to under value the initial experiments
with relatively cold plasmas (miniscule Q) and over value the final
steps to ignition (infinite Q). I think, and probably most plasma
physicists would agree, the best measure of progress is the triple
product of density, temperature, and energy confinement time. (I can
explain the technical reasons for this choice if there is interest.)
Can you tell us, Robert, how much this parameter has improved in the
last 25 years. I think the numbers will still be impressive but won't
be open to the kind of attacks that Koloc makes. As to where we are
now, the TFTR triple product must be improved upon by a factor of not
quite 20 to reach the Q values needed in a reactor.

> Guts, ingenuity, and committment.   

That's how we all see ourselves.
-- 
To study, to finish, to publish. -- Benjamin Franklin

Dr. Arthur Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTOK cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.14 / Cory Russek /  Looking for career info.
     
Originally-From: crussek@st6000.sct.edu (Cory Russek)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Looking for career info.
Date: 14 Mar 1995 16:01:11 GMT
Organization: Southern College of Technology

	I have been reading some of the posts here from various people 
(some who seem to just guess, and others that are professionals). I am hoping
to get a lot of responses from the professionals. 

	I am a freshman at the Southern College of Technoledgy (Marietta, GA)
studying Electrical Engineering. Fusion (among other physics/chemistry based
topics) is very interesting to me. I have come up with several thoeries and
ideas that I hope to one day be able to work on in a research lab enviroment.
Unfortunatly, an Electrical Engineering background probably will not help me
in getting a physics/chemistry related research job. 

	What I would like is to know what kind of educational background
you have and what will be needed to get involved in research companies that
work on things like fusion. My primary interest is in alternative
propulsion using enertial generators(which will require massive amounts of
electricity that can be created through fusion). I have also heard of 
work done on enertial fusion(in which case it can all be done with one 
machine). I would be very interested in hearing about what types of projects
you are working on now and what kinds of labs/companies are available.
I'd also be VERY interested in know if there are any research labs here in
Georgia and who I might contact to get a chance to see the work being done.
Thankyou for taking the time to read this and for any information you can
send.

				- Cory Russek -
		         Amateur Radio Operator KE4RQO  

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudencrussek cudfnCory cudlnRussek cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.14 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 95 10:59:58 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Phil Andrews <pa0q+@andrew.cmu.edu> reports that with a corn crop grown over
90 to 110 days does, in fact, capture nearly 2% of the solar energy. This
appears to contradict the numbers given by NREL and other sources. The plot
thickens. I have looked into this a little more carefully, by going over this
article:
 
     D. O. Hall et al., "Biomass for Energy: Supply Prospects," Renewable
     Energy (Island Press, 1992), p. 594 - 651
 
I have determined that we are comparing apples to oranges, or in this case,
apples to sugar beets to corn. You get entirely different percentages of
efficiency depending upon what stage you look at the problem, and what factors
you include. For example, do you include the energy needed harvest and extract
the latent energy of the biomass? Do you take into account just the growing
season, or the entire year? What sort of plants are you looking at, grown
under what conditions? Will the fuel be used to generate electricity or will
it be used in gasohol? You can change the answer by an order of magnitude
easily by changing a parameter or two. It seems to me, however, that the key
comparison should be between collection of energy with plants versus
collection with photovoltaics or light focused for boiling water, unless we
are talking about biomass energy as a side benefit to agriculture. For
example, the plant in Georgia that burns a mixture of coal and peanut shells
is getting something for nothing, because peanuts are not grown for energy and
the latent energy would be lost if the shells were buried. On the other hand a
commercial crop of switchgrass which has no use except as fuel has to be
compared to photovoltaic and other mechanical methods of tapping solar energy.
If you can only grow switchgrass six months of the year, and you can run a
photovoltaic array even in winter (at a reduced power level), that has to be
taken into account. That reduces nominal efficiency by half in temperate
climates.
 
Anyway, getting back to these numbers that are flying every which direction,
the theoretical maximum photosynthetic efficiency on the cellular level is
6.7%. This takes into account various factors like: "plants use only light
with wavelengths between 0.4 and 0.7 microns . . . [50% of total energy in
solar radiation] . . . the energy stored in the glucose is 28% of the light
energy . . . about 40% of the energy stored in photosynthesis is consumed
during dark respiration . . ." etc., etc. For C[4] plants maximum cellular
efficiency is 3.3%. The heating value of typical herbaceous plants is given
here as 17.5 gigajoules per dry tonne. Radiation at ground level is shown as
11.1 megajoules per sq. meter (MJ/m^2) in Plymouth, U.K. and 14.9 MJ/m^2 in
Des Moines.
 
Moving on to the real world, Hall et al cite Monteith and others to show that
actual maximum productivity under idea conditions with the best crop they can
find (sugar beets), which comes to 2.4% of radiation *intercepted by the
leaves* during the growing season or roughly 1% overall when you include the
entire growing season. (Page 600). It is not clear to me whether he also
includes  areas of ground between rows, but I suppose he does. "Values for
individual crops [fall] within +/- 15% of this mean value." The growing season
depends on the plant and as Phil Andrews pointed out, plants tend grow in
spurts, during one part of the season (towards the end with corn). Roots and
stems of plants like corn are a relatively small part of the system, but a
much larger part of trees. With most well nourished, temperate trees, 65% of
the above ground growth is wood (stem plus branches) and 35% foliage. You
cannot easily harvest roots, and if you did the energy cost would be
tremendous and you would wreak havoc on the landscape, so you have to leave a
large fraction of the potential energy in the ground. "For trees that can be
coppiced, obtaining a high shoot-to-root ratio is not important, since roots
remain undisturbed from one rotation to the next in a physiologically and
environmentally favorable system." And elsewhere: "Whole tree harvesting makes
it especially difficult to maintain adequate organic matter and nutrients in
the soil."
 
Another big issue that comes up here is the energy cost and money cost of
planting, fertilizers, herbicides, irrigation, harvesting and hauling. With
some crops, if you strip out all of the vegetation, instead of plowing some
back, you ruin the fields. Again, you are forced to leave a lot of latent
energy in the ground. Ashes can be mixed with the soil to return some of the
nutrients. Bear in mind that transporting, plowing and mixing those ashes
comes out of the energy budget, further reducing efficiency.
 
This gets more and more involved, and interesting I might add. But we should
pay attention to the bottom line, which is cost and efficiency. That, I am
sure, is what the folks at NREL were looking at. The "Hydrogen Program Plan"
compares overall, total system efficiency of photovoltaics, biomass, coal
mining and other systems. Hall sums it up well on page 600, but I think his
numbers are excessively optimistic for both biomass and photovoltaics: "The
practical maximum yield for C3 plants in temperate regions, for example,
correspond to converting only about 1% of total sunlight received on an annual
basis at the ground level into recoverable chemical energy. Even in warm
climates, where low temperatures are not limited and where C4 plants can
flourish, practical maximum efficiencies for recoverable plant matter will be
no more than 2 to 3% of incident sunlight. The losses associated with
converting biomass into useful energy further reduce the overall efficiency of
utilizing the sun's energy. Land requirements are large, for example, compared
with photovoltaic energy sources, for which efficiencies of 10% (sunlight to
electricity) have already been achieved and efficiencies of 20 to 30% may be
practical in the future." The numbers for biomass are particularly grim when
you talk about converting the chemical energy into electricity.
 
Now, here one key point that Hall does not address -- and he should have. You
can put a photovoltaic array in the middle of Death Valley, CA where it will
scarf up the solar energy and roar for more. That's no problem; solar arrays
don't need water and fertilizer. On the other hand, the only plants you can
get to grow there are *far* less efficient than the temperature zone C3 plants
described in this essay. The desert is not verdant with green leaves
intercepting light everywhere you look. The few plants that thrive there have
hardly any green, and they are separated far apart from one another. You get
far less than 1% efficiency. (Jones started this discussion with the idea of
harvesting plants from arid environments.) Therefore, taking Hall's numbers,
in Iowa or Georgia, photovoltaics take up roughly 10 times less land than
biomass, and they will soon take up 30 times less. If we are talking about
generating electricity from the solar energy, that number goes up to something
like 40 to 120 times less land. (Other sources I have show numbers in this
range.) If you move the photovoltaic array to Death Valley, you get several
thousand times more efficient use of land compared to growing plants in that
same environment. Now throw in a few other facts: land in Death Valley is not
used for anything else; there is a heck of a lot less rain and consequently
more solar energy in Death Valley than in Iowa or Georgia. That makes it much
cheaper to buy the land, and that means you are not pushing aside other uses
of the land. If we grow crops for energy, that reduces food supplies and more
people will starve. If we put photovoltaics in the desert, that gives a few
desert rats a little more shade. There are lots of other places which cannot
be used for growing crops which are ideal for photovoltaics, like the roof of
my office and my house.
 
Overall, you soon come up with numbers that make biomass look like economic
and biological lunacy, in my opinion. It is the most destructive and polluting
method of extracting energy anyone has come up with. I have not even touched
upon issues like biodiversity, pollution and landscape esthetics.
 
In any case . . . all of this is academic. Sources of energy like fission are
far cleaner, safer, less polluting and ecologically benign compared to the
best solar energy schemes. Cold fusion is far better and cheaper than fission
or any other alternative. Putting arrays of photovoltaics everywhere would be
a dreadful waste of money, and it would cause dreadful levels of solid waste
pollution in 20 years when it wears out and has to be replaced. It would
economic lunacy, but not quite as bad as the widespread use of biomass, and
nowhere near as crazy as hot fusion.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.14 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 95 11:21:32 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Here is one more quote from the Hall article worth posting:
 
"Presently achievable yields are far less than these 'practical maxima' [of 1%
overall], largely because of inadequate water and nutrients and problems with
pests and diseases. Yet even if these yields were routinely achievable, these
calculations highlight a limiting aspect of biomass energy: photosynthesis is
a relatively land-intensive way of using the sun's energy."
 
That's an important point. Bugs don't eat photovoltaic arrays, and diseases
don't make 'em sick. Mildew and rust will do them in, though. All the more
reason to put them in the desert.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.14 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 95 11:28:12 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Mike Griffin <mgriffin@il.us.swissbank.com> writes:
 
>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
 
Evidently, the physics are wrong.I mean "evidently" in the literal
sense; the physical evidence from experiment proves the theories are wrong.
 
>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!
 
Don't be silly. Of course I know that! Everyone knows that; you are not
adding anything to the discussion. It is perfectly obvious that existing
theory cannot explain why cold fusion cells transmute hydrogen into heavy
hydrogen and helium, and why they produce heat and no neutron radiation.
Everyone acknowledges that this process is not understood. However, we assert
that the experimetal data proves this is in fact happening, and we assert
that in science data always overrules theory. You think that your theory
proves the data is wrong, whereas we think it works the other way around.
It is all a question of training and background I suppose.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjedrothwell 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 16:26:28 GMT

John Logajan (jlogajan@skypoint.com) wrote:
: William Shaw (wshaw@gate.net) wrote:
: :Or a magazine. Cold Fusion lasted exactly two issues.
:                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^
: Well, there were really *three* issues in the one format, and now the rest
: are in a different format and continue to be published.  Doesn't really
: fit the word "exactly" too well.

	The Wayne Green magazine?! There's MORE?! Send me more info!
	Barnes and Noble claims that their supplier doesn't know anything
	about this! Conspiracy! Cover-up!

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenwshaw cudfnWilliam cudlnShaw cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.14 / 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: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 15:26:40 GMT
Organization: Swiss Bank Corporation CM&T Division

In article <3k2rvk$g98@huxley.anu.edu.au> drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)  
writes:
> mgriffin@il.us.swissbank.com (Mike Griffin) writes:

> >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!
> 
> And the enourmous differences between gas plasmas and quantum behaviour in regular
> xtaline arrays in solids is often ignored by over-specialised and/or excessively
> arrogant plasma/nuclear physicists.
> 
Dave,

I'm honestly facinated by this little tid-bit.  Your implication is that fusion
cross-sections *are* higher in regular crystalline arrays.  Is that what you meant?
If so, is this settled physics, or still speculative?  Is there research, not done
by the CF TB sales guys, that corroborates this result?

I, for one, am skeptical that fusion, a nuclear reaction mediated by forces acting
at very short range, would be affected by a surrounding crystalline lattice, which is
essentially a network of coulomb forces.   Can you suggest a mechanism for such an
effect?

Mike Griffin
(Speaking for no one else.)
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmgriffin cudfnMike cudlnGriffin cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.14 /  nachtrieb@max. /  ALCATOR C-MOD WEEKLY HIGHLIGHTS, 19940314
     
Originally-From: nachtrieb@max.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ALCATOR C-MOD WEEKLY HIGHLIGHTS, 19940314
Date: 14 MAR 95 17:01:48 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

		   Alcator C-MOD Weekly Highlights
			    March 13,1995

Physics operation is continuing on Alcator C-MOD. Three runs were
scheduled and completed last week. The principal experiments were
concerned with measurements of 2D neutral density profiles,
characterization of the scrape-off layer (SOL), and fueling
characteristics with different gas puff locations. A total of nearly
100 successful plasmas were produced in the three days of operation.

Neutral density profiles were measured by the hi-resolution x-ray
spectrometer (HIREX) diagnostic using the charge exchange
recombination technique onto hydrogen-like argon (miniproposal #049A).
At a line-density of 5e19m-2, a dramatic up-down asymmetry was
observed. X-ray emission from near the X-point was observed, from
charge-exchange populated levels, and from radiative recombination
continuum. The data were of high quality, and detailed profiles should
be forthcoming once the analysis is complete. The successful
completion of this experiment is particularly gratifying, as previous
attempts had been plagued by a series of extraneous difficulties,
including power outages, vacuum problems, etc. By contrast, this
week's run went smoothly, with 36 consecutive good shots, establishing
a new record for one-day consistency.

The ongoing program in systematic characterization of scrape-off-layer
conditions (MP084) was continued on Wednesday. Data were obtained for
single-null equilibria at two currents (0.8MA and 1.0MA) with density
programmed to ramp up during the shot. The fast scanning probe was
inserted at three times during the shot to get data at different
densities. The program on SOL characterizations for SNB ohmic
discharges is now about half-completed.

The neutral gas injection array (NINJA) system was used to study the
effects of localization of the fueling on fueling efficiency and on
divertor behavior (MP071B). Preliminary analysis of the data from this
run indicates: (a) There is little or no difference in the effect of
puffing in different poloidal and toroidal locations on central plasma
parameters or edge density and temperature profiles.  (b) There is
little or no difference in the effect of puffing in different poloidal
locations on edge neutral densities, but there is a large temporal
difference in toroidally specific neutral densities for different
toroidal puffing locations. (i.e. There is a much different time
history of a neutral gauge at B-port for a puff at B-port compared to
a puff at F-port.)  (c) Impurity puffing (in the case of this run, of
methane) shows up as highly directional plumes emanating from the
puffing locations, indicative of strong flows at the edge.  Diatomic
deuterium (D2) fueling also usually gives rise to highly directional
plumes, implying that charge exchange (CX) or elastic collisions may
be causing significant atomic flows of the injected deuterium.

During operation the week of February 27, the D-port ion cyclotron
radio frequency (ICRF) system arced on one of the four feed lines in
the 4 inch coax section. These arcs went undetected because they did
not show up as significantly increased reflected power in the matched
line between the transmitters and the antenna.  We are developing an
arc detector based on the balance between the voltage probes in the
two feeds to each strap since the reflected power back in the matched
line was not affected much by these arcs and did not trip the
transmitter.  We are also implementing an optical arc detection system
which will look through one of the 4inch 45 degree bends and view both
the one 4inch Teflon insulator and the vacuum feedthrough in each
line.  After cleanup of the arc residue, we will evaluate the power
handling capability this week.

Martin Greenwald attended the Transport Task Force Meeting in Los
Angeles last week, and this week will be participating in the
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) Expert Group
meetings on Confinement and Confinement Databases at the Joint Work
Site in San Diego.

(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:
cuddy14 cudennachtrieb cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.14 / Carl Lydick /  Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
     
Originally-From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
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 17:16:34 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera

In article <3k1r1a$5sh@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki) writes:
=Cold fusion and hot fusion are about the same process of causing two 
=atoms to fuse together and forming a new heavier atom.

The "cold fusion" advocates don't even agree on that.

=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.

Or they're evidence of yet more shoddy experimentation.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudencarl cudfnCarl cudlnLydick cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.15 / Vertner Vergon /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: vergon@netcom.com (Vertner Vergon)
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: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 13:05:51 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Keywords: 
Cc: 

In article <3jgamd$op0@acasun.eckerd.edu>,
Bryan Wallace <wallace@acasun.eckerd.edu> wrote:
>
>This post is in reply to the Steve Carlip carlip@dirac.ucdavis.edu 27 Feb 1995
>18:40:02 post in the Thread "The Farce of Physics" in the newsgroup
>"sci.physics".
>
>Steve wrote:
>
>>         ... In other words, we may not be able to compute the exact 
>>trajectory of a falling apple, but we can calculate the tension in the
>>stem that holds it to the tree. ...
>
>Most physicists would argue that Einstein's General Relativity theory is
>superior to Newtonian theory, yet it can't compute the trajectory of a falling
>apple or the orbit of a spacecraft in the solar system and Newtonian theory
>can.  S. Chandrasekhar in his article titled "Einstein and general relativity:
>Historical perspectives" (Am.J.Phys.,47(3),212-1979), wrote:
>
>  ... On this account, it would have been entirely sufficient to generalize
>  the Newtonian theory to allow for such small departures which may arise
>  from the finiteness of the velocity of light since we expect the Newtonian
>  theory to be exact if the velocity of light could be considered as
>  infinite. ...
>
>R. A. Waldron in his article titled "Gravitational forces"(Speculations Sci.
>Technol.,7,177-1984) wrote:
>
>     That the anomaly in the precession of the planet Mercury could be
>  accounted for by a modification to Newton's law of gravitation has been
>  known for a long time.  Einstein's general theory of relativity can, in
>  this respect, be expressed as a factor [1 + (3v^2/c^2)] in the
>  gravitational force law [22]. ...

This is an interesting thread -- with an interesting twist.

I published a book in 1976 [ modestly :-)  ] entitled Relativity Beyond
Einstein that contained my Dual Velocity Theory of Relativity.

In it I maintained that a better relativity theory could be had by
generalizing Newtonian mechanics (I termed it "creating a bridge between
NM and relativistic mechanics").

Actually, in the beginning, I thought I was going to come up with 
something very different than Einstein's SR. As things went along I began 
to see that I was developing a parallel theory. Certain reviewers were 
telling me that I was saying the same thing in a different way.

But when I finished there were certain differences. For example,
in SR we have the concept of "relativistic mass" that creates quite 
a bit of controversy and "un-understanding" -- or *mis*understanding 
if you please, to wit:

               Momentum is given as P = gamma m, which is often written
   
                                         mv
                                    P = ----  
                                          R
    (R = Lorentz transformation)           

It is always assumed that R modifies m, creating the unexplainable -- often 
causing problems -- 'relativitic mass'.

As an inherent part of my theory R modifies v, not m. This gives us an
invariant mass.

But what about the velocity? It is measured as v. The theory is based on 
Newtonian velocites with infinity as a limit -- BUT there are *two* 
velocites, the c+ velocity is foreshortened in observation and is 
measured as v.

There is a *mechanical* explanation for this phenomenon.

The theory also reveals a differing Doppler effect (see posting this 
newsgroup), a differing addition of velocities (also in this newsgroup) 
and a differing rate for time dilation (and compression). The latter 
dissipates the twins paradox.

I could go on -- but then I'd be long winded. Just wanted to get my 2 
cents in here.


For a better world                V.V.  Model Maker


A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and 
making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually 
die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.          

       --- Max Planck


Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from 
mediocre minds.

       --- Einstein
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenvergon cudfnVertner cudlnVergon cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.15 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 95 08:25:18 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> writes:
 
>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?)
 
Why should they do that? I cannot imagine that Pons and Fleischmann would
go to the trouble in any case, but they don't need to. If the NIST or anyone
else wants to see indisputable proof that CF exists, they can hotfoot it
over to Los Alamos and watch Claytor's experiment, or they can visit Cravens.
For that matter, they can read the literature and replicate the experiment
themselves. CalTech, MIT and Harwell saw the effect, so anyone who does the
experiment right will see it.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.15 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 95 08:30:10 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

MARSHALL DUDLEY <mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com> writes:
 
>Interesting comment.  According to Webster's New World Dictionary Corn is:
>A cultivated American cereal plant of the grass family.
 
"Corn" also means grain of any kind. In the U.K. the word is often used in
that sense. To avoid confusion, biologists generally call it "maize."
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.15 /  jedrothwell@de /  Take Tom Droege Seriously?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Take Tom Droege Seriously?
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 95 09:59:58 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

In the thread titled "Take Cold Fusion Seriously" Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom
Droege) writes:
 
     "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."
 
That is preposterous. Oriani reports 50.4 MJ/mol of Pd, or 5,200 electron
volts per atom. That could not conceivably be "just chemistry." No chemical
effect in that cell could generate more 2 or 3 eV per atom of Pd. This is a
200 kJ reaction without a hint of any chemical change in the cell.
 
Tom takes Oriani seriously, but I cannot take Tom seriously if he is going to
propose an explanation for a phenomenon which is three orders of magnitude too
small. You might as well hypothesize that it is "just the phase of the moon"
or "just orgone energy" as claim it might be chemistry. If a scientific
hypothesis is to have any meaning whatsoever, it must at least *begin* to fit
the facts, within one or two orders of magnitude. The chemistry hypothesis
fails this test. It reminds me of Morrison's claim that a reaction known to be
limited to 6 nanowatts might have caused a 150 watt effect.
 
Tom claims to like Oriani because of "Oriani is critical of his results" and
he "looks for errors." Yet Tom himself proposes this "hypothesis" -- this
atrocity! -- without even bothering to check to see if it fits the data within
three orders of magnitude! He has failed to catch his own gross error.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.14 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Uses for the remaining $700 Droege fund
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Uses for the remaining $700 Droege fund
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 95 13:28:00 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> writes:
 
>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
 
Marshall is native to this area (at least he talks like it), so he should
have no trouble digesting things overnight. If anyone else wants to come
I recommend you steer clear of "grits." :-}
 
Seriously, the trip has to be at least two days.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.15 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: RFD: sci.physics.fusion.research moderated, sci.physics.fusi
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: RFD: sci.physics.fusion.research moderated, sci.physics.fusi
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 95 10:33:19 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I do not understand what all this name change business is about. I would find
it confusing and annoying if the name of this group was changed. I do not
understand why you "skeptics" even raise the issue. You are free to go hold
your own e-mail discussion groups any time you like, which you can moderate or
make as private as you please. Bill Page (at s060739@aix1.uottawa.ca) is
running a moderated discussion group which includes a number of "skeptics." It
is mostly about theory I gather. I cannot make head or tail of it.
 
If you actually want to learn anything about CF, you have to read the
scientific papers anyway. There is never any new, interesting, useful
information on e-mail. I have papers a year old that have never even been
mentioned here. E-mail stuff is water cooler gossip. You need to get the hard
data on paper if you are going to learn anything.
 
I cannot imagine why you or anyone else cares about an occasional posting here
about perpetual motion machines. I will grant these things appear to violate
the laws of physics, but nowhere near as much as the typical "skeptic" CF
hypothesis. You people fold your arms and listen respectfully when Tom Droege
claims that a 5.2 KeV/Pd atom reaction might be chemistry! If you are willing
to take that kind of garbage seriously why should a perpetual motion machine
bother you?
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.14 / Rod Johnson /  Re: Uses for the remaining $700 Droege fund
     
Originally-From: rod@cs.ualberta.ca (Rod Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Uses for the remaining $700 Droege fund
Date: 14 Mar 1995 18:35:16 GMT
Organization: Computing Science, U of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton) writes:

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

>I have not yet seen any of Tom Droege's posts about
>having returned, but any decision on the use of the
>funds should surely await considered review of
>Tom's report and future research plans.

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

>Without intending to give offense ( but undoubtably doing so :-( ),
>I'd prefer not to be associated with any experimental expedition 
>intending to obtain conclusive answers in the suggested timeframe. 

>I prefer to wait for Tom's report before selecting options. I would
>recall that somebody suggested using the money to fund a trip to the
>5th? Cold Fusion conference.

>For me, the investment will be completed when Tom reports,
>having play money is a bonus...

>             Bruce Hamilton

 I feel no attachment to that money anymore but I would prefer to 
 see it used to send someone to the 5th Cold Fusion Conference.

 I would like to express my sincere appreciation to Tom Droege for
 taking the time to perfrom the site visit, and also for taking
 the time and energy to do it so cheaply.   I await his report with
 anticipation.
  
 If anyone has special 'druthers on the money now I feel it is 
 mostly Tom and Scott(?) for handling the money, arranging and performing 
 the visit.  Do they have any wishes for the use of this money?
--
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rod Johnson        rod@cs.ualberta.ca     Department of Computing Science
University of Alberta                   Edmonton, Alberta CANADA T6G 2H1
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenrod cudfnRod cudlnJohnson cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.15 / 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: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 16:58:31 GMT
Organization: Swiss Bank Corporation CM&T Division

In article <3k5kg3$nvr@news.computek.net> gep2@computek.net writes:
> >  before overturning settled theory.  Sloppy work by electrochemists speculating about
> >  difficult areas far from their specialty doesn't do the trick.  Sorry.
> 
> Certainly Fleischman and Pons could have done more on their discovery
> before announcing it to the world.  But to do so would have risked
> someone ELSE beating them to the punch, which isn't exactly cool
> either.

So in the race to beat the competition, they published by news
conference half-baked results that didn't stand up.  The way you
put this makes it sound like you're defending this practice.  Surely
you don't advocate or excuse shoddy work on this basis! (Or do you?)

> 
> To assume that nobody should pursue areas not closely aligned with
> their "specialty" though is ludicrous, as it would preclude any kind of 
> new discovery that breaks away from traditional fields of study and existing
> areas of specialization... what is somebody supposed to do, ignore a 
> fascinating discovery and assume that somebody ELSE will 
> independently discover it (who?) and that THEY (who are probably no
> more specialists) will pursue it?  Sorry, I don't think that this kind of "passing
> the buck" is appropriate.  I certainly wouldn't have left the thing for
> others to follow, if it had been me.

I agree that real progress may be precluded in many cases if there were some kind
of prohibition against working outside your field.  What I was criticising was 
sloppy work outside their field.  In fact, anyone who knew the first thing about
fusion noticed that the PF results are fundamentally at odds with known fusion
cross-sections, and asked "what's wrong with this picture?"  Subsequently answers
to that question were obtained: poor experimental technique and alleged falsification
of data.

> 
> Actually, seeing a marvelous new and untrodden path opening, like this
> one has,  before a scientist is a once (if you're lucky) in a lifetime opportunity.
> It could well be that P&F originally figured they'd find an electrochemical
> explanation, and only after studying it carefully deciding that they indeed
> did have something really novel.  Certainly, until they really DO understand
> better what's going on, it's not as if anybody ELSE understands it BETTER
> than P&F do anyhow.

Anything you want to say "could well be."  That's not sufficient for me to 
believe that it is true.  But just because you can't explain a supposed effect
with the science you know does not mean it's fusion.  (By the way, why do CF TB's
keep calling it fusion, when there's no real evidence that fusion is taking place?
Is this part of the sales/marketing startegy?)

> 
> In any case, I'm not surprised at the "pooh-pooh" crowd, there have
> been naysayers throughout the history of science at every major and
> unexpected new discovery that upset the established order of things.
> Once we DO understand what this cold fusion thing is (and I think by
> now it's pretty clear that SOMETHING that's very interesting is going
> on), and once we can harness it for the benefit of man, it's going to
> turn out to be one of the greatest scientific advances of the century.
> 
Sometimes the naysayers are correct!  Remember N-rays? Remember the Paris 
homeopathy lab?  If something sounds too good to be true, like the assertion
that fusion can take place in a jar at low temperature and pressure, with high
enough frequency to generate significant heat and violate known cross-sections,
with no known fusion by-products, the it probably is not true.  Under the
circumstances, a good scientist will be a naysayer until the supposed effect
is confirmed by independent, reproducible experiments.

> So, just in case you're wrong, you might start collecting recipes for
> interesting and tasty ways to prepare crow.  :-)

Already have them.  It turns out, you can just adapt most chicken recipes.
I'm partial to curries of all kinds.  If you want, I'll send you some 
recipes so you'll have them handy, too, in case you need them. :-)

Mike Griffin
(speaking strictly for me)
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmgriffin cudfnMike cudlnGriffin cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.14 / 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: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 18:43:56 GMT
Organization: Swiss Bank Corporation CM&T Division

In article <he+5+mk.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> It is perfectly obvious that existing
> theory cannot explain why cold fusion cells transmute hydrogen into heavy
> hydrogen and helium, and why they produce heat and no neutron radiation.
> Everyone acknowledges that this process is not understood. However, we assert
> that the experimetal data proves this is in fact happening, and we assert
> that in science data always overrules theory. You think that your theory
> proves the data is wrong, whereas we think it works the other way around.
> It is all a question of training and background I suppose.
>  

The "data" salesguy Jed refers to here is all over the map!  It is highly
non-reproducible, and full of unquantified errors.  Fortunately, Jed assures
everyone that we don't have to worry about the errors because they are orders
of magnitude (or whatever) smalled than the effect that is supposedly observed.
Whew, *that's* a relief!

If you are willing to discard long-standing theoretical physics, grounded in
myriad *reproducible* experiments, out of deference to this quality of data, then the
science you do will will be highly volatile indeed.  In first approximation (to
within experimental error, of course) it would make your head spin!

Fortunately, science as practiced by scientists (not salesguys) is careful and plodding
and requires reproducible experiments and detailed accounting of experimental error
before overturning settled theory.  Sloppy work by electrochemists speculating about
difficult areas far from their specialty doesn't do the trick.  Sorry.

Mike Griffin
(Speaking strictly for myself.)
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmgriffin cudfnMike cudlnGriffin cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.14 / John Logajan /  Re: [SF] Can Sonoluminescence Cause Micro-Thermonuclear Fusion?
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: [SF] Can Sonoluminescence Cause Micro-Thermonuclear Fusion?
Date: 14 Mar 1995 19:35:46 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

BruceDenny (brucedenny@aol.com) wrote:
: I can't understand how large-scale fusion could be attained without
: evaporating the liquid.., how much pressure is necessary to prevent this
: from happening? Also, have any studies been done on what sort of
: contamination the liquid experiences after the flash?

Well, presuming fusion could occur, it would apparently occur in very tiny
areas within the water volume.  Therefore the bulk of the water could be
run at any convenient temperature -- and we know from present technology,
that this would be some several hundreds of degrees of pressurized
water/steam.  That is to say, the conditions could be tailored to the
steam pressure requirements of existing electrical generating and heating
requirments.

--
 - 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:
cuddy14 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.14 / Robert Heeter /  Re: TFTR Update (March 8, 1995)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR Update (March 8, 1995)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 01:30:13 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

One of the recent TFTR Updates contained information about an experiment
which I participated in, and I thought I might try starting a trend by
actually talking about some ongoing real hot fusion research.  (I 
realize that's unheard-of on this group, but what the heck...)

In article <199503082356.SAA00428@pppl.gov> Rich Hawryluk,
rhawryluk@pppl.gov writes:
> 4.      An experiment was performed to investigate enhanced fusion
product
> losses attributed to energy diffusion and pitch angle scattering by
> mode-converted ion Bernstein waves.  The mode conversion layer was
scanned
> across the core of the plasma by varying Bt and the He3 concentration. 
The
> fusion-product losses were found to maximize when the mode conversion
layer
> was at the magnetic axis.  Initial analysis of the lost-alpha probe
> measurements indicates that the enhanced losses may include particles
with
> energies both higher and lower than the birth energy.  In plasmas with T
> gas puffs, preliminary analysis indicates possible enhanced loss of D-T
> alpha particles when the mode conversion layer is moved towards the
alpha
> cyclotron resonance layer.

Let's see if I can translate this into ordinary English.

What we did was we launched a special class of radio waves into the plasma
(the frequency was about half that of your typical FM radio station),
and looked at the effect these waves had on the plasma under different
experimental conditions.  The wave we chose resonates with some of
the plasma particles located on a vertical plane ("layer") inside the
tokamak
(where there's a particular value of the magnetic field), and is
"mode converted" into a different type of wave, known as an ion
Bernstein wave (IBW).  The mode conversion layer can be moved around
by varying the plasma conditions.  Theoretically we have reason to
expect that the IBW will strongly affect charged fusion products 
(tritons in D-D fusion and alphas in D-He3 and D-T fusion).  In
previous experiments we had observed enhanced losses of high-energy
particles (fusion products) from the plasma, especially when the 
IBW was located near the center of the plasma, where the temperature 
and density are highest and most of the fusion occurs.

The purpose of the current experiments was to do some systematic 
studies of this "enhanced fusion product loss" to try to tease out
the physics and hopefully improve the theoretical models involved.
The long-term goal of this project is to develop scenarios whereby
ion Bernstein waves (or other waves) can be used to (a) absorb
energy from the fusion products, (b) push the fusion products out
of the core of the plasma, and (c) deposit the absorbed energy onto
fuel ions rather than electrons.  It turns out that if this "channeling"
of fusion product energy directly to the ions could be done, 
there are a few effects which would combine to give you a large 
(50% to 100%) increase in the output from a real fusion reactor.  
In addition, it's believed that such systems might also be able
to drive some of the plasma current in a tokamak.  Needless
to say, these effects would probably have very good consequences 
for the economics of magnetic-confinement-based fusion energy.

In the current experiments, we used deuterium and helium-3 as the
fuels, because it's possible to locate the mode conversion layer
directly on the plasma core (given the frequency we are using and
the magnetic fields available in TFTR).  As we had hoped, as we
altered the magnetic field and scanned the mode conversion layer
past the plasma axis, we found that the observed fusion product 
loss peaked when the mode conversion layer was on the plasma 
axis.  Some of the particles lost from the plasma were picked 
up by scintillation-based charged-particle detectors which
observe the "pitch angle" (arctangent of the ratio of perpendicular
to parallel velocities, where perp and parallel are relative to
the magnetic field) and energy (above a certain threshold) of
the particles leaving the plasma.

For these sorts of experiments, the theoretical models generally
predict that the wave will simultaneously move particles radially
(in or out) and change their energy (heating or cooling).  Ideally we
would like to be able to control the wave so that particles are
moved outwards over the minor radius of the torus, while losing
almost all of their energy (so they leave as cool particles).
Experimentally we are seeing a wide range of interesting effects,
which may include both heating and cooling of both D-D tritons
and D-3He alphas.  (We may also be seeing some heating of the
fast deuterons injected by the neutral beam system.)  We also see 
some very interesting results when we insert a little tritium 
into the reactor so that the rate of fusion reactions goes way 
up:  two of the four lost-particle probes see large increases 
in signal, which have time signatures like the applied
radio-wave power.  So we suspect that the mode-converted ion
Bernstein wave is causing the D-T alphas to be lost from the plasma.  

This is a terribly oversimplified view of a brand-new area of
research.  The data I'm describing was taken only 10 days ago,
and we're still analyzing it.  At this point, we haven't really 
developed a solid understanding of what's happening inside the
machine (at least I haven't!), and the data is chock full of 
interesting effects which we haven't explained yet.  
Still, I hope the discussion above makes it easier to understand 
the terse paragraph in Dr. Hawryluk's article, and helps give one 
a feel for the sorts of things that are actually *done* in 
tokamak-based hot fusion research.  I can't make any promises 
that this particular branch of research (channeling of
fusion product energy) will pan out, but hopefully the example 
above illustrates ways in which we're seeking to conduct science 
which is not only interesting, but also potentially useful, and 
which could have a dramatic impact on the eventual cost of 
fusion-generated energy.

***************************
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:
cuddy14 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.14 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 95 17:25:28 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

EricPBliss <ericpbliss@aol.com> writes:
 
>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
 
You are misinformed. The electrochemical cell experiments were not failures.
I suggest you read some of the scientific literature on cold fusion. Here
is a good place to start:
 
American Nuclear Society: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference
on Cold Fusion, Dec. 6 - 9, 1993, Transactions of Fusion Technology, 1993,
Vol. 26, No. 4T, Part 2 (Dec. 1994), ISSN: 0748-1896.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.15 / Tom Droege /  Re: Sitting on my Hands
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sitting on my Hands
Date: 15 Mar 1995 21:02:20 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3k5g67$120s@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>, FKNF40A@prodigy.com
(James Stolin) says:
>
>Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) wrote:
>>
>>Just sitting here waiting to put up my report.  Now that I have
>>written it I want to start discussion.  Sigh!  I will call Griggs
>>tomorrow.
>>
>>Tom Droege
>
>Tom,
>
>   While you and we are waiting, was the weather in Georgia cooler, 
>hotter or about the same as the weatherman predicted?  I need to know 
>whether to plan a vacation there soon. <G>  Thanks.
>
>-
>James B. Stolin  -  FKNF40A@prodigy.com
>

The weather was great!  Beautiful clear sky after a front came through
that they were prediction tordados.  But you better get there fast.  It
won't be long until it is hot and miserable. 

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.14 / Tom Droege /  Sitting on my Hands
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sitting on my Hands
Date: 14 Mar 1995 23:59:08 GMT
Organization: fermilab

Just sitting here waiting to put up my report.  Now that I have
written it I want to start discussion.  Sigh!  I will call Griggs
tomorrow.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.14 / Phil Andrews /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: Phil Andrews <pa0q+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 10:14:43 -0500
Organization: Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA




>From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
>
>Phil Andrews <pa0q+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>-> The energy efficiency of grass is negligible compared to corn.
>
>Interesting comment.  According to Webster's New World Dictionary Corn is:
>A cultivated American cereal plant of the grass family.
>
Buy a better dictionary. The OED will do.  Corn is a grain. In fact I
was explicit; I was talking about Field Corn, i.e. a particular family
of strains of Maize.

>Thus you are actually comparing grass to grass.  What grass are you comparing
>corn to?  Something which grows slow like Zoysia grass or something like
>Johnson grass, which grows darn near as fast, and as tall as corn?
>
If you had read the post to which you were replying, you'd have seen
that the first reference to grass was in the post by Jed Rothwell (a
very reasonable article pointing out that grass couldn't be 2%
efficient at energy conversion). It was impossible to tell from that
article exactly which grass he meant, but growing as fast or as tall
as field corn means absolutely nothing, it's the enormous amount of energy
stored in the corn kernels that makes the difference.

>You are also neglecting the energy contained in the silage.  I
would guess that>the energy content of the stem, leaves and cob
is close to, if not greater than>that of the corn kernals.
>
Again, you didn't read my post: I explicitly stated that I was
neglecting the bulky stalk, etc.. Any extra energy would have only
strengthened my argument, but as to that being as much as in the
kernels, you've got to be joking ! Try telling everyone with a combine
harvester that they're throwing away most of their product !

-Phil Andrews


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudfnPhil cudlnAndrews cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.14 / Phil Andrews /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: Phil Andrews <pa0q+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 12:46:22 -0500
Organization: Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Jed's final numbers of about 1% (or a bit less) for overall energy
recovery by the best plants (sugar beet ?sugar canee ?, some corn
strain ?) soundsd aut r
right to me. I can easily see 2% at the field, but there is a fair amount of
energy in harvesting, etc. One thing that people do not bring up is that
there is also a significant energy requirement in the production of
fertilizer (or in collection/spreading if you're organic). It might be
possible for such crops to make a contribution to energy consumption
via gasohol, etc, where the actual form of the energy can more important
than it's calorie content.

Incidentally, I should point out that there is a healthy business in house
furnaces that burn shelled corn, one advantage is very little ash. I looked
into them, but coal is so cheap where we live (~40$ per ton) that they
didn't make economic sense.

-Phil Andrews


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudfnPhil cudlnAndrews cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.15 / James Crotinger /  Re: RFD: sci.physics.fusion.research moderated, sci.physics.fusion.misc
     
Originally-From: jac@gandalf.llnl.gov (James Crotinger)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: RFD: sci.physics.fusion.research moderated, sci.physics.fusion.misc
Date: 15 Mar 1995 01:30:45 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, NCD

In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.950310090208.25561B-100000@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk> writes:

   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.

  But the question is, why not split?  I see NO benefit to keeping the
groups together, and a lot of benefit from seperating them.  Those
that want to follow both can subscribe to both. As far as cold fusion
dying, it has lasted this long and I don't expect it to go away on
any shorter timescale, so I don't want to have to wade through CF messages
for the next several years.

  Jim

-- 
 ------------------------------------------------/\--------------------------
James A. Crotinger     Lawrence Livermore N'Lab // \ The above views are mine
jac@moonshine.llnl.gov P.O. Box 808;  L-630 \\ //---\  and are not neces-
(510) 422-0259         Livermore CA  94550   \\/Amiga\  sarily those of LLNL.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjac cudfnJames cudlnCrotinger cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.15 / James Stolin /  Re: Sitting on my Hands
     
Originally-From: FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sitting on my Hands
Date: 15 Mar 1995 01:33:59 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) wrote:
>
>Just sitting here waiting to put up my report.  Now that I have
>written it I want to start discussion.  Sigh!  I will call Griggs
>tomorrow.
>
>Tom Droege

Tom,

   While you and we are waiting, was the weather in Georgia cooler, 
hotter or about the same as the weatherman predicted?  I need to know 
whether to plan a vacation there soon. <G>  Thanks.

-
James B. Stolin  -  FKNF40A@prodigy.com

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.14 / Jollie MM /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: jolliemm@aol.com (Jollie MM)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 14 Mar 1995 20:55:20 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

quoting>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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

endquote>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

oh cmon Cadman, argue sincerely with him.  several points of magnitude
aint a minor revision to improve a theory...
A Friend...
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjolliemm cudfnJollie cudlnMM cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.14 / Jollie MM /  Re: responce to Joe Champion Enquiry
     
Originally-From: jolliemm@aol.com (Jollie MM)
Originally-From: blackice@pavilion.co.uk (Mark Bennett - editor)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: responce to Joe Champion Enquiry
Subject: responce to Joe Champion Enquiry
Subject: Joe Champion and Transmutation
Date: 14 Mar 1995 21:04:15 -0500
Date: 10 Mar 1995 21:46:46 GMT
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Subject: responce to Joe Champion Enquiry
Originally-From: blackice@pavilion.co.uk (Mark Bennett - editor)
Date: 10 Mar 1995 21:46:46 GMT
quoting>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Message-ID: <blackice-1003952141360001@line0f.kemp-du.pavilion.co.uk>

I am posting this on behalf of the publisher of Joe Champions books. They
do not as yet have access to the net so I offered to post the responce to
the statements by 'A Friend' who uses the Anon service....

Subject: Joe Champion and Transmutation
>From: gordon.s@ix.netcom.com (GORDON SANDERSON)
>Date: 8 Feb 1995 23:06:54 GMT
>Message-ID: <3hbiqe$m9e@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>

>Does anyone out there know anything about Joe Champion's past?  
>Apparently he had some fraud associated with his past.  He is 
>promoting/researching the transmutation of elements and has had some 
>dealing with cold fustion researchers at A & M.  Does anyone else 
>support his theories on transmutation?

Dear Gordon:

Joe Champion is partly a fraud partly onto something.  What he is on to
was given to him by Jack Keller, who is a good friend of mine.  Bockris
knows
the story well because Champion defrauded him as well.  Champion has got
some
of the direction right but his books are a complete rip-off.  I know,
Keller knows, Bockris knows, and Roberto Monti knows, but we aren't
talking yet.  Maybe by the next cold fusion conference. Don't waste time
trying to replicate what Champion is doing.  Look for Jack Keller's
patent, which I wrote.

A Friend...

__________________________________________________________________________
RESPONCE  

On 8 February, Gordon Sanderson inquired about Joe Champion and his
ability to transmute common elements into precious metals. "A Friend"
answered that Joe was a "fraud", that he had also defrauded John Bockris,
and the books were "a complete rip-off"

   "A Friend" misrepresented the facts. It is true that Keller first
acquainted Joe with thermal transmutation, but that is where Keller
stopped and where Joe leaped light years ahead. Joe's current technology
involves much more efficient procedures than the thermal process, has
_nothing_ to do with Keller has been working with for 30 years and,
therefore, has nothing to do with what Keller may have. Presently, Joe is
producing precious metals at commercial levels, and getting paid for it
from a South African firm. For instance, he's making platinum (500 grams
per day) from laboratory equipment for less than $3.00 per ounce. He's
also been paid for gold made by a different commercial process.

   Regarding Dr. John O'M Bockris, the "Friend's" comments are way off
base. Joe was never involved with any defrauding of Bockris. Bockris is
communicating with Joe on a regular basis and is closely following the
work Joe is doing. Bockris knows there was never any fraud, only
experimental sabotage from someone working within Texas A&M.

   Finally, regarding the books, if the "friend" believes Joe's books are
"rip-offs", it is obvious that he has not read the books, attempted
replication of the experiments or knows anything about science. I have
been told by some readers of Joe's books that they have achieved
commercial levels of production based on processes Joe has described in
the texts. Further, the public has obviously found the books enlightening
when judged by the fact that most buyers of a single book return to buy
additional books. Also, the publisher's money-back guarantee has been
exercised less than 8%, a sure sign that the books are not considered
"rip-offs" by readers.

   If anyone wants to get the facts straight about this, call Roger Briggs
at 714-969-6587 (USA Pacific Standard Time), during California business
hours.
endquote>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Where the heck have you been and where in the heck are you coming from?. 
I've already delt with the issues you raised.  I did concede already that
Champion deserves a hearing, based on the advice I have received from some
good friends who are quite knowledgeable about Champion.  You logic sure
sucks ass, however, since you are in no position to make inferences about
what I know or do not know, having never acquainted yourself with me or
what I do.  Perhaps you should talk with Champion, he at least had the
elementary intelligence to call me on the phone..  I am willing to be fair
and open-minded, however, I will not allow you to play the rhetorical
tricks which abound in your post.  This discussion should be logical and
based on facts, not politically motivated bombast, which is a fair
inference to make about a run of  non sequitors from some one as obviously
commercially self-interested as you are.
A Friend...
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjolliemm cudfnJollie cudlnMM cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.14 / Jollie MM /  Re: responce to Joe Champion Enquiry
     
Originally-From: jolliemm@aol.com (Jollie MM)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: responce to Joe Champion Enquiry
Date: 14 Mar 1995 21:07:11 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

quoting>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 So, please call us again dear when he reaches a billion in 
     net worth.  Until then....

     ... this is all horse poo poo.

                                  dale bass
endquote>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Do you suppose it is green horse poo poo or just brown horse poo poo? 
A Friend...
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjolliemm cudfnJollie cudlnMM cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.15 /  gep2@computek. /  Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
     
Originally-From: gep2@computek.net
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
Date: 15 Mar 1995 02:47:31 GMT
Organization: Compu-Net DFW's Premiere Internet Access Provider

>  before overturning settled theory.  Sloppy work by electrochemists speculating about
>  difficult areas far from their specialty doesn't do the trick.  Sorry.

Certainly Fleischman and Pons could have done more on their discovery
before announcing it to the world.  But to do so would have risked
someone ELSE beating them to the punch, which isn't exactly cool
either.

To assume that nobody should pursue areas not closely aligned with
their "specialty" though is ludicrous, as it would preclude any kind of 
new discovery that breaks away from traditional fields of study and existing
areas of specialization... what is somebody supposed to do, ignore a 
fascinating discovery and assume that somebody ELSE will 
independently discover it (who?) and that THEY (who are probably no
more specialists) will pursue it?  Sorry, I don't think that this kind of "passing
the buck" is appropriate.  I certainly wouldn't have left the thing for
others to follow, if it had been me.

Actually, seeing a marvelous new and untrodden path opening, like this
one has,  before a scientist is a once (if you're lucky) in a lifetime opportunity.
It could well be that P&F originally figured they'd find an electrochemical
explanation, and only after studying it carefully deciding that they indeed
did have something really novel.  Certainly, until they really DO understand
better what's going on, it's not as if anybody ELSE understands it BETTER
than P&F do anyhow.

In any case, I'm not surprised at the "pooh-pooh" crowd, there have
been naysayers throughout the history of science at every major and
unexpected new discovery that upset the established order of things.
Once we DO understand what this cold fusion thing is (and I think by
now it's pretty clear that SOMETHING that's very interesting is going
on), and once we can harness it for the benefit of man, it's going to
turn out to be one of the greatest scientific advances of the century.

So, just in case you're wrong, you might start collecting recipes for
interesting and tasty ways to prepare crow.  :-)

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudengep2 cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.15 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 03:34:46 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <3k21et$vcb@curly.cc.utexas.edu>,
John W. Cobb <johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:

>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).

Come now John, fusion researchers have been promising "just another 10 years"
since the very first. Now you expect to gain credability by changing that to
30 years?

Let's be plain, John, you are rifling the treasury of the United States to
support research which is getting progressively more and more expensive and
yielding less and less in the way of scientific information.

What theoretical underpenning do you have to be able to claim that fusion
power is even possible, let alone economically practical? 20 years of
funding hasn't given us much to look forward to.

>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 .....

Ahh, I wrote 'neutron' when I meant 'nutrino'. But of course that wasn't
plain enough in the sentence. So, you are saying that there are no shortages
in the theoretical nutrino flux coming from the sun and stars?

>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, I have no personal ends. It doesn't matter to me. It matters to
you. I'm all for fusion if there is a future in fusion. Yet it isn't
Jed or Schwartz-whatever that is misleading anyone here -- it's the
fusion project itself.

Tell me _why_ D-T was burned in the Tokamak? What could be learned that
couldn't have been learned with some other plasma that wouldn't render
the machine radioacive for long periods of time?

Could it have been a simple propaganda move? No! Princeton would never
stoop to publicity to obtain federal funds would it?

So, how many Tokamak projects are there in the world? How many competing
governments are funding fusion research projects?

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.15 / Jed Rothwell /  1989 CalTech work was *positive*
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 1989 CalTech work was *positive*
Date: 15 Mar 1995 03:41:39 GMT
Organization: CFRA

et@dogbert.ugcs.caltech.edu (Ernest S. Tomlinson) writes:
 
     "I asked Dr. Nathan Lewis--who was involved in debunking the Pons-
     Fleischmann (sp?) results . . ."
 
This is incorrect. The Lewis work *supported* the Pons-Fleischmann results.
Lewis made a mistake in his analysis. Several people caught the error and
published corrections, including Noninski and Miles. Lewis found clear
evidence of excess heat. I am sure Lewis denies it to this day, but facts are
facts. His mistake was not particularly profound; it is clearly explained
in the Miles papers.
 
Get your facts straight, Tomlinson: the 1989 replications at Cal Tech, MIT,
and Harwell were all *positive*. They all showed unmistakable signs of
excess heat. It is ironic that you "skeptics" still ignorantly wave these
around as proof that cold fusion does not exist, because of all the early
experiments they stand as the best proof that it does. The worst enemies of
cold fusion perform experiments and even they saw the effect!
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.15 / Gary Steckly /  Re: Uses for the remaining $700 Droege fund
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Uses for the remaining $700 Droege fund
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 95 03:49:13 GMT
Organization: Communications Canada

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

I would vote for option 2 as well, except that Marshall already indicated 
his unwillingness to accept any funding for his excursion after  the 
negative response by the majority towards his offer to  assist Tom on 
the first run.  

As far as the suggestions elsewhere to send someone to ICCF5, I don't 
think 700 bucks will get you too far.  Some  participants on s.p.f have 
already indicated they will attend (Dr. Bass for one) so that event is 
already adequately covered for s.p.f. In any case, these funds were 
collected to try and resolve the riddle of the hydrosonic pump, not cold 
fusion. There's no evidence that this thing has anything to do with 
fusion, so let's try to stay a little focused.  

If Marshall refuses to accept any funding for his trip (I hope you 
reconsider Marshall), my second choice would be to put the money towards 
obtaining  the scaled down version of the similar pump discussed recently. 
Sounds like Scott Little would be a good choice to evaluate that device.

Patiently awaiting Tom's report (sounds like he is anxious to start 
the discussion according to his last post)

Gary


cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Mar 16 04:37:07 EST 1995
------------------------------
